30/01/2017 House of Commons

I'm very happy to consider. It's the first suggestion I've heard as to

how that particular anniversary may be commemorated but it's certainly

worth looking into. THE SPEAKER: Urgent question. Ronnie

Cowan. I asked the Minister for Work and pensions to make a statement

under proposed closure of our Jobcentre Plus offices throughout

the United Kingdom. Thank you, Mr Speaker. On Thursday

26th January, the DWP published proposals for the future of its

estate including Jobcentres and back office sites. This Government is

committed to helping people who can work, get back into work. Since 2010

we have seen the claimant count drop from almost 1.5 million to around

800,000 and we have seen employment rise by 2.7 million to near record

levels. Old office contracts that are held by Jobcentres and benefits

centres are coming up for renewal and in the 20 years since the

contracts were signed, the welfare system's undergone large scale

reform. The roll out of Universal Credit and reforms of Jobcentre Plus

have increased the number of digital interactions claimants now have with

us. Eight out of ten claims for jobseeker's allowance are made

online, and 99.6% of applicants for Universal Credit full service

committed their claim online. This has resulted in the DWP buildings

being used much less, 20% of the DWP estate is currently under utilised.

As we renegotiate our out-of-date contracts, we are merging some

smaller Jobcentres with larger ones and collocating others with local

government premises. This will help DWP offer a better service for

people looking for work whilst delivering a better deal for the

taxpayer, saving around ?180 million a year for the next ten years. This

means we can bolster the report with a recruitment drive to hire 2500

work coaches. Of course, DWP staff will be consulted about the changes

and the vast majority will have the option to relocate or will be

offered alternative roles. For any vulnerable claimants, we'll put in

place robust procedures such as offering home visits or alternative

things to make sure they get the support they need. The UK

Government's proposal to drastically cut the number of Jobcentres and

offices across Scotland and in the UK, including my constituency, will

have a profound impact on thousands seeking work and the support to

which they are entitled. It's an insult, there is a distinct lack of

consultation with the communities affected and with the Government in

Scotland that lack of consultation is against the principles of the

agreement. Can the minister explain to me why no consultation took place

before the announcement of the closures. Further more, my

constituency of Inverclyde, the proposals to close Glasgow Jobcentre

and make people of three areas travel miles to access DWP services.

Disappointingly this model has been replicated across the UK. It's an

utter disgrace and could push vulnerable people further into

crisis. With added travel distance and costs placed upon individuals,

many of whom have little or no readily available funds to pay for

that commute. What assurances can the minister

provide my constituents that they still have readily available access

to Jobcentres and DWP services? This should be far more than a spread

sheet exercise. I would ask the minister put people first. Many

Jobcentre staff work hard to build good working relationships with the

service users. They're aware of specific issues and needs. Can the

minister guarantee the service users the continuity and quality of those

working relationships? The minister is so certain that these measures

are required, will she at least halt the measures until a quality

assessment is contucked and a full consultation of all sites have taken

place and, if not, why not? Lots of points to reflect upon

there. I think most importantly, what we want to see is service

delivery to the claimants and the honourable gentleman was right to

focus on claimants in constituency. Claimant count in his constituency

is down 39% but I believe it's critical that we seek to maintain

that relationship between work coaches and the claimants they have

been working with, which is why we'll seek to keeply Kate that when

coaches are worked to a new centre. Claimants will have the ability, not

necessarily to go to the Jobcentre which falls within the catchment

centre but to choose the one that works best for them. As we are very

conscious, many people in employment already travel significant distances

to work. We are making sure that where the changes fall outside the

ministerial criteria, there is a public consultation and we'll be

using that to reflect upon our public sector duty which we take

very seriously indeed. THE SPEAKER: I am keen to

accommodate the considerable interest in this subject but I

should point out to the House and remind those who previously knew,

that there is a statement by the Foreign Secretary to follow and

thereafter, other important and likely to be well subscribed

business, so there is a premium upon brevity from back and frontbenches

alike. Would the minister agree that the Government's success in reducing

unemployment leads to the need to look at reducing the amount of

offices that that would require? As my right honourable friend will

have heard me say, the Jobcentres that we are looking at, in some

cases they're under 20% occupied. It's absolutely critical and

appropriate that we look at how we use our estate and we reflect on

providing the best service to jobseekers and also value for money

for the taxpayer. Thank you, Mr Speaker. We strongly

oppose the benches for the closure of one in ten Jobcentres in the UK.

What assessment has the department made of the the impact of these

closures on claimants, both in terms of travel times and additional

costs? Will it consider issuing guidance to staff to take into

account increased travel times when issuing sanctions? Accessibility is

a major issue for many disabled people. The Government's said it

aims to half the disability employment gap in the lifetime of

this Parliament. How do the planned closures fit with that aim from this

April lone parents will be obliged to prepare for work through

interviews with work coaches once a child is three years old rather than

five, as is currently the case. We are particularly concerned about the

impact on women, children and people with disabilities. Will the

Government publish an assessment of the impact of the proposals on

equality issues? The Government is continuing to roll out Universal

Credit and for the first time people in work will have to attend

interviews at Jobcentres. Will the Government delay its plans to reduce

its estate until it has a clearer idea on what the demand on

Jobcentres and staff will be under Universal Credit? The Government's

hopes seems to be that unit vestal credit claims will be managed

online. Many people are not confident using IT and may not have

access to a PC laptop or tablet. What provision will be made for

those having difficulties in the areas where a Jobcentre is earmarked

for closure? The plans are not thought through and will have a

damaging impact on the way that vital employment support is

provided. The Government should think again.

