28/11/2017

0:00:00 > 0:00:00lists, and importantly, it will help us make sure that nurses and other

0:00:00 > 0:00:07public sector workers are able to get the pay rise they deserve.

0:00:07 > 0:00:17Before I call the urgent question, may I emphasise to the House, that

0:00:17 > 0:00:20the purpose of my selecting Ms urgent question today was to make

0:00:20 > 0:00:25sure that I could give an opportunity to the Minister, to

0:00:25 > 0:00:31expend to be has what action the Government has taken. In response to

0:00:31 > 0:00:36the order of the House. And, an opportunity for other members to

0:00:36 > 0:00:41question him on those matters, it is not an occasion for the House to

0:00:41 > 0:00:48debate, whether or not a contempt of the House may have occurred. There

0:00:48 > 0:00:56may or may not be later occasions for that matter to be discussed.

0:00:56 > 0:01:02This is the correct procedure, and I know the House will trust me to know

0:01:02 > 0:01:15of what I speak. Urgent question. Thank you, Mr Speaker. To ask the

0:01:15 > 0:01:29Secretary of State if he would make a statement on the release of...

0:01:30 > 0:01:34On the 1st of November, this has passed the motion asking the impact

0:01:34 > 0:01:38assessments arising from sexual analysis to be provided to the

0:01:38 > 0:01:42committee on exiting the European Union. This Government takes very

0:01:42 > 0:01:54serious the Parliamentary -- numerical analysis. I am glad to be

0:01:54 > 0:01:59able to confirm that the information has been provided not only for

0:01:59 > 0:02:04exiting the European Union, but also to be devolved administrations. I

0:02:04 > 0:02:08can also inform the House that we have initiated discussions with the

0:02:08 > 0:02:13Parliamentary authorities to make the information... We were clear

0:02:13 > 0:02:16from the start that we would respond to a motion, but also that the

0:02:16 > 0:02:31documents did not exist, and I made clear to the House that there has

0:02:31 > 0:02:43been some misunderstandings on what the sectoral analysis is. The

0:02:43 > 0:02:51parliament also has another addition to consider whether... It is

0:02:51 > 0:03:04important to recognise that the Iraqi, and in many cases -- it is

0:03:04 > 0:03:09well understood that it is up to ministers which must remain private.

0:03:09 > 0:03:16My right honourable made a statement on the 7th of November, but it would

0:03:16 > 0:03:19take some time to collect and bring together information in a way that

0:03:19 > 0:03:23was accessible and informative for the committee. He committed that

0:03:23 > 0:03:27these reports would be provided within three weeks. In providing

0:03:27 > 0:03:32information for committee yesterday, we have met that commitment.

0:03:32 > 0:03:35Parliament has endorsed full responsibility of ministers not to

0:03:35 > 0:03:41release information, and contrary to what has been assessed in some

0:03:41 > 0:03:46places, they would not give firm assurances that it would not be

0:03:46 > 0:03:49published in full. Where there are precedents for things being

0:03:49 > 0:03:54discussed in confidence, can there be a clear set of rules such as

0:03:54 > 0:04:04those governing intelligence material. This is not the same as

0:04:04 > 0:04:16assurance that where provided with confidential material, it would not

0:04:16 > 0:04:25be... The houses should be at no doubt that this has been a very

0:04:25 > 0:04:31substantial undertaking. We have been as open as possible, and we

0:04:31 > 0:04:37have collated over 800 pages of analysis for the committees, yes and

0:04:37 > 0:04:48-- less than a month... This covers all of these sectors.Transparency

0:04:48 > 0:04:50and accountability are two words that this Government does not

0:04:50 > 0:04:55understand. On the 1st of November, after eight three hour debate, this

0:04:55 > 0:05:01house voted in favour of the humble address required all 38 sectoral

0:05:01 > 0:05:08analysis, not some of the ports, the full reports. The Government does

0:05:08 > 0:05:12not seek to amend the humble address, nor did it vote against the

0:05:12 > 0:05:16motion. After your advice, Mr Speaker, the Government accepted

0:05:16 > 0:05:20that the motion was binding. It is not open to the Secretary of State

0:05:20 > 0:05:26to choose to ignore it and passed the documents that he chooses.

0:05:26 > 0:05:31Whether he is of content of parliament is a matter we will

0:05:31 > 0:05:35country at a later date, but he is treating Parliament with contempt.

0:05:35 > 0:05:40The Secretary of State says that the ministers reported that he did not

0:05:40 > 0:05:43get assurances about how the documents would be used. A minister

0:05:43 > 0:05:46therefore better answered pretty blunt questions this morning, what

0:05:46 > 0:05:53assurances were sought that were not given? And he bettered tread

0:05:53 > 0:05:57carefully, because there will be an audit trail, here. And if he cannot

0:05:57 > 0:06:04answer that question, if he did not pursue the assurances, then his

0:06:04 > 0:06:10cover for not disclosing these will be blown. Mr Speaker, this is not a

0:06:10 > 0:06:15game. This is the most important set of decisions that this country has

0:06:15 > 0:06:18taken for decades. They need to be subjected to prop is rude to me. In

0:06:18 > 0:06:27my expense, the biggest -- to proper scrutiny. Then I remind the Minister

0:06:27 > 0:06:31and the Secretary of State that until Bruce has passed the motion on

0:06:31 > 0:06:38November, they say that they have put the documents together. In

0:06:38 > 0:06:42September, they asked for a Freedom of information request, the first

0:06:42 > 0:06:45question is do you hold the material, to which the answer was

0:06:45 > 0:06:48yes, and that called into serious question the explanation now being

0:06:48 > 0:06:53put before this case. Finally this, Mr Speaker, I am deeply concerned

0:06:53 > 0:07:01that the total of documents that generated by the Government's work

0:07:01 > 0:07:07on there approached economy. That can be squeezed into two lever arch

0:07:07 > 0:07:12files. If this is the case, we should all be worried, is that the

0:07:12 > 0:07:17extent of the analysis for either way, it is a very sorry state of

0:07:17 > 0:07:25affairs.Let me address some of the misconceptions in the right

0:07:25 > 0:07:28honourable gentleman speech, because we have not edited or redacted the

0:07:28 > 0:07:31report. At the time the motion was passed, we were clear that the

0:07:31 > 0:07:38documents did exist in the form -- did not exist in the form requested.

0:07:38 > 0:07:43The documents which he freely admits that he has not seen, do not contain

0:07:43 > 0:07:49redactions. It is noticeable, that the original suggestion of

0:07:49 > 0:07:53redactions, came from him. And came from him speaking from the front

0:07:53 > 0:07:58bench of the opposition. He also said that he had accepted all along

0:07:58 > 0:08:01that the public should not put into the public domain any information

0:08:01 > 0:08:08that would undermine the position. He accepts, that there is a level of

0:08:08 > 0:08:12detail that should not be discussed. Statements that he made during the

0:08:12 > 0:08:15debate, himself. Let me tell him the logical consequences of that

0:08:15 > 0:08:20position. He suggested that there are mechanisms available that

0:08:20 > 0:08:24would... He is right, of course, as I address in my opening statement, I

0:08:24 > 0:08:31Secretary of State met with the chair of the select committee, and

0:08:31 > 0:08:36discussed these things and was very clear that he wanted to receive any

0:08:36 > 0:08:39documents first before he would give any assurances as to the way that

0:08:39 > 0:08:43they would be treated. On that basis, we had to be clear, we have

0:08:43 > 0:08:52to protect commercially sensitive information. The Government had to

0:08:52 > 0:09:00be mindful of... Let me be clear, we have been as open as possible within

0:09:00 > 0:09:04those obligations. The material that we have provided for the committee,

0:09:04 > 0:09:08is substantial. It is bizarre for the right honourable gentleman to

0:09:08 > 0:09:13dismiss it without having yet seen it. When committee members have a

0:09:13 > 0:09:15opportunity to reflect on it, I think they will reasonably conclude

0:09:15 > 0:09:20that the Government has fully discharged the terms of the motion.

0:09:20 > 0:09:24The analysis described the activity in each sector, and the current

0:09:24 > 0:09:35regulatory regime for the sector. These views range and cover a range

0:09:35 > 0:09:40of cross sector reviews. We take care to incorporate up to date news,

0:09:40 > 0:09:45such as these on the proposed documentation period. Does this

0:09:45 > 0:09:50represent the sum of the Government analysis, of course it does not. The

0:09:50 > 0:09:55motion referred to sectoral analyses, and we responded to

0:09:55 > 0:10:04those... I note... I welcome the fact that they will be able to view

0:10:04 > 0:10:10these documents for -- in confidence. I can assure the House

0:10:10 > 0:10:14and the committee that the state will be accepting their request to

0:10:14 > 0:10:22discuss the content. We provide a vast amount of factual information

0:10:22 > 0:10:26to help the committed and this has in their scrutiny. I am confident we

0:10:26 > 0:10:30have met the requirement to the motions whilst respecting overriding

0:10:30 > 0:10:35duty to national interest.

0:10:35 > 0:10:39If the Government wished to resist the publication of the papers it

0:10:39 > 0:10:45had, it should have voted against the motion. If we wish to qualify or

0:10:45 > 0:10:50to edit the papers that it had, it should have sought to amend the

0:10:50 > 0:10:56notion. We cannot allow post-Brexit to start reducing parliamentary

0:10:56 > 0:11:00sovereignty to a slightly ridiculous level, but would-be Minister at

0:11:00 > 0:11:06least consider the possibility of sharing at least with the chairman

0:11:06 > 0:11:09of the Brexit Select Committee the papers in the original form they

0:11:09 > 0:11:18were in when we had our vote, before this editing process started? Then,

0:11:18 > 0:11:21no doubt, the house would be guided by the chairman of the Brexit

0:11:21 > 0:11:26committee on changes, omissions, which are legitimately in the

0:11:26 > 0:11:30national interest and should be made.

0:11:30 > 0:11:33Hear, hear. I share my honourable friend's

0:11:33 > 0:11:37commitment to ensuring the house can scrutinise our legal information,

0:11:37 > 0:11:44but the problem with the notion that was passed was it referred to

0:11:44 > 0:11:46sectoral impact analysis. We were clear from the start of the

0:11:46 > 0:11:50documents referred to did not exist in the form required. Therefore all

0:11:50 > 0:11:54we have done is to pull together sectoral analysis for the committee.

0:11:54 > 0:12:01That will prove valuable. Peter Grant.

0:12:01 > 0:12:05Thank you. On a day in June 2016, the people of the United Kingdom

0:12:05 > 0:12:10were asked one question in one day and as a result of that, at one

0:12:10 > 0:12:14question, there is no going back on Brexit. On the 1st of December,

0:12:14 > 0:12:17Parliament was asked one question about the intervening 27 days the

0:12:17 > 0:12:22Government has done everything possible to deny and defy the

0:12:22 > 0:12:27instruction given by this Parliament, whose sovereignty we are

0:12:27 > 0:12:32told is being restored by the Brexit process. Can I remind the minister

0:12:32 > 0:12:35that the question of what the Government will provide to the

0:12:35 > 0:12:39select committee is not for the Government or the select committee

0:12:39 > 0:12:44to decide? This Parliament has decided and there is no is no

0:12:44 > 0:12:46discussion, no debate, no negotiation as to the extent to

0:12:46 > 0:12:49which that decision will be complied with. It must be complied with in

0:12:49 > 0:12:56full, otherwise as to the letter published recently by the chair of

0:12:56 > 0:13:02the select committee, they will have to consider whether to raise emotion

0:13:02 > 0:13:06for contempt. How will that look to our European partners? What will it

0:13:06 > 0:13:09do to the credibility of the Government? In particular to the

0:13:09 > 0:13:13Brexit team, they end up being held in contempt by the Parliament of

0:13:13 > 0:13:17which they claim to be returning sovereignty? Can I ask the Minister

0:13:17 > 0:13:22to confirm that the resolution of the house was not about what was

0:13:22 > 0:13:26made public but about what was provided to the select committee?

0:13:26 > 0:13:29Does he not accept in those circumstances that what must be made

0:13:29 > 0:13:32available to the select committee is everything, absolutely everything,

0:13:32 > 0:13:37and that the Government if not prepared to comply with that, they

0:13:37 > 0:13:42should not be in Government. Can you tell us categorically that does he

0:13:42 > 0:13:46accept that a decision on what to publish within the rights of

0:13:46 > 0:13:49parliamentary privilege is for the select committee alone to decide?

0:13:49 > 0:13:52Secondly, can you confirmed that he and his Government are prepared to

0:13:52 > 0:13:56trust the judgment of that committee on the half of this House to

0:13:56 > 0:14:00exercise responsible judgment as to what the public are entitled to

0:14:00 > 0:14:02know? Hear, hear.

0:14:02 > 0:14:06The honourable gentleman asked a number of important questions. I

0:14:06 > 0:14:11welcome the fact that we have shared these information with the reports

0:14:11 > 0:14:14to devolve demonstrations. One impression to select committees in

0:14:14 > 0:14:18Scotland, it was a question which were oppressed. I would say we do

0:14:18 > 0:14:21respect the fact that the select committee has the complete joins and

0:14:21 > 0:14:26discretion over what gets published and the information shared with it.

0:14:26 > 0:14:29That is why Government has published information to a select committee on

0:14:29 > 0:14:34the way that it has. Can I just say to my right

0:14:34 > 0:14:38honourable friend that he has every right to ensure, as the EU has given

0:14:38 > 0:14:41out this guidance, that not all confidential information is

0:14:41 > 0:14:44necessarily made available, otherwise that might restrict our

0:14:44 > 0:14:48negotiating position? But can I also urge him to have that discussion

0:14:48 > 0:14:52with the chairman and asking specifically what is it that he was

0:14:52 > 0:14:58expecting that he has now not got in terms of the documents?

0:14:58 > 0:15:02I thank my honourable friend for that question. I will take account

0:15:02 > 0:15:10of both of the points made. Hillary Benn.

0:15:10 > 0:15:14Can I welcome the willingness of the Secretary of State to appear before

0:15:14 > 0:15:18the select committee, the decision we made this morning, and can ask

0:15:18 > 0:15:22the Minister to convey to the Secretary of State our wish he

0:15:22 > 0:15:29should do so very speedily indeed? Now, given that it is quite clear

0:15:29 > 0:15:35that the select committee has received edited documents, in other

0:15:35 > 0:15:40words they do not contain everything that is in the possession of the

0:15:40 > 0:15:46Government, can I say to the Minister that this is not in keeping

0:15:46 > 0:15:52with the motion passed by the House of Commons? And a say to him that I

0:15:52 > 0:15:56made it very clear to the secretary of state what procedure the select

0:15:56 > 0:16:01committee would use to consider the reports, and if I may put it like

0:16:01 > 0:16:08this, I do object to any suggestion that the select committee or eye as

0:16:08 > 0:16:13chair cannot be trusted to do our job.

0:16:13 > 0:16:16Hear, hear. I have great respect for the right

0:16:16 > 0:16:20honourable gentlemen and I will communicate his message to the

0:16:20 > 0:16:24Secretary of State, and they believe the point he makes about the

0:16:24 > 0:16:28information in the analyses is the point that the motion referred to

0:16:28 > 0:16:32was not what existed at that time. What we have tried to do is ensure

0:16:32 > 0:16:38there is full and information available to his committee and once

0:16:38 > 0:16:41he has had a chance to denies that he will find that information very

0:16:41 > 0:16:47useful. My honourable friend has said there

0:16:47 > 0:16:49are 850 pages of documents and so for the chairman of the select

0:16:49 > 0:16:53committee is the only member who has actually seen them. Can I say to my

0:16:53 > 0:16:57right honourable friend that I understand these document have been

0:16:57 > 0:17:00sent to two select committees of Parliament and the devolved

0:17:00 > 0:17:04administrations and as a former chairman of the select committee, I

0:17:04 > 0:17:07can say that leaks are not without precedent, and I do not want the

0:17:07 > 0:17:11Government to make available any information that if it became public

0:17:11 > 0:17:15it could undermine our negotiating position?

