08/02/2018 House of Commons

Minister about the matter with which

she has been extraordinarily closely

involved in. Some latitude. I wish

to make a statement on the

independent review of local

community health NHS Trust conducted

for NHS and published today. What

happened to patients of Liverpool

community is common before anything

else, a terrible personal tragedy

for all of the families involved.

Report also makes clear the

devastating impact on many of the

front line staff as well. On behalf

of the government, I want to

apologise to them and I know the

whole house would want to extend our

sympathies to everyone. I would like

to pay tribute, as Mr Speaker has

correctly identified to the

honourable member for West like. The

people of Merseyside know only too

well the cost of attempting to

silence the victims and campaigners

of those seeking justice. As this

report makes clear, their personal

commitment to get to the truth on

behalf of the victims of the

Liverpool community trust, her

personal courage and asking

difficult questions of those in

senior positions in the NHS and the

persistence and precision of her

search for accountability are all

vindicated today. We in this house

and across the wider health and

social care service for her debt of

gratitude. I would like to thank the

doctor and his team for this

excellent report, as with as

reported on NHS Foundation Trust, it

is clear, forensic and at times and

devastating account of failures in

the care of Liverpool community

trust by its management from its

board and its regulators. The report

covers the period from the

transformation in November 2010 to

December 2014 and it describes an

organisation that was, and I quote,

dysfunctional from the outset was

that the consequences of this for

patient care were in some cases are

following in the report details a

number of incidents of patient harm,

including pressure sores, fractured

hips and five never events. That was

in the dental service, and

incredibly high number on one

organisation. The failures of the

organisation were more starkly

apparent in the services provided

that Liverpool prison. The trust

built to properly risk assessed

patients for nutrition and hydration

and did not effectively manage

patients at a high risk of suicide.

The review has in addition identify

serious failures in medicine

management in Liverpool prison.

There are many more examples of poor

care and its impact on patients and

on staff in the report. What

compounds the shock and the lack --

is the lack of insight displayed at

the time by the organisation into

these failures. This was the very

opposite of a culture of learning,

with incidents on or played down,

warning signals ignored and other

priorities are allowed to take place

-- to take the place of patient

safety and tear for the vulnerable.

We have seen this sort of moral

drift before. Most obviously at mid

Staffordshire and Morecambe Bay. As

with mid Staffordshire and the

management of Liverpool community

that far too much emphasis on

achieving trust status, the review

states and I quote, the trust

undertake an aggressive cost

improvement plan. Targeting the £30

million reduction over five years.

This represented a cut in resources

of approximately 22%. We were

surprised that such an ambitious

financial reduction was not

scrutinised more closely by both

commissioners and regulators. There

is a direct line from the decisions

made by the trust in this reckless

manner to the harm experienced by

patients. An early report by

solicitors in March 2016 reported

that the interim Chief Executive,

who took over from Burnley Castle,

found in her first week that there

was an understanding by £3 million

on district nursing. These teams

were devastated because there

weren't allowed to recruit, some of

them down 50%. This is a nursing

service whether Doctor says patients

were experiencing great large

pressure sores, grade three. This

was accompanied by the hallmark of

an organisation that has lost sight

of its purpose. As the doctor

states, and I quote, the evidence

that we had and saw amply confirmed

the existence of a bullying culture

within the trust. Focus almost

entirely on achieving foundation

trust status. An adequate staffing

levels, your staff morale, and are

HR practice went unheeded. This was

the end result of an inexperienced

leadership that was not capable of

rising to the challenges presented

by the trust. Following an

Staffordshire report, the doctor

recognises that steps have been

taken to introduce independent Sunni

led inspection by the sea QC. The

government has introduced special

measures regime with an NHS

improvement. Alongside as we have

put in place a number of measures to

create a wider culture of learning

and improvement was that the

Secretary of State has offered a

great deal of personal leadership in

helping to create this culture.

Including the establishment of an

independent Chief inspector for

hospitals. I met him yesterday and

spoke again with this morning. The

recent introduction of measures to

support trusts to learn from deaths

and improve patient safety. I'm sure

that I'm not alone in finding an

astonishing that the doctor found

there was a small minority of

individuals who refused to cooperate

with the review. I wholeheartedly

agree with his view that it remains

the duty of all NHS staff to assist

as fully as they are able, with

investigations and reviews that are

directed towards improving future

services. Mr Speaker, all but one of

the board of the Liverpool trust

shirked their legal and moral

responsibility to be candid about

the organisation that the

government. In large complex

organisations, responsibility and

accountability are always

distributed to some degree. It is

the case that the higher up in the

organisation someone is, the greater

their degree of responsibility. In

this case, those individuals were

Burnley Castle as Stevie -- Stephen

-- chief executive and France Malloy

as chair. From reading the report,

the each must take a significant

share of the responsibility of these

findings. Honourable members will,

I'm sure, have noted the conclusions

to the clinical governance section

of the report, which highlights the

responsibility of the former chief

executive of the trust for the

system of clinical governance and

its fairness. It would appear that

while the former chief executive is

now able to see there were failures

in clinical governance, she does not

have as strong sense of

responsibility as one might expect.

She is no longer employed in the NHS

but continues to have a role working

within the NHS in Wales. In response

to this report, the government

intends to take a number of actions.

First, the government accepts the

recommendations of the doctor in

school. Whilst this was a report

commissioned by NHS improvement, I

will write to all the organisations

named in the recommendations set out

in section six of the report, asking

them to confirm what steps they will

take to implement the

recommendations, or set that there

are reasons for not doing so. I will

ensure copies of that response are

shared with the health Select

Committee. One recommendation is

specifically for the Department of

Health and social care, as set out

in paragraph 6.5 page 64. This

relates to a review of sea QCs fit

and proper person test. Ryan ten to

discuss the terms of the review with

the member for West Lancashire and

will appoint somebody to undertake

the review within the coming days. I

believe that review will need to

address the operation and purpose of

the fit and proper test. Including

but not limited to when an

individual moves from the NHS in

England to another part of the

United Kingdom. Where they believe

that subsequently provide health

care services to the NHS from

another health care role. Such as

with a charity or a health care

company differing levels of

professional regulation such as a

Chief Executive computer one who is

a non-clinician. The failure to

cooperate with the review with this

nature and what the consequences of

that should be. Indeed, to review

the effectiveness of such

investigations themselves when they

are conducted. I will be pleased to

hear the views of the Honourable

member for West Lancashire and those

of the health Select Committee on

these issues. Third, I've asked the

Department to review the

effectiveness of sanctions were

records go missing in the trust. For

her records appear to have been

destroyed. Force, I've asked the

Department for advice on what

disciplinary action can be taken

against individuals in relation to

the findings of this report.

