Motion made, and Question put forthwith Standing Order No. That the following provisions shall apply to the National Insurance Contributions Rate Ceilings Bill:. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury Damian Hinds: I beg to move. That the draft Tax Credits Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates Amendment Regulationswhich were laid before this House on 7 September, be approved. I confirm, as required, that the provisions before the House today are compatible with the European convention on human rights.

The aspects of tax credits we are voting on today are amendable by statutory instruments, as laid down in primary legislation in by the then Labour Government. These and other aspects of welfare reform have of course been debated at length in the Budget debate, as well as in departmental questions and elsewhere.

The underlying issues will also be debated in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. In a response to a request from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead Frank Fieldthe Government have brought the vote on the statutory instrument measures to the Floor of the House to allow all hon. Members the opportunity to vote. Lady Hermon North Down Ind: Will the Minister give way? Allow me to make a wee bit of progress. The second is the increase in the personal tax allowance; the third is the national living wage, the fourth is the major extensions to child care provision; and fifth is the overall sound economic management that is delivering growth in the number and quality of jobs, earnings and living standards.

Stephen Timms East Ham Lab: Does he recognise that it will wreck the solvency of that working family? What does he think they should do? It is important we see these changes in the overall context. I outlined some of the additional elements that are relevant. I certainly accept that they do not all come into play at exactly the same time, but in the course of time they do and by eight out of 10 households will be better off.

I am most grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene at this early stage. A number of my constituents in Northern Ireland feel extremely aggrieved about the change to the income thresholds for eligibility for tax credits.

Before I could support the measure, I have to urge the Minister to give some guarantees on how the Government plan to mitigate its worst effects for families throughout the United Kingdom—not just in Northern Ireland. I have been talking about some of the other elements, but these are matters on which the hon.

Lady has a long track record of campaigning. Ireland has a particular situation with regard to welfare reform and I hope all parties will come together to get through that.

Discretionary payments are designed for housing issues in particular and were increased substantially in the summer Budget. It is possible that local authorities can use some of those funds to help out people who find themselves in particular difficulty, but I am of course very happy to meet her to go through this in more detail. Mark Spencer Sherwood Con: How would families in my constituency be affected by a Government who went back to borrow and spend, who wrecked the economy, and who allowed unemployment to rise again?

How would that affect the welfare of families working in Sherwood? Friend is correct that everyone benefits from the economic security that comes from the country living within its means. If Opposition Members will allow, I will take some time to set out the regulations. The regulations make three changes to the tax credit system.

For recipients of housing benefit, the interaction between the two systems of support means the overall change in the withdrawal rate will be 2p, not 7p. These three changes form part of a wider set of welfare reforms, most of which are currently under consideration in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. Helen Goodman Bishop Auckland Lab: How does the Minister square that with his claims at the Dispatch Box? I am afraid that high marginal deduction rates have long been a feature of the social security and welfare system.

As many Opposition Members know, universal credit will change that by making a substantive change in the withdrawal rates. The Minister knows that this is a serious matter, and Members on both sides are concerned about the work incentives.

He needs to address that specific point. How is it not a penalty to work? For people in receipt of housing benefit, the change in the marginal withdrawal rate will be 2p in the pound.

The changes do not reduce the incentive to work, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, equally important are the incentive, ability and support to work more hours once in work and the fact that there are now more jobs offering more hours. Our reforms to childcare are another key part of our support for people who want to increase their hours. The context to these changes is that, despite making great progress towards balancing the budget, we still ran a deficit of 4.

We need to eliminate the deficit and start cutting the national debt in order to build up our resilience to global economic shocks. Mr Alan Mak Havant Con: Friend is right about the rapid escalation in the cost of tax credits—it trebled in real terms up to —and that we are in the business of getting the country back into balance, because when we lose control of the economy, the people who lose out the most are those on the lowest incomes and in the toughest circumstances.

The burden of eliminating the deficit has meant a bigger tax contribution from those on higher incomes and now calls for further reductions in departmental spending while protecting our national health service. That is the mandate on which we were elected. With near record employment, rising wages and stronger business confidence, now is the time to put the welfare system on a more sustainable, long-term footing, moving our country to a higher wage, lower tax, less welfare-reliant economy.

Alex Cunningham Stockton North Lab: I am grateful to the Minister. He talks about an environment in which wages are rising. Wages are rising in some areas, but public sector workers have seen a tremendous reduction in their income capacity, and many of them will be affected massively by what the Government want to do.

The Government need to think more about public sector workers, whose wages are not going up. Gentleman is absolutely right to note the hard work done by public sector employees. There are pay restraints going on in the. Time is short, so I am going to make some more progress. For too long in this country— [Interruption. Mr Deputy Speaker Mr Lindsay Hoyle: Mr David Anderson Blaydon Lab: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. For clarification, will the Minister please explain that the wages of public sector workers are going up not by 2.

That is not a point of order. For too long, low pay has been addressed in this country not by genuine reform and driving productivity, but by subsidising it through the tax credit system. In the decade totax credit expenditure more than trebled in real terms.

It is not a stand-alone measure, but part of what my right hon. These regulations are an important part of that, and I commend them to the House.

What we have just heard is a Government in denial about the impact these changes will have on what my right hon. We are here today only because of the efforts of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and of my right hon.

The original intention had been to implement these changes with the scantiest possible parliamentary scrutiny—through a statutory instrument not debated by the whole House, but considered by a short Committee session of no more than 15 MPs and without scrutiny in the House of Lords.

James Cleverly Braintree Con: I am obliged to the hon. Lady for giving way so early in her speech. Does she not recognise that rebalancing the financial relationship between the state, employers and employees was in the Conservative party manifesto, which was voted on and led to the return of a Conservative Government?

Gentleman does not make it any better for his Front-Bench team, as what we have seen is a rise in child poverty. We absolutely agree that we need to find ways to encourage families to come off tax credits, but it should be done by a rise in income and through growth in the economy.

Lyn Brown West Ham Lab: During the election campaign, the Prime Minister told the country that the value of tax credits would not fall. Friend is absolutely right, and it is shocking that a Government who profess to care about democracy should be so afraid of scrutiny. Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg North East Somerset Con: I will in a moment.

These cuts in tax credits will hit working families in every constituency, and they were to be sneaked in through the back door. Indeed, when asked directly during the election campaign whether the Government would cut child tax credit, the Prime Minister said:. James Cartlidge South Suffolk Con: I will in a minute. This measure is ideologically driven, it is cynical, and it will directly increase levels of poverty in Britain.

