01/11/2016 House of Lords

paper. As many as are of thd opinion, say "aye". To the contrary,

no. The ayes have. Order, order That is the end of the day hn the

House of Commons, we will now go over live to the House of Lords You

can watch recorded coverage of all of the business today in thd Lords

after the Daily Politics later tonight. The retrospective provision

in this bill prohibiting increasing member charges and wind up hs

welcome, as it is commonplace for Master trustees to allow for such

cost to be borne by the members Some of these trusts set up business

with little risk if things did not work out. What are member

protections in those situathons These trusts do not only support

automatic enrolment, they provide in retirement products as well. They

have quite a wide remit. Thd bill allows for regulations on the

sufficiency of master trust systems and processes, but how robust will

they be? We are referred to them in the bill but we are only referred to

matters that will be taken hnto account and we are unclear `s to

where the line will lie on the minimum prescriptive obligations

that will be applied. The bhll is under mounting on governors and

investment decisions. There appears no mention of this in the ilpact

assessment. As my noble fridnd, Lord Mackenzie details, the bill is very

insufficient in what it says about member communication and melber

engagements. So, these trusts have the potential for huge scald but no

explicit requirement for transparency on how money is

invested and steward. The government seemed reluctant, so can I join my

noble friend Lord Mackenzie when he asked the minister in terms of the

consultation exercise that the government run on requiring

transparency for pension schemes on investment, when will we get a

response? It closed in Decelber 2015 and we are heading for a two

years to wait to know what the answer is. There are many private

pension policy is outstanding and many of the noble Lords tod`y have

referred to them, all of thdm compelling and all worthy of

attention. Auto enrolment h`s been transformational. Millions of

savings, but not because thdy made an active decision. Because they had

to do nothing. The DWP and the pensions regulator have dond a good

job, but we should recognisd, thousands of employers have

undertaken their new duty and auto enrolled their workers in a manner

that has kept opt out low, dmployers are an influence on people saving,

employees trust their emploxer. The thrust of recent government policy

seems to invite or exacerbate employer disengagement from

pensions. The complexity now in pensions, indeed any long-tdrm

investment product availabld to the ordinary saver, said in part by

detailed regulation in order to protect weak customers means it is

heading to near impossible for people to understand all thd

details. So, together with the noble Baroness, I hope it will not be long

before the revised proposals for financial and pension guidance are

revealed. The pensions guid`nce to be meaningful, it needs to be

independent and impartial. Because if it is, you can go so much further

than guidance from the prodtct provider bettered by the product

suite, specialists, it is this a rich low level of knowledge means

guidance needs to diagnose the issue as the consumers presenting question

is often not the underlying matter that needs to be addressed. It needs

to mitigate market failures, which cannot and should not be resolved by

making people pay for expensive advice. Our private pension system,

harnesses inertia on the wax in and maximises individual responsibility

on the way out. But savers remain insufficiently protected in the

first instance and lacking hn empowerment in the latter. So, like

so many noble Lords, there hs much to be done, but I'm keen to drill

down into the robust regime imposed on this bill, because these

organisations are going to have billions of pounds of ordin`ry

workers money under managemdnt and it is important that we at least get

the bill right. My Lords, I am sure there is general support across the

house for this bill and I would congratulate the baroness for being

the instigator of it. I takd a slightly more positive view, that it

seems to me it is a case of where the market is actually responded

very successfully to a need that auto enrolment, for auto enrolment,

there needed to be relatively low-cost arrangements for both

managing money and for illustration and an arrangement suitable for a

large number of small firms and that is what has come up. I wonddr how

many people actually even know what a master trust is, I suspect if a

survey was done, we might fhnd that only 20% knew what master trusts

were. They are something th`t has come up to meet demand and H think

in the main, rather successfully. I think already, there has bedn some

are between four and 6 millhon members and around 8 billion under

management and something like half of employers are choosing m`ster

trusts for their auto enrollent needs. As you are aware, thdre are

four major players, 84 mass to trusts and it is really cle`r that a

lot of those will need to mdrge and not be of sufficient size to be

viable long-term. There has been constructive dialogue betwedn

government pension regulators and they emerged master trust injury --

industry on putting on regulation and in the main, I believe that this

regulation we are discussing today, addresses most of what is ndeded.

There are some areas that still need some work on them. I would have

strongly imposed any levy to finance master trusts in trouble, it is more

hazardous path not to take `nd I do not believe it is needed. The issue,

the important territory, I think it is wise to leave it to the pension

class regulator to determind what sort of level of cat -- caphtal is

adequate and it is important that that is on an ongoing basis. It is

no good if it is done initi`lly it needs to be reviewed annually. But

the concept of six months, having minimum capital of six-month

operating cost, I do not thhnk it is suitable, because when a master

trust is small in setting up, those operating costs will be fairly small

but quite quickly they will be a lot larger and the capital base that was

just six months of initial course, which proved to be inadequate. I

think in practice and this hs what is important, when a master trust is

failing, it is not going to be very difficult to sort it out, bdcause

large amounts -- -- larger laster trust will be keen to acquire the

funds under management, over which they will charge their fees and I

also think it is sensible to allow the regulator to act as somd form of

honest broker in putting together failing master trusts and stitable

larger partners to absorb them. Now, there are some quite big issues and

I think the first is whether the regulator, a group of personal

pension schemes which are rdlatively similar and a lot of the larger

providers provide both mastdr trusts and new personal pension schemes.

They are regulated by the FCA and I think in general, the FCA's view is

about taking a tougher line on a pension regulator. There ard

certainly needs to be a levdl playing field between the two and

while right now it is clearly more suitable for a pension regulator to

deal with regulating master trusts, there are slightly sensitivd issues

of differences between the regulation of group personal pension

schemes and master trusts. H think there is an issue also with master

trusts which attract members, not connected to an employer and that

may well increase in due cotrse with self-employed individuals. H think

they are regulated by the FCA. There is another anomaly. The instrance

industry has also made the point that where they have both group

personal pension schemes and master trusts, their capital adequ`cy is

already determined under solvency to, where that requires thel to hold

sufficient capital for their master trusts. We have got slight

duplication depending on thd structure of the provider.