Clearly, due process needs to be

followed. It is important we address

a revolving door culture that has

existed in parts of the NHS, where

individuals move the other NHS

bodies often facilitated by those

tasked with regulating them. I will

ask NHS improvement and NHS England

to clarify the circumstances under

which rules were found facilitated

for individuals identified in the

report as bearing some

responsibility for the issues at the

trust. I have spoken with colleagues

at the Ministry of Justice and

confirmed to the House that they

intend to investigate the issues

arising from this report in respect

of HMP Liverpool specifically and

the prisoner state more generally.

All organisations and individuals

make mistakes. This is an

opportunity to learn and improve, we

will do all we can to provide

support. Where however there is any

kind of cover-up or a blinkered

denial of what has happened, members

of this House and the victims of

that wrongdoing have a right to

expect accountability. The Member

for West Lancashire has done the NHS

a great service. I will place a copy

of the Kirk at review in the House

of Commons library. The government

is acting in for on the findings. --

enough all.

Can I start by adding my

appreciation to the tenacity my

honourable friend the Member for

West Lancashire has shown in

pursuing this matter of a number of

years? She has led the way in

tackling this injustice fearlessly

and relentlessly, in that respect

she is an example to all members in

this place. I agree with the

Minister that this report is a

vindication of her courage. Isn't it

shameful this scandal only came to

light because a member of Parliament

gave a voice to those who are afraid

to speak out. This report lays bare

a catalogue of failure which caused

harm to patients across Merseyside

between 2010-14. It is a grim

example of the regulated pressures

on board management failures from

staff being repeated on and off huge

concern is that some of these babies

came after the final publication of

the Francis Report. -- some of these

failures. Patients having the wrong

tooth fixed by dentists, patients on

care award suffering fools with

broken bones or pressure ulcers. We

have to make sure the pain

experienced by so many patients and

their families is properly detailed

unrecognised. We must make sure the

NHS is able to learn from these

events and that systems are put in

place to ensure they never happen

again. Can I put on record our

thanks from the side of the House to

Doctor Bill Kirk and the work his

team have done in carrying out this

investigation and helping us to

understand what has gone wrong.

Today's report says patients

suffered unnecessary harm because

the senior leadership team was out

of its depth. Let's be clear what

lies at the heart of this:

unrealistic cost-cutting without

regards to the consequences which

leads to patients being harmed. The

report exposes serious problems

around cost-cutting, in the case of

the local community motivation was

the drive to receive status. The

trust discipline and suspended staff

who blew the whistle about poor care

and its controversial plans to save

bash staff in order to save money.

-- to slash staff. What protections

have been put in place for staff who

raise concerns about cost-cutting?

Today's report notes the irony of

staff reductions being agreed at the

same board meeting that an earlier

considered the invocations of the

Francis Report. This alone should

have raised alarm bells about the

capacity of board members to

challenge the trust. The NHS still

faces huge workforce shortages so

what update can the Minister give us

on how the 10-year workforce

strategy has been received? What

additional measures for the strategy

include the guarantee safe levels of

staffing over the country, in

community as well as acute services?

I'm pleased the Minister recognises

concerns that managers responsible

can often go into leadership roles

in other parts of the health service

or indeed Private providers to the

NHS in another capacity. Can the

Minister advise how many people

refuse to corporate with this

investigation who are still employed

in some part of the NHS? Is there

anything in existing terms and

conditions that can be used to

require cooperation in future? Is

there any form of address in

existing policies and procedures

that we can use against these

people? The report also said

regulators were distracted by higher

profile services like acute care,

the service general says today

oversight failures were partly

indubitable to organisational

changes that were taking place

during the D12 health and social

care act. What is the government

going to do to ensure national

rarities are not allowed to

interfere with local oversight? The

report raises serious concerns about

the quality of health care in

prisons. HMP Liverpool has

significant challenges and the new

provider of the health service at

the prison has said it cannot

continue with the contract on the

level of funding available. Our

Ministry of Justice will investigate

these matters generally but can the

Minister assure us that prison

health care is properly supported

and resource to Merseyside and

elsewhere across the country? In

conclusion, paragraph one of the

review findings sums up the

devastating impact of these multiple

failings. It says, staff were

overstretched, demoralised and in

some instances bullied. That

significant unnecessary harm

occurred to patients. In the

unprecedented financial squeeze, the

NHS currently faces, we need

assurances from the Minister that

patients and staff will come before

finance and that is the last time

today we hear such a damning message

about what is going on in our NHS.

I

thank the Shadow Minister for those

questions and the manner in which

you put them before the House. In

terms of the first key issue he

raised, which is to what extent are

the measures in place now to address

this sort of issue, should it arise,

post Francis review, a trust with

high mortality rate, a new region

has been put in place in terms of

the Tube expected of hospitals, Ted

Baker, and also the specific regime

with NHS improvement. This is a

report that was commissioned by NHS

improvement itself, has a new chair

in Dido Harding, a senior figure

from the business community. That

regime has put in place 37 hospitals

into special measures so far. The

methodology used to allow it

regulators to areas of concern has

also been revised, so far more

importance is now placed on staff

surveys and patient surveys. Though

it does still remain to be explained

why a trust could pay as so many

compromise agreements, could respond

to so many staff disciplinary

issues, no doubt I recognise the

honourable gentleman will have many

concerns from the trade unions

locally. In terms of some of the

earlier reports, to what extent that

tingled concerns that should have

been addressed. That's why I

signalled my desire in my reports to

look at these issues and ensure

particularly round the fit and

proper test we ensure that those

address, though he will be aware the

fit and proper test only pertains to

board level appointments within the

NHS as opposed to all roles, so we

must look at the scope,

effectiveness of the investigation

and particularly as he recognised

the revolving door element. In terms

of other issues we raised, I think

we clearly need to ensure due

process is followed and I must

remind the House of the difficulties

around any enforcement with Goodwin,

if you look at Sharon Smith, and

child services, and people quite

rightly deserve to be able to expect

due process and all members of the

House would ask that. The victims

will rightly ask, how can the chief

executive with this catalogue of

issues then move within the NHS

rather than be fired? That is the

sort of question I know the Member

for West Lancashire has concerns

around an I'm sure many members of

the House likewise the House

committee. I look forward to working

with him in the spirit in which he

has raised these issues, I know they

are issues we share and issues the

House as a whole wants us to get a

hold of.

