04/07/2016 House of Commons

people, so we can come to a better resolution, so we will conthnue to

watch carefully how matters develop, that she can be reassured that we do

not accept this is a better way to go forward.

I am sorry, demand exceeds supply and we must move on.

Urgent question, Gisela Stu`rt. It is to ask the Secretary of State of

the legal status of EU nationals residing in the United Kingdom in

the event of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union.

Thank you very much, Mr Spe`ker EU nationals make an invaluabld

contribution to our economy, society and daily lives. They should be

assured that, as the Prime Linister and Home Secretary have repdatedly

said, there will be no immediate change in their status in the UK.

The Prime Minister has been clear that decisions on issues relating to

the UK's exit from the EU whll be for a new Prime Minister. I'm

therefore not in a position to make new policy announcements thhs

afternoon. The discussions that we have with the EU to agree

arrangements of the UK's exht will undoubtedly reflect the immdnse

contribution made by EU cithzens to our economy, to the NHS, to schools

and in so many other ways. But they must also secure the interests of

the 1.2 million British cithzens living and working elsewherd in the

EU. The Home Secretary was clear yesterday when she said we should

seek to guarantee that the rights of both groups are protected, `nd that

this is best done through rdciprocal discussions with the EU as part of

the negotiations to leave the EU. It has been suggested the government

could now fully guarantee ET nationals living in the UK the right

to stay. This would be Aaron Wise without a parallel assurancd from

European governments. -- thhs would not be wise regarding British

nationals living within thehr countries. Such a step might also

have the unintended consequdnce of prompting EU immigration to the EU.

-- to the UK. We have to have detailed work on this issue and that

the new Prime Minister decides the best way forward as quickly as

possible. In the meantime, H would like to stress that EU nationals

continued to be welcome herd. After macro -- LAUGHTER

We have seen some truly a w`rrant hate crimes in the past week or so

against EU nationals. We will not stand for these kind of att`cks

They must and will be tackldd in the strongest possible terms. ET

nationals can have our fool and unreservedly reassurance th`t their

right to enter, work, study and live in the UK remains unchanged, but to

pre-empt future discussions at this point risks undermining our ability

to protect the interests of EU and British citizens alike, and to get

the best possible outcome for both. Gisela Stuart. I hit to teach the

Minister British organisational and structures, but we are a Cabinet

government structure. Irrespective of whether prime ministers decide to

leave, the cabinet can still make decisions. Ministers, peopld are not

bargaining chips. It is deeply, deeply offensive to assume that this

is a country that retrospectively changes the rights of its chtizens.

It is their duty of our govdrnment to allow people to live and arrange

their lives and make predictions. We have 3 million citizens livhng in

this country who are EU cithzens. 1.2 live in the EU at the moment. We

have our right to expect from this government, to make clear

statements, and the Minister may have read a letter in the Stnday

Telegraph we are a whole group of people from members of Parlhament,

including the member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, for which

an ad Harpenden, such as thd TUC, the British future, they all say it

is a duty of this government to say clearly and unequivocally that

retrospectively any EU citizen here will maintain and continue the

rights they have acquired. @nything else is a failure of governlent to

protect its people and the future obligations. The Minister m`y also

be aware of the House of Lords is far from happy with the govdrnment

position. Can you just do the right thing? And not make people

bargaining chips? Not worry about the future, at this moment, say that

EU citizens have made an important and valuable contribution. We should

know that at human rights and we will now say those who are here will

continue to be here. I entirely understand the b`sic

premise of the Right Honour`ble Lady's point, seeking to give

assurance for EU nationals who are here in the UK as well as British

citizens who are within othdr European countries. And on that

brought premise, I don't thhnk we are poles apart at all. The question

is the manner and ways to achieve that objective. I think it raises a

number of complex issues. As she will equally understand, we are

talking about, yes, the right to reside, but writes unemploylent to

study, entitlements to benefit, access to public services, `s well

as joined by family members. It is not, as she seeks to characterise

it, in some way viewing people as bargaining chips at all. It is

rather to get the best posshble outcome for EU citizens that are

here, as well as the 1.2 million but he citizens in the European Union

elsewhere. That is the focus of this government. Through the discussions

with the European Union, we can get that best possible solution. She can

be assured, as well as other EU nationals who are here contributing

to our society, that that is absolutely at the forefront of what

we are seeking to achieve in terms of negotiations that will follow.

Damian Green. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sure everyone on all shdes once

no disadvantage given to EU scissors and is living in this country ought

to UK citizens living in other European countries. -- EU chtizens.

Does the Minister, what judgment have you made about the best way to

protect the interests of thd more than 1 million British citizens

living and in many cases working in other EU countries, so that at the

end of this process nobody can be disadvantaged at all? I think that

we need to ensure that therd is an overall balance and careful

consideration of all these hssues and to view this in the round. That

is why it would be mistaken to view this in a narrowly and potentially

make statements now that cotld have an impediment on broader discussions

in relation to the position of British nationals in other DU

countries. That is the right approach to take and precisdly what

the prime ministers set out and we need to look at this carefully. Andy

Burnham. I declare an interdst, my wife Mike Frantz as a Dutch

national, my children are h`lf Dutch. -- my wife married France.

This is similar to many famhlies. The EU nationals are fathers,

mothers, and Sand uncles of many British children. To leave

uncertainty over their future, it undermines family life in otr

country, which does not strhke me as a very cry ministerial thing to do,

but it is what the Home Secretary did yesterday. She said people who

have an established life ye`r would be part of negotiations with

Brussels. For people making a huge contribution to subvert -- to

society being talked of as ` bargaining chip was insensitive But

when she said nobody necess`rily stays for ever, it becomes

threatening. I hope she will tell the Home Secretary that my own

children would quite like their mum to stay here forever, if th`t is OK

with her! In retrospect, do you not accept the Home Secretary's comments

were ill judged, and that pdople who made a life year when perfectly

legal to do so should not h`ve the right pulled from under thel? And is

it entirely in the gift for the UK Government to remove this uncertain

to Russia and why isn't the Home Secretary here doing precisdly that

rather than by advising her own leadership campaign? -- to remove

this uncertainty. It is this government's own decision to make

this an issue in negotiations. And by doing so, are be creating

conditions for the unwelcomhng climate to continue and risds in

xenophobic and racist abuse we have seen? Finally, doesn't be vdry fact

we are having to hold this debate illustrates how flawed the

referendum campaign was? Didn't people have a right to know the

answer to this crucial question before going to vote? Sending any EU

nationals home has enormous implications for families, public

services, the economy, so why on earth did the government instruct 77

is not to carry out any contingency planning on the implications of

Brexit? Wasn't that the height of irresponsibility and hasn't it left

us with either compass or chart the Conservative Party has reduced the

country to chaos and created uncertainty felt in every f`mily.

The Home Secretary wants to lead us out of it, she needs couragd to come

to this House and clear up her own mess!

I have to say that if anythhng is ill-judged sadly I think thd right

honourable gentleman's commdnts were ill-judged in the manner, in which

he has approached this, his contribution this afternoon. I have

been absolutely clear that there is no concept of bargaining chhps or

viewing people in that way `t all, and have been clear in terms of the

contribution that I see EU citizens make to our country now and in the

future too, which is why it will be a part of that negotiation, as we

look towards a future, a positive future for our country, outside of

the European Union. And acttally, I don't think what would be

responsible would be to takd a stance now, that could have an

impact on the 1.2 million British citizens who are in countrids

outside of the UK. It is not a choice of, it is not a choice of one

or the other, it is a questhon of looking at both of them, and getting

the best possible outcome for UK citizens in other European

countries, as well as assurhng the rights of European citizens who are

here, I think it is important that we approach the negotiations in that

front, and he, he makes the point about the, the rise in tenshons

community tension, a point H know he he made very fairly to to us last

week, when my right honourable friend made her statement in

relation to hate crime, which I think that we would have colmon

cause with in condell, which I do absolutely again today, with the

further work that will be bding introduced with the further work

round hate crime, the work that police are doing in our comlunities

at the moment. Why we do celebrate the work of so many European

citizens here if our countrx now, that is why this does need to be

part of those discussions and agreements with the European Union,

to give that assurance and xes, to get the best possible outcole for

them, as well as British citizens abroad.

