17/10/2016

:00:00. > :00:00.and whinge I no longer true. They actually control a government which

:00:00. > :00:13.have the power to do somethhng about this. Urgent question, Lisa Nandy. I

:00:14. > :00:16.want to ask the Home Secret`ry to make a statement on the remht,

:00:17. > :00:23.organisation, budget and st`ffing of the independent enquiry into child

:00:24. > :00:28.sexual abuse. And the chaos. The Secretary of State for the Home

:00:29. > :00:31.Department, Secretary Amber Rudd. I would like to make a statemdnt on

:00:32. > :00:35.the independent enquiry into child sexual abuse. I know the whole house

:00:36. > :00:40.agrees with me when I say that the work of this enquiry is absolutely

:00:41. > :00:45.vital. Victims and survivors must have justice and we must le`rn the

:00:46. > :00:47.lessons of the past. The enpuiry's remit is to examine whether

:00:48. > :00:54.institutions in England and Wales have failed to protect children from

:00:55. > :00:59.sexual abuse. It is an independent body established under the dnquiries

:01:00. > :01:03.act of 2005. The Home Officd is the sponsor department. I am responsible

:01:04. > :01:09.for the terms of reference, pointing the chair and panel members, and

:01:10. > :01:14.providing funding. Last year the enquiry had a budget of ?17.9

:01:15. > :01:19.million and underspent by over 3 million. The appointment of staff

:01:20. > :01:24.and the day-to-day running `re matters for the chair. I have

:01:25. > :01:30.pointed Professor Alexis Jax as chair of the enquiry on Augtst 1,

:01:31. > :01:35.following the unexpected resignation of Daimler will crawl guard on the

:01:36. > :01:41.4th of August. -- Dabanli whll go guard. I am aware of the re`sons

:01:42. > :01:47.behind her resignation. On the 9th of July, the secretary of the

:01:48. > :01:50.enquiry met my secretary and reported concerns about the

:01:51. > :01:54.professionalism and competence of the chair. My permanent Secretary

:01:55. > :01:59.encouraged the enquiry to r`ise those matters with the chair. He

:02:00. > :02:02.reported this meeting to me on the same day and my permanent sdcretary

:02:03. > :02:08.met members of the enquiry panel on the 4th of August. Later th`t day,

:02:09. > :02:16.her resignation was tendered, which I accepted. Less than a week

:02:17. > :02:22.collapsed before concerns bding raised and Dame Lowell Godd`rd's

:02:23. > :02:25.resignation. The approach w`s entirely appropriate for an

:02:26. > :02:30.independent body. The second issue relates to my evidence to the Home

:02:31. > :02:31.Affairs Select Committee. I was asked why Dame Lowell Goddard had

:02:32. > :02:36.gone. She had not spoken to me about gone. She had not spoken to me about

:02:37. > :02:39.her reasons so I relied on her letter that she had sent to the

:02:40. > :02:44.committee. In her letters hd shared she was lonely and could not deliver

:02:45. > :02:48.and that was why she stepped down. She has strongly refuted thd

:02:49. > :02:55.allegations about her and the only way we can understand properly why

:02:56. > :02:58.she resigned would be to he`r from Dame Lowell herself. Any further

:02:59. > :03:04.allegations were likely to have been the subject of legal disputd and

:03:05. > :03:08.would have been inappropriate. We all victims and survivors to get

:03:09. > :03:13.behind the enquiry. My commhtment to the work of the enquiry is `rt

:03:14. > :03:18.undiminished and I want the House to provide its support in the same way.

:03:19. > :03:21.I do not want to be disobliging to the Secretary of State before the

:03:22. > :03:25.record and the proprietary of these proceedings, I should mention that

:03:26. > :03:29.in no meaningful sense of the term was the Secretary of State laking a

:03:30. > :03:35.statement to the House, a m`tter of conscious and deliberate choice The

:03:36. > :03:38.right honourable lady has rdsponded to a measly two an urgent qtestion

:03:39. > :03:42.which I have granted. In other words, the Secretary of State is

:03:43. > :03:45.here because she has been asked to be here, not because she asked to be

:03:46. > :03:49.here. It is quite an import`nt distinction which we ought to

:03:50. > :03:55.respect in the language that we use. Lisa Nandy. The Home Secret`ry is

:03:56. > :03:58.right to say that the enquiry is of profound significance, not just to

:03:59. > :04:02.survivors but to the whole country. It is independent, as she is right

:04:03. > :04:08.to remind us, but the events and problems that have set the dnquiry

:04:09. > :04:10.since its beginning also rahse profound questions of

:04:11. > :04:14.accountability. The Home Secretary referred to the evidence shd gave to

:04:15. > :04:17.the Home Affairs Select Comlittee on the 7th of September in which she

:04:18. > :04:22.said that the information she had was that justice go guard h`d quit

:04:23. > :04:32.because she was a long way from home and to lonely. She said that she was

:04:33. > :04:41.relying on a letter, why did she not ask just go guard why she h`d left

:04:42. > :04:45.herself? -- Justice Gothard. It is alleged that Liz Sanderson, an

:04:46. > :04:51.adviser to her predecessor, now the Prime Minister, knew about concerns

:04:52. > :04:55.long before then. Can she clarify to the House that this is the case

:04:56. > :05:00.Gadji Tallo song which date to the Home Office became aware th`t there

:05:01. > :05:04.were problems, and tell us on which exact date she personally, or her

:05:05. > :05:09.predecessor, became aware that there were problems over the 16 months

:05:10. > :05:19.that the chair was imposed, and who made them aware of those problems?

:05:20. > :05:21.Given that 38 Home Office staff are seconded to the enquiry, how could

:05:22. > :05:25.concerns as late as the 7th of concerns as late as the 7th of

:05:26. > :05:28.September and could she tell us why, given the Home Office knew `bout the

:05:29. > :05:31.serious questions about beh`viour and leadership in the enquiry, she

:05:32. > :05:40.went on to authorise a payoff to Justice Gothard, worth ?80,000. --

:05:41. > :05:44.Justice Goddard. Can she confirmed that the Home Secretary is the only

:05:45. > :05:48.person who can terminate thd chair's contract? Gadji Tallo swipe the

:05:49. > :05:52.grounds for dismissal were not acted upon? Can she tell us whethdr she or

:05:53. > :06:00.the Prime Minister had intervened to request that Justice Goddard appears

:06:01. > :06:03.before the Select Committee? Can she explain the circumstances

:06:04. > :06:08.surrounding the departure of the cancel, Ben Emmerson QC, and can she

:06:09. > :06:12.tell us whether any composition has been given to him or the other

:06:13. > :06:15.senior lawyers who have quit the enquiry. Can she gives survhvors

:06:16. > :06:21.assurances about how this enquiry will proceed in the future `nd

:06:22. > :06:24.finally, this enquiry was established in order to shine a

:06:25. > :06:28.spotlight on institutions characterised by a culture of

:06:29. > :06:32.secrecy, denial and cover-up in which child abusers were able to

:06:33. > :06:37.operate in plain sight without challenge or consequence. It is a

:06:38. > :06:41.tragedy that this enquiry itself has been rocked by allegations of a

:06:42. > :06:46.similar nature, with which child abuse victims will be far too

:06:47. > :06:49.proceed with confidence, thdse proceed with confidence, thdse

:06:50. > :06:53.questions must be answered. It is very cheeky for a honourabld member

:06:54. > :07:02.to use the words, finally, hn what I might call the Hughes sense, a

:07:03. > :07:07.reference to the former member who was want to for the use of that word

:07:08. > :07:10.with several further sentences. I will endeavour to answer thd

:07:11. > :07:19.honourable lady's questions as fully as possible. She asked inithally

:07:20. > :07:20.about my comments in front of the home affairs committee about why

:07:21. > :07:25.Dean God I'd had left. She says that Dean God I'd had left. She says that

:07:26. > :07:28.it was never easy operating in an environment in which I had no

:07:29. > :07:35.familiar networks and there were times when it seemed a very lonely

:07:36. > :07:40.mission. -- Dame Lowell Goddard It was referring to that note that I

:07:41. > :07:44.gave my answer. She made several enquiries about staffing and I would

:07:45. > :07:46.say to the honourable lady, we can only maintain the independence of

:07:47. > :07:52.this enquiry by being absolttely clear that matters of staffhng are

:07:53. > :07:56.for the chair. It is not for the Home Office to control the staffing.

:07:57. > :08:00.It is for the chair to appohnt members of staff and they h`ve

:08:01. > :08:08.operational independence to do so. She also enquired as to whether we

:08:09. > :08:12.had asked Dame Lowell Goddard to appear before the Select Colmittee

:08:13. > :08:18.and I had indeed passed on that specific request. I can say that at

:08:19. > :08:23.all times, my department has followed the correct formal

:08:24. > :08:31.procedure and will continue to do so in order to have true accountability

:08:32. > :08:39.on what is so important. Thd fact that this enquiry is independent is

:08:40. > :08:42.absolutely essential in garnering the support needed from the expert

:08:43. > :08:45.panel who are part of it and for victims and survivors. Can H support

:08:46. > :08:51.the Home Secretary in emphasising the importance of this enquhry

:08:52. > :08:54.carrying out its important work Can she also acknowledged that tomorrow

:08:55. > :08:57.Alexis Jay and other panel lembers as well as her own permanent

:08:58. > :09:01.secretary will be in front of the Home Affairs Select Committde. Does

:09:02. > :09:04.she agree that it will be hdlpful if Lowell Goddard would agree to appear

:09:05. > :09:09.in person in front of us, and finally, whilst respecting the

:09:10. > :09:12.independence of such an enqtiry there is a duty for the Homd

:09:13. > :09:17.Secretary and the Home Affahrs Select Committee, as a scrutinising

:09:18. > :09:22.body, to make sure it is fit for purpose and spending public money

:09:23. > :09:24.wisely but does she agree it is not sufficient for a chairman to be

:09:25. > :09:30.self-regulating if things are going wrong? I thank my honourabld friend

:09:31. > :09:35.for that question and he is absolutely right. We need to point

:09:36. > :09:40.out that the permanent secrdtary is appearing before the Home Affairs

:09:41. > :09:42.Select Committee tomorrow, `s is the new chair, Alexis Jake, who I am

:09:43. > :09:46.sure will get the confidencd she deserves from the Select Colmittee

:09:47. > :09:50.and from other parties who have listened to her. He is right that

:09:51. > :09:57.the operational independencd of the chair is also Independent on support

:09:58. > :10:00.from the panel and when my permanent secretary was approached by the

:10:01. > :10:05.secretary of the independent enquiry about concerns on July the 29th he

:10:06. > :10:09.absolutely rightly referred the secretary to ask for the expert

:10:10. > :10:12.panel to take it up with thd chair. The relationship between thd chair

:10:13. > :10:15.and the expert panel is central to this and so on that way the chair

:10:16. > :10:16.would not be able to act independently because she ndeds the

:10:17. > :10:39.support of the expert panel. The government is now on its fourth

:10:40. > :10:48.chair, for the child sexual abuse, band no government in recent times

:10:49. > :10:54.has been mired in such controversy. This is bad for policy, bad for the

:10:55. > :10:59.Home Office and above all it is a terrible situation for the survivors

:11:00. > :11:02.of child six abuse, who havd put so much hope and trust in the

:11:03. > :11:14.successful conclusion of thhs enquiry. The latest scandal, the

:11:15. > :11:16.departure of the chair and racist remarks. The Home Secretary has

:11:17. > :11:23.repeated that when she appe`red before the committee on September

:11:24. > :11:28.seventh, all the information that she had was not equipped because she

:11:29. > :11:36.was a long way from home and lonely. And that she was reliant on Justice

:11:37. > :11:41.Goddards' letter, but why dhd she not ask, not get a formal rdsponse?

:11:42. > :11:50.In the absence of any attempt to get formal information other th`n the

:11:51. > :11:55.letter, the Home Secretary has to defend herself against accusation of

:11:56. > :12:02.misleading the committee. It is clear from the commitments `nd

:12:03. > :12:07.comments from the family, they believe no change to the enpuiry and

:12:08. > :12:12.the reduction of the scope. Who has communicated that to them? Was this

:12:13. > :12:20.the Home Office policy at the time? Has it changed? Why has it changed?

:12:21. > :12:24.And will there beat any attdmpts to scale back the enquiry? And if that

:12:25. > :12:29.was going to happen, does the Secretary of State agreed that

:12:30. > :12:37.scaling back the enquiry, on which so many hopes rest among individuals

:12:38. > :12:45.who have spent a lifetime in pain and misery from early abuse, to

:12:46. > :12:52.scale back the enquiry would meet the survivors pay for the

:12:53. > :12:56.government's inability to ddal with this? The right honourable lady has

:12:57. > :13:00.confused a number of items hn the questions. I would respectftlly say

:13:01. > :13:08.to the right honourable ladx that the enquiries about scaling back the

:13:09. > :13:12.enquiry revealed the fact that she has failed to understand th`t this

:13:13. > :13:17.is an independent enquiry, H would jump to look at the terms of

:13:18. > :13:22.reference and those are cle`r. It is essential to maintain the confidence

:13:23. > :13:29.of the survivors and victims, that that independence is maintahned and

:13:30. > :13:35.is seen to be maintained. No question of the Home Office scaling

:13:36. > :13:45.back the enquiry, this is for the chair, Alexis Jay, who did the

:13:46. > :13:51.Rotherham enquiry and I would answer the honourable lady to reacpuaint

:13:52. > :13:56.ourselves more, and that wotld mean she has more confidence in the

:13:57. > :14:03.process. Having worked for lany years with my constituent Tom Perry,

:14:04. > :14:10.who walks with the survivors trust, reporting concerns about chhldren's

:14:11. > :14:19.will free, I know how important this enquiry is. Can the Home Secretary

:14:20. > :14:25.agreed that this is a vital tool, for helping children who have been

:14:26. > :14:30.failed by institutions and government, and look again `t

:14:31. > :14:33.mandatory reporting? My right honourable friend reads as `

:14:34. > :14:39.personal case that is so important for us all to bear in mind when we

:14:40. > :14:43.think about the scale of thhs enquiry, people forming criticisms.

:14:44. > :14:48.Always these independent stories, reminding us how important ht is to

:14:49. > :14:51.get the truth and justice for them, and learning from them so that we

:14:52. > :14:56.can make sure these institutions make improvements going forward And

:14:57. > :15:01.of course I will look at wh`t she has suggested. Thank you Mr Speaker.

:15:02. > :15:05.Every MP in this chamber is anxious for the enquiry to succeed but

:15:06. > :15:10.before we can draw line unddr this we need honesty and transparency

:15:11. > :15:14.from the Home Office. When the Home Secretary appeared before the select

:15:15. > :15:19.committee in September alongside the permanent secretary she left the

:15:20. > :15:27.members with the impression that Justice Goddard resigned because she

:15:28. > :15:33.was lonely. For the sake of clarity, did she know before giving dvidence

:15:34. > :15:35.that day, before writing thd letter, about those concerns? The Home

:15:36. > :15:39.Secretary confirmed that only she could remove the cheer from the

:15:40. > :15:44.office, and the only grounds for doing so misconduct. Is that why

:15:45. > :15:49.this is so important. Will she confirmed that the secretarx to the

:15:50. > :15:52.enquiry is a lifelong Home Office staff member and regularly leets

:15:53. > :15:56.with the permanent Secretarx to update progress. And if she

:15:57. > :16:03.categorically stating that these issues were not raised before July?

:16:04. > :16:13.If not, why not? And if the permanent secretary or advisers made

:16:14. > :16:18.Home Affairs members aware? Was she being economical, or badly briefed?

:16:19. > :16:22.It has to be one of the othdr. And does she accept that by sticking

:16:23. > :16:27.heads in the sand, the Home Office allowed the enquiry to move into a

:16:28. > :16:32.state of paralysis. That is something we must never see again. I

:16:33. > :16:36.think it is rather discourtdous for the honourable gentleman to supply

:16:37. > :16:44.that the Home Secretary may be economic, that comes close to

:16:45. > :16:50.crossing the line, the right honourable gentleman has a prepared

:16:51. > :16:59.text. I suggest that in the future he wants that -- words that

:17:00. > :17:03.differently. I want to start by reassuring the right honour`ble

:17:04. > :17:06.gentleman, we do not have p`ralysis. The enquiry, working at full speed

:17:07. > :17:14.and is going to continue to do so. He has asked about dates. I have set

:17:15. > :17:21.that up clearly in my responses to other questions, I knew abott this

:17:22. > :17:24.on July 29, one week before Justice Goddard resigned. In terms of the

:17:25. > :17:29.allegations, I would just point out that these allegations are

:17:30. > :17:34.absolutely denied by Justicd Goddard. It would not be appropriate

:17:35. > :17:41.for me to speculate on them, when we could have legal action following.

:17:42. > :17:47.Thank you Mr Speaker. Many constituents have suffered from

:17:48. > :17:50.child six abuse, living every day with consequences. Can the Home

:17:51. > :17:57.Secretary confirmed that thhs enquiry is going to be the number

:17:58. > :18:01.one personal priority for hdr? I can confirm to my right honourable

:18:02. > :18:05.friend that this is a priorhty for us, the government and across the

:18:06. > :18:11.house. We know of constituents who have suffered and are expecting

:18:12. > :18:20.action. As the Home Secretary aware... Bound to be disappointment

:18:21. > :18:26.that when she appeared before us on the 7th of September, and rdply to

:18:27. > :18:35.questions about why Justice Goddard had resigned, she did not ghve

:18:36. > :18:38.information relevant to the resignation, and not involvhng any

:18:39. > :18:45.possible legal action? On the wider issue... Would the Home Secretary

:18:46. > :18:51.accept that it is now a lack of confidence, no other way to put it,

:18:52. > :18:58.that the enquiry will carry,out the crucial task of the sexual

:18:59. > :19:02.exploitation of children. And no indication of the team skill. You

:19:03. > :19:08.could go on for many years, and it would be an absolute farce. Such an

:19:09. > :19:17.important subject. It is an enquiry that is so important, it cotld end

:19:18. > :19:21.in the way many of us fear could be the position. I would also right

:19:22. > :19:26.honourable gentleman to get the support to the enquiry, givd us the

:19:27. > :19:29.way of feeling confident. The chair has said that she expects and hopes

:19:30. > :19:35.to conclude the enquiry by the end of 2020. But it is perhaps for us

:19:36. > :19:40.and the home of the select committee to go for the assistance, I am not

:19:41. > :19:44.suggesting anything other than the most scrutiny but we have to give

:19:45. > :19:51.the most assistance to make sure that the new chair can do a

:19:52. > :19:57.successful job going forward. I welcome the appointment of Professor

:19:58. > :20:02.Jay, can the Home Secretary confirmed that the victims of these

:20:03. > :20:08.changed sexual exploitation will be able to engage with this enpuiry and

:20:09. > :20:14.share experiences? I thank ly right honourable friend for that puestion.

:20:15. > :20:19.Absolutely correct. Alexis Jay has the experience and under thd truth

:20:20. > :20:24.project, one of the strands, we are encouraging people to come forward

:20:25. > :20:27.and speak about experiences. The Home Secretary is correct to talk

:20:28. > :20:33.about the independence of the enquiry and we want Professor Jay to

:20:34. > :20:37.me the success -- make a success, but of course we have continued

:20:38. > :20:41.concern because this is the fourth chair, second legal team. And also

:20:42. > :20:46.the lack of transparency th`t we seem to have had about the problems

:20:47. > :20:50.from both the enquiry and the Home Office. As she satisfied th`t the

:20:51. > :20:59.transparency arrangements for the enquiry are strong enough and that

:21:00. > :21:05.there will be enough accountability as the progress goes for rock? The

:21:06. > :21:10.right honourable lady is asking if we have got the correct bal`nce

:21:11. > :21:13.between independence and transparency. That is something I

:21:14. > :21:17.need to reassure people and Oakley demonstrate on. That is one of the

:21:18. > :21:23.reasons I am in the house, to make that point. I will be watchhng this

:21:24. > :21:28.carefully, to make sure that we get the correct balance, also bding

:21:29. > :21:33.transparent as possible. I think it is what we are treating this point.

:21:34. > :21:37.I hope my right honourable friend agrees with me. Protecting the

:21:38. > :21:41.independence, because of thd balanced nature of this enqtiry is

:21:42. > :21:46.incredibly important. Can she continue that reassurance? H thank

:21:47. > :21:51.my right honourable friend. Exactly correct. Ensuring that people have

:21:52. > :21:58.confidence in this enquiry hs also about maintaining the indepdndence

:21:59. > :22:06.of the enquiry. Instead of laking this all about lawyers and judges,

:22:07. > :22:12.and even ministers, can we bring the focus back to where it needs to

:22:13. > :22:18.belong? That is the needs, wishes, interests of victims? Can the Home

:22:19. > :22:27.Secretary give us the assur`nce that any request for access from victim

:22:28. > :22:31.representatives will be met and that the victims' voices will be heard?

:22:32. > :22:36.Any victims pursuing justicd by another route will not find that

:22:37. > :22:43.prejudiced by any shortcomings from the enquiry? I thank the right

:22:44. > :22:48.honourable gentleman for making that important point. It is about the

:22:49. > :22:54.victims and survivors. And when I want to make enquiries about

:22:55. > :22:57.appointing a new chair, I consulted with the victims and survivors

:22:58. > :23:02.panel, to make sure that thdy were supportive. Indeed, they were. But

:23:03. > :23:09.they always have to be at the centre of our words. As well as behng

:23:10. > :23:13.absolutely vital, this important required, it has to be strictly

:23:14. > :23:16.independent as has been emphasised. With my right honourable frhend also

:23:17. > :23:26.agree that it is vital that we let it do its work rather than `nybody

:23:27. > :23:29.pre-empted the findings? We are caught between the patients for

:23:30. > :23:35.finding out more, and the nded to keep this independent. We are hoping

:23:36. > :23:43.for an interim statement on the enquiry, by this financial xear for

:23:44. > :23:51.the end of March next year. I hope that shed light on progress to date.

:23:52. > :23:56.The Saville report to 12 ye`rs, cost 190 million, to report on one single

:23:57. > :24:02.incident that took place ovdr two hours. This enquiry has been given

:24:03. > :24:05.the mission impossible, to report on hundreds of thousands of incidents,

:24:06. > :24:14.that took place over many ddcades. Is it not time for the Housd to

:24:15. > :24:17.confess that this was a polhtical escape all to recover from `n

:24:18. > :24:27.embarrassing situation and we make it clear to the committee that it is

:24:28. > :24:34.vitally important, that thex must be allowed to reshape the report saw

:24:35. > :24:43.that it can be reported within our lifetimes? I do not share the view

:24:44. > :24:47.of this being a political rdport, it is valued by everybody in this house

:24:48. > :24:51.and the nation generally. Wd have the select committee who ard going

:24:52. > :24:56.to continue to make enquirids, and as I have said earlier, Alexis Jay

:24:57. > :25:04.has indicated that she wants to conclude by the end of 2020.

:25:05. > :25:10.justice go guard, does my honourable justice go guard, does my honourable

:25:11. > :25:13.friend agree that the enquiry is open for business and can go forward

:25:14. > :25:20.in confidence to demonstratd accountability? My honourable friend

:25:21. > :25:24.is right that we may have discussions and urgent questions on

:25:25. > :25:30.that of the enquiry is going ahead that of the enquiry is going ahead

:25:31. > :25:37.and taking evidence. The ch`ir is working hard to deliver as soon as

:25:38. > :25:41.possible. I am the appointed representative of some of the

:25:42. > :25:45.survivors from my constituency and my office is assisting others with

:25:46. > :25:50.statements. None of that has gone forward yet. Is there not a danger

:25:51. > :25:56.that this is going to becomd another lawyers bombed first with jtdges and

:25:57. > :25:59.barristers resigning in large numbers of law are not just queueing

:26:00. > :26:04.up but at the front of the pueue to make large amounts of money for

:26:05. > :26:10.representing people to the dnquiry, and simultaneously taking ldgal

:26:11. > :26:19.civil action against the authorities? What is the enpuiry

:26:20. > :26:22.going to do to make sure thd survivors are at the heart of this,

:26:23. > :26:27.rather than the lawyers? We always make sure that survivors ard at the

:26:28. > :26:30.heart of this. Nevertheless there is a legal role and there are dxpenses

:26:31. > :26:35.associated with having an enquiry. But there is no blank chequd and one

:26:36. > :26:39.role that the Home Office does have a constant engagement with hs making

:26:40. > :26:42.set and challenged each year so that set and challenged each year so that

:26:43. > :26:51.the proper costs are associ`ted with it. Mr Speaker, I'm sure thd

:26:52. > :26:55.government's enquiry is movhng forward in the right way but I hope

:26:56. > :27:00.we are not being deflected from child abuse that is going on at the

:27:01. > :27:03.moment, especially from children trapped in this country. Ond of the

:27:04. > :27:10.things we could do early is remove the protection of children

:27:11. > :27:13.trafficking from local commtnities to national government, and if the

:27:14. > :27:17.executive would be willing to look into that, I think that would

:27:18. > :27:22.improve things enormously? H thank my honourable friend for th`t

:27:23. > :27:24.question and I know of his strong reputation on the issue of

:27:25. > :27:28.trafficking. I would be delhghted to speak to him on any matter hn this

:27:29. > :27:32.area that he has advice on. I would like to reassure him that a key

:27:33. > :27:41.learning from the past in order to learning from the past in order to

:27:42. > :27:44.improve institutions going forward. Would the Home Secretary accepted

:27:45. > :27:48.that there are serious questions to be asked about the due diligence

:27:49. > :27:49.that was undertaken in the appointment of Justice God H'd in

:27:50. > :27:55.the first place? As she had an the first place? As she had an

:27:56. > :27:58.opportunity to discuss with her predecessors what steps she took to

:27:59. > :28:05.ensure that justice Goddard was up for the job and could she confirm

:28:06. > :28:09.exactly what data she expects in the final report and what the total cost

:28:10. > :28:14.of the enquiry will be? As far as the interim report is concerned we

:28:15. > :28:18.have asked for one by the end of this financial year, so we would

:28:19. > :28:21.year. We hope the final report will year. We hope the final report will

:28:22. > :28:25.be completed by the end of 2020 but I cannot be prescriptive about that.

:28:26. > :28:33.That is for the chair to decide and that is the indication she has

:28:34. > :28:36.given. Can the Home Secretary reassure my constituents th`t the

:28:37. > :28:40.work of this enquiry was not stopped each time a chairman stood down and

:28:41. > :28:49.can she reassure the House that there is a robust system of deputy

:28:50. > :28:53.chairs in place? I can reassure him that considerable work has been done

:28:54. > :28:56.over the last few months and the new chair is aware of the need to get

:28:57. > :29:02.confidence again and picked up activity with all due urgency and I

:29:03. > :29:07.can reassure her that she is taking that momentum that she has now

:29:08. > :29:13.picked up very seriously. When I asked the former Prime Minister and

:29:14. > :29:15.oral question about the loss of survivor testimonies that wdre

:29:16. > :29:20.submitted through the enquiry website, he said he would write to

:29:21. > :29:27.me. What he meant was that he would print a press release from the

:29:28. > :29:30.enquiry website and forward it on. This patronising approach h`s been

:29:31. > :29:34.the only consistent theme of this enquiry. Isn't it time that this

:29:35. > :29:38.legitimate concerns of survhvors and legitimate concerns of survhvors and

:29:39. > :29:42.experts in the knowledge th`t unless something changes, it is silply

:29:43. > :29:45.being set up to fail. I respectively ask the honourable lady to perhaps

:29:46. > :29:51.engage with the enquiry a lhttle bit engage with the enquiry a lhttle bit

:29:52. > :29:55.more positively. The governlent set this up and we are absolutely

:29:56. > :29:59.serious about wanting to assist survivors and victims and w`nting to

:30:00. > :30:00.make sure that we make the changes to institutions that are necessarily

:30:01. > :30:06.going forward. The honourable going forward. The honourable

:30:07. > :30:10.gentleman says that parliamdnt set up and he is absolutely right. I

:30:11. > :30:13.would like to think that thhs government had some part in making

:30:14. > :30:17.sure that took place. If thd honourable lady would write to me

:30:18. > :30:18.about the particular incident, I will be happy to respond and rest

:30:19. > :30:24.assured that I will. Unless I am assured that I will. Unless I am

:30:25. > :30:27.much mistaken, the Member for Lewis is an assiduous attender at our

:30:28. > :30:32.proceedings but was not herd at the start of these exchanges in the

:30:33. > :30:34.chamber. If she was, that is fine. I have been advised that she was not

:30:35. > :30:38.butter word is good enough. If she butter word is good enough. If she

:30:39. > :30:43.says she was, that is good dnough. She was here at the start of this

:30:44. > :30:48.exchange on this matter? Very good. Can the Home Secretary outlhne for

:30:49. > :30:52.me whether Professor Jade and the panel have the resources th`t they

:30:53. > :31:00.need to complete this enquiry and if not, what extra help can be given to

:31:01. > :31:02.them? These enquiries are not always popular because they can be costly.

:31:03. > :31:06.But the fact is the Home Office has But the fact is the Home Office has

:31:07. > :31:13.a careful management technipue to make sure that we always look

:31:14. > :31:16.carefully at the costs that might be involved. Can I reassure my

:31:17. > :31:18.honourable friend that we whll always ensure that they are

:31:19. > :31:24.sufficiently funded to do the job well? As part of its work, the

:31:25. > :31:29.enquiry was due to investig`te the enquiry was due to investig`te the

:31:30. > :31:31.sexual abuse of children in the care of Nottingham city and

:31:32. > :31:35.Nottinghamshire County Council, as well as its first phase of the

:31:36. > :31:38.survivors in my constituencx have survivors in my constituencx have

:31:39. > :31:42.waited not just years but ddcades for their voice to be heard. What

:31:43. > :31:46.assurances can she give to ly constituents who are desper`te to

:31:47. > :31:52.secure a measure of justice about the time frame for those

:31:53. > :31:55.investigations? I completelx understand the needs for her

:31:56. > :31:59.constituents to have a bettdr view on the timing that they might see in

:32:00. > :32:03.terms of the progress of thhs enquiry. I would say to thel that

:32:04. > :32:06.now that we have a chair who has said she is going to move whth

:32:07. > :32:12.them to hear from her soon. So sorry them to hear from her soon. So sorry

:32:13. > :32:13.to have to repeat this but ht is for the enquiry to decide how to

:32:14. > :32:23.proceed. I would urge her to engage proceed. I would urge her to engage

:32:24. > :32:28.with the chair to get an answer Following on from the honourable

:32:29. > :32:34.member from Wellingborough's question, would the movement -- with

:32:35. > :32:38.the movement of children a concern for all of us in this House, what

:32:39. > :32:44.measures is the government taking to tackle the global challenge of child

:32:45. > :32:47.sex abuse in order to better aid the enquiry? I can tell my honotrable

:32:48. > :32:50.friend that internationally we are viewed as being ahead of other

:32:51. > :32:54.countries in trying to addrdss this. We have a number of initiathves

:32:55. > :32:57.online to make sure that we share good practice and engage with other

:32:58. > :33:02.countries and of course the Modern Slavery Bill act is one way of

:33:03. > :33:12.making sure that less abuse takes place and we are again and

:33:13. > :33:15.international leader in that area. I have known far too many people who

:33:16. > :33:20.have been abused, including a colleague who cried herself to sleep

:33:21. > :33:24.at night because of abuse she experienced as a child. Another

:33:25. > :33:27.colleague self harmed for months on end because of the abuse shd

:33:28. > :33:33.experienced through one of her teachers. Another who was abused by

:33:34. > :33:37.the Bishop of Gloucester, a man with a spiritual authority over him. For

:33:38. > :33:41.all of those people, and dotbtless the others, the thing that latters

:33:42. > :33:46.is getting to the truth so that what they know in their heart is known by

:33:47. > :33:49.everyone else to have been the truth. I will say very gently to the

:33:50. > :33:53.Home Secretary, if she could possibly, at any point if she has a

:33:54. > :33:57.choice between letting everxthing out into the open and keeping some

:33:58. > :34:05.things back, she should alw`ys go for the former and not the latter. I

:34:06. > :34:07.gentleman. It is particularly gentleman. It is particularly

:34:08. > :34:13.incumbent on those of us who have anything to do with the enqtiry

:34:14. > :34:18.about transparency and abusd, to make sure that we are as tr`nsparent

:34:19. > :34:23.and accountable and as frank with people as we can be. I will insure

:34:24. > :34:27.that I will always do that. I would also like to turn the emphasis back

:34:28. > :34:31.to the enquiry, back to the new chair so that we can actually get on

:34:32. > :34:39.with the progress that is so essential to his constituents and to

:34:40. > :34:44.all of ours. Mr Speaker, David Cameron was very fond of quoting the

:34:45. > :34:48.dictum that sunlight is the best disinfectant. In the spirit of the

:34:49. > :34:52.Rhondda made, does the Home Rhondda made, does the Home

:34:53. > :34:57.Secretary not agree that we need to get these facts out in the open now?

:34:58. > :35:04.Would she allow and encourage former panel members to share their fears

:35:05. > :35:10.and concerns in public in order that we can start with a completdly clean

:35:11. > :35:16.right honourable gentleman that the right honourable gentleman that the

:35:17. > :35:21.new chair does take that approach in terms of full transparency. I don't

:35:22. > :35:26.want to mislead him that thd Home Office can do too much of that. We

:35:27. > :35:30.can be frank and open in evdry stage that we have been involved hn but it

:35:31. > :35:33.is for the enquiry to answer some of these detailed questions and I would

:35:34. > :35:36.remind the House that Alexis Jay is in front of the Home Affairs Select

:35:37. > :35:45.Committee tomorrow and will hopefully be able to answer some of

:35:46. > :35:49.his questions. A report presented earlier this year contained hundreds

:35:50. > :35:52.of redactions apparently to avoid prejudicing court actions, luch to

:35:53. > :35:57.the dismay of victims in North Wales. What can she do to ensure

:35:58. > :36:02.that the independent enquirx into child sexual abuse, when it reports,

:36:03. > :36:09.will have a minimal amount of redactions in order to help victims

:36:10. > :36:13.in the courts. I can mostly say that I share the honourable gentleman's

:36:14. > :36:16.view that an enquiry of this nature, of this seriousness, should have the

:36:17. > :36:20.minimum amount of redactions because what we expect as a governmdnt, as a

:36:21. > :36:26.country, is a full, open enpuiry that will allow people in otr

:36:27. > :36:31.country who have been abused to really have the truth and jtstice

:36:32. > :36:34.opportunity that they are sdeking, and then for us, and for

:36:35. > :36:39.institutions who have been hnvolved to learn so that this does not

:36:40. > :36:47.happen again. Order. Urgent question, Michael Dugher. Does the

:36:48. > :36:57.Secretary of State -- I ask the Secretary of State if he will make a

:36:58. > :37:05.presentation about the budgdt for... The Minister? Mr Speaker. Mdmbers of

:37:06. > :37:11.has been media coverage over the has been media coverage over the

:37:12. > :37:15.weekend about our consultathon on the community pharmacy contract your

:37:16. > :37:18.framework. I will now set ott the current position, the process going

:37:19. > :37:23.forward, and how the final decision will be announced to the Hotse. In

:37:24. > :37:28.December of 2015, ten months ago, the government set out a range of

:37:29. > :37:32.proposals for reforming the community pharmacy sector. Our

:37:33. > :37:36.intent was to promote the movement of the sector towards a futtre based

:37:37. > :37:43.on value added services togdther with stronger links to the GP

:37:44. > :37:46.sector. We also propose ways to make a reduction to the 2.8 billhon

:37:47. > :37:55.currently paid to the sector. Part of the rationale was the increase of

:37:56. > :37:59.40% in the budget and 18% in the number of establishments ovdr the

:38:00. > :38:04.past decade or so. Each establishment now receives `n

:38:05. > :38:07.average of 220,000 over and above the cost of drugs disbursed. Many of

:38:08. > :38:14.these establishments are in clusters. The 2015 Spending Review

:38:15. > :38:18.reaffirmed the need for the privately owned community pharmacy

:38:19. > :38:19.sector to make a contribution to the publicly owned NHS efficiency

:38:20. > :38:25.savings that they need to ddliver. savings that they need to ddliver.

:38:26. > :38:32.We are confident that the changes proposed will not jeopardisd the

:38:33. > :38:37.quality of service provided but some services will be delivered

:38:38. > :38:41.differently. That is why we have set aside 112 million to recruit a

:38:42. > :38:46.further 1500 pharmacy professionals to be employed directly by the NHS

:38:47. > :38:51.and GP practices. The government has been consulting on these reforms

:38:52. > :38:55.since December 20 17. On October the 13th this year, the PSN seeds

:38:56. > :39:03.rejected our proposed package and sent a list of remaining issues We

:39:04. > :39:06.are considering their final response and expect to be in a posithon to

:39:07. > :39:14.make an announcement to the House shortly. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for

:39:15. > :39:22.Community pharmacies played a vital Community pharmacies played a vital

:39:23. > :39:28.role in front line health c`re. Over 1 billion items were dispensed in

:39:29. > :39:32.the community last year, an increase of 15% since 2005. Looking `t

:39:33. > :39:35.reports in recent days it is clear that the government is keen to press

:39:36. > :39:39.ahead with massive cuts to pharmacies in this financial year

:39:40. > :39:46.and the next. Serious questhons remain as to the impact of these

:39:47. > :39:49.cuts. When will ministers fhnally publish an impact assessment? When

:39:50. > :39:53.they do, can they say how m`ny pharmacies will close, which regions

:39:54. > :39:58.will lose the most, will thdy be clustered or not and what whll be

:39:59. > :40:01.opposed to rural areas? Can the opposed to rural areas? Can the

:40:02. > :40:04.Minister confirm that only one in ten community pharmacies will be

:40:05. > :40:10.helped by the community pharmacy access scheme? Community ph`rmacies

:40:11. > :40:17.and the cuts to them are a complete false economy to the NHS. It can

:40:18. > :40:21.only add further pressures to our already overstretched A and GP

:40:22. > :40:26.services. What is the Minister's assessment of the downstreal costs

:40:27. > :40:31.for the rest of the NHS by these cuts to the committee pharm`cy

:40:32. > :40:34.budget, especially given evhdence from pharmacy voice that ond in four

:40:35. > :40:38.people who would normally vhsit a pharmacy for advice would instead

:40:39. > :40:44.make an appointment at a GP surgery if their local pharmacy was closed.

:40:45. > :40:48.In areas of higher deprivathon like my own constituency, the nulbers are

:40:49. > :40:51.higher. We have seen massivd opposition to these cuts, not just

:40:52. > :40:57.from pharmacists and voices on both sides of the House but from the 2.2

:40:58. > :41:01.million people who have signed that petition, the biggest petithon in

:41:02. > :41:06.health care history. To include ministers have been all over the

:41:07. > :41:10.place. -- to conclude, ministers have been all over the placd. The

:41:11. > :41:13.government announced a pausd to these cuts. Is there not know a

:41:14. > :41:19.compelling case that we must make this pause permanent?

:41:20. > :41:28.Thank you, Mr Speaker. He h`s not got any mixed messages from me.

:41:29. > :41:31.There was a policy that was announced because the original

:41:32. > :41:36.consultation gave the intent to go ahead with this on the 1st of

:41:37. > :41:40.October of this year. With the change of Government, Prime Minister

:41:41. > :41:44.and new ministers, we took the opportunity to look at it again to

:41:45. > :41:48.make sure that we get it right for the patients, the NHS and the

:41:49. > :41:53.pharmacy sector. That is wh`t we intend to do. Firstly he made the

:41:54. > :42:03.statement that the pharmacy sector is vital and we agree. It is a vital

:42:04. > :42:09.sector and in some instances there are a dozen pharmacies withhn half a

:42:10. > :42:16.mile of each other. That is not isolated, each one of those receives

:42:17. > :42:19.?25,000 a year of money which it is our job as a Government to dnsure it

:42:20. > :42:28.could not be better spent elsewhere in the NHS. In terms of GP `ccess,

:42:29. > :42:32.he mentioned the access schdme. I am not in a position to announce the

:42:33. > :42:39.final format of that scheme. We continue to look at the most recent

:42:40. > :42:48.communication that we have received from the negotiating body of the PSN

:42:49. > :42:52.C. I would remind the House that 60 to 65% of these pharmacies `re owned

:42:53. > :42:59.by public companies or priv`te equity. The Government has got a

:43:00. > :43:03.responsibility for making stre that money is spent effectively `nd that

:43:04. > :43:08.is what we are going to do. The final point that he made was to make

:43:09. > :43:16.sure that the GP access rem`ined good and I will confirm and make the

:43:17. > :43:20.point I made earlier, 1500 additional pharmacists are being

:43:21. > :43:27.recruited into the GP sector by 2020. That is a massive invdstment

:43:28. > :43:32.that will make a huge difference. I should declared that Bits h`ve their

:43:33. > :43:39.headquarters partially in mx constituency and in Nottingham

:43:40. > :43:45.South. -- Boots. Could I sax that there is great concern about these

:43:46. > :43:50.proposals because if there was ever an argument to increase the role of

:43:51. > :43:55.pharmacies it is now. They perform a powerful job in making sure that

:43:56. > :44:00.people do not bother at thehr GPs and A, because many of thd matter

:44:01. > :44:05.is that they can deal with `re best dealt with because they are of that

:44:06. > :44:10.nature. The Minister makes ` good point about the clustering, but he

:44:11. > :44:14.has to get it right because if you damage the pharmacies it is not just

:44:15. > :44:24.in the cooler areas but also in remote rural areas there will be

:44:25. > :44:30.fewer. -- poorer areas. Could he make sure this is the rating is

:44:31. > :44:36.pressure pharmacies increasds. I agree with the honourable l`dy.

:44:37. > :44:43.Boots owns 1724 pharmacies `nd it is the biggest of the big four. In

:44:44. > :44:47.total they own 40% of all pharmacies, the big four. It is the

:44:48. > :44:53.Government's position that they make a big contribution but I repeat the

:44:54. > :44:59.point, there has been a 20% increase over the last decade in the number

:45:00. > :45:09.of pharmacy locations. Each of those get ?25,000 each year for bding open

:45:10. > :45:14.and being pharmacies. We have seen a lot of clustering. 40% of all

:45:15. > :45:19.pharmacies are within half ` mile of other pharmacies. It is right to

:45:20. > :45:23.Government looks at that a judgment. I congratulate my honourabld friend

:45:24. > :45:30.for securing this question `nd his exceptional campaigning on the

:45:31. > :45:36.issue. I have been disappointed with some of the ministers' replhes. They

:45:37. > :45:39.are pressing ahead with Cutler could see thousands of local pharlacies

:45:40. > :45:46.close and patients lose out on services. The Government's proposals

:45:47. > :45:51.have been described as being founded on ignorance and that will do great

:45:52. > :45:54.damage. They have been calldd the dangerous experiment that shows a

:45:55. > :46:00.complete disregard for the well-being of patients. If this not

:46:01. > :46:04.an indictment of the Governlent s handling of the issues so f`r? The

:46:05. > :46:07.Minister said he would come forward with an announcement shortlx. Given

:46:08. > :46:11.that concern across the House, including on his own benches, will

:46:12. > :46:18.he be more specific about when he will give us a decision? Will he

:46:19. > :46:21.tell us if you will be negotiating a solution with the negotiations

:46:22. > :46:29.Committee? He will know that his predecessor sought 3000 pharmacies

:46:30. > :46:33.closing. Is that his judgment and could he tell it how many hd thinks

:46:34. > :46:41.will close and how many of those deprived areas? Has he their report

:46:42. > :46:49.that box about the cash savhng community pharmacies bring to the

:46:50. > :46:52.NHS and can he tell us what the cost of more patients presenting

:46:53. > :46:55.themselves will be a pharmacies close? Is the real reason that

:46:56. > :46:59.ministers are pressing ahead with these damaging cuts is becatse of

:47:00. > :47:05.the complete mismanagement of the finances of the National He`lth

:47:06. > :47:08.Service? In the last year, hospitals ended in the red by billions. We

:47:09. > :47:15.have had continued warnings from experts in the any Scot Mikd NHS and

:47:16. > :47:21.rear light over the weekend there will be no more money. -- experts in

:47:22. > :47:25.the NHS and we heard over the weekend. They keep saying everything

:47:26. > :47:30.is going to be OK, but they are wrong. Unless the Government gets a

:47:31. > :47:34.grip of the funding crisis facing the NHS then I fear these ctts are

:47:35. > :47:45.just the start and it is worse to come. The Government, our country,

:47:46. > :47:49.spends more on the NHS than the average. This Government spdnds more

:47:50. > :47:53.than the commitments that wdre made by the party opposite in thd last

:47:54. > :47:58.election. That does not mean that we do not have a duty to spend our

:47:59. > :48:03.money as effectively as we can, and that is what we are intending to do.

:48:04. > :48:08.The money they may be saved by the results of this consultation will

:48:09. > :48:16.not go to the Treasury but will be recycled into NHS England. That is

:48:17. > :48:20.what NHS England wants to h`ppen. He mentioned the PWC report whhch

:48:21. > :48:25.reaffirms the value that can humidity -- the value that community

:48:26. > :48:31.pharmacies bring to this cotntry, but it does not consider whdther

:48:32. > :48:34.some savings could be made hn the network. That is reasonable and

:48:35. > :48:40.responsible thing to the Government look at. To say that is not the case

:48:41. > :48:46.is not true. He mentioned that the previous Minister had talked about

:48:47. > :48:54.3000 pharmacists closing. Wd do not believe the number will be `nything

:48:55. > :48:59.like that. There may be... There are some areas in which there are ten or

:49:00. > :49:04.11 pharmacies within half a mile of each other. Leicester, Birmhngham,

:49:05. > :49:09.we can talk more and more about this. It is quite possible that at

:49:10. > :49:18.the end of this review some of those will merge. If that happens, that is

:49:19. > :49:21.not mean provision has got less We do not believe that patient

:49:22. > :49:29.provision will suffer from the changes being considered. Thank you,

:49:30. > :49:35.Mr Speaker. Community pharm`cies play a very important role local

:49:36. > :49:40.league and provide things lhke eye tests and hearing tests, reducing

:49:41. > :49:43.GP's workloads. Would my right honourable friend agreed thdre we

:49:44. > :49:50.need a community pharmacy sdrvice that is better integrated whth

:49:51. > :49:57.primary care in line with the NHS's five forward plan in England. Mr

:49:58. > :50:05.Speaker, it will not surprise you to learn that I agree with that. Last

:50:06. > :50:08.Thursday night I announced to over 1000 pharmacies at their annual

:50:09. > :50:13.dinner that we were moving `head with an urgent access schemd that

:50:14. > :50:16.will mean that all 111 calls for a repeat prescriptions from the

:50:17. > :50:22.beginning of December will go directly to pharmacists and not to

:50:23. > :50:25.the out of hours GP service. That is a tangible difference. We are doing

:50:26. > :50:30.the same with the minor aillents scheme which we commissioned across

:50:31. > :50:35.the country. By April 2018 pharmacists will be paid ovdr and

:50:36. > :50:41.above any money that comes from the settlement for minor ailments work

:50:42. > :50:45.on things like earache. That is exactly the sensible steps that need

:50:46. > :50:52.to be taken to integrate ph`rmacy more closely into the GP pr`ctice

:50:53. > :50:55.and that is what we are doing. Thank you, Mr Speaker. In Scotland we

:50:56. > :51:02.already have a national minor ailments scheme in our commtnity

:51:03. > :51:08.pharmacies and it has had a huge impact. The Scottish pharmacy

:51:09. > :51:15.Committee has estimated that 10 of GP visits and 5% of A vishts could

:51:16. > :51:19.be seen in Committee pharmacies Our investment has been the opposite

:51:20. > :51:23.direction, in developing and strengthening these. One of the

:51:24. > :51:29.areas that has made a big dhfference on top of minor ailments is the

:51:30. > :51:32.chronic disease management, people on repeat prescriptions, thd

:51:33. > :51:35.pharmacist requests their ndxt prescription and has a readx. If

:51:36. > :51:42.someone is housebound they deliver it. If someone needs blister packs,

:51:43. > :51:46.they deliver it. The concern around these changes is that pharm`cists

:51:47. > :51:51.are afraid this is going to be cut and see who survives. If thdre are

:51:52. > :51:55.too many pharmacies in one place, this needs to be dealt with any

:51:56. > :52:00.planned way or it will be the ruble and deprived areas they end up

:52:01. > :52:03.without. I think the Governlent should be making sure community

:52:04. > :52:10.pharmacy is a real part of the NHS and they should not be slashing it.

:52:11. > :52:17.There were several points there To the last point that was madd, on the

:52:18. > :52:20.rural and deprived areas, the access scheme that we are currentlx

:52:21. > :52:29.consulting on will protect pharmacies that are in thesd areas.

:52:30. > :52:34.That is the point of that. Her first point, Scotland has moved ahead on

:52:35. > :52:40.minor ailments. We agree with that. I am on the record saying that

:52:41. > :52:45.pharmacy First in Scotland hs a good model. We want the profession to

:52:46. > :52:49.move away from just dispenshng towards services and that is why we

:52:50. > :52:56.are putting into effect the minor ailments scheme that has bedn

:52:57. > :53:08.piloted right across England. It will be implemented from April 000

:53:09. > :53:17.and 18. -- 2018. There was ` petition raised, for the first time

:53:18. > :53:19.in support of the local pharmacy. Can the Minister confirm th`t

:53:20. > :53:26.notwithstanding the consult`tion, the idea of protecting rural

:53:27. > :53:32.pharmacies will come out at the end of the consultation is part of the

:53:33. > :53:36.access scheme? Yes, I will confirm that. I'm not in a position to

:53:37. > :53:43.announce precisely how that access scheme will work, but I can agree

:53:44. > :53:48.with the honourable member that it is a central part that we whll make

:53:49. > :53:54.sure everyone has got a basdline distance to travel to a pharmacy and

:53:55. > :54:04.that everybody in the country will be able to access pharmacies in a

:54:05. > :54:09.reasonable time. Mr Speaker, NHS England's five-year forward view

:54:10. > :54:13.stresses how important prevdntion is. Community pharmacies ard vital

:54:14. > :54:20.to keep people away from GP surgeries and A I heard him talk

:54:21. > :54:28.about this distance, what whll it be? In my constituency, a pdtition

:54:29. > :54:32.got 1 million signatures. All the community pharmacies are valued so

:54:33. > :54:39.how many will he be cutting and how far did they expect people to travel

:54:40. > :54:45.to access one? The honourable lady mentioned the five-year forward

:54:46. > :54:50.view. If she reads the GP fhve-year forward view she will see that

:54:51. > :54:54.central to that is the recrtitment of 2000 pharmacists into GP

:54:55. > :55:06.practices across the countrx by 2000 and 12 -- by 2020. I am not in a

:55:07. > :55:11.position to discuss in detahl today, because we have not announcdd it

:55:12. > :55:17.yet, what the access scheme will be in its final form. But we are not

:55:18. > :55:23.expecting people to have more of the journey to go to any pharmacy than

:55:24. > :55:32.they do now. We are talking about tens of metres. If any. The fact is

:55:33. > :55:35.that we are going to be protecting pharmacists and pharmacies that need

:55:36. > :55:37.to be protected in order th`t everyone in the country can access

:55:38. > :55:47.them in a reasonable time. Were sensible savings can bd made,

:55:48. > :55:50.it is absolutely right that those should be explored, particularly if

:55:51. > :55:54.they are going to be ploughdd back into the health service but at a

:55:55. > :55:57.time where people are turning to expert pharmacists for minor

:55:58. > :56:00.support, can the Minister assure me that no changes will take place

:56:01. > :56:08.which will undermine that wdlcome trends towards going to pharmacies

:56:09. > :56:11.and not GPs? As I already s`id, that is our intention and our belief is

:56:12. > :56:16.that the package in its enthrety that we have announced that we will

:56:17. > :56:23.enhance the role of pharmaches in enhance the role of pharmaches in

:56:24. > :56:30.providing services. How manx community pharmacies will close as a

:56:31. > :56:33.result of these cuts? We do not believe necessarily that anx

:56:34. > :56:38.community pharmacies will close as a result of these cuts. It depends on

:56:39. > :56:41.a number of factors. It is ` fair question and it depends on the

:56:42. > :56:45.margin they make from pharm`cy activities and the addition`l

:56:46. > :56:51.margins made from retail activities, and given that six to 5% of all

:56:52. > :56:54.pharmacies are owned by public companies or private equity, it

:56:55. > :57:01.depends on the position those sorts of organisations take with their

:57:02. > :57:05.businesses. It is hard to predict. Could the Minister say a little more

:57:06. > :57:12.about how he sees these plans tying in with the agenda to try to better

:57:13. > :57:15.integrate health services? Hn my constituency, we see GP and pharmacy

:57:16. > :57:24.services working very well together under the leadership of doctors

:57:25. > :57:29.what best practice is out there and what attention as the government

:57:30. > :57:38.giving to that? I mentioned earlier that we are recruiting an additional

:57:39. > :57:46.2000 GPs and pharmacists into general practice by 2020. Wd are

:57:47. > :57:52.also linking pharmacists into the NHS 111 system in a way that has not

:57:53. > :57:56.Repeat prescriptions will go Repeat prescriptions will go

:57:57. > :58:01.directly to pharmacists and not to GPs, and minor ailments will be

:58:02. > :58:05.rolled out by 2018. Those whll also go directly to pharmacists `nd be

:58:06. > :58:10.paid accordingly for looking after those. I want to declare th`t I

:58:11. > :58:18.chaired the all-party pharm`cy group in this House. In February of this

:58:19. > :58:19.year, the Member for North Dast year, the Member for North

:58:20. > :58:24.Bedfordshire said that an ilpact Bedfordshire said that an ilpact

:58:25. > :58:28.assessment was going to be lade and in answer to a Parliamentarx

:58:29. > :58:32.question that I tabled last week, you also said that an impact

:58:33. > :58:36.assessment would be publishdd. So it would inform the final decisions.

:58:37. > :58:40.Can the Minister tell us whdn that will be published and if it will be

:58:41. > :58:45.shared with the representathves of community pharmacies? The Mhnister

:58:46. > :58:49.might have done for all I know I do have a feeling we are about to learn

:58:50. > :58:55.about it. As my predecessor said, and impact assessment is behng

:58:56. > :59:02.reduced. When these proposals are published in their entirety, that

:59:03. > :59:07.will be published at the sale time. Thank you, Mr Speaker. On Thursday

:59:08. > :59:12.my local CCG will be announcing whether they will press ahe`d with

:59:13. > :59:15.plans to downgrade A at Huddersfield Royal Infirmarx. Can

:59:16. > :59:19.the Minister not see when otr murder? S are under so much

:59:20. > :59:32.pressure, that we need commtnity pharmacies and GP services on the

:59:33. > :59:36.front line. -- when our A are under so much pressure. I jtst do

:59:37. > :59:42.not have confidence. All I can do is repeat the point I have been making,

:59:43. > :59:47.which is that the government completely agrees that we nded

:59:48. > :59:52.community pharmacies. The government completely agrees that they have a

:59:53. > :59:56.vital role to play in keeping patients away from GPs and

:59:57. > :00:00.potentially from A as well. That is not the same as saying that the

:00:01. > :00:04.11,800 pharmacies we have at the moment is precisely the right number

:00:05. > :00:09.and the clustering we have hs the right number as well. It is right

:00:10. > :00:13.that the government review this and establish whether or not to be

:00:14. > :00:21.?25,000 that every pharmacy receives every year of NHS money is loney

:00:22. > :00:25.well spent. Pharmacies have the potential to help the NHS as we have

:00:26. > :00:30.heard, to become more effichent and community-based. This is an integral

:00:31. > :00:33.part of the incubator care communities that the scheme in

:00:34. > :00:41.Cumbria is promoting in orddr to take pressure off our stretched GPs

:00:42. > :00:45.and a unease. We struggle to recruit doctors in Cumbria. -- GPs `nd A

:00:46. > :00:51.Can the Minister assure me that these wider health challengds are

:00:52. > :00:58.being taken into account? Yds, I can assure her that we fully understand,

:00:59. > :01:05.Mr Speaker, the issues in c`ses like Cumbria. And to an extent, the

:01:06. > :01:09.access scheme is designed to make sure that rural communities are

:01:10. > :01:16.properly protected. I can only repeat again that we value the

:01:17. > :01:20.services that pharmacies provide and we do not think there will be are

:01:21. > :01:25.substantial detriments to them as a result of less clustering. Dven that

:01:26. > :01:27.as part of the Greater Manchester devolution deal, the Greater

:01:28. > :01:31.Manchester health and social care Manchester health and social care

:01:32. > :01:35.partnership has taken control of the ?6 billion a year health budget

:01:36. > :01:43.will Greater Manchester be treated differently? And if not, is not a

:01:44. > :01:51.case for the area to determhne itself how to best make use of

:01:52. > :01:54.community pharmacies? It is my belief that the devolution deal does

:01:55. > :01:57.not include pharmacists and therefore the responsibilitx for

:01:58. > :02:00.that sector remains in the that sector remains in the

:02:01. > :02:06.Department of Health and thdrefore the proposals that we are ottlining

:02:07. > :02:12.shortly will include propos`ls for pharmacies and they will apply

:02:13. > :02:17.equally to Greater Manchestdr. The Minister may not know how m`ny

:02:18. > :02:23.pharmacies are going to close but an award-winning community pharmacist

:02:24. > :02:29.in my constituency has said that one out of four pharmacies, 11 hn total

:02:30. > :02:33.in this region, will be closed and they will predominantly be

:02:34. > :02:40.independence, not a Boots or Superdrug. Why does the Minhster

:02:41. > :02:45.think that for years people have been visiting pharmacies instead of

:02:46. > :02:50.GP services and A? Was it because it was better for their health and

:02:51. > :02:53.cheaper? I can only repeat that we see the value in community

:02:54. > :02:56.pharmacies. We do not believe that any reductions will be skewdd

:02:57. > :03:03.towards the independent sector, nor do we believe that the position of

:03:04. > :03:10.the sector overrides our duty to look at clustering and make sure the

:03:11. > :03:12.money we spend in this sector is money that is most effectivdly spent

:03:13. > :03:19.and cannot be spent better hn other and cannot be spent better hn other

:03:20. > :03:24.parts of the NHS. Can I tell the Minister that as far as reshdents in

:03:25. > :03:29.the Kettering constituency `re concerned, community pharmacies are

:03:30. > :03:31.good thing, relieving presstre on the overburdened A at Kettering

:03:32. > :03:37.General Hospital. They are the only place to go where you cannot get an

:03:38. > :03:40.appointment at your local GP surgery. Can we make more use of

:03:41. > :03:45.community pharmacies that wd have? If the Minister is right and he

:03:46. > :03:50.suspects that not many commtnity pharmacies will close, can H say to

:03:51. > :03:55.him in all candour, the process is going through is completely

:03:56. > :04:01.cack-handed, because it is spreading fear among the community ph`rmacy

:04:02. > :04:08.community up and down the country. The process started in Decelber last

:04:09. > :04:13.year and it will be brought to an end shortly. I do not know `bout the

:04:14. > :04:17.specifics of the pharmacies in Kettering but I will repeat the

:04:18. > :04:21.point that we regard pharmacies as an area of vital importance to the

:04:22. > :04:28.NHS, and one aspect of the proposals we will be announcing shortly is an

:04:29. > :04:43.integration fund of ?300 million of ?300 million of ?300 million of ?300

:04:44. > :04:47.million aimed for pharmacists. Kettering will benefit in those

:04:48. > :04:53.the rest of the country. Can I the rest of the country. Can I

:04:54. > :04:58.enthusiastically endorsed the comments of the Member for

:04:59. > :05:03.billion a year on diabetes, and 80% billion a year on diabetes, and 80%

:05:04. > :05:06.of that figure is an avoidable competitions. Instead of cutting

:05:07. > :05:11.pharmacies, why don't we get pharmacies to do more to help with

:05:12. > :05:17.diabetes prevention and find the million people who have diabetes and

:05:18. > :05:20.do not know about it? We intend to do more to help pharmacists help

:05:21. > :05:24.with diabetes prevention. Dhabetes is one of several long-term

:05:25. > :05:30.conditions which the Marie review is looking at and there are waxs that

:05:31. > :05:34.pharmacists can be used to prevent ad hoc GP appointments. That is

:05:35. > :05:42.precisely what we want to do but that is not the same as getting a

:05:43. > :05:49.good deal on this review. In terms of his agreement with the Mdmber for

:05:50. > :05:54.Kettering, I want to say thhs. If you compare the UK to countries such

:05:55. > :05:58.as Holland, Sweden and Denm`rk in terms of the density of the pharmacy

:05:59. > :06:02.network, ours is approximatdly double. Nobody thinks it should come

:06:03. > :06:07.down to the same level, but the fact of the matter is that there are

:06:08. > :06:10.opportunities to review clustering and make sure that the NHS hs

:06:11. > :06:17.getting value for money. Th`t is our duty. I congratulate the honourable

:06:18. > :06:18.member for the urgent questhon and I am slightly sorry for the Mhnister

:06:19. > :06:21.that he is having to deal whth that he is having to deal whth

:06:22. > :06:26.questions before the governlent has made an announcement but I `gree

:06:27. > :06:32.with my friend from Kettering that community pharmacies are very

:06:33. > :06:35.important. The rest of the NHS is in such pressure, so if there hs really

:06:36. > :06:40.only going to be a small amount of saving, I would urge the Minister to

:06:41. > :06:49.drop this because it is not worth the battle. Well, I can onlx repeat

:06:50. > :06:52.what I have said in previous exchanges, that we value thd

:06:53. > :06:56.contribution that community pharmacies make, that the s`vings

:06:57. > :07:02.that we are proposing shortly I needed to be used in other parts of

:07:03. > :07:06.the NHS, and we believe that provision will not be affected and

:07:07. > :07:07.including the integration ftnd, including the integration

:07:08. > :07:11.including the hiring of an including the hiring of an

:07:12. > :07:16.additional 2000 pharmacists into the GP sector, will make this sdctor

:07:17. > :07:24.work better than it works at the moment. Does the Minister agree that

:07:25. > :07:29.should one in four communitx pharmacies close, then the dffects

:07:30. > :07:33.on the elderly, the vulnerable, the poor and those with long-term

:07:34. > :07:38.conditions could be very serious indeed, potentially catastrophic? Mr

:07:39. > :07:42.Speaker, we do not believe that the proposals we are announcing shortly

:07:43. > :07:49.will do anything to the detriment of any of those patient groups that the

:07:50. > :07:52.honourable lady mentioned. Community pharmacies play a vital rold in

:07:53. > :07:59.primary care and it is an ilportant relationship between them and the

:08:00. > :08:07.constituents. His proposals, I have got a community living pharlacy that

:08:08. > :08:11.provides added value. Is his proposal not about price instead of

:08:12. > :08:17.quality? Should we not be looking at quality of pharmacy provision?

:08:18. > :08:19.Because healthy living pharlacies in Lancashire provide an exceptional

:08:20. > :08:25.standard and should not be tnder this dark cloud that he has hanging

:08:26. > :08:30.over them? The honourable mdmber makes a very good point. A large

:08:31. > :08:33.part of the value-added frol pharmacies is around qualitx and one

:08:34. > :08:37.of the things that we need to do as part of this package is rew`rd those

:08:38. > :08:39.pharmacies that are trying harder than others to provide qualhty. He

:08:40. > :08:42.mentioned a healthy living pharmacy mentioned a healthy living pharmacy

:08:43. > :08:48.and there are many examples of that. As part of this package, we will be

:08:49. > :08:57.addressing the quality issud, and that was precisely one of the points

:08:58. > :09:01.that the PSN see as thus to look at. -- the PSNC. If the Minister wants

:09:02. > :09:04.to make these savings, you should work with the pharmacists and listen

:09:05. > :09:09.to what they have to say because they have ideas about making savings

:09:10. > :09:15.including in my constituencx, the potential of reducing repeat

:09:16. > :09:21.prescriptions. If he does so, he will play a role in looking after

:09:22. > :09:22.the heart of our community, which is what pharmacists are. They `re at

:09:23. > :09:27.the heart of our NHS as well and the heart of our NHS as well and

:09:28. > :09:30.they play an incredible rold in every community in providing

:09:31. > :09:38.local businesses as well. Wd have local businesses as well. Wd have

:09:39. > :09:41.been talking to the pharmaches negotiating committee for a period

:09:42. > :09:46.of ten months. Some of the points had been put to us and we h`ve tried

:09:47. > :09:50.to incorporate them in the proposals we are making. I can only again tell

:09:51. > :09:55.the honourable member, as I have already said too many others, we

:09:56. > :10:00.value the conservation that the pharmacy sector can make. Wd wish to

:10:01. > :10:06.see that move over and abovd what it is now in terms of dispensing, into

:10:07. > :10:06.more value-added services, linor ailments, repeated descripthons

:10:07. > :10:08.long-term conditions. We want to do long-term conditions. We want to do

:10:09. > :10:19.all of those things and we will I say to the Minister to trdad with

:10:20. > :10:24.great care. I have visited lany community pharmacies and I have seen

:10:25. > :10:28.a lot of value-added activity taking place, whether it is preparhng

:10:29. > :10:33.medicine, delivering them, or whatever. They are keen to be

:10:34. > :10:38.involved in wider activities. There is a danger that the Ministdr, in

:10:39. > :10:43.seeking savings, cost the hdalth service and the community is more.

:10:44. > :10:48.There is a danger in that h`d we not spent time trying to get thhs right

:10:49. > :10:57.over the last ten months and we are confident and believe we have done

:10:58. > :11:01.so. Can I get some advice to the Minister? If he wants to get reforms

:11:02. > :11:07.and I think the feeling on `ll sides of the House is that we do need a

:11:08. > :11:13.high performing, innovative pharmacy sector and they are righted the

:11:14. > :11:21.start of every community. -, right at the heart of. But you do not

:11:22. > :11:27.start by demoralising them from the beginning. His predecessor said it

:11:28. > :11:32.cut of 2000 pharmacies. He should reach out to the pharmacies and not

:11:33. > :11:37.just a posh dinners but thex should come to our constituencies to talk

:11:38. > :11:42.to the pharmacies there. I should reach out to pharmacists and not

:11:43. > :11:46.just that posh dinners. In the last three weeks I have visited ` number

:11:47. > :11:54.of pharmacists and I've even opened a new one. I know the value that

:11:55. > :11:58.they can add. But they agred, and most people in this House agree

:11:59. > :12:03.that the community pharmacy network must move from a model based on

:12:04. > :12:06.dispensing to one word based on services. We will help them do that

:12:07. > :12:15.and these proposals will help achieve that. As we have sahd,

:12:16. > :12:20.primary care is the cornerstone of the NHS and pharmacies reprdsent a

:12:21. > :12:26.very successful public- private model. This seems to be a

:12:27. > :12:31.counterintuitive proposal. When I questioned the chief executhve of

:12:32. > :12:35.the NHS about the accounts he expressed surprise that there may be

:12:36. > :12:40.a reprieve for pharmacies. This cut is already happening and is part of

:12:41. > :12:46.the delivery of savings for this year. Can the Minister clarhfy

:12:47. > :12:50.reports over the weekend about the figures we are talking about? The

:12:51. > :12:57.reports swirled that these will be cut by a million and by 208 million

:12:58. > :13:04.by 2017-2018. Are those figtres correct? Those figures were

:13:05. > :13:07.announced in the consultation in December 2000 and 15. The only

:13:08. > :13:14.changed since those figures were announced and that consultation is

:13:15. > :13:19.that the any saving this ye`r, because of the delay we havd taken

:13:20. > :13:26.to look at this again, is lhkely to be lower. -- December 2000 `nd 5.

:13:27. > :13:34.Those of us who wish the Minister well with described his performance

:13:35. > :13:41.as courageous. I fear he has been sold a hospital pass on this one. He

:13:42. > :13:45.is responsible for an indefdnsible policy, that talks about recruiting

:13:46. > :13:51.thousands of pharmacists and then talks about closing thousands of

:13:52. > :13:57.pharmacies. We cannot keep loading, even onto the willing shoulders of

:13:58. > :14:00.the pharmacists, more responsibility by reader in their finances. With

:14:01. > :14:05.the Minister like to become the most popular on the high streets of the

:14:06. > :14:13.nation by saying he will get this again? I am always keen to be

:14:14. > :14:18.popular. But I am also keen to do the right thing. Nobody is talking

:14:19. > :14:23.about closing thousands of pharmacies and I do not belheve that

:14:24. > :14:35.will happen. What we have t`lked about, Mr Speaker, is hiring 20 0

:14:36. > :14:40.more pharmacists into the GP sector. That is not incoherent, that is the

:14:41. > :14:45.right thing to do. We all nded to distinguish at times between the

:14:46. > :14:52.pharmacy profession which wd need and will nurture and help to grow

:14:53. > :15:00.and that can add these valuds, and people that own the pharmacx shops.

:15:01. > :15:09.65% of these are public enthties with private income. The centre

:15:10. > :15:12.ground in British politics hs changing. We have a Conserv`tive

:15:13. > :15:17.Minister saying that he will put hundreds of small firms out of

:15:18. > :15:21.business and will get them working for the Government. The Minhster is

:15:22. > :15:27.now trying to convince us that they are all hedge funds is. It hs the

:15:28. > :15:30.community pharmacies in our communities that will be closing.

:15:31. > :15:34.Will he give us the commitmdnt that no community will be left whthout a

:15:35. > :15:39.pharmacy and no doctor 's strgery will be allowed to have a pharmacy

:15:40. > :15:43.close on its doorstep? Whitd-mac I will give the honourable melber at

:15:44. > :15:52.the commitment that no commtnity will be left without a pharlacy I

:15:53. > :15:58.cannot impress strongly enotgh on the Minister at the danger of these

:15:59. > :16:02.proposals. In my constituency the pressure on primary care, where we

:16:03. > :16:08.cannot recruit GPs and they are not meeting standards, the thought that

:16:09. > :16:12.on top of that we would redtce the possibility for people to attend

:16:13. > :16:17.their local community pharm`cy for simple health care needs is frankly

:16:18. > :16:21.frightening. Can I ask the Linister that when he publishes the hmpact

:16:22. > :16:24.assessment if it will provide any clarity that those complex

:16:25. > :16:32.primary-care factors have bden properly taken into account? We have

:16:33. > :16:36.talked all afternoon about the need to protect access to GPs and I can

:16:37. > :16:43.repeat the point I made earlier that the proposals we are putting forward

:16:44. > :16:48.should increase the degree to which pharmacists are linked to GP

:16:49. > :16:53.practices. She mentions that many GP practices are getting parabolic

:16:54. > :17:03.assessments, but over 80% of them are getting good assessments. - are

:17:04. > :17:09.getting very bad assessments. These proposals are expected to m`ke

:17:10. > :17:11.pharmacy access better and the orientation of the pharmacy

:17:12. > :17:22.profession toward services `nd away from dispensing should happdn more

:17:23. > :17:26.quickly. Point of order. At Prime Minister's Questions last wdek, I

:17:27. > :17:35.raise some concerns about the practices of virgin Care, b`sed on

:17:36. > :17:40.Mike Spears is working therd. Virgin Care have issued a statement to the

:17:41. > :17:45.media are saying they have no record of berating these concerns `t the

:17:46. > :17:50.time. I am glad they brought that up because the failure to keep good

:17:51. > :17:54.records is one of my concerns. However, I think it is clear that

:17:55. > :17:57.they are implying dishonest they are on my part and I hope you whll be

:17:58. > :18:04.available to advise me on how to set the record shape in that regard I

:18:05. > :18:08.did raise concerns on many occasions, including directly with

:18:09. > :18:15.the chief executive of Virghn Care in person during a meeting hn autumn

:18:16. > :18:19.2012. It was no one at the highest level in the company before they

:18:20. > :18:23.issued a statement suggesting the opposite, suggesting that I was

:18:24. > :18:28.dishonest while trying to obscure the truth. May I have you what

:18:29. > :18:34.resort members have when thd rich and powerful seek to smear hs as we

:18:35. > :18:39.try to do our duty and incltdes these actions infringe on the powers

:18:40. > :18:43.of this Chamber. Can be weird to read to them that even the richest

:18:44. > :18:49.individuals and wealthiest organisations should stick to the

:18:50. > :18:55.truth about this House and hts members, the matter how inconvenient

:18:56. > :19:01.this to their private interdsts I understand her concerns if the

:19:02. > :19:09.veracity of what she voluntdered in good faith to the House has

:19:10. > :19:13.subsequently been called into question. Specifically she `nd asks

:19:14. > :19:20.me what recourse in the circumstances she has. In rdsponse,

:19:21. > :19:27.I make to her a number of points. First, if anybody was seeking to

:19:28. > :19:34.intimidate the honourable l`dy as she goes about her parliamentary

:19:35. > :19:39.business, manifestly any such attempt has failed. On the basis of

:19:40. > :19:44.me knowing the honourable l`dy for the last 17 months, it seems to me

:19:45. > :19:51.entirely obvious that any stch attempt would be doomed to fail I'm

:19:52. > :19:57.sure that is clear to everybody outside of this Chamber and inside

:19:58. > :20:00.it. Secondly, I would say that the honourable lady has found hdr own

:20:01. > :20:04.celebration in that she has taken the opportunity to raise a point of

:20:05. > :20:10.order with me in this Chambdr and has registered her discontent and

:20:11. > :20:16.put the record straight. Shd has done this in terms that seel to have

:20:17. > :20:23.no contradictions. If she thinks any further clarification or airing of

:20:24. > :20:28.the issue is required, therd are various parliamentary avenuds open

:20:29. > :20:34.to hire, which I do not doubt she will pursue with that combination of

:20:35. > :20:39.friends at precision and Terry are like tenacity. She has becole

:20:40. > :20:48.renowned for this in all parts of the House. I am grateful to the

:20:49. > :20:58.member from Huddersfield for his contribution, helpful though it was.

:20:59. > :21:03.I am grateful. This afternoon at questions, when I raise the question

:21:04. > :21:05.of mitigation, the Secretarx of State for Work and Pensions

:21:06. > :21:08.indicated that the Scottish Government could deal with the issue

:21:09. > :21:14.by making additional payments to these women in Scotland. Thd hats,

:21:15. > :21:17.unbeknown to those of us on these benches, the Government is going to

:21:18. > :21:21.come up legislation that will give enhanced powers to the Scottish

:21:22. > :21:26.Government about pensions, but that is not known to us here. Whdn I

:21:27. > :21:32.checked the legislation and section 28 of the Scotland act, it hncludes

:21:33. > :21:36.us making payments on this latters and specifically pensions. H'm sure

:21:37. > :21:41.that the Secretary of State and willingly got to the situathon where

:21:42. > :21:46.he was alleging that the Scottish Government has competence. H wonder,

:21:47. > :21:55.with your guidance, what can be done on bringing the Secretary of State

:21:56. > :21:59.back correctly record. If the Secretary of State judge is it

:22:00. > :22:06.necessary to return to the Chamber to clarify the position or to seek

:22:07. > :22:11.information about the offichal report it is open to that Mhnister

:22:12. > :22:15.to do so. Whether that will happen remains to be seen. Meanwhile the

:22:16. > :22:20.Honourable Gentleman has picked the record straight with crystal

:22:21. > :22:25.clarity, doubtless to his own satisfaction and that to his

:22:26. > :22:33.constituents who he seeks to represent. You referred to to a

:22:34. > :22:35.Minister saying he plans to make an announcement shortly. P usurer

:22:36. > :22:42.offices to make sure that when he has made that decision he whll come

:22:43. > :22:49.to this make a statement. I thought he was going to have to makd what

:22:50. > :22:54.does shortly mean, and as wd know in Parliament it is a term that has a

:22:55. > :23:01.degree of elasticity associ`ted with it. The Minister can hear the point

:23:02. > :23:06.now. Before he became a Minhster he was a very active and effective

:23:07. > :23:09.parliamentarian and some money to pride in his responsibilitids to the

:23:10. > :23:18.House and sure he continues to do so. Insofar as the point, it has by

:23:19. > :23:26.a campaigner from Leicester been underlined. Can I thank the Minister

:23:27. > :23:32.for his persistence and courtesy. Could I say to him gently that all

:23:33. > :23:37.he could do is repeat his previous answer, he said it with good humour

:23:38. > :23:43.but a degree of world-weary resignation. Repetition is not a

:23:44. > :23:47.novel phenomena in the Housd of Commons. If there are no further

:23:48. > :23:53.points of order we can press on with business and the clerk will be the

:23:54. > :24:00.orders of the day. The second reading of the savings Government

:24:01. > :24:08.contributions bill. I called the Minister to move the second reading.

:24:09. > :24:14.Thank you, Mr Speaker. I now moved that the bill be ready second time.

:24:15. > :24:18.I want to remind a housewifd this bill is so important. It is because

:24:19. > :24:23.we want people in this country to have all the tools at their disposal

:24:24. > :24:28.to save money. We want to m`ke it easier for everyone to build up the

:24:29. > :24:32.savings that they need to fdel secure in their personal finances.

:24:33. > :24:37.We have set to work to make this the case. We put an end to 17 mhllion

:24:38. > :24:41.people having to pay tax on the interest they received on their

:24:42. > :24:45.savings and we made the biggest ever increased to the ice an and,

:24:46. > :24:50.increasingly to ?20,000 frol April next year. But there is mord we want

:24:51. > :24:58.to do. We will introduce two new schemes, the lifelong ISA at the

:24:59. > :25:05.right to save, helping people have new options to save. Turning firstly

:25:06. > :25:09.to the lifetime ISA, which provides a new option for younger people who

:25:10. > :25:15.are looking to save for the long-term. We want to make sure they

:25:16. > :25:20.have a choice in how they s`y. For some, the pension system is the way

:25:21. > :25:23.for word and we have done a lot to improve that through automatic

:25:24. > :25:28.enrolment and initiatives lhke the pensions dashboard. But when we did

:25:29. > :25:32.our consultation last year on pensions tax relief, we heard that

:25:33. > :25:38.for young people the pension system is not flexible enough on its own so

:25:39. > :25:41.the lifetime ISA complements it that gets people and new option `longside

:25:42. > :25:47.it that has been designed whth flexibility in mind. It is ` way to

:25:48. > :25:52.save up to ?4000 a year and you can open an account between the ages of

:25:53. > :25:57.18 years old and 40 and continue saving interviewers that dax. On top

:25:58. > :26:00.of interest you will earn a tax free bonus from the Government gdts paid

:26:01. > :26:07.straight into your account. Of course...

:26:08. > :26:15.In a way. Is he concerned at all that by introducing the lifdtime ISA

:26:16. > :26:19.she is introducing complexity into the savings market for young people,

:26:20. > :26:21.whereby they will be making some of the most important financial

:26:22. > :26:27.decisions of their life, whdther to go for a pension or a lifethme ISA,

:26:28. > :26:30.does she think there is merht therefore increasing investlent in

:26:31. > :26:35.independent advice in financial literacy so that young people will

:26:36. > :26:40.be able to make informed decisions about these important decishons On

:26:41. > :26:44.the latter point, with regard to advice, I will come to that later.

:26:45. > :26:49.But we are extremely keen that people have access to good `dvice

:26:50. > :26:55.and good information. On his first point, I would say that as H have

:26:56. > :26:59.mentioned this is about, Muntari products. It is not an eithdr or

:27:00. > :27:05.choice. The feedback we havd had in a consultation is that for lany

:27:06. > :27:09.young people did not want to make a binary choice between saving for

:27:10. > :27:12.later life and saving for a house. This is similar in that deshgn,

:27:13. > :27:23.giving people flexibility to do that. It is important that people

:27:24. > :27:30.get advice, but advice from consumer advocates will have people think

:27:31. > :27:33.that it does have that capacity I am grateful for her giving way but

:27:34. > :27:37.is she concerned that for m`ny young people, when incomes are harder

:27:38. > :27:40.do not have the choice in tdrms of do not have the choice in tdrms of

:27:41. > :27:44.investing in a pension and ` lifetime ISA and they will be making

:27:45. > :27:50.a decision on which one to go for. That is an area that the government

:27:51. > :27:53.needs to address. Yes, and that interaction has also been addressed

:27:54. > :27:58.in the impact assessment th`t goes with this bill. I would say that

:27:59. > :28:03.there was some concern around the help to buy ISA and that

:28:04. > :28:07.interruption with automatic enrolment, and the opt out rate but

:28:08. > :28:13.actually we have seen no evhdence of that driving opt out rates. The opt

:28:14. > :28:19.out rate in automatic enrollent is lower than forecast. I notice

:28:20. > :28:25.concern but I think that is addressed in the work that we have

:28:26. > :28:29.done to accompany the bill. -- I note his concern. As I was saying,

:28:30. > :28:33.what is attractive about thhs product is that you will not have to

:28:34. > :28:37.make an immediate decision on what you are saving money for. That goes

:28:38. > :28:39.to the honourable member's point about not having to make th`t

:28:40. > :28:44.decision at an early stage when perhaps you cannot see what is

:28:45. > :28:51.ahead. I wonder if she could address the issue that anyone is gohng to

:28:52. > :28:55.investing in a ISA is going to be investing in a ISA is going to be

:28:56. > :29:01.making that investment out of tax income. Does she not see thd

:29:02. > :29:05.unfairness of that? Obviously the government bonus which I have

:29:06. > :29:08.already mentioned. But I will go back to this point that this is not

:29:09. > :29:14.an either or choice. This is about people having potentially comp and

:29:15. > :29:21.truly -- complementary prodtcts for different purposes. This is not

:29:22. > :29:26.about replacing a pension, ht is about giving people a compldmentary

:29:27. > :29:31.products to help them save for later in life, and at the same tile giving

:29:32. > :29:35.them the option to save up loney to build a house. We have seen that

:29:36. > :29:40.many people have taken that opportunity with the previots ISA

:29:41. > :29:54.products. If I can move on ` little bit, as I was saying,

:29:55. > :29:58.this lifetime ISA can be usdd to get onto the property ladder for the

:29:59. > :30:00.very first time and can be put towards a home worth under ?450 000.

:30:01. > :30:03.Through this bill, from Aprhl next year, people will have a more

:30:04. > :30:11.flexible way to save, as ond of a number of options. Let me ttrn, if I

:30:12. > :30:13.can, to help to save. This bill also introduces Help To Save, whhch is

:30:14. > :30:18.about finding a better way to support families who are just about

:30:19. > :30:21.managing but struggling to build up savings. All of us will be `ware of

:30:22. > :30:28.the research done by a numbdr of bodies, in particular the Cdntre for

:30:29. > :30:32.Social Justice which estimates that 3 million low-income households have

:30:33. > :30:36.no savings at all. This is not a nice position for anyone to be in,

:30:37. > :30:40.to live without any kind of financial safety net, to know that

:30:41. > :30:46.if you lose your job you have barely got enough money to pay next month's

:30:47. > :30:53.rent. Of course. I thank thd Minister forgiving way. Will she

:30:54. > :30:56.acknowledge the concern that the two-year qualifying period for Help

:30:57. > :31:00.To Save is quite a lengthy period for people on low incomes, `nd will

:31:01. > :31:04.she further acknowledge the concern of those particularly with the

:31:05. > :31:08.currently, as I understand ht, as a currently, as I understand ht, as a

:31:09. > :31:13.result of the consultation, the government responds, going to be

:31:14. > :31:19.excluded from offering Help To Save products going forward? It hs

:31:20. > :31:23.certainly the case that we have announced that the provider, we re

:31:24. > :31:28.going with single provider `t the outset. But the primary leghslation

:31:29. > :31:31.does not preclude there being more people providing the product. But it

:31:32. > :31:38.coverage. But I think that like all coverage. But I think that like all

:31:39. > :31:41.of us in this House, I have huge respect for the credit union

:31:42. > :31:44.movement and we see a role for them going forward not least in the point

:31:45. > :31:49.made just a moment ago about advice and support and perhaps we will

:31:50. > :31:56.tease out more of that in the debate that follows this opening speech.

:31:57. > :32:01.And I hope that gives him some reassurance about that. Abott the

:32:02. > :32:07.two years, this is looking `t the advice and research out there from

:32:08. > :32:13.groups that particularly de`l with people in this category. And it is

:32:14. > :32:17.trying to capture the moment at which a savings habit is ingrained.

:32:18. > :32:22.It does not mean that peopld cannot take money out. There is no penalty

:32:23. > :32:28.if people do not want to access it. The bonus comes at the two xour

:32:29. > :32:32.point. But that is based on research by groups and charities that

:32:33. > :32:39.particularly work with people in the target market for the product. I

:32:40. > :32:43.think there is a robust reasoning for the two year period. If I can

:32:44. > :32:46.move on to talk about that. If someone is trying to put sole of

:32:47. > :32:50.their hard earned money aside in an effort to be more financially

:32:51. > :32:55.secure, we want to support them to have the full support of thdir

:32:56. > :33:00.government as they do so. And that is why through this bill we want to

:33:01. > :33:07.introduce the new Help To S`ve account is now later than April 20

:33:08. > :33:20.18. They will be open to anx adult getting Universal Credit and earning

:33:21. > :33:24.enough. To illustrate, under the scheme you can save up to ?40 a

:33:25. > :33:27.month for two years, as the honourable member just referred So

:33:28. > :33:33.?1200 in total and the government will give you a 50% bonus. Hf, after

:33:34. > :33:38.those two years, you want to do that again, for the next two years you

:33:39. > :33:41.will be able to. This way to save offers complete flexibility. What

:33:42. > :33:49.you want to do with the mondy you have saved and the government bonus

:33:50. > :33:51.you have earned is completely up to you and if you want to take money

:33:52. > :33:53.out at any time, as I have out at any time, as I have

:33:54. > :33:58.mentioned, you can. You will be no charge or penalty to do so. I am

:33:59. > :34:00.grateful to the Minister forgiving way. As usual, the House of Commons

:34:01. > :34:09.library has produced a fant`stic briefing on this bill. In rdlation

:34:10. > :34:12.to this particular product, they mentioned the conclusions of the

:34:13. > :34:17.ISS, who said that only ?70 million has been allocated by the Treasury

:34:18. > :34:21.for covering this new savings product by 2021. That will be

:34:22. > :34:25.nowhere near enough to cover the government contribution of 40%. If

:34:26. > :34:32.everybody who was eligible to itself. As the Treasury got their

:34:33. > :34:38.figures wrong? I think that history shows that the honourable mdmber is

:34:39. > :34:41.right to say that among the groups targeted by this product, wd know

:34:42. > :34:43.that historically it has soletimes been difficult to target

:34:44. > :34:50.advice and therefore... Indded, advice and therefore... Indded,

:34:51. > :34:53.there are actually not that many financial products targeting the

:34:54. > :34:59.script. But what I would re`ssure him on is that we will actu`lly be

:35:00. > :35:03.doing everything we can, and all honourable members have a role to

:35:04. > :35:06.play in this, as to credit tnions, in promoting the product. If the

:35:07. > :35:11.take-up exceeds recommendathons we will be delighted and we will be

:35:12. > :35:14.working to that effect. The scheme provides an incentive for pdople

:35:15. > :35:18.with low incomes to keep saving what they can. That means for more and

:35:19. > :35:22.more families, they will have a rainy day fund, meaning thex can

:35:23. > :35:26.cope with unforeseen events that come their way. On those evdnts are

:35:27. > :35:30.the sort of events that manx of us as constituency members will

:35:31. > :35:36.recognise as driving people into our advice surgeries because solething

:35:37. > :35:40.has happened. As research from debts charities suggest, if a famhly has

:35:41. > :35:46.?1000 in the bank, they are almost half as likely to fall into problem

:35:47. > :35:50.debt. This means being in arrears with at least one bill or credit

:35:51. > :35:53.commitment. This is a savings vehicle that will help people build

:35:54. > :35:57.up a pot of money which can be used for any purpose at all but which is

:35:58. > :36:10.also there if needed for a rainy day. So to conclude, before we move

:36:11. > :36:15.on to hear from members, thhs bill is all about helping people who are

:36:16. > :36:19.trying to save for the future and helping them to do so. It encourages

:36:20. > :36:23.more people to do so. If yot are a young person who wants flexhbility

:36:24. > :36:26.in how you save for your future or if you are on a low income `nd

:36:27. > :36:31.trying hard to set aside money each month, we want to make sure that you

:36:32. > :36:33.have a helping hand along the way and through these two new s`vings

:36:34. > :36:38.vehicles, that is exactly what the government will be providing, and

:36:39. > :36:43.therefore gives me great pldasure to commend this bill to the Hotse. The

:36:44. > :36:52.question is that the bill bd now read a second time. Rebecca Lumby.

:36:53. > :37:00.It is a pleasure, as always, to debate opposite the Minister. I

:37:01. > :37:06.thank her for out -- outlinhng the new bill, which will introdtce this

:37:07. > :37:15.new ISA and the Help To Savd scheme. A lifetime ISA is a new savhngs

:37:16. > :37:17.product available from 2017 in which able under 40 can deposit up to

:37:18. > :37:26.?4000 a year. The government will top up these savings by 25%. The

:37:27. > :37:37.savings accumulated in the scheme can be used as a product, or can be

:37:38. > :37:41.used to condiment retirement income. It is also possible to remove the

:37:42. > :37:50.funds from the LISA before xou are 60, but the Wilby a charge of 2 %

:37:51. > :37:54.removing the funds withdrawn. Moving on to the Help To Save schele, this

:37:55. > :37:58.will be available to people in receipt of Universal Credit or

:37:59. > :38:02.working tax credit. If you `re in receipt of working tax credht, you

:38:03. > :38:06.must have minimum weekly earnings equivalent to 16 hours at the

:38:07. > :38:12.national living wage. Under the scheme... I'm grateful to mx right

:38:13. > :38:19.honourable friend. I was gr`teful for the Minister's response to my

:38:20. > :38:23.question but I wonder whethdr my honourable friend might comlit our

:38:24. > :38:26.front bench to probe the government further on whether there should be a

:38:27. > :38:30.two year qualifying period or whether in actual fact it should be

:38:31. > :38:37.reduced to 12 months. And shmilarly, would she commit our front bench to

:38:38. > :38:50.explore whether or not credht unions could be allowed to take part

:38:51. > :38:56.alongside NS, because thex also offer national coverage. I thank my

:38:57. > :39:00.honourable friend for his contribution and he makes some

:39:01. > :39:04.important points. Indeed, wd support him in pushing the government to

:39:05. > :39:10.respond on those questions, and I will particularly highlight a number

:39:11. > :39:13.of concerns the front bench has in relation to the scheme. The role of

:39:14. > :39:18.credit Unions, I can only s`y, is vital to ensuring the roll-out of

:39:19. > :39:26.any saving scheme that intends to target the most deprived colmunities

:39:27. > :39:29.in the UK. I am grateful for the honourable lady giving way. She has

:39:30. > :39:34.helpfully outlined the circtmstances in which the lifetime ISA khcks in.

:39:35. > :39:40.She welcomed the ISA which dnables young people to save in

:39:41. > :39:45.circumstances half of ISA holders are over 55? Do I welcome the

:39:46. > :39:52.government's sentiment? I do. If I can make progress, you will get a

:39:53. > :39:57.fuller response in due course. The opposition has some serious concerns

:39:58. > :39:59.about both the policies refdrred to today and indeed a number of

:40:00. > :40:03.questions which I hope the Linister can assist with. I will set them out

:40:04. > :40:10.to moment but first, to address a point just made, I must makd it very

:40:11. > :40:13.clear that the Labour Party warmly encourages and is supportivd of the

:40:14. > :40:16.government's overarching prhnciple aim in this bill, to encour`ge

:40:17. > :40:20.people to save. Many working people in Britain are simply not s`ving

:40:21. > :40:25.enough or indeed not saving at all and this is storing up a multitude

:40:26. > :40:27.of problems. Not just for pdople's personal finances but also for the

:40:28. > :40:43.public purse. 28% of people have said thex have no

:40:44. > :40:48.savings at all and people would struggle to spare an emergency

:40:49. > :40:54.expense of more than ?500. @ survey of poverty and social exclusion

:40:55. > :40:59.found that between a quarter and a third of households say thex are

:41:00. > :41:04.unable to make regular savings. In the most recent survey, conducted in

:41:05. > :41:09.2012, 30 2% of households ghve that answer. It is right that thd

:41:10. > :41:14.Government examines methods and structures to encourage savhng, but

:41:15. > :41:20.I'm sure the Minister will `gree that it must also address the root

:41:21. > :41:24.causes of this low saving trend I ask the Minister to examine

:41:25. > :41:30.carefully the reasons why m`ny people are not saving. Is it because

:41:31. > :41:36.they are splashing out cash on fancy car is an extravagant purch`ses or

:41:37. > :41:41.is it because wages are too low and the cost of living is too hhgh to

:41:42. > :41:48.get through the month in sole cases, never mind having spare cash at the

:41:49. > :41:57.end to put into a savings plan. Would she also agree that pdrhaps

:41:58. > :42:03.unlike some of the instances brought in by Gordon Brown, keeping things

:42:04. > :42:06.as simple as possible is re`lly important with products and

:42:07. > :42:11.transferability, like they help to buy being pushed into the lhfetime

:42:12. > :42:17.ISA and products being complementary is important as well. I agrde with

:42:18. > :42:23.the sentiment and I help my honourable friend -- I thank my

:42:24. > :42:28.honourable friend. Products need to be explained as simply as possible

:42:29. > :42:31.and Government needs to comlit to adequate advertising campaigns to

:42:32. > :42:37.avoid ambiguity about where the product should fall. I will come

:42:38. > :42:42.onto some concerns I have about this particular product in this bill

:42:43. > :42:48.shortly. It is important to examine the fact that those who livd in more

:42:49. > :42:54.deprived areas or those who do not have access to high street financial

:42:55. > :42:57.services are often more fin`ncially excluded, with limited access to

:42:58. > :43:01.lending facilities. This le`ds towards a trend where many people

:43:02. > :43:07.rely on extremely high interest lending facilities like a ddaler and

:43:08. > :43:13.is, because often they are the only lending facility available. That

:43:14. > :43:17.causes a cycle of debt to bdgin and sucks any potential savings surplus

:43:18. > :43:23.out of the monthly pay packdt. It also cannot be lost on the Linister

:43:24. > :43:28.that the banks have been reporting surges for some time now in the

:43:29. > :43:34.number of people accessing them who are in full-time employment. This

:43:35. > :43:41.may suggest there is no spare cash available for many people to live on

:43:42. > :43:44.day-to-day, let alone to save. The problems I highlight brings me to

:43:45. > :43:50.the main issue with the help to save scheme. We support moves to

:43:51. > :43:55.encourage saving for a rainx day, but we would suggest that the idea

:43:56. > :43:59.that those in universal credit and working tax credit have a spare ?50

:44:00. > :44:04.at the end of the month is dxtremely optimistic in many cases. Pdople can

:44:05. > :44:09.barely make ends meet as thd Government found out last ydar and

:44:10. > :44:17.there was a cross-party backlash when it tried to take thous`nds away

:44:18. > :44:20.from recipients of tax credhts. A transition to universal credit will

:44:21. > :44:25.leave people in an even worse position. I will pre-empt the

:44:26. > :44:29.Minister's replied that help to save is similar to the same way Gateway

:44:30. > :44:37.scheme piloted by the last... Go one. I do not want to into rugby

:44:38. > :44:44.honourable lady but it is ilportant that it is savings up to ?50, it is

:44:45. > :44:51.not that everybody must havd ?5 . It can be a small amount. I wotld like

:44:52. > :44:55.to make that clear. I thank her for clarifying that point, but H think

:44:56. > :45:01.some people would struggle to save ?5 amounts let alone ?50. Gone back

:45:02. > :45:05.to the point I was trying to make about Labour's similar schele, we

:45:06. > :45:08.did introduce this but it is important to note that we h`d not

:45:09. > :45:13.spent six years eroding the disposable income of the people that

:45:14. > :45:18.the scheme targeted. Help to save me look good on paper and helphng those

:45:19. > :45:22.on low incomes to save, but I must warn the Minister that with the

:45:23. > :45:24.long-term effect of Governmdnt cuts in austerity measures it will not

:45:25. > :45:31.have the desired effect in lany cases. The cuts this Governlent is

:45:32. > :45:39.making to universal credit will cost to .5 million families everx year,

:45:40. > :45:44.so I would ask the Minister to confirm three of these families will

:45:45. > :45:51.find even one or ?50 a month to get into a savings scheme? It would

:45:52. > :45:56.appear that the Government hs not expecting this measure to ptt rocket

:45:57. > :46:04.boosters under savings for those on low incomes. The costing for the

:46:05. > :46:08.policy estimated ?70 million. They .5 million people are eligible for

:46:09. > :46:15.the scheme. So if my calcul`tions are correct that works out `s a

:46:16. > :46:20.Government bonus of ?20 per eligible individual in 2020-2021. I was

:46:21. > :46:24.excited to read the impact assessment which the Ministdr must

:46:25. > :46:30.now only arrived at 1pm tod`y and while I am pleased to ride the

:46:31. > :46:34.Minister can appreciate is not acceptable to provide such

:46:35. > :46:37.information at the 11th hour if the Government wants to be transparent

:46:38. > :46:43.and capable of being held to account effectively. I was interestdd to see

:46:44. > :46:49.that the Government's expected takeaway was 500,000 in the first

:46:50. > :46:53.two years. I would be grateful if the Minister could expect the

:46:54. > :47:01.rationale behind this figurd, I specific groups were likely to save

:47:02. > :47:05.than others? She has referrdd to the impact assessment and after the

:47:06. > :47:08.sentence she referred to shd says that these estimates were in form

:47:09. > :47:13.from information from simil`r savings schemes and Governmdnt

:47:14. > :47:18.saving pilots. I thank her for reading -- I thank her for reading

:47:19. > :47:21.from the impact assessment, but I serve specific groups are more

:47:22. > :47:26.likely to save than others `nd I do not think it provides that. Most

:47:27. > :47:30.importantly, however, how does this scheme in ten to help the rdmaining

:47:31. > :47:36.3 million people who cannot afford to participate in the schemd? I

:47:37. > :47:39.think I can sum up my concern specifically on this element of the

:47:40. > :47:44.bill by reiterating the comlents made by the former Shadow Ddpartment

:47:45. > :47:47.for Work and Pensions Minister who stated that this scheme was like

:47:48. > :47:58.stealing someone's are and then offering them a lift to the bus

:47:59. > :48:02.stop. -- car. I am a little confused by the arguments. Is she saxing that

:48:03. > :48:04.because the scheme will not target all the people who may be eligible,

:48:05. > :48:12.but the Government should do nothing? Despite the fact that they

:48:13. > :48:15.may be a partial success and a large number of people might take it,

:48:16. > :48:22.because not everyone will t`ke it it is not worth doing? That is not what

:48:23. > :48:25.I'm saying. It is important to address this issue. We need to be

:48:26. > :48:32.clear on the ways that we do address it and addressing the root causes of

:48:33. > :48:36.poverty is the first thing the Government needs to look at. The

:48:37. > :48:39.second element in Nice to look at when rolling out this bill hs the

:48:40. > :48:45.specific groups that it intdnds to target. If it does not targdt the

:48:46. > :48:49.deep by 5 million people who are eligible to take part in thd scheme,

:48:50. > :48:54.how will it help those who do not take part? Turning to the lhfetime

:48:55. > :48:59.ISA, there is considerable tnease about this policy across thd

:49:00. > :49:03.pensions industry on the tr`de union movement, the OBR and select

:49:04. > :49:07.committees of the sites. Thd idea of consent advising people to save for

:49:08. > :49:11.the future, especially for retirement, is one the opposition

:49:12. > :49:17.supports, but we are concerned that this scheme could trade a dhversion

:49:18. > :49:23.from saving into additional pension products rather than being `n add-on

:49:24. > :49:29.to a pension plan. Even the former Government pensions Minister said

:49:30. > :49:34.that the ISA could destroy pensions. The UK is facing a pensions time

:49:35. > :49:41.bomb. 11 million people are signed up to defined benefit schemds in

:49:42. > :49:46.6000 pension funds in the UK. Recently, PwC page is data showing

:49:47. > :49:51.that he collected deficits hn those schemes had risen by 100,000,00 ,001

:49:52. > :49:59.month to stand up 710 billion by the end of August. The OECD reported

:50:00. > :50:02.earlier this year that we are facing a global pensions crisis in which a

:50:03. > :50:08.person buying an annuity today who said 10% of their wages into a

:50:09. > :50:12.pension for 40 years can expect just over half the earnings of someone

:50:13. > :50:17.who saved the same amount btt retired 15 years ago. This hs very

:50:18. > :50:22.worrying indeed, especially when the State Pension in its current form

:50:23. > :50:26.cannot be relied upon to pltg the gap. Even the OBR last week

:50:27. > :50:32.published a report concluding that the recent pensions and savhngs

:50:33. > :50:35.mentioned is -- savings measures would create a 5 million a xear

:50:36. > :50:41.black hole in public financds. The report states that the net dffect of

:50:42. > :50:46.the Government's pensions and saving measures on the public finances is

:50:47. > :50:56.positive in the early years, peaking to .3 billion before turning

:50:57. > :51:01.negative from 2021. The small night game is reversed in the long-term as

:51:02. > :51:10.the net cost continues to rhse, reaching ?5 billion. Expressed as a

:51:11. > :51:14.share of GDP, a more relevant metric, the net cost builds up until

:51:15. > :51:20.it reaches a steady state towards the end of the period of just over

:51:21. > :51:27.zero by 1% of GDP. If that continues until the end of our usual long term

:51:28. > :51:34.horizon of 50 years, but sm`ll cost would add three points 7% of GDP to

:51:35. > :51:40.public sector debt. The report also said that these measures shhfted

:51:41. > :51:45.incentives in a way that makes pension savings less attractive

:51:46. > :51:48.particularly for high earners and non-pension savings more attractive

:51:49. > :51:54.often in ways that can most readily be taken up by the same high

:51:55. > :51:57.earners. This is a worrying assessment of the Government's

:51:58. > :52:02.pensions and savings policy of which the ISA plays a large part. I am

:52:03. > :52:06.also concerned about the level of assessment carried out by the

:52:07. > :52:13.Government regarding the impact the ISA could have pension saving and

:52:14. > :52:15.the auto enrolment scheme. The work and pensions Select Committde has

:52:16. > :52:22.already outlined its concerns about the threat to automatic enrolment in

:52:23. > :52:26.workplace pensions, which is seeing a great degree of success in its

:52:27. > :52:30.roll-out. The Committee was very worried particularly that the ISA

:52:31. > :52:36.runs the risk of people opthng out of the workplace pension in Auden to

:52:37. > :52:42.see venom ISA, thinking it hs more beneficial. -- opting out of the

:52:43. > :52:46.workplace pension in order to save in the ISA. The Committee

:52:47. > :52:50.highlighted that it was ambhguity -- that there was ambiguity about

:52:51. > :52:55.whether it was intended to replace a pension and deeply villous

:52:56. > :53:05.Chancellor stated that the HSA was, for those under 40, Fred those who

:53:06. > :53:11.have not had such a good de`l. - and the previous Chancellor. The

:53:12. > :53:15.Department for Work and Pensions said that the ISA is not part of the

:53:16. > :53:20.pension system that is flexhble savings product. I'm glad that the

:53:21. > :53:24.Minister has clarified this point today I has said it is a

:53:25. > :53:30.complementary product, but lany witnesses to the Committee has said

:53:31. > :53:37.that it is being interpreted as a pensions product. The Centrd for

:53:38. > :53:41.Policy Studies, who developdd the ISA, said that many employeds not

:53:42. > :53:47.any pension scheme would have to make the decision whether to save in

:53:48. > :53:51.the ISA or in role for a pension. The Royal London said that lany

:53:52. > :53:54.people could opt out of workplace pensions. I would have to bd

:53:55. > :54:00.Minister to confirm whether she has made any assessment of the hmpact of

:54:01. > :54:04.the ISA on the automatic enrolment into workplace pensions. Wotld she

:54:05. > :54:09.confirm what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that people do

:54:10. > :54:13.not opt out of bottom enrollent and will the Government meant a detailed

:54:14. > :54:18.advertising campaign, as suggested by the Committee, to ensure that

:54:19. > :54:23.people do not wrongly consider it their main pension product. In terms

:54:24. > :54:29.of protecting all too enrollent the pensions enrolment argued that by

:54:30. > :54:33.2017 when the ISA is available there will be thousands of small `nd micro

:54:34. > :54:38.businesses that have not yet ruled out all to enrolment. Has the

:54:39. > :54:41.Government considered timing the roll-out of the ISA with thd

:54:42. > :54:46.completion of all to enrolmdnt to avoid the risks that I've ottlined?

:54:47. > :54:51.In terms of those who will benefit the most from ISAs it is already

:54:52. > :54:54.acknowledged that they will be successful with those who already

:54:55. > :54:58.have savings and it might bd a case of transferring them into this

:54:59. > :55:01.product, but I wonder if thd Government could provide thd

:55:02. > :55:05.distributional analysis of the income groups that will specifically

:55:06. > :55:09.benefit the most from the ISA. Could they also confirm the impact this

:55:10. > :55:14.scheme will have upon women and minority groups, especially, and

:55:15. > :55:19.will be provide a more detahled impact assessment as suggested by

:55:20. > :55:22.the pensions Select Committde? Can the Minister also confirm what the

:55:23. > :55:27.Government will do to assess and ensure that those groups not

:55:28. > :55:32.currently saving, or not able to save as I mentioned earlier, will be

:55:33. > :55:36.able to avail of the scheme? The working pensions Select Comlittee

:55:37. > :55:39.suggested that the people that can benefit the most from this scheme

:55:40. > :55:43.are those who can afford to contribute to a pension schdme and

:55:44. > :55:48.deposit additional savings hn a ISA to complement the time and savings,

:55:49. > :55:52.in other words and higher e`rners. In these difficult economic times,

:55:53. > :55:58.honourable members on this side the question of this is an effective use

:55:59. > :56:02.about to ?2 billion of publhc funds. Another concern is not that the

:56:03. > :56:06.bubble use the ISA as an alternative pension product, but there hs

:56:07. > :56:12.nothing to stop them from t`king the money early for other uses `side

:56:13. > :56:18.from this, like a deposit for a House. I know it imposes a 25%

:56:19. > :56:21.charge for withdrawing monex early, but people will not have lost

:56:22. > :56:26.anything from their actual savings if they do this and therefore it is

:56:27. > :56:30.not really a significant deterrent for removing the money earlx and the

:56:31. > :56:36.risks to those who are using this as their sole pension income is

:56:37. > :56:40.significant. Finally, the ISA funds can be used as the deposit on your

:56:41. > :56:43.first home. This is not a b`d thing that looking at the wider issue I do

:56:44. > :56:49.fear that the Government is failing to address the wider issues that are

:56:50. > :56:52.actually causing the housing crisis. There is no point in having a

:56:53. > :56:57.deposit if there are no houses to buy. What we need is a signhficant

:56:58. > :57:02.private and social house-buhlding programme, supported by this

:57:03. > :57:05.Government, not popular is policy-making. It is a shamd that in

:57:06. > :57:11.the last Parliament fewer ndw homes were built then any Governmdnt from

:57:12. > :57:15.the 1920s and on the side wd have committed to building over ` million

:57:16. > :57:17.new homes over the next Parliament and this is the level of

:57:18. > :57:21.intervention required by anx Government that truly wants to make

:57:22. > :57:26.sure that everyone is able to live in a decent and secure home.

:57:27. > :57:38.LISA the opposition does have. Might I also suggest one further `rea for

:57:39. > :57:44.our front bench to push the government on in committee? One of

:57:45. > :57:47.these things that the bill does not include that could help those on low

:57:48. > :57:53.and middle incomes is a reqtirement that any employer should offer

:57:54. > :57:56.payroll reductions so peopld can have money deducted if they want to

:57:57. > :58:03.promote their payroll outsotrcing by their employer, ideally to go into a

:58:04. > :58:13.credit union but also into `ny other source of savings. That, I suspect,

:58:14. > :58:17.would also see significant bursts. That is something the front bench is

:58:18. > :58:21.considering in a lot of det`il. Adam Deputy Speaker, to conclude, the

:58:22. > :58:25.opposition does have some sdrious concerns about the policies

:58:26. > :58:30.contained in this Bill as I have outlined and I hope the Minhster

:58:31. > :58:34.will respond to my various pueries. We do support the overarching aim to

:58:35. > :58:38.encourage people to save at a time when they are not doing so but I do

:58:39. > :58:42.think there is significant `nd for improvement in this Bill. As such,

:58:43. > :58:47.we will be seeking to amend and improve this Bill as it makds its

:58:48. > :58:50.way through Parliament to try and alleviate some of our stakeholders

:58:51. > :59:03.concerns about the possible effect of the lifetime ISA and the Help to

:59:04. > :59:09.Save scheme. It is a pleasure to speak briefly in this debatd and to

:59:10. > :59:12.contribute to the second re`ding, supporting two schemes which I think

:59:13. > :59:17.are excellent parts of what should be a wider strategy to tackle

:59:18. > :59:22.fundamentally a chronic lack of saving in all age groups and in all

:59:23. > :59:26.income levels in our countrx. I want to say a few words about thd schemes

:59:27. > :59:30.themselves and then a few words about the scale of the problem and

:59:31. > :59:38.what more the government might like to do in the years to come to

:59:39. > :59:41.address a chronic issue which trouble at all and particul`rly the

:59:42. > :59:47.Treasury. The problem is grdater than many us imagine. The state of

:59:48. > :59:52.saving in this country is worse than we like to kid ourselves th`t it is.

:59:53. > :59:56.I remember as a child going to visit my grandparents and seeing ` jam jar

:59:57. > :00:05.on the mantelpiece in which they use to put sixpences to save up for

:00:06. > :00:09.things like a holiday to Bl`ckpool and for rainy days, should things

:00:10. > :00:12.get worse. Back then I think they were the only people on thehr street

:00:13. > :00:16.who did that and they were the only people who could afford the coach to

:00:17. > :00:22.Blackpool once a year. I thhnk the grandmother could have a crown in a

:00:23. > :00:25.box just below the silver to save up for something or other everx year

:00:26. > :00:32.like a new Chair or a stool for the House. That seems like another

:00:33. > :00:37.country. And another age, something that could never happen now`days. We

:00:38. > :00:42.are also much richer and had so much greater access to spending. But of

:00:43. > :00:46.course, the statistics, and we have heard some of them already, show

:00:47. > :00:51.that is not the case at all. These experiences come at a time before

:00:52. > :00:55.the rise of hire purchase, the rise of credit cards and overdrafts and

:00:56. > :00:58.mortgages, all of which, although they have brought with them problems

:00:59. > :01:04.and difficulties that we have to cope with as well, have cre`ted a

:01:05. > :01:10.safety net of sorts so that the real fragility that previous gendrations

:01:11. > :01:17.going back as long as anyond can remember used to feel, in an age

:01:18. > :01:20.when the historian in me thhnks of medieval times and Georgian times

:01:21. > :01:25.and Victorian times when people used to feel that they were living really

:01:26. > :01:29.quite fragile lives and you could fall off from what would thdn have

:01:30. > :01:35.been called respectable livds into abject poverty, purely throtgh ill

:01:36. > :01:37.fate, having an illness or losing a job, and scrupulous landlord and we

:01:38. > :01:41.like to think that these thhngs could not happen today but of course

:01:42. > :01:45.they can in the statistics we have heard from both frontbenchers show

:01:46. > :01:51.that very clearly, that a qtarter of households have less than ?0100 in

:01:52. > :01:57.their total financial assets. A quarter of households have debts of

:01:58. > :02:03.more than ?3500, but one in ten of us have available savings, rainy day

:02:04. > :02:09.money if you like, the monex in that jamjar on the mantelpiece, less than

:02:10. > :02:12.?100. Less than ?100 if you happen to lose your job, if your company

:02:13. > :02:17.goes bust. If you were in the private rented sector and you have

:02:18. > :02:23.an unscrupulous landlord and I think that is something that should make

:02:24. > :02:26.us all very worried indeed. But even beyond that, beyond the poorest in

:02:27. > :02:30.society, those who should bd very concerned about short-term saving,

:02:31. > :02:36.there is a crisis in long-tdrm saving and that is looking lore and

:02:37. > :02:42.more like an impending disaster for the country. We are all rich and

:02:43. > :02:51.poor, young and old alike, we are all simply not saving anythhng like

:02:52. > :02:56.enough. 2050, the latest survey shows that by 2050, the rethrement

:02:57. > :02:59.savings gap, it is the diffdrence between what people were save and

:03:00. > :03:05.what they need to save if they want to have a reasonable standard of

:03:06. > :03:09.life in retirement, will be ?35 billion, an increase of ?32 billion

:03:10. > :03:13.from five years ago, despitd the many measures that the prevhous

:03:14. > :03:18.administration and the coalhtion brought in. On average, each of us

:03:19. > :03:23.have to put away an extra ?00,0 0 every year to avoid what we could

:03:24. > :03:28.think of as a miserable old age something which even people on high

:03:29. > :03:34.earnings, even all of us here would probably struggle to do if we want

:03:35. > :03:36.to pay our mortgages, bring up our children and enjoy a reason`ble

:03:37. > :03:41.standard of living in the interim years. Of course the reason amongst

:03:42. > :03:46.others is that we are living much longer. Not only will futurd

:03:47. > :03:50.governments struggle to maintain the current levels of state pension

:03:51. > :03:55.payments, but we are spending longer in retirement and the cost of

:03:56. > :04:00.retirement income itself has risen. The latest Blackrock survey,

:04:01. > :04:08.collated that for a 70 old lail to buy ?1 of retirement income would

:04:09. > :04:15.have cost ?6 in 1970. Today that would cost ?12. So, the cost of

:04:16. > :04:21.retiring is rising dramatic`lly So, we all know it but I think ht is

:04:22. > :04:24.worth undermining -- underlxing we need a change in cultural attitudes

:04:25. > :04:33.towards money and saving. Wd have two and I am as bad as anybody else.

:04:34. > :04:36.Many of us on the side of the House would agree with everything that has

:04:37. > :04:42.been said so far but the argument against the lifetime ISA is that far

:04:43. > :04:47.from encouraging extra savings, it diverts existing savings from

:04:48. > :04:51.pensions into housing to stoke up the housing market so it dodsn't

:04:52. > :04:57.resolve the problem that he has put the country. I am understood that

:04:58. > :05:01.the -- I am interested in the point he has made but the point of a

:05:02. > :05:05.lifetime ISA is that many are both in our 20s and 30s are more

:05:06. > :05:10.preoccupied with getting on the housing ladder than we are with

:05:11. > :05:14.looking out for our retiremdnt. That is a major refit the governlent and

:05:15. > :05:18.for future governments but the lifetime ISA is flexible because it

:05:19. > :05:21.enables us to spend money in early years as we try to get on the

:05:22. > :05:27.housing ladder and later on if he had taken out the product, converted

:05:28. > :05:30.into something towards retirement at the honourable gentleman dods raise

:05:31. > :05:35.a problem that we need to bd looking at many solutions and this, I'm

:05:36. > :05:38.afraid, is only one. Do need to look towards this fundamental ch`nge and

:05:39. > :05:43.it is a change in all of our attitudes, one to say that we

:05:44. > :05:45.shouldn't be purely begging at instant gratification but wd as

:05:46. > :05:50.individuals and indeed the government have to be promoting ways

:05:51. > :05:55.to defer gratification throtgh savings rather than our present

:05:56. > :06:01.quite corrosive consumer attitude. To look at the products thelselves,

:06:02. > :06:04.I warmly welcome the lifetile ISA, I think it is a product that hs

:06:05. > :06:08.extremely popular and the government has seen that already. I have had to

:06:09. > :06:14.three constituents about spoken to and I don't represent a particularly

:06:15. > :06:18.wealthy constituency. The average wage there is just below thd

:06:19. > :06:21.national average and many, lany constituents have said this is

:06:22. > :06:26.something they would like to try and take up. Clearly providing ` 25

:06:27. > :06:31.offer as well as the usual tax advantages of a ISA provides a

:06:32. > :06:34.strong incentive for us all to save. They are popular, we know that from

:06:35. > :06:38.the millions who have taken them up over the years and I think contrary

:06:39. > :06:42.to comments we have heard already and those in the press, thex are

:06:43. > :06:47.simple. There is something that we all understand and they are part of

:06:48. > :06:52.our own culture now about s`ving. It was very welcome to read in April

:06:53. > :06:56.that the limit will also be raised on the standard ISA from 15,000 to

:06:57. > :07:03.?20,000 a year which might sound a great deal of money to many people

:07:04. > :07:06.but as the problem is one that affects all income levels, H think

:07:07. > :07:10.it is very important. I think this is an exciting development for those

:07:11. > :07:15.of us on a particularly the younger generation who will not bendfit from

:07:16. > :07:20.generous pension schemes and while this doesn't seek to take over from

:07:21. > :07:23.pensions, it creates more clicks ability in the sector and I think

:07:24. > :07:28.under the previous Chancellor, we saw across a whole range of issues

:07:29. > :07:32.to do with pension, the flexibility is key and it will help younger

:07:33. > :07:37.people to save for a deposit which is, as I've said, the primary

:07:38. > :07:43.preoccupation of every young person in their 20s and 30s of a b`sic

:07:44. > :07:47.level of income. To help anx of them get on the housing ladder through

:07:48. > :07:50.this vehicle and then to convert it on to a product which they can help

:07:51. > :07:56.to save for the rest of thehr working lives is very useful. Help

:07:57. > :07:59.to Save explicitly does the same job but for those on radio incole is. I

:08:00. > :08:04.appreciate there are many pdople for whom saving is another country, is

:08:05. > :08:10.something that is extremely difficult to do but as has `lready

:08:11. > :08:13.been said, the alternative hs to do nothing except that we live in a

:08:14. > :08:17.country where people cannot save in that jam jar and the governlent

:08:18. > :08:22.cannot create mechanisms to help incentivise them and top it up. The

:08:23. > :08:28.50% contribution rate is cldarly a great incentive and something we

:08:29. > :08:32.should all appreciate and wdlcome. Rather like the IFS have sahd, it

:08:33. > :08:35.would be helpful for the government to do more work to understand which

:08:36. > :08:38.groups are the most critical in terms of saving and how thex can

:08:39. > :08:42.cope with more products in the future that specifically target that

:08:43. > :08:47.core group that I think we `re most worried about, the people for whom

:08:48. > :08:51.?100, ?1000 is all they havd in the bank for their rainy day fund. That

:08:52. > :08:59.is a very worrying state of affairs. What else before I close? One area I

:09:00. > :09:03.think we should look at is savings interest tax itself. I am in favour

:09:04. > :09:06.of simple and bold tax reforms. Things that are not complic`te the

:09:07. > :09:12.already far too complicated tax code even further but areas that send

:09:13. > :09:16.extremely clear messages to everyone in society that the governmdnt

:09:17. > :09:20.believes we need to save more and will back that up with action. I

:09:21. > :09:26.would strongly welcome a further move to take more people out of

:09:27. > :09:29.paying savings interest tax. The announcement in April was excellent,

:09:30. > :09:34.creating ?1000 threshold on the basic rate and ?500 for higher rate

:09:35. > :09:37.taxpayers and I think we should look at more, not least because current

:09:38. > :09:42.levels of interest rates were so pitifully low that the government is

:09:43. > :09:47.actually receiving very little and rapidly declining tax reventes from

:09:48. > :09:52.savings income. In 2013, 2004, the Treasury income was 2.8 billion is

:09:53. > :09:59.estimated this year to climb even further.

:10:00. > :10:05.These are obviously large stms of money. We need to say we will no

:10:06. > :10:10.longer charge tax on savings interest. The last point I want to

:10:11. > :10:14.make, was simply to reiterate that made in previous debates in recent

:10:15. > :10:20.weeks which is that interest rates are too low in this country and that

:10:21. > :10:23.has had a very corrosive impact upon pensioners, anyone trying to save in

:10:24. > :10:28.this country, the gap betwedn the rich and the poorer and the wider

:10:29. > :10:33.economy. I like many others was delighted to hear the Prime Minister

:10:34. > :10:39.imply in her speech that shd would like to take action on this.

:10:40. > :10:44.Powerful application to serve on the committee on the bill. Given his

:10:45. > :10:50.point about low interest rates. Does he not share the concern of many

:10:51. > :10:56.outside of this house and the concern that I have about the help

:10:57. > :11:01.to save scheme and the qualhfying period to get the bonus paylent

:11:02. > :11:07.being two years, rather than perhaps just 12 months? Might that not be a

:11:08. > :11:11.more sensible incentive for people to get Sebi more quickly? I listen

:11:12. > :11:15.to you earlier and I think that is something I would be hit interested

:11:16. > :11:22.in hearing. We want as many incentives for anyone to save, but

:11:23. > :11:26.those I hope I have made thd point, this is a crisis facing the country

:11:27. > :11:30.and it is one that we all nded to take responsibility for. On the

:11:31. > :11:35.point on interest rates, I think the Bank of England need to takd action,

:11:36. > :11:40.ie did not believe there was any real cause to lower interest rates,

:11:41. > :11:43.they acted too soon, they mtst read the signals that came too e`rly

:11:44. > :11:46.after the referendum and we have seen the consequence of that, at

:11:47. > :11:51.least in the short term are not going to be as severe as thdy

:11:52. > :11:54.imagine. I hope the Bank of England does not have a further redtction in

:11:55. > :11:59.interest rates and we will love away from this policy of quantit`tive

:12:00. > :12:01.easing as soon as possible, for many reasons, but particularly for the

:12:02. > :12:22.sake of pensioners and savers. In closing, I would like to see the

:12:23. > :12:24.government create a long-term strategy around saving, one that

:12:25. > :12:26.tries to change the culture in this country towards looking to the

:12:27. > :12:29.future, putting money aside and the government needs to back th`t, back

:12:30. > :12:31.that in many ways, some of which will be difficult decisions, one of

:12:32. > :12:34.which is continuing to raisd the state pension age to save the triple

:12:35. > :12:37.lock. I would like to see that as soon as possible. As for thd two

:12:38. > :12:40.schemes today, I think they are excellent, I fully support them and

:12:41. > :12:46.I hope they are the first of many more from the new Administr`tion.

:12:47. > :12:52.Thank you. Ian Blackwood. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to

:12:53. > :12:56.follow the honourable member. He spoke about a long-term savhngs plan

:12:57. > :13:05.for the government, the long-term economic plan has crashed and

:13:06. > :13:09.burned. We on these benches welcome any reasonable proposals th`t engage

:13:10. > :13:13.savings, that encourage savhngs and we will work where we can whth the

:13:14. > :13:20.UK Government to seek to encourage pension savings. However, wd very

:13:21. > :13:23.much see this bill as a missed opportunity for all of us to

:13:24. > :13:30.champion what we should be focusing on, strengthening pension s`vings.

:13:31. > :13:34.Not focusing on another whedze that emanated from the laboratorx of

:13:35. > :13:43.ideas from the previous Chancellor and his advisers who had constantly

:13:44. > :13:48.tinkered with the savings l`ndscape. He may have gone from the from

:13:49. > :13:53.bench, but his memory lingers on with this bill. Let us recall what

:13:54. > :14:00.the Chancellor said in his budget speech this year. Too many xoung

:14:01. > :14:03.people in that 20s and 30s have no pensions and few savings, ask them

:14:04. > :14:09.and they will tell you why. It is because they find pensions to

:14:10. > :14:13.advocated and inflexible and most young people face an agonishng

:14:14. > :14:18.choice of either saving to buy a home or saving for their retirement.

:14:19. > :14:23.The problem was that that assertion was not backed up by any evhdence,

:14:24. > :14:28.not only was the assertion not backed up by any evidence, ht was

:14:29. > :14:34.completely half baked. Young people under the age of 30, have the lowest

:14:35. > :14:39.level of opt out rates of all those who have been automatically enrolled

:14:40. > :14:45.into workplace pensions. DWP research has found that four under

:14:46. > :14:53.30s, the opt out rate is 8% compares with 9% of 30-49 -year-old. One

:14:54. > :14:57.would have thought that the Chancellor and the Minister today

:14:58. > :15:01.would have looked at this evidence and recognise that the assertion

:15:02. > :15:06.behind the justification for these measures are quite simply wrong The

:15:07. > :15:12.fundamental principle that xoung people when presented with `

:15:13. > :15:18.solution for pensions savings are not saving for a pension is wrong.

:15:19. > :15:23.After much effort, automatic enrolment has been successftl at

:15:24. > :15:28.encouraging young people to save. Madam Deputy Speaker, we must not

:15:29. > :15:31.undermine those efforts by inadvertently encouraging pdople to

:15:32. > :15:35.opt out through comes -- Michael confusing consumers with new

:15:36. > :15:40.competing products. As has been stated by the likes of Zurich

:15:41. > :15:49.insurance, there is a real danger that the lifetime ISA could reverse

:15:50. > :15:54.the progress which has been made in encouraging people to save for later

:15:55. > :16:03.life. I agree with this. Whx, would we want to undermine pension

:16:04. > :16:09.savings? Of course, we know that the Treasury fly kites from the existing

:16:10. > :16:14.arrangements for pensions bding exempt, tax-exempt, were behng

:16:15. > :16:18.considered. This in my opinhon would have had the drastic impact of

:16:19. > :16:22.incentivising pension savings, but clearly from the government point of

:16:23. > :16:29.view would mean higher tax receipts today, rather than pensions being

:16:30. > :16:31.taxed. Our wheeze from the previous Chancellor to deliver higher

:16:32. > :16:37.taxation income today rather than taxing consumption in the ftture, a

:16:38. > :16:43.modern day reverse Robin Hood. It is not the case, when this was kicked

:16:44. > :16:46.into the long grass, along comes the Chancellor with proposals through

:16:47. > :16:53.the back door to achieve thd same ends. Is this the first step moving

:16:54. > :16:58.towards tax exempt exempt? Hf it is, the government should come clean and

:16:59. > :17:02.we on this side of the housd will vigorously oppose it. It wotld

:17:03. > :17:08.amount to an attack on penshon savings. We should after all recall

:17:09. > :17:13.it was Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor that raided penshon

:17:14. > :17:16.schemes with his dividend t`x changes, an attack that serhously

:17:17. > :17:24.undermined the pension scheles in particular. I will happily give way.

:17:25. > :17:29.Thank you. I thank the gentleman forgiving way, would he not agree

:17:30. > :17:34.that it was catastrophic wh`t Gordon Brown did when he was Prime

:17:35. > :17:40.Minister, in the respect of taxing pension schemes? I know, I had one

:17:41. > :17:45.and I stopped paying into it. Thank you. I absolutely agree. Th`t was

:17:46. > :17:51.the beginning of the end for defined pension schemes in this country At

:17:52. > :17:55.the time, just about every company in the FTSE100 had a defined pension

:17:56. > :17:59.scheme, there are hardly anx today. My criticism of what the government

:18:00. > :18:04.is doing with this bill is ht is once again undermining penshon

:18:05. > :18:08.saving or the people of this country. They are going to come onto

:18:09. > :18:15.the facts of the matter and you cannot get away from this. @nybody

:18:16. > :18:21.saving into a pension, does that out of pre-tax income. Anybody hnvesting

:18:22. > :18:26.into an ISA will be doing so out of taxed income. That is unfair. It is

:18:27. > :18:31.unjust and it is as I mentioned earlier, this is more about a wheeze

:18:32. > :18:35.for the government to gener`te taxation income, it is wrong and

:18:36. > :18:40.they should not be doing wh`t they are doing without proper incentives

:18:41. > :18:45.in place for the young people they are targeting. We would reshst any

:18:46. > :18:48.further attempts to distract from pension saving and specific`lly to

:18:49. > :18:52.change the tax status of pension savings which is little mord than an

:18:53. > :19:02.underhand way of driving up tax receipts, sweet talking workers to

:19:03. > :19:06.invest after tax income in hces We have, considerable challengds in

:19:07. > :19:10.making sure that we are takhng appropriate action, providing the

:19:11. > :19:13.right kind of leadership to encourage pension saving above all

:19:14. > :19:18.else and this is not happenhng with this kind of Conservative

:19:19. > :19:21.government. It is pension s`vings that are most tax efficient for

:19:22. > :19:26.savings and we ought to be prioritising map. We also nded to

:19:27. > :19:32.revisit the issue of pension tax relief, for pension savers. Many

:19:33. > :19:36.commentators and providers like Zurich have suggested that ` flat

:19:37. > :19:42.rate of pension tax relief could instead increase saving amongst low

:19:43. > :19:45.earners while ensuring penshons remain an attractive investlent for

:19:46. > :19:51.higher earners and would be inherently favoured. Coupled with

:19:52. > :19:54.automatic enrolment, this would give a boost for pensions and help the

:19:55. > :19:59.vast majority of people to save more for retirement. It would also end

:20:00. > :20:04.the complexity of the current regime and set tax relief at a sustainable

:20:05. > :20:08.level for the long-term. Thhs kind of approach, rather flies in the

:20:09. > :20:13.face of what the minister h`d signed off and the impact assessment which

:20:14. > :20:17.states, the government could have done nothing more, relying on

:20:18. > :20:22.existing tax incentives to promote savings amongst young peopld and

:20:23. > :20:25.working families on low income. She goes on to say, this would have

:20:26. > :20:29.failed to provide the necessary level of support for those who are

:20:30. > :20:36.unable to use existing support to plan and save for the futurd. This

:20:37. > :20:40.is a bubble gum. Tax relief can be addressed, as I have said, but we

:20:41. > :20:49.also have to take into accotnt that there is a review of auto enrolment

:20:50. > :20:53.due in 2017, we can strengthen that to encourage pension saving. We want

:20:54. > :20:56.to work with the government in strengthening auto enrolment and

:20:57. > :21:02.pension savings, the most efficient way for young people to savd. Madam

:21:03. > :21:07.Speaker, just today, as we `re debating this bill, the FT have

:21:08. > :21:12.published an article highlighting new analysis on pension savhngs

:21:13. > :21:18.which has concluded that thd UK pension savings has a massive

:21:19. > :21:24.deficit of 11 billion a year and that a poll of 2000 pension savers

:21:25. > :21:27.has indicated that only 16% of workers were saving enough to

:21:28. > :21:33.maintain their standard of living when they stop work. Why on earth do

:21:34. > :21:37.we want to take attention away from pension savings with this bhll that

:21:38. > :21:43.the government is bringing forward today? Why are we not focushng on

:21:44. > :21:47.what we should be doing, fixing the problems in the pensions industry?

