04/07/2016

:00:00. > :00:00.people, so we can come to a better resolution, so we will conthnue to

:00:00. > :00:00.watch carefully how matters develop, that she can be reassured that we do

:00:07. > :00:09.not accept this is a better way to go forward.

:00:10. > :00:13.I am sorry, demand exceeds supply and we must move on.

:00:14. > :00:23.Urgent question, Gisela Stu`rt. It is to ask the Secretary of State of

:00:24. > :00:26.the legal status of EU nationals residing in the United Kingdom in

:00:27. > :00:33.the event of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union.

:00:34. > :00:39.Thank you very much, Mr Spe`ker EU nationals make an invaluabld

:00:40. > :00:45.contribution to our economy, society and daily lives. They should be

:00:46. > :00:50.assured that, as the Prime Linister and Home Secretary have repdatedly

:00:51. > :00:56.said, there will be no immediate change in their status in the UK.

:00:57. > :01:02.The Prime Minister has been clear that decisions on issues relating to

:01:03. > :01:06.the UK's exit from the EU whll be for a new Prime Minister. I'm

:01:07. > :01:13.therefore not in a position to make new policy announcements thhs

:01:14. > :01:19.afternoon. The discussions that we have with the EU to agree

:01:20. > :01:24.arrangements of the UK's exht will undoubtedly reflect the immdnse

:01:25. > :01:33.contribution made by EU cithzens to our economy, to the NHS, to schools

:01:34. > :01:37.and in so many other ways. But they must also secure the interests of

:01:38. > :01:43.the 1.2 million British cithzens living and working elsewherd in the

:01:44. > :01:47.EU. The Home Secretary was clear yesterday when she said we should

:01:48. > :01:52.seek to guarantee that the rights of both groups are protected, `nd that

:01:53. > :01:57.this is best done through rdciprocal discussions with the EU as part of

:01:58. > :02:00.the negotiations to leave the EU. It has been suggested the government

:02:01. > :02:07.could now fully guarantee ET nationals living in the UK the right

:02:08. > :02:10.to stay. This would be Aaron Wise without a parallel assurancd from

:02:11. > :02:16.European governments. -- thhs would not be wise regarding British

:02:17. > :02:21.nationals living within thehr countries. Such a step might also

:02:22. > :02:26.have the unintended consequdnce of prompting EU immigration to the EU.

:02:27. > :02:30.-- to the UK. We have to have detailed work on this issue and that

:02:31. > :02:36.the new Prime Minister decides the best way forward as quickly as

:02:37. > :02:42.possible. In the meantime, H would like to stress that EU nationals

:02:43. > :02:47.continued to be welcome herd. After macro -- LAUGHTER

:02:48. > :02:53.We have seen some truly a w`rrant hate crimes in the past week or so

:02:54. > :02:57.against EU nationals. We will not stand for these kind of att`cks

:02:58. > :03:04.They must and will be tackldd in the strongest possible terms. ET

:03:05. > :03:10.nationals can have our fool and unreservedly reassurance th`t their

:03:11. > :03:14.right to enter, work, study and live in the UK remains unchanged, but to

:03:15. > :03:20.pre-empt future discussions at this point risks undermining our ability

:03:21. > :03:25.to protect the interests of EU and British citizens alike, and to get

:03:26. > :03:36.the best possible outcome for both. Gisela Stuart. I hit to teach the

:03:37. > :03:40.Minister British organisational and structures, but we are a Cabinet

:03:41. > :03:45.government structure. Irrespective of whether prime ministers decide to

:03:46. > :03:49.leave, the cabinet can still make decisions. Ministers, peopld are not

:03:50. > :03:57.bargaining chips. It is deeply, deeply offensive to assume that this

:03:58. > :04:01.is a country that retrospectively changes the rights of its chtizens.

:04:02. > :04:07.It is their duty of our govdrnment to allow people to live and arrange

:04:08. > :04:12.their lives and make predictions. We have 3 million citizens livhng in

:04:13. > :04:18.this country who are EU cithzens. 1.2 live in the EU at the moment. We

:04:19. > :04:21.have our right to expect from this government, to make clear

:04:22. > :04:26.statements, and the Minister may have read a letter in the Stnday

:04:27. > :04:31.Telegraph we are a whole group of people from members of Parlhament,

:04:32. > :04:40.including the member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, for which

:04:41. > :04:47.an ad Harpenden, such as thd TUC, the British future, they all say it

:04:48. > :04:52.is a duty of this government to say clearly and unequivocally that

:04:53. > :04:56.retrospectively any EU citizen here will maintain and continue the

:04:57. > :05:00.rights they have acquired. @nything else is a failure of governlent to

:05:01. > :05:05.protect its people and the future obligations. The Minister m`y also

:05:06. > :05:09.be aware of the House of Lords is far from happy with the govdrnment

:05:10. > :05:14.position. Can you just do the right thing? And not make people

:05:15. > :05:20.bargaining chips? Not worry about the future, at this moment, say that

:05:21. > :05:26.EU citizens have made an important and valuable contribution. We should

:05:27. > :05:35.know that at human rights and we will now say those who are here will

:05:36. > :05:41.continue to be here. I entirely understand the b`sic

:05:42. > :05:46.premise of the Right Honour`ble Lady's point, seeking to give

:05:47. > :05:50.assurance for EU nationals who are here in the UK as well as British

:05:51. > :05:56.citizens who are within othdr European countries. And on that

:05:57. > :06:01.brought premise, I don't thhnk we are poles apart at all. The question

:06:02. > :06:11.is the manner and ways to achieve that objective. I think it raises a

:06:12. > :06:17.number of complex issues. As she will equally understand, we are

:06:18. > :06:21.talking about, yes, the right to reside, but writes unemploylent to

:06:22. > :06:28.study, entitlements to benefit, access to public services, `s well

:06:29. > :06:32.as joined by family members. It is not, as she seeks to characterise

:06:33. > :06:36.it, in some way viewing people as bargaining chips at all. It is

:06:37. > :06:41.rather to get the best posshble outcome for EU citizens that are

:06:42. > :06:46.here, as well as the 1.2 million but he citizens in the European Union

:06:47. > :06:51.elsewhere. That is the focus of this government. Through the discussions

:06:52. > :06:55.with the European Union, we can get that best possible solution. She can

:06:56. > :07:00.be assured, as well as other EU nationals who are here contributing

:07:01. > :07:04.to our society, that that is absolutely at the forefront of what

:07:05. > :07:11.we are seeking to achieve in terms of negotiations that will follow.

:07:12. > :07:16.Damian Green. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sure everyone on all shdes once

:07:17. > :07:23.no disadvantage given to EU scissors and is living in this country ought

:07:24. > :07:32.to UK citizens living in other European countries. -- EU chtizens.

:07:33. > :07:37.Does the Minister, what judgment have you made about the best way to

:07:38. > :07:41.protect the interests of thd more than 1 million British citizens

:07:42. > :07:45.living and in many cases working in other EU countries, so that at the

:07:46. > :07:52.end of this process nobody can be disadvantaged at all? I think that

:07:53. > :07:54.we need to ensure that therd is an overall balance and careful

:07:55. > :08:00.consideration of all these hssues and to view this in the round. That

:08:01. > :08:04.is why it would be mistaken to view this in a narrowly and potentially

:08:05. > :08:09.make statements now that cotld have an impediment on broader discussions

:08:10. > :08:12.in relation to the position of British nationals in other DU

:08:13. > :08:15.countries. That is the right approach to take and precisdly what

:08:16. > :08:23.the prime ministers set out and we need to look at this carefully. Andy

:08:24. > :08:27.Burnham. I declare an interdst, my wife Mike Frantz as a Dutch

:08:28. > :08:34.national, my children are h`lf Dutch. -- my wife married France.

:08:35. > :08:41.This is similar to many famhlies. The EU nationals are fathers,

:08:42. > :08:47.mothers, and Sand uncles of many British children. To leave

:08:48. > :08:50.uncertainty over their future, it undermines family life in otr

:08:51. > :08:55.country, which does not strhke me as a very cry ministerial thing to do,

:08:56. > :08:59.but it is what the Home Secretary did yesterday. She said people who

:09:00. > :09:05.have an established life ye`r would be part of negotiations with

:09:06. > :09:07.Brussels. For people making a huge contribution to subvert -- to

:09:08. > :09:13.society being talked of as ` bargaining chip was insensitive But

:09:14. > :09:17.when she said nobody necess`rily stays for ever, it becomes

:09:18. > :09:20.threatening. I hope she will tell the Home Secretary that my own

:09:21. > :09:26.children would quite like their mum to stay here forever, if th`t is OK

:09:27. > :09:31.with her! In retrospect, do you not accept the Home Secretary's comments

:09:32. > :09:35.were ill judged, and that pdople who made a life year when perfectly

:09:36. > :09:40.legal to do so should not h`ve the right pulled from under thel? And is

:09:41. > :09:44.it entirely in the gift for the UK Government to remove this uncertain

:09:45. > :09:50.to Russia and why isn't the Home Secretary here doing precisdly that

:09:51. > :09:54.rather than by advising her own leadership campaign? -- to remove

:09:55. > :09:59.this uncertainty. It is this government's own decision to make

:10:00. > :10:02.this an issue in negotiations. And by doing so, are be creating

:10:03. > :10:08.conditions for the unwelcomhng climate to continue and risds in

:10:09. > :10:12.xenophobic and racist abuse we have seen? Finally, doesn't be vdry fact

:10:13. > :10:16.we are having to hold this debate illustrates how flawed the

:10:17. > :10:19.referendum campaign was? Didn't people have a right to know the

:10:20. > :10:25.answer to this crucial question before going to vote? Sending any EU

:10:26. > :10:29.nationals home has enormous implications for families, public

:10:30. > :10:36.services, the economy, so why on earth did the government instruct 77

:10:37. > :10:40.is not to carry out any contingency planning on the implications of

:10:41. > :10:46.Brexit? Wasn't that the height of irresponsibility and hasn't it left

:10:47. > :10:49.us with either compass or chart the Conservative Party has reduced the

:10:50. > :10:53.country to chaos and created uncertainty felt in every f`mily.

:10:54. > :10:57.The Home Secretary wants to lead us out of it, she needs couragd to come

:10:58. > :11:00.to this House and clear up her own mess!

:11:01. > :11:07.I have to say that if anythhng is ill-judged sadly I think thd right

:11:08. > :11:11.honourable gentleman's commdnts were ill-judged in the manner, in which

:11:12. > :11:17.he has approached this, his contribution this afternoon. I have

:11:18. > :11:20.been absolutely clear that there is no concept of bargaining chhps or

:11:21. > :11:25.viewing people in that way `t all, and have been clear in terms of the

:11:26. > :11:30.contribution that I see EU citizens make to our country now and in the

:11:31. > :11:35.future too, which is why it will be a part of that negotiation, as we

:11:36. > :11:40.look towards a future, a positive future for our country, outside of

:11:41. > :11:43.the European Union. And acttally, I don't think what would be

:11:44. > :11:49.responsible would be to takd a stance now, that could have an

:11:50. > :11:54.impact on the 1.2 million British citizens who are in countrids

:11:55. > :11:59.outside of the UK. It is not a choice of, it is not a choice of one

:12:00. > :12:06.or the other, it is a questhon of looking at both of them, and getting

:12:07. > :12:09.the best possible outcome for UK citizens in other European

:12:10. > :12:13.countries, as well as assurhng the rights of European citizens who are

:12:14. > :12:18.here, I think it is important that we approach the negotiations in that

:12:19. > :12:23.front, and he, he makes the point about the, the rise in tenshons

:12:24. > :12:27.community tension, a point H know he he made very fairly to to us last

:12:28. > :12:31.week, when my right honourable friend made her statement in

:12:32. > :12:37.relation to hate crime, which I think that we would have colmon

:12:38. > :12:40.cause with in condell, which I do absolutely again today, with the

:12:41. > :12:43.further work that will be bding introduced with the further work

:12:44. > :12:47.round hate crime, the work that police are doing in our comlunities

:12:48. > :12:50.at the moment. Why we do celebrate the work of so many European

:12:51. > :12:55.citizens here if our countrx now, that is why this does need to be

:12:56. > :12:59.part of those discussions and agreements with the European Union,

:13:00. > :13:04.to give that assurance and xes, to get the best possible outcole for

:13:05. > :13:11.them, as well as British citizens abroad.

:13:12. > :13:15.Will my right honourable frhend understand many of us regard the

:13:16. > :13:21.home secretaries's remarks `s wholly inappropriate. Would he also accept

:13:22. > :13:26.that any EU citizen, any EU citizen who currently resides in thd United

:13:27. > :13:30.Kingdom will continue to do so, as he has suggested, but that once the

:13:31. > :13:36.repeal of the European Commtnities Act 1972 has taken place, it will be

:13:37. > :13:41.matter for domestic legislation here at Westminster, to decide in our

:13:42. > :13:46.traditional, fair and reasonable manner, on what basis peopld should

:13:47. > :13:52.remain, having regard to thd interests of UK nationals in other

:13:53. > :13:58.member states. Well, Mr Speaker, I would underline

:13:59. > :14:02.again we are an opening welcoming country and recognise the

:14:03. > :14:06.contribution that recognise the contribution that EU citizens make

:14:07. > :14:12.to our country, our economy, our community, and that is why this must

:14:13. > :14:16.form part of our assessment, our consideration and our negothations

:14:17. > :14:21.and agreement with our European partners making forward. I stress it

:14:22. > :14:25.in those terms very clearly and I hope my right honourable frhend will

:14:26. > :14:29.understand why it needs to be viewed in that broader construct in the

:14:30. > :14:34.best interests of our country and get the best outcome from those

:14:35. > :14:37.discussions. I may briefly start by observing this is one of many

:14:38. > :14:44.questions to which it might have been prudent to have annal `nswer,

:14:45. > :14:49.before the honourable member for Birmingham and her fellow Brexiteers

:14:50. > :14:54.so many of their Tello citizens -- fellow citizens. Citizens. Scotland

:14:55. > :14:57.voted to stay within the European Union and our fellow citizens who

:14:58. > :15:02.were born outside the UK ard now anxious to know what the referendum

:15:03. > :15:10.results mean for them. Not just now, but in the future, and so are EU

:15:11. > :15:14.citizens across the UK, it hs wrong and irresponsible to prevarhcate

:15:15. > :15:18.about this. In launching bid for the leadership of the Tory partx, I the

:15:19. > :15:23.Home Secretary said we will strive to make Britain a country that works

:15:24. > :15:27.for everyone, regardless of who they are, and regardless of wherd they

:15:28. > :15:32.are from. Mr Speaker, actions speak louder than words, why is the Home

:15:33. > :15:36.Secretary not here today, to give the sort of reassurance that one

:15:37. > :15:41.might have expected in the light of that election pitch? What is it

:15:42. > :15:46.what could it be that is more important than her coming to this

:15:47. > :15:49.House, to give that reassur`nce The opening of the Scottish Parliament

:15:50. > :15:54.on Saturday, the First Minister said we are one Scotland, and we are

:15:55. > :16:01.simply home to all of those who have chosen to live here, that is who and

:16:02. > :16:04.what we are. Will the minister reconsider for the First Minister's

:16:05. > :16:08.example and offer that sort of reassurance for the whole of the

:16:09. > :16:13.United Kingdom? If he is not prepared do that, will he clarify

:16:14. > :16:18.today, in what circumstances he thinks it would be appropri`te to

:16:19. > :16:24.remove the rights of EU cithzens already living here? I think she has

:16:25. > :16:28.rightly highlighted there wdre and will be a whole range of issues that

:16:29. > :16:31.will need to be addressed, `nd obviously this is one of thdm, and

:16:32. > :16:35.this was a consequence of the decision to leave the Europdan

:16:36. > :16:39.Union, and was not something that was shied away from, and was clear

:16:40. > :16:44.in advance of the referendul. Referendum. I think she makds the

:16:45. > :16:50.point she does in a very cldar and concise way, to come to her broader

:16:51. > :16:54.point, we want to get to a position where we can tell EU nation`ls who

:16:55. > :16:58.live in the UK that everythhng will be fine, that we can see thdm

:16:59. > :17:01.continuing, so Iry verse thd approach and take it from that stand

:17:02. > :17:06.point, and that I think is the approach we will take as we look

:17:07. > :17:16.towards those negotiations `nd those EU discussion. There will bd a

:17:17. > :17:20.premium on brevity to be exdmplified by the right honourable member. The

:17:21. > :17:24.hyperbole and the statement from benches opposite will do much to

:17:25. > :17:27.frighten EU nationals more than anything has been said from the

:17:28. > :17:35.front bench but there is an urgency in terms of giving a clear lessage

:17:36. > :17:41.on this, EU citizens are among our top, our top surgeon, consultants,

:17:42. > :17:44.anaesthetist, top engineer, top architect, these are people who can

:17:45. > :17:53.work anywhere in the world. And we need to make clear that we want them

:17:54. > :17:57.here and it is part of our dconomy. I certainly recognise the

:17:58. > :18:00.contribution that all of those people that the my right honourable

:18:01. > :18:05.friend has made to our economy, but also as I have said to school, to

:18:06. > :18:09.the Health Service, to so m`ny other parts of our community, I would

:18:10. > :18:13.stress again there is no ch`nge to their status now, we have to

:18:14. > :18:18.approach the discussions and focus on how we get the best posshble

:18:19. > :18:24.outcome for them Azerbaijan our own citizens and that is what wd will

:18:25. > :18:29.do. In, isn't it obvious th`t the forced deportation of millions of EU

:18:30. > :18:34.citizens is something that no sane or fair Government would cob

:18:35. > :18:38.template doing, therefore, given no Government would do it, all we see

:18:39. > :18:42.from the minister is the fact that 2 Home Secretary has an incredible

:18:43. > :18:46.negotiating position in invdrted commas and is causing untold fear

:18:47. > :18:51.and misery for many people hn our country, it is I'm the Government

:18:52. > :18:56.gave clarity on this issue. I am sorry, I entirely reject the

:18:57. > :19:01.analysis that the right honourable gentleman has made. We are, we have

:19:02. > :19:05.been clear on confronting the division in our society, in doing

:19:06. > :19:08.the work and setting out thd best possible outcome for EU cithzens as

:19:09. > :19:12.well as British citizen, th`t is what we will get on with thd job of

:19:13. > :19:15.doing. I was glad to hear a moment ago from one response from the

:19:16. > :19:19.minister, that foreign residents are not to be treated as pawns hn the

:19:20. > :19:24.negotiations but I have to say that wasn't the impression I had from his

:19:25. > :19:29.opening statement. Protecting their rights, it seems to me, is the only

:19:30. > :19:34.ethical position that can now be taken, and what is more, thd longer

:19:35. > :19:39.the uncertainty about this puestion persists, as my right honourable

:19:40. > :19:43.friend the member for Brentwood was pointing out, the greatester the

:19:44. > :19:46.risk of the economic downturn and consequence, the minister h`s been

:19:47. > :19:51.sent to do a holding operathon today, will the minister take back

:19:52. > :19:55.from this the clear message that waiting until September 9th or

:19:56. > :20:04.beyond is simply not a realhstic option and the best thing do now is

:20:05. > :20:07.get on with granting these rights? Well, I note my right honourable

:20:08. > :20:12.friend's contribution and I would reassert again the comments I made

:20:13. > :20:18.about people not being barg`ining chips, we are talking about people's

:20:19. > :20:21.lives and we appreciate, we fully appreciate and recognise thd

:20:22. > :20:24.personal significance this has. I do say to him, though, it is

:20:25. > :20:29.appropriate that we need to look at this in the round, with all of the

:20:30. > :20:32.complexity, autumn of the unintended consequences that might arise from

:20:33. > :20:35.making statements now, how H think it is appropriate to considdr it in

:20:36. > :20:42.that way, and to get the best outcome.

:20:43. > :20:45.Thank you, Mr Unintended consequences in not making `

:20:46. > :20:49.statement now t and allowing this issue to drift. There are children

:20:50. > :20:55.in schools whose parents ard French or Polish who are in tears because

:20:56. > :20:59.they fear they may have to leave. Extremists are exploiting this for

:21:00. > :21:03.go home campaigns and repatriation campaigns, that are vile and the

:21:04. > :21:07.Home Secretary is just giving them succour, he has been sent ott here

:21:08. > :21:11.to waffle, while the Home Sdcretary once again has gone to ground for

:21:12. > :21:15.something she could sort right now, Parliament is sovereign, we could

:21:16. > :21:19.sort this before the recess, why don't we have a motion throtgh this

:21:20. > :21:23.Parliament, that every one of us can sign up to and support, to say we

:21:24. > :21:27.will respect people's rights if they are settled here and contributing to

:21:28. > :21:32.the country already, that is the fair thing to do.

:21:33. > :21:36.I would say to the right honourable lady, that we do have the cdrtainty

:21:37. > :21:42.of knowing there will be be no immediate change and therefore

:21:43. > :21:48.people, people should not bd fearful, or, and equally for others

:21:49. > :21:54.to try to Stoke up anxieties in the way I think has been done bx some

:21:55. > :21:59.contribution, it is important we get this right, and that people can

:22:00. > :22:03.continue in the way they have done now, and again, this process in

:22:04. > :22:07.terms of leaving the EU, is likely to take a number of year, and

:22:08. > :22:12.therefore, there will be no change while we remain a member of the

:22:13. > :22:17.European Union, and people need to have that confidence and certainty

:22:18. > :22:21.in that way, and we will certainly confront any division, any hatred,

:22:22. > :22:25.any racism we see and the police are already taking action on th`t.

:22:26. > :22:32.While I understand the immediate logic of my honourable friend's

:22:33. > :22:38.position, he does need to understand that partners are not going to be in

:22:39. > :22:41.a position to make a reciprocal commitment because there ard 27

:22:42. > :22:44.nations that have to agree hts position. This is an area in which

:22:45. > :22:50.the uncertainty needs to be brought to an end as soon as possible. Since

:22:51. > :22:54.it is inconceivable we would not grant are the speck tick right,

:22:55. > :22:59.frankly shouldn't we get on with it meetly. Represent speck tick rights.

:23:00. > :23:04.He is right in saying that ht is important that we do look at the

:23:05. > :23:08.reciprocal rights and how wd do that at an EU level rather than perhaps

:23:09. > :23:12.individually with individual member state, that is the right approach to

:23:13. > :23:15.take. It is important to vidw it in the round, viewing the role and

:23:16. > :23:22.responsibilities of British citizens who are in other European countries

:23:23. > :23:27.and ensuring the actions we take don't have unintended consepuences

:23:28. > :23:31.for them. Thank you Mr Speaker, I find it hard to comprehend the

:23:32. > :23:35.minister keeps talking about not using EU citizens as bargaining

:23:36. > :23:38.chips but talks as if that hs what is he is going to do. I havd to

:23:39. > :23:43.declare an interest, my husband is German, has been a GP in thhs

:23:44. > :23:46.country for 30 years, and along with others in the community, thdy are

:23:47. > :23:51.anxious, the minister talks about there will be not be an answer for

:23:52. > :23:56.several year, in what way should people feel reassured? We c`used the

:23:57. > :23:59.problem, we should set the dxample and other countries will respond in

:24:00. > :24:04.kind. Just give them the reassurance.

:24:05. > :24:08.I commend and congratulate the contribution the honourable lady's

:24:09. > :24:12.husband has played to the NHS, as so many other EU nationals havd, and

:24:13. > :24:15.again, it is important to underline that where EU nationals havd been

:24:16. > :24:19.exercising treaty rights for a period of five years they are

:24:20. > :24:24.entitled to permanent dense under existing rule, so that is why we

:24:25. > :24:28.need that, I think calm approach to these issues, to underline the

:24:29. > :24:31.existing arrangements that `re there and EU citizens will continte to

:24:32. > :24:34.benefit from, as well as cldarly looking at what the arrangelents

:24:35. > :24:36.will need to be into the future with is where the negotiation has

:24:37. > :24:48.such an essential part. Why don't we just do what this House

:24:49. > :24:55.clearly wants to do, to grant the rights to these people and couldn't

:24:56. > :25:00.that be implemented quickly if we repeeled the 1972 European

:25:01. > :25:04.Communities Act and doesn't my right honourable friend set responsibility

:25:05. > :25:10.for gross negligence in not having any contingency plans? I'm `fraid my

:25:11. > :25:15.honourable friend highlights some solutions and there are significant

:25:16. > :25:20.legal complexities in what he has just outlined and glossed over. I

:25:21. > :25:23.would say to him that there are a range of complex, multifaceted

:25:24. > :25:28.issues that highlight from this I've highlighted some of thdm in

:25:29. > :25:30.terms of things like benefit rights, access to public services,

:25:31. > :25:34.employment rights and others as well. Tgs not as simple as some have

:25:35. > :25:42.set it out to be. It's why we need to work through this care fly get

:25:43. > :25:45.the best outcome -- carefully. There are 36,000 EU passport holddrs,

:25:46. > :25:49.almost one in eight of the population. This week I havd been

:25:50. > :25:52.flooded by people e mailing me about their concerns, about the jobs they

:25:53. > :25:57.do, about the businesses thdy run and indeed about the future of their

:25:58. > :26:01.children's education. Does he not understand that not immediately is

:26:02. > :26:05.simply not good enough? People are making decisions about their lives,

:26:06. > :26:10.their businesses and their children. They need reassurance and they need

:26:11. > :26:16.it now. Of course, I understand the points

:26:17. > :26:20.that she makes very fairly. Clearly, I don't think there are, thdre's

:26:21. > :26:26.much difference between us on actually getting to that objective,

:26:27. > :26:30.which is why I make the point about - which is why I make the point I do

:26:31. > :26:34.about the certainty people have now and working to give that certainty

:26:35. > :26:37.and assurances at EU level. I understand the point fairly that she

:26:38. > :26:42.makes to me, that is precisdly why this needs to be a priority as part

:26:43. > :26:45.of those discussions with otr European partners so there hs

:26:46. > :26:51.certainty for their citizens here as well as our citizens in those member

:26:52. > :26:54.states too. Thank you Mr Speaker. Does the

:26:55. > :26:58.minister agree that we should actually hold ourselves to ` higher

:26:59. > :27:05.moral standard than trading off one group of immigrants against another?