Could I start by paying

tribute to my colleague on the

health Select Committee, the Member

for West Lancashire? She is a

remarkable parliamentarian and

advocate the patient safety. We all

on the House Select Committee look

forward to working alongside her to

examine in full the recommendations

from the report. I welcome the

Minister 's commitment to taking

forward a review of the fit and

proper person test. On the wider

issues raised by this report,

clearly where you continue to cut

staff and funding from community

services that are terrible

consequences for patient care. Will

the Minister assure the House that

he will rework and closely alongside

the Care Quality Commission to

identify other trusts in which these

kinds of issues are likely to arise?

Because of the workforce and funding

pressures that are now being faced.

Happy to work with my honourable

friend with this, she will be aware

from reading the reports that what

drove this, to be explicit in making

clear the finances were there for

the existing service, that set out

at the outset of the report what

drove this was a wholly unrealistic

attempt to seek financial trust

status with a cost improvement plan

that was simply undeliverable. A

massive reduction without any

attempt to reconcile that with the

service levels of staffing

vacancies. When staff raise those

concerns, they were bullied and

harassed, on occasions was suspended

without due cause. The culture has

significantly changed and measures

have been put in place as to how NHS

improvement will address those

issues. In terms of seeing to what

extent the culture was driving this

issue, I refer back to the remarks I

made my speech where the new chief

executive went in and found a

significant underspend of £3 million

in the district nursing budget.

According to the report. At the same

time, that had significant vacancies

and patient harm. It was that

culture that was driving the issue

and is that culture we need to put

an end to.

I'd like to thank the

Minister for their statement on echo

his comments now, for the families

and staff involved in this over the

years. I also paid to be to the

honourable member for West

Lancashire, her tenacity sums up

what is wrong with the system at

present. In terms of observations

and recommendations, the Minister

has acknowledged some individuals

did not cooperate with the

investigation. Is there a case for

law changed to prevent this in the

future, or at very least employment

sanctions to apply to such

personnel? In terms of the fit and

proper person test the government

has put in place, any new standards

agreed high retrospectively to board

members currently in place? They

have acknowledge the revolving door

culture, it's important the fit and

proper test is done properly, and

will be review executive pay for

chief executives and senior staff.

What is going to be done to properly

protect whistle-blowers in future to

allow them to come forward? Clearly

funding and resources are really

important, and this report lays bare

the objectives of foundation status

and £30 million saving by 22%

reduction and resources, rather than

the true goal of clinical quality.

What is going to be done to ensure

that regulators pick up the search

contrasts in future, and what

responsibility does the government

take in terms of funding and that

drive for efficiency savings.

Lastly, does the Minister agree that

this confirms the failings of the

trust system and that going forward,

in the privatisation of the NHS,

with profit before care, that cannot

be allowed by the end of future

free-trade deals?

The honourable

gentleman raises an important point,

a number of important points, but

particularly around whistle-blowers

which is one of the warning signals

that clearly failed here.

Regulations have been changed as he

will be aware in the past, there was

a culture in which compromise

agreements were plied with gagging

clauses attached, which prevented

visibility of those comprise

agreements and that's why one of the

questions I have asked on receipt of

this report is widely compromise

agreements that were being paid were

not being escalated to the board and

indeed what site if any did

regulators have of those compromise

agreements. Clearly financial

payments will have been made and

therefore there should be an audit

trail around those payments. He also

raised the issue in terms of what

changes have been made, and another

area where my honourable friend the

Secretary of State has placed a huge

amount of importance given the

leadership is around patient safety

guardians and ensuring that within

trusts, there are people tasked

specifically with giving voice to

patients. My predecessor the Member

for Lindner in one of his many very

sensible areas of advice to me was

that wherever I go and visit a

trust, to have a one-on-one meeting

with that individual, in terms of

the status of that individual within

a trust and also in order to gather

information from them. That's

something I know he assiduously dead

on all his visits.

is is this is a report that was back

that goes back to 2010 in terms of

its timescale but it's important the

NHS learned from the issues that

were set out. Can I add my tribute

to the member for West Lancashire,

she is a formidable parliamentarian

and has done very good work on this.

This report is shocking.

Back in

March 2015 following another

incident, the public administration

Select Committee produced a report

investigating clinical incidents in

the NHS.

It recommended the setting up of the

health services safety investigation

Branch. The government has published

that draft bill. Could the minister

said when that bill will go into

pre-legislative scrutiny so we can

change this culture and have an open

and learning culture that we should

have in our NHS, very much as we see

in the airline industry.

My right

honourable friend raises a very

important point in terms of the

draft bill and consultation and I am

not in position to announce a date

for that, that will be announced by

Burgess -- business managers in the

usual way and we have to recognise

the importance of the series of

measures and she is quite right to

allude to that as one of the

measures in the review and the

France's report which is all part of

changing the culture, one I very

much want to signal to the House

today. The report identifies where

there are clearly remaining issues

that need to be tackled. That is the

service he has given to us through

this report we have to focus on

others government.

Thank you Mr

Speaker. Thank you for your

indulgence, I don't intend to test

your patience today by dealing with

the detail of these matters. I will

do that through the Select Committee

and other mechanisms available to

me. Thank you Mr Speaker. I will

thank the Minister for his kind

words and his comprehensive

statement in response to the

excellent work of Dr Kirkup and his

team. I would like to thank Dr

Kirkup and paid tribute to his

thoroughness and independence and

thank him most sincerely on behalf

of the staff and the patients in

Liverpool who suffered really badly

at the hands of this. I want to say

dictatorship, regime, whatever it

was but it was done in our name,

done in the name of the NHS and they

deserve justice. After the review,

the report and now this report, and

another report on the way and

hearing is due soon, it really is

important that the NHS ensures that

justice, not only is done, but this

seemed to be done. Governments of

all parties, the higher echelons of

the NHS have closed ranks to protect

themselves and this has got to stop.

The senior people were able to

inflict such harm on staff and

patients and just what into other

senior NHS jobs with 6-figure

salaries and in this case it be

arranged by the Northwest regional

of NHS, Lynn Simpson, it is simply

staggering. I still can't answer the

question as the Minister himself

posed, why wasn't the Chief

Executive and this board fired? Why

weren't they sacked? It's

incomprehensible. Nothing has been

learned over these last four years,

as only a few weeks ago, the NHS are

presiding over another LCA in the

Wirral Hospital trust. I will

continue to pursue these matters

with vigour on behalf of the staff

and patients. I would like to place

on record that I don't see, for

everybody who is affected, I don't

see this report is the end, far from

it. I know the Minister has a legal

and forensic background and I would

ask him, how will he assure this has

that these matters will be dealt

with properly by the executive and

there will be no more cover-ups.

