19/07/2017 House of Commons

and hauled herself until that point we look forward to what she wishes

to unburden herself. Urgent question.

To ask the Secretary of State for justice if he will make a statement

on safety in prisons and the findings of Her Majesty's Chief

Inspector 's annual report? Thank you. Independent scrutiny is

an essential part of our prison service and I would like to thank

the Chief inspector and his team for their work in delivering this

including through his annual report. The report raises some important

issues in relation to safety and security, we have been clear a calm

and ordered environment must be created to ensure effective

rehabilitation and achieving this is our priority. The current levels of

violence and self harm in the adult estate are unacceptable. Issues in

our prisons have deep roots, they will not be a overnight and we are

planning immediate action to stabilise them with significant

investment. Examples include investing 100 million a year to

bring in another 2500 prison officers by the end of next year,

making significant process was an increase of 515 by the end of March

compared to previous quarter. On youth Justice, the annual report

highlights issues regarding use estate and I would reassure the

member safety and welfare of every young person in custody is of

paramount importance to me and we are clear up more must be done to

achieve this. In response to the review of youth justice system last

December the Government acknowledged the serious issues it faces and that

is why we are reforming the system. Let me give you three examples.

Firstly we have created a new youth custody servers with an executive

director for the first time, secondly, the development of a new

youth justice specialist offers a role ensures more staff can

specifically be trained to work with young people to boost the number on

operational front line in institutions by 20% and recruiting

workers specifically trained to work within the youth sector. Thirdly,

the introduction of a more individualised approach for young

people focus on education and health, enhancing the workforce,

improving governance and developing the security state. Finally, the

report expresses disappointment about the implementation rate of the

recommendations and are recognised as concerned and to address this we

have created a new unit was on Her Majesty's proposed and -- prison and

probation service to make sure recommendations are taken forward in

a timely manner and track how Leanne fomented by prisons. The issues with

that our prisons will not be resolved overnight but we are

determined to make progress as quickly as possible and I hope

members on both sides of the house will support our plans for reform.

Thank you. Last year the chief inspector reported to many of our

prisons have become unacceptably violent and dangerous. This year he

reports the situation has not improved and has got worse. Staff

assaults up by 30% in the 12 month to December 20 16. The 20 in local

prisons and institutes inspected last year, 21 were judged to be

people are not sufficiently goods in safety. Only two weeks ago I raised

the issues at Feltham Young offenders Institute but this report

is because even greater concern. The increase in violence is a crisis of

the Government's own making, the warning signs have been there, MPs

have warned them, by staff in our prisons and by charities. Now they

have been by this damning report. The budget for prisons have been cut

by more than one fifth over the last five years, which is proved to be a

false economy. Prison staff got by one quarter and those remaining are

put at risk now. The human impact of austerity is laid bare at the door

of our prison system. Effective prisons should be about

rehabilitation so people come out less likely to offend but with

drugs, building contributing to violence that has been found to be

compounded by staffing levels described as simply too low to keep

order and of a decent regime. In the last parliament the Government

introduced a bill to address safety concerns, the bill was lost at the

solution. Despite recognition of prison safety being in the Tory

manifesto no present legislation was announced in the 2017 Queen's speech

so can the Minister confirm that there is any intention to bring back

legislation and can he update the house as to why one third of the

prisons have also been found to not have implemented the prisons and

probation recommendations to reduce the risk of self-inflicted death?

What action is being taken to address Government's concerns and

the extensive use of force and segregation and can the Minister

update the house on the implementation of recruitment and

action to keep experienced staff and retain new staff. Our prison service

is no longer fit for purpose and the Government must take urgent action.

We fully recognise the difficulties in the prison system and have been

honest about that. The staffing issue has been indicated as a

problem and has been addressed in the last year and we have appointed

more than 500 to March and on course to fulfil our target of 2500 extra

officers by the end of next year. I would argue the unforeseen

exacerbation in prisons has been spice. And drug use also. It was not

anticipated by any previous Government and this is undeniably

causing difficulties both in terms of behaviour of the prisoners and

indeed the corruption of the prisoners and some staff with

regards to the trade in these substances. I would finally see the

mental health purposes with prisons are also issues which I take very

seriously and yesterday had meetings with those who have the

responsibility for this. We recognise we must improve mental

health services in both custody and community for offenders. We

recognise substance misuse and services operate must improve in

both custody and community and are working hard in order to improve

them because we know they are contributing to the problems the

honourable lady is mentioned. Finally, with reference the youth

and in particular to Felton, the use of segregation is an issue and has

been with the case raised. I cannot comment on that particular case

because there is an appeal, however, it indicates how difficult it can be

to manage young people. Over the past ten years the population of

people being held in custody as fallen from 3000 1000, that is

something to celebrate, however, what is not to celebrate it

initially when the target was set before 2010, there was no plan in

place in order to change the infrastructure to meet the demands

of dealing with 1000 extremely difficult young people at any one

time and the management and we are seeing problems, not just at that

Institute but across the system in youth justice and these are things I

am fully aware of that why we are bringing forward to new things over

the next two years. The ministry's right to be frank

that at the Minister is right to be frank about the dire state of others

in prisons which the select committee highlighted in several

reports -- of our prisons. Would he recognise although there is no

present resolution proposed in the current session it would be

appropriate for the Government to take forward much of the prison

reform agenda but does not require legislation and in particular will

he commit to sure that data is provided and update is provided to

this house on the progress of implementation of Her Majesty's

Inspectorate's recommendations. We do not have to have a recommendation

about! Legislation -- we do not need legislation to track the progress

being made. I congratulate him on his reappointment as chair of the

just the select committee. We are committed to transparency on this

and recognise there are a series of challenges and problems within the

system and I would be more than happy to come before the select

committee and discuss this further. What legislation, we have not ruled

out future legislation for prisons but I would argue there is quite a

lot we can be getting on with that does not require legislation. We are

eager and keen and determined to reform our prison system.

Yesterday scathing report by the Chief Inspector of prisons in

England and Wales is a watershed moment in the national debate on our

prisons. Prison should be places not only for punishment about

rehabilitation and should be making us all safer and the short run and

longer term. I believe the whole house will be alarmed by the Chief

Inspector's view to many of our prisons have become unacceptably

violent and dangerous places. Also of the hosts are well aware that if

a crisis in our prisons and what the report yesterday revealed is despite

warm words from the Government the situation is not under control, it

is getting worse. Given this, the Minister has serious questions to

answer. Firstly, does he agree with the remarks by his former colleague,

the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and former next Prime

Minister prisons are approaching an emergency? What role does he think

the cuts to the prison budgets and 20p have contributed to this and

what measures will he undertake to address this? The Chief inspector

warned this crisis has all been compounded by staffing levels and

many journals that are simply too low and so does the Minister agree

prison officers deserve a pay rise, if we are to increase numbers and

improve retention? The Chief inspector also said he is "Appalled

by the conditions in which we hold many prisoners." Given the Scot what

measures is the Minister taking to address this so we can reform

prisons and so prisoners leave prison as less of a danger to

society? Or shockingly, the number of self-inflicted deaths as more

than doubled since 2013 so what strategy and specific resources will

be Minister allocate to reduce this? Finally, the chief inspector says he

reached a conclusion there was not a single establishment we inspected in

which it was safe to hold children and young people, adding the speed

of decline has been staggering. In 2013-14 nine out of 12 institutions

were graded as good or reasonably good for safety. Given this, what

explanation does the minister have this? Everyone knows the Government

has created a crisis and our prisons and the report shows the Government

is failing to take action to solve this crisis they have created.

I do not think and will not accept the Department has lost control of

the prison system, that is nonsense. Secondly, I would like to talk about

the 1.3 billion we have invested to transform the state. By transforming

it we will improve the quality of the accommodation for prisoners

which will have a direct impact on the problems we are encountering in

small volumes of people who have mental health and suicidal issues

and we recognise part of our estate are antiquated which is why we are

investing. In terms of use justice, as I said, we know there are many

difficulties in youth justice, violence and rate is ten times

higher in youth justice can pay to the adult prison estate. I would

like to support and give full support to the staff who continue to

work in the youth estate because I have seen it personally and visited

the majority of these estates and it is a very difficult and the genesis

of this, I would argue, is over many years and as I alluded to earlier of

the admirable intention to reduce the number of people in the youth

estate being locked up has brought us to the point where we have got a

very challenging population that is particularly vibrant and difficult

to manage which is why we have these problems. We are bringing forward on

secure schools and we have two in the pipeline are content to make

them a completely different regime, balance of curriculum and I am

particularly passionate about the use of sport to deal with issues we

are confronting. I am under no illusions about how difficult this

is. We have a plan and will implement it.

