10/01/2017

:00:00. > :00:00.proposition might be substantial support for it. I tried to expand

:00:00. > :00:00.the envelope but there are limits, if we don't have a longer session,

:00:07. > :00:11.people will have to be brief in questions and answers. Urgent

:00:12. > :00:15.question. John McDonnell. I would support two hours, Mr Speaker. To

:00:16. > :00:20.ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement on the National

:00:21. > :00:27.Audit Office report into the government's management of the HMRC

:00:28. > :00:33.estate as published today. Minister. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The

:00:34. > :00:36.transformation plans of HMRC will allow it to become efficient and

:00:37. > :00:40.effective tax collector said for the digital age. The large estate is

:00:41. > :00:45.ageing and not delivering the best value for money for the taxpayer.

:00:46. > :00:50.The audit office has confirmed that savings of ?80,000,000 a year will

:00:51. > :00:55.be made by 2025. The size of the estate has been reducing since 2006,

:00:56. > :01:00.the report published today shows some effective changes have been

:01:01. > :01:05.made since 2010 while reducing staff numbers by a quarter and saving the

:01:06. > :01:11.taxpayer over ?300,000,000. But HMRC wants to keep up the momentum to

:01:12. > :01:16.provide better service at a reduced cost. They announced in 2015 at

:01:17. > :01:22.means taking forward big reforms to have the estate works which will see

:01:23. > :01:26.over 170 small offices consolidated into 13 larger regional offices, an

:01:27. > :01:29.approach used across government. This brings a range of advantages

:01:30. > :01:35.from efficient sharing of resources and quality digital infrastructure

:01:36. > :01:39.to better support and career opportunities for staff who can

:01:40. > :01:44.effectively share expertise and for the public it means a better and

:01:45. > :01:48.bolder in service, run by fewer staff, costing around ?80,000,000 a

:01:49. > :01:53.year less by the time changes take effect. The report today suggests

:01:54. > :01:56.the cost of bringing this transformation are likely to be

:01:57. > :02:01.higher than was 1st forecast. Certain aspects of the programme

:02:02. > :02:05.could not be definitively made at the start. There are a wide range of

:02:06. > :02:10.factors behind that from rising property costs and changes made to

:02:11. > :02:14.the programme, for example to help staff the just and ensures smooth

:02:15. > :02:18.transition for customers and the programme costs are updated to

:02:19. > :02:23.reflect that. I thank the National Audit Office for their timely report

:02:24. > :02:27.of the strategy to modernise the HMRC service is the right approach

:02:28. > :02:33.and reflects the way taxpayers into rack with it. It's a plant is a good

:02:34. > :02:37.IT manual processing of casks that can be done more easily with

:02:38. > :02:41.technology. In short, we remain fully committed to taking forward

:02:42. > :02:46.the changes to the HMRC estate that will help us bring a bad tax service

:02:47. > :02:52.with the people of this country. -- a better tax service. In reality,

:02:53. > :02:56.the report is damning of the government plans to close offices.

:02:57. > :02:59.Be warned consistently but the government proposals will have a

:03:00. > :03:04.detrimental impact on the HMRC ability to provide advice and tackle

:03:05. > :03:09.tax evasion and avoidance. The report confirms our fears. Firstly

:03:10. > :03:14.it calls the original closure van unrealistic at the estimate of the

:03:15. > :03:21.costs of the move increased by 22%, ?600,000,000 extra, forecasting a

:03:22. > :03:26.further 5000 job losses, finding the cost of redundancy and travel have

:03:27. > :03:31.tripled from 17,000,000 2 54 million and says HMRC can demonstrate how

:03:32. > :03:35.services can be improved. It hasn't even produced a clear programme

:03:36. > :03:40.business case for the closures. As we predicted this is an emerging

:03:41. > :03:44.disaster. Even the government accepts there is a gap of at least

:03:45. > :03:48.36,000,000,000, these plans will do nothing but hinder tackling tax

:03:49. > :03:56.evasion and avoidance. 73% of staff in the survey said it will undermine

:03:57. > :03:59.their ability in terms of providing tax collection services, 50% saying

:04:00. > :04:03.it will undermine their ability to clamp down on evasion and avoidance.

:04:04. > :04:09.On the Minister Colet halt to the plant closures, and the job cuts at

:04:10. > :04:14.HMRC and come back with a realistic plan to fully resource HMRC. In its

:04:15. > :04:22.vitally important tax collection role. Of course the Shadow

:04:23. > :04:26.Chancellor is right to say it's a vitally important role and at the

:04:27. > :04:33.heart of the lot of the changes that have been made since the original

:04:34. > :04:39.estimates and planning for this part of the transformation, at the heart

:04:40. > :04:43.of that, a lot of it is about supporting staff that and putting

:04:44. > :04:48.more things in place to support their move. It's interesting that

:04:49. > :04:51.the Shadow Chancellor makes no mood of the potential benefits to staff

:04:52. > :04:57.of this move. Of course some people will not be able to make the move

:04:58. > :05:00.but the vast majority will live an average journey and will be

:05:01. > :05:06.supported, 1-to-1 conversations happen with staff at head of moves.

:05:07. > :05:13.And I think actually what he just said does not represent actually --

:05:14. > :05:18.accurately what the National audit says, recognising that the move to

:05:19. > :05:20.regional offices is central to aims to increase tax revenue, improve

:05:21. > :05:25.customer service and make cost savings. The move to regional

:05:26. > :05:28.centres has never been just about cost savings or buildings, it's

:05:29. > :05:34.about the way they work in those buildings. Ultimately we have an

:05:35. > :05:38.opportunity to change the way we work. 1982 my 1st job after going to

:05:39. > :05:43.school was in an old tax office, some of those officers are over 100

:05:44. > :05:48.years old and some of them haven't changed since I worked in them as a

:05:49. > :05:52.school either. It's right we commit to making sure staff can work in a

:05:53. > :05:58.modern environment. Staff will be offered the chance to move and for

:05:59. > :06:01.those who cannot, there is 1-to-1 support, bespoke support and indeed

:06:02. > :06:06.some of those staff will go to other government departments. That is

:06:07. > :06:08.absolute nonsense. A lot of chuntering from the front bench but

:06:09. > :06:14.they are not listening to the facts and they haven't read what BN AO

:06:15. > :06:19.said. This is a major programme, right that the periodic overall

:06:20. > :06:24.costs are reviewed but HMRC is not looking to make significant changes

:06:25. > :06:28.to its overall strategy. We wanted staff to work closer together in

:06:29. > :06:32.regional centres and specialist sites in a modern, flexible, high

:06:33. > :06:37.quality working space and lastly on the subject of tax evasion and the

:06:38. > :06:43.tax gap, no government has done more than this. It's absolute nonsense to

:06:44. > :06:48.say that HMRC capacity to tackle those issues is diminished, far from

:06:49. > :06:55.it. The tax gap in the UK is 1 of the lowest in the world, at its

:06:56. > :06:59.lowest level ever, and in the summer budget we gave HMRC an extra

:07:00. > :07:04.?800,000,000 to tackle tax evasion which it's done extremely well and

:07:05. > :07:08.once again, we've reached record levels of compliance with regard to

:07:09. > :07:12.money from measures against tax evasion. I read but entirely the

:07:13. > :07:17.point is the Shadow Chancellor made in that regard. Sir Nicholas Soames.

:07:18. > :07:25.With my honourable friend take it from me that in my own experience

:07:26. > :07:29.dealing with constituents and with corporations in my own constituency

:07:30. > :07:35.who have had enquiries with HMRC, in my judgement, their response time

:07:36. > :07:40.and the way they handled the cases has immensely improved over the last

:07:41. > :07:45.few years. In respect of them seeking to deal with tax evasion and

:07:46. > :07:52.avoidance, there is absolutely no doubt they've raised the game very

:07:53. > :07:54.considerably indeed. I thank my right honourable friend for those

:07:55. > :08:02.comments and I think, I'm glad that he's put on board his pre- CH and

:08:03. > :08:06.for a start. He is absolutely right. For the past 6 months, waiting times

:08:07. > :08:09.have been less than 5 minutes on average and in fact customer service

:08:10. > :08:12.has improved to the best service levels in years. This is something

:08:13. > :08:20.management keep under review, it's right we seek to provide the best

:08:21. > :08:26.service possible but we cannot do that in an modernised offices.

:08:27. > :08:31.Recognising and failing to invest in digital technology... We need to

:08:32. > :08:39.bring people together in an environment that is that for the

:08:40. > :08:43.future both for staff and customers. The National Audit Office actually

:08:44. > :08:46.said, the original plan proved unrealistic, suitable property will

:08:47. > :08:52.not be available within the time frame set out, the revenue estimates

:08:53. > :08:56.it may lose up to 5000 staff, simultaneously requiring recruitment

:08:57. > :08:59.while carrying out redundancies. The plans were overly optimistic and

:09:00. > :09:07.they carried too high a risk of disruption. Very similar warnings to

:09:08. > :09:13.the turned failings of the step programme. Given how there and start

:09:14. > :09:23.the warnings actually are, would it not simply make more sense to cause

:09:24. > :09:28.this, rip it up and start again? No, I don't think that's right. I really

:09:29. > :09:32.can't agree with that. Because the reasons that are driving this

:09:33. > :09:37.programme, the reasons we want to transform HMRC into the most modern

:09:38. > :09:40.digital tax authority in the world all still stand. It is right that of

:09:41. > :09:45.course in any major programme and there are a number of them running

:09:46. > :09:47.at the same time, we've always been open, this is an ambitious

:09:48. > :09:52.transformation and it's right that it slip that regularly and of course

:09:53. > :09:58.HMRC will respond in detail to the report. But the principle that

:09:59. > :10:01.drives it stands absolutely good for all the reasons I've talked about,

:10:02. > :10:07.but ever customers, Verstappen, but the taxpayer. With regard to the

:10:08. > :10:10.right honourable gentleman who mentioned the step programme, the

:10:11. > :10:16.National Audit Office report noted the fact that HMRC has managed the

:10:17. > :10:19.programme better, the programme initiated under the last Labour

:10:20. > :10:23.government but the report is complimentary about the way HMRC is

:10:24. > :10:26.managing that and has got some of those PFI costs under control but

:10:27. > :10:32.it's right that we constantly re-evaluate programmes of this

:10:33. > :10:35.importance but I don't agree with the central thrust of this question

:10:36. > :10:41.and it was not involve Scotland is 8% of the UK population, 12% of the

:10:42. > :10:43.HMRC workforce will remain in Scotland is a Scotland remains a

:10:44. > :10:49.very important part of the HMRC estate. Anne-Marie Trevelyan. Thank

:10:50. > :10:55.you. It's good to hear the Minister raising the point that the telephone

:10:56. > :10:58.answering is improving. On the Public Accounts Committee we looked

:10:59. > :11:02.at this on an ongoing basis and it's been probably the biggest part of

:11:03. > :11:07.our information coming through from MPs across the House. With the

:11:08. > :11:09.digital world moving forward and we support this programme, could the

:11:10. > :11:13.Minister said out how we are going to make sure staff who are on the

:11:14. > :11:17.end of the phone will have the right qualifications to be able to support

:11:18. > :11:26.businesses and individuals who need information? Again I thank my

:11:27. > :11:28.honourable friend and important for her as a member of the Public

:11:29. > :11:32.Accounts Committee to have the record that a lot of effort has gone

:11:33. > :11:36.into improving customer service levels and they are good at the

:11:37. > :11:40.moment and improving, that remains a key focus. Supporting staff, to

:11:41. > :11:45.cover the point she makes about supporting staff as training will be

:11:46. > :11:50.so much easier in regional centres. For example, at the moment, you have

:11:51. > :11:54.large numbers of officers, it's not possible because of the nature of

:11:55. > :11:59.the tasks and the volume, the number of people there, it's not possible

:12:00. > :12:03.to have easy, effective training programmes, to plan career

:12:04. > :12:06.progression, in the same way it will be when you get a larger number of

:12:07. > :12:11.people together. If something reflect did across government and

:12:12. > :12:15.the private sector, that you can do a lot more for people when you're

:12:16. > :12:20.able to concentrate on a different range of skills so that people have

:12:21. > :12:23.a chance to plot a career within the same office and I think that goes to

:12:24. > :12:30.the heart of how we intend to prove the service to customers. -- to

:12:31. > :12:33.improve. Chris Bryant. The trouble with this talk of regional centres

:12:34. > :12:38.is that this is exactly what happened in every other department,

:12:39. > :12:40.in constituencies like mine and for that matter across the South Wales

:12:41. > :12:44.valleys of fields as a government has said, no we're not interested,

:12:45. > :12:51.everything is going to forget about it. Can I urge her to think again,

:12:52. > :12:55.the Treasury and the whole of government has a social

:12:56. > :12:58.responsibility, in particular to areas like the Rhondda valleys and

:12:59. > :13:03.the valleys, to make sure it has a local presence. It's certainly the

:13:04. > :13:07.case that we want to, I can't agree with what he says, but the

:13:08. > :13:11.honourable gentleman says about the motivation but equally, as I said

:13:12. > :13:16.before, there is a balance to be struck between the service,

:13:17. > :13:22.customers, the way we support staff, and how we serve the wider taxpayer

:13:23. > :13:26.interest. And you see across government, yes, there has been a

:13:27. > :13:29.move towards more modern, perhaps in some cases more centralised

:13:30. > :13:34.services. There is a balance to be struck but there is a really robust

:13:35. > :13:40.programme of support in place for staff who can't move and for those

:13:41. > :13:43.who can move and extra money has been put into transitional costs

:13:44. > :13:49.associated with transport, for example. But HMRC is also working

:13:50. > :13:52.with other government departments to make sure thing we can we take

:13:53. > :13:56.advantage of the high skills they have to move people into other

:13:57. > :14:03.government departments were those skills can be used. The Minister

:14:04. > :14:08.noted in the report there were some compliments about how HMRC has moved

:14:09. > :14:12.to a more realistic plan for the project and is managing the existing

:14:13. > :14:15.provider that they stay better than it had been. But she said out how

:14:16. > :14:21.they will build on the progress to make sure skills are in Hampstead?

:14:22. > :14:30.Of course he is quite right to say that and as I said before, obviously

:14:31. > :14:34.HMRC will be responding in detail to this in a report and I will be

:14:35. > :14:40.looking to discuss that with them. One of the NA's commendations is

:14:41. > :14:45.just that that he has drawn our attention to that there should be a

:14:46. > :14:49.process from learning from every part of the move and making sure the

:14:50. > :14:52.first regional centre opens and it is reviewed and we've learnt

:14:53. > :15:01.lessons. It is a long programme and not an overnight situation. We need

:15:02. > :15:12.to review it at every stage and learn as we go along. In Workington

:15:13. > :15:18.and you are proposing to close a modern office and the NAO says that

:15:19. > :15:27.the distance between regional offices is 18 miles. Workington has

:15:28. > :15:32.been paired with Liverpool. It will take three hours. It is

:15:33. > :15:36.unacceptable. The workers in the Workington cannot transfer to

:15:37. > :15:41.Liverpool. I don't know how they can be re-skill to work in equivalent

:15:42. > :15:47.jobs in Workington. I would love to know what your suggestions. To me,

:15:48. > :15:53.this is unacceptable. I have no plans to close that office. To my

:15:54. > :15:56.very great life impoverishment I have two admit that I am not aware

:15:57. > :16:04.to date of having been to Workington. I certainly would not

:16:05. > :16:09.take it upon myself to close something that I have not even

:16:10. > :16:16.visited. We recognise that you are busy enough without taking charge of

:16:17. > :16:19.HMRC's transformation programme as well. The honourable lady has

:16:20. > :16:30.written to me about this and I said I am happy to make with her. Whilst

:16:31. > :16:36.the average that is cited in the report, we accept that the move will

:16:37. > :16:40.be impossible for some people. The move will be supported, hopefully

:16:41. > :16:50.where they will be other jobs in other departments. There is a lot of

:16:51. > :16:55.work going into supporting staff and helping them into other jobs. I have

:16:56. > :17:01.written to her before, but I will write to her again on the more

:17:02. > :17:07.specific points. HMRC are planning a regional centre in Leeds. They have

:17:08. > :17:12.not identified any site. Any site they do come up with will be

:17:13. > :17:17.expensive and it will crowd out private sector investment in Leeds.

:17:18. > :17:21.A few miles up the road in Bradford, a site is readily available. It

:17:22. > :17:25.would be cheaper for the taxpayer than it would be in Leeds and it

:17:26. > :17:30.would help the economy in the Bradford district. Can I urge the

:17:31. > :17:34.Minister to use the NAO report, pause and look again and make sure

:17:35. > :17:42.the regional centre in Yorkshire is not in Leeds, but in Bradford where

:17:43. > :17:45.many people in HMRC already work. As much honourable friend knows, I am

:17:46. > :17:51.familiar with all the localities he describes and it is fair to say, I

:17:52. > :17:55.mean Bradford was disappointed not to be the chosen site for the

:17:56. > :18:01.regional centre, but it is equally true that his constituents, the

:18:02. > :18:05.railway station of Shipley is merely ten minutes from Leeds on the train.

:18:06. > :18:10.I hope for his constituents that will be quite a realistic move, for

:18:11. > :18:15.those who wish to move. I will reflect on what he said and if I can

:18:16. > :18:21.provide further detail I will write to him, but HMRC have provided

:18:22. > :18:30.detailed responses, explaining the criteria and wine leads -- and a

:18:31. > :18:37.wide Leeds was chosen over Bradford. The Minister will be aware that some

:18:38. > :18:44.HMRC offices have already closed in Northern Ireland is causing

:18:45. > :18:53.consternation to employees who have to be redirected to Belfast. It has

:18:54. > :18:57.also caused problems for all very people dealing with the taxation

:18:58. > :19:01.affairs. But the Minister please put a pause on any further closures as

:19:02. > :19:09.they simply cause chaos and upheaval. I am not entirely sure

:19:10. > :19:13.that I recognise the description of chaos and upheaval, bearing in mind

:19:14. > :19:16.what I have said about average customer service times at the moment

:19:17. > :19:20.and the fact that the standards are being achieved at the moment. I

:19:21. > :19:24.don't think that aligns with what she said, but I recognise that

:19:25. > :19:28.changes of this scale can be a truly difficult for the people affected by

:19:29. > :19:36.them. If I could just pick up one thing she said about people, the way

:19:37. > :19:40.they interact at HMRC. It is a different world to the last time the

:19:41. > :19:47.estates were looked at. The boss amount of taxpayers who interacts

:19:48. > :19:51.with HMRC do so digitally or on the phone and we have to adjust to the

:19:52. > :19:56.way the world is now and not to what it was like some decades ago. I want

:19:57. > :20:02.to see my constituents get the best possible service from HMRC when they

:20:03. > :20:07.have a problem, particularly when things go wrong. As HMRC have around

:20:08. > :20:12.58,000 employees, would my honourable friend at least consider

:20:13. > :20:18.the feasibility of HMRC allocating at least one named employee for

:20:19. > :20:26.every constituency so that each MP has someone permanent they can

:20:27. > :20:32.contact within the HMRC? Obviously over the course of working through

:20:33. > :20:39.the recent challenges around the concentric 's contract and the

:20:40. > :20:44.fallout from that, I have looked personally at the issue of how HMRC

:20:45. > :20:47.interacts with members of Parliament. I have looked at that

:20:48. > :20:56.specific ideal and I will reflect on what my honourable friend has said,

:20:57. > :21:07.but I am looking to make sure that resources allocated to members of

:21:08. > :21:13.Parliament were very effective and results are gotten quickly. HMRC

:21:14. > :21:18.should be serving colleagues on all side of the house effectively. The

:21:19. > :21:24.modernisation and improvement in Northern Ireland has led to closures

:21:25. > :21:28.in towns with already high employment. There is frustration

:21:29. > :21:31.with difficult cases and the loss of expertise in border cases where the

:21:32. > :21:35.evasion of tax is widespread. How does this fit in with the

:21:36. > :21:42.government's commitment to spread economic growth, give better service

:21:43. > :21:47.to customers and reduce tax evasion? On a broader point, Mr Speaker, it's

:21:48. > :21:51.worth noting that employment in our country is at an all-time high. We

:21:52. > :21:56.would always want to retain expertise within HMRC, but within

:21:57. > :21:59.any large organisation, you will always simultaneously have people

:22:00. > :22:03.leaving and people you are recruiting and training up. I

:22:04. > :22:08.referred the honourable gentleman to what I said earlier that for people

:22:09. > :22:12.who want to join an organisation, become highly skilled and

:22:13. > :22:16.professional and then plot a career through HMRC, it is going to be much

:22:17. > :22:21.easier to support people to have those long-term fulfilling careers

:22:22. > :22:29.in a variety of different areas of HMRC in the new modernised

:22:30. > :22:33.structures. The Minister said a number of times that there will be

:22:34. > :22:38.better service customers in these regional centres, but I note from

:22:39. > :22:42.the NAO report it says the HMRC have not demonstrated that. Can the

:22:43. > :22:45.Minister just reassure me how do she reach a conclusion there will be a

:22:46. > :22:52.better service and it will be more efficient and effective the

:22:53. > :22:58.customers? I noted that. I'm not sure I quite agree with how it was

:22:59. > :23:05.expressed, but I noted the point she made. Let me give her one example.

:23:06. > :23:12.Many of the buildings inhabited by HMRC are very old. If you look at

:23:13. > :23:18.the latest digital infrastructure and many, many more taxpayers are

:23:19. > :23:22.interacting digitally. We have over 7 million personal tax accounts now.

:23:23. > :23:29.It is difficult as anybody knows to bring an old office up to modern

:23:30. > :23:32.standards in terms of giving it the right digital infrastructure. If we

:23:33. > :23:37.want to make sure that staff can make the most of modern computer

:23:38. > :23:40.systems and put those at the service of customers who increasingly

:23:41. > :23:44.interact digitally it is much better to do that in newer buildings which

:23:45. > :23:52.have been bought for the purpose will be planned from the start for

:23:53. > :23:56.that sort arrangement. The minister speaks about saving money and having

:23:57. > :24:04.modern offices. In my constituency the HMRC offices are high tech with

:24:05. > :24:10.high school star. There is plenty more space. It will save the

:24:11. > :24:18.government ?70 million to keep it and develop it. Will she meet with

:24:19. > :24:22.me to consider keeping the harbour in West Lothian rather than moving

:24:23. > :24:28.it to the city centre where rents will be more expensive? I have had a

:24:29. > :24:31.number of conversations, particularly with some of her

:24:32. > :24:36.colleagues based in Scotland. I'm always happy to meet any

:24:37. > :24:43.Parliamentary colleagues to discuss anything. No change to that regional

:24:44. > :24:52.centre is envisaged. I'm happy to have a conversation, but we don't

:24:53. > :24:55.envisage a plan of change. Sheffield staff are already commuting

:24:56. > :25:02.considerably distances to the HMRC office because of previous office

:25:03. > :25:07.closures. HMRC can ill afford to lose 5000 experienced that this

:25:08. > :25:11.time? Given that HMRC have struggled to find suitable properties in the

:25:12. > :25:16.location suggested, could she reassess property locations based on

:25:17. > :25:27.cost and the ability to retain experienced staff and customer

:25:28. > :25:33.service. You shouldn't be about where is easiest for Whitehall civil

:25:34. > :25:37.servants to get to in those regions. The latter points she makes is not

:25:38. > :25:43.the Russian now as to have the sites were chosen. Of course, I'm going to

:25:44. > :25:47.read the report and reflect on it and as I say, HMRC will be looking

:25:48. > :25:51.to respond in detail, but a lot of thought has gone into choosing

:25:52. > :25:56.regional centres. I acknowledged some people will not be able to make

:25:57. > :26:00.a move because the travel will be too far. It is very much a case that

:26:01. > :26:07.we want to retain experienced staff. The people who can't move with HMRC

:26:08. > :26:09.will be a variety of different levels of experience within the

:26:10. > :26:12.organisation but where we can keep their skills at the service of the

:26:13. > :26:17.tax payer to other government departments we office we will try

:26:18. > :26:23.to. As I say, HMRC will respond in detail to the report, but I don't

:26:24. > :26:33.quite recognise the characterisation she gives a choosing locations. In

:26:34. > :26:45.likelihood the Welsh language unit will be centralised in Cardiff in

:26:46. > :26:48.our region. 71% of the population can speak Welsh and it is the

:26:49. > :26:54.working language of county administration. We have looked at

:26:55. > :26:57.this issue and in part we are looking to what with other

:26:58. > :27:02.government departments. I'm happy to have a conversation with colleagues

:27:03. > :27:06.about this, not in Welsh! I will write to her about the detail

:27:07. > :27:08.because this issue of the Welsh language has been raised with me

:27:09. > :27:17.before and I know it has been taught in some detail. It is not that often

:27:18. > :27:22.the honourable member for Shipley and I are on the same page, but on

:27:23. > :27:29.this occasion we certainly are and he makes an excellent point in

:27:30. > :27:33.defending Bradford. Additionally, Mr Speaker, by closing offices in

:27:34. > :27:37.Bradford, HMRC will be turning their back on the skilled and diverse

:27:38. > :27:41.workforce, access to building universities on one of the best MBA

:27:42. > :27:46.programmes in the UK, all of which will help them to achieve their aim.