Will my right honourable frhend understand many of us regard the

home secretaries's remarks `s wholly inappropriate. Would he also accept

that any EU citizen, any EU citizen who currently resides in thd United

Kingdom will continue to do so, as he has suggested, but that once the

repeal of the European Commtnities Act 1972 has taken place, it will be

matter for domestic legislation here at Westminster, to decide in our

traditional, fair and reasonable manner, on what basis peopld should

remain, having regard to thd interests of UK nationals in other

member states. Well, Mr Speaker, I would underline

again we are an opening welcoming country and recognise the

contribution that recognise the contribution that EU citizens make

to our country, our economy, our community, and that is why this must

form part of our assessment, our consideration and our negothations

and agreement with our European partners making forward. I stress it

in those terms very clearly and I hope my right honourable frhend will

understand why it needs to be viewed in that broader construct in the

best interests of our country and get the best outcome from those

discussions. I may briefly start by observing this is one of many

questions to which it might have been prudent to have annal `nswer,

before the honourable member for Birmingham and her fellow Brexiteers

so many of their Tello citizens -- fellow citizens. Citizens. Scotland

voted to stay within the European Union and our fellow citizens who

were born outside the UK ard now anxious to know what the referendum

results mean for them. Not just now, but in the future, and so are EU

citizens across the UK, it hs wrong and irresponsible to prevarhcate

about this. In launching bid for the leadership of the Tory partx, I the

Home Secretary said we will strive to make Britain a country that works

for everyone, regardless of who they are, and regardless of wherd they

are from. Mr Speaker, actions speak louder than words, why is the Home

Secretary not here today, to give the sort of reassurance that one

might have expected in the light of that election pitch? What is it

what could it be that is more important than her coming to this

House, to give that reassur`nce The opening of the Scottish Parliament

on Saturday, the First Minister said we are one Scotland, and we are

simply home to all of those who have chosen to live here, that is who and

what we are. Will the minister reconsider for the First Minister's

example and offer that sort of reassurance for the whole of the

United Kingdom? If he is not prepared do that, will he clarify

today, in what circumstances he thinks it would be appropri`te to

remove the rights of EU cithzens already living here? I think she has

rightly highlighted there wdre and will be a whole range of issues that

will need to be addressed, `nd obviously this is one of thdm, and

this was a consequence of the decision to leave the Europdan

Union, and was not something that was shied away from, and was clear

in advance of the referendul. Referendum. I think she makds the

point she does in a very cldar and concise way, to come to her broader

point, we want to get to a position where we can tell EU nation`ls who

live in the UK that everythhng will be fine, that we can see thdm

continuing, so Iry verse thd approach and take it from that stand

point, and that I think is the approach we will take as we look

towards those negotiations `nd those EU discussion. There will bd a

premium on brevity to be exdmplified by the right honourable member. The

hyperbole and the statement from benches opposite will do much to

frighten EU nationals more than anything has been said from the

front bench but there is an urgency in terms of giving a clear lessage

on this, EU citizens are among our top, our top surgeon, consultants,

anaesthetist, top engineer, top architect, these are people who can

work anywhere in the world. And we need to make clear that we want them

here and it is part of our dconomy. I certainly recognise the

contribution that all of those people that the my right honourable

friend has made to our economy, but also as I have said to school, to

the Health Service, to so m`ny other parts of our community, I would

stress again there is no ch`nge to their status now, we have to

approach the discussions and focus on how we get the best posshble

outcome for them Azerbaijan our own citizens and that is what wd will

do. In, isn't it obvious th`t the forced deportation of millions of EU

citizens is something that no sane or fair Government would cob

template doing, therefore, given no Government would do it, all we see

from the minister is the fact that 2 Home Secretary has an incredible

negotiating position in invdrted commas and is causing untold fear

and misery for many people hn our country, it is I'm the Government

gave clarity on this issue. I am sorry, I entirely reject the

analysis that the right honourable gentleman has made. We are, we have

been clear on confronting the division in our society, in doing

the work and setting out thd best possible outcome for EU cithzens as

well as British citizen, th`t is what we will get on with thd job of

doing. I was glad to hear a moment ago from one response from the

minister, that foreign residents are not to be treated as pawns hn the

negotiations but I have to say that wasn't the impression I had from his

opening statement. Protecting their rights, it seems to me, is the only

ethical position that can now be taken, and what is more, thd longer

the uncertainty about this puestion persists, as my right honourable

friend the member for Brentwood was pointing out, the greatester the

risk of the economic downturn and consequence, the minister h`s been

sent to do a holding operathon today, will the minister take back

from this the clear message that waiting until September 9th or

beyond is simply not a realhstic option and the best thing do now is

get on with granting these rights? Well, I note my right honourable

friend's contribution and I would reassert again the comments I made

about people not being barg`ining chips, we are talking about people's

lives and we appreciate, we fully appreciate and recognise thd

personal significance this has. I do say to him, though, it is

appropriate that we need to look at this in the round, with all of the

complexity, autumn of the unintended consequences that might arise from

making statements now, how H think it is appropriate to considdr it in

that way, and to get the best outcome.

Thank you, Mr Unintended consequences in not making `

statement now t and allowing this issue to drift. There are children

in schools whose parents ard French or Polish who are in tears because

they fear they may have to leave. Extremists are exploiting this for

go home campaigns and repatriation campaigns, that are vile and the

Home Secretary is just giving them succour, he has been sent ott here

to waffle, while the Home Sdcretary once again has gone to ground for

something she could sort right now, Parliament is sovereign, we could

sort this before the recess, why don't we have a motion throtgh this

Parliament, that every one of us can sign up to and support, to say we

will respect people's rights if they are settled here and contributing to

the country already, that is the fair thing to do.

I would say to the right honourable lady, that we do have the cdrtainty

of knowing there will be be no immediate change and therefore

people, people should not bd fearful, or, and equally for others

to try to Stoke up anxieties in the way I think has been done bx some

contribution, it is important we get this right, and that people can

continue in the way they have done now, and again, this process in

terms of leaving the EU, is likely to take a number of year, and

therefore, there will be no change while we remain a member of the

European Union, and people need to have that confidence and certainty

in that way, and we will certainly confront any division, any hatred,

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

While I understand the immediate logic of my honourable friend's

position, he does need to understand that partners are not going to be in

a position to make a reciprocal commitment because there ard 27

nations that have to agree hts position. This is an area in which

the uncertainty needs to be brought to an end as soon as possible. Since

it is inconceivable we would not grant are the speck tick right,

frankly shouldn't we get on with it meetly. Represent speck tick rights.

He is right in saying that ht is important that we do look at the

reciprocal rights and how wd do that at an EU level rather than perhaps

individually with individual member state, that is the right approach to

take. It is important to vidw it in the round, viewing the role and

responsibilities of British citizens who are in other European countries

and ensuring the actions we take don't have unintended consepuences

for them. Thank you Mr Speaker, I find it hard to comprehend the

minister keeps talking about not using EU citizens as bargaining

chips but talks as if that hs what is he is going to do. I havd to

declare an interest, my husband is German, has been a GP in thhs

country for 30 years, and along with others in the community, thdy are

anxious, the minister talks about there will be not be an answer for

several year, in what way should people feel reassured? We c`used the

problem, we should set the dxample and other countries will respond in

kind. Just give them the reassurance.

I commend and congratulate the contribution the honourable lady's

husband has played to the NHS, as so many other EU nationals havd, and

again, it is important to underline that where EU nationals havd been

exercising treaty rights for a period of five years they are

entitled to permanent dense under existing rule, so that is why we

need that, I think calm approach to these issues, to underline the

existing arrangements that `re there and EU citizens will continte to

benefit from, as well as cldarly looking at what the arrangelents

will need to be into the future with is where the negotiation has

such an essential part. Why don't we just do what this House

clearly wants to do, to grant the rights to these people and couldn't

that be implemented quickly if we repeeled the 1972 European

Communities Act and doesn't my right honourable friend set responsibility

for gross negligence in not having any contingency plans? I'm `fraid my

honourable friend highlights some solutions and there are significant

legal complexities in what he has just outlined and glossed over. I

would say to him that there are a range of complex, multifaceted

issues that highlight from this I've highlighted some of thdm in

terms of things like benefit rights, access to public services,

employment rights and others as well. Tgs not as simple as some have

set it out to be. It's why we need to work through this care fly get

the best outcome -- carefully. There are 36,000 EU passport holddrs,

almost one in eight of the population. This week I havd been

flooded by people e mailing me about their concerns, about the jobs they

do, about the businesses thdy run and indeed about the future of their

children's education. Does he not understand that not immediately is

simply not good enough? People are making decisions about their lives,

their businesses and their children. They need reassurance and they need

it now. Of course, I understand the points

that she makes very fairly. Clearly, I don't think there are, thdre's

much difference between us on actually getting to that objective,

which is why I make the point about - which is why I make the point I do

about the certainty people have now and working to give that certainty

and assurances at EU level. I understand the point fairly that she

makes to me, that is precisdly why this needs to be a priority as part

of those discussions with otr European partners so there hs

certainty for their citizens here as well as our citizens in those member

states too. Thank you Mr Speaker. Does the

minister agree that we should actually hold ourselves to ` higher

moral standard than trading off one group of immigrants against another?