0:17:15 > 0:17:18I thank my right honourable friend for that point. He makes an

0:17:18 > 0:17:21important point but we want to ensure that as much information as

0:17:21 > 0:17:25can be made available to the select committee is available so it can be

0:17:25 > 0:17:32discussed. Why when the Bank of England has

0:17:32 > 0:17:35published the frankly chilling implications of no deal does the

0:17:35 > 0:17:39Government insist on selectively editing the sectoral reports, and is

0:17:39 > 0:17:45it true, as I was told by an insider, that what the Government

0:17:45 > 0:17:48have done is released selective sensitive documentation whilst with

0:17:48 > 0:17:53the bulk of that sensitive information?

0:17:53 > 0:18:01To his last question, no. I find that I agree with the House

0:18:01 > 0:18:05and the chairman of the select committee on the comments they have

0:18:05 > 0:18:09made, but I understand there is a dilemma for the Government. There is

0:18:09 > 0:18:13one recent motion that clearly says all documents should be delivered.

0:18:13 > 0:18:18There is a previous motion in this House that says the Government

0:18:18 > 0:18:21should not produce anything that damages our negotiations. I do think

0:18:21 > 0:18:26those motions are not clear, so would it not be an idea for

0:18:26 > 0:18:32Government to come back with another motion the situation?

0:18:32 > 0:18:36I am grateful for my honourable friend's suggestion, but such things

0:18:36 > 0:18:38are not necessarily for media response to, but certainly something

0:18:38 > 0:18:45we will look at. -- not for me to respond to.

0:18:45 > 0:18:49In June the Secretary of State said on the Andrew Marr show we have 50

0:18:49 > 0:18:54or maybe 60 sectoral analyses already done. In September and this

0:18:54 > 0:18:58was reiterated in response to a Freedom of information request. An

0:18:58 > 0:19:00October the Secretary of State can this to our committee and said the

0:19:00 > 0:19:05reports were in excruciating detail the Prime Minister had seen the

0:19:05 > 0:19:10summaries. In November we heard that they never existed. On what basis,

0:19:10 > 0:19:14Mr Speaker, and completed reports be uncompleted and on what basis is it

0:19:14 > 0:19:17right that the Government do anything other than give their

0:19:17 > 0:19:21reports in full to the select committee in line with the

0:19:21 > 0:19:25resolution of this House? Hear, hear.

0:19:25 > 0:19:28The Government has provided reports covering the 58 sectors to the

0:19:28 > 0:19:30select committee and I look forward to them being able to scrutinise

0:19:30 > 0:19:34those in detail. I say to the honourable lady she has been

0:19:34 > 0:19:37persistent in pressing for as much of this information as possible to

0:19:37 > 0:19:40be in the public domain. Her front bench had been persistently

0:19:40 > 0:19:44recognising all the information subject to negotiations could

0:19:44 > 0:19:51possibly be done so without counteracting the national interest.

0:19:51 > 0:19:54Jacob Rees-Mogg. The issue now is not whether it is

0:19:54 > 0:19:58in the Government's interest to publish these documents are not. If

0:19:58 > 0:20:01the Government did not want to publish them, it should have voted

0:20:01 > 0:20:06down or amended the address. The question now is whether the terms of

0:20:06 > 0:20:09that notion, which in all precedent is a binding motion unlike the

0:20:09 > 0:20:17previous motion passed earlier in the year, which was not a binding

0:20:17 > 0:20:20motion, to meet this motion it is not at the discretion of the

0:20:20 > 0:20:23Government to decide what to take out. It is now at the discretion of

0:20:23 > 0:20:28the select committee and I therefore urge the Government either to meet

0:20:28 > 0:20:35the terms of the motion in full or to seek to put down a new motion.

0:20:35 > 0:20:40I take my honourable friend's expertise in parliamentary procedure

0:20:40 > 0:20:43seriously and recognise the point he is making but we feel we have

0:20:43 > 0:20:48responded to the notion in full by preparing for the select committee

0:20:48 > 0:20:51sectoral analysis. The bottleneck is the sectoral analysis did not exist

0:20:51 > 0:20:57in the form requested in the motion at the time. -- the point is this.

0:20:57 > 0:21:02This situation is entirely up the Government's making. The motion

0:21:02 > 0:21:08passed by this house did not give the Government discretion to take

0:21:08 > 0:21:11this information and decide for itself what to give to the select

0:21:11 > 0:21:18committee and what not to give to them. So the Government has not

0:21:18 > 0:21:23complied with the motion that it did not resist. And there is another

0:21:23 > 0:21:27underlying point here apart from the questions of parliamentary privilege

0:21:27 > 0:21:33and contempt, and it is this - do we believe that the public has a right

0:21:33 > 0:21:37to know the consequences of the options facing the country and

0:21:37 > 0:21:42Brexit? I believe that they do. Does the Minister agree?

0:21:42 > 0:21:46The right honourable gentlemen knows that we have responded to the motion

0:21:46 > 0:21:49and we accepted that the Russian was binding and we have therefore

0:21:49 > 0:21:53brought information forward to form a select committee and gone forward.

0:21:53 > 0:21:57-- we accepted the information was binding. We now have discussions to

0:21:57 > 0:22:01make sure the information can be divided in confidential reading to

0:22:01 > 0:22:04the whole House. Not in the address of the public for this country is to

0:22:04 > 0:22:13put information publish publicly published things, which the House

0:22:13 > 0:22:18has voted for us not to do. Most would accept it is perfectly

0:22:18 > 0:22:22reasonable to exclude Arsenal marks in negotiation sensitive information

0:22:22 > 0:22:30but that was not expressly stood in the terms of the humble address on

0:22:30 > 0:22:33the 1st of November. -- to exclude certain pieces of negotiation

0:22:33 > 0:22:38sensitive information. Would he agree that the Government should

0:22:38 > 0:22:42bring forward a revised motion expressly excluding that information

0:22:42 > 0:22:45from the material to be supplied to the select committee?

0:22:45 > 0:22:48Hear, hear. My honourable friend has as many

0:22:48 > 0:22:52friends have raised an interesting point, something we will look into.

0:22:52 > 0:22:56What we have done is to ensure that the select committee has information

0:22:56 > 0:23:00on the sectoral allowances the Government has conducted, anything

0:23:00 > 0:23:04that is an important step in response to the motion of the house.

0:23:04 > 0:23:09Stephen Kinnock. On the letter of the 2nd of

0:23:09 > 0:23:11November, my honourable friend be charity committee wrote the

0:23:11 > 0:23:15following. Once material has been provided to the committee, I would

0:23:15 > 0:23:19be happy to discuss with you any particular concerns you may have

0:23:19 > 0:23:22about publication of parts of the material so that the committee can

0:23:22 > 0:23:28take these into account in making its decision on release. On the 27th

0:23:28 > 0:23:30of November, the Secretary of State wrote, we have received no

0:23:30 > 0:23:34assurances from the committee regarding how any information passed

0:23:34 > 0:23:40will be used. Does the Minister agree with me that the Secretary of

0:23:40 > 0:23:45State's latter on the 27th of November is a blatant

0:23:45 > 0:23:50misrepresentation of what was agreed and they agree that the Secretary of

0:23:50 > 0:23:52State should withdraw that remark and apologise for it to my

0:23:52 > 0:23:56honourable friend the charity committee?

0:23:56 > 0:24:00Hear, hear. No, I don't.

0:24:00 > 0:24:05Anna Soubry. I think it is extremely important

0:24:05 > 0:24:11that we understand exactly what it is that was voted on and which the

0:24:11 > 0:24:15select committee seeks disclosure on. I am reminding myself of the

0:24:15 > 0:24:22motion that was in two parts, one, it referred to the list of sectoral

0:24:22 > 0:24:29analyses, and then it went on to make it clear that it was the impact

0:24:29 > 0:24:33assessment arising from those analyses that they provided to the

0:24:33 > 0:24:38select committee. And as the honourable member then referred to

0:24:38 > 0:24:43as the evidence provided by the secretary of state, to the select

0:24:43 > 0:24:50committee, back in October, and I remind myself of question 131 and

0:24:50 > 0:24:55132. In his answers, the Secretary of State made it clear that those

0:24:55 > 0:25:02impact assessments existed as it is put in excruciating detail, and that

0:25:02 > 0:25:09a summary had been provided to the Prime Minister, which she had read.

0:25:09 > 0:25:12Would the Minister confirm that what this House now seeks the Government

0:25:12 > 0:25:23to disclose and the impact assessments?

0:25:23 > 0:25:26My Right Honourable friend is always frantic in her questioning. We were

0:25:26 > 0:25:31very clear when we were debating this motion that exactly what the

0:25:31 > 0:25:35motion referred to was not available at that time. Of course there are

0:25:35 > 0:25:38various assessment and documents held by Government that have been

0:25:38 > 0:25:42worked on overtime address in the individual sectors. What we have

0:25:42 > 0:25:45provided the select committee with is actually a great deal more

0:25:45 > 0:25:51permission none existed at the time. I think that will be valuable to

0:25:51 > 0:26:04them in their scrutiny.Ministers say constantly, they don't want to

0:26:04 > 0:26:09reveal anything that could weaken their negotiation. The Government's

0:26:09 > 0:26:12made its position clear. The European Union has accepted that the

0:26:12 > 0:26:17Government wants a hard Brexit, so why would it damage the negotiating

0:26:17 > 0:26:22position to put that information out. We'll be edited documents help

0:26:22 > 0:26:25the members of this house reached a view on whether we should stay in

0:26:25 > 0:26:29this singles market or the customs union?Can confirm that the

0:26:29 > 0:26:32documents will be valuable to this house, but I think those documents

0:26:32 > 0:26:37will be actually documents which are edited documents in the way that he

0:26:37 > 0:26:42does, I would describe them as compounds if sectoral analyses,

0:26:42 > 0:26:47which the Government has provided for the select committee, and the

0:26:47 > 0:26:50honourable gentleman's questions, about the customs union and the

0:26:50 > 0:27:05singles market, -- single market,... Mr Speaker, the Minister is making a

0:27:05 > 0:27:08gallant and courteous defence of a situation which is unlikely to

0:27:08 > 0:27:13satisfy everybody in this house. Because of the terms of the humble

0:27:13 > 0:27:17address. But, there are two aspects to this which do need to seem

0:27:17 > 0:27:21separately. One, is the requirement to provide everything to the select

0:27:21 > 0:27:25committee, which the humble address did call for, and the second is the

0:27:25 > 0:27:30fact that surely nobody in this house would want our country to go

0:27:30 > 0:27:34into the negotiation chamber in a weaker position as a result of

0:27:34 > 0:27:37decisions taken here. The Shadow Secretary of State recognised

0:27:37 > 0:27:39himself that there is a way of dealing with these things, which is

0:27:39 > 0:27:44to redact what would be... Unfortunately, because the humble

0:27:44 > 0:27:47address did not cover that, I believe that it is now strongly in

0:27:47 > 0:27:52the Government's interest to put forward a motion to amend the humble

0:27:52 > 0:27:58address, and which many of us would strongly support.My honourable

0:27:58 > 0:28:03friend, like many honourable friend on this side of this house... It is

0:28:03 > 0:28:10certainly certain that we will be giving due consideration. The

0:28:10 > 0:28:14crucial issue here is the Government's failure to be open and

0:28:14 > 0:28:18transparent with public, and with Parliament on the consequences of

0:28:18 > 0:28:21its approach to Brexit. It is not just over these papers that they are

0:28:21 > 0:28:27doing this, they are refusing to give clear examples of the spending

0:28:27 > 0:28:32we privatisation that is going on in Parliament as a result of the

0:28:32 > 0:28:37assessments made in newspapers and the Government's policies on Brexit.

0:28:37 > 0:28:40Willis published a breakdown of the funding that they are giving two

0:28:40 > 0:28:48departments to cope with their bridge to Brexit?The honourable

0:28:48 > 0:28:51gentleman's questions dre is quite far away from the question that we

0:28:51 > 0:28:56are discussing. But we will provide them with as much information as we

0:28:56 > 0:29:01can, consistent with the national interest.Just to rub it in, who was

0:29:01 > 0:29:08it who first suggested the use of redactions?I can confirm that that

0:29:08 > 0:29:13was the right honourable gentleman sitting opposite me. Allen-mac the

0:29:13 > 0:29:16Minister has mentioned the devolved administrative is on a number of

0:29:16 > 0:29:20occasions, and was advised by Scottish gunmen colleagues that the

0:29:20 > 0:29:25documents they received contains nothing substantial at all about

0:29:25 > 0:29:31Scotland. On the 25th of October, the Secretary of State in Scotland,

0:29:31 > 0:29:35and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union gave

0:29:35 > 0:29:40evidence to the committee, and the select committee that impact 's

0:29:40 > 0:29:43assessments that -- that assessments of the impact of Brexit existed and

0:29:43 > 0:29:47would be shared with the Scottish Government. Will he confirm that

0:29:47 > 0:29:52there is an edited documents will now be shared without delay?I can

0:29:52 > 0:29:57confirm to the honourable lady, that those documents will be shared in

0:29:57 > 0:30:07the usual way. Those sectoral analysis, do in many cases contain

0:30:07 > 0:30:14important analysis of Scottish issues.Mr Speaker, could I suggest

0:30:14 > 0:30:20to my honourable friend, that there is a bit of a rethink around this

0:30:20 > 0:30:27matter. Can I also urge him that actually, the really important thing

0:30:27 > 0:30:31in the stage is to get a move on with the negotiations, and ensure

0:30:31 > 0:30:38that the company's -- companies up and down the country which are in

0:30:38 > 0:30:42limbo at the moment know what we are going to do. We have to move forward

0:30:42 > 0:30:45in December, we have cannot stand still. Yelling at my honourable

0:30:45 > 0:30:48friend makes an important point. We all want to make sure that we have

0:30:48 > 0:30:51the most successful approach to negotiations, and that would look

0:30:51 > 0:30:55much the increment Asian period, and that deep and special partnership

0:30:55 > 0:31:10that we want to -- the implementation period.Does the

0:31:10 > 0:31:14Minister accept that it is a very real danger that before we are given

0:31:14 > 0:31:22the transparency than to protecting our negotiation that the national

0:31:22 > 0:31:29interest could be put in jeopardy, and can we seek clarification that

0:31:29 > 0:31:35it was not wasted information that would be sensitive to be placed in

0:31:35 > 0:31:39the committee's hands, and bring that mission to the House.The

0:31:39 > 0:31:47honourable gentleman reinforces... He is right, of course that we need

0:31:47 > 0:31:51to make sure that we protect the absolute national interest in this

0:31:51 > 0:32:01process.In all his dealings with his European Union counterparts, has

0:32:01 > 0:32:05my honourable friend ever formed the view that they paid no heed to the

0:32:05 > 0:32:09procedures of this house, and indeed have an interest in the content of

0:32:09 > 0:32:17any documents that may be produced to any select committee.My right

0:32:17 > 0:32:24honourable friend makes an interesting point. I do take his

0:32:24 > 0:32:33point.The department have handed over some 850 pages, but the

0:32:33 > 0:32:38Minister has made clear that some information has been withheld. Has

0:32:38 > 0:32:43that additional material also been handed over? Hauman pages would it

0:32:43 > 0:32:57have been, has the information not been compiled? -- how many pages. It

0:32:57 > 0:33:02was a mistake not to amend the opposition nation, and as a result,

0:33:02 > 0:33:06the Government is now skating on very thin Parliamentary eyes. The

0:33:06 > 0:33:12issue can be solved next week, if the Government comes back with a

0:33:12 > 0:33:14sensible notion, which every member in this house really ought to

0:33:14 > 0:33:23support. -- thin ice.I take my honourable friend's suggestion very

0:33:23 > 0:33:32serious view.Is he aware that the indication is, that I and other

0:33:32 > 0:33:35members of the select committee cannot be trusted to act in the

0:33:35 > 0:33:40national interest?No, I do not believe that that is the case at

0:33:40 > 0:33:44all. We believe that this committee has a important job to do with

0:33:44 > 0:33:56scrutiny.I would be rather more interest had deceived the

0:33:56 > 0:34:02assessments drawn up by the EU about British leaving. Do they share my

0:34:02 > 0:34:05curiosity that those opposite are not keen to scrutinise those

0:34:05 > 0:34:15documents?