Cover-ups and back door deals have

ended once and for all. I know the

Secretary of State has said on so

many occasions, this will stop and

we will not keep moving field

executives round and yet it

continues to happen and I will say,

quite honestly, that I asked the

question of a minister last year and

he answered me in good faith. He

said, the NHS I don't participate in

moving staff around, not only remain

unproven and nearly happened in the

Wirral a few weeks ago, the message

has got to go out that you do this

kind of stuff, we will make sure you

don't escape. The NHS has to be

accountable and those in

responsible.

I think the Honourable

lady for those comments and in reply

to her questions, as I set out in my

opening remarks, I have asked NHS

improvement and NHS clarify the

circumstances under which those

rules were bound and facilitated as

found in the sport for bearing

responsibilities with the issues

with the trust and that was a

central question that she pulls on

one in which I await the answer. In

terms of the sense of cover-up and

things Janey, I would point out that

the Secretary of State has provided

leadership in terms of the culture

change around patient safety and the

recognition is across the House

following the full situation in mid

Staffordshire that changes need to

be made on patient safety and the

NHS itself as recognise that. NHS

improvement also has new leadership

and the this report themselves. In

terms of the changes that have been

in place, I look to the sea QC

regime and the Chief Inspector and

methodology and speaking to him

yesterday, every hospital has now

been visited with that new

methodology and that programme will

now start to accelerate and target

as following visits have done. The

methodology used for that has

evolved in terms of the importance

in areas such as staff service.

There are a number of measures that

have been made and special measures

regime is also very much at the

heart of that, so a number of steps

which are taken. Is underpinned by

the fact we need a balance between

the duty of candour, the ability for

people to learn from mistakes, which

will happen in an organisation, an

appointment with 5 million people.

The sense that people are able to

escape responsibility by moving

within the system. From my

discussions with people within the

NHS, there is very much a

recognition of that, a recognition

that has changed significantly but

clearly in the issues that come from

this report today, the House will

have to see further reassurance. As

for her question as to how I will

insure and the government will

ensure that these issues are

implemented and not covered up, I

don't think anyone doubts the

honourable lady will be using all

the Parliamentary tools to proceed

with this matter, including as a

senior Member of the House Select

Committee, I'm aware that other

Members of the House Select

Committee on Liverpool waiver tree,

it is a former shadow health

minister, will take a significant

interest in this issue and I know

the cheer of the House Select

Committee will do so and I have had

regular discussions and look forward

and intense and the fit and proper

test and the issues we take forward

as to how we benefit from the

expertise from her celebrity, it is

clear there have measures and it is

right that we recognise that much

work has been done in the NHS to

change this culture to ensure the

warning signs are there and insurers

and this never happens again. It's

clear that there are specific issues

in the report that need to be

answered and I share very much her

desire that is needed.

There is

another ministerial statement to

follow and that although the debate

on matters to be raised before the

forthcoming settlement is not now

going to take place, no fewer than

19 honourable members wish to take

part in the debate on community

banking. There is a premium upon

brevity and having had these

important matters call aired,

affected no appeal to colleagues to

ask single sentence essay questions

without a great preamble for then we

will progress towards other matters.

My honourable friend will be aware

that he said that the situation was

at Liverpool prison with the trust

having no understanding of its

requirements and the role as health

provider, health care staff and a

very difficult situation. Does he

feel there is a need for better

liaison between health and justice?

Over these sorts of facilities in

prison? Is the CQC in a position to

carry out inspections or do they

need help? On the first point I

spoke with colleagues in the

Ministry of Justice yesterday on the

specific issue, I very much agree

with his position that standards of

care for those in prison should be

the same as those within the NHS

more widely, he will be aware that

NHS England have taken over

commissioning for health care

services 2013. Part of the changes

that have been made but they will

know that in the report there were

local factors like

conflict-of-interest referenced by

Dr Kirkup that goes to the heart of

the service in the local community

trust and in prisons. There were

local factors but he is right with

the wider issues that we need to

learn from.

How many members of the

board failed to co-operate with this

scathing review and can you name

them what might only one member of

the board cooperated with the review

from which one can the juice that

the rest did not.

Given I am

relatively new to this department,

it would be wise as a minister to

clarify to what extent individuals

should be named but I'm happy to

confirm that the chair of the board

did not cooperate.

Will the Minister agree with me that

this report shows that leadership

really matters in our local NHS and

what further steps can he take to

ensure that transparency, which is

so important to clinical quality and

patient safety can really be

understood as important for hospital

trusts.

The on already is absolutely

correct and that is why we are

increasing the numbers of doctors by

25% and looking at how we increased

the number of clinicians in

leadership positions within trusts

and how we actually insure that

variants within leadership, which is

one of the key issues, NHS has

billions needed by the variance

between trusts is far too wide and

those are the issues I'm looking at.

Given that health is devolved to the

Scottish Government you might wonder

why I asked what I ask but will the

Minister of State reassure me that

the report will be shared with the

Scottish NHS and Scottish Government

and can he reassure me that as and

when senior appointments are made,

there will be an ongoing

constructive and informed dialogue

across the border and you will see

why I ask that question.

Very happy to give him that the

issuance and he raises a very

important point because it's not

just those moving within the United

Kingdom that is an issue, its

potential was moving to a charity

that is providing services to the

NHS, it might be to a private

company providing health care or

other roles in the health care

landscape.

Did I press the minister

a little further on his reference to

work revolving doors and the

worrying statement that this is

facilitated by those who are tasked

with regulating it. Could I suggest

that the Minister also looks at

democratic accountability not just

within the appointments with

officials but also more widely in

the NHS.

And very happy to look at

the suggestions. He's a member of

house Select Committee and I alluded

in my remarks, my desire to work

with members of the committee on

these issues. Mr Speaker, if you

look at the previous debate we had,

the statement was about culture in

this house and what was heart of

both my honourable friend's question

and the issues seen here, is the

issue of culture and the need for

that culture to change and the

Secretary of State has done a great

deal on patient safety to do that

and I'm happy to work with the

honourable member to take that

further.

What lessons can be learned

by Liverpool community trust and

other underperforming trusts from

the successful turnaround of some 20

trusts under the government new

special measures scheme?