I am unclear— [Laughter. Gentleman wishes to make this an issue about the Labour party, and not an issue about why his Government have presented the House with a measure that will have a negative impact on his constituents as well. He will have to account to his constituents for the decision that he chooses to make today when they come to his surgery, knowing that— [Interruption. I certainly want to hear the shadow Minister, and I would expect Conservative Members to want to hear her as well.

If they do not, I am sure that the Tea Room awaits them. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, this measure is ideologically driven, it is cynical, and it will directly increase levels of poverty in Britain. I will give way in a minute. The measure is part of an ongoing attack on the incomes of some of the most hard-working families in our constituencies, the very strivers whom the Chancellor purported to support. Clive Efford Eltham Lab: The Chancellor said that Britain deserved a pay increase and Britain was going to get a pay increase.

The Tories over there cheered him to the rafters when he increased the national minimum wage, but we now know from a document produced by the House of Commons Library—I have a copy here—that the changes in tax credits will more than wipe out the increase in the national minimum wage. At the same time, the Tories are cutting taxes for millionaires.

It is an absolute disgrace. Friend is absolutely right. It is indeed shameful that we are seeing a cut in the incomes of the poorest people in our constituencies. Andrew Gwynne Denton and Reddish Lab: This measure will attack families in which people are working hard to do the right thing and to achieve what we all want to see: What is before us today must be called out for what it is.

I welcome my hon. Friend to her new position. I am very pleased that we are taking such a strong stance on tax credits. After the Prime Minister said that he would not cut tax credits, we are seeing the most pernicious and unfair cut imposed on some of the poorest people in society. Is that not why it is right for us to stand up for them today? Friend is entirely right.

We are standing up for families who are doing the right thing: Jack Dromey Birmingham, Erdington Lab: As a founder member of the drive, initially in London, for the real living wage, may I ask whether my hon.

Friend agrees that the phoney living wage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not begin to compensate for the tax credit cuts, which will hit those in work particularly hard and will therefore punish the very strivers about whom the Chancellor is always lecturing us?

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and for highlighting that the living wage will be lower than in any year since This move today amounts to a huge cut in the income levels of hard-working families.

I will give way in a moment. This change was not announced in the summer Budget, but is a consequence of steepening the taper for working tax credit. Mr Jim Cunningham Coventry South Lab: Friend agree that the Government have created a new phenomenon regarding zero-hour contracts?

Women cannot get tax credits because of those contracts, as they have no continuity of employment, which affects families in many different ways.

Friend for that intervention. He highlights the collective impact of the decisions this Government are making on the income levels of many of the poorest families in our constituencies. I will make a little progress, and then I will give way. Far from increasing work incentives, these measures will reduce them. Reducing the work allowances or thresholds and increasing the taper rates mean families will have their incomes reduced earlier and more quickly than would otherwise have been the case.

Mr Kenneth Clarke Rushcliffe Con: Lady accept that the vast majority of Members in this Chamber probably agree that we would like to see Britain move away from being a low pay, low productivity economy to a more advanced, higher productivity, better paid one?

Can she explain how she thinks we can possibly move in that direction, even now the economy is recovering, if we do not tackle the absurd level of taxpayer subsidy to low pay from the tax credit system? I want to hear the hon. I thank the right hon. He may first want to explain why he voted against the national minimum wage when it was put to this House.

We agree about people needing to come off tax credits, but we would do that through an increase in wages and in productivity. The Government have sought to argue that working people will be compensated for the cuts by the increases in the minimum or living wage. Although we welcome the increase to the personal allowance and the introduction of the so-called national living wage, as the Low Incomes.

Tax Reform Group has stated, any gains from those measures will not negate the impact of these tax credit cuts from April Chris Philp Croydon South Con: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way when there is such stiff competition. Does she agree with Alistair Darling that tax credits are a subsidy to unscrupulous employers who underpay their staff, and that by rebalancing our economy away from tax credits and towards higher pay, everyone will be better off?

Gentleman continues to miss the point. We cannot remove tax credits in that way without ensuring first that there is an increase in wages for families so that they can support themselves and not see an increase in household debt. Bill Esterson Sefton Central Lab: Friend has made his point incredibly well. I now wish to make some progress. It is also of great concern that many tax credit claimants will not be aware of the cuts and will suffer additional hardship from April without any time to adjust their budgets.

For example, the changes will hit local businesses, and less will be spent in our local shops. It is no wonder that people believe that that was deliberate and part of the intent to hide the impact of these changes.

That pattern has continued today. Alison McGovern Wirral South Lab: Friend as astounded as I was to hear the Minister say that these changes protect those with the least and are being paid for by those with the most? Does that not prove that what the Government are saying is a falsehood? Friend is absolutely right, and I can guarantee that all Members in this House will see more people with exactly the same problems in their advice surgeries.

The pattern has continued with no Government impact assessment for the statutory instrument that we are debating today. The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group has emphasised that fact along with the Social Security Advisory Committee, which complained in a letter last week about the lack of information that it was given on these regulations and the impact of the changes. It also said that more information should be made available to Parliament to allow for proper scrutiny. We would encourage you to take those steps to make that material available for that purpose.

Page non trouvée - HELPELEC SECURITE

The Members who are here today have no official information from the Government about the impact of the changes on which they are voting. I am talking about the impact that those changes are likely to have on their constituents.

Instead, we have to use the IFS figures, which are the most authoritative figures available. Suella Fernandes Fareham Con rose—. I will not give way. These measures will hit families with children the hardest and impact on child poverty at a time when the Government are also abandoning their commitment to eradicating child poverty byand effectively abolishing the child poverty watchdog.

Tax credits have played an enormous role in tackling child poverty. I hope that Government Members will think twice before they go through the Lobby tonight. I will give way to the hon. I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and I congratulate her on her promotion and her new appointment. The Opposition cannot be credible if they are still going to go for further deficit spending.

I hope that he will engage—[Hon. We certainly would not give tax cuts to the very wealthy in this country, which his party has had a good record of doing over the past five years.

Around 10 million people—a sixth of the population—will be affected by these changes. Every Member in the House represents some of those who will be hit—around. However, it is heartening to read in media reports today that at least five Members on the Government Back Benches are planning to vote against the changes.

We have also heard reports, cited by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, that the Chancellor spent yesterday talking to anxious Tory MPs and urging them not to defeat him in the vote today, after they took him at his word when he said that the Government represented low-paid workers.

I am sorry that Conservative Back Benchers feel let down by their Chancellor, but it is not too late for the Government to change their mind.

It is disappointing that the Government have failed to tackle the real drivers of welfare spending—notably, low pay and the high cost of rent. The Chancellor has slashed entitlement to housing benefit, including through the bedroom tax and the benefit cap, yet the number of working people being paid housing benefit has still risen bysince because working people are not bringing home enough money to pay the rent.

