10/01/2017 House of Commons

proposition might be substantial support for it. I tried to expand

the envelope but there are limits, if we don't have a longer session,

people will have to be brief in questions and answers. Urgent

question. John McDonnell. I would support two hours, Mr Speaker. To

ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement on the National

Audit Office report into the government's management of the HMRC

estate as published today. Minister. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The

transformation plans of HMRC will allow it to become efficient and

effective tax collector said for the digital age. The large estate is

ageing and not delivering the best value for money for the taxpayer.

The audit office has confirmed that savings of ?80,000,000 a year will

be made by 2025. The size of the estate has been reducing since 2006,

the report published today shows some effective changes have been

made since 2010 while reducing staff numbers by a quarter and saving the

taxpayer over ?300,000,000. But HMRC wants to keep up the momentum to

provide better service at a reduced cost. They announced in 2015 at

means taking forward big reforms to have the estate works which will see

over 170 small offices consolidated into 13 larger regional offices, an

approach used across government. This brings a range of advantages

from efficient sharing of resources and quality digital infrastructure

to better support and career opportunities for staff who can

effectively share expertise and for the public it means a better and

bolder in service, run by fewer staff, costing around ?80,000,000 a

year less by the time changes take effect. The report today suggests

the cost of bringing this transformation are likely to be

higher than was 1st forecast. Certain aspects of the programme

could not be definitively made at the start. There are a wide range of

factors behind that from rising property costs and changes made to

the programme, for example to help staff the just and ensures smooth

transition for customers and the programme costs are updated to

reflect that. I thank the National Audit Office for their timely report

of the strategy to modernise the HMRC service is the right approach

and reflects the way taxpayers into rack with it. It's a plant is a good

IT manual processing of casks that can be done more easily with

technology. In short, we remain fully committed to taking forward

the changes to the HMRC estate that will help us bring a bad tax service

with the people of this country. -- a better tax service. In reality,

the report is damning of the government plans to close offices.

Be warned consistently but the government proposals will have a

detrimental impact on the HMRC ability to provide advice and tackle

tax evasion and avoidance. The report confirms our fears. Firstly

it calls the original closure van unrealistic at the estimate of the

costs of the move increased by 22%, ?600,000,000 extra, forecasting a

further 5000 job losses, finding the cost of redundancy and travel have

tripled from 17,000,000 2 54 million and says HMRC can demonstrate how

services can be improved. It hasn't even produced a clear programme

business case for the closures. As we predicted this is an emerging

disaster. Even the government accepts there is a gap of at least

36,000,000,000, these plans will do nothing but hinder tackling tax

evasion and avoidance. 73% of staff in the survey said it will undermine

their ability in terms of providing tax collection services, 50% saying

it will undermine their ability to clamp down on evasion and avoidance.

On the Minister Colet halt to the plant closures, and the job cuts at

HMRC and come back with a realistic plan to fully resource HMRC. In its

vitally important tax collection role. Of course the Shadow

Chancellor is right to say it's a vitally important role and at the

heart of the lot of the changes that have been made since the original

estimates and planning for this part of the transformation, at the heart

of that, a lot of it is about supporting staff that and putting

more things in place to support their move. It's interesting that

the Shadow Chancellor makes no mood of the potential benefits to staff

of this move. Of course some people will not be able to make the move

but the vast majority will live an average journey and will be

supported, 1-to-1 conversations happen with staff at head of moves.

And I think actually what he just said does not represent actually --

accurately what the National audit says, recognising that the move to

regional offices is central to aims to increase tax revenue, improve

customer service and make cost savings. The move to regional

centres has never been just about cost savings or buildings, it's

about the way they work in those buildings. Ultimately we have an

opportunity to change the way we work. 1982 my 1st job after going to

school was in an old tax office, some of those officers are over 100

years old and some of them haven't changed since I worked in them as a

school either. It's right we commit to making sure staff can work in a

modern environment. Staff will be offered the chance to move and for

those who cannot, there is 1-to-1 support, bespoke support and indeed

some of those staff will go to other government departments. That is

absolute nonsense. A lot of chuntering from the front bench but

they are not listening to the facts and they haven't read what BN AO

said. This is a major programme, right that the periodic overall

costs are reviewed but HMRC is not looking to make significant changes

to its overall strategy. We wanted staff to work closer together in

regional centres and specialist sites in a modern, flexible, high

quality working space and lastly on the subject of tax evasion and the

tax gap, no government has done more than this. It's absolute nonsense to

say that HMRC capacity to tackle those issues is diminished, far from

it. The tax gap in the UK is 1 of the lowest in the world, at its

lowest level ever, and in the summer budget we gave HMRC an extra

?800,000,000 to tackle tax evasion which it's done extremely well and

once again, we've reached record levels of compliance with regard to

money from measures against tax evasion. I read but entirely the

point is the Shadow Chancellor made in that regard. Sir Nicholas Soames.

With my honourable friend take it from me that in my own experience

dealing with constituents and with corporations in my own constituency

who have had enquiries with HMRC, in my judgement, their response time

and the way they handled the cases has immensely improved over the last

few years. In respect of them seeking to deal with tax evasion and

avoidance, there is absolutely no doubt they've raised the game very

considerably indeed. I thank my right honourable friend for those

comments and I think, I'm glad that he's put on board his pre- CH and

for a start. He is absolutely right. For the past 6 months, waiting times

have been less than 5 minutes on average and in fact customer service

has improved to the best service levels in years. This is something

management keep under review, it's right we seek to provide the best

service possible but we cannot do that in an modernised offices.

Recognising and failing to invest in digital technology... We need to

bring people together in an environment that is that for the

future both for staff and customers. The National Audit Office actually

said, the original plan proved unrealistic, suitable property will

not be available within the time frame set out, the revenue estimates

it may lose up to 5000 staff, simultaneously requiring recruitment

while carrying out redundancies. The plans were overly optimistic and

they carried too high a risk of disruption. Very similar warnings to

the turned failings of the step programme. Given how there and start

the warnings actually are, would it not simply make more sense to cause

this, rip it up and start again? No, I don't think that's right. I really

can't agree with that. Because the reasons that are driving this

programme, the reasons we want to transform HMRC into the most modern

digital tax authority in the world all still stand. It is right that of

course in any major programme and there are a number of them running

at the same time, we've always been open, this is an ambitious

transformation and it's right that it slip that regularly and of course

HMRC will respond in detail to the report. But the principle that

drives it stands absolutely good for all the reasons I've talked about,

but ever customers, Verstappen, but the taxpayer. With regard to the

right honourable gentleman who mentioned the step programme, the

National Audit Office report noted the fact that HMRC has managed the

programme better, the programme initiated under the last Labour

government but the report is complimentary about the way HMRC is

managing that and has got some of those PFI costs under control but

it's right that we constantly re-evaluate programmes of this

importance but I don't agree with the central thrust of this question

and it was not involve Scotland is 8% of the UK population, 12% of the

HMRC workforce will remain in Scotland is a Scotland remains a

very important part of the HMRC estate. Anne-Marie Trevelyan. Thank

you. It's good to hear the Minister raising the point that the telephone

answering is improving. On the Public Accounts Committee we looked

at this on an ongoing basis and it's been probably the biggest part of

our information coming through from MPs across the House. With the

digital world moving forward and we support this programme, could the

Minister said out how we are going to make sure staff who are on the

end of the phone will have the right qualifications to be able to support

businesses and individuals who need information? Again I thank my

honourable friend and important for her as a member of the Public

Accounts Committee to have the record that a lot of effort has gone

into improving customer service levels and they are good at the

moment and improving, that remains a key focus. Supporting staff, to

cover the point she makes about supporting staff as training will be

so much easier in regional centres. For example, at the moment, you have

large numbers of officers, it's not possible because of the nature of

the tasks and the volume, the number of people there, it's not possible

to have easy, effective training programmes, to plan career

progression, in the same way it will be when you get a larger number of

people together. If something reflect did across government and

the private sector, that you can do a lot more for people when you're

able to concentrate on a different range of skills so that people have

a chance to plot a career within the same office and I think that goes to

the heart of how we intend to prove the service to customers. -- to

improve. Chris Bryant. The trouble with this talk of regional centres

is that this is exactly what happened in every other department,

in constituencies like mine and for that matter across the South Wales

valleys of fields as a government has said, no we're not interested,

everything is going to forget about it. Can I urge her to think again,

the Treasury and the whole of government has a social

responsibility, in particular to areas like the Rhondda valleys and

the valleys, to make sure it has a local presence. It's certainly the

case that we want to, I can't agree with what he says, but the

honourable gentleman says about the motivation but equally, as I said

before, there is a balance to be struck between the service,

customers, the way we support staff, and how we serve the wider taxpayer

interest. And you see across government, yes, there has been a

move towards more modern, perhaps in some cases more centralised

services. There is a balance to be struck but there is a really robust

programme of support in place for staff who can't move and for those

who can move and extra money has been put into transitional costs

associated with transport, for example. But HMRC is also working

with other government departments to make sure thing we can we take

advantage of the high skills they have to move people into other

government departments were those skills can be used. The Minister

noted in the report there were some compliments about how HMRC has moved

to a more realistic plan for the project and is managing the existing

provider that they stay better than it had been. But she said out how

they will build on the progress to make sure skills are in Hampstead?

