21/02/2018

0:00:00 > 0:00:03Herb to do so. I don't think we can detain the Chamber now. -- her to do

0:00:03 > 0:00:08so. We will leave it there for now. If there are no further points of

0:00:08 > 0:00:15order, we come to the statement from the Secretary of State for Health

0:00:15 > 0:00:19and social care.Secretary Jeremy Hunt. With permission I would like

0:00:19 > 0:00:23to make a statement setting out the action government is taking to

0:00:23 > 0:00:27address public concerns regarding the safety of medicines and medical

0:00:27 > 0:00:33devices used by the NHS. On Friday I will host campaigners, clinicians

0:00:33 > 0:00:39and safety experts from across the world as part of the patient safety

0:00:39 > 0:00:43and science summit, being held for the first time outside the United

0:00:43 > 0:00:55States in London. We will release up reports on the extent of medical,

0:00:55 > 0:00:59medication errors. There are three areas of potential medication error

0:00:59 > 0:01:16that I wish to update the house on. The first is Primidos, hormone

0:01:16 > 0:01:20-based medication that was prescribed to one and a half million

0:01:20 > 0:01:26women before it was withdrawn from use in 1978, partly due to more

0:01:26 > 0:01:32modern pregnancy tests becoming available. The second is an

0:01:32 > 0:01:36anti-epilepsy drug which has been definitively linked to autism and

0:01:36 > 0:01:41learning disabilities in children were taken during pregnancy.

0:01:41 > 0:01:48Campaigners have suggested up to 20,000 children may be affected. The

0:01:48 > 0:01:52third is the giant zero mesh implants which are used to address

0:01:52 > 0:01:55covered patients after childbirth which have been linked to crippling

0:01:55 > 0:02:01life changing side-effects. Of course our first thoughts are with

0:02:01 > 0:02:04the individuals and families whose lives have been turned upside down

0:02:04 > 0:02:14by these issues. Many have enjoyed and continued to endure

0:02:14 > 0:02:20complications, distress and ill-health, alongside a strong sense

0:02:20 > 0:02:24that their concerns have not reached a satisfactory resolution. I paid

0:02:24 > 0:02:30particular tribute to those who have responded to such experiences, not

0:02:30 > 0:02:36just with understandable anger, but with also a resolute determination

0:02:36 > 0:02:40to campaign for change. Many have met ministers and members of this

0:02:40 > 0:02:46House and I thank everyone who has written to me or spoken to me

0:02:46 > 0:02:50personally to raise these concerns on behalf of their constituents. We

0:02:50 > 0:02:57must acknowledge that the response to these issues from those in

0:02:57 > 0:03:01positions of authority have not been good enough. Sometimes the reaction

0:03:01 > 0:03:04felt overly focused on defending the status quo rather than addressing

0:03:04 > 0:03:09the needs of patients. As a result, patients and their families have

0:03:09 > 0:03:15spent too long feeling as though they have not been listened to,

0:03:15 > 0:03:20making the agony of a complicated medical situation worse. Today, in

0:03:20 > 0:03:25addition to practical steps for each of these three cases, I am setting

0:03:25 > 0:03:29out plans to establish a fairer, quicker and more compassionate ways

0:03:29 > 0:03:32of addressing issues when they arise, bringing different voices to

0:03:32 > 0:03:37the table from the start and giving individuals and their families a

0:03:37 > 0:03:42clear path to answers and resolution. In terms of immediate

0:03:42 > 0:03:48action in each of the three cases, on Primidos I've asked my

0:03:48 > 0:03:52ministerial colleague Lord O'Shaughnessy had to drive forward

0:03:52 > 0:03:57where possible accelerate the recommendations of the expert

0:03:57 > 0:04:00working group, further strengthening our systems for monitoring the

0:04:00 > 0:04:04safety of medicines in pregnancy. This will include offering the

0:04:04 > 0:04:07families of the Association for children damaged by hormone

0:04:07 > 0:04:12pregnancy tests for up-to-date genetic clinical evaluation. Better

0:04:12 > 0:04:17information for pregnant women and their families, better training and

0:04:17 > 0:04:19support for obstetricians, better evidence around dosing

0:04:19 > 0:04:26recommendations, making electronic yellow card reporting directly

0:04:26 > 0:04:30available to clinicians and patients at the point of care and stronger

0:04:30 > 0:04:37and more joined up messages on safety. On the autism drug, the

0:04:37 > 0:04:43issue is broader than the UK and the outcome of the EU review expected in

0:04:43 > 0:04:48March will strengthen our position. In preparation we have tossed system

0:04:48 > 0:04:53leaders with coordinating a rapid response, responding to calls from

0:04:53 > 0:05:07patients as well we have introduced a new warning symbol.

0:05:08 > 0:05:12We are strengthening alerts across all GP systems and community

0:05:12 > 0:05:22pharmacy systems as the those women who benefit from the treatment,

0:05:22 > 0:05:29offering more information. On the journal mesh, I've spoken to the

0:05:29 > 0:05:34Chief Medical Officer regarding a complete ban. She is clear that

0:05:34 > 0:05:40clinical experts here and abroad have noted that many women will gain

0:05:40 > 0:05:46benefits from this when used properly. Therefore a full ban is

0:05:46 > 0:05:51not appropriate. However this is not to minimise the suffering that many

0:05:51 > 0:05:56women have experienced, which is why today I can announce we will be

0:05:56 > 0:06:00publishing a retrospective audit to investigate the link between patient

0:06:00 > 0:06:06level data to explore outcomes and investing £1.1 million to develop a

0:06:06 > 0:06:13database for the final -- for the journal mesh. This will improve the

0:06:13 > 0:06:21way regulators and the NHS deal with issues relating to joiner not mesh

0:06:21 > 0:06:24and Valproate, as well as ensuring the safety of medicines during

0:06:24 > 0:06:31pregnancy. But that it has taken so long to do with these issues raises

0:06:31 > 0:06:37other questions. It's a principle of patient safety about the regular

0:06:37 > 0:06:42environment gives voice to legitimate concerns reported by

0:06:42 > 0:06:44patients, families and campaigners and works alongside them and

0:06:44 > 0:06:51response to them in a rapid, open and compassionate way to resolve

0:06:51 > 0:06:55issues when they raise. My view is that this did not happen in the way

0:06:55 > 0:07:00I would expect in these three cases. To do better in the future we need

0:07:00 > 0:07:05to ensure that patient voices are brought to the table and

0:07:05 > 0:07:10systematically and consistently as other voices in the system. So today

0:07:10 > 0:07:14I have asked for a review to be conducted into what happened in each

0:07:14 > 0:07:21of these three cases, including Whetherby processes pursued to date

0:07:21 > 0:07:23have been satisfactory and to make recommendations on what should

0:07:23 > 0:07:29happen in the future. She will assess firstly the robustness and

0:07:29 > 0:07:32speed of the process is followed by the relevant authorities and

0:07:32 > 0:07:42clinical bodies to make sure appropriate guidelines are followed.

0:07:42 > 0:07:49Also, did the appropriate bodies engage with those who are concerned

0:07:49 > 0:08:06properly. Whether there has been sufficient communication and and how

0:08:06 > 0:08:10we look at cases in the future. When there has been widespread harm,

0:08:10 > 0:08:15there needs to be a fuller or even statutory public enquiry.

0:08:15 > 0:08:20Recommendations will be made as to the right process to make sure

0:08:20 > 0:08:24justice is done and maintain public confidence that such decisions have

0:08:24 > 0:08:30been taken fairly. Whilst I'm delivery leaving the terms of this

0:08:30 > 0:08:39open, I've asked that we consider how we strike the right balance. How

0:08:39 > 0:08:49to best support patients when there might not be a scientific issue, but

0:08:49 > 0:09:00they have suffered harm. Whether a patient's champion will raise as a

0:09:00 > 0:09:05point of contact, ensuring that concerns are heard and responded to

0:09:05 > 0:09:11and how any new entity interacts with new bodies. Recognising that

0:09:11 > 0:09:13this has been an issue that many honourable members have been

0:09:13 > 0:09:23concerned about, I've asked the baroness to meet with other parties

0:09:23 > 0:09:32early on in the process. We are proud of the NHS. Much of this have

0:09:32 > 0:09:37been built on the strong connection between scientific discovery and and

0:09:37 > 0:09:42medical process but innovation requires safeguards, including a

0:09:42 > 0:09:47culture of learning to protect against the unintended consequences

0:09:47 > 0:09:51of new technology and a clear focus on the treatment of patients and

0:09:51 > 0:09:58their families affected by these consequences. From Mid Staffs to

0:09:58 > 0:10:02southern health, patients and their families have had to spend too much

0:10:02 > 0:10:09time and energy trying to access hearings for their concerns. The

0:10:09 > 0:10:22stress of campaigning, sometimes in the face of a closed ranked system

0:10:22 > 0:10:29is adding insult to injury. I work regular tree system is in many ways

0:10:29 > 0:10:34were bleeding, but it also needs to add to a changing environment and

0:10:34 > 0:10:38draw intelligently on multiple sources of feedback to protect the

0:10:38 > 0:10:42safety of patients. So the announcement today will build a

0:10:42 > 0:10:48system that listens, hears and acts with speed, compassion and

0:10:48 > 0:10:51proportionality, strengthening the commitment to patient safety which

0:10:51 > 0:11:04is at the heart of this government and this house's ideal. I welcome

0:11:04 > 0:11:09the tone of his remarks and generally welcome his commitment to

0:11:09 > 0:11:16review medical device safety. I do know the Labour manifesto of 2017

0:11:16 > 0:11:20called for an enquiry into this. The announcement today is an

0:11:20 > 0:11:29acknowledgement that there are major issues that go back decades. Members

0:11:29 > 0:11:33across this House have offered moving testimonies about the

0:11:33 > 0:11:42devastating impact of mesh, Primidos and sodium Valproate that has

0:11:42 > 0:11:48affected the lives of many children and women. I'd like to pay tribute

0:11:48 > 0:11:52to all the campaign and MPs from all sides, especially those who have

0:11:52 > 0:12:01worked so hard with the all-party groups. They spent many years

0:12:01 > 0:12:06campaigning for justice on these issues. We've heard how mesh

0:12:06 > 0:12:10implants have left women in permanent pain, unable to walk,

0:12:10 > 0:12:14unable to work. This is an ongoing public health scandal and we hope

0:12:14 > 0:12:21the government will do much more to support those affected.

0:12:21 > 0:12:24Mesh has been suspended in Scotland and banned in other countries around

0:12:24 > 0:12:30the world. I understand it has been paused in the case of prolapse. Will

0:12:30 > 0:12:33he consider suspending the use of it totally while this review is carried

0:12:33 > 0:12:43out? On primados, he said he will follow-up recommendations of the

0:12:43 > 0:12:47expert working group, but does he accept that this report was met with

0:12:47 > 0:12:52concern from all sides of the House? Campaigners branded it a whitewash.

0:12:52 > 0:12:58I am grateful that he has included sodium valproate. My own

0:12:58 > 0:13:02constituent, Emma Friedman, took sodium valproate during and after

0:13:02 > 0:13:07her pregnancy, leaving her son with severe autism, along with hearing

0:13:07 > 0:13:11and sight problems. Andrew, who is now waiting, needs round the clock,

0:13:11 > 0:13:16full-time care. Emma, like thousands of others affected, was never fully

0:13:16 > 0:13:21informed of the risks of taking sodium valproate during pregnancy.

0:13:21 > 0:13:26Last year, a charity survey found that almost one fifth of women

0:13:26 > 0:13:29taking this drug still don't know the risks this medicine can pose

0:13:29 > 0:13:34during pregnancy. So, I welcome the Government efforts to raise

0:13:34 > 0:13:38awareness of the issues, but can he tell us if the review will look at

0:13:38 > 0:13:42the guidelines for clinicians who prescribed sodium valproate to women

0:13:42 > 0:13:48of child-bearing age? Mr Speaker, we do offer this review our support,

0:13:48 > 0:13:54though we note it falls short of the calls for a full public enquiry that

0:13:54 > 0:13:59campaigners have been demanding. Can he give the House and absolute

0:13:59 > 0:14:05reassurance that this review will gain access to at medicine

0:14:05 > 0:14:09regulation files held on The National Archives, access to

0:14:09 > 0:14:15valuable evidence cited in what were on unsuccessful legal actions,

0:14:15 > 0:14:19access to files held by pharmaceutical companies, and that

0:14:19 > 0:14:23all such information will be made public? Does he agree that those

0:14:23 > 0:14:26affected must have trust and confidence in this review? Who will

0:14:26 > 0:14:31the noble Baroness report to? And who will provide the Secretariat to

0:14:31 > 0:14:38this review? I say this with no sense of this courtesy to the

0:14:38 > 0:14:44Department, but does he agree that the review must be independent to

0:14:44 > 0:14:47avoid any sense of conflict of interest that has hampered previous

0:14:47 > 0:14:54enquiries? I understand the terms of reference, but can I press him to

0:14:54 > 0:14:58undertake to ensure that victims agree with the terms of reference in

0:14:58 > 0:15:02order to maintain trust and confidence in this review? Also, is

0:15:02 > 0:15:08he now ruling out a full public enquiry, or is he saying to the

0:15:08 > 0:15:13victims to wait until the outcome of this review? And when can we expect

0:15:13 > 0:15:21this review to report back to the House? More broadly, can the

0:15:21 > 0:15:26Secretary of State agree that there will be three separate strands

0:15:26 > 0:15:29looking at each of the issues in depth to ensure that nothing gets

0:15:29 > 0:15:35watered down and lost was like in the broader context of Brexit, where

0:15:35 > 0:15:38uncertainty remains as we leave the European medicines agency, does he

0:15:38 > 0:15:42agree that this review must inform the regulatory systems are the

0:15:42 > 0:15:45future and take into account how we best cooperate with other regulators

0:15:45 > 0:15:51after Brexit? What assurances can he offer the House that medicines and

0:15:51 > 0:15:57devices women use today, especially pregnant women, will not become the

0:15:57 > 0:16:04tragic and desperate scandals of the future? And finally, on the

0:16:04 > 0:16:08treatment of victims involved, he will know that many women have been

0:16:08 > 0:16:12denied access to legal aid to pursue compensation claims. Does he agree

0:16:12 > 0:16:20that women and children deserve full compensation and support? Is that

0:16:20 > 0:16:22not the responsibility of Government, Mr Speaker? Will the

0:16:22 > 0:16:28Government establish a compensation fund? And what consideration has he

0:16:28 > 0:16:34given to compelling the pharmaceutical industry to support a

0:16:34 > 0:16:40compensation fund for those affected? Finally, Mr Speaker, the

0:16:40 > 0:16:47mesh, sodium Valparaiso, primados has devastated the lives of hundreds

0:16:47 > 0:16:52of thousands of women and children. Isn't it time they were given a full

0:16:52 > 0:17:06apology? Surely it's the very least they deserve.I thank him for his

0:17:06 > 0:17:11response and the tone of it. I want to thank the all-party group who

0:17:11 > 0:17:16have worked incredibly hard to raise this important issue. Let me go

0:17:16 > 0:17:19through the points that he raises, because he asked some detailed

0:17:19 > 0:17:24questions which I want to give a proper answer to. First, when it

0:17:24 > 0:17:34comes to mesh, there is no EU country that has banned its use, and

0:17:34 > 0:17:40indeed Australia and New Zealand have not introduced a full band. We

0:17:40 > 0:17:44have taken very clear advice. We have responsibility to all patients,

0:17:44 > 0:17:47and the medical advice from the Chief Medical Officer is clear, that

0:17:47 > 0:17:53some women do benefit from mesh if it is appropriately used, and so we

0:17:53 > 0:17:59are following that advice. However, this review is going to be looking

0:17:59 > 0:18:08at all the processes around mesh. We will publish Nice guidelines on

0:18:08 > 0:18:12persistent pain and ventral meshes. It is important to say that they are

0:18:12 > 0:18:16used in men as well as women, and it is right to say that we have to get

