04/05/2016 House of Commons

. Urgent question. And maimed. Thank you, Mr Speaker.. I would like to

ask the secretary of state to make a statement on the reforms to Dublin

agreement on the effects of asylum. The Minister at the Home Office.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This morning the European Commission published

its proposals for reform of the Dublin protocol and emergency

relocation in response to the migration crisis in the

Mediterranean. These proposals were first announced under the EU Turkey

deal and agreement is critical to finding a solution to Europe's

asylum systems ahead of the summer. The Government will now scrutinise

these proposals carefully. As the House will be aware, the UK has an

opt in to any EU proposals on justice and home affairs issues. It

is not bound to sign the proposals the commission has published today

and we will have three months to consider whether or not to do so.

The proposals will be laid before Parliament and an explanatory

memorandum will be provided. Scrutiny committees in both houses

will look at this in detail and Parliament will be able to consider

these proposals in the usual way. The Government strongly supports the

principles behind the Dublin regulation. We believe that an

asylum claim made in the EU should be dealt with by the member state

most responsible for the applicant 's presence in the EU. This provides

certainty for the applicant and protect other member states asylum

systems from abuse. But our starting position is clear. We will not opt

in any legislative proposal that replaces the existing Dublin

principles with a redistribution mechanism. And we do not support

relocation. Those in need of protection should claim asylum at

the first save country they reach. We support the existing Dublin

regulations and the principles underpinning them. In this context

it is worth noting that the commission themselves have been very

clear today that, should we not opt revised Dublin regulations, the

existing regulations will continue to apply between the UK and other

member states. This is at least part a direct result of a government's

engagement with the commission and other member states. As such, there

is no risk that we would lose our existing powers to return people to

other EU member states. Powers that we have used nearly 12,000 times

since 2005. Where an individual is responsibility of another member

state under EU law, the Government will seek to return them under the

Dublin regulations and we will continue to do so. We have been

engaged in regular constructive conversations with our European

counterparts and the European Commission and will participate

fully in the negotiations of this draft proposal at European level as

these proposals are negotiated. I commend this statement to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank him for his statement, and am somewhat

concerned it seem as if all we know what this beloved light in reality

given that we have got a very big referendum coming up between that

time. Will he say, he said debris, it should not be undermined, and

it ensures a printable EU countries can deport refugees to their first

port of entry as he's just reconfirmed, and the Secretary of

State recently restated her views that amending the Dublin regulation

is unnecessary and risks undermining a vital tool in managing asylum

claims within the EU. Despite her views, the EU commission is pressing

ahead with reforms and that's despite many countries expressing

their extreme disquiet. Under the existing laws written ostensibly has

the right to deport asylum seekers to their first port of entry however

in practice, that means he did give a figure but it's only 1% of asylum

seekers from the UK each year relocated to the first port of entry

according to Eurostat. Does he accept this very low figure of only

1% of relocation is being accurate and if so, can you explain why the

UK is performing so badly and the current regulations? In practice,

the Dublin agreement is far from perfect and the EU was desperate to

find ways of evening out the numbers of asylum seekers but not rocking

the British boats before the referendum and even the European

Commission has acknowledged the current system doesn't work. Germany

is all but abandoned it and Greece is not abiding by it apparently

since 2011. The commission recently stated that even when member states

accept transfer requests, only a quarter of such cases reported in

effective transfers and after that there were frequent cases of

secondary movements transfer Mink back member state. Does he accept

even the low number of relocation is 1%, we are obliged to readmit those

individuals under the process? Does he have any figures to inform the

House how many are actually relocated back to the UK?

Given the low numbers currently sent back under the system, does the

minister then still believe that this is a good deal for Britain?

Despite the haggling and horse trading going on behind closed doors

as we speak, the Secretary of State, has the Secretary of State secured

permanent and favourable opt out and any form of quota sharing that

cannot be overruled at any point in the future by other member

countries? It is important to know this. These proposals are part of a

package to manage the surge in migrants and refugees flooding into

Europe. The commission is currently in the process of revising measures

in the Dublin regular gin, namely of imposing a financial penalty of

250,000 euros on every refugee not taken by a country if another member

state's experiences of sudden influx. How will this new quota

penalty system proposals it with the current Dublin proposal the minister

says he wishes to stay in? Finally, has the minister secured a permanent

and favourable opt out from any form of penalty payment that might be

negotiated in the future for nonacceptance of quotas? And would

that not be overruled at any point in the future by other member

countries? Order. Before the minister responds, two points should

be made. First of all, I say in all courtesy and gently to the

honourable lady that she modestly exceeded her time allocation. I am

sure that was inadvertent and will not be repeated. Secondly, equally

courteously, I say to the minister, with reference to his final

statement commending his statement to the House, the honourable

gentleman did not make a statement to the House. He could have

volunteered one. The reason the honourable gentleman is in the

chamber is that I've acquired a minister to attend the chamber to

answer the urgent question from the honourable lady. It may seem a fine

distinction to those attending our proceedings, but it is an important

one. The honourable gentleman is here involuntarily and not

involuntarily! I hope the position is now clear. He doesn't need to be

deported, we want him to answer the question!

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am always the servant of the House in this

regard. On the various points my honourable friend has raised, I can

say that the UK does have a clear opt in arrangement in relation to

justice and home affairs matters. Therefore, we do retain that ability

to decide which measures that fall within the Justice and home affairs

matters we decide to opt into, as I explained in my opening comments. In

relation to the benefit, yes, we do see significant benefit from the

existing Dublin regulations. We have sought to remove nearly 12,000

people from the UK to other EU member states over the last ten

years using that process. She highlights the issue of whether in

some way, we may subsequently be required to be participants of the

new arrangements. I would want her to a statement that was published

within the European Commission's press release, which says that the

UK and Ireland are not required, but instead determined themselves the

extent to which they want to participate in these measures, in

accordance with the relevant protocol is attached to the

treaties. If they do not opt in, the current laws, as they operate today,

will continue to apply to them in line with the treaties. That is

important in terms of the clarification she was seeking.

Clearly, because of the opt in, we have that protection in relation to

matters as to whether we decide to opt in or not. That provides

protection on the quota penalty she referred to. So Keir Starmer. Let us

be clear from the start. Through our opt out, Britain would not be

required to take part in any asylum relocation system, nor would we be

required to pay any financial levy to avoid it. But it is also keen

that -- clear that we have a keen national interest and moral

responsibility to ensure effective systems are in place to tackle the

worst humanitarian crisis in a decade in Europe, a crisis on a

scale that clearly needs a concerted, EU wide response. It is

clear that the Dublin arrangements are not working on the ground. They

are not able to cope with the numbers and to process the claims

that need to be processed. We in Labour have been calling for a

reconsideration of how the Dublin arrangements work in practice for

many months, precisely on these grounds. The government, as ever,

has been slow and reluctant to act, characterised by the involuntary

appearance here today. Labour is also clear that the key Dublin

principles preventing first country states from refusing to process

asylum seekers and allowing return to first country are important

intervals. So we welcome the government's update on this, but

what proposals have they made to the commission on reform? Mr Speaker,

there is also the wider question of unaccompanied children in Europe

today, the chair of the Kindertransport Association of

Jewish refugees called on the Prime Minister to do more to help what he

called the most vulnerable victims of the Syrian conflict. We cannot

continue to sit on our hands. We can't continue with the repetition

of the repugnant rhetoric that these children in Europe are safe. They

are not. There is a groundswell of support. When will the Government

finally listen? If there is to be a U-turn on this issue, the sooner it

happens, the better. I gain from the honourable gentleman's comments that

he did not hear what the Prime Minister said at prime ministers

question time a few moments ago in respect of how we are in discussions

with Save The Children and the UNHCR in terms of what assistance can be

provided to those already registered in Europe before the EU Turkey deal

came into force and the discussions we will have with local authorities.

I reject the point he makes about the government's slowness to react

in relation to the Dublin begin nations. That is why we have sent

experts to France and other European countries to support that process,

to see that there is that practical implementation on the ground. That

is bearing fruit and seeing a speeding up of the process. The

honourable gentleman equally highlights issues around the Dublin

regulation itself. The government believes that the long-standing

principle is at the heart of the Dublin system are the right ones,

and it would be a major error to tear them up and replace them with

something completely different. Dublin may not be operating as it

should, but that does not mean it principles are fundamentally flawed.