Of course he is quite right to say that and as I said before, obviously

HMRC will be responding in detail to this in a report and I will be

looking to discuss that with them. One of the NA's commendations is

just that that he has drawn our attention to that there should be a

process from learning from every part of the move and making sure the

first regional centre opens and it is reviewed and we've learnt

lessons. It is a long programme and not an overnight situation. We need

to review it at every stage and learn as we go along. In Workington

and you are proposing to close a modern office and the NAO says that

the distance between regional offices is 18 miles. Workington has

been paired with Liverpool. It will take three hours. It is

unacceptable. The workers in the Workington cannot transfer to

Liverpool. I don't know how they can be re-skill to work in equivalent

jobs in Workington. I would love to know what your suggestions. To me,

this is unacceptable. I have no plans to close that office. To my

very great life impoverishment I have two admit that I am not aware

to date of having been to Workington. I certainly would not

take it upon myself to close something that I have not even

visited. We recognise that you are busy enough without taking charge of

HMRC's transformation programme as well. The honourable lady has

written to me about this and I said I am happy to make with her. Whilst

the average that is cited in the report, we accept that the move will

be impossible for some people. The move will be supported, hopefully

where they will be other jobs in other departments. There is a lot of

work going into supporting staff and helping them into other jobs. I have

written to her before, but I will write to her again on the more

specific points. HMRC are planning a regional centre in Leeds. They have

not identified any site. Any site they do come up with will be

expensive and it will crowd out private sector investment in Leeds.

A few miles up the road in Bradford, a site is readily available. It

would be cheaper for the taxpayer than it would be in Leeds and it

would help the economy in the Bradford district. Can I urge the

Minister to use the NAO report, pause and look again and make sure

the regional centre in Yorkshire is not in Leeds, but in Bradford where

many people in HMRC already work. As much honourable friend knows, I am

familiar with all the localities he describes and it is fair to say, I

mean Bradford was disappointed not to be the chosen site for the

regional centre, but it is equally true that his constituents, the

railway station of Shipley is merely ten minutes from Leeds on the train.

I hope for his constituents that will be quite a realistic move, for

those who wish to move. I will reflect on what he said and if I can

provide further detail I will write to him, but HMRC have provided

detailed responses, explaining the criteria and wine leads -- and a

wide Leeds was chosen over Bradford. The Minister will be aware that some

HMRC offices have already closed in Northern Ireland is causing

consternation to employees who have to be redirected to Belfast. It has

also caused problems for all very people dealing with the taxation

affairs. But the Minister please put a pause on any further closures as

they simply cause chaos and upheaval. I am not entirely sure

that I recognise the description of chaos and upheaval, bearing in mind

what I have said about average customer service times at the moment

and the fact that the standards are being achieved at the moment. I

don't think that aligns with what she said, but I recognise that

changes of this scale can be a truly difficult for the people affected by

them. If I could just pick up one thing she said about people, the way

they interact at HMRC. It is a different world to the last time the

estates were looked at. The boss amount of taxpayers who interacts

with HMRC do so digitally or on the phone and we have to adjust to the

way the world is now and not to what it was like some decades ago. I want

to see my constituents get the best possible service from HMRC when they

have a problem, particularly when things go wrong. As HMRC have around

58,000 employees, would my honourable friend at least consider

the feasibility of HMRC allocating at least one named employee for

every constituency so that each MP has someone permanent they can

contact within the HMRC? Obviously over the course of working through

the recent challenges around the concentric 's contract and the

fallout from that, I have looked personally at the issue of how HMRC

interacts with members of Parliament. I have looked at that

specific ideal and I will reflect on what my honourable friend has said,

but I am looking to make sure that resources allocated to members of

Parliament were very effective and results are gotten quickly. HMRC

should be serving colleagues on all side of the house effectively. The

modernisation and improvement in Northern Ireland has led to closures

in towns with already high employment. There is frustration

with difficult cases and the loss of expertise in border cases where the

evasion of tax is widespread. How does this fit in with the

government's commitment to spread economic growth, give better service

to customers and reduce tax evasion? On a broader point, Mr Speaker, it's

worth noting that employment in our country is at an all-time high. We

would always want to retain expertise within HMRC, but within

any large organisation, you will always simultaneously have people

leaving and people you are recruiting and training up. I

referred the honourable gentleman to what I said earlier that for people

who want to join an organisation, become highly skilled and

professional and then plot a career through HMRC, it is going to be much

easier to support people to have those long-term fulfilling careers

in a variety of different areas of HMRC in the new modernised

structures. The Minister said a number of times that there will be

better service customers in these regional centres, but I note from

the NAO report it says the HMRC have not demonstrated that. Can the

Minister just reassure me how do she reach a conclusion there will be a

better service and it will be more efficient and effective the

customers? I noted that. I'm not sure I quite agree with how it was

expressed, but I noted the point she made. Let me give her one example.

Many of the buildings inhabited by HMRC are very old. If you look at

the latest digital infrastructure and many, many more taxpayers are

interacting digitally. We have over 7 million personal tax accounts now.

It is difficult as anybody knows to bring an old office up to modern

standards in terms of giving it the right digital infrastructure. If we

want to make sure that staff can make the most of modern computer

systems and put those at the service of customers who increasingly

interact digitally it is much better to do that in newer buildings which

have been bought for the purpose will be planned from the start for

that sort arrangement. The minister speaks about saving money and having

modern offices. In my constituency the HMRC offices are high tech with

high school star. There is plenty more space. It will save the

government ?70 million to keep it and develop it. Will she meet with

me to consider keeping the harbour in West Lothian rather than moving

it to the city centre where rents will be more expensive? I have had a

number of conversations, particularly with some of her

colleagues based in Scotland. I'm always happy to meet any

Parliamentary colleagues to discuss anything. No change to that regional

centre is envisaged. I'm happy to have a conversation, but we don't

envisage a plan of change. Sheffield staff are already commuting

considerably distances to the HMRC office because of previous office

closures. HMRC can ill afford to lose 5000 experienced that this

time? Given that HMRC have struggled to find suitable properties in the

location suggested, could she reassess property locations based on

cost and the ability to retain experienced staff and customer

service. You shouldn't be about where is easiest for Whitehall civil

servants to get to in those regions. The latter points she makes is not

the Russian now as to have the sites were chosen. Of course, I'm going to

read the report and reflect on it and as I say, HMRC will be looking

to respond in detail, but a lot of thought has gone into choosing

regional centres. I acknowledged some people will not be able to make

a move because the travel will be too far. It is very much a case that

we want to retain experienced staff. The people who can't move with HMRC

will be a variety of different levels of experience within the

organisation but where we can keep their skills at the service of the

tax payer to other government departments we office we will try

to. As I say, HMRC will respond in detail to the report, but I don't

quite recognise the characterisation she gives a choosing locations. In

likelihood the Welsh language unit will be centralised in Cardiff in

our region. 71% of the population can speak Welsh and it is the

working language of county administration. We have looked at

this issue and in part we are looking to what with other

government departments. I'm happy to have a conversation with colleagues

about this, not in Welsh! I will write to her about the detail

because this issue of the Welsh language has been raised with me

before and I know it has been taught in some detail. It is not that often

the honourable member for Shipley and I are on the same page, but on

this occasion we certainly are and he makes an excellent point in

defending Bradford. Additionally, Mr Speaker, by closing offices in

Bradford, HMRC will be turning their back on the skilled and diverse

workforce, access to building universities on one of the best MBA

programmes in the UK, all of which will help them to achieve their aim.

