21/02/2018 House of Commons


21/02/2018

Live coverage of the day's proceedings in the House of Commons including the remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 21/02/2018. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Herb to do so. I don't think we can

detain the Chamber now. -- her to do

0:00:000:00:03

so. We will leave it there for now.

If there are no further points of

0:00:030:00:08

order, we come to the statement from

the Secretary of State for Health

0:00:080:00:15

and social care.

Secretary Jeremy

Hunt. With permission I would like

0:00:150:00:19

to make a statement setting out the

action government is taking to

0:00:190:00:23

address public concerns regarding

the safety of medicines and medical

0:00:230:00:27

devices used by the NHS. On Friday I

will host campaigners, clinicians

0:00:270:00:33

and safety experts from across the

world as part of the patient safety

0:00:330:00:39

and science summit, being held for

the first time outside the United

0:00:390:00:43

States in London. We will release up

reports on the extent of medical,

0:00:430:00:55

medication errors. There are three

areas of potential medication error

0:00:550:00:59

that I wish to update the house on.

The first is Primidos, hormone

0:00:590:01:16

-based medication that was

prescribed to one and a half million

0:01:160:01:20

women before it was withdrawn from

use in 1978, partly due to more

0:01:200:01:26

modern pregnancy tests becoming

available. The second is an

0:01:260:01:32

anti-epilepsy drug which has been

definitively linked to autism and

0:01:320:01:36

learning disabilities in children

were taken during pregnancy.

0:01:360:01:41

Campaigners have suggested up to

20,000 children may be affected. The

0:01:410:01:48

third is the giant zero mesh

implants which are used to address

0:01:480:01:52

covered patients after childbirth

which have been linked to crippling

0:01:520:01:55

life changing side-effects. Of

course our first thoughts are with

0:01:550:02:01

the individuals and families whose

lives have been turned upside down

0:02:010:02:04

by these issues. Many have enjoyed

and continued to endure

0:02:040:02:14

complications, distress and

ill-health, alongside a strong sense

0:02:140:02:20

that their concerns have not reached

a satisfactory resolution. I paid

0:02:200:02:24

particular tribute to those who have

responded to such experiences, not

0:02:240:02:30

just with understandable anger, but

with also a resolute determination

0:02:300:02:36

to campaign for change. Many have

met ministers and members of this

0:02:360:02:40

House and I thank everyone who has

written to me or spoken to me

0:02:400:02:46

personally to raise these concerns

on behalf of their constituents. We

0:02:460:02:50

must acknowledge that the response

to these issues from those in

0:02:500:02:57

positions of authority have not been

good enough. Sometimes the reaction

0:02:570:03:01

felt overly focused on defending the

status quo rather than addressing

0:03:010:03:04

the needs of patients. As a result,

patients and their families have

0:03:040:03:09

spent too long feeling as though

they have not been listened to,

0:03:090:03:15

making the agony of a complicated

medical situation worse. Today, in

0:03:150:03:20

addition to practical steps for each

of these three cases, I am setting

0:03:200:03:25

out plans to establish a fairer,

quicker and more compassionate ways

0:03:250:03:29

of addressing issues when they

arise, bringing different voices to

0:03:290:03:32

the table from the start and giving

individuals and their families a

0:03:320:03:37

clear path to answers and

resolution. In terms of immediate

0:03:370:03:42

action in each of the three cases,

on Primidos I've asked my

0:03:420:03:48

ministerial colleague Lord

O'Shaughnessy had to drive forward

0:03:480:03:52

where possible accelerate the

recommendations of the expert

0:03:520:03:57

working group, further strengthening

our systems for monitoring the

0:03:570:04:00

safety of medicines in pregnancy.

This will include offering the

0:04:000:04:04

families of the Association for

children damaged by hormone

0:04:040:04:07

pregnancy tests for up-to-date

genetic clinical evaluation. Better

0:04:070:04:12

information for pregnant women and

their families, better training and

0:04:120:04:17

support for obstetricians, better

evidence around dosing

0:04:170:04:19

recommendations, making electronic

yellow card reporting directly

0:04:190:04:26

available to clinicians and patients

at the point of care and stronger

0:04:260:04:30

and more joined up messages on

safety. On the autism drug, the

0:04:300:04:37

issue is broader than the UK and the

outcome of the EU review expected in

0:04:370:04:43

March will strengthen our position.

In preparation we have tossed system

0:04:430:04:48

leaders with coordinating a rapid

response, responding to calls from

0:04:480:04:53

patients as well we have introduced

a new warning symbol.

0:04:530:05:07

We are strengthening alerts across

all GP systems and community

0:05:080:05:12

pharmacy systems as the those women

who benefit from the treatment,

0:05:120:05:22

offering more information. On the

journal mesh, I've spoken to the

0:05:220:05:29

Chief Medical Officer regarding a

complete ban. She is clear that

0:05:290:05:34

clinical experts here and abroad

have noted that many women will gain

0:05:340:05:40

benefits from this when used

properly. Therefore a full ban is

0:05:400:05:46

not appropriate. However this is not

to minimise the suffering that many

0:05:460:05:51

women have experienced, which is why

today I can announce we will be

0:05:510:05:56

publishing a retrospective audit to

investigate the link between patient

0:05:560:06:00

level data to explore outcomes and

investing £1.1 million to develop a

0:06:000:06:06

database for the final -- for the

journal mesh. This will improve the

0:06:060:06:13

way regulators and the NHS deal with

issues relating to joiner not mesh

0:06:130:06:21

and Valproate, as well as ensuring

the safety of medicines during

0:06:210:06:24

pregnancy. But that it has taken so

long to do with these issues raises

0:06:240:06:31

other questions. It's a principle of

patient safety about the regular

0:06:310:06:37

environment gives voice to

legitimate concerns reported by

0:06:370:06:42

patients, families and campaigners

and works alongside them and

0:06:420:06:44

response to them in a rapid, open

and compassionate way to resolve

0:06:440:06:51

issues when they raise. My view is

that this did not happen in the way

0:06:510:06:55

I would expect in these three cases.

To do better in the future we need

0:06:550:07:00

to ensure that patient voices are

brought to the table and

0:07:000:07:05

systematically and consistently as

other voices in the system. So today

0:07:050:07:10

I have asked for a review to be

conducted into what happened in each

0:07:100:07:14

of these three cases, including

Whetherby processes pursued to date

0:07:140:07:21

have been satisfactory and to make

recommendations on what should

0:07:210:07:23

happen in the future. She will

assess firstly the robustness and

0:07:230:07:29

speed of the process is followed by

the relevant authorities and

0:07:290:07:32

clinical bodies to make sure

appropriate guidelines are followed.

0:07:320:07:42

Also, did the appropriate bodies

engage with those who are concerned

0:07:420:07:49

properly. Whether there has been

sufficient communication and and how

0:07:490:08:06

we look at cases in the future. When

there has been widespread harm,

0:08:060:08:10

there needs to be a fuller or even

statutory public enquiry.

0:08:100:08:15

Recommendations will be made as to

the right process to make sure

0:08:150:08:20

justice is done and maintain public

confidence that such decisions have

0:08:200:08:24

been taken fairly. Whilst I'm

delivery leaving the terms of this

0:08:240:08:30

open, I've asked that we consider

how we strike the right balance. How

0:08:300:08:39

to best support patients when there

might not be a scientific issue, but

0:08:390:08:49

they have suffered harm. Whether a

patient's champion will raise as a

0:08:490:09:00

point of contact, ensuring that

concerns are heard and responded to

0:09:000:09:05

and how any new entity interacts

with new bodies. Recognising that

0:09:050:09:11

this has been an issue that many

honourable members have been

0:09:110:09:13

concerned about, I've asked the

baroness to meet with other parties

0:09:130:09:23

early on in the process. We are

proud of the NHS. Much of this have

0:09:230:09:32

been built on the strong connection

between scientific discovery and and

0:09:320:09:37

medical process but innovation

requires safeguards, including a

0:09:370:09:42

culture of learning to protect

against the unintended consequences

0:09:420:09:47

of new technology and a clear focus

on the treatment of patients and

0:09:470:09:51

their families affected by these

consequences. From Mid Staffs to

0:09:510:09:58

southern health, patients and their

families have had to spend too much

0:09:580:10:02

time and energy trying to access

hearings for their concerns. The

0:10:020:10:09

stress of campaigning, sometimes in

the face of a closed ranked system

0:10:090:10:22

is adding insult to injury. I work

regular tree system is in many ways

0:10:220:10:29

were bleeding, but it also needs to

add to a changing environment and

0:10:290:10:34

draw intelligently on multiple

sources of feedback to protect the

0:10:340:10:38

safety of patients. So the

announcement today will build a

0:10:380:10:42

system that listens, hears and acts

with speed, compassion and

0:10:420:10:48

proportionality, strengthening the

commitment to patient safety which

0:10:480:10:51

is at the heart of this government

and this house's ideal. I welcome

0:10:510:11:04

the tone of his remarks and

generally welcome his commitment to

0:11:040:11:09

review medical device safety. I do

know the Labour manifesto of 2017

0:11:090:11:16

called for an enquiry into this. The

announcement today is an

0:11:160:11:20

acknowledgement that there are major

issues that go back decades. Members

0:11:200:11:29

across this House have offered

moving testimonies about the

0:11:290:11:33

devastating impact of mesh, Primidos

and sodium Valproate that has

0:11:330:11:42

affected the lives of many children

and women. I'd like to pay tribute

0:11:420:11:48

to all the campaign and MPs from all

sides, especially those who have

0:11:480:11:52

worked so hard with the all-party

groups. They spent many years

0:11:520:12:01

campaigning for justice on these

issues. We've heard how mesh

0:12:010:12:06

implants have left women in

permanent pain, unable to walk,

0:12:060:12:10

unable to work. This is an ongoing

public health scandal and we hope

0:12:100:12:14

the government will do much more to

support those affected.

0:12:140:12:21

Mesh has been suspended in Scotland

and banned in other countries around

0:12:210:12:24

the world. I understand it has been

paused in the case of prolapse. Will

0:12:240:12:30

he consider suspending the use of it

totally while this review is carried

0:12:300:12:33

out? On primados, he said he will

follow-up recommendations of the

0:12:330:12:43

expert working group, but does he

accept that this report was met with

0:12:430:12:47

concern from all sides of the House?

Campaigners branded it a whitewash.

0:12:470:12:52

I am grateful that he has included

sodium valproate. My own

0:12:520:12:58

constituent, Emma Friedman, took

sodium valproate during and after

0:12:580:13:02

her pregnancy, leaving her son with

severe autism, along with hearing

0:13:020:13:07

and sight problems. Andrew, who is

now waiting, needs round the clock,

0:13:070:13:11

full-time care. Emma, like thousands

of others affected, was never fully

0:13:110:13:16

informed of the risks of taking

sodium valproate during pregnancy.

0:13:160:13:21

Last year, a charity survey found

that almost one fifth of women

0:13:210:13:26

taking this drug still don't know

the risks this medicine can pose

0:13:260:13:29

during pregnancy. So, I welcome the

Government efforts to raise

0:13:290:13:34

awareness of the issues, but can he

tell us if the review will look at

0:13:340:13:38

the guidelines for clinicians who

prescribed sodium valproate to women

0:13:380:13:42

of child-bearing age? Mr Speaker, we

do offer this review our support,

0:13:420:13:48

though we note it falls short of the

calls for a full public enquiry that

0:13:480:13:54

campaigners have been demanding. Can

he give the House and absolute

0:13:540:13:59

reassurance that this review will

gain access to at medicine

0:13:590:14:05

regulation files held on The

National Archives, access to

0:14:050:14:09

valuable evidence cited in what were

on unsuccessful legal actions,

0:14:090:14:15

access to files held by

pharmaceutical companies, and that

0:14:150:14:19

all such information will be made

public? Does he agree that those

0:14:190:14:23

affected must have trust and

confidence in this review? Who will

0:14:230:14:26

the noble Baroness report to? And

who will provide the Secretariat to

0:14:260:14:31

this review? I say this with no

sense of this courtesy to the

0:14:310:14:38

Department, but does he agree that

the review must be independent to

0:14:380:14:44

avoid any sense of conflict of

interest that has hampered previous

0:14:440:14:47

enquiries? I understand the terms of

reference, but can I press him to

0:14:470:14:54

undertake to ensure that victims

agree with the terms of reference in

0:14:540:14:58

order to maintain trust and

confidence in this review? Also, is

0:14:580:15:02

he now ruling out a full public

enquiry, or is he saying to the

0:15:020:15:08

victims to wait until the outcome of

this review? And when can we expect

0:15:080:15:13

this review to report back to the

House? More broadly, can the

0:15:130:15:21

Secretary of State agree that there

will be three separate strands

0:15:210:15:26

looking at each of the issues in

depth to ensure that nothing gets

0:15:260:15:29

watered down and lost was like in

the broader context of Brexit, where

0:15:290:15:35

uncertainty remains as we leave the

European medicines agency, does he

0:15:350:15:38

agree that this review must inform

the regulatory systems are the

0:15:380:15:42

future and take into account how we

best cooperate with other regulators

0:15:420:15:45

after Brexit? What assurances can he

offer the House that medicines and

0:15:450:15:51

devices women use today, especially

pregnant women, will not become the

0:15:510:15:57

tragic and desperate scandals of the

future? And finally, on the

0:15:570:16:04

treatment of victims involved, he

will know that many women have been

0:16:040:16:08

denied access to legal aid to pursue

compensation claims. Does he agree

0:16:080:16:12

that women and children deserve full

compensation and support? Is that

0:16:120:16:20

not the responsibility of

Government, Mr Speaker? Will the

0:16:200:16:22

Government establish a compensation

fund? And what consideration has he

0:16:220:16:28

given to compelling the

pharmaceutical industry to support a

0:16:280:16:34

compensation fund for those

affected? Finally, Mr Speaker, the

0:16:340:16:40

mesh, sodium Valparaiso, primados

has devastated the lives of hundreds

0:16:400:16:47

of thousands of women and children.

Isn't it time they were given a full

0:16:470:16:52

apology? Surely it's the very least

they deserve.

I thank him for his

0:16:520:17:06

response and the tone of it. I want

to thank the all-party group who

0:17:060:17:11

have worked incredibly hard to raise

this important issue. Let me go

0:17:110:17:16

through the points that he raises,

because he asked some detailed

0:17:160:17:19

questions which I want to give a

proper answer to. First, when it

0:17:190:17:24

comes to mesh, there is no EU

country that has banned its use, and

0:17:240:17:34

indeed Australia and New Zealand

have not introduced a full band. We

0:17:340:17:40

have taken very clear advice. We

have responsibility to all patients,

0:17:400:17:44

and the medical advice from the

Chief Medical Officer is clear, that

0:17:440:17:47

some women do benefit from mesh if

it is appropriately used, and so we

0:17:470:17:53

are following that advice. However,

this review is going to be looking

0:17:530:17:59

at all the processes around mesh. We

will publish Nice guidelines on

0:17:590:18:08

persistent pain and ventral meshes.

It is important to say that they are

0:18:080:18:12

used in men as well as women, and it

is right to say that we have to get

0:18:120:18:16

this right. I fully accept the point

he makes about the concerns of many

0:18:160:18:20

patients and families about the

findings of the expert working

0:18:200:18:24

group. He will know that this is a

very difficult and hotly contested

0:18:240:18:31

area. We are not proposing to

revisit the science. However, we are

0:18:310:18:43

giving Baroness Cumberlege to look

at what the expert working group did

0:18:430:18:46

and coming to her own conclusions.

We are not excluding looking at what

0:18:460:18:51

happened, though we think it is

important to accept throughout this

0:18:510:18:53

that we do have to follow the

science at every stage in order to

0:18:530:18:57

get this absolutely right. What we

will do is going forward with some

0:18:570:19:02

important recommendations of the

expert working group, regardless,

0:19:020:19:06

such as the yellow card system,

could don't know because one thing

0:19:060:19:11

that is clear is that when people

have an immediate concern about a

0:19:110:19:16

medicine, there isn't an easy way to

raise the concern quickly and

0:19:160:19:21

easily. If women are raising these

concerns all over the country, we

0:19:210:19:25

need to find out about that very

quickly at the centre so we can take

0:19:250:19:28

action more quickly than happened in

this case. We will go forward with

0:19:280:19:32

offering genetic testing to families

who have suffered as a result, or

0:19:320:19:37

who think they have suffered as a

result of Primodos. On sodium

0:19:370:19:43

Valkyrie, we will issue guidelines

to clinicians. We want to make sure

0:19:430:19:47

there is greater awareness among

patients. -- -- sodium valproate. We

0:19:470:19:55

want to push for this to be a

contract indication for women of

0:19:550:19:59

child-bearing age who are not taking

effective contraception, because it

0:19:590:20:04

is important to get this right. He

makes a very important points about

0:20:040:20:09

the public enquiry. I think we are

asking Baroness Cumberlege to give

0:20:090:20:17

her considered view as to what is

the appropriate way forward in this

0:20:170:20:20

case. What I would say to him, and

that, of course, has implications on

0:20:200:20:27

the issue of compensation, but I

would say that we have, I think, a

0:20:270:20:31

problem in our system at the moment

where there isn't a proper process

0:20:310:20:34

for deciding what next steps are

appropriate. An investigation by NHS

0:20:340:20:42

England and the department, or a

full public enquiry? The question we

0:20:420:20:46

particularly want her to look at is

whether we should have an

0:20:460:20:49

independent process to evaluate what

has happened, because we might... We

0:20:490:20:56

have been approached in his time by

people who want public enquiries,

0:20:560:21:00

but it should not just be about the

strength of the lobbying. There

0:21:000:21:03

needs to be some process, because

there may be people who do not have

0:21:030:21:06

a loud voice who are equally worthy

of a public enquiry who don't get

0:21:060:21:10

considered in the system at the

moment, and that wouldn't be right.

0:21:100:21:14

Baroness Cumberlege will be

reporting to ministers, not to the

0:21:140:21:19

NHRA. And there will be full

consultation -- MHRA. There will be

0:21:190:21:27

full contact with the families over

the terms of reference, which is the

0:21:270:21:31

right thing to do. The final point,

which is an important one, is the

0:21:310:21:36

issue of how we read gain the trust

of families deeply scarred by these

0:21:360:21:42

issues. And I think there are two

main ways that we do this. First,

0:21:420:21:46

openness and transparency in

everything we do in this process, so

0:21:460:21:51

that they can see we want to get to

the bottom of this as much as they

0:21:510:21:54

do. Secondly, by recognising that

there is this fundamental issue that

0:21:540:21:59

when we've assessed these clinical

medical safety issues in the past,

0:21:590:22:04

the voice of patients has not been

as strong as it should be. And that

0:22:040:22:08

is something that we have to put

right. I know everyone in the NHS,

0:22:080:22:12

as in this House, is committed to

doing so.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I

0:22:120:22:17

welcome the statement today from the

Secretary of State, and his ongoing

0:22:170:22:20

focus on patient safety, which has

added so much to patients, and

0:22:200:22:24

clearly representing the voice of

patients in lessons to be learned in

0:22:240:22:29

the future. Many of those who have

been courageous in coming forward,

0:22:290:22:32

including many of my own

constituents, have been harmed

0:22:320:22:36

within the private sector. Will the

Secretary of State confirm that

0:22:360:22:40

patients, wherever they are treated,

will be included within this review,

0:22:400:22:43

and that there will be a focus on

clinical governance not only in the

0:22:430:22:47

NHS but also in the private sector?

I can absolutely give that

0:22:470:22:51

assurance. And we are looking at

ways to strengthen oversight,

0:22:510:22:58

because a tragedy is a tragedy,

wherever it happens, and we should

0:22:580:23:01

among the highest standards of care

throughout our health care system.

0:23:010:23:06

And we are particularly looking at

the issue of data sharing. Very

0:23:060:23:11

often, the clinicians operate in

both the NHS and the private sector,

0:23:110:23:19

and we don't want to have two

datasets. We want to share

0:23:190:23:23

information in a way that will make

patients safer.

I thank the

0:23:230:23:30

Secretary of State for advance sight

of his statements. I am sure that

0:23:300:23:33

women affected by these medicines

and devices may be sceptical that

0:23:330:23:37

the Government has announced a

review of reviews. Medical safety

0:23:370:23:45

and licensing are reserved matters.

While we welcome the fact that the

0:23:450:23:48

Government isn't doing nothing, it

is disappointing that the review

0:23:480:23:51

will not look at the scientific

evidence on Primodos, sodium

0:23:510:23:57

valproate and surgical mesh.

Everyone needs the confidence that

0:23:570:24:02

this won't turn into simply a

Government whitewash. How can

0:24:020:24:09

patients be sure of independence?

Who will take a final decision on

0:24:090:24:13

who advises the chair? And will

those affected and who took part in

0:24:130:24:17

initial reviews be able to

participate? He will also be aware

0:24:170:24:21

that Professor Alison Britton is

leading an internet -- an

0:24:210:24:25

independent review of vaginal mesh

in Scotland, and will DC to take

0:24:250:24:28

advice and sounded from her bindings

and expertise in this process? --

0:24:280:24:34

will he seek to take... Does he

think that setting up a mechanism

0:24:340:24:42

within his department to collate

extensive qualitative research from

0:24:420:24:45

patients would be a useful function?

I think, with respect to the

0:24:450:24:52

honourable gentleman, he is being a

little bit uncharitable, describing

0:24:520:24:57

this as a review of reviews. We have

announced immediate actions in each

0:24:570:25:02

of these three cases which will

happen right away, of huge

0:25:020:25:04

significance with respect to the use

of sodium valproate, help for

0:25:040:25:12

families who think they have

suffered as a result of Primodos,

0:25:120:25:15

and in terms of the use of mesh. A

lot of things are happening right

0:25:150:25:20

away. I think it is important that

these are complex issues and if we

0:25:200:25:23

are going to step back and look at

the systemic failures that we think

0:25:230:25:26

have happened, then we need to step

back and ask what are the changes

0:25:260:25:29

that we need? That is why we need

someone Baroness Cumberlege's

0:25:290:25:35

experience. I would just say that

this is someone who has got a huge

0:25:350:25:39

track record on campaigning on

women's issues. She was a minister

0:25:390:25:42

at the Department of Health for five

years, she did the Better Births

0:25:420:25:49

review for the NHS in 2015. She is

hugely experienced and passionate

0:25:490:25:53

about patient safety and making sure

that the patient's voice is heard.

0:25:530:25:58

Could I welcome this review and the

announcement of Baroness Cumberlege

0:25:580:26:04

as lead. I am sure the whole House

will agree that she is highly

0:26:040:26:08

qualified and trusted. Can I pay

tribute to the women, particularly

0:26:080:26:12

many hundreds of thousands of them,

who have suffered in silence and who

0:26:120:26:15

have campaigned so effectively. I

have seen the passion and the silent

0:26:150:26:28

suffering with which so many women

have had to be. He is right that for

0:26:280:26:31

too long the medical establishment

has tended to link arms and act very

0:26:310:26:36

protectively when challenged, and we

need to make sure that the patient

0:26:360:26:39

voice is put at the heart of this.

Would he agree with me on to things:

0:26:390:26:43

First, it is important that this is

not some witchhunt? It must be a

0:26:430:26:49

review of the evidence, the science,

the clinical data, in order to avoid

0:26:490:26:56

future patient suffering. If it is

couched in legal liability, everyone

0:26:560:26:58

will draw in and resist the sharing

of evidence. Secondly, will he look

0:26:580:27:02

at the issue of training on the

issue of mesh? Be MHRA have licensed

0:27:020:27:07

the device. I understand the problem

is with the training of clinicians

0:27:070:27:11

in installing it.

0:27:110:27:16

I would like to put on record my

thanks to my honourable friend for

0:27:160:27:22

his work that led to the setting up

of the expert working group which I

0:27:220:27:26

think has taken this issue forward.

He championed that and was

0:27:260:27:34

incredibly helpful. I've taken on

board both his points. It's right

0:27:340:27:38

that this needs to focus on patient

safety and how we put in place

0:27:380:27:43

processes that help people who are

suffering now and avoid this in the

0:27:430:27:47

future and the training points are a

good one.

I welcome his statement,

0:27:470:27:51

though it would have been nice for

the victims to have heard a little

0:27:510:27:55

bit more about the legal aid and the

compensation issue. He was right to

0:27:550:27:59

describe our regular tree framework

as world leading. It is European and

0:27:590:28:05

precautionary base, so will he

disassociate himself from the

0:28:050:28:08

comments of the Foreign Secretary

last week who included medicines

0:28:080:28:15

regulation where he favours for

divergences?

Is he knows because we

0:28:150:28:22

have had these discussions at the

select committee, we in this country

0:28:220:28:26

make an enormous contribution to the

way medicines regulation happens

0:28:260:28:30

across Europe because of our

extensive scientific base and we are

0:28:300:28:35

happy and very much hope those links

will continue.

The first thing I

0:28:350:28:43

would like to say is I welcome the

review into the yellow car process

0:28:430:28:50

because the first responsibility of

a doctor is always to do no harm and

0:28:500:28:53

every doctor when they are making

any prescribing difference is

0:28:530:28:59

balancing the improvement in patient

care with the risks that are known

0:28:590:29:01

at the time to occur. Sometimes as

mod drugs are given to a greater

0:29:010:29:08

number of people, other side-effects

will come through. The improvements

0:29:080:29:12

in the yellow card system will help

them to be identified earlier. There

0:29:120:29:20

was a drug that is used to treat

acne that is very toxic in

0:29:200:29:29

pregnancy. I wonder if some of these

drugs that do provide benefits, but

0:29:290:29:36

are known to be harmful, that would

have the same approach?

Her question

0:29:360:29:44

demonstrates how useful it is to

have people with medical experience

0:29:440:29:48

in this House. The broad point she

makes is right. The difficulty in

0:29:480:29:53

the issues we are talking about

today is how much they affect women

0:29:530:29:58

and a number of them affect pregnant

women and one of the things we want

0:29:580:30:03

to establish through this review is

whether we are doing less well than

0:30:030:30:09

we should on women's health issues

and that's why because Baroness

0:30:090:30:13

Cumberlege has done more campaigning

on women's health issues than anyone

0:30:130:30:19

in both houses, she's the right

person to take this forward. She is

0:30:190:30:24

right about strengthening

protections for pregnant women.

As

0:30:240:30:28

the chair on hormone pregnancy tests

I'm disappointed with wording of

0:30:280:30:42

today's review. Families and victims

of Primidos have waited 40 years. It

0:30:420:30:48

was a deliberate criminal cover-up

by the statutory authorities. The

0:30:480:30:56

scientific evidence shows that there

is a link between Primidos and

0:30:560:31:01

deformities which was made to the

drugs companies 40 years ago and to

0:31:010:31:04

the regulatory bodies as well. Can I

ask the Secretary of State to ensure

0:31:040:31:10

this review, which I have to say we

would want a full public enquiry,

0:31:100:31:14

looks at the regular tree failures

that took place 40 years ago. There

0:31:140:31:18

was a systematic deliberate

cover-up, destruction of documents

0:31:180:31:24

by our health bodies as well as the

drug manufacturers. Therefore

0:31:240:31:29

Primidos is perhaps different to

some of the others and we demand a

0:31:290:31:33

proper enquiry into this and proper

compensation, and the victims are

0:31:330:31:38

put at the heart of this enquiry. In

the AWG working group they were

0:31:380:31:45

completely ignored in that document

was not worth the paper it was

0:31:450:31:48

published on.

We may not agree with

everything, but I thank her for her

0:31:480:31:55

campaigning and the voice she had

given to thousands of women who

0:31:550:31:58

believe they have suffered badly as

a result of Primidos. What I will

0:31:580:32:05

say is the things she is asking for

art ruled out. It will create a

0:32:050:32:12

process through which someone will

look carefully. She makes some very

0:32:120:32:16

serious allegations. That is

absolutely within her right to do so

0:32:160:32:22

as a member of this House, but they

are different to the conclusion is

0:32:220:32:25

that the expert working group came

to add it's precisely because of

0:32:250:32:30

that disagreement that we've asked

Baroness Cumberlege to look at this

0:32:300:32:33

and come to her own view is to the

right way forward. I do want to

0:32:330:32:38

reassure her that regular tree

failures are at the front of our

0:32:380:32:42

minds and we are determined to make

sure that the teams voices are

0:32:420:32:45

heard.

I wanted that the Minister

for the compassionate tone he had

0:32:450:32:52

struck today in understanding the

years that many campaigners like

0:32:520:32:58

Janet Williams and Emma Murphy have

undertaken to have their voices

0:32:580:33:01

heard is. Going back to the

regulator, if medicines or devices

0:33:010:33:08

are found to be unsafe following

this review or have been taken

0:33:080:33:13

unsafely, will face legal

consequences, will there be legal

0:33:130:33:19

consequences for those regulators

who should have acted differently?

0:33:190:33:22

The simple answer is yes, there are

legal consequences for regulators

0:33:220:33:28

who have felt. In that case it will

be the responsibility of the

0:33:280:33:31

government of the drop companies who

failed in their responsibility to

0:33:310:33:37

ensure that patients were informed

of the dangers of taking particular

0:33:370:33:40

drugs. It's about expedition facts.

Some of them are clear, some are not

0:33:400:33:45

and that's why today's review will

help us.

My constituents have been

0:33:450:33:54

affected by sodium valproate and

Primidos. The Secretary of State has

0:33:540:33:58

already heard my honourable friend's

dismay over the outcome of the

0:33:580:34:03

expert working group. What he has

talked about today will not give a

0:34:030:34:07

great amount of satisfaction to

people and the confidence in his

0:34:070:34:13

department taking notice of Baroness

Cumberlege's review will be reduced

0:34:130:34:16

by the written response that I got

yesterday from his department which

0:34:160:34:20

said they had no plans to fund

research into hormone pregnancy

0:34:200:34:26

tests. A report was produced last

week. Will he ensure that Baroness

0:34:260:34:32

Cumberlege looks at this particular

issue?

Absolutely she will and I

0:34:320:34:37

want to give him that assurance and

I want to say to him that whereas on

0:34:370:34:42

something like that operate when it

is clear what the next steps are

0:34:420:34:46

because there is no dispute over the

science -- valproate, the first

0:34:460:34:54

thing we have to do establish the

truth of the situation and that's

0:34:540:34:58

why we're asking Baroness Cumberlege

to look with free hand at the whole

0:34:580:35:03

issue.

And I welcome this statement

which is consistent with my right

0:35:030:35:09

honourable friend's track record as

secretary of state of driving the

0:35:090:35:13

NHS to stop causing harm to

patients. Can I ask him to continue

0:35:130:35:19

to focus on encouraging, requiring

and supporting or health care

0:35:190:35:23

professionals to make the shift from

a defensive mindset to a learning

0:35:230:35:27

mindset? And so they listen and

learn, not just from NHS experience,

0:35:270:35:37

but from patients?

She has huge

experience in health care and she

0:35:370:35:40

will know this well. She is

absolutely right to say that at

0:35:400:35:44

hearts, what we have to be careful

about in these complex issues is

0:35:440:35:49

that we don't inadvertently

encourage a culture of defensive

0:35:490:35:53

medicine where doctors feel unable

to be open about mistakes that may

0:35:530:35:57

have happened because they are

worried about legal consequences and

0:35:570:36:00

then we don't have the learning

which is incredibly important. That

0:36:000:36:04

is important and one of the reasons

for this review is to make sure we

0:36:040:36:08

support that open learning culture.

Half of my constituents whose

0:36:080:36:12

families have suffered due to the

effects of Primidos, can I thank the

0:36:120:36:17

Minister for this step in the right

direction statement. By announcing

0:36:170:36:20

another review with a remit for

another review, can he reassure the

0:36:200:36:26

House that one of these reviews can

investigate the cover-up we know has

0:36:260:36:31

occurred over decades over Primidos

and if a crime has been committed,

0:36:310:36:35

it will be dealt with?

I totally

respect him for airing his

0:36:350:36:47

constituentss concerns, but as he

will know from the answers to the

0:36:470:36:51

other questions, the difficulties in

the case of Primidos and it is

0:36:510:36:55

distressing to families concerned,

is the fact that scientists don't

0:36:550:36:59

agree about the issue and so because

of that is, we do unfortunately find

0:36:590:37:04

ourselves having to review what has

happened an expert working group was

0:37:040:37:10

the first attempt to do that, but we

are going to give Baroness

0:37:100:37:15

Cumberlege a free hand to look at

that and any other evidence that

0:37:150:37:17

comes to light and draw her own

conclusions.

Just an hour ago I was

0:37:170:37:23

meeting with my constituents and

Emma Friedman to discuss the next

0:37:230:37:31

stage of the campaign for valproate.

From seeing this statement, the

0:37:310:37:36

meeting was adjourned. I'm happy

that they are in the Chamber. Can I

0:37:360:37:41

ask the Secretary of State whether

it will be possible to ensure that

0:37:410:37:45

GP surgeries are giving out the

excellent advice that the MRA che

0:37:450:37:55

have put together. Many GPs are not

and there don't seem to be the

0:37:550:37:58

regulatory sanctions to make sure

they do.

I hope the people he

0:37:580:38:02

mentioned are in the gallery rather

than in the Chamber. That will be

0:38:020:38:07

greatly reassuring to us and to

them.

I can give that assurance. One

0:38:070:38:14

of the things we have announced

today is improving a system of

0:38:140:38:19

alerting for GP practices and

community pharmacies so that the

0:38:190:38:22

right advice is given and so that

the right safeguards are in place so

0:38:220:38:30

that people who are pregnant or may

become pregnant don't take this

0:38:300:38:33

medicine which is powerful and

effective under the right

0:38:330:38:37

circumstances, but incredibly

dangerous in the wrong ones.

Whilst

0:38:370:38:42

welcoming the intention to look

further at these very concerning

0:38:420:38:47

issues, I fear that by putting them

all in one place he may not be

0:38:470:38:51

giving sufficient attention to the

Primidos issue which is I think a

0:38:510:39:00

scandal of many years standing and I

think the expert working group which

0:39:000:39:07

reported recently is not the basis

upon which Baroness Cumberlege or

0:39:070:39:12

anybody else should look further at

this matter because it was a

0:39:120:39:17

complete whitewash. He needs to

acknowledge that and I think that if

0:39:170:39:21

he were to do so that the people

affected by Primidos over the last

0:39:210:39:26

40 years and more will feel much

more confident in the process he has

0:39:260:39:32

described today in a way -- as a way

in which they may get some

0:39:320:39:37

resolution.

I understand why she

asked the question in the way she

0:39:370:39:42

does, but I would just say to her

that we set up that expert working

0:39:420:39:47

group after a lot of very careful

thought because we honestly wanted

0:39:470:39:51

to get an answer to the question. We

are faced with a situation where

0:39:510:39:55

scientists disagreeing and I think

in that situation it is not right,

0:39:550:40:02

it wouldn't be right for me as

Secretary of State to announce a

0:40:020:40:05

different scientific view. I think

the right thing to do is to allow

0:40:050:40:09

some on the time and space to look

at the issues that she has raised

0:40:090:40:12

and that is what Baroness Cumberlege

will do.

I have a constituent whose

0:40:120:40:19

quality-of-life has been ruined by a

surgical mesh implant. What

0:40:190:40:22

reassurance can we have that the

review by Baroness Cumberlege will

0:40:220:40:28

make sure that the voice of the

patient is listened to more quickly

0:40:280:40:31

so that when things do go wrong we

limit the number of patients who

0:40:310:40:36

suffer the type of harm we have

heard about this morning.

It's the

0:40:360:40:42

right question to ask what we have

put forward in this statement is the

0:40:420:40:47

possibility that we need to have a

patient's champion, someone whose

0:40:470:40:52

job it is to collect the experiences

and views of patients who think they

0:40:520:40:56

may have suffered as a result of

medicine medical devices. We think

0:40:560:41:01

that may be a way forward, but we

want Baroness Cumberlege to look at

0:41:010:41:06

this in more detail. The central

point is that when there are debates

0:41:060:41:10

about the efficacy of medicines or

medical devices, if we are going to

0:41:100:41:14

avoid the agony of his constituent,

the patient's voice needs to be as

0:41:140:41:21

strong as the clinician's. We are

moving away from what has happened

0:41:210:41:30

in the past and this will be a step

in the right direction.

Following on

0:41:300:41:35

from that point the secretary of

state will know the phrase the

0:41:350:41:38

patronising disposition of

unaccountable power which applied in

0:41:380:41:44

the Hillsborough family's fight to

get justice and the groups affected

0:41:440:41:50

today. Then the Secretary of State

say why it Baroness Cumberlege's

0:41:500:41:57

report not bound to come straight to

Parliament Parliament to make a

0:41:570:42:01

decision over how patients can

justice faster and quicker than what

0:42:010:42:08

has happened in so many cases.

That's came from Bishop James Jones

0:42:080:42:22

who spoke about people's voice is

being ignored for too long. This

0:42:220:42:27

House will have every opportunity to

debate Baroness Cumberlege's report.

0:42:270:42:33

The House will have every

opportunity to listen, make

0:42:330:42:38

suggestions for improvements and be

involved at every stage of the

0:42:380:42:42

process as we take it forward.

0:42:420:42:48

My constituent, Karen, a victim of

surgical mesh, and Angie, a victim

0:42:480:42:56

of Primodos, will listen with

interest to what the Minister has

0:42:560:43:01

had to settle was a bit since there

are two key issues here apart from

0:43:010:43:04

the Cumberlege review. The first is

to ensure that our medics from

0:43:040:43:08

medical school up and realise that

they are not Gods, because that is

0:43:080:43:14

how many patients feel they are

having to deal with him, and there

0:43:140:43:18

are concerns are too easily

dismissed. At least a change from

0:43:180:43:21

the bottom-up. Second, on the issue

of private health cover, it involves

0:43:210:43:30

patients living in all quarters of

the United Kingdom. How will this

0:43:300:43:33

learning and the learning of the

review spread whilst respecting the

0:43:330:43:39

devolved assemblies into those

regions throughout the health sector

0:43:390:43:42

is not under the control of my right

honourable friend?