That is the approach this government will take in terms of further

negotiation. No honourable members in this House will have seen the

proposals in detail, because they have only just been published.

Therefore, it is right to reflect on them in detail and continue

discussions to see that we have a reformed Dublin that benefits the

UK, whilst recognising the protections we have to maintain the

existing Dublin arrangements. I congratulate my honourable friend,

the member for St Albans, for not only putting forward a question, but

also for the manner in which she conducted the analysis. She is

right, of course. The European scrutiny committee looking at this

matter and will be talking about it this afternoon. Would the minister

be good enough to give us an assurance that if we so decide,

which I feel we will, that there should be a debate on the floor of

the House, that he would encourage that? And would he also make sure

this matter is not left hanging around for as long as three month

's? We need an urgent and quick answer to these questions. The

three-month time period is the period we have as the UK to consider

whether to opt into measures at the outset, as he will know. That is one

of the protections we have in terms of our relationship with the EU

under Justice and home affairs matters. The commission has its

papers this morning. I am sure that we'll see scrutiny in detail by the

European scrutiny committee. And the government will provide information

and support that process to see that this measure is properly scrutinised

by this house. There is not any delay on the government's part in

relation to the three months. The Dublin rules were not fit for

purpose even before the current crisis in Europe developed. That

crisis has pushed the system way beyond breaking point. Even a child

could understand that front line countries such as Greece and Italy

cannot be expected to deal alone with all the asylum seekers who

arrived there. This proposed system of financial penalties would be an

improvement, but it is a distant second best to the proper sharing of

responsibility throughout the European Union. Can the minister

tell us, if the UK are not prepared to sign up to the new EU asylum

system, exactly what steps the government will take in order for

the UK to do its bit for those already in Europe, particularly the

child refugees? One I was in Calais with other SNP MPs at Easter, we met

many refugees with family in the UK, and we met men who had acted as

interpreters for the UK Armed Forces, including men who had been

at Camp Bastion at the same time as Prince Harry and when the Prime

Minister visited. The government keeps assuring us that they are

taking action to speed up processes. But will the minister now provide us

with the figures on processing times, which we have repeatedly

asked for, so that we can have some evidence that these requests are

being more speedily with? Secondly and more fundamentally, there is a

problem on the French side of things being handled slowly. Many refugees

in Calais and Dunkirk are afraid to claim asylum in France because of

the very bad experiences they have had their already, including being

tear-gassed by French authorities. Will the British government consider

building a route to bypass the French system and allow direct

claims to the UK, based on family ties? In terms of the time it is

taking to process the relevant requests under the existing Dublin

arrangements, they are being processed in a matter of weeks, as I

have indicated to the honourable lady previously. And it is through

having those direct contacts between the officials on both sides that are

able to make speedy decisions to work to see that those who have

those links to the UK can be reunited. That is a principle of

this government believes in strongly. Equally, the work we are

going through additional funding and investment in other parts of Europe

is intended to support that. She highlights the issue over the

actions of the French government. I would say that the French government

have a specific NGO that they have engaged to work with those in the

camps to be able to identify, to see that they are protected speedily. We

support that work and will continue to support the French government and

play our part in seeing that those who have that connection to the UK

are established, identified and come to the UK quickly. Mr Kenneth

Clarke. With the minister agree with me that the migrant crisis we face

is our part of a crisis that affects every European Union member state

and requires a European Union solution? It is a complete absurdity

first promulgated by Ukip that somehow, if we left the EU, these

people would no longer be a problem. As the government has played a full

part in the limited progress so far in closing the of Europe and making

arrangement with Turkey for the return of asylum seekers, does he

accept that we are quite entitled legally to insist on the Dublin

Convention, and of course, we must exercise our opt out when it is in

our interests, but actually, we have to have regards to the problems of

Greece, Italy and other countries who have not encouraged these vast

numbers to come to them, and we will need the cooperation of those

governments if eventually, we are to restore the situation to order in

every member state including the United Kingdom?

My right honourable friend is absolutely right in this being an EU

wide problem and it is something we will need to continue to address at

that level and somehow, by the UK leaving the EU on the referendum,

that will suddenly make the migration crisis go away, that is

clearly not the case. He talks about Turkey and Italy, sorry, Greece and

Italy, and he will equally know the Turkey deal is absolutely intended

to support those issues on the front line and how we are sending out

experts from next week around 75, to support the front line activity in

Greece. Thank you, Mr Speaker. In his heart, the Minister for Public

accepts everything the Honourable lady for Saint Alden 's has said

today. The Dublin agreement is in crisis, not because of the UK, but

because other countries in the EU are flouting the way in which it

operates, the Home Affairs Select Committee, we've seen for ourselves,

when the visited Greece and Italy, and what other partners need to do

is to fulfil their obligations under Dublin, deal with these matters in

their country, so people do not end up coming to Calais seeking to come

over to the UK. To do this, maybe just 10% of the money that is gone

to Turkey, the EU Turkey deal with the most generous in history, we

need to support Greece and Italy, these other countries need our

support. He will know, as I just indicated, the practical support we

are providing to the European Asylum support office, to those front line

member states who have seen significant numbers arriving on

their shores and, in terms of the funding that we have provided, ?70

million of funding to the response, that obviously is a significant

contribution to support the activities that are needed to

support vulnerable migrants there. Here's right in saying we need to

continue to work with Greece, Italy, precisely what this Government will

continue to do, recognising the pressures those governments are

under. The EU documents about the EU Turkey agreement and the creation of

the Visa free area for most of the EU and Turkey made very clear that

part of this policy has to be strengthening the Turkish frontier

with Syria, Iraq and Iran and the document quite remarkably, strangely

says it's going to help build walls and fences and ditches over what is

an extremely long border. Can he tell us how many miles of these

impediments to migration EU has in mind and what the cost might be? The

clear focus is on seeing refugees do not make the journeys across the

Mediterranean Sea to the shores of Europe, which is consistent with the

approach this Government has taken and why we have clearly pledged the

?2.3 billion we have two the humanitarian crisis and how that is

giving that sense of hope and opportunity to those that are there

through work, education. That is the right approach to ensure that we are

giving that sense of why people should not be making those journeys,

and how the EU Turkey deal supports that. I know the Minister is very

proud of his pudding but he seems to agree that in principle, the refugee

crisis is a European crisis which requires collective action. If we

were having the broken instead of the Dublin regulations, what exactly

would they be? I'm very grateful to the right honourable gentleman for

his frame of the question in that way. It underlines the need for each

EU member state to play a part, which is precisely what the UK is

doing. We are providing expert support, funding, and very

significant aspect in relation to the issue of resettlement, and the

new children at risk resettlement scheme. We think the basic

principles of Dublin are right, they need to be upheld, it is how we can

improve the practical aspects of it. The Dublin Convention requires the

collection of biometric data from migrants if it is to work optimally,

a process which understandably the more savvy migrant declines to

cooperate with, probably with the connivance of the Italian and Greek

officials. What can be done to strengthen that part of the Dublin

arrangement? This is about practical implementation. The 75 experts we

are sending out to Greece, other European countries are doing the

same, to see the practical measure, taking fingerprints, is upheld the

front line and that practical support I think will make the

difference. Does the Minister accept that the regulations should be a

flaw in what we do and not a ceiling? With that in mind, will you

look again at the treatment of those who claim asylum now who previously

helped the Armed Forces in Afghanistan as interpreters,

because, frankly, if they had treated us as we now treat them,

then the lives of many, many of our service men would have been put at

risk or lost. I will look very carefully at what my right

honourable friend has said in relation to those who have supported

our British Armed Forces in Afghanistan. The manner in which

they are analysed and treated within our asylum system, I know this is an

issue many members have raised and I can assure him it is something I'm

giving close attention to. Would the Minister agree with me that EU

reform in this area should take into account a member state it was effort

to resettle refugees from third countries outside the EU and fund

those countries? With the UK having delivered 1,000,000,008 to stop

powerless journeys at sea, would be right for the EU to endorse our

approach to reduce migration? My right honourable friend is right in

the steps were taken in the scheme. Our focus remains on providing those

safe Routes to the most vulnerable in the region, the UK has made an

important contribution through its efforts and that, I think, plays a

part in the overall work across the EU in providing that stability and

preventing people from making those journeys. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The

