13/11/2017 House of Commons

Hello and welcome to the live

coverage of the House of Commons. In

one hour, the Shadow Secretary at

Emily Thornberry burlesque and

urgent question of the British

Iranian National Nazanin

Zaghari-Ratcliffe who is in prison

in Iran accused of -- trying to

overthrow the regime. David Davis

will update ministers on the latest

round of talks in Brussels. Margaret

Hodge will move a notion for a

debate on tax avoidance and the main

business is the Northern Ireland

Bill which will pass a budget for

Northern Ireland. Don't forget to

join me, Mandy Baker, at 11pm for a

round-up of the day from both Houses

of Parliament. First, questions to

the Work and Pensions Secretary and

his team of ministers.

The Department of Work and Pensions

has regular discussions with

colleagues across government about

the treatment of Gurkhas and the

benefits system and responsibilities

under the Armed Forces government.

Additional support is in play sport

all members of the Armed Forces

community to take account of their

needs and circumstances.

I thank the Minister for her

response. Gurkhas have put

themselves on the line or our

country and I recently met members

of the Gurkha community in Eastleigh

who travel long distances from home.

Having met these phenomenal

soldiers, will my honourable friend

continue to ensure that their very

unique circumstances are recognised

in our pensions and benefits system?

As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, I

am married to a former Gurkha so I

fully understand and share my

honourable friend's gratitude for

their bravery and their service. No

member of our Armed Forces should be

disadvantaged by their service to

our country. And I would like to

reassure her that the Department of

Work and Pensions takes very

seriously our commitment to the

Armed Forces government. And we will

do everything we can and work as

hard as we can tout them get the

best possible support.

Mr Speaker. Advances are interest

free and repayable over six months

for those making a new claim, or 12

months for those on benefits before

claiming the Universal Credit. Our

objective is to strike the right

balance between supporting claimants

with living expenses and ensuring

they have the ability to pay the

advance.

I think the Secretary of

State for that answer and he will no

guidance states that 40% of the

standard allowance can be used in

repaying an advance payment, and 40%

can be deducted from the payments to

pay back creditors. It is not clear

from the guidance whether a claimant

might end up paying both. Meaning

they will have more than 40%

deducted from their award. Could the

Secretary of State clarified the

maximum amount repayable and

recognise this is a charter for loan

sharks?

The deduction in terms of

subsequent payments to take into

account of an advance, there is not

-- this does not apply to the 40%.

But we have to remember that this is

an advance, this does give people

greater flexibility to have access

to their Universal Credit early so

that they are able to cope with that

initial first assessment period.

We hear a lot from the other side

about Universal Credit, but we do

need to remember that this is a much

more effective system of getting

people into work and that

nationally, 113 people move into

work and Universal Credit ban for

every 100 and the previous system.

In my constituency, which was a

pathfinder for Universal Credit, we

are seeing very substantial drops

and people claiming. Is this not a

better system altogether?

A my honourable friend is absolutely

right. Universal Credit is helping

people get into work, the progress

in work, and it is also clear that

people on Universal Credit are

spending more time looking for work

than on the legacy and effects. And

I think it is really important that

we all work to ensure that Universal

Credit is a success. We believe it

will result in 250,000 more jobs in

this country as a consequence of its

operation and that is something that

is worth achieving.

What the Secretary of State has

repeated again this afternoon falls

into the precise trap of treating

everyone on Universal Credit as if

they were out of work. Surely one of

the big issues is the problem of

applying conditionality to people

who already have jobs.

Well, the point about Universal

Credit is that it operates when

people are out of work and when they

are in work. That means that what

you will not get is what happens

with the legacy system, that people

are worried about doing extra hours

because they find they have claims

closed. That is holding people back

from progressing. But I do believe

that in work conditionality has a

role to play within our system to

ensure that people do progress. We

have an issue in terms of people who

are in work but still getting

substantial support from the

taxpayer. We want them to be able to

progress to be less dependent upon

the state and that is what Universal

Credit will deliver.

What steps has the Secretary of

State taken to increase the

awareness of advance payments?

Well,

we have changed the guidance that

applies in Job Centres in respect of

advance payments. There is also

increased publicity within Job

Centres. I saw myself visiting a Job

Centre in Bedford last week the way

in which the operation of advances

is working. We did believe there

would be increased to take up so

people will get the support they

need. And when it is suggested that

people under Universal Credit would

face weeks and weeks without any

financial support whatsoever, I am

afraid that is scaremongering

because that is what is happening

under the system as it is operating.

Yesterday, the Scottish Finance

Secretary Derek Mackay wrote to the

Chancellor ahead of his budget

appealing for Universal Credit is to

be fixed. Today, 140 academics

publish an open letter in the

Telegraph which criticised the

advance payment system and echoed

the Derek Mackay's call to reduce

the first payment waiting time and

move the twice monthly payments and

reverse cuts to allowances. Does the

Secretary of State agree that the

Chancellor should act?

Can I does

make a point about Universal Credit,

and early payments within the

system? There is flexibility for

Scotland, the Scottish government

has flexibility, which it is

exercising. But it means that the

second assessment period, people at

the end of that will only get 50% of

what they are entitled to and then

the rest will be deferred and it

will be paid in the third assessment

period. That strikes me, it is.

Scotland to decide, but it does

strike me as making the situation

more difficult for claimants, not

easier.

The Secretary of State is looking

for the Scottish Government to show

him how it is done committee should

devolve Universal Credit in full and

we will get on with it! I wonder if

he has seen a report from the Child

Poverty Action Group group and the

IPPR and they say cuts to Universal

Credit will leave an extra 1 million

children in poverty. Is a million

more children in poverty not

evidence enough for the UK

Government to reverse the cuts to

work allowances and make work pay?

Well, my point was that the Scottish

Government deliver and Universal

Credit in a different way, but a way

I think is worse than the situation

in England and Wales. But I have to

say, the point about Universal

Credit is that it will help people

into work. Let me give one brief

example. If I may, Mr Speaker. I

heard of an account last week of

someone, a single mother on income

support not currently able, not

previously able to claim the best

childcare costs. Now under Universal

Credit, they are able to do so,

she's taking up a job working eight

or nine hours a week where she was

not previously able to do, a first

step on the ladder. That is an

example of what Universal is

delivering.

It with recent report by the

Resolution Foundation using new data

based on bank transactions shows

58%, so the majority of new

claimants living and Universal

Credit as a result of leaving

employment in the last year were

paid either fortnightly or weekly.

In their previous job. A far higher

percentage than the economy on

average were around one in four paid

fortnightly or weekly. The guy

mentioning sure no claim and has to

wait more than ten days so will they

make sure it mirrors the end -- the

world of work for those who claim

it?