But the Minister reconsider and take a more sensible approach? Mr

Speaker, I can give the house and the honourable gentleman might

assurances that as a Bradford girl I would not do anything to harm

Bradford, but equally as a Bradford girl I make many times a year the

very, very short commute between Bradford and Leeds and I think

therefore that we would not wish to lose any expertise, but of all the

possible moves, Bradford to Leeds is the shortest commute that any HMRC

staff transferring war have to make and we want to retain all the

experienced staff we can. Can the Minister tell us if an equality

impact process has begun through? The loss of expertise does not only

applied to tax evasion, but the noncompliance of the national

minimum wage, a statistic that is On the latter point as the

honourable member will know, we have been tackling noncompliance on the

national minimum wage in the Autumn Statement and there's been a

considerable stepping up of that activity. I think I answered a

Parliamentary question on that this week if the honourable jazzman would

like to refer to Hansard for statistics. We want to make sure as

much as possible we support people to move and it takes a long time for

people to get to the highest level of skill and we want to make sure we

retain people for me are at their peak professionalism. On the issue

of the equality impact assessment I will write to him. Mr Speaker will

the Minister look again at the Wales tax Centre and 30s and instead of

putting it in Cardiff in Swansea Bay, city region, on the grounds

that property prices and other costs are lower, urban deprivation is much

lower in terms of the skills or abundant, we have two universities

and that was the logic of putting the DVLA there, we need all the

support we can get is the biggest urban footprint in Wales. And it's

costly in Cardiff. Mr Speaker, the honourable gentleman neatly

illustrates the challenge in deciding on locations as part of a

programme like this. He makes the case for Swansea, other members make

the case of their area. It's always the case you need a set of objective

criteria to be able to assess against. I will write 10 on the

specifics of the choice of location in Wales but it goes to neatly

illustrate the fact that you need to assess against a set of objective

criteria because every area will rightly have its advocates in

Parliament. Gregory Campbell. Is the Minister aware of the concerns that

exist across the United Kingdom particularly in Northern Ireland

that a policy that the Minister has outlined of regionalisation will

become centralisation and a very small number of officers with large

and bus of implies won't adequately service the needs of the community?

At the heart of the wider transformation of HMRC to become the

best digital tax authority in the world is the desire to do better for

customers, to collect smaller tax, to serve people better, to

constantly bear down on customer waiting times. -- to collect tax.

These programmes are designed to that end. I am aware of that. Does

the Minister accept that the closures will have a devastating

impact on some communities up and down the country, there is going to

be ?150,000,000 less to tackle tax avoidance as a result of the HMRC

failure to plan the move properly and they are even less effective at

saving money as they are at collecting it from slippery global

corporations? For the most part that was just a political point scorer.

In fact, as I've already mentioned, the facts do not bear out the point

from the honourable gentleman. Since 2010 HMRC has secured over

?130,000,000,000 in additional compliance revenue and as I said

before the UK tax gap fell in 201415 to its lowest ever level of 6 1/2

percent. Ian Lucas. In Wales, the facts are that this government is

creating a national centre in the most expensive site in the country

in Cardiff. The facts are that there isn't a small office in Wrexham, it

employs 350 people and the alternative site put forward by HMRC

in Liverpool which has not been identified yet. This is a shambolic

policy, ill-conceived, been badly implemented and the Minister,

listening to my colleagues from Wales, she's heard from many of

them, Jiri Vesely is policy and reconsider. It's very bad indeed. I

know the honourable gentleman and his criticisms and I can't agree

with the thrust of his points. HMRC will respond in detail to this

report but also, this is a programme over a period of time and we will

learn from each move but I don't recognise the description he just

gave... Well I might just do that, but I do understand the point that

he's been making especially around some of the larger offices and I

realise until the side in Liverpool is identified it's a bit more

unsettling for his constituency workers than it might otherwise be.

Stuart MacDonald. Cumbernauld tax office takes the boxes in terms of

what HMRC 6 in a regional centre, the right size, experienced staff,

excellent locations of what America is the point closing at, disrupting

staff and damaging communities? I've had a number of conversations

specifically about this site, I will write to the honourable gentleman

with the detail of that but there are a lot of different factors that

go into choosing where to centre it and some of them I've touched on in

my statement and my response to the urgent question. Inevitably I can't

touch on all of them and much of that will come out in our response

to the report. I think the Minister would be outraged if people living

in villages, towns and small cities all suddenly stopped paying tax. And

yet, suddenly the civil service is being centralised in a few cities.

Can she please reconsider these points, it's totally outrageous for

people in North Wales? I'm not entirely sure I recognise the point

being made, most of our taxpayers now whether businesses or

individuals into rappers HMRC on the phone or digitally. The number of

people making personal visits and expects to be able to make a

personal visit to a local office is to radically different audible is a

generation or two ago. I do think it's right that we pursue this

modernisation but it's also right, as the National Audit Office reminds

us that we review the programme at every stage to make sure we are

getting everything right and that we learn from each iteration of it.

Chris Evans. Thank you. I'm sorry I have to disagree with the Minister

on customer service. Why wife waited for 30 minutes for someone to answer

the phone in HMRC over Christmas and in a previous National Audit Office

report shows 3 in 10 people giving up before a call is answered. She

will know this was only resolved when HMRC recruited an additional 2

1/2 thousand members of staff to deal with this crisis at the end of

2015. Is she confident even know report says for every pound saved by

this change for pounds will go on telephone bills, she confident this

change will not see any decline in customer service? The focus on

customer service is absolutely vital. It's at the heart of this

wider transformation programme, not just the estate transformation. Is

the desire to make sure that HMRC is both the most effective tax

collector it can be but also dealing with customer service. That is

central to all the questions I ask of HMRC and the questions they ask

of themselves. On the specific point I'm sorry to hear his wife waited

for that long, I'm concerned about the number of people who while a

small proportion of the customers who ring wait for that length of

time because of the large numbers who ring HMRC, that's still quite a

lot of people that an issue I've been specifically discussing with

senior customer service managers within HMRC with a view to

addressing it further. Patrick Grady. Given that the DWP is

conducting an estate reviewed and threatening to close a job centres

in Glasgow for discussions is she having with colleagues about the

cumulative impact of the governments ranking its estate and what impact

is that going to have, how many HMRC employees will find themselves

without a job and without a local job centre to go to? This to speak

at the last question is difficult to answer because ultimately

individuals will decide what's right for them at a time when the facts of

a possible move are known. I know a great deal of support has been put

in place to help them, help them make the choice about moving or help

them to move to other jobs and I've had the chance to speak to not only

managers who are managing this programme but also to people

affected by front line services, when some of them came for an event

in London a few months ago. Specifically, the HR department of

HMRC are working closely with DWP because there are opportunities

there to have people move between departments. For the specifics at

his local office I'm afraid it's not easy to say or answer that until

more is known about what the actual move will be and the numbers

affected. Tom Elliott. Thank you. The vast majority of staff in HMRC

in my constituency in Enniskillen will be closer to 2 1st journey than

1 hour. Does the Minister not see merit in the audit office report

suggesting she should step back from the proposals? As I've said the

nature of responding to an urgent question is that it is 1 has not had

the chance to look at the whole report and reflect on it and HMRC

will respond to that. Know the Chief Executive is also coming to the

Public Accounts Committee Furley imminently, I imagine this is likely

to be raised by them so of course we are going to look at this. It's an

important report, we will look at what it says, but the central reason

for driving these plans still stands in terms of being able to modernise

the estate and provide a service to the customer that reflects modern

life and to make sure the working environment for staff and the career

progression open to them is the best it can be. Order. Statement, the

Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Secretary James

Brokenshire. With permission Mr Speaker I would like to make a

statement about the political situation in Northern Ireland. As

the House will be aware yesterday Martin McGuinness submitted his

resignation as Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. This also means

the First Minister Arlene Foster also ceases to hold office though

she is able to carry out some limited functions. Under the terms

of the Northern Ireland act 1998 as amended ID St Andrews Agreement to

thousands 7, the position is clear. Should the offices of 1st and Deputy

First Minister not be filled within 7 days from the resignation of Mr

McGuinness then it falls to me as Secretary of State to set a date for

an Assembly election. -- 2007. While there is no fixed timetable in the

legislation for me to do this, it needs to be within a reasonable

period. In his resignation letter Mr McGuinness said in the available

period Sinn Fein will not nominate to the position of Deputy First

Minister. I am very clear that in the event of the offices not been

filled, I have an obligation to follow the legislation. As things

stand, therefore, an early Assembly election looks highly likely. I

should add that once an election has been held, the rules state that the

Assembly must meet again within 1 week with a further two week period

to form a new Executive. Should this not be achieved, as things currently

stand, I am obliged to call another election. So right honourable and

honourable member should be in no doubt, the situation we face in

Northern Ireland today is greater. And the government treats it with

the up most seriousness. It is worth reflecting for a moment on how we

have reached this point. The immediate cause of the situation we

now face is the fallout from the development and operation of the

Northern Ireland Renewable Heat Incentive scheme. Under this scheme

launched by the Northern Ireland Department for enterprise trade and

investment in 2012 and equivalent to a scheme in Great Britain,

businesses and other nondomestic users were offered financial

incentive to install renewable heat systems on the premises. The scheme

was finally shut down to new applicants from February last year

when it became clear that the lack of an upper limit on payments,

unlike the GBA Cleveland meant the scheme was open to serious abuse. In

recent weeks there has been sustained media focus and widespread

public concern about how this situation developed. The renewable

heat initiative scheme was and remains an entirely to vault matter

in which the UK Government has no direct role. -- devolved matter. Its

primary responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive and Cindy

to take the necessary action to address concerns expressed about it.