0:34:15 > 0:34:19That is not even adjacent to the question before us. I am sure that

0:34:19 > 0:34:22the honourable gentleman can entertain himself in the long winter

0:34:22 > 0:34:29evenings that lie ahead.This is not my definition of taking back

0:34:29 > 0:34:34control. It is a huge mess that the Government has got itself into, and

0:34:34 > 0:34:39I think it shows, Mr Speaker, the limits of their clever tactics of

0:34:39 > 0:34:49not engaging in opposite to it -- in opposition motions, by sitting on

0:34:49 > 0:34:53their hands. The fact is, despite what the Minister says, the notion

0:34:53 > 0:34:57of a humble address, which is compulsory for the Government to act

0:34:57 > 0:35:01on, has been carried. Not for these documents to be edited, or changed,

0:35:01 > 0:35:05that job now go to the select committee, and they have got to get

0:35:05 > 0:35:11on and publish it, and they have got to publish them now.I would say to

0:35:11 > 0:35:15the right honourable and Lady, that as I have been very clear on the day

0:35:15 > 0:35:20that we debated this issue, the document did not exist in the

0:35:20 > 0:35:30formats they do now. We take that very seriously. That is why...Mr

0:35:30 > 0:35:35Speaker, have any formal protocol be put down and conveyed by the

0:35:35 > 0:35:38committee to ministers about how they may handle this information.

0:35:38 > 0:35:43Because, I think that is pertinent in all of this?Not that I am aware

0:35:43 > 0:35:55of.What guidelines have been provided to officials, as to what

0:35:55 > 0:36:03should be excluded?As I made clear to the House, this information was

0:36:03 > 0:36:09pulled together from a range of documents, as I also made clear, we

0:36:09 > 0:36:15have two ensure that commercially sensitive information, and ... Could

0:36:15 > 0:36:19not be at risk of being published. This could be the process of

0:36:19 > 0:36:22ensuring that there is more of a mission for the committee, and not

0:36:22 > 0:36:27less.Does the Minister share my concerns as to how a letter set by

0:36:27 > 0:36:31the Secretary of State to the deputy committee, managed to reach the

0:36:31 > 0:36:38journalist in the daily Mirror before it was considered by the

0:36:38 > 0:36:42committee? Is that encouraging?All the leagues should be taken

0:36:42 > 0:36:55extremely seriously. -- leaks.There is a fundamental role in our

0:36:55 > 0:37:01constitution for Parliament to hold the executive to account, and to

0:37:01 > 0:37:06scrutinise this hugely important decision. His Secretary of State

0:37:06 > 0:37:10said that the information existed in excruciating detail, and at the

0:37:10 > 0:37:15Prime Minister had seen the summaries, and for that reason, it

0:37:15 > 0:37:19is hard to understand why because the entirety of information, if soap

0:37:19 > 0:37:26with reduction. Can he explain why that is not now the case?He is

0:37:26 > 0:37:31absolutely right. We do need to get on with this role. But, we also

0:37:31 > 0:37:34absolutely respect the role of Parliament in this process. That is

0:37:34 > 0:37:46why the information has been provided... We have actually

0:37:46 > 0:37:48provided much more information than just summarising reports could have

0:37:48 > 0:38:02done.I will come to the honourable gentleman, potentially in a moment.

0:38:02 > 0:38:05Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is clear that there is a lot of concern from

0:38:05 > 0:38:09members across the House that big Government is not satisfied with the

0:38:09 > 0:38:12motion published a month ago. You have been very claim your advice

0:38:12 > 0:38:18that the motion passed was binding. After the debate of the 1st of

0:38:18 > 0:38:22November, you said that you would expect the vice-chairman of the

0:38:22 > 0:38:26household to present it in the normal way. The execution was that

0:38:26 > 0:38:30the paper would be handed over in full, unedited, and anything less

0:38:30 > 0:38:34than this would be a contempt of Parliament. Can I seek your guidance

0:38:34 > 0:38:37on whether you believe the Government has adequately satisfied

0:38:37 > 0:38:43the motion, and the expectations of the House? If not, would failure to

0:38:43 > 0:38:48comply be considered a contempt of the House, and if so, what would be

0:38:48 > 0:38:55the best way for members to proceed? Thank you, Mr Speaker.Is its very

0:38:55 > 0:39:01specifically, further to, and on the point raised by the Honourable

0:39:01 > 0:39:11gentleman?

0:39:15 > 0:39:18You very generously, Mr Speaker, gave the Government three weeks to

0:39:18 > 0:39:21comply, and you said you are awaiting the outcome of these

0:39:21 > 0:39:25conversations with the Secretary of State, and the chairman. We have now

0:39:25 > 0:39:30had two conversations, and we have now had the response from the select

0:39:30 > 0:39:33committee, and that was stated that in this chamber, that we do not meet

0:39:33 > 0:39:38them in full. I am asking you, therefore, Mr Speaker, to reconsider

0:39:38 > 0:39:42my letter of the 7th of November, and considered to bring contempt

0:39:42 > 0:39:53motions as the chat and... -- I know you will deal with it sensitively,

0:39:53 > 0:39:57but this is content that the Government must be held accountable

0:39:57 > 0:40:03for its failure to comply.

0:40:03 > 0:40:07I am grateful. I will come to the honourable gentleman in due course,

0:40:07 > 0:40:18potentially. On page 201, Mr Speaker, the section

0:40:18 > 0:40:24on ministerial accountability, a passed by both Houses of Parliament

0:40:24 > 0:40:28in the 96 and 97 session which makes clear ministers don't to disclose

0:40:28 > 0:40:31all information if not in the public interest to do so. Does that have

0:40:31 > 0:40:37any bearing on this? I am grateful and say this in no

0:40:37 > 0:40:41spirit of discourtesy to him but I am familiar with precedent in

0:40:41 > 0:40:43relation to these matters and it didn't particularly need to be

0:40:43 > 0:40:50advised of the presence of that material in Erskine May. The

0:40:50 > 0:40:52honourable gentleman won't be surprised to know that I have

0:40:52 > 0:40:58attended to these matters recently. And regularly. I would say in

0:40:58 > 0:41:01response to the honourable gentleman, the member for Perth and

0:41:01 > 0:41:08North Perthshire specifically, is I can reconsider his letter but I hope

0:41:08 > 0:41:12you don't mind my saying that I think it would be more orderly and

0:41:12 > 0:41:18courteously if he were to write to me again if he is so minded, in the

0:41:18 > 0:41:23light of the developments that have ensued since his earlier letter.

0:41:23 > 0:41:28This is not being pedantic. It really is not. It's a question of

0:41:28 > 0:41:34procedural propriety. If I receive a letter from the honourable

0:41:34 > 0:41:39gentleman, I will consider it and respond in a timely way. Beyond

0:41:39 > 0:41:46that, what I want at this point you say is I think it is well-known to

0:41:46 > 0:41:52members, and certainly to search legal luminaries as the former

0:41:52 > 0:41:55Director of Public Prosecutions, that members wishing to allege a

0:41:55 > 0:42:00contempt should in first instance raise it not in a point of order,

0:42:00 > 0:42:06nor indeed in the media, but by writing to me as soon as practicable

0:42:06 > 0:42:17after the member has given notice of the alleges contempt or breach of

0:42:17 > 0:42:21privilege. -- the alleged contempt of breach or privilege. I then

0:42:21 > 0:42:23decide whether the matter should have precedence. It is certainly

0:42:23 > 0:42:30also well known to the honourable member for Perth and North

0:42:30 > 0:42:36Perthshire that this is the procedure, as he availed himself of

0:42:36 > 0:42:41it several weeks ago. I am more than happy to confirm that my doors are

0:42:41 > 0:42:47always open for such written notices. Beyond that formal

0:42:47 > 0:42:51statement and in the hope that this is helpful to members in all parts

0:42:51 > 0:43:00of the House, I would emphasise that we all heard what the chair of the

0:43:00 > 0:43:05Brexit Select Committee had to say. He indicated that the committee had

0:43:05 > 0:43:11made a public statement and that the committee had requested an urgent

0:43:11 > 0:43:17audience with the Secretary of State. And that information from the

0:43:17 > 0:43:21right honourable gentlemen the member for Leeds Central is

0:43:21 > 0:43:25extremely important. The minister responded indicating a willingness

0:43:25 > 0:43:31on the part of the Secretary of State to meet and to do so soon. Can

0:43:31 > 0:43:35I very politely say to the Minister, who is always a most courteous

0:43:35 > 0:43:40bellow, that he was wise to make that statement? And I think that

0:43:40 > 0:43:46when it is suggested that this meeting should be soon, it means

0:43:46 > 0:43:55soon. It does not mean weeks hence. It means very soon indeed. Nothing,

0:43:55 > 0:44:05no commitment, no other dialysed engagement is more important -- no

0:44:05 > 0:44:08other engagement in the diary is more important than respecting the

0:44:08 > 0:44:11House and in this case the committee of the House which has ownership of

0:44:11 > 0:44:19this matter. And to which the papers were to be avoided. So that is where

0:44:19 > 0:44:28the matter rests. As and when matters Ewald, if a further

0:44:28 > 0:44:34representation alleging contempt is made to me, I will consider it very

0:44:34 > 0:44:37promptly and come back to the house. I hope the house knows be well

0:44:37 > 0:44:44enough to know that I will do my duty. Point of order, Mr Peter

0:44:44 > 0:44:49Bowden. Some members on this side of the

0:44:49 > 0:44:52house and maybe that's I asked for the Government to come forward with

0:44:52 > 0:44:59a new motion clarifying and trying to clarify the description between

0:44:59 > 0:45:02the two differing motions before the House. Is there any technical reason

0:45:02 > 0:45:07why that motion could not be produced, having just debated the

0:45:07 > 0:45:19humble address? No, it is possible. We shall see. We

0:45:19 > 0:45:27shall see what happens. He should not counter from a sedentary opinion

0:45:27 > 0:45:29and evidence disapproval for the honourable gentleman. If the

0:45:29 > 0:45:32honourable gentleman wishes to raise a point of order, I am happy to

0:45:32 > 0:45:38entertain it. "Not Again", says the honourable gentleman. I am afraid,

0:45:38 > 0:45:46again. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Point of

0:45:46 > 0:45:50order, earlier in answer to the urgent question the Minister Roberto

0:45:50 > 0:45:54the binding decision of the House on the 1st of November Andy non-binding

0:45:54 > 0:45:59decision on an earlier date. I seek to interpret the second decision in

0:45:59 > 0:46:08terms of the first... Could you advise the House where a binding and

0:46:08 > 0:46:14non-binding resolution are in conflict, which takes precedence?

0:46:14 > 0:46:17The honourable gentleman could discuss this break-up of the with

0:46:17 > 0:46:21the Minister if he spends the time to do so. I don't want to get any

0:46:21 > 0:46:24detailed examination of all passed motions but suffice to say,

0:46:24 > 0:46:32importantly, there is a very recent motion passed by this House. I did

0:46:32 > 0:46:35not, if I may politely say to the right honourable gentlemen for

0:46:35 > 0:46:41Holborn and Saint Pancras, say it was my advised that the motion was

0:46:41 > 0:46:50binding or affective. As a Speaker I rules that it was binding or

0:46:50 > 0:46:54effective and that, I can say to the honourable gentleman, irrespective

0:46:54 > 0:47:06or other motions, remains the fact. And I will come briefly... Point of

0:47:06 > 0:47:11order, Mr Ian Duncan Smith. I apologise for pressing U-turn a

0:47:11 > 0:47:16further clarification -- pressing need to a further clarification. I

0:47:16 > 0:47:20do so because it may help the House. Should a motion of contempt be

0:47:20 > 0:47:24applied in this case and that considered amendment motion

0:47:24 > 0:47:29originally in the subject of discussion at the moment, but in the

0:47:29 > 0:47:32meantime a subsequent motion the place that an end that motion, does

0:47:32 > 0:47:37that actually negate any charge of contempt on the previous requirement

0:47:37 > 0:47:44on the Secretary of State? That is perfectly reasonable. I have

0:47:44 > 0:47:47known the honourable gentleman long enough to know he has a fertile mind

0:47:47 > 0:47:50and likes to explore all possible avenues. I hope the honourable

0:47:50 > 0:47:57gentleman will forgive me if I resort, and I do resort to my usual

0:47:57 > 0:48:01response to what I regard as a hypothetical question, which is to

0:48:01 > 0:48:09pray in aid of the wisdom of the late Lord Whitelaw, who was known to

0:48:09 > 0:48:15observe I think I'm more than one occasion, personally, I prefer to

0:48:15 > 0:48:19cross bridges only when I come to them. I think that is probably the

0:48:19 > 0:48:25safest course in virtually every sense. Finally, I hope, point of

0:48:25 > 0:48:30order... The discussion we have had Leeds

0:48:30 > 0:48:34relate to the select committee problem. Can I say that as someone

0:48:34 > 0:48:37who has generally select committee for ten years, there is a long

0:48:37 > 0:48:40established precedent of the chair of the select committee to be able

0:48:40 > 0:48:46to receive a highly sensitive documents on his own and look

0:48:46 > 0:48:50through it and then deal with it sensitively and in a public spirited

0:48:50 > 0:48:57way? That is a long tradition, respected, and fairly sensitive...

0:48:57 > 0:49:00Why can apply at some stage to this point?

0:49:00 > 0:49:05A helpful piece of information. Thank you from this extremely

0:49:05 > 0:49:10experienced former select committee chair. I am grateful to the

0:49:10 > 0:49:14honourable gentleman. The house will have heard what he had to say. Point

0:49:14 > 0:49:20of order. Eubank the delayed because it is

0:49:20 > 0:49:26related to what has gone but not the same. -- Eubank may delay. This

0:49:26 > 0:49:30arises from the careers practice started in this Parliament of the

0:49:30 > 0:49:34Government of not voting on opposition motions, which has never

0:49:34 > 0:49:39happened in the history of the House, I don't think. I think the

0:49:39 > 0:49:43result is that the proceedings of the house are becoming littered with

0:49:43 > 0:49:48motions which are extremely critical of the Government and its policies,

0:49:48 > 0:49:51the bustard majority of which I do not agree with, but really it does

0:49:51 > 0:49:56reduce this House are debating chamber and it does raise the

0:49:56 > 0:50:01question of, what is parliamentary accountability in modern times?

0:50:01 > 0:50:06Could you perhaps initiate some discussions between yourself and the

0:50:06 > 0:50:12usual channels to see how we can get back to the undoubted constitutional

0:50:12 > 0:50:15position we should have, which is that the Government is accountable

0:50:15 > 0:50:20for all its actions and policies to this House of Commons and it cannot

0:50:20 > 0:50:25simply ignore them, behaving as though they are the resolutions of

0:50:25 > 0:50:30some local tea party? Hear, hear.

0:50:30 > 0:50:33I am not sure how grateful I am to the right honourable gentlemen for

0:50:33 > 0:50:38his point of order about my response is twofold. Firstly, the address is

0:50:38 > 0:50:48just that. The address. Whether an attempt was made to amend it or not,

0:50:48 > 0:50:55and it is binding, whether or not it is binding is just that,

0:50:55 > 0:51:00irrespective of whether an attempt was was not made. It stands anyway.