:27:06. > :27:08.Unilaterally we should decl`re a status of EU acquired rights giving

:27:09. > :27:12.people the right to reside here if they've been here for less than five

:27:13. > :27:15.years and advertising to those who've been here longer than five

:27:16. > :27:19.years that they automatically have the right now for permanent

:27:20. > :27:24.residence so as many of thel as possible can avail themselvds of

:27:25. > :27:28.that right. I've already explained the position in relation to

:27:29. > :27:35.permanent residence in response to an earlier question, so those rights

:27:36. > :27:40.are there. Obviously, we will retain and respect all existing rights

:27:41. > :27:45.whilst we remain a member of the European Union until we havd left.

:27:46. > :27:48.He makes a number of points as to the potential solutions, ultimately

:27:49. > :27:55.that will be a matter for the next Prime Minister. Will the minister

:27:56. > :28:00.join me in condemning Lord Pearson who has said, "It is we who hold the

:28:01. > :28:06.stronger hand, if we retali`te, because so many of them - them being

:28:07. > :28:11.EU citizens - are living here." Would he perhaps for two spdcific

:28:12. > :28:16.categories, NHS, where therd are 10,000 doctors, EU doctors who work

:28:17. > :28:20.in the NHS, just under 10% of the staff and indeed, EU students who

:28:21. > :28:23.have just embarked on their studies, can he give either category any

:28:24. > :28:29.guarantees they'll be able to continue? Well, on his first point,

:28:30. > :28:33.I entirely agree with him. Those comments are just simply not

:28:34. > :28:41.acceptable. On his second point yes, we know there are around 5 ,000

:28:42. > :28:48.EU citizens that are working within (inaudible)... Is absolutelx

:28:49. > :28:53.essential. I underline the points about existing EU rights and working

:28:54. > :28:57.towards a position where we can give clarity moving forward. 55,000

:28:58. > :29:02.members of our NHS workforcd qualified elsewhere in the Duropean

:29:03. > :29:07.Union. And 80,000 members of our equally valued care sector. They

:29:08. > :29:11.need security, not just now, but in the long-term. Because the workforce

:29:12. > :29:16.crisis one of the biggest challenges facing the NHS. In addition to

:29:17. > :29:21.welcoming the extraordinary valuable contribution they make to otr health

:29:22. > :29:25.and care sector, would the linister take back the clearest posshble

:29:26. > :29:31.message to this House that we need long-term security now? I'm grateful

:29:32. > :29:35.again to my honourable friend for underlining the contribution that EU

:29:36. > :29:41.and other citizens make to our NHS in providing care, as well `s also

:29:42. > :29:46.in the care sector for our dlderly. Obviously, we want to ensurd that as

:29:47. > :29:50.part of the negotiations th`t there is that assurance that is there

:29:51. > :29:58.that exists now. I stress that again. I do recognise the priority

:29:59. > :30:02.that she has given and which I hear. Mr Speaker, my honourable friend

:30:03. > :30:10.from Birmingham, of course, was leading the campaign that's got us

:30:11. > :30:15.into this mess. Can I take ht up with the minister something he said

:30:16. > :30:19.about the British people living in other European countries. I declare

:30:20. > :30:23.an interest, I'm president of Labour international. We have had lots of

:30:24. > :30:28.people living in Spain and elsewhere, who are very concerned

:30:29. > :30:31.about their future. Can he dnd the uncertainty for those British

:30:32. > :30:35.people, many of whom couldn't vote in the referendum because they'd

:30:36. > :30:39.been abroad longer than 15 xears, that they are not going to be forced

:30:40. > :30:43.out of Spain, France or elsdwhere by the British Government making a

:30:44. > :30:47.quick, early statement of sdcurity for citizens of those countries

:30:48. > :30:51.here? I think the honourabld gentleman makes his point vdry well

:30:52. > :30:56.on the bigger implications `nd the broader issues that we absolutely

:30:57. > :31:00.have to have in making the decisions that we do, I think we need to act

:31:01. > :31:04.with care, consideration and thought to ensure that we are yes,

:31:05. > :31:10.absolutely considering the rights of those who the EU who are here.

:31:11. > :31:13.Equally, the rights of Brithsh citizens overseas who will be

:31:14. > :31:16.feeling uncertain and why wd need to think about both of them in the

:31:17. > :31:22.discussion that's we have. As the right honourable ladx will

:31:23. > :31:24.know, nobody on the official Leave campaign raised the prospect of

:31:25. > :31:28.sending people away and deporting people. This has been raised bit

:31:29. > :31:31.Home Secretary -- by the Hole Secretary and it is a catastrophic

:31:32. > :31:35.error of judgment for someone who wishes to lead this country to even

:31:36. > :31:40.suggest those people who ard here legally, working with familhes and

:31:41. > :31:43.settled, should be even part of the negotiations has made a big error of

:31:44. > :31:50.judgment. That message needs to go back to the Home Secretary today.

:31:51. > :31:53.I'm very sorry, but I think my honourable friend has compldtely

:31:54. > :31:57.mischaracterised what the Home Secretary said. She was merdly

:31:58. > :32:01.saying that people do come `nd go. Some people work here, they then may

:32:02. > :32:05.go back to their home countries Therefore, it is that fluidhty that

:32:06. > :32:10.we see in labour markets and also the movements of people between

:32:11. > :32:14.different countries. It is that I think, she was referring to.

:32:15. > :32:18.Therefore we do want to work to see that the rights of those who are

:32:19. > :32:25.here are guaranteed. That whll form part of those negotiations. Thank

:32:26. > :32:30.you Mr Speaker. The minister's answer to this question seels to be

:32:31. > :32:39.- trust me, it's all in hand. But is it any wonder that the right

:32:40. > :32:44.honourable member for Leigh's family and other families can't trtst the

:32:45. > :32:49.Government given the way thdy've handled the immigration question for

:32:50. > :32:52.years now. Can I ask him whdther he has made representations to his

:32:53. > :33:00.opposite numbers in the French government or Spanish government on

:33:01. > :33:08.this very issue? I do say to the honourable lady that this issue is

:33:09. > :33:11.given great seriousness. It is not about those multilateral

:33:12. > :33:14.negotiations, she talks abott. It's actually getting this right,

:33:15. > :33:17.assessing all the complexithes that I've highlighted in this, in my

:33:18. > :33:21.statement to the House this afternoon. Therefore, that hs the

:33:22. > :33:25.response that I think is appropriate as the Prime Minister has s`id, we

:33:26. > :33:31.need to look at this very c`refully and then for the next Prime Minister

:33:32. > :33:36.to act. Thank you, Mr Speakdr. I must say knowing of the contribution

:33:37. > :33:44.EU nationals make to Torbay, it s welcome to hear a more positive

:33:45. > :33:46.portrayal for their contribttions in this society today, particularly

:33:47. > :33:51.with that which wasn't happdning for a couple of months. Can we reassure

:33:52. > :33:55.them, unless there is a ret`liation in the European Union against

:33:56. > :34:00.British passport holders, wd will guarantee our intention the right of

:34:01. > :34:04.those here no the UK. Well, I do say to my honourable friend and I

:34:05. > :34:09.welcome his comments, we want to make sure that EU nationals, who are

:34:10. > :34:12.already here can stay in Brhtain. But we also, as I've alreadx

:34:13. > :34:16.stressed, need to guarantee the rights of British nationals living

:34:17. > :34:21.in EU member states too and that that needs to be a priority of our

:34:22. > :34:24.negotiation. On exactly that point, can he

:34:25. > :34:28.explain how it can possibly be likely to prejudice the rights of UK

:34:29. > :34:32.nationals in the EU, if we do the right thing, if we do the moral

:34:33. > :34:36.thing, if we uphold the bashc human rights, by extending the rights of

:34:37. > :34:39.EU nationals here? Does he recognise how out of touch he is on this

:34:40. > :34:44.issue. Will he take that back to the Home Secretary on no uncert`in

:34:45. > :34:49.terms? Of course, I underst`nd the point that the honourable l`dy makes

:34:50. > :34:54.on wanting to act. All I wotld say to her is that we need to bd careful

:34:55. > :34:59.on the unintended consequences of things that we do now, up front in

:35:00. > :35:07.terms of other emplay indic`tions. As I've highlighted in ensuring that

:35:08. > :35:11.we get the best possible outcome for those British citizens overseas She

:35:12. > :35:13.and I would both share, I think but it's the difference in how we go

:35:14. > :35:21.about I understand the concerns that have

:35:22. > :35:24.been expressed today. My mother is a Danish national, who has lived in

:35:25. > :35:29.the UK for over 50 years. Mx right honourable friend has set ott there

:35:30. > :35:34.are complexities here. Can he reassure the House this is `n urgent

:35:35. > :35:38.priority and that plans are being developed urgently, not just in the

:35:39. > :35:42.hosts, but by the EU Brexit unit, set up recently by the Primd

:35:43. > :35:46.Minister as well? Yes, I can. My honourable friend makes refdrence to

:35:47. > :35:53.the new unit established. I can certainly say that this is seen as

:35:54. > :35:57.an early item in terms of that work. But is the minister aware that his

:35:58. > :36:00.remarks and the remarks of the Home Secretary have created real

:36:01. > :36:06.insecurity amongst a number of people and what they are now doing

:36:07. > :36:10.is seeking to become British - people who are perfectly qu`lified

:36:11. > :36:15.for British citizenship, he is about to make hundreds of thousands of

:36:16. > :36:20.pounds of profit from those applications. What is he gohng to do

:36:21. > :36:24.right now to cut the cost of becoming British or at least to make

:36:25. > :36:28.it happen more efficiently `nd faster for the many European

:36:29. > :36:33.citizens who will become Brhtish because they're so unsure of their

:36:34. > :36:36.own future? I don't accept that either my comments or the comments

:36:37. > :36:42.of the Home Secretary have hn any way added to is the uncertahnty that

:36:43. > :36:45.she has pointed to. The Prile Minister said very clearly that

:36:46. > :36:49.nothing changes whilst we rdmain a member of the European Union.

:36:50. > :36:56.Obviously, we need to make decisions for the future and that will be for

:36:57. > :36:58.the next Prime Minister. Interestingly, throughout the

:36:59. > :37:02.referendum campaign, the Government didn't indicate what their position

:37:03. > :37:06.would be in relation to this matter. Since the result have demonstrated

:37:07. > :37:10.nothing other than being colpletely unprepared for this and every other

:37:11. > :37:12.issue. EU nationals are part of our communities. Our children share

:37:13. > :37:16.classrooms and friendships with them. The Secretary of Statd for

:37:17. > :37:19.education just stated in an answer in oral questions, before this

:37:20. > :37:22.session, that she believes that EU nationals and their children should

:37:23. > :37:28.be allowed to remain in this country. Does the minister `gree

:37:29. > :37:34.with his colleague? As I've already indicated in response to other

:37:35. > :37:38.answers, I believe that we do need to work to secure the peopld who are

:37:39. > :37:43.here can stay in the UK. Th`t's what I've already said. But it ndeds to

:37:44. > :37:49.be part of those negotiations to secure that. That is the very clear

:37:50. > :37:51.point that I make is that that is part of those discussions as well as

:37:52. > :37:59.the position of British nathonals overseas. His statement tod`y

:38:00. > :38:02.condemning large numbers of my constituents married to fordign

:38:03. > :38:07.nationals or expecting children are foreign nationals or are employed in

:38:08. > :38:10.factories here and abroad whth foreign nationals great uncdrtainty.

:38:11. > :38:14.If he's not going to accept the will of this House today, could he give a

:38:15. > :38:18.clearer indication of - it's just a matter of the next Prime Minister -

:38:19. > :38:22.and what the time scale is The right honourable gentleman will know that

:38:23. > :38:26.there are a number of issues that flow through from the decishon that

:38:27. > :38:33.has been made for the UK to leave the European Union. And this is but

:38:34. > :38:39.one of them. I do entirely recognise the points that have been m`de by

:38:40. > :38:43.him and others. But it is how we are able to get the best outcomd for

:38:44. > :38:47.European citizens here, but also British nationals overseas.

:38:48. > :38:52.Therefore, that is part of the detailed, considered work. @s I ve

:38:53. > :38:59.indicated, this is certainlx a priority aspect of that.

:39:00. > :39:07.What does the minister say to my constituent who was one of the some

:39:08. > :39:11.183 EU nationals up to last week, in fulltime education in Scotl`nd and

:39:12. > :39:16.has two years of study to g`in her degree. What pre-Brexit leg`l advice

:39:17. > :39:21.was sought by the UK Governlent and will he share that advice so I can

:39:22. > :39:26.best advise my constituent on how to be safe and secure for her studies

:39:27. > :39:30.in the UK? I said at the outset that I wish her well with her sttdies

:39:31. > :39:36.that. Should continue. She should have no fears in relation to the

:39:37. > :39:41.current situation. We don't share legal advice. That is a well founded

:39:42. > :39:49.position of many Governments over the years. But I do want to give

:39:50. > :39:53.that sense of assurance that nothing changes now. It is a process that

:39:54. > :39:55.could take a number of years, there foreI wish her well with her studies

:39:56. > :40:03.in Scotland. Thank you regarding this qudstion,

:40:04. > :40:08.though it is bizarre to see the Brexiteers the on both sides weeping

:40:09. > :40:13.crocodile tears. What am I to tell the 15% of my constituents who are

:40:14. > :40:19.EU national, hundreds of whom have written to me to express thdir

:40:20. > :40:23.dedismay or giving the racist attacks, fear. Many are thinking of

:40:24. > :40:28.going to another country, if they do, it will be we, not they who can

:40:29. > :40:36.are the poorer for that. We need, we need certainty, and we need it now.

:40:37. > :40:42.Well, I utterly condemn any attacks on any citizens in this country as a

:40:43. > :40:46.consequence of nationality, faith, creed, colour, that is completely

:40:47. > :40:51.unacceptable, does not reprdsent the country that I believe in, or this

:40:52. > :40:56.Government believes in, and I think this House has unequivocallx

:40:57. > :41:00.condemned those sorts of action I know there have been ministdrial

:41:01. > :41:04.visits to the Polish centre and I recognise the points he makds,

:41:05. > :41:07.clearly, there is nothing that changes now, it is for thosd

:41:08. > :41:12.negotiations to give that ultimate certainty, but we want to ensure

:41:13. > :41:17.that the UK remains an open, attractive place for people to come,

:41:18. > :41:24.live, work, and study, and that is the approach that for my part, I

:41:25. > :41:29.will continue to advocate. In the grace. Absence of thd Home

:41:30. > :41:38.Secretary, can the minister offer any reassurance beyond not

:41:39. > :41:41.immediately to my constituents, that her long-term future cannot be

:41:42. > :41:44.guaranteed. More gain came to Scotland in good fate. She built a

:41:45. > :41:50.life here and is contributing to Scottish society. Surely colmon

:41:51. > :41:56.decency dictates she and millions like her deserve guarantees of their

:41:57. > :42:00.long-term security. Of course, I understand the point

:42:01. > :42:04.the honourable gentleman make, and the assurance he seeks, nothing does

:42:05. > :42:07.change immediately, as the Prime Minister has been very clear on and

:42:08. > :42:11.I certainly do want us to gdt to a position where we are able to ensure

:42:12. > :42:15.that EU nationals who are already here can stay in Britain, btt that

:42:16. > :42:22.needs to be part of that negotiation.

:42:23. > :42:25.Yesterday I was stopped in the street by a constituent, an EU

:42:26. > :42:29.national whose children werd born here they were, the family `re from

:42:30. > :42:33.Denmark but the children do not speak a word of Danish, the older

:42:34. > :42:36.child is due to start school next term, does the minister unddrstand

:42:37. > :42:39.that the Government has an obligation to the best interests and

:42:40. > :42:46.welfare of children, and th`t this uncertainty is putting their parents

:42:47. > :42:50.in an impossible position. Well of course I do understand, as H have

:42:51. > :42:54.responded to other questions this afternoon, of the position that we

:42:55. > :43:01.are now faced with, as a consequence of the UK having made the ddcision

:43:02. > :43:05.to leave the EU, as I have have indicated there are no immediate

:43:06. > :43:09.changes that would happen while we remain an EU member state, clearly

:43:10. > :43:13.want want to be in a position to give the sort of guarantees her

:43:14. > :43:16.constituent seeks and that will be a core part of the negotiations that

:43:17. > :43:21.will follow. Thank you. In a written

:43:22. > :43:25.Parliamentary question in J`nuary I asked the home sec from I to outline

:43:26. > :43:30.the plans her department was making in the event of a leave votd. The

:43:31. > :43:34.minister replied and give no assurance, isn't it clear on

:43:35. > :43:39.thissish sue as with every other question thrown up by a leave vote,

:43:40. > :43:42.the Government has done no planning, the consequence is people are making

:43:43. > :43:45.decisions ability their education, about their jobs and their families,

:43:46. > :43:48.have no assurances whatsoevdr from the Government, isn't the mhnister

:43:49. > :43:52.ashamed of that position and doesn't it reflect the Cavalier approach of

:43:53. > :43:58.this Government since it was elected last year? No, I do not sop that

:43:59. > :44:04.characterisation that the honourable gentleman seeks to proffer. I would

:44:05. > :44:09.say to him clearly that the sorts of security, the guarantees th`t he and

:44:10. > :44:12.his constituents may seek rdquires the positive outcome of those

:44:13. > :44:16.negotiations with the Europdan Union. That is the absolute focus of

:44:17. > :44:19.this Government, with the establishment of the new unhte, in

:44:20. > :44:23.the Cabinet Office and it whll be for the new Prime Minister, to take

:44:24. > :44:28.that forward. Thank you. Since this Government has

:44:29. > :44:33.shown itself to be woefully inadequate in this area in terms of

:44:34. > :44:36.setting the right policy and doing the right thing, would he consider

:44:37. > :44:45.devolving the powers to Scotland who have a government that can do the

:44:46. > :44:50.right thing. No. Following on from the question from the honourable

:44:51. > :44:55.lady for Glasgow, can we be clear the Secretary of State for Dducation

:44:56. > :44:59.confirmed at the despatch box that the children of all EU nationals

:45:00. > :45:04.will continue to be educated in British schools. Will the mhnister

:45:05. > :45:09.tell does that go to 18 or 21 or does he not have a clue likd the

:45:10. > :45:13.rest of his answers? Answers? I would say to the honourable

:45:14. > :45:15.gentleman, that the Secretary of State has obviously made her

:45:16. > :45:17.comments this afternoon, and clearly he will need to direct further

:45:18. > :45:31.comments to the department. Order. Members are in a verx

:45:32. > :45:34.excitable state. No, I understand, but normally the honourable

:45:35. > :45:39.gentleman from Stoke is a vdry cerebral and well behaved fdllow. He

:45:40. > :45:44.must take some sort of soothing me Dickment because I am sure he wants

:45:45. > :45:49.to listen to his honourable friend. It is unbelievable of the mhnister

:45:50. > :45:55.that no contingency planning had been taken place in respect of a

:45:56. > :46:00.Leave vot, not just on EU chtizen living and working in the UK but

:46:01. > :46:07.nationals living in other ET member states. Given those people `re

:46:08. > :46:12.disproportionately older and retiring, and EU citizens lhving and

:46:13. > :46:16.working in the UK tend to bd younger, in work and paying tax to

:46:17. > :46:21.the Exchequer, what kind of bargaining chip does the minister

:46:22. > :46:26.think he has got? Sorry, thhs, this is not a question of bargaining

:46:27. > :46:30.chips at all, as I have said very very clearly throughout my

:46:31. > :46:33.contributions this afternoon, rather, it is about looking at this

:46:34. > :46:38.in the round, on all of the implications we have. It is not

:46:39. > :46:42.right to suggest that everyone here fits the categories he describes, we

:46:43. > :46:47.have self-employed, we have those who are employed. Retained workers

:46:48. > :46:52.of self-employed person, we have those that are retired. Job,seeker,

:46:53. > :46:54.student, family members as well These are complex measures that

:46:55. > :46:59.require careful consideration and that is what we need to do.

:47:00. > :47:04.The Government is unwilling to guarantee the future of EU nationals

:47:05. > :47:07.living here what assessment have they had on the public servhces and

:47:08. > :47:12.the potential return of hundreds of thousands of retire re-s from

:47:13. > :47:18.abroad? As I have indicated, we want to be in a position to see that EU

:47:19. > :47:24.nationals who are already hdre can stay in Britain. As I have `lready

:47:25. > :47:27.made clear, there is no change to the current arrangements or current

:47:28. > :47:31.situation, we want to work puickly to see that these issues will

:47:32. > :47:38.resolved but it does I repe`t need to be part of those negotiations.

:47:39. > :47:42.Thank you, could I put on rdcord my absolute disappointment that has

:47:43. > :47:48.come with the minister's st`tement today, on an issue that appdars to

:47:49. > :47:51.common consensus among thosd who campaigned for Leave and Relain it

:47:52. > :47:55.beggars belief bhor the Homd Secretary yesterday and the minister

:47:56. > :47:59.today, cannot give that reassurance that the millions of people in this

:48:00. > :48:03.country need to stay here, `nd to have the rights they deservd. It is

:48:04. > :48:06.also notable MrSpeaker not one member of this House has so far

:48:07. > :48:11.agreed with the Government's position. These people are our

:48:12. > :48:16.teacher, doctors entreprenetr, they are also our taxpayer, they deserve

:48:17. > :48:20.the reassurance and this, and the tone the minister also send to other

:48:21. > :48:24.European nations, will in mx view be the kind of tone we need, to keep

:48:25. > :48:30.relations with allies and protect the rights of our British chtizens

:48:31. > :48:33.abroad. Of course I absolutdly appreciate and recognise thd huge

:48:34. > :48:38.contribution that EU citizens make to our economy and in so many

:48:39. > :48:41.different ways and enrich the country that we are, and thd

:48:42. > :48:46.difficult challenges that are now faced as a consequence of the

:48:47. > :48:51.decision that has been taken for the UK to leave the European Unhon. I am

:48:52. > :48:54.have been clear, the Prime Linister has been very clear in saying that

:48:55. > :48:59.those rights remain unchangdd, while we remain a member of the Etropean

:49:00. > :49:03.Union. And clearly, we are working to ensure that the negotiathons are

:49:04. > :49:09.successful, to give those guarantees, to ensure that those who

:49:10. > :49:13.are here, are able to stay. Thank you Mr Speaker, the mhnister

:49:14. > :49:17.keeps eed saiding our inquiries as to whereabouts of his boss, could we

:49:18. > :49:21.be told what is so important it means the Home Secretary cannot

:49:22. > :49:25.attend this discussion which in large part has been occasioned by

:49:26. > :49:30.her comments to the press, `nd can I ask him, can I ask him again, does

:49:31. > :49:35.he not understand there are many thousands of our fellow cithzens who

:49:36. > :49:39.are fearful and anxious for their future and his procraves nation is

:49:40. > :49:46.only a to fuel rather than `llay that anxiety. I responsibilhty on

:49:47. > :49:52.issues relating to migration, so it is appropriate for me to respond to

:49:53. > :49:56.this urgent question, and yds, of course I note and absolutelx

:49:57. > :50:00.appreciate the points he makes about uncertainty for European citizens

:50:01. > :50:03.who are here, as well as our British citizens oversea, that is why I have

:50:04. > :50:08.been clear on the fact therd are no immediate change, have sought to

:50:09. > :50:12.give that assurance and it hs unfortunate I think many

:50:13. > :50:16.contributions have sought to Stoke up the sun certainties when we have

:50:17. > :50:19.been giving that clarity and assurance on the process th`t will

:50:20. > :50:26.need to take place to give the sort of comfort he is seeking to achieve.

:50:27. > :50:30.Thank you. The honourable member has got a

:50:31. > :50:34.brass neck for bringing this question. The minister has ` brass

:50:35. > :50:39.neck for seeing EU citizens are not going to be used as bargainhng chips

:50:40. > :50:47.which is what he is doing. His boss has a bres neck for making comments

:50:48. > :50:52.and not coming to the House. I have heard... The talk, will the minister

:50:53. > :51:00.find his boss and do the right thing and make a decision for the EU? The

:51:01. > :51:07.honourable gentleman makes his point in his own way, I will make mine. In

:51:08. > :51:09.my own way. Which is that wd recognise and respect the

:51:10. > :51:14.contribution that EU citizens make here, equally we need to ensure that

:51:15. > :51:18.the rights of those of our British citizens overseas are protected and

:51:19. > :51:26.that is the combined approach we will take, to get the best possible

:51:27. > :51:31.outcome for both. Urgent question, MrJohn McDonnell.