But I do believe it's imperative that a comprehensive, transparent

and impartial inquiry into the development and meditation of the

scheme needs to be established as quickly as possible. In addition,

effective action needs to be taken by the Executive and the Assembly to

control costs. While the RHI might have been the catalyst for the

situation we now face, it has, however, expressed a number of

deeper tensions in the relationship tween the parties within the

Northern Ireland Executive. This has led to a break down in the trust and

co-operation that is necessary that the power-sharing institutions to

function effectively. Over the coming hours and days I will

continue to explore whether any basis exists to resolve these issues

prior to me having to fulfil my statutory duty to call an election.

I have been in regular contact with the leadership of the DUP and Sinn

Fein and also with the Justice Minister Claire Sugden, an

independent unionist. Yesterday evening I had a round of calls with

the main opposition parties at Stormont. I am in close contact with

the Irish Foreign Minister Charlie Flanagan. Immediately after the

statement I will return to Northern Ireland and I will continue to do

whatever I can to find a way forward. Both the UK and Irish

governments will continue to provide every possible support and

assistance to the Executive parties. We do however have to be realistic.

The clock is ticking. If there is no resolution in an election is

inevitable. Despite the widely held view that this election may deepen

divisions and threaten the continuity of the devolved

institutions. Mr Speaker, over recent decades Northern Ireland's

politicians have rightly earned plaudits from across the globe for

their ability to overcome difference and work together for the good of

the whole community. It is required courage and risk on all sides. We

are currently in the longest period of unbroken devolved government

since the 1960s. This political stability has been hard gained and

it should not be lightly thrown away. In the 14 months since the

fresh start agreement significant advances have been made in areas

such as addressing paramilitary activities, supporting shared and

integrated education and putting the Executive finances on a footing.

This parading season passed off peacefully and a long-running

dispute North resolved. We've also been working intensively to build

the necessary consensus to bring forward the bodies to address the

legacy of the past set out in the Stormont house agreement.

What Northern Ireland needs is strong stable government, not the

collapse of the institution. Northern Ireland deserves fair and

effective government. To continue implementing the Belfast agreement,

to strengthen the economy and ensure Northern Ireland response to the

challenges of an EU exit. There needs to be respect for everyone and

they need to address the legacy of the past that will allow Northern

Ireland to move forward. We must not put this at risk without every

effort to resolve differences. We must continue to do all that we can

to continue to build a brighter more secure Northern Ireland that works

for everyone. I therefore urge Northern Ireland Pozner political

leaders to work together, to come together to find a way forward from

the current position in the best interests of Northern Ireland and I

commend this statement to the house. If only we won here today, but we

are. Can I thank the secretary of State for the advance notice of his

statement. We've made it clear from the start that we in the Labour

Party will support him and his endeavours to maintain political

stability in Northern Ireland. Those of us with long memories can

remember a time when there was not the piece we see today and any

damage on our watch should provoke shame. The issues are many.

Including how do we deal with Northern Ireland and its legacy, how

do we help people in poverty and how do we handle the impending exit from

the European Union? We must remember that Northern Ireland has the only

land border with an EU region. It is that these reasons any division now

will be most damaging for Northern Ireland and we should all be

focusing on coming together to combat the common problems faced by

us all. This impasse does not help victims families or the economy and

these are the reasons why we in this house must come together, all of us,

put aside partisan concerns and try and support those in Northern

Ireland in order to maintain an enduring and peaceful devolution

settlement. The issues surrounding the RHI scheme have come to impasse

after many weeks of development and now it seems we may inevitably move

towards an election. An election that will see constituency numbers

reduced from six to five seats and we may see the loss of the many

voices in the Assembly. We could be back to square one with the

underlying issues unresolved. Potentially there could be more

polarised position than we face. If we have an election what will it be

for Tom? It should be who could deliver the best for Northern

Ireland, for the schools, for hospitals. We look forward to

progress and not backwards division. With so much at stake, surely it is

time for moderation. Lines in the sand are needed. I do not believe

from the feed that we are getting for the people on the ground in

Northern Ireland that the population want an election. -- from the

feedback that we are getting. It is not just about us, it is about the

world. The world is watching us and there is a huge amount of goodwill

towards Northern Ireland and admiration for the success we have

seen after decades of despair. They look to the Assembly to lead and the

responsibility is on them and this house. They don't want us to fail,

they want us to rise to hard challenges and work through them and

not just walk away when things get tough. We know from some experience

that the worst thing that you can do in Northern Ireland is leave a

vacuum. Six weeks of campaigning will not move the RHI campaign

forward one inch. For these reasons we ask that the Secretary of State

to convene around the table in Northern Ireland to discuss ways to

avoid this impasse. I'm glad to say he has been engaging with his

counterparts in the Irish government and with politicians in Northern

Ireland. Let's keep up and not give to despair. Regarding the RHI, what

will the effect of the projected overspend have Northern Ireland? We

thank the Secretary of State the coming to the house today. We in the

Labour Party will do all we can to ensure the devolved institutions

remain for many years. I am grateful for the support of the right

Honourable gentleman and his comments and I think he underlines

the significance of the issues here and why it is important that we have

a strong working functioning Executive to be able to take

Northern Ireland forward. There is so much to be positive about. When

you look at the jobs that have been created, the incredible businesses

that have been established and the really positive sense that I always

get in terms of that spirit and that believe in terms of what Northern

Ireland can be and what Northern Ireland will be and

how I think it does have a bright future to look forward to, but

clearly we need parties to come together, to work together as I have

said. A message that he himself has underlined in his comments. I can

certainly say to him that my intent over this short period is to

continue to engage with the parties to see what support we can provide

as the UK Government to find a way forward, to find a solution, to find

a way to pull back from the current situation we find ourselves commonly

in if things do not change. Certainly I will permit to do all I

can in my role to be able to support that activity. In terms of the cost

to the Northern Ireland budget, I know that the Executive itself has

given an estimate of around ?490 million over a 20 year period.

That's if no mitigation takes place, but I think one of the key issues to

take forward is to see what mitigation can be put in place to

see and support what proposals may come forward to be to mitigate that

in the best interests of taxpayers in Northern Ireland and certainly we

stand ready to work with the Executive to see if we can play a

role if necessary to assist. It is that focus that we have. As I say,

time is short in terms of that period before which I have to

consider my responsibilities to call that election and again, it is why

we need to work together. Unsurprisingly, a significant number

of colleagues are seeking to catch my eye and I would like to

accommodate most if not indeed all of them. By prospects of doing so

will be greatly enhanced if colleagues who are customarily

addicted too long or multifaceted questions today will contain

themselves and the will be minimal preamble. Given that new elections

would probably return the party is more or less in the same numbers as

they are now, does he agree with me that repeated callings of elections

were really address the fundamental issue? Don't we therefore need to

look closely at how the institutions are actually constructed and

formulated so that we can move away from this constant threats of those

very institutions collapsing or being collapsed? I think the chair

of the select committee, and I welcome his comments on the need for

focus on the issues that hands. Our attention now has to be on this

period between now and next week on seeking to establish whether there

is a way forward between the parties to encourage that, but that has to

be the immediate focus. Various points and questions have been

raised, but my responsibility at this time is to seek some form of

resolution to see if that is possible and obviously to take stock

of circumstances as they develop. As the Secretary of State alluded to in

his statement and this has been coming down the line for a couple of

months, it is deeply regrettable to see the Assembly stumble, it may

need a job to get it going again. There is limited room to manoeuvre

after the resignation of Mr McGuinness. What steps are being

taken to ensure that public confidence remains in the

institutions of Northern Ireland? Will democracy remain at the centre

of the debate in Northern Ireland? It is clear that the relationship in

the Executive has broken down. As he said in his statement, the clock is

ticking and it is unlikely to all parties will get back around the

table. His opportunities to affect Brexit negotiations appear as

limited as the Scottish Minister's. Northern Ireland voted to remain.