:27:47. > :27:51.But the Minister reconsider and take a more sensible approach? Mr

:27:52. > :27:55.Speaker, I can give the house and the honourable gentleman might

:27:56. > :27:59.assurances that as a Bradford girl I would not do anything to harm

:28:00. > :28:04.Bradford, but equally as a Bradford girl I make many times a year the

:28:05. > :28:12.very, very short commute between Bradford and Leeds and I think

:28:13. > :28:16.therefore that we would not wish to lose any expertise, but of all the

:28:17. > :28:24.possible moves, Bradford to Leeds is the shortest commute that any HMRC

:28:25. > :28:34.staff transferring war have to make and we want to retain all the

:28:35. > :28:45.experienced staff we can. Can the Minister tell us if an equality

:28:46. > :28:49.impact process has begun through? The loss of expertise does not only

:28:50. > :28:52.applied to tax evasion, but the noncompliance of the national

:28:53. > :29:04.minimum wage, a statistic that is On the latter point as the

:29:05. > :29:08.honourable member will know, we have been tackling noncompliance on the

:29:09. > :29:10.national minimum wage in the Autumn Statement and there's been a

:29:11. > :29:15.considerable stepping up of that activity. I think I answered a

:29:16. > :29:19.Parliamentary question on that this week if the honourable jazzman would

:29:20. > :29:24.like to refer to Hansard for statistics. We want to make sure as

:29:25. > :29:29.much as possible we support people to move and it takes a long time for

:29:30. > :29:34.people to get to the highest level of skill and we want to make sure we

:29:35. > :29:37.retain people for me are at their peak professionalism. On the issue

:29:38. > :29:44.of the equality impact assessment I will write to him. Mr Speaker will

:29:45. > :29:49.the Minister look again at the Wales tax Centre and 30s and instead of

:29:50. > :29:52.putting it in Cardiff in Swansea Bay, city region, on the grounds

:29:53. > :30:00.that property prices and other costs are lower, urban deprivation is much

:30:01. > :30:04.lower in terms of the skills or abundant, we have two universities

:30:05. > :30:08.and that was the logic of putting the DVLA there, we need all the

:30:09. > :30:18.support we can get is the biggest urban footprint in Wales. And it's

:30:19. > :30:19.costly in Cardiff. Mr Speaker, the honourable gentleman neatly

:30:20. > :30:25.illustrates the challenge in deciding on locations as part of a

:30:26. > :30:29.programme like this. He makes the case for Swansea, other members make

:30:30. > :30:35.the case of their area. It's always the case you need a set of objective

:30:36. > :30:38.criteria to be able to assess against. I will write 10 on the

:30:39. > :30:43.specifics of the choice of location in Wales but it goes to neatly

:30:44. > :30:47.illustrate the fact that you need to assess against a set of objective

:30:48. > :30:51.criteria because every area will rightly have its advocates in

:30:52. > :30:55.Parliament. Gregory Campbell. Is the Minister aware of the concerns that

:30:56. > :31:00.exist across the United Kingdom particularly in Northern Ireland

:31:01. > :31:04.that a policy that the Minister has outlined of regionalisation will

:31:05. > :31:07.become centralisation and a very small number of officers with large

:31:08. > :31:16.and bus of implies won't adequately service the needs of the community?

:31:17. > :31:22.At the heart of the wider transformation of HMRC to become the

:31:23. > :31:27.best digital tax authority in the world is the desire to do better for

:31:28. > :31:31.customers, to collect smaller tax, to serve people better, to

:31:32. > :31:38.constantly bear down on customer waiting times. -- to collect tax.

:31:39. > :31:45.These programmes are designed to that end. I am aware of that. Does

:31:46. > :31:48.the Minister accept that the closures will have a devastating

:31:49. > :31:54.impact on some communities up and down the country, there is going to

:31:55. > :31:57.be ?150,000,000 less to tackle tax avoidance as a result of the HMRC

:31:58. > :32:01.failure to plan the move properly and they are even less effective at

:32:02. > :32:08.saving money as they are at collecting it from slippery global

:32:09. > :32:14.corporations? For the most part that was just a political point scorer.

:32:15. > :32:21.In fact, as I've already mentioned, the facts do not bear out the point

:32:22. > :32:27.from the honourable gentleman. Since 2010 HMRC has secured over

:32:28. > :32:31.?130,000,000,000 in additional compliance revenue and as I said

:32:32. > :32:41.before the UK tax gap fell in 201415 to its lowest ever level of 6 1/2

:32:42. > :32:45.percent. Ian Lucas. In Wales, the facts are that this government is

:32:46. > :32:50.creating a national centre in the most expensive site in the country

:32:51. > :32:54.in Cardiff. The facts are that there isn't a small office in Wrexham, it

:32:55. > :33:00.employs 350 people and the alternative site put forward by HMRC

:33:01. > :33:05.in Liverpool which has not been identified yet. This is a shambolic

:33:06. > :33:11.policy, ill-conceived, been badly implemented and the Minister,

:33:12. > :33:15.listening to my colleagues from Wales, she's heard from many of

:33:16. > :33:21.them, Jiri Vesely is policy and reconsider. It's very bad indeed. I

:33:22. > :33:25.know the honourable gentleman and his criticisms and I can't agree

:33:26. > :33:32.with the thrust of his points. HMRC will respond in detail to this

:33:33. > :33:36.report but also, this is a programme over a period of time and we will

:33:37. > :33:42.learn from each move but I don't recognise the description he just

:33:43. > :33:46.gave... Well I might just do that, but I do understand the point that

:33:47. > :33:51.he's been making especially around some of the larger offices and I

:33:52. > :33:54.realise until the side in Liverpool is identified it's a bit more

:33:55. > :34:01.unsettling for his constituency workers than it might otherwise be.

:34:02. > :34:06.Stuart MacDonald. Cumbernauld tax office takes the boxes in terms of

:34:07. > :34:10.what HMRC 6 in a regional centre, the right size, experienced staff,

:34:11. > :34:16.excellent locations of what America is the point closing at, disrupting

:34:17. > :34:22.staff and damaging communities? I've had a number of conversations

:34:23. > :34:25.specifically about this site, I will write to the honourable gentleman

:34:26. > :34:29.with the detail of that but there are a lot of different factors that

:34:30. > :34:32.go into choosing where to centre it and some of them I've touched on in

:34:33. > :34:37.my statement and my response to the urgent question. Inevitably I can't

:34:38. > :34:41.touch on all of them and much of that will come out in our response

:34:42. > :34:48.to the report. I think the Minister would be outraged if people living

:34:49. > :34:52.in villages, towns and small cities all suddenly stopped paying tax. And

:34:53. > :34:58.yet, suddenly the civil service is being centralised in a few cities.

:34:59. > :35:04.Can she please reconsider these points, it's totally outrageous for

:35:05. > :35:09.people in North Wales? I'm not entirely sure I recognise the point

:35:10. > :35:13.being made, most of our taxpayers now whether businesses or

:35:14. > :35:17.individuals into rappers HMRC on the phone or digitally. The number of

:35:18. > :35:23.people making personal visits and expects to be able to make a

:35:24. > :35:26.personal visit to a local office is to radically different audible is a

:35:27. > :35:32.generation or two ago. I do think it's right that we pursue this

:35:33. > :35:35.modernisation but it's also right, as the National Audit Office reminds

:35:36. > :35:39.us that we review the programme at every stage to make sure we are

:35:40. > :35:45.getting everything right and that we learn from each iteration of it.

:35:46. > :35:49.Chris Evans. Thank you. I'm sorry I have to disagree with the Minister

:35:50. > :35:52.on customer service. Why wife waited for 30 minutes for someone to answer

:35:53. > :35:58.the phone in HMRC over Christmas and in a previous National Audit Office

:35:59. > :36:04.report shows 3 in 10 people giving up before a call is answered. She

:36:05. > :36:09.will know this was only resolved when HMRC recruited an additional 2

:36:10. > :36:13.1/2 thousand members of staff to deal with this crisis at the end of

:36:14. > :36:17.2015. Is she confident even know report says for every pound saved by

:36:18. > :36:22.this change for pounds will go on telephone bills, she confident this

:36:23. > :36:30.change will not see any decline in customer service? The focus on

:36:31. > :36:35.customer service is absolutely vital. It's at the heart of this

:36:36. > :36:41.wider transformation programme, not just the estate transformation. Is

:36:42. > :36:43.the desire to make sure that HMRC is both the most effective tax

:36:44. > :36:48.collector it can be but also dealing with customer service. That is

:36:49. > :36:53.central to all the questions I ask of HMRC and the questions they ask

:36:54. > :36:56.of themselves. On the specific point I'm sorry to hear his wife waited

:36:57. > :36:59.for that long, I'm concerned about the number of people who while a

:37:00. > :37:05.small proportion of the customers who ring wait for that length of

:37:06. > :37:10.time because of the large numbers who ring HMRC, that's still quite a

:37:11. > :37:13.lot of people that an issue I've been specifically discussing with

:37:14. > :37:17.senior customer service managers within HMRC with a view to

:37:18. > :37:24.addressing it further. Patrick Grady. Given that the DWP is

:37:25. > :37:27.conducting an estate reviewed and threatening to close a job centres

:37:28. > :37:31.in Glasgow for discussions is she having with colleagues about the

:37:32. > :37:36.cumulative impact of the governments ranking its estate and what impact

:37:37. > :37:40.is that going to have, how many HMRC employees will find themselves

:37:41. > :37:46.without a job and without a local job centre to go to? This to speak

:37:47. > :37:47.at the last question is difficult to answer because ultimately

:37:48. > :37:53.individuals will decide what's right for them at a time when the facts of

:37:54. > :37:57.a possible move are known. I know a great deal of support has been put

:37:58. > :38:01.in place to help them, help them make the choice about moving or help

:38:02. > :38:04.them to move to other jobs and I've had the chance to speak to not only

:38:05. > :38:08.managers who are managing this programme but also to people

:38:09. > :38:16.affected by front line services, when some of them came for an event

:38:17. > :38:19.in London a few months ago. Specifically, the HR department of

:38:20. > :38:24.HMRC are working closely with DWP because there are opportunities

:38:25. > :38:28.there to have people move between departments. For the specifics at

:38:29. > :38:31.his local office I'm afraid it's not easy to say or answer that until

:38:32. > :38:36.more is known about what the actual move will be and the numbers

:38:37. > :38:42.affected. Tom Elliott. Thank you. The vast majority of staff in HMRC

:38:43. > :38:50.in my constituency in Enniskillen will be closer to 2 1st journey than

:38:51. > :38:53.1 hour. Does the Minister not see merit in the audit office report

:38:54. > :39:02.suggesting she should step back from the proposals? As I've said the

:39:03. > :39:07.nature of responding to an urgent question is that it is 1 has not had

:39:08. > :39:10.the chance to look at the whole report and reflect on it and HMRC

:39:11. > :39:15.will respond to that. Know the Chief Executive is also coming to the

:39:16. > :39:19.Public Accounts Committee Furley imminently, I imagine this is likely

:39:20. > :39:23.to be raised by them so of course we are going to look at this. It's an

:39:24. > :39:28.important report, we will look at what it says, but the central reason

:39:29. > :39:33.for driving these plans still stands in terms of being able to modernise

:39:34. > :39:37.the estate and provide a service to the customer that reflects modern

:39:38. > :39:40.life and to make sure the working environment for staff and the career

:39:41. > :39:46.progression open to them is the best it can be. Order. Statement, the

:39:47. > :39:54.Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Secretary James

:39:55. > :39:58.Brokenshire. With permission Mr Speaker I would like to make a

:39:59. > :40:01.statement about the political situation in Northern Ireland. As

:40:02. > :40:07.the House will be aware yesterday Martin McGuinness submitted his

:40:08. > :40:12.resignation as Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. This also means

:40:13. > :40:16.the First Minister Arlene Foster also ceases to hold office though

:40:17. > :40:22.she is able to carry out some limited functions. Under the terms

:40:23. > :40:29.of the Northern Ireland act 1998 as amended ID St Andrews Agreement to

:40:30. > :40:32.thousands 7, the position is clear. Should the offices of 1st and Deputy

:40:33. > :40:39.First Minister not be filled within 7 days from the resignation of Mr

:40:40. > :40:46.McGuinness then it falls to me as Secretary of State to set a date for

:40:47. > :40:50.an Assembly election. -- 2007. While there is no fixed timetable in the

:40:51. > :40:55.legislation for me to do this, it needs to be within a reasonable

:40:56. > :40:59.period. In his resignation letter Mr McGuinness said in the available

:41:00. > :41:04.period Sinn Fein will not nominate to the position of Deputy First

:41:05. > :41:09.Minister. I am very clear that in the event of the offices not been

:41:10. > :41:15.filled, I have an obligation to follow the legislation. As things

:41:16. > :41:20.stand, therefore, an early Assembly election looks highly likely. I

:41:21. > :41:26.should add that once an election has been held, the rules state that the

:41:27. > :41:32.Assembly must meet again within 1 week with a further two week period

:41:33. > :41:37.to form a new Executive. Should this not be achieved, as things currently

:41:38. > :41:43.stand, I am obliged to call another election. So right honourable and

:41:44. > :41:46.honourable member should be in no doubt, the situation we face in

:41:47. > :41:52.Northern Ireland today is greater. And the government treats it with

:41:53. > :41:56.the up most seriousness. It is worth reflecting for a moment on how we

:41:57. > :42:01.have reached this point. The immediate cause of the situation we

:42:02. > :42:04.now face is the fallout from the development and operation of the

:42:05. > :42:10.Northern Ireland Renewable Heat Incentive scheme. Under this scheme

:42:11. > :42:12.launched by the Northern Ireland Department for enterprise trade and

:42:13. > :42:16.investment in 2012 and equivalent to a scheme in Great Britain,

:42:17. > :42:19.businesses and other nondomestic users were offered financial

:42:20. > :42:24.incentive to install renewable heat systems on the premises. The scheme

:42:25. > :42:28.was finally shut down to new applicants from February last year

:42:29. > :42:31.when it became clear that the lack of an upper limit on payments,

:42:32. > :42:36.unlike the GBA Cleveland meant the scheme was open to serious abuse. In

:42:37. > :42:41.recent weeks there has been sustained media focus and widespread

:42:42. > :42:46.public concern about how this situation developed. The renewable

:42:47. > :42:51.heat initiative scheme was and remains an entirely to vault matter

:42:52. > :42:59.in which the UK Government has no direct role. -- devolved matter. Its

:43:00. > :43:01.primary responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive and Cindy

:43:02. > :43:08.to take the necessary action to address concerns expressed about it.

:43:09. > :43:12.But I do believe it's imperative that a comprehensive, transparent

:43:13. > :43:16.and impartial inquiry into the development and meditation of the

:43:17. > :43:22.scheme needs to be established as quickly as possible. In addition,

:43:23. > :43:29.effective action needs to be taken by the Executive and the Assembly to

:43:30. > :43:34.control costs. While the RHI might have been the catalyst for the

:43:35. > :43:37.situation we now face, it has, however, expressed a number of

:43:38. > :43:41.deeper tensions in the relationship tween the parties within the

:43:42. > :43:46.Northern Ireland Executive. This has led to a break down in the trust and

:43:47. > :43:52.co-operation that is necessary that the power-sharing institutions to

:43:53. > :43:56.function effectively. Over the coming hours and days I will

:43:57. > :44:01.continue to explore whether any basis exists to resolve these issues

:44:02. > :44:06.prior to me having to fulfil my statutory duty to call an election.

:44:07. > :44:11.I have been in regular contact with the leadership of the DUP and Sinn

:44:12. > :44:14.Fein and also with the Justice Minister Claire Sugden, an

:44:15. > :44:18.independent unionist. Yesterday evening I had a round of calls with

:44:19. > :44:24.the main opposition parties at Stormont. I am in close contact with

:44:25. > :44:28.the Irish Foreign Minister Charlie Flanagan. Immediately after the

:44:29. > :44:30.statement I will return to Northern Ireland and I will continue to do

:44:31. > :44:36.whatever I can to find a way forward. Both the UK and Irish

:44:37. > :44:39.governments will continue to provide every possible support and

:44:40. > :44:45.assistance to the Executive parties. We do however have to be realistic.

:44:46. > :44:50.The clock is ticking. If there is no resolution in an election is

:44:51. > :44:53.inevitable. Despite the widely held view that this election may deepen

:44:54. > :44:57.divisions and threaten the continuity of the devolved

:44:58. > :45:02.institutions. Mr Speaker, over recent decades Northern Ireland's

:45:03. > :45:06.politicians have rightly earned plaudits from across the globe for

:45:07. > :45:12.their ability to overcome difference and work together for the good of

:45:13. > :45:18.the whole community. It is required courage and risk on all sides. We

:45:19. > :45:23.are currently in the longest period of unbroken devolved government

:45:24. > :45:26.since the 1960s. This political stability has been hard gained and

:45:27. > :45:32.it should not be lightly thrown away. In the 14 months since the

:45:33. > :45:36.fresh start agreement significant advances have been made in areas

:45:37. > :45:39.such as addressing paramilitary activities, supporting shared and

:45:40. > :45:45.integrated education and putting the Executive finances on a footing.

:45:46. > :45:48.This parading season passed off peacefully and a long-running

:45:49. > :45:53.dispute North resolved. We've also been working intensively to build

:45:54. > :45:57.the necessary consensus to bring forward the bodies to address the

:45:58. > :46:07.legacy of the past set out in the Stormont house agreement.

:46:08. > :46:13.What Northern Ireland needs is strong stable government, not the

:46:14. > :46:19.collapse of the institution. Northern Ireland deserves fair and

:46:20. > :46:22.effective government. To continue implementing the Belfast agreement,

:46:23. > :46:30.to strengthen the economy and ensure Northern Ireland response to the

:46:31. > :46:36.challenges of an EU exit. There needs to be respect for everyone and

:46:37. > :46:40.they need to address the legacy of the past that will allow Northern

:46:41. > :46:44.Ireland to move forward. We must not put this at risk without every

:46:45. > :46:50.effort to resolve differences. We must continue to do all that we can

:46:51. > :46:54.to continue to build a brighter more secure Northern Ireland that works

:46:55. > :46:58.for everyone. I therefore urge Northern Ireland Pozner political

:46:59. > :47:02.leaders to work together, to come together to find a way forward from

:47:03. > :47:10.the current position in the best interests of Northern Ireland and I

:47:11. > :47:17.commend this statement to the house. If only we won here today, but we

:47:18. > :47:20.are. Can I thank the secretary of State for the advance notice of his

:47:21. > :47:24.statement. We've made it clear from the start that we in the Labour

:47:25. > :47:26.Party will support him and his endeavours to maintain political

:47:27. > :47:33.stability in Northern Ireland. Those of us with long memories can

:47:34. > :47:41.remember a time when there was not the piece we see today and any

:47:42. > :47:47.damage on our watch should provoke shame. The issues are many.

:47:48. > :47:52.Including how do we deal with Northern Ireland and its legacy, how

:47:53. > :48:02.do we help people in poverty and how do we handle the impending exit from

:48:03. > :48:08.the European Union? We must remember that Northern Ireland has the only

:48:09. > :48:15.land border with an EU region. It is that these reasons any division now

:48:16. > :48:19.will be most damaging for Northern Ireland and we should all be

:48:20. > :48:24.focusing on coming together to combat the common problems faced by

:48:25. > :48:28.us all. This impasse does not help victims families or the economy and

:48:29. > :48:34.these are the reasons why we in this house must come together, all of us,

:48:35. > :48:37.put aside partisan concerns and try and support those in Northern

:48:38. > :48:44.Ireland in order to maintain an enduring and peaceful devolution

:48:45. > :48:48.settlement. The issues surrounding the RHI scheme have come to impasse

:48:49. > :48:52.after many weeks of development and now it seems we may inevitably move

:48:53. > :48:59.towards an election. An election that will see constituency numbers

:49:00. > :49:14.reduced from six to five seats and we may see the loss of the many

:49:15. > :49:20.voices in the Assembly. We could be back to square one with the

:49:21. > :49:23.underlying issues unresolved. Potentially there could be more

:49:24. > :49:30.polarised position than we face. If we have an election what will it be

:49:31. > :49:34.for Tom? It should be who could deliver the best for Northern

:49:35. > :49:37.Ireland, for the schools, for hospitals. We look forward to

:49:38. > :49:47.progress and not backwards division. With so much at stake, surely it is

:49:48. > :49:50.time for moderation. Lines in the sand are needed. I do not believe

:49:51. > :49:57.from the feed that we are getting for the people on the ground in

:49:58. > :50:04.Northern Ireland that the population want an election. -- from the

:50:05. > :50:08.feedback that we are getting. It is not just about us, it is about the

:50:09. > :50:12.world. The world is watching us and there is a huge amount of goodwill

:50:13. > :50:15.towards Northern Ireland and admiration for the success we have

:50:16. > :50:20.seen after decades of despair. They look to the Assembly to lead and the

:50:21. > :50:26.responsibility is on them and this house. They don't want us to fail,

:50:27. > :50:28.they want us to rise to hard challenges and work through them and

:50:29. > :50:35.not just walk away when things get tough. We know from some experience

:50:36. > :50:41.that the worst thing that you can do in Northern Ireland is leave a

:50:42. > :50:53.vacuum. Six weeks of campaigning will not move the RHI campaign

:50:54. > :50:56.forward one inch. For these reasons we ask that the Secretary of State

:50:57. > :51:02.to convene around the table in Northern Ireland to discuss ways to

:51:03. > :51:05.avoid this impasse. I'm glad to say he has been engaging with his

:51:06. > :51:10.counterparts in the Irish government and with politicians in Northern

:51:11. > :51:23.Ireland. Let's keep up and not give to despair. Regarding the RHI, what

:51:24. > :51:26.will the effect of the projected overspend have Northern Ireland? We

:51:27. > :51:29.thank the Secretary of State the coming to the house today. We in the

:51:30. > :51:39.Labour Party will do all we can to ensure the devolved institutions

:51:40. > :51:43.remain for many years. I am grateful for the support of the right

:51:44. > :51:47.Honourable gentleman and his comments and I think he underlines

:51:48. > :51:52.the significance of the issues here and why it is important that we have

:51:53. > :51:56.a strong working functioning Executive to be able to take

:51:57. > :52:01.Northern Ireland forward. There is so much to be positive about. When

:52:02. > :52:04.you look at the jobs that have been created, the incredible businesses

:52:05. > :52:09.that have been established and the really positive sense that I always

:52:10. > :52:11.get in terms of that spirit and that believe in terms of what Northern

:52:12. > :52:26.Ireland can be and what Northern Ireland will be and

:52:27. > :52:28.how I think it does have a bright future to look forward to, but

:52:29. > :52:31.clearly we need parties to come together, to work together as I have

:52:32. > :52:34.said. A message that he himself has underlined in his comments. I can

:52:35. > :52:36.certainly say to him that my intent over this short period is to

:52:37. > :52:39.continue to engage with the parties to see what support we can provide

:52:40. > :52:44.as the UK Government to find a way forward, to find a solution, to find

:52:45. > :52:49.a way to pull back from the current situation we find ourselves commonly

:52:50. > :52:54.in if things do not change. Certainly I will permit to do all I

:52:55. > :52:58.can in my role to be able to support that activity. In terms of the cost

:52:59. > :53:04.to the Northern Ireland budget, I know that the Executive itself has

:53:05. > :53:09.given an estimate of around ?490 million over a 20 year period.

:53:10. > :53:13.That's if no mitigation takes place, but I think one of the key issues to

:53:14. > :53:17.take forward is to see what mitigation can be put in place to

:53:18. > :53:23.see and support what proposals may come forward to be to mitigate that

:53:24. > :53:26.in the best interests of taxpayers in Northern Ireland and certainly we

:53:27. > :53:34.stand ready to work with the Executive to see if we can play a

:53:35. > :53:39.role if necessary to assist. It is that focus that we have. As I say,

:53:40. > :53:42.time is short in terms of that period before which I have to

:53:43. > :53:49.consider my responsibilities to call that election and again, it is why

:53:50. > :53:51.we need to work together. Unsurprisingly, a significant number

:53:52. > :53:56.of colleagues are seeking to catch my eye and I would like to

:53:57. > :54:00.accommodate most if not indeed all of them. By prospects of doing so

:54:01. > :54:03.will be greatly enhanced if colleagues who are customarily

:54:04. > :54:14.addicted too long or multifaceted questions today will contain

:54:15. > :54:25.themselves and the will be minimal preamble. Given that new elections

:54:26. > :54:29.would probably return the party is more or less in the same numbers as

:54:30. > :54:34.they are now, does he agree with me that repeated callings of elections

:54:35. > :54:40.were really address the fundamental issue? Don't we therefore need to

:54:41. > :54:43.look closely at how the institutions are actually constructed and

:54:44. > :54:47.formulated so that we can move away from this constant threats of those

:54:48. > :54:54.very institutions collapsing or being collapsed? I think the chair

:54:55. > :55:03.of the select committee, and I welcome his comments on the need for

:55:04. > :55:06.focus on the issues that hands. Our attention now has to be on this

:55:07. > :55:11.period between now and next week on seeking to establish whether there

:55:12. > :55:20.is a way forward between the parties to encourage that, but that has to

:55:21. > :55:24.be the immediate focus. Various points and questions have been

:55:25. > :55:28.raised, but my responsibility at this time is to seek some form of

:55:29. > :55:35.resolution to see if that is possible and obviously to take stock

:55:36. > :55:38.of circumstances as they develop. As the Secretary of State alluded to in

:55:39. > :55:42.his statement and this has been coming down the line for a couple of

:55:43. > :55:50.months, it is deeply regrettable to see the Assembly stumble, it may

:55:51. > :55:57.need a job to get it going again. There is limited room to manoeuvre

:55:58. > :56:02.after the resignation of Mr McGuinness. What steps are being

:56:03. > :56:06.taken to ensure that public confidence remains in the

:56:07. > :56:10.institutions of Northern Ireland? Will democracy remain at the centre

:56:11. > :56:16.of the debate in Northern Ireland? It is clear that the relationship in

:56:17. > :56:20.the Executive has broken down. As he said in his statement, the clock is

:56:21. > :56:32.ticking and it is unlikely to all parties will get back around the

:56:33. > :56:46.table. His opportunities to affect Brexit negotiations appear as

:56:47. > :56:50.limited as the Scottish Minister's. Northern Ireland voted to remain.

:56:51. > :56:56.What is he doing to ensure the interests of the people of Northern

:56:57. > :57:03.Ireland will be looked after? Finally, will you tell us about his

:57:04. > :57:12.discussions with the leader of the UUP about suspending the Assembly

:57:13. > :57:18.until an investigation into RHI is completed? One of the primary roles

:57:19. > :57:22.of the UK Government is to provide political stability. We take our

:57:23. > :57:26.responsibilities seriously in that regard and as I have already

:57:27. > :57:34.indicated to the house, if the time period it lapses and the First

:57:35. > :57:39.Minister and that a diverse minister are not in place, I have the duty

:57:40. > :57:47.and obligation to move in the appropriate way to call the

:57:48. > :57:52.election. -- Deputy First Minister. Obviously she highlights the issue

:57:53. > :57:55.of confidence in the Northern Ireland political institutions. That

:57:56. > :57:58.is why it is incumbent on me to use the period to work with the

:57:59. > :58:01.different parties to see how that can be injected because it still

:58:02. > :58:06.remains the best outcome that a resolution is found. If that way can

:58:07. > :58:14.be found in the days ahead and that is where my focus will be. She also

:58:15. > :58:18.highlights on the issue of Brexit and speaking of Northern Ireland. I

:58:19. > :58:23.can assure her that is precisely what I have done and continue to do

:58:24. > :58:27.with the regular meetings I have across Northern Ireland. Even

:58:28. > :58:31.earlier this week I continue to do so and I'm ensuring the voice will

:58:32. > :58:37.be heard. Having a strong Executive in place and remaining in place is

:58:38. > :58:40.important and therefore the ability for the Executive to make points to

:58:41. > :58:45.the UK Government I think underlines the need for us to find out -- find

:58:46. > :58:49.our way forward to make sure Northern Ireland's voice is heard to

:58:50. > :58:56.that mechanism as well as the strong voice that I will continue to give

:58:57. > :59:00.in that regard. Does the Secretary of State agree that whilst the

:59:01. > :59:05.election looks likely, it should be possible to come up with a

:59:06. > :59:10.comprehensive and rigorous weight to investigate the overspent of the RHI

:59:11. > :59:16.that will not lead to the break-up of the coalition all of the First

:59:17. > :59:21.Minister standing down? I certainly believe that there should be

:59:22. > :59:25.opportunities to find a way forward. That is precisely what I intend to

:59:26. > :59:30.use the days ahead to do, to see if we can find that agreement. It is

:59:31. > :59:34.that sense of establishing some form of enquiry and I think that there is

:59:35. > :59:40.indication from all of the parties as the ways in which that could come

:59:41. > :59:43.forward and also to give that sense of accountability and confidence in

:59:44. > :59:44.what happens next and I'll certainly be using my influence to see what

:59:45. > :59:57.can be done to achieve that. Will the Secretary of State and the

:59:58. > :00:00.House except that we share the deep regret of the responsibility or Sinn

:00:01. > :00:04.Fein to single-handedly cause the elapse of the present Executive and

:00:05. > :00:06.precipitate what the Secretary of State calls a threat to the

:00:07. > :00:12.continuity of devolved institutions and it's clear from what Sinn Fein

:00:13. > :00:18.said in a resignation letter, it's not about RHI, had this continued we

:00:19. > :00:21.would have had the investigation and according to them, they are not

:00:22. > :00:24.getting their own way in a series of demands including rewriting the

:00:25. > :00:30.past, more soldiers and security forces in the dock. We had just

:00:31. > :00:35.agreed a programme of government in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of

:00:36. > :00:38.State and the House needs to be assured we want a full investigation

:00:39. > :00:43.into RHI, we have proposals to mitigate costs, this mustn't be

:00:44. > :00:47.blocked by the actions of Sinn Fein which is the ironic outcome of what

:00:48. > :00:51.they are planning to do and overall, he can be assured that we in this

:00:52. > :00:55.party will continue to work with him and other parties to ensure a stable

:00:56. > :00:59.Northern Ireland moving forward, based on good government. We want to

:01:00. > :01:03.see institutions continue and we will do everything in our power to

:01:04. > :01:11.make this process work. We deeply regret that Sinn Fein have decided

:01:12. > :01:15.to walk away. Aluko many indications as to the parties working together

:01:16. > :01:21.and I think we need to take this opportunity to establish what

:01:22. > :01:24.arrangements can be put in place and therefore I will be continuing my

:01:25. > :01:29.discussions with all of the political parties in the days ahead

:01:30. > :01:35.and I think the right honourable gentleman highlights the issues that

:01:36. > :01:37.are at stake. The need for a continued strong governance within

:01:38. > :01:41.Northern Ireland to be able to take those issues forward. That is what I

:01:42. > :01:44.want to see and I think that is what the whole house wants to see,

:01:45. > :01:49.establishing further there is a way for it to be able to achieve that

:01:50. > :01:53.end. Many hard working people across Northern Ireland to want to get on

:01:54. > :01:56.with their lives will be exasperated by recent events and will welcome

:01:57. > :02:02.the Secretary of State's measured tone and the comments of shadow

:02:03. > :02:06.Secretary of State. In his discussions will he remind all

:02:07. > :02:10.parties of the huge effort and immensely difficult compromises that

:02:11. > :02:14.brought about the current settlement and will he stressed the enormously

:02:15. > :02:21.valued long-term benefits must not be jeopardised for short term

:02:22. > :02:25.political motives. I thank my right honourable friend and thank him and

:02:26. > :02:28.by right honourable friend the Member for Chipping Barnet for all

:02:29. > :02:34.the work they've done over many years to provide that stability and

:02:35. > :02:37.security. The hard effort that's gone into achieving the games we see

:02:38. > :02:40.today and I think it's with that focus we need to approach the days

:02:41. > :02:48.ahead to see what resolution can be found. If there were to be an

:02:49. > :02:52.election does the Secretary of State expect a government to be formed

:02:53. > :02:57.after it and can he can burn that it is the government's intention that

:02:58. > :02:59.under no circumstances will emergency legislation be introduced

:03:00. > :03:07.into this House to introduce or reintroduce direct rule. I think it

:03:08. > :03:10.is an helpful to talk about either the suspension of devolution or

:03:11. > :03:14.direct rule, I think that's entirely premature and an helpful and I think

:03:15. > :03:20.that's the tone and way in which the right honourable gentleman has made

:03:21. > :03:23.his point. The next stage is if we are not able to reach a resolution

:03:24. > :03:27.over the course of the next 7 days for an election to be called, as

:03:28. > :03:32.I've indicated it is likely that election will be divisive,

:03:33. > :03:36.difficult, tough and therefore the ability to reach resolution at the

:03:37. > :03:39.end of that point may be challenging which is why I think we need to use

:03:40. > :03:45.this time now to address a number of the points raised. The Secretary of

:03:46. > :03:48.State touched in his statement on the possibility of an impartial

:03:49. > :03:52.inquiry into the energy deal. Could he give more information about that,

:03:53. > :03:57.the timescale and with that happen quickly with the result and a

:03:58. > :04:02.possible election looming? Ultimately that will depend on the

:04:03. > :04:06.Executive and the parties in Northern Ireland reaching a

:04:07. > :04:10.resolution in relation to that. This is entirely within the double space

:04:11. > :04:13.and therefore I think it's right and proper that a solution for this

:04:14. > :04:17.should be created within that environment. But equally, I think it

:04:18. > :04:21.underlines the need for us to get on with this were possible, to give a

:04:22. > :04:27.sense of assurance, to respond to concerns raised and to show where

:04:28. > :04:36.accountability may or may not rest, depending on the evidence that

:04:37. > :04:39.emerges. Doctor Whittaker was 1 of the constant voices for peace and

:04:40. > :04:42.reconciliation in Ireland between North and South and between Ireland

:04:43. > :04:50.and Britain over his outstanding lifetime of public service. Doctor

:04:51. > :04:53.Whittaker died last night for weeks after his hundredth birthday. The

:04:54. > :04:57.Secretary of State join with the offering sympathy and condolences to

:04:58. > :05:03.the family and friends of Ross Trevor Horn Doctor Whittaker who was

:05:04. > :05:11.a major driver and creator of modern Ireland. He bestrode the narrow

:05:12. > :05:16.world like a colossus. But Mr Speaker could I welcome the

:05:17. > :05:20.Secretary of State's statement and his reference to the view that a

:05:21. > :05:25.comprehensive inquiry is needed urgently. There are deep tensions

:05:26. > :05:30.there in the government. Does the Secretary of State except that while

:05:31. > :05:36.RHI may have been the last straw is at work, the major factor in the

:05:37. > :05:40.current crisis was the UK but for Brexit against the wishes of the

:05:41. > :05:42.people of Northern Ireland and Scotland, leading to considerable

:05:43. > :05:47.political confusion and damage to the Northern Ireland economy and has

:05:48. > :05:52.in turn played a significant part in compounding political difficulties?

:05:53. > :05:56.I admire the honourable gentleman enormously that I hope you won't

:05:57. > :05:59.take offence if I say he is an incorrigible fellow. I thought his

:06:00. > :06:05.question had concluded that it was only the 1st 3rd that I heard about

:06:06. > :06:09.point. Secretary of State! Can I thank the honourable gentleman for

:06:10. > :06:14.highlighting the news of the sad passing of Doctor Whittaker. At this

:06:15. > :06:19.time I think it's worth reflecting on those who have contributed so

:06:20. > :06:24.much to see the advancement of political stability, the strength of

:06:25. > :06:29.the economy and why I passed my condolences to all who will mourn

:06:30. > :06:32.the passing of TK Whitaker and to join the honourable gentleman in

:06:33. > :06:38.that way. Where I have difference with him, I don't share his analysis

:06:39. > :06:41.in relation to Brexit, I think there are opportunities that can come

:06:42. > :06:46.through for Northern Ireland in relation to what it can be and will

:06:47. > :06:50.be, following the departure of the United Kingdom from the European

:06:51. > :06:54.Union but I am in no doubt of the special circumstances and factors

:06:55. > :06:58.that are very relevant here and while -- why I will continue to

:06:59. > :07:03.advocate agree strongly in the interests of Northern Ireland to get

:07:04. > :07:06.the best possible outcome. I was going to Astro Mr Speaker for an

:07:07. > :07:11.urgent question today relating to the investigation and prosecution of

:07:12. > :07:15.veterans but I was to rid because of the events of last night. But with

:07:16. > :07:18.the Secretary of State informed the House about what measures he thinks

:07:19. > :07:26.will happen now is the result of this, to stop this very 1-sided

:07:27. > :07:34.judicial process? I'm grateful to my honourable friend for his point and

:07:35. > :07:40.I am absolutely clear as to the huge contribution that our Armed Forces

:07:41. > :07:43.and the RUC played to see that we have seen the games in Northern

:07:44. > :07:47.Ireland in recent years and he makes a point that some of the ways in

:07:48. > :07:52.which the system operates within the moment, I think there is a need for

:07:53. > :07:54.greater proportionality, greater balance within the system and that

:07:55. > :07:58.is precisely what I think the Stormont House Agreement and bodies

:07:59. > :08:04.will provide. Not withstanding current events, I remain committed

:08:05. > :08:08.in terms of taking that forward and leading to a public face in relation

:08:09. > :08:12.to that work which I judge is the right next step. There has to be an

:08:13. > :08:16.independent investigation and transparent investigation into the

:08:17. > :08:20.failings of RHI but is this not a symptom of a wider problem? Which is

:08:21. > :08:24.a breakdown of mutual trust and respect between the majority parties

:08:25. > :08:28.in Northern Ireland. Leaders do not have to be friends. But in the

:08:29. > :08:32.nature of the constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland

:08:33. > :08:36.there has to be mutual respect and trust and is in this purely a

:08:37. > :08:39.symptom of a breakdown of that, do not need to see leaders who are

:08:40. > :08:45.committed to putting personal differences aside in the interests

:08:46. > :08:48.of the institutions? I say to the honourable gentleman and he may have

:08:49. > :08:54.noticed what I said in my statement that obviously the focus has been an

:08:55. > :08:58.RHI but there are other issues that have come through from this and

:08:59. > :09:00.indeed in the letter that Mr McGuinness published yesterday he

:09:01. > :09:05.highlighted a number of those things. That's why I make the point

:09:06. > :09:08.at this time of parties coming together, working together in the

:09:09. > :09:11.best interests of Northern Ireland, given so much opportunity that

:09:12. > :09:16.reside there and having that focus on the big issues that are in the

:09:17. > :09:20.best interests of Northern Ireland. If there are constructive talks in

:09:21. > :09:23.the next few days with the Secretary of State be willing to extend the

:09:24. > :09:31.7-day period before an election is called? As I've indicated below is

:09:32. > :09:37.quite clear in terms of the 7-day time period and I must act within a

:09:38. > :09:40.reasonable period following that. Obviously if the time period lapses

:09:41. > :09:45.I will need to consider the position very carefully at that point in

:09:46. > :09:50.time. But I am under that statutory duty and I will follow through on

:09:51. > :09:53.that. Alistair Carmichael. This is not the 1st time the institutions

:09:54. > :09:58.have been brought to the brink. Each time it requires the leadership to

:09:59. > :10:00.bring them back. Principally that leadership has to come from the

:10:01. > :10:04.parties in Northern Ireland themselves but there is a role from

:10:05. > :10:09.leadership from the government here and the Secretary of State. He has

:10:10. > :10:14.the power under the 2005 act to constitute a public inquiry into the

:10:15. > :10:17.handling of the Renewable Heat Incentive itself and will he do so

:10:18. > :10:21.and as he fights his way through this was he give an undertaking that

:10:22. > :10:26.he will speak to all parties in Northern Ireland not adjust to the

:10:27. > :10:29.DUP and Sinn Fein? On the last point I said to the right honourable

:10:30. > :10:32.gentleman that I had a round of calls yesterday evening to the

:10:33. > :10:36.opposition parties, the main opposition parties in Northern

:10:37. > :10:42.Ireland and will continue to maintain that contact with parties

:10:43. > :10:46.at Stormont. In respect to this point in relation to RHI and the

:10:47. > :10:53.nature of an inquiry, I absolutely remain of the view that the best

:10:54. > :10:56.solution that a way forward for this be found within Northern Ireland.

:10:57. > :11:01.Taking his point in relation to issues of leadership, actually

:11:02. > :11:03.showing that the devolved institutions are able to deal with

:11:04. > :11:08.the challenges that are there and that is where my focus will be in

:11:09. > :11:13.the days ahead. My honourable and gallant friend for Newbury has ably

:11:14. > :11:16.expressed the dismay at the grotesquely partisan and inequitable

:11:17. > :11:21.decision to instruct Police Service of Northern Ireland to start

:11:22. > :11:27.receiving retired British service personnel whilst amnestied former

:11:28. > :11:30.terrorists freely walk the streets. On the government bring forward

:11:31. > :11:37.legislation urgently to offer them at least the same protection as the

:11:38. > :11:46.amnestied terrorists undeservedly enjoy? I can say to my honourable

:11:47. > :11:50.friend that there are no amnesties. We have been very clear on this in

:11:51. > :11:55.relation to Fort was the on the run scheme as it was known and Lady

:11:56. > :11:59.Justice Hallett's report in 2014 concluded they never amounted to an

:12:00. > :12:03.immunity from prosecution but my honourable friend makes a broader

:12:04. > :12:09.point in relation to the need for a proportionate alert approach between

:12:10. > :12:13.legacy to ensure that all aspects are investigated properly, rather

:12:14. > :12:16.than looking at 1 side rather than the other side. That is precisely

:12:17. > :12:23.the approach I think be taken forward. Thank you Mr Speaker, we

:12:24. > :12:26.have a debate later on the serious subject. And can I say to the

:12:27. > :12:30.Secretary of State we are going to have more talks, let's deal with

:12:31. > :12:33.this issue once and for all, it's unacceptable that veterans of the

:12:34. > :12:40.armed Forces who served the Crown are waiting on the knock at the door

:12:41. > :12:44.whilst the terrorists walk free. I say to the honourable gentleman I

:12:45. > :12:49.know the interests he has taken in this issue on legacy over many, many

:12:50. > :12:53.years. And I agree it's totally unfair that the alleged mistakes of

:12:54. > :12:57.soldiers and former police officers should be investigated while at the

:12:58. > :13:00.same time, perpetrators of terrorist atrocities are ignored and their

:13:01. > :13:05.victims forgotten. It is precisely that part that was reflected into

:13:06. > :13:09.the proportionate, balanced, fair and equitable stance taken in

:13:10. > :13:12.relation to the Stormont House Agreement while we continue

:13:13. > :13:19.discussions around the agreement and why are you a wee will move to a

:13:20. > :13:24.public face to take that forward. The historic investigations unit,

:13:25. > :13:29.had not been structured as it was, tour but has agreed that would have

:13:30. > :13:32.failed at the Executive. Now that it has failed to does he share my

:13:33. > :13:36.sadness that the unit was set up as it was and had to investigate

:13:37. > :13:43.chronologically but that servicemen were bound to be at the point of

:13:44. > :13:46.most of its investigations into terrorist sadly don't keep records

:13:47. > :13:47.and they don't respond to letters from the MoD inviting them to

:13:48. > :13:57.unburden themselves. I say to my honourable friend that

:13:58. > :14:01.the historical enquiries unit has not been established a chronological

:14:02. > :14:06.approach he highlights is not in place. Is why I think there is a

:14:07. > :14:11.need for reform and change that was reflected through Stormont house and

:14:12. > :14:14.that is precisely why it is necessary to take this forward and

:14:15. > :14:18.notwithstanding and I believe there is still that opportunity for us to

:14:19. > :14:21.move forward with the parties to see that we can get that political

:14:22. > :14:28.stability in order that these issues can be taken forward precisely for

:14:29. > :14:34.the cross community that resides around us. Does the secretary of

:14:35. > :14:38.State not recognise that it is the hubris of the outgoing First

:14:39. > :14:41.Minister that has brought about the humiliation for our institutions of

:14:42. > :14:46.him now having to contemplate the sort of options he has discussed

:14:47. > :14:51.today? Does he also note that Sinn Fein are saying they have called

:14:52. > :14:56.time on the DUP status quo which now seems to be the description for a

:14:57. > :15:02.fresh start. Will a real fresh start not involve a return to the key

:15:03. > :15:06.precept of the Good Friday agreement that the First Minister and Deputy

:15:07. > :15:14.First Minister are jointly elected by an Assembly and then they might

:15:15. > :15:17.act accordingly and we will avoid these difficulties? I say to the

:15:18. > :15:20.honourable gentleman that where we need to focus at the moment is to

:15:21. > :15:25.use the time available over the course of these coming days to see

:15:26. > :15:29.what resolution can be found. To see how people can work together in the

:15:30. > :15:33.best interests of Northern Ireland because I think there are so many

:15:34. > :15:45.issues at stake here and part of that is how we can move forward and

:15:46. > :15:49.get an enquiry in place and accountability based on the outcome

:15:50. > :15:55.of the enquiry is allowed to happen. Like so many members in the house I

:15:56. > :15:57.have grave concerns at the seems to be a disproportionate and

:15:58. > :16:01.politically motivated investigation of those who believe they were just

:16:02. > :16:05.doing their job. I'm sure my right honourable friend is aware of the

:16:06. > :16:09.concerns but he should know that as the MP representing many members of

:16:10. > :16:15.the serving British Army it is having a measurable effect on

:16:16. > :16:18.recruiting to our Armed Forces. This period of uncertainty could provide

:16:19. > :16:32.an opportunity to set the record straight about what is with and --

:16:33. > :16:35.what is within the enquiry? I underlie the points I have made

:16:36. > :16:40.about how I think we need to see a change in the system. That the way

:16:41. > :16:45.in which the attention of the state means that cases where for example

:16:46. > :16:50.those who have been murdered as a consequence of terrorist activity is

:16:51. > :16:55.not being pursued. I think there are mechanisms that provide for that. I

:16:56. > :17:00.am intent to take that forward and notwithstanding the current issues,

:17:01. > :17:03.that remains a priority. Could the Secretary of State confirmed that

:17:04. > :17:06.other ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive remain in post and

:17:07. > :17:11.can govern the Northern Ireland Assembly as now and therefore could

:17:12. > :17:25.he exercise maximum discretion to make sure the objectives of the

:17:26. > :17:30.Stormont house agreement are met? I appreciate the viewpoint the right

:17:31. > :17:33.honourable gentleman makes from that direct experience when he served as

:17:34. > :17:38.a minister in Northern Ireland. He is right that the relevant Northern

:17:39. > :17:43.Ireland ministers remain in place in the Executive. There is this

:17:44. > :17:46.situation we find ourselves in, but stability can be maintained through

:17:47. > :17:52.this period, albeit that their actions will be limited. Nonetheless

:17:53. > :17:57.that stability remains we need to continue to work with the Executive

:17:58. > :18:01.at this time to find a solution. I serve twice in Northern Ireland

:18:02. > :18:08.during my time in the Army so I know about the challenges faced. I must

:18:09. > :18:12.echo the contributions of colleagues who have discouraged the Secretary

:18:13. > :18:16.of State from allowing investigations of British troops. No

:18:17. > :18:19.matter how well designed, these investigations break the covenant of

:18:20. > :18:23.those who are serving and who have served in our Armed Forces. Can I

:18:24. > :18:30.encourage my honourable friend to block these investigations right

:18:31. > :18:35.away? I'm not able to intervene. The wall of law issues here and there

:18:36. > :18:39.for the prosecutorial and other aspects that sit around this come

:18:40. > :18:43.into play. I am concerned about the balance of effort and the need to

:18:44. > :18:47.ensure that there are proper investigations. They are following

:18:48. > :18:50.the evidence rather than anything else and therefore reform is needed.

:18:51. > :18:59.The situation as it is at the moment is wrong and has to change and that

:19:00. > :19:01.is what I'm committed to doing. The previous Prime Minister intervened

:19:02. > :19:08.by writing letters which got a lot of people off the hook. Could he

:19:09. > :19:11.confirmed that in the absence of the Northern Ireland Executive which

:19:12. > :19:16.will probably now be for a period of months, that the Secretary of State

:19:17. > :19:20.will assume all responsibility and power in relation to have the Brexit

:19:21. > :19:25.negotiations applied to Northern Ireland and they will not allow

:19:26. > :19:34.Northern Ireland to be prejudiced by the petulance of those who have

:19:35. > :19:38.walked away? I am very clear about my role and response to Article 50.

:19:39. > :19:42.The work I have done over many months to engage with all aspects of

:19:43. > :19:46.Northern Ireland and continue to do so and will continue to articulate

:19:47. > :19:50.firmly and clearly within Whitehall and elsewhere as to the best

:19:51. > :19:54.interests of Northern Ireland through the Brexit negotiations.

:19:55. > :19:57.That is strengthened by having a functioning capable Executive to

:19:58. > :20:01.support that work, to be able to work with the UK Government to

:20:02. > :20:06.ensure we get the best possible deal for Northern Ireland through those

:20:07. > :20:27.negotiations. The Secretary of State would have received correspondence

:20:28. > :20:32.from me recently. He said that... When was his predecessor first made

:20:33. > :20:39.aware of this abuse? The point to make about this was a -- that it was

:20:40. > :20:45.a devolved decision and it is not something the UK Government has had

:20:46. > :20:53.a direct role in and that is why made the point I did and therefore I

:20:54. > :20:58.think his questions are more directed towards the ongoing enquiry

:20:59. > :21:00.about getting answers about decisions made around the RHI and I

:21:01. > :21:19.think it is that poker that needs to be given. -- focus. This is about a

:21:20. > :21:26.political wish list from Sinn Fein. From the First Minister's to view it

:21:27. > :21:30.is a red herring. About the legacy issue, will members of Sinn Fein

:21:31. > :21:36.stands aside and resigned when we are investigating the past? I know

:21:37. > :21:41.that the honourable gentleman will know that the Stormont house

:21:42. > :21:45.agreement provides an important framework that was agreed by all of

:21:46. > :21:50.the parties in relation to how best to respond to these issues of the

:21:51. > :22:04.past. That is where my focus annotation is and remains. I

:22:05. > :22:13.will continue to support and encourage that. The Secretary of

:22:14. > :22:18.State will be aware of the list of issues that the Deputy First

:22:19. > :22:21.Minister had in his resignation yesterday. Can the Secretary of

:22:22. > :22:25.State confirm to me and to this house that he will not be weak and

:22:26. > :22:28.Her Majesty 's government will not be weak in any negotiations with

:22:29. > :22:37.Sinn Fein to allow the rewriting of history? I will not be party to any

:22:38. > :22:41.rewriting of history and have said that on a number of occasions in

:22:42. > :22:45.relation to the issues of the past. What we need to focus on is the time

:22:46. > :22:49.at hand to see that we are able to find a way forward from the very

:22:50. > :22:58.difficult situation we are now presented with. We need to see

:22:59. > :23:01.Northern Ireland moving forward and we use this time to bring people

:23:02. > :23:05.together rather than looking at things that separate and divide, and

:23:06. > :23:09.obviously using these days to focus on how that trust and confidence can

:23:10. > :23:15.be re-established and working with the parties to do that. Fundamental

:23:16. > :23:18.to the political institutions in Northern Ireland where the

:23:19. > :23:21.principles of power-sharing, partnership and respect for

:23:22. > :23:25.political difference. In the last number of weeks we have seen the

:23:26. > :23:33.disappearing and the withering away of the principle of power-sharing.

:23:34. > :23:38.You walked away from it! With the Secretary of State ensure in his

:23:39. > :23:42.discussions with political parties in Northern Ireland that those

:23:43. > :23:50.principles are adhered to and that everybody comes back to the

:23:51. > :23:56.principle of power-sharing? I think the important part of the political

:23:57. > :24:00.settlement within Northern Ireland is that fact that it works for all

:24:01. > :24:04.communities across Northern Ireland, and that was very much at the heart

:24:05. > :24:08.of the agreements that have been reached and indeed the work that I

:24:09. > :24:13.think needs to continue to be taken forward in that respect and

:24:14. > :24:18.therefore it is why I make the point about the need to look at those

:24:19. > :24:22.things that bind people together. How we use this time at hand rather

:24:23. > :24:25.than the risk out what may be a divisive election that six to create

:24:26. > :24:32.more difference and actually makes that job harder. The Secretary of

:24:33. > :24:36.State mentioned legacy issues in his statement. Can he give the house on

:24:37. > :24:51.practical details on how he will progress that and hand dealer-macro

:24:52. > :24:54.-- and can he talk about the roundtable meeting? I need to engage

:24:55. > :25:03.with the relevant political parties and establish the right way that we

:25:04. > :25:16.can facilitate a way forward that can hopefully be achieved without

:25:17. > :25:20.calling an election. On his bike in relation to legacy, I've underlined

:25:21. > :25:23.that I want to establish the necessary political consensus to be

:25:24. > :25:28.able to move forward and the next step on that is a more public phase

:25:29. > :25:34.of that. An element to bring all of Northern Ireland's and to have their

:25:35. > :25:39.say over proposals. That is the next point I had to take. That is the

:25:40. > :25:43.Secretary of State recall that two years ago Sinn Fein plunge the

:25:44. > :25:51.institutions into crisis over the implementation of welfare reform and

:25:52. > :25:57.cost the Executive over ?100 million. In a bizarre irony the

:25:58. > :26:01.decision to resign and walk out of the Northern Ireland Executive means

:26:02. > :26:04.there will be no Assembly to pass them mitigation measures that were

:26:05. > :26:07.due from the Stormont House agreement. Sinn Fein will be

:26:08. > :26:14.delivering the bedroom tax in Northern Ireland in six weeks times.

:26:15. > :26:21.I'm not sure I detected a question in the stream of consciousness from

:26:22. > :26:26.the honourable member. Secretary of State. I am in no doubt as to be

:26:27. > :26:30.tensions that exist at the moment, but I do look back on those days in

:26:31. > :26:37.relation to welfare where there were differences. They were very strongly

:26:38. > :26:41.held views and yet a way forward was established and at this time I do

:26:42. > :26:44.call upon the parties to reflect on that, to reflect on that experience,

:26:45. > :26:56.to work together and to use this time now to find a solution. Thank

:26:57. > :26:59.you very much, Mr Speaker. We all want to see a stronger society where

:27:00. > :27:05.there is respect for everyone, but we need to have a completely new

:27:06. > :27:09.look at this. Get it back to the Belfast agreement so we don't go

:27:10. > :27:13.round and round in circles and if I can end by saying can we get back to

:27:14. > :27:17.that? Please remember that Einstein said that insanity is doing the same

:27:18. > :27:23.thing over and over again and expecting different results. I know

:27:24. > :27:29.the honourable gentleman has put down some thoughts and I read his

:27:30. > :27:34.article at the weekend, but I think the primary focus now is to see how

:27:35. > :27:40.we can use this short time ahead to work together, to build together, to

:27:41. > :27:46.see that we are able to get through this current difficulty and ensure

:27:47. > :27:50.that we can look to a bright, positive prosperous Northern Ireland

:27:51. > :27:54.because ultimately that is what we are about. That is what is at stake

:27:55. > :27:59.here and why I will certainly be doing all I can to establish if a

:28:00. > :28:07.way forward can be found, a solution can be created with that intense.

:28:08. > :28:11.Point of order Mr Stephen Dowty. I wanted to make a clarification

:28:12. > :28:15.regarding a question I asked earlier in the Foreign Office questions and

:28:16. > :28:19.asked advice on the rizz matter. The Foreign Office minister appeared to

:28:20. > :28:26.be confused over what I was referring to in my question. I was

:28:27. > :28:30.referring to his own statement on July 2016. Four errors have been

:28:31. > :28:37.made regarding Parliamentary questions and the issue over whether

:28:38. > :28:49.the UK Government had assessed violation of human rights in Saudi

:28:50. > :28:52.Arabia. I'm concerned that the government has tried to prevent

:28:53. > :29:02.scrutiny over what they know about Saudi Arabia's activities. The

:29:03. > :29:07.member from Leeds is was told that the ministry had acted immediately.

:29:08. > :29:11.However a Freedom of information requests released just before

:29:12. > :29:18.Christmas reveals otherwise. It is important to make you aware, Mr

:29:19. > :29:24.Speaker, that this information was only released when the government

:29:25. > :29:29.were ordered as they were in breach of the Freedom of Information Act.

:29:30. > :29:32.This information reveals that not only did the Minister and indeed the

:29:33. > :29:38.Foreign Secretary nerd there have been errors in information as early

:29:39. > :29:43.as the 28th of June 2016, they then took nearly a month to provide that

:29:44. > :29:48.information to Parliament. They only provided it in the routing statement

:29:49. > :29:52.on the 21st of July 20 16. It makes clear that they were worried about

:29:53. > :29:57.the views of Parliament and the courts. This constitutes a potential

:29:58. > :30:02.breach of the ministerial code and the courtesy of this house over

:30:03. > :30:05.providing information timely when errors have been made. Can I seek

:30:06. > :30:14.your guidance on how I might pursue the matter and find out whether a

:30:15. > :30:20.The ungrateful to the honourable to run for his point of order and has

:30:21. > :30:27.courtesy in giving me add once at notice of his intention to raise it.

:30:28. > :30:30.I am grateful. It is the exclusive responsibility of those ministers,

:30:31. > :30:37.if a minister comes subsequently to realise that he or she has dared in

:30:38. > :30:41.saying something incorrect or even in giving and inadvertently

:30:42. > :30:45.misleading impression by failing to include in an answer information

:30:46. > :30:51.that should have been abolished it is a responsibility of that minister

:30:52. > :30:57.to correct the record. -- erred. The honourable gentleman asks how he can

:30:58. > :31:00.best recede in this matter. My instinct is he should if he feels

:31:01. > :31:07.that there has been a potential breach of the ministerial code,

:31:08. > :31:12.right directly to the Prime Minister for it is for the Prime Minister

:31:13. > :31:18.under our existing constitutional arrangements to decide whether to

:31:19. > :31:24.refer an alleged and claimed breach to the independent adviser on

:31:25. > :31:28.ministerial interests. That therefore is the course that I

:31:29. > :31:34.recommend to him. It may avail him, if it does not, and the matter in

:31:35. > :31:40.his mind or perhaps that of others remains unresolved, and he feels the

:31:41. > :31:44.House is in the possession of wrong information that hasn't been

:31:45. > :31:52.corrected, he can always return to the matter by Dave Radzi of means.

:31:53. > :31:57.We believe that there are for now. -- by a variety of means. We come to

:31:58. > :32:01.the 10 Minute Rule Motion for which the honourable lady has been

:32:02. > :32:08.patiently waiting. Christina Rees. Thank you. I beg leave to introduce

:32:09. > :32:12.a bill to make provision for the creation of mutual guarantee

:32:13. > :32:18.societies. For the membership is small and BD sized businesses, for

:32:19. > :32:23.the purpose of lending to and by such business and for the operation

:32:24. > :32:29.and for connected purposes. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a Labour and

:32:30. > :32:32.cooperative member of Parliament, I am proud that I am introducing this

:32:33. > :32:39.bill at the start of the co-operative party centenary year.

:32:40. > :32:42.My thanks also to cooperative UK and Philip Ross for their work in

:32:43. > :32:48.pressing the case for this legislative change. For 100 years

:32:49. > :32:51.the co-operative party has been putting forward the case for more

:32:52. > :32:57.co-operation in our country. I believe that correct link the

:32:58. > :33:01.legislative anomaly of the UK not benefiting from mutual guarantee

:33:02. > :33:05.societies is not just another step towards expanding co-operation but

:33:06. > :33:13.it would also importantly ensure that the increase the level of SME

:33:14. > :33:17.Hank lending. Put simply, my bill seeks to harness the positive power

:33:18. > :33:25.of co-operation in order to increase SME lending in this country. --

:33:26. > :33:27.anchor. SMEs are vital to the economy and our major drivers of

:33:28. > :33:33.employment and wealth for the country. Ensuring they have access

:33:34. > :33:36.to the right type of finance at the right time is essential to ensure it

:33:37. > :33:44.they maximise their growth potential. And develop new job

:33:45. > :33:48.opportunities. An economy which allows for SME investment and

:33:49. > :33:53.financial system prepared to lend to SMEs is essential. House of Commons

:33:54. > :33:57.research shows that while SME lending is for the 1st time since

:33:58. > :34:03.the global economic crisis starting to become net positive, I look at

:34:04. > :34:12.the broader Bank of England credit conditions survey 2016 makes less

:34:13. > :34:15.positive reading. It shows the availability of credit remains

:34:16. > :34:18.static at best and indeed the proportion of loan applications for

:34:19. > :34:26.small businesses which were improved, approved, declined and

:34:27. > :34:33.quarter to and caught 3 of 2016. It also shows this decline is

:34:34. > :34:37.predicated to continue. This trend must be reversed. I believe the

:34:38. > :34:42.creation of mutual guarantee societies can only be part of the

:34:43. > :34:46.solution. My bill will allow the creation of mutual guarantee

:34:47. > :34:55.societies which are private guarantee institutions created by

:34:56. > :34:59.beneficiary SMEs. Whilst there are different forms of mutual guarantee

:35:00. > :35:04.societies across Europe, they typically share a cooperative or

:35:05. > :35:11.mutual status. This means the mutual guarantee society's capital is

:35:12. > :35:17.provided directly by the SMEs that apply for a loan guarantee, in form

:35:18. > :35:22.of cooperative or mutual shares. Each member has an equal footing

:35:23. > :35:25.right and participate in electing the General Assembly and board of

:35:26. > :35:35.directors of the mutual guarantee society. -- equal voting. SMEs can

:35:36. > :35:38.negotiate a better deal from banks whilst banks, the underpinning of

:35:39. > :35:45.the mutual guarantee provides partial security an otherwise

:35:46. > :35:52.unsecured enterprise lending. The risk is lower, so the price of money

:35:53. > :35:56.is lower, the deal flow is greater, underpinned by peer review from SME

:35:57. > :36:03.members so access to capital is easier. A guarantee provided by a

:36:04. > :36:09.mutual guarantee society on behalf of the SME to the bank, replaces

:36:10. > :36:16.this collateral, enabling the bank to grant the loan. The guarantee is

:36:17. > :36:19.a financial commitment by the society to repay a certain

:36:20. > :36:27.percentage of the loan if the SME member cannot honour its payment. In

:36:28. > :36:33.many ways this bill is a no-brainer. Mutual guarantee societies provide

:36:34. > :36:38.access to finance, achieved better credit conditions, provide

:36:39. > :36:44.assessment of the companies in tangible and on qualitative

:36:45. > :36:49.elements, serve as a bridge between SMEs and financial entities and can

:36:50. > :36:56.provide better advice and supervision in financial management.

:36:57. > :37:02.The creation of these societies in the UK would also be good for the

:37:03. > :37:05.banks. Among other aspects they read Jews the bank's overall risk,

:37:06. > :37:12.provide quality of information for the bank, provide more detailed risk

:37:13. > :37:19.assessment at no cost and allow them to work with supervised and reliable

:37:20. > :37:26.financial intermediaries. The OECD concluded in 23rd team that mutual

:37:27. > :37:34.guarantee schemes represent a key policy to to address the SME

:37:35. > :37:39.financing gap. Whilst limiting the burden on public finances. The UK is

:37:40. > :37:45.almost unique in not raking use of mutual guarantee societies. In

:37:46. > :37:51.Europe, estimates are around 2,000,000 guarantees have been made

:37:52. > :37:58.for a value of ?70,000,000,000 to over 2,000,000 customers. This

:37:59. > :38:01.represents around 8% of all SMEs in the European Union that have

:38:02. > :38:07.benefited from the activity of mutual guarantee societies. The UK

:38:08. > :38:10.has no mutual guarantee market for SMEs to improve access to finance

:38:11. > :38:18.because of inappropriate regulatory barriers. The provision of mutual

:38:19. > :38:25.guarantees by SMEs is indicative as requiring the full regulatory burden

:38:26. > :38:30.of being and approved insurer and other surety guarantee. With far

:38:31. > :38:37.higher capital requirements and regulatory burdens as a result than

:38:38. > :38:41.any other EU country. Other countries have been able to specify

:38:42. > :38:46.mutual guarantee societies in transposing EU directives so bad

:38:47. > :38:51.they are regulated in a distinct and appropriate way. Because the UK has

:38:52. > :39:01.no such arrangement, we essentially have regulatory gold plated

:39:02. > :39:08.blocks... Following work with the cooperative sector in 2012, the FSA

:39:09. > :39:13.clarified that the best fit for any mutual guarantee society founded in

:39:14. > :39:21.terms of current regulated activities under current

:39:22. > :39:23.legislation. But this imposes significantly greater capital

:39:24. > :39:27.requirements than is the case in counties which have a this book

:39:28. > :39:32.scheme for mutual guarantee societies. And is not a particularly

:39:33. > :39:38.good fit anyway. My bill changes this. This bill provides a

:39:39. > :39:41.definition of the mutual guarantee society and outs mutual guarantees

:39:42. > :39:50.to the list of regulated activities as set out in the financial services

:39:51. > :39:57.and markets act, 2000, regulated activities order 2001. Despite the

:39:58. > :40:01.problems and barriers in the regulatory system there is 1 UK ace

:40:02. > :40:08.member of the European Association mutual guarantee societies, the

:40:09. > :40:13.British business bank. This institution created to drive SME

:40:14. > :40:18.lending may not be the type of mutual which I believe will be

:40:19. > :40:24.created using the legislative change contained within this bill, however,

:40:25. > :40:26.I believe it neatly demonstrates the point that mutual guarantee

:40:27. > :40:32.societies must be part of the answer to the question of how we increase

:40:33. > :40:38.SME lending. I hope we are pushing at an open door. I know that in

:40:39. > :40:42.written answers to my honourable friend the Member for Wolverhampton

:40:43. > :40:46.Southwest, Treasuries ministers stated officials plan to meet with

:40:47. > :40:50.the SCA to discuss the possible development of mutual guarantee

:40:51. > :40:56.societies. I believe this bill will create a welcome you chill addition

:40:57. > :40:59.to the financial services sector and will allow the UK to benefit from

:41:00. > :41:03.the SME lending in the same way that other countries have done for many

:41:04. > :41:08.years. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The question is that the

:41:09. > :41:11.honourable member have leave to bring in the bill. As many as are of

:41:12. > :41:25.that opinion say aye. To the contrary no. The ayes habit. You

:41:26. > :41:34.will prepare and bring in the bill? Gavin sugar, Lucy Powell, Stephen

:41:35. > :41:40.Dowty, Adrian Bailey. Gareth Thomas. John Woodcock. Jonathan Edwards.

:41:41. > :42:12.Tristan Matheson. Hannah Borrowdale and myself. Christina Rees.

:42:13. > :42:27.Mutual guarantee societies built. 2nd reading of what day? The 24th of

:42:28. > :42:34.February. The 24th of February. The clerk will now proceed to read the

:42:35. > :42:39.orders of the day. Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill not

:42:40. > :42:45.amended lips is to be considered. We begin with new clause 1. With which

:42:46. > :42:47.it will be convenient to consider the other clauses and amendments

:42:48. > :42:55.grouped together on the selection paper. Kate is more to move. Thank

:42:56. > :42:58.you. I rise to move new clause 1 and to speak on the new clauses

:42:59. > :43:03.amendments on which my name is included. We on this side of the

:43:04. > :43:09.House are unswerving in our belief that the UK must continue to spend 0

:43:10. > :43:14.points 7% of gross national income on overseas aid. It is imperative

:43:15. > :43:18.that the government delivers this aid in a way that is accountable,

:43:19. > :43:23.insurers are you from money and delivers on the UK's development

:43:24. > :43:28.object is. While we support the aims of the bill given that it is going

:43:29. > :43:33.into report stage without amendment, we remain concerned about the lack

:43:34. > :43:37.of safeguards. I speak to new clause two Fritsch asks that no increase of

:43:38. > :43:43.limit is given without a report or business case. I would like to talk

:43:44. > :43:51.to new clause 3 and 9 which is I believe at the heart of the work of

:43:52. > :43:55.David. It leads the UK's work to end extreme poverty. We on the front

:43:56. > :43:59.bench are asking the government that the Minister must be satisfied that

:44:00. > :44:04.any new investment enabled by any proposed increase in the limit must

:44:05. > :44:08.have a significant impact on the reduction in poverty. I said to the

:44:09. > :44:09.Minister that the department must be at the forefront of tackling double

:44:10. > :44:20.poverty reduction. It is vital that bolstering CDC

:44:21. > :44:26.resources does not mean that funds for humanitarian aid in places like

:44:27. > :44:33.Nigeria, Yemen and Syria and other parts of the world facing grave

:44:34. > :44:38.humanitarian crises is not reduce. Can the Minister commit to ring

:44:39. > :44:45.fencing those funds so that those in need receive help. Long-term

:44:46. > :44:49.investment and establishing an economy to kick-start growth and

:44:50. > :44:52.jobs are crucial to any credible development programme. But a

:44:53. > :44:56.development programme should at its core be a coalition of long-term

:44:57. > :45:02.investment and short-term relief and the consequences of losing sight of

:45:03. > :45:07.that latter element in the future would be grave indeed. Just as the

:45:08. > :45:13.UK have a duty to help lay the foundations for secure sustainable

:45:14. > :45:18.economies in the poorest every is a risk that few are willing to take,

:45:19. > :45:23.the UK also have a duty to assist those bearing people. Conflict,

:45:24. > :45:27.climate change and food insecurity. As laid out during the second

:45:28. > :45:30.reading of the build transparency should be the driving force behind

:45:31. > :45:36.any shifting focus of the aid budget. I speak to new clause four

:45:37. > :45:41.and new clause eight. It is vital that taxpayers money is not only

:45:42. > :45:44.spent effectively but also as transparently as possible. To this

:45:45. > :45:49.end it is incumbent on the government to put in place

:45:50. > :45:54.mechanisms that ensure maximum visibility regarding wet aid money

:45:55. > :46:00.is being spent and that minimises public scepticism. We all know that

:46:01. > :46:12.transparency is something that defeat does very well indeed. I'm

:46:13. > :46:17.grateful for you giving way. She was talking about balance. I think it is

:46:18. > :46:22.fair to make the point isn't it that CDC's proportion of development

:46:23. > :46:30.budget for its type is an FTI is actually lower than comparable is up

:46:31. > :46:36.4% compared to the French FTI of 12% and the Dutch at 30%. Just for

:46:37. > :46:39.proportion's say, even with the increase, the UK are still spending

:46:40. > :46:47.a large amounts on foreign aid the most of our peers and it will be a

:46:48. > :46:51.smaller proportion. The honourable member makes a valuable point but it

:46:52. > :46:55.still needs scrutiny and that is what I am laying out here today. We

:46:56. > :47:01.all know that transparency is something that is done well. Its

:47:02. > :47:04.performance in the aid transparency index represents an international

:47:05. > :47:08.gold standard in this regard but historically the same cannot be said

:47:09. > :47:12.the CDC and it is the utmost importance that the proportion of

:47:13. > :47:16.the ODA budget that is channelled through CDCB subject to the same

:47:17. > :47:29.checks on outcomes and value for money to which defeated holds

:47:30. > :47:34.itself. That should be an agreed framework that is reached with the

:47:35. > :47:38.independent commission for a impact and CDC and proper measurements of

:47:39. > :47:43.outcome on an annual basis will be a welcome addition to the bill. Madame

:47:44. > :47:52.Devitt is Speaker relating to new clause one new clause eight,

:47:53. > :48:04.separate financial centres where countries do not have robust... We

:48:05. > :48:07.on this side of the house know the importance of addressing and

:48:08. > :48:15.tackling CDC's use of tax havens. This Madame deputies Speaker cannot

:48:16. > :48:29.be understated. Whilst we may have heard assurances from the chief

:48:30. > :48:36.Executive CDC that using offshore investors, more is needed to ensure

:48:37. > :48:39.transparency on this point. We need clear legislative safeguards. That

:48:40. > :48:48.is why the front bench will take new clause one to the boat. New clause

:48:49. > :48:57.one with buyers -- requires a thorough analysis of CDC's use...

:48:58. > :49:11.I'd like to make some headway. Whether countries in question have

:49:12. > :49:18.robust -- don't have robust centres... Make way. Would she not

:49:19. > :49:23.agree with me that the changes made to CDC five years ago where CDC was

:49:24. > :49:27.encouraged to make direct investments in developing countries

:49:28. > :49:31.contrary to the preceding situation where it was making investments in

:49:32. > :49:36.funds which were situated offshore were in fact a major step forward in

:49:37. > :49:40.the regard that she is seeking? The honourable member makes a valid

:49:41. > :49:45.point and as I go on in my speech I will touch on that but I have two

:49:46. > :49:49.said that regardless of any development, we must always be

:49:50. > :49:55.robust and we must also be able to show taxpayers that we have a system

:49:56. > :50:00.in place which is transparent and accountable and that for me is that

:50:01. > :50:05.the forefront of this speech and of our objections to the bill itself. I

:50:06. > :50:13.would like to seek assurances from the Secretary of State that the

:50:14. > :50:17.Minister will... The minister, not the Secretary of State, will support

:50:18. > :50:21.such safeguards. It must be applauded that the whole ethos of

:50:22. > :50:25.CDC has been transformed since it was the subject of widespread

:50:26. > :50:31.controversy some years ago. It is a testament to the organisation's

:50:32. > :50:37.willingness to change that bad reaction and criticism to a more

:50:38. > :50:43.positive institution and an overhaul of the systems in place. These

:50:44. > :50:57.efforts were praised by the recent NA oh report which assessed CDC's

:50:58. > :51:04.progress. -- NAO. It was suckling to read that CDC has been successful in

:51:05. > :51:09.adapting its strategy in accordance with the NAO's recommendations,

:51:10. > :51:24.including frameworks to limit excessive pay. Rather than -- it was

:51:25. > :51:33.encouraging to learn that CDC has not only met but exceeded that

:51:34. > :51:35.targets agreed with DFID and has improved its procedures for the

:51:36. > :51:41.documented fraud and corruption. Whilst we on the front bench praise

:51:42. > :51:47.CDC from making the changes we must not forget the recent NAO report was

:51:48. > :51:51.by no means unequivocally positive and did in fact highlights

:51:52. > :51:55.significant areas for improvement. Allow me to directly quote from the

:51:56. > :52:01.report from a passage examining the efficiency of CDC's methods of

:52:02. > :52:06.capturing development impact. The report says it remains a significant

:52:07. > :52:10.challenge for CDC to demonstrate its Ottoman objective of creating jobs

:52:11. > :52:15.are making a lasting difference to people's lies in some of the world's

:52:16. > :52:19.poorest places. Given the plans to invest further in CDC a clearer

:52:20. > :52:28.picture of actual deployment impact will help to demonstrate the value

:52:29. > :52:33.for money for the Department's investment. That's quite some

:52:34. > :52:36.statement. It's a significant challenge the CDC to demonstrate how

:52:37. > :52:43.effectively it does the very thing it was setup to do. I'm happy to

:52:44. > :52:49.give way. The honourable lady refers to a quote which talks about the

:52:50. > :52:55.challenges of capturing impact. That is an ongoing challenge, but in

:52:56. > :53:04.terms of efficiency which is what she referred to. The NAO report also

:53:05. > :53:10.said that the CDC has through tight cost controls and closer alignment

:53:11. > :53:15.with the departments objectives and now has an efficient and effective

:53:16. > :53:19.operating model. Would she not agree that that is testament to the

:53:20. > :53:27.improvements made to CDC's work over the past few years? The comments

:53:28. > :53:33.honourable member has made, in my opening speech I did say that CDC

:53:34. > :53:40.has improved, but that same report has said it is still very hard to

:53:41. > :53:44.know how the impact on development has been demonstrated. That piece of

:53:45. > :53:54.work still needs to be done. It's not totally scathing, but we have to

:53:55. > :53:58.see whether or not things are transparent and if they were, those

:53:59. > :54:11.on this side of the house would not be saying what we are saying now.

:54:12. > :54:17.There has been an issue of sectors, including fossil fuel and health

:54:18. > :54:22.care which charge at the point of contact. The building of real

:54:23. > :54:30.estate, mineral extraction and work in the oil sector. If DFID's

:54:31. > :54:38.investment in CDC is to increase, the challenge must be urgently

:54:39. > :54:40.addressed and resolved. In spite of CDC's welcome improvements

:54:41. > :54:45.recommendation show we should not forget it remains a work in

:54:46. > :54:48.progress. This organisation to demonstrate transparently and

:54:49. > :54:52.robustly that it is achieving its objectives and with that in mind we

:54:53. > :55:00.cannot regard this bill as the end of the process there is no room for

:55:01. > :55:09.complacency within CDC or DFID over the need to further alter processes.

:55:10. > :55:17.Given the scale of the increase of the funding proposed by DFID and the

:55:18. > :55:22.resulting consequences that this will have for the UK development

:55:23. > :55:26.programme and for the developing countries it supports, it is right

:55:27. > :55:28.that this bill is robustly challenged and meticulously

:55:29. > :55:34.scrutinised where it is found lacking and stringent precautions

:55:35. > :55:37.appended to it when necessary. I speak to new clause ten which lays

:55:38. > :55:43.out that any proposed increase in the current limit will not only in

:55:44. > :55:47.any one calendar year constitute more than 5% of total official

:55:48. > :55:55.development assistance. Happy to give way. I'm grateful to the

:55:56. > :55:59.honourable lady for giving way. I just want to take her back to the

:56:00. > :56:05.point where I was trying to intervene where she was listing

:56:06. > :56:08.remuneration to clause seven and sectors which she feels should be

:56:09. > :56:14.excluded. Would she not agree in specifically mentioning education

:56:15. > :56:33.providers that trusty end-user as an exception. -- charge the end-user as

:56:34. > :56:37.an exception. For many children the only way of getting any education is

:56:38. > :56:43.provided by these means. The honourable member makes a valid

:56:44. > :56:48.points, but what I'm talking about his private education where somebody

:56:49. > :56:51.who has no money has to pay for education and I don't think in a

:56:52. > :56:55.developing country that should be what we are transported because we

:56:56. > :56:59.don't have that year. If someone was the pay to go to university, there

:57:00. > :57:06.are challenges around that. I'm talking about primary education

:57:07. > :57:11.ideally. I'll give way. The amendment is in my name and I will

:57:12. > :57:15.speak about it in due course, but would she agreed that there is an

:57:16. > :57:18.important choice here for DFID. Previously they invested in

:57:19. > :57:25.promoting free health care and education and making it available to

:57:26. > :57:36.all people and removing use the -- user fees. The honourable member

:57:37. > :57:44.makes a valid point. While some decide of the house I need to make

:57:45. > :57:51.some progress. We remain positive about the bill to achieve its aim to

:57:52. > :57:55.improve the quality of life of people in some of the least

:57:56. > :57:58.developed countries in the world, but safeguards need to be in place

:57:59. > :58:05.so this can be achieved and we need to retain the right to withdraw our

:58:06. > :58:14.support for the bill if the government has not made sufficient

:58:15. > :58:28.progress. Thank you. The question is that new clause one B read a second

:58:29. > :58:32.time. Flip Drummond. Order. It is the beginning of a long-term. It has

:58:33. > :58:37.been a long Christmas holiday, but may I remind people that if they

:58:38. > :58:43.want to speak it is really easy. You just have too. Flip Drummond. I was

:58:44. > :58:53.expecting the minister to respond to the original one. I didn't realise I

:58:54. > :58:56.was speaking next. There was a complete disconnect between this

:58:57. > :59:02.side of the house and the other side of the house which is unusual in the

:59:03. > :59:06.area of overseas development which is broadly consensual. There is a

:59:07. > :59:10.divide and we have seen it in the amendments tabled. New clause one

:59:11. > :59:14.and eight would restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to drive

:59:15. > :59:20.the CDC forward. This bill is that the first stage in a process which

:59:21. > :59:25.the house will have oversight of the rout of boosting an existing proven

:59:26. > :59:33.a delivery mechanism. This bill enables DFID to provide it with the

:59:34. > :59:38.necessary funding. It does not automatically give the CDC any money

:59:39. > :59:43.and only the first state of checks and balances before money will be

:59:44. > :59:47.provided. So the target of those new clauses which will restrict the

:59:48. > :00:00.CDC's ability to use external financial sectors is misplaced. We

:00:01. > :00:06.will help underdeveloped markets to develop, which is our aim. CDC has

:00:07. > :00:14.not invested in a particular way to dodge tax or get round regulatory

:00:15. > :00:17.framework. The financial and revelatory frameworks of developing

:00:18. > :00:21.countries will never develop if we treat them with suspicion and starve

:00:22. > :00:26.them of investment. The purpose of the CDC is that going to places

:00:27. > :00:29.where conventional investors fear to tread. We should not try to prevent

:00:30. > :00:37.that in legislation and I hope that there will be a time when the

:00:38. > :00:38.regulatory system will be robust and we won't have to go offshore. We are

:00:39. > :00:51.not at that point yet. Does she not accept there is a

:00:52. > :00:59.double point here? The Secretary of State issued a letter... Making it

:01:00. > :01:03.clear that they shouldn't be investing in tax havens yet appears

:01:04. > :01:07.unwilling to apply that same to CDC which is in receipt of taxpayer

:01:08. > :01:12.funding. Isn't there a double standard? Because we are investing

:01:13. > :01:17.in difficult areas where it may not be robust systems in place already

:01:18. > :01:21.plus the CDC has clear guidelines as to further money is going, we can

:01:22. > :01:25.track it more easily than you can track it another aid agency. With my

:01:26. > :01:31.honourable friend give way? Would she agree that the issue is not so

:01:32. > :01:37.much the offshore centres that are invested in by funds because you are

:01:38. > :01:41.getting funds from other D of jurisdictions but the tax paid for

:01:42. > :01:44.the activity which are undertaken in the country and in that respect, the

:01:45. > :01:50.investments that CDC makes our excellent and provide major tax

:01:51. > :01:55.revenues of billions of dollars a year for the country's Treasuries.

:01:56. > :01:58.Can I thank my honourable friend for a clear explanation of that which

:01:59. > :02:04.beats up what I said earlier. In the case of raising investment limits,

:02:05. > :02:08.we have a number of clauses before us which would hamper the CDC. We

:02:09. > :02:12.have already extensively debated the need to extend the limit and we had

:02:13. > :02:15.assurances from the Minister and from the CDC itself that the

:02:16. > :02:21.business case for further capital will be clearly made. We will have

:02:22. > :02:25.the stroll. The true document this year backed by a CDC analysis on

:02:26. > :02:30.development impact and we will have those before any additional money

:02:31. > :02:35.goes through CDC. The focus of spending I agree with the Minister

:02:36. > :02:39.that it must be delegated to CDC and DFID, specific investments made.

:02:40. > :02:43.That would give government oversight of it and ensure sustainable

:02:44. > :02:51.development goals are at the heart of it. Or countries and sectors

:02:52. > :03:02.limit... I believe it would hamper the CDC. Yes... Does she agree that

:03:03. > :03:07.supporting the CDC is absolutely vital if we are going to achieve the

:03:08. > :03:11.global goals with sustainable development by 2013. We need to

:03:12. > :03:17.mobilise the private sector to fill the annual financing gap of about 2

:03:18. > :03:23.1/2 trillion dollars every single year. My honourable friend makes an

:03:24. > :03:27.excellent point, 1 of the reasons why I'm so passionate about the CDC,

:03:28. > :03:32.we need to build the capacity of developing countries and I think in

:03:33. > :03:37.my 1st speech on this subject I said if you give a man a fish he deleted,

:03:38. > :03:41.but if you give him a fishing rod that is a friend for life and that's

:03:42. > :03:47.the philosophy behind the CDC. There are also circumstances where there

:03:48. > :03:53.are relatively development countries hosting much poor ones. Misplacing

:03:54. > :03:58.fears about offshore financial centres we shouldn't close any party

:03:59. > :04:04.investment and development, new clause 3, four, 6 and 9 fail in that

:04:05. > :04:06.respect. The amendments before us sure a fundamental weakness and a

:04:07. > :04:11.misunderstanding of the role of the CDC in the world. We put less of our

:04:12. > :04:15.development investment through the CDC that other countries do 3 Kudla

:04:16. > :04:20.bodies as my right honourable friend mentioned. We should be doing more

:04:21. > :04:23.through CDC if we want to develop mature and robust market economies

:04:24. > :04:28.in the developing world which is why I welcome this bill. Bar codes are

:04:29. > :04:34.transparent, flexible and they empower people that take part in

:04:35. > :04:37.them. The aim of our development policy should always encourage

:04:38. > :04:42.self-sufficiency and the development of market economies. As I said in my

:04:43. > :04:45.1st contribution, the CDC is transparent and the ordered report

:04:46. > :04:49.agreed and I championed the philosophy behind the CDC, enabling

:04:50. > :04:53.people to build their own businesses rather than handing out grants. This

:04:54. > :04:57.is an efficient, transparent model and I think we should give this bill

:04:58. > :05:01.wholehearted support and continue to be a major investor in improving the

:05:02. > :05:09.lives of fellow citizens in developing countries. Patrick radio.

:05:10. > :05:12.Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to speak to the amendments in

:05:13. > :05:21.my name and offer support for the opposition party amendments. My

:05:22. > :05:26.amendments are 3 and a new clause 6. I think it's worth saying at the

:05:27. > :05:30.start that no 1 here is arguing that the CDC shouldn't exist. We

:05:31. > :05:35.recognise there is a role for development finance and private

:05:36. > :05:37.investment and as I noted in the secondary din, the Scottish

:05:38. > :05:42.Government has set up its own investment mechanism in Malawi. But

:05:43. > :05:47.even if we did want to change some of the deeper fundamentals, that's

:05:48. > :05:50.not the scope of the bill. The government probably deliberately has

:05:51. > :05:55.presented a very narrow bill with the aim of increasing the statutory

:05:56. > :05:58.limit of its investment and by definition, that's what the

:05:59. > :06:02.investments have to be focused on. I hope the government will see the

:06:03. > :06:05.amendments I put forward and I think the Labour ones, we've tried to

:06:06. > :06:12.respond to concerns expressed in committee about the amount once and

:06:13. > :06:16.it will at least attempt to take them on board. It's now up to the

:06:17. > :06:20.government to respond and indicate how it will take our concerns on

:06:21. > :06:24.board. We all want to work constructively with the government

:06:25. > :06:30.on this, we want to reckon dies and painting the consensus that exists

:06:31. > :06:37.on the importance of aid, the commitment to pursue a .7%.

:06:38. > :06:42.Amendment 3 in my name and 2 and for which are contingent on at get to

:06:43. > :06:47.the heart of the technical aspect of the bill and what the cap investment

:06:48. > :06:51.should be. The government has been repeatedly asked for the reasons

:06:52. > :06:55.behind the figures of 6 billion and 12,000,000,000 in the bill and it

:06:56. > :06:58.still afraid has come up short. The best we've heard is that this is

:06:59. > :07:02.roughly what think is needed or can be managed over the coming years and

:07:03. > :07:10.in the lifetime of this Parliament that could equate to a maximum

:07:11. > :07:14.?2,000,000,000 a year invested from the budget to the CDC and as he

:07:15. > :07:19.repeatedly said, every penny invested into CDC is a penny not

:07:20. > :07:25.investment into other mainstream grassroots, not-for-profit

:07:26. > :07:30.development projects. That is why in the 2nd reading I asked about the

:07:31. > :07:35.use of a formula to link the capital for all budgets and I proposed such

:07:36. > :07:38.a formula in committee. The Minister's 1st concern about the

:07:39. > :07:43.formula is that it would blur the line between stock and flow but the

:07:44. > :07:47.aid budget is a flow, going up and can theoretically go down as well.

:07:48. > :07:52.While I recognise the CDC investment is a stark and wants that is

:07:53. > :07:56.transferred, that's for its days, what the formula doors is ask the

:07:57. > :07:59.government each time that it wants to disburse funds to the CDC to

:08:00. > :08:07.calculate how those funds for the late to its overaged spending in the

:08:08. > :08:17.coming years. -- to its overall spending. Amendment 3 and the

:08:18. > :08:20.continuing amendments take a number of things into account. My

:08:21. > :08:22.calculations based on figures from the House of Commons Library, this

:08:23. > :08:28.formula would allow the government to invest an extra 3,000,000,000 or

:08:29. > :08:31.a total of 4 1/2 billion in the CDC by 2021. Even if the government

:08:32. > :08:35.won't accept this amendment and if we can't persuade enough of its

:08:36. > :08:39.backbenchers to join us in the lobby in support, I hope it will commit to

:08:40. > :08:45.recognising the 6,000,000,000 figure in the current legislation is a

:08:46. > :08:49.maximum and any additional investment will reflect the ebb and

:08:50. > :08:54.flow of water for all ODA calculations in any given spending

:08:55. > :08:57.round. A respective of the caps and limits, much concern has been

:08:58. > :09:01.expressed about the build process overall of how some aspects of CDC

:09:02. > :09:04.resources have been spent in the past and how they will continue to

:09:05. > :09:09.be spent in the future and that's what I seek to address with my new

:09:10. > :09:13.clause 6. I think this is particularly important in the

:09:14. > :09:17.context of increasing and potentially quadruplet resources

:09:18. > :09:20.overall available to the CDC. I welcome the range of amendments

:09:21. > :09:23.brought forward at committee and hear today attempting to place

:09:24. > :09:27.various conditions on the exercise of the power to increase the limit

:09:28. > :09:30.and as I said at the start, because of the scope of the build my

:09:31. > :09:35.amendments and those from honourable friends in the Labour Party have to

:09:36. > :09:41.relate to the limit of 6,000,000,000 to 12,000,000,000, try as we might

:09:42. > :09:46.under the terms, it's not been impossible for us to find a way to

:09:47. > :09:50.attach conditions. The government has indicated its timetable for

:09:51. > :09:53.using the statutory instrument powers would be suddenly in the

:09:54. > :09:56.distance so I think it's not unreasonable to suggest they should

:09:57. > :10:02.be some kind of conditionality and review process before those powers

:10:03. > :10:06.are used, particularly when we apparently bill has so much time to

:10:07. > :10:10.prepare. Plus 6 combines conditions that I called for at committee

:10:11. > :10:14.stage, before the government can increase the limit of its investment

:10:15. > :10:16.the Secretary of State is required to make an assessment have an

:10:17. > :10:20.increased limit will contribute to the reduction of poverty which is a

:10:21. > :10:24.statutory aim under the International development act 2002

:10:25. > :10:28.and how that increase would help to meet sustainable development goals.

:10:29. > :10:32.The government has repeatedly argued that the CDC is doing both of these

:10:33. > :10:37.things here effectively at which case this surely is hardly an owners

:10:38. > :10:40.request? But the close, putting this into legislation would have the

:10:41. > :10:45.effect of making it clearer this is the overall purpose of the CDC, the

:10:46. > :10:50.commercial aim, returns and investment, even raw figures about

:10:51. > :10:53.jobs created are not an end in themselves, they are only the means

:10:54. > :10:59.to the end of reducing poverty and building a more stable and secure

:11:00. > :11:02.world. Again, responsibility is the government, if that doesn't respect

:11:03. > :11:05.or amendments at least acknowledge the concerns we express and give

:11:06. > :11:09.commitments to show in any business case publishers for further

:11:10. > :11:14.investment how poverty reduction and global sustainable development goals

:11:15. > :11:18.will be advanced. I want to speak briefly in favour and indicate the

:11:19. > :11:21.SNP support for the range of amendments brought forward by the

:11:22. > :11:24.Shadow Liberty Mandy honourable member for Cardiff South and Penarth

:11:25. > :11:28.who sits on the international developer committee. I welcome the

:11:29. > :11:33.fact has been cross-party support for these amendments, and I suggest

:11:34. > :11:36.the government pays attention, that there remains consensus in this

:11:37. > :11:46.House and across the country in support of the principal of aid at

:11:47. > :11:51.0.7%. What many of the Labour amendments say, it's as King DFID

:11:52. > :11:56.told CDC to the same standards that it's now demanding of its external

:11:57. > :11:59.stakeholders. Its recent bilateral and multilateral development reviews

:12:00. > :12:04.were pretty much in a lateral declarations of everything that was

:12:05. > :12:07.terrible and wasteful on the part of so many of its stakeholders and

:12:08. > :12:12.demanding that the highest standards of efficiency impact and

:12:13. > :12:15.transparency be applied to them and it stands to reason the standard

:12:16. > :12:19.should be demanded from the CDC. A government that says it wants to

:12:20. > :12:23.crack and an tax dodging shouldn't be allowing an agency of which it is

:12:24. > :12:27.the sole stakeholder to be making use of offshore tax havens and the

:12:28. > :12:30.government that wants value for money should not be afraid to ask

:12:31. > :12:36.for reporting on exactly those areas. My colleagues and I will be

:12:37. > :12:43.happy to join the party and other party members, to meet them in the

:12:44. > :12:48.lobby in support of any amendments they wish to press. By the David is

:12:49. > :12:52.bigger asset of the 2nd reading I was disappointed the scope is

:12:53. > :12:54.narrow. The government had the opportunity to widen the scope,

:12:55. > :13:00.strengthen its transparency and accountability. It also had the

:13:01. > :13:04.opportunity with a substantial and in some cases creative amendments

:13:05. > :13:09.proposed by opposition members, if the Minister continues to indicate

:13:10. > :13:12.an unwillingness to accept amendments and it's disappointing we

:13:13. > :13:16.didn't bring forward any of their own to reflect concerns raised, but

:13:17. > :13:21.it must give the strongest possible commitment now in response to the

:13:22. > :13:23.concerns we have raised. And it must recognise as the Labour front bench

:13:24. > :13:32.spokesperson said this is the beginning and at the end of the

:13:33. > :13:36.process. Richard Fuller. Madam PPD speaker. I am taking your suggestion

:13:37. > :13:41.that we must stand up and we get the chance. I would like to start if I

:13:42. > :13:48.may, by thanking all of the members of staff at CDC for the work they do

:13:49. > :13:55.on behalf of British taxpayers and more reportedly on behalf of the

:13:56. > :13:58.people on whom they depend on to depend on CDC for the claimant in

:13:59. > :14:02.many of the most troubled and difficult countries in the world.

:14:03. > :14:05.CDC over the last few weeks has been subject to much ill founded and

:14:06. > :14:10.hostile criticism, it must make their job much harder and I think

:14:11. > :14:15.it's important to put on the record the support for the work they do in

:14:16. > :14:20.helping to achieve our country's development goals. I would also like

:14:21. > :14:25.to thank the front bench spokesman for the Labour Party. I think she

:14:26. > :14:29.did a very good job today in putting forward some points of scrutiny and

:14:30. > :14:33.if I could also say in holding back on perhaps some of the wilder

:14:34. > :14:38.suggestions that might happen foisted upon her to take up and

:14:39. > :14:42.batter on this bill. The fact that there has been historically and

:14:43. > :14:46.continues to be, given what the lady of the front bench said, a

:14:47. > :14:50.consensus, cross-party consensus about the valuable role of CDC in

:14:51. > :14:54.achieving the development goals, it's an important board, a

:14:55. > :14:57.long-standing institution. It's part of the British brand internationally

:14:58. > :15:02.but I think she's done a great service focusing on 1 amendment, but

:15:03. > :15:10.pushing back on other ideas that other members

:15:11. > :15:18.I'm sure he's aware last year the CDC upped its investment pace to

:15:19. > :15:22.$1.5 billion. The level projected for the next five years. Do you

:15:23. > :15:27.think this investment rate show as recaptainisation is not about some

:15:28. > :15:30.supposed new direction for CDC but it's about allowing the good work

:15:31. > :15:36.they've done under its management to continue? My honourable friend is

:15:37. > :15:42.right. We have to be clear what is proposed. It is not proposed to do

:15:43. > :15:47.more than is being done now. It is to enable CDC to continue to do what

:15:48. > :15:50.it is doing now. If we were to take suggestions proposed from the SNP

:15:51. > :15:55.and others, that might imply that amount of support should be reduced

:15:56. > :15:56.in the future. That would be to the detriment of not only those

:15:57. > :16:05.countries but to the British countries but to the British

:16:06. > :16:12.taxpayer as well. One does recognise ODA flows can go up and down. If for

:16:13. > :16:17.some reason GNI were to consider and the ODI budget were to contract it

:16:18. > :16:24.makes sense for the CDC to contract so more money was available for the

:16:25. > :16:30.traditional equals? That's his point of view. I'll come to the point

:16:31. > :16:35.about balance in a minute. I want to talk, the general view in these

:16:36. > :16:39.amendments is they are seeking to solve problems that don't exist but

:16:40. > :16:44.may exist. I don't think statute is the right way to approach those

:16:45. > :16:48.types of circumstances the. That is a matter of oversight and scrutiny

:16:49. > :16:54.by ministers on behalf of our taxpayers. It is not about putting

:16:55. > :17:00.things into bills. I oppose any amendment on that basis. There's

:17:01. > :17:04.some validity if there was a question about this aspect of FDI

:17:05. > :17:09.being unusually large. There might be something if there was a poor

:17:10. > :17:13.investment record. She were losing shed loads of taxpayers very

:17:14. > :17:17.investment or clearly ignoring development goals and being held to

:17:18. > :17:22.account for doing that. Or if there was a problem in the reporting

:17:23. > :17:26.oversight that was evidence and explained in various reports. Not

:17:27. > :17:32.one single one of those conditions pertains to the circumstances of

:17:33. > :17:36.CDC. Therefore, there is no prior reason for why these amendments

:17:37. > :17:42.should be put in place. As I was mentioned earlier on, if you look at

:17:43. > :17:48.the proportion of our development budget that goes to CDC, it is 4% of

:17:49. > :17:52.our development budget. If you take our development systems over five

:17:53. > :18:01.years, the usual investment period for a fund. That compares to France

:18:02. > :18:05.12% of their budget. Germany, 8% of their budget and FMO in Holland, 30%

:18:06. > :18:10.of their budget. So, we're not unusually large. We're actually

:18:11. > :18:16.unusually small. We should be looking to these sorts of

:18:17. > :18:20.initiatives for a measured and slow increase in our ability to invest so

:18:21. > :18:23.we can play a fuller role in that. I don't think that really holds. The

:18:24. > :18:30.poor investment record doesn't hold either. The truth of the matter is,

:18:31. > :18:34.I have the numbers here, the CDC's annual return, commercial returns we

:18:35. > :18:41.have to understand there is a commercial return was set a target

:18:42. > :18:45.of 3.5%. The CDC asheaved an 8.7% over the last five years. There

:18:46. > :18:51.isn't really grounds to say they are performing in terms of their core

:18:52. > :18:54.function of investing in line with a commercial basis with them being

:18:55. > :18:59.poor performers or dog something under doored. In terms of missing

:19:00. > :19:05.development goals. There is a little bit of a laundry list of sectors

:19:06. > :19:11.that the honourable member wishes to turn his knows up to in -- nose up

:19:12. > :19:16.to in terms of development goals. Not sure if this is a full list or

:19:17. > :19:20.things he doesn't like. There are good reasons to support parts of

:19:21. > :19:24.those things. Clearly, we'll hear from him in a minute, I'm sure he'll

:19:25. > :19:29.make an excellent case for that laundry list. In the meanwhile, I

:19:30. > :19:36.would say there isn't really any evidence, is there, for CDC missing

:19:37. > :19:41.its development goals? Even the NAO, in their report, mentioned the CDC

:19:42. > :19:49.has met Bolt targets for its financial -- both targets for its

:19:50. > :19:53.financial and in clause 12, it has exceeded the target for prospected

:19:54. > :19:59.developmental impact. No basis on those for the amendments either. Is

:20:00. > :20:03.there and are there concerns about reporting for CDC? There may be. I

:20:04. > :20:07.haven't heard it. I can't point to something that says there are

:20:08. > :20:12.concerns. But I don't think in either of second reading or in the

:20:13. > :20:16.evidence stages, the report stage or today we've heard concerns about the

:20:17. > :20:20.reporting. There may be additional pieces of information we wish to

:20:21. > :20:25.have. They are listed in the some of the amendments. There's no real

:20:26. > :20:29.concern that's been raised they have been available in the past and

:20:30. > :20:37.therefore we need to ensure they provide those. I think on the issues

:20:38. > :20:44.of, is there a problem at CDC? The amendments are needed to correct,

:20:45. > :20:47.there's very limited basis in my case, no justification for them

:20:48. > :20:52.whatsoever. I think we have to be clear about what the role of tax

:20:53. > :20:57.havens has been. The honourable lady in her speech was very fair in

:20:58. > :21:02.pointing out the CDC's Chief Executive had made it clear they do

:21:03. > :21:07.not use tax havens in its policies. She explained the Chief Executive of

:21:08. > :21:16.the CDC explained why and why those are used. I'm perfectly happy

:21:17. > :21:21.resting on the judgment of CDC, its governance structures and the

:21:22. > :21:24.oversight of the development department to make sure that

:21:25. > :21:28.continues. I don't see there is an evidence problem at the moment to

:21:29. > :21:32.see they've wandered off from what they said they would do. If there

:21:33. > :21:37.was a problem, I would say, OK, maybe the time is now for statute.

:21:38. > :21:41.The honourable lady hasn't presented a recent concern where that's

:21:42. > :21:46.happened. Therefore, I can't see the reason for supporting a new clause 1

:21:47. > :21:52.though I understand she wants to put it to a vote. We broadly accept, and

:21:53. > :21:56.having a discussion about this is valuable, there is a strong message

:21:57. > :21:59.from Parliament about the use of tax havens and what is appropriate and

:22:00. > :22:05.what is not. If that is her intention it is a perfectly

:22:06. > :22:08.reasonable point for her to make. CDC is a valuable institution. It

:22:09. > :22:13.holds support from both sides of the House. I look forward to having

:22:14. > :22:21.further discussion on the amendments and then supporting the bill at

:22:22. > :22:28.third reading. In July of last year as part of our ongoing inquiry, the

:22:29. > :22:35.international development committee visited the democratic rob lick of

:22:36. > :22:44.Congo. We saw a hydroelectric power plant which is part-funned by CDC.

:22:45. > :22:47.It is reinvesting parts of its earnings into preteching the

:22:48. > :22:52.environment. It is bringing electricity to a region in which

:22:53. > :22:55.only 15% of the population has previously had access to power and

:22:56. > :22:57.has the potential to generate millions of dollars every year and

:22:58. > :23:03.thousands of jobs for local communities. I cite this because I

:23:04. > :23:07.believe projects like this are impressive. They demonstrate the

:23:08. > :23:13.positive impact CDC is already having. We know as other colleagues

:23:14. > :23:18.on both sides of the House have says... I'm happy to give way. I

:23:19. > :23:24.also, as he knows, was on that visit. I think that's probably one

:23:25. > :23:30.of the most impressive projects I have ever seen providing light to so

:23:31. > :23:35.many people who desperately need it. Those are just the sorts of projects

:23:36. > :23:39.that we've talked about and said CDC should be investing more in. They

:23:40. > :23:46.are creating jobs but making life better for so many more people. I'm

:23:47. > :23:49.grateful to the honourable lady who is a very highly valued member of

:23:50. > :23:54.the international development committee. The purpose of my remarks

:23:55. > :23:58.during report stage is to reinforce the points she's just made. These

:23:59. > :24:02.are positive projects. We want to ensure that high level of the

:24:03. > :24:07.quality we saw in that particular example in Congo becomes the norm

:24:08. > :24:11.across all of CDC's investments, particularly as the limit is

:24:12. > :24:16.increased. I'll come on to that in a moment. We know the private sector

:24:17. > :24:21.provides nine out of every ten jobs in developing countries. Its

:24:22. > :24:23.development, its success is vital to helping countries achieve

:24:24. > :24:29.sustainable and long-term development. Therefore, I think it

:24:30. > :24:34.does make sense for the CDC's involvement threshold to be in

:24:35. > :24:39.ceased. Poverty reduction must be at the heart of the Government's

:24:40. > :24:46.development agenda. That must explicitly include in the work of

:24:47. > :24:49.the CDC. In 2011, the predecessor international development committee

:24:50. > :24:55.produced a report entitled the future of CDC as the group

:24:56. > :25:00.approached its then cap of ?1.5 million set out in the 1999 act. The

:25:01. > :25:05.report cln colluded the mandate of the CDC should be changed to a

:25:06. > :25:11.specific focus on poverty alleviation. Given job creation is

:25:12. > :25:14.one of the Very best ways to reduce poverty, it is important that the

:25:15. > :25:20.Government has a development investment arm that will help poorer

:25:21. > :25:26.countries create new and innovative jobs. As has been said on both sides

:25:27. > :25:31.of the House, the CDC made some significant changes following the

:25:32. > :25:35.2008 National Audit Office report and the 2011 international

:25:36. > :25:39.development committee report in line with recommendation to move towards

:25:40. > :25:45.a focus on the alleviation of poverty. As has been said, these

:25:46. > :25:48.changes were reviewed recently by a further National Audit Office report

:25:49. > :25:54.released just before second reading of this bill in November 2016. The

:25:55. > :26:01.report was mostly positive. It noted in particular that the 2012/16

:26:02. > :26:07.investment strategy shifted the investment focus of the CDC to

:26:08. > :26:12.poorest countries. That is welcomed. The it noted the CDC met targets to

:26:13. > :26:16.#2ki6ed and financial performance and im#35k9. It also said the CDC

:26:17. > :26:20.should be doing more to measure the development impact of its

:26:21. > :26:25.investments. This will not only provide a better basis for

:26:26. > :26:30.investment decisions. But will also increase the transparency of the

:26:31. > :26:35.CDC. Poverty alleviation is absolutely central if we're going to

:26:36. > :26:39.make a success of the global goals. The sustainable development goals

:26:40. > :26:44.agreed in 2015. Africa needs to generate 15 million new jobs every

:26:45. > :26:50.year if it's to achieve its global goals. That can only be achieved by

:26:51. > :26:54.working with the private sector, including with organisations like

:26:55. > :26:59.CDC. CDC has helped create nearly 25,000 jobs in Africa and South Asia

:27:00. > :27:03.directly. They say over a million indirectly. The businesses in their

:27:04. > :27:11.portfolio support around 18 million jobs. I'm-y to see the threshold

:27:12. > :27:15.being raised. However, I have a number of concerns that I want the

:27:16. > :27:22.minister to respond to when he speaks in report stage this

:27:23. > :27:25.afternoon. Thanks for giving way. He will know I very much respect hads

:27:26. > :27:29.passion in this area, more particularly the very balanced way

:27:30. > :27:36.in which he's dealt with the issues around CDC. Does he share some of my

:27:37. > :27:41.concerns however, we are risking have a more press scriptive approach

:27:42. > :27:47.towards this part private sector organisation than we are to a range

:27:48. > :27:53.of NGOs who are beneficiaries of large scale problems in relation to

:27:54. > :27:58.Dyfed? That might actually also be somewhat disstoring? He makes valid

:27:59. > :28:03.points about the concerns, equally, if we're going to hamstring CDC in

:28:04. > :28:09.the way one or two of these amendments would have us do, that

:28:10. > :28:18.would be an undesirable outcome for DFID of? I'm not arguing for

:28:19. > :28:24.prescriptions to the applied to CDC that I wouldn't to other

:28:25. > :28:27.organisations in DFID. The Secretary of State, shortly before Christmas,

:28:28. > :28:31.set out a number of conditions for suppliers to the department and I

:28:32. > :28:34.think he makes a very valid point that should apply to CDC in the same

:28:35. > :28:40.way that it applies to other suppliers. I'm emphasising my

:28:41. > :28:45.support for the amendment which says poverty reduction should be at the

:28:46. > :28:49.heart of the work of CDC. All of us would agree poverty reduction should

:28:50. > :28:53.be at the heart of the entire development and aid strategy of DFID

:28:54. > :28:58.and other parts of Government. I can plead not guilty to the charge he's

:28:59. > :29:03.putting to me. I'm not proposing in any sense to hamstring CDC. I'm

:29:04. > :29:11.certainly not proposing or the side of the House seek to propose

:29:12. > :29:15.any restriction on CDC that would be out of step to other Cree

:29:16. > :29:16.restrictions to other bodies funded through overseas development

:29:17. > :29:28.assistance. With my honourable friend agree it

:29:29. > :29:34.is about bringing CDC more in line with other countries and the

:29:35. > :29:36.restrictions it places on users? Yes, I agree with that and that's

:29:37. > :29:41.why I think it is very important... why I think it is very important...

:29:42. > :29:44.I have read what the Minister is written during committee stage, but

:29:45. > :29:49.I look forward to hearing him again today. The sense that what is a very

:29:50. > :29:51.substantial increase in the potential money that could be going

:29:52. > :29:56.through CDC that we make sure this through CDC that we make sure this

:29:57. > :30:01.money really is geared to poverty reduction wherever it is invested,

:30:02. > :30:06.and part of that, as my honourable friend rightly points out, is which

:30:07. > :30:09.parts of the world, which countries will be invested in because

:30:10. > :30:14.investment in some countries can deliver a lot more both in terms of

:30:15. > :30:22.jobs and poverty reduction than investment in others. I'm happy with

:30:23. > :30:25.there being an increase in investment threshold but we have to

:30:26. > :30:31.make sure the money is spent wisely. The current investment plan has now

:30:32. > :30:39.expired and we are yet to see the next investment plan for 2017 -

:30:40. > :30:45.2021. It would have been beneficial for this bill, the Government and

:30:46. > :30:49.CDC itself if we have seen the plans for the next four years of

:30:50. > :30:54.investment before parliament was asked to raise the investment

:30:55. > :30:57.threshold. The amendment from the shadow Secretary of State would

:30:58. > :31:00.ensure that if the Government brings forward regulations to further

:31:01. > :31:06.increase the limit, this would have to be preceded by a detailed plan of

:31:07. > :31:12.investment from CDC which could be scrutinised by Parliament and I

:31:13. > :31:16.welcome and support that amendment. Successive governments can be very

:31:17. > :31:19.proud of the role the Department for International of all and has played

:31:20. > :31:25.in improving the lives and economies of some of the world's poorest

:31:26. > :31:28.countries but in light of the public debate around International of other

:31:29. > :31:35.and spending, not only is what my honourable friend said correct in

:31:36. > :31:39.principle, does he agree with me this is essential for maintaining

:31:40. > :31:45.and building on public confidence in international development spending.

:31:46. > :31:48.I absolutely agree with what my honourable friend said and it chimes

:31:49. > :31:52.with what I will conclude with, which is to talk about the

:31:53. > :32:03.importance of scrutiny, including scrutiny by this House both of CDC

:32:04. > :32:07.and the Government. Whilst I have a lot of sympathy for what he says, it

:32:08. > :32:11.would be useful in the context of this debate to have an idea of the

:32:12. > :32:16.sort of programmes that the CDC might have in mind for the future, I

:32:17. > :32:19.hope that whilst this bill goes through the passage in another place

:32:20. > :32:25.well there might be an opportunity for us to do that at some point.

:32:26. > :32:31.However, would he also perhaps recognise that given the nature of

:32:32. > :32:40.CDC's expertise and experience that it might well have to an extent

:32:41. > :32:44.slightly different goals to other non-governmental organisations who

:32:45. > :32:48.receive Dyfed money. In other words this absolute predominance for the

:32:49. > :32:54.alleviation of poverty could in some cases perhaps not entirely apply to

:32:55. > :33:02.everything they CDC does, given its expertise and experience. I think

:33:03. > :33:06.the focus, the priority I guess, needs to be on poverty alleviation

:33:07. > :33:15.and I gave the example when I started, and the honourable member

:33:16. > :33:19.for Derbyshire reinforced my point, about a project that delivered

:33:20. > :33:22.things beyond poverty reduction but at the heart of that investment and

:33:23. > :33:29.the impact of that investment is the reduction in poverty and I think

:33:30. > :33:34.that always to be kept in mind is a very useful lodestar for Dyfed when

:33:35. > :33:52.it is approaching the work of CDC. I would need persuading other cases.

:33:53. > :33:57.The recent N a L report, as was said rightly by the Member for Bedford,

:33:58. > :34:02.revealed that the development impact score is on average being met but

:34:03. > :34:08.that is only on average. CDC is making some investments that do fall

:34:09. > :34:13.below target. 23% of investments since 2013 have fallen below the

:34:14. > :34:18.target score based on their investment difficulty and propensity

:34:19. > :34:23.to generate employment. Even that the objectives stated in CDC's

:34:24. > :34:26.current investment policy is to focus its investments into the

:34:27. > :34:31.geographies and sectors where there is the most potential for

:34:32. > :34:34.development impact, it is not clear as to why CDC is investing in

:34:35. > :34:39.projects that achieve lower scores so I would say to the Minister,

:34:40. > :34:44.along with the more robust approach to developing impact is highlighted

:34:45. > :34:49.by the NAL, I would like to see some sort of minimum threshold for impact

:34:50. > :34:56.implemented in the new investment strategy. As with all Dyfed

:34:57. > :35:00.spending, the International Development Secretary will

:35:01. > :35:04.scrutinise very closely CDC's work in the months and years ahead. It is

:35:05. > :35:09.vital that we make sure the British taxpayer gets value for money for

:35:10. > :35:14.every pound that is spent on international development. As has

:35:15. > :35:17.been said on all sides of the House, CDC has become more transparent

:35:18. > :35:24.following the reports of the committee in 2011 and the NAO in

:35:25. > :35:27.2008 but more can still be done to make sure money is being spent as

:35:28. > :35:32.well as possible. One way in which that could be achieved, and I would

:35:33. > :35:36.ask the Minister to explore this, is to allow the Independent commission

:35:37. > :35:41.for aid impact to play a bigger role, for example carrying out a

:35:42. > :35:44.regular assessment of CDC investments, allowing scrutiny so we

:35:45. > :35:50.can really ensure full effectiveness and value for money for the

:35:51. > :35:57.programmes in which CDC invests. I think we can say CDC has been a

:35:58. > :36:00.world leader among the relevant finance institutions in publishing

:36:01. > :36:03.details of their investments since 2012 under the International aid

:36:04. > :36:08.transparency initiative and that is very welcome but I would suggest it

:36:09. > :36:13.would improve transparency further if they published similar details on

:36:14. > :36:20.their entire active investment portfolio, including those made

:36:21. > :36:26.prior to 2012. I think this would enable greater scrutiny of CDC's

:36:27. > :36:30.entire portfolio and hopefully provide assurance to the public that

:36:31. > :36:35.all CDC investments are being focused where they need to be on the

:36:36. > :36:41.goal of poverty reduction. In conclusion, I do believe that CDC

:36:42. > :36:45.has helped the United Kingdom to be a leader in global development, but

:36:46. > :36:49.as with any area of government spending, we need to make sure that

:36:50. > :36:52.every penny is going to the places where it can have the greatest

:36:53. > :36:57.effect, the right places and the right people delivering value for

:36:58. > :37:02.money for the taxpayer. One of the ways in which we can achieve this is

:37:03. > :37:06.by regular scrutiny of the CDC, including by Parliament, and I give

:37:07. > :37:10.a commitment that the international of and select committee will play a

:37:11. > :37:16.role in making sure we hold to account both the departments and CDC

:37:17. > :37:20.as the additional money is allocated, but most importantly, as

:37:21. > :37:24.with all areas of development spending, we need to make sure the

:37:25. > :37:32.ultimate goal is poverty alleviation and eradication and we never lose

:37:33. > :37:36.focus on that. I am grateful for your generosity to allow me to

:37:37. > :37:44.contribute for a short time in this debate this afternoon. The CDC has a

:37:45. > :37:47.really discreet role in our portfolio. There are few

:37:48. > :37:52.organisations with the skills and abilities to manage such risks in

:37:53. > :37:59.the most difficult markets. It has a situation where often, in many

:38:00. > :38:08.examples, it will actually bring an economically frontier country the

:38:09. > :38:10.opportunity to risk profile that more established, traditional

:38:11. > :38:18.investment vehicles can get involved in and that's to be welcomed.

:38:19. > :38:22.Supporting more than 1200 and 70 developing countries, creating jobs.

:38:23. > :38:28.When I was serving on the bill committee, we discussed a number of

:38:29. > :38:33.things. One of them being about the fact they weren't necessarily direct

:38:34. > :38:36.investments. I know some of the amendments being debated today are

:38:37. > :38:42.talking about whether that is diverting resources away from the

:38:43. > :38:47.least developed countries. What I would say however is that sometimes

:38:48. > :38:52.it is necessary to invest in opportunities in other countries. As

:38:53. > :38:56.long as the outcomes are those that are going to the most needy, the

:38:57. > :39:01.least developed countries. That is of the day is what we are trying to

:39:02. > :39:09.do with our International Development Secretary. It is

:39:10. > :39:14.important to concentrate on our core goals. I know the Minister in

:39:15. > :39:17.committee was very specific when he was saying he didn't believe we

:39:18. > :39:28.needed legislation because those already legislation in the

:39:29. > :39:36.international assistant development act, and the need to focus on

:39:37. > :39:41.poverty reduction and SDGs as well. Also Dyfed's processes have that

:39:42. > :39:45.enshrined in as well so I don't believe we need more primary

:39:46. > :39:49.legislation repeat that, effectively. In terms of the limits

:39:50. > :39:55.that were discussed in some of the amendments, we have to remember that

:39:56. > :40:05.this is effectively an enabling legislation, not an immediate call

:40:06. > :40:09.to spend, not saying here is ?6 billion tomorrow and we will raise

:40:10. > :40:17.it further the day after. This is simply enabling to bring CDC up to

:40:18. > :40:22.similar situation of other organisations that have similar

:40:23. > :40:27.requests of departments. And I would hope, and again I know the Minister

:40:28. > :40:31.spoke at committee to save the fact that any request for money, and the

:40:32. > :40:37.actual request for money would have to be subject to Dyfed's strategy,

:40:38. > :40:43.have a robust business plan and be considered fully before any money

:40:44. > :40:47.was handed over. That can easily be done at a departmental level and I

:40:48. > :40:51.totally agree with my colleague, the chairman of the International do and

:40:52. > :40:56.committee. As a new member, I will look forward myself to scrutinise

:40:57. > :41:05.the work of CDC and what it is doing there. I know the CDC has changed. I

:41:06. > :41:09.agree with my honourable friend, the Member for Bedford, when he spoke

:41:10. > :41:12.about some of the amendments looking at future problems that may not

:41:13. > :41:18.occur but also its rehearsing some old problems that occurred before

:41:19. > :41:23.2010 when the then Secretary of State reorganised CDC and I don't

:41:24. > :41:31.want to have amendments on primary legislation that is looking at

:41:32. > :41:35.things that may or may not happen or happened in the past and have been

:41:36. > :41:42.largely sorted out. That's why the move from the CDC had before 2010,

:41:43. > :41:50.and a lot of examples when it was looking at high impact programmes to

:41:51. > :41:59.a far more proactive viewpoint to make sure we do take into account

:42:00. > :42:03.the SDGs and poverty reduction. I will be scrutinising that with my

:42:04. > :42:08.colleague and I just do not believe I will be supporting amendments for

:42:09. > :42:15.those reasons. They can best be done at Department level, committee

:42:16. > :42:31.level, and so I look forward to this bill becoming an act. I beg to move

:42:32. > :42:34.amendments in my name and the name of my honourable friend. It is

:42:35. > :42:40.fantastic today we have a great degree of consensus around the room

:42:41. > :42:43.on the issue of the 0.7% target and the role Britain plays in the

:42:44. > :42:47.International of them and, perhaps in contrast to some of the debate

:42:48. > :42:52.that has gone on in the media in recent weeks. And also it may

:42:53. > :42:57.surprise some of the honourable members put there is actually an

:42:58. > :43:01.agreement on a role for CDC. I believe CDC has a role to play. I

:43:02. > :43:07.made it clear in the committee stage and I'm sure the Minister will

:43:08. > :43:10.acknowledge that. It plays a vital part in the wider portfolio of

:43:11. > :43:16.international development efforts this country makes, and indeed the

:43:17. > :43:21.spending of our official development assistance. Can I thank my fellow

:43:22. > :43:25.co-operative party MPs on the front bench as well as members from a wide

:43:26. > :43:29.range of other parties across the House for adding their names to many

:43:30. > :43:34.of the amendments I've tabled for today's report stage which show the

:43:35. > :43:39.level of reasonable concerns about the many unanswered questions about

:43:40. > :43:41.the priorities and operations of the Commonwealth development Corporation

:43:42. > :43:46.that I believe need to be addressed before we countenance such a large

:43:47. > :43:52.increase in the official development assistance resources that it

:43:53. > :43:56.receives from DFID. This isn't about suggesting CDC shouldn't get more

:43:57. > :44:01.resources. Clearly it has reached the cap that was set in 1999, it

:44:02. > :44:05.needs to have some had room to expand its activities but it's worth

:44:06. > :44:08.recognising it has coped well with recycling resources within itself,

:44:09. > :44:13.partly because of some of the successes it has enjoyed.

:44:14. > :44:19.This is about choices. Choices where we spend those precious, relatively

:44:20. > :44:22.small amounts of development assistance. We have a wide range of

:44:23. > :44:29.routes where we can spend that money. Bilaterally, multilateral

:44:30. > :44:32.agencies, through NGOs, in some cases in joint work with other do

:44:33. > :44:37.have departments and through vehicles like the CDC. The question

:44:38. > :44:41.fundamentally for me, is about the balance between those things and the

:44:42. > :44:45.coherence between them. Are we ensuring we're coherent in the

:44:46. > :44:50.countries we're operating in, the ways and sectors. And u

:44:51. > :44:54.financedmently, in that focus on poverty eradication for those people

:44:55. > :44:58.who most need it. Clearly, madam departmenty speaker, we will not be

:44:59. > :45:05.able to address all concerns in today's report stage. I don't want

:45:06. > :45:09.to reiterate too much the arguments mate in the second reading. Some of

:45:10. > :45:12.these are clearly probing amendments to try to get some clearer answers

:45:13. > :45:17.from the minister when he stands up as to the plans. He said some

:45:18. > :45:22.helpful things during the committee stage and I hope he can elaborate on

:45:23. > :45:26.those further. I want to focus my comments on firstly the volume of

:45:27. > :45:31.the new investment being proposed by the Government for CDC. Secondly,

:45:32. > :45:36.the continued use of tax havens by CDC, the third, the continued

:45:37. > :45:41.investment by CDC in sectors which do not appear to be coherent with

:45:42. > :45:44.the wider development spending and appear often counter to it. It is

:45:45. > :45:52.right we should question these things. The CDC only needed ?1.5

:45:53. > :45:56.billion of capital investment from the UK Government between 1999 and

:45:57. > :46:05.2016. There in lies my fundamental concern. How can we up to ?6 million

:46:06. > :46:08.and then ?12 million? The minister made helpful comments saying this

:46:09. > :46:13.wouldn't happen in one year, it would be spread out over a longer

:46:14. > :46:19.period. In the explanatory notes to the bill it makes clear this is

:46:20. > :46:24.about accelerating spending in this spending round in forecast market

:46:25. > :46:29.demands. I agree with the chair of the select committee t would have

:46:30. > :46:33.been a lot better had we had a much clearer plan, not a detailed

:46:34. > :46:37.business plan, but some assessment of the investigators very could be

:46:38. > :46:43.investing in before we got to the stage of agreeing this new headroom

:46:44. > :46:48.for CDC. I think another fundamental point is that the Government and CDC

:46:49. > :46:51.admitted in the evidence we had at the committee stage it was the

:46:52. > :46:58.Government who came up with the figure, it was not a request from

:46:59. > :47:04.CDC. This strikes me as somewhat odd if there is this forecast demand and

:47:05. > :47:09.if CDC is in need of such an injection of resources, ten fold in

:47:10. > :47:14.comparison to what it's had over the last 16 years, was this plucked out

:47:15. > :47:21.of the air as a figure? It would have been much more helpful to set

:47:22. > :47:25.out why that amount reaching ?12 billion with secondly legislation.

:47:26. > :47:30.There's some very important amendments we have down in this

:47:31. > :47:35.regard today to the report stage. Firstly, new clause 2 which rightly

:47:36. > :47:38.calls for a business case. I hope when the minister gets up, can

:47:39. > :47:42.explain further how this process around a business case will work.

:47:43. > :47:47.What scrutiny there will be for parboil to understand what is being

:47:48. > :47:51.proposed before resources are drawn down by CDC, what opportunities

:47:52. > :47:58.there are for scrutiny, to ask the important questions we've all raised

:47:59. > :48:06.and, crucially, can CDC absorb this funding? If we were prop Pos this

:48:07. > :48:09.for an NGO or other multilateral institution, there would be howls,

:48:10. > :48:14.how can they have the staffing, planning processes in place to cope

:48:15. > :48:19.with this uplift? It doesn't malter who it is, but if you massively

:48:20. > :48:24.increase the resources its receiving without that degree of planning and

:48:25. > :48:27.staffing needed to ensure it's done effectively and transparently and

:48:28. > :48:30.uses that money in a good way, that you can see resources being skewed

:48:31. > :48:35.and perhaps not being used in the most effective way. I will happy

:48:36. > :48:40.give way. Just for the point of clarity, is it not true or the case

:48:41. > :48:46.that actually the level of investment right now is consistent

:48:47. > :48:51.with this increase? So, actually, CDC's current level of activity to

:48:52. > :48:55.be maintained requires this level of increase. So the concerns about it

:48:56. > :48:59.growing to rapidly perhaps can be overstated? I don't believe that

:49:00. > :49:05.case has been made. We haven't had it made at any point, the

:49:06. > :49:11.justification for the figures. To maintain CDC at its current level of

:49:12. > :49:18.activity, it's managed well with ?1.9 billion. If it was going up by

:49:19. > :49:22.1.52 billion I could understand. ?6 billion and ?12 billion seems out of

:49:23. > :49:27.that space. I'm grateful to the honourable gentleman. I think, from

:49:28. > :49:32.my understanding of the bill and reading through the evidence given

:49:33. > :49:37.at the committee stage, forgive me for reading this out, no money will

:49:38. > :49:41.go to CDC until a full business case is written in huge detail which will

:49:42. > :49:44.be prepared in the summer of 2017. To perhaps give the impression that

:49:45. > :49:49.we're going to straightaway give this huge chunk of money to CDC is

:49:50. > :49:53.perhaps creating an unfair impression. The honourable lady

:49:54. > :49:56.didn't listen clearly to what I was saying. I didn't say that. I said

:49:57. > :50:00.the minister said clearly it wouldn't be spent in one year. That

:50:01. > :50:04.was the fear initially when this was proposed. What we're asking for this

:50:05. > :50:08.this amendment is for that clear business case. I hope the minister,

:50:09. > :50:12.he was nodding his head earlier on, how that process will occur and

:50:13. > :50:16.scrutiny. It is only right that does occur. There was very limited

:50:17. > :50:21.scrutiny of the last amount, quite a significant amount. I'm grateful to

:50:22. > :50:26.my honourable friend. What he's describing in civil service language

:50:27. > :50:31.is the ghastly phrase abso tiff capacity. He will know unfortunately

:50:32. > :50:35.the Department for International Development has allocated some

:50:36. > :50:41.funding into various World Bank trust funds which have not been

:50:42. > :50:45.fully spent within the timescale originally envisaged suggesting the

:50:46. > :50:49.department is struggling to find suitable sources to absorb the money

:50:50. > :50:56.it wants to. Therefore, he is right, in my view, to worry allowed this is

:50:57. > :51:04.a huge increase of money without any pro-en capacity to send the upon

:51:05. > :51:10.money. Indeed. He makes a very important point. I've spoken to

:51:11. > :51:16.other experts in the sector who suggest that to absorb that amount,

:51:17. > :51:20.each a doubling would be is a strug. But the struggle. But the levels we

:51:21. > :51:25.are seeing. That's why it needs to be clear what is the level of this

:51:26. > :51:28.spending. What is the number of years over which this increase would

:51:29. > :51:33.be spent before requiring another act to increase it further? I will

:51:34. > :51:38.give way in a moment. I think also, we've put down some crucial

:51:39. > :51:45.amendments from the Scottish National Party, clauses 3, 4 and 6

:51:46. > :51:48.and my own, clause 9, but importance of focusing on the poorest, least

:51:49. > :51:54.development countries, low income countries. Ensuring we're coherent

:51:55. > :51:58.with the sustainable dome goals, goals by the UN and poverty

:51:59. > :52:03.eradication and not other priorities. Thank you very much. I

:52:04. > :52:10.think my honourable friend is making excellent case. Is it not the case

:52:11. > :52:14.that divvied has led the world on the importance DFID on transparency

:52:15. > :52:19.and poverty why I reduction. The problem at the very heart of these

:52:20. > :52:24.proposals is there is absolutely very little prospect of transparency

:52:25. > :52:27.in terms of the way these resources are spent and equally, very little

:52:28. > :52:33.ability for the Government to guarantee that the resources will be

:52:34. > :52:38.deployed and focussed on poverty why I reduction? Isn't that a matter of

:52:39. > :52:44.major concern? It is. It gets to the point. There is a lot of information

:52:45. > :52:48.provided by CDC online. It is important to acknowledge that. You

:52:49. > :52:54.can see projects and individual spending. When it gets to the will

:52:55. > :52:59.have, being able to pro-prospective development impact, to show where

:53:00. > :53:03.that's going, the the the NAO looked at the issue of funding going into

:53:04. > :53:05.the Health Secretarier in India. Being clear where that was being

:53:06. > :53:12.spent in a particular hospital group. Was it going to the poorest

:53:13. > :53:16.or middle-income patients. The NEO told us it was going to middling

:53:17. > :53:23.income patients. That doesn't strike me as a correct use of CDC's money.

:53:24. > :53:29.Not to say it is not good. Enabling access to hospitals for people in

:53:30. > :53:33.general is a thing. But sharply we should be footballing using on the

:53:34. > :53:38.poorest. When you get into the depths of the figures, the overall

:53:39. > :53:42.proportion of spending going to the least developed countries rather

:53:43. > :53:47.than middle-income countries, whilst the proportion has gone up it is

:53:48. > :53:50.#1iing9ly less than going to the middle-income countries. When we

:53:51. > :53:56.look into individual countries, if we look at the example of India, and

:53:57. > :54:01.we look at which states the money is being invested in in India, the

:54:02. > :54:07.majority of the money is being spent in what are determined to be the

:54:08. > :54:11.richest states in India. The highest proportion of spend something in

:54:12. > :54:14.Mumbai. I'm not saying the individual investments being made

:54:15. > :54:20.there are not good or effective or doing useful things. The question is

:54:21. > :54:23.the priorities. It was helpful to hear the minister speak in the

:54:24. > :54:29.committee stage about a cap or restriction on #23u7beding going

:54:30. > :54:37.into India and South Asia versus Africa. Paul said he shared that

:54:38. > :54:43.concern. Is CDC spoke using resources enough on the poorest

:54:44. > :54:48.countries -- focusing resources. I think the wider issue about the

:54:49. > :54:56.proportion versus other spending routes that has been raised by both

:54:57. > :55:02.the SNP amendment number 3, our new clause 10, is crucial. Not saying

:55:03. > :55:06.CDC shouldn't get more money or expand operations but it is about

:55:07. > :55:11.having it in proportion to other forms of official assistance. It is

:55:12. > :55:16.important we put safeguards in, in this respect. By 2019, 26% of UK

:55:17. > :55:19.official development systems will be spent by other Government

:55:20. > :55:23.departments. We see money going into the prosperity funds and other funds

:55:24. > :55:28.across Government with far less scrutiny and far less oversight than

:55:29. > :55:31.is going on in the Department for International Development. It

:55:32. > :55:37.worries me and others. It is about having a fair balance and ensuring

:55:38. > :55:41.CDC has that role to play but in proportion to other ways we can

:55:42. > :55:46.spend that money and ensuring we're pulling all the levers of the

:55:47. > :55:50.development. In that respect, I would be very inclined to support

:55:51. > :55:54.amendment 3 were that pushed to a vote at a later stage. I want to

:55:55. > :56:00.turn briefly to the issue of tax havens. I don't want to go over this

:56:01. > :56:05.at great length. We discuss it had a lot in the committee and today. It

:56:06. > :56:12.seems surprising to me, in reference to new clause 1 and 8, that CDC

:56:13. > :56:16.continues to use tax havens. There's a fair point being made about the

:56:17. > :56:19.importance of stable financial arrangements for investments and

:56:20. > :56:23.clearly, in some countries, it is not possible to be setting things up

:56:24. > :56:27.within the legal structures of those countries to ensure the ride

:56:28. > :56:31.fiduciary controls are in place. However, what I can't understand is

:56:32. > :56:37.why we're simply not setting up these vehicles in England or Wales?

:56:38. > :56:42.Why are so many in the came enisland our Mauritius. I asked parliamentary

:56:43. > :56:46.questions about this, we are paying fees, management fees to financial

:56:47. > :56:52.services organisations in Kay men and elsewhere which are supporting

:56:53. > :56:59.the far less transparent activities or others. We might, indirectly,

:57:00. > :57:05.whether or not anything untoward, we might be indirectly be supporting

:57:06. > :57:08.the tax evasion industry which exists in overseas territories and

:57:09. > :57:12.other places. Is my honourable friend aware of comments that the

:57:13. > :57:17.Secretary of State made about tax evasion and the use and trying to

:57:18. > :57:21.limit the use of tax havens when she was a Treasury minister? Why does

:57:22. > :57:25.the Treasury seem to be concerned about this issuend a the Department

:57:26. > :57:29.for International Development suddenly not concerned about this

:57:30. > :57:34.issue? One would have thought it would be joined up on such a crucial

:57:35. > :57:39.issue as this. It seems a great surprise to me. I mentioned the

:57:40. > :57:45.letter earlier on. The letter the Secretary of State sent. Clearly

:57:46. > :57:49.making a point about not using tax avoidance measures, not using tax

:57:50. > :57:54.havens. There was a whole series of criteria. Most reasonable and things

:57:55. > :58:00.we should expect from organisations in receipt of our aid spending. Why

:58:01. > :58:03.are they not being applied to the CDC The sectsry of state implied

:58:04. > :58:11.they would be. One rule for one and another rule for others. The fact is

:58:12. > :58:16.whether you look at the research, 118 out of 157 fund investments made

:58:17. > :58:22.by CDC went through jurisdictions that go through systems of the tax

:58:23. > :58:27.haven industries. That is not coherent with other statements from

:58:28. > :58:32.the Government. About cracking down on tax avoidance and tax evasion.

:58:33. > :58:36.Lastly, I want to return to this issue of coherence. Particularly I

:58:37. > :58:43.would urge colleagues to support new clause 7. The honourable gentleman

:58:44. > :58:49.opposite referred to is as a laundry list or a suggestion I was creating

:58:50. > :58:54.hypothetical straw men out there, that is not the case. I am talking

:58:55. > :58:58.about things happening now. It is a fact as data revealed to me since

:58:59. > :59:09.the committee stage in parliamentary questions shows in 2015 alone, CDC

:59:10. > :59:13.invested 156.9 million it private fee education and ?169 million in

:59:14. > :59:19.pre-sat health care. The reality, I'm sure honourable health members

:59:20. > :59:21.will allude to this, there are private, voluntary providers, faith

:59:22. > :59:27.providers providing health and education in developing countries.

:59:28. > :59:30.This that is a fact. It is how our health education systems started

:59:31. > :59:40.out. Where is the priority for our spending of money? Is it in further

:59:41. > :59:43.supporting and expanding those fee paying health and educational

:59:44. > :59:49.providers or providing prepublic health care education. Supporting

:59:50. > :59:54.teacher and nurses salaries, health and education. Removing user fees.

:59:55. > :59:58.As this country has done in the past, removing user fees to ensure

:59:59. > :00:04.access for the poorest people. It is a reality even very small user fees

:00:05. > :00:09.can be a huge disincentive, particularly to those on lowest

:00:10. > :00:13.incomes. Whether you look at the rainbow's Hospital Trusts in India

:00:14. > :00:18.or gems Africa which seem to be funding private schools who charge

:00:19. > :00:23.up to ?10,000 a year in Kenya, it seems to be an incoherence here

:00:24. > :00:28.between what we say we're doing, our priorities in health and education

:00:29. > :00:35.and what CDC is doing. The other examples are based on current

:00:36. > :00:41.examples. Palm oil, we've heard about scandals related to that, a

:00:42. > :00:46.highly unsustainable product. Concerns about human rights. Whether

:00:47. > :00:51.or not there have been improvements to that project it seems inCronk

:00:52. > :00:54.reious to provide taxpayers' money which are not in line with other

:00:55. > :01:05.objectives. It is important for the CDC to

:01:06. > :01:11.invest in infrastructure. We have the example earlier on about

:01:12. > :01:15.excellent investment in infrastructure in Africa but it

:01:16. > :01:18.seems odd to me that we would be continuing to invest in fossil fuel

:01:19. > :01:26.led programme when we have our climate change objectives. We should

:01:27. > :01:30.be setting some bigger standards here and prioritising and shifting

:01:31. > :01:36.resources to ensure the best practice. I would certainly be keen

:01:37. > :01:42.to see new clause seven put to a vote. I hope the Minister would be

:01:43. > :01:45.able to answer some of the concerns raised in this report stage before

:01:46. > :01:53.we move further with the bill. I think it's right we answer these

:01:54. > :01:58.questions. It is not a few million here or there, it is potentially

:01:59. > :02:02.billions of pounds of spending and a significant portion of the budget

:02:03. > :02:07.and it seems only right that is subject to scrutiny. I want to speak

:02:08. > :02:10.in support of the number of amendments on the order paper but

:02:11. > :02:14.before doing that I would like to make a couple of comments about the

:02:15. > :02:17.political context in which I think this debate is taking place. I

:02:18. > :02:24.turned on the television over the weekend on the ticker tape on the

:02:25. > :02:27.screen on the news channel the information the Government had

:02:28. > :02:34.stopped funding a girl band in Africa. I was shocked by this and

:02:35. > :02:45.thought I didn't realise we were funding bands of any kind in Africa

:02:46. > :02:50.and so I looked into it, and it was based on girl effect in Ethiopia,

:02:51. > :02:58.the huge programme aimed at empowering women in that country. It

:02:59. > :03:03.has 10,000 participants online and operates in schools around the

:03:04. > :03:06.country, designed to use performing arts and music to give confidence to

:03:07. > :03:12.women in those countries so they can take part in the political and

:03:13. > :03:18.social life of Ethiopia. Undeniable that it is a good thing. It was set

:03:19. > :03:24.up by DFID, every time DFID has reviewed it it has been given and a

:03:25. > :03:29.star rating. However it is unusual, it is not the same as handing out

:03:30. > :03:34.food to people who are starving sewer case needs to be made for it

:03:35. > :03:37.and we need to be aware of how these things can be caricatured and used

:03:38. > :03:48.to try and argue against the things we are talking about here today.

:03:49. > :03:52.That entire project, Girl Effect was described by the Daily Mail as the

:03:53. > :04:04.British Government funding the Spice Girls. It claimed the taxpayers'

:04:05. > :04:17.money was not being used to feed the starving but being given to people

:04:18. > :04:21.to make them pop stars. For many people reading the Daily Mail and

:04:22. > :04:24.other papers that took it up, reading the ticker tape across the

:04:25. > :04:28.screen, that's the impression they are given and we have lots of

:04:29. > :04:32.people, including some in this chamber who ran to the press to make

:04:33. > :04:36.comments about it, who will use these caricatures in order to try

:04:37. > :04:42.and denigrate and oppose any foreign aid activity by this country, using

:04:43. > :04:46.the ridiculous argument that we should be spending money at home

:04:47. > :04:50.before we spend it abroad, as if the poverty and inequality which we have

:04:51. > :04:57.in this country which we must tackle, but as if that was on a par

:04:58. > :05:02.to the hell that is sub Saharan Africa where the poverty and

:05:03. > :05:06.oppression is the normal way of existence for most people in those

:05:07. > :05:10.countries. Knowing these caricatures are there and knowing we have to be

:05:11. > :05:13.careful about how we present these arguments, that brings us back to

:05:14. > :05:20.the amendments on the order paper before us today. The honourable

:05:21. > :05:25.gentleman makes a good case but would he not, in considering that a

:05:26. > :05:32.third of all Ethiopian girls don't actually get to go to school,

:05:33. > :05:44.wouldn't with regard to female empowerment, wouldn't giving them an

:05:45. > :05:48.education be more empowering? Of course, but the importance of this

:05:49. > :05:52.project was that it understood Digital communication was a much

:05:53. > :06:01.more effective way to reach people in Ethiopia in the bricks and cement

:06:02. > :06:04.of the formal education establishment. It also understands

:06:05. > :06:09.that music and lyrics are sometimes a better way to get through to

:06:10. > :06:15.people and educate them and inspire them than formal text so these

:06:16. > :06:20.things can contribute to the education of young women in Ethiopia

:06:21. > :06:25.and DFID itself said it was a project worth supporting. The

:06:26. > :06:29.importance, I think, of all of these debates is we can win public support

:06:30. > :06:36.for foreign aid, we can rally the public behind the 0.7% contribution,

:06:37. > :06:41.providing we are transparent about what we are doing and providing we

:06:42. > :06:45.demonstrate that at every turn the people who are getting the money are

:06:46. > :06:50.the people who really need it. Therefore it is important in the

:06:51. > :06:54.work of the CDC group and others that those criteria are demonstrated

:06:55. > :06:59.and the evidence is produced. I'm not sure which amendments have been

:07:00. > :07:04.taken to the vote, but I think all of them have the intention of trying

:07:05. > :07:07.to strengthen the existing bill. In my 20 months in the chamber this is

:07:08. > :07:13.the first time at a report stage I have seen a bill come back without a

:07:14. > :07:18.single government amendment which I find surprising. I know the bill is

:07:19. > :07:23.concise and brief, but nonetheless, given the concerns expressed in this

:07:24. > :07:26.chamber about the work of CDC group, I would have thought it could have

:07:27. > :07:28.been tightened up a little bit but I hope the Government will consider

:07:29. > :07:34.supporting some of these amendments which will have that effect, the

:07:35. > :07:38.effect of making the Bill more effective, more efficacious about

:07:39. > :07:42.doing what its objectives are. The first one of those I want to focus

:07:43. > :07:49.on is new clause six, which says that before CDC group get major

:07:50. > :07:53.uplift in funding the case has to be made that that means the sustainable

:07:54. > :07:59.development goals and it is tackling poverty and inequality in the

:08:00. > :08:04.country within which it is being employed. If the project is not

:08:05. > :08:09.tackling poverty and not combating inequality and is not contributing

:08:10. > :08:17.to achieving the goals, why should we be funding it? When money is

:08:18. > :08:25.tight, we have to see these things are being spent on what they say

:08:26. > :08:29.they are being spent on. We've had a discussion about the mistakes of CDC

:08:30. > :08:33.in the past, we spoke about the luxury hotels and other

:08:34. > :08:39.inappropriate projects in which the CDC group had invested in the past.

:08:40. > :08:43.We were assured that those things were in the past, those mistakes

:08:44. > :08:48.have been learned and they would not be repeated in the future. If that's

:08:49. > :08:52.the case, what's the difficulty of building this into the bill so that

:08:53. > :08:56.in future the CDC have an obligation to demonstrate when they get a

:08:57. > :09:00.budget uplift that the reason they are getting that and what they will

:09:01. > :09:14.be spending it on will contribute to meeting these goals and fulfilling

:09:15. > :09:20.these criteria. The other area I think we should look at is in

:09:21. > :09:29.amendments three and four, to which I put my own name, where there is an

:09:30. > :09:42.intention to try to uplift the link in CDC group funding to the ODA.

:09:43. > :09:46.There is an idea abroad that what may be happening here is the

:09:47. > :09:53.outsourcing of our foreign aid, the privatisation of our foreign aid

:09:54. > :09:57.activity, the pre-eminence given to market approaches rather than other

:09:58. > :10:03.things. If that impression is not counted, we would be in problems. Of

:10:04. > :10:08.course there is a role for spending public money to try and support the

:10:09. > :10:11.creation of the small-business sector in developing countries, to

:10:12. > :10:16.try to invest in it and see if we can create jobs, but let's not kid

:10:17. > :10:22.ourselves. The bulk of our priority aid should be directed directly to

:10:23. > :10:25.the people who need to combat malnutrition, illiteracy, poverty

:10:26. > :10:30.and starvation that is happening throughout those countries. That be

:10:31. > :10:35.done by setting up a small business to do it. That needs to be done by

:10:36. > :10:40.direct state and NGO intervention and that's why we should be clear

:10:41. > :10:45.that going forward the vast bulk of our foreign aid effort will remain

:10:46. > :10:50.in that sphere. Whilst CDC and the market has a contribution to make,

:10:51. > :10:54.particularly in countries which are along the process of development, it

:10:55. > :10:59.is not going to be the primary way in which we do things going forward.

:11:00. > :11:04.Amendments three and four give effect to that and I would commend

:11:05. > :11:07.them to the House. If we do this we can strengthen the bill and

:11:08. > :11:12.demonstrated people what our intentions are, which is to make

:11:13. > :11:16.sure the hard earned taxes they pay and which they will politically

:11:17. > :11:19.agree a small slice should be deployed for foreign aid, that they

:11:20. > :11:23.are spent doing the things they want done and that is really combating

:11:24. > :11:28.poverty and inequality in the developing world and making sure we

:11:29. > :11:36.get to a more equal world society which is in our long-term interests

:11:37. > :11:44.as well. I'm particularly pleased to follow the Speaker from Edinburgh

:11:45. > :11:52.East because I'm here today because of concerns brought to me by

:11:53. > :11:56.constituents. No NGOs have lobbied me in the making of this

:11:57. > :12:00.intervention in this debate. Constituents contacted me before the

:12:01. > :12:03.second reading of the bill, concerned that if it was past we

:12:04. > :12:07.would run the risk of aid money being spent inappropriately and our

:12:08. > :12:14.commitment to aid of which we can all be proud Ian on the mind. That

:12:15. > :12:17.was their concern. So I want to return to that concern, a concern

:12:18. > :12:25.that I raised at second reading of the bill. I want for me and my

:12:26. > :12:28.constituents are the core issues. Directing the money to where it is

:12:29. > :12:35.needed most, scrutiny and transparency. During second reading

:12:36. > :12:43.I quoted, and I know it's been quoted already today, but it bears

:12:44. > :12:48.listening to it again. In a recent report of the CDC, its conclusion

:12:49. > :12:54.that it remains a significant challenge for CDC to achieve its

:12:55. > :13:02.objectives of creating jobs and making a lasting difference to

:13:03. > :13:19.people's lives in some of the poorest places in the world.

:13:20. > :14:01.Basically we are being asked to trust. I

:14:02. > :14:11.Education, the use of the school in the box model, where large classes

:14:12. > :14:15.are taught using technology to teach standardised lessons. CDC has

:14:16. > :14:19.invested in the expansion of such schools in Kenya, Uganda and Liberia

:14:20. > :14:26.Troubridge International Academy to the tune of between 6 and $15

:14:27. > :14:34.million. The model however offers no guarantee of quality education.

:14:35. > :14:41.63 bridge academies in Uganda werersed to close following a court

:14:42. > :14:47.ruling which found education and legal standards regarding the use of

:14:48. > :14:51.certified teachers, accredited cripple Lumb and appropriate

:14:52. > :15:00.teaching models were neglected. Utilities. We heard about a good

:15:01. > :15:08.example of utility development. CDC established a company called Unema

:15:09. > :15:11.in 2005 to run Uganda's elect trisity distribution following

:15:12. > :15:17.privatisation. The company's been highlighted as an example of the

:15:18. > :15:27.positive impact such an initiative can have. However, Uganda says power

:15:28. > :15:32.out ages are often and prices high. Research at the University of

:15:33. > :15:36.Greenwich noted it was one of the most corrupt institutions in the

:15:37. > :15:44.country by an international survey. Health care. A unison commissioned

:15:45. > :15:50.study found the majority of CDC health care initiatives in India are

:15:51. > :15:54.private fee paying hospitals targeting international tourists.

:15:55. > :16:01.This means public funded health care suffers and low income groups are

:16:02. > :16:04.denied access. As I've said, we've been told CDC operations have

:16:05. > :16:10.improved considerably over the last few years. But giving it free reign

:16:11. > :16:16.to invest with no conditions attached is far from ideal. If we

:16:17. > :16:20.are to be standard barers of international development we need to

:16:21. > :16:25.ensure our delivery of aid whether directly or through investments is

:16:26. > :16:30.traps parent and of tangible benefits of those at the receiving

:16:31. > :16:35.end. The examples I've mentioned suggest a tendency to invest in

:16:36. > :16:39.programmes which produce a quick fix rather than create sustainable

:16:40. > :17:14.regular basis. But increasingly in the last couple of weeks, in

:17:15. > :17:23.234 in relation to international development, it is an area people

:17:24. > :17:29.come back to over and over again. Last week, I spoke to Porthcawl's

:17:30. > :17:33.Newton WI. I took many questions in relation to spending on

:17:34. > :17:40.international development spending. I hope the amendments here today

:17:41. > :17:46.will allay many of the fears that my constituents have raised and place

:17:47. > :17:46.the important work that the Department for International

:17:47. > :17:54.Development does, the change makes to lives in some of the

:17:55. > :17:58.poorest countries in the world, absolutely something that our

:17:59. > :18:02.constituents can all support because they can see it is transparent. They

:18:03. > :18:10.can see it's scrutinised and see it as accountable. Without that,

:18:11. > :18:12.we face yet more weeks of negative, often false new reporting, which

:18:13. > :18:26.undertakes. Thank you. If I can will undermine the

:18:27. > :18:28.undertakes. Thank you. If I can begin by thanking very much

:18:29. > :18:35.honourable and Rt Hon Members. This has been a very strict-of-process.

:18:36. > :18:39.The amendments brought forward reflect a really good committee

:18:40. > :18:43.stage. Basically, this side of the House, the Government has huge

:18:44. > :18:49.respect for the intelligence, focus and precision of these amendments.

:18:50. > :18:52.We hope you will see in the strategy produced all these concerns raised

:18:53. > :18:58.will be addressed through that strategy. Let me take these

:18:59. > :19:03.amendments in turn. Before I do that, pay tribute very strongly to

:19:04. > :19:08.the members of Parliament on all sides of the house who have

:19:09. > :19:12.demonstrated support for their international development.

:19:13. > :19:15.Particularly to the member of Edinburgh East, a powerful speech in

:19:16. > :19:22.the support of international development and the importance of

:19:23. > :19:30.standing up and supporting complex and innovative projects. I wonder

:19:31. > :19:35.why in his remarks he can explain why the legislation preceded the

:19:36. > :19:38.strategy? I'll deal with that in the second group of amendments. If I

:19:39. > :19:44.could continue in paying tribute to the other members of the Parliament,

:19:45. > :19:52.both sides of the House and their support of CDC struck by the member

:19:53. > :19:58.for Liverpool West and Derby for his support for the Orunga project. The

:19:59. > :20:03.support from the member for Glasgow West and the member for Edmonton

:20:04. > :20:10.which is getting this balance between long-term investment and

:20:11. > :20:13.short-term need. Finally, just to recapitulate the extraordinary work

:20:14. > :20:16.that CDC itself has done and to echo the thanks of the honourable member

:20:17. > :20:21.for Bedford. It has been a really tough time. We are used, as members

:20:22. > :20:25.of the Parliament, to being under full public scrutiny and attack. CDC

:20:26. > :20:29.works very hard. They've delivered some very high quality projects.

:20:30. > :20:34.This has been a very tough period for them. There are three types of

:20:35. > :20:39.amendment. First set of amendments basically says yes, we should be

:20:40. > :20:44.giving more money to CDC but slightly less money to CDC. The

:20:45. > :20:48.second set of amendments says there should be restrictions on the

:20:49. > :20:56.Government's ability to give money to CDC. The third set restricts what

:20:57. > :21:00.CDC itself can do with the money. Essentially the Government's

:21:01. > :21:08.position here is these are all very good points but are better dealt

:21:09. > :21:13.with through governance mechanisms than strat trilegislation. Let's

:21:14. > :21:19.deal with clause 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10. We should give money to CDC but

:21:20. > :21:26.we should give less money to CDC. Why do we disagree with this? This

:21:27. > :21:29.was e-Select Committeesly the argument put forward firstly

:21:30. > :21:33.because, with respect, I still believe the honourable member for

:21:34. > :21:39.Glasgow North is confusing the stock and the flow. The fact is that the

:21:40. > :21:46.money put into CDC will be recycled. So, for the sake of argument, if an

:21:47. > :21:50.investment is 10-12 years in length and CDC had ?12 billion in the pot,

:21:51. > :21:54.it will be in a position to maintain the current rate of investment

:21:55. > :21:56.$10-12 years in length and CDC had ?12 billion in the pot, it will be

:21:57. > :21:59.in a position to maintain the current rate of investment of a

:22:00. > :22:02.billion a year. It isn't fair to compare what happens in a capital

:22:03. > :22:05.stock used for equity, death investment with the annual

:22:06. > :22:11.expenditure of a department. Secondly, the question of demand,

:22:12. > :22:16.which the member of Cardiff south #25uked about, the demand is almost

:22:17. > :22:22.limitless. It's calculated 2.5 trillion dollars is going to be

:22:23. > :22:26.required annually by 2030 to meet the SCGs which is why the relevant

:22:27. > :22:33.question is not the demand for this money but the question of the

:22:34. > :22:37.absorptive capacity. Thirdly, this is enable legislation, setting a

:22:38. > :22:43.ceiling, a maximum limit. This is not saying this is the amount of

:22:44. > :22:48.money it will get. This money is designed to be a patient, long-term

:22:49. > :22:52.investment. The three-year review proposed simply will not work for

:22:53. > :22:56.investments which are intended to be on average ten years in length. I

:22:57. > :23:02.give way. I thank the minister for giving way. Is it not the case that

:23:03. > :23:08.if this bill is passed and you add the consequences of that to the fact

:23:09. > :23:10.over 25% of DFID's spending will be through other Government

:23:11. > :23:15.departments, the consequences of that is that over 50% of our aid

:23:16. > :23:19.will no longer be spent through DFID as a Government department. Does

:23:20. > :23:22.that raise serious questions about the Government's intentions for DFID

:23:23. > :23:27.to remain as a stand-alone department with a place at the

:23:28. > :23:32.Cabinet table if over 50% of the department's spending will be spent

:23:33. > :23:35.by the CDC and other Government departments? No other Government

:23:36. > :23:40.department would come to this House and ask for over 50% of its

:23:41. > :23:46.resources to be spent by other means. There are two distinct points

:23:47. > :23:52.there. The question of DFID's spending and the other spending. CDC

:23:53. > :23:57.is 100% owned by the development for international development. That's

:23:58. > :24:03.one of the reasons why a number of these amendments are not

:24:04. > :24:08.appropriate. In terms of proportion of money spent as the honourable

:24:09. > :24:13.member for Bedford pointed out, the small increase we'll be talking

:24:14. > :24:18.about in terms of the annual amount CDC can invest will be much smaller

:24:19. > :24:25.than comparable organisations in Holland, Germany and France. About a

:24:26. > :24:29.third of the amount that O PE C, one of the US can investment, only about

:24:30. > :24:36.a sixth of what the IFC puts out a year. We're not taking

:24:37. > :24:42.comparatively, globialy about that money. About 8%. That other 92%

:24:43. > :24:47.would continue to go in the normal way through NG 06789s, through

:24:48. > :24:51.organisations such as Unicef for the objectives we pursued. One thing

:24:52. > :24:54.which would be helpful for the minister to clarify is the time

:24:55. > :24:59.period over which this increase, if granted, would be played out with

:25:00. > :25:03.CDC, the explanatory notes to the bill say clearly the ?6 billion is

:25:04. > :25:07.intended to be use in the this Spending Review. Is that his view

:25:08. > :25:12.and what about the 12 billion? Is this over a ten or 20 year period,

:25:13. > :25:19.five year period? Give us a ballpark figure. Thank you. In order to

:25:20. > :25:23.clarify, the six billion represents an additional 4.5 billion. They

:25:24. > :25:31.already have 1.5 billion. We would anticipate that would cover the next

:25:32. > :25:36.five-year period. I don't expect them to draw down the max, I expect

:25:37. > :25:41.it to be lower, to make the kinds of investment they made last year. The

:25:42. > :25:45.next six billion, not an additional 12, would apply to the next period.

:25:46. > :25:51.So the next five-year period. We're looking at a steady state allocation

:25:52. > :25:55.which might at maximum allow them to meet the kind of expenditure levels

:25:56. > :26:02.they got next year. If I can move on to new clause 2, 5, 4 and amendment

:26:03. > :26:05.6, these are essentially a series of clauses about restricting the power

:26:06. > :26:12.of the Government to give money to CDC. Either saying it should not be

:26:13. > :26:16.able to boost the amount of money that CDC has through delegated

:26:17. > :26:24.legislation or trying to ask for a strategy to be in place before the

:26:25. > :26:32.money is dispersed. Again, these are appropriate. The role of Parliament

:26:33. > :26:37.as PEsified for CDC in the 148 act and 199 act relate to two things.

:26:38. > :26:42.Setting up this body and creating a cap on the amount of money that this

:26:43. > :26:45.body is given. It is not normal for Parliament to get involved in the

:26:46. > :26:50.detailed implementation of specialist business cases. That is

:26:51. > :26:56.true in everything that the ledge Is hatture does in its relationship to

:26:57. > :26:59.the executive. The money allocated through the budget is then delegated

:27:00. > :27:03.to civil servants and to the Government to determine how that

:27:04. > :27:09.money is spent. The same will be true here. But, the strategy that

:27:10. > :27:13.will come forward will reflect very closely the argument the that have

:27:14. > :27:17.been made in committee stage that have been made in report stage, we

:27:18. > :27:21.will continue to remain in very close touch with members of

:27:22. > :27:24.Parliament and we will be judged by our ability to deliver through that

:27:25. > :27:30.strategy something that will address those concerns. Above all, through

:27:31. > :27:34.the development impact grid and the development impact assessments on

:27:35. > :27:39.the individual business cases which will address these particular cases.

:27:40. > :27:44.Yes? The minister specifically commented on the use of tax havens

:27:45. > :27:50.by CDC and whether he and other ministers in the department will

:27:51. > :27:55.echo previous statements by the Secretary of State and instruct CDC

:27:56. > :28:00.to desist from using tax havens for future investments? This is an

:28:01. > :28:07.invitation to move on to the last group of amendments, new clause 8,

:28:08. > :28:11.9, 3 and 7, one of which relates to the question of offshore financial

:28:12. > :28:17.centres. These are restrictions op what CDC itself can do. There is a

:28:18. > :28:23.suggestion there should be an annual obligation to produce reports on CDC

:28:24. > :28:31.and restrictions on the routes through which CDC can put its money

:28:32. > :28:43.and restrict the investment in which CDC, can invest. On the question of

:28:44. > :28:46.IKI CDC has been scrutinised by the National Audit Office, by Public

:28:47. > :28:53.Accounts Committee, we expect it to be Krout knewed in that way and we

:28:54. > :28:58.welcome scrutiny from Ikai. We do not think it is the position of the

:28:59. > :29:03.Government to impose obligations on an independent regulator. It should

:29:04. > :29:06.be for Ikai to determine its priorities where it thinks the

:29:07. > :29:12.problems are and be able to apply that Krout any accordingly. It may

:29:13. > :29:17.not determine an annual scrutiny of ten year investments does not make

:29:18. > :29:24.sense and do it more trick wently. But that should be for Ikai. Not for

:29:25. > :29:30.this House. We do not put our money through tax haveence if by that you

:29:31. > :29:35.mean that CDC is ever attempting to avoid tax or to conceal its

:29:36. > :29:42.activities. CDC is not involved in that. CDC only invests in offshore

:29:43. > :29:47.financial centres approved by the OECD at its highest level. We take

:29:48. > :29:52.on board the points made, the honourable member for Cardiff south

:29:53. > :29:56.and others, we will be pushing EOCD to improve those standards further.

:29:57. > :30:00.We will focus on those offshore financial centres and we will only

:30:01. > :30:05.use them for two reasons. One, because occasionally, we we are

:30:06. > :30:09.investing in the Central African Republic, it may be necessary to

:30:10. > :30:15.protect UK taxpayers' money by not putting all the as sets of CDC into

:30:16. > :30:19.jury Is tickses where we can secure that money. Secondly, we may do so

:30:20. > :30:22.in order to pool money from other investors. That relates to the

:30:23. > :30:26.suggestion that we should only operate through London. It would be

:30:27. > :30:31.very difficult to convince other African investors to invest in funds

:30:32. > :30:35.in London. They would face a triple taxation. Taxation in country of

:30:36. > :30:41.origin, in country of business and in London. We hope, through CDC's

:30:42. > :30:45.operations, to ensure every dollar we spend brings in $3, $5 or even

:30:46. > :30:56.$30 of additional money. That brings me to the last

:30:57. > :31:01.restrictions proposed by the House, one of those is the number of

:31:02. > :31:05.countries in which CDC should invest. We don't think appropriate

:31:06. > :31:10.for primary legislation to restrict what the parliament can do to

:31:11. > :31:15.respond to a flexible, changing world. We would not have imagined in

:31:16. > :31:20.2010 for example that there would have been needed in Syria. If we

:31:21. > :31:23.stipulated only lower-income countries or least developed

:31:24. > :31:29.countries could receive the money, the suggestion from the chairman for

:31:30. > :31:35.the international development committee and its members that CDC

:31:36. > :31:39.work in Syria, Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon would be impossible. We need

:31:40. > :31:41.the flexibility for a changing world, and the world affected by

:31:42. > :31:46.conflict. We also need to allow for conflict. We also need to allow for

:31:47. > :31:51.the possibility another government may take a different view on very

:31:52. > :31:55.poor people in countries like India. A lot of the very poorest people in

:31:56. > :32:01.the world live in countries like India and it's a perfectly valid

:32:02. > :32:04.discussion for a government and its department to have and not be

:32:05. > :32:09.restricted by primary legislation to decide whether to put money in that

:32:10. > :32:12.country. Finally we have to think about the cross-border

:32:13. > :32:16.possibilities, again a restriction that prevented us putting money into

:32:17. > :32:25.South Africa for example would mean we couldn't put money into Brindrod,

:32:26. > :32:39.the great South African company, because we could not do cross-border

:32:40. > :32:43.negotiations. Finally, it is not appropriate for individual members

:32:44. > :32:47.to ensure that we restrict those members, those sectors indefinitely.

:32:48. > :32:58.It needs to be at the discretion of the department to determine what

:32:59. > :33:01.those sectors are. In particular, private health care, I have seen

:33:02. > :33:04.myself and many other members have seen the way in which private health

:33:05. > :33:09.care providers are able to reach some of the most needy people in the

:33:10. > :33:15.world who are not able to access public health care. Minerals can be

:33:16. > :33:20.in environments such as Afghanistan almost the only drivers of decent

:33:21. > :33:24.economic growth and there are very few other options available. Real

:33:25. > :33:29.estate, we need to look at the people who construct the buildings.

:33:30. > :33:31.Not the people who use them. Those investments in the construction

:33:32. > :33:41.industry are benefiting the people who build them and that's why CDC

:33:42. > :33:46.makes those investments. On palm oil, many jobs are secured by that

:33:47. > :33:50.investment and decent investment in infrastructure and health as well.

:33:51. > :33:55.In renewable energy would be a great pity if the only investments we

:33:56. > :33:58.could make in energy in Africa in renewables, that would not be

:33:59. > :34:04.acceptable in this country. In Africa where they have struggled to

:34:05. > :34:07.build six megawatts of generating capacity, 6000 megawatts of

:34:08. > :34:10.generating capacity over a decade period, to rule out investments in

:34:11. > :34:14.natural gas would have a fundamental event on the economic future of

:34:15. > :34:19.Africa which is why to conclude this has been an extremely thoughtful

:34:20. > :34:22.analysis for which we are very grateful. The strategy will

:34:23. > :34:27.demonstrate we have listened hard to all the points in the second

:34:28. > :34:33.reading, the points in the committee stage, but we believe this simple

:34:34. > :34:40.legislation sets the right balance between economic development and

:34:41. > :34:45.above all makes a significant contribution to the lives of the

:34:46. > :34:53.world's poorest people and with that I would ask these amendments be

:34:54. > :34:59.withdrawn. The question is that new clause won't be read a second time.

:35:00. > :36:17.Aye? No? Clear the lobbies. The question is that new clause one

:36:18. > :43:28.be read a second time. As many of that opinion say aye? No?

:43:29. > :49:07.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! The ayes to the right 246. The ins to

:49:08. > :49:25.the left, 293. -- the nos to the left, 293. The nos have it. Unlock!

:49:26. > :49:35.We now come to amendment 3. The question is that amendment 3 be

:49:36. > :49:37.made. As many of that opinion say aye, the contrary, no. Clear the

:49:38. > :51:10.lobbies. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. The question

:51:11. > :51:20.is that amindment 3 be made, as many of that opinion say aye, the

:51:21. > :51:22.contrary, no. For the nos, Chris Eden Harris and Steve Brian. Thanks,

:51:23. > :02:44.folks. Ayes, 244. Noes, 299. The noes have

:02:45. > :02:55.it. The question is the bill now be read a third time. I beg to move

:02:56. > :03:00.that this bill be read a third time. If I could just begin again by

:03:01. > :03:04.reiterating my thanks and the tribute we owe to right honourable

:03:05. > :03:12.members on every side of the House for their shared belief in the

:03:13. > :03:15.importance of international and. At the core of this Bill is our moral

:03:16. > :03:20.obligation to some of the most vulnerable and poorest people in the

:03:21. > :03:24.world. Also pay tribute to the important points raised, which will

:03:25. > :03:30.be reflected in the new strategy as it comes forward. If I could just

:03:31. > :03:38.very briefly just lay out once more why we believe this is a good piece

:03:39. > :03:41.of legislation. The core of this is our understanding there is extreme

:03:42. > :03:46.poverty in the world, that there is extreme suffering in the world, and

:03:47. > :03:50.that economic develop meant is going to be a very important part of

:03:51. > :03:55.addressing that. There's an enormous demand in the poorest countries of

:03:56. > :03:59.the world for well-paid jobs. It's one of the first things any one

:04:00. > :04:04.discovers when we go to Africa or any other developing country, and

:04:05. > :04:07.indeed as the chairman of the International of element committee

:04:08. > :04:12.pointed out in his speech, currently 90% of the growth, 90% of the

:04:13. > :04:16.employment in the poorest countries of the world is driven by the

:04:17. > :04:25.private sector. 15 million more jobs a year are required in Africa. Every

:04:26. > :04:28.one of those well-paid jobs is an opportunity for that family to

:04:29. > :04:32.deliver the stuff we all care about. That is their opportunity to provide

:04:33. > :04:36.education for their children, provide the health care therefore

:04:37. > :04:40.Molly needs, and through the revenue that these jobs generate for the

:04:41. > :04:44.Government, above all that is the long-term sustainable future. That's

:04:45. > :04:48.what allows the Government to pay for its education system. It allows

:04:49. > :04:53.it to pay for its health care system. It allows the Government, if

:04:54. > :04:58.there is an earthquake or natural disaster, to have the resources to

:04:59. > :05:06.address it. So in the end the only long-term, sustainable path will be

:05:07. > :05:11.to generate that growth. Why CDC? Because CDC brings together two

:05:12. > :05:14.important things - the rigour of the private sector, in other words the

:05:15. > :05:19.ability of the private sector to work out whether these investments

:05:20. > :05:23.make sense, are there genuinely markets for these goods? Can these

:05:24. > :05:27.jobs really be sustained the one hand? And on the other hand the

:05:28. > :05:30.values of the public sector, making sure we are going into the hardest

:05:31. > :05:35.countries in the world, making sure we are renewable energy in the

:05:36. > :05:41.Central African Republic, making sure we are getting into Sierra

:05:42. > :05:45.Leone when Ebola happens, and above all making sure these investments

:05:46. > :05:48.are not short-term commercial returns but patients, long-term

:05:49. > :05:54.investments that the commercial sector often will not deliver. Why

:05:55. > :05:58.CDC? Since 1948 it has not only been the longest serving but the best

:05:59. > :06:04.development finance institution in the world, proven in the 1960s in

:06:05. > :06:10.its investments in Kenya, but it has improved its much more recently with

:06:11. > :06:14.the fantastic reforms that have been introduced, reforms we have talked

:06:15. > :06:20.about at all stages of this Bill. Reforms on salary, transparency,

:06:21. > :06:24.offshore financial centres, reforms on the geography in which we invest,

:06:25. > :06:28.reforms in the sector in which we have invested, and all of this

:06:29. > :06:32.summed up in the development impact great. That's what answers a lot of

:06:33. > :06:37.the points made in the discussion today. That's what allows us to make

:06:38. > :06:42.sure every investment focuses on areas that generate the most jobs,

:06:43. > :06:46.that are in the countries where investment is the most difficult,

:06:47. > :06:51.where the least capital is available and where the GDP per capita is

:06:52. > :07:02.lowest. You can see this in the real world, in the indirect jobs created

:07:03. > :07:04.by CDC. You can see it in the investments they are making, in

:07:05. > :07:09.places like Blondie on the Central African Republic. You can see it in

:07:10. > :07:17.the hydroelectric investment. You can see it actually in the global

:07:18. > :07:21.investment, where CDC's investment will help to generate 5000 megawatts

:07:22. > :07:26.of power in Africa over the next decade, and putting that in context,

:07:27. > :07:30.Africa only managed 6000 megawatts over the previous decade. That's

:07:31. > :07:36.almost the entire generation of Africa over the previous decade

:07:37. > :07:40.which will be driven by single company supported by CDC. The value

:07:41. > :07:45.for money is there for the taxpayer because it is recycled. The need is

:07:46. > :07:52.there. We can see this in the fact that we need $2.5 trillion of

:07:53. > :07:56.investment by 2030. So in conclusion, there are many other

:07:57. > :08:03.things that our department will do other than CDC, much of the money

:08:04. > :08:07.will continue to go through NGOs such as Oxfam, a lot of our

:08:08. > :08:11.investments will be with valued partners such as Unicef. More than

:08:12. > :08:18.90% of the money we will spend through overseas assistance will be

:08:19. > :08:23.on humanitarian assistance, and within that not all the money and

:08:24. > :08:29.economic develop it will go through CDC. It will also go through our

:08:30. > :08:33.investments that take place through support to governments, technical

:08:34. > :08:37.assistance. But that CDC investment combining the rigour of the private

:08:38. > :08:41.sector, the focus on markets, the values of the public sector reflect

:08:42. > :08:46.the values of the British public, the British public that cares about

:08:47. > :08:49.poverty, that shows in their own philanthropic giving how much they

:08:50. > :08:52.care about some of the most vulnerable people in the world and

:08:53. > :08:56.we are showing our respect of the British people by pushing forward

:08:57. > :09:01.with a proven model that will provide the sustainable growth

:09:02. > :09:09.required to address some of the most vulnerable and poorest people in the

:09:10. > :09:19.world. This is our moral obligation. The question is the bill now be read

:09:20. > :09:22.a third time. Can I firstly association myself with the

:09:23. > :09:28.Minister's comments in particular to pay thanks to all the honourable and

:09:29. > :09:35.right honourable members across the House that have taken part in what I

:09:36. > :09:41.believe has been very constructive debate in which I believe we have

:09:42. > :09:46.furthered certainly whether or not the amendments today of the new

:09:47. > :09:53.clauses have gone through, certainly I believe it has been utilised in

:09:54. > :09:58.the best possible way and we have heard from Honourable members across

:09:59. > :10:03.the House that have forwarded some very important point. Can I also

:10:04. > :10:07.offer my thanks to all of the NGOs that supported us throughout this

:10:08. > :10:14.process, to those that came before us to present written and oral

:10:15. > :10:19.evidence at committee stage, and the staff whose assistance has been

:10:20. > :10:23.invaluable, as it always is. I would further like to thank my honourable

:10:24. > :10:28.friends who have spoken with great concern and passion about this bill,

:10:29. > :10:37.particularly my honourable friend, the Member for Cardiff South and

:10:38. > :10:42.Penarth whose experience is widely respected and visibly expressed here

:10:43. > :10:50.today in the debate again. My honourable friend, the Member for

:10:51. > :10:53.Wills South, who isn't in her place, both served outstandingly on the

:10:54. > :10:58.public bill committee and I do not want their valued contributions to

:10:59. > :11:06.go unnoticed this afternoon and indeed the honourable friend for

:11:07. > :11:08.Liverpool West Derby, the chair of the International Development Select

:11:09. > :11:16.Committee, who has always made a passionate case and has, I believe,

:11:17. > :11:22.a very informed stance on the matter is before us today. Mr Deputy

:11:23. > :11:27.Speaker, let me be clear. I think in this constructive debate today,

:11:28. > :11:35.members on either side of the benches have been very clear. Nobody

:11:36. > :11:46.has opposed the principal or the spirit of the CDC itself. Nobody has

:11:47. > :11:51.criticised the role of the CDC and the commission statement behind the

:11:52. > :11:56.CDC. The point that members on all sides of the House, and in

:11:57. > :12:07.particular from these benches, have made time and time again is that

:12:08. > :12:11.what cannot be lost within this is the founding principle behind the

:12:12. > :12:16.CDC, which is poverty alleviation, which has been quite rightly stated

:12:17. > :12:23.on all sides of the House. As I said, we have had a constructive

:12:24. > :12:28.debate, both at committee stage and here, and all the amendments that

:12:29. > :12:35.have been put in have had support from across the House. And the

:12:36. > :12:41.amendments were there, partly probing amendments but also as

:12:42. > :12:45.amendments to strengthen. Mr Deputy Speaker, for the passage of this

:12:46. > :12:49.bill, we outlined a number of concerns that we held over the

:12:50. > :12:53.provisions within it, including on the accountability and scrutiny of

:12:54. > :12:59.the investments that are made by the CDC on the need of the CDC to focus

:13:00. > :13:02.their investments on efforts to alleviate poverty and on the

:13:03. > :13:07.necessity of a business case from the CDC. These are concerns that

:13:08. > :13:11.have been fundamental in our position on this Bill and they are

:13:12. > :13:16.concerns we have sought strong assurances on from the Government.

:13:17. > :13:22.On the issue of accountability and scrutiny, we had concerns, as

:13:23. > :13:27.illustrated in our amendments, over the fact the investments made by the

:13:28. > :13:34.CDC are not independently assessed on a frequent and regular basis.

:13:35. > :13:38.When such assessments do not take place, it undermines the credibility

:13:39. > :13:43.of the CDC and be investments and it weakens public confidence that

:13:44. > :13:48.taxpayers' money is being spent by the CDC on efforts to alleviate

:13:49. > :13:54.poverty and help the poorest in the world. It is vital that every pound,

:13:55. > :14:00.every penny of development assistance, goes towards this goal

:14:01. > :14:02.on strong, independent scrutiny of the impact of assessments would

:14:03. > :14:11.assure this. We have had assurances today from

:14:12. > :14:18.the Minister and we had assurances at the committee stage that he would

:14:19. > :14:22.welcome further independent assessment of this from the

:14:23. > :14:26.Independent commission for aid impact and I feel that the Minister

:14:27. > :14:31.has listened and has come forward with that and I am very grateful to

:14:32. > :14:37.him. Further, we are assured that the annual reports and accounts

:14:38. > :14:41.provided by the CDC contain ample information and if there are

:14:42. > :14:44.discrepancies they will be held to account by the either the Public

:14:45. > :14:51.Accounts Committee or the International development committee

:14:52. > :14:58.who I am sure will make such discrepancies are available as they

:14:59. > :15:04.have done in the past. It is vitally important that we ensure that the

:15:05. > :15:12.CDC is focused on alleviating poverty. The Department's legal aim

:15:13. > :15:14.and purpose, with investments involved in constructing luxury

:15:15. > :15:19.hotels and shopping centres in well-developed areas in the past,

:15:20. > :15:24.there have been real concerns on this side of the House that the CDC

:15:25. > :15:29.would use this additional financing to return to a similar position.

:15:30. > :15:32.However, the report published just before the second reading makes

:15:33. > :15:38.clear that this is no longer the case following the important

:15:39. > :15:41.reforms, second motion by the right honourable member for Sutton

:15:42. > :15:52.Coldfield who is in his place today. It is fair to say, Mr Deputy

:15:53. > :15:54.Speaker, that the number of concerns that have been raised today, the

:15:55. > :15:57.Minister has been kind enough to give assurances to some of those and

:15:58. > :16:03.therefore, we will not be opposing this bill in its third reading

:16:04. > :16:08.today. Thank you. Whether you live in the UK or in Tanzania or in

:16:09. > :16:14.Colombia, the most important route out of poverty is to have a job, a

:16:15. > :16:19.good job or a good likelihood. That is why I fundamentally support the

:16:20. > :16:25.work of CDC, it has done excellent work over the last nearly 70 years,

:16:26. > :16:28.right across the world and in recent years, it has concentrated

:16:29. > :16:31.particularly on the most needy countries, those places where there

:16:32. > :16:35.is the highest level of unemployment, where there is the