12/12/2016

:00:00. > :00:00.Exceptionally, I understand that it flows from what has taken place, I

:00:00. > :00:09.will hear a point of order now. But I'm sure the Honourable Gentleman

:00:10. > :00:15.will not abuse his privilege. During defence questions it was raised that

:00:16. > :00:19.the shipbuilding strategy had been published and that he would send a

:00:20. > :00:31.signed copy to my honourable friend. But when cross examined, he stated

:00:32. > :00:39.that publication would take place in spring 2017. Will the Secretary of

:00:40. > :00:45.State now see which one it is. The Honourable Gentleman had a beaming

:00:46. > :00:52.countenance and he felt he had unearthed an honourable nugget. I am

:00:53. > :01:01.glad to bring a little bit of happiness to him. We will leave it

:01:02. > :01:05.there for now. Will the member wishing to take her seat please come

:01:06. > :01:40.to the table. I swear by Almighty God that I will

:01:41. > :01:43.be faithful and there true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen

:01:44. > :02:20.Elizabeth and her heirs and successors, so help me God.

:02:21. > :03:01.Urgent question. To have the Secretary of State for help to make

:03:02. > :03:04.a statement on the crisis in social care and the effect this is having

:03:05. > :03:14.on the NHS and on the care of vulnerable older people. I thank the

:03:15. > :03:20.honourable lady for raising the question today. I think all members

:03:21. > :03:25.of this House will agree that there are few areas of domestic policy

:03:26. > :03:29.which touch on so many lives. And that also important to so many of

:03:30. > :03:34.our constituents. I would like to start by acknowledging the work of

:03:35. > :03:39.over 1.4 million professional carers, the majority of whom provide

:03:40. > :03:45.excellent and compassionate care. I would also like to acknowledge the 6

:03:46. > :03:50.million in form will carers who do so much. Spending on long-term care

:03:51. > :03:56.in our country is more than the OECD average. It is more than in France

:03:57. > :04:00.and Germany. Nonetheless I accept that our system is under strain and

:04:01. > :04:07.that pressure has been building for some years now. In response the

:04:08. > :04:11.Government response to this has been to ensure that the councils have

:04:12. > :04:17.access to funding to increase social care spending by the end of this

:04:18. > :04:21.Parliament. We estimate a 5% increase in real terms. Additional

:04:22. > :04:26.funding comes from the better care fund, the additional better care

:04:27. > :04:31.fund, and changes to the precept. To put into place and enforce a robust

:04:32. > :04:38.regulatory system between 2014 and early next year all homes and

:04:39. > :04:45.providers will be inspected again. 72% are classified as good or

:04:46. > :04:49.outstanding. Where homes are inadequate, power is now exist to

:04:50. > :04:53.ensure improvement or forced the closure. These powers are being

:04:54. > :04:58.used. To work with local authorities to ensure the continuing market

:04:59. > :05:04.exists. In the last six years the total number of beds has remained

:05:05. > :05:09.constant. There were 40% more care providers than 2010. Finally to

:05:10. > :05:13.drive further and faster the integration of care and health

:05:14. > :05:16.systems. We have seen that the councils would do this best

:05:17. > :05:22.demonstrate far fewer delayed transfers than those adopting best

:05:23. > :05:26.practice more slowly. Any system would benefit from a higher budget

:05:27. > :05:34.and social care is no exception. But quality matters too. Today is not a

:05:35. > :05:38.budget statement nor a local Government settlement, but I wished

:05:39. > :05:44.to end by commending again the many hundreds of thousands of carers who

:05:45. > :05:53.work so hard to make the system work for so many. That was a

:05:54. > :05:59.disappointment. Before the Autumn Statement be debated the funding

:06:00. > :06:03.crisis in social care, not a strain but a crisis and the serious

:06:04. > :06:07.concerns expressed by local Government, health and clinical

:06:08. > :06:13.leaders. We called on the Government to bring forward funding to address

:06:14. > :06:17.the crisis. The Chancellor did not listen and did not bring forward any

:06:18. > :06:23.funding for social care nor mention it at all. Handy care Minister tell

:06:24. > :06:27.us in his response by health ministers do not stand up for

:06:28. > :06:31.vulnerable and older people in this country and why they do not fight

:06:32. > :06:38.harder to get funding for social care? Over 1 million older people

:06:39. > :06:45.have care needs and there is less publicly funded care than in 2010.

:06:46. > :06:51.There is a heavier burden on unpaid family carers. This crisis has been

:06:52. > :06:57.made by this Government G2 ?5 billion being cut. Does the

:06:58. > :07:03.Government intend to dump this funding crisis on local councils and

:07:04. > :07:08.to council taxpayers to increase the social care precept? That proposal

:07:09. > :07:11.has been called deeply flawed because local councils and the least

:07:12. > :07:15.deprived areas would be able to raise more than twice as much as

:07:16. > :07:21.those in the most deprived areas. That means that the precept would

:07:22. > :07:25.earn 15 pounds per head in Richmond but only 5p in Manchester. That

:07:26. > :07:31.would widen inequality across the country. Is it the care Minister's

:07:32. > :07:36.intention to support a solution that widens an equality of access and

:07:37. > :07:36.deny social care to hundreds of thousands of vulnerable older

:07:37. > :07:45.people? The honourable lady fought the last

:07:46. > :07:50.election on a manifesto that said not one penny more for oakal

:07:51. > :07:54.Government spending, that's what she fought the last election on. She's

:07:55. > :07:58.made a statement today and she's against the change to the

:07:59. > :08:03.pre-September that we brought in in the Spending Review. She talked

:08:04. > :08:07.about being against taxpayers and council tax payers having to meet

:08:08. > :08:10.the cost of increased social care. That rather begs the question who

:08:11. > :08:15.she thinks should be paying for it - is it borrowing or is it the magic

:08:16. > :08:25.money tree? She made the point Mr Speaker, she made the point about

:08:26. > :08:28.the precept, she said that the precept increases inequalities

:08:29. > :08:33.because some councils could raise more. That would be true except for

:08:34. > :08:36.the fact that the better care fund is distributed in a way that

:08:37. > :08:39.balances that. That is precisely what we do.

:08:40. > :08:42.THE SPEAKER: I should advise the House that there are of course,

:08:43. > :08:47.three urgent questions to be taken today. I want all to be properly

:08:48. > :08:53.contributed to. It is important that we also provide time for subsequent

:08:54. > :09:00.business. I looking at finishing by 5. 30pm or there abouts. Perhaps

:09:01. > :09:08.colleagues could tailor their contributions accordingly. I hope in

:09:09. > :09:12.looking at coordinated policy across Government, the minister will look

:09:13. > :09:17.not only at good join up between the department for health and the local

:09:18. > :09:20.Government and other policies like lifetime homes, family strengthening

:09:21. > :09:23.and employment policies, all of which will help us deal with these

:09:24. > :09:28.issues. Could he give encouragement on that score? I thank him for that

:09:29. > :09:33.question. He's quite right, there's a whole raft of measures that need

:09:34. > :09:37.to be taken on envelope careers and in terms of the Holy Grail of better

:09:38. > :09:44.integration of health and social care funding and we are pursuing

:09:45. > :09:49.that vigorously. Obviously this was the substance of the letter from the

:09:50. > :09:52.Health Select Committee to the Chancellor not actually calling for

:09:53. > :09:56.extra money for the NHS, but particularly for the capital budgets

:09:57. > :10:00.and social care, because basically, the back pressure from social care

:10:01. > :10:04.is actually what is causing the NHS to struggle. I totally agree with

:10:05. > :10:09.the minister with regards integration and in Scotland, where

:10:10. > :10:13.we have the integrated joint boards, it has brought a change quicker than

:10:14. > :10:18.we would heaped. Our delayed discharges are down 9% a year, in

:10:19. > :10:22.England up over 30%. This isn't something that's easy and it's

:10:23. > :10:28.something that needs to be funded. We've debated the STP plans, which

:10:29. > :10:35.could be the basis for the future integration of the NHS. But all we

:10:36. > :10:41.hear is within those plans community hospitals being shut, losing the

:10:42. > :10:44.opportunity to have step-up and step-down beds, A being shut and

:10:45. > :10:49.beds within hospitals being shut. This is the wrong way round. STPs

:10:50. > :10:54.could work, but they can't start with the number they must reach.

:10:55. > :11:00.They have to design themselves around a service that keeps patients

:11:01. > :11:03.at home and keeps them well. Mr Speaker, the honourable lady made

:11:04. > :11:08.two points both of which I agree with. The first was in Scotland 9%

:11:09. > :11:13.reduction in delayed transfers of care is also true, in England many

:11:14. > :11:16.parts of our system, particularly those that have integrated most

:11:17. > :11:22.quickly have achieved reductions of that amount and more. In terms of

:11:23. > :11:26.the SDP, she is right that the SDP is part of process of us

:11:27. > :11:29.re-engineering the system and adult social care and the integration of

:11:30. > :11:35.that care is a big part this afternoon. We need to make sure we

:11:36. > :11:41.deliver. Would the minister agrow with me that better integration

:11:42. > :11:47.could be driven by better patient data and it could help show us where

:11:48. > :11:52.quality practices exist and how to spread this best practice. I would

:11:53. > :11:56.agree. I had a discussion with the CQC with that subject in terms of

:11:57. > :12:00.the data set of what is reported. I'm hoping over the next months and

:12:01. > :12:07.years we can make improvement on how we do that. I think the minister has

:12:08. > :12:13.completely missed the point raised by my honourable friend from the

:12:14. > :12:19.frontbench about the unfairness of asking councils to deal with the

:12:20. > :12:24.problem. A 1% rise in council tax in Doncaster raises 21% less than a

:12:25. > :12:27.council in the Prime Minister's constituency. Surely that means that

:12:28. > :12:34.the problem is being pushed onto the areas that can least afford it.

:12:35. > :12:37.She'll be right, I would have missed the point had I not said that issue

:12:38. > :12:42.she has raised is addressed by the way that we distribute the better

:12:43. > :12:49.care fund, which use as formula which takes into account relative

:12:50. > :12:52.need. The The minister will know following recent events this issue

:12:53. > :12:57.is something I've taken a particular interest in. Would he agree with me

:12:58. > :13:01.that saying it's just about money is too simplistic. We see a wide

:13:02. > :13:05.sprerite of quality of care from homes under the same fund being

:13:06. > :13:08.packages. Does he also agree that we need to improve the inspection

:13:09. > :13:13.regime to ensure that concerns are take be seriously? Mr Speaker, I do

:13:14. > :13:18.agree with that. I commend the member for the work he did on the

:13:19. > :13:21.morely home in his constituency, which had significant issues and now

:13:22. > :13:25.which has been substantially closed down. He is right in saying the

:13:26. > :13:29.issues there were not principally about money, but about quality and

:13:30. > :13:33.people doing their jobs properly. Does the minister share the view of

:13:34. > :13:37.the Care Quality Commission that the system is close to tipping point?

:13:38. > :13:42.And does he understand the impact that has on very many frail, elderly

:13:43. > :13:45.people? Does he not agree now is the time to bury our differences, work

:13:46. > :13:51.together to come up with a long-term settlement for the health and care

:13:52. > :13:56.system? Mr Speaker, today is not the day in which we are going to

:13:57. > :14:02.announce a royal commission on the funding of care into the future. But

:14:03. > :14:07.I do agree that it's important that we do put care funding onto a better

:14:08. > :14:10.structural basis into the future and the honourable member is right to

:14:11. > :14:14.say that. I applaud this Government's

:14:15. > :14:20.commitment to the 10 polled about to the NHS by 2020. Does my right

:14:21. > :14:26.honourable friend agrow that social care and health care must be better

:14:27. > :14:28.integrated across the whole country. Somerset County Council

:14:29. > :14:32.sustainability and transformation plan has this at its heart. It's a

:14:33. > :14:35.good model. Would my right honourable friend agrow models like

:14:36. > :14:42.this should be copied, but they must be given the tools? The SDP for

:14:43. > :14:47.Somerset is excellent in this regard. She is right to raise it.

:14:48. > :14:52.She's also right to emphasise again integration of health and social

:14:53. > :14:58.care is the Holy Grail of this. Those health systems which do it

:14:59. > :15:03.best are making a huge difference. Is he aware that the local

:15:04. > :15:09.authorities in the past few years, let's say in Derbyshire have lost

:15:10. > :15:13.more than ?200 million that have been promulgated by the Government.

:15:14. > :15:19.On top of which they're closing community hospitals in Derbyshire,

:15:20. > :15:25.with a total of more than 100 beds between them. Does it make sense

:15:26. > :15:32.when these community hospitals bear the burden of looking after people

:15:33. > :15:36.that can't occupy hospital beds? Mr Speaker, he is right to say that

:15:37. > :15:42.there have been changes to the funding regime. But the facts are,

:15:43. > :15:46.Mr Speaker, the facts are that councils such as Knowsley, St Helens

:15:47. > :15:50.have got virtually no delayed transfers of care, and they have the

:15:51. > :15:58.same budget issues as his own council. With an ageing population

:15:59. > :16:06.the welcome introduction of the national living rage and rightly

:16:07. > :16:11.greater expectations on service proz vieded is causing exponential growth

:16:12. > :16:14.in the care sector. Whilst the council tax cap has delivered

:16:15. > :16:19.financial discipline we have to be realistic. I would urge the minister

:16:20. > :16:24.to explore further flexibility with the social care preset. I said

:16:25. > :16:28.during mys answer to the honourable lady that today is not a spending

:16:29. > :16:32.statement, it's not a statement on the local Government settlement

:16:33. > :16:38.either. I will just leave it at that.

:16:39. > :16:44.May I say to the minister, it would be a huge mistake to think he can

:16:45. > :16:50.plug the gaping hole in care funding with the social care precept alone.

:16:51. > :16:54.The poorest areas, will be least likely to be able to get social care

:16:55. > :16:58.by raising council tax. If not today, when will the minister come

:16:59. > :17:05.to the House with a plan to solve this crisis and help families, care

:17:06. > :17:08.users and the NHS? Mr Speaker, I have acknowledged that the system is

:17:09. > :17:13.under pressure. I have acknowledged that different councils respond to

:17:14. > :17:19.that pressure in a different way. For example, next year, 16/17,

:17:20. > :17:25.Leicester council have increased their care budget by 7% in real

:17:26. > :17:28.terms. Shroud waving by the Labour Party is

:17:29. > :17:34.particularly depressing given that they did virtually nothing on this

:17:35. > :17:39.issue in 13 years in power. Would my honourable friend agrow with me that

:17:40. > :17:49.it's important to use fiscal incentives in respect of both DCLG

:17:50. > :17:52.and the Treasury to encourage more care and to iron out disparity in

:17:53. > :17:58.care delivered between different local authorities. Yes Mr Speaker,

:17:59. > :18:00.there is disparity. In the marketplace and between local

:18:01. > :18:06.authorities. We need to do everything we can, working with the

:18:07. > :18:10.CQC to ensure that is eliminated. Doesn't the minister realise that

:18:11. > :18:16.his statement today is totally inadequate to the crisis in social

:18:17. > :18:20.care, that the complacency he shows is totally unrealistic to what is

:18:21. > :18:27.happening in the country and what we require is a very different response

:18:28. > :18:30.than what he's given today? I'm tempted to just say no, I don't

:18:31. > :18:33.acknowledge that. I make the point again, I am not complacent. We

:18:34. > :18:37.understand that the system is under pressure. And we acknowledge and

:18:38. > :18:42.accept that. That is not the same, Mr Speaker, as saying that there

:18:43. > :18:44.aren't things we can do in terms of quality provision to manage it

:18:45. > :18:50.better. That's what we're going to do.

:18:51. > :18:54.Adult social care accounts for 45% of Lancashire County Council's

:18:55. > :18:57.budget, that's a growing share. The key to addressing this challenge

:18:58. > :19:01.would be the better integration of to health and social care to manage

:19:02. > :19:05.demand. What funding is provided to Lancashire County Council to allow

:19:06. > :19:11.that transformation to take place? Mr Speaker the better care fund is

:19:12. > :19:14.predicated on the assumption that we will driver that integration. I make

:19:15. > :19:18.the point that many councils right across the country, not just

:19:19. > :19:20.Leicester, for example, have increased and will increase their

:19:21. > :19:28.social care budget in real terms next year. Something like 40%.

:19:29. > :19:34.By 2020 we will see a national short fall of 2. ?2.6 billion in adult

:19:35. > :19:37.social care funding. If the Government is forcing councils to

:19:38. > :19:41.increase council tax, what percentage would they be expected to

:19:42. > :19:45.increase it by? And what of this percentage increase would go solely

:19:46. > :19:54.to adult social care services? And how with the Government ensure this?

:19:55. > :19:58.Mr Speaker, the Spending Review increased the precept by 2%. That's

:19:59. > :20:03.what we brought in at that time. As I said earlier, this is not the

:20:04. > :20:09.local Government settlement. I've got nothing to say on council tax.

:20:10. > :20:14.Er Mr Speaker, many people on both sides of the House feel that the

:20:15. > :20:18.social care system is broken because there are councils involved and

:20:19. > :20:22.Health Service involved. Would be it be a very good idea, Sir, if the

:20:23. > :20:26.Secretary of State or minister could work across the House, with goodwill

:20:27. > :20:32.on both sides, rather than this petty point scoring from the other

:20:33. > :20:35.side, no, this is much more serious than politics. We've got to get this

:20:36. > :20:39.right for future generations. Shouldn't we work together and come

:20:40. > :20:44.up with a solution that all sides of the House can agree on? Mr Speaker,

:20:45. > :20:49.he is right that this whole system is more important than politics.

:20:50. > :20:52.There is nothing I said, nothing more important to more people and

:20:53. > :20:55.more old people in terms of the dignity and quality of their lives

:20:56. > :21:02.than getting this right. It's essential that we do that.

:21:03. > :21:10.THE SPEAKER: An eagle. LAUGHTER

:21:11. > :21:17.Liverpool City Council has seen ?330 million cut from its budget since

:21:18. > :21:23.2010. 58% of all its money. A further ?90 million has to be found

:21:24. > :21:28.by 2020. Can he say in that circumstance how it is going to be

:21:29. > :21:32.possible for Liverpool City Council to increase, as we all wish it

:21:33. > :21:36.could, the money that it spends on adult Social Services, when it

:21:37. > :21:42.actually already spends more on adult social care, ?146 million than

:21:43. > :21:48.it can raise in council tax? Mr Speaker, it is not my role to

:21:49. > :21:52.lecture Liverpool City Council in how to deliver adult social care. I

:21:53. > :21:57.make the point though that Knowsley and St Helens, very close to

:21:58. > :22:01.Liverpool, have virtually no delayed transfers of care. Some best

:22:02. > :22:05.practice sharing would be in order possibly.

:22:06. > :22:09.THE SPEAKER: I don't want to see a festering sibling rivalry. I think

:22:10. > :22:13.it's right that you chose the younger before the older because you

:22:14. > :22:19.did the opposite last time you had the choice. In the whirl, we have an

:22:20. > :22:24.above average number of older people, yet we have a very low

:22:25. > :22:27.council tax base, which means we cannot raise council tax, raise

:22:28. > :22:32.enough money to deal with the short falls in adult social care. The

:22:33. > :22:38.minister knows, ?5 billion has been cut from social care since 2010. His

:22:39. > :22:42.better care budget is 3. 5 billion, so there are huge issues here. Why

:22:43. > :22:46.wasn't this mentioned in the Autumn Statement? And what is the

:22:47. > :22:52.Government's response to this ongoing crisis?

:22:53. > :23:00.I made the point already and I will make it again, we acknowledge that

:23:01. > :23:02.the precept is uneven when it was announced in the spending review,

:23:03. > :23:06.which is why the additional better care fund is allocated on a basis

:23:07. > :23:24.that remedies that. I just want to talk about the

:23:25. > :23:28.remedies. I put in a FOIA about the weekly residential rate across every

:23:29. > :23:35.council in the country. Buckinghamshire gets ?615 a week,

:23:36. > :23:40.while Birmingham, where my grandparents died, gets ?436 and has

:23:41. > :23:44.to make an additional charge of ?55 a week to the residents who live

:23:45. > :23:48.there, who are in no doubt Pooler than those who live in

:23:49. > :24:02.Buckinghamshire. Does that sound like a discrepancy that is being

:24:03. > :24:06.solved by the system? The reports in terms of quality for Buckinghamshire

:24:07. > :24:11.and Birmingham are things that we look at across the system and we are

:24:12. > :24:19.not finding geographic variation based on those statistics. That is

:24:20. > :24:24.the fact of the matter. I have heard nothing from the Minister this

:24:25. > :24:29.afternoon to demonstrate that he understands the severity of the

:24:30. > :24:32.situation facing social care. A cross-party group of MPs met last

:24:33. > :24:38.week and they said that they need one point the billion pounds to

:24:39. > :24:45.stabilise social care in this country and they pointed out that

:24:46. > :24:49.that money cannot be raised by council tax, especially because it

:24:50. > :24:57.raises the least money in the areas where it is most needed. In terms of

:24:58. > :24:59.council tax increases there has already been an announcement that

:25:00. > :25:04.the better care fund will deliver more money from next April and it

:25:05. > :25:11.will deliver more money after that. During this Parliament and will be a

:25:12. > :25:20.5% increase in money spent on adult social care. That is from next

:25:21. > :25:26.April. Can the Minister tell me how it is feared this year that the area

:25:27. > :25:31.I represent, the 19th most disadvantage is the country, will

:25:32. > :25:38.only be able to raise half of what an area like Kingston upon Thames

:25:39. > :25:45.can raise. We can raise ?5, they can raise more than that. How can that

:25:46. > :25:51.be fair? 42% of councils this year are increasing their adult social

:25:52. > :25:55.care funding in real terms. In terms of the discrepancy caused by the

:25:56. > :26:00.precept, it is addressed by the way that we allocate the additional

:26:01. > :26:08.better care fund component and a formula that is used for that. I

:26:09. > :26:13.think a menace recognises there is a crisis and he recognises that the

:26:14. > :26:17.precept will not address that alone, so does he agree with the former

:26:18. > :26:25.Health Secretary Jenny said this morning it was a missed opportunity

:26:26. > :26:31.not to invest in social care? I am not giving the Autumn Statement, but

:26:32. > :26:37.I will say that there is a 5% increase in real terms in social

:26:38. > :26:41.adult funding in the course of this Parliament and 42% of councils are

:26:42. > :26:51.increasing the budget in real terms this year. I think the Minister

:26:52. > :26:54.needs to recognise that it is not just that it can be more difficult

:26:55. > :27:03.for them to raise the money, as we have already heard from our

:27:04. > :27:09.colleagues, they are also demographic concerns that mean it is

:27:10. > :27:15.more challenging to actually deliver health services in cities like

:27:16. > :27:20.Bristol. We're looking at ?92 million cuts that we need to find

:27:21. > :27:23.over the next five years. Could he come to Bristol to top to the mayor

:27:24. > :27:29.and to hear about the challenges we are facing? Cities do have issues

:27:30. > :27:37.with delivering social care, but so do rural areas that often have older

:27:38. > :27:43.people which can absorb a lot of costs. The truth is that the whole

:27:44. > :27:47.system is under pressure, including in Bristol and weird knowledge that

:27:48. > :27:53.and we are increasing the total spent by 5% during the course of

:27:54. > :27:58.this Parliament. We have heard from honourable friends about the

:27:59. > :28:01.failings of the preset model to address this issue, but what about

:28:02. > :28:07.councils like Cambridgeshire but chose not even to make the meagre

:28:08. > :28:12.resources available, they left the local hospital but a -year-old pupil

:28:13. > :28:18.with nowhere to go. Will the Government stand up for older people

:28:19. > :28:22.in Cambridgeshire? That was a decision made by Cambridge Council.

:28:23. > :28:29.There were other councils that made a similar choice, not to increase

:28:30. > :28:34.the precept, and not to feel as if they needed to use that money for

:28:35. > :28:40.adult social care. That is a choice that local councils have and they

:28:41. > :28:46.must take it to their voters. Sheffield is about to lose its last

:28:47. > :28:52.emergency respite care for complex dementia need patience. They cannot

:28:53. > :28:57.be cared for in the community. Sheffield has the second largest

:28:58. > :29:00.better care fund in the country. Is today not the day for the Minister

:29:01. > :29:09.to announce a row commission, when will he act? I am not aware of the

:29:10. > :29:13.specific issues she has raised in terms of the respite care in

:29:14. > :29:18.Sheffield, but I would be happy to discuss that with her. I can only

:29:19. > :29:24.repeat that today is not the day that we will announce a Royal

:29:25. > :29:28.commission into funding. Providers in my constituency tell me that they

:29:29. > :29:32.are losing staff to a star because they cannot compete with pay and

:29:33. > :29:37.conditions because the council cannot commission care at a price

:29:38. > :29:41.that enables them to do so. What will the Minister do to stem this

:29:42. > :29:47.haemorrhaging of care workers from the profession and the provision of

:29:48. > :29:50.care? There is an issue with that and that issue exists in various

:29:51. > :29:56.parts of the country and we acknowledge and need to manage it.

:29:57. > :30:00.But we also need to manage the total number of beds that are in the

:30:01. > :30:05.system and the total number of domiciliary providers in the system.