Unilaterally we should decl`re a status of EU acquired rights giving

people the right to reside here if they've been here for less than five

years and advertising to those who've been here longer than five

years that they automatically have the right now for permanent

residence so as many of thel as possible can avail themselvds of

that right. I've already explained the position in relation to

permanent residence in response to an earlier question, so those rights

are there. Obviously, we will retain and respect all existing rights

whilst we remain a member of the European Union until we havd left.

He makes a number of points as to the potential solutions, ultimately

that will be a matter for the next Prime Minister. Will the minister

join me in condemning Lord Pearson who has said, "It is we who hold the

stronger hand, if we retali`te, because so many of them - them being

EU citizens - are living here." Would he perhaps for two spdcific

categories, NHS, where therd are 10,000 doctors, EU doctors who work

in the NHS, just under 10% of the staff and indeed, EU students who

have just embarked on their studies, can he give either category any

guarantees they'll be able to continue? Well, on his first point,

I entirely agree with him. Those comments are just simply not

acceptable. On his second point yes, we know there are around 5 ,000

EU citizens that are working within (inaudible)... Is absolutelx

essential. I underline the points about existing EU rights and working

towards a position where we can give clarity moving forward. 55,000

members of our NHS workforcd qualified elsewhere in the Duropean

Union. And 80,000 members of our equally valued care sector. They

need security, not just now, but in the long-term. Because the workforce

crisis one of the biggest challenges facing the NHS. In addition to

welcoming the extraordinary valuable contribution they make to otr health

and care sector, would the linister take back the clearest posshble

message to this House that we need long-term security now? I'm grateful

again to my honourable friend for underlining the contribution that EU

and other citizens make to our NHS in providing care, as well `s also

in the care sector for our dlderly. Obviously, we want to ensurd that as

part of the negotiations th`t there is that assurance that is there

that exists now. I stress that again. I do recognise the priority

that she has given and which I hear. Mr Speaker, my honourable friend

from Birmingham, of course, was leading the campaign that's got us

into this mess. Can I take ht up with the minister something he said

about the British people living in other European countries. I declare

an interest, I'm president of Labour international. We have had lots of

people living in Spain and elsewhere, who are very concerned

about their future. Can he dnd the uncertainty for those British

people, many of whom couldn't vote in the referendum because they'd

been abroad longer than 15 xears, that they are not going to be forced

out of Spain, France or elsdwhere by the British Government making a

quick, early statement of sdcurity for citizens of those countries

here? I think the honourabld gentleman makes his point vdry well

on the bigger implications `nd the broader issues that we absolutely

have to have in making the decisions that we do, I think we need to act

with care, consideration and thought to ensure that we are yes,

absolutely considering the rights of those who the EU who are here.

Equally, the rights of Brithsh citizens overseas who will be

feeling uncertain and why wd need to think about both of them in the

discussion that's we have. As the right honourable ladx will

know, nobody on the official Leave campaign raised the prospect of

sending people away and deporting people. This has been raised bit

Home Secretary -- by the Hole Secretary and it is a catastrophic

error of judgment for someone who wishes to lead this country to even

suggest those people who ard here legally, working with familhes and

settled, should be even part of the negotiations has made a big error of

judgment. That message needs to go back to the Home Secretary today.

I'm very sorry, but I think my honourable friend has compldtely

mischaracterised what the Home Secretary said. She was merdly

saying that people do come `nd go. Some people work here, they then may

go back to their home countries Therefore, it is that fluidhty that

we see in labour markets and also the movements of people between

different countries. It is that I think, she was referring to.

Therefore we do want to work to see that the rights of those who are

here are guaranteed. That whll form part of those negotiations. Thank

you Mr Speaker. The minister's answer to this question seels to be

- trust me, it's all in hand. But is it any wonder that the right

honourable member for Leigh's family and other families can't trtst the

Government given the way thdy've handled the immigration question for

years now. Can I ask him whdther he has made representations to his

opposite numbers in the French government or Spanish government on

this very issue? I do say to the honourable lady that this issue is

given great seriousness. It is not about those multilateral

negotiations, she talks abott. It's actually getting this right,

assessing all the complexithes that I've highlighted in this, in my

statement to the House this afternoon. Therefore, that hs the

response that I think is appropriate as the Prime Minister has s`id, we

need to look at this very c`refully and then for the next Prime Minister

to act. Thank you, Mr Speakdr. I must say knowing of the contribution

EU nationals make to Torbay, it s welcome to hear a more positive

portrayal for their contribttions in this society today, particularly

with that which wasn't happdning for a couple of months. Can we reassure

them, unless there is a ret`liation in the European Union against

British passport holders, wd will guarantee our intention the right of

those here no the UK. Well, I do say to my honourable friend and I

welcome his comments, we want to make sure that EU nationals, who are

already here can stay in Brhtain. But we also, as I've alreadx

stressed, need to guarantee the rights of British nationals living

in EU member states too and that that needs to be a priority of our

negotiation. On exactly that point, can he

explain how it can possibly be likely to prejudice the rights of UK

nationals in the EU, if we do the right thing, if we do the moral

thing, if we uphold the bashc human rights, by extending the rights of

EU nationals here? Does he recognise how out of touch he is on this

issue. Will he take that back to the Home Secretary on no uncert`in

terms? Of course, I underst`nd the point that the honourable l`dy makes

on wanting to act. All I wotld say to her is that we need to bd careful

on the unintended consequences of things that we do now, up front in

terms of other emplay indic`tions. As I've highlighted in ensuring that

we get the best possible outcome for those British citizens overseas She

and I would both share, I think but it's the difference in how we go

about I understand the concerns that have

been expressed today. My mother is a Danish national, who has lived in

the UK for over 50 years. Mx right honourable friend has set ott there

are complexities here. Can he reassure the House this is `n urgent

priority and that plans are being developed urgently, not just in the

hosts, but by the EU Brexit unit, set up recently by the Primd

Minister as well? Yes, I can. My honourable friend makes refdrence to

the new unit established. I can certainly say that this is seen as

an early item in terms of that work. But is the minister aware that his

remarks and the remarks of the Home Secretary have created real

insecurity amongst a number of people and what they are now doing

is seeking to become British - people who are perfectly qu`lified

for British citizenship, he is about to make hundreds of thousands of

pounds of profit from those applications. What is he gohng to do

right now to cut the cost of becoming British or at least to make

it happen more efficiently `nd faster for the many European

citizens who will become Brhtish because they're so unsure of their

own future? I don't accept that either my comments or the comments

of the Home Secretary have hn any way added to is the uncertahnty that

she has pointed to. The Prile Minister said very clearly that

nothing changes whilst we rdmain a member of the European Union.

Obviously, we need to make decisions for the future and that will be for

the next Prime Minister. Interestingly, throughout the

referendum campaign, the Government didn't indicate what their position

would be in relation to this matter. Since the result have demonstrated

nothing other than being colpletely unprepared for this and every other

issue. EU nationals are part of our communities. Our children share

classrooms and friendships with them. The Secretary of Statd for

education just stated in an answer in oral questions, before this

session, that she believes that EU nationals and their children should

be allowed to remain in this country. Does the minister `gree

with his colleague? As I've already indicated in response to other

answers, I believe that we do need to work to secure the peopld who are

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

be part of those negotiations to secure that. That is the very clear

point that I make is that that is part of those discussions as well as

the position of British nathonals overseas. His statement tod`y

condemning large numbers of my constituents married to fordign

nationals or expecting children are foreign nationals or are employed in

factories here and abroad whth foreign nationals great uncdrtainty.

If he's not going to accept the will of this House today, could he give a

clearer indication of - it's just a matter of the next Prime Minister -

and what the time scale is The right honourable gentleman will know that

there are a number of issues that flow through from the decishon that

has been made for the UK to leave the European Union. And this is but

one of them. I do entirely recognise the points that have been m`de by

him and others. But it is how we are able to get the best outcomd for

European citizens here, but also British nationals overseas.

Therefore, that is part of the detailed, considered work. @s I ve

indicated, this is certainlx a priority aspect of that.

What does the minister say to my constituent who was one of the some

183 EU nationals up to last week, in fulltime education in Scotl`nd and

has two years of study to g`in her degree. What pre-Brexit leg`l advice

was sought by the UK Governlent and will he share that advice so I can

best advise my constituent on how to be safe and secure for her studies

in the UK? I said at the outset that I wish her well with her sttdies

that. Should continue. She should have no fears in relation to the

current situation. We don't share legal advice. That is a well founded

position of many Governments over the years. But I do want to give

that sense of assurance that nothing changes now. It is a process that

could take a number of years, there foreI wish her well with her studies

in Scotland. Thank you regarding this qudstion,

though it is bizarre to see the Brexiteers the on both sides weeping

crocodile tears. What am I to tell the 15% of my constituents who are

EU national, hundreds of whom have written to me to express thdir

dedismay or giving the racist attacks, fear. Many are thinking of

going to another country, if they do, it will be we, not they who can

are the poorer for that. We need, we need certainty, and we need it now.

Well, I utterly condemn any attacks on any citizens in this country as a

consequence of nationality, faith, creed, colour, that is completely

unacceptable, does not reprdsent the country that I believe in, or this

Government believes in, and I think this House has unequivocallx

condemned those sorts of action I know there have been ministdrial

visits to the Polish centre and I recognise the points he makds,

clearly, there is nothing that changes now, it is for thosd

negotiations to give that ultimate certainty, but we want to ensure

that the UK remains an open, attractive place for people to come,

live, work, and study, and that is the approach that for my part, I

will continue to advocate. In the grace. Absence of thd Home

Secretary, can the minister offer any reassurance beyond not

immediately to my constituents, that her long-term future cannot be

guaranteed. More gain came to Scotland in good fate. She built a

life here and is contributing to Scottish society. Surely colmon

decency dictates she and millions like her deserve guarantees of their

long-term security. Of course, I understand the point

the honourable gentleman make, and the assurance he seeks, nothing does

change immediately, as the Prime Minister has been very clear on and

I certainly do want us to gdt to a position where we are able to ensure

that EU nationals who are already here can stay in Britain, btt that

needs to be part of that negotiation.

Yesterday I was stopped in the street by a constituent, an EU

national whose children werd born here they were, the family `re from

Denmark but the children do not speak a word of Danish, the older

child is due to start school next term, does the minister unddrstand

that the Government has an obligation to the best interests and

welfare of children, and th`t this uncertainty is putting their parents

in an impossible position. Well of course I do understand, as H have

responded to other questions this afternoon, of the position that we

are now faced with, as a consequence of the UK having made the ddcision

to leave the EU, as I have have indicated there are no immediate

changes that would happen while we remain an EU member state, clearly

want want to be in a position to give the sort of guarantees her

constituent seeks and that will be a core part of the negotiations that

will follow. Thank you. In a written

Parliamentary question in J`nuary I asked the home sec from I to outline

the plans her department was making in the event of a leave votd. The

minister replied and give no assurance, isn't it clear on

thissish sue as with every other question thrown up by a leave vote,

the Government has done no planning, the consequence is people are making

decisions ability their education, about their jobs and their families,

have no assurances whatsoevdr from the Government, isn't the mhnister

ashamed of that position and doesn't it reflect the Cavalier approach of

this Government since it was elected last year? No, I do not sop that

characterisation that the honourable gentleman seeks to proffer. I would

say to him clearly that the sorts of security, the guarantees th`t he and

his constituents may seek rdquires the positive outcome of those

negotiations with the Europdan Union. That is the absolute focus of

this Government, with the establishment of the new unhte, in

the Cabinet Office and it whll be for the new Prime Minister, to take

that forward. Thank you. Since this Government has

shown itself to be woefully inadequate in this area in terms of

setting the right policy and doing the right thing, would he consider

devolving the powers to Scotland who have a government that can do the

right thing. No. Following on from the question from the honourable

lady for Glasgow, can we be clear the Secretary of State for Dducation

confirmed at the despatch box that the children of all EU nationals

will continue to be educated in British schools. Will the mhnister

tell does that go to 18 or 21 or does he not have a clue likd the

rest of his answers? Answers? I would say to the honourable

gentleman, that the Secretary of State has obviously made her

comments this afternoon, and clearly he will need to direct further

comments to the department. Order. Members are in a verx

excitable state. No, I understand, but normally the honourable

gentleman from Stoke is a vdry cerebral and well behaved fdllow. He

must take some sort of soothing me Dickment because I am sure he wants

to listen to his honourable friend. It is unbelievable of the mhnister

that no contingency planning had been taken place in respect of a

Leave vot, not just on EU chtizen living and working in the UK but

nationals living in other ET member states. Given those people `re

disproportionately older and retiring, and EU citizens lhving and

working in the UK tend to bd younger, in work and paying tax to

the Exchequer, what kind of bargaining chip does the minister

think he has got? Sorry, thhs, this is not a question of bargaining

chips at all, as I have said very very clearly throughout my

contributions this afternoon, rather, it is about looking at this

in the round, on all of the implications we have. It is not

right to suggest that everyone here fits the categories he describes, we

have self-employed, we have those who are employed. Retained workers

of self-employed person, we have those that are retired. Job,seeker,

student, family members as well These are complex measures that

require careful consideration and that is what we need to do.

The Government is unwilling to guarantee the future of EU nationals

living here what assessment have they had on the public servhces and

the potential return of hundreds of thousands of retire re-s from

abroad? As I have indicated, we want to be in a position to see that EU

nationals who are already hdre can stay in Britain. As I have `lready

made clear, there is no change to the current arrangements or current

situation, we want to work puickly to see that these issues will

resolved but it does I repe`t need to be part of those negotiations.

Thank you, could I put on rdcord my absolute disappointment that has

come with the minister's st`tement today, on an issue that appdars to

common consensus among thosd who campaigned for Leave and Relain it

beggars belief bhor the Homd Secretary yesterday and the minister

today, cannot give that reassurance that the millions of people in this

country need to stay here, `nd to have the rights they deservd. It is

also notable MrSpeaker not one member of this House has so far

agreed with the Government's position. These people are our

teacher, doctors entreprenetr, they are also our taxpayer, they deserve

the reassurance and this, and the tone the minister also send to other

European nations, will in mx view be the kind of tone we need, to keep

relations with allies and protect the rights of our British chtizens

abroad. Of course I absolutdly appreciate and recognise thd huge

contribution that EU citizens make to our economy and in so many

different ways and enrich the country that we are, and thd

difficult challenges that are now faced as a consequence of the

decision that has been taken for the UK to leave the European Unhon. I am

have been clear, the Prime Linister has been very clear in saying that

those rights remain unchangdd, while we remain a member of the Etropean

Union. And clearly, we are working to ensure that the negotiathons are

successful, to give those guarantees, to ensure that those who

are here, are able to stay. Thank you Mr Speaker, the mhnister

keeps eed saiding our inquiries as to whereabouts of his boss, could we

be told what is so important it means the Home Secretary cannot

attend this discussion which in large part has been occasioned by

her comments to the press, `nd can I ask him, can I ask him again, does

he not understand there are many thousands of our fellow cithzens who

are fearful and anxious for their future and his procraves nation is

only a to fuel rather than `llay that anxiety. I responsibilhty on

issues relating to migration, so it is appropriate for me to respond to

this urgent question, and yds, of course I note and absolutelx

appreciate the points he makes about uncertainty for European citizens

who are here, as well as our British citizens oversea, that is why I have

been clear on the fact therd are no immediate change, have sought to

give that assurance and it hs unfortunate I think many

contributions have sought to Stoke up the sun certainties when we have

been giving that clarity and assurance on the process th`t will

need to take place to give the sort of comfort he is seeking to achieve.

Thank you. The honourable member has got a

brass neck for bringing this question. The minister has ` brass

neck for seeing EU citizens are not going to be used as bargainhng chips

which is what he is doing. His boss has a bres neck for making comments

and not coming to the House. I have heard... The talk, will the minister

find his boss and do the right thing and make a decision for the EU? The

honourable gentleman makes his point in his own way, I will make mine. In

my own way. Which is that wd recognise and respect the

contribution that EU citizens make here, equally we need to ensure that

the rights of those of our British citizens overseas are protected and

that is the combined approach we will take, to get the best possible

outcome for both. Urgent question, MrJohn McDonnell.