What is he doing to ensure the interests of the people of Northern

Ireland will be looked after? Finally, will you tell us about his

discussions with the leader of the UUP about suspending the Assembly

until an investigation into RHI is completed? One of the primary roles

of the UK Government is to provide political stability. We take our

responsibilities seriously in that regard and as I have already

indicated to the house, if the time period it lapses and the First

Minister and that a diverse minister are not in place, I have the duty

and obligation to move in the appropriate way to call the

election. -- Deputy First Minister. Obviously she highlights the issue

of confidence in the Northern Ireland political institutions. That

is why it is incumbent on me to use the period to work with the

different parties to see how that can be injected because it still

remains the best outcome that a resolution is found. If that way can

be found in the days ahead and that is where my focus will be. She also

highlights on the issue of Brexit and speaking of Northern Ireland. I

can assure her that is precisely what I have done and continue to do

with the regular meetings I have across Northern Ireland. Even

earlier this week I continue to do so and I'm ensuring the voice will

be heard. Having a strong Executive in place and remaining in place is

important and therefore the ability for the Executive to make points to

the UK Government I think underlines the need for us to find out -- find

our way forward to make sure Northern Ireland's voice is heard to

that mechanism as well as the strong voice that I will continue to give

in that regard. Does the Secretary of State agree that whilst the

election looks likely, it should be possible to come up with a

comprehensive and rigorous weight to investigate the overspent of the RHI

that will not lead to the break-up of the coalition all of the First

Minister standing down? I certainly believe that there should be

opportunities to find a way forward. That is precisely what I intend to

use the days ahead to do, to see if we can find that agreement. It is

that sense of establishing some form of enquiry and I think that there is

indication from all of the parties as the ways in which that could come

forward and also to give that sense of accountability and confidence in

what happens next and I'll certainly be using my influence to see what

can be done to achieve that. Will the Secretary of State and the

House except that we share the deep regret of the responsibility or Sinn

Fein to single-handedly cause the elapse of the present Executive and

precipitate what the Secretary of State calls a threat to the

continuity of devolved institutions and it's clear from what Sinn Fein

said in a resignation letter, it's not about RHI, had this continued we

would have had the investigation and according to them, they are not

getting their own way in a series of demands including rewriting the

past, more soldiers and security forces in the dock. We had just

agreed a programme of government in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of

State and the House needs to be assured we want a full investigation

into RHI, we have proposals to mitigate costs, this mustn't be

blocked by the actions of Sinn Fein which is the ironic outcome of what

they are planning to do and overall, he can be assured that we in this

party will continue to work with him and other parties to ensure a stable

Northern Ireland moving forward, based on good government. We want to

see institutions continue and we will do everything in our power to

make this process work. We deeply regret that Sinn Fein have decided

to walk away. Aluko many indications as to the parties working together

and I think we need to take this opportunity to establish what

arrangements can be put in place and therefore I will be continuing my

discussions with all of the political parties in the days ahead

and I think the right honourable gentleman highlights the issues that

are at stake. The need for a continued strong governance within

Northern Ireland to be able to take those issues forward. That is what I

want to see and I think that is what the whole house wants to see,

establishing further there is a way for it to be able to achieve that

end. Many hard working people across Northern Ireland to want to get on

with their lives will be exasperated by recent events and will welcome

the Secretary of State's measured tone and the comments of shadow

Secretary of State. In his discussions will he remind all

parties of the huge effort and immensely difficult compromises that

brought about the current settlement and will he stressed the enormously

valued long-term benefits must not be jeopardised for short term

political motives. I thank my right honourable friend and thank him and

by right honourable friend the Member for Chipping Barnet for all

the work they've done over many years to provide that stability and

security. The hard effort that's gone into achieving the games we see

today and I think it's with that focus we need to approach the days

ahead to see what resolution can be found. If there were to be an

election does the Secretary of State expect a government to be formed

after it and can he can burn that it is the government's intention that

under no circumstances will emergency legislation be introduced

into this House to introduce or reintroduce direct rule. I think it

is an helpful to talk about either the suspension of devolution or

direct rule, I think that's entirely premature and an helpful and I think

that's the tone and way in which the right honourable gentleman has made

his point. The next stage is if we are not able to reach a resolution

over the course of the next 7 days for an election to be called, as

I've indicated it is likely that election will be divisive,

difficult, tough and therefore the ability to reach resolution at the

end of that point may be challenging which is why I think we need to use

this time now to address a number of the points raised. The Secretary of

State touched in his statement on the possibility of an impartial

inquiry into the energy deal. Could he give more information about that,

the timescale and with that happen quickly with the result and a

possible election looming? Ultimately that will depend on the

Executive and the parties in Northern Ireland reaching a

resolution in relation to that. This is entirely within the double space

and therefore I think it's right and proper that a solution for this

should be created within that environment. But equally, I think it

underlines the need for us to get on with this were possible, to give a

sense of assurance, to respond to concerns raised and to show where

accountability may or may not rest, depending on the evidence that

emerges. Doctor Whittaker was 1 of the constant voices for peace and

reconciliation in Ireland between North and South and between Ireland

and Britain over his outstanding lifetime of public service. Doctor

Whittaker died last night for weeks after his hundredth birthday. The

Secretary of State join with the offering sympathy and condolences to

the family and friends of Ross Trevor Horn Doctor Whittaker who was

a major driver and creator of modern Ireland. He bestrode the narrow

world like a colossus. But Mr Speaker could I welcome the

Secretary of State's statement and his reference to the view that a

comprehensive inquiry is needed urgently. There are deep tensions

there in the government. Does the Secretary of State except that while

RHI may have been the last straw is at work, the major factor in the

current crisis was the UK but for Brexit against the wishes of the

people of Northern Ireland and Scotland, leading to considerable

political confusion and damage to the Northern Ireland economy and has

in turn played a significant part in compounding political difficulties?

