13/11/2017

0:03:04 > 0:03:07Hello and welcome to the live coverage of the House of Commons. In

0:03:07 > 0:03:11one hour, the Shadow Secretary at Emily Thornberry burlesque and

0:03:11 > 0:03:15urgent question of the British Iranian National Nazanin

0:03:15 > 0:03:22Zaghari-Ratcliffe who is in prison in Iran accused of -- trying to

0:03:22 > 0:03:26overthrow the regime. David Davis will update ministers on the latest

0:03:26 > 0:03:31round of talks in Brussels. Margaret Hodge will move a notion for a

0:03:31 > 0:03:35debate on tax avoidance and the main business is the Northern Ireland

0:03:35 > 0:03:39Bill which will pass a budget for Northern Ireland. Don't forget to

0:03:39 > 0:03:44join me, Mandy Baker, at 11pm for a round-up of the day from both Houses

0:03:44 > 0:03:49of Parliament. First, questions to the Work and Pensions Secretary and

0:03:49 > 0:04:02his team of ministers. The Department of Work and Pensions

0:04:02 > 0:04:03has regular discussions with colleagues across government about

0:04:03 > 0:04:08the treatment of Gurkhas and the benefits system and responsibilities

0:04:08 > 0:04:12under the Armed Forces government. Additional support is in play sport

0:04:12 > 0:04:15all members of the Armed Forces community to take account of their

0:04:15 > 0:04:20needs and circumstances. I thank the Minister for her

0:04:20 > 0:04:24response. Gurkhas have put themselves on the line or our

0:04:24 > 0:04:28country and I recently met members of the Gurkha community in Eastleigh

0:04:28 > 0:04:35who travel long distances from home. Having met these phenomenal

0:04:35 > 0:04:40soldiers, will my honourable friend continue to ensure that their very

0:04:40 > 0:04:44unique circumstances are recognised in our pensions and benefits system?

0:04:44 > 0:04:49As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, I am married to a former Gurkha so I

0:04:49 > 0:04:55fully understand and share my honourable friend's gratitude for

0:04:55 > 0:04:59their bravery and their service. No member of our Armed Forces should be

0:04:59 > 0:05:03disadvantaged by their service to our country. And I would like to

0:05:03 > 0:05:06reassure her that the Department of Work and Pensions takes very

0:05:06 > 0:05:10seriously our commitment to the Armed Forces government. And we will

0:05:10 > 0:05:13do everything we can and work as hard as we can tout them get the

0:05:13 > 0:05:23best possible support. Mr Speaker. Advances are interest

0:05:23 > 0:05:26free and repayable over six months for those making a new claim, or 12

0:05:26 > 0:05:30months for those on benefits before claiming the Universal Credit. Our

0:05:30 > 0:05:34objective is to strike the right balance between supporting claimants

0:05:34 > 0:05:39with living expenses and ensuring they have the ability to pay the

0:05:39 > 0:05:43advance.I think the Secretary of State for that answer and he will no

0:05:43 > 0:05:46guidance states that 40% of the standard allowance can be used in

0:05:46 > 0:05:54repaying an advance payment, and 40% can be deducted from the payments to

0:05:54 > 0:05:57pay back creditors. It is not clear from the guidance whether a claimant

0:05:57 > 0:06:03might end up paying both. Meaning they will have more than 40%

0:06:03 > 0:06:06deducted from their award. Could the Secretary of State clarified the

0:06:06 > 0:06:10maximum amount repayable and recognise this is a charter for loan

0:06:10 > 0:06:19sharks?The deduction in terms of subsequent payments to take into

0:06:19 > 0:06:26account of an advance, there is not -- this does not apply to the 40%.

0:06:26 > 0:06:30But we have to remember that this is an advance, this does give people

0:06:30 > 0:06:35greater flexibility to have access to their Universal Credit early so

0:06:35 > 0:06:39that they are able to cope with that initial first assessment period.

0:06:39 > 0:06:43We hear a lot from the other side about Universal Credit, but we do

0:06:43 > 0:06:47need to remember that this is a much more effective system of getting

0:06:47 > 0:06:51people into work and that nationally, 113 people move into

0:06:51 > 0:06:56work and Universal Credit ban for every 100 and the previous system.

0:06:56 > 0:06:59In my constituency, which was a pathfinder for Universal Credit, we

0:06:59 > 0:07:04are seeing very substantial drops and people claiming. Is this not a

0:07:04 > 0:07:08better system altogether? A my honourable friend is absolutely

0:07:08 > 0:07:15right. Universal Credit is helping people get into work, the progress

0:07:15 > 0:07:19in work, and it is also clear that people on Universal Credit are

0:07:19 > 0:07:23spending more time looking for work than on the legacy and effects. And

0:07:23 > 0:07:28I think it is really important that we all work to ensure that Universal

0:07:28 > 0:07:33Credit is a success. We believe it will result in 250,000 more jobs in

0:07:33 > 0:07:37this country as a consequence of its operation and that is something that

0:07:37 > 0:07:44is worth achieving. What the Secretary of State has

0:07:44 > 0:07:50repeated again this afternoon falls into the precise trap of treating

0:07:50 > 0:07:54everyone on Universal Credit as if they were out of work. Surely one of

0:07:54 > 0:07:59the big issues is the problem of applying conditionality to people

0:07:59 > 0:08:05who already have jobs. Well, the point about Universal

0:08:05 > 0:08:09Credit is that it operates when people are out of work and when they

0:08:09 > 0:08:13are in work. That means that what you will not get is what happens

0:08:13 > 0:08:16with the legacy system, that people are worried about doing extra hours

0:08:16 > 0:08:21because they find they have claims closed. That is holding people back

0:08:21 > 0:08:25from progressing. But I do believe that in work conditionality has a

0:08:25 > 0:08:29role to play within our system to ensure that people do progress. We

0:08:29 > 0:08:34have an issue in terms of people who are in work but still getting

0:08:34 > 0:08:38substantial support from the taxpayer. We want them to be able to

0:08:38 > 0:08:41progress to be less dependent upon the state and that is what Universal

0:08:41 > 0:08:45Credit will deliver. What steps has the Secretary of

0:08:45 > 0:08:52State taken to increase the awareness of advance payments?Well,

0:08:52 > 0:08:57we have changed the guidance that applies in Job Centres in respect of

0:08:57 > 0:09:00advance payments. There is also increased publicity within Job

0:09:00 > 0:09:05Centres. I saw myself visiting a Job Centre in Bedford last week the way

0:09:05 > 0:09:12in which the operation of advances is working. We did believe there

0:09:12 > 0:09:15would be increased to take up so people will get the support they

0:09:15 > 0:09:19need. And when it is suggested that people under Universal Credit would

0:09:19 > 0:09:24face weeks and weeks without any financial support whatsoever, I am

0:09:24 > 0:09:27afraid that is scaremongering because that is what is happening

0:09:27 > 0:09:33under the system as it is operating. Yesterday, the Scottish Finance

0:09:33 > 0:09:36Secretary Derek Mackay wrote to the Chancellor ahead of his budget

0:09:36 > 0:09:41appealing for Universal Credit is to be fixed. Today, 140 academics

0:09:41 > 0:09:44publish an open letter in the Telegraph which criticised the

0:09:44 > 0:09:49advance payment system and echoed the Derek Mackay's call to reduce

0:09:49 > 0:09:52the first payment waiting time and move the twice monthly payments and

0:09:52 > 0:09:57reverse cuts to allowances. Does the Secretary of State agree that the

0:09:57 > 0:10:03Chancellor should act?Can I does make a point about Universal Credit,

0:10:03 > 0:10:09and early payments within the system? There is flexibility for

0:10:09 > 0:10:12Scotland, the Scottish government has flexibility, which it is

0:10:12 > 0:10:17exercising. But it means that the second assessment period, people at

0:10:17 > 0:10:22the end of that will only get 50% of what they are entitled to and then

0:10:22 > 0:10:25the rest will be deferred and it will be paid in the third assessment

0:10:25 > 0:10:31period. That strikes me, it is. Scotland to decide, but it does

0:10:31 > 0:10:33strike me as making the situation more difficult for claimants, not

0:10:33 > 0:10:38easier. The Secretary of State is looking

0:10:38 > 0:10:42for the Scottish Government to show him how it is done committee should

0:10:42 > 0:10:46devolve Universal Credit in full and we will get on with it! I wonder if

0:10:46 > 0:10:51he has seen a report from the Child Poverty Action Group group and the

0:10:51 > 0:10:55IPPR and they say cuts to Universal Credit will leave an extra 1 million

0:10:55 > 0:10:59children in poverty. Is a million more children in poverty not

0:10:59 > 0:11:02evidence enough for the UK Government to reverse the cuts to

0:11:02 > 0:11:08work allowances and make work pay? Well, my point was that the Scottish

0:11:08 > 0:11:11Government deliver and Universal Credit in a different way, but a way

0:11:11 > 0:11:18I think is worse than the situation in England and Wales. But I have to

0:11:18 > 0:11:21say, the point about Universal Credit is that it will help people

0:11:21 > 0:11:27into work. Let me give one brief example. If I may, Mr Speaker. I

0:11:27 > 0:11:33heard of an account last week of someone, a single mother on income

0:11:33 > 0:11:39support not currently able, not previously able to claim the best

0:11:39 > 0:11:43childcare costs. Now under Universal Credit, they are able to do so,

0:11:43 > 0:11:47she's taking up a job working eight or nine hours a week where she was

0:11:47 > 0:11:51not previously able to do, a first step on the ladder. That is an

0:11:51 > 0:11:57example of what Universal is delivering.

0:11:57 > 0:12:01It with recent report by the Resolution Foundation using new data

0:12:01 > 0:12:05based on bank transactions shows 58%, so the majority of new

0:12:05 > 0:12:08claimants living and Universal Credit as a result of leaving

0:12:08 > 0:12:12employment in the last year were paid either fortnightly or weekly.

0:12:12 > 0:12:15In their previous job. A far higher percentage than the economy on

0:12:15 > 0:12:21average were around one in four paid fortnightly or weekly. The guy

0:12:21 > 0:12:25mentioning sure no claim and has to wait more than ten days so will they

0:12:25 > 0:12:30make sure it mirrors the end -- the world of work for those who claim

0:12:30 > 0:12:38it?Universal Credit is replacing tax credits, and tax credits, 57% of

0:12:38 > 0:12:46claimants are paid monthly and 12% get paid for weekly. That is nearly

0:12:46 > 0:12:5170% are paid over that period of time and if you are to have a system

0:12:51 > 0:12:58that works for everybody, then a monthly system is what it has to be.

0:13:05 > 0:13:08We are committed to ensuring claimants receive high-quality,

0:13:08 > 0:13:14fair, accurate assessments. DWP closely monitors assessments through

0:13:14 > 0:13:19independent audit and assessments deemed unacceptable returned. A

0:13:19 > 0:13:24range of measures including provider improvement plans address

0:13:24 > 0:13:27performance falling below expected standards and DWP continually looks

0:13:27 > 0:13:32to improve the assessment process.

0:13:32 > 0:13:34My office is inundated with people dissatisfied and distressed after

0:13:34 > 0:13:39their assessment. In light of statistics showing an almost

0:13:39 > 0:13:41ninefold increase in complaints to the department, what analysis has

0:13:41 > 0:13:50been made of the PIP assessment process?We are constantly striving

0:13:50 > 0:13:54to improve the assessment period. It is worth pointing out that the total

0:13:54 > 0:13:59number of complaints on PIP is about 1%. We are continuing to work

0:13:59 > 0:14:04closely with the assessors to ensure that this can be delivered as

0:14:04 > 0:14:09effectively as possible.Justin Tomlinson.The vast majority of

0:14:09 > 0:14:14successful appeals because of late additional evidence. What further

0:14:14 > 0:14:18consideration is being given to sharing data between the two

0:14:18 > 0:14:21different assessments and to automatically access health records

0:14:21 > 0:14:28where the claimant is welling in advance of an assessment?I think my

0:14:28 > 0:14:30honourable friend raises an important point. He is actually

0:14:30 > 0:14:36right and is the reason why the majority of overturned decisions are

0:14:36 > 0:14:40reached. We continue to look at ways in which the assessment process of

0:14:40 > 0:14:45PIP and ESA, to the extent they can be greater called nation between

0:14:45 > 0:14:51them, that is something we are considering.Mr Speaker, my

0:14:51 > 0:14:54constituent has a life limiting illness and her medical consultant

0:14:54 > 0:14:58has confirmed this affects even the most basic of daily activities.

0:14:58 > 0:15:01Without a transplant, she has approximately two or three years

0:15:01 > 0:15:06left to live. She has just been turned down for PIP. Will the

0:15:06 > 0:15:09Secretary of State please give an undertaking he will look into this

0:15:09 > 0:15:13as a matter of urgency? Can he confirm that compassionate

0:15:13 > 0:15:20conservatism is officially dead?In terms of her first point, of course,

0:15:20 > 0:15:23I will happily look at that case if she wants to provide me with the

0:15:23 > 0:15:32details.For our constituents, a health assessment is an incredibly

0:15:32 > 0:15:36important moment and it can be very distressing. I have been calling for

0:15:36 > 0:15:41a routine recording of assessments, providing evidence of when they go

0:15:41 > 0:15:46wrong. A recording in itself could change behaviour for the better.

0:15:46 > 0:15:51Could my honourable friend provide an update on the recording pilot?We

0:15:51 > 0:15:54are looking at that. I think my honourable friend makes an important

0:15:54 > 0:16:05point in terms of the need for independent audit of assessments to

0:16:05 > 0:16:08ensure the advice provided by decision-makers is of suitable

0:16:08 > 0:16:13quality, fully explained unjustified, and recording that is

0:16:13 > 0:16:16part of the various options that we have in terms of making those

0:16:16 > 0:16:23improvements.Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I start by welcoming the

0:16:23 > 0:16:29honourable lady to her place? There has been a 900% increase in

0:16:29 > 0:16:33complaints about the personal independence payment assessment. Her

0:16:33 > 0:16:39Majesty's courts and tribunal statistics show that the number of

0:16:39 > 0:16:41appeals lodged and the proportion of DWP decisions overturned has

0:16:41 > 0:16:50increased. There has been a 67% increase in the first quarter of

0:16:50 > 0:16:56this year in appeals, in comparison with the same period last year. Just

0:16:56 > 0:17:00last week, Britain's Rosenior tribunal judge stated that most of

0:17:00 > 0:17:05the benefit cases that reach the court are based on bad decisions,

0:17:05 > 0:17:11where the DWP has no case at all. The quality of evidence...Order, we

0:17:11 > 0:17:20do need a? Very soon. -- we do need a question mark very soon. The text

0:17:20 > 0:17:24is extensive, I know she is new to the bench and I listened with

0:17:24 > 0:17:28interest and respect, but we need to proceed speedily. I know she is

0:17:28 > 0:17:33getting to a question in her next sentence.I certainly am getting to

0:17:33 > 0:17:37my question. What I will ask the Secretary of State is what action is

0:17:37 > 0:17:43he taking to improve the personal independence payment framework,

0:17:43 > 0:17:45improve the accuracy of decision-making and standards of

0:17:45 > 0:17:55mandatory reconciliation, and stop wasting taxpayer money on funds -- a

0:17:55 > 0:18:00necessary tribunal is and appeals. Let me put this in context. Since

0:18:00 > 0:18:05the personal independence framework was introduced in 2013, the DWP has

0:18:05 > 0:18:08carried over 2.6 million assessments. As I said earlier, the

0:18:08 > 0:18:12total number of complaints received equates to fewer than 1% of all

0:18:12 > 0:18:18assessments. Our latest research shows that 76% of PIP claimants are

0:18:18 > 0:18:24satisfied with the overall experience. In terms of the 2.6

0:18:24 > 0:18:27million decisions, 80% have been appealed, 4% have been successfully

0:18:27 > 0:18:34appealed. We constantly strive to improve the PIP system. But let's

0:18:34 > 0:18:43put this in some context.Last week I was able to spend the day in the

0:18:43 > 0:18:46Jobcentre in my constituency, seeing what is going well and what is not

0:18:46 > 0:18:49going so well with some welfare reforms, including Universal Credit

0:18:49 > 0:18:53and PIP. One issue that came up as the period of time that people are

0:18:53 > 0:18:56waiting for health and work capability assessments. Can I ask my

0:18:56 > 0:18:59honourable friend what penalties are being levied against some of the

0:18:59 > 0:19:02third-party companies involved with the assessments and what could be

0:19:02 > 0:19:11done to close the gap for constituents?When it comes to

0:19:11 > 0:19:16improving the timing, whether it be of ESA or PIP assessments, it is the

0:19:16 > 0:19:25case that they have that period of time reduced in recent months. That

0:19:25 > 0:19:30is something I welcome. We continue to work closely with the providers

0:19:30 > 0:19:33of the assessments to ensure that their performance is adequate.