As the honourable lady will have heard me say, the vast majority of

claimants are accessing services online and that is a relationship we

welcome and encourage. For vulnerable claimants, we have made

it very clear that they'll be able to access claims by post, in some

circumstances, particularly where they find it difficult to access a

Jobcentre or they have childcare responsibilities. I think that's a

very important distinction to make. The honourable lady talks about

accessibility. Where there is a difference between the ministerial

criteria of three miles or 20 minutes, we'll seek to hold a public

consultation which will feed into our equality analysis so we can best

understand the impact on claimants. One thing that impressed me at DWP

was the quality of work coaches and their capacity to support change in

people's lives. If there is an opportunity to spend less on near

empty bricks and mortars, isn't that the right thing to do? I thank my

honourable friend for that question. He is right, our work coaches are at

the front line of delivering services to claimant, helping them

not just into work, but then into more work and better paid work. We

are looking to make sure that our DWP estate best reflects value for

money for our taxpayers and of course providing the services that

we need for claimants. Can I refer to the House to my register of

interests and say that the government appears to be making the

same error as they have with the announcement of Glasgow closure

programme. Can the minister tell us why the Scottish Government was not

consulted as per the Smith agreement and why she has said in answer to my

honourable friend that job centres of catchment areas when written

questions of this House suggested that there are no catchment areas,

can the minister tell us in the written statement the minister

indicated that redundancies may be required, can we have more detail

and for claimants having to travel longer distances. Particularly with

caring responsibility. He will of course be conscious as an employer

the DWP has sought to put their staff first and make sure they're

informed first of the proposals. We need to make sure there is good

working relations with the Scottish Government and the employment

minister travelled to the Musselburgh job centre the week

before last. It matters that people get to the job centre most

convenient to them, that may not be the one allocated to them. But could

be one they choose themselves. We are seeking to make sure people can

work with their work coach and go to the job Sen he job centre that is

most appropriate to them. This a proposal to relocate a job centre in

my area, will there be no reduction in the services to my constituents

and while we want to see value for money, could she send me the

detailed analysis of costs and savings from this move, because it

is just around the corner and with need to make sure it makes sense and

provides the value for money she is rightly seeking. In many instances

colocations as my honourable friend has described provide the best

solution. We have consulting closely with job centre staff to make sure

their new role and location fit with what they wa where then be

redeployed to other roles. In 2010 I had three job centres. One has

closed and now she has wants to close the other two. We have the

highest level of unemployment. Why does she want to make it harder for

people who have to access support? I thank the honourable lady for that

question. It is of course important to reflect that what we are trying

to do is make it easier for claimants who interact with the DWP

to do so and look at where we can get involved in out reach projects

as has happened in various points and make sure where there are

special circumstances and people are vulnerable, this they can be given

help with travel. Shipley centre has a excellent local rapport with the

Salvation Army who provide help and support for many people who go to

the job centre. Can I ask the minister to look at local

circumstances before she goes ahead with her closure programme and tell

me what consultation will take place with the local community and the

staff at the Shipley job centre to make sure any decisions that are

taken are the right ones for the people in the areas. I thank the

honourable gentleman for that question. Of course, where services

are low kamented, we are seeking -- located we are we are seeking to

consult with staff and claimants to understand what is best for them.

This is brought about because of contract that will end in 2018, it

would be irresponsible not to reflect on how we are making best

use of estate when 20% of it is underutilised. Can she give it a

rest with the jargon. Actually she is closing job centres. One job

centre in Nottingham, where we have twice the average unemployment, it

was opened at a time by Lord Heseltine after civil disturbances

in the city and it has matched people with vacancies, please will

she think again? It is important to match people with vacancies, but it

is also important to make the best use of the estate. This is an

opportunity to reflect on the fact that 20% of space is underutilised

when we should not be wasting taxpayers' money. While I support

rationalisation of any service, brig House is the largest one in the area

and to relocate it uphill and down dale will be a dis aster the to

those who rely on it. Can my honourable friend assure me those

who have put forward the proposals have visited places like this to

understand the demographics and geography, or have they sat in

Whitehall using Google maps? I tank my honourable friend for that

question. This is is not an exercise using Google maps. It is an exercise

we have engaged in over many months to make the best use of estate. It

is important when we are not using the space that we have, but are

paying for it, that we think very hard about how we can best provide

services to claimants. Can the minister tell us if she has done

another Glasgow, because before Christmas, her department announced

eight of 16 closures in Glasgow, calculated using Google maps. Has

she done the same again? The honourable gentleman and I of course

discussed this in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago. It is important that

we reflect upon not only geographic location, but travel patterns so

people can get to the job centre convenient to them and do not

allocate the centre we want them to go to, but they can choose and make

sure that they have the best access to facilities. In 2013 I sat on the

work and pensions select committee and reported on job centres and we

found it is more important to have quality over quantity. Does my

honourable friend agree it is more important to have modern, efficient

services in our job centres such as disabled access and it is about the

outcomes. Jobs in this country, and we have more than ever and it is

about getting the long-term unemployed into work. My honourable

friend is right and this Government has done a great job in getting

people into work. But its important that we also do that by working

through our work coaches who have visited in many centres who are

working as hard as they can to help individual and it is those

relationships that are the ones that we must focus on. Isn't there a more

sinister reason as well as some of the ones that have been discussed?