Minister will know that there's a huge amount of concern in this

country, especially mothers unaccompanied children in the camps

in Calais and it's welcome to hear them today agreeing that given what

he's saying, the problems we've seen, through the current Dublin

arrangements, to give us some numbers, how many young people is

the actually think the UK will now be able to offer sanctuary as a

result of the decision made today? The Prime Minister said earlier on

that we will be discussing with local authorities, also discussions

with the UN HCR save the children and others. It's right we look at it

in that way to assess the issues carefully and therefore come to the

right conclusion. Does my right honourable friend agree that with

respect to this proposal, the UK has a double protection of being outside

the automatic opt in but also being outside Schengen so when asylum

seekers choose not to claim asylum at the first port of call, they

can't travel the no border zone into the UK? I think we have the best of

both worlds being outside the borders areas of Schengen, the

protection against us, the ability for us to uphold our own border and

do the necessary checks as one of having those legal rights through

the optimums and the enhanced mechanisms that the Prime Minister

achieved through his new negotiations that will add to those

negotiations. I think it would be help fall if you said you would

accept the amendments but many of these opt outs are designed to

control Britain's borders so he will be aware of good journalism in the

Telegraph which says the semaphore system went down for a few days last

summer and yesterday his Permanent Secretary would not say, admitted

this happened many times, would not say when and for how long. Don't we

deserve to know this information and will you publish it? We provide

clear protection to the UK border, multilayered approach we take and

ink it includes the primary control points which we ensure have 100%

checks, something the last Labour Government did not do. It is that

focus on our board and security this Government will continue to

maintain. -- border. My right honourable friend will know from the

conference at which both he and I spoke last week on the migrant

crisis of the anger and despair of the Hungarian Government at what is

now being proposed by the European Union. Can explain to me what our

Government is doing to criticise all enforced against Germany their

unilateral rejection of the current regulations? As I have indicated to

the House, the Government has the opposite out in relation to certain

measures and so there are aspects in relation to Schengen we are not

party to. We are not part of the Schengen area. It's a matter for

those bound by those regulations to enforce the commission the

compliance and therefore it's a matter for them and not the UK. I

hope the Minister will find a way to provide more support to

unaccompanied children. Compassion demands it. Cody outline how the UK

front line support that is going to be provided to Greece and Italy will

help ensure a unaccompanied children already in the European Union don't

go missing? I think he makes an important point of the issue of

things like trafficking, exploitation, it is why Kevin

Highlands, the anti-slavery commissioner, will travel to Greece

and Italy shortly. Therefore, the experts we are sending out will

include those with knowledge and understanding of these issues in

relation to children to seek to provide greater assurance over the

very matters he has identified. The Government has recently demonstrated

an axiom of our EU membership is our common European citizenship which

implies the common treatment are people right across the EU. Will he

not concede that sooner or later if the public vote to remain in the EU,

he will not long be able to resist in the Council of ministers a

pressure to concede our opt out and join whatever the arrangements are

in a process of bargaining away in order to achieve whatever the

Government's objectives happened to be? No, I don't, Mr Speaker. I think

the UK has very clearly got protections, indeed the way we opted

out of a number of pre-existing measures. It shows the clear

approach of this Government in upholding what is in the best

interests of the UK and I think I have been very explicit this

afternoon in highlighting that being part of relocation mechanism, it's

not in the interests of the UK. Thank you, Mr Speaker.. Given the

Minister has said the asylum regime may well change after the EU

referendum, will he concede that there is no status quo on the ballot

paper in the EU referendum just as those who voted a stay in the common

market in 1975 did not get the status quo? Given that the parties

opposite seemed to be working on the basis that other EU countries are

incapable of providing decent and humane refuge to asylum seekers,

does he agree we should be in part of a political year who treats

asylum seekers properly? I think in terms of the status quo, I would say

to my right honourable friend the Commissioner has been very explicit

about the Dublin regulations to say we can continue to uphold and

operate the existing arrangements if we do not decide to opt into the new

measures that have been published today and I think that is quite

important in terms of at that assurance and clearly, we will work

with other EU partners to support them to ensure that those who are

claiming asylum in their shores are able to do so effectively, which is

why our expert support is precisely in tune with that. Part of the time

announced today means it proposal European countries who refuse to

give shelter to refugees could be forced to pay into the cough is of

countries that do take them. Whilst we have a temporary opt out on this

at present point in time, could the Minister state that this is

absolutely guaranteed opt out that we will not consider reneging on and

equally, would you publish the legal advice given the legal basis for

this proposal? I say to my honourable friend others is not some

temporary opt out I'm referring to. It is the basic principles of the

treaty in relation to our ability to opt into measures in respect of

Justice and home affairs matters. That is the issue I know that he

will understand and recognise and that is the basis upon which I have

made the point before the House this afternoon.

Mr Peter Bone. Mr Speaker knows the problem of human trafficking. One of

the problems with continental Europe is the open borders. Whatever the

other advantages are, it is a human trafficker's tartare. These new

measures will add to that. What we actually want is more checking to

stop this evil crime of trafficking. I pay tribute to the work of my

honourable friend, who has done so much in relation to highlighting

this issue and has assisted in the reforms that have taken place. We

need to step up our response to organised crime. That is why we will

continue to work with European partners to highlight these issues

and see that children are protected and do not fall into the hands of

the traffickers, which is why the work on the front line and the

further inputs we have from Kevin Highlands will assist us not just as

the UK, but also in supporting other EU states as well. Order. I have to

notify the House in accordance with the royal assent act of 1967 that

Her Majesty has signified her royal assent to the following acts.

Enterprise act 2016. Northern Ireland Stormont agreement and

implementation plan act 2016. Bank of England and financial services

act 2016. Trade union act 2016. Transport for London act 2016.

Order. We come now to the ten minute rule motion. I beg to move that

leave be given to a bill to make provision about the disclosure,

consideration and approval of proposals for onshore electricity

power stations for 50 megawatts or less to require the application of

engineering construction industry terms of conditions and certain

circumstances and to require sector specific collective national

workforce agreements in other circumstances and for connected

purposes. Any solid biomass or combined heat and power plant

producing 50 megawatts or below, indeed, any power project breaching

50 megawatts or below, does not come below the terms of national planning

and consent. Ostensibly, this sounds fine as it supposedly gives more

control to local people about developments in their locality.

Projects with a generating capacity of 50 megawatts or less are

considered part of the town and country planning act of 1990 and can

be dealt therefore with by local authorities. This is where your

problems begin if you are part of the construction industry. Civil

engineering demands loyalty and hard graft, where workers often work long

hours under arduous and sometimes dangerous conditions to produce the

end product. But all those great virtues can for nothing when the

dice are loaded against you. From Teesside to South Yorkshire,

Scotland to Wales, a recent epidemic of deliberate subterfuge has been

used to evade industry standards for terms and conditions of construction

workers in the power generation sector. Luckily, I am fellow

Teesside MPs have been trying to unravel a complex knot of potential

expectation and undercutting. We have been working alongside the GMB

and Unite union of both regional and national level. The sleight of hand

employed and the deliberate use of opaque contractual arrangements via

umbrella companies which have seen workers pay their own national

insurance twice is universally known. But this together with the

potential undercutting and expectation of migrant workers and

this only frustrates an area and its people which has seen massive

provision in light of closures at exercise steel -- SSI steel to

mention one of the sites undergoing closure. This frustration has

culminated in a year-long escalation of unrest in the construction

industry, with mass protests at one site over a waste product being

built in to side with a predominantly non-UK labour force.

Any one constructing a power blood must be aware that if it is under 50

megawatts, it will have achieved any content from a local authority, and

that consent will almost certainly not carry the necessary requirements

for workers on the construction project, which would also instil a

level playing field. An assumption up until now has been that those

terms would carry over. Sadly, that has not been the case. Due to

unscrupulous practices by certain construction campaigns, the lack of

a voice in this growing market has led many who have been shut out of

employment to take on board tactics which are borne out of pure

frustration, which can then develop into demonstrator languor.

Construction workers in large numbers on the warden noted protests

outside the new biomass power station in Rotherham, South

Yorkshire, Port Talbot and Dunbar on but the 1st of March and 7th of

April in 2015 were in support of GMB, unite members who blockaded

work on these sites on those days. The rate should be higher, but the

migrant workforce has been paid just nine to 13 euros an hour,

approximately ?7 to ?10. With above average levels of unemployment at

the current time in the industry, it is no wonder those workers are angry

with the expectation of migrant labour at the expense of local

implement. How can the developers and employers get away with this?