Universal Credit is replacing

tax credits, and tax credits, 57% of

claimants are paid monthly and 12%

get paid for weekly. That is nearly

70% are paid over that period of

time and if you are to have a system

that works for everybody, then a

monthly system is what it has to be.

We are committed to ensuring

claimants receive high-quality,

fair, accurate assessments. DWP

closely monitors assessments through

independent audit and assessments

deemed unacceptable returned. A

range of measures including provider

improvement plans address

performance falling below expected

standards and DWP continually looks

to improve the assessment process.

My office is inundated with people

dissatisfied and distressed after

their assessment. In light of

statistics showing an almost

ninefold increase in complaints to

the department, what analysis has

been made of the PIP assessment

process?

We are constantly striving

to improve the assessment period. It

is worth pointing out that the total

number of complaints on PIP is about

1%. We are continuing to work

closely with the assessors to ensure

that this can be delivered as

effectively as possible.

Justin

Tomlinson.

The vast majority of

successful appeals because of late

additional evidence. What further

consideration is being given to

sharing data between the two

different assessments and to

automatically access health records

where the claimant is welling in

advance of an assessment?

I think my

honourable friend raises an

important point. He is actually

right and is the reason why the

majority of overturned decisions are

reached. We continue to look at ways

in which the assessment process of

PIP and ESA, to the extent they can

be greater called nation between

them, that is something we are

considering.

Mr Speaker, my

constituent has a life limiting

illness and her medical consultant

has confirmed this affects even the

most basic of daily activities.

Without a transplant, she has

approximately two or three years

left to live. She has just been

turned down for PIP. Will the

Secretary of State please give an

undertaking he will look into this

as a matter of urgency? Can he

confirm that compassionate

conservatism is officially dead?

In

terms of her first point, of course,

I will happily look at that case if

she wants to provide me with the

details.

For our constituents, a

health assessment is an incredibly

important moment and it can be very

distressing. I have been calling for

a routine recording of assessments,

providing evidence of when they go

wrong. A recording in itself could

change behaviour for the better.

Could my honourable friend provide

an update on the recording pilot?

We

are looking at that. I think my

honourable friend makes an important

point in terms of the need for

independent audit of assessments to

ensure the advice provided by

decision-makers is of suitable

quality, fully explained

unjustified, and recording that is

part of the various options that we

have in terms of making those

improvements.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Can I start by welcoming the

honourable lady to her place? There

has been a 900% increase in

complaints about the personal

independence payment assessment. Her

Majesty's courts and tribunal

statistics show that the number of

appeals lodged and the proportion of

DWP decisions overturned has

increased. There has been a 67%

increase in the first quarter of

this year in appeals, in comparison

with the same period last year. Just

last week, Britain's Rosenior

tribunal judge stated that most of

the benefit cases that reach the

court are based on bad decisions,

where the DWP has no case at all.

The quality of evidence...

Order, we

do need a? Very soon. -- we do need

a question mark very soon. The text

is extensive, I know she is new to

the bench and I listened with

interest and respect, but we need to

proceed speedily. I know she is

getting to a question in her next

sentence.

I certainly am getting to

my question. What I will ask the

Secretary of State is what action is

he taking to improve the personal

independence payment framework,

improve the accuracy of

decision-making and standards of

mandatory reconciliation, and stop

wasting taxpayer money on funds -- a

necessary tribunal is and appeals.

Let me put this in context. Since

the personal independence framework

was introduced in 2013, the DWP has

carried over 2.6 million

assessments. As I said earlier, the

total number of complaints received

equates to fewer than 1% of all

assessments. Our latest research

shows that 76% of PIP claimants are

satisfied with the overall

experience. In terms of the 2.6

million decisions, 80% have been

appealed, 4% have been successfully

appealed. We constantly strive to

improve the PIP system. But let's

put this in some context.

Last week

I was able to spend the day in the

Jobcentre in my constituency, seeing

what is going well and what is not

going so well with some welfare

reforms, including Universal Credit

and PIP. One issue that came up as

the period of time that people are

waiting for health and work

capability assessments. Can I ask my

honourable friend what penalties are

being levied against some of the

third-party companies involved with

the assessments and what could be

done to close the gap for

constituents?

When it comes to

improving the timing, whether it be

of ESA or PIP assessments, it is the

case that they have that period of

time reduced in recent months. That

is something I welcome. We continue

to work closely with the providers

of the assessments to ensure that

their performance is adequate.

Question four, Mr Speaker.

With permission, I will answer

questions for Macron six together.

In 2012, overall participation of

female eligible employees in a

workplace pension was 58%. Since the

introduction of automatic enrolment,

this has increased to 80% in 2016.

For males this has increased from

52% to 76% in the same period.

Two

former pensions ministers have

criticised the Government for the

policy. The opposition parties

recognise the government matter is

wrong. The growing number of

cross-party MPs say it is wrong, and

hundreds of thousands of

disadvantaged 1950s women know it is

wrong. When will the current

pensions minister and the Government

admit their mistake and take action

to rectify this grave injustice?

The Government will not be

revisiting the state pension

arrangements for women born in the

1950s that are affected by the

pensions act of 1995, 2007 and 2011.

This would require people of working

age, more specifically younger

people, to bear an even greater

share of the cost of the pensions

system.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The

government matter's former pensions

minister has said that she regrets

the government's failure to properly

communicate the state pension age

equalisation and it is up to Macron

approach she describes as a massive

failure of public policy. Does the

Minister appreciate how much this

failure has affected 1950s women's

ability to plan for a happy

retirement? And the sense of outrage

they feel about this issue?

Since

1995, successive governments,

including the Labour Party, have

gone to significant lengths to

communicate the changes, including

targeted communications, hundreds of

press reports, parliamentary

debates, advertising and millions of

letters. In the last 17 years, the

department has also provided over 18

million personalised state pension

estimates.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My

honourable friend confirm that if

changes or were changes to be made

to the women's pensions

arrangements, that this would

actually create discrimination

against men and that would be

unfair?

I am grateful to my

honourable friend from Dorset's

question. The proposal whereby women

would receive early pensions would

create a new inequality, Mr Speaker,

between men and women, the legality

of which is highly questionable.

The

government matter seem to be under

the misapprehension that the

campaign by the 1950s women will

eventually go away if they keep

ignoring it, even told the table

office that they would not answer a

question on a subject for my

honourable friend the member. Tim

Southee. It will not go away. So why

doesn't the minister engage with the

campaigners to find the solution and

support our proposals to extend

pension credit to the most

financially vulnerable and give them

all the opportunity to retire up to

two years earlier?

The honourable

gentleman will be aware that the

Government has already introduced

transitional arrangements, costing

£1.1 billion, in 2011, which mean

that no woman will see her pension

age change by more than 18 months,

relative to the 1995 acts timetable.

Question number five.

The

availability of advances at the

start of a Universal Credit claim

ensures that those that need money

immediately can access it. Data

shows that around half of claimants

are receiving advances. We have

recently undertaken an exercise to

improve awareness and access to the

support.

The manager of a food bank

in Lincoln has said that there is

evidence of a clear correlation

locally between the introduction of

Universal Credit and, in Lincoln, we

have only had a partially so far, a

full roll-out in March. There is a

clear correlation between that and

an increase in the use of food

banks. I would ask for your comments

on that and also asked people on the

benches opposite, including

yourself, think it is acceptable

that people in Lincoln would be

starving, not for food banks, but

because of waiting for Universal

Credit payments.

Presumably you say

what is acceptable in Lincoln, way

above my play the EU pay grade. The

Secretary of State?

I repeatedly

make this point, that nobody needs

to wait a long period of time for

cash support under the Universal

Credit system. To suggest otherwise

is causing unnecessary anxiety for

those that are not on the Universal

Credit. I'm afraid that I think we

should all discuss this in a

slightly more responsible manner.

When I visited the Newark Jobcentre

a week or so ago, 80% of the jobs in

the Jobcentre were paid either four

weekly or monthly. With the

Secretary of State agree that you

have to be careful not to patronise

working people, and not to stop them

from entering the workplace with as

much ease as possible? The vast

majority of jobs in my constituency

are paid monthly.

My honourable

friend is absolutely right. Part of

the purpose of Universal Credit is

to close the gap between being out

of work and being in work. For most

jobs in work, that is paid monthly,

getting people used to the monthly

system is a sensible approach. Can I

also say that I very much welcome

the fact that my honourable friend

has visited a Jobcentre. I recommend

honourable and right honourable

members to do so to hear how it is

operating on the ground, because the

experience that I know many

honourable members have is extremely

positive.

I won't ask the Government

bench for the fifth time whether I

should believe his statement, the

roll-out of Universal Credit in

Birkenhead will go hunky-dory, with

a food bank, which says it will need

ten tonnes more food to prevent a

scenario of people being hungry, if

you cannot abide the word starving.

We have a debate on Thursday which

is signed by members across the

House of Commons. It will be the

first time when members opposite can

actually vote, one if they want to

reform Universal Credit. Will he be

opening a debate on taking the

message back to Cabinet?

Well, the

position we have made very clear for

a long time is that we want to

ensure that Universal Credit works.

This is a test and learn system and

we are always looking at ways in

which we can improve the system,

particularly for that first period.

What I would say to the right

Honourable Member, and the house as

a whole, is that Universal Credit is

helping us address the best way of

dealing with poverty, which is

ensuring that people can get into

work. That is the argument that I

and my honourable and right

honourable friends will continue to

make.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have

visited job centres and I know that

in the Universal Credit system that

work coaches are very much an

important and integral part of the

system. May I ask my honourable

friend how the new word coaches will

boost job assist job-seekers in my

constituency, in their eager quest

to find work and to find employment?

My honourable friend is absolutely

right. That is why we are recruiting

work coaches up and down the United

Kingdom, providing the personalised

support that people need to help

them get into work. Again, I come

back to my experience of meeting

with word coaches in job centres up

and down the country. They believe

they have a system in place that is

helping them to do more to transform

lives. That is hugely important.

Mr

Speaker, one of the original

objectives of Universal Credit was

to reduce child poverty. In 2010,

the Government said Universal Credit

would reduce child poverty by

350,000. This was revised to 150,020

13. Last year, ministers failed to

produce a figure in answer to my

honourable friend, the member for

West Ham. What are the government's

current estimates of how many

children would be lifted out of

poverty as a result of UC?

Universal

Credit gives people a better

opportunity to work. It gives single

parents greater support. In fact, it

gives parents greater support on

childcare. I come back to the

example that I just gave a moment or

so ago. He was previously on income

support, not able to get help with

childcare, now able to get help with

childcare and is getting on the

employment ladder thanks to

Universal Credit. That is what

Universal Credit is delivering.

Well, that was a really

disappointing answer. We have

already heard that the Child poverty

action group published data last

week which is predicting that 1

million more children will be pushed

into poverty as a result of UC cuts.

300,000 of those that are under

five. Another objective was to make

work pay. Given that four out of ten

people on UC are in work and would

be, on average, £2600 a year work in

the worst off, when will the

Government admit that UC is not fit

for purpose and stop the roll-out of

UC?

Can I point out that child poverty

is down since 2010? I think the

Honourable Member has given the game

away there. She doesn't want to

pause and fix Universal Credit, Mr

Speaker. She wants to scrap and

rewind it. She wants to rewind to a

system when claimants were forced to

accept reduction rate of 90%, where

they had to claim a multitude of

benefits and where we have a benefit

system that was not an aid to people

working, but an impediment that

trapped people in poverty and

dependency. That is what Universal

Credit will bring an end to.

With permission, Mr Speaker, will

answer questions seven and 12

together. There are no financial

losers on those on the seat of

Employment Allowance and the

universal Reddit equivalent prior to

April 2017 including those who

temporarily leave the essay to try

out work and return. New claimants

from April and are capable of

preparing for work received a rate

of benefits on a par with Job

Seekers Allowance.

I welcome the

Minister to her place. Changes to

benefit are actually resulting in

huge cuts to the money people and

disabilities have to live on. The

ESA cut was touted by the government

as a way to remove perverse

incentives and encourage people into

work. With the Minister agree

starvation does not encourage anyone

into work and cutting funding the

people in need does not help and

that need, and will she commit to

reversing these invidious cuts?

I

think the honourable lady for her

question. There are no cuts to

people on those benefits, let's be

absolutely clear about this. Since

April 2017, people who are able to

work are receiving a personal

support package. We have already

recruited 300 new disability claim

advisers, we have a -- allocated 15

million to the flexible support

funds, we are doing everything we

can for people who are able to make

the journey back to work to have the

support that they need to do so.

It

may place more reliance on the

Minister's comments, that there is

an austerity. Is he aware that the

Scottish Government estimate between

7-10,000 people in my constituency

and in Scotland stands to lose the

work-related component of their

allowances and this is a cut they

cannot afford, so will she undertake

to speak as a matter of urgency to

the Chancellor ahead of the budget

to reverse the cuts and stop

punishing the poor and disabled for

the economic failures of this

Government.

I think the honourable

gentleman. Let's be absolutely clear

what we are trying to achieve here.

There are many people in Scotland

and across our country who are

recovering from health conditions,

who have disabilities, who really

want to work. And we are doing

everything that we can't to provide

them with tailored support so that

they can do that and they can play a

full part in the society to enable

them to do so.

Despite record

employment, only one in every 100

people on ESA leaves the benefits

system every month. Could the

Minister tell us what more she and

her department doing to help these

people into work.

He is quite right

to point out this unfair

discrimination for people with

disabilities in our country who

really want to make a contribution.

And we are doing everything

including working with employers as

well as providing people seeking

employment with a tailor-made

support that they need to play their

full part in society. The UK

continues to be a global leader in

disability rights. And we are

committed to further improving and

progressively implementing this

convention. We are considering the

committee's recommendations and we

will provide an update on the

progress we are making in the next

year, as requested by the UN.

Mr

Speaker, the UN found that UK cuts

disproportionately hit people with

disabilities and fundamentally and

systematically and gravely

undermined their human rights. So

will she ensure now, today, that

PIP, ESN and Universal Credit

brought into line with the

fundamental conventions of the UN so

the people are treated with dignity

instead of with discrimination and

cruelty?

This country has a proud

record of treating people fairly and

we will continue to uphold those

proud principles. Of course we are

considering the report and as I

said, we will be publishing our

findings. But let's put this in

context. Only Germany of the G7

presents more money supporting

people with disabilities and

long-term conditions. As a

percentage of GDP, we present 2.5%

and that is 6% of all government

spending. That is £50 billion year.

Can I just confirm any money

received on disability benefits as

PIP DLA is exempt under the benefits

capital.

Very grateful to my

honourable friend for that question

and I can give a very simple answer,

yes.

I thank the honourable gentleman for

his question. Up to October 20 7%

have been disallowed personal

independence payment. 45% of

claimants with Parkinson's disease

receive a higher award and a PIP

than they did previously.

Would it

not save a lot of time, money and

distress if all those on the higher

rate of disability allowance with

degenerative diseases like

Parkinson's were transferred

automatically onto personal

independence payments and how many

people with Parkinson's are

currently in the noble review

category?

It is absolutely right

that we get PIP right for anybody

with a disability, including those

people with degenerative diseases

like Parkinson's. At a big it is

absolutely right to notice, as my

honourable friend did earlier that

considering how many PIP assessments

have been made, over 2.6 million,

there have been fewer than 1% of

complaints. Most of the time, this

benefit is got right the first time.

But we worked tirelessly, including

with our stakeholders in the

voluntary sector organisations, to

make improvements.

Advances are

available at the start of a

Universal Credit claimed to ensure

people have money to tide them over

until the first payment. Around half

of claimants receiving advances and

we have undertaken an exercise to

improve awareness and access to the

support.

I thank the Secretary of

State for this answer. We are

fortunate in Bernd Ritthammer low

employment rates. Could you tell me

what the likely impact on jobs of

Universal Credit roll-out will be in

my constituency?

In total, it is

estimated that Universal Credit will

help around 250,000 people more into

employment. On average, that works

out at around 400 extra people in

work, in each Parliamentary

constituency. But Universal Credit

will have large impacts in areas

with a higher proportion of benefit

claimants or a higher prevalence of

single parents and out of work

families.

But Russell trust say that food bank

use has increased in areas where

Universal Credit has been rolled

out, it has not been rolled out yet

in my constituency, but this

weekend, the Hayward food bank ran

out of food. What safeguards will

the Minister put in place to ensure

Universal Credit claimants do not

have to rely on a charity of their

neighbours, a system that sometimes

fails?

We are improving the advances

system, awareness of the advances

system. This is a message we can all

take to our constituents. There is

support available, nobody needs to

wait six weeks because advances are

available within Job Centres and

they are being taken up, the

majority of new claimants are taking

up those offences.

Last week, I heard from one of my

constituents who was having

difficulty getting an advance

payment and had to result to a food

bank. When the error was corrected,

he took that food back to the food

bank when he got his advance

payment. Does this not show that

when mistakes are made, every effort

is being made to correct them and

secondly, the basic human decency of

those claiming Universal Credit?

I entirely agree with my honourable

friend and the point he makes. It is

worth pointing out that in the

normal course of events, if somebody

gets an advance, it usually takes

around three days through the

thanking system for the money to be

paid. But if need be, people can get

support on the same day.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The comment's

position will set out in

Parliamentary debates in October

2016 and March 2015 by our Liberal

Democrat colleague says Steve Webb

and I have great sympathy for those

affected but they are protected by

the pension fund compensation

scheme. In 1996, the Government

actuaries Department in a note

bailed to clearly outline the risks

of transferring their pensions to

the new private sector scheme. We

regulate financial advice in this

country yet when it is the

Government giving the advice, not

even the Parliamentary ombudsman can

review it. Surely this is grossly

unjust. Why does the Minister not

pursue this mis-selling scandal is

the FCA did with the PPI, is it

because it would be the Government

that is to blame this time?

The

honourable lady suggests one thing.

I can only refer her to the two

Parliamentary debates that dealt

specifically with this matter, as

set out by her own Liberal Democrat

colleague when he was part of the

Coalition, says Steve Webb, in March

2015.

The pension protection fund is

a vital lifeline for those who

become insolvent, can Minister give

an update on when the white paper

looking at the affordability will be

available?

The Green paper as he

knows was published in debris 2017

and there has been extensive

consultation and much consideration

of the matters but forward. We are

analysing those responses and intend

to publish a white paper in the New

Year.

Since 2010, over 3 million more

people have found employment, the

employment rate is close to the

record high and the employment rate

is the lowest it has been since

1985.

11% of people in Cheadle are

self-employed, Mike constituent is

self-employed and also a wheelchair

user who finds valuable

opportunities to attend networking

opportunities are lost because they

are not always accessible. Does the

Minister agree to unlock the talent

and energy of disabled

entrepreneurs, event organisers must

make provisions for successful

people to attend them?

I do agree with my honourable friend

and I think service providers have a

duty to anticipate and provide

adjustments for disabled people and

certainly in the case of my

honourable friend's constituent,

this may include arranging events at

an accessible venue. Also worth

pointing out that the new enterprise

allowance which is designed to help

people set up businesses, one in

five of those taking up the new

enterprise allowance have been

disabled people.

Whilst every new job is welcome, in

a country where 55% of people knew

in the work of receipt of benefits.

Mark Webb and living in poverty.

And

the better off now disgustingly

well-paid, what is the Government

going to do about it.