0:51:00 > 0:51:06Secondly the question of the Government deals with opposition day

0:51:06 > 0:51:12debate motions is a matter for the Government. What the Government has

0:51:12 > 0:51:20done to date is not disorderly. If the right honourable and learned

0:51:20 > 0:51:26gentleman has suggested as I think he has that the least thing it has

0:51:26 > 0:51:33not been helpful to the House, I would not dissent from what the

0:51:33 > 0:51:38right honourable gentlemen has said. I think it would be helpful if

0:51:38 > 0:51:47people would reflect upon the wider implications or ramifications of

0:51:47 > 0:51:52their conduct on individual occasions. The Right honourable and

0:51:52 > 0:51:57learned gentleman has served in this House without interruption over 47

0:51:57 > 0:52:05years. Plus five months and ten days. And I think he knows of what

0:52:05 > 0:52:14he speaks. If there are no further points of order, and I thank

0:52:14 > 0:52:21colleagues, that will do for now. If there are no further points of

0:52:21 > 0:52:25order, we can add to the statement by the Secretary of State for

0:52:25 > 0:52:31Health, for which he has been state patiently waiting. Secretary Jeremy

0:52:31 > 0:52:33Hunt. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The

0:52:33 > 0:52:36permission I make a statement about the Government's new strategy to

0:52:36 > 0:52:41improve safety in NHS maternity services. Giving birth in England is

0:52:41 > 0:52:45the most common reason for admission to hospital, thanks to the

0:52:45 > 0:52:50dedication and skill of NHS maternity teams, the vast majority

0:52:50 > 0:52:54of the roughly 700,000 babies born each year are delivered safely with

0:52:54 > 0:52:59high levels of satisfaction by parents. However, there is still too

0:52:59 > 0:53:05much avoidable harm and death. Every child lost is a heart-rending

0:53:05 > 0:53:08tragedy for families that also with them for the rest of their lives. It

0:53:08 > 0:53:13is also deeply traumatic for NHS staff involved. Stillbirth rates are

0:53:13 > 0:53:16falling but still lagging behind many developed countries in Europe

0:53:16 > 0:53:21and when it comes to injury, brain damage sustained at birth can often

0:53:21 > 0:53:26last a lifetime. That is with about two multi-million pound claims

0:53:26 > 0:53:33settled against the NHS every single week. The Royal College of

0:53:33 > 0:53:38obstetricians and gynaecologists this year had 76% of 1000 cases of

0:53:38 > 0:53:43birth related deaths or serious brain injuries that occurred in 2015

0:53:43 > 0:53:48that may have had a different outcome of different care. In 2015,

0:53:48 > 0:53:54I announced a plan to half the race of maternal deaths and Natal deaths

0:53:54 > 0:53:57and brain injuries and stillbirth. Lost that are set out a strategy to

0:53:57 > 0:54:03support this ambition. Since last September, local maternity system

0:54:03 > 0:54:06support across England were producers of NHS maternity services

0:54:06 > 0:54:10to make them safer and more personal. Over 80% of trusts now

0:54:10 > 0:54:16have a named board level maternity champion and 136 NHS trusts and

0:54:16 > 0:54:22receive a share of the £0.1 million training fund and we are six months

0:54:22 > 0:54:25and a year-long training programme announced in June over 12,000

0:54:25 > 0:54:31additional staff have been trained. The maternal and neonatal health

0:54:31 > 0:54:35said the collaborative unit was lodged on the 20th of February, and

0:54:35 > 0:54:3944 trusts have attended intensive training and quality improvement

0:54:39 > 0:54:42science and are working on implement a local quality improvement project

0:54:42 > 0:54:59with regular visits from dedicated quality improvement managers.

0:54:59 > 0:55:04However, the Government's ambition, is for the health service to be the

0:55:04 > 0:55:07safest, highest quality care available anywhere in the world, so

0:55:07 > 0:55:11there is much more work that needs to be done. Today, I am therefore

0:55:11 > 0:55:16announcing a series of additional measures. Firstly, we are still not

0:55:16 > 0:55:19good enough at sharing best practice. When you fly to New York,

0:55:19 > 0:55:25your friend stood tell you to make sure that you get a good pilot. But,

0:55:25 > 0:55:30if you get cancer, that is what they ask about your doctor? Win to

0:55:30 > 0:55:35standardise best practice, so that every NHS patients can be confident

0:55:35 > 0:55:40they are getting the highest standards of care. When it comes to

0:55:40 > 0:55:43modernity safety, we will try a different approach. From next year,

0:55:43 > 0:55:48every case of a stillbirth, neonatal death, suspected brain injury, or

0:55:48 > 0:55:52maternal death that is notified to the Royal College of obstetricians

0:55:52 > 0:56:00and gynaecologists, so that is about 1000 incidents annually, will be

0:56:00 > 0:56:07investigated, and not by the trust by the incident happened, but

0:56:07 > 0:56:11independently, with a thorough learning focused investigation,

0:56:11 > 0:56:16conducted by the health care safety investigation Branch. This new body,

0:56:16 > 0:56:21started this year, drawing on the approach to investigations in the

0:56:21 > 0:56:25airline industry. It has successfully reduced fatalities with

0:56:25 > 0:56:35thorough independent reviews. The new independent maternity safety

0:56:35 > 0:56:39investigations will involve families from the outset, and will have an

0:56:39 > 0:56:43explicit remit, not just to get to the bottom of what happened in an

0:56:43 > 0:56:47individual instance, but she spreads knowledge of round the system so

0:56:47 > 0:56:53that the states are not repeated -- so that mistakes are not repeated.

0:56:53 > 0:56:56These will be rolled out nationally throughout the year, beginning in

0:56:56 > 0:57:00April. That will mean that we have complied with recommendation 23 of

0:57:00 > 0:57:08the report into Morecambe Bay. Following concerns that some

0:57:08 > 0:57:12neonatal deaths are being wrongly classified as stillbirths which mean

0:57:12 > 0:57:15that the coroner 's inquest cannot take place, I will work with the

0:57:15 > 0:57:19Ministry of Justice to look closely into enabling for the first time a

0:57:19 > 0:57:24full-time stillbirths to be covered by Corinne you'll Law, given due

0:57:24 > 0:57:28consideration to the impact on the devolved administration in Wales. I

0:57:28 > 0:57:32would like to thank the Honourable member for East Worthing and

0:57:32 > 0:57:37Shoreham for his campaigning on this issue. Next, we will do more to

0:57:37 > 0:57:43improve the training of maternity start is -- staff in best practice.

0:57:43 > 0:57:48We have launched an e-learning programme for health care

0:57:48 > 0:57:54professionals. The programme works with reduce avoidable causes of harm

0:57:54 > 0:57:58that can lead to infants born at term being admitted to a neonatal

0:57:58 > 0:58:04unit. We will also increase training for consultants on the care of

0:58:04 > 0:58:06pregnant women with significant health condition such as

0:58:06 > 0:58:09cardiovascular disease. We also know that smoking during pregnancy as

0:58:09 > 0:58:15closely correlated with neonatal harm. Our tobacco control plan

0:58:15 > 0:58:23permits the Government to reduce... Today, we will provide new funding

0:58:23 > 0:58:30to train health care practitioners such as maternity support workers,

0:58:30 > 0:58:34to give evidence -based smoking cessation according to national

0:58:34 > 0:58:43standards. We want to try and transform it what can be a blame

0:58:43 > 0:58:46culture into what needs to be a learning culture, but one of the

0:58:46 > 0:58:49current barriers to learning is litigation. Earlier this year, I

0:58:49 > 0:58:54consulted on it rapid revolution redress scheme, which offers

0:58:54 > 0:58:58families with brain-damaged children access to support and compensation

0:58:58 > 0:59:03as to an alternative to the court system. My intention is that the

0:59:03 > 0:59:09incidence of possibly avoidable brain injury at birth, successfully

0:59:09 > 0:59:13establishing investigations will be an important step on the road to

0:59:13 > 0:59:16introducing a full, rapid, resolution and redress scheme in

0:59:16 > 0:59:22order to reduce... And delivered support a competition for families.

0:59:22 > 0:59:28Today, I am publishing a summary of our responses, which is the fact

0:59:28 > 0:59:35that back reflects strong support to the scheme, to improve is safety,

0:59:35 > 0:59:37patients' experience, and going forward I would like to launch the

0:59:37 > 0:59:43scheme I do from 2090. A word about the costs involved. NHS resolution

0:59:43 > 0:59:51spent almost £500 million settling obstetric claims in 2016. For every

0:59:51 > 0:59:57pound the NHS spends on delivering a baby, another £60 is spent by

0:59:57 > 1:00:03another part on the NHS on settling claims related to previous births.

1:00:03 > 1:00:06Trusts who improve their maternity safety are also sailing the NHS --

1:00:06 > 1:00:10saving the NHS money, allowing more funding to be available for

1:00:10 > 1:00:13front-line care. So, in order to create a strong financial incentive

1:00:13 > 1:00:25to improve maternity safety,... But refunds that increase, possibly with

1:00:25 > 1:00:30an even greater discount if they can demonstrate compliance with ten

1:00:30 > 1:00:35criteria identified as best practice on maternity safety. Taken in

1:00:35 > 1:00:38together, these measures give me confidence that we can bring forward

1:00:38 > 1:00:45the date, by which we achieve a halving of neonatal deaths, injuries

1:00:45 > 1:00:53and stillbirths, from 2030, the original plan dates to 2025. I am

1:00:53 > 1:00:58today, ticket setting that as the new target date for the heart of it

1:00:58 > 1:01:03ambition. Our commitment to reduce the rate by 20% by 2020, remains.

1:01:03 > 1:01:06And falling powerful recommendations, I will also include

1:01:06 > 1:01:14a reduction in the national rate of preterm births, from 8% to 6% this

1:01:14 > 1:01:18book within this ambition. We need to build in the good evidence that

1:01:18 > 1:01:22women who have good continuity of care throughout their pregnancy are

1:01:22 > 1:01:28less likely to experience preterm delivery, with safer outcomes for

1:01:28 > 1:01:33themselves and their babies. I would not make a statement, but not the

1:01:33 > 1:01:36campaigning of numerous parents, who have been through the agony of

1:01:36 > 1:01:41losing a treasured child. Instead of moving on, and try to draw a line

1:01:41 > 1:01:45under their tragedy, they have chosen to relive it, over and over

1:01:45 > 1:01:51again. I have often mentioned, members of the public to whom I

1:01:51 > 1:01:57again pay tribute, but I would like to mention members of this house to

1:01:57 > 1:02:00have safely spoken out about their own experiences, including the

1:02:00 > 1:02:05Honourable members of Colchester, pedals bree, Lewisham, and

1:02:05 > 1:02:12Washington and is understood -- Oxfordshire, and Aaron. Their

1:02:12 > 1:02:17passionate hope, and our personal hope, as we stand shoulder to

1:02:17 > 1:02:20shoulder with them, is that by drawing attention to what may have

1:02:20 > 1:02:24gone wrong in their own case, mistakes are not repeated and others

1:02:24 > 1:02:29are spared the terrible heartache that they and their families

1:02:29 > 1:02:33enjoyed. We're rich to each and every one of them, to make this new

1:02:33 > 1:02:38strategy work, and I commend the statement of the House. -- we owe it

1:02:38 > 1:02:49to each.I am grateful for the advance copy of his statement. I

1:02:49 > 1:02:53also paid tribute to those members who have spoken out in recent

1:02:53 > 1:02:58months, including as he said those that he mentioned. They are all a

1:02:58 > 1:03:03credit to their house. The National Health Service offers some of the

1:03:03 > 1:03:08best neonatal care in the world. And the progress that out by the

1:03:08 > 1:03:11Secretary of State today is a tribute to the extraordinary work of

1:03:11 > 1:03:15midwives and maternity staff across the country. We welcome the

1:03:15 > 1:03:19Secretary of State announcement, that all the two Bibles cases of

1:03:19 > 1:03:25stillbirth and neonatal death in England will now receive an

1:03:25 > 1:03:27independent investigation by the health care safety investigation

1:03:27 > 1:03:31Branch. This is an important step to help bring certainty and vision to

1:03:31 > 1:03:36hundreds of families every year. We also welcome the move by the

1:03:36 > 1:03:40Secretary of State to allow coroners to investigate stillbirths, and can

1:03:40 > 1:03:44I show him, that we, on the side of the House stand ready to work

1:03:44 > 1:03:50constructively with him, to insure that the smooth and timely passing

1:03:50 > 1:03:55of a decision, should he and the commentaries to bring any to the

1:03:55 > 1:03:59House. Can I also paid tribute to the work carried out by the team at

1:03:59 > 1:04:06University of which leads on the perinatal aspects. Which forms the

1:04:06 > 1:04:12evidence that day's announcement. The numbers of death in childbirth

1:04:12 > 1:04:22has halved since 1993, saving around... We welcome to bring

1:04:22 > 1:04:32forward the target date to 2025. If it is to be delivered, it is

1:04:32 > 1:04:37essential that the NHS, the NHS units providing these services, are

1:04:37 > 1:04:41properly resourced, and publish staff. We welcome the launch of the

1:04:41 > 1:04:45e-learning programme, as well as the increased training from consultants

1:04:45 > 1:04:50on the care of pregnant women with significant health conditions. We

1:04:50 > 1:04:53further welcome the emphasis on smoking cessation programmes, but we

1:04:53 > 1:04:58should remind the Secretary of State that public health budget cuts have

1:04:58 > 1:05:03meant that many anti-smoking campaigns have been cut back. He

1:05:03 > 1:05:08will know the heavy workload in the maternity units, and that those are

1:05:08 > 1:05:13some of the main issues identified by today's study which is severely

1:05:13 > 1:05:16incapacitate maternity units in a fifth of the deaths reviewed. During

1:05:16 > 1:05:21this year, our research revealed that half of the maternity unit had

1:05:21 > 1:05:25closed their doors to mothers in 2016, with staffing capacity issues

1:05:25 > 1:05:30the most common reasons. The Royal College of midwives tell us that

1:05:30 > 1:05:35around 3.5 thousand midwives short of the numbers needed. A survey

1:05:35 > 1:05:39covered by NCT this year showed that 50% of women, having a baby

1:05:39 > 1:05:54experienced what Nice advised as... So, we believe that the NHS remained

1:05:54 > 1:05:57underfunded and understaffed, so I would be grateful if the Secretary

1:05:57 > 1:06:00of State could tell as the day what that further action he intends to

1:06:00 > 1:06:04take to make sure that maternity services are probably funded, and

1:06:04 > 1:06:07that staffing shortages are addressed as part of that strategy

1:06:07 > 1:06:11to improve safety across the board. The NHS has excellent psychological

1:06:11 > 1:06:14and broom and support services for women affected by baby loss.

1:06:14 > 1:06:20However, I think we all know, that the quality of the services remains

1:06:20 > 1:06:25variable across the country. Indeed, we are still a long way from full

1:06:25 > 1:06:29parity of esteem for men to have in neonatal care. I be grateful if the

1:06:29 > 1:06:32Secretary of State could tell us what action he intends to take to

1:06:32 > 1:06:36plug some of these gaps. Mr Speaker, this is a welcome set of

1:06:36 > 1:06:39announcements overall from the Secretary of State. This can help

1:06:39 > 1:06:44the NHS provided the best qwerty of careful mothers and their babies. We

1:06:44 > 1:06:47look forward, on the side of the House to working constructively with

1:06:47 > 1:06:51the Secretary of State and the Government, but I do hope that he

1:06:51 > 1:06:55can reassure us today, that the garment will provide the resources,

1:06:55 > 1:07:01NHS midwives and their colleagues need, to deliver on his ambitions.

1:07:01 > 1:07:06Mr Speaker, can I thank the Shadow Health Secretary for the

1:07:06 > 1:07:11constructive tone of his response to that statement. I think is right to

1:07:11 > 1:07:16point out both the achievements that have been made, over many years, but

1:07:16 > 1:07:23also the challenges ahead. We have about 1700 neonatal deaths every

1:07:23 > 1:07:29year. That has actually fallen by 10% of that since 2010, but in that

1:07:29 > 1:07:34figure, is very Asian across the country, which, for example, our

1:07:34 > 1:07:39best trust is about three and a thousand deaths, but another trust

1:07:39 > 1:07:43they can be ten in a thousand deaths, is an elite three times as

1:07:43 > 1:07:48many neonatal deaths. What that we are not as not as good as we need to

1:07:48 > 1:07:51be at spreading best practice. That is why today's announcement is

1:07:51 > 1:07:57really about ensuring that we can confidently look every expecting mum

1:07:57 > 1:08:01in the eye and say that you are getting the best man's account we

1:08:01 > 1:08:08are able to deliver in the NHS. I accept his offer to cooperate on any

1:08:08 > 1:08:17legislation needed to expand... We will get back to him on that. I also

1:08:17 > 1:08:21thank him for raising the issue of proven services. I actually spoke to

1:08:21 > 1:08:28a bereavement midwife this morning. They are some of the mystics or the

1:08:28 > 1:08:32people working the whole NHS. We do indeed have a programme to improve

1:08:32 > 1:08:37the consistency of bereavement services, and indeed roll out the

1:08:37 > 1:08:43use of bereavement suites across the NHS, which are best -- which our

1:08:43 > 1:08:59breast trusts have -- best trusts have. But others do not. We have

1:08:59 > 1:09:02seen an increase in the numbers of obstetricians and doctors working in

1:09:02 > 1:09:08different departments, of 600, which is about 600%. But, we need more,

1:09:08 > 1:09:11and there are lot of pressures across the NHS. We also need to find

1:09:11 > 1:09:18those extra midwives and doctors that we need. There was able welcome

1:09:18 > 1:09:23boost the NHS in the budget, and Exim £1.6 billion available for the

1:09:23 > 1:09:29NHS, next year. But, I don't pretend, looking for to the next ten

1:09:29 > 1:09:32years, and will be pressures that are coming down the track for the

1:09:32 > 1:09:36NHS, with a growing birth rate, but also with the ageing population,

1:09:36 > 1:09:40that we are not going to need to revisit the issue of NHS funding,

1:09:40 > 1:09:46and find a long-term approach to funding, and I think, probably the

1:09:46 > 1:09:51most appropriate time to do that is when we come to the end of the

1:09:51 > 1:09:56five-year forward view, and salvage about what happens following that.

1:09:56 > 1:10:01But, if we are to put more money into the NHS, we need to have the

1:10:01 > 1:10:05doctors, midwives, and nurses, to spend that money on. And that is why

1:10:05 > 1:10:12in the last year, the Government has committed to a 25% increase in the

1:10:12 > 1:10:15numbers of nurse training places, and it ended 5% the number of

1:10:15 > 1:10:19medical school training prisons. The final thing I would say, is that we

1:10:19 > 1:10:23have got lots of debate in this house, where we take different

1:10:23 > 1:10:27positions related to the NHS, but think one thing that we can be

1:10:27 > 1:10:31united on, is our aspirations shared across this house, that the NHS

1:10:31 > 1:10:34should be the safest health care system in the world. I very much

1:10:34 > 1:10:41thank you for your support in that.

1:10:41 > 1:10:50And on and on matter for Mac and sensitive matter.But the business

1:10:50 > 1:10:56to follow, the final day of the budget is also extremely important.

1:10:56 > 1:11:01Order. Many members have indicated a wish to speak. Exceptionally, I may

1:11:01 > 1:11:05not feel able to call everybody on this statement and in any event

1:11:05 > 1:11:14there is a premium upon brevity from back and front benches alike. Doctor

1:11:14 > 1:11:18Sarah Wollaston. I welcome the Secretary of State's

1:11:18 > 1:11:22announcements today, including the move to allow coroners to

1:11:22 > 1:11:26investigate stillbirths. Well he set about the current waiting time for

1:11:26 > 1:11:30waiting times for postmortems for infants because there is a shortage

1:11:30 > 1:11:32of the highly specialised pathologists to carry out this vital

1:11:32 > 1:11:35work? I don't have that information to

1:11:35 > 1:11:45hand but I will find out. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The debate on

1:11:45 > 1:11:50baby loss from last month has been referenced and I took part in that,

1:11:50 > 1:11:53although thankfully I have been spared the pain suffered by members

1:11:53 > 1:12:00and this House. I think it helps to bring up everybody around the House

1:12:00 > 1:12:03how important this is a big there will be anyone who does not welcome

1:12:03 > 1:12:07the statement this morning and the ambition it shows. In Scotland in

1:12:07 > 1:12:122012, we actually had a higher stillbirth neonatal and perinatal

1:12:12 > 1:12:19death rate. From our new Chief Medical Officer was actually an

1:12:19 > 1:12:24obstetrician and maybe that'll help whether the focus in 2014 when she

1:12:24 > 1:12:28established the literal and children's quality improvement

1:12:28 > 1:12:31collaborative and the National stillbirth group, all as part of the

1:12:31 > 1:12:38Scottish patient safety initiative and neonatal initiatives across

1:12:38 > 1:12:44Scotland. That has managed to drop our stillbirth rate by more than a

1:12:44 > 1:12:48quarter and drop our neonatal death rate by 50%. Despite the challenges

1:12:48 > 1:12:54we face with really difficult geography and getting people off

1:12:54 > 1:12:59islands. It is easy to spot the woman who has a past history of

1:12:59 > 1:13:06difficult birth and it is easy to spot the woman with co-morbidity

1:13:06 > 1:13:09such as obesity and diabetes. But anyone who has been involved in

1:13:09 > 1:13:14Perth knows that even the healthiest pregnancy can go wrong last minute.

1:13:14 > 1:13:19-- anyone involved in birth. Even rural part of England and the West

1:13:19 > 1:13:24of England, the issues of transport and how people have identified

1:13:24 > 1:13:27quickly during Labour and transported a higher specialism is

1:13:27 > 1:13:35required summing that has to be looked at. Neonatal is very much a

1:13:35 > 1:13:37rounded service, the provision and movement of patients and

1:13:37 > 1:13:41availability of expertise and the availability of neonatal intensive

1:13:41 > 1:13:45care units. One of the other things, and this came out a lot in the baby

1:13:45 > 1:13:50loss debate, is the issue around preterm birth and stillbirth. It is

1:13:50 > 1:13:56trying to change some of these things. After trying to have our

1:13:56 > 1:14:00recent review around factory in Scotland, the focus will be on

1:14:00 > 1:14:06things and consistent monitoring of growth, as a galley to drive can a

1:14:06 > 1:14:11third of impending stillbirths. -- a filly to thrive. The Secretary of

1:14:11 > 1:14:16State has mentioned already continuity of care. They mention

1:14:16 > 1:14:20getting smoking rates down and rates in Scotland of smoking are higher

1:14:20 > 1:14:24but the difference between most and least deprived dignities is more

1:14:24 > 1:14:28than four times. That has an impact on every level of child lost.

1:14:28 > 1:14:34Finally, research. It is important that we learn such as the new

1:14:34 > 1:14:37information perhaps about women sleeping on their side in the last

1:14:37 > 1:14:42trimester, we need to learn these things and we need to find the we

1:14:42 > 1:14:48search and then share... Order. I have the highest regard for

1:14:48 > 1:14:54the honourable lady, who is a considerable medical authority, and

1:14:54 > 1:14:59I gave her a little bit of leeway, but can I gently say not only did

1:14:59 > 1:15:05she exceed her time by a minute, but she pursued her usual rather

1:15:05 > 1:15:09discursive approach, and in these situations what is required is a

1:15:09 > 1:15:15question or a series of questions with a question punctuation or a

1:15:15 > 1:15:19series of pieces of question punctuation, rather than general

1:15:19 > 1:15:23analysis. So we will leave it there. I fear any most good-natured spirit

1:15:23 > 1:15:30to the honourable lady. Oh, I had forgotten had heard from the

1:15:30 > 1:15:34honourable lady but not yet the Secretary of State. Secretary of

1:15:34 > 1:15:36State. Mr Speaker, I actually agreed with

1:15:36 > 1:15:40everything the honourable lady said, but I will give a rather brief

1:15:40 > 1:15:44response. Although given... I have just been advised by a distinguished

1:15:44 > 1:15:49clerk at the table who swivelled around so to advise me that there is

1:15:49 > 1:15:51really no need for a response because there was no question. I

1:15:51 > 1:15:54will indulge the honourable gentleman to the point of a

1:15:54 > 1:16:01paragraph. Let me say that I think there is an

1:16:01 > 1:16:03excellent Scottish patient safety programme happening and given that

1:16:03 > 1:16:08one of the main objectives of our discussion today is to share best

1:16:08 > 1:16:12practice, I would be happy to talk to the Chief Medical Officer in

1:16:12 > 1:16:16Scotland as to how we can exchange information we have both learn from

1:16:16 > 1:16:23each other's systems. As every parent who has lost a child

1:16:23 > 1:16:31knows, they want most answers. So can I congratulate the secretary of

1:16:31 > 1:16:35state in Rio for the health safety investigation brands because that

1:16:35 > 1:16:40independence will be crucial for the buying of parents to know what has

1:16:40 > 1:16:44happened in that particular case. How will learning from those

1:16:44 > 1:16:52investigations be shared? I want to thank her for her

1:16:52 > 1:16:56extraordinary campaigning on this issue, and so yes we want parents to

1:16:56 > 1:17:00get the answer more quickly, but we also want to be able to answer the

1:17:00 > 1:17:03question every parent asks, which is, can you guarantee this will not

1:17:03 > 1:17:08happen again? Those investigators will have explicitly a remit to get

1:17:08 > 1:17:13to the bottom of what happened but also spread that message around the

1:17:13 > 1:17:19system so that same mistake is not repeated. That is the whole

1:17:19 > 1:17:23objective of setting up this new team of people.

1:17:23 > 1:17:27My constituents Jack and Sarah Hawkins have spoken briefly about

1:17:27 > 1:17:32the tragic death of their daughter Harriet down to tell years of

1:17:32 > 1:17:35careful study you have heard in this morning. I spoke to Jack earlier and

1:17:35 > 1:17:38I am pleased to tell the Secretary of State may feel listened to and

1:17:38 > 1:17:43heard. They and I very much welcome this statement and support for

1:17:43 > 1:17:46extending the power of coroners, but Jack and Sarah must be able to stop

1:17:46 > 1:17:52fighting and begin the healing. So can I ask, will he urges Ministry of

1:17:52 > 1:17:55Justice colleagues to now support the honourable member for East

1:17:55 > 1:18:00Worthing and Shoreham's bill to bring about this change as as soon

1:18:00 > 1:18:06as possible? If I may express my thanks to Jack

1:18:06 > 1:18:09and Sarah, through her, or what they did this morning and the media

1:18:09 > 1:18:14telling their story, which was moving and touched a lot of hearts?

1:18:14 > 1:18:20And our objective is, with respect to allowing inquests into a

1:18:20 > 1:18:24full-term stillbirths, to move as quickly as any legislative vehicle

1:18:24 > 1:18:29allows, so if I am able to work closely with the right honourable

1:18:29 > 1:18:33friends to do that, including the member for East Shoreham, to do

1:18:33 > 1:18:37that, then I will do so. We welcome and congratulate the

1:18:37 > 1:18:41Secretary of State for his basement. We'll be Secretary of State agree

1:18:41 > 1:18:45with me at the best majority if not all grieving parents want to know

1:18:45 > 1:18:48why but they also want to know that their child's life, however short,

1:18:48 > 1:18:52will have had meaning, by ensuring we learn lessons not as a statistic

1:18:52 > 1:18:58that as a baby? That is why the independent investigation unit is so

1:18:58 > 1:19:02important that we can learn the lessons not just in contrast but

1:19:02 > 1:19:05across the whole NHS, spread that learning and insurers few people as

1:19:05 > 1:19:10possible go through this emotional, personal tragedy.

1:19:10 > 1:19:15He is absolutely correct, and as he knows, because he has spoken so

1:19:15 > 1:19:21movingly on this many times, there is absolutely nothing we can do to

1:19:21 > 1:19:25make up for the searing loss of losing a loved one, a baby, the

1:19:25 > 1:19:28worst possible thing any parent could go through. But we can at

1:19:28 > 1:19:32least make them a commitment to learn. If we're honest, we jumped at

1:19:32 > 1:19:37the moment, because what happens as we can wait ten years for a court

1:19:37 > 1:19:41case to be settled. Even then, it is not always clear to me lessons have

1:19:41 > 1:19:44been properly learned around the system through what happened. This

1:19:44 > 1:19:50is an attempt to change that. Mr Speaker, I very much welcome the

1:19:50 > 1:19:53Secretary of State's approach to more openness and transparency in

1:19:53 > 1:19:58the NHS around baby deaths. You'll remember signing a letter in May 20

1:19:58 > 1:20:0016th along with the Secretary of State the local government and the

1:20:00 > 1:20:04Secretary of State for Justice for an independent inquiry into the baby

1:20:04 > 1:20:09Ashes scandal in old town. This has never happened and parents still

1:20:09 > 1:20:13don't have the answers as to what happened in the NHS and in Hull City

1:20:13 > 1:20:17Council about the baby Ashes. I wondered whether the Secretary of

1:20:17 > 1:20:20State would recommit to the independent inquiry going ahead with

1:20:20 > 1:20:25his commission? I'm happy to recommit and I

1:20:25 > 1:20:27apologise to her and her constituents for the delay in will

1:20:27 > 1:20:31look into what happen right away. The honourable lady pre-empted my

1:20:31 > 1:20:35question about my own bell and coroners, so can I make the first to

1:20:35 > 1:20:39the Secretary of State now to sit down with him and his draughtsmen to

1:20:39 > 1:20:45decide on the wording of my members bill on the 2nd of February, as the

1:20:45 > 1:20:49fastest way to achieve his goals and get to that solution that all

1:20:49 > 1:20:56members of this house want to see? I am happy to do that I'm grateful

1:20:56 > 1:21:01for the generous offer. Mr Speaker, I'm sure the Secretary

1:21:01 > 1:21:05of State would realise that even after all these years, my wife and I

1:21:05 > 1:21:08when we hear news that we heard this morning, it takes us back to our

1:21:08 > 1:21:15first baby daughter who died in birth. After that we had for healthy

1:21:15 > 1:21:18children and ten grandchildren and we still think back to that awful

1:21:18 > 1:21:22time. Our baby was sickly and it was not poor care about she was sickly.

1:21:22 > 1:21:28The back of the matter is that we care very much about the people that

1:21:28 > 1:21:32lose their child. And I as a constituency Member of Parliament

1:21:32 > 1:21:36became increasingly worried with this rationalisation that is made,

1:21:36 > 1:21:39the view that it gets further and further promote the main population

1:21:39 > 1:21:45live, but also I get worried when we don't give our midwives and doctors

1:21:45 > 1:21:51the full support or the morale to do that difficult job.

1:21:51 > 1:21:56We must give doctors and nurses and midwives all of our full support

1:21:56 > 1:22:00because they do an extraordinary job. Sometimes there are difficult

1:22:00 > 1:22:06issues where the centralisation of certain maternity services can

1:22:06 > 1:22:11actually improve patient safety if it means you can have a

1:22:11 > 1:22:15round-the-clock consultant service and so on. But in my experience the

1:22:15 > 1:22:20most important thing in all of this is making sure that you spot the

1:22:20 > 1:22:25most risky births early in the process, and it isn't actually...

1:22:25 > 1:22:28Sometimes there is an assumption, I am not the doctor either, but

1:22:28 > 1:22:31sometimes we assume that it is all about what happened at the moment of

1:22:31 > 1:22:34Labour when you going to the hospital, that actually a lot of

1:22:34 > 1:22:38this is about thinking about earlier in the process than Labour. High

1:22:38 > 1:22:45risk mums, mothers who smoke and from lower sociodemographic

1:22:45 > 1:22:47background, and intervening earlier. And that is important for his

1:22:47 > 1:22:57constituents. Doctor Caroline Johnson. Pregnancy is joy for most

1:22:57 > 1:23:00families but during my professional career, I have certainly had to look

1:23:00 > 1:23:03after a number of babies who did die.

1:23:03 > 1:23:09And welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to having neonatal deaths

1:23:09 > 1:23:13by 2025. In my professional experience, many babies born at

1:23:13 > 1:23:16stillbirths are already dead in serious trouble inside the mother

1:23:16 > 1:23:19before the mother arrives in hospital canny Secretary of State

1:23:19 > 1:23:23confirm that he will both investigate the prehospital as well

1:23:23 > 1:23:27as hospital care in these investigations, and bring such as

1:23:27 > 1:23:31measurement of baby growth? Also encourage expected mothers to

1:23:31 > 1:23:40monitor the cult movements which we know can be a sign of distress --

1:23:40 > 1:23:45fetal movements. It can be confirmed by me, and I

1:23:45 > 1:23:48will say she is right and it mirrors a discussion we had. The key is

1:23:48 > 1:23:53early intervention I know the continuity of care makes a

1:23:53 > 1:23:56difference. If people can't make the midwives delivering their child long

1:23:56 > 1:24:02ahead of going into Labour back and help reassure people.

1:24:02 > 1:24:06This is welcome as a statement, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State will

1:24:06 > 1:24:12know that there has been some disturbing cases over the last few

1:24:12 > 1:24:18years in the Pennine health trust. I would ask him whether he will make

1:24:18 > 1:24:21space within the legislation for retrospective investigations, where

1:24:21 > 1:24:25there has been a number of cases like there had been in the Pennine

1:24:25 > 1:24:29trust?

1:24:29 > 1:24:34I will look into that very carefully.I am satisfied that there

1:24:34 > 1:24:38is strong new leadership at the Pennine trusts and that trust is

1:24:38 > 1:24:43being turned around. But they have told me about some of the cases and

1:24:43 > 1:24:48they are of concern and we must do everything we can to give answers to

1:24:48 > 1:24:55bereaved families.As a bereaved parent, but also as a lawyer who has

1:24:55 > 1:25:00conducted many inquests, I would ask Secretary of State to consider two

1:25:00 > 1:25:04points. First, not many families will need an inquest to determine

1:25:04 > 1:25:09what went wrong during the birth of their child. And secondly, would you

1:25:09 > 1:25:14commit to the training of special coroners just as we had in military

1:25:14 > 1:25:18inquests, to ensure that those who deal with these very sad cases are

1:25:18 > 1:25:23the best equipped to do that. And can I on behalf of the eight PGT

1:25:23 > 1:25:30thank him for today's announcement and encourage him to bring maternity

1:25:30 > 1:25:36care to the stage where it is kinder, safer and closer to home and

1:25:36 > 1:25:43to save my local hospital! I should have mentioned her name in

1:25:43 > 1:25:47my statement as someone who has spoken passionately on the subject

1:25:47 > 1:25:51in this House. But the point she makes about specialist coroners is

1:25:51 > 1:25:55something I want to take away. We will have specialist investigators

1:25:55 > 1:26:01which we have not had before. The other point I am making, and I'm not

1:26:01 > 1:26:06doing down her former profession, really when people go to the law, we

1:26:06 > 1:26:11have failed. And if we get this right, and if we are more open and

1:26:11 > 1:26:16transparent with families early on, that will mean many fewer legal

1:26:16 > 1:26:23cases. Although I'm sure the lawyers will find work elsewhere.I welcome

1:26:23 > 1:26:30the Minister's statement. One of the things he mentioned a few times was

1:26:30 > 1:26:34learning lessons. So I would like to ask the Secretary of State, a recent

1:26:34 > 1:26:38report highlighting that my own trust, the E Sussex health care

1:26:38 > 1:26:44trust, said that there were 19 stillbirths last year which is far

1:26:44 > 1:26:49higher in percentage terms than the rest of the UK. Will the Secretary

1:26:49 > 1:26:52of State agree that the Department of Health showed examined the wider

1:26:52 > 1:26:58case in the interest of learning lessons.I will undertake that we

1:26:58 > 1:27:04will look into that case and see what has happened there. He is

1:27:04 > 1:27:09right, in the end, what we need to do is to be much more open about

1:27:09 > 1:27:13this data. I commend the trust for sharing this data because until we

1:27:13 > 1:27:16access it, we will not know where the issues are that we need to

1:27:16 > 1:27:26solve.Can I ask the secretary of state, while looking at this vital

1:27:26 > 1:27:33focus on new birth, there will be focused on group strap B and areas

1:27:33 > 1:27:37where very young babies can be lost if undetected at latter stages of

1:27:37 > 1:27:48birth?I am happy to undertake to do that.I welcome the Secretary of

1:27:48 > 1:27:53State's announcement. Will he confirm the announcement from NICE

1:27:53 > 1:27:59that midwife led birthing centres are safe? In areas like Rochdale

1:27:59 > 1:28:08where the birth rate has shot up dramatically, following the closure

1:28:08 > 1:28:12of the maternity department, which he confirmed that midwife led

1:28:12 > 1:28:18centres would be appropriate?I agree about low-risk births but it

1:28:18 > 1:28:25is also important to have provision for other births.With the Secretary

1:28:25 > 1:28:29of State do everything possible to spread the practice of the excellent

1:28:29 > 1:28:34dads to be courses which are part of the antenatal -- antenatal provision

1:28:34 > 1:28:41across the country. We know they help to solidify the relationship

1:28:41 > 1:28:46between parents and prevent marital breakdown?I'm interested to hear

1:28:46 > 1:28:51that because my children were born at the Chelsea Hospital and my wife

1:28:51 > 1:28:56would have been delighted if I had gone to a dads to be course. I will

1:28:56 > 1:29:05look into that.Can I concur with my honourable friend full Rochdale to

1:29:05 > 1:29:11say -- for Rochdale to say safety must be paramount. It is wrong to

1:29:11 > 1:29:17see this as a reason to shut midwife led units and particularly where

1:29:17 > 1:29:20women who are likely to have a safe birth choose to have that birth at

1:29:20 > 1:29:28home, would he say something to make sure those units are safe?I'm happy

1:29:28 > 1:29:34to do that. Midwife led units, home birthing, they are all part of the

1:29:34 > 1:29:39NHS maternity offer. But it is wrong to suggest that there is a conflict

1:29:39 > 1:29:42between patient safety and the choice made by mothers because no

1:29:42 > 1:29:46mother would ever actually make a choice to do something that was the

1:29:46 > 1:29:54safest option for her and her child. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome

1:29:54 > 1:29:58this statement and I'm glad that the Secretary of State mentioned the

1:29:58 > 1:30:03role of tobacco. I wonder if he has also looked at the role of alcohol

1:30:03 > 1:30:09in this sort of situation?He is absolutely right to say that. And

1:30:09 > 1:30:17the evidence is very clear about the damage to foetuses and babies if

1:30:17 > 1:30:23there is too much drinking by a mother or any drinking. And so he is

1:30:23 > 1:30:25right to mention that. We didn't mention it in the statement because

1:30:25 > 1:30:32we are focusing on smoking cessation training to make sure we can give

1:30:32 > 1:30:38training to people. But he has rights to mention this is seen.--

1:30:38 > 1:30:46he is right. The maternity unit at Furness General Hospital will open

1:30:46 > 1:30:49thanks to the whole community campaigning but it will be safer

1:30:49 > 1:30:58thanks to the Secretary of State's commitment but mainly thanks to the

1:30:58 > 1:31:01parent who have campaigned tirelessly for local and national

1:31:01 > 1:31:06change. Will you join my calls for their struggle to be permanently

1:31:06 > 1:31:13commemorated within the new units?I am happy to do that. I have met most

1:31:13 > 1:31:17of those parents. He has been incredibly supportive to them at a

1:31:17 > 1:31:22local level and they have told me that. When Carl Hendrickson came to

1:31:22 > 1:31:26see me, he brought his 11-year-old son and I offer for the sun to wait

1:31:26 > 1:31:30outside and he said no, he wanted his son to be with him because he

1:31:30 > 1:31:34wanted his son to know that he had been to the very top to understand

1:31:34 > 1:31:39why his child and his wife died because of mistakes in that

1:31:39 > 1:31:44maternity unit. I think that hospital has had an incredible

1:31:44 > 1:31:48turnaround. We are all proud and we are confident that would not happen

1:31:48 > 1:31:51again but that is not say that there is not a huge amount that we all

1:31:51 > 1:31:59need to do.I welcome the Secretary of State's remarks and the overall

1:31:59 > 1:32:03tone of the comments made in response. That's my right honourable

1:32:03 > 1:32:08friend agree with me that the most important thing for families who

1:32:08 > 1:32:16receive -- are bereaved because of childbirth that they receive

1:32:16 > 1:32:22straight answers?I do agree and I was impressed by the learning I saw

1:32:22 > 1:32:25there from the Sam Morrish case which is a sad case of where that

1:32:25 > 1:32:28did not happen initially and the trust have taken on all those

1:32:28 > 1:32:34lessons impressively.I thank the Secretary of State for his statement

1:32:34 > 1:32:40and his personal commitment. Witty outline as part of the strict --

1:32:40 > 1:32:46what he outline that part of the strategy is that midwives can take

1:32:46 > 1:32:53rest breaks and that midwives are checked and monitors?That is

1:32:53 > 1:32:58extremely important. I also extend, through him, my offer that I made to

1:32:58 > 1:33:03the honourable lady who speaks for the SNP that any collaboration we

1:33:03 > 1:33:07can do between the Northern Irish and English health care systems to

1:33:07 > 1:33:14share best practice, I am happy to do so.Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want

1:33:14 > 1:33:19to welcome the measures announced today and commend him for his

1:33:19 > 1:33:23sympathetic work on this and that of so many other colleagues. Without

1:33:23 > 1:33:28you, I don't think we would be here today. But I also want to mention

1:33:28 > 1:33:31Musgrove Park hospital in my constituency which is already

1:33:31 > 1:33:36demonstrating how much good work can be done. They have cut their

1:33:36 > 1:33:40stillbirths by one third in 18 months and they have won awards for

1:33:40 > 1:33:45it. They have introduced things like a special app that people can have

1:33:45 > 1:33:51on maternity leave. They have introduced sepsis management, much

1:33:51 > 1:33:54improved. And they have a ground-breaking maternity

1:33:54 > 1:33:57apprenticeship scheme. So would you agree that sharing best practice

1:33:57 > 1:34:04like theirs is the best way to ensure that everybody else can do

1:34:04 > 1:34:09great work and we don't have to hear about the terrible example.I really

1:34:09 > 1:34:14enjoyed visiting Musgrove Park on Friday and I thought that what they

1:34:14 > 1:34:18did on stillbirths is impressive. I have not seen anything like it so

1:34:18 > 1:34:22that is indeed an example of fantastic practice that I would like

1:34:22 > 1:34:29to spread elsewhere.Thank you. Order. Ten minute rule motion.Would

1:34:29 > 1:34:42you order, Lou Grahame. Earlier today, in Treasury questions, the

1:34:42 > 1:34:45member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said that Scotland was like rail

1:34:45 > 1:34:50budget has been cut by 600 million in the next investment period. That

1:34:50 > 1:35:00is not true. The investment has gone up in -- three 6p. How can the

1:35:00 > 1:35:07record and make sure the SNP spokesman is using correct facts?

1:35:07 > 1:35:14The member, has he been notified of the intention to raise this point

1:35:14 > 1:35:20you order?No.It is the effective practice that if a member is going

1:35:20 > 1:35:29to raise a point of order with a criticism of another member, it is

1:35:29 > 1:35:37normal to notify that member in advance of the intention. However, I

1:35:37 > 1:35:42will treat of what the honourable gentleman has put to me, which is to

1:35:42 > 1:35:45say that the matter is a matter of debate and the honourable gentleman

1:35:45 > 1:35:50has put forward his understanding of the position clearly and it is on

1:35:50 > 1:35:57the record and it may well be the subject of further debate and even,

1:35:57 > 1:36:01conceivably, of publicity, not least in the Scottish media. And we await

1:36:01 > 1:36:08that prospect with interest and anticipation. If there are no

1:36:08 > 1:36:12further points of order, we come to the ten minute rule motion. Heidi

1:36:12 > 1:36:19Allen.Thank you, Mr Speaker. Following in the footsteps of David

1:36:19 > 1:36:28Burrows, who was the member for -- within MP before this, I bring in a

1:36:28 > 1:36:34bill to enforce the equalisation of child maintenance of children of

1:36:34 > 1:36:39several boys parents with those of employed parents. In plain language,

1:36:39 > 1:36:45one of the greatest privileges of my role as MP is getting to know brave

1:36:45 > 1:36:52mum is in my constituency. Melissa, Joe and Kate are massive arms. They

1:36:52 > 1:36:57have one thing in common, having split up from the fathers of their

1:36:57 > 1:37:02children, they are still fighting for fair maintenance payments. This

1:37:02 > 1:37:05bill is aimed at ensuring that the parents of children who find it

1:37:05 > 1:37:09hardest to be awarded a fair child maintenance arrangement are better

1:37:09 > 1:37:17supported by the system. Where a parent is Heidi Mitchell income or

1:37:17 > 1:37:23is determined not to declare our -- not to pay a fair amount, this bill

1:37:23 > 1:37:29is for them. When the split is amicable and sensible, the system

1:37:29 > 1:37:36works well. When a pain parent wants to avoid paying, they can do so

1:37:36 > 1:37:45easily by hiding behind self-employed statement -- status.

1:37:45 > 1:37:50They are defrauding their child and the system. This is a double hit to

1:37:50 > 1:37:55the taxpayer. The country loses out on tax and potentially pays out in

1:37:55 > 1:37:58benefits to support the losing parent. This bill is to ensure that

1:37:58 > 1:38:02the child maintenance system helps as many families as possible by

1:38:02 > 1:38:12closing the loophole. The child maintenance service has replaced the

1:38:12 > 1:38:16previous service. For straightforward cases, it works

1:38:16 > 1:38:21well. A standard childminders cackling -- calculation is worked

1:38:21 > 1:38:25out on the basis of gross earnings with vegetables regions deducted. It

1:38:25 > 1:38:31does not work where the paying parent takes incoming otherwise, and

1:38:31 > 1:38:36earned income like trusts, rental income or ice is or capital gains.

1:38:36 > 1:38:41I'm talking about any income that does not show up on age of the

1:38:41 > 1:38:47records. I suspect you are getting my drift, it is -- if it is not on

1:38:47 > 1:38:54HMRC records, it does not get seen by CMS. The system does not work if

1:38:54 > 1:39:10the parents are evading tax. In these cases, the amount of tax --

1:39:10 > 1:39:26CMS -- that CMS MS deans payable. ... A parent was structuring her tax

1:39:26 > 1:39:30that she paid £7 a week in maintenance and yet was found to be

1:39:30 > 1:39:43a multimillionaire.

1:39:43 > 1:39:48The Right Honourable member confirmed one of the members who

1:39:48 > 1:39:51entered his name to the Bill and told me the constituent recently who

1:39:51 > 1:39:56had her application for tax credits are called into question by HM RC

1:39:56 > 1:39:59because they believed her standard of living was too high to qualify.

1:39:59 > 1:40:05This ably demonstrates that HMRC can question income and alleged fraud,

1:40:05 > 1:40:09so they should be able to extend this power to ensure appropriate

1:40:09 > 1:40:13child-support payments are made. This simply cannot be right. I don't

1:40:13 > 1:40:17seem to demonise the self-employed or wealthy. Most parents living

1:40:17 > 1:40:22apart from their child to pay what their -- they owe, but as the

1:40:22 > 1:40:26government turns its attention to self-employment and the challenges

1:40:26 > 1:40:29it brings in taxation and law and also cracking down on tax evasion,

1:40:29 > 1:40:34surely now is the time for the child maintenance service rules and

1:40:34 > 1:40:37engagements and enforcement powers to change. As a member of the work

1:40:37 > 1:40:41and pensions select committee we have looked at this already. Much of

1:40:41 > 1:40:44what we found highlighted the challenges associated with the

1:40:44 > 1:40:47growth of self-employment and the potential it creates to hide true

1:40:47 > 1:40:53earnings. As Charles payment evasion often goes hand-in-hand with tax

1:40:53 > 1:40:59evasion it seems appropriate to combine forces -- child payment

1:40:59 > 1:41:04evasion. The CMS's financial investigations unit has so far only

1:41:04 > 1:41:07conducted for investigations with just two resulting in any action.

