03/05/2016

:00:00. > :00:11.by the insolvent is -- insolvency service. We must move on. Urgent

:00:12. > :00:12.question, Joe Cox. To make a statement on the situation in

:00:13. > :00:32.Aleppo, Syria. Tobias Ellwood. The Syrian conflict

:00:33. > :00:34.has entered its sixth year. As a result of Assad's brutality and the

:00:35. > :00:51.terror of Daesh. It is estimated 400,000

:00:52. > :00:56.people may have been killed directly by the conflict. Our long-term goal

:00:57. > :00:58.is for Syria to become a stable, peaceful state with an inclusive

:00:59. > :01:04.government capable of protecting their people from Daesh and other

:01:05. > :01:07.extremists. When that happens civility can be returned to the

:01:08. > :01:15.region, which is necessary to stem the flow of people fleeing Syria and

:01:16. > :01:19.seeking refuge in Europe. We have been working hard to find a

:01:20. > :01:22.political solution to the conflict. There have been three rounds of UN

:01:23. > :01:30.facilitated peace negotiations in Geneva this year. In February, March

:01:31. > :01:35.and April. The latest round concluded on the 27th of April

:01:36. > :01:40.without significant progress on the vital issue of political transition.

:01:41. > :01:46.We have always been clear that negotiations will only make progress

:01:47. > :01:50.if the cessation of hostilities is respected, full humanitarian access

:01:51. > :01:54.is granted and if both sides are prepared to discuss political

:01:55. > :02:01.transition. The escalating violence of the last two weeks, especially

:02:02. > :02:04.around Aleppo, has been an appalling breach of the cessation of

:02:05. > :02:15.hostilities agreement. On the 27th of April, Els puddle in Aleppo city

:02:16. > :02:18.was bombed, killing civilians, -- a hospital in Aleppo was bombed

:02:19. > :02:23.killing civilians. More than 12 hospitals have been closed because

:02:24. > :02:29.of air strikes, leaving only a few operating. The humanitarian

:02:30. > :02:34.situation is desperate. According to Tim and rights monitors at least 252

:02:35. > :02:38.civilians including 49 Jordan have been killed in the city in the last

:02:39. > :02:45.fortnight alone. At midnight on Friday, following international

:02:46. > :02:57.double attic efforts between the US and Russia, a renewed cessation came

:02:58. > :03:00.into effect in Latakia and eastern Ghouta. We understand it remains

:03:01. > :03:18.shaky in eastern Qatar. -- Ghouta. We have received reports

:03:19. > :03:23.violence has continued this morning and we need swift action to stop the

:03:24. > :03:29.fighting. Our Right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is

:03:30. > :03:34.speaking to secretary John Kerry today to discuss how we can preserve

:03:35. > :03:40.the cessation of hostilities. We'll look to Russia, with its unique

:03:41. > :03:47.influence over the government, to make sure the cessation of

:03:48. > :03:52.hostilities does not break down. It set itself up as the protector of

:03:53. > :03:58.Assad government and has put pressure on them to enter these

:03:59. > :04:02.attacks. This is crucial if negotiations are to be resumed in

:04:03. > :04:09.Geneva. These negotiations must deliver a political transition away

:04:10. > :04:12.from President Assad to a government which can support the needs and

:04:13. > :04:17.aspirations of all Syrians and put an end to the suffering of the

:04:18. > :04:22.Syrian people. We also need to inject further momentum into

:04:23. > :04:28.political talks and we therefore support the UN envoy's called for

:04:29. > :04:34.an... A meeting to facilitate a return to a process leading to a

:04:35. > :04:41.political transition in Syria. We hope this can take place in the next

:04:42. > :04:50.coming weeks. The UK is working strenuously to make that happen and

:04:51. > :04:53.we will continue to do so. I have to say once again that it is a shame

:04:54. > :04:57.the Secretary of State cannot be here personally for an important

:04:58. > :05:02.discussion on this matter and I hope it will be noted. On current trends

:05:03. > :05:06.without international action at the end of this short debate and other

:05:07. > :05:12.two Syrian civilians will be dead and four will be badly injured. On

:05:13. > :05:16.Friday, desperate doctors in Aleppo appealed for international help to

:05:17. > :05:24.stave off further massacres and the potential besiege mint of the city,

:05:25. > :05:31.fearing a repeat of the horrors of Srebrenica. Does he agree it is the

:05:32. > :05:36.Syrian for it is primarily responsible for these horrific

:05:37. > :05:41.ongoing abuses continuing their long-standing policy of targeting

:05:42. > :05:47.civilians in rebel held areas. Does the Minister also agree we urgently

:05:48. > :05:51.now need a mechanism with clear consequences to deter further

:05:52. > :05:55.barbaric attacks on civilians? I have raised repeatedly inverse plays

:05:56. > :06:01.the need for a noble warming zone. Will you look again at this now.

:06:02. > :06:07.What is the UK also doing to work with all those of influence other

:06:08. > :06:11.parties in this conflict including Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Russia and

:06:12. > :06:16.Iran to put pressure on all sides to stop attacks on civilian targets

:06:17. > :06:19.including hospitals. Does the Minister has evidence that Russian

:06:20. > :06:24.forces have been directly involved in the latest air strikes and if

:06:25. > :06:34.they work does he not agree that this is surely time to look at fresh

:06:35. > :06:39.sanctions against Russia? Is it not time to look at air drops for

:06:40. > :06:43.besiege communities? Why can't we join forces with our European allies

:06:44. > :06:49.to get food to starving people? Wouldn't have the active air drops

:06:50. > :06:53.put the regime under pressure to grandma traditional and reliable

:06:54. > :06:56.land access. Is his department involved in the collection of

:06:57. > :07:03.evidence to enable eventual war crimes trials as we did during the

:07:04. > :07:06.Balkans conflict? I understand the commission of justice and

:07:07. > :07:16.accountability funded by both the UK and US government has evidence to

:07:17. > :07:21.link the pieces -- abuses to the highs parts of the Syrian

:07:22. > :07:26.government. What can the UK do to get the most vulnerable people out

:07:27. > :07:29.of harms way? Given what we know about the horror many of the refugee

:07:30. > :07:37.children in Europe have fled isn't it time to end the Government

:07:38. > :07:42.shameful refusal to give thousands unaccompanied children sanctuary in

:07:43. > :07:49.the UK? Whilst I am a huge fan of President Obama and I worked with

:07:50. > :07:52.him in North Carolina in 2008, on Syria I believe both President Obama

:07:53. > :07:57.and the Prime Minister made the biggest misjudgement of their time

:07:58. > :08:02.in office when they put Syria on the too difficult pile instead of

:08:03. > :08:10.engaging fully and they withdrew and put their faith in containment. This

:08:11. > :08:14.judgment will be judged harshly by history and has been nothing short

:08:15. > :08:18.of the foreign policy disaster. There is still time for both men to

:08:19. > :08:21.write a postscript to this failure so does the Minister agree it is

:08:22. > :08:26.time for the leaders of both our countries even in the midst of two

:08:27. > :08:30.hotly contested political campaigns to launch a joint, bold initiative

:08:31. > :08:34.to protect civilians and get aid to besiege communities and throw our

:08:35. > :08:39.weight behind the fragile peace talks before they fail. I don't

:08:40. > :08:45.believe President Obama or the Prime Minister tried to do harm in Syria

:08:46. > :08:56.but sometimes all it takes for evil to triumph is good men to do

:08:57. > :09:03.nothing. Can I pay tribute to the work she does in this area? It is

:09:04. > :09:08.important to the House is kept up-to-date with the events taking

:09:09. > :09:13.place in that country. Firstly to qualify, the Foreign Secretary is

:09:14. > :09:14.returning from a visit to Latin America otherwise he would be in

:09:15. > :09:30.this place now. I concur with the honourable lady it

:09:31. > :09:33.is Syria that is very much responsible for the significant

:09:34. > :09:42.number of deaths of all religions but particularly the Sunni people in

:09:43. > :09:47.the country itself and that as why we called Russia on bringing Assad

:09:48. > :09:54.to account and giving access to the areas. We gain access to about one

:09:55. > :10:00.third of the areas we can previously get into. We hope we can unlock that

:10:01. > :10:13.and be able to provide access in the forthcoming days. She mentions

:10:14. > :10:16.methods of how we get the delivery. There are areas in Daesh territory

:10:17. > :10:21.where we can fly slow and low enough in order to accurately drop

:10:22. > :10:28.packages. That isn't the case in some conurbations. Aleppo is

:10:29. > :10:32.actually Syria's larger city by some margin and not only do you have the

:10:33. > :10:38.opposition there, the Assad Government, you also have other

:10:39. > :10:48.groups. Without the regime's support, we cannot do the ear drops

:10:49. > :10:56.-- air drops. It is better to take trucks into these places to the

:10:57. > :11:01.people that directly needed. Air drops can land randomly and often do

:11:02. > :11:12.not help the vulnerable. She also mentions other countries and Saudi

:11:13. > :11:15.Arabia. -- in. It was Saudi Arabia that brought together the opposition

:11:16. > :11:19.groups in the first place in December which got the beginnings of

:11:20. > :11:23.these talks that is actually taking place. She speaks of the important

:11:24. > :11:34.aspect of collecting evidence. We had a very good debate on this. We

:11:35. > :11:40.are playing a leading role in making sure those are brought to justice

:11:41. > :11:45.and as we saw in the case of the Serbian leader, sometimes it takes

:11:46. > :11:51.many years but we are actively and heavily involved and are likely to

:11:52. > :11:58.place more efforts. She finally makes an interesting comment about

:11:59. > :12:03.Syria placed on the too difficult pile. I ask a different Syria might

:12:04. > :12:09.look if we devoted -- if we had fought it in favour on the punitive

:12:10. > :12:14.bomb strikes when Daesh didn't exist in Syria, it had no foothold

:12:15. > :12:22.whatsoever? Instead, this House stepped back from that decision and

:12:23. > :12:34.I think we will live to regret that. It was back in February that he was

:12:35. > :12:42.slapped down by the Russian ambassador to the United Nations

:12:43. > :12:47.that said he had Assad's remarks and did not chime with Russia's action.

:12:48. > :12:54.He has admitted he did not get much out of his conversation with Sergey

:12:55. > :12:57.Lavrov. Does he think the Commonwealth office has the capacity

:12:58. > :13:05.to read Russian interests and intentions? The key relationship

:13:06. > :13:08.that is developing or has developed at the moment which allows us to

:13:09. > :13:15.place greater emphasis on Russia, whether it be Vladimir Putin, Sergey

:13:16. > :13:18.Lavrov, is John Kerry and the closest in which John Kerry is

:13:19. > :13:23.working with the Foreign Secretary shows that we're playing our part as

:13:24. > :13:26.well and I would also say that from is united in perspective we are the

:13:27. > :13:34.second largest donor in the country. We are doing our managerial part and

:13:35. > :13:37.military part. We are at the forefront of activities but

:13:38. > :13:40.ultimately this isn't for the Americans are British, it's for

:13:41. > :13:43.Russia to make the determination that it is going to place the

:13:44. > :13:52.pressure on Assad to allow access to the very areas that we need to get

:13:53. > :13:55.the humanitarian aid into. I'd also like to thank the Minister for his

:13:56. > :14:00.response and I'd like to begin biting gradually turn my honourable

:14:01. > :14:04.friend on securing this urgent question. In a short time he's been

:14:05. > :14:11.in the House, she has consistently stood up for the people of Syria

:14:12. > :14:17.cotton is appalling conflict and I think this House can condemn the air

:14:18. > :14:22.strikes and shelling in Aleppo and as is recognised by the Geneva

:14:23. > :14:29.Convention, there is never any justification for attacking

:14:30. > :14:32.hospitals. They believe medics in Aleppo stands in contrast with the

:14:33. > :14:40.brutality of the Assad regime -- brave medics, who show their

:14:41. > :14:44.disinterest in the people of Syria. We must remain committed to peace

:14:45. > :14:50.talks and a political solution to the current conflicts. Britain has a

:14:51. > :14:56.crucial role to play in this, particularly in supporting the US,

:14:57. > :15:00.Russian ceasefire talks. It's an odd to be an active contributor to this

:15:01. > :15:03.process and as a leading EU country we can wield real influence as a

:15:04. > :15:08.member of Russia's most important trading block. Can I ask the

:15:09. > :15:12.Minister what discussions are ongoing at EU level about exerting

:15:13. > :15:17.pressure on the Russians to redouble their commitment to the ceasefire

:15:18. > :15:21.and does the Minister has stated, Russia is in the strongest position

:15:22. > :15:27.to tell President Assad to stop killing civilians in Aleppo and

:15:28. > :15:32.along with my honourable friend, can I ask what specific steps the UK

:15:33. > :15:36.Government is taking along with key allies such as Saudi Arabia to

:15:37. > :15:41.encourage the Syrian opposition to recommit to the peace process? Will

:15:42. > :15:47.the Minister comment on reports that the Assad regime had been using the

:15:48. > :15:53.ceasefire to move troops and prepare for an assault on Aleppo? Can I ask

:15:54. > :15:58.whether the Geneva negotiations include provisions for additional

:15:59. > :16:01.monitoring so that all says can have confidence that a new ceasefire

:16:02. > :16:06.agreement will be genuine one? At the heart of this conflict is Asia

:16:07. > :16:10.managerial disaster of almost unimaginable scale so can the

:16:11. > :16:14.Minister assure the House that the UK is pushing for humanitarian

:16:15. > :16:18.access to be at the very heart of any new ceasefire agreement? And

:16:19. > :16:23.finally, can the Minister comment on recent reports of an increasing

:16:24. > :16:30.collusion between the Assad regime and Daesh? With the Assad regime

:16:31. > :16:32.stepping back from confronting Daesh any number of areas will continuing

:16:33. > :16:44.to trade with them and therefore provide vital funds for their

:16:45. > :16:46.campaigns? I welcome the tone in which she raises these important

:16:47. > :16:50.questions. We have had debates on these matters and I welcome the

:16:51. > :17:00.engagement and concurrent again with the work they lady has done as

:17:01. > :17:11.co-chair on the Syria. These are all part of collecting the evidence on

:17:12. > :17:15.the long-term. If I made digress and pay tribute to the white helmet,

:17:16. > :17:20.this is an organisation that Britain is helping to fund that helps take

:17:21. > :17:24.people out of the rubble. They are the ones that are based on these

:17:25. > :17:31.very dangerous areas but are trained to save the lives of those who are

:17:32. > :17:35.caught up in these disastrous areas and go in there with the necessary

:17:36. > :17:50.technology to try and pull the survivors out. She mentions the role

:17:51. > :17:56.of EU. This group will be meeting at the very new future. She also talks

:17:57. > :18:02.about the importance of the Syrian opposition and the cohesion of that.

:18:03. > :18:05.I had the opportunity to meet the president of the Syrian opposition

:18:06. > :18:09.in Turkey in Istanbul only a couple of weeks ago. They were very

:18:10. > :18:14.pessimistic at that point about the progress that was actually being

:18:15. > :18:19.made and how we have seen events unfold but given the desperate

:18:20. > :18:23.nature and await agendas that they find, the fact this group has stayed

:18:24. > :18:27.together I think is an indication of the determination to say we do not

:18:28. > :18:33.want to be part of Daesh but we also don't want to have Assad as our

:18:34. > :18:37.leader. She is right to also indicate that there is huge

:18:38. > :18:42.collusion which we now Assad and Daesh. This has been a matter of

:18:43. > :18:52.convenience. Reports are coming out in Palm for example fat Daesh would

:18:53. > :18:57.retreat from that Avia and the Assad regime would claim this as a victory

:18:58. > :19:01.but something else was happening behind the scenes clearly and she

:19:02. > :19:10.also alludes to the fact that oil sales have been going on. The Assad

:19:11. > :19:16.resume is short of oil reserves and Daesh has oil it can sell.

:19:17. > :19:19.Thankfully the work we have been doing on countering Daesh has

:19:20. > :19:23.prevented them from producing their oil and therefore gain financially

:19:24. > :19:34.from the sale or the use of it itself. What is the Government's

:19:35. > :19:38.current advice on Daesh given that in the past the Government has been

:19:39. > :19:42.sympathetic but the opposition now feels itself in an extreme difficult

:19:43. > :19:48.position? I made it clear in my opening remarks that the Assad

:19:49. > :19:52.vision requires a political solution. We need to move forward

:19:53. > :19:56.from that any transition process and see the eventual removal of Assad.

:19:57. > :20:01.This will allow the country itself to be able to take on ten two.

:20:02. > :20:07.However, the two are not mutually exclusive. We can continue with our

:20:08. > :20:15.campaign to destroy Daesh. I hope we will see the liberation of the town

:20:16. > :20:20.in future. This might be an urgent question but it would be helpful to

:20:21. > :20:24.hear agency in the Government's response. The destruction of the

:20:25. > :20:29.infrastructure in Aleppo is so want on we wonder if there will be

:20:30. > :20:33.anything left worth fighting over. Priority has to be a ceasefire so

:20:34. > :20:37.that you meditating aid can be provided and I wonder if the

:20:38. > :20:46.Government is making or deliberating to deliver as soon as an opportunity

:20:47. > :20:54.arises. The second one is what role the Government sees itself playing.

:20:55. > :20:58.I would echo the calls for the Government to show some humanity and

:20:59. > :21:05.reconsider its position on accompanying refugee children. On

:21:06. > :21:09.the restructuring side, one of the reasons why we hosted or co-hosted

:21:10. > :21:15.the important conference that took place in February was exactly for

:21:16. > :21:19.that reason, to make sure that we could collect the necessary pledges

:21:20. > :21:27.from around the world. This was a record amount of pledge, $11

:21:28. > :21:32.billion, the majority of which is going towards supporting the

:21:33. > :21:36.refugees but those other initiatives that are taking place as well. He is

:21:37. > :21:41.right that there has to be a political track. It is not for us to

:21:42. > :21:44.determine that. This is part of wider coalition, the opposition

:21:45. > :21:49.coalition has come together and this is exactly what the in Geneva are

:21:50. > :21:54.all about. He mentions the 3000 children, it's already been

:21:55. > :21:59.mentioned, apologies I have not touched on it. We are doing our best

:22:00. > :22:07.to help stem the flow of refugees from the source itself. It is a huge

:22:08. > :22:10.question to be asked. That is when EU member states it is felt cannot

:22:11. > :22:14.look after refugees and we are taking refugees from other EU member

:22:15. > :22:17.states so we have put extra funding in to make sure that the matter

:22:18. > :22:23.where they come into it, these refugees are looked after to the

:22:24. > :22:28.same standards but we do not want to add to the problem by encouraging

:22:29. > :22:34.more people, including children, to make the perilous journey across

:22:35. > :22:38.these tracks and the UK as I say is helping provide better support by

:22:39. > :22:41.sending teams out to these various refugee camps to make sure they have

:22:42. > :22:46.the necessary standards that you would expect if the refugees are in

:22:47. > :22:51.this country. We also honour the Dublin Convention which allows the

:22:52. > :22:55.transfer of children from other member states if they have a direct

:22:56. > :23:04.family connection here and I'm sure that will be concurrent by the

:23:05. > :23:12.refugees Minister -- concurred. This news from Aleppo emphasises that

:23:13. > :23:15.Assad must not be part of the endgame in Syria but to what extent

:23:16. > :23:19.with my honourable friend say that Russia has also come round to this

:23:20. > :23:28.view and what work can be done to get Russia to rein in its ally,

:23:29. > :23:35.Assad? Those who are familiar with the long-term relationship between

:23:36. > :23:38.Russia and Syria will be aware that this is an area of the world that

:23:39. > :23:45.Russia sees as their sphere of influence. Syria supported Russia

:23:46. > :23:51.and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Assad's father trained as a

:23:52. > :23:54.pilot in Russia. There are strong ties between the countries. What I

:23:55. > :23:59.would advocate is that Russia recognises the want to keep that

:24:00. > :24:02.influence but they're not elected to the influence of Assad but the

:24:03. > :24:04.political transition must move forward and the people of Syria must

:24:05. > :24:09.determine who the next leader will be.

:24:10. > :24:16.And while Daesh is a murderous group run by outright murderers and

:24:17. > :24:21.psychopaths, the Syrian government at the moment, and for some time,

:24:22. > :24:28.has carried out crimes against humanity on a far greater scale and

:24:29. > :24:39.moreover aided and abetted by a member of the UN Security Council. I

:24:40. > :24:46.would concur. We took steps to hold Assad to account when he crossed a

:24:47. > :24:53.line and used chemical weapons. We wanted to take action and this House

:24:54. > :24:56.decided it was not the needed. We must recognise there are occasions

:24:57. > :25:01.when a few countries in the world can stand up to dictators such as

:25:02. > :25:02.this and the rest of the world looks at countries like Britain to act and

:25:03. > :25:20.we did not. Russia is central to finding a

:25:21. > :25:26.long-term solution in Syria. There is a brick wall between us and them.

:25:27. > :25:39.The Government would not speak to us last week. Communication has broken

:25:40. > :25:42.down. Maybe now is the time to put together our outrage about the

:25:43. > :25:51.annexation of Crimea and say we need to talk about Syria and Parker are

:25:52. > :25:55.differences on other matters. The Defence Select Committee made

:25:56. > :26:07.efforts to visit Moscow and I think it was an important visit.

:26:08. > :26:16.The sanctions on Vladimir Putin are coming from the countries these

:26:17. > :26:19.countries are moving across to and we should be more astute in

:26:20. > :26:23.recognising this issue of Ukraine and Crimea from as perspective is

:26:24. > :26:31.linked to what is happening in Syria. Surely the Minister is aware

:26:32. > :26:38.of the draft statements are calling amongst NGOs working in Aleppo where

:26:39. > :26:43.they have said there is a complete absence of the fundamentals of safe

:26:44. > :26:49.humanitarian intervention and the absence of a clear mechanism to

:26:50. > :26:59.monitor document violations of international humanitarian law and

:27:00. > :27:05.human rights law. Is that the case? As she is aware, access to Aleppo is

:27:06. > :27:09.difficult and we are collecting intelligence for the longevity but

:27:10. > :27:13.she is right to highlight the complexities of this large city, not

:27:14. > :27:18.least because the al-Nusra Front is based there and this is where Assad

:27:19. > :27:24.has taken advantage of the ceasefire to move weapons to this area as

:27:25. > :27:27.well. This is why it is important for Russia to exert its influence to

:27:28. > :27:37.make sure Assad comes back to the table. Sir Edward Leigh. We have to

:27:38. > :27:40.accept Syria as it is. Whether we like it or not, Assad is not going

:27:41. > :27:47.away. He has the only army on the ground capable of defeating Isis and

:27:48. > :27:55.has as much support as the other warring faction. If you undermine

:27:56. > :27:59.him you unleash worse forces. It is significant that progress has been

:28:00. > :28:05.as a result of contact between America and Russia. If we put Russia

:28:06. > :28:17.in deep freeze, denying them visas, not talking to lover of, -- Sergei

:28:18. > :28:22.ladder... We must drop our present policy and cooperate with the

:28:23. > :28:26.Americans and Russia to get peace. I don't agree with what he said but I

:28:27. > :28:31.agree with the direction of travel. Russia has influence over Assad. We

:28:32. > :28:38.are speaking with the Russians. John Kerry is in Geneva along with

:28:39. > :28:44.Russians and other characters. They recognise the urgency in

:28:45. > :28:52.renegotiating the cessation of hostilities so we can get the

:28:53. > :28:57.humanitarian aid back in. The Minister referred to the long-term.