:51:32. > :51:36.Thank you Mr Speaker, to ask the Chancellor if he will make `

:51:37. > :51:42.statement on proposals regarding the Government surplus target and plans

:51:43. > :51:47.to further cut corporation tax. Chancellor of the Exchequer. In last

:51:48. > :51:53.week I have sought to be erdalistic about the economic challengds we now

:51:54. > :51:59.face, but to mix that realism with reashuens we can rise to thd Chans

:52:00. > :52:02.the plans the Governor of the Bank of England put in place, thd

:52:03. > :52:06.financial markets have adjusted but I can report while we remain

:52:07. > :52:12.vigilant they have shown no signs of disorder. Now we must respond to

:52:13. > :52:17.developments in the real economy and this will require a supreme national

:52:18. > :52:20.effort. First we need to look at demand to make sure credit flows

:52:21. > :52:24.freely, the Governor said on Friday that some monetary policy e`sing

:52:25. > :52:28.will likely be required over the summer, thanks to the reforls I have

:52:29. > :52:34.introduced the independent bank has the tools it needs to act against

:52:35. > :52:36.the cycle and support lending in the economy, the Financial Policy

:52:37. > :52:40.Committee will publish its decisions tomorrow, and we stand readx in the

:52:41. > :52:44.Treasury to act in concert with the bank should more need to be done to

:52:45. > :52:48.support funding for lending. The second part of our national effort

:52:49. > :52:52.must be to maintain Britain's fiscal credibility. Eight years ago, people

:52:53. > :52:57.questioned Britain's abilitx to pay its way in the world. Eight years

:52:58. > :53:03.later, British gilts are sedn as a safe haven and funding costs have

:53:04. > :53:06.fallen to record lows, we should maintain the fiscal consolidation

:53:07. > :53:10.measures but our rules were explicit in the face of what the fiscal

:53:11. > :53:15.charter calls a significant negative shock, we should allow the `utomatic

:53:16. > :53:19.abstain lierzs to operate. With the consensus of economic forec`sters

:53:20. > :53:25.now lowering the forecast growth for the UK next year, from closd to 2%,

:53:26. > :53:30.before the referendum, to 0.4% now, that we will do. We have to be

:53:31. > :53:35.realistic that the target for a surplus is unlikely to be achieved

:53:36. > :53:38.in 2019/20, the OBR will conduct a formal assessment when it produces a

:53:39. > :53:43.new independent forecast in the autumn and then we will havd a clear

:53:44. > :53:46.idea of what additional measures are required to maintain fiscal

:53:47. > :53:51.credibility. Third, we need to broadcast loud and clear thd message

:53:52. > :53:55.that Britain remains the best place in the world to do business. And

:53:56. > :54:00.over the last six years we have reduced Britain's corporation tax

:54:01. > :54:04.rate from 28%, to 20% today and 17% in the future, I did that at the

:54:05. > :54:08.same time as taking difficult decisions elsewhere, to bal`nce the

:54:09. > :54:12.book, in my view the strongdst signal we could send the world, that

:54:13. > :54:17.Britain after this referendtm is open to the world, and readx to do

:54:18. > :54:23.business, would be to cut corporation tax still furthdr. We

:54:24. > :54:27.should aim for a rate of 15$ and preferably blow lower because if you

:54:28. > :54:30.are pro business u you are pro job, proliving standards and pro working

:54:31. > :54:36.people. Fourth, Mr Speaker, the refdrendum

:54:37. > :54:39.result revealed the deep-se`ted feeling of disenfranchisement in

:54:40. > :54:43.community, especially the Mhdlands and the north of England. As I said

:54:44. > :54:47.on Friday the northern powerhouse is the right response, we have elected

:54:48. > :54:51.mayors and new transport infrastructure and in my vidw once

:54:52. > :54:54.both parties have determined who their leader should be, we should

:54:55. > :54:58.get on and build a new hundred way in the south-east, because xou can't

:54:59. > :55:03.be open to the world the yot can't fly there and fifth, while we must

:55:04. > :55:05.seek the best possible terms of trade in goods and services

:55:06. > :55:08.including financial services with our European neighbour, now is the

:55:09. > :55:14.time to rebubble our efforts to promote trade with the rest of the

:55:15. > :55:18.world, I have spoken to my TS counterpart, I will be travdlling to

:55:19. > :55:22.China to build on that, MrSpeakering to conclude, this is a blueprint to

:55:23. > :55:26.meet our economic challenge, nothing positive will come from looking back

:55:27. > :55:28.in anger, we must lift our dyes to the horizon ahead and make the best

:55:29. > :55:36.of what is to come. I'd like it thank the Chancdllor for

:55:37. > :55:40.his response. I think it's hmportant that as in the Opposition d`y last

:55:41. > :55:44.week that we set the tone of our response at the level of national

:55:45. > :55:48.interest and take care to avoid making any statements that would

:55:49. > :55:53.adversely impact fragile markets. However, I have to say, that a lack

:55:54. > :55:56.of planning for a Leave votd is becoming evident across all policy

:55:57. > :56:00.areas. Instead of a clear plan of action, so far we've had a series of

:56:01. > :56:04.ad hoc statements and announcements, including yes, the grateful

:56:05. > :56:09.abandonment of the Brexit btdget which was to increase sharply, the

:56:10. > :56:12.fiscal surplus target has bden abandoned. Today the Chancellor s

:56:13. > :56:17.announced planned reductions in the Ed line rate of corporation tax

:56:18. > :56:19.Rather than ad hoc announcelents, we need a framework for economhc

:56:20. > :56:23.decision making. Previously the Government sought to do this with

:56:24. > :56:27.the fiscal charter, passed hnto law last Autumn, despite our opposition.

:56:28. > :56:32.Can I ask the Chancellor now, since he's no longer pursuing the fiscal

:56:33. > :56:37.charter, the fiscal surplus target, if the Chancellor is also -, charter

:56:38. > :56:40.is to be abandoned. Will he put a motion to repeal the law before this

:56:41. > :56:45.House? Will he seek to placd a new fiscal rule on a similar basis in

:56:46. > :56:48.legislation? He's announced today that he'll redouble his efforts to

:56:49. > :56:53.invest in the northern powerhouse. Of course, the details in this are

:56:54. > :56:57.to be decided. But can I ask the Chancellor to tell the Housd what he

:56:58. > :57:00.expects, when he expects to have a detailed programme of investment?

:57:01. > :57:05.What scale of investment should we expect? What areas and how focussed

:57:06. > :57:10.this investment will be? Dods he now agrow with those on this side of the

:57:11. > :57:14.House and his friend, the Sdcretary of State for work and pensions, that

:57:15. > :57:19.a major programme of development by Government is urgently needdd? And

:57:20. > :57:22.does he agree with the Home Secretary's decision not to

:57:23. > :57:26.guarantee to existing EU nationals living and working in this country

:57:27. > :57:30.and what will be the economhc effects of that, could i ask him

:57:31. > :57:33.therefore for a more detaildd statement to the House on the

:57:34. > :57:37.economic consequences of thhs decision? The Chancellor has

:57:38. > :57:41.promised while seeking to boost investment he will maintain the

:57:42. > :57:46."consolidate we put in placd last year. " May I ask for Claird Fay

:57:47. > :57:53.kags on this -- clarification on this point? Is he ruling out further

:57:54. > :57:58.additional consolidation. Rdgarding the headline rate of corpor`tion

:57:59. > :58:05.tax, the news has not been received by our international partners.

:58:06. > :58:08.Pascal Lammy has accused thd Chancellor of tax dumping. He's

:58:09. > :58:13.highlighted the risks to future negotiations with the EU. I want to

:58:14. > :58:18.raise three questions on thhs issue. The Chancellor's budget this year

:58:19. > :58:22.suggested that his 1% reduction in the headline corporation tax rate

:58:23. > :58:26.would reduce expected reventes by ?1 billion. Does the Chancellor still

:58:27. > :58:31.hold to that estimate and how will the Chancellor pay for any losses in

:58:32. > :58:36.tetch revenues from the proposed corporation tax cuts? Who whll pay?

:58:37. > :58:39.The evidence from existing cuts to corporation is not favourable.

:58:40. > :58:45.Despite year on year reducthons in the headline rate to the lowest rate

:58:46. > :58:50.in the G 7, business investlent remains low by G 7 standards and has

:58:51. > :58:55.fallen for two consecutive puarters. Businesses are sitting on a cash

:58:56. > :58:59.pile of at least 500 billion yet failing to invest. What assdssment

:59:00. > :59:02.has the Chancellor made that a dramatic reduction in the

:59:03. > :59:05.corporation tax rate will now have the desired effect on busindss

:59:06. > :59:10.investment, given the absence of evidence on this so far? Let me

:59:11. > :59:14.finish on this, we know the circumstances after the Leave vote

:59:15. > :59:17.will be trying and major forecasters now anticipate the UK possibly

:59:18. > :59:22.entering a recession over the next year. The Chancellor's fisc`l

:59:23. > :59:25.approach has failed and been steadily abandoned. In the hnterests

:59:26. > :59:31.of the country, can I urge the Chancellor to commit now to adopt a

:59:32. > :59:36.fiscal approach that allows the flexibility to invest whilst

:59:37. > :59:42.maintaining fiscal discipline as we on these benches and some on his own

:59:43. > :59:46.side are now urging? I begin by noting that when I game the

:59:47. > :59:49.Chancellor there was a real question mark over Britain's ability to pay

:59:50. > :59:53.its way in the world that. Was reflected in our bond-year-olds

:59:54. > :59:56.Because of the determined effort over the last six years, whdn we've

:59:57. > :00:00.hit an economic shock as we have in the last two weeks, the response has

:00:01. > :00:04.been a fall in bond yields because people have confidence in the UK.

:00:05. > :00:08.When it comes to planning, let me say this, first of all, there have

:00:09. > :00:11.been extensive contingency plans in place to deal with financial market

:00:12. > :00:17.disorder as a result of a Ldave vote. The fact we are not ddbating

:00:18. > :00:21.that today shows those conthngency plans have been effective. We remain

:00:22. > :00:24.vigilant. But they were in place. The second decision we've got to

:00:25. > :00:28.make is what is the new moddl of our relationship with the EU. That was

:00:29. > :00:31.not on the ballot paper. Th`t's got to be a decision for Parlialent We

:00:32. > :00:35.set out the options for the country in advance of that referendtm debate

:00:36. > :00:40.and now we're going to have the discussion about what that new model

:00:41. > :00:44.is. The third thing when it comes to planning in advance is the fiscal

:00:45. > :00:47.charter specifically providds for the impact of a negative shock.

:00:48. > :00:53.That's what we've had. As a result the rules of the chartary ply, as I

:00:54. > :00:57.say, it's unlikely that the surplus will be achieved in 2019/20, but

:00:58. > :01:01.that will be for the OBR to formally assess. It will be up to thd

:01:02. > :01:04.Chancellor to produce new plans to restore the public finances to

:01:05. > :01:08.surplus and Parliament can have a vote on it. We thought about that in

:01:09. > :01:13.advance. It's in the charter voted on by the House of Commons. He talks

:01:14. > :01:18.about investment on Friday H met the Labour leader of Manchester City

:01:19. > :01:23.Council. He and I talked about how we can redouble efforts to hnvest in

:01:24. > :01:26.transport across the Penninds, on devolved powers for mayors `nd the

:01:27. > :01:30.like. That's is part of our response to the disenfranchisement that too

:01:31. > :01:35.many of our citizens and thd north of England have clearly felt. Then

:01:36. > :01:38.finally, there is the questhon he asks about business confidence and

:01:39. > :01:43.the corporation tax cuts. The corporation tax cuts that wd have

:01:44. > :01:48.produced in this Government have not only given us the lowest corporation

:01:49. > :01:52.tax rate amongst any of the advanced economies in the world, we've seen a

:01:53. > :01:55.20% increase in receipts from corporation tax because bushnesses

:01:56. > :01:58.are coming to this country growing their business in this country and

:01:59. > :02:01.employing two million peopld. I think the best response we can send

:02:02. > :02:07.to the world to show we're open for business is to go on reducing

:02:08. > :02:15.business tax. The Chancellor's done the rhght

:02:16. > :02:21.thing to butt rethe decisions - buttress the decisions of the Bank

:02:22. > :02:25.of England. The 2020 fiscal surplus target was always likely to be a

:02:26. > :02:30.casualty of the first sound of Brexit gunfire, and so it's proved.

:02:31. > :02:37.Does the Chancellor agree that what we need now, at least to develop

:02:38. > :02:40.over the next few months, is to most effectively bolster credibility over

:02:41. > :02:46.coming years is a rule that sets fiscal policy in a longer tdrm

:02:47. > :02:51.framework, one that's resilhent to short-term forecasts by the OBR

:02:52. > :02:57.What I'd say to my right honourable friend, it is clearly likelx we are

:02:58. > :03:02.going to be impacted by a cxclical downturn in the public finances

:03:03. > :03:07.because you can already see the growth forecasts being adjusted The

:03:08. > :03:12.OBR will help us make an assessment of the structural impact th`t the

:03:13. > :03:16.referendum result produces on the public finances and indeed our

:03:17. > :03:20.chances of hitting the targdt, though it looks unlikely we will hit

:03:21. > :03:24.that target. Then that's whdn in our fiscal charter it's up to the

:03:25. > :03:29.Government fro deuce a plan debated in this House and voted on by this

:03:30. > :03:36.House. We have provided for this contingency and now, we need to let

:03:37. > :03:40.the OBR do its work. Can I welcome what the Chancellor said for the

:03:41. > :03:44.monetary policy easing, which may come from the bank. Also wh`t he

:03:45. > :03:48.said about the automatic st`bilisers and in particular about export

:03:49. > :03:59.promotion. We hope that's m`tched by a u turn on the cuts to the UKTI

:04:00. > :04:04.export promotion budget. We welcome the U-turn on the arbitrary fiscal

:04:05. > :04:07.surplus ruled, which planned to cut more than ?40 billion a year and was

:04:08. > :04:13.required to run a balanced current account budget. And while wd do

:04:14. > :04:19.support tax competition, and recognise that corporation tax cuts

:04:20. > :04:23.may potentially be a useful tool in the fight against capital flight in

:04:24. > :04:29.the aftermath of the appallhng Brexit decision, it's also true to

:04:30. > :04:35.look at the 2016 red book ntmbers as a guide thatcy substantial, say 5%

:04:36. > :04:40.cut in corporation tax could in the absence of behavioural change lead

:04:41. > :04:47.to a reduction of revenue yheld of 2. ?2.5 billion a year. Can I ask

:04:48. > :04:52.the Chancellor one question in particular: Given that he h`s

:04:53. > :04:58.abandoned his fiscal rule, will he today rule out any plans to claw

:04:59. > :05:03.back potential losses in revenue yield from the cut in corporation

:05:04. > :05:05.tax in the absence of behavhoural change, through the mechanism of

:05:06. > :05:14.further attacks on the welf`re budget? Well, first of all, let me

:05:15. > :05:18.say to the honourable gentldman the Bank of England as a result of the

:05:19. > :05:22.reforms we've made over the last six years, it has many more tools at its

:05:23. > :05:28.disposal than it did in the financial crash. Obviously ht can

:05:29. > :05:33.act on monetary policy conshstent with the inflation target and the

:05:34. > :05:38.bank governor said that eashng was likely to be required. They do now

:05:39. > :05:40.have a number of other tools available, including countercyclical

:05:41. > :05:45.financial tools and that me`ns they've got a range of options to

:05:46. > :05:48.deploy. We will hear over the coming weeks, they're independent hn making

:05:49. > :05:52.this decision, how and if they need to deploy those tools. On

:05:53. > :05:57.corporation tax, I'm disappointed that the SNP spokesman has not

:05:58. > :06:01.reminded the House that I thought it was SNP policy to cut corporation

:06:02. > :06:05.tax. That was their policy for year after year. In the independdnce

:06:06. > :06:09.referendum they said one of the benefits of being independent was

:06:10. > :06:14.cutting corporation tax. Thd great thing by being in the United

:06:15. > :06:20.Kingdom, is that you can get the corporation cuts any way. When did

:06:21. > :06:23.my right honourable friend decide he wasn't going to introduce an

:06:24. > :06:27.emergency Brexit budget to penalise the people who voted Leave? Well,

:06:28. > :06:34.what I'd say to my honourable friend is this: We have to be realhstic

:06:35. > :06:38.that the economic shock that the referendum result has creatdd, and

:06:39. > :06:41.that is acknowledged just bx the bank governor, but independdnt

:06:42. > :06:44.forecasters and reflected in the financial markets, will havd an

:06:45. > :06:49.impact on the public financds. Partly that will be cyclical. But it

:06:50. > :06:54.will partly be structural as well. And in the end, a structural

:06:55. > :06:57.deficit, as my honourable friend, who's a good fiscal Conserv`tive

:06:58. > :07:00.will know, needs to be addrdssed through either reduced spending or

:07:01. > :07:04.higher taxes over time. As ` Conservative, I tend to look at the

:07:05. > :07:07.spending solution rather th`n the tax solution. But that is what

:07:08. > :07:11.happens if you have a structural deficit, as we know to our cost in

:07:12. > :07:14.it country. Let's wait for the OBR to make its assessment in the

:07:15. > :07:23.Autumn, then we can decide how to proceed. The Office for Budget

:07:24. > :07:28.Responsibility says that cuts in corporation tax so far have had no

:07:29. > :07:33.discernible impact on busindss investment or growth, indeed in the

:07:34. > :07:36.latest forecast, despite cuts to corporation tax, business investment

:07:37. > :07:41.was revised down. So can I trge the Chancellor to look instead `t

:07:42. > :07:45.helping small businesses or investing in infrastructure rather

:07:46. > :07:50.than going ahead with furthdr cuts in corporation tax, which so far,

:07:51. > :07:54.seem to have made no differdnce I'm all for supporting small businesses,

:07:55. > :07:59.which is why we have a pack`ge of rates relief in the budget. I'm all

:08:00. > :08:02.for making the big transport investments, which frankly this

:08:03. > :08:06.country has not done for a generation, that's why I support

:08:07. > :08:12.high speed two and throw and a new runway in the south-east of England.

:08:13. > :08:17.When it comes to corporation tax, actually the OBR, when we'vd

:08:18. > :08:20.introduced corporation tax cuts has revised up economic forecasts for

:08:21. > :08:24.business investment. It draws a link between the two. Indeed in the study

:08:25. > :08:28.done on the long-term impact of our corporation tax cuts so far, they've

:08:29. > :08:40.seen an increase in our long run GDP of 1. 3%, the equivalent to ?24

:08:41. > :08:43.billion in today's prices. Before the referendum, the finance bill set

:08:44. > :08:46.out a path for lower corpor`tion tax, so I'm pleased following the

:08:47. > :08:50.result that the Chancellor has set out further steps to reduce

:08:51. > :08:54.corporation tax and of course to invest much more into the northern

:08:55. > :08:57.powerhouse. Can my right honourable friend tell the House what

:08:58. > :09:02.conversations he's had with business leaders about his proactive approach

:09:03. > :09:06.following the referendum result I've had numerous conversathons with

:09:07. > :09:10.various business leaders and indeed leaders of financial institttions

:09:11. > :09:13.over the last ten days and tomorrow, I am meeting the heads of some of

:09:14. > :09:18.the major banks as well to discuss how we proceed. The overall message

:09:19. > :09:23.and the very clear message from the business council, the Prime

:09:24. > :09:25.Minister's business council, let us send a message round the world that

:09:26. > :09:29.we are not closed for busindss. We're not turning our back on the

:09:30. > :09:33.world. We're open to business and we're reaching out to the world

:09:34. > :09:36.That's why a good way of dohng that is to further reduce corpor`tion

:09:37. > :09:40.tax. Then we must make the lost of those links not just with otr

:09:41. > :09:43.European friends, but with countries like China, India, the Unitdd

:09:44. > :09:48.States, where we should be seeking to strengthen our trading lhnks

:09:49. > :09:53.Horizon ahead and make the best of what is to come. Cutting thd

:09:54. > :09:59.corporation tax in this way is highly likely to annoy our DU

:10:00. > :10:03.partners, which is extremelx foolish in the trounce the Article 40

:10:04. > :10:09.negotiations, wouldn't a better way of averting the risk of recdssion be

:10:10. > :10:16.to promise to replace the ET funds which we are going to lose, and

:10:17. > :10:19.which were such an important part of the northern devolution deals. But

:10:20. > :10:23.when it comes to annoying otr European partners I don't think this

:10:24. > :10:29.is going to be the thing th`t really tips the balance in the last couple

:10:30. > :10:35.of weeks. But if you look at, if you look at Ireland a member of the

:10:36. > :10:40.European Union, it is of cotrse 12.5% corps ration tax rate. When it

:10:41. > :10:44.comes to investment in the north and Midlands I an open to what further

:10:45. > :10:47.steps we can take, I do not pretend we have done everything that is

:10:48. > :10:52.possible. There is more we will have to do. All of us, particularly those

:10:53. > :10:59.who represent constituencies in the north and Midlands I think need to

:11:00. > :11:02.focus on what we can do to lake sure people feel more enfranchisdd and

:11:03. > :11:05.connected with the economic success of this country.

:11:06. > :11:10.Thank you. The Brexit vote was going to require a Treasury response so I

:11:11. > :11:12.am pleased the Chancellor h`s produced one, rather than

:11:13. > :11:16.concentrate on the profit loss, I wonder if he would care to look at

:11:17. > :11:22.the balance sheet and consider measures to lift or relieve some of

:11:23. > :11:27.the constraints on the oper`tion and he quidty of capital. Fundalental is

:11:28. > :11:32.our capital growth and tax `nd regulation are a constaint. So could

:11:33. > :11:40.he look at investment allow`nce tax break on starting new busindsses and

:11:41. > :11:45.capital gains tax. My right honourable friend hs right

:11:46. > :11:49.to say that while taxes on business profits are important, capital taxes

:11:50. > :11:55.are also vital, to stimulathng investment. That is why of course in

:11:56. > :11:59.the budget we reduce capital gains tax, with hindsight that is more

:12:00. > :12:05.sensible move than I thought it was at the time ooh time. I am `lways

:12:06. > :12:10.ready to consider allowance, we have successful ones like the EIS scheme.

:12:11. > :12:15.The balance has to be betwedn the simplification and simplicity of the

:12:16. > :12:19.tax system and new allowancds and sometimes some people call on me to

:12:20. > :12:21.do both with the same breath. I know not my right honourable fridnd

:12:22. > :12:25.because he is clear in his think, have to say I think reducing

:12:26. > :12:33.headline rates is generally the better approach.

:12:34. > :12:37.With the benefit of hindsight with the Chancellor accept that his

:12:38. > :12:41.original threat to introducd a deflationary budget in the dvent of

:12:42. > :12:48.a Brexit vote was bogus and counter productive? What I was setthng out

:12:49. > :12:52.with Alistair Darling, my ilmediate predecessor, was the realisl that

:12:53. > :12:56.will be required when we understand that the economy impacted bx the

:12:57. > :12:59.vote will have an impact on the public finance, and then it will be

:13:00. > :13:03.up to the House of Commons to decide how we proceed. And it is ilportant

:13:04. > :13:09.that information was in the public domain before people voted.

:13:10. > :13:12.Thank you can I first of all put on my records the thanks to thd

:13:13. > :13:17.Chancellor he has done in stabilising the economy following

:13:18. > :13:23.the Brexit vote in the last week, in my constituencies a company that

:13:24. > :13:26.depends on export what mess`ge does he have for exporting, about

:13:27. > :13:30.Britain's role in the world of trade in the future? I think therd are two

:13:31. > :13:35.things we need to do. First of all we need the of course, determine our

:13:36. > :13:38.new trading relationship with our European partner, half of otr

:13:39. > :13:43.exports or thereabout go to 2 European continent and in mx view,

:13:44. > :13:47.we should be pushing forer the best possible terms of trading goods and

:13:48. > :13:50.business services including financial services, second, we

:13:51. > :13:54.should be maximising our links with the rest of the world, I thhnk we

:13:55. > :13:58.have a real opportunity for China, as he will know, I have been very

:13:59. > :14:02.involved in trying to strengthen the relationship with that big lerging

:14:03. > :14:07.economy in our world, but wd should look to linking with Japan, India,

:14:08. > :14:11.China w the US, and with thd Commonwealth, and this is, xou know,

:14:12. > :14:22.a call to action we need to redouble our efforts.

:14:23. > :14:26.Thank you. The Chancellor g`ined the his office because he promised in

:14:27. > :14:32.2010 he wonder eradicate thd deficit by 2015. He failed on that `s we

:14:33. > :14:37.knew he would. Now he is giving up on achieving it by 2020 or `ny

:14:38. > :14:42.specific future date. Wasn't that long-term economic plan onlx ever

:14:43. > :14:48.just a vacuous slogan, and now you have dumped it? I think we gained

:14:49. > :14:51.office because we were faced with a complete economic mess under the

:14:52. > :14:55.last Labour Government, we promised to turn it round and we got a record

:14:56. > :14:59.number of people in work and we have had the fastest growing economy for

:15:00. > :15:04.the last three years, when ht comes to the deficit, he left me with an

:15:05. > :15:07.11% budget deficit. The highest in the peacetime history of thhs

:15:08. > :15:16.country, this year it is forecast to be below 3%. So I will comp`re our

:15:17. > :15:21.record, with their record. Chancellor will be aware th`t I have

:15:22. > :15:24.many small and heed yum sizdd businesses in my constituency who ex

:15:25. > :15:30.port to Europe. Can he expl`in what steps he is taking to make sure that

:15:31. > :15:34.UK T. It has a package that allows them to look more Golubevly for

:15:35. > :15:39.export, particularly for thd smaller and medium sized businesses? Well,

:15:40. > :15:43.of course I know her constituency well as it neighbours my own and we

:15:44. > :15:47.have similar communities we represent in Parliament. I would say

:15:48. > :15:50.we don't have to make a chohce as a country, between exporting to Europe

:15:51. > :15:56.and to the world. We should be doing both. So we should be of cotrse

:15:57. > :15:59.doing everything we can to laintain close trading links with our

:16:00. > :16:02.European partners and build on them if possible. We should be looking

:16:03. > :16:08.for opportunities round the rest of the world. And that is why this trip

:16:09. > :16:12.am making to China will be `n opportunity to communicate that

:16:13. > :16:16.message and I have spoken to the speaker of Congress about what we

:16:17. > :16:20.can do to strengthen our links with the US administration, with that

:16:21. > :16:26.huge market. In the end the best thing UK TI can do is help not just

:16:27. > :16:31.the largest companies but the small businesses, if you went to Germany

:16:32. > :16:34.many more small and medium sized companies would be exporting than do

:16:35. > :16:38.in the UK, that is something within our own gift we can address and we

:16:39. > :16:47.need to give them all the hdlp we can.

:16:48. > :16:50.This week marks a year sincd the Chancellor pubbed his productivity

:16:51. > :16:55.plan and his record speaks for itself. Productivity remains at the

:16:56. > :17:00.bottom of the league table `nd 7% lore than average. The plan was

:17:01. > :17:05.never a plan. His decision today continues down that road. Isn't it

:17:06. > :17:11.time that he does what Brithsh businesses are calling for, which is

:17:12. > :17:13.investment in our school, in infrastructure, and affordable

:17:14. > :17:18.housing for workers rather than doing what he is doing todax, which

:17:19. > :17:23.is run the risk of us becomhng tax haven Britain.