They are

0:43:420:43:46

important points. On the second

point, the spreading of best

0:43:460:43:49

practice is central here, so we have

to make sure that we don't just have

0:43:490:43:54

a system where we have new Nice

guidelines but that we have

0:43:540:43:58

confidence that they are being

implemented across 30,000 GPs, 250

0:43:580:44:04

NHS trusts and so on, and I know

that is something that Baroness

0:44:040:44:07

Cumberlege will be thinking about.

For my constituents, Willman...

0:44:070:44:16

Wilma and Kerstin, the wait to get

truth and justice on this issue has

0:44:160:44:22

been almost unbearable. Whilst I

welcome his candour and his tone,

0:44:220:44:27

his actions as outlay today are not

enough. I fear that the Baroness

0:44:270:44:31

will be doing her job with one hand

tied behind her back. He said in his

0:44:310:44:34

statement, we are not revisiting the

science, and then said later, yet we

0:44:340:44:38

need to be led by science. Unless I

miss her, there is a contradiction

0:44:380:44:42

there. And he confirmed that the

victims affected by these issues

0:44:420:44:46

will be at the heart of this ayes as

will the science, because there has

0:44:460:44:52

been an important new study done by

Niall Ferguson which must be

0:44:520:44:56

considered in this process in

relation to Primodos.

I don't accept

0:44:560:45:00

there is a contradiction. We have to

be open to the science and led by it

0:45:000:45:05

at every stage of the bid there is

new evidence, we must take that on

0:45:050:45:08

board, and always be led by patients

in what we do, and that is exactly

0:45:080:45:11

what I am announcing.

It was a

pleasure to lead the debate in the

0:45:110:45:18

House when we got a backbench

business committee earlier. I really

0:45:180:45:24

appreciate the tone from the

Secretary of State and from the

0:45:240:45:26

Prime Minister when I asked her

earlier if there was good news. Can

0:45:260:45:30

I also pay tribute to the Minister

sitting by his side, our honourable

0:45:300:45:36

colleague from Winchester, for the

work he did, because I gave him

0:45:360:45:39

quite a hard time during the debate.

However, there will be huge

0:45:390:45:44

disappointment with the Primodos

campaign team. Being led by the

0:45:440:45:49

science from the expert working

group is fascinating, because they

0:45:490:45:52

refused to allow some science to

come forward because it had not been

0:45:520:45:55

peer reviewed, then accepted other

evidence from drug companies that

0:45:550:45:58

did. This review going back to the

Department of Health is fully

0:45:580:46:05

allocated in this in that they were

given out by GPs. This will give no

0:46:050:46:09

confidence at all. The Baroness will

have both hands tied behind her

0:46:090:46:15

back, I think.

You know, I commend

my honourable friend's campaigning,

0:46:150:46:21

but I'm afraid I do have to disagree

with him. This is a very important

0:46:210:46:25

step forward. We are absolutely

going to be led by the science, and

0:46:250:46:30

have to be, and we're giving

Baroness Cumberlege a full rein to

0:46:300:46:34

look at what the expert working

group did, and to challenge it if

0:46:340:46:37

she sees fit.

Is the expert working

group the Government set up on

0:46:370:46:45

Primodos changed its own terms of

reference. It refused to look at all

0:46:450:46:49

the scientific evidence, and it did

not have the confidence of the

0:46:490:46:53

families affected. How will his

proposals be any different?

This is

0:46:530:47:01

something for Baroness Cumberlege to

consider, but the broader point is

0:47:010:47:03

right. We have, for too long, in

each of these three cases and in

0:47:030:47:09

others, had processes that have not

had the confidence of patients, and

0:47:090:47:13

that is why we are proposing today

not just specific measures in each

0:47:130:47:17

of the three issues, but also a

broader look at the regulatory

0:47:170:47:20

structure to make sure that

patients' bosses are louder.

I

0:47:200:47:29

welcome today's announcement, which

I'm sure will be welcomed by my

0:47:290:47:33

constituent who had surgical mesh

installed in 2008 during a

0:47:330:47:37

hysterectomy, but significantly

without her knowledge or consent,

0:47:370:47:40

which has led her to severe distress

and significant pain. When she

0:47:400:47:43

raised it with her doctors, she was

told it was all in her mind and she

0:47:430:47:47

was imagining it. She believes she

is still not being taken seriously

0:47:470:47:51

ten years later. Does the Secretary

of State share my hope that the

0:47:510:47:56

existence of the review will

encourage a more sympathetic

0:47:560:48:00

response to people such as my

constituent from the medical

0:48:000:48:02

profession?

I very much hope so. And

I think the crucial point that has

0:48:020:48:09

come from members on all sides of

this houses that the processes that

0:48:090:48:12

we have had in place to date have

not had the confidence of families

0:48:120:48:18

affected. This applies to a whole

range of issues. I believe that

0:48:180:48:22

medicine is changing fundamentally.

I think people who are passionate

0:48:220:48:26

about medical innovation and life

sciences know that you need to have

0:48:260:48:29

a very close partnership with

patients if you're going to make

0:48:290:48:33

proper advances. We haven't always

got this right, and that's what I

0:48:330:48:36

hope the review will help us to do.

I welcome the audio rhythmic audit

0:48:360:48:47

into vaginal mesh. A couple of

things. One of them is the support

0:48:470:48:51

for victims. My constituent Angie

has been referred to Manchester to

0:48:510:48:57

see somebody, and now she has been

told she will have to wait months

0:48:570:48:59

before anybody can properly analyse

what has happened to her, so I

0:48:590:49:05

wonder whether more results can be

-- more resource can be given to

0:49:050:49:09

help the victims of vaginal mesh

will so can you look into the

0:49:090:49:11

licensing process for how these

things get to market and get put out

0:49:110:49:15

there for use by surgeons? And

please don't just look into the

0:49:150:49:19

training, because I believe it is

not just about training of how we

0:49:190:49:21

put these things in. I believe it is

the product itself that is faulty.

0:49:210:49:27

We will certainly look at all those

things, and she is absolutely right

0:49:270:49:31

to draw attention to them. I

think... The licensing is one thing,

0:49:310:49:37

but it is also very important that

we make sure there is proper

0:49:370:49:42

information available to clinicians

and patients, because it does appear

0:49:420:49:47

from these cases that there are a

number of drugs and devices that are

0:49:470:49:51

safe but only in certain

circumstances, and that knowledge

0:49:510:49:55

may not have been properly

disseminated. That database that she

0:49:550:49:58

talked about will help us in getting

that right.

0:49:580:50:10

Mr Speaker, constituents of mine

have... I welcome the statement and

0:50:120:50:22

I recognise the issue around the ban

and why that might not be possible,

0:50:220:50:25

but can the Secretary of State

assure this House and my

0:50:250:50:28

constituents that surgical mesh will

only be used when there is

0:50:280:50:31

absolutely no alternative?

I think,

you know, this is a... Complex

0:50:310:50:39

procedure which can go wrong. It

would only be used if it were

0:50:390:50:43

absolutely the right thing for

patients, and we have looked

0:50:430:50:48

carefully, because there are other

countries introducing restrictions

0:50:480:50:50

on the use of mesh. It means we have

to use much more care in when it is

0:50:500:51:00

used to avoid those truly horrific

complications.

I think those whose

0:51:000:51:09

lives have been forever changed by

the drug Primodos will be very

0:51:090:51:13

disappointed today, despite a step

in the right direction, because

0:51:130:51:20

asking Lord Shaughnessy to drive

forward recommendations of the

0:51:200:51:22

expert working group will not bring

any confidence. That expert working

0:51:220:51:27

group changed its terms of

reference. It was asked to examine

0:51:270:51:32

whether a possible association

exists between Primodos and birth

0:51:320:51:35

defects, and it did not do that. It

looked at a causal association. And

0:51:350:51:39

that is the crux of the problem. And

that is what makes that working

0:51:390:51:44

group's findings unacceptable. Aside

from the fact that the scientific

0:51:440:51:49

evidence not included existed before

they even started their

0:51:490:51:52

investigation, so unless these

factors are taken into account, in a

0:51:520:51:58

wide-ranging, independent enquiry, I

doubt that those victims will ever

0:51:580:52:01

get the satisfaction and the justice

that they deserve.

Well, I do hear

0:52:010:52:05

what she says, and the reason that

it was important to us to examine

0:52:050:52:12

whether there was a causal link is

because that has an impact on

0:52:120:52:18

compensation that people might be

entitled to. I would like to

0:52:180:52:21

reassure her that Baroness

Cumberlege has the freedom to look

0:52:210:52:23

at all the issues she raises.

The

pharmaceutical companies have

0:52:230:52:28

consistently stated that they refuse

to accept that there is a causal

0:52:280:52:36

link between sodium valproate and

autism. The key is that my right

0:52:360:52:40

honourable friend has set out now

measures to warn people for the

0:52:400:52:44

future, but it doesn't compensate

the victims. So, what a temple will

0:52:440:52:48

be made by my right honourable

friend to make sure that victims are

0:52:480:52:52

fully compensated for the dreadful

impact on the lives of their

0:52:520:52:55

children?

You know, this country,

the system we have on compensation

0:52:550:53:02

is through the courts, and there are

times when it is the NHS that is

0:53:020:53:07

liable, and times when the drug

companies are liable. I hope that

0:53:070:53:14

Baroness Cumberlege's work will take

us closer to understanding whether

0:53:140:53:17

liability actually lies so that we

can give relief to families who have

0:53:170:53:20

suffered for too long.

Will the

Secretary of State join me in paying

0:53:200:53:26

tribute to my constituents, Emma

Murphy and her colleague Janet

0:53:260:53:31

Williams, for their courageous

campaigning to highlight the risks

0:53:310:53:35

presented by sodium valproate? As

the right honourable gentleman and

0:53:350:53:39

other members have acknowledged,

victims are incredibly suspicious of

0:53:390:53:42

the health establishment for very

good reason. So is the Secretary of

0:53:420:53:46

State concern, and I ask this

concealer, that Baroness Cumberlege

0:53:460:53:50

is the director of a company which

specialises in introducing

0:53:500:53:54

pharmaceutical companies into how

they can most effectively lobbied

0:53:540:53:58

Parliament? What will that do to

victims who start off being

0:53:580:54:01

incredibly suspicious of ourselves

in this House and the NHS

0:54:010:54:07

establishment?

I would just say

this, and I understand the

0:54:070:54:14

respectful tone in which he asks the

question, I don't think Baroness

0:54:140:54:22

Cumberlege -- anyone has a better

reputation than Baroness Cumberlege

0:54:220:54:25

in this area. She has shown a

willingness to take on the

0:54:250:54:30

scientific establishment when it is

the right thing to do, and she does

0:54:300:54:33

so with a great deal of knowledge

and passion. I have every confidence

0:54:330:54:35

she will do a great job.

I welcome

the statement today. Lassie will be

0:54:350:54:43

aware, we had a mesh review in

Scotland, but it very quickly lost

0:54:430:54:47

the confidence of patient groups,

who branded it a whitewash after

0:54:470:54:50

chapters were deleted and evidence

was re-presented, so can he reassure

0:54:500:55:00

me that the voices of patients will

be taken seriously and fully into

0:55:000:55:04

account?

I wish I could say to him

that those terrible, terrible

0:55:040:55:13

suffering that people have had has

been taken as seriously as it

0:55:130:55:17

should, but I think the truth is

that we have had a system that has

0:55:170:55:20

not treated patient concerns as

seriously as they should have been,

0:55:200:55:26

and that is why we are making these

important changes we are announcing

0:55:260:55:30

today.

44 years ago, my constituent

Leslie Holmes took two Primodos

0:55:300:55:37

tablets handed to her by her trusted

GP to check if she was pregnant. She

0:55:370:55:42

was, and the consequences for her

son have been devastating. Leslie is

0:55:420:55:48

still seeking answers and

recognition of her family's plight.

0:55:480:55:52

The minister appears to agree that

we need to recognise that and

0:55:520:55:56

provide the answers. How long is it

going to take, and how is he going

0:55:560:55:59

to ensure that the outcome is

actually credible this time?

All I

0:55:590:56:04

can say is that I think that, you

know, we completely understand those

0:56:040:56:11

concerns, understand that many

people feel on this issue, but it is

0:56:110:56:16

very difficult to resolve quickly

when there is a disagreement amongst

0:56:160:56:19

scientists, so what we're trying to

do today is to create a process that

0:56:190:56:23

can resolve that this agreement, and

that's what I very much hope will

0:56:230:56:27

happen.

I welcome this much-needed

safety review announcement. All UK

0:56:270:56:33

citizens should be confident that

they are getting the most rigorous

0:56:330:56:35

safety standards, but can my right

honourable friend confirmed that the

0:56:350:56:41

review will not impact initiatives

such as accelerated access review

0:56:410:56:45

and cancer drug fund, which are fast

tracked access to much-needed drugs

0:56:450:56:49

and treatments?

I can confirm that,

although I think it is also

0:56:490:56:53

important to say that if we discover

changes in procedures that will

0:56:530:56:59

improve the safety of medicine use

or medical device use, I think that

0:56:590:57:03

the people who put those new drugs

onto the market would want to

0:57:030:57:07

benefit from any changes in

regulatory processes. We would not

0:57:070:57:09

want to reduce the speed.

0:57:090:57:13

I welcome this statement. I have

been contacted by many women in my

0:57:130:57:20

constituency who continue to suffer

excruciating pain due to surgical

0:57:200:57:27

mesh implant. I welcome the

initiatives, but I would suggest

0:57:270:57:31

there was a huge value in some of

those initiatives such as a UK wide

0:57:310:57:37

database. What discussions will he

have with the ministers regarding

0:57:370:57:47

the devolved nations?

We are happy

to do anything on a UK wide basis if

0:57:470:57:53

that is what the devolved

administrations want because we

0:57:530:57:55

don't see any benefit in not sharing

data. If the willingness is there,

0:57:550:58:00

we are happy to play ball.

Could I

welcome my right honourable friend's

0:58:000:58:07

announcement over the review and

securing Baroness Cumberlege to lead

0:58:070:58:16

a review. If I could just focus on

Primidos which has affected 1.5

0:58:160:58:23

million women throughout the United

Kingdom. It's been a terrible long

0:58:230:58:27

journey for these individuals and

their families. They have been

0:58:270:58:32

pursuing truth and justice. Today

they have received neither. I hear

0:58:320:58:37

much of the use of and the use of

science in the review, but I wonder

0:58:370:58:44

if my honourable friend what are the

baroness to introduce humanity into

0:58:440:58:47

that review and take into account

the Peruvian desert at Aberdeen

0:58:470:58:53

University that is now available. I

hope this review is a stepping stone

0:58:530:58:58

to a full public enquiry for

Primidos victims and maybe then and

0:58:580:59:02

only then will they receive the

truth and the justice that they and

0:59:020:59:06

their families richly deserve.

Very

eloquently put by my honourable

0:59:060:59:14

friend. We also want to get closure

on this issue and that means getting

0:59:140:59:18

the scientific consensus that has

eluded us today. I will certainly

0:59:180:59:24

mention the Aberdeen research to the

noble Baroness.

The Secretary of

0:59:240:59:28

State was right to say that patient

views have been neglected and they

0:59:280:59:31

had to be central to this review. My

constituents impacted by Primidos

0:59:310:59:36

lost faith in the working group

because of that concern. How far

0:59:360:59:40

will this review go? We look at the

fact that there may be diminished

0:59:400:59:48

evidence because of the medical

records that were destroyed?

I'm

0:59:480:59:55

happy to do so, but this review is

separate to things that are

0:59:550:59:58

happening in Scotland, but we will

certainly look at all those issues.

0:59:581:00:02

This is the first chance I've had to

thank the Secretary of State for

1:00:021:00:07

visiting Kettering General Hospital

last week. I do so now. It is

1:00:071:00:11

laudable that the NHS be the safest

health care system. Are we there

1:00:111:00:17

yet? If not, when will we be?

International experts from the

1:00:171:00:24

Commonwealth fund in New York say we

are the safest health care system in

1:00:241:00:28

the world. That does give me pause

for thought because there is so much

1:00:281:00:33

avoidable harm and death in our

system right now and if we are the

1:00:331:00:36

safest it says that health care

everywhere needs to improve.

1:00:361:00:42

Campaigners on Primidos will be

disappointed by the Secretary of

1:00:421:00:46

State's statement and his failure to

recognise the concerns they have

1:00:461:00:50

raised about the expert working

group. That aside, how many patients

1:00:501:00:54

will be involved in the review and

how does he believe that they will

1:00:541:00:59

be best access so that people have

their voices heard?

That's the

1:00:591:01:04

entire purpose of the review.

Baroness Cumberlege will want to

1:01:041:01:08

involve patients right from the

start in that process, but I will

1:01:081:01:13

talk to her about it and I will

write to her just spelt out in

1:01:131:01:17

detail way that patients will be

involved in the process.

I found the

1:01:171:01:24

secretary of state for his statement

that will be of comfort to the

1:01:241:01:33

victims of vaginal mesh. Can he

confirmed the review will cover

1:01:331:01:36

looking at whether those who have

been barred from getting

1:01:361:01:39

compensation due to the statute of

limitations will be included in this

1:01:391:01:44

review?

Absolutely.

The Secretary of

State will be aware that for many of

1:01:441:01:52

the women who took Primidos they

would not even necessarily have

1:01:521:01:56

known at the time that that was the

consequence. It's only later on and

1:01:561:02:05

it totally that they have realised

what took place. How would they be

1:02:051:02:10

brought into this enquiry and if

there is going to be compensation,

1:02:101:02:13

what will be the test? It will be

unfair for them to have to prove

1:02:131:02:18

that they are victims of the drug.

I

wish there was a straightforward

1:02:181:02:22

answer, but the truth is there is a

lot of scientific disagreement about

1:02:221:02:25

whether there is a causal link or

not which makes it difficult to give

1:02:251:02:29

clear answers to his constituents,

as indeed to mind, but I hope this

1:02:291:02:34

review will shed some clarity on

that situation because I know that's

1:02:341:02:38

what a lot of people want.

What

advice has the Secretary of State

1:02:381:02:47

sought from the Royal College of

midwives, the Royal Institute of

1:02:471:02:51

gynaecology and what input will be

these bodies have in this review?

1:02:511:02:56

The noble Baroness Cumberlege is an

honorary fellow at the Royal College

1:02:561:03:07

of Nursing and physicians, so she is

well connected with the

1:03:071:03:10

organisations that the honourable

lady has mentioned.

As the Secretary

1:03:101:03:17

of State has indicated our products

are world leading. Does the Minister

1:03:171:03:25

have any more information that our

expertise will have as little red

1:03:251:03:35

tape as possible?

It's fair to say

that our revelatory system is

1:03:351:03:39

admired the world over because we do

safety extremely well and we

1:03:391:03:45

extremely seriously, but it does not

mean that we cannot improve it and

1:03:451:03:48

the lesson for today is that

patients voices have not been strong

1:03:481:03:52

enough in that process and that is

what we need to change.

I am most

1:03:521:03:59

grateful to be secretary of state.

We come now to the ten minute rule

1:03:591:04:05

motion.

Thank you Mr Speaker. I beg

to move that lead be given to

1:04:051:04:12

bringing about to make provision

about shared parental leave and pay

1:04:121:04:17

for workers including those that are

self-employed. I would like to begin

1:04:171:04:22

by paying tribute to those who have

been campaigning for the provisions

1:04:221:04:26

called for in this bill. I would not

be presenting it here today if it

1:04:261:04:30

was not for their work and

dedication in pushing shared

1:04:301:04:34

parental leave for all onto the

agenda. UK music, equity, parental

1:04:341:04:39

pay quality, PNG, writers Guild,

GMB, TUC are many more. The

1:04:391:04:51

self-employed are not clustered

around the creative industries. The

1:04:511:04:54

whole world of work is changing.

More and more people are classed as

1:04:541:05:01

freelance or self-employed.

1:05:011:05:11

Literally anyone can be

self-employed. But 9% of women and

1:05:131:05:19

60% of men aren't eligible for

shared parental pay because they are

1:05:191:05:24

self-employed. There are 24,000

self-employed mums claiming

1:05:241:05:28

maternity allowance who would

benefit from this bill. What is

1:05:281:05:32

encouraging is that the government

no shared parental leave is

1:05:321:05:38

important. It was a positive and

radical step introduced by the

1:05:381:05:43

coalition government in 2015. Sadly

not enough families are taking the

1:05:431:05:46

opportunity because where many

employers have enhanced maternity

1:05:461:05:49

schemes for most employees such

schemes don't exist for shared

1:05:491:05:54

parental leave meaning many families

will be worse off if they signed up

1:05:541:05:58

to it. And for most keeping the

family finances in the black is a

1:05:581:06:04

priority. So it was good to see last

week the government roll-out their

1:06:041:06:09

advertising campaign share the joy

to get more doubts to take up their

1:06:091:06:13

entitlement. A welcome push when

only a disappointing 2% of employees

1:06:131:06:18

take shared parental leave.

Unfortunately be problems around

1:06:181:06:21

take-up will never be clearer than

when the minister responsible for

1:06:211:06:26

shared parental leave revealed that

he was in fact as a minister not

1:06:261:06:34

eligible. I don't mention this to

embarrass the member in any way but

1:06:341:06:38

simply to use it as an example of

how the culture around shared leave

1:06:381:06:42

needs to change. To do that we need

to give more people more choice.

1:06:421:06:49

Parity between the traditionally

employed and the self-employed and

1:06:491:06:52

this bill would do just that.

Currently self-employed mums who

1:06:521:06:58

have given birth must take their

statutory maternity allowance in one

1:06:581:07:02

go. They can't return to work for a

month or two and then resumed there

1:07:021:07:06

allowance. My bill would allow

freelance partners to decide who

1:07:061:07:11

receives the alarm on so mum can

take a block when she is ready and

1:07:111:07:14

wants to re-enter the workplace

while the family still receives the

1:07:141:07:17

regular income from the maternity

allowance. A simpler way of

1:07:171:07:24

replicating shared parental leave

for freelancers at no extra cost to

1:07:241:07:27

the taxpayer. A move which I think

will send a strong message to the

1:07:271:07:31

country that not only do we

understand the changing face of work

1:07:311:07:35

but we believe that men and women

are valued equally in the home and

1:07:351:07:38

the workplace. I'd also say to

ministers that if the policy was

1:07:381:07:44

extended to the self-employed

freelancers, I believe there would

1:07:441:07:47

not be any problem with poor

take-up. A survey conducted by

1:07:471:07:52

parental pay quality found over 70%

of freelancers or those with

1:07:521:07:57

freelance partners would use the

scheme if it were available for them

1:07:571:08:02

in the future. A change to our

cultural norms does not happen

1:08:021:08:08

overnight, but I believe the

self-employed can blaze a trail in

1:08:081:08:10

leading the way, helping us to get

to a place where it is assumed that

1:08:101:08:17

partners and should shoulder a

significant amount of the childcare.

1:08:171:08:22

If the numbers of freelancers that

will take up shared parental leave

1:08:221:08:27

as significant, why are we holding

back? For those not owe favoured

1:08:271:08:30

walls around parental leave for the

self-employed, a self-employed mum

1:08:301:08:38

is entitled to £140 maternity

allowance for 39 weeks if they have

1:08:381:08:44

paid close to national insurance for

at least 13 of the 66 weeks before

1:08:441:08:48

the baby is due. Maternity allowance

is paid only two months. If that is

1:08:481:08:54

withdrawn, if the... That is

withdrawn if the freelance mother

1:08:541:09:03

does more than the ten keeping in

touch days. For example, if

1:09:031:09:09

freelance chiropodist took a job

that lasted for ten days, she would

1:09:091:09:11

lose in red -- maternity allowance,

but a chiropodist who is employed

1:09:111:09:22

can work freelance as long as she

does not break the terms of her

1:09:221:09:28

contract. It's far from ideal and a

Catch-22 position for self-employed

1:09:281:09:33

women. Stay off work and keep the

elements for the 39 weeks or take

1:09:331:09:38

the risk of taking a one off job. A

stressful decision for anyone, let

1:09:381:09:45

alone a sleek diff riv new mum. With

95% of new businesses run by women,

1:09:451:09:52

we know there are many families out

there who might benefit from sharing

1:09:521:09:56

paternal leave. So why is it

important we do this now. -- let

1:09:561:10:06

alone a sleep deprived ma'am. We

know that at least 4.7 million

1:10:061:10:10

people are employed in freelance

work. The government says it will

1:10:101:10:18

tackle the insecurity that this

creates. Self-employment and the gig

1:10:181:10:26

economy has recently been the

subject of the Taylor review and

1:10:261:10:30

after Matthew Taylor hurt I was

submissions and many detailed

1:10:301:10:35

recommendations, he conceded that

the government should address, and I

1:10:351:10:40

quote, parental leave in particular

where self-employed people lose out.

1:10:401:10:44

This is our chance to get it on the

agenda because freelance

1:10:441:10:50

self-employed and insecure work is

not new. It has been the feature of

1:10:501:10:54

creative industries for decades. 44%

of the creative industries are

1:10:541:11:02

unemployed. I worked in it for over

30 years and my partner still does.

1:11:021:11:07

Working hours are flexible with

project based employment and

1:11:071:11:12

irregular and often unreliable

payments. No nine to five, very

1:11:121:11:18

little stability. Looking for work

can take up as much time as doing

1:11:181:11:22

the job, but today the working

patterns and insecurities of the

1:11:221:11:27

creative industries aren't an

anomaly, they are becoming the norm

1:11:271:11:30

and for any freelance coupled the

idea of starting a family can be

1:11:301:11:35

terrifying. Another mouth to feed,

no guarantee of work. Obviously for

1:11:351:11:39

any new parent money is tight, but

for those in the gig economy or

1:11:391:11:45

insecure work it is even more so.

Employing 2 million people the

1:11:451:11:49

creative industries are a success

story, but areas of improvement

1:11:491:11:53

remain. More often than not it's the

woman who compromises on her career

1:11:531:11:58

to bring up of delete-macro a

family. She is the one that steps

1:11:581:12:05

out of the industry because two

freelancers can't make a finances

1:12:051:12:10

work, or went back up work, she is

expected to dash home early one

1:12:101:12:18

childcare bourse room or to look

after sick children. Women still

1:12:181:12:25

lagged behind men or so when they

are dishing out the gongs.

1:12:251:12:39

74% of creative workers surveyed in

the film industry turn down work

1:12:391:12:42

because they are parents. 22% said

they career had come to a halt.

1:12:421:12:46

Altogether once they had a child.

All that talent, all that training,

1:12:461:12:51

dedication, lost because there is

not enough support for self-employed

1:12:511:12:55

families with young children. So we

need to change the culture, and to

1:12:551:13:01

do it we need to start right at the

beginning when the baby is born. As

1:13:011:13:05

I mentioned at the beginning of this

speech, and I know how much the

1:13:051:13:10

Treasury bench appreciates a good

deal, so what I'm proposing comes at

1:13:101:13:17

no extra cost to the taxpayer.

Maternity allowances already paid to

1:13:171:13:22

new mothers. It is a win-win for the

Treasury. It also means men having

1:13:221:13:27

more of a chance to spend time with

their babies, allowing women to pick

1:13:271:13:31

up opportunities as they present

themselves. And although I

1:13:311:13:36

personally believe that the amount

of the allowance should be

1:13:361:13:39

increased, this bill isn't about

that. This bill is simply to give

1:13:391:13:45

freelancers and the self-employed

the right to share the current

1:13:451:13:47

allowance. So, the Bill I put

forward today is simple but

1:13:471:13:53

significant. It allows maternity

allowance to be shared in blocks

1:13:531:13:57

between freelance parents,

replicating the way shared parental

1:13:571:14:00

leave works for those in more

conventional employment. It's fair,

1:14:001:14:05

it's progressive, it's a bill to

complement current government

1:14:051:14:09

policy, not disturb it. Help close

the gender pay gap, proving to the

1:14:091:14:13

world Britain's serious. I commend

this bill to the House.

The question

1:14:131:14:17

is at the honourable member have

leave to bring in the Bill. I think

1:14:171:14:23

the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

Who will prepare and bring in the

1:14:231:14:27

Bill?

Mrs Maria Miller, Mr Ed

Vaizey, Alison Pulis, Caroline

1:14:271:14:33

Lucas, Jo Swinson, Tom Watson, Kevin

Brennan, Emma Reynolds, Luciano

1:14:331:14:39

Burge, Rachel Reeves, Rebecca Long

Bailey and myself, Sir.

1:14:391:14:43

Tracey

1:14:521:14:59

Shared parental leave and allowance

Bill.

Second reading what day? Me

1:15:141:15:26

the 11th. We come now to the

programme motion. The Minister to

1:15:261:15:34

move? The question is the finance

never to build programme and two

1:15:341:15:37

hours on the order paper. Do you

wish to speak? The honourable lady

1:15:371:15:44

wishes to speak.

Thank you, Mr

Speaker. I stand to speak to new

1:15:441:15:53

clause nine...

The honourable

programme motion? The lady doesn't

1:15:531:16:01

wish to debate? The ayes have it,

the ayes have it. Order, the clerk

1:16:011:16:07

will now proceed to read the orders

of the day.

Finance never to bill as

1:16:071:16:12

amended in upon the Bill committee

to be considered.

The Whip says now.

1:16:121:16:22

We begin with new clause nine to

move the motion I call Don Butler.

1:16:221:16:29

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I now rise to

speak to new clause nine which

1:16:291:16:33

stands in the name of my right

honourable friend the leader of the

1:16:331:16:37

and other honourable friends. Mr

Speaker, I would like to thank the

1:16:371:16:41

previous Minister for women and

equality is, the Member for Putney,

1:16:411:16:47

for the equality impact assessment

response sent to me just before

1:16:471:16:50

Christmas. The honourable member's

responses are normally quite upbeat.

1:16:501:16:55

I must say, Mr Speaker, but I found

this particular response a little

1:16:551:16:59

lacklustre. But it definitely

highlighted why we need to support

1:16:591:17:05

new clause nine. The letter

highlights the weaknesses of due

1:17:051:17:10

regard, and goes on to make a

somewhat puzzling statement, and I

1:17:101:17:14

quote. All departments carefully

consider the equality impacts of

1:17:141:17:19

individual policy decisions taken on

by those protected characteristics

1:17:191:17:23

in line with our legal obligations

and our clear commitment to quality

1:17:231:17:27

issues. And therein lies the

problem. This Government has not

1:17:271:17:30

shown a clear commitment to equality

issues, far from it. With 86% of the

1:17:301:17:37

cuts falling on the shoulders of

women, and black and Asian minority

1:17:371:17:44

and disabled people suffering more

than any other group, I find it hard

1:17:441:17:48

to understand why the Government

would try to proclaim that they are

1:17:481:17:52

committed to equality is. Mr

Speaker... Sure.

I thank a forgiving

1:17:521:18:00

way. She mentions the Government has

not made commitment. Does she not

1:18:001:18:04

agree with me the compelling

companies in our country to publish

1:18:041:18:07

the gender pay gap information, the

first time any Government has done

1:18:071:18:11

this, is a very clear signal and

already making real change for those

1:18:111:18:14

women working in those companies?

I

thank the Member for her

1:18:141:18:19

intervention. I do agree that it is

good to get companies to publish

1:18:191:18:24

their pay gap. The problem is that

there isn't actually any teeth if

1:18:241:18:29

they fail to do so. And that is a

real problem that needs to be

1:18:291:18:33

addressed. We need to really tackle

the gender pay gap, but also of

1:18:331:18:38

companies fail to address the pay

gap that there needs to be some

1:18:381:18:44

punishment for that almost, and that

is unfortunately failing in the

1:18:441:18:49

Government's plan. I will give way.

I thank the Lady forgiving way. Do

1:18:491:18:56

she recognise that voluntary schemes

of publication, whether it is

1:18:561:19:01

participation, as demonstrated in

the Crossrail project, showed that

1:19:011:19:04

companies will comply through social

pressure, because actually there is

1:19:041:19:07

a brand equity question. You don't

need to have a hard punishment,

1:19:071:19:12

through brand equity reputation,

that would be punishment enough they

1:19:121:19:15

fail to comply.

Again, the problem

is that there are very few companies

1:19:151:19:21

who have actually published, and I

think the deadline is quickly

1:19:211:19:26

approaching. Mr Speaker, the letter

that I was sent from the Minister

1:19:261:19:31

goes on to say that the Treasury

would have completed a cumulative

1:19:311:19:39

impact assessment. I have yet to

receive confirmation of this

1:19:391:19:43

cumulative impact assessment, and I

wonder whether the Minister would be

1:19:431:19:48

able to confirm that, and also

whether we can see a copy of that

1:19:481:19:52

laid before the House in the

library. I know that it is difficult

1:19:521:19:56

for the Government to often hear the

views of the opposition, so I urge

1:19:561:20:00

the Government to the voices of the

members from his own side, like the

1:20:001:20:06

honourable member who was chair of

the Treasury select committee. The

1:20:061:20:10

committee are obviously a little bit

perplexed at the lack of commitment

1:20:101:20:13

to equality impact assessment, and

the Chancellor had complained about

1:20:131:20:18

the kind of data that was gathered,

but when the Chancellor was asked

1:20:181:20:23

whether he had asked the Office for

National Statistics about the

1:20:231:20:26

gathering of that data, he replied

that he had not, and that doesn't

1:20:261:20:33

show a commitment to equality. The

Treasury committee also goes on to

1:20:331:20:36

say that the Treasury should use the

OMS, HMRC data to produce robust

1:20:361:20:45

assessments of future prospects,

including tax and welfare measures

1:20:451:20:48

within them, a deficiency of data in

respect of some protective

1:20:481:20:52

characteristics is not a reason for

failing to produce an analysis in

1:20:521:20:56

respect of others for which data is

available. Nor should the risk of

1:20:561:21:05

misinterpretation or methodological

complexity preclude the publication

1:21:051:21:07

of an equality impact assessment. In

short, Mr Speaker, just do it. Mr

1:21:071:21:15

Speaker, the only reference in the

budget to gender impact which has

1:21:151:21:19

been identified as when it

disproportionately affected men.

1:21:191:21:22

What possible reason could this be,

I wonder. I understand that the

1:21:221:21:28

Treasury committee would welcome an

explanation on the thinking of this

1:21:281:21:31

from the Government. So would we. It

does not make sense that the

1:21:311:21:37

Chancellor alluded to the fact that

Ministers see the equality impact

1:21:371:21:43

assessment for the Department

because it makes me wonder if

1:21:431:21:47

Ministers see them, if Ministers

read them, if Ministers actually

1:21:471:21:51

have proper due regard to them, why

would they implement the policies

1:21:511:21:56

that they do? If the Government

fails to support this clause, there

1:21:561:22:01

could be no public confidence that

the Government's commitment to

1:22:011:22:06

protect, not punish people with

protective characteristics. For the

1:22:061:22:11

record, Mr Speaker, the nine

protective characteristics are age,

1:22:111:22:16

disability, gender reassignment,

pregnancy, maternity, race, religion

1:22:161:22:21

or belief, sex and sexual

orientation. I understand that the

1:22:211:22:26

Prime Minister is a little bit

preoccupied. She is a little bit

1:22:261:22:29

weak at the moment, and I know that

she is dealing with a very serious

1:22:291:22:33

ransom note at the moment. But I

honestly believe that she would not

1:22:331:22:37

be pleased that her legacy will be

that of the hindering of women and

1:22:371:22:41

their life chances. More children

are homeless, more children are

1:22:411:22:50

homeless or living in temporary

accommodation than at any other time

1:22:501:22:56

since the 2007/ financial crash.

Shelter says that homelessness is a

1:22:561:23:02

national scandal. It estimates that

140 families become homeless every

1:23:021:23:08

single day, and the estimate of

rough sleeping shows an increase of

1:23:081:23:13

130%. Everyday we see and hear the

damaging effects of this

1:23:131:23:16

Government's policies have other

people, especially those with

1:23:161:23:20

protective characteristics. This

Government is damaging not

1:23:201:23:23

protecting vulnerable groups. Even

when the Government conduct an

1:23:231:23:26

equality impact assessment, it seems

to ignore it. Just two weeks ago,

1:23:261:23:31

the Government released an equality

impact assessment revealing that

1:23:311:23:33

more bursaries will be axed from

around a thousand nurses who enter

1:23:331:23:37

the profession each year. Assessment

reveals that the latest disco nation

1:23:371:23:45

was against those of ethnic

minorities and poorer backgrounds.

1:23:451:23:48

We need a Prime Minister who cares

enough to start laying the

1:23:481:23:52

foundations for which we can bring

about true equality for women,

1:23:521:23:58

diverse communities, LGBT plus

communities and those with

1:23:581:24:01

protective characteristics. A Labour

government led by Jeremy Corbyn

1:24:011:24:04

would do just that. A Labour

government's successes would be

1:24:041:24:09

measured by how it reduces

inequality. The next Labour

1:24:091:24:13

government with an sure that we

publish equality impact assessment,

1:24:131:24:18

and we conduct equality impact

assessments before implementation of

1:24:181:24:21

policies. And then a Labour

Government would have

1:24:211:24:25

post-legislative scrutiny to

ascertain whether policies are

1:24:251:24:27

making the situation better or

worse. The labour we will enable us

1:24:271:24:31

to truly build an economy for the

many and not the few. If the

1:24:311:24:35

Government fails to support this

very reasonable amendment, more

1:24:351:24:41

people will question... I'm just at

the end, I'm afraid. If the

1:24:411:24:47

Government fails to support this

very reasonable amendment, more and

1:24:471:24:51

more people will begin to question

why this Government is so intent on

1:24:511:24:54

harming not hindering women and

those with protective

1:24:541:24:59

characteristics as opposed to

helping them.

Equality impact

1:24:591:25:06

analysis of various parts of this

act.

Should new clause nine B read a

1:25:061:25:13

second time? Minister? I hadn't seen

the honourable lady standing. That

1:25:131:25:23

was my error.

Thank you very much,

Mr Speaker. It was a pleasure to

1:25:231:25:27

take part in the final day of debate

on this Finance Bill. We have had a

1:25:271:25:32

lot of debate, myself and the Member

for Oxford East and the Minister

1:25:321:25:38

have spent quite a lot of time

together in the committee room, not

1:25:381:25:41

just on this but also on the customs

bill that has been passing, so it is

1:25:411:25:46

good to be here again in order to

talk about this, and actually I

1:25:461:25:49

think it is a great way to start

talking about equalities, and

1:25:491:25:53

particularly around the new clause

that is being put forward by the

1:25:531:25:57

Labour bench of the Shadow Minister.