The highest

earning 1% pay a bigger proportion

of income tax than they ever have

done before. I have also announced

that as a government, we have

substantially increased the Personal

Allowance and introduce the national

Living Wage and the support the

Universal Credit is going to provide

will help more and more people

progress into work.

Around half and we are working to

further improve awareness and access

to the support.

Mr Speaker, I am keen to ensure the

advance payments are made to my

constituents in need and I see the

Job Centre and these systems advise

Dutch Citizens Advice Bureau once a

month. Would he agreed that the

party opposite should start acting

responsibly and encourage

constituents to apply for this

additional help and tone down the

political rhetoric which can deter

vulnerable people from applying in

the first place?

He knows and the

party opposite should acknowledge

that no one need go without money

while waiting for their first

regular payment and they should not

try to put people off accessing the

support that is there for them.

Minister, today's exactly six weeks

until Christmas Day. If anyone

applies for Universal Credit today,

they will have to make do and just

two weeks of Universal Credit until

after Christmas. What assessment has

the Minister made of the impact on

those families and their ability to

let the children enjoy Christmas?

Our record on timeliness of

Universal Credit has improved

markedly. Advances are always

available. In the run-up to

Christmas, when there are many

temporary work opportunities

available, Universal Credit works

much better for people in being able

to access those opportunities,

particularly on the verge of the

festive season.

How much longer can

a time and spend looking for a job

on Universal Credit?

Very well, I

will take the Right Honourable

Gentleman on question 14. Though he

did not seek agreement to that

proposition, simply blurting it out.

We will accept it on that occasion.

Mr Speaker, we do know that people

spend a great deal more time on

Universal Credit looking for work.

They apply for a wider range of jobs

and consider jobs they may not have

considered before. This is all part

of the reason why we know there is

significantly better labour market

outcomes for people more likely to

be in work after six months than on

the old benefits.

Question 16, Mr

Speaker.

Universal Credit is

transforming and modernising the

welfare state, ending complicated

rolls around employment hours and

the cliff edges of the old system.

Universal Credit has a clear system

of allowances and tapers to ensure

that claimants know that they are

always better off in work.

Will the

Secretary of State agree with me

that one of the fundamental flaws of

the system we inherited from Labour

is that people that want it to work

more than 16 hours a week could lose

90p of every pound that they earned?

My right honourable friend is

absolutely right. It wasn't just a

very high marginal deduction rates,

which obviously we don't see with

Universal Credit, it was the fact

that people moving in and out of

work, or the hours fluctuating,

could find themselves moving from

one benefit system to another

benefit system, creating additional

hassle and uncertainty for

claimants, and indeed discouraging

people from taking on additional

hours.

Number 17, Mr Speaker.

With

permission, I would like to answer

question 17 and 19 together. The

Department for Work and Pensions are

currently undertaking work to

investigate the reality of rent

arrears and Universal Credit. It

aims to understand the true level of

rent arrears for the tenants, what

is causing them and any impact

Universal Credit may be having.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. New findings

say 49% of landlords are less likely

to rent to those in receipt of

Universal Credit. In Kirklees there

are only 121 social homes available

for 9000 700 on the waiting list.

Can the Minister tell us what steps

she is going to take to prevent

those on year. -- on Universal

Credit being swim in it against?

The

honourable lady is right to raise

the question, but there are

alternative arrangements available.

We have listened very carefully to

housing providers. We are seeing

improvements in this all the time.

I

listened very carefully to what the

Minister said in answer to the

question. I am wondering if it is

any surprise to hear that the chief

executive of a large housing

association in the north-west of

Raymond recently told me that there

are arrears from Universal Credit

alone was over £2 million. One

authority in Yorkshire and Humber

has an average per claimant of over

£1100 per claimant. Why is that

happening and what are you going to

do about it?

I think we have to be

really careful not to scaremonger on

this. The National Federation of

arm's-length management

organisations reports three quarters

of tenants who started claiming

Universal Credit were already in

arrears. Research shows that after

four months, the number of claimants

in arrears has fallen by a third.

The single biggest problem for

recipients of welfare coming into

Universal Credit, for some, is the

high level of debt. Could my right

honourable friend the employment

Minister tell me what he can do to

take forward his idea of an

interest-free period to resolve

outstanding debt, and secondly to

promote the use of credit unions in

advising strongly against loan

sharks in the run-up to Christmas?

Mr Speaker, and a half of my

honourable friend the employment

minister, he makes a very important

point. We do want people to adjust

their levels of debt. That is why we

had a system of advanced payments

which enables people to be able to

budget properly and meet their

debts.

Question 18.

Thank you, we

are rolling out Universal Credit

full-service in a very measured way.

I am not aware of any recent cases

of claims being lost. If the Right

Honourable Gentleman does no such

incidents, I very much welcome him

bringing them to my attention.

There

are serious concerns about glitches

with Universal Credit, apparently

arising because the IT does not yet

work properly in some areas. The

Child poverty action group has

reported instances of claims being

made and then vanishing into the

ether without trace. Will the

Minister assure the house that

glitches of this kind will be

addressed and will be resolved, not

simply denied?

Mr Speaker, I think

the report to which he refers says

that many claims seem to have

disappeared. In the texted says it

is a small number, and goes on to

mention just one case. That is not

to say that I ignore that or

belittle it in anyway. Of course I

take what he says very seriously and

he has my absolute assurance that I

will pay attention to any glitches.

Topical questions, Helena Smith.

Number one, Mr Speaker.

This

department's mission is to support

people through all stages of their

lives. Universal Credit is being

introduced slowly and steadily and

positively transforming people's

prospects by bringing satisfaction

and security of entering work and

increasing earnings. We are also

helping citizens prepare for later

life with workplace pensions and we

are committed to helping people at

all stages of their life, and will

continue to build on this body of

work to achieve our ends.

How does the department plan to

respond to their own research,

showing that Universal Credit is a

driver of rent arrears among

families who rely on it to support

them?

As my honourable friend has

addressed, we do need to recognise

that a number of other statistics

that have been quoted, that we have

seen rent arrears rising before

people went into Universal Credit,

and after a period of time the

numbers with rent arrears is

falling. Of course, we continue to

improve the system to ensure that,

for example, payment timeliness is

improved and that people are able to

access advances when they need it.

The Minister will know that motor

neurone disease is a degenerative

disease. Could I ask, therefore,

what plans they have to insure that

people who suffer from that terrible

disease don't have to be reassessed

for PIP?

I thank my honourable

friend for that question. The length

of the award is based on individual

circumstances and can vary from nine

months to an ongoing ward with a

very light touch review, at the

10-year point. With somebody as my

honourable friend describes, it is

very unlikely they would have

another face-to-face assessment with

a health care professional.

We all

know that the Government is bogged

down in all manner of ways and have

been slow to develop secondary

legislation for several new acts.

Can the Minister tell the house when

he will bring forward regulations to

enact defined contribution and give

pension savers the opportunity of a

vastly increased benefits system,

predicted by the pensions policy

Institute and Schroders?

These

matters are being considered and

will be addressed in the New Year.

Can the Minister update the house

with the pensions dashboard and

confirm that all pension schemes

will be required to release the

conference of data required to make

the system useful?

I am very firmly

committed to delivering the pensions

dashboard. Its introduction will

clearly transform the way people

think about retirement. I will make

a statement in the spring which will

tackle some of the delivery

challenges, including the point of

the honourable gentleman raises.

There is a feasibility study that is

ongoing. There is a stakeholder

meeting on December the 11th and I

would urge him to come along to

that, as will many interested

stakeholders.

How does the increased

conditionality associated with

Universal Credit, for example the

requirement to attend or frequently

at job centres, square with the DWP

Estates reviewing the decision to

close job centres, starting with

Merry Hill in my constituency, which

I have recently visited?

Mr Speaker,

we do have a comprehensive network

of job centres across the United

Kingdom, more in Scotland and

England and more again in Glasgow

than other cities. The Universal

Credit is a system which works to

help to support people to get into

work and it is the right system.

Does my right honourable friend

share my concern that the inaccurate

use of Universal Credit statistics

can cause huge distress and concern

to vulnerable claimants? And that

everyone has a duty to check their

facts before using them in this

house?

I agree. Can I give one

example? Speaking from that dispatch

box, the Leader of the Opposition

recently said that Gloucester city

Holmes had evicted one in eight of

Universal Credit tenants. If true,

it would amount to 650 tenants being

evicted. Gloucester city Holmes have

themselves described it does not

factually accurate. In fact, a total

of eight credits have been evicted.

All of them had considerable rent

arrears well before moving on to

Universal Credit. In one case, I

understand they had not been

resident in the property for 18

months.

Mr Speaker, many veterans

with psychological injuries carry

out physical activity as part of

their rehabilitation process. But

some are reporting that they have

been sanctioned because of this. Can

the Secretary of State give his

guarantee that his government will

no longer sanction recovering

veterans?

I will, of course, look at

the facts of the case. I cannot make

a blank and commitment. Obviously

one has to look at the particular

circumstances. -- a blanket

commitment. We do recognise and

support our veterans at every

opportunity.

Mr Speaker, a

constituency recently contacted me

concerned about the amount of time

they are having to wait for their

tribunal hearing. Will my right

honourable friend make

representations to the Ministry of

Justice about the efficiency of HM

Courts and tribunals?

I am happy to

convey my honourable friend's

concerns.

Where is the fellow?

I will take his place, thank you. My

local authority is having to set

aside £1 million to mitigate for the

devastating impact of the role of

Universal Credit, the impact it is

having on families, including having

to hire extra staff to deal with

rent arrears, which they expect to

increase by 5%. At all levels

government in Scotland forced to

pick up the government's slack, does

he not have to pause the roll-out

now?

Universal Credit is going to

help transform lives. It is already

doing it. Transforming a positively

by giving people the opportunity to

work and to progress in work. I just

have to say that the SNP can join

the Labour Party in being on the

wrong side of the adamant and

history will not forgive them for

it.

-- of the argument. Since 2010,

discover mug has overseen remarkable

job creation. My predecessor,

formerly of the SNP benches, has

just secured a very well-paid media

position with Yorkshire Today. Would

the Minister agree with me that

people must be flexible about career

choices to get on?

We sometimes hear enough fake news

within this chamber. To see the

former leader of the SNP find

themselves employed by a purveyor of

fake news is disappointing, even if

we welcome employment opportunities

in the round.

Universal Credit is

proving to be a real challenge for

people who are self-employed as it

fails to account for fluctuations in

income from one month to another,

meaning many are losing out on

hundreds of pounds of lost benefits.

This is totally counter to the

aspirational vision of Universal

Credit that the Government preaches.

Will the Minister committed to

immediately reviewing the benefits'

suitability for the self-employed

and fixing this anomaly?

On the

contrary, Universal Credit

specifically responds each month to

what earnings have been in that

month. That is at the heart of its

design. We do want to help people

that are in self-employment to grow

their earnings and dimension that

they have sustainable remunerative

work. That is why we haven't used a

new programme within the new

enterprise allowance to help you do

just that.

Great unhappiness

continues surrounding the issues of

pensions and the women who have come

to see us in our constituencies.

There is a plan to have a Private

members Bill next year. Does my

right honourable friend not agree

that given the continuing

accusations and counter accusations

as to whether people were told not

that it would be worthwhile to have

the debate? Will he support such

idea?

I am grateful to my right

honourable friend for his question

and I have no doubt that there will

continue to be debates on this

matter. As my honourable friend the

pensions minister has already

declared, we are not going to be

deviating from the policy we have

set out.

12% of council tenants in the

Universal Credit pilot accumulated

by .3 million pounds rent arrears.

Given his astonishing refusal in the

face of such evidence to halt the

roll-out, can the Secretary of State

to say precisely what he is doing to

stop more on my constituents being

made homeless as a consequence of

this decision?

Again, I come back to

this throwing around of accusations.

In terms of, we had the Leader of

the Opposition claiming that 650

people were being evicted, had been

evicted because of Universal Credit.

We are not seeing convictions in the

social rental sector and there are

clear reasons why that does not

happen. What we are getting from the

party opposite is scaremongering for

potential Universal Credit

claimants, which is creating

unnecessary anxiety.

Would he agree

with me and congratulate boxed OCA

be? We have Universal Credit rolled

out next year and they are putting

together the relevant agencies to

make some law we are ready for it.

And what you look at whether or not

for a very small amount of money my

CAB could have one person to deal

with all the cases, and we can make

this work as we all know it should

work?

I will take that as a spending

bid from my right honourable friend.

But she is right to highlight the

role of the Citizens Advice Bureau

and I met with some in St Albans and

Bedford last week and whether CAB

works closely with the Job Centres,

it helps deliver the support people

need and I very much welcome that.

My constituent was moved onto

Universal Credit in January 2016 and

has been given a 132 day sanction

and treated by psychiatric services

and will be back to look into her

case because it is very sensitive.

I

am happy to receive representations

from the honourable member on that

case. I cannot talk about

individuals matters but happy to

look at that case.

What is my right honourable friend

doing to close loopholes designed to

avoid child maintenance payments?