0:19:33 > 0:19:38Question four, Mr Speaker.

0:19:39 > 0:19:44With permission, I will answer questions for Macron six together.

0:19:44 > 0:19:47In 2012, overall participation of female eligible employees in a

0:19:47 > 0:19:52workplace pension was 58%. Since the introduction of automatic enrolment,

0:19:52 > 0:19:58this has increased to 80% in 2016. For males this has increased from

0:19:58 > 0:20:0552% to 76% in the same period.Two former pensions ministers have

0:20:05 > 0:20:10criticised the Government for the policy. The opposition parties

0:20:10 > 0:20:14recognise the government matter is wrong. The growing number of

0:20:14 > 0:20:19cross-party MPs say it is wrong, and hundreds of thousands of

0:20:19 > 0:20:23disadvantaged 1950s women know it is wrong. When will the current

0:20:23 > 0:20:27pensions minister and the Government admit their mistake and take action

0:20:27 > 0:20:31to rectify this grave injustice?

0:20:33 > 0:20:36The Government will not be revisiting the state pension

0:20:36 > 0:20:39arrangements for women born in the 1950s that are affected by the

0:20:39 > 0:20:46pensions act of 1995, 2007 and 2011. This would require people of working

0:20:46 > 0:20:48age, more specifically younger people, to bear an even greater

0:20:48 > 0:20:56share of the cost of the pensions system.Thank you, Mr Speaker. The

0:20:56 > 0:21:00government matter's former pensions minister has said that she regrets

0:21:00 > 0:21:03the government's failure to properly communicate the state pension age

0:21:03 > 0:21:10equalisation and it is up to Macron approach she describes as a massive

0:21:10 > 0:21:13failure of public policy. Does the Minister appreciate how much this

0:21:13 > 0:21:19failure has affected 1950s women's ability to plan for a happy

0:21:19 > 0:21:26retirement? And the sense of outrage they feel about this issue?Since

0:21:26 > 0:21:291995, successive governments, including the Labour Party, have

0:21:29 > 0:21:33gone to significant lengths to communicate the changes, including

0:21:33 > 0:21:36targeted communications, hundreds of press reports, parliamentary

0:21:36 > 0:21:40debates, advertising and millions of letters. In the last 17 years, the

0:21:40 > 0:21:43department has also provided over 18 million personalised state pension

0:21:43 > 0:21:51estimates.Thank you, Mr Speaker. My honourable friend confirm that if

0:21:51 > 0:21:54changes or were changes to be made to the women's pensions

0:21:54 > 0:21:56arrangements, that this would actually create discrimination

0:21:56 > 0:22:05against men and that would be unfair?I am grateful to my

0:22:05 > 0:22:09honourable friend from Dorset's question. The proposal whereby women

0:22:09 > 0:22:13would receive early pensions would create a new inequality, Mr Speaker,

0:22:13 > 0:22:21between men and women, the legality of which is highly questionable.The

0:22:21 > 0:22:23government matter seem to be under the misapprehension that the

0:22:23 > 0:22:30campaign by the 1950s women will eventually go away if they keep

0:22:30 > 0:22:32ignoring it, even told the table office that they would not answer a

0:22:32 > 0:22:35question on a subject for my honourable friend the member. Tim

0:22:35 > 0:22:41Southee. It will not go away. So why doesn't the minister engage with the

0:22:41 > 0:22:45campaigners to find the solution and support our proposals to extend

0:22:45 > 0:22:48pension credit to the most financially vulnerable and give them

0:22:48 > 0:22:54all the opportunity to retire up to two years earlier?The honourable

0:22:54 > 0:22:57gentleman will be aware that the Government has already introduced

0:22:57 > 0:23:01transitional arrangements, costing £1.1 billion, in 2011, which mean

0:23:01 > 0:23:05that no woman will see her pension age change by more than 18 months,

0:23:05 > 0:23:15relative to the 1995 acts timetable. Question number five.The

0:23:15 > 0:23:18availability of advances at the start of a Universal Credit claim

0:23:18 > 0:23:20ensures that those that need money immediately can access it. Data

0:23:20 > 0:23:25shows that around half of claimants are receiving advances. We have

0:23:25 > 0:23:28recently undertaken an exercise to improve awareness and access to the

0:23:28 > 0:23:35support.The manager of a food bank in Lincoln has said that there is

0:23:35 > 0:23:40evidence of a clear correlation locally between the introduction of

0:23:40 > 0:23:44Universal Credit and, in Lincoln, we have only had a partially so far, a

0:23:44 > 0:23:47full roll-out in March. There is a clear correlation between that and

0:23:47 > 0:23:50an increase in the use of food banks. I would ask for your comments

0:23:50 > 0:23:53on that and also asked people on the benches opposite, including

0:23:53 > 0:24:00yourself, think it is acceptable that people in Lincoln would be

0:24:00 > 0:24:07starving, not for food banks, but because of waiting for Universal

0:24:07 > 0:24:11Credit payments.Presumably you say what is acceptable in Lincoln, way

0:24:11 > 0:24:17above my play the EU pay grade. The Secretary of State?I repeatedly

0:24:17 > 0:24:21make this point, that nobody needs to wait a long period of time for

0:24:21 > 0:24:29cash support under the Universal Credit system. To suggest otherwise

0:24:29 > 0:24:32is causing unnecessary anxiety for those that are not on the Universal

0:24:32 > 0:24:37Credit. I'm afraid that I think we should all discuss this in a

0:24:37 > 0:24:45slightly more responsible manner. When I visited the Newark Jobcentre

0:24:45 > 0:24:50a week or so ago, 80% of the jobs in the Jobcentre were paid either four

0:24:50 > 0:24:53weekly or monthly. With the Secretary of State agree that you

0:24:53 > 0:24:56have to be careful not to patronise working people, and not to stop them

0:24:56 > 0:25:01from entering the workplace with as much ease as possible? The vast

0:25:01 > 0:25:07majority of jobs in my constituency are paid monthly.My honourable

0:25:07 > 0:25:11friend is absolutely right. Part of the purpose of Universal Credit is

0:25:11 > 0:25:16to close the gap between being out of work and being in work. For most

0:25:16 > 0:25:21jobs in work, that is paid monthly, getting people used to the monthly

0:25:21 > 0:25:25system is a sensible approach. Can I also say that I very much welcome

0:25:25 > 0:25:31the fact that my honourable friend has visited a Jobcentre. I recommend

0:25:31 > 0:25:35honourable and right honourable members to do so to hear how it is

0:25:35 > 0:25:38operating on the ground, because the experience that I know many

0:25:38 > 0:25:46honourable members have is extremely positive.I won't ask the Government

0:25:46 > 0:25:52bench for the fifth time whether I should believe his statement, the

0:25:52 > 0:25:55roll-out of Universal Credit in Birkenhead will go hunky-dory, with

0:25:55 > 0:26:00a food bank, which says it will need ten tonnes more food to prevent a

0:26:00 > 0:26:07scenario of people being hungry, if you cannot abide the word starving.

0:26:07 > 0:26:11We have a debate on Thursday which is signed by members across the

0:26:11 > 0:26:17House of Commons. It will be the first time when members opposite can

0:26:17 > 0:26:24actually vote, one if they want to reform Universal Credit. Will he be

0:26:24 > 0:26:30opening a debate on taking the message back to Cabinet?Well, the

0:26:30 > 0:26:34position we have made very clear for a long time is that we want to

0:26:34 > 0:26:40ensure that Universal Credit works. This is a test and learn system and

0:26:40 > 0:26:43we are always looking at ways in which we can improve the system,

0:26:43 > 0:26:45particularly for that first period. What I would say to the right

0:26:45 > 0:26:52Honourable Member, and the house as a whole, is that Universal Credit is

0:26:52 > 0:26:56helping us address the best way of dealing with poverty, which is

0:26:56 > 0:27:00ensuring that people can get into work. That is the argument that I

0:27:00 > 0:27:03and my honourable and right honourable friends will continue to

0:27:03 > 0:27:04make.

0:27:07 > 0:27:12Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have visited job centres and I know that

0:27:12 > 0:27:16in the Universal Credit system that work coaches are very much an

0:27:16 > 0:27:19important and integral part of the system. May I ask my honourable

0:27:19 > 0:27:27friend how the new word coaches will boost job assist job-seekers in my

0:27:27 > 0:27:33constituency, in their eager quest to find work and to find employment?

0:27:33 > 0:27:37My honourable friend is absolutely right. That is why we are recruiting

0:27:37 > 0:27:42work coaches up and down the United Kingdom, providing the personalised

0:27:42 > 0:27:45support that people need to help them get into work. Again, I come

0:27:45 > 0:27:48back to my experience of meeting with word coaches in job centres up

0:27:48 > 0:27:53and down the country. They believe they have a system in place that is

0:27:53 > 0:28:02helping them to do more to transform lives. That is hugely important.Mr

0:28:02 > 0:28:05Speaker, one of the original objectives of Universal Credit was

0:28:05 > 0:28:11to reduce child poverty. In 2010, the Government said Universal Credit

0:28:11 > 0:28:17would reduce child poverty by 350,000. This was revised to 150,020

0:28:17 > 0:28:2113. Last year, ministers failed to produce a figure in answer to my

0:28:21 > 0:28:24honourable friend, the member for West Ham. What are the government's

0:28:24 > 0:28:28current estimates of how many children would be lifted out of

0:28:28 > 0:28:36poverty as a result of UC?Universal Credit gives people a better

0:28:36 > 0:28:43opportunity to work. It gives single parents greater support. In fact, it

0:28:43 > 0:28:46gives parents greater support on childcare. I come back to the

0:28:46 > 0:28:52example that I just gave a moment or so ago. He was previously on income

0:28:52 > 0:28:56support, not able to get help with childcare, now able to get help with

0:28:56 > 0:29:01childcare and is getting on the employment ladder thanks to

0:29:01 > 0:29:07Universal Credit. That is what Universal Credit is delivering.

0:29:07 > 0:29:10Well, that was a really disappointing answer. We have

0:29:10 > 0:29:13already heard that the Child poverty action group published data last

0:29:13 > 0:29:18week which is predicting that 1 million more children will be pushed

0:29:18 > 0:29:25into poverty as a result of UC cuts. 300,000 of those that are under

0:29:25 > 0:29:32five. Another objective was to make work pay. Given that four out of ten

0:29:32 > 0:29:38people on UC are in work and would be, on average, £2600 a year work in

0:29:38 > 0:29:44the worst off, when will the Government admit that UC is not fit

0:29:44 > 0:29:49for purpose and stop the roll-out of UC?

0:29:49 > 0:30:00Can I point out that child poverty is down since 2010? I think the

0:30:00 > 0:30:06Honourable Member has given the game away there. She doesn't want to

0:30:06 > 0:30:11pause and fix Universal Credit, Mr Speaker. She wants to scrap and

0:30:11 > 0:30:20rewind it. She wants to rewind to a system when claimants were forced to

0:30:20 > 0:30:24accept reduction rate of 90%, where they had to claim a multitude of

0:30:24 > 0:30:28benefits and where we have a benefit system that was not an aid to people

0:30:28 > 0:30:33working, but an impediment that trapped people in poverty and

0:30:33 > 0:30:44dependency. That is what Universal Credit will bring an end to.

0:30:44 > 0:30:48With permission, Mr Speaker, will answer questions seven and 12

0:30:48 > 0:30:56together. There are no financial losers on those on the seat of

0:30:56 > 0:31:01Employment Allowance and the universal Reddit equivalent prior to

0:31:01 > 0:31:06April 2017 including those who temporarily leave the essay to try

0:31:06 > 0:31:10out work and return. New claimants from April and are capable of

0:31:10 > 0:31:14preparing for work received a rate of benefits on a par with Job

0:31:14 > 0:31:20Seekers Allowance.I welcome the Minister to her place. Changes to

0:31:20 > 0:31:25benefit are actually resulting in huge cuts to the money people and

0:31:25 > 0:31:29disabilities have to live on. The ESA cut was touted by the government

0:31:29 > 0:31:32as a way to remove perverse incentives and encourage people into

0:31:32 > 0:31:38work. With the Minister agree starvation does not encourage anyone

0:31:38 > 0:31:41into work and cutting funding the people in need does not help and

0:31:41 > 0:31:46that need, and will she commit to reversing these invidious cuts?I

0:31:46 > 0:31:50think the honourable lady for her question. There are no cuts to

0:31:50 > 0:31:58people on those benefits, let's be absolutely clear about this. Since

0:31:58 > 0:32:02April 2017, people who are able to work are receiving a personal

0:32:02 > 0:32:08support package. We have already recruited 300 new disability claim

0:32:08 > 0:32:13advisers, we have a -- allocated 15 million to the flexible support

0:32:13 > 0:32:18funds, we are doing everything we can for people who are able to make

0:32:18 > 0:32:26the journey back to work to have the support that they need to do so.It

0:32:26 > 0:32:33may place more reliance on the Minister's comments, that there is

0:32:33 > 0:32:38an austerity. Is he aware that the Scottish Government estimate between

0:32:38 > 0:32:427-10,000 people in my constituency and in Scotland stands to lose the

0:32:42 > 0:32:47work-related component of their allowances and this is a cut they

0:32:47 > 0:32:50cannot afford, so will she undertake to speak as a matter of urgency to

0:32:50 > 0:32:54the Chancellor ahead of the budget to reverse the cuts and stop

0:32:54 > 0:32:57punishing the poor and disabled for the economic failures of this

0:32:57 > 0:33:02Government.I think the honourable gentleman. Let's be absolutely clear

0:33:02 > 0:33:06what we are trying to achieve here. There are many people in Scotland

0:33:06 > 0:33:11and across our country who are recovering from health conditions,

0:33:11 > 0:33:14who have disabilities, who really want to work. And we are doing

0:33:14 > 0:33:18everything that we can't to provide them with tailored support so that

0:33:18 > 0:33:23they can do that and they can play a full part in the society to enable

0:33:23 > 0:33:29them to do so.Despite record employment, only one in every 100

0:33:29 > 0:33:35people on ESA leaves the benefits system every month. Could the

0:33:35 > 0:33:40Minister tell us what more she and her department doing to help these

0:33:40 > 0:33:47people into work.He is quite right to point out this unfair

0:33:47 > 0:33:51discrimination for people with disabilities in our country who

0:33:51 > 0:33:57really want to make a contribution. And we are doing everything

0:33:57 > 0:34:03including working with employers as well as providing people seeking

0:34:03 > 0:34:05employment with a tailor-made support that they need to play their

0:34:05 > 0:34:19full part in society. The UK continues to be a global leader in

0:34:19 > 0:34:23disability rights. And we are committed to further improving and

0:34:23 > 0:34:27progressively implementing this convention. We are considering the

0:34:27 > 0:34:30committee's recommendations and we will provide an update on the

0:34:30 > 0:34:36progress we are making in the next year, as requested by the UN.Mr

0:34:36 > 0:34:41Speaker, the UN found that UK cuts disproportionately hit people with

0:34:41 > 0:34:46disabilities and fundamentally and systematically and gravely

0:34:46 > 0:34:54undermined their human rights. So will she ensure now, today, that

0:34:54 > 0:34:56PIP, ESN and Universal Credit brought into line with the

0:34:56 > 0:35:03fundamental conventions of the UN so the people are treated with dignity

0:35:03 > 0:35:07instead of with discrimination and cruelty?This country has a proud

0:35:07 > 0:35:12record of treating people fairly and we will continue to uphold those

0:35:12 > 0:35:16proud principles. Of course we are considering the report and as I

0:35:16 > 0:35:20said, we will be publishing our findings. But let's put this in

0:35:20 > 0:35:24context. Only Germany of the G7 presents more money supporting

0:35:24 > 0:35:29people with disabilities and long-term conditions. As a

0:35:29 > 0:35:36percentage of GDP, we present 2.5% and that is 6% of all government

0:35:36 > 0:35:43spending. That is £50 billion year. Can I just confirm any money

0:35:43 > 0:35:50received on disability benefits as PIP DLA is exempt under the benefits

0:35:50 > 0:35:54capital.Very grateful to my honourable friend for that question

0:35:54 > 0:36:05and I can give a very simple answer, yes.