I admire the honourable gentleman enormously that I hope you won't

take offence if I say he is an incorrigible fellow. I thought his

question had concluded that it was only the 1st 3rd that I heard about

point. Secretary of State! Can I thank the honourable gentleman for

highlighting the news of the sad passing of Doctor Whittaker. At this

time I think it's worth reflecting on those who have contributed so

much to see the advancement of political stability, the strength of

the economy and why I passed my condolences to all who will mourn

the passing of TK Whitaker and to join the honourable gentleman in

that way. Where I have difference with him, I don't share his analysis

in relation to Brexit, I think there are opportunities that can come

through for Northern Ireland in relation to what it can be and will

be, following the departure of the United Kingdom from the European

Union but I am in no doubt of the special circumstances and factors

that are very relevant here and while -- why I will continue to

advocate agree strongly in the interests of Northern Ireland to get

the best possible outcome. I was going to Astro Mr Speaker for an

urgent question today relating to the investigation and prosecution of

veterans but I was to rid because of the events of last night. But with

the Secretary of State informed the House about what measures he thinks

will happen now is the result of this, to stop this very 1-sided

judicial process? I'm grateful to my honourable friend for his point and

I am absolutely clear as to the huge contribution that our Armed Forces

and the RUC played to see that we have seen the games in Northern

Ireland in recent years and he makes a point that some of the ways in

which the system operates within the moment, I think there is a need for

greater proportionality, greater balance within the system and that

is precisely what I think the Stormont House Agreement and bodies

will provide. Not withstanding current events, I remain committed

in terms of taking that forward and leading to a public face in relation

to that work which I judge is the right next step. There has to be an

independent investigation and transparent investigation into the

failings of RHI but is this not a symptom of a wider problem? Which is

a breakdown of mutual trust and respect between the majority parties

in Northern Ireland. Leaders do not have to be friends. But in the

nature of the constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland

there has to be mutual respect and trust and is in this purely a

symptom of a breakdown of that, do not need to see leaders who are

committed to putting personal differences aside in the interests

of the institutions? I say to the honourable gentleman and he may have

noticed what I said in my statement that obviously the focus has been an

RHI but there are other issues that have come through from this and

indeed in the letter that Mr McGuinness published yesterday he

highlighted a number of those things. That's why I make the point

at this time of parties coming together, working together in the

best interests of Northern Ireland, given so much opportunity that

reside there and having that focus on the big issues that are in the

best interests of Northern Ireland. If there are constructive talks in

the next few days with the Secretary of State be willing to extend the

7-day period before an election is called? As I've indicated below is

quite clear in terms of the 7-day time period and I must act within a

reasonable period following that. Obviously if the time period lapses

I will need to consider the position very carefully at that point in

time. But I am under that statutory duty and I will follow through on

that. Alistair Carmichael. This is not the 1st time the institutions

have been brought to the brink. Each time it requires the leadership to

bring them back. Principally that leadership has to come from the

parties in Northern Ireland themselves but there is a role from

leadership from the government here and the Secretary of State. He has

the power under the 2005 act to constitute a public inquiry into the

handling of the Renewable Heat Incentive itself and will he do so

and as he fights his way through this was he give an undertaking that

he will speak to all parties in Northern Ireland not adjust to the

DUP and Sinn Fein? On the last point I said to the right honourable

gentleman that I had a round of calls yesterday evening to the

opposition parties, the main opposition parties in Northern

Ireland and will continue to maintain that contact with parties

at Stormont. In respect to this point in relation to RHI and the

nature of an inquiry, I absolutely remain of the view that the best

solution that a way forward for this be found within Northern Ireland.

Taking his point in relation to issues of leadership, actually

showing that the devolved institutions are able to deal with

the challenges that are there and that is where my focus will be in

the days ahead. My honourable and gallant friend for Newbury has ably

expressed the dismay at the grotesquely partisan and inequitable

decision to instruct Police Service of Northern Ireland to start

receiving retired British service personnel whilst amnestied former

terrorists freely walk the streets. On the government bring forward

legislation urgently to offer them at least the same protection as the

amnestied terrorists undeservedly enjoy? I can say to my honourable

friend that there are no amnesties. We have been very clear on this in

relation to Fort was the on the run scheme as it was known and Lady

Justice Hallett's report in 2014 concluded they never amounted to an

immunity from prosecution but my honourable friend makes a broader

point in relation to the need for a proportionate alert approach between

legacy to ensure that all aspects are investigated properly, rather

than looking at 1 side rather than the other side. That is precisely

the approach I think be taken forward. Thank you Mr Speaker, we

have a debate later on the serious subject. And can I say to the

Secretary of State we are going to have more talks, let's deal with

this issue once and for all, it's unacceptable that veterans of the

armed Forces who served the Crown are waiting on the knock at the door

whilst the terrorists walk free. I say to the honourable gentleman I

know the interests he has taken in this issue on legacy over many, many

years. And I agree it's totally unfair that the alleged mistakes of

soldiers and former police officers should be investigated while at the

same time, perpetrators of terrorist atrocities are ignored and their

victims forgotten. It is precisely that part that was reflected into

the proportionate, balanced, fair and equitable stance taken in

relation to the Stormont House Agreement while we continue

discussions around the agreement and why are you a wee will move to a

public face to take that forward. The historic investigations unit,

had not been structured as it was, tour but has agreed that would have

failed at the Executive. Now that it has failed to does he share my

sadness that the unit was set up as it was and had to investigate

chronologically but that servicemen were bound to be at the point of

most of its investigations into terrorist sadly don't keep records

and they don't respond to letters from the MoD inviting them to

unburden themselves. I say to my honourable friend that

the historical enquiries unit has not been established a chronological

approach he highlights is not in place. Is why I think there is a

need for reform and change that was reflected through Stormont house and

that is precisely why it is necessary to take this forward and

notwithstanding and I believe there is still that opportunity for us to

move forward with the parties to see that we can get that political

stability in order that these issues can be taken forward precisely for

the cross community that resides around us. Does the secretary of

State not recognise that it is the hubris of the outgoing First

Minister that has brought about the humiliation for our institutions of

him now having to contemplate the sort of options he has discussed

today? Does he also note that Sinn Fein are saying they have called

time on the DUP status quo which now seems to be the description for a

fresh start. Will a real fresh start not involve a return to the key

precept of the Good Friday agreement that the First Minister and Deputy

First Minister are jointly elected by an Assembly and then they might

act accordingly and we will avoid these difficulties? I say to the

honourable gentleman that where we need to focus at the moment is to

use the time available over the course of these coming days to see

what resolution can be found. To see how people can work together in the

best interests of Northern Ireland because I think there are so many

issues at stake here and part of that is how we can move forward and

get an enquiry in place and accountability based on the outcome

of the enquiry is allowed to happen. Like so many members in the house I

have grave concerns at the seems to be a disproportionate and

politically motivated investigation of those who believe they were just

doing their job. I'm sure my right honourable friend is aware of the

concerns but he should know that as the MP representing many members of

the serving British Army it is having a measurable effect on

recruiting to our Armed Forces. This period of uncertainty could provide

an opportunity to set the record straight about what is with and --

what is within the enquiry? I underlie the points I have made

about how I think we need to see a change in the system. That the way

in which the attention of the state means that cases where for example

those who have been murdered as a consequence of terrorist activity is

not being pursued. I think there are mechanisms that provide for that. I

am intent to take that forward and notwithstanding the current issues,

that remains a priority. Could the Secretary of State confirmed that

other ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive remain in post and

can govern the Northern Ireland Assembly as now and therefore could

he exercise maximum discretion to make sure the objectives of the

Stormont house agreement are met? I appreciate the viewpoint the right

honourable gentleman makes from that direct experience when he served as

a minister in Northern Ireland. He is right that the relevant Northern

Ireland ministers remain in place in the Executive. There is this

situation we find ourselves in, but stability can be maintained through

this period, albeit that their actions will be limited. Nonetheless

that stability remains we need to continue to work with the Executive

at this time to find a solution. I serve twice in Northern Ireland

during my time in the Army so I know about the challenges faced. I must

echo the contributions of colleagues who have discouraged the Secretary

of State from allowing investigations of British troops. No

matter how well designed, these investigations break the covenant of

those who are serving and who have served in our Armed Forces. Can I

encourage my honourable friend to block these investigations right

away? I'm not able to intervene. The wall of law issues here and there

for the prosecutorial and other aspects that sit around this come

into play. I am concerned about the balance of effort and the need to

ensure that there are proper investigations. They are following

the evidence rather than anything else and therefore reform is needed.

The situation as it is at the moment is wrong and has to change and that

is what I'm committed to doing. The previous Prime Minister intervened

by writing letters which got a lot of people off the hook. Could he

confirmed that in the absence of the Northern Ireland Executive which

will probably now be for a period of months, that the Secretary of State

will assume all responsibility and power in relation to have the Brexit

negotiations applied to Northern Ireland and they will not allow

Northern Ireland to be prejudiced by the petulance of those who have

walked away? I am very clear about my role and response to Article 50.

The work I have done over many months to engage with all aspects of

Northern Ireland and continue to do so and will continue to articulate

firmly and clearly within Whitehall and elsewhere as to the best

interests of Northern Ireland through the Brexit negotiations.

That is strengthened by having a functioning capable Executive to

support that work, to be able to work with the UK Government to

ensure we get the best possible deal for Northern Ireland through those

negotiations. The Secretary of State would have received correspondence

from me recently. He said that... When was his predecessor first made

aware of this abuse? The point to make about this was a -- that it was

a devolved decision and it is not something the UK Government has had

a direct role in and that is why made the point I did and therefore I

think his questions are more directed towards the ongoing enquiry

about getting answers about decisions made around the RHI and I

think it is that poker that needs to be given. -- focus. This is about a

political wish list from Sinn Fein. From the First Minister's to view it

is a red herring. About the legacy issue, will members of Sinn Fein

stands aside and resigned when we are investigating the past? I know

that the honourable gentleman will know that the Stormont house

agreement provides an important framework that was agreed by all of

the parties in relation to how best to respond to these issues of the

past. That is where my focus annotation is and remains. I

will continue to support and encourage that. The Secretary of

State will be aware of the list of issues that the Deputy First

Minister had in his resignation yesterday. Can the Secretary of

State confirm to me and to this house that he will not be weak and

Her Majesty 's government will not be weak in any negotiations with

Sinn Fein to allow the rewriting of history? I will not be party to any

rewriting of history and have said that on a number of occasions in

relation to the issues of the past. What we need to focus on is the time

at hand to see that we are able to find a way forward from the very

difficult situation we are now presented with. We need to see

Northern Ireland moving forward and we use this time to bring people

together rather than looking at things that separate and divide, and

obviously using these days to focus on how that trust and confidence can

be re-established and working with the parties to do that. Fundamental

to the political institutions in Northern Ireland where the

principles of power-sharing, partnership and respect for

political difference. In the last number of weeks we have seen the

disappearing and the withering away of the principle of power-sharing.