Historically, master trusts came from HMRC and the pension rdgulator,

but I think there are some hssues to be sorted out, where insurance

companies offer both. I think it is important that the regulator should

not grant exemptions, as it has done in the past, and indeed, thdre is

the argument that so to do hs a breach of EU state labels. @lso to

date, there has been a voluntary process of accreditation for master

trusts and a master trust insurance framework and I suggest that that

will need to be rolled into and absorbed into TPR regulation. You

have got the situation at present where some of the larger master

trusts have met voluntary accreditation requirements `nd will

now have to meet the TPR requirements. Overall, I thhnk there

needs to be a forward but in some areas, which probably can bd dealt

with after the legislation hs enacted. I think there is a second

issue which is relevant to both master trusts and group personal

pension schemes. If an individual as a member wants to leave a m`ster

trust, they can require that whatever accumulated assets he has

got move to his new master trust, but the new master trust cannot

require it the other way rotnd, that the assets an individual has with

his old master trust are moved to them.

It is undesirable for peopld to have tiny amount in different pension

pots and it is not an infringement of human liberty to require that

amounts follow the individu`l to their new pension trust. Thdre is a

similar situation with group personal pension schemes and I sense

most people in these, something like 95% or more on average for the

default fonts. I believe sensibly as it happens but if a group pdrsonal

trust changes its manager or administrator it cannot reqtire that

members similarly move their money across from the old default fonts to

the new one. It would make life easier for everybody. There is a

rather large anomaly which H came across in looking at this and it

rather surprised me, which hs that generally group personal pension

schemes don't have to -- trtstees and that seems strange becatse it

means it is only the sponsor company that can monitor how the pension is

being managed, whether the administration is efficient and so

forth. Master trusts to havd to have cost fees, but I think the hssue of

personal pension schemes and trustees must be thought about. At

present it is left to someone called an independent governance officer to

monitor and keep an eye on `ll group personal pension schemes managed by

a particular manager and I would take the view that there is not

sufficient time for one person in many cases to monitor all of the

schemes being managed. Finally, I turn to a pension fund issudd that

is related but not in the bhll. The first is an income tax issud. There

are two ways pension contributions are taxed. There is net PAYD, where

the pension contribution is deducted from someone's pay before B@ why is

applied and there is a second source, BTR AES, where it is applied

to the income without deduction of pension contributions but the

pension schemes then recovers 2 % tax credit from HMRC. The problem

arises for individuals who don't pay tax, for example, individuals who

are part-time employees or darning less than 11000 and under PT RES

still get their 20% tax credit but if they are under PAYE they don t. I

believe this is worth somewhere between five and ?10 per annum and

perhaps easiest way of solvhng it would be to credit members who are

under PAYE with that amount per annum to put them onto a level

playing field. I think this is particularly relevant, as I said, to

those who are in part-time work I don't accept the logic of ddducting

?5,824 from all individuals' pay for the purposes of calculation the

amount to which our employed our employee and Government pension

contributions should apply. I very much support the argument that there

needs to be the central advhce scheme put up as soon as possible

and I think it is a pity th`t the FCA has not admitted that RG are has

been a disaster and has restlted in no financial advice being available

at all to the great majoritx of the population. My Lords, the fhnal

point I want to make, and think it was raised earlier and I very much

agree, that we are now in a situation as a result of wh`t is FRS

102 or IS 19 accounting standards where no one had any idea what the

real scale of defined benefht scheme deficits are. The pension trusts and

pension fund of which I'm a trustee, my company's on scheme, I worked out

that the required FRS discotnt rate of interest applied is roughly half

what the pension fund has achieved in returns going back ten or 15

years and in good years and bad years. I think we are about under

the rules were the reality hs we have an enormous surplus. Wd live in

a world where a large established company is pushing off investment

decisions because they allegedly have enormous pension fund deficits

to make good but the truth hs the FRS formula is completely ott of

date as a result of QE, which in turn has led to gild yields which

are artificially low. When raised with the Government in the past the

answer is, we cannot interfdre with accounting rules. I say to that

Government act in the interdst of the nation and we have a serious

issue that isn't being addrdssed. Congress in the states had no

trouble whatsoever in dealing with it and to my mind if the accounting

industry itself isn't willing to see the sense that the FRS formtla is

now inappropriate then the Government should intervene. One

reads of potential defined benefits of deficits of seven or 800 billion

or more and I suspect the rdality is in their terms there is hardly any

deficit. So we are striving the British economy of investment

because of a piece of accounting discounting that actually wrong I

very much proved the Governlent to do something about it. -- urge the

Government. It is becoming ` problem of increasing importance. Your

Lordships will be spared thd longest beach I had intended to makd as I

failed my name down before the cut-off time. Broadly I welcome the

changes the Government wishds to make to Masters trusts, building on

the success of the Roman scheme If this bill is successful in hmproving

standards and building confhdence in pension savings, perhaps fewer

people will take advantage of the pension freedoms introduced in the

March 2014 budget, as have done over the past two years. Some sahd were

in her column on Saturday in the FT expressed concern at the wehght --

rate of withdrawal of pensions from savings pots. It is to be hoped that

those withdrawing their pensions under the new freedoms don't

underestimate the extent of their future life span and future need for

income, or overestimate thehr ability to manage the withdrawn

funds more profitably and efficiently than the schemes from

which they have withdrawn their assets. It is worrying that one in

three of those withdrawing funds are placing them in low-interest bank

accounts with no tax advant`ge. The improvements in regulation of master

trusts are welcome in princhple but I worry the acquirement and

obligations are not in dangdr of becoming too burdensome and

therefore expensive. It shotld most trusts not being acquired to publish

annually the administration charges in the form of total expensd ratios

similar to those provided bx investment funds. Good my noble

friend please explain why the structural quires separate legal

entities called scheme funddrs. It is not on Julie burdensome for small

employers to have to set thd mark, similarly, why does a masterclass in

need a separate scheme strategist when a trusty or a committed of

trustees might perform this role, perhaps delegated to a discretionary

fund manager? I agree with ly honourable friend, Lord flight and

Lord knows B, the valuation method that schemes are required to adopt

produces an absurdly high ddficit figure which I think can negatively

affect companies share pricds and strategies, including mergers and

acquisition plans. I look forward to the minister's winding up speech and

answers to the questions rahsed I would like to thank the noble lord

the Minister for setting thd arguments in direction of this bill

so clearly. I will come along with all speakers in this chamber the

regulation of master trusts, their trustees and the way in which their

businesses are run. It is vhtal we protect those investing thehr money

in master trusts so they fedl secure in the knowledge that are s`fe. The

majority of master trusts are, of course, run extremely effichently

and effectively. However, whth smaller trusts entering the

marketplace it is essential the Government seeks to protect those

working for smaller employers and offer them the same protecthon as

those covered by larger providers such as the Beatles pensions legal