:17:24. > :17:27.I don't think the business community wanted the see higher taxes which is

:17:28. > :17:29.the Labour proposal. When it comes to the major transport investments

:17:30. > :17:33.we are making them. The Labour Party was in office all those years when

:17:34. > :17:38.the money was apparently coling in, where were the major investlents in

:17:39. > :17:41.the railways, where were thd investments in the in roads they

:17:42. > :17:46.complain about some of our dnergy investment, where are the power

:17:47. > :17:49.stations that opened up unddr those periods in the Labour Government.

:17:50. > :17:54.The more we look at that period of our economic history we can see what

:17:55. > :18:00.a massive missed opportunitx it was. I am disappointed that none of the

:18:01. > :18:03.leading Leave campaigners are hear to listen to what the Chancdllor has

:18:04. > :18:08.to say about the impact of Brexit. Will the Chancellor put the economy

:18:09. > :18:12.on a war footing to save off a recession, invest in infrastructure,

:18:13. > :18:15.particularly housing, and privatise support to small and medium

:18:16. > :18:20.businesses through the Brithsh business bank set up by the Liberal

:18:21. > :18:26.Democrats in coalition, so that companies will continue to receive

:18:27. > :18:29.support if bank lending drids up? Well, fist of all the British

:18:30. > :18:35.business bank which I was a policy announced by me I think at this

:18:36. > :18:39.despatch box, is working successfully and I pay tribtte to

:18:40. > :18:42.Liberal Democrat colleagues in that Government for helping us ddliver

:18:43. > :18:46.it. It has an important rold to play going forward. Look, he is right in

:18:47. > :18:50.the broader sense which is we need to look what the we can do to

:18:51. > :18:54.support demand and credit. The Bank of England has many tools and the

:18:55. > :18:57.Governor of the Bank of England has indicated that in his personal

:18:58. > :19:02.opinion we should be looking at monetary easing.

:19:03. > :19:06.The Chancellor on his fiscal response and his comment on Heathrow

:19:07. > :19:12.in the statement. Can I also ask him to reassure the House about the

:19:13. > :19:16.strength and stability of the UK banking system. Well, can I thank my

:19:17. > :19:21.right honourable friend for his remark, I should point out H did not

:19:22. > :19:26.identify where this additional runway should be in the south-east

:19:27. > :19:30.of England, although I can't help I know his constituency is next to

:19:31. > :19:35.Gatwick, so that might be a loaded question. Let me make a bro`der he

:19:36. > :19:39.is right to point to the st`bility of the banking system. We are not

:19:40. > :19:43.today, although we remain vhgilant talking about a banking crisis,

:19:44. > :19:47.despite a very significant adjustment in financial markets and

:19:48. > :19:51.that is because of difficult decisions taken by this Govdrnment,

:19:52. > :19:54.and the coalition predecessor, to strengthen the capital requhrements

:19:55. > :19:58.so banks have ten times as luch capital as they did seven or eight

:19:59. > :20:02.years ago, to strengthen thd oversight of the banking system by

:20:03. > :20:05.by putting the Bank of Engl`nd in charge. Think those decisions have

:20:06. > :20:10.been justified by what has happened in the last ten day, but th`t

:20:11. > :20:15.doesn't mean we we ease up, we remain vigilant.

:20:16. > :20:22.The Chancellor refers to his fiscal charter which of course has three

:20:23. > :20:25.pillars, the first is the wdlfare cap, the second is debt redtction

:20:26. > :20:31.every year of this Parliament and the third of course is his deficit

:20:32. > :20:36.reduction target by 2019/20. We know he is not going to meet the latter,

:20:37. > :20:42.can he perhaps update the House on the other two pillars? The fiscal

:20:43. > :20:46.charter was explicitly designed to make sure that the House of Commons

:20:47. > :20:52.could hold to account ministers for fiscal policy and remain controls on

:20:53. > :20:55.welfare policy, but it provhded for a, a specific requirement when there

:20:56. > :21:00.was a negative shock, to cole back to the House of Commons, with a new

:21:01. > :21:04.way forward. That it seems to me is thinking ahead, and it has been

:21:05. > :21:11.required because of the challenges we now face in the economy.

:21:12. > :21:17.Almost to % of people within the Calder Valley work in manuf`cturing,

:21:18. > :21:21.much of which is high end ndarby manufacturing. Does my right

:21:22. > :21:24.honourable friend agree these business need us to negotiate trade

:21:25. > :21:29.agreements not just with thd EU but the rest of the world and it would

:21:30. > :21:36.be wise to draw breath before we rush into triggering Articld 50 for

:21:37. > :21:39.our exit from the EU? Well, the Prime Minister's position which I

:21:40. > :21:43.share, and I think is sensible for this country, is that we should

:21:44. > :21:47.trigger Article 50 when we `re clear collectively about the new lodel of

:21:48. > :21:51.relationship we want with otr European allies, and so that we are

:21:52. > :22:00.well prepared for the negothations that we would embark on.

:22:01. > :22:04.The Government has already `pproved the power to the Northern Ireland

:22:05. > :22:09.executive to reduce corporation tax, in that context does the Ch`ncellor

:22:10. > :22:15.accept this decision to cut corps ration tax in Britain to 15$ raises

:22:16. > :22:19.issues of attractiveness and competitiveness for the Northern

:22:20. > :22:23.Ireland rate, in attracting foreign direct investment? Well, of course

:22:24. > :22:29.under these arrangements and we still have to work out as she knows

:22:30. > :22:32.the fiscal underpinning the of the arrangement, but under thesd

:22:33. > :22:39.arrangement the Northern Irdland pecktive can set any rate it wants

:22:40. > :22:44.but the good news about redtcing the UK rate makes it cheaper for the

:22:45. > :22:50.Northern Ireland Executive to reduce its corporation tax rate.

:22:51. > :22:55.I very much welcome the comlitment to lower corps ration tax r`te. To

:22:56. > :23:00.echo the point from my right honourable friend from north

:23:01. > :23:04.Hampshire, I visited a printer if my constituency, they make the point

:23:05. > :23:08.that capital allowances havd been cut back. Given the importance of

:23:09. > :23:15.manufacturing, can I ask hil to keep that under review.

:23:16. > :23:21.Well of course we keep the taxes under review, as I say, my revealed

:23:22. > :23:25.preference is generally to try and reduce reliefs and headline rates,

:23:26. > :23:28.which I think is the least economically distorting approach but

:23:29. > :23:32.there are many exceptions to that, one has been the investment

:23:33. > :23:37.allowance which we have increased which is targeted to small `nd

:23:38. > :23:41.medium sized bids, it stands at 200,00 pounds as a permanent annual

:23:42. > :23:46.allowance, the highest it h`s erbeen.

:23:47. > :23:52.The Chancellor is fond of h`ving a pop at the last Labour Government.

:23:53. > :23:55.But that Government had a crisis in the markets, to which the Government

:23:56. > :23:59.had to respond. This is a crisis made in Government, to which the

:24:00. > :24:02.markets are responding. And with that in mind, can I ask the

:24:03. > :24:07.Chancellor, therefore, becatse he hasn't answered it yet, what proper

:24:08. > :24:11.assessment he has made, of the impact of this cut in corporation

:24:12. > :24:18.tax on our country's crisis in productivity.

:24:19. > :24:22.Well, first of all, the problems in financial markets eight years ago

:24:23. > :24:26.hit this country more severdly than almost any other country in the

:24:27. > :24:29.world. The Government takes some responsibility for that. Second the

:24:30. > :24:34.challenge we face is the ch`llenge delivered by our democracy, you

:24:35. > :24:39.know, this is a democratic outcome which we accept and respect and we

:24:40. > :24:43.have to make work for our country, I am determined to make that happen.

:24:44. > :24:46.When it comes to productivity growth say it challenge in every wdstern

:24:47. > :24:54.democracy at the moment, as she knows. In the US they are predicting

:24:55. > :24:56.negative growth. In the UK ht is improving, education reform,

:24:57. > :25:02.transport investment are good places to start.

:25:03. > :25:06.From the moment the result of the EU referendum was announced, the

:25:07. > :25:10.British people saying they wanted to leave the European Union, prominent

:25:11. > :25:13.commentators and most areas of the media have revelling in running down

:25:14. > :25:18.the British economy. On that would my right honourable friend `gree

:25:19. > :25:22.with me, with employment at record highs and unemployment at a ten year

:25:23. > :25:29.low, the British economy is well placed to face the future.

:25:30. > :25:36.I completely agree with my honourable friend. I think we are

:25:37. > :25:40.well placed because we have got behind Britain's businesses large

:25:41. > :25:44.and small. The collective ddcision we took six years ago was to push or

:25:45. > :25:49.a private sector recovery bhll rather than continually pump

:25:50. > :25:53.government money into sustahn the economy. That approach has been

:25:54. > :25:58.vindicated by the record nulber of jobs created, the record nulber of

:25:59. > :26:04.businesses created in the rdcord growth compared with other dconomies

:26:05. > :26:11.we have seen. A few weeks ago we were told there would be another

:26:12. > :26:18.budget presented to Parliamdnt if we work to leave the EU. Now wd have

:26:19. > :26:25.had a cut in corporation tax. Is it not the case with the number of

:26:26. > :26:30.U-turns, the Chancellor is working on the make it up as you go a long

:26:31. > :26:35.planned? The contingency pl`ns we had in place with joint plans of the

:26:36. > :26:38.Treasury and the Bank of England and require the authorisation of the

:26:39. > :26:44.Chancellor in certain aspects. We now have to make a decision, based

:26:45. > :26:47.on the assessment we made bdfore the referendums on the different models,

:26:48. > :26:54.of how we want to proceed as a country. I want the closest possible

:26:55. > :27:02.economic links so that vital industries, not just manufacturing

:27:03. > :27:05.but financial, which are very important to trade as freelx as

:27:06. > :27:11.possible with European neighbours. The UK is a world leader in the

:27:12. > :27:13.financial services sector and contributes substantially to

:27:14. > :27:20.corporation tax receipts. Wdll the Chancellor do all he can to protect

:27:21. > :27:23.this vital sector? Financial services is the largest

:27:24. > :27:29.private-sector employer. Two thirds of the jobs are outside our capital

:27:30. > :27:34.city. It is a vital industrx in many different towns and cities of the

:27:35. > :27:38.United Kingdom. I would say, one of the key priorities and making sure

:27:39. > :27:43.our financial services industry continues to be a success story and

:27:44. > :27:48.is able to sell its services into the European continent but `lso that

:27:49. > :27:52.we strengthen links with other great global financial centres and

:27:53. > :28:00.economies. For example, becoming an offshore trading centre has become a

:28:01. > :28:10.real success story. Well thd Chancellor support investment in

:28:11. > :28:14.projects like food, and electrifying the south Wales Metro and ilproving

:28:15. > :28:19.roads question that would rdally help employment in the south Wales

:28:20. > :28:24.valleys and across the UK. H am always happy to look at any good

:28:25. > :28:27.proposals to make further investment in the transport infrastructure We

:28:28. > :28:34.are supporting a ledge of occasion of the railway lines into South

:28:35. > :28:39.Wales and into the valleys. -- electrification. If he has further

:28:40. > :28:47.proposals, I am very happy to look at them. When he cut corpor`tion tax

:28:48. > :28:53.in the budget, the tonsil rdduced losses the banks could offsdt

:28:54. > :28:58.against corporation tax liabilities. -- the Chancellor. Whilst wd have

:28:59. > :29:04.the lowest rates possible, we must insure everyone pays their fair

:29:05. > :29:08.share. As well as reducing corporation tax rates, we dhd a lot

:29:09. > :29:15.to reduce some of the reliefs. Some of the reliefs have been abtsed

:29:16. > :29:21.That is broadly speaking thd right direction of travel for the tax

:29:22. > :29:31.system. The price for patients goes to Nigel Mills. That is not a prize

:29:32. > :29:35.I get very often. -- a prizd. With the reduction in corporation tax, I

:29:36. > :29:39.guess I should welcome it. To get the most benefit we need to

:29:40. > :29:48.simplified the business tax system further to make it more attractive.

:29:49. > :29:53.Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are seeking to make our business tax

:29:54. > :30:00.system simpler and on a statutory footing. I can be a little bit

:30:01. > :30:06.discursive right at the end. In this job, you get many requests for tax

:30:07. > :30:11.relief and breaks and they `re all worthy and sensible. They do

:30:12. > :30:16.complicate the tax system. Sometimes the more difficult path is to say,

:30:17. > :30:20.welcome as lots of different beliefs would be, the simpler thing would be

:30:21. > :30:24.to reduce the rate. Broadly speaking, there are exceptions to

:30:25. > :30:32.this, but it is the approach I followed and intend to follow in the

:30:33. > :30:38.future. Thank you. We now come to presentation of bills.

:30:39. > :30:55.Presentation of Bill, Kevin Foster. The enforcement bill. What day?

:30:56. > :31:03.Friday, 2nd of December. Presentation of Bill, Kevin Foster.

:31:04. > :31:11.Broadcasting radio multiplexes bill. Friday 13th of January. Wild animals

:31:12. > :31:20.in circuses, Prohibition Bill. Second reading, what say? Friday

:31:21. > :31:26.24th of February. Presentathon of Bill, Kevin Foster? Animal fighting

:31:27. > :31:38.sentencing bill. What day? 24th of February. Presentation of Bhll,

:31:39. > :31:46.Wendy Morton. Local audit, public access to documents Bill. Sdcond

:31:47. > :31:53.reading? Friday, 25th of November. Presentation of Bill, Wendy Morton.

:31:54. > :32:00.Crown tenants is built. What day? Friday 16th of December. Wendy

:32:01. > :32:06.Morton. Highway works, weekdnd working and traffic managemdnt

:32:07. > :32:14.measures Bill. Second reading what day? Friday 20th of January, 20 7.

:32:15. > :32:19.Friday, 20th of January. Presentation Bill, Wendy Morton

:32:20. > :32:21.Wildlife protection Bill. Sdcond reading what day? Friday, third

:32:22. > :32:39.February, 2017. On presentation of Bill on behalf of

:32:40. > :32:45.Michael Tomlinson. Wendy Morton Use of property protection Bill. Second

:32:46. > :32:49.reading, what day? Friday 20st of October. Presentation of Bill on

:32:50. > :32:54.behalf of Michael Tomlinson, Wendy Morton. Road traffic of offdnders

:32:55. > :33:04.surrender of driving licencds, etc, Bill. Second reading about what day?

:33:05. > :33:10.Friday 27th of January, 2017. Presentation of Bill on beh`lf of

:33:11. > :33:13.Michael Tomlinson. Providers of health and social care under the

:33:14. > :33:21.National Health Service act 201 Bill. Second reading, what day?

:33:22. > :33:28.Friday 24th of March, 2017. Friday, 24th of March. On behalf of Michael

:33:29. > :33:35.Tomlinson, Wendy Morton. Carbon monoxide poisoning safety abroad

:33:36. > :33:39.Bill. Second reading, what day? Friday, 24th of March, 2017.

:33:40. > :34:12.Presentation of Bill... 28th of October, 2016. Presdntation

:34:13. > :34:19.of Bill, Caroline Lucas? Personal social health and economic Bill

:34:20. > :34:31.Friday 22nd of January. Housing tenants rights Bill. Second reading

:34:32. > :34:37.when? Friday, 20th of January. Presentation of Bill, Carolhne

:34:38. > :34:47.Lucas. Railways Bill. What day? Friday 20th of January. Presentation

:34:48. > :34:56.of Bill, Anna Turley? Animal cruelty sentencing bill. Second reading what

:34:57. > :34:59.day? 24th of February, 2017. Presentation of Bill, Anna Turley?

:35:00. > :35:08.Malicious Communications social media Bill. Second reading, what

:35:09. > :35:22.date? 24th of March, 2017. Thank you. We now come to the bushness of

:35:23. > :35:31.the day. We come first to the motion on the Ministry of Justice dstimate.

:35:32. > :35:36.The question is as on the order paper. I called to propose the

:35:37. > :35:42.motion the chair of the Justice committee, Mr Robert Neill. I thank

:35:43. > :35:45.you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ht is a great pleasure and privilegd to be

:35:46. > :35:52.or to propose the motion and raise this issue on the back of the report

:35:53. > :35:57.by our select committee. It is the first occasion that we have had

:35:58. > :36:06.first time ever, I think, that one of our committees reports h`s been

:36:07. > :36:10.debated. In starting, can I express my appreciation to all the lembers

:36:11. > :36:14.of the committee for the very constructive and diligent w`y in

:36:15. > :36:21.which they approached the work of the committee as a whole and this

:36:22. > :36:26.report in particular. It has been approached in an entirely

:36:27. > :36:31.collaboratively nonpartisan spirit. As is appropriate for anythhng that

:36:32. > :36:33.touches on the law and justhce, we have endeavoured to base our

:36:34. > :36:42.conclusions on the evidence that has come before us. I really gr`teful

:36:43. > :36:47.for that. It was agreed unanimously. I hope that will weigh with the

:36:48. > :36:52.House and ministers when thdy consider it. We also have

:36:53. > :36:58.significant assistance from the evidence we received and witnesses

:36:59. > :37:02.both written and oral. It is particularly worth noting, Ladam

:37:03. > :37:07.Deputy Speaker, we were asshsted by the evidence Berry senior mdmbers of

:37:08. > :37:13.the judiciary. The master of the roles, but resident and famhly

:37:14. > :37:17.division, and senior Presiddnt of tribunal. -- the president. They

:37:18. > :37:27.ought to carry considerable weight indeed. There is no doubt that over

:37:28. > :37:31.the last years, these have spread and increase in terms of cases.

:37:32. > :37:34.There have been a number of proposals brought forward for

:37:35. > :37:40.further increases. When we set up the inquiry, we did so on the basis

:37:41. > :37:45.of four objectives to be looked into. One was, how have the

:37:46. > :37:48.increased court fees and introduction of employment Tribunal

:37:49. > :37:54.fees, which they were not bdfore, how has it affected access to

:37:55. > :37:59.justice? How has it affected the volume and quality of cases brought?

:38:00. > :38:05.How has the court fee regimd affected the competitiveness of the

:38:06. > :38:08.legal services market in England and Wales? Thirdly, we particul`rly

:38:09. > :38:12.wanted to look at the effect on defendants on the introducthon of

:38:13. > :38:20.the criminal courts charge, more on that in a moment. Fourthly, to look

:38:21. > :38:27.at the impact of the increases in courts and tribunal 's fees

:38:28. > :38:32.announced in the document, command 9123 court and tribunal fees

:38:33. > :38:36.published on the 22nd of July, 015, and then subsequent proposals are

:38:37. > :38:39.brought forward thereafter. In relation to the criminal cotrts

:38:40. > :38:43.charge, I am very grateful to the Government for having moved swiftly

:38:44. > :38:49.on this. We decided, so cle`r was the evidence that the criminal

:38:50. > :38:51.courts charge did not work `nd was counter-productive, costing as much

:38:52. > :38:57.to administer as it was ever going to bring in. We did couple that from

:38:58. > :39:02.the main part of the report and brought it forward quickly. I am

:39:03. > :39:08.grateful to the Government for their very prompt response to that. Any

:39:09. > :39:12.moving to accept the recommdndation and abolish the charge. In fairness,

:39:13. > :39:17.the Secretary of State for Justice and his ministerial team deserve

:39:18. > :39:19.great credit for that. We should not criticise politicians when they are

:39:20. > :39:26.prepared to change their minds. I think it is a famous doctrine of

:39:27. > :39:30.John panes. When the facts change, change my opinion. The Government

:39:31. > :39:36.listen to the evidence and remove the criminals courts charge. I hope

:39:37. > :39:39.they will be as expeditious and responsive to a number of the other

:39:40. > :39:44.matters that we bring forward in this report.

:39:45. > :39:51.Ture. An excellent report btt I think would it not be fair to say

:39:52. > :39:58.the Secretary of State changed. I don't know if that is one of the

:39:59. > :40:03.principles. It is just what was always a mad scheme, suddenly some

:40:04. > :40:08.light was shone on it. I don't want to detract from the credit to his

:40:09. > :40:13.committee. I am grateful for the spirit of the honourable gentleman's

:40:14. > :40:17.contribution, I am a friend of both the current and the former Secretary

:40:18. > :40:22.of States. But credit to those who responded to the evidence, H think

:40:23. > :40:27.is the appropriate and balanced way to deal with that. It is just worth

:40:28. > :40:31.looking at a little bit of the chronology on one matter I `m going

:40:32. > :40:35.to turn to. As well as thosd significant witnesses that we have

:40:36. > :40:39.from judiciary, of course wd had also evidence from trade unhons

:40:40. > :40:46.from the business community, and evidence from the Bar Counchl, The

:40:47. > :40:50.Law Society, and a number of other individuals and interest group, we

:40:51. > :40:55.had four oral evidence sesshons between November 2015 and Fdbruary

:40:56. > :41:01.2016 and the last of those was on the 9th February when we he`rd from

:41:02. > :41:06.the legal profession and fldn the minister, the honourable melber for

:41:07. > :41:11.North West Cambridgeshire. We then waited, because we were anthcipating

:41:12. > :41:16.the promised post implement`tion review of the impact of employment

:41:17. > :41:19.tribunal fees. This had been an important part of the evidence put

:41:20. > :41:25.before us, we know it had bden commissioned. We know it had been

:41:26. > :41:32.commissioned some time back, and we waited. And nothing came forward.

:41:33. > :41:39.And in the end, on the 25th of April, the honourable gentldman the

:41:40. > :41:42.minister who is on the front bench, courteously taken over

:41:43. > :41:47.responsibility, responded btt was unable to give any opinion of a

:41:48. > :41:50.publication date. I have to say we don't regard that as satisf`ctory,

:41:51. > :41:56.it was against that backgrotnd, rather than waiting for the two

:41:57. > :42:00.months normal period to the Government to respond we thought it

:42:01. > :42:08.right to bring to it the Hotse day in the estimates day debate.

:42:09. > :42:12.Will he Would he like to tell us whether we have received th`t

:42:13. > :42:16.report? Sno no, we have not. I have to say we are using our report

:42:17. > :42:21.strong language about that because we were disappointed and it does go

:42:22. > :42:27.against the normal spirit of courtesy openness and cooperation

:42:28. > :42:31.which in my experience I have always found from the Ministry of Justice

:42:32. > :42:34.team during which time I have been chairing the Select Committde. I

:42:35. > :42:39.hope the minister will give an indication as to why it has taken so

:42:40. > :42:42.long and when. When. I know sometimes these things aren't easy

:42:43. > :42:47.but it is clear the factual data that was required for that `nalysis

:42:48. > :42:51.was collected a long time ago and we say in our report there can be no

:42:52. > :42:55.reason why that factual matdrial cannot be published forth whth, even

:42:56. > :43:00.if the Government is not in a position to make a response. Because

:43:01. > :43:05.the more informed the House, and the public are about the outcomd of that

:43:06. > :43:10.the better. So that is the `rea of regret we say, that is why we say

:43:11. > :43:18.having this debate today is both important, and timely. Can H just

:43:19. > :43:24.then touch on some of the principles that we are concerned with. The

:43:25. > :43:28.levels of courts and tribun`l fees of various kinds have been

:43:29. > :43:33.politically controversial. Ht is fair to say, that we all nedd to

:43:34. > :43:38.bear in mind that a balance has to be struck between the cost to the

:43:39. > :43:43.public purse of administering a justice system, which frankly is an

:43:44. > :43:47.integral part of any civilised society and how much can be

:43:48. > :43:52.reasonably be recovered frol litigant, and we say in principle,

:43:53. > :43:55.we don't have an objection to the thought that there should bd some

:43:56. > :43:59.financial discipline on those who choose to go to law, those who

:44:00. > :44:04.choose to litigate in decidhng whether north it is a wise decision

:44:05. > :44:08.for them to make. So we don't have a problem with the principle of a

:44:09. > :44:15.level of fee, but equally you have to bear in mind, of course, the

:44:16. > :44:21.comments made consistently since Magna Kata but captured by the late

:44:22. > :44:25.Lord Bingham in his book, The Rule of Law which should be comptlsory

:44:26. > :44:32.reading for anybody in the political sphere. It says accessibility to

:44:33. > :44:39.justice is as much part of the fundamental of the rule of law as

:44:40. > :44:45.clarity of the law itself. @nd in a sense, we uses a phrase justice

:44:46. > :44:49.isn't a commodity in the wax that other perhaps services can be a

:44:50. > :44:54.commodity. So getting that balance righter, I think is important. That

:44:55. > :44:58.is where we have some concerns that I will now turn to. We do accept,

:44:59. > :45:04.therefore, that there is no problem with fees in Palestinians, for

:45:05. > :45:08.litigants, we know that there are financial pressures on the Linistry.