0:36:05 > 0:36:11I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. Up to October 20 7%

0:36:11 > 0:36:18have been disallowed personal independence payment. 45% of

0:36:18 > 0:36:22claimants with Parkinson's disease receive a higher award and a PIP

0:36:22 > 0:36:28than they did previously.Would it not save a lot of time, money and

0:36:28 > 0:36:34distress if all those on the higher rate of disability allowance with

0:36:34 > 0:36:36degenerative diseases like Parkinson's were transferred

0:36:36 > 0:36:39automatically onto personal independence payments and how many

0:36:39 > 0:36:42people with Parkinson's are currently in the noble review

0:36:42 > 0:36:50category?It is absolutely right that we get PIP right for anybody

0:36:50 > 0:36:54with a disability, including those people with degenerative diseases

0:36:54 > 0:36:59like Parkinson's. At a big it is absolutely right to notice, as my

0:36:59 > 0:37:05honourable friend did earlier that considering how many PIP assessments

0:37:05 > 0:37:10have been made, over 2.6 million, there have been fewer than 1% of

0:37:10 > 0:37:15complaints. Most of the time, this benefit is got right the first time.

0:37:15 > 0:37:20But we worked tirelessly, including with our stakeholders in the

0:37:20 > 0:37:28voluntary sector organisations, to make improvements.Advances are

0:37:28 > 0:37:33available at the start of a Universal Credit claimed to ensure

0:37:33 > 0:37:37people have money to tide them over until the first payment. Around half

0:37:37 > 0:37:42of claimants receiving advances and we have undertaken an exercise to

0:37:42 > 0:37:47improve awareness and access to the support.I thank the Secretary of

0:37:47 > 0:37:50State for this answer. We are fortunate in Bernd Ritthammer low

0:37:50 > 0:37:55employment rates. Could you tell me what the likely impact on jobs of

0:37:55 > 0:38:01Universal Credit roll-out will be in my constituency?In total, it is

0:38:01 > 0:38:05estimated that Universal Credit will help around 250,000 people more into

0:38:05 > 0:38:11employment. On average, that works out at around 400 extra people in

0:38:11 > 0:38:14work, in each Parliamentary constituency. But Universal Credit

0:38:14 > 0:38:18will have large impacts in areas with a higher proportion of benefit

0:38:18 > 0:38:21claimants or a higher prevalence of single parents and out of work

0:38:21 > 0:38:27families. But Russell trust say that food bank

0:38:27 > 0:38:31use has increased in areas where Universal Credit has been rolled

0:38:31 > 0:38:35out, it has not been rolled out yet in my constituency, but this

0:38:35 > 0:38:38weekend, the Hayward food bank ran out of food. What safeguards will

0:38:38 > 0:38:42the Minister put in place to ensure Universal Credit claimants do not

0:38:42 > 0:38:45have to rely on a charity of their neighbours, a system that sometimes

0:38:45 > 0:38:50fails? We are improving the advances

0:38:50 > 0:38:56system, awareness of the advances system. This is a message we can all

0:38:56 > 0:38:59take to our constituents. There is support available, nobody needs to

0:38:59 > 0:39:05wait six weeks because advances are available within Job Centres and

0:39:05 > 0:39:08they are being taken up, the majority of new claimants are taking

0:39:08 > 0:39:14up those offences. Last week, I heard from one of my

0:39:14 > 0:39:16constituents who was having difficulty getting an advance

0:39:16 > 0:39:21payment and had to result to a food bank. When the error was corrected,

0:39:21 > 0:39:26he took that food back to the food bank when he got his advance

0:39:26 > 0:39:29payment. Does this not show that when mistakes are made, every effort

0:39:29 > 0:39:35is being made to correct them and secondly, the basic human decency of

0:39:35 > 0:39:40those claiming Universal Credit? I entirely agree with my honourable

0:39:40 > 0:39:45friend and the point he makes. It is worth pointing out that in the

0:39:45 > 0:39:49normal course of events, if somebody gets an advance, it usually takes

0:39:49 > 0:39:53around three days through the thanking system for the money to be

0:39:53 > 0:40:03paid. But if need be, people can get support on the same day.

0:40:03 > 0:40:07Thank you, Mr Speaker. The comment's position will set out in

0:40:07 > 0:40:13Parliamentary debates in October 2016 and March 2015 by our Liberal

0:40:13 > 0:40:18Democrat colleague says Steve Webb and I have great sympathy for those

0:40:18 > 0:40:22affected but they are protected by the pension fund compensation

0:40:22 > 0:40:28scheme. In 1996, the Government actuaries Department in a note

0:40:28 > 0:40:31bailed to clearly outline the risks of transferring their pensions to

0:40:31 > 0:40:35the new private sector scheme. We regulate financial advice in this

0:40:35 > 0:40:40country yet when it is the Government giving the advice, not

0:40:40 > 0:40:44even the Parliamentary ombudsman can review it. Surely this is grossly

0:40:44 > 0:40:48unjust. Why does the Minister not pursue this mis-selling scandal is

0:40:48 > 0:40:52the FCA did with the PPI, is it because it would be the Government

0:40:52 > 0:40:59that is to blame this time?The honourable lady suggests one thing.

0:40:59 > 0:41:04I can only refer her to the two Parliamentary debates that dealt

0:41:04 > 0:41:07specifically with this matter, as set out by her own Liberal Democrat

0:41:07 > 0:41:11colleague when he was part of the Coalition, says Steve Webb, in March

0:41:11 > 0:41:172015.The pension protection fund is a vital lifeline for those who

0:41:17 > 0:41:24become insolvent, can Minister give an update on when the white paper

0:41:24 > 0:41:28looking at the affordability will be available?The Green paper as he

0:41:28 > 0:41:33knows was published in debris 2017 and there has been extensive

0:41:33 > 0:41:36consultation and much consideration of the matters but forward. We are

0:41:36 > 0:41:41analysing those responses and intend to publish a white paper in the New

0:41:41 > 0:41:49Year. Since 2010, over 3 million more

0:41:49 > 0:41:52people have found employment, the employment rate is close to the

0:41:52 > 0:41:57record high and the employment rate is the lowest it has been since

0:41:57 > 0:42:041985. 11% of people in Cheadle are

0:42:04 > 0:42:06self-employed, Mike constituent is self-employed and also a wheelchair

0:42:06 > 0:42:11user who finds valuable opportunities to attend networking

0:42:11 > 0:42:15opportunities are lost because they are not always accessible. Does the

0:42:15 > 0:42:19Minister agree to unlock the talent and energy of disabled

0:42:19 > 0:42:23entrepreneurs, event organisers must make provisions for successful

0:42:23 > 0:42:28people to attend them? I do agree with my honourable friend

0:42:28 > 0:42:36and I think service providers have a duty to anticipate and provide

0:42:36 > 0:42:38adjustments for disabled people and certainly in the case of my

0:42:38 > 0:42:43honourable friend's constituent, this may include arranging events at

0:42:43 > 0:42:47an accessible venue. Also worth pointing out that the new enterprise

0:42:47 > 0:42:54allowance which is designed to help people set up businesses, one in

0:42:54 > 0:42:57five of those taking up the new enterprise allowance have been

0:42:57 > 0:43:02disabled people. Whilst every new job is welcome, in

0:43:02 > 0:43:09a country where 55% of people knew in the work of receipt of benefits.

0:43:09 > 0:43:17Mark Webb and living in poverty.And the better off now disgustingly

0:43:17 > 0:43:22well-paid, what is the Government going to do about it.The highest

0:43:22 > 0:43:27earning 1% pay a bigger proportion of income tax than they ever have

0:43:27 > 0:43:34done before. I have also announced that as a government, we have

0:43:34 > 0:43:36substantially increased the Personal Allowance and introduce the national

0:43:36 > 0:43:41Living Wage and the support the Universal Credit is going to provide

0:43:41 > 0:43:47will help more and more people progress into work.

0:43:47 > 0:43:50Around half and we are working to further improve awareness and access

0:43:50 > 0:43:56to the support. Mr Speaker, I am keen to ensure the

0:43:56 > 0:44:01advance payments are made to my constituents in need and I see the

0:44:01 > 0:44:03Job Centre and these systems advise Dutch Citizens Advice Bureau once a

0:44:03 > 0:44:10month. Would he agreed that the party opposite should start acting

0:44:10 > 0:44:12responsibly and encourage constituents to apply for this

0:44:12 > 0:44:16additional help and tone down the political rhetoric which can deter

0:44:16 > 0:44:22vulnerable people from applying in the first place?He knows and the

0:44:22 > 0:44:25party opposite should acknowledge that no one need go without money

0:44:25 > 0:44:28while waiting for their first regular payment and they should not

0:44:28 > 0:44:35try to put people off accessing the support that is there for them.

0:44:35 > 0:44:41Minister, today's exactly six weeks until Christmas Day. If anyone

0:44:41 > 0:44:45applies for Universal Credit today, they will have to make do and just

0:44:45 > 0:44:49two weeks of Universal Credit until after Christmas. What assessment has

0:44:49 > 0:44:54the Minister made of the impact on those families and their ability to

0:44:54 > 0:45:02let the children enjoy Christmas? Our record on timeliness of

0:45:02 > 0:45:05Universal Credit has improved markedly. Advances are always

0:45:05 > 0:45:09available. In the run-up to Christmas, when there are many

0:45:09 > 0:45:11temporary work opportunities available, Universal Credit works

0:45:11 > 0:45:14much better for people in being able to access those opportunities,

0:45:14 > 0:45:19particularly on the verge of the festive season.How much longer can

0:45:19 > 0:45:25a time and spend looking for a job on Universal Credit?Very well, I

0:45:25 > 0:45:28will take the Right Honourable Gentleman on question 14. Though he

0:45:28 > 0:45:32did not seek agreement to that proposition, simply blurting it out.

0:45:32 > 0:45:38We will accept it on that occasion. Mr Speaker, we do know that people

0:45:38 > 0:45:42spend a great deal more time on Universal Credit looking for work.

0:45:42 > 0:45:46They apply for a wider range of jobs and consider jobs they may not have

0:45:46 > 0:45:49considered before. This is all part of the reason why we know there is

0:45:49 > 0:45:51significantly better labour market outcomes for people more likely to

0:45:51 > 0:45:58be in work after six months than on the old benefits.Question 16, Mr

0:45:58 > 0:46:07Speaker.Universal Credit is transforming and modernising the

0:46:07 > 0:46:09welfare state, ending complicated rolls around employment hours and

0:46:09 > 0:46:13the cliff edges of the old system. Universal Credit has a clear system

0:46:13 > 0:46:16of allowances and tapers to ensure that claimants know that they are

0:46:16 > 0:46:22always better off in work.Will the Secretary of State agree with me

0:46:22 > 0:46:25that one of the fundamental flaws of the system we inherited from Labour

0:46:25 > 0:46:30is that people that want it to work more than 16 hours a week could lose

0:46:30 > 0:46:3490p of every pound that they earned? My right honourable friend is

0:46:34 > 0:46:39absolutely right. It wasn't just a very high marginal deduction rates,

0:46:39 > 0:46:42which obviously we don't see with Universal Credit, it was the fact

0:46:42 > 0:46:47that people moving in and out of work, or the hours fluctuating,

0:46:47 > 0:46:50could find themselves moving from one benefit system to another

0:46:50 > 0:46:55benefit system, creating additional hassle and uncertainty for

0:46:55 > 0:46:58claimants, and indeed discouraging people from taking on additional

0:46:58 > 0:47:08hours.Number 17, Mr Speaker.With permission, I would like to answer

0:47:08 > 0:47:11question 17 and 19 together. The Department for Work and Pensions are

0:47:11 > 0:47:15currently undertaking work to investigate the reality of rent

0:47:15 > 0:47:17arrears and Universal Credit. It aims to understand the true level of

0:47:17 > 0:47:21rent arrears for the tenants, what is causing them and any impact

0:47:21 > 0:47:28Universal Credit may be having. Thank you, Mr Speaker. New findings

0:47:28 > 0:47:32say 49% of landlords are less likely to rent to those in receipt of

0:47:32 > 0:47:38Universal Credit. In Kirklees there are only 121 social homes available

0:47:38 > 0:47:44for 9000 700 on the waiting list. Can the Minister tell us what steps

0:47:44 > 0:47:51she is going to take to prevent those on year. -- on Universal

0:47:51 > 0:47:56Credit being swim in it against?The honourable lady is right to raise

0:47:56 > 0:47:58the question, but there are alternative arrangements available.

0:47:58 > 0:48:03We have listened very carefully to housing providers. We are seeing

0:48:03 > 0:48:10improvements in this all the time.I listened very carefully to what the

0:48:10 > 0:48:14Minister said in answer to the question. I am wondering if it is

0:48:14 > 0:48:17any surprise to hear that the chief executive of a large housing

0:48:17 > 0:48:20association in the north-west of Raymond recently told me that there

0:48:20 > 0:48:25are arrears from Universal Credit alone was over £2 million. One

0:48:25 > 0:48:31authority in Yorkshire and Humber has an average per claimant of over

0:48:31 > 0:48:34£1100 per claimant. Why is that happening and what are you going to

0:48:34 > 0:48:39do about it?I think we have to be really careful not to scaremonger on

0:48:39 > 0:48:46this. The National Federation of arm's-length management

0:48:46 > 0:48:51organisations reports three quarters of tenants who started claiming

0:48:51 > 0:48:55Universal Credit were already in arrears. Research shows that after

0:48:55 > 0:49:01four months, the number of claimants in arrears has fallen by a third.

0:49:01 > 0:49:05The single biggest problem for recipients of welfare coming into

0:49:05 > 0:49:09Universal Credit, for some, is the high level of debt. Could my right

0:49:09 > 0:49:11honourable friend the employment Minister tell me what he can do to

0:49:11 > 0:49:15take forward his idea of an interest-free period to resolve

0:49:15 > 0:49:19outstanding debt, and secondly to promote the use of credit unions in

0:49:19 > 0:49:26advising strongly against loan sharks in the run-up to Christmas?

0:49:26 > 0:49:28Mr Speaker, and a half of my honourable friend the employment

0:49:28 > 0:49:32minister, he makes a very important point. We do want people to adjust

0:49:32 > 0:49:37their levels of debt. That is why we had a system of advanced payments

0:49:37 > 0:49:43which enables people to be able to budget properly and meet their

0:49:43 > 0:49:50debts.Question 18.Thank you, we are rolling out Universal Credit

0:49:50 > 0:49:54full-service in a very measured way. I am not aware of any recent cases

0:49:54 > 0:49:59of claims being lost. If the Right Honourable Gentleman does no such

0:49:59 > 0:50:05incidents, I very much welcome him bringing them to my attention.There

0:50:05 > 0:50:10are serious concerns about glitches with Universal Credit, apparently

0:50:10 > 0:50:14arising because the IT does not yet work properly in some areas. The

0:50:14 > 0:50:17Child poverty action group has reported instances of claims being

0:50:17 > 0:50:23made and then vanishing into the ether without trace. Will the

0:50:23 > 0:50:29Minister assure the house that glitches of this kind will be

0:50:29 > 0:50:34addressed and will be resolved, not simply denied?Mr Speaker, I think

0:50:34 > 0:50:41the report to which he refers says that many claims seem to have

0:50:41 > 0:50:45disappeared. In the texted says it is a small number, and goes on to

0:50:45 > 0:50:49mention just one case. That is not to say that I ignore that or

0:50:49 > 0:50:52belittle it in anyway. Of course I take what he says very seriously and

0:50:52 > 0:50:58he has my absolute assurance that I will pay attention to any glitches.