And that is the operation of agency workers in most of the ex-mining

areas where people don't use the job centre, principally because as many

as 500 at a time can be brought in working on zero hour contracts and

as a result don't go to the job centre at all. That is one of the

reasons. I would like to reassure the honourable gentleman this is not

about anything sinister, but looking at the best use of the estate and at

value for money and also looking at our unemployment rated that is down

significantly. Thank you. While the staff and the users of the office in

Bury will be delighted the office will remain open, can my honourable

friend say when her department next plans to review the number of

Jobcentre Plus offices? As I have said this review is part of the

prime contract which was established in 1998. It is nearly 20 years old

and expires next year. All of these proposals are part of making the

best use of contract and looking forward to what we need to provide

in the future as well as now. Sorry. Thank you. The two job centre Ms

centres in my area are being relocated. I need to know why the

decision is being taken. We haven't got the evidence and I am concerned

about the fact that in Lambeth in particular there still is a problem

with gang culture and young people in particular don't want to move

from one area to another and will she please look at this again and

talk to people in Lambeth, before this decision is taken? The

honourable lady make an important point and what we are conscious of

is we want people to be able to access centres that they feel

comfortable with. Sometimes we send out visiting where people feel

vulnerable and they don't wish to go to a job centre. I have seen that

with claimants accesses services with telephone, if they feel

vulnerable. I take on board her points about our equality duty that

we take seriously and we are carrying out an equality analysis

and talking to claimants to understand how this is going to

impact them. Over the last seven years, unemployment in my area has

halved, but the people who are still unemploy rd the more difficult

people to place. The people of Edgeware will be wondering what they

have done to upset public services with the closure of two libraries

and the job centre. Can my honourable friend look at the

potential not only for home visits, but possibly satellite visits using

commercial ial premises so job organisation can run these. The DWP

is doing that. Outreach is an important part of our products to

enable people to get back into work and we will look at best ways to

deliver that across the country. Sni Closure of the last job centre in my

constituency will require people to pay an extra ?6 on bus fares. Will

Jobcentre Plus reimburse those people? I thank the honourable

gentleman for that question, where people are required to sign on more

frequently, we will loo too reimburse costs. But across London

the claimant count is down by 24.6% and there are fewer people who are

claimants and we are trying to work with those people. It is very well

to talk about job centres in London, but in rural Lancashire, my

constituents in Edgeware will have to travel over an hour to get to

Blackburn if they close the job centres. They're hard working,

successful and anybody who thinks you can get there in 20 minutes is

living in what land. Yes and he represents an area where people are

used to having to travel. Where claimants have to travel by more

than an hour we are looking to put in arrangement, including claims by

post. The centre is due for closure and I deal with vulnerable people

week in week out and they have have to travel to get advice, what

assessment was made before this announcement was made about the

effects? The consultations we are carrying

out with stuff in the feed into the quality analysis we are carrying

out. The number of unemployment people has fallen from over 2000 and

2010 at just over 900 and recognise those of local people are in

employment. Would you agree that one of the key achievements that

hard-working Jobcentre staff is to get many people online for the first

time as improving their employability? My honourable friend

is exactly right. But only should we be selecting the high number of

people and Kettering and work. But also the additional skills they have

been helped. And implement may be falling but forecasts suggest Brexit

may stagnate this decline. What assessment has the Government made

of the abilities they to stretch up support if an implement begins to

increase in the future? Thank you. I would like to direct her attention

to the National Audit Office report of 2005 which says at one of the

department's mean it needs is flexibility and the amount of

accommodation that users. We are making sure that we are eating and

flexibility in the system to cope with future changes in the jobs

market. For those out of work on other difficulties, it could be

useful of organisations like the Jobcentre plus an the CABG and

council officers and local law centres and agencies for those with

disabilities were found in the same place. Prydie Minister of State the

House on the extent to which regional Jobcentre plus managers are

discussing this with local authorities? I do not intend to give

able by blow account of the sensitive commercial negotiations,

you will be aware that we are working very closely with local

authorities and the voluntary and education sectors to make sure we

can put in place call locations and I would direct to Lincoln that has

proven to be a beacon of how we can best deliver services. Some of my

constituents don't use the internet and the use of the Jobcentre

resources to complete their job search. Will the Minister confirm

that she will reimburse those who wish to travel to use Dewsbury

Jobcentre? What we're looking at is how we can best support the

vulnerable. She makes an important point about those who are not able

to function with the claims online and I think it is crucial that we

continue to look at how work coaches can work with them to make sure that

provision whether it be outreach or a different location is best

tailored to their needs. Wellington Jobcentre plus is due to be located

to Telford, four miles away. Rest we have growing employment, what can

the Minister do to mitigate the increased cost of long-term

unemployment for those seeking work? Many job-seekers will already travel

more than four miles to access the nearest Jobcentre and it is

important that we remember not only that but that people in employment

also be travelling significant distances in the daily commute. We

are seeking to find the best solutions for individuals, to look

at outreach, to look at co-location to find the best ways people can

access services online to minimise disruption. The DWP Administration

Centre in my constituency is closing, 300 jobs will be

transferred out of Paisley. Can the Minister tell me about consideration

of the economic impacts of this on in the area and whether there has

been any consultation, and if not, why not? The most important aspect

when it comes to co-location is of course the staff which I have been

working closely with all the DWP staff to make sure we find roles for

them elsewhere and give them the assistance they need should be

choose to relocate them. Many of my constituents use the Jobcentre and

also use the council 's housing services. And I welcome the decision

to move a Jobcentre to the council offices when its lease expires in a

few months which will be much more convenient? Co-location is an

important part of a strategy and finding ways clinics can access DWP

services and other organisations such as the local authority is part

of the strategy and one that I am glad the honourable gentleman

welcomes. The Minister has refused to answer this questions I will go

for another chance. As she saying that she will reimburse the spheres

of my constituents who will have to travel from the west end of

Newcastle and to the centre of the sheet seriously proposing to make

the most vulnerable people in Newcastle pay the cost of her

failure? On one of my first visits as a DWP minister was to the

Jobcentre in Newcastle and it was a great opportunity to see services

are being delivered first-hand. It is important to reflect on the

specific criteria and I am happy to answer the question. When people

have to attend the Jobcentre more than once per fortnight to be will

be reimbursing. When they have childcare responsibilities we are

looking at different ways to deliver the service including claiming by

post. We are conscious that many people already travel far further

either to go to work to access and services. In Corby in eastern

Northamptonshire, on climate is also down by over half but what

assessment as my honourable friend made of the actual outcomes for

job-seekers were Jobcentre plus facilities are in co-location with

other services? It is important to reflect on some of our successful

co-locations. I highlighted and Lincoln we put the outcome for

job-seekers accessing many services in the same place and as good as

better and as individual Jobcentres. It is important not to get hung up

on the bricks and mortar but focus on the services that our work

coaches provided to people looking for work. On the 23rd of January I

ask the Secretary of State for the criteria are for the choir quality

analysis and I was told that it requires us to pay due regard to the

equality act 2010, will be undertaking a equality and analysis

to include feedback from public consultation. As the only promotion

of this public consultation has been by myself and by my colleagues, how

can the Minister ensure that due regard has been Inc given to the

equality act 2010? There are notices and all Jobcentres indicating that

this has been ongoing, we have communicated with claimants and it

is important that the reviews feed into this process. Does the

Minister's department think there is any correlation between the ease of

access to Jobcentre facilities and those seeking work and can she

guarantee that anyone will not be sanctioned as a result of Jobcentres

are being closed and a locality? We know very clearly that those

claimants on universal credit are spending more time looking for work

and the vast majority of those at job searches are done online and

they are more successful. It is important that individual claimants

have a relationship with their work coach so that when circumstances

change, what if someone misses the boss of the late for an appointment?

It is important and we want this through universal credit, people to

have a good relationship with our work coaches so they give them the

information and it is critical that of someone misses the appointment

the actually tell us the reason why. As chair of the dissident auditory

oral party parliamentary group, I am concerned about closing Jobcentres

makes obtaining employment even less accessible for disabled claimants.

Will attendants needed and personal beer fund be attended to older

stippled constituents Coric many disabled claimants to access our

services very successfully as I have said, the DWP has the visiting

service which we can extend to all disabled claimants who ask for it

whether circumstances mean they find it difficult to get into a

Jobcentre. We want our work coaches to provide tailored support to a

claimants and understand the specific needs. It is difficult to

square the Minister's claim that she is merging small Jobcentres and to

larger ones with a plan to close Hammersmith, the busiest of

Jobcentres and our main town centre. Coming on top of closures of other

services, isn't this a following out our public services? It is not a

hobbling out of public services. It is about providing it at the most

cost-effective place to the taxpayer. There was a proposal to

shut the Jobcentre plus office one of eight and the City of Glasgow.