0:18:16 > 0:18:20this right. I fully accept the point he makes about the concerns of many

0:18:20 > 0:18:24patients and families about the findings of the expert working

0:18:24 > 0:18:31group. He will know that this is a very difficult and hotly contested

0:18:31 > 0:18:43area. We are not proposing to revisit the science. However, we are

0:18:43 > 0:18:46giving Baroness Cumberlege to look at what the expert working group did

0:18:46 > 0:18:51and coming to her own conclusions. We are not excluding looking at what

0:18:51 > 0:18:53happened, though we think it is important to accept throughout this

0:18:53 > 0:18:57that we do have to follow the science at every stage in order to

0:18:57 > 0:19:02get this absolutely right. What we will do is going forward with some

0:19:02 > 0:19:06important recommendations of the expert working group, regardless,

0:19:06 > 0:19:11such as the yellow card system, could don't know because one thing

0:19:11 > 0:19:16that is clear is that when people have an immediate concern about a

0:19:16 > 0:19:21medicine, there isn't an easy way to raise the concern quickly and

0:19:21 > 0:19:25easily. If women are raising these concerns all over the country, we

0:19:25 > 0:19:28need to find out about that very quickly at the centre so we can take

0:19:28 > 0:19:32action more quickly than happened in this case. We will go forward with

0:19:32 > 0:19:37offering genetic testing to families who have suffered as a result, or

0:19:37 > 0:19:43who think they have suffered as a result of Primodos. On sodium

0:19:43 > 0:19:47Valkyrie, we will issue guidelines to clinicians. We want to make sure

0:19:47 > 0:19:55there is greater awareness among patients. -- -- sodium valproate. We

0:19:55 > 0:19:59want to push for this to be a contract indication for women of

0:19:59 > 0:20:04child-bearing age who are not taking effective contraception, because it

0:20:04 > 0:20:09is important to get this right. He makes a very important points about

0:20:09 > 0:20:17the public enquiry. I think we are asking Baroness Cumberlege to give

0:20:17 > 0:20:20her considered view as to what is the appropriate way forward in this

0:20:20 > 0:20:27case. What I would say to him, and that, of course, has implications on

0:20:27 > 0:20:31the issue of compensation, but I would say that we have, I think, a

0:20:31 > 0:20:34problem in our system at the moment where there isn't a proper process

0:20:34 > 0:20:42for deciding what next steps are appropriate. An investigation by NHS

0:20:42 > 0:20:46England and the department, or a full public enquiry? The question we

0:20:46 > 0:20:49particularly want her to look at is whether we should have an

0:20:49 > 0:20:56independent process to evaluate what has happened, because we might... We

0:20:56 > 0:21:00have been approached in his time by people who want public enquiries,

0:21:00 > 0:21:03but it should not just be about the strength of the lobbying. There

0:21:03 > 0:21:06needs to be some process, because there may be people who do not have

0:21:06 > 0:21:10a loud voice who are equally worthy of a public enquiry who don't get

0:21:10 > 0:21:14considered in the system at the moment, and that wouldn't be right.

0:21:14 > 0:21:19Baroness Cumberlege will be reporting to ministers, not to the

0:21:19 > 0:21:27NHRA. And there will be full consultation -- MHRA. There will be

0:21:27 > 0:21:31full contact with the families over the terms of reference, which is the

0:21:31 > 0:21:36right thing to do. The final point, which is an important one, is the

0:21:36 > 0:21:42issue of how we read gain the trust of families deeply scarred by these

0:21:42 > 0:21:46issues. And I think there are two main ways that we do this. First,

0:21:46 > 0:21:51openness and transparency in everything we do in this process, so

0:21:51 > 0:21:54that they can see we want to get to the bottom of this as much as they

0:21:54 > 0:21:59do. Secondly, by recognising that there is this fundamental issue that

0:21:59 > 0:22:04when we've assessed these clinical medical safety issues in the past,

0:22:04 > 0:22:08the voice of patients has not been as strong as it should be. And that

0:22:08 > 0:22:12is something that we have to put right. I know everyone in the NHS,

0:22:12 > 0:22:17as in this House, is committed to doing so.Thank you, Mr Speaker. I

0:22:17 > 0:22:20welcome the statement today from the Secretary of State, and his ongoing

0:22:20 > 0:22:24focus on patient safety, which has added so much to patients, and

0:22:24 > 0:22:29clearly representing the voice of patients in lessons to be learned in

0:22:29 > 0:22:32the future. Many of those who have been courageous in coming forward,

0:22:32 > 0:22:36including many of my own constituents, have been harmed

0:22:36 > 0:22:40within the private sector. Will the Secretary of State confirm that

0:22:40 > 0:22:43patients, wherever they are treated, will be included within this review,

0:22:43 > 0:22:47and that there will be a focus on clinical governance not only in the

0:22:47 > 0:22:51NHS but also in the private sector? I can absolutely give that

0:22:51 > 0:22:58assurance. And we are looking at ways to strengthen oversight,

0:22:58 > 0:23:01because a tragedy is a tragedy, wherever it happens, and we should

0:23:01 > 0:23:06among the highest standards of care throughout our health care system.

0:23:06 > 0:23:11And we are particularly looking at the issue of data sharing. Very

0:23:11 > 0:23:19often, the clinicians operate in both the NHS and the private sector,

0:23:19 > 0:23:23and we don't want to have two datasets. We want to share

0:23:23 > 0:23:30information in a way that will make patients safer.I thank the

0:23:30 > 0:23:33Secretary of State for advance sight of his statements. I am sure that

0:23:33 > 0:23:37women affected by these medicines and devices may be sceptical that

0:23:37 > 0:23:45the Government has announced a review of reviews. Medical safety

0:23:45 > 0:23:48and licensing are reserved matters. While we welcome the fact that the

0:23:48 > 0:23:51Government isn't doing nothing, it is disappointing that the review

0:23:51 > 0:23:57will not look at the scientific evidence on Primodos, sodium

0:23:57 > 0:24:02valproate and surgical mesh. Everyone needs the confidence that

0:24:02 > 0:24:09this won't turn into simply a Government whitewash. How can

0:24:09 > 0:24:13patients be sure of independence? Who will take a final decision on

0:24:13 > 0:24:17who advises the chair? And will those affected and who took part in

0:24:17 > 0:24:21initial reviews be able to participate? He will also be aware

0:24:21 > 0:24:25that Professor Alison Britton is leading an internet -- an

0:24:25 > 0:24:28independent review of vaginal mesh in Scotland, and will DC to take

0:24:28 > 0:24:34advice and sounded from her bindings and expertise in this process? --

0:24:34 > 0:24:42will he seek to take... Does he think that setting up a mechanism

0:24:42 > 0:24:45within his department to collate extensive qualitative research from

0:24:45 > 0:24:52patients would be a useful function? I think, with respect to the

0:24:52 > 0:24:57honourable gentleman, he is being a little bit uncharitable, describing

0:24:57 > 0:25:02this as a review of reviews. We have announced immediate actions in each

0:25:02 > 0:25:04of these three cases which will happen right away, of huge

0:25:04 > 0:25:12significance with respect to the use of sodium valproate, help for

0:25:12 > 0:25:15families who think they have suffered as a result of Primodos,

0:25:15 > 0:25:20and in terms of the use of mesh. A lot of things are happening right

0:25:20 > 0:25:23away. I think it is important that these are complex issues and if we

0:25:23 > 0:25:26are going to step back and look at the systemic failures that we think

0:25:26 > 0:25:29have happened, then we need to step back and ask what are the changes

0:25:29 > 0:25:35that we need? That is why we need someone Baroness Cumberlege's

0:25:35 > 0:25:39experience. I would just say that this is someone who has got a huge

0:25:39 > 0:25:42track record on campaigning on women's issues. She was a minister

0:25:42 > 0:25:49at the Department of Health for five years, she did the Better Births

0:25:49 > 0:25:53review for the NHS in 2015. She is hugely experienced and passionate

0:25:53 > 0:25:58about patient safety and making sure that the patient's voice is heard.

0:25:58 > 0:26:04Could I welcome this review and the announcement of Baroness Cumberlege

0:26:04 > 0:26:08as lead. I am sure the whole House will agree that she is highly

0:26:08 > 0:26:12qualified and trusted. Can I pay tribute to the women, particularly

0:26:12 > 0:26:15many hundreds of thousands of them, who have suffered in silence and who

0:26:15 > 0:26:28have campaigned so effectively. I have seen the passion and the silent

0:26:28 > 0:26:31suffering with which so many women have had to be. He is right that for

0:26:31 > 0:26:36too long the medical establishment has tended to link arms and act very

0:26:36 > 0:26:39protectively when challenged, and we need to make sure that the patient

0:26:39 > 0:26:43voice is put at the heart of this. Would he agree with me on to things:

0:26:43 > 0:26:49First, it is important that this is not some witchhunt? It must be a

0:26:49 > 0:26:56review of the evidence, the science, the clinical data, in order to avoid

0:26:56 > 0:26:58future patient suffering. If it is couched in legal liability, everyone

0:26:58 > 0:27:02will draw in and resist the sharing of evidence. Secondly, will he look

0:27:02 > 0:27:07at the issue of training on the issue of mesh? Be MHRA have licensed

0:27:07 > 0:27:11the device. I understand the problem is with the training of clinicians

0:27:11 > 0:27:16in installing it.

0:27:16 > 0:27:22I would like to put on record my thanks to my honourable friend for

0:27:22 > 0:27:26his work that led to the setting up of the expert working group which I

0:27:26 > 0:27:34think has taken this issue forward. He championed that and was

0:27:34 > 0:27:38incredibly helpful. I've taken on board both his points. It's right

0:27:38 > 0:27:43that this needs to focus on patient safety and how we put in place

0:27:43 > 0:27:47processes that help people who are suffering now and avoid this in the

0:27:47 > 0:27:51future and the training points are a good one.I welcome his statement,

0:27:51 > 0:27:55though it would have been nice for the victims to have heard a little

0:27:55 > 0:27:59bit more about the legal aid and the compensation issue. He was right to

0:27:59 > 0:28:05describe our regular tree framework as world leading. It is European and

0:28:05 > 0:28:08precautionary base, so will he disassociate himself from the

0:28:08 > 0:28:15comments of the Foreign Secretary last week who included medicines

0:28:15 > 0:28:22regulation where he favours for divergences?Is he knows because we

0:28:22 > 0:28:26have had these discussions at the select committee, we in this country

0:28:26 > 0:28:30make an enormous contribution to the way medicines regulation happens

0:28:30 > 0:28:35across Europe because of our extensive scientific base and we are

0:28:35 > 0:28:43happy and very much hope those links will continue.The first thing I

0:28:43 > 0:28:50would like to say is I welcome the review into the yellow car process

0:28:50 > 0:28:53because the first responsibility of a doctor is always to do no harm and

0:28:53 > 0:28:59every doctor when they are making any prescribing difference is

0:28:59 > 0:29:01balancing the improvement in patient care with the risks that are known

0:29:01 > 0:29:08at the time to occur. Sometimes as mod drugs are given to a greater

0:29:08 > 0:29:12number of people, other side-effects will come through. The improvements

0:29:12 > 0:29:20in the yellow card system will help them to be identified earlier. There

0:29:20 > 0:29:29was a drug that is used to treat acne that is very toxic in

0:29:29 > 0:29:36pregnancy. I wonder if some of these drugs that do provide benefits, but

0:29:36 > 0:29:44are known to be harmful, that would have the same approach?Her question

0:29:44 > 0:29:48demonstrates how useful it is to have people with medical experience

0:29:48 > 0:29:53in this House. The broad point she makes is right. The difficulty in

0:29:53 > 0:29:58the issues we are talking about today is how much they affect women

0:29:58 > 0:30:03and a number of them affect pregnant women and one of the things we want

0:30:03 > 0:30:09to establish through this review is whether we are doing less well than

0:30:09 > 0:30:13we should on women's health issues and that's why because Baroness

0:30:13 > 0:30:19Cumberlege has done more campaigning on women's health issues than anyone

0:30:19 > 0:30:24in both houses, she's the right person to take this forward. She is

0:30:24 > 0:30:28right about strengthening protections for pregnant women.As

0:30:28 > 0:30:42the chair on hormone pregnancy tests I'm disappointed with wording of

0:30:42 > 0:30:48today's review. Families and victims of Primidos have waited 40 years. It

0:30:48 > 0:30:56was a deliberate criminal cover-up by the statutory authorities. The

0:30:56 > 0:31:01scientific evidence shows that there is a link between Primidos and

0:31:01 > 0:31:04deformities which was made to the drugs companies 40 years ago and to

0:31:04 > 0:31:10the regulatory bodies as well. Can I ask the Secretary of State to ensure

0:31:10 > 0:31:14this review, which I have to say we would want a full public enquiry,

0:31:14 > 0:31:18looks at the regular tree failures that took place 40 years ago. There

0:31:18 > 0:31:24was a systematic deliberate cover-up, destruction of documents

0:31:24 > 0:31:29by our health bodies as well as the drug manufacturers. Therefore

0:31:29 > 0:31:33Primidos is perhaps different to some of the others and we demand a

0:31:33 > 0:31:38proper enquiry into this and proper compensation, and the victims are

0:31:38 > 0:31:45put at the heart of this enquiry. In the AWG working group they were

0:31:45 > 0:31:48completely ignored in that document was not worth the paper it was

0:31:48 > 0:31:55published on.We may not agree with everything, but I thank her for her

0:31:55 > 0:31:58campaigning and the voice she had given to thousands of women who

0:31:58 > 0:32:05believe they have suffered badly as a result of Primidos. What I will

0:32:05 > 0:32:12say is the things she is asking for art ruled out. It will create a

0:32:12 > 0:32:16process through which someone will look carefully. She makes some very

0:32:16 > 0:32:22serious allegations. That is absolutely within her right to do so

0:32:22 > 0:32:25as a member of this House, but they are different to the conclusion is

0:32:25 > 0:32:30that the expert working group came to add it's precisely because of

0:32:30 > 0:32:33that disagreement that we've asked Baroness Cumberlege to look at this

0:32:33 > 0:32:38and come to her own view is to the right way forward. I do want to

0:32:38 > 0:32:42reassure her that regular tree failures are at the front of our

0:32:42 > 0:32:45minds and we are determined to make sure that the teams voices are

0:32:45 > 0:32:52heard.I wanted that the Minister for the compassionate tone he had

0:32:52 > 0:32:58struck today in understanding the years that many campaigners like

0:32:58 > 0:33:01Janet Williams and Emma Murphy have undertaken to have their voices

0:33:01 > 0:33:08heard is. Going back to the regulator, if medicines or devices

0:33:08 > 0:33:13are found to be unsafe following this review or have been taken

0:33:13 > 0:33:19unsafely, will face legal consequences, will there be legal

0:33:19 > 0:33:22consequences for those regulators who should have acted differently?