The honourable lady is quite right,

there are 37 trusts that have gone

into special motions but a number

have moved out not just of special

measures but from improvement into

good as well. That goes to a much

wider challenge within the NHS,

whether its procurement or workforce

planning, whether it's mentoring for

junior doctors. I met with the

family of a junior doctor last week,

regarding the issues around men

touring and support particularly in

the first year out of medical

College. There's a number of issues

which trusts have shown leadership

on and I think the key issue which

the special measures regime has

shown is the scope to use that best

practice much more widely across the

sixth. -- across the system.

I agree

it vital we expose and tackle

failings in the NHS especially when

they put people at harm. Does the

Minister agree that this case

highlights that money is not always

the only answer, also effective and

responsible leadership and

management.

At the heart of these

findings were what drove the issue

here is not money, he specifically

set that out in terms of the finance

services, the desire to seek

foundation trust status that led to

a wholly unrealistic cost

improvement plan, and link to that

it was the unwillingness to actually

address where issues arose as a

consequence of that.

I would like to

thank my constituency neighbour the

Member for West language for all the

work she has done on this issue. To

reiterate the point is that have

been made, it's important we have

the right culture in our NHS but

also that those who compromise

patient safety should be brought to

task and be punished. And that we

should know about this on the action

that is taken to them. It will just

keep happening if not.

My honourable

friend is absolutely right. If I

draw his attention to the statement

Ted Baker, the chief inspector of

hospitals has made, where he points

out one of the review findings which

is that the CTC are now in a better

position to find the challenge an

unsafe care and poor standards. That

is a finding from the doctor but it

also reflects the excellent work he

and his doctor had been doing to

ensure inspections are moving

forward and are much more rigorous.

In picking up the issues we have

today.

As a member of the Justice

Select Committee we have taken a

particular interest in Liverpool

prison. Will he assure me this

review will look at the suicide

potential business to the system is

right?

My honourable friend is right

to allude to learning those lessons,

particularly in the case of

vulnerable people in prison and the

risk accrued as a result. I spoke

with the Minister for offender

management yesterday, he was

actually at HMP Liverpool last week.

I know they have taken a great

interest in this report and I'm sure

will bring forward any further

actions in the usual way.

Thank you

Mr Speaker. Does my honourable

friend the -- see an ongoing role

for the doctor in order to keep

putting things right?

I am happy to

discuss the doctor Kirk moving

forward any future opportunities

like that. What is clear is this is

an excellent report and very much

builds on the work that he at

Morecambe. There is a huge amount

forced to take forward from the

findings in this report.

Statement,

the Parliamentary Secretary for

pensions and financial inclusion.

Thank you. With permission, I will

make a statement following the

Opposition Day debate on state

pension age, the decision to

equalise the state pension age for

men and women dates back to 1995 and

addresses a long-standing inequality

between men and women's state

pension age. This change is part of

a wider social trend towards gender

equality but was also a decision

partly as a result of legal cases

relating to pension provisions. In

the Brown years, a state pension

fixed at 65 was deemed no longer

affordable sustainable. The pensions

act of 2007 deemed an increased to

age 60 six, six to seven and 68. The

Coalition government wanted further

changes under the 2011 pensions act

which accelerated equalisation of

women's state pension age and

brought forward increase in men and

women's state pension age to 66 by

20 20. Parliament considered a range

of alternative options resulting in

a 1.1 billion concession that capped

the maximum increase any woman would

see in her state pension age at 18

months, relative to the 1995

timetable. Many members raise the

issue of communications in the

November debate. Since 1995, the

government has gone to significant

lengths to communicate these

changes. He were noted privately but

and an advertising campaign was

carried out. Individual letters were

posted out. Those affected by the

1995 act changes were sent letters

informing them of the changes with

the state pension age, with letters

sent to 1.2 million women. Those

affected by the 2011 act changes

were sent letters between January

2012 on November 2013 which involves

sending over 5 million letters on a

company leaflet. Life expectancy and

state spending what has driven these

changes. Society has changed in

countless ways since the 1950s and

life expectancy is no exception. A

girl born in 1951 was expected to

live to 81. A boy to 77. By 2018,

the latest ONS Coldwater begins show

an increase by over ten years for

nearly one girls and over 12 years

for boys. 292 and 89 respectively.

Life expectancy of old ages has also

gone up during this period and is

projected to continue to increase in

future years. These welcome

increases in life expectancy of

course have implications for the

state pension. As people live

longer, they invariably also spend

longer in retirement. Had we not

equalise the state pension, women

would be expected to stand over 40%

of their adult lives in retirement,

a proportion which would only

continue to increase. The situation

is not sustainable for any

government and means increasing

taxes for the working population.

Going as far as some campaigners

have urged and revoking the 1995

pensions act would represent a loss

of over £70 billion to the public

purse. The state pension must be

maintained an unaffordable bidding

for future generations of pensioners

and taxpayers, this necessitated the

government 's actions to equalise

and then increase the state pension

age to the pensions act of 1995,

2007, 2011 and 20 14. Any further

transitional arrangement would, at

great cost, the government has

considered many options and all of

the proposals will be wrought with

substantial legal problems as well

as financial ones. Any amendment to

current legislation which creates a

new inequality between men and women

would unquestionably be highly

dubious as a matter of law. Causing

younger people to bear a greater

share of the cost of the pension

system in this way would be unfair

and undermine the principle of

intergenerational fairness that is

integral to our state pension

reforms. Let me turn to some of the

proposals from the debate. In

relation to the SNP, they seek a

full compensation package of at very

least the reverse of the 2011 act,

the SNP cost of this at £8 million

but we suggest this is a vast

underestimate. This will actually

cost the taxpayer over £30 billion

and potentially more. There is no

doubt the Scotland Act gives the

Scottish Government the power as it

needs to address this issue. The

party opposite have made multiple

suggestions with many seeking the

full compensation packages of 70

billion, in addition they have

proposed in their manifesto keeping

the state pension age at 66. This

would cost over 250 billion more

than the government's preferred

timetable by 2045, 40 six. Payments

on this scale are an affordable and

cannot be justified. The key choice

the government faces is to increase

state pension age or pay lower

pensions, with an inevitable impact

on pensioner poverty. The only

alternative is to ask the working

generation to pay an even larger

share of their income to support

pensioners. I believe successive

governments have made appropriate

the difficult decisions to equalise

and increase the state pension age.

A significant concession was made in

the 2011 so no woman would see an

increase to her state pension age of

more than 18 months relative to the

1995 timetable. To renege on

decisions and further increase costs

to the public, especially the

working population, would be unfair

and unaffordable.