Before that consultation had actually concluded, it closes

tomorrow. This proposal as a bolt from the blue with no consultation,

what does this Government have against the people of Glasgow? You

will have heard me sing earlier that may that the Minister for employment

was an muscle borough to beaks angle. She will remember the

claimant count is down 42% since 2010 and have constituency. The

Minister has talked a lot about job-seekers choosing the Jobcentre

that works best for them. For many of my constituents that is the one

she is proposing to close. She has talked about more than fortnightly

claimants but does she not recognise that even for fortnightly claimants

the huge additional travel costs she is imposing on those who can least

afford it. You will be aware we expect claimants to travel up to one

hour to seek work and it is important that we get the feedback

from claimants, that we talk to staff and understand the impact and

we're looking at outreach options, we can do DWP, visiting and many

claimants will be able to conduct the claims online or by post. When

the co-location proposals are happening for Springwatch with a

medical centre that is good to be closing down, as a car park with

disabled parking spaces, a bus stop at my constituents can service, it

will move to a shopping centre with no parking half a mile from the

nearest bus stop. How does that make an assessment? We are concerned that

disabled claimants make us aware of the circumstances and the economic

and the Jobcentre most convenient for them, they can benefit from the

WP on visiting or conduct the claims online. How well you doesn't make

sense to close the debt management service, the only one on wheels

which is in, taking 93 jobs and sending them somewhere else and why

are the closing and other office and Wales, is it a plan to put

everything in Cardiff because I would say, yes Cardiff is on wheels

but not all wheels is in Cardiff. Of course it isn't the plan to put all

services in Cardiff and what we are seeking to do is make the best use

of our mistakes, learn from what claimants and Jobcentre plus staff

are telling us and make sure they get value for money for the

taxpayer. The DWP said it wanted to reduce its estate by 20% but in

Glasgow it is closing 50% and in Inverness the averaging locations by

two thugs. Why is Glasgow losing out disproportionately? The Jobcentre

plus and Glasgow has grown historically and has many more

smaller Jobcentres than other parts of the country. This is about making

best use of the premises and not having empty desk space. Lewisham

has a higher than average unemployment rate and yet the

Government is proposing to close the main Jobcentres. They want to squash

it into an alternative, less accessible premises and Forest Hill.

Will the Government Minister confirm that she will seek to find

alternative premises and Lewisham town centre? This isn't about

squashing anything, it is about making sure we have two desks in

buildings are not empty desks and in some instances we have Jobcentres

furthermore than 20% of desks and used. Unemployment is down nearly 5%

across London since 2015 and it is important that we make the best use

of the facilities we have and get the best value for the taxpayers.

The DWP gave this says that reasonable expectation that

claimants travel to an office within three miles. She plans to close the

centre in my constituency which is six miles and 30 minutes. Will she

reversed this decision and a she would rush put on a free bus that is

accessible for my constituents and everyone else's so they are not left

out in the cold? Because the circumstances are out

side the ministerial cry tier iteria that, why we are having a

consultation. An area in my constituency is due to be closed,

does the minister not realise this is of great inconvenience and cost

to my constituents, who are one of the lost well off areas of the

country. What is she going to do about it? The honourable gentleman

will of course be aware that we expect job seekers to be prepared to

travel up to an hour for work. This is making the best use of the DWP

estate we have in job centres up and down the country. Contrary to the

ministers assertion, the DWP minister representative before

Christmas it was confirmed to Glasgow MPs that they used Google

maps. And service users will be forced to travel more than three

miles, it takes 23 minutes from Easter House to Shettleston. Given I

made the minister aware, can the minister tell me why Easterhouse was

not included in the consultation? Thank you for that question. She

will be aware as I have said, that we expect people who are looking for

work to be prepared to travel greater than 23 minutes for work.

She makes a point about the consultation that I will raise with

the minister for employment. The industrial injuries team in Barrow

has in years of expertise and that has enabled them to take the claims

handling time on one of most complex benefits from 175 days to 33 days

and that reduction has meant that some of the most vulnerable people

in this country with terminally ill conditions have been able to receive

benefits before they died, will she listen to their concerns if their

ex-expertise is dissipated that many people will die before receiving

their benefit? He makes an important point and it is crucial we do not

lose expertise, that is why we will listen to staff to see how we can

use that resource in the future. What a dilemma. I have been out in

my constituency over the past two weekends, collecting signatures on

the petition to keep Cambuslang job centre open. It has not been a

difficult task, people are outraged with the decision and want to make

their views known. Will she open the sultation process to all sites

marked for closure. Thank you for that question. Of course, I am sure

the minister for employment will be delighted to receive the petition

and will reflect on the views expressed. For those of us losing

local services, does the minister agree that the Prime Minister's

vision of a shared society is nothing other than this Government's

camouflage of attacking the most Protection of Vulnerable Groups run

have been a -- attacking most run have been a. Vulnerable. And it is

important that we make sure that our DWP estate and our work coaches are

in the right locations to provide the best service and value for

money. Grateful to all colleagues. Can I thank the minister for her

succinct replies, perhaps she should send a copy of her text book to her

colleagues. The Secretary of State for common wealth and foreign

affair, Boris Johnson. I should like to make a statement on the

implications for this country of the recent changes in US immigration

policy. In view of the understandable concern and

uncertainty, it may be helpful if I describe the consequences for

British citizens and dual nationals. Let me say this is not UK policy and

it is not our policy, nor is it a measure that this government would

consider. I have already made clear our anxiety about measures that

discriminate on grounds of nationality in ways that are

divisive and wrong. In January, President Trump issued an executive

order banning the citizens of seven countries from entering the. S US

for a period of time. The order makes clear that no US visas will be

issued to citizens of those states and anybody who already has a visa

will be denied entry. This policy is a matter of course for the

Government of the United States, but on the face of it this has

consequences for some British citizens. For that reason, I spoke

yesterday to the US administration and my honourable friend the Home

Secretary has today spoke on the general Kelly, the Secretary of

homeland security. I am able to provide the following clarification.

The general principle is that all British passport holders remain

welcome to travel to the US. We have received assurances from the US

Embassy that this Executive order will make no difference to any

British passport holder, irrepresentative of their country of

-- irrepresentative of their country of birth or whether they hold

another passport. The Executive order is a temporary measure

intended to last for 90 days, until the US system adds new precautions.

This is a highly controversial policy, which has caused unease and

I repeat that this is not an approach that this Government would

take. But let me conclude by reminding the House of the vital

importance of this country's alliance with the United States. In

defence, intelligence, which I'm sure they appreciate on that side.

On defence, intelligence and security we work together more

closely than any other countries in the world. That relationship ills is

to our benefit. The Prime Minister's visit underlined the strength of

that alliance. Where we have differences with the United States,

we will not quail from expressing them, as I have done today... Order,

let me say to the House, that it is obvious that there is huge interest

in this matter, which colleagues can rely upon me to accommodate. I

understand the strength of feeling, but the Foreign Secretary's

statement and indeed upcoming his answers to questions, must be heard.

Where we have differences with the United States we will not hesitate

to express them as I have done today. If they were listening, if

the members were listening, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, as she

did indeed in her excellent speech in Philadelphia last week. But we

will also, we also repeat our resolve to work the Trump

administration in the mutual interest of both our countries and I

commend this statement to the House. Mr Speaker, let me say this, I'm

sure that the whole House will want to join me in expressing or sorrow

at last night's gun attack on a Canadi mosque, that left six dead.