0:50:58 > 0:51:04Topical questions, Helena Smith. Number one, Mr Speaker.This

0:51:04 > 0:51:07department's mission is to support people through all stages of their

0:51:07 > 0:51:11lives. Universal Credit is being introduced slowly and steadily and

0:51:11 > 0:51:15positively transforming people's prospects by bringing satisfaction

0:51:15 > 0:51:19and security of entering work and increasing earnings. We are also

0:51:19 > 0:51:23helping citizens prepare for later life with workplace pensions and we

0:51:23 > 0:51:26are committed to helping people at all stages of their life, and will

0:51:26 > 0:51:32continue to build on this body of work to achieve our ends.

0:51:33 > 0:51:38How does the department plan to respond to their own research,

0:51:38 > 0:51:42showing that Universal Credit is a driver of rent arrears among

0:51:42 > 0:51:47families who rely on it to support them?As my honourable friend has

0:51:47 > 0:51:50addressed, we do need to recognise that a number of other statistics

0:51:50 > 0:51:58that have been quoted, that we have seen rent arrears rising before

0:51:58 > 0:52:01people went into Universal Credit, and after a period of time the

0:52:01 > 0:52:05numbers with rent arrears is falling. Of course, we continue to

0:52:05 > 0:52:09improve the system to ensure that, for example, payment timeliness is

0:52:09 > 0:52:17improved and that people are able to access advances when they need it.

0:52:17 > 0:52:21The Minister will know that motor neurone disease is a degenerative

0:52:21 > 0:52:25disease. Could I ask, therefore, what plans they have to insure that

0:52:25 > 0:52:29people who suffer from that terrible disease don't have to be reassessed

0:52:29 > 0:52:37for PIP?I thank my honourable friend for that question. The length

0:52:37 > 0:52:40of the award is based on individual circumstances and can vary from nine

0:52:40 > 0:52:44months to an ongoing ward with a very light touch review, at the

0:52:44 > 0:52:5010-year point. With somebody as my honourable friend describes, it is

0:52:50 > 0:52:53very unlikely they would have another face-to-face assessment with

0:52:53 > 0:52:59a health care professional.We all know that the Government is bogged

0:52:59 > 0:53:02down in all manner of ways and have been slow to develop secondary

0:53:02 > 0:53:05legislation for several new acts. Can the Minister tell the house when

0:53:05 > 0:53:10he will bring forward regulations to enact defined contribution and give

0:53:10 > 0:53:15pension savers the opportunity of a vastly increased benefits system,

0:53:15 > 0:53:20predicted by the pensions policy Institute and Schroders?These

0:53:20 > 0:53:25matters are being considered and will be addressed in the New Year.

0:53:25 > 0:53:30Can the Minister update the house with the pensions dashboard and

0:53:30 > 0:53:33confirm that all pension schemes will be required to release the

0:53:33 > 0:53:39conference of data required to make the system useful?I am very firmly

0:53:39 > 0:53:42committed to delivering the pensions dashboard. Its introduction will

0:53:42 > 0:53:46clearly transform the way people think about retirement. I will make

0:53:46 > 0:53:50a statement in the spring which will tackle some of the delivery

0:53:50 > 0:53:53challenges, including the point of the honourable gentleman raises.

0:53:53 > 0:53:56There is a feasibility study that is ongoing. There is a stakeholder

0:53:56 > 0:54:00meeting on December the 11th and I would urge him to come along to

0:54:00 > 0:54:06that, as will many interested stakeholders.How does the increased

0:54:06 > 0:54:08conditionality associated with Universal Credit, for example the

0:54:08 > 0:54:11requirement to attend or frequently at job centres, square with the DWP

0:54:11 > 0:54:15Estates reviewing the decision to close job centres, starting with

0:54:15 > 0:54:22Merry Hill in my constituency, which I have recently visited?Mr Speaker,

0:54:22 > 0:54:25we do have a comprehensive network of job centres across the United

0:54:25 > 0:54:28Kingdom, more in Scotland and England and more again in Glasgow

0:54:28 > 0:54:32than other cities. The Universal Credit is a system which works to

0:54:32 > 0:54:37help to support people to get into work and it is the right system.

0:54:37 > 0:54:41Does my right honourable friend share my concern that the inaccurate

0:54:41 > 0:54:45use of Universal Credit statistics can cause huge distress and concern

0:54:45 > 0:54:48to vulnerable claimants? And that everyone has a duty to check their

0:54:48 > 0:54:54facts before using them in this house?I agree. Can I give one

0:54:54 > 0:54:57example? Speaking from that dispatch box, the Leader of the Opposition

0:54:57 > 0:55:03recently said that Gloucester city Holmes had evicted one in eight of

0:55:03 > 0:55:08Universal Credit tenants. If true, it would amount to 650 tenants being

0:55:08 > 0:55:12evicted. Gloucester city Holmes have themselves described it does not

0:55:12 > 0:55:19factually accurate. In fact, a total of eight credits have been evicted.

0:55:19 > 0:55:24All of them had considerable rent arrears well before moving on to

0:55:24 > 0:55:27Universal Credit. In one case, I understand they had not been

0:55:27 > 0:55:33resident in the property for 18 months.Mr Speaker, many veterans

0:55:33 > 0:55:36with psychological injuries carry out physical activity as part of

0:55:36 > 0:55:40their rehabilitation process. But some are reporting that they have

0:55:40 > 0:55:45been sanctioned because of this. Can the Secretary of State give his

0:55:45 > 0:55:47guarantee that his government will no longer sanction recovering

0:55:47 > 0:55:56veterans?I will, of course, look at the facts of the case. I cannot make

0:55:56 > 0:56:00a blank and commitment. Obviously one has to look at the particular

0:56:00 > 0:56:04circumstances. -- a blanket commitment. We do recognise and

0:56:04 > 0:56:10support our veterans at every opportunity.Mr Speaker, a

0:56:10 > 0:56:12constituency recently contacted me concerned about the amount of time

0:56:12 > 0:56:18they are having to wait for their tribunal hearing. Will my right

0:56:18 > 0:56:20honourable friend make representations to the Ministry of

0:56:20 > 0:56:27Justice about the efficiency of HM Courts and tribunals?I am happy to

0:56:27 > 0:56:35convey my honourable friend's concerns.Where is the fellow?

0:56:38 > 0:56:44I will take his place, thank you. My local authority is having to set

0:56:44 > 0:56:48aside £1 million to mitigate for the devastating impact of the role of

0:56:48 > 0:56:52Universal Credit, the impact it is having on families, including having

0:56:52 > 0:56:55to hire extra staff to deal with rent arrears, which they expect to

0:56:55 > 0:57:00increase by 5%. At all levels government in Scotland forced to

0:57:00 > 0:57:07pick up the government's slack, does he not have to pause the roll-out

0:57:07 > 0:57:13now?Universal Credit is going to help transform lives. It is already

0:57:13 > 0:57:19doing it. Transforming a positively by giving people the opportunity to

0:57:19 > 0:57:22work and to progress in work. I just have to say that the SNP can join

0:57:22 > 0:57:25the Labour Party in being on the wrong side of the adamant and

0:57:25 > 0:57:32history will not forgive them for it.-- of the argument. Since 2010,

0:57:32 > 0:57:36discover mug has overseen remarkable job creation. My predecessor,

0:57:36 > 0:57:41formerly of the SNP benches, has just secured a very well-paid media

0:57:41 > 0:57:46position with Yorkshire Today. Would the Minister agree with me that

0:57:46 > 0:57:51people must be flexible about career choices to get on?

0:57:54 > 0:58:06We sometimes hear enough fake news within this chamber. To see the

0:58:06 > 0:58:09former leader of the SNP find themselves employed by a purveyor of

0:58:09 > 0:58:12fake news is disappointing, even if we welcome employment opportunities

0:58:12 > 0:58:20in the round.Universal Credit is proving to be a real challenge for

0:58:20 > 0:58:24people who are self-employed as it fails to account for fluctuations in

0:58:24 > 0:58:28income from one month to another, meaning many are losing out on

0:58:28 > 0:58:33hundreds of pounds of lost benefits. This is totally counter to the

0:58:33 > 0:58:39aspirational vision of Universal Credit that the Government preaches.

0:58:39 > 0:58:44Will the Minister committed to immediately reviewing the benefits'

0:58:44 > 0:58:49suitability for the self-employed and fixing this anomaly?On the

0:58:49 > 0:58:51contrary, Universal Credit specifically responds each month to

0:58:51 > 0:58:54what earnings have been in that month. That is at the heart of its

0:58:54 > 0:58:58design. We do want to help people that are in self-employment to grow

0:58:58 > 0:59:00their earnings and dimension that they have sustainable remunerative

0:59:00 > 0:59:04work. That is why we haven't used a new programme within the new

0:59:04 > 0:59:09enterprise allowance to help you do just that.Great unhappiness

0:59:09 > 0:59:16continues surrounding the issues of pensions and the women who have come

0:59:16 > 0:59:20to see us in our constituencies. There is a plan to have a Private

0:59:20 > 0:59:23members Bill next year. Does my right honourable friend not agree

0:59:23 > 0:59:26that given the continuing accusations and counter accusations

0:59:26 > 0:59:30as to whether people were told not that it would be worthwhile to have

0:59:30 > 0:59:36the debate? Will he support such idea?I am grateful to my right

0:59:36 > 0:59:39honourable friend for his question and I have no doubt that there will

0:59:39 > 0:59:43continue to be debates on this matter. As my honourable friend the

0:59:43 > 0:59:48pensions minister has already declared, we are not going to be

0:59:48 > 0:59:58deviating from the policy we have set out.

0:59:58 > 1:00:0412% of council tenants in the Universal Credit pilot accumulated

1:00:04 > 1:00:10by .3 million pounds rent arrears. Given his astonishing refusal in the

1:00:10 > 1:00:14face of such evidence to halt the roll-out, can the Secretary of State

1:00:14 > 1:00:17to say precisely what he is doing to stop more on my constituents being

1:00:17 > 1:00:23made homeless as a consequence of this decision?Again, I come back to

1:00:23 > 1:00:30this throwing around of accusations. In terms of, we had the Leader of

1:00:30 > 1:00:35the Opposition claiming that 650 people were being evicted, had been

1:00:35 > 1:00:40evicted because of Universal Credit. We are not seeing convictions in the

1:00:40 > 1:00:43social rental sector and there are clear reasons why that does not

1:00:43 > 1:00:51happen. What we are getting from the party opposite is scaremongering for

1:00:51 > 1:00:53potential Universal Credit claimants, which is creating

1:00:53 > 1:01:01unnecessary anxiety.Would he agree with me and congratulate boxed OCA

1:01:01 > 1:01:06be? We have Universal Credit rolled out next year and they are putting

1:01:06 > 1:01:11together the relevant agencies to make some law we are ready for it.

1:01:11 > 1:01:17And what you look at whether or not for a very small amount of money my

1:01:17 > 1:01:21CAB could have one person to deal with all the cases, and we can make

1:01:21 > 1:01:27this work as we all know it should work?I will take that as a spending

1:01:27 > 1:01:33bid from my right honourable friend. But she is right to highlight the

1:01:33 > 1:01:38role of the Citizens Advice Bureau and I met with some in St Albans and

1:01:38 > 1:01:41Bedford last week and whether CAB works closely with the Job Centres,

1:01:41 > 1:01:48it helps deliver the support people need and I very much welcome that.

1:01:48 > 1:01:52My constituent was moved onto Universal Credit in January 2016 and

1:01:52 > 1:01:56has been given a 132 day sanction and treated by psychiatric services

1:01:56 > 1:02:04and will be back to look into her case because it is very sensitive.I

1:02:04 > 1:02:07am happy to receive representations from the honourable member on that

1:02:07 > 1:02:10case. I cannot talk about individuals matters but happy to

1:02:10 > 1:02:16look at that case. What is my right honourable friend

1:02:16 > 1:02:26doing to close loopholes designed to avoid child maintenance payments?

1:02:26 > 1:02:32Where a nonresident payment fails to pay on time or in full, we endeavour

1:02:32 > 1:02:35to immediately try and establish compliance before enforcement action

1:02:35 > 1:02:41is needed. We have a range of powers including the forced sale of

1:02:41 > 1:02:43property, disqualification from driving or commitments to prison.

1:02:43 > 1:02:51But we are exploring options to expand this to form part of the new

1:02:51 > 1:02:57compliance strategy shortly, Mr Speaker.Members of the British

1:02:57 > 1:03:01Steel pension scheme need to decide whether to go into the pension

1:03:01 > 1:03:07scheme or the PPF by December the 11 but there is a lack of clarity

1:03:07 > 1:03:12around high low pensioners in the PPF and whether that might change

1:03:12 > 1:03:15after that point. Can the Secretary of State look at this so the

1:03:15 > 1:03:20information is available for people make that decision?

1:03:20 > 1:03:24I acknowledge the issue the honourable gentleman is setting out.

1:03:24 > 1:03:27If he contacts me, I will sit down with him and go through it in more

1:03:27 > 1:03:31detail. It is a matter for the trustees on an ongoing basis as to

1:03:31 > 1:03:35what the decisions are that are taken.

1:03:35 > 1:03:43Order, urgent question, Emily Thornberry.Thank you, Mr Speaker.

1:03:43 > 1:03:46To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to

1:03:46 > 1:03:49make the statement of the British Iranians national Nazanin

1:03:49 > 1:03:57Zaghari-Ratcliffe.Secretary Boris Johnson.Thank you, Mr Speaker. I

1:03:57 > 1:04:02should like to make a statement on the case of Nazanin

1:04:02 > 1:04:05Zaghari-Ratcliffe in response to the honourable lady. The House will join

1:04:05 > 1:04:10me in expressing our deep concern about the ordeal of this young

1:04:10 > 1:04:15mother who has spent the last 19 months in jail in Iran. And every

1:04:15 > 1:04:20honourable member will join the Government is urging the Iranian

1:04:20 > 1:04:25authorities to release her on humanitarian grounds. I spoke by

1:04:25 > 1:04:28phone to her husband, Richard Ratcliffe, yesterday. And we agreed

1:04:28 > 1:04:36to meet later this week. I told Mr Ratcliffe that the country is behind

1:04:36 > 1:04:42him and we all want to see his wife home safely. In view of the

1:04:42 > 1:04:46understandable concern, I propose to describe the background to her case

1:04:46 > 1:04:51and the efforts the Government is making to secure her release. In

1:04:51 > 1:04:56April last year, she was visiting her relations in Iran Le with her

1:04:56 > 1:05:02daughter Gabriella who was then only 22 months old. When she was arrested

1:05:02 > 1:05:06at the airport in Tehran while trying to board her flight back to

1:05:06 > 1:05:11the UK. The British Government has no doubt that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe

1:05:11 > 1:05:16was in Iran on holiday and that was the only purpose of her visit. As I

1:05:16 > 1:05:19said in the House last week, my remarks on the subject before the

1:05:19 > 1:05:24Foreign Affairs Select Committee could and should have been clearer.