0:33:22 > 0:33:28The simple answer is yes, there are legal consequences for regulators

0:33:28 > 0:33:31who have felt. In that case it will be the responsibility of the

0:33:31 > 0:33:37government of the drop companies who failed in their responsibility to

0:33:37 > 0:33:40ensure that patients were informed of the dangers of taking particular

0:33:40 > 0:33:45drugs. It's about expedition facts. Some of them are clear, some are not

0:33:45 > 0:33:54and that's why today's review will help us.My constituents have been

0:33:54 > 0:33:58affected by sodium valproate and Primidos. The Secretary of State has

0:33:58 > 0:34:03already heard my honourable friend's dismay over the outcome of the

0:34:03 > 0:34:07expert working group. What he has talked about today will not give a

0:34:07 > 0:34:13great amount of satisfaction to people and the confidence in his

0:34:13 > 0:34:16department taking notice of Baroness Cumberlege's review will be reduced

0:34:16 > 0:34:20by the written response that I got yesterday from his department which

0:34:20 > 0:34:26said they had no plans to fund research into hormone pregnancy

0:34:26 > 0:34:32tests. A report was produced last week. Will he ensure that Baroness

0:34:32 > 0:34:37Cumberlege looks at this particular issue?Absolutely she will and I

0:34:37 > 0:34:42want to give him that assurance and I want to say to him that whereas on

0:34:42 > 0:34:46something like that operate when it is clear what the next steps are

0:34:46 > 0:34:54because there is no dispute over the science -- valproate, the first

0:34:54 > 0:34:58thing we have to do establish the truth of the situation and that's

0:34:58 > 0:35:03why we're asking Baroness Cumberlege to look with free hand at the whole

0:35:03 > 0:35:09issue.And I welcome this statement which is consistent with my right

0:35:09 > 0:35:13honourable friend's track record as secretary of state of driving the

0:35:13 > 0:35:19NHS to stop causing harm to patients. Can I ask him to continue

0:35:19 > 0:35:23to focus on encouraging, requiring and supporting or health care

0:35:23 > 0:35:27professionals to make the shift from a defensive mindset to a learning

0:35:27 > 0:35:37mindset? And so they listen and learn, not just from NHS experience,

0:35:37 > 0:35:40but from patients?She has huge experience in health care and she

0:35:40 > 0:35:44will know this well. She is absolutely right to say that at

0:35:44 > 0:35:49hearts, what we have to be careful about in these complex issues is

0:35:49 > 0:35:53that we don't inadvertently encourage a culture of defensive

0:35:53 > 0:35:57medicine where doctors feel unable to be open about mistakes that may

0:35:57 > 0:36:00have happened because they are worried about legal consequences and

0:36:00 > 0:36:04then we don't have the learning which is incredibly important. That

0:36:04 > 0:36:08is important and one of the reasons for this review is to make sure we

0:36:08 > 0:36:12support that open learning culture. Half of my constituents whose

0:36:12 > 0:36:17families have suffered due to the effects of Primidos, can I thank the

0:36:17 > 0:36:20Minister for this step in the right direction statement. By announcing

0:36:20 > 0:36:26another review with a remit for another review, can he reassure the

0:36:26 > 0:36:31House that one of these reviews can investigate the cover-up we know has

0:36:31 > 0:36:35occurred over decades over Primidos and if a crime has been committed,

0:36:35 > 0:36:47it will be dealt with?I totally respect him for airing his

0:36:47 > 0:36:51constituentss concerns, but as he will know from the answers to the

0:36:51 > 0:36:55other questions, the difficulties in the case of Primidos and it is

0:36:55 > 0:36:59distressing to families concerned, is the fact that scientists don't

0:36:59 > 0:37:04agree about the issue and so because of that is, we do unfortunately find

0:37:04 > 0:37:10ourselves having to review what has happened an expert working group was

0:37:10 > 0:37:15the first attempt to do that, but we are going to give Baroness

0:37:15 > 0:37:17Cumberlege a free hand to look at that and any other evidence that

0:37:17 > 0:37:23comes to light and draw her own conclusions.Just an hour ago I was

0:37:23 > 0:37:31meeting with my constituents and Emma Friedman to discuss the next

0:37:31 > 0:37:36stage of the campaign for valproate. From seeing this statement, the

0:37:36 > 0:37:41meeting was adjourned. I'm happy that they are in the Chamber. Can I

0:37:41 > 0:37:45ask the Secretary of State whether it will be possible to ensure that

0:37:45 > 0:37:55GP surgeries are giving out the excellent advice that the MRA che

0:37:55 > 0:37:58have put together. Many GPs are not and there don't seem to be the

0:37:58 > 0:38:02regulatory sanctions to make sure they do.I hope the people he

0:38:02 > 0:38:07mentioned are in the gallery rather than in the Chamber. That will be

0:38:07 > 0:38:14greatly reassuring to us and to them.I can give that assurance. One

0:38:14 > 0:38:19of the things we have announced today is improving a system of

0:38:19 > 0:38:22alerting for GP practices and community pharmacies so that the

0:38:22 > 0:38:30right advice is given and so that the right safeguards are in place so

0:38:30 > 0:38:33that people who are pregnant or may become pregnant don't take this

0:38:33 > 0:38:37medicine which is powerful and effective under the right

0:38:37 > 0:38:42circumstances, but incredibly dangerous in the wrong ones.Whilst

0:38:42 > 0:38:47welcoming the intention to look further at these very concerning

0:38:47 > 0:38:51issues, I fear that by putting them all in one place he may not be

0:38:51 > 0:39:00giving sufficient attention to the Primidos issue which is I think a

0:39:00 > 0:39:07scandal of many years standing and I think the expert working group which

0:39:07 > 0:39:12reported recently is not the basis upon which Baroness Cumberlege or

0:39:12 > 0:39:17anybody else should look further at this matter because it was a

0:39:17 > 0:39:21complete whitewash. He needs to acknowledge that and I think that if

0:39:21 > 0:39:26he were to do so that the people affected by Primidos over the last

0:39:26 > 0:39:3240 years and more will feel much more confident in the process he has

0:39:32 > 0:39:37described today in a way -- as a way in which they may get some

0:39:37 > 0:39:42resolution.I understand why she asked the question in the way she

0:39:42 > 0:39:47does, but I would just say to her that we set up that expert working

0:39:47 > 0:39:51group after a lot of very careful thought because we honestly wanted

0:39:51 > 0:39:55to get an answer to the question. We are faced with a situation where

0:39:55 > 0:40:02scientists disagreeing and I think in that situation it is not right,

0:40:02 > 0:40:05it wouldn't be right for me as Secretary of State to announce a

0:40:05 > 0:40:09different scientific view. I think the right thing to do is to allow

0:40:09 > 0:40:12some on the time and space to look at the issues that she has raised

0:40:12 > 0:40:19and that is what Baroness Cumberlege will do.I have a constituent whose

0:40:19 > 0:40:22quality-of-life has been ruined by a surgical mesh implant. What

0:40:22 > 0:40:28reassurance can we have that the review by Baroness Cumberlege will

0:40:28 > 0:40:31make sure that the voice of the patient is listened to more quickly

0:40:31 > 0:40:36so that when things do go wrong we limit the number of patients who

0:40:36 > 0:40:42suffer the type of harm we have heard about this morning.It's the

0:40:42 > 0:40:47right question to ask what we have put forward in this statement is the

0:40:47 > 0:40:52possibility that we need to have a patient's champion, someone whose

0:40:52 > 0:40:56job it is to collect the experiences and views of patients who think they

0:40:56 > 0:41:01may have suffered as a result of medicine medical devices. We think

0:41:01 > 0:41:06that may be a way forward, but we want Baroness Cumberlege to look at

0:41:06 > 0:41:10this in more detail. The central point is that when there are debates

0:41:10 > 0:41:14about the efficacy of medicines or medical devices, if we are going to

0:41:14 > 0:41:21avoid the agony of his constituent, the patient's voice needs to be as

0:41:21 > 0:41:30strong as the clinician's. We are moving away from what has happened

0:41:30 > 0:41:35in the past and this will be a step in the right direction.Following on

0:41:35 > 0:41:38from that point the secretary of state will know the phrase the

0:41:38 > 0:41:44patronising disposition of unaccountable power which applied in

0:41:44 > 0:41:50the Hillsborough family's fight to get justice and the groups affected

0:41:50 > 0:41:57today. Then the Secretary of State say why it Baroness Cumberlege's

0:41:57 > 0:42:01report not bound to come straight to Parliament Parliament to make a

0:42:01 > 0:42:08decision over how patients can justice faster and quicker than what

0:42:08 > 0:42:22has happened in so many cases. That's came from Bishop James Jones

0:42:22 > 0:42:27who spoke about people's voice is being ignored for too long. This

0:42:27 > 0:42:33House will have every opportunity to debate Baroness Cumberlege's report.

0:42:33 > 0:42:38The House will have every opportunity to listen, make

0:42:38 > 0:42:42suggestions for improvements and be involved at every stage of the

0:42:42 > 0:42:48process as we take it forward.

0:42:48 > 0:42:56My constituent, Karen, a victim of surgical mesh, and Angie, a victim

0:42:56 > 0:43:01of Primodos, will listen with interest to what the Minister has

0:43:01 > 0:43:04had to settle was a bit since there are two key issues here apart from

0:43:04 > 0:43:08the Cumberlege review. The first is to ensure that our medics from

0:43:08 > 0:43:14medical school up and realise that they are not Gods, because that is

0:43:14 > 0:43:18how many patients feel they are having to deal with him, and there

0:43:18 > 0:43:21are concerns are too easily dismissed. At least a change from

0:43:21 > 0:43:30the bottom-up. Second, on the issue of private health cover, it involves

0:43:30 > 0:43:33patients living in all quarters of the United Kingdom. How will this

0:43:33 > 0:43:39learning and the learning of the review spread whilst respecting the

0:43:39 > 0:43:42devolved assemblies into those regions throughout the health sector

0:43:42 > 0:43:46is not under the control of my right honourable friend?They are

0:43:46 > 0:43:49important points. On the second point, the spreading of best

0:43:49 > 0:43:54practice is central here, so we have to make sure that we don't just have

0:43:54 > 0:43:58a system where we have new Nice guidelines but that we have

0:43:58 > 0:44:04confidence that they are being implemented across 30,000 GPs, 250

0:44:04 > 0:44:07NHS trusts and so on, and I know that is something that Baroness

0:44:07 > 0:44:16Cumberlege will be thinking about. For my constituents, Willman...

0:44:16 > 0:44:22Wilma and Kerstin, the wait to get truth and justice on this issue has

0:44:22 > 0:44:27been almost unbearable. Whilst I welcome his candour and his tone,

0:44:27 > 0:44:31his actions as outlay today are not enough. I fear that the Baroness

0:44:31 > 0:44:34will be doing her job with one hand tied behind her back. He said in his

0:44:34 > 0:44:38statement, we are not revisiting the science, and then said later, yet we

0:44:38 > 0:44:42need to be led by science. Unless I miss her, there is a contradiction

0:44:42 > 0:44:46there. And he confirmed that the victims affected by these issues

0:44:46 > 0:44:52will be at the heart of this ayes as will the science, because there has

0:44:52 > 0:44:56been an important new study done by Niall Ferguson which must be

0:44:56 > 0:45:00considered in this process in relation to Primodos.I don't accept

0:45:00 > 0:45:05there is a contradiction. We have to be open to the science and led by it

0:45:05 > 0:45:08at every stage of the bid there is new evidence, we must take that on

0:45:08 > 0:45:11board, and always be led by patients in what we do, and that is exactly

0:45:11 > 0:45:18what I am announcing.It was a pleasure to lead the debate in the

0:45:18 > 0:45:24House when we got a backbench business committee earlier. I really

0:45:24 > 0:45:26appreciate the tone from the Secretary of State and from the

0:45:26 > 0:45:30Prime Minister when I asked her earlier if there was good news. Can

0:45:30 > 0:45:36I also pay tribute to the Minister sitting by his side, our honourable

0:45:36 > 0:45:39colleague from Winchester, for the work he did, because I gave him

0:45:39 > 0:45:44quite a hard time during the debate. However, there will be huge

0:45:44 > 0:45:49disappointment with the Primodos campaign team. Being led by the

0:45:49 > 0:45:52science from the expert working group is fascinating, because they

0:45:52 > 0:45:55refused to allow some science to come forward because it had not been

0:45:55 > 0:45:58peer reviewed, then accepted other evidence from drug companies that

0:45:58 > 0:46:05did. This review going back to the Department of Health is fully

0:46:05 > 0:46:09allocated in this in that they were given out by GPs. This will give no

0:46:09 > 0:46:15confidence at all. The Baroness will have both hands tied behind her

0:46:15 > 0:46:21back, I think.You know, I commend my honourable friend's campaigning,

0:46:21 > 0:46:25but I'm afraid I do have to disagree with him. This is a very important

0:46:25 > 0:46:30step forward. We are absolutely going to be led by the science, and

0:46:30 > 0:46:34have to be, and we're giving Baroness Cumberlege a full rein to

0:46:34 > 0:46:37look at what the expert working group did, and to challenge it if

0:46:37 > 0:46:45she sees fit.Is the expert working group the Government set up on

0:46:45 > 0:46:49Primodos changed its own terms of reference. It refused to look at all

0:46:49 > 0:46:53the scientific evidence, and it did not have the confidence of the

0:46:53 > 0:47:01families affected. How will his proposals be any different?This is

0:47:01 > 0:47:03something for Baroness Cumberlege to consider, but the broader point is

0:47:03 > 0:47:09right. We have, for too long, in each of these three cases and in

0:47:09 > 0:47:13others, had processes that have not had the confidence of patients, and

0:47:13 > 0:47:17that is why we are proposing today not just specific measures in each

0:47:17 > 0:47:20of the three issues, but also a broader look at the regulatory

0:47:20 > 0:47:29structure to make sure that patients' bosses are louder.I

0:47:29 > 0:47:33welcome today's announcement, which I'm sure will be welcomed by my

0:47:33 > 0:47:37constituent who had surgical mesh installed in 2008 during a

0:47:37 > 0:47:40hysterectomy, but significantly without her knowledge or consent,

0:47:40 > 0:47:43which has led her to severe distress and significant pain. When she

0:47:43 > 0:47:47raised it with her doctors, she was told it was all in her mind and she

0:47:47 > 0:47:51was imagining it. She believes she is still not being taken seriously

0:47:51 > 0:47:56ten years later. Does the Secretary of State share my hope that the

0:47:56 > 0:48:00existence of the review will encourage a more sympathetic

0:48:00 > 0:48:02response to people such as my constituent from the medical

0:48:02 > 0:48:09profession?I very much hope so. And I think the crucial point that has

0:48:09 > 0:48:12come from members on all sides of this houses that the processes that

0:48:12 > 0:48:18we have had in place to date have not had the confidence of families

0:48:18 > 0:48:22affected. This applies to a whole range of issues. I believe that

0:48:22 > 0:48:26medicine is changing fundamentally. I think people who are passionate

0:48:26 > 0:48:29about medical innovation and life sciences know that you need to have

0:48:29 > 0:48:33a very close partnership with patients if you're going to make

0:48:33 > 0:48:36proper advances. We haven't always got this right, and that's what I

0:48:36 > 0:48:47hope the review will help us to do. I welcome the audio rhythmic audit

0:48:47 > 0:48:51into vaginal mesh. A couple of things. One of them is the support

0:48:51 > 0:48:57for victims. My constituent Angie has been referred to Manchester to

0:48:57 > 0:48:59see somebody, and now she has been told she will have to wait months

0:48:59 > 0:49:05before anybody can properly analyse what has happened to her, so I

0:49:05 > 0:49:09wonder whether more results can be -- more resource can be given to

0:49:09 > 0:49:11help the victims of vaginal mesh will so can you look into the

0:49:11 > 0:49:15licensing process for how these things get to market and get put out

0:49:15 > 0:49:19there for use by surgeons? And please don't just look into the

0:49:19 > 0:49:21training, because I believe it is not just about training of how we

0:49:21 > 0:49:27put these things in. I believe it is the product itself that is faulty.

0:49:27 > 0:49:31We will certainly look at all those things, and she is absolutely right

0:49:31 > 0:49:37to draw attention to them. I think... The licensing is one thing,

0:49:37 > 0:49:42but it is also very important that we make sure there is proper

0:49:42 > 0:49:47information available to clinicians and patients, because it does appear

0:49:47 > 0:49:51from these cases that there are a number of drugs and devices that are

0:49:51 > 0:49:55safe but only in certain circumstances, and that knowledge

0:49:55 > 0:49:58may not have been properly disseminated. That database that she

0:49:58 > 0:50:10talked about will help us in getting that right.