:28:58. > :29:02.How long is long-term? He also made reference to the vote in this House

:29:03. > :29:07.in 2013. Isn't the real failure the fact that our government and the US

:29:08. > :29:12.government didn't impose no-fly zones and humanitarian corridors in

:29:13. > :29:16.2011 and 2012 when they could have and now it may be very difficult to

:29:17. > :29:27.do so but that is the real failure, not intervention. I am a former

:29:28. > :29:31.soldier and I looked at the idea of no-fly zones and humanitarian

:29:32. > :29:36.corridors, even wrote some papers when I was on the backbenches. The

:29:37. > :29:41.trouble you get is that who implements them and what authority

:29:42. > :29:45.do you have to be in the country? We wanted to take Syria through the UN

:29:46. > :29:48.Security Council to the International Criminal Court and

:29:49. > :29:54.guess who vetoed it? China and Russia. That is the difficulty we

:29:55. > :29:59.have. How do you implement and enforce a no-fly zone as such? I

:30:00. > :30:00.agree with the spirit of what he says but this is the reality of

:30:01. > :30:18.where we are. I think the most important concern

:30:19. > :30:22.was unaccompanied children as their safety and I wonder whether we have

:30:23. > :30:32.our policy the wrong way round. 3000 children wandering around Europe can

:30:33. > :30:38.easily be picked up by traffickers. 3000 children in the Middle East can

:30:39. > :30:49.be kept safely in camps and I wonder whether we should actually look at

:30:50. > :30:54.our policy again. The concern expressed regarding the 3000

:30:55. > :30:59.children are absolutely sincere indeed. The solution simply not to

:31:00. > :31:04.remove the challenge from the area itself but solve their challenge in

:31:05. > :31:10.the area itself. We cannot endorse the idea that it is acceptable for

:31:11. > :31:15.other EU states not to meet their requirements, basic requirements for

:31:16. > :31:18.looking after refugees. By us taking those refugees we are simply

:31:19. > :31:24.providing more space for par at the refugees to come in. That is not the

:31:25. > :31:27.answer to this long-term solution. The minister was diverted from the

:31:28. > :31:35.path of virtue by the honourable gentleman, the member from Beckenham

:31:36. > :31:39.with no doubt good intentions, but string somewhat from the terms of

:31:40. > :31:42.the urgent question. I have facilitated much discussion on the

:31:43. > :31:47.matter of refugees and I rather imagine there will be more. No doubt

:31:48. > :31:51.people will feel there should be. It would be best today if we could

:31:52. > :31:58.stick to the terms of the urgent question which honourable lady

:31:59. > :32:00.applied for and which I granted. The minister quite rightly spoke about

:32:01. > :32:05.the influence of Russia but can I ask what pressure is being put on

:32:06. > :32:15.Iran who are equally have supported the Assad regime but through its

:32:16. > :32:22.proxies such as Hezbollah? Has the Foreign Office opened up dialogue

:32:23. > :32:26.with Iran? In terms of the Iran deal, are they putting pressure on

:32:27. > :32:32.them to make sure they respond? That is an important point. If Iran is to

:32:33. > :32:37.take a more responsible role following the nuclear deal on the

:32:38. > :32:42.international stage then we anticipate and expect it to act in a

:32:43. > :32:54.more honourable way whether it is in Damascus in Beirut, Baghdad or

:32:55. > :32:58.Yemen. We are not seeing that to date. He is right that Hezbollah

:32:59. > :33:01.continued to play an important role but we see a difference in opinion

:33:02. > :33:10.between what Iran and Russia are looking for. When you hear

:33:11. > :33:16.first-hand from charities and NGOs that run hospitals in places like

:33:17. > :33:19.Aleppo, of those hospitals being in some cases repeatedly bombed by the

:33:20. > :33:25.regime and Russian forces, the temptation is to come to this place

:33:26. > :33:30.and rage against the system and use those well worn words something must

:33:31. > :33:34.be done. But in reality this is the most complex situation. What we want

:33:35. > :33:38.to hear and I think I have heard it alluded to is that everything is

:33:39. > :33:47.being done to work with the Russians to create a framework whereby safe

:33:48. > :33:52.areas and indeed is possible error corridors delivering aid can be

:33:53. > :33:59.delivered and that must be away of ensuring it is humanitarian aid.

:34:00. > :34:05.Even having a Russian in Akrotiri and seeing what goes on the plane.

:34:06. > :34:08.We discussed these things over the weekend and I know he has followed

:34:09. > :34:14.events closely and he knows he go working in the region as well. It is

:34:15. > :34:21.important that we look to a more long-term solution for access to the

:34:22. > :34:24.monitoring corridors. The Foreign Secretary is talking with John Kerry

:34:25. > :34:29.this afternoon and I hope we will have more to report over time. I

:34:30. > :34:36.think I heard the Minister say in his reply to the question that 49

:34:37. > :34:40.children have been killed in recent hostilities. If I am correct can I

:34:41. > :34:44.ask the Minister to repeat those facts to the House so it is clear to

:34:45. > :34:48.everybody what is happening and for him to say what worked the

:34:49. > :34:54.Government is carrying out to make sure there is medical care for

:34:55. > :34:56.children in Aleppo. I am happy to confirm what I said before.

:34:57. > :35:03.According to human rights monitors at least 252 civilians including 49

:35:04. > :35:12.children were killed in the city of Aleppo in the last four nights

:35:13. > :35:16.alone. -- 253. The situation in Aleppo is very fluid because of the

:35:17. > :35:27.advances the Assad government is wanting to do. It is objective is to

:35:28. > :35:34.take this northern city, a key prize which would have a huge impact if it

:35:35. > :35:38.fell from the coalition. It is vital that we provide access to make sure

:35:39. > :35:47.areas such as hospitals are not bombed. We must look at whether this

:35:48. > :35:50.is a case of giving great grid references -- grid references to

:35:51. > :35:57.make sure they are recognised, not least because it is a breach of the

:35:58. > :36:00.Geneva Convention. He twice use that phrase in order to break the logjam

:36:01. > :36:04.we must have a political transition of a Syrian government. Could hear

:36:05. > :36:10.right now is what that means? Unpalatable as it may be, could that

:36:11. > :36:15.mean Assad has a role in a temporary transitional government, or at least

:36:16. > :36:22.if not Assad, some of his key officials? When the international

:36:23. > :36:29.Syrian workforce came together for the first time it discussed a

:36:30. > :36:37.timetable of transition and this was to allow the various diverse

:36:38. > :36:40.stakeholders across the country itself to determine the timetable

:36:41. > :36:48.itself, a timetable of two years was brought forward, but these are

:36:49. > :36:51.always in the realms of speculation. I hope that the Geneva talks, where

:36:52. > :36:59.these discussions need to take place, will resume discussions on

:37:00. > :37:04.this issue. The Minister set out what the Secretary of State said in

:37:05. > :37:07.his representations to the Russians following the hospital bombing, a

:37:08. > :37:13.gross violation of international law? Did he ask them to tell Assad

:37:14. > :37:22.to stop and what was the Russians' response? I am not privy to the

:37:23. > :37:25.exact wording. The Foreign Secretary arrives back this afternoon and I

:37:26. > :37:32.will ask him to write to the honourable member directly. Five

:37:33. > :37:37.years of conflict and anymore is too long. I hope members across the

:37:38. > :37:43.House. The Government and international committee to bring

:37:44. > :37:51.peace to this country. What is the Government doing to ship plans for

:37:52. > :37:55.post conflict reconstruction? Although it has been five years, the

:37:56. > :37:58.difference of the last five or six months has been that negotiations

:37:59. > :38:14.have taken place and stakeholders have been programmed the table. .

:38:15. > :38:18.This is not happened in the last five years. The major change from

:38:19. > :38:24.the previous five years is coalition members round the table. There was

:38:25. > :38:27.an important step of looking at the details of what the international

:38:28. > :38:36.community must do once the guns fall silent eventually. Along with my

:38:37. > :38:40.honourable friend for North Welcher I was in Moscow last week and one

:38:41. > :38:44.thing I found most of cult is that we have now shared understanding of

:38:45. > :38:48.history or old language in terms of diplomacy and therefore I find it

:38:49. > :38:51.concerning that we are talking in vague words about how we genuinely

:38:52. > :38:57.bring Russia to the table for discussion, maybe through proxies,

:38:58. > :39:07.so can we have more detail about what that plan would be? I am

:39:08. > :39:11.pleased to say that she was able to make it to Moscow and I look forward

:39:12. > :39:17.to any reports she might be putting forward as to what they learned from

:39:18. > :39:20.discussions there. She is right to place the focus on Russia itself and

:39:21. > :39:30.for us to have a better understanding on what Russia's

:39:31. > :39:36.intentions are, because most of it is the president met trying to make

:39:37. > :39:42.his mark and provide distractions of the domestic versus country is in.

:39:43. > :39:47.I welcome the minister in forming the House that the Government is

:39:48. > :39:51.committed to gathering evidence on Thames of crimes against humanity

:39:52. > :39:54.but could the minister update the host what protection is being given

:39:55. > :39:59.to Christian communities and neighbouring countries? She is right

:40:00. > :40:10.to highlight the plight of the Christians, not least in areas with

:40:11. > :40:13.the Yazidis. We saw devastating attacks. We had a debate on these

:40:14. > :40:20.matters a couple of weeks ago and it is important we collect the

:40:21. > :40:24.evidence. It would place them in danger. We are providing an awful

:40:25. > :40:29.lot of work to make sure we can collect that necessary forensic,

:40:30. > :40:33.legal evidence which allows us to make the case of the UN Security

:40:34. > :40:37.Council to take this forward. I think we can all condemned the

:40:38. > :40:42.bombings of civilian is in Aleppo but can I ask the minister was

:40:43. > :40:46.specific action in the UK is undertaking a conjunction with our

:40:47. > :40:53.European partners to try and kick-start the peace process which,

:40:54. > :40:59.as others have mentioned, is seriously...? I would repeat the

:41:00. > :41:04.support we are trying to get for the managerial initiative that takes

:41:05. > :41:08.place. We're the second largest donor and I think Syrian conference

:41:09. > :41:12.is critical in helping refugees not only in Syria but in Lebanon, Jordan

:41:13. > :41:20.and Turkey. I played tribute to those countries -- pay tribute.

:41:21. > :41:23.Talks are taking place behind the scenes to pressurise Russia to make

:41:24. > :41:27.sure Sergey Lavrov and Vladimir Putin realise they are best placed

:41:28. > :41:38.to alert you meditating access to prevent the bombing of civilian

:41:39. > :41:41.areas. I welcome the statement by the Minister. Looking at the

:41:42. > :41:46.statement on the BBC website is says that John Kerry says that Syrian

:41:47. > :41:50.conflict is now out of control. If that is the case, why is the

:41:51. > :41:54.minister optimistic that the current talks will lead to a solution?

:41:55. > :41:58.Aleppo is the last on hold for the opposition. If that false, one may

:41:59. > :42:04.ask why the opposition should take part in further talks in Geneva. He

:42:05. > :42:07.is right to point out by the Syrian opposition pulled out from the

:42:08. > :42:12.talks. It was pointless sitting down to talks in Geneva on your own

:42:13. > :42:17.communities are being bombed back at home. Whilst the situation has grown

:42:18. > :42:21.out of control we have seen the cessation of hostilities break down.

:42:22. > :42:30.John Kerry's current initiative with Sergey Lavrov to make sure that

:42:31. > :42:38.hostilities can be resumed. As I mentioned in my statement, that is

:42:39. > :42:42.working. The recent bombing of hospitals to place in a city that

:42:43. > :42:44.already has a severe shortage of doctors because of the events of the

:42:45. > :42:49.last three or four years will stop what can the Minister do to ensure

:42:50. > :42:54.any ceasefire not only has humanitarian aid at its heart but

:42:55. > :43:00.resumption of medical facilities as well as prevent humanitarian

:43:01. > :43:06.catastrophe? In the silos of the London Syria conference, there were

:43:07. > :43:11.major workshops that took place and there is huge and of effort which

:43:12. > :43:14.would be confirmed by the Minister that are ready to move in but at the

:43:15. > :43:23.moment the situation is just too dangerous for that to be able to

:43:24. > :43:27.happen on a large scale. Time is not on the side of the people of Aleppo.

:43:28. > :43:31.On Sunday night, the main and only road for those in rebel held east

:43:32. > :43:38.was bombed. If the regime clauses that route, only 200,000 residents

:43:39. > :43:41.will be trapped without food and medical supplies. Pressure on Russia

:43:42. > :43:48.is key. Can I urge my rate honourable thing to urge to Russia

:43:49. > :43:52.that time is running out? My honourable friend makes her point

:43:53. > :43:58.very powerfully. The fact we are having this debate is another method

:43:59. > :44:03.of us communicating with Russia, to see we care, we recognise what is

:44:04. > :44:10.going on, Russia you need to do more and currently you're not doing that.

:44:11. > :44:15.It is estimated that recent violence in Aleppo has led to the death of a

:44:16. > :44:19.Syrian every 25 minutes. There is grave humanitarian urgency. What

:44:20. > :44:25.progress is the Government making with negotiations to take aid trucks

:44:26. > :44:34.into Aleppo and if this doesn't progress, well high altitude

:44:35. > :44:37.airdrops BV considered? She raises an important point and how we can

:44:38. > :44:49.both get made into these vulnerable areas and a -- this horrific

:44:50. > :44:52.challenge highlights it. We must place more stress on Russia and make

:44:53. > :44:56.sure Assad is prevented from bombing these areas and then we can get aid

:44:57. > :44:59.in. The best way to get abilities to get to is by truck by Jimmy the

:45:00. > :45:05.permissions from the local checkpoints to go through the

:45:06. > :45:10.grounds for all of that to happen. If we lose all to air drops, the

:45:11. > :45:16.often land in wrong hands and used as him method to worsen the

:45:17. > :45:26.situation -- used as a method, and the people who denied it. Our

:45:27. > :45:32.sentinel aircraft and unmanned air vehicles provided a very complex but

:45:33. > :45:36.detailed a picture over Syria. As evidence being gathered of who the

:45:37. > :45:40.perpetrators are of these attacks on civilians? If there is evidence, how

:45:41. > :45:48.is it then being presented to the native Nations and other nations? I

:45:49. > :45:52.pay tribute to my honourable friend for the work he has done in a

:45:53. > :45:56.previous campaign. He has a huge amount of knowledge of what the

:45:57. > :45:59.Harry F do. He will also benefit the sheet it is an operational question

:46:00. > :46:11.which prevents me from giving him a firm answer. The bombing and

:46:12. > :46:18.shelling of civilian areas in Aleppo is sickening and serious calls into

:46:19. > :46:25.question the Assad regime's commitment to a peaceful resolution

:46:26. > :46:30.in Syria but so too do the attempts to collude and trade with Daesh as

:46:31. > :46:36.has been outlined by my honourable friend the Shadow minister. What are

:46:37. > :46:41.the Foreign Commonwealth Office doing to bring together all sides

:46:42. > :46:44.and make clear that this kind of action is compromising the very

:46:45. > :46:53.efforts we are trying to secure, which is a peaceful settlement

:46:54. > :46:57.within Syria? The honourable gentleman articulate so complicated

:46:58. > :47:02.Syria is but it should not stop us doing our part on bringing Daesh to

:47:03. > :47:06.account. We are destroying Daesh on the battlefield, we are destroying

:47:07. > :47:11.the ideology and ability to get their message out there the Internet

:47:12. > :47:14.and will also providing humanitarian aid and stabilisation in places that

:47:15. > :47:20.have been liberated but the piece of the jigsaw that remains difficult as

:47:21. > :47:30.the political transition in Syria and that is why it is so urgent that

:47:31. > :47:39.talks resume in Geneva. In addition to UK diplomatic efforts and ?2.3

:47:40. > :47:46.billion worth of aid to the region, with reports of collusion between

:47:47. > :47:53.the Assad regime and Daesh in Syria, can my right honourable friend give

:47:54. > :48:00.an assurance that those British air strikes are focused and have not

:48:01. > :48:02.resulted in civilian casualties? Again, it's an operational question.

:48:03. > :48:07.If I may write to the honourable gentleman I will give him a full

:48:08. > :48:14.reply as to what is done. The rules of engagement we adopt and comply

:48:15. > :48:17.with do ensure that we try and avoid civilian casualties at all times but

:48:18. > :48:25.I will write to him with more detail. Tie at the minister will be

:48:26. > :48:30.sent contact has been made with the Peshmerga in defeating Daesh and

:48:31. > :48:40.building a stable future across Syria? The question just gives me

:48:41. > :48:45.license to pay to get to the Peshmerga and the liberation work

:48:46. > :48:51.they have done and indeed the north of Iraq. It is important they

:48:52. > :48:58.recognise the importance of working with the Iraqi army itself as an

:48:59. > :49:05.indigenous capability. It improves if we can liberate towns and Iraq

:49:06. > :49:12.from Daesh completely. I'm most grateful to the Minister and other

:49:13. > :49:19.colleagues. Urgent question. Lucianne. To as the Secretary of

:49:20. > :49:25.State to make a statement on the safety of care and services provided

:49:26. > :49:33.by Southern Health NHS foundation trust. I thank the honourable lady

:49:34. > :49:36.for her question. I want to express my concern and apology to the

:49:37. > :49:46.patients and family members who will again have been let down for the

:49:47. > :49:50.contents of last week us CQC report. This applies to all of us with a

:49:51. > :49:53.role to play in the NHS from the front led to this House and the

:49:54. > :49:57.Government is clear it is best to be open and transparent into what has

:49:58. > :50:01.gone wrong to minimise the risk of similar feelings across the NHS as a

:50:02. > :50:04.whole. We must ensure the trust itself continues to be scrutinised

:50:05. > :50:12.and supported to make rapid improvements in care. Regulators

:50:13. > :50:19.will not hesitate to take necessary action and we will back them. Last

:50:20. > :50:24.week's report followed an inspection requested by the Secretary of State

:50:25. > :50:27.in 2015. The report from the CQC set out a number of concerns including a

:50:28. > :50:33.lack of robust governance arrangements to investigate

:50:34. > :50:36.accidents and incidents, a lack of arrangements to respond to patient

:50:37. > :50:41.safety concerns and need for immediate action to address safety

:50:42. > :50:45.in the trust environment and it also found that the senior management and

:50:46. > :50:50.board agendas were not driven by the need to address these issues. None

:50:51. > :50:55.of these matters are acceptable. NHS improvement has taken place in

:50:56. > :51:00.recent months to improve things that the trust. It has worked closely

:51:01. > :51:05.with the CQC and on the 24th of March, NHS improvement appointed a

:51:06. > :51:09.director to the trust. On April 14 following a warning notice from the

:51:10. > :51:12.CQC, NHS Cammack improvement place an additional condition on the trust

:51:13. > :51:22.license asking it to make urgent patient safety improvements. This

:51:23. > :51:27.gave NHS Improvement the power to make changes if it does not act on

:51:28. > :51:33.fixing the concerns raised. On the 20 need of April following the

:51:34. > :51:41.resignation of the trust chair, -- 29th. As chair, Mr Smart will have

:51:42. > :51:48.responsibility for looking at the adequacy. I welcome the action taken

:51:49. > :51:58.by NHS Improvement. The appointment of a new chair by regulator is a

:51:59. > :52:02.relatively new step. NHS Improvement will monitor the situation closely

:52:03. > :52:06.in the coming weeks and months. I understand the CQC is considering

:52:07. > :52:09.its response and the risks it highlights before deciding to take

:52:10. > :52:19.further enforcement action and none of its options are close. Doctor

:52:20. > :52:23.Paul Elliott, deputy chief inspector at CQC directly responsible for the

:52:24. > :52:28.port and to whom I spoke this afternoon, that delivery plan

:52:29. > :52:31.required by the 27th of April has been received and is being

:52:32. > :52:40.evaluated. NHS Improvement is working closely with the NHS and

:52:41. > :52:43.someone is on site regularly so there is constant oversight and

:52:44. > :52:50.progress being made as well as further progress meetings being

:52:51. > :52:55.made. In addition to the action on Southern Health, it is vital we

:52:56. > :53:04.learn wider lessons for the NHS as a whole. It is right we have robust,

:53:05. > :53:08.inspection that provides issues of safety leadership and this is backed

:53:09. > :53:15.by NHS leadership were required. It is vital that we take avoidable

:53:16. > :53:22.mortality for people with mental health problems and disabilities as

:53:23. > :53:26.seriously as we do for other people. The review programme has been put in

:53:27. > :53:29.place by NHS England to make sure this inequality is understood with

:53:30. > :53:33.and into the elimination. In addition, CQC will be leading a

:53:34. > :53:36.review of how deaths are investigated including those of

:53:37. > :53:40.people with disabilities and mental health needs. There can be no

:53:41. > :53:44.question that this CQC port makes for disturbing reading and the

:53:45. > :53:50.demands action at local and national levels. We want our most honourable

:53:51. > :53:51.people safe and secure and we will do all we can to ensure patient

:53:52. > :54:09.safety. They should have a right to be angry

:54:10. > :54:15.at the failure of NHS trusts. We have a duty to be angry on their

:54:16. > :54:20.behalf. To read the litany of failure, missed warnings, reports

:54:21. > :54:27.and see Gucci -- secrecy over the last four years would make anyone

:54:28. > :54:30.angry. Fridays report shows very little has been done since he

:54:31. > :54:34.discussed the matter in December. The scandal at Southern health

:54:35. > :54:38.happened on this covenant's watch and ministers must take

:54:39. > :54:44.responsibility for what has happened to some of the most vulnerable

:54:45. > :54:49.people in the country. We should be angry, sparrowhawk was left to drown

:54:50. > :54:55.in a bath and that Angela Smith took on life and that David Weston died

:54:56. > :54:58.in the care of this NHS Trust. His father was repeatedly ignored when

:54:59. > :55:04.he raised concerns. All were denied the care they so desperately needed.

:55:05. > :55:08.Last week the BBC reported that over the past five years 12 patients who

:55:09. > :55:11.had been detained for the safety of themselves or others have jumped off

:55:12. > :55:17.the roof of a hospital run by this trust. Access to a roof was still

:55:18. > :55:23.permitted to people at risk of suicide. If all these tragic

:55:24. > :55:28.incidents were the only signs of failure then we should be angry but

:55:29. > :55:35.there is a much bigger story of neglect and malpractice which

:55:36. > :55:37.aggregates into a major scandal. When the Secretary of State

:55:38. > :55:40.responded he rightly said more than anything people will want to know

:55:41. > :55:48.that the NHS loans from such tragedies. The CQC report published

:55:49. > :55:57.on Friday shows this clearly has not happened. I asked the minister what

:55:58. > :56:03.guarantees you can get to the party put thousands patients in the care

:56:04. > :56:08.of the trust that they are safe? And where is the accountability? The

:56:09. > :56:14.culpability and the responsibility? There seems to be very little. I

:56:15. > :56:17.heard what he said about the chair but does he agree that the position

:56:18. > :56:25.of chief executive is untenable and she should be sacked. Will he

:56:26. > :56:31.listened to the heartfelt pleas of families and campaigners who aren't

:56:32. > :56:37.demanding a full public inquiry into Southern health and the broader

:56:38. > :56:43.issues such as the failure to investigate deaths? These issues are

:56:44. > :56:48.not confined to one trust and the Ofsted style ratings will only make

:56:49. > :56:53.a difference there is proper accountability and the

:56:54. > :56:58.accountability to take action and make real improvements to patient

:56:59. > :57:02.care and safety. The families have behaved with such dignity and

:57:03. > :57:05.tenacity and we owe them a debt of gratitude but it should not be left

:57:06. > :57:10.to the families alone to push for accountability. I listened very

:57:11. > :57:21.carefully to what the Minister told the House but I remain unconvinced

:57:22. > :57:23.enough has changed. We debate the Government's failure to act. The

:57:24. > :57:37.time for hollow reassurances is over. We need action and we need it

:57:38. > :57:41.now. We are not actually debating the Government's failure. The

:57:42. > :57:52.Secretary of State did what he said he would do and inquiry was made.

:57:53. > :57:56.People are right to be angry but there is a process to find out what

:57:57. > :58:03.is going on and do something about it and that process is in place.

:58:04. > :58:09.That is what NHS improvement does. There is an issue of urgency. I

:58:10. > :58:14.think that is important. Things take time to get done. I am not content

:58:15. > :58:19.with that in any way at all. But the process is in place to do something

:58:20. > :58:29.about it. The engagement of the CQC and the fact it has ruled out no

:58:30. > :58:34.further options in terms of taking action and prosecutions, the process

:58:35. > :58:41.is not yet finished but what the Secretary of State began, the

:58:42. > :58:47.commitment to patient safety cannot be denied by anyone, and this is a

:58:48. > :58:50.further part of that. Other issues mentioned, I asked the same question

:58:51. > :58:57.about safety to the CQC this afternoon. I asked if people were

:58:58. > :59:04.safe at the foundation trust today. They are safe because the CQC as we

:59:05. > :59:12.know as powers to shut down places immediately if there is a risk to

:59:13. > :59:15.patients. They have not done so and therefore I am absolutely persuaded

:59:16. > :59:26.that if the CQC found such risks they would have close things down.

:59:27. > :59:29.The chief executive's position, the power to deal with management

:59:30. > :59:35.changes held by NHS improvement. I offer a brief word of caution. There

:59:36. > :59:39.is a track record of ministers speaking out about the removal of

:59:40. > :59:44.people in positions of which they have no authority at great cost.

:59:45. > :59:49.Understandably in situations of great concerns it seems an angry

:59:50. > :59:54.response is the right thing but it is not. The chair has gone and there

:59:55. > :59:59.are processes available should be any more management changes

:00:00. > :00:04.necessary. Colleagues can say what they like but a minister cannot and

:00:05. > :00:09.the appropriate processes must be followed. In terms of inquiry, I do

:00:10. > :00:15.not know yet. I want to wait and see what comes out of the further work

:00:16. > :00:20.doing in terms of the trust. I am not ruling out a former further

:00:21. > :00:22.inquiry but an inquiry is physically being done now by the action taking

:00:23. > :00:37.place on the ground. What needs to... Should be more

:00:38. > :00:43.necessary? Maybe. But I need to consider it in terms of what further

:00:44. > :00:47.work is being done at the trust. With preventable deaths, I am sure

:00:48. > :00:53.those cases which require further investigation right across the

:00:54. > :00:56.system dating back many years and preceding this government, there has

:00:57. > :00:59.not been enough attention but we have turned our attention to that

:01:00. > :01:15.and we will make changes because that must end. The report makes

:01:16. > :01:19.disturbing reading. We ever going to -- we are never going to tackle

:01:20. > :01:23.inequality in health unless we assess safety and risk as with the

:01:24. > :01:27.Minister go further on the mortality review to set out how we can see

:01:28. > :01:34.where differences exist around the country? Would he also reassure the

:01:35. > :01:43.House that the duty of candour will be in future more than a kick in the

:01:44. > :01:51.box? The tech in the box for duty of candour was certainly unacceptable.

:01:52. > :01:56.The learning disability mortality review programme is important and it

:01:57. > :02:00.will support local areas to review these deaths and use information to

:02:01. > :02:05.improve services. In time it will also show at a national level if

:02:06. > :02:08.things are improving for people with learning disabilities and fewer

:02:09. > :02:12.people are dying from preventable causes. It is underway as a pilot in

:02:13. > :02:18.the North East and Cumbria and that will help us as it is rolled out.

:02:19. > :02:23.There are plans to roll out the review in all places in England

:02:24. > :02:38.between now and 2018 with pilots commencing in 2016, 17. It is right

:02:39. > :02:46.we are doing this work now. The report, is said, makes grim reading

:02:47. > :02:51.for the many families of patients in the care of Southern health care

:02:52. > :02:57.trust. The Minister has said those failings are not just isolated to

:02:58. > :03:03.this trust but they got a much wider scale. Can the Minister tell me

:03:04. > :03:08.whether in the light of that he is thinking seriously about the idea of

:03:09. > :03:17.a public inquiry which can get to the underlying factors in this

:03:18. > :03:24.matter? And the patients and families, some of them are my

:03:25. > :03:29.constituencies can be reassured that things are not brushed under the

:03:30. > :03:34.carpet? It is vital that is not the case. It is important is to put on

:03:35. > :03:39.record there are some positive aspects of this report in relation

:03:40. > :03:43.to Southampton which I'm sure he will already have seen where the

:03:44. > :03:53.trust is commended for the work it has done. I really don't know at

:03:54. > :03:57.this stage whether an inquiry is the right thing to do. I am very well

:03:58. > :04:00.aware of the seriousness of this and of the questions that the families

:04:01. > :04:04.have raised and the fact this has been going on for some time. The

:04:05. > :04:13.important thing is both to effect change as well as find out what has

:04:14. > :04:17.happened. The CQC report is quite in-depth, public and transparent and

:04:18. > :04:22.that may well have the answer is required but, if not, there may be

:04:23. > :04:27.something further needed so that is why I have an open mind. The most

:04:28. > :04:32.important thing is to give the reassurance of things that have

:04:33. > :04:39.happened, which the CQC report cannot do because that is the work

:04:40. > :04:44.which is going on right now. People with learning disabilities must have

:04:45. > :04:49.confidence in the services provided by Southern Health. The failings

:04:50. > :04:54.identified are unacceptable and disturbing and I welcome that

:04:55. > :05:00.Minister's statement and the CQC's action regarding the warning notice.

:05:01. > :05:03.Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the dedicated staff at

:05:04. > :05:12.Southern Health facilities who are not indicated in these problems?

:05:13. > :05:16.Including a hospital in my constituency which provides a

:05:17. > :05:21.much-needed facility with dedicated staff running it? When I got the

:05:22. > :05:26.report over the weekend and turned to the summary of findings, the

:05:27. > :05:31.first positive summary finding mentioned was, and I quote, staff

:05:32. > :05:34.were kind, caring and supportive and treated agents with respect and

:05:35. > :05:40.dignity. Patients reported some staff went the extra mile. It is

:05:41. > :05:44.important to put that on the record. It does not minimise things that are

:05:45. > :05:49.wrong but in a trust which is so large and covers such a wide area

:05:50. > :05:55.and number of people, it is important that good work is

:05:56. > :06:02.recognised and areas and faults of management and governments should

:06:03. > :06:05.not be laid at everyone's door. I note in passing that four members

:06:06. > :06:10.are standing on the opposition benches and none of them comes from

:06:11. > :06:13.the area covered, I think, which does not preclude a question but I

:06:14. > :06:19.should just make the point of the question must be about this trust

:06:20. > :06:27.and this set of circumstances rather than as is commonly deployed in the

:06:28. > :06:40.House, "And elsewhere". It is just about this matter and this trust.

:06:41. > :06:47.Thank you. I just want to ask the question, how long does it take to

:06:48. > :06:53.effect change? 45 years ago, the Ely Hospital inquiry took place under

:06:54. > :07:01.the chairmanship of Geoffrey Howe. Recommendations were made and a

:07:02. > :07:14.report was written on the condition of mental health facilities

:07:15. > :07:19.throughout Wales. It seems to me things are going at such a slow pace

:07:20. > :07:35.we will be asking the same question again in 45 years. The frustration

:07:36. > :07:40.in the NHS is that what she says is true in some places is not in

:07:41. > :07:43.others. The special measures is affected change and affected it more

:07:44. > :07:46.quickly. There are other places that does not happen. I am concerned that

:07:47. > :08:02.for too long in mental health that getting things

:08:03. > :08:10.done more quickly and with a degree of urgency generally does not always

:08:11. > :08:14.happen. I am determined that any difficulties in getting things done

:08:15. > :08:18.at local level in trusts when they need to be done will not be aided or

:08:19. > :08:22.abetted by any lack of urgency in the Department or the upper reaches

:08:23. > :08:28.of the NHS with which we have got contact. The concerned to make sure

:08:29. > :08:38.that urgency is there is rightfully expressed by the House and we must

:08:39. > :08:42.see that is delivered. 2011 and 2012, I was locked in a bitter

:08:43. > :08:47.confrontation with Southern Health foundation trust over the

:08:48. > :08:56.determination of its top management to close no fewer than 58 out of its

:08:57. > :09:02.165 acute inpatient beds for people suffering mental health illnesses

:09:03. > :09:05.and breakdowns. It is the only constituency issue over which I've

:09:06. > :09:11.ever suffered sleepless nights and I have failed to stop the -- I failed

:09:12. > :09:16.to stop the trust causing the wins award in the relatively new wood

:09:17. > :09:22.Haven Hospital in my constituency. Today, apart from this terrible

:09:23. > :09:31.issue about the deaths, the system remains over full, the beds are too

:09:32. > :09:35.few and I understand at least 80% of the inpatients are people who have

:09:36. > :09:41.been sectioned so you have got a very low chance of getting an

:09:42. > :09:44.elective bed from Southern health unless you're prepared to wait a

:09:45. > :09:49.long time. And the CQC look into this wider issue given they have so

:09:50. > :09:55.many other serious concerns about the trust?

:09:56. > :10:01.The CQC's powers and extensive and you will know exactly what my

:10:02. > :10:05.honourable friend says. The issue in the debate between the provision of

:10:06. > :10:12.beds for treatment compared to community treatment has been going

:10:13. > :10:16.on for some time and mental health and the different pathways taken by

:10:17. > :10:19.different trusts where you find some more people are being put into beds

:10:20. > :10:26.and others are doing more in the community. Availability must not

:10:27. > :10:36.preclude emergency beds when they are needed. I will make sure the CQC

:10:37. > :10:47.is a weird of these concerns. -- aware. Is southern Health indicative

:10:48. > :10:52.of the pressure being placed on the NHS? Significant pressure on beds,

:10:53. > :10:56.higher thresholds for care and shortages have guaranteed that

:10:57. > :11:03.mental health and learning disability trusts are able to do

:11:04. > :11:07.their jobs? I would point to the fact that isn't used resource for

:11:08. > :11:16.mental health. We have an unassailable 7p, the extra ?1

:11:17. > :11:22.billion will be spent and it is right across the board. It makes

:11:23. > :11:29.sure that baselines are improved to make sure that Government's

:11:30. > :11:34.foundation trusts are good enough and we are watching what the CQC is

:11:35. > :11:40.spending but we're determined to improve it the money is there.

:11:41. > :11:45.All too often it is our constituents with mental health problems and

:11:46. > :11:49.learning difficulties who find it harder to get their voice heard.

:11:50. > :11:53.Those who are patients at southern Health are not in a position to

:11:54. > :11:57.cough urgent change. The Minister has said the delivery plan is being

:11:58. > :12:00.evaluated but can you reassure us that that is being done with the

:12:01. > :12:07.utmost speed so we see improvements on the ground and not just more

:12:08. > :12:11.gathering dust? I have met today put the departmental officials, spoken

:12:12. > :12:16.to NHS improvement, the regional director responsible and also as I

:12:17. > :12:20.indicated before the deputy chief inspector of the CQC who was

:12:21. > :12:25.responsible for the report. I can ensure my honourable friend that

:12:26. > :12:27.insofar as it is up to me or the department, that sense of urgency

:12:28. > :12:32.for change will be adequately delivered and determined because as

:12:33. > :12:37.she rightly says, patients and families have waited in some cases

:12:38. > :12:46.much too long for this. We got to show that delivery follows. The

:12:47. > :12:53.failure of care for people with mental health and disabilities and

:12:54. > :13:07.autism has been shocking. Equally shocking is corner sparrowhawk --

:13:08. > :13:13.Connor Sparrowhawk's death. What can be done to make sure these are acted

:13:14. > :13:18.on to prevent such failures again? Over the past 12 months I've made a

:13:19. > :13:22.number of families who have been victims in these circumstances, some

:13:23. > :13:30.with their children who have been badly placed and inappropriately

:13:31. > :13:35.placed, some who have suffered death as a result. The determination of

:13:36. > :13:38.myself and colleagues is to do whatever we can to break down the

:13:39. > :13:46.situations where people feel they have to fight for everything and

:13:47. > :13:52.define closed doors -- they find. All too often in mental health, it

:13:53. > :13:55.appears to be that when people are challenge, there is a defensiveness

:13:56. > :14:03.about response. The whole transforming care process from the

:14:04. > :14:07.determination of NHS, the board that monitors and overseas those with

:14:08. > :14:10.mental health issues, is trying to make sure that these concerns that

:14:11. > :14:15.have been expressed in the past would go completely but I am quite

:14:16. > :14:20.sure the system is better place now to deal with them and listen to be

:14:21. > :14:27.the more seriously -- listen to them. Does the Minister agree that

:14:28. > :14:32.the recognition of the chairman is a measure of the series is of this

:14:33. > :14:35.issue and after two damning reports, serious changes in the leadership

:14:36. > :14:40.are needed and what the issues and he provide to my constituents such

:14:41. > :14:43.as the family of David West that the regulatory bodies have the power

:14:44. > :14:57.necessary if intervention is required? I indicated that since

:14:58. > :15:03.last year there has been nine changes to the board and of course

:15:04. > :15:08.the chair of the board left last weekend. NHS Improvement has the

:15:09. > :15:12.power to alter governance and I know from speaking to them they take

:15:13. > :15:17.their power and responsibility extremely seriously. The balance is

:15:18. > :15:20.between ensuring balance and continuity to making sure that

:15:21. > :15:22.promise is delivered rather than a wholesale change which would send

:15:23. > :15:28.the provide an opportunity for further delay and prevent the work

:15:29. > :15:35.going on. I know NHS Improvement is very aware of their responsibility

:15:36. > :15:43.to the Government as is the trust itself. It is absolutely right this

:15:44. > :15:54.has legislated for power of esteem for mental health care. I also

:15:55. > :15:57.commend the quick resolution of the failings for the particular trust

:15:58. > :16:01.but will he consider an independent inquiry similar to the very first

:16:02. > :16:12.independent inquiry into the investigation of mid-Staffs that my

:16:13. > :16:16.honourable friend initiated in 2010? I can do nothing more than repeat

:16:17. > :16:22.what I said earlier. I am aware that there might be circumstances in

:16:23. > :16:27.which an inquiry could bring out more, demonstrate a degree of

:16:28. > :16:31.concern that colleagues in the House might find most appropriate and of

:16:32. > :16:35.course the families and others would understand. My first duty is to make

:16:36. > :16:42.sure that of a one is indeed safe in the trust and that work that needs

:16:43. > :16:46.to be done to deliver what the CQC has found is actually being done,

:16:47. > :16:51.but I'm very conscious of whether or not, even after this thorough work

:16:52. > :16:54.by CQC, which is transparent, if there is anything further that is

:16:55. > :17:04.needed, I will give it very genuine and serious consideration. The

:17:05. > :17:08.minister is quite right when he calls the Port disturbing. It has

:17:09. > :17:13.caused alarm and uncertainty across my constituency and it is with

:17:14. > :17:18.uncertainty I hope he can help. I keep to know if he has a hard date

:17:19. > :17:21.by which the trust is to be reviewed again and if it were to feel that

:17:22. > :17:27.hurdle, what with the next action be? Simply evocation of the licence

:17:28. > :17:30.are further improvement? Most of my constituents want to see a deadline

:17:31. > :17:36.by which compliance must be made and after that that there is significant

:17:37. > :17:46.change that might mean a new year at southern Health. -- new era. In as

:17:47. > :17:51.best as I can convey it, it is a sort of constant monitoring that is

:17:52. > :17:56.being done. Firstly, the improvement director appointed by NHS

:17:57. > :18:02.Improvement is there, keeping up effectively, he will have the

:18:03. > :18:06.constant presence in due course but the monitoring needs to be done on a

:18:07. > :18:14.regular basis. Also the CQC has made it very clear that should there be

:18:15. > :18:18.any need for further and -- unannounced inspections, they will

:18:19. > :18:22.do them. They are under constant noticed there can be an inspection

:18:23. > :18:29.at any time but further powers of the CQC include issuing a further

:18:30. > :18:33.warning notice, removing conditions of registration, penalty notice for

:18:34. > :18:38.prescribed offences, suspending registration, cancelling

:18:39. > :18:46.registration and prosecution. I understand none of these measures

:18:47. > :18:50.have been ruled out. It is that point I wish to stand upon and it is

:18:51. > :18:55.the candour of duty which will give us more strength and none of it has

:18:56. > :19:00.been applied yet. It is a statutory duty place and people carrying a

:19:01. > :19:05.regulatory activities. It can lead to prosecution by the CQC and can

:19:06. > :19:10.lead to prosecution without warning notice by the CQC. Can the Minister

:19:11. > :19:14.assure me he will watch very carefully how the CQC uses those

:19:15. > :19:19.powers and that they are used appropriately because if they are

:19:20. > :19:26.not, we are once again failing these honourable people -- vulnerable.

:19:27. > :19:31.Absolutely. If we have a system where quite rightly there is a

:19:32. > :19:34.degree of autonomy and responsibility of ministers is to

:19:35. > :19:38.make sure the process in the system works well, where the Minister can't

:19:39. > :19:44.make all the decisions personally, we do have to make absolutely sure

:19:45. > :19:49.that even if decisions deemed to be taken, they are taking and if not

:19:50. > :19:53.there is an explanation why. CQC powers have been strengthened. I

:19:54. > :19:57.know that a few months ago, there was the first case where a chair

:19:58. > :20:03.home owner was jailed because of the care of people who has been in their

:20:04. > :20:08.home and whilst recognising that the work done in cheering for vulnerable

:20:09. > :20:11.people is complex and difficult and prosecution won't be the right

:20:12. > :20:16.answer in every single case. Knowing the powers are there is very

:20:17. > :20:19.important and the honourable Lady's anger is appropriate and I know that

:20:20. > :20:30.the CQC take these powers very seriously. Could I the Minister

:20:31. > :20:39.where the NHS improvement director now has the power to go into any

:20:40. > :20:45.Southern Health NHS foundation trust facility and assess and neutralise

:20:46. > :20:51.possible threats that we have learned about in the past where

:20:52. > :20:55.people have died? Forgive me, I don't know. I would see things from

:20:56. > :21:00.the dispatch box I don't know. I don't the precise powers of the

:21:01. > :21:04.improvement director. I know the CQC includes the powers might honourable

:21:05. > :21:07.friend is putting forward but the purpose of appointing the

:21:08. > :21:12.improvement director and the new chair, which has been done by NHS

:21:13. > :21:16.Improvement, Tim Smart the former Chief Executive of College Hospital

:21:17. > :21:20.trust, is to put in place people who know what they're doing, know what

:21:21. > :21:23.you're looking for can authorise others to make sure there is nothing

:21:24. > :21:30.being covered up and everything is transparent. What assurances can the

:21:31. > :21:36.Minister give us to the current levels of care and safety to the

:21:37. > :21:38.families of those patients with learning difficulties who are in the

:21:39. > :21:50.care of southern health at this time? I think the best thing to do

:21:51. > :21:53.is refer to the CQC report we can highlight the good practice and good

:21:54. > :22:01.work it does through the staff in a variety of places of community

:22:02. > :22:04.pathways. That work is highlighted and demonstrates good practice. This

:22:05. > :22:08.is a large trust covering many areas and it would be quite wrong to

:22:09. > :22:11.assume that the standard of care is uniform rate across-the-board in

:22:12. > :22:19.terms of the criticisms that have been there. The criticisms are real

:22:20. > :22:24.and strong. The criticism of members is reported by the CQC to be good

:22:25. > :22:27.and I reassured that in terms of safety, CQC has powers and has

:22:28. > :22:32.assured me that if they needed to use those powers and elation to

:22:33. > :22:36.safety and risk to patients, they would use them. Can I thank the

:22:37. > :22:43.Minister and other colleagues who have taken part in these exchanges

:22:44. > :22:46.that they have been a very important treatment of an important subject.

:22:47. > :22:51.Perhaps on behalf of the House, I can express the hope that the

:22:52. > :23:01.Hansard text of these exchanges will be supplied to Southern Health NHS

:23:02. > :23:06.foundation trust. They need to know that we have treated of them and

:23:07. > :23:10.what has been said, politely and with notable restraint, but with

:23:11. > :23:25.very real anxiety in all parts of the House about the situation within

:23:26. > :23:29.its aegis. Last week there were a number of understandable occasions

:23:30. > :23:35.when people in the chamber, Members of Parliament, broke into applause.

:23:36. > :23:40.It can be quite awkward for some of us on this side of the House under

:23:41. > :23:45.the opposition who know about the conventions of the House because we

:23:46. > :23:50.feel unable to join in the applause. I wonder if you could give guidance

:23:51. > :23:56.about what is the current practice and perhaps if you uphold the

:23:57. > :24:01.tradition that we don't have applause. I don't wish to pre-empt

:24:02. > :24:04.your view on this that you could let it be known more generally to

:24:05. > :24:06.members of the House of Commons whether we should break into

:24:07. > :24:14.applause or not on occasion. I thank the honourable gentleman for

:24:15. > :24:18.his point of order and is great courtesy and raising it in the way

:24:19. > :24:21.they needed. The short answer is, it is the longest at the convention of

:24:22. > :24:29.this house that we do applaud. For what it is worth, -- we do not

:24:30. > :24:31.applaud. For the best of my recollection, I have never myself

:24:32. > :24:36.done so. If the honourable gentleman is asking me if I would prefer it to

:24:37. > :24:39.remain that way, the short answer is, I would. I think that the

:24:40. > :24:44.convention that we do not applaud to register approval, but do it in

:24:45. > :24:47.other ways, is a valuable convention. All I would say to the

:24:48. > :24:54.honourable gentleman who has raised his point in an extremely polite way

:24:55. > :24:58.is, so far as the chair is concerned, each situation has to be

:24:59. > :25:05.judged on its merits, and I am very conscious that I am the servant of

:25:06. > :25:09.the house. If, spontaneously, a large group of members burst into

:25:10. > :25:15.applause, sometimes, the most prudent approach is to let it take

:25:16. > :25:22.its course. But I would much prefer it if it did not happen, unless the

:25:23. > :25:25.house consciously we'll is a change. I am not aware that the house as a

:25:26. > :25:30.whole has consciously willed a change. In that respect, I sense

:25:31. > :25:34.that the honourable gentleman and I, not for the first time, and

:25:35. > :25:40.hopefully not for the last, are on the same side.

:25:41. > :25:44.Doctor Julian Lewis. In fairness to those members who are

:25:45. > :25:51.usually newer members, who occasionally do this, I think it

:25:52. > :25:59.worth pointing out, is it not, that this usually tends to happen on a

:26:00. > :26:03.particular, spontaneous, unusual occasion, and not routinely, and

:26:04. > :26:06.that if it did happen routinely, we would end up with organised chairing

:26:07. > :26:11.of the sort that we sometimes get on the more down-market versions of

:26:12. > :26:15.talent shows on TV. That would not be the direction in which we would

:26:16. > :26:20.want to go. That would be thoroughly

:26:21. > :26:26.undesirable! The more unusual, or even occasional, the better. And for

:26:27. > :26:31.it to become the norm would, I think, be deprecated by the

:26:32. > :26:37.honourable member for Lichfield, the honourable member for New Forest

:26:38. > :26:41.East, and deprecated by the chair. The honourable member for Lichfield

:26:42. > :26:44.asked me to find a way of communicating more widely my view on

:26:45. > :26:49.this matter, and I hope I have just taken this opportunity. There is no

:26:50. > :26:53.slight directed at any individual, nor any adverse comment on any

:26:54. > :27:00.particular occasion. What usually, our traditions are for a reason, and

:27:01. > :27:10.to find that we lied or morphed into new situation -- elide or morphed

:27:11. > :27:12.into a new situation, as a result of inactivity or happenstance, is

:27:13. > :27:17.undesirable. If the house wants to change things, let it do so, but as

:27:18. > :27:22.far as I'm concerned, it has not yet done so. I hope that is helpful.

:27:23. > :27:27.Point of order, Kate Green. You may be aware of a report

:27:28. > :27:29.published over the weekend by Citizens Advice, indicating a 25%

:27:30. > :27:36.increase in the number of people coming forward with problems

:27:37. > :27:42.relating to pregnancy and maternity discrimination, and this follows hot

:27:43. > :27:45.on the heels of a report shortly before the Easter recess from the

:27:46. > :27:51.Equality And Human Rights Commission, indicating that three

:27:52. > :27:54.quarters of women have had negative experiences at work associated with

:27:55. > :27:59.pregnancy or maternity. I am pleased to see the honourable member who

:28:00. > :28:02.chairs the select committee is in the chamber, because her committee

:28:03. > :28:05.are conducting an important piece of research into this, but there has

:28:06. > :28:09.been no comment at all from government ministers, and so far, no

:28:10. > :28:12.indication that one will be made -- time will be made in this chamber to

:28:13. > :28:17.debate this. Can you tell me ministers have approached this

:28:18. > :28:21.indicating their intention to make a statement, either on the EH RC

:28:22. > :28:26.reports, or the other report, from which the Department for Business,

:28:27. > :28:28.Innovation and Skills was associated?

:28:29. > :28:32.As far as I am concerned, my answer is no. I have not been approached,

:28:33. > :28:39.and certainly not directly. I am not conscious of any argument of Mrs

:28:40. > :28:43.circulating in my office. -- missive. It does occur to me that

:28:44. > :28:50.work and pensions questions take place on Monday of next week, and

:28:51. > :28:55.that is by no means the only or even necessarily the best opportunity to

:28:56. > :29:01.raise the matter, but it is one such opportunity, and if that does not

:29:02. > :29:08.suit the honourable member, or other opportunities are sought, they may

:29:09. > :29:13.materialise. I would only say that as far as the house as an employer

:29:14. > :29:17.is concerned, I am not aware that there is a problem, and I would be

:29:18. > :29:24.very concerned if there were. I would take steps to keep myself

:29:25. > :29:28.informed. We must keep ourselves informed that best practice as well

:29:29. > :29:32.as the law are followed. I thank the honourable lady for her patience.

:29:33. > :29:38.Point of order, Caroline Lucas. And he very much. You may have seen

:29:39. > :29:46.recent reports that police unit tasked with monitoring extremists

:29:47. > :29:49.has been wasting its time monitoring members of the Green party,

:29:50. > :29:52.including myself. I wonder if you could give advice on the best way

:29:53. > :29:56.for me to raise this, so that we could get a statement from the Home

:29:57. > :30:02.Secretary here in the house on the methods of surveillance, the powers

:30:03. > :30:06.supposedly used in order to justify that surveillance, and most

:30:07. > :30:09.importantly, why citizens lawfully engaging in legitimate political

:30:10. > :30:15.activity have been targeted eye the police in this way.

:30:16. > :30:19.Well, this is a rather disturbing matter. Let me say to the honourable

:30:20. > :30:26.lady that I don't know whether she is suggesting that there is any

:30:27. > :30:33.interference with her work as a member of Parliament. If that were

:30:34. > :30:38.so, that would be an exceptionally serious matter, but it would be

:30:39. > :30:42.effectively a matter of privilege, about which, in conformity with

:30:43. > :30:46.convention, she should write to me, and it will then be taken forward as

:30:47. > :30:57.appropriate, and beyond that, I can really just say that the matter in

:30:58. > :31:00.question is not one for me. It does sound a very bizarre situation. I

:31:01. > :31:06.find it very curious to think that the honourable lady is being, or

:31:07. > :31:09.might be, subject to some sort of surveillance in relation to their

:31:10. > :31:13.activities as a member of Parliament. I am not aware of that,

:31:14. > :31:18.but the matter isn't one for the chair, and I think that I have to

:31:19. > :31:25.advise her that she must find other means by which to air her concerns.

:31:26. > :31:32.If she won't take it amiss, I will simply say that knowing both her

:31:33. > :31:35.intelligence and her indefatigability, there is no way

:31:36. > :31:39.that finding other means to bear her concern will be beyond her very

:31:40. > :31:43.considerable capabilities. Perhaps we can leave it there for today, but

:31:44. > :31:48.if she needs to come back about the matter, and it is potentially a very

:31:49. > :31:52.serious matter, she should do so. If there are no further points of

:31:53. > :31:56.order, we come now to the ten minute rule motion, a further opportunity

:31:57. > :31:59.for the display of intelligence and indefatigability, Caroline Lucas.

:32:00. > :32:04.Thank you very much. I beg to move that leave be given to bring in a

:32:05. > :32:07.bill to require the Secretary of State to establish an independent

:32:08. > :32:11.commission and enquiry to examine ways of improving parliamentary and

:32:12. > :32:15.other public scrutiny of ministerial mandates, and outcomes, in relation

:32:16. > :32:21.to EU institutions, policies and legislation, and for connected

:32:22. > :32:26.purposes. In 50 days, this country will go to the polls to take the

:32:27. > :32:31.most important single precision of a generation, whether to remain in the

:32:32. > :32:36.EU or whether to leave. I am strongly in favour of staying in. I

:32:37. > :32:40.will continue to make the case that we are stronger in, greener in, and

:32:41. > :32:45.fairer in. And today's globalised world, we can achieve so much more

:32:46. > :32:50.by working together with our closest neighbours than by going it alone.

:32:51. > :32:53.But I make this speech today, Mr Diabetes be, not available on

:32:54. > :33:00.everything about the EU. Indeed, I understand when some constituents

:33:01. > :33:04.ask, why stay part of an institution which has faults? Or, why spend time

:33:05. > :33:08.on reforming the EU when we could leave it instead? There are many

:33:09. > :33:13.concerns about the UN how it operates, which are valid, as

:33:14. > :33:17.indeed, there are valid concerns about how Westminster operates. But

:33:18. > :33:21.they are not a reason to walk away. Moreover, such concerns are often

:33:22. > :33:25.exploited by populist political opportunists, with toxic, xenophobic

:33:26. > :33:29.messages. Outright fear mongering about foreigners is again rearing

:33:30. > :33:34.its ugly head across the continent. What worries me most about the rise

:33:35. > :33:38.of this divisive politics is that it raises from history the series of

:33:39. > :33:41.events that led to the formation of the EU. -- a races. It is also

:33:42. > :33:49.remarkably complacent about the future. The EU is not an abstract

:33:50. > :33:52.Project born of some kind of idle philosophising in continental think

:33:53. > :33:55.tanks. The imperative to share sovereignty in Europe and ensure

:33:56. > :34:00.that economic competition does not yet again spill over into conflict,

:34:01. > :34:05.was built on the blood and bones of Europeans killed in the terrible

:34:06. > :34:10.first half of the 20th century. The EU is a pragmatic response to our

:34:11. > :34:13.failure to manage the forces of nationalism and industrialisation,

:34:14. > :34:17.and I would argue that it has done much to reduce the aggressive

:34:18. > :34:21.ambitions of European elites who have disputed control of the

:34:22. > :34:24.continent for centuries. And so, for me, one of the foremost reasons for

:34:25. > :34:30.staying in the EU is because it makes peace more likely. But we

:34:31. > :34:34.cannot wish away the EU's problems, nor simply urge people to urge it

:34:35. > :34:37.because -- urge people to love it because of its history of

:34:38. > :34:42.peacemaking. We must be bold in making sure how the EU works, and

:34:43. > :34:46.ensure our constituents have more of a say over what happens at EU level.

:34:47. > :34:49.Data suggests British people are among the least knowledgeable about

:34:50. > :34:52.the EU, and that is not their fault, but it does highlight the urgent

:34:53. > :34:55.need to ensure the public are able to be more engaged with EU level

:34:56. > :35:00.policy and legislation. The fundamental point is that there are

:35:01. > :35:04.dozens of things that can be done unilaterally here in the UK to

:35:05. > :35:09.radically improve accountability and engagement about EU decision-making,

:35:10. > :35:14.and that is what my bill is about. After working for ten years as an

:35:15. > :35:18.NEP in the European Parliament, I am in no doubt that the EU needs

:35:19. > :35:21.far-reaching reform. One major set of reforms could happen tomorrow,

:35:22. > :35:26.because they are entirely within the gift of the UK Government's

:35:27. > :35:28.implement. No agreement or even discussion is required without the U

:35:29. > :35:34.countries to make them happen. These reforms are the subject of the bill

:35:35. > :35:38.I am presenting today. They build on proposals from the electoral reform

:35:39. > :35:42.Society, the Hansard Society, the House of Lords EU committee, and the

:35:43. > :35:46.Commons European scrutiny committee, who have already done much important

:35:47. > :35:49.work in this area. But one of these proposals is that the UK Parliament

:35:50. > :35:53.as a whole should engage with the government's negotiating position

:35:54. > :35:57.before European council meetings as well as after, a practice that is

:35:58. > :36:00.routine in many other member states. We need a more effective model of

:36:01. > :36:05.scrutiny to allow Parliament still hold the government fully to account

:36:06. > :36:09.regarding its dealings with other European states. The Hansard Society

:36:10. > :36:14.has pointed to the fact that our system, largely one of document

:36:15. > :36:18.-based scrutiny, takes place only once in a civil society. We could

:36:19. > :36:21.easily improve the scrutiny of ministers that monthly departmental

:36:22. > :36:24.oral questions, for example, including topical questions, by

:36:25. > :36:29.setting aside specific time for coverage of European issues related

:36:30. > :36:32.to their policy areas. Our select committee system should also provide

:36:33. > :36:37.a high profile powerhouse the scrutiny is in EU policies. To make

:36:38. > :36:41.it happen, the UK's European scrutiny committee should not just

:36:42. > :36:44.be reactive, but should have the capacity to proactively choose what

:36:45. > :36:50.a follow-up, like a departmental select committee. Then, we need to

:36:51. > :36:52.raise the profile of this house's own three European committees, which

:36:53. > :36:56.cover particular government departments. I have much sympathy

:36:57. > :36:59.with the suggestion that membership of this committee should be made

:37:00. > :37:04.permanent, so expertise and experience could be built up. The

:37:05. > :37:06.electoral reform Society points out that the House of Lords is

:37:07. > :37:09.considered to provide exemplary scrutiny of the EU, with six

:37:10. > :37:13.subcommittees covering various aspects of policy, as well the

:37:14. > :37:17.stand-alone EU select committee, but it is an irony that the part of the

:37:18. > :37:21.British Parliament that provides the greatest scrutiny of the EU is the

:37:22. > :37:24.part that is itself both unelected and unaccountable, and it is time

:37:25. > :37:27.for that to change. Credit should be given to the European scrutiny

:37:28. > :37:31.committee, which has for some time been reviewing the links that they

:37:32. > :37:35.have with department will select committees. For example, examining

:37:36. > :37:39.the role of an informal network of EU contact points on each select

:37:40. > :37:42.committee team, as they do in the Scottish parliament. The European

:37:43. > :37:46.scrutiny committee can require our select committees to develop and

:37:47. > :37:49.provide an opinion on a particular document, but Commons select

:37:50. > :37:53.committee is often don't look at the legislation, or have the capacity to

:37:54. > :37:57.do so, which means coverage of EU matters can be patchy and

:37:58. > :38:00.inconsistent. The commission of enquiry provided for in this bill

:38:01. > :38:08.would look at the very strong case for expanding the Commons select

:38:09. > :38:10.committee system, so it can proactively scrutinise EU proposals

:38:11. > :38:13.and legislation, and I recognise that in order to manage the system

:38:14. > :38:15.work load, that would need some kind of sub committee system, and would

:38:16. > :38:18.need to be properly resourced. But I believe it could make a real

:38:19. > :38:22.difference to the levels of scrutiny and accountability. We also need

:38:23. > :38:25.better mechanisms to give devolved parliaments and assembly is the

:38:26. > :38:30.ability to hold UK ministers to account at EU negotiations, and

:38:31. > :38:32.ministers should have the right to participate in European council

:38:33. > :38:37.meetings. Those are just some examples of changes that the UK can

:38:38. > :38:41.unilaterally make to improve accountability and scrutiny of EU

:38:42. > :38:45.decision-making. Indeed, a House of Lords EU committee report in 2015

:38:46. > :38:49.identified no fewer than 35 such measures. Under this bill, we should

:38:50. > :38:54.also consider reforms that UK ministers should be championing at

:38:55. > :38:58.EU level. That same House of Lords committee repeated their previous

:38:59. > :39:02.call three formally recognised green card system. At present, this is

:39:03. > :39:05.just an informal mechanism intended to enable the parliaments of EU

:39:06. > :39:09.member states to join forces to make proposals to the European

:39:10. > :39:13.Commission, to initiate new policy and legislation. That first green

:39:14. > :39:17.card, and food waste, was prepared by the House of Lords and submitted

:39:18. > :39:23.to the commission last year. This is an important means for strengthening

:39:24. > :39:25.and making possible the joint action of national parliaments, to make

:39:26. > :39:29.proactive proposals not just react to them, and I think it is an

:39:30. > :39:35.important way of revitalising our democratic participation in Europe.

:39:36. > :39:41.That also means of strengthening the work of Parliament officers in

:39:42. > :39:43.Brussels so that we can enhance parliamentary cooperation across a

:39:44. > :39:45.whole range of issues across the member states. The European

:39:46. > :39:49.Commission is one of the less democratic parts of the EU. We

:39:50. > :39:53.urgently need better ways to hold the commissioners to account. The 28

:39:54. > :39:57.European commissioners appointed by governors at almost like a cabinet,

:39:58. > :40:03.with each responsible for a certain brief. The commission is currently

:40:04. > :40:06.too powerful, it proposes EU administration, managers budget and

:40:07. > :40:10.enforces decisions and yet the Tamils of representation are by that

:40:11. > :40:15.time and there is a serious lack of transparency about the way we select

:40:16. > :40:18.commissioners. There is a significant gap between the

:40:19. > :40:21.commission and the people, one that obscures channels Southwark and

:40:22. > :40:23.ability. But there are things we can do about this and the commission set

:40:24. > :40:27.out in my bill should have within its remit and assessment of what

:40:28. > :40:31.mechanisms we could use here in the UK to better hold our EU

:40:32. > :40:37.Commissioner to a account and to allow for transparency of the role.

:40:38. > :40:41.We can remedy the situation where most fours and neither know nor care

:40:42. > :40:48.who do EU commissioners are what they stand for. We need new

:40:49. > :40:52.mechanisms to ensure that can undertake a more proactive role. It

:40:53. > :40:56.is unacceptably and unnecessarily difficult to follow what ministers

:40:57. > :40:59.are doing on our behalf in the EU, let alone for parliamentarians and

:41:00. > :41:07.the public to have meaningful input to shape it. That is a big part of

:41:08. > :41:09.the perceived democratic deficit associated with EU level

:41:10. > :41:11.decision-making. There is so much that we could and should do,

:41:12. > :41:15.unilaterally, you're in the UK to make that better, as well as at the

:41:16. > :41:17.EU level. Of course, there are much bigger reforms needed as well, for

:41:18. > :41:21.example in terms of the relative powers between the European

:41:22. > :41:24.Parliament and the commission. But the purpose of this bill is to

:41:25. > :41:27.identify the measures we can take here and now in the UK if there is

:41:28. > :41:30.significant political will. We already have the powers to make it

:41:31. > :41:33.more democratic and accountable if we choose to take them and there are

:41:34. > :41:37.clear steps we should and could be taking in this House. I hope that on

:41:38. > :41:42.the 24th of June the UK will not only board to remain part of the EU

:41:43. > :41:45.but it grasps the opportunity to reform our continued participation

:41:46. > :41:51.and that we in this House can create a cop positive gateway to a new and

:41:52. > :41:55.revised to strand of political transparency, participation and

:41:56. > :41:57.accountability. The reforms I have outlined today will not in

:41:58. > :42:01.themselves and save the EU from a crisis of accountability but they

:42:02. > :42:07.will make a big difference and will certainly help. Thank you. The

:42:08. > :42:13.question is that the honourable member have leave to bring in the

:42:14. > :42:20.bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, say we were to enter into some kind of green

:42:21. > :42:25.Dreamland, and here we are, one week from Parliament being paroled for

:42:26. > :42:30.the Queen's speech, say that we were all, both opposition and government,

:42:31. > :42:34.to accept this bill, we all know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that is not going to

:42:35. > :42:40.happen. But say it did happen. Say this bill became law, you know what

:42:41. > :42:53.I think? I think the effect on the European Union would. Absolute zero.

:42:54. > :42:56.You can have as much or as many Select committees in this Parliament

:42:57. > :43:05.as you like. -- the effect on the European Union would be nul points.

:43:06. > :43:08.The honourable member for has spent a lifetime scrutinising the European

:43:09. > :43:10.Union. We already summon the Prime Minister to our chamber after

:43:11. > :43:15.European Council meetings and he spends two hours here answering our

:43:16. > :43:19.questions. How much difference does that make? We got somebody in

:43:20. > :43:23.before. We could do all the things that the honourable lady once and

:43:24. > :43:26.nothing will change. Because what is the structure of the European Union?

:43:27. > :43:32.The European Union is indeed a unique construct in terms of

:43:33. > :43:38.democracy and world history. We have a Parliament representing the people

:43:39. > :43:44.of the European Union which has no ability to initiate legislation.

:43:45. > :43:48.Legislation can only be initiated by an unaccountable bureaucracy, the

:43:49. > :43:53.commission, in what Parliament or in what nation, Mr Deputy Speaker, is

:43:54. > :43:57.that propagated? And what of the Council of ministers? I have served

:43:58. > :44:03.with my honourable friend, who sits in front of me, on the Council of

:44:04. > :44:08.ministers. Where are we, or I do know, concerned over Italy about

:44:09. > :44:11.what is being discussed? By deputies in these various parliaments? No,

:44:12. > :44:17.this is all done through the night at deal-making. I give way. Is this

:44:18. > :44:22.bill not putting a colourful pretty ribbon on the tail of the very

:44:23. > :44:26.hungry died at the EU that will go on eating up our powers, taking our

:44:27. > :44:34.and forcing them up on green products? Absolutely. -- taking our

:44:35. > :44:37.taxes. There is one way in which we can generally reform the EU. The

:44:38. > :44:43.Prime Minister tells us that we should remain in a reformed EU. Is

:44:44. > :44:48.there a single honourable member on either side of this argument, either

:44:49. > :44:51.side of the House, who believes that the Prime Minister has reformed the

:44:52. > :44:55.EU despite his best efforts? Nobody believes that. Everybody knows that

:44:56. > :45:01.negotiation was to all intents and purposes a sham in order to enable

:45:02. > :45:05.the Prime Minister to come back to the British people under to try and

:45:06. > :45:09.convince them that is on reformed, unreformable body has indeed been

:45:10. > :45:12.reformed, where we all know, or everybody in Europe knows, that it

:45:13. > :45:16.is on reformed and unreformable because of the very structure that I

:45:17. > :45:21.have talked about. -- it is not reformed. And of course, the

:45:22. > :45:24.fundamental problem is that although you can have as many Select

:45:25. > :45:27.Committee is as you like and summon ministers as often as possible, this

:45:28. > :45:32.Parliament is not supreme. This was the fundamental dilemma that our

:45:33. > :45:38.predecessors, the Labour government, in 1948, and the Conservative

:45:39. > :45:45.government in 1957, were faced with. They were very happy to try and

:45:46. > :45:51.create European free trade, more free trade in iron and steel in

:45:52. > :45:57.1948, more free trade in 1957. But it was made clear to them by various

:45:58. > :46:03.people that this was a project which led, and would lead, inevitably to

:46:04. > :46:08.federation. And this is what this project is about. It is, in the

:46:09. > :46:13.terms of that book, this pleasant plot. The people of Europe are not

:46:14. > :46:18.being consulted and the whole way the European construct is divided is

:46:19. > :46:23.to ensure that these deals and these progress towards European federation

:46:24. > :46:25.is made in secret. When I was chairman of the Public Accounts

:46:26. > :46:29.Committee we went to the European Court order do you know, Mr Deputy

:46:30. > :46:33.Speaker, that the can't have ever been signed off? This is a body

:46:34. > :46:38.riddled, not only with waste, incompetence, but also with

:46:39. > :46:42.corruption. So this bill will achieve nothing, even if it became

:46:43. > :46:46.all. But there is one way, Mr Deputy Speaker, in which we can achieve

:46:47. > :46:51.something. What would happen... I just post this as a question. What

:46:52. > :46:56.would happen if one of the most important countries in the European

:46:57. > :47:02.Union was to vote to leave the European Union? What a good idea.

:47:03. > :47:06.What would happen question we are not talking about some ten minute

:47:07. > :47:10.rule Bill ignored by the rest of the EU, even if it becomes law. What

:47:11. > :47:17.would happen then? Do you not think that would be most profound electric

:47:18. > :47:21.shocks through the wall system? Do you not think then that actually are

:47:22. > :47:27.leaders in Europe might just sit down for a moment, ponder about the

:47:28. > :47:32.fate of their construct and say that their construct is designed to

:47:33. > :47:37.achieve what the peoples of European want, which is peace and friendship?

:47:38. > :47:40.Peace and friendship which has fundamentally been created by Natal.

:47:41. > :47:45.And he recommend an excellent article written by my honourable

:47:46. > :47:49.friend which makes less precise point. Nato of the construct which

:47:50. > :47:54.we can indeed invalid because it is not a supernatural body. It is a

:47:55. > :47:57.treaty -based body but does not impose its laws and supremacy of the

:47:58. > :48:01.peoples of Europe. And indeed, what the peoples of Europe want, and what

:48:02. > :48:07.are all people want, is free trade. That is what we really want. And I

:48:08. > :48:13.believe that if we were to take this historic opportunity, if we were to

:48:14. > :48:16.take this historic opportunity in June, I do not think for one moment

:48:17. > :48:20.the world would falling, because the world is moving towards European

:48:21. > :48:24.free trade. The very worst thing that could happen is that we would

:48:25. > :48:31.have most favoured status and we would have to pay tariffs of 5% on

:48:32. > :48:34.most of our imports, or exports, rather, to the European Union. But

:48:35. > :48:39.that would not happen because there is a massive balance of trade

:48:40. > :48:43.surplus with regards... Against us. It is not gone to happen anyway. A

:48:44. > :48:49.deal could be construct it is on free trade. But I think that much

:48:50. > :48:56.more importantly than what we think what we want is what this might

:48:57. > :49:00.create in the rest of Europe, in Europe of nation states. A Europe

:49:01. > :49:03.which was the original vision of General Charles De Gaulle Airport a

:49:04. > :49:11.Europe where national parliaments have genuine powers and a genuine

:49:12. > :49:14.veto. That is our challenge, Mr Deputy Speaker, and there are

:49:15. > :49:17.millions of people in this country who will seize that challenge and

:49:18. > :49:21.fought for freedom in the referendum in June.

:49:22. > :49:24.CHEERING The question is that the honourable

:49:25. > :49:34.member have leave to bring in the bill. Ayes. Noes. I think we can let

:49:35. > :49:43.that one go. Who will bring the bill? Pat McFadden. Mr Stephen

:49:44. > :50:14.Kinnock, Greg Mulholland, Margaret Ritchie and myself.

:50:15. > :50:28.Transparency and accountability European Union. Second reading what

:50:29. > :50:35.day? 13th of May. 13th of May. OK, we are ready. We now come to the

:50:36. > :50:40.housing and planning Bill. The question is that the housing and

:50:41. > :50:44.planning Bill is on the order paper. As many are of the opinion, say

:50:45. > :50:51.''aye''. To the contrary, ''no''. The ayes have it. Question on the

:50:52. > :50:55.order paper. As many are of the opinion, say ''aye''. To the

:50:56. > :51:00.contrary, ''no''. The ayes have it. The court will now proceed to read

:51:01. > :51:08.the orders of the day. Housing and planning Bill consideration of Lords

:51:09. > :51:12.amendments. I must draw the House's attention to the fact that the

:51:13. > :51:20.financial privileges engaged by Lords amendments 37-58, 91, 184 and

:51:21. > :51:24.185 if the House agrees them I will call the appropriate entry to be

:51:25. > :51:29.made in the journal. I also remind you how is that certain of the

:51:30. > :51:32.motions relating to the Lords amendments are certified as relating

:51:33. > :51:37.exclusively to England or England and Wales, as set out on the

:51:38. > :51:41.selection paper. If the host of Eid is on any certified motion, a

:51:42. > :51:49.majority will be required for the motion to be passed. -- if he house

:51:50. > :51:52.divides on any certified. It will consider the other amendments and

:51:53. > :51:57.motions listed on the selection paper. I call the Minister to move

:51:58. > :52:03.to disagree with those Lords amendments. Mr Brandon Willis.

:52:04. > :52:07.Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do beg to move that this House

:52:08. > :52:12.disagrees with the Lords on the amendment number one, and to move

:52:13. > :52:16.amendment one a endless. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am glad to be back at

:52:17. > :52:20.this dispatch box returning to the Housing and planning Bill and the

:52:21. > :52:24.House of Commons this afternoon. We are now in the final month of the

:52:25. > :52:29.first year of this Parliament. A parliament which has seen a majority

:52:30. > :52:32.Conservative Government returned to this House. A government with a

:52:33. > :52:38.clear mandate to deliver the largest programme of house building we are

:52:39. > :52:43.seeing for a generation. It seems immensely vetting to be at this

:52:44. > :52:46.dispatch box, having come from Mr Speaker's on garden, where we have

:52:47. > :52:49.got construction people showing the importance of house building across

:52:50. > :52:52.the country and the importance of winning more skill than to deliver

:52:53. > :52:55.the ones who are determined to build. We want to place

:52:56. > :52:59.homeownership within the reach of thousands of people who have never

:53:00. > :53:03.dreamt that they could achieve it. And ensure that in doing so we make

:53:04. > :53:08.the best use of social housing, so that it continues to support those

:53:09. > :53:12.most in need. Mr Deputy Speaker, the bill that comes before us today is a

:53:13. > :53:17.slightly different beast to the one that we passed to the other place

:53:18. > :53:22.earlier this year. Today, we will discuss rather more than the 56

:53:23. > :53:26.amendments we are traditionally used to seeing come from the other house.

:53:27. > :53:31.-- five or six amendments. The vast majority are all ask the House to

:53:32. > :53:33.accept. Debates in both houses have been reductive and have resulted in

:53:34. > :53:39.a number of changes which have improved the bill. So let me be very

:53:40. > :53:42.clear from the start. I heard many, mainly on the benches opposite, they

:53:43. > :53:46.that we should have waited for debating this bill. That in fact

:53:47. > :53:50.means that the government would have had to sit idly by, taking forms and

:53:51. > :53:53.waiting to double-check that the public elected us to do and what

:53:54. > :53:58.they are elected us today was actually what the public wanted. We

:53:59. > :54:01.are debating this bill early in this Parliament so that it can take

:54:02. > :54:03.effect as soon as possible. Getting those new homes built for those who

:54:04. > :54:13.aspire to have a home. And will be available to more

:54:14. > :54:18.people, including couples where one member is over 40, and our injured

:54:19. > :54:21.or bereaved service personnel. There are better protections, so the risk

:54:22. > :54:24.of properties being declared abandoned is reduced. Our plan to

:54:25. > :54:31.replace higher value properties, expected to be sold with at least

:54:32. > :54:36.one new property, is explicit on the bill! Bill. This means we could not

:54:37. > :54:39.be clearer about our intention to increase the number of affordable

:54:40. > :54:44.homes across our country. I will give way. Thank you. Will the

:54:45. > :54:51.minister just clarify what higher value homes, one that essentially

:54:52. > :54:57.means? How much? I will command to deal with that as I deal with the

:54:58. > :55:03.higher value assets as well as the other values before us today. We

:55:04. > :55:07.have increased protection we get a rural areas as well, recognising the

:55:08. > :55:12.unique value of our and the is a killer challenge of providing

:55:13. > :55:16.affordable homes there. There is, I trust, much with which we can agree

:55:17. > :55:21.with the other place here today. I will give way. Does he agree that

:55:22. > :55:25.the idea of more affordable homes for sale is extremely popular, and

:55:26. > :55:29.I'm getting requests from people who want to get on with it, and can the

:55:30. > :55:32.minister say hello to my now take the macro I am hoping it will not

:55:33. > :55:35.take is to long and the other house will accept the points we have made

:55:36. > :55:38.today, and maybe the opposition will come and vote with us to make sure

:55:39. > :55:44.we deliver those affordable homes for people to buy. He is quite

:55:45. > :55:50.right, and I will finish answering the last intervention. He is also

:55:51. > :55:54.right, I myself went to Twitter, and e-mails, and get a lot of people

:55:55. > :55:56.wondering whether we will be able to deliver 486% of the population who

:55:57. > :56:00.want the chance to own a home of their own. It is absolutely right we

:56:01. > :56:03.should be able to make sure affordable homes are about avoidable

:56:04. > :56:12.ownership as well as affordable rent. I way. The conclusion that the

:56:13. > :56:16.subcommittee came to, we pushed the minister had so what is impact

:56:17. > :56:20.assessment and financial assessment work of the full costs and

:56:21. > :56:27.implications of his policies about the sale of higher value council

:56:28. > :56:31.homes, whether it would deliver a replacement there, and a replacement

:56:32. > :56:35.of Housing Association property and all the analysis and brown field

:56:36. > :56:38.sites. When will that analysis be produced you macro Souris activist

:56:39. > :56:42.in criticism the other day, that there is no information for us to go

:56:43. > :56:47.on. I did think it was rather surprising to see the PAC review a

:56:48. > :56:51.policy that has not actually done through the house yet. It is making

:56:52. > :56:54.sure we deliver more homeownership to more people across the country,

:56:55. > :56:57.whether the 1.3 million people who want to get through the extension of

:56:58. > :57:02.right to buy, or the intervention with starter homes. I will give way.

:57:03. > :57:07.I thank the minister the giving way. He cited the report published last

:57:08. > :57:14.Friday, but just to be clear, we do it as a committee at issues in

:57:15. > :57:20.advance of them becoming issues, to make sure that taxpayers' money is

:57:21. > :57:25.protected in the process. He gives Gateway about taxpayers' the sale,

:57:26. > :57:28.but there is no one clarity how he will fund it, or whether they will

:57:29. > :57:31.be like for like replacement of homes he is forcing borrowers like

:57:32. > :57:33.mine to sell in order to pay for them. Willie promised now that he

:57:34. > :57:38.will protect long-term social housing to the people in London who

:57:39. > :57:43.can afford nothing else, certainly not a starter home? In terms of

:57:44. > :57:47.making sure we get good use of social housing stock, we should be

:57:48. > :57:49.getting boats later on today, on the high-income social tenants.

:57:50. > :57:52.I'm surprised at this year that interested in housing and making

:57:53. > :57:55.sure we're delivering more in this country, it is the first time she

:57:56. > :57:59.has directly engaged in this bill. One thing her colleague, who

:58:00. > :58:01.allegedly outlining about the Public Accounts Committee Buzz Lightyear

:58:02. > :58:05.report, was around the date behind it, and as I outlined at the end of

:58:06. > :58:07.last week, there are 6 million pieces of data packed into this

:58:08. > :58:14.report. I will give way and come back to the honourable lady.

:58:15. > :58:20.The the honourable gentleman has made a lot of affordable.

:58:21. > :58:23.Can he define affordable, and is it right that an affordable starter

:58:24. > :58:28.home in London would be round 450,000?

:58:29. > :58:31.I think the honourable gentleman might want to go back and have a

:58:32. > :58:35.look not just at the evidence that was given to the committee itself,

:58:36. > :58:39.the look through this bill, or indeed, the bill itself. Before and

:58:40. > :58:43.50,000 is a cap, and he should be clearer looking at the average price

:58:44. > :58:48.eight first-time buyer pays in this country, which is a chilly ?181,000.

:58:49. > :58:51.When you take that with a 20% discount, as we are talking about,

:58:52. > :58:55.and allow someone to buy it with a 5% deposit, you change

:58:56. > :58:58.affordability, and I'm hoping he will support their chance for more

:58:59. > :59:01.Londoners to get on the housing ladder. Equally, this is not the

:59:02. > :59:05.only thing we're doing to promote affordable homeownership. A scheme

:59:06. > :59:09.out there now for shared-ownership will also play an important bar,

:59:10. > :59:15.particularly somewhere like London. I thank him for giving way. Can I

:59:16. > :59:18.absolutely clarify, but the role of the Public Accounts Committee and my

:59:19. > :59:21.role as chair of that committee. My we had a forensics organisation I

:59:22. > :59:26.work investigation by the National Audit Office, and set out to help

:59:27. > :59:28.the taxpayer and government deliberately 's policy to make sure

:59:29. > :59:31.it is an affordable policy, that the key question that need to be in

:59:32. > :59:37.place before it can be delivered are actually worked on. This minister is

:59:38. > :59:42.being very cavalier, if I may say, in sweeping aside the findings of

:59:43. > :59:48.the report, which was well measured, cross-party, and unanimous.

:59:49. > :59:52.I would just say to the honourable lady, who I have huge respect for,

:59:53. > :59:55.that I was not sweeping it aside at all. I am more focused, and I make

:59:56. > :59:58.no apologies for this, and making sure we don't allow the cavalier

:59:59. > :00:02.attitude of the party opposite, who want to do down people took away who

:00:03. > :00:05.want the chance of a home of their own they can buy, and we are

:00:06. > :00:08.determined to deliver on our promise in the manifesto to deliver that. I

:00:09. > :00:13.will make progress and then give away some more. I believe there will

:00:14. > :00:16.be much we can agree on with the other players here today. I will be

:00:17. > :00:23.very clear. As we have just touched on, there are all -- also things we

:00:24. > :00:26.cannot. We are determined to deliver for Britain on our election

:00:27. > :00:29.promises. The manifesto which this government was elected that very

:00:30. > :00:34.clear statement of intent about the Bible extension of the right to buy,

:00:35. > :00:36.paid for by the sale of higher value housing, and 200,000 starter homes

:00:37. > :00:45.by the end of this Parliament will stop I give way. I think my

:00:46. > :00:48.honourable friend. -- thanks. People in my constituency look at many of

:00:49. > :00:53.the argument is made by the party opposite, saying, this is a

:00:54. > :00:59.completely London focused argument. What we want in Lancashire is

:01:00. > :01:03.starter homes for people at a discount. We want the extension of

:01:04. > :01:05.other affordable houses, and Will the minister just take the

:01:06. > :01:09.opportunity to agree with everyone who lives in Lancashire he says,

:01:10. > :01:17.let's get on with it, we want to buy and live in an affordable home. Lets

:01:18. > :01:20.not just talk about London. He makes a good point. Around the country, I

:01:21. > :01:23.find a real frustration about wanting to get on the policies this

:01:24. > :01:27.government has laid out, that we elected us to deliver, and seeing

:01:28. > :01:31.the party opposite and a stolen trouble at ago processor just about

:01:32. > :01:34.every opportunity. But also, for those understandably focused, it is

:01:35. > :01:37.a real pressure, and we have the honourable member for Richmond Park

:01:38. > :01:43.to thank for his pressure that we worked with him to deliver, making

:01:44. > :01:46.sure that in London, for every home sold, leased to matter will be

:01:47. > :01:52.built, driving a direct increase in housing supply. I must say, and with

:01:53. > :01:55.due respect to my Lancashire Colli, starter homes will work on the

:01:56. > :01:59.London boroughs as well. In my borough of Croydon, the

:02:00. > :02:06.average will be ?190,000, meaning a Help to Buy mortgage will need a

:02:07. > :02:10.?10,000 a bottle, and a couple, each earning ?22,500 can afford to buy.

:02:11. > :02:13.In Croydon, I think it will work. I think he has just highlighted how

:02:14. > :02:17.this policy is actually about delivering for people on the ground,

:02:18. > :02:20.while members opposite me want to pontificate here in the house. We

:02:21. > :02:25.will stay focused on delivering homes for people across our country

:02:26. > :02:29.and here in the capital. We have to tailor policies to fit

:02:30. > :02:35.all parts of the country, and that includes London. In inner London,

:02:36. > :02:39.starter homes will indeed come in at ?450,000. We had to speak the

:02:40. > :02:43.language of priorities. Is the minister really telling effect they

:02:44. > :02:46.had requires an income of ?77,000 a year, more than a member of

:02:47. > :02:53.Parliament, is a genuinely good use of public budget?

:02:54. > :02:58.I am tempted to use that inevitable phrase, I would refer the lady to

:02:59. > :03:02.your comments I gave it a few moments ago. As I said earlier, the

:03:03. > :03:08.price of first-time buyer pays is quite different. I have myself

:03:09. > :03:11.visited with the member for Richmond Park, home is already well below

:03:12. > :03:15.that price, which is a cap, not the prize these properties will be at. I

:03:16. > :03:18.expect to see them much lower. I will start with those properties and

:03:19. > :03:27.make a bit more progress on starter homes. With a minimum loan which

:03:28. > :03:33.requires a starter home the repeal of the 20% started a scan, reducing

:03:34. > :03:36.by 1% 80 of occupation, for a period of 20 years. The average first-time

:03:37. > :03:40.buyer, we should bear in mind, spends just under seven years in

:03:41. > :03:44.their home. The average in this country is only about seven years in

:03:45. > :03:49.a home. To us onto stable 20 years, therefore buying a home potentially

:03:50. > :03:51.in 30 and not being able to benefit from a discount with promise until

:03:52. > :03:55.they are 50, simply does not stack up. I will be very clear that we

:03:56. > :03:59.want to ensure starter homes are sold to those who are genuinely

:04:00. > :04:02.committed to living in an area, and not to those who think they want to

:04:03. > :04:08.secure a financial uplift by selling on quickly. But we want to make sure

:04:09. > :04:13.we're supporting mobility, so a balance must be struck. Whereas I

:04:14. > :04:18.propose we disagree with Amendment 1, I move in its place amendments

:04:19. > :04:22.one A, one B and one CE, which provide a power to implement a

:04:23. > :04:27.tapered approach to resale. The longer you live in a property, the

:04:28. > :04:30.more value you will gain. This was proposed by the other place, but our

:04:31. > :04:34.amendment provides that the sector is a state can make regulations on

:04:35. > :04:37.the length of the period, and on the details of how the taper will

:04:38. > :04:41.operate, so that we can make sure it is effective and delivers more

:04:42. > :04:46.people in the real world. These amendments set out to models,

:04:47. > :04:50.potential models for the operation of a taper. Example, one starter

:04:51. > :04:55.home is sold, the first-time buyer, if there is a discount to come back,

:04:56. > :05:00.must pay a proportion of a discount to a specified party. This is the

:05:01. > :05:04.approach suggested by the other place, and I can see the logic, as a

:05:05. > :05:10.body could then use those funds to build more affordable homes. As part

:05:11. > :05:14.of our consultation on starter homes regulations, we seek the views of

:05:15. > :05:18.developers, lenders and local authorities and how such a taper

:05:19. > :05:21.would operate. We strongly believe we should settle littering gateman

:05:22. > :05:25.with the sector, rather than placing the detail of restrictions on

:05:26. > :05:28.legislation. I'm confident this is the best way for us to meet our

:05:29. > :05:30.manifesto commitment on starter homes.

:05:31. > :05:41.I will give way. Thank you. I thank my honourable

:05:42. > :05:45.friend. Could he outlined the government position in relation to

:05:46. > :05:52.the taper? Will list the original taper, or a one size fits all for

:05:53. > :05:57.the whole of the UK? Clearly, as outlined, the prices of properties

:05:58. > :06:01.vary quite considerably, and the important thing here is to make sure

:06:02. > :06:07.that they are used for the benefit of people to actually live in.

:06:08. > :06:11.He makes a very good point, and gives a good example of why the

:06:12. > :06:15.strictures of legislation do not work for this, and why it is

:06:16. > :06:18.important for us to complete that consultation, running till May the

:06:19. > :06:22.18th, to allow feedback to come through and deal with this in

:06:23. > :06:26.regulations. This is a proportional discount, and the value differential

:06:27. > :06:28.is dealt with in the way the percentages would work. I will give

:06:29. > :06:32.way. He will remember that during the

:06:33. > :06:38.committee stage of the bill, back at the end of last year, we had a

:06:39. > :06:43.number of exchanges, and as a result of changes to the bill, housing

:06:44. > :06:50.cooperatives that owner properties are largely exempt from many of the

:06:51. > :06:54.provisions of the bill. -- own their properties. However, those that

:06:55. > :06:57.manage properties and out of local authorities will still be badly hit

:06:58. > :07:02.by many of the provisions in the bill. Potentially, it will be

:07:03. > :07:09.housing co-op properties that will be part of the 100 plus thousands

:07:10. > :07:11.poverty is currently owned by councils -- properties, that are

:07:12. > :07:15.likely to be lost as part of the impact of this bill, and I wonder if

:07:16. > :07:20.at this stage, whether he might be willing to give a commitment before

:07:21. > :07:27.the Bill goes back to the other place, to look again at the specific

:07:28. > :07:30.impact on housing co-op 's of those that manage properties in behalf of

:07:31. > :07:34.councils. I would say to the honourable

:07:35. > :07:37.gentleman that I will come on to talk about the provision in a

:07:38. > :07:40.moment, but we will be very clear about making sure that there is a

:07:41. > :07:47.new home built for every home sold. I give way.

:07:48. > :07:51.How much consultation has he actually taken place, with the

:07:52. > :07:54.voluntary sector on one hand and local authorities on the other, in

:07:55. > :07:58.relation to the impact? He knows as well as I do that obviously, his

:07:59. > :08:04.department will have done some kind of impact assessment on the cost of

:08:05. > :08:08.viability. With starter homes, obviously, there

:08:09. > :08:15.is a very clear position. We have worked across the cities. A lot of

:08:16. > :08:18.areas are very keen, as you have heard, for us to get on with

:08:19. > :08:21.delivering this and making sure we are starting to get more affordable

:08:22. > :08:24.homes out there for people who want to buy them. So those are simply not

:08:25. > :08:34.been there in this country before. On the affordability question, is he

:08:35. > :08:38.aware that the average deposit in London is ?91,000 for a property? I

:08:39. > :08:42.would say to the honourable lady that is why it is important that we

:08:43. > :08:45.have extended and changed it so that we now have the London Help To Buy,

:08:46. > :08:50.which changes that. It is important that we have those starter homes

:08:51. > :08:54.with that 20% discount and white shirt ownership is important, why we

:08:55. > :09:04.are determined to deliver 135,000 more assured ownership homes. The

:09:05. > :09:10.prospective went out, this completely changes the

:09:11. > :09:16.affordability. I thank him for giving way to stop one of the law's

:09:17. > :09:20.amendments -- Lords amendments says that if social housing is sold,

:09:21. > :09:23.there is another social house built in the local area in which it was

:09:24. > :09:29.sold. If the Minister agreeing with that? I will come onto deal with

:09:30. > :09:34.high-value assets in just a few moments. We are just want to finish

:09:35. > :09:38.dealing with the issue of starter homes, whereas she has delivered

:09:39. > :09:41.high-value assets. That pledges and there to deliver to my columns for

:09:42. > :09:45.every home built, which is now, thanks to him, on the base of the

:09:46. > :09:48.bill to stop at I will come very specifically to that point of a few

:09:49. > :09:53.moments. Our manifesto was very clear. This House was clear when it

:09:54. > :09:56.a majority of 91 to this bill's second reading. We will deliver

:09:57. > :10:01.starter homes. And we will deliver the number we promised. To the point

:10:02. > :10:06.of starter homes and affordability, the honourable lady opposite

:10:07. > :10:11.mentioned about the deposit but a very big cash cost for any first

:10:12. > :10:14.time buyer, or any buyer, is stamp duty and so will he confirm that on

:10:15. > :10:20.a starter home the stamp duty would apply to the discounted price, and

:10:21. > :10:23.so would also be 20% lower? He makes a very good point. The stamp duty

:10:24. > :10:27.applies to the price paid for the property, so it would apply at

:10:28. > :10:35.reduced price, in itself making a further benefit for people buying a

:10:36. > :10:37.new home. I have to be very clear, we are absolutely determined to

:10:38. > :10:40.deliver starter homes any number that we promised to help first-time

:10:41. > :10:44.buyers, the worst hit part of the home buying sector from Labour's

:10:45. > :10:48.group recession. The other place in passing amendments it- men actually

:10:49. > :10:54.seek to stop us. This House should not stand for that. Amendment 8-9

:10:55. > :10:57.remove the power to start a national -- set a national requirement on the

:10:58. > :11:01.bill. The other place replaced this power with a local said requirement,

:11:02. > :11:04.which would be effective only where local authorities have complete

:11:05. > :11:12.studies of local housing need and viability. We hear a lot from local

:11:13. > :11:18.authorities about trying to secure rental properties, but I think in

:11:19. > :11:20.this country we have a kind of right to own our own home and this

:11:21. > :11:24.Government is doing that and delivering that through this bill.

:11:25. > :11:29.He makes a very good point. Despite the comments from a sedentary

:11:30. > :11:31.position for the member from Tottenham. He highlights why it is

:11:32. > :11:37.so important that we cannot wait and should not wait for 336 different

:11:38. > :11:40.planning authorities to each undertake local needs and viability

:11:41. > :11:45.assessments before action on starter homes is even taken. These

:11:46. > :11:49.amendments would hurt the very people we are here and trying to

:11:50. > :11:54.help the hardest. First-time buyers, in just a moment, first time buyers

:11:55. > :11:56.would yet again see their chance of homeownership kicked firmly into the

:11:57. > :12:06.long grass by these proposals. That may be what the party opposite once

:12:07. > :12:08.but we do not. Happy to give way. I want to work out whether starter

:12:09. > :12:12.homes are going to be in addition to other homes that would have been

:12:13. > :12:18.built or instead of. The select Committee unanimously agreed the

:12:19. > :12:24.following words," starter homes should not be built at the expense

:12:25. > :12:27.of other forms of tenure. Where the need exists, it is vital but hopes

:12:28. > :12:35.for affordable rent or thought to reflect local needs." Will he

:12:36. > :12:38.confirm whether the bill, and he wants it to be water, starter homes

:12:39. > :12:42.would be the priority and would be shot and it displays affordable

:12:43. > :12:47.homes for rent as part of one of six agreements? I would say to the

:12:48. > :12:50.chairman of the Select Committee we have been very clear from the

:12:51. > :12:54.beginning. We need to see a shift in this country. We have had this

:12:55. > :12:57.farcical situation when we in this place talk about affordable homes,

:12:58. > :13:02.it only refers to homes that people can rent. 86% of our population want

:13:03. > :13:07.to buy their own home. Therefore it is absolutely right that affordable

:13:08. > :13:11.homes should include homes that are affordable to buy. We make no

:13:12. > :13:16.apologies for creating a new product and turbo-charging a new product to

:13:17. > :13:19.make sure that we get 200,000 built over the course of this Parliament.

:13:20. > :13:22.We already have many hundreds of thousands of homes across this

:13:23. > :13:25.country that are in the rental sector. We need to make sure we are

:13:26. > :13:30.getting the chance to first-time buyers. To be blunt, exactly what we

:13:31. > :13:33.said, what we put on the tin in the general election manifesto, we will

:13:34. > :13:36.deliver on our mandate to deliver starter homes. I am just want to

:13:37. > :13:40.come with this point. We will deliver on that mandate to deliver

:13:41. > :13:45.200,000 starters homes, making sure delivering homes for first empires

:13:46. > :13:49.with at least a 20% discount on that market price. We have also

:13:50. > :13:53.recognised in discussing the discussions in the other place that

:13:54. > :13:57.local exemption site may require additional exemption on starter

:13:58. > :14:07.homes. These details should be on the face of the bill. -- additional

:14:08. > :14:10.queries. My noble friend Baroness Williams of Trafford committed to

:14:11. > :14:13.bring back an amendment to give councils local discretion on rural

:14:14. > :14:20.exception sites. I am pleased to be able to honour this commitment in

:14:21. > :14:23.amendment 10a. I would also say that when you talk to developers and

:14:24. > :14:26.local authorities around sites around the country, one of the

:14:27. > :14:29.benefits of starter homes is we may be able to see more affordable

:14:30. > :14:32.housing delivered because what this does allow is for the developers to

:14:33. > :14:36.actually deliver more. I spoke to a number of deliver, developers who

:14:37. > :14:40.have said the difference starter homes could make is the ability to

:14:41. > :14:45.deliver 5-10% more affordable housing in some developments. Mr

:14:46. > :14:50.Deputy Speaker, there was a lot of discussion, both here and in the

:14:51. > :14:53.other place, about our plans to deliver the ground-breaking

:14:54. > :14:55.voluntary Right to Buy agreement for the sale of higher value housing.

:14:56. > :15:00.Another manifesto commitment passed from this place to the other place,

:15:01. > :15:06.another change we are discussing today. Amendments 37 and 184 would

:15:07. > :15:10.mean considerable delay to receiving payments from local authorities and

:15:11. > :15:13.therefore to delivering our manifesto commitment to extend the

:15:14. > :15:18.right to Buy to housing association tenants. We remain convinced that

:15:19. > :15:21.the determination is the most appropriate way of setting up

:15:22. > :15:24.information about the payment a local authority will be expected to

:15:25. > :15:27.make to the Secretary of State in respect of their higher value

:15:28. > :15:32.housing. The key elements, which will determine how much an authority

:15:33. > :15:34.will be expected to pay, are set out on the face of the bill. This

:15:35. > :15:38.includes the housing to be taken into account and indeed the

:15:39. > :15:41.definition of vacancy. The government has listened carefully to

:15:42. > :15:44.the argument is honourable members made when the bill was last debated

:15:45. > :15:50.and the contributions of all those in the other place. We have amended

:15:51. > :15:53.the bill to ensure local authorities are not disproportionately affected

:15:54. > :15:57.by these plans. The definition of higher value and the types of value

:15:58. > :16:01.which are to be excluded -- property which are to be excluded are to be

:16:02. > :16:03.set out in the conditions and therefore subject to further

:16:04. > :16:09.Parliamentary scrutiny. I want to be clear with the House once again. The

:16:10. > :16:13.opposition bench and any other place or also clear. They did not

:16:14. > :16:16.officially closes enabling the voluntary Right to Buy tripled. They

:16:17. > :16:19.acknowledged a mandate for funding. However, these amendments will

:16:20. > :16:24.impact seriously hamper our ability to implement it and so should be

:16:25. > :16:29.returned straightaway. Likewise with amendment 47, which is extremely

:16:30. > :16:32.restrictive. It prevents government also from considering other local

:16:33. > :16:37.authorities can actually deliver the housing that is required. We want to

:16:38. > :16:39.make sure that government can enter agreements with local authorities

:16:40. > :16:43.around the local needs. But by focusing solely on social housing,

:16:44. > :16:47.it prevents the agreement process from recognising that flexibility

:16:48. > :16:52.will be needed to respond to the diverse housing needs in the

:16:53. > :16:56.country. We authority heard about different needs of different places

:16:57. > :16:58.from honourable friends this afternoon and that other types of

:16:59. > :17:02.localising the better meet localising lead in any given area.

:17:03. > :17:06.Do find it difficult to listen to those who accuse us of not being

:17:07. > :17:11.local last waltz the table amendments like this, mandating an

:17:12. > :17:16.old-fashioned top-down approach. We want to make sure we give local

:17:17. > :17:21.authorities with particular housing needs in their area the opportunity

:17:22. > :17:30.to reach this book agreements about the delivery of new homes in areas.

:17:31. > :17:33.I am still as confused as at the beginning of the surveyed and the

:17:34. > :17:36.select committee hearings. The Minister has made a reasonable

:17:37. > :17:38.height and I thoroughly agree with him, that it should be the local

:17:39. > :17:42.authorities in the areas to determine the competition of homes

:17:43. > :17:45.to be built as part of 106 agreements. How does that square

:17:46. > :17:50.with a party who says priority should be given to starter homes and

:17:51. > :17:54.will build a 200,000, irrespective of the building of other sorts of

:17:55. > :17:57.housing. What we are talking about is what happens with the sale of the

:17:58. > :18:03.higher value properties, which is actually slightly different. We want

:18:04. > :18:06.to make sure that we give local authorities with particular housing

:18:07. > :18:08.needs an area the opportunity to read this book agreements about the

:18:09. > :18:12.delivery of different height of new homes in the area with government.

:18:13. > :18:16.If local authorities can demonstrate, for example, a clear

:18:17. > :18:20.need for new affordable homes, the agreement with them, subject to

:18:21. > :18:23.value for money considerations and evidence of a strong track record of

:18:24. > :18:27.housing delivery, we and they should be able to make that case. That is

:18:28. > :18:31.important for areas where I have visited such as Bath and Oxford and

:18:32. > :18:38.when I met leaders in Cambridge, they want that flexibility to get

:18:39. > :18:46.the right deal for their areas. I really very much hope that the

:18:47. > :18:50.higher value homes will have flexible at particularly warehouses

:18:51. > :18:53.prices are particular higher law and I am delighted that you have taken

:18:54. > :18:57.cognizance of our needs for various people and their various different

:18:58. > :19:03.areas in order that the local leaders met. She makes a very good

:19:04. > :19:07.point about the importance of the flexible to. -- the local need is

:19:08. > :19:11.met. In London, parties have asked for the ability to work together to

:19:12. > :19:14.deliver on this front. We need new homes built in this country and this

:19:15. > :19:17.amendment would limit the ability of the government and local authorities

:19:18. > :19:20.working with us to ensure that the right mix of housing is delivered as

:19:21. > :19:24.quickly and efficiently as possible. I thank him for giving way and he

:19:25. > :19:29.has been incredibly generous. As he will know from his visit to both a

:19:30. > :19:33.couple of weeks ago, of course, we do not have high-value assets. We do

:19:34. > :19:39.have a high cost of housing in our area. Given what has been announced

:19:40. > :19:45.earlier in relation to the shift from high-value assets to higher

:19:46. > :19:48.value assets, which will not be applicable, what ways can our

:19:49. > :19:51.authority, combined with other authorities, bid for different funds

:19:52. > :19:54.following from the budget announcement question might he makes

:19:55. > :20:05.a good point. When I visited him and made his constituency in Bath I saw

:20:06. > :20:08.a good example of a local authority understanding of local needs.

:20:09. > :20:11.Whether that is working with government to bid for the ?4.7

:20:12. > :20:18.billion in the shared ownership fund or the 1.2 billion for Brian Field

:20:19. > :20:25.funding starter homes specifically available. -- Brian Field. Or

:20:26. > :20:28.working with other local authorities around the income they may be able

:20:29. > :20:31.to use to deliver from higher value homes. It is actually going to have

:20:32. > :20:38.that flexibility, to understand the different areas cross-party want but

:20:39. > :20:43.Flex ability to deliver it. I am going to turn to amendments 54, 55,

:20:44. > :20:48.57 and 58, all of which I disagree with. Amendment 54 makes policy to

:20:49. > :20:51.implement the resource rents laundry. It is, as my noble friend

:20:52. > :20:56.said on the other place, the plight of the male of the privacy of their

:20:57. > :21:00.size. Local authorities can already operate the quality on a voluntary

:21:01. > :21:04.basis and we are not aware of any that have done so. To put it simply,

:21:05. > :21:12.this is a wrecking amendment and this has should treat as such. The

:21:13. > :21:16.policy must also apply consistently. It would not be right for tenants in

:21:17. > :21:18.certain areas to face possible rent increases while tenants in a

:21:19. > :21:22.neighbouring area do not so the amendment completely undermines the

:21:23. > :21:26.government's in putting in place a consistent approach and using the

:21:27. > :21:29.funds raised to reduce the national debt is that which we inherited from

:21:30. > :21:35.the party opposite and it was substantially -- would substantially

:21:36. > :21:41.reduce the deficit of this. Perhaps she will apologise for the deficit.

:21:42. > :21:47.Westminster Council announced in 2012 that they were extremely keen

:21:48. > :21:51.to introduce a version of this and charge the higher earning tenants a

:21:52. > :21:54.higher rent and I've never done so because they have never found a way

:21:55. > :22:00.of being able to introduce such a scheme which was not ridiculously

:22:01. > :22:03.bureaucratic costly and acted as a work disincentive. The honourable

:22:04. > :22:08.lady I am sure will be interested to hear what I'm going to see in few

:22:09. > :22:14.minutes around how this practice could work but also make sure it

:22:15. > :22:18.always pays to work. We have a package and statement of intent to

:22:19. > :22:21.injure the policy is there and that does not damage the incentive to

:22:22. > :22:27.find and keep work. In addition, we have committed to allowing local

:22:28. > :22:29.authorities to regain reasonable administration costs and my

:22:30. > :22:32.officials are working with the sector to a stab at an approach to a

:22:33. > :22:39.commendation which would minimise the costs. Amendment 55 seats to set

:22:40. > :22:45.on the face of the bill the amount of the taper at 10%. -- with the

:22:46. > :22:51.sector to establish an approach which would minimise the cost. An

:22:52. > :22:54.extra ?20 in rent for every pound earned up of the income threshold

:22:55. > :22:57.would mean for example that a household earning over the ?31,000

:22:58. > :23:02.threshold would contribute just a few pounds per week in additional

:23:03. > :23:05.rent. This level recognises the importance of protecting work

:23:06. > :23:08.incentives but is a fair contribution. It is important that

:23:09. > :23:13.we retain the flexibility to set out the detail of the deeper in

:23:14. > :23:17.secondary legislation. We want to keep the position under review.

:23:18. > :23:21.Putting the detail on the face of the bill prevents us from doing

:23:22. > :23:24.this. We have confirmed the regulations will be subject to the

:23:25. > :23:26.affirmative procedure, which I am sure will be welcomed by the House.

:23:27. > :23:31.They were before being another chance to debate these items before

:23:32. > :23:36.they come into force. Amendment 57 sets on the face of the bill higher

:23:37. > :23:39.income thresholds, totally undermining the printable that

:23:40. > :23:45.social tenants on higher incomes should start to contribute a fair

:23:46. > :23:48.level of rent at the threshold of ?31,000 and ?40,000 in London. We

:23:49. > :23:52.have listen to concerns about the policy and taken a number of steps

:23:53. > :23:56.as a result. There will be an automatic exemption for any

:23:57. > :23:59.household in receipt of housing benefit and universal credit. The

:24:00. > :24:02.definition of household will not include income from non-dependent

:24:03. > :24:08.children. 18-year-old starting his first job, for example, and certain

:24:09. > :24:11.state benefits such as tax credits, disability living allowance and

:24:12. > :24:16.independence payments will not count towards the calculation of income.

:24:17. > :24:19.We have also confirmed the officials will be supported by a taper which

:24:20. > :24:24.will ensure the households towards the start of the officials will see

:24:25. > :24:29.their rents rise by a few pounds each week.

:24:30. > :24:34.Thank you. I welcome those safeguards he is setting out. Does

:24:35. > :24:38.he not agree that, considering many of those on the opposite side idea

:24:39. > :24:42.that the rich should pay more, it is rather puzzling that in this case,

:24:43. > :24:48.they seem to oppose that idea? Well, my honourable friend and neighbour,

:24:49. > :24:51.indeed, may say very interesting point. I think people reading

:24:52. > :24:56.Hansard may want to read their own conclusions about that means. We are

:24:57. > :25:00.very clear that the social tenants on higher incomes contribute more in

:25:01. > :25:03.rent where they can afford to do so, but also mindful that the policy

:25:04. > :25:09.should protect work incentives. I will give way.

:25:10. > :25:15.Thank you for giving way. I take great offence to the suggestion that

:25:16. > :25:18.people on fixed income, for example, pensioners at ?40,000 a year in my

:25:19. > :25:23.constituency, would you consider rich, or that they would actually

:25:24. > :25:26.have any other housing option. -- would be considered rich. If you are

:25:27. > :25:30.a certain age with a fixed income, you cannot rent privately. Rent

:25:31. > :25:34.would be over ?1500, or certainly a lot more for a two-bedroom flat. You

:25:35. > :25:38.cannot buy, with the average property price is 682,000, and would

:25:39. > :25:42.not qualify for a starter home even if wanting somewhere that size. Does

:25:43. > :25:45.the minister not acknowledge that this is invidious, in attacking some

:25:46. > :25:48.of those people who really don't have a great deal of money?

:25:49. > :25:52.I don't think that recognises the policy as it stands at all. The

:25:53. > :25:56.policy as it stands is about, as people earn more, they pay if you

:25:57. > :25:58.pounds a week more, which I don't think is unreasonable at all, and

:25:59. > :26:04.naturally makes sure we are making the best use of the social housing

:26:05. > :26:06.stock we have possible. I give way. It is difficult to know where to

:26:07. > :26:11.start with the honourable gentleman. He talks about paying an extra few

:26:12. > :26:16.pounds more. This is nonsense. What this actually is is a tax on

:26:17. > :26:21.aspiration, and the idea that a family in London earning 40 grand a

:26:22. > :26:25.year is rich is baloney. It really does cost an awful lot to live in

:26:26. > :26:28.this wonderful capital city of ours, something that the minister fails to

:26:29. > :26:33.grasp. I would suggest that if she reads

:26:34. > :26:36.actually what is in the Bill and in the amendment, she will appreciate

:26:37. > :26:39.that we're not suggesting that people over that income suddenly

:26:40. > :26:43.don't have that home or have to move, we're saying that as people

:26:44. > :26:46.earn more money, they contribute more into the system, which actually

:26:47. > :26:50.is quite reasonable to do, and actually makes sure that we are

:26:51. > :26:53.making the best use of those properties for people who need them

:26:54. > :27:01.most. The package we have announced actually achieves both tenets of

:27:02. > :27:05.making sure we have a policy where we protect work incentives, and on

:27:06. > :27:08.that basis, I cannot support the amendment, nor amendment 58, which

:27:09. > :27:14.raises the income threshold by the consumer Price index. I hope we will

:27:15. > :27:19.ask the house to agree. Did they

:27:20. > :27:23.we have very clear evidence from housing associations would cost more

:27:24. > :27:27.to minister the skin and they were get in on returns from extra rent.

:27:28. > :27:30.Can the government present a very clear analysis of what the

:27:31. > :27:33.administration costs of this scheme will be, particularly for people on

:27:34. > :27:37.variable incomes, with varying from going up and down each week and

:27:38. > :27:41.Aaron going up and down, an enormous amount of administration to go with

:27:42. > :27:45.the skin that he is now proposing? I think he is also missing the point

:27:46. > :27:48.that what we also see with this is then is across the system. There are

:27:49. > :27:52.people in London cities and other parts of the country who are in the

:27:53. > :27:55.private rented sector, who are in the private rented sector on these

:27:56. > :28:03.salaries and salaries and higher and lower, wondering why people earning

:28:04. > :28:06.over 40, and actually, secretaries of State Europe in social rented

:28:07. > :28:10.housing and salaries of ?25,000, union leaders and salaries over

:28:11. > :28:14.?100,000, and there are tens of thousands of people out there

:28:15. > :28:21.earning over 40 or ?50,000 a year, benefiting from things that are not

:28:22. > :28:26.fair to people with those kind of salaries of like an opportunity.

:28:27. > :28:30.I give way. Thank you. I thank him for giving way. Would my honourable

:28:31. > :28:37.friend not actually relate to the house at the reality of social

:28:38. > :28:41.housing for rent in London and beyond is for people that are

:28:42. > :28:46.homeless, to start with? And actually, there is a huge queue of

:28:47. > :28:50.people waiting for a socially rented property, and it is totally

:28:51. > :28:53.unacceptable for people that are on relatively high salaries to occupy

:28:54. > :29:00.socially rented rocker tees, when there is such a huge queue and such

:29:01. > :29:04.huge demand? -- rented properties. My honourable friend brings to key

:29:05. > :29:08.focus one of the problems of the deficit in housing that this

:29:09. > :29:11.government inherited in 2010, and not only did we see the lowest level

:29:12. > :29:17.of house building and the gentleman's party opposite since

:29:18. > :29:20.1923, but in 13 years, they built less homes to their councils and

:29:21. > :29:25.social housing than we have done in the last 4-5 years. There is a huge

:29:26. > :29:30.mound to do, and more opportunities for people to have homes right

:29:31. > :29:33.across all ten years, whether shared-ownership, through rental,

:29:34. > :29:35.private rental or otherwise, as well as affordable rent, and indeed,

:29:36. > :29:40.making sure that people have a chance to get on and achieve their

:29:41. > :29:45.aspirations, that 86% of the public, to achieve that aspiration to buy a

:29:46. > :29:48.home of their own. The house may well be glad that I once ate to

:29:49. > :29:55.every government amendment before us today. You might be pleased about

:29:56. > :29:59.that. Many are minor and very technical in nature, and if I spoke

:30:00. > :30:01.to the more, much as we may all enjoy it, there will be some who

:30:02. > :30:07.will not thank me, because we might still be here by prorogation. But of

:30:08. > :30:10.the makes this works better for those who them and these policies on

:30:11. > :30:13.the ground. The amendments are there because the government has listened

:30:14. > :30:15.to the debate and taken action as a result. Where we have done this,

:30:16. > :30:21.where we have strengthened the ability for people to own their own

:30:22. > :30:24.home and get Britain building again, building a 25% increase in building

:30:25. > :30:29.we saw in the last year, my bit to move the house agrees to those

:30:30. > :30:33.changes that the other place have made, but I also want to send a very

:30:34. > :30:37.strong message, that this government will not slow the pace of house

:30:38. > :30:42.building. We will increase it. We will not take away people's dream of

:30:43. > :30:45.home ownership. We will inspire it. Am I will deliver our manifesto

:30:46. > :30:50.commitments. And that they respond to this debate, and looking at the

:30:51. > :30:55.seating arrangement, I suspect the honourable lady may respond, I hope

:30:56. > :30:58.the opposition will ask themselves why they stand against our mandate

:30:59. > :31:01.to boost homeownership and supply, something the people of this country

:31:02. > :31:06.want and expect to see. Because while they cluster with political

:31:07. > :31:08.posturing after the abysmal mess of housing that they left, we will

:31:09. > :31:13.remain focused on building homes across our country, across all ten

:31:14. > :31:17.years, and deliver an increase in housing supply and homeownership. It

:31:18. > :31:23.is what we promised and what we will deliver, and I beg to move.

:31:24. > :31:27.The question is, that this house is agrees with the Lords in their

:31:28. > :31:31.Amendment 1. .

:31:32. > :31:39.I want to begin by thanking the lordships for the amazing work they

:31:40. > :31:43.did on this ill. 13 defeats, and a string of concessions means some of

:31:44. > :31:51.the sharpest edges have been knocked off a very bad will. -- Bill --

:31:52. > :31:56.bill. It remains an extraordinary piece of legislation. Concerns have

:31:57. > :31:58.been voiced by pricing experts, charities, has builders, mortgage

:31:59. > :32:03.lenders, and conservatives across a range of council leaders, MPs and

:32:04. > :32:09.peers. Doubts about the legislation matter, but even more important, the

:32:10. > :32:12.deeper doubts on all fronts about whether the party opposite are

:32:13. > :32:19.competent to fix our housing crisis. And with good reason. Since 2010,

:32:20. > :32:24.homeownership has fallen, homelessness and rough sleeping have

:32:25. > :32:27.doubled, private rents have soared, housing benefit costs have

:32:28. > :32:31.ballooned, and during the last Parliament, fewer new homes were

:32:32. > :32:36.built than under any peacetime government since the 1920s. I will

:32:37. > :32:42.give way in just a moment. This bill does little to tackle the

:32:43. > :32:50.overall housing shortage or produce more housing across all ten years,

:32:51. > :32:53.including housing to rent as well as Dubai, and with the exception of

:32:54. > :32:59.rogue landlords, provisions does nothing improve the private rented

:33:00. > :33:04.sector that so many people now rely on. -- to rent as well as to buy.

:33:05. > :33:07.Peggy the giving way. Which he talks about the portability prices, that

:33:08. > :33:14.you think there's any part played in that by the 200% increase in house

:33:15. > :33:18.prices between 1997 and 2008 that as a result of a woefully badly

:33:19. > :33:23.regulated mortgage sector? Yes, I think as the honourable

:33:24. > :33:27.gentleman will know, we produced many, many, over 1 million more

:33:28. > :33:34.homeowners in the time of the Labour government. What this bill shows is

:33:35. > :33:38.that the country has no long-term housing plan for the country. I will

:33:39. > :33:42.give way. I am grateful for giving way. Would

:33:43. > :33:44.she accept that the reason the private rents are increasingly hired

:33:45. > :33:49.because we haven't built enough homes?

:33:50. > :33:55.Precisely, and the question is, will this bill deliver it, and we don't

:33:56. > :33:59.think it will. Faced with this bad bill, a ridiculous timetable and

:34:00. > :34:02.long sittings, the other place has not only done a excellent job

:34:03. > :34:08.scrutinising the bill, but also improved it, to make it slightly

:34:09. > :34:11.more palatable. If only the government had had the grace to

:34:12. > :34:16.accept changes with regard to starter homes, paid to stay, and

:34:17. > :34:22.sale of council housing that they are resisting today, it could have

:34:23. > :34:26.been improved further. Turning to the specific amendments, I want to

:34:27. > :34:30.deal with those the government is voting against first. With regard to

:34:31. > :34:37.Lords Amendment one, we do agree with the principle of the Lord Best

:34:38. > :34:40.amendment, and think it is important that it starter homes are resold

:34:41. > :34:45.within a given period, a payback of this kind should occur. We accept

:34:46. > :34:49.that the government have brought forward a compromise which appears

:34:50. > :34:52.to do this to a degree, although we would still have a preference for

:34:53. > :35:01.the discount to remain in perpetuity, as this is a better use

:35:02. > :35:08.of scarce public resources. Moving on to Amendment 9, tabled by Lord

:35:09. > :35:14.speech, Carsley and Canada, it is quite reasonable in asking that an

:35:15. > :35:17.English planning authority may grant planning permission for a

:35:18. > :35:20.residential development, having had regard to the provision of starter

:35:21. > :35:27.homes based on its own assessment of local housing need and viability.

:35:28. > :35:30.The minister will know that one of the greatest concerns about the

:35:31. > :35:35.starter homes initiative, and there are many, is that they will be

:35:36. > :35:39.imposed and specified numbers required by central big cat from

:35:40. > :35:45.government, regardless of whether they are needed in the quantities

:35:46. > :35:50.needed. -- central diktats. I will give way in just a moment. Amendment

:35:51. > :35:55.9 is a very local list one, and seeks to give a role to local

:35:56. > :35:58.authorities in assessing the need for starter homes and their impact

:35:59. > :36:04.on the viability of local development. I give way. C says she

:36:05. > :36:10.is concerned with the government big dating the number of starter homes

:36:11. > :36:13.that will be built in any area. -- dictating. Gucci name any area in

:36:14. > :36:18.this country where she believes the homes sold to 20% discount on not

:36:19. > :36:24.being sold by buyers? The honourable gentleman makes a

:36:25. > :36:29.reasonable point, but the point that I am making is not only that starter

:36:30. > :36:35.homes will be needed, but other types of homes, particularly homes

:36:36. > :36:40.for social rents, which is why it should be, the numbers should be

:36:41. > :36:44.subject to local determination and not central diktats. I will give way

:36:45. > :36:48.in just a moment. I want to make regress. To everyone except the

:36:49. > :36:52.government, it appears eminently sensible that the need for starter

:36:53. > :36:56.homes is assessed locally and then delivered, rather than ordered from

:36:57. > :37:00.on high, and most likely to the exclusion of genuinely affordable

:37:01. > :37:04.housing for rent or equity share. The amendment is not a block on

:37:05. > :37:11.starter homes, but a requirement that they are part of a local

:37:12. > :37:14.housing mix. I give way. She needs to concede that there are

:37:15. > :37:17.suspicions on the side of the house that her opposition to starter homes

:37:18. > :37:23.has an ideological opposition. But that aside, she would be in a much

:37:24. > :37:27.stronger position were she to concede that a very significant

:37:28. > :37:30.number of local planning authorities have not brought forward in a timely

:37:31. > :37:33.and appropriate fashion, local district plans, county structure

:37:34. > :37:41.plan is, so the government is forced to take action to tackle the housing

:37:42. > :37:43.prices to which she refers. -- the housing crisis. Thank you, but

:37:44. > :37:49.surely the honourable gentleman must agree that the way of dealing with

:37:50. > :37:52.that is through the local plan making system, and indeed, one

:37:53. > :37:56.amendment we might deal with later on in our discussions this evening

:37:57. > :38:00.is the requirement that is finally being placed on local government by

:38:01. > :38:06.this government to produce a local plant. I give way.

:38:07. > :38:10.I am very grateful. She's making an important point about localism. But

:38:11. > :38:15.isn't it the case that we also need the local authority to determine

:38:16. > :38:19.what is truly affordable for their local housing market? And I notice

:38:20. > :38:23.that the minister wasn't so forthcoming about what his

:38:24. > :38:27.definition of affordability was. He said in reply to our honourable

:38:28. > :38:33.friend from Westminster and Kensington North that these homes in

:38:34. > :38:38.central London won't be sold at ?450,000. What, then, is the point

:38:39. > :38:43.of a cap at that amount? Why not ?150,000?

:38:44. > :38:49.Precisely, and my honourable friend makes a really, really excellent

:38:50. > :38:55.point, and it is why a local test of the need for starter homes is so

:38:56. > :38:59.important. As I was saying, this amendment is not a block on starter

:39:00. > :39:05.homes, but a requirement that they are part of a local housing mix. For

:39:06. > :39:10.that reason, we should be supporting the Lords in this amendment. We also

:39:11. > :39:13.find it odd that the government wants to replace amendments nine and

:39:14. > :39:20.ten with one that relates to rural exam and sites. -- exemptions sites.

:39:21. > :39:23.We support the government having a policy in rural exemption sites, but

:39:24. > :39:29.not at the exclusion of Lords amendments nine and ten. Moving on

:39:30. > :39:30.to the sale of high-value council housing, this is one of the most

:39:31. > :39:39.contentious aspects of the Bill. We do not agree that the sale of

:39:40. > :39:44.higher value council housing should be used to fund the road to buy for

:39:45. > :39:50.housing association tenants. Lords amendment 37, tabled by various

:39:51. > :39:54.Lords, is a very straightforward one that requires a fitting out of

:39:55. > :39:59.details of the calculation and payments to be made by local

:40:00. > :40:03.authorities and for them to be put in instruments and subject to the

:40:04. > :40:09.affirmative procedure in Parliament. So all this amendment is seeking,

:40:10. > :40:12.really, is that information is put before Parliament so we know exactly

:40:13. > :40:17.what is being demanded from the additional tax on local authorities

:40:18. > :40:26.and that we get an opportunity in this House to vote on it. I will

:40:27. > :40:31.give way. I thank her forgiving way, because she makes a very important

:40:32. > :40:35.point. My local authority is set to sell 700 homes over the next three

:40:36. > :40:39.years for is building homes as fast as it can for people to buy. It is

:40:40. > :40:42.not against starter homes to London that is a patron for many. Does she

:40:43. > :40:45.not agree that we really need to get the government to address these

:40:46. > :40:50.particular issues in high-cost areas like mine, which are forcing

:40:51. > :40:54.everybody not just out of ownership but any realistic prospect for

:40:55. > :40:57.living there, even on a good income. She makes an excellent point and I

:40:58. > :41:03.am going to come onto that very issue on a later amendment. So, why

:41:04. > :41:08.does the government not want to provide this information and have

:41:09. > :41:10.this scrutiny? Does this lack of information -- this lack of

:41:11. > :41:14.information is an issue that has been taken up by the committee as

:41:15. > :41:20.well. The Minister will be a winner that it said it is not yet clear how

:41:21. > :41:23.this policy will be funded in practice, or what its financial

:41:24. > :41:28.impacts might be. The Department's intention is for this policy to be

:41:29. > :41:31.fully funded by local authorities but it was unable to provide any

:41:32. > :41:38.figures to demonstrate that this would be the case. More widely, an

:41:39. > :41:42.even bigger risk will fall on those local authorities required to sell

:41:43. > :41:46.housing stock to fund the policy, as those assets will, in effect, be

:41:47. > :41:49.transferred to central government. But the Department did not appear to

:41:50. > :41:54.have a good understanding of the size of those risks. The commitment

:41:55. > :42:01.to replace homes sold under this policy on at least a 1-1 basis will

:42:02. > :42:05.not ensure that these will be like-for-like replacements, as

:42:06. > :42:10.regards size, location or tenure. And experience, as we know, of the

:42:11. > :42:13.reinvigorated Right to Buy for council tenants introduced into a

:42:14. > :42:19.detailed shows that meeting such placement targets can be difficult.

:42:20. > :42:21.-- introduced in 2012. Moreover, replacement forms can be in

:42:22. > :42:28.different areas, a different size and cost more to rent. Neither do

:42:29. > :42:35.they need to be new ones. I will give way. The Minister has said on a

:42:36. > :42:40.number of occasions that the sale of the higher value council properties,

:42:41. > :42:46.as it has now become, will pay for the replacement of that property,

:42:47. > :42:50.the replacement of the right to buy property sold by a housing

:42:51. > :42:54.association and this ?1 billion remedial Brian Field fun. If the

:42:55. > :42:58.Minister has said that, it must imply that he has some figures and

:42:59. > :43:01.working out somewhere on which he has based those assertions. Would it

:43:02. > :43:09.not be helpful if people produce those today? My honourable friend

:43:10. > :43:13.makes an excellent point and if the Minister has those figures, and we

:43:14. > :43:21.will give him an opportunity now to share those figures with us, it

:43:22. > :43:25.would be extremely helpful in terms of us knowing what exactly it is we

:43:26. > :43:31.are going to be voting on this evening. But whilst more information

:43:32. > :43:35.is important, we need to amend ourselves that the whole policy of

:43:36. > :43:41.selling of higher value council housing to fund the right to Buy is

:43:42. > :43:48.considered by almost everyone to be a very bad thing to do. And that

:43:49. > :43:55.replacement is absolutely essential. Lords amendment 47, tabled by

:43:56. > :43:59.Coseley and Kennedy, addresses the issue of replacement and would

:44:00. > :44:04.require the government to enter into an agreement with the local

:44:05. > :44:07.authority under clause 72 am aware by a local authority could show the

:44:08. > :44:11.need for a type of social housing and the Secretary of State would

:44:12. > :44:16.then agree a hold back some, so homes sold could be replaced of the

:44:17. > :44:22.same tenure, type and rent. If the government is not accepting this

:44:23. > :44:26.1-1, like-for-like replacement, as the Minister has suggested earlier,

:44:27. > :44:30.then I think we need a further explanation as to why not. The

:44:31. > :44:35.reason this amendment is so important is that few details, as we

:44:36. > :44:39.have been saying, are in the public domain about how the government will

:44:40. > :44:44.meet its own commitment for a 1-1 or 2-1 replacement in London. It would

:44:45. > :44:48.appear ministers could force the sale of a council house in Camden

:44:49. > :44:53.and can't to other new homes built for open market sale in Croydon as

:44:54. > :45:01.meeting the so-called commitment to replace. For the like-for-like

:45:02. > :45:06.replacement in amendment 47 is a -- is vital to ensure housing need is

:45:07. > :45:13.met across the range and that homes sold for social rent are not simply

:45:14. > :45:17.replaced for starter homes or has that -- homes at higher rents, area

:45:18. > :45:23.you'll risk. Furthermore, figures from Shelter this morning outline a

:45:24. > :45:27.truly alarming picture of the impact of the sale of higher value council

:45:28. > :45:33.homes local authority stock. And I will come to this in a moment or

:45:34. > :45:37.two. I will give way. Would she except that there is also punishes

:45:38. > :45:43.good councils, who try to build social homes? Indeed. I suspect that

:45:44. > :45:46.is part of the government's rationale. So Labour will be

:45:47. > :45:56.supporting the Lords in their amendment 47. Can you give way? I

:45:57. > :46:02.thank the shed and forgiving way. The Minister was talking about

:46:03. > :46:07.amendment 47, that is the importance of the principles of the car in

:46:08. > :46:12.amendment in regards to if you sell social housing, replacing it in the

:46:13. > :46:16.same area. We talked about the starter homes. It would be really

:46:17. > :46:21.great if the Minister could just confirmed that starter homes in my

:46:22. > :46:25.constituency, in Brent, will be no more than ?190,000, because that

:46:26. > :46:30.would change the whole tone of this debate, if the Minister could just

:46:31. > :46:35.confirm that. My honourable friend has given the Minister and

:46:36. > :46:40.opportunity to do so, but I doubt very much whether he will take her

:46:41. > :46:44.up on that offer. Moving on to another pernicious pet of the bill,

:46:45. > :46:48.pay to. As we all know, this is a tax on tenants and a tax on

:46:49. > :46:52.aspiration and will lead to many people having to leave their homes

:46:53. > :46:55.or increase their levels of is now dead. The Minister should have

:46:56. > :46:59.talked to the group of tenants from Hackney and met a few weeks ago.

:47:00. > :47:04.They are not high income families. How could anyone describe a

:47:05. > :47:14.household in London where a couple earn an income of 17,000 and 22,005,

:47:15. > :47:18.or 12000 and 18,000 outside London? I wonder if she could help me

:47:19. > :47:24.understand how members opposite are simultaneously arguing that ?40,000

:47:25. > :47:28.household income in London is rich, when it comes to social rent, but

:47:29. > :47:34.?77,000 is pure when it comes to getting a 20% discount on starter

:47:35. > :47:39.homes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I look forward to the

:47:40. > :47:46.Minister and throwing my friend's questionnaire! And yet such people

:47:47. > :47:49.are going to be faced with the situation where even a modest rise

:47:50. > :47:53.in income could result in a significant hike in rent to stop one

:47:54. > :47:56.of the couples we spoke to were a part-time cleaner and a sales

:47:57. > :48:00.associate with a combined income of just over 40,000 pounds. They wanted

:48:01. > :48:07.their children to go to university and I just -- and just cannot know

:48:08. > :48:11.how they will manage that in London as they rent is towards a market

:48:12. > :48:17.one, in their areas seeing the rent increase by 400%. I will give way.

:48:18. > :48:24.Does she agree with the principle at all of means testing tenants in

:48:25. > :48:29.properties that are set aside for people on lower incomes, social

:48:30. > :48:33.rented properties? The honourable gentleman should know, because he

:48:34. > :48:39.sat on the bill committee, that a voluntary scheme is already in place

:48:40. > :48:42.for both local authorities and housing the full seasons to do that

:48:43. > :48:47.very thing. The tenants also objected to their housing being... I

:48:48. > :48:51.will give way under the moment. -- and housing associations to do that

:48:52. > :48:55.very thing. They also objected to their housing being seen as

:48:56. > :48:59.subsidised. As we know from Baroness Williams' corresponds to a written

:49:00. > :49:03.question, local authorities do not receive subsidy from the Exchequer.

:49:04. > :49:10.2011, there was an act that abolished subsidy. In any case, it

:49:11. > :49:15.is there to meet need. The fact that the government is taxing tenants in

:49:16. > :49:20.this way whilst claiming to stand up for hard-working people is

:49:21. > :49:27.outrageous. Would she give way? I will give way to the honourable lady

:49:28. > :49:32.and then the honourable gentleman. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I

:49:33. > :49:35.am deeply concerned that the honourable lady from the opposition

:49:36. > :49:38.front bench cannot seem to agree with those housing charity chief

:49:39. > :49:40.executive who in the evidence session that except the printable

:49:41. > :49:45.that it ought to be used for social housing to go to those most in need.

:49:46. > :49:51.Considering that under amendment one she best argument around scares

:49:52. > :49:56.public resources, I do not understand her possession. Perhaps

:49:57. > :50:03.she could clarify. -- her position. What I would say is that in the name

:50:04. > :50:08.that is how council housing is allocated in this country. It is

:50:09. > :50:16.allocated on the basis of need. I will give way. Would she agree with

:50:17. > :50:21.me that the hard-working families that certainly I see in my surgery,

:50:22. > :50:25.as no doubt she does in house, and indeed members on the opposite side,

:50:26. > :50:28.are going to get nothing from this. The hard-working families, the

:50:29. > :50:31.single mother earning ?17,000 who wants to get out of the dreadful

:50:32. > :50:35.private rented accommodation that she is in, which literally have

:50:36. > :50:40.rodents running around on the floor, she is not going to get anything out

:50:41. > :50:46.of this, is she? The honourable gentleman makes a really good point.

:50:47. > :50:51.She absolutely is not. I have already given way to the honourable

:50:52. > :50:55.lady. Amendment 54 would seek but I will give way in just a moment. I

:50:56. > :50:59.want to make some progress. Amendment 54 with the two limit the

:51:00. > :51:05.damage of pay to stay by making it voluntary for local authorities and

:51:06. > :51:09.would treat them in the same way as housing associations. So I just do

:51:10. > :51:14.not understand the reasoning from the Minister that was given air

:51:15. > :51:17.layer about treating council tenants differently, because all this

:51:18. > :51:21.amendment is asking is the council tenants are treated in exactly the

:51:22. > :51:24.same way as housing association tenants. And again Labour will

:51:25. > :51:30.support the Lords in this amendment. I give way. To bring the lady back

:51:31. > :51:36.to the comment she made earlier about social housing should be

:51:37. > :51:42.allocated on need, the average salary in my constituency is

:51:43. > :51:45.?20,000. There are over 1000 people on the housing waiting list. Would

:51:46. > :51:48.she accept that where people are earning 30,000 that the people who

:51:49. > :51:52.are earning the average salary of 20,000 will feel aggrieved, firstly

:51:53. > :51:56.that they cannot get a social home because it is being occupied by that

:51:57. > :52:00.person and second that they are being tax to effectively subsidised

:52:01. > :52:05.that person living in that house earning significantly more than they

:52:06. > :52:10.can? I would say to the gentleman I do not accept most of that. And what

:52:11. > :52:14.I would say to him is that what we must do is build lots more council

:52:15. > :52:18.houses in this country. Amendment 55 would...

:52:19. > :52:24.SHOUTING Amendment 55 would introduce a taper

:52:25. > :52:29.off 10p on every pound above the minimum income threshold burned by a

:52:30. > :52:32.social tenant. This again is a sensible measure that seeks to

:52:33. > :52:38.ensure tenants to not face a cliff edge whereby small rise in income

:52:39. > :52:41.leads to a huge rent increase. We know the government is planning a

:52:42. > :52:48.higher taper and we heard that from the Minister earlier. I am pleased

:52:49. > :52:54.that he is going to take and keep the taper at the level at which it

:52:55. > :52:57.is set under review and that it is going to be subject to an

:52:58. > :53:02.affirmative procedure. I think we need to look at this very closely

:53:03. > :53:06.indeed. I give way. Thank you. Thank you for giving way. And thank you

:53:07. > :53:11.for responding to my honourable friend before. Could I just please

:53:12. > :53:15.ask the honourable lady to clarify to the House, and remind the House,

:53:16. > :53:20.exactly what the average earnings of an average person in the UK is, and

:53:21. > :53:24.then answer the question is social housing for everybody then or for

:53:25. > :53:29.those in genuine need? Because there is a bit of confusion. Quite right!

:53:30. > :53:33.What she will know is that there are a lot of people in this country, and

:53:34. > :53:37.I am sure many in her constituency, on council waiting lists. And what

:53:38. > :53:45.we should be thinking about in this chamber is how to build more council

:53:46. > :53:49.houses to address that need. If I can move on to Lords amendment 50

:53:50. > :53:54.seven. It seeks to increase the threshold for pages stay to 50,000

:53:55. > :53:58.in London and 40,000 outside London. Again, we see the point in this

:53:59. > :54:04.amendment, as it is seeking to limit the damage of this dreadful policy,

:54:05. > :54:08.and the same is the case with Lords amendment 58, which seeks to ensure

:54:09. > :54:13.that the income thresholds are increased by CPI and not at the whim

:54:14. > :54:15.of the Secretary of State. Again, we would not that the government is

:54:16. > :54:18.voting against these amendments and so I think perhaps we could have

:54:19. > :54:24.done with a bit more of an explanation as to the basis on which

:54:25. > :54:30.they intended to increase the thresholds in due course. If I can

:54:31. > :54:33.move on quickly, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the government's

:54:34. > :54:36.amendments. There are too many to comment on, given the time

:54:37. > :54:40.available. Again, highlighting a problem with this bill. So I have

:54:41. > :54:44.on. We are pleased that the on. We are pleased that the

:54:45. > :54:46.government adopted amendments 26-36 tables by Lords Kennedy and Brandon,

:54:47. > :54:52.which enabled information to be which enabled information to be

:54:53. > :54:55.given to third parties when seeking the recovery of abandoned premises

:54:56. > :55:00.and providing a definition of Tennessee above. This is something

:55:01. > :55:07.honourable friend worked hard to ensure were included in the bill.

:55:08. > :55:11.Government amendments 38-43 change the requirements for local

:55:12. > :55:16.authorities to sell-off vacant high-value council housing and

:55:17. > :55:22.replacement with a requirement to sell-off higher value vacant council

:55:23. > :55:30.housing. If selling off high-value housing was bad, selling off higher

:55:31. > :55:34.value housing is much, much worse. While it might help London a little,

:55:35. > :55:38.it will lead to the sell-offs in other areas. As noted earlier, there

:55:39. > :55:41.is simply not enough information available on the impact of this

:55:42. > :55:50.policy or its scope, for Parliament to be boating on it. The analysis

:55:51. > :55:55.finds that in order to raise ?4.5 billion a year needed, each local

:55:56. > :56:02.authority could be asked to raise on average a massive 26 million in

:56:03. > :56:09.total. This corresponds to the sale of 23,503 council homes per year,

:56:10. > :56:16.six times more than what estimated would be sold under the previous

:56:17. > :56:22.high-value regime. Government amendment 56 supports the

:56:23. > :56:28.exemptions from some categories of persons as yet unknown from paid to

:56:29. > :56:31.stay provisions. This is something Labour argued strongly for at the

:56:32. > :56:37.Commons committee stage, but the amendment states that there may be

:56:38. > :56:41.exceptions for higher income tenants in social housing of a specified

:56:42. > :56:46.description. So, is it, and perhaps the minister could tell us, to apply

:56:47. > :56:53.to people aged over 65, people who have a registered as ability, people

:56:54. > :56:57.with seasonal employment contracts, where a household member is in

:56:58. > :57:01.receipt of care? At the moment, we have no idea what the minister is

:57:02. > :57:08.intending, and that is not a satisfactory situation. Government

:57:09. > :57:17.amendments to 15, 217, 218, two to seven, and 233 amendment the

:57:18. > :57:20.proposal. While we ignore it that in 10-year tenancies, and longer, if

:57:21. > :57:25.there is a child in the home, as a step forward, we still think this

:57:26. > :57:31.whole policy is dreadful. Many, many people are commenting, and though it

:57:32. > :57:36.is really important for social housing and council housing in

:57:37. > :57:40.particular, it is important that it has security of tenure and enables

:57:41. > :57:43.communities to be stable and thrive. One only wonder what is going to

:57:44. > :57:48.happen to parents whenever their children reach the age of 19, and

:57:49. > :57:53.what if a young person wants to live at home beyond this date? The whole

:57:54. > :58:00.policy fails to acknowledge that we are talking about people's homes,

:58:01. > :58:04.what the government should be doing is bringing forward proposals to

:58:05. > :58:08.extend security of tenure in the private rented sector rather than

:58:09. > :58:11.reducing it for council housing tenants, with all the social

:58:12. > :58:17.upheaval and personal anxiety that brings with it. Government

:58:18. > :58:20.amendments 90-91 deal with the electrical safety checks, and I am

:58:21. > :58:25.so pleased that the government has been forced by the action we took in

:58:26. > :58:29.the Commons and by their Lordships to adopt this amendment, that would

:58:30. > :58:36.put the duty and private landlords to ensure electrical safety

:58:37. > :58:39.standards are met. And that they are carried out with a reasonable

:58:40. > :58:47.frequency, and by people of the proper expertise. And we know, and I

:58:48. > :58:49.think we should thank again, the Baroness and others were tabling

:58:50. > :58:56.theirs and arguing for it in the Lords. -- for tabling this. Finally,

:58:57. > :58:58.I am pleased that their Lordships insisted that the regulations we are

:58:59. > :59:04.still to receive, and there are many, that would set much of the

:59:05. > :59:11.detail of this will, must in the main follow the affirmative

:59:12. > :59:14.procedure. This includes banning order offences, terminations and

:59:15. > :59:17.regulations relating to vagrant higher value housing, high income

:59:18. > :59:24.social tenants, electrical safety, client money protection, and many

:59:25. > :59:28.others. I want to thank them for doing this and ensuring that the

:59:29. > :59:33.nasty habit the government has adopted in putting through important

:59:34. > :59:37.regulations by elective procedure ceases. As the whole housing world

:59:38. > :59:41.has acknowledged, this build is little to solve our housing crisis,

:59:42. > :59:46.but will make things a whole lot worse for the supply of genuinely

:59:47. > :59:51.affordable housing. -- this bill does little. It is causing headaches

:59:52. > :59:55.for the Prime Minister, but I'm sure he will be pleased to know that he

:59:56. > :00:01.won't need a junior doctor to cure his headache. All he needs to do is

:00:02. > :00:06.drop this dreadful bill. CHEERING

:00:07. > :00:15.Thank you. I draw members attention to my entry

:00:16. > :00:20.in the register of interests. I am pleased to speak in this debate to

:00:21. > :00:25.support the bill, which other members, who were all members in

:00:26. > :00:29.committee stage, and the passions raised then and now are testament to

:00:30. > :00:31.the fact that we know in this country, we need to build more

:00:32. > :00:35.homes, there are many of our constituents who want to get on the

:00:36. > :00:40.housing ladder, and this build is great service to that cause. There

:00:41. > :00:45.is no doubt that house-building took a hit following the recession, which

:00:46. > :00:48.began in 2008, but I am pleased to note that as our committee stages

:00:49. > :00:53.were winding up in December of last year, house-building completions

:00:54. > :00:59.were at the highest level since 2008, with 143,000 in the calendar

:01:00. > :01:06.year. This is to be applauded, but there are still that matter there is

:01:07. > :01:10.still a lot more work to be done. And to fulfil the aspirations of the

:01:11. > :01:16.86% of our fellow Britons who wants to own their own home. Starter homes

:01:17. > :01:21.aren't essential part of that offering, to allow people -- are an

:01:22. > :01:26.essential part of that offering, to allow people to own their homes

:01:27. > :01:31.rather than renting forever. I will give way.

:01:32. > :01:34.Thank you. Most was on the side would agree that a starter home for

:01:35. > :01:37.a family starting out as a great thing. She therefore not regret that

:01:38. > :01:43.the last eight years, and this The Mayor of London, we have seen

:01:44. > :01:46.private sale at inflated prices, luxury homes sold to overseas

:01:47. > :01:50.developers, and nowhere within reach of local people in my constituency

:01:51. > :01:53.or across London? I have great respect for the

:01:54. > :01:57.honourable lady and the respect that would work she does her committee,

:01:58. > :02:01.but I would say, with respect to the other side, which my honourable

:02:02. > :02:06.friend for Rossendale said, this is not a debate just about London, and

:02:07. > :02:11.a lot of the debate in committee stages and when we have seen it in

:02:12. > :02:14.the chamber is about London. There are a lot of affordable houses, and

:02:15. > :02:17.I know there are many others in London, would I know there are

:02:18. > :02:26.another 590 MPs who represent areas outside of London. I will give way.

:02:27. > :02:28.I thank my honourable friend. It was a great pleasure to serve with her

:02:29. > :02:32.on the housing and planning committee. But she touches on an

:02:33. > :02:39.interesting point. Does she agree with me that, if you take London and

:02:40. > :02:46.most of the south-east out, that none of our witnesses were able to

:02:47. > :02:49.definitively demonstrate that starter homes with the right

:02:50. > :02:56.vehicles, such as Help to Buy, were going to be unaffordable? For the

:02:57. > :02:58.vast majority of England, they were affordable.

:02:59. > :03:02.I thank the honourable gentleman. Thinking back to those happy days in

:03:03. > :03:05.November and December that week spent together, although the

:03:06. > :03:11.committee stages were now unalloyed joy, I will just finish responding

:03:12. > :03:15.to my honourable friend. With the right vehicles, such as the Help to

:03:16. > :03:19.Buy Iser, and the shared ownership, starter homes are affordable for

:03:20. > :03:26.many, many areas, including developments I have visited in my

:03:27. > :03:32.own constituency of South Ribble. They are an affordable way, I think,

:03:33. > :03:35.particularly for the generation between 20 and 40 which has been

:03:36. > :03:40.disproportionately affected by the increase of house prices. It is a

:03:41. > :03:44.way for them to get on the property ladder, and I think we should all

:03:45. > :03:47.really welcome this commitment to build these 200,000 homes. I will

:03:48. > :03:55.give way. I thank her for giving way. I am a

:03:56. > :04:01.London MP, and it might be difficult for other members who are not London

:04:02. > :04:04.MPs to understand how difficult it is, and how unaffordable it is, to

:04:05. > :04:10.live in London, and that is why we have made the points we have made.

:04:11. > :04:14.It may be of interest that, on Thursday, Londoners will be voting,

:04:15. > :04:21.almost on a referendum of the housing crisis in London.

:04:22. > :04:26.I thank the honourable lady for her comments, and I think I will let the

:04:27. > :04:32.London MPs respond more fully to the particular London voices.

:04:33. > :04:36.I am going to make a little bit of progress, because otherwise I am up

:04:37. > :04:41.and down like a fiddle's elbow. I would like quickly to turn to the

:04:42. > :04:47.amendments made by the noble Lord. Amendment 1, in relation to the 20%

:04:48. > :04:52.discount. I don't think that a 20% discount over 20 years really takes

:04:53. > :04:57.account of the practicalities of people's lives. It is just far too

:04:58. > :05:01.long. If it is a starter home, one would hope that people are not going

:05:02. > :05:05.to therefore live in it for 20 years, and as the minister said, the

:05:06. > :05:13.average time people live in a house is seven years, not 20. So it places

:05:14. > :05:17.restrictions on starter home owners, and that is precisely the generation

:05:18. > :05:24.of people aged 20-40 that this bill is aiming to empower. I am very glad

:05:25. > :05:28.that the government is consulting on the duration of the discount of the

:05:29. > :05:34.paper, because if we want builders to build, and if we want lenders to

:05:35. > :05:38.lend, there needs to be a practical, not an ideological, approach. The

:05:39. > :05:45.policy has to work. I would also like to touch on the Lords

:05:46. > :05:50.amendments 9-10, which remove the power for this to be a national

:05:51. > :05:55.requirement and replace it with a locum set requirements -- locally

:05:56. > :05:59.set requirement depending on local needs. I would say this completely

:06:00. > :06:04.undermines our manifesto commitment to build these 200,000 homes, and

:06:05. > :06:08.has the right honourable gentleman, the member for one thing, who is no

:06:09. > :06:14.longer in his place, mentioned, this is a very, very popular policy. We

:06:15. > :06:17.do have constituents coming to us, saying, I want to have a starter

:06:18. > :06:21.home. How will I get my foot on the ladder? If we were to remove it, I

:06:22. > :06:26.fear we were just remove the process. I will happily give way.

:06:27. > :06:30.I'm grateful to her for giving way, but in an earlier statement, of

:06:31. > :06:33.course, she actually made the case for a more localised approach,

:06:34. > :06:37.because she said she was not a London member, that the

:06:38. > :06:42.circumstances in her constituency were very different to those in the

:06:43. > :06:44.capital. Well, surely, if there are different circumstances in different

:06:45. > :06:49.parts of the country, we need a local approach.

:06:50. > :06:56.What I would say to the honourable gentleman, for whom I have the

:06:57. > :07:00.greatest respect, is that, if we did this, it would completely delay the

:07:01. > :07:04.process. We would get a 2019 without a starter home having been built

:07:05. > :07:06.will stop I really fear for that. The Lords amendments would really

:07:07. > :07:13.slow this down, and we need to start building now. We know house prices

:07:14. > :07:16.have risen. They have risen exponentially, and particularly in

:07:17. > :07:20.London, but because of a lack of supply, it is a very complicated

:07:21. > :07:25.picture, and one could not say it is for one particular reason. But lack

:07:26. > :07:28.of supply is a real fundamental lock on that, and we have touched on it

:07:29. > :07:33.all the way through committee stages. We need to get more houses

:07:34. > :07:36.built, and quickly. There is much debating committee about permission

:07:37. > :07:44.in principle, which is this new consent model Lanning, and I would

:07:45. > :07:47.argue very much that this provides certainty, and... I am afraid I am

:07:48. > :07:52.going to make a little more progress. Developers and builders

:07:53. > :07:58.may want certainty, and they want speed. One of the breaks and

:07:59. > :08:02.development is a lack of certainty, and the slowness of certain planning

:08:03. > :08:06.departments. The whole essence of this bill is to get the country

:08:07. > :08:12.building homes, to increase the supply, and to get more people as

:08:13. > :08:16.homeowners. This is a particularly effective measure for small

:08:17. > :08:23.builders, because they don't have the scale to have in-house fund

:08:24. > :08:26.departments. So to encourage builders who might be building ten

:08:27. > :08:33.or 20 homes in a village, that is particularly effective.

:08:34. > :08:36.Small builders, who actually get on and build or deliver, whereas the

:08:37. > :08:39.large builders are often very slow and building, so anything we do to

:08:40. > :08:42.support the small builders and small site, will actually see an

:08:43. > :08:46.improvement in housing supply. I agree with my honourable friend,

:08:47. > :08:49.and I think that with small builders, the way that they are

:08:50. > :08:52.funded and the way that they are run, they are not land banking in

:08:53. > :08:56.the same way. Their approach is that they want to build homes and move,

:08:57. > :08:59.whereas when you get the larger multiples, they have a different

:09:00. > :09:03.approach because they are actually land investors as well as builders,

:09:04. > :09:08.and what we want to do is get homes built. That is the whole essence,

:09:09. > :09:09.and I think that is a very much a cross-party consensus, that we need

:09:10. > :09:17.more units built. I do welcome the amendments which

:09:18. > :09:25.were brought in the other place which exclude winning and working

:09:26. > :09:31.with minerals, which covers fracking, where companies have made

:09:32. > :09:35.initial exploratory attempt, this will give reassurance to some of my

:09:36. > :09:43.constituents. We need to build more homes. This bill will provide some

:09:44. > :09:55.hope, and hopefully some homes for the hundreds of our constituents who

:09:56. > :09:59.aspire to own a home of their own. The most astounding thing about the

:10:00. > :10:04.government's proposals is that we are expected to be here today making

:10:05. > :10:09.decisions about them, without having any idea of what the costings of

:10:10. > :10:13.them is going to be. The Minister, when he came to the select

:10:14. > :10:15.Committee, said that the government would produce costings in due

:10:16. > :10:19.course. I think he actually said the spring was the likely time. Well, we

:10:20. > :10:25.are here in the spring and I have not seen any figures yet. But it is

:10:26. > :10:32.absolutely astounding that we should be hearing from the government over

:10:33. > :10:39.and over again that the sale of no higher value council homes will pay

:10:40. > :10:43.for the replacement of that home, for the replacement of a housing

:10:44. > :10:53.association property sold and for remedial work, a ?1 billion fund,

:10:54. > :10:55.for Nato land. If the government are clear that this is what their

:10:56. > :11:04.policies are going to do, will be please show us the figures? -- for

:11:05. > :11:09.they must have the figures to make those promises on, or I've suddenly

:11:10. > :11:14.giving their belief that this is how it will work out without any clear

:11:15. > :11:19.evidence to support it? It really is a matter of great concern. I will

:11:20. > :11:24.make some personal comments just in a moment. The selection as you said,

:11:25. > :11:28.absolutely correctly, having heard the evidence, we have not seen

:11:29. > :11:32.evidence that the government has the proposals and we call on it to do so

:11:33. > :11:37.as a matter of urgency. That was agreed at the beginning of February.

:11:38. > :11:40.We are now three months further on. We still have not got any figures.

:11:41. > :11:47.It is exactly the same point that was made in the PAC report, as to

:11:48. > :11:54.whether they should do things before or after policies or emblem entered,

:11:55. > :11:58.the Department should publish a full and back assessment containing

:11:59. > :12:05.analysis and Lane with the guidance of the Green book. When are we going

:12:06. > :12:08.to see these figures? We have not got them for the bill. Will we have

:12:09. > :12:12.them before any secondary legislation, any delegated the

:12:13. > :12:16.decision, comes before the House for approval? Did he just make a firm

:12:17. > :12:23.promise that is what is going to be the case? He made reference to some

:12:24. > :12:26.further secondary legislation on the high value council homes, so we

:12:27. > :12:30.actually going to see all of these proposals thoroughly and properly

:12:31. > :12:34.costed out before we come to that point? It is a very serious matter

:12:35. > :12:38.about the rate of the size to have that information before it passes

:12:39. > :12:42.legislation. -- the right of this House. To just come on to the issue

:12:43. > :12:46.of starter homes. I have to say again, it has been a little

:12:47. > :12:50.confusing to understand how the government's policy will work out in

:12:51. > :12:56.practice. When the Minister came before the Select Committee, he said

:12:57. > :12:58.that there would of course be discretion for local authorities

:12:59. > :13:00.when they were meeting with developers and discussing 106

:13:01. > :13:03.agreement and what was going to be built in terms of affordable housing

:13:04. > :13:09.and what that affordable housing would be. Can we just have some

:13:10. > :13:11.clarity? Is that the starter homes that are going to take absolute

:13:12. > :13:15.priority and local authorities will not have any choice but in order to

:13:16. > :13:17.hit the 200,000 target the government have got for starter

:13:18. > :13:21.homes they will have to build starter homes as a priority and it

:13:22. > :13:25.is -- if there is a little bit left when you might put one or two

:13:26. > :13:30.affordable homes for rent on the site? Or will a local authority, as

:13:31. > :13:32.there are currently allowed to do, come to the on the about 16

:13:33. > :13:36.agreements, but what is right in terms of the of affordable homes,

:13:37. > :13:40.whether it be starter homes abound of affordable homes or shared

:13:41. > :13:46.ownership or homes to rent as part of a mix? What is going to be the

:13:47. > :13:50.case? Weirder regatta to with errors of land in my constituency where

:13:51. > :13:52.there is no requirement for any affordable housing at present

:13:53. > :13:57.because the site are not considered to be viable. By ability an

:13:58. > :13:59.important test under the MP PF guidelines that local authorities

:14:00. > :14:06.have to work too. As the government going to insist that starter homes

:14:07. > :14:08.are built on a site or it is not considered currently viable to have

:14:09. > :14:10.any one of six provision for affordable housing question how will

:14:11. > :14:13.that work will it be local discretion regards to that as well

:14:14. > :14:18.question I do think we did some clarity, just as I think we need

:14:19. > :14:21.clarity about the replacement of the higher value council homes,

:14:22. > :14:25.precisely what sort of homes there are be replaced with. How that is

:14:26. > :14:28.good to be defined to stop what the negotiations are going to look like

:14:29. > :14:32.in terms of process between government and local authorities.

:14:33. > :14:37.And again, is it going to be starter homes or cost or only going to be in

:14:38. > :14:41.a position where affordable homes to rent can actually be part of that

:14:42. > :14:44.replacement? Back to the like-for-like situation. In the end,

:14:45. > :14:46.the chartered insert of rising protest evidence to the select

:14:47. > :14:51.committee were they said that their estimate was during the course of

:14:52. > :14:54.this Parliament they be 300,000 fewer social homes to rent in this

:14:55. > :14:59.country than there were at the beginning. The Minister likes to

:15:00. > :15:01.take great credit for the last Government, the Coalition

:15:02. > :15:05.government, having built my council houses that were built during the

:15:06. > :15:09.Labour Government. But, in the end, let's get back to the point. Is it

:15:10. > :15:13.going to be in this Parliament that there are fewer social homes to

:15:14. > :15:16.rent, not just council homes but housing association properties as

:15:17. > :15:20.well, 300,000 fewer that the chartered Institute of Housing of

:15:21. > :15:22.estimate of You can keep up to date with the latest news and weather

:15:23. > :15:25.throughout the day via our Twitter feed if the government disagrees

:15:26. > :15:31.with that figure, will it beat what it expects... -- housing estimate

:15:32. > :15:37.and if the government disagrees... Spee, you will agree the -- remedy

:15:38. > :15:39.evidence, that under the duty of these proposals housing associations

:15:40. > :15:44.would be building more properties of all tenants.

:15:45. > :15:47.We had evidence from different housing associations about how they

:15:48. > :15:53.were going to respond to the proposals. Some made it very clear

:15:54. > :15:58.that they felt that they would actually came less properties under

:15:59. > :16:04.106 agreement to rent than they would under the previous legislative

:16:05. > :16:11.arrangements. They also made it clear to us that given the fact that

:16:12. > :16:14.there is now no money in the government's housing programme for

:16:15. > :16:20.the rest of this Parliament, for any houses to rent in terms of grand

:16:21. > :16:24.assistance, all of the resources, the ?8 billion, is going to either

:16:25. > :16:27.to starter homes are shared ownership, that they, I think, many

:16:28. > :16:32.associations believe they are building your homes to rent on an

:16:33. > :16:37.affordable basis because of the combined effects of policy as a

:16:38. > :16:44.whole. And it will very from association to association. -- it

:16:45. > :16:48.will change. We heard from edge of executive of South Yorkshire

:16:49. > :16:51.Housing, where he said that in much of the area where his association

:16:52. > :16:59.works, it would not be possible to build back with the money from the

:17:00. > :17:03.sale of Housing Association property and what was likely is that they

:17:04. > :17:06.would buy up another property in the private rented sector, and that

:17:07. > :17:09.could happen is, which would not add to the housing stock. It is going to

:17:10. > :17:13.be very different policies in different areas. I would argue very

:17:14. > :17:16.strongly that in terms of starter homes we should reflect that in

:17:17. > :17:20.terms of allowing local authorities the ability to come to a different

:17:21. > :17:25.agreement which is at local needs. Indeed, that is what is recognised,

:17:26. > :17:28.the Select Committee said very clearly that starter homes should

:17:29. > :17:34.not be built at the expense of other forms of homes and indeed it is

:17:35. > :17:39.vital that homes for affordable rent are built to reflect local needs.

:17:40. > :17:45.Thank you for giving way on that point. Do you share my concern that

:17:46. > :17:49.research commissioned by the LGA highlights for people in need of

:17:50. > :17:54.affordable housing in 220 local authority areas they will not be

:17:55. > :17:57.able to take advantage of the starter homes being proposed. I

:17:58. > :18:05.think it is also very interesting that my honourable friend mentions

:18:06. > :18:11.the LGA. All parties in the LGA actually I do very strongly that the

:18:12. > :18:14.whole of this policy, in terms of the right to Buy for housing

:18:15. > :18:18.association tenants, should not be funded by the sale of local

:18:19. > :18:22.authority assets. Indeed, and I am going to make sure I get the words

:18:23. > :18:28.right when I called back to the honourable member, the member of the

:18:29. > :18:31.Select Committee, I think what we said that public policy should

:18:32. > :18:34.usually be funded by central government, rather than through a

:18:35. > :18:36.levy on local authorities. I think I got the words precisely right and it

:18:37. > :18:40.is one of these usual cases or perhaps government ought to listen

:18:41. > :18:46.to the words of the Select Committee! I think the whole issue

:18:47. > :18:48.of the sale of the right to Buy for housing association tenants would

:18:49. > :18:53.not be a significant point of contention if the government were

:18:54. > :18:58.not forcing the sea local authority homes to actually pay for it and we

:18:59. > :19:02.still have not had the figures to show how that would work. Sorting

:19:03. > :19:06.out both legs ability on starter homes, and I still do not quite know

:19:07. > :19:09.what the government's policy amounts to, because of the lack of clarity

:19:10. > :19:13.we have had. Could I just finally raised the two issues which I think

:19:14. > :19:17.I really worrying, and this is very Select Committee did not come if you

:19:18. > :19:22.about letting tenancies. And also about pay estate. We welcome that

:19:23. > :19:27.Peter stay will be voluntary for housing associations. -- here to

:19:28. > :19:30.strange in a street or you have got strange in a street or you have got

:19:31. > :19:34.two tenants earning the same amount of money currently paying similar

:19:35. > :19:36.rents, one in a Housing Association property and one in a council

:19:37. > :19:42.property and one finds the rent going up under the other does not?

:19:43. > :19:45.They talk about subsidised council housing, just let's get away from

:19:46. > :19:52.this. There is no central government subsidy to housing revenue accounts!

:19:53. > :19:57.Pays for itself. Is not a subsidy council tenants burning a little bit

:19:58. > :20:01.more than their neighbours next door. What they will be, if this

:20:02. > :20:06.measure so, is a tax on those tenants. The money will not go to

:20:07. > :20:12.the council, it will go to the Treasury. Treasury levying a charge

:20:13. > :20:17.on a council tenant is a tax, by any other name. Of course that is what

:20:18. > :20:24.is it. And let's put it with the left engine and see. -- the lifetime

:20:25. > :20:26.tenancy. We really going to end up with council estates were some homes

:20:27. > :20:30.will have been sold but different proportions different areas, some

:20:31. > :20:34.will then have been sold under the private rented sector, where we have

:20:35. > :20:41.an increasing mixture of people on the lowest income and people there

:20:42. > :20:44.are simply on a short-term basis? You're going to want to be shot,

:20:45. > :20:50.because you are going to force the rents up. People on slightly higher

:20:51. > :20:55.incomes, who may have a long-time commitment to that area, you may

:20:56. > :21:00.have written the area, who maybe the people who run the local housing

:21:01. > :21:04.association, local residents group and be really active there, and of

:21:05. > :21:08.course the very same people will be the longer term tenants who have a

:21:09. > :21:12.long-term commitment in their area. What does this policy, and the

:21:13. > :21:17.mixture of these policies, do for social cohesion? What does it do? It

:21:18. > :21:24.really undermines the whole idea of a long-term commitment by people who

:21:25. > :21:29.are to dinner areas, who want to stay there, because they enjoy

:21:30. > :21:32.living there because they have got connections. -- who are rooted to

:21:33. > :21:36.the areas. There are kids go to school there and that is where the

:21:37. > :21:41.homeless. To take that away... I am so grateful for him giving way on

:21:42. > :21:47.that billion point. Would he agree with some commentators that

:21:48. > :21:53.certainly see in London this bill, and this is very dramatic but very

:21:54. > :21:58.serious, marks the end of next communities in a number of

:21:59. > :22:01.borrowers? Potentially it does. Because of the drive out all the

:22:02. > :22:06.people on slightly higher incomes, and also it removes people

:22:07. > :22:09.potentially who are longer term tenants, it does create a very

:22:10. > :22:13.different sort of community. We have to be very careful that. I will give

:22:14. > :22:18.way and then will conclude after I have given way. I thank him for

:22:19. > :22:22.giving way. While have said that of the points he is making, does he not

:22:23. > :22:25.accept the principle that when it comes to a skiers social resource

:22:26. > :22:33.like social housing, it is simply common sense to make sure that

:22:34. > :22:37.skiers resource if targeted at those who are most in need, which is what

:22:38. > :22:44.this bill seeks to do? I would argue let's tackle the

:22:45. > :22:47.scarcity. Let's start a building programme of 100,000 social homes

:22:48. > :22:51.per year. That is the only way we are going to hit the 230,000 homes

:22:52. > :22:55.this country needs. We never built a quarter of a million homes in this

:22:56. > :22:58.country without a massive social with building programme and it is

:22:59. > :23:02.unlikely we will do so in the future. I will make one other point

:23:03. > :23:05.about the mix of communities. In other communities, where there is

:23:06. > :23:10.the very beginning a limited number of social rented properties, with

:23:11. > :23:15.the Right to Buy that has already happened and the extension of the

:23:16. > :23:20.Right to Buy proposed here, it is going to be exactly the same

:23:21. > :23:23.committees which have these "Higher value" council homes. Not only will

:23:24. > :23:30.be Right to Buy remove social housing in those areas, but the sale

:23:31. > :23:33.of fake and higher value council properties or remove social housing

:23:34. > :23:38.as well. It is likely there will be some communities where in future

:23:39. > :23:43.they will be no social housing. -- the sale of higher value council

:23:44. > :23:47.properties. That is the other conclusion to come to hear. It is

:23:48. > :23:53.really very worryingly indeed. -- very worrying indeed. Some

:23:54. > :23:56.communities where people are on very short-term tenancies and learning

:23:57. > :23:59.from other communities or if you actually got a real housing need but

:24:00. > :24:04.you cannot afford to buy, there will be normal for at all. -- no home for

:24:05. > :23:11.you at all. Hello and welcome to Tuesday

:23:12. > :23:14.in Parliament, our look at the best of the day in the Commons

:23:15. > :23:18.and the Lords.