1:41:07 > 1:41:12This is not a difficult concept to grasp. A parent can see with their

1:41:12 > 1:41:17own eyes when the ex is living beyond their own declared income and

1:41:17 > 1:41:21assets. For example, a constituent of mine paid just a few pounds to

1:41:21 > 1:41:24access a public search on companies house which showed as clear as day

1:41:24 > 1:41:28that the father had drastically under declared his income through

1:41:28 > 1:41:32creative company and dividend manoeuvring. We much act on this

1:41:32 > 1:41:35exploitable flaw in the system or instead allow parents to take their

1:41:35 > 1:41:42cases to family court. My super mothers have only found that the CMS

1:41:42 > 1:41:46have not been obliged to uphold the judgments of the court. I know the

1:41:46 > 1:41:50government is serious about tax evasion, so the current loophole in

1:41:50 > 1:41:54the CMS process makes no sense. Either the CMS must join up with

1:41:54 > 1:41:59HMRC will let the courts do their job. It must be one of the other. In

1:41:59 > 1:42:01response to our committee, the government said it would consider

1:42:01 > 1:42:05how it can include all sources of income in the CMS calculation on

1:42:05 > 1:42:09this cat -- sounds encouraging. But in the absence of a compliance

1:42:09 > 1:42:14strategy, I believe this bill cannot affect the changes so desperately

1:42:14 > 1:42:19needed, introducing measures to help struggling children get the pair --

1:42:19 > 1:42:24maintenance they deserve. Child maintenance lifts one fit parents on

1:42:24 > 1:42:28the lowest incomes out of poverty a lifeline for parents or children,

1:42:28 > 1:42:31whether a roof over their head, covering childcare costs or being

1:42:31 > 1:42:37able to take part in school trips. It also saves taxpayer money. A

1:42:37 > 1:42:40child maintenance system with teeth will offer protection to parents and

1:42:40 > 1:42:45children weather been a history of abuse and control. Some cases are

1:42:45 > 1:42:48high conflict, where a parent is determined to avoid their

1:42:48 > 1:42:52liabilities and this can be a means of exerting control as they did when

1:42:52 > 1:42:56the parents were together. Coercion, domestic abuse and ongoing

1:42:56 > 1:43:00manipulation is the backdrop for the most vulnerable parents who turn to

1:43:00 > 1:43:06the CMS. In these cases, the state must step in. The fixes are obvious

1:43:06 > 1:43:08and dovetail come to believe that the government determination to

1:43:08 > 1:43:13crack down on tax evasion and get a handle on the rapidly growing

1:43:13 > 1:43:18self-employed economy. As such, I urge members to allow the bill to be

1:43:18 > 1:43:22read a second time.The question is that the honourable member have

1:43:22 > 1:43:26leave to bring in the bill. As many that opinion say hi. On the

1:43:26 > 1:43:34contrary, no. I think the ayes habit. Who will prepare and bring in

1:43:34 > 1:43:44the bill?Stephen McPartland, Frank Field, Lena Moran, Neil Gray, Cheryl

1:43:44 > 1:43:46Gillan, Steve Reed and myself.

1:43:57 > 1:44:10Heidi Hallen --

1:44:13 > 1:44:23Heidi Allen.Child maintenance assessment of parents Bill.Second

1:44:23 > 1:44:33reading what day? Friday 23rd of February 20 18. Thank you. The clerk

1:44:33 > 1:44:38will now proceed to read the orders of the day.Adjourned debate on

1:44:38 > 1:44:46questions.Thank you, the question is, as on the order paper and I

1:44:46 > 1:44:55inform the house that I have not selected amendment a. I call the

1:44:55 > 1:44:58Secretary of State for business, energy and industrial strategy.

1:44:58 > 1:45:01Thank you, Mr Speaker and it's a great pleasure to open this final

1:45:01 > 1:45:06day of the budget debate. In opening, his budget speech last

1:45:06 > 1:45:09week, the Chancellor described the choice before our country, standing

1:45:09 > 1:45:13as we do on the brink of a technological revolution. A choice

1:45:13 > 1:45:17between embracing the future, building on our strengths and taking

1:45:17 > 1:45:20our place as one of the nations that will place themselves at the

1:45:20 > 1:45:24forefront of the new world of innovation. And the choice of that

1:45:24 > 1:45:29or rejecting and assuming an offensive posture and letting other

1:45:29 > 1:45:33countries seize the initiative. We choose emphatically the former, and

1:45:33 > 1:45:36the budget and industrial strategy set out a long-term approach in

1:45:36 > 1:45:39which we can make our economy one that can prosper during the years

1:45:39 > 1:45:44ahead. Because not just in Britain, but across the world, this is a time

1:45:44 > 1:45:49of change and opportunity. Artificial intelligence, the

1:45:49 > 1:45:52analysis of big data, will transform the way that we live and work from

1:45:52 > 1:45:56the way we diagnose and treat cancer to the security of online

1:45:56 > 1:46:01transactions. The whole world is moving from being powered

1:46:01 > 1:46:05principally by fossil fuels to energy sources that are clean and

1:46:05 > 1:46:09with enormous impact, not just in the energy sector itself, but in the

1:46:09 > 1:46:14products and services that make use of it. One such area is transport

1:46:14 > 1:46:18where extraordinary innovation is changing how we move people and

1:46:18 > 1:46:24goods around our towns, cities and countryside. As a result of medical

1:46:24 > 1:46:26advances and rising prosperity, people across the world are living

1:46:26 > 1:46:31longer than ever before. One stunning statistic illustrates this

1:46:31 > 1:46:35transformation. In the United Kingdom today, there are 15,000

1:46:35 > 1:46:39centenarians alive. But of the people who are alive in Britain

1:46:39 > 1:46:47today, 10 million can expect to live to their 100th birthday. A

1:46:47 > 1:46:53transformation in our generation. An ageing population creates new

1:46:53 > 1:46:58demands for how we care for our elderly population and how their and

1:46:58 > 1:47:03our health can be maintained, and how they can make the most of their

1:47:03 > 1:47:07healthier, longer life. In all of these areas, Britain is

1:47:07 > 1:47:11extraordinarily well placed to lead. We are an open and enterprising

1:47:11 > 1:47:17economy built on invention, innovation and competition. Our

1:47:17 > 1:47:18universities and research institutions are hotbeds of

1:47:18 > 1:47:23discovery amongst the best in the world. And in a world where many of

1:47:23 > 1:47:27tomorrow's businesses have not yet been founded, our powerful

1:47:27 > 1:47:32reputation for being a dependable and confident place to do business

1:47:32 > 1:47:34with high standards, respected institutions and the reliable rule

1:47:34 > 1:47:41of law is an enormous asset to us. Thank you for giving way. Given

1:47:41 > 1:47:45that, easy backing our local campaign to keep and find a new

1:47:45 > 1:47:51buyer for the sporrans manufacturer in Ulverston given the highly

1:47:51 > 1:47:59unwelcome and damaging JFK. That was announced by the Chancellor and the

1:47:59 > 1:48:04Prime Minister after the 2011 budget.The Honourable gentleman

1:48:04 > 1:48:09will know that we work closely with the life sciences sector in the

1:48:09 > 1:48:14industrial strategy published yesterday there is important deal in

1:48:14 > 1:48:19which the companies are working closely, not just with each other,

1:48:19 > 1:48:21but local institutions, local leaders and the government and I'm

1:48:21 > 1:48:24happy in that context to meet with the Honourable gentleman and have

1:48:24 > 1:48:33those discussions in that context. He talks about giving certainty to

1:48:33 > 1:48:37businesses and investors, but does he agree with me that the contracts

1:48:37 > 1:48:43for difference regime can be used to bring in zero subsidy contracts to

1:48:43 > 1:48:46give certainty to people who want to invest in the renewable energy to

1:48:46 > 1:48:50the future. Will he commit to considering the case for zero

1:48:50 > 1:48:55subsidy CFT 's?I am grateful to the Honourable gentleman and I would say

1:48:55 > 1:48:59that the contracts the difference have brought down substantially the

1:48:59 > 1:49:03price of renewable energy. We have commissioned a review from a

1:49:03 > 1:49:09professor who knows very well and we will be making our response to that.

1:49:09 > 1:49:12It would be wrong to pre-empt the consideration of that but I hope he

1:49:12 > 1:49:20will give his thoughts, as we have invited others to do on the home

1:49:20 > 1:49:23review. We have launched a conversation -- consultation, as he

1:49:23 > 1:49:31knows.Thanks for giving way. I note his comment about the review, but

1:49:31 > 1:49:34will the government commit to moving away from their nuclear obsession

1:49:34 > 1:49:43given that CFD has brought down the cost of renewable energy.It is my

1:49:43 > 1:49:46view that we need to have a broad base of power supply for our

1:49:46 > 1:49:54security in the future and we are now the world leader in offshore

1:49:54 > 1:49:59wind, so we know that one is not at the expense of another, and that is

1:49:59 > 1:50:04the right and prudent way to proceed. We have many industries

1:50:04 > 1:50:07from financial services, to advance manufacturing, from the life

1:50:07 > 1:50:11sciences to the creative industries that our world leading and are at

1:50:11 > 1:50:14the forefront of the technological revolution that is sweeping the

1:50:14 > 1:50:22world.What further assistance is the government going to give to

1:50:22 > 1:50:25research and development for reactors as part of the nuclear

1:50:25 > 1:50:30sector, potentially very important energy sources in the future and

1:50:30 > 1:50:36what consider ability has he given it to locations for current sites as

1:50:36 > 1:50:40SMRs?I know my honourable friend takes a great interest and we have

1:50:40 > 1:50:44an energy innovation programme and we will be making some around --

1:50:44 > 1:50:50announcements around that before too long, and it will address the

1:50:50 > 1:50:57questions of what types of technologies ought to be moved along

1:50:57 > 1:51:00from research to development and in fermentation, and he will have an

1:51:00 > 1:51:03interest in that, and I will make sure he is given the details of

1:51:03 > 1:51:08that. To capitalise on those strengths, we need to reinforce

1:51:08 > 1:51:13them, and we need to project them into the future, but we also need to

1:51:13 > 1:51:16address our weaknesses. We are proud of the fact that more people are

1:51:16 > 1:51:22employed in this country and ever before. An extraordinary

1:51:22 > 1:51:25achievement, with 3 million extra jobs created during a time in which

1:51:25 > 1:51:28the party opposite predicted millions of jobs would be lost. But

1:51:28 > 1:51:35compared to some of our competitors we work harder and longer in this

1:51:35 > 1:51:40country to produce at the same level of average as they do, so we do need

1:51:40 > 1:51:43to raise our productivity. The Chancellor in his budget speech made

1:51:43 > 1:51:49that clear. As the house knows, to a large extent, this is a problem of

1:51:49 > 1:51:53disparities rather than a uniform picture, because we have industries,

1:51:53 > 1:51:56companies, people and places that are amongst the most highly

1:51:56 > 1:52:01productive on the planet. But we have what the Bank of England has

1:52:01 > 1:52:06called an unusually long tail of companies and places whose level of

1:52:06 > 1:52:13productivity is below that of the top performers. So the challenge is

1:52:13 > 1:52:17clear. Do very much reinforce the performance of the top and to build

1:52:17 > 1:52:21on the strengths while spreading the excellence through the economy and

1:52:21 > 1:52:28throughout that country, and that is exactly what the budget does, by

1:52:28 > 1:52:31reinforcing strengths and addressing weaknesses in areas across the

1:52:31 > 1:52:36board. We talk about innovation, skills, infrastructure, the business

1:52:36 > 1:52:44environment and local economies. I'd like to put on record my thanks to

1:52:44 > 1:52:48the government for not finding the initial cost analysis, because that

1:52:48 > 1:52:54is absolutely what we need to do, connect the science with the wider

1:52:54 > 1:53:00country.I just want to say I'm very grateful for it.I'm grateful to my

1:53:00 > 1:53:04honourable friend and nights in illustration of how we can bring

1:53:04 > 1:53:08these forces together.We know having good connections, that 5

1:53:08 > 1:53:12million investment, means that the infrastructure in and around

1:53:12 > 1:53:15Cambridge has improved and that makes the area even more attractive

1:53:15 > 1:53:20to companies and researchers locating there, and that builds on

1:53:20 > 1:53:27these very strengths and the part of the world that she represents, and

1:53:27 > 1:53:32my honourable friend the Treasury Minister, one of her close

1:53:32 > 1:53:36neighbours has enjoyed great success, but I think she would

1:53:36 > 1:53:38recognise, as my honourable friend recognises that there is an

1:53:38 > 1:53:45opportunity to extend that success to a larger area than it currently

1:53:45 > 1:53:52occupies, and that is exactly what we have in mind.Thank you secretary

1:53:52 > 1:53:55of state for giving way. I agree very much about the regional

1:53:55 > 1:53:59disparities and the way in which the industrial strategies are trying to

1:53:59 > 1:54:04tackle that. The East Midlands is in particular one of the areas which is

1:54:04 > 1:54:07raising productivity and I asked him to look at that. Could I ask him if

1:54:07 > 1:54:10he will speak to the Transport Secretary and others about the

1:54:10 > 1:54:12failure of the government to electrify the Midland mainline

1:54:12 > 1:54:16which, as he knows, is a great thing that all of us have campaigned for

1:54:16 > 1:54:25for a number of years to achieve the government has rowed back on it.

1:54:25 > 1:54:30I am grateful for the Right honourable gentleman's words. I am

1:54:30 > 1:54:34aware that one of the great strengths of the East Midlands is

1:54:34 > 1:54:40its place, being connected to the rest of the country so it is

1:54:40 > 1:54:43essential that those connections continued to improve. He will know

1:54:43 > 1:54:48that in the budget a fund was established for cities and city

1:54:48 > 1:54:52regions to improve the connections in and around those cities. He will

1:54:52 > 1:54:57know that that is important as well. That is in addition to the

1:54:57 > 1:55:00importance of connections to the rest of the country. I will raise

1:55:00 > 1:55:05the point that he makes with the Transport Secretary. Let me say

1:55:05 > 1:55:11something about ideas and the importance of innovation to our

1:55:11 > 1:55:17economy. Because we can be the world's most innovative economy,

1:55:17 > 1:55:22given the strength that we have in our science -based, our researchers

1:55:22 > 1:55:26and throughout our industries, where we have some of the most creative

1:55:26 > 1:55:34people in the world. I will give way.What thinking has been going on

1:55:34 > 1:55:40in government following Bill Gates' speech in the spring about taxing

1:55:40 > 1:55:44robots. Because even when you go into high street, you see machines

1:55:44 > 1:55:52working in shops. The government give any thought to all these

1:55:52 > 1:55:57labour-saving devices, these robots that are doing jobs people used to

1:55:57 > 1:56:02do and getting revenue from that?We need to embrace the technologies of

1:56:02 > 1:56:06the future and if we are in the lead, we can benefit from being the

1:56:06 > 1:56:11place that develops, applies and manufactures many of these products.

1:56:11 > 1:56:17Whenever we have taken a lead in this country, we have reaped the

1:56:17 > 1:56:22benefits. And it is in those areas where we have in many cases lost the

1:56:22 > 1:56:27lead and the advantage that we have, that we have ended up importing

1:56:27 > 1:56:32goods and services from around the world. So I think we need to lead

1:56:32 > 1:56:36into the future and make sure that we are the place that firms locate

1:56:36 > 1:56:41two in the future to develop their products and continue to

1:56:41 > 1:56:47manufacture. That is the way we should proceed. Of course.The

1:56:47 > 1:56:50Secretary of State for bubbly will agree that we still have a financial

1:56:50 > 1:56:56gap in this country -- probably will agree that we still have a financial

1:56:56 > 1:57:05gap in this country and also companies are disproportionately

1:57:05 > 1:57:11located in this part of the country. Can the Secretary of State see if we

1:57:11 > 1:57:18can make structural changes that can help the whole of the nation?The

1:57:18 > 1:57:20honourable gentleman has a distinguished record himself in

1:57:20 > 1:57:27leading greater Manchester in promoting, with some success, the

1:57:27 > 1:57:31vitality and attractiveness of that very important part of the economy.

