05/07/2017 House of Commons

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if you will...

We all recognise that public sector workers do a fantastic job. Over the

past seven years, we have seen major improvements in our public services.

Crime is down with a greater proportion of police on the front

line. My children going on to apprenticeships and University. Our

NHS is looking after more people than at any other time. Government

pay policy is designed to be fair to public sector workers who works so

hard to deliver the strong public services. But we also must provide

those public services on a sustainable basis for the future. In

many services, workers have received additional pay on the 1% increase.

Teachers have had a 3.3% increase. In 2015-16, more than half of nurses

and other NHS staff had an increase of over 3%. Military service

personnel also saw a average additional increase of 2.4%.

Salaries in the public sector remain comparable to those in the public

sector. -- private sector. In addition, many benefit from

entitlements. And the rise in the personal allowance worth 1000 pounds

per year to a basic rate taxpayer. Mr Speaker, we are currently

competing the pay review process for 2017-18. We have accepted the pay

review body recommendations made for doctors, the NHS and the Armed

Forces. We will be looking at very carefully at the recommendations on

the remainder and making determinations in the usual way. As

the Chancellor said on Monday, our policy on public sector pay has

always been designed to strike the right balance of being fair to our

public sector workers and fair to those who pay for them. That

approach has not changed and the Government will continually assessed

that balance. Can I try welcome the right honourable lady to her post?

When we asked a question of the Chancellor, we expect the Chancellor

to respond to that question. It was simple. We just wanted simple

clarity about whether the pay cap still is in force. That is all we

ask for. It confirms the response we have received what most commentators

are now saying. This is not a Government, this is a cabinet of

absolute chaos. Let me explain to the opposition that's actually the

existing Government policy as set out in the comrades of spending

review 2015, due to be ratified today in the Supply and

Appropriations Bill, is a 1% pay cap still. This is the text that to

which the various pay review bodies are still working. They are written

to and told that their recommendations and proposals have

to reflect, the Government was not policy on public sector pay award.

Over the last week we have seen absolute confusion in Government,

total disarray. The question we are proposing is who actually speaks for

the Government on this issue? On the day of the Queen's speech, number

ten was briefing at the end of posterity and relaxing the pay cap

only to be contradicted by an incandescent briefing from number

11. LAUGHTER

Daily fearful, number ten then backs down. Prodded by primaries, it must

be tough living next to a destructive neighbour. You cannot

stand them, you try to get rid of and you cannot get on with. We

received in the press, Mr Speaker, the wisdom of the right honourable

member for Axbridge who supports the idea of a public sector worker

getting a better pay deal, followed up by his past campaign manager

turned political assassin, the new Environment Secretary who actually

supports against the Chancellor. The whole process degenerates into

farce. We have David Cameron earning 1000 -- ?100,000 per Speech saying

that 1% its average. A grown-up debate? I agree. What we have seen

is Cabinet ministers scrapping in the school playground. Cut of Mac

from the real world. The Chancellor has no understanding why our public

sector workers are so angry. Tax cuts to the rich and corporations

while their pay is cut. Can the Chief Secretary car hi-fi wide the

Government's estimates on the orders paper today will accommodate the

reported of up to the Fire And Rescue Services which I am told is

subject to to Government funding? Moreover, if we are tasty and other

Government U-turn, which in the case of public sector pay we would

welcome. How were they find the 5 billion needed and they say would be

saved by the 1% pay cap? RB being confronted by get another un-costed

commitment within weeks of a parliament commencing? It is the

magic money tree again. The Government's own report on Monday

showed how much doctors and nurses paid for. Does the Chancellor think

it is very given... Given 20% more nurses left the nursing register

than joined it this year does the Chancellor agreed the chief

executive of the Royal College of nurses, for every day the cap is in

place it is haemorrhaging? Can the chief Secretary to us went will an

actual decision be made about the future of the pay cap? Will public

sector workers have to wait until the next Budget report of finding

out whether they will have decent paper the next two years? Should the

Chancellor right to the pay review bodies formally to say they are free

to do what is right by public service and pay them a fake para

what this year? -- their pay award -- fair pay award. I am here today

to answer his questions because I am responsible for this policy area. I

think that is entirely appropriate even if you does not want to see me

in the dispatch box. As has been outlined by the Chancellor and by

minister, our policy remains in place. Because it is the responsible

thing to do. It is the responsible thing to balance the importance of

recruiting and retaining high-quality people in our public

services and also making sure that our public's finances remain

sustainable so we can continue to see the improvements in our public

services that we have seen under this Government. Can I say, Mr

Speaker, that some of the Shadow Chancellor's comments went

disingenuous. He did not reflect the fact... Order. I am sure at the

honourable lady has a versatile vocabulary. She cannot say

disingenuous. That is an imputation of dishonour. I do withdraw that.

Perhaps the honourable gentleman was mistaken in what you might have

said. We did see and 2015-16 teachers see 3.5% worth of

progression pay, more than half of nurses and NHS workers get over 3%.

And military service personnel received 2.4%. I suggest the

honourable gentleman includes those facts in the figures next time he

speaks. As for the Fire Service, he knows perfectly well that those

policies are set independently -- by Government. I think it is wrong we

are hearing the Government top down our public services -- hearing the

opposition top down our public services when we see improvements,

more people are attracted into the public services, the best

performance ever in our education system and our health system. As for

un-costed commitments, the honourable gentleman has ?16 billion

worth of un-costed commitments. He also asked me about the pay review

process. The process is simple - we have received recommendations from

pay review bodies already this year. They make decisions based on the

individual circumstances within those sectors. We have followed all

of their recommendations. We will look at the further recommendations

we need to make decisions on, and we will look at that balance between

affordability and making sure that we retain and recruit high-quality

public sector workers. This is the right approach. It is not saying we

are going to open up the cheque-book, bankrupt our public

services and see people lose jobs. Which is exactly what happened in

countries like Greece which took that approach, took their eye of the

public finances. The honourable gentleman needs to take a more

balanced approach in the way he looks at this issue. During these

other fractures proceedings to date, one member has been the embodiment

of calm and serenity. That members should be imitated by others. And

will now be called to contribute. Mr Kenneth clerk.

They are not adjectives that have been applied to me during my

political career. May I thank my right honourable friend. We keep the

economy on track for a steady, sustainable growth in future and we

steadily eliminate the problem of debt and deficit that we inherited.

Does she also agree with me that if she were to give way to the lobby on

the subject, it would be a political disaster because the government

would be accused of a U-turn and surrender and it would set a fire

wave of pay claims across the whole public sector which the opposition

are looking forward to take part in, if they can provoke them. It could

possibly be an economic disaster and not in the interest of the many

people, the private and public sector, are having economic

difficulties and this time and want to look forward to a much more

prosperous future as we get our economy enter health again. My

honourable friend has huge experience in these areas. He is

correct to say that we need to take account of public services and how

we sustainably finance public services for the long-term. We need

to look at those specific issues in each sector about where we do need

to recruit and retain staff, but we also need to look at Furnace with

the private sector. At the moment we have roughly come parable salaries

between their public and the private sector. What we need to do as a

country is to ensure we improve our productivity, improve our growth

rate, and that is the way we will see everybody benefits. This

government has a fantastic record of getting people into work. We have

the lowest unemployment level since the lowest unemployment level since

1975 and we need to make sure we continue with that. We had all hoped

today would bring some commitment and certainty from the government on

public sector pay, instead we see stonewalling of public sector

workers from the dispatch box well members of the Cabinet abandon

collective responsibility. Perhaps that is more about those ministers

desire to undermine the Chancellor and Prime Minister than their

commitment to public sector workers, as evidenced today in the Times. The

Prime Minister wanted to and then something today but could not get

ministers to agree a line. A report from academics was published quietly

by the government's one Department. It showed that real wages fell by 6%

and for some by 3p and I were. Perhaps part of the reason why this

last decade has been the worst for a wage growth in the last 200 years

and why we continue to seek in rises in and work poverty. Can the

secondary advise why our dedicated police, firefighters and nurses, who

put their lives on the line for us, what they need to do to earn a fair

pay rise. Does she support the former Prime Minister's comments by

David Cameron yesterday, whose editors selfish for those two

campaign for a pay cut? We have got very clear process by which he is

determined. We have independent pay review bodies make recommendations

on areas like the police, on areas like the nurses, and we will look

very quickly -- carefully at those recommendations. That is a

responsible approach to take. That is the approach that will see an

economy grow and unemployed -- unemployment continued to be in a

positive direction. We know that suitors -- 2010 there have been

13,000 more nurses employed by the NHS. I am worried that the party's

offers that could lead to a cut in the number of nurses, given there

was a ?68 billion black hole in the manifesto finances. Could my right

honourable friend assured me, that she not only looks at every level of

pay but also making sure we can continue to afford to employ more

nurses and also that we continue to focus on sound finances and a strong

economy to pay for the numbers of nurses we need. She is right to

point out that by having this balanced policy, we have protected

jobs in the public sector and we have protected those imported

services. The old BR outlined in the report that our policy protects the

jobs of 200,000 public sector workers. That is important for those

people but it is also important for our constituents who receive those

public services and are seeing improvements in schools, in

hospitals, in terms of the level of crime coming down. It is important

we take that balanced approach. Does the Chief Secretary not except that

there is a fundamental difference in the economic conditions when the 1%

cap was introduced which was when there was a feeling of large-scale

unemployment and inflation, from the present-day wearer chronic labour

shortage throughout their public sector, where salaries have been

eroded. I would say to the honourable gentleman, right

honourable gentleman, forgive me. I would say that first of all public

sector pay is come parable with private sector pay. And in addition,

public sector pensions are set at a higher level on average than private

sector pensions. The pay review bodies have a remit to look at

retention and recruitment. When they make their independent decisions, of

course I will look at all of the recommendations that are due to come

out of those bodies. But he has again made the same omission that

was made earlier, which is a lot of those roles have pay increments,

independent from that one present. So we have seen teachers pay

increase by 3.3% in the last year for which we have got records. He is

not right to say it is solely the 1%. In fact public sector workers

are rewarded and a number of different ways. A recent study shows

that public sector productivity fell by 5.7% in the long period

1997-2014. Isn't the way forward better pay for a smarter working?

Here was that give something for something so the taxpayer wins, the

service user wins and the employer wins? My right honourable friend is

correct to say that we do want to see improvement in our public

services. I highlighted earlier education where we are seeing more

children going to good and outstanding skills, a health service

which is dealing with more patience than it ever has in the past. And

school policy, pay policy is set by individual academies, for example.

We are giving more freedoms over pay and overpay determination. But it is

important that we looked at the public finances as a whole and make

sure that overall we are living with no means as a whole and make sure

that overall we are living within our means of the country. Mr

Speaker, right now 130 workers at an officer being told that their place

of work will be closed, that their jobs relocated up to an hours drive

away. Haven't these public sector workers suffered enough from the

seven years pay cut. Is it not wrong that they need to find more money to

pay to and from work? The honourable lady refers to a job centre in her

constituency. I am sure that the DWP were looking at how those people can

be assisted, and it is something I am happy to deal with the DWP

secretary on her behalf. In Chelmsford, we are very proud of

being one of the places where nurses trained at the great Anglia Ruskin

University. It is good to hear my honourable friend speaking about how

nurses have benefited from pre-progression and lower taxes to

the increments. Part of increasing the prosperity of public sector

workers is increasing the training opportunities and there is great

excitement about the introduction of degree apprenticeships. But also

having more money in your pocket and affordable housing. Can the Minister

confirm that part of increasing prosperity is not just the pay, but

also having a strong economy to deliver more houses and more

training for more skilled opportunities. She is right that we

need to look at the wider package that people receive. Whether that is

support for a pension, whether it is additional flexibility is, whether

it is additional elements of pay and training. And training and

progression is extremely important. I remember visiting Chelmsford

prison where they are also looking at training opportunities for prison

officers. I know that is something we're looking through the public

sector because job satisfaction derives from owning things. Of

course purely is important, I would not deny that, it is also about

working conditions and people on the front line feeling empowered that

they can do their jobs well and they are contributing. Being a public

servant is incredibly important. What we need to show is that we're

giving people on the front line that ability to be make decisions and

really improve people's lives for the better. As a public sector

worker, how much has own pay increased since 2010? How has her

productivity increased since 2010? And can the country afford her pay

increase? And if so does she agree with me that Britain deserves a pay

increase customer might pay has gone both up and down since 2010. My pay

is set independently. I think the important point is that the pay of

public sector workers is determined by these pay review bodies. I take

the recommendations very seriously. And that is the way that we should

approach this issue, rather than trying to politicise it and say that

we need a blanket approach, what we have set these public sector bodies

the remit to make those decisions themselves. When is the government

going to introduce the ?95,000 cap on exit payments for public sector

workers? The legislation on the statute book but has not been

implemented. Why cannot it be implemented soon so we do not have

any more payments like the ?300,000 paid earlier for the leader of

Bournemouth Council to leave? I will be happy to discuss that later with

my honourable friend. The rise in inflation, the recommendations of

pay review bodies and the closing of the gap between the public and

private sector pay has given focus to the whole issue of the current

pay policy. Would she agree with me that the rhetoric about austerity,

and costed and and financed amendments to the Queen's Speech are

no substitute a look at the tax implementations, the borrowing

implications and implications another parts of the public sector

over the review policy? We need to look at, not only the issue of

fairness, public sector workers which is important, not only the

issue of recruitment and retention, but also the overall health of the

British economy so we can make sure that we carry on having low

unemployment rates, we carry on seeing growth in our economy and we

deal with the debt at which as a result of the great recession that

we suffered as a country. And we need to pay out that debt, we need

to get the deficit further down so that we can continue to enjoy high

quality public services. As someone who worked as a nurse during the pay

cap and pay freeze, can I say how difficult that is as a public sector

worker and as a nurse. But the issue is greater than pay rises, it is the

pay structure. There was an increment system where people were

waiting 56 years -- 5-6 years before they got the pay rises they

deserved. The pay structure isn't working and that needs to be looked

as urgently as the pay cap. Her great expertise as a former nurse

shows in the detailed question she has asked. We do need to make sure

that we reform public services and we make sure that people have the

opportunity to progress and be trained in the roles that they do.

One of the roles of the pay review body is to look at those structures

as well as looking at the rates of pay. And certainly during the

process that they go through the take evidence from front line

workers, from unions, from experts in the area, and I hope they will

take those issues into consideration.

The Chief Secretary referred to productivity increases in the public

sector. I wonder what she would say when we saw firefighters racing into

Grenfell Tower paramedics and police racing into the Manchester Arena.

Doctors and nurses who worked round the clock and others in the medical

profession to say people's lives. What would she say about

productivity increases by those people who serve the people of the

country? Those firefighters and police and other people in the

emergency services have done a tremendous job and I am sure we are

age and the grateful that they put themselves in the line of danger on

a regular basis. He is right to point that out. Productivity, what

does it mean? It means as we talked earlier, empowering people on the

front line make decisions, to do things more quickly. When I see

people working as nurses and teachers, sometimes they will say

they want to see less bureaucracy so they can get on with the real jobs

they have been employed to do. That is why the police are spending more

time on the front line. Productivity means giving people more job

satisfaction. They can spend more of their time doing the job they have

come into the public services to do. That is why we are reforming the

public services and seeing those improvements. Does my right

honourable friend agree that it is vitally important to balance

fairness to public servants and taxpayers who pay for the public

services? We need to have a continual balance of making sure we

are fair to people working in the public services, giving them the

training and opportunities that they deserve. That they are being

unfairly paid. And at the same time making sure they will be able to

continue working in those services in the future. If we look at what

happened in Greece when the deficit got out of control, we saw a 36%

reduction on health service spending. The gentlemen opposite may

groan, but they need to look at the facts about what happens when you

make un-unfunded spending commitments. Can we be Claire that

the IMF has said that Labour's spending plans would lead to the

highest levels of taxation we have ever seen in peacetime Britain? --

IFS. This would lead to people losing their jobs, not moderate

proposals. The chief Secretary rightly outlined there is more to

the package for public service workers including pensions. But it

is ?80 per week. Their workloads are increased twofold, so isn't it the

truth the Government knows the cost of everything and the value of

absolutely nothing? What we care about is how good our public

services are serving the public and that we want to have highly

motivated people working in our public services who feel valued and

properly remunerated. That is why we have these independent body to make

these decisions. Members on all sides will want to see strong wage

increases for those in the bottom end whatever sector. Can the

Minister tell us about what the new National Living Wage will do to the

incomes of those on the bottom end and can chicken from it will us one

of the strongest minimum wages in the world? I congratulate my

honourable friend on the road he had in that policy. We are raising wages

for those on lowest incomes and basic rate taxpayers have seen a

?1000 reduction in their tax Bill. That is important for dealing with

the cost of living. But also making sure it always pays for people to go

into work. In a very readable book, austerity, history of the dangerous

idea, austerity always fails either at the ballot box or people... If it

would concentrate on growth, the deficit would take care of itself.

Spending on the economy to create about growth? I understand the

honourable gentleman's party voted to support our pay policy earlier

this year. The IFS has estimated that Labour's proposal will cost ?9

billion per year which is double what was in the manifesto. Given

that would involve such significant borrowing, does the chief Secretary

agreed that when we borrow a pay interest, our interest Bill is ?50

billion per year. That is ?50 billion less to invest in our public

services. That is right. Also, future generations will pay for the

services that we are enjoying today. That is wrong. We need to live

within our means. Make sure people are properly rewarded. Make sure we

are fair between public and private sectors. That is what this

Government's ballast policy is achieving. My union represents

workers from across the public sector. Nurses, teachers, cleaners,

they are not subject to increments and asking when they will get fair

pay for the hard work they do for all of us. Would she agree that in

light of increases in inflation and living standards,... Our policy

balances the need to make sure that people are properly remunerated.

That is what the pay review bodies look at. Also to make sure that

those public sector services are sustainable in the long term. As

well as making sure people are properly paid, the wider package is

as good as possible, we need to make sure those jobs are protected and

secure in the long term. Does the Minister agree with me that as a

result of Labour's economic mismanagement in 2008 - 2009,

average wages... The question must be heard. Everyone in this Chamber

must be heard. Thank you. As a result of Labour's economic

mismanagement in 2008-2009, average private sector pay fell

significantly while public sector pay remains stable. Will the

Minister agree with me that it is very important when we look at the

pay review body but make recommendations, we recognise the

real challenges faced by small businesses when they are outpaced by

public sector earnings. And as small businesses, their employers are

creating the majority of jobs in this country. Will she make sure

those pay review bodies take into account the small business people's

fuse in that process? We have got to a position where public sector pay

is comparable with private sector pay and also public sector workers

often have some pension entitlement on top of that. I think getting to a

position where they are comparable for the skills that those people

have is fair. It is forever those businesses who we need to create

wealth in our country so we can find those public services. Therefore

both workers in private and public sector. I do not think there is

anything much more important than getting people into work, giving

people the sense of pride, responsibility, the ability to earn

for themselves and their family. Nothing is more important than that

and this Government should be proud of what we have achieved. The lowest

levels of unemployment since 1975. It is very dangerous, the idea that

we would either put that had risk by making our public finances

unsustainable, by pricing small businesses out of the market. I see

the father of the House is leaving the Chamber but I hope the calm and

serenity you brought to the Chamber will linger with us for some time to

come. This issue is also about Furness, a

word I have heard repeatedly. Liverpool clinical Commission group

paid themselves increases of between 15 and 81%, a nonexecutive getting

?105,000. An NHS investigation confirmed this is far outside the

rules yet the accountable officer and the governing body have not been

held to account. Does this send a message from the Government to the

NHS that you can do what you want, and that the take-up will be

selectively applied and is not fair? It is important that all public

sector bodies stick within the rules. I draw the House's attention

to my declaration as a working NHS Dr. My right honourable friend has

told rightly about the effect that increments have on progression pay

and those who have received an increase. In the NHS, there are

500,000 staff at the top of the pay scale who have received in real

terms pay is lies. They work above and beyond the call of duty, they

gave up their days of back when there were terrorist attacks in

London and Manchester. They need a pay rise. Would she recognise that

many are turning to agency, the local agency Bill in the NHS is ?4

billion advising and part of dealing with the local agency cost is

increasing the pay of permanent staff? Doctors and other medical

staff do a vital job and have faced big challenges. I agree. We are

reducing the agency spent over time in the NHS. What I think is

important is that we look over all at the affordability for the public

sector and that is the remit that the independent pay review bodies

take. They hear the evidence from the experts on the front line, they

make the recommendation, and we accepted the recommendation for

doctors that was put forward to us. We accepted the recommendation for

nurses and other NHS workers as well. We respect that pay review

body process. Put simply, does the chief Secretary think it's fair that

public sector workers facing a cap, face for example a rise from 55 and

7% in energy prices at a time when the chief executive of SSE has had a

70% increase in his pay? Is that fair? We are taking action as a

Government on energy costs. We are as I have said making sure that

public sector workers increased increments in addition to the 1%. We

are taking action to raise the tax threshold so people on basic rate

are now paying ?1000 less tax. The honourable gentleman needs to take

account of the whole package. I think he is cherry picking some

bits. Is the chief Secretary of the Treasury aware that the Scottish

Government sets pay for 485,000 public sector workers, close to 90%

of the total public sector workers in Scotland. Would she agree with

the statement of the Cabinet Secretary for health on the 10th of

May in the Scottish Parliament when the Scottish Government voted

against a pay increase for NHS staff that we believe there can continue

to be value in the independent pay review process and is she as -- is

she aware of the Nuffield trust report that there is an? It is nice

to have one of my Scottish colleagues point out about the fact

what is happening in Scotland when we have seen the SNP failed to

deliver, worse performance in the Scottish NHS, school standards in

Scotland fall, and that is a huge shame. You are a very excitable

Denison of the House. -- denizen. I hope you will simmer down, Mr

Stevens, and regain your composure. The change for NHS staff finally but

them on a fair rate of pay with an independent pay review body. Since

2010, the Coalition Government and Tory governments have systematically

undermines pay rates by capping and freezing wages. This Government all

too ready to discount is fantastic. It would see that a fair pay award

is just that, a fantasy. The honourable lady does not acknowledge

that over half of those people on agenda for change are receiving

average incremental pay of 3.3% of the. My right honourable friend will

be aware that the NHS has attracted workers from across the EU

particularly in nursing. In looking at how we set public sector pay,

will she look at international comparisons across the EU to ensure

that the pay is set in such a way as to continue to attract these very

much needed staff to Britain and does she have any data which she has

been able to consider on this so far? The pay review bodies are

responsible for gathering the data about how we ensure that we retain

and recruit the high-quality staff we need in our NHS and certainly

that is something I note they looked at and their report this year. And

I'm sure they will look at in the future. In the exceedingly fine city

of Norwich, we have three NHS trusts, two local authorities and a

teaching hospital, thousands of public sector workers to contribute

to our economy and who at present are struggling to make ends meet.

Surely this Government must understand that posterity is dying

at his feet, investing these people, left the public sector pay cap, and

invest in Norwich's local economy. It is a win- win for everyone. I

would say to my fellow Norfolk MP we are seeing improved public services

in Norfolk including the health service and local schools. That is a

result of this Government reform and services, investing in them and also

making sure people are receiving pay that helps retain and recruit the

best possible start. -- staff. I understand it is independent and

will remain so but what is the context for those pay bodies? When

they make reviews, will they take into account historic pay rises, the

cost of living and extra influences such as Brexit?

The answer is reset the remit further Peabody last year. Those

reports have all been submitted. We have already responded to some of

them, there are further reports to respond in due course and later on

this year, we will set the remit for the 1890 Peabody 's.

. What we are doing is talking up the commitment of the people who

work of them despite the return of government and the way they are

treating them. When she looks at job satisfaction, what contributes to

job satisfaction is having time to spend with patients the nurses need.

The NHS is under such strain, they cannot spend time with the nurses

because there is so much demand. Why will she not do it through the pay

review? The honourable lady has just topped the MH S down in the question

she has just asked. -- NHS. The NHS is doing a tremendous job. We are

reducing the bureaucracy be so nurses can spend more of their time

with patients. The Health Secretary is driving an agenda of reform,

which is delivering better public services. It is worth remembering

that had the Labour Party won the general election after the great

recession, they committed to tough action on pay, including other 1%

cap on public sector pay. Does my honourable friend think that because

they do not... I think it is an issue of false consciousness on the

opposition front bench. Karen Smith. The pay review bodies operate within

a budget that is set by government. It is a political decision to not

accept a recommendation. Therefore I was in Parliament I served as an NHS

manager. They play a crucial role in both patient care and safety. Would

she agree that the equity of treatment in relation to be is

crucial forcing managers and all levels of management and the health

service to ensure the best recruitment and retention of the

best. We have accepted all of the recommendations of the pay review

bodies that we have reported on so far this year. And they are able to

make sure -- able to the recommendations they feel fit. They

are independent and what the advisers and they have to take

account of areas like retention and recruitment. Unemployment has fallen

63% in my constituency since 2010 and I have many nurses and teachers

working in my constituency. But I also have care workers Conor, all of

them have benefited from the tax changes introduced by this

government which means they have an extra ?1000 in their pockets, in

their take-home pay. Will the Chief Secretary agree with me that by

doing it through tax changes it doesn't discriminate between private

sector or public sector workers? Private and public sector workers

both have a vital part to play in the economy of this country and by

taking people out of tax we have reduced the tax bills of basic rate

tax payers by ?1000. The opposition, instead, are proposing to have the

highest levels of taxation in this country's peacetime history. And who

do we think that will fall on? It would follow in precisely the people

that we have been talking about and today's debate. Questions and

answers will need to be shorter. They are becoming ever longer as the

session has proceeded. 55% of public sector workers are not covered by

review bodies, including most of our own civil servants and some of those

on the very lowest incomes. Will the chief secretary give any hope that

real pay rises will be considered further 3 million public sector

employees without a review body and what will be the mechanism for doing

so? As for those people who are under the purview of the pay review

bodies, we also need to make sure that we are retaining and recruiting

the best possible civil servants, at the same time as making sure that it

is affordable for the public purse. Has the Shadow Chancellor knows, the

former Prime Minister did not say it was selfish for a dedicated public

service workers to ask for a pay rise. He argued it is selfish and

immoral for politicians to offer benefits to the voters of today paid

by the voters of tomorrow. Would my right honourable friend agree that

it is a important to balance their pay in the public sector with

passing on a strong economy not saddled by DAC? My honourable friend

makes an excellent points. We need to make sure our public finances are

properly sustainable so we can find those public services in the future.

And so we do not burden the next generation. Will the chief secretary

right to the cheers of all the pay review bodies because those serving

on pay review bodies are incredibly frustrated and asked them to set out

the true cost of a nurse, a teacher, a soldier, and therefore report back

to this parliament so that we can assess the independence of their

research? I am sure the honourable lady is aware of that all of the

documentation of this year's PE process will be published so she

will be to see the research they have looked at, the people that they

have interviewed, in coming to the determination they have. And in due

course I will be writing to the public sector, sorry the pay review

bodies, for the remit for the following year. Thank you, Mr

Speaker. Public sector workers are the guardians of a nation in terms

of our security, our health, our education and infrastructure. So we

need to do something for the lower paid. Can I suggest to my honourable

friend, given that corporation tax receipts have increased by 21% in

the past year, the revenues have increased. Can we not have a special

redistribution fund where we use those increased revenues to help the

lowest paid public sector workers? I thank my honourable friend for his

question. He will be aware that the flexibility we give the pay review

bodies is such that they can decide to give higher rises to those on the

lowest incomes in the public sector, and also point out that those on the

lowest incomes have benefited most from the raising of the personal

allowance as well. So there are various ways in which we need to

make sure we support those on the lowest levels of pay. The Scottish

Government announced last week that it is lifting the pay cap. And the

Labour Welsh government as the ability to do the same thing. But in

reality and labour in Wales as... 30,000 Welsh nurses are having their

pay cut in real terms. I would like them to explain to Welsh workers

wide beaver mean the lowest paid country in the United Kingdom? That

isn't the sort -- devolved issue and an issue for the Welsh government.

-- that is a devolved issue. I am close to this debate. I served in

Strathclyde Fire and Rescue Service. I am aware of the good work my

colleagues do. I have two daughters in nursing. Wine is an exhilarating

nurse. I am not hearing... What I'm hearing from the benches opposite.

They seem to enjoy their work, they worked very hard. My colleagues in

their service work hard. Is there a risk that if we continue to give

increased wages to the public sector, that causes a spiral,

inflation goes up on mortgages go up. It is the value of your

take-home aid in your pay packet. The honourable gentleman points out

the impact on the economy if we see unsustainable increases. We do need

to look at the overall package of part lick sector workers, the

reduced taxes that most public sector workers are paying. -- public

sector workers. And other areas like training. We need to make sure that

any pay raises are sustainable. I am sure you agree that public servants

are the backbone of our country. But the average full-time public sector

employee will have lost ?4073 in real terms by 2020 because of the

decisions of this real -- this government. Does she think that is

fair? I do not recognise the figure that the honourable lady has put

forward. I have outlined earlier that we have seen increments are

nearly as like teaching, in areas like nursing, and in the armed

services. Of course, we need to make sure we have got the balance between

fairness and affordability. I outlined earlier. But that is what

we have been doing. That is why we have been able to sustain high

quality public services, at the same time as reducing the deficit and

leading to the lowest unemployment we have seen for 40 years. The

factors with unsustainable introduce in public spending we would see

higher taxes, higher interest rates and a much worse outcome for working

people in this country. -- increases. The fact that we are

spending more on debt interest ban on a school encapsulates why we

should be fear across the generations when it comes to setting

a public sector pay. Does she agree with me there is nothing right or

moral in making cheap promises based on money we do not have? The Labour

government left us in a position of having a huge deficits and a huge

debt which we have had to deal worth over the last Parliament and

continues to hang over us. And that is why the only path is a

sustainable path of making sure that we grow our economy, we can enjoy

even better public services and we can see people's pay increases

across the board. I think it is safer the chamber to hear from Mr

Chris Stephens. As a passionate trade unionist for 20 years, my

notion sometimes get the better of me. Can I ask the chief strategy of

the Treasury to confirm that he is so low in some government

departments that 40% of employees of these departments receipt of tax

credits. Can I ask if she will publish each government department

how many employees are in receipt of tax credits? -- Chief Secretary of

the Treasury. We pay good rates of pay across the civil service. We

need to make sure that it is sustainable and that we can carry on

making sure that we have good services, both in the civil service

and the waders public sector. -- wider. The public are rightly so fed

up with politicians playing politics with the NHS so let's listen to what

the NHS pay review board has evidence and Z. Is my honourable

friend aware that the NHS pay review board has said, we do not see

significant recruitment issues related to pay. That is exactly why

we have independent pay review bodies, is to give us impartial

advice and make recommendations. And we accepted the recommendation that

that body made in full. NHS consultants in my constituency tell

me that morale in the NHS is at an all-time low and that is leading to

recruitment and retention. I understand that certain members of

the Cabinet are in favour of ending their public sector pay cap. Will

the government heed their calls and give public sector workers the pay

rise they deserve? I am not sure if she has heard the last hour of

discussion we have been having. We need to maintain sustainable public

finances at the same time as being fair to workers in the public

sector. In my mind to constituency, the

local NHS Trust has been crippled by the PFI deal. The money could have

been used for pay rises. Does the chief Secretary agreed that sound

economic planning in the health service is the best way to provide

their pay in the future? PFI is yet another example of how the Labour

Party spend money that they did not have and left future public service

organisations schools and hospitals with debts that they are now having

to deal with. Which is why we should not heed the irresponsible collars

from the party officer. Can I start by suggesting to the Minister that

when she tried to draw a distinction between taxpayers and public

service, public servants are taxpayers. She cannot continue to

draw that Andre distinction. Could I introduce mathematics to this? 1.2%

and 2.2%, but pay is capped at 1%, would the Minister acknowledged that

is a real time squeeze? In the election just on the Prime Minister

was challenged about using food banks and the Prime Minister said it

was a complex issue. How much does she attributed the pay gap to the

complex issue? We have the 1%. We also have incremental pay in many of

those public service professions. 2.4% in the Armed Forces, 3.3% in

the teacher 's in 2015, 16. The party officer that need to tell

people about the whole picture and not cherry pick particular numbers.

I'm sure the Secretary will agree with me that public sector members

are taxpayers. We need to look at the whole picture including the

major tax cuts since 2010 for those on the lowest wages. The party

opposite wants to count some things in their sums but not other things.

They are picking numbers rather than looking at the big picture. Would

the Minister please confirm that new Government guilds about a 10% but

that ingest rate is likely to rise as are the cost to this country

which will mean less money for our public services? He is right to

point out the macro economic picture. The fact that if we do not

have a confident deficit reduction plan which this Government has

pursued by the last seven years, the financial markets will lose

confidence and the effect on working people would be a rise in interest

rates, a rise in housing costs, and problems for the Government in terms

of our borrowing. Mr Speaker, to declare an interest, my wife is a

primary school teacher currently working as a teaching assistant.

Will the Chief Secretary ensure that the rising cost of living and the

independent pay review body recommendations are properly taken

into consideration when setting public pay policy for next year's

settlements? That is one of the factors that the pay review bodies

look at along with areas like recruitment, retention, making sure

that the pay settlement is affordable. They have the

responsibility of speaking to people like your wife who work in the

public services, hearing what they have to say and making a

determination. There are different issues across different public

services and I think it is wrong to suggest this is a one size fits all.

The Shadow Chancellor mentioned inequality. In fact, income

inequality is down since 2010 and now the top 1% will pay 27% of all

income tax. A higher proportion than ever it was under Labour. Doesn't

this show that the Labour Party tried to talk tough when it comes to

a quality but it comes to the Conservatives to deliver? The Shadow

Chancellor does not like the fact to get in the way of his rants. Point

of order. I fail to declare the fact that my wife is a primary school

teacher as I did when I asked another relevant question and I

apologise and thank you for allowing me to correct the record. Thank you

for putting that on the record. Statement, the Minister of... I

would like to update the House on the ongoing work to rehouse the

victims of Grenfell Tower stop three weeks have not passed. It soon

became clear that the delivery of the initials response on the ground

was simply not the norm. Since then, much has been done to support

victims. To see that justice is done and ensure that other buildings

around the country are safe throughout, our first priority has

been helping victims who have suffered such an unspeakable trauma.

We have been working hard to ensure they have all the help they need.

Securing emergency accommodation and making financial and emotional

support available as quickly as possible. The response efforts have

been coordinated by the Grenfell Tower this post -- response team. It

has been drawn from local councils, wider Government sector, voluntary

sector, police, health and Fire Service as well as central

Government. I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to them for all

their immense efforts of the last few weeks. The new leader of the

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Elizabeth Campbell, has

given a apology for the inadequate initial response. She has asked for

help from central Government to put things right. As the committee

Secretary set out in a written statement, we will establish an

independent task force to help the Royal Borough of Kensington and

Chelsea build the capability to deal with the longer-term challenge of

recovery. The Prime Minister promised that we would make an offer

of temporary housing to all of those who lost their homes as a result of

the fire within three weeks. These are good quality, fully furnished

homes that families can move on from emergency accommodation and live

rent free in a proper home whilst permanent accommodation on equal

terms is found. 115 families from Grenfell Tower and Walk have been

identified needing such outing. I can confirm that every family has

been offered a temporary home. 139 have received offers of

accommodation. 19 families have not yet been ready to engage in this

process. We need to respect that. Some are still in hospital as a

result of their injuries. In some cases, the people on the grounds

offering the family support have been clear it would be inappropriate

at this time to ask them to make a decision about where they will live.

These families, Mr Speaker, have been through unimaginable trauma. We

need to go as debased that they want to go. What matters above all else

is what the individually want. The Grenfell Tower 's response team has

been working with 139 families currently engage with the process to

match them with appropriate debris accommodation and talk to them about

their long-term needs. The housing team has identified and secured over

200 good quality property so that residents can have a choice of where

to live some I know have raised concerns about the quality. All

properties have been inspected by the housing team to make sure they

are in a good condition. My right honourable friend the Communities

Secretary personally as seen an example of the kind of property on

offer. Representatives of local residents groups have been a steward

of the quality and seen them. If the shadow minister would find it

helpful, I would like to visit some of these properties with him to

insure him of equality. The properties are local. This means

that families can continue to go to the same GP, the near vendor

relatives and send children to the same school. 14 of us are temporary

accommodation have been accepted, three families have moved in, and I

expect this family to increase -- I expect this number to increase but

we have to respect the pace at which the families which to move. I have

personally met over 30 of the families affected directly. From

talking to them I understand there are many reasons they are reluctant

to take up these offers. Some might choose to remain in hotels until

they have a permanent tenancy offer. We understand one of the big issues

holding people back is the lack of trust. Some families were told they

were moving into Grenfell Tower on it every basis and then, years

later, they were still there. Their concerns are entirely

understandable. That is trust that we need to work out to earn. We also

have to respect their decision that they do not wish to move out of

temporary accommodation before permanent housing is available. We

will keep on making offers to families of local homes we think

would be suitable for them. No one, Mr Speaker, will be forced into a

home that they do not want to move into. A number of reports have been

made claiming people are being told to move far from London. Or that

they may be deemed homeless if they do not accept an offer. I want to be

clear to the House, if this is ever suggested to a victim, then it is

completely unacceptable. I have already stated that if anyone is

aware of an individual family not receiving the offer we have

promised, please tell me. We will fix this. I repeat that called to

the House now. Let me set out again what the Government has committed to

do. Every household debt is ready to talk has been offered temporary

accommodation. -- puzzle that is ready to talk. We'll continue to

work with families to make sure their needs are met. Everyone whose

home was destroyed by the fire will be guaranteed a new home on the same

terms as the one they lost. This means paying the same rent with the

same level of security and in the same area. And when it comes to

permanent housing, we have already announced a new block of social

housing that will provide 68 new homes in Kensington. We're working

with a number of developers to develop similar properties either in

Kensington and Chelsea are very close to North Kensington. So that

families can stay in the same area. These negotiations are not yet

concluded and we need to work closely with residents to make sure

that the sort of properties we are able to make available will match

what they want. There are 17 leaseholders who lost their homes

and we're making sure do not lose out financially because of the fire.

I met with a group of the leaseholders and we are working with

them individually to find the right solution for them. On my visit to

the Westway, hearing the harrowing accounts of survivors has been the

most humbling and moving The families that I've met have been

through unimaginable pain. This is a tragedy that should never have

happened. And we are determined to do all that we can to make sure

something like this never happens again. Sir John Healey. Thank you Mr

Speaker, can I welcome the Minister to this dispatch box for his first

oral statement in this job. And thank him for the copy of his

statement. Can I also had the thanks from our site to John Balladur and

the emergency response team as well as to the community organisations

still supporting survivors. The Minister has had a testing first few

weeks. I hope he knows now that whatever he says it is the

government's actions that count in getting Grenville Tower residents to

help and new housing they need. -- Grenfell Tower residents. And giving

the wider local community in North Kensington the confidence that what

is promised will be done. I have to say to him, the government's been

slow to act, it's been off the pace at each stage following this

terrible tragedy. And it's clear from this statement that in some

ways it still is. After the fire, in this house, the Prime Minister said,

and I quote "I have fixed a deadline of three weeks for everybody

affected to be found a home nearby". Three weeks are up. Get whole

families who have lost everything -- yet whole families who have lost

everything are still in hotels and hostels. Just three of the 158

families from Grenfell Tower have moved into a fresh home. And these

are only temporary, not what the Prime Minister first set. Plus only

11 others have so far been found somewhere that they feel they can

say yes to. So why have so few families been successfully matched

with fresh accommodation? And is it the case, as I've been told, some

have been offered accommodation with too few bedrooms, or in another

tower block, or, indeed, with bizarre conditions attached,

including milk overnight stay for family or friends. -- including no

overnight stay. A hotel room is no home and temporary housing is no

place to rebuild shattered lives. So when, when will all those now

homeless from the fire be offered a new permanent home? The Minister

mentioned the 68 homes in Kensington Road, in that development. They were

already allocated for social housing, so how many extra social

homes as the government or the Council made available in the

borough? Will the government guaranteed the number of new social

homes planned before the fire will be increased by at least the number

needed now as a result of the fire? And what assessment has the

government made with the mea of London and the other London boroughs

of the knock-on consequences on temporary accommodation, social

housing and council waiting list across the city. The Minister

mentioned a recovering task force for Kensington and Chelsea. This is

the task force sent in now to take over from the task force sent in

three weeks ago. Kensington and Chelsea is a failing council. It has

even fails to admit it is failing. And the fundamental concern about

this council is not just capability, it's the total lack of trust that

residents or anyone else had in it. And the government concedes this by

sending in the task force. Yet leaves the Council in charge. We on

this site, Mr Speaker, want the task force to work, but doubt that it

will. It can advise, but it cannot act. It lacks the powers of decision

or action that commissioners would bring. And public confidence in this

council will just not be restored by replacing one set of leaders by

politicians from the same ruling group. So what will be the tests for

this task force? And what will be the tests for further council

failings before ministers take the full intervention steps needed as

they have in other areas? And finally, Mr Speaker, the fears

following the fire go well beyond Grenfell Tower, as do the

consequences. Hundreds of thousands of people whose homes are in

high-rise blocks across the rest of the country want to know their homes

are safe. And this means the full building has been tested for fire

safety. Not just one component of the cladding outside. All

replacement cladding and fire prevention works necessary to

guarantee safety are done. And that no remedial action is delayed, or

not done, because the council or housing association hasn't got the

funding. So how much funding as the government set aside for these

costs? Has the Treasury agreed access to the contingency fund, and

will he today, to give reassurance to tower block residents, make the

clear commitment to full upfront funding for whatever work is needed

to make these high-rise homes safe? When ministers have rightly said you

can't put a price on people's lives, this is what it means. Mr Speaker I

thank the Right Honourable gentleman for his comments. Perhaps I can take

interim appointees raised. First, in terms of actions, they think we've

been very clear, the Prime Minister has made clear the initial response

wasn't good enough. She said that at the dispatch box. My ministry

colleagues and I have been engaged in meetings with the community

individual basis but also in terms of community meetings. That work

will continue. The three-week offer the right honourable gentleman

refers to was to make sure that we offered people who wanted to the

temporary accommodation. He's talked about numbers. As I said, we're

working with all the families involved and I would expect that

number to rise. I know he will acknowledge, I know everyone in the

house will acknowledge, it is not up to government, indeed any member in

this house, to determine the pace at which families should move. That has

to be up to them. We have to treat them with sensitivity. And that's

very much what we're doing. He talked about whether people are

being housed in tower blocks, that is not the case. I know there was

initially some reporting about tower blocks. I believe that was in

relation to emergency accommodation in hotels. That will tower blocks.

We responded to that. He talked about the affordable housing. Can I

just confirmed, Mr Speaker, Kensington Row was not designated

social housing it was affordable housing, so this is a net increase.

We are looking to provide a net increase in the number of homes in

the social sector. He made reference to the task force, the independent

recovery task force that has now been appointed. This will report

directly to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. We

should be in a position to announce further details over the coming

weeks. I just want to be very clear about this, there's a special focus

on this recovery task force on housing, regeneration and community

engagement. Mr Speaker, the right honourable gentleman talked about

high-rise blocks. And I do understand that those living in

similar blocks across the country will have concerns. But that is why

we acted immediately. We made sure we informed local authorities and

housing associations of checks they needed to do. We put in place a

regime for them to send us the cladding materials on any building

they felt was suspect. That testing has been going on at pace. We've

been very clear that local authorities and housing associations

should do whatever is necessary to keep people safe. If there are

issues to do with funding, we'll work with individual local

authorities and housing associations. But it is absolutely

vital that we make sure that everyone who lives in such a block

is kept safe. He will also know that he talked about wider tests. When we

wrote to local authorities and housing associations on the 22nd of

June, we also asked to look at issues related to conciliation and

to check that. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has

appointed on the 27th of June an expert panel to advise on these

matters. The expert panel met on Thursday the 29th of June and agreed

that a range of matters it will look at, particularly to consider whether

there are immediate initial actions to be taken to secure the safety of

additional high-rise buildings. Mr Speaker, I know this is a subject

that I wish we weren't here having to debate. But what I would say, I

found this actually in the discussions I've had with colleagues

from around the house, this is a time for us to be working together.

There is a public inquiry. There is a criminal investigation underway.

They will apportion blame and they will leave no stone unturned. This

is the time for us to work together, so I say again to colleagues

including the right honourable gentleman. If there are any

individuals any of us feels are not getting the right level of support,

please, come to me, I stand ready to assist and help. Mark Wolsey. It's

very clear the Minister fully understands the very great

challenges the residents face. Anyone who has had dealings with

their local authority housing department will recognise the

difficulties of quickly finding accommodation, particularly in an

area of high housing demand such as North Kensington. And will perhaps

understand a long-term solution will take time. I wonder if the Minister

can provide reassurances to residents that their needs will be

paramount and they'll be given a choice of housing suitable for their

needs. Mr Speaker I can absolutely confirm that to my honourable

friend. As I said, it actually doesn't matter what any of us in

this house think about the accommodation that is on offer, what

matters is what the individual families think. We're going to keep

working with them to make sure we get the right accommodation in the

right area, which meets their needs. Kirsty Blackman. Thank you very much

Mr Speaker, I like to thank the Minister again for his statement.

And also for coming to the house so regularly with statements, it's very

much appreciated across the house. There have been some reports, Mr

Speaker, about some of the families currently not having security in the

emergency accommodation they are in, and being concerned about where they

might be sleeping tonight or tomorrow night, not having certainty

within that emergency accommodation. I would appreciate if the Minister

could update us on the situation there, particularly with regards to

those still in emergency accommodation. I'd like to ask about

what support, Mr Speaker, the families are being given when moving

into temporary accommodation to ensure they have the ability to buy

your purchase or get those things that make a home-made home. Toys for

children, ornaments, things that make a home not just a shell. I

appreciate properties are fully furnished, but that is not all the

things a family needs for example. I hope we will continue to receive

updates. I appreciate that the public inquiry will be taking place,

into the circumstances that led up to this matter. We've asked it be as

wide as possible and that the residents views be taken into

account at all times about the nature of the inquiry. I'd also like

to ask that the minister commits to looking at the response put in place

after this, and to do either an inquiry, some sort of assessment as

to how the response came about, so we can ensure going forward, if

there is ever need, and we hope there isn't, needs to respond to a

disaster like this again, that we come across the nations of the UK,

are learning from what has happened here, so we can put in the best

response possible. Mr Speaker, I thank the honourable lady for her

words, acknowledging that ministers have been coming forward on a

regular basis to update. That is right, that is exactly what we

should be doing, particularly at this time. She raises a number of

points. With regard... I appreciate in the initial stages there were

concerns some people were being asked to move at very short notice.

I believe that has been rectified. People are going to be given much

more notice and we're going to try to keep people in the hotels which

they become familiar with so long as they are happy with those. I've had

individual conversations relating to hotel accommodation with some of the

families and we've managed to fix that. When it comes to money,

absolutely, if you've lost absolutely everything, you need to

make sure you have ready funds available to replace that. We have a

discretionary fund, 249 payments of ?500 have been made so far to those

of Grenfell Tower and Grenville walk. 840 payments have been made in

terms of discretionary payments to others in the wide area. The total

spend is two and a half million pounds. Of course, where funding is

required, we will make sure that is available.

Shall talk about a public enquiry, Sir Martin Moore-Bick has been

appointed and has already met victims, survivors, members of the

local community, and I just want to be clear once again, I know the

house already knows this, but legal support for victims will be provided

so they can play a full part. Clearly it is up to the judge to

determine the scope of the enquiry. But I'm sure he will have heard

people want is fall and enquiry as possible. World, I'm keen to

accommodate the level of interest in this extremely serious matter, about

which I suspect there will be many statements in the weeks to come but

I just advise the house that both of these subsequent debates are well

subscribed, especially the debate on Israel - Palestine, that is very

heavily subscribed, and therefore I must leave time for that, so what is

required in each case is a short, preferably single sentence,

question. Sir Oliver Heald. My honourable friend mentioned there

are a number of families who have not yet engaged over rehousing, and

of course the community in Latimer Road and Westway have been

marvellous and putting their arms around these families, but would he

confirm that even if there is a delay before the families engage,

they will still have the same priority, they will still be given

the rights of rehousing that he has mentioned? I can absolutely confirm

that and can I also pay tribute to the local community and volunteers

who have worked so hard to support these families. Is the Minister

aware that, despite the press narrative of survivors refusing

million pound luxury flats, some are being offered totally unsuitable

accommodation? In particular one man who I think the Minister has met,

who runs his own business and cares for his elderly disabled mother was

offered a home in a poorly maintained and rat infested estate

that is about to be demolished. For this traumatised family who escaped

with their lives while rescuing their neighbours, what kind of peace

and stability could they possibly find in this frankly shameful offer?

And I would really like to know who considered that kind of

accommodation to be suitable? Mr Speaker, we do not want any family

to be placed in accommodation is unsuitable, so could I invite the

honourable lady to join me and the Shadow minister. Let's go and visit

some of these properties and make sure that she is also happy with the

quality of what is on offer. Eddie Hughes. Thank you Mr Speaker, in his

statement the minister suggested some of those who were in Grenfell

Tower had been there five years, despite being assured it was

temporary accommodation. Can the Minister assure us that those now

placed in temporary accommodation won't subsequently have described as

permanent? I absolutely can offer that assurance, Mr Speaker. Vera

Hobhouse. Will the Minister agree that the uptake of only 14 families

for temporary accommodation is disappointing, and if he does not

agree that it is to do with the quality of the housing but the lack

of trust, what is being done to build this trust? Mr Speaker, I just

want to go back to the point that I think the pace at which this happens

has to be at the behest of the families but there is an issue about

lack of trust. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has

written letters directly to families affected, setting out very clearly

what it is we are offering but we have to continue to build on that

trust. In addition to the discretionary funds, can I ask the

what ministers have had to ensure whether there are house holidays --

there are policies in place that they are paid out as quickly as

possible? I can confirm the Treasury are looking at overall matters. Does

the minister know how many of the households in Grenfell had previous

experience of the homelessness system? Because though that have all

now it is feral, that they were living in bad quality accommodation,

such -- subject to frequent moves, insecure, and in some cases staying

in temporary accommodation for up to a decade. Does he understand that is

the context that feeds the catastrophic mistrust of residence

and he needs to deal with those wider factors as well as the

immediate reality. I have already acknowledged there has been a lack

of trust. This is what ministers on the side make sure we work to

restore. The Minister has referred to a number of leaseholders who hold

their only sin the flat and could he outlined what steps he has taken to

ensure their security? I met with a number of the leaseholders

yesterday. We have asked them to provide us with further information

relating to their lease, and we expect from next week to start

having those individual discussions. There have been two fires in my

constituency since the Grenfell Tower and they were not in

high-rises. Can the minister explain what systematic action is being

taken to prevent other fires, because people are very concerned,

and secondly, what will he do to make sure we strengthen the powers

of the regulators to address the concerns of residents when they

raised the alarm bells? I talked about the expert advisory panel that

will look at many of these matters but as the Prime Minister herself

said last week's PMQs, we will need to look much more widely at what has

under different governments, different councils, and we will make

sure we get to the bottom of this. It is absolutely vital people feel

safer that is what we are going to make sure happens. I thank the

Minister for his statement. And for providing assurances to survivors

that they will be supported at a pace that they want. There have been

disputed reports in the media over the number of missing residents. But

efforts have been made to help identify missing residents? Mr

Speaker, we want to build up is for a list as possible of people who

were in that building at that tragic time. And as my honourable friend

will know, the director of prosecutions has come forward and

said people will not be prosecuted if they were subletting illegally.

They are going to be exempt from prosecution, so I hope if there are

people who are aware of those who were in the building that we do not

know about, I hope they will come forward. I would like to share the

words of my constituent, Jess. "I Am a firefighter and went into Grenfell

Tower, rescuing an unconscious girl from the 12th floor. Myself and my

fellow firefighters will never forget the horrors of that night and

the fact we could not rescue everyone, but we are not to blame

for these deaths. The shocking and tragic fire in Grenfell Tower was

available. I have never seen a building go up in flames quickly. It

took minutes for the fire to hop from floor before. This tragedy has

shown the laws on fire safety and building and not fit for purpose.

But would the Minister said to Mike constituent and what support have

you put in place for workers like? I would firstly pay tribute to the

incredible work the firefighters did that night, not just that night but

they do every day throughout the year. In terms of support, I am

aware that we need to make sure trauma counselling is available on

that is happening also for the firefighters. That is vital. The

public enquiry is there to get to the bottom of what happened, and

that is what we are going to make sure takes place. Ultimately, we

cannot have something like this, this kind of tragedy, ever happening

again in our country. The minister spoke about the importance of

building trust amongst the community. Would he agree it is

important we don't inadvertently diminished trust in the judge and

the enquiry, Judge Moore Bick, without good cause? Of course we

would all like to see the judiciary in this country more accurately

represent the population, but we mustn't cast aspersions on their

impartiality before they have even begun their enquiry. My honourable

friend is absolutely right. Sir Martin has already met some of the

victims and survivors and I think we need to allow him to sit out the

full scope of his enquiry. We are losing the installation protection

that the cladding offers and when winter comes if that cladding is not

replaced, those homes may struggle to be warm and dry. Can ministers

say what assessment they are making now that need to have those

buildings properly insulated the winter, so that people are warm, dry

and save? As the honourable lady will know, in cases where the

cladding is coming down, new cladding is also planned to go up,

which is noncombat dial. May I just commend the Minister on his very

calm and dignified approach today on what has been a dreadful disaster.

It has struck me and all of us in Northern Ireland are terribly

affected and deeply moved by what has happened in that tower block. It

concerns me that those who have survived are now facing an

indeterminate length of time in different accommodation. I think it

would help matters enormously if the government would commit to help with

the rents if the rents are hired them what they have been used to add

Grenfell Tower. I think there is a moral obligation on behalf of the

government to give that reassurance to them. The emergency accommodation

is rent-free, I should have explained myself properly. The

financial provisions the Minister referred to for local authorities

who are trying to sort out throughout the country seems very ad

hoc. Would it not be much better to set up a specific fund local

authorities can draw down and make therefore a proportionate amount of

money available to local authorities in Wales? What is important is we

respond to the needs of individual authorities and local councils are

is what will do in conversations with them. Can I gently say, at

local level a fund about whose control won't work, the local

community don't want the usual suspect in charge of Kensington and

Chelsea. Will he say today that there will not be any loss for

social or affordable housing, that every single unit that is used will

be replaced? It is wrong that people on waiting lists are being made to

pay the price and they will suffer the consequence of Grenfell. Mr

Speaker, there is a change of leadership, as he knows, at the

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and there is the independent

task force that my right honourable friend has now announced. Can I just

said, in terms of the quality of the housing that people will be putting

in on a permanent basis, that absolutely has to be of very good

quality that is what we will insure. We all know who the villains of the

piece are, but I think it is right that we mention the heroes, and I

thank the Minister for his war of words today. And also his gratitude

to those councils like the London Borough of Ealing who have committed

resources and staff to help that he will be aware that one of the most

active groups within the area are the local faith communities, Saint

Francis of Assisi, what plans does he have for meeting collectively

with this group to have done so much for so many people with so few

resources in the area? Mr Speaker, we have committed to meet with

community groups, we have already done so, ministers have only done so

and he is absolutely right. My right honourable friend has also met some

of these groups, as has my honourable friend the Minister of

State at the Home Office. But I absolutely understand it is vital

that we understand with these community groups and faith groups to

make sure they provide their input as well.

I felt the Minister showed real humility in his contribution.

Humility I should say not shown by his Secretary of State at the local

government conference, who sought to attack the local government sector

for the failings of an individual council. If he won't stick up for

local government, I will and I will say this, Kensington and Chelsea do

not represent local government as a whole. My question is this:

regulations will take time to resolve, and to work through and to

find better quality regulation for building control, but today there

are properties being built with government money through the housing

investment fund the ball to Greater Manchester and Birmingham, East

Anglia etc, where we can be insistent that sprinters are

installed today. Can -- sprinklers. I am sorry to say this to the

honourable gentleman but my right honourable friend has been working

incredibly hard on this issue from day one on this issue with me. This

is a time for us to come together on this issue particularly. May I...

With regard to building regulations we have an expert panel, we

understand... Mr Dennis Skinner. I think if the government in

particular wants a little bit of advice from a mere observer of this

tower in I think it's time we had an end to government members and their

supporters howling with derision at the very mention of health and

safety, and having resolutions to get rid of red tape and regulation.

The truth is, had there been more red tape and regulation in those

blocks, we wouldn't be talking about it today. Minister. I respectfully

point out to the honourable gentleman regulations were set out

in 2006 and there was of course a Labour government. The reality is we

have to learn lessons. We have to learn lessons from this. Where

people have lessons to offer, we will listen. Order. Point of order,

Barbara Paul Kealy. On a point of order Mr Speaker, on Monday evening

the Secretary of State for Health published a written ministerial

statement suggesting local authority access to the ?2 billion funding for

social care announced in the spring budget will now be dependent on

performance against targets for delayed transfer of care meaning

some councils could lose funding they've already planned to spend

this year. Today, Mr Speaker, the local government Association has

been left with no choice but to withdraw its support for guidance on

better care funding. Social care is already in crisis, this can only

make things worse. Have you had a statement from the Secretary of

State for Health as to whether he intends to come to the house to make

a statement and where this leaves funding for social care to give

honourable members the chance to make tweet ask questions? The short

answer is that I've received no indication of any attention by a

minister to come to the house to make a statement on that matter. I'm

very conscious of the important that the honourable lady and probably

others attached to it. And also of the evident urgency which she

attaches to the subject. The honourable lady is an experienced

member of the house and, as we approach the summer recess, I rather

imagine that she will diligently keep an eye on the subject. And if

she is dissatisfied with what is set, or by the absence of anything

being said, she knows that there are options available to her to secure

the attention of and comments by the relevant minister. Point of order,

Stuart Malcolm MacDonald. Thank you very much Mr Speaker, you will be

aware this new parliament and the previous parliament, my colleagues

and I had a partly successful campaign to save Glasgow's job

centres from closure. More than an hour ago I read in the press about

the department's plans. 35 minutes ago, the department's plans were

laid down in the house through a ministerial written statement.

Despite a request for there to be an oral statement so we can have a full

and proper discussion on these matters. Mr Speaker, can you advise

me and my colleagues how we can get a minister to that dispatch box to

ask why there has been no published equality impact assessment, wider

consultation responses still haven't been published six months later, so

we can hold them to account on the fact they still want to close seven

of our city's job centres. The short answer is that I am in a position to

advise the honourable gentleman who I thank for his point of order. The

essence of my advice is to impress upon the honourable gentleman the

importance of repetition. The honourable gentleman has raised the

issue now, and his representations will have been heard on the Treasury

bench. And the honourable gentleman, who is a seasoned habitue of the

chamber will know that tomorrow we have business questions. Now, I

firmly expect the honourable gentleman to be in his place and to

be bobbing with great intensity up and down in order to catch my eye to

question the leader of the house on weather and, if so, when, there will

be an oral statement on this matter. I look forward to seeing the

honourable gentleman bright eyed and bushy tailed in his seat in the

chamber tomorrow morning. If there are no further points of order, the

clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day. Supply and

appropriation Main Estimates Bill, second reading. The minister to move

for money? The question is that the bill now be read a second time. The

ayes habit. The bill will be read to the third time. The ayes have it. We

come to motion number two on the Northern Ireland order. The Minister

to move. Minister Chloe Smith. Thank you very much indeed Mr

Speaker. I beg to move that the draft justice and security Northern

Ireland act 2007, extension of the provisions of the 20 17th that was

laid before this house on the 22nd of June the approved. Under this

order, trials without jury can take place in Northern Ireland for a

further two years from the 1st of August 20 17. The current provisions

expire on the 31st of July. Whilst this is the fifth such extension of

these provisions, I hope to leave members in no doubt as to the

continued necessity of such provisions for another two years.

May I take the opportunity to welcome the dignity Speaker, Madam

Deputy Speaker, to her place for the first time in which I stand at this

dispatch box, I'm sure we all enjoyed serving under her

chairmanship this afternoon. Honourable members will be aware of

the lethal threat posed by terrorists in Northern Ireland.

Dissident republican terrorist groups continue to plan and mount

attacks with the principal aim of killing or maiming those who serve

the public in all communities so bravely. Police officers, prison

officers and members of the Armed Forces are the main focus of these

attacks. The terrorists continued use of explosive devices and other

weaponry continues to cause death and injury. Individuals linked to

paramilitary organisations also continue to undermine peace and the

rule of law in Northern Ireland. Through the use of violence and

intimidation in both Republican and Loyalist communities. I want to

assure honourable members that the government wishes to end the

exceptional system of nonjury trials as soon as it is no longer

necessary. But this should only happen when the circumstances allow.

Otherwise we risk allowing violence and intimidation to undermine the

criminal justice process in Northern Ireland. Regrettably, yes, of

course... Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker and I'm delighted to say for

the first occasion I'm delighted to welcome the new minister to the

dispatch box to debate this important piece of legislation. It

would be helpful to the house if the minister would indicate the types of

trials the individuals who have gone through this procedure, this nonjury

trial procedure in the recent past, and indicate whether they have in

fact been Loyalist paramilitary 's, republican paramilitaries or

predominantly one or the other, that would be helpful, I think. I thank

the honourable lady for her comments. What I shall do initially

in my remarks here is I want to set up the types of the conditions under

which such a trial can be granted first of all, which I think will

begin to help answer the question she puts. I shall also come onto the

numbers of such trials that we see. I worked, as she appreciates, be

able to comment on any lift cases or bats give every single detail she

asks for, but I endeavour to give the house a strong sense of what

these trials are used for. Allow me to intervene again. I'm busy not

asking the Minister to comment upon those cases or ongoing, but we've

had this procedure, non-jury trials in Northern Ireland, sectional to

Northern Ireland, and I fully understand it's important, nonjury

trials, in the context of Northern Ireland. What I think the minister

needs to explain to the community and the house is that this is not a

one-sided process, but those who've been through it has been convicted

or indeed acquitted, they come from both loyalist and republican

paramilitary groups. I think that would be helpful. The simplest short

answer is, yes, indeed, that is the case, it is absolutely the case that

the provisions we are looking at here have and will apply across

communities. There is no doubt of that. Allow me to continue with the

rest of my opening remarks, then I shall be sure to try to answer

everything else in the course of this committee. I was just making

the point, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the government wishes to end

this because it is an exceptional system, and wishes to do so as soon

as circumstances allow. While many attacks that would have wanted to

visit violence and intimidation upon the criminal justice process, many

such attacks have been disrupted, the security situation today does

remain much the same as it was in 2015 when the house last looked at

these measures. The threat from terrorism in Northern Ireland is

assessed to be severe. This year alone four national-security attacks

have occurred in Northern Ireland including the wounding of a police

officer serving the community. It would be remiss, I think, of the

government to dispose of these provisions now, given this threat.

And the impact that threat might have on the delivery of criminal

justice to all communities in Northern Ireland. I think also it

might be a weak argument to suggest that because we have these

provisions for a long time we should move on from them. In the last two

years attacks by dissident republicans Loyalist paramilitaries

have put countless innocent lives in danger. Members may be aware of the

incident on the Crumlin Road in Belfast when two police officers

came under attack from dissident republicans, leaving one officer

badly injured. The forecourt of a busy filling station was sprayed

with automatic gunfire, demonstrating the utter disregard

these groups show for human life, and the harm they pose to ordinary

members of the public. Sadly, this despicable attack was not an

isolated incident, there were four confirmed national-security attacks

in 2016. Four so far this year, underlying the persistence of the

threat we face. The presence of dissident republicans and

paramilitaries in Northern Ireland means violence and intimidation

remains a concern for the wider community. There have been figures

released by the police service in Northern Ireland, the SNI, joint

there has been an increased number of security related deaths over the

past three years, as well as an increasing trend in the number of

paramilitary assaults is 2012-2013. Police and public

in 2016-17 there were 137 arrests and 19 charges related to terrorism.

I pay tribute to the work of the PS and I and their partners because it

is having an impact on the threat. But the security situation remains

serious. On that point, may I speak from personal experience, there is

huge intimidation in some of these courts of the witnesses. From the

public gallery. Which is very difficult to control. And I have to

tell you, I was frightened. I welcome my honourable and gallant

colleague's experience. Brought to bear on this debate. He is right.

I'm just about to go on to the circumstances in which nonjury

trials are appropriate. It comes on to these very points about

intimidation of those involved in the justice process. I think he will

also be aware of some other jury reforms which have been committed

administratively, which I hope to see succeed. I think the Minister

for giving way. I think the information she has outlined, she's

making the case very, very well. That this system should be renewed.

Would she agree with me that it is essential for all sections of the

community in Northern Ireland to support security forces and the work

they are doing. Yes, I would, Madam Deputy Speaker, yes, I would. We are

talking here today about a threat that grows across all communities,

goes to the wider public, I hope I've begun to make that clear in my

remarks. I'll go onto the precise ways in which justice is threatened.

And what these measures in front of us here today are for. Nonjury trial

provisions are available in exceptional circumstances in

Northern Ireland, where a risk to the demonstration of justice is

suspected, jury tampering for example, whereby intimidation,

violence or threat of violence against members of the jury could

result in a convert conviction or acquittal. The DPP may issue a

certificate that allows nonjury trial to be held in relation to any