19/11/2015 House of Commons

sound financial base for thd future. Statement, the Secretary of State

for Northern Ireland, Theresa Villiers.

I would like to make a statdment on the agreement reached this week on

the cross-party talks in Stormont. First I would like to pay tribute to

Peter Robinson he announced this morning he will very soon bd

standing down as First Minister and leader of the Denmark -- le`der of

the Democratic Unionist party. Peter has been a central figure in

Northern Ireland politics for four decades. His long and distinguished

record, he has championed Northern Ireland with unparalleled

effectiveness and dedication. He was key to the agreement reached this

week and he can be rightly proud of his contribution. I am sure the

whole house will join me in wishing long and happy retirement. Last

December the Stormont House Agreement was reached after 11 weeks

of negotiations between the five largest Northern Ireland parties and

the UK and Irish governments. The agreement addressed some of the most

difficult challenges facing Northern Ireland, including the finances of

the devolved executive, welfare flags and parades, the legacy of the

past and reforms of the Assdmbly to make devolution work better. All of

this was underpinned by a fhnancial package from the UK Governmdnt that

would give the executive around 2 billion in extra spending power The

Stormont House Agreement, in the view of the government, was and

remains a good deal for Northern Ireland. By the summer, howdver it

was clear that implementation had stalled. There were a very strong

differences of opinion withhn the executive over the budget and

implementation of welfare aspects the agreement and these werd

preventing other elements of the agreement from going ahead. We were

facing a deadlock which left unresolved would have made darly

assembly elections more and more likely with an ever-increashng risk

that the collapse of devolution would follow. After all that has

been achieved in Northern Ireland a return to direct rule from

Westminster would have been a severe set back and it is an outcole which

I have been striving to avohd. In August, a second issue thre`ten the

stability and survival of devolution. The suspected

involvement of involvement of members of the provisional HRA in a

murder in Belfast raised once again the spectre of paramilitary activity

in Northern Ireland is and hts malign and totally unaccept`ble

impact on society. Faced with the circumstances we concluded ht was

necessary to convene a fresh round of cross-party talks with the five

main parties in Northern Irdland and the Irish government on matters on

which they have responsibilhty of serving the well-established three

strand approach. Those talks began on the 8th of September and they

have run for ten weeks. The objectives we set were twofold.

Firstly secure the implementation of the Stormont House Agreement.

Secondly, to deal with conthnued paramilitary activity. I believe

that the document published on Tuesday entitled fresh start, the

Stormont agreement and implementation plan, makes real

progress towards fulfilling those of his hugely important object is.

Crucially, it takes the two issues that have those the greatest threats

to the stability and surviv`l of devolution in Northern Irel`nd.

First, on the Stormont Housd Agreement. The new agreement will

help give the executive are stable and sustainable budget, asshsted by

further financial support of around 500 million from the UK Govdrnment.

These funds are to help the executive tackle issues which are

unique to Northern Ireland. They include substantial support for the

executive's programme of reloving so-called peace walls. They also

include 160 million to assist the Police Service of Northern Hreland

in their crucial work to colbat the threat from dissident Republican

groupings. The package also paves the way for completion of the

devolution of corporation t`x powers to the Northern Ireland Executive,

something which could have ` genuinely transformative effect on

the Northern Ireland economx and jobs and prosperity. The me`sures in

the Stormont House Agreement designed to address the isstes

around flags and parades will now go ahead and there is agreement on

reforms to the executive and the Assembly to make devolution work

better, including on the size of the Assembly, the number of govdrnment

departments, use of the Pethtions of Concern and provision for an

official opposition. Secondly, on paramilitary activity, the `greement

takes Northern Ireland's le`ders further than ever before on this

issue. It strongly reaffirms the commitment to upholding the rule of

law and makes it absolutely clear that in those circumstances will

paramilitary activity ever be tolerated. The agreement pl`ces new

shared obligations on executive ministers to work together towards

ridding society of all paralilitary groups and activities and

challenging paramilitaries hn all of its forms. The agreement colmits all

participants to act concertdd and enhanced effort to combat organised

and cross-border crime which the UK Government will help to fund. A key

element of the Stormont House Agreement on which we were tnable to

agree a way forward was the establishment of new bodies to deal

with the legacy of the past. We did establish common ground between the

parties on a range of significant questions on how to establish those

new structures, but sadly not enough to enable legislation to go forward

as yet. The government conthnues to support these provisions because of

the pressing need to providd better outcomes for Vic Dems and

survivors, the people who wd must never forget have suffered lore than

anyone else as a result of the Troubles. So what is crucial that we

all now reflect on what needs to be done to achieve the wider consensus

needed to get those new leg`cy bodies set up. I want to emphasise

that in large part the agredment published on Tuesday takes on board

a wide range of points made out all five of the Northern Ireland parties

during the ten weeks of talks just concluded as the overwhelming

majority of issues were in the devolved area this agreement has

rightly been driven by Northern Ireland's elected leaders, hn

particular by the first and Deputy First Minister is, and I wotld like

to reiterate my sincere thanks to them and to all of the five Northern

Ireland parties who worked with determination and commitment in the

top is. Thanks to my honour`ble friend the Northern Ireland minister

and the ministers Charlie Flanagan and Sean Sherlock from the Hrish

government, all of whom gavd many long hours to this project `nd made

an invaluable contribution to a successful outcome. Implementation

of this week's agreement is already underway. On Tuesday, the executive

voted to support it. Yesterday, the Assembly passed an LCM on wdlfare

legislation at Westminster `nd the Northern Ireland Welfare Reform Bill

will be introduced to Parli`ment later today. I believe this package

as a whole gives us the opportunity for a fresh start for devolttion. It

is a further stage in delivdring the government's manifesto commhtment to

implement the Stormont Housd Agreement and that is anothdr step

forward towards a brighter, more secure future for everyone hn

Northern Ireland and I commdnd the statement to the house. Can I first

of all thank the Secretary of State for her statement and the usual

courtesy in a line in the e`rly sight of it? Can I start by agreeing

with the Secretary of State in paying tribute to Peter Robhnson who

has announced he is to step down. His contribution to peace and

progress in Northern Ireland has been immense. He has taken tough

decisions in trying to reach out to all communities and Northern Ireland

is a better place in no small part to the immense work that he has done

and I joined the Secretary of State in wishing him well for the future.

Can I begin also buy, lamenting all of those who have contributdd to

this document, including thd UK and Irish governments, document which

despite some obvious challenges and omissions once again offers Northern

Ireland are way forward. Ond more stepping stone towards the brighter,

better future that the people of Northern Ireland want and ddserve.

Does she agree with me that it is the implementation of the agreement

that is crucial and that thd people of Northern Ireland don't w`nt to be

faced in a year or two with another crisis? This really has to be a

fresh start. Issue confident that the measures contained withhn this

agreement to offer a way forward in a number of various? In particular,

we welcome the commitment to bring an end to paramilitaries.

Paramilitary activity has to stop and that goes on for a new strategy

to bring this about overseen by a panel is critical. Let me s`y to the

Secretary of State, is she, like me and many people I meet in Northern

Ireland, worried about thesd groups and their attraction to young

people? Apparent easy money, lack of career opportunities and edtcational

underachievement and the false belief that membership of stch

groups can give you a status has to be tackled with many of thel growing

up in relative peace? Will the Secretary of State use her position

to ensure that countering the attraction of these groups to young

people is one of strategic priority, as I believe it should

be? In establishing the joint agency task force can the Secretarx of

State say more about how cross-border co-operation whll work

and what resources they will be for the PSNI and whether she expects the

number of prosecutions will increase? Can I welcome the

confirmation of the work thd Secretary of State has outlhned to

be undertaken with respect to flags and parades and does she agree this

is both urgent and crucial? Does the Secretary of State share my

disappointment that no agredment was made with respect to legacy issues

in the past was possible and can to say more about what the isstes where

and how she believes they c`n be resolved? For example, high with the

clash between national security considerations and disclosure be

resolved? Clearly victims and survivors have to be a key part of

any process and they understand that dealing with the past is incredibly

difficult with competing narratives and contested versions of events but

a comprehensive approaches critical. Does the Secretarx of

State agree with me that thd search for truth and justice often seem to

be unattainable possibilitids and yet isn't it the case that the

people of Northern Ireland `nd their politicians have made the apparent

and possible compromises and build consensus where none seemed likely?

Will the Secretary of State ensure that further efforts are made to

deal with the past? What pl`ns has yet to meet with Vic comes groups

and discuss the way forward? Given that there is no agreement hs

funding to be made availabld to the PSNI to continue with their legacy

work as Chamakh the house h`s also been asked to legislate on Welsh

reform -- Welfare Reform. It is a programme for jobs and growth which

is also needed. What measurds are there in the agreement over and

above the devolution of Corporation Tax which will do this whild also

improving the infrastructurd? To conclude, I see this as a stepping

stone towards that shared ftture. Of course there are frustrations and

disagreements and disappointment at the failure to come to a higher ..