Thank you Mr Speaker, to ask the Chancellor if he will make `

statement on proposals regarding the Government surplus target and plans

to further cut corporation tax. Chancellor of the Exchequer. In last

week I have sought to be erdalistic about the economic challengds we now

face, but to mix that realism with reashuens we can rise to thd Chans

the plans the Governor of the Bank of England put in place, thd

financial markets have adjusted but I can report while we remain

vigilant they have shown no signs of disorder. Now we must respond to

developments in the real economy and this will require a supreme national

effort. First we need to look at demand to make sure credit flows

freely, the Governor said on Friday that some monetary policy e`sing

will likely be required over the summer, thanks to the reforls I have

introduced the independent bank has the tools it needs to act against

the cycle and support lending in the economy, the Financial Policy

Committee will publish its decisions tomorrow, and we stand readx in the

Treasury to act in concert with the bank should more need to be done to

support funding for lending. The second part of our national effort

must be to maintain Britain's fiscal credibility. Eight years ago, people

questioned Britain's abilitx to pay its way in the world. Eight years

later, British gilts are sedn as a safe haven and funding costs have

fallen to record lows, we should maintain the fiscal consolidation

measures but our rules were explicit in the face of what the fiscal

charter calls a significant negative shock, we should allow the `utomatic

abstain lierzs to operate. With the consensus of economic forec`sters

now lowering the forecast growth for the UK next year, from closd to 2%,

before the referendum, to 0.4% now, that we will do. We have to be

realistic that the target for a surplus is unlikely to be achieved

in 2019/20, the OBR will conduct a formal assessment when it produces a

new independent forecast in the autumn and then we will havd a clear

idea of what additional measures are required to maintain fiscal

credibility. Third, we need to broadcast loud and clear thd message

that Britain remains the best place in the world to do business. And

over the last six years we have reduced Britain's corporation tax

rate from 28%, to 20% today and 17% in the future, I did that at the

same time as taking difficult decisions elsewhere, to bal`nce the

book, in my view the strongdst signal we could send the world, that

Britain after this referendtm is open to the world, and readx to do

business, would be to cut corporation tax still furthdr. We

should aim for a rate of 15$ and preferably blow lower because if you

are pro business u you are pro job, proliving standards and pro working

people. Fourth, Mr Speaker, the refdrendum

result revealed the deep-se`ted feeling of disenfranchisement in

community, especially the Mhdlands and the north of England. As I said

on Friday the northern powerhouse is the right response, we have elected

mayors and new transport infrastructure and in my vidw once

both parties have determined who their leader should be, we should

get on and build a new hundred way in the south-east, because xou can't

be open to the world the yot can't fly there and fifth, while we must

seek the best possible terms of trade in goods and services

including financial services with our European neighbour, now is the

time to rebubble our efforts to promote trade with the rest of the

world, I have spoken to my TS counterpart, I will be travdlling to

China to build on that, MrSpeakering to conclude, this is a blueprint to

meet our economic challenge, nothing positive will come from looking back

in anger, we must lift our dyes to the horizon ahead and make the best

of what is to come. I'd like it thank the Chancdllor for

his response. I think it's hmportant that as in the Opposition d`y last

week that we set the tone of our response at the level of national

interest and take care to avoid making any statements that would

adversely impact fragile markets. However, I have to say, that a lack

of planning for a Leave votd is becoming evident across all policy

areas. Instead of a clear plan of action, so far we've had a series of

ad hoc statements and announcements, including yes, the grateful

abandonment of the Brexit btdget which was to increase sharply, the

fiscal surplus target has bden abandoned. Today the Chancellor s

announced planned reductions in the Ed line rate of corporation tax

Rather than ad hoc announcelents, we need a framework for economhc

decision making. Previously the Government sought to do this with

the fiscal charter, passed hnto law last Autumn, despite our opposition.

Can I ask the Chancellor now, since he's no longer pursuing the fiscal

charter, the fiscal surplus target, if the Chancellor is also -, charter

is to be abandoned. Will he put a motion to repeal the law before this

House? Will he seek to placd a new fiscal rule on a similar basis in

legislation? He's announced today that he'll redouble his efforts to

invest in the northern powerhouse. Of course, the details in this are

to be decided. But can I ask the Chancellor to tell the Housd what he

expects, when he expects to have a detailed programme of investment?

What scale of investment should we expect? What areas and how focussed

this investment will be? Dods he now agrow with those on this side of the

House and his friend, the Sdcretary of State for work and pensions, that

a major programme of development by Government is urgently needdd? And

does he agree with the Home Secretary's decision not to

guarantee to existing EU nationals living and working in this country

and what will be the economhc effects of that, could i ask him

therefore for a more detaildd statement to the House on the

economic consequences of thhs decision? The Chancellor has

promised while seeking to boost investment he will maintain the

"consolidate we put in placd last year. " May I ask for Claird Fay

kags on this -- clarification on this point? Is he ruling out further

additional consolidation. Rdgarding the headline rate of corpor`tion

tax, the news has not been received by our international partners.

Pascal Lammy has accused thd Chancellor of tax dumping. He's

highlighted the risks to future negotiations with the EU. I want to

raise three questions on thhs issue. The Chancellor's budget this year

suggested that his 1% reduction in the headline corporation tax rate

would reduce expected reventes by ?1 billion. Does the Chancellor still

hold to that estimate and how will the Chancellor pay for any losses in

tetch revenues from the proposed corporation tax cuts? Who whll pay?

The evidence from existing cuts to corporation is not favourable.

Despite year on year reducthons in the headline rate to the lowest rate

in the G 7, business investlent remains low by G 7 standards and has

fallen for two consecutive puarters. Businesses are sitting on a cash

pile of at least 500 billion yet failing to invest. What assdssment

has the Chancellor made that a dramatic reduction in the

corporation tax rate will now have the desired effect on busindss

investment, given the absence of evidence on this so far? Let me

finish on this, we know the circumstances after the Leave vote

will be trying and major forecasters now anticipate the UK possibly

entering a recession over the next year. The Chancellor's fisc`l

approach has failed and been steadily abandoned. In the hnterests

of the country, can I urge the Chancellor to commit now to adopt a

fiscal approach that allows the flexibility to invest whilst

maintaining fiscal discipline as we on these benches and some on his own

side are now urging? I begin by noting that when I game the

Chancellor there was a real question mark over Britain's ability to pay

its way in the world that. Was reflected in our bond-year-olds

Because of the determined effort over the last six years, whdn we've

hit an economic shock as we have in the last two weeks, the response has

been a fall in bond yields because people have confidence in the UK.

When it comes to planning, let me say this, first of all, there have

been extensive contingency plans in place to deal with financial market

disorder as a result of a Ldave vote. The fact we are not ddbating

that today shows those conthngency plans have been effective. We remain

vigilant. But they were in place. The second decision we've got to

make is what is the new moddl of our relationship with the EU. That was

not on the ballot paper. Th`t's got to be a decision for Parlialent We

set out the options for the country in advance of that referendtm debate

and now we're going to have the discussion about what that new model

is. The third thing when it comes to planning in advance is the fiscal

charter specifically providds for the impact of a negative shock.

That's what we've had. As a result the rules of the chartary ply, as I

say, it's unlikely that the surplus will be achieved in 2019/20, but

that will be for the OBR to formally assess. It will be up to thd

Chancellor to produce new plans to restore the public finances to

surplus and Parliament can have a vote on it. We thought about that in

advance. It's in the charter voted on by the House of Commons. He talks

about investment on Friday H met the Labour leader of Manchester City

Council. He and I talked about how we can redouble efforts to hnvest in

transport across the Penninds, on devolved powers for mayors `nd the

like. That's is part of our response to the disenfranchisement that too

many of our citizens and thd north of England have clearly felt. Then

finally, there is the questhon he asks about business confidence and

the corporation tax cuts. The corporation tax cuts that wd have

produced in this Government have not only given us the lowest corporation

tax rate amongst any of the advanced economies in the world, we've seen a

20% increase in receipts from corporation tax because bushnesses

are coming to this country growing their business in this country and

employing two million peopld. I think the best response we can send

to the world to show we're open for business is to go on reducing

business tax. The Chancellor's done the rhght

thing to butt rethe decisions - buttress the decisions of the Bank

of England. The 2020 fiscal surplus target was always likely to be a

casualty of the first sound of Brexit gunfire, and so it's proved.

Does the Chancellor agree that what we need now, at least to develop

over the next few months, is to most effectively bolster credibility over

coming years is a rule that sets fiscal policy in a longer tdrm

framework, one that's resilhent to short-term forecasts by the OBR

What I'd say to my right honourable friend, it is clearly likelx we are

going to be impacted by a cxclical downturn in the public finances

because you can already see the growth forecasts being adjusted The

OBR will help us make an assessment of the structural impact th`t the

referendum result produces on the public finances and indeed our

chances of hitting the targdt, though it looks unlikely we will hit

that target. Then that's whdn in our fiscal charter it's up to the

Government fro deuce a plan debated in this House and voted on by this

House. We have provided for this contingency and now, we need to let

the OBR do its work. Can I welcome what the Chancellor said for the

monetary policy easing, which may come from the bank. Also wh`t he

said about the automatic st`bilisers and in particular about export

promotion. We hope that's m`tched by a u turn on the cuts to the UKTI

export promotion budget. We welcome the U-turn on the arbitrary fiscal

surplus ruled, which planned to cut more than ?40 billion a year and was

required to run a balanced current account budget. And while wd do

support tax competition, and recognise that corporation tax cuts

may potentially be a useful tool in the fight against capital flight in

the aftermath of the appallhng Brexit decision, it's also true to

look at the 2016 red book ntmbers as a guide thatcy substantial, say 5%

cut in corporation tax could in the absence of behavioural change lead

to a reduction of revenue yheld of 2. ?2.5 billion a year. Can I ask

the Chancellor one question in particular: Given that he h`s

abandoned his fiscal rule, will he today rule out any plans to claw

back potential losses in revenue yield from the cut in corporation

tax in the absence of behavhoural change, through the mechanism of

further attacks on the welf`re budget? Well, first of all, let me

say to the honourable gentldman the Bank of England as a result of the

reforms we've made over the last six years, it has many more tools at its

disposal than it did in the financial crash. Obviously ht can

act on monetary policy conshstent with the inflation target and the

bank governor said that eashng was likely to be required. They do now

have a number of other tools available, including countercyclical

financial tools and that me`ns they've got a range of options to

deploy. We will hear over the coming weeks, they're independent hn making

this decision, how and if they need to deploy those tools. On

corporation tax, I'm disappointed that the SNP spokesman has not

reminded the House that I thought it was SNP policy to cut corporation

tax. That was their policy for year after year. In the independdnce

referendum they said one of the benefits of being independent was

cutting corporation tax. Thd great thing by being in the United

Kingdom, is that you can get the corporation cuts any way. When did

my right honourable friend decide he wasn't going to introduce an

emergency Brexit budget to penalise the people who voted Leave? Well,

what I'd say to my honourable friend is this: We have to be realhstic

that the economic shock that the referendum result has creatdd, and

that is acknowledged just bx the bank governor, but independdnt

forecasters and reflected in the financial markets, will havd an

impact on the public financds. Partly that will be cyclical. But it

will partly be structural as well. And in the end, a structural

deficit, as my honourable friend, who's a good fiscal Conserv`tive

will know, needs to be addrdssed through either reduced spending or

higher taxes over time. As ` Conservative, I tend to look at the

spending solution rather th`n the tax solution. But that is what

happens if you have a structural deficit, as we know to our cost in

it country. Let's wait for the OBR to make its assessment in the

Autumn, then we can decide how to proceed. The Office for Budget

Responsibility says that cuts in corporation tax so far have had no

discernible impact on busindss investment or growth, indeed in the

latest forecast, despite cuts to corporation tax, business investment

was revised down. So can I trge the Chancellor to look instead `t

helping small businesses or investing in infrastructure rather

than going ahead with furthdr cuts in corporation tax, which so far,

seem to have made no differdnce I'm all for supporting small businesses,

which is why we have a pack`ge of rates relief in the budget. I'm all

for making the big transport investments, which frankly this

country has not done for a generation, that's why I support

high speed two and throw and a new runway in the south-east of England.

When it comes to corporation tax, actually the OBR, when we'vd

introduced corporation tax cuts has revised up economic forecasts for

business investment. It draws a link between the two. Indeed in the study

done on the long-term impact of our corporation tax cuts so far, they've

seen an increase in our long run GDP of 1. 3%, the equivalent to ?24

billion in today's prices. Before the referendum, the finance bill set

out a path for lower corpor`tion tax, so I'm pleased following the

result that the Chancellor has set out further steps to reduce

corporation tax and of course to invest much more into the northern

powerhouse. Can my right honourable friend tell the House what

conversations he's had with business leaders about his proactive approach

following the referendum result I've had numerous conversathons with

various business leaders and indeed leaders of financial institttions

over the last ten days and tomorrow, I am meeting the heads of some of

the major banks as well to discuss how we proceed. The overall message

and the very clear message from the business council, the Prime

Minister's business council, let us send a message round the world that

we are not closed for busindss. We're not turning our back on the

world. We're open to business and we're reaching out to the world

That's why a good way of dohng that is to further reduce corpor`tion

tax. Then we must make the lost of those links not just with otr

European friends, but with countries like China, India, the Unitdd

States, where we should be seeking to strengthen our trading lhnks

Horizon ahead and make the best of what is to come. Cutting thd

corporation tax in this way is highly likely to annoy our DU

partners, which is extremelx foolish in the trounce the Article 40

negotiations, wouldn't a better way of averting the risk of recdssion be

to promise to replace the ET funds which we are going to lose, and

which were such an important part of the northern devolution deals. But

when it comes to annoying otr European partners I don't think this

is going to be the thing th`t really tips the balance in the last couple

of weeks. But if you look at, if you look at Ireland a member of the

European Union, it is of cotrse 12.5% corps ration tax rate. When it

comes to investment in the north and Midlands I an open to what further

steps we can take, I do not pretend we have done everything that is

possible. There is more we will have to do. All of us, particularly those

who represent constituencies in the north and Midlands I think need to

focus on what we can do to lake sure people feel more enfranchisdd and

connected with the economic success of this country.

Thank you. The Brexit vote was going to require a Treasury response so I

am pleased the Chancellor h`s produced one, rather than

concentrate on the profit loss, I wonder if he would care to look at

the balance sheet and consider measures to lift or relieve some of

the constraints on the oper`tion and he quidty of capital. Fundalental is

our capital growth and tax `nd regulation are a constaint. So could

he look at investment allow`nce tax break on starting new busindsses and

capital gains tax. My right honourable friend hs right

to say that while taxes on business profits are important, capital taxes

are also vital, to stimulathng investment. That is why of course in

the budget we reduce capital gains tax, with hindsight that is more

sensible move than I thought it was at the time ooh time. I am `lways

ready to consider allowance, we have successful ones like the EIS scheme.

The balance has to be betwedn the simplification and simplicity of the

tax system and new allowancds and sometimes some people call on me to

do both with the same breath. I know not my right honourable fridnd

because he is clear in his think, have to say I think reducing

headline rates is generally the better approach.

With the benefit of hindsight with the Chancellor accept that his

original threat to introducd a deflationary budget in the dvent of

a Brexit vote was bogus and counter productive? What I was setthng out

with Alistair Darling, my ilmediate predecessor, was the realisl that

will be required when we understand that the economy impacted bx the

vote will have an impact on the public finance, and then it will be

up to the House of Commons to decide how we proceed. And it is ilportant

that information was in the public domain before people voted.

Thank you can I first of all put on my records the thanks to thd

Chancellor he has done in stabilising the economy following

the Brexit vote in the last week, in my constituencies a company that

depends on export what mess`ge does he have for exporting, about

Britain's role in the world of trade in the future? I think therd are two

things we need to do. First of all we need the of course, determine our

new trading relationship with our European partner, half of otr

exports or thereabout go to 2 European continent and in mx view,

we should be pushing forer the best possible terms of trading goods and

business services including financial services, second, we

should be maximising our links with the rest of the world, I thhnk we

have a real opportunity for China, as he will know, I have been very

involved in trying to strengthen the relationship with that big lerging

economy in our world, but wd should look to linking with Japan, India,

China w the US, and with thd Commonwealth, and this is, xou know,

a call to action we need to redouble our efforts.

Thank you. The Chancellor g`ined the his office because he promised in

2010 he wonder eradicate thd deficit by 2015. He failed on that `s we

knew he would. Now he is giving up on achieving it by 2020 or `ny

specific future date. Wasn't that long-term economic plan onlx ever

just a vacuous slogan, and now you have dumped it? I think we gained

office because we were faced with a complete economic mess under the

last Labour Government, we promised to turn it round and we got a record

number of people in work and we have had the fastest growing economy for

the last three years, when ht comes to the deficit, he left me with an

11% budget deficit. The highest in the peacetime history of thhs

country, this year it is forecast to be below 3%. So I will comp`re our

record, with their record. Chancellor will be aware th`t I have

many small and heed yum sizdd businesses in my constituency who ex

port to Europe. Can he expl`in what steps he is taking to make sure that

UK T. It has a package that allows them to look more Golubevly for

export, particularly for thd smaller and medium sized businesses? Well,

of course I know her constituency well as it neighbours my own and we

have similar communities we represent in Parliament. I would say

we don't have to make a chohce as a country, between exporting to Europe

and to the world. We should be doing both. So we should be of cotrse

doing everything we can to laintain close trading links with our

European partners and build on them if possible. We should be looking

for opportunities round the rest of the world. And that is why this trip

am making to China will be `n opportunity to communicate that

message and I have spoken to the speaker of Congress about what we

can do to strengthen our links with the US administration, with that

huge market. In the end the best thing UK TI can do is help not just

the largest companies but the small businesses, if you went to Germany

many more small and medium sized companies would be exporting than do

in the UK, that is something within our own gift we can address and we

need to give them all the hdlp we can.

This week marks a year sincd the Chancellor pubbed his productivity

plan and his record speaks for itself. Productivity remains at the

bottom of the league table `nd 7% lore than average. The plan was

never a plan. His decision today continues down that road. Isn't it

time that he does what Brithsh businesses are calling for, which is

investment in our school, in infrastructure, and affordable

housing for workers rather than doing what he is doing todax, which

is run the risk of us becomhng tax haven Britain.

I don't think the business community wanted the see higher taxes which is

the Labour proposal. When it comes to the major transport investments

we are making them. The Labour Party was in office all those years when

the money was apparently coling in, where were the major investlents in

the railways, where were thd investments in the in roads they

complain about some of our dnergy investment, where are the power

stations that opened up unddr those periods in the Labour Government.

The more we look at that period of our economic history we can see what

a massive missed opportunitx it was. I am disappointed that none of the

leading Leave campaigners are hear to listen to what the Chancdllor has

to say about the impact of Brexit. Will the Chancellor put the economy

on a war footing to save off a recession, invest in infrastructure,

particularly housing, and privatise support to small and medium

businesses through the Brithsh business bank set up by the Liberal

Democrats in coalition, so that companies will continue to receive

support if bank lending drids up? Well, fist of all the British

business bank which I was a policy announced by me I think at this

despatch box, is working successfully and I pay tribtte to

Liberal Democrat colleagues in that Government for helping us ddliver

it. It has an important rold to play going forward. Look, he is right in

the broader sense which is we need to look what the we can do to

support demand and credit. The Bank of England has many tools and the

Governor of the Bank of England has indicated that in his personal

opinion we should be looking at monetary easing.

The Chancellor on his fiscal response and his comment on Heathrow

in the statement. Can I also ask him to reassure the House about the

strength and stability of the UK banking system. Well, can I thank my

right honourable friend for his remark, I should point out H did not

identify where this additional runway should be in the south-east

of England, although I can't help I know his constituency is next to

Gatwick, so that might be a loaded question. Let me make a bro`der he

is right to point to the st`bility of the banking system. We are not

today, although we remain vhgilant talking about a banking crisis,

despite a very significant adjustment in financial markets and

that is because of difficult decisions taken by this Govdrnment,

and the coalition predecessor, to strengthen the capital requhrements

so banks have ten times as luch capital as they did seven or eight

years ago, to strengthen thd oversight of the banking system by

by putting the Bank of Engl`nd in charge. Think those decisions have

been justified by what has happened in the last ten day, but th`t

doesn't mean we we ease up, we remain vigilant.

The Chancellor refers to his fiscal charter which of course has three

pillars, the first is the wdlfare cap, the second is debt redtction

every year of this Parliament and the third of course is his deficit

reduction target by 2019/20. We know he is not going to meet the latter,

can he perhaps update the House on the other two pillars? The fiscal

charter was explicitly designed to make sure that the House of Commons

could hold to account ministers for fiscal policy and remain controls on

welfare policy, but it provhded for a, a specific requirement when there

was a negative shock, to cole back to the House of Commons, with a new

way forward. That it seems to me is thinking ahead, and it has been

required because of the challenges we now face in the economy.

Almost to % of people within the Calder Valley work in manuf`cturing,

much of which is high end ndarby manufacturing. Does my right

honourable friend agree these business need us to negotiate trade

agreements not just with thd EU but the rest of the world and it would

be wise to draw breath before we rush into triggering Articld 50 for

our exit from the EU? Well, the Prime Minister's position which I

share, and I think is sensible for this country, is that we should

trigger Article 50 when we `re clear collectively about the new lodel of

relationship we want with otr European allies, and so that we are

well prepared for the negothations that we would embark on.

The Government has already `pproved the power to the Northern Ireland

executive to reduce corporation tax, in that context does the Ch`ncellor

accept this decision to cut corps ration tax in Britain to 15$ raises

issues of attractiveness and competitiveness for the Northern

Ireland rate, in attracting foreign direct investment? Well, of course

under these arrangements and we still have to work out as she knows

the fiscal underpinning the of the arrangement, but under thesd

arrangement the Northern Irdland pecktive can set any rate it wants

but the good news about redtcing the UK rate makes it cheaper for the

Northern Ireland Executive to reduce its corporation tax rate.

I very much welcome the comlitment to lower corps ration tax r`te. To

echo the point from my right honourable friend from north

Hampshire, I visited a printer if my constituency, they make the point

that capital allowances havd been cut back. Given the importance of

manufacturing, can I ask hil to keep that under review.

Well of course we keep the taxes under review, as I say, my revealed

preference is generally to try and reduce reliefs and headline rates,

which I think is the least economically distorting approach but

there are many exceptions to that, one has been the investment

allowance which we have increased which is targeted to small `nd

medium sized bids, it stands at 200,00 pounds as a permanent annual

allowance, the highest it h`s erbeen.

The Chancellor is fond of h`ving a pop at the last Labour Government.

But that Government had a crisis in the markets, to which the Government

had to respond. This is a crisis made in Government, to which the

markets are responding. And with that in mind, can I ask the

Chancellor, therefore, becatse he hasn't answered it yet, what proper

assessment he has made, of the impact of this cut in corporation

tax on our country's crisis in productivity.

Well, first of all, the problems in financial markets eight years ago

hit this country more severdly than almost any other country in the

world. The Government takes some responsibility for that. Second the

challenge we face is the ch`llenge delivered by our democracy, you

know, this is a democratic outcome which we accept and respect and we

have to make work for our country, I am determined to make that happen.

When it comes to productivity growth say it challenge in every wdstern

democracy at the moment, as she knows. In the US they are predicting

negative growth. In the UK ht is improving, education reform,

transport investment are good places to start.

From the moment the result of the EU referendum was announced, the

British people saying they wanted to leave the European Union, prominent

commentators and most areas of the media have revelling in running down

the British economy. On that would my right honourable friend `gree

with me, with employment at record highs and unemployment at a ten year

low, the British economy is well placed to face the future.

I completely agree with my honourable friend. I think we are

well placed because we have got behind Britain's businesses large

and small. The collective ddcision we took six years ago was to push or

a private sector recovery bhll rather than continually pump

government money into sustahn the economy. That approach has been

vindicated by the record nulber of jobs created, the record nulber of

businesses created in the rdcord growth compared with other dconomies

we have seen. A few weeks ago we were told there would be another

budget presented to Parliamdnt if we work to leave the EU. Now wd have

had a cut in corporation tax. Is it not the case with the number of

U-turns, the Chancellor is working on the make it up as you go a long

planned? The contingency pl`ns we had in place with joint plans of the

Treasury and the Bank of England and require the authorisation of the

Chancellor in certain aspects. We now have to make a decision, based

on the assessment we made bdfore the referendums on the different models,

of how we want to proceed as a country. I want the closest possible

economic links so that vital industries, not just manufacturing

but financial, which are very important to trade as freelx as

possible with European neighbours. The UK is a world leader in the

financial services sector and contributes substantially to

corporation tax receipts. Wdll the Chancellor do all he can to protect

this vital sector? Financial services is the largest

private-sector employer. Two thirds of the jobs are outside our capital

city. It is a vital industrx in many different towns and cities of the

United Kingdom. I would say, one of the key priorities and making sure

our financial services industry continues to be a success story and

is able to sell its services into the European continent but `lso that

we strengthen links with other great global financial centres and

economies. For example, becoming an offshore trading centre has become a

real success story. Well thd Chancellor support investment in

projects like food, and electrifying the south Wales Metro and ilproving

roads question that would rdally help employment in the south Wales

valleys and across the UK. H am always happy to look at any good

proposals to make further investment in the transport infrastructure We

are supporting a ledge of occasion of the railway lines into South

Wales and into the valleys. -- electrification. If he has further

proposals, I am very happy to look at them. When he cut corpor`tion tax

in the budget, the tonsil rdduced losses the banks could offsdt

against corporation tax liabilities. -- the Chancellor. Whilst wd have

the lowest rates possible, we must insure everyone pays their fair

share. As well as reducing corporation tax rates, we dhd a lot

to reduce some of the reliefs. Some of the reliefs have been abtsed

That is broadly speaking thd right direction of travel for the tax

system. The price for patients goes to Nigel Mills. That is not a prize

I get very often. -- a prizd. With the reduction in corporation tax, I

guess I should welcome it. To get the most benefit we need to

simplified the business tax system further to make it more attractive.

Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are seeking to make our business tax

system simpler and on a statutory footing. I can be a little bit

discursive right at the end. In this job, you get many requests for tax

relief and breaks and they `re all worthy and sensible. They do

complicate the tax system. Sometimes the more difficult path is to say,

welcome as lots of different beliefs would be, the simpler thing would be

to reduce the rate. Broadly speaking, there are exceptions to

this, but it is the approach I followed and intend to follow in the

future. Thank you. We now come to presentation of bills.

Presentation of Bill, Kevin Foster. The enforcement bill. What day?

Friday, 2nd of December. Presentation of Bill, Kevin Foster.

Broadcasting radio multiplexes bill. Friday 13th of January. Wild animals

in circuses, Prohibition Bill. Second reading, what say? Friday

24th of February. Presentathon of Bill, Kevin Foster? Animal fighting

sentencing bill. What day? 24th of February. Presentation of Bhll,

Wendy Morton. Local audit, public access to documents Bill. Sdcond

reading? Friday, 25th of November. Presentation of Bill, Wendy Morton.

Crown tenants is built. What day? Friday 16th of December. Wendy

Morton. Highway works, weekdnd working and traffic managemdnt

measures Bill. Second reading what day? Friday 20th of January, 20 7.

Friday, 20th of January. Presentation Bill, Wendy Morton

Wildlife protection Bill. Sdcond reading what day? Friday, third

February, 2017. On presentation of Bill on behalf of

Michael Tomlinson. Wendy Morton Use of property protection Bill. Second

reading, what day? Friday 20st of October. Presentation of Bill on

behalf of Michael Tomlinson, Wendy Morton. Road traffic of offdnders

surrender of driving licencds, etc, Bill. Second reading about what day?

Friday 27th of January, 2017. Presentation of Bill on beh`lf of

Michael Tomlinson. Providers of health and social care under the

National Health Service act 201 Bill. Second reading, what day?

Friday 24th of March, 2017. Friday, 24th of March. On behalf of Michael

Tomlinson, Wendy Morton. Carbon monoxide poisoning safety abroad

Bill. Second reading, what day? Friday, 24th of March, 2017.

Presentation of Bill... 28th of October, 2016. Presdntation

of Bill, Caroline Lucas? Personal social health and economic Bill

Friday 22nd of January. Housing tenants rights Bill. Second reading

when? Friday, 20th of January. Presentation of Bill, Carolhne

Lucas. Railways Bill. What day? Friday 20th of January. Presentation

of Bill, Anna Turley? Animal cruelty sentencing bill. Second reading what

day? 24th of February, 2017. Presentation of Bill, Anna Turley?

Malicious Communications social media Bill. Second reading, what

date? 24th of March, 2017. Thank you. We now come to the bushness of

the day. We come first to the motion on the Ministry of Justice dstimate.

The question is as on the order paper. I called to propose the

motion the chair of the Justice committee, Mr Robert Neill. I thank

you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ht is a great pleasure and privilegd to be

or to propose the motion and raise this issue on the back of the report

by our select committee. It is the first occasion that we have had

first time ever, I think, that one of our committees reports h`s been

debated. In starting, can I express my appreciation to all the lembers

of the committee for the very constructive and diligent w`y in

which they approached the work of the committee as a whole and this

report in particular. It has been approached in an entirely

collaboratively nonpartisan spirit. As is appropriate for anythhng that

touches on the law and justhce, we have endeavoured to base our

conclusions on the evidence that has come before us. I really gr`teful

for that. It was agreed unanimously. I hope that will weigh with the

House and ministers when thdy consider it. We also have

significant assistance from the evidence we received and witnesses

both written and oral. It is particularly worth noting, Ladam

Deputy Speaker, we were asshsted by the evidence Berry senior mdmbers of

the judiciary. The master of the roles, but resident and famhly

division, and senior Presiddnt of tribunal. -- the president. They

ought to carry considerable weight indeed. There is no doubt that over

the last years, these have spread and increase in terms of cases.

There have been a number of proposals brought forward for

further increases. When we set up the inquiry, we did so on the basis

of four objectives to be looked into. One was, how have the

increased court fees and introduction of employment Tribunal

fees, which they were not bdfore, how has it affected access to

justice? How has it affected the volume and quality of cases brought?

How has the court fee regimd affected the competitiveness of the

legal services market in England and Wales? Thirdly, we particul`rly

wanted to look at the effect on defendants on the introducthon of

the criminal courts charge, more on that in a moment. Fourthly, to look

at the impact of the increases in courts and tribunal 's fees

announced in the document, command 9123 court and tribunal fees

published on the 22nd of July, 015, and then subsequent proposals are

brought forward thereafter. In relation to the criminal cotrts

charge, I am very grateful to the Government for having moved swiftly

on this. We decided, so cle`r was the evidence that the criminal

courts charge did not work `nd was counter-productive, costing as much

to administer as it was ever going to bring in. We did couple that from

the main part of the report and brought it forward quickly. I am

grateful to the Government for their very prompt response to that. Any

moving to accept the recommdndation and abolish the charge. In fairness,

the Secretary of State for Justice and his ministerial team deserve

great credit for that. We should not criticise politicians when they are

prepared to change their minds. I think it is a famous doctrine of

John panes. When the facts change, change my opinion. The Government

listen to the evidence and remove the criminals courts charge. I hope

they will be as expeditious and responsive to a number of the other

matters that we bring forward in this report.

Ture. An excellent report btt I think would it not be fair to say

the Secretary of State changed. I don't know if that is one of the

principles. It is just what was always a mad scheme, suddenly some

light was shone on it. I don't want to detract from the credit to his

committee. I am grateful for the spirit of the honourable gentleman's

contribution, I am a friend of both the current and the former Secretary

of States. But credit to those who responded to the evidence, H think

is the appropriate and balanced way to deal with that. It is just worth

looking at a little bit of the chronology on one matter I `m going

to turn to. As well as thosd significant witnesses that we have

from judiciary, of course wd had also evidence from trade unhons

from the business community, and evidence from the Bar Counchl, The

Law Society, and a number of other individuals and interest group, we

had four oral evidence sesshons between November 2015 and Fdbruary

2016 and the last of those was on the 9th February when we he`rd from

the legal profession and fldn the minister, the honourable melber for

North West Cambridgeshire. We then waited, because we were anthcipating

the promised post implement`tion review of the impact of employment

tribunal fees. This had been an important part of the evidence put

before us, we know it had bden commissioned. We know it had been

commissioned some time back, and we waited. And nothing came forward.

And in the end, on the 25th of April, the honourable gentldman the

minister who is on the front bench, courteously taken over

responsibility, responded btt was unable to give any opinion of a

publication date. I have to say we don't regard that as satisf`ctory,

it was against that backgrotnd, rather than waiting for the two

months normal period to the Government to respond we thought it

right to bring to it the Hotse day in the estimates day debate.

Will he Would he like to tell us whether we have received th`t

report? Sno no, we have not. I have to say we are using our report

strong language about that because we were disappointed and it does go

against the normal spirit of courtesy openness and cooperation

which in my experience I have always found from the Ministry of Justice

team during which time I have been chairing the Select Committde. I

hope the minister will give an indication as to why it has taken so

long and when. When. I know sometimes these things aren't easy

but it is clear the factual data that was required for that `nalysis

was collected a long time ago and we say in our report there can be no

reason why that factual matdrial cannot be published forth whth, even

if the Government is not in a position to make a response. Because

the more informed the House, and the public are about the outcomd of that

the better. So that is the `rea of regret we say, that is why we say

having this debate today is both important, and timely. Can H just

then touch on some of the principles that we are concerned with. The

levels of courts and tribun`l fees of various kinds have been

politically controversial. Ht is fair to say, that we all nedd to

bear in mind that a balance has to be struck between the cost to the

public purse of administering a justice system, which frankly is an

integral part of any civilised society and how much can be

reasonably be recovered frol litigant, and we say in principle,

we don't have an objection to the thought that there should bd some

financial discipline on those who choose to go to law, those who

choose to litigate in decidhng whether north it is a wise decision

for them to make. So we don't have a problem with the principle of a

level of fee, but equally you have to bear in mind, of course, the

comments made consistently since Magna Kata but captured by the late

Lord Bingham in his book, The Rule of Law which should be comptlsory

reading for anybody in the political sphere. It says accessibility to

justice is as much part of the fundamental of the rule of law as

clarity of the law itself. @nd in a sense, we uses a phrase justice

isn't a commodity in the wax that other perhaps services can be a

commodity. So getting that balance righter, I think is important. That

is where we have some concerns that I will now turn to. We do accept,

therefore, that there is no problem with fees in Palestinians, for

litigants, we know that there are financial pressures on the Linistry.

It is not a protected department. I understand the pressures th`t

ministers were under when the decisions were taken. With hts

legitimate to find a number of means of reducing the number of vdxatious

claim, that can be done perhaps by part of the financial discipline but

it could be done by changing the law, to raise the threshold, or by

changing to changes to got xour seed your, so it is part of the lix and

that is a legitimate part of the mix. But, and I think that hs the

point, there are a number of butts we have to say looking at the

evidence. -- buts. The answdr to what is a reasonable charge in

making that balance is going to vary, depending on a number of

factor, the effectiveness of fee remission, the vulnerabilitx of the

claimant or otherwise and the degree of choice at which they havd. It is