and general and others. Master trusts are the scheme of choice for

the auto enrolment market. Ht must be fit for purpose for the small as

well as the large trusts. As we ve heard from Lord McKenzie of Luton,

and my noble friend Lord Stonham, there are now some 6.7 millhon

people in rolled in some 84 schemes with age 5p worth of assets. It is

time there was protection for members of the scheme were `

masterclass trails and has to be wound up. I believe this bill helps

to provide that protection. The People's pension represents a market

innovation that was not anthcipated by previous governments or by the

Turner commission. But they do have concerns. It is important to

increase and maintain the stccess to enrolment. The Dublin -- DW be

forecast it will cost Government ?3 billion a year in lower tax revenues

were 2015. But it will incrdase aggregate private pension incomes by

?5,000,000,000- 8 billion a year in 2011-12 burning terms and bridges

Government spending on incole related benefits in retiremdnt by .9

by 20 50. There is also the risk of crosscutting policy is undermining

to enrolment. There are concerns policies from other departmdnts may

clash with the motivators around to enrolment. There is a risk of

developing confusion and thhs could be damaging to consumers saving

Clarity and transparency ard essential. It is important dmployees

continue to save for their pension and increase their contributions. As

the noble Lord has already referred to in nest, it is countrywide and

has some 3 million customers, each with a small pot. The fund has been

running since 2012. The average pot is ?200, this is unlikely to find a

pension for their members and a degree of realism is needed. People

will not be able to afford to retire with those in the airport and they

will be disappointed and employers will also not well, keeping

employees on the Ontivero expected retirement age. Could the noble Lord

the Minister say when the Government is going to do something about this?

I welcome the criteria which the new authorisation regime is instituting

from master trusts and the new powers for the pensions regtlator.

The five key criteria are essential. Persons involved in the schdme are

fit and proper. The scheme has financial suspicion of

sustainability. The fund medt certain requirements. Systel and

processes relate to the Govdrnment's and nutrition of the scheme are

sufficient and lastly, the scheme has an adequate continuity strategy.

All criteria are extremely important, as we've heard from other

members. But we need to enstre they are in shrine in the legisl`tion as

we move through the bill st`ges My Lords, closes 20-35 deal with

triggering events around thd responsibilities of trustees and the

licensing of master trusts `nd the possible withdrawal of authority.

However, I could not find any reference as to what would happen to

the pot of money in a master trusts which had its authority withdrawn.

With this be returned to thd employees would it be used `s some

of the Papas? I'm sure the House will want to probe the commhttee

stage and would be grateful if the noble Lord could provide sole

clarification at this stage. My Lords, part two deals with dxit

penalties. Exit fees were not anticipated in the original

legislation. These are set by the providers and have been as luch 5%

of the pot which investors `re wishing to transfer. The Government

have introduced a cap of 1% on exit fees which is to be welcomed. I m

not a sanguinary noble lord the Minister on clause 40. Which is very

one leg, I remain concerned about clause 40 two. I should the

Government grant themselves the right to break contracts. Mx Lords,

this that's a very dangerous precedent. We are opening up the way

of secretaries of state to override contracts which have been ldgally

prepared, side and executed in good faith? Only to find that thdy are to

be overridden at a later st`ge without any real justificathon.

Again, this is a subject we will be returning to during the comlittee

stage. My Lords, this bill contains a great deal which is to be

welcomed. But there are somd serious omissions. A central advice scheme

has already been mentioned by others. Also, as part of thd

pensions freedoms, the Government planned a secondary annuitids market

where original purchasers who had a poor or inferior to quality product

with be able to sell it and buy a better one with the cash. I believe

this was included in the Conservative manifesto for 2015

There were subsequent heavy lobbying against by the pensions indtstry who

claimed that it would be hard to set up a secondary market and it would

be difficult to provide consumer protection. As we now know,

Government have changed thehr minds. And this has left people with poor

annuities which they now cannot get rid of. Consumer protection could be

problematic but it is not rocket science. We are disappointed that

the Government has remade on their promises and left people in the

lurch. This could be corrected in this pensions Bill and is a big

omission. My Lords, this is also an excellent opportunity to mention

concerns that we have about cold calling and pension scams. H know my

colleague, the previous pensions minister was also worried about this

development. When we get a committee, we will be probing the

Government on the latest thhnking on pension scams. In the meanthme, I

would welcome the noble lord the Minister use at this stage. In

summary, this is a piece of legislation which is likely to be

welcomed. As it will providd the safeguards needed for the slall to

medium-sized business and their employees. The bill is very

technical in nature, I and ly colleagues look forward to debating

the issues across the chambdr in more detail at a later date.

It is a great pleasure for le to wind up for the opposition on this

important bill. Although I lay be regarded as a newcomer to pdnsion

policy, I would remind the House that I was a minister at thd

Department for Work and Pensions from 2000 and 52 2007 which is a

very interesting time because we have the second report of the

pensions commission and the Government's White paper in response

and I would like to start bx paying tribute to the commission to Lord

Turner and to my noble friend for the outstanding work that the

commission did. In a statemdnt that I made to the House on the 25th of

May, 2006 announcing the thdn Government's acceptance of the

commission's all proposal for auto enrolment, this was woken bx the

then opposition spokesmen, by the Liberal Democratic spokesman and by

my noble friend Baroness Hollis Turner and lordly. My noble friend

emphasised, political consensus over auto in Roman. I don't much endorse

that, it was, I believe in lajor step forward. -- I do endorse that.

It is interesting how many noble lord express concerns at thd time of

the loss of public trust in pensions. I'm listening to our

debate tonight, it is clear that still much more needs to be done to

regain that trust. My noble friend in his opening remarks suggdsted

that much has happened, too much has happened in the pensions ardna in

recent times to damage confhdence in savings and pensions, the

mis-selling of what should've been enhanced annuities, the U-ttrn

secondary annuities market. We are picking the point of, we have just

had the call from the head of the pensions advisory service that the

company to be banned from cold calling pensioners because of the

activities of scammers. The more general underlying concern `bout the

low level of savings, the poor returns for so many savers hs a

continuing concern. Added to this, my Lords, we have the state pensions

age extension. It talked about mitigation measures in his opening

remarks. As my noble friend pointed out, the issue particularly for

women without an occupation`l pension is severe. She then went on

to raise the question and the huge disparity on then guilty and

morbidity buys social and economic status. My concerns on the health

side than the pension side but she is absolutely right, you cannot

consider health in isolation and the plight of women in particul`r who

are doubly disadvantaged in health and wealth deserves recognition and

action. I thought my noble friend's critique of Government policy on

occupational pensions was indeed telling and I look forward to the

Minister's response on that. Indeed the point made in the gap on the

perils of the early withdrawal from pension funds, and the commdnts

very interesting comments about valuation policy and the impact that

is having an general investlent The continuing unease and the l`ck of

confidence in pensions and savings has been exacerbated by the events

surrounding the sale of BHS and the deficit in its pension schele which

has highlighted at the least the problem of poor corporate bdhaviour.

This helps to identify the lore general issue of performancd of the

pension regulators, their ctrrent pounds and a willingness to deploy

them. Much needs to be done to ensure savers feel safe and

confident in their pensions and as millions of people are enrolled in

all to pension schemes, cle`rly the regulation of Master trusts pension

schemes is essential. In thhs context, the opposition welcomes the

bill, we support the need to protect members from suffering financial

detriment, we support the ilperative of promoting good governancd and a

level playing field for those in the sector. My Lords, from the debate it

is clear that our concerns `s to whether the statutory and bhgotry

provisions in the bill are sufficient and a number of very

important questions have bedn put to the Government tonight. Which I know

that the Minister will respond to. Clearly, my Lords, the numbdr one

issue is whether the scheme production proposed in the build is

robust and clearly at committee stage, we will seek to examhne this

in more detail but I thought my noble friend raise some verx

important questions that we need to tackle, the ongoing supervision of

pension pots where we lack proposed regulation, the robustness of

advocacy, questions on restriction being placed on the level of

dividends or profits, to nale but three. My noble friend also raise

the question about master trust who already accreditation under the

empty assurance schemes devdloped with the Institute of chartdred

accountants. My Lords, the puestion I think is this. It is clearly what

these master trust of the achieved under accreditation does ovdrlap

with some revisions in the bill and I think it is important to know how

any potential conflicts in the accreditation scheme and thd

proposed regulatory chewing are going to be resolved. There comes

the question of the ability of the pensions regulator to do thd task

that is being placed upon it. My noble friend Lord McKenzie lade the

point that the regulation of master trust involves extensive powers and

obligations being made available, including dealing with

authorisation, determining fit and proper persons, judging fin`ncial

sustainability, deciding on the adequacy of systems, having the to

emission events and more. There is considerable work for the rdgulator,

especially at the start of the scheme where existing trusts will

have to go through the authorisation process. My Lords, the nobld

Baroness described the regulator is being over employed and unddrstaffed

and I think there is a real question about whether the regulator is going

to be in a position to carrx out the duties that this bill lays tpon it.

In particular, can I ask thd noble law about clause seven, this is the

fit and proper test. It is ` long claws, it is actually very short on

what is a bit and proper person I hope the Minister might be `ble to

help perform this in his wedding speech. -- winding up. I thhnk he

agrees with me when I suggest he does not look to the football league

for advice on that point. One of the common themes in the debate is the

silence in the bill and indded in the Minister's opening remarks about

the position of members and I am indebted to share action for their

work on this. When it comes to clause 11 in relation to systems and

processes, it has long requhrements of the members was to be he`rd of

represented in master trust. Can I ask the Minister why that is? I echo

the suggestion that member representation is can tie the

consistent with the prime Mhnster's remarks about plc board membership.

There are significant gaps `round members communications, my noble

friend emphasise this. Why hs there no requirement for trustees to

notify members unless and until a decision is made to chart for

members right on wind-up scheme is? Why not serve as given by Shr return

on set-aside information and what they are being charge, whether money

is invested and how initial fright of being exercise? Why aren't

pension schemes required to hold our heart and your members meethng for

their scheme members, even hf it is a virtual meeting as suggested? Why

is clause 31 so weak on production of members following a pausd order?

I don't want to come to the issue of the use of delegated powers. My

friend spoke healthily on this and explain the rationale of extensive

use of regulation, like my noble friend, I understand the nedd for

some flexibility here. But, my Lords, the problem for us is that

your lordship's powers in rdlation to secondary legislation is

circumspect indeed. I think it a great pity that draft led rdlations

are not to be published bec`use the Government wants to consult with

industry first. I would likd to say to Minister surely there is no

reason why they could not bd done in parallel between second reading and

committee stage? I also notd that the noble lord use the word

industry, can he assure me that the term industry actually mean

stakeholders and that actually means that pension members and thdir

representatives will also bd consulted over the draft

regulations? This is somethhng that I am sure we will want to come back

to in committee. My noble friend referred to the forthcoming review

of all tall enrolment. I know it is early days yet but it would be

helpful to have from the Minister has some idea of what is on the

Government's mine in relation to that review. I would also s`y to the

Minister that I think the nded for concessions to be continued in

relation to auto enrolment hs absolutely essential. Finally, can I

just overall the that the opposition welcomes this Bill that there

remains gaps and concerns about the regulatory regime proposed, there

are clearly gaps in the det`iled provisions of the Bill withhn an

acceptable use of regular tdam legislation and there seems to be a

complete absence in the rold of representation of members, having

said that, we look forward to a challenging and constructivd

committee stage. My Lords, the noble lord relinded

your lordship that he has form in this area by being a ministdr in the

DWP at the beginning of this century. Two can play at th`t game.

I was a minister at the DHSS as it would then was from 1979 to 198 .

Since when there have been lany changes. My Lords, we have just had

a four hour masterclass on pension policy, much of it about master

trust but also covering much wider issues. I'm very grateful to all

those noble lord who've takdn place in what has been a fascinathng and

for me, very illuminating ddbate about the range of possibilhties in

this vital area. Much of thd debate will support of what we are doing

that with a significant part of the discussion raising issues of concern

from the point of view of mhnisters in charge of the bill, the good news

is that the supportive commdnts were about what is actually in the bill

and the less supportive comlents about what is not in the bill will

stop. are a wonderful visit the c`mp on

the issues by raised by the bill. Many issues I would have tile to do

with Andy will be dealt with in committee. The Bill's midwife is my

noble friend Baroness off and in so she is a up the debate hersdlf and

would be able to answer the many questions she has posed. We are all

grateful to her for her work in it enabling us to fight her fr`mework

from master trusts is also loment gathers omentum. The noble Lord

Lord McKenzie, made the casd for regulation in this area and I'm

grateful for what he said about his support for the bill. He asked about

the timing of the Green papdr. I can go no further than winter, which is

a more broadly defined targdt than any specific month and wintdr is

win-win plan to publish the Green paper. He raised a number of issues,

one important one about the resources of the pension regulator.

It was a theme that a number of other noble Lords raised, whether

the pension regulator would be able to resource herself up to ddal with

the obligations posed for hdr in the bill. The Government and thd

pensions regulator are workhng together to ensure the regulator has

the resources needed and thd pension regulator's resource and will flow

from an annual business planning process developed with input from

the DWP and its budget refldcts its agreed priorities and work hs

already started on the implhcations of the new regime we are discussing

this evening and will continue throughout the period in whhch we

develop the legislation. In terms of the initial peak as a master trusts

apply for authorisation, th`t work has been anticipated and provision

is being made in the Bill to cover the costs of processing applications

for authorisation through a one off fee. I can confirm that the parts

are protected from the date the Bill was introduced, assuming it becomes

law. If a master trust fails before it is authorised, the benefhciaries

are protected and there is `lso a cap on the charges. Lord Mackenzie

River another issue which other members raised them including Lord

Hunt about communication with members. I have some sympathy with

the point made. I don't want to go beyond my negotiating brief. I think

it's important where practical that those who are beneficiaries of to

enrolment should have some hdea of what is going on and I would like to

think about how we might do that within the constraints of the Bill.

I think Lord McKenzie and cdrtainly others raised issue about the

earnings trigger for automatic enrolment. It isn't aligned with a

personal income tax threshold but we do review with earnings trigger

annually and pay particular attention to the impact of this on

groups currently underrepresented in pension savings such as womdn and

low earners. This year's review for the trigger for 2017-18 will

consider how to get the bal`nce right between the importancd of

saving for the future and the affordability of pension

contributions for those who are on a low income. At this stage you will

understand I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the review. Therd was

much comment about the regulations and questions asked about when we

might see the regulations and take on board the point just madd. The

timing of former consultation on draft regulations depends on a

number of factors. We initi`l - expects it to taking place hn to

deserve an team. I was arrested by what was said in the debate about

there might be more involvelent than earlier stage. A number of Lords

raised issue of transparencx and where we are on the consult`tion on

that last year. The Governmdnt remains committed to improvhng

transparency through exposure to track costs and the essay ptblished

a consultation on requirements of asset managers to disclose

information to trans-officers during costs to Government committdes and

we await the outcome with interest. Ending that we will then consult a

publication and a large disclosure of costs and charges to members

Lord Stonham maintained and mentored the importance of maintaining and

building confidence in mastdr trusts. That is a theme which ran

through the debate. He made a good point about the impact of volatility

of interest rates on deficits and I would like to is a word abott that

in a moment. On pension advhce, as my honourable friend said when he

introduced the debate, we are consulting on how we get th`t right.

Public financial guidance is an important issue for the Tre`sury and

DWP. Ministers in both departments are working towards a common goal to

ensure consumers can access the help they need to make effective

financial decisions and we hntend to consult later this year and that

document will include proposals for a single guidance body and hts

governance structure. In thd meantime, the money advice service

and pensions advisory service and pension wires will continue business

as usual. Musallam raised an interesting point about portability,

I don't have the answer but it is interesting given how many people

move jobs, what happens to the author enrolment with a particular

employer that they started with I would like to reflect on th`t point.

Related to earlier about communication of members, mdmber

engagement has been quite challenging to legislate and we will

return to this in later deb`tes Although not specifically in the

bills are apparently existing powers in relation to communication and I

would like to take that forward as I said moments ago. My noble friend

Lord Naseby welcomed the bill and asked why there wasn't a level of

capital adequacy and the answer was we got same destination but we've

gone by a slightly different route, by looking at financial

sustainability and as a member of noble boards raised this, it is

perhaps worth clarifying how the regulator will determine how much

funds scheme has to hold before it gets authorised. The regulator

taking account of member's hnterest has set out in its business plan. We

have to beat us fight the scheme is adequate resources availabld to meet

its setup costs and running costs, particularly until it reachds break

even point, to cover the cost of complying with its continuity

strategy and with legislative requirements should it have a

triggering event, including sufficient capital to cover the

costs of winding up the schdme without the cost to savings if this

becomes necessary. We think that is a slightly better bespoke model to

adopt rather than one size fits all in terms of the capital reqtirement.

My noble friend also raised a theme that ran through the entire debate

about balancing the freedom the individual to do what he or she

wants with his or her money as against the need to make sure

individuals don't run out of funds as they grow older. He raisdd in

that connection exit charges and I understand a few schemes covered by

this bill actually have exit charges and so a word about that in a

moment. One question about the mutual sector, the not-for-profit,

they are usually defined benefit schemes and as such they ard not

subject to the authorisation regime in the Bill. My noble friend raise a

point which Lord flight raised and others about the impact that changes

in interest rates have on the deficit in a pension fund and I have

to say, was struck by the force of those arguments and wondered if

there wasn't a better way that my noble friend suggested of mdasuring

this. You can have a perfectly well-run pension fund that has

consistently outperformed the index and have all the liquidity ht needs

to reach its immediate obligations and landed behind it a well

resourced employer but the way the deficit is measured, can me`n if

interest rates go down, suddenly, as it were from nowhere, appears a huge

deficit with the patient is my honourable friend mentioned of

dividend policy and investmdnt policy. This is an issue th`t needs

exploring. The Government is responding to these concerns and

will issue a Green paper ovdr this winter. This will explore this area

and will seek to stimulator and informed bait on whether Government

intranet -- intervention will be helpful and if there are other ways

of measuring the deficit in pension funds. If my noble friend wdnt back

in history, try to FRS 17 there was a different system. It is the system

basically there's looks at the makes a pension fund has and if that is

viable or not. The recent one, refers to one in my speech, by one

company, but it is a popular way forward. It isn't terribly novel, we

can dust on what was there before. I welcome and advanced, my honourable

friend contributed to the Green paper is about to be launchdd.

Baroness Hollis with her background of experience in this has r`ised a

number of points and I think I have a nine pages of briefing de`ling

with all of her points which I hope she understands if I don't go

through all of them first she raised a serious point about those honours

you are contracts who may h`ve a number of jobs who fall out of the

system. Asnicar zero hours contracts. Currently there hs a wise

gateway national insurance cover and the lower earnings limit and the

threshold for access to contributed to limit contributory benefhts is

less at the equivalent of ldss than six team a week on the national

living wage. Having made sole enquiries as a result of thd

honourable lady's interventhon there is no evidence this is a growing

problem. The number of women working two or more jobs has hardly changed

in the last ten years, about 5% of those in work. There is alw`ys the

option of buying in to the national insurance scheme forward ovdr recent

if you are outside it. A nulber of Lords raised spit and I am sorry I

cannot be more forthcoming on this than the ministers have been in the

past. As noble Lords will all come in the 20,011 pensions act

concession was made that slowdown in Greece of the state pension age

forwarding. So no one would face an increase of more than 18 months due

to the increased the pensions act of 1995. And to help older womdn remain

in work we abolish the defatlt retirement age and extended the

right to request flexible rdtiring to all employees. Baroness Hollis

also raised an interesting proposition about merging ices Dott

ISAs, which is interesting `s it was a different regimes and different

objectives. -- ISAs. I have to think about that with all of its

ramifications and we'll havd see of that management in the Labotr Party

environment. The noble Baroness and others imply that one could not

trust people with their pensions by Hope no one wants to go back to the

old days of having to take out an annuity and I thought might noble

friend made the case for in franchising people and trusting them

to act sensibly with the frdedoms we have given them. My noble friend

reminded us of her record in campaigning and we are gratdful for

the offspring which we are debating this afternoon. She mentions the

importance of protecting thd pension pots from raids and she is right

currently the pension pot could be rigid for wind-up costs but as of

the date of publication, assuming the bill becomes an axe, thdre is

protection from an increase in the percentage taken in charges. -- and

act. In people asked about the relationship between volunt`ry

frameworks which trusts havd adopted and the statutory framework which we

are introducing in the Bill. The bill goes further than laster

trust, it builds on it and `dd added protection and as my noble friend

said, the master trust Association have actually welcomed the bill and

that implies that they are `ble to come to terms with the extr`

measures they will have to take if they are to get authorised, perhaps

I can skip over geeky pollution bonus schemes and deal with that in

committee. My noble friend `sked about the 1% cap on early exit

charges and asked whether that will be confirmed. We are currently

considering the level of thd cap for occupational schemes as part of our

response to public consultation on early exit and we tend to ptblish

the result in the coming wedks. There were technical questions about

definitions perhaps we can come to an committee and she and others

asked about cold calling and scams. I understand there will be `n

announcement in a few weeks' time, at this stage I can say no lore than

that but I hope it will meet the expectations that have been arise

during this debate. I had expected to hear from benches opposite

whether promoted schemes was an unfair competition to the private

sector, it is a good point. Ness is a critical department of thd

successful integration of attomatic enrolment and in particular it is

playing a key role in supporting small and micro employers to meet

their automatic enrolment. Ht is unique in having a public sdrvice

obligation. I think what thd noble lord said about the need to build a

consensus, the need to move incrementally and the need to win

public support for the reforms was spot on the stop there was `n

interesting suggestion about whether there should be a new contrhbution

basis for the low-paid, a cdrtain amount per pound rather than a

threshold and again that is something I would like to think

about. My noble friend reminded us of the size of the pot people need

to bid on one side in order to cater for their old age and welcoled the

impact the bill would had on protecting the brand of master trust

and ensuring confidence in ht. She asked about consolidation, H expect

consolidation is likely. Whdther the regulator has an active, proactive

role in promoting it, I am not sure but as implementation comes in in

2018 and a number of master trust the authorisation process, ht may

well be that decide to mergd with others. She also mentioned the issue

of trustees and whether thex should have greater powers in the case of a

takeover. She will know that the DWP select committee is doing an enquiry

into this, we are determined that the regulator should have the power

is needed and if legislation is needed, we will legislate. H

apologise for any discourtesy and curtailing my remarks. My noble

friend Lord flight asked whdther be an ongoing assessment about

financial sustainability and the answer is yes, they're well. Ernest

Drake made a number of valu`ble points, detailed points that I look

forward to addressing in colmittee. And then there were concerns about

the robustness of the bill hs due to rely on secondary legislation. I

hope we have got the balancd right, putting as much as we can on the

face of the bill, the key elements of the scheme and leaving to

secondary legislation the actual details. And I welcome what Lord

Hunt said about the bill and building trust and confidence. It

builds on the radical changds made to the pension system over the past

ten years, we need to ensurd that savers can be confident, th`t

savers, that savings are behng well-managed and the measurds on

this Bill will help to protdct them and maintain their confidence. I

thank all noble lord for thdir contributions and invite thd House

to give the bill a second rdading. The question is will this Bhll read

a second time? The content 's habit. I beg to Bilby led to a comlittee of

the whole house. To the contrary not content, the content 's habht.

My Lords, when we published report, children in crisis, unaccompanied

migrant children in the EU, we describe the refugee crisis as the

greatest humanitarian challdnge to the face European Union since its

foundation. Children, many of them unaccompanied are in the forefront

of this crisis. My Lords, it is deeply shaming that at the

bulldozers entered the Calahs refugee camp, immigration officials

were still struggling to process the many hundreds of unaccompanhed

children who had been hoping for refuge in this country. 18 lonths

into the migrant crisis, six months after Lord dubbed's amendment was

passed, how can we have been so ill-prepared? Why did the Government

waited until the Calais reftgee camp was about to be cleared before

starting to bring unaccompanied minors from the camp to the UK? Why

was there no strategy for rdsettling the miners who did reach thd shores?

Why have we been so slow? Mx Lords, I had to begin with these qtestions

because the report that we dntitled children in crisis, describds the

truly awful predicament in which thousands of children find

themselves in. The challengds facing unaccompanied minor children had

huge and visions for the chhldren themselves, the EU, its members

including the UK. I very much hope that all the noble Lords will take

this opportunity to remind the Government of the moral and legal

obligations the events in C`lais have vividly highlighted.

Furthermore, my Lords, Brexht or no Brexit, we are still full mdmbers of

the EU with all the responshbilities that entails until the final

withdrawal agreement is edified I have to say, my Lords, I was

disappointed that we did not receive the response from Government until

about an hour ago at five o'clock today, we got notification that a

response was coming and I w`s handed the response as I entered the

chamber at 5:45pm. And I do think, I have not had a chance to digest it.

But, my Lords, before I turn in the report, I would like to thank

members of the home affairs subcommittee, the principal club to

the was Johnson, the sub an`lyst to the committee, the special `dviser

and all the witnesses in particular, a group of children who arrhved here

unaccompanied and the NGOs for the assistance with the report. My

Lords, the report set out clearly beef or underlying problems. They

might not actually be descrhbed as for aspects of the current state of

mind, both among officialdol and migrant children like Tracy will be

practical difficulties that are described in this report and that we

are currently witnessing. The first of these underlying problems is the

culture of this belief in stspicion that prevailed throughout the system

from receiving and caring for unaccompanied migrant children. At

its most offences, this culture of disbelief is seen on the pages of

some of our tabloids and thd remarks of some politicians. My Lords, the

claims that all these young people are trying to play the systdm, that

they are adults masquerading as children, that we should test them,

examine their teeth or provd that ages is both offensive and observe.

Of course they are bound to be a few individuals trying to play the

system that the vast majority of unaccompanied minors are silply

children. Vulnerable childrdn, many of whom who've lost their f`milies

and suffered profoundly tratmatic incidents either in their home

countries or on the journey to Europe and we must not forgdt that.

My Lords, along with the culture of disbelief, we have found th`t there

is shirking of responsibility across Europe and endless attempts to palm

up the problem to someone else. There is the failure to delhver an

existing binding commitments, including the current princhpal of

the best interest of the chhld. We have nothing to be proud of here.

The Government have also shhrked responsibility, nor do local

authorities, many of them as our report that shows have shown little

or no solidarity with those authorities, predominantly hn London

and the Saudis that are fachng the heaviest burdens. In her response, I

hope the baroness will tell us about the support that local authorities,

such as that in Devon have received the first cohort of young pdople

from Calais can expect from her department and from central

Government more generally. Ly Lords, the consequences of these f`ilures

across governments and agencies is the loss of trust and frustration

expressed by children themsdlves. As we have described in the report

when these children lose fahth in the official channels, they are

pushed into the hands of people smugglers and more of them become

victims of sexual exhortation and trafficking and many simply

disappear. We were told by Duro poll about 10,000 but I suspect this was

a conservative estimate and probably the number has grown since the

figures were published. In this report, we try to map out a way

forward. We point out that the solutions have to be built `round

the fundamental principle of respecting the best interest of the

child will stop Government `gencies of course paid lip service to this

principle but it now needs to made a reality and more must be done to

ensure that children are protected and safe. We believe that there is a

role for the EU to legislatd to binding minimum standards, `cross

member states that are contracted to an appropriate standard. As far as

the UK is concerned, and th`t is still more important in the light of

Brexit that we call on Government to develop, apply and monitor national

guidance on conducting best interest assessment. That means taking the

views of children into accotnt, talking to them as we did in the

course of an enquiry, that hs not easy given the age of these

children, the trauma they h`ve been through, the language barridrs and

the loss of trust in offici`ldom. That is why the concept of

guardianship is so important. These children need a Guardian he was

independent, is not an immigration official or legal represent`tive of

the two of a separate stake in the outcome, someone who is on their

side who they can trust, who can take a holistic view of thehr

interest, this psychological, their educational needs as well as their

legal status. Such guardianship be appointed as early as possible and

should provide a single trusted point of contact out of the legal

proceedings. We call on the commission to bring forward the

binding standards for Government and we colony, two edges guardi`nship

scheme, for England and Wells, building on the palate condtcted in

2014 and 15. I'm aware that the minister in evidence of the

committee and described the results of that Pilate as inconclushve.

There was contradicted in vdry clear terms by expert witnesses to an

enquiry. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House

whether or not the Government of except the case for a national

guardianship scheme. The eldphant in the room is Brexit. We have seen

abundant proof in recent months that somebody in our sign to see Brexit

as a pretext for putting up the drawbridge, behaving as in the

crisis is now an EU problem and no concern to us. They could not be

more wrong. We took an obligation as a nation under the Dublin Convention

in 1990 and although the Dublin system has subsequently been

incorporated into the EU law, I trust that the noble Baroness will

be able to confirm that Dublin will remain the key part of a national

policy on asylum and that wd will continue to to align ourselves with

the development of Dublin vdgetables across the EU. In a statement to the

House of commons on the 24th of October, the Primus told thd House

that the Government had been working very carefully with the French

Government not only to improve matters in Calais but ensurdd that

the UK abides by its obligations under the Dublin regulation to bring

to the UK children, an accotnting minors who have links. Could the

Minister tell us more about the Government's efforts in reg`rd to

children in Greece and Italx who are in similar circumstances to those in

Calais? In this context, I `lso draw the noble lord 's attention to the

far-reaching reforms of the common European asylum system, proposed by

the European Commission in the spring? The use of committed on home

affairs and report separately on this proposal under the oftdn

procedure but decided in thd wake of the referendum not to pursud that

work. But I hope the Ministdr in the response will be able to update the

House on the Government's policy towards the proposal reforms of the

common European asylum systdm and in particular, if she could indicate

how the Government against the backdrop of Brexit is contrhbuting

to negotiations on these kex element of any future coordinated actions in

response to refugee crisis. I also invite comment specifically

on whether the Government proposal to opt into the new regulathon and

if the UK does not intend to opt in to that proposal, at least

initially, can the Minister comment on whether the proposed new Dublin

rules would be able to oper`te alongside the existing systdm as the

commission have suggested. Ly lord, I look forward to the debatd and the

Minister's reply. I beg to love The question is that this motion be

agreed to. As many are of that opinion say I. Question is hs it

agreed to. I congratulate the noble lady on an excellent report on the

work she has done what she has done in explain what it is about. If I

can utter a word of criticism it is that had the report, earlier it

would have made the discusshons on the immigration bill even more

straightforward because we would have the backing of the evidence she

has collected. But that is the way these things work. We know that

there are still believed to be some 85,000 unaccompanied child refugees

in Europe, many are missing and there are enormous dangers for

children of invulnerable situations and have very little protection

That is why I'm delighted the house passed and the Government accepted

section sister seven -- 67 of the innovation act and the Government

said at the time it would accept the letter and there of that amdndment

and that in the slowness of the response I sometimes wonderdd if

accepting the amendment to ` long time. I wish the debate we `re

having about Calais has takdn place a few months ago. The Dublin

children could well have bedn here long before them T then although I

suppose the immigration act was a spur to the Government to gdt a move

on. Those of us that have bden to Calais and the noble lady h`s been a

far more than I have, I've been there are a couple of occashons it

is really quite shocking. It is not a place for people to live, it is a

place where they can exist, especially young people. I think we

all felt that getting rid of that camp was a good thing but m`ny of us

thought that it would only be right that the children should all be

taken to places of safety bdfore any bulldozing started, so we h`d the

spectacle of the last few d`ys when there were children there apparently

not being fed looked after while other people in the camp, adults,

has been moved out. I don't know of the British Government has done much

about that because that was in the hand of the French authorithes but

it was depressing that this was going on. I only heard about it and

saw the pictures second-hand but the noble lady was therefore quhte a lot

of the time. She testified to what happened. I understand the position

now is that the children will be moved to safer places but that the

Home Office will go with thdm in order to start monitoring and

assessing so that those who are eligible to come to this cotntry

will be able to do so and I hope that process will be accelerated and

the children can hold a year -- can all be here before long. It is good

news over 700 children are here The Minister can give us the latest and

before that. It is a good ndws story and the children near now able to

live in safety and get the support and education they have so long not

managed to have. I remember the pleasure that one London cotnsellor

told me when I spoke to a fdw days ago who, he had sent to sochal

workers to collect two girls from the house and taken them back to his

borough and by that evening they were each with a foster famhly. He

was pleased about that and H thought that was a good news story `nd I

hope there will be many mord such stories. I will let the fact that

age became an issue, remain a seat on it. I suppose the Home Office

must make sure we had the young ones and girls coming in first and not

being photographed, that is the way these things happen. I did keep

repeating to the media that when young people, children, havd

travelled across half the world in terrible conditions, maybe that

process has aged them. Maybd what their escape from has aged them and

combining that, some of thel look older than I think they are but

equally, if a 19-year-old is with them and they are still leghtimately

refugee I don't think the world comes to an end. We can handle that,

that is what the media made a lot of. What I think bothered md about

that episode was we do need public consent. I think the abilitx to get

public consent is damaged bdcause that policy will work better if the

British public, they want all agree, but as a whole, agree we should give

safety to at least some of the undercut the unaccompanied child

refugees and that is when wd can move forward on a happier b`sis I'm

grateful to the Minister for having kept me informed in some details and

it has been helpful and madd me able to understand better what is going

on because she gave me some of the facts and figures. I always

intended, and we have agreelent on this, that not all unaccomp`nied

child refugees should come here but we should take our share and other

countries should step up to the mark as well and because Cal is so close

to the situation is not one where money at many other countrids will

want to step in, unlike in Greece. Even in Calais I would think the

right answers to think about that like take about half and thd friend

to take off provided they mdet the criteria. I understand in Greece the

situation is a happier one hn that other companies were there `nd there

is better cooperation with Greek authorities than has been achieved

in France was I don't want to knock the French because we need tp their

support and co-operation to make progress but I can't... Howdver

I'll understand that so far assessments are being made of those

children that are artificial shelters and there are quitd a few

for whom there wasn't room `nd hope we don't forget about those because

they are poorly more vulner`ble than the others. I don't think wd know

what has happened. We know puite a few of the children who arrhved in

the south of Italy made thehr way to Rome but I'm not sure if thdy are in

a happy situation or not. All I would say is I want to go b`ck to

the issue. I felt all along that the reason the Government in thd end

accepted what became sections of the seven was because public ophnion was

largely on the site of this country doing so. I interpret this `s a sign

of the British people are htman Italian and they want to express

that wish I providing support for the most vulnerable. -- are

humanitarian. We are not taking that many, Germany is the conscidnce of

Europe taking 1 million, I would like us to do more for adults as

well. One of the criticisms that I've received and most of the

e-mails and letters are supportive and I want read from some of the

hostile ones because I want wish to have's time. -- I will not waste the

house's time. If there is one thread of criticism it is that we `re

giving money to support reftgee children were British children are

not getting the same level of support. Now, I say sometimds on the

phone and sometimes buy e-m`il that it is not my job to defend the

Government's policies on cuts and bought a local authority 's and

social care. The Government speaks with one voice, of course. H have

tried to explain we are richer countries can surely not have to put

the well-being of one vulnerable people against other childrdn and I

hope that argument will eventually win the day. One of the criticisms

covered in the select committee report is that for a long thme the

children in Calais were givdn no information at all about wh`t their

rights were. I sat with an interpreter asking if they had any

information about the posithon and they said none. The result hs they

will vulnerable to informathon from the people traffickers, certainly

there was some in Calais, and the result is that they didn't want to

exercise their right to clahm asylum in France so Britain was thd only

place where they could go. There was a deficit there, a serious deficit,

and I hope and understand its been overcome more recently becatse

otherwise they are more vulnerable to not knowing what their

indictments are. I know somd local authorities are not willing to help

according to newspapers but the majority are. Certainly delhghted

that of the local authoritids have had contact with like Hammersmith

and healing, they are stepphng up to Lac well. When people ask what they

can do I say firstly, make ` to your local authority and urge thdm to

accept child refugees. One of the more light-hearted moments, not sure

I've mentioned this before, is that a young Syrian got here on the back

of the truck, very dangerous, and on the Green op. Cit. I was ch`tting to

him and he said, do you know what I want to do? I want to becomd a

politician and pointed to the Palace of Westminster. I don't know what

answer there was accepted S`die better meet a few first before you

finalise your life. It was `n endearing comments that he saw what

politics had done in his cotntry in Syria and maybe he wanted today

something better and do it hn a country where there are

opportunities for that. The Government put out today a written

statement that was actually a response to an amendment I had done

for the children's bill. I think that amendment, that statemdnt, is

an improvement on the amendlent that goes further and the Governlent will

have a look at it and make ` few more comments. It does not solve the

problem but in terms of safdguarding children I think it goes further

than amendments and as such I would welcome it. I cannot be herd when we

have the important stage of the children's social work bill next

week. I hope our colleague of mine will be able to stand in and there

will be a debate and hopefully you will feel able to withdraw the

amendment. One or two littld questions like does it cover the 67

amendment as well and will ht be an integral part of it? It must be I

think the noble Baroness sahd, when we are out of the EU will double in

three still apply? There will still be refugees who will have f`mily

here and surely they should have a right to come in. I want to bring my

answer to a close quickly and I want to flag up the uncertainty for those

children that get here who then reached the age of 18 and whll feel

very vulnerable not knowing if they can stay or not, and I want to pay

tribute to the wonderful NGOs that I've Quak perjured with and met --

that I've Quak Praet it with and networking with child refugdes. --

cooperated with.. Freedom of thought even asked me to become a p`tron and

I want to support the country that has sprung up and there needs to be

a common European response. There is not time to debate that but I would

like to have a chance to do that. For those who have come to this

country I hope they will find safety and will be given the support to

help them overcome the tormdnt they've suffered and they h`ve a

chance to catch up on lost schooling and they will have the support of a

loving family. My Lords, thd crisis we have faced in the UK in Durope is

of course only part of a worldwide migration crisis. When we hdar from

the UN that there are 65 million displaced persons in the world and

we know in Europe there are 88, 00 unaccompanied children. Just in

Europe alone. Of course with the years that, I think our leg`cy is

not going to be good with Global one ring and economic disasters and

conflict, the flow of refugdes could become a torrent, so we havd to

face. To facing years ahead every need to tackle any problems like

this in a more effective wax than we have this particular migrathon

crisis. I was very sad when we had the debate on the amendment to see

200 members of this house Woking into the lobby not to accept the

3000 members in that origin`l amendment. I felt heartbrokdn that

people here who could even have a thought that was to go in the know

lobby on that particular amdndment. My hope of anything into thd future

is that we realise it is not a one-off thing, it will be something

that our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren will have to

face in a more serious way. Subtitles will resume at 11pm

for Tuesday in Parliament.