You walked away from it! With the Secretary of State ensure in his

discussions with political parties in Northern Ireland that those

principles are adhered to and that everybody comes back to the

principle of power-sharing? I think the important part of the political

settlement within Northern Ireland is that fact that it works for all

communities across Northern Ireland, and that was very much at the heart

of the agreements that have been reached and indeed the work that I

think needs to continue to be taken forward in that respect and

therefore it is why I make the point about the need to look at those

things that bind people together. How we use this time at hand rather

than the risk out what may be a divisive election that six to create

more difference and actually makes that job harder. The Secretary of

State mentioned legacy issues in his statement. Can he give the house on

practical details on how he will progress that and hand dealer-macro

-- and can he talk about the roundtable meeting? I need to engage

with the relevant political parties and establish the right way that we

can facilitate a way forward that can hopefully be achieved without

calling an election. On his bike in relation to legacy, I've underlined

that I want to establish the necessary political consensus to be

able to move forward and the next step on that is a more public phase

of that. An element to bring all of Northern Ireland's and to have their

say over proposals. That is the next point I had to take. That is the

Secretary of State recall that two years ago Sinn Fein plunge the

institutions into crisis over the implementation of welfare reform and

cost the Executive over ?100 million. In a bizarre irony the

decision to resign and walk out of the Northern Ireland Executive means

there will be no Assembly to pass them mitigation measures that were

due from the Stormont House agreement. Sinn Fein will be

delivering the bedroom tax in Northern Ireland in six weeks times.

I'm not sure I detected a question in the stream of consciousness from

the honourable member. Secretary of State. I am in no doubt as to be

tensions that exist at the moment, but I do look back on those days in

relation to welfare where there were differences. They were very strongly

held views and yet a way forward was established and at this time I do

call upon the parties to reflect on that, to reflect on that experience,

to work together and to use this time now to find a solution. Thank

you very much, Mr Speaker. We all want to see a stronger society where

there is respect for everyone, but we need to have a completely new

look at this. Get it back to the Belfast agreement so we don't go

round and round in circles and if I can end by saying can we get back to

that? Please remember that Einstein said that insanity is doing the same

thing over and over again and expecting different results. I know

the honourable gentleman has put down some thoughts and I read his

article at the weekend, but I think the primary focus now is to see how

we can use this short time ahead to work together, to build together, to

see that we are able to get through this current difficulty and ensure

that we can look to a bright, positive prosperous Northern Ireland

because ultimately that is what we are about. That is what is at stake

here and why I will certainly be doing all I can to establish if a

way forward can be found, a solution can be created with that intense.

Point of order Mr Stephen Dowty. I wanted to make a clarification

regarding a question I asked earlier in the Foreign Office questions and

asked advice on the rizz matter. The Foreign Office minister appeared to

be confused over what I was referring to in my question. I was

referring to his own statement on July 2016. Four errors have been

made regarding Parliamentary questions and the issue over whether

the UK Government had assessed violation of human rights in Saudi

Arabia. I'm concerned that the government has tried to prevent

scrutiny over what they know about Saudi Arabia's activities. The

member from Leeds is was told that the ministry had acted immediately.

However a Freedom of information requests released just before

Christmas reveals otherwise. It is important to make you aware, Mr

Speaker, that this information was only released when the government

were ordered as they were in breach of the Freedom of Information Act.

This information reveals that not only did the Minister and indeed the

Foreign Secretary nerd there have been errors in information as early

as the 28th of June 2016, they then took nearly a month to provide that

information to Parliament. They only provided it in the routing statement

on the 21st of July 20 16. It makes clear that they were worried about

the views of Parliament and the courts. This constitutes a potential

breach of the ministerial code and the courtesy of this house over

providing information timely when errors have been made. Can I seek

your guidance on how I might pursue the matter and find out whether a

The ungrateful to the honourable to run for his point of order and has

courtesy in giving me add once at notice of his intention to raise it.

I am grateful. It is the exclusive responsibility of those ministers,

if a minister comes subsequently to realise that he or she has dared in

saying something incorrect or even in giving and inadvertently

misleading impression by failing to include in an answer information

that should have been abolished it is a responsibility of that minister

to correct the record. -- erred. The honourable gentleman asks how he can

best recede in this matter. My instinct is he should if he feels

that there has been a potential breach of the ministerial code,

right directly to the Prime Minister for it is for the Prime Minister

under our existing constitutional arrangements to decide whether to

refer an alleged and claimed breach to the independent adviser on

ministerial interests. That therefore is the course that I

recommend to him. It may avail him, if it does not, and the matter in

his mind or perhaps that of others remains unresolved, and he feels the

House is in the possession of wrong information that hasn't been

corrected, he can always return to the matter by Dave Radzi of means.

We believe that there are for now. -- by a variety of means. We come to

the 10 Minute Rule Motion for which the honourable lady has been

patiently waiting. Christina Rees. Thank you. I beg leave to introduce

a bill to make provision for the creation of mutual guarantee

societies. For the membership is small and BD sized businesses, for

the purpose of lending to and by such business and for the operation

and for connected purposes. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a Labour and

cooperative member of Parliament, I am proud that I am introducing this

bill at the start of the co-operative party centenary year.

My thanks also to cooperative UK and Philip Ross for their work in

pressing the case for this legislative change. For 100 years

the co-operative party has been putting forward the case for more

co-operation in our country. I believe that correct link the

legislative anomaly of the UK not benefiting from mutual guarantee

societies is not just another step towards expanding co-operation but

it would also importantly ensure that the increase the level of SME

Hank lending. Put simply, my bill seeks to harness the positive power

of co-operation in order to increase SME lending in this country. --

anchor. SMEs are vital to the economy and our major drivers of

employment and wealth for the country. Ensuring they have access

to the right type of finance at the right time is essential to ensure it

they maximise their growth potential. And develop new job

opportunities. An economy which allows for SME investment and

financial system prepared to lend to SMEs is essential. House of Commons

research shows that while SME lending is for the 1st time since

the global economic crisis starting to become net positive, I look at

the broader Bank of England credit conditions survey 2016 makes less

positive reading. It shows the availability of credit remains

static at best and indeed the proportion of loan applications for

small businesses which were improved, approved, declined and

quarter to and caught 3 of 2016. It also shows this decline is

predicated to continue. This trend must be reversed. I believe the

creation of mutual guarantee societies can only be part of the

solution. My bill will allow the creation of mutual guarantee

societies which are private guarantee institutions created by

beneficiary SMEs. Whilst there are different forms of mutual guarantee

societies across Europe, they typically share a cooperative or

mutual status. This means the mutual guarantee society's capital is

provided directly by the SMEs that apply for a loan guarantee, in form

of cooperative or mutual shares. Each member has an equal footing

right and participate in electing the General Assembly and board of

directors of the mutual guarantee society. -- equal voting. SMEs can

negotiate a better deal from banks whilst banks, the underpinning of

the mutual guarantee provides partial security an otherwise

unsecured enterprise lending. The risk is lower, so the price of money

is lower, the deal flow is greater, underpinned by peer review from SME

members so access to capital is easier. A guarantee provided by a

mutual guarantee society on behalf of the SME to the bank, replaces

this collateral, enabling the bank to grant the loan. The guarantee is

a financial commitment by the society to repay a certain

percentage of the loan if the SME member cannot honour its payment. In

many ways this bill is a no-brainer. Mutual guarantee societies provide

access to finance, achieved better credit conditions, provide

assessment of the companies in tangible and on qualitative

elements, serve as a bridge between SMEs and financial entities and can

provide better advice and supervision in financial management.