1:05:24 > 1:05:30And I acknowledge that the words I used were open to being

1:05:30 > 1:05:33misinterpreted and I apologise. I apologise to Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe

1:05:33 > 1:05:39and her family if I have inadvertently cause them any further

1:05:39 > 1:05:44anguish. How should bear in mind that Iran's regime and no one else

1:05:44 > 1:05:50has chosen to separate this mother from her infant daughter for reasons

1:05:50 > 1:05:57that even they find it difficult to explain or describe. On the 9th of

1:05:57 > 1:05:58September 2016, Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe was brought before

1:05:58 > 1:06:03a secret trial and sentenced to five years in prison. Suppose for

1:06:03 > 1:06:08plotting to overthrow the Islamic Republic. The House will know that

1:06:08 > 1:06:13as far as we can tell, no further charges had been brought against her

1:06:13 > 1:06:17and no further sentence has been imposed since that occasion of a

1:06:17 > 1:06:24year ago. 11 days after Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe was sentenced, my

1:06:24 > 1:06:28right honourable friend the Prime Minister raised her case with

1:06:28 > 1:06:34resident Hassan Rouhani in New York on the 20th of September 2016. Two

1:06:34 > 1:06:40days later, I raised the case with my Iranian counterpart and the how

1:06:40 > 1:06:45should note that the previous Prime Minister David Cameron raised in

1:06:45 > 1:06:49prison at Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe with President Hassan Rouhani in 2016 and

1:06:49 > 1:06:56my predecessor wrote to the Iranians Foreign Minister about her plight

1:06:56 > 1:07:03and other consular cases on the 29th of August 2016. At every meeting

1:07:03 > 1:07:06with our Iranian counterpart, my colleagues and I have taken every

1:07:06 > 1:07:09opportunity to raise the case of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and other

1:07:09 > 1:07:17nationals held in Iranians jails. We had expressed our concerns at every

1:07:17 > 1:07:23level. Official, ministerial and prime ministerial, on every possible

1:07:23 > 1:07:27occasion during the 19 months that she has been in jail. In addition,

1:07:27 > 1:07:34Mr Ratcliffe has held regular meetings with the memorable one with

1:07:34 > 1:07:37the member for the Middle East and the member for North East

1:07:37 > 1:07:43Bedfordshire. A situation where a British mother is held in these

1:07:43 > 1:07:48circumstances is bound to cast a shadow over Britain's relations with

1:07:48 > 1:07:53Iran. At a moment when in the aftermath of the agreement of the

1:07:53 > 1:07:58nuclear deal in July 2015 and the easing of sanctions, we had all

1:07:58 > 1:08:03hoped to witness a genuine improvement. So I shall travel to

1:08:03 > 1:08:10Iran myself later this year to review the state of our bilateral

1:08:10 > 1:08:13relations and to drive home the strength of feeling in this House

1:08:13 > 1:08:18and in the country at large about the plight of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe

1:08:18 > 1:08:24and other consular cases. In order to maximise the chances of achieving

1:08:24 > 1:08:30progress, I would venture to say that Honourable Members should place

1:08:30 > 1:08:32the focus of responsibility on those who are keeping Mrs

1:08:32 > 1:08:39Zaghari-Ratcliffe behind bars and to have the power to release her

1:08:39 > 1:08:43whenever they so choose. And we should be united in our demand that

1:08:43 > 1:08:47the humanitarian reasons for releasing her so overwhelming that

1:08:47 > 1:08:52if Iran cares about its reputation in this country, its leaders will do

1:08:52 > 1:08:59now what is manifestly right, and I commend this statement to the House.

1:08:59 > 1:09:04For the avoidance of doubt, the Foreign Secretary has responded to

1:09:04 > 1:09:10an urgent question, in the course of which... Order. He has properly made

1:09:10 > 1:09:15remarks. But it is important for others in the House to distinguish

1:09:15 > 1:09:20tweet a response to an urgent and the proper and by government of a

1:09:20 > 1:09:27statement on the other. Emily Thornberry.Thank you very much, Mr

1:09:27 > 1:09:32Speaker, for granting this urgent question and how unfortunate it is

1:09:32 > 1:09:36to ask an urgent question rather than getting a statement. Let me say

1:09:36 > 1:09:39whatever strong feelings we have about Iran's actions in this case, I

1:09:39 > 1:09:43am sure we all will be joined in sending our boards to those affected

1:09:43 > 1:09:50by yesterday's earthquake on the border of Iran and Iraq. I'm very

1:09:50 > 1:09:54grateful to the Foreign Secretary returning from Brussels to answer

1:09:54 > 1:09:57this question, perhaps reflected the last time a Minister of State was

1:09:57 > 1:10:00asked to answer an urgent question, they only lasted 24 hours. But I

1:10:00 > 1:10:05hope that we can make some more progress today than we were able to

1:10:05 > 1:10:09make on the same issue last week. Let's start by clarifying the points

1:10:09 > 1:10:12on which there is absolutely no difference between us. First, we all

1:10:12 > 1:10:21want to see Nazanin brought home as soon as possible. No one who has

1:10:21 > 1:10:23listened to the heartbreaking testimony of Richard Ratcliffe can

1:10:23 > 1:10:26be in any doubt how urgent it is Nazanin brought home as soon as

1:10:26 > 1:10:28possible. No one who has listened to the heartbreaking testimony of

1:10:28 > 1:10:31Richard Ratcliffe can be in any doubt how urgent it is's mental and

1:10:31 > 1:10:33physical help that no one who has listened to the heartbreaking

1:10:33 > 1:10:36testimony of Richard Ratcliffe can be in any doubt how urgent it is's

1:10:36 > 1:10:38mental and physical health but she's returned to her family immediately.

1:10:38 > 1:10:40If it can be done as has been suggested through comparing

1:10:40 > 1:10:44diplomatic statement -- on Nazanin, that would be welcome although how

1:10:44 > 1:10:47can that be achieved and how can we free this innocent British mother

1:10:47 > 1:10:51without opening up the Grace Mugabe precedent where the same tactic

1:10:51 > 1:10:56could be used in Britain to help a tilting Borough National escape

1:10:56 > 1:11:01justice? And we can all agree that the responsibility for Nazanin's

1:11:01 > 1:11:04incarceration and mistreatment lies entirely with the Iranian

1:11:04 > 1:11:09authorities and we unite in urging for her freedom to be was board. We

1:11:09 > 1:11:13are in full agreement on those points. But two key issues where we

1:11:13 > 1:11:19have so far differed and frankly we continue to differ. First, the

1:11:19 > 1:11:22Foreign Secretary argued last week that his comments to the Select

1:11:22 > 1:11:25Committee had, and I quote, no connection whatsoever with the

1:11:25 > 1:11:29latest threats by the Iranian authorities to extend Nazanin's

1:11:29 > 1:11:34sentence and it was and chooses to just otherwise. That, Mr Speaker, is

1:11:34 > 1:11:39entirely contradicted by what has been said by the Iranian courts last

1:11:39 > 1:11:44weekend and on Iranian judiciary websites and Iranian state TV. All

1:11:44 > 1:11:49of them said explicitly that the Foreign Secretary's remarks with a

1:11:49 > 1:11:52basis of their renewed action against Nazanin. We know from the

1:11:52 > 1:11:57evidence of Richard Ratcliffe that when Nazanin herself was told the

1:11:57 > 1:12:01remarks and she saw how the Iranian authorities would exploit them, she

1:12:01 > 1:12:05became hugely distressed and upset. So will the Foreign Secretary today

1:12:05 > 1:12:10except the impact that his words have had, except the distress that

1:12:10 > 1:12:17has been caused to Nazanin and apologise properly for that? Not for

1:12:17 > 1:12:22upsetting people, but apologise for getting it wrong! And secondly, Mr

1:12:22 > 1:12:25Speaker, last week, the Foreign Secretary was asked several times to

1:12:25 > 1:12:29do one very simple thing and that was simply to admit that he had made

1:12:29 > 1:12:34a mistake, not that his remarks have been taken out of context or that

1:12:34 > 1:12:39they have been misconstrued, but that they were simply wrong. And he

1:12:39 > 1:12:44has so far refused to make that clear that refusal been compounded

1:12:44 > 1:12:48yesterday by his good friend the Environment Secretary and even after

1:12:48 > 1:12:52all the debate on this issue, the Environment Secretary still

1:12:52 > 1:12:58incredibly claims that we do not know why Nazanin is in Iran. We do.

1:12:58 > 1:13:03Mr Speaker, it is not good enough. If it is a matter of pride that the

1:13:03 > 1:13:07Foreign Secretary is refusing to admit simply that he has made a

1:13:07 > 1:13:11mistake, well, then I feel bound to say to him that his pride matters

1:13:11 > 1:13:18not one ounce compared to Nazanin's freedom. In conclusion, after a week

1:13:18 > 1:13:21of obfuscation and bluster, will he finally take the opportunity today

1:13:21 > 1:13:27to state simply and unequivocally for the removal of any doubt, either

1:13:27 > 1:13:36here or in Tehran, that he simply got it wrong?

1:13:36 > 1:13:40Mr Speaker, I am more than happy to say again what I said to the right

1:13:40 > 1:13:45honourable lady last week, that yes, of course I apologise for the

1:13:45 > 1:13:48distress and for the suffering that has been caused by the impression

1:13:48 > 1:13:54that I gave that the Government believed, that I believed that she

1:13:54 > 1:13:57was there in a professional capacity. She was there on holiday

1:13:57 > 1:14:04and that is the view... I do apologise, I do apologise. Of course

1:14:04 > 1:14:08I retract any suggestion that she was there in a professional

1:14:08 > 1:14:12capacity. You must have heard, the Honourable Members must have heard

1:14:12 > 1:14:18that from me about a dozen times. The honourable, right honourable

1:14:18 > 1:14:24lady raised an important question about diplomatic protection. And how

1:14:24 > 1:14:32that would work. And I can tell she is right that that is a question

1:14:32 > 1:14:36that Richard Ratcliffe himself has raised with me. All I can say is

1:14:36 > 1:14:41that they will be answering Mr Ratcliffe. I cannot give an answer

1:14:41 > 1:14:44today, but rather and sinister Ratcliffe in person. I am delighted

1:14:44 > 1:14:50to say that I am seeing him tomorrow -- I would rather response to Mr

1:14:50 > 1:14:54Ratcliffe in person. He has requested, as I said last week, he

1:14:54 > 1:15:00has requested to come to Tehran. I don't know whether that will be

1:15:00 > 1:15:06possible, but we will see what we can do.

1:15:06 > 1:15:09Regrettably, more than a faint whiff of opportunism hangs over this

1:15:09 > 1:15:16urgent question. But this will question the wisdom of having this

1:15:16 > 1:15:19discussion at all. Would my right honourable friend not agree with me

1:15:19 > 1:15:23that it is incumbent on each and every one of us in this house to

1:15:23 > 1:15:27play very close attention to what we may or may not be about to say,

1:15:27 > 1:15:30because the Iranians will be watching these deliberations and we

1:15:30 > 1:15:38do not want to exacerbate an already extremely difficult situation.My

1:15:38 > 1:15:45right honourable friend is, I'm afraid, absolutely right. It was one

1:15:45 > 1:15:49of the reasons why it is so important that we remain very, very

1:15:49 > 1:15:53careful in what we say about the entire case.

1:15:56 > 1:16:00I hope today that the Secretary of State is reflecting very seriously

1:16:00 > 1:16:04on his position, and the position that he holds not just in this

1:16:04 > 1:16:11government, but in society. For Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, it would

1:16:11 > 1:16:13be

1:16:13 > 1:16:16Rhys Gill to assume that when a secretary state got involved in her

1:16:16 > 1:16:19case it might make things better. Unfortunately, it has made it very

1:16:19 > 1:16:23much worse. Why was another cabinet minister not briefed properly and

1:16:23 > 1:16:26said live on television he did not know why she was there? What is

1:16:26 > 1:16:32going on in the heart of this government? As able to go a result

1:16:32 > 1:16:36of these comments, she is now in an increasingly perilous situation,

1:16:36 > 1:16:39which has given the radiant authorities added cause for keeping

1:16:39 > 1:16:43her locked up on false grounds. His apology is welcome, but he must

1:16:43 > 1:16:47reflect, as much the Government come on how they do their business, how

1:16:47 > 1:16:55they protect our citizens. What guarantee will he give that Nazanin

1:16:55 > 1:16:58will be given adequate protection and be brought home? The Foreign

1:16:58 > 1:17:01Secretary and his colleagues must make clear that they are able to do

1:17:01 > 1:17:07their jobs and they are able to protect our citizens.Our priority

1:17:07 > 1:17:14is to secure the safe return of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. All other

1:17:14 > 1:17:15considerations, political considerations, are entirely

1:17:15 > 1:17:19secondary. The only thing we have to bear in mind is the safety and

1:17:19 > 1:17:23well-being of the other consular cases in Iran, which is very

1:17:23 > 1:17:31important. I said to the right honourable lady that I was seeing Mr

1:17:31 > 1:17:37Ratcliffe, I am seeing him on Wednesday.Has an ardent

1:17:37 > 1:17:40Churchillian, does my right honourable friend accept that this

1:17:40 > 1:17:46has not been his finest hour? Before the opposition make too much of

1:17:46 > 1:17:52that, may I urge them to avoid headlines such as that in the

1:17:52 > 1:17:57independent online, where it says Boris Johnson should resign if

1:17:57 > 1:18:05British mother stays in Iranian jail for even one more day? The Iranians

1:18:05 > 1:18:09regime plays politics with hostages. Does my right honourable friend

1:18:09 > 1:18:16agree that if they believe that they can get rid of a British Foreign

1:18:16 > 1:18:20Secretary by jailing a hostage for longer, they will jail that hostage

1:18:20 > 1:18:26for longer? That link needs to be broken, not reinforced by the

1:18:26 > 1:18:28opposition.

1:18:31 > 1:18:37I think the whole house would agree that there is nothing more important

1:18:37 > 1:18:45than the safe return of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and, as I say, the

1:18:45 > 1:18:51protection of all other consular cases in Iran. That trumps all

1:18:51 > 1:18:56political considerations in this country.

1:18:57 > 1:19:00Thank you, Mr Speaker. My constituent, Richard Radcliffe,

1:19:00 > 1:19:05wrote in the Evening Standard my complaint is not that her

1:19:05 > 1:19:08imprisonment has become a diplomatic incident this past week. It is that

1:19:08 > 1:19:13wasn't for the 19 months that came before. This shows the sheer dignity

1:19:13 > 1:19:21with which my constituent has been campaigning for her release. He told

1:19:21 > 1:19:26me that the family lawyer, working together with the NGO, has written

1:19:26 > 1:19:31to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office two months ago with legal opinion

1:19:31 > 1:19:35about Nazanin's right to diplomatic protections. I know that the Foreign

1:19:35 > 1:19:40Secretary has already indicated to the member for Islington himself

1:19:40 > 1:19:43that he will consider diplomatic protection. It will he urge that a

1:19:43 > 1:19:46meeting takes place between the FCO and the lawyers, and will he give

1:19:46 > 1:19:51some indication of whether diplomatic protection will be given?

1:19:51 > 1:19:59This could save my constituent's life.As I said to the honourable

1:19:59 > 1:20:02lady earlier, I will be talking directly to Richard Radcliffe about

1:20:02 > 1:20:07that issue on Wednesday. Very briefly, about the issue of consular

1:20:07 > 1:20:12protection, every day, in some part of the world, a UK national or a

1:20:12 > 1:20:15dual national is detained. I pay tribute to the consular work done by

1:20:15 > 1:20:19the Foreign Office across the world. In point of fact, a huge amount of

1:20:19 > 1:20:25work has been done on behalf of your constituent, by my honourable

1:20:25 > 1:20:28friends on these benches, who have met members of her family repeatedly

1:20:28 > 1:20:36and will continue to do so until we solve the problem.Thank you, Mr

1:20:36 > 1:20:41Speaker. I am very glad that the Foreign Secretary has made a

1:20:41 > 1:20:46statement today. Would he agree with me that this poor woman, who is

1:20:46 > 1:20:50separated from her child, is being used not only as a political

1:20:50 > 1:20:53football here, but also in Iran, where the Iranians Republican guard

1:20:53 > 1:21:01is effectively fighting with the authoritarian regime in its own way.

1:21:01 > 1:21:03Would he perhaps consider calling on people in our own system who may be

1:21:03 > 1:21:07able to talk to them, perhaps asking the Archbishop of Canterbury what

1:21:07 > 1:21:11the holy Father to speak on the half of this woman and seek to broker her

1:21:11 > 1:21:17release? Wiper Goessling my honourable friend speaks with great

1:21:17 > 1:21:23insight about the situation in Iran. I can assure him that no stone will

1:21:23 > 1:21:25be left unturned in our efforts.