Where a nonresident payment fails to

pay on time or in full, we endeavour

to immediately try and establish

compliance before enforcement action

is needed. We have a range of powers

including the forced sale of

property, disqualification from

driving or commitments to prison.

But we are exploring options to

expand this to form part of the new

compliance strategy shortly, Mr

Speaker.

Members of the British

Steel pension scheme need to decide

whether to go into the pension

scheme or the PPF by December the 11

but there is a lack of clarity

around high low pensioners in the

PPF and whether that might change

after that point. Can the Secretary

of State look at this so the

information is available for people

make that decision?

I acknowledge the issue the

honourable gentleman is setting out.

If he contacts me, I will sit down

with him and go through it in more

detail. It is a matter for the

trustees on an ongoing basis as to

what the decisions are that are

taken.

Order, urgent question, Emily

Thornberry.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

To ask the Secretary of State for

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to

make the statement of the British

Iranians national Nazanin

Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

Secretary Boris

Johnson.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I

should like to make a statement on

the case of Nazanin

Zaghari-Ratcliffe in response to the

honourable lady. The House will join

me in expressing our deep concern

about the ordeal of this young

mother who has spent the last 19

months in jail in Iran. And every

honourable member will join the

Government is urging the Iranian

authorities to release her on

humanitarian grounds. I spoke by

phone to her husband, Richard

Ratcliffe, yesterday. And we agreed

to meet later this week. I told Mr

Ratcliffe that the country is behind

him and we all want to see his wife

home safely. In view of the

understandable concern, I propose to

describe the background to her case

and the efforts the Government is

making to secure her release. In

April last year, she was visiting

her relations in Iran Le with her

daughter Gabriella who was then only

22 months old. When she was arrested

at the airport in Tehran while

trying to board her flight back to

the UK. The British Government has

no doubt that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe

was in Iran on holiday and that was

the only purpose of her visit. As I

said in the House last week, my

remarks on the subject before the

Foreign Affairs Select Committee

could and should have been clearer.

And I acknowledge that the words I

used were open to being

misinterpreted and I apologise. I

apologise to Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe

and her family if I have

inadvertently cause them any further

anguish. How should bear in mind

that Iran's regime and no one else

has chosen to separate this mother

from her infant daughter for reasons

that even they find it difficult to

explain or describe. On the 9th of

September 2016, Mrs

Zaghari-Ratcliffe was brought before

a secret trial and sentenced to five

years in prison. Suppose for

plotting to overthrow the Islamic

Republic. The House will know that

as far as we can tell, no further

charges had been brought against her

and no further sentence has been

imposed since that occasion of a

year ago. 11 days after Mrs

Zaghari-Ratcliffe was sentenced, my

right honourable friend the Prime

Minister raised her case with

resident Hassan Rouhani in New York

on the 20th of September 2016. Two

days later, I raised the case with

my Iranian counterpart and the how

should note that the previous Prime

Minister David Cameron raised in

prison at Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe with

President Hassan Rouhani in 2016 and

my predecessor wrote to the Iranians

Foreign Minister about her plight

and other consular cases on the 29th

of August 2016. At every meeting

with our Iranian counterpart, my

colleagues and I have taken every

opportunity to raise the case of Mrs

Zaghari-Ratcliffe and other

nationals held in Iranians jails. We

had expressed our concerns at every

level. Official, ministerial and

prime ministerial, on every possible

occasion during the 19 months that

she has been in jail. In addition,

Mr Ratcliffe has held regular

meetings with the memorable one with

the member for the Middle East and

the member for North East

Bedfordshire. A situation where a

British mother is held in these

circumstances is bound to cast a

shadow over Britain's relations with

Iran. At a moment when in the

aftermath of the agreement of the

nuclear deal in July 2015 and the

easing of sanctions, we had all

hoped to witness a genuine

improvement. So I shall travel to

Iran myself later this year to

review the state of our bilateral

relations and to drive home the

strength of feeling in this House

and in the country at large about

the plight of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe

and other consular cases. In order

to maximise the chances of achieving

progress, I would venture to say

that Honourable Members should place

the focus of responsibility on those

who are keeping Mrs

Zaghari-Ratcliffe behind bars and to

have the power to release her

whenever they so choose. And we

should be united in our demand that

the humanitarian reasons for

releasing her so overwhelming that

if Iran cares about its reputation

in this country, its leaders will do

now what is manifestly right, and I

commend this statement to the House.

For the avoidance of doubt, the

Foreign Secretary has responded to

an urgent question, in the course of

which... Order. He has properly made

remarks. But it is important for

others in the House to distinguish

tweet a response to an urgent and

the proper and by government of a

statement on the other. Emily

Thornberry.

Thank you very much, Mr

Speaker, for granting this urgent

question and how unfortunate it is

to ask an urgent question rather

than getting a statement. Let me say

whatever strong feelings we have

about Iran's actions in this case, I

am sure we all will be joined in

sending our boards to those affected

by yesterday's earthquake on the

border of Iran and Iraq. I'm very

grateful to the Foreign Secretary

returning from Brussels to answer

this question, perhaps reflected the

last time a Minister of State was

asked to answer an urgent question,

they only lasted 24 hours. But I

hope that we can make some more

progress today than we were able to

make on the same issue last week.

Let's start by clarifying the points

on which there is absolutely no

difference between us. First, we all

want to see Nazanin brought home as

soon as possible. No one who has

listened to the heartbreaking

testimony of Richard Ratcliffe can

be in any doubt how urgent it is

Nazanin brought home as soon as

possible. No one who has listened to

the heartbreaking testimony of

Richard Ratcliffe can be in any

doubt how urgent it is's mental and

physical help that no one who has

listened to the heartbreaking

testimony of Richard Ratcliffe can

be in any doubt how urgent it is's

mental and physical health but she's

returned to her family immediately.

If it can be done as has been

suggested through comparing

diplomatic statement -- on Nazanin,

that would be welcome although how

can that be achieved and how can we

free this innocent British mother

without opening up the Grace Mugabe

precedent where the same tactic

could be used in Britain to help a

tilting Borough National escape

justice? And we can all agree that

the responsibility for Nazanin's

incarceration and mistreatment lies

entirely with the Iranian

authorities and we unite in urging

for her freedom to be was board. We

are in full agreement on those

points. But two key issues where we

have so far differed and frankly we

continue to differ. First, the

Foreign Secretary argued last week

that his comments to the Select

Committee had, and I quote, no

connection whatsoever with the

latest threats by the Iranian

authorities to extend Nazanin's

sentence and it was and chooses to

just otherwise. That, Mr Speaker, is

entirely contradicted by what has

been said by the Iranian courts last

weekend and on Iranian judiciary

websites and Iranian state TV. All

of them said explicitly that the

Foreign Secretary's remarks with a

basis of their renewed action

against Nazanin. We know from the

evidence of Richard Ratcliffe that

when Nazanin herself was told the

remarks and she saw how the Iranian

authorities would exploit them, she

became hugely distressed and upset.