They were all victims of hate and we are under a duty to stand up to

hate. I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.

I thought there were a few pages missing. I want to ask about its

timing. As the Secretary of State knows there are thousands in Britain

who live here on a permanent basis but are nationals of seven listed

countries and have no dual citizenship and many have fled

persecution or war. Can the Secretary of State confirm that

these thousands of British residents are barred from travelling to the

United States. People like a doctor, an Iranian national living in and

working in Glasgow who told she was could not fly home, she was going to

need change planes in New York and if a Somali national with a

temporary US visa is in the UK visiting family, can he confirm they

can't return to the US. I hope he can clarify these points. Turning to

the timing of this, this order was issued at 9.45 on Friday UK time. It

then took No 10 until midnight on Saturday to say they will consider

the impact on UK nationals and it took the Prime Minister until Sunday

to tell the Foreign Secretary to telephone the White House and took

him until midday to call the travel ban wrong. That is 38 hours. 38

hours to have the courage to say what everyone else was saying on

Friday night. And finally, 46 hours after the executive order we got

clarification that UN that wills would not be affected. If this was

because the wheels in Washington were slow, that would be

understandable. But Canada were immediately in touch and by that

evening has secured the rights of Canadian nationals, 17 hours before

we secured our. Canada is supposed to be five hours behind the UK so,

why were they a day ahead of us in this? And finally appoint on timing,

the order was signed barely about hour or two after the Prime Minister

left the White House. Can he tell us in their discussions about security,

was this imminent order mentioned? I don't know what is worse that the

president would have such little respect for the Prime Minister that

he wouldn't think of telling her, or that he did and that she didn't

think it sounded wrong. If it was the first, it would hardly be a

surprise, but if it was the latter then we have a problem. Because when

it comes to human rights and torture, President Trump is

descending down a very dangerous slope. And when that happens, we

need a Prime Minister that will tell him to stop. Not one who simply

gives her hand and helps him along. I listened very carefully to the, I

think the most substantial point the honourable lady made was about the

case of a Glaswegian doctor. I appreciate that there will be all

sorts of cases, particularly difficult cases, heart-breaking

cases and people who are us from rated as a result of this measure.

And I repeat, because members didn't follow it. This is not the policy of

our Government. It is a policy promoted elsewhere. What we will do

is make sure that we, all our network is put at the service of

people who are finding difficulties as a result of these measures. But

as I say, because of the action of this government, we now have by the

Prime Minister, by my honourable friend the Home Secretary, we have

an exemption for UK passport holderses whether dual nationals or

otherwise. And I think most fair-minded people would say that

that actually showed the advantages of working closely with the Trump

administration and the advantages of having a relationship that enables

us to get our point to get our point across and get protections s for the

UK passport holders. The approach taken by the party opposite, to

demonise the Trump administration would have achieved the opposite.

Does the Foreign Secretary welcome the joint statement by Senators John

McCain and Lindsey Graham expressing their fear that this order will be a

several inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism? I'm grateful, I

think possibly what the interventions of the Senators show

is this is a subject for lively debate on Capitol Hill, as it is

here. This is something that we do not support. It is not a policy that

we agree with and it is clear from what my honourable friend says that,

there are others in the US who don't agree either.

Without a thought to the context on Holocaust Memorial Day, president

trump issued an executive order to bundle people in those seven

countries to enter the USA including, and I quote those bad

dudes who are the real victims of violence in the conflict in Syria.

This action as Hume and Jermaine, racist and a model and a welcome the

fact that this House is treating the threat with the seriousness that it

deserves. We would like to pay tribute and support the strong

statements made in this issue by Scotland's First Minister and

welcome the work being done by so many. You can learn some lessons

from Scotland's First Minister, the work being done by so many on the

ground in Scotland, women for independence providing practical

support for those unjustly affected by this despicable action. Can I ask

the Foreign Secretary, given the Prime Minister, relationship with

President Trump, that she know in advance and does she agree with the

senior national experts in the US and elsewhere that this will have it

and locations from the UK getting that the administration has adopted

the false and that is narrative of a conflict between the west and Islam.

