15/03/2017 House of Commons

Urgent question, Debbie Abraham. Thank you, Mr Speaker, to ask the

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make a statement

regarding the Social Security advisory committee's recommendations

for independent pay regulations 2017 due to come into force tomorrow.

Secretary Damian Green. Recent legal judgments have interpreted the

assessment criteria for Arsenal independence payments in ways that

are different to what was originally intended. The department presented

regulations which clarified the original policy intent to the Social

Security advisory committee, I welcome the says ACT careful

consideration and we are looking closely at their suggestions. --

SSAC. Let me be clear, SSAC themselves decided they did not

require the regulations to be formally referred to them, and would

not therefore consult publicly on them. I believe it was right to move

quickly to clarify the criteria, and it is clear the is SSAC not

challenging that decision. I want to make clear that this is not a policy

change nor is it intended to make new savings, what this is about is

restoring the original intention of the benefit which has been expanded

by the legal judgments and providing clarity and certainty for claimants.

I would like to reiterate my commitment that there will be no

further savings beyond those legislated for, it will not result

in any claimant seeing a reduction in the amount of PIP previously

awarded by the Department for Work and Pensions. Debbie Abrahams. On

the 23rd of February the government issued these new regulations by

which disabled people and people with chronic health conditions --

mental health condition would be assessed for eligibility to personal

independence payment and these regulations were laid down without

any consultation to the Social Security advisory committee, and

without any debate. The committee examined the issue on the 8th of

March, as the Secretary of State said, and sent a letter with their

recommendations to the minister which was published yesterday. The

committee made a number of recommendations including the need

to consult more widely on the proposed changes and test or pilot

them before they come into force. Will the Secretary of State commit

to incrementing these recommendations in full before the

regulations come into force? Mr Speaker, there has been no

opportunity in Parliament to debate fully or vote on these regulations

so when will Parliament be able to debate these regulations? The

committee found that it is possible that some claimants may have been

awarded the Mahmudullah see payment or a higher rate of mobility

component following decisions by the tribunal on this, directly

contradicting comments made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for

disabled people, who stated that no one would see a reduction in their

BIP award and so will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to

correct the record, will he guarantee that this will not be the

case for playing claimant when they come for reassessment. -- The

committee found that it is possible that some claimants may have been

awarded the mobility see payment. The government decision to change

the law on PIP is a clear example of where people with mental health

conditions are not given equal treatment so does the Secretary of

State agree that the new guidance issued yesterday that mobility in

claimants caused by psychological issues are not relevant? In

addition, scope analysis published today shows that 89% of PIP cases at

mandatory re-evaluation or appeal result in a different outcome. Will

the process be reviewed. We have been arguing for parity with mental

health and physical health conditions for some time and as the

Prime Minister famously said, there needs to be more support for people

with mental health conditions, once the government finally on this

pledge. Secretary of State. Thank you Mr Speaker. -- won't the

government finally on this pledge -- honour this pledge. We take very

seriously everything they say, and we will, of course, maintain the

practice that the government has always had of continuous improvement

in the PIP guidance, the PIP assessment guidance is freely

available, it is on gov.uk if anybody would like to look at it, we

are constantly changing it. When we do it is through Parliamentary

regulations which is precisely what are doing in this case, and I'm

conscious that the honourable lady has personally claimed against these

regulations, which gives the chance for Parliament to scrutinise them.

That will go through the normal channels as it always does. She

asked a number of other detailed questions, and I can only repeat

what I have said before, and what my honourable friend said, no claimant

will see a reduction in the amount of benefit they were previously

awarded by the DWP, if... The committee says there may have been

some people who may have seen the award lifted by tribunal, and it is

indeed possible that we'll have happened, we will not be claiming

back money that these individuals have received during the period

before the new regulations come into force. And nobody will get any

reduction from what they were awarded by the DWP, which is what I

have said all along and I am... Reassessment, as the honourable lady

knows, happens regularly, underpaid and under other benefits... Can I

also address one of the serious points which she made. I wanted

their up and reassure people. -- under PIP. It would be putting

millions of people in a state of unnecessary distress if they thought

that PIP was not fair to people with mental health conditions. The truth

is PIP is much better as a benefit for people with mental health

conditions than the predecessor benefit 's, it is absolutely the

case under these regulations and under Pitt per regulations that

people can receive the highest amount of PIP with a cognitive

payment alone. -- cognitive impairment. -- PIP. It is simply not

the case to say that people with a mental health condition will not be

able to do that. Read it, you can see why it happened. If she and

other members opposite are not willing to accept that, can I ask

her to go away and look at the facts, 65% of PIP recipients with a

mental health condition get the enhanced rate daily living component

compared to 22% who used to get it under DLA and specifically on the

mobility aspect, which is one of the cases she has referred to, 27% of

PIP recipients with a mental health condition get the enhanced rate

mobility component compared to 9% who used to receive that under DL

eight. It is perfectly clear from the fact that these regulations,

which restore PIP to its original policy intent, that policy intent is

better for people with mental health conditions than previous benefits

worth. Stephen Crabb. Can my right

honourable friend name any other country which spends as much in

direct cash payments to people living with as wide a range of

physical, mental, psychological disabilities and illnesses as we do

in the UK, isn't that something we should be proud of? We should

indeed, and he, when he was doing his job, and I share the passion to

make sure that the benefits system is as fair as possible to those who

deserve to receive these benefits. That is why we spend ?50 billion

every year on disability benefits, and while PIP is an improved benefit

from previous benefits, particularly for people with mental health

conditions. Connie Wilson. The government continually trots out the

line that serious mental health should be treated the same way as

any other illness, but the response to these rulings betrays the old

attitudes and statements towards mental health, you cannot keep

shifting the goalposts every time you lose a battle at court, if a

person needs help, knee or she needs help. Regardless of the nature of

the disability, or health condition. The Scottish parliament is in the

process of taking over responsibility for personal

independence payments, and until that time, the UK Government needs

to be consistent and stop mocking people about. So many people are

becoming destitute in our communities, being sanctioned,

falling through the safety net, becoming dependent on food banks, so

many of them are people with mental health problems. Why won't the

government acknowledged that? Will the Minister back away from this ill

judged move, or are they intent on pushing this through, regardless of

the opinions of this house? Well, I can only say to the honourable lady

that the premise on which she based that question, which is that's those

with mental health conditions as opposed to physical disabilities are

in some way being treated unfairly and this benefit is simply wrong. It

is demonstrably wrong, I will not weary the house by quoting the facts

I have just quoted. I have to say, if we are to have, which we ought to

have, and this house deserves to have an intelligence discussion

about the details of benefit policy, we will have two base it on the

facts, and the facts are that PIP is a better benefit for people with

mental health conditions than the old disability living allowance.

Justin Tomlinson. This government rightly spending next ?3 billion a

year supporting those with long-term health conditions and disabilities,

would the Secretary of State agree with me that if we continue to

improve the system, it should be done in conjunction with the

expertise of charities and stakeholders and users and not based

on ad hoc legal decisions. My honourable friend, who has great

personal expertise in this area, is precisely right, there is a

continuous dialogue between the Department and between the

charities, sometimes we agree and sometimes we do not agree but it is

important and I am determined to maintain that dialogue, as I say so,

when we make changes, they are practical changes which make sure

that the original good intent of the benefit is maintained. Frank Field.

Despite what the secretary of State says about the current benefit

favouring those who do not have physical disability, the evidence

coming to the select committee who are enquiring to PIP shows that

those with other disadvantages find it difficult to qualify. Might he

not look carefully at the form, and the way his staff interpret that

form, for people who do not have physical disabilities, and have

difficulties qualifying. The right honourable gentleman knows that

there is a review going on to address the points he the very

reasonably makes and it is clear that as with any benefit, there is a

degree of complexity, we will need to keep working with it, waiting for

the review, the chairman of the SSAC, I am sure that he will have

some trenchant recommendations, knowing Paul, and we will look at

them very carefully and use them as the basis for further improvement to

this benefit. Heidi Allen. Whilst I believe that it is an improvement on

DLA and nobody is losing from the change in legislation, but for me,

the court ruling has highlighted that there is still flaws in the

process, and more can be done for mental health claimants. I know

because I have sat through a couple of assessments myself, rather than

legislating to ignore this ruling, shouldn't we use it as a catalyst to

look at the whole process from the beginning? My honourable friend is

right, we need to continue to look at improvements and I think that

they are done better as part of a coherent process rather than to have

them done with individual court judgments. I would also say, and I'm

sure she agree, that obviously, the improvement in the benefit system

need to go hand-in-hand with the very many improvements that we are

now beginning to see in the health services treatment of people with

mental health conditions. All of this has to be done as a coherent

whole, across government, so that we improve all services available to

people with mental health conditions. Angela Eagle. I have to

say that I am finding an increasing discrepancy between the way that the

Secretary of State is describing the PIP benefit and the people I'm

having come to my advice services... In tears, having been completely let

down here, by the system. All of us want to see a society where we give

support to the most vulnerable, and that is who we are talking about

here. Will he now undertake to ensure that some of his highest

officials come and visit us in our advice surgeries and look at how

this system is actually working out, on the front line, because it is not

remotely how he is portraying it today. Obviously, we all live from

our own constituency surgeries that there are individual cases that may

be taken up, some of which may be people whose invidious agree with a

decision, if there are cases of delays, I am absolutely aware of

that, and when they come down I would point out to the honourable

lady, who is characteristically chuntering from a sedentary position

that the appeal rate is extremely rove. -- extremely low. So the facts

again do not suggest those kind of problems. But we are absolutely

clean to improve this, it is why in the coming weeks we will be setting

up services panels precisely so we get the real world on the ground

experience available to the Department, that the honourable lady

wishes us to have all stop to be asked to pilot something that merely

restores the status quo? Have I misunderstood the committee's

recommendation? I appreciate my honourable friend's concern, the

committee makes a number of recommendations and as ever with the

SSAC, I will take all of those recommendations very seriously, and

respond to them fully. My honourable friend for Lonsdale

has signed this petition along with a signatures. Why is he so keen to

all doze this? Will he agree that we have a proper debate on this

unpopular measure in this House? Think -- I think this is a KERS we

had a second discussion about this. We've followed the usual procedure,

putting down a statutory instruments and they are free to pray against

it, and it goes through the usual channels. This is a perfectly normal

procedure. There seemed to be to most frequent misunderstandings, the

first, the Government's amendment announced two cast, and that table

with mental health difficulties get less under PIP, so can he confirm

that there is no cut, and secondly, that actually, those with mental

health difficulties get more under PIP then DLA? No one will have that

award reduced, and that PIP is much to demonstrably better benefit than

DVLA was. Is there room for improvement? There is always room

for improvement. This is a cut and it directly target to people with

mental health problems. He is exerting the qualifying issue for

PIP. The phrase, other than, for reasons than psychological distress.

Why is psychological distress being carved out? A cut being made as a

result? I'm afraid the Right Honourable Gentleman is simply

wrong. A person with a cognitive impairment, who cannot due to that,

cannot deal with unexpected changes in their journey, even when the

journey is familiar, Wood scored 12 points. I apologise for getting

technical. Hence from that, they would be entitled for the enhanced

rate from the component. That is why more people with mental health

conditions can get a higher rate of PIP, three times as many under DLA.

So it's simply not the case to see this discriminates against people

with mental health conditions. Can I ask the Minister to ensure the

mobility factor in AIP is maintained. It's important to us in

the community. We need to be sure that our friends and family with

mental health problems, cognitive problems from strokes and dementia

are out and about, visible in our community. Can he assured me that

the descriptors and the assessment is according to need and no

condition is ever excluded? It's precisely right in the last remark

she makes, which is why I can give her the assurance she seeks, that

pit is about the effects on daily life, or mobility, it's not based on

the underlying condition. That is the key change that is introduced

when PIP was introduced, and of course, we are maintaining that. May

I understand exactly something, that no one will face a cut in a benefit.

Did I understand that's why they won't see their initial benefit

award cuts as a result, where that benefit had been increased by a

tribunal, and these regulations now supersede this, they could see their

and if it reduced back to the original award level? That is indeed

right, and there are a handful of people whose tribunal outcomes have

gone through the court and this will not be clawed back from them. There

is a statement saying that PIP assessment will look at individuals

will be looked at as such, rather than by their condition. That was a

significant step forward and I'm determined that we maintain process

in that direction, so that people who have a disability, whether it's

a physical or mental impairment, can lead as full a life as possible. I

agree with the Minister that we do need to have a discussion on this

issue, however these changes have been introduced without such

disgusting, and the assessment that has been made is that 160,000 people

who are currently claimants will be ruled out as a result of these

changes. Does he dispute that and is he contesting his own department's

assessment? I think the report gentleman has slightly misunderstood

the effect of the court cases. I'm just putting forward regulations

that restorers to where we were in November. The court case said the

regulations were unclear, though suggested changes that would happen,

that would indeed conceivably apply to very large numbers of people see

what we are doing with these regulations are returning to the

position that was there before. It's appropriate to be discussing this

that the Devlin partnership trust has been rated good, marking and

improvement. Can the Secretary of State confirm, constituents have

been awarded from the DWP, and they won't see a reduction? I extend my

congratulations to the Devon partnership. Those who have received

an award from the DWP will continue to get that in the normal way. To

the response from my honourable friend, can he confirm that some

people who have been awarded additional resources by tribunal

will see their incomes cut? And will he confirm that of the relatively

low number of appeals, an extraordinary number of them, 89% of

them are overturned, does that not showed something is deeply wrong

with the system? I think the problem that he identifies there is that a

huge number of people, of the small numbers who do go to appeal,

introduce new evidence through the appeal process, and that's the main

reason why the figures are as he says they are. It would be prudent

to get the medical information in at the beginning of the process. I'm

grateful for this clarification, but can he tell the House what steps he

is taking to meet with charities and other stake holders to deal with the

impact of these regulations? I and my honourable friend, the Minister

for disabled people, are in contact with charities and other groups who

are concerned in this area, precisely because we want to improve

the system in a systematic and coherent way, so that we are not

perhaps responding to individual cases in front of the courts. Think

everyone would agree that that is a more sensible way to proceed than in

the past, under PIP. If he is arguing that the purpose of PIP is

to cover the cost of people's disabilities, why are those with

mental health conditions paid elaborate if they plan to follow a

journey than those without. I can you repeat what I said before and

repeat the facts again. As I said to the honourable gentleman from

Hackney and East Ham, I can go into the details but the Speaker's

patients would be tested by that. Would you like me to read the

descriptions out again, Mr Speaker? Is just not the case. It's perfectly

possible to qualify for the standard or the enhanced rate, so it's not

the case that people with mental health conditions are discriminated

against. He's indicated his patients wouldn't be tested, though can I

ever buy it in to give a detailed example please. -- can I invite him

to give a detailed example, please. Applicants who deal with

complications when travelling, Wood scored 12 points, and hence, be

entitled to the enhanced rate of the mobility component. This could

include dementia, or learning disabilities such as down syndrome.

Will he have a look again at the quality and professionalism, when

he's been to see me, constituents who have been to see me, I can't

understand why they haven't been awarded. I'm happy to insure him

that I'm already doing that and as I have said in answer to your previous

question, the chairman is doing one of his regular reports on PIP as a

whole. I take the point that he makes that we are all concerned that

the assessments are not just high quality but are consistent across

the country as well. It's an important improvement I'd like to

see through the system. Can he confirm that this Government has

invested more into and if it's for disabled people and those with

mental health than ever before? I can. I've quoted these figures

specifically. We are now spending 11.4 billion on mental health

services and we are spending more in every year of this Parliament than

was spent in 2010. In the view of Mind, the new regulations and

guidance, contradict the underlying objective. What can we do about this

new information and will the Secretary of State ensure that these

regulations are taken off the table to allow a full debate in Parliament

to insure that nobody that mental health impairment is penalised

financially and anyway. I can only repeat again that these regulations

that are being to return to their original state do not discriminate

against people with mental health conditions. I regret that anyone

observing these proceedings is being made unnecessarily worried by these

assertions. I ensure the Honourable Lady that the Minister for disabled

people has been in direct contact in the way that she asked so that

information is blowing properly. The only thing it is bringing to my

constituents is trouble. I received an e-mail from a constituent asking

me to raise concerns as they felt like taking their own life. This

system is broken. It needs to be completely revisited and

reconstructed. You can't mend it. I don't agree with the Honourable

Gentleman. In any benefit system, there are obviously difficult

individual cases and decisions that have to be made, but to see the

whole system is broken is going much too far and I can only point out

that all the PIP claims made, only 3% are overturned on which actually

suggests that the benefit is working largely for the vast majority of

people who receive it. Of course, there will always be cases where

people disagree with the assessment. What is really clear is that with

regard to the psychological distress of planning and following a journey

outside of the department there is some confusion regarding the policy

and then needs to be much greater articulation from the department.

When can we expect to see an updated version of the PIP assessment guide?

As I'm sure the honourable lady knows, we do this on a regular basis

and the exchanges will be available in the next couple of months and it

is freely available. It is available on the Internet. It's not a secret

guide that goes to the department for assessors. Only last week, I was

contacted by a constituent who has been refused the award have

previously being in receipt of D L I and she was only able to get to her

assessment because her daughter supported her through it, but

because she had managed to attend and communicated with the

physiotherapist that her mental health issues were insignificant. So

does he agree with me that in order this to work, the bare minimum

should be that the person doing the assessment should be qualified in a

most raise -- Basic medical qualification. We are determined to

maintain the highest levels of professionalism in order to do this

assessment. The transition from DLA to PIP has been incredibly difficult

with a number of most ability cars being taken in and given out again.

Now this is rushed and unscrutinised decision, given the repeated

questions from this side about constituency cases. Is he concerned

about the erosion of trust our constituents have in this system?

Know because I don't believe that's the case. Of the many people who

receive PIP, the vast number of them find it satisfactory. Indeed,

specifically regarding mental health conditions. There are more people

receiving it them who were receiving it under the DLA system. I don't

accept his basic analysis of the situation.

Can the Secretary of State guarantee that none of the PIP assessments are

required to turn down a number of the assessment they do because I

find it impossible to understand some of the decisions they make when

there is an arm's-length of medical evidence in front of them that they

can people down and that is particularly the case for people

with mental health issues. And the Secretary of State go away, if he

does not know the answer, and investigate it because something

very wrong is going on here, there can't be so many examples given to

him in this house that he can just dismiss it as the odd case! I can

absolutely assure the honourable gentleman that there is no quota for

pass or fail given to any SSL. -- any assessor. I have to say that

people are continually contacting me across the UK about the process,

with a litany of psychological problems or seeking information from

mental health practitioners. The Minister must also be aware that a

cognitive impairment is not the same as a mental health problem, in fact,

examples... She is an expert. She is a professional. The example given

are not even medical health problems! Should the minister go

back and do his homework and find out what a mental health issue is.

She knows what she's talking about! I could give other examples, I do

understand the point the honourable lady is making, there are obviously

different forms of conditions, cognitive impairment is not

necessarily the same as a mental health impairment, that covers a

much wider and in many cases different range of conditions. But

all of them are covered fairly by PIP, and so I think the contention

coming from the opposition benches that this is a benefit that in some

way is bad at source is wrong, and I think it is wrong when I look at the

number of people particularly with mental health conditions who are

receiving it who have not received any benefit in the past, and I would

hope that the house can acknowledge that fact. I have been listening to

the exchanges and I am just trying to judge to what extent there is

controversy over PIP, clearly there is in this chamber, and I do get

from time to time letters from constituents regarding PIPs but

could my right honourable friend give me an indication as to what

percentage of total claims are actually disputed? As I have just

said, the number of total claims that are overturned on appeal is 3%

of all claims, 3% of all claims is a lot of cases, and clearly, as I have

said, on various times during the session, I am always looking to

improve the situation and make sure that assessments are more consistent

and better. But having only 3% of them overturned does not give rise

to the picture painted by many on the opposition benches that the

system is in some way broken. Does the Minister accept that many of the

people with mental health issues applying for PIP are so distressed

by the whole process that many of them never even go to appeal! Far

from spending more on this, the proportion of GDP, we are actually

spending less! Absolutely. I'm not entirely clear at what point she is

making in the last point... Whether she wants a target for particular

benefits, as a percentage of GDP, that would seem to be a slightly odd

way to run the welfare state. On the first point she makes, I don't want

to repeat and we are the house with what I said before, but, I think

that making sure people with mental health conditions have proper access

to benefits is indeed and has always been an extremely difficult thing to

do, it is why we are spending so much money across the piece of

government, ?11.4 billion this year, on mental health condition,

precisely to remove some of the barriers to people from claiming

benefits to which they are entitled. Alan Brown. An earlier response, it

was said that there would be further updates and guidance coming out in a

couple of months, a couple of months is not good enough, what is he doing

just now to make sure that assessor 's have the correct information to

properly assess claimants and provide them with the support that

they need? Assessors. -- assessors. They work of the guide, which is

available for scrutiny by members of this house and that is the guidance

the assessors are given, in the most transparent and public way possible.

The Royal College of psychiatrists, charities including rethink mental

illness and scope, the work and pensions select committee and very

many constituents tell us that the government is failing to support all

disabled people who need help. -- Rethink Mental Illness and Scope.

Now the Social Security adviser has said that the government should not

proceed with these changes without further changing and consultation,

what does it take to get the secretary of state to actually

listen? I don't agree with the honourable lady's characterisation

of what the SSAC says, they have the power to consult themselves if they

want to make a recommendation that we should not proceed, they have

specifically decided not to do that kind of consultation. Her

characterisation of what they have said seems to me of the beam.

Thousands of disabled people relying upon the moat ability scheme have

had cars removed by this government. They are looking at PIP claimants to

keep their car pending appeal, three weeks ago, the Prime Minister was

unable to answer questions and update the house on the progress of

this review. -- Motability Scheme. And the Secretary of State update

the house today? Not with any detail, we are conducting a review

and when the review is finished, I will update the house. Yes. LAUGHTER

INAUDIBLE Further to the previous question,

muscular dystrophy UK have today said that bigger is show 900

mobility vehicles every week are being removed from people due to the

PIP reforms, but these are subsequently, many of them, returned

because of the appeals system. Will the government insure a mobility

vehicle cannot be taken away from any individual until there is a

final decision for the enhanced rate? We constantly work closely

with Motability and in answer to the previous honourable member, we are

reviewing the whole scheme at the moment so I pray that the house is

patient while we conduct the review. Chris Bryant. Thank you very much

for spotting me, Mr Speaker(!) the Secretary of State seemed to think

and has said it several times that just because we have prayed against

the statutory instrument that we are bound to have a debate, a 90 minute

debate, and a vote, that is completely untrue, the only person

who can guarantee that is himself, and so I promise, I will not tell

anybody else(!) but if he could just end up now and be completely

unambiguous and tell us that we are going to have a debate and a vote in

this chamber!, we would be very grateful! The honourable gentleman,

who in these long and distinguished career has been Shadow leader of the

house for a time knows personally well that those things are a matter

for the usual channels, and therefore, somewhat above my pay

grade. LAUGHTER Most grateful to the Secretary of

State and two colleagues, urgent question, Maria Miller. Mr Speaker,

I would like to ask the Minister if she will read a statement on the

recent court of justice of the European Union ruling allowing

employers to ban workers from wearing religious dress and symbols

in the workplace. -- most grateful to the Secretary of State and to his

colleague. I would like to thank my right honourable friend for raising

this important question and giving the government the opportunity in

form and reassure the house about the judgments raised yesterday. This

government is completely opposed to discrimination, including whether on

the grounds of gender, or religion, or both. It is the right of all

women to choose how they dress, and we do not believe that these

judgments change that. Exactly the same legal protections apply today

as did before the rulings. In both cases, the judgments were that there

was no direct disc rumination, but there was some discrimination. A

roll is directly discriminatory, Mr Speaker, if you treat somebody less

favourably because of their sex, religion or whatever, a rule is

indirectly disco Terry if on the face of it it treat everyone the

same as some people because of their race, religion, sex, etc, find it

harder to come by than others do. -- is indirectly discriminatory.

The judgment confirms the existing long-standing position under EU and

domestic law that an employer's dress code, which applies to and is

applied in the same way to all employees may be justifiable, if the

implied it can show some legitimate and proportionate grounds for it.

Various cases show that such an employer needs to be prepared to

justify those grounds, in front of a court or tribunal, if need be. And

that will remain the case, and that is the case in these judgments which

will now revert to their own domestic courts. Mr Speaker, I am

aware of some concerns that these judgments potentially conflict with

those of the European Court of Human Rights, particularly in the case of

the British Airways stewardess who was banned from wearing a small

crucifix but whose case was upheld, we do not believe that the different

judgments are in conflict, but both the CJ EU and the EEC age are, are

trying to assess the balance in each case between the religious needs of

the blade, and the needs of the implied. In the case of, that Nadia

Eweida favoured the employee in another case and also in the

attribute occasion is the day. -- in the case of Nadia Eweida. We will

still be taking action to ensure that the current legal position is

set out, we will be working with the equality and human rights commission

to update guidance for employers, for dealing with religion or belief

in the workplace, it will be revised so that it takes account of the CJ

EU judgments as well. We will be making clear to all concerned that

the equalities act and the rights of women and religious employees

remains unchanged. Like any judgment of the CJEU for the time being,

attribute need to be taken into account by domestic courts and

tribunals as they consider future cases, the law is clear, and remains

unchanged, however, because of our absolute commitment to ensuring that

discrimination and prejudice are never in courage and never

sanctioned, we will of course keep this issue under very close review,

going forward. In this country we have a long tradition for respecting

religious freedom and many people are in disbelief to the court's

ruling that a corporate multinational like G4S risks its

corporate neutrality being undermined by a receptionist in

Belgium wearing a headscarf(!) am a at what point did the law decide

that expressing religious belief through a cross, a turban, a

headscarf, was a threat to organisational neutrality? And will

some organisations like our own here in the House of Commons, where staff

pride ourselves on pride themselves on neutrality be forced to consider

this new ruling? And if not, in what circumstances good organisations

legitimately require such neutrality from their workers? Surely, there

are serious potential invocations for those who deliver public

services. One group specifically affected is Muslim women, who

already experienced twice the unemployment rate of the general

population. The government needs to carefully monitor the situation to

make sure that employers do not use this ruling to effectively exclude

thousands of Muslim women from the workplace. We are leaving the EU

soon, but this ruling will potentially continue to influence

the way that the equality act is interpreted by the courts, polymeric

-- parliamentarians need equality, workers need equality and we need to

make sure that this ruling does not have some very damaging consequences

for the freedom of religious belief in our country. Well, the right

honourable lady is absolutely right to raise this case, as I have said,

and as I have said previously, we have some of the strongest equality

legislation in the world and we do give people protection from

dissemination in the workplace through religious grounds, it

remains unlawful to directly discriminate against someone because

of their religion or to create spurious rules which would prevent

them from wearing religious clothing or jewellery. Employers can however

in force a dress code, but it must be for proportionate and legitimate

reasons and must equally apply to all employees, if any player wants

to have a neutral dress code with no religious symbols being worn, then

this must apply equally to all employees and all religions. Dress

codes are a matter for individual employers and will depend upon the

particular type of work, the environment and the safety

considerations above all. The CJEU has found that these cases would

contribute Consett Eugen directors rumination and have referred them

back to the national courts to consider, whether based on the

specifics of the cases, they would be unlawful. The UK's legal position

has not changed, the EH RCR publishing and have already

published guidance for employers on religion and relief in the

workplace, and we will work with them to update this guidance to take

account of the rulings, carefully explain how they should be

interpreted in UK workplaces. -- EHRC. But I must reiterate, this

government is absolutely committed to supporting people into work,

whatever their background, making Britain a country that works for

everyone and not just the privileged few.

This rate is some real concerns about religious freedoms in the

workplace, including Muslim women who choose to wear the headscarf.

Neutrality has specific cultural basis based on secularism which does

not resonate in Britain. As a customer, patient or service user

couldn't make a religious assumption about the country or whether it

favours one or the other by virtue of how employees dress. Women and

men must be allowed to choose how to express their faith. Of real concern

is the implication this may have full faith communities. Already, the

far right are rallying around this judgment. I thank the Minister for

making a clear statement today that people can express their faith in a

professional manner in the workplace, but specifically can the

Minister confirm that preventing women from wearing this headscarf is

conditionally wrong. What is the Government's position on neutrality

in the workplace regarding dress code, and can she confirmed that she

will be working with the equalities and human rights commission to

updated employers? Will it reinforce religious freedom? G4S hold a number

of contracts. At the Government reinforced this with them, that

they're in for you is' right necessarily deep -- necessary for

their religious practice will be acceptable in the workplace? I think

it's important to talk about the background for a wider

understanding. The first case is dress code being banned that

expresses outwards bully, in specific contexts to the women who

was wearing a headscarf. The ruling confirmed that the current edition

under the law, a dress code that applied and it applies to all

employees doesn't constitute discrimination but may constitute

indirect discrimination. And taking into customers requirement for

dress, is not taken into this constitution. As I've already

stated, employers can enforce a dress code and it must be

proportionate, legitimate and must apply to all employees. And if they

it should apply to all religions. it should apply to all religions.

However, it remains unlawful to directly discriminate against

someone for their religion, and create any spurious roles that

prevents the wearing of religious clothing or accessories. The

Government is very clear about where we stand on this. People will be

protected in their workplace. We will be reinforcing the guidance on

religion in the workplace which the ECHR have published and we will be

making sure that employers are aware of their responsibilities. I'm glad

the Government is going to issue some new light lines, and British

values should be reflected in that Christians can wear a cross, Muslim

women can wear a headscarf and seek men can wear a kirpan. This could

take away from employees, and it's fundamentally not British. De

honourable gentleman is absolutely right. I believe and the Government

believes that people should feel strong in their religious identities

and we are in sharing the voices of people of faith can be heard up and

down this country. Any dress ban must be for legitimate and

proportionate reasons, that the employer is prepared to defend

before a court or tribunal if necessary, but ultimately, those

dress codes are for individual employers, but we are absolutely

clear that any form of discrimination on the grounds of

religion or faith will not be tolerated and is unlawful. This is

an incredibly sensitive issue and one that will bring concern across

these isles. It appears that some European leaders are misrepresenting

this is to meet their own ends, and I hope this Government will

counteract this rhetoric. I think we should be clear, absolutely clear

that women and men should be free to choose what they wear, and we

certainly should not be discriminatory, uniformity is key

and this should not be applied on an ad hoc basis. There is the worry of

the potential that this could be hijacked by anti-Muslim or similarly

intolerant rhetoric. What was the UK Government do to make sure that

religious discrimination will not be tolerated in the workplace. It would

be ridiculous to presume that if somebody wanted to wear dangling

jewellery around machinery then it would be sensible to allow

themselves to do so regarding health and safety considerations, but in

most jobs it would seem to be very ill-advised to ban people from

wearing clothing that reflects their religious faith or beliefs. In terms

of what he says about the far right response to this, we do have one of

the strongest legislative frameworks in the world to defend our

constituents from bigotry. We want to make sure they remain effective

and appropriate. He must be assured that those who perpetrate hate

crimes at any time will be punished with the full force of the law. I'm

heartened by the robust response to this. My experience in France is

that because of their attitude to warlords the wearing of the

headscarf has exacerbate it and fragmented different parts of their

community. Seeing the police officers wearing turbans, just

demonstrates how tolerant attitude in this country. I ask that she

maintains this position. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that

the multiplicity of the different faiths and religions we have in this

country is one of our great strengths. We should recognise many

people follow their faith in some of us follow none, but we want a

society that treats people with equal respect. The Minister will

appreciate how distressing this ruling is, not only for British

Muslim women who choose to wear the headscarf but many from other

communities. G4S has presided over a shambolic arrangement for the

Olympics, the Army had to be brought in, I ask her to address the

question about whether Government contracts will be reviewed for G4S.

This is unacceptable and an British, what they have done. And secondly,

will she reports to Parliament so that we can be reassured that as

members across the House have stated, British values which are

distinct from this ruling, are upheld and

women's right are upheld? She is right to point out that women and

all workers should be respected, their religious choices respected as

well. She is right to point out that certain employers who will read this

differently. Tolerance and religious tolerance are things we take into

consideration regarding Government contracts. It's a shame, this

situation, because in this country we are very tolerant and we are

making massive progress. There are 45% more Muslim women in work in

2015 than in 2011. We are committed to supporting people in their

workplace, whatever their background, and this is why this is

such an important thing to be brought to the House today. Can I

respond and confirm that in this country, if you are airline cabin

staff or a receptionist that you have a right to freely express your

faith by wearing a cross or a headscarf, and that can't be

suppressed by any so-called neutral dress code. The honourable gentleman

is absolutely right that people are entitled to express their religious

thoughts or belief in what they are air and it really is only whether

there is some kind of health and safety that it really becomes an

issue, but as I've said before, companies are entitled to force

their own dress code, but this must equally apply to all employees,

whatever their religion, race or gender. And we are keen to promote

this. I'm really very troubled by these judgments. If provisions of

these judgments are held to be directly affected they can be relied

upon by employers in the UK without further ado. That would be

deplorable in my estimation. With the Minister confirm that the

Government is keeping open the option of legislating, indeed,

emergency legislation, to ensure that our very, very fine laws in

this country, and throughout the United Kingdom, about

discrimination, and -- are not going to be and abide by the European

court of justice. Is important to point out that this judgment is

advice that goes back to the nations that have brought this forward. Soak

each country has a right to enforce this judgment in the way they see

it. We have some of the most important equality legislation in

the world, including the Equalities Act. We will continue to keep that

to make sure that people are protected in the best possible way.