1:21:30 > 1:21:34From my own experience of trying to get two British national out of jail

1:21:34 > 1:21:37in 2009, when you're dealing with a difficult country you need to be

1:21:37 > 1:21:40absolutely committed and persistent. You need to go to bed every night

1:21:40 > 1:21:43worrying about what is happening to that British national in another

1:21:43 > 1:21:46country. You need to be very disciplined and you need to make

1:21:46 > 1:21:49sure that every single member of the government is speaking with the same

1:21:49 > 1:21:52voice. The Foreign Secretary could not possibly argue that is what has

1:21:52 > 1:21:58happened in this case. What I really don't understand is when he made a

1:21:58 > 1:22:01complete mess of appearing before the Foreign Affairs Committee, his

1:22:01 > 1:22:04office rang to correct other parts of the record, completely incidental

1:22:04 > 1:22:09part of the record, but still refuses to correct the record about

1:22:09 > 1:22:14what he said the Foreign Affairs Committee. Will he do so now?

1:22:14 > 1:22:17Otherwise, frankly, he will have learned nothing.

1:22:20 > 1:22:23I believe I have corrected the record several times already and

1:22:23 > 1:22:25explained the position.

1:22:29 > 1:22:32The Foreign Secretary has referred a number of times to the other cases

1:22:32 > 1:22:38in Iran. Isn't there a real problem with dual nationals and,

1:22:38 > 1:22:43specifically in Iran and countries that don't recognise dual national

1:22:43 > 1:22:48status, is it not time for a broader review of this issue, alongside the

1:22:48 > 1:22:55urgency of the specific case?It is one of the features of British

1:22:55 > 1:22:59consular protection that we give it to dual nationals, irrespective of

1:22:59 > 1:23:04whether or not their nationality, the British nationality, is

1:23:04 > 1:23:07recognised by the country in which they run into trouble. I think that

1:23:07 > 1:23:12is a mark of the dedication of consular staff have today job. We

1:23:12 > 1:23:17will continue to work for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other

1:23:17 > 1:23:20difficult consular cases in Iran for as long as the cases are

1:23:20 > 1:23:30outstanding.The Foreign Secretary has rightly and welcome Lee said

1:23:30 > 1:23:35that the priority for everyone should be returned the wrongfully

1:23:35 > 1:23:39and inhumanely imprisoned mother who has been separated from her child.

1:23:39 > 1:23:45But he also knows words matter. Every time he says things like my

1:23:45 > 1:23:50words were open to misinterpretation, he provides a

1:23:50 > 1:23:53lack of clarity and sounds like he is wriggling in a way that other

1:23:53 > 1:23:59people can exploit. Could he, for the sake of Nazanin

1:23:59 > 1:24:02Zaghari-Ratcliffe, just say unequivocally, for the record, I got

1:24:02 > 1:24:12it wrong?I hope that the house will understand with crystal clarity that

1:24:12 > 1:24:19Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was there on holiday. She was not there in any

1:24:19 > 1:24:25professional capacity. In so far that people got a different

1:24:25 > 1:24:30impression of what I was saying, that was my mistake. I should have

1:24:30 > 1:24:36been clearer. Listen to what I'm saying, with great respect. I should

1:24:36 > 1:24:39have been clearer. It was my mistake. I should have been clearer

1:24:39 > 1:24:44and I apologise for the distress, I apologise for the distress and

1:24:44 > 1:24:47anguish that has been caused to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and to her

1:24:47 > 1:24:55family. Our priority now is to do everything we can to get her out of

1:24:55 > 1:24:57Iran on humanitarian grounds.

1:25:00 > 1:25:04My right honourable friend should know that he has the support of

1:25:04 > 1:25:07everyone on these benches in his efforts to secure the release of

1:25:07 > 1:25:12Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Understanding how difficult this is,

1:25:12 > 1:25:16having already been raised twice at the head of government level, it is

1:25:16 > 1:25:18very difficult to see how the government could have done more.

1:25:18 > 1:25:23Does he agree with me that the prospect of her release are not

1:25:23 > 1:25:26being assisted by the rather unedifying spectacle of the pursuit

1:25:26 > 1:25:35of his scalp?As I say, I think the paramount concern of everybody in

1:25:35 > 1:25:38this house is not narrow party political concerns, is it? It is

1:25:38 > 1:25:44not. It is the safe and secure return of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

1:25:44 > 1:25:52That is what we are working for. While he is in the business of

1:25:52 > 1:25:54correcting the record, would he correct his statement from last

1:25:54 > 1:26:01week, that he had never met the UK-based so-called academic at the

1:26:01 > 1:26:10centre of the trouble of -- Trump and Putin illusion allegations,

1:26:10 > 1:26:15given the publication of a photograph yesterday?There is also

1:26:15 > 1:26:20the flailing about. It is not data like. The source from which it

1:26:20 > 1:26:24emanates is a source from which I usually expect most statesman-like

1:26:24 > 1:26:30conduct. The question suffers from the disadvantage that it does not

1:26:30 > 1:26:35even hover over, does not buzz around the urgent question that has

1:26:35 > 1:26:38imposed. The Right Honourable Gentleman will have to pursue other

1:26:38 > 1:26:44opportunities to favour the house with his thoughts or seek to

1:26:44 > 1:26:49extricate from the mind of the Foreign Secretary his own. I am sure

1:26:49 > 1:26:52we can expect a holy orderly question from the honourable

1:26:52 > 1:26:58gentleman the member for North East Somerset, likely delivered in a

1:26:58 > 1:27:02sentence, with no split infinitive. It might even be a series of

1:27:02 > 1:27:07sentences, amounting to a lucid paragraph. Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg?Thank

1:27:07 > 1:27:12you for that generous and production! -- introduction. Will my

1:27:12 > 1:27:17right honourable friend carry on his approach to defending British

1:27:17 > 1:27:20subject overseas? It is one of the first duties of His Majesty's

1:27:20 > 1:27:24government. Does it concern him, as it concerns him, that the treatment

1:27:24 > 1:27:29of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in Iran, barbarous as it is, is being

1:27:29 > 1:27:38given succour by the Socialists opposite?My honourable friend, I am

1:27:38 > 1:27:45afraid, I think underestimates the motives of the party opposite. I

1:27:45 > 1:27:53prefer to think that they are actuated solely by concern for all

1:27:53 > 1:27:58of our consular cases in Iran, and particular for the safe return of

1:27:58 > 1:28:00Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

1:28:06 > 1:28:09Every member of this house recognises that it is the Iranian

1:28:09 > 1:28:12regime that is responsible for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe's

1:28:12 > 1:28:15detention and that the priority is to bring her home. Our purpose here

1:28:15 > 1:28:20is to hold this Government to account for their actions. Can the

1:28:20 > 1:28:23Foreign Secretary tell me if he is confident in the quality and

1:28:23 > 1:28:27competence and is Foreign Office briefings, and that they are

1:28:27 > 1:28:29properly made available to other government ministers in advance of

1:28:29 > 1:28:36media appearances? If not, will he sorted out? If so, does he accept

1:28:36 > 1:28:38that there is be no excuse for ministers to continue to get it

1:28:38 > 1:28:48wrong?FCO briefings are excellent. I she has heard repeatedly from me

1:28:48 > 1:28:52today, the Government is absolutely clear in its understanding of what

1:28:52 > 1:28:57Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was doing in Iran and why it is absolutely

1:28:57 > 1:29:05unjustifiable that she be detained by that regime.Any mother forcibly

1:29:05 > 1:29:07separated from their daughter is going to suffer from mental health

1:29:07 > 1:29:13problems. But it appears that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is now

1:29:13 > 1:29:17also suffering from a physical illness. Would it be possible for my

1:29:17 > 1:29:27right honourable friend to appeal to the Government? She is a Joel --

1:29:27 > 1:29:29dual national, which means she is British, could we appeal on

1:29:29 > 1:29:34humanitarian grounds for her release?That is exactly what I did

1:29:34 > 1:29:39last week, or the week before last, in the foreign affairs select

1:29:39 > 1:29:44committee. I think it is probably not right to go into too much detail

1:29:44 > 1:29:48about what we know about the medical condition of Nazanin

1:29:48 > 1:29:51Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Only to say this, that it is pretty obvious to anybody

1:29:51 > 1:30:01studying the

1:30:10 > 1:30:13Will the Foreign Secretary now write to the Foreign Affairs Committee and

1:30:13 > 1:30:17all its members correcting the record and while he's doing that,

1:30:17 > 1:30:22will he also make a clarification and correct the wrong report in the

1:30:22 > 1:30:27Sunday Times that he was badly briefed before his remarks to our

1:30:27 > 1:30:34committee?Mr Speaker, I have written to the commitment to you and

1:30:34 > 1:30:40I cannot be responsible for any inaccuracies in the Sunday Times --

1:30:40 > 1:30:47to the committee. I am absolutely delighted to hear

1:30:47 > 1:30:50the honourable lady opposite Said this is the fault of the Iranians

1:30:50 > 1:30:53because we are left in no doubt about the politics being played here

1:30:53 > 1:30:58today and this is the worst possible situation. The fact the honourable

1:30:58 > 1:31:02gentleman for Exeter tries to but then on the back of this shows he is

1:31:02 > 1:31:05holding the situation in contempt, which in every good offers to be

1:31:05 > 1:31:09able to get this honourable lady home because she needs to be with

1:31:09 > 1:31:14her husband and her family.I am sure that my honourable friend

1:31:14 > 1:31:17speaks for everybody in her constituency and in the country, and

1:31:17 > 1:31:20I know that she speaks for members on the other side of the House as

1:31:20 > 1:31:27well. Over one-year ago, the United

1:31:27 > 1:31:30Nations group and Patrick detention rules that Nazanin's detention was

1:31:30 > 1:31:36arbitrary and referred her case. The UN called for her immediate release

1:31:36 > 1:31:41and yet it appears that our own Foreign and Commonwealth Office may

1:31:41 > 1:31:47not have done so, can the Foreign Office please explain?That is a

1:31:47 > 1:31:52very good question. The answer is that we do not normally call for the

1:31:52 > 1:31:56release of consular cases because very often, that exacerbates their

1:31:56 > 1:32:01position. In this particular case, as the House knows, a couple of

1:32:01 > 1:32:07weeks ago, I have called for her release on humanitarian grounds.

1:32:07 > 1:32:12Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I asked my right honourable friend how many

1:32:12 > 1:32:19other British subjects are jailed in Iran and has he got any idea, has

1:32:19 > 1:32:24met honourable friend got any idea what actually the Iranians want to

1:32:24 > 1:32:32release this lady?We have dozens, if not hundreds, of cases around the

1:32:32 > 1:32:38world, Mr Speaker. I should not go into the exact number in Iran,

1:32:38 > 1:32:43although I can tell the House we're working on behalf of all of them.

1:32:43 > 1:32:50When this House passed the Iranian nuclear deal, I am others expressed

1:32:50 > 1:32:55concerns about human rights. Can I as the friends Secretary what

1:32:55 > 1:33:01influence government has for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the human

1:33:01 > 1:33:04rights and for the thousands of others in jail there for the same

1:33:04 > 1:33:14reason?The JCP away does not cover the issues he raises, but we are,

1:33:14 > 1:33:16common decency and humanitarian concern and it takes that she be

1:33:16 > 1:33:24released.I continue to be a critic of the Iranian nuclear deal for many

1:33:24 > 1:33:28reasons, including the fact that human rights were not coupled as

1:33:28 > 1:33:32part of that. It was disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition,

1:33:32 > 1:33:37who was paid to appear on Iranian press TV, did not take the

1:33:37 > 1:33:41opportunity to criticise human rights in Iran. Instead, agreeing

1:33:41 > 1:33:44and contributing to anti-Israel and anti-Western bias. Does the Foreign

1:33:44 > 1:33:49Secretary agree with me and the words of Richard Ratcliffe when he

1:33:49 > 1:33:53said that the Foreign Secretary battling for his job does not help

1:33:53 > 1:34:01Nazanin to come home?And going to resist agreeing with my right

1:34:01 > 1:34:04honourable friend about any points that may have been made by the party

1:34:04 > 1:34:10opposite about Iran, for or against, because our priority is very simple.

1:34:10 > 1:34:18It is not to score party political points, it is to get Nazanin home.

1:34:18 > 1:34:25The right honourable member for New Forest East called Nazanin a hostage

1:34:25 > 1:34:28on several occasions. But the Secretary of State to take this

1:34:28 > 1:34:36opportunity to confirm whether he considers Nazanin a hostage?Nazanin

1:34:36 > 1:34:38Zaghari-Ratcliffe is a very difficult consular case and that is

1:34:38 > 1:34:45how we are treating it. A number of my constituents have

1:34:45 > 1:34:49contacted me with concerns about this case, so can my right

1:34:49 > 1:34:51honourable friend is your them that he and the Government are doing

1:34:51 > 1:34:57everything possible to exert influence, to secure her release and

1:34:57 > 1:35:02agree with me that that should be our one and only priority and focus

1:35:02 > 1:35:07in the Government and in this House? I can certainly give my right

1:35:07 > 1:35:10honourable friend that assurance and I can tell him our Ambassador,

1:35:10 > 1:35:20excellent Ambassador in Tehran is working on this case daily.

1:35:20 > 1:35:23The Foreign Secretary said that he finally accepts that Mrs

1:35:23 > 1:35:27Zaghari-Ratcliffe was on holiday and that the country was now behind her.

1:35:27 > 1:35:33Does he include the right honourable member for Surrey Heath yesterday

1:35:33 > 1:35:37said he did not know why she was in Iran and has he told the right

1:35:37 > 1:35:43honourable member that his comments were both unacceptable and is

1:35:43 > 1:35:47damaging, in equal measure?My right honourable friend, the member for

1:35:47 > 1:35:51Surrey Heath made it very clear that he believed she was there on holiday

1:35:51 > 1:35:56and he is very happy... He did say that, I watched the clip. He was

1:35:56 > 1:36:03very happy to accept that that was the case.

1:36:03 > 1:36:07What action could my right honourable friend take all the

1:36:07 > 1:36:12British Governor to take if Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe is not released? I

1:36:12 > 1:36:17assume there is a danger that if we are under a hostage situation and we

1:36:17 > 1:36:21do not win this case, there are dangers of others been taken in

1:36:21 > 1:36:26similar places.He is right to raise the question and I am afraid we must

1:36:26 > 1:36:31simply work diligently and flat-out for her release.

1:36:31 > 1:36:36Could he reflect on this and the rest of his conduct as Foreign

1:36:36 > 1:36:42Secretary to realise that his brand of clownish incompetence is a joke

1:36:42 > 1:36:49and it is no longer funny, and consider being replaced by a

1:36:49 > 1:36:53competent politician who will attract the respect of the world and

1:36:53 > 1:36:59not the ridicule that he attracts? As I say, Mr Speaker, I think the

1:36:59 > 1:37:05best course for us is to minimise the political point scoring and

1:37:05 > 1:37:12concentrate on getting Nazanin home. Like all members of the House, I

1:37:12 > 1:37:15want to see this poor lady, Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, home as soon as

1:37:15 > 1:37:21possible. But in reflecting upon the proposal that she achieved or be

1:37:21 > 1:37:27given diplomatic detection, would my right honourable friend the Foreign

1:37:27 > 1:37:31Secretary reassure the House that no steps will be taken in this case to

1:37:31 > 1:37:34put into jeopardy the safety of British diplomats around the world

1:37:34 > 1:37:39today and indeed any other Western country which must be our main

1:37:39 > 1:37:44priority in this case?I pay tribute to the work of British diplomats who

1:37:44 > 1:37:49do put themselves in harm's way and danger across the world and we will

1:37:49 > 1:37:56of course bear that consideration in mind.

1:37:56 > 1:38:07If the Government had been on top of this since day one, explain why the

1:38:07 > 1:38:15Secretary of State said he would take her husbands assurance... It is

1:38:15 > 1:38:20hardly a ringing endorsement, what is he going to make -- do to make

1:38:20 > 1:38:25sure his Cabinet colleagues are briefed?I believe I am set that

1:38:25 > 1:38:32question a couple of those ago. Can my right honourable friend assure

1:38:32 > 1:38:36the House the appropriate help and support is being provided to Mr Mac

1:38:36 > 1:38:40and his family given what a difficult period this is for them?