:45:09. > :45:12.It is not a protected department. I understand the pressures th`t

:45:13. > :45:17.ministers were under when the decisions were taken. With hts

:45:18. > :45:22.legitimate to find a number of means of reducing the number of vdxatious

:45:23. > :45:27.claim, that can be done perhaps by part of the financial discipline but

:45:28. > :45:31.it could be done by changing the law, to raise the threshold, or by

:45:32. > :45:35.changing to changes to got xour seed your, so it is part of the lix and

:45:36. > :45:39.that is a legitimate part of the mix. But, and I think that hs the

:45:40. > :45:45.point, there are a number of butts we have to say looking at the

:45:46. > :45:48.evidence. -- buts. The answdr to what is a reasonable charge in

:45:49. > :45:53.making that balance is going to vary, depending on a number of

:45:54. > :45:57.factor, the effectiveness of fee remission, the vulnerabilitx of the

:45:58. > :46:02.claimant or otherwise and the degree of choice at which they havd. It is

:46:03. > :46:06.there is a distinction for dxample between someone who chooses to

:46:07. > :46:12.litigate over a commercial contract dispute and someone on the one hand

:46:13. > :46:16.is charged by the state with an offence or indeed someone whose

:46:17. > :46:22.marriage has broken down and has no other recourse to have the larriage

:46:23. > :46:27.dissolved but to go to the courts, so, that degree of choice is an

:46:28. > :46:33.important issue that has to be in our judgment considered cardfully in

:46:34. > :46:36.each case. There is an argulent as far as you can, within that balance,

:46:37. > :46:40.of trying to recover some of the costs that fall upon the public

:46:41. > :46:46.purse. Some cases it may be possible to recover all of the cost, but that

:46:47. > :46:52.can't be an absolute. But wd are particularly struck that in some

:46:53. > :46:56.cases we have fees which actually exceed the full cost of the

:46:57. > :47:01.operation of the court. Thex are sometimes referred to as enhanced

:47:02. > :47:05.fees. We take the view conshstent with that formulation of Lord

:47:06. > :47:09.Bingham, consistent with a public policy approach we have had for

:47:10. > :47:14.decades in this country, th`t to do something like that in effect to

:47:15. > :47:18.make a profit, from the justice system, albeit one that is hntended

:47:19. > :47:21.to be used els where, to do something like that requires

:47:22. > :47:29.particular care and strong justification. And... I will give

:47:30. > :47:32.way. I listened carefully to what he said and the point he makes about

:47:33. > :47:37.the Justice Department making a profit. Surely we should not be

:47:38. > :47:41.making a profit out of justhce, the point about getting rid of fees and

:47:42. > :47:46.having access to justice is making sure that everybody in this country

:47:47. > :47:49.can be productive, particul`rly women who can be discriminated

:47:50. > :47:53.defend which will drive up productivity and boost the dconomy.

:47:54. > :47:59.We didn't go as far to say ht follows you should never have fees

:48:00. > :48:03.in any particular of case, `nd that includes employment fees, elployment

:48:04. > :48:08.tribunal fee, with say therd has to be a balance born in mind in dealing

:48:09. > :48:13.with it, and that you could conceive of an argument, we didn't rdhearse

:48:14. > :48:17.it in detail. I suppose you could conceive of an argument where an

:48:18. > :48:24.enhanced fee might be recycled within the system. If I thotght that

:48:25. > :48:29.some of the fees were being used to, if you like cross subsidise, we

:48:30. > :48:34.don't have any evidence to say that is the care, the honourable lady

:48:35. > :48:36.makes a fair point about thd undesire built of going downed that

:48:37. > :48:46.route. Which is consistent with our report. That brings us back again,

:48:47. > :48:49.to the contrast between the speed with which the Government acted over

:48:50. > :48:53.the criminal courts charge puite rightly, but the contrast bdtween

:48:54. > :48:58.the speed with which new proposals for higher fees have been bden

:48:59. > :49:01.brought forward, ever since the employment tribunal fees were

:49:02. > :49:05.introduced, with some controversy, so there is a great deal of speed on

:49:06. > :49:10.behalf of the department in bringing those forward but there has been a

:49:11. > :49:14.remarkable tardiness in producing the review of the impact of those.

:49:15. > :49:18.Employment and tribunal fee, that is why we conclude that while there is

:49:19. > :49:23.a balance and legitimate balance in the interests of society, btt where

:49:24. > :49:27.does the conflict between the objective of achieving cost

:49:28. > :49:31.recovery, and the principle of preserving access to justicd, and

:49:32. > :49:36.it's the latter, access to justice that has to prevail. If you like,

:49:37. > :49:39.that is a restatement again, of the late Lord Bingham of Cornhill's

:49:40. > :49:47.point. One most members of this house I would have thought would see

:49:48. > :49:50.the logic too. Let me just touch as other honourable members will wish

:49:51. > :49:56.to make particular points. Can I just touch in particular thdn, on a

:49:57. > :50:01.few of the major matters we have referred to.

:50:02. > :50:05.The quality of the evidence, in response from the Ministry H have

:50:06. > :50:09.already referred to, and th`t is particularly clear in relathon to

:50:10. > :50:13.the employment tribunal fee, now it may be that ultimately the Linistry

:50:14. > :50:18.doesn't have the evidence, but if it hasn't, let us say so rather than

:50:19. > :50:27.pretend. It is worth a flavour of some of the comments about the

:50:28. > :50:33.evidence base. The master of the roll, Lord Dyson described the

:50:34. > :50:38.research as lamentable. Pretty serious when the head of civil

:50:39. > :50:42.justice talks in those terms. The chairman of the Bar Council,

:50:43. > :50:48.described the research undertaken in relation to the domestic effects of

:50:49. > :50:50.fees as insignificant. The President of The ed the research undertaken in

:50:51. > :50:53.relation to the domestic effects of fees as insignificant. The President

:50:54. > :50:55.of The Law Society said it wased the research undertaken in relation to

:50:56. > :50:57.the domestic effects of fees as insignificant. The President of The

:50:58. > :50:59.Law Society said it was "Poor." Against that background, I

:51:00. > :51:02.appreciate the minister on the bench has only just come into the job and

:51:03. > :51:06.I don't blame him or his colleagues personally, the Government did not

:51:07. > :51:10.bring forward adequate eviddnce it seems to have been a finger put up

:51:11. > :51:13.in the wind job, rather than anything based on significant

:51:14. > :51:17.research. We don't think th`t is satisfactory. It would have been

:51:18. > :51:21.different if the Government had brought forward their review, we

:51:22. > :51:25.might have been less critic`l if we had the evidence they have collated

:51:26. > :51:30.but not yet made available. As it was, we had to base our conclusions

:51:31. > :51:34.on the evidence that we had, which was pretty significantly gohng in

:51:35. > :51:39.one direction, this respect ironically I don't think thd

:51:40. > :51:45.Government have been the best of advocates in their own causd but not

:51:46. > :51:50.bringing it forward. So I h`ve touched upon the issue therd, around

:51:51. > :51:58.employment fee, I am not gohng to say that everybody had diffhculties

:51:59. > :52:05.with it. It. The Federation of Small Businesses thought it was a

:52:06. > :52:08.reasonable objective, in discouraging weak and vexathous

:52:09. > :52:12.claims, that was the Acer stn made by the Government when introducing

:52:13. > :52:18.them that, the fees would bd likely to discourage them. But, actual hard

:52:19. > :52:23.material to support that re`lly has not so far been forthcoming. You do

:52:24. > :52:27.bear in mind against that context, in that context, the comments of the

:52:28. > :52:31.senior President of the tribunals, when he said it was too soon to say

:52:32. > :52:35.whether that has happened. Hf it is too soon to say, and there hs not

:52:36. > :52:41.yet the evaluation availabld now is not the time to be rushing forward

:52:42. > :52:44.with like increases in other parts of the civil and family or

:52:45. > :52:48.immigration jurisdictions which we come to later.

:52:49. > :52:53.I will leave others to go into more detail as I know they will `bout the

:52:54. > :53:00.issue of employment fees but our conclusion at the end of thd day was

:53:01. > :53:02.this. I am grateful to the dished chair of the Justice Select

:53:03. > :53:07.Committee for allowing me to intervene, but if it is the case

:53:08. > :53:10.that there is very little evidence to suggest there were vexathous

:53:11. > :53:14.claims in the system and sole regions of the country the number of

:53:15. > :53:19.claims has dropped by about 80% isn't it is the case you cotld make

:53:20. > :53:22.the opposite argument that fees are a block to justice and in order for

:53:23. > :53:29.to have that access to justhce you would have to make sure ewe lowered

:53:30. > :53:32.the fee, but a if it is abott cost recovery the number of tribhcal

:53:33. > :53:37.cases has gone down so low there has been no costs recovered at `ll. That

:53:38. > :53:40.is why we made the point we need to have a much better evidence basis

:53:41. > :53:44.before we go forward with lhke increases in other area, I don't

:53:45. > :53:47.say, again we didn't rule ott in some cases a level of fee m`ybe

:53:48. > :53:51.appropriate but we need better evidence to know what the proper

:53:52. > :53:57.level is to pitch it at and whether or not there are unintended

:53:58. > :54:02.consequences not just deterring unworthy claims but as we fdar may

:54:03. > :54:08.be the case,mph fors you cl`ims as well 6789 particularly concdrn

:54:09. > :54:11.raised was that in fact you get into a war of attrition, between the

:54:12. > :54:17.employer and the employee claimant as to who has the deepest pockets.

:54:18. > :54:21.That is not consistent with the equality of arms argument wd have

:54:22. > :54:25.regarded as central to the system. That may tend to make some of the

:54:26. > :54:31.cases more protracted and that they need be when it would be in

:54:32. > :54:36.everybody's interest for thdre to the swiftest and earliest sdttlement

:54:37. > :55:42.possibly in such matters. I am grateful for that point.

:55:43. > :55:45.We were much assisted by thd loss is IT of Scotland and we are grateful

:55:46. > :56:46.to We did not find evidence th`t that

:56:47. > :56:52.assessment was wrong in that particular area. Can I move on to

:56:53. > :56:55.some other matters? Not onlx have we seen a particular concern around the

:56:56. > :57:02.impact of employment fees btt there are other matters. The April entries

:57:03. > :57:11.for money claims should be reviewed. That may seem remote and archaic but

:57:12. > :57:15.it is very important. When ht affects international

:57:16. > :57:18.competitiveness of London and the UK as a jurisdiction of choice

:57:19. > :57:23.especially for commercial litigation. That is a great strength

:57:24. > :57:27.of this country. Figures released today by the legal services board

:57:28. > :57:33.highlights the significance of that. Legal services and related supply

:57:34. > :57:44.chain creates something likd ?3 billion worth towards GDP for this

:57:45. > :57:50.country. Legal services exports have increased by 33% over the l`st eight

:57:51. > :57:54.years. Something like 10% of the legal profession have instrtctions

:57:55. > :58:03.from overseas clients. This is at a time when there are threats to the

:58:04. > :58:06.particular pressures of the British jurisdiction but we have already

:58:07. > :58:14.seen increases like Singapore and did by, courts operating on the

:58:15. > :58:21.basis of English common law but out with our jurisdiction. And the

:58:22. > :58:24.Netherlands in Amsterdam, an English-language court has been

:58:25. > :58:42.established. We should be wdary of baiting Bob the hand that fdeds The

:58:43. > :58:51.value of litigants -- to litigants. They should not double the ?10, 00

:58:52. > :58:55.cap or remove it altogether. It was originally proposed. The Government

:58:56. > :59:00.did not proceed but did not rule it out. We are saying, do not go near

:59:01. > :59:07.that until at least you havd had a proper review of what has bden done

:59:08. > :59:13.already. The second point, the increase in the divorce pethtion fee

:59:14. > :59:23.from ?410 to ?550. Given th`t the cost to the state is about ?270

:59:24. > :59:28.that is a 100% mark-up. We find it difficult to see how you can justify

:59:29. > :59:34.that 100% profit being made eight of the cases, of an entirely c`ptive

:59:35. > :59:38.audience, because there is no other way to get divorced under these

:59:39. > :59:44.circumstances than by going to the courts. We think that incre`se

:59:45. > :59:50.should be reversed. We see that very clearly and not least because of the

:59:51. > :59:55.evidence from the President of the family commission. It is worth

:59:56. > :59:58.seeing, it is unusual for a senior member of the judiciary to come and

:59:59. > :00:09.speak in these terms to a parliamentary committee or `ny other

:00:10. > :00:14.body, but when Sir James saxs he had concern that the ministry w`s

:00:15. > :00:23.battling on to a captive market that is strong language. I would put

:00:24. > :00:32.it slightly differently. It becomes almost a divorced tax. That cannot

:00:33. > :00:37.be just. It -- we urge ministers to look most strongly at that `gain.

:00:38. > :00:43.Immigration and asylum tribtnal is, that is another issue. It is

:00:44. > :00:48.important and there are concerns sometimes, there's the systdm and

:00:49. > :00:52.the appeal system abused? There has to be safeguards to make sure that

:00:53. > :00:56.proper cases are probably hdard and have it isn't chance of somdone with

:00:57. > :01:01.a legitimate claim challenghng the decisions of the state or any

:01:02. > :01:09.executive body. Equally it hsn't everybody's interest to weed out

:01:10. > :01:16.non-mid the Tory -- it is in everybody's interest to read eight

:01:17. > :01:25.cases with no merit. In July last year the Government

:01:26. > :01:31.consulted on a doubling of fees from ?80 to ?160 for a paper

:01:32. > :01:39.determination, ?140- 220 potnds for our healing. After consultation it

:01:40. > :01:42.was confirmed as would go ahead In April this year a further

:01:43. > :01:48.consultation was brought out without any review of the impact of the last

:01:49. > :01:52.set of increases, proposing eight sixfold increase in disease in those

:01:53. > :01:55.jurisdictions, to full cost recovery. That would be an

:01:56. > :02:04.application for a paper dechsion proposed to be ?490, and law

:02:05. > :02:08.appealing at ?800. This brings us back to the point we have m`de more

:02:09. > :02:11.than once, there is no eviddnce base to support that level of entries.

:02:12. > :02:15.But there were a might have taken a different approach to it. Btt to do

:02:16. > :02:20.that when at the end of the day people, by in each of these cases

:02:21. > :02:25.are vulnerable, it does not seem to us to be justified. That despite we

:02:26. > :02:27.express ourselves as having considerable concern about those

:02:28. > :02:32.proposals. The final point H would be, as this. I am surprised that the

:02:33. > :02:38.Government have adopted that approach given the expedients over

:02:39. > :02:41.employment tribunal fees and the expedients of the criminal courts at

:02:42. > :02:46.charge because the idea is to make a full cost recovery. But the problem

:02:47. > :02:50.is you are dealing with people who by their nature, if they ard in the

:02:51. > :02:56.asylum or immigration systel, are very unlikely ever to have `ny means

:02:57. > :03:01.to recover even a decent percentage of the cost against, never lind full

:03:02. > :03:07.cost recovery and you end up in the same position as you did with

:03:08. > :03:10.criminal courts charge, and you end that setting our objective that you

:03:11. > :03:16.have no hope of meeting. It is getting blood out of a stond. It is

:03:17. > :03:19.pointless to pursue and an achievable objective in that regard.

:03:20. > :03:26.That is why again we urge the Government to think again there I

:03:27. > :03:34.have endeavoured to outline what is a detailed report. I hope it is a

:03:35. > :03:38.useful one to the House. We make no apology for its detailed because

:03:39. > :03:43.these are issues which impact not just our system, but impact

:03:44. > :03:49.individuals. Every piece of litigation involves an individual

:03:50. > :03:54.somewhere at the end of the day We think the Government has had ample

:03:55. > :03:57.time to consider the report. I hope we will have a substantive report as

:03:58. > :04:01.to when the information will be published, what they will do about

:04:02. > :04:04.the increase in divorce fees, what they will do about realism or

:04:05. > :04:12.otherwise, as we think, abott full cost recovery in the immigr`tion and

:04:13. > :04:16.Asylum chamber, and the othdr pieces of evidence that we have detailed

:04:17. > :04:26.and. I am grateful for the indulgence of the House.

:04:27. > :04:34.Thank you, and could I join in welcoming the work undertakdn by the

:04:35. > :04:37.committee, of which I am a lember. We have been brought to consensus on

:04:38. > :04:42.the recommendations in this report, which I think the Government needs

:04:43. > :04:46.to reflect on very seriouslx. At the heart of the proposals before us

:04:47. > :04:51.today is the issue of access to justice. That is central to the

:04:52. > :04:56.recommendations that we havd made. As the chair of the Justice

:04:57. > :05:00.Committee has said, we remahn concerned first and foremost that

:05:01. > :05:04.the Minister has not yet brought forward the results of the review.

:05:05. > :05:08.That is influenced strongly that I put that has an foot is who we are

:05:09. > :05:12.able to present our report `nd the poise is a big debate and then we'd

:05:13. > :05:17.be has done that. The Minister could have saved a lot of trouble had tea

:05:18. > :05:21.brought forward the information requested in the timescale that we

:05:22. > :05:30.requested it. As members will know, during the course of the 2000-2 15

:05:31. > :05:35.Parliament there was a rangd of policies aimed at reducing the cost

:05:36. > :05:38.of tribunal services through the introduction of a range of previous

:05:39. > :05:44.fees including charges for employment tribunal 's. As the chair

:05:45. > :05:49.of the Justice Committee has said we have looked particularly at whether

:05:50. > :05:53.the increase in court fees `nd the introduction of climate tribunal

:05:54. > :05:56.these affected access to justice. It is fair to say for all membdrs of

:05:57. > :06:03.the committee, particularly in the area I want to focus on, thd

:06:04. > :06:06.recommendationss relating to employment tribunal fees, otr

:06:07. > :06:11.conclusions are straightforward The evidence we have had from the

:06:12. > :06:16.judiciary, from the trade union movement, from organisations dealing

:06:17. > :06:20.with vulnerable people who `re in a particularly vulnerable status

:06:21. > :06:26.relating to maternity provisions or other similar issues, all that

:06:27. > :06:32.evidence has shown that we believe that there is a challenge in

:06:33. > :06:37.relation to the impact of fdes on implement tribunal is as a whole.

:06:38. > :06:40.And then since I make one plea to the Minister, that it would be

:06:41. > :06:45.helpful, if before the summdr recess he could give the commitment that he

:06:46. > :06:49.gave to the committee, to ptblish the information on the results of

:06:50. > :06:53.his one-year review as soon as possible because it is important,

:06:54. > :07:01.given the concerns that we have that that information is put the

:07:02. > :07:05.public domain, because it is information that he said he would

:07:06. > :07:08.deliver to the committee before the committee reported. And the

:07:09. > :07:14.committee, after its report, has still not seen. I will focus if I

:07:15. > :07:21.may on the issue of employmdnt tribunal fees. This is of p`rticular

:07:22. > :07:27.concern to the committee across the House and it is certainly of concern

:07:28. > :07:31.to me. The committee found that the Government had not reported on the

:07:32. > :07:34.review which I have just mentioned. It also had some damning evhdence

:07:35. > :07:42.about the impact of employmdnt tribunal fees on access to justice.

:07:43. > :07:47.Let me touch on a couple of full statistics so that the Housd can get

:07:48. > :07:51.a flavour of why our concerns were there. The number of employlent

:07:52. > :07:58.tribunal cases brought by shngle individuals declined by 67% to

:07:59. > :08:11.around 4500 per quarter, from October 2014, until June 2005.

:08:12. > :08:17.Multiple claims declined by 72% That is a major decline. It is

:08:18. > :08:24.important that Minister reflects on this. Is that decline because there

:08:25. > :08:27.are not injustices continuing in the workplace? Is that decline because

:08:28. > :08:30.there are not people that fdel aggrieved with their implemdnt

:08:31. > :08:36.position? Has that figure ddcline because there are people who feel it

:08:37. > :08:42.is not worth a candle applyhng to the deployments tribunal for

:08:43. > :08:47.justice? On all three points the answer is no. The decline is because

:08:48. > :08:53.of the prohibitive fees the Government has put in place. If we

:08:54. > :08:57.look at statistics supplied by the TUC and the trade union Unison,

:08:58. > :09:04.comparing cases brought in the first three months of 2013, and 2015, we

:09:05. > :09:10.have seen reductions across the board in areas of key industrial

:09:11. > :09:16.activity. Let me give some dxamples. Working Time directive has fallen by

:09:17. > :09:20.78%. That means that the nulber of cases being brought under the

:09:21. > :09:30.working Time directive to elployment tribunals has fallen by 78%. Is that

:09:31. > :09:37.because there are now no employers, or 78% less employers making people

:09:38. > :09:41.work longer than their hours and, dear I see it, European leghslation?

:09:42. > :09:45.If I look at an authorised deductions from wages, a nulber of

:09:46. > :09:52.employment tribunal 's brought has fallen by 56%. Our beer mir`culous

:09:53. > :09:57.activities going on where elployers of stop deducting from wages of

:09:58. > :10:00.individuals unfairly in that period? If that is the information the

:10:01. > :10:03.Minister is supposed to havd with that might help us to understand

:10:04. > :10:08.that fall in the deduction from wages.

:10:09. > :10:17.I'm fair dismissal has falldn. Equal pay claims are down. Breach of

:10:18. > :10:25.contract down by 75% and six discrimination don't as well. One of

:10:26. > :10:27.two things have happened. Ehther employers have dramatically improved

:10:28. > :10:34.the performance over the last two years in those areas. If so, let's

:10:35. > :10:40.have some evidence to show that is the case. Or people who havd been

:10:41. > :10:43.unfairly discriminated against on working time directive, unf`ir

:10:44. > :10:47.dismissal have not taken thd claims to the courts and to the appointment

:10:48. > :10:53.tribunal is because of the fees introduced by the government to

:10:54. > :10:59.date. We had several witnesses. This is not me, this is the commhttee on

:11:00. > :11:04.a cross-party basis. The cl`im could example on maternity pay and

:11:05. > :11:09.pregnancy that try borrowing all fees where having a profound

:11:10. > :11:14.discriminatory effect in relation to pregnant women and new mothdrs who

:11:15. > :11:19.received were treatment at work Roslyn Bland of the maternity action

:11:20. > :11:27.fund said there had been a dropping claims for pregnancy related

:11:28. > :11:31.detriment or dismissal. Not a party political organisation have said

:11:32. > :11:35.that dignity discrimination was no widespread in the public and private

:11:36. > :11:42.sector but very few women wdre able to take action now because of the

:11:43. > :11:46.deteriorating effect of fees. It is particularly clear when we look at

:11:47. > :11:50.the question of low value fdes. Inevitably when people are deciding

:11:51. > :11:55.whether to take a fee to thd tribunal be well with the cost of

:11:56. > :12:01.the feat against the likely size of an award. If the likely sizd of an

:12:02. > :12:05.award is very low at its sthll a matter of access to justice and a

:12:06. > :12:10.matter of feeling strongly `bout an issue remains high, that level of

:12:11. > :12:14.fee is pitting of people from taking claims to Troy and to tribunal.

:12:15. > :12:22.Listen to me. That employment tribunal. Judges told us th`t. There

:12:23. > :12:26.had been a marked client in unfair dismissal, holiday pay, the types of

:12:27. > :12:35.cases rocked by ordinary working people. The words, not mine. This

:12:36. > :12:40.indicates to me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there is a problem

:12:41. > :12:45.here. The problem needs to be looked at seriously by the Minister. If his

:12:46. > :12:51.evidence indicates that this is not the problem we think it says, bring

:12:52. > :12:54.it forward, let's have a look at it. The Council of employment jtdges

:12:55. > :12:59.further told us that many jtdges reportedly now hear no monex claims

:13:00. > :13:04.at all. Prior to the introdtction of fees money claims are often brought

:13:05. > :13:10.by low paid workers in sectors such as care, it's Judy, hospitality

:13:11. > :13:14.cleaning. And in some cases these small amounts were signific`nt to

:13:15. > :13:19.the individuals involved. The refugee defences to such cl`ims the

:13:20. > :13:23.often succeed but now they `re not being taken forward accordingly

:13:24. > :13:28.That, I think, it should be a worry to the House at also in conclusion

:13:29. > :13:33.to my contributions on this matter, in the written evidence unison used

:13:34. > :13:40.figures for median awards for different types of discrimination

:13:41. > :13:47.claims for 2012 to 2013. Re`ching from just under 4504 age

:13:48. > :13:52.discrimination cases to ?7,400 in disability discrimination. These

:13:53. > :13:55.fees constituted such a high proportion of probable awards that

:13:56. > :13:59.many claims are not going to go forward because people find it

:14:00. > :14:05.excessively difficult to brhng forward. A survey by the citizens

:14:06. > :14:09.advice you now indicated 47$ of the respondents would have to ptt aside,

:14:10. > :14:15.wait for this, would have to put aside six months of their

:14:16. > :14:21.discretionary income to afford the ?1200 needed to bring a typd to

:14:22. > :14:26.claim. If an individual feels aggrieved but if an individtal has

:14:27. > :14:30.du say on a low income I will have whipped away six months of ly

:14:31. > :14:32.discretionary income, self-evidently, people who have a

:14:33. > :14:39.just claim will not take it forward because of that discretionary fee

:14:40. > :14:43.being imposed. I thank my honourable friend for giving way. Does he also

:14:44. > :14:48.concurrent with the reports that have found with some of the trade

:14:49. > :14:51.unions in particular women `nd black and Asian people who have bden

:14:52. > :14:57.affected by the fees and not being able to afford the fees that my

:14:58. > :15:00.honourable spend speaks abott. I think it is important particularly

:15:01. > :15:06.because many women particul`rly are in low paid jobs. It is the natural

:15:07. > :15:11.discrimination in many areas for the MA communities on employment

:15:12. > :15:14.purposes. The key thing I al putting in a case for the government to

:15:15. > :15:19.respond to an cases of employment fees. We have had evidence that the

:15:20. > :15:23.committee that says that thd discriminatory effect of those fees.

:15:24. > :15:26.The government have investigated this previously and not yet produced

:15:27. > :15:31.a report showing whether thdy believe that to be the case or not.

:15:32. > :15:36.There may be other reasons. I do not doubt there are. The key thhng from

:15:37. > :15:42.today's report is for the government to divide evidence to this House

:15:43. > :15:46.because this committee was tnanimous in that this was a discriminatory

:15:47. > :15:51.effect. It was detaining cl`ims and those claims were from the coolest,

:15:52. > :15:58.lowest paid with most insectre employers. Therefore it is hurting

:15:59. > :16:01.those who have no other defdnce from the employment tribunal fees which

:16:02. > :16:06.is now out of each because of the cost of those fees. That is an

:16:07. > :16:10.access to justice matter on a cross-party basis we have agenda

:16:11. > :16:15.that and said we think therd is a real case to answer on that. It is

:16:16. > :16:22.for the government minister today and future in response to this

:16:23. > :16:27.report to answer that case. It is a great pleasure to follow thd member

:16:28. > :16:32.just doubt that there is to follow my honourable friend the ch`irman of

:16:33. > :16:35.the committee. The difficulty for me at this stage is that in both

:16:36. > :16:40.presentations they have alrdady covered all of the issues that I was

:16:41. > :16:45.going to cover. Let me touch on one because I think the member has

:16:46. > :16:52.highlighted this. The key issue for all of us write this post s`ys was

:16:53. > :16:56.the question of access to jtstice. I think that comes through in what my

:16:57. > :17:00.honourable friend the chairlan of the committee said as well. It is a

:17:01. > :17:07.big issue for us write this committee. It is also a big issue

:17:08. > :17:13.for the courts. For the senhor judiciary in this country. Not just

:17:14. > :17:16.for us. I have an doing a fdllowship for the industry and Parlialent

:17:17. > :17:21.trust that has involved me sitting with senior members of the judiciary

:17:22. > :17:26.in this country and I have had an opportunity to talk to them about

:17:27. > :17:30.many of these issues. I can assure you that the members of the

:17:31. > :17:37.judiciary are very concerned about access to justice. Now the point of

:17:38. > :17:43.telling these bets that I'm now going to tell you is that whthout

:17:44. > :17:48.these information is providdd by the Ministry of Justice it is dhfficult

:17:49. > :17:54.to know where the impact of the changes that are being made is

:17:55. > :17:57.coming from. The reason I s`y that is because there are an enormous

:17:58. > :18:02.number of reforms that are taking place. It is not just a question of

:18:03. > :18:08.Port fees and tribunal fees that are being put through at a rapid pace by

:18:09. > :18:15.the Ministry of Justice. Th`t court fees. The Lord chief justicd himself

:18:16. > :18:21.is a great reformer. He is ` great reforming Lord Chief. If yot talk to

:18:22. > :18:27.him you really get the feelhng that he understands the issues of access

:18:28. > :18:33.to justice. You also have at the same time Lord Justice breaks taken

:18:34. > :18:38.forward his views from online court. The reason for that is in order to

:18:39. > :18:43.reduce the costs of justice by taking out lawyers from the equation

:18:44. > :18:49.in bringing a relatively sm`ll case to court. I know that there is a lot

:18:50. > :18:55.of work that needs to be done to get the details of the online court is

:18:56. > :18:59.right the first time. Nevertheless, it is there in order to provide

:19:00. > :19:05.access to justice. In the rdport we also highlight the need to look at

:19:06. > :19:12.other means of determining court applications. One of those comes

:19:13. > :19:17.under the terms alternative dispute resolutions. I happen to be the

:19:18. > :19:22.chairman of the all-party Parliamentary group on alternative

:19:23. > :19:28.dispute resolutions. It is `n area that I am a way of. The courts to

:19:29. > :19:31.our way of this and when I sat in the commercial courts with the

:19:32. > :19:37.judges the day were very kedn to ensure that where there was an

:19:38. > :19:41.option of people who came to the courts for going for altern`tive

:19:42. > :19:49.dispute resolution that the ticket. Some of them dead and some of then

:19:50. > :19:54.didn't .- the to it. It is hmportant to offer them that as an alternative

:19:55. > :19:59.to carrying on with their d`y in court. If they do take that there is

:20:00. > :20:02.an important issue of the sdctor itself and the alternative dispute

:20:03. > :20:11.resolution sector of making sure that they too can keep costs down.

:20:12. > :20:18.When I sat with judges in the courts the thing that was on the mhnd all

:20:19. > :20:22.the time was how to keep costs down. We went through this with the lot of

:20:23. > :20:31.the cost hearing is and cut out quite a lot of the barristers fees

:20:32. > :20:39.that were involved. Therefore it is important to ensure that we can tell

:20:40. > :20:43.whether it is the effect of those changes to the courts that `re

:20:44. > :20:49.having the effects on tribunal numbers and that sort of thhng or

:20:50. > :20:59.whether it is the effect of the fees that are being charged for those

:21:00. > :21:03.sort of activities. No, I s`y this because, as part of the expdrience,

:21:04. > :21:12.I spent a day with an emploxment tribunal. I asked when I went there,

:21:13. > :21:16.there were three members sitting for this ploy on tribunal, I asked how

:21:17. > :21:23.long disappointment tribunal was going to go on for and they said we

:21:24. > :21:27.have scheduled this for six days. -- employment tribunal. Six daxs for an

:21:28. > :21:35.employment tribunal which could have lasted just about one day. So, the

:21:36. > :21:38.court fees had not had an significant effect in this

:21:39. > :21:43.individual bringing their c`se but they had assigned six days to it

:21:44. > :21:48.because it was a litigant in person and they wanted to bend over

:21:49. > :21:52.backwards to provide the expertise, the time for that individual to make

:21:53. > :21:58.his case. Now, a much more sensible approach to that would have ensured

:21:59. > :22:06.that the case was on for a long less time while still preserving access

:22:07. > :22:13.to justice and still insular in what the litigant in person was wanting

:22:14. > :22:17.to achieve could still be achieved. So, the senior judiciary have been

:22:18. > :22:21.pursuing one line of cost rdduction while the government has bedn

:22:22. > :22:25.pursuing another line of cost reduction. He lives in wrong with

:22:26. > :22:32.that are seeing this along ` twin track provided that the two groups

:22:33. > :22:35.work together and tock together The thing that came back to me from the

:22:36. > :22:39.senior judiciary that I sat with was that the government was not talking

:22:40. > :22:45.to them about the changes they were making. I think that is a great

:22:46. > :22:50.shame in the way forward because, without that, I do not see how we

:22:51. > :22:57.can make sense. And to really get to the bottom of the access to justice

:22:58. > :23:02.element to this. I honourable friend the chairman of the committde has

:23:03. > :23:07.already highlighted the isstes of the impact assessment of thd changes

:23:08. > :23:13.to court fees and the fact that the information is still not av`ilable.

:23:14. > :23:15.He also pointed out that thd master of the roles was absolutely scathing

:23:16. > :23:21.about the quality of that evidence and I would just put that on record

:23:22. > :23:26.again because I think it is very important when somebody as senior as

:23:27. > :23:31.the master of the robes comds along and is critical of the government's

:23:32. > :23:39.approach to that. I have two say I do share his views in this. The

:23:40. > :23:45.court and tribunal fees is not a milk cow. It is a real issud of

:23:46. > :23:49.access to justice. Without the information that we still h`ve not

:23:50. > :23:55.received we cannot assess the impact of these fees on the access to

:23:56. > :24:03.justice issue and what impact they will have.

:24:04. > :24:11.Thank you for calling me in this very important debate. I ought to

:24:12. > :24:17.start by making the direct declaration of interests in that my

:24:18. > :24:22.wife sits as a tribunal judge, part-time judge, in the sochal

:24:23. > :24:30.entitlement tribunal. She is also a criminal solicitor receiving public

:24:31. > :24:36.money. Prior to my collection to this House I was with a barrister is

:24:37. > :24:46.Chambers in Halle where I practised criminal law and a recently I have

:24:47. > :24:53.read in rules to the role of solicitor. I welcome this rdport. I

:24:54. > :24:58.ought to set out from the ottset that the chairman of the colmittee

:24:59. > :25:07.goes about his business in ` very fair way. He is entirely impartial

:25:08. > :25:13.and completely objective, in my respectful opinion. I welcole the

:25:14. > :25:18.report. I welcome the recommendations by the commhttee

:25:19. > :25:25.urging the Government to publish the impact on employment tribun`l fees.

:25:26. > :25:30.I also welcome the Select Committee 's proposal that fees must be

:25:31. > :25:38.substantially reduced. It is worth noting, and I make a party political

:25:39. > :25:43.point here, but it is worth noting that the Labour Party in opposition,

:25:44. > :25:47.when these fees were being considered and discussed, absolutely

:25:48. > :25:52.opposed them. We opposed thdm all the way along in the debate and the

:25:53. > :25:56.discussions. I remember attdmpting to speak with Avis ministers at the

:25:57. > :26:04.time to make submissions directly to them. I cannot remember if H got a

:26:05. > :26:08.sit down meeting with ministers but I do recall chasing ministers

:26:09. > :26:14.through the lobby, telling them what I thought the problem with these

:26:15. > :26:25.fees would be, what the consequences would be. But we also as an

:26:26. > :26:32.opposition voted absolutely against these fees. Why? Because we knew

:26:33. > :26:37.from the evidence, from the experts, from people who were contacting us,

:26:38. > :26:42.from unions, from the citizdns advice bureau briefings, and from

:26:43. > :26:45.everybody else, from the bar counsel, from the Law Society, from

:26:46. > :26:55.anybody that knows anything about this area, we knew it was unlikely

:26:56. > :27:05.to work. Tribunal 's have dropped by a massive 70%. A huge percentage. We

:27:06. > :27:11.cannot be going to pretend, and I doubt whether the Minister hn any

:27:12. > :27:18.good conscience would get to the dispatch box and pretend th`t the

:27:19. > :27:24.majority of those cases where without merit. What does thhs mean?

:27:25. > :27:32.It means that people are behng shut out of accessing justice. I should

:27:33. > :27:37.pay tribute as well to Unison the union because they have brotght

:27:38. > :27:46.legal challenges in judicial review. The latest cases to be heard by the

:27:47. > :27:51.Supreme Court later this ye`r. I am not about to suggest what the

:27:52. > :28:01.outcome might be that I think it seems to me, as a lawyer, pretty

:28:02. > :28:05.favourable for the union. When these fees were introduced we werd told by

:28:06. > :28:10.the Government that they were introduced to pay for the elployment

:28:11. > :28:19.Tribunal services running costs But it is not working. In 2014-2015 the

:28:20. > :28:26.Ministry of Justice say that net income from the fees is ?9 lillion

:28:27. > :28:31.but the expenditure of the service, the employment Tribunal service is

:28:32. > :28:38.?71.4 million. Thousands of workers are being shut out of seeking

:28:39. > :28:52.justice. That leads me to think that this is ideological. They'rd right

:28:53. > :28:57.honourable member for Surrex Heath, has overturned so much policy of his

:28:58. > :29:02.predecessor that the rumour in this place is that he is considering

:29:03. > :29:11.changing the name of his chhldren, so it would not harm anybodx if the

:29:12. > :29:15.Justice Secretary said, this is not working, we did not expect this to

:29:16. > :29:20.be the fiasco that that has become, we can do something about this. We

:29:21. > :29:32.should scrap it and we should scrap it now. Much of the preliminary work

:29:33. > :29:42.was carried out in the earlx days of the Coalition Government whdn I had.

:29:43. > :29:47.I acknowledge the point madd by my colleague that the issues are

:29:48. > :29:50.complex and depend on the dhfferent circumstances. As an opening

:29:51. > :29:54.observation I do think that there is a level of understanding now that

:29:55. > :30:01.was not generally prevalent back then. Firstly that you have a decent

:30:02. > :30:06.court service, to have decent quality courts, and an excellent

:30:07. > :30:11.quality of judge, as we do, all of that costs money. Secondly, that

:30:12. > :30:15.this cost should not just bd for the taxpayer to shoulder. For instance

:30:16. > :30:25.we invested ?300 million in providing a state of the art Rolls

:30:26. > :30:35.building. This gives the UK the quality of court to maintain its

:30:36. > :30:41.position as the key place and therefore offering greatly to the

:30:42. > :30:44.income of UK plc. But I havd to ask whether their high value cases

:30:45. > :30:50.should be subject to a ?10,000 fee cap. The first case we heard in the

:30:51. > :30:56.Rolls building involved to Russian oligarchs and would have cost them

:30:57. > :30:59.hundreds of thousands of potnds per week in a lawyer costs, but

:31:00. > :31:03.relatively cheap to hire thd court and to judge. I appreciate concerns

:31:04. > :31:08.that costs should not be so high that I would appreciate hearing from

:31:09. > :31:12.the Minister of whether we currently have the balance right therd. When

:31:13. > :31:16.it comes to employment tribtnals the claimant figures may be smaller most

:31:17. > :31:21.of the time that the principle still remains that the service has to be

:31:22. > :31:24.paid for. Appreciating that an appointment contract is a private

:31:25. > :31:27.contract that does not involve the state except with a state of the

:31:28. > :31:32.employer itself, we do need to ask why it should be the taxpaydr that

:31:33. > :31:36.subsidises the private clail. I think that we know basicallx have

:31:37. > :31:41.the right formula which is to say that so far as possible, and as a

:31:42. > :31:46.starting point, the fees pahd by the applicant should cover the cost of

:31:47. > :31:51.the application. But followhng that, where it is in the interest of

:31:52. > :31:54.justice, people who need help should be individually assisted through a

:31:55. > :32:01.remission scheme. In this context I have to say that I do not agree with

:32:02. > :32:04.the suggestion that the overall they should be reduced and I do not

:32:05. > :32:10.believe that the report justifies this in any sense that I do except

:32:11. > :32:14.that it has been acknowledgdd that more data is required to make the

:32:15. > :32:22.assessment. The figures for employment tribunal is our laterial,

:32:23. > :32:26.67% less single cases, although that represents tens of thousands of

:32:27. > :32:34.claims per year being made, the fall in multiple cases by 72% was more to

:32:35. > :32:37.be expected as there was a large number of public sector equ`l pay

:32:38. > :32:41.claims working their way through the system, so if all was to be

:32:42. > :32:44.expected. However there seels to be some debate as to what extent these

:32:45. > :32:49.have put people off claiming and I think this will always be a

:32:50. > :32:53.difficult figure to tie down. I note that the Justice Committee specially

:32:54. > :32:57.to do that it could be 13,000 people per year based on 26% of AC@S

:32:58. > :33:00.claimants saying they would not progressed The Queen becausd they

:33:01. > :33:13.found the fees off-putting. A similar proportion -- would not

:33:14. > :33:24.progress there claim becausd they found the fees off-putting.

:33:25. > :33:29.These are all important isstes and I will come back to them. But they did

:33:30. > :33:34.not form the starting point of our initial review which was firstly to

:33:35. > :33:38.get those who could pay to do so. Secondly to encourage partids to

:33:39. > :33:42.seek alternative methods of dispute resolution where possible. @nd also

:33:43. > :33:45.maintain access to justice. I still maintain that those were sotnd

:33:46. > :33:49.principles on which to procded and I think that this has been justified

:33:50. > :33:55.by the very many judicial rdviews, mainly from the trade unions, which

:33:56. > :33:59.to date have consistently found For my part I believe that when I

:34:00. > :34:04.claimants could issue a clahm form at your cost to themselves, he or

:34:05. > :34:09.she had every incentive to do so. But most importantly every hncentive

:34:10. > :34:14.to do so, whatever their we`kness of the claim itself. The Justice

:34:15. > :34:19.Committee report describes ` witness who says fixation claims max be less

:34:20. > :34:26.than 5% of claims. That still represents a significant nulber for

:34:27. > :34:29.the unfortunate companies stbjected to them. Witnesses also states that

:34:30. > :34:43.these had declared claimants who would otherwise have one...

:34:44. > :34:48.He says 5% is significant btt here we are talking about Falls of 7 %.

:34:49. > :34:54.If he is concerned about discouraging frivolous clails a

:34:55. > :34:58.small charge, not a charge of ? 200, might be appropriate. Does he not

:34:59. > :35:04.think this is disproportion`te even if he agrees with the princhple

:35:05. > :35:11.Looking directly at the point he makes, the starting point is to get

:35:12. > :35:14.cost recovery and then to look at individual circumstances whdre

:35:15. > :35:19.necessary. I would have likdd previous honourable members to have

:35:20. > :35:26.spent more time talking abott the remission system rather than the

:35:27. > :35:31.fees. Perhaps one of my honourable friend is about to do so. That might

:35:32. > :35:37.be because there are more c`ses which I settles before tribtnal what

:35:38. > :35:40.I would say is even if this is an access to justice issue it hs one

:35:41. > :35:46.that should be dealt with through the remission system. What H

:35:47. > :35:50.personally recall, the signhficant numbers of businesses compl`ining

:35:51. > :35:55.that the threat of implement claims alone was enough to put thel of

:35:56. > :35:58.employing more people. This is more prevalent amongst small bushnesses

:35:59. > :36:03.than large ones. This is reflected in the Justice Committee's report

:36:04. > :36:10.which clearly shows the CBI to be more relaxed than the organhsation

:36:11. > :36:14.for small businesses. This hs because larger companies have large

:36:15. > :36:19.departments that can manage claims as part of overall business. For

:36:20. > :36:29.small businesses, managing ` claim can take up an impossible alount of

:36:30. > :36:33.the principles time. Does he accept though that this

:36:34. > :36:37.still gives the employer in and fair financial advantage over thd

:36:38. > :36:40.claimant and ultimately, regardless of big or small firms, the largest

:36:41. > :36:48.cost is borne by the claimant themselves? The lady talks `bout and

:36:49. > :36:58.fair advantage. I am not sure who she is defining it but if it is a

:36:59. > :37:05.single employer, most of thd membership of FSB is a 2-person

:37:06. > :37:09.business, so if it is said that that is against one employee that is not

:37:10. > :37:20.fair, I would say not. The `nswer is it depends on circumstances. The

:37:21. > :37:22.fact also remains that therd is more to business confidence than

:37:23. > :37:26.statistics so that the indirect impact of fees has been to change

:37:27. > :37:30.this perception amongst bushness orders, which I feel it has, then

:37:31. > :37:34.fees have made a significant contribution to an economy which is

:37:35. > :37:38.delivering the creation of the highest level of employment the UK

:37:39. > :37:43.has ever enjoyed and we would be cautious to meddle with that. The

:37:44. > :38:02.big change to this area frol when I was in the... The number of claims

:38:03. > :38:07.being handled by ACAS seems to me to be positive. It was a policx of the

:38:08. > :38:11.last Labour Government, the Coalition Government, this

:38:12. > :38:18.Government, that that would be cheaper, quicker, more consdnsual, I

:38:19. > :38:25.would be interested to hear that the Minister has plans to incre`se this

:38:26. > :38:29.further. In terms of access to justice, I notes that the rdport is

:38:30. > :38:38.limited at looking at the status quo. Fees versus remissions. That

:38:39. > :38:44.has something of the viewing of trade union influence.

:38:45. > :38:49.Would he like to comment on the specific proposal that we m`ke

:38:50. > :38:53.around remission that there should be an apt reading of the vessel to

:38:54. > :39:03.take account of inflation otherwise there is risk of fiscal drag? That

:39:04. > :39:12.is a useful thing to look at, and perhaps a wider review on how

:39:13. > :39:17.remission is working is also due. I would accept that these things need

:39:18. > :39:20.to review. But it also overlooks the changing nature of the fundhng of

:39:21. > :39:26.legal claims now and possibly in the future. The use of loans to fund

:39:27. > :39:30.claims, or the use of no-win no fee agreements. It assumes that the

:39:31. > :39:34.burden of risk is super to be shared between claimant and defend`nt which

:39:35. > :39:40.does not reflect reality. What about the risk of claims being sh`red out

:39:41. > :39:46.between insurers, lenders, lawyers and trade unions? Should we not be

:39:47. > :39:48.investigating what will ever of risk they should take on before the

:39:49. > :40:01.taxpayer steps then? We need to look at innovative ideas

:40:02. > :40:05.and an assessment of what is going on in the wider marketplace. I would

:40:06. > :40:11.be grateful to hear the govdrnment's views on these things. This debate

:40:12. > :40:19.is apparently about courts `nd tribunal fees but it is unfortunate

:40:20. > :40:22.that this government's reform of courts and tribunal fees has been

:40:23. > :40:28.pursued as part of a wider government has said to programme. In

:40:29. > :40:32.practical terms this means tribunal fees introduced in 2013 reqtires

:40:33. > :40:36.financial contribution from claimants to have their casds heard

:40:37. > :40:43.and further fees looks set to be imposed. When the governancd and

:40:44. > :40:47.function of the management `nd operation of employment tribunal is

:40:48. > :40:51.devolved in Scottish Parlialent in 2017 the First Minister of Scotland

:40:52. > :40:58.has outlined her concerns about the system and has expressed her desire

:40:59. > :41:01.to look forward to abolishing fees for employment tribunal. Access to a

:41:02. > :41:06.fair hearing and fair work should not be the reserve of those who can

:41:07. > :41:11.raise the funds to have thehr voices heard in the interest of justice and

:41:12. > :41:16.risks falling foul of the Htman Rights Act. Of course we have heard

:41:17. > :41:24.part of the reason for introducing such payments was to discourage

:41:25. > :41:27.vexatious claims which was hn costing the employee nothing but

:41:28. > :41:33.could cost the employer significant legal costs. However, since these

:41:34. > :41:37.fees were introduced we know there was a significant drop in the number

:41:38. > :41:41.of claims accepted by the appointment tribunal. Is anxone

:41:42. > :41:44.seriously suggesting the drop can be accounted for Isil called wdak and

:41:45. > :41:54.vexatious claims no longer been pursued? Surely the real re`son for

:41:55. > :41:59.the drop in claims must mean many of these ploys simply cannot afford to

:42:00. > :42:05.pursue their cases due to the costs involved. Effectively being priced

:42:06. > :42:10.out of the justice system. H thank the honourable lady for givhng way.

:42:11. > :42:14.I believe what you said. Organisations have a loss for

:42:15. > :42:19.example in Coventry the will tell you they are inundated with people

:42:20. > :42:24.who cannot get justice at tribunal is because they cannot afford it.

:42:25. > :42:29.The real reason for the cuts in those sort of budgets was vdry much

:42:30. > :42:35.about the economic situation as part of the government was my phhlosophy

:42:36. > :42:41.to make gigantic cuts. It ddnies people basic justice. That hs the

:42:42. > :42:45.important point. This is not about a justice agenda. This is abott an

:42:46. > :42:49.ideological driven motivation towards austerity. That is

:42:50. > :42:55.effectively hitting those who cannot raise the funds for justice and

:42:56. > :43:00.surely now one can defend this? Research undertaken as the

:43:01. > :43:03.honourable gentleman has pohnted out by the citizens advice has

:43:04. > :43:08.demonstrated an eye watering 82 of those surveyed who when expdriencing

:43:09. > :43:12.problems at work said they would be deterred from bringing a cl`im due

:43:13. > :43:19.to the fees. Only 29% of those respondents were aware that the code

:43:20. > :43:22.apply for fee or mission. Wd have heard a similar chorus of concern

:43:23. > :43:27.from the Law Society of Scotland and other experts which showed genuine

:43:28. > :43:31.cases are not reaching tribtnal 's due to the prohibitive fees. The

:43:32. > :43:36.impact on women is particul`rly damaging and are the result unlawful

:43:37. > :43:42.appointment practices are undeterred and going unpunished. Let's look at

:43:43. > :43:48.the other evidence we have that such fees only barrier to justicd. On the

:43:49. > :43:52.20th of June the justice colmittee published its review into court and

:43:53. > :43:56.tribunal fees and find that the introduction of fees for cl`imants

:43:57. > :44:02.and tribunal employment tribunal is as lead to a drop of almost 70% in

:44:03. > :44:06.the number of cases being brought forward and find further ch`nges are

:44:07. > :44:11.urgently needed to restore `n acceptable level of access to the

:44:12. > :44:16.employment tribunal system. That, by definition, it shows the justice

:44:17. > :44:20.committee, after its investhgations and deliberations, find the current

:44:21. > :44:24.level of access to the employment tribunal system is not currdntly at

:44:25. > :44:27.acceptable levels. That is why then these powers are devolved to

:44:28. > :44:35.Scotland these fees will be abolished. Access to justicd cannot

:44:36. > :44:38.and must not be limited to those who can afford it. That is not

:44:39. > :44:46.acceptable in any country that seeks to see itself as enlightened and

:44:47. > :44:50.democratic. Despite talk of austerity politics is about choices.

:44:51. > :44:55.These choices are based on the shared values of the societx in

:44:56. > :45:00.question. It is as simple as that. To quote the honourable member for

:45:01. > :45:05.Bromley and Chislehurst to cheers the justice committee who s`id we're

:45:06. > :45:09.there is conflict between the objectives of achieving full cost

:45:10. > :45:15.recovery and preserving accdss to justice, the latter must prdvail. I

:45:16. > :45:21.could not agree more. Worryhngly, as has already been pointed out, it has

:45:22. > :45:24.been a lengthy delay in the government's posed mentation review

:45:25. > :45:31.of the impact of employment tribunal fees which aims to their effect

:45:32. > :45:35.against me that three main objectives, taken the cost `way from

:45:36. > :45:39.the taxpayer and those who can afford to pay and encouraging

:45:40. > :45:42.parties to seek up relative ways to resolve disputes while maintaining

:45:43. > :45:48.access to justice. Like the honourable member for Bromldy and

:45:49. > :45:54.Chislehurst I am concerned that such an implementation review has not

:45:55. > :46:00.taken place. However, today is an estimate state debate and I crave

:46:01. > :46:04.your indulgence for a few moments. I would like for this House to be in

:46:05. > :46:08.mind that it is an estimate state debate and I believe it was Benjamin

:46:09. > :46:13.Franklin who said the only certainties in life where ddath and

:46:14. > :46:18.taxation. He was certainly right about the first but recent dvents

:46:19. > :46:23.might suggest he is a wee bht off the mark with the second. However,

:46:24. > :46:28.there is another certainty hn life which Mr Franklin overlooked. The

:46:29. > :46:31.one thing you may be sure what that will not be debated through a

:46:32. > :46:37.Westminster debate on estim`tes are the actual estimates. This hssue may

:46:38. > :46:40.not exercise the minds of the general public but that is because

:46:41. > :46:44.it is not well-known outsidd this way is just how little scrutiny

:46:45. > :46:50.there is of the spending pl`ns of departments. These scrutiny is

:46:51. > :46:56.negligible. It has suited stccessive governments of all persuasions that

:46:57. > :46:59.it should be so. If the public knew just how inscrutable this process

:47:00. > :47:07.was they would quite rightlx be alarmed. The estimates procdss is a

:47:08. > :47:12.very technical process by which spending is approved by parliament.

:47:13. > :47:19.I further crave your indulgdnce for just a few minutes more. If you will

:47:20. > :47:25.allow me to recall that durhng the evil debate the leader of the is

:47:26. > :47:28.noted the possibility of a review of the estimates process will seem to

:47:29. > :47:35.be completely adamant that dstimates already allows for affecting the

:47:36. > :47:39.Barnett consequential. The procedure committee on which I set is

:47:40. > :47:43.continuing to review the estimates process and many very distinguished

:47:44. > :47:49.and Leonard expats, far mord distinguished than I, from `ll

:47:50. > :47:54.sides, have argued while discussing EVEL that the estimate procdss is

:47:55. > :47:58.simply not fit for purpose. The way the House deals with the estimates

:47:59. > :48:02.and supply process is not sustainable. We need to havd proper

:48:03. > :48:09.debate around the supply procedure to agree clarity and Barnett

:48:10. > :48:13.consequential. The scrutiny of the estimates process is not robust and

:48:14. > :48:17.there's parliament has the least scrutinised spending arrangdments in

:48:18. > :48:24.the Western world in this so-called mother of Parliaments. Madal Deputy

:48:25. > :48:31.Speaker, for just one minutd more if you continue to leave your

:48:32. > :48:36.indulgence, Adam Tolkien's hs now a conservative member of the Scottish

:48:37. > :48:43.Parliament and he told the procedure committee on the 8th of September

:48:44. > :48:47.last year that, and I quote this gentleman for fear of

:48:48. > :48:52.misrepresenting him, whatevdr we do with English votes for Englhsh laws

:48:53. > :48:56.has to be made practical and operational in the light of and

:48:57. > :49:02.through using the Barnett formula. I think that can happen, he wdnt on,

:49:03. > :49:05.but I think it can happen only if there is a clear opportunitx for MPs

:49:06. > :49:10.representing constituencies from across the whole of the UK

:49:11. > :49:16.effectively and robust lead to engage in deliberation and debate in

:49:17. > :49:20.the supply and estimate process At the moment, he continued, there

:49:21. > :49:24.seems no such opportunity cost estimate debates tend to be very

:49:25. > :49:32.wide-ranging. About everythhng other than estimates. The fly in the

:49:33. > :49:34.ointment, he concluded, is to have this current inability or

:49:35. > :49:41.unwillingness to debate robtst lead and effectively are mentallx

:49:42. > :49:44.estimates. The processes such, Madam Deputy Speaker, that these

:49:45. > :49:49.procedures simply do not give MPs the full opportunity to scrttinise

:49:50. > :49:55.any Barnett consequential of England only or England and Wales only

:49:56. > :49:59.legislation and that is reqtired in a healthy and mature Parlialentary

:50:00. > :50:06.democracy. And you need not take my word for it. We have the emhnent

:50:07. > :50:09.opinion of the Conservative member of the Scottish Parliament telling

:50:10. > :50:16.us this. An expert in his fheld or so I have been told. It shotld be a

:50:17. > :50:22.consequence of EVEL that thd supply process the revolved in this matter

:50:23. > :50:27.been a process of development. The very words used by the leaddr of

:50:28. > :50:34.this House on the 22nd of October 20 15. I thank Madam Deputy Spdaker for

:50:35. > :50:37.satisfying my craving for hdr indulgence and I will return no

:50:38. > :50:44.moment Hanley to employment tribunal fees. Just for clarity, I should

:50:45. > :50:49.tell the House and the honotrable lady that she is perfectly hn order.

:50:50. > :50:55.She is talking about estimates. This is an estimates day. Whatevdr anyone

:50:56. > :51:03.else says, in my judgment, the points she is making are perfectly

:51:04. > :51:08.reasonable and ought to be debated. I thank Madam Deputy Speaker

:51:09. > :51:12.enormous and for that support of comment. Regarding tribunal fees the

:51:13. > :51:16.SNP government in Scotland understands as I viewed the UK

:51:17. > :51:20.Government does not yet seen to that the introduction of these fdes is

:51:21. > :51:26.significant barrier to justhce. Not least for well in facing maternity

:51:27. > :51:32.discrimination and who cannot afford to take a rogue employer to a

:51:33. > :51:35.tribunal. Last year a report for the Department of business, innovation

:51:36. > :51:40.and skills and the equality and human rights commission found that

:51:41. > :51:45.unlawful maternity and paternity discrimination is now more common in

:51:46. > :51:50.the UK work ways than ever before. As many as 54,000 pregnant women and

:51:51. > :51:55.new mothers, one in nine, bding forced out of their jobs each year

:51:56. > :52:02.will stop we in Scotland will listen to the expats. We will abolhsh these

:52:03. > :52:05.repetitive and punitive fees. It is the right thing to do and jtstice

:52:06. > :52:13.must be the guiding principle of all that we do. When any state puts a

:52:14. > :52:19.price on justice for its citizens, that is a state in peril. I urge the

:52:20. > :52:21.Minister to reflect on this and reconsider the pernicious effects of

:52:22. > :52:31.such fees on ordinary working people. I am most grateful for the

:52:32. > :52:36.opportunity to speak into Dhbaba 's Mike debate and indeed to follow

:52:37. > :52:41.such expedience and indeed learn and speakers from across the Hotse. If I

:52:42. > :52:45.made, and good to concentrate on court and tribunal fees this

:52:46. > :52:49.afternoon. I am grateful for the opportunity to have served on the

:52:50. > :52:53.committee which produced thhs report and I wholeheartedly endorsd this

:52:54. > :52:56.report and its recommendations. I want to focus not on the more

:52:57. > :53:02.newsworthy aspects of the rdport such as climate tribunal 's hole on

:53:03. > :53:07.the structure and permission of fees. Having said that, it hs

:53:08. > :53:13.important to say it is crithcal that fees do not impede access to

:53:14. > :53:17.justice. These are useful and indeed necessary, in my view, for two

:53:18. > :53:22.reasons. Firstly they help pay for the justice system which my friend

:53:23. > :53:27.from Huntingdon reminded us. Secondly fees can be used

:53:28. > :53:31.effectively to declare frivolous and vexatious claimants. As ever as has

:53:32. > :53:35.been said across the House this afternoon getting the balance right

:53:36. > :53:38.is key. The introduction of fees before employment tribunal has had

:53:39. > :53:45.clearly an enormous impact on the number of places issued. It was

:53:46. > :53:50.right that we focused on th`t. I also know, from speaking to many of

:53:51. > :53:53.my fellow barristers, that the increases have had a signifhcant

:53:54. > :53:59.impact in other areas. Parthcularly in the area of recessional

:54:00. > :54:02.negligence. It is not the wdalthy of my fellow barristers that concerns

:54:03. > :54:07.me, it is the welfare of thd individuals. Perhaps those hnjured

:54:08. > :54:11.during the course of medical treatment which goes wrong or cannot

:54:12. > :54:19.then issue claims which could be of concern to us today.

:54:20. > :54:26.We look closely at fee structure and they remission and be received

:54:27. > :54:31.evidence from the bar counchl and the Law Society amongst othdrs. One

:54:32. > :54:35.suggestion put forward to alleviate the deterrent effect of increases

:54:36. > :54:40.was to allow these to be met in a series of staged payments throughout

:54:41. > :54:44.the course of a claim. At fhrst glance staged fees seemed a good

:54:45. > :54:48.idea to as, but this was not universally supported by thd

:54:49. > :54:54.evidence that was given by the senior judiciary. Lord Dyson and Sir

:54:55. > :55:01.James Monday were hesitant `bout staging fees. Lord Dyson told as it

:55:02. > :55:06.was not a proposal he had previously thought about and while he `greed it

:55:07. > :55:12.was an interesting idea he voiced concerns about who they staging

:55:13. > :55:14.might be used by respondents to put pressure on claimants at dahly

:55:15. > :55:22.stages of the litigation. One solution suggested is to adopt the

:55:23. > :55:25.Scottish civil justice model of requiring a responded's fee to be

:55:26. > :55:32.paid alongside sequential fdes for claimants. This, he said, would

:55:33. > :55:37.level the playing field and face the risk or feeling on both parties As

:55:38. > :55:41.the evidence did not point clearly one way or the other the colmittee's

:55:42. > :55:47.proposal is in this area a tentative one. While a graduated or sdquential

:55:48. > :55:51.Schedule of fee payments cotld be a positive step we feel that ` pilot

:55:52. > :55:57.scheme could be carried out in the first instance to evaluate the best

:55:58. > :56:02.way of operating such a system. Turning to feed remission, `gain,

:56:03. > :56:09.taking employment tribunals as an example, in order to be successful

:56:10. > :56:13.in an application, a claimants must first pass a disposable caphtal

:56:14. > :56:19.tests, and then a gross monthly income test. The claimant h`s two

:56:20. > :56:22.complete a separate application for each court or tribunal fee. While

:56:23. > :56:26.taking evidence we were givdn statistics about how many p`ges

:56:27. > :56:32.claimants had to fill in. These forms are not simple. One solicitor

:56:33. > :56:39.said that the guidance booklet itself is 31 pages long. Major

:56:40. > :56:43.changes have been made with the introduction of a new, supposedly

:56:44. > :56:47.user friendly way of dealing with fee remission, which is now

:56:48. > :56:52.rebranded as help with fees. There has clearly been some improvement

:56:53. > :56:56.but complexities remain. Thhs is symptomatic possibly of the wider

:56:57. > :56:59.problem of litigants in person who do not have a great deal of

:57:00. > :57:04.understanding of the system in which they are having to operate. The

:57:05. > :57:08.situation in this area clearly needs to be kept under review. Thd Law

:57:09. > :57:12.Society has spent considerable time looking at the issue of fee

:57:13. > :57:16.remission in general and has called for the Ministry of Justice to

:57:17. > :57:21.introduce a system for regular read rating of the remission thrdsholds

:57:22. > :57:25.to take account of inflation. They have also suggested that a further

:57:26. > :57:29.review of affordability of civil court fees and that the remhssion

:57:30. > :57:35.system take place and that's a provocation at all levels should be

:57:36. > :57:40.considered. The committee endorsed the proposals. Personally there is

:57:41. > :57:45.merit in their suggestion to enable automatic remission for all basic

:57:46. > :57:48.rate taxpayers. That would simplify the system enormously. Fee structure

:57:49. > :57:53.and remission may not seem `t first glance to be the obvious catse for

:57:54. > :57:56.reforming lawyers battle about structural change our justice system

:57:57. > :58:05.becomes less accessible and affordable for those who nedd it.

:58:06. > :58:09.I start by declaring that bdfore I entered this place I acted `s

:58:10. > :58:13.unemployment solicitor for lany years. My contribution will focus

:58:14. > :58:15.poem are we on the impact of employment tribunal fee but I wanted

:58:16. > :58:20.to start with a broader point, which is about for those struggling to

:58:21. > :58:24.understand why a majority of those who fought as contrary to the

:58:25. > :58:28.massive economic evidence that leaving the EU would be bad for jobs

:58:29. > :58:31.and growth, the subject matter of this debate should give us food for

:58:32. > :58:36.thought as to why some people thought at the way that thex did.

:58:37. > :58:40.Messages about risk to the dconomy only work if you have an economy

:58:41. > :58:44.that works for the entire population. That does not jtst mean

:58:45. > :58:48.that we should aim for a pohnts but that the jobs that we creatd our

:58:49. > :58:53.permanent, secure, and propdrly paid. Telling somebody on a zero

:58:54. > :58:58.hours contracts, or in agency work, that there is a risk to the job from

:58:59. > :59:03.Brexit has not been persuashve. The culture has been treated in this

:59:04. > :59:06.country which views employmdnt as flexible, disposable, not a basic

:59:07. > :59:12.building block needed to crdate a good use of and prosperous society.

:59:13. > :59:14.And when what you write we have are locked away in a system that

:59:15. > :59:18.deliberately prevents peopld from enforcing then we should not be

:59:19. > :59:23.surprised that so many voicds say that they feel disenfranchised. For

:59:24. > :59:29.too long the question of fahrness at work has been at the fringes of

:59:30. > :59:31.political debate. I am sure most honourable members would agree that

:59:32. > :59:34.opportunity should be there for everyone. There should be no glass

:59:35. > :59:41.ceilings and floors with different backgrounds should have as luch

:59:42. > :59:45.chance as making it in their chosen job as the next person. But too

:59:46. > :59:48.often the service is paid to those games and in the context of this

:59:49. > :59:53.debate this seems to be little thought given to the conseqtences of

:59:54. > :59:56.employment ending. If there are workplace rights and protections

:59:57. > :00:00.that this place has deemed `re a necessary part of the social

:00:01. > :00:02.contract that the Government has with the country, we should be

:00:03. > :00:10.absolutely sure that those rights can be genuinely enforced, hf we are

:00:11. > :00:14.not to have an illusory system of protection. Opportunity, security,

:00:15. > :00:17.sustainability in work should be given as much priority as the

:00:18. > :00:22.creation of the job in the first place. Losing your job is whdely

:00:23. > :00:27.recognised as one of the major times in your life when you face dxtreme

:00:28. > :00:31.pressure and stress. For many if they have lost their job thdy have

:00:32. > :00:36.no discretionary income to speak of in keeping a roof over their heads

:00:37. > :00:39.of their family and putting food on the table will take prioritx over

:00:40. > :00:43.pressuring a claim, no mattdr how badly you have been cheated. Whilst

:00:44. > :00:47.I am and where there is a fde remission system, let us not pretend

:00:48. > :00:52.it is anything more than a fig leaf as any people do not qualifx for it.

:00:53. > :00:57.The average monthly take on salary in this country is just over ?1 00.

:00:58. > :01:01.Remission is not available on that salary but people are being asked to

:01:02. > :01:05.stump up two thirds of that amount to pursue a tribunal claim. It is an

:01:06. > :01:10.realistic to expect them to do so and I agree with Lord Dyson when he

:01:11. > :01:13.said autonomic people on modest incomes will inevitably be deterred

:01:14. > :01:21.from a ticketing. We have hdard from the chair of the Select Comlittee so

:01:22. > :01:24.I will not repeat those, but I find it remarkable that the Select

:01:25. > :01:29.Committee says that they fedl they have been strung along by mhnisters

:01:30. > :01:32.in relation to the outcome of the review into employment tribtnal

:01:33. > :01:35.fees. It was commissioned over one year ago and has apparently been on

:01:36. > :01:40.the desk of the Minister for nine months but having heard the Minister

:01:41. > :01:43.previously responsible finddr in a debate on the subject it is clear

:01:44. > :01:47.that this report has been s`t on because the introduction of fees has

:01:48. > :01:51.been a disaster. We know it has been a disaster because the numbdr of

:01:52. > :01:56.tribunal claims literally fdll off a cliff following the introduction of

:01:57. > :01:59.fees in July 2000 and 13. Whenever comparisons are utilised thdre has

:02:00. > :02:07.been an average drop of arotnd 0% of claims, as has been said already

:02:08. > :02:11.today. The TUC and Unison union provide statistics to the Sdlect

:02:12. > :02:16.Committee, comparing statistics with the first three months in 2013, to

:02:17. > :02:23.the first three months in 2015, which show that claims were down

:02:24. > :02:30.78%, we just claims down 56$, equal pay claims down 56%. Contract claims

:02:31. > :02:38.don't. Sex discrimination claims down. While I am sure the Government

:02:39. > :02:42.would like to claim that thd use of conciliation schemes explains that

:02:43. > :02:47.drop, that was not in place immediately after fees were

:02:48. > :02:53.introduced, and at least 26$ of those that did not proceed said they

:02:54. > :02:57.found that these off-putting. On -- it was stated in the High Court that

:02:58. > :03:03.the comparison between a nulber of claims brought before and after July

:03:04. > :03:06.2013, the introduction of fdes had the effect of the telling a large

:03:07. > :03:12.number of potential claimants. The honourable member suggested earlier

:03:13. > :03:16.one option could be the suggestion that smack of the introducthon of

:03:17. > :03:25.loans, but users who do when to somebody who has lost their job

:03:26. > :03:31.Many employees will not be `ble to find that the. This leaves ts with

:03:32. > :03:36.unresolved complaints and an enforceable rights because of the

:03:37. > :03:39.governments policy that rew`rds and encourages bad practice. Thd Select

:03:40. > :03:48.Committee reported that manx judges now here now claims at all. Prior to

:03:49. > :03:56.the introduction of fees, claims were brought in hospitality, dear,

:03:57. > :04:06.cleaning, sums were small, but sick of akin to those involved. Now, I do

:04:07. > :04:08.not think for a minute that employers have changed their

:04:09. > :04:12.behaviour, what is more likdly to be happening is that those who are

:04:13. > :04:16.having their wages docked are saying it will cost more to go to tribunal

:04:17. > :04:21.to recover this money than the amount I have lost so can I afford

:04:22. > :04:24.to challenge it? These rules disproportionately impact on those

:04:25. > :04:32.whose employment laws are there to protect. The current system

:04:33. > :04:38.incentivise as employers not to respect those rights. I drop my

:04:39. > :04:42.comments to a conclusion by saying that employment tribunal 's play a

:04:43. > :04:47.vital rule to ensure that b`sic rights such as the right to paid

:04:48. > :04:53.holidays, time of her maternity leave, writes not to be unf`irly

:04:54. > :04:57.dismissed or distributed ag`inst, valuing those rights is not enough,

:04:58. > :05:01.the means by which people c`n access these rights is just as important.

:05:02. > :05:06.These rights are not just about individual dignity and respdct in

:05:07. > :05:09.the workplace, they bring ilportant economic and social benefits to this

:05:10. > :05:12.country. They ensure that more people can participate in the Labour

:05:13. > :05:18.market about facing and fear discrimination. They give vtlnerable

:05:19. > :05:21.workers more security. They help to encourage a committed workforce and

:05:22. > :05:25.the retention of skilled workers. They allow people to plan their

:05:26. > :05:28.life, plan for a future, knowing that the

:05:29. > :05:32.# That if they do a good job, if their employer runs as business

:05:33. > :05:36.well, they are likely to st`y in work. What we have instead hs a

:05:37. > :05:39.higher and higher culture where employees are seen as disposable

:05:40. > :05:43.figures on a spreadsheet rather than people with real lives who `ctually

:05:44. > :05:48.matter. It seems that this Government is incapable of realising

:05:49. > :05:51.full employment rights and `s they enter a period of uncertainty with

:05:52. > :05:55.the fallout from Brexit we need more than ever a Labour Government to

:05:56. > :06:00.protect those we represent. We must reflect best how we can achheve

:06:01. > :06:02.that. While there will be dhffering views on the rare and I hopd that

:06:03. > :06:06.honourable and right Honour`ble members from my party will `gree to

:06:07. > :06:12.cannot unify and present ourselves as a serious in waiting, only cannot

:06:13. > :06:29.do a single thing about revdrsing this race to the bottom.

:06:30. > :06:37.I used to practice on civil and criminal courts before coming here

:06:38. > :06:41.but that was some time ago. Let me begin by complementing the committee

:06:42. > :06:48.and the chair of the committee who have spoken persuasively today, and

:06:49. > :06:53.all the members, including ly right honourable friend. It is a good

:06:54. > :06:57.report. Admits are task easx in that we can endorse it and agree with the

:06:58. > :07:02.recommendations. Many do not pull their punches with the Government. I

:07:03. > :07:07.might go further in some respects but I suspect it will be sufficient

:07:08. > :07:12.to ask the Minister simply to respond to the committee's points

:07:13. > :07:16.today and hopefully not simply by saying that matters will be dealt

:07:17. > :07:23.with in due course. I have got used to him saying that. I am college

:07:24. > :07:30.eyes to the front bench as. May not be able to stay for the closing If

:07:31. > :07:33.I cannot I will read the report tomorrow. He has made interdsting

:07:34. > :07:40.speeches recently and I havd been following them with great interest.

:07:41. > :07:46.The other reason I do not sde much on this issue is because I had the

:07:47. > :07:52.shadow belief until last ye`r and I thought he said everything H wanted

:07:53. > :07:55.to say on tribunal fees. Let me unusually correct something that a

:07:56. > :08:04.member said earlier. I did not take the view that sees, fee increases,

:08:05. > :08:08.should be opposed. On the contrary given the constraints on public

:08:09. > :08:12.finances and particular pressures on other parts of the budget for the

:08:13. > :08:16.Ministry of Justice, which we are now saying come to fruition and

:08:17. > :08:19.unpleasant ways, such as on the prison service and on legal aid the

:08:20. > :08:25.view I always took was that the increases were appropriate, and

:08:26. > :08:30.indeed full cost recovery, `nd some case more than full cost recovery,

:08:31. > :08:36.could be justified, provided that it did not interfere detriment`lly or

:08:37. > :08:39.substantively with access to justice. This is where the

:08:40. > :08:44.Government has lost its way. It has lost it's way more than that since

:08:45. > :08:48.it began at the end to introduce changes which were self-defdating

:08:49. > :08:53.such as the criminal courts charge which it had to do a U-turn on. But

:08:54. > :08:58.the all the elements of these and charges which are criticised in the

:08:59. > :09:03.report, not just implement tribunal fees, but looking at civil fees

:09:04. > :09:09.which I've gone up by up to 600 , that figure alone should set alarm

:09:10. > :09:14.bells ringing. Commercial fdes. The fees from divorce. Now the proposal

:09:15. > :09:18.for up to 500% increase in immigration tribunal fees, these are

:09:19. > :09:21.clearly not going to be affordable, particularly in light of thd

:09:22. > :09:25.remission system which does not appear to function properly. The

:09:26. > :09:28.reason why so many Honourable members have considered on hmplement

:09:29. > :09:32.tribunal 's is that we have had more time to experience that. Thdre is

:09:33. > :09:37.something insidious about the way in which doors have been introduced. In

:09:38. > :09:43.some cases there has been an 80 drop in claims coming forward. That

:09:44. > :09:47.must be the intention of th`t because it is not the great saving

:09:48. > :09:52.in public finances. It is estimated that perhaps 10,000 per year but not

:09:53. > :10:14.substantive. It limits access anyway employers

:10:15. > :10:19.might find convenient but pdople who at vulnerable kinds of their lives

:10:20. > :10:22.will be easily put off. Thex do not need fees, certainly not feds of

:10:23. > :10:29.this level in order to discourage them. Let me return to the point

:10:30. > :10:34.which I intervened on. The chair of the select committee. One of the

:10:35. > :10:40.points I disagree with what the committee said. This is in relation

:10:41. > :10:41.to the Freedom of Information Act appeals from the Information

:10:42. > :10:50.Commissioner to the first ther tribunal. The chairman of the

:10:51. > :10:55.committee very kindly reply to me and when I looked at the wording in

:10:56. > :11:01.the committee report, I will be just a couple of lines of it, it was

:11:02. > :11:05.looking at what the commisshon Freedom of Information Act resolved

:11:06. > :11:10.and that committee had said that considerable resources and

:11:11. > :11:16.additional time were being taken up by an meritorious repeals. They were

:11:17. > :11:21.removing the right to appeal against the Information Commissioner

:11:22. > :11:26.decision. Only allowing appdal to the upper tribunal on point of law.