:30:06. > :30:10.The total number of beds is the same as it was six years ago. The total

:30:11. > :30:19.number of providers is about 40% higher. The Minister in the debate

:30:20. > :30:24.on the 16th of November said that he can gradually to its some councils

:30:25. > :30:26.were being two of the best performing in the country on delayed

:30:27. > :30:31.transfers incurring and increasing their budgets. But there is still a

:30:32. > :30:37.massive shortfall because the precept was nowhere near meeting the

:30:38. > :30:42.demand for services in the area. There is no coherent national

:30:43. > :30:50.strategy or funding package in place to solve the crisis we are facing.

:30:51. > :30:56.It will tip over. The Honourable Gentleman is right that I did

:30:57. > :31:02.congratulate to councils for having very low delayed transfers of care.

:31:03. > :31:04.The fact that they are doing that in spite of the budget constraints

:31:05. > :31:08.mentioned demonstrates that this is not just about money it is about

:31:09. > :31:15.quality, leadership and best practice. The chief executive of

:31:16. > :31:19.care for England and said that under the current regime around 40% of

:31:20. > :31:23.care services will no longer be viable so they will be lost. When

:31:24. > :31:32.does the Minister intend to do something about this crisis? The

:31:33. > :31:36.number of beds available in the system is around about the same as

:31:37. > :31:40.it was six years ago, but there is an issue with managing the financial

:31:41. > :31:46.performance of significant care providers and one thing that we

:31:47. > :31:50.brought in two years ago is a process where they look at the

:31:51. > :31:54.financial performance of the biggest providers to give us warning of

:31:55. > :32:03.issues that might arise. We are keen on making sure that happens. This is

:32:04. > :32:07.a national crisis that the Government has ignored for years. As

:32:08. > :32:11.the Minister said there is no issue that cannot be solved by throwing

:32:12. > :32:19.money at it. Is not about time that he put his where his mouth is? I

:32:20. > :32:23.think she is paraphrasing my opening statement in accurately. I said

:32:24. > :32:26.money would help with any system but the issues here are about quality

:32:27. > :32:31.and leadership and about best practice. All of those things are

:32:32. > :32:39.within the remit of my job and I'm pursuing them. Everything we have

:32:40. > :32:43.heard today seems to want to deny that the council tax precept is no

:32:44. > :32:49.solution to the problem and that it makes it worse. Is he aware that the

:32:50. > :32:54.Association of directors of adult social services has said that the

:32:55. > :32:58.council tax precept will raise least money in areas of greatest need

:32:59. > :33:01.which means it will widen inequality. If that is what the

:33:02. > :33:07.experts as saying why does the Minister think he knows better? I've

:33:08. > :33:15.discussed this and other issues often. It is true that the precept

:33:16. > :33:20.if it was only the precept would result in an uneven distribution of

:33:21. > :33:28.revenue, that is why the additional care funds are allocated using a

:33:29. > :33:40.formula which takes that into account. Urgent question. Will the

:33:41. > :33:46.Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport make an urgent

:33:47. > :33:50.statement on 21st-century Fox's bid to take over the remaining 61% of

:33:51. > :34:11.Sky? As the House will know this guy -- House will now Sky are trying to

:34:12. > :34:17.organise a takeover with Fox. 21st-century Fox have agreed on

:34:18. > :34:21.price but the offer is subject to further discussion and Sky has said

:34:22. > :34:27.that there is no certainty and offer will be made. The terms will need to

:34:28. > :34:34.be agreed by the shareholders of Sky and the announcement also said that

:34:35. > :34:40.21st-century Fox must set out their intentions by the 6th of January

:34:41. > :34:44.2000 and 17. The Secretary of State has the power to intervene in

:34:45. > :34:51.certain media mergers in the interests of public interest. Under

:34:52. > :34:57.that act there is an indication of how an intervention will take place

:34:58. > :35:03.in practice when considering cases. Any transaction will be looked at on

:35:04. > :35:06.a case-by-case basis. The guidance makes clear that the Secretary of

:35:07. > :35:12.State will aim to take an initial decision on whether to intervene

:35:13. > :35:16.within ten working days of formal notification of the merger to the

:35:17. > :35:21.competition authorities or offer being brought to her attention. No

:35:22. > :35:27.such formal notification has been received. The role of the Secretary

:35:28. > :35:33.of State here is that she acts independently and is not subject in

:35:34. > :35:38.proper influence. It would be improper of me to comment on this

:35:39. > :35:42.proposed bill. Given the role of the Secretary of State, the department

:35:43. > :35:46.is putting in place procedures to ensure that her decision-making

:35:47. > :35:50.process is fair and impartial, should a decision be necessary. This

:35:51. > :35:56.will include guidance for other ministers and officials and for any

:35:57. > :35:59.other interested parties. We are aware of the wider interest of the

:36:00. > :36:02.department in these matters and we will keep the House up-to-date as

:36:03. > :36:18.appropriate within the legal framework.

:36:19. > :36:27.And you bet has been revealed. In the past the House is United 's

:36:28. > :36:31.behind a motion calling on Rupert Murdoch to withdraw his bid. The

:36:32. > :36:35.concerns in 2011 were not about the serious wrongdoing that is being

:36:36. > :36:38.done in the Ford hacking scandal, but also that the concentration of

:36:39. > :36:45.media power and media ownership in fewer hands. I have we read that

:36:46. > :36:50.motion, which we all supported, and nowhere does it say that we should

:36:51. > :36:57.sit quietly for five years and come back when we had forgotten about it.

:36:58. > :37:00.We have not forgotten about it, Mr Speaker, and we have not forgotten

:37:01. > :37:08.that when the Prime Minister stood on the steps in the summer, she said

:37:09. > :37:12.that when we were taking the calls we would think not of the powerful

:37:13. > :37:19.but of the people. We need to know whose side the Government is on. Of,

:37:20. > :37:22.assessed that the deal might operate against the public interest. For the

:37:23. > :37:29.Minister commit the Government to issuing a public interest

:37:30. > :37:37.intervention notice and referring the better off,? Back in 2012, of

:37:38. > :37:42.con's assessment of James Murdoch was that he repeatedly fell short of

:37:43. > :37:48.the exercise of responsibility to be expected of him as CEO and chairman.

:37:49. > :37:52.The Prime Minister met Rupert Murdoch in September. Was the dead

:37:53. > :37:58.discussed then and did she give him any assurances about the bid or

:37:59. > :38:04.discuss his future support for her fall for her Government. I

:38:05. > :38:07.understand this is a quasi-judicial decision and the words that the

:38:08. > :38:12.Minister says today will be scrutinised by some of the highest

:38:13. > :38:17.paid lawyers on two continents. Nonetheless, kinky assurers that the

:38:18. > :38:22.Secretary of State is prepared to stand up to powerful interests and

:38:23. > :38:26.ensure that this deal is properly and independently scrutinised?

:38:27. > :38:32.I'm grateful for the acknowledgement by the frontbench opposite that due

:38:33. > :38:36.to the quasi-judicial nature of this decision procedures have to be

:38:37. > :38:41.followed properly. That's what we fully intend to do. Formal

:38:42. > :38:45.notification of this proposal has not been received, so of course, the

:38:46. > :38:49.Secretary of State can't make a decision prior to that. As I said,

:38:50. > :38:58.the rules are that she should aim to take such a decision within ten days

:38:59. > :39:03.of formal notification. Can I thank the minister for his answer. Also

:39:04. > :39:08.recognise the quasi-judicial nature of the decision the Secretary of

:39:09. > :39:18.State has to make. But let me ask two technical questions, since the

:39:19. > :39:21.bid in 2010 which was withdrawn, the newspaper operations from the

:39:22. > :39:25.broadcast and film operations. Can I ask the minister if the Secretary of

:39:26. > :39:34.State or how much weight the Secretary of State will give to that

:39:35. > :39:38.separation in determining any questions plurality in the UK media?

:39:39. > :39:42.And given the separation has happened, to some extent, how much

:39:43. > :39:47.weight the Secretary of State will place on that, when determining

:39:48. > :39:52.whether or not to issue a public interest intervention notice? The

:39:53. > :39:56.plurality rules are clearly set out, as he knows. The Secretary of State

:39:57. > :40:03.will follow them very carefully in this determination. Does my right

:40:04. > :40:08.honourable friend accept that in the event of a bid, there is a strong

:40:09. > :40:12.case for asking the regulators to provide advice about any concerns on

:40:13. > :40:18.competition on plurality grounds. Would he agrow that this essentially

:40:19. > :40:21.would be an investment decision rather than acquisition since 21st

:40:22. > :40:26.century fox have effective control of Sky? Would he also agrow since

:40:27. > :40:30.the last bid, which was approved by Ofcom, subject to certain remedies,

:40:31. > :40:35.there has been a considerable increase in competition in the paid

:40:36. > :40:41.TV market? Of course, this decision has to be take anyone the context of

:40:42. > :40:50.the world as we find it. The situation as we find it in terms of

:40:51. > :40:54.ownership is that 21st century fox owned 39% of Sky. The notification

:40:55. > :40:59.to the Stock Exchange on Friday was about the proposal to buy the other

:41:00. > :41:07.61%. Those issues will be taken into account when the decision is made.

:41:08. > :41:11.Can I say that I understand the minister's complex position on these

:41:12. > :41:15.matters, but can I ask him to take into account the fact that compared

:41:16. > :41:19.to five years ago, when the House passed the motion that it did

:41:20. > :41:23.unanimously saying the bid shouldn't go ahead, we still have issues of

:41:24. > :41:28.phone hacking unresolved in the courts, and we still have a system

:41:29. > :41:32.of self-regulation that has not satisfied the victims of phone

:41:33. > :41:36.hacking. Can I ask him to bear in mind this question: What has really

:41:37. > :41:41.changed since the House passed the motion five years ago? In my view,

:41:42. > :41:49.very little. That is why I believe this bid should be rejected. Well,

:41:50. > :41:54.it's enjoyable to be seen at the rerun of one of the right honourable

:41:55. > :41:58.gentleman's greatest hits. He says that the position, my position in

:41:59. > :42:02.this today is complex, actually, the position is very simple. We haven't

:42:03. > :42:07.yet received a formal notification. When we do, the Secretary of State

:42:08. > :42:15.will have ten days to consider under the enterprise act and other

:42:16. > :42:19.legislation whether it is necessary to take action and that process will

:42:20. > :42:28.start when a formal notification is received. At this early stage, is

:42:29. > :42:32.the department giving consideration as to whether some of the conditions

:42:33. > :42:36.attached to the deal last time, such as the guarantee of editorial

:42:37. > :42:39.independence by Sky News will be required this time round given the

:42:40. > :42:46.restructuring of the Murdoch companies? The notification was

:42:47. > :42:51.given to the stock market on Friday morning. No formal notification to

:42:52. > :42:57.competition authorities has been received. So I would say and I think

:42:58. > :43:01.it's fair to say that this is quite early on in this process, but all

:43:02. > :43:07.things that are appropriate to be considered will be considered. What

:43:08. > :43:16.differences can the minister see between this bid an the one that was

:43:17. > :43:20.referred by Vince Cable in 2010 to the competition authorities? It's

:43:21. > :43:24.quite hard until we get formal notification to see what the shape

:43:25. > :43:32.of the proposals will be, then we will have a look at them.

:43:33. > :43:37.I congratulate the Shadow minister on this urgent question. I

:43:38. > :43:39.completely understand the minister's problem and not judging an

:43:40. > :43:44.application that hasn't been notified. Would he take from this

:43:45. > :43:48.debate that there is a concern across the House about this issue

:43:49. > :43:51.and would he undertake to keep the House fully informed because I think

:43:52. > :43:57.that's the message that's coming across today? Yes, of course. I'd be

:43:58. > :44:04.delighted to keep the House as informed as appropriate under the

:44:05. > :44:08.legislation that this House has passed, but I apoll eyes to the

:44:09. > :44:12.House if -- apologise to the House if some remarks sound reticent, but

:44:13. > :44:15.the House will understand this is a quasi-judicial decision. The

:44:16. > :44:20.Secretary of State does not want her position to be prejudiced. I don't

:44:21. > :44:25.want to do that. But all of these considerations will be taken into

:44:26. > :44:29.account. From whom will the Secretary of State take advice about

:44:30. > :44:38.the competition implications of this bid? Of course, advice will be taken

:44:39. > :44:41.from officials in the department. Procedures are put in place to

:44:42. > :44:47.ensure no conflict of interest and that the decision is taken

:44:48. > :44:50.appropriately. I'd like to give the minister a second chance to answer

:44:51. > :44:53.the question my honourable friend from Cardiff west put to him. Did

:44:54. > :45:01.the Prime Minister discuss this deal with Murdoch in September in New

:45:02. > :45:06.York? Surely the only thing that really matters in this is the public

:45:07. > :45:11.interest, because when we had a period when one man had control of

:45:12. > :45:14.40% of the newspapers in this country, the largest daily

:45:15. > :45:18.newspaper, the largest Sunday newspaper and the largest

:45:19. > :45:22.broadcaster by far by value in this country, that poisoned the well of

:45:23. > :45:27.British politics. So I urge the Government ministers as they go

:45:28. > :45:30.through this process in the quasi-judicial manner that she

:45:31. > :45:36.suggests that they just keep that very close to the front of their

:45:37. > :45:42.mind. Well, I'm very grateful for the

:45:43. > :45:46.wisdom of the honourable gentleman, who I know has taken a great

:45:47. > :45:53.interest in these affairs over a very long period of time. Over 8,000

:45:54. > :45:57.people work at Sky's headquarters in my constituency. Many there will be

:45:58. > :46:02.concerned about this news, particularly those who work in

:46:03. > :46:06.journalism. Is the minister at all concerned that through this deal one

:46:07. > :46:12.man will take 100% ownership of one of the UK's biggest media outlets? I

:46:13. > :46:16.just want to be clear that the Secretary of State's decision in

:46:17. > :46:24.this area relates to media plurality. Of course, there are

:46:25. > :46:30.competition issues and labour market issues. But the enterprise act is

:46:31. > :46:33.clear about the breadth of the decision that she will take and

:46:34. > :46:43.she'll follow those procedures very carefully. I would echo what the

:46:44. > :46:50.honourable member for Ron that said about -- rounda said about the

:46:51. > :46:53.public interest and concern. Anyone who watched the American elections

:46:54. > :46:58.has real concerns about the way Fox News operates. I would urge him to

:46:59. > :47:05.bear in mind in the public's mind this man is not a fit and proper

:47:06. > :47:10.person to have control of our media. Well, what I can assure her is that

:47:11. > :47:17.the Secretary of State is a fit and proper person to take this decision.

:47:18. > :47:22.Members across the House have made their views clear and we will

:47:23. > :47:25.operate carefully with appropriate guidance in place, both to ministers

:47:26. > :47:29.and officials, to make sure that this decision is taken in the proper

:47:30. > :47:35.way. THE SPEAKER: Order. Urgent question

:47:36. > :47:39.Mr Keith Vaz. Will the minister provide an answer

:47:40. > :47:48.to the urgent question of which I have given him notice. Thank you

:47:49. > :47:53.very much Mr Speaker. As the Foreign Secretary has made clear during his

:47:54. > :47:57.trip to the region this weekend, Britain supports the Saudi-led

:47:58. > :48:01.campaign to restore the reiate mat government in Yemen. Ultimately a

:48:02. > :48:06.political solution is the best way to bring long-term stability to

:48:07. > :48:10.Yemen and end the conflict. We continue to have deep concerns for

:48:11. > :48:16.the suffering of the people of Yemen, which is why making progress

:48:17. > :48:20.on Peace Talks is the top priority. As with all negotiations of this

:48:21. > :48:25.kind, they will not be quick or indeed easy and a lot of tough

:48:26. > :48:30.discussions will need to be had. The United Nationses has -- the United

:48:31. > :48:34.Nations has drawn up a road map to end the conflict with the steps the

:48:35. > :48:39.parties must take. The UK is playing a central role in this process. The

:48:40. > :48:44.Foreign Secretary hosted the last meeting of the quad, comprising of

:48:45. > :48:50.Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the United States and the

:48:51. > :48:55.United Kingdom, which the UN Special Envoy attended on October 16. In

:48:56. > :48:59.addition, Mr Speaker, I travelled to Riyadh on 20th November to discuss

:49:00. > :49:03.the road map with the president there and seek ways to find a

:49:04. > :49:06.political solution to the conflict. Most recently, the Prime Minister

:49:07. > :49:13.and the Foreign Secretary raised Yemen during their visit to the

:49:14. > :49:18.region and I met with the vice-president, this Saturday. As

:49:19. > :49:24.the House will be aware, Yemen is one of the most serious humanitarian

:49:25. > :49:27.crises in the world. So in addition to our considerable diplomatic

:49:28. > :49:32.efforts to try and bring an end to the conflict, the United Kingdom is

:49:33. > :49:40.the fourth largest donor to Yemen, committed ?100 million to Yemen for

:49:41. > :49:46.2016 and 2017. UK aid is making a difference in Yemen. Last year we

:49:47. > :49:49.helped more tan 1. 3 million Yemenis with food, medical supplies, water

:49:50. > :49:54.and emergency shelter. The situation in Yemen is indeed grave. It is why

:49:55. > :49:58.we are debating this matter today. There are now plans for the quad to

:49:59. > :50:00.meet in the very near future, for us to move this important process

:50:01. > :50:10.forward. THE SPEAKER: I appreciate the

:50:11. > :50:14.pithiness from the member, but in the name of transparency for those

:50:15. > :50:18.attending to our proceedings from outside the neighbour, I should have

:50:19. > :50:22.that the question is to ask the Secretary of State if he'll make a

:50:23. > :50:28.statement to clarify the United Kingdom's policy on the conflict in

:50:29. > :50:32.Yemen. Mr Keith Vaz. I'm grateful to you for granting this urgents

:50:33. > :50:38.question and to the minister for his answer. Until now, our foreign

:50:39. > :50:43.policy objectives in Yemen have been crystal clear, pursuing a secession

:50:44. > :50:48.of hostilities and backing a UN-mandated intervention. Last week,

:50:49. > :50:55.the Foreign Secretary was absolutely right to speak of his profound

:50:56. > :50:59.concern for the Yemeni people and correct to say This Is What You Came

:51:00. > :51:04.For conflict could not -- to say that this conflict could not be

:51:05. > :51:08.solved by force alone. His words revealed an inconsistency in our

:51:09. > :51:11.foreign policy, which if not addressed immediately, threatens to

:51:12. > :51:18.wreck everything that we are trying to accomplish. Please confirm that

:51:19. > :51:25.we would never be involved in any puppeteering or proxy wars anywhere

:51:26. > :51:28.in the world, including in Yemen. Our influence and credibility as an

:51:29. > :51:34.honest broker is now being seriously questioned. When we criticise

:51:35. > :51:38.Russian's bombing of ahopee, the Russians -- Aleppo, the Russians are

:51:39. > :51:43.accusing us of supporting the same it thing in Yemen. Can the minister

:51:44. > :51:47.clarify that our objective is an immediate ceasefire and can he lay

:51:48. > :51:52.out the detail on how we will get to that position? As the Foreign

:51:53. > :51:56.Secretary has said, we hold the pens on Yemen at the United Nations.

:51:57. > :52:01.There is already a draft Security Council resolution calling for an

:52:02. > :52:06.immediate ceasefire, resumption of Peace Talks and humanitarian access.

:52:07. > :52:11.Where is this resolution now? Will it be tabled before the Security

:52:12. > :52:17.Council before the end of the year? We must not fiddle as Yemen burns.

:52:18. > :52:23.On Saturday Islamic State bombed a military camp, killing 35 soldiers.

:52:24. > :52:28.The UN humanitarian coordinator Stephen O'Brien calls Yemen a

:52:29. > :52:31.man-made, brutal, humanitarian disaster, with four fifths of the

:52:32. > :52:36.population in desperate need of emergency aid. On Wednesday, the

:52:37. > :52:41.House, including the minister, will show their support for the

:52:42. > :52:45.incredible work of a humanitarian agency's Yemen day. Today the

:52:46. > :52:49.Disasters Emergency Committee announced a long overdue emergency

:52:50. > :52:55.appeal, but if the fighting doesn't stop, this will not be enough. The

:52:56. > :52:59.Government must speak with one voice and with one aim for Yemen, that

:53:00. > :53:05.should be an immediate ceasefire. Anything else, Mr Speaker, only

:53:06. > :53:07.plays into the hands of terrorist organisations in, damaging our

:53:08. > :53:17.diplomacy and increases the suffering of the Yemeni people.

:53:18. > :53:23.Can I pay tribute to the continued work and interests that he has in

:53:24. > :53:29.this matter and bringing this matter to the House. I can confirm that we

:53:30. > :53:34.remain resolute in working towards ACC ocean of hostilities and working

:53:35. > :53:40.with the United Nations supporting the UN envoy. I agree with him that

:53:41. > :53:46.we will not win this by military means alone. We need a long-term

:53:47. > :53:54.political solution to a country that has been fragmented, as he knows,

:53:55. > :53:58.even going back to its start. We should take a lead on this matter as

:53:59. > :54:04.well as being a permanent member of the United Nations as well.

:54:05. > :54:08.Humanitarian access is vital. I made it very clear that we are investing

:54:09. > :54:14.more funds to make sure we can support the UN agencies and others.

:54:15. > :54:18.A resolution that he touches on a still being discussed in New York as

:54:19. > :54:25.we speak and the meeting that will take these matters further is coming

:54:26. > :54:33.up very soon. He compares Yemen and the conflict in Syria. I make it

:54:34. > :54:37.clear that support for the president has the backing of the United

:54:38. > :54:42.Nations to the resolution. There is a legitimate call for supporting the

:54:43. > :54:48.president and the work he has done. Had that not come for, they would

:54:49. > :54:57.have pushed much further down through the capital, and the braids

:54:58. > :55:00.have had a full-scale civil war. In contrast to rush out there is no UN

:55:01. > :55:04.resolution to support their involvement and they are supporting

:55:05. > :55:09.a brutal regime that has used chemical weapons on its own people

:55:10. > :55:17.and has compounded the situation. The two cannot be compared. Britain

:55:18. > :55:21.remains resolute to support the president and the United Nations and

:55:22. > :55:25.the envoy in bringing the necessary stakeholders back to the table and I

:55:26. > :55:35.hope we will be seeing some development in the near future. I

:55:36. > :55:40.have just come down from the joint Committee on the national security

:55:41. > :55:45.strategy. Can I ask my honourable friend not only to work to get a

:55:46. > :55:51.ceasefire between the competing parties at the top level but also to

:55:52. > :55:56.make sure that the work of the International agencies is engaged

:55:57. > :56:03.with the subsidiary interests in Yemen, and nation of enormous

:56:04. > :56:06.complexity. Where we don't just solve the political issues at the

:56:07. > :56:13.top level and ignore the consequences that may flow at a

:56:14. > :56:16.regional or local level. My honourable friend is right to point

:56:17. > :56:22.out the complexities of Yemen and what is going on there. On the face

:56:23. > :56:27.of it there are diffuse these against President Hardy. But those

:56:28. > :56:33.who know the country understand it is a complex country with tribal

:56:34. > :56:38.people who are not supportive of any side and loyalties moved depending

:56:39. > :56:44.on funds, weapons and interest. It is complicated. The Right Honourable

:56:45. > :56:47.Gentleman who raises this question spoke of an attack that took place

:56:48. > :56:59.at the weekend. Reports are suggesting it was Daesh who are

:57:00. > :57:03.responsible for this. Daesh are taking advantage of the vacuum of

:57:04. > :57:09.governments and that is all the more reason why we are encouraging the

:57:10. > :57:12.organisations to come to the table. My friend is right to say that

:57:13. > :57:20.coordination of humanitarian aid is needed. The port is currently under

:57:21. > :57:25.his take control. There are ships queuing up with humanitarian aids

:57:26. > :57:35.that cannot get in to provide that the rest of the country. Let me

:57:36. > :57:39.start by thanking my right honourable friend for securing this

:57:40. > :57:43.urgent question. The authority and passion that he brings to the issue

:57:44. > :57:48.of Yemen is without equal in this House and for the last half year he

:57:49. > :57:52.has been consistent with his advice. We should also be clear that the

:57:53. > :57:57.difference that we have heard this week from the Government could not

:57:58. > :58:02.be more stark. In Yemen there is no consistency or principle. Last

:58:03. > :58:05.Thursday we heard the Foreign Secretary said that Saudi Arabia was

:58:06. > :58:13.fighting proxy wars in countries like Yemen. Thousands of civilians

:58:14. > :58:15.have been killed, the country's agriculture and infrastructure has

:58:16. > :58:22.been destroyed and millions are facing starvation. The Foreign

:58:23. > :58:27.Secretary was right. We say, good for you, Boris. But he has still

:58:28. > :58:33.been slapped down by Downing Street and forced to go to Riyadh to

:58:34. > :58:37.clarify his remarks and his junior ministers here today to support

:58:38. > :58:42.Saudi Arabia. He will not support our calls for an independent UN

:58:43. > :58:48.investigation into Saudi Arabia and he will continue selling them arms

:58:49. > :58:54.to prosecute its proxy wars. There is no consistency or principle, that

:58:55. > :58:58.is just more hypocrisy. There are many questions I would like to ask

:58:59. > :59:02.today but let me just ask one and it is the same that has been acid of

:59:03. > :59:07.him by the member of Leicester East to did not get an answer. For two

:59:08. > :59:14.months the UN Security Council has been waiting for the United Kingdom

:59:15. > :59:19.to present its resolution to enact a ceasefire in Yemen, to allow

:59:20. > :59:24.humanitarian access. For two months a draft resolution has been in

:59:25. > :59:27.circulation, so let me have came again, why has the resolution not

:59:28. > :59:35.been presented and who is moving it up, because the people of Yemen

:59:36. > :59:42.cannot afford any more delay. I am not sure where to start with that. I

:59:43. > :59:47.will focus on the questions that she poses rather than the political

:59:48. > :59:53.point scoring that she tries to get involved in these things. I take

:59:54. > :59:59.less and less from the point is that she makes. She is regurgitating

:00:00. > :00:04.because she has ran out of questions so she's bringing up questions from

:00:05. > :00:14.last week rather than focusing on what is needed today. I will answer

:00:15. > :00:18.all her questions. The Foreign Secretary made it clear, if she read

:00:19. > :00:23.the full passage of what he said, there are concerns about the

:00:24. > :00:28.leadership that is needed in places like Syria and Yemen that needs to

:00:29. > :00:35.be pushed forward. They need strong leadership in those places. As I

:00:36. > :00:39.said to the Right Honourable Gentleman, a resolution is being

:00:40. > :00:43.discussed, but if she is aware of the details of how these are put

:00:44. > :00:47.together, we do not do them as a paper exercise but because the work

:00:48. > :00:50.has been done to make sure it can stand. If the home-workers are done

:00:51. > :00:54.to make sure that the stakeholders are supportive of the resolution,

:00:55. > :00:58.what is the point of having the resolution other than to pat

:00:59. > :01:04.ourselves on the back and make herself look good. That is not good

:01:05. > :01:11.enough for this Government but it is not good enough. She also has not

:01:12. > :01:15.mentioned the challenges that we face with the people there

:01:16. > :01:18.themselves. It has been a difficult campaign for the coalition and they

:01:19. > :01:24.have been new in conducting sustained warfare. They have had to

:01:25. > :01:30.learn some difficult lessons. But I make it clear that they are causing

:01:31. > :01:36.problems in this country and that needs to be knowledge by this House.

:01:37. > :01:44.They have committed killings, unlawful arrests, inductions, and

:01:45. > :01:49.they have been shelling civilians they have also use landmines. This

:01:50. > :01:54.has prolonged the conflict and has brought to the table. All sides need

:01:55. > :01:58.to work with the United Nations to make sure that we can get the

:01:59. > :02:09.necessary ceasefire in place that will lead us to a UN resolution. To

:02:10. > :02:17.what extent is intransigence on the behalf of the president block to the

:02:18. > :02:20.ceasefire? The Speaker is the legitimate leader of the country at

:02:21. > :02:25.the moment and we have to work with the stakeholder he is representing

:02:26. > :02:29.to make sure that the road map is compatible with the needs and

:02:30. > :02:32.support of the people he represents. This is why be of had long

:02:33. > :02:36.discussions with him and the vice president to make sure we can bring

:02:37. > :02:42.them to the table. If I could take this as an opportunity to say thank

:02:43. > :02:45.you to the people of the man who had brought the local people/ can accept

:02:46. > :02:56.a long-term deal to take us away from military action towards

:02:57. > :02:58.political dialogue. It is regrettable that the humanitarian

:02:59. > :03:03.situation has got so bad there is had to be in an appeal, but we hope

:03:04. > :03:07.that it will be supported to the people of Yemen than one out of food

:03:08. > :03:12.in the coming months. What will the Government be doing to coordinate

:03:13. > :03:15.with responders on the ground for humanitarian response and what steps

:03:16. > :03:18.is taking to make sure that the humanitarian response is not

:03:19. > :03:26.undermined by its continued latter fear attitude to the behaviour of

:03:27. > :03:30.Saudi Arabia. While we keep hearing that UK officials are not directing

:03:31. > :03:35.operations, it makes us wonder what they are doing on the ground to make

:03:36. > :03:41.sure that humanitarian laws respected. We hear a lot about the

:03:42. > :03:44.positive relationship with Saudi Arabia, but what good is that

:03:45. > :03:47.relationship if the Government will not use its influence to prevent the

:03:48. > :03:55.killing and starvation of innocent civilians. I will start with the

:03:56. > :04:01.last point he made. I will be happy to present him with speeches that

:04:02. > :04:06.confirm not only our relationship with a close a Saudi Arabia, but

:04:07. > :04:11.frank conversations we have of them and the work we do in stopping

:04:12. > :04:14.terrorist attacks that take place, so he becomes familiar as to why

:04:15. > :04:23.this relationship is important. If we broke that relationship then the

:04:24. > :04:26.Gulf, the region and the UK could become more dangerous and I do not

:04:27. > :04:32.think that is something he would advocate. He speaks about the war

:04:33. > :04:39.itself and he been consistent on this point in the Chamber. He has

:04:40. > :04:45.concerns and I share them. I should have responded on the call for an

:04:46. > :04:49.independent investigation into the incidents that have taken place but

:04:50. > :04:53.I have made it very clear that I support this call for a UN

:04:54. > :05:01.investigation if it is deemed that the reports... If you can let me

:05:02. > :05:06.finish the point... The reports that are coming forward, which is how any

:05:07. > :05:12.country operates, those reports are not worthy then we will call for

:05:13. > :05:18.independent inquiry. The process we follow and the United States follows

:05:19. > :05:23.is that the conduct their investigations. If the

:05:24. > :05:33.investigations are found wanting and I will support the United Nations in

:05:34. > :05:40.more investigations. Could I my honourable friend what chance he

:05:41. > :05:45.would give the president is Saudi Arabia was to withdraw from its

:05:46. > :05:55.engagement, proper engagement under UN resolutions, and Yemen? My

:05:56. > :06:02.honourable friend is right in replying that was the president not

:06:03. > :06:06.to receive the support they UN Security Council that the country

:06:07. > :06:15.would be in Civil War, a breakdown in governance would incubate

:06:16. > :06:19.organisations like Daesh and Al-Qaeda and that would spell out

:06:20. > :06:24.the on the peninsula into the region. That is not something we

:06:25. > :06:28.would want to contest and it is right that the coalition was formed

:06:29. > :06:33.and that is why we support it. However we share the concerns raised

:06:34. > :06:43.in this House that the conduct of the ward is to be carefully

:06:44. > :06:48.scrutinised. On Saturday Liverpool friends of Yemen held a meeting in

:06:49. > :06:51.solidarity with the people of Yemen. We were speaking to people from

:06:52. > :06:55.Yemen and Liverpool and they fear for the likes of the people back

:06:56. > :07:02.home. This is a country on the edge of famine. I urge the Government to

:07:03. > :07:07.do everything that we can as a country to relieve the humanitarian

:07:08. > :07:13.crisis in Yemen. I said to the Minister on the independent inquiry,

:07:14. > :07:14.when will we support an independent UN inquiry into alleged violations

:07:15. > :07:23.on both sides of this conflict? We will not support an independent

:07:24. > :07:30.report until we allow the sowedians to do their reports. That's the

:07:31. > :07:35.process we face -- Saudi Arabians. They are having to learn themselves.

:07:36. > :07:41.As we know, this is a conservative country, unused to the limelight

:07:42. > :07:44.that they are thrown into. They must act responsibly and respectfully and

:07:45. > :07:47.transparently as we would in the same situation W regard to the

:07:48. > :07:50.humanitarian aid. He is absolutely right. This country and House can be

:07:51. > :07:55.proud of the work that we're doing, not just here but right across the

:07:56. > :08:03.piece. He's right to say our minister and the Secretary of State

:08:04. > :08:08.for Dyfid is engaged with this. At the UN general Assembly in September

:08:09. > :08:11.it is us who held a donor's conference to encourage other

:08:12. > :08:15.countries to match our funding to provide the support to the people of

:08:16. > :08:21.Yemen. It isn't a lack of funds that is the problem here. It's not a lack

:08:22. > :08:25.of the equipment, as a lack of peace. It's a lack of access

:08:26. > :08:32.particularly through the central port in the Red Sea. Charity

:08:33. > :08:38.agencies report that it's difficult to get into Yemen. Once in Yemen,

:08:39. > :08:41.getting aid out, because of the bureaucratic challenges, arrests of

:08:42. > :08:44.charity workers, suspension prove Graemes and difficulties in

:08:45. > :08:47.obtaining new programmes. Will my honourable friend bring this up

:08:48. > :08:50.directly with all parties in the conflict as it's the charity sector

:08:51. > :08:54.doing much of the delivery and they should be allowed to have rapid and

:08:55. > :09:00.unimpeded humanitarian access throughout the country.

:09:01. > :09:04.I think this is the point that everybody's more concerned about

:09:05. > :09:07.than most. Whilst it can take time for the both parties to come to the

:09:08. > :09:11.table and work out the details, there is a sense of urgency to make

:09:12. > :09:15.sure that the aid can get in as early as possible. That will be the

:09:16. > :09:19.focus of the next quad meeting. So, yes, we want parties to come

:09:20. > :09:23.together. But we immediately need access routes, we need the ports to

:09:24. > :09:27.be opened fully so that container ships can come in and the equipment

:09:28. > :09:31.can be distributed across the country and not through the port of

:09:32. > :09:40.Aidan, the current direction through which this material comes in. The

:09:41. > :09:42.Foreign Secretary is encurbinging transparency and honesty in foreign

:09:43. > :09:45.affairs policy, does the minister accept that signing up to the

:09:46. > :09:55.convention on cluster munitions the UK is taking a stance that cluster

:09:56. > :10:00.mew niegss is always in - therefore the use of them is legitimate as the

:10:01. > :10:05.minister does is completely contradictory and in violation of

:10:06. > :10:08.the convention that the UK always encourages Saudi Arabia not to use

:10:09. > :10:12.them. Why are the UK Government adopting this position? To make it

:10:13. > :10:15.clear, that it's only against international law if you've signed

:10:16. > :10:18.the convention. There are countries across the world that have yet to

:10:19. > :10:22.sign the convention. We have signed the convention. It's our policy to

:10:23. > :10:27.encourage others to sign the convention. I have a meeting last

:10:28. > :10:32.Sunday with all the foreign ministers of the GCC nations. I

:10:33. > :10:38.invited every single one of the GCC nations, all the Gulf countries to

:10:39. > :10:43.say please consider signing this convention. I hope we'll be able to

:10:44. > :10:49.move forward on this. I welcome the fact that the UK's

:10:50. > :10:54.humanitarian commitment to Yemen to 85 million. Will my right honourable

:10:55. > :10:58.friend confirm whether he believes that the UN general Assembly can be

:10:59. > :11:08.of more help in actively resolving this situation? I think if I

:11:09. > :11:11.understand her question correctly, whether the General Assembly is the

:11:12. > :11:16.UN Security Council, in which case where there isn't a veto. In this

:11:17. > :11:19.arena there isn't so much the challenge we face from permanent

:11:20. > :11:23.members in order to get a UN Resolution through. The important

:11:24. > :11:28.thing is if we draft a UN Resolution, it needs to work,

:11:29. > :11:31.otherwise a paper exercise. That's is the home work that our head of

:11:32. > :11:37.mission is currently doing with other nations to make sure what we

:11:38. > :11:41.write on paper will lead to the cessation of hostilities, it will

:11:42. > :11:45.lead to access to humanitarian aid. These are important otherwise the UN

:11:46. > :11:51.Security Council resolution is not worth writing. What representations

:11:52. > :11:58.has Her Majesty's Government made to the Iranian government to stop the

:11:59. > :12:02.flow of arms to the Houthis? And what representations have been made

:12:03. > :12:07.to facilitate with the Iranians the opening of the port is desperate aid

:12:08. > :12:14.can get through to the Yemenis that are suffering in this Civil War? Mr

:12:15. > :12:18.Speaker, the honourable gentleman raises a very important point - what

:12:19. > :12:22.is Iran's involvement in Yemen? Is it helpful or hindering events? The

:12:23. > :12:26.Prime Minister made this very clear, that Iran can play a constructive

:12:27. > :12:31.role in making sure weapons systems are not entering the country itself

:12:32. > :12:36.and making sure that the Houthis are encouraged to come to the table and

:12:37. > :12:40.making sure that the Red Sea has an absence of ships for those who want

:12:41. > :12:49.to arm the Houthis. We are asking Iran to recognise this.

:12:50. > :12:53.There is no doubt that this is a war of prommies in Yemen. The Foreign

:12:54. > :13:02.Secretary is absolutely right to make the crate Essex of Saudi Arabia

:13:03. > :13:06.that he D until the last question I've just ---er make the criticism

:13:07. > :13:11.of Saudi Arabia that he did. If we have not agreed to the nuclear deal,

:13:12. > :13:15.the billions of pounds of resources would not be able to go into this

:13:16. > :13:22.conflict and indeed in conflicts in Syria and in Lebanon and other parts

:13:23. > :13:26.of the Middle East. Mr Speaker, the signing of the joint comprehensive

:13:27. > :13:30.action plan is an opportunity for Iran to take a more responsible role

:13:31. > :13:35.on the international stage. We know that it has an influence in places

:13:36. > :13:39.from Baghdad to da mass cut, to Beirut and to Senna as well. We want

:13:40. > :13:45.it to step forward and recognise that it is in the region's interest

:13:46. > :13:49.to be more secure and more prosperous. To rejoin the

:13:50. > :13:53.international community and not continue in its negative way to

:13:54. > :13:58.hinder the process of peace right across the region. What is

:13:59. > :14:02.particularly pernicious about the use of cluster munitions is that

:14:03. > :14:07.many of the bomblets lie around for a long time and effectively create a

:14:08. > :14:12.minefield, where many thousands of innocent civilians and children get

:14:13. > :14:15.killed. That's why I'm slightly confused by the Government's

:14:16. > :14:18.position. The minister is still sitting here, but in defence

:14:19. > :14:22.questions said earlier this matter has been raised with the Saudis. But

:14:23. > :14:27.there is the implication now that the Government doesn't oppose the

:14:28. > :14:33.Saudis' use of cluster munitions. Surely we are opposed and he's happy

:14:34. > :14:37.to condemn it from the dispatch box? I think he's trying to put words in

:14:38. > :14:42.my mouth. I made it very clear that it is our policy, wherever cluster

:14:43. > :14:45.munitions are used across the world that we'd discourage anybody from

:14:46. > :14:48.using them, to sign up to the convention. I think I said in my

:14:49. > :14:53.answer that I condemn the use of cluster munitions. As he says, they

:14:54. > :14:56.are legacy that lay around on the battlefield long beyond when the

:14:57. > :15:00.battlefield turns into a civilian arena. That's why they cause damage.

:15:01. > :15:06.That's why we've signed it. That's why I invited all the GCC nations to

:15:07. > :15:10.support signing this important convention that we've signed

:15:11. > :15:14.ourselves. I know my right honourable friend

:15:15. > :15:18.has already said we've got issues with tribal agreement. But what

:15:19. > :15:21.measures has my right honourable friend taken to engage with all

:15:22. > :15:27.relevant parties in the region to test the robustness of that very

:15:28. > :15:31.framework? It isn't just Yemen that we need to have a more collective

:15:32. > :15:35.approach to make sure that there is the support to support the stake

:15:36. > :15:38.holders coming to the stable and in the stabilisation as well. That

:15:39. > :15:45.applies to Iraq, Yemen, Syria as well. That's where the Gulf nations

:15:46. > :15:52.have a responsible not just to support legitimate governments but

:15:53. > :15:56.to take an interest, a commitment to the disablisation and post conflict

:15:57. > :16:03.planning in the aftermath of when the guns fall silent. The first

:16:04. > :16:06.thousand days a child's life is vital for their lifelong

:16:07. > :16:11.development. This awful conflict ensures that not only are they not

:16:12. > :16:13.having their basic human rights met now, but Yemeni children don't have

:16:14. > :16:19.a chance even when the conflict ends. What is the Government doing

:16:20. > :16:24.to ensure Yemeni children have access to varietial nutritious food

:16:25. > :16:30.for the duration of this conflict? ? Mr Speaker, she's absolutely right.

:16:31. > :16:36.This is the travesty of the length of this conflict is denying a

:16:37. > :16:42.generation not just in health but also in education as well. They need

:16:43. > :16:46.to rebuild the country in the longer term. That's why my honourable

:16:47. > :16:50.friend has confirmed we are working with UNICEF to make sure that we can

:16:51. > :16:55.provide the necessary nutritional meals to support those infants in

:16:56. > :17:01.those important years, in the first thousand days of their lives.

:17:02. > :17:05.May I congratulate the right honourable member who asked the

:17:06. > :17:08.urgent question. I would think, Sir, that the whole House would recognise

:17:09. > :17:14.that almost single handedly he's kept the issue of Yemen before this

:17:15. > :17:18.House. May I say to the Shadow minister, it wasn't the right to

:17:19. > :17:22.make party political points on Yemen. Can I ask the excellent

:17:23. > :17:26.minister who has a lot of knowledge on this issue, am I right in

:17:27. > :17:30.thinking the problem with humanitarian aid is not the amount,

:17:31. > :17:36.the money for it, it's the fact that we can't get it through? And if that

:17:37. > :17:42.is the case, how can we try and open that plockage? I'm grateful for my

:17:43. > :17:45.honourable friend's comments. He is right to point to the difficulties

:17:46. > :17:49.in getting access to the areas. There are a series of check points

:17:50. > :17:53.on roads, which means that humanitarian aid is denied. There

:17:54. > :17:56.are NGOs and commercial organisations as well, not

:17:57. > :18:00.forgetting those who have in some cases access. Some of the aid is

:18:01. > :18:04.taken away. Some of the aid is removed as a pun eshment or penalty

:18:05. > :18:07.or as a -- punishment or penalty or as a cost of the getting into the

:18:08. > :18:10.country itself. The absence of the port running properly, the cranes

:18:11. > :18:14.themselves are not working. There's not a single crane of the old cranes

:18:15. > :18:18.that are working there, get these working and we are able to suddenly

:18:19. > :18:26.tenfold increase the aid that can get into the country.

:18:27. > :18:32.THE SPEAKER: Point of order on cluster munitions. Yes, I'll take it

:18:33. > :18:39.now. Not on musicians, no. Sorry if I misspoke, on cluster munitions,

:18:40. > :18:42.that's what Sir Jack Straw would have called the gravamen of his

:18:43. > :18:46.concern. Let's hear it. Mr Speaker, you will have heard just a couple of

:18:47. > :18:49.minutes ago the minister saying that the Government are against cluster

:18:50. > :18:54.munitions. I have in front of me a letter from the minister dated

:18:55. > :19:01.November 3, 2016, in which he states on the subject, you UK maintains the

:19:02. > :19:05.view that cluster mew snigss are not prima-facie illegal and can be used

:19:06. > :19:10.in compliance with international law by states not party to the

:19:11. > :19:15.convention, if they are used with the manner compliant with IHL and

:19:16. > :19:22.the obligation to take all feasible precautions. I'm confused. The

:19:23. > :19:26.minister says the Government are completely oppose and here the

:19:27. > :19:29.minister sets out a view that in some circumstances they are

:19:30. > :19:33.legitimate and acceptable to use. THE SPEAKER: If what he wants is

:19:34. > :19:37.personal reassurance I suggest that his appropriate recourse is to sidle

:19:38. > :19:40.up to the junior minister and ask to have a cup of tea with him. If he's

:19:41. > :19:44.concerned for the benefit of the House as a whole, if he wants

:19:45. > :19:49.something formally on the record, I don't think the honourable gentleman

:19:50. > :19:53.particularly needs my advice, but I proffer it any way. He should table

:19:54. > :19:57.a written question on this sub-Stan Tiff point upon which he requires

:19:58. > :20:05.clarification, and I think he will probably find his salvation coming

:20:06. > :20:09.pretty soon. Helpful nod from a sedentary position from the minister

:20:10. > :20:14.confirms that my expectation is correct. If there are no further

:20:15. > :20:19.points of order, I shall call the - oh, I do beg the honourable lady's

:20:20. > :20:25.pardon. Patience is a virtue. I thank her for waiting. Point of

:20:26. > :20:30.order. Yesterday afternoon in my constituency I attended a Christmas

:20:31. > :20:33.fair where a 76-year-old man with diabetes fell and broke his

:20:34. > :20:37.shoulder. He had to wait almost two hours for an ambulance. When I spoke

:20:38. > :20:42.to the emergency services, they said they were re-triaging as they were

:20:43. > :20:45.currently experiencing high delays with 162 calls across London,

:20:46. > :20:50.currently unattended awaiting ambulances and Mr Speaker, that it

:20:51. > :20:53.had been worse. Latest figures seem to show that not one ambulance trust

:20:54. > :20:58.in the country met targets in October. Perhaps Mr Speaker, you

:20:59. > :21:02.could tell me whether you've received any advance notice or

:21:03. > :21:06.indication of the intention of the minister to make a statement to this

:21:07. > :21:10.House on ambulance delays on and on the Government's plans to address

:21:11. > :21:15.NHS capacity issues as we near the Christmas period?

:21:16. > :21:19.THE SPEAKER: From memory, and I apologise if I'm incorrect, but I

:21:20. > :21:25.don't think I am, there are questions to the Secretary of State

:21:26. > :21:31.for Health before we rise for the Christmas recess. That is extremely

:21:32. > :21:34.fortuitous as far as the honourable lady is concerned. I predict with

:21:35. > :21:40.complete confidence that the honourable lady will be in her place

:21:41. > :21:43.on that occasion, bobbing with the required intensity to be called to

:21:44. > :21:48.put this matter to a relevant minister. If she does, so I don't

:21:49. > :21:53.think it's the revelation of a state secret to say that she's likely to

:21:54. > :21:59.be successful. I hope that's helpful in relation to

:22:00. > :22:03.what is an extremely serious matter. Order. In a moment I shall call the

:22:04. > :22:06.right honourable gentleman the member for Sutton Coldfield to make

:22:07. > :22:11.an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important

:22:12. > :22:16.matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of

:22:17. > :22:19.standing order number 24, the right honourable gentleman who has some

:22:20. > :22:24.experience in these matters will know that he has up to three minutes

:22:25. > :22:27.in which to make such an application. I call Mr Andrew

:22:28. > :22:54.Mitchell I was proposed a motion to evacuate

:22:55. > :22:57.nursing staff from Aleppo. At least 100 children as well who have been

:22:58. > :23:05.winded and are receiving rudimentary care. Also thousands of civilians to

:23:06. > :23:10.a cop between the different fighting groups in a 10-10 enclave where most

:23:11. > :23:15.of the traps are. I make no apology to the House for raising this vital

:23:16. > :23:18.issue again. He granted a debate on these matters two months ago and on

:23:19. > :23:24.that occasion the Foreign Secretary made his first major speech and

:23:25. > :23:30.explained the horror so many feel about what is happening in Syria and

:23:31. > :23:32.Aleppo. I am sure if you grant this emergency debate the whole House

:23:33. > :23:37.will like to hear an update from the Foreign Secretary who has already

:23:38. > :23:43.shown his deep and principal concern about what is taking place. The

:23:44. > :23:48.debate will enable us to explore with the Government how Britain's

:23:49. > :23:51.amends diplomatic muscle, the finest foreign service in the world, can do

:23:52. > :23:57.more to secure a deal that will ensure the ceasefire for 24 hours to

:23:58. > :23:59.enable innocent civilians to be rescued from the hideous

:24:00. > :24:07.circumstances which now prevail in East Aleppo. Britain to kill it some

:24:08. > :24:09.years ago at the United Nations and developing the international

:24:10. > :24:17.community 's responsibility to protect. We said after Wanda that

:24:18. > :24:23.never again it would happen, but it is happening as they meet today.

:24:24. > :24:29.There are forces accompanied by photographs with the use of sarin by

:24:30. > :24:32.the regime, and nerve gas, and a chlorine bomb, the second

:24:33. > :24:40.intermediaries, that hit a medical point. There is no mistake from

:24:41. > :24:49.civilian bonds as the civilians have to come out. The use of chlorine

:24:50. > :24:54.emissions is a war crime. Many civilians trapped in this hellhole

:24:55. > :25:03.which looks like Stalingrad are children. They have few places to

:25:04. > :25:08.hide. Tomorrow night it will be -4 degrees and Aleppo. As we secure a

:25:09. > :25:18.warm and secure Christmas in Britain, I hope that you agree that

:25:19. > :25:27.something must be done. And what we will do to save those who are in

:25:28. > :25:35.such dreadful jeopardy. The Right Honourable Gentleman asks leaves

:25:36. > :25:42.schoolbag leave for a debate about international action to prevent

:25:43. > :25:45.civilians Aleppo and across Syria. Listen carefully to the application

:25:46. > :25:56.and I am satisfied that the matter raised by him is proper to be

:25:57. > :26:09.discussed understanding order 24. Does he have believe the House? Aye.

:26:10. > :26:13.He has obtained the leave of the House and a debate will be held

:26:14. > :26:25.tomorrow on Tuesday the 13th of December as the first item of

:26:26. > :26:28.business. Can I remind the House that there is other important

:26:29. > :26:34.scheduled business to follow. There is flexibility and discretion with

:26:35. > :26:39.the chair in terms of the timing of such debates. I have decided that

:26:40. > :26:43.the debate will last for two hours and will arise on a motion that the

:26:44. > :26:51.House has considered the specified matter set out in the gentleman's

:26:52. > :27:02.application. I hope that is helpful to the House. Thank you.

:27:03. > :27:09.I am hinting to the House that if lots of members showing up to date

:27:10. > :27:14.there is no reason they should not be called up to speak, but the

:27:15. > :27:29.emphasis will be on hearing from several people, pithy speeches.

:27:30. > :27:34.Point of order. On a different matter, today marks precisely 150

:27:35. > :27:43.years since an explosion at the colliery killed 383 miners. Some of

:27:44. > :27:49.the victims were under 14 and the youngest were only ten years old.

:27:50. > :27:51.Could ICQ guidance on how best to ensure that this House commemorates

:27:52. > :27:56.the service and sacrifice of those who lost their lives in the colliery

:27:57. > :28:09.disaster hundred and 50 years ago today. Cancer is as follows. I think

:28:10. > :28:12.he has gone some distance towards achieving that recognition and

:28:13. > :28:25.commemoration by virtue of his ingenious use of the device of the

:28:26. > :28:28.point of order. He made table an early day motion and I do not think

:28:29. > :28:36.you will find it difficult to find colleagues who are willing to take

:28:37. > :28:41.part. If he is still not satisfied it is always open to him to seek an

:28:42. > :28:46.adjournment for a debate with the matter can be more fully marked. I

:28:47. > :28:52.think that is also helpful to the Honourable Gentleman. Perhaps we can

:28:53. > :29:06.now proceed to the main public business.

:29:07. > :29:13.We begin with clause one with which it will be convenient to consider

:29:14. > :29:21.the other new clauses and amendments grouped together on the selection

:29:22. > :29:28.paper. To move the cars I call Mr Gareth Thomas. I am grateful for it

:29:29. > :29:35.you for the opportunity to move these amendments. I should declare

:29:36. > :29:45.an interest as a member of the credit union and is chair of the

:29:46. > :29:50.1-party group for mutuals. We want to give a statutory right to anyone

:29:51. > :29:56.wanting to save in a credit union they are a payroll deduction. The

:29:57. > :30:02.amendment seeks to reduce the pressure on those who are just about

:30:03. > :30:07.managing. This will better incentivise saving under the scheme.

:30:08. > :30:15.Another amendments which I want to talk about first seeks to allow

:30:16. > :30:25.credit unions to offer help to save. I took part in the second reading

:30:26. > :30:29.debate and raised the concern that trade unions were not going to be

:30:30. > :30:36.allowed to offer the help to save product. I have read through the

:30:37. > :30:42.transcript of that debates and the transcript of the Committee

:30:43. > :30:47.proceedings. I can still see no good reason for the Government's

:30:48. > :30:52.resistance to 11 credit unions to offer the help to save scheme. I

:30:53. > :30:59.recognise that ministers want to ensure national coverage of help to

:31:00. > :31:05.save, so that everyone who meets the criteria, potentially the .5 million

:31:06. > :31:12.people across the UK, regardless of where they live, can access the

:31:13. > :31:18.scheme. That makes sense. I have no objection to the choice of national

:31:19. > :31:26.savings or investment as that national provider of choice. What I

:31:27. > :31:37.cannot see is any valid reason to buy credit unions cannot be allowed

:31:38. > :31:42.to complimentary NSI offer. I thank my friends are giving way and can I

:31:43. > :31:46.also declare an interest as a member of the credit union. Does he agree

:31:47. > :31:49.that Government needs to be more ambitious when it comes to credit

:31:50. > :31:54.unions playing a full part in financial services in this country

:31:55. > :32:00.and we need to be heading towards places like Canada where we see a

:32:01. > :32:06.more developed credit union sector. The honourable friend makes an

:32:07. > :32:10.important point. We need much more ambition for our financial mutuals

:32:11. > :32:18.and cooperatives more generally and I'm grateful to him for that

:32:19. > :32:22.intervention. Ministers claims at a Committee that a multiple provider

:32:23. > :32:27.model for the service would not offer value for money. As far as I

:32:28. > :32:33.can see they have provided no costings to justify that claim. It

:32:34. > :32:43.is not as if ministers are dealing in the case of NSI with a company

:32:44. > :32:49.demanding conditions because they are threatened by the credit unions.

:32:50. > :32:52.They are a state-owned bank, effectively, and they are

:32:53. > :32:56.responsible to the Treasury. The Minister responsible as the member

:32:57. > :33:03.for Brighton who is also the Minister responsible for the policy

:33:04. > :33:10.on credit unions. NSI have 25 million customers and 135 early in

:33:11. > :33:15.pounds in assets. By comparison, credit unions across the UK have one

:33:16. > :33:23.point the ?7 billion and less than 1% of the value of NSI investments.

:33:24. > :33:29.In short credit unions are no threat to NSI. It is under the control of

:33:30. > :33:34.the Treasury and it is administered's hands, or it wasn't

:33:35. > :33:39.all the start of this has's proceedings on this issue, now it is

:33:40. > :33:42.the House's opportunity to decide whether or not credit union should

:33:43. > :33:58.be allowed to offer the help to save scheme going forward from this. Does

:33:59. > :34:05.he agree with me that 11 such diversity is important for helping

:34:06. > :34:08.change behaviour and a lot about savings is about cultural attitudes

:34:09. > :34:17.and having ways that you can reach out to communities. My honourable

:34:18. > :34:27.friend makes a good point and I hope to come to a little more to that

:34:28. > :34:31.point in due course. She is right to say and to make the point that

:34:32. > :34:36.credit units potentially have the scope to reach out to more of that

:34:37. > :34:41.the .5 million people that ministers want to help to the help to save

:34:42. > :34:48.scheme, which NSI and I may not be best placed to help going forward.

:34:49. > :34:51.They are not for profit financial cooperatives, they are owned and

:34:52. > :34:58.controlled by their members. There are more uniquely exposed to the

:34:59. > :35:02.financial services markets and are used are offering financial services

:35:03. > :35:06.to those who are often excluded from other better-known sources of

:35:07. > :35:11.finance. They provide safe savings and affordable loans and offer other

:35:12. > :35:21.products by current accounts and I service and mortgages. Is it not

:35:22. > :35:25.true that the key to this is also that credit unions can provide

:35:26. > :35:28.loans. We know that low income families have more bumps on the road

:35:29. > :35:33.than the majority of people with higher incomes. Therefore that

:35:34. > :35:40.ability along with the ability to keep savings is really important.

:35:41. > :35:46.She steals one of my lines from later my remarks as she makes an

:35:47. > :35:50.entirely appropriate point that credit unions can offer both the

:35:51. > :35:54.opportunity to get access to affordable loans but at the same

:35:55. > :36:00.time still encourage people to save going forward. When the loan is paid

:36:01. > :36:06.off, that incentive to keep saving is very much still there. Credit

:36:07. > :36:15.unions have until now enjoyed support from both sides of the

:36:16. > :36:24.House. The growth in 2000 and launched by Ed Balls, saw over

:36:25. > :36:29.400,000 affordable loans offered and its disappearance between 120 ?125

:36:30. > :36:36.million in interest that otherwise would have been made to high costs

:36:37. > :36:42.lenders. It is that kind of success that shows ministers in the last

:36:43. > :36:46.Government, led by the lady for Broxton, agreed to allow three

:36:47. > :36:52.credit unions to offer a credit union services for our soldiers,

:36:53. > :36:57.airmen and their families and to offer an Armed Forces credit union.

:36:58. > :37:03.Given the last Government's funding to expand credit unions, it seems

:37:04. > :37:07.even more strange that tonight ministers should want to continue to

:37:08. > :37:12.exclude credit unions from offering a product into a market which they

:37:13. > :37:22.already have significant interest and penetration into. Credit unions

:37:23. > :37:28.require those borrowing money from them to save along side as they

:37:29. > :37:32.repay their loans. Those who have been borrowing from a credit union

:37:33. > :37:39.have their own Potter savings which in some cases they have never had

:37:40. > :37:44.before. -- own pot of savings. Members continue to save over a far

:37:45. > :37:47.longer period after they have overcome the initial budget

:37:48. > :37:53.difficulties which has prevented them from getting into saving in the

:37:54. > :37:57.first place. Credit unions will also help people save towards a

:37:58. > :38:02.particular short-term goal. The idea of a rainy day fund, which was

:38:03. > :38:06.topped about by a number of members of the second reading is often not

:38:07. > :38:11.tangible enough to make it a savings habit, while saving for Christmas or

:38:12. > :38:15.to go on holiday or to buy a particular goods or access a

:38:16. > :38:22.particular service is. The available evidence suggests that the people

:38:23. > :38:29.are more likely to save towards a defined goal. They demonstrate this

:38:30. > :38:37.and from there more savings take place. This is, I am told, visit

:38:38. > :38:43.behavioural economics. Other advances include the fact that NSI

:38:44. > :38:50.are not a particular familiar organisation for many low and middle

:38:51. > :38:53.income earners. Their offer seems in personal and remote and there is

:38:54. > :38:58.little face-to-face contact or obvious customer support. It is

:38:59. > :39:02.difficult to think that many of the target audience are going to be

:39:03. > :39:06.particularly inspired by such an offer, while the credit union,

:39:07. > :39:11.trusted by friends and family, able to divide face-to-face support, that

:39:12. > :39:17.maybe the difference was sombre to saving up and saving or not. Credit

:39:18. > :39:20.unions should be supported by this to offer help to save and that would

:39:21. > :39:27.be a boost to the ability of credit unions themselves to grow. It would

:39:28. > :39:32.further raise public awareness and potentially introduce credit unions

:39:33. > :39:38.to any group of savers, which given credit unions lack of advertising

:39:39. > :39:45.and firepower, compared to financial services like the banks, can only be

:39:46. > :39:47.helpful for the Government's claim of creating a more diverse banking

:39:48. > :39:55.market. New clause one locks into law the

:39:56. > :39:59.right of anyone to join a credit union to request payroll deduction.

:40:00. > :40:04.Where savings is in, when savings is in the interest of the individual

:40:05. > :40:07.and the country at large, why shouldn't we expect business and

:40:08. > :40:13.employers to help a little by making it as easy as possible for people

:40:14. > :40:18.who want to save. One way some choose to save is by having an

:40:19. > :40:22.amount of money they decide deducted automatically from their pay packet

:40:23. > :40:27.by their employer. It's a process that they can stop immediately and

:40:28. > :40:30.it's known as payroll deduction. Yet at the moment, whether or not

:40:31. > :40:35.payroll deduction is allowed or not is entirely in the gift of the

:40:36. > :40:39.employer. The best employers have no problem with it. Often they will

:40:40. > :40:43.reach agreement with local credit unions or credit unions who operate

:40:44. > :40:49.in the industry and once they have done so, payroll deduction is

:40:50. > :40:56.offered by the company's back officement the Ministry of Defence

:40:57. > :41:02.granted the facility of payroll deduction to three credit unions,

:41:03. > :41:06.who are now offering this service to service personnel and in so doing

:41:07. > :41:10.help to save them huge amounts of interest, ?1 million worth of

:41:11. > :41:16.affordable credit is already being offered to military personnel. It's

:41:17. > :41:21.been pointed out to me that the Department for Work and Pensions are

:41:22. > :41:24.the latest Whitehall department to offer payroll deduction for credit

:41:25. > :41:30.union services to their staff. Again, they've chosen three

:41:31. > :41:36.particular credit unions to work with. Already those staff who work

:41:37. > :41:42.for the DWP, a number of them have benefitted to the tune of several

:41:43. > :41:46.hundred thousand pounds worth after Fordable loans. Most police forces

:41:47. > :41:51.offer payroll deduction for credit union members. Many departments,

:41:52. > :41:56.many other departments in Whitehall also offer this facility. Much of

:41:57. > :41:59.the NHS offers this facility. And hospitals and NHS trusts and other

:42:00. > :42:04.parts of Government are quite right to do so. Some unfortunately

:42:05. > :42:09.outsource payroll companies try to exploit the terms of their contract

:42:10. > :42:15.and demand a fee for agreeing to offer such a service to an employer.

:42:16. > :42:18.It takes a tiny amount of time to sort out, yet some employers will

:42:19. > :42:23.not do the right thing to help their employees save in the way that best

:42:24. > :42:28.suits them. The worst offender that I know of currently is Transport for

:42:29. > :42:33.London, who employ almost 28,000 staff. It claims there is no demand

:42:34. > :42:37.for credit union access and that they offer generous emergency

:42:38. > :42:42.assistance if staff get into problems. And that it would be

:42:43. > :42:46.costly to offer payroll deduction. They certainly say they don't want

:42:47. > :42:51.to get into the picking or not picking of which credit unions to

:42:52. > :42:57.work with. I struggle to see why tfl is different to the Ministry of

:42:58. > :43:02.Defence. There weren't thousands of soldiers queuing to join a credit

:43:03. > :43:06.union either. It cost the MoD, whose payroll is outsourced, a fee.

:43:07. > :43:10.Ironically I'm told the particular payroll company offers payroll

:43:11. > :43:18.deduction to its own staff. The offer important as it is, I do think

:43:19. > :43:27.from TfL is a red herring. This is about making it easy for an employer

:43:28. > :43:30.to save on an ongoing basis with a reputable credit union. If the MoD

:43:31. > :43:34.can work out which credit unions to work with it shouldn't be beyond the

:43:35. > :43:39.wit of Transport for London to do so as well. I hope Transport for London

:43:40. > :43:42.will change its mind. We are having discussions with them, Mr Speaker,

:43:43. > :43:47.and I hope they will come to see sense in the end. I think it has a

:43:48. > :43:51.spont to do so. But I do think Government should cut through the

:43:52. > :43:55.nonsense and legislate to allow the employee the right to request

:43:56. > :44:00.payroll deduction up front to join a credit union. If saving is both in

:44:01. > :44:03.the individual interest and in the national interest, then we should

:44:04. > :44:08.seek to make it as easy as possible for payroll deduction to join a

:44:09. > :44:13.credit union to be offered. Lastly in this group of amendments that is

:44:14. > :44:16.under my name is amendment one, which lowers the qualifying period

:44:17. > :44:29.of the help to save product before the Government top up begins from 24

:44:30. > :44:35.- -- months to 12. I simply draw the House's attention to the evidence

:44:36. > :44:40.that step change, the debt advice charity put in suggesting that 24

:44:41. > :44:42.months as simply too long a period to ensure that the Government's

:44:43. > :44:48.objective of incentivising more objective of incentivising more

:44:49. > :44:53.savings were made. I look forward to shearing the views of other members

:44:54. > :44:58.of the House. I hope ministers will, in particular, reflect on the case

:44:59. > :45:02.that I have made for amendment two, because if they're not willing to

:45:03. > :45:03.shift on, it I would seek your leave to divide the House on that

:45:04. > :45:20.question. THE SPEAKER: New clause one. The

:45:21. > :45:29.question is that new clause one be read a second time. Thank you Mr

:45:30. > :45:35.Speaker. It will come as no surprise to many people in this House that

:45:36. > :45:40.I'm here tonight in full support of my party colleagues on this matter

:45:41. > :45:43.and in full support of the vital importance of supporting our credit

:45:44. > :45:48.unions because of the debt tsunami that is coming our way as a country.

:45:49. > :45:52.Some people here may think this is one of my greatest hits to talk

:45:53. > :45:56.about personal debt in this country and the scourge of the high cost

:45:57. > :46:00.lenders, always the credit unions were part of the answer. I rise to

:46:01. > :46:04.support amendment two on that basis tonight, because it is absolutely

:46:05. > :46:08.critical with that debt tsunami coming towards us as a nation that

:46:09. > :46:13.we act to support the credit union movement, as a vital component of

:46:14. > :46:18.helping people. We know that for too many people in our nation now, debt

:46:19. > :46:22.is a part of life. There is just simply too much month for their

:46:23. > :46:26.money. That has been the case for many years. Those problems are

:46:27. > :46:30.becoming endemic, to such a level that people don't realise the level

:46:31. > :46:34.of debt they may have. For others it is all too common. We know that two

:46:35. > :46:37.out of five people in this country are very worried about their level

:46:38. > :46:41.of personal debt. When we're talking about personal debt. We're talking

:46:42. > :46:45.about unsecured personal debt. This is not people just worrying about

:46:46. > :46:49.their mortgages. This is people worrying about the day-to-day cost

:46:50. > :46:54.of everyday living. Indeed, for 54% of those people who are struggling

:46:55. > :46:57.in this country, it's the cost of food that is the problem. It's

:46:58. > :47:02.literally the cost of being able to put food on the table, not just keep

:47:03. > :47:05.a roof above the heads of them and their families. For 30% of those

:47:06. > :47:10.people, it's the cost of energy. It's the people who will look at the

:47:11. > :47:13.weather forecast fearful as we see the temperature dropping knowing

:47:14. > :47:17.that simply they cannot afford to put money in the metre to keep their

:47:18. > :47:21.families warm. Increasingly in this country, it is the people who are in

:47:22. > :47:27.debt because of their debt, the 22% of people who are struggling because

:47:28. > :47:31.of credit card repayment debts. This is everyday Britain. This is the

:47:32. > :47:35.kind of community and country that we have become, a country where debt

:47:36. > :47:39.is so common place people are not just waving, they are drowning in

:47:40. > :47:43.it. It is the spont of all of us to act not simply to help people with

:47:44. > :47:46.debt advice, not simply to shrug our shoulders and see this as part and

:47:47. > :47:50.parcel of the way our economy works. But to ask if there are things we

:47:51. > :47:54.can do to help them manage those debts. That question, that debt

:47:55. > :47:59.tsunami is only going to become worse as we head into #20 17 and I

:48:00. > :48:03.think all of us recognise that inflation is likely to rise from 1%,

:48:04. > :48:09.possibly up to 4%, some experts suggest. Those costs of food, those

:48:10. > :48:13.costs of basic goods like energy are going to get higher not lower. Yet

:48:14. > :48:17.we know for so many people their wages have been frozen for so many

:48:18. > :48:21.years now that the gap between the end of the month and the start of

:48:22. > :48:26.the month is going to feel a very, very long way away in 2017. That is

:48:27. > :48:28.why we have to be pragmatic and pragmatic is about offering people

:48:29. > :48:32.good options about how to manage what little money they have. That is

:48:33. > :48:35.where the credit union movement in this country comes into its own.

:48:36. > :48:39.That is why it's absolutely varietial when the Government wants

:48:40. > :48:43.to encourage savings that it does not exclude but instead embraces the

:48:44. > :48:46.credit union movement and the benefits it can offer. When we know

:48:47. > :48:50.that a quarter of people in it country have no savings at all,

:48:51. > :48:54.saying well, who is the movement whose door is always open to every

:48:55. > :49:00.citizen in this country and how can we help them to bridge that gap,

:49:01. > :49:04.means looking to the credit union movement. My colleague has made an

:49:05. > :49:08.admirable case about how to help the movement and the work that they do.

:49:09. > :49:13.I simply, at the risk of repeating myself, want to echo his words and

:49:14. > :49:16.say we can do so much more. This scheme, involving credit unions is

:49:17. > :49:21.the start not the end of that conversation. I know my own credit

:49:22. > :49:24.union struggled for many years to get onto the High Street in

:49:25. > :49:28.Walthamstow. What a difference that has made. My own credit union has

:49:29. > :49:31.struggled to get in and work with people in the work places, but what

:49:32. > :49:36.a difference it can make when we do that. We see councils around this

:49:37. > :49:39.country working for example, like Southampton, to give people access

:49:40. > :49:44.to a credit union and savers in return for helping those people who

:49:45. > :49:47.would have been to a pay day lender to get the money there. Being able

:49:48. > :49:51.to link communities together. It is absolutely crucial that we do not

:49:52. > :49:54.just see credit unions about borrowing, but also about saving.

:49:55. > :49:58.And about how then through that saving you can help and support

:49:59. > :50:03.wider social objectives in a local community. That is why this owe

:50:04. > :50:07.mission must be corrected. That is why we as Co-operative MPs have

:50:08. > :50:11.stood here tonight to ask the Government to think about excludeing

:50:12. > :50:15.credit unions from the help to save scheme and instead to embrace them.

:50:16. > :50:17.I will join with my colleague tonight to say if we do not get

:50:18. > :50:21.support from the Government to change this, we will be looking to

:50:22. > :50:25.divide the House. We want to send a message. We know that people are

:50:26. > :50:29.going to have to borrow. We know that when 2017 look as dire as it's

:50:30. > :50:32.going to look with inflation rising and people's wages still stalling

:50:33. > :50:35.and the cost of living still continuing to rise, that we have to

:50:36. > :50:39.make sure that people have sensible borrowing options. We also know they

:50:40. > :50:42.have to have sensible saving options. The credit union movement

:50:43. > :50:46.is the solution to that question. It is the solution to asking about

:50:47. > :50:51.people who maybe would have not gone anywhere else. If we can get them

:50:52. > :50:56.into a credit union movement we can start getting them to save. This is

:50:57. > :51:00.a critical time in the debt portfolio we see in this country. A

:51:01. > :51:03.debt tsunami is heading our way, let's not turn our backs to it.

:51:04. > :51:12.Let's be sensible about what we can do to help. Let's make credit unions

:51:13. > :51:16.part of the solution. Thank you, Mr Speaker. To start off,

:51:17. > :51:29.I'd like to thank my honourable friend the member for Harrow west,

:51:30. > :51:35.who has been indefat Iingable in -- in de fatiguable with relation to

:51:36. > :51:39.these issues. And no reasonable person could disagree with anything

:51:40. > :51:42.articulated to us today by the honourable member in his usual,

:51:43. > :51:47.cogent, coherent and reasonable way. He has the support of this bench and

:51:48. > :51:55.many other honourable members in the chamber. In fact, he's in line with

:51:56. > :51:58.organisations such as Step Change debt charity, whilst welcoming the

:51:59. > :52:02.concept of help to save feel that the Government has not gone far

:52:03. > :52:05.enough in its commitment to facilitating savings. Own one in

:52:06. > :52:12.seven people eligible for the scheme are likely to take it up. And

:52:13. > :52:14.supports the payroll deduction concept suggested by my honourable

:52:15. > :52:18.friend. Mr Speaker, before I deal with the Opposition's clauses and

:52:19. > :52:21.amendments to the savings and Government's contributions bill, I

:52:22. > :52:27.would like to summarise our overall view.

:52:28. > :52:33.While we fully support any measure that will encourage people to save,

:52:34. > :52:40.particularly young people and those with lower incomes we feel that the

:52:41. > :52:46.proposed lifetime ice will do little to encourage these groups. We have

:52:47. > :52:52.heard a raft of evidence that will support this view. Many concerned

:52:53. > :53:00.that this is just another product in an overcrowded market. The

:53:01. > :53:03.opposition will not stand in the way of the bill but we want to make a

:53:04. > :53:10.number of reasonable changes to ensure that the proposed ISA and

:53:11. > :53:15.right to buy scheme do what they say they will. Those on low incomes

:53:16. > :53:19.struggling to make it through the week have seen the government

:53:20. > :53:27.drastically cut in work benefits. I therefore don't see how people with

:53:28. > :53:34.the minimum threshold, particularly when report show half UK adults have

:53:35. > :53:40.less than ?500 set aside for emergencies, some families will not

:53:41. > :53:46.be able to save ?50 every month. That was raised by the SNP in the

:53:47. > :53:51.bill committee. Moving to the impact review and auto enrolment. The wider

:53:52. > :53:57.concern the opposition have is that this scheme will interfere and

:53:58. > :54:00.perhaps negatively impact pension automatic enrolment. Does the

:54:01. > :54:06.government really want to take a gamble that 6.7 million people

:54:07. > :54:09.across 250,000 employers already auto enrolled will not reach the

:54:10. > :54:18.government target of 10 million by 20 20. The new clause and amendment

:54:19. > :54:31.are designed to address this question. Namely, the lifetime

:54:32. > :54:34.Individual Savings Account poses a threat to traditional pension

:54:35. > :54:41.savings and most significantly to auto enrolment. I believe that it is

:54:42. > :54:45.self-evident that auto enrolment which was mandated by the last

:54:46. > :54:53.Labour government is an outstanding initiative and starting to achieve

:54:54. > :55:00.its aims. This proposal would impose a duty on HMRC to review annually

:55:01. > :55:07.the impact on licenses of auto enrolment. This is one of the few

:55:08. > :55:14.success stories in the pension landscape. We feel that the

:55:15. > :55:18.government policy may put the wider landscape in jeopardy and be a

:55:19. > :55:24.dangerous path to follow. Tensions are history suggest that will only

:55:25. > :55:29.be recognised in years to come. That is why we would like to see an

:55:30. > :55:35.annual review on the impact of the auto enrolment scheme to ensure that

:55:36. > :55:40.the introduction of lifetime ISAs do not impact negatively on that

:55:41. > :55:46.success. Not all employers will be auto enrolled until February 20 18.