1:57:31 > 1:57:42Last week's Budget... I will give way.Surely, one of the ways that we

1:57:42 > 1:57:45can improve innovation and productivity is by better broadband

1:57:45 > 1:57:49and better telephony. And I hear what he said yesterday, but in my

1:57:49 > 1:57:58area, we have zero G, not five G. Would you like to encourage my area

1:57:58 > 1:58:02by saying that the whole of the strategy is for the whole of the

1:58:02 > 1:58:08country, not just towns and cities? The opportunities in many of our run

1:58:08 > 1:58:15areas is very significant indeed and it is essential that we make in our

1:58:15 > 1:58:20towns and cities should be shared without rural areas of which his

1:58:20 > 1:58:26constituency is a particularly attractive and productive example. I

1:58:26 > 1:58:30am coming on to some of the points that honourable members are raising.

1:58:30 > 1:58:41Last week's budget ever in the 440 years of in public research and

1:58:41 > 1:58:49development, growing as a shell GDP, growing as a commitment to adopt 4%

1:58:49 > 1:59:01of GDP in research and development in 2017 -- soon and 3% in the long

1:59:01 > 1:59:08term. Our research and innovation strength will be grown in every part

1:59:08 > 1:59:12of United kingdom. Recognising that there are strengths in all part of

1:59:12 > 1:59:19the UK, not just in London or the south-east.On the point of

1:59:19 > 1:59:23rebalancing the economy, a key part of the industrial strategy, one

1:59:23 > 1:59:26reason why Blunden gets a better deal is its ability to attract

1:59:26 > 1:59:33private sector investment. The North, particularly, has very little

1:59:33 > 1:59:37capability to do that. Hassey any plans to resolve this is huge so

1:59:37 > 1:59:41that we can attract more funding from the private sector for

1:59:41 > 1:59:47investment in infrastructure in the North.I have, indeed. I will come

1:59:47 > 1:59:52onto that. Let me say something about skills. If we are creating

1:59:52 > 2:00:00these new job opportunities, about the point about robots, of course it

2:00:00 > 2:00:04is important that if jobs change, people should have the opportunity

2:00:04 > 2:00:12to train and develop skills for the jobs that are being created. The

2:00:12 > 2:00:16industrial strategy established what everybody knows, that job

2:00:16 > 2:00:24opportunities, especially in companies in technical sectors,

2:00:24 > 2:00:30require both education and training, especially in maths, in digital

2:00:30 > 2:00:34skills and other aspects of education. There are skills

2:00:34 > 2:00:39shortages around the country and great careers are available to young

2:00:39 > 2:00:45people and people changing career if only they had this base of

2:00:45 > 2:00:53education. And so, the significant investment that the budget announced

2:00:53 > 2:00:59in maths, digital and technical education, is important. As is the

2:00:59 > 2:01:02national retraining scheme, working with employers and trade unions,

2:01:02 > 2:01:06beginning with digital and construction training. For

2:01:06 > 2:01:12infrastructure, a response to the honourable member, the Chancellor

2:01:12 > 2:01:15announced an £8 billion increase in the national productivity investment

2:01:15 > 2:01:25fund, taking it to £31 billion, extending it to 22 /23, enabling us

2:01:25 > 2:01:29to invest in our physical infrastructure and our digital

2:01:29 > 2:01:33infrastructure, to develop the next generation of full fibre networks

2:01:33 > 2:01:39and to trial the use of five G, and the use of mobile communications on

2:01:39 > 2:01:47RL ways, but something else which is important across the country.

2:01:47 > 2:01:50Improvements in the charging infrastructure fund. If we are going

2:01:50 > 2:01:54to manufacture these new vehicles, we have to be the place in the world

2:01:54 > 2:02:01where they can be deployed most effectively.I'm grateful for the

2:02:01 > 2:02:05Secretary of State giving way. Green growth clearly part of our future as

2:02:05 > 2:02:10we move forward in the economy but would you also agree that hydrogen

2:02:10 > 2:02:16batteries are very important as well as electric vehicles?I agree with

2:02:16 > 2:02:19my honourable friend. She's absolutely right, hydrogen offers

2:02:19 > 2:02:24big advantages. It is a clean fuel as well and we have great expertise

2:02:24 > 2:02:30in this country in developing it and applying it. Let me say something

2:02:30 > 2:02:36about business finance which has already come up in the debate. It is

2:02:36 > 2:02:38essential in a strategy that connects our areas of strength, that

2:02:38 > 2:02:43if we have great businesses across the country, we should be able to

2:02:43 > 2:02:49allow them to benefit much more than they have done from the financial

2:02:49 > 2:02:54services sector in this country that is one of the most significant in

2:02:54 > 2:02:58the world. The people of capital that we have should be available to

2:02:58 > 2:03:04companies that are growing up and down the country. And so the budget

2:03:04 > 2:03:09that has been presented by my right honourable friend includes a new

2:03:09 > 2:03:14£2.5 billion investment fund incubating business fund to drive

2:03:14 > 2:03:21forward more investment into growing companies across the country. The

2:03:21 > 2:03:26British business bank will establish a network of regional managers by

2:03:26 > 2:03:29the autumn of next year, making sure that it is not just in London and

2:03:29 > 2:03:36the south-east that these sources of finance and advice are available. It

2:03:36 > 2:03:42is essential that right across the UK, this is in place.Isn't it the

2:03:42 > 2:03:47reality that the OPI downgrade forecasts for business investment

2:03:47 > 2:03:52and productivity and for growth of the economy for the entire

2:03:52 > 2:03:56forecasting period? So whatever the Chancellor announced in the budget,

2:03:56 > 2:04:01it isn't going far enough?I think the honourable gentleman

2:04:01 > 2:04:09misunderstands what was said there. What the OBR said was to recognise

2:04:09 > 2:04:12that the forecast that they have been making for many years now, that

2:04:12 > 2:04:18the rate of productivity would recover after the financial crisis,

2:04:18 > 2:04:25has not been achieved in reality. And so, there is no new events. They

2:04:25 > 2:04:30recognise what has happened and that has had consequences for their

2:04:30 > 2:04:35financial forecasts. So, faced with that, the right thing to do is to

2:04:35 > 2:04:38looks a risky and for the long term, I didn't this is something that

2:04:38 > 2:04:49divides members of the House, on how we can provide research and

2:04:49 > 2:04:56development and infrastructure and talk about the sources of finance to

2:04:56 > 2:05:02grow businesses. This is a serious response to the OBR's revised

2:05:02 > 2:05:13forecast on productivity.I thank the Secretary of State. As 100 new

2:05:13 > 2:05:18jobs come to my constituency, another 500 new jobs as well,

2:05:18 > 2:05:21productivity and accessibility are really important to the access

2:05:21 > 2:05:31around the cell our area. The Secretary of make sure that he works

2:05:31 > 2:05:36with local people to make sure that the investment feeds into the local

2:05:36 > 2:05:44strategy?I will indeed. Throughout my time in the House and in the

2:05:44 > 2:05:47government, I have promoted the importance of places and locally to

2:05:47 > 2:05:51ship and making sure that investment decisions benefit from local

2:05:51 > 2:05:56knowledge and local decisions. This Budget and the industrial strategy

2:05:56 > 2:06:01reinforced that. In order to have a prosperous United Kingdom, every

2:06:01 > 2:06:05part of the United Kingdom, every place needs to be maximising its

2:06:05 > 2:06:13potential. And so the strategy does work with our cities, towns and

2:06:13 > 2:06:19regions across the UK. We are inviting areas to promote local

2:06:19 > 2:06:24industrial strategies, saying what needs to be done locally to make a

2:06:24 > 2:06:30particular area, be it a town, city, or county, fit for the future and

2:06:30 > 2:06:35able to attract new business investment.Following his

2:06:35 > 2:06:38announcement of the industrial strategy, we had a meeting in

2:06:38 > 2:06:41Leicester to discuss the infrastructure needs of the East

2:06:41 > 2:06:47Midlands. Would he bear in mind that East Midlands is in the bottom of

2:06:47 > 2:06:49the government league for infrastructure and yet it is

2:06:49 > 2:06:53delivering the highest economic growth and the highest wage growth

2:06:53 > 2:06:57in the UK outside London and the south-east? And what we could do if

2:06:57 > 2:07:04we had our fair share of infrastructure funding.He is right

2:07:04 > 2:07:06that the performance of the East Midlands has been extremely positive

2:07:06 > 2:07:15and some of the institutions, I think of universities in Leicester,

2:07:15 > 2:07:19like Loughborough, making a huge impact on the local economy. I look

2:07:19 > 2:07:25forward to visiting Leicester again to have those discussions locally as

2:07:25 > 2:07:30part of these local industrial strategies. I mentioned the funds

2:07:30 > 2:07:36for improving transport connections between city centres and towns

2:07:36 > 2:07:40around them. These are essential investments in the future

2:07:40 > 2:07:48competitiveness of our economy.Of course. On the industrial strategy,

2:07:48 > 2:07:51how might that develop in the future if we find ourselves in the scenario

2:07:51 > 2:07:54that has been talked about yesterday, of having no border

2:07:54 > 2:08:00checks, of having open borders? If we have an open border with Northern

2:08:00 > 2:08:04Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, we will have to have an open border

2:08:04 > 2:08:08with everywhere else. The UK will not be running any terrace at all,

2:08:08 > 2:08:15so who will that start affecting? With most-favoured-nation status, if

2:08:15 > 2:08:18you have an open border with Ireland, you have an open border

2:08:18 > 2:08:24with everywhere else.I'm conscious that the honourable gentleman has

2:08:24 > 2:08:30taken me into a direction that will take much more time. Our future as a

2:08:30 > 2:08:36successful economy is about trading more with Europe and the rest of the

2:08:36 > 2:08:39world in the future. It should be free of terrorists and it should be

2:08:39 > 2:08:44free of frictions and that is what we want to achieve through our

2:08:44 > 2:08:52negotiations. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, none of these investments,

2:08:52 > 2:08:55none of this improvement in the productive capacity of the economy

2:08:55 > 2:09:01will be possible without a fundamentally strong economy. The

2:09:01 > 2:09:04essential foundation of future prosperity is to be a place in which

2:09:04 > 2:09:08global investors can have confidence. And it is easy sometimes

2:09:08 > 2:09:12to forget and to take for granted the progress that my right

2:09:12 > 2:09:19honourable friend and the Chancellor -- the Chancellor and his

2:09:19 > 2:09:23predecessors have made in rescuing us from the catastrophic situation

2:09:23 > 2:09:27that the party opposite left us in when he took office. Britain had the

2:09:27 > 2:09:34largest share of GDP -- debt over GDP of any nation after the Second

2:09:34 > 2:09:40World War. For every £5 of government spending, £1 had to be

2:09:40 > 2:09:45borrowed. Unemployment rose by nearly half a million, the welfare

2:09:45 > 2:09:49bill ballooned and the number of households who are never worked have

2:09:49 > 2:09:54doubled. If we had continued on that course, Britain's repetition as

2:09:54 > 2:09:57being a dependable place for global investors to entrust their assets

2:09:57 > 2:10:02would have been lost and it would have taken many generations to

2:10:02 > 2:10:06recover from that. But as a result of the steady and painstaking work

2:10:06 > 2:10:10that the British people, backed by the leadership of members of this

2:10:10 > 2:10:16side of the House, we have cut the deficit by three quarters while at

2:10:16 > 2:10:20the same time income tax has been cut for 30 million people. Britain

2:10:20 > 2:10:29has been one of the job creation hotspots in the world with

2:10:29 > 2:10:31employment 3 million higher from seven years ago and unemployment

2:10:31 > 2:10:39lower than at any point since 1975. Just at the point where we can look

2:10:39 > 2:10:46forward to the national debt, which has to be repaid by future

2:10:46 > 2:10:50generations, the party opposite, and I hope they contradict me, have

2:10:50 > 2:10:54adopted a platform even more extreme than the policies that produced the

2:10:54 > 2:10:58previous situation. Their proposal is to borrow an extra quarter of £8

2:10:58 > 2:11:02trillion, and as if that were not enough to increase borrowing, they

2:11:02 > 2:11:09want to increase it in their own words of the Institute for Fiscal

2:11:09 > 2:11:11Studies, to the highest peacetime level in the history of this

2:11:11 > 2:11:17country. And as the ISS also said, it would make the UK a less

2:11:17 > 2:11:21attractive place in which to invest. No wonder the reaction of employers

2:11:21 > 2:11:25the length and breadth of Britain has been one of alarm. The Chief

2:11:25 > 2:11:29Executive of the engineering employers Federation said the

2:11:29 > 2:11:33policies were from a bygone era. Do they have credibility? The answer is

2:11:33 > 2:11:41clearly no. If we want to have a strong and competitive economy that

2:11:41 > 2:11:45is fit for the future, we need to live within our means, create good

2:11:45 > 2:11:50jobs, pay people well and we need to be a beacon of free trade and

2:11:50 > 2:11:53international is. That is what our industrial strategy and this budget

2:11:53 > 2:12:03is about. Prosperity for is the best alternative to the high tax,

2:12:03 > 2:12:06anti-enterprise job destroying ideology that has taken over the

2:12:06 > 2:12:10front bench opposite. Our budget takes us into the future, and the

2:12:10 > 2:12:13party opposite takes us into the past. I commend the budget to the

2:12:13 > 2:12:14house.

2:12:19 > 2:12:22Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm surprised that the secretary's

2:12:22 > 2:12:27comments. He seems to be struggling with reality. We normally have

2:12:27 > 2:12:30measured comments from him, the let's talk about the budget. A

2:12:30 > 2:12:35substantial section of the budget speech on Wednesday focused on the

2:12:35 > 2:12:40productivity crisis, and rightly so. Labour analysis shows that you have

2:12:40 > 2:12:45to go back to 1820 when George IV ascended the throne after the

2:12:45 > 2:12:48Napoleonic wars before you can find a time where productivity increase

2:12:48 > 2:12:54less than this over a 10-year period. The result is catastrophic.

2:12:54 > 2:12:59People are earning less than ten years ago and as the Institute for

2:12:59 > 2:13:03Fiscal Studies states, by 2021, average earnings look set to beat

2:13:03 > 2:13:10nearly £1400 lower than forecast last year. The Chancellor, and

2:13:10 > 2:13:14indeed the secretary, tries to paint this as a phenomenon happening

2:13:14 > 2:13:18separately from governments like it is some sort of freak accident and

2:13:18 > 2:13:23nothing to do with them, but that could not be further from the truth.

2:13:23 > 2:13:26So we can help the secretary with his recollections of history and

2:13:26 > 2:13:33reality itself, I will take your money trip down memory lane. It was

2:13:33 > 2:13:39clear that by late 2008 monetary policy alone was not working in the

2:13:39 > 2:13:41traditional ray. People were not spending and the economy was not

2:13:41 > 2:13:46recovering. The truth is, mainstream textbook economics not only

2:13:46 > 2:13:52justified an initial round of post-crisis stimulus but said the

2:13:52 > 2:13:57stimulus should continue until the economy had recovered. But what did

2:13:57 > 2:14:01the Conservatives do? The polar opposite. Slashing government

2:14:01 > 2:14:04spending and investment and essentially pulling the rug out from

2:14:04 > 2:14:10under the UK economy. Not only that, the financial crash had shown

2:14:10 > 2:14:14clearly that the economy was becoming dangerously overreliant,

2:14:14 > 2:14:18both regionally and Ceccarelli in favour of financial services in the