The creation of these societies in the UK would also be good for the

banks. Among other aspects they read Jews the bank's overall risk,

provide quality of information for the bank, provide more detailed risk

assessment at no cost and allow them to work with supervised and reliable

financial intermediaries. The OECD concluded in 23rd team that mutual

guarantee schemes represent a key policy to to address the SME

financing gap. Whilst limiting the burden on public finances. The UK is

almost unique in not raking use of mutual guarantee societies. In

Europe, estimates are around 2,000,000 guarantees have been made

for a value of ?70,000,000,000 to over 2,000,000 customers. This

represents around 8% of all SMEs in the European Union that have

benefited from the activity of mutual guarantee societies. The UK

has no mutual guarantee market for SMEs to improve access to finance

because of inappropriate regulatory barriers. The provision of mutual

guarantees by SMEs is indicative as requiring the full regulatory burden

of being and approved insurer and other surety guarantee. With far

higher capital requirements and regulatory burdens as a result than

any other EU country. Other countries have been able to specify

mutual guarantee societies in transposing EU directives so bad

they are regulated in a distinct and appropriate way. Because the UK has

no such arrangement, we essentially have regulatory gold plated

blocks... Following work with the cooperative sector in 2012, the FSA

clarified that the best fit for any mutual guarantee society founded in

terms of current regulated activities under current

legislation. But this imposes significantly greater capital

requirements than is the case in counties which have a this book

scheme for mutual guarantee societies. And is not a particularly

good fit anyway. My bill changes this. This bill provides a

definition of the mutual guarantee society and outs mutual guarantees

to the list of regulated activities as set out in the financial services

and markets act, 2000, regulated activities order 2001. Despite the

problems and barriers in the regulatory system there is 1 UK ace

member of the European Association mutual guarantee societies, the

British business bank. This institution created to drive SME

lending may not be the type of mutual which I believe will be

created using the legislative change contained within this bill, however,

I believe it neatly demonstrates the point that mutual guarantee

societies must be part of the answer to the question of how we increase

SME lending. I hope we are pushing at an open door. I know that in

written answers to my honourable friend the Member for Wolverhampton

Southwest, Treasuries ministers stated officials plan to meet with

the SCA to discuss the possible development of mutual guarantee

societies. I believe this bill will create a welcome you chill addition

to the financial services sector and will allow the UK to benefit from

the SME lending in the same way that other countries have done for many

years. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The question is that the

honourable member have leave to bring in the bill. As many as are of

that opinion say aye. To the contrary no. The ayes habit. You

will prepare and bring in the bill? Gavin sugar, Lucy Powell, Stephen

Dowty, Adrian Bailey. Gareth Thomas. John Woodcock. Jonathan Edwards.

Tristan Matheson. Hannah Borrowdale and myself. Christina Rees.

Mutual guarantee societies built. 2nd reading of what day? The 24th of

February. The 24th of February. The clerk will now proceed to read the

orders of the day. Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill not

amended lips is to be considered. We begin with new clause 1. With which

it will be convenient to consider the other clauses and amendments

grouped together on the selection paper. Kate is more to move. Thank

you. I rise to move new clause 1 and to speak on the new clauses

amendments on which my name is included. We on this side of the

House are unswerving in our belief that the UK must continue to spend 0

points 7% of gross national income on overseas aid. It is imperative

that the government delivers this aid in a way that is accountable,

insurers are you from money and delivers on the UK's development

object is. While we support the aims of the bill given that it is going

into report stage without amendment, we remain concerned about the lack

of safeguards. I speak to new clause two Fritsch asks that no increase of

limit is given without a report or business case. I would like to talk

to new clause 3 and 9 which is I believe at the heart of the work of

David. It leads the UK's work to end extreme poverty. We on the front

bench are asking the government that the Minister must be satisfied that

any new investment enabled by any proposed increase in the limit must

have a significant impact on the reduction in poverty. I said to the

Minister that the department must be at the forefront of tackling double

poverty reduction. It is vital that bolstering CDC

resources does not mean that funds for humanitarian aid in places like

Nigeria, Yemen and Syria and other parts of the world facing grave

humanitarian crises is not reduce. Can the Minister commit to ring

fencing those funds so that those in need receive help. Long-term

investment and establishing an economy to kick-start growth and

jobs are crucial to any credible development programme. But a

development programme should at its core be a coalition of long-term

investment and short-term relief and the consequences of losing sight of

that latter element in the future would be grave indeed. Just as the

UK have a duty to help lay the foundations for secure sustainable

economies in the poorest every is a risk that few are willing to take,

the UK also have a duty to assist those bearing people. Conflict,

climate change and food insecurity. As laid out during the second

reading of the build transparency should be the driving force behind

any shifting focus of the aid budget. I speak to new clause four

and new clause eight. It is vital that taxpayers money is not only

spent effectively but also as transparently as possible. To this

end it is incumbent on the government to put in place

mechanisms that ensure maximum visibility regarding wet aid money

is being spent and that minimises public scepticism. We all know that

transparency is something that defeat does very well indeed. I'm

grateful for you giving way. She was talking about balance. I think it is

fair to make the point isn't it that CDC's proportion of development

budget for its type is an FTI is actually lower than comparable is up

4% compared to the French FTI of 12% and the Dutch at 30%. Just for

proportion's say, even with the increase, the UK are still spending

a large amounts on foreign aid the most of our peers and it will be a

smaller proportion. The honourable member makes a valuable point but it

still needs scrutiny and that is what I am laying out here today. We

all know that transparency is something that is done well. Its

performance in the aid transparency index represents an international

gold standard in this regard but historically the same cannot be said

the CDC and it is the utmost importance that the proportion of

the ODA budget that is channelled through CDCB subject to the same

checks on outcomes and value for money to which defeated holds

itself. That should be an agreed framework that is reached with the

independent commission for a impact and CDC and proper measurements of

outcome on an annual basis will be a welcome addition to the bill. Madame

Devitt is Speaker relating to new clause one new clause eight,

separate financial centres where countries do not have robust... We

on this side of the house know the importance of addressing and

tackling CDC's use of tax havens. This Madame deputies Speaker cannot

be understated. Whilst we may have heard assurances from the chief

Executive CDC that using offshore investors, more is needed to ensure

transparency on this point. We need clear legislative safeguards. That

is why the front bench will take new clause one to the boat. New clause

one with buyers -- requires a thorough analysis of CDC's use...

I'd like to make some headway. Whether countries in question have

robust -- don't have robust centres... Make way. Would she not

agree with me that the changes made to CDC five years ago where CDC was

encouraged to make direct investments in developing countries

contrary to the preceding situation where it was making investments in

funds which were situated offshore were in fact a major step forward in

the regard that she is seeking? The honourable member makes a valid

point and as I go on in my speech I will touch on that but I have two

said that regardless of any development, we must always be

robust and we must also be able to show taxpayers that we have a system

in place which is transparent and accountable and that for me is that

the forefront of this speech and of our objections to the bill itself. I

would like to seek assurances from the Secretary of State that the

Minister will... The minister, not the Secretary of State, will support

such safeguards. It must be applauded that the whole ethos of

CDC has been transformed since it was the subject of widespread

controversy some years ago. It is a testament to the organisation's

willingness to change that bad reaction and criticism to a more

positive institution and an overhaul of the systems in place. These

efforts were praised by the recent NA oh report which assessed CDC's

progress. -- NAO. It was suckling to read that CDC has been successful in

adapting its strategy in accordance with the NAO's recommendations,

including frameworks to limit excessive pay. Rather than -- it was

encouraging to learn that CDC has not only met but exceeded that

targets agreed with DFID and has improved its procedures for the

documented fraud and corruption. Whilst we on the front bench praise

CDC from making the changes we must not forget the recent NAO report was

by no means unequivocally positive and did in fact highlights

significant areas for improvement. Allow me to directly quote from the

report from a passage examining the efficiency of CDC's methods of

capturing development impact. The report says it remains a significant

challenge for CDC to demonstrate its Ottoman objective of creating jobs

are making a lasting difference to people's lies in some of the world's

poorest places. Given the plans to invest further in CDC a clearer

picture of actual deployment impact will help to demonstrate the value

for money for the Department's investment. That's quite some

statement. It's a significant challenge the CDC to demonstrate how

effectively it does the very thing it was setup to do. I'm happy to

give way. The honourable lady refers to a quote which talks about the

challenges of capturing impact. That is an ongoing challenge, but in

terms of efficiency which is what she referred to. The NAO report also

said that the CDC has through tight cost controls and closer alignment

with the departments objectives and now has an efficient and effective

operating model. Would she not agree that that is testament to the

improvements made to CDC's work over the past few years? The comments

honourable member has made, in my opening speech I did say that CDC

has improved, but that same report has said it is still very hard to

know how the impact on development has been demonstrated. That piece of

work still needs to be done. It's not totally scathing, but we have to