I thank the

Minister for his statement and for

arranging to let me have sight of it

early this morning. The state

pension for women born in the 1950s

should be set in the wider context

of the government's I have to say

uninspiring track record on

pensions. Last July the government

announced it would be bringing

forward the increase in the state

pension age to 68 in 2037,

justifying this on the increase in

the life expectancy, however in the

same week the renowned expert on

life expectancy, Professor Michael

marmot described how a century long

rise in life expectancy was in his

words pretty close to having ground

to a halt. And had, in his words,

outlined since 2010. In part, I have

to say the consequence of government

policy on posterity. Since then,

statisticians from the official

office of statistics revealed by

2041, the life expectancy for men

and women would be a year less than

had been projected just two years

previously. In addition, the ONS has

revealed that though women continue

to live longer in good health than

men, their healthy life expectancy

has decreased since 2009. Yet more

evidence from Public Health England

shows how deep inequalities in a

healthy life expectancy remain. On

average, people in the UK are now

projected to live shorter lives than

previously estimated. Does the

Minister agree? Yet it is in this

context that the government is

failing women born in the 1950s.

This statement does nothing to

address the pensions injustice these

women face. The government has had

multiple opportunities to act, so

why is the Minister again refusing

to use the opportunity of a motion

passed by this House to do so to

take further steps. It is

unacceptable that we are having to

make the same argument and raise the

same points again, because this

government continues to refuse to

help these women who are suffering

and losing out due to the

acceleration of the state pension

age and lack of proper notice. This

issue is not going to go away. Why

does the government continued to act

as though it will? This statement is

sadly but not unsurprisingly yet

another example of the government's

failure to give women born in the

1950s the dignity and respect they

deserve. It is a missed opportunity

to take real action. We have all

heard stories, often heartbreaking,

from many thousands of women

affected by the changes of how the

situation they face is one of

desperation and fear of poverty.

Like Christine in my own

constituency, 62, now having to wait

till 66 to retire, husband had just

died, father had just died, and in

her words, not the cleaning jobs are

bad thing but I've never done a

cleaning job in my life, I'm now

having to do three to make ends meet

until such time until I can retire.

It is wrong. It is to the government

's shame that it refuses to

recognise the very real basis for

the fears of women like Christie.

What immediate measures for the

government take to adjust this

appalling situation. Does the

Minister understand how difficult it

is for many women in their 60s to

retrain and access decent work? What

support will his government offer

these women or will he repeat the

bizarre proposal made on the other

side of the House that they might

take up apprenticeships. As we have

repeatedly set out, there are

several immediate actions that the

government could and should take but

time and again they have refused.

Can the Minister explain why he

refuses to offer women a affected by

government changes to the state

pension age is a cost neutral option

to draw their state pension at age

64 as we have proposed. This would

allow women who choose it to retire

up to two years earlier. The pension

age is due to rise due to 66 by the

end of 2020, we reject the proposal

from the government to increase the

state pension age even further. We

believe and will act to put in place

a new review of the pension age

specifically tasked with developing

a flexible retirement policy to

reflect both the contributions made

by people, the wide variations in

life expectancy, and the arduous

conditions of some work. It is also

right to extend pension credit to

those who were due to retire before

the increase in the pension age.

Hundreds of thousands of women would

benefit from this offer. Will the

Minister look again at this

proposal? Can I say in conclusion,

this statement sadly it does nothing

to help 1950s born women. Action not

words are needed if the government

is to restore some of the faith and

dignity that many people feel they

have lost as a result of the

government 's refusal to act and to

introduce proper transitional

procedures. These are women, the

women of Britain, who built this

country. They deserve nothing less.

Make responses along the lines that

he seeks an independent review of

state pension age and the government

did that last year.

The review was

independent of government and major

conclusions exactly as set out in

the Labour Party manifesto that

review made support to the assertion

that the government put forward

full. The second issue is that the

Labour Party used to be credible on

matters of finance, sadly that has

long gone. The Labour Party under

the previous Prime Minister Tony

Blair and Gordon Brown as the 2007

act which raised the state pension

age, we now have the bizarre

situation that the Labour Party

manifesto says that state pension

age should not go beyond 66. They

are going back upon their own

decision in 2007. The credibility is

sadly lacking and further

complicated by the reliance upon the

Shadow Secretary of State and he

repeated it today. He makes it clear

and I quote from his report, the

improvement in life expectancy at

birth, which had been around in one

increase every five years for women

and every 3.5 for men had slowed

since 2010 to a one-year increase

every ten years for women and every

six years for men. The point being

Mr Speaker, the increase is still

going ahead. It may have slowed to a

degree but is still rising. Life

expectancy continues to rise. The

Labour Party in 2004 agreed that the

office for National statistics

figures should be the figures that

are accepted and were then followed

by the Labour Party thereafter. The

ONS did a report last year in

December on the life expectancy at

birth and in 50 years' time by 2060

seeks, I've expectancy is projected

to reach 98 years for females and 96

for males. Going forward in 2018, we

have women that life expectancy on

90 to one birth and 89 for men. I

can briefly touch upon in relation

to the full working life strategy,

something the Labour Party used to

support and I'm sad to say they

don't seem to support. 1.2 million

people in employment over the age of

65, something that should be

celebrated. It is entirely right

that retraining might not be

suitable for everyone but it's also

right that governments of every kind

should give opportunities to those

who wish to take those things up.

The number of apprenticeships starts

with 53,004 people between the ages

of 45 and 59 and over 60, 3400 and a

nine-month period. That is thousands

of people taking thousands of

opportunities for retraining and it

should be supported.

I remind the

House of the substantial business to

follow which is heavily subscribed,

so there is a premium upon brevity.

From both back and front benches

alike. Minimum preliminary, survey a

focus on the question to the

Minister.

I will come the truth,

what impact assessments have the

carried out to assess the impact on

women born in the 1950s as a result.

There were multiple impact

assessments carried out in 1995, in

2007 and 2011 and these matters were

debated at great length in both

houses of parliament on an ongoing

basis.

I thank the Minister for the

advance statement but it doesn't say

very much that's new. The government

seems unable to accept that

irrespective of their policy of

abstaining opposition days, there's

a clear majority in this house in

support of the 1950s women. Five

Conservative backbenchers, six

members voted for the SNP motion on

the 29th of November, that's the

second biggest rebellion in this

Parliament. Perhaps rather than just

more bluster and passing the buck,

the government should be looking at

bringing forward proposals to

address the motion. Improved

transitional arrangements for women

born after the 6th of April 1951

that have been affected by the

acceleration and increasing state

pension age. That is the will of has

expressed time and again and is not

good enough for the Minister to win

a red herring at the tender Scottish

parliament can resolve the

situation. The pension system and

the state pension age is reserved.

The Scotland Act is clear about

that, the Scottish Parliament cannot

make benefits by way of old-age.

It's not the job of the Scottish

Parliament to clean up the mess made

by this UK Government and is not the

job of the Scottish taxpayer to

effectively paid twice to mitigate

the impact of Tory cuts was the

government continues to ignore this

house and the voices of the 1950s

women, they should get ready for

further debate, questions, petitions

and amendments to legislation

because nobody is going away. This

week that had been celebrating the

suffrage campaign and its not by

coincidence that he was the women

have chosen their colours or their

campaign. That was

in the government must do them

justice and pay out.

The honourable

gentleman will know full well that

the Scotland Act gave a variety of

powers under sections 26, 28 and 24

and crucially it is the case that if

an individual is of working age then

they can be addressed with

assistance by the Scottish

Government, not my words, set out in

coastal clear detail on the 22nd of

June by Jean Freeman, my opposite

number in Scotland and I remind the

honourable gentleman on the Scottish

National Party manifesto which

included a commitment to assess the

impact of these changes and the

options open to the Scottish

Government to provide support to

these women. The support, I suggest

is there, I have written to both my

opposite number and the leader of

the West Minister SNP saying that

you can go ahead, the British

Government is not objected to it in

any way that he should get on with

it.

The Minister is aware of my

support for local women in Murray

and I supported the opposition on

the motion brought forward. Can I

ask you to update as for the women

looking at the legal challenge taken

forward by the women affected by

these changes.

The honourable

gentleman will be aware there is a

legal challenge which has been

brought forward. I can't comment on

the outcome of it, it will be

resisted by the government. We do

not believe it has merit but clearly

that is a matter for the women to

pursue if they want to do but it

will be definitely be resisted.

I'm

a fit the Minister missed the point,

never mind the anger of 1950s women.

Today my honourable friend for Stoke

Central, a citywide pensions road

show is happening. So many women

affected by this that demand has

outstripped supply and we cannot let

everybody in. When will these women

see answers and when will they have

transitional arrangements.

This

matter was debated at great length

in 1995, 2007 under the Labour

government and was a matter that if

the Labour government wished to

alter the decision they could have

done so. That particular stage, they

take the view that they were

fiscally sensible and in 2011 this

matter was debated by Parliament and

there was a concession of £1.1

billion after much consideration by

the size by way of concession.

I can

only assume that the minister really

doesn't get this. The consequences

and the strength of feeling, not

just amongst the 1950s women but

amongst colleagues is extremely

angry. I can offer some help, maybe,

if he was to meet with myself and

the honourable member for East

Worthing and Shoreham, we could

share with them the findings of

consultation we recently undertook

on behalf of the state pension

equality committee. Maybe then we

could talk him through the problem

and encourage him to do the right

thing. Acknowledge the problem and

come up with a respectful and serve.

With respect, this matter has been

debated since 1995, long before I

arrived in this house and before the

Honourable ready arrived in the size

and successive governments have

taken a similar view as to the

appropriateness of the action based

on affordability, work ability and

the quality of the legislation.

There is a shortage of time for any

business contacts. All the political

parties are involved in this, the

Conservative, Labour over 13 years

did little. None of us have a clean

hand. Secondly, I would urge the

Minister to address freedom possible

-- the possible options.

Labourers's

cost neutral option, giving some

indication of transition and would

be Minister accept, the

Parliamentary ombudsman took some

cases and concluded that

communication has been absolutely

shocking by all the political

governments. -- governance.

The

honourable gentleman walked through

the lobby with myself in 2011 to

pass the 2011 act when a Liberal

party was a party of financial

discipline. I believe that we took

the right decision at the particular

time for that the so-called cost

neutral option, I can sure the

honourable gentleman that it is

neither workable nor cost neutral

and certainly it is the case that on

an ongoing basis, the government is

sticking to the position it has put

forward since 1995, the Labour

government forward for 13 years and

the coalition government to give in

2011.

The Minister has made a sad

binary choice between paying a lower

pensions or increasing state pension

age but tensions within government

spending is only one aspect. This

government has introduced

Corporation tax which will cost the

taxpayer £50 billion by the year

2025 other tax cuts will cost £50

million, so my honourable friend for

Glasgow North, Parliamentary

arithmetic is in favour of changes.

Will he take control and actually

make some sensible choices? We will

massively disagree on economic

theory and taxation because we

believe it is right to cut taxes for

business because businesses are what

create the payments that pay for the

public sector that we also support.

The key choice, Mr Speaker, is

whether government is able to

increase state pension age or pay

lower pensions, that is about the

honourable gentleman seems unable to

accept but I do not agree with as

poster taxation. During the

Minister's rather disappointing and

predictable statement, he said again

as the Prime Minister has toonie and

an answer last year, that the women

will make more weight more than 18

months and it isn't true. Some women

awaiting six years seven months. Can

he explain in very simplistic terms

how it is these women are wrong and

the government are right because

these women are waiting and waiting

and they are not getting their

pensions.

I can refer him to the

point that I made in the speech by

way of opening on the statement

earlier. The simple point is that

the 1995 act brought forward state

pension age to 65. The Labour

government then increase that foot

of the coalition government then

increased and accelerated the

process early for that reason why it

is referred as an 18 month

acceleration in 2011 is because that

is relative to the 1995 act

timetable.

I recently attended the launch of

the WASPI Women in my constituency

and one issue that was raised was

the issue of the arbitrary deadline

of the 31st of March of this year

for those wishing to make a

complaint. The lack of notice they

received about these proposed

changes. Can the Minister confirm

that as a deadline on the 31st of

March and the reason for it?

I can

get a precise answer to that but I

will write to him on that specific

point but it is the case is the

maladministration claims being

brought whether it is to the

Independent Case Examiner or whether

it is through the ombudsman itself.

I will write to him with the

details.

We now come to the Select

Committee Statement. The honourable

lady, the member for Wakefield, the

chair of the environmental audit

committee will speak on the subject

for up to ten minutes, during which,

I remind the House, no interventions

will be taken. The conclusion of the

statement, I will call honourable

members to put questions on the

subject of the statement and call

the honourable member for Wakefield

to respond to these in turn. Members

can expect to be called only once.

Interventions should be questions

and should be brief. The front bench

may take part in questioning.

Thank

you very much Mr Speaker, I am

grateful to you and the Backbench

Business community for giving me the

opportunity make this statement on

behalf of the environmental audit

committee about oversight report of

this session. I'm delighted to share

with has a religious report. The

Ministry of Justice and

environmental sustainability, our

committee's remit includes carrying

and regular sustainability audits of

government departments and agencies.