This Government needs to show global leadership, or is it? The premise

that has failed this test. As you will know, when it comes to tackling

the couch, this country is the second biggest contributory to

military action and strikes in Iraq and Syria and we continue to be the

second biggest donors to the crisis in that region. Everyone should be

road of the leadership UK is showing in that respect. I have already made

my views about this and it is up to members of the House of Commons as

they wish to denounce this policy, I my position clear and they made it

clear yesterday. I said it was right that the said it was wrong to

stigmatise people on the basis of their nationality and I believe that

profoundly. What we have done in the last few days is to intercede on

behalf of UK nationals and UK passport holders and we have secured

very important protections for them. President trump is what we might

call a known and unknown. We know she will do and see and political

things and often just as quickly as banned in those positions. He will

learn as she goes along and we have to remember that our security and

that of Europe depends on the Atlantic Alliance. Does my friend

agree with me that must no question of our refusing to welcome him to

these shores and the hope of setting him along the right path as soon as

possible to our mutual benefit? You are entirely right in the sense that

the prime ministers succeeded the other day and getting our message

across about the North Atlantic Alliance and Natal and president

Trump affirmed very strongly his commitment to that alliance. It is

vital for our security and the new president is very much in the right

place and it is totally right that the incoming president of closest

and most important ally should be accorded the honour of a state visit

supported by this Government and the invitation has been extended by Her

Majesty the Queen quite properly. This is not just about the impact on

British citizens. One of our closest allies has chosen to ban refugees

and target Muslims and all he can say is that it wouldn't be our

policy. That is not good enough. Has he urged the US administration to

lift this order, to help refugees and to stop targeting Muslims? This

order was signed on Holocaust Memorial Day. For the sake of

yesterday have the guts to speak out. It is open to MPs on all sides

of the House to come forward with a fresh expressions of outrage about

the presidential executive order. I have made my views and I share the

widespread disquiet and I have made my views absolutely clear. I said it

is divisive and wrong and stigmatising people on the grounds

of nationality. But I will not do that is what I think the party

opposite would do is disengaged from conversations with our American

friends and partners in such a way to do material damage to the

interests of UK citizens. What we have secured our important

protections for people in this country and that is the job of this

Government. Given our new-found closeness with the trump leg Trump a

ministry should, what plans are there to try and persuade the

Administration after the 90 days to abandon what to many is a despicable

and immoral policy? And would he agree in the paraphrasing a far

wiser president, John F. Kennedy but those that raid on the back of a

tiger end up inside it. I am sure that the words of the gentlemen will

be apparent in the Washington but all I can see is we will continue to

engage with the administration to make a point about the interests of

UK nationals and to convey feelings about the global consternation of

this measure has caused. Could the Foreign Secretary clarify what would

be the position for an Iraqi national resident in the UK whose

child is working in the United States and as a dual British and

Iraqi citizens in the event that that child dies? Would her mother be

able to travel from London to the United States to bury her daughter

under the current US management and if not would he agree with me that

that would be quite simply in human and outrageous? It is possible to

create all sorts of hypothetical situations which are yet more

outrageous but the answer as far as I understand and it is up for the US

to explain this aspect of your policy is that such a case would be

treated expeditiously and particular arrangements would be put in place

to make sure that person was able to travel. Can I gently and tactfully

point out that members who came into the chamber after the statement had

begun should not be standing. It is in defiance of the conventions and

I'm sure they wouldn't be so unreasonable to think they would

have a right to be called because that would be perverse and I feel

sure they would behave in a perverse way. Given that the United States

Congress and the courts as well as the president and diplomacy will

play a part in arriving at a solution to this question, does he

accept that there is a universal threat from jihadists and that is an

estimate of the third of up to 5000 jihadists from several of these

countries and furthermore we should remember the victims of the attacks

in New York and London and Paris and Brussels and Berlin not to

mention... Will we understand the threat from jihadists at home and

abroad and it is vital to work with our American threats to combat --

friends. Robbie Foreign Secretary try to recall as I had underneath

the stairs when Mussolini and Hitler were raining bombs in towns and

cities in Britain. Now this Government is hand and hand with

another fascist Trump. Do the decent thing and abandon the visit. This

man is not fit to walk in the footsteps of Nelson Mandela. The

gentleman is at fault if he thinks Mussolini rained bombs on this

country but I fear the comparison and I don't think, it is an interest

to work with our partners and get the best deal for UK nationals and

dual nationals. When President Obama opposed a similar ban on a single

country, American democracy insured did not last and other action was

taken. Can't we rely on American democracy this time to do the right

thing and isn't it British ministers' job to speak for British

policy? My friend is correct and that is disquiet about this policy

on Capitol Hill and I have no doubt the American political system system

will introduce a balance. It is our job to intervene now for the UK

nationals. In November 1938 a Conservative Government have

prepared a bill that led to the transport of Jewish refugee children

to this country. Does the Secretary of State realise that and making his

statement he should uphold the Geneva Convention and speak truth to

power and the United States? He has let the House and has job down. The

member is ticking sanctimony to new heights and most fair-minded people

would say we have been very clear with our friends in America that we

do not agree with the policy and disapprove with recrimination on

grounds of nationality but we have worked with him to get the best

possible outcome for UK nationals and dual nationals but also made

clear to the administration the widespread consternation felt by

individuals such as him around the world. Can I congratulated the

Foreign Secretary and condemning America's policy which on any

standards is completely unjustified. I am also

delighted that Mo Farah can see his wife and children. Would you agree

with the words of Mo Farah that this is based on nothing but prejudice

and ignorance? I am delighted that so Mo Farah is able to continue to

go back to the United States where she trains and is able to get set to

win the many medals that he does. Mata the Foreign Secretary knows

that this policy is counter-productive immoral and

wrong. As attitude has to be get an exception for UK citizens and invite

the perpetrator of it to a full state visit. This doesn't seem like

the wholehearted condemnation that this House would deserve and what is

he going to do to make it absolutely clear in no uncertain terms that

this is American administration that kind of discrimination is

counter-productive, wrong and immoral? The policy is counter

productive, immoral and wrong, I have said it is divisive, discover

Terry and wrong, if anyone thinks it is substantial position between the

death position. Recommended the Foreign Secretary on the work he did

on Sunday to ensure that people of Britain have safe travel to America

and can I ask whether he has had clarification from the

administration that they have no updated the advice to the embassies

because that is some confusion that some embassies are still turning

dual nationals away and not allowing them to enter the USA? I am thrilled

that neither my honourable friend normal Sir Mo Farah will be affected

and I can confirm that the Embassy advice has been updated as we have

been speaking. Most of us condemn xenophobia

without hesitation and rereject racism almost by instinct. Which of

the Prime Minister's great British values formed the first response to

Mr Trump's order? The Prime Minister's primary duty is to the

the safety and security of everyone in this country and to protect their

rights and freedoms. She was first out of the box, very early out of

box in saying she disagreed with this policy. Thank you Mr Speaker,

may I congratulate my honourable friend on making those words in our

passport allowing her Majesty's subject to travel a reality and

being the first minister to come to the dispatch box to defend domestic

policy in the United States since Lord North. Can I encourage to

defend our interest as he is doing and not seek to tell America how to

run itself? I'm grateful to my honourable friend. I'm not seeking

to defend ex-my Kate the policy of presidential order, but explain how

it may affect UK nationals and what we have done to mitigate the effects

of that order. Oven Friday it was Holocaust Memorial Day and the Prime

Minister told us our commitment to remembering the hol House is about

more than words. She said if it is about standing up to prejudice where

ever it is foub. Found. Why was the Prime Minister unable to adhere to

her own call to action? The Prime Minister made it clear she did not

agree with the policy and she did and I have made it clear and I have

made it clear several times now in the course of these proceedings that

I think the policy is a matter for the United States, but it is my view

it is divisive, discriminatory and wrong. The foreign Foreign

Secretary, will he consider he is not telling an ally how to run their

country to remind them in calm and firm terms that our shared

relationship is based upon a mutual respect for the rule of law both

national and international and that persisting in this policy does

America no good in that regard at all. I completely agree and I would

point out we are more likely as a nation to get a hearing in respect

of these issues in we treat our partners, our friends and partners

with the respect that they deserve. It seems the fake news has come to

the House of Commons. H Foreign Secretary said our Prime Minister

was one of the first to don condemn the words of trump. It was not. I it

was 38 hours. I'm proud more people in my constituency have signed the

petition to stop the state visit than any other. Because they

recognise our Prime Minister has been involved not in diplomacy but

complicit with this. I say her constituents are at liberty to sign

the petition and to express their views. I have expressed my views,

but I think it would be a good thing if the visit went ahead, because the

relationship with the United States is one of the most important facts

and we are going to keep that going. May I agree with the Foreign

Secretary of vital importance of the ray lieians -- aft alliance with the

United States. Whatever they may do, refugees will be dealt with

patience, courtesy and respect here. I'm very grateful to my honourable

friend. I'm glad to see the bust of his grandfather has been rightfully

restored to its place in the Oval Office and I would remind him that

Winston Churchill took a strong view that a country should be able to

control its own borders and its own immigration policies. I don't think

the Foreign Secretary understands how so many people in this country

feel such contempt for what Donald Trump has done. Can I clarify what

he said earlier. If this visit of this wretched man is going to take

place, can we be reassured that under no circumstances will he

address Parliament in Westminster Hall? That in itself would be a

disgrace. I'm sure that the mood of the chamber of House of Commons will

be reflected in all discussions about how the visit is to go ahead.