1:38:40 > 1:38:45-- Mr Ratcliffe. I pay tribute to Richard Ratcliffe

1:38:45 > 1:38:51and the way he has campaigned for his wife's release. And I can tell

1:38:51 > 1:38:55you that the door of the Foreign Office has continually been open to

1:38:55 > 1:38:59him and he has had many meetings with my right honourable friends on

1:38:59 > 1:39:05these benches here, and would continue to have full access until

1:39:05 > 1:39:11such time as we sort out the appalling case of his wife.

1:39:11 > 1:39:16The furthest the Foreign Secretary seems prepared to go in his response

1:39:16 > 1:39:21was to say that his words last week were open to being misinterpreted.

1:39:21 > 1:39:27Does he understand, I don't think they were misinterpreted. He said

1:39:27 > 1:39:30from a sedentary position earlier, what else could I say? He could

1:39:30 > 1:39:34simply say, I got it wrong. That would be helpful because it would

1:39:34 > 1:39:37give a clear signal that the Government is serious about saying

1:39:37 > 1:39:42that she was not there for the purposes he suggested last week.

1:39:42 > 1:39:48Will he just say, I got it wrong?As I have said many times both today

1:39:48 > 1:39:52and last week, it was wrong of me to say that she was there in a

1:39:52 > 1:39:58professional capacity. She was there on holiday. I apologise again for

1:39:58 > 1:40:03the distress and anxiety that those words have caused. And the most

1:40:03 > 1:40:08important thing that we can do now, I think, is to make sure that that

1:40:08 > 1:40:12point is clearly understood not just in this place, but around the world,

1:40:12 > 1:40:18and work hard together, united rather than divided as a country, to

1:40:18 > 1:40:22get her home. That is what is in the best interests Nazanin

1:40:22 > 1:40:29Zaghari-Ratcliffe. In my experience as a diplomat,

1:40:29 > 1:40:35there is no harder call than whether public or private diplomacy is more

1:40:35 > 1:40:39effective at helping British people in jail abroad and I say that there

1:40:39 > 1:40:43is a real danger today in completing the domestic political ambitions

1:40:43 > 1:40:49with a very sensitive situation of a British National Party jail. Was my

1:40:49 > 1:40:57right honourable friend -- with a British national who is in jail.

1:40:57 > 1:41:01Will my right and Bob Friend confirm he and the Foreign Office will work

1:41:01 > 1:41:04closely with friends in Iran to see how best this issue can be resolved

1:41:04 > 1:41:10to the satisfaction of everyone in the best way possible?My right

1:41:10 > 1:41:13honourable friend brings great experience and understanding of

1:41:13 > 1:41:21these issues and difficult consular cases and he is right to think and

1:41:21 > 1:41:25to believe that sometimes, a quiet approach and quiet diplomacy can

1:41:25 > 1:41:32yield great results.I agree with the benches opposite that the only

1:41:32 > 1:41:38thing that matters in this is that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe is taken out

1:41:38 > 1:41:41of prison because she is wrongly incarcerated. But that does depend

1:41:41 > 1:41:47on the current Secretary raising his game. As Amnesty International

1:41:47 > 1:41:52suggested earlier this year. Will he commit, after having met Richard

1:41:52 > 1:41:57Ratcliffe, to coming back to this place and making a statement which

1:41:57 > 1:42:00will absolutely make it clear that he will now do everything in his

1:42:00 > 1:42:06power to get Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe home?

1:42:06 > 1:42:09Mr Speaker, I am not certain that it would be right to make another

1:42:09 > 1:42:13statement or even whether it you grant me permission to make a

1:42:13 > 1:42:17statement after meeting Mr Ratcliffe. What I can certainly tell

1:42:17 > 1:42:21the House is that I do believe it will be appropriate following any

1:42:21 > 1:42:24trip to Iran that it may be possible to organise, to make a statement

1:42:24 > 1:42:30then.Does my right honourable friend agree that members of this

1:42:30 > 1:42:35House except that accepting huge amounts of money for appearing on

1:42:35 > 1:42:41Iranian state broadcaster is in danger of giving a regime legitimacy

1:42:41 > 1:42:47which is holding UK citizens without grounds to do so?I am grateful to

1:42:47 > 1:42:50my honourable friend, but again, if I may say so, that is for the

1:42:50 > 1:42:56benches opposite the once and not for me.

1:42:56 > 1:42:59-- to answer. I spoke last week of the roller-coaster of emotions that

1:42:59 > 1:43:05the entire family is going to. Speaking with my constituency is,

1:43:05 > 1:43:10over the weekend, it has got worse, especially following reports of the

1:43:10 > 1:43:14deterioration of Nazanin's help. Seeing her husband as soon as

1:43:14 > 1:43:19possible must be a high priority. I understand from his phone call with

1:43:19 > 1:43:22the Foreign Secretary, Richard Ratcliffe wants to accompany him on

1:43:22 > 1:43:25his forthcoming visit and he has for protection when he does. What

1:43:25 > 1:43:31progress is made on that point?I will see Mr Ratcliffe in the course

1:43:31 > 1:43:37of the next couple of days and we will explore all those issues.Mr

1:43:37 > 1:43:41Speaker, Richard Ratcliffe, his representatives wrote to the Foreign

1:43:41 > 1:43:47Office requesting diplomatic protection for Mrs Ratcliffe over

1:43:47 > 1:43:52two months ago, what consideration was given to that request and has

1:43:52 > 1:43:56the Foreign Secretary's position on that changed since his appearance

1:43:56 > 1:44:03before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee?As I said to the right

1:44:03 > 1:44:06honourable lady, on the question diplomatic protection, it will be

1:44:06 > 1:44:10talking to Mr Ratcliffe in person and I will inform the House about

1:44:10 > 1:44:18how we intend to proceed. Constituents of mine including the

1:44:18 > 1:44:21Glasgow West Amnesty group, have consistently called for the release

1:44:21 > 1:44:25of Nazanin. From what the Secretary said earlier on, can he current

1:44:25 > 1:44:30fight whether in The Times when hit issue has been raised with Iranian

1:44:30 > 1:44:33Bharath is, how often has her release specifically been called

1:44:33 > 1:44:39for, it in the past couple of weeks or longer?

1:44:39 > 1:44:43Qatar We have consistently asked for her release on humanitarian grounds.

1:44:43 > 1:44:51I know the whole house want to echo that call today.Contrary to what he

1:44:51 > 1:44:54keeps saying, the Foreign Secretary's words to the Foreign

1:44:54 > 1:45:00Affairs Committee were not capable of misinterpretation. There were

1:45:00 > 1:45:02clear, but wrong words. Whether deliberately or through carelessness

1:45:02 > 1:45:07he put a British citizen at risk from an arbitrary and authoritarian

1:45:07 > 1:45:14regime. Can I give him a further chance to apologise, not for

1:45:14 > 1:45:18anything else, but for the words that he got wrong at that committee?

1:45:18 > 1:45:25His high office demands that he take responsibility.In fairness, the

1:45:25 > 1:45:28house will acknowledge that I have apologised repeatedly, not just for

1:45:28 > 1:45:34the mistake, but for the way in which it was taken, and any extra

1:45:34 > 1:45:42suffering or anguish that my words caused. The most important thing, as

1:45:42 > 1:45:45I say, is that I think there is a unanimity in the house about our

1:45:45 > 1:45:50objective. May I respectfully say that that is where we should focus?

1:45:50 > 1:45:56That would be, by far, the most effective way of communicating the

1:45:56 > 1:45:59will of the British people to the people of Iran. We feel very

1:45:59 > 1:46:06strongly that on humanitarian grounds PIP should come home.While

1:46:06 > 1:46:12it is right and proper that this house should discuss the important

1:46:12 > 1:46:15matter, is also not the case that it would be detrimental if we do so

1:46:15 > 1:46:24megaphone diplomacy? Does he not also think it is a sad irony if the

1:46:24 > 1:46:29Iranian government should get comfort and succour by Somali things

1:46:29 > 1:46:33said in a house today?That is an extremely good point. Of course, it

1:46:33 > 1:46:40is the case that most of consular successes, including in Iran, are

1:46:40 > 1:46:47done by quiet, behind-the-scenes diplomacy.Should a British Foreign

1:46:47 > 1:46:50Secretary be careful, accurate and diplomatic in the words they choose

1:46:50 > 1:47:02at all times?The answer to that is of course.A constituent and family

1:47:02 > 1:47:10friend of Nazanins attended my surgery with concerns about her

1:47:10 > 1:47:12well-being. The Foreign Secretary said he would visit sometime later

1:47:12 > 1:47:16this year. Can he guarantee that no stone will be left unturned to

1:47:16 > 1:47:21ensure that Gabrielle will receive her mum by the end of this year?I

1:47:21 > 1:47:27can certainly say that no stone will be left unturned in behalf of

1:47:27 > 1:47:29Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, or indeed on behalf of all of the other

1:47:29 > 1:47:36consular cases in Iran. What I cannot guarantee is that we will

1:47:36 > 1:47:41have the result that he wants. But it will not be for want of trying.

1:47:41 > 1:47:47If I was in jail in Iran for a crime I didn't commit, I have to say I

1:47:47 > 1:47:49could not hope for a better member of Parliament are my honourable

1:47:49 > 1:47:52friend the member for Hampstead and kill them. I have the Foreign

1:47:52 > 1:47:58Secretary will pay tribute to her. Mr Ratcliffe has close family in my

1:47:58 > 1:48:02constituency, including a former well-respected Lord Mayor of

1:48:02 > 1:48:06Chester. When the Foreign Secretary goes to Iran, will he undertake due

1:48:06 > 1:48:10to take a delegation of members of his house with him, who have a

1:48:10 > 1:48:17constituency interest, which will include my honourable friend?If I

1:48:17 > 1:48:21may come I don't want to disappoint the Honourable Member who is a close

1:48:21 > 1:48:25follower of these issues. I join him in paying tribute to the work of the

1:48:25 > 1:48:32honourable lady. I was glad to have a meeting with other day. I cannot

1:48:32 > 1:48:36guarantee at this stage that we will have such a delegation. I think one

1:48:36 > 1:48:44thing at a time, if I may say. Statement, the Secretary of State

1:48:44 > 1:48:51for Exiting the European Union. Secretary David Davis.With

1:48:51 > 1:48:54permission, I will update the house on negotiations between the United

1:48:54 > 1:48:59Kingdom and the European Union in November, reflecting our action

1:48:59 > 1:49:07since the October counsel. But the United Kingdom and European Union

1:49:07 > 1:49:10recognise the new dynamic instilled by the Prime Minister's speech. In

1:49:10 > 1:49:15the October counsel, 27 member states agreed to start their

1:49:15 > 1:49:17preparations for moving negotiations on to trade and the future

1:49:17 > 1:49:21relationship we want to see. The Council conclusions also called the

1:49:21 > 1:49:26work to continue, with a view to be able to move to the second phase of

1:49:26 > 1:49:29negotiations as soon as possible. It is inevitable that discussions are

1:49:29 > 1:49:35now narrowing to a few outstanding, albeit important issues that remain.

1:49:35 > 1:49:37Last week, the focus was concentrated on finding solutions to

1:49:37 > 1:49:44those few remaining issues. As we move forward towards the December

1:49:44 > 1:49:47counsel, we have been clear with the European Union we are willing to

1:49:47 > 1:49:52engage in discussions to achieve the process needed. To this end, the

1:49:52 > 1:49:58teams are in continuous contact, even between formal rounds. I now

1:49:58 > 1:50:02turn to the three key ongoing areas of discussion and outline progress

1:50:02 > 1:50:07made last week in each of these. We have made solid progress on ongoing

1:50:07 > 1:50:10discussions with Northern Ireland and Ireland. Key areas of

1:50:10 > 1:50:16achievement include progress on technical discussions of North and

1:50:16 > 1:50:20South Corporation, agreed joint principles on the joint travel area

1:50:20 > 1:50:23and associated rights, and drafting further joint principles on how best

1:50:23 > 1:50:27we preserve North-South cooperation under the Belfast agreement to help

1:50:27 > 1:50:33guide specific solutions in unique circumstances in Northern Ireland.

1:50:33 > 1:50:36Both sides remain firmly committed to avoiding a hard border. That is a

1:50:36 > 1:50:41point we have remained clear on throughout. We also remain

1:50:41 > 1:50:44resolutely committed to upholding the Belfast Good Friday Agreement in

1:50:44 > 1:50:49all of its parts, and finding a solution that works for the people

1:50:49 > 1:50:51of Northern Ireland and Ireland. We continue to hold frank discussions

1:50:51 > 1:50:55with our commission counterparts about all of these issues. In this

1:50:55 > 1:50:58area, we have also been very clear with our commission counterparts

1:50:58 > 1:51:02that whilst we respect their desire to respect the legal order of the

1:51:02 > 1:51:07single market and Customs union, that cannot come at a cost of a

1:51:07 > 1:51:12constitution or economic integrity of the United Kingdom. As I have

1:51:12 > 1:51:17said, we cannot create a new border within the United Kingdom. This is

1:51:17 > 1:51:20an area where we believe we will only be able to conclude talks

1:51:20 > 1:51:25finally in the context of a future relationship. Until such time as we

1:51:25 > 1:51:29do so, we need to approach the issues which arise with a high

1:51:29 > 1:51:33degree of political sensitivity, pragmatism and with creativity.

1:51:33 > 1:51:36Discussions on these areas will continue in the run-up to the

1:51:36 > 1:51:41December counsel. We continue to make good progress on citizens

1:51:41 > 1:51:44rights. Both sides are working hard to resolution of outstanding issues.

1:51:44 > 1:51:49Last week, to respond to the request for assurances by the European

1:51:49 > 1:51:52Union, we published a detailed scripture of our procedures for

1:51:52 > 1:51:58European Union citizens. As the paper demonstrates, the new

1:51:58 > 1:52:01procedures will be streamlined, straightforward and low cost is

1:52:01 > 1:52:05possible. They will be based on simple, transparent criteria and

1:52:05 > 1:52:10these criteria will be laid out in the withdrawal agreement. While

1:52:10 > 1:52:13there remain differences on the issues of family reunion and the

1:52:13 > 1:52:17export of benefits, we have been clear we are willing to consider

1:52:17 > 1:52:20what further reassurance we can provide to existing families, even

1:52:20 > 1:52:23if they are not currently living together in the United Kingdom. This

1:52:23 > 1:52:30paves the way to resolving issues in this area. This was acknowledged by

1:52:30 > 1:52:36the commission on Friday. There remain some areas on which we are

1:52:36 > 1:52:40seeking further movement, issues like voting rights, mutual

1:52:40 > 1:52:42recognition of qualifications and onward movement for British citizens

1:52:42 > 1:52:46currently living in the EU 27. In all of these areas, the United

1:52:46 > 1:52:52Kingdom's offer goes beyond that of the European Union. Finally, the

1:52:52 > 1:52:56commission has not yet match the UK offer in relation to the right to

1:52:56 > 1:53:02stand on vote in local elections. This is a core citizens right,

1:53:02 > 1:53:05normally enshrined in European Union treaties. I have been disappointed

1:53:05 > 1:53:10that the European Union has been unwilling to include voting rights

1:53:10 > 1:53:14so far. As a result, we will pursue the issue bilaterally, with member

1:53:14 > 1:53:19states. This week, we have also sought to get future clarity on a

1:53:19 > 1:53:24commitment to incorporate the agreement we meet on UK law. This

1:53:24 > 1:53:27will ensure that European citizens of the UK can directly enforce their

1:53:27 > 1:53:31rights on UK courts, providing certainty and clarity for the

1:53:31 > 1:53:35long-term. We made it clear that, over time, the court and take

1:53:35 > 1:53:38account of the rulings of the European Court of Justice in this

1:53:38 > 1:53:42area to help ensure consistent interpretation. However, we remain

1:53:42 > 1:53:46clear that, as we leave the European Union, it is a key priority to

1:53:46 > 1:53:50preserve the sovereignty of courts and as such, in leaving the European

1:53:50 > 1:53:52Union, we will bring to an end of the direct jurisdiction of the

1:53:52 > 1:53:57European Court of Justice. It is not my intention to pre-empt the

1:53:57 > 1:54:00committee stage of the EU Withdrawal Bill. But what I say next has some

1:54:00 > 1:54:04relevance. It is clear we need to take further steps to provide

1:54:04 > 1:54:08clarity and certainty both in the negotiations and at home, regarding

1:54:08 > 1:54:12the lamentation of any agreement into United Kingdom law. I can now

1:54:12 > 1:54:15confirm that once we have reached an agreement we will bring forward a

1:54:15 > 1:54:17specific piece of primary legislation to implement that

1:54:17 > 1:54:22agreement. We know there is a withdrawal agreement and

1:54:22 > 1:54:26implimentation bill. This confirms that the major policies set out in

1:54:26 > 1:54:30the withdrawal agreement would be directly Implimentating into UK law

1:54:30 > 1:54:34by primary legislation. Not by secondary legislation, as in the

1:54:34 > 1:54:37Withdrawal Bill. It also means that Parliament will be given time to

1:54:37 > 1:54:41debate, scrutinise and vote on the final agreement that we struck with

1:54:41 > 1:54:44the European Union. The agreement will only hold if Parliament

1:54:44 > 1:54:47approves it. We expect the bill to cover the contents of the withdrawal

1:54:47 > 1:54:53agreement. That includes issues such as an agreement of citizens rights,

1:54:53 > 1:54:55any financial settlement and the details of implimentation periods

1:54:55 > 1:54:59agreed between both sides. Of course, we do not yet know the exact

1:54:59 > 1:55:02details of the bill and we are unlikely to do so until the

1:55:02 > 1:55:06negotiations are near completion. I should also tell the house that this

1:55:06 > 1:55:09would be over and above the undertaking that we have already

1:55:09 > 1:55:12made, that will bring forward a motion on the final deal as soon as

1:55:12 > 1:55:17possible after it is agreed. We still intend and expect for such a

1:55:17 > 1:55:19vote on the final deal to happen before the European Parliament vote

1:55:19 > 1:55:23on it. There cannot be any doubt that Parliament will be intimately

1:55:23 > 1:55:34involved at every stage. Finally, on the financial settlement, I see from

1:55:34 > 1:55:36the benches opposite this has been called for by members on all sides

1:55:36 > 1:55:39of this house. I actually hope we get Labour Party support on it for

1:55:39 > 1:55:47once. Finally, on the financial settlement, the assessment stands.