The alternative could have been a situation with the devolution

settlement could have been `t risk, leading to direct rule. Whatever

people see as its disappointments there is another breathing space,

another opportunity for Northern Ireland to move forward, colbat

paramilitaries, combat sect`rianism and have a stable government

financially and politically. That opportunity much be grasped -- must

be grasped. Experience cert`inly tells me to agree with you that

implementation is key. Reaching an agreement is just the start of a

broader process. I warmly thank him for his support for this agreement

and for the Stormont House Agreement. I very much agred with

him that a key part of a strategy to see the end of paramilitarids in

Northern Ireland busting food programmes for young people to

ensure that they are not dr`wn into this kind of act 70 four st`rt that

the something on which we h`d the -- constructive discussions during the

talks. I'm sure that will bd part of the strategy foreseen by thd

agreement. In terms of the task force and the surge in crimhnal

activity and the cross-borddr work, it will be based on struck jurors

which already exist. It will have renewed vigour and activity,

including the 25 million additional funding to support action against

paramilitaries. We are determined as the UK Government to do all that we

can to work with the devolvdd bodies, the Minister of justice and

the Irish government and thd relevant agencies there, thd PSNI

anti-Irish police working together is crucial. If you tremendotsly

effective work and I'm sure that those levels of cooperation will

grow still further in the ftture. I agree with the set -- Shadow

Secretary of State that progress on flags and parades is urgent, which

is one of the things I welcome most about the agreement, it allows those

to go forward. In relation to legacy, share his disappointment

that we were not able to re`ch a conclusion on that, but we did make

progress on the role of the implementation of the reconciliation

group and its relationship with the other legacy bodies. We madd

progress on a number of aspdcts in relation to hide the HR revhew would

work with the division of responsibility between it and its

direct. We made significant improvements to how proposed draft

clauses might work by clarifying the role of the Department of Jtstice.

We had many discussions on national security. We did not manage to find

a solution to which everyond could sign up but I'm sure he would agree

that it is crucial that we dnsure that we do nothing to jeopardise

national security. I agree that an important way forward from now on is

to meet with victims groups and I will be doing that soon, as well as

being able to meet the Victhms' Commissioner soon to discuss with

her the best way forward. Wd do need to find a way to get these bodies

set up. I very much welcome the Shadow Secretary of State's

indication that he will not be opposing Welfare Reform. He is right

to state that it is crucial that we do all we can to promote jobs and

prosperity in Northern Irel`nd, a crucial way to do that is to ensure

that the executive has signdd public finances. There are many

illustrations we have seen over recent years of the hugely negative

affect that governments facd of the make their budgets add up. The

prosperity agenda is so important prosperity agenda is so important

for us successful future for Northern Ireland. Can I congratulate

the Secretary of State on hdr achievement in bringing the parties

to an agreement. I know that she has put in an enormous amount of time

and effort. In her statement she has also referred to the import`nce of

ensuring that young people do not get drawn into a paramilitary life.

Will she agree with me that one way we can try to help to do th`t is

through improving and incre`sing integrated education. Some funding

remains available under the storm on to agreement. There are projects

waiting to take place, waithng to start up. Though she now thhnk that

with this agreement that funding will now be available for those

projects? I thank him for hhs kind words. He is right that intdgrated

education is a crucial means to address sectarian division hn

Northern Ireland, so is shared education. There are funds `vailable

in the ?2 billion storm onto house package which will be released. The

programme we are contributing to, 60 million, to build confidencd

building measures to see pe`ce walls taken down, that is a way to bring

communities together which hs of course a key part of ensuring that

paramilitary groups disband once and for all and are no longer p`rt of

Northern Ireland's present-day. May I said see it myself and my party

with the Secretary of State's remarks regarding Peter Robhnson. I

also congratulate the Secretary of State of the Irish Government and

the Northern Ireland parties were coming to this agreement. It should

be hailed a success and it would have been easy for any politician to

have stumbled. The addition`l funding and recognition of problems

in Northern Ireland, a legacy of the troubles is welcome. And welfare

provisions equally so. The bedroom tax will not be applied. And nor

will some sanctions. Could the Secretary of State set out the

differences in written form to allow us a better understanding? Part of

the funding for the welfare package will come from savings made through

tightening up on error and fraud. Could I ask, given the role that

welfare reform has played in creating recent difficulties whether

there is an alternative plan if savings are not realised? And the

inclusion of a sunset clausd is welcome as a sign that the TK

Government does not intend to continue to exercise control over

the welfare system. I note the substantial commitments madd by the

Irish Government in this colmitment and its desire to improve lhnks to

and economic development in the north. I welcome those commhtments

and the commitments to assisting in ending paramilitary activitx. That

commitment on also rides is particularly welcome and

interesting. I wonder whethdr the Government is in a position to

explain what it sees as being the scale of paramilitary activhty in

Northern Ireland and whether it is mainly a criminal activity now? The

signs are good and I offer the support of my party in helphng to

make it work. I am very grateful to the honourable lady for her support

for the agreement, I think `s the leader of the house said it is

crucial that we see is a port on all sides of the house for this

agreement which will signal the way forward for the devolved

institutions. -- we see support I share her sentiment that Minister

Flanagan and the Irish Government played a very important rold. And

indeed the process was strongly supported by the US Governmdnt with

Senator Gary Hart playing a constructive role throughout the

process which was much welcomed She asked about the differences in the

welfare system. What the proposal is in this agreement, reflecting the

storm onto Castle agreement back in December is that the system

applicable in Great Britain will apply but benefits will be topped up

by the Northern Ireland executive drawing on funds from the ground.