I think this is incredibly

1:25:571:26:01

important, because the way that the

Government and the way that previous

1:26:011:26:07

governments at Westminster have done

budget has not been particularly

1:26:071:26:12

transparent, and has not ended in a

situation where people know what the

1:26:121:26:15

effects of all of the policies will

be as they come through. I have said

1:26:151:26:19

before and I still believe that this

is a very, very good amendment, this

1:26:191:26:24

new clause, and I'm delighted to

stand on the half of the SNP and

1:26:241:26:27

support this new clause as it goes

forward. I just want to highlight a

1:26:271:26:31

number of things within it, as well

as some genuine comments around the

1:26:311:26:35

transparency and the processes that

the Government uses in order to

1:26:351:26:44

create budget and make tax law in

general. The amendment itself talks

1:26:441:26:47

about various things, including the

protective characteristics, looking

1:26:471:26:51

at the view and impact analysis on

the basis of different protective

1:26:511:26:56

characteristics. Just to focus in on

one of those, the issue of age I

1:26:561:27:01

think is incredibly important. A

number of decisions that the

1:27:011:27:04

Government makes around tax policy

have a differential impact on those

1:27:041:27:07

people of different ages, we have

spoken before in this chamber on a

1:27:071:27:11

number of occasions about the

generational divide that there is.

1:27:111:27:14

We are seeing generation rent, those

people that are millennials or

1:27:141:27:18

younger than that facing a very

different housing situation to those

1:27:181:27:23

people in generations that came

before, and therefore any tax

1:27:231:27:27

changes that happen affect that

group of people differently to how

1:27:271:27:40

they affected the previous

generation when they were the same

1:27:561:27:58

age, so I think it would be really

important for any analysis was

1:27:581:28:01

undertaken by the Government to look

at the generational divide, to look

1:28:011:28:03

at the impact on not just that group

of millennials and younger, but on

1:28:031:28:06

those people that are of state

pension age as well and to look at

1:28:061:28:09

the impact on them of any changes to

taxes that are coming through.

1:28:091:28:11

Looking specifically at other

things, the honourable member

1:28:111:28:13

mentioned issues around women, and

it is clear that there is still a

1:28:131:28:15

gender pay gap, and companies have

got to publish this information and

1:28:151:28:18

I think that is really important,

but actually, the obligation is that

1:28:181:28:20

I have seen thus far from companies

have caused me more concern than the

1:28:201:28:23

situation that was previously in. We

saw one company recently produce a

1:28:231:28:25

gender pay report that really stated

that men in their organisation were

1:28:251:28:31

paid significantly more than women,

and they said it wasn't an equal pay

1:28:311:28:34

issue, because the men were

overwhelmingly doing higher paid

1:28:341:28:38

jobs, it was an a travel company,

they were pilots, whereas women

1:28:381:28:47

95% of their pilots were men and

over 85% of their cabin crew were

1:28:471:28:54

women. That is still a major issue

because it means that women are

1:28:541:28:58

finding it very difficult to become

pilots and men are not finding it

1:28:581:29:01

that easy to become cabin crew

either, so the real issue here, and

1:29:011:29:06

even though this data has been

published which I do welcome, it has

1:29:061:29:10

highlighted institutional issues

which there are as well as issues

1:29:101:29:15

around equal pay. So any impact

analysis the Government does need to

1:29:151:29:20

take into account all of these

things. Some of these decisions the

1:29:201:29:26

Government has taken previously,

such as the changes around the

1:29:261:29:30

marriage allowance, and I do welcome

the proposals made to that in this

1:29:301:29:34

Finance Bill, however, the creation

of the marriage allowance is

1:29:341:29:40

something that disproportionately

has a negative impact on single

1:29:401:29:47

female parents, actually. That is a

concern for the SNP with issues

1:29:471:29:52

around the idea of a marriage

allowance and we don't think it is

1:29:521:29:55

something which has been properly

thought through because of the lack

1:29:551:29:58

of fairness in the system.

She's

making a very good point on the

1:29:581:30:05

marriage allowance as ever and it

creates an inequality that I is a

1:30:051:30:11

married woman suddenly get this

advantage over an unmarried person,

1:30:111:30:16

that is an unfairness in the tax

system. We shouldn't be in the

1:30:161:30:22

business of telling people how

financially beneficial marriages.

I

1:30:221:30:27

absolutely agree with my honourable

friend that people ultimately

1:30:271:30:30

shouldn't have to get into whether

it's a marriage arrestable

1:30:301:30:34

partnership or any kind of signing

on a dotted line relationship to get

1:30:341:30:38

a tax break. That should not be the

case. People should have the choice.

1:30:381:30:43

This is the disproportionately

positive effect on the people who

1:30:431:30:48

are married, particularly men, and

it's women who are disadvantaged

1:30:481:30:53

because they cannot receive this

allowance. Looking at some of the

1:30:531:30:55

other things within the New Clause

that have been laid down, I have

1:30:551:31:02

previously talked particularly

during the custom spill about the

1:31:021:31:05

differential regional impact that

there will be Brexit particularly.

1:31:051:31:08

It is the case with the leaked

Government analysis that we have

1:31:081:31:14

seen that there will be a

significantly higher negative impact

1:31:141:31:19

according to that leaked analysis on

areas in the North of England for

1:31:191:31:23

example that there will be in areas

like London and the South of

1:31:231:31:27

England. I think therefore when the

Government is making policies,

1:31:271:31:30

actually what it should be doing is

it should be making sure it's trying

1:31:301:31:34

to balance that out and therefore

trying to put in place policies that

1:31:341:31:38

are more beneficial to those areas

in order to try to counterbalance

1:31:381:31:43

the major negative effect that

Brexit will have. We need to have a

1:31:431:31:48

situation where particularly some of

the people in those areas... We

1:31:481:32:00

would be able to see more

appropriately, more clearly what the

1:32:001:32:05

Government's thoughts on the impacts

are, and part of the problem is that

1:32:051:32:10

the Government doesn't actually know

what the impact will be on some of

1:32:101:32:13

these policies. They don't know what

the differential impact will be

1:32:131:32:16

because they haven't looked at it.

If they do have all of this

1:32:161:32:20

analysis, it should be very easy for

them just to publish it and give it

1:32:201:32:24

to us that we can scrutinise it and

make the best decisions.

Thank you

1:32:241:32:30

for giving way. You talk about

regional disparity. Do you think

1:32:301:32:35

that the SNP policy of increasing

taxes in Scotland is a way of

1:32:351:32:38

narrowing that disparity?

I have

raised particularly my concerns

1:32:381:32:45

around those earning £26,000 a year

in England who will now pay more tax

1:32:451:32:50

in England and they will do in

Scotland... I'm sorry, Mr Speaker, I

1:32:501:32:56

being shouted at across the top of

the chamber. Those people at the

1:32:561:33:01

bottom of the pile earning under

£26,000 a year in England will pay

1:33:011:33:04

more tax in England and they will in

Scotland and I do not think that is

1:33:041:33:08

fair because I think those people

most need the support of the

1:33:081:33:14

Government, especially with the

changes to tax credits, especially

1:33:141:33:17

with the negative impacts there are

two people who are disabled who are

1:33:171:33:22

losing £30 per week. This is a

significant issue for the most

1:33:221:33:27

vulnerable people and that the

Conservatives to shout about the

1:33:271:33:29

fact that tax rates for those who

are earning a reasonable income are

1:33:291:33:34

slightly higher in Scotland that

they are in England I think it's

1:33:341:33:37

very clear that they are supporting

a different system which doesn't

1:33:371:33:43

involve as much fairness as the

system which we are trying to

1:33:431:33:45

support in Scotland. Going on with

the process of budget straightening

1:33:451:33:50

and the process of scrutiny around

the Finance Bill in general, I have

1:33:501:33:56

previously raised the difference lay

my concerns around the fact the

1:33:561:33:59

Finance Bill doesn't look to take

evidence. I think it would be much

1:33:591:34:07

better if it did and I would like to

see take evidence from organisations

1:34:071:34:11

like the women's budget group that

can talk about the gender disparity

1:34:111:34:15

in some tax decisions that are being

made. But I honestly don't think

1:34:151:34:19

that is enough. It's not enough to

have that scrutiny after the event.

1:34:191:34:23

You still have a situation where

despite moving to one of event in a

1:34:231:34:30

year, which I welcome that change,

you do not have the level of

1:34:301:34:36

consultation that you could tap

before tax measures are suggested

1:34:361:34:40

and put in place, before we come to

the actual stage of the Chancellor

1:34:401:34:43

standing up and revealing the

budget.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Arab

1:34:431:34:49

member for giving way. -- I thank

the honourable member for giving

1:34:491:34:55

way. There is a revenue follow on

from that because road improvements

1:34:551:35:06

mean it is quicker for people to get

to hospital and so on. But the

1:35:061:35:10

honourable member agree with me that

it would be helpful if some

1:35:101:35:16

financial consideration had been

given in the Finance Bill to what

1:35:161:35:19

the reduction of this money would

mean to the Exchequer and indeed

1:35:191:35:22

what that would mean to the Scottish

Government being able to rip -- to

1:35:221:35:26

replace this funding somehow.

I

agree with the point the honourable

1:35:261:35:31

member is making. I think the point

I was making earlier about the

1:35:311:35:34

differences any impact of Brexit

relates to this. It's important with

1:35:341:35:44

trading with the EU but also with

the money coming from the EU for

1:35:441:35:49

things like infrastructure products

-- projects, it's important those

1:35:491:35:53

are not capped by the Government and

it's important that when the

1:35:531:35:58

Chancellor stands up and gives what

will be his spring statement, which

1:35:581:36:02

will probably be very light in terms

of the tax changes it will put in

1:36:021:36:05

place, because that's what the

business community are generally

1:36:051:36:11

asking for, but it will be

incredibly important when it comes

1:36:111:36:13

to the Autumn Statement and the

budget that the Chancellor does as

1:36:131:36:17

much consultation as he can

beforehand. He will be speaking not

1:36:171:36:23

just to Conservative MPs, which I am

aware that he does, he does also

1:36:231:36:28

speak to business organisations, he

also needs to speak to others and he

1:36:281:36:32

should be consulting on the tax

measures he's looking to put in

1:36:321:36:35

place as well as the taking of this

amendment, which ensures there is an

1:36:351:36:40

impact analysis afterwards.

I am

very grateful. I wonder if she could

1:36:401:36:47

explain the consultation that the

Scottish Government undertook before

1:36:471:36:51

they increased the taxes there,

which many of my constituents do

1:36:511:36:56

think is fair? Despite the call for

consultation, the Scottish

1:36:561:37:01

Government consultation have not

reflected any changes.

Before the

1:37:011:37:08

Scottish Government's folk that

there was, what happened was a

1:37:081:37:12

rationale outline of the white was

proposing changes, it consulted each

1:37:121:37:19

of parties within Parliament, asking

each of them for their tax plans so

1:37:191:37:22

they could be analysed, and actually

this put forward, I'm not entirely

1:37:221:37:28

sure it might have in October or

November, whereas the actual vote

1:37:281:37:32

was now, is just taken place, giving

a significant amount of time between

1:37:321:37:37

the consultation document and the

best discussions on this being

1:37:371:37:41

produced and the actual vote in

parliament, whereas what happened

1:37:411:37:45

here, we have the budget debate and

then we have the vote. The vote on

1:37:451:37:51

the ways and means resolution, some

of the proposals that are being put

1:37:511:37:56

in place from that day are being put

in place from that date. It's a very

1:37:561:38:02

different situation in the Scottish

parliament where there is a length

1:38:021:38:04

of time for consultation because a

draft resolution is -- a draft

1:38:041:38:16

budget is produced. Any party is

able to do that in the Scottish

1:38:161:38:19

parliament. Some have chosen to and

some had chosen not to. I would

1:38:191:38:23

suggest those who have not might be

struggling to balance the books at

1:38:231:38:28

Thule or they might have just

decided that houses clearly the best

1:38:281:38:31

option. Mr Speaker, I don't want to

take any more time. I think the call

1:38:311:38:37

for a quality assessments actually

call for more transparency and

1:38:371:38:43

information, not just for the

opposition scrutinising the budget

1:38:431:38:45

but also for the Government

ministers who could be taking better

1:38:451:38:51

decisions if they could see all of

the impact, particularly those with

1:38:511:38:54

protected characteristics.

Helen

Wigley. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I

1:38:541:39:02

just wanted to make a few brief

comments, especially as I was unable

1:39:021:39:06

to intervene earlier run on the

Shadow Minister. But I was hoping to

1:39:061:39:12

say at that point, so I'll say it

briefly now, I was quite shocked by

1:39:121:39:16

some of the accusations she made and

also what I consider unsubstantiated

1:39:161:39:24

claims about a rather illusionary

bright future under the idea of a

1:39:241:39:28

Corbyn Government. I'm afraid I felt

she ignored the legacy of the

1:39:281:39:34

previous Labour Government because

it was that Labour Government that

1:39:341:39:40

failed to build homes now, it failed

on jobs and left many thousands of

1:39:401:39:44

families jobless when the

Conservative Government took over.

1:39:441:39:53

Unfortunately it increased

inequality in our society.

I'm happy

1:39:531:39:55

to give way. I'm grateful to the

Member for giving way. Actually, the

1:39:551:40:02

number of home owning households

under the last Government increased

1:40:021:40:08

by 1 billion. It has fallen under a

Conservative Government and I felt

1:40:081:40:12

it was -- increased by 1 million. It

has fallen under the Conservative

1:40:121:40:18

Government and I felt it was

important to clarify that.

It is

1:40:181:40:25

important that we try to focus the

exchanges on New Clause 92 which

1:40:251:40:31

with laser-like in tendency --

intensity, I know she will now turn.

1:40:311:40:37

She has made a different point from

the point I made, however, because

1:40:371:40:45

mine was about the building of

houses. By contrast, this House,

1:40:451:40:51

this Government has made progress on

the gender pay gap. This Government

1:40:511:40:54

is one that is requiring companies,

for instance, to publish the data on

1:40:541:40:59

the gender pay gap and as we well

know and was mentioned earlier this

1:40:591:41:04

afternoon, transparency is a huge

driver of change. We have seen that

1:41:041:41:08

in many sectors, not just in the

health sector where most of my

1:41:081:41:13

experiences. This Government is

raising the national living wage and

1:41:131:41:19

we know that disproportionately

benefits women. This argument --

1:41:191:41:26

Government has taken the lowest paid

out attacks. It is this Government

1:41:261:41:31

that are making sure that for houses

on the lowest incomes, every £1 they

1:41:311:41:36

pay on tax, they benefit to £4 worth

of public spending. And it is this

1:41:361:41:41

Government that has overseen a huge

expansion in job so that a million

1:41:411:41:46

more are reworked and significantly

to the point she was making about

1:41:461:41:49

children, many more children now are

in households where there is

1:41:491:41:53

somebody in the household working,

far fewer are in workless households

1:41:531:41:58

and we know that work is a key out

of poverty. I give way to my

1:41:581:42:03

honourable friend over there.

1:42:031:42:07

I thank her forgiving way. Does she

recognise also that it is this

1:42:071:42:11

Government that has overseen the

greatest expansion of women in work

1:42:111:42:14

since records began?

My noble friend

makes a very good point, and in fact

1:42:141:42:21

policies that we have put in place

to help women, for instance the

1:42:211:42:27

extra free childcare for

three-year-olds, which benefits both

1:42:271:42:30

parents but we know it is women who

are often the main child carer so it

1:42:301:42:35

particularly helps women with an

ambition to work.

I'm grateful to my

1:42:351:42:40

noble friend forgiving way. She

recognise also that since the last

1:42:401:42:45

Labour government was in power,

youth unemployment has been cut in

1:42:451:42:49

half. That generates opportunities,

the dignity of work, the chance to

1:42:491:42:52

get on and also the chance for women

and children to achieve their best

1:42:521:42:55

in society.

I thank my honourable

friend for making such an important

1:42:551:43:00

point. This Government has given

thousands of young people the

1:43:001:43:06

opportunity to have a job. I

remember it was not that long ago

1:43:061:43:11

that everyone was talking all the

time about Neets, the big debate was

1:43:111:43:20

on all those young people who were

not in education or training.

I

1:43:201:43:27

thank the member forgiving way. She

has mentioned the power of numbers

1:43:271:43:31

to be able to track progress. New

clause nine is about the power of

1:43:311:43:35

numbers to be able to track progress

in tackling inequality, so if she

1:43:351:43:39

thinks those numbers are so

important in the battle to ensure we

1:43:391:43:42

didn't leave young people behind,

why do she not think the same when

1:43:421:43:45

it comes to women and ethnic

minorities?

I'm not surprised by my

1:43:451:43:52

honourable friend's intervention,

and I think the point is that there

1:43:521:43:57

is a thorough impact analysis of the

budget, and no point in endlessly

1:43:571:44:02

going things around things again and

again, where does it get us?

I think

1:44:021:44:07

the honourable lady forgiving way.

Would she agree that bearing in mind

1:44:071:44:13

with what she was talking about

women in business, this Government

1:44:131:44:18

has seen compared to 2003-2006 under

the Labour government, if you

1:44:181:44:24

compare that time to 2013-2016, the

number of women in business and

1:44:241:44:29

entrepreneurship has grown by over

40%. Does she agree with me that

1:44:291:44:33

this shows this Government's

commitment to women in business?

1:44:331:44:36

Another very well-informed point

from a colleague about women in the

1:44:361:44:43

workplace supported by this

Government. I think the headline

1:44:431:44:46

point that I was keen to make is

that this Government has a track

1:44:461:44:50

record in reducing inequality, and

I'm keen to make sure that we base

1:44:501:44:56

what I say therefore on the track

record, a track record of improving

1:44:561:45:02

lives for people on the lowest

incomes, and reducing inequality.

1:45:021:45:06

And let's talk not about...

I thank

the honourable lady forgiving way.

1:45:061:45:12

Though she agree that it is not just

about income but it is about

1:45:121:45:17

equality of opportunity and

aspiration as well?

I absolutely

1:45:171:45:20

agree the you shouldn't just look at

the outcomes, but in order to get to

1:45:201:45:25

a better outcome, the key is

absolutely to give people

1:45:251:45:28

opportunities to make the most of

their lives. But particularly helps

1:45:281:45:33

those who have a difficult start or

find themselves in a difficult

1:45:331:45:36

situation, who may need extra help

to access the but opportunity is

1:45:361:45:46

absolutely the key. And then rather

than painting a picture that can

1:45:461:45:49

mislead people into thinking that

there is some illusion of a perfect

1:45:491:45:53

world, but rather to base claims

unsubstantial policies, I know it is

1:45:531:45:59

controversial, but Universal Credit

for instance in my constituency is

1:45:591:46:02

making a difference the people who

want to work and want to work more

1:46:021:46:06

hours. I have heard many criticisms

of it but genuinely it is making a

1:46:061:46:10

difference in terms of giving people

opportunity to increased the work

1:46:101:46:16

they do, and the opportunities

coming through thanks to the

1:46:161:46:19

industrial strategy, these are the

concrete policies which are going to

1:46:191:46:23

make life better for people, and

that is how we reduce inequalities,

1:46:231:46:28

and that is why I'm delighted

support the Government throughout

1:46:281:46:31

this Finance Bill.

Thank you very

much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank

1:46:311:46:38

you for the chance of being able to

speak on new clause nine in this

1:46:381:46:42

debate. As it has been put forward,

I appreciate we should look at the

1:46:421:46:50

distribution and the impact of some

of the budget impacts, and that is

1:46:501:46:53

what the Treasury already does. At

every budgetary event, it does look

1:46:531:46:58

at the impact on the distribution

across the United Kingdom, and ONS

1:46:581:47:02

statistics also look at the

distribution and impact across

1:47:021:47:05

different household as well. I would

also say that when we're talking

1:47:051:47:08

about making sure we shine a light

on these issues and target equality,

1:47:081:47:12

I know that I and many members in

this House share your passion for

1:47:121:47:15

this, this is the Government that

have put the pressure on companies

1:47:151:47:18

to make these publications, and

although there isn't full compliance

1:47:181:47:22

yet, I'm sure my right honourable

friend will continue to put pressure

1:47:221:47:26

on the sector, and as a referred to

earlier, some follow some of the

1:47:261:47:34

industry-leading programme such as

Crossrail and add pressure to show

1:47:341:47:37

companies what best practice is in

the UK and internationally. And just

1:47:371:47:41

pick up on some broader points about

the pay gap, especially gender pay

1:47:411:47:46

gap, I hope honourable members

opposite would have seemed a recent

1:47:461:47:49

study quoted in the FT just a month

ago, I would be happy to share it

1:47:491:47:53

with them, looking at male and

female pay rates, which are equal up

1:47:531:47:56

until middle to senior manager

level, after which

1:47:561:48:08

there was a big gap, and the biggest

disparity in where some of the most

1:48:091:48:12

uneven gaps appear at the very

senior roles, as in CEO and CFO

1:48:121:48:15

roles. And one of the key drivers in

that study was women taking

1:48:151:48:18

maternity leave, so we have already

identified the problem in the pay

1:48:181:48:20

gap, we should be looking at

policies to increase more flexible

1:48:201:48:22

working and having women back into

the workplace after taking maternity

1:48:221:48:26

leave. I know colleagues on the

front bench have been looking at

1:48:261:48:29

this and reflected that in some of

the budget. More broadly, and to

1:48:291:48:35

focus on points made by the

honourable member for Aberdeen

1:48:351:48:37

North, comments on tax and equality,

to be very clear, and this new

1:48:371:48:41

clause nine was making reference

every part of the United Kingdom,

1:48:411:48:45

some of the tax increases that have

been put up in Scotland, they have

1:48:451:48:48

been quoted to make a much fairer

society. Just clarity in this House,

1:48:481:48:53

the tax changes that have been

putting mean the lowest incomes in

1:48:531:48:58

Scotland get £20 more per year.

That's it. That's 38p per week. So

1:48:581:49:07

when they stand in this House and

lecture on this being unfair, let's

1:49:071:49:12

remember the tax changes they

brought in bring £20 a year, the tax

1:49:121:49:16

changes of the Conservative have

brought in bringing £1500 per year

1:49:161:49:22

with the tax threshold, so let's

leave the SNP debate on the

1:49:221:49:25

sidelines while the Conservatives

bring about truly transformational

1:49:251:49:29

change. And also on the marriage

allowance, I'm glad the honourable

1:49:291:49:33

member brought it up, because the

party has been in the papers about

1:49:331:49:36

the marriage allowance just weekend,

where the Chancellor of the

1:49:361:49:40

exchequer of the UK Government had

to stand up and guarantee to people

1:49:401:49:43

living in Scotland that they would

bridge the gap created in marriage

1:49:431:49:47

allowance by the tax changes that

were imposed by Holyrood, by the SNP

1:49:471:49:52

administration in Hollywood, so yet

again it is the UK Exchequer that is

1:49:521:49:55

having to stump up for SNP failures

in Scotland. And finally when we're

1:49:551:50:04

talking about fairness, it is

important to recognise that it is

1:50:041:50:07

this budget that is bringing a real

terms increase to Scotland which has

1:50:071:50:09

been recognised by the Finance

Secretary in the Scottish

1:50:091:50:11

Parliament, that there is a real

terms increase. So on top of the

1:50:111:50:17

£1750 per head spending that we get

already, we're getting a further

1:50:171:50:21

increase in real terms to spend on

front line services in Scotland. And

1:50:211:50:26

finally, I am conscious of time, but

one important area that I think does

1:50:261:50:32

impact on equal issues is that an

tax avoidance, that has been picked

1:50:321:50:36

up in the budget, and that is tax

avoidance generally but also on the

1:50:361:50:39

VAT provision as well, which is a

member Public Accounts Committee, we

1:50:391:50:46

pay specific interest in. And the

provisions that have been put about

1:50:461:50:50

targeting VAT avoidance especially

for international payment platforms

1:50:501:50:54

and for international marketplaces

give the Exchequer a good

1:50:541:50:56

opportunities target those who

currently are not paying VAT that

1:50:561:50:59

should, and will hopefully bring

more money into UK coffers, and

1:50:591:51:03

allow us to close the equality gap

further still.

Thank you, Madam

1:51:031:51:10

Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I

wish to put on record my

1:51:101:51:14

appreciation that we are all

concerned with equality, and

1:51:141:51:17

striving equality across the

country, but we on the side of the

1:51:171:51:20

House clearly differ from the other

side in how to achieve this. So

1:51:201:51:24

let's look at our record, Madam

Deputy Speaker. I am very proud to

1:51:241:51:28

be part of a government that is one

of the most progressive that we have

1:51:281:51:32

seen, so the record speaks for

itself in what we have done.

1:51:321:51:45

It is not about slogans and words,

it is about real progress and real

1:51:511:51:53

change on the ground in people's

lives. That is what we care about on

1:51:531:51:56

this side of the House. So we have

talked about a review that the other

1:51:561:51:59

side would like us to bring in for

every piece of legislation. I think

1:51:591:52:02

it is clear to all of us that this

already happens, the Treasury

1:52:021:52:05

already publishes the impact

analysis, and looks at the impact on

1:52:051:52:07

the policies. I'm happy to give way.

I'm grateful to the honourable

1:52:071:52:09

member forgiving way. The simple

fact is that the Treasury does

1:52:091:52:11

publish distributional analysis on

the side of the budget. What it

1:52:111:52:16

doesn't do is do a breakdown of the

budget in terms of its impact all

1:52:161:52:21

the whole range of protected

characteristics defined by the

1:52:211:52:23

equalities act. That is what new

clause nine addresses. The

1:52:231:52:26

Government doesn't presently do

this, and indeed of the Government

1:52:261:52:30

does as members opposite seems to be

saying, do this, they will have no

1:52:301:52:34

trouble voting for this new clause,

because they say it is up to the

1:52:341:52:38

Government is already doing.

I come

back to the point that we are

1:52:381:52:43

already publishing the analysis, and

the Treasury is working on looking

1:52:431:52:46

at the impact across a whole range

of levels, but Madam Deputy Speaker,

1:52:461:52:50

I wish to come to my Maynard event,

which is that we need to look at the

1:52:501:52:55

record of this Government and what

it has already delivered. We have

1:52:551:52:58

seen under this Government more

women in work, the point I made to

1:52:581:53:02

the honourable friend earlier, that

is women aiming to get into work

1:53:021:53:05

because of a wide variety of

policies that we have introduced

1:53:051:53:08

including childcare, help to get

1:53:081:53:19

into work and retraining at all

times of life. We have also seen a

1:53:201:53:23

massive change in income inequality.

Income inequality is the lowest it

1:53:231:53:25

has been for many years under this

Government. And since 20 -- 2010,...

1:53:251:53:33

Does she not also agree with me that

this budget increase the national

1:53:331:53:37

Living Wage by 4.4%, well above the

rate of inflation, and that that

1:53:371:53:42

disproportionately assist people

from an ethnic minority background,

1:53:421:53:45

people like myself who often find

themselves in low paid work, and

1:53:451:53:50

this is a testament to the work the

Government is doing.

I thank her for

1:53:501:53:53

that intervention, and she makes a

very, very important point. She said

1:53:531:53:58

that the national living wage

actually helps people from all

1:53:581:54:03

sectors of society, including those

from protected characteristics,

1:54:031:54:10

especially from protected

characteristics. So Madam Deputy

1:54:101:54:12

Speaker I believe that our record

speaks for itself on these

1:54:121:54:16

policies... I think the honourable

lady was first.

I thank the

1:54:161:54:19

honourable lady forgiving way. She

is promoting the Government's

1:54:191:54:22

record. One of the reasons why we on

this side want to get explicit

1:54:221:54:28

equality impact assessment, not the

Tyms assessment which I think she

1:54:281:54:30

has been told the Government does

produce is because the evidence

1:54:301:54:33

showing counter to what she is

suggesting. We know for example the

1:54:331:54:37

gender pay gap between women in

their 20s and men in their 20s has

1:54:371:54:42

actually started to grow under this

Government. It is now five times

1:54:421:54:45

what it was six years ago. I don't

know where the honourable gentleman

1:54:451:54:53

from Scotland got his statistics,

but I got mine from the ONS. We

1:54:531:54:57

Government policy is either

promoting that or helping to deal

1:54:571:54:59

with that, understanding that would

help us all make progress.

I thank

1:54:591:55:04

for that intervention, she is a

passionate advocate for the gender

1:55:041:55:07

pay gap, and my speech will come

onto those were Mark Short. I'm

1:55:071:55:10

aware that the gentleman here wants

to... .

I'm grateful to my

1:55:101:55:16

honourable friend forgiving way. It

is important to see the wood for the

1:55:161:55:20

trees here. Precisely the point that

she has indicated, women on lower

1:55:201:55:24

wages, instead of paying income tax

at £6,470 as they did under Gordon

1:55:241:55:30

Brown now don't start paying income

tax until £11,500, gaining over

1:55:301:55:36

£1000 in the process. And the

suggestion that we need a whole load

1:55:361:55:40

of impact assessment has given the

lie by the fact that a lot of data

1:55:401:55:44

is published by the Office for

National Statistics. If the

1:55:441:55:46

honourable lady wishes to make a

point about it in the House of

1:55:461:55:48

Commons, she is able to do so.

I

thank my honourable friend for that

1:55:481:55:54

intervention. He is reinforcing the

point that I'm seeking to make,

1:55:541:55:58

which is that it is about pounds in

the pocket of people up and down the

1:55:581:56:01

country, and that is what this

Government has done, informed by

1:56:011:56:05

fairness from the day that we have

come into Government. I will not

1:56:051:56:09

take any more interventions, because

time is short, thank you. OK, this

1:56:091:56:14

is the last one.

The honourable

gentleman is ever needed

1:56:141:56:18

clarification on this point. There

is data out there that shows us that

1:56:181:56:22

the gender pay gap is growing. What

we are asking for is analysis of how

1:56:221:56:30

Government policy is impacting that

so that we can understand it. I hope

1:56:301:56:33

that Claris him and for the lady

opposite why this matters.

I thank

1:56:331:56:37

her for that point, and I will now

move to the part of my speech where

1:56:371:56:40

I will be talking about the gender

pay gap. This is something I care

1:56:401:56:45

absolutely passionately about. I am

chair of the APPG for women in

1:56:451:56:48

Parliament, we were cross-party

across this issue, and a wider remit

1:56:481:56:52

for all of us that especially in

this year, the vote 100 year, we

1:56:521:56:58

take this seriously. So the gender

pay gap is an issue that has now

1:56:581:57:03

been addressed specifically by this

Government, by a Conservative

1:57:031:57:08

Government, a progressive

Government, Madam Deputy Speaker,

1:57:081:57:10

that wants to see real change in our

country, that actually wants to put

1:57:101:57:13

an end to the situation that the

honourable lady... I'm sorry. But

1:57:131:57:20

the honourable lady has said, and

she is right to talk about the fact

1:57:201:57:23

that we have got men in higher

paying roles, and women in lower

1:57:231:57:28

paying roles. However, I do not

believe this will be fixed by the

1:57:281:57:33

clause that the opposition are

proposing. It wouldn't be fixed

1:57:331:57:37

because it is a complex issue, Madam

Deputy Speaker, that requires a

1:57:371:57:41

range of interventions and a range

of change across the board.

1:57:411:57:58

I would be happy to share the study

in the FT, it didn't say the gender

1:57:581:58:03

pay gap was closing, what it said

was that men and women up to a

1:58:031:58:09

certain seniority were earning

pretty much the same amount in much

1:58:091:58:11

sectors but actually it was that

outliers that were making a lot of

1:58:111:58:14

the pay gap. The honourable lady may

shake her head but she talks about

1:58:141:58:19

clarifying figures and where they're

from Angie called up my honourable

1:58:191:58:23

colleague, so I wanted to make sure

she had pure clarification as well

1:58:231:58:27

and to be very clear, I'm the

honourable member for a kill and

1:58:271:58:31

South Perthshire, not all of

Scotland.

I thank my honourable

1:58:311:58:36

friend for about intervention and

it's clear we all take this very

1:58:361:58:39

seriously. I wish to come back to

the point made by the honourable

1:58:391:58:42

lady when she spoke about the gender

pay back -- pay gap when I

1:58:421:58:51

intervened earlier. She said the

Government has no teeth to act when

1:58:511:58:56

companies don't publish the data but

it's my understanding that the

1:58:561:59:00

Government does have teeth to act,

something called the equality and

1:59:001:59:04

human rights commission. It act

where companies failed to publish

1:59:041:59:09

that data. I urge the ministers from

the Treasury to make sure they are

1:59:091:59:13

paying close attention to that. I'm

aware from the work I've done in my

1:59:131:59:17

committee, the base committee, that

a number of companies have published

1:59:171:59:21

that data which is great news.

That's now in the public domain.

1:59:211:59:25

It's something the Conservative

Government have done. The Labour

1:59:251:59:28

Government did not do that. Now many

more companies are following suit

1:59:281:59:32

and that is making a very big

difference to the employees in that

1:59:321:59:38

company. The equality and human

rights commission can actually issue

1:59:381:59:41

a notice and they can require

implementation. I think the point my

1:59:411:59:45

honourable friend from Keele and

South Ayrshire made earlier is that

1:59:451:59:50

this actually is a complex issue.

I'd like to draw attention to

1:59:501:59:55

members of the 30% club, set up by

Helena Morrisey, who got a load of

1:59:552:00:00

business leaders together and urged

them to take voluntary action by

2:00:002:00:04

putting women on boards and what she

found was there was a no legal right

2:00:042:00:09

governments mandate here, but

because they all were about

2:00:092:00:13

reputational damage and their image

with their employees and culture,

2:00:132:00:16

she saw significant change across

the board with that issue. I believe

2:00:162:00:23

as an employer myself before I came

into this House, it isn't simply a

2:00:232:00:27

matter of passing laws in the House

or a Government review, it is about

2:00:272:00:32

a societal and cultural change, so

that's why I'm very proud that our

2:00:322:00:36

Government led by our Prime

Minister, the second beam out

2:00:362:00:40

Conservative Prime Minister is

leading from the front on this issue

2:00:402:00:45

and companies across the board and

businesses are following suit. So I

2:00:452:00:49

think that the Government's record

speaks for itself. It's not just

2:00:492:00:54

about slogans, it's about enacting

policies, Madam Deputy Speaker, that

2:00:542:00:58

make a big difference. I worry that

having analyses and additional

2:00:582:01:03

burdens placed on the Treasury at

this time when they have got to

2:01:032:01:09

deliver a massive amount of

priorities in order to make out tax

2:01:092:01:12

scheme Sarah and achieve progressive

outcomes we want to see would have

2:01:122:01:16

the opposite effect. I've certainly

seen myself the danger of unintended

2:01:162:01:21

consequences when you wish to

regulate and put more burdensome to

2:01:212:01:24

businesses. I will finish by saying

that I do not support the New Clause

2:01:242:01:29

9 and I will not be voting for it if

there is a division.

Thank you Madam

2:01:292:01:37

Deputy Speaker. It is a great

pleasure to be called on this debate

2:01:372:01:40

and follow such wonderful speeches

from my colleagues. From my point of

2:01:402:01:45

view I do understand the Treasury

publishes about tax welfare and I

2:01:452:01:55

have never been shy of voting with

the opposition if I believe they are

2:01:552:01:59

right from my point of view, however

I do not believe are right in this

2:01:592:02:03

point of view. The reason for that

is simply that I do not believe the

2:02:032:02:08

review they are asking for which

focuses predominantly on household

2:02:082:02:11

income levels and issues around

Treasury analysis is simply because

2:02:112:02:16

it is providing more data and

analysis and it's not actually going

2:02:162:02:19

to help people on the lowest incomes

or people from disadvantaged

2:02:192:02:24

backgrounds move forward in life.

For me, this seems to be very

2:02:242:02:27

academic as opposed to actually

helping people push forward and

2:02:272:02:32

achieve opportunity. For me, the

real issue is around inequality in

2:02:322:02:38

life chances. At the moment, I

believe the best way of changing

2:02:382:02:42

your life chances is still three

getting a better education and I am

2:02:422:02:47

proud on the Government's record on

the millions more children being

2:02:472:02:52

educated in good or outstanding

schools and that's something we

2:02:522:02:55

should all be proud of. As I say, I

am not shy of voting with your

2:02:552:03:01

position if I believe they are

right...

Would my honourable friend

2:03:012:03:05

agree with me that we have had a lot

of investment in the schools sector

2:03:052:03:09

which is helping to achieve the sort

of result that he is talking about.

2:03:092:03:13

For example in my constituency,

Highfield School was rebuilt

2:03:132:03:16

recently.

I do agree with my

colleague, we have seen massive

2:03:162:03:26

investment in this area. I am proud

of the number of primary schools

2:03:262:03:30

expanded in my constituency

constituency, rebuilt, and I am

2:03:302:03:42

proud that all primary schools in my

constituency are rated good or

2:03:422:03:46

outstanding. Four of my six

secondary schools are good and the

2:03:462:03:50

other two we are currently dealing

with, so I hope by the next

2:03:502:03:53

election, I will be one of the few

members of Parliament where every

2:03:532:03:56

single child in my constituency is

getting taught in a good or

2:03:562:04:01

outstanding school. I come back to

the equality of opportunity and

2:04:012:04:06

equality of aspiration and I do not

believe this New Clause 9 provides

2:04:062:04:10

that equality of opportunity and

aspiration. I don't believe it would

2:04:102:04:14

help anybody in my constituency from

equality and... Am I taking an

2:04:142:04:28

intervention?

Does he recall a

previous Prime Minister who argue

2:04:282:04:35

that sunlight was the best... Their

parents might be an issue in helping

2:04:352:04:48

him understand how they get better

schools?

I know myself and the

2:04:482:04:52

honourable lady agree on a lot of

things that we disagree on others

2:04:522:04:56

and we have debated across this

chamber and in committee rooms. I

2:04:562:05:00

don't think these figures will help

those children. They are

2:05:002:05:07

retrospective to talk about what is

happening... I am happy to take an

2:05:072:05:11

intervention.

I just want to

clarify, equality impact assessment

2:05:112:05:20

seeks to look at the implementation

of policies, have an assessment, see

2:05:202:05:24

whether it has helped or hindered

progress. That's all it does. It's a

2:05:242:05:31

good thing. It's not a burden, it's

good decision-making.

I think the

2:05:312:05:40

difference of opinion I have is that

I think a good deal will give much

2:05:402:05:49

better aspiration to children and

when we are looking at forecasts of

2:05:492:05:56

economists. In the 80s I have been a

member of Parliament, the figures

2:05:562:05:59

never seem to right ever -- in the

eight years I have been a member of

2:05:592:06:04

Parliament, the figures never seem

to be right ever. I would like to

2:06:042:06:07

talk for a moment about Universal

Credit. I campaigned about some of

2:06:072:06:12

the issues on Universal Credit and I

believe it as a product is the right

2:06:122:06:16

thing to do and I think it was

supported by both parties in the

2:06:162:06:20

sense that it supported people who

could not take on an extra hour or

2:06:202:06:26

two of work because they lost all of

their benefit. The idea behind it

2:06:262:06:29

was that the benefit would be

reduced over a certain period. I

2:06:292:06:33

know there are issues and I hope the

Minister has taken note of that

2:06:332:06:41

because I continue to raise it with

the Chancellor, but in terms of New

2:06:412:06:47

Clause 9, Madam Deputy Speaker,

getting back to the Treasury

2:06:472:06:51

putts-mac impact assessment, Madam

Deputy Speaker, I would just like to

2:06:512:06:54

say Universal Credit is more in

terms of helping people in their

2:06:542:06:57

life chances than a document saying

what happened and what could have or

2:06:572:07:06

not hindered it.

I'm happy to take

the intervention. All I want to say,

2:07:062:07:12

it is good governance to have a

little actual policy at the impact

2:07:122:07:16

job policy has on society.

I think

the honourable lady makes a very

2:07:162:07:24

good point. I can't support this

Clause because I don't think it will

2:07:242:07:28

do anything to practically help

people. I think it's just going to

2:07:282:07:32

allow academics and economists to

argue over a moot point where I'm

2:07:322:07:36

interested in actually helping

people from disadvantaged

2:07:362:07:39

backgrounds who want to have the

opportunity to go off and aspire to

2:07:392:07:42

be anything they want to. I actually

think it's fairly sad in this day

2:07:422:07:46

and age that we are standing here

discussing the fact that we need to

2:07:462:07:50

identify whether certain sections of

society need more support than

2:07:502:07:53

others. We should be aiming to get

to a society where...

Happy to give

2:07:532:07:57

way. I thank you very much Madam

Deputy Speaker. I'm very grateful to

2:07:572:08:03

the Member for given way. Given that

30% of cuts enacted by Conservative

2:08:032:08:10

governments have fallen on the

shoulders of women, would it not be

2:08:102:08:16

helpful for those women and indeed

asked as decision-makers to have

2:08:162:08:20

known about it before the decisions

to implement them were taken?

The

2:08:202:08:24

honourable lady makes a point and

they are not because I necessarily

2:08:242:08:34

like, but I do believe money has

gone into Social Security and there

2:08:342:08:38

are people on low incomes who are

concerned about the 3% on council

2:08:382:08:46

tax because it will have a negative

impact on their incomes, although it

2:08:462:08:50

helps other areas of society. This

boat is an issue for academics and

2:08:502:08:56

economists rather than helping

people on the ground. I know some of

2:08:562:09:01

you are shaking your head but you

got involved in politics but the

2:09:012:09:05

same reason I did which was to help

people get off on -- get on in life

2:09:052:09:09

and achieve the best they can do.

Going back briefly to the welfare

2:09:092:09:18

system, because that's my level of

expertise, we want a welfare system

2:09:182:09:22

that works. When you look at

Universal Credit and the impact of

2:09:222:09:26

New Clause 9 and the Treasury

putts-mac distribution analysis,

2:09:262:09:31

because it does provide an impact on

that, my view is very much about

2:09:312:09:36

developing policies that help get on

in life and for me New Clause 9 is

2:09:362:09:43

about providing information on

what's affected people in the past

2:09:432:09:46

over a number of years and by the

time we vote on the next budget,

2:09:462:09:51

it's moved on again. I'm happy to

give way.

I thank my honourable

2:09:512:09:57

friend for giving way and he's

making, as I think everybody knows,

2:09:572:10:00

very powerful speech in this debate.

Would he agree with me that this

2:10:002:10:06

Clause nine is indicative of the

fundamental difference between that

2:10:062:10:10

side and this site? On this side of

the House we care about action and

2:10:102:10:13

doing things and improving people's

lives and on that side of the House,

2:10:132:10:17

they want more analysis question

mark my honourable friend makes a

2:10:172:10:24

very powerful point and you can

understand why he was selected to be

2:10:242:10:28

the member of Parliament for pigeon

and Houston.

I am proud that in this

2:10:282:10:36

debate we have got three

Hertfordshire MPs speaking in this

2:10:362:10:40

debate.

I'm happy to give way. Thank

you, you are being very generous

2:10:402:10:50

with your time. You are absolutely

right. This New Clause highlights

2:10:502:10:56

the difference between the

Government and the opposition. The

2:10:562:11:01

Government is making changes

regardless of whether it hinders or

2:11:012:11:05

hurts people, whereas on this side

of the House we want to have

2:11:052:11:08

policies that ensure that they help

society.

The honourable and makes a

2:11:082:11:13

very powerful point which I respect

but I will assure the honourable

2:11:132:11:17

lady I only vote for a policy that I

believe will help people and if I

2:11:172:11:21

don't believe it will help people, I

vote against it. I have a record of

2:11:212:11:25

doing that and I will continue doing

that. I am happy to give way.

I am

2:11:252:11:30

grateful to my honourable friend for

giving way. I'm sure he would agree

2:11:302:11:34

with me as many would that the

Treasury produce excellent research

2:11:342:11:39

documents. But when it comes to

making further and further demands

2:11:392:11:43

for research, isn't it indicative of

the gap between the parties, that

2:11:432:11:48

they are the researchers and we are

the doers.

2:11:482:11:55

I could never disagree with my noble

friend. One of the issues I find

2:11:552:12:00

with new clause nine which I find

difficult is around

2:12:002:12:05

intergenerational fairness, and I

don't think the clause captures the

2:12:052:12:08

issues we have as a society and the

challenges facing the different

2:12:082:12:15

generations, so you have some people

who are living in large houses

2:12:152:12:19

paying high council tax rates on

very low and fixed incomes, and

2:12:192:12:24

young people who may be quite

affluent, but can't afford to

2:12:242:12:27

purchase a property in their part of

the country, whereas in a different

2:12:272:12:31

part of the country, they could

easily afford to purchase a

2:12:312:12:33

property, but they may not be able

to get a job, so they can't get a

2:12:332:12:38

mortgage for that, so I think

intergenerational fairness and

2:12:382:12:41

ensuring that the Government done

what is done to the Northern

2:12:412:12:43

Powerhouse trying to spread the

wealth throughout the country is

2:12:432:12:47

important. So I do think is a

Government this Conservative

2:12:472:12:51

Government has tried very hard. He

has not always got it right, and I

2:12:512:12:55

have voted against them when I

believe they have got it wrong, but

2:12:552:12:58

I do think that what they have tried

to do consistently is help people

2:12:582:13:02

get on in life, provide a welfare

system that wants to provide a

2:13:022:13:06

safety net for those who need it in

times of difficulty, and when it

2:13:062:13:11

comes to education, providing people

with the opportunity, because in

2:13:112:13:14

this country, education is still the

best way out of poverty, it is still

2:13:142:13:18

the best opportunity you've got to

change our life chances, and I'm

2:13:182:13:22

proud of what they have done a

insuring millions more children are

2:13:222:13:25

being taught in good and outstanding

schools. And when it comes to the

2:13:252:13:29

economy itself, the fact that we

have got record rates of employment,

2:13:292:13:35

all those people out there earning

tax and contributing to society...

I

2:13:352:13:40

thank the honourable gentleman

forgiving way. He seems to be making

2:13:402:13:46

quite a lengthy speech. He talks

about equality and people getting on

2:13:462:13:50

in life, and I respect the fact that

he has rebelled against the

2:13:502:13:53

Government when he sees fit, he has

spoken about the importance of a

2:13:532:13:57

good education with people coming

out of university, but does he share

2:13:572:14:00

my concern that the under 25 is not

included in the national living

2:14:002:14:04

wage?

From my point of view, I think

there are geographic issues around

2:14:042:14:11

the national living wage, so I think

in Hertfordshire it is much more

2:14:112:14:14

expensive to live, and one of the

challenges we have in Hertfordshire

2:14:142:14:18

is a shocking challenge that I

imagine a lot of people in the rest

2:14:182:14:20

of the country would understand. My

constituency is 19 minutes from

2:14:202:14:25

King's Cross, and as a result, we

lose a lot of our young people into

2:14:252:14:29

London, so when I became a member of

Parliament, there were yet less than

2:14:292:14:33

200 apprentices per year is starting

work in Stevenage, and we now have

2:14:332:14:42

nearly a thousand a year, because it

was the only way of holding onto our

2:14:422:14:45

young people. Set if you are an

apprentice in Stevenage and you were

2:14:452:14:48

thinking about new clause nine, then

the distribution all analysis, the

2:14:482:14:51

impact on a young person in

Stevenage would be if you become

2:14:512:14:57

apprentice, they will pave you to

get a level 4 degrees of you will be

2:14:572:15:01

earning £25,000 a year, and you want

get any university debt.

I started

2:15:012:15:07

my career as a modern apprentice,

that their relatives under UK law,

2:15:072:15:11

apprentices can still be paid as

little as £3 50 per hour, so how

2:15:112:15:17

does that fit in with building a

country that works for everyone?

2:15:172:15:22

£3.50 an hour would not be

acceptable in Hertfordshire.

2:15:222:15:24

Employees will have to pay far more

than that to attract a young person

2:15:242:15:28

or they just won't get them and that

is the reality. We have the highest

2:15:282:15:34

in Hertfordshire at 1.6%,

unemployment rates...

I think it is

2:15:342:15:39

important that the honourable

gentleman returns to the substance

2:15:392:15:42

of the debate, new clause nine. Just

mentioning it every now and then

2:15:422:15:48

doesn't do the trick.

2:15:482:15:49

You are very kind, Madam Deputy

Speaker, and I had no intention of

2:15:542:16:00

misleading you. I wanted to ensure

the fact that the distribution all

2:16:002:16:06

analysis of the cumulative impact

Government's tax welfare is a

2:16:062:16:10

wide-ranging topic and covers a big

righty, and I was trying to make the

2:16:102:16:14

point that I don't want to support

new clause nine because it seems to

2:16:142:16:18

be academic as opposed to helping

the people from different

2:16:182:16:22

backgrounds achieve their life

chances. So on that note I shall sit

2:16:222:16:25

down.

Thank you, Madam Deputy

Speaker. The speeches opposite been

2:16:252:16:31

so rousing that I've been moved to

my feet to take on the sheer

2:16:312:16:37

absurdity of the arguments we have

heard this afternoon. We have heard

2:16:372:16:41

member after member stand up and

tell us that they are opposing new

2:16:412:16:44

clause nine because the Government

already does it. If the Government

2:16:442:16:47

already does it, then why aren't

they supporting new clause nine? The

2:16:472:16:50

fact is that the Government doesn't

already do it. What the Government

2:16:502:16:54

does is publish an impact assessment

looking at the distribution of

2:16:542:16:58

analysis of budget measurements by

house is dependent on income. This

2:16:582:17:01

measure was introduced by a previous

Chancellor until the current

2:17:012:17:06

Chancellor's predecessor decided it

was politically inconvenient and got

2:17:062:17:10

rid of it, and the present

Chancellor, to his credit, decided

2:17:102:17:12

to bring it back. That is

interesting, it is useful, it

2:17:122:17:17

informs Ministers were now making

decisions, but it doesn't cover the

2:17:172:17:19

measures that new clause nine

addresses, and the fact is that the

2:17:192:17:24

budget of a Government and the

Finance Bill of a Government is a

2:17:242:17:28

reflection of its political

priorities. It tells the country

2:17:282:17:30

about the problems it wants to

address, and how it intends to do so

2:17:302:17:35

through sufficient provision of

resources. And the simple fact is

2:17:352:17:39

that if the Government did an

equalities impact assessment on its

2:17:392:17:43

budget measures, we may not be in a

position where women in their 50s

2:17:432:17:46

are being clobbered by changes to

their state pension age at a time in

2:17:462:17:51

their life that gives them little

time or opportunity to address it,

2:17:512:17:54

and as a result of the Government's

refusal to listen to argument and

2:17:542:18:00

evidence and reason, I get

constituents in my surgery on Friday

2:18:002:18:03

afternoon, women in their 50s, who

tell me that they have lost their

2:18:032:18:06

job, they are not able to access

their pension when they expect, they

2:18:062:18:11

had planned to retirement and as a

result there ends no longer meet.

2:18:112:18:15

And there is nothing they can do

about it at that stage, and had the

2:18:152:18:19

Government consider the evidence

they might have made a different

2:18:192:18:21

decision. On government applied a

measure of equality impact on their

2:18:212:18:25

budget, we may not be in a position

where disabled people have been

2:18:252:18:31

consistently and repeatedly

clobbered by changes to welfare and

2:18:312:18:33

other areas of public policy. If the

Government did as local authorities

2:18:332:18:38

do, look at the equalities impact of

their decision, they might take

2:18:382:18:43

steps to mitigate against the impact

on disabled people, but instead we

2:18:432:18:47

see both nationally and locally

disabled people are too often seeing

2:18:472:18:52

the books balanced on their backs,

which is totally unjustifiable

2:18:522:18:59

the books balanced on their backs,

which is totally unjustifiable. And

2:18:592:19:00

if the Government looked at their

impact of their measures on black

2:19:002:19:03

and minority ethnic people, they may

well defined as we have already

2:19:032:19:06

addressed this afternoon that they

take different approaches to the

2:19:062:19:09

resources in education to address

the imbalance is there. They may

2:19:092:19:12

also find through analysis and

research, words that have become an

2:19:122:19:17

anathema to this Government and its

approach to public policy making,

2:19:172:19:21

some surprises, like detrimental

changes to small businesses have a

2:19:212:19:24

disproportional impact on BME

communities. They may choose to do

2:19:242:19:29

is having about it, they may not,

but at least they're policy-making

2:19:292:19:33

is better informed. And I just think

that in the debate on this bill in

2:19:332:19:36

particular, someone has to stand up

and make the case for a reasoned,

2:19:362:19:41

evidence -based public

policy-making. I think it is a total

2:19:412:19:45

disgrace that in the democratic

discourse of this country, we now

2:19:452:19:48

see the trashing of experts, we are

now warned that if we adopted new

2:19:482:19:52

clause nine, academics may debated,

God forbid that people with some

2:19:522:19:55

degree of expertise should debate

the laws that we pass, because

2:19:552:19:58

goodness knows it doesn't happen in

this chamber often enough. What is

2:19:582:20:03

it about expertise of data that the

Government are so afraid of? What is

2:20:032:20:08

it about information they find so

terrify? May be the honourable

2:20:082:20:10

member for Braintree will tell us.

I'm curious, he expresses his desire

2:20:102:20:19

for experts to have a role in the

production of Treasury bills and

2:20:192:20:24

finance bills. Does he therefore not

regard Treasury officials as being

2:20:242:20:28

experts?

Unlike the members

opposite, I have high regard for

2:20:282:20:31

Treasury officials, and I don't

trash the data that is produced by

2:20:312:20:36

civil servants in the way that

Ministers of the Crown do. And I

2:20:362:20:40

think civil servants are very good

example of experts, and I would like

2:20:402:20:43

the expertise of the Treasury and

the civil service drawn upon to

2:20:432:20:48

produce exactly the kind of

equalities impact assessment that

2:20:482:20:50

our front bench is causing for with

new clause nine. It is because of

2:20:502:20:57

our civil service and their ability

to gather and gun evidence that I

2:20:572:21:00

would like to see a more evidence

-based approach to public

2:21:002:21:04

policy-making. With such an approach

we were done have a better quality

2:21:042:21:07

of Government, and goodness knows we

need that when you look at the

2:21:072:21:11

current state of things. But also we

have a better quality of debate in

2:21:112:21:14

this House about what our priorities

are, the challenges facing the

2:21:142:21:18

country and how we need to tackle

them, and I think this is... I will

2:21:182:21:22

give way one final time.

I thank the

honourable friend the giving way. He

2:21:222:21:25

makes a big play of analysis. Can he

afford a house of the distribution

2:21:252:21:31

of impact of £170 billion of extra

borrowing and the interest payments

2:21:312:21:36

on what that will have on our

community.

I'm very grateful for

2:21:362:21:39

that point, because he raises

exactly the point I have made since

2:21:392:21:44

the general election, which is the

manifesto policies that we put

2:21:442:21:47

forward, which proved immensely

popular, by the way, across the

2:21:472:21:51

country and led to a result that

lots of people weren't expecting. I

2:21:512:21:56

think we should do the distribution

of analysis of policies right across

2:21:562:21:59

the board to make sure that

resources are properly targeted

2:21:592:22:03

where they are needed. But I just

want to say in conclusion, Madame

2:22:032:22:08

Deputy Speaker, that we should not

fear information and evidence. It

2:22:082:22:12

would lead to better informed

government, and I think the greatest

2:22:122:22:16

tragedy of this Prime Minister is

not the fact she is currently being

2:22:162:22:20

held hostage by the hard Brexiteers

on the right of her party, but that

2:22:202:22:24

those fine words that she gave on

the steps of Downing Street about

2:22:242:22:28

creating a more equal society and

tackling the injustices that still

2:22:282:22:32

loom large even in the 21st-century

in one of the richest economies in

2:22:322:22:35

the world, she has not delivered on

a single one of those sentiments,

2:22:352:22:39

and sentiments all well and good,

but we need policies that are backed

2:22:392:22:44

up by evidence and reason and the

ability to genuinely tackle the

2:22:442:22:50

problems at the Prime Minister set

out so long ago on the steps of

2:22:502:22:54

another ten but I fear she will

never be able to implement before

2:22:542:22:56

they boot her out next year.

Thank

you, Madame Deputy Speaker. Before I

2:22:562:23:01

plunge into new clause nine, as

indeed I will, at some length, may I

2:23:012:23:06

just concur wholeheartedly with the

statement made by the honourable

2:23:062:23:12

member for Ilford North when he

praised civil servants, the

2:23:122:23:16

impartiality, their objectivity and

their professionalism, and I have

2:23:162:23:19

always found in my experience and

the Treasury to be exactly that, and

2:23:192:23:22

I think that is an important point

that we should all register. We have

2:23:222:23:27

had, Madame Deputy Speaker, a fairly

wide-ranging debate. I hesitate to

2:23:272:23:32

add that on one or two occasions, it

has been marginally informative, and

2:23:322:23:37

I think on one occasion, I won't

name the

2:23:372:23:50

member, it actually very informative

because I actually learned something

2:23:522:23:54

that I hadn't heard before. But the

reason why it has been wide-ranging

2:23:542:23:57

I think, Madame Deputy Speaker, is

of course this is an extremely

2:23:572:23:59

important issue, and I think what

unites both sides of this House is

2:23:592:24:02

that every member of this House

deplores unwarranted inequality, not

2:24:022:24:04

that we are all entirely equal,

because of course we are different,

2:24:042:24:06

but we have a right to be treated

with equal respect, a right to the

2:24:062:24:11

equal opportunity and aspiration, as

my honourable friend the Member for

2:24:112:24:15

Stevenage so eloquently termed it.

And if I could just look at new

2:24:152:24:21

clause nine in just a little bit of

detail, Madame Deputy Speaker,

2:24:212:24:24

because it has been slightly absent

as I was suggesting from the debate

2:24:242:24:28

this afternoon. Let's bring it right

back to centre stage. What this new

2:24:282:24:33

clause seeks to do, Madame Deputy

Speaker, is to require the

2:24:332:24:37

Chancellor of the X to provide a

report, a review, before the House,

2:24:372:24:43

within six months of the passing of

this act. And in so doing, to look

2:24:432:24:51

at a number of particular aspects of

the impacts of the Finance Bill that

2:24:512:24:57

is going through this House this

afternoon. So the review under this

2:24:572:25:02

amendment would look at the impact

of those provisions on households at

2:25:022:25:05

different levels of income, as has

already been pointed out at length

2:25:052:25:09

in this debate, we have indeed

brought back the household

2:25:092:25:14

distribution of analysis that looks

at tax and welfare and public

2:25:142:25:19

expenditure and the impact of those

elements on the different income

2:25:192:25:28

levels by centile. It also seeks to

look at the impact of the provisions

2:25:282:25:32

of people with protected

characteristics within the meaning

2:25:322:25:34

of the equality 2010, and perhaps

that will be a moment for me to say

2:25:342:25:40

some thing very important, which is

of course Ministers always sick to

2:25:402:25:44

operate within the law, and the

equalities act is very clear as to

2:25:442:25:50

what our duties are as Ministers

when we consider the various

2:25:502:25:54

policies that come before us, not

just those of course which come

2:25:542:25:59

before us in the context of a major

fiscal event, but those policies and

2:25:592:26:03

decisions that we take day in, day

out, some of which never even pass

2:26:032:26:08

through this House. But we do it in

just because of the law, Madame

2:26:082:26:13

Deputy Speaker. We do it because we

think it is the right thing to do.

2:26:132:26:16

The impact of these provisions on

the Treasury's compliance with the

2:26:162:26:21

public sector equality duty under

section 1-49 of the Equality Act

2:26:212:26:26

2010 and the provisions of equality

in different parts of the United

2:26:262:26:30

Kingdom and different regions of

England, and what that comes to

2:26:302:26:37

focus on the specific taxes to which

this assessment, this requirement of

2:26:372:26:41

the Chancellor of the Exchequer to

prevent this report, would actually

2:26:412:26:44

focus upon. And I would like to make

an important point one general point

2:26:442:26:49

here, which is that it is far easier

to look at regional aspects of

2:26:492:26:55

spending and tax, to look at the

spending elements, than it is to

2:26:552:26:58

look at the regional distribution

when it comes to taxation, and that

2:26:582:27:04

is for fairly obvious reasons. I

will give way.

2:27:042:27:11

Does the Minister agree with me that

to carry out these impact

2:27:112:27:16

assessments would be so impractical

that it would slow down Government

2:27:162:27:19

business and perhaps that's one of

the reasons why the opposition has

2:27:192:27:22

put in this New Clause, to actually

make it difficult for us to get our

2:27:222:27:28

policies through?

I thank my

honourable friend very much for that

2:27:282:27:31

intervention. She touches on an

important point which is that there

2:27:312:27:35

is an element of proportionality

here because as I'm going to come on

2:27:352:27:39

to argue, Madam Deputy Speaker, one

of the difficulties with accepting

2:27:392:27:45

New Clause 9 is that a lot of this

information isn't available. That

2:27:452:27:48

isn't an argument for not going out

to find the information, but it does

2:27:482:27:51

also indicate that some of it is

extremely difficult to actually

2:27:512:27:56

generate. I don't think I would go

as far as my honourable friend in

2:27:562:28:00

suggesting that this is a

Machiavellian plan to gum up the

2:28:002:28:03

works of Government but I'm sure

some members opposite might be

2:28:032:28:07

pleased to see that happen. But I

take this in the spirit of the

2:28:072:28:13

wording that I see in front of me

and I certainly give way to the

2:28:132:28:16

honourable lady.

I thank the

Minister for giving way. I just

2:28:162:28:20

wanted to help the Minister a bit.

The women's budget group, lots of

2:28:202:28:26

organisations accumulate the data

that's needed as well as the ONS and

2:28:262:28:31

the HMRC, said the data is there in

order to carry out the impact

2:28:312:28:35

assessment and that the Treasury

Department does some anyway.

What

2:28:352:28:40

the honourable lady is suggesting is

that one particular set of analysis

2:28:402:28:43

is an ideal set to present and can

be seen as in no way misleading,

2:28:432:28:50

entirely robust, entirely objective.

Now, if we are to breach that

2:28:502:28:54

quality of data, we have to achieve

certain specific aims. One of the

2:28:542:28:58

games would have to be that we had

to deal with a lot of analysis to

2:28:582:29:03

which she is preparing its very

selective, it doesn't the entire

2:29:032:29:08

scale. Some of this analysis good

look at reflecting changes in income

2:29:082:29:13

tax, for example, which may benefit

one group over another but without

2:29:132:29:19

taking into account increased

spending on child care. If I may

2:29:192:29:25

finish on this point, then I'll

certainly give way to the honourable

2:29:252:29:27

lady. A lot of these analysis also

just simply look at the static

2:29:272:29:33

situations, they don't take into a

fact the fact that these have a

2:29:332:29:38

dynamic effect on the economy

themselves, driving up employment,

2:29:382:29:42

for example. Many people have spoken

eloquently this afternoon about the

2:29:422:29:46

record level of female employment at

the moment. That is something

2:29:462:29:52

benefiting women and in terms of the

policies interacting with our

2:29:522:29:55

benefit, that is not reflected in

the analysis. I have already

2:29:552:29:58

mentioned that a lot of the analysis

being sought here is not easy to

2:29:582:30:10

find, particularly with regards to

gender reassignment and sexuality,

2:30:102:30:18

it is very hard to define where they

are affected, particularly with the

2:30:182:30:23

clauses in New Clause 9 that the

opposition is seeking to address.

2:30:232:30:26

Before I give way, and I will then

give way to the honourable lady for

2:30:262:30:30

Oxford East, it's been a long while

since we just did, so I will

2:30:302:30:36

certainly give way to the honourable

lady. There is also an important

2:30:362:30:41

point on the impact of the goals in

particular which is one of the

2:30:412:30:44

points of the major thrust of Clause

nine, which is where it's very

2:30:442:30:50

difficult to divide the income that

will affect one member of the

2:30:502:30:57

household that will then be shared

with another. I will gladly give

2:30:572:31:00

way.

Thank you very much Madam

Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the

2:31:002:31:10

Minister for his generosity in

giving way and his kind words. I

2:31:102:31:14

want to briefly mention that the

Department for Work and Pensions

2:31:142:31:17

does produce this kind of modelling

for Social Security change which can

2:31:172:31:22

be similarly complex, looking at the

interaction with different aspects,

2:31:222:31:27

therefore why should the Treasury

take a different approach? If there

2:31:272:31:31

was ambiguity, this could be

cleared.

I thank the honourable lady

2:31:312:31:34

for her intervention. I bring her

back to New Clause 9 because

2:31:342:31:40

whatever the WP appears to be doing

and whether that is right or wrong

2:31:402:31:43

or works, it is New Clause 9 we look

at and as I am working through New

2:31:432:31:50

Clause 9, what I am arguing is that

it is not a practical way to seek to

2:31:502:31:54

achieve what the opposition are

intending to achieve. If we look at

2:31:542:32:02

subsection three... I will certainly

give way to my right honourable

2:32:022:32:04

friend.

Can I wear to be said about

the extent of research the Treasury

2:32:042:32:13

does already published. It is my

understanding that there are more

2:32:132:32:17

than 2500 Treasury papers already

published and it's more a question,

2:32:172:32:20

isn't it, where you draw the line?

If a piece of research is very

2:32:202:32:26

difficult and very resource

intensive and Taiwan, that is going

2:32:262:32:29

to make it less likely to be done

than a straightforward piece?

My

2:32:292:32:35

honourable friend makes a very

important point and I've already

2:32:352:32:41

pointed out, Madam Deputy Speaker,

around the major fiscal events, we

2:32:412:32:44

of course do have household

distributional analysis which covers

2:32:442:32:50

welfare and taxation and takes

accumulative approach to that

2:32:502:32:56

information and is often relied upon

by Government to take some

2:32:562:33:00

decisions. But we do also on

individuals, substantial individual

2:33:002:33:06

tax and National Insurance

contribution, we also have the tax

2:33:062:33:12

impacts and information notes, the

so-called tins, which were

2:33:122:33:14

introduced in 2010 and were not

there actually under the last Labour

2:33:142:33:21

Government, for example. So there

are a number of things we are doing

2:33:212:33:25

both within the context of the major

fiscal events but also on tax by

2:33:252:33:32

tax, National bike -- national

insurance by national insurance

2:33:322:33:34

basis where we are looking at using

just the kind of information that

2:33:342:33:39

informs decisions around equality.

If I can move on now, the third

2:33:392:33:44

section of the Clause nine, which is

of course relating to the taxes to

2:33:442:33:48

which this analysis would apply. We

have income tax, and I have made the

2:33:482:33:54

point about where we are looking at

impacts upon households and we may

2:33:542:34:01

raise the personal allowance, as

indeed we did in the last budget to

2:34:012:34:07

£11,850. It could be argued that

that disproportionately favours one

2:34:072:34:11

sex over another but when you look

at the effect on the household,

2:34:112:34:19

income is typically distributed

within families, within a household,

2:34:192:34:22

within a family unit and that is

something which is extremely

2:34:222:34:27

difficult, I would go so far as to

say impossible, to actually capture.

2:34:272:34:31

With great pleasure I give way.

He

made this point the last time we

2:34:312:34:36

tried to discuss this, and forgive

me but he seems to be assuming a man

2:34:362:34:44

and women, had he managed to get his

head around single women yet because

2:34:442:34:49

we see is that women's in cartons

are disproportionately hit by

2:34:492:34:55

Government policies, so he could at

least try to measure those women

2:34:552:34:59

rather than those who do not live

with a man and confuse him.

If the

2:34:592:35:05

honourable lady can come up with a

way of identifying those women, we

2:35:052:35:08

will probably make some progress.

The point I am making is that this

2:35:082:35:14

is riddled with huge complexity and

what New Clause 9 is seeking to

2:35:142:35:18

achieve is to present assessments

which have the Emperor martyr of

2:35:182:35:21

Government and the Treasury upon

them and they are relied upon to

2:35:212:35:27

take very important decisions and

arguments I am prosecuting suggest

2:35:272:35:30

that we would end up with an

incomplete picture that could

2:35:302:35:37

actually be misleading to what I

know the honourable lady is trying

2:35:372:35:46

to achieve and the Government also.

I give way to my honourable friend.

2:35:462:35:51

Does he share the view that has been

expressed by many of us this

2:35:512:35:54

afternoon that while those on the

benches opposite are looking for

2:35:542:35:59

very complicated analysis which we

may not need, we actually have a

2:35:592:36:06

very strong record if you take a

step back of reducing inequality and

2:36:062:36:11

making things better for those on

the lowest incomes?

My honourable

2:36:112:36:16

friend makes an extremely important

point and of course we know that the

2:36:162:36:20

gender pay gap is at its lowest on

record. I think that's a very

2:36:202:36:26

substantial achievement and we are

making considerable headway in that

2:36:262:36:32

particular respect. But to look at

some of the other taxes here, we

2:36:322:36:39

have employment, disguised

remuneration, a highly compensated

2:36:392:36:45

area as my honourable friend the

Member for cities will know as we

2:36:452:36:53

have discussed this on many

occasions. I find my mind-boggling

2:36:532:36:59

on how we would undertake that

particular taxation. Pension

2:36:592:37:05

schemes, once again, extremely

compensated. Passenger duty perhaps

2:37:052:37:08

easier than some others. The point

overall, and we do need to look at

2:37:082:37:14

this New Clause in its entirety, it

is extremely complicated indeed.

2:37:142:37:20

Could we perhaps just say one final

thing about New Clause 9 and the

2:37:202:37:24

debate we have had this afternoon?

There should be no doubt that this

2:37:242:37:29

side of the House is entirely

committed to ensuring that the drive

2:37:292:37:34

for equality through gender and we

drive it very strongly. We should

2:37:342:37:41

look to our own record in that

respect. We now have more women in

2:37:412:37:44

work than at any time in our

history. In the last year, 60% of

2:37:442:37:50

employment growth came from female

employment. We have the lowest

2:37:502:37:52

gender pay gap in full-time

employment ever. Those companies

2:37:522:38:03

employing 250 people are now

required by law to provide that

2:38:032:38:07

gender wage audit and contrary to

what the lady opposite has

2:38:072:38:16

suggested, there are teeth, there

are penalties that can be applied by

2:38:162:38:20

the EH see our as there are signs

that can follow where that is not

2:38:202:38:26

done. For those that are disabled,

we have spent a record in excess of

2:38:262:38:30

£50 billion a year on benefits and

as has been said by a number of

2:38:302:38:35

members, the National wage has

helped disproportionately the number

2:38:352:38:42

of needy in our society. When we

talk about inequality on this side

2:38:422:38:45

of the House, we mean it when we say

we want to end it and I urge the

2:38:452:38:51

House to reject New Clause 9.

Thank

you Madam Deputy Speaker. Having a

2:38:512:38:57

detailed understanding of how policy

choices exacerbate or eliminate

2:38:572:39:02

inequality at every stage of

policy-making is key to tackling

2:39:022:39:05

burning injustices and producing

good policies. Madam Deputy Speaker,

2:39:052:39:10

I would like to put New Clause 9 to

the bait.

The question is that New

2:39:102:39:15

Clause 9 be read a second time. As

many are robbed that opinion say

2:39:152:39:21

aye. To the contrary, no. Division,

clear the lobby.

2:39:212:39:31

The question is that that the New

Clause be read a second time. As

2:41:042:41:10

many that opinion aye. Aye. To the

contrary, no. Ayes to the right,

2:41:102:41:20

noes to the left. Tellers for the

ayes are Mr Nick Smith and platinum

2:41:202:41:25

Debonair. The tellers for the nose

are Amanda Millie and Rachel Adams.

2:41:252:41:32

What the doors.

2:47:352:47:36

Order, order.

The ayes to the right,

265, the noes to the left, 354.

2:56:432:57:01

Thank you. The ayes to the right,

265, the noes to the left, 304, so

2:57:012:57:10

the noes have it, the noes have it.

Unlock. We now come to New Clause 3

2:57:102:57:21

with which it would be convenient to

consider the new clauses and

2:57:212:57:27

amendments listed on the selection

paper. Peter down to move New Clause

2:57:272:57:31

3.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I wish to move the amendment in the

2:57:312:57:38

name of my right honourable friend,

the Leader of the Opposition, myself

2:57:382:57:42

and others on the changes to the

bank levy and particular New Clause

2:57:422:57:48

3. Let me start by reiterating what

I said when debating the bank levy.

2:57:482:57:54

It said no one -- it says no one

wants to homogenise the banking

2:57:542:58:05

services... In fact, around -- 2000

people work in the banking industry

2:58:052:58:22

in my constituency and we can't

ignore the important role banks pay

2:58:222:58:31

in our society. We should avoid any

bank bashing sessions. We need a

2:58:312:58:43

grown-up session to discuss the bank

levy, its effectiveness and why the

2:58:432:58:49

Government is now desperate to cut

the levy further. First, let me say

2:58:492:58:53

a few words on the political context

surrounding this debate if I can be

2:58:532:58:58

indulged slightly. Since we last

debated the bank levy proposed

2:58:582:59:02

changes, there have been further

developments that... We have had the

2:59:022:59:14

resignation of the Prime Minister's

Deputy, I Cabinet reshuffle which

2:59:142:59:19

showed the Secretary of State for

Health refusing to budge, someone

2:59:192:59:25

moving to the backbenches instead of

moving to the DWP and the Secretary

2:59:252:59:31

of State for Transport was wrongly

announced as the party chairman. It

2:59:312:59:34

goes to the heart of the

Government's compensate in regards

2:59:342:59:38

to the banking levy. In a recent

black-and-white dinner fundraiser at

2:59:382:59:42

which the banking at that and owl

review of the banking levy was no

2:59:422:59:48

doubt discussed held at the Natural

History Museum where evidently live

2:59:482:59:53

dinosaurs visited dead dinosaurs,

the Prime Minister addressing the

2:59:532:59:58

Jurassic attendees said, we are

fighting to win the battle of ideas

2:59:583:00:06

to fight socialism today. The

question is how they plan to defeat

3:00:063:00:12

socialism in the age of the Internet

and things, well, they held a

3:00:123:00:18

raffle. At £100 per ticket, they

rattled whilst discussing the

3:00:183:00:22

banking levy and relating issues,

they Rav and eight gun 500 thousand

3:00:223:00:30

shoot donated by a donor who knows

all about the banking levy.

3:00:303:00:48

Remaining united in Parliament is an

important part of remain -- of

3:00:483:00:55

ensuring that Jeremy Corbyn remains

in opposition.

3:00:553:01:11

No red box, no changes and no

embarrassing U-turn is either. And

3:01:223:01:31

an inability to talk about the

banking levy and how we could go

3:01:313:01:35

forward with that particular issue.

So rather than outline a long-term

3:01:353:01:40

financial plan, we have yet another

Finance Bill engineered for the

3:01:403:01:44

benefit of the few. And there is

little in the bill to tackle our

3:01:443:01:49

dreadful productivity performance,

our stuttering growth, our high

3:01:493:01:52

inflation and lack of investment in

our infrastructure and people which,

3:01:523:01:56

if we raised more from the banking

levy, we could do something about.

3:01:563:02:01

Madam Deputy Speaker, in this

context, the Government comes up

3:02:013:02:04

with the bright idea of offering

another tax break to the banks by

3:02:043:02:08

further limiting the scope of the

bank levy and this would ensure that

3:02:083:02:12

banks from Twenty20 will pay the

levy only on their UK balance

3:02:123:02:19

sheets, not on their overseas

activities. Our opposition to the

3:02:193:02:23

bank levy has been clear, we have

consistently argued for a more

3:02:233:02:29

proportional bank levy and pointed

out that the levy introduced in 2011

3:02:293:02:35

would raise substantially less than

Labour's bankers bonus, in other

3:02:353:02:40

words we have always stood against

the fetish in relation to posterity.

3:02:403:02:44

I am more than happy to give way.