0:50:12 > 0:50:22Mr Speaker, constituents of mine have... I welcome the statement and

0:50:22 > 0:50:25I recognise the issue around the ban and why that might not be possible,

0:50:25 > 0:50:28but can the Secretary of State assure this House and my

0:50:28 > 0:50:31constituents that surgical mesh will only be used when there is

0:50:31 > 0:50:39absolutely no alternative?I think, you know, this is a... Complex

0:50:39 > 0:50:43procedure which can go wrong. It would only be used if it were

0:50:43 > 0:50:48absolutely the right thing for patients, and we have looked

0:50:48 > 0:50:50carefully, because there are other countries introducing restrictions

0:50:50 > 0:51:00on the use of mesh. It means we have to use much more care in when it is

0:51:00 > 0:51:09used to avoid those truly horrific complications.I think those whose

0:51:09 > 0:51:13lives have been forever changed by the drug Primodos will be very

0:51:13 > 0:51:20disappointed today, despite a step in the right direction, because

0:51:20 > 0:51:22asking Lord Shaughnessy to drive forward recommendations of the

0:51:22 > 0:51:27expert working group will not bring any confidence. That expert working

0:51:27 > 0:51:32group changed its terms of reference. It was asked to examine

0:51:32 > 0:51:35whether a possible association exists between Primodos and birth

0:51:35 > 0:51:39defects, and it did not do that. It looked at a causal association. And

0:51:39 > 0:51:44that is the crux of the problem. And that is what makes that working

0:51:44 > 0:51:49group's findings unacceptable. Aside from the fact that the scientific

0:51:49 > 0:51:52evidence not included existed before they even started their

0:51:52 > 0:51:58investigation, so unless these factors are taken into account, in a

0:51:58 > 0:52:01wide-ranging, independent enquiry, I doubt that those victims will ever

0:52:01 > 0:52:05get the satisfaction and the justice that they deserve.Well, I do hear

0:52:05 > 0:52:12what she says, and the reason that it was important to us to examine

0:52:12 > 0:52:18whether there was a causal link is because that has an impact on

0:52:18 > 0:52:21compensation that people might be entitled to. I would like to

0:52:21 > 0:52:23reassure her that Baroness Cumberlege has the freedom to look

0:52:23 > 0:52:28at all the issues she raises.The pharmaceutical companies have

0:52:28 > 0:52:36consistently stated that they refuse to accept that there is a causal

0:52:36 > 0:52:40link between sodium valproate and autism. The key is that my right

0:52:40 > 0:52:44honourable friend has set out now measures to warn people for the

0:52:44 > 0:52:48future, but it doesn't compensate the victims. So, what a temple will

0:52:48 > 0:52:52be made by my right honourable friend to make sure that victims are

0:52:52 > 0:52:55fully compensated for the dreadful impact on the lives of their

0:52:55 > 0:53:02children?You know, this country, the system we have on compensation

0:53:02 > 0:53:07is through the courts, and there are times when it is the NHS that is

0:53:07 > 0:53:14liable, and times when the drug companies are liable. I hope that

0:53:14 > 0:53:17Baroness Cumberlege's work will take us closer to understanding whether

0:53:17 > 0:53:20liability actually lies so that we can give relief to families who have

0:53:20 > 0:53:26suffered for too long.Will the Secretary of State join me in paying

0:53:26 > 0:53:31tribute to my constituents, Emma Murphy and her colleague Janet

0:53:31 > 0:53:35Williams, for their courageous campaigning to highlight the risks

0:53:35 > 0:53:39presented by sodium valproate? As the right honourable gentleman and

0:53:39 > 0:53:42other members have acknowledged, victims are incredibly suspicious of

0:53:42 > 0:53:46the health establishment for very good reason. So is the Secretary of

0:53:46 > 0:53:50State concern, and I ask this concealer, that Baroness Cumberlege

0:53:50 > 0:53:54is the director of a company which specialises in introducing

0:53:54 > 0:53:58pharmaceutical companies into how they can most effectively lobbied

0:53:58 > 0:54:01Parliament? What will that do to victims who start off being

0:54:01 > 0:54:07incredibly suspicious of ourselves in this House and the NHS

0:54:07 > 0:54:14establishment?I would just say this, and I understand the

0:54:14 > 0:54:22respectful tone in which he asks the question, I don't think Baroness

0:54:22 > 0:54:25Cumberlege -- anyone has a better reputation than Baroness Cumberlege

0:54:25 > 0:54:30in this area. She has shown a willingness to take on the

0:54:30 > 0:54:33scientific establishment when it is the right thing to do, and she does

0:54:33 > 0:54:35so with a great deal of knowledge and passion. I have every confidence

0:54:35 > 0:54:43she will do a great job.I welcome the statement today. Lassie will be

0:54:43 > 0:54:47aware, we had a mesh review in Scotland, but it very quickly lost

0:54:47 > 0:54:50the confidence of patient groups, who branded it a whitewash after

0:54:50 > 0:55:00chapters were deleted and evidence was re-presented, so can he reassure

0:55:00 > 0:55:04me that the voices of patients will be taken seriously and fully into

0:55:04 > 0:55:13account?I wish I could say to him that those terrible, terrible

0:55:13 > 0:55:17suffering that people have had has been taken as seriously as it

0:55:17 > 0:55:20should, but I think the truth is that we have had a system that has

0:55:20 > 0:55:26not treated patient concerns as seriously as they should have been,

0:55:26 > 0:55:30and that is why we are making these important changes we are announcing

0:55:30 > 0:55:37today.44 years ago, my constituent Leslie Holmes took two Primodos

0:55:37 > 0:55:42tablets handed to her by her trusted GP to check if she was pregnant. She

0:55:42 > 0:55:48was, and the consequences for her son have been devastating. Leslie is

0:55:48 > 0:55:52still seeking answers and recognition of her family's plight.

0:55:52 > 0:55:56The minister appears to agree that we need to recognise that and

0:55:56 > 0:55:59provide the answers. How long is it going to take, and how is he going

0:55:59 > 0:56:04to ensure that the outcome is actually credible this time?All I

0:56:04 > 0:56:11can say is that I think that, you know, we completely understand those

0:56:11 > 0:56:16concerns, understand that many people feel on this issue, but it is

0:56:16 > 0:56:19very difficult to resolve quickly when there is a disagreement amongst

0:56:19 > 0:56:23scientists, so what we're trying to do today is to create a process that

0:56:23 > 0:56:27can resolve that this agreement, and that's what I very much hope will

0:56:27 > 0:56:33happen.I welcome this much-needed safety review announcement. All UK

0:56:33 > 0:56:35citizens should be confident that they are getting the most rigorous

0:56:35 > 0:56:41safety standards, but can my right honourable friend confirmed that the

0:56:41 > 0:56:45review will not impact initiatives such as accelerated access review

0:56:45 > 0:56:49and cancer drug fund, which are fast tracked access to much-needed drugs

0:56:49 > 0:56:53and treatments?I can confirm that, although I think it is also

0:56:53 > 0:56:59important to say that if we discover changes in procedures that will

0:56:59 > 0:57:03improve the safety of medicine use or medical device use, I think that

0:57:03 > 0:57:07the people who put those new drugs onto the market would want to

0:57:07 > 0:57:09benefit from any changes in regulatory processes. We would not

0:57:09 > 0:57:13want to reduce the speed.

0:57:13 > 0:57:20I welcome this statement. I have been contacted by many women in my

0:57:20 > 0:57:27constituency who continue to suffer excruciating pain due to surgical

0:57:27 > 0:57:31mesh implant. I welcome the initiatives, but I would suggest

0:57:31 > 0:57:37there was a huge value in some of those initiatives such as a UK wide

0:57:37 > 0:57:47database. What discussions will he have with the ministers regarding

0:57:47 > 0:57:53the devolved nations?We are happy to do anything on a UK wide basis if

0:57:53 > 0:57:55that is what the devolved administrations want because we

0:57:55 > 0:58:00don't see any benefit in not sharing data. If the willingness is there,

0:58:00 > 0:58:07we are happy to play ball.Could I welcome my right honourable friend's

0:58:07 > 0:58:16announcement over the review and securing Baroness Cumberlege to lead

0:58:16 > 0:58:23a review. If I could just focus on Primidos which has affected 1.5

0:58:23 > 0:58:27million women throughout the United Kingdom. It's been a terrible long

0:58:27 > 0:58:32journey for these individuals and their families. They have been

0:58:32 > 0:58:37pursuing truth and justice. Today they have received neither. I hear

0:58:37 > 0:58:44much of the use of and the use of science in the review, but I wonder

0:58:44 > 0:58:47if my honourable friend what are the baroness to introduce humanity into

0:58:47 > 0:58:53that review and take into account the Peruvian desert at Aberdeen

0:58:53 > 0:58:58University that is now available. I hope this review is a stepping stone

0:58:58 > 0:59:02to a full public enquiry for Primidos victims and maybe then and

0:59:02 > 0:59:06only then will they receive the truth and the justice that they and

0:59:06 > 0:59:14their families richly deserve.Very eloquently put by my honourable

0:59:14 > 0:59:18friend. We also want to get closure on this issue and that means getting

0:59:18 > 0:59:24the scientific consensus that has eluded us today. I will certainly

0:59:24 > 0:59:28mention the Aberdeen research to the noble Baroness.The Secretary of

0:59:28 > 0:59:31State was right to say that patient views have been neglected and they

0:59:31 > 0:59:36had to be central to this review. My constituents impacted by Primidos

0:59:36 > 0:59:40lost faith in the working group because of that concern. How far

0:59:40 > 0:59:48will this review go? We look at the fact that there may be diminished

0:59:48 > 0:59:55evidence because of the medical records that were destroyed?I'm

0:59:55 > 0:59:58happy to do so, but this review is separate to things that are

0:59:58 > 1:00:02happening in Scotland, but we will certainly look at all those issues.

1:00:02 > 1:00:07This is the first chance I've had to thank the Secretary of State for

1:00:07 > 1:00:11visiting Kettering General Hospital last week. I do so now. It is

1:00:11 > 1:00:17laudable that the NHS be the safest health care system. Are we there

1:00:17 > 1:00:24yet? If not, when will we be? International experts from the

1:00:24 > 1:00:28Commonwealth fund in New York say we are the safest health care system in

1:00:28 > 1:00:33the world. That does give me pause for thought because there is so much

1:00:33 > 1:00:36avoidable harm and death in our system right now and if we are the

1:00:36 > 1:00:42safest it says that health care everywhere needs to improve.

1:00:42 > 1:00:46Campaigners on Primidos will be disappointed by the Secretary of

1:00:46 > 1:00:50State's statement and his failure to recognise the concerns they have

1:00:50 > 1:00:54raised about the expert working group. That aside, how many patients

1:00:54 > 1:00:59will be involved in the review and how does he believe that they will

1:00:59 > 1:01:04be best access so that people have their voices heard?That's the

1:01:04 > 1:01:08entire purpose of the review. Baroness Cumberlege will want to

1:01:08 > 1:01:13involve patients right from the start in that process, but I will

1:01:13 > 1:01:17talk to her about it and I will write to her just spelt out in

1:01:17 > 1:01:24detail way that patients will be involved in the process.I found the

1:01:24 > 1:01:33secretary of state for his statement that will be of comfort to the

1:01:33 > 1:01:36victims of vaginal mesh. Can he confirmed the review will cover

1:01:36 > 1:01:39looking at whether those who have been barred from getting

1:01:39 > 1:01:44compensation due to the statute of limitations will be included in this

1:01:44 > 1:01:52review?Absolutely.The Secretary of State will be aware that for many of

1:01:52 > 1:01:56the women who took Primidos they would not even necessarily have

1:01:56 > 1:02:05known at the time that that was the consequence. It's only later on and

1:02:05 > 1:02:10it totally that they have realised what took place. How would they be

1:02:10 > 1:02:13brought into this enquiry and if there is going to be compensation,

1:02:13 > 1:02:18what will be the test? It will be unfair for them to have to prove

1:02:18 > 1:02:22that they are victims of the drug.I wish there was a straightforward

1:02:22 > 1:02:25answer, but the truth is there is a lot of scientific disagreement about

1:02:25 > 1:02:29whether there is a causal link or not which makes it difficult to give

1:02:29 > 1:02:34clear answers to his constituents, as indeed to mind, but I hope this

1:02:34 > 1:02:38review will shed some clarity on that situation because I know that's

1:02:38 > 1:02:47what a lot of people want.What advice has the Secretary of State

1:02:47 > 1:02:51sought from the Royal College of midwives, the Royal Institute of

1:02:51 > 1:02:56gynaecology and what input will be these bodies have in this review?

1:02:56 > 1:03:07The noble Baroness Cumberlege is an honorary fellow at the Royal College

1:03:07 > 1:03:10of Nursing and physicians, so she is well connected with the

1:03:10 > 1:03:17organisations that the honourable lady has mentioned.As the Secretary

1:03:17 > 1:03:25of State has indicated our products are world leading. Does the Minister

1:03:25 > 1:03:35have any more information that our expertise will have as little red

1:03:35 > 1:03:39tape as possible?It's fair to say that our revelatory system is

1:03:39 > 1:03:45admired the world over because we do safety extremely well and we

1:03:45 > 1:03:48extremely seriously, but it does not mean that we cannot improve it and

1:03:48 > 1:03:52the lesson for today is that patients voices have not been strong

1:03:52 > 1:03:59enough in that process and that is what we need to change.I am most

1:03:59 > 1:04:05grateful to be secretary of state. We come now to the ten minute rule

1:04:05 > 1:04:12motion.Thank you Mr Speaker. I beg to move that lead be given to

1:04:12 > 1:04:17bringing about to make provision about shared parental leave and pay

1:04:17 > 1:04:22for workers including those that are self-employed. I would like to begin

1:04:22 > 1:04:26by paying tribute to those who have been campaigning for the provisions

1:04:26 > 1:04:30called for in this bill. I would not be presenting it here today if it

1:04:30 > 1:04:34was not for their work and dedication in pushing shared

1:04:34 > 1:04:39parental leave for all onto the agenda. UK music, equity, parental

1:04:39 > 1:04:51pay quality, PNG, writers Guild, GMB, TUC are many more. The

1:04:51 > 1:04:54self-employed are not clustered around the creative industries. The

1:04:54 > 1:05:01whole world of work is changing. More and more people are classed as

1:05:01 > 1:05:11freelance or self-employed.

1:05:13 > 1:05:19Literally anyone can be self-employed. But 9% of women and

1:05:19 > 1:05:2460% of men aren't eligible for shared parental pay because they are

1:05:24 > 1:05:28self-employed. There are 24,000 self-employed mums claiming

1:05:28 > 1:05:32maternity allowance who would benefit from this bill. What is

1:05:32 > 1:05:38encouraging is that the government no shared parental leave is

1:05:38 > 1:05:43important. It was a positive and radical step introduced by the

1:05:43 > 1:05:46coalition government in 2015. Sadly not enough families are taking the

1:05:46 > 1:05:49opportunity because where many employers have enhanced maternity

1:05:49 > 1:05:54schemes for most employees such schemes don't exist for shared

1:05:54 > 1:05:58parental leave meaning many families will be worse off if they signed up

1:05:58 > 1:06:04to it. And for most keeping the family finances in the black is a

1:06:04 > 1:06:09priority. So it was good to see last week the government roll-out their

1:06:09 > 1:06:13advertising campaign share the joy to get more doubts to take up their

1:06:13 > 1:06:18entitlement. A welcome push when only a disappointing 2% of employees

1:06:18 > 1:06:21take shared parental leave. Unfortunately be problems around

1:06:21 > 1:06:26take-up will never be clearer than when the minister responsible for

1:06:26 > 1:06:34shared parental leave revealed that he was in fact as a minister not

1:06:34 > 1:06:38eligible. I don't mention this to embarrass the member in any way but

1:06:38 > 1:06:42simply to use it as an example of how the culture around shared leave

1:06:42 > 1:06:49needs to change. To do that we need to give more people more choice.

1:06:49 > 1:06:52Parity between the traditionally employed and the self-employed and

1:06:52 > 1:06:58this bill would do just that. Currently self-employed mums who

1:06:58 > 1:07:02have given birth must take their statutory maternity allowance in one

1:07:02 > 1:07:06go. They can't return to work for a month or two and then resumed there

1:07:06 > 1:07:11allowance. My bill would allow freelance partners to decide who

1:07:11 > 1:07:14receives the alarm on so mum can take a block when she is ready and

1:07:14 > 1:07:17wants to re-enter the workplace while the family still receives the

1:07:17 > 1:07:24regular income from the maternity allowance. A simpler way of

1:07:24 > 1:07:27replicating shared parental leave for freelancers at no extra cost to

1:07:27 > 1:07:31the taxpayer. A move which I think will send a strong message to the

1:07:31 > 1:07:35country that not only do we understand the changing face of work

1:07:35 > 1:07:38but we believe that men and women are valued equally in the home and

1:07:38 > 1:07:44the workplace. I'd also say to ministers that if the policy was

1:07:44 > 1:07:47extended to the self-employed freelancers, I believe there would

1:07:47 > 1:07:52not be any problem with poor take-up. A survey conducted by

1:07:52 > 1:07:57parental pay quality found over 70% of freelancers or those with

1:07:57 > 1:08:02freelance partners would use the scheme if it were available for them

1:08:02 > 1:08:08in the future. A change to our cultural norms does not happen

1:08:08 > 1:08:10overnight, but I believe the self-employed can blaze a trail in

1:08:10 > 1:08:17leading the way, helping us to get to a place where it is assumed that

1:08:17 > 1:08:22partners and should shoulder a significant amount of the childcare.

1:08:22 > 1:08:27If the numbers of freelancers that will take up shared parental leave

1:08:27 > 1:08:30as significant, why are we holding back? For those not owe favoured

1:08:30 > 1:08:38walls around parental leave for the self-employed, a self-employed mum

1:08:38 > 1:08:44is entitled to £140 maternity allowance for 39 weeks if they have

1:08:44 > 1:08:48paid close to national insurance for at least 13 of the 66 weeks before

1:08:48 > 1:08:54the baby is due. Maternity allowance is paid only two months. If that is

1:08:54 > 1:09:03withdrawn, if the... That is withdrawn if the freelance mother

1:09:03 > 1:09:09does more than the ten keeping in touch days. For example, if

1:09:09 > 1:09:11freelance chiropodist took a job that lasted for ten days, she would

1:09:11 > 1:09:22lose in red -- maternity allowance, but a chiropodist who is employed

1:09:22 > 1:09:28can work freelance as long as she does not break the terms of her

1:09:28 > 1:09:33contract. It's far from ideal and a Catch-22 position for self-employed

1:09:33 > 1:09:38women. Stay off work and keep the elements for the 39 weeks or take

1:09:38 > 1:09:45the risk of taking a one off job. A stressful decision for anyone, let

1:09:45 > 1:09:52alone a sleek diff riv new mum. With 95% of new businesses run by women,

1:09:52 > 1:09:56we know there are many families out there who might benefit from sharing

1:09:56 > 1:10:06paternal leave. So why is it important we do this now. -- let

1:10:06 > 1:10:10alone a sleep deprived ma'am. We know that at least 4.7 million

1:10:10 > 1:10:18people are employed in freelance work. The government says it will

1:10:18 > 1:10:26tackle the insecurity that this creates. Self-employment and the gig

1:10:26 > 1:10:30economy has recently been the subject of the Taylor review and

1:10:30 > 1:10:35after Matthew Taylor hurt I was submissions and many detailed

1:10:35 > 1:10:40recommendations, he conceded that the government should address, and I

1:10:40 > 1:10:44quote, parental leave in particular where self-employed people lose out.

1:10:44 > 1:10:50This is our chance to get it on the agenda because freelance

1:10:50 > 1:10:54self-employed and insecure work is not new. It has been the feature of

1:10:54 > 1:11:02creative industries for decades. 44% of the creative industries are

1:11:02 > 1:11:07unemployed. I worked in it for over 30 years and my partner still does.

1:11:07 > 1:11:12Working hours are flexible with project based employment and

1:11:12 > 1:11:18irregular and often unreliable payments. No nine to five, very

1:11:18 > 1:11:22little stability. Looking for work can take up as much time as doing

1:11:22 > 1:11:27the job, but today the working patterns and insecurities of the

1:11:27 > 1:11:30creative industries aren't an anomaly, they are becoming the norm

1:11:30 > 1:11:35and for any freelance coupled the idea of starting a family can be

1:11:35 > 1:11:39terrifying. Another mouth to feed, no guarantee of work. Obviously for

1:11:39 > 1:11:45any new parent money is tight, but for those in the gig economy or

1:11:45 > 1:11:49insecure work it is even more so. Employing 2 million people the

1:11:49 > 1:11:53creative industries are a success story, but areas of improvement

1:11:53 > 1:11:58remain. More often than not it's the woman who compromises on her career

1:11:58 > 1:12:05to bring up of delete-macro a family. She is the one that steps

1:12:05 > 1:12:10out of the industry because two freelancers can't make a finances

1:12:10 > 1:12:18work, or went back up work, she is expected to dash home early one

1:12:18 > 1:12:25childcare bourse room or to look after sick children. Women still

1:12:25 > 1:12:39lagged behind men or so when they are dishing out the gongs.

1:12:39 > 1:12:4274% of creative workers surveyed in the film industry turn down work

1:12:42 > 1:12:46because they are parents. 22% said they career had come to a halt.

1:12:46 > 1:12:51Altogether once they had a child. All that talent, all that training,

1:12:51 > 1:12:55dedication, lost because there is not enough support for self-employed

1:12:55 > 1:13:01families with young children. So we need to change the culture, and to

1:13:01 > 1:13:05do it we need to start right at the beginning when the baby is born. As

1:13:05 > 1:13:10I mentioned at the beginning of this speech, and I know how much the

1:13:10 > 1:13:17Treasury bench appreciates a good deal, so what I'm proposing comes at

1:13:17 > 1:13:22no extra cost to the taxpayer. Maternity allowances already paid to

1:13:22 > 1:13:27new mothers. It is a win-win for the Treasury. It also means men having

1:13:27 > 1:13:31more of a chance to spend time with their babies, allowing women to pick

1:13:31 > 1:13:36up opportunities as they present themselves. And although I

1:13:36 > 1:13:39personally believe that the amount of the allowance should be

1:13:39 > 1:13:45increased, this bill isn't about that. This bill is simply to give

1:13:45 > 1:13:47freelancers and the self-employed the right to share the current

1:13:47 > 1:13:53allowance. So, the Bill I put forward today is simple but

1:13:53 > 1:13:57significant. It allows maternity allowance to be shared in blocks

1:13:57 > 1:14:00between freelance parents, replicating the way shared parental

1:14:00 > 1:14:05leave works for those in more conventional employment. It's fair,

1:14:05 > 1:14:09it's progressive, it's a bill to complement current government

1:14:09 > 1:14:13policy, not disturb it. Help close the gender pay gap, proving to the

1:14:13 > 1:14:17world Britain's serious. I commend this bill to the House.The question

1:14:17 > 1:14:23is at the honourable member have leave to bring in the Bill. I think

1:14:23 > 1:14:27the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the

1:14:27 > 1:14:33Bill?Mrs Maria Miller, Mr Ed Vaizey, Alison Pulis, Caroline

1:14:33 > 1:14:39Lucas, Jo Swinson, Tom Watson, Kevin Brennan, Emma Reynolds, Luciano

1:14:39 > 1:14:43Burge, Rachel Reeves, Rebecca Long Bailey and myself, Sir.

1:14:52 > 1:14:59Tracey

1:15:14 > 1:15:26Shared parental leave and allowance Bill.Second reading what day? Me

1:15:26 > 1:15:34the 11th. We come now to the programme motion. The Minister to

1:15:34 > 1:15:37move? The question is the finance never to build programme and two

1:15:37 > 1:15:44hours on the order paper. Do you wish to speak? The honourable lady

1:15:44 > 1:15:53wishes to speak.Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to speak to new

1:15:53 > 1:16:01clause nine...The honourable programme motion? The lady doesn't

1:16:01 > 1:16:07wish to debate? The ayes have it, the ayes have it. Order, the clerk

1:16:07 > 1:16:12will now proceed to read the orders of the day.Finance never to bill as

1:16:12 > 1:16:22amended in upon the Bill committee to be considered.The Whip says now.

1:16:22 > 1:16:29We begin with new clause nine to move the motion I call Don Butler.

1:16:29 > 1:16:33Thank you, Mr Speaker. I now rise to speak to new clause nine which

1:16:33 > 1:16:37stands in the name of my right honourable friend the leader of the

1:16:37 > 1:16:41and other honourable friends. Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the

1:16:41 > 1:16:47previous Minister for women and equality is, the Member for Putney,

1:16:47 > 1:16:50for the equality impact assessment response sent to me just before

1:16:50 > 1:16:55Christmas. The honourable member's responses are normally quite upbeat.

1:16:55 > 1:16:59I must say, Mr Speaker, but I found this particular response a little

1:16:59 > 1:17:05lacklustre. But it definitely highlighted why we need to support

1:17:05 > 1:17:10new clause nine. The letter highlights the weaknesses of due

1:17:10 > 1:17:14regard, and goes on to make a somewhat puzzling statement, and I

1:17:14 > 1:17:19quote. All departments carefully consider the equality impacts of

1:17:19 > 1:17:23individual policy decisions taken on by those protected characteristics

1:17:23 > 1:17:27in line with our legal obligations and our clear commitment to quality

1:17:27 > 1:17:30issues. And therein lies the problem. This Government has not

1:17:30 > 1:17:37shown a clear commitment to equality issues, far from it. With 86% of the

1:17:37 > 1:17:44cuts falling on the shoulders of women, and black and Asian minority

1:17:44 > 1:17:48and disabled people suffering more than any other group, I find it hard

1:17:48 > 1:17:52to understand why the Government would try to proclaim that they are

1:17:52 > 1:18:00committed to equality is. Mr Speaker... Sure.I thank a forgiving

1:18:00 > 1:18:04way. She mentions the Government has not made commitment. Does she not

1:18:04 > 1:18:07agree with me the compelling companies in our country to publish

1:18:07 > 1:18:11the gender pay gap information, the first time any Government has done

1:18:11 > 1:18:14this, is a very clear signal and already making real change for those

1:18:14 > 1:18:19women working in those companies?I thank the Member for her

1:18:19 > 1:18:24intervention. I do agree that it is good to get companies to publish

1:18:24 > 1:18:29their pay gap. The problem is that there isn't actually any teeth if

1:18:29 > 1:18:33they fail to do so. And that is a real problem that needs to be

1:18:33 > 1:18:38addressed. We need to really tackle the gender pay gap, but also of

1:18:38 > 1:18:44companies fail to address the pay gap that there needs to be some

1:18:44 > 1:18:49punishment for that almost, and that is unfortunately failing in the

1:18:49 > 1:18:56Government's plan. I will give way. I thank the Lady forgiving way. Do

1:18:56 > 1:19:01she recognise that voluntary schemes of publication, whether it is

1:19:01 > 1:19:04participation, as demonstrated in the Crossrail project, showed that

1:19:04 > 1:19:07companies will comply through social pressure, because actually there is

1:19:07 > 1:19:12a brand equity question. You don't need to have a hard punishment,

1:19:12 > 1:19:15through brand equity reputation, that would be punishment enough they

1:19:15 > 1:19:21fail to comply.Again, the problem is that there are very few companies

1:19:21 > 1:19:26who have actually published, and I think the deadline is quickly

1:19:26 > 1:19:31approaching. Mr Speaker, the letter that I was sent from the Minister

1:19:31 > 1:19:39goes on to say that the Treasury would have completed a cumulative

1:19:39 > 1:19:43impact assessment. I have yet to receive confirmation of this

1:19:43 > 1:19:48cumulative impact assessment, and I wonder whether the Minister would be

1:19:48 > 1:19:52able to confirm that, and also whether we can see a copy of that

1:19:52 > 1:19:56laid before the House in the library. I know that it is difficult

1:19:56 > 1:20:00for the Government to often hear the views of the opposition, so I urge

1:20:00 > 1:20:06the Government to the voices of the members from his own side, like the

1:20:06 > 1:20:10honourable member who was chair of the Treasury select committee. The

1:20:10 > 1:20:13committee are obviously a little bit perplexed at the lack of commitment

1:20:13 > 1:20:18to equality impact assessment, and the Chancellor had complained about

1:20:18 > 1:20:23the kind of data that was gathered, but when the Chancellor was asked

1:20:23 > 1:20:26whether he had asked the Office for National Statistics about the

1:20:26 > 1:20:33gathering of that data, he replied that he had not, and that doesn't

1:20:33 > 1:20:36show a commitment to equality. The Treasury committee also goes on to

1:20:36 > 1:20:45say that the Treasury should use the OMS, HMRC data to produce robust

1:20:45 > 1:20:48assessments of future prospects, including tax and welfare measures

1:20:48 > 1:20:52within them, a deficiency of data in respect of some protective

1:20:52 > 1:20:56characteristics is not a reason for failing to produce an analysis in

1:20:56 > 1:21:05respect of others for which data is available. Nor should the risk of

1:21:05 > 1:21:07misinterpretation or methodological complexity preclude the publication

1:21:07 > 1:21:15of an equality impact assessment. In short, Mr Speaker, just do it. Mr

1:21:15 > 1:21:19Speaker, the only reference in the budget to gender impact which has

1:21:19 > 1:21:22been identified as when it disproportionately affected men.

1:21:22 > 1:21:28What possible reason could this be, I wonder. I understand that the

1:21:28 > 1:21:31Treasury committee would welcome an explanation on the thinking of this

1:21:31 > 1:21:37from the Government. So would we. It does not make sense that the

1:21:37 > 1:21:43Chancellor alluded to the fact that Ministers see the equality impact

1:21:43 > 1:21:47assessment for the Department because it makes me wonder if

1:21:47 > 1:21:51Ministers see them, if Ministers read them, if Ministers actually

1:21:51 > 1:21:56have proper due regard to them, why would they implement the policies

1:21:56 > 1:22:01that they do? If the Government fails to support this clause, there

1:22:01 > 1:22:06could be no public confidence that the Government's commitment to

1:22:06 > 1:22:11protect, not punish people with protective characteristics. For the

1:22:11 > 1:22:16record, Mr Speaker, the nine protective characteristics are age,

1:22:16 > 1:22:21disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy, maternity, race, religion

1:22:21 > 1:22:26or belief, sex and sexual orientation. I understand that the

1:22:26 > 1:22:29Prime Minister is a little bit preoccupied. She is a little bit

1:22:29 > 1:22:33weak at the moment, and I know that she is dealing with a very serious

1:22:33 > 1:22:37ransom note at the moment. But I honestly believe that she would not

1:22:37 > 1:22:41be pleased that her legacy will be that of the hindering of women and

1:22:41 > 1:22:50their life chances. More children are homeless, more children are

1:22:50 > 1:22:56homeless or living in temporary accommodation than at any other time

1:22:56 > 1:23:02since the 2007/ financial crash. Shelter says that homelessness is a

1:23:02 > 1:23:08national scandal. It estimates that 140 families become homeless every

1:23:08 > 1:23:13single day, and the estimate of rough sleeping shows an increase of

1:23:13 > 1:23:16130%. Everyday we see and hear the damaging effects of this

1:23:16 > 1:23:20Government's policies have other people, especially those with

1:23:20 > 1:23:23protective characteristics. This Government is damaging not

1:23:23 > 1:23:26protecting vulnerable groups. Even when the Government conduct an

1:23:26 > 1:23:31equality impact assessment, it seems to ignore it. Just two weeks ago,

1:23:31 > 1:23:33the Government released an equality impact assessment revealing that

1:23:33 > 1:23:37more bursaries will be axed from around a thousand nurses who enter

1:23:37 > 1:23:45the profession each year. Assessment reveals that the latest disco nation

1:23:45 > 1:23:48was against those of ethnic minorities and poorer backgrounds.