Mr Speaker, I know the minister appreciate that people with autism

are disproportionately represented in our locker still deal system.

Notwithstanding the issues that it was the first person to receive

autism friendly accreditation, and the governor and staff report that

it did contribute to a diminishment any levels of violence across the

whole estate. I know some 20 Britons have indicated interest, but would

the minister look at this programme and look at actually making it

compulsory to roll-out across the entire is an estate, because I think

it would be of benefit to prisoners and prison staff alike. I thank her

for the question. I am more than happy to consider rolling that out.

There are positive schemes, not just with regard to the diagnosis and

treatment of autism, but also very sports clubs, football clubs,

Saracens at Pelton, the work they are doing any evidence of the

outcomes is very positive. That is why I am passionate about this area,

because I think that if we can get the management of autism and mental

health and broaden the curriculum so there is more time spent outside of

cells, I am convinced that we can change the behaviour in the

atmosphere within each of these prisons and these institutions, so

our staff in these places can feel is safe. The combination of rising

prison numbers and shrinking budgets is able major factor affecting the

welfare of both prison officers and prisoners, and it is regrettable

that in this situation the UK Government has dropped prison reform

from the Queen's speech and continues to cut budgets and staff

numbers. In contrast, in Scotland, the SNP Government has continued to

invest in modernising and improving the prison estate, and the Scottish

Government has committed to significant penal reforms aimed at

reducing reoffending by moving away from custodial sentences in favour

of community sentences, which had been proven to be better at

rehabilitation. Does the minister agree that he should follow the

example of the Scottish Government and concentrate his efforts on

schemes that will reduce prison numbers and reduce overcrowding,

thereby reducing pressure on prison officers and prisoners? Yes,

intellect and I would agree that we can reduce the prison population,

this would make life easier, I know this The to your state agrees with

that position. The big day is that balance constantly by the Justice

issue, people who have committed crimes in the desert their time, the

question is whether the south that time. I am is possible for women

passed by justice, there is a strategy coming out at the end of

the year, where I lay much wanted to concentrate on community provision

of sentences. I think if we can move to that model of provision, this

could be rolled out in future years to the adult male state, there is a

lot to be learned from every House people when they are serving their

time. I am going to Scotland in the autumn, and I'm looking forward to

seeing the progress up there because I gather very good work is being

done. If he satisfied that there are sufficient remedies available now to

deal violent offenders? Yes, I am. The minister is quite right to say

that legislation by itself will not solve this crisis, and then used the

other measures. Given that there was a printer 's Bill already drafted

that had made some progress in the last session, can you tell the House

while that Bill has been dropped, and if the Government is committed

to prison reform, why hasn't dropped a piece of legislation that was

ready to be had by this House? We can deliver our reform package

without the need for any further legislation, if there is a

requirement for further legislation then that has not been ruled out in

a future. As he recognises, the S Parliamentary time prices here and

this is something which we are having to accommodate, however there

is absolutely no reason why we cannot continue with the reform

programme that we have planned. Would he agree that while they are

challenges, there is much positive transformative work being done in

prisons by dedicated officers on mental health, chaplaincy services,

restorative justice programmes, like the work I have seen and full cross

over many years. Would he join me in thanking them and the many dedicated

officers like them who do such a feminist job? I thank her for the

question. Yes, again, it is an example of how throughout the

system, there are positive schemes being followed. There are people

working in a variety of areas, including mental health, who are

delivering care to prisoners who need that care. So that they can

probably rehabilitate for returning to society. The minister refers to

the advent of drugs like spice as being an unknown quantity, but with

a quarter fewer prison officers since 2010, I hardly think that

helps to address these new challenges. Our thoughts on staff

are up by 70% since 2009, and in 2016 alone one in five justice staff

left the sector. Will he confirm that there is an attempt in crisis

that is being fuelled by the disgraceful amount of rising

assaults on staff and our prison service? As I hope my honourable

colleague acknowledges, I am trying to be a candidate possible about the

difficulties we face. We acknowledged a year ago that there

was a need for more staff, we are delivering on that. I must stress

there wasn't an expectation this drug was going to cause this

problem. There is yet to be proper documentation about how this drug

affects the prisoners, the people taking it, and their behaviour, and

the long-term impact it might have the prison population. We

acknowledge that we need more staff, and that those staff need better

training, particularly in the youth justice system we are bringing a

youth custody role, because it recognised the need to be additional

skills. We recognise what the problems are and we are working to

solve them. I know the minister will share my concern about the impact of

contraband, including psychoactive substances on prisoners and the

buyer was it can cause. Could he confirm what measures are being

taken by the Department to stop these materials get into prisons in

the first place? Yes, we have improved the seizure of drugs, by

two out of 25 kilos last 12 months, up on the previous year, we have

employed dogs to detect psychoactive substances and we are the first area

jurisdiction in the world to introduce. Testing for psychoactive

substances and we continue to develop that service as the

substances themselves evolve. I do hope that the new youth custody

service that is planned does work, but can he say how many new prison

officers will be joining this service this year? No, I cannot give

an exact figure. I will get right to him with the figure, but we are

actively seeking to recruit an invisible institution, but Eleni

south east where there are always challenges around recruiting prison

staff, and we are trying, more importantly, to recruit people who

have a past history of working with young people. It is a difficult

business, working with troubled young individuals, and we recognise

that there may have been some errors in the past in terms of recruitment,

so going forward we want to recruit people had the proper experience in

place. I will write to him about the exact number. Could he say that as a

result of this report that he will prioritise rehabilitation plans for

offenders, and employment opportunities for ex-offenders? That

is very much our intention. There are a number of schemes up and down

the country where employers are involved, I visited a women's prison

where Halfords have a bicycle repair unit, and I met an offender who was

going to leave prison to work for Halfords. I think these kids up and

down the country are fantastic, I think we need more of them, and we

are working hard to have more of them. This is surely an issue of

safeguarding. The chief inspector saying there's not a signal

establishment that is not currently saved to hold children and young

people. The minister did not answer the specific question put to him by

my honourable friend about why there has been such a decline in safety

over a staggering decline in the last year, but also as the chief

inspector has said, a slump in standards. Can he explain what a

slump in standards means, and what he's doing to address it? I don't

accept that all institutions are unfit, Werrington received a

positive report last week, with regard to the slump, I would also

argue that it is not over the last year. The genesis of this problem, I

keep making this point, is over a number of years, and with regards

particularly to certain institutions. We are wrestling with

a legacy at one particular institution where the contract was

signed in 2004 is presenting us that act prevented us from making the

necessary changes. The idea that this is a problem that was created

by this Government is quite obviously just a rather simplistic

one and not accurate. This Government is building new prison

capacity, including at Wellingborough in Northamptonshire,

what difference does my audible friend believe this will make in

terms of improving safety? I thank him for his question. Some of the

prisons, we have they are Victorian, antiquated, the quality of the cells

are substandard, we recognise that which is why building new prisons,

prison cells where suicide is much more difficult to commit for

example, is what is needed in the system, which is why I am pleased

that we are investing ?1.3 billion to do so. I declare an interest as

an outgoing crime commission, can I say to him that this report is

devastating. He must act. One way of acting very quickly would be to

invest in those days, like women offenders which a non-custodial, it

is a community orders, which are better returns in terms of

reoffending rates. Will he now commit this money to where it might

make a real difference? I welcome him back to the House and thank him

for his question. It is good to see him here having had a good

relationship with him before. The women justice system is a classic

example of where I think there is scope for devolving responsibility

and funds. The north of England has had a whole system approach to

funding of the last year or two in order to try and build a system

where women can be treated holistically, when a team understand

each womaned home, situation, partners, relationships, so they can

bear down on the number of people who are locked up. In this strategy

which will be delivered before the end of this year, I hope that more

detailed outline of what I want to do any north-west.... In November

last year, the department outlined in the white paper is the most

comrades plan for improving our prisons for a generation. MNR to

require primary legislation, I would like to see that brought forward in

due course. Particularly changing the statutory definition of the

purpose of a prison to include rehabilitation and reform, but the

bass majority do not. Will he confirm that his department will

continue to implement the white paper in full? He is very informed

on this, and yes, you are right, the great majority of that reform

package that was announced last year can be delivered without any further

legislation, and as I have said, I think we have not ruled out primary

legislation in this area in the near future. By what they does the

minister expect the first people to be entering the new units that he

has announced one-off and south? Woody update the Justice committee

on the objectives that he has set for improving the situation, and

would he agree to look again at the recommendations from lord Toby

Harris that the Government did not agree to, when they were reduced

early last year? I think he's referring to the secure schools, but

currently we are committed to one opening of September 20 19. There is

a possibility that being earlier, but it depends upon finding the

appropriate site. As you might imagine, the size have to be secure

and we are working aged in my heart on that. We are in negotiations with

various agencies about particular interest in the London... Assisting

us in this, so when we know about the locations, we can be a bit

clearer about the delivery date. The wider questions with regards to the

state of the justice system, as you can properly tell, I think that we

needed to move the was a different system of how we lock up young

people. Some young people are going to be locked up and be have an

uptake in sexual crimes at the moment, small but coming, and we

recognised this, but in manner and way in which we lock up young

people, the environment and staffing has to change. We recognise this,

this report confirms what we already knew. My intention is to work hard

to enforce a plan so that any next ten years we can get to a situation

where our young people are not only safe and secure but are also

probably the ability. -- the ability did.

The additional money this Government has invested in order to discover

the mobile phones smuggled into prisons is welcome but would like

honourable friend Gillie is is something we need to -- agree this

is something we need to continue to monitor and do more to tackle?

Yes, we have made real progress here, we are stopping thousands of

mobile phones getting into prisons and are working very hard with

regards to the use of drones and working hard to block mobile phone

signals in prisons. It is not perfect and it is not finished but

we are continuing to press hard because if we can reach the point

where we have a mobile phone for the prison network this would be

fantastic. I look forward to the strategy from

an offender is the Minister indicated he would bring forward

later this year. 30% of women in custody self harm last year and 12

women killed in the highest level since 2004. In reviewing the estate

for women will he take the opportunity once and for all to take

on board the recommendations for those women who do need to be in

custody not to place them in prisons far from the families but in small,

secure community units. It's a once opportunity to do this and please

will be Minister take take it. The report was one of the first

things I read when I was appointed to my role in July 20 16. It has a

persuasive case. There is an issue about some woman and where they

should be held, I am completely convinced you can go down the path

of the woman all being held in community provision residential

woman centres but what I am persuaded of is we can reduce the

population of woman we currently locked up. This is primarily based

upon our way in which we deliver community provision and mental

health care, both before, during and after serving in prisons. I have met

a number of women in prison, the majority of them have displayed

scars of self harm. I am a doctor and I observe these things and it is

quite distressing to see this. In order to deal with this problem we

need to get the environment in which they are helped changed and get

their mental health services improved. These are my two

priorities I hope by the end of the year the honourable lady will be

reassured we are getting it right. Listening to parents of young

offenders has been very eye opening in my constituency surgeries and

also to those working at Winchester prison who have seen the impact of

people who basically never got out of the prison system so I welcome

the focus on the dealing with growing level of violence and focus

on youth justice. It's vital we look individually and outcomes. Can I ask

the Minister how this new unit can ensure these recommendations

actually come forward? The unit the honourable lady refers

to has been set up within the Department image of the

recommendations are followed. I gather this is the first time it has

been created. With youth justice, the key is and also applying to

woman justice, can we build a network over time where people are

held closer to home so that families can stay in contact, both with young

people and also mothers in particular keeping in contact with

their children. But as an intention and why I have mapped the country of

both women and youth justice in order to make sure what we bring

forward fits into that framework to deliver time in prison closer to

home for women and young people. There is a grave situation in our

prisons and the Minister is being typically frank in acknowledging

that. One of the problems is the large cohort of prisoners on

indeterminate sentences. Can the Minister confirm the Government is

committed to getting that number down as quickly as possible?

Yes, this has been a long-running issue in the prison system and the

answer is yes. Reoffending rates remain stubbornly

high, especially with young offenders, where nearly seven out of

ten who are sent to prison go on to reoffend upon release. We know it is

to do with the convictions and environment in our prisons and young

offenders Institute and what more can be done to ensure effective

rehabilitation, especially for young people?

The recidivism rate in the youth estate is not acceptable and

environment on people's health is not acceptable and in some

institutions they are locked up for too long but is primarily related to

safety and security of the institution. This must change. There

are programmes in place, which show evidence of reducing recidivism

rates. I am determined we change the curriculum being delivered in the

youth estate and people need to spend more time outside, sporting a

particular example. If we do that I think we will achieve what my

honourable friend wants to achieve. Finally, by the early next year I

plan on bringing out a sports review of the criminal justice system and

sport and in particular youth justice and recommendations in that

will be interesting to see. Urgent question, Mr Tim Farren. To

ask the Secretary of State for the home Department if she will update

the house and implementation of section 67 of the migration act

2016? The Government is fully committed to

helping and supporting the most vulnerable children. We have

contributed significantly to hosting and protecting vulnerable children

affected by the migration crisis. This is part of our wider response

of taking 23,000 people from the region. We already granted asylum or

leave to 8000 children, local authorities across the country are

supporting over 4000 unaccompanied asylum seeking children. Children

transferred under section 67 are being cared for by local authorities

across the country. We take our responsibility to those children

very seriously and safeguarding them is of paramount importance.

Following consultation with local authorities the Government said the

number of children to be transferred under the scheme at 480. We invited

referrals of legible children from several countries and our officials

at the Home Office are visited these countries to put in place processes

to further identify transfer of eligible children. In the past week

I spoke to my counterpart in Greece and Italy specifically on this issue

and will follow up with face-to-face meetings in both cases next week. It

is important to remember the processes for transferring children

must be implemented in line with each individual member state's

national laws and all transfers of children must be carried out safely

and with the best interests of the children at the centre of all

decisions regarding transfer. The ongoing work to transfer children

under section 67 is an addition to our other commitments. We continue

to work closely with member states and relevant partners to ensure

children with family in the UK can be transferred quickly and safely.

Our approach continues to be to take refugees directly from conflict

regions, providing refugees with a more direct and safe route to our

country rather than risking hazardous journeys to Europe. We are

committed to resettling 23,000 people from the region and our

resettlement schemes are some of the largest and longest-running schemes

in the EU. So far we have resettled more than 7000 people under the

resettlement scheme and the vulnerable children resettlement

scheme. Children are resettled with family members, thereby discouraged

from making perilous journeys alone to do. It is worth noting families

continue to arrive from the region. Yesterday at 199 individuals and

another 80 are due next week. All part of the Government's approach to

helping the most vulnerable. I thank the Minister, it seems those

are somewhat hollow words. Before the election the Government promised

to transfer 480 refugee children from Europe to the UK, in the other

place recently they admitted so far only 200 unaccompanied children have

been given sanctuary here. When does this Government expect to fulfil

this measly commitment and will be Minister today give us a date? Icy

measly because the UK Government could do so much more. Freedom of

Information Act request show local councils have voluntarily offered to

accept 1572 more children in addition to those they already

support. Does the Minister knows this and in light of this will the

Government reopen Dubs and take its fair share? As summer approaches

more are catering to dangerous crossings across the Mediterranean

to reach European shores, more desperate children without anyone

looking after them... We cannot have two sets of exchanges taking place.

There is a rather unseemly exchange taking place between two members who

are gesticulating at the other and an obvious dispute and the mosque

harm themselves and listen to the eloquence of the -- they must harm

themselves. -- calm. It is understandable that

rises passions. As summer approaches more are taking the dangerous

crossings across the Mediterranean to reach European shores, more

desperate refugee children without anyone looking after them will

arrive in Europe and the Government said it will not take or consider

taking any child under Dubs arrived after the arbitrary cut-off date of

the 20th of March 2000 and 16. In light of the blaze which are the

Government's fault will be no extent the state which is as heartless as

pointless. I have visited the camps and increase and elsewhere,

something neither the Home Secretary Prime Minister have done. I cannot

forget what I have seen. I've met those children who, through no fault

of their own, find their lives on pause as ministers here choose to

ignore them. How many children have been taken from Greece to date is

under the Dubs Amendment? Has the UK even signed a memorandum of

understanding with Greece to get these transfers under way? I know of

two young people who signed a consent form to be transferred under

Dubs over a year ago and they are still stuck in Greece. The hollow

victories is the longer this goes on -- the perfect thrift is the longer

this goes on more likely these children go missing and unlawful to

the hands of traffickers will this Government stepped up or continue to

ignore the plight of these desperate children?

The honourable gentleman points are made on a series of false premises.