I

thank the gentleman for giving way

3:02:443:02:48

but I must gently point out that his

party's position on the banking levy

3:02:483:02:53

has been anything but clear. When it

was first introduced, they opposed

3:02:533:02:58

it, then they called forehead to be

retained in place and the amendments

3:02:583:03:01

today, they neither propose to

retain or abolish it, said his

3:03:013:03:06

party's position is entirely unclear

and perhaps it could take this

3:03:063:03:12

opportunity to clarify it?

We

opposed it because it was a

3:03:123:03:15

reduction in the taxes banks were

paying. I know the honourable

3:03:153:03:19

gentleman wants to be generous with

people who've already got money and

3:03:193:03:23

very ungenerous to people who

haven't got money, but he should

3:03:233:03:27

really give considerable thought to

that before he intervenes on these

3:03:273:03:31

matters because he doesn't do his

party anything on their reputation

3:03:313:03:34

because that approach is mean and

miserly. What we voted against in

3:03:343:03:42

2011, the Finance Bill which

introduced the banking levy along

3:03:423:03:45

with cuts to corporation tax with

tax breaks to the most well off,

3:03:453:03:49

that is the context I would say to

the honourable gentleman and that is

3:03:493:03:53

why we also expressed our concern in

2015 over the Government pollock

3:03:533:03:57

cuts to the bank levy and the

introduction of the corporation tax

3:03:573:04:01

surcharge why we would vote against

this measure in the bill today. And

3:04:013:04:06

we support the honourable member for

Walthamstow, who will I suspect

3:04:063:04:11

called for a review about the

provisions for excess profits of PFI

3:04:113:04:18

company for the purpose of

qualifying worldwide groups in

3:04:183:04:26

taxation and other provisions act,

it is a step in the direction which

3:04:263:04:30

we support in tackling the whole

construct of PFI schemes. Back to

3:04:303:04:38

the bank levy, the bank levy was not

the brainchild of a Conservative

3:04:383:04:42

Government, it was not introduced by

the previous Chancellor who was

3:04:423:04:45

suddenly moved by public

3:04:453:04:56

outrage, and to alongside the banks

plunged us into such difficulties in

3:04:583:05:06

modern times. It was designed to

ensure banks got massive pay-outs as

3:05:063:05:13

happened with the Royal Bank of

Scotland, it was designed to make

3:05:133:05:18

sure they pay their fair share and I

refer you to the explanatory notes

3:05:183:05:22

where that is laid out clearly and

unambiguously. The very concept of a

3:05:223:05:28

bank levy was developed at the G20

summit in 2009, Madam Deputy

3:05:283:05:33

Speaker. It was championed by the

previous Labour Government who

3:05:333:05:38

subsequently introduced the bankers

bonus. In 2011, the Government

3:05:383:05:47

dumped the bankers bonus tax and

adopted the bank levy. At that time,

3:05:473:05:52

Labour made it clear that the

threshold was far too low in

3:05:523:05:55

proportion to the money that would

have been raised if the Government

3:05:553:05:59

stuck with Labour's bonus tax.

Instead, ministers folded under

3:05:593:06:03

pressure from the banks and set the

levy at a low rate of 2.6 billion.

3:06:033:06:09

The threshold was established and

here we come to the issue of taking

3:06:093:06:13

expert advice. The threshold was

established despite Treasury

3:06:133:06:22

officials knowing it was far too hot

low. Under original plans, it would

3:06:223:06:27

have raised £3.9 billion a year,

£1.3 billion more than the 2.6

3:06:273:06:34

billion currently indicated. The

Government lobbied by the privileged

3:06:343:06:37

few ensured the threshold remains

low. 0.39% for long-term

3:06:373:06:46

liabilities, the level set was not,

to put too fine a point on it, a

3:06:463:06:52

pretty tasteless joke when compared

to another country who introduced a

3:06:523:06:57

similar levy. It was less than one

third of France's level,

3:06:573:07:02

substantially smaller than Hungary's

and even lower than that of the

3:07:023:07:08

United States of America. And in

2015 under pressure from the

3:07:083:07:12

ministers and the Government's

friends, some of them in the back

3:07:123:07:16

sector, once more the Chancellor cut

the bank levy rate and the current

3:07:163:07:23

occupant of number 11 has continued

on the same social, ensuring that by

3:07:233:07:31

2020 the UK's biggest banks will

have received a tax giveaway worth a

3:07:313:07:37

whopping £4.7 billion, £4.7 billion

that could have been spent on public

3:07:373:07:42

services, notably on children

services for example which have been

3:07:423:07:45

cut to the bone.

The honourable

gentleman says the banking sector

3:07:453:07:52

has received a whacking tax cut. I

would dispute that in my comments

3:07:523:07:55

later but the figures are being

used. In 2000 and paid three point

3:07:553:08:06

£10 billion, last year there was a

25% increase, so they are paying

3:08:063:08:14

more by some amount.

That's not

surprising because they've returned

3:08:143:08:19

to profitability because the public,

the taxpayer, bankrolled the banks.

3:08:193:08:24

That is why they are back into

profitability and they ought to pay

3:08:243:08:28

their fair share as a result of

taxpayers, every member of

3:08:283:08:34

Parliament's constituent in this

House paid towards that. When those

3:08:343:08:37

profits came in, it was not

surprising that they would go up

3:08:373:08:40

because we helped them out and they

have got to help our public services

3:08:403:08:44

out. That is the fact of the matter.

The Government introduced the 8%

3:08:443:08:51

corporation tax surcharge which they

claimed would offset the reduction

3:08:513:08:54

to the bank levy. If we look at the

forecast from the Bob ER, we can

3:08:543:09:00

clearly see that the surcharge will

not match the ball in the bank levy.

3:09:003:09:04

Under the forecasts, the surcharge

increases by 0.3 billion pounds a

3:09:043:09:18

year, whilst the levy falls by 7p a

year. That is about printed in the

3:09:183:09:25

-- was the levy falls by 7p a year.

That is a fact printed in the

3:09:253:09:33

Government's book. We are told there

was no money for productive

3:09:333:09:41

investment and that austerity must

continue yet the Government has

3:09:413:09:45

conspired to undermine any

remuneration from the banks that

3:09:453:09:52

caused this sorry state of affairs

in the first place. Once again, the

3:09:523:09:55

opposition is hamstrung by the

Government use of parliamentary

3:09:553:10:01

procedure.

The last occupant in the

Treasury left a note for the

3:10:013:10:10

incoming Conservative Liberal

coalition Government in 2010 and

3:10:103:10:14

isn't the reality that of course

there is money, we raise taxes and

3:10:143:10:19

we spend unwisely as a Conservative

Government, in particular in

3:10:193:10:23

infrastructure, which surely be

honourable gentleman would agree is

3:10:233:10:26

now at record levels. It's just that

we are still having to clear up the

3:10:263:10:30

mess left by that last Labour

Government.

The honourable lady can

3:10:303:10:34

believe what she wants. The fact of

the matter is, who's going to pay

3:10:343:10:38

much attention to a former Chief

Secretary to the Treasury who took

3:10:383:10:49

heart from the former chief

secretary of the Treasury was out of

3:10:493:10:57

that job because of issues around

his parliamentary expenses and you

3:10:573:11:01

expect us to pay no attention to

that whatsoever. That's what

3:11:013:11:05

happened. David Laws... I'm not

going to give way. I'm going to

3:11:053:11:10

carry on. This isn't a dialogue, I

believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, as he

3:11:103:11:15

would no doubt tell me. If we have a

timid, feckless Government ashamed

3:11:153:11:22

and frightened of its own Shadow who

is continuing to give more money

3:11:223:11:30

back to the banks, notwithstanding

the fact that they keep on telling

3:11:303:11:32

us that there isn't sufficient

resource coming in to support public

3:11:323:11:38

services. So by moving New Clause 3,

we seek first to require the

3:11:383:11:43

Government to carry out a review of

the bank levy including its

3:11:433:11:47

effectiveness in relation to its

stated aim. Secondly, we seek to

3:11:473:11:52

establish the extent of cuts made in

2015 on the revenues from the levy.

3:11:523:11:57

Thirdly, to calculate how much would

have been raised had the Government

3:11:573:12:01

stuck with Labour's bankers bonus

tax. Now, such a report would put

3:12:013:12:06

under the microscope for all to see

the Government's malpractice,

3:12:063:12:10

because that's what it amounts to,

whilst offering tax giveaways to the

3:12:103:12:16

banks who can more than afford them.

It would require the Minister to

3:12:163:12:21

acknowledge that far more would have

been raised under Labour's bankroll

3:12:213:12:25

tax and just as importantly that the

current levy has done little to

3:12:253:12:30

influence and mitigate questionable

practices in our financial services

3:12:303:12:36

industry. It's surprisingly

indicative of the bread that they

3:12:363:12:39

have failed to keep records of banks

that regularly pay the levy and a

3:12:393:12:44

full list of how much they actually

have paid and we would like that

3:12:443:12:48

information in our new clauses. That

is why in the name of transparency,

3:12:483:12:51

a concept alien to the Government, I

have got to say, the opposition has

3:12:513:12:56

tabled an amendment seeking to

create a public register for the

3:12:563:12:59

bank levy.

3:12:593:13:03

Once we can see the true cost we can

grasp the extent of the choices they

3:13:033:13:07

have been making and how they have

favoured a small, privileged group

3:13:073:13:12

over the many citizens who are in

desperate need of support and this

3:13:123:13:16

goes to the heart of this new

clause. The concerns I had set out

3:13:163:13:21

regarding the banking levy are not a

question of how the banking sector

3:13:213:13:24

is taxed and regulated, but they

speak directly to the approach of

3:13:243:13:30

this government. Government is in

the business of making choices. In

3:13:303:13:34

this case, the government has chosen

a giveaway with billions of pounds

3:13:343:13:37

to the wealthy few instead of

helping to lend austerity for the

3:13:373:13:45

many. Or, for even a few of the

many. This is a shameful set of

3:13:453:13:50

affairs looking at it from any

angle. The money going to banks from

3:13:503:13:55

a cut to their levy could be used to

support children's services, which

3:13:553:14:01

are in a state of atrophy as a

direct result of the government's

3:14:013:14:05

choices. Only in the last few days,

the government admitted that the

3:14:053:14:11

honourable member for Batley and

Spen, the cash-strapped local

3:14:113:14:14

authorities have been forced to

close over 500 children's centres.

3:14:143:14:20

This is a direct result of funding

cuts to children's services,

3:14:203:14:28

research published by Barnardos in

December found that funding for

3:14:283:14:33

children's centres in England have

been halved by 1.2 billion up to 600

3:14:333:14:36

million since 2010. That is why we

want to have a look at the bank

3:14:363:14:42

levy. The picture is set to worsen.

Norfolk County Council approved

3:14:423:14:48

plans to half the budget for

children's centres to cope with the

3:14:483:14:52

cuts being passed on to them by the

government. On the same day,

3:14:523:14:57

councils in Somerset agreed plans to

close two thirds of children's

3:14:573:15:01

centres. That is why we want to look

up the banking levy and have a

3:15:013:15:05

review of this. We don't have an

assessment of the specific impact of

3:15:053:15:11

the austerity in Northamptonshire.

The council Burke, the Conservative

3:15:113:15:16

council is facing meltdown as a

direct result of the government's

3:15:163:15:19

agenda. That is why we want to look

at the banking levy. It is safe to

3:15:193:15:24

say children, who no doubt will be

suffering as much as the wider

3:15:243:15:29

population as public services edge

closer to collapse. As these

3:15:293:15:34

services have been decimated, we

have seen a doubling of serious

3:15:343:15:37

child protection cases and twice the

number of children put into care

3:15:373:15:40

protection plans. That is why we

want to look at this particular

3:15:403:15:45

issue, let's have a compare and

contrast. Last year 270,000 children

3:15:453:15:50

were placed into care. The support

for foster care, sure start

3:15:503:15:55

children's centres have been reduced

and we have got to find out, how can

3:15:553:15:59

we support those services. Youth

centres are closing, short breaks

3:15:593:16:03

for disabled children, provided by

local authorities to give parents a

3:16:033:16:08

break. Is that what we want? That is

why we need to look at the banking

3:16:083:16:13

level. The most vulnerable children

in our country are paying the price

3:16:133:16:17

for seven years of the government's

economic strategy. Meanwhile, the

3:16:173:16:22

banking levy is being cut. That is

why we want to look at it, that is

3:16:223:16:27

why we are challenging the

government to come and support our

3:16:273:16:31

review. Asking children to pay the

price of giving the banking,

3:16:313:16:35

reducing the banking levy is not

acceptable. It is mismanagement and

3:16:353:16:41

it is really, really not acceptable.

In fact, said Tony Hawk had

3:16:413:16:49

described the devastating cuts which

are being left on a dangerously

3:16:493:16:56

sing. And the protection services

provided for through not cutting the

3:16:563:17:04

banking level would be a welcome

relief to those particular services.

3:17:043:17:09

We are demanding the government

change course on the banking levy.

3:17:093:17:12

It might make them unpopular with

some people in the past, but I think

3:17:123:17:19

children come first, not their

friends. That is why we are asking

3:17:193:17:23

for this particular review. It would

be the right thing to do for

3:17:233:17:27

millions of people in this country

who need government support to give

3:17:273:17:30

them the best chance in life. Should

the Minister decide to do the right

3:17:303:17:34

thing and match Labour's plans to

invest in children's services, he

3:17:343:17:39

will receive the backing of this

bench. If I can turn to one of the

3:17:393:17:44

clauses in relation to tax

avoidance. The anti-avoidance

3:17:443:17:50

measures are feeble and listless

when we consider the problem at

3:17:503:17:53

hand. Both the Paradise papers have

revealed tax avoidance on an

3:17:533:18:00

industrious scale being operated in

British Overseas Territories and

3:18:003:18:03

Crown dependencies. The government

has responded with feigned interest

3:18:033:18:07

and a handful of measures. The

Minister in his efforts to keep up

3:18:073:18:11

the appearances of being seen to do

something has instead, reinforce the

3:18:113:18:15

view this government is on the side

of the tax avoidance and not the

3:18:153:18:19

taxpayers. I can hear the minister

chatting away and I am not sure that

3:18:193:18:28

is because he doesn't agree with me,

but he does know it is true. There

3:18:283:18:33

is no question about that. Only a

third of the £1 billion originally

3:18:333:18:38

forecast in some of the measures

they gave to the House will be

3:18:383:18:42

raised. So the gap between the tax

take originally expected for the

3:18:423:18:49

anti-tax avoidance measures

introduced since 2010 and the

3:18:493:18:51

revised forecast is totalled £2.1

billion. 25% less than the Treasury

3:18:513:18:59

previously forecast and it is a

complete shambles. I will give way.

3:18:593:19:06

I thank him for being generous with

his time. He is trying to suggest

3:19:063:19:12

the government has a bad track

record on clamping down avoidance

3:19:123:19:16

and evasion. The key measure is the

tax gap. Under the last Labour

3:19:163:19:19

government it was 8%. It has now

fallen to 6%, the lowest in the

3:19:193:19:25

world. Will the honourable gentleman

congratulate the financial Secretary

3:19:253:19:30

and acknowledged this government is

doing a better job in this area than

3:19:303:19:34

the last Labour won?

It doesn't take

into account international profit

3:19:343:19:39

shifting and the honourable

gentleman knows that and he should

3:19:393:19:42

consider that. These figures not

only add to the growing hole in our

3:19:423:19:47

finances but demonstrate the

government's lack of interest in

3:19:473:19:49

taking on tax avoidance. I am glad

the honourable gentleman raised the

3:19:493:19:53

question about the last Labour

government's record. What of our

3:19:533:20:00

record on tax avoidance, seeing as

he raised the issue. Labour brought

3:20:003:20:06

in anti-tax avoidance measures in

1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002,

3:20:063:20:18

2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009,

2007 and the 2010 budget. In March

3:20:183:20:29

2004, the Labour government

introduced a discourse scheme which

3:20:293:20:32

required anyone marketing at tax

mitigation scheme to give HMRC

3:20:323:20:37

advanced notice. Giving them the

ability to count the scheme with new

3:20:373:20:45

legislation. In 2004, it was

announced the government would

3:20:453:20:53

introduce legislation with

retrospective counter any future

3:20:533:20:55

scheme. So Labour's tax policy and

enforcement programme has outlined

3:20:553:21:00

16 measurements the government could

take down immediately to crackdown

3:21:003:21:06

on tax avoidance including

publishing a register of offshore

3:21:063:21:09

trusts. In that fashion, the

opposition's new clause six would

3:21:093:21:13

require the government to commission

a review of effectiveness of

3:21:133:21:17

anti-avoidance provisions in the

Finance Bill and their impact in

3:21:173:21:20

reducing the tax gap. I am proud of

Labourmeasure in relation to tax

3:21:203:21:26

avoidance. I am proud to stand up

here and say that. I just leave

3:21:263:21:31

members to ponder over this

question... How can the government

3:21:313:21:35

possibly justify cuts in the banking

levy while an average of 30% and

3:21:353:21:40

even more, in some constituencies,

of our children live in poverty.

3:21:403:21:44

That question will not go away

however much the government wants it

3:21:443:21:48

to.

Review of operation and

effectiveness of bank levy. The

3:21:483:21:58

question is new clause three be read

as second time. Chris Hill.

Thank

3:21:583:22:03

you. It is, as always, an enormous

pleasure to follow the shadow chief

3:22:033:22:12

secretary. His speeches are always

entertaining. They are all so very

3:22:123:22:18

occasionally informative as well. It

is nonetheless, a pleasure to follow

3:22:183:22:22

him. The honourable gentleman spent

a great deal of time talking about

3:22:223:22:25

the bank levy and various new

clauses standing his name on that

3:22:253:22:30

topic. I would like to start by

addressing the central thesis of the

3:22:303:22:36

honourable gentleman's comments on

the bank levy, which was to suggest

3:22:363:22:41

banks are not paying their fair

share, particularly in light of the

3:22:413:22:45

fact that two of the banks receive

state money around about 2009. It is

3:22:453:22:51

a matter of incontrovertible fact,

banks, as organisations, as

3:22:513:22:56

corporate, are today paying more tax

proportionally than other kinds of

3:22:563:23:02

corporate some of the kinds of

corporations that are not banks. It

3:23:023:23:08

is right that they do that he

mentioned, they did receive taxpayer

3:23:083:23:12

money. They pay this extra money,

compared to other businesses in two

3:23:123:23:17

ways. That surplus tax of 8%. And of

course the bank levy. Although the

3:23:173:23:28

bank levy is being reduced, it will

still remain in force. Banks will

3:23:283:23:32

continue to pay proportionately more

tax than non-bank businesses after

3:23:323:23:37

the implementation of this budget.

It is a vital point I think to get

3:23:373:23:41

across. The honourable gentleman

also tried to make the point that

3:23:413:23:47

somehow, he tried to link funding

for children's services to the bank

3:23:473:23:52

levy. I gave some figures during one

of my interventions on the total

3:23:523:23:55

amount of tax banks are paying. You

can argue about why they pay the

3:23:553:24:01

extra tax, it is at least in part,

due to the surplus profit rate and

3:24:013:24:06

to the bank levy. It may also be due

to the fact their profits have gone

3:24:063:24:10

up. Whatever the cause of that, the

fact is, they are paying seven or £8

3:24:103:24:17

billion a year more in tax now than

they were some time ago. I think

3:24:173:24:21

this adjusts children's services

have been deprived of money as a

3:24:213:24:29

consequence to bank taxation doesn't

bear scrutiny when the financial

3:24:293:24:35

services sector is paying

significantly more tax than it was

3:24:353:24:38

before, whatever the cause of that

may be. I will give way.

I'm

3:24:383:24:41

grateful. He is I think, and he

knows this, unfairly paraphrasing

3:24:413:24:50

the shadow chief secretary. What my

honourable friend has pointed out is

3:24:503:24:53

politics is about choices and this

government has decided, to the set

3:24:533:24:58

of proposals, to reduce, in this

case, the amount of tax the banks

3:24:583:25:02

will pay, alongside a situation

where many core services in the

3:25:023:25:07

services, public services supported

on both sides of the House are on

3:25:073:25:11

their needs. References to the back

rows situation or attempting to

3:25:113:25:15

paraphrase what he said, is

incorrect, it is an analysis of the

3:25:153:25:19

choices this government have made.

The central fact, the key fact, the

3:25:193:25:26

cold, hard fact which won't go away

is financial services are paying

3:25:263:25:31

eight or £9 billion more in tax now

than they were before. That is eight

3:25:313:25:36

or £9 billion that can be spent on

children's services in his

3:25:363:25:41

constituency, and in mine, on the

NHS or schools. We should welcome

3:25:413:25:45

the fact the sector is producing

this extra taxation, partly because

3:25:453:25:49

it has become more successful and

partly because the rate of tax has

3:25:493:25:53

been increased over the last seven

or eight years. The honourable

3:25:533:25:56

gentleman made a point about

choices. His intervention was

3:25:563:26:03

underpinned by an assumption. The

assumption he made in his

3:26:033:26:09

intervention, was that if you

increase the rate of taxation, you

3:26:093:26:14

invariably raise more revenue. I

would challenge that assertion. The

3:26:143:26:20

famous Laffer curve that challenges

that assumption, it is possible to

3:26:203:26:27

reduce the rate of taxation and at

the same time collect more tax.

3:26:273:26:31

Because you incentivise investment

and growth. There is no better

3:26:313:26:36

illustration of that than the

trajectory of corporation tax taken

3:26:363:26:39

as a whole over the last seven

years, where the rate of corporation

3:26:393:26:43

tax has come down from 28% down to

19%, heading down to 17% in a couple

3:26:433:26:50

of years. The cash taken corporation

tax over that same period has gone

3:26:503:26:56

from 35 billion up to 53 or 55

billion. You can cut the rate of tax

3:26:563:27:01

and by stimulating the economy and

investment, you can collect more

3:27:013:27:05

money. Similarly, it doesn't follow

that if you put the rate of tax up,

3:27:053:27:10

you necessarily collect more money

because you made this incentivise

3:27:103:27:13

investment and job creation. I will

give way.

3:27:133:27:19

We have had this discussion in many

finance bills that we have discussed

3:27:193:27:22

over the last 12 months. No one on

either side of the House denies the

3:27:223:27:27

existence of the Laffer curve. We

simply point out as a fact that the

3:27:273:27:33

corporation tax that the government

has introduced has cost this company

3:27:333:27:39

country revenue. Specifically onto

this amendment, the bank levy is a

3:27:393:27:49

levy on the risk assessed capital on

the balance sheet of the big banks.

3:27:493:27:55

This would not apply to the

calculation of what the return would

3:27:553:27:58

be.

I will take each of those two

points in turn. The honourable

3:27:583:28:05

gentleman says that if the rate

remained at 20% we would be

3:28:053:28:12

collecting more than 23 billion.

That is an assertion and it is not

3:28:123:28:16

one which I agree without

contention. For example, plenty of

3:28:163:28:21

businesses that made investments

owing to love corporation tax which

3:28:213:28:24

way would not have otherwise done. A

number of corporations and company

3:28:243:28:28

which had located there headquarters

outside the UK and therefore paid

3:28:283:28:36

corporation tax outside the UK who

in response to cutting the rate of

3:28:363:28:40

tax have come back on shore and now

paid corporation tax here. I do not

3:28:403:28:45

think it follows at all that a

higher rate of corporation tax, 28%

3:28:453:28:49

in the case that he mentions, was

leads to a higher tax yield. The

3:28:493:28:54

evidence and the direction of travel

shows that as the rate comes down

3:28:543:28:58

the collective goes up. I just do

not agree with this as the rate

3:28:583:29:01

comes down the collective goes up. I

just do not agree be collecting 70

3:29:013:29:08

or 80 billion. I do not agree. On

the question specifically of the

3:29:083:29:14

bank levy, the honourable gentleman

suggested that because it is a tax

3:29:143:29:19

on a balance sheet, again, I dispute

that. Banks are mostly

3:29:193:29:24

international. HSBC for example, our

largest bank, is a very

3:29:243:29:28

international bank, they can choose

where they deploy capital. Their

3:29:283:29:32

finance director will sit on the

side where to allocate capital

3:29:323:29:35

around the world. If the taxation of

regulatory regime in a particular

3:29:353:29:40

jurisdiction leads to the return of

that jurisdiction being

3:29:403:29:46

unattractive, they will respond that

is by allocating their resources, in

3:29:463:29:50

this case their banking equity,

somewhere else. I think there is

3:29:503:29:53

unquestionably an affect to the bank

levy. This does actually linked to a

3:29:533:30:04

related point. One that the shadow

chief secretary mentioned. That is

3:30:043:30:08

the disaggregation of the bank levy

to the non-UK part of a UK

3:30:083:30:14

headquartered bank 's balance sheet.

In these international times it is a

3:30:143:30:21

matter of choice for a bank like

HSBC to decide where its

3:30:213:30:26

headquarters are. In particular, in

relation, they were famously

3:30:263:30:29

thinking of moving to a three years

ago. And particular in relation to

3:30:293:30:35

their non-UK assets. The majority of

their balance sheets is non-UK. They

3:30:353:30:39

have huge operations in Africa and

the far east. Were we to continue

3:30:393:30:42

levering the bank levy on their

non-UK balance sheet, there would be

3:30:423:30:47

a powerful, perhaps even

irresistible temptation for them to

3:30:473:30:52

change their arrangements such that

those profits and balance sheet were

3:30:523:30:58

booked through some other centre

like Shanghai or more likely Hong

3:30:583:31:01

Kong or possibly Singapore. So it is

beneficial for the UK to have those

3:31:013:31:07

assets books here because we get to

the corporation tax, including the

3:31:073:31:10

corporation tax surcharge to books

through London. Clearly there are

3:31:103:31:15

jobs connected with that as well.

But if you leave the bank levy on

3:31:153:31:19

the non-UK balance sheet and we

drive that business overseas. The

3:31:193:31:23

businesses overseas are ready but if

it is books here. If we drive the

3:31:233:31:27

business overseas we will lose the

corporation tax and the jobs. This

3:31:273:31:32

is a sensible corporation measure

which protects London's status as a

3:31:323:31:37

financial centre. That's part of the

3:31:373:31:39

balance sheet is very

internationally mobile. I will take

3:31:393:31:41

all the interventions now.

This is

integral arguments to the economic

3:31:413:31:49

prosperity to the UK. On the point

he has raised, we would seek to keep

3:31:493:31:55

the substantial national asset in

the UK. It is Brexit that will drive

3:31:553:31:58

it away. HSBC was Mac plans at the

moment are entirely linked to the

3:31:583:32:03

banking conditions on Brexit. If

there was one phrase I would like to

3:32:033:32:08

etch onto the door this chamber it

is causation and correlation are not

3:32:083:32:12

the same thing. That replies to to

the honourable gentleman's argument.

3:32:123:32:19

25% is the rate in most countries.

Even conservative councils are

3:32:193:32:26

effectively going bankrupt here.

Surely that requires a greater

3:32:263:32:29

degree of reflection and self

analysis. Of the disastrous tax

3:32:293:32:36

policies of the government over the

past two years.

On the point about

3:32:363:32:41

correlation and causation, of course

I understand that correlation and

3:32:413:32:44

causation are not the same things.

However, I said that corporation tax

3:32:443:32:49

reductions points to some of the

causal links. The two causal links I

3:32:493:32:53

cited were firstly encouraging

investment, the second was for

3:32:533:32:59

companies to choose to move their

domicile for example from

3:32:593:33:02

Switzerland back to the UK. There

are two causal explanations as to

3:33:023:33:08

why a reduction in the rate of tax

might lead to a reduction in the

3:33:083:33:12

rate of tax yield.

New clause three

says that this new clause allows the

3:33:123:33:21

government to carry out a banking

levy including its effectiveness and

3:33:213:33:26

the changes made in 2015 and the

comparable effectiveness of the

3:33:263:33:30

bankrupt tax. The stated aims are

set out in the government's

3:33:303:33:33

documents. Banks and building

societies make a fair contribution

3:33:333:33:39

reflecting the risks they pose etc.

We are asking for a rebuke. If the

3:33:393:33:44

honourable gentleman is so sure and

his case, why not let have the

3:33:443:33:50

review and see who's right in this

debate?

The government conducts

3:33:503:33:56

analyses and reviews of the whole

time. I'm not sure you need to put

3:33:563:33:59

the face of primary legislation.

Since the honourable gentleman makes

3:33:593:34:05

reference to the new clauses. New

clause three, new clause four and

3:34:053:34:09

new clause three I think which stand

in his name, I will turn now to

3:34:093:34:14

those. The clauses as the gentleman

says call for various reviews and

3:34:143:34:21

various registers. Of course,

analysis is important. That analysis

3:34:213:34:25

I believe takes place in the

Treasury already. I'm sure the

3:34:253:34:29

financial Secretary will comment on

that in due course. What is

3:34:293:34:32

interesting is that in this set of

clauses which has been tabled by the

3:34:323:34:40

opposition is not so much what is in

them but what is not in them. It is

3:34:403:34:44

the dog that did not bark if I could

borrow from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

3:34:443:34:48

I mention an intervention that the

Labour Party are meant to have taken

3:34:483:34:54

a number of positions on the bank

levy. Voting against it in 2011,

3:34:543:34:59

against the surplus tax in 2015 and

then stating in public that they

3:34:593:35:04

wish to leave those things and leave

the bank levy in place despite

3:35:043:35:07

having voted against its

introduction. I'm rather confused. I

3:35:073:35:14

was rather hoping that they might

enlighten us as to what their

3:35:143:35:18

position actually was on the bank

levy. This is primary legislation,

3:35:183:35:23

the Finance Bill, soon to become the

Finance Acts, I hope, the opposition

3:35:233:35:27

had a chance in this chamber today

to explain to the House and to the

3:35:273:35:30

country how they think our tax

system should work in relation to

3:35:303:35:34

the bank levy. They could have

tables had they chosen to an

3:35:343:35:37

amendment saying they wanted to

leave the bank levy in place as it

3:35:373:35:40

was. They could have tabled an

amendment abolishing it altogether.

3:35:403:35:44

Yet they have done none of those

things. They have simply called for

3:35:443:35:51

analysis. I am disappointed their

plans have not been brought up. I

3:35:513:36:01

will give way.

The gentleman cannot

have it both wait. The government

3:36:013:36:07

introduced an arcane procedure first

used by Winston Churchill in 1920 to

3:36:073:36:10

stop is moving substantive

amendments. Whatever he wants us to

3:36:103:36:17

do, does he recognise that we would

not be able to change it anyway.

I

3:36:173:36:21

am not sure. This is a moment when

the honourable member for North East

3:36:213:36:28

Somerset is required to advise on

such matters. I do not share his

3:36:283:36:32

level of expertise. In parliamentary

procedure. But I do note that the

3:36:323:36:40

shadow chief secretary's extensive

and amusing remarks he did not

3:36:403:36:45

specify the Labour Party's official

position on the bank levy. There are

3:36:453:36:51

certainly no party procedure that

prohibits him from doing so. He

3:36:513:36:54

could quite easily have chosen to

specify exactly what his view was.

3:36:543:36:58

Should it continue as it is, should

it go or should it go somewhere

3:36:583:37:03

else. But he did not do so. So I am

disappointed by the lack of clarity

3:37:033:37:07

on that point. His colleague in one

of his many interventions said a few

3:37:073:37:12

moments ago that HSBC might

contemplate their jurisdiction in

3:37:123:37:19

light of Brexit. Of course, in fact

HSBC were debating where to domicile

3:37:193:37:23

themselves well before the

referendum. I must say that if

3:37:233:37:31

anyone or if anything threatens the

City of London's status as a global

3:37:313:37:36

financial centre it is not the

matter is being debated today, it is

3:37:363:37:40

not Brexit, it is the right

Honourable member for Islington

3:37:403:37:43

North and the comments he made a day

or two ago which threatened to in

3:37:433:37:49

the words of one commentator turn

London into a new version of John

3:37:493:37:53

Yang. That is what he said. It was

in the Evening Standard. --

3:37:533:37:57

Pyongyang. Edited by a highly

reputable journalist. Now PWC has

3:37:573:38:06

done some analysis on the tax

contribution that the bank services

3:38:063:38:13

make. They found that £72.1 billion

in taxes were paid by the financial

3:38:133:38:19

services sector. That is around

about 9% of the UK's total tax take.

3:38:193:38:24

So it is no laughing matter when

misguided and populist politicians

3:38:243:38:32

take a cheap shot at the city to get

some headlines. If business is

3:38:323:38:38

driven away the implications for our

tax take and for employment will be

3:38:383:38:41

very severe and the people affected

will of course be children and the

3:38:413:38:49

NHS if we lose that tax revenue

being generated by the city. That is

3:38:493:38:54

why I should perhaps ask the shadow

chief secretary to gently convey to

3:38:543:38:58

his dear leader that comments such

made a day or two ago very unhelpful

3:38:583:39:05

felicity. They endanger job and

jeopardise the tax that city pays.

3:39:053:39:12

Whether it is through fiscal

measures or through words, when we

3:39:123:39:15

endanger jobs and tax revenue that

fund the NHS, that is two thirds of

3:39:153:39:21

the NHS's by that being funded by

the city -- budget. We should

3:39:213:39:27

protect that tax revenue and those

jobs. I will leave it to the two

3:39:273:39:33

gentleman to decide who intervenes.

I am more than happy to convey to my

3:39:333:39:37

honourable friend the Leader of the

Opposition his comments which I do

3:39:373:39:43

not accept. But will he also passed

on my comments to the Prime Minister

3:39:433:39:47

that she is making a mess of Brexit

that is far more dangerous to this

3:39:473:39:51

country than the comments allegedly

said by the Leader of the

3:39:513:39:56

Opposition.

There is no allegation.

They were said publicly. I will of

3:39:563:40:00

course convey his comments as well.

I will do that in the spirit of

3:40:003:40:03

reciprocation. But I dispute the

comments about Brexit. We saw before

3:40:033:40:11

Christmas that we are moving onto

the next stage and I'm looking

3:40:113:40:14

forward to speeches from my Cabinet

colleagues in the days and weeks

3:40:143:40:17

which I appreciate an a different

topic to the one currently at hand.

3:40:173:40:23

Mr Speaker, for the record I must

defend the Leader of the Opposition

3:40:233:40:26

and say that the comments were that

finance must serve industry and in

3:40:263:40:31

this country we have defined ways to

increase lending to business to

3:40:313:40:36

increase more productive outcomes

for the country. All things that

3:40:363:40:38

were Revista said by the former

Chancellor of the Exchequer who now

3:40:383:40:47

works for the Evening Standard. I

thought those comments were very

3:40:473:40:50

favourable.

I'm not sure I can

response to that. I think his

3:40:503:41:00

colleagues remarks went rather

further than he just suggested.

3:41:003:41:04

Perhaps it is time, Madam Deputy

Speaker, to move on to clauses

3:41:043:41:10

relating to tax avoidance and tax

evasion regularly new clause six. In

3:41:103:41:21

his remarks, the shadow chief

secretary made a series of quite

3:41:213:41:25

serious allegations about the

government's effectiveness over the

3:41:253:41:30

last seven years. In combating tax

avoidance. And tax evasion. I have

3:41:303:41:37

to say that I disagree quite

strongly with the premise of his

3:41:373:41:41

points. He suggested that the

governments, current governments,

3:41:413:41:46

had been slow to act. Or indeed had

not acted in these areas. So I would

3:41:463:41:54

gently draw his attention to the

fact that the government has taken

3:41:543:41:57

in the last seven years 75 different

measures designed to combat tax

3:41:573:42:04

evasion and tax avoidance. These

have raised cumulatively since 2010

3:42:043:42:08

£160 billion. Any of those measures

close loopholes, glaring loopholes,

3:42:083:42:15

which had been left open by the

predecessor Labour government. Some

3:42:153:42:22

of those are mentioned. For example,

under the last Labour government it

3:42:223:42:27

was possible to have permanent

non-Dom status. This Bill will end

3:42:273:42:32

permanent non-bomb status. We had

prior to 2010 the so called Mayfair

3:42:323:42:41

tax. Where some people in the hedge

fund industry ended up playing less

3:42:413:42:44

tax than their cleaners. A 10% rate

of tax by having their capital gains

3:42:443:42:50

tax carried with them trouble --

entrepreneurial benefits. Avoiding

3:42:503:43:00

stamp duty by placing residential

property into corporate wrappers has

3:43:003:43:05

been tightened up. There is probably

more we can do but it has certainly

3:43:053:43:09

been tightened up. Moreover, we have

made sure that foreign purchases of

3:43:093:43:16

residential property do pay capital

gains tax on their disposals. That

3:43:163:43:19

will now shortly in this finance

Bill the applied to commercial

3:43:193:43:25

property as well. I have listed five

or six of those 75 measures, all of

3:43:253:43:29

which are been taken since 2010. It

is no accident. There is a causal

3:43:293:43:35

link between those actions and the

additional amount of tax being

3:43:353:43:38

collected.

3:43:383:43:43

I am sorry I was late for the

beginning of his speech and he has

3:43:433:43:47

given us a list of what the

Conservative Government did over the

3:43:473:43:52

last seven years. The previous

Conservative Government, before the

3:43:523:43:56

last Labour government, didn't do

very much about all these loopholes

3:43:563:44:02

the honourable gentleman has given

us a litany on.

He's ace-king me to

3:44:023:44:08

comment on the actions of the

government over 20 years ago. I am

3:44:083:44:12

commenting on the government who has

been in office over the last eight

3:44:123:44:15

years and the record is proud and I

stand behind it. It is because of

3:44:153:44:20

these measures are tax has reduced

down to 6%, the lowest in the world.

3:44:203:44:26

Better than the tax gap under the

last Labour government. My head the

3:44:263:44:30

honourable member for Walthamstow, I

think it was her, from a sedentary

3:44:303:44:35

position draw reference to profit

shifting. Maybe it was the

3:44:353:44:39

honourable member for Ilford South.

It was that shadow chief secretary.

3:44:393:44:45

She made reference to profit

shifting. Profit shifting is a

3:44:453:44:51

serious matter and that is why I am

pleased the UK Government are at the

3:44:513:44:56

fore front of the oh ACD initiative

and I am right in saying action five

3:44:563:45:03

of that is designed to clamp down on

profit sharing. I am pleased the UK

3:45:033:45:13

Government have been taking action

in that area. I will give way.