This week the Government also launched the most sustained attack on rights at work in 30 years. The proposed changes arguably represent the largest single cut to family incomes ever implemented by a Government. I hope that Conservative Members will search their consciences on this issue and vote with their hearts and their heads by joining us in the No Lobby today.

A lot of Members want to get in, so let us crack on with a four-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. Mark Garnier Wyre Forest Con: I am not going to pretend that it is easy to stand up and speak in favour of something that is, as the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston Seema Malhotra has said, going to be tough on families, but this is none the less the right thing to do.

We have heard a great many estimates of how families are going to be affected, with a variety being produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. This measure will affect families, but it is worth bearing in mind the fact that there are mitigating factors that will make a difference for those families.

We have heard about the tax threshold increases, and it is also worth bearing it in mind that many of those families are also small and micro-business owners who have benefited from reliefs on business taxes and small business rate relief. The economy is also a lot better, with very low inflation rates at the moment.

icoqerum.web.fc2.com × pixels | Psychedelic | Pinterest | Trips, Nice and Nice trip

Ian Blackford Ross, Skye and Lochaber SNP: Why do the Government want to punish hard-working families in this way, at the same time as they are increasing the inheritance tax threshold?

This is vindictive and nasty. I see a Government who are doing an enormous amount by reducing the threshold tax rates and by helping small businesses. We have seen more people come into work than there have ever been before.

This Government have had a huge number of successes, so I do not recognise what the hon. There are two particular reasons why I support this measure, the first of which was highlighted by my right hon.

Friend the Member for Croydon South Chris Philp in talking about the effect that tax credits have on employers. We do not know exactly the extent to which this has been the case, but without a shadow of a doubt some employers will have been not paying the right salary or pay, given that the Government are subsidising not necessarily those people on low incomes but the employers employing people on low incomes.

We also know that if that did happen early on, it is much more difficult to unravel it now, which is why it is very important that we have the new national minimum living wage. It is there to ensure that wages do start going up, although I concede that this does not necessarily cover it all.

How can employers take account of the tax credits, given that the tax credits are paid according to family circumstance and the wage is not? Because employees will work for a wage that they can afford to work at, and if the Government are subsiding those household incomes the employers can take advantage of that.

It is difficult—I completely concede that—to unravel this. Richard Graham Gloucester Con: Conservative Members are clear that the macro picture is absolutely right and we have to reduce the welfare bill. Friend agree that the Government could do one specific thing that would help enormously?

The BBC has withdrawn its online calculator for people who want to know how much they will be affected by this, and online forums suggest that different calculations are produced by different newspapers. Could the Government produce their own calculator so that our constituents can find out—. Mr Graham, you know you are pushing your luck. A very wise idea. The second reason I am very supportive of these changes goes back to the old argument about reducing the deficit.

Conservatives made it perfectly clear at the. We have been asked by the country to deliver on our manifesto pledges, and this is part of that delivery. The then Chancellor, famous for many things but in particular for claiming to have ended boom and bust, was running a bizarre programme of increasing benefits at the same time as telling us that the economy was fine and growing steadily. Perhaps he knew something that he was not telling us, increasing benefits in anticipation of the collapse caused by the crisis—perhaps he knew it was coming.

Apparently, they are not. These tax changes take us back to the real levels in and I wish to finish by discussing one point. I was very struck, as were many Members, by the election whose result we saw on Saturday.

I was particularly struck by the number of young people who were voting in that leadership election. They were voting in the name of voting against austerity.

They were objecting to what they see as cuts being delivered to them today. If we hand over the shop to them as we found it five years ago, austerity would not mean some managed cuts; it would mean devastating cuts that would be unbelievably painful. We have to take responsibility for the way things are now.

I want to take responsibility for the problems we have today and not kick the can down the road. This is not austerity-heavy; it is common sense. Dr Eilidh Whiteford Banff and Buchan SNP: Let there be no mistake: Across the UK, about 7. We have a very short time today to debate a statutory instrument that will, at a stroke, make dramatic cuts to the incomes and life chances of millions of our citizens, and it deserves a lot more scrutiny then we are giving it today.

The Government have tried to argue this afternoon that their changes to benefits and tax credits are part of a plan to encourage people into work, but this measure. Far from providing incentives for parents to enter the workforce, it actively reduces work incentives and makes it harder than ever for parents in low-paid work to support their families.

This is a hugely regressive measure. Our poorest working families are set to lose a dramatic proportion of their income. That is a massive reduction in the amount that families can earn before tax credits start be withdrawn. One hundred pounds a month probably does not sound like a lot to Conservative Members— [ Interruption. This is also about whether children have an adequately heated place to study and do their homework and the long-term consequences if they do not.

Children who grow up in income-poor households are likely to have poorer health throughout their lives. They attain fewer qualifications at school, end up best binary options signals providers strategy 80 lower-paid jobs and die younger than their peer group.

Maria Caulfield Lewes Con: Lady says that income-poor families have much poorer physical and mental health as well as educational attainment, but is that the case? The fact is that someone on benefits or welfare has poorer outcomes, so the route out pictures of the stock market crash by gaining work and earning a decent wage.

Lady is making a ridiculous argument and once again trying to pretend that there are axis bank forex rates calculator on welfare and people in work whereas in reality—as illustrated by the tax credit system—many thousands and millions of working people are dependent on benefits because of low pay.

That is the key issue in this debate. The Government are attacking low-paid workers, just as they rss feeds bse stock market free over the last Parliament, while giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our society.

The deep cuts to the incomes of the poorest families that the Forex leverage high or low are trying to enact today will only exacerbate the inequalities we already have in our society and push opportunities even further out of the reach of those who already lag behind. I think that we should reject the rather insidious implication that people in low-paid jobs somehow do not work as hard as people in better paid jobs, because that is simply not the case.

We must remember that those low-paid jobs are often far more physically demanding, and many people who are set to see their incomes cut under this measure are already working very long hours in is earned leave encashment taxable and often pretty unrewarding roles.

Hywel Williams Arfon Upcoming ipos in indian stock market Lady also reject the glib answer from those on the Government Benches that low-paid workers can somehow just take more hours, because clearly those hours are not available?

In various parts of the country unemployment is still unacceptably high. Whether someone can easily pick up extra hours depends on which part of the country they live in, which sector of the economy they work in and what caring commitments they might have, whether for children or other family members.