1:23:48 > 1:23:52We need a Prime Minister who cares enough to start laying the

1:23:52 > 1:23:58foundations for which we can bring about true equality for women,

1:23:58 > 1:24:01diverse communities, LGBT plus communities and those with

1:24:01 > 1:24:04protective characteristics. A Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn

1:24:04 > 1:24:09would do just that. A Labour government's successes would be

1:24:09 > 1:24:13measured by how it reduces inequality. The next Labour

1:24:13 > 1:24:18government with an sure that we publish equality impact assessment,

1:24:18 > 1:24:21and we conduct equality impact assessments before implementation of

1:24:21 > 1:24:25policies. And then a Labour Government would have

1:24:25 > 1:24:27post-legislative scrutiny to ascertain whether policies are

1:24:27 > 1:24:31making the situation better or worse. The labour we will enable us

1:24:31 > 1:24:35to truly build an economy for the many and not the few. If the

1:24:35 > 1:24:41Government fails to support this very reasonable amendment, more

1:24:41 > 1:24:47people will question... I'm just at the end, I'm afraid. If the

1:24:47 > 1:24:51Government fails to support this very reasonable amendment, more and

1:24:51 > 1:24:54more people will begin to question why this Government is so intent on

1:24:54 > 1:24:59harming not hindering women and those with protective

1:24:59 > 1:25:06characteristics as opposed to helping them.Equality impact

1:25:06 > 1:25:13analysis of various parts of this act.Should new clause nine B read a

1:25:13 > 1:25:23second time? Minister? I hadn't seen the honourable lady standing. That

1:25:23 > 1:25:27was my error.Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It was a pleasure to

1:25:27 > 1:25:32take part in the final day of debate on this Finance Bill. We have had a

1:25:32 > 1:25:38lot of debate, myself and the Member for Oxford East and the Minister

1:25:38 > 1:25:41have spent quite a lot of time together in the committee room, not

1:25:41 > 1:25:46just on this but also on the customs bill that has been passing, so it is

1:25:46 > 1:25:49good to be here again in order to talk about this, and actually I

1:25:49 > 1:25:53think it is a great way to start talking about equalities, and

1:25:53 > 1:25:57particularly around the new clause that is being put forward by the

1:25:57 > 1:26:01Labour bench of the Shadow Minister. I think this is incredibly

1:26:01 > 1:26:07important, because the way that the Government and the way that previous

1:26:07 > 1:26:12governments at Westminster have done budget has not been particularly

1:26:12 > 1:26:15transparent, and has not ended in a situation where people know what the

1:26:15 > 1:26:19effects of all of the policies will be as they come through. I have said

1:26:19 > 1:26:24before and I still believe that this is a very, very good amendment, this

1:26:24 > 1:26:27new clause, and I'm delighted to stand on the half of the SNP and

1:26:27 > 1:26:31support this new clause as it goes forward. I just want to highlight a

1:26:31 > 1:26:35number of things within it, as well as some genuine comments around the

1:26:35 > 1:26:44transparency and the processes that the Government uses in order to

1:26:44 > 1:26:47create budget and make tax law in general. The amendment itself talks

1:26:47 > 1:26:51about various things, including the protective characteristics, looking

1:26:51 > 1:26:56at the view and impact analysis on the basis of different protective

1:26:56 > 1:27:01characteristics. Just to focus in on one of those, the issue of age I

1:27:01 > 1:27:04think is incredibly important. A number of decisions that the

1:27:04 > 1:27:07Government makes around tax policy have a differential impact on those

1:27:07 > 1:27:11people of different ages, we have spoken before in this chamber on a

1:27:11 > 1:27:14number of occasions about the generational divide that there is.

1:27:14 > 1:27:18We are seeing generation rent, those people that are millennials or

1:27:18 > 1:27:23younger than that facing a very different housing situation to those

1:27:23 > 1:27:27people in generations that came before, and therefore any tax

1:27:27 > 1:27:40changes that happen affect that group of people differently to how

1:27:56 > 1:27:58they affected the previous generation when they were the same

1:27:58 > 1:28:01age, so I think it would be really important for any analysis was

1:28:01 > 1:28:03undertaken by the Government to look at the generational divide, to look

1:28:03 > 1:28:06at the impact on not just that group of millennials and younger, but on

1:28:06 > 1:28:09those people that are of state pension age as well and to look at

1:28:09 > 1:28:11the impact on them of any changes to taxes that are coming through.

1:28:11 > 1:28:13Looking specifically at other things, the honourable member

1:28:13 > 1:28:15mentioned issues around women, and it is clear that there is still a

1:28:15 > 1:28:18gender pay gap, and companies have got to publish this information and

1:28:18 > 1:28:20I think that is really important, but actually, the obligation is that

1:28:20 > 1:28:23I have seen thus far from companies have caused me more concern than the

1:28:23 > 1:28:25situation that was previously in. We saw one company recently produce a

1:28:25 > 1:28:31gender pay report that really stated that men in their organisation were

1:28:31 > 1:28:34paid significantly more than women, and they said it wasn't an equal pay

1:28:34 > 1:28:38issue, because the men were overwhelmingly doing higher paid

1:28:38 > 1:28:47jobs, it was an a travel company, they were pilots, whereas women

1:28:47 > 1:28:5495% of their pilots were men and over 85% of their cabin crew were

1:28:54 > 1:28:58women. That is still a major issue because it means that women are

1:28:58 > 1:29:01finding it very difficult to become pilots and men are not finding it

1:29:01 > 1:29:06that easy to become cabin crew either, so the real issue here, and

1:29:06 > 1:29:10even though this data has been published which I do welcome, it has

1:29:10 > 1:29:15highlighted institutional issues which there are as well as issues

1:29:15 > 1:29:20around equal pay. So any impact analysis the Government does need to

1:29:20 > 1:29:26take into account all of these things. Some of these decisions the

1:29:26 > 1:29:30Government has taken previously, such as the changes around the

1:29:30 > 1:29:34marriage allowance, and I do welcome the proposals made to that in this

1:29:34 > 1:29:40Finance Bill, however, the creation of the marriage allowance is

1:29:40 > 1:29:47something that disproportionately has a negative impact on single

1:29:47 > 1:29:52female parents, actually. That is a concern for the SNP with issues

1:29:52 > 1:29:55around the idea of a marriage allowance and we don't think it is

1:29:55 > 1:29:58something which has been properly thought through because of the lack

1:29:58 > 1:30:05of fairness in the system.She's making a very good point on the

1:30:05 > 1:30:11marriage allowance as ever and it creates an inequality that I is a

1:30:11 > 1:30:16married woman suddenly get this advantage over an unmarried person,

1:30:16 > 1:30:22that is an unfairness in the tax system. We shouldn't be in the

1:30:22 > 1:30:27business of telling people how financially beneficial marriages.I

1:30:27 > 1:30:30absolutely agree with my honourable friend that people ultimately

1:30:30 > 1:30:34shouldn't have to get into whether it's a marriage arrestable

1:30:34 > 1:30:38partnership or any kind of signing on a dotted line relationship to get

1:30:38 > 1:30:43a tax break. That should not be the case. People should have the choice.

1:30:43 > 1:30:48This is the disproportionately positive effect on the people who

1:30:48 > 1:30:53are married, particularly men, and it's women who are disadvantaged

1:30:53 > 1:30:55because they cannot receive this allowance. Looking at some of the

1:30:55 > 1:31:02other things within the New Clause that have been laid down, I have

1:31:02 > 1:31:05previously talked particularly during the custom spill about the

1:31:05 > 1:31:08differential regional impact that there will be Brexit particularly.

1:31:08 > 1:31:14It is the case with the leaked Government analysis that we have

1:31:14 > 1:31:19seen that there will be a significantly higher negative impact

1:31:19 > 1:31:23according to that leaked analysis on areas in the North of England for

1:31:23 > 1:31:27example that there will be in areas like London and the South of

1:31:27 > 1:31:30England. I think therefore when the Government is making policies,

1:31:30 > 1:31:34actually what it should be doing is it should be making sure it's trying

1:31:34 > 1:31:38to balance that out and therefore trying to put in place policies that

1:31:38 > 1:31:43are more beneficial to those areas in order to try to counterbalance

1:31:43 > 1:31:48the major negative effect that Brexit will have. We need to have a

1:31:48 > 1:32:00situation where particularly some of the people in those areas... We

1:32:00 > 1:32:05would be able to see more appropriately, more clearly what the

1:32:05 > 1:32:10Government's thoughts on the impacts are, and part of the problem is that

1:32:10 > 1:32:13the Government doesn't actually know what the impact will be on some of

1:32:13 > 1:32:16these policies. They don't know what the differential impact will be

1:32:16 > 1:32:20because they haven't looked at it. If they do have all of this

1:32:20 > 1:32:24analysis, it should be very easy for them just to publish it and give it

1:32:24 > 1:32:30to us that we can scrutinise it and make the best decisions.Thank you

1:32:30 > 1:32:35for giving way. You talk about regional disparity. Do you think

1:32:35 > 1:32:38that the SNP policy of increasing taxes in Scotland is a way of

1:32:38 > 1:32:45narrowing that disparity?I have raised particularly my concerns

1:32:45 > 1:32:50around those earning £26,000 a year in England who will now pay more tax

1:32:50 > 1:32:56in England and they will do in Scotland... I'm sorry, Mr Speaker, I

1:32:56 > 1:33:01being shouted at across the top of the chamber. Those people at the

1:33:01 > 1:33:04bottom of the pile earning under £26,000 a year in England will pay

1:33:04 > 1:33:08more tax in England and they will in Scotland and I do not think that is

1:33:08 > 1:33:14fair because I think those people most need the support of the

1:33:14 > 1:33:17Government, especially with the changes to tax credits, especially

1:33:17 > 1:33:22with the negative impacts there are two people who are disabled who are

1:33:22 > 1:33:27losing £30 per week. This is a significant issue for the most

1:33:27 > 1:33:29vulnerable people and that the Conservatives to shout about the

1:33:29 > 1:33:34fact that tax rates for those who are earning a reasonable income are

1:33:34 > 1:33:37slightly higher in Scotland that they are in England I think it's

1:33:37 > 1:33:43very clear that they are supporting a different system which doesn't

1:33:43 > 1:33:45involve as much fairness as the system which we are trying to

1:33:45 > 1:33:50support in Scotland. Going on with the process of budget straightening

1:33:50 > 1:33:56and the process of scrutiny around the Finance Bill in general, I have

1:33:56 > 1:33:59previously raised the difference lay my concerns around the fact the

1:33:59 > 1:34:07Finance Bill doesn't look to take evidence. I think it would be much

1:34:07 > 1:34:11better if it did and I would like to see take evidence from organisations

1:34:11 > 1:34:15like the women's budget group that can talk about the gender disparity

1:34:15 > 1:34:19in some tax decisions that are being made. But I honestly don't think

1:34:19 > 1:34:23that is enough. It's not enough to have that scrutiny after the event.

1:34:23 > 1:34:30You still have a situation where despite moving to one of event in a

1:34:30 > 1:34:36year, which I welcome that change, you do not have the level of

1:34:36 > 1:34:40consultation that you could tap before tax measures are suggested

1:34:40 > 1:34:43and put in place, before we come to the actual stage of the Chancellor

1:34:43 > 1:34:49standing up and revealing the budget.Mr Speaker, I thank the Arab

1:34:49 > 1:34:55member for giving way. -- I thank the honourable member for giving

1:34:55 > 1:35:06way. There is a revenue follow on from that because road improvements

1:35:06 > 1:35:10mean it is quicker for people to get to hospital and so on. But the

1:35:10 > 1:35:16honourable member agree with me that it would be helpful if some

1:35:16 > 1:35:19financial consideration had been given in the Finance Bill to what

1:35:19 > 1:35:22the reduction of this money would mean to the Exchequer and indeed

1:35:22 > 1:35:26what that would mean to the Scottish Government being able to rip -- to

1:35:26 > 1:35:31replace this funding somehow.I agree with the point the honourable

1:35:31 > 1:35:34member is making. I think the point I was making earlier about the

1:35:34 > 1:35:44differences any impact of Brexit relates to this. It's important with

1:35:44 > 1:35:49trading with the EU but also with the money coming from the EU for

1:35:49 > 1:35:53things like infrastructure products -- projects, it's important those

1:35:53 > 1:35:58are not capped by the Government and it's important that when the

1:35:58 > 1:36:02Chancellor stands up and gives what will be his spring statement, which

1:36:02 > 1:36:05will probably be very light in terms of the tax changes it will put in

1:36:05 > 1:36:11place, because that's what the business community are generally

1:36:11 > 1:36:13asking for, but it will be incredibly important when it comes

1:36:13 > 1:36:17to the Autumn Statement and the budget that the Chancellor does as

1:36:17 > 1:36:23much consultation as he can beforehand. He will be speaking not

1:36:23 > 1:36:28just to Conservative MPs, which I am aware that he does, he does also

1:36:28 > 1:36:32speak to business organisations, he also needs to speak to others and he

1:36:32 > 1:36:35should be consulting on the tax measures he's looking to put in

1:36:35 > 1:36:40place as well as the taking of this amendment, which ensures there is an

1:36:40 > 1:36:47impact analysis afterwards.I am very grateful. I wonder if she could

1:36:47 > 1:36:51explain the consultation that the Scottish Government undertook before

1:36:51 > 1:36:56they increased the taxes there, which many of my constituents do

1:36:56 > 1:37:01think is fair? Despite the call for consultation, the Scottish

1:37:01 > 1:37:08Government consultation have not reflected any changes.Before the

1:37:08 > 1:37:12Scottish Government's folk that there was, what happened was a

1:37:12 > 1:37:19rationale outline of the white was proposing changes, it consulted each

1:37:19 > 1:37:22of parties within Parliament, asking each of them for their tax plans so

1:37:22 > 1:37:28they could be analysed, and actually this put forward, I'm not entirely

1:37:28 > 1:37:32sure it might have in October or November, whereas the actual vote

1:37:32 > 1:37:37was now, is just taken place, giving a significant amount of time between

1:37:37 > 1:37:41the consultation document and the best discussions on this being

1:37:41 > 1:37:45produced and the actual vote in parliament, whereas what happened

1:37:45 > 1:37:51here, we have the budget debate and then we have the vote. The vote on

1:37:51 > 1:37:56the ways and means resolution, some of the proposals that are being put

1:37:56 > 1:38:02in place from that day are being put in place from that date. It's a very

1:38:02 > 1:38:04different situation in the Scottish parliament where there is a length

1:38:04 > 1:38:16of time for consultation because a draft resolution is -- a draft

1:38:16 > 1:38:19budget is produced. Any party is able to do that in the Scottish

1:38:19 > 1:38:23parliament. Some have chosen to and some had chosen not to. I would

1:38:23 > 1:38:28suggest those who have not might be struggling to balance the books at

1:38:28 > 1:38:31Thule or they might have just decided that houses clearly the best

1:38:31 > 1:38:37option. Mr Speaker, I don't want to take any more time. I think the call

1:38:37 > 1:38:43for a quality assessments actually call for more transparency and

1:38:43 > 1:38:45information, not just for the opposition scrutinising the budget

1:38:45 > 1:38:51but also for the Government ministers who could be taking better

1:38:51 > 1:38:54decisions if they could see all of the impact, particularly those with

1:38:54 > 1:39:02protected characteristics.Helen Wigley. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I

1:39:02 > 1:39:06just wanted to make a few brief comments, especially as I was unable

1:39:06 > 1:39:12to intervene earlier run on the Shadow Minister. But I was hoping to

1:39:12 > 1:39:16say at that point, so I'll say it briefly now, I was quite shocked by

1:39:16 > 1:39:24some of the accusations she made and also what I consider unsubstantiated

1:39:24 > 1:39:28claims about a rather illusionary bright future under the idea of a

1:39:28 > 1:39:34Corbyn Government. I'm afraid I felt she ignored the legacy of the

1:39:34 > 1:39:40previous Labour Government because it was that Labour Government that

1:39:40 > 1:39:44failed to build homes now, it failed on jobs and left many thousands of

1:39:44 > 1:39:53families jobless when the Conservative Government took over.