1:55:47 > 1:55:54The European partners will not receive less of the budget plan as a

1:55:54 > 1:55:58result of the decision to leave. The UK will honour commitments made

1:55:58 > 1:56:00during the membership and this week we made substantial technical

1:56:00 > 1:56:04progress on the issues that underpin the commitments. It has been a

1:56:04 > 1:56:11low-key but important technical dissension. It is now about

1:56:11 > 1:56:14pinpointing further discussions that need to take place and bring forward

1:56:14 > 1:56:22into the political discussions and decisions. For this to happen, both

1:56:22 > 1:56:29parties need to be involved in a shared outcome. The United Kingdom

1:56:29 > 1:56:33will engage constructively, as we have done since the start. We need

1:56:33 > 1:56:36to see flexibility, imagination and willingness to make progress on both

1:56:36 > 1:56:41sides if these negotiations are to succeed. We are able to realise our

1:56:41 > 1:56:44new partnership. I commend this statement to the house.

1:56:48 > 1:56:52Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I thank the secretary State for advanced

1:56:52 > 1:56:58notice of his statement? It is clearly a statement of two halves.

1:56:58 > 1:57:01First, the usual Groundhog Day report back on the negotiations in

1:57:01 > 1:57:08Brussels. A round of negotiations, a press conference at the end that

1:57:08 > 1:57:12leaves us wondering if the parties were in the same negotiations, then

1:57:12 > 1:57:16both sides briefing the press in the days immediately afterwards. Then a

1:57:16 > 1:57:25statement from the dispatch box that assures no one. Underlining this, a

1:57:25 > 1:57:31profound lack of progress. We want the next statement to be different.

1:57:31 > 1:57:34We want the separate state to inform the house that real progress has

1:57:34 > 1:57:39been made, a breakthrough even. Last time we were promised acceleration.

1:57:39 > 1:57:46What now, and what is the plan if the December deadline is missed? Mr

1:57:46 > 1:57:50Speaker, I do recognise some of the difficulties. As the Secretary of

1:57:50 > 1:57:53State knows, I have some simply with the position on Northern Ireland

1:57:53 > 1:57:59that he has set out. As we see from the legislation before this house

1:57:59 > 1:58:02today, the political situation in Northern Ireland is fragile. The

1:58:02 > 1:58:07peace process is too precious to be put at risk by rushing a Brexit deal

1:58:07 > 1:58:12that does not have the support of all communities. There must be no

1:58:12 > 1:58:18return to a hardboard. Mr Speaker, Northern Ireland should not be used

1:58:18 > 1:58:24by either side in the negotiations for political point scoring. That is

1:58:24 > 1:58:28a really important point for this house. The second part of the

1:58:28 > 1:58:33statement is not a statement at all. It is a recognition by the

1:58:33 > 1:58:37government that it is about to lose a series of votes on the Withdrawal

1:58:37 > 1:58:42Bill. Labour has repeatedly argued, since the bill was first published

1:58:42 > 1:58:46in July, that the Article 50 deal required primary legislation,

1:58:46 > 1:58:50including a vote of this house. It's a point that was made forcefully at

1:58:50 > 1:58:59second reading. Now, on the eve of crucial amendments, we have this

1:58:59 > 1:59:02statement under the cloak of a report back from Brussels. I don't

1:59:02 > 1:59:07think that rules anybody. The devil will no doubt be in the details. Can

1:59:07 > 1:59:12the Secretary of State now confirm that the Government accepts labour's

1:59:12 > 1:59:15argument that clause nine should be struck from the Withdrawal Bill

1:59:15 > 1:59:21altogether? Then there is the question of transitional

1:59:21 > 1:59:24arrangements. Mr Speaker, it is blindingly obvious to anybody

1:59:24 > 1:59:30following is negotiations, but a final deal with the EU involving a

1:59:30 > 1:59:33trade agreement will not be completed by March 2019, that

1:59:33 > 1:59:38transitional agreements on the same terms are in the public interests.

1:59:38 > 1:59:41That is what businesses and communities want, it is what Labour

1:59:41 > 1:59:45has been calling for for many months. Can the Secretary of State

1:59:45 > 1:59:47confirm, on the back of the statement he has just made, that the

1:59:47 > 1:59:51Government will not stand in the way of sensible transitional

1:59:51 > 1:59:57arrangements on the same basic terms that we have now with the EU? Can

1:59:57 > 1:59:59the Secretary of State also confirm that the Government will not now be

1:59:59 > 2:00:04pushing amendments in the back are inconsistent with transitional

2:00:04 > 2:00:09arrangements? And can the Secretary of State confirm to this house that

2:00:09 > 2:00:17the house will get a vote in the event that there is no deal?

2:00:17 > 2:00:20These questions have been pressing for months and this last-minute

2:00:20 > 2:00:25attempt to climb down brings them into strong focus and we are

2:00:25 > 2:00:30entitled to clear answers.Yet more carping opposite from the right

2:00:30 > 2:00:35honourable gentleman! He complains negotiations are not making as much

2:00:35 > 2:00:40progress as he would like, yet he allowed his Labour members of the

2:00:40 > 2:00:44European Parliament to vote against progress this time around. What

2:00:44 > 2:00:50would he be prepared to sacrifice in order to buy the goodwill of the

2:00:50 > 2:00:53European Commission? We are standing up for the UK citizens to move

2:00:53 > 2:00:56around Europe and use their professional qualifications and vote

2:00:56 > 2:01:00in municipal elections, is he seriously proposing we let them down

2:01:00 > 2:01:03in the interests of rushing ahead? We are standing at the British

2:01:03 > 2:01:08taxpayers not wasting their money in a position to meet our financial

2:01:08 > 2:01:15commitments. Would he sell them out? We are using Brexit to restore the

2:01:15 > 2:01:19sovereignty of the British courts, would you let that go? Yes, you

2:01:19 > 2:01:21would committee would give the European Court of Justice the right

2:01:21 > 2:01:28to dictate our laws in perpetuity. Let me come back to his description.

2:01:28 > 2:01:34In the second half, he says, it does not arise from the negotiation.

2:01:34 > 2:01:40Well, yes, it does. As one of the reasons for this bill that I have

2:01:40 > 2:01:44announced today is providing the European citizens a primary piece of

2:01:44 > 2:01:49legislation which will put into British law the withdrawal agreement

2:01:49 > 2:01:55in total. It is as near as we can come to direct effect and it comes

2:01:55 > 2:01:59directly out of the negotiation today. And I hope next time, we will

2:01:59 > 2:02:05get a little bit more support from the Labour Party.

2:02:05 > 2:02:10We will be debating tomorrow, I think, a rather helpful new clause

2:02:10 > 2:02:14announced in the Daily Telegraph which announced -- has on the timing

2:02:14 > 2:02:21of these progresses. -- processors. Can he give the Government's

2:02:21 > 2:02:24intentions on these final processes and the role of Parliament? Can he

2:02:24 > 2:02:28give me a reassurance that Parliament will have a legally

2:02:28 > 2:02:33binding, meaningful vote in which it will approve or disapprove of any

2:02:33 > 2:02:39final agreement, or lack of agreement, before we leave the

2:02:39 > 2:02:45European Union? And that there will be time in whatever circumstances

2:02:45 > 2:02:50for the necessary legislation to be introduced and debated by others, to

2:02:50 > 2:02:54implement in law smoothly and properly whatever it is Parliament

2:02:54 > 2:03:04has approved once the Government has made its proposals?I thank my right

2:03:04 > 2:03:09honourable friend. Yes, we will have a meaningful vote. It has been said

2:03:09 > 2:03:13from this dispatch box a number of times. I have said today that we

2:03:13 > 2:03:18will add to that over and above the meaningful vote on the outcome, on

2:03:18 > 2:03:22the bill, on the deal, we will have legislation which puts it into

2:03:22 > 2:03:26effect. So the House will go through it line by line and agree it line by

2:03:26 > 2:03:33line. I am grateful to this advance

2:03:33 > 2:03:39sighting of the statement. First of all the Northern Ireland, does the

2:03:39 > 2:03:42Secretary of State not appreciate it is becoming increasingly clear the

2:03:42 > 2:03:46only sensible solution in Northern Ireland is for Northern Ireland to

2:03:46 > 2:03:49remain in the Customs Union? If that means the rest of us remain in the

2:03:49 > 2:03:54Customs Union as well, that must be what we do. He has already said

2:03:54 > 2:03:58there cannot be a border between the two parts of Ireland and Northern

2:03:58 > 2:04:00Ireland and mainland UK, nor can there be a border between Republic

2:04:00 > 2:04:06of Ireland and the European Union so there cannot be a customs border

2:04:06 > 2:04:11anywhere between the UK and European mainland without breaching

2:04:11 > 2:04:13international treaties. And citizens' rights, I welcome the

2:04:13 > 2:04:19update on progress, but we are now well past the time when our

2:04:19 > 2:04:23constituents are entitled to absolute legal guarantees of the

2:04:23 > 2:04:28progress. People are still leaving our businesses and health service

2:04:28 > 2:04:31and social care service because they do not have confidence there will be

2:04:31 > 2:04:39a deal in time for them to make their future here. Can I turn to the

2:04:39 > 2:04:43update on the financial settlement? Would it be cynical to suggest that

2:04:43 > 2:04:46this will become a lot simpler when the Chancellor has his budget out of

2:04:46 > 2:04:50the way? What discussions has he had with the Chancellor about what might

2:04:50 > 2:04:54need to be in the budget next week in order to pave the way for a

2:04:54 > 2:04:58financial settlement in the weeks to come? Or is it the case the reason

2:04:58 > 2:05:00there will be no financial settlement in the budget is because

2:05:00 > 2:05:05the Government know they could not get the budget passed their own

2:05:05 > 2:05:08backbenchers with an omission of any contribution to the European Union.

2:05:08 > 2:05:14And finally on the announcement of a new piece of legislation, can I give

2:05:14 > 2:05:17credit that the Secretary of State has done the right thing by

2:05:17 > 2:05:20announcing this to the House? Some of his Cabinet colleagues could

2:05:20 > 2:05:25learn from that example. Can he give more clarity as to what that will be

2:05:25 > 2:05:28about? He cannot give the detail, but when will it be published? Will

2:05:28 > 2:05:36it be a question of take it or leave it? Their deal or no deal? Will the

2:05:36 > 2:05:40House be given an opportunity to amend that Bill as it must have the

2:05:40 > 2:05:43opportunity, and will the House have the opportunity to amend the

2:05:43 > 2:05:50agreement? And given the Prime Minister is now only eight

2:05:50 > 2:05:55disgruntled constituents away from a vote of confidence, should I have

2:05:55 > 2:05:59confidence to extricate us from the mess they have created from their

2:05:59 > 2:06:07rapid loss of confidence by their own backbenchers?Firstly, on the

2:06:07 > 2:06:16question of Northern Ireland. What I have said is that there will be no

2:06:16 > 2:06:19internal border within the United Kingdom. That is a fundamental.

2:06:19 > 2:06:23Because apart from anything else, the Good Friday Agreement requires

2:06:23 > 2:06:31us to run the Government, on behalf of all communities. At least one

2:06:31 > 2:06:36community Northern Ireland would not accept a border in the Irish Sea. As

2:06:36 > 2:06:40for the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, everybody has

2:06:40 > 2:06:43accepted there must be no return to a hard border. Some of that is dealt

2:06:43 > 2:06:49with by the continuation of the Common Travel Area which has been

2:06:49 > 2:06:54around since 1923 so that is not new. And in terms of the customs

2:06:54 > 2:06:59border, there is already a difference between Levy and the tax

2:06:59 > 2:07:02rates and excise rates North and South the border which we manage

2:07:02 > 2:07:07without a hard border and is what will continue. It is very optimistic

2:07:07 > 2:07:11to think the Chancellor gives any of us advance warning of a budget, more

2:07:11 > 2:07:17than a week. Of course, I have discussed financial aspects of our

2:07:17 > 2:07:22relationship with the European Union at many meetings. And as the new

2:07:22 > 2:07:27legislation, of course, it is not in the gift of the Government to put a

2:07:27 > 2:07:31piece of primary legislation before the House which is incapable of

2:07:31 > 2:07:35amendment. It is the nature of primary legislation, it is always

2:07:35 > 2:07:39capable of amendment. We will have practical limitations of having a

2:07:39 > 2:07:43deal and there could be locations for that, but the entire thing will

2:07:43 > 2:07:48be put in front of the House.-- implications.

2:07:48 > 2:07:51May I congratulate my right honourable friend for being very

2:07:51 > 2:07:57clear in his statement that on March the 2019, as we believe the European

2:07:57 > 2:08:02Union, the Court of Justice will no longer have authority, direct

2:08:02 > 2:08:05authority in the United Kingdom, dispelling the Games being played

2:08:05 > 2:08:12out by the opposition as we had this morning. But may I just take my

2:08:12 > 2:08:14right honourable friend back to the statement he has made with regards

2:08:14 > 2:08:21to the bill and the motion? As I understand it, if we had a notion

2:08:21 > 2:08:27that was voted on but was not passed, that would negate the idea

2:08:27 > 2:08:33of a bill that would then be amended. And if there was a bill and

2:08:33 > 2:08:38was amended, as we were always told to the negotiations in Maastricht

2:08:38 > 2:08:41and beyond, you cannot accept an amendment because the agreement has

2:08:41 > 2:08:44already been made and you would be altering the agreement. Does that

2:08:44 > 2:08:49not leaders into the situation we may be having a bill that changes

2:08:49 > 2:08:53the agreement but that the other side does not wish to make those

2:08:53 > 2:09:02changes?The first half of his question, if the motion is not

2:09:02 > 2:09:08passed, the deal falls. He is right about the second part, but he will

2:09:08 > 2:09:13remember the Maastricht Bill, quite a lot of amendments and voting on

2:09:13 > 2:09:21them so House expressed its view in light of the consequences.