It is not so straightforward when lots of parents are chasing part-time work between the hours of 9 am and 2. A lot of part-time work needs to be done outwith those hours, when parents have real difficulties accessing childcare. The charity Gingerbread has today pointed out that some lone parents working full time on the minimum wage with one child will, bybe no better off than non-working lone parents were in By many parents working full time will have fallen even further below the minimum income standard than they are at present, but stock market trading in phoenix az they will be no better off working full time than they would have been had they been out of work five years ago.

Where is the work incentive in that? If we really want to incentivise work, we should be increasing work allowances, as my party proposed in the run-up to the general election, not cutting them.

That would incentivise work and cut child poverty. Once again, we have been told today that increases in the minimum wage will compensate for those losses, but the numbers simply do not stack up. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Resolution Foundation, trade unions and others have all pointed out that the proposed increases in the minimum wage, and indeed the increases in the personal tax allowance, will not make up for the loss of tax credits. Catherine West Hornsey and Wood Green Lab: Lady considered the impact of the proposed changes on the housing benefit bill, particularly in the private rented sector?

Lady makes a good point, because the cumulative impact of a range of benefit measures is hitting the same people again and again. She makes a valid point, and one that I hope to forex expert advisor macd to in just a moment.

The figures just do not add up. No matter how they repackage their minimum wage and tax changes, the Government are giving a little with one hand but taking a whole lot more with the other.

For me, that exposes their perverse priorities on families. It is not so much robbing Peter to pay Paul as robbing Peter to pay Rupert and Sebastian. My colleagues and I were elected on a commitment to fight the austerity agenda being recklessly pursued by this Tory Government. Almost half of all families in Scotland will lose out as a result of these measures, pushing into reverse much of the progress we have made in recent years to reduce child poverty.

Member for Hornsey and Wood Green Catherine West noted, pay freezes and other austerity measures. Finally, I want to address the removal of child tax credits for a third or subsequent child. This is just a further blow to poor families already struggling. This measure, along with the introduction of the two-child policy in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, will push more families with children into poverty, pushing them further behind in health and education, potentially for the rest of their lives.

Only about one in six of the families receiving tax credits in Scotland has more than two children. Larger families are a rarity nowadays. By contrast, the majority—more than half the poorest families in Scotland—have only one child. In Scotland, it is in the more affluent areas that people tend to have more children, but across every income group our birth rate is bajaj allianz share price today low.

We need to be supporting family life and encouraging people to have more children if we are to dodge the demographic problems coming up on the inside lane. We should not be putting barriers in the way of those prepared to contribute to our society by doing the essential job of raising the next generation. This Government have got it very badly forex traders blogs. Cutting the incomes of working families will only make it harder to tackle the embedded inequalities that already.

Work should be a route out of poverty for families, but here in the UK it really is not. This statutory instrument pushes that aspiration even further out of reach. That is why my colleagues and I will oppose it and continue to press for the power to make these decisions in Scotland, for Scotland, in the interests of our people and in line with our commitment to building a fairer society. Peter Aldous Waveney Con: In laying this instrument before the House, the Government are pursuing the right strategic course of supporting working families through the tax system and encouraging earnings growth rather than doing that through the benefits system.

For that reason, I shall support it, although I have serious concerns about the impact on working families in the short term over the next two to three years. I urge the Government to address these issues in the coming months before the measures come into effect next April. The Government are right to be going in this direction.

The current system is extremely expensive, and if nothing is done the cost will escalate to unsustainable levels. For me, it is wrong to be promoting what is, in effect, state dependency. It is also wrong that the Government are subsidising employers so that they pay low wages. Clive Lewis Norwich South Lab: Gentleman talks about high productivity and high wages, and Labour Members would agree with him on that, but yesterday we watched him file through the Lobby and vote against trade unions.

How does he explain that? I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but I am constrained specifically to the issues we are debating.

It is wrong that the Government are subsidising employers in this way. Moreover, the current system of tapering income thresholds and interconnectivity with other vps forex gratis is ridiculously complicated and opaque. It is right that working taxpayers, especially those on low pay, should keep more of the money that they earn as an incentive to work.

My concern is that in the short term, over the course of the next two to three years, those who will be hit hardest by these measures are working families, often with children, on low wages.

These are the hard-working selling stock market vs limit people doing the right thing—that all political parties say they support and must support. As of May this year, 4, families were receiving working tax credits.

Andrew Percy Brigg and Goole Con: Does he agree, though, that if it goes through, there is. I agree with my hon. I will come to that when I conclude. Yes, the rise in the tax threshold and the introduction of a national living wage will help, but, as shown in research by the House of Commons Library, they will not on their own make up for what how to make money from blogging in south africa be significant reductions in risk reversal option strategy. Neil Parish Tiverton and Honiton Con: Friend is making a powerful point.

I also represent a constituency where wages are quite low. The Government must recognise that the living wage must be brought up so that people are not worse off as a result of the cut in tax credits. We have to drive up the living wage so that we do not take too much money away from them. Friend for that notable intervention. In my Waverley constituency, the demise of traditional industries, stock market authority bopt levels of unemployment, low wages, lack of skills and poor infrastructure have been brakes on growth and job creation for 40 years.

Both the previous Government and this Government have taken decisive action to address those problems, to halt and reverse the seemingly never-ending downward spiral of decline: That support and investment is to be both applauded and welcomed, and it will bring new, well-paid jobs to the area. However, it will not do so overnight. In the meantime, a particularly vulnerable group of society will be left very much exposed.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Government are pursuing the right course, albeit through choppy waters, and for that reason I shall be supporting the proposals.

However, there are real concerns that make money get turnt song be addressed, and I urge Ministers to ensure before next April—possibly in the autumn statement or the next Budget—that those on low incomes are not hit unfairly and disproportionately by the proposals and that they do not have binary options trader reviews unintended consequence of undermining the incentive to work.

Frank Field Birkenhead Lab: I wrote to the Prime Minister to ask for this debate on the Floor of the House for a number of reasons.

First, this is the most important aspect of the first Conservative Budget for many years; I have forgotten how many. Yet, by the nature of how the authorities decide how we give or withhold authority, we were not able to vote on the biggest change proposed in that Budget.

The second reason has already begun to erupt on the Conservative Benches. Not only is this the most significant fiscal change a Conservative Government have made. Many Members will want to put on the record their disquiet with the Government—not just Labour Members, as one would expect, but Conservative Members, too.

The figures speak for themselves. We are talking about people at the bottom of the income pile.

Wonder Mailer - Make Money - Get Traffic, Snapshot Ads, Email Ads, Banner Ads, Text Advertising and Tracking | Easy Money | Pinterest | the Originals, Money an…

That might affect the standard of living of MPs; it will certainly affect the standard of living of many of our constituents and the choices that they will be able to make, whether nyse trading holidays 2013 are represented by Opposition or Government Members.

Andy McDonald Middlesbrough Lab: Will my right hon. I will not, partly because I am anxious that other Members have the opportunity to contribute. I am surprised that the Chancellor is not present—this was my main reason for calling for this debate—because he was clearly the architect of the Budget. He is the most political Chancellor I have known in my whole period in the House of Commons.

In the lead-up to the last election, and during it and since, he managed to push Labour into a very unpleasant corner where we were the welfare party and the Conservatives were the party of the strivers. In one single move, he has destroyed his election strategy. It is an advantage to debate this proposed change in the House. If Mrs Thatcher would bend under pressure from her Back Benchers when they did not like what they were hearing in their constituencies, I would be very surprised if our most political Chancellor did not bend like her.

Luke Hall Thornbury and Yate Con: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate. I will keep my remarks short, because several other colleagues wish to speak. The sheer scale of tax credits is. Those are the words of the former Chancellor Alistair Darling.

Under Labour, spending on tax credits more than trebled in its 10 years in office. In fact, as my hon. Reductions in spending are therefore vital to ensure that we are not burdening our children, grandchildren and 888 vantage fx binary options with more debt than they can ever hope to repay.

After these Budget changes, that will be reduced to five in 10, which is a much more sustainable number. In general, the losses from the combined effect of the threshold reduction and the taper increase will be greater for tax credit claimants with relatively high incomes, which is vital to ensure that our welfare system is kept affordable and provides support for those most in need.

The proposed tax changes, combined with the increased personal allowance and the introduction of the first national living wage in the first Conservative Budget for 18 years, demonstrate that this Conservative Government are committed to creating a higher wage and lower tax economy. I believe that these changes will put our welfare system on a long-term sustainable footing, and I will support them today. Ms Karen Buck Westminster North Lab: Before the election, the Prime Minister promised to maintain the value of tax credits.

He has broken that promise. He also said on 22 April that the Government were. Today, we are debating the betrayal of that pre-election commitment. Many extrapolations that are set out in the House of Commons briefing paper and elsewhere show the scale of the losses. Today, we have heard from Government Members the argument that tax credits are a subsidy for bad employers.

In some instances, that is true, but there is scant evidence for the assertion across the board. What is absolutely clear is that the tax credit system is an incentive, particularly for lone parents, to go into the workplace and stay in work. The positive employment incentive of the tax credit system has been almost entirely ignored by the Conservative party. That masks a success story over the past 10 to 15 years, which has seen a dramatic increase in the number of parents, particularly lone parents, going into the alder market stockton california. We should celebrate formula delta european call option fact and support those working parents shake it money maker lyrics have gone into work.

Associated with that, there has been a. A rise in the national minimum wage is welcome—indeed, employers should share with the state the responsibility for ensuring that working people enjoy a decent basic income—but it will not offset the huge hit on tax credits. As the analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown, the new national living wage offers.

Mike Wood Dudley South Con: I will not give way because many people want to speak. My particular concern is that London has the highest level of child poverty of any region in the country and, withfamilies receiving tax credits, almostchildren will be losers as a where is the stock market headed ken fisher of this policy.

These cuts will hit the working poor right across the country, but they will hit them harder in London than anywhere else. As we look towards the election that we will fight next May, I absolutely guarantee that my colleagues will draw attention to those losses for families, and those families will not forgive this Government for betraying their commitment to protect the working poor.

There is no doubt that this measure is controversial and that it will hurt our constituents. It is a tough measure, but I currency exchange widget wordpress support it strongly because of the wider picture.

This country must take the journey from being an economy of high welfare spending, high welfare dependency and high borrowing to being a more competitive country with higher productivity and, most importantly, higher real wages at every level of the economy.

That, in turn, will put us on the path to more sustainable prosperity and sound public finances. I have spoken on tax credits before in the House. I said on Second Reading of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill that they were one of the greatest mistakes in the history of the welfare state.

My biggest problem with tax credits is that it is overwhelmingly clear that they stifle incentive and opportunity. Tax credits have distorted the principle of welfare, which was to help the most vulnerable in our society who are unable to work. We now have financial statements of bombay stock exchange distorted system of in-work welfare where the state is subsidising wages.

I strongly agree with my hon. My point about work incentives is based on my experience as a small business owner. I found the situation with tax credits extraordinary. I had members of staff who declined pay rises because they would lose so much from their tax credits, and most common of all were part-time staff who would not go full time because the tax credits were so generous. Owen Thompson Midlothian SNP: I will not give way at this moment.

People were receiving the equivalent of full-time pay on part-time hours, and in that situation can we blame someone for not wanting to take on more hours? It is a real problem, and many other employers have made the same point to me. The problem stock market for dummies ppt widespread.

Steve Double St Austell and Newquay Con: Friend might be interested to hear optionshouse forex as a small business owner, I share his experience. I have offered pay rises and additional hours to members of my staff, and they have turned them down because of the tax credits that they would lose as a result.

Friend and emphasise that this is not a fantasy. This is not a think tank or a theory; this is the real world that we have experienced. With tax credits it is difficult to incentivise staff in their interest to make the most of their talent.

I genuinely believe that every person was born with incredible skills and talents. We should seek to help people make the most of those talents, but tax credits provide a perverse disincentive to do so and place a ceiling on wages and ambition. Antoinette Sandbach Eddisbury Con: Friend recognise that the points raised by my hon.

Friend the Member for Waveney Peter Aldous have real resonance, in particular for single parents? The welcome childcare changes will not be implemented for some time, and that will lead to a transitional period during which people will be hard hit by these changes. I do not disagree. As I said, we are having to make a choice about whether the pain that this measure undoubtedly involves—we must be honest and open about that—is a price we have to pay if we are to make the whole country more prosperous on a sustainable basis for the future.

Friend the Member for Wyre Forest Mark Garnier made an excellent fundamental point about tax credits. At a time of general prosperity, I do not think that the state should be embarking on a widespread expansion of the benefit system and the dependency culture. In when we set up the welfare state, this country was on its knees and people needed the welfare state. I am sorry but I will not give way again. People needed that system to support those who were in desperate circumstances.

In May when the Labour party came to power, we had a strong growing economy and were to have strong global trade for many years after that. We enjoyed low inflation because of the growth of China, and we had a wonderful period of economic growth with low inflation. It was an amazing opportunity for the Government to build for the long term, but in those prosperous times what did they do?

That is not a safety net, it is a massive extension kelly moneymaker lyric the dependency culture and a total nationalisation of family and household income. That is what we are voting on today. There is a price to pay, but we are voting on a fundamental principle in this statutory instrument: I am proud to go through the Yes Lobby today.

I think this is an important measure and a key step towards a competitive, dynamic country that has sustainable prosperity for all.

What a mean confidence trick the Chancellor carried out in the Budget. Some 3, households in my constituency will be affected, including 6, children.

But we now know that the whole package is far from compensated for by the increase in the national minimum wage. People on the national minimum wage will not just be worse off next year, but the year after that, the year after that and the year after that—every year until Conservative Members cheered the Chancellor to the rafters. Did they understand that the overall package would result in the poorest workers among us having their incomes cut? The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions punched the air.

Did he not understand that the overall how to make a doll money my froggy stuff would result in a cut in the incomes of people on the national minimum wage?

Was he being mean or is he just too stupid to be doing his job? The Chancellor said in his Budget:. What happened in the latest Budget then? The Conservatives say that theirs is the party of working people. Here are some working people: No, I have heard the hon. Gentleman so many times. I have a whole list of worker after worker, all of them worse off as a result of the changes to tax credits.

Conservative Members may have been convinced by the Chancellor that he will make some changes. We have heard them argue that this change is necessary and that we have to make it. Perhaps they think that they have been given a good time buy boeing stock that something will be done and some changes made for the people on this list, put options accounting entries I am sick and tired of hearing Tories tell us that we have to make changes.

The changes will not hit them: Let the Tories vote for this change tonight. People will not forget that. We will remember that the Tories voted to reduce incomes for families with children.

They trooped through the Lobby, claiming to be the party of the workers but voting to reduce their incomes. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I support the proposed changes to tax credits, but I acknowledge that it is a difficult and sensitive issue. I wish to make a few points to explain my reasons for supporting the measure.

While I acknowledge that tax credits were introduced to support low wage workers, it cannot be right in this day and age that people who work long hours, often doing difficult work, are reliant on benefits to supplement their wages because they do not earn enough to live on.

The perpetuation of the tax credit system of topping up wages lets employers off the hook when it comes to paying a decent wage. As we have heard, even Alistair Darling, the former Chancellor, has said that tax credits are. The proposed changes to tax credits deal not only with the economic issues of reducing bank click drmillionaire free gordon herbert make money report truth spending, but aim to address the inequalities faced by those who find themselves on welfare despite being in work.

Life on benefits can have a huge negative impact on life outcomes, even affecting length of life. Living on welfare can have negative outcomes on physical health, on mental health and on educational attainment, to say nothing of the dignity of living on benefits. Roger Mullin Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath SNP: I will not, I am afraid. It is very important that we make work pay. I have met many constituents who are on tax credits because they are paid so poorly.

We are subsidising employers unwilling to pay a decent wage, but relying on the taxpayer to subsidise low wages. Currently, taxpayers, many of whom are earning just above the tax credit limit, are subsidising employers to pay low wages. Change to the tax credit system is more than an economic argument to reduce public spending, but reduce it we must.

I have heard nothing from Opposition Members on how they would do that if there are no changes to the tax credit system.

Changes to tax credits are needed to reduce public spending, as we are accountable to the British taxpayer who is currently subsidising low pay. What message is that to low-paid workers? If people get up early, go out to work, work long hours and come home late, they deserve a decent wage, not a life on benefits.

We should, in this place, be pushing the agenda for better wages, instead of accepting that a life on benefits is inevitable. I will be going through the Aye Lobby tonight. Mr Alistair Carmichael Orkney and Shetland LD: It is unfortunate that we have only 90 minutes to debate the regulations, but it is absolutely right that we should debate them on the Floor of the House.

Member for Birkenhead Frank Field has done us a great service in bringing this matter to the Floor of the House. It is worth reflecting, however, that the reason why there is not more public outrage about the proposed changes is a reflection of the sheer complexity of our tax and benefit system. That will have to be addressed—not in this way—in the medium to long term.

When he spoke about the importance of raising the personal tax allowance, the very welcome increases to the minimum wage and the importance of providing better childcare provision, those are all things with which I could have no difficulty.

The difficulty I have with the regulations is that at a stroke they negate the benefits the Minister outlined. It ought surely to be a matter of common consensus in all parts of the House that the best route out of poverty is through work, but what the Government are doing today is giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

Jim Shannon Strangford DUP: Will the right hon. I am sorry, but I am short of time. That is why the Government are not true to their stated intent to encourage people off welfare and into work by bringing forward changes of this sort. We expected steep rises in unemployment, and sure enough it went up, but not to the extent we expected, because employers kept people in work. However, their wages were frozen or reduced and those in part-time employment saw their hours cut. We can now see the light at the end of the tunnel—at last, we are seeing some wage inflation—but surely at this moment the Government should be encouraging people to take more hours, not removing the incentives to do so.

Member for Waveney Peter Aldous made a characteristically thoughtful contribution, and one of the most significant.

He might well be right about that, but what he said thereafter in the rest of his contribution indicated they were tactically inept.

I address myself to him and other Government Members who share his concerns, because they are part of the most powerful group in the House: The Government have a majority of 12, so it needs only six of them to vote with us to take this down and make them think again.

I say to him, because I know he is a genuine man, that if he has not had his assurances and compensations before the vote, he will not get them after it. The tax credit reforms before the House must be viewed in the wider context of the measures in the summer Budget and other Budgets to help working people: The hard truth is that our tax credit system is unaffordable, unsustainable and requires reform to help those working people who pay for it.

The statutory instrument, which I am pleased to support, will do that. We spend more on family benefits than France, Germany and Sweden. Even the right hon. Member for Birkenhead Frank Field said it was unsustainable. The statutory instrument focuses tax credits on the lowest income groups to help them in their lives.

The only welfare system that is sustainable and credible is a welfare system that is affordable.

We can support those most in need only if we protect the system by reforming the system, rather than allowing it to implode under its own weight. This is a drag on our competitiveness in the world and our economy at home.

I support the statutory instrument and urge other Members to do the same. With the leave of the House, I will respond briefly to some of the points made, particularly by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead Frank Field. Member for Feltham and Heston Seema Malhotrawhom I welcome to her place, said the Government had not published a distributional analysis, but we have, and it is available online.

It shows that the distribution of public spending across the income quintiles was unchanged between and now and that those at the top of the income distribution are paying more. Members to evaluate these changes in their wider context and our record in government: Welfare spending needs to be reformed—for the benefit of those who pay for it, as well as those who use it.

We are doing this as part of a package to move to a less welfare-reliant, lower-tax and higher-wage economy. I commend the regulations to the House. One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Speaker put the Question Standing Order No.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport Mr Robert Goodwill: That it be a further Instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail London - West Midlands Bill is committed—. Before I start, may I welcome the hon. Member for Nottingham South Lilian Greenwood to her post as the shadow Secretary of State in the new politburo—sorry, shadow Cabinet?

She is already on record as continuing to support HS2, which will be music to the ears of her Labour colleagues who run our great cities in the west midlands and the north. I look forward to working with her.

Indeed, many of the momentous decisions facing us will have implications for our infrastructure for many years to come. The motion instructs the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail London - West Midlands Bill to consider two sets of amendments: These are the third and fourth such additional provisions that have come before us, and I am sure that many in the House will now be familiar with the hybrid Bill process. However, for the benefit of new Members, I hope that the House will indulge me if I give a brief explanation.

The purpose of this motion is to bring within the scope of the Select Committee any petitions from those who may be affected by the proposed changes. May I ask the hon. Gentleman what the requirements are of the landowners and occupiers?

Is this related to compensation, as many people in my constituency have been badly hurt by the lack of compensation? This is not specifically related to the compensation issue. This is about the minor changes and some other more substantial changes that we are making. This is about the principle of the hybrid Bill Committee being allowed to consider these changes and about people being given the opportunity to look at the environmental statement, and also to petition the Committee if they are affected.

Indeed, the purpose of this motion is to bring within the scope of the Select Committee any petitions from those who may be affected by the proposed changes.

Tulip Siddiq Hampstead and Kilburn Lab: I agree that constituents should be allowed to petition, but there is a fee for petitioning. Will the Minister consider getting rid of that fee to allow easy access for those who might not be financially able to petition?

I can reassure colleagues that anyone who has already petitioned will not be asked to pay a second fee. An explanatory note of the changes was made available to the House last week.

Although it is not the purpose of this debate to discuss the changes in detail, it is clearly important that Members understand the principle of them. If the motion is passed, those who are directly and specially—to use the legal term—affected by these changes will be able to petition the Select Committee, which is chaired by my hon.

Friend the Member for Poole Mr Syms. The Select Committee will then consider their case for changing the scheme. First, let me turn to the proposals in relation to Euston. In Aprilthe House gave a Second Reading to the High Speed Rail Bill. At the time, the Secretary.

Since then, HS2 Ltd has worked with Network Rail and Transport for London, as well as engaging with the local community to develop such a proposal. Indeed, I have visited the area myself with Frank Dobson, who used to represent the area around Euston.

I am pleased to see his replacement, the hon. The proposal announced today will substantially reduce the disruption to the travelling public, provide an enhanced underground service and do much more to support the wider regeneration of the local area.

It is also fully compatible with the redevelopment of the remaining conventional station, which is for Network Rail to bring forward in due course. Mr John Spellar Warley Lab: Will the Minister take this opportunity to comment on the stories in the weekend press that there would be a substantial increase in the cost as a result of these changes, as well as a reduction in the number of platforms for the inter-city services? I can certainly put the right hon.

Gentleman right on that point. Eleven new platforms will be built for HS2 at the station, and 11 will remain in the current station to serve the existing network.

Five approach tracks will remain, and there will be four for a period of approximately three years during construction. Works on the existing tracks and platforms will enable existing services to be accommodated. Those works will be undertaken prior to the start of the construction of the main HS2 works.

High Speed 2 will provide a step change in capacity on the west coast main line by enabling long-distance passengers to make their journeys much faster on the new line. This will free up space on the existing network for faster, more frequent trains. Indeed, it will also free up space on those platforms.

I want to make it clear that for the existing west coast main line, the number of platforms will be reduced from 18 to 11, while the number for HS2 will increase from zero to This means that there will be 22 platforms in total, which is four more than at present. The HS2 trains will also be longer, and the way in which they load their passengers will make it easier for people to get on them. That is because there will be a system similar to the one used by Eurostar, in which passengers come down escalators on to the platforms.

This will avoid the situation of everyone trying to rush down to one part of the platform as the train starts to load. Philip Davies Shipley Con: The people on the Committee are clearly good people and they are doing a very good job. It is all very well giving them the power to consider more options, but will the Minister give us an idea of how many of the recommendations he intends to accept?

We have already accepted a number of the recommendations. Indeed, some of the additional provisions are the result of our accepting recommendations.

I will give the House a couple of examples where we have listened to the Committee and accommodated its suggestions, which have now become part of the additional provisions.

I shall return to the points I was making about Euston. Delivering the additional benefits will mean that construction will need to be in two stages, so while construction disruption will be more localised, it will last for seven years longer overall. The peculiarities of the hybrid Bill process mean that an additional provision is required only when additional powers or land are required.

The vast majority of our revised Euston proposal can be delivered using the powers and land that are already within the hybrid Bill. The information in the explanatory note therefore sets out only those small new areas of land and additional works that are required to give effect to our new vision for Euston. However, the supplementary environmental statement that will accompany the additional provision, if this motion is passed, describes the environmental effects of the revised plans for Euston, to ensure that those affected are fully aware of the details of our proposals.

In addition to the Euston station-related changes, the additional provision includes other minor changes in Camden, such as additional parking for London zoo, the provision of space to allow lorries to turn and the inclusion of some listed buildings within the relevant schedule to the Bill. I turn now to the second set of additional provisions, known as AP4, which contains changes proposed outside Camden. These additional provisions include almost 70 mostly minor amendments—including eight in your own constituency, Mr Speaker—to powers relating to changes up and down the line of route outside Camden.

These changes have come about following a combination of negotiations with petitioners and the recommendations of the Select Committee, as well as the continuing development of the design of the railway. Members in the relevant constituencies were written to in July with an outline of these changes. As with the Camden changes, an explanatory note was sent to Members last week. The most notable changes are: Dr Rupa Huq Ealing Central and Acton Lab: AP3 and AP4 affect my constituency much less than AP2, but given that the Minister described how he made a.

No visit has been made since the one by the Select Committee in March, and since then all these additional provisions have come forward and the composition of the Committee has changed. Will he come to witness the disruption, disturbance, noise and nuisance that residents in these roads feel they will suffer as a result of living in a building site for the next 10 years?

That is how they see it. I would be delighted to come to have a look at the problem. I believe the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn Tulip Siddiq. Sorry, I got confused. As we have new Members representing that area, I would be delighted to visit once again to hear about that issue. If any additional problems are caused by these additional provisions, I would be happy to look at them and meet local people.

If the leader of the local council would also like to attend, I would be delighted to see her, too. I thank the Minister for the comprehensive explanation he has given of the changes and the two tranches. Some of these will be less expensive—indeed, that is one of the purposes of some of the changes we have suggested—and other changes will be within the budget that we have outlined, so there will be no need to have an overall increase in the budget.

HS2 Ltd did, however, make provision, when planning for this project, for some changes that it expected the Select Committee may propose. I might expand on that a little later in my comments. It should also be recognised that the changes set out in the additional provision are only a fraction of those that we have made to the scheme to address petitioner concerns.

Many changes can be made within the existing Bill powers and so do not require an additional provision. The Bechstein bat is a particularly at-risk species and it is important that we protect the woodland habitat it uses. The overall phase 1 budget is not expected to increase as a result of those changes, including the Euston proposals.

Many of the changes come at no additional cost, some actually produce small savings and others are absorbed by the contingency set aside at the outset specifically for the purpose of addressing petitioner issues.

If this motion is successfully passed, both these additional provisions will go through the same process, although the timings will be different for each. The relevant additional provision, an environmental statement.

For the additional provision affecting Camden, these documents start to be deposited tomorrow. For the additional provision affecting other areas of the route, these documents will be deposited from 12 October. A public consultation on the environmental statement will be held. For the additional provision affecting Camden, the consultation will run from tomorrow until 6 November, and for the other additional provision, the consultation will run from mid-October. There will also be a petitioning period for those directly and specially—to use that term again—affected by the changes in this additional provision to submit petitions against them.

The petitioning period will run as usual for four weeks. For the additional provision affecting Camden, it will begin on Friday 25 September and end on Friday 23 October for all petitioners. For the other additional provision, the petitioning period will begin in mid-October for all petitioners.

Newspaper notices will be published in national and local newspapers over two consecutive weeks following the deposit of each additional provision alerting the public to the changes and to the opportunity to feed into the process by petitioning or responding to the consultation as appropriate.

Mrs Anne Main St Albans Con: To ensure that enough people are aware of the additional petitioning process, will my hon. Friend explain how people who are visually impaired or who might not have access to the local and national newspapers will get the information about these new changes? I will look into what we can do to ensure that people who are visually impaired can access the information.

For the vast majority of people affected by the changes, they will be no surprise. In many cases, we have made them in negotiation with the landowner or other interested parties, including local authorities. Indeed, some of them respond to petitions so there will be delight that the changes have been proposed, although other people who might be affected might well want to petition about them.

They also demonstrate our willingness to respond to the concerns of petitioners and the Select Committee to make beneficial changes to the project, and I therefore commend them to the House. Lilian Greenwood Nottingham South Lab: I thank the Minister for his kind words and for providing advance sight of his statement. It is a true honour to take up the. Friend the Member for Barnsley East Michael Dugher. He did an excellent job on behalf of passengers and road users and was never afraid to stand up for their best interests.

I am sure that he will perform admirably in his new role shadowing the Department for Culture, Media and Sport at a critical time for that brief. As a supporter of HS2, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak for the first time in my new role in this debate.

I extend the gratitude of my party, and I am sure of the whole House, to my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton North East Mr Crausby and for Preston Mr Hendrick and the hon. Member for The Cotswolds Geoffrey Clifton-Brown for stepping up and joining the Committee.

It has now heard several hundred petitions and there is general agreement that it is making both swift and fair progress. It is performing a vital role, improving and refining the project, and its work would not be possible without the professionalism of the Clerks and the contributions of petitioners, including Members of this House.

They all deserve our thanks. We do not seek to obstruct the passage of these provisions, because some of the changes will reduce planning blight for petitioners and provide some measure of certainty for those who live along the route.

They also provide an important mechanism for implementing the instructions of the Committee and the outcome of negotiations with petitioners, such as those on the longer Chilterns tunnel. I know that a number of hon. Members have concerns, and I shall make way for them shortly, but before I do so I want to put some questions to the Minister about the revised proposals for Euston station.

They can only be described as a partial proposal for redevelopment. Yet last year the Chancellor said:.

Tes - Education Jobs, Teaching Resources, Magazine & Forums

There is a really big opportunity for jobs and for housing in the area. What assurance can he offer the House that Network Rail is in a position to fulfil the function that he has set out today, and that it will not be blown off course in the coming months as a result of Government or regulatory action? I would be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that the plans debated today will in no way inhibit the later replacement of the s station.

Andrew Bridgen North West Leicestershire Con: Friend the Member for Islington North Jeremy Corbyn has said that he supports investment in high-speed rail, and so do I. I am sure that Members on both sides of the debate would agree that the specific proposals can be improved further. Residents of Camden face years of disruption as a consequence of the proposals outlined today. The disruption might now be less intense than originally proposed, but the construction period will be prolonged.

What consideration has been given to the feasibility of conveying construction materials by rail, as has happened during the Crossrail development, rather than by road, in order to reduce the impact on residents? Furthermore, and incredibly, this is the fourth proposal for Unison— [ Interruption. That is along with all the uncertainty that this situation has caused for local residents. The situation is clearly inadequate. It is vital that the Department, Network Rail and HS2 Ltd work as closely as possible with Camden Borough Council and campaigners to find a solution that works both for the railway and for local residents.

Speaking as an observer of previous discussions over the past three years, I am not convinced that every effort has been made to date. Friend the Member for Warley Mr Spellarwho is no longer in his place, noted that it was suggested in the press at the weekend that the overall number of platforms at Euston might be reduced.

Careful planning to manage the disruption to existing services is essential, and contingency measures such as diverting commuter services into Crossrail should be considered. But I note that the lack of capacity on the west coast main line is also a constant and enduring source of delays and cancellations.

A number of compensation schemes have been established for people who live along the planned route, some of which have been withdrawn, and awareness of others appears to be low.

The HS2 residents commissioner has said:. Will the Minister set out for the House what support is available to residents, including those who live outside the rural support zone?

The precedents set by the Government and the Committee for phase 1 are of direct relevance to phase 2, particularly on compensation. We have been told that they will set out the way forward on phase 2 later this year, but of course that is not the same thing as confirmation of the route. I urge the Minister in the strongest possible terms to return to this House, I hope before the end of the year, to provide some clarity on phase 2 and the introduction of the relevant legislation.

I noted that the Minister said that these changes would result in some small cost variances. I would be grateful if he could tell the House the net cost impact of the changes proposed in the motion. We remain supportive of the additional provision process, and indeed of this important project. I assure the House that the Opposition will subject the Bill to line-by-line scrutiny when it enters that Committee stage.

Footer links A-Z index Glossary Contact us Freedom of Information Jobs Using this website Copyright.