We have got a range of schemes and are working with 23,000. I would

politely say the number he talks about, behind every number, there is

a child and what is important is to make sure those children get the

support they need in the right time and place. He speaks of timelines

but he seems to forget Italy and Greece are nation states and we must

work with them run their own minds. I would also point out, he mentioned

the request for local authorities which is simply wrong. We consultant

with local authorities which is what we said we would do much about the

figure of 480 and the Freedom of Information request he spoke of does

not recover local authorities can provide, it talks about the 0.7%

threshold which is an entirely different calculation so he should

go and look at that further. We are clear that making sure we do not

create a pool factor but still do the right thing, as we have done

with the ?2.46 billion of support, one of the biggest contributors of

humanitarian aid we have ever conducted, to look after people

needing our help. Instead of playing politics with this we should get on

with looking after them. Can I urge the Minister to keep that

deadline in place because it is incredibly important we do not

encourage any more children or their families to send them off and

dangerous journeys. We should continue taking indirectly from the

region, directly from the camps were we can make sure they -- directly

from the region and if they get to Europe they will be able to stay --

if we see they get to Europe and they can stay exactly what

encourages the dangerous journeys and will lead to the deaths of

children. Has experience on this is absolute

right. This is why it is important to remember that there are already

some 7000 children brought over to the scheme is that we operate from

the region. First of all, and also remind him that the scheme is not

close. We are still working. I will be going out next week to speak with

ministers from Italy and Greece. It is still operating. It is also

important to remember that the people who are most vulnerable I

cannot afford to be paying human traffickers are the children in the

region and that is where our focus should be, to make sure we do not

create a pool factor as he has said. The House understands the

Government's preference to take unaccompanied children directly from

the region, but I have visited the camps in France and Greece, and the

visit -- minister needs to be reminded those children are already

there, often living in horrible conditions, and particularly at the

mercy of traffickers and sexual exploitation. Will the minister tell

the House how many children will come into this country in 2017-18,

under section 67? How many children will come to Dublin this year? How

long has each case taken an average? And what is the future of close

family reunion was we leave the European Union, and will the

Government consider expanding the UK immigration rights so that

children's rights is in no way diminished, with the Government

simply walk away from its moral obligations on the matter? I think

the final point of her question does not do her less House on this

country justice. We end this country should be proud and councils and

charity groups and individuals, particularly the sponsorship scheme

with ?1 million, do phenomenal work across this country, welcoming the

most vulnerable people here. It is right that we look at people who are

the most vulnerable, cannot afford to be paying human traffickers, the

Dallas bought out in the region, rather than those who are in

European countries. We do have agreements with them, we are still

bringing people over, but I were just remind her that these

countries, we have to work with them and the laws in their states as

well. They are nation states. I would say to her, in terms of what

happens afterwards, our position has been clear. The fact that we are

running the biggest human caring project country has seen highlights

our determination to do the right thing, we will concede to do the

right thing and fulfil our moral duty to those who need our most. The

words may have more credibility if they acknowledge the huge effort and

resources that have gone into this by the British Government to date. I

have been to Athens and the niqabs as well, and I see the fantastic

work that is being done. However there is a criticism that it is

taking too long to get those children properly processed and

asset who have a right to be here, and will heal also acknowledge that

post Brexit, when we come out of the Dublin scheme, they will be a

problem with children underneath family reunion scheme and can be

make sure they can still be matched with those relations beyond just

parents, because many of them have lost their parents but do have

siblings in this country with whom they could be safely and

appropriately placed? I appreciate his point. He is explain in what he

saw, I said I would be go out myself next week. It is worth bearing in

mind looking at how we are helping people, the finance and focus, we

should be proud of that as a country. We should remember that for

every 3000 people that we bring over and help, we could be helping

800,000 people out in the regions. We had to be clear about where we

put our focus. But they said to the honourable lady, and have got post

Brexit, we want to continue the right thing for people who are in

those viable situations in the region and we will be working to

deliver that and I are happy to work with him on that. I would like to

congratulate the right Honourable member for Lonsdale, make it clear

to the minister that what he said was not based on false premises. I

am able to say this because I attended the launch of a report by

the human trafficking foundation last week, following an independent

enquiry into the situation of unaccompanied minors in Europe. This

independent enquiry has found that UK ministers have done, I quote, as

little as legally possible to help unaccompanied children who have fled

war and conflict in their home. It says the UK Government have, I

quote, turned away from a Germanic in a crisis that would not be

tolerable to the British public if they were more aware of it, and that

by failing to offer safe passage, the UK Government are, and I quote,

unquestionably fuelling both people trafficking and smuggling. These are

not my words, they are the findings of an independent enquiry. What is

the minister going to do about it? And there is no point in shouting at

me, because the minister and his colleagues do not like the findings

of an independent enquiry. The British public deserve to know about

this. What steps is the Government taking to resolve the blockages in

the transfer of children that we voted for in this House last year,

thinking there would be 3000 transfers, when do they expect those

transfers to begin? Goals the transfers have already been

happening. We are determined to deliver what we set out. As part of

the 23,000 people, we are bringing over 7000 children already. I

actually would encourage more people to have a look at what she refers to

as an independent report, where one of the co-authors is a recently

retired Labour member of Parliament. I read the report and I would

encourage people to read it. It is they had a lot of accusations and

statements with no evidence. I do disagree with the report but my

point are based... Still stands. As well as accepting refugees into this

country, it is also the case that the United Kingdom is the second

largest donor to the crisis behind the United States, it has given more

than the rest of the EU combined. I support the Government having a

holistic conference of approach, and will he continue to commit the

Government to providing the right help in the right places? Goals he

is absolutely right, it is important. We are focusing helped

numerous possible most lovable and places that need that aboard, while

doing what we can as part of our work with the partners across Europe

has bought those we have agreed as a bought and we will continue to do

so. The minister knows it is not an easy helping children in imaging and

those in Europe, and those that are here. Parliament told the Government

to help low child refugees from Europe when it passed the Dubs

Amendment last year. I know the Government did not want to agree to

it, but it was passed. The way in which they have narrowed the

criteria, dragged their feet, failed to even counter the Council officers

properly, is shameful. Will he confirm that they have only helped

around 200 children to the amendment, despite the fact that

councils have offered nearly 500 places, confirmed that there are

tens of thousand children refugees still alone in Europe and Italy and

Greece cannot cope with what they are having to deal with. All he has

managed to do it said a view officials to Italy and Greece to try

and read a few procedures for the future, when this has been going on

for years, is frankly shameful. I would say to him, stop with the warm

words about helping the most vulnerable children and actually get

on with it as Parliament said they should. The number of children we

can help I have been clear, giving them the right support. They need

the support network to BN ported and valued member of our community. It

is important we do that within what local authorities can actually

provide. With the restrictions they have got, the capacity they have,

that is what we're doing, to make sure they get the right support. In

2016, we did grab asylum or some form of leave over 8000 children,

and since 2010 some 42,000 children, so we are doing a bit and we want to

continue doing that work. I would say to her, in terms of what we're

doing with other countries, they have a own rules and regulations,

I'm sure she will appreciate that we do have to work with them about what

works for them with their laws, we will continue to do that, and that

is why visiting Italy and Greece next week. I know everybody is

incredibly passionate about this, but I would hope collectively we can

be proud of what the country as a whole has contributed to the refugee

crisis in Syria. It is tremendous. Visiting the camps does rather shift

your perception about how the picture forms of all. I know the

Government and I have different views on the amendment and I still

maintain their is more capacity available in our councils and more

capacity in our country to help. I am particularly concerned as we move

towards this brave new Brexit world what will happen to the Dublin

three, family children have continue Canis yet? And how Abbey go to make

sure that those pieces of legislation are embedded in our own

laws will relieve the EU? Goals I take around local authorities and we

were treated to work with them, the numbers we have a based on the

numbers they have given us. We were treated to look at the numbers that

they feed in, in order to deal with children who come over to the

schemes and commitments that we have got. In terms of going forward, I

can give her the reassurance that we are determined to make sure we

fulfil our commitment, as they go through the negotiations of leaving

the EU, exactly what format that will take in terms of technically,

it is too soon to say, but we are determined to stick with the moral

and ethical duty that we have participated in a continue to

provide that support. I think he gets the message, the whole House

once this process to be enacted as speedily as possible. Can I take him

back to one of the points made by the Honourable member for Westbrook

-- Lonsdale, but the Mediterranean crisis and the summer crisis that

will unfurl to? What additional help is being given to enable those who

have some responsibility in Libya to prevent boats being set off onto the

Mediterranean which will only result in people buying, especially

children, before they reach the mainland? Goals as always with his

vast experience in this area, he makes an important point. It is

important that in this discussion we do not lose sight of what is

happening and continues to happen in the Mediterranean. We are contained

to work with member state authorities, including the UNC are,

and other NGOs, to agree what more we can do to look at what is

happening in our region. The Prime Minister made up own statement after

last EU Council meeting. We'll continue to deliver on that to make

sure we do not rate a cool factor, give a clear message that that

journey is one that people should not conduct, and that is my wee

continue that phenomenal work we do, along with the ?10 million money

that is coming to to work with people in the regions to make sure

we make things that are safe and as flexible possible. As he has set

out, tackling this problem at source and tackling the carpeting is a real

crucial part of addressing this, and I wonder if he could perhaps outline

briefly what the British security services and police are doing,

together with European counterparts, to track down and arrest and

prosecute those people traffickers who wish to profit directly from

exploiting the situation that we face. It is important we continue to

give a clear message to the atrocious and completely disgraceful

traffickers out there who continue to supply a despicable trade. The

smuggling said there was formed in February this year in response to

the increase in the number of regular migrants, and we do tend to

work with our partners and our national crime agency to focus and

drive out that that form of trafficking as well as organised

crime that drives around this, and has been a clear message at every

stage. That behaviour needs to end. As the minister will know, from the

response of the High Court to the judicial review of how the

consultation on the places available for children are available in the

UK, section 67 is explicitly about families in Europe. Can I ask him

about a acidic case that I wrote to his office about over a week ago,

involving an incredibly vulnerable Syrian family who are in Leila, who

had been wrongfully refused a right to come to the UK under the Dublin

regulations, I have not yet had an acknowledgement from his office of

that receipt of correspondence, will he agreed to meet with me to review

this case urgently of a suicidal mother and her young children, and

discuss how we can better approve the way which people claim asylum

and come to the UK, so it is not just the smugglers who beat them in

Calais? Goals I would say to her, the seat she will appreciate I

cannot cause comment on a particular case today. I will find out why she

has not had a response and get one to her as soon as possible. Last

week I visited the refugee camp on the Syrian border, and it was quite

clear to us speaking to the parents that they did not want their peers

to risk their lives across the sea. They would do so if there were no

jobs or education for them. With the minister agree with me that it is

thanks to the UK Governmented aid contribution that we are able to

keep people well and safe in their own region rather than risking the

squalor any European cans? Goals he -- goals this is important why we

continue this work in the region. As well as the Government, and making

sure we do everything we can to help people in the region and deal with

the challenges at source, to avoid people taking not just that chance

to come to places that are not appropriate, but to take that

treacherous journey and give profit you should traffickers in the first

place. I am to be an unpaid director for the human trafficking

foundation, which will appear shortly register of members

interests. Can I just ask the minister of he would say to Tory

controlled Nottinghamshire County Council who on Monday suspended

support for unaccompanied children, despite having places available,

with one of the senior counsellor saying it is because these children

come here of the own collision? Is that not a disgrace and is it not

also a disgrace that they have turned round and blamed the

Government? Isn't it about time that the minister got his act together

with his Tory colleagues and stopped unaccompanied children fleeing war

and persecution from playing the consequences of what is this

disastrous Government policy? I congratulate the Honourable

gentleman in the role he is taking up and I look for to working with

him to make sure we will agreed to drive up the human trafficking

completely. In terms of a particular case, I learned many years ago that

I made pleased a Conservative to convert the county council, but I

did learn many years ago at his dispatch box to make sure that I

understand the full details of any particular case on both sides of the

story before I comment on it. I will look into it before I comment any

further what he has outlined. Contrary to the observation by the

Right Honourable gentleman opposite who said that these were hollow

words, it is a generous response by this Government and a typically

British response to this crisis. Could he confirm the number of

refugees that this currently is helping and compare that to other EU

states? Goals he makes a good point, if we look at this week alone with

the launch of funding we are taking out any support project. Seeing some

of the phenomenal work people have done in those communities,

developing and learning from our colleagues around the world, such as

Canada, and I appreciate the time the Canadian minister took to talk

about that. But last year alone we were the highest, took more than

anybody else in Europe, we should be proud of that. But we're clear we

wanted another that develop it and we should be proud of those 23,000

people who reality to bring over to make sure we're helping the most

voluble, including thousands of children who have already come over

and those will continue to come. The minister will have on his desk

petitions from St Matthew's primary School and Moss Bank constituency,

asking to respect the rights of all EU children and in particular to

respect their right to an education, what assessment is he really making

of the quality and experience of education that children are getting

in camp? And isn't it time we brought children here to settle them

and ensure that they have the chance to develop a happy and successful

childhood? Well I think what the honourable lady is outline something

agreeing with the point I made earlier. The work we are doing is

with the local authorities to make sure when children come over they

are able to be given the right support and right home that they

deserve, to help them be an important part of the community to

give them at that fruitful and fulfilling life. Is the minister

aware that unaccompanied minors are congregating again in and around

Calais but without the camps being there, so even less resources, safe

passage for refugees are looking for a cross-party group of MPs to go

there perhaps next month. Perhaps the minister would like to go there

himself and explain what he and his French counterpart are doing to

ensure that children with rights under Dublin or Dubs are coming to

this country for safety, rather than being on the streets of Calais?

Well, I would say to the honourable gentleman, not only have I made with

Safe Passage myself and explained a different view what I saw in Calais

ten days ago and discussing this with thor authorities and operators

out there. -- with the authorities. ! What many of us don't understand

is why the Government chose to put a limit on the Dubs scheme based on a

rather half baked consultation with local authorities at one particular

time. Why doesn't the Government continue to engage with local

authorities and take proactive steps to increase their capacity to take

unaccompanied children, including implementing fully-funded places?

Well, I would just say to the honourable gentleman, I actually

make a couple of points in response, that's what the amendment itself and

legislation itself said we should do. I will come back to the point I

made a few times: It is important that when we bring people over,

families, people and obviously most importantly vulnerable children that

we are able to do that knowing that there is the facilities there and

capacity to give them the best start in life. I come back to the point I

made earlier. Yes people will want to play politics and some opposite,

play politics with numbers, the reality is there is a child behind

every number and we need to make sure if we are bringing children

over we should give them the best possible start. He should be proud

of the fag as I outlined to the Scottish minister that we have

already granted asylum or some other form of leave to over 8,000 children

already. Thank you, Mr Speaker, Europol have estimated that more

than 10,000 unaccompanied child refugees have disappeared in Europe

in the last two years, what steps are the Government taking to address

this and to support our EU partners in improving protection for

unaccompanied children at risk of trafficking or exploitation? Well,

there are two sides to this. Obviously first, making sure we do

not create a pull factor that encourages more children and people

and individuals to take a treacherous journey and at the same

time, simply helping the profits of traffickers that we all want to see,

hopefully, driven out but it is working with partners and the

National Crime Agency and their work with Europol to make sure we track

down and catch the people who create these kind of awful crimes.

Organisations like Refugee ee in Glasgow are doing a great teal Deal

to welcome asylum seekers and refugees to Glasgow but what can the

Government could do to ensure there's cad quite funding for local

authorities sow that those arriving with knowing can live a life with

dignity. I would say to the honourable lady, there is really

good work being done in glass ge. I met with the Scottish minute step

and had that conversation last week. We are seeing that work being done

by a local a number of slowingal authorities. It comes back to the

point I have made, we are working with local authorities to make sure

we have the capacity when people come over, so that the authorities

have the abilities it give them the right start in life and protection

and safety that they deserve. THE SPEAKER: Order, as the right

honourable member prepares to step down from the Leadership of his

party, I thank him, not only for his question today but for his,

unfailing courtesy and for his personal support for the Chair over

a very long period for which I have reason to be very grateful. Geoff

Hoon point of order Mr Speaker, you will know on page 448 of etch

rskine, May it says it is not in order to refer to people in the

galleries. It goes is back to an old proposition but in our time it has

been strictly enforced but in recent years, lots of people refer to

people in the galry. I thought it was particularly nice when my

honourable friend for Battersea the other day referred to her mother in

the gallery and paid tribute to her in the maiden speech and the Prime

Minister referred to people in the gallery and sometimes we refer to

international guests, isn't it time, now we completely and utterly got

rid of this rather silly, old-fashioned rule? The honourable

gentleman is not for the first time spot on. The prohibition on

reference to those attending our proceedings, let me say it capedly

no longer applies, it dates back to a time when the act of noticing such

attendance led to the galleries being cleared since public

attendance was not, in formal terms, allowed for at all. For some time I

have not sought to enforce the rule, nor to the best of my knowledge and

understanding has it been enforced in Westminster Hall. I hope that

members are adapting gently to this new regime. Reference to visitors

must be brief and, importantly, directly related to proceedings. And

such references should not be phrased so as to be in anyway

intimidating or to seek to influence debate. I hope that that is helpful.

The House's guidance, including Erskine May, will be, gradually,

updated, to reflect this change. I hope that is helpful. Can I just say

to the House, I know there are other members who have a desire it raise

points of order. I would rather not take further points of order now. We

ordinarily take points of order after statements. And I see no good

reason to change that practice today. I took this particular point

of order because I thought it best that I should be here in the Chair,

and the honourable gentleman was here, I'm about to leave and the

Chairman of Ways science a means will chair the pensions statement,

towards the end of which I will return and members who are poised

and perched ready to raise their points of order on other matters can

do so at that time. Order. We come now to a statement by the Secretary

of State for Work and Pensions, Secretary, David Gauk. With

permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on

pensions. Last year, the Government commissioned the Government be a

tour rain John Cridland CBE to produce independent reports to

inform the first review of the state pension age required under the 2014

Pensions Act. I'm grateful to Mr Cridland for his contribution in

producing a thorough and comprehensive review. Over the

course of his review, evidence was put forward by a wide range of

people and organisations, and I'm grateful to everyone who took the

time to engage. Today I am publishing the Government's report

on this ro review. Mr Deputy Speaker, on this review. Mr Deputy

Speaker, this Government is determined to deliver dignity and

fairness in retirement, fairness across the generations and the

certainty on which people need it plan for old age. In the report I'm

setting out how we will achieve these things. As part of this

publication we have set out a coherent strategy targeted at

strengthening and sustaining the UK's pension system for many decades

to could. This is about the Government taking responsibility

action in response to growing demographic and fiscal pressures.

That is why today I am announcing the Government's intention to accept

the key recommendation of the Cridland Review and increase the

state pension age from 67 to 68, over two years, from 2037.

This brings forward the increase by seven years, from its legislated

date of 2024-46 in recommendation made by John Cridland and following

careful consideration on the evidence of life expectancy,

fairness and public finances. In 1948, Mr Deputy Speaker, when the

modern state pension was introduced, a 65-year-old could expect to live

for a further 13-and-a-half years. By 2007, bhen further legislation

was introduced to increase the state pension age this had risen to around

21 years and in 2037 it is expected to be nearly 25 years. As the

Cridland review makes clear, the increase in life expectancy are to

be celebrated and I want it make clear that even under the timetable

for the riets I'm announcing today. Future pensioners can still expect

to spend on average, more than 22 years in receipt of the state

pension. But increasing longevity also presents challenges to the

Government. There is a balance to be struck between funding of the state

pension in years to come, whilst also ensuring fairness for future

generations of tax payers. The approach I'm setting out today is

the responsible and fair course of action. Failing to act now, in light

of compelling evidence of demographic pressures would be

irresponsible and place an extremely unfair burden on younger

generations. While an ageing population means state pension

spending will rise under any of the possible time tables we have

considered, the action we are taking reduces this rise by 0.4% of GDP, in

2039-40. This is equivalent to a saving of prned ?400 per household

based on the number of households today. Our proposed timetable will

save ?74 billion to 2045-46 when compared to current plans and more

than ?250 billion to 2045-46 when compared with capping the rise in

state pension age at of 66 in 2020, as the party opposite haved a

vericated. It is the duty of -- advocated. It is the duty of the

Government to keep the state pension age sustainal and maintain fairness

between generations. That's why the Government is aiming for the

proportion of adult life spent in receipt of state pension to be up to

32%. This is a fair deal for current and future pensioners. We will carry

out a further review before legislating to bring forward the

rise in state pension age in to 68, to take into consideration the

latest life expecty projection and allow tow evaluate the rises in

state pension ages under way. This Government has a proven track

recorded on helping people plan for retirement, alongside our automatic

inrollment scheme that has brought the benefit of private pensions to

nearly 10 million since its inception. We have also set out

plans to enhance the availability of consumer vice and the pensions

dashboard. Today people have a much better idea of what their pension

will be, bringing more certainty and clarity and this is something the

Government will build on, making it easier for people it seek advice and

making effective financial decisions.

We need to ensure that the costs of an ageing population a shared out

finally -- fairly without placing an fair tax burden on future

generations. We need to make responsible choices on the state

pension age and that is exactly what the government is doing today. I

thank the Secretary of State for the statement and having sight of that

30 minutes ago. Yesterday a renowned expert on life expectancy has

described how a century long rise in life expectancy has ground to a halt

since 2010. When the government began its failing austerity

programme. We have seen how deep inequalities and healthy life

expectancy remained regionally and between different groups in our

society, including women, disabled people and black and minority ethnic

groups. It is astonishing that today the government chooses to implement

its plans to speed up the state pension age and increase it to 68.

Most pensioners will now spend their retirement battling a toxic cocktail

of ill-health, with men expecting to drift into ill-health at 63, five

years earlier than this proposed quickened state pension age of 68,

while women expect to see signs of ill-health that 64. This national

picture masks even worse regional inequalities. If you live in

Nottingham men are likely to suffer in health from 57, in 11 years

earlier than this government shortened plan. The government talks

about making pensions fairer but whether it is the injustice that

1950s born women are facing today's proposal to increase the SB8 268 is

anything but fair. The government claims it is young people who have

to bear the burden of the state pension, in fact it is the young

people who will have to bear the burden of the CAP that they are

facing already, education, housing, social security, and less extensions

to the state pension age. Sadly, like much of the policy platform,

the conservative approach to this matter appears to have changed

little since their election manifesto. At that time they

promised to ensure the state pension age reflects increases in the life

expectancy, while protecting generations fairly. How does this

make the promise made in the manifesto given the evidence of life

expectancy that we have seen in the last week. The DUP had a manifesto

that promised advocating for older people. Perhaps, like the pensions

minister astonishingly suggested in the debate earlier this month, the

government will force people in their mid-60s to seek out an

apprenticeship. A constituent of mine, hearing the suggestion,

visited our local job centre only to find the adviser had no idea of any

apprenticeship support or government employment support available to a

woman of her age. The pensions minister proposition was not one

shared by Mr Crichlow and who suggested the Social Security system

must be able to support those who find themselves unable to work.

Perhaps it was unaware of the seven years of slash and burn policy on

our social security system, the so-called safety net is increasingly

inadequate, driving up pensioner poverty by 300,000. Labour want a

different approach. In our manifesto we have committed to leaving the

state pension age at 66 while we undertake a review into healthy life

expectancy, arduous work, and the potential of a flexible state

pension age. An evidence -based approach to build a state pension

system that brings security for the many and not just the privileged

few, so we can all enjoy a healthy retirement. Even by the standards of

the party opposite their approach to the state pension age is reckless,

short-sighted and irresponsible. When the evidence in front of us

shows that life expectancy will continue to increase a little over

one year every eight years that pass, fixing the state pension age

at 66 adds advocated by the party opposite demonstrates a complete

failure to appreciate the situation in front of us. Compared to the

timetable set out by this government, it will add ?250 billion

to national debt. Let us put that in context. That is almost twice as

much as was dispersed into the financial sector following the

financial crisis. Let us put it another way. Spending in 2040 under

their plans on the state pension would be ?20 billion a year higher

than under the plans we are setting up. That is almost twice the Home

Office budget. Where on earth is this money coming from? Even the

last... Order. In fairness, I want to hear both sides in order to make

a judgment but I am finding it very hard to hear the Minister. It is, in

fairness, reply to the Shadow Minister, so I think we should all

be able to hear the answer. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, even under

the last Labour government, not known for its fiscal rectitude, they

legislated to increase the state pension age to 68, and yet, on top

of a long list of unaffordable spending pledges, the Labour Party

happily makes pledges on the state pension that they must know will

cause unsustainable damage to the public finances. The facts are,

based on the most up-to-date evidence, and clearly set out in the

government actuary 's report as well as this report, life expectancy is

going up. Healthy life expectancy at the age of 65 is also going up and

the government has to face up to this long-term challenge not pretend

that it doesn't exist. We should celebrate increased life expectancy,

but it has consequences for fiscal sustainability that cannot be

ignored. The John Cridland review is a serious piece of work with a clear

recommendation in terms of the pension age. In contrast to the

party opposite we will act responsibly and accept that

recommendation. Iain Duncan Smith. I commend this statement. It used to

be the case that the Labour Party worked on a consensual basis on the

facts, and they now have departed from that. He is aware that we have

a proud track record in reform, automatic enrolment, the single

tier, we got rid of the retirement age where people were forced to

retire when they did not want to, so it is a side that has a proud

record. Can I say to him that the single figure that stands out

starkly from this review is the fact that if we do nothing about this it

will cost ?250 billion more. That is not just a figure, it is a figure

that will be borne by future generations as they have to pay

excessive money is. Considering that the Labour Party at the last

election promise to get rid of the student debt, and now renege on

that, doesn't he think they will be doing the same very shortly on this

one? I thank my right honourable friend for his question. He makes a

very good point about the work that this government has done over the

last seven years in terms of Fallot working lives and helping more

people to work longer. My right honourable friend has a proud

personal record in what he did as secretary of state on that point. He

is absolutely right to highlight the responsibility of the position that

the Labour Party had at the last election, just as they have walked

away from a deeply irresponsible issue on student debt, I hope they

will walk away from a deeply irresponsible position on the state

pension age. I would like to thank the Minister for the statement. I

can see why the Department for Work and Pensions did not want to publish

this by the legal data was supposed to buy made the seventh because this

would undoubtedly have lost the Conservatives even more seats than

the ones they have lost already. In the SNP we oppose plans to raise the

state pension age above 66. We also have concerns about the fact that

the government have chosen the 32%, rather than the 33.3%, which was the

more gentle scenario presented within the Cridland review. I am

lucky enough to be a few days inside the 69 group, so we get to retire at

69 rather than 70, which will happen if the full extent of this review is

covered. We continue to call for the establishment of independent savings

and pension commission. We believe that the government is not doing

enough to recognise the demographic differences across the United

Kingdom and an independent review of this would look at those and would

take those into full account. Well, of course John Cridland looked at

exactly those issues and he concluded that the dive urgent

within regions and nations was no greater than, was greater than that

between the different nations and regions of this matter. I would make

the point to the honourable member that if the Scottish Government

believes that there should be more support from the state for those

approaching retirement age, they will have the powers in which to do

that so if they wish to provide that support in Scotland, effectively

providing support a year or two years earlier that applies to the

rest of the United Kingdom, the Scottish Government has the power to

do that. I wouldn't particularly advise them to do it but it is their

decision and I really don't think that there is a complaint to be

raced with the UK Government on that front. Can I commend my right

honourable friend on his statement and say he is right to be tackling

the issues of intergenerational fairness. Retirement is not just

about the state alone. Can he say what other measures, alongside this

amendment he is going to propose to ensure that young people can say for

their retirement alongside the state provision? One thing I would

highlight, as our member for Chingford did a moment ago, is what

we have done in terms of auto enrolment, and that means 10 million

more people saving for a retirement. It is a huge step forward and I am

delighted with the success of the auto enrolment and the very low tout

rates. It is one example of how the government is ensuring that people

will have a dignified retirement. We have got to remember that the public

finances need to be in order as well. Bearing in mind regional

health inequalities, I wondered what particular steps the government were

going to introduce in terms of Social Security to support those who

will not be able to work until this later age? It is the case that there

-- that as a country with them very large sums of money, something like

?50 billion a year, in support of people receiving support for health

and disability issues and we will obviously continue to do that. That

is the best way of supporting people who have got health difficulties,

rather than having a lower state pension age, which would be

unaffordable. I thank the Secretary of State, perhaps was not too much

enthusiasm, for delaying my retirement by a year. I am exactly

the range of people whose retirement has been delayed. What plans does he

had to learn from issues with previous races in the retirement

rate in communicating with people who will be affected that this

change is happening to them? First of all, the longer we can delay my

honourable friend 's retirement, the better. In terms of communication

with those affected, of course, we are essentially giving something

like 20 years notice today, but as we legislate for this matter in due

course then of course it will be necessary to properly communicate

with those who will be affected. It will be properly, properly, it is

proper that we communicate with those and we will be doing so. I am

very grateful. Would the secretary of state be able to tell us what

steps his department is taking to ensure that older people will not be

subjected to his government 's punitive sanctions regime? Well, I

make the point that in terms of the sanctions regime, actually the

number of sanctions are down by around about a half in the course of

the last year. We have a welfare system that has at its heart a

principle of conditionality for many of the benefits that are there and

in order to enforce conditions it is necessary to have a sanctions

regime, but, as I say, the vast, vast majority, something like 98% of

benefit claimants are not sanctioned.

With respect to the statement, my right honourable friend will be

aware that when Her Majesty the Queen came to the throne in 1952,

there were 300 people in that year who reached the age of 100. Last

year it was over 13,000. Will he expressed surprise that I feel at

the responsibility and recklessness of the party opposite in resisting

some of these suggestions? I don't know that I'm surprised but it is

disappointing. The reality is that we have an ageing population, just

as every similar type of country does, and we all have to respond to

the facts, and the facts are that as the population ages, as like -- as

life expectancy improves, and indeed healthy life expectancy, it is right

for the pension age to reflect that. To deny that is just annoying

common-sense. I had hoped the minister was coming here today

because he had seen the light. He had realised that the women from the

1950s are being dealt a terrible set of cards by this Government. That he

was going to compensate them, that he was going to make good on the

injustice that has been done to them, that he was going to make sure

that every single person that wasn't even notified by the government that

they would be caught by this would be compensated, and that he was

going to finally acknowledge that women in my constituency who are in

their 60s, who say to me they are completely clapped-out because they

have had the Boreas jobs or their lives, that they are the very people

that his minister says should now take up an apprenticeship! -- have

had difficult jobs. I'm not sure I would want to call my constituents

clapped-out but there you go! The position when it comes to those born

in the 1950s, just as with this announcement in the 1970s, we have

to balance out the needs and the desire to provide a dignified

retirement with the fact that state pensions have to be paid for and it

is unfair on tax payers if we don't have a state pension age that

reflects life expectancy. That is all we are saying and that seems to

me to be something that is very hard to argue against. The Secretary of

State is absolutely right to go ahead with the report's main

recommendation, which critically gives advance notice of more than 20

years to those who will be affected, and thereby distinguishes this

Government's record from that of the previous Labour government, who

failed to communicate adequately the changes. Can he confirmed there will

be a comprehensive communication programme to make sure everybody

does know in advance? And secondly, whether the Government is also

accepting the report's other recommendations on means tested

benefits, working past state pension age and the review? In terms of the

other recommendations, we are looking very carefully at those

proposals. Obviously there are issues that have an impact across

government. But we think it is right to move swiftly in terms of the key

recommendation, which is the state pension age, in order to give people

as much advance notice as possible. But my honourable friend makes a

good point about the communication process and so on. That is something

that will need to be determined nearer the time. We are 20 years

away from the point at which this takes effect. But we are determined

to insure that this is brought to the attention of all of those of us

affected. -- to make sure that this is brought to the attention. On the

issue of the Waspy women... Some of them weren't even notified of the

changes. Someone notified late, someone notified after it happened,

some received no notification at all. It is about time the Government

came up with an answer for this. Something like 5 million letters

were sent out with the addresses the Government had, and the changes made

in the 1995 Act were many, many years in advance of when they took

effect, and I would make the point of those women born in the 1950s -

none of them had their state pension age put back by more than 18 months

by the 2011 Act. Demographic pressures felt acutely across East

Sussex, where we have the most 85-year-olds, many of those in my

constituency. Can my right honourable friend confirmed that

looking ahead, people, including those living in my constituency, can

expect to receive more state pension over their lifetime than generations

before? That is absolutely right, and if we look ahead, every

generation will spend more years on average receiving a state pension

than the previous generation. That is a very good thing but it is right

that we get that balance right, and what happens if governments don't

address this issue is that you end up with a crisis, you end up having

to move quickly, and you end up with sharp increases in the state pension

age, and that is what we are avoiding by the responsible approach

we are taking today. I am the father of three young daughters and the ONS

statistics say one of them will live to be 100, and by the time they

retire, there will only be two workers in this country for every

retired person, so would he agree with me that it is blindingly

obvious we need to take the steps he has outlined today? It shouldn't be

a cause of regret, it should be a cause of celebration that our

children and grandchildren are going to live to such a grand old age, and

it should be on a cross-party basis just as any responsible actions of a

government should be taken. It is a cause of celebration that life

expectancy is improving, he puts it well. But along with changes in life

expectancy, inevitably, there are changes in the state pension age,

and that's what the change today demonstrates. Does the Secretary of

State agree that thanks to the financial responsibilities shown

hitherto, we've managed to increase the state pension is quite

generously in the last few years by ?1250 a year, and that's why

pensioner poverty has gone down? He's absolutely right, but in order

to do that, we need to take responsible decisions on public

finance as a whole, including on the state pension age, and that's what

we're going to do even if we don't get the support of the party

opposite. As somebody who had their state pension age increased to 68

with everyone slightly older than me and younger than me back in 2007, I

listen to encourage -- I listen with incredulity to some of the comments

this afternoon. This isn't just a challenge unique to the UK. It is a

challenge faced by other countries. He is absolutely right. We are

seeing increases to the pension age in the Netherlands, the Republic of

Ireland. It is what responsible parties do. Unfortunately we only

have one responsible party in this country. I pay tribute to the

report, in part because the writer of it went to my grammar school!

Would he agree that it is by taking a responsible brave decisions and

having a review like this that we avoid the situation that countries

like Italy find themselves in, where you have to increase the pension age

by four and a half years in one go? It is the responsible and fair thing

to do. He is absolutely right, and if we could have -- and we could

have put this off and kicked it into the long grass, but it is important

for the future of this country that we have a government prepared to

take those long-term decisions, securing intergenerational fairness

and ensuring we provide more certainty to pensioners that there

won't be the need for those sudden changes that might have been seen

elsewhere. Order. I have thought the honourable gentleman wished to raise

a point of order and it turns out that, on prompting, he does. The

order paper for yesterday said that the debate on drugs would continue

till seven o'clock. The final speaker sat down four minutes early

and the normal practice in this House is to use that space for other

speakers to contribute. It was particularly interesting that the

final speaker had denied interventions on the grounds that

she didn't have enough time to finish. Standing orders is not clear

on this point. Isn't it right that we get some definition of past

practice, where when the speaker has run out of speeches early or didn't

have anything else left to say, that other members can contribute to what

would be a full debate? Ungrateful to the honourable gentleman for his

point of order. -- I am grateful to the honourable gentleman. He deftly

sunken -- he gave me some indication early on that he would raise it. As

evidenced by the well thumped home on how to be a backbencher, of which

he is the author, I am slightly to quibble with him on his proposition

that it is normal or commonplace if the ministerial wind-up concludes

early for other members to be invited to contribute. In my

experience, that is not commonplace. I wouldn't say it never happens

because... You can almost always find an example of something if you

try hard enough. But certainly when I am in the chair, I tend to work on

the assumption that the ministerial wind-up is indeed the conclusion of

the debate. I note what he says about that conclusion taking place

earlier than listed on the order paper, although I'm sure he will

readily accept that the official report, that is to say the verbatim

account of what was said, will show, there's no question of misleading,

it will show that the debate concluded a little early, and the

chair does not normally allow a further backbench speech. This is

not directed at the honourable gentleman, it is just a wider point.

Certainly not from a member who had already made a substantial speech in

the debate. As for interventions, as the author of how to be a member of

Parliament, available in all good book shops! I've read it, it's very

good! And as I am myself a noted admirer of it, you will note that a

member is free to take interventions. It is not something

upon which the chair can rule if a minister says they do not have time.

Ministers can be a tad erotic in these matters as can shadow

ministers. The situation, though, is as I have described. Can I take this

in a positive spirit to encourage all new members, though I'm not sure

the whips would agree, I would encourage all new members to read

the honourable gentleman's books on being a good parliamentarian. No,

says a government whip from a sedentary position, in evident

horror at what bad habits new members of the flock might pick up!

I think they are fine books and he has used his position as a backbench

member to stand up for his constituents and to fight for the

principles in which he believes, and that has sometimes pleased his party

and sometimes it hasn't, but that's what we're supposed to get here,

members of Parliament to speak to their principles and consciences,

and that's a good thing, and the speaker, as he knows, likes to

encourage that. When I was a backbencher I had a relationship

with my whips characterised by trust and understanding. I didn't trust

them and they didn't understand me! LAUGHTER

Point of order. Yesterday, finally the Department of Health for

accounts were later this House after a week of tattooing and throwing

which prompted no actual changes to the standard of counts. -- tooling

and throwing. I would seek guidance on two points. The first being that

they sat only a couple of days before. And secondly what we can do

to insure a minister turned up to this House to explain the accounts

and all the financial concerns many of this House have about the

Government's handling of health finances. She has put her concern on

the record, it will have been heard on the Treasury bench, and I suspect

the contents will make their way to health ministers in time. The truth

of the matter is that there is no resolution of her grievance

available from the chair. Realistic that will have to wait

until December but if the honourable lady is in her place tomorrow for

the summer adjournment debate, and wishes to XP shade further on her

concerns, she may well find she is able to catch the eye of the chair.

If there are no further points of order, and I think that there are

not, we come now to the presentation of bills. Presentation of Bill,

Chris Bryant. Assaults on emergency workers offences Bill. Second

reading, what data is Mike Friday 20th of October. Two. Mr Steve Reed.

Mental health units. Friday third November. Parliamentary

constituencies Amendment Bill. Second reading, what day? Friday

third is September. Homes, fitness for human habitation. Friday 19th of

January. Splendid day, it's my birthday. Civil partnerships,

marriages and deaths registration bill. Second reading, what day?

Never! Friday 2nd of February 20 18. Thank you. Organ donation, deemed

consent bill. Second reading, what day? Friday 23rd of February, 2018.

Thank you. Refugees, Family Reunion bills.

Second reading, what day? . Friday 26th of March, 2018. Parental

beliefs meant, leave and pay bill. Second reading, what day? Thank you.

Representation of the People Act, young People's enfranchisement and

education bill. Second reading, what day? Friday third November. Overseas

electors bill. Second reading, what day? Debris 23rd, 2018. Parking code

of practice bill. Second reading, what day?. Friday second February,

2018. Perhaps because his bill relates to parking the nation should

be aware that the right Honourable gentleman is sporting a notably

colourful tie which features a very large number of cars, and knowing

the right honourable gentleman 's penchant I assume they are, in fact,

classic. , They are, indeed. Unpaid trial work periods prohibition law.

Second reading, what day? Friday 16th of March, 2018. Prisons,

interference with wireless telegraphy bill. Second reading,

what day? Friday first September, 2018. -- Friday first December,

2018. Stalking protection Bill. Second reading, what day?. Friday

19th of January, 20 18. Oh, I do hope I'm here!