I am

3:45:133:45:20

delighted from his position of

expertise he is reminding us of the

3:45:203:45:23

great record we have of collecting

tax which pays for schools,

3:45:233:45:28

hospitals and police services up and

down the country, as well as in

3:45:283:45:32

Redditch, which I care about the

most. Does he agree we have

3:45:323:45:36

collected £12.5 billion more than if

we had left the tax gap at the same

3:45:363:45:41

state labour left us with. It is 12

point billion pounds -- £12.5

3:45:413:45:48

billion to be spent in

constituencies.

It sounds

3:45:483:45:52

theoretical, the tax gap being 6%

rather than 8% bequest to others by

3:45:523:45:57

Gordon Brown, but that 2% is

billions of pounds, which funds the

3:45:573:46:03

NHS and schools. Talking about these

avoidance measures we're not talking

3:46:033:46:07

about something which is of academic

interest, it is precisely these

3:46:073:46:13

measures which funds are public

services and that is why they are so

3:46:133:46:16

important. Turning now to the

opposition's amendments and new

3:46:163:46:23

clauses. I was once again, on

looking at the Amendment paper

3:46:233:46:27

earlier, rather surprised. The

official amendment or new Clause

3:46:273:46:33

six, tabled by the opposition calls

for a review and analysis. Analysis

3:46:333:46:39

which I'm sure is conducted already

by the Treasury and the financial

3:46:393:46:44

Secretary will point out in a few

moments, but there was an absence, a

3:46:443:46:50

silence, Tumbleweed was rolling

across the Amendment paper where I

3:46:503:46:55

would have expected to see an

abundance of ideas from the fertile

3:46:553:46:59

mind of the shadow chief secretary,

proposing ideas that we might have

3:46:593:47:03

adopted or at the very least, in his

speech, if he couldn't have done it

3:47:033:47:11

as an amendment because of some

arcane parliamentary reason, he

3:47:113:47:14

might at least, in his speech, have

proposed some ideas because I note

3:47:143:47:23

the financial Secretary to the

Treasury is an extremely attentive

3:47:233:47:26

and receptive minister. And have the

shadow chief secretary proposed some

3:47:263:47:34

constructive ideas, I am sure the

financial Secretary would have

3:47:343:47:38

listened very carefully. I am very

disappointed that after all the

3:47:383:47:41

noise and there I say, his bluster,

all the noise we heard in his

3:47:413:47:48

speech, we didn't hear any concrete

ideas. I am sure we are open to new

3:47:483:47:54

ideas, yet we didn't hear any in

what was otherwise a very amusing

3:47:543:47:59

and entertaining speech. So I am

disappointed, I have to say I am

3:47:593:48:06

disappointed. If the financial

Secretary is in the market for new

3:48:063:48:11

ideas on avoidance Kos -- because

I'm sure he is, one that was

3:48:113:48:19

discussed yesterday in the debate on

sanctions, that is making the

3:48:193:48:23

ultimate beneficial ownership of

property and land recorded in the

3:48:233:48:27

land Registry, something that was

suggested by David Cameron a couple

3:48:273:48:33

of years ago. If we did that, when

the ultimate beneficial ownership of

3:48:333:48:39

those properties change, we might

levy stamp duty on that beneficial

3:48:393:48:47

ownership as if the ownership of

that property had been transferred.

3:48:473:48:50

Because it is held in a lot of

corporate wrappers. Ownership of the

3:48:503:48:58

company is transferred and then

there is no record of that in the UK

3:48:583:49:03

and therefore no stamp duty is paid.

So there is an idea which might

3:49:033:49:08

raise some more stamp duty. I could

hardly criticise the shadow chief

3:49:083:49:11

secretary for his lack of ideas

without proposing at least one

3:49:113:49:15

myself. I hope the front bench will

give some thought to that idea in

3:49:153:49:20

due course. In concluding, let me

simply say, I am glad I said

3:49:203:49:31

something which finds favour on the

opposition bases. -- benches. The

3:49:313:49:43

action on the bank levy contemplated

in this bill is the right action, we

3:49:433:49:48

are taxing Banks more heavily and

raising more money than we have done

3:49:483:49:52

before but we must be more mindful

the risk we drive some of these

3:49:523:49:58

companies overseas at a time when

they contribute 9% of our total

3:49:583:50:02

income. I am proud this government

has delivered the lowest tax gap in

3:50:023:50:06

the world, has improved the position

by a quarter from that they

3:50:063:50:10

inherited. It pays the public

services, as my honourable friend

3:50:103:50:14

from Redditch pointed out, it is a

good record, a record I am proud of

3:50:143:50:18

and I look forward to supporting

this Bill this afternoon.

I rise to

3:50:183:50:26

show my support for the amendments

tabled in the name of the opposition

3:50:263:50:30

front bench and also to formally

move amendments one, two, three and

3:50:303:50:35

four in this particular section.

These amendments all speak to a

3:50:353:50:41

long-held concern of mine. I was

into PFI before all the cool kids

3:50:413:50:46

were. Which speak to are concerned

that is not enough as politicians to

3:50:463:50:53

identify when something has gone

wrong and shrug our shoulders and

3:50:533:50:56

say, it is complicated. Because the

consequences for the communities we

3:50:563:51:02

represent and this country's public

finances are so toxic, it is vital

3:51:023:51:07

we act. George Bernard Shaw said

sometimes political necessities turn

3:51:073:51:11

out to be political mistakes. Let me

be clear, I am not seeking to blame

3:51:113:51:17

anyone. Governments of all colours

used PFI. They started in 1992 and

3:51:173:51:22

they have gone on to the present

day. But the last Labour government

3:51:223:51:27

used PFI to fund things. It wasn't

an ideological decision, it was

3:51:273:51:31

about keeping borrowing off the

books. But we know how costly these

3:51:313:51:36

decisions have been for this

country. We know now that every

3:51:363:51:41

single school and hospital and

street lighting and motorway that

3:51:413:51:45

might have been built that was

needed, but the consequences of

3:51:453:51:48

these costs mean we may not be able

to build these things in the future.

3:51:483:51:52

What I am here today to do is to

propose a way we can act now, as our

3:51:523:51:58

parliament, to get money back for

public services. Could be one of us

3:51:583:52:02

will have one of these projects in

our constituencies. We can talk

3:52:023:52:07

about the numbers involved, £60

billion worth of Capitol Building on

3:52:073:52:10

which we will pay back £200 billion.

Truly, these are the legal loan

3:52:103:52:16

sharks of the public sector.

Charging an excessive rate of

3:52:163:52:21

interest, in comparison to public

sector borrowing for building and

3:52:213:52:24

running services for us. Members

opposite might say, the cost you're

3:52:243:52:29

talking about includes services, so

it is worth breaking down those

3:52:293:52:33

charges. Last year, this country

paid out £10 billion in PFI

3:52:333:52:40

repayments. Over half of that was

for interest and charges. So the

3:52:403:52:43

money we are paying out for PFI is

not paying for those schools and

3:52:433:52:47

hospitals to be run. It is paying

the profits for the companies we

3:52:473:52:51

borrowed from to be able to build in

the first place. The National Audit

3:52:513:52:57

Office has done absolutely sterling

work uncovering just how bad value

3:52:573:53:01

for money calculation it was to go

with PFI. On average, these projects

3:53:013:53:06

are up to 4% more expensive than

government borrowing at the time and

3:53:063:53:10

now in total, with fees included,

they are more expensive. We know

3:53:103:53:21

that interest matters because we

know the costs aren't about the

3:53:213:53:28

management of the project, they are

about the profits being made. Every

3:53:283:53:32

MP who is being lobbied about their

schools and hospitals, needs to

3:53:323:53:37

recognise that 20% of the extra

money the government says it is

3:53:373:53:41

giving to schools and hospitals will

not touch the sides of the emergency

3:53:413:53:45

wards. It will not go into the

budgets of teachers to pay for the

3:53:453:53:48

books and the classes are

schoolchildren need. It will go out

3:53:483:53:54

of the public sector into pure

profit for these companies. The

3:53:543:53:57

Centre for health and the public

interest has gone through the

3:53:573:54:01

accounts of these companies, just a

few hundred that do the schools and

3:54:013:54:05

hospitals, to identify just how much

money. £1 billion in form of pre-tax

3:54:053:54:10

profit from the NHS deals alone. 125

of the 700 PFI projects. We know the

3:54:103:54:19

company that holds the contract for

University College London, has made

3:54:193:54:24

£190 million alone in the past

decade, out of the £725 million the

3:54:243:54:31

NHS has paid it. In short, it has

made enough in profits to build and

3:54:313:54:35

run an entire hospital. We need to

talk about the human cost. I became

3:54:353:54:42

interested in PFI when I could see

the damage it was doing to my local

3:54:423:54:47

hospital, Whipps Cross in

Walthamstow. And to Frederick Brehme

3:54:473:54:52

School in Walthamstow where the

headteacher is now desperately

3:54:523:54:54

struggling to balance her budget in

the face of cuts from this

3:54:543:54:57

government to the school's budget.

But the one repayment she cannot cut

3:54:573:55:02

is the PFI repayments. But the

biggest PFI in our NHS, £1 billion

3:55:023:55:11

capital build, £7 billion repaid is

paying £150 million a year of which

3:55:113:55:16

£74 million is interest alone. No

wonder the hospital is in such

3:55:163:55:21

persistent financial difficulties. I

will give way.

She is making a

3:55:213:55:29

powerful case, Whipps Cross Hospital

also serves my constituents, but to

3:55:293:55:32

the east you have Queens hospital in

Romford. The PFI are such that they

3:55:323:55:39

are creating enormous financial

pressures on the barking, Heybridge

3:55:393:55:44

and Redbridge NHS trusts. The she

agreed this underpins the urgency of

3:55:443:55:48

this issue, looking out what really

has happened and clawing back some

3:55:483:55:52

of the excessive greed to better

fund our public services?

My

3:55:523:55:57

next-door neighbour MP pre-empts the

argument I am. These amendments

3:55:573:56:01

speak to the 700 existing contracts.

I believe and I'm pleased the

3:56:013:56:08

support from the front bench, the

damage these contracts are doing

3:56:083:56:12

now, every day, in those schools

where headteachers are having to

3:56:123:56:16

consider sacking people, but cannot

cut the repayments and where these

3:56:163:56:20

hospitals are cancelling operations

but cannot reduce the repayments to

3:56:203:56:23

their lenders, we must do something

urgently. And we can do something.

3:56:233:56:28

The sixth form College in Haywards

Heath where there is no sixth form,

3:56:283:56:33

because nobody will take on the PFI

debt of that school.

3:56:333:56:38

Northamptonshire Council, we keep

talking about it. It is selling its

3:56:383:56:41

own buildings because it is going

bankrupt, but it will owe £240

3:56:413:56:47

million to PFI deals, just five PFI

deals in the next two to five years

3:56:473:56:54

in which £77 million is interest

payment. Siri Council, also in

3:56:543:56:59

financial difficulties. Again, £386

million PFI commitments, it will not

3:56:593:57:05

be able to reduce, of which 51

million is interest alone.

3:57:053:57:13

We now know from Carillion that the

idea of working with the private

3:57:133:57:19

sector would somehow transfer the

risk of these construction and

3:57:193:57:22

management projects to the private

sector has been thoroughly debunked.

3:57:223:57:27

Because it is very, very simple. We

do not let schools and hospitals go

3:57:273:57:33

bust because we know that means that

kids don't get taught and patients

3:57:333:57:37

don't get treated. So why have we

got into deals and why do we

3:57:373:57:42

continue to get into deals that

presume that somehow we can get out

3:57:423:57:45

of them if contractors don't deliver

is a mystery to me. Certainly it is

3:57:453:57:50

a debate for another time in this

place about what is a better way to

3:57:503:57:55

borrow from, when there is so little

competition for our business. I

3:57:553:57:59

believe that is where the answer

lies. When we look at this industry

3:57:593:58:03

and we looked at was new clauses

one, two, three and four, new

3:58:033:58:08

amendments come we're not talking

about an industry of hundreds of

3:58:083:58:13

companies, that work by the Centre

for health and public interest also

3:58:133:58:17

found that 92% of all the PFI deals

within the NHS were owned or appear

3:58:173:58:23

to have equity from just eight

companies. These are a small number

3:58:233:58:28

of companies who have captured a

market and are therefore setting a

3:58:283:58:32

price and we and the public sector

is paying the consequences. I look

3:58:323:58:37

to one of those that owns my local

hospital, which is cross, it has

3:58:373:58:44

just 25 members of staff. It is not

just day-to-day doing the blood

3:58:443:58:53

tests. It stands to make £18 billion

from PFI deals. It has is property

3:58:533:59:00

based over in Guernsey. Those eight

companies, Barclays, into serve, etc

3:59:003:59:10

are making millions of pounds in

profit as we are watching our

3:59:103:59:15

councils go bust, our schools get

closed down and our hospitals

3:59:153:59:18

struggling. And, yes, it has got

harder to this government because

3:59:183:59:24

the cuts they have made but under

any government, asking our public

3:59:243:59:28

services to pay back at these

excessive rates of interest would be

3:59:283:59:32

untenable. So let's look at what we

could actually do and where these

3:59:323:59:36

amendments have come from. I hear

and I understand the calls from

3:59:363:59:40

people to get rid of these contracts

out right and say we're not going to

3:59:403:59:44

pay but we know that these contracts

are just as expensive to counsel as

3:59:443:59:49

they are to carry on. -- cancel.

They have been costed specifically

3:59:493:59:58

to make sure interests are

protected. It is not just about

3:59:584:00:04

repayment charges and covering those

costs, we would have two cover the

4:00:044:00:07

interest rate swaps which were built

into these contracts to make sure

4:00:074:00:12

they were always profitable. It

would cost 220 billion to tell these

4:00:124:00:17

contracts. And indeed, the judgment

from the Council of Europe in the

4:00:174:00:22

1980s clarifies explicitly the law

around nationalisation and the

4:00:224:00:27

compensation that would be required

to be paid to companies were we to

4:00:274:00:32

cancel these contracts. But let me

tell MPs on this, contracts and laws

4:00:324:00:36

might speak on the side of this of

what is known to the public sector,

4:00:364:00:42

but tax law isn't. And yes, I have

been through the hundreds of pages

4:00:424:00:46

of the contracts, I have seen those

clauses but I've also been through

4:00:464:00:50

the clauses that clarify that tax

rates can change. The government

4:00:504:00:54

agrees because when I asked them,

they seem to think that the benefits

4:00:544:00:58

they had got from changes in the tax

regime are to the victors the

4:00:584:01:02

spoils. That is why I have disabled

these amendments because I believe

4:01:024:01:06

that Parliament and MPs struggling

in their constituency with these

4:01:064:01:10

loans would take a very different

view. Corporation tax matters

4:01:104:01:16

because when the value for money

assessment was done in using PFI,

4:01:164:01:19

there was a explicit calculation and

how much tax these companies would

4:01:194:01:25

pay. Most of the 700 existing deals

were signed at rates of 13% or more.

4:01:254:01:31

I'm sure the member for Croydon and

his advocacy of cutting corporation

4:01:314:01:36

tax would not agree that when these

companies are now facing rates of

4:01:364:01:40

17% and his local schools and

hospitals, and I know that many

4:01:404:01:44

hospitals are affected by PFI in

south London, are not getting the

4:01:444:01:49

investment they definitely need to

keep going. This is an amount of

4:01:494:01:54

money they agree to pay at the point

at which contracts were signed. We

4:01:544:01:57

have been through the accounts. The

number which the Centre for health

4:01:574:02:01

and public interest can give our

small C Conservative because we

4:02:014:02:07

cannot be clear. But already these

companies have had a windfall of

4:02:074:02:14

£190 million in the NHS alone

through reductions in corporation

4:02:144:02:18

tax. In our school system it would

be a £60 million windfall by 2020.

4:02:184:02:26

Now, that money is money we expected

for our public services. We also did

4:02:264:02:31

not expect to pay excessive rates of

interest and yet the evidence is

4:02:314:02:35

there. So the question for all of us

is what can we do to act. Amendments

4:02:354:02:39

one, two, three and four speak to

what we can do now. This year,

4:02:394:02:46

within months, is to send a very

clear message to the PFI companies

4:02:464:02:50

that time is up. We're not going to

accept these kinds of contract any

4:02:504:02:55

more and the damage that they are

doing to our local public services.

4:02:554:02:59

If they will not, the small group of

them, come forward with a proposal

4:02:594:03:03

to reduce these repayments, I would

gently urge the Minister, I know his

4:03:034:03:08

department has been resistance to

some of my questions about how often

4:03:084:03:11

he has met with these companies, but

I hope he could agree that he did

4:03:114:03:16

get these eight companies around the

table, looking at their portfolios

4:03:164:03:19

of loans and reducing the cost, then

we could generate some real savings.

4:03:194:03:30

Asking individual hospitals and

schools to renegotiate against their

4:03:304:03:32

expensive lawyers will save very

little. But if the government took

4:03:324:03:34

the lead on this and negotiated with

these eight companies, we could get

4:03:344:03:40

money back now. If we cannot get

them to negotiate, if they continue

4:03:404:03:44

to be stubborn and resist any change

in these contracts, then yes, let us

4:03:444:03:49

use a windfall tax to make sure we

get cashback for our public

4:03:494:03:53

services. Amendment one is a review.

I have the member for Croydon will

4:03:534:03:58

enjoy much as I do reading the

resolutions for these. But it simply

4:03:584:04:06

asks for a review of how much it

would raise were we to apply the

4:04:064:04:11

bank levy to these financing

companies. If that does not attempt

4:04:114:04:15

him, then I tempt him to Amendment

three which is more explicitly about

4:04:154:04:18

calculating windfall tax on these

companies. It seeks to work out just

4:04:184:04:23

how much extra they have made from

the original deals and thence to

4:04:234:04:27

claw it back by adjusting their tax

allowances accordingly. At this

4:04:274:04:32

point all we want to do is clarify

how much it would raise to give the

4:04:324:04:36

government is the negotiating tactic

they need to get these companies to

4:04:364:04:39

do what is right, to get round a

table, just as we would when people

4:04:394:04:44

come to us in our constituencies and

they have got themselves into debt,

4:04:444:04:47

we would look to consolidate their

loans. This amendment is about

4:04:474:04:52

sending a clear message to this

industry that Parliament will act,

4:04:524:04:56

we will not go another year of

listening to those headteachers and

4:04:564:05:01

hospital managers telling us they

cannot cope with these loans, that

4:05:014:05:04

we will do something about it. The

government will claim that they are

4:05:044:05:09

entitled to this bonus because they

will took on the risk of the

4:05:094:05:11

buildings but it is clearly an

unexpected bonus and it is clearly

4:05:114:05:17

an opportunity to make progress. I

simply say to the Minister if he

4:05:174:05:23

will not accept these amendments and

commits to negotiating with these

4:05:234:05:26

companies today to get the urgently

needed money back for hospitals and

4:05:264:05:32

schools all around the country which

are going bust, he has to explain

4:05:324:05:36

just how he is going to get us a

better deal on these existing

4:05:364:05:40

contracts, because I will put him on

record. It's maybe that we cannot

4:05:404:05:45

tell these contracts but certainly,

as you have seen today, a Labour

4:05:454:05:49

government would get those companies

round the table. We would make sure

4:05:494:05:52

they pay their dues those excessive

profits abroad back in. So we did

4:05:524:05:58

not see teachers in our

constituencies to have to fund

4:05:584:06:01

raised to pay for books and pencils

for art students was these companies

4:06:014:06:10

making millions or billions of

pounds at our expense. Sometimes

4:06:104:06:14

necessity becomes a political

mistake but the necessity here is to

4:06:144:06:19

axe and I urge the Minister to

listen.

I'm going to keep my

4:06:194:06:26

comments focused on the bank levy,

PFI and tax evasion. I believe that

4:06:264:06:33

results speak for greater than

rhetoric. The banking sector paid

4:06:334:06:39

billions of pounds in the 2016-2017

year. I also understand that the

4:06:394:06:52

proposals at the moment suggest that

they will raise an additional 1.8

4:06:524:06:57

billion of pounds for the Exchequer.

I have a lot of sympathy for the

4:06:574:07:05

honourable member for Walthamstow

and her comments, however, I do

4:07:054:07:08

think that one size fits all is not

appropriate. I have experience with

4:07:084:07:12

PFI. In 2012 I launched a campaign.

The last Labor Secretary signed a

4:07:124:07:20

deal for the surgery centre in

Stevenage to be operated by

4:07:204:07:24

brilliant. As a results, eight and

found half -- 8500 deals were lost.

4:07:244:07:34

As a result, I ran a very long and

hard campaign and I persuaded the

4:07:344:07:41

Health Secretary in 2013 to

nationalise that facility and return

4:07:414:07:44

it to my local hospital trust. So a

piece of the NHS was privatised by

4:07:444:07:52

the last Labour Health Secretary. If

there is a specific issue you are

4:07:524:07:57

able as the local member to go in

there and make a change. I took

4:07:574:08:03

currently on in 2012 and I want. As

a result we launched a campaign to

4:08:034:08:07

stop a blacklisting and then we won

again on stopping blacklisting

4:08:074:08:12

amongst construction workers. So it

is very important that individual

4:08:124:08:16

members of Parliament identify

problems with PFI in their areas and

4:08:164:08:18

then we can work and tackle on them

as individuals. In terms of tax

4:08:184:08:24

evasion, I think it is very

important that people look at what

4:08:244:08:29

they can do as individuals. Again,

back in 2012, I launched a campaign

4:08:294:08:37

before it was fashionable for tax

transparency to be launched. I wrote

4:08:374:08:43

to all FTSE 100 executives in

association with Christian Aid

4:08:434:08:48

asking them if they would help

developing countries around the

4:08:484:08:51

world with tax transparency. It is

almost a race to the bottom in some

4:08:514:08:56

areas with what each country will

offer the these large national is to

4:08:564:09:03

move around. It was all before tax

evasion was far more fashionable. As

4:09:034:09:15

a result, the government got

involved and I'm very pleased to see

4:09:154:09:17

that since 2000 and additional

billions of pounds has been raised.

4:09:174:09:25

For me that there's an additional

hundred £60 billion that has been

4:09:254:09:29

invested in local National Health

Service. It has been paid for by the

4:09:294:09:36

government and not by outside

organisations or PFI. It is money

4:09:364:09:39

that is being invested in children's

futures in my constituency. I do

4:09:394:09:45

think that individual members of

Parliament and a great opportunity

4:09:454:09:47

to go out there may change in their

areas if there specific issues they

4:09:474:09:53

can tackle and it is possible to win

on those issues.

I was a as

4:09:534:10:07

surprised as you were at the brevity

of that speech. I was willing the

4:10:074:10:11

member of Croydon South to keep

going for an extra 30 seconds to hit

4:10:114:10:16

the 30 minute mark because he was so

close but not quite there. I want to

4:10:164:10:20

talk specifically on the issues of

the various topics that we were

4:10:204:10:24

discussing around the bank levy, tax

avoidance and briefly on PFI. Just

4:10:244:10:30

say that we will be supporting the

amendments put forward by the

4:10:304:10:34

honourable for Walthamstow. I will

not expand on that because I think

4:10:344:10:39

she has covered the issue fairly

broadly. On the bank levy, it was in

4:10:394:10:45

the 2017 manifesto that we do not

support the reductions there have

4:10:454:10:49

been to the bank levy and we support

the reversal of those reductions.

4:10:494:10:53

What is being put forward by the

Labour Party in relation to this is

4:10:534:10:56

a very good way to tackle this

given, as has been said in some of

4:10:564:11:01

the exchanges across the House, it

was not an amendment of a

4:11:014:11:04

resolution, and not an ability for

us to remove some of the more it

4:11:044:11:10

interesting and exciting things we

would have liked to do. I hope the

4:11:104:11:13

next time there is a finance Bill

the government does choose to do

4:11:134:11:16

that and I hope that if we end up

with a Labour Party they will make

4:11:164:11:21

that change and ensure that it comes

through without any budgets process

4:11:214:11:28

of finance Bill that we have because

that is the only way we can have

4:11:284:11:31

that reasonable level of discussion

around this. Moving on specifically

4:11:314:11:36

to the bank levy, as I said, we

oppose the reductions there have

4:11:364:11:40

been. The new clause three that has

been put forward in relation to this

4:11:404:11:45

I think tackles this in the most

sensible way that we can as the

4:11:454:11:48

opposition in this debate,

constrained as we are. It is about

4:11:484:11:53

looking at the effectiveness of the

bank levy and looking at how much

4:11:534:11:56

money does in fact take in and

whether or not there will be other

4:11:564:12:01

opportunities to do different things

that would involve more money being

4:12:014:12:04

taken into the Chaudhary. I think we

are in a strange position. It was

4:12:044:12:08

funny to hear people talking about

the city. When I speak to people in

4:12:084:12:13

the city it seems like my views as a

fairly left-wing person in the SNP

4:12:134:12:17

seem to have accorded pretty closely

with some of the city views right

4:12:174:12:23

now, whereas most of them are upset

about the set. Actually I have more

4:12:234:12:28

in common with them than I feel I

have ever had before where is the

4:12:284:12:32

Conservatives have less in common is

an with them because they are very

4:12:324:12:38

upset about the issues that will be

thrown up because of Brexit. So we

4:12:384:12:42

are in a very strange situation

right now where this is the case.

4:12:424:12:50

I will not stop mentioning, trying

to follow on from the work of Roger

4:12:504:12:55

Mullen, it was welcome the

government did create a review

4:12:554:13:00

around SLP, but we are to see actual

solid action coming out of that and

4:13:004:13:06

it would be nice to know when we'll

see the SLP stamp down on and get a

4:13:064:13:11

situation where it will be no longer

in existence and we have a system

4:13:114:13:16

where people can not abuse the

Scottish Limited partnerships. It'll

4:13:164:13:20

be interesting to see that coming

forward in relation to tax avoidance

4:13:204:13:24

and evasion. For more creative

solutions to this, the SNP have

4:13:244:13:29

called for rules are ranked this to

be devolved to Scotland. We think it

4:13:294:13:35

would be done better, as we think we

would do everything better. But

4:13:354:13:40

around this matter, we feel, the

government has been recognised in

4:13:404:13:44

the action it has taken, we feel

would be in a better position to

4:13:444:13:59

tackle tax avoidance and evasion.

The member for Croydon South talked

4:13:594:14:03

about fairness and how the situation

is perhaps more further than it has

4:14:034:14:09

been in relation to the tax gap. But

the point we are making and will

4:14:094:14:14

continue to make, the system isn't

fair. If we have any tax, where a

4:14:144:14:21

situation, for example, we don't

have enough customs officers to make

4:14:214:14:25

all the checks we need to make, we

have a situation where people can

4:14:254:14:29

avoid tax because there aren't

enough customs officers to check.

4:14:294:14:36

Any situation where there is any

tax, no matter how that compares to

4:14:364:14:42

other countries, is a problem for

us. On the issue of comparison to

4:14:424:14:47

other countries, there was a report

in 2014 which showed smaller

4:14:474:14:54

countries had a smaller tax because

they are better able to crack down

4:14:544:14:59

on tax avoidance, because they can

have a situation where they can

4:14:594:15:03

better police things coming in and

out, where they can ensure tax

4:15:034:15:08

avoidance and evasion doesn't

happen. Just another point in the

4:15:084:15:13

case for Scottish independence.

Around these things, the new clause

4:15:134:15:17

three if the Labour Party decided to

move that, we would support them in

4:15:174:15:20

that basis. I am not going to take a

long time to speak about this, my

4:15:204:15:26

point have been made in previous

part of this debate, but we support

4:15:264:15:30

making more changes to this to crack

down on tax avoidance, tax evasion

4:15:304:15:36

and undo the reduction to the bank

levy.

It is a real pleasure to

4:15:364:15:45

follow the CLARE BALDING: From

Aberdeen North and other

4:15:454:15:48

contributions that have been made.

-- laid I want to bust the myth that

4:15:484:15:57

we and the side of the House, some

kind of friends of the forest bank

4:15:574:16:02

and bad people trying to swindle

money out of the honest taxpayer.

4:16:024:16:07

Nothing could be further from the

truth. We on this side want to see a

4:16:074:16:12

healthy, financial system

underpinned by banks and banks

4:16:124:16:21

contributing fairly as they have

done under this government. We must

4:16:214:16:25

look at the facts on the record

which speak for themselves in this

4:16:254:16:30

case, as my honourable friend from

Croydon has so eloquently listed. I

4:16:304:16:35

think the fact we have set out a

plan to raise an additional £9

4:16:354:16:41

billion by 2022, which will be a

significant contribution to the

4:16:414:16:45

Exchequer, which is going to help

fund the public services that people

4:16:454:16:49

rely on. The banks are making money

out of businesses in this country.

4:16:494:16:54

They need to make a return, they

need to contribute fairly and the

4:16:544:16:59

measures in this bill are measures

that will ensure this happens. I

4:16:594:17:03

really think that when Labour start

to attack us and our policies, they

4:17:034:17:10

need to look at themselves in the

mirror. They need to look at the

4:17:104:17:14

number of times they voted against

introducing corporation tax and bank

4:17:144:17:18

levy measures which have raised

money from the banks, as we have

4:17:184:17:23

seen. They were the party that

allowed the Mayfair loophole to

4:17:234:17:28

develop with hedge fund managers

getting away without paying any tax,

4:17:284:17:32

where their cleaners were paying

tax. And, can I remind the House, it

4:17:324:17:38

was this Chancellor in this budget

that put the tax on private jets.

4:17:384:17:44

Can there be anything else that

indicates more strongly that we are

4:17:444:17:48

about fairness and taxing the

proceeds of profit in the right way

4:17:484:17:51

to fund our public services. When

the honourable member talks about

4:17:514:18:00

banks are making a fair

contribution, I disagree with that

4:18:004:18:06

agenda. The banks are making a fair

contribution.

Look, I don't mind

4:18:064:18:13

making statements and I am wrong

when people make mistakes and people

4:18:134:18:17

bring that to my attention. I did

say they were not making a fair

4:18:174:18:23

contribution, we were talking about

the context of the government's own

4:18:234:18:27

definition of what they should be

doing. Have a look at the work, have

4:18:274:18:31

a look at the book and do your

research and then make an

4:18:314:18:34

accusation. I thank the honourable

member for his intervention, I am

4:18:344:18:39

not making an accusation and my

apologies that I misrepresented him.

4:18:394:18:44

I want to make the point I think

banks to make a fair contribution

4:18:444:18:49

and the measures in this bill will

enable them to do so. The £160

4:18:494:18:55

billion raised by the Exchequer for

the measures we have brought in

4:18:554:18:58

since we have been in government.

She is making an important point

4:18:584:19:04

that on the side of the House we

don't just obsess about the rate and

4:19:044:19:08

punitive rate for party political

purposes. The point is to grow the

4:19:084:19:15

economy, maximise the tax take and

the money and per click services.

My

4:19:154:19:26

honourable friend is right. It is a

fact that when you lower the tax

4:19:264:19:32

rate, you do increase the tax taken

that as a fact we are seeing time

4:19:324:19:36

and time again which has benefited

our economy. I cannot take any more

4:19:364:19:41

interventions. I am moving towards

my conclusion. I would like the

4:19:414:19:46

Minister to touch on his winding up

in some of the issues around crypto

4:19:464:19:51

currencies and Bitcoin, which are

important and not covered by

4:19:514:19:54

regulation at the moment. I think

all of us would like to be assured

4:19:544:20:00

the Treasury is making sure that we

do not allow loopholes to develop

4:20:004:20:05

web possibly we could see tax

evasion and tax avoidance in that

4:20:054:20:09

area. There are some alarming

reports at the moment for people

4:20:094:20:14

being arrested for money laundering,

billions of pounds to this method. I

4:20:144:20:20

believe it is an area that isn't

regulated at all. I wish to make one

4:20:204:20:24

comment about the Honourable lady

from Walthamstow. She is very well

4:20:244:20:31

informed and I recognise the hard

work she has done. I do share a

4:20:314:20:34

number of the concerns about PFI, my

constituency in Worcester, the

4:20:344:20:42

hospital serves people from reddish

and is in special measures on does

4:20:424:20:46

have a financial issue. We are

worried about that in reddish and I

4:20:464:20:50

would like to hear the Minister

reassure my constituents that, I

4:20:504:20:55

don't think the amendment is the

right way of doing it, but I would

4:20:554:20:59

like to see the action he will take

to reassure my constituents in

4:20:594:21:02

reddish judge that they are not

reaping profits that they shouldn't

4:21:024:21:07

be getting. I would like to ask the

honourable lady from Walthamstow to

4:21:074:21:12

clarify, is it the position of the

Labour front bench now that they are

4:21:124:21:16

not going to take all the PFI

contracts back into public

4:21:164:21:20

ownership? She mentioned £220

billion that it would cost to take

4:21:204:21:26

them back into, and I think that is

the official position of the Labour

4:21:264:21:29

Party. It is confusing to think what

the Labour Party is proposing, I

4:21:294:21:37

don't think we really know what the

position is on that. So clarity

4:21:374:21:40

would be welcomed. I come to my

final point and we have heard Brexit

4:21:404:21:48

mentioned earlier. We have heard

remarks about exit and the Labour

4:21:484:21:52

Party's position and claims that

somehow Brexit is damaging our

4:21:524:21:55

economy. The honourable gentleman

did mention Brexit from accidentally

4:21:554:22:03

position. What people fear more than

Brexit is a Labour government that

4:22:034:22:12

would damage the economy, damage

jobs and business investment. That

4:22:124:22:16

is what businesses are worried

about. To conclude, I will give way.

4:22:164:22:22

I simply wish to say there must be

an objective assessment given the

4:22:224:22:26

strength of the economic risk the

place to Brexit. Brexit in terms of

4:22:264:22:32

financial services could take it

away, could make it a situation

4:22:324:22:35

where there is not the legal right

to do the kind of business which

4:22:354:22:38

currently take place within the

United Kingdom. To compare that with

4:22:384:22:43

differences of opinion over

political policies, there is no

4:22:434:22:46

comparison. In this government must

take the economic risks of Brexit

4:22:464:22:51

seriously.

I thank the honourable

gentleman and I can see Madam Deputy

4:22:514:22:56

Speaker being crossed that we have

moved off the point. So I do not

4:22:564:23:00

support this amendment because what

I believe the government has put

4:23:004:23:04

forward is already tackling the

issues of tax avoidance and evasion

4:23:044:23:07

and those are the things that will

ultimately benefit our economy and

4:23:074:23:10

constituents.

It is an honour to

follow my honourable friend from

4:23:104:23:18

Redditch and I would like to speak

specifically in support of

4:23:184:23:22

amendments one, two, three and four.

The PFI system was demonstrated by

4:23:224:23:30

my honourable friend from

Walthamstow, not working. And we

4:23:304:23:33

need to change it. It is not right

half of the costs for PFI schemes

4:23:334:23:42

are interest payments. Local

services are under desperate

4:23:424:23:44

pressure at the moment. In April 20

16, 17 schools across Edinburgh were

4:23:444:23:50

closed due to fears the buildings

were on structurally unsafe. It

4:23:504:23:55

included three primary schools in

Edinburgh West. All 17 schools

4:23:554:23:59

affected were constricted under PPP

and PFI initiatives. In Edinburgh

4:23:594:24:05

West, one primary school -- three

primary schools all close. Parents

4:24:054:24:12

were left worried and frustrated. It

is clear to me, I have heard today

4:24:124:24:17

and what I have witnessed my self,

this payday loan approach to

4:24:174:24:26

building is costing us dearly.

Councils in Scotland on across the

4:24:264:24:30

UK had no choice but to use PPP or

PFI agreements. They now find

4:24:304:24:35

themselves in the position that

interest rates and charges are

4:24:354:24:39

detracting from service provision

when they are already strapped for

4:24:394:24:44

cash. This morning, at an all party

Parliamentary group, I heard

4:24:444:24:51

evidence of how palliative and end

of life care for children is being

4:24:514:24:55

affected by the lack of council

funding. And how the integration of

4:24:554:25:00

health and social care is being

restricted. That is outrageous. In

4:25:004:25:07

Scotland, PPP and PFI contracts are

largely the responsibility of the

4:25:074:25:12

Scottish Government under devolved

competencies. But I cannot be with

4:25:124:25:16

my honourable friend from Aberdeen

North that the Scottish Government

4:25:164:25:18

took over, it would automatically be

better. The evidence we have in

4:25:184:25:27

Scotland would counter that

argument. While it would be

4:25:274:25:31

illegitimate to forcibly take

contracts back in-house, it is

4:25:314:25:34

important we redress the windfall

profits handed to these companies by

4:25:344:25:38

Tory Corporation tax cuts. It is

both legitimate and fair to impose a

4:25:384:25:43

windfall tax to be imposed on those

profits. Because, as we have heard

4:25:434:25:47

from my honourable friend, that

would hit those corporations where

4:25:474:25:53

it would actually get their

attention. In their profits. So, I

4:25:534:26:00

would ask all the members in the

House to put the benefits that we

4:26:004:26:06

need, the cash injection we need for

local services across the UK first

4:26:064:26:12

on their list of priorities and find

whatever way possible, to get either

4:26:124:26:17

money back, or impose a windfall tax

on these corporations.

Petered out.

4:26:174:26:30

Carne said there is very little in

the debate from the other side which

4:26:304:26:34

has convinced me why we should

withdraw our new clause. I suspect

4:26:344:26:40

there is very little...

Order. I beg

the honourable gentleman's pardon. I

4:26:404:26:47

have made a mistake in having

thought the Minister had already

4:26:474:26:51

addressed the House. I do beg the

Minister's pardon. Minister.

There

4:26:514:26:58

was a ripple of dissatisfaction when

you fail to call me, which was

4:26:584:27:04

almost imperceptible, but

nonetheless. Thank you for

4:27:044:27:06

correcting your error.