And, working closely with the

National Audit Office, we look at

whether departments are doing enough

to meet their commitments. In the

last Parliament, we published

sustainability audit on the Treasury

and on the Department for Transport

for the stop --. This is... Why did

we choose the Minister of Justice?

The Government is the largest... The

Government should be leading from

the front on sustainability. It has

signed up to the UN's global goals,

and the green and Government

commitments, which can commit

departments to reduce their impact

on the environment, and it is

committed to Government buying

standards on procurement. These

three things, the global goals, the

commitments, and the buying

standards are all aimed at improving

sustainability. The Ministry of

Justice has the second-largest

estate in Government across 1600

sites. It accounts for 20%

Government's greenhouse gas, waste

and water emissions. It is the

second largest buyer of goods and

services in Government. It spent

£4.6 billion through external

suppliers in 2015-2016. The

committee recognises the financial

pressures that the courts and prison

services are under, but being green

brings franchise still -- financial

benefits. By improving the way that

they use energy, waste and water.

So, the ministry is committed to

putting sustainable development at

the heart of everything it does, and

we, with the assistance of the NAR

examined whether this was happening.

First, we were disappointed that the

sustainable goals were not mentioned

in the ministry's departmental plan,

despite the Government promising us

that they would appear in every

departmental plan. This is a

worrying trend across Government.

Second, how audit and covered

significant weaknesses relating to

how the ministry manages its sites,

its buildings and refurbishment

projects, is carbon emissions,

vehicle fleet, and its approach to

policy-making. On sites, the

ministry's estate is one of the most

ecological diverse in Government.

Its prison and immigration removal

Centre and centres to contain ten

sites are specific interest. Only

two of which are in a favourable

position. We heard about one

contract who destroyed a national

important protected orchid meadow

but was not penalised or held to

account through the contract. The

ministry wants all of its new

buildings to achieve an excellent

rate under the building research

environmental assessment method, so

new buildings are excellent. It

wants... We found that the ministry

has not assessed the environmental

performance for nearly two thirds of

its new build and refurbishment

projects. Of the 54 that did get the

significant Amax certificate, 14

rail to meet the required standard.

But, also, risk the health of

inmates from overheating. When the

analysis being put forward, it is

predicated on good or at excellent

standards being achieved, so the

building costs more to one or to

manage, so that it is not actually

meeting the project case that has

been set out. We also examined her

Majesty's courts and Tribunal

services. Since 2010, 103

magistrates and 54 County Court have

closed, and the ministry is

consulting on plans to close nine

more courts. There were gaps in

guidance to staff on how to sell off

court tribunal is, and the oversight

of the contractors also showed gaps.

For example, people tasked with

selling these buildings were unaware

of their statutory duty to tell

historic England if the buildings

were listed, or of particular local

significance, and failed to minimise

the risk of new owners letting the

buildings fall into disrepair. In my

own constituency, a building has

been left to fall into ruins after

being sold, and that leads local

taxpayers to foot the bill. On

flights, and reducing its carbon

footprint, the ministry did not meet

its targets. In fact, domestic

flights are increasing. We found

that people flying between London

and Anglesey 108 flights in one

year, when there is a perfectly good

train service. 98 flights between

London and Cardiff. Flight also

between Manchester and... The

ministry did not provide any

explanation for the increase. On

vehicles, in the autumn by object,

the Chancellor committed that 25% of

all cars in central Government

departments should be electric, yet

only two of the ministry's 1500

vehicle car Ultra low emission

vehicles. We find that the ministry

does not systematically undertaken

by mental impact assessments for new

policies, and there is a particular

example of this: The Government

tried to remove the fix cap... But,

failed to look at the environmental

impact of this decision, despite

environmental groups saying that it

would have a chilling effect on

access to environmental justice.

During our hearing, the ministry

acknowledged many of its

shortcomings, and has been working

to improve its oversight, consistent

and performance. This is welcome,

but we urge it to improve in three

areas: To follow it in guidance when

making policy. There is a certain

irony about the department tasked

with upholding the law failing to

meet its own legal requirements in

certain areas, and providing

guidance to staff and contractors,

and finally, to improve oversight of

governments were sustainability,

including governance of its

contractors, particular, for

example, on buying standards around

prison food. So, our

recommendations, we want the

ministry to set more ambitious

targets for 2019 - 2020. We found

that it was setting its targets too

low. So that then they could say, we

have met them a year or two early.

That is no good. They need to be

setting on the right side of

impossible. They need to develop the

sustainability policies and set the

global goals and set that Howard

will meet existing targets. It is to

improve it estate management and

systematically collect environmental

ratings that are bigots for all

refurbishment and new build

projects. It should survive -- --

rating certificates for all of our

bushman and new build projects. It

should provide guidance for

oversight on contractors but how to

manage estate sustainably. This is

including an specific scientific

interests. This is particularly

important in the wake of the

collapse of Carillion which was an

contractor on several prisons that

we look at. They must show

leadership to the rest of central

Government on sustainability. So, Mr

Speaker, if the UK is to be the at

least for grant of sustainability,

the Government must lead by example.

The Ministry of Justice is failing

to meet this requirement. If the

ministry's responds to our report, I

expect to see a clear plan X getting

how can sons and addressing our

goals. I look forward to the

Government to's response, and in

this overlooked but vital part of

Government activity. I thank you Mr

Speaker and the House for giving me

the opportunity to raise this today.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I

would like to thank the honourable

member for Wakefield for her very

detailed and considered report. And

the point that she makes today,

these invaluable point that she has

made and the Ministry of Justice

will respond in due course in the

usual way.

Except for that grace

less tribute for the minister, such

has been a force in the incisiveness

as well as the cobwebs of scope of

the honourable lady's statement.

That she has left the House

speechless. I trust that the

appropriate extract from the

official report will be put up on

her wall in one of the rooms in her

home.

LAUGHTER

We also now come to the second

select committee statement. The

committee is the same as the

previous treatment, and I called the

chair of the work and pensions

select committee.

Mr Speaker I hope

that I will leave the House silenced

by my report, to them. But, to do so

in record speed. On the 5th of

December, last year, the House

passed a motion saying that the you

select committee for Work and

Pensions Secretary reviewed the five

project assessment reviews on

Universal Credit. The Government

went beyond that. All of the papers

were almost unreadable. That, they

are now, thanks to turn from pigs is

into a silk purse. Owes everything

to our clerk and when members read