Take this example in Rotherham. The local council gave planning consent

in 2011, but sites producing less than 50 megawatts have no need to

adhere to regulations. The partnerships who bought the site

then sold to son at a big profit to a Danish company. They then

contacted Babcock and Wilcox, known as BWV. Subsequently, BWV

subcontracted the construction of the boiler to a Croatian firm, who

tendered the lowest bid on Croatian economic wage levels. The correction

firm has very bad form. It is the same company that GMB Unite court

underpaying its largely migrant workforce last year on a power

station in Yorkshire. Because that job came under the independent audit

facility. The unions were able to force the company to repay every

euro it owed. However, they later found out that when they got back to

Croatia, the workers and that their wages were retaken under duress.

Because the Rotherham biomass project and similar waste energy

project is not covered by collective agreements and because they are

under 50 megawatts, the employer can then pay below the rate and legally

get away with it. Well-meaning legislation from the European Union

to combat this malpractice doesn't go far enough. Italy currently gives

workers posted to work temporarily in another country the minimal

protection of the country's standards, namely the minimum wage.

This is not that you's fault, it is ours, by not protecting all workers'

blanket collective bargaining for blanket collective

all workers, firms will use caveats to exploit. A support of

collective-bargaining is the only solution to prevent exploitation of

immigrant labour and a real means by which we as a nation can prevent the

deliberate social discord rated amongst our own communities by the

means of effectively excluding workers from our own towns from

seeking and achieving meaningful employment. The means by which we

can achieve this and help local authorities under severe financial

and logistical pressure is to ensure that at the start of the planning

process, whether a power generation that is above or below 50 megawatts,

a collective agreement and national terms are adhered to by any complete

constructing on British soil. This must be clearly written within the

contract. Order. The question is that the honourable member have

leave to bring in the bill. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To

the contrary, "no". The ayes have it, the ayes have it. Who will

prepare and bring in the Bill? Kevin Barron, Sarah Champion, John Healey,

Andy McDonald, Anna Turney, Ian Wright, and myself, sir.

Town and country planning, electricity generating consent bill.

Second reading, what day? Friday the 13th of May. Friday the 13th of May.

Thank you. Order. We can now to... Oh, not before the point of order

from the honourable gentleman. Point of order. On a point of order, I

would like to ask you whether you have received immediate notification

of a statement by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

in respect of the admission by the chairman of dossiers relating to

parts of reactors meeting required standards had been falsified and the

extent to which those falsifications were present in the generic design

assessment process for the operation of reactors in the UK. No. I have

received no indication on this extremely important matter that the

Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has any plans to make

a statement to the House. The honourable gentleman maybe

dissatisfied by that news, and if he is, he has manifold ways in which to

pursue the matter through the use of the order paper and the facility of

this chamber. And knowing his experience and dexterity, I feel

sure that he will use all the instrument is available to him. If

there no further points of order, we come now to the opposition day

motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. To move that motion,

I call the shadow Secretary of State for Health, Heidi Alexander. Thank

you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move view motion on the order paper in my name

and the names of my honourable and right honourable friend. Before I

begin, can I inform the House that I have been told that the

Parliamentary Undersecretary of State, the member for Ipswich, will

be opening this debate for the government? Given that the Health

Secretary is sat next to him, can I ask why we will not be hearing from

his boss today? If you would like to explain a genuine reason, I would be

happy to take on intervention. If not, I take it that the Health

Secretary simply doesn't want to come to this house to defend his

policy. Order. There is a certain amount of chirruping from the

Treasury bench and elsewhere on this matter. I simply make two points.

First, it is for the government to decide which minister to field. But

I do very gently say to the Secretary of State, and indeed to

the deputy leader of the, that to sit on the bench while these matters

are being debated is one thing, particularly in the case of the

Secretary of State, but to sit there fiddling ostentatiously with an

electronic device devised the established convention of the House

that such devices should be used and I remind members, without impairing

Parliamentary decorum. They are imperilling Parliamentary decorum,

and in simple terms, are being discourteous to the shadow Secretary

of State and to the House. It is a point so blindingly obvious that

only an extraordinarily clever and sophisticated person could fail to

grasp it. Heidi Alexander. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course, this is

in the first time the Health Secretary has chosen not to respond

to debates that I have brought or questions I have put. Order. I say

to the deputy Leader of the House, put the device away, and if you

don't want to put it away, get out of the House. It is rude. Order! I

am not inviting a response from the honourable lady. I am simply telling

her it is discourteous to behave like that, a point that most people

would readily understand. The shadow Secretary of State, Heidi Alexander.

In the last few months ministers and I have had a number of exchanges

across this dispatch box about the unnecessary and dangerous fight this

Government is picking the junior doctors. You might think that,

having totally alienate it one section of the NHS workforce,

ministers would think twice about doing it again. That he would be

wrong. Not content with junior doctors, the Government are now

targeting the next generation of nurses, midwives and other allied

health professionals, podiatrist, physiotherapists, radiographers and

many, many more. Instead of investing in these health care

students, instead of valuing them, and protecting their bursaries,

which help with living costs, and cover all of their tuition fees,

this Government is asking them to pay for the privilege of training to

work in the NHS. Scrap the bursary, ask tomorrow's NHS workforce to rack

up a enormous debts, and claim this is the answer to current staff

shortages. I will give way. She is making a spending commitments so why

does she stand on a manifesto that oppose Government 10p in the pound

investment in the NHS a few months ago? Thank you, Mr Speaker. . The

Labour Party has always been clear it would have given the NHS every

penny it needs. You would think the approach that I have outlined when

it comes to health care students most people would think that the

Government have taken leave of their senses. And they would be right. A

few weeks ago... I'm very grateful. My constituents are baffled by the

approach the Government are taking at a time when local hospitals are

recruiting nurses from Spain and other European countries. To

actually stop bursaries to get more people into training seems

absolutely ridiculous. I absolutely agree with my honourable friend.

Indeed, the bursary acts as an incentive to get those students into

training and to get them into the NHS. A few weeks ago, the Government

launched their consultation on the technical detail of these changes.

Not the principal, just the detail. In his foreword, the Parliamentary

Under-Secretary of State claimed that these proposals are good for

students, good for patience and good for the NHS. The opposite is the

case. But before I set out why these plans are so bad, it's important we

remind ourselves why our country has a nursing shortage in the first

place. Shortly after the 2010 election, the Coalition Government

cut the number of nurse training commissions in an attempt to make

some short-term savings. Those cuts soared nurse training places reduced

from more than 20,000 a year to just 17,000, the lowest level since the

1990s. As a result, we trained 8000 fewer nurses in the last Parliament

and we would have done had we maintained commissions at 2010

levels. At the time, experts such as the Royal College of Nursing, warned

that the cuts would cause, and I quote, "Serious issues in

undersupply for years to come." They were right. But they were ignored by

ministers who were too focused on the short-term and too distracted by

their plans to launch a massive reorganisation of the NHS. Our

health service is now suffering the consequences of those decisions. New

analysis by the House of Commons library which has been released

today has shown the number of nurses per head of the population fell from

6786 per million people in 2009 two 6645 in 2015. Unison survey

published just last week found that two thirds of respondents felt

staffing levels and got worse in the last year, with a further 63% saying

they felt they were inadequate numbers of staff on the wards to

ensure safe, dignified and compassionate care. Because of these

shortages, hospitals are forced to recruit from overseas or spend vast

amounts on expensive agency staff. I will gave way. In 2014-15, three 3p

was spent on agency staff in the NHS. Does this short-sighted move

mean Billy good trusts may be more reliant on agency staff as a result

of moving the bursary? She's to point out the problems of staff

shortages leading to more agency staff needing to be used are

creating an enormous black hole in hospital finances and my fear is

that these proposals would put off the next generation of nurses. It

now appears that the Government is making the same mistakes all over

again. A report sneaked out on the day this House rose for Easter

recess revealing the Government has only commissioned one tenth of the

extra nurse training places experts said we needed this year. The report

from the migration advisory committee says this. " We were told

that health education England has acknowledged that on the basis of

workforce modelling alone, they would have liked to commission an

additional 3000 places in 2016-17. Funding constraints meant they could

only commission an additional 331 places, one tenth of what was

actually needed." The report... I will gave way. Would she not agree

with me that by changing the way we run the NHS especially on bursaries

and opening it up to more of a competition, we would get more

nurses coming into the NHS plugging the gap she's describing? I don't

agree with the honourable gentleman. Further in my speech I will explain

in some detail as to why. I would like to go back to the migration

advisory committee report because it doesn't make happy reading for

ministers, Madam Deputy Speaker. It goes on to say," it seemed

self-evident to as the reduction in the number of commissioned training

places between 2010-13 across England, Scotland, Wales and

Northern Ireland was a significant contributing factor towards the

current national shortage of nurses and, finally, the crucial sentence

which sums up why we are experiencing across the board

nursing shortages, almost all of these issues relate to and are

caused by a desire to save money, but this is a choice, not a fixed

fact. The Government could invest and resource if it wanted to. Those

are not my words. They are the words of the migration advisory committee.