So will the Foreign Secretary today

except the impact that his words

have had, except the distress that

has been caused to Nazanin and

apologise properly for that? Not for

upsetting people, but apologise for

getting it wrong! And secondly, Mr

Speaker, last week, the Foreign

Secretary was asked several times to

do one very simple thing and that

was simply to admit that he had made

a mistake, not that his remarks have

been taken out of context or that

they have been misconstrued, but

that they were simply wrong. And he

has so far refused to make that

clear that refusal been compounded

yesterday by his good friend the

Environment Secretary and even after

all the debate on this issue, the

Environment Secretary still

incredibly claims that we do not

know why Nazanin is in Iran. We do.

Mr Speaker, it is not good enough.

If it is a matter of pride that the

Foreign Secretary is refusing to

admit simply that he has made a

mistake, well, then I feel bound to

say to him that his pride matters

not one ounce compared to Nazanin's

freedom. In conclusion, after a week

of obfuscation and bluster, will he

finally take the opportunity today

to state simply and unequivocally

for the removal of any doubt, either

here or in Tehran, that he simply

got it wrong?

Mr Speaker, I am more than happy to

say again what I said to the right

honourable lady last week, that yes,

of course I apologise for the

distress and for the suffering that

has been caused by the impression

that I gave that the Government

believed, that I believed that she

was there in a professional

capacity. She was there on holiday

and that is the view... I do

apologise, I do apologise. Of course

I retract any suggestion that she

was there in a professional

capacity. You must have heard, the

Honourable Members must have heard

that from me about a dozen times.

The honourable, right honourable

lady raised an important question

about diplomatic protection. And how

that would work. And I can tell she

is right that that is a question

that Richard Ratcliffe himself has

raised with me. All I can say is

that they will be answering Mr

Ratcliffe. I cannot give an answer

today, but rather and sinister

Ratcliffe in person. I am delighted

to say that I am seeing him tomorrow

-- I would rather response to Mr

Ratcliffe in person. He has

requested, as I said last week, he

has requested to come to Tehran. I

don't know whether that will be

possible, but we will see what we

can do.

Regrettably, more than a faint whiff

of opportunism hangs over this

urgent question. But this will

question the wisdom of having this

discussion at all. Would my right

honourable friend not agree with me

that it is incumbent on each and

every one of us in this house to

play very close attention to what we

may or may not be about to say,

because the Iranians will be

watching these deliberations and we

do not want to exacerbate an already

extremely difficult situation.

My

right honourable friend is, I'm

afraid, absolutely right. It was one

of the reasons why it is so

important that we remain very, very

careful in what we say about the

entire case.

I hope today that the Secretary of

State is reflecting very seriously

on his position, and the position

that he holds not just in this

government, but in society. For

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, it would

be

Rhys Gill to assume that when a

secretary state got involved in her

case it might make things better.

Unfortunately, it has made it very

much worse. Why was another cabinet

minister not briefed properly and

said live on television he did not

know why she was there? What is

going on in the heart of this

government? As able to go a result

of these comments, she is now in an

increasingly perilous situation,

which has given the radiant

authorities added cause for keeping

her locked up on false grounds. His

apology is welcome, but he must

reflect, as much the Government come

on how they do their business, how

they protect our citizens. What

guarantee will he give that Nazanin

will be given adequate protection

and be brought home? The Foreign

Secretary and his colleagues must

make clear that they are able to do

their jobs and they are able to

protect our citizens.

Our priority

is to secure the safe return of

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. All other

considerations, political

considerations, are entirely

secondary. The only thing we have to

bear in mind is the safety and

well-being of the other consular

cases in Iran, which is very

important. I said to the right

honourable lady that I was seeing Mr

Ratcliffe, I am seeing him on

Wednesday.

Has an ardent

Churchillian, does my right

honourable friend accept that this

has not been his finest hour? Before

the opposition make too much of

that, may I urge them to avoid

headlines such as that in the

independent online, where it says

Boris Johnson should resign if

British mother stays in Iranian jail

for even one more day? The Iranians

regime plays politics with hostages.

Does my right honourable friend

agree that if they believe that they

can get rid of a British Foreign

Secretary by jailing a hostage for

longer, they will jail that hostage

for longer? That link needs to be

broken, not reinforced by the

opposition.

I think the whole house would agree

that there is nothing more important

than the safe return of Nazanin

Zaghari-Ratcliffe and, as I say, the

protection of all other consular

cases in Iran. That trumps all

political considerations in this

country.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My

constituent, Richard Radcliffe,

wrote in the Evening Standard my

complaint is not that her

imprisonment has become a diplomatic

incident this past week. It is that

wasn't for the 19 months that came

before. This shows the sheer dignity

with which my constituent has been

campaigning for her release. He told

me that the family lawyer, working

together with the NGO, has written

to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office

two months ago with legal opinion

about Nazanin's right to diplomatic

protections. I know that the Foreign

Secretary has already indicated to

the member for Islington himself

that he will consider diplomatic

protection. It will he urge that a

meeting takes place between the FCO

and the lawyers, and will he give

some indication of whether

diplomatic protection will be given?

This could save my constituent's

life.

As I said to the honourable

lady earlier, I will be talking

directly to Richard Radcliffe about

that issue on Wednesday. Very

briefly, about the issue of consular

protection, every day, in some part

of the world, a UK national or a

dual national is detained. I pay

tribute to the consular work done by

the Foreign Office across the world.

In point of fact, a huge amount of

work has been done on behalf of your

constituent, by my honourable

friends on these benches, who have

met members of her family repeatedly

and will continue to do so until we

solve the problem.

Thank you, Mr

Speaker. I am very glad that the

Foreign Secretary has made a

statement today. Would he agree with

me that this poor woman, who is

separated from her child, is being

used not only as a political

football here, but also in Iran,

where the Iranians Republican guard

is effectively fighting with the

authoritarian regime in its own way.

Would he perhaps consider calling on

people in our own system who may be

able to talk to them, perhaps asking

the Archbishop of Canterbury what

the holy Father to speak on the half

of this woman and seek to broker her

release? Wiper Goessling my

honourable friend speaks with great

insight about the situation in Iran.

I can assure him that no stone will

be left unturned in our efforts.

From my own experience of trying to

get two British national out of jail

in 2009, when you're dealing with a

difficult country you need to be