1:39:53 > 1:39:55Unfortunately it increased inequality in our society.I'm happy

1:39:55 > 1:40:02to give way. I'm grateful to the Member for giving way. Actually, the

1:40:02 > 1:40:08number of home owning households under the last Government increased

1:40:08 > 1:40:12by 1 billion. It has fallen under a Conservative Government and I felt

1:40:12 > 1:40:18it was -- increased by 1 million. It has fallen under the Conservative

1:40:18 > 1:40:25Government and I felt it was important to clarify that.It is

1:40:25 > 1:40:31important that we try to focus the exchanges on New Clause 92 which

1:40:31 > 1:40:37with laser-like in tendency -- intensity, I know she will now turn.

1:40:37 > 1:40:45She has made a different point from the point I made, however, because

1:40:45 > 1:40:51mine was about the building of houses. By contrast, this House,

1:40:51 > 1:40:54this Government has made progress on the gender pay gap. This Government

1:40:54 > 1:40:59is one that is requiring companies, for instance, to publish the data on

1:40:59 > 1:41:04the gender pay gap and as we well know and was mentioned earlier this

1:41:04 > 1:41:08afternoon, transparency is a huge driver of change. We have seen that

1:41:08 > 1:41:13in many sectors, not just in the health sector where most of my

1:41:13 > 1:41:19experiences. This Government is raising the national living wage and

1:41:19 > 1:41:26we know that disproportionately benefits women. This argument --

1:41:26 > 1:41:31Government has taken the lowest paid out attacks. It is this Government

1:41:31 > 1:41:36that are making sure that for houses on the lowest incomes, every £1 they

1:41:36 > 1:41:41pay on tax, they benefit to £4 worth of public spending. And it is this

1:41:41 > 1:41:46Government that has overseen a huge expansion in job so that a million

1:41:46 > 1:41:49more are reworked and significantly to the point she was making about

1:41:49 > 1:41:53children, many more children now are in households where there is

1:41:53 > 1:41:58somebody in the household working, far fewer are in workless households

1:41:58 > 1:42:03and we know that work is a key out of poverty. I give way to my

1:42:03 > 1:42:07honourable friend over there.

1:42:07 > 1:42:11I thank her forgiving way. Does she recognise also that it is this

1:42:11 > 1:42:14Government that has overseen the greatest expansion of women in work

1:42:14 > 1:42:21since records began?My noble friend makes a very good point, and in fact

1:42:21 > 1:42:27policies that we have put in place to help women, for instance the

1:42:27 > 1:42:30extra free childcare for three-year-olds, which benefits both

1:42:30 > 1:42:35parents but we know it is women who are often the main child carer so it

1:42:35 > 1:42:40particularly helps women with an ambition to work.I'm grateful to my

1:42:40 > 1:42:45noble friend forgiving way. She recognise also that since the last

1:42:45 > 1:42:49Labour government was in power, youth unemployment has been cut in

1:42:49 > 1:42:52half. That generates opportunities, the dignity of work, the chance to

1:42:52 > 1:42:55get on and also the chance for women and children to achieve their best

1:42:55 > 1:43:00in society.I thank my honourable friend for making such an important

1:43:00 > 1:43:06point. This Government has given thousands of young people the

1:43:06 > 1:43:11opportunity to have a job. I remember it was not that long ago

1:43:11 > 1:43:20that everyone was talking all the time about Neets, the big debate was

1:43:20 > 1:43:27on all those young people who were not in education or training.I

1:43:27 > 1:43:31thank the member forgiving way. She has mentioned the power of numbers

1:43:31 > 1:43:35to be able to track progress. New clause nine is about the power of

1:43:35 > 1:43:39numbers to be able to track progress in tackling inequality, so if she

1:43:39 > 1:43:42thinks those numbers are so important in the battle to ensure we

1:43:42 > 1:43:45didn't leave young people behind, why do she not think the same when

1:43:45 > 1:43:52it comes to women and ethnic minorities?I'm not surprised by my

1:43:52 > 1:43:57honourable friend's intervention, and I think the point is that there

1:43:57 > 1:44:02is a thorough impact analysis of the budget, and no point in endlessly

1:44:02 > 1:44:07going things around things again and again, where does it get us?I think

1:44:07 > 1:44:13the honourable lady forgiving way. Would she agree that bearing in mind

1:44:13 > 1:44:18with what she was talking about women in business, this Government

1:44:18 > 1:44:24has seen compared to 2003-2006 under the Labour government, if you

1:44:24 > 1:44:29compare that time to 2013-2016, the number of women in business and

1:44:29 > 1:44:33entrepreneurship has grown by over 40%. Does she agree with me that

1:44:33 > 1:44:36this shows this Government's commitment to women in business?

1:44:36 > 1:44:43Another very well-informed point from a colleague about women in the

1:44:43 > 1:44:46workplace supported by this Government. I think the headline

1:44:46 > 1:44:50point that I was keen to make is that this Government has a track

1:44:50 > 1:44:56record in reducing inequality, and I'm keen to make sure that we base

1:44:56 > 1:45:02what I say therefore on the track record, a track record of improving

1:45:02 > 1:45:06lives for people on the lowest incomes, and reducing inequality.

1:45:06 > 1:45:12And let's talk not about...I thank the honourable lady forgiving way.

1:45:12 > 1:45:17Though she agree that it is not just about income but it is about

1:45:17 > 1:45:20equality of opportunity and aspiration as well?I absolutely

1:45:20 > 1:45:25agree the you shouldn't just look at the outcomes, but in order to get to

1:45:25 > 1:45:28a better outcome, the key is absolutely to give people

1:45:28 > 1:45:33opportunities to make the most of their lives. But particularly helps

1:45:33 > 1:45:36those who have a difficult start or find themselves in a difficult

1:45:36 > 1:45:46situation, who may need extra help to access the but opportunity is

1:45:46 > 1:45:49absolutely the key. And then rather than painting a picture that can

1:45:49 > 1:45:53mislead people into thinking that there is some illusion of a perfect

1:45:53 > 1:45:59world, but rather to base claims unsubstantial policies, I know it is

1:45:59 > 1:46:02controversial, but Universal Credit for instance in my constituency is

1:46:02 > 1:46:06making a difference the people who want to work and want to work more

1:46:06 > 1:46:10hours. I have heard many criticisms of it but genuinely it is making a

1:46:10 > 1:46:16difference in terms of giving people opportunity to increased the work

1:46:16 > 1:46:19they do, and the opportunities coming through thanks to the

1:46:19 > 1:46:23industrial strategy, these are the concrete policies which are going to

1:46:23 > 1:46:28make life better for people, and that is how we reduce inequalities,

1:46:28 > 1:46:31and that is why I'm delighted support the Government throughout

1:46:31 > 1:46:38this Finance Bill.Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank

1:46:38 > 1:46:42you for the chance of being able to speak on new clause nine in this

1:46:42 > 1:46:50debate. As it has been put forward, I appreciate we should look at the

1:46:50 > 1:46:53distribution and the impact of some of the budget impacts, and that is

1:46:53 > 1:46:58what the Treasury already does. At every budgetary event, it does look

1:46:58 > 1:47:02at the impact on the distribution across the United Kingdom, and ONS

1:47:02 > 1:47:05statistics also look at the distribution and impact across

1:47:05 > 1:47:08different household as well. I would also say that when we're talking

1:47:08 > 1:47:12about making sure we shine a light on these issues and target equality,

1:47:12 > 1:47:15I know that I and many members in this House share your passion for

1:47:15 > 1:47:18this, this is the Government that have put the pressure on companies

1:47:18 > 1:47:22to make these publications, and although there isn't full compliance

1:47:22 > 1:47:26yet, I'm sure my right honourable friend will continue to put pressure

1:47:26 > 1:47:34on the sector, and as a referred to earlier, some follow some of the

1:47:34 > 1:47:37industry-leading programme such as Crossrail and add pressure to show

1:47:37 > 1:47:41companies what best practice is in the UK and internationally. And just

1:47:41 > 1:47:46pick up on some broader points about the pay gap, especially gender pay

1:47:46 > 1:47:49gap, I hope honourable members opposite would have seemed a recent

1:47:49 > 1:47:53study quoted in the FT just a month ago, I would be happy to share it

1:47:53 > 1:47:56with them, looking at male and female pay rates, which are equal up

1:47:56 > 1:48:08until middle to senior manager level, after which

1:48:09 > 1:48:12there was a big gap, and the biggest disparity in where some of the most

1:48:12 > 1:48:15uneven gaps appear at the very senior roles, as in CEO and CFO

1:48:15 > 1:48:18roles. And one of the key drivers in that study was women taking

1:48:18 > 1:48:20maternity leave, so we have already identified the problem in the pay

1:48:20 > 1:48:22gap, we should be looking at policies to increase more flexible

1:48:22 > 1:48:26working and having women back into the workplace after taking maternity

1:48:26 > 1:48:29leave. I know colleagues on the front bench have been looking at

1:48:29 > 1:48:35this and reflected that in some of the budget. More broadly, and to

1:48:35 > 1:48:37focus on points made by the honourable member for Aberdeen

1:48:37 > 1:48:41North, comments on tax and equality, to be very clear, and this new

1:48:41 > 1:48:45clause nine was making reference every part of the United Kingdom,

1:48:45 > 1:48:48some of the tax increases that have been put up in Scotland, they have

1:48:48 > 1:48:53been quoted to make a much fairer society. Just clarity in this House,

1:48:53 > 1:48:58the tax changes that have been putting mean the lowest incomes in

1:48:58 > 1:49:07Scotland get £20 more per year. That's it. That's 38p per week. So

1:49:07 > 1:49:12when they stand in this House and lecture on this being unfair, let's

1:49:12 > 1:49:16remember the tax changes they brought in bring £20 a year, the tax

1:49:16 > 1:49:22changes of the Conservative have brought in bringing £1500 per year

1:49:22 > 1:49:25with the tax threshold, so let's leave the SNP debate on the

1:49:25 > 1:49:29sidelines while the Conservatives bring about truly transformational

1:49:29 > 1:49:33change. And also on the marriage allowance, I'm glad the honourable

1:49:33 > 1:49:36member brought it up, because the party has been in the papers about

1:49:36 > 1:49:40the marriage allowance just weekend, where the Chancellor of the

1:49:40 > 1:49:43exchequer of the UK Government had to stand up and guarantee to people

1:49:43 > 1:49:47living in Scotland that they would bridge the gap created in marriage

1:49:47 > 1:49:52allowance by the tax changes that were imposed by Holyrood, by the SNP

1:49:52 > 1:49:55administration in Hollywood, so yet again it is the UK Exchequer that is

1:49:55 > 1:50:04having to stump up for SNP failures in Scotland. And finally when we're

1:50:04 > 1:50:07talking about fairness, it is important to recognise that it is

1:50:07 > 1:50:09this budget that is bringing a real terms increase to Scotland which has

1:50:09 > 1:50:11been recognised by the Finance Secretary in the Scottish

1:50:11 > 1:50:17Parliament, that there is a real terms increase. So on top of the

1:50:17 > 1:50:21£1750 per head spending that we get already, we're getting a further

1:50:21 > 1:50:26increase in real terms to spend on front line services in Scotland. And

1:50:26 > 1:50:32finally, I am conscious of time, but one important area that I think does

1:50:32 > 1:50:36impact on equal issues is that an tax avoidance, that has been picked

1:50:36 > 1:50:39up in the budget, and that is tax avoidance generally but also on the

1:50:39 > 1:50:46VAT provision as well, which is a member Public Accounts Committee, we

1:50:46 > 1:50:50pay specific interest in. And the provisions that have been put about

1:50:50 > 1:50:54targeting VAT avoidance especially for international payment platforms

1:50:54 > 1:50:56and for international marketplaces give the Exchequer a good

1:50:56 > 1:50:59opportunities target those who currently are not paying VAT that

1:50:59 > 1:51:03should, and will hopefully bring more money into UK coffers, and

1:51:03 > 1:51:10allow us to close the equality gap further still.Thank you, Madam

1:51:10 > 1:51:14Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I wish to put on record my

1:51:14 > 1:51:17appreciation that we are all concerned with equality, and

1:51:17 > 1:51:20striving equality across the country, but we on the side of the

1:51:20 > 1:51:24House clearly differ from the other side in how to achieve this. So

1:51:24 > 1:51:28let's look at our record, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very proud to

1:51:28 > 1:51:32be part of a government that is one of the most progressive that we have

1:51:32 > 1:51:45seen, so the record speaks for itself in what we have done.

1:51:51 > 1:51:53It is not about slogans and words, it is about real progress and real

1:51:53 > 1:51:56change on the ground in people's lives. That is what we care about on

1:51:56 > 1:51:59this side of the House. So we have talked about a review that the other

1:51:59 > 1:52:02side would like us to bring in for every piece of legislation. I think

1:52:02 > 1:52:05it is clear to all of us that this already happens, the Treasury

1:52:05 > 1:52:07already publishes the impact analysis, and looks at the impact on

1:52:07 > 1:52:09the policies. I'm happy to give way. I'm grateful to the honourable

1:52:09 > 1:52:11member forgiving way. The simple fact is that the Treasury does

1:52:11 > 1:52:16publish distributional analysis on the side of the budget. What it

1:52:16 > 1:52:21doesn't do is do a breakdown of the budget in terms of its impact all

1:52:21 > 1:52:23the whole range of protected characteristics defined by the

1:52:23 > 1:52:26equalities act. That is what new clause nine addresses. The

1:52:26 > 1:52:30Government doesn't presently do this, and indeed of the Government

1:52:30 > 1:52:34does as members opposite seems to be saying, do this, they will have no

1:52:34 > 1:52:38trouble voting for this new clause, because they say it is up to the

1:52:38 > 1:52:43Government is already doing.I come back to the point that we are

1:52:43 > 1:52:46already publishing the analysis, and the Treasury is working on looking

1:52:46 > 1:52:50at the impact across a whole range of levels, but Madam Deputy Speaker,

1:52:50 > 1:52:55I wish to come to my Maynard event, which is that we need to look at the

1:52:55 > 1:52:58record of this Government and what it has already delivered. We have

1:52:58 > 1:53:02seen under this Government more women in work, the point I made to

1:53:02 > 1:53:05the honourable friend earlier, that is women aiming to get into work

1:53:05 > 1:53:08because of a wide variety of policies that we have introduced

1:53:08 > 1:53:19including childcare, help to get

1:53:20 > 1:53:23into work and retraining at all times of life. We have also seen a

1:53:23 > 1:53:25massive change in income inequality. Income inequality is the lowest it

1:53:25 > 1:53:33has been for many years under this Government. And since 20 -- 2010,...