4:27:064:27:12

In this debate we have heard about a

range of issues including the

4:27:124:27:16

changes made to the private finance

initiative. I will respond to each

4:27:164:27:22

in turn. Let me begin with the bank

levy. Honourable members opposite

4:27:224:27:28

have raised a number of objections

to the levy. Made by the Finance

4:27:284:27:34

Bill to the government. And the

broader approach to taxation. These

4:27:344:27:39

are unjustified. The government

remains committed to make sure banks

4:27:394:27:43

make an additional contribution

beyond that paid by other

4:27:434:27:45

businesses. This inflicts Bury

reflect the unique risk -- this

4:27:454:27:54

reflects the unique risk they pose

to the economy. I felt the Commons

4:27:544:27:59

earlier focused far too much on the

bank levy itself, which is indeed

4:27:594:28:06

declining but there is good reason

for that because in 2015, when we

4:28:064:28:10

the relevant decisions, we recognise

that the risks presented to the

4:28:104:28:17

banks had quite considerably eased,

and indeed the stress testing that

4:28:174:28:21

the Bank of England has carried out

more recently on the banks, which

4:28:214:28:25

has been very rigorous and has been

the first occasion on which not a

4:28:254:28:30

single bank has failed that stress

test, is indicative to the fact that

4:28:304:28:33

one of the raison d'etre that the

bank levy has started to recede. The

4:28:334:28:41

banks are less of a risk than they

were before and therefore charges on

4:28:414:28:46

the liabilities that they hold

become less relevant. What the

4:28:464:28:49

shadow Secretary for the Treasury

did not focus on so much was the

4:28:494:28:53

surcharge to the bank and tax which

came in on the 1st of January 2016,

4:28:534:28:59

which is an additional 8% on the

profitability of banks. At the

4:28:594:29:05

current time, whereas corporations

were paying 19%, we were now looking

4:29:054:29:10

at a total rate of 27%. I thank my

Right Honourable friend for giving

4:29:104:29:18

way. Is it not the case in this

chamber that taking both of those

4:29:184:29:26

members together, the reduction in

the levy with the surcharge overrule

4:29:264:29:31

reduces the configuration over time.

Whisper that out very clearly in the

4:29:314:29:35

debate.

The amount is receding over

time even with the surcharge.

That

4:29:354:29:45

is not the case. I will explain some

of the figures in the moment. There

4:29:454:29:49

are other elements that are not

being taken into account. One of

4:29:494:29:52

them is the additional fact that the

banks are not permitted to take

4:29:524:30:00

offset against their profits, the

payments they make by way of PFI,

4:30:004:30:08

PPI, I beg your pardon, compensation

payments and indeed that they work

4:30:084:30:15

to a more restrictive corporate

interest restriction regime where

4:30:154:30:18

they are only allowed to call 25% of

their interest charging profits.

4:30:184:30:30

Taking those together, we have a

situation where we have raised from

4:30:304:30:33

the bank since 2010 some £44 billion

more than we would have raised if we

4:30:334:30:39

treated them as other corporate

businesses. All my members opposite

4:30:394:30:43

have quoted that changes to the bank

levy are misleading. Including

4:30:434:30:58

introducing, as I said, the 8%

surcharge. Overall, this is the

4:30:584:31:03

figure that the honourable lady, I

think would be interested in, is

4:31:034:31:07

that rather than reducing revenue,

these changes are expected to raise

4:31:074:31:12

£4.6 billion over the current

forecast figure. The average

4:31:124:31:16

revenue...

Thank you very much. I'm

grateful for the Minister. He is

4:31:164:31:23

very generous with his time. We have

just looked at the projections up to

4:31:234:31:29

2022 and for the current year we

have 3.0 from the 11 .6 from the

4:31:294:31:37

surcharge. When we get to 2022 we

have 1.3 from the levy. That seems

4:31:374:31:44

like a significant reduction, almost

a half.

Over the forecast period

4:31:444:31:52

going forwards, if you take into

account the respective changes, we

4:31:524:31:56

will raise £4.6 billion as a

consequence of that. The point that

4:31:564:32:01

I am making is that it is just

simply not a right to focus only on

4:32:014:32:06

the declining part of this equation,

the reduction in the banking levy

4:32:064:32:12

charge, as opposed to also focusing

on the fact that is due to increased

4:32:124:32:18

profitability of banks on our watch

Andy surcharge percents taxation

4:32:184:32:20

were raising more on the consequence

of those measures. Perhaps we can

4:32:204:32:30

get into the nitty-gritty of this.

The average revenue of the bank levy

4:32:304:32:36

between its introduction in 2011 and

2015 was around 2.6 billion. As a

4:32:364:32:41

result of this package, a deal from

the surcharge and the levy in 2022

4:32:414:32:46

is forecast to be 3.2 billion. By

2023 we will have raised, around 44

4:32:464:32:54

billion in additional bank taxes

since the 2010 election. Honourable

4:32:544:32:59

members opposite have also mentioned

that the bank levy is set as a low

4:32:594:33:03

level compared to other countries.

In fact, not all financial centres

4:33:034:33:07

have a bank level from. -- bank

levy. The United States do not have

4:33:074:33:13

one at all. A number of EU countries

introduced after the financial

4:33:134:33:18

crisis but we cannot make

comparisons as the rules are

4:33:184:33:21

different. We have heard that the

argument that we should reintroduce

4:33:214:33:26

tax on bankers paid. One of the aim

is to ensure sustainable long-term

4:33:264:33:35

basis on taxing ranks based on --

banks. It was all is intended as a

4:33:354:33:45

one-off tax. Reintroducing this tax

would be ineffective and

4:33:454:33:48

unsustainable compared to the

package banking measures we have

4:33:484:33:53

introduced. Even the last Labour

Chancellor pointed out that it

4:33:534:33:56

cannot be repeated without

significant tax avoidance.

4:33:564:34:00

Honourable members also proposed

that HM Revenue and Customs soon

4:34:004:34:04

publish a register of tax paid by

individual banks under the levy. But

4:34:044:34:09

taxpayer confidentiality is rightly

called principle of trust in our tax

4:34:094:34:17

system. HM Revenue and Customs does

not publish details by the amount of

4:34:174:34:22

tax paid by any individual business.

By this government continues to

4:34:224:34:25

support measures to support... We

must balance this with maintaining

4:34:254:34:34

confidentiality to maintain

confidence in our system.

I thank my

4:34:344:34:41

Right Honourable friend. With the

minister except that the

4:34:414:34:46

transparency that is being sought is

really in the public demand after

4:34:464:34:51

all these years of difficulty that

they face and as a time when so many

4:34:514:34:58

communities are finding their

council tax increased and are now

4:34:584:35:01

running at 5%. This seems to be an

inherent unfairness in the tax

4:35:014:35:05

system.

I would not accept that.

This goes back to my point about the

4:35:054:35:10

balance of measures that we are

taking. The focus that the

4:35:104:35:15

opposition is applying to the bank

levy itself which indeed is

4:35:154:35:19

declining through time but I would

point to the surcharge, the

4:35:194:35:24

additional 8%, which is 8% more on

corporation tax and other

4:35:244:35:28

non-banking businesses are expected

to pay. The banks or so are not

4:35:284:35:34

permitted to carry forward interest

rates charges to the same degree as

4:35:344:35:40

other businesses and indeed they are

not allowed to offset against tax

4:35:404:35:45

the compensation payments they have

been paying over the previous

4:35:454:35:49

period. All of those things, as I

said a further £44 billion, in 2010

4:35:494:35:57

compares what they would have paid

had they been a non-banking

4:35:574:35:59

business.

Thank you for giving way.

Would you not accept that at the

4:35:594:36:08

same time the corporation tax is

being reduced overall, I accept the

4:36:084:36:11

point about bank levy, we are seeing

conversely a significant increase in

4:36:114:36:17

council tax to the public.

As I

think the honourable member and my

4:36:174:36:25

honourable friend the member for

Croydon South pointed out, as we

4:36:254:36:29

have reduced the overall level of

corporation tax as applies to banks

4:36:294:36:34

and non-banking businesses, we are

seeing an increase of some 50% over

4:36:344:36:38

the period and we have come down

from 28% to 19%. So we have been

4:36:384:36:43

raising more revenue as a

consequence of those particular

4:36:434:36:45

changes. But finally, new clause

five would require governments to

4:36:454:36:52

publish further analysis in the

impact of the bank levy and the

4:36:524:36:54

Bill. This is a really been

published. We have also published

4:36:544:37:02

information certified about the

overall impact by the package of

4:37:024:37:07

measures for banks. It is important

to legislate for those changes now

4:37:074:37:10

in order to give certainty on the

tax position so they can give plans

4:37:104:37:15

for the future. The changes

contained in clause 33 and schedule

4:37:154:37:21

nine complete package measures which

raise it tax from banks which is

4:37:214:37:28

more supportive of UK financial

services. We should pass without

4:37:284:37:34

amendment. I will now turned by the

amendments tabled by the member for

4:37:344:37:39

Walthamstow and a call that she has

made for windfall tax on private

4:37:394:37:45

finance initiative companies.

Perhaps I should also pay tribute at

4:37:454:37:47

this point to my honourable friends,

the member for Stevenage, who in his

4:37:474:37:52

speech outlined the vigorous work

that he has also carried out in this

4:37:524:37:57

particular area and in support of

his constituents. There are

4:37:574:38:02

approximately 700 operational PFI

products which originated under the

4:38:024:38:10

initial PFI -- projects. The vast

majority of these projects were

4:38:104:38:15

signed between 1997 and 2010. 620 of

them or 86% of all PFI projects

4:38:154:38:23

under the last Labour government.

The government has taken actions to

4:38:234:38:26

ensure that the PFI projects deliver

better money for the taxpayer. That

4:38:264:38:32

is why we have introduced the

operational PPP efficiency programme

4:38:324:38:35

in 2011 which as reported savings

for this project. We're working with

4:38:354:38:43

departments to improve day-to-day

effectiveness on the management of

4:38:434:38:48

their contracts. We have also made

improvements through PF to to offer

4:38:484:38:54

taxpayers better value for money on

projects. The honourable lady argued

4:38:544:38:59

that the windfall tax would help

fund a blog services from what she

4:38:594:39:02

sees as their profits, I am clear

that it would not. A retrospective

4:39:024:39:10

windfall tax would do damage to

public services and with tax NHS

4:39:104:39:15

trusts rather than the providers it

is intended to target. Even aside

4:39:154:39:20

from these flaws, the amendments

that she has tabled would not work

4:39:204:39:24

and I will set that out why in more

detail. It would cost this and

4:39:244:39:30

future governments that try to sign

contracts with businesses weather in

4:39:304:39:34

PFI or in another area, this country

has a hard-won reputation for tax

4:39:344:39:38

certainty. Businesses that have

legitimately enter a contract with

4:39:384:39:45

government and it would undermine

this principle. There would be extra

4:39:454:39:49

cost for the taxpayer whenever the

government needed to engage the

4:39:494:39:52

private sector. Secondly, private

finance initiative contracts, which

4:39:524:39:59

you say you have read through, our

long-term agreements which typically

4:39:594:40:07

include anti-discriminatory clauses.

This means that targets and PFI

4:40:074:40:12

initiatives without applying to

similar projects undertaken by other

4:40:124:40:16

companies, taxation can be recovered

from the procuring authorities. A

4:40:164:40:21

windfall tax would therefore only be

a tax on local authorities, NHS

4:40:214:40:27

trusts and government. I'm sure that

is not the outcome that the

4:40:274:40:30

honourable lady is seeking. Madam

Deputy Speaker, amendments one and

4:40:304:40:35

two propose that the bank levy could

be extended to private levy groups,

4:40:354:40:42

but PFI groups are not banks. They

borrow money to finance products and

4:40:424:40:46

earn a return like many other

businesses do. It is not possible to

4:40:464:40:52

bring PFI groups within the scope of

the bank levy. It could not be

4:40:524:40:57

applied to these groups. The changes

imposed in amendment three and four

4:40:574:41:03

would also not work. The last

finance acts introduced corporate

4:41:034:41:06

restriction rules to limit the

amount that corporate codes deducts

4:41:064:41:15

from taxable profits. Limiting

corporate groups to carry forward

4:41:154:41:18

there an unused interest allowance

and offsetting this against future

4:41:184:41:23

profits. This would only apply where

the group contains a private

4:41:234:41:28

company. The proposed changes put

forward by these amendments are

4:41:284:41:37

convoluted. It would fall on the

public bodies holding the PFI

4:41:374:41:43

projects to pay extra tax. Even if

one could impose tax liabilities on

4:41:434:41:52

PFI providers, this would not be a

sensible approach. Edwards penalise

4:41:524:41:56

other companies -- it would penalise

other companies in the same

4:41:564:42:02

corporate group and allow them to

avoid the tax. The point that have

4:42:024:42:06

been raised concerning tax avoidance

and evasion. I have little to add a

4:42:064:42:12

lot has been set out on the early

stages of the Bill. Public group

4:42:124:42:18

review is not necessary. This

government an extremely strong

4:42:184:42:23

record in tackling tax evasion both

domestically and internationally.

4:42:234:42:30

£175 billion that would have gone

unpaid. The UK is the only country

4:42:314:42:35

to measure and publish a tax cap

directly -- direct and indirect

4:42:354:42:39

taxes every year. As other members

appointed out, our tax cap is one of

4:42:394:42:44

the lowest in the world, at 6%, and

this has come down from 7.9% under

4:42:444:42:49

Labour in 2005-6. Despite our

demonstrable successes here, the

4:42:494:42:53

Government cannot and will not be

complacent, we will continue to keep

4:42:534:42:56

the tax system under review at all

times, and I urge the House to

4:42:564:42:59

reject the new clauses and

amendments.

Just very briefly, the

4:42:594:43:07

response from the member had

complacency like a line through a

4:43:074:43:16

stick of rock, do a

self-congratulation, there is a

4:43:164:43:19

rejection of a review of any area

whatsoever. Not only have the

4:43:194:43:25

Government not allowed us to make

any significant changes, they are

4:43:254:43:28

not even prepared to listen to us

asking for reviews, for example from

4:43:284:43:34

my honourable friend, the member

from welcome stove. I was

4:43:344:43:39

acceptable, the Government are not

even prepared to go that far, having

4:43:394:43:43

shackled is this much, and I think

is quite disgraceful, and quite

4:43:434:43:47

friendly as well, the Government in

this Parliament should be ashamed of

4:43:474:43:51

itself that it is shackling the

opposition to this degree, and we

4:43:514:43:54

will push this new clause.

The

question is that new clause three B

4:43:544:44:03

read a second time. As many as are

of the opinion, say "aye". To the

4:44:034:44:06

contrary, "no".. To the lobby.

4:44:064:44:23

Order! Order, the question is the

new clause three be read a second

4:45:424:45:47

time. As many as are of the opinion,

say "aye". To the contrary, "no"..

4:45:474:45:56

Tell us for the noes, Amanda Melling

and Nigel Adams.

4:45:564:46:09

Lock the doors!

4:52:134:52:23

Order! Order!

4:59:274:59:37

The ayes to the right, 267, the noes

366.

The ayes to the right, 267, the

4:59:394:59:56

noes to the left, 306. The noes have

it. The noes habit, unlocked. --

4:59:565:00:07

have it. To move a woman the.

Formerly moved Madam Deputy Speaker.

5:00:075:00:19

Amendment three be made. Eisenach.

No smack. Clear the lobby. Eisenach.

5:00:195:00:38

Two order! The question is that

amendment three be made, As many as

5:01:275:01:34

are of the opinion, say "aye". . On

the contrary, no. Amanda Manning,

5:01:345:01:45

and Nigel. Nigel items. -- Adams.

5:01:455:01:58

Lobby doors!

5:08:315:08:35

Order! Order! The ayes to the right:

265. The noes to the left: 305.

5:13:105:13:30

The ayes to the right: 265.

5:13:305:13:32

The noes to the left: 305.

5:13:325:13:37

The noes have it, the noes have it.

We now come to new clause seven,

5:13:375:13:55

with which it will be convened to

consider the new clauses and

5:13:555:13:59

amendments listed on the selection

paper.

Thank you very much, Madam

5:13:595:14:06

Deputy Speaker. With your

permission, I would like to speak

5:14:065:14:09

briefly to the SMP's new clause ten,

and to amendment number 12 from my

5:14:095:14:15

friend from Alfred North, both of

whom we are supporting at the

5:14:155:14:18

opposition, then I will formally

moved into detail of the

5:14:185:14:23

opposition's clauses seven and

eight. With regard to clause ten,

5:14:235:14:27

the opposition welcomes the

Government's decision to allow the

5:14:275:14:30

Scottish Fire and Rescue Service,

and the Scottish police authority to

5:14:305:14:33

claimant respective VAT clause. The

clause... To establish a nationwide

5:14:335:14:42

Fire and Rescue Service for

Scotland. The Treasury Minister at

5:14:425:14:44

the time wrote that based on the

information currently available, it

5:14:445:14:50

seems that following the Scottish

Government's plan to reform, neither

5:14:505:14:54

the new police authority nor the

Fire and Rescue Service will be

5:14:545:14:58

eligible for VAT refunds under

section 33 of the VAT act of 1994.

5:14:585:15:03

As colleagues will know, that

government's decision meant the

5:15:035:15:06

Scottish police and Fire Service

lost out on VAT refunds worth more

5:15:065:15:11

than £30 million, of which the

Scottish police forces lost out on

5:15:115:15:16

about £26 million. To some extent, I

could argue this was a sign of

5:15:165:15:21

recklessness in a time of austerity,

the Government would leave Scottish

5:15:215:15:26

firefighters and police officers to

fend for themselves. While the

5:15:265:15:29

opposition welcomes the change of

heart that has come for the

5:15:295:15:32

Government in this regard, we

recognise the need for there to be a

5:15:325:15:35

proper process put in place for

retrospective claims on VAT refunds.

5:15:355:15:41

The view that my honourable friend

from Aberdeen North has imposed

5:15:415:15:45

would ensure the processor VAT

refunds is transparent, and the

5:15:455:15:49

Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and

the Scottish police authorities

5:15:495:15:53

claims for VAT are profit is

properly refunded by the Government.

5:15:535:15:55

The review would also ensure that

such an ill-informed decision backed

5:15:555:16:00

up by insubstantial reasoning is not

allowed to happen again, that is why

5:16:005:16:04

we'll be supporting new clause ten.

If I move on now to amendment 12, as

5:16:045:16:12

proposed by my honourable friend

from Ilford North, this amendment

5:16:125:16:15

focuses on an issue that I raise

within the finance Bill committee,

5:16:155:16:18

the fact that taxi drivers with zero

in mission capable vehicles would

5:16:185:16:25

not be exempt from excise duty until

next year. As we discussed in the

5:16:255:16:29

committee, and I am sure the mystery

members is, taxi drivers need to

5:16:295:16:33

purchase their car over a long

period due to its relatively high

5:16:335:16:36

cost. Many years of the country,

taxi drivers are shifting to lower

5:16:365:16:42

or zero in mission capable taxis. I

ask the Minister for information on

5:16:425:16:46

whether further changes were needed

to the measures in the finance Bill,

5:16:465:16:50

so as not to choke off the take-up

of zero mission capable taxis. I was

5:16:505:16:56

grateful to the Minister for stating

there would be a consultation around

5:16:565:16:58

new measures to occur the spring,

I'm unsure if that has begun yet or

5:16:585:17:05

not, perhaps the Minister can

enlighten us on that point. In the

5:17:055:17:09

meantime, it seems sensible, as my

honourable friend has proposed, that

5:17:095:17:13

we prevent taxi drivers from being

hit when they have taken what is an

5:17:135:17:18

environmentally friendly choice, one

which has considerable financial

5:17:185:17:23

consequences for them because these

vehicles are more expert --

5:17:235:17:26

expensive than standard taxis.

Having covered both of those matters

5:17:265:17:31

in the new clause and amendment

which we are supporting, with your

5:17:315:17:34

permission, I would like to former

-- formally move labour's clauses

5:17:345:17:40

seven and eight. These require

review of the post relief on stamp

5:17:405:17:44

duty for first-time buyers, followed

by an annual report on its

5:17:445:17:47

effectiveness. These reviews and the

report would consider the impact of

5:17:475:17:51

the new measure on house prices and

housing supplies, and cover who has

5:17:515:17:57

benefited from this policy. The need

for such reviews is very clear, the

5:17:575:18:03

OB are's assessment of this measure

set out in black and white, it is

5:18:035:18:07

likely to increase prices by 0.3%,

and to benefit a very small number

5:18:075:18:12

of people. In their words, the main

gainers from the new stamp duty

5:18:125:18:17

policy are people who already own

property, not the first time buyers

5:18:175:18:22

themselves. They added that some

potential first-time buyers with

5:18:225:18:25

smaller deposits might now be able

to borrow a little more, allowing

5:18:255:18:29

them to buy properties that they

otherwise would not be able to

5:18:295:18:32

afford. But they would be doing that

more expensively was up and this is

5:18:325:18:37

in the context where the average

price of a home in England for

5:18:375:18:41

first-time buyers has gone up by

almost £40,000 since 2010. In fact,

5:18:415:18:49

only about 3500 additional homes are

at it -- predicted to be sold as a

5:18:495:18:53

result of this new incentive.

They

are now falling, notwithstanding the

5:18:535:19:01

change?

The House prices are

falling, I do not believe that is

5:19:015:19:05

something that is uniform across the

country. There would also be

5:19:055:19:09

implications for people if there

were very rapid changes, that would

5:19:095:19:14

be a concern for many, but we filled

in this area, where it comes to the

5:19:145:19:19

cost for first-time buyers, that

there has not been a significant

5:19:195:19:22

change. And if the honourable member

has evidence that there has been a

5:19:225:19:25

change for first-time buyers, I

would certainly like to see that,

5:19:255:19:28

there may have been a change across

the whole piece, but that has

5:19:285:19:31

certainly not been impacting on

those who are trying to buy the

5:19:315:19:34

lowest cost houses, those first-time

buyers, they are struggling at the

5:19:345:19:39

moment more than ever before, many

of them. We as an opposition would

5:19:395:19:42

say that the situation might be

different if this measure was

5:19:425:19:45

accompanied by others to promote the

production of genuinely affordable

5:19:455:19:48

homes. But as it stands, any

additional homes will not be in

5:19:485:19:53

place before the stamp duty cut

takes place, at least those promoted

5:19:535:19:58

by any government policy. The

funding allocated in this regard is

5:19:585:20:03

woefully inadequate. At the last

debate we had in this chamber, it

5:20:035:20:08

was revealed that the infrastructure

monies, such as they are, would not

5:20:085:20:11

start to come forward until 2019-20.

That will mean that the stamp duty

5:20:115:20:17

cuts cost of £585 million in 2018-19

would not be accompanied by those

5:20:175:20:23

housing infrastructures measures.

The same will occur that next year,

5:20:235:20:27

and it is only two years later that

the extra funds for the

5:20:275:20:32

infrastructure fund will be

forthcoming, but in any case, they

5:20:325:20:34

will amount to less than half over

the public purse will have renounced

5:20:345:20:39

because of the cut in stamp duty. It

is actually disturbing that the

5:20:395:20:43

Government has chosen the plough

ahead with this measure, in the

5:20:435:20:46

absence of measures to significantly

boost surprised. I will repeat

5:20:465:20:50

because we have had in the previous

debate, for the Government to come

5:20:505:20:56

clean about the advice he received

about this measure. What do the

5:20:565:20:58

economist and the Treasury say about

this change? In the absence of

5:20:585:21:04

measures to substantially increase

supply. Ministers can claim that we

5:21:045:21:07

have heard back from the Chancellor

that the OER has not taken the small

5:21:075:21:11

cuts of housing measures into its

analysis, but most experts who have

5:21:115:21:17

taken them into account, the very

small extent of changes that went

5:21:175:21:21

into account, can occur -- concur

with the OB are's original

5:21:215:21:24

assessment. Was is also the case

with treasury officials? We deserve

5:21:245:21:27

to know, as well do -- as are... If

there is a rise in house prices for

5:21:275:21:36

those first-time buyers, as

anticipated by the OB are, I would

5:21:365:21:40

point out that the Government's own

assessments of a previous stamp duty

5:21:405:21:44

cut, again in the absence of

measures to boost supply of

5:21:445:21:48

affordable housing, indicated that

the tax relief has not had and is

5:21:485:21:52

just a significant impact on the

improving affordability for

5:21:525:21:56

first-time buyers. We also need to

know the regional impact of this

5:21:565:22:02

measure. As colleagues mentioned in

the previous debate that we had on

5:22:025:22:04

this matter, the upper limit of

£500,000 in high-cost areas and

5:22:045:22:09

£300,000 elsewhere means that the

change will not have a positive

5:22:095:22:13

impact across huge swathes of the

country aside from reducing the

5:22:135:22:19

Avenue -- revenue pot overall,

meeting other taxes on individuals

5:22:195:22:23

and companies have to take up the

slack. Public services are going to

5:22:235:22:26

be cut further. Of course, for many

people, home ownership is a distant

5:22:265:22:32

dream, there is no way they could

afford the necessary deposit.

5:22:325:22:35

Today's figures show that real wages

have fallen for the seven -- seventh

5:22:355:22:39

month in a row, that should give us

all pause for thought here about

5:22:395:22:45

whether this measure is appropriate.

Very happy to.

In my constituency

5:22:455:22:54

and area, it is very difficult for

first-time buyers to afford a

5:22:545:22:57

deposit. They very much welcome the

help the Government is making to

5:22:575:23:00

give them a little more of an

opportunity when they are competing

5:23:005:23:04

against those people who are selling

properties and more able to afford

5:23:045:23:07

as afford a deposit. This is very

welcome, and it is coupled with

5:23:075:23:14

measures to increase housing supply,

we are seeing significant and not

5:23:145:23:18

necessarily popular increases in the

housing target for areas like my own

5:23:185:23:23

decision when C, coupled with what

is going on to make sure houses are

5:23:235:23:26

actually built. So I somewhat

contest her point on that.

Thank

5:23:265:23:34

you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In

practise, most of the commentary

5:23:345:23:37

that I have seen from experts and

those working in the Housing

5:23:375:23:40

Secretary -- sector, it is suggested

that in areas where there is extreme

5:23:405:23:46

competition between different types

of buyers, such as first-time buyers

5:23:465:23:51

and those buying additional

properties, etc, investors and

5:23:515:23:53

others looking to move to a second

or third property, there is a

5:23:535:23:57

potential for such a move to maybe

help initially, but actually the

5:23:575:24:01

overall cost increase will also

affect those first-time buyers, so

5:24:015:24:07

they would be buying at a higher

price. Most of the impact of this

5:24:075:24:11

measure, as indeed, but he finished,

as indeed with previous stamp cut --

5:24:115:24:19

stamp duty changes where there has

not been a boost in supply, as being

5:24:195:24:23

to help those selling properties,

not those buying them. That was the

5:24:235:24:28

Government's own, the conservative

government's own assessment of the

5:24:285:24:31

impact of its previous cut the stamp

duty in the absence of additional

5:24:315:24:34

measures to boost supply. Very happy

to.

She gave a tour de force during

5:24:345:24:40

the committee stage at these

proceedings. On the narrow point

5:24:405:24:43

about impact of these changes, in

terms of price, I have a quote from

5:24:435:24:48

the director of ISS, Paul Johnson.

He says that although there may be

5:24:485:24:50

an increase in the price, this is

not mean first-time buyers are worse

5:24:505:24:55

off, they are in general better off.

Instead of paying 100,000 pounds for

5:24:555:25:02

a house, they are paying £200,000

for £200,000 worth of house. .

I'm

5:25:025:25:10

grateful for the intervention, I am

aware of what Mr Johnson has said

5:25:105:25:13

about this, but I think he has

fallen into the trap of just looking

5:25:135:25:17

at the impact of that change on an

individual prior, and forgetting

5:25:175:25:21

that it will have an impact on the

individual housing market,

5:25:215:25:24

particularly in areas where there is

very strong supply and demand, and

5:25:245:25:28

where change like this is actually

likely to push a price. I agree with

5:25:285:25:32

Mr Johnson on many things, but in

this case, the context has been

5:25:325:25:36

missed out on, and I think it is

important we bear in mind. Very

5:25:365:25:41

important, moving on to more for

content, I will be happy to take the

5:25:415:25:45

member's additional interjection...

I just wanted to clarify a point, to

5:25:455:25:51

evidence suggests that house prices

are not increasing, in fact the

5:25:515:25:55

Royal Institute of chartered

surveyors has echoed this point,

5:25:555:25:59

although we are scaremongering, the

actual suggest evidence suggests

5:25:595:26:01

they are not rising.

Thank you very

much, however I fear that, I am sure

5:26:015:26:10

that the member is very well versed

in this area, when it comes across

5:26:105:26:13

for first-time buyers, there has

been that increase that is supported

5:26:135:26:19

by the evidence, and that is exactly

what we are concerned about within

5:26:195:26:23

this area. It is where we need to be

taking action. Indeed, it is the

5:26:235:26:32

Government's own rhetoric, they say

they want to help those first-time

5:26:325:26:35

buyers, so I think it is important

that we should take them at their

5:26:355:26:40

own word, and indeed look at what

the OBR itself sad when it assessed

5:26:405:26:48

this policy. Again, I would go back

to whether the Government received

5:26:485:26:51

any advice on this issue about its

likely impact, and I think it is his

5:26:515:26:56

appointment this disappointing we

have not had any clarity on that

5:26:565:27:00

matter.

5:27:005:27:01

This concept that there is a price

available to first-time buyers that

5:27:015:27:07

differs from anyone else. I can't

accept that there will be markets

5:27:075:27:11

segmented markets where there may be

a difference, but if prices are

5:27:115:27:17

falling marginally, that will be to

the benefit of all buyers whether

5:27:175:27:20

they be the first time or second or

seventh time property buyers.

I

5:27:205:27:24

think it may be instructive and I am

delighted to hear from the member, I

5:27:245:27:30

think it may be instructive for us

to look at the shape of the market,

5:27:305:27:34

and which elements may be reducing

price and which may not. I would

5:27:345:27:39

like to mention that actually I

looked briefly at some of the media

5:27:395:27:43

coverage suggesting that any

reduction seems to be reversed

5:27:435:27:45

recently, and in fact, it appears

that the highest cost areas with the

5:27:455:27:52

most expensive properties, there may

have been a reduction in Price. But

5:27:525:27:57

I would just ask, are those the

properties that first-time buyers

5:27:575:28:01

are likely to be looking to unless

they are incredibly well off

5:28:015:28:06

initially? Nisi may be, but actually

most of them in this country are not

5:28:065:28:11

looking to be moving into properties

worth multiples of £1 million,

5:28:115:28:15

they're looking to move into

properties which are much

5:28:155:28:19

affordable. And therefore the lack

of action from the Government to

5:28:195:28:21

help them is enormously disturbing.

And that is why we do not support

5:28:215:28:26

this measure when others would have

been more effective and

5:28:265:28:28

particularly, we do not support the

measure in the absence of action

5:28:285:28:31

being taken to boost supply of

affordable housing, and I would

5:28:315:28:35

mention of course that the

Government definition affordable

5:28:355:28:38

houses enables a home with £400,000

for sale, to be classified as

5:28:385:28:44

affordable. I am sure that members

on all sides of the House would not

5:28:445:28:48

appreciate that definition of

affordability. Now as I mentioned

5:28:485:28:55

before, yes.

She is generously

giving away which I knowledge, she

5:28:555:29:01

talked about some of the constraints

and supply as she specifically

5:29:015:29:06

mentioned non-banking by property

developers. Would auction -- where

5:29:065:29:09

they would be given planning

permission they choose not to build

5:29:095:29:14

up her long period of time. There

are proposals as she would know, in

5:29:145:29:17

order to finish developers work that

way, what is the opposition view on

5:29:175:29:22

that?

Yes I am grateful to the

Member for mentioning that,

5:29:225:29:27

actually, labour has ported for some

time as change, and I think they

5:29:275:29:36

called the Venezuelan star socialism

from the other side, we are very

5:29:365:29:39

concerned, about this, but I would

say we are also concerned about

5:29:395:29:42

matters in the planning system which

up up and touched by the Government.

5:29:425:29:45

Like the fact that the rules on

viability but all the cards and the

5:29:455:29:49

developer pockets and if you want to

develop any social supply, you have

5:29:495:29:53

pressures on the affordability of

the rest of that development. So

5:29:535:29:56

we're very aware of this, and it is

something we have worked on

5:29:565:30:00

consistently. And sadly not always

been supported I am happy that the

5:30:005:30:04

member has come onboard with policy

on this one that the Government as

5:30:045:30:07

well. When it comes to the general

lack of measures, parting? OK, when

5:30:075:30:17

it comes to the lack of action and

other elements of the housing

5:30:175:30:24

crisis, which is problematic, given

that the stamp duty change seems to

5:30:245:30:28

be the only real significant change

in relation to housing policy, I

5:30:285:30:34

think that sadly all of us are

seeing the impact the housing crisis

5:30:345:30:37

as members, we see it in our post

back, and our surgeries, and we see

5:30:375:30:43

it very sadly on many of our streets

when it comes to rough sleeping. It

5:30:435:30:49

has doubled under the Conservatives,

I have to say, if the number one

5:30:495:30:53

issue mentioned to me on the

doorstep in my constituency, and I'm

5:30:535:30:57

sure that advocates for many other

urban MPs. And even those who do not

5:30:575:31:02

see within the constituency, sadly,

probably see it when they come to

5:31:025:31:05

work here and of course we had eight

terrible tragedy and that regard

5:31:055:31:09

recently. Yes, thank you.

The

housing stress is a major driver for

5:31:095:31:15

homelessness which the causes are

complex, -- except that the

5:31:155:31:18

reduction act is a major step

forward in terms of unlocking

5:31:185:31:21

resources and gay people into a home

is the first up -- getting people,

5:31:215:31:27

as a lasting forward in their lives?

Thank you I'm preferred

5:31:275:31:36

intervention, I will, to some other

contributors to the problem which

5:31:365:31:39

are not dealt with in the finance

Bill or indeed any of the budget, in

5:31:395:31:42

that regard, while supported many of

the principles within the act,

5:31:425:31:50

again, the problem is that without

adequate supply, accommodation, you

5:31:505:31:55

can apply new requirements on no --

local authorities and duties, but if

5:31:555:32:01

you do not find them and do not

provide the supply to discharge

5:32:015:32:05

them, you'll end up in a situation

where they are having to make

5:32:055:32:07

choices between individuals and

certainly that is being discovered

5:32:075:32:13

in my own local authority. Their

support for the principal of that

5:32:135:32:16

act, but without the means to

deliver it, there's considerable

5:32:165:32:20

concern actually, so just in

relation, I'm grateful to the Member

5:32:205:32:26

for focusing on this issue, and his

focus on it is not reflected sadly

5:32:265:32:31

within the budget of the finance

Bill. We only had mention of three

5:32:315:32:35

small-scale pilot to help deal with

rough sleeping, which is woefully

5:32:355:32:41

inadequate, it is no match to the

commitment of the strategy. Under

5:32:415:32:44

labour, we had one and it we had it

down, and eliminated it, and many

5:32:445:32:51

areas, we also said that we reserve

housing units for people with a

5:32:515:32:55

history of a rough sleeping. Now the

Government has a commitment to

5:32:555:33:00

handle by 2022, but to do it has to

change policies. And there is huge

5:33:005:33:05

uncertainty, first of all but the

funding of supportive housing that

5:33:055:33:07

has led to a reduction in investment

in that area, I necessarily.

5:33:075:33:12

Particularly after the negative

lessons around the supporting people

5:33:125:33:14

finding, where there was taken away,

we hope that will not help -- will

5:33:145:33:19

not happen. We have seen cuts to

council to budget in the area which

5:33:195:33:25

meant there is no homelessness

places going to be supported

5:33:255:33:28

initially by the County Council in

my area and others as well. It has

5:33:285:33:32

been coupled with a reduction in

Social Security a metal support,

5:33:325:33:35

that has left a burgeoning numbers

of people slipping on the streets.

5:33:355:33:37

Of course this is not just about

rough sleeping, it's generally about

5:33:375:33:41

homelessness. And when we to

proficiency, we have seen in the

5:33:415:33:47

recent research that the Government

is still failing to tackle the

5:33:475:33:51

fundamental problems within our

broken housing market. And they do

5:33:515:33:58

not the stamp duty change will deal

with those problems, for example,

5:33:585:34:02

the governor promised it will go to

1000 new cup Price starter homes and

5:34:025:34:06

22. Three years on, not a single one

has been built and before Christmas,

5:34:065:34:13

a Minister said there will be

working at the definition of it so

5:34:135:34:16

they don't know what the policy can

deliver they haven't decided on a

5:34:165:34:20

definition let alone delivering it.

In contrast, big -- we commit to

5:34:205:34:28

build affordable homes and focus on

helping first-time buyers, and build

5:34:285:34:33

100,000 discounted first-time homes.

And overall Madam Deputy Speaker,

5:34:335:34:40

the figures speak for themselves,

the number of home owning households

5:34:405:34:44

rose by 1 million under the last

Labour government, but has fallen

5:34:445:34:48

under the Conservatives. And the

number of households using...

Biggie

5:34:485:34:55

for giving way, but we should

knowledge that the fall in home

5:34:555:35:00

ownership began under labour in 23

-- 2003.

Thank you, I would accept

5:35:005:35:09

that there have been changes from

year to year in the overall level of

5:35:095:35:12

home ownership, but actually that

intuitive impact of conservative

5:35:125:35:15

government in terms of those

reductions, has been far more

5:35:155:35:20

substantial and if you look across

the piece, we have seen the increase

5:35:205:35:23

in what we saw in a million, well

no, I think a answer the four -- the

5:35:235:35:29

point. It is clear that the figure

speaks for itself obviously on this

5:35:295:35:34

point. And the point is particularly

an disturbingly clear from home

5:35:345:35:42

ownership for under 45 households.

So for younger people. The number of

5:35:425:35:46

people in this situation has gone

down by a million cents 2010. We had

5:35:465:35:51

a bit of a debate earlier about home

ownership, and the member stated

5:35:515:35:58

that it's not just about home

ownership, we need to think about

5:35:585:36:02

other areas as well, that is right.