Mr Speaker, I apologise, but my honourable friend ask the question I

was going to ask so I didn't want to waste the House' time. Doesn't this

send out an appalling message to Muslim women particularly like those

in my constituency. Can she take tangible action with faith

communities to insure them that the United Kingdom certainly isn't going

to go down this route? We are working so hard in the Government to

tackle barriers. We are developing a new English offer which will be

targeted at Muslim women that available to other groups. We are

trying to get Jobcentre plus to engage and tailor their services. I

don't like this word tolerate. We don't tolerate people in this

country. We respect and embrace all cultures. But in spite of that, we

know that in this country that Islamists by OBR is not is Lambeth

OBR is not just widespread, it is rampant.

I fear that people may see this as a green light to engage in bad

discrimination in the workplace. What specifically will the

Government be doing to ensure that employers don't take from these

judgments that they can carry on discriminating against in particular

at Muslim women who are more likely to be discriminated against in the

workplace than many other groups? As I have already made clear, we are

working closely with the equalities and human rights commission to

update guidance for employers on dealing with religion or belief in

the workplace, but we will continue to advise this guidance -- revise

this guide and so it takes account of these judgments, we want to be

absolutely clear to all concerned that the equalities act and rights

of women and ridges employees remains unchanged, we will continue

to protect them. I'm sure I am not alone in seeing a big difference

between a headscarf, crucifix or turban and the Burke or niqab, and I

wonder how this judgment will affect the two police forces that I am

aware of which are currently stating that they are willing to consider

applications from female police officers who may want to wear a full

niqab or burka. -- burka and niqab. The government wholeheartedly

supports the invaluable work being done by people around the country

who are inspired by that faith, and where people are, where the job is

safe for them to continue wearing their religious garment, we feel

very strongly they should be in courage to do so. This ruling sends

an appalling message to faith communities in our country, many

visibly religious people going to work today will feel more

scrutinised and insecure in their work as a result of it, ruling also

creates another threshold for religious freedom than we currently

enjoy than our -- currently enjoy in our legislation, many young people

need a signal from the government that they will be supported and I am

grateful for what the Minister has said in this regard but how will the

government monitor the impact of this ruling on employees currently

in the workplace and what steps will the Minister take to prevent any

further marginalisation of visibly religious people in the workplace?

Mr Speaker, she is absolutely right to raise this, the government

believes people need to be able to feel strong in their religious

identities, we have to continue to ensure that the voices of people of

faith are heard in government, we have two -- we should recognise that

people are completely free to follow their faith, we want a society that

treats people with equality and with respect so of course this is

something that we will always keep under review and take the necessary

action if and when it ever becomes apparent that the need is there to

do so. ... My constituents will take the view that this is Jet another

inappropriate judgment from a European court which is telling us

what to do when we haven't sold their advice in the first place. Can

the Minister clarify to the house what power the EEC J will have over

this country once we have left the European Union? -- ECJ. We know that

we are leaving the EU and we are committed to delivering a successful

withdrawal from the EU, a new relationship and it will have no

power at that stage, but it is important to roll out that we will

preserve all of the rights that employees currently enjoy, and we

will ensure that all of the robust protections that various legislation

is afford them are enshrined in our own domestic law. The Minister

talked about neutral dress code that apply to both genders, would you not

accept that a no headscarf is roll, even if it applies to both genders,

effectively only discriminates against women, a no turbans rule

would discriminate against men, does she not think something more robust

would be required? It is absolutely clear that a no headscarves role or

a no turbans rule would be absolutely illegal, that would

constitute direct disc rumination, the only form of disk rumination

that is allowed is carte blanche ban on any form of religious clothing or

symbols, and that is what the legislation is being referred to in

these particular court cases that were judged on yesterday. Andrew

Stevenson. Many of my constituents feel that this ban clearly targets

Muslim women who wish to wear the hijab, given that the improving but

still below average employment rate among Muslim women, does the

Minister feel that this court ruling sends out the wrong message is as we

try to build a country that works for everyone. It does send out an

unhelpful message, and particularly because this is a government that

takes issues of this rumination in any form really seriously, we are

going to renew our efforts to ensure that no one is ever held back by any

kind of outdated attitudes or practices. In 99.9% of jobs,

including security guards, your ability to do a job is not effective

of whether you wear a skull cap, headscarf, turban, cross, or any

such thing, so can I ask the Minister that perhaps two things,

first, can this judgment be rejected in our domestic law, so there is no

confusion for any employers that this case law has any bearing or any

impact in this country? Secondly, can I ask that the G4S contract be

reviewed, they received public funding and they are the scum and

dating against people. We already have our own domestic equality

legislation which is very clear, we don't need to change... Employers

don't need to change any legitimate policies that they have about dress

code in the workplace but it is vital that employers and employees

understand what the law allows them to do, and that is what this is

about, we don't want any employers mistakenly thinking that this ruling

gives them any authority to sack any public facing scarf who wear

headscarves or any form of religious symbols, those protections are in

domestic law, it is very clear and we will always make sure they are

enforced in the strongest possible way. At a time when many members of

this house am a cross-party, and this government are working to

promote the principles of freedom of religion and belief internationally,

does my honourable friend agree that it is vital that we work hard to

protect long-standing religious freedoms here at home? Yes, Mr

Speaker, my honourable friend is absolutely right, we never one of

the strongest legislative frameworks in the world to protect communities

here from distil it is and violent and bigotry but this is something

that we intend to promote, which we continue to promote on the world

stage, it is fundamental to everything that we stand for in this

country, the tolerance, embracing of other cultures, bringing them into

the part of the national identity. Stephen Timms. This is a worrying

judgment for people of faith across-the-board, the Church of

England has described the judgment as troubling, will she confirmed

that she understands why the Church of England has taken that view, and

that they are right to do so? He is right to bring this up, this

judgment does apply to religious symbols, whatever the fate of the

individual who happens to be wearing them, it would be fully troubling

for the Church of England, people of Muslim faith, whatever. -- equally

troubling. A Muslim woman in my constituency was attacked in broad

daylight on Oxford Street, one of the busiest shopping street is in

the world, let alone London, by a man who forcibly tried to remove her

hijab from her head, isn't, aren't these judgments effectively

reinforcing a sense that other people have the right to tell people

of faith what they can and cannot wear, how they choose or not to

practice their faith, and in addition, the very welcome

guidelines that she has committed to today, but she also look at what

more we can do to enforce existing laws that protect us from religious

discrimination so that the attacker of my constituent is brought to very

heavy justice? I am very sorry to hear about the honourable

gentleman's constituent, that sounds like a very distressing thing to

happen, and those who perpetuate, who perpetrate hate crime of any

kind will be punished with the full force of the law. We are really

committed to tackling hate crime, which is why we have produced a new

hate crime action plan, which focuses on reducing hate crime,

increasing reporting, and of course increasing support for victims. We

have all heard of hijabs being ripped from girls in the aftermath

of the referendum result, by certain people in bold and by that, as an

unintended consequence of the result, so I am encouraged by the

words of the Minister, could she do all that she can in her power to

make sure that this illegal judgment, which has nothing to do

with workplace performance, does not have its own unwelcome by-product,

such as fuelling, apparently there is a 70% higher likelihood of Muslim

women to be unemployed than non-Muslims, the potential of it

being a potential recruiting Sergeant for so-called Islamic state

and streamers groups, and can she have a word with colleagues about

proposed cut... INAUDIBLE She is right to point this out, hate

crime, whatever form it takes, should never be tolerated, should be

punished with the full force of the law, and that is something the

government takes very seriously. Carol Monaghan. I'm hard on this

afternoon to hear the comments that the Minister has made, and some very

clear guidelines from her, but I still have concerns that this may

allow intolerant employers to ban particular symbols, for example, he

jabbed, or even a cross -- hijab. How will the government monitor

employees, and how will the government make it possible for

employees to report problems without any threat of repercussions? They

really important question, we are very clear that employers do not

need to change any legitimate policies they have about dress code

in the workplace but it is vital that those employers and employees

understand what the law allows. We cannot allow any employers to act

unscrupulously in some kind of mistake and implementation of the

law, we cannot have employees feeling they cannot come forward to

report any incidents of this kind. When I was married, my husband gave

me a ring, as part of the service, we all know that this is culturally

loaded, wedding rings will be allowed, and it is headscarves on

young Muslim women which are the problem. I want to ask the Minister,

for the fifth time, unlike the honourable member for Stafford, what

is she going to do about G4S? Ironically my husband did the same

thing, I have got one as well. Listen, she makes a very valid

point, it is something that we will keep in consideration moving

forward, this is not happened with G4S in the UK but it is something

that we take seriously and we will keep in the back of our minds when

making these decisions. I welcome the tone of these changes in the

house, and I know they will be very well received by Muslim and seek

constituents. That I have the honour to represent. I also look at new

guidance being created. -- Sikh. Then I also ask her to ensure that a

generosity has the necessary resources to carry out enforcement

function, something she will know there is significant concerns about

already. This is guidance DEH CR already have

but we will work with them to make sure it is updated and its purpose

in light of this recent judgment. I'm very confident the EH are

sufficiently funded to be able to do their job. Even after some recent

changes in their workforce, they store have four times more staff in

the EHCR than we do in the government equalities office. I am

the chair of the all-party Parliamentary group the -- for six.

Will her Majesty's government big representations to the governments

of France and Belgium which overtly have state-sponsored discrimination

against Sikhs, including British Sikhs who moved to France or France

and Belgium as well as Sikhs from other countries? That is a matter

for my colleagues in the foreign office but we will have the sort of

conversations with them. We take the issue of discrimination seriously

and we will continue to ensure no one is ever held back in this

country by any form of outdated attitudes or practices. We tend to

come to points of order after statements. So we can always hear

from the honourable lady at that point. Sorry? It appertains to this?

Well... In the spirit of generosity, if the lady is brief, we will hear

it. I am enormously grateful to you, Mr Speaker. This is a very important

point. The great repeal bill will incorporate all the existing EU nor

at the moment of Brexit. The great repeal bill will therefore

incorporate two judgments of the European Court of Justice which

we've just discussed. Mr Speaker, I would wish you to seek confirmation

from the Prime Minister and the government, if at all possible, that

these two judgments won't be allowed to remain part of our domestic law

one moment passed Brexit through the great repeal Bill. I am extremely

grateful to the honourable lady but she invests me with a power I don't

possess. It isn't the need to ask the government to take a position on

this matter. All I'd say is I've no reason to dissent from the

honourable lady's interpretation of the legal and, in a sense,

Parliamentary position. The whole point, however, about that piece of

upcoming legislation to be introduced by the government is that

it imports from Europe into our law a body of material with the option,

then, to preserve, amend or repeal on a case-by-case basis, as the

government proposes and, ultimately, the house decides. On the basis of

expression of interest from the honourable lady in this important

matter, I feel certain that when any such matter comes up for

consideration, she will be leaping from higher seat in order to

acquaint the house with her views on the subject. And we all look forward

to that. Statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With permission,

Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on National Insurance

contributions paid by the self-employed. As I set out in the

budget last Wednesday, the gap between benefits available to the

self-employed and those in employment has closed significantly

over the last few years. Most notably, the introduction of the new

state pension in April 2016 is worth an additional ?1800 to a

self-employed person for each year of retirement. It remains our

judgment, as I said, that the current differences in benefit

entitlement no longer justify the scale of difference in the scale of

National Insurance contributions paid in respect of employees and the

self-employed. Honourable and right Honourable members will also be

aware that has been a sharp increase in self-employment over the last few

years. Our analysis suggests that a significant part of that increase is

driven by differences in tax treatment. HMRC estimates the cost

to the public finances of this trend is around ?5 billion this year alone

and the OBR estimates the parallel increase in incorporate and will

cost more than ?9 billion a year by the end of the parliament. This

represents a significant risk to the tax base and, thus, to the funding

of our vital public services. The measures I announced in the budget

sought to reflect more fairly deep differences in entitlement in the

contributions made by the self-employed. The government

continues to believe that addressing this unfairness is the right

approach. However... However, Mr Speaker, since the budget,

Parliamentary colleagues and others have questioned whether the proposed

increase in class four contributions... Have questioned

whether the proposed increase in class for my contributions is

compatible with the tax commitments made in our 2015 manifesto. Ahead of

Autumn Statement last, the Prime Minister and I decided that however

difficult the fiscal challenges we face, the tax lock and spending

ring-fenced commitments we've made for this parliament should be

honoured in full. I made that clear in mild statement to this house. As

far as National Insurance contributions are concerned, the

locks were legislated for in the National Insurance contributions

rate ceilings actually 15. When the bill was introduced it was made

clear by ministers that the lock would apply only to class one

contributions. The measures I set out in the budget for within the

constraints set out by the tax lock legislation and the spending

ring-fenced is. However, it is clear from discussions with colleagues

over the last few days that this legislative test of the manifesto

commitment does not meet... Mr Speaker, does not meet a wider

understanding of the spirit of that commitment. It is very important

both to me and to my honourable friend the Prime Minister that we

comply not just the letter but also the spirit of the commitments that

were made. Therefore, as I set out in my letter this morning to the

chairman of the select committee, my right honourable friend the member

for Chichester, I decided not to proceed with the class four measures

set out in the budget. There will be no increases in National Insurance

contribution rates in this parliament. For the avoidance of

doubt, and, as I set out in the budget, we will go ahead with the

abolition of class two National Insurance contributions from April

20 18. Last two is an outdated and regressive tax, and it remains right

that it should go. And I will set out in the autumn budget further

measures to fund in full today's decision. Mr Speaker, I undertook in

the budget speech to consult over the summer on options to address the

principal outstanding area of difference in benefit entitlement

between employed and self-employed - parental benefits. We will go ahead

with that review. We now intend to widen this exercise to look at the

other areas of difference in treatment, alongside the

government's consideration of the forthcoming report by Matthew

Taylor, chief executive of the Royal Society of arts on the location of

different ways of working in a rapidly changing economy for

employment rights. Once we have completed these pieces of work, the

government will set out how it intends to take forward and fund

reforms in this area. Mr Speaker, reducing the unfairness of the

difference in the tax treatment of those who are employed and those who

are self-employed remains the right thing to do. But this government

sets great store in the faith and trust of the British people,

especially as we embark on the process of negotiating our exit from

the European Union. By making this change today, we are listening to

our colleagues, and demonstrating our determination to fulfil both the

letter and the spirit of our manifesto tax commitments and I

commend this statement to the house. Don MacDonald! Mr Speaker, this is

chaos. It is shocking... It is shocking and humiliating that the

Chancellor has been forced to come here to reverse a key budget

decision announced less than a week ago. If the Chancellor had spent

less time writing stale jokes for his speech and the Prime Minister

less time guffawing like a seal on those benches, we would not have

been in this situation. Let's be clear, this was a ?2 billion tax

hike for many middle and low earners. And it was a clear-cut and

cynical breaking of the promise of a manifesto. What was sickening,

though, was, at the same time he was cutting taxes to the rich and

corporations, large numbers of self-employed people had been put

through the Mangold last week, worrying about how they'd be able to

cope with this tax increase. Yet, today, not a word of apology. Nobody

should be too arrogant to use the word sorry when they blunder so

disastrously. That to me, then, thank... Let me then thank all those

who helped force this reversal. My right honourable friend the Leader

of the Labour Party was the first to raise this in the budget response.

Labour MPs and, yes, many MPs across this house, but also the Federation

trade unions forced the Chancellor trade unions forced the Chancellor

to see sense. But this blunder has consequences that the Chancellor now

has to address. The ?2 billion raised was to contribute some way to

tackling the social care crisis. We need to know now where these

desperately needed funds will come from. We need guarantees from the

Chancellor that no working people will be hit, either now or in this

Autumn Statement, with stealth tax rises. And that there will be no

further cuts in public services to pay for this blunder. And the Prime

Minister and Cabinet would have been briefed on the contents of this

budget in advance. Did the Prime Minister or any Cabinet member raise

their concerns with the Chancellor before he announced it? We need the

Chancellor now to set a clear deadline for the review and give a

commitment it will be reported and debated on the floor of this

chamber. We need him to address the real issues facing the

self-employed, the scourge of bogus self-employment, the exploitation

that goes on under that guise, the pressure from large corporations to

reduce costs on the self-employed unrealistically. The lack of access

to maternity pay. No paternity pay or adoption pay, no sick pay, no

compassionate leave. This is the real agenda, it should've been

addressed last week, not tax hikes! We welcome, Mr Speaker, this

reversal. But what we need now is an honest and forthright commitment

that the self-employed agenda will be addressed. These people are the

engines of our economy, they deserve to be respected and not attacked in

the way they were six days ago. Well, Mr Speaker, echoing my right

honourable friend the banister's Question Time, I'm rather reluctant

to take lessons from the gentleman except on chaos theory. He forced

about -- you talked about being forced about making a decision. We

listen to our colleagues, listen to the voices of public opinion. In my

view, that is how Parliament should work. We listen to our colleagues

and we make our decisions based on that. What I have said to the house,

Mr Speaker, a few moments ago is that we remain clear that this issue

needs to be addressed. What we have done is recognised that there is a

legitimate view that the commitments made to need to be interpreted

widely, and we've said we will interpret them in that way, and not

go ahead with any National Insurance contribution increases in this

Parliament. He mentioned the leader of the later to -- Labour Party. I'd

say in his response to the budget, he scarcely mentioned class four

National Insurance contributions and the honourable gentleman, I don't

know if the honourable gentleman was even aware of this, but the Labour

Party does actually have a self-employment commission that it

established last November. At the time it was established, the

honourable lady, the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and

Pensions, and the knowledge they need to address the discrepancies

between entitlement and contributions. So, I hope that

despite the honourable gentleman's tone, understandable time, I hope

the honourable gentleman would agree that on the substantive underlying

issue, there is a significant degree of agreement across the house that

there is a discrepancy here that will have to be addressed over time.

There is a threat to the taxpayers that will have to be addressed over

time. He talks about additional benefits for the self-employed. Of

course, we are going to review the issues around a rental benefits, as

I said we would in the budget. We are actually going to take it wider

than that but I hope the honourable gentleman would agree with me that

if additional benefits are to be made available, we will have to look

at how we pay for them, and it won't be done by borrowing half ?1

trillion the country can't afford on our children will be left paying

for. owe It removes the perception of a

cigarette paper between Number Ten and number 11. So it's doubly

welcome. Does the Chancellor agree that a differential should

nonetheless in the long run remain to reflect the additional risk taken

by the self-employed when they're doing their job? Well, I'm grateful

to my Right Honourable friend and I have to say in the Budget speech

last week I made it very clear that what we were doing was seeking to a

close a little the gap. There are actually very good reasons why there

may need to be a gap. That's is why we're going to look at this in the

round, contributions, entitlements, the way the whole package works for

the self-employed. Let's come back to this once we've completed the

review and got the Matthew Taylor work and we can look at this in the

round. I said last week, this decision would come back to haunt

the Chancellor and it has, but little did I expect when it came

back to haunt him, we would have Number Ten and number 11 briefing

against each other. It is almost as if the days of Gordon Brown and Tony

Blair never really went away! But I do welcome the U-turn today. Not

least because around 140,000 Scottish self-employed people would

have been affected by it and many of them would have earned below on or

only slightly more than the average wage. So I'm delighted the SNP went

into bat for the squeezed middle against this Chancellor. But, of

course, today's U-turn, has all the characteristics of the pasty tax,

the caravan tax, and the only shambles Budget -- omii-shambles

Budget. The Chancellor said he would fill the gap in the autumn, but can

we have an assurance today he won't find another clever way of dipping

the pockets of modestly paid self-employed people? If he's going

to change the tax or self-employed people can he have proper

consultation in advance with the representatives of the self-employed

so they're not hit with the uncertainty they have been faced

with over the past week? Well, Mr Speaker on the last point, we will,

of course, over the course of the summer as we carry out this review

consult with people widely. He will know that it is intrinsic in the

Budget process that it is difficult to have any proper could be sull

tation in preparing a Budget. The honourable gentleman asks about

measures in the autumn Budget. I said in relation to this spring

Budget that all spending measures in the spring Budget would be fully

funded by revenue raisers or reductions in spending elsewhere in

the spring Budget so that the spring Budget woos broadly fiscally

neutral. As a result of the decision you've announced today the spring

Budget is no longer broadly fiscally neutral, but I am committed to

addressing that issue in the autumn, the intention remains, to balance

the measures that we are delivering between spending and taxation. First

I'd like to thank the Chancellor for listening to the voices of

colleagues and deciding to reverse the proposals. The genuinely

self-employed carry real financial risk by working for themselves and I

know that a Conservative Government really wants a tax system that will

support risk takers and growth takers, it is time to take a

holistic and simplifying view on personal taxation for the

self-employed which will support those who build new businesses and

take risk? Yes, Mr Speaker. I can assure my honourable friend that

this Government will always be on the side of those who genuinely

strive to take risk, toun owevate, to grow businesses and to -- to

innovate and to grow businesses and to contribute in what way to the

economy. The honourable gentleman opposite in his response to the

statement addressed the issue of bogus self employment. He's right,

there is a problem of bogus self employment. There is a problem of

employers who are refusing to employ people, requiring them to be

self-employed. There is a problem of individuals being advised by high

street accountants that they can save tax by restructuring the nature

of the way they work. And we do believe that people should have

choices. We do believe there should be diversity of ways of working in

the economy, we just don't believe that it should be driven by unfair

tax advantages. THE SPEAKER: I remind the House that

colleagues who arrived in the chamber after the start of the

statement should not stand or expect to be called. That a is a very

long-standing convention of the House. This is an acutely

embarrassing episode for the Chancellor, but wouldn't he

acknowledge it is also quite embarrassing for those of his

colleagues and for the Prime Minister who he sent out there to

defend this breaking of the manifesto so has he already

apologised to the Prime Minister and to his colleagues or would he take

this opportunity now from the dispatch box to say sorry to them?

Mr Speaker I find it a bit extraordinary that this should be

the hon Raja's intervention. He said that Labour would fund its ?500

billion plans by doubling income tax, doubling national insurance,

doubling council tax and doubling VAT as well. He's the one who

soundeded alarm on the other side. I have had conversations with

colleagues since the Budget, across the weekend and in the lobbies last

night and on Monday. I've had lots of discussions with the Prime

Minister over the course of the last few days as he would expect and as

he would also expect, I am not about to give the House the full detail of

those private conversations. Thank you very much indeed, Mr

Speaker. Can I commend my Right Honourable friend for his statement

today for recognising what colleagues and others had been

saying to them? Can I also commend him for recognising that the

employment market in this country is changing. There are more people who

are self-employed and this needs to be addressed and doesn't he think it

is right that this party asking the questions about how be balance our

books, not the other side who have no clue about how to pay off the

deficit our pay off our debt? We've recognised the view of colleagues on

the crucial issue of the manifesto commitments, but on the substantive

issue of the differences in treatments of people who are

employed and people who are self-employed, there is a

fundamental structural challenge here that will have to be addressed

and that includes the question of how we extend to people who are in

self employment, appropriate benefits so that they get the full

range of entitlements as well as contributing in an appropriate way.

The proper thing is to rule out any increase of contributions during

this Parliament. That doesn't mean we should carry out this review and

present our findings in due course and we will do so. 28 measures in

this Budget he had to come in a humiliating fashion to the House

today to cast away the one that actually raised money. He has just

told us that there is ?14 billion of tax revenue at risk because of the

way that national insurance is encouraging people to become

apparently self-employed and other abuses and he has told us he won't

deal with it in this Parliament. So what is he going to safeguard the

tax base in the meantime while he does his review and belatedly puts

into effect the manifesto commitments that he fought the last

election on? An extraordinary contribution. The honourable lady

can't have it both ways. She can't have her cake and eat it. She wants

me to adopt a broad interpretation of manifesto commitments and adhere

to it and she wants me to protect the revenue base by addressing the

difference in contribution treatment between the employed and the

self-employed. I say to the honourable lady, as I've just said

to my honourable friend, we will have to address that difference in

due course, but given the interpretation that is clearly out

there of the manifesto commitment that is made, we think our priority

now is to show that we will deliver on the spirit as well as the letter

of that commitment and we will not increase national insurance

contributions in this Parliament. I'm sure my Right Honourable friend

is right to deal with this issue in the round, but I hope he won't allow

this to deflect him either from the sensible Budget judgment he made of

fiscal neutrality or for the need for the structural reforms he put

forward. The Shadow Chancellor asked him to fill the gap without reducing

spending or increasing taxes. Does he know how that could be fulfilled?

Well, Mr Speaker, the straight answer to my Right Honourable friend

is only in the Los Angeles Land that the Labour Party occupies is that

trick possible. Of course, he's right to draw a-- La-la Land. The

honourable gentleman opposite doesn't believe in fiscal

neutrality. Well, he says dear me. I repeat, Mr Speaker, I repeat Mr

Speaker... THE SPEAKER: We can't have these

shouting matches across the chamber. I'm asking people not to do things

that they shouldn't do, shouting across the box and I ask the

Chancellor to continue. The honourable gentleman opposite

doesn't believe in fiscal neutrality. He believes in borrowing

?500 billion of additional money and saddling our children and our

grandchildren with that debt, but I very much take my Right Honourable

friend's advice on fiscal neutrality, maintaining fiscal

neutrality and dealing with the structural issue that under lies

this statement today. Might the Chancellor consider to

make up the loss in revenue to bear down on those employers who force

their employees into self employment against their wish, destabilise

their lives and thereby get out of paying national insurance

contributions as all good employers do pay? Well, Mr Speaker, the Right

Honourable gentleman is right as I've already said. There is as the

economy changes shape, an increasing tendency for employees, effectively,

to drive people out of employment and into what is thinly disguised

employment badged as self employment. That's one of the issues

that Matthew Taylor in his review is looking at. I've had the opportunity

to have a preliminary meeting with him. We are looking forward to

receiving his report in due course and we will respond to it. I am a

self-employed solicitor and I commend the Chancellor on coming to

the House today and putting forward his views about changes in self

employment. Would he join me in commending the thousands of people

who go out and start businesses and make money and work in self

employment and when they went and voted at the last general election

knew it was this Government, a Conservative Government, would not

only protect their tax rates, but create an economic environment where

they could grow? My honourable friend is right. It's about the

environment being conducive to people who are starting and running

small businesses and I congratulate those who do that, who get up every

morning and who are prepared to take those risks and they will now, of

course, benefit from the abolition of class two national insurance

contribution making them that little bit better off.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Chancellor confirm when this

decision to make this U-turn was made? Isn't the truth that this was

the Prime Minister's decision and not the Chancellor's? Well, clearly,

that's the story the honourable lady would like to make, but

unfortunately, it's not true. I've been discussing the Budget and these

issues with the Prime Minister since last Wednesday as you would expect

as I have been discussing them with many colleagues over the weekend and

we've had several meetings over the last few days. The final decision to

make this announcement to the house today was made this morning at 8am

and I came to the House at the earliest reasonable opportunity to

inform the house. There are 7,000 self-employed individuals in St

Albans. Can I thank the Chancellor for listening to the representations

I made in my letter to him and can I say that they will welcome that

three year end of Parliament commitment that he has made on this

matter which gives certainty and can I say I think he's right to look at

this issue, but he is an honourable man honouring our manifesto today

and to ignore the criticisms from opposite. I'm grateful to my

honourable friend and I have to say I generally find it much more

fruitful listening to the advice and thoughts of my honourable friends

than I do of listening to the comments from opposite. We all noted

that the Chancellor brought along the First Lord of the Treasury today

for support, solidarity, counselling, hand holding, as he

made his abject statement, but who first realised that the Government

were in fray grant beach of their manifesto commitment? Was it the

Prime Minister or was it the Chancellor? All parties must seek to

implement their manifesto, will the Chancellor confirm since he intends

to go ahead with the changes that they will appear in the Conservative

manifesto at the next election so the self-employed can vote

accordingly? I've made a statement today about

the government's intention. No NIC increases for the remainder of this

Parliament. I'm not making a statement about the Conservative

Party's manifesto for the next general election. The right

honourable gentleman will have to contain himself for a moment on that

particular issue. Since he asked me the question who first raised the

issue of the manifesto, I think credit where credit is due. It was

actually Laura Kuenssberg on the BBC shortly after I said it in the

budget speech. Can I commend the Chancellor for coming to the house

today. He is entirely correct to assert the National Insurance

contributions act only apply to class one contributions. I don't

recall at the time the Labour Treasury bench ever raising any

other contributions. Can I once again thank him for coming as he is

listening Chancellor and he will continue to listen to this sensible

side of the house, unlike some of the other previous Labour

chancellors who didn't listen to anyone and brought the economy to

its knees. My honourable friend is right and I am... I didn't mention

it because I didn't think it was something I want to make a big issue

of but it is true that when the National Insurance contributions

rate ceiling bill was debated in this house, ministers on this side

made it clear they were legislating to lock class one only. No

amendments were tabled, no issue was raised. And, indeed, the honourable

lady for Salford and Eccles, who was then a shadow Treasury Minister,

said at this despatch box, that this Bill disbarred -- discharged the

manifesto of the government. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer will

want an endorsement from me like a hole in the head but I'm rather

disappointed because there is a lot wrong with National Insurance. When

he looks at the wider review, Wilkie also look at the absurd way it kicks

in at ?8,000, well below the personal tax allowance, and at the

unfair top 2% rate. It is important to separate the two issues, the

substantive underlying issue about the way National Insurance

contributions and entitlement work. And the separate issue of the way

manifesto commitments work. The review we will be conducting will be

looking specifically at the differences between the

self-employed and the employed and the axis of the self-employed to

contributory benefits. What she has suggested is out of scope for that

particular piece of work but as she will be aware all of these things

are routinely reviewed by the Treasury in the run-up to fiscal

events. May I thank my honourable friend for his wisdom in being open

to change his mind which shows the serious mindedness of her Majesty's

government. And also for his proprietary in telling this house

first, doing it himself and not sending somebody else on his behalf.

Finally, may I commend him for his singular achievement of converting a

number of desiccated Socialists to support for lower taxation. I'm

grateful to my honourable friend but I have to say to him what I see

these days is not so much desiccated Socialists, as dedicated

opportunists on the benches opposite. This was a budget that was

disappointing, unambitious, and now is mired in chaos. Can I ask the

Chancellor seriously if it isn't now the time to properly consider having

an NHS tax, specific to funding and NHS, which did not receive enough

funding. This is something that has the support of the majority of the

British public. Well, Mr Speaker, what we need to fund our NHS is a

strong economy, and the government has got the political will to make

the commitment we've made to attend ?1 billion posed inflation increase

in NHS spending. It is very nice to have a contribution from the Liberal

Democrat benches. I don't know whether that is a precursor of the

Liberal Democrat manifesto for the next general election, we shall wait

and see. Can I commend the Chancellor for his statement today.

As somebody who was self-employed for many years, the current system,

both in terms of contributions and benefits, needs reform, so I look

for to Matty Taylor's report. Could I urge the Chancellor, given so many

of the self-employed are sole traders, and micro-business owners,

to look at the great work Angela Knight has done in how the whole

system could be improved. I'm very happy to have a meeting with one of

his more junior ministers if he can't make the meeting himself to

discuss it further. Angela Knight is the chairman of office of tax

implication and we will seek their advice in this matter so I'm

grateful to my honourable friend. Can I just confirm the slightly

astonishing thing that the Chancellor just today few moments

ago, that the first person to raise within the Tory manifesto was the

BBC's Laura Kuenssberg. Nobody at Number Ten and nobody at number 11

checked their manifesto before he wrote the budget? I didn't say that.

Let me be clear, Laura Kuenssberg was the first person after I spoke

to raise the issue outside. The government has always been clear. I

said on Wednesday evening, Thursday, many times the Prime Minister said,

that we've always regarded the legislated tax locks as being the

commitment we were working to. All of our approach in the Treasury, all

the work we do is based around the tax locks in place. I accept there

is a gap between the specific tax locks that were legislated and the

wording used during the manifesto. We have accepted today the more

expansive interpretation should be expansive interpretation should be

the ones that prevails, which is why I have made the statement I have. I