:11:27. > :11:30.This is under consideration by the government, we'd see no reason to

:11:31. > :11:34.disagree with the commission view. This is under review and it is not

:11:35. > :11:40.really a criticism. The comlittee tech the box you because it had not

:11:41. > :11:46.had permissions. I accept it had not had submissions to the contrary are

:11:47. > :11:49.certainly the independent commission had several submissions to the

:11:50. > :11:53.contrary and it may well be the reason he has not been commhtted at

:11:54. > :11:57.the impression that was certainly given by the report that it was

:11:58. > :12:01.about levels of fees and ch`rging, it was not about the existence of

:12:02. > :12:05.the right of appeal in themselves. If I go back to what the

:12:06. > :12:10.commissioner said and therefore what the committee may have been led into

:12:11. > :12:14.error here. What appears to have happened if there is a simple

:12:15. > :12:20.confusion between an meritorious appeals which are weeded out. 1 % of

:12:21. > :12:28.an meritorious appeals wherd struck out for being an meritorious. That

:12:29. > :12:34.is very different from unsuccessful appeals. In fact, though thd figure

:12:35. > :12:39.of 79% being unsuccessful as appeals do the first year tribunal `gainst

:12:40. > :12:43.the Information Commissioner was quoted by the committee, th`t means

:12:44. > :12:50.that over 20% where successful. In my experience of as litigants and I

:12:51. > :12:54.may say I have been a frequdnt user of the Freedom of Information Act

:12:55. > :12:57.and have gone through all those stages up to first year tribunal. It

:12:58. > :13:01.is an absolutely necessary safeguard. The information

:13:02. > :13:05.commission does a good job. He is under resourced and in general

:13:06. > :13:08.eating the independent commhssion did not come up with all thd orders

:13:09. > :13:12.we thought they were going to come up with in terms of charging more or

:13:13. > :13:18.restricting access or in other ways trying to discourage Freedol Of

:13:19. > :13:22.Information requests. Nevertheless, it is an extremely important stage

:13:23. > :13:28.that the appeals to the first Tier Tribunal. Let me exemplify that by

:13:29. > :13:32.just quoting some of the types of cases that have succeeded at that

:13:33. > :13:37.level. That was in the last year. I am grateful for this inform`tion to

:13:38. > :13:44.the news media Association which is the combination of newspaper Society

:13:45. > :13:48.and newspaper publishers Association which understandably but for all

:13:49. > :13:52.very good reasons which is to see this right appeal but particularly

:13:53. > :13:57.to the campaign for Freedom Of Information led by the and outer

:13:58. > :14:02.wall Maurice Franklin who h`s again raised the alarm bells on this

:14:03. > :14:08.issue. Let me just give half a dozen examples. The ordered the C`binet

:14:09. > :14:13.Office to lease information about adoption selection criteria for

:14:14. > :14:16.adopting members of the Chilcot inquiry. He told the Ministry of

:14:17. > :14:21.Defence it was wrong to withhold information that soldiers would get

:14:22. > :14:30.given a criminal record if convicted of minimal offences. It orddred the

:14:31. > :14:37.Cabinet Office to disclose documentation for the expenses of

:14:38. > :14:41.?115,000 plan each claimed by four former prime ministers in connection

:14:42. > :14:45.with their public duties. One of which the Minister will appreciate,

:14:46. > :14:49.he ordered the Ministry of Justice to identify landlords convicted of

:14:50. > :14:54.housing offences for letting substandard accommodation. There are

:14:55. > :14:58.more examples from the National Health Service and from loc`l

:14:59. > :15:02.government. I would ask the chair committee who I now is a fahr and

:15:03. > :15:06.reasonable man who perhaps go back and look at this issue again. I

:15:07. > :15:10.assure you the bodies I havd mentioned will supply a letter of

:15:11. > :15:14.information as they have provided the commission with that

:15:15. > :15:20.information, albeit in vain. The Freedom of Information Act was one

:15:21. > :15:25.of the key pieces of legisl`tion of the last Labour government. It is

:15:26. > :15:31.like everything else that c`n be open to abuse. Generally spdaking it

:15:32. > :15:35.is used in a way that is good, not just for individual incidents for

:15:36. > :15:40.reporting good government. Ht is right that the is an Inform`tion

:15:41. > :15:42.Commissioner that is an inddpendent body but the Information

:15:43. > :15:48.Commissioner is not always get everything right. The 20% stccess is

:15:49. > :15:53.a good success on appeal and the role of first tribunal is entirely

:15:54. > :15:58.different to that from Information Commissioner. It brings out judicial

:15:59. > :16:04.eye to proceedings and rings a fresh and full scrutiny of matters with

:16:05. > :16:11.the results we have seen. IL done that mandate for people so `s not to

:16:12. > :16:16.take up any more time. I hope that single issue is one and I apologise

:16:17. > :16:23.for picking out what I think is an error in the report. There `re many

:16:24. > :16:29.good things in the but I hope that that can be looked at again by the

:16:30. > :16:34.committee and the government. May I concur first of all with thd Justice

:16:35. > :16:41.Minister and complimentary honourable chair of the seldct

:16:42. > :16:44.committee. Members from Kingston upon Hull East and Hammersmhth. It

:16:45. > :16:50.has been a pleasure to servd on the committee and we have been tnited in

:16:51. > :16:58.our conclusions as well. Thd government ventured into feds for

:16:59. > :17:04.cost recovery which is great. ? million income. The goal on reducing

:17:05. > :17:09.the number of vexatious clahms I shall go into in a little more

:17:10. > :17:15.detail later. The issue with the select committee has been qteried

:17:16. > :17:19.the fees have been unaccept`bly impacting on access to justhce. The

:17:20. > :17:27.introduction has led to an dnormous and undisputed drop in the number of

:17:28. > :17:30.cases brought approaches 70$. Referred to you by the Honotrable

:17:31. > :17:41.member which I think is well worth repeating is a single tribunal case

:17:42. > :17:47.declining by 67%. Leases brought by more than one person declindd by

:17:48. > :17:50.72%. He then write Honourable Justice Minister giving evidence to

:17:51. > :17:58.the select committee said that in the year April 14 /15 82,000

:17:59. > :18:02.conciliation cases had been dealt with by ACAS. While other f`ctors

:18:03. > :18:08.may count for the reduction in the number of cases being brought the

:18:09. > :18:13.evidence submitted to the committee, 60,800 early conciliation

:18:14. > :18:21.notifications made in the s`me period April to December 14. 15

:18:22. > :18:30.were settled and only 22% rdgress to an employment tribunal. 63% of

:18:31. > :18:36.notifications, that was 38,304 dropped off the radar. I put to the

:18:37. > :18:45.chamber here that was because of affordability. Appealing cases for

:18:46. > :18:49.the third three months of 2013/ 5. The most common types of cases where

:18:50. > :18:53.access has been restricted since the introduction of fees accordhng to

:18:54. > :18:59.the TUC and Unison and rightly referred to by the Honourable member

:19:00. > :19:08.for port was working time dhrective down 60%. Unauthorised deductions

:19:09. > :19:16.from wages down 56%. And fahr dismissal down 72%. Equal p`y 5 %.

:19:17. > :19:24.Reach of contract on by 75%. Six discrimination down by 60%.

:19:25. > :19:34.Pregnancy related detriment or dismissal down 40%. Quite shaming in

:19:35. > :19:37.a democracy. In an ACAS survey 6% of claimants who did not progress

:19:38. > :19:46.their cases said they did not do so simply because they find thd fees of

:19:47. > :19:50.looting. -- off-putting. Trhbunal fees have an effect to what the

:19:51. > :19:57.government is saying. They do not encourage early conciliation because

:19:58. > :20:02.an employer has no incentivd to settle in cases where the claimant

:20:03. > :20:09.may have difficulty in raishng the tribunal fees. The senior precedent

:20:10. > :20:12.of tribunal is set the councillors of employment judges and le`dership

:20:13. > :20:18.judges would all say there hs clear behaviour and material to the way in

:20:19. > :20:22.which respondents, that is employers, are behaving. Thdy are

:20:23. > :20:25.avoiding engagement in conchliation processes and waiting for the next

:20:26. > :20:35.fee to be paid which means that settlement opportunities ard

:20:36. > :20:39.actually being lost. Legal representatives of awesome lawyers

:20:40. > :20:45.and ploys asks why wouldn't lawyers engage in early conciliation? You

:20:46. > :20:49.wait for the employee to pax a fee. Ultimately you want to call their

:20:50. > :20:53.bluff. Are they prepared to put their money where their mouth is?

:20:54. > :20:58.You sit back and you see whdther they do it. In other words, they

:20:59. > :21:04.want them to drop off. The Law Society and police action l`wyers

:21:05. > :21:10.claim there is emerging evidence that people employers are h`nging

:21:11. > :21:14.back waiting to see whether their claim progresses before settling.

:21:15. > :21:20.There is little evidence to suggest that claims that are made are

:21:21. > :21:23.vexatious. The charity workhng families in evidence to the

:21:24. > :21:31.committee said vexatious cl`ims may be less than 5% or even less than

:21:32. > :21:35.2%. The senior President of tribunal has said that if the aim was to

:21:36. > :21:41.remove vexatious claims you would expect to see the success r`te of

:21:42. > :21:45.claims go up. Insofar as thdre is any material available at the

:21:46. > :21:51.moment, the evidence is to the contrary. Not only has the `ccess

:21:52. > :21:57.rate and appeal rate not ch`nge with any significance, in other words,

:21:58. > :22:03.this policy has failed to rdduce the number of I'm meritorious claims

:22:04. > :22:09.whatsoever. The timing and scale of the reduction of fees can ldave no

:22:10. > :22:14.doubt that clear majority of the decline is attributable to fees

:22:15. > :22:20.This drop in tribunal 's was not predicted by the government and even

:22:21. > :22:24.when employment law changes, Alty into account as the Honourable

:22:25. > :22:28.Minister referred to in givhng evidence, it is down to tribunal

:22:29. > :22:36.fees putting people off exercising their rights. I put to the chamber

:22:37. > :22:41.affordability is the main issue This is a limitation on act this to

:22:42. > :22:46.justice an appointment cases against those who are most vulnerable in the

:22:47. > :22:48.system. In evidence, the chhef executive for Thomson 's

:22:49. > :22:55.appointments Lassiter 's sahd ministers are not clear on what the

:22:56. > :23:00.purpose of the fee is. Ivy hntending to fund the tribunal system? If the

:23:01. > :23:05.tribunal system is to be funded by users it should be taken into

:23:06. > :23:10.account that employers are tsers as well as claimants. If it is to deter

:23:11. > :23:16.claims then this is not an dffective way to do it. The cost systdm

:23:17. > :23:21.presents an other civil casds is a better method. If someone brings a

:23:22. > :23:27.the there is no merit and D`vid some unsuccessful then the ploy can apply

:23:28. > :23:34.for costs. They've is simplx no that there are no loads of these

:23:35. > :23:37.vexatious claims in the system. If these lawyers are faced with

:23:38. > :23:42.vexatious claims and they are properly advised, he will those

:23:43. > :23:46.them. If they succeed they will apply for costs. That is thd

:23:47. > :23:52.appropriate deterrent and it already exists. Factors which need to be

:23:53. > :23:55.taken into account include the effectiveness of fear emisshon

:23:56. > :23:59.referred to by the Honourable member from Banbury. The vulnerability of

:24:00. > :24:03.claimants and their means in comparison with respondents which

:24:04. > :24:09.may pose particular problems if inequality of arms when indhviduals

:24:10. > :24:12.or small businesses are seeking to oppose their rights against systemic

:24:13. > :24:28.major companies. And should be a clear and

:24:29. > :24:32.justifiable relationship in the fees system between these factors and the

:24:33. > :24:39.degree of financial risks that litigants are asked to bear. Where

:24:40. > :24:43.there is conflict between the objectives of achieving full cost

:24:44. > :24:49.recovery and preserving accdss to justice, access to justice lust

:24:50. > :24:57.prevail. The Select Committde report recommendations are clear. The

:24:58. > :25:02.Government should publish the factual information collated as part

:25:03. > :25:06.of their post-implementation review. The goalposts have been movdd four

:25:07. > :25:13.times. Publish now without further hesitation. Why has it not been

:25:14. > :25:18.published? The overall costs of tribunal 's must come down. The

:25:19. > :25:22.financial threshold for thex remission must be increased, where

:25:23. > :25:33.only one application should be required. Thereby aiding Access to

:25:34. > :25:36.justice. The binary type a `nd B distinctions should be repl`ced by a

:25:37. > :25:41.fee system which is fair and does not preclude vulnerable people.

:25:42. > :25:46.Further consideration must be given to the position of women alleging

:25:47. > :26:01.pregnancy or maternity discrimination.

:26:02. > :26:09.I recognise that the above recommendations made by the

:26:10. > :26:14.committee, put simply by me, would have cost applications for the

:26:15. > :26:19.Ministry of Justice, but now that an increase in the number of ldgitimate

:26:20. > :26:23.claims would in itself bring in additional fee income. Secondly I

:26:24. > :26:29.stress again, there was a choice between income from fees, and

:26:30. > :26:38.preservation of access to jtstice, the latter must prevail. As the

:26:39. > :26:42.master of the Rolls reminded us the Lord Chancellor is required by

:26:43. > :26:50.statute to have regard to the necessity of maintaining access to

:26:51. > :26:54.justice. I am grateful for the opportunity to

:26:55. > :26:59.speak in this debate, albeit last minute. I rise to speak havhng heard

:27:00. > :27:04.many of the statistics which I still find shocking to hear. But to get

:27:05. > :27:11.some personal reflection and context, my grandmother had many

:27:12. > :27:17.stories when growing up, but one was the story of how she met my

:27:18. > :27:22.grandfather in munitions during the war. After the war she went back to

:27:23. > :27:27.work to be a seamstress. Whdn she got married and returned to work she

:27:28. > :27:31.was, as she said, given her books. She was made and employed and her

:27:32. > :27:35.employment was terminated. There were no tribunal fees in those days

:27:36. > :27:40.and I often reflect we have come a long way, although not far dnough.

:27:41. > :27:46.Before I came to this race H worked in the corporate sector, I lanaged a

:27:47. > :27:51.small team. I remember having a member of my team going on laternity

:27:52. > :27:54.leave. As she was coming back I was advised by human resources that if

:27:55. > :27:58.she took longer than nine months I did not have to give her her job

:27:59. > :28:03.back, I just had to give her any job. I could not believe thhs. I

:28:04. > :28:08.find it incredible that somdone who was barely seen you in her role a

:28:09. > :28:12.marketing manager, was not `llowed to get her job back, and I `s a

:28:13. > :28:20.manager was put in the position to allow her to just get any job. It is

:28:21. > :28:25.as much about company culture and our culture as a society in terms of

:28:26. > :28:31.who we look at this and we had to look at the productivity gap as

:28:32. > :28:35.well. We want to get people back to work, we want to encourage people,

:28:36. > :28:42.particularly women, who are often marginalised Dahmer 400,000 women in

:28:43. > :28:58.this country experiencing discrimination in employment. -

:28:59. > :29:04.marginalised - 400,000 women in this country.

:29:05. > :29:08.Fathers taking a more activd role in caregiving is likely to be one of

:29:09. > :29:13.the more significant developments of the 21st-century. This is not just

:29:14. > :29:19.about women in the workplacd and discrimination for them, it is also

:29:20. > :29:25.about men. One of the key issues that we have to consider, their

:29:26. > :29:29.human rights commission camd to me and talked me through some of the

:29:30. > :29:35.statistics and the issues whth tribunal fees. I was staggered when

:29:36. > :29:41.we spoke about 56,000 women, as has been mentioned a number of times,

:29:42. > :29:46.being put out of employment, and 10% of mothers saying that the dmployer

:29:47. > :29:51.encouraged them from attendhng antenatal appointments. We lust get

:29:52. > :29:56.tougher. A number of members across the chamber have a legal background.

:29:57. > :29:58.There is basically thickened gap between people who are being

:29:59. > :30:02.discriminated against and the courts, and the lawyers Burns, who

:30:03. > :30:07.are in doubt as Lee making ` significant delight of monex out of

:30:08. > :30:12.cases, but also our courts `re being clogged up with cases that could be

:30:13. > :30:17.solved in other ways. I and we visited Australia where I w`nted to

:30:18. > :30:20.see how the small business Commissioner operated in colparison

:30:21. > :30:24.to legislation been brought forward in this House. I found it incredible

:30:25. > :30:26.that they had the Federal Commissioner and individual state

:30:27. > :30:31.commissioners. They had tre`ted a culture across Australia about

:30:32. > :30:35.resolving issues before thex got to the court said this was welcomed by

:30:36. > :30:39.the legal profession. I wonder if the Minister would consider this as

:30:40. > :30:42.a proposal and something th`t merited further discussion, of

:30:43. > :30:48.having a commission that have much greater powers, that sat between the

:30:49. > :30:52.judiciary and between busindsses because at the end of the d`y there

:30:53. > :30:57.is going to be a carrot and stick approach at some point. For small

:30:58. > :31:02.and medium-sized enterprises, the number of times I have heard those

:31:03. > :31:05.enterprises saying, or people reporting some of them having

:31:06. > :31:11.difficulties in supporting women or families through having children, we

:31:12. > :31:16.need to incentivise small btsinesses and individuals to start businesses,

:31:17. > :31:21.to develop their businesses, and the fact of the matter is women have

:31:22. > :31:24.children. We are not that stage yet in genetics remain ten carrx

:31:25. > :31:29.children so we do have to accept the fact that women are child's bear us

:31:30. > :31:35.and they are so much to the economy and so much to our nations when they

:31:36. > :31:45.have children and continue the next generation. So some of the

:31:46. > :31:50.recommendations made were interesting such as having ` single

:31:51. > :31:54.website and clear information for women who were going on matdrnity

:31:55. > :32:05.leave are thinking about having a family. Also, their health `nd

:32:06. > :32:13.safety issue, that the Government's all research says that 41% of all

:32:14. > :32:18.pregnant women face risks of health and safety being not properly

:32:19. > :32:21.managed by their employers. These statistics are damning but we had to

:32:22. > :32:27.make business believe and understand that it is good for their btsiness,

:32:28. > :32:30.good for society, for women to have flexible working and for thd

:32:31. > :32:35.Government to support that. It will not happen on its own and in

:32:36. > :32:38.conclusion I would say, we `re a family of modern and progressive

:32:39. > :32:42.nations. Scotland is leading the way in abolishing fees in giving access

:32:43. > :32:48.to justice. I hope that the Minister has an eye on the north and is

:32:49. > :32:54.taking notes. I rise to speak as a member of the

:32:55. > :32:59.Justice Select Committee's report we are considering so I would like to

:33:00. > :33:03.add my congratulations to otr erstwhile sheer for his statement.

:33:04. > :33:09.For a while I thought there was nothing else to say. I also want to

:33:10. > :33:17.congratulate our new Shadow Lord Chancellor in his position. I see

:33:18. > :33:21.that the real Lord Chancellor is not here. Maybe his minders on other

:33:22. > :33:28.matters. This is far from what he is thinking about at the moment. Like

:33:29. > :33:32.also it committees this comlittee is a majority Conservative comlittee

:33:33. > :33:38.but we were unanimous in our conclusions on the subject of court

:33:39. > :33:42.and tribunal fees. As the cheer pointed out that the beginnhng of

:33:43. > :33:47.the debate, in the beginning this inquiry included the crimin`l courts

:33:48. > :33:50.charge. A report into that voiced grave misgivings and recommdnded the

:33:51. > :33:55.abolition of this unfair ch`rge because it was acting as a barrier

:33:56. > :33:59.to justice. We said that should happen as soon as possible.

:34:00. > :34:02.Encouragingly, there has bedn action on this. We welcome very much that

:34:03. > :34:08.the Government acted with swiftness on our criticism. We now wish list

:34:09. > :34:14.and they would repeat itself with these unpopular tribunal feds. We

:34:15. > :34:18.are still awaiting the Government publishing its force and

:34:19. > :34:23.fermentation review into thd impact of tribunal fees. That was `nnounced

:34:24. > :34:30.in June 2000 and 15. Our colmittee has urged that this needs to happen

:34:31. > :34:34.urgently. The fees for employment tribunal 's should be subst`ntially

:34:35. > :34:38.reduced but on this side of the House we would argue that wd should

:34:39. > :34:42.go further and go for compldte abolition. I am proud to have stood

:34:43. > :34:50.at a manifesto on the last general election which was urging bdsts I

:34:51. > :35:00.do not know what is in our next manifesto, but 40 years as ` long

:35:01. > :35:14.way off is it not? For months. Your access to justice should not be

:35:15. > :35:20.determined by your wallet. Women in particular have been hard-hht by

:35:21. > :35:25.these tribunal fees. Sex discrimination, pregnancy, dqual pay

:35:26. > :35:28.claims have all fallen and given that the austerities cats h`ve hit

:35:29. > :35:37.women the hardest, some analyses show that 80% of spending rdductions

:35:38. > :35:43.affect women, it gives weight to the claim that the Prime Ministdr, he is

:35:44. > :35:52.still Prime Minister, has a problem with women. And the two main runners

:35:53. > :36:00.and riders are women so we will see what the future brings. The Justice

:36:01. > :36:05.Select Committee interviewed numerous witnesses. 23 people

:36:06. > :36:07.appearing before us. Written submissions from 91 different

:36:08. > :36:11.stakeholders from pillars of the establishment like the bar council

:36:12. > :36:22.of England and we are to more specialist contributors such as ..

:36:23. > :36:24.Maternity action gave as evhdence on maternity discrimination and find

:36:25. > :36:30.out on pregnancy discrimination there has been a fall in 40$ in the

:36:31. > :36:35.number of claims in the immddiate aftermath of the introduction of

:36:36. > :36:43.fees. 40% down. Nearly half. That is on top of the fact that figtres from

:36:44. > :36:46.2005 suggest that less than 10% of women suffering from pregnancy and

:36:47. > :36:51.maternity discrimination wotld present themselves in the fhrst

:36:52. > :36:54.place for fear of repercusshons The minister, a pleasant chat and he is

:36:55. > :36:59.here now, did keep repeatedly telling us that it has has reported

:37:00. > :37:05.that that surge in people presenting themselves there. There was a figure

:37:06. > :37:11.of 84,000 extra cases. That is not the way to bat away this situation.

:37:12. > :37:15.There is a number of problels we have identified. Part of thd

:37:16. > :37:22.justification was to recover costs but both in employment tribtnal 's

:37:23. > :37:26.and in the immigration and @sylum chamber there has been a massive

:37:27. > :37:31.mismatch, the costs recoverdd have fallen short of what is projected,

:37:32. > :37:37.so according to the annual report for courts and services, thd cost

:37:38. > :37:43.recovery target for employmdnt tribunal fees was set to be a figure

:37:44. > :37:48.of around 33%, in reality it has 17%. For immigration and Asxlum

:37:49. > :37:52.chamber they were projecting a recovery of around 25% but hn

:37:53. > :37:57.reality it has been a measlx 9% And to add insult to injury the latest

:37:58. > :38:03.accounts from the Ministry of Justice charlatan 2014-2015, net

:38:04. > :38:13.income from implements tribtnal fees was 9 million. While expendhture on

:38:14. > :38:19.the service was 71.4 million. These fees make bad business sensd. At a

:38:20. > :38:27.time when we should be justhfying every pound of public expenditure.

:38:28. > :38:33.Also evidence from the TUC `nd the trade union solicitors, that these

:38:34. > :38:37.have reduced employer engagdment with early conciliation bec`use

:38:38. > :38:40.there is a descent centred, Bixby bogeyed to see if the other side can

:38:41. > :38:53.afford the fee in that they cannot there is no point -- there hs a

:38:54. > :39:02.disincentive because people wait to see. This has impacted access to

:39:03. > :39:05.justice in a number of way. Employment tribunal fees were

:39:06. > :39:09.introduced against a background of different measures such as civil

:39:10. > :39:14.court fee increases, legal `id reductions, restrictions on judicial

:39:15. > :39:22.review, Trade Union Bill, proposal to repeal Human Rights Act or as has

:39:23. > :39:30.been mooted, leaving the European convention altogether, so in our

:39:31. > :39:37.opinion all these things taken together, the effect is chipping

:39:38. > :39:41.away at access to justice. H am a member of Unison. They have said

:39:42. > :39:44.that over the last three ye`rs tribunal fees have prevented many

:39:45. > :39:49.people who have been wronged at work from taking the claims to court

:39:50. > :39:53.Unscrupulous bosses can hardly believe their luck. They can pretty

:39:54. > :39:56.much cheap dish that is bad because they choose safe in the knowledge

:39:57. > :40:05.they are never likely to be taken to tribunal. -- they can prettx much

:40:06. > :40:20.treat employee league -- employees as badly as they choose.

:40:21. > :40:27.Fees higher than what is behng claimed makes no sense at all. Our

:40:28. > :40:31.report says the overall quantum of fees charged for bringing c`ses

:40:32. > :40:35.through tribunal should be substantially reduced. I sax they

:40:36. > :40:39.should be completely abolished. In the words of the report special

:40:40. > :40:46.consideration should be givdn to the position of women alleging laternity

:40:47. > :40:52.discrimination. I also agred with the report finding that the increase

:40:53. > :41:01.in the divorce petition fee from ?410 to ?550 be rescinded. The

:41:02. > :41:09.tribunal fees meet published. When are we ever going to see thhs? There

:41:10. > :41:15.are more calls than eight Holland in these policies. Tribunal feds

:41:16. > :41:19.preventing access to justicd, travelling on employment rights the

:41:20. > :41:25.reduction in sexual discrimhnation and equal pay claims that the

:41:26. > :41:30.employment tribunal. The delay into the review into employment tribunal

:41:31. > :41:33.fees. We should look at increasing access to justice, not restricting

:41:34. > :41:41.it. Particularly at the timd of austerity. There are three key

:41:42. > :41:46.points that I want to focus my energy on in the next ten mhnutes.

:41:47. > :41:50.That is entirely around the three key points that I think are

:41:51. > :41:54.absolutely essential to this debate. The fundamental principle around

:41:55. > :41:59.access to justice. The clear fact that the introduction to feds is a

:42:00. > :42:06.barrier and I am sure he will be being close attention to thdse

:42:07. > :42:09.points on the issue of women who are pregnant or experiencing maternity

:42:10. > :42:15.discrimination. At the post and lamentation review of tribunal fees.

:42:16. > :42:17.On that point I want to really start this debate by highlighting exactly

:42:18. > :42:21.why tribunal fees have been mentioned several times arotnd this

:42:22. > :42:29.chamber and by many Honourable members. That is how manly because

:42:30. > :42:32.54,000 women are forced out the workplace everyday due to

:42:33. > :42:36.discrimination. If there was ever a further need to combine the evidence

:42:37. > :42:42.that your tribunal fees system is not working it is that one. If that

:42:43. > :42:45.was not good enough, since the introduction of appointment fees in

:42:46. > :42:50.2013 there has been a 76 sent decline in the number of able

:42:51. > :42:56.looking through tribunal fed claims. I think I will dispense with the

:42:57. > :42:59.statistics for now and highlight a number of reasons why emploxment

:43:00. > :43:05.tribunal 's exist in the first place. To start with I mean to go

:43:06. > :43:10.on, this is not just an isste that affects women. It is prime `nd issue

:43:11. > :43:14.that affects any worker who faces unfair dismissal or does crdmation

:43:15. > :43:19.and the work please. Additionally the pressures that these people face

:43:20. > :43:24.are compounded further by the fact we are often the most vulnerable in

:43:25. > :43:29.society. Despite the many c`lls from across these benches the minister, I

:43:30. > :43:36.suspect, is not listening to any of the statements that have bedn made

:43:37. > :43:40.that far. On the fact of trhbe Google fees being tantamount to a

:43:41. > :43:46.barrier to access to justicd. Now, it need there be a chance to say and

:43:47. > :43:50.again that these are clearlx compounding discrimination `gainst

:43:51. > :43:54.women in particular with regard to maternity but also for all workers

:43:55. > :44:00.across all forms. We have hdard from the trade unions where they believe

:44:01. > :44:05.these issues are compounding the experiences faced by many workers.

:44:06. > :44:09.Trade unions have focused these particularly on the efforts of those

:44:10. > :44:13.on zero hours contracts and ultimately are offered little or no

:44:14. > :44:17.job security. For them to t`ke any challenge against their employer

:44:18. > :44:21.simply outlines the possibility that they will have no further work,

:44:22. > :44:25.though further hour is given to them each month and they will not be able

:44:26. > :44:29.to put food on the table to feed their families. Andrea dismhssal

:44:30. > :44:38.does not just affect women ht affects many, many workers `cross

:44:39. > :44:42.the political spectrum, not across the political spectrum but ht does

:44:43. > :44:47.also covered many people across the political spectrum. ACAS, the

:44:48. > :44:53.institution which the government is proud to highlighted the mahn

:44:54. > :44:56.arbitrator in this says 26% of complainants did not progress

:44:57. > :45:01.because the tribunal fees ptt them off. If that isn't enough to tell

:45:02. > :45:04.you that your own statistics from ACAS indicate the system is not

:45:05. > :45:09.working I do not know what xou need to convince you it is simplx not

:45:10. > :45:12.working. Working families h`ve highlighted the leather ridhng

:45:13. > :45:18.category of rogue lawyers, something this and has not seen fit to

:45:19. > :45:23.address. As has been integr`ted from the Unite trade union emploxers are

:45:24. > :45:28.confident this will not go to the ideal because ultimately people