1:53:33 > 1:53:37Does she not also agree with me that this budget increase the national

1:53:37 > 1:53:42Living Wage by 4.4%, well above the rate of inflation, and that that

1:53:42 > 1:53:45disproportionately assist people from an ethnic minority background,

1:53:45 > 1:53:50people like myself who often find themselves in low paid work, and

1:53:50 > 1:53:53this is a testament to the work the Government is doing.I thank her for

1:53:53 > 1:53:58that intervention, and she makes a very, very important point. She said

1:53:58 > 1:54:03that the national living wage actually helps people from all

1:54:03 > 1:54:10sectors of society, including those from protected characteristics,

1:54:10 > 1:54:12especially from protected characteristics. So Madam Deputy

1:54:12 > 1:54:16Speaker I believe that our record speaks for itself on these

1:54:16 > 1:54:19policies... I think the honourable lady was first.I thank the

1:54:19 > 1:54:22honourable lady forgiving way. She is promoting the Government's

1:54:22 > 1:54:28record. One of the reasons why we on this side want to get explicit

1:54:28 > 1:54:30equality impact assessment, not the Tyms assessment which I think she

1:54:30 > 1:54:33has been told the Government does produce is because the evidence

1:54:33 > 1:54:37showing counter to what she is suggesting. We know for example the

1:54:37 > 1:54:42gender pay gap between women in their 20s and men in their 20s has

1:54:42 > 1:54:45actually started to grow under this Government. It is now five times

1:54:45 > 1:54:53what it was six years ago. I don't know where the honourable gentleman

1:54:53 > 1:54:57from Scotland got his statistics, but I got mine from the ONS. We

1:54:57 > 1:54:59Government policy is either promoting that or helping to deal

1:54:59 > 1:55:04with that, understanding that would help us all make progress.I thank

1:55:04 > 1:55:07for that intervention, she is a passionate advocate for the gender

1:55:07 > 1:55:10pay gap, and my speech will come onto those were Mark Short. I'm

1:55:10 > 1:55:16aware that the gentleman here wants to... .I'm grateful to my

1:55:16 > 1:55:20honourable friend forgiving way. It is important to see the wood for the

1:55:20 > 1:55:24trees here. Precisely the point that she has indicated, women on lower

1:55:24 > 1:55:30wages, instead of paying income tax at £6,470 as they did under Gordon

1:55:30 > 1:55:36Brown now don't start paying income tax until £11,500, gaining over

1:55:36 > 1:55:40£1000 in the process. And the suggestion that we need a whole load

1:55:40 > 1:55:44of impact assessment has given the lie by the fact that a lot of data

1:55:44 > 1:55:46is published by the Office for National Statistics. If the

1:55:46 > 1:55:48honourable lady wishes to make a point about it in the House of

1:55:48 > 1:55:54Commons, she is able to do so.I thank my honourable friend for that

1:55:54 > 1:55:58intervention. He is reinforcing the point that I'm seeking to make,

1:55:58 > 1:56:01which is that it is about pounds in the pocket of people up and down the

1:56:01 > 1:56:05country, and that is what this Government has done, informed by

1:56:05 > 1:56:09fairness from the day that we have come into Government. I will not

1:56:09 > 1:56:14take any more interventions, because time is short, thank you. OK, this

1:56:14 > 1:56:18is the last one.The honourable gentleman is ever needed

1:56:18 > 1:56:22clarification on this point. There is data out there that shows us that

1:56:22 > 1:56:30the gender pay gap is growing. What we are asking for is analysis of how

1:56:30 > 1:56:33Government policy is impacting that so that we can understand it. I hope

1:56:33 > 1:56:37that Claris him and for the lady opposite why this matters.I thank

1:56:37 > 1:56:40her for that point, and I will now move to the part of my speech where

1:56:40 > 1:56:45I will be talking about the gender pay gap. This is something I care

1:56:45 > 1:56:48absolutely passionately about. I am chair of the APPG for women in

1:56:48 > 1:56:52Parliament, we were cross-party across this issue, and a wider remit

1:56:52 > 1:56:58for all of us that especially in this year, the vote 100 year, we

1:56:58 > 1:57:03take this seriously. So the gender pay gap is an issue that has now

1:57:03 > 1:57:08been addressed specifically by this Government, by a Conservative

1:57:08 > 1:57:10Government, a progressive Government, Madam Deputy Speaker,

1:57:10 > 1:57:13that wants to see real change in our country, that actually wants to put

1:57:13 > 1:57:20an end to the situation that the honourable lady... I'm sorry. But

1:57:20 > 1:57:23the honourable lady has said, and she is right to talk about the fact

1:57:23 > 1:57:28that we have got men in higher paying roles, and women in lower

1:57:28 > 1:57:33paying roles. However, I do not believe this will be fixed by the

1:57:33 > 1:57:37clause that the opposition are proposing. It wouldn't be fixed

1:57:37 > 1:57:41because it is a complex issue, Madam Deputy Speaker, that requires a

1:57:41 > 1:57:58range of interventions and a range of change across the board.

1:57:58 > 1:58:03I would be happy to share the study in the FT, it didn't say the gender

1:58:03 > 1:58:09pay gap was closing, what it said was that men and women up to a

1:58:09 > 1:58:11certain seniority were earning pretty much the same amount in much

1:58:11 > 1:58:14sectors but actually it was that outliers that were making a lot of

1:58:14 > 1:58:19the pay gap. The honourable lady may shake her head but she talks about

1:58:19 > 1:58:23clarifying figures and where they're from Angie called up my honourable

1:58:23 > 1:58:27colleague, so I wanted to make sure she had pure clarification as well

1:58:27 > 1:58:31and to be very clear, I'm the honourable member for a kill and

1:58:31 > 1:58:36South Perthshire, not all of Scotland.I thank my honourable

1:58:36 > 1:58:39friend for about intervention and it's clear we all take this very

1:58:39 > 1:58:42seriously. I wish to come back to the point made by the honourable

1:58:42 > 1:58:51lady when she spoke about the gender pay back -- pay gap when I

1:58:51 > 1:58:56intervened earlier. She said the Government has no teeth to act when

1:58:56 > 1:59:00companies don't publish the data but it's my understanding that the

1:59:00 > 1:59:04Government does have teeth to act, something called the equality and

1:59:04 > 1:59:09human rights commission. It act where companies failed to publish

1:59:09 > 1:59:13that data. I urge the ministers from the Treasury to make sure they are

1:59:13 > 1:59:17paying close attention to that. I'm aware from the work I've done in my

1:59:17 > 1:59:21committee, the base committee, that a number of companies have published

1:59:21 > 1:59:25that data which is great news. That's now in the public domain.

1:59:25 > 1:59:28It's something the Conservative Government have done. The Labour

1:59:28 > 1:59:32Government did not do that. Now many more companies are following suit

1:59:32 > 1:59:38and that is making a very big difference to the employees in that

1:59:38 > 1:59:41company. The equality and human rights commission can actually issue

1:59:41 > 1:59:45a notice and they can require implementation. I think the point my

1:59:45 > 1:59:50honourable friend from Keele and South Ayrshire made earlier is that

1:59:50 > 1:59:55this actually is a complex issue. I'd like to draw attention to

1:59:55 > 2:00:00members of the 30% club, set up by Helena Morrisey, who got a load of

2:00:00 > 2:00:04business leaders together and urged them to take voluntary action by

2:00:04 > 2:00:09putting women on boards and what she found was there was a no legal right

2:00:09 > 2:00:13governments mandate here, but because they all were about

2:00:13 > 2:00:16reputational damage and their image with their employees and culture,

2:00:16 > 2:00:23she saw significant change across the board with that issue. I believe

2:00:23 > 2:00:27as an employer myself before I came into this House, it isn't simply a

2:00:27 > 2:00:32matter of passing laws in the House or a Government review, it is about

2:00:32 > 2:00:36a societal and cultural change, so that's why I'm very proud that our

2:00:36 > 2:00:40Government led by our Prime Minister, the second beam out

2:00:40 > 2:00:45Conservative Prime Minister is leading from the front on this issue

2:00:45 > 2:00:49and companies across the board and businesses are following suit. So I

2:00:49 > 2:00:54think that the Government's record speaks for itself. It's not just

2:00:54 > 2:00:58about slogans, it's about enacting policies, Madam Deputy Speaker, that

2:00:58 > 2:01:03make a big difference. I worry that having analyses and additional

2:01:03 > 2:01:09burdens placed on the Treasury at this time when they have got to

2:01:09 > 2:01:12deliver a massive amount of priorities in order to make out tax

2:01:12 > 2:01:16scheme Sarah and achieve progressive outcomes we want to see would have

2:01:16 > 2:01:21the opposite effect. I've certainly seen myself the danger of unintended

2:01:21 > 2:01:24consequences when you wish to regulate and put more burdensome to

2:01:24 > 2:01:29businesses. I will finish by saying that I do not support the New Clause

2:01:29 > 2:01:379 and I will not be voting for it if there is a division.Thank you Madam

2:01:37 > 2:01:40Deputy Speaker. It is a great pleasure to be called on this debate

2:01:40 > 2:01:45and follow such wonderful speeches from my colleagues. From my point of

2:01:45 > 2:01:55view I do understand the Treasury publishes about tax welfare and I

2:01:55 > 2:01:59have never been shy of voting with the opposition if I believe they are

2:01:59 > 2:02:03right from my point of view, however I do not believe are right in this

2:02:03 > 2:02:08point of view. The reason for that is simply that I do not believe the

2:02:08 > 2:02:11review they are asking for which focuses predominantly on household

2:02:11 > 2:02:16income levels and issues around Treasury analysis is simply because

2:02:16 > 2:02:19it is providing more data and analysis and it's not actually going

2:02:19 > 2:02:24to help people on the lowest incomes or people from disadvantaged

2:02:24 > 2:02:27backgrounds move forward in life. For me, this seems to be very

2:02:27 > 2:02:32academic as opposed to actually helping people push forward and

2:02:32 > 2:02:38achieve opportunity. For me, the real issue is around inequality in

2:02:38 > 2:02:42life chances. At the moment, I believe the best way of changing

2:02:42 > 2:02:47your life chances is still three getting a better education and I am

2:02:47 > 2:02:52proud on the Government's record on the millions more children being

2:02:52 > 2:02:55educated in good or outstanding schools and that's something we

2:02:55 > 2:03:01should all be proud of. As I say, I am not shy of voting with your

2:03:01 > 2:03:05position if I believe they are right...Would my honourable friend

2:03:05 > 2:03:09agree with me that we have had a lot of investment in the schools sector

2:03:09 > 2:03:13which is helping to achieve the sort of result that he is talking about.

2:03:13 > 2:03:16For example in my constituency, Highfield School was rebuilt

2:03:16 > 2:03:26recently.I do agree with my colleague, we have seen massive

2:03:26 > 2:03:30investment in this area. I am proud of the number of primary schools

2:03:30 > 2:03:42expanded in my constituency constituency, rebuilt, and I am

2:03:42 > 2:03:46proud that all primary schools in my constituency are rated good or

2:03:46 > 2:03:50outstanding. Four of my six secondary schools are good and the

2:03:50 > 2:03:53other two we are currently dealing with, so I hope by the next

2:03:53 > 2:03:56election, I will be one of the few members of Parliament where every

2:03:56 > 2:04:01single child in my constituency is getting taught in a good or

2:04:01 > 2:04:06outstanding school. I come back to the equality of opportunity and

2:04:06 > 2:04:10equality of aspiration and I do not believe this New Clause 9 provides

2:04:10 > 2:04:14that equality of opportunity and aspiration. I don't believe it would

2:04:14 > 2:04:28help anybody in my constituency from equality and... Am I taking an

2:04:28 > 2:04:35intervention?Does he recall a previous Prime Minister who argue

2:04:35 > 2:04:48that sunlight was the best... Their parents might be an issue in helping

2:04:48 > 2:04:52him understand how they get better schools?I know myself and the

2:04:52 > 2:04:56honourable lady agree on a lot of things that we disagree on others

2:04:56 > 2:05:00and we have debated across this chamber and in committee rooms. I

2:05:00 > 2:05:07don't think these figures will help those children. They are

2:05:07 > 2:05:11retrospective to talk about what is happening... I am happy to take an

2:05:11 > 2:05:20intervention.I just want to clarify, equality impact assessment

2:05:20 > 2:05:24seeks to look at the implementation of policies, have an assessment, see

2:05:24 > 2:05:31whether it has helped or hindered progress. That's all it does. It's a

2:05:31 > 2:05:40good thing. It's not a burden, it's good decision-making.I think the

2:05:40 > 2:05:49difference of opinion I have is that I think a good deal will give much

2:05:49 > 2:05:56better aspiration to children and when we are looking at forecasts of

2:05:56 > 2:05:59economists. In the 80s I have been a member of Parliament, the figures

2:05:59 > 2:06:04never seem to right ever -- in the eight years I have been a member of

2:06:04 > 2:06:07Parliament, the figures never seem to be right ever. I would like to

2:06:07 > 2:06:12talk for a moment about Universal Credit. I campaigned about some of

2:06:12 > 2:06:16the issues on Universal Credit and I believe it as a product is the right

2:06:16 > 2:06:20thing to do and I think it was supported by both parties in the

2:06:20 > 2:06:26sense that it supported people who could not take on an extra hour or

2:06:26 > 2:06:29two of work because they lost all of their benefit. The idea behind it

2:06:29 > 2:06:33was that the benefit would be reduced over a certain period. I

2:06:33 > 2:06:41know there are issues and I hope the Minister has taken note of that

2:06:41 > 2:06:47because I continue to raise it with the Chancellor, but in terms of New

2:06:47 > 2:06:51Clause 9, Madam Deputy Speaker, getting back to the Treasury

2:06:51 > 2:06:54putts-mac impact assessment, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would just like to

2:06:54 > 2:06:57say Universal Credit is more in terms of helping people in their

2:06:57 > 2:07:06life chances than a document saying what happened and what could have or

2:07:06 > 2:07:12not hindered it.I'm happy to take the intervention. All I want to say,

2:07:12 > 2:07:16it is good governance to have a little actual policy at the impact

2:07:16 > 2:07:24job policy has on society.I think the honourable lady makes a very

2:07:24 > 2:07:28good point. I can't support this Clause because I don't think it will

2:07:28 > 2:07:32do anything to practically help people. I think it's just going to

2:07:32 > 2:07:36allow academics and economists to argue over a moot point where I'm

2:07:36 > 2:07:39interested in actually helping people from disadvantaged

2:07:39 > 2:07:42backgrounds who want to have the opportunity to go off and aspire to

2:07:42 > 2:07:46be anything they want to. I actually think it's fairly sad in this day

2:07:46 > 2:07:50and age that we are standing here discussing the fact that we need to

2:07:50 > 2:07:53identify whether certain sections of society need more support than

2:07:53 > 2:07:57others. We should be aiming to get to a society where...Happy to give

2:07:57 > 2:08:03way. I thank you very much Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm very grateful to

2:08:03 > 2:08:10the Member for given way. Given that 30% of cuts enacted by Conservative

2:08:10 > 2:08:16governments have fallen on the shoulders of women, would it not be

2:08:16 > 2:08:20helpful for those women and indeed asked as decision-makers to have

2:08:20 > 2:08:24known about it before the decisions to implement them were taken?The

2:08:24 > 2:08:34honourable lady makes a point and they are not because I necessarily

2:08:34 > 2:08:38like, but I do believe money has gone into Social Security and there

2:08:38 > 2:08:46are people on low incomes who are concerned about the 3% on council

2:08:46 > 2:08:50tax because it will have a negative impact on their incomes, although it

2:08:50 > 2:08:56helps other areas of society. This boat is an issue for academics and

2:08:56 > 2:09:01economists rather than helping people on the ground. I know some of

2:09:01 > 2:09:05you are shaking your head but you got involved in politics but the

2:09:05 > 2:09:09same reason I did which was to help people get off on -- get on in life

2:09:09 > 2:09:18and achieve the best they can do. Going back briefly to the welfare

2:09:18 > 2:09:22system, because that's my level of expertise, we want a welfare system

2:09:22 > 2:09:26that works. When you look at Universal Credit and the impact of

2:09:26 > 2:09:31New Clause 9 and the Treasury putts-mac distribution analysis,

2:09:31 > 2:09:36because it does provide an impact on that, my view is very much about

2:09:36 > 2:09:43developing policies that help get on in life and for me New Clause 9 is

2:09:43 > 2:09:46about providing information on what's affected people in the past

2:09:46 > 2:09:51over a number of years and by the time we vote on the next budget,

2:09:51 > 2:09:57it's moved on again. I'm happy to give way.I thank my honourable

2:09:57 > 2:10:00friend for giving way and he's making, as I think everybody knows,

2:10:00 > 2:10:06very powerful speech in this debate. Would he agree with me that this

2:10:06 > 2:10:10Clause nine is indicative of the fundamental difference between that

2:10:10 > 2:10:13side and this site? On this side of the House we care about action and

2:10:13 > 2:10:17doing things and improving people's lives and on that side of the House,

2:10:17 > 2:10:24they want more analysis question mark my honourable friend makes a

2:10:24 > 2:10:28very powerful point and you can understand why he was selected to be

2:10:28 > 2:10:36the member of Parliament for pigeon and Houston.I am proud that in this

2:10:36 > 2:10:40debate we have got three Hertfordshire MPs speaking in this

2:10:40 > 2:10:50debate.I'm happy to give way. Thank you, you are being very generous

2:10:50 > 2:10:56with your time. You are absolutely right. This New Clause highlights