:55:47. > :55:54.The increase of minimum contributions to 8% will not be

:55:55. > :55:59.until 2019. Dropout is relatively low among young people. In the

:56:00. > :56:04.meantime, we don't want anything to jeopardise the maximum number of

:56:05. > :56:09.people enrolling or to provide any incentive to drop out. This is not

:56:10. > :56:13.an unreasonable position to take given the implications of getting

:56:14. > :56:16.things wrong. That is why we are tabling the amendment that would

:56:17. > :56:24.delay the commencement of the bill until the end of April 2019 when all

:56:25. > :56:29.firms will be auto enrolled the increase in minimum contributions to

:56:30. > :56:37.8% will be completed. The truth is, many people can't afford to pay both

:56:38. > :56:43.into a pension and an ISA. Many can't do either. The pensions

:56:44. > :56:49.committee has warned the government that quoting out of auto enrolment

:56:50. > :56:56.to save in a lifetime ISA will leave people worse off. The DWP has been

:56:57. > :57:02.clear that the ISA is not a pension product but the Treasury has

:57:03. > :57:06.preferred an alternative view. Moving on to independent financial

:57:07. > :57:12.advice. I would contend that if the government can't get its position on

:57:13. > :57:17.my lifetime ISA clear, how can people in the street? It seems that

:57:18. > :57:20.the benefits of this product is compared to pension plans is

:57:21. > :57:26.relatively unclear when set in the context of the wider market. That's

:57:27. > :57:30.why we are introducing a proposal to place a duty on the Secretary of

:57:31. > :57:35.State to make regulations that ensure all applicants for a lifetime

:57:36. > :57:41.ISA have independent financial advice made available to them. In

:57:42. > :57:48.other words, the purpose of the amendment is to make sure that those

:57:49. > :57:56.opening a ISA will receive independent financial advice. The

:57:57. > :58:03.advice will be offered automatically through an opt in service and the

:58:04. > :58:09.service provider would sign a declaration outlining the advice

:58:10. > :58:15.that the applicant had received. The status of the applicant would have

:58:16. > :58:23.to be confirmed and whether they planned to use the lifetime ISA for

:58:24. > :58:28.a residential purpose. Independent advice doesn't have to be expensive.

:58:29. > :58:33.The government could mandate an online platform where an individual

:58:34. > :58:45.could get independent financial advice. Whereas the Chancellor has

:58:46. > :58:50.championed the putative simple nature of the ISA that hasn't been

:58:51. > :58:57.backed up. The government should ensure that no one company has the

:58:58. > :59:03.contract for independent financial advice and this is to avoid a repeat

:59:04. > :59:08.of the concentric scandal. The opposition believe that it is only

:59:09. > :59:11.right that anyone considering a ISA for a lifetime is given an

:59:12. > :59:15.opportunity to seize benefits compared to those other schemes on

:59:16. > :59:20.the market. To ensure that they can make an informed choice with the

:59:21. > :59:27.help of independent financial advice parity will be enabled and a much

:59:28. > :59:35.needed oversight in education about the benefits of the scheme in situ.

:59:36. > :59:43.It goes without saying that, virtually, the purchase of a pension

:59:44. > :59:50.is one of the most important things a person undertakes. The history of

:59:51. > :59:54.mis-selling has left a long deep shadow across the financial products

:59:55. > :00:00.sector and we must take that into account and we can't ignore it. So

:00:01. > :00:04.many bodies from across numerous industries outlining concerns that

:00:05. > :00:09.there is a risk that people will save into a lifetime ISA when it is

:00:10. > :00:13.not the most beneficial option, I can't see a reasonable argument

:00:14. > :00:18.against ensuring that applicants receive independent financial advice

:00:19. > :00:23.before opening an account. Millions of people have lost confidence in

:00:24. > :00:28.much of the sector and that is partly why, as alluded to by the

:00:29. > :00:32.witnesses in the committee, if people are saving, they are doing so

:00:33. > :00:39.in cash Isas because they are not sure about stocks and shares and

:00:40. > :00:44.other products. They are then saving in products that give very low

:00:45. > :00:47.returns. We must create an environment in which people can save

:00:48. > :00:51.and feel confident that they will get a reasonable return on their

:00:52. > :00:55.investment, especially if that investment is for the later years

:00:56. > :01:01.and that is perfectly reasonable. Moving on to clause four. First-time

:01:02. > :01:06.residential purchase research impact assessment. We recognise that people

:01:07. > :01:10.want to own their own home and we would encourage people to do that if

:01:11. > :01:16.it is what they wish. We are concerned that the policy will only

:01:17. > :01:21.inflate housing prices further and that the lifetime ISA will make

:01:22. > :01:23.things more difficult in an already strained housing environment because

:01:24. > :01:29.of the limited number of houses being built nationwide. I won't even

:01:30. > :01:45.mention the huge cost of housing at a ghillie in London and the

:01:46. > :01:52.south-east. -- especially in London. The review must be made public and

:01:53. > :01:59.available before both houses of parliament. Evidence received in the

:02:00. > :02:04.yearly stages highlighted concerns amongst the likes of Martin Lewis.

:02:05. > :02:10.While acknowledging the popularity of the lifetime ISA arguing that

:02:11. > :02:15.unintended consequences are a possibility and concern. It's

:02:16. > :02:21.worrying that fewer homes were built in the last Parliament and in any of

:02:22. > :02:29.the government since the 1920s. The lifetime ISA may help, may help, to

:02:30. > :02:34.overheat a market that is already short of capacity. The government

:02:35. > :02:42.priority should be to try to mitigate that and not to add to the

:02:43. > :02:47.problem. The fact is, people are increasingly chasing a product and

:02:48. > :02:54.market that has loads apply levels. As I indicated at committee stage,

:02:55. > :02:57.it happens that product is a house. The government are almost two years

:02:58. > :03:01.through their five-year housing plan, not counting the previous five

:03:02. > :03:22.years and we are still falling badly behind targets. If I recall... On

:03:23. > :03:31.100,000 house transactions per year of ?750, it adds about 70 million

:03:32. > :03:34.per year to prices. If we are adding to an overheating sector it is

:03:35. > :03:42.important that we take into account the overall impact. Moving on to new

:03:43. > :03:46.clause five. As mentioned, the opposition concern about the

:03:47. > :03:50.lifetime ISA will do little to help those on low incomes to save. We

:03:51. > :03:56.would like the government to produce within six months of the act coming

:03:57. > :04:01.into force an analysis of the distribution of benefits of lifetime

:04:02. > :04:08.ISA looking at the additional effects between different households

:04:09. > :04:15.of different levels of incomes, gender, and different ethnic

:04:16. > :04:22.minority groups. The government is making huge cuts to working tax

:04:23. > :04:27.credits even after the Chancellor's minor adjustments. Therefore, it's

:04:28. > :04:32.difficult to imagine that such families will have a spare ?50 a

:04:33. > :04:42.month to put into a help to save account. I refer to my early point

:04:43. > :04:47.about low take-up. The lifetime ISA will deliver subsidies to those who

:04:48. > :04:57.need them least. Meanwhile, there is a danger that the measure which is

:04:58. > :05:02.for universal credit and credit restrictions may enable people on

:05:03. > :05:10.low incomes to save when at that point it is not in their best

:05:11. > :05:21.interest to do so. They represent a move away from collectivisation of

:05:22. > :05:27.welfare. As women are both less likely to have funds to save and

:05:28. > :05:33.more likely to require time out for caring they would be disadvantaged

:05:34. > :05:38.by an individualised approach rather than a collective system that allows

:05:39. > :05:46.for redistribution. Moving on to new clause six. This feeds into the

:05:47. > :05:50.overall debate over whether the lifetime ISA would be good value for

:05:51. > :05:56.money particularly if it doesn't help those on low incomes and

:05:57. > :06:00.minority groups to save. While we welcome the sensible measures to

:06:01. > :06:07.address the issue of how low retirement savings for the less

:06:08. > :06:11.well-off will pan out, anything that puts money into the pocket of middle

:06:12. > :06:18.to low earners is welcome but I will do how it sits alongside the

:06:19. > :06:23.Conservative aims to cut in relation to universal credit. According to

:06:24. > :06:31.the budget responsibility office, the various schemes would create a

:06:32. > :06:37.?5 billion Lascuna in the public finances. It is therefore important

:06:38. > :06:41.that it is not disproportionate to those who are already in a position

:06:42. > :06:45.to get onto the housing ladder and a. It would be a shame if the

:06:46. > :06:51.beneficiaries of this scheme were limited to those already able to

:06:52. > :06:59.afford to save and a deposit for a house. At the time when the two

:07:00. > :07:06.policy announcements,, the same time, the idea of giving ?1.8

:07:07. > :07:10.billion for housing support for those of a better position to afford

:07:11. > :07:14.juxtaposed against the significant cuts to those in lower paid work

:07:15. > :07:18.will at the very least be seen as insensitive and some as crass and

:07:19. > :07:28.unfair. It is incumbent upon the Minister to

:07:29. > :07:31.ensure that the use of taxpayers' money is undertaken with duty

:07:32. > :07:35.uppermost in her mind. This is all the more necessary in times of

:07:36. > :07:38.economic turbulence, that the use of taxpayers' money must be both

:07:39. > :07:41.prudent and canny. That is why we are asking the government to

:07:42. > :07:45.implement an assessment within six months of the bill coming into

:07:46. > :07:51.effect on the value for money to the taxpayer provided by the lifetime

:07:52. > :07:55.ISA and help to save scheme. The opposition has concerns about the

:07:56. > :07:59.effectiveness of this scheme. Whilst we welcome any reasonable measures

:08:00. > :08:03.that will allow those on low incomes to be able to save and encourage

:08:04. > :08:06.young people to start saving earlier, the fear is that this

:08:07. > :08:09.scheme will disproportionately benefit a minority of people who are

:08:10. > :08:14.already more likely to be any position to save and get on the

:08:15. > :08:20.ladder. There is a clear contradiction, some might say, of a

:08:21. > :08:24.government on the one hand cutting universal tax credits and on the

:08:25. > :08:34.other somehow expecting them to find the money to use this, to fund this

:08:35. > :08:37.scheme. Is that fair? I have ordered, the clear concerns the

:08:38. > :08:39.surrounding the need for independent financial advice and assessment on

:08:40. > :08:42.the on the impact the Right to Buy schemes will have on the housing

:08:43. > :08:46.market and its cost effectiveness. It is paramount that the government,

:08:47. > :08:51.in due course, lays out clear evidence as to who is using this

:08:52. > :08:55.scheme and if necessary amended to allow wider participation. This

:08:56. > :08:57.should not interfere with the continued success of the

:08:58. > :09:02.auto-enrolment and therefore should be delayed until 2019, when

:09:03. > :09:06.auto-enrolment is completed. To be clear, this is not the scheme we

:09:07. > :09:08.would have initiated. We have huge reservations about any move from

:09:09. > :09:13.this Government away from a collective pension system and

:09:14. > :09:17.towards an individualised payments system. That is a very slippery

:09:18. > :09:22.slope and this Government will not be here to regret it. Mr Speaker,

:09:23. > :09:26.that is why we will continue to scrutinise the lifetime ISA, a

:09:27. > :09:30.potential Trojan horse to the current pension system, and help to

:09:31. > :09:35.save scheme, which attempts to solve the conscience of a few backbenchers

:09:36. > :09:39.opposite after the gentle taken to tax credit. If the government will

:09:40. > :09:47.not concede, we will be pursuing to a division new clauses two and six.

:09:48. > :09:50.Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a

:09:51. > :09:55.pleasure to be called in this debate. I rise to meet new clause

:09:56. > :10:02.seven and Edmonds 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 1011, 18, 13 and seven in my

:10:03. > :10:07.name and my honourable colleague's. I can see members opposite are

:10:08. > :10:11.laughing, but perhaps the government had taken this seriously and had

:10:12. > :10:15.taken well-intentioned amendments when we were in the committee stage,

:10:16. > :10:18.we would not be having to put all of these down tonight. Let's tell the

:10:19. > :10:22.House, this is actually a seriously bad bill. It is a seriously bad

:10:23. > :10:27.piece of legislation and it ought to be taken seriously by members

:10:28. > :10:30.opposite, and not scoffed at. We in the Scottish National Party have

:10:31. > :10:35.consistently warned of the dangers from this bill. And its consequences

:10:36. > :10:40.for savers. The SNP are supportive of any initiative which promotes

:10:41. > :10:43.savings, but this is a gimmick is that only works for those who can

:10:44. > :10:48.afford to save to the levels demanded by the government to get

:10:49. > :10:51.the bonus. The lifetime ISA falls short of real pension reform. Mr

:10:52. > :10:55.Speaker, it is a distraction to allow the Treasury access to taxes

:10:56. > :11:03.today, rather than having to wait until tomorrow. Saving into this

:11:04. > :11:05.type of either are made out of after-tax income. Pension

:11:06. > :11:09.contributions are tax-exempt and tend to receive employee employer

:11:10. > :11:14.contribute is. Saving through pensions remain the most attractive

:11:15. > :11:17.method of saving for endowment. Although anything that encourages

:11:18. > :11:21.saving for a little advice to be welcomed, there is danger that this

:11:22. > :11:25.Government will derail auto-enrolment. Hope to see it as

:11:26. > :11:28.another example where we agreed working to encourage savings is

:11:29. > :11:32.welcome however in this case, again, the UK Government only scratched the

:11:33. > :11:39.surface rather than willing to really tackling those struggling to

:11:40. > :11:42.plan for emergencies later in life. If we pass this bill tonight, we run

:11:43. > :11:47.the risk of seducing young people away from investing in pensions by

:11:48. > :11:53.encouraging investment in a lifetime ISA. We have said before that nobody

:11:54. > :11:57.investing in an ISA can be better off than somebody investing in a

:11:58. > :12:04.pension. Nobody will be better off in an ISA. Why are the government

:12:05. > :12:09.persisting with this Bill? Let us be clear, if we pass this bill tonight,

:12:10. > :12:13.we are creating the circumstances that young people could be sold a

:12:14. > :12:17.lifetime ISA when their interest would be better served by investing

:12:18. > :12:23.in a pension. That is what we will do if we pass this bill. We thought

:12:24. > :12:26.at committee stage to make sure there were safeguards in place, to

:12:27. > :12:32.make sure our advice was available for applicants to remove this risk.

:12:33. > :12:36.The government, for whatever reason, refused to accept these reasonable

:12:37. > :12:39.proposals at committee stage. We are pushing new clause seven this

:12:40. > :12:44.evening that would provide advice for applicants. The Secretary of

:12:45. > :12:49.State must make provision by regulation to ensure all providers

:12:50. > :12:51.of lifetime myself, or help to save accounts, provide applicants at the

:12:52. > :12:55.point of application with both advise about the suitability of the

:12:56. > :12:58.product in question for each individual applicant and information

:12:59. > :13:03.about automatic enrolment and workplace pension schemes. This new

:13:04. > :13:09.clause would require advised to be provided for applicants for iPhones

:13:10. > :13:11.or help to save accounts which must include information on

:13:12. > :13:14.auto-enrolment. It is something that is still in its infancy and is due

:13:15. > :13:21.to be reviewed next year, although we heard to do that increases in

:13:22. > :13:26.payments to auto-enrolments are now off the agenda, something that is

:13:27. > :13:29.also to be, I think, debated by this House, and something that needs to

:13:30. > :13:33.be changed. This has to be a priority for savings. If we are not

:13:34. > :13:38.successful in succeeding with our new clause tonight, are only

:13:39. > :13:44.alternative is pushing amendments 15, would remove the LISA from the

:13:45. > :13:46.document, completely. Our primary issue with the bill as drafted if

:13:47. > :13:51.the Government Contributions Bill. The government rely on low dropout

:13:52. > :13:54.rates from auto-enrolment to justify that the LISA would not rule out

:13:55. > :13:57.pension savings, we are not convinced. The bill is a missed

:13:58. > :14:00.opportunity to focus on strengthening pension saving, rather

:14:01. > :14:08.than tinkering around the savings landscape. Our amendments at

:14:09. > :14:11.committee stage sought to bring in a delay to the LISA until the were

:14:12. > :14:15.brought in and we move today for the need for manager advice Isil the

:14:16. > :14:17.government said this is a confirmatory product, not an

:14:18. > :14:20.alternative to pension savings, however this gets no real thought to

:14:21. > :14:26.the difficulties facing consumers understanding their options and

:14:27. > :14:30.whether they have savings that is the best product for their needs.

:14:31. > :14:35.Pensions are already confusing and complex. The LISA, as stands, adds

:14:36. > :14:40.to that complexity. We need to build trust in savings. That can only come

:14:41. > :14:44.with consumers having confidence in what is being offered to them. A new

:14:45. > :14:47.suite of savings products which in many cases are inferior to existing

:14:48. > :14:55.offerings does not help build confidence in savings. At a second

:14:56. > :14:59.reading, the financial Secretary said what is attractive about the

:15:00. > :15:02.LISA is that people do not have to make an immediate decision about

:15:03. > :15:07.what they are saving the money. They do not have to make this decision at

:15:08. > :15:12.an early stage, when they can see what is ahead. That, Mr Speaker, is

:15:13. > :15:15.an astonishing statement. Why is the financial secretary not saying that

:15:16. > :15:18.we ought to be encouraging pension savings? I get the point that we

:15:19. > :15:23.need to consider moves to help young people get on the housing ladder.

:15:24. > :15:25.Perhaps we need to think about how investment in pensions savings might

:15:26. > :15:30.help in this regard. That is one of the reasons that I keep asking for

:15:31. > :15:34.the establishment of a pension fund savings commission, so that we can

:15:35. > :15:39.look at these matters in a holistic manner. I keep making the point, and

:15:40. > :15:43.I make no apology for saying again, nobody should be better off with a

:15:44. > :15:47.LISA than they would be with pensions and savings. The long-term

:15:48. > :15:51.cost of foregoing annual employer contributions of 3% of salary by

:15:52. > :15:58.saving into a LISA would be substantial. For a basic rate

:15:59. > :16:02.taxpayer, the impact would be of roughly one third less in a LISA

:16:03. > :16:08.over a pension by the age of 60. For example, an employee earning ?25,000

:16:09. > :16:15.per year and saving 4% per annum of their income would see a difference

:16:16. > :16:20.in excess of ?53,000. After 42 years, someone savings are pension

:16:21. > :16:27.scheme would have a pot worth over 160 pixel isn't at a growth rate of

:16:28. > :16:32.3%. -- over ?160,000. Under a LISA, at the same growth rate, the value

:16:33. > :16:36.would only be 112,000, a difference of over ?53,000. The difference

:16:37. > :16:40.would be even greater if wage growth was factored in. That is why we

:16:41. > :16:44.cannot support the government tonight, as far as the LISA elements

:16:45. > :16:49.of people are concerned. With the introduction of advice, we are

:16:50. > :16:53.creating the circumstances, sorry, without the introduction of advice

:16:54. > :16:58.we are creating the circumstances were mis-selling can take place. How

:16:59. > :17:02.can we stop someone being sold a LISA when a pension plan would be

:17:03. > :17:08.better for the consumer's needs? We cannot. That, quite simply, is why

:17:09. > :17:13.this bill is wrong. The government ought to be thoroughly ashamed of

:17:14. > :17:16.itself. It is creating the circumstances were mis-selling can

:17:17. > :17:23.take place, and I pointed the finger of blame at the government for

:17:24. > :17:26.bringing this bill, at every member prepared to go through the lobbies

:17:27. > :17:31.tonight and support this. Dwell on the example that I gave, where

:17:32. > :17:38.someone earning ?25,000 per annum saving 4% of their salary could be

:17:39. > :17:43.as much as ?53,000 worth of after 42 years. Who can honestly support

:17:44. > :17:50.this? It is not the consumer' interest, it is de facto committing

:17:51. > :17:54.a fraud on savers in this country. Today, research has been published

:17:55. > :18:01.by true potential which after a poll of 2000 employees showed that 30% of

:18:02. > :18:07.people aged between 25 and 40 would choose a LISA instead of a pension.

:18:08. > :18:17.And that 58 of 25-34 -year-olds, 58% of them, would use their LISA for a

:18:18. > :18:23.retirement savings. These statistics are the early warnings of the

:18:24. > :18:27.potential for mis-selling. The House tonight must vote to protect the

:18:28. > :18:33.consumer interest by backing new clause seven, putting in place an

:18:34. > :18:38.advice regime, failing which support amendments 15, which will delete

:18:39. > :18:43.LISAs from this bill. Failure do so will be a failure of responsibility

:18:44. > :18:49.of each and every member of this House. Mr Speaker, I said at second

:18:50. > :18:53.reading that we would resist any further attempts to undermine

:18:54. > :18:57.pension saving and specifically to change the tax status of pension

:18:58. > :19:04.savings. That would be little more than an underhand way of driving up

:19:05. > :19:09.tax receipts, sweet talking workers to invest after-tax income in LISAs,

:19:10. > :19:14.when their interests are best served by investing in pensions. The sheer

:19:15. > :19:20.fact that LISAs will be encouraged to be used for retirement savings

:19:21. > :19:22.will confuse the public and this is a pension product that could just

:19:23. > :19:27.incentivise retirement savings in what should be traditional products.

:19:28. > :19:30.The government's response that an amendment on advice would not work

:19:31. > :19:34.in practice because it would create a barrier to accessing the LISA is

:19:35. > :19:40.another quite extraordinary argument, as all the advice would do

:19:41. > :19:44.is make sure consumers can make informed decisions. What is there

:19:45. > :19:48.not to support from that of a premise? If there are consumers that

:19:49. > :19:53.choose to invest in a pension rather than a LISA product then I would be

:19:54. > :19:57.delighted, and so should the government. The role of the SCA, the

:19:58. > :20:00.government said, would be to ensure that sufficient safeguards are put

:20:01. > :20:06.in place. Specifically on advice. While we welcome the proposed

:20:07. > :20:09.protections from the SCA, namely that firms will be required to give

:20:10. > :20:12.specific risk warnings at the point-of-sale, which include

:20:13. > :20:16.reminding consumers of the importance of ensuring an

:20:17. > :20:19.appropriate mix of assets to be held in the LISA, firms also after to

:20:20. > :20:24.amend consumers of the early withdrawal charges and other

:20:25. > :20:28.charges. The SCA has provided a proposal that providers will have to

:20:29. > :20:33.offer a 30 day cancellation period after selling the LISA. However,

:20:34. > :20:36.still the risk is simply too great for the government should treat this

:20:37. > :20:41.as an afterthought. There must be a formal mechanism to assist those

:20:42. > :20:46.seeking to increase savings, particularly when they are looking

:20:47. > :20:51.for a retirement product. Even the EBI, who cautiously welcome the

:20:52. > :20:54.LISA, have said LISA and other Isa products receive savings from money

:20:55. > :20:59.that is already taxed. This keeps the burden of the taxation with

:21:00. > :21:03.working eight people and takes money out of the real economy. That takes

:21:04. > :21:07.us back to why we're here. -- working eight people. This takes us

:21:08. > :21:11.back to why we are here, what the government is proposing and white is

:21:12. > :21:15.wrong. I've also said at second reading, we welcome any reasonable

:21:16. > :21:19.proposals that encourage savings and we will work where we can with the

:21:20. > :21:22.UK Government to encourage pension savings. However, we very much see

:21:23. > :21:26.this bill as a missed opportunity for all of us to jump in what we

:21:27. > :21:32.should be focusing on, strengthened pension savings. -- to champion. Not

:21:33. > :21:35.focusing on another freeze that emanated from the laboratory of

:21:36. > :21:40.ideas from the previous Chancellor and his advisers, who had formed

:21:41. > :21:42.with constant tinkering of the savings landscape. The right

:21:43. > :21:46.honourable member for Tatton may have gone from the front bench, but

:21:47. > :21:51.his memory lingers on with this bill. Let us recall what the

:21:52. > :21:59.Chancellor said in his budget speech this year.

:22:00. > :22:09.Too many young people have no pensions and savings. They will tell

:22:10. > :22:14.you I, because they find pensions too complicated and inflexible and

:22:15. > :22:20.most young people find an agonising choice of either saving to buy a

:22:21. > :22:30.home or for their retirement. This assertion was not back. By evidence.

:22:31. > :22:36.It was half baked. Young people under the age of 30 have the lowest

:22:37. > :22:41.level of opt out rates of all those automatically enrolled into

:22:42. > :22:50.workplace pensions. Research has found that the opt out rate was 8%,

:22:51. > :22:59.compared with 9% of 30 to 49-year-olds and higher for those

:23:00. > :23:03.over. One would have thought they would look at the evidence and find

:23:04. > :23:13.the assertion for these measures are wrong.

:23:14. > :23:20.After much effort, auto enrolment has been successful at encouraging

:23:21. > :23:27.young people to save. That is what we should be prioritising and it is

:23:28. > :23:31.why we propose to delete the LISA from this bill. We know the Treasury

:23:32. > :23:41.flying kites and moving from existing arrangements for tax

:23:42. > :23:47.exempt. This would incentivise pension saving but would mean higher

:23:48. > :23:55.tax receipts today than pensions being taxed. A wheeze from the

:23:56. > :24:03.previous Chancellor to deliver higher taxation savings today rather

:24:04. > :24:13.than the future. A reverse modern Robin Hood. We must focus on pension

:24:14. > :24:18.savings and an auto enrolment and not undermine those efforts by

:24:19. > :24:22.inadvertently encouraging people to opt out through confusing consumers

:24:23. > :24:28.with new competing products. As been stated by the likes of jury

:24:29. > :24:33.insurance there is a real danger that the LISA could reverse the

:24:34. > :24:38.progress which has been made in encouraging people to save for later

:24:39. > :24:43.life. I agree with this. What is inconceivable is why the government

:24:44. > :24:49.are pushing ahead with this with such waste. With Osborne gone from

:24:50. > :24:53.the Cabinet, why are they holding onto his big ideas? Providers have

:24:54. > :25:00.expressed that they may not be ready for implementation in April 20 17.

:25:01. > :25:04.Surely to quality, safeguard and overcome the challenges of complex

:25:05. > :25:14.at each they should accept our amendment to remove the LISA on

:25:15. > :25:19.these grounds. Amendment 12, those under age 25 only qualify for tax

:25:20. > :25:24.credits if they are working under 16 hours a week. This amendment would

:25:25. > :25:35.ensure that such individuals would qualify for a help to save product

:25:36. > :25:44.if they qualified in other ways. Amendment 14 would able a workplace

:25:45. > :25:51.saving scheme which would see an individual automatically signed up

:25:52. > :25:56.to help to account. Amendment 13 would ensure that individuals

:25:57. > :26:07.subject to bankruptcy order would not be stripped of assets. Mr

:26:08. > :26:12.Speaker, we welcome the government help to save which we believe will

:26:13. > :26:17.help to boost the financial resilience of low-income households.

:26:18. > :26:20.A survey conducted demonstrates the importance of helping low-income

:26:21. > :26:25.households to save. Over three quarters of respondents said they

:26:26. > :26:32.need to pay unexpected costs at least once a year on average worth

:26:33. > :26:44.200- ?300. Many have cut back on essentials or have had to borrow

:26:45. > :26:46.money for these. Having ?1000 inaccessible cash savings reduced

:26:47. > :26:57.the likelihood of a household folding into debt by 44%. If each

:26:58. > :27:03.household had ?1000 save it would reduce the number of problem

:27:04. > :27:10.debtors. But the government could do much more. We will support these

:27:11. > :27:18.aspects of the bill but to out protection to those the government

:27:19. > :27:24.has not considered. Step change have a plan to tackle anticipated low

:27:25. > :27:30.take-up of help to save. We think our amendments for the under 25 this

:27:31. > :27:35.would help that. We also support step change's calls to bring forward

:27:36. > :27:45.the plan for no longer than six months after Royal assent. Auto

:27:46. > :27:50.enrolment review should be undertaken to see how we can enhance

:27:51. > :27:55.those numbers and help families Bill short-term savings. I hope the

:27:56. > :28:02.government will reflect on other methods this evening. There must be

:28:03. > :28:07.advice for those looking to invest in an ISA. I will be looking to

:28:08. > :28:14.remove LISA from this bill under Amendment 15. We must ensure there

:28:15. > :28:22.is no possibility of mis-selling. A failure to do so will see is back in

:28:23. > :28:26.this chamber discussing the Congress announces -- consequences and it

:28:27. > :28:33.will be the government fault. It's been a pretty wide-ranging debate

:28:34. > :28:38.with a relatively small number of speakers. Many of the arguments are

:28:39. > :28:41.those we gave a good airing two during our bill committee

:28:42. > :28:49.discussions. I look to address the key points made during the debate.

:28:50. > :28:58.I'll also set out why we think the government amendments are necessary.

:28:59. > :29:03.I'd like to inform members of a small change we are making to

:29:04. > :29:12.charges an early withdrawals on the lifetime LISA. These rules to affect

:29:13. > :29:17.the substance of the bill. As a courtesy I thought some members

:29:18. > :29:30.would be interested given some evidence raised by the Bill

:29:31. > :29:34.committee. The 25% charge recoups the bonus and adds a small

:29:35. > :29:39.additional charge which is fair protecting government funds and tax

:29:40. > :29:46.payers money. The bonus will not be paid monthly as it will from April

:29:47. > :29:52.2018 but as an annual bonus at year-end. It could create a

:29:53. > :29:56.difficult case where people receive a 25% charge before they receive the

:29:57. > :30:08.bonus so to improve the product for consumers I have confirmed that

:30:09. > :30:15.there will no charges before 2018. People can close their accounts with

:30:16. > :30:20.no government charged to do so. Any individual that closes the account

:30:21. > :30:28.will be able to open another LISA in 2017-8 of they wish. That means the

:30:29. > :30:36.25% government charge on withdrawals other than for a first-time house

:30:37. > :30:42.purchase will apply as heard the overarching policy intention.

:30:43. > :30:47.Turning to amendment three, about data sharing. On this issue I wrote

:30:48. > :30:56.to the honourable member for Bootle and the honourable member for Ross,

:30:57. > :31:01.Skye and Lochaber. We have heard that the lifetime ISA will provide

:31:02. > :31:06.an eligible first-time buyer a new choice for saving for a first home

:31:07. > :31:20.in additional to the helped ISA scheme. Both include the 25% bonus.

:31:21. > :31:24.When we first announced the LISA we intended them to pay into both

:31:25. > :31:37.schemes but they will only be able to use the bonus from one scheme to

:31:38. > :31:43.purchase a property. It also provides appropriate safeguards and

:31:44. > :31:47.sanctions in relation to the use of account holders information

:31:48. > :31:53.including a criminal offence for unlawful disclosure of that

:31:54. > :31:57.information. This is a straightforward amendment that will

:31:58. > :32:04.ensure the scheme rules around government bonuses can be

:32:05. > :32:14.effectively administered. With regard to residency conditions. Help

:32:15. > :32:17.to save. A targeted scheme that will support lower-income savers by

:32:18. > :32:22.providing a generous government bonus on savings. It is only right

:32:23. > :32:26.that this should be available made while the account holder is in the

:32:27. > :32:36.UK or has an appropriate connection with the UK such as Crown servants

:32:37. > :32:46.overseas. The bill already provides for a UK being in -- an individual

:32:47. > :32:49.in the UK to open an account. These amendments address the situation by

:32:50. > :32:54.allowing regulations to provide a monthly payment limit. That helped

:32:55. > :33:01.to save can be set at nil in certain cases. We intend to use this power

:33:02. > :33:04.to ensure that individuals cannot earn an additional government bonus

:33:05. > :33:05.when they are not in the UK don't have the appropriate connection to

:33:06. > :33:26.the UK. This approach broadly mirrors the

:33:27. > :33:32.arrangements for ISA accounts. A penalty will not apply where there

:33:33. > :33:36.is a reasonable excuse for failure to notify and anyone who receives a

:33:37. > :33:45.penalty reserves the right to appeal. These amendments allow an

:33:46. > :33:50.effective targeting of the generous help to save bonus so it can only be

:33:51. > :33:54.earned on savings made by individuals in the UK or with an

:33:55. > :34:00.appropriate connection and on that basis I hope the house will accept

:34:01. > :34:13.them. Some of the non-government amendments. Just to summarise the

:34:14. > :34:16.main response. On clause seven, advice for people opening either

:34:17. > :34:20.type of account. We have heard concerns that people might not get

:34:21. > :34:25.all the advice they need. The regulation of providers is a role

:34:26. > :34:31.for the independent Financial Conduct Authority. It will likewise

:34:32. > :34:35.set the framework for the LISA. They are consulting on their approach and

:34:36. > :34:39.have set out their suggested approach. The government wants to

:34:40. > :34:44.ensure that people have the information they need to make

:34:45. > :34:50.important decisions and we will provide clear information to ensure

:34:51. > :34:59.they make appropriate and impartial information available. At the risk

:35:00. > :35:02.of and dating this advice is that it makes the products prohibitively

:35:03. > :35:09.expensive for many people. We were talking about the cost associated

:35:10. > :35:12.with mandating financial advice. While I understand the sentiment

:35:13. > :35:20.behind these clauses I urge members to withdraw it and look at what the

:35:21. > :35:32.SCA are recommend in their initial suggestions. I'll take a brief

:35:33. > :35:41.intervention. I ungrateful but I don't think speaking for 20 minutes

:35:42. > :35:50.as unreasonable. What evidence is that individuals will be better off

:35:51. > :36:00.under a LISA rather than a pension question I accept that the

:36:01. > :36:04.honourable gentleman has an objection in principle to the LISA.

:36:05. > :36:10.I have given examples where the government will steer people towards

:36:11. > :36:13.advice. We are keen as anyone that people have access to advice but I

:36:14. > :36:24.would urge him to look at the consultation. Let the turn to

:36:25. > :36:30.amendment to and help to save and credit unions as providers. Let me

:36:31. > :36:36.make a few general comments. In particular on credit unions. I

:36:37. > :36:42.absolutely agree that they pay a key role in providing affordable credit.

:36:43. > :36:47.The government is keen to support them. Our manifesto committed to

:36:48. > :36:54.support the credit union movement making financial services more

:36:55. > :36:58.successful. We support the expansion project and have provided ?38

:36:59. > :37:04.million worth of funding to help the sector modernise and become self

:37:05. > :37:05.sustainable. We increased the maximum interest rates that credit

:37:06. > :37:16.unions can charge. We have chosen to appoint as the

:37:17. > :37:20.single provider of help to save occurrence as it provides the most

:37:21. > :37:23.cost-effective way of ensuring national coverage for the scheme. We

:37:24. > :37:26.do acknowledge the important role that credit unions play in local

:37:27. > :37:31.communities but it became clear during the summer's consultation

:37:32. > :37:36.that a multiple provider model reliant on financial providers

:37:37. > :37:39.including credit union offering accounts on a voluntary basis would

:37:40. > :37:46.just not guarantee the UK- wide coverage that we wanted. And by

:37:47. > :37:50.appointing NAS NI as the scheme provider, we can achieve that

:37:51. > :37:55.nationwide account provisions. It also means we can work with a single

:37:56. > :37:59.provider doing ensure that counts are easily accessible by all the

:38:00. > :38:04.eligible people, removing a significant administrative and

:38:05. > :38:07.compliance cost associated with a range of different providers.

:38:08. > :38:09.However, I do want to stress, and I hope this is of reassurance

:38:10. > :38:14.particularly to the honourable lady was not on the bill committee, that

:38:15. > :38:18.the builders are low HMRC to approve a credit union to be unauthorised

:38:19. > :38:22.account provider if we decide to adopt a multiple provider model of

:38:23. > :38:26.account provisions in the future. So NSNI is adopted as the provider at

:38:27. > :38:29.this stage and regulations but there is nothing on the face of the bill

:38:30. > :38:33.that would preclude expanding the provider model on the future, I just

:38:34. > :38:37.want to give her that reassurance, and the honourable gentleman for

:38:38. > :38:41.Harrow West. There is nothing precluding credit unions being

:38:42. > :38:45.further involved in the future. They are very grateful to her forgiving

:38:46. > :38:49.way. I listened with interest to the two speeches opposite about the

:38:50. > :38:53.credit unions, and I myself am a member of one. Will she looks

:38:54. > :38:56.specifically, because I think what the honourable lady from Wallsall of

:38:57. > :39:00.asking, this is an opportunity to expand the role of credit Unions by

:39:01. > :39:06.giving the preferred provider status, so when she considers

:39:07. > :39:11.expanding potentially alternative providers beyond NSNI we should look

:39:12. > :39:16.at expanding it to credit unions solely as an alternative to NSNI

:39:17. > :39:18.rather than more properly? I hope my honourable friend will understand

:39:19. > :39:21.that it would be pre-emptive of me to make a commitment like that at

:39:22. > :39:24.this stage but we have been very clear that we think credit unions

:39:25. > :39:27.have a big role to play. They are not precluded by the primary

:39:28. > :39:33.legislation from being part of a multiple provider model in the

:39:34. > :39:35.future. And indeed my officials have been in constructive discussions

:39:36. > :39:39.with the credit union movement throughout the passage of this bill.

:39:40. > :39:43.We are working with the sector, the credit union sector, to ensure the

:39:44. > :39:47.final design of help to save meets the need of the target audience and

:39:48. > :39:49.I know the economics Secretary is looking forward to meeting the

:39:50. > :39:54.honourable member for Harrow West and the honourable member for South

:39:55. > :39:57.Ribble to discuss the issue further with the Association of British

:39:58. > :40:01.credit unions. This is not about excluding the credit union movement

:40:02. > :40:05.at all. We are in regular, constructive discussion with them.

:40:06. > :40:12.We just feel at this stage it does not allow us to offer that simple,

:40:13. > :40:16.nationwide model to... Of course. I thank the Minister for what she is a

:40:17. > :40:20.thing. Our concern is that savings of a critical part of the ability of

:40:21. > :40:24.credit unions to be able to deliver the services that they provide. The

:40:25. > :40:27.argument she is making does not preclude the amendment that we are

:40:28. > :40:30.talking about today and that the Co-op MPs have suggested that would

:40:31. > :40:35.enable the conversations she is talking about to happen. There would

:40:36. > :40:41.be no suggestion the Rubio legislative bar, for she is making

:40:42. > :40:44.the case for the amendment we are making by suggesting it is what she

:40:45. > :40:46.wants to do in future. I am saying there is nothing precluding is

:40:47. > :40:50.happening on the base of the bill, for the amendment of unnecessary. We

:40:51. > :40:53.are in constructive discussions with the credit unions and they are not

:40:54. > :40:59.recorded from the future. I have just laid out why they, throughout

:41:00. > :41:02.the consultation process, we identified that was not a suitable

:41:03. > :41:08.model for the starting point of this. But I honestly think that we

:41:09. > :41:11.are essentially coming at this from the same point of view and I do hope

:41:12. > :41:14.in the light of what I have said the honourable members will look at

:41:15. > :41:19.withdrawing this amendment and we will continue to have those, as I

:41:20. > :41:23.say, constructive discussions. Let me turn to amendment seven, which is

:41:24. > :41:30.about the bonus being paid every six months. This, honestly, seeks to

:41:31. > :41:35.baby bonus every six months rather than at the two and four year mark

:41:36. > :41:39.on the opt is a product. We believe paying the bonus at two years and a

:41:40. > :41:43.good majority strikes the right balance between giving people are

:41:44. > :41:46.not to build up their savings and developed a savings habit and

:41:47. > :41:49.allowing them to access it within an appropriate timescale. That is

:41:50. > :41:53.supported by evidence from similar savings schemes. Some members will

:41:54. > :41:57.be aware of the savings Gateway pilot that we run Match of The Day 2

:41:58. > :42:01.year period of savings is optimum for embedding the saving habit. I

:42:02. > :42:05.want to emphasise to members that people will still have full access

:42:06. > :42:09.to their savings with help to save, so only if they are only able to

:42:10. > :42:14.save for six months, they will still be entitled to receive a bonus at

:42:15. > :42:17.the two-year pointer maturity. I hope that reassures honourable

:42:18. > :42:21.members that we have looked carefully at this. I accept that it

:42:22. > :42:26.is to an extent a judgment call but I think we have evidence from the

:42:27. > :42:30.pilots, savings Gateway, as well as from other peer-reviewed research

:42:31. > :42:36.which shows that the savings habit is embedded around about the 19-24

:42:37. > :42:41.month as the optimum time, and therefore we think that is the right

:42:42. > :42:44.balance that we have struck. Again, honourable members might consider

:42:45. > :42:50.withdrawing the amendment. Nine, ten and 11, around the contribution

:42:51. > :42:53.limits, not many members spoke specifically to this. We explored it

:42:54. > :43:00.quite building committee. This is about being able to actually

:43:01. > :43:04.contribute an average, a two monthly average, of ?50. Our consultation

:43:05. > :43:08.specifically addressed the question of whether or not individuals should

:43:09. > :43:11.be able to pay in more than the ?50 limit in certain circumstances, and

:43:12. > :43:14.respondents were very clear that this would add complexity to the

:43:15. > :43:20.scheme for both savers and account providers. It is worth notifying

:43:21. > :43:25.that in the OBR certified forecast it was suggested that people would

:43:26. > :43:29.deposit ?27 50 into their accounts on average. I would suggest that the

:43:30. > :43:35.monthly limit is adequate and this amendment might be withdrawn.

:43:36. > :43:38.Amendment 12 of about eligibility for under 25. Again explored during

:43:39. > :43:45.the course of the committee. Touch down briefly by the honourable

:43:46. > :43:50.member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. Our intention is to passport people

:43:51. > :43:54.into eligibility, to help to save and working tax credit, and from UC.

:43:55. > :43:57.It is a well-established way of targeting people on lower incomes

:43:58. > :44:02.and we think it is the most simple and effective method for determining

:44:03. > :44:05.eligibility. Importantly, it removes the need for people to completely

:44:06. > :44:10.further means test to prove they are eligible for an account or to

:44:11. > :44:13.contact the government. We know both of those things are deterrents when

:44:14. > :44:18.it comes to stopping people opening accounts. It also avoids additional

:44:19. > :44:23.costs associated with developing a new and complex eligibility checking

:44:24. > :44:26.system. Amendment 13, again touched on by the honourable member speaking

:44:27. > :44:32.from the front bench for the SNP, was about exempting bonuses from

:44:33. > :44:37.bankruptcy proceedings. The approach we have taken is consistent with

:44:38. > :44:39.what we have done elsewhere. For example, in the benefits system,

:44:40. > :44:45.where deductions are sometimes made to claims to repay debts, we think

:44:46. > :44:50.that in reality any accrued bonus represents an asset for the account

:44:51. > :44:52.holder and should be treated as such during any insolvency proceedings.

:44:53. > :44:58.Again, I would urge members to withdraw. Turning to new clause one,

:44:59. > :45:01.with the honourable member for Harrow West asserted his remarks,

:45:02. > :45:06.and that is the savers who are on the payroll deduction, also touched

:45:07. > :45:10.on in amendment 14. Both seek to introduce rules to allow people to

:45:11. > :45:16.automatically deduct amounts from their salary into a help to save

:45:17. > :45:19.account, and amendment 14 goes further by introducing

:45:20. > :45:22.auto-enrolment for help to save, allowing employers or benefit being

:45:23. > :45:27.bodies to divert money from employees' paid to a halt to save

:45:28. > :45:30.account, unless they opt out. As I said at the committee stage, we want

:45:31. > :45:34.the decision to save into a help to save account to be an active choice

:45:35. > :45:37.made by eligible individuals at a time that is right for them, and for

:45:38. > :45:39.many that will mean saving the Exelby, putting aside what they can

:45:40. > :45:52.afford each month, rather than committing to a fixed amount

:45:53. > :45:54.deducted each month from their salary. Again, there is nothing in

:45:55. > :45:57.the legislation to stop an employer offering payroll deduction for help

:45:58. > :45:59.to save to their employees, but we do not intend to make it a statutory

:46:00. > :46:01.requirement for employers to offer payroll deduction for help to save.

:46:02. > :46:06.Automatic enrolment into workplace pensions must remain a priority for

:46:07. > :46:10.employers. There are a number of new clauses, two, four, five and six,

:46:11. > :46:13.seeking to place a duty on the government to review published

:46:14. > :46:17.analysis on certain aspects of the policies. In all of these cases, I

:46:18. > :46:22.would note to the House that we have already contacted, conducted an

:46:23. > :46:26.impact assessment published alongside this bill. We published

:46:27. > :46:30.the motive distribution analysis is Autumn Statement of all of the

:46:31. > :46:36.policies implemented during the 1524 hrs, including NSNI and help to

:46:37. > :46:39.save, and believe it is important to look at the cumulative impact,

:46:40. > :46:42.rather than the impact of individual measures in isolation. The

:46:43. > :46:47.distribution analysis which the government has published since 2010

:46:48. > :46:51.have always taken it live that made the cumulative rather than measured

:46:52. > :46:56.by major approach. We will of course keep the LISA under review to ensure

:46:57. > :47:00.it is meeting its objectives and regularly publish a wide range of

:47:01. > :47:03.detail about the take-up of the government supported savings

:47:04. > :47:06.accounts, such as ISA, and intend to take a similar approach with the

:47:07. > :47:11.wife to take a similar approach with the lifetime either. There is a lot

:47:12. > :47:16.we have already done here. -- with the lifetime either. Any impact that

:47:17. > :47:22.-- from the LISA is likely to be very difficult to detect from other

:47:23. > :47:25.factors in the honourable member for brittle revert to that on the fact

:47:26. > :47:28.that we had touched on that during the committee. Indeed, as we

:47:29. > :47:33.mentioned there, some of the accusations that this is a product

:47:34. > :47:36.that is only there for the wealthy I think to not there scrutiny when you

:47:37. > :47:40.look at how Help To Buy ISA has been used, where it has been used to buy

:47:41. > :47:46.homes worth on average 160,000 thousand pounds, well under the

:47:47. > :47:49.property price cap. I do not believe those accusations are fair. On the

:47:50. > :47:53.interaction with the automatic enrolment, which is obviously

:47:54. > :47:57.dominating much of the comment by the honourable gentleman leading for

:47:58. > :48:02.the Scottish National Party, again, we covered this in some detail and I

:48:03. > :48:04.can once again stressed the government's absolute commitment to

:48:05. > :48:09.automatic enrolment. It is quite wrong to say that we seek to the

:48:10. > :48:14.rule that. The lifetime either and the Treasury is quite clear on this

:48:15. > :48:17.is designed to be a complement to automatic enrolment and workplace

:48:18. > :48:21.pensions, and not a replacement. Our costings consultancy, assume that

:48:22. > :48:26.people will object of their workplace pension in order to pay

:48:27. > :48:29.into too early to. Again, we have cited the figure is already very,

:48:30. > :48:34.very low figures of uptake rates so far, encouraging result. Taking all

:48:35. > :48:36.of those things together, we do not believe the new clauses are

:48:37. > :48:40.necessary and again I would urge honourable members to withdraw them.

:48:41. > :48:44.Obviously amendments 15-22 effectively cancel the lifetime

:48:45. > :48:48.either from the bill. It is quite evident from my comments so far that

:48:49. > :48:53.I have no intention of accepting those amendments, and again it is

:48:54. > :48:55.clear that we have a disagreement in principle. I did think the

:48:56. > :49:02.honourable gentleman for Ross, Skye and Lochaber bordered on hyperbole

:49:03. > :49:05.was about the accusations against the measure. He says he is prepared

:49:06. > :49:08.to look at any reasonable measure which else able to save. We know

:49:09. > :49:12.from the conversations that have taken place on the complex subject

:49:13. > :49:15.of saving for the future that this is a product that will help many

:49:16. > :49:19.people say. It is a direct response to the Commons that we had to a

:49:20. > :49:23.public consultation about the complexity of savings options. No

:49:24. > :49:31.matter, I am going to press on in this regard. No, we have had a good

:49:32. > :49:33.debate of that committee stage and here and I am going to press on.

:49:34. > :49:36.Shouting NO, I HAVE TO DATE TAKEN SLIGHTLY

:49:37. > :49:43.LESS TIME THAN THE HONOURABLE GENTLEMAN... She is clearly not

:49:44. > :49:46.giving way, it is apparent to everybody else, I am sure it is now

:49:47. > :49:50.apparent to the honourable gentleman. I am not going to accept

:49:51. > :49:55.the amendments seeking to cancel have to go. I repair him to the

:49:56. > :49:58.SCA's consultation. I do not think that they would recognise his

:49:59. > :50:03.comments and I do not either. On amendment one, the maturity period

:50:04. > :50:11.of the account on help to save, this would change the normal maturity

:50:12. > :50:14.period from 48 to 24 month and in practice and that would mean that

:50:15. > :50:17.people could only save for two years, rather than poor, and we have

:50:18. > :50:21.designed the scheme so that people can the event in a help to save and

:50:22. > :50:24.get a government bonus after two years and continue to save and

:50:25. > :50:26.receive a further bonus when the account page is after four years,

:50:27. > :50:29.and we have done that because we want the target group to be able to

:50:30. > :50:31.save as regularly as other people and they may take longer to save

:50:32. > :50:46.towards that vital rainy day fund. Secondly, it provides an incentive

:50:47. > :50:48.for people to continue saving beyond two years, which fits our objective

:50:49. > :50:50.to encourage people to develop a long-term savings habit. Again, I

:50:51. > :50:52.hope those amendments wait, it might withdraw. Amendment sex would delay

:50:53. > :50:55.commencement until April 2019, when automatic enrolment to workplace

:50:56. > :50:59.pensions will be fully rolled out. We have been very clear we do not

:51:00. > :51:03.expect lifetime I felt to drive opt outs from pensions saving, and there

:51:04. > :51:09.is no reason to delay. In fact, that Italy would disadvantage those who

:51:10. > :51:14.wish to open a LISA and have been preparing for a 2017 lunch. Again,

:51:15. > :51:17.the honourable gentleman completely disregarded for example the fact

:51:18. > :51:21.there are people who are self-employed who did not have an

:51:22. > :51:23.option of accessing a workplace pension scheme. That was something

:51:24. > :51:28.that came imagine the evidence to the bill committee. Not a about the

:51:29. > :51:34.self-employed. No, I will not. It would also delay helped to save for

:51:35. > :51:38.a year, disadvantage, disadvantage in favour is only low income who

:51:39. > :51:40.would benefit from the skin. I am passionate about the help to save

:51:41. > :51:44.scheme, as a lot of honourable members are, and want to see it go

:51:45. > :51:50.ahead as planned mounted to work with all of the people mentioned,

:51:51. > :51:54.the credit unions and churches, to make sure that we absolutely exceed

:51:55. > :51:57.the target for help to save in terms of take-up. I would be delighted if

:51:58. > :52:15.we vastly exceed the target. I'm grateful for the level of

:52:16. > :52:17.interest the members have shown in this important area of helping

:52:18. > :52:27.people to save and I appreciate that many of the amendments were made the

:52:28. > :52:33.spirit of trying to I have set out why I don't feel the new clauses are

:52:34. > :52:41.necessary. I hope they do not push for a division.

:52:42. > :52:46.That notwithstanding I am confident the bill will further the government

:52:47. > :52:50.aim of supporting people in the different ways they want to save for

:52:51. > :53:00.the future and, of course, I commend it to the house. The final words are

:53:01. > :53:03.for the member for Harrow West. This has been a very short but

:53:04. > :53:11.interesting debate. I come find my brief final remarks to the three

:53:12. > :53:15.amendments tabled in my name. The member for Walthamstow made a

:53:16. > :53:20.characteristically excellent speech dwelling on the debt soon army

:53:21. > :53:27.coming our way. She rightly alluded to the challenges many face in

:53:28. > :53:33.providing a service through local employers to local employees. My

:53:34. > :53:38.honourable friend for Bootle in his excellent speech from the front

:53:39. > :53:42.bench, perhaps inspired again by listening to the works of

:53:43. > :53:48.Shostakovich of which I know he is a devotee, rightly worried that the

:53:49. > :53:52.number of people who would sign up for Help To Save given the numbers

:53:53. > :53:59.eligible would not be as great if credit unions were not able to be

:54:00. > :54:05.included in the provision of those providers who can offer help to

:54:06. > :54:10.save. I was very interested in the minister's response. I hear her

:54:11. > :54:18.concerns about new clause one and I look forward to exploring those

:54:19. > :54:23.little more the meeting with her fellow minister for Brighton. I was

:54:24. > :54:27.grateful to hear her assurance an amendment one and a possible

:54:28. > :54:33.reduction to 12 months rather than 24 months. As a result, I will not

:54:34. > :54:42.move to a division either amendment one or new clause one but I will

:54:43. > :54:48.seek to press to a division amendment to. I don't think the

:54:49. > :54:52.minister made a convincing case as to why credit unions should not be

:54:53. > :55:03.allowed to offer this product at this point. I think it's clear that

:55:04. > :55:07.NSNI will be a good national provider but it isn't clear white

:55:08. > :55:11.local credit unions cannot offer the product at the same time. Given the

:55:12. > :55:15.efforts that the Treasury are going to it seems odd not to take

:55:16. > :55:21.advantage of the offer credit unions can provide to get more people

:55:22. > :55:29.signed up. In that spirit, I intend to press amendment to to a division

:55:30. > :55:35.but not close to or amendment one. Is it the house's pleasure that new

:55:36. > :55:53.clause one be withdrawn? By leave withdrawn. New clause to to be read

:55:54. > :57:47.a second time? Division! Clear the lobby!

:57:48. > :58:08.Order! The question is, the new clause to be read as second time?

:58:09. > :04:03.Tell others for the ayes, and for the noes.

:04:04. > :08:48.200 200 the Allies to the right, 200 the nose to the left, 200 the nose

:08:49. > :08:54.have it. The noes amendments 15 to be moved formerly. The question is

:08:55. > :11:39.that amendment 15 be made. As many of that opinion of the division.

:11:40. > :11:53.The question is that amendment 15 be made. As many of that opinion the

:11:54. > :17:05.iMac. Of the contrary tellers for the Patrick Grady, tellers for,

:17:06. > :21:37.The ayes to the right, 48. The noes to the left, 248. The ayes to the

:21:38. > :21:45.right 45. The noes to the left, 284. The noes have it! Unlock! The

:21:46. > :22:01.question is that amendment three be made. As many of that opinion say

:22:02. > :22:08.aye. The ayes have it! The question is that amendment to be made. As

:22:09. > :23:10.many of that opinion say aye. The contrary. Division! Clear the lobby!

:23:11. > :23:27.Order! The question is that amendment to be made.

:23:28. > :30:13.Tell for the ayes. Tellers for the noes.

:30:14. > :33:12.The noes on the left 279. The noes have it! Unlock. With the lead of

:33:13. > :33:17.the house we will take amendments four and five together. The question

:33:18. > :33:44.is that amendment is four and five be made. The ayes have it! Third

:33:45. > :33:51.reading. The question is that the bill be now read a third time. Jane

:33:52. > :33:57.Ellison. Thank you very much. I beg to move that the bill now be read

:33:58. > :34:00.for a third time. Can I thank all the right honourable and honourable

:34:01. > :34:04.members who have taken time to scrutinise the bill through its

:34:05. > :34:08.passage through this house and for subjecting it to good constructive

:34:09. > :34:14.debate which I think has been very helpful. We want to make it easier

:34:15. > :34:19.to build up savings and meet ambitions to be secure in personal

:34:20. > :34:24.finances and we set to work to make this the case. We have put an end to

:34:25. > :34:28.17 million people having to pay tax on the interest received on their

:34:29. > :34:39.savings and we announced the biggest ever increase on the ice allowance

:34:40. > :34:40.from April next year. This bill carries on this hugely important

:34:41. > :34:57.work. The lifetime ISA is a positive move for

:34:58. > :35:05.savers, a compliment for pensions. With help to save which has enjoyed

:35:06. > :35:11.cross-party support in the house we know why this is so important. The

:35:12. > :35:16.Centre for Social Justice tells is an estimated 3 million households

:35:17. > :35:19.have no savings at all. This is a hugely important step we are making

:35:20. > :35:29.to move forward with this important account. The passage of the bill

:35:30. > :35:39.through the house has been met with thoughtful and constructive

:35:40. > :35:42.challenge but it is a fundamental about helping people to save for

:35:43. > :35:47.their future and I have great pleasure in recommending it to the

:35:48. > :35:55.house. The question is that the bill be read a third time. I'd like to

:35:56. > :35:59.echo the sentiments of the Minister in relation to the scrutiny this

:36:00. > :36:05.bill has had. I'd like to thank all the witnesses who came to the

:36:06. > :36:09.sessions we had and the written evidence we've had from everyone and

:36:10. > :36:20.all the informal information we've had from contacts in relation to the

:36:21. > :36:24.Bill. Nobody has any objection to helping people to save, it's a

:36:25. > :36:31.question as to how you managed to do that. We are not convinced this will

:36:32. > :36:35.do that. We don't think there is sufficient evidence to back up what

:36:36. > :36:41.the minister said and we don't think it addresses this shortage of

:36:42. > :36:46.housing. It's a question of whether it is value for money. We think it,

:36:47. > :36:51.brigades the market and introduces potentially a Trojan Horse. Not

:36:52. > :37:00.everybody is convinced about it. In relation to help to buy, for those

:37:01. > :37:04.on low income I'm not convinced it does the business for them. It puts

:37:05. > :37:09.a little drop back into a very big ocean. I think the government should

:37:10. > :37:13.listen to what many people have said out there but nevertheless we accept

:37:14. > :37:17.the fact that we need to help people to save for the future and we think

:37:18. > :37:25.that all the information provided to as sets the scene for continued

:37:26. > :37:29.future debates on this matter in due course. I'd like to thank the

:37:30. > :37:30.Minister for her helpfulness and civility throughout the whole

:37:31. > :37:39.process. I have to say that I think this is

:37:40. > :37:44.legislation that we will be repenting at in due course. We

:37:45. > :37:47.cannot get away from the fact when all the evidence that was presented

:37:48. > :37:51.to us, we look at the evidence that was presented by the EBI, it makes

:37:52. > :37:57.it absolutely abundantly clear that anyone that has the opportunity to

:37:58. > :38:05.invest in a workplace pension is going to be worse off by investing

:38:06. > :38:08.in a LISA than they would be any pension. When I listened to the

:38:09. > :38:12.Minister talking about those who are self who do not have the advantages

:38:13. > :38:15.of auto-enrolment, what we should have been doing is bringing forward

:38:16. > :38:21.legislation that deals with that problem. We have the opportunity

:38:22. > :38:24.when we review auto-enrolment next to do this. There is no need for

:38:25. > :38:28.this legislation for ordinary people. Ordinary people are not

:38:29. > :38:33.going to benefit from the LISA. Let me put it to the House that what

:38:34. > :38:38.this is going to do is reward those that have already maxed out on their

:38:39. > :38:43.pension schemes by giving them another opportunity that will help

:38:44. > :38:47.them with the government bonus. Not so much about what they call a LISA,

:38:48. > :38:51.it is what we on this side of the House would call the report. The

:38:52. > :38:57.really useful perks for extremely rich Tories. Because, Madame Deputy

:38:58. > :39:02.Speaker, these are the only people that will benefit from this

:39:03. > :39:08.legislation tonight. And when it comes down to what is really

:39:09. > :39:11.important in this, and I am delighted that True Potential have

:39:12. > :39:15.published their evidence today, because let me just give you to

:39:16. > :39:21.maxed from what they have published, 30% of people aged between 25 and

:39:22. > :39:29.40, when given the opportunity, would choose a LISA instead of a

:39:30. > :39:33.pension. 58% of 25-34 -year-olds would use the LISA for retirement

:39:34. > :39:36.savings. Now, we know that those that have the opportunity to invest

:39:37. > :39:41.in a pension will always be better off, as I said at second reading,

:39:42. > :39:47.what this Government has wilfully done in going through the lobbies

:39:48. > :39:51.and second reading is created the circumstances where young people in

:39:52. > :39:55.this country are going to be mis-sold LISAs. This Government

:39:56. > :40:04.should be utterly, utterly ashamed for itself. Kelvin Hopkins. I was a

:40:05. > :40:07.member of the bill committee and I made many of the points that I wish

:40:08. > :40:11.to make at that time. Sadly, I was not able to be here for the first

:40:12. > :40:13.part of debate but I wanted to see a few words in support of what we have

:40:14. > :40:18.heard from the opposition front bench. My honourable friend and the

:40:19. > :40:22.leader for the Scottish Nationalists have expressed very strong words of

:40:23. > :40:27.scepticism about the whole bill and I have to say I share them, and in

:40:28. > :40:30.fact reinforce them. For the very poorest, what they need, Madame

:40:31. > :40:37.Deputy Speaker, is a much bigger state Pension and beyond that, for

:40:38. > :40:39.many people, a compulsory, earning seven related state pension scheme

:40:40. > :40:44.would be much better value and would guarantee that everybody said some

:40:45. > :40:49.of their earnings for a decent old age. I think that would be the much

:40:50. > :40:52.more positive way forward and I echo what has been set from the

:40:53. > :41:00.opposition front bench, and thank you for this opportunity to speak.

:41:01. > :41:02.Gareth Thomas. It is a pleasure to follow my honourable friend the

:41:03. > :41:08.religion. I did not have the privilege of serving on the bill

:41:09. > :41:14.committee. -- friend for illusion. But I did take part at second

:41:15. > :41:18.reading and earlier in the discussions at report stage. And I

:41:19. > :41:21.welcome the commitment of ministers to continue to engage with credit

:41:22. > :41:30.unions, which was the primary issue that I thought to raise over the

:41:31. > :41:36.course of... Of the bill's passage in this chamber. There is one

:41:37. > :41:40.further issue that we did not address, in particular about help to

:41:41. > :41:47.save. With a national provider, a National savings and investment, it

:41:48. > :41:52.would be relatively easy to disaggregate the data of who is

:41:53. > :41:57.taking advantage of the help to save product, and to publish that in an

:41:58. > :42:02.unorganised form. So that we can strike which postcodes are seeing

:42:03. > :42:06.the help to save products taken advantage of. And I read that in the

:42:07. > :42:13.context of work that the Treasury are doing with the British banking

:42:14. > :42:16.Association in encouraging banks to publish data about what financial

:42:17. > :42:21.services products are being offered to whom, and who is taking advantage

:42:22. > :42:30.of them. The banks have been reluctantly forced to reveal where

:42:31. > :42:33.they are lending, but the quality of information which has been provided

:42:34. > :42:37.is not yet perfect. It is a journey that we are on with the banks and

:42:38. > :42:42.one of the things that the Treasury could do once they get these bill

:42:43. > :42:50.through both houses, as they seem likely to do, is to require the

:42:51. > :42:56.company to publish on a post code bases were people are taking up the

:42:57. > :42:59.hill to save product. I commend that do ministers. I hope they will take

:43:00. > :43:04.that up and I hope that members of the other house will explore this

:43:05. > :43:14.particular additional issue in a little bit more detail. The question

:43:15. > :43:20.is the bill be now read the third time. As many of that opinion say I.

:43:21. > :43:29.Of the contrary no. The ayes habit. The ayes habit. We now come to item

:43:30. > :43:38.number two, the motion on the welfare cap. Call the Minister to

:43:39. > :43:42.make the motion, Caroline. Thank you, made Deputy Speaker. Today's

:43:43. > :43:45.motion is about the government taking accountability for welfare

:43:46. > :43:49.spending before this Island and indeed before the public. Madame

:43:50. > :43:53.Deputy Speaker, this debate is about the welfare cap. I hope honourable

:43:54. > :43:56.and Right Honourable members from both sides will agree that are

:43:57. > :43:59.welfare system is about more than just the numbers. We have a set of

:44:00. > :44:04.principles to build a welfare system that works for everyone. We need to

:44:05. > :44:08.look beyond just benefits and work with employers, health professionals

:44:09. > :44:12.and the voluntary sector. We need to ensure the system supports people to

:44:13. > :44:17.get into work, to stay in work and to progress in work. We must offer

:44:18. > :44:20.care for the minority of people who cannot work, whether through

:44:21. > :44:27.sickness, disability or personal circumstances. We introduced the

:44:28. > :44:30.welfare cap in 2013 to strengthen control of overspending and improve

:44:31. > :44:35.parliamentary accountability for that level of spending. The welfare

:44:36. > :44:38.cap is an important part of fiscal framework, and it plays a crucial

:44:39. > :44:42.role in delivering our commitment for a sustainable and affordable

:44:43. > :44:47.welfare system. Our welfare reforms are creating a system which makes

:44:48. > :44:51.sure a always pays, is fair to those who receive it, but also to those

:44:52. > :44:55.who pay for it. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility

:44:56. > :44:59.assess performance against the welfare cap at Autumn Statement and

:45:00. > :45:05.it is now forecast that the current cap will not be met in each year

:45:06. > :45:09.until 2020, 21. A similar debate was held in this House on the 16th of

:45:10. > :45:14.December 2015 on the beach of the welfare cap in the years 's 20 18

:45:15. > :45:19.and 20 Flash 19. Resulting from the recession not to pursue the tax

:45:20. > :45:23.credits measure proposed at Summer Budget 2015. This has agreed that

:45:24. > :45:26.the breach of the gap in the earlier years of the forecast period is

:45:27. > :45:30.justified and that no further debate will be required on this specific

:45:31. > :45:33.matter. There the motion we are putting today before the House seeks

:45:34. > :45:37.agreement on the justification of the breach of the cap in the later

:45:38. > :45:46.years of the forecast period to stop that is in 2019, 2020, and 2020, 20

:45:47. > :45:50.21. I would may like to outline the reasons for which the cap is

:45:51. > :45:54.forecast not to be met. This is due to inflation and spend on disability

:45:55. > :45:56.benefits, partly due to the decision not to pursue the personal

:45:57. > :46:01.independence payment measure proposed that budget 2016. As the

:46:02. > :46:04.her decision not to pursue tax credits measure, the government has

:46:05. > :46:09.once more listened and responded to public concerns and decided not to

:46:10. > :46:12.pursue the ginger is personal independence payment. Higher

:46:13. > :46:19.forecast inflation is another factor contributing to the cap not being

:46:20. > :46:22.met in 2020, and 21. In view of the uncertainty facing the economy,

:46:23. > :46:27.inflation is now forecast to be higher than when the cap was set at

:46:28. > :46:31.Summer Budget 2015. I would like to reassure this House that the latest

:46:32. > :46:34.forecasts do not mean that welfare spending is out of control. As my

:46:35. > :46:37.right honourable friend the Chancellor announced at Autumn

:46:38. > :46:40.Statement, we will deliver the welfare savings we have already

:46:41. > :46:44.announced and legislated for. I would also like to repeat that the

:46:45. > :46:48.government has no plans for further welfare savings in this Parliament.

:46:49. > :46:52.This Government believes that work is the best route out of poverty.

:46:53. > :46:56.This is why we want a welfare system which helps people who can work get

:46:57. > :47:01.back into work, but also supports those in most need. Our welfare

:47:02. > :47:08.reforms are working. Employment has risen by two million since 2010, and

:47:09. > :47:13.is now at a record high of 74. Unemployment is at an 11 year low.

:47:14. > :47:18.Universal credit is revolutionising the welfare system, enshrining the

:47:19. > :47:21.principle but working more always pays more. And at the benefit cap,

:47:22. > :47:25.we are restoring fairness to the system whilst ensuring there is a

:47:26. > :47:29.clear incentive to work. There are now over 1 million fewer people on

:47:30. > :47:32.edge over benefits. Three million disabled people are now in

:47:33. > :47:36.employment, and in the last three years, the number of disabled people

:47:37. > :47:45.in work has increased by nearly 600,000. We also want a welfare

:47:46. > :47:47.system which is a strong safety net for those who need it. I will

:47:48. > :47:51.indeed. To the Minister confirm whether it is still the government's

:47:52. > :47:56.commitment to half the disability employment gap by 2020? I am sure he

:47:57. > :48:00.will avert my honourable friend the Minister for disabled people who

:48:01. > :48:03.find work and she has made the point repeatedly that we are determined to

:48:04. > :48:08.reduce the disability employment gap and are incredibly hard to do it but

:48:09. > :48:11.acknowledge more needs to be done. The welfare cap plays an important

:48:12. > :48:16.role in ensuring that the welfare bill is both sustainable and

:48:17. > :48:19.affordable. We introduced the gap to bring welfare spending under

:48:20. > :48:23.control, and have done so. The system inherited was unaffordable

:48:24. > :48:28.and unsustainable. Under Labour, welfare spending increased by almost

:48:29. > :48:31.60% in real terms. The number of households were not never had ever

:48:32. > :48:38.worked nearly doubled and unemployment went up by 450 7000. As

:48:39. > :48:42.part of continuous commitment to a sustainable welfare system, the

:48:43. > :48:46.Chancellor announced at Autumn Statement the introduction of a new

:48:47. > :48:51.welfare cap. -- under Labour, unemployment went up by 400 7000.

:48:52. > :48:54.The government is firmly committed to returning the public finances

:48:55. > :48:57.back to balance as soon as is practical. Given the uncertainty we

:48:58. > :49:00.are currently facing, it is important to allow for enough

:49:01. > :49:03.applicability to support the economy. That is why we are changing

:49:04. > :49:10.the fiscal framework and introducing a new welfare cap as part of this.

:49:11. > :49:15.The new cap set a target for welfare spending in 21, 22, with eight

:49:16. > :49:19.partly for welfare spending in the years before that. Then new cap is

:49:20. > :49:23.set in line with the latest autumn spending spending forecast. The

:49:24. > :49:25.scope of the new cap remains unchanged. The Office for Budget

:49:26. > :49:31.Responsibility will continue to assess performance against the new

:49:32. > :49:33.cap, and if the cap is assessed as preached, ministers will still need

:49:34. > :49:36.to hold a debate and justify the bridge in this House, or proposed

:49:37. > :49:41.steps to bring spending within the level of the cap. This House will

:49:42. > :49:45.have the opportunity in due course to debate and agree the new fiscal

:49:46. > :49:48.framework, including the new welfare cap, which was put forward by my

:49:49. > :49:55.right honourable friend the Chancellor at Autumn Statement. I

:49:56. > :50:01.commend this motion to the House. The question is, the motion on the

:50:02. > :50:05.welfare cap is on the order paper. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It

:50:06. > :50:10.is always a pleasure to be here when you are in the chair. I take a

:50:11. > :50:13.slightly different view from the Minister, as you probably will have

:50:14. > :50:21.gathered, made Deputy Speaker. I will go on to the details in a. But

:50:22. > :50:24.really, this is, as the Minister was able to acknowledge, the second

:50:25. > :50:28.time, the second year that the government has had to come to the

:50:29. > :50:34.House to explain again why they have breached their own cap. The

:50:35. > :50:39.government has been forced to come to explain their failure, not just

:50:40. > :50:44.around breaching their own social security cap but also in terms of

:50:45. > :50:48.the economy. Just as a quick point of qualification, Madam Deputy

:50:49. > :50:56.Speaker, because I am sure it did not exceed you, -- is give you, this

:50:57. > :51:00.Government has spent, in the years 2010-2015, 100 and ?30 billion more

:51:01. > :51:11.than the previously the government spends between 2000 and 2010. So,

:51:12. > :51:20.this Government has spent more... So, that is absolutely...

:51:21. > :51:23.HUSHED chatter IT IS VERY INTERESTING THAT THEY

:51:24. > :51:28.SHOULD TAKE THAT APPROACH, BUT I WILL GO ON. FIRST OF ALL, IT TURNED

:51:29. > :51:34.OUT REALLY THAT THE LONG-TERM ECONOMIC PLAN WAS NOTHING MORE,

:51:35. > :51:38.really, than a long-term economic failure would have been slightly

:51:39. > :51:46.more apt. I will come onto the record number of jobs that the

:51:47. > :51:50.honourable gentleman is trying... Order, we cannot have interventions

:51:51. > :51:52.from the Flip's bench. Just cannot, even when there is nobody else here!

:51:53. > :52:05.We just cannot! That's fine. I have no problems

:52:06. > :52:12.answering the gentleman who made the comment. More jobs. 80% of the

:52:13. > :52:20.increase in employment is in self-employment and less than

:52:21. > :52:28.half... Those are the facts. Less than half of those in

:52:29. > :52:32.self-employment are earning less than the living wage. Growth is

:52:33. > :52:37.down, borrowing is up again, inflation on the rise, have set

:52:38. > :52:43.targets hopelessly missed and productivity is flat-lining. The ONS

:52:44. > :52:50.has described it as unprecedented. The worst levels of productive itty

:52:51. > :52:55.since the Second World War. Of course, we know that productivity is

:52:56. > :53:00.the driver around wage growth and I'll mention in a little while that

:53:01. > :53:06.we are seeing stagnant wage growth as well as precarious levels of

:53:07. > :53:13.employment, as well. The government has failed every single one of their

:53:14. > :53:18.fiscal targets, so much so that at the Autumn Statement they had to

:53:19. > :53:23.define a new set. They promised an economy based on high wages and

:53:24. > :53:27.lower social security spending where work always pays but in over six

:53:28. > :53:31.years they have done nothing to deliver the high skill, high wage,

:53:32. > :53:36.productive economy that this country desperately needs to compete in the

:53:37. > :53:39.global market. As a result of their own failures, once again the

:53:40. > :53:48.government has breached their own welfare cap, not just this year and

:53:49. > :53:55.last but every year in a four and five year term. They have missed by

:53:56. > :54:03.5 billion, 6 billion, seven billion and 8 billion. A record of the

:54:04. > :54:11.complete and utter failure of their economic strategy. The government

:54:12. > :54:15.has sought to cover up their economic incompetence and take it

:54:16. > :54:21.out on the working poor, sick and disabled, raining down austerity on

:54:22. > :54:27.the most vulnerable in our society. Six wasted years while the poorest

:54:28. > :54:34.have picked up the bill with a full four years of failure yet to come.

:54:35. > :54:38.This is a far cry from the former Chancellor's proclamation in 2014

:54:39. > :54:43.that the welfare cap makes an important moment in the development

:54:44. > :54:48.of the welfare state and ensures that never again can the costs

:54:49. > :54:55.spiral out of control. All the evidence is to the contrary. The

:54:56. > :55:04.government have failed to tackle any of the drivers of Social Security

:55:05. > :55:09.spending. It's incredulous to watch this government as it bounced

:55:10. > :55:17.aimlessly from one broken promise to another. Whatever their favoured

:55:18. > :55:20.slogan, it's clear that gimmicks and grandstanding are all this

:55:21. > :55:25.government is capable of. In the motion we are debating today, they

:55:26. > :55:32.claim that they couldn't meet their own rules due to Social Security

:55:33. > :55:36.support for disabled people and higher than expected inflation. As

:55:37. > :55:40.ever, they are pointing the finger of blame at the most vulnerable

:55:41. > :55:52.rather than apologising for their own economic mismanagement. Let's

:55:53. > :55:55.take the details. The office of budgetary responsibility predicted

:55:56. > :56:13.that the government would spend 120.5 billion in 2020. Of this, the

:56:14. > :56:20.changes in forecast for CPI inflation will increase spending by

:56:21. > :56:25.8p in total. Less than a percentage point of total spending inside the

:56:26. > :56:30.cab. It can hardly be said to be the major driver of the government's

:56:31. > :56:34.failures to keep its promises. The government has lost control of the

:56:35. > :56:37.economy if it ever had it in the first place and fail to tackle the

:56:38. > :56:41.key drivers of Social Security spending, other than pensions.

:56:42. > :56:46.Low-paid work and high housing costs. Furthermore, the government

:56:47. > :56:52.claim that increased disability spending will cause a breach of the

:56:53. > :57:00.cap is just another attempt to point the people the Li finger at sick and

:57:01. > :57:06.disabled people. From the front benches there has been no language

:57:07. > :57:13.around the shirker, scrounge a narrative that we have seen in

:57:14. > :57:21.recent years. That is a very welcome move. I'm not clear whether this

:57:22. > :57:26.extends to press releases from CC HQ and coverage from less responsible

:57:27. > :57:32.sections of the media. We must be careful of our language in this

:57:33. > :57:38.respect. And even if it's not using such derogative tree terms as

:57:39. > :57:42.shirker and scrounger what's implied by incentivising, getting people

:57:43. > :57:46.who'd been found not fit for work, what is the implication there? That

:57:47. > :57:53.they are avoiding work, that's it their choice to avoid work instead

:57:54. > :57:58.of being in productive work. That is offensive to so many people. Instead

:57:59. > :58:02.of blaming everybody else for the mess, they should start taking

:58:03. > :58:05.responsibility. It's not just those on this side of the house making

:58:06. > :58:16.these points. The UN committee on the rise of disabled persons

:58:17. > :58:28.described the approach as a grave and systematic violation of disabled

:58:29. > :58:35.people's rights. We have had comment from members of the government. They

:58:36. > :58:41.all raise concerns about the lack of evidence of many of the government's

:58:42. > :58:44.Social Security policies and their punitive effects. I'm pleased that

:58:45. > :58:48.the minister was able to say that they had taken the view that because

:58:49. > :58:53.of tax credits and the implications that would have on the working poor

:58:54. > :58:58.that they have decided not to proceed with that but what about

:58:59. > :59:03.work allowances around universal credit. These are the same people.

:59:04. > :59:07.The taper rate will make a difference of a couple of hundred

:59:08. > :59:14.pounds per year instead of the net effect of over ?2000 a year. Madame

:59:15. > :59:19.Deputy Speaker, if I may, I wanted to explore some of the real reasons

:59:20. > :59:24.the government has failed to meet its promise. They are not tackle the

:59:25. > :59:29.drivers of Social Security spending. Rather than creating a strong

:59:30. > :59:35.economy of high wages, progression in the labour market, affordable

:59:36. > :59:38.housing and child the government has starred the economy of much-needed

:59:39. > :59:46.investment leading to six wasted years of austerity. This is not just

:59:47. > :59:51.our analysis. In every regard, the evidence speaks for itself. This

:59:52. > :59:57.government are projected to spend more than ?20 billion a year on

:59:58. > :00:03.housing benefit, after pensions, the second largest area of security

:00:04. > :00:08.spending. -- Social Security. Nearly half go straight into the pockets of

:00:09. > :00:12.private landlords. All well, the government figures show that the

:00:13. > :00:20.number of affordable homes being built has slumped to a 24 year low.

:00:21. > :00:25.Indeed, research by the Joseph Rowntree foundation says we need to

:00:26. > :00:30.build 80,000 homes per year to keep the current situation is stable.

:00:31. > :00:38.This year, we have managed just 30,000. Instead of building

:00:39. > :00:42.affordable homes they have forced the sale of a reminder of our

:00:43. > :00:46.socially rented stock worsening house prices and driving up housing

:00:47. > :00:53.benefit spending. This is one of the key reasons that they have breached

:00:54. > :00:57.their own cap. In relation to in work support for people in low paid

:00:58. > :01:03.jobs, onto above this we are seeing there has been a real squeeze in

:01:04. > :01:07.this support. We will be spending over ?15 billion on tax credits in

:01:08. > :01:11.the two years in question in this motion because the government has

:01:12. > :01:14.failed to ensure that wages keep up with the cost of living leaving many

:01:15. > :01:22.working people reliant on top ups to get by. Real wages are set to remain

:01:23. > :01:27.lower in 2021 than they were in 2008. Yet the Tories still turn

:01:28. > :01:31.their back on working people by trying to cut the tax credits

:01:32. > :01:35.available under their failed austerity plans. Likewise, the

:01:36. > :01:40.government has weakened incentives to work by cutting billions from

:01:41. > :01:52.programmes under their austerity plans. Their meagre reduction in the

:01:53. > :01:58.taper rate doesn't touch the annual 2000 cut that I've mentioned. If the

:01:59. > :02:01.Chancellor was serious about reducing Social Security spending he

:02:02. > :02:05.would implement a real living wage culture related on the basis of what

:02:06. > :02:12.people need. This would ensure that people get a fair and proper wage

:02:13. > :02:16.for a working day while reducing expenditure of the state. I'm afraid

:02:17. > :02:19.that our Chancellor isn't capable of making such an obvious decision

:02:20. > :02:27.despite the fact that the living wage commission has shown that the

:02:28. > :02:31.government's National within -- living wage falls far short. He is

:02:32. > :02:45.chopped 10p per hour of the previously increased... The average

:02:46. > :02:50.wage will be ?1000 lower in 2020 then predicted that the last budget.

:02:51. > :02:56.How can we ever read juice of Social Security spending if the government

:02:57. > :03:10.won't act on wages. High wages alone won't clear up the mess. We need to

:03:11. > :03:15.tackle the drivers. Four out of every five low-paid workers are

:03:16. > :03:20.still low paid ten years later. There is no automatic progression to

:03:21. > :03:25.higher pay. Further proof of the deep structural problems we face in

:03:26. > :03:29.the labour market. Finally, we should turn our attention to the

:03:30. > :03:35.disability employment gap which this government said they would half by

:03:36. > :03:41.2020. Grateful for the intervention from my honourable friend earlier.

:03:42. > :03:45.Instead, we seen that at the end of last year it reduced and we are now

:03:46. > :03:49.back up to the level it was just before the general election last

:03:50. > :03:58.year. I have is they plan to force people into work before they are

:03:59. > :04:03.ready to do so. Mounting examples of the government's flawed strategy.

:04:04. > :04:10.Why has the government not acted to prove retention of disabled people

:04:11. > :04:18.in their current jobs which could help people transitioning into

:04:19. > :04:22.employment. That currently stands at 350,000. Keeping disabled people in

:04:23. > :04:26.their jobs would surely be a better strategy to bring down Social

:04:27. > :04:29.Security spending than slashing support for those further away from

:04:30. > :04:35.the labour market. Sadly, this government has been unable to see

:04:36. > :04:44.that far and their record on supporting retention is very poor. I

:04:45. > :04:51.thank the honourable lady for giving way. With the honourable lady agree

:04:52. > :04:57.that the fact that the OBR would be breached in all of its years of

:04:58. > :05:07.forecast. It is not working due to the fact that the government... An

:05:08. > :05:11.example would be concentric where lots of people would be taken off

:05:12. > :05:18.benefits. The numbers are very difficult to forecast. It's an

:05:19. > :05:26.interesting question. I'd have to look at the figures. What I have to

:05:27. > :05:30.show is the high cost of housing is a real issue as is low-paid work.

:05:31. > :05:35.There are a number of factors but these are the key drivers for it. It

:05:36. > :05:38.shows that the government really should have been more careful in

:05:39. > :05:43.their impact assessment when they set out with their policy in the

:05:44. > :05:46.first place. To conclude, this breach of the government's

:05:47. > :05:50.self-imposed welfare cap every year for five years is further proof of

:05:51. > :05:59.the government's that a failure on the economy. They have refused to

:06:00. > :06:05.attack fundamental areas that are driving social service spending.

:06:06. > :06:10.Only Labour has an economic strategy that will bring the cost of Social

:06:11. > :06:15.Security down without freeing the safety net that we all rely on. Now

:06:16. > :06:20.is the time to invest in the housing we need, offer a decent wage for a

:06:21. > :06:26.working day and support people to find a job, keep a job and progress

:06:27. > :06:31.in their chosen work. We will transform our Social Security system

:06:32. > :06:38.to ensure that, like the NHS, it is therefore all others in our time of

:06:39. > :06:39.need. Part of our plan to provide a stronger, fair settlement for all in

:06:40. > :06:50.our country. It is a pleasure to contribute in

:06:51. > :06:55.this very important debate. I wish to burst of all pay tribute to the

:06:56. > :07:00.Minister, who showed that she had a genuinely deep understanding issues.

:07:01. > :07:04.She already has a record of being very willing to engage with

:07:05. > :07:07.particularly the charitable groups with their huge wealth of

:07:08. > :07:12.experience, which we as a government do well to listen to to help shape

:07:13. > :07:16.future policies. This is an important debate because it does

:07:17. > :07:21.focus our minds. It has set a clear marker and we have to justify if we

:07:22. > :07:25.deviate from the original plans. It was interesting listening to that

:07:26. > :07:29.last speech. On one hand, the Shadow minister was saying the government

:07:30. > :07:32.has spent something like 100 more, but then criticised seeing we were

:07:33. > :07:39.not spending sufficient money in every area. -- 100 more. It is right

:07:40. > :07:43.to focus our minds, because of the soul and the last Labour government,

:07:44. > :07:47.were welfare was left to drift, were the number of workless households

:07:48. > :07:51.doubled, an extra half a million people abandoned to an employment,

:07:52. > :07:55.this is real people who were in desperate need for the right

:07:56. > :07:59.support. Through our strong economic growth, and I am not sure what the

:08:00. > :08:02.shadow minister was referring to, because it is still the strongest of

:08:03. > :08:06.any major developed economy, we have seen record employment. That is not

:08:07. > :08:10.just the south east, that is in every single region of the country.

:08:11. > :08:15.In my own constituency, because I know you're all desperate to know,

:08:16. > :08:18.it is 8100 more people in work since the general election. Even greater

:08:19. > :08:29.than the number of people who go to the County ground to watch the

:08:30. > :08:32.mighty Swindon town, and we have an 11 year low in terms of an

:08:33. > :08:33.apartment. We have introduced the National Living Wage, directly

:08:34. > :08:35.benefiting 2.75 million of our lowest earners. The income tax

:08:36. > :08:38.threshold rises year-on-year, taking 2.3 million people out of paying any

:08:39. > :08:44.income tax at all. And as wages have grown on average about 2% this year,

:08:45. > :08:48.we are seeing the the lowest earners' wages rise by an average of

:08:49. > :08:51.6%, in addition to the welcome extension of free childcare,

:08:52. > :08:55.creating more opportunities for people to work. With the recent

:08:56. > :08:58.green paper announcement, there is a real opportunity to build on the

:08:59. > :09:02.progress that has been made. Particularly if we look at the 500

:09:03. > :09:08.more disabled people in work in the last two years. -- you more than

:09:09. > :09:13.half a million people. 48% of people are expected to be in work, disabled

:09:14. > :09:17.people, up from 40% when we came to office. We still have work to go but

:09:18. > :09:20.if we taught the charitable groups who work in this area, they are

:09:21. > :09:25.encouraged that we are going in the right direction. The key thing here

:09:26. > :09:28.is to make sure we deliver a tailored individual support, because

:09:29. > :09:32.for those still looking for work, there are challenges. It is not as

:09:33. > :09:37.simple as going to just learn to have your CV and training for your

:09:38. > :09:39.interviewing. We are right to look at delivering more tailored support

:09:40. > :09:44.to make further progress in delivering more people into work and

:09:45. > :09:48.thus reducing the welfare spending. We also are right to identify that

:09:49. > :09:51.we have to do joined up work with health, because a lot of those

:09:52. > :09:54.people now looking for work will also have to navigate health

:09:55. > :09:58.challenges, and they need that support and the support at the

:09:59. > :10:00.beginning. Bravely, we are introducing the small employer

:10:01. > :10:05.offered to proactively engage with employers to provide opportunities

:10:06. > :10:09.for those people playing by the rules, working with the support on

:10:10. > :10:12.offer, they need that opportunity at the end of the process to actually

:10:13. > :10:15.go into work. The announcement on disability apprentices, the increase

:10:16. > :10:21.in funding to access to work and universal credit, which has

:10:22. > :10:25.universal support across all sides, reinforces the point that work

:10:26. > :10:28.should always pay and it recognises a welfare system that is fair to

:10:29. > :10:33.those that receive it and to those who pay for it. Crucially removing

:10:34. > :10:37.the 16 hour cliff edge will, providing on average 13% more time

:10:38. > :10:41.for the claimant to look, and most importantly for me, for the first

:10:42. > :10:45.time ever, a claimant has a named contact who can help them navigate

:10:46. > :10:48.not just looking for work but dealing with all the different forms

:10:49. > :10:51.of benefit, the extra support they will meet and crucially, when they

:10:52. > :10:56.go into work, will continue to provide support. Until now, we as is

:10:57. > :11:00.a society would help people get into work, wish them all the best and

:11:01. > :11:04.that would be a lot on that we would have with them unless they came back

:11:05. > :11:07.looking for work again. Whereas now, rightly, we are recognising that

:11:08. > :11:11.those people taking often the first step into work may need support. It

:11:12. > :11:14.could be that those people lack confidence, and if they had been

:11:15. > :11:19.attending work regularly and engaging in the right that named

:11:20. > :11:22.coach can help them look to increase their hours, increased their

:11:23. > :11:28.responsibility and earn more money in work. One of the things that I

:11:29. > :11:33.would like to see in my constituency, and across the whole

:11:34. > :11:37.of the UK, would be incentives for small and medium businesses who view

:11:38. > :11:41.it's difficult to perhaps encourage disabled people to gain employment.

:11:42. > :11:44.Does he feel that perhaps maybe what we have not seen so far is that

:11:45. > :11:49.encouragement for small and medium businesses to do just that?

:11:50. > :11:55.That is a really important point. What we do see a large employers,

:11:56. > :11:58.with the HR teams, their personnel teams, highly educated and well

:11:59. > :12:03.resourced, are very good at making those changes, often just small

:12:04. > :12:07.changes, to take full advantage of those disabled people who are

:12:08. > :12:10.looking to work you have got great skills, great abilities, that can

:12:11. > :12:13.fill the skills gap that there. But often those small and medium-sized

:12:14. > :12:16.businesses do not have that confidence and the skills, or are

:12:17. > :12:20.not even aware of that talent that is available. That is widely small

:12:21. > :12:24.employer pilot was so important, because that is literally going

:12:25. > :12:31.around industrial parks, business parks, the shops, and literally

:12:32. > :12:34.seeing where are your are your skills gaps and we will go and match

:12:35. > :12:36.them to those people looking for work. We have had some really

:12:37. > :12:40.encouraging results from those pilots. I did an event in my own

:12:41. > :12:43.constituency, and managed to blues about 22 people because they got

:12:44. > :12:45.small and medium-sized employers who had never thought about this too

:12:46. > :12:52.actually come forward and say where their skills gaps where. The final

:12:53. > :12:56.area and wanted to touch on... Yes. He has made the point, rightly, that

:12:57. > :13:00.the rate of employment amongst disabled people has risen, but of

:13:01. > :13:05.course the overall employment rate has risen as well. The disability

:13:06. > :13:08.employment gap has not been reduced. Why does he think there has not been

:13:09. > :13:13.any progress on that particular issue? I know that the honourable

:13:14. > :13:16.member has been very diligent on this and is determined to be

:13:17. > :13:19.proactive in supporting disabled people having that opportunity, and

:13:20. > :13:25.the reality is because the growing economy is benefiting everyone.

:13:26. > :13:30.Perversely, if we had a recession, and the last time we had one, we saw

:13:31. > :13:32.the disability gap shrinks because actually the non-disabled people

:13:33. > :13:37.were coming out for work at a quicker rate than the disabled

:13:38. > :13:41.people. We would not celebrate that, the closing of the gap of disabled

:13:42. > :13:44.people out of work. Greater Manchester I will now have to decide

:13:45. > :13:48.what is the way to go. I personally, for what it is worth, think the only

:13:49. > :13:51.thing that matters is that more disabled people, as quickly as

:13:52. > :13:56.possible, year-on-year, should have an opportunity for work. And what we

:13:57. > :13:59.should be looking at is for example, when we came to office and we said

:14:00. > :14:04.that the Prime Minister, the temporary minister, said he wished

:14:05. > :14:07.to half to be disability and climate gap, we should be trying to get

:14:08. > :14:11.there as quickly as possible, that target, looking at it annually and

:14:12. > :14:14.I'm not that something that they stakeholders working on. That we

:14:15. > :14:20.needed to demonstrate annually that we were making real, tangible

:14:21. > :14:23.progress. So far, 500 more disabled people in work in the last three

:14:24. > :14:28.years is is good but there is still much more that needs to be done. --

:14:29. > :14:31.more than half a million more disabled people. We are now spending

:14:32. > :14:35.more than ?3 billion more per year. That is a welcome figure. It

:14:36. > :14:42.recognises the fact that under the old system of DLA only 16.5% of

:14:43. > :14:46.women accessed the higher grade of benefit to stop under the new

:14:47. > :14:50.system, it is about 22. The system better recognises particularly

:14:51. > :14:54.hidden impairments, in particular mental health. And it is right that

:14:55. > :14:58.we are getting the support to the most vulnerable people in society as

:14:59. > :15:03.quickly as we can. But I do have an ask and that is that everybody in

:15:04. > :15:06.Parliament recognises we have a growing challenge with mental health

:15:07. > :15:10.conditions in this country. Whether that is people in work, people

:15:11. > :15:13.trying to get into work, people in their everyday lives. Something like

:15:14. > :15:17.one in four people at some point will have a mental health condition.

:15:18. > :15:21.And actually, our government, and I suspect whoever was the government,

:15:22. > :15:24.would look to commit additional funding for supporting people with

:15:25. > :15:27.mental health conditions. One of the challenges of nobody has quite

:15:28. > :15:31.answered what is the best way to direct that support to provide it.

:15:32. > :15:35.There is lots of different pilots going on but I think we have a real

:15:36. > :15:40.opportunity, because the one area where we are identifying people with

:15:41. > :15:45.mental health conditions is through the net benefit. But we do not do

:15:46. > :15:47.anything with. We do not send post those people who have gone through

:15:48. > :15:51.the system and have been identified with a mental health system to the

:15:52. > :15:56.additional support the NHS can offer, local charities, groups etc.

:15:57. > :16:01.I am not looking to try to get people off these benefits, I am

:16:02. > :16:05.trying to... Yes I thank him for giving way, I am sorry I came in

:16:06. > :16:10.late. I missed the earlier part of the speech. People with mental

:16:11. > :16:14.health disabilities, it is not so easy for them to get benefits, to be

:16:15. > :16:17.quite frank, because I have got a number of cases now where people

:16:18. > :16:23.with mental health, and disabilities, have had their

:16:24. > :16:26.benefits. Without any notice. -- have had their benefits stopped

:16:27. > :16:33.without any notice. The overall picture from DLA where our round

:16:34. > :16:37.about 20% would access the benefit, it is somewhere in the region of 80%

:16:38. > :16:42.under this new system. There is still work to be done and we have

:16:43. > :16:46.fantastic organisations like Mind, with proactive suggestions about how

:16:47. > :16:48.we can make improvements, but were we have identified people, we should

:16:49. > :16:51.then be same posting them to the additional support that is

:16:52. > :16:56.available. We all know, through on his work, that often people who have

:16:57. > :16:59.experienced mental health conditions did not know where to turn. There is

:17:00. > :17:03.not a good book that says this is where you should go. And if we have

:17:04. > :17:09.identified somebody with a mental condition, I think we have a duty to

:17:10. > :17:11.do our very best to work with those organisations to signpost them for

:17:12. > :17:15.any help, for that they once again can share the same opportunities

:17:16. > :17:18.that all of us take for granted. This is an important debate. It is

:17:19. > :17:21.right that we are increasing spending for the most vulnerable

:17:22. > :17:25.people in society, rightly we are helping give people the opportunity

:17:26. > :17:28.to go into work. The statistics showing that these are real people

:17:29. > :17:31.who are benefiting from our strong economic growth and I would urge the

:17:32. > :17:42.government to keep pressing forward with a positive action that we are

:17:43. > :17:45.taking. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow

:17:46. > :17:47.the honourable member. He has been a loyal supporter of the government

:17:48. > :17:50.from the backbenches over the last few months and it sounds very much

:17:51. > :17:53.like it is a job application that he is putting into the pro Minister, as

:17:54. > :17:59.much of anything else! Well, you never know! -- the Prime Minister.

:18:00. > :18:04.Another page of the CAP called into question what the point of it was in

:18:05. > :18:08.the first place. -- a breach of the gap. And the means to reduce welfare

:18:09. > :18:10.spending, it continues to be inflexible and unworkable, and when

:18:11. > :18:14.we look at the motion which is before us this evening, and the

:18:15. > :18:18.words from the Minister at the dispatch box, we have a mea culpa,

:18:19. > :18:22.or were admitting that this is effectively gone for the next four

:18:23. > :18:25.years. We will not have the situation were the Minister will

:18:26. > :18:27.have to continue to come back to the dispatch box and the Apple not

:18:28. > :18:30.working, because we have now given them a blank cheque for the next

:18:31. > :18:35.three or four years, and I guess we should welcome. But we should really

:18:36. > :18:38.be talking about the fundamentals, the economic circumstances that are

:18:39. > :18:42.getting nothing into this place in the first case. What we really need

:18:43. > :18:46.to have not the sound used to have of long-term economic plan, but a

:18:47. > :18:51.real plan to make sure that we are boosting investment and productivity

:18:52. > :18:53.in this this country. The challenge and delivering that has just got

:18:54. > :18:56.that little bit harder, as a consequence of Brexit. That is

:18:57. > :19:02.really why I suspect we are having the debate today. It was always

:19:03. > :19:04.going to be about circumstances, and Brexit, the ball on the value of the

:19:05. > :19:08.pound, the declining confidence in future growth has had its impact on

:19:09. > :19:11.bringing the government to the dispatch box in this display that we

:19:12. > :19:19.have seen this evening. Madame Deputy Speaker, the Chancellor

:19:20. > :19:22.missed his opportunity and social security to give the reform that he

:19:23. > :19:26.claims to be just about managing families. We should have focused on

:19:27. > :19:29.addressing the underlying root causes of poverty by addressing

:19:30. > :19:32.unemployment and Employment Support Allowance we acknowledge the

:19:33. > :19:38.government have had to abandon its targets on the wealth gap and the

:19:39. > :19:44.resources are welcome, having used the capital as a source for cuts.

:19:45. > :19:46.Madame Deputy Speaker, the CAP is a reprehensible and regressive measure

:19:47. > :19:52.that places the burden on the UK Government's field economic strategy

:19:53. > :19:55.on the shoulders of the most disadvantaged in society. We should

:19:56. > :19:58.remind ourselves that the welfare cap was a flagship for the

:19:59. > :20:04.government in the last parliament. It ended up as a tool to fund more

:20:05. > :20:07.cuts that the Treasury has used and abused to squeeze resources from the

:20:08. > :20:12.Department for Work and Pensions. Well, the new Chancellor again will

:20:13. > :20:15.have to breach the target set before him. We ask him to acknowledge that

:20:16. > :20:19.the sheer fact that this Government cannot even stick to its own targets

:20:20. > :20:23.proves the inflexibility of the welfare cap is unworkable and the

:20:24. > :20:29.fact that we have reached it again and again illustrates not the desire

:20:30. > :20:32.to give the guidance to forego the cap for the next four years but to

:20:33. > :20:37.abandon the captaincy policy for good. An arbitrate cap these times

:20:38. > :20:41.of uncertainty is neither useful or adequate, as the government's

:20:42. > :20:45.previews bridges have shown. The best way to reduce and manage

:20:46. > :20:49.welfare spending is to restore the economy to a healthy state, not to

:20:50. > :20:54.hit the most disadvantaged with the bill. The cap will not address the

:20:55. > :20:59.underlying structural problems that are keeping people reliant on Social

:21:00. > :21:06.Security, including low pay and why later, Labour market of and. --

:21:07. > :21:10.wider labour market an apology. The fact that people cannot afford to be

:21:11. > :21:15.rent because of high housing costs should prompt the government to

:21:16. > :21:19.understand that the lives of welfare is more than a reliance. The only

:21:20. > :21:24.way we are going to address the housing costs is by making sure we

:21:25. > :21:26.can address the issue of supply into the housing market. Something the

:21:27. > :21:33.government has singularly failed to do. The IFS said on the welfare cap

:21:34. > :21:39.target the Conservative government already has the unimpressive record

:21:40. > :21:45.of meeting zero to three of its fiscal targets. The government's new

:21:46. > :21:48.Lennon swell the cap will disproportionally target the

:21:49. > :21:53.benefits claimed by the least well off, was played in 2014. The Green

:21:54. > :21:57.budget from 2016, IFS, said in practice the welfare cap has proved

:21:58. > :22:01.much less binding. Spending is already forecast to exceed the cap

:22:02. > :22:06.for each of the next three fiscal years. In other words, even though

:22:07. > :22:11.the welfare cap has only been in operation for less than two years,

:22:12. > :22:14.since March 2014, it has already been broken consistently by the

:22:15. > :22:17.Chancellor. It is therefore not clear whether it remains a real

:22:18. > :22:23.constraint on the government's actions. The IFS we right then and

:22:24. > :22:29.are today. What is the point of the cap is the principle when it is

:22:30. > :22:32.bridged time and time again? It is, in effect, no constraint on what the

:22:33. > :22:37.government are doing, or what they should be doing. It is unworkable,

:22:38. > :22:42.it is meaningless. It was simply assault to show government was was

:22:43. > :22:46.taking tough, talking tough yet paying more regard to changing

:22:47. > :22:46.circumstances. It is daft intellectually, morally and

:22:47. > :23:03.ethically. It is a drop in the ocean with

:23:04. > :23:06.millions of cuts to come over the years. On a zone, it will not

:23:07. > :23:11.mitigate these cuts or have they have been found. Instead, the

:23:12. > :23:14.Government should reverse the cuts to the work allowance in full so

:23:15. > :23:23.that working parents in low-paid jobs shouldn't lose out. The rate at

:23:24. > :23:35.which supporters were redrawn from low-income households for low-income

:23:36. > :23:41.credits were less... The SNP have consistently argued against the

:23:42. > :23:49.productions and frequently stopped it. It is going to come back to bite

:23:50. > :23:55.next April. Hitting the just about managing families on middle incomes.

:23:56. > :24:03.The maximum gains from this 2% reduction is only around ?500. This

:24:04. > :24:09.falls short of what low and middle income families need to manage. And

:24:10. > :24:16.the maximum losses are around ?2800. That is the reality of what is

:24:17. > :24:18.happening under this Government. People of the Revolution

:24:19. > :24:20.foundational said when it comes to managing just about managing

:24:21. > :24:22.people's family, all roads lead to people's family, all roads lead

:24:23. > :24:29.universal credit. The boost universal credit. The boost

:24:30. > :24:32.effective way to reduce it is... A modest reduction will instead leave

:24:33. > :24:57.a bitter speech -- sweet taste. Now the V welfare cat