We have 1.3 additional private

5:36:025:36:07

renters in this country, and many of

us on this site would unnecessarily

5:36:075:36:10

see that as a good thing. We see

that as a situation where lots of

5:36:105:36:13

people are stuck in private renters

accommodation and do not want to be

5:36:135:36:16

there. And again we do not see the

finance Bill dealing with that

5:36:165:36:22

problem, so I can and...

Wu I'm

drawing her attention that we have

5:36:225:36:29

one hour, but she is counted that.

I

beg your pardon Madam Deputy

5:36:295:36:35

Speaker, I want to and quickly with

what I think was a devastating

5:36:355:36:39

assessment of the policy by my

honourable friend would talk about

5:36:395:36:43

it before, not all members were

there then, and in her words she

5:36:435:36:48

said what is really unpopular and

our country is having to step over

5:36:485:36:52

rough sleepers while walking home.

Which is unpopular in the country,

5:36:525:36:55

is watching other parents take them

to school because the schools cannot

5:36:555:37:00

afford basic necessities and what is

deeply unpopular is watching the

5:37:005:37:03

number of food banks grow because

jobs do not pay enough. People will

5:37:035:37:07

remember that while all of that was

going on, the Tories were busy

5:37:075:37:11

cutting stamp duty for people who

could buy houses. I do not think

5:37:115:37:14

there will ever forget that, thank

you.

Don't we have... The question

5:37:145:37:28

is the new clause seven of read a

second time. Stand up again. Calling

5:37:285:37:33

Clark.

I rise to speak about new

clause ten, and the budget was a

5:37:335:37:44

triumph for Scotland and a

vindication of the constructive

5:37:445:37:47

approach of the Scottish

Conservatives. And I hope all MPs

5:37:475:37:53

can welcome and embrace the budget.

Unfortunately, this and he appeared

5:37:535:38:00

to have learned little. They created

the mess for the fire and police

5:38:005:38:05

service and it is the Scottish bash

conservative government has to clear

5:38:055:38:10

it up. The new clause points a

finger to the fact that there was a

5:38:105:38:16

mess in the first place. At your own

creation. This is disappointing, the

5:38:165:38:21

Scottish Government messed up and

knew they were as they did so, not

5:38:215:38:26

least because they were warned.

Indeed, when they were estimating

5:38:265:38:31

the budget of the plan, they

specifically factored in the great

5:38:315:38:34

multi-million pound giveaway. They

pressed on regardless, and it's

5:38:345:38:39

extraordinary that the labour front

bench are supporting this clause

5:38:395:38:44

ten. The nationals made a conscious

decision to deprive As many as are

5:38:445:38:50

of the opinion, say "aye". Go-ahead.

I'm -- he says he does not support

5:38:505:38:57

more money go into the Scottish

services in Scotland.

Thank you very

5:38:575:39:02

much for the intervention, but that

is exactly what we are doing. And

5:39:025:39:06

that is what this guys conservative

MPs are pushing for from the

5:39:065:39:10

Treasury as he knows. Please do.

Thank you for giving way honourable

5:39:105:39:18

member, after the Scottish Tory MPs,

how come we ask questions that not

5:39:185:39:25

been able to confirm meetings but

they have with treasury to discuss

5:39:255:39:32

the Met -- discuss the measures.

Thank you for your intervention, I'm

5:39:325:39:36

afraid there is photographic

evidence that my good friend, so he

5:39:365:39:42

most certainly did meet the

Chancellor. No, no, you had a go,

5:39:425:39:48

thank you very much. They were not

sure changed, they were not unaware

5:39:485:39:55

and the money was not stolen. It was

a conscious decision on their part,

5:39:555:39:59

and I call culpability for the lost

millions, they have to accept a

5:39:595:40:03

squarely lies with the bash them. If

they want to raise money they have

5:40:035:40:09

to take responsibility and raise it

themselves, I only hope they do not

5:40:095:40:12

do this by inflicting further

punishment on Scottish taxpayers. I

5:40:125:40:18

thought you were to intervene, but

please is not far from the

5:40:185:40:24

headlight. But the resignation of

the Chief Constable and the delay of

5:40:245:40:27

the merger with British Transport

Police is been under spotlight

5:40:275:40:32

recently. Surely now is the time for

them to stop manufacturing

5:40:325:40:39

grievances out of their own mistakes

and join us in working

5:40:395:40:41

constructively to make Scotland a

better place and they should start

5:40:415:40:44

back with a review of the police

Scotland structure. Thank you.

I

5:40:445:40:53

rise to move amendment ten and 11

and in father in my name and the

5:40:535:40:58

names of other honourable and right

honourable members from across the

5:40:585:41:00

House. Concerning the vehicle excise

duty supplement and particularly how

5:41:005:41:07

it applies to the new electronic

zero emission taxes. I should say at

5:41:075:41:14

the beginning Madam Deputy Speaker,

as -- I am delighted that this

5:41:145:41:21

amendment not only carries cross

party support of support from right

5:41:215:41:25

across the country will stop in and

out of London, Brighton, Chef L,

5:41:255:41:31

Bradford exited, Cambridge,

Stoke-on-Trent, Bedford Cardiff,

5:41:315:41:35

Sunderland, leads. And other cities.

But again, repeating the proper case

5:41:355:41:46

this afternoon. I hope this is not

an issue where we cannot find coming

5:41:465:41:51

cause, and during the debate on the

budget, and subsequently on the

5:41:515:41:57

finance Bill, I welcomed the

announcement on the budget to exempt

5:41:575:41:59

zero emission taxes from the vehicle

excise duty supplement by also

5:41:595:42:05

cautioned that this exemption will

not kick in until May 20 19. Zero

5:42:055:42:14

emission taxes already available for

sale and had hit the streets of the

5:42:145:42:17

city and others. This new generation

of the iconic black taxi, not only

5:42:175:42:25

provides passengers with a new

degree of confidence, -- comfort and

5:42:255:42:30

surroundings including ability to

see the sights of London as you

5:42:305:42:33

drive around, but also boasted no

vacantly for the purposes of the

5:42:335:42:38

debate, and environmentally primly.

I think members on all side of the

5:42:385:42:42

House are aware of how difficult

taxi drivers in this city and across

5:42:425:42:45

the country are finding their trade

in the face of aggressive and in

5:42:455:42:52

many cases, unfair competitive

practises. But I think the

5:42:525:42:56

Government is to look to do what it

can to stop back iconic taxi being

5:42:565:42:59

taken

5:42:595:43:05

The Government about Bush announced

significant changes, and the

5:43:055:43:12

emergency budget, which came into

force on April one, 2017. Under

5:43:125:43:16

those changes, drivers of the new

electric taxi would not have to pay

5:43:165:43:19

that standard rates based on the

vehicle's CO2 emissions. However,

5:43:195:43:25

they would pay a supplement for

expensive cars of £310 per year for

5:43:255:43:29

the first five years, as the taxi

costs over £40,000. This means that

5:43:295:43:34

drivers of the new zero emission

taxi would be stung for the

5:43:345:43:39

supplement to the tune of £1550.

Grants from both the Government

5:43:395:43:44

through the office for low

emissions, and for transport for

5:43:445:43:49

London recognise the high cost of

the zero emissions capable taxi, and

5:43:495:43:53

the risk that it stops drivers from

taking up this environmentally

5:43:535:43:57

friendly vehicle. They recognise

that there offering grants of up to

5:43:575:44:04

£7,500 of those who are the first to

buy it. The Government will claim

5:44:045:44:08

back once this of these grants

through the supplement change. Mr

5:44:085:44:15

Deputy Speaker, this reform was

counterintuitive and clearly at odds

5:44:155:44:18

with the Government's intention to

make vehicle excise duty fair for

5:44:185:44:21

most motorists and reflect

improvements in CO2 emissions. And I

5:44:215:44:26

welcome the fact of the Treasury has

acknowledged that this was an

5:44:265:44:29

unintended consequence of vehicle

excise duty reforms. In recognition

5:44:295:44:35

of this, the Chancellor announced

the change in the autumn budget that

5:44:355:44:38

I have already described, but it

will not kick in until 2019, and

5:44:385:44:43

that is where these amendments come

in amendments ten, 11, and 12 part

5:44:435:44:50

to bring forward the exception to

the new taxi to the day this bill is

5:44:505:44:53

passed as an act. It would show to

taxi drivers in the city and across

5:44:535:44:58

the country a clear determination on

the part of the Government to help

5:44:585:45:01

them drive more environmentally

friendly vehicles, but also I

5:45:015:45:05

recognise a significant pressure

that the taxi trade is under. My

5:45:055:45:11

amendment go further than the budget

perhaps intended, in terms of the

5:45:115:45:16

statement made by the Chancellor,

and that it would attack -- apply to

5:45:165:45:19

all taxis over the value of vote --

value of over £40,000. I'm happy to

5:45:195:45:26

debate as mayors with the Minister,

but I would hope that this is a

5:45:265:45:31

point I have raised on the floor

this House, it was raised in Bill

5:45:315:45:34

committee, I have raised it formally

and informally with Ministers, and I

5:45:345:45:38

hope a Minister can send out today

and give taxi drivers in my

5:45:385:45:43

constituency and across the country

good news that the Government

5:45:435:45:47

recognises the issues and is

determined to make sure that the

5:45:475:45:49

exception kicks in earlier than

April 2019 stop because otherwise,

5:45:495:45:54

we have a perverse incentive created

by the Government for drivers to

5:45:545:45:57

delay taking up a new

environmentally friendly taxi,

5:45:575:46:02

because they know they will get

better value from 2019, and clearly

5:46:025:46:07

none of us want to see that happen,

which is why I think so many members

5:46:075:46:11

from across the House and country

have signed this amendment. I would

5:46:115:46:17

like to conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker,

by making a political point, and I

5:46:175:46:21

hope that the Minister and members

opposite take it in the spirit that

5:46:215:46:24

it is intended. There are men --

many taxi drivers in my constituency

5:46:245:46:29

across London and the country who

are not natural Labour voters. In

5:46:295:46:35

fact, they are in many cases or have

been died in the more conservative

5:46:355:46:41

voters, -- dyed in the wool

conservative voters, and they cannot

5:46:415:46:46

understand why the Conservative

Party has seemingly turned their

5:46:465:46:48

backs on a group of people who are

arguably the best example of the

5:46:485:46:51

small business entrepreneurial

spirit that this country embodies,

5:46:515:46:56

in terms of our small businesses.

Many of them have looked to the

5:46:565:47:00

Conservative Party as their

champion, and have felt very badly

5:47:005:47:05

left behind, not just because of

issues around taxes, but when you

5:47:055:47:09

look in particular at the way the

Conservative Party has actively

5:47:095:47:12

lobbied for a company which is

destroying the taxi trade, not

5:47:125:47:16

through fair competition but through

artificially low fares created by

5:47:165:47:21

aggressive tax avoidance, low wages,

reckless and irresponsible

5:47:215:47:26

approaches to the managing --

management of data, and the

5:47:265:47:31

Conservative Party has actively

lobbied for Cooper. They have an

5:47:315:47:35

opportunity to date to listen to the

taxi drivers across the country that

5:47:355:47:40

would make a simple change that

would bring forth the policy of the

5:47:405:47:45

Chancellor to a point in time where

it would actually make a difference

5:47:455:47:47

to taxi drivers. In so doing, they

may rebuild some trust in the

5:47:475:47:52

Conservative Party. It is clearly in

my interest that the Government does

5:47:525:47:56

not listen to a word I have said, he

continues to give taxi drivers in my

5:47:565:47:59

constituency and across the country

the impression that the Conservative

5:47:595:48:04

Party simply doesn't care, but I

know from talking to taxi drivers in

5:48:045:48:08

my constituency and their families,

and many across the country, that

5:48:085:48:14

unless we get this exemption

through, they will not be able to

5:48:145:48:16

afford to take up to zero emission

capable taxi, and it is arguable

5:48:165:48:20

whether many of them would be able

to afford to do it anyways. But I am

5:48:205:48:23

less interested in the party

politics of this debate, and far

5:48:235:48:26

more interested in making sure taxi

drivers in my constituency across my

5:48:265:48:30

city, and across the country get a

fair hearing and deal from this

5:48:305:48:33

government.

I do need to hear from

the SNP spokesperson, so I will say

5:48:335:48:42

if you could try to keep it short

right now, at least to the six most

5:48:425:48:49

speakers.

I am pleased to speak in

favour of the reforms the stamp duty

5:48:495:48:52

for first-time buyers, and I will

get to the opposition amendment. The

5:48:525:48:55

changes to stamp duty means that 95%

of first-time buyers will pay less

5:48:555:49:00

tax, 80% will pay no tax at all, and

first-time buyers will be getting a

5:49:005:49:04

tax reduction of up to £5,000, which

will be hugely welcomed by younger

5:49:045:49:10

people in my constituency. There are

probably three reasons I support

5:49:105:49:14

this reform. The first, it is part

of a wider rebalancing of the tax

5:49:145:49:19

system towards younger people and

people who do not own a home of

5:49:195:49:22

their own. In the context, it is

worth thinking about the measures of

5:49:225:49:26

the taken in 2015 the mature form

the track statement of second homes.

5:49:265:49:33

Those reforms increased stamp duty

on the purchase of additional

5:49:335:49:36

properties, so on one hand, we have

this reform, which supports

5:49:365:49:41

first-time Bidart -- buyers, and on

the other hand, we have a set of

5:49:415:49:44

reforms which reduce the amount of

housing as an investment asset.

5:49:445:49:48

Together, these tilt the balance of

the system towards younger people

5:49:485:49:53

and first-time buyers, and there I

say they are redistributing manners,

5:49:535:49:58

I'm surprised the opposition is

opposing them, given that young

5:49:585:50:00

people are those most affected by

the failure over generations to not

5:50:005:50:05

build enough houses in the country,

it is right to tip the system

5:50:055:50:08

towards them. Earlier this debate,

the member offered the Minister a

5:50:085:50:15

suggestion for revenue rates, and I

wonder if I can do the same thing,

5:50:155:50:18

saying we should go even further in

rebalancing the tax system,

5:50:185:50:22

considering whether it is time for a

reform of the private residence

5:50:225:50:25

relief. Ministers will recall in

2013 that we changed the way the

5:50:255:50:29

exception worked to make a fair

system and some of the abuses that

5:50:295:50:33

have an under labour, and I would

encourage him to look again at this

5:50:335:50:36

issue now, particularly given the

number of other countries have

5:50:365:50:39

tighter restrictions on the

important exemption. It would come

5:50:395:50:46

the 75 antitax avoidance measures we

have already taken, which have

5:50:465:50:51

raised £160 billion for public

services. The second reason I

5:50:515:50:53

support these measures is because as

many economists have pointed out,

5:50:535:50:59

stamp duty is a fundamentally bad

tax which reduces mobility. The

5:50:595:51:03

Chancellor is obviously unable to

abolish it at this stage,

5:51:035:51:05

considering he is still in the

process of cleaning up the biggest

5:51:055:51:09

deficit in this country's history,

which disgracefully the company this

5:51:095:51:14

country was barring a quarter of all

the money spent, but we are making

5:51:145:51:17

some important progress. These

changes will and the absurd slab

5:51:175:51:24

system, which... And the £300

million tax cut. This further

5:51:245:51:29

production in STL T, this is welcome

to young people, and I hope they

5:51:295:51:35

will continue to chop away at this

bad tax. Thirdly, they can provide

5:51:355:51:40

immediate support for young people

and people who do not own their own

5:51:405:51:44

property, even as would bring about

longer-term reforms to increase

5:51:445:51:47

supply. Where I agreed with the

honourable member for Oxford East

5:51:475:51:51

was that we must have higher supply,

because since 1979, France has been

5:51:515:51:56

building twice as many houses than

this country, and as a result, their

5:51:565:52:00

house prices have gone house -- Don

up twice as fast.

Why are so many of

5:52:005:52:09

the housing measures delayed for at

least a year before coming to proper

5:52:095:52:20

implementation.

I'm afraid I am not

sure what he is driving at, but in

5:52:205:52:26

conscious of time, Mr Speaker, I

support these measures because

5:52:265:52:28

they'll provide immediate benefit,

and they are part of a wider

5:52:285:52:33

strategy to support first-time

buyers, the new lifetime eyesight,

5:52:335:52:39

which gives people a 25% bonus as a

safe deposit, and a huge support for

5:52:395:52:45

shared ownerships and new supply

measures like the housing for

5:52:455:52:48

structure fund, and a huge increase

in funding for affordable housing in

5:52:485:52:52

the 2015 spending review. Mr Deputy

Speaker, my younger constituents

5:52:525:52:55

will warmly welcome the end of stamp

duty for first-time buyers, and many

5:52:555:53:00

my older constituents's parents and

grandparents will do so as well. The

5:53:005:53:05

honourable member for Oxford East

thought -- I thought made the case

5:53:055:53:08

for her -- against her own amendment

by drawing on details already exist.

5:53:085:53:15

An estimate... They know the

significant degrees of uncertainty

5:53:155:53:23

around her. I welcome the OBR's

reform, it makes things more

5:53:235:53:27

transparent, and is right that the

OBR is cautious, because Gordon

5:53:275:53:32

Brown had fiddled the figures, and

made a disaster by doing so. They

5:53:325:53:38

are right be cautious, and the

uncertainty around these measures is

5:53:385:53:48

massive. I'm sure -- we made this

race four times more money than

5:53:485:53:55

initially thought. Even if you did

believe that all of this £5,000

5:53:555:54:02

would be entirely capitalised into

the price of the House, my

5:54:025:54:06

constituents would be £5,000 better

off as a result, which is still a

5:54:065:54:11

better dish still significant

number. Mr Debbie Speaker, I am

5:54:115:54:15

hugely glad to be supporting these

reforms today and oppose the

5:54:155:54:20

opposition's amendment.

Thank you

very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want

5:54:205:54:28

to talk to new clause ten, which is

the name of my self and my

5:54:285:54:33

honourable collies, I would like to

move the new clause on behalf of the

5:54:335:54:36

SNP. We are tight for time, I'll

just say can you just give us our

5:54:365:54:42

money back? Please, thanks. I will

expand on that a little further...

5:54:425:54:48

My party, like other supported the

SNP. However, given that the SNP

5:54:485:54:58

government Scotland was warned at

the time that is the lack of this

5:54:585:55:04

would happen, they chose to go with

it anyways, and we now have a police

5:55:045:55:07

force which the public, many

politicians, and many members of the

5:55:075:55:11

police themselves are unhappy with,

would you not be better pleading

5:55:115:55:16

with her colleagues at Holyrood to

fix the problem, rather than trying

5:55:165:55:20

to divert attention onto

something...

Order! Please. We're

5:55:205:55:27

very short on. I want to get the

leave review party,.

Thank you very

5:55:275:55:35

much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will talk

about his why we should be given the

5:55:355:55:39

rebate and why make sense this would

happen. The police and Fire

5:55:395:55:45

Departments of Scotland have been

paying an annual charge of £35

5:55:455:55:48

million a year in VAT. We repeatedly

asked for these services to be

5:55:485:55:56

excluded from the VAT, and we asked

about this 140 times, that was just

5:55:565:56:00

the SNP asking for it. Another group

of people asked for, we asked for

5:56:005:56:05

the on so many occasions and given

so many excuses why it could not be

5:56:055:56:08

done. They said there was no

justification for a refund, the

5:56:085:56:13

Chancellor himself said that under

EU law, they could not -- would not

5:56:135:56:17

be able to recover the VAT. They

said these things. That has always

5:56:175:56:22

been the case that the fair thing

for the Government to do was to give

5:56:225:56:28

police and Fire Services access to

the VAT rebate. England has that,

5:56:285:56:34

that is a national organisation,

London legacy has access to the VAT

5:56:345:56:38

rebate, that is also a national

organisation. Now suddenly, the

5:56:385:56:41

decision has been taken them at the

welcome decision to give us this

5:56:415:56:46

rebate, to put this in the place.

But nothing has changed! Nothing has

5:56:465:56:50

changed to cause this to happen. The

situation is not any different to

5:56:505:56:54

what it was three years ago. The

police and Fire Services are

5:56:545:56:57

structured exactly the same as they

were three sick -- three years ago,

5:56:575:57:00

yet somehow the Government has

decided we are now eligible for the

5:57:005:57:03

rebate and were not previously. The

only fair thing to do, and I would

5:57:035:57:09

encourage the member from Gordon to

read the amendment, because it does

5:57:095:57:12

not do but he thought it did, this

asked for a review and for the

5:57:125:57:16

Government to look at implications

of giving us the money back that our

5:57:165:57:20

police and Fire Services have

claimed.

5:57:205:57:26

This is a matter of fairness, they

should always be available to the

5:57:265:57:31

Scottish services, this money should

be available to spend it on the

5:57:315:57:34

police and our services so we can

ensure that we have the best

5:57:345:57:37

possible services so that we can do

things like tackle public-sector pay

5:57:375:57:40

gap within the services. Now, we are

asking the Government to look at the

5:57:405:57:47

consequences that would occur if the

money was retrospectively available

5:57:475:57:50

to claim back. And I would contend

that the consequences that will be

5:57:505:57:55

created is that we will be able to

spend more money on the police and

5:57:555:57:59

fire and counter the fact that it

has been reduced by the Government.

5:57:595:58:02

We could go into a situation where

things would be better for police

5:58:025:58:06

and fire in Scotland and as I said,

Mr Deputy speak her, this is a

5:58:065:58:10

matter of fairness. Nothing has

changed except the Government

5:58:105:58:16

position and give us back the money

they owed us.

Thank you Mr Deputy

5:58:165:58:24

Speaker, I would like to return to

clause seven if I may, there's been

5:58:245:58:28

a failure of successive governments

tackle the issue with the housing

5:58:285:58:31

stock, since the 1970s we have on

average built 160,000 new homes per

5:58:315:58:36

year in England. The consensus is

that we need to build between 250

5:58:365:58:41

and two under 75 more to keep

overpopulation growth and ageing

5:58:415:58:48

population and tackle yourself

undersupply. And I is why I am

5:58:485:58:50

pleased the Government is taking

steps to address this with

5:58:505:58:54

accelerated house-building resulting

and the increased supply of 270,000

5:58:545:58:56

houses the last year. Increased

demand and historic lack of supply

5:58:565:59:01

has been pushing prices up. I never

stock prices have risen by 7% since

5:59:015:59:10

9080, and this issue is not uniform.

Areas such as the Southeast has

5:59:105:59:14

suffered more than others seeing a

369% increase in prices since 2005.

5:59:145:59:19

And I see this in my own family,

with many of my young cousins, in

5:59:195:59:26

their 20s buying homes on average

salaries as their parents always did

5:59:265:59:28

before them. But this is not the

case in the southeast that other

5:59:285:59:32

parts of the country. Large price

hikes will obviously affect young

5:59:325:59:35

people more as they are typically on

lower incomes, and struggle to raise

5:59:355:59:39

the capital needed to save it about

-- deposit. When I bought my first

5:59:395:59:44

time in the 90s, around 65% of my

friends are doing the same, we just

5:59:445:59:48

earned average incomes. Now less

than 27% of 25-30 -year-olds are

5:59:485:59:54

homeowners and I would be willing to

bet that not many are in an average

5:59:545:59:59

house price of salary £20,000. And

the point was highlighted to me by

5:59:596:00:07

young couple living in my

constituency, living in high rent

6:00:076:00:11

cost unable to make substantial

savings towards a deposit. They're

6:00:116:00:16

grateful for the schemes introduced

by the Government to help them and

6:00:166:00:19

save the deposit. And changes to the

stamp duty, will also help

6:00:196:00:23

first-time buyers like my

constituents. To reduce the size of

6:00:236:00:26

the savings they need to cover the

costs of having a home. There were

6:00:266:00:31

no longer pay stamp duty for

properties up to a threshold of

6:00:316:00:35

£300,000 and the cost over £3000 on

properties up to half a million.

6:00:356:00:42

This should mean 80% of first-time

buyers will pay no stamp duty at

6:00:426:00:46

all, and this policy removes a

barrier one of the barriers, and

6:00:466:00:52

helps people take have an

opportunity to do to reach a dream

6:00:526:00:54

that many achieved in the 20s and

30s.

Deputy Speaker I would like to

6:00:546:01:03

speak to new clause two in my name

and that of the, my colleague, and a

6:01:036:01:10

few words about amendment 13 of 14,

which is a technical point of some

6:01:106:01:15

importance raised by my colleague

who regrets he cannot be here. Under

6:01:156:01:22

the new class, we have asked the

budget responsibility to produce a

6:01:226:01:32

estimate of the yield it can be

obtained from a penny in the pound

6:01:326:01:37

on income tax at 1% increase in the

standard higher and dividend rate.

6:01:376:01:45

We are doing this not to give the

Treasury computer some exercise I'm

6:01:456:01:49

sure it gets plenty, but to produce

an estimate which we can subscribe

6:01:496:01:52

to of the revenue base that would

exist for an earmarked tax to

6:01:526:02:02

financial the health service. This

is not to have that debate, but I

6:02:026:02:06

want to raise the basic principle of

how the Treasury might finance it.

6:02:066:02:12

We can go back to the middle of

Laster, when the chief executive of

6:02:126:02:17

NHS England produced an estimate of

roughly six billion and required to

6:02:176:02:21

keep the NHS sustainable footing and

avoid a serious winter crisis. About

6:02:216:02:28

4 billion for the NHS itself and 2

billion for the social through local

6:02:286:02:32

councils. Now in the event the

Treasury and the budget came up with

6:02:326:02:40

2 billion roughly, arguments about

how much was real, let's say 2

6:02:406:02:45

billion, we had the winter crisis

anyway and has been discussed many

6:02:456:02:48

cases here, the law probably weights

and elderly people waiting in

6:02:486:02:55

hospitals for placements, the stress

on staff, and we hope that's over.

6:02:556:03:00

We cannot be certain, but the issue

I want to raise is how we prevent

6:03:006:03:05

this happening in the next financial

year. The proposal that we have an

6:03:056:03:14

allocation of revenue of a small

increase in income tax, comes from a

6:03:146:03:18

commission which my party set up

consisting, not just to support us,

6:03:186:03:23

but lots of independent people with

authority and NHS, the former chief

6:03:236:03:27

executive of NHS England. The former

chief executive of the Patients'

6:03:276:03:34

Association of the Royal College of

nurses, former chair of Royal

6:03:346:03:41

College of General practitioners,

amongst others of similar status.

6:03:416:03:42

And they argued that the only

sensible practical way now of

6:03:426:03:47

preventing this endless recurring

financial crisis and the health

6:03:476:03:53

service is to have a dedicated

source of tax revenue. Now

6:03:536:03:57

traditional there have been two

objections to this, one was that

6:03:576:04:00

public opinion, they do not like

higher taxes. But the survey from a

6:04:006:04:09

Skype poll suggest that people were

confident that the money would be

6:04:096:04:13

allocated about 70% would support an

income tax increase of this kind and

6:04:136:04:18

other polls suggest the same. The

second objection is a traditional

6:04:186:04:23

treasury objection that this makes

public spending and taxation more

6:04:236:04:27

difficult to manage. I would cite as

a counter to that, the recent

6:04:276:04:33

comments of the Bible -- former head

of the Treasury, who presided over

6:04:336:04:38

the Treasury in the five years when

I was in the coalition government.

6:04:386:04:42

Massively impressive a man, I

confess we did not always agree, he

6:04:426:04:47

tended to regard public spending as

some kind of disease, but

6:04:476:04:52

nonetheless, a very authoritative

source and he appears now to have

6:04:526:04:56

been converted to the idea that this

is the only way in which the NHS can

6:04:566:05:00

be put on a properly sustainable

footing. By looking ahead to the

6:05:006:05:05

next financial year, which is what

we are asking the Government to do,

6:05:056:05:08

the question is how are we going to

avoid the kind of problems we have

6:05:086:05:12

this year. Well one is that the

Government will simply muddle

6:05:126:05:16

through and its current spending

assumptions probably in the next

6:05:166:05:20

budget in the autumn, the

Chancellor, but another rabbit out

6:05:206:05:25

of the House, the other alternative

of course is hope that there is some

6:05:256:05:29

kind of advance payment of the

Brexit dividend, and I think we're

6:05:296:05:33

familiar with those arguments around

the 300 million a week that was

6:05:336:05:38

supposed to come back. I think 18

billion a year, that we have been

6:05:386:05:43

promised. I think we now know that

this is almost entirely phoney and

6:05:436:05:48

cannot be relied upon, of course it

was at a gross estimate, we know we

6:05:486:05:53

are paying out at least 40 billion

and continued annual payments

6:05:536:05:57

throughout the transition period.

Possibly additional payments on top

6:05:576:06:00

of that. And even on it fairly

charitable view, were talking about

6:06:006:06:05

five or six years before there is

any dividend and even that depends

6:06:056:06:09

on a continued constant rate of

growth, and if growth slows down, as

6:06:096:06:15

it certainly will post Brexit, this

dividend may not appear. Simply

6:06:156:06:19

cannot rely on the Brexit dividend,

and get past finance it, some new

6:06:196:06:25

mechanism needs to be found and this

is the purpose of our amendment to

6:06:256:06:29

open up that discussion. I do not

propose to move the amendment to a

6:06:296:06:34

division, but I would be interested

in getting the Treasury view on how

6:06:346:06:37

they currently regard to taxation,

whether they're thinking has

6:06:376:06:41

advanced in any way. I would like to

say a few words and support of my

6:06:416:06:46

colleague, one of whose constituents

has raised a substantial point

6:06:466:06:55

around a revenue proposal, and the

finance bill which relates to

6:06:556:06:58

dormant companies and their pension

funds. The proposal which the

6:06:586:07:03

revenue is making is that these

should be this owned and

6:07:036:07:07

deregistered when they have become

dormant. The reasoning behind this

6:07:076:07:12

is sensible, that some of these

funds have been used for scams, add

6:07:126:07:19

to the cost of the public, and

indeed and the revenue. And they

6:07:196:07:25

propose that effectively the

register them when that happens. Now

6:07:256:07:32

my colleague's constituent points

out that there are some unintended

6:07:326:07:35

consequences of this proposal. One

of which is there are quite a lot of

6:07:356:07:43

cases where there are dormant

companies, but where they have had

6:07:436:07:47

their pensions taken over by other

companies and other cases where a

6:07:476:07:52

company, a sponsoring company may be

dormant, but the trustees have kept

6:07:526:07:56

it going on a pay and basis, and

further sustainable. The other

6:07:566:08:06

aspect of the amendment, which

causes a potential problem, is that

6:08:066:08:10

these registration could happen

after one month of a closer. A good

6:08:106:08:16

example recently would be Monarch

Airlines, but as we all know, it

6:08:166:08:19

takes a lot more than a month to

wind up the pension scheme, so this

6:08:196:08:22

is a bit... I recognise and they

recognise that this is a

6:08:226:08:31

discretionary revenue, and it may be

that the Minister will say we should

6:08:316:08:36

trust the revenue to trust to get it

right. It menu bar sensible of the

6:08:366:08:40

cinema suggest, to have a car about

to do cases that do not follow

6:08:406:08:48

within it, and the purpose of the of

them it is to suggest that the

6:08:486:08:53

activities of the registration

should be restricted to the Lasix

6:08:536:08:55

just because that is when the scams

occurred and we do not need to go

6:08:556:09:00

into history. This should

specifically be a carveout for cases

6:09:006:09:04

when there may have well been a

succession of it pension fund, and a

6:09:046:09:11

provision providing for that that

there should be at least one dormant

6:09:116:09:13

employer. And there should be a

two-year period allowed for pension

6:09:136:09:20

funds that have been maintained for

some time and viable. I don't

6:09:206:09:29

pretend my colleague does not

pretend that these necessarily are

6:09:296:09:31

perfect solutions to the problem,

but I just ask that the Treasury

6:09:316:09:35

Minister would look at the issue

here and reflect on it and come up

6:09:356:09:43

with a better solution. Thank you Mr

Deputy Speaker.

Thank you Mr Deputy

6:09:436:09:51

Speaker, and given the limited time

that we have, I will intend to focus

6:09:516:09:56

most of my remarks on those

amendments and new clauses that have

6:09:566:10:01

been spoken to in this debate if I

may begin with new plus eight and

6:10:016:10:05

seven. Seeking reviews of the

operation are the exemption first

6:10:056:10:12

time buyers. Housing Mr Deputy

Speaker, as we know is one of the

6:10:126:10:19

great challenges of our age. And I

think we all recognise as certainly

6:10:196:10:24

have in this debate the importance

of supply side which is why the

6:10:246:10:29

Chancellor, my right data from the

Chancellor which I am delighted to

6:10:296:10:32

see is on the Treasury bench as I

speak made such an important

6:10:326:10:35

announcement about funding, for more

housing going forward that we look

6:10:356:10:41

at 300,000 new build homes in the

next decade. The point has been made

6:10:416:10:49

that they have suggested that prices

may increase by 20% as a result of

6:10:496:10:56

the measures, but a point I will

make is that that is an observation

6:10:566:11:00

based on the measure love. Does not

take into account the supply-side

6:11:006:11:05

measures that we are introducing.

Turning now Mr Deputy Speaker to

6:11:056:11:12

amendment ten, 11, 12 relating to

taxes and supplement. I give way to

6:11:126:11:20

my right honourable friend.

Thank

you for giving way, I would like to

6:11:206:11:25

make a suggestion on the MM and he

talks about, concerns

6:11:256:11:36

This would make all taxis exempt

this year rather than just the new

6:11:366:11:42

electric capable vehicles. As my

right honourable friend knows from

6:11:426:11:44

our discussions on taxis, we have

serious concerns about air quality

6:11:446:11:49

in the capital, and for him to

project his view on whether it is

6:11:496:11:54

better to bring forth... Please, do

not try to make a speech on

6:11:546:12:08

intervention.

Thank you, Mr Deputy

Speaker. In response... On on behalf

6:12:086:12:19

of my constituency, we look very

careful at proposals to bring

6:12:196:12:23

forward our electric vehicles.

He

talks a bring forward this

6:12:236:12:28

exception, the important thing is

with we look forward up -- look to

6:12:286:12:31

bring it forward, we should look

solely at the element that relates

6:12:316:12:37

to low emission vehicles, rather

than to all taxis as the amendments

6:12:376:12:42

do, as put forward by it the member

up from Belford North. What I can

6:12:426:12:47

say is having listened to the

representations from my honourable

6:12:476:12:50

friends who have just intervened and

the one who has before this -- these

6:12:506:12:57

amendments, we must simple -- the

pathetically looked forward -- look

6:12:576:13:03

at the issue... Bring forward the

exception that the one year, and I

6:13:036:13:09

know that my honourable friend, the

exchequer secretary, will surely be

6:13:096:13:13

meeting with the London taxi

company, and he will be furthering

6:13:136:13:18

those discussions with them. In the

one minute remaining, Mr Deputy

6:13:186:13:22

Speaker, perhaps I could turn to new

clause ten, calling for a few of the

6:13:226:13:28

consequences of not backdating the

refund of the VAT and response of

6:13:286:13:36

Scottish Fire And Rescue Services,

the Chancellor made it clear in the

6:13:366:13:39

budget that going forward after

lobbying particularly from our

6:13:396:13:44

conservative colleagues on the side

of the House, we would be allowing

6:13:446:13:47

such refunds going forward. The

Scottish Government in 2012, when

6:13:476:13:51

they entered into the arrangements

they made then, did so knowing the

6:13:516:13:55

consequences of those actions, but

we are taking action going forward.

6:13:556:14:01

Finally in respect of the

contributions from the honourable

6:14:016:14:05

men -- gentlemen, I will give way

shortly, I understand his desire to

6:14:056:14:12

have information on the effects of

increases of income taxed by 1%.

6:14:126:14:18

There is actually no need for that

now as there is information, time

6:14:186:14:23

does not allow me to explain, but I

will speak to him after this debate

6:14:236:14:27

about it. On that basis, I hope you

will withdraw his amendment, and I

6:14:276:14:31

also take aboard his comments about

dormant companies and pension fund

6:14:316:14:39

arrangements. But we have to look to

HMR seats to take those steps to

6:14:396:14:44

make sure the scams are prevented.

Thank you.

We have no time left...

6:14:446:14:52

The question is that clause seven be

reread. As many as are of the

6:14:526:15:00

opinion, say "aye". To the contrary,

"no".

6:15:006:15:12

The question is that the new clause

seven be reread. As many as are of

6:16:476:16:53

the opinion, say "aye". To the

contrary, "no". Nick Smith for the

6:16:536:16:57

noes.

6:16:576:17:07

Open doors!

6:23:076:23:17

Order! Order. The ayes to the right,

228. The noes to the left, 305.

6:28:436:29:05

Thank you Tom. The ayes to the

right, 128. Order. If you do not

6:29:056:29:15

want to hear the result, I do. The

ayes to the right, 228, the noes,

6:29:156:29:23

305, the noes have it. Unlock. We

now come to new clause ten which is

6:29:236:29:32

formally. The question is new plus

ten to the Bill, As many as are of

6:29:326:29:40

the opinion, say "aye". To the

contrary, "no".. Clear the lobbies.

6:29:406:29:54

Order! The question is not new

clause can be added to the Bill as

6:32:096:32:18

many of that opinion at ayes. The

contrary noes. The tallies for the

6:32:186:32:24

ayes are Brendan and cried. -- Greg.

6:32:246:32:32

Closed doors.

6:37:506:37:56

Order! Order! The ayes to the right,

to 52. A note to the left, 305.

6:42:146:42:31

The ayes to the right, 252, the noes

to the left, that noes have it.

6:42:366:42:44

Unlock. We now come to amendment six

to move formally. The question is it

6:42:446:42:59

be made. As many as are of the

opinion, say "aye".. The contrary

6:42:596:43:02

know. The ayes habit. The question

is that amendment can be made. As

6:43:026:43:11

many as are of the opinion, say

"aye". To the contrary, "no".

6:43:116:43:25

The question is that amendment had

be made. As many as are of the

6:44:016:44:04

opinion, say "aye". To the contrary,

"no". For the noes, I have George

6:44:046:44:12

and Greg.

6:44:126:44:22

Live coverage of the day's proceedings in the House of Commons including a statement from Jeremy Hunt on a review of medical devices safety, Ten Minute Rule Bill on shared parental leave and the remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.


Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS