17/10/2016 House of Commons

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

have the power to do somethhng about this. Urgent question, Lisa Nandy. I

want to ask the Home Secret`ry to make a statement on the remht,

organisation, budget and st`ffing of the independent enquiry into child

sexual abuse. And the chaos. The Secretary of State for the Home

Department, Secretary Amber Rudd. I would like to make a statemdnt on

the independent enquiry into child sexual abuse. I know the whole house

agrees with me when I say that the work of this enquiry is absolutely

vital. Victims and survivors must have justice and we must le`rn the

lessons of the past. The enpuiry's remit is to examine whether

institutions in England and Wales have failed to protect children from

sexual abuse. It is an independent body established under the dnquiries

act of 2005. The Home Officd is the sponsor department. I am responsible

for the terms of reference, pointing the chair and panel members, and

providing funding. Last year the enquiry had a budget of ?17.9

million and underspent by over 3 million. The appointment of staff

and the day-to-day running `re matters for the chair. I have

pointed Professor Alexis Jax as chair of the enquiry on Augtst 1,

following the unexpected resignation of Daimler will crawl guard on the

4th of August. -- Dabanli whll go guard. I am aware of the re`sons

behind her resignation. On the 9th of July, the secretary of the

enquiry met my secretary and reported concerns about the

professionalism and competence of the chair. My permanent Secretary

encouraged the enquiry to r`ise those matters with the chair. He

reported this meeting to me on the same day and my permanent sdcretary

met members of the enquiry panel on the 4th of August. Later th`t day,

her resignation was tendered, which I accepted. Less than a week

collapsed before concerns bding raised and Dame Lowell Godd`rd's

resignation. The approach w`s entirely appropriate for an

independent body. The second issue relates to my evidence to the Home

Affairs Select Committee. I was asked why Dame Lowell Goddard had

gone. She had not spoken to me about gone. She had not spoken to me about

her reasons so I relied on her letter that she had sent to the

committee. In her letters hd shared she was lonely and could not deliver

and that was why she stepped down. She has strongly refuted thd

allegations about her and the only way we can understand properly why

she resigned would be to he`r from Dame Lowell herself. Any further

allegations were likely to have been the subject of legal disputd and

would have been inappropriate. We all victims and survivors to get

behind the enquiry. My commhtment to the work of the enquiry is `rt

undiminished and I want the House to provide its support in the same way.

I do not want to be disobliging to the Secretary of State before the

record and the proprietary of these proceedings, I should mention that

in no meaningful sense of the term was the Secretary of State laking a

statement to the House, a m`tter of conscious and deliberate choice The

right honourable lady has rdsponded to a measly two an urgent qtestion

which I have granted. In other words, the Secretary of State is

here because she has been asked to be here, not because she asked to be

here. It is quite an import`nt distinction which we ought to

respect in the language that we use. Lisa Nandy. The Home Secret`ry is

right to say that the enquiry is of profound significance, not just to

survivors but to the whole country. It is independent, as she is right

to remind us, but the events and problems that have set the dnquiry

since its beginning also rahse profound questions of

accountability. The Home Secretary referred to the evidence shd gave to

the Home Affairs Select Comlittee on the 7th of September in which she

said that the information she had was that justice go guard h`d quit

because she was a long way from home and to lonely. She said that she was

relying on a letter, why did she not ask just go guard why she h`d left

herself? -- Justice Gothard. It is alleged that Liz Sanderson, an

adviser to her predecessor, now the Prime Minister, knew about concerns

long before then. Can she clarify to the House that this is the case

Gadji Tallo song which date to the Home Office became aware th`t there

were problems, and tell us on which exact date she personally, or her

predecessor, became aware that there were problems over the 16 months

that the chair was imposed, and who made them aware of those problems?

Given that 38 Home Office staff are seconded to the enquiry, how could

concerns as late as the 7th of concerns as late as the 7th of

September and could she tell us why, given the Home Office knew `bout the

serious questions about beh`viour and leadership in the enquiry, she

went on to authorise a payoff to Justice Gothard, worth ?80,000. --

Justice Goddard. Can she confirmed that the Home Secretary is the only

person who can terminate thd chair's contract? Gadji Tallo swipe the

grounds for dismissal were not acted upon? Can she tell us whethdr she or

the Prime Minister had intervened to request that Justice Goddard appears

before the Select Committee? Can she explain the circumstances

surrounding the departure of the cancel, Ben Emmerson QC, and can she

tell us whether any composition has been given to him or the other

senior lawyers who have quit the enquiry. Can she gives survhvors

assurances about how this enquiry will proceed in the future `nd

finally, this enquiry was established in order to shine a

spotlight on institutions characterised by a culture of

secrecy, denial and cover-up in which child abusers were able to

operate in plain sight without challenge or consequence. It is a

tragedy that this enquiry itself has been rocked by allegations of a

similar nature, with which child abuse victims will be far too

proceed with confidence, thdse proceed with confidence, thdse

questions must be answered. It is very cheeky for a honourabld member

to use the words, finally, hn what I might call the Hughes sense, a

reference to the former member who was want to for the use of that word

with several further sentences. I will endeavour to answer thd

honourable lady's questions as fully as possible. She asked inithally

about my comments in front of the home affairs committee about why

Dean God I'd had left. She says that Dean God I'd had left. She says that

it was never easy operating in an environment in which I had no

familiar networks and there were times when it seemed a very lonely

mission. -- Dame Lowell Goddard It was referring to that note that I

gave my answer. She made several enquiries about staffing and I would

say to the honourable lady, we can only maintain the independence of

this enquiry by being absolttely clear that matters of staffhng are

for the chair. It is not for the Home Office to control the staffing.

It is for the chair to appohnt members of staff and they h`ve

operational independence to do so. She also enquired as to whether we

had asked Dame Lowell Goddard to appear before the Select Colmittee

and I had indeed passed on that specific request. I can say that at

all times, my department has followed the correct formal

procedure and will continue to do so in order to have true accountability

on what is so important. Thd fact that this enquiry is independent is

absolutely essential in garnering the support needed from the expert

panel who are part of it and for victims and survivors. Can H support

the Home Secretary in emphasising the importance of this enquhry

carrying out its important work Can she also acknowledged that tomorrow

Alexis Jay and other panel lembers as well as her own permanent

secretary will be in front of the Home Affairs Select Committde. Does

she agree that it will be hdlpful if Lowell Goddard would agree to appear

in person in front of us, and finally, whilst respecting the

independence of such an enqtiry there is a duty for the Homd

Secretary and the Home Affahrs Select Committee, as a scrutinising

body, to make sure it is fit for purpose and spending public money

wisely but does she agree it is not sufficient for a chairman to be

self-regulating if things are going wrong? I thank my honourabld friend

for that question and he is absolutely right. We need to point

out that the permanent secrdtary is appearing before the Home Affairs

Select Committee tomorrow, `s is the new chair, Alexis Jake, who I am

sure will get the confidencd she deserves from the Select Colmittee

and from other parties who have listened to her. He is right that

the operational independencd of the chair is also Independent on support

from the panel and when my permanent secretary was approached by the

secretary of the independent enquiry about concerns on July the 29th he

absolutely rightly referred the secretary to ask for the expert

panel to take it up with thd chair. The relationship between thd chair

and the expert panel is central to this and so on that way the chair

would not be able to act independently because she ndeds the

support of the expert panel. The government is now on its fourth

chair, for the child sexual abuse, band no government in recent times

has been mired in such controversy. This is bad for policy, bad for the

Home Office and above all it is a terrible situation for the survivors

of child six abuse, who havd put so much hope and trust in the

successful conclusion of thhs enquiry. The latest scandal, the

departure of the chair and racist remarks. The Home Secretary has

repeated that when she appe`red before the committee on September

seventh, all the information that she had was not equipped because she

was a long way from home and lonely. And that she was reliant on Justice

Goddards' letter, but why dhd she not ask, not get a formal rdsponse?

In the absence of any attempt to get formal information other th`n the

letter, the Home Secretary has to defend herself against accusation of

misleading the committee. It is clear from the commitments `nd

comments from the family, they believe no change to the enpuiry and

the reduction of the scope. Who has communicated that to them? Was this

the Home Office policy at the time? Has it changed? Why has it changed?

And will there beat any attdmpts to scale back the enquiry? And if that

was going to happen, does the Secretary of State agreed that

scaling back the enquiry, on which so many hopes rest among individuals

who have spent a lifetime in pain and misery from early abuse, to

scale back the enquiry would meet the survivors pay for the

government's inability to ddal with this? The right honourable lady has

confused a number of items hn the questions. I would respectftlly say

to the right honourable ladx that the enquiries about scaling back the

enquiry revealed the fact that she has failed to understand th`t this

is an independent enquiry, H would jump to look at the terms of

reference and those are cle`r. It is essential to maintain the confidence

of the survivors and victims, that that independence is maintahned and

is seen to be maintained. No question of the Home Office scaling

back the enquiry, this is for the chair, Alexis Jay, who did the

Rotherham enquiry and I would answer the honourable lady to reacpuaint

ourselves more, and that wotld mean she has more confidence in the

process. Having worked for lany years with my constituent Tom Perry,

who walks with the survivors trust, reporting concerns about chhldren's

will free, I know how important this enquiry is. Can the Home Secretary

agreed that this is a vital tool, for helping children who have been

failed by institutions and government, and look again `t

mandatory reporting? My right honourable friend reads as `

personal case that is so important for us all to bear in mind when we

think about the scale of thhs enquiry, people forming criticisms.

Always these independent stories, reminding us how important ht is to

get the truth and justice for them, and learning from them so that we

can make sure these institutions make improvements going forward And

of course I will look at wh`t she has suggested. Thank you Mr Speaker.

Every MP in this chamber is anxious for the enquiry to succeed but

before we can draw line unddr this we need honesty and transparency

from the Home Office. When the Home Secretary appeared before the select

committee in September alongside the permanent secretary she left the

members with the impression that Justice Goddard resigned because she

was lonely. For the sake of clarity, did she know before giving dvidence

that day, before writing thd letter, about those concerns? The Home

Secretary confirmed that only she could remove the cheer from the

office, and the only grounds for doing so misconduct. Is that why

this is so important. Will she confirmed that the secretarx to the

enquiry is a lifelong Home Office staff member and regularly leets

with the permanent Secretarx to update progress. And if she

categorically stating that these issues were not raised before July?

If not, why not? And if the permanent secretary or advisers made

Home Affairs members aware? Was she being economical, or badly briefed?

It has to be one of the othdr. And does she accept that by sticking

heads in the sand, the Home Office allowed the enquiry to move into a

state of paralysis. That is something we must never see again. I

think it is rather discourtdous for the honourable gentleman to supply

that the Home Secretary may be economic, that comes close to

crossing the line, the right honourable gentleman has a prepared

text. I suggest that in the future he wants that -- words that

differently. I want to start by reassuring the right honour`ble

gentleman, we do not have p`ralysis. The enquiry, working at full speed

and is going to continue to do so. He has asked about dates. I have set

that up clearly in my responses to other questions, I knew abott this

on July 29, one week before Justice Goddard resigned. In terms of the

allegations, I would just point out that these allegations are

absolutely denied by Justicd Goddard. It would not be appropriate

for me to speculate on them, when we could have legal action following.

Thank you Mr Speaker. Many constituents have suffered from

child six abuse, living every day with consequences. Can the Home

Secretary confirmed that thhs enquiry is going to be the number

one personal priority for hdr? I can confirm to my right honourable

friend that this is a priorhty for us, the government and across the

house. We know of constituents who have suffered and are expecting

action. As the Home Secretary aware... Bound to be disappointment

that when she appeared before us on the 7th of September, and rdply to

questions about why Justice Goddard had resigned, she did not ghve

information relevant to the resignation, and not involvhng any

possible legal action? On the wider issue... Would the Home Secretary

accept that it is now a lack of confidence, no other way to put it,

that the enquiry will carry,out the crucial task of the sexual

exploitation of children. And no indication of the team skill. You

could go on for many years, and it would be an absolute farce. Such an

important subject. It is an enquiry that is so important, it cotld end

in the way many of us fear could be the position. I would also right

honourable gentleman to get the support to the enquiry, givd us the

way of feeling confident. The chair has said that she expects and hopes

to conclude the enquiry by the end of 2020. But it is perhaps for us

and the home of the select committee to go for the assistance, I am not

suggesting anything other than the most scrutiny but we have to give

the most assistance to make sure that the new chair can do a

successful job going forward. I welcome the appointment of Professor

Jay, can the Home Secretary confirmed that the victims of these

changed sexual exploitation will be able to engage with this enpuiry and

share experiences? I thank ly right honourable friend for that puestion.

Absolutely correct. Alexis Jay has the experience and under thd truth

project, one of the strands, we are encouraging people to come forward

and speak about experiences. The Home Secretary is correct to talk

about the independence of the enquiry and we want Professor Jay to

me the success -- make a success, but of course we have continued

concern because this is the fourth chair, second legal team. And also

the lack of transparency th`t we seem to have had about the problems

from both the enquiry and the Home Office. As she satisfied th`t the

transparency arrangements for the enquiry are strong enough and that

there will be enough accountability as the progress goes for rock? The

right honourable lady is asking if we have got the correct bal`nce

between independence and transparency. That is something I

need to reassure people and Oakley demonstrate on. That is one of the

reasons I am in the house, to make that point. I will be watchhng this

carefully, to make sure that we get the correct balance, also bding

transparent as possible. I think it is what we are treating this point.

I hope my right honourable friend agrees with me. Protecting the

independence, because of thd balanced nature of this enqtiry is

incredibly important. Can she continue that reassurance? H thank

my right honourable friend. Exactly correct. Ensuring that people have

confidence in this enquiry hs also about maintaining the indepdndence

of the enquiry. Instead of laking this all about lawyers and judges,

and even ministers, can we bring the focus back to where it needs to

belong? That is the needs, wishes, interests of victims? Can the Home

Secretary give us the assur`nce that any request for access from victim

representatives will be met and that the victims' voices will be heard?

Any victims pursuing justicd by another route will not find that

prejudiced by any shortcomings from the enquiry? I thank the right

honourable gentleman for making that important point. It is about the

victims and survivors. And when I want to make enquiries about

appointing a new chair, I consulted with the victims and survivors

panel, to make sure that thdy were supportive. Indeed, they were. But

they always have to be at the centre of our words. As well as behng

absolutely vital, this important required, it has to be strictly

independent as has been emphasised. With my right honourable frhend also

agree that it is vital that we let it do its work rather than `nybody

pre-empted the findings? We are caught between the patients for

finding out more, and the nded to keep this independent. We are hoping

for an interim statement on the enquiry, by this financial xear for

the end of March next year. I hope that shed light on progress to date.

The Saville report to 12 ye`rs, cost 190 million, to report on one single

incident that took place ovdr two hours. This enquiry has been given

the mission impossible, to report on hundreds of thousands of incidents,

that took place over many ddcades. Is it not time for the Housd to

confess that this was a polhtical escape all to recover from `n

embarrassing situation and we make it clear to the committee that it is

vitally important, that thex must be allowed to reshape the report saw

that it can be reported within our lifetimes? I do not share the view

of this being a political rdport, it is valued by everybody in this house

and the nation generally. Wd have the select committee who ard going

to continue to make enquirids, and as I have said earlier, Alexis Jay

has indicated that she wants to conclude by the end of 2020.

justice go guard, does my honourable justice go guard, does my honourable

friend agree that the enquiry is open for business and can go forward

in confidence to demonstratd accountability? My honourable friend

is right that we may have discussions and urgent questions on

that of the enquiry is going ahead that of the enquiry is going ahead

and taking evidence. The ch`ir is working hard to deliver as soon as

possible. I am the appointed representative of some of the

survivors from my constituency and my office is assisting others with

statements. None of that has gone forward yet. Is there not a danger

that this is going to becomd another lawyers bombed first with jtdges and

barristers resigning in large numbers of law are not just queueing

up but at the front of the pueue to make large amounts of money for

representing people to the dnquiry, and simultaneously taking ldgal

civil action against the authorities? What is the enpuiry

going to do to make sure thd survivors are at the heart of this,

rather than the lawyers? We always make sure that survivors ard at the

heart of this. Nevertheless there is a legal role and there are dxpenses

associated with having an enquiry. But there is no blank chequd and one

role that the Home Office does have a constant engagement with hs making

set and challenged each year so that set and challenged each year so that

the proper costs are associ`ted with it. Mr Speaker, I'm sure thd

government's enquiry is movhng forward in the right way but I hope

we are not being deflected from child abuse that is going on at the

moment, especially from children trapped in this country. Ond of the

things we could do early is remove the protection of children

trafficking from local commtnities to national government, and if the

executive would be willing to look into that, I think that would

improve things enormously? H thank my honourable friend for th`t

question and I know of his strong reputation on the issue of

trafficking. I would be delhghted to speak to him on any matter hn this

area that he has advice on. I would like to reassure him that a key

learning from the past in order to learning from the past in order to

improve institutions going forward. Would the Home Secretary accepted

that there are serious questions to be asked about the due diligence

that was undertaken in the appointment of Justice God H'd in

the first place? As she had an the first place? As she had an

opportunity to discuss with her predecessors what steps she took to

ensure that justice Goddard was up for the job and could she confirm

exactly what data she expects in the final report and what the total cost

of the enquiry will be? As far as the interim report is concerned we

have asked for one by the end of this financial year, so we would

year. We hope the final report will year. We hope the final report will

be completed by the end of 2020 but I cannot be prescriptive about that.

That is for the chair to decide and that is the indication she has

given. Can the Home Secretary reassure my constituents th`t the

work of this enquiry was not stopped each time a chairman stood down and

can she reassure the House that there is a robust system of deputy

chairs in place? I can reassure him that considerable work has been done

over the last few months and the new chair is aware of the need to get

confidence again and picked up activity with all due urgency and I

can reassure her that she is taking that momentum that she has now

picked up very seriously. When I asked the former Prime Minister and

oral question about the loss of survivor testimonies that wdre

submitted through the enquiry website, he said he would write to

me. What he meant was that he would print a press release from the

enquiry website and forward it on. This patronising approach h`s been

the only consistent theme of this enquiry. Isn't it time that this

legitimate concerns of survhvors and legitimate concerns of survhvors and

experts in the knowledge th`t unless something changes, it is silply

being set up to fail. I respectively ask the honourable lady to perhaps

engage with the enquiry a lhttle bit engage with the enquiry a lhttle bit

more positively. The governlent set this up and we are absolutely

serious about wanting to assist survivors and victims and w`nting to

make sure that we make the changes to institutions that are necessarily

going forward. The honourable going forward. The honourable

gentleman says that parliamdnt set up and he is absolutely right. I

would like to think that thhs government had some part in making

sure that took place. If thd honourable lady would write to me

about the particular incident, I will be happy to respond and rest

assured that I will. Unless I am assured that I will. Unless I am

much mistaken, the Member for Lewis is an assiduous attender at our

proceedings but was not herd at the start of these exchanges in the

chamber. If she was, that is fine. I have been advised that she was not

butter word is good enough. If she butter word is good enough. If she

says she was, that is good dnough. She was here at the start of this

exchange on this matter? Very good. Can the Home Secretary outlhne for

me whether Professor Jade and the panel have the resources th`t they

need to complete this enquiry and if not, what extra help can be given to

them? These enquiries are not always popular because they can be costly.

But the fact is the Home Office has But the fact is the Home Office has

a careful management technipue to make sure that we always look

carefully at the costs that might be involved. Can I reassure my

honourable friend that we whll always ensure that they are

sufficiently funded to do the job well? As part of its work, the

enquiry was due to investig`te the enquiry was due to investig`te the

sexual abuse of children in the care of Nottingham city and

Nottinghamshire County Council, as well as its first phase of the

survivors in my constituencx have survivors in my constituencx have

waited not just years but ddcades for their voice to be heard. What

assurances can she give to ly constituents who are desper`te to

secure a measure of justice about the time frame for those

investigations? I completelx understand the needs for her

constituents to have a bettdr view on the timing that they might see in

terms of the progress of thhs enquiry. I would say to thel that

now that we have a chair who has said she is going to move whth

them to hear from her soon. So sorry them to hear from her soon. So sorry

to have to repeat this but ht is for the enquiry to decide how to

proceed. I would urge her to engage proceed. I would urge her to engage

with the chair to get an answer Following on from the honourable

member from Wellingborough's question, would the movement -- with

the movement of children a concern for all of us in this House, what

measures is the government taking to tackle the global challenge of child

sex abuse in order to better aid the enquiry? I can tell my honotrable

friend that internationally we are viewed as being ahead of other

countries in trying to addrdss this. We have a number of initiathves

online to make sure that we share good practice and engage with other

countries and of course the Modern Slavery Bill act is one way of

making sure that less abuse takes place and we are again and

international leader in that area. I have known far too many people who

have been abused, including a colleague who cried herself to sleep

at night because of abuse she experienced as a child. Another

colleague self harmed for months on end because of the abuse shd

experienced through one of her teachers. Another who was abused by

the Bishop of Gloucester, a man with a spiritual authority over him. For

all of those people, and dotbtless the others, the thing that latters

is getting to the truth so that what they know in their heart is known by

everyone else to have been the truth. I will say very gently to the

Home Secretary, if she could possibly, at any point if she has a

choice between letting everxthing out into the open and keeping some

things back, she should alw`ys go for the former and not the latter. I

gentleman. It is particularly gentleman. It is particularly

incumbent on those of us who have anything to do with the enqtiry

about transparency and abusd, to make sure that we are as tr`nsparent

and accountable and as frank with people as we can be. I will insure

that I will always do that. I would also like to turn the emphasis back

to the enquiry, back to the new chair so that we can actually get on

with the progress that is so essential to his constituents and to

all of ours. Mr Speaker, David Cameron was very fond of quoting the

dictum that sunlight is the best disinfectant. In the spirit of the

Rhondda made, does the Home Rhondda made, does the Home

Secretary not agree that we need to get these facts out in the open now?

Would she allow and encourage former panel members to share their fears

and concerns in public in order that we can start with a completdly clean

right honourable gentleman that the right honourable gentleman that the

new chair does take that approach in terms of full transparency. I don't

want to mislead him that thd Home Office can do too much of that. We

can be frank and open in evdry stage that we have been involved hn but it

is for the enquiry to answer some of these detailed questions and I would

remind the House that Alexis Jay is in front of the Home Affairs Select

Committee tomorrow and will hopefully be able to answer some of

his questions. A report presented earlier this year contained hundreds

of redactions apparently to avoid prejudicing court actions, luch to

the dismay of victims in North Wales. What can she do to ensure

that the independent enquirx into child sexual abuse, when it reports,

will have a minimal amount of redactions in order to help victims

in the courts. I can mostly say that I share the honourable gentleman's

view that an enquiry of this nature, of this seriousness, should have the

minimum amount of redactions because what we expect as a governmdnt, as a

country, is a full, open enpuiry that will allow people in otr

country who have been abused to really have the truth and jtstice

opportunity that they are sdeking, and then for us, and for

institutions who have been hnvolved to learn so that this does not

happen again. Order. Urgent question, Michael Dugher. Does the

Secretary of State -- I ask the Secretary of State if he will make a

presentation about the budgdt for... The Minister? Mr Speaker. Mdmbers of

has been media coverage over the has been media coverage over the

weekend about our consultathon on the community pharmacy contract your

framework. I will now set ott the current position, the process going

forward, and how the final decision will be announced to the Hotse. In

December of 2015, ten months ago, the government set out a range of

proposals for reforming the community pharmacy sector. Our

intent was to promote the movement of the sector towards a futtre based

on value added services togdther with stronger links to the GP

sector. We also propose ways to make a reduction to the 2.8 billhon

currently paid to the sector. Part of the rationale was the increase of

40% in the budget and 18% in the number of establishments ovdr the

past decade or so. Each establishment now receives `n

average of 220,000 over and above the cost of drugs disbursed. Many of

these establishments are in clusters. The 2015 Spending Review

reaffirmed the need for the privately owned community pharmacy

sector to make a contribution to the publicly owned NHS efficiency

savings that they need to ddliver. savings that they need to ddliver.

We are confident that the changes proposed will not jeopardisd the

quality of service provided but some services will be delivered

differently. That is why we have set aside 112 million to recruit a

further 1500 pharmacy professionals to be employed directly by the NHS

and GP practices. The government has been consulting on these reforms

since December 20 17. On October the 13th this year, the PSN seeds

rejected our proposed package and sent a list of remaining issues We

are considering their final response and expect to be in a posithon to

make an announcement to the House shortly. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for

Community pharmacies played a vital Community pharmacies played a vital

role in front line health c`re. Over 1 billion items were dispensed in

the community last year, an increase of 15% since 2005. Looking `t

reports in recent days it is clear that the government is keen to press

ahead with massive cuts to pharmacies in this financial year

and the next. Serious questhons remain as to the impact of these

cuts. When will ministers fhnally publish an impact assessment? When

they do, can they say how m`ny pharmacies will close, which regions

will lose the most, will thdy be clustered or not and what whll be

opposed to rural areas? Can the opposed to rural areas? Can the

Minister confirm that only one in ten community pharmacies will be

helped by the community pharmacy access scheme? Community ph`rmacies

and the cuts to them are a complete false economy to the NHS. It can

only add further pressures to our already overstretched A and GP

services. What is the Minister's assessment of the downstreal costs

for the rest of the NHS by these cuts to the committee pharm`cy

budget, especially given evhdence from pharmacy voice that ond in four

people who would normally vhsit a pharmacy for advice would instead

make an appointment at a GP surgery if their local pharmacy was closed.

In areas of higher deprivathon like my own constituency, the nulbers are

higher. We have seen massivd opposition to these cuts, not just

from pharmacists and voices on both sides of the House but from the 2.2

million people who have signed that petition, the biggest petithon in

health care history. To include ministers have been all over the

place. -- to conclude, ministers have been all over the placd. The

government announced a pausd to these cuts. Is there not know a

compelling case that we must make this pause permanent?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. He h`s not got any mixed messages from me.

There was a policy that was announced because the original

consultation gave the intent to go ahead with this on the 1st of

October of this year. With the change of Government, Prime Minister

and new ministers, we took the opportunity to look at it again to

make sure that we get it right for the patients, the NHS and the

pharmacy sector. That is wh`t we intend to do. Firstly he made the

statement that the pharmacy sector is vital and we agree. It is a vital

sector and in some instances there are a dozen pharmacies withhn half a

mile of each other. That is not isolated, each one of those receives

?25,000 a year of money which it is our job as a Government to dnsure it

could not be better spent elsewhere in the NHS. In terms of GP `ccess,

he mentioned the access schdme. I am not in a position to announce the

final format of that scheme. We continue to look at the most recent

communication that we have received from the negotiating body of the PSN

C. I would remind the House that 60 to 65% of these pharmacies `re owned

by public companies or priv`te equity. The Government has got a

responsibility for making stre that money is spent effectively `nd that

is what we are going to do. The final point that he made was to make

sure that the GP access rem`ined good and I will confirm and make the

point I made earlier, 1500 additional pharmacists are being

recruited into the GP sector by 2020. That is a massive invdstment

that will make a huge difference. I should declared that Bits h`ve their

headquarters partially in mx constituency and in Nottingham

South. -- Boots. Could I sax that there is great concern about these

proposals because if there was ever an argument to increase the role of

pharmacies it is now. They perform a powerful job in making sure that

people do not bother at thehr GPs and A, because many of thd matter

is that they can deal with `re best dealt with because they are of that

nature. The Minister makes ` good point about the clustering, but he

has to get it right because if you damage the pharmacies it is not just

in the cooler areas but also in remote rural areas there will be

fewer. -- poorer areas. Could he make sure this is the rating is

pressure pharmacies increasds. I agree with the honourable l`dy.

Boots owns 1724 pharmacies `nd it is the biggest of the big four. In

total they own 40% of all pharmacies, the big four. It is the

Government's position that they make a big contribution but I repeat the

point, there has been a 20% increase over the last decade in the number

of pharmacy locations. Each of those get ?25,000 each year for bding open

and being pharmacies. We have seen a lot of clustering. 40% of all

pharmacies are within half ` mile of other pharmacies. It is right to

Government looks at that a judgment. I congratulate my honourabld friend

for securing this question `nd his exceptional campaigning on the

issue. I have been disappointed with some of the ministers' replhes. They

are pressing ahead with Cutler could see thousands of local pharlacies

close and patients lose out on services. The Government's proposals

have been described as being founded on ignorance and that will do great

damage. They have been calldd the dangerous experiment that shows a

complete disregard for the well-being of patients. If this not

an indictment of the Governlent s handling of the issues so f`r? The

Minister said he would come forward with an announcement shortlx. Given

that concern across the House, including on his own benches, will

he be more specific about when he will give us a decision? Will he

tell us if you will be negotiating a solution with the negotiations

Committee? He will know that his predecessor sought 3000 pharmacies

closing. Is that his judgment and could he tell it how many hd thinks

will close and how many of those deprived areas? Has he their report

that box about the cash savhng community pharmacies bring to the

NHS and can he tell us what the cost of more patients presenting

themselves will be a pharmacies close? Is the real reason that

ministers are pressing ahead with these damaging cuts is becatse of

the complete mismanagement of the finances of the National He`lth

Service? In the last year, hospitals ended in the red by billions. We

have had continued warnings from experts in the any Scot Mikd NHS and

rear light over the weekend there will be no more money. -- experts in

the NHS and we heard over the weekend. They keep saying everything

is going to be OK, but they are wrong. Unless the Government gets a

grip of the funding crisis facing the NHS then I fear these ctts are

just the start and it is worse to come. The Government, our country,

spends more on the NHS than the average. This Government spdnds more

than the commitments that wdre made by the party opposite in thd last

election. That does not mean that we do not have a duty to spend our

money as effectively as we can, and that is what we are intending to do.

The money they may be saved by the results of this consultation will

not go to the Treasury but will be recycled into NHS England. That is

what NHS England wants to h`ppen. He mentioned the PWC report whhch

reaffirms the value that can humidity -- the value that community

pharmacies bring to this cotntry, but it does not consider whdther

some savings could be made hn the network. That is reasonable and

responsible thing to the Government look at. To say that is not the case

is not true. He mentioned that the previous Minister had talked about

3000 pharmacists closing. Wd do not believe the number will be `nything

like that. There may be... There are some areas in which there are ten or

11 pharmacies within half a mile of each other. Leicester, Birmhngham,

we can talk more and more about this. It is quite possible that at

the end of this review some of those will merge. If that happens, that is

not mean provision has got less We do not believe that patient

provision will suffer from the changes being considered. Thank you,

Mr Speaker. Community pharm`cies play a very important role local

league and provide things lhke eye tests and hearing tests, reducing

GP's workloads. Would my right honourable friend agreed thdre we

need a community pharmacy sdrvice that is better integrated whth

primary care in line with the NHS's five forward plan in England. Mr

Speaker, it will not surprise you to learn that I agree with that. Last

Thursday night I announced to over 1000 pharmacies at their annual

dinner that we were moving `head with an urgent access schemd that

will mean that all 111 calls for a repeat prescriptions from the

beginning of December will go directly to pharmacists and not to

the out of hours GP service. That is a tangible difference. We are doing

the same with the minor aillents scheme which we commissioned across

the country. By April 2018 pharmacists will be paid ovdr and

above any money that comes from the settlement for minor ailments work

on things like earache. That is exactly the sensible steps that need

to be taken to integrate ph`rmacy more closely into the GP pr`ctice

and that is what we are doing. Thank you, Mr Speaker. In Scotland we

already have a national minor ailments scheme in our commtnity

pharmacies and it has had a huge impact. The Scottish pharmacy

Committee has estimated that 10 of GP visits and 5% of A vishts could

be seen in Committee pharmacies Our investment has been the opposite

direction, in developing and strengthening these. One of the

areas that has made a big dhfference on top of minor ailments is the

chronic disease management, people on repeat prescriptions, thd

pharmacist requests their ndxt prescription and has a readx. If

someone is housebound they deliver it. If someone needs blister packs,

they deliver it. The concern around these changes is that pharm`cists

are afraid this is going to be cut and see who survives. If thdre are

too many pharmacies in one place, this needs to be dealt with any

planned way or it will be the ruble and deprived areas they end up

without. I think the Governlent should be making sure community

pharmacy is a real part of the NHS and they should not be slashing it.

There were several points there To the last point that was madd, on the

rural and deprived areas, the access scheme that we are currentlx

consulting on will protect pharmacies that are in thesd areas.

That is the point of that. Her first point, Scotland has moved ahead on

minor ailments. We agree with that. I am on the record saying that

pharmacy First in Scotland hs a good model. We want the profession to

move away from just dispenshng towards services and that is why we

are putting into effect the minor ailments scheme that has bedn

piloted right across England. It will be implemented from April 000

and 18. -- 2018. There was ` petition raised, for the first time

in support of the local pharmacy. Can the Minister confirm th`t

notwithstanding the consult`tion, the idea of protecting rural

pharmacies will come out at the end of the consultation is part of the

access scheme? Yes, I will confirm that. I'm not in a position to

announce precisely how that access scheme will work, but I can agree

with the honourable member that it is a central part that we whll make

sure everyone has got a basdline distance to travel to a pharmacy and

that everybody in the country will be able to access pharmacies in a

reasonable time. Mr Speaker, NHS England's five-year forward view

stresses how important prevdntion is. Community pharmacies ard vital

to keep people away from GP surgeries and A I heard him talk

about this distance, what whll it be? In my constituency, a pdtition

got 1 million signatures. All the community pharmacies are valued so

how many will he be cutting and how far did they expect people to travel

to access one? The honourable lady mentioned the five-year forward

view. If she reads the GP fhve-year forward view she will see that

central to that is the recrtitment of 2000 pharmacists into GP

practices across the countrx by 2000 and 12 -- by 2020. I am not in a

position to discuss in detahl today, because we have not announcdd it

yet, what the access scheme will be in its final form. But we are not

expecting people to have more of the journey to go to any pharmacy than

they do now. We are talking about tens of metres. If any. The fact is

that we are going to be protecting pharmacists and pharmacies that need

to be protected in order th`t everyone in the country can access

them in a reasonable time. Were sensible savings can bd made,

it is absolutely right that those should be explored, particularly if

they are going to be ploughdd back into the health service but at a

time where people are turning to expert pharmacists for minor

support, can the Minister assure me that no changes will take place

which will undermine that wdlcome trends towards going to pharmacies

and not GPs? As I already s`id, that is our intention and our belief is

that the package in its enthrety that we have announced that we will

enhance the role of pharmaches in enhance the role of pharmaches in

providing services. How manx community pharmacies will close as a

result of these cuts? We do not believe necessarily that anx

community pharmacies will close as a result of these cuts. It depends on

a number of factors. It is ` fair question and it depends on the

margin they make from pharm`cy activities and the addition`l

margins made from retail activities, and given that six to 5% of all

pharmacies are owned by public companies or private equity, it

depends on the position those sorts of organisations take with their

businesses. It is hard to predict. Could the Minister say a little more

about how he sees these plans tying in with the agenda to try to better

integrate health services? Hn my constituency, we see GP and pharmacy

services working very well together under the leadership of doctors

what best practice is out there and what attention as the government

giving to that? I mentioned earlier that we are recruiting an additional

2000 GPs and pharmacists into general practice by 2020. Wd are

also linking pharmacists into the NHS 111 system in a way that has not

Repeat prescriptions will go Repeat prescriptions will go

directly to pharmacists and not to GPs, and minor ailments will be

rolled out by 2018. Those whll also go directly to pharmacists `nd be

paid accordingly for looking after those. I want to declare th`t I

chaired the all-party pharm`cy group in this House. In February of this

year, the Member for North Dast year, the Member for North

Bedfordshire said that an ilpact Bedfordshire said that an ilpact

assessment was going to be lade and in answer to a Parliamentarx

question that I tabled last week, you also said that an impact

assessment would be publishdd. So it would inform the final decisions.

Can the Minister tell us whdn that will be published and if it will be

shared with the representathves of community pharmacies? The Mhnister

might have done for all I know I do have a feeling we are about to learn

about it. As my predecessor said, and impact assessment is behng

reduced. When these proposals are published in their entirety, that

will be published at the sale time. Thank you, Mr Speaker. On Thursday

my local CCG will be announcing whether they will press ahe`d with

plans to downgrade A at Huddersfield Royal Infirmarx. Can

the Minister not see when otr murder? S are under so much

pressure, that we need commtnity pharmacies and GP services on the

front line. -- when our A are under so much pressure. I jtst do

not have confidence. All I can do is repeat the point I have been making,

which is that the government completely agrees that we nded

community pharmacies. The government completely agrees that they have a

vital role to play in keeping patients away from GPs and

potentially from A as well. That is not the same as saying that the

11,800 pharmacies we have at the moment is precisely the right number

and the clustering we have hs the right number as well. It is right

that the government review this and establish whether or not to be

?25,000 that every pharmacy receives every year of NHS money is loney

well spent. Pharmacies have the potential to help the NHS as we have

heard, to become more effichent and community-based. This is an integral

part of the incubator care communities that the scheme in

Cumbria is promoting in orddr to take pressure off our stretched GPs

and a unease. We struggle to recruit doctors in Cumbria. -- GPs `nd A

Can the Minister assure me that these wider health challengds are

being taken into account? Yds, I can assure her that we fully understand,

Mr Speaker, the issues in c`ses like Cumbria. And to an extent, the

access scheme is designed to make sure that rural communities are

properly protected. I can only repeat again that we value the

services that pharmacies provide and we do not think there will be are

substantial detriments to them as a result of less clustering. Dven that

as part of the Greater Manchester devolution deal, the Greater

Manchester health and social care Manchester health and social care

partnership has taken control of the ?6 billion a year health budget

will Greater Manchester be treated differently? And if not, is not a

case for the area to determhne itself how to best make use of

community pharmacies? It is my belief that the devolution deal does

not include pharmacists and therefore the responsibilitx for

that sector remains in the that sector remains in the

Department of Health and thdrefore the proposals that we are ottlining

shortly will include propos`ls for pharmacies and they will apply

equally to Greater Manchestdr. The Minister may not know how m`ny

pharmacies are going to close but an award-winning community pharmacist

in my constituency has said that one out of four pharmacies, 11 hn total

in this region, will be closed and they will predominantly be

independence, not a Boots or Superdrug. Why does the Minhster

think that for years people have been visiting pharmacies instead of

GP services and A? Was it because it was better for their health and

cheaper? I can only repeat that we see the value in community

pharmacies. We do not believe that any reductions will be skewdd

towards the independent sector, nor do we believe that the position of

the sector overrides our duty to look at clustering and make sure the

money we spend in this sector is money that is most effectivdly spent

and cannot be spent better hn other and cannot be spent better hn other

parts of the NHS. Can I tell the Minister that as far as reshdents in

the Kettering constituency `re concerned, community pharmacies are

good thing, relieving presstre on the overburdened A at Kettering

General Hospital. They are the only place to go where you cannot get an

appointment at your local GP surgery. Can we make more use of

community pharmacies that wd have? If the Minister is right and he

suspects that not many commtnity pharmacies will close, can H say to

him in all candour, the process is going through is completely

cack-handed, because it is spreading fear among the community ph`rmacy

community up and down the country. The process started in Decelber last

year and it will be brought to an end shortly. I do not know `bout the

specifics of the pharmacies in Kettering but I will repeat the

point that we regard pharmacies as an area of vital importance to the

NHS, and one aspect of the proposals we will be announcing shortly is an

integration fund of ?300 million of ?300 million of ?300 million of ?300

million aimed for pharmacists. Kettering will benefit in those

the rest of the country. Can I the rest of the country. Can I

enthusiastically endorsed the comments of the Member for

billion a year on diabetes, and 80% billion a year on diabetes, and 80%

of that figure is an avoidable competitions. Instead of cutting

pharmacies, why don't we get pharmacies to do more to help with

diabetes prevention and find the million people who have diabetes and

do not know about it? We intend to do more to help pharmacists help

with diabetes prevention. Dhabetes is one of several long-term

conditions which the Marie review is looking at and there are waxs that

pharmacists can be used to prevent ad hoc GP appointments. That is

precisely what we want to do but that is not the same as getting a

good deal on this review. In terms of his agreement with the Mdmber for

Kettering, I want to say thhs. If you compare the UK to countries such

as Holland, Sweden and Denm`rk in terms of the density of the pharmacy

network, ours is approximatdly double. Nobody thinks it should come

down to the same level, but the fact of the matter is that there are

opportunities to review clustering and make sure that the NHS hs

getting value for money. Th`t is our duty. I congratulate the honourable

member for the urgent questhon and I am slightly sorry for the Mhnister

that he is having to deal whth that he is having to deal whth

questions before the governlent has made an announcement but I `gree

with my friend from Kettering that community pharmacies are very

important. The rest of the NHS is in such pressure, so if there hs really

only going to be a small amount of saving, I would urge the Minister to

drop this because it is not worth the battle. Well, I can onlx repeat

what I have said in previous exchanges, that we value thd

contribution that community pharmacies make, that the s`vings

that we are proposing shortly I needed to be used in other parts of

the NHS, and we believe that provision will not be affected and

including the integration ftnd, including the integration

including the hiring of an including the hiring of an

additional 2000 pharmacists into the GP sector, will make this sdctor

work better than it works at the moment. Does the Minister agree that

should one in four communitx pharmacies close, then the dffects

on the elderly, the vulnerable, the poor and those with long-term

conditions could be very serious indeed, potentially catastrophic? Mr

Speaker, we do not believe that the proposals we are announcing shortly

will do anything to the detriment of any of those patient groups that the

honourable lady mentioned. Community pharmacies play a vital rold in

primary care and it is an ilportant relationship between them and the

constituents. His proposals, I have got a community living pharlacy that

provides added value. Is his proposal not about price instead of

quality? Should we not be looking at quality of pharmacy provision?

Because healthy living pharlacies in Lancashire provide an exceptional

standard and should not be tnder this dark cloud that he has hanging

over them? The honourable mdmber makes a very good point. A large

part of the value-added frol pharmacies is around qualitx and one

of the things that we need to do as part of this package is rew`rd those

pharmacies that are trying harder than others to provide qualhty. He

mentioned a healthy living pharmacy mentioned a healthy living pharmacy

and there are many examples of that. As part of this package, we will be

addressing the quality issud, and that was precisely one of the points

that the PSN see as thus to look at. -- the PSNC. If the Minister wants

to make these savings, you should work with the pharmacists and listen

to what they have to say because they have ideas about making savings

including in my constituencx, the potential of reducing repeat

prescriptions. If he does so, he will play a role in looking after

the heart of our community, which is what pharmacists are. They `re at

the heart of our NHS as well and the heart of our NHS as well and

they play an incredible rold in every community in providing

local businesses as well. Wd have local businesses as well. Wd have

been talking to the pharmaches negotiating committee for a period

of ten months. Some of the points had been put to us and we h`ve tried

to incorporate them in the proposals we are making. I can only again tell

the honourable member, as I have already said too many others, we

value the conservation that the pharmacy sector can make. Wd wish to

see that move over and abovd what it is now in terms of dispensing, into

more value-added services, linor ailments, repeated descripthons

long-term conditions. We want to do long-term conditions. We want to do

all of those things and we will I say to the Minister to trdad with

great care. I have visited lany community pharmacies and I have seen

a lot of value-added activity taking place, whether it is preparhng

medicine, delivering them, or whatever. They are keen to be

involved in wider activities. There is a danger that the Ministdr, in

seeking savings, cost the hdalth service and the community is more.

There is a danger in that h`d we not spent time trying to get thhs right

over the last ten months and we are confident and believe we have done

so. Can I get some advice to the Minister? If he wants to get reforms

and I think the feeling on `ll sides of the House is that we do need a

high performing, innovative pharmacy sector and they are righted the

start of every community. -, right at the heart of. But you do not

start by demoralising them from the beginning. His predecessor said it

cut of 2000 pharmacies. He should reach out to the pharmacies and not

just a posh dinners but thex should come to our constituencies to talk

to the pharmacies there. I should reach out to pharmacists and not

just that posh dinners. In the last three weeks I have visited ` number

of pharmacists and I've even opened a new one. I know the value that

they can add. But they agred, and most people in this House agree

that the community pharmacy network must move from a model based on

dispensing to one word based on services. We will help them do that

and these proposals will help achieve that. As we have sahd,

primary care is the cornerstone of the NHS and pharmacies reprdsent a

very successful public- private model. This seems to be a

counterintuitive proposal. When I questioned the chief executhve of

the NHS about the accounts he expressed surprise that there may be

a reprieve for pharmacies. This cut is already happening and is part of

the delivery of savings for this year. Can the Minister clarhfy

reports over the weekend about the figures we are talking about? The

reports swirled that these will be cut by a million and by 208 million

by 2017-2018. Are those figtres correct? Those figures were

announced in the consultation in December 2000 and 15. The only

changed since those figures were announced and that consultation is

that the any saving this ye`r, because of the delay we havd taken

to look at this again, is lhkely to be lower. -- December 2000 `nd 5.

Those of us who wish the Minister well with described his performance

as courageous. I fear he has been sold a hospital pass on this one. He

is responsible for an indefdnsible policy, that talks about recruiting

thousands of pharmacists and then talks about closing thousands of

pharmacies. We cannot keep loading, even onto the willing shoulders of

the pharmacists, more responsibility by reader in their finances. With

the Minister like to become the most popular on the high streets of the

nation by saying he will get this again? I am always keen to be

popular. But I am also keen to do the right thing. Nobody is talking

about closing thousands of pharmacies and I do not belheve that

will happen. What we have t`lked about, Mr Speaker, is hiring 20 0

more pharmacists into the GP sector. That is not incoherent, that is the

right thing to do. We all nded to distinguish at times between the

pharmacy profession which wd need and will nurture and help to grow

and that can add these valuds, and people that own the pharmacx shops.

65% of these are public enthties with private income. The centre

ground in British politics hs changing. We have a Conserv`tive

Minister saying that he will put hundreds of small firms out of

business and will get them working for the Government. The Minhster is

now trying to convince us that they are all hedge funds is. It hs the

community pharmacies in our communities that will be closing.

Will he give us the commitmdnt that no community will be left whthout a

pharmacy and no doctor 's strgery will be allowed to have a pharmacy

close on its doorstep? Whitd-mac I will give the honourable melber at

the commitment that no commtnity will be left without a pharlacy I

cannot impress strongly enotgh on the Minister at the danger of these

proposals. In my constituency the pressure on primary care, where we

cannot recruit GPs and they are not meeting standards, the thought that

on top of that we would redtce the possibility for people to attend

their local community pharm`cy for simple health care needs is frankly

frightening. Can I ask the Linister that when he publishes the hmpact

assessment if it will provide any clarity that those complex

primary-care factors have bden properly taken into account? We have

talked all afternoon about the need to protect access to GPs and I can

repeat the point I made earlier that the proposals we are putting forward

should increase the degree to which pharmacists are linked to GP

practices. She mentions that many GP practices are getting parabolic

assessments, but over 80% of them are getting good assessments. - are

getting very bad assessments. These proposals are expected to m`ke

pharmacy access better and the orientation of the pharmacy

profession toward services `nd away from dispensing should happdn more

quickly. Point of order. At Prime Minister's Questions last wdek, I

raise some concerns about the practices of virgin Care, b`sed on

Mike Spears is working therd. Virgin Care have issued a statement to the

media are saying they have no record of berating these concerns `t the

time. I am glad they brought that up because the failure to keep good

records is one of my concerns. However, I think it is clear that

they are implying dishonest they are on my part and I hope you whll be

available to advise me on how to set the record shape in that regard I

did raise concerns on many occasions, including directly with

the chief executive of Virghn Care in person during a meeting hn autumn

2012. It was no one at the highest level in the company before they

issued a statement suggesting the opposite, suggesting that I was

dishonest while trying to obscure the truth. May I have you what

resort members have when thd rich and powerful seek to smear hs as we

try to do our duty and incltdes these actions infringe on the powers

of this Chamber. Can be weird to read to them that even the richest

individuals and wealthiest organisations should stick to the

truth about this House and hts members, the matter how inconvenient

this to their private interdsts I understand her concerns if the

veracity of what she voluntdered in good faith to the House has

subsequently been called into question. Specifically she `nd asks

me what recourse in the circumstances she has. In rdsponse,

I make to her a number of points. First, if anybody was seeking to

intimidate the honourable l`dy as she goes about her parliamentary

business, manifestly any such attempt has failed. On the basis of

me knowing the honourable l`dy for the last 17 months, it seems to me

entirely obvious that any stch attempt would be doomed to fail I'm

sure that is clear to everybody outside of this Chamber and inside

it. Secondly, I would say that the honourable lady has found hdr own

celebration in that she has taken the opportunity to raise a point of

order with me in this Chambdr and has registered her discontent and

put the record straight. Shd has done this in terms that seel to have

no contradictions. If she thinks any further clarification or airing of

the issue is required, therd are various parliamentary avenuds open

to hire, which I do not doubt she will pursue with that combination of

friends at precision and Terry are like tenacity. She has becole

renowned for this in all parts of the House. I am grateful to the

member from Huddersfield for his contribution, helpful though it was.

I am grateful. This afternoon at questions, when I raise the question

of mitigation, the Secretarx of State for Work and Pensions

indicated that the Scottish Government could deal with the issue

by making additional payments to these women in Scotland. Thd hats,

unbeknown to those of us on these benches, the Government is going to

come up legislation that will give enhanced powers to the Scottish

Government about pensions, but that is not known to us here. Whdn I

checked the legislation and section 28 of the Scotland act, it hncludes

us making payments on this latters and specifically pensions. H'm sure

that the Secretary of State and willingly got to the situathon where

he was alleging that the Scottish Government has competence. H wonder,

with your guidance, what can be done on bringing the Secretary of State

back correctly record. If the Secretary of State judge is it

necessary to return to the Chamber to clarify the position or to seek

information about the offichal report it is open to that Mhnister

to do so. Whether that will happen remains to be seen. Meanwhile the

Honourable Gentleman has picked the record straight with crystal

clarity, doubtless to his own satisfaction and that to his

constituents who he seeks to represent. You referred to to a

Minister saying he plans to make an announcement shortly. P usurer

offices to make sure that when he has made that decision he whll come

to this make a statement. I thought he was going to have to makd what

does shortly mean, and as wd know in Parliament it is a term that has a

degree of elasticity associ`ted with it. The Minister can hear the point

now. Before he became a Minhster he was a very active and effective

parliamentarian and some money to pride in his responsibilitids to the

House and sure he continues to do so. Insofar as the point, it has by

a campaigner from Leicester been underlined. Can I thank the Minister

for his persistence and courtesy. Could I say to him gently that all

he could do is repeat his previous answer, he said it with good humour

but a degree of world-weary resignation. Repetition is not a

novel phenomena in the Housd of Commons. If there are no further

points of order we can press on with business and the clerk will be the

orders of the day. The second reading of the savings Government

contributions bill. I called the Minister to move the second reading.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I now moved that the bill be ready second time.

I want to remind a housewifd this bill is so important. It is because

we want people in this country to have all the tools at their disposal

to save money. We want to m`ke it easier for everyone to build up the

savings that they need to fdel secure in their personal finances.

We have set to work to make this the case. We put an end to 17 mhllion

people having to pay tax on the interest they received on their

savings and we made the biggest ever increased to the ice an and,

increasingly to ?20,000 frol April next year. But there is mord we want

to do. We will introduce two new schemes, the lifelong ISA at the

right to save, helping people have new options to save. Turning firstly

to the lifetime ISA, which provides a new option for younger people who

are looking to save for the long-term. We want to make sure they

have a choice in how they s`y. For some, the pension system is the way

for word and we have done a lot to improve that through automatic

enrolment and initiatives lhke the pensions dashboard. But when we did

our consultation last year on pensions tax relief, we heard that

for young people the pension system is not flexible enough on its own so

the lifetime ISA complements it that gets people and new option `longside

it that has been designed whth flexibility in mind. It is ` way to

save up to ?4000 a year and you can open an account between the ages of

18 years old and 40 and continue saving interviewers that dax. On top

of interest you will earn a tax free bonus from the Government gdts paid

straight into your account. Of course...

In a way. Is he concerned at all that by introducing the lifdtime ISA

she is introducing complexity into the savings market for young people,

whereby they will be making some of the most important financial

decisions of their life, whdther to go for a pension or a lifethme ISA,

does she think there is merht therefore increasing investlent in

independent advice in financial literacy so that young people will

be able to make informed decisions about these important decishons On

the latter point, with regard to advice, I will come to that later.

But we are extremely keen that people have access to good `dvice

and good information. On his first point, I would say that as H have

mentioned this is about, Muntari products. It is not an eithdr or

choice. The feedback we havd had in a consultation is that for lany

young people did not want to make a binary choice between saving for

later life and saving for a house. This is similar in that deshgn,

giving people flexibility to do that. It is important that people

get advice, but advice from consumer advocates will have people think

that it does have that capacity I am grateful for her giving way but

is she concerned that for m`ny young people, when incomes are harder

do not have the choice in tdrms of do not have the choice in tdrms of

investing in a pension and ` lifetime ISA and they will be making

a decision on which one to go for. That is an area that the government

needs to address. Yes, and that interaction has also been addressed

in the impact assessment th`t goes with this bill. I would say that

there was some concern around the help to buy ISA and that

interruption with automatic enrolment, and the opt out rate but

actually we have seen no evhdence of that driving opt out rates. The opt

out rate in automatic enrollent is lower than forecast. I notice

concern but I think that is addressed in the work that we have

done to accompany the bill. -- I note his concern. As I was saying,

what is attractive about thhs product is that you will not have to

make an immediate decision on what you are saving money for. That goes

to the honourable member's point about not having to make th`t

decision at an early stage when perhaps you cannot see what is

ahead. I wonder if she could address the issue that anyone is gohng to

investing in a ISA is going to be investing in a ISA is going to be

making that investment out of tax income. Does she not see thd

unfairness of that? Obviously the government bonus which I have

already mentioned. But I will go back to this point that this is not

an either or choice. This is about people having potentially comp and

truly -- complementary prodtcts for different purposes. This is not

about replacing a pension, ht is about giving people a compldmentary

products to help them save for later in life, and at the same tile giving

them the option to save up loney to build a house. We have seen that

many people have taken that opportunity with the previots ISA

products. If I can move on ` little bit, as I was saying,

this lifetime ISA can be usdd to get onto the property ladder for the

very first time and can be put towards a home worth under ?450 000.

Through this bill, from Aprhl next year, people will have a more

flexible way to save, as ond of a number of options. Let me ttrn, if I

can, to help to save. This bill also introduces Help To Save, whhch is

about finding a better way to support families who are just about

managing but struggling to build up savings. All of us will be `ware of

the research done by a numbdr of bodies, in particular the Cdntre for

Social Justice which estimates that 3 million low-income households have

no savings at all. This is not a nice position for anyone to be in,

to live without any kind of financial safety net, to know that

if you lose your job you have barely got enough money to pay next month's

rent. Of course. I thank thd Minister forgiving way. Will she

acknowledge the concern that the two-year qualifying period for Help

To Save is quite a lengthy period for people on low incomes, `nd will

she further acknowledge the concern of those particularly with the

currently, as I understand ht, as a currently, as I understand ht, as a

result of the consultation, the government responds, going to be

excluded from offering Help To Save products going forward? It hs

certainly the case that we have announced that the provider, we re

going with single provider `t the outset. But the primary leghslation

does not preclude there being more people providing the product. But it

coverage. But I think that like all coverage. But I think that like all

of us in this House, I have huge respect for the credit union

movement and we see a role for them going forward not least in the point

made just a moment ago about advice and support and perhaps we will

tease out more of that in the debate that follows this opening speech.

And I hope that gives him some reassurance about that. Abott the

two years, this is looking `t the advice and research out there from

groups that particularly de`l with people in this category. And it is

trying to capture the moment at which a savings habit is ingrained.

It does not mean that peopld cannot take money out. There is no penalty

if people do not want to access it. The bonus comes at the two xour

point. But that is based on research by groups and charities that

particularly work with people in the target market for the product. I

think there is a robust reasoning for the two year period. If I can

move on to talk about that. If someone is trying to put sole of

their hard earned money aside in an effort to be more financially

secure, we want to support them to have the full support of thdir

government as they do so. And that is why through this bill we want to

introduce the new Help To S`ve account is now later than April 20

18. They will be open to anx adult getting Universal Credit and earning

enough. To illustrate, under the scheme you can save up to ?40 a

month for two years, as the honourable member just referred So

?1200 in total and the government will give you a 50% bonus. Hf, after

those two years, you want to do that again, for the next two years you

will be able to. This way to save offers complete flexibility. What

you want to do with the mondy you have saved and the government bonus

you have earned is completely up to you and if you want to take money

out at any time, as I have out at any time, as I have

mentioned, you can. You will be no charge or penalty to do so. I am

grateful to the Minister forgiving way. As usual, the House of Commons

library has produced a fant`stic briefing on this bill. In rdlation

to this particular product, they mentioned the conclusions of the

ISS, who said that only ?70 million has been allocated by the Treasury

for covering this new savings product by 2021. That will be

nowhere near enough to cover the government contribution of 40%. If

everybody who was eligible to itself. As the Treasury got their

figures wrong? I think that history shows that the honourable mdmber is

right to say that among the groups targeted by this product, wd know

that historically it has soletimes been difficult to target

advice and therefore... Indded, advice and therefore... Indded,

there are actually not that many financial products targeting the

script. But what I would re`ssure him on is that we will actu`lly be

doing everything we can, and all honourable members have a role to

play in this, as to credit tnions, in promoting the product. If the

take-up exceeds recommendathons we will be delighted and we will be

working to that effect. The scheme provides an incentive for pdople

with low incomes to keep saving what they can. That means for more and

more families, they will have a rainy day fund, meaning thex can

cope with unforeseen events that come their way. On those evdnts are

the sort of events that manx of us as constituency members will

recognise as driving people into our advice surgeries because solething

has happened. As research from debts charities suggest, if a famhly has

?1000 in the bank, they are almost half as likely to fall into problem

debt. This means being in arrears with at least one bill or credit

commitment. This is a savings vehicle that will help people build

up a pot of money which can be used for any purpose at all but which is

also there if needed for a rainy day. So to conclude, before we move

on to hear from members, thhs bill is all about helping people who are

trying to save for the future and helping them to do so. It encourages

more people to do so. If yot are a young person who wants flexhbility

in how you save for your future or if you are on a low income `nd

trying hard to set aside money each month, we want to make sure that you

have a helping hand along the way and through these two new s`vings

vehicles, that is exactly what the government will be providing, and

therefore gives me great pldasure to commend this bill to the Hotse. The

question is that the bill bd now read a second time. Rebecca Lumby.

It is a pleasure, as always, to debate opposite the Minister. I

thank her for out -- outlinhng the new bill, which will introdtce this

new ISA and the Help To Savd scheme. A lifetime ISA is a new savhngs

product available from 2017 in which able under 40 can deposit up to

?4000 a year. The government will top up these savings by 25%. The

savings accumulated in the scheme can be used as a product, or can be

used to condiment retirement income. It is also possible to remove the

funds from the LISA before xou are 60, but the Wilby a charge of 2 %

removing the funds withdrawn. Moving on to the Help To Save schele, this

will be available to people in receipt of Universal Credit or

working tax credit. If you `re in receipt of working tax credht, you

must have minimum weekly earnings equivalent to 16 hours at the

national living wage. Under the scheme... I'm grateful to mx right

honourable friend. I was gr`teful for the Minister's response to my

question but I wonder whethdr my honourable friend might comlit our

front bench to probe the government further on whether there should be a

two year qualifying period or whether in actual fact it should be

reduced to 12 months. And shmilarly, would she commit our front bench to

explore whether or not credht unions could be allowed to take part

alongside NS, because thex also offer national coverage. I thank my

honourable friend for his contribution and he makes some

important points. Indeed, wd support him in pushing the government to

respond on those questions, and I will particularly highlight a number

of concerns the front bench has in relation to the scheme. The role of

credit Unions, I can only s`y, is vital to ensuring the roll-out of

any saving scheme that intends to target the most deprived colmunities

in the UK. I am grateful for the honourable lady giving way. She has

helpfully outlined the circtmstances in which the lifetime ISA khcks in.

She welcomed the ISA which dnables young people to save in

circumstances half of ISA holders are over 55? Do I welcome the

government's sentiment? I do. If I can make progress, you will get a

fuller response in due course. The opposition has some serious concerns

about both the policies refdrred to today and indeed a number of

questions which I hope the Linister can assist with. I will set them out

to moment but first, to address a point just made, I must makd it very

clear that the Labour Party warmly encourages and is supportivd of the

government's overarching prhnciple aim in this bill, to encour`ge

people to save. Many working people in Britain are simply not s`ving

enough or indeed not saving at all and this is storing up a multitude

of problems. Not just for pdople's personal finances but also for the

public purse. 28% of people have said thex have no

savings at all and people would struggle to spare an emergency

expense of more than ?500. @ survey of poverty and social exclusion

found that between a quarter and a third of households say thex are

unable to make regular savings. In the most recent survey, conducted in

2012, 30 2% of households ghve that answer. It is right that thd

Government examines methods and structures to encourage savhng, but

I'm sure the Minister will `gree that it must also address the root

causes of this low saving trend I ask the Minister to examine

carefully the reasons why m`ny people are not saving. Is it because

they are splashing out cash on fancy car is an extravagant purch`ses or

is it because wages are too low and the cost of living is too hhgh to

get through the month in sole cases, never mind having spare cash at the

end to put into a savings plan. Would she also agree that pdrhaps

unlike some of the instances brought in by Gordon Brown, keeping things

as simple as possible is re`lly important with products and

transferability, like they help to buy being pushed into the lhfetime

ISA and products being complementary is important as well. I agrde with

the sentiment and I help my honourable friend -- I thank my

honourable friend. Products need to be explained as simply as possible

and Government needs to comlit to adequate advertising campaigns to

avoid ambiguity about where the product should fall. I will come

onto some concerns I have about this particular product in this bill

shortly. It is important to examine the fact that those who livd in more

deprived areas or those who do not have access to high street financial

services are often more fin`ncially excluded, with limited access to

lending facilities. This le`ds towards a trend where many people

rely on extremely high interest lending facilities like a ddaler and

is, because often they are the only lending facility available. That

causes a cycle of debt to bdgin and sucks any potential savings surplus

out of the monthly pay packdt. It also cannot be lost on the Linister

that the banks have been reporting surges for some time now in the

number of people accessing them who are in full-time employment. This

may suggest there is no spare cash available for many people to live on

day-to-day, let alone to save. The problems I highlight brings me to

the main issue with the help to save scheme. We support moves to

encourage saving for a rainx day, but we would suggest that the idea

that those in universal credit and working tax credit have a spare ?50

at the end of the month is dxtremely optimistic in many cases. Pdople can

barely make ends meet as thd Government found out last ydar and

there was a cross-party backlash when it tried to take thous`nds away

from recipients of tax credhts. A transition to universal credit will

leave people in an even worse position. I will pre-empt the

Minister's replied that help to save is similar to the same way Gateway

scheme piloted by the last... Go one. I do not want to into rugby

honourable lady but it is ilportant that it is savings up to ?50, it is

not that everybody must havd ?5 . It can be a small amount. I wotld like

to make that clear. I thank her for clarifying that point, but H think

some people would struggle to save ?5 amounts let alone ?50. Gone back

to the point I was trying to make about Labour's similar schele, we

did introduce this but it is important to note that we h`d not

spent six years eroding the disposable income of the people that

the scheme targeted. Help to save me look good on paper and helphng those

on low incomes to save, but I must warn the Minister that with the

long-term effect of Governmdnt cuts in austerity measures it will not

have the desired effect in lany cases. The cuts this Governlent is

making to universal credit will cost to .5 million families everx year,

so I would ask the Minister to confirm three of these families will

find even one or ?50 a month to get into a savings scheme? It would

appear that the Government hs not expecting this measure to ptt rocket

boosters under savings for those on low incomes. The costing for the

policy estimated ?70 million. They .5 million people are eligible for

the scheme. So if my calcul`tions are correct that works out `s a

Government bonus of ?20 per eligible individual in 2020-2021. I was

excited to read the impact assessment which the Ministdr must

now only arrived at 1pm tod`y and while I am pleased to ride the

Minister can appreciate is not acceptable to provide such

information at the 11th hour if the Government wants to be transparent

and capable of being held to account effectively. I was interestdd to see

that the Government's expected takeaway was 500,000 in the first

two years. I would be grateful if the Minister could expect the

rationale behind this figurd, I specific groups were likely to save

than others? She has referrdd to the impact assessment and after the

sentence she referred to shd says that these estimates were in form

from information from simil`r savings schemes and Governmdnt

saving pilots. I thank her for reading -- I thank her for reading

from the impact assessment, but I serve specific groups are more

likely to save than others `nd I do not think it provides that. Most

importantly, however, how does this scheme in ten to help the rdmaining

3 million people who cannot afford to participate in the schemd? I

think I can sum up my concern specifically on this element of the

bill by reiterating the comlents made by the former Shadow Ddpartment

for Work and Pensions Minister who stated that this scheme was like

stealing someone's are and then offering them a lift to the bus

stop. -- car. I am a little confused by the arguments. Is she saxing that

because the scheme will not target all the people who may be eligible,

but the Government should do nothing? Despite the fact that they

may be a partial success and a large number of people might take it,

because not everyone will t`ke it it is not worth doing? That is not what

I'm saying. It is important to address this issue. We need to be

clear on the ways that we do address it and addressing the root causes of

poverty is the first thing the Government needs to look at. The

second element in Nice to look at when rolling out this bill hs the

specific groups that it intdnds to target. If it does not targdt the

deep by 5 million people who are eligible to take part in thd scheme,

how will it help those who do not take part? Turning to the lhfetime

ISA, there is considerable tnease about this policy across thd

pensions industry on the tr`de union movement, the OBR and select

committees of the sites. Thd idea of consent advising people to save for

the future, especially for retirement, is one the opposition

supports, but we are concerned that this scheme could trade a dhversion

from saving into additional pension products rather than being `n add-on

to a pension plan. Even the former Government pensions Minister said

that the ISA could destroy pensions. The UK is facing a pensions time

bomb. 11 million people are signed up to defined benefit schemds in

6000 pension funds in the UK. Recently, PwC page is data showing

that he collected deficits hn those schemes had risen by 100,000,00 ,001

month to stand up 710 billion by the end of August. The OECD reported

earlier this year that we are facing a global pensions crisis in which a

person buying an annuity today who said 10% of their wages into a

pension for 40 years can expect just over half the earnings of someone

who saved the same amount btt retired 15 years ago. This hs very

worrying indeed, especially when the State Pension in its current form

cannot be relied upon to pltg the gap. Even the OBR last week

published a report concluding that the recent pensions and savhngs

mentioned is -- savings measures would create a 5 million a xear

black hole in public financds. The report states that the net dffect of

the Government's pensions and saving measures on the public finances is

positive in the early years, peaking to .3 billion before turning

negative from 2021. The small night game is reversed in the long-term as

the net cost continues to rhse, reaching ?5 billion. Expressed as a

share of GDP, a more relevant metric, the net cost builds up until

it reaches a steady state towards the end of the period of just over

zero by 1% of GDP. If that continues until the end of our usual long term

horizon of 50 years, but sm`ll cost would add three points 7% of GDP to

public sector debt. The report also said that these measures shhfted

incentives in a way that makes pension savings less attractive

particularly for high earners and non-pension savings more attractive

often in ways that can most readily be taken up by the same high

earners. This is a worrying assessment of the Government's

pensions and savings policy of which the ISA plays a large part. I am

also concerned about the level of assessment carried out by the

Government regarding the impact the ISA could have pension saving and

the auto enrolment scheme. The work and pensions Select Committde has

already outlined its concerns about the threat to automatic enrolment in

workplace pensions, which is seeing a great degree of success in its

roll-out. The Committee was very worried particularly that the ISA

runs the risk of people opthng out of the workplace pension in Auden to

see venom ISA, thinking it hs more beneficial. -- opting out of the

workplace pension in order to save in the ISA. The Committee

highlighted that it was ambhguity -- that there was ambiguity about

whether it was intended to replace a pension and deeply villous

Chancellor stated that the HSA was, for those under 40, Fred those who

have not had such a good de`l. - and the previous Chancellor. The

Department for Work and Pensions said that the ISA is not part of the

pension system that is flexhble savings product. I'm glad that the

Minister has clarified this point today I has said it is a

complementary product, but lany witnesses to the Committee has said

that it is being interpreted as a pensions product. The Centrd for

Policy Studies, who developdd the ISA, said that many employeds not

any pension scheme would have to make the decision whether to save in