:21:48. > :21:53.That is the priority that wd have on this side of the house. The analysis

:21:54. > :21:58.suggests that members of defined to contribute and schemes on average

:21:59. > :22:04.need to pay an extra ?1400 per year to achieve a decent retiremdnt

:22:05. > :22:10.income. ?1400! That is what we should be addressing in this chamber

:22:11. > :22:15.here tonight. My message today, to the government, is let us all work

:22:16. > :22:19.together to tackle this underinvestment in pension savings,

:22:20. > :22:23.to deal with the many challdnges we face, to enhance the attraction of

:22:24. > :22:28.pension savings, that is thd priority. Today, there are too many

:22:29. > :22:33.people that are excluded from workplace pensions. I commend the

:22:34. > :22:38.introduction of auto enrolmdnt but recognise that more needs to be done

:22:39. > :22:43.to enhance auto enrolment and seek to offer affordable solutions to the

:22:44. > :22:46.low paid, particularly women and the self-employed, who to use the Prime

:22:47. > :22:52.Minister 's term, have been left behind. We need to tackle the issue

:22:53. > :22:58.of those who are currently dxcluded, such as the 20% of workers who earn

:22:59. > :23:03.less than ?10,000 a year. Wd need to make sure that we have an inclusive

:23:04. > :23:10.approach to pension savings that works for all workers. If wd look at

:23:11. > :23:18.the conventional ISA. There are held with those between the age of 2 and

:23:19. > :23:23.34. The annual allowance for the lifetime ISA is 4000, so from the

:23:24. > :23:27.experience of ISAs, the question needs to be addressed, just who

:23:28. > :23:31.exactly is going to benefit from this? It does look as if it is yet

:23:32. > :23:35.another policy to benefit the rich who can afford to save at this level

:23:36. > :23:41.and get the full benefits of the government bonus. So much from the

:23:42. > :23:47.Prime Minister about delivering policies for those that havd been

:23:48. > :23:54.left behind. It looks to us, more like the same old policies for the

:23:55. > :23:58.benefits of the wealthy. Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, when we look

:23:59. > :24:03.at the news today, that the UK is looking to spend billions of pounds

:24:04. > :24:07.for the City to access the single market, we should not be surprised.

:24:08. > :24:14.Yet another case of the poor are subsidising the rich. We also need

:24:15. > :24:18.to be addressing the unintended consequences of quantitativd easing

:24:19. > :24:22.which has driven down yields, moderating the expectations of

:24:23. > :24:23.future growth for pension ftnds and increase substantially the deficit

:24:24. > :24:39.of many defined pension schdmes This means savers will have to

:24:40. > :24:41.increase contributions and this means we will have a challenging

:24:42. > :24:48.environment for pension savdrs that needs to be addressed. Madal Deputy

:24:49. > :24:55.Speaker, on the 11th of Julx, the previous DWP secretary came to this

:24:56. > :25:02.House and said, there is a very real systemic risk with these pension

:25:03. > :25:07.schemes that we need to look at and my department will be discussing it

:25:08. > :25:13.further in the months ahead. Since that statement, there has bden

:25:14. > :25:19.silence from the government. Where is the response to the fund`mental

:25:20. > :25:24.challenges that there are today per pensions and some might argte a

:25:25. > :25:30.crisis to fight conjuration schemes. We know the significant factors

:25:31. > :25:32.affecting the schemes and wd know there are hundreds of other schemes

:25:33. > :25:36.that are facing significant deficits. Rather than the government

:25:37. > :25:40.facing up to these challengds and the threat that exists to m`ny

:25:41. > :25:46.beneficiaries of those scheles, we have a missed opportunity to tackle

:25:47. > :25:51.what are real priorities. When will the government respond with detail

:25:52. > :25:58.on what the DWP Cabinet Secretary said was systemic risk? That was no

:25:59. > :26:02.throwaway line. It was a senior Cabinet Secretary admitting what we

:26:03. > :26:05.all know to be the case. I will give the Minister the opportunitx now to

:26:06. > :26:09.intervene and tell us what the government has done since this

:26:10. > :26:13.announcement from the previous DWP secretary. Where is the response

:26:14. > :26:17.from the government? What they have to say about the deficit on to find

:26:18. > :26:21.pension schemes? I see him looking down but we need answers. What we

:26:22. > :26:28.get from this government is no action. It was DWP questions earlier

:26:29. > :26:33.today I am sure the Honorourable Member took the opportunity to put

:26:34. > :26:37.his questionnaire. I cannot help but remarking that I did ask a puestion

:26:38. > :26:41.to the DWP secretary and th`t was enlightening because I asked the

:26:42. > :26:45.question about the Worsley women and I asked a specific question about

:26:46. > :26:48.the fact that the SNP have the proposals in front of the government

:26:49. > :26:55.as we were asked to do and we said that we could deal with the Worsley

:26:56. > :26:59.issued by spending ?8 million and by the way, the government can afford

:27:00. > :27:02.to do that because there is a surplus of nearly ?30 billion

:27:03. > :27:09.sitting in the national instrance fund. The answer from the Sdcretary

:27:10. > :27:13.of State was to get the Scottish Government to do it. But wh`t the

:27:14. > :27:19.Secretary of State failed to realise is that this House has not given the

:27:20. > :27:26.Scottish Parliament responshbility for pensions. I would say to this

:27:27. > :27:30.House, why don't you do that now? I will tell you something, thd

:27:31. > :27:35.Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government would take our

:27:36. > :27:42.responsibilities for pensioners and pensions, something the govdrnment

:27:43. > :27:46.is walking away from. Nothing is being done by the government, it is

:27:47. > :27:52.like a rabbit caught in the headlights. That is just ex`ctly

:27:53. > :27:56.what we got when the ministdr intervened just now. A government

:27:57. > :28:01.with no answers to the real issues, the real problems that affect us in

:28:02. > :28:06.the pension landscape. Cod doing nothing in the face of systdmic risk

:28:07. > :28:10.that the government itself recognised the minister turns round

:28:11. > :28:15.and says, it is not for me, it is for the Department for Work and

:28:16. > :28:17.Pensions. Now, I'm sorry, you are a minister of the government, it is a

:28:18. > :28:24.government responsibility and you should be coming here with `nswers.

:28:25. > :28:28.We also need to recognise that whilst this bill will help some

:28:29. > :28:36.savers, it does little to hdlp those who cannot afford to save for later

:28:37. > :28:43.life. Of course we have had the benefit of the Work and Pensions

:28:44. > :28:51.Secretary holding an inquirx. If we take the advice, have stated that

:28:52. > :28:57.presented as a choice, no elployee, no employee will be better off

:28:58. > :29:03.saving into a ISA than they would be under automatic enrolment. Ht is due

:29:04. > :29:06.to loss of employer contribttions. A recent standard life analyshs showed

:29:07. > :29:11.the typical game from tax breaks and when an employer top ups to

:29:12. > :29:20.qualifying place pension for a basic rate taxpayer is between 70 and 85%,

:29:21. > :29:23.compared to the return of 24% from a ISA. That is the Carnival of this

:29:24. > :29:28.government is trying to put on the people of this country. The

:29:29. > :29:36.long-term costs of foregoing annual employer contributions worth 3% of

:29:37. > :29:40.salary by sailing into a IS@ instead of a workplace pension would be

:29:41. > :29:44.substantial. For a basic rate taxpayer, the impact would be

:29:45. > :29:54.savings of roughly one third less by the age of 60. For example, an

:29:55. > :29:59.employee earning ?25,000 per annum and saving for Mac % of income each

:30:00. > :30:06.year would see a difference in excess of ?53,000. After 42 years,

:30:07. > :30:19.someone sitting through a pdnsion scheme would have a pot worth

:30:20. > :30:24.?166,000 at the growth rate of %. Under a ISA, that is the sale growth

:30:25. > :30:31.rate, the value would be an hundred and ?12,000 ?646. Is the minister

:30:32. > :30:34.going to defend this? All Mx Honourable Friend give way? The

:30:35. > :30:42.honourable gentleman makes `n important point about the advantages

:30:43. > :30:44.of pension scheme but does he concern -- share my concern is that

:30:45. > :30:48.it will be exceptionally rich people looking for a tax efficient way to

:30:49. > :30:54.save large amounts of money in a year? I think My Honourable Friend

:30:55. > :31:00.is absolutely spot on. Thosd that are already investing large amounts

:31:01. > :31:04.into pension schemes be turning around and saying, thank yot very

:31:05. > :31:09.much. This is not a policy for low and middle income workers, this is a

:31:10. > :31:13.policy for the rich. It is the same old from this Tory government that

:31:14. > :31:16.learned nothing. No wonder they are so out of touch in Scotland, the

:31:17. > :31:20.wonder they only have one mdmber of Parliament from Scotland. They don't

:31:21. > :31:24.do the right thing for the pensioners in our country. Ladam

:31:25. > :31:28.Deputy Speaker, there are clear risks for young people with taking

:31:29. > :31:31.the wrong decisions if they do not get appropriate advice, somdthing

:31:32. > :31:36.that is lacking from these proposals. But the government made

:31:37. > :31:40.it clear that young people will be advised on the likely outcoles of

:31:41. > :31:47.opting for a LISA offer pension schemes? Is not, why not? M`dam

:31:48. > :31:51.Deputy Speaker, the SNP are supportive of any initiativd to

:31:52. > :31:56.promote savings for later lhfe however the LISA is simply ` gimmick

:31:57. > :31:59.and it only benefits those who can afford to save for the levels

:32:00. > :32:08.demanded by the government to get the bonus. Help to Save is `nother

:32:09. > :32:11.example where we agree workhng savings is welcome however hn this

:32:12. > :32:15.case again, the UK Government has only scratched the surface, rather

:32:16. > :32:22.than targeting those struggling to plan for emergencies or latdr life.

:32:23. > :32:25.Individuals eligible for help to save have limited resources for

:32:26. > :32:27.saving and they will now have more difficult choices between

:32:28. > :32:34.medium-term savings and longer term aspiration. The very fact that the

:32:35. > :32:39.government expects the policy to cost only ?70 million in 2021

:32:40. > :32:45.implies that on average, thd government top up will be only 20

:32:46. > :32:52.in that year per eligible under visual. ?20! That is what this

:32:53. > :32:57.government is proposing in the bill this evening. The IFS have taken the

:32:58. > :33:04.view that Help to Save is poorly targeted. The IFS also question the

:33:05. > :33:10.purpose of the scheme, stathng. There is also a question about which

:33:11. > :33:13.groups are under saving. Thd key justification for giving cotncils

:33:14. > :33:17.extra money only if it placds money in a savings account other than

:33:18. > :33:21.given extra money regardless and letting the household decidd what to

:33:22. > :33:26.do with it is that we believe the household is saving less th`n is

:33:27. > :33:31.appropriate given the circulstances. A charity found that those with

:33:32. > :33:36.existing problem that showed that four in ten people struggling to

:33:37. > :33:40.save experience and income shock like car repairs every six lonths.

:33:41. > :33:45.60% of those turned to borrowing and a third of those cut back on

:33:46. > :33:48.essentials like food to cut costs. They found that half a millhon

:33:49. > :33:54.families could avoid problel debt if they had ?1000 of savings. Bonding

:33:55. > :33:59.to the government consultathon on Help to Save, the charity h`d three

:34:00. > :34:05.concerns, the proposed two-xear period in which the Help to Save

:34:06. > :34:08.account would this incentivhse. The government should think cardfully

:34:09. > :34:13.about how the scheme is advdrtised in order to maximise -- minhmise the

:34:14. > :34:19.problem of a rigid two-year account length. The Treasury should amend

:34:20. > :34:23.the eligibility criteria so those aged under 25 who work at ldast 30

:34:24. > :34:28.hours a week can apply for ` Help to Save account and that Treastry

:34:29. > :34:31.should look grossly at debt collection and insolvency

:34:32. > :34:34.convocations of the scheme. The government should protect the money

:34:35. > :34:41.in the Help to Save accounts from third party debt orders. At the very

:34:42. > :34:45.least, the bonus accrued should be protected. Once again, but Deputy

:34:46. > :34:52.Speaker, this has been a missed opportunity to tackle the ddficit

:34:53. > :34:56.head on. Helping some, this does little for those who cannot afford

:34:57. > :35:00.to safer later life. This government needs to be much more ambithous in

:35:01. > :35:05.order to deliver your dignity and retirement. I am sure the House will

:35:06. > :35:09.be grateful that we do not wish to oppose the bill tonight but we will

:35:10. > :35:19.be seeking to deal with the missed opportunities to strengthen this

:35:20. > :35:23.bill committee stage. I am grateful to you but hesitant to

:35:24. > :35:28.detain the House by repeating much of what My Honourable Friend for new

:35:29. > :35:33.work said in his thoughtful speech but I particularly want to speak in

:35:34. > :35:40.support of the Help to Save scheme which appears to be the Cinderella

:35:41. > :35:42.scheme of the debate. Rare hs the politician who understands the

:35:43. > :35:47.difference between the profht loss and the balance sheet, that is left

:35:48. > :35:50.to do accountants like me and the truth is, we spent a lot of time in

:35:51. > :35:56.this House is talking about people's differential Robert Loades `ccounts,

:35:57. > :35:59.the difference in earnings `nd whether some numbers of sochety are

:36:00. > :36:03.no hard to much in comparison to others. We do quite a lot to try and

:36:04. > :36:09.close that gap but we often fail to recognise that the solution to those

:36:10. > :36:14.inequalities in society and the solution to poverty generally is

:36:15. > :36:17.first of all multi-generational and secondly, it is as much abott the

:36:18. > :36:21.balance sheet, the RFID share that those people may have for the future

:36:22. > :36:26.as it is about how much thex happened to earn at the momdnt.

:36:27. > :36:29.Anything that enables peopld on low incomes who may be on benefhts but

:36:30. > :36:34.are at the bottom of the socio- economic ladder enables thel to

:36:35. > :36:40.start to get into that idea of saving and in particular ushng that

:36:41. > :36:45.money to invest in assets is only something that must be appl`uded.

:36:46. > :36:48.One of the issues we have in this country is that our collecthve

:36:49. > :36:52.balance sheet, the assets of the country that are held both privately

:36:53. > :36:57.and publicly, are far too concentrated in a small number of

:36:58. > :37:01.hands. Over the last 20 or so years, we have seen the demolition of the

:37:02. > :37:06.number of people in the country who own shares, who had any kind of

:37:07. > :37:09.assets at all and may own their own House and that is something we need

:37:10. > :37:14.to reverse. It is sadly been something that has been far too much

:37:15. > :37:18.of the bottom of our ministdrs agendas. The great example H would

:37:19. > :37:27.use is the us sell-off when the retail tranche of sales where

:37:28. > :37:31.skilled back, and yet the tranche that was being sold to largd

:37:32. > :37:38.institutions was inflated. Ht seemed to be insane, particularly that a

:37:39. > :37:40.liberal clap secretary of state would do that but there was a lost

:37:41. > :37:48.opportunity there to spread what was known at in the 1980s as thd

:37:49. > :37:52.ownership society. As the former member of Richmond, William Hague,

:37:53. > :37:56.stood up and said we should be a share owning, property owning

:37:57. > :38:01.society and rollback the frontiers to allow that to happen. I `m keen

:38:02. > :38:06.to see Help to Save promoted because it allows people who are on low

:38:07. > :38:10.incomes or no income at all to start to think about their own asset base

:38:11. > :38:13.and save into the future. There are a couple of things I would `sk the

:38:14. > :38:17.minister to consider. I don't understand why it is limited, why

:38:18. > :38:22.there is a cap on the amount that can be contributed. If somebody on a

:38:23. > :38:28.low wage is able to contribtte a ?20 a week and they do it year out, why

:38:29. > :38:32.would we seek to limit that? I wouldn't be a them to build up a

:38:33. > :38:35.fund which they could use in the future and possibly to pass on to

:38:36. > :38:41.their children who may then do that in the future as well. ?50 seems a

:38:42. > :38:45.little low to me, for someone who is starting to build up getting into

:38:46. > :38:50.that saving feeling so maybd we could look at the cap and thirdly,

:38:51. > :38:53.particularly in the current environment, requiring that it is

:38:54. > :38:56.just saving, that they had to hold it in cash, seems to me to be

:38:57. > :39:03.self-defeating. If they werd allowed to go into the bank and buy some

:39:04. > :39:07.Marks Spencer shares or RBS shares or whatever it might be, wotld give

:39:08. > :39:12.them the idea that they can benefit as a saver on this acid-basd. It is

:39:13. > :39:18.worth noting that peoples aspirations as to the lump sum is

:39:19. > :39:22.they want to Cuba late in their life are often quite modest. A great

:39:23. > :39:25.friend of mine works in teldvision, many years ago devised a new quiz

:39:26. > :39:27.show and he wanted to work out what kind of prize money he should be

:39:28. > :39:36.offering. They asked people what amount was

:39:37. > :39:41.change your life money? What sum of money would be regarded as the man

:39:42. > :39:44.to change your life and in this age of the lottery he thought they were

:39:45. > :39:50.come back with hundreds of thousands of pounds. In fact the answdr came

:39:51. > :39:53.back as just over ?6,000, that is what the vast bulk of British people

:39:54. > :39:59.thought was change their life money, that would start to build for their

:40:00. > :40:04.future. By all means. Changd your life money is ?6,000, the money

:40:05. > :40:10.advice service found that 20 million families have less than ?500 in

:40:11. > :40:13.savings. What does my honourable friend think about the lack of

:40:14. > :40:18.financial literacy and monex management skills for those people

:40:19. > :40:20.who really do not have the techniques and basic understandings

:40:21. > :40:27.on how to manage their personal finances? Well, my honourable friend

:40:28. > :40:33.touches on a very interesting point, one of the things we heard from the

:40:34. > :40:37.SNP front bench is reflective of that, the fact that people perhaps

:40:38. > :40:42.have been infantilised over the last three or four decades about the

:40:43. > :40:46.financial choices they make. The fact that politicians in thhs house

:40:47. > :40:51.would seek to make people's choices for them, I would personallx like

:40:52. > :41:00.the opportunity to take a ddcision between a lifetime ISA, or ` normal

:41:01. > :41:03.ISA, but then I am a chartered accountant of deeply moderate skill!

:41:04. > :41:08.I resigned the day I qualifhed for exactly that reason. Nevertheless, I

:41:09. > :41:11.would like the opportunity to make that decision but directly denies

:41:12. > :41:16.there are lots of people who feel confused and are unable to do so. We

:41:17. > :41:20.have taken that power away from them over the years and I think we need

:41:21. > :41:24.to start to reverse that, ehther we need to put choice back in their

:41:25. > :41:28.hands or educate them to make those choices, because the financhal world

:41:29. > :41:34.is becoming ever more complhcated and if they are going to do well,

:41:35. > :41:40.they need to have that kind of knowledge. The other thing to say

:41:41. > :41:44.about getting people interested in acquiring assets rather than in the

:41:45. > :41:49.ins and outs of their monthly income, is that they have mhssed out

:41:50. > :41:53.recently on a big upswing in their wealth, Brexit has seen a m`ssive

:41:54. > :41:57.rise in the stock market and anyone who has had stocks and shards has

:41:58. > :42:05.done extremely well. The hotsing market over the last three or four

:42:06. > :42:09.years has prodigiously well... I am grateful to the honourable gentleman

:42:10. > :42:12.giving way, does he not realise there has been a massive decline in

:42:13. > :42:16.the value of sterling of 16$ over the last couple of months and the

:42:17. > :42:20.reason that the market has risen as much as it has is quite simply

:42:21. > :42:25.because of the overseas earnings of UK companies, it is not bec`use the

:42:26. > :42:30.world thinks that the UK has become more investable. Some would argue it

:42:31. > :42:35.has become a basket case! I totally agree. That is why the stock market

:42:36. > :42:40.has increased and to me that is a good thing. I am proud to s`y that I

:42:41. > :42:44.voted out. I'm not quite sure he thinks what level the pound should

:42:45. > :42:47.be, but I think it should increase our overseas earnings and mdan that

:42:48. > :42:53.people will reassure manufacturing, it is now more expensive to be made

:42:54. > :42:56.overseas and helps our exploits For a country that is carrying ` massive

:42:57. > :43:05.current account deficit, I cannot see it as more than benefichal. 40

:43:06. > :43:10.years ago or 30 years ago when a lot more people were invested in the

:43:11. > :43:14.stock market, when they bought their British Gas shares and shards in all

:43:15. > :43:18.the privatised industries, they would have been benefiting from this

:43:19. > :43:25.upswing and I am proud to ask my postman every single time, how his

:43:26. > :43:29.shares are doing. Maybe you should ask how much his holiday will cost

:43:30. > :43:34.him next year? There is a rdal problem for the UK and that is that

:43:35. > :43:38.inflation will increase. We have seen the impact of Unilever looking

:43:39. > :43:42.to pass on 10% rise increasds, when wage growth is limited, we have

:43:43. > :43:47.choked off consumption next year and that is the effect of Brexit, this

:43:48. > :43:50.was not about wealth, it is the economy we have damaged. Thd

:43:51. > :43:57.honourable gentleman will not be surprised to know, I disagrde. I was

:43:58. > :44:02.hoping to keep my comments short. Inflation is currently at 1.6% and

:44:03. > :44:07.we have very low interest r`tes the bank of England's target is 2% and I

:44:08. > :44:11.am pleased that the low-paid will help them get to that level. Low

:44:12. > :44:16.inflation or a deflationary environment is extremely dalaging to

:44:17. > :44:21.the economy. He will be ple`sed to hear that exactly be a fact of what

:44:22. > :44:25.has happened from the drop hn the pound, my wife and I decided just

:44:26. > :44:30.this week that February half term, we are going to Scotland on holiday,

:44:31. > :44:34.rather than overseas, because we would like to explore the glorious

:44:35. > :44:46.land of his birth and hopeftlly more and more British consumers will do

:44:47. > :44:48.exactly the same thing and we might even see a rejuvenation in lovely

:44:49. > :44:51.places like Blackpool of thd tourist industry. By all means, yes. He set

:44:52. > :44:56.out three concerns about Help-to-Save that he has. I wonder

:44:57. > :44:59.if he would share my view and the view of the honourable membdr for

:45:00. > :45:05.new work that the government needs to do more to explain why there

:45:06. > :45:10.should be a two-year qualifxing period for Help-to-Save as opposed

:45:11. > :45:13.to 12 months? Yes, I completely agree. I think they should be

:45:14. > :45:19.looking at that. The barriers that are in the way of people with low

:45:20. > :45:24.income saving should be removed and I like his suggestion that people

:45:25. > :45:28.might be able to opt to savd out of their payroll, that it should be

:45:29. > :45:33.deducted by employers. Anything that makes it painless. The government

:45:34. > :45:37.opts for PAYE because it takes away taxes painlessly. Doing the same

:45:38. > :45:41.with savings would be a good idea. I will bring my comments to a close

:45:42. > :45:46.but I would say that throughout my life, my grandmother, for all my

:45:47. > :45:50.life until she sadly died at the age of 94, put ?5 every month in a Post

:45:51. > :45:55.Office savings account for le and gave it to me on my 21st birthday. I

:45:56. > :45:58.have always been grateful for that money, I still have it, sitting in

:45:59. > :46:03.that savings account and I hope and believe I will be able to p`ss it

:46:04. > :46:09.onto my three children as a sign of what you can do when the first

:46:10. > :46:11.generation in this change from frankly the backstreets of Harrogate

:46:12. > :46:19.through to me as a member of Parliament is a sign of what can be

:46:20. > :46:23.done by putting ?5 away every month. Gareth Thomas. A pleasure to follow

:46:24. > :46:30.the honourable gentleman for North West Hampshire. I rise in p`rticular

:46:31. > :46:35.to support the remarks that my right honourable friend, the membdr for

:46:36. > :46:40.Salford made and also to dwdll on a number of the points I have made in

:46:41. > :46:47.interventions thus far during this debate. Both the honourable

:46:48. > :46:51.gentleman for the Scottish Nationalist party and the honourable

:46:52. > :46:55.member for new work and indded my honourable friend on the front bench

:46:56. > :47:02.in particular have addressed the scale of the savings crisis. In

:47:03. > :47:07.their own very different waxs, underlined the need to do a lot more

:47:08. > :47:18.to encourage those on low and modest incomes to save for the futtre. It

:47:19. > :47:23.is in that spirit that I do gently underlying in a small subst`ntive

:47:24. > :47:30.contribution, I hope, the nded for the government to look afresh at its

:47:31. > :47:35.decision on help to save -- Help-to-Save, that it will only pay

:47:36. > :47:39.its bonus payment after two years as opposed to 12 months. I think it was

:47:40. > :47:44.the honourable gentleman for new work who talked about the pdrson who

:47:45. > :47:54.only has ?100 in their bank account and dwelt on the difficultids that

:47:55. > :47:58.they are facing in saving for the future. Two years is an awftlly long

:47:59. > :48:03.time, I think, a constituent of mine who does the right thing, who is

:48:04. > :48:07.working, who is a teaching assistant, who is therefore on a

:48:08. > :48:12.very low income, she is facdd, given the scale of the housing crhsis

:48:13. > :48:18.which my honourable friend puite rightly alluded to, significant

:48:19. > :48:22.increases in her rent, and struggles to manage, she does, but shd

:48:23. > :48:28.struggles to manage her income, to pay all her bills. She is strely the

:48:29. > :48:34.exact sort of person we would want to benefit from a scheme like

:48:35. > :48:39.Help-to-Save, but I suspect that if she thought she was not going to get

:48:40. > :48:45.any benefit from her savings, for a two years, the struggle to lake ends

:48:46. > :48:48.meet in the intervening perhod would be a significant disincentive for

:48:49. > :48:58.her setting even small amounts of money aside in a savings account. I

:48:59. > :49:01.also share the concerns of others who have already made clear their

:49:02. > :49:08.concern that the scheme will only benefit those on in work benefits

:49:09. > :49:13.and again I would encourage the government to be a little bht more

:49:14. > :49:22.imaginative going forward. H understand, the needs of thd

:49:23. > :49:25.government to have a Help-to-Save implementer, with a national

:49:26. > :49:30.coverage and I can see the logic quite clearly, the government have

:49:31. > :49:36.failed to persuade traditional banks or a big financial players to offer

:49:37. > :49:44.this scheme and therefore, H can see the attraction of NAS and I. What I

:49:45. > :49:51.fail to understand, is why credit unions cannot always be allowed to

:49:52. > :50:04.offer the service in their `reas, to their communities alongside NS I

:50:05. > :50:10.have the great privilege of chairing the all party mutuals group and I

:50:11. > :50:16.commend the contribution of the building societies Associathon who,

:50:17. > :50:23.in their comments on both the lifetime ISA, more generallx, and a

:50:24. > :50:31.briefing for this debate, share the concern that others have made about

:50:32. > :50:35.the risk of the lifetime IS@ both conflating savings for a hotse

:50:36. > :50:41.deposit and savings for rethrement into one product. Again, thd

:50:42. > :50:45.concerns about the scale of withdrawal charges being punitive

:50:46. > :50:52.and I hope that the minister who winds up the debate will pick up

:50:53. > :50:56.those two points going forw`rd. I want to support the honourable

:50:57. > :51:02.gentleman for North West Halpshire for the idea on making payroll

:51:03. > :51:08.deductions, a statutory right. He is quite right to say that the

:51:09. > :51:15.government has a statutory right to take money through PAYE for taxes so

:51:16. > :51:21.why therefore should it not also insist on a statutory right to allow

:51:22. > :51:23.people with their employers, to save through a credit union, but also

:51:24. > :51:33.through a standard neutral or a mainstream bank, bank product as

:51:34. > :51:40.well. Payroll deduction would be a huge long-term benefit, givhng

:51:41. > :51:47.people the right to do that. Many of the credit unions who do exhst and

:51:48. > :51:53.are highly successful, underline on a regular basis, just how ilportant

:51:54. > :51:56.the facility of payroll dedtction is for their ability to offer financial

:51:57. > :52:01.services in this context, particularly savings, to thdir

:52:02. > :52:08.members. One issue that prevented for a while and Armed Forces credit

:52:09. > :52:17.union getting established, `nd I diverge briefly on a tangent, to pay

:52:18. > :52:21.tribute to the former Armed Forces minister, who received a deputation

:52:22. > :52:27.from myself and members of the Co-op party members of the Associ`tion of

:52:28. > :52:34.credit unions and an excelldnt plaintive credit union and `greed to

:52:35. > :52:39.support payroll deduction, being allowed, by the Ministry of Defence,

:52:40. > :52:45.so that credit unions could establish a service for the men and

:52:46. > :52:49.women, the brave men and wolen of our Armed Forces and when one

:52:50. > :52:53.considers, Madam Deputy Spe`ker that before our credit unions came

:52:54. > :52:58.along, often the only products that were available for those serving in

:52:59. > :53:08.our Armed Forces on comparatively low incomes, was to go to those

:53:09. > :53:13.legal loan sharks, payday ldnders, often on huge sums of interdst. One

:53:14. > :53:22.understands the scale of thd benefit that credit unions are now beginning

:53:23. > :53:28.to offer to Armed Forces personnel. The Minister has as reputathon as a

:53:29. > :53:34.shrewd and effective operator around Whitehall and now she is in the

:53:35. > :53:40.Treasury and she has even more power at her disposal. There are still

:53:41. > :53:45.many agencies and parts of government, whether it is Whitehall

:53:46. > :53:52.directly or whether it is agencies outside of Whitehall in the NHS or

:53:53. > :53:56.academies or academy trains, or other parts of government, dven some

:53:57. > :54:02.parts of local government, that still do not offer payroll deduction

:54:03. > :54:06.services to credit unions sdrving, who want to serve their employers.

:54:07. > :54:12.One thing that the Treasury and the Minister in particular could do if

:54:13. > :54:17.she is not immediately perstaded, and I hope she will be by the time

:54:18. > :54:22.this savings Bill has compldted its passage, but one thing she could do

:54:23. > :54:28.immediately, using the weight of the Treasury, to encourage all Whitehall

:54:29. > :54:32.departments to check that every bit of government that those Whhtehall

:54:33. > :54:37.departments are responsible for are allowing payroll deduction `nd are

:54:38. > :54:42.allowing credit unions to offer savings and other financial services

:54:43. > :54:52.to employees going forward. If the police can offer services and

:54:53. > :54:56.have many police officers and staff signed up to credit unions, our

:54:57. > :55:01.Armed Forces can do it, why can t all of government but their service?

:55:02. > :55:05.I hope the Minister will not only need a drive on allowing paxroll

:55:06. > :55:10.deduction but will also be willing to contemplate an amendment to this

:55:11. > :55:19.bill a lying payroll deducthon to become a statutory right gohng

:55:20. > :55:23.forward. Madam Deputy Speakdr, the last issue I think that is just read

:55:24. > :55:29.reflecting on a very brieflx in the context of this bill is the appetite

:55:30. > :55:34.for cross the House where more diverse financial markets going

:55:35. > :55:41.forward. Arguably, one of the reasons why a organisations within

:55:42. > :55:45.the financial services commtnity can charge on occasion a quite high

:55:46. > :55:52.charges for the services thdy operate is because there is not

:55:53. > :55:54.enough competition. Encouraging my building societies, my savings

:55:55. > :55:59.through building societies `nd in particular trying to build tp the

:56:00. > :56:05.credit union sector is surely something which every treastry bill

:56:06. > :56:10.and every government bill should have as one of the issues at the

:56:11. > :56:19.back of its mind. I wonder whether there might not be an opportunity to

:56:20. > :56:23.encourage more tax incentivds for savings. The Armed Forces credit

:56:24. > :56:26.union has been established. Why shouldn't there be tax incentives to

:56:27. > :56:37.encourage more of our soldidrs and sailors and air force personnel At

:56:38. > :56:39.credit union will benefit sdrvices. Thank My Honourable Friend forgiving

:56:40. > :56:44.way and I apologise for not being able to hear earlier but I

:56:45. > :56:50.wholeheartedly agree with the points he is making and pay tributd to his

:56:51. > :56:53.work in the credit union. Does not agree that we also need to be

:56:54. > :56:57.looking at other countries, but it is like Canada and Germany where

:56:58. > :57:02.there is that diversity in savings where you see much stronger credit

:57:03. > :57:05.unions and the available to a wider group of the population? My

:57:06. > :57:11.Honourable Friend makes a vdry important point and around the

:57:12. > :57:16.world, there are very many financial services markets that are f`r more

:57:17. > :57:23.diverse and as a result, far more competitive than the UK. We do need

:57:24. > :57:27.to build up our bowling socheties, other mutuals such as credit unions

:57:28. > :57:32.and further tax incentives that particular encourage savings and

:57:33. > :57:38.indeed other financial servhces through mutuals can only be a good

:57:39. > :57:43.thing. I have no intention of voting against this bill, Madam Deputy

:57:44. > :57:47.Speaker, but I share the concerns of My Honourable Friend, the mdmber for

:57:48. > :57:51.Salford and I hope both frontbenchers will reflect on the

:57:52. > :57:54.suggested amendments but I have made and hopefully we can see sole

:57:55. > :58:03.progress on those concerns during the course of the bill.

:58:04. > :58:12.Can I congratulate the membdr for how West on his comments thhs

:58:13. > :58:16.evening, particularly on thd Help to Save product that the government is

:58:17. > :58:20.introducing in the savings built this evening. I think his comments

:58:21. > :58:29.about the role of credit unhons and government perhaps at that `nd the

:58:30. > :58:33.ability to use payroll asks things that it would be helpful for the

:58:34. > :58:38.ministers to my welcome to their place this evening could colment on

:58:39. > :58:42.a long perhaps with some of the criticism from IFS and the very

:58:43. > :58:50.helpful brief from the libr`ry. But Madam Deputy Speaker, this dvening I

:58:51. > :58:53.want to really focus more on the lifetime ISA which the government

:58:54. > :59:00.brings to the House this evdning. I don't think any of us should

:59:01. > :59:03.question its intentions. I think it's simple aim is to incre`se

:59:04. > :59:08.savings for the young and to help more onto the housing ladder and

:59:09. > :59:13.none of us in principle can surely have any objection to those aims.

:59:14. > :59:19.The difficulty is that of course we don't start with a blank shdet of

:59:20. > :59:24.paper and adding yet more products to the already complicated savings

:59:25. > :59:29.landscape discs bringing with them unintended consequences and it is

:59:30. > :59:37.really the risk of those unhntended consequences that I want to focus on

:59:38. > :59:41.this evening. At the moment, of course, and over the last 24 years

:59:42. > :59:46.as the library briefing put it rather coyly, there has been a

:59:47. > :59:51.string of largely tax paid savings brought under under different

:59:52. > :59:58.governments. Some people here will remember the stakeholder, not many

:59:59. > :00:03.will perhaps remember PEPs, testers, CTF 's which ceased not that long

:00:04. > :00:08.ago, or indeed the savings gateway which was never ruled out

:00:09. > :00:14.nationally. This evening, when looking at the lifetime ISA and what

:00:15. > :00:19.it is proposing to achieve, we also have to bear in mind what other

:00:20. > :00:24.savings products exist and tnder the general heading of savings, I

:00:25. > :00:28.include very much pensions. They are simply a particular form of savings,

:00:29. > :00:34.designed and rally to provide people with adequate income in thehr

:00:35. > :00:39.retirement and of course, as we are living longer and longer, so the

:00:40. > :00:43.value of having those savings lasting well beyond an age when

:00:44. > :00:49.people were expected to livd not long ago becomes more important and

:00:50. > :00:52.the government has a crucial role in this is ultimately the body that

:00:53. > :00:59.will prop up all or any of ts when we run out of savings. So, there are

:01:00. > :01:04.two or three things, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I really want to focus

:01:05. > :01:13.on within the product range of savings and the potential unintended

:01:14. > :01:16.consequences of this bill. Firstly, the LISA came into the budgdt this

:01:17. > :01:20.year after the Chancellor s`id that it was clear there was no consensus

:01:21. > :01:27.on the future development of pensions. But in a sense, hd

:01:28. > :01:34.revealed his own hand by increasing the ISA limit and proposing the

:01:35. > :01:39.introduction of the lifetimd ISA. I believe this showed the Tre`sury's

:01:40. > :01:42.direction of travel very cldarly. It is no surprise that the centre of

:01:43. > :01:48.policy studies has welcomed the ISA quote since it is solid to `

:01:49. > :01:52.proposal made in the past, hndeed Michael Johnson at the CPS has been

:01:53. > :01:55.advocating the end of pensions and indeed I describe him as thd Guy

:01:56. > :02:01.Fawkes of pensions industry. He would love to blow the whold thing

:02:02. > :02:06.up tomorrow if he could. Thd lifetime ISA was just one of his

:02:07. > :02:14.steps towards that goal in due course with a workplace ISA coming

:02:15. > :02:21.in next. That of course is where some of the problems start. For the

:02:22. > :02:27.main underlying argument th`t the Chancellor made for introducing the

:02:28. > :02:30.LISA was fundamentally that younger people didn't understand pensions,

:02:31. > :02:34.they were far too, located `nd were not popular and therefore wd needed

:02:35. > :02:41.to use the well-known brand of ISA. The Honorourable Member for sky and

:02:42. > :02:47.Lochaber with whom I have clashed many times, mostly happily, on

:02:48. > :02:52.pensions issues, where he h`s contributed way over the top and

:02:53. > :03:01.unsurprisingly this evening but he was right, he used the quot`tion in

:03:02. > :03:08.the library or in the AIB briefing, demonstrating that interesthngly,

:03:09. > :03:10.the opt out rates for the under 30s in auto enrolment had been the

:03:11. > :03:17.lowest of all age groups whhch arguably suggests that younger

:03:18. > :03:20.people don't necessarily find pensions complicated when they are

:03:21. > :03:25.provided with the solution hn the workplace into which they, the

:03:26. > :03:29.government and their employdr can all contribute. And the papdrwork is

:03:30. > :03:34.very easy, so pensions don't have to be complex any more that anx form of

:03:35. > :03:38.savings does but of course what doors make the whole sector more,

:03:39. > :03:43.located is that the constant temptation of successive ch`ncellors

:03:44. > :03:52.to Act as product designer for the industry and introduce yet lore

:03:53. > :03:56.different products. I am a little puzzled by the use of this statistic

:03:57. > :04:00.that the under 30s have the greatest opt out rates because of cotrse the

:04:01. > :04:05.under 30s will become over 30s and 40s and it may be that they will opt

:04:06. > :04:10.out then. We had no anticip`tion at this early stage that is because

:04:11. > :04:13.they are now staying in when they do not have the pressure on thdir wage

:04:14. > :04:17.packet that they will in thd habit in the future, that somehow then

:04:18. > :04:23.opting in now is indicative of what they would in the future. Indeed.

:04:24. > :04:26.The Honorourable Member makds a perfectly reasonable point that he

:04:27. > :04:32.should bear in mind three sdparate things. Firstly, opt out rates are

:04:33. > :04:35.expected to be 25% and south by the average 9% to the government has so

:04:36. > :04:40.far happily been proven wrong in terms of its expectation on opt out

:04:41. > :04:45.routes. Secondly, he is quite right but of course the under 30s become

:04:46. > :04:49.the over 30s but he and indded all of us should be trying to encourage

:04:50. > :04:51.them to stay in and build up their savings through the pension scheme,

:04:52. > :04:57.rather than introducing a competitive product which m`y well

:04:58. > :05:02.for various marketing purposes as I will explain be seen to be lore

:05:03. > :05:06.attractive and therefore divert them from the good and noble cause which

:05:07. > :05:13.I think he supports and encouraging everyone of whatever age to build up

:05:14. > :05:18.more savings for their retirement. Would he agree with me that to

:05:19. > :05:22.enrolment has been a success and one of the reasons for the succdss is

:05:23. > :05:27.the low rate of opt out is taken place but there is more to be done

:05:28. > :05:29.to make sure we include low paid workers, women in particular, and

:05:30. > :05:34.the self-employed. That shotld be the focus and that is the tragedy of

:05:35. > :05:36.this bill because it is deflecting attention about what we shotld be

:05:37. > :05:43.doing, which is incentivising pensions. Let me come onto that It

:05:44. > :05:47.is just in point. He is absolutely right that auto enrolment is not

:05:48. > :05:52.good for the self-employed `nd there are other aspects of it, including

:05:53. > :05:59.women's savings, that could be improved. In terms of its stccess so

:06:00. > :06:05.far, yes, but my yes is a c`utious one because auto enrolment has not

:06:06. > :06:09.been going very long and thd real test will be firstly over the next

:06:10. > :06:13.couple of years when an addhtional up to 5 million people could come

:06:14. > :06:16.in, taking it from a 6.9 million savers at the moment to over 10

:06:17. > :06:21.million fairly soon and we will have to see whether they can in with the

:06:22. > :06:29.same enthusiasm as did thosd with larger employers. Again, my point

:06:30. > :06:35.here is that introducing thd LISA at this stage before we know how

:06:36. > :06:40.smaller employers and their employees are going to react risks,

:06:41. > :06:48.and I emphasise the work risks, undermining the success so far of

:06:49. > :06:54.autumn in Normandy. -- to enrolment. That brings me onto my next point.

:06:55. > :07:02.Into thousand and five, the pensions commission described pensions as

:07:03. > :07:05.poorly understood and tax rdlief of pensions, unevenly distributed and

:07:06. > :07:11.the costs as significant. They were absolutely right because thd cost to

:07:12. > :07:18.the Treasury is ?34 billion a year. It receives back 13 billion in tax.

:07:19. > :07:23.So there is a huge cost to ht and I am pretty sure that that underlines

:07:24. > :07:29.why the Treasury is rightly trying to reconsider how we can sh`pe a

:07:30. > :07:36.savings policy that is both good for individuals but not so expensive for

:07:37. > :07:40.taxpayers and the Treasury `s the intermediary. But that only argues

:07:41. > :07:49.for what I would like to sed, which is a really much more coordhnated

:07:50. > :07:53.effort by the Treasury and DWP to look more closely at all thd

:07:54. > :07:56.existing range of savings offerings, pensions included, and see how these

:07:57. > :08:01.can be rationalised in order to come up with a simpler, less expdnsive

:08:02. > :08:10.method of encouraging peopld to save. It is interesting in ` sense

:08:11. > :08:17.that the information sheet on the lifetime ISA which is avail`ble

:08:18. > :08:20.online to everyone does not mention that actually contributions come

:08:21. > :08:26.after tax, they come from your salary after you have paid tax and

:08:27. > :08:33.it also says very strongly, use it to save for retirement. The freeze,

:08:34. > :08:37.use it to save for retirement, is exactly what we would normally

:08:38. > :08:42.expect a pensions product to be doing, Madam Deputy Speaker, so the

:08:43. > :08:46.concept that the LISA is not competitive with auto enrollent and

:08:47. > :08:55.other pensions offerings is, I believe, slightly disingenuous. In

:08:56. > :08:59.fact, other people have madd the point that it is competitivd with

:09:00. > :09:05.auto enrolment and that therefore, this does offer significant

:09:06. > :09:14.potential future issues for many of our constituents and let me just put

:09:15. > :09:24.briefly from one or two of those who have highlighted the issue. The

:09:25. > :09:28.pensions and lifetime savings Association illustrating my point

:09:29. > :09:34.that all pensions are now considered a savings products and quitd rightly

:09:35. > :09:39.so, too. They comment that we look forward to help make sure that the

:09:40. > :09:43.lifetime ISA does help younger people build up their savings and

:09:44. > :09:49.that the government and regtlations on charges of the LISA, but to those

:09:50. > :09:52.with pensions which have bedn reviewed to make sure they offer

:09:53. > :09:54.savers good value, and that of course is the cap on the ch`rges and

:09:55. > :10:04.the increased governance. They are recognising that this is a

:10:05. > :10:11.product that would be considered by consumers as an alternative to

:10:12. > :10:14.savers. Indeed, the former Pensions Minister Stephen Webb said that

:10:15. > :10:18.there is a real danger that the new product will mean that many young

:10:19. > :10:23.people will not start saving for their retirement until their 30s

:10:24. > :10:33.because that is an option available through the LISA. It is intdresting,

:10:34. > :10:40.too, that the ABI Zurich Hargreaves Lansdown all have their sep`rate

:10:41. > :10:43.concerns and one of the points raised by the Institute of fiscal is

:10:44. > :10:50.to the is exactly the point that I have raised in an article e`rlier

:10:51. > :10:56.today, which is, it is very unclear, as to the extent of which there will

:10:57. > :11:07.be new savings, as against the shifting of existing funds from

:11:08. > :11:13.people who have already savdd in ISAs. 21 million people havd already

:11:14. > :11:20.saved in ISAs. It is not exclusively the preserve of the rich. If savings

:11:21. > :11:27.are recycled and 80% of people who put money into ISAs, into c`sh ices

:11:28. > :11:31.-- ISAs, sought the recycle into the LISA to get the government bonus,

:11:32. > :11:35.that will not necessarily demonstrate a success for the

:11:36. > :11:39.government, in terms of bringing in new savers and people who would not

:11:40. > :11:42.otherwise have had the chance of getting on the housing ladddr,

:11:43. > :11:47.rather that there is an opportunity for those who already have savings

:11:48. > :11:52.to increase the returns on them and those of course who are a hhgher

:11:53. > :11:57.rate earners or have parents who were higher rate earners, to provide

:11:58. > :12:01.them for their children or grandchildren and I do think that it

:12:02. > :12:06.would help today if the Minhster in his response could clarify, what

:12:07. > :12:12.impact assessment has been done by the Treasury, in terms of how much

:12:13. > :12:19.money they expect will come in from new savers and how much will simply

:12:20. > :12:28.be recycled from existing icer holders. -- ISA. My concern is that

:12:29. > :12:32.the main beneficiaries in tdrms of the vast weight of the monex that

:12:33. > :12:36.will benefit from the 850 mhllion that it will cost the Treastry and

:12:37. > :12:40.that therefore the taxpayers will actually be people who are `lready

:12:41. > :12:44.earning quite a lot or are the children of people earning ` lot,

:12:45. > :12:49.rather than reaching the many, which I believe is the intention of this

:12:50. > :12:57.savings Bill and the LISA. Ladam Deputy Speaker, I have tried to

:12:58. > :13:03.address some of the issues `nd unintended consequences that may

:13:04. > :13:06.come from this Bill, it is `lso worth noting in the case of

:13:07. > :13:14.Hargreaves Lansdown who havd written a useful paper about simplifying

:13:15. > :13:20.ISAs and pensions, they propose a number of changes to ISAs which are

:13:21. > :13:23.worth flagging up today, consolidating six different types of

:13:24. > :13:33.ISA into one, limit the cost of the top but to the LISA. Reducing the

:13:34. > :13:39.administrative burden for the industry, retaining the help to buy

:13:40. > :13:43.element of the LISA within one simple ISA product and elimhnating

:13:44. > :13:47.the risk that LISA will unddrmine pension savings and they go on to

:13:48. > :13:51.make a similar number of recommendations on pensions as well.

:13:52. > :13:55.I think the last point, elilinate the risk that LISA will unddrmine

:13:56. > :14:01.the pension saving, is the one that I keep coming back to, becatse it is

:14:02. > :14:07.possible to do these things in a different way. The pensions policy

:14:08. > :14:12.Institute has found that Canada Australia, New Zealand, the US and

:14:13. > :14:18.Singapore, all countries whhch broadly follow Anglo-Saxon

:14:19. > :14:20.approaches to finance and investment, do allow early `ccess

:14:21. > :14:26.from the same product used for pension saving. That is absolutely

:14:27. > :14:33.critical, because it means that people do not have to choosd between

:14:34. > :14:37.a LISA or auto enrolment, it means they can decide whether thex want to

:14:38. > :14:43.save to get onto the housing ladder, or to save for their retirelent

:14:44. > :14:49.through the same product. That, I believe, would be a major

:14:50. > :14:54.achievement of this governmdnt and the Treasury Minister and DWT - DWP

:14:55. > :14:57.minister is, if they could work together to rationalise the

:14:58. > :15:02.structure of our pensions are so that individual consumers c`n access

:15:03. > :15:07.the same product for differdnt reasons without having to stbscribe

:15:08. > :15:12.separately. That would elimhnate the main concern that many of us have

:15:13. > :15:19.about the unintended conseqtence of the LISA directly and negathvely

:15:20. > :15:22.impacting auto enrolment, which is why this evening, I will certainly

:15:23. > :15:27.not be voting against the government, but I will be at

:15:28. > :15:34.staining from the bill this evening. David Morris. Thank you. It is a

:15:35. > :15:39.pleasure to follow on from ly colleague, the honourable gdntleman

:15:40. > :15:44.for Gloucester. One area th`t this Bill has covered but it has not been

:15:45. > :15:47.brought up in the chamber, hs the self-employed. When I was

:15:48. > :15:51.self-employed 20 years ago, there was a change in taxation, and it

:15:52. > :15:56.basically meant that every pound I put into my pension pot, a

:15:57. > :16:02.substantial amount was taken out in cash and I stopped putting hnto a

:16:03. > :16:08.private pension. What we have got in front of us today, is a polhcy that

:16:09. > :16:13.is going to put forward a break in that sort of behaviour, espdcially

:16:14. > :16:18.for the self-employed. One of the areas that self-employed people have

:16:19. > :16:22.always been worried about, hs the harmonisation of National Insurance

:16:23. > :16:27.contributions. When I was the Prime Minister 's ambassador for the

:16:28. > :16:33.self-employed, I worked verx closely with the right honourable mdmber for

:16:34. > :16:39.Bromsgrove and their member for Chingford on trying to harmonise

:16:40. > :16:42.those contributions, so that eventually, self-employed pdople

:16:43. > :16:47.would have the same state pdnsion. However, I would like to talk about

:16:48. > :16:52.the LISA proposal, because H think this should not be confused with an

:16:53. > :16:57.extra pension top-up which has been talked about in the chamber by

:16:58. > :17:04.everyone before me, but shotld be seen as a savings guarantee for the

:17:05. > :17:09.future. I think that it was a very tidy move, what both departlents did

:17:10. > :17:13.to come to the point of harlonising National Insurance, but this takes

:17:14. > :17:17.it further into the realms of the self-employed been able to look

:17:18. > :17:21.after themselves in the futtre again. I do not want it to be

:17:22. > :17:28.confused with a supplement to a pension, it is something th`t would

:17:29. > :17:31.help to save for a future occasion. Just to put it in perspective, we

:17:32. > :17:39.hear a lot of doom and glool. Look where we were seven years ago, the

:17:40. > :17:43.then Prime Minister, the right honourable member for Kirkaldy and

:17:44. > :17:48.Cowdenbeath, it used to say quite often, I have put an end to boom and

:17:49. > :17:52.bust, we went bust in the bhggest way possible. Here we are, ten years

:17:53. > :17:57.down the line and we have got to look and address how we are going to

:17:58. > :18:01.save for our future and that someone who was in that position 15 or 0

:18:02. > :18:06.years ago, that took the decision not to pay into a pension, H

:18:07. > :18:12.wholeheartedly welcome what the government is doing. It must be

:18:13. > :18:17.stressed... I will just finhsh one more, very quickly. I would like to

:18:18. > :18:20.put in perspective that in Morecambe, unemployment is dropping,

:18:21. > :18:24.so much so that a Labour cotncillor was boasting about his business

:18:25. > :18:28.saying he cannot get enough employees to fill the posithons I

:18:29. > :18:35.do think, the workplace pension has its place, but also the ISA has its

:18:36. > :18:42.separate place as well, hophng this will carry on for people to save

:18:43. > :18:46.into their old age. Thank you for giving way. I do not want to start

:18:47. > :18:54.by correcting him, but I am very pleased to have a savings account

:18:55. > :19:00.named after myself. Would hd agree with me that the crux of thhs matter

:19:01. > :19:03.is also financial education in schools? Children have to ldarn how

:19:04. > :19:10.to budget in order to learn how to save and have a secure relationship

:19:11. > :19:14.with finances. Thank you. I do think that is part and parcel. In talking

:19:15. > :19:18.about this Bill, it is about where we go for the future, and I take on

:19:19. > :19:24.board what you say and I am sure everyone else does, but I would like

:19:25. > :19:28.to say that I wholeheartedlx endorse what the government is doing and

:19:29. > :19:38.thank you very much for allocating this time to me. Petered out. Thank

:19:39. > :19:42.you. We have had a number of contributions, the member for new

:19:43. > :19:46.work who told us about his grandparents getting to Blackpool

:19:47. > :19:52.courtesy of a jam jar savings policy which I thought was novel, the

:19:53. > :19:55.member who summed up the government 's proposal as a missed opportunity,

:19:56. > :20:00.undermining pension savings and is not tackling the real issue and the

:20:01. > :20:05.member for North West Hampshire who does not appear to be here, talk of

:20:06. > :20:11.the number of people with an asset base and in his opinion, he said, we

:20:12. > :20:17.should try and push on and get people to have a bigger assdt base.

:20:18. > :20:24.My honourable friend, for H`rrow West, underlined the governlent 's

:20:25. > :20:30.need to look afresh, to help people, in relation to the timescalds in the

:20:31. > :20:34.help to save scheme and askdd the government to be more imaginative

:20:35. > :20:38.and reinforce the need to pdrmit credit unions to participatd in this

:20:39. > :20:41.game and the statutory right of payroll deductions of savings,

:20:42. > :20:49.amongst other incentives. The member for Gloucester, I thought g`ve us an

:20:50. > :20:55.enlightening exposition of his concerns that this proposal may be

:20:56. > :20:59.moving towards the death of the pension as we know it. I am not

:21:00. > :21:06.quite sure if he said that, but that is the impression I got. He

:21:07. > :21:09.expressed his concern. Of course we then had the member for Mordcambe

:21:10. > :21:16.and Lonsdale giving us his experience. Just to clarify, what I

:21:17. > :21:21.said was that this risks undermining the savings through a pension scheme

:21:22. > :21:25.and we do not want to do th`t. Thank you. And I understand that

:21:26. > :21:32.clarification. I will actually come onto that in my presentation. We had

:21:33. > :21:36.the member for Morecambe and Lonsdale giving us his experience as

:21:37. > :21:40.a self-employed person who hs supportive of the proposals and

:21:41. > :21:46.saying that this is not a pdnsion, it is not a supplementary pdnsion,

:21:47. > :21:50.it is a saving. Labour welcomes the sentiments expressed today on all

:21:51. > :21:53.sides of the house regarding the necessity to address savings

:21:54. > :21:57.overall. In general, anything that allows more people to save for the

:21:58. > :22:02.future is to be welcomed, hdlping younger people and those on low

:22:03. > :22:06.income to save, in particul`r, is a legitimate and worthy objective and

:22:07. > :22:10.the government is right to consider policies that incentivise this. The

:22:11. > :22:15.majority of people on low incomes or who are in precarious work,

:22:16. > :22:16.categories that are slowing in Conservative Britain, are f`r from

:22:17. > :22:32.being in a position to save. Six years of the Torids

:22:33. > :22:35.failure is and austerity has led many not to know where the next

:22:36. > :22:37.pound is going to come from, week in and week out and the governlents

:22:38. > :22:41.clueless approach to exiting Europe simply compounds that rob ltmp on a

:22:42. > :22:45.micro economic level. Madam Deputy Speaker, how is it possible to save

:22:46. > :22:50.when it is hardly possible for many people to live properly on ` weekly

:22:51. > :22:55.basis? How can a person savd for the future, yet they can barely get

:22:56. > :22:58.through the day? The scandal of low retirement savings for the less

:22:59. > :23:03.well-off is an indictment on any notion of a cohesive societx. One in

:23:04. > :23:10.seven pensioners live in poverty and a further 1.2 million pensioners

:23:11. > :23:13.have incomes just above the poverty line. The distribution of analysis

:23:14. > :23:16.by the women's budget group shows that by 2020, single female

:23:17. > :23:20.pensioners will experience ` whopping 20% drop in their living

:23:21. > :23:26.standards and it is unconschonable that people have worked hard and

:23:27. > :23:30.attributed to society and are forced to spend their final years hn

:23:31. > :23:37.hardship and insecurity and that is not right. In short, we agrde that

:23:38. > :23:41.there are problems that need to be solved and solved urgently, however,

:23:42. > :23:48.according to the TUC, products such as the forthcoming Lifetime ISA are

:23:49. > :23:53.disconnected from the world of work and prioritise goals rather than

:23:54. > :23:56.retirement saving. As for the Lifetime ISA, it is hard to see how

:23:57. > :24:01.its introduction even begins to tackle the problems I have just

:24:02. > :24:06.referred to. Not only does ht misrepresent and missed opportunity,

:24:07. > :24:12.that the front bench indicated, to build on the success of automatic

:24:13. > :24:15.enrolment, the introduction of the Lifetime ISA could potentially serve

:24:16. > :24:21.as a distraction to the real issues at hand, Madam Deputy Speakdr. It

:24:22. > :24:25.misdirect valuable resources as the money the government is spending on

:24:26. > :24:29.the scheme is likely to bendfit mostly those on higher incoles and

:24:30. > :24:34.that has been referred to on a number of occasions. It needlessly

:24:35. > :24:35.complicate the pensions landscape and it is already fraught whth

:24:36. > :24:45.complexity. At a pension ISA approach would be

:24:46. > :24:51.detrimental in the round and potentially introduce this proposal

:24:52. > :24:55.through the back door and that is a concern and we are seeking

:24:56. > :24:59.assurances from the governmdnt but that is not the case. In thd months

:25:00. > :25:08.leading up to the budget, the concept of replacing tax relief with

:25:09. > :25:10.it ISA style approach was whdely debated and almost university

:25:11. > :25:19.rejected as damaging to people's retirement prospects. I wonder, as

:25:20. > :25:23.do many of us, whether the government are back with thd same

:25:24. > :25:27.intent under the guise of the savings government contributions

:25:28. > :25:34.Bill. Many in the pensions hndustry have described the LISA as `

:25:35. > :25:37.stillbirth towards pension HSA. The select committee have said that the

:25:38. > :25:42.government is marketing the lifetime Aljaz Bedene as a pension product

:25:43. > :25:45.and there is a high risk th`t people will opt out of their workplace

:25:46. > :25:53.pension as a result. Let max be perfectly clear, people will not

:25:54. > :25:57.better off saving into a IS@ as opposed to a workplace penshon. The

:25:58. > :26:04.Work and Pensions committee found that the most employees, thd

:26:05. > :26:07.decision to save in a LISA hnstead of a workplace pension would be

:26:08. > :26:16.detrimental to their retirelent savings. Can shed some light on why

:26:17. > :26:21.he thinks the government wotld bring forward a bill that would m`ke

:26:22. > :26:24.people worse off than investing in a LISA then they would be invdsting in

:26:25. > :26:30.a pension? Does he not think that is an abdication of responsibility from

:26:31. > :26:36.the government? The answer hs I don't know and out of the sdcond is,

:26:37. > :26:39.yes. I had to give credit where credit is due, Mr Speaker. The

:26:40. > :26:44.Conservative Party has a particular talent for conjuring up critical

:26:45. > :26:48.smoke screens and opportunistic gimmicks. They have given us a

:26:49. > :26:53.National Living Wage which by any stretch of the imagination hs not a

:26:54. > :26:59.living wage. We were promisdd a bigger society and while thd

:27:00. > :27:02.government said about systelatically undermining the notion of a cohesive

:27:03. > :27:08.society and we were cynically assured by the late Chancellor that

:27:09. > :27:15.we were all in it together. One thing I do acknowledge is that

:27:16. > :27:18.poster Brexit, given the poor performance of the ministers

:27:19. > :27:24.responsible for negotiating, we will all be in it together and it will

:27:25. > :27:27.not smell very nice. In the meantime, the government continues

:27:28. > :27:30.to unfairly and unjustly condemned working people and vulnerable groups

:27:31. > :27:38.to paper the government failed austerity obsession. Now it is the

:27:39. > :27:42.time for them to mess up pensions. Doesn't this government ever learn

:27:43. > :27:47.from its mistakes? Is it so I do logically driven that it cannot

:27:48. > :27:53.admit that it gets things wrong A mistake I might add pay for. Hasn't

:27:54. > :27:58.the government done enough damage to the prospect of hundreds of

:27:59. > :28:06.thousands of possibly women's pensions without thinking that

:28:07. > :28:11.through yet again? When the former Conservative pensions minister s

:28:12. > :28:19.were referring to the lifethme ISA as a Trojan horse, and superficial

:28:20. > :28:22.attractions will destroy pensions, alarm bells begin to ring on the

:28:23. > :28:27.side of the House is not on the other side of the House. Given this

:28:28. > :28:32.scenario, common-sense demands that we ask, are we now being prdsented

:28:33. > :28:39.with a savings bill which whll fundamentally undermine properly

:28:40. > :28:43.planning for the future these are the colour pensions. As manx have

:28:44. > :28:49.pointed out, the lifetime ISA is a sort of pension and a not a sort of

:28:50. > :28:59.pension. It is both and not at the same time. More... Early last for

:29:00. > :29:02.lifetime. This design product risks even more pension poverty which

:29:03. > :29:08.people can ill afford at anx time, let alone in their later ye`rs.

:29:09. > :29:12.Moreover, the government 's approach to transferring responsibilhty and

:29:13. > :29:14.risk from the collective to individuals will not work,

:29:15. > :29:18.especially as the incomes of the poorest and the majority of whom are

:29:19. > :29:21.women, are being squeezed bx public sector cuts and the role out of

:29:22. > :29:27.university credits. Instead on the side of the House, were mothvated by

:29:28. > :29:33.the real principle and valud that we are all in it together, not a slogan

:29:34. > :29:38.or a sound bad but a truism. We know that the majority of people are

:29:39. > :29:42.significantly disadvantaged by an individualised dog eat dog `pproach

:29:43. > :29:47.as opposed to a collective system that has there must its cord. Today

:29:48. > :29:50.people struggle with wages that are still lower than they were before

:29:51. > :29:56.the global financial crisis into thousand and eight. There are now

:29:57. > :30:00.800,000 people on 0-hour contract, half a million people in a bogus

:30:01. > :30:05.self-employment and four rehgn of our children living in poverty. It

:30:06. > :30:12.was economic strategy is colmitted to tackling stagnation so they are

:30:13. > :30:19.able and have the capacity to save for the future as well as lhving

:30:20. > :30:22.life now. As My Honourable Friend, the Shadow Secretary of State for

:30:23. > :30:25.Work and Pensions said, the pension system I want to see Injera 's

:30:26. > :30:29.dignity in retirement and a proper reflection of the contributhon that

:30:30. > :30:35.older people have made and continue to make to our society. On the side

:30:36. > :30:37.of the House, we would like the government to categorically,

:30:38. > :30:43.unequivocally and clearly assure the public that the savings govdrnment

:30:44. > :30:53.contributions Bill is not a field attack on pensions as we know them.

:30:54. > :31:01.Madam Deputy Speaker let me first bank everyone here today for

:31:02. > :31:06.contributing to what has bedn a very interesting debate because `s my

:31:07. > :31:12.honourable colleague, the mdmber for batters has said in her opening

:31:13. > :31:16.discussion, the measures contained in this bill are really important

:31:17. > :31:19.parities for this government and whether you look at Help to Save

:31:20. > :31:24.with a lifetime ISA, but schemes offer people in this countrx a new

:31:25. > :31:30.and effective option to help save them money. Help to Save cotrses on

:31:31. > :31:34.giving more support to thosd on low incomes and will give a 50% boost to

:31:35. > :31:39.those who can get into the savings habit by putting aside a sm`ll

:31:40. > :31:45.regular amount into their account each month. The lifetime IS@ focuses

:31:46. > :31:53.on younger people. It is an account which will offer genuine choice and

:31:54. > :31:59.flexible Aussie, not to mention I will give way. Willie minister

:32:00. > :32:05.explained to the House why he thinks it is right to be putting forward

:32:06. > :32:09.LISA and encourage people to invest in that rather than investing in a

:32:10. > :32:14.pension which will give a bdtter return as the figures which we have

:32:15. > :32:17.seen that I demonstrated and I quoted, they will be a 32%

:32:18. > :32:25.difference over a 40 year pdriod. Why is the government being just --

:32:26. > :32:30.misguided? Well, thank you so much for that intervention. The

:32:31. > :32:34.government isn't doing that. It is offering people a choice. The two

:32:35. > :32:39.are Compton entry, they serve very different purposes but if wd can go

:32:40. > :32:44.back to the genuine choice `nd flexible Aussie that I alluded to,

:32:45. > :32:47.it is at the core of this bhll but if I may turn to the specifhc points

:32:48. > :32:55.that have been raised by Honorourable Members today, the

:32:56. > :32:59.member for Salford mentioned credit unions which is something that

:33:00. > :33:03.another member also mentiondd. The government recognises the m`ny

:33:04. > :33:09.credit unions were interestdd in offering accounts, it was not clear

:33:10. > :33:15.that a multiple provider model would guarantee national coverage for the

:33:16. > :33:18.scheme. However, we will continue to explore further options for credit

:33:19. > :33:22.unions to support the delivdry of the scheme and I am sure is a

:33:23. > :33:32.conversation that is the bill progresses, we will have in more

:33:33. > :33:37.detail. Member also mentiondd about a substitute for benefits. This is

:33:38. > :33:42.about increasing the financhal resilience of low income falilies so

:33:43. > :33:46.if they are hit with an unexpected bill or if they lose their jobs

:33:47. > :33:52.they will have money for a rainy day fund available and so if solething

:33:53. > :33:59.unexpected does happen to their income, they have savings to bridge

:34:00. > :34:04.the gap. She also mentioned White two years is a period to encourage

:34:05. > :34:10.account holders to develop ` regular savings habit and has been discussed

:34:11. > :34:15.today all too lacking with lany people, particularly younger people

:34:16. > :34:21.and I would like to reiterate the point that it is up to ?50 ` month

:34:22. > :34:23.if people cannot afford that, any amount of a regular saving hs a

:34:24. > :34:30.thing that all of us should encourage. She mentioned, which I

:34:31. > :34:37.feel that I should clarify, there will be no additional penalty if

:34:38. > :34:40.people took out a lifetime HSA. There will be an additional charge

:34:41. > :34:46.to reflect the long-term nature of the account and that will Act as a

:34:47. > :34:58.disincentive to people other than essential work very important

:34:59. > :35:06.changing circumstances. The Honorourable Member for a ndw work,

:35:07. > :35:09.I would like to thank him for his contributions and his consthtuents

:35:10. > :35:14.are my constituents are verx much looking forward to the introduction

:35:15. > :35:20.of these products and I agrde with him, there are significant

:35:21. > :35:26.incentives. He also mentiondd the abolition of savings tax. It is

:35:27. > :35:30.worth putting on record that 95 of people have savings tax to pay

:35:31. > :35:39.thanks to the savings allow`nce The Honorourable Member for sky and

:35:40. > :35:46.Lockerbie mentioned a wide-ranging smorgasbord of issues. I will pick

:35:47. > :35:51.up on a few of them. Some of them I will cover letter on. He mentioned

:35:52. > :35:59.that women were disadvantagdd by automatic enrolment before ht began.

:36:00. > :36:03.65% of women employed full-time in the private sector did not have a

:36:04. > :36:12.workplace pension and as of 201 , this has fallen to 35%. He lentioned

:36:13. > :36:17.that a lifetime ISA was just for the rich or wealthy but the thing about

:36:18. > :36:24.it is, it is for anyone between the ages of 18 and 40. They can save

:36:25. > :36:28.into it and other 50. The ?4000 is the maximum. Can pay less than that

:36:29. > :36:34.and they will still enjoy the government bonus. We do expdct very

:36:35. > :36:42.large majority of those who use the lifetime ISA to be basic rate

:36:43. > :36:47.taxpayers. He mentioned step change. They have said we welcome government

:36:48. > :36:54.recognition of the need for a savings scheme aimed at those on low

:36:55. > :36:57.incomes. Our research shows that if every household at ?1000 in renewed

:36:58. > :37:05.a savings, I found a thousand would be protected from falling into

:37:06. > :37:09.public debt. He also mentioned the Association of British Insurers who

:37:10. > :37:13.said in August this year, this industry supports a lifetimd ISA as

:37:14. > :37:17.a vehicle to help people save in addition to a workplace pension so

:37:18. > :37:23.hopefully that is very clear. I Honourable Friend from West

:37:24. > :37:27.Hampshire asked some very sdnsible questions and made some thotghtful

:37:28. > :37:35.points. He asked about the limit of ?50. I suppose ?50 a month for four

:37:36. > :37:41.years earns a generous bonus of ?1200 and it is probably an

:37:42. > :37:46.appropriate limit on low income people for whom the scheme hs

:37:47. > :37:54.targeted. That has to be a ceiling. The Honorourable Member for heroin

:37:55. > :38:01.West asked about payroll deduction. I have to thank him for a vdry

:38:02. > :38:07.sensible and measured contrhbution to this debate. There is no reason

:38:08. > :38:12.why payroll deduction cannot take place. I cannot make a commhtment

:38:13. > :38:17.here today but I can confirl that I am happy to see if there is more

:38:18. > :38:26.than we can do in this parthcular area. I am grateful to the response

:38:27. > :38:30.on payroll reduction. I wonder if the Minister will be able to meet

:38:31. > :38:34.with me and the Association of British and unions limited to

:38:35. > :38:42.discuss this meeting further. Yes, I would be very happy to do that. My

:38:43. > :38:51.Right Honourable Friend frol Gloucester, can I thank him for his

:38:52. > :38:54.very thoughtful contribution. He clearly feels very strongly about a

:38:55. > :39:01.vast number of areas. I will have to respect fully disagree with some of

:39:02. > :39:05.his opinions but I hope he continues contributing, it is an important

:39:06. > :39:09.debate and one that we need to get right and at the end of the day

:39:10. > :39:20.this is about helping youngdr people and poor people getting into the

:39:21. > :39:26.habit of saving. Given that the crux of it is to try and help yotnger

:39:27. > :39:29.people, I wonder if he could have some dialogue with colleaguds on

:39:30. > :39:34.education regarding financi`l education and why it is really

:39:35. > :39:36.important that children and young people had a stable and sectre

:39:37. > :39:42.relationship with money and understand that as an early age

:39:43. > :39:50.I would absolutely agree with her, making sensible correct fin`ncial

:39:51. > :40:01.decisions are important to `ll of us throughout our lives and I `m sure,

:40:02. > :40:06.she has got her point in Hansard and I will take that away. If I can come

:40:07. > :40:11.back to my honourable friend from Gloucester, there was some confusion

:40:12. > :40:18.about the hate chairman T f`ct sheet, can I be clear that the

:40:19. > :40:23.Lifetime ISA is for long-term saving and designed to complement pensions.

:40:24. > :40:34.Contributions to a lease ard made from post-tax income. -- LISA. We

:40:35. > :40:39.should never forget that many people do not have this quandary about

:40:40. > :40:48.whether they should also in role or go for a Lifetime ISA, they are

:40:49. > :40:53.sensible, self-employed people, who want to either save for latdr life

:40:54. > :40:57.or purchase their first homd and I know that the Lifetime ISA scheme is

:40:58. > :41:05.something that will be very well received by them. Finally, the

:41:06. > :41:12.member for Bootle on the opposition front bench, can I thank hil for his

:41:13. > :41:17.contribution once again, I did not agree with nearly everything he

:41:18. > :41:22.said, but I look forward genuinely to his continued involvement in this

:41:23. > :41:26.important area. Let us not forget, we have a responsibility to the

:41:27. > :41:32.millions of people out therd, young people, who are people, who should

:41:33. > :41:48.be getting the very best assistance they can from the government. In

:41:49. > :41:51.conclusion,... When it comes down to, this bill is about supporting

:41:52. > :41:56.people who are trying to save, it does not matter if you are xoung,

:41:57. > :42:00.looking for a flexible way to save or if you are on a low incole and

:42:01. > :42:09.making an effort to save, you deserve a savings account that will

:42:10. > :42:12.support you and will boost what you can manage to put aside and although

:42:13. > :42:19.these two new savings vehicles are new, they are intended to do exactly

:42:20. > :42:27.that. I am pleased to confirm today that I commend the bill to the

:42:28. > :42:38.house. The question is that the bill now be read a second time. H think

:42:39. > :42:45.the ayes have it. The questhon is on the order paper. I think thd ayes

:42:46. > :42:51.have it. Money resolution to be moved formerly. The question is on

:42:52. > :43:01.the order paper. I think thd ayes have it. Ways and means resolution

:43:02. > :43:06.to be moved. I think the ayds have it. We now come to motion ntmber

:43:07. > :43:09.five relating to the Intellhgence and Security Committee of

:43:10. > :43:17.Parliament. Minister to movd. Not moved. Motion number six, on

:43:18. > :43:24.business of the house, 18th of October, Minister to move. The

:43:25. > :43:29.question is Alan the order paper. The ayes have it. We now cole to

:43:30. > :43:40.motion number seven relating to the Finance committee bill. The question

:43:41. > :43:50.is on the order paper. I thhnk the ayes habit. I am grateful for the

:43:51. > :43:57.chance this evening to presdnt the bit -- for a 1950s born of women

:43:58. > :44:02.affected by changes to the state pension age, that group of women has

:44:03. > :44:09.been an unfair burden. When the pensions act of 2011 was debated,

:44:10. > :44:13.government ministers promisdd traditional resolutions to do that.

:44:14. > :44:19.Women have been left facing hardship. Men like all thosd who

:44:20. > :44:23.have signed this petition and others presented by other members `nd may I

:44:24. > :44:27.thank the office for its work in registering the petitions. H will

:44:28. > :44:32.read out the full text of the petition and the petition states,

:44:33. > :44:36.the petition of residence of the county constituency of West

:44:37. > :44:42.Dumbarton shirt declare that a result of how the 1995 penshons act

:44:43. > :44:48.and the 2011 pensions act w`s an plummeted, women born in thd 19 0s

:44:49. > :44:52.or or after the 6th of April 19 1 have unfairly born on the btrden of

:44:53. > :44:56.the increase of the state pdnsion age. Further, that hundreds of

:44:57. > :45:02.thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them

:45:03. > :45:05.with little or no personal notice. Further that implementation took

:45:06. > :45:10.place faster than promised, further that this gave no time to m`ke

:45:11. > :45:15.alternative pension arrangelents and further that retirement plans have

:45:16. > :45:19.been shattered with devastating consequences. The petitioners

:45:20. > :45:22.request that the House of Commons urges the government to makd their

:45:23. > :45:28.transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s or on or

:45:29. > :45:31.after the 6th of April 1951 who have unfairly born the increase to the

:45:32. > :45:57.state pension age. Petition implementation of the 995

:45:58. > :46:02.pension act. Petition, Marg`ret Ritchie. Thank you. I rise to

:46:03. > :46:08.present a petition on behalf of the residents of South down rel`ting to

:46:09. > :46:14.the implementation of the 1895 2011 pensions act. The petition that

:46:15. > :46:19.I present is identical to the one presented by the honourable member

:46:20. > :46:23.for West Dunbartonshire, he has already referred to the content of

:46:24. > :46:28.that petition, so I will not read it out, but I would say, that the

:46:29. > :46:31.petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the

:46:32. > :46:38.government to make their transitional arrangements for all

:46:39. > :46:44.women born on or after the 6th of April 1951, who have unfairly born

:46:45. > :47:02.the burden of the increase to the state pension age. -- borne.

:47:03. > :47:14.Petition, implementation of the 1995 and 2011 pension acts will stop

:47:15. > :47:19.petition, Marian Fellows. Thank you. I rise also to present a petition on

:47:20. > :47:24.behalf of residence of the Motherwell and Wishaw consthtuencies

:47:25. > :47:28.and others who kindly signed this petition during the time it was

:47:29. > :47:34.there in my constituency. I am grateful for the chance tonhght to

:47:35. > :47:38.present petitions calling for their transitional arrangements for 1 50s

:47:39. > :47:45.born women affected by changes to the state pension age. The text of

:47:46. > :47:49.the petition has already bedn read by my colleague from West

:47:50. > :47:54.Dunbartonshire and I should also at this point, Madam Deputy Spdaker,

:47:55. > :47:58.declare an interest, I am vdry fortunate to have been born in one

:47:59. > :48:05.year before all of these trdnchant arrangements were changed and I feel

:48:06. > :48:11.a deep obligation to those women and some of whom came to my constituency

:48:12. > :48:18.office, suffering real hardship having to apply for help from the

:48:19. > :48:23.Society for the protection of gentlewomen, to raise their incomes,

:48:24. > :48:40.because of the results of what has happened to them.

:48:41. > :48:52.Petition, implementation of the 1995 and 2011 pension act. I datd is that

:48:53. > :48:58.the house do now adjourn. The question is do -- neither does the

:48:59. > :49:05.Hausa journal. It is an absolute pleasure to address the chalber with

:49:06. > :49:11.you here as well. It is a pleasure to see my friend and Ministdr, able

:49:12. > :49:18.minister I must say in his place, and I would like to start bx saying

:49:19. > :49:22.that this speech is not an `ttack on the government per se, it is my job

:49:23. > :49:28.as the MP for South Dorset to stand up for people without fair or favour

:49:29. > :49:33.and in my time as MP for six years now, I have seen the Ambulance

:49:34. > :49:37.Service increasingly struggle. It is on that basis that I deliver this

:49:38. > :49:40.speech to the front bench in the sense that any information H am part

:49:41. > :49:46.will hopefully lead to the improvement of this service in the

:49:47. > :49:51.time ahead. Before I begin, I would like to pay tribute to the len and

:49:52. > :49:53.women of the Ambulance Servhce, whose professionalism, dedication

:49:54. > :50:05.and selfless have saved countless lives. Dialling 9/11 in an dmergency

:50:06. > :50:11.-- 999, has long been one of the treasures of the NHS, now it is the