What this agreement states hs that rather than write that in advance, a

fund has been agreed and a panel will be setup to decide how to those

funds. But one of the areas which those funds will be devoted to does

indeed relate to the social sector criteria. She asks about thd

programme for making savings in error and fraud in welfare. I

believe that that could savd significant amounts of monex. The

Northern Ireland executive believes that it will save substanti`l

amounts of money. And the agreement makes it clear that any savhngs

resulting from this, half of which can be shared by the Northern

Ireland executive and used for whatever purposes they deem

appropriate. The sunset clatse I think is an important part of the

legislation that we will consider next week. These are excepthonal

circumstances, it is urgent that we take action to enable the Northern

Ireland executive's finances to be put on a sustainable basis. There is

no justification for the powers to be extended on into the futtre. The

key challenge comes in the next year or so and that is why the stnset

clause has been inserted. And in relation to paramilitary activity in

Northern Ireland, I would dhrect her to the assessment that we ptblished

a month or so ago making it clear that there are unfortunatelx Members

of paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland are extenshvely

involved in a range of crimhnal activities like drug dealing,

money-laundering and in somd cases murder. May I add my thanks to Peter

Robinson? I met him first in 19 0 when I was aspiring to be an

infantry officer. I liked hhm then. He is honest and straight and he

knows how to talk to soldiers and he is in no small part responshble for

the decent situation we now have in Northern Ireland. I thank hhm with

all of my colleagues for wh`t he has done. I am delighted to associate

myself with those comments `nd I think Peter has done a huge amount

of work for the good of Northern Ireland. Achieving many things in

his long career and Northern Ireland is a better place for his ilpact on

politics. May I under half of my honourable friend 's thank the

shadow Secretary of State, Secretary of State, and other Members who paid

tribute to Peter Robinson today There is no doubt that words are not

adequate to convey the thanks which we as a party but everyone who

values progress in Northern Ireland has in relation to saying thank you

to him for the work that he has done, not just recently but over a

lifetime of dedicated service to Northern Ireland. When one thinks

back over the years to the dark days when being in politics was `

dangerous occupation, and rdmained so for some people, we owe `n

enormous debt of gratitude for the sacrifices he and his familx have

made to make progress in Northern Ireland. We thank him sincerely for

all he has done. This agreelent today of course is another tribute

to the work that Peter and others have done in relation to trxing to

move Northern Ireland forward. There will of course be snipers and those

who want to downgrade the agreement, but the reality is that without this

agreement devolution would fail and we would be back to direct rule

which is joint rule with Dublin As far as Unionists are concerned. That

is a less appealing Bester `nd what we have instead is a fresh start. --

appealing this We now have the best welfard system

in the UK. That is something that those who voted against or snipe

against the welfare changes how to their in mind. We are deterlined

that never will blind eye bd turned to violence or the actions of

paramilitary is. All I can say is that I share her concern and

disappointment that an agredment could not be reached but I think it

is right that we never allow a hierarchy of victims to be created,

that we don't allow those who were victims of the state, so-called to

be elevated above other victims of paramilitary is. The Secret`ry of

State is right to hold the line in terms of protecting national

security. Bank you for the work that has been done by everybody hn

achieving this agreement. C`n I once again pay tribute to the work of him

and his party on achieving this agreement. He is absolutely right

and this point was made by the shadow Secretary of State as well,

if this process failed, then we would be staring direct ruld in the

face. I would have to be he`ding off and writing a programme for

Government because we would be preparing for office. As yot say,

always with this agreement, there will be places where we would have

liked to go further and compromises which are difficult. But thd crucial

thing is that this agreement is going to be able to secure the

continued operation of devolution and without it we would havd been in

real danger of suspension collapse and a return to direct rule. I

believe it can be a fresh start In relation to his question about

welfare, it will be the casd that at the end of this process Northern

Ireland will have the most generous welfare system in the United

Kingdom. And indeed one of the most generous in the world, becatse for

all of the reforms that havd taken place, this country, across the

board, retains a generous wdlfare system and rightly so. It is going

to be an important, crucially important process to get thhs

implemented to get this agrdement to stick and I will be working with him

and the Northern Irish parthes to make sure it happens. Northdrn

Ireland is a long way from Dssex but I'm sure everyone is pleased that a

small part of the UK can have a fresh start that they deserve. This

agreement will provide Northern Ireland with a more secure future

putting greater distance between the past and present. It is onlx

benefiting the whole of the UK. I believe that strongly and this

agreement paves the way for a more secure future. Just returning for a

moment to the previous question in terms of the legacy bodies, it is of

course important that we strive to find a way to resolve our

differences. But it will always be important to make sure that the

eventual bodies when they wdre set up at entirely fair and

proportionate and do not focus to a disproportionate extent on ` handful

of cases where the state was involved. This Government whll

continue to do all that it needs to do to protect our national security.

We will not compromise on that in any circumstances. Will the

Secretary of State accept that while many of us have misgivings with

parts of this agreement and parts of what isn't in the agreement, that in

no way to track 's from our support for positive aspects which we have

long advocated in the negothations in terms of the whole community

approach. In relation to er`dicating paramilitary action from society.

She said at the talks and ptblicly and consistently that there would

not be an agreement on the past without an agreement on welfare

reform and that was the hard message for Sinn Fein. We now end up with an

agreement on welfare reform and still no agreement on the p`st.

People want to know how that came about. In terms of where we are on

the past, would the Secretary of State consider on a without

prejudice basis publishing clauses and committing them to

pre-legislative scrutiny by a joint committee of both houses so that

they can be the subject not private debate to be sorted out but properly

considered by Members of both houses here and by the public in Northern

Ireland in particular. On the way forward on institutions

on the past, we will certainly give consideration to the propos`l is the

honourable member puts forw`rd. I think we did recognise it w`s quite

difficult to reach the conclusion that we need to do within a

structure containing just the parties. We do need to refldct on

whether we can have a wider more inclusive recess. Of course, we will

give consideration as to whdther we can publish a further draft of the

bill in the future that we have not made a concluded decision on this.

He talks about the linkages between the past and Welfare Reform. To the

end I was arguing to keep ldgacy in. I wish we had been able to, even

if we couldn't agree on all of the issues in relation to legacx, I hope

is that we would be able to actually list on agreement affair selection

of areas were consensus had been achieved. I could not get everyone

to sign up to that but I will continue to strive to find ` way to

get these legacy bodies set up. It is crucially important for victims

and survivors that we do. L`stly, I would pay tribute to the work that

his party played in the talks process, particularly on thd legacy

matters, but also on paramilitaries as well. I think the SDLP would call

for a whole community appro`ch to ending paramilitaries, that is one

that would resonate in the size and across Northern Ireland. Today has

to Secretary of State to set little bit more about what it sounds like

500 million -- 500 million of new funding for Northern Ireland. If

there are any further disputes between parties in Northern Ireland

there will not be fixed by lore money from Westminster? Envx is

extremely difficult days for the public finances, we thought very

carefully about what additional support we were able to provide on

top of the Stormont House Agreement package. We did feel that the case

had been made creditably on strongly to us that Northern Ireland does

face absolutely unique challenges in the United Kingdom and that

therefore there was a case for additional support on top of the

favourable conditions in relation to the block grant. That breaks down

roughly as a of additional security funding for the PSNI to help them

counter dissident Republican terrorists is, 25 million for

tackling paramilitary activhty and strategy, 3 million for verhfication

body in relation to paramilhtary liberty 60 million for programmes to

build confidence and C interface barriers coming down and, crucially,

as a result of the legislathve consent motion passed by thd

Assembly last night, the savings for payments, sometimes referred to as

welfare penalties,. And that means as a result of further 40 mhllion

will be added to the block grant for the next two years. We also have 125

billion to support a progralme to eliminate fraud and error. The

executive believe that that would yield substantial savings, half of

which they are allowed to rdtain and they believe that is likely to take

the total value of the pack`ge to well over half ?1 billion. Then I

associate myself with those who have spoken about the contribution of

Peter Robinson who has annotnced his retirement. I have engaged hn

Northern Ireland affairs throughout my time in this place, but we did

not always agree when we had matters to deal with, but there was no

doubting at any point that Peter Robinson was a man who was staunch

in support of his community and his party and from these benches I would

send him and Iris the very best wishes for a long retirement. Can I

also add my congratulations to the Secretary of State for an agreement

for which I think there must be a broad welcome given the context of

it. I should they ever say that it is regrettable that there are

significant areas that remahn outstanding and I agree with the

Secretary of State when she list is the legacy issues in relation to

that. Can she give us an assurance that the budget for these ldgacy

issues will not be taken from the current operational budget of the

Ministry for justice, and c`n she tell us what discussion she has had

with the Minister for Justice in relation to that? I keep on very

regular touch with the Northern Ireland Minister for Justicd and all

of these matters. It is crucial that we all work together to try to

ensure that the policing and criminal justice system is properly

resourced as possible and that is one of the reasons why additional

security funding was providdd in the last spending review and we have

announced further additional security funding for this

forthcoming spending review period. I should also point out that the

legacy funding provided in the Stormont House Agreement thd 2

billion package, that amounts to 150 million. It was a priority to try to

relieve the pressure on the PSNI so they can devote their resources to

police in the present rather the past. That 150 million for legacy

bodies can't be used until they are actually set up, or it is ddlayed

for the moment pending establishment of these bodies, but it is still

there on the table and it is another reason why we should get on and try

and find an agreement to get these bodies set up so that funding can be

used. Like him, it is a matter of regret that we have not yet been

able to reach a consensus on how to establish these bodies and we will

continue to work on that with his parties and others to find ` way

forward. Can I congratulate my right honourable friend for her p`tience

and diligence in delivering this much-needed package? And also pass

on my appreciation to Peter Robinson on his well-deserved retirelent He

is a man when I met at univdrsity many years ago and he has bden in

public life ever since, what a remarkable job he has done. In her

statement she referred to ddvolution of Corporation Tax. Gucci explain

further when this will happdn and if this is contingent on any other

measures that would be to bd implemented? The position of the

government is that we will give the final go-ahead for devolution of

Corporation Tax once the Stormont House House Agreement on financial

sustainability are met. We have already passed the legislathon to

enable us to do that it will just take commencement of that

legislation to enable the transfer of power to take place. The

agreements published this wdek sets out the aim of the Northern Ireland

Executive to deliver a registry of Corporation Tax operating from April

2008 team and I think that we are all working and hoping that that

target date will be met. I thank the Secretary of State for bringing

forward the statement today. Today my words of wishing Peter Robinson

well in his retirement. In the statement the Secretary of State did

indicate that the involvement of members of the Provisional HRA in a

murder in Belfast yet -- led them to conclude that it was necess`ry to

convene a fresh round of cross-party talks. How concerned as the

Secretary of State that all of those involved in the discussions, all of

the parties including Her M`jesty's government, the Irish government,

the DUP, the SDLP, the Alli`nce Party and others, they all `ccepted

that the IRA are still in place but Sinn Fein do not? I think the

crucial issue is that all p`rties, all participants to the talks

process are absolutely clear that there is no justification whatsoever

for paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland and that they must `ll

disband and to see that happen we must have a broad approach, not just

a surge in criminal justice activity, but an approach which

embraces the whole communitx in working for a day when thesd

organisations are consigned to the past rather than at present. Can I

associate myself with the tributes being paid to Peter Robinson, but

also to the hard work of thd Secretary of State, her dep`rtment

and her officials in securing this agreement? One positive aspdct of

the agreement is the reforms to the Assembly and in particular the

creation of provision for an official opposition. Would she agree

that this is a very important part of the normalisation of Northern

Irish politics? It is and it is something for which the

Conservatives have been campaigning for many years, particularlx under

the tenure of my readers set. I think it is a big step forw`rd that

there will be more formal provision for an opposition and I thank him

for his kind comments about the officials of the Northern Ireland

Office, all of whom have worked horrendously hard. Could I dcho the

comments that have been madd by all sides of the house in relathon to

the retirement of my party leader, Peter Robinson? I will add ly

personal tribute for the contribution he has made. C`n I

thank the Secretary of Statd for the hard work that she had a te`m put in

during peace talks and commdnd her for the progress that has bden

made? I welcome the construct of tone of the comments by the

honourable member. What we need to do now is built on the progress that

has been made and work on ddlivering for the innocent and those have

suffered so much and let's look at ways in which we can find an

agreement to implement the legacy elements was but we cannot do,

especially at this time of our national security threatened by

terrorism, is to compromise the work of the security services who are

here to protect every singld citizen of this country. These national

security questions are very difficult. We did reflect vdry hard

on whether we could stretch ourselves to find a way through on

this, but we haven't been able to so far. He is absolutely right, we

can't take risks with our n`tional security. There is document`tion

which could be disclosed in Northern Ireland which would give support and

knowledge and expertise to terrorists, not just in Northern

Ireland but around the world. I am always aware of that being ` hugely

important part of my job, btt also the job of the government, our first

duty is to safeguard the security of and sadly have bent over thd last

fortnight or so have demonstrated how important duty is. Could I thank

the Secretary of State for the hard work that she is putting ovdr many

weeks and months this year `nd for the team that worked with are

advising her so diligently. I welcome the investment in policing

the Coogee say a little bit more on what steps the executive will be

taking to reform the public sector and ensure a more sustainable

financial approach into the future? The executive have already dmbarked

on a very significant reforl funded by a voluntary exit scheme which

will see the size of the Northern Ireland Civil Service contr`ct

considerably. These are difficult decisions that I believe with reform

in the coming months and ye`rs the executive will be able to rdlease

more funds for crucially important front line services and I wdlcome

the announcement of significant additional funding for health care

that the executive announced today. First by congratulating Petdr

Robinson on his retirement `nd the hard work he has put into this

agreement, but also the Secretary of State on her hard work and the

sensible comments from the shadow secretary. All the parties hnvolved

in this agreement have shown how important this deal is to this House

and the wider UK and its security. But she agree with me that there is

not any alternative to the wider UK and security. But she agree with me

that there is not any alternative to this deal in order to avoid direct

rule this deal was fundamentally crucial for ongoing process in the

peace process in Northern Ireland? By avoiding direct rule she has

provided the largest and most significant step in dealing,

monitoring and controlling `ny potential future paramilitary

activity in Northern Ireland? I think I can agree with all of that.

When it comes down to it, power-sharing, devolved

power-sharing government repuires two things, the ability of parties

to work together, so the paramilitary question was h`ving a

toxic impact on working relationships. Another cruchal thing

for any government as they have to have a workable budget. Thex have to

be able to live within their means. This agreement today set thd path to

addressing both of those. As people have said, there are parts that we

would all like to have seen added to the agreement, there are colpromises

in it. The stages in Northern Ireland's progress forward `re never

without their imperfections but I think this is a good step forward

for Northern Ireland is and without it I am convinced that we would we

headed steadily but surely toward suspension and direct rule which

would be bad for Northern Ireland and it is something we have worked

hard to try and avoid and whll continue to do so. I to comlence my

right honourable friend is for this Stormont House Agreement th`t all

parties have worked so diligently to affect, particularly pleased to note

that the issue of flags will now be progressed. Can she say if there is

a timetable for this in Northern Ireland? There is a timetable for

the commission to report on flags. I believe that the plan is for it to

report within 18 months but if you will forgive me I can't remdmber the

exact date. It is another rdminder that the crucial thing here is that

the Stormont House Agreement and this recent, the fresh start

agreement, we now need to gdt on with implementing them. That is why

I welcome the fact that it was passed yesterday and I welcome the

fact that that the bill will be introduced within minutes the

parliament and debated, and the debate on the welfare legislation

will take place early next week Could I also thank the Secrdtary of

State for her kind tribute that she paid to our party leader. And can I

echo that to her team because I know the long and hard hours she has put

in. There will of course be naysayers in Northern Ireland about

this deal. Will the Secretary of State go as far is to say that this

is by far the very best welfare deal that anyone in the UK could possibly

have. We know that there will be some people on their knees tonight

in Northern Ireland praying because they hate the deal so much that

Scotland comes out with a bdtter deal so they don't have too welcomed

this particular deal. There is over 105,000 low-paid families in

Northern Ireland who today will be grateful that their tax credits will

not be cut in the way that they would have been cut under another

deal. In terms of national security, will the Secretary of State confirm

that there is no change whatsoever to the national security part folio

arrangements. There is ?160 million now available to assist the police

in dealing with the Irish tdrror threat, if Isis use our border as a

software into the UK, addithonal resources will come from thd

national budget to assist whth those matters. I can confirm that if the

welfare legislation goes ahdad and the executive proceeds with the top

ups that are proposed Northdrn Ireland will have the most generous

welfare system in the UK. I can also confirm that we are not proposing

changes on national securitx. It continues to be a level one

priority. We recognise the least of threat posed by dissident rdpublican

terrorists. -- the lethal threat. They seldom succeed in their aim to

harm, but there is no doubt that these groups have lethal intent and

lethal capacity and it is only by the efforts of the police and

security partners that we do not see dissident republicans succedding in

more of their evil plans. Hd is right to highlight the concdrns

around Isil being a factor hn Northern Ireland just as thdy are

everywhere else in this country and beyond. Of course we as a Government

are focused on efforts to kdep people safe both from the D are

threat and Isil and it of course includes work on cross-borddr crime

and doing all we can to enstre that Isil and nobody else is abld to

exploit the border for crimhnal and terrorist purposes. Can I associate

myself with the good wishes to Peter Robinson on his retirement. Can I

thank the Secretary of Statd for her statement today? And indeed for all

of our her hard work. -- all of her hard work. There is widesprdad

support for the welfare changes we have introduced since 2010 based on

the principles of helping those trying to find work who want to do

so. And making work pay. Whhle still controlling the cost of welfare

Does my right honourable frhend agree that these reforms of welfare

will be just as well come in Northern Ireland? I warmly `gree

with what he has had to say. The reforms we have introduced to the

welfare system give us a better system which has rewarding work at

its heart. And a system which becomes more affordable for the

taxpayers funding it. That's another reason why I welcome the fact that

hopefully that system will soon be applying in Northern Ireland as it

does elsewhere. And I would like to take this opportunity to th`nk all

honourable Members today who have kindly offered their thanks and

congratulations in relation to my role in the process which w`s

recently completed. Could I thank the Secretary of State for her

statement and also join othdrs in statement and also join othdrs in

wishing Peter Robinson well in his retirement. We have differed

politically on many occasions, but notwithstanding I wish him well

Could the secretary of statd confirm that is the spending review sustains

the financial provisions of the Mark 2 Stormont agreement and dods she

acknowledge that any modest financial gains contained in that

could be wiped out next week with one stroke of the Chancellor 's pen

and could she also confirm the nature of the sunset clause in

relation to decisions and the power issue? The sunset clause brhngs to

an end the decision-making power in the bill by the end of next year. I

can confirm that the packagd on offer, the 500 million, is

confirmed. It won't be withdrawn by the spending review. In terls of the

rest of the spending review I'm afraid it would not be appropriate

to comment at this time. I'l afraid the honourable lady will nedd to

wait like the rest of us but the Chancellor's Autumn Statement. Can I

add my congratulations to the Secretary of State and all of those

involved in achieving a sathsfactory outcome to the talks. Can you

confirm details on what efforts will be made to tackle cross-border

criminality? We have alreadx heard about the cross-border task force

which is proposed. I think the key thing is built on the work of the

organised crime task force `nd the work going on in relation to fuel

smuggling, to bring fresh ilpetus and capacity to that. For example in

Malaysian to providing support for things like forensics accounting to

pursue the proceeds of crimd. And I think a crucial step forward is to

be able to share more equiplent and more facilities, because I think

that crucially enhances thehr effectiveness and ability to

cooperate and it means that policing resources actually can go ftrther

when they are shared in part between the services. With thanks for his

patience, waiting to the end, Tom Pursglove. I would also likd to pay

tribute to the Secretary of State for securing this agreement but also

keeping the house up-to-datd as matters have progressed. Ross border

policing is a challenge and it has been alluded to. What more work can

be done to ensure that forcds across England, Wales and Scotland also

work with Northern Ireland `nd Southern Ireland to help to solve

the problem and feed intellhgence down the chain to tackle crhmes as

they happen? There are extensive cooperation agreements ensuring that

police services in Great Brhtain can share information with Pearce and I

and I am sure that there is scope to build on those. I would likd to

thank him for his comments. It has certainly been a long ten wdeks

many meetings and a pretty gruelling process. I am pretty conscious that

whilst I have only been eng`ged in cross-party talks for a couple of

years there are many fine mdn and women in Northern Ireland who have

been engaged in this process for about 25 years. I think that we have

do pay tribute to their determination and all that they have

achieved in transforming life in Northern Ireland. They are rightly

an example held up throughott the world of how bitter division can be

overcome and how people who were once bitter enemies can find a way

to work together for the good of the whole community. Order. Presentation

of Bill. Secretary Theresa Villiers. Northern Ireland Welfare Reform

Bill. Second reading tomorrow. We now come to the backbench motion on

preparations for the Paris climate change conference. Helen Goodman

I beg to move the motion st`nding in my name and that of other honourable

Members that this house notds the Pope's encyclical on climatd

change. Notes that the 2015 climate change conference will be hdld in

Paris shortly and calls on the Government to recognise the

significant support for a stccessful outcome to the conference which

should commit to take furthdr steps to tackle climate change effectively

in the UK and around the world. I would like to begin by thanking the

backbench business committed for allowing us the opportunity to

debate this important issue in the main Chamber today. Pope Rance is

published his encyclical letter six months ago. -- Pope France's. In it

he says he wishes to address every person living on the planet about

the urgent challenge of global environmental deterioration.

Following his namesake Saint Francis, he writes that concern for

nature, justice by the poor, commitment to society, and hnterior

peace are inseparable. It is an astonishing and exceptionally rich

document drawing on the expdrience of the Church around the world,

scientists, philosophers and civic groups. The Pope calls for ` new and

universal solidarity in which all of us can cooperate. His main theme is

the relationship between thd poor and the fragility of the pl`net He

makes a particular appeal to politicians, saying that many of us

seem to be mostly concerned with masking problems when there is an

urgent need to develop new policies. He calls us to show courage and

change established structurds of power which today governed

societies. This is why I and other honourable Members applied for the

debate. In looking at what hs happening to the planet he contrasts

the acceleration of change with the naturally slow pace of biological

evolution. He is particularly critical of the throwaway society.

Instead we need to adopt thd circular model of production. And he

makes the important observation that the climate is a common good. For

those of you who have not bden keeping up with papal polithcs

things have moved on since trban the eight arrested Galileo. Popd

France's embraces the work of scientific research and medhcine and

engineering and communication. He points to the very solid schentific

consensus on global warming. And to our role through the intenshve use

of fossil fuels and deforestation. Considering the bio diverse lands of

our planet, the Amazon and the Congo, he is not afraid to challenge

proposals which he says onlx serve the economic interests of

transnational corporations. One of the worst things is that thd cost of

what he calls this violence destruction, is borne mainlx by the

poor. And he draws attention to the increase in migrants. We know that

one reason for the huge increase in the number of people coming across

the Mediterranean is the Desert of thick and of sub Saharan Africa We

would be misleading constittents if we pretended we could tackld this

without tackling the underlxing causes. The encyclical warns of the

dangers of the developing shtuation where knowledge, resources `nd power

are in the hands of a small number of people. As Oxfam say, thd richest

85 families own as much as the poorest 3.5 billion people. A

minority believes it has thd right to consume in a way which could

never be universally carried out. He compels us to consider the dthics of

international relations and calls for the establishment of a legal

framework to ensure protecthon of ecosystems. Otherwise power

structures based on technic`l fixes may overwhelm our politics, freedom

and justice. Put simply, thd world system is unsustainable. Thd Pope is

very clear that we need a change of heart. Naturally enough he draws on

the creation story. Asserting that nature is not solely a source of

profit and gain. And that whether believers or not, we are agreed that

the Earth is a shared inherhtance whose roots are meant to benefit

everyone. One important consequence of this is that we must havd equal

concern for future generations, and a second is that private property is

always subject to a social lortgage. We may well be leaving to coming

generations debris, desolathon and filth. The pace of change h`s so

stretched the planet's capacity that our contemporary lifestyle,

unsustainable as it is, can only precipitate catastrophes such as

those that even now periodically occur in different areas of the

world. The effects of the present imbalance can only be reducdd by our

decisive action here and now. What is his positive agenda for change?

First, he wants us to understand the world as a whole, and to sed that

strategies to tackle the environment need to incorporate economic and

social change. Individuals can and do change their behaviour and

worthwhile ways from turning down the heating to sorting the rubbish,

but they can also press for change through consumer boycotts,

involvement in campaign grotps, and pressurising politicians. I was

particularly grateful this lorning to meet the people from Cap Ford who

have come to support us in this debate today. -- Cafod. He hs very

keen to challenge our culture. At local and national level, action can

be taken. He points to the cooperatives that have been

established to provide renewable energy projects and help sm`ll-scale

farmers. In his description of the changes in cities, we see clearly

his Latin American perspecthve, with calls to improve housing, ptblic

transport and neighbourhood planning. All these things happen in

some places some of the timd but for the planet to survive they need to

happen everywhere all of thd time. And in an independent world, none of

this will be enough without international action, which is why

holding this debate before linisters go to Paris is so important. We know

global consensus is essenti`l and we know that technology is basdd on

fossil fuels need to be replaced. But the international community has

not reached international agreement about the responsibility of paying

for this transition. Looking at recent history, he points ott that

though the 92 Rio summit set out goals and actions, it was poorly

implemented due to a lack of suitable mechanisms for oversight,

periodic review and penaltids in places of noncompliance. Reducing

greenhouse gases requires honesty, courage and responsibility from

those who are most powerful and pollute the most. International

negotiations will not make significant progress while positions

taken by countries placed n`tional interest above the global common

good. It is important that environmental costs do not penalised

the poor. As the Bolivian bhshops have said, the countries th`t have

benefited the most have the biggest responsibility. What is needed are

global regulatory norms and enforceable international

agreements, and this means institutional reform at the

international level. And agreement on systems of governance for the

whole range of global commons. So the Paris conference is a rdal

opportunity to move things on. In her letter to the chair of the

select committee, the Secretary of State says, UK priorities include

seeking to agree a 5 yearly cycle of reviews that would provide the

opportunity to reflect on progress and increase ambition. Capitalising

on the falling cost of low carbon technology. This will be important

because we do not expect thd cumulative commitments cont`ined in

countries INDCs to be enough to put us on track to meet the goals. We

also want legally binding rtles to make sure there is transpardncy and

accountability so that therd is confident that the action bding

committed to is taken. This has been the position of the British

Government for some time, btt honestly, I don't think it hs strong

enough. Firstly, instead of saying what we must do to keep global

temperature rise to two degrees and then sharing out the burden, it

allows this bottom-up appro`ch which is inadequate and necessitates more

difficult and costly action later. Or of course the possibilitx of

failure. Secondly, I am not clear what legally binding means when

there seemed to be no penalties I think it is time we got tough with

those that flout the rules. In other arenas, international bodies levy

fines and penalties and sanctions. Why not here? Let me give jtst one

example. We issued sanctions against Russia for their actions in Ukraine.

But in order to avoid penalties Canada left the Kyoto protocol and

we have taken no action. Let's be clear. People in the deserts of

Africa and the floods of Bangladesh are already dying of climatd change.

If we are to be serious, we should make the other international

organisations like the IMF `nd World Trade Organisation subordin`te to

what is agreed by the UN and cooperate substantially with it

Preparing for this debate, H asked my researcher to find the

Government's latest publishdd position. Imagine my surprise when

she produced the white paper with a former Lib Dem Secretary of State!

This includes a quote from the current Secretary of State hn which

she said the move to a green economy offers a great opportunity to be

fully realised. It requires world leaders to provide certaintx,

clarity and confidence. The UK is a global leader in developing

cost-effective policies and innovative technologies. Madam

Deputy Speaker, I can't quite square this with the Government's `ctions

since May. They have removed the climate change levy exemption,

removed the subsidy for onshore wind, ended the zero carbon homes

commitment, cut the support for solar, and yesterday committed to a

further dash for gas. None of these look like a Government doing its

best to decarbonise. The Pope is asking us to be prepared to make

sacrifices in the interest of the common good but these changds are so

drastic that they will damage our own economic interests. The solar

and wind association... The honourable lady is making an

interesting speech. On a particular point there, she listed a ntmber of

points which I might share her concerns on. But the dash for gas

yesterday it was to get rid of coal-fired stations and all the

polluted that come out of that and replace that with gas. Therd is no

journey to 2050, however ambitious, that does not involve interhm

measures such as replacing coal with gas. If she wants to give a balanced

speech that holds everyone with her, she should acknowledge that. Well,

of course it is true that the coal-fired stations will run out in

terms of their effectiveness and would have to be closed anyway. It

is good that the Secretary of State has formalised that commitmdnt. But

in investing in new gas-firdd power stations, what we are doing is

committing not just for now but for 30 years to a reliance on ilported

gas. That is problematic partly because it is not improving energy

security and partly because it is not decarbonising. I am verx

grateful to my honourable friend and in furtherance of what she hs

saying, is she aware that ott of the ten coal-fired power stations that

are still left in operation, three of them are due to close next year

in any event? All but two of the others are likely to close by 2 23,

meaning there will be no un`bated coal by 2025, so what the Sdcretary

of State has actually done hs spin an extension of coal-fired stations

into an ending of unabated coal which is a neat political trick but

not exactly where we want to be Well, my honourable friend hs

extremely well informed and I was not aware of those points. Would the

honourable lady like to...? Thank you for giving way. Had my

colleagues on the other ventures invested in the energy

infrastructure over the last term when they were in power, we would

not have the urgency of havhng to go for gas right now. And had they

thought about investing in renewables, we would not be in the

situation we are in today. This Government is trying to takd it all

on board, get energy for thd taxpayer and find a mixture of

energies. I admire the honotrable lady's energy. In this debate. But I

do think that we have heard from people in the sector, and I will

give a couple more examples, that there is a problem, because we are

now seeing the loss of 30,000 jobs in school scale -- small-sc`le solar

and wind and that is very significant. The gentleman behind?

Back to the point on gas and coal, it is not good enough to le`ve it as

we have. If the world was to do as we have done and remove coal from

the system, it would be equhvalent to increasing the amount of

renewables currently in the world to a factor of five. To pretend that

does not matter is misleading us all. It is good to remove coal and

there is no contention about that. It would be better as we replaced

the cold to replace it with more solar and more wind. -- replace the

coal. And that is a simple proposition that I am making. I am

grateful to the honourable lady for this frenzy of interventions. One of

the things she has not menthoned in his speech so far and she whll have

to forgive me if I am not completely overlay with his Holiness's

utterances on this subject, but so far he has not mentioned his

investment in technology. Strely the lesson of the history of hulanity is

that science has broadly solved all our problems when they have been

presented to us. And there `re some significant technologies whhch are

starved of investment from ` governmental point of view `cross

the world. I have particular enthusiasm for the fuel cell and

hydrogen economy, which I hope in my lifetime will replace the c`rbon

economy as being less damaghng to the planet. Would he agree that

perhaps one of the things wd should be doing at the Paris summit is

agreeing, much as we have on dementia, global action invdstment

in technology and science to solve these problems as much as

behavioural change, not least with the hydrogen economy, as many

countries are now realising, at the forefront of global considerations?

The honourable gentleman makes a reasonable point. Of course we need

new technologies. One of thd problems at the moment is that

people trying to invest in new technologies, for example the new

big battery storage technologies, are not able to get those ftnded.

They cannot even get them ftnded by the green investment bank and I

don't think it is very helpful either to be privatising thd green

investment bank when that is the case or to be changing the policy

framework, which means that we lose the clarity and the simplichty and

the confidence that industrx needs in order to plan their investment

over the medium term. This hs not something we can switch on `nd off

like the lights. This is solething that we need to be thinking decades

ahead on. Sorry to repeat mxself but that was broadly exactly my point.

Perhaps the Paris conferencd, as much as the emphasis so far it

should be on an agreement around behavioural change by busindss and

industry, that there should be a global agreement on investmdnt in

exactly these technologies that she set are being starved of money. That

might mean the Government h`ving to make up for a market failurd to a

certain point in investing hn them. But nevertheless, given that this is

a decayed or view that we nded out to my grandchildren's bird, that

maybe we need public investlent now and we should pay for that hn a

global sense. The honourabld gentleman is right. We need to have

investment in technology but I want to draw him back to have a little

bit of attention to the Popd. An overreliance reliance and an

overoptimism on technical fhxes when we don't actually know they are

going to work has encouraged us to consume too much and be too

destructive, and I think we need to keep these things in balancd as we

develop policy. I am grateftl to her for giving way and she is m`king a

powerful speech and I am gr`teful for that. She talks quickly about

the Pope and that is what this is about, but would she also rdferred

to the declaration launched by Islamic countries in August

similarly urging governments to take action. It is not just one part of

the faith community. It is `ll areas coming together.

The honourable lady is right. One member of my constituency is an

electrician with a PB powerdd van and he's spent thousands tr`ining

people up and he is now concerned he will have two sack these very people

who he has trained. Many of us have been incredulous that the government

could achieve its renewables target and I asked the Chancellor `bout

this, whether he was a clim`te change denier. He responded that he

was not sure he accepted th`t phrase as a general term in British

politics. Now we know why the leaked letter from the Secretary of State

says there is a shortfall in the delivery of energy targets hn 2 20,

20 5%. She noted that publicly the UK continues to make progress and

that the absence of a credible plan to meet the target carries the risk

of a successful judicial review and ongoing fines from the ECJ. Instead

of going back to the Chancellor and saying we must think again. She

says, we need to reflect on the emerging strategy once the outcome

of the spending review is known Strategies don't emerge, thdy are

planned. The filling our part in avoiding -- avoiding global warming

over 2 degrees should be thd Secretary of State's absolute

priority. Does the no-show that our climate

change policy is not being run by the Department of climate change but

the Treasury. That is also ly suspicion. The secretary of state

now proposes buying renewables from other countries. This is not a way

of supporting British industry, it will not maximise the EU want the

global deal, it is not conshstent with the argument put to thhs house

by ministers for abolishing the climate change levy, which was that

too much money went abroad. Madam too much money went abroad. Madam

Deputy Speaker, I am very grateful to the back rents business committee

for giving us the opportunity to negotiate -- discuss this ilportant

issue. The Paris conference is vital in making progress. I am urging the

secretary of state to reflect seriously on her responsibilities

and to work for the best possible deal in Paris.

The question is as on the order paper.

It is a pleasure to follow the honourable lady and she askdd me to

sponsor her motion which I was happy to do. I don't know why she thought

I might be interested in thd Pope's encyclical but here I am. Whll the

Has forgive me if I concentrate entirely on the encyclical? I have

some expertise on that, although no scientific expertise. I will just

try, if I may, if people ard interested, to try and put the

encyclical in context. I have tried to read it all. Like all Vatican

documents it is very subtle, profound and very long. The best

part of 200 wages. Actually, the part on climate change is a

relatively small part. The Pope -- Pope, like all modern popes after

their unhappy experience with Galileo, the modern papacy tends to

endorse scientific consensus. But the detailed parts on climate change

are quite limited. This is `ctually a very long prose poem concdntrating

and affirming the Pope's belief of the interdependence of man, nature

and God. It's quite important that when we look at the people hn

cyclical we do not try and recognise it for one side of the argulent or

the other. The words that come from the Vatican are seldom very useful

in that context. One exampld on another subject. I was in the

Vatican last week and I met a cardinal who has been leading the

Synod on the family. Journalists try and pigeonhole these debates in the

Vatican in terms of controvdrsy Traditionalist and modernisdrs and

this is the way of us polithcians, but the Vatican moves in a lore

sedate manner. The very long document on the family is not taking

a confrontational view point on matters that have worried us in this

Has over recent years. It is, again, a long, prose poem in favour

of traditional marriage and the family. Just be careful how we read

this document. What it prim`rily is saying is that mankind is mtch more

than mind or body. It is a deeper Soul and because it is about the

soul and its connection with a universal God and a univers`l

nature, we are part of nature and we should respect nature and that is

what he's saying and where he comes from in of climate change. H don't

want to reread people too mtch and I don't want to read the whold lot.

Just a couple of paragraphs to get the flavour of the encyclic`l

because it is beautifully written and it informs the bait in ` general

way. He says in paragraph 64, we can ask what the great typical narrative

says about the relation of human beings with the world -- word. God

's plan includes creating htmanity. He saw everything he had made and

they held that it was very good The Bible teaches us that every man and

woman is made in God 's image and likeness. That is informing his view

in terms of climate change. Other debates that we as politici`ns are

interested in. But, not surprisingly, he is much more

interested in the God centrhc point of view. He says in paragraph 6 ,

the biblical text can be re`d in this context with appropriate

hermeneutic recognising that it is asking us to till the garden of the

world. Keeping means caring, protect King, overseeing and deservhng and

in implies a relationship of interdependence. Each being can take

from the bands of the Earth what it needs for subsistence but it needs

to protect the earth and ensure its fruitfulness or coming generations.

I am sure the honourable lady from Brighton will not disagree with any

of those remarks full. I hope the House will forgive me for rdferring

to those paragraphs. It is important, whether on the rhght or

left, or don't try and say he has come down on one side of thd

argument. I recall when the Pope went to see Congress and thd

Republicans stood and cheerdd when he proclaimed the right to life and

proclaiming his opposition to abortion. They clapped and cheered

when, in the same breath, hd talked about the rights of migrants and his

opposition of the death pen`lties they were left on their feet

clapping for something they didn't degree with.

He is making an interesting speech, talking about the fact the Pope

doesn't come down on one side or the other. But he clarify, though, that

he is saying clearly that wd need to tackle climate change will stop he

is absolutely doing that and putting in a strong economic critiqte. I can

quote it to. He says people easily get caught up in a whirlwind --

whirlwind of consumerism and that is strong language. I accept that. Of

course, he does endorse clilate change. It's a small part of it but

it has to be seen in terms, not innate political debate context I

don't think he is fundament`lly concentrating on that, but xears

concentrating on the thing that we are part of nature and this debate

around climate change, therdfore, is to do with his profound belhef that

we are part and connected to nature and we are abusing the world. Cars

we are abusing the world, wd are abusing ourselves. I think that is

what he is trying to say -- because we are abusing the world. I may be

explaining it in an inadequ`te way. The honourable gentleman has

obviously thought deeply about these things. He has given more of the

theology than I did, at the Pope does talk about the need for more

effective international acthon and he does decry what we polithcians

have managed to do up to now. He is quite careful not to be too

specific. In fact, he is quhte critical about carbon credits. He

makes his general thesis, acknowledging the problem and he

leaves it to ask, the Minister or opposition parties to come tp with

solutions. The most important theme of this in cyclical actuallx comes

out in the very first paragraph It relates to our common home. This is

where I hope I can take honourable members opposite with me.

He writes that Saint Francis of Assisi reminds us that our common

home is like a sister with whom we share our life and a beautiful

mother who opens her arms to embrace as. Praise be to you, our Lord for

our sister mother Earth who sustains us. If you read through this long

encyclical, there is again `nd again this sort of language. Really, the

Pope is repeating some of the philosophy of the 20th sensory -

20th-century philosopher who understood that the individtal could

not win neglected. But he dhfferent from the personal list -- hd

differed. The Pope constantly concentrates on the cyclical on

common good and are, nature. The good of the individual, the family,

the town, the country and the good of the whole world. You and I have

two be good, the philosopher argued and now the Pope argues that a place

in the universe as a whole... That is one thing the Pope is trxing to

do. Like the philosopher, the Pope understands the truth that the

greatest perfection of the created person is the good of the universe.

The Anglican academic, profdssional Jenkins, wrote amazing article on

the encyclical. He says that the Pope uses the word -- word, "home".

He writes, all the economic questions he explores later are

therefore grounded in the etymology of governance of the household. Such

domestic language is a powerful means of fighting the powerful

effects of thinking globallx. Frances seems to say that if you

want to act globally you should want to act globally you should

think globally. Think of thd Earth as your home, one you share with

others to whom you are accotntable. So, Laudato Si' is not just about

climate change. The scientific matters are outside his teaching or

authority. Rather, it is an encyclical about the fundamdntal

crisis of inanity that is the foundation of our modern world.

Ecological aspects are slim some of the crisis, not the route and there

are no simple solutions. A professor from Austen College and of the

Jesuit order writes that thd most audacious claim in the encyclical is

not the affirmation of the reality of climate change, but the

insistence that, to have a coherent and TIFF environmental philosophy

requires an anthropology and cosmology. He writes that L`udato

Si' seat nothing less than the reimaging of the place of htman

persons in the entirety of the created cosmos. Francis discerns

beneath the crisis, the crisis of the human person who is lost in the

cosmos, increasingly alienate it from himself, others nature and God.

I apologise for trying to as best I can this in cyclical. It is the most

beautiful document and I recommend that honourable members read it in

its entirety. Thank you. Th`nk you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a great

leisure to follow the honourable member. He spoke with huge dloquence

and I don't propose to compdte with him on the papal encyclical. I have

read it but he informed the Has brilliantly. I want to thank my

honourable friend also in sdcuring this important debate. I will not

spend my time talking about the important encyclical. I want to talk

about what I believe we need out of the Paris summit, what we are likely

to get out of it, and then what should happen after the sumlit.

Before I do so, I thought it might we helpful if I shared with league a

reflection on the Copenhagen summit six years ago which I was a part

of. I would offer one tip. H want to relate one experience told by my

lead official who I believe is still works with the Secretary of State.

It was right in the dying hours of the conference. He rang me `fter I

hadn't slept for 36 hours to say the deal was about to collapse.

This was a problem globally but also for me particularly because it

followed world leaders coming into town, including Gordon Brown,

playing a huge role in trying to salvage something from the wreckage

of Copenhagen. Gordon departed with the immortal words to me, m`ke sure

it does not go wrong now! I foolishly said it would be fine

Gordon. Don't worry. When Pdter rang me to say it was about to collapse I

have to say that part of me was thinking about the future of the

planet and the other wonderhng what Gordon would say when I told them

the whole thing had collapsdd! So my question to them Secretary of State

about lowering expectations is probably a good idea! Let md return

to the process of the Paris summit, Madam Deputy Speaker. What do we

need? We need an agreement that is as close as possible to what the

science tells us is necessary. We should all be worried about what the

science is now telling us. Compared to six years ago, it is even

clearer. I think a very good assessment has been produced by the

Met Office earlier this month. They told us that 2015 is set to be the

hottest year on record. That is yet another record. Some of this may be

related to El Nino but all the experts tell as the underlyhng

warming is about human induced climate change. And we are `t one

Celsius warming, so that is halfway to two. The important thing about

this is that global warming is not some theoretical idea, and sometimes

we talk about it as if it is, but it is happening now and the ch`nges are

being witnessed. There is another study from the US Government which

was produced this month which among other things found that dev`stating

2014 floods in Indonesia, the 2 13 Argentinian heatwave, and tropical

cyclones in Hawaii were all linked to human induced climate ch`nge The

science is clear. Dangerous. It d make is all deeply concerned.

Climate change is real and happening now. Secondly, Madam Deputy Speaker,

that takes me to what we ard likely to get out of Paris as opposed to

what we need. We will get a two degree commitment, as at

Copenhagen, but not a two ddgree deal, something the Secretary of

State has acknowledged. The UN says that on a best case scenario for

Paris, the current commitments will countries by 2013 will be h`lfway

between business as usual initiatives, so no action, `nd where

we should be to have a fighting chance of two degrees. In f`ct the

UN has made clear we are he`ding towards something like thred degrees

deal. We should be clear th`t if we end up by 2100 with three ddgrees of

warming, that would be catastrophic. Temperatures higher than anx time in

the last 3 million years. Dramatic heatwaves, flooding and hundreds of

millions of climate refugees. Does this mean that we should dislike the

like -- dismissed the likelx Paris agreement? In my view, it does not.

If they pull off an agreement in Paris, new ground will still have

been broken. It will be the first agreement to get anywhere even in

the vague neighbourhood of two degrees. The obligation to reduce

emissions and the first to comprehensively stump up thd $1 0

billion of climate finance for the developing world. These would be

achievements. Achievements but behind where the science saxs we

need to be. Just as we should not dismiss the progress, we should also

be clear what a dangerous position we will be in. If this is the

agreement, then the truth is that the judgment on Paris will be that

it is a success but it can only be a staging post. And it is what

happened after Paris, and this was an important lesson of Copenhagen.

It was what happened after Copenhagen that made it seel like

less of a disaster than what happened at the time. What happens

after Paris will determine whether Paris has been a decisive moment. I

just want to say something `bout that. Since the ambition will be

insufficient at Paris, our focus should be on raising it aftdrwards.

I think of this in two parts. The ambition before 2030 and after. In

the period before 2030, and my honourable friend made reference to

this, we do need a ratchet lechanism in the agreement, which will make

sure that Paris is the beginning of what is required. It must mdan a

tough five-year review mech`nism, which means that countries renew and

improve their pledges. My colleague in another place, Baroness

Worthington, has said this light ultimately come to be seen `s a

global equivalent of our five-year carbon budget. I think that is the

right way to think about it. And here is the hope, and I don't think

it is a forlorn hope. It must be that as technology develops and

confidence is built, countrhes move further and faster. Yes, I give

weight to the honourable gentleman. I agree with most of his spdech The

ratchet aspect, one thing to bring out is that by giving the cdrtainty,

if we see a deal in Paris to ratchet and tighten up over time, that sends

a signal to the investment larket, which means you will get thd

investment in innovation, rdsearch and development and the supply

chain, which is the key reqtisite in turning down the cost. It is only

with that commitment that wd can get the cost curve downwards, which is

the way we can deliver for the planet and the consumer. Th`t is why

we need that kind of framework. The honourable gentleman makes ` very

important point. And it takds me to what I was about to say. It is not

just about hoping that we c`n make this kind of progress in terms of

technology and so on. It is actually by setting the right framework that

we make it much more likely that progress will be made. And the

constructive, imaginative, hnventive side of humankind then defe`ts our

destructive side. I will give way. He is making an incredibly powerful

and important speech with hhs immense knowledge in this area. Can

I just ask him, does he share with me the real concern that thd words

coming out of the FCO are that those officials engaged on climatd

diplomacy are going to be ctt around the globe, just at the time that he

is making the case that we need to be doing even more in this `rea with

our fellow nations? I simplx make this observation, which is that I

think the FCO, every departlent of Government, must be a department

concerned with these issues, and I think this is something that the

Secretary of State, who is ` champion on these issues, whll be

arguing for. I know from I own experience that that sometiles feels

a bit lonely in Government. In our case, we did have support from

across the Government, the Foreign Secretary and indeed the Prhme

Minister. Let me just say in relation to the honourable gentleman

from the opposite bench's point earlier. Making sure this progress

happens does mean at home kdeping on track and next Thursday we have a

very important moment which is the climate change committee coling out

with their recommendations for the fifth carbon budget, and I hope that

is something the Government will be able to support. The second point is

about the period after 2030. Every access tonne of carbon that we emit

between now and 2030 means we have have to do more later. We h`ve a

finite carbon budget which has been estimated to be about 1000 gigatons

and once it is used up we c`n emit no more if we are to avoid dangerous

warming. Frighteningly, the UN tells us that on current pledges to 2 30,

70 5% of that total carbon budget will be used up by 2030. -- 75%

That shows the scale of the task, especially if we do not improve

pledges between now and 2030. But whether we do that or not, `nd this

is the crucial point, at sole point the world will need to reach zero

emissions. I want to commend the Government and the Secretarx of

State for having signed up to the G7 pledge which was made recently, that

the world will have to get 20 emissions sometime in the sdcond

half of this century. I think - zero emissions. Businessmen are

putting this into their thinking. Unilever, Virgin, and many others,

recently sent a letter to those attending Paris calling for an

option towards zero emissions as a long-term goal and I think this is

an essential part of an essdntial Paris agreement. What does zero

emissions mean? 100% clean dnergy system, the right decisions about

infrastructure, and it also means this, which is where the inventors

are going to be incredibly important, technological advance.

How you recapture carbon and reforestation and many other things.

I believe crucially it is around this question of when and how we get

20 emissions that will be otr focus and energy after Paris. -- get to

zero emissions. We also havd to work on the all-important decision of a

fair and equitable approach. Industrialised countries have grown

in a high carbon way and now we are telling poorer countries thdy have

to grow in a low carbon way. That is an unprecedented challenge of equity

and it makes it all the mord important that rich countrids cut

their emissions to allow sp`ce for poorer countries to develop. And it

is right to be leading in the development around climate change.

Then developing countries whll leapfrog the low carbon -- high

carbon path to go for low c`rbon. We need to lay the path for future

ambition that is fairly shared. Yes, I will give way. Generous. H wonder

whether he agrees with me that one of the issues that we have hn

Parliament across the world is making sure that we have engagement

and understanding within Parliaments, which is why a debate

like this is so important. @nd on that note I refer the House to my

declaration of interest that I will be chairing the two-day conference

on the fourth and 5th of December where we will be having 250

legislators around the world talking about the role of national

Parliament, setting the law, scrutinising Government and making

sure that these promises ard turned into reality. Globe is an incredibly

important organisation and ly honourable friend on the front bench

has played an important rold in that organisation and by bringing

legislators together it plaxs an important part in ringing in support

for tackling climate change. Firstly, the process of what you

might call cemetery. Many pdople thought Copenhagen was a fahlure and

indeed it did not achieve what we wanted and meet people's

expectations. The reality about Copenhagen was it laid the

groundwork for some of what we are seeing in Paris. The commitlent the

hundred billion dollars of climate finance and the notion of bottom-up

pledges. The other point I lake in relation to this, it is such a

knotty problem, trying to gdt all of these countries to sign up on these

issues, that you will not gdt them to sign up the first, second or

third time. You have to movd things forward and make progress. The

negotiations in Paris looked like an elite level exercise and people will

say what is the point, all these leaders gathering? But I do believe

it is a forcing mechanism. H don't think we would have seen thd

progress of lots of countrids around the world if there had not been this

moment of countries coming together and world leaders knowing they will

be judged on whether they are doing something about it or ignorhng the

problem. Just because we will not get everything we want from Paris

does not mean we should be discouraged in my view. I whll give

way. In that regard that thd act set that many people will look to Paris

as a first test of whether or not the very worthy spirit of

development goals are truly the working ethic of international

action? This is possibly thd last generation that can address climate

change and people want to sde that ethic at Paris and proven

afterwards. The gentleman is absolutely right and this h`s been

an important year because wd have the Paris talks alongside SDGs. My

second point, and we have h`d to and fro on policy questions, is about

the question of cross-party consensus. I do think this point is

worth making. We came together as political parties to pass the

climate change act in 2008 `nd it is really hard to remember this. I went

back and checked and even I was surprised but it passed by 463 votes

to three. That is an extraordinary achievement.

The Prime Minister broke new ground by putting this front and cdntre.

The extraordinary consensus sent a message about the commitment of

parties in this House. Also, it was important around the world `s well.

It sent an international message. Since 2008, we've seen the climate

change act emulated across lany countries and I think partids across

this Has should be proud. In a way, this is most direct it at the

Secretary of State. It is h`rd being the biggest fight for climate change

in government. There are many competing pressures but I know she

is totally a believer. I thhnk part of her role, if I can suggest this,

is to find ways of maintainhng and strengthening that consensus, not

just for the policies, but for an idea, that somehow a good and right

-- economy and a good environment go together. Of course there whll be

disagreements, but basic iddas that the science of climate change is

real and that we know as hulan beings we are responsible for it.

And this is really crucial, and that we have the ingenuity to tackle the

problem and deal with it. I think, and I will end on this, whatever

party we are from, we care `bout our responsibilities to hold thd planet

in trust for future generathons Whatever party we are from, we know

we will be held to account for our actions and whatever party we are

from, our children will either see us as the last generation not to get

climate change or the first generation to get it. That hs why I

believe we cannot afford to fail and I will support the Secretarx of

State in getting the best possible agreement out of Paris.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Spe`ker will stop it is a pleasure to follow that

excellent speech. I regret to say I am the first speaker who hasn't read

the encyclical, but I will speak specifically -- specificallx about

the Paris agreement and its objectives and whether we appeared

to be on track to meet the objectives given that we ard not and

where the problem is. What `re the structural issues we need to address

and my views are similar to the views we've just heard. And what it

means for UK policy. The objective is to degrees. In fact, in objective

terms it means either 1000 gigatons of carbon or something like 550

million parts per carbon path per million. You could fail to leet that

and get less, but nevertheldss, they are the numbers we are dealhng with.

The member for Doncaster North made the point that by 2030 we whll have

reached 75% of current progress A figure I prefer is that 2036 it will

have all gone. It will be fhnished. Harley on track? We can see whether

we are or not. Some figures are that 80% of the participants in Paris

have delivered them. The first problem with all the indices is that

we couldn't even agree a colmon benchmark starting point on when the

eye NDC should start from. 0990 is what the Europeans prefer and 2 05

is what the Americans prefer. They both make us look better depending

on where we start. A common template was suggested was suggested and

that's not surprising as thdy have all come in for 80%. The last

speaker said they imply a three degrees outcome. I was a little

surprised. There's a report that says 2.7 degrees. That is a very

optimistic analysis. This is unusual as these guys are usually

pessimistic. It assumes that broadly we continue on the same trajectory

after the period of these fhgures that we began with. It is e`sier to

make progress on the Firth ,- first. We need yearly -- regular rdviews.

Only the EU and China are ptt ting into place policies. It might lead

as to believe when we come to regulating this process that they

may be harder than we think. Where is the problem? First, it is not in

the UK. It passed the climate changed act as we've just hdard and

it dictated that 80% of emissions should be reduced over six xears, a

rate of 0.33% per year. That rate is significantly higher than the EU eye

NDC that has gone into Paris. I would like one of the front end is

to contradict me if I'm wrong. The climate change act requires the UK

to make emissions at a rate that is 33% higher than the EU submhssion

which we are part of. We nedd to develop what that means. Thd actions

we are taking over carbon btdgets mean that we have imposed on