Hospitals are short of nurses, mental health services are short of

nurses, care homes, hospices, primary care is, too. We therefore

have a big problem. No one in this House disputes that but no one

should be under any illusion as to the cause. The question is, when

faced with this problem, what is the right thing to do? How best can

Government work with experts to ensure we are training enough staff

and supporting those staff so they stay motivated and stayed working in

the NHS? I will gave way. Of course we all agree there is a significant

shortage of nurses and his absolutely right to ask the question

what should be done. Issue therefore giving support to the government's

concept of associate nursing which I believe will make a huge difference

in places like my constituency, Gloucester, where we need new nurses

to increase the numbers of home trained nursing staff? I'm grateful

to the honourable gentleman for his question and think the key question

that we need to have answered with regard to nursing associates is

whether it's the intention of a Government that they replace

registered nurses, because if that's the case, I fear these proposals

would be bad for patient care. Madam Deputy Speaker, you might think a

sensible approach to try to resolve this problem would be to sit down

with the Royal College of Nursing and other trade unions,

universities, health providers, to try and work out a way forward but

no, this Government seems incapable of that. Instead, in just two lines

in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, they announced they would

scrap NHS bursaries and asking student nurses to pay tuition fees.

The Minister will argue that this will allow universities to train

more students. But his problem is this. I will gave way. Doesn't you

think the Government doesn't do the Royal College when it says these

proposals they are putting forward our high risk, potentially deterring

students from entering the nursing profession and risks worsening the

current nursing shortage? I entirely agree with my honourable friend. I

think the Government's problem is this. They have failed to back up

their claims with any evidence. They are now faced with a breadth of

opposition to this proposal, not just from members of this House, but

from the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of midwives and

Unison, organisations such as million-plus, the Association for

modern universities, are also questioning the assumptions on which

the Government is basing this policy. I will gave way. Does she

agree with my constituent Zoe who was at trained nurse who was

concerned for mature students because she feels many of them, 50%

of the time is spent on unpaid clinical placements in hospital and

the community and therefore they don't have the opportunity to do

part-time work to support themselves as others do. Will not affect them

disproportionately? I do agree with my right honourable friend and I

will make some remarks on precisely that point later in my contribution.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the purpose of the opposition in calling this

debate today is that we hope that this House can rally round what many

people would think is a straightforward and reasonable

proposal about the Government drops these plans and instead consults on

how to properly fund and support the future health care workforce. Let me

set out why these plans are bad for students, bad for patients, and bad

for the NHS. The Government claim these plans will leave health care

students 25% better off but what they won't say is that, according to

their own consultation, in order to be 25% better off, a student will

have to take out a maximum maintenance and tuition fee loan for

three years and will graduate with debts are between 48000 and ?59,000.

I will gave way. Many people in the House today will know I had a son at

23 weeks gestation which spent weeks in intensive care with a neonatal

nurse called Nicola who sadly died not long after my son come out of

hospital. I'm frightened many people like Nicola will not go into that

profession because of his astronomical amounts of debt they

will take on. Really, that's a progressive step in the Government

should think again about that. I completely agree with my honourable

friend. It seems the Government argument is students will be better

off because they can borrow more. The simple truth is that loan

repayments will head the take-home pay of nurses. There's no two ways

about it. The current starting salary from nurse is ?21,692. Just

above the student loan repayment threshold, which of course, has been

frozen. This means nurses will start paying off loans as soon is they

graduate and, according to Unison, based on current salary levels, and

this will be faced with an average pay debt of over ?900 a year to meet

their debt repayments. How can that possibly be justified? And worse, as

the average age of the student nurses 28, the current 30 year

payment period means many nurses will be paying off loans to within

years of retirement. On this side of the House, we say it is wrong to

burden the next generation of NHS staff with a lifetime of debt and

wrong to expect tomorrow's nurses to pay the price for this government's

mismanagement of the NHS. Does the Minister not understand that student

nurses, midwives and other allied health professionals are different

from other students? Can he not see it as dangerous to assume that just

because application rates remained stable after the troubling of

tuition fees in the last Parliament, the same will happen with his

proposals? I say to him, assuming health care students will respond in

the same way as other students to tuition fees hike, is one hell of an

assumption and one hell of a risk. Courses for nursing, midwifery and

other allied health professionals are substantially different to other

degrees. Not only are there fewer holidays, longer days, longer term

times, but students are also required to spend half their time in

clinical practice, 2300 hours in the case of a student nurse including

nights and weekend shifts as a normal part of their studies. I've

already given away to the honourable gentleman and I want to make some

progress. Madam Deputy Speaker, these changes will effectively

charge students for working in the NHS. And of course, longer term

placements also make it harder for these students together part-time

job to supplement their income as many other students do. It's not

just the course that makes health care students unique. They are much

more likely to be women, much more likely to be mature students, much

more likely to have children and more likely to be from the M E

backgrounds. Many nursing students have already completed 1 degrees and

turned to nursing in their late 20s or early 30s -- BME. The average age

of a student nurses 28. When I think of my own friends, who are nurses

and midwives, three out of four of them took the decision to retrain

having done a different first degree. Now I know the Minister

probably moves in different circles to me, but I can tell him that if he

wants a dose of reality, I'm sure my friends would be more than happy to

oblige. I understand that the Minister may not have experienced

the same conversations as I did within my working-class family about

the pluses and minuses of racking up debts to get a degree. But I can

tell him that, for many nurses, and his proposals, that will be an all

too real For the one in five health care

students with children, does he not realise that the fear of debt is

greater for them than for a carefree, privately educated history

student bound for Cambridge? Madame Deputy Speaker, my concern about

these proposals is that we ultimately end up with those who are

best placed to pay becoming nurses and midwives, and not those best

placed to care. That brings me to why these proposals are bad for

patients. I thank the honourable member for giving way. We are all

agreed on the need for more nurses, the question is how we fund them.

Will she advise how much money she would take away from front line NHS

care in order to fund the expansion of nurse places that we need in this

country? At the last election, we set out clearly costed plans for how

we would recruit additional nurses, doctors and care staff to the NHS.

The NHS should have a workforce that reflects the population it serves,

just as this place should. The mental health sector in particular

relies on mature students, and the additional life experience they've

bring -- and they bring to a demanding environment. A few months

ago, I met Marina, a young woman who has not had an easy life, but is now

on a mission to become a mental health nurse. When Marina says to me

that she thinks some of the people best placed to care for others are

those who have experienced hardships themselves, I think she has a point.

And when she says she would not have been able to start her training

without the bursary, I believe her. Why is the minister so convinced

that the NHS can do without people like Marina in the future, and why

does he think they should pay to train. Why will he not consider

other options for increasing student numbers? The quality of training

that student nurses, midwives and other allied health professionals

receive will also be dependent on the quality of their clinical

placements. Whilst government ministers claim these changes could

deliver up to 10,000 extra places over the course of this Parliament,

can they set out what capacity hospitals and other providers have

to accommodate these extra students, and whether health education England

has sufficient funds set aside to fund these placements? Can the

minister also be clear as to how they have arrived at this 10,000

figure? Is this an assessment of what the system needs? Is it what

health education England can afford to fund, or is it simply a big

sounding number plucked out of the air at random? An extra 10,000

compared to when? What is the baseline year from when to judge his

policy by? I have now asked the minister that question three times

in Britain parliamentary questions, and each time, I have not got an

answer. Does he not understand that if his department can't even ants

are a simple question about -- if they can not even answer a simple

question about the claims of their policy, it doesn't exactly inspire

confidence. There are some any questions the minister needs to

answer. It is impossible to do them all justice in one speech. As has

been indicated, it is agreed that we need to expand places, but thanks to

this government, 10 billion additional pounds has been put into

GP services, cancer treatment and hospital care. Which of those

services which she cut to fund the alternative bursary scheme she has

in mind? I am afraid the honourable gentleman does not seem to realise

that that money is plugging a very big black hole in NHS finances at

the moment. When the minister stands up, I am sure he will note that many

applicants to study nursing and other health care degrees are turned

away. But what proportion of those unsuccessful applicants actually

meet the entry criteria? How can he be sure that his new system will

deliver the required numbers of different types of nurses and other

health care professionals in the right geographical areas? Can he

also say what guarantees he has given to higher education

institutions that the new arrangements will cover the costs of

delivering degrees? Can he also say what assessment he has made of the

amount of an repaid student debt which will accumulate, given that

over a lifetime, some nurses will not earn enough to repay the

totality of their loans plus interest? The proposal to scrap NHS

bursaries is a massive gamble, at a time when the NHS needs certainty.

Put simply, it shifts the cost of training nurses, midwives and other

allied health professionals from the state to the individual. If we are

all happy to enjoy the benefits of the NHS, why should we not all

contribute to the training of those who work in it? I was the first

person in my family to go to university. I was someone who had my

tuition fees paid in full, and received a full maintenance grant. I

am really worried that people like me, people like my friends, will be

put off from what could be a fulfilling and important career. We

should be doing all we can to inspire today's's schoolchildren to

become nurses and health care professionals of the future. Sadly,

the government is doing a good job of doing the opposite. If ministers

want to continue to import staff from overseas, they are going the

right way about it. I say we owe a debt of attitude to those staff, but

we want home-grown staff as well. In conclusion, I would like to return

to the government's consultation. One of the sections is titled

"Nursing, midwifery and allied health professionals students

deserve the same opportunities as other students". On this side of the

House, we say no. They deserve better. They should be treated

differently to other students, as they will look after us when we are

older, who will care for our relatives when they are sick and who

will staff the NHS when this shambolic government has long gone.

The government should drop these proposals and think again. I commend

this motion to the House. The question is as on the order paper.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to be answering this

motion put by the honourable lady, not least because I think this is

potentially one of the most exciting things we will do in the NHS in the

next five years to increase opportunity and quality and the

presence of nursing staff on warts. And we will do that because of a

reform that has helped so many other students across this country in the

last five years. The honourable lady came to the House at the same time

as I did. We were in that debate in November 2010, on opposite sides of

the House, making contributions in a debate where many of us were anxious

about the outcome, not least because of the enormous pressures that were

on us from our constituents. Members who have been here for many years

will know that it was the first time you could hear a riot outside the

chamber whilst you were sitting in this place. And they were outside,

complaining that we were going to destroy the ability of people to go

to university. We were going to make it impossible for people to go who

came from disadvantaged backgrounds, and we were going to set back years

of progress in closing the inequality gap in this country.

There were people who spoke on both sides of the House who feel very

passionately about that. We believe it could be sold by different means.

But we have had the ability of the last five years to see the effect of

the changes and to see, as the honourable lady has posited in her

speech, the evidence for the changes that were made. And the evidence is

clear. This year, there were 394,380 people accepted onto places in this

country. That is 35,000 more people accepted onto university places than

in 2010, when we had that debate. If that were one university, it would

be the fourth largest university in this country. That was a result of

the reforms undertaken in this House in 2010. But the honourable lady

says, how was it that that expanded opportunity to those who most need

university? I regret the tone she took in this portion of her remarks.

I am afraid it was beneath. It is indeed wrong that when I went to

university, my fees were in part paid for by nurses on low wages

paying tax. That is wrong. We accepted that that was wrong. We

also accepted that the system was not helping people who most need

university in order to escape their backgrounds to get into university.

So the results we should really be looking for what has helped people

from disadvantaged backgrounds get into university in the last five

years. In the last five years, the numbers of people going to

university from disadvantaged backgrounds has increased by 10,150,

a massive increase over the last five years. Had someone said that

would be possible in 2010, I doubt anyone would have given 5000-1 odds

on that happening. But 10,150 people is the size of the university of

Leicester. It is the number of people who we have brought into the

university sector as a result of the changes we have made. One university

more follow people from disadvantaged backgrounds that we

have created -- full of people. I know that her motivations in 2010

were entirely honest and commendable. I also know that many

members of the side of the House felt likewise, but we have to accept

when we get things wrong man that is where am afraid the honourable lady,

not ourselves, is failing to learn from history. Back in that debate,

she said "I fear", in an intervention on one of my honourable

friend 's," that the changes proposed will mean huge debt forced

onto students and they could now have a greater incentive to go to

university than there is for students from more affluent

backgrounds". She made exactly the same point she has made in this

debate back in 2010. She was wrong then, and I humbly suggest that she

is wrong on this occasion. She should listen to the evidence that

has been put forward not by me but by so many institutions about the

progress that has been made in reducing inequality. For that reason

alone, I will come onto the reasons for reducing bursaries later.

Does he not accept that health care students have very different

characteristics compared to other students and their behaviour will

not be the same, necessarily, as those students who were affected by

the reforms in the last Parliament? I do accept the differences. Implied

in her point she is accepting she was wrong in 2010 and therefore

should be more measured about the proposals. It hasn't all been plain

sailing since the reforms came in, not least the impact on applications

from materials students. Given the proportion of material students who

make up the nursing cohort does the Minister not accept there is nothing

in the consultation that proposes how to mitigate against that risk to

good recruits from mature student backgrounds who currently make up a

significant proportion of the nursing workforce? He is wrong on

both points. The number of material student applications is higher than

in 2010 and there are specific recommendations to deal with mature

students. Doesn't this demonstrate the point he is making that you have

a choice? You either inspire people to aspire and give them the

opportunity to come into the NHS by talking it up or you top it down by

being negative and put people off. I believe that is why the opposition

was wrong in 2010 and had we followed their advice we would have

fewer people from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university. As

a result of us taking forward brave proposals in the teeth of

opposition, we have done more for the prospects of people from

disadvantaged backgrounds since education -- higher education was

reformed. The fact that the offer of an alternative is so anaemic makes

it clear there is no alternative suggestion the honourable lady can

put forward, which is an increase in numbers and people from diverse

backgrounds. It implies she accepts that workforce planning over the

last 40 years has failed. Perhaps she is not willing to say that is

because everything we have to do now to correct workforce numbers, the

5000 additional GPs my right honourable friend fought the last

election campaign on and will deliver in the next few years, is a

result of commissioning decisions being made poorly, not under the

Coalition Government or even the latter years of the Labour

government but 20 or 30 years ago. It is the failure to predict in

advance of the numbers of GPs and professionals that is landing is in

these perpetual situations where we are not accepting British students

who want to do a training course into university places and so not

creating the number of domestic trained nurses we need, and having

the response to the inadequacies in care uncovered in the mid-Staffs

scandal and the failure of the Labour government to have nurse

numbers across the country, importing nurses from abroad and

filling most places with agency posts, something we have to correct

now. Can I just tell the Minister that one of the main areas of

feedback I have had from the Salisbury Hospital foundation trust

is that they are frustrated with the reliance on agency nurses so I

welcome the Government 's moves in this area because it will open up

the supply and reduce the reliance and significant additional cost over

the last few years? It is precisely to help that hospital we are making

these reforms. He said before there was no alternative to these

proposals. Can he tell us which of the Royal colleges the consulted

with before that decision? I have spoken at length with the Royal

College of Nursing but we do differ on key parts of the plant but I

would expect that. -- plan. You will see in their initial response to the

consultation that they accept the premise under which we are

proceeding. I want to find through the period of consultation those

areas where we can agree and improve the proposals we have put before the

public and that is why we have been very open about this consultation

and offered the full length, 12 weeks. Many people said we would not

but we did. Precisely so we can listen to the concerns and exciting

challenges across the sectors and improve our proposals to the NHS.

There is a suggestion of a whole series of things apart from one

thing which is the opposition's proposals to do anything different.

What they will not do is offer new money to the NHS. They were offering

?4.5 billion less than we did at the last election. It would have to be

cut elsewhere in the service, I can only presume. The honourable lady

has no credibility in making her argument unless she comes to the

House saying she will offer 10,000 additional training places and pay

for them out of taxpayers' money rather than finding an alternative

funding mechanism. I will say this. I am not going to lead the House by

a series of suggestions about what might or might not be better and

merely setting to criticised the proposals rather than offering

constructive ideas. She is contributing now in her debate

although sadly there were no actual solutions about what we could do

alternatively. What I intend to do is set up not by suggestion but by

very clear announcement the plans that we have, the reasons why we

want to do them and how we will enact them over the years to come.

This opposition has proffered many solutions to the Government over

time. Last week, in the form of a cross-party solution to the doctors

crisis, which was thrown back in the face of our front bench. There is a

solution. The Government at the moment is taking an apprenticeship

leading from large employers, including the NHS. Would he agree to

speak his business colleagues to see whether the apprenticeship levy

could be spent on subsidising nurses to tackle the challenge they have in

funding? Has honourable friend, the member for Ilford North, discussed

this with me a number of times and he has concerns about the proposals.

He offered useful suggestions about the detail and I accepted what he

wanted to say and incorporated them within our thinking. I am willing to

listen to people across the House when they have helpful suggestions

and I'm sure the Minister for Skills would like to listen to his

contributions. The way not to do it is to come to the House with a

series of criticisms and not one suggestion, least of all any money

to provide an increase in training places this plan was provide. --

will provide. Were it not even further number and reason of

producing 10,000 additional training places in our university systems, or

for the fact we have a broken planning system, because we will not

be able to predict in 20 or 30 years' time the number of NHS

workers we will require, even if it were not for that it would be

important to make this change because of the changes it will make

to the quality of training we can provide to nursing graduates. What

has happened in the undergraduate sector across the rest of

undergraduate training is that we have seen universities released to

innovate, provide improvements in their courses, satisfaction levels

have gone up, dropping out rates have gone down, and people are

getting a better experience. But we have not been able to spread those

advantages to nurses who, I'm afraid, still are trapped in a

system which is prescriptive rather than listening to what they need and

what their future employers will need in terms of skills. That is why

by releasing universities from the straitjacket in which they have had

to operate, we will be able to provide significant improvements to

the quality of training they provide. It is an assertion which is

backed up by the evidence of the past five years and has received the

recommendation of Professor Jessica Corner, the chairman of the Council

of deans of health. She said, we recognise this has been a difficult

decision to the Government at we are pleased the Government has found a

way forward. Fully implemented, this should allow universities in

partnership with NHS to increase places and improve day-to-day

financial support for students while they study. The plan means students

will have access to more day-to-day maintenance support through the

system and likewise universities UK support increasing professional

student numbers to work with the Government and NHS to secure the

sustainable funding system we have provided. They are pleased about the

impact this will have on placement training. These are the people

providing training in our NHS and they support the proposals we have

had forward because they will release the same kind of innovation

we have seen elsewhere in the university sector. I wanted to

reinforce a point he is making witches, I think, and he will know

the answer, that the shows actually far more people from deprived

backgrounds have gone to university since the changes made five years

ago. Could you confirm that? At a time when the benches opposite said

it would have the opposite effect. The evidence is more conclusive then

he said. Could you confirm the maintenance grants will go up to

25%, which will help on that specific point he mentioned? It

brings me onto the next point I wanted to make which is the great

virtue of these reforms as far as June finance is concerned is that it

means we can increase student finance support, maintenance support

by 25 cent. She makes some clear and sensible points that working as a

student nurse, training as a student nurse is different from being a

history undergraduate. It means you have less time to take on jobs but

even more reason therefore to provide better maintenance support.

She has not come to the House saying she is gone to provide 25%

additional maintenance support for students who do not have the time to

be able to go and get second jobs as a result. She has not come with that

commitment and yet she has criticised our efforts to increase

maintenance support by 25% precisely to help those people who would not

otherwise be able to take time out in order to take on university

courses. She cannot have it both ways. She can't on one hand

criticise us for the reforms we are undertaking while at the same time

seeing students need greater support. It is through those reforms

we are producing the support so many students require. He talks about

maintenance support. Can you clarify that support will no longer be in

the form of a grant but in the form of a loan and will land a student in

even more debt when they finally qualify? By reforming the system so

it becomes alone rather than a grant we are able to produce 25% extra

support for students whilst the train, much as with the rest of the

student population. The results on newly qualified nurses are not, as

the honourable lady suggests. Here, she should be very clear in the way

she addresses this question because all of us have a duty to inform the

public properly. The one thing that would be remiss of us is even if we

disagreed as to mislead potential students into thinking they will

have to pay more than they otherwise would. In her speech she said that

students would have to pay hundreds of pounds more in terms of

repayments once they qualify. It just is not the case. We anticipate

a newly qualified nurse will be paying roughly ?90 per year more,

about the same as they are currently paying because of the way student

payment finance is, and the impact on newly qualified nurses will not

be anywhere near the impact she has suggested. She should be careful

about how she addresses are points because otherwise people will

receive an impression about these loans that is not fact. Can he tell

us what cancellation he has made of how much will be unpaid back of the

loan? The economic impact assessment as part of the consultation. It

depends on the way the student work first developed over the next 20 or

30 years but it is fully costed within the Treasury's assumptions.

We anticipate people working beneath the current limits will not be

paying back more than at the moment. That is the way the payments are

cultivated. This will not land on newly qualified nurses with new

payments that they had otherwise not expected.

I am grateful to the Honourable Gentleman. The Minister urged me to

be careful with my words, which I was, and I recognise he is being

careful with his as well. He is talking about newly qualified

nurses. Can he confirm what the average repayment would be for the

average nurse? The average nurse, as she claims it, is not a figure we

currently have, because how would I project 50 years into the future for

precisely the reasons we have discussed, where their career path

will go? But the actual repayments, I will turn to the Honourable Lady

from Kingston-upon-Hull in a second, the actual payments are listed in

the consultation document and are clear about the man to be paid back

over and above what would -- what students would be expected to pay --

the amount to be paid back. The only way we are going to square the

circle is by reforming student finance, so rather than shouting,

she may like to know that whereas she suggested many in her

constituency would be none the wiser about this reform, when I talked

about the reforms to nurses in her constituency a few moments ago and

about the introduction of apprenticeships, nursing associate

grades, all of which are at peace with the reforms I am outlining,

they were excited about the changes we are making to the nursing

profession. All of this is only possible within a budget carefully

controlled where priorities are being made about where money is

being spent. I will give way. From a sedentary position I shouldn't have

been shouting at the Minister that I am surprised that he comes to this

House and is unable to answer a basic question about what the amount

of money lost would be through the scheme he wants to Jews. Surely he

ought to those facts at his fingertips. I do have them. A newly

qualified nurse will not pay more than one under the current system.

For those on higher pay rates... If she does not have the details I will

write to her with the details. What I will say to be Honourable ladies

and gentleman opposite is that rather than picking precisely at

points because they are refusing to face up to the fact that they have

two fund their commitments out of additional money, they should listen

carefully to the entirety of the reforms we are proposing. I will

make some progress if the Honourable Lady will not mind. First we are

introducing a new nursing associate grade which my Honourable Friend

mentioned previously. This is an extraordinary opportunity to be able

to eradicate one of the great unfairness is in the NHS at the

moment, that there are brilliant people working as health care

assistants who cannot become registered nurses because they were

let down by the schools they went to. It is a consequence I am afraid

of the failure of school reform under the previous Government and

over previous governments, people were failed to the extent that they

have not been given the opportunities they deserve. We will

reverse them by providing an apprenticeship ladder, both to

nursing associate role and from there to registered nursing

position, degree apprenticeship available to both able and confident

to reach that grade, a route of opportunity not available under the

previously the Government, a route of opportunity brought in by this

Conservative Government, one nation party for all. It is by making those

reforms, by bringing in a nursing associate role, by creating 100,000

apprentices in the NHS, many of whom will be health care assistants

working their way to a nursing associate position and from there to

registered nursing grade, will give multiple opportunities for people to

become nurses. Both those who want to learn while they are learning who

are already in the service, who will take four and a half, five, six

years to get to a registered nursing role or those able to take time out

to do a degree to become a registered nurse for whom we will

provide additional support in terms of maintenance grants. Members are

shaking their hands but I don't know what out, are they shaking their

heads at the 100,000 apprenticeships we are creating or the nursing

associate roles, or at the increased maintenance support? None of that

has been addressed in the Honourable Lady's speech. That is why I hope in

my last remaining minutes, I hope my Honourable Friend won't mind if I

conclude my remarks. I know members across the House want to intervene

on this debate. Why this reform is important, not just for individuals

who want to become nurses, not just for matters of social equality and

opportunity, but also important for the NHS. You see, the NHS is not

able to innovate like other parts of our public sector and private sector

because of the long lead times in terms of training people. We do not

have the instruments within the NHS to be able to reflect the dramatic

changes in demographics and technology which changed the NHS not

year by year but month on month. The great benefit of bringing in

apprenticeship routes, nursing associate roles, of diverse of the

skill mix, creating quicker and more numerous routes into the nursing

profession, is that we can create a more diverse, more flexible and more

agile trained workforce. All will be possible because of the reforms of

which this bursary reform is part. None would have been possible with

the reduction in funding promised by the party opposite or the failure to

wish reform upon the system. That is why, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope

this House will reject this motion, full of suggestions and indications

rather than firm plans, from the party opposite. This motion says

nothing for the future of the people that the NHS depend upon. It does

nothing to suggest how we will increase numbers or provide

additional maintenance support, almost importantly, provide

opportunity for those who have not yet had any. We will do that by

reforming the system just as we did in 2010. We will make sure we do not

listen to the well-intentioned but erroneous voices from the party

opposite, which had we listen to in 2010, would have denied opportunity

to tens of thousands of people. We will be determined not to do that.

We will be the party of opportunity, presenting it to those who want to

be in nursing or any other position in the NHS because this will only be

a truly national health this event provides opportunity to the many,

not the few. Many thanks, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must initially

declare an interest you to my work in the NHS and for having had the

privilege of being trained as a doctor with the availability of a

grant. The National Health Service is one of our most esteemed public

services but at present in the UK there is a long-standing shortage of

qualified health care professionals. While the current bursary system for

nursing and allied health care students may not be without issue

the UK Government's proposed changes to this as laid out are concerning.

Additionally, is the manner these have been presented with detailed

consideration of the impact somewhat lacking? As you have heard, the UK

Government are proposing the current NHS bursary system be changed.

Instead health care students will be required to pay tuition fees and be

subject to the same standard loan system other students in a number

subject to. The UK Government have indicated they expect these reforms

to create up to 10,000 additional nurses and health professional

training places over the current Parliament. But this appears to be

narrow sighted. The proposed move to a system allowing students funding

themselves by taking on debts as raid substantial concerns amongst

unions, professional bodies and students. One of the key questions

is such a move could be a barrier to tearing prospective students from

entering the profession. I must say as I stand here, the first doctor in

my family, I would not have considered applying had it meant

racking up such debt. I am particularly concerned about access

to doctorate causes and for postgraduate requirements. Will we

create an elite workforce, one not based upon ability but instead upon

means? Unison estimate that under the new scheme student undertaking a

three-year 30 week course outside London will graduate with debtor lit

-- of at least ?51,600 plus interest and any over draft plus any personal

debt. Her own achievements are to be applauded by all of us, but does she

recognise that there are people out there who don't think university is

for them, but for whom a two-year apprenticeship course offered by the

new nursing associate route will give a real opportunity to get into

the NHS, and maybe later go on to be a full nurse. I thank the Honourable

Member for his intervention. I would like to see a widening of access

into schemes in the NHS in terms of training. I would hope that it is

properly funded and we don't rely on NHS staff to take other jobs while

training and to undertake the stress of the straining along is -- stress

of the training alongside other jobs. We know the NHS staff we have

are invaluable and we want to fund them in that capacity. For many,

their loans may be higher due to the additional cost from longer courses

and courses in London, and as already stated I am particular

concerned about postgraduate courses for doctorate trainees who may not

be able to afford continual loans which are to their debt. As such it

is likely that the majority of health care students, the size of

their debt could be considerably higher. I believe it is naive to

think larger loans will not be a psychological deterrent, especially

those from poorer or nonuniversity backgrounds or mature students, or

those who have changed careers who may have additional financial

responsibilities or debts from those degrees or in relation to family

life. The demographic of students on nursing, midwifery and allied health

professions tends to be different from other student populations as we

have heard. It is more likely to be women from black and minority ethnic

backgrounds, parents and mature students. It is likely therefore,

and a real concern, that abolishing bursaries will reduce diversity,

Foster inequality and encourage potentially high quality applicants.

I thank the Member for giving way. She is making a very valid,

important point. Can I get to something the Minister said, the

frustration for me was that I was a Unison trade union wrap before I

came to this place in home care, and we were able, with those women who

weren't qualified before, give them access to health care assistant to a

foundation degree, vacation all degree, into hospital, in much the

way the Minister claims is not possible. It is important they are

not disadvantaged by the thousands of pounds of debt they take on. I

think you have made your own point! It is extremely important that

people from all backgrounds are encouraged to enter our NHS. We have

a diverse society in the UK and we have two insure our health staff

respect this and support people from all backgrounds to enter it --

health care staff. I also think it is not enough just to increase

numbers by creating an open market for training. To ensure a quality

service it is crucial that student places are well planned, well

supervised and well distributed between the areas within the

service. Therefore much consultation will be required. In response to the

Government's proposals the chief executive of the Royal College of

Nursing has commented, the last thing we need are disincentives to

recruitment. We should do everything possible to attract applicants as

the country needs more nurses now than any other time in history. The

Honourable Member is making many valid points. For example, if you

live in Wales and you want to study at an English university the

proposals are to stop the bursary but if you live in England, Scotland

or Northern Ireland and want to study in Wales, Welsh university,

nursing, midwifery or an allied health profession, the label Welsh

Government will pay that bursary. Taking that to conclusion, the

numbers will decrease in England and increase in Wales and Scotland and

Northern Ireland. But my most concerning point is that the UK

Government does not commit to undertaking an impact assessment on

cross-border applications before proceeding with these changes. Does

the Honourable Member think they should have? Many thanks. Once again

the Honourable Lady makes her point very well. My belief is that we are

required to staff the NHS well across the UK. Impact assessments

may be required to be considered down the line if there is a shortage

as a result of this policy in England, and I hope that answers

your point. In Scotland the SNP Government recognised the value of

investing in our NHS and provided a support package which is hugely

generous in comparison to England. Singh and midwifery student

bursary... This can be topped up with a range of income assessed

allowances. There are other examples of other ways to progress in terms

of this policy. Under the SNP government, the NHS staff numbers

have increased by over 10000 and the party is committed to supporting the

development of a quality health service which will meet the needs of

Scottish people not just now only but in the future as well. Workforce

projections from this years show 1000 extra NHS staff expected to be

recruited across Scotland this year. There is an 8.4% increase in NHS

staffing to a record high, more qualified nurses and midwives per

1000 population in Scotland than in England and Wales and in the last

year Scotland has seen all nursing and midwifery staff increase with a

projected increase of 600 full-time equivalents over the financial year.

Doctors are up 26.7% or 2000 500 full-time equivalents, and

consultants are at a record high. If a newly qualified nurse is

guaranteed one year of employment once they complete studies, a

commitment not offered anywhere else in the UK. The health Minister also

confirmed the nursing and midwifery student bursary and allowance would

be protected at existing levels in 2016/ 17. The NHS is a crucial

public service and this government cannot continue to railroad their

way through it. Although reform may be needed to address current issues

within the service, such decisions should not be made hastily and

without full consideration of the impact and potential workable

alternatives. We have already heard workable alternatives today. I would

urge the Minister to commit to a comprehensive consultation on the

full proposals to determine the best way to support and invest in the

service and to support its students. This is a vital workforce which we

depend upon in our times of crisis. It is only right that the should be

able to depend upon us during their training and the NHS in future. We

will have a time of seven minutes to start with. There are quite large of

people wanting to speak. Can I start by congratulating the shadow health

secretary by calling this debate? It matters because of the impact on

patients, the nursing workforce shortfall. We had evidence on the