But I think he should bear in mind that he is the elected head of state

of our closest and most important ally and there is no reason why he

should not be accorded a state visit and every reason why he should. Well

certainly if we got the Queen to have tea with the president of

China, I don't see why she shouldn't have tea with the president of

America. For 70 years depended on the special relationship and in

those terms, was not the visit of the Prime Minister a triumph and we

are proud of her. Isn't the first fruit of this the Foreign Secretary

has ensured the rights of British citizens? I must say I do agree

about the Prime Minister's visit. I do think it was a great success and

they kindled an important relationship. And the parallels that

were drawn in the United States between Ronald Regan and Margaret

Thatcher and between the new president and our Prime Minister

were aPos sit. The British Embassy has a page showing the list of

presidential visits to the United Kingdom. Can the Foreign Secretary

confirm that George W Bush was president for more than two years

before he h made a visit and Barack Obama was president for more than

two years and many others didn't have state visits at all. Why on

earth has Theresa the Appeaser got him here within two months? Order.

The honourable gentleman will have heard the response to what he said.

But my immediate reaction is that the matter is one of taste rather

than of order. I don't need any help from the the honourable gentleman

who would haven't the foggiest idea where to start. May I say with our

guidance that I do find it distasteful to make comparisons

between the elected leader of a great democracy, and 1930s tyrants.

I have to say I think it is inappropriate. As for the

protocol... As for the exact protocol of when the visit should

take place, that is something about which the honourable gentleman cares

deeply. I can't give him any guidance that is a protocol matter.

Can I offer the Foreign Secretary my commiseration at being sent out to a

bat on a sticky wicket. Would he say when he intervened in Washington,

was it through the state department or the president's son-in-law? I'm

grateful for that ingenious question. I'm sure the House will

appreciate that we have good relationships at all levels now with

the US Government. My honourable friend the Home Secretary herself

has had an excellent conversation today with General Kelly of the home

security department, confirming the very important exemptions that we

have achieved for UN nationals and dual nationals. Mr Speaker, the

Foreign Secretary doesn't like outrage, does he understand the

dismay felt by millions a at the by the Prime Minister's failure to

condemn Trump's Muslim ban and does he acknowledge this may increase the

risk to British citizens in the seven countries affected by the ban?

I think I'm going to have to repeat what I have said about my own views

on this policy, which I think are the same as the the honourable lady

for wall See. I think it is divisive, discriminatory and wrong.

He can find other adjectives. We have made our position clear and

secured an important exemption for UK nationals. As recent barbaric

attacks in Europe demonstrate, we all face a continuing threat from

Islamic fundamentalism, while we may not have adopted the same policy as

the United States, surely this is a matter for the newly elected

administration in America, its courts and its people and our

position has been enhanced by the visit by the Prime Minister where

Britain has influence thanks to her. May I say something in defence of

that great democracy, the United States, which is if you look at all

the migrants in the world, all those living in a country other than the

one in which they were born, 20% of them are in the United States. 45

million people in the US were not born there. And I do not think that

you could say that that country is hostile to those from overseas. It

is vital that we work with the United States in combatting terror

and deepen our relationship. Can I congratulate the Government on a

successful visit to the United States. And for putting the United

Kingdom top of the queue. Does the Secretary of State recognise a touch

of the double standard when people from Ulster have been told for

decades they must talk to the most objectionable people, work with the

most objectionable people and be in government with them and then told

you must not have the president of most democratic country of the world

brought to this dountry. Country. Can he give advice to Northern

Ireland citizens who hold Irish passports, but are entitled to full

British passports, should they be applying for British passports for

ease of travel to the United States? I completely agree with the point

that the honourable gentleman makes and... The President Trump and his

administration have not to the best of my knowledge been engaged in

terrorist offences on mainland Britain, unlike those he and his

party were asked to negotiate. Given th reservations he has expressed,

what further opportunities will there be in order to maximise our

influence and can I suggest that the return visit by the president is a

rather obvious one? Well, I'm grateful to my honourable friend for

that good thought. The presidential visit will be an occasion for

deepening that relationship and I will be meeting my US counter parts

at the Munich security conference in just a few days time. Does the

Foreign Secretary realise those of us with constituencies with large

Muslim populations and in my case the largest Arabic population are

feeling deep anxiety and many travel regularly to America and are looking

for the strongest reassurance from the Government. But a school party

will be leaving in a few days for America, a couple of the students

have been refused visa waivers, will he do what he can to ensure smooth

passage for those students going to America to study the tradition of

American democracy. We will do whatever we can to help them and to

make sure they have a great trip to the United States and if there are

any difficulties we will help. As for the Muslim minority in her on

constituency, of course we must speak up for them and defends their

interests and we have made the points that we have about the needs

of duals and UK passport holders. The Foreign Secretary will be aware

of the speech by Winston Churchill in 1943 said that he feeds at the

crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last in reference to neutral

countries and the war. This dangerous trend towards nationalism

inflicting itself on the western world we haven't seen since the

1930s and it is clear this executive order needs to be condemned. Do you

agree this House must make it stand here and now? I agree that we must

stand up against bigotry and the nationalism but I must say that I

draw the line at the comparison that has been made relentlessly this

afternoon between the elected Government of our closest and most

important ally, a great democracy, and the anti-democratic and cruel

and barbaric tyrannies of the 1930s. Using the language of appeasement

demeans the horror of the 1930s and trivialises our conversation. The

reason people feel strongly about this is because of the great love

held for the United States in this country and in this chamber. The

Foreign Secretary is right to say that our deep friendship brings the

ability to be candid but strength also brings the ability to be candid

and isn't the lesson from the weak response to these announcements that

desperation leads to the opposite of candour? I think the important point

I would stress again is that this Government has earned the right to

speak frankly to our friends in the US and we have and we have made our

views about this measure which the House will have heard already today,

my views are the same as other the other members here today and the

Prime Minister does not approve of this measure but the important thing

to do is to talk to our friends and partners in the United States to

reflect and rarely some of that global consternation that we detect

and to get a positive outcome for UK nationals. I congratulate the

Foreign Secretary for securing the rights of dual British nationals but

will he undertake to look into the case where some Middle Eastern and

other Asian countries refuse dual nationals from this country from

entering those countries? I am aware that there are other countries

particularly in the Middle East that to themselves by the citizens of at

least one country from entering their own. Quiet as the Foreign

Secretary make no reference at all in his original statement to the

American suspension of the refugee problem and shouldn't our premise

that have echoed the words of the Canadian feminist by saying that we

welcome those fleeing persecution, terror and war regardless of faith?

Our policy on receiving refugees has not changed. We have a good record

and the United States has taken about 12,000 Syrian refugees and as

I said earlier, I don't think anybody could reasonably fault the

United States of America as a great recipient of migrants from around

the world. 45 million people in the United States not born in that

country, it is a very distinguished record. Do you share my

disappointment that so many members of this House have so used to not

having control of our own immigration policy that they appear

to present another sovereign country having control of areas? You put it

bluntly but accurately. I think it is absolutely... Whatever you may

think about this policy and I think there is a way to measure of

agreement across this House, it is the prerogative of the president of

the United States and the American Government to do this. The world is

in an increasingly dangerous place and if the special relationship is

to mean anything, surely as friends of America we should be deploring

and the strongest possible terms and saying to President Trump that he

must desist. It is not about the anxiety, it is about the leadership

that we must show an order to deliver peace and security. Judging

the previous 15 answers I have given on except that point he must've been

failing to pay attention. We don't agree with the policy but engage

with the United States to improve it. Know you understand the fear

this executive order has struck into the hearts of British citizens

particularly as under the Obama administration, British citizens of

inane extraction had their bank accounts closed because of US

banking rules. Can I ask the Foreign Secretary not to disengage from the

USA but to seek protection of insurances that this executive order

will not wait to further personal financial sanctions for British

citizens from these seven countries? I think you make an excellent point

and I would just remained in the House that the reason these

particular seven countries have been singled out and that has been a

certain amount of confusion and controversy about this is that they

were in fact the seven that were selected by the Obama Administration

for the withdrawal of a Visa waiver scheme for anybody who had been to

those countries. I am sure that the three members of this House who were

born and Yemen are grateful to the Foreign Minister for allowing us to

travel to America but the position of the British citizen who happens

to be an aid worker and Yemen has visited Yemen for humanitarian

purposes, they are caught by this barn because of the United States

will not allow as I understand it those who have visited bought and

Yemen even though the other nationals of Britain to visit the

United States. I know she was born and Yemen and the must have

initially been some anxiety about how exactly he would be treated with

you to go to the United States. I am happy to see that he will face no

obstacle because he is a UK passport holder and no role any UK aid worker

and Yemen because that's what we have achieved. We didn't need the

executive order to be signed to realise that this was President

Trump's policy because it was an election pledge in an election he

went on to win. If did the Foreign Secretary reason this issue with his

meeting at the President Trump's transition team ordered the Prime

Minister visit when she met him given that we should have known

about it? UMPIRE: Game, set and match, The reality is the this

freedom freaking the Administration and the UK Government had been going

on for many months. We became aware of the policy when it was enacted by

the present on Friday and since then we have worked very hard to secure

the exemptions and protections that we have. Given that the Foreign

Secretary said that the US president was Mac policy is divisive,

discriminant and wrong, can the House safely assume that he will

strengthen any representation she makes this policy to a friend in the

United States by working closely and partnership with our counterparts

and the European Union and the Council of Europe? We already work

very closely with our friends and partners in the EU on matters of

common foreign and security policy and will continue to do so once we

have left the European Union. I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary

for a statement and many thousands of people will be comforted that all

British passport holders will be able to travel into the United

States and those that have the legal right to be here will be able to

apply for a Visa. There are seven countries on President Trump's list

banning their citizens from entering the US group leader of 90 days and

everyone of these countries bands is really passport holders from

entering the country. As the Foreign Secretary had any representations

from dual British and Israeli citizens regarding this policy which

is similarly divisive and wrong? I am glad he pointed that out, I had

alluded to it already in an elliptical way and I think it is

right the House should be aware of that discrimination, that one that

already exists and the House should also reflect on the fact that all

immigration and Visa policies are by their very nature discovered today

as between individuals and nations. -- discriminatory. The Foreign

Secretary is right about one thing, we have lots of friends in America

and I stand with our friends today standing up against this barn that

affects Muslim and others but can I the Foreign Secretary's attention to

the manner taking cores in the Middle East? Many affected will be

people striving to save lives and Syria, Iraq and elsewhere support

contact does he have with humanitarian leaders to make sure

they can travel to the United States if they need to? What I can see

about those conversations is that where there are people who for

diplomatic or political reasons or our aid workers have reason to

travel in the should be expeditious systems for ensuring that they get

through fast and that applies also to some of the people who are

resident in this country but do not have either dual UK nationality. The

Foreign Secretary has touched on this point but 16 countries

currently forbid admission to Israeli passport holders. What the

US do is doing is misguided and wrong but does he agree with me that

we should be consistent and condemnation? I am grateful for home

raising a point which many members of this House will have been

ignorant of?. Why did they keep silent? Many in our academic

community are not British passport holders and at the weekend, my

constituents of specialist vet at Glasgow University was prevented

from boarding a flight because the flight involved the transferred at

New York. The Holocaust didn't start with the gas chambers and only days

after Holocaust Memorial Day, the parallels are clear. Whilst I

welcome the Foreign Secretary's condemnation, will he condemn these

restrictions in any discussions EC has with his American counterpart

and can he assure the House that the price of trade with them will not be

a complicit acceptance of these rules? Boss I have insofar as the

Glaswegian vet is concerned, we are aware of the particular problem and

we will do everything we have and our conscious power to help her out

and as for how a repetition of comparisons that had been made all

afternoon, between these events and the Second World War and the

Holocaust, it trivialises and the Holocaust. I thank the Foreign

Secretary for a statement and ask to make it clear that while America

pursues this terrible and divisive policy which I utterly condemn, the

United Kingdom will always be a place of refugees are welcome, will

always be a place where refugees are made to feel welcome and in that

spirit will he join me in praising and thanking voluntary groups like

refugees welcome enrichment of the two great work in this field?

Absolutely. I can assure you that we will continue to be a great open

society in the UK. I was proud when I was Mayor of London that 40% of

Londoners are born abroad including myself. She has repeated

condemnation of the executive order this afternoon which has been heard

across the House and it is not my place to defend or to explicate that

policy but that is the for 90 days and 90 days only and it will be

subject to the full scrutiny of debate on Capitol Hill and we have

already heard that there is doubt there too.

President Trump's decision to issue this order is divisive and dangerous

and sent shock waves around the Muslim world and Muslim communities

including in this country. I find it deeply worrying and disturbing and I

find it deeply fearful for us to live in this country in the midsts

of reprisals in countries like Canada and when political leaders

fail to show leader ship and stand up in the face of division of

hatred, we send the wrong message. Can I peel to -- can I a appeal to

the Foreign Secretary to show leadership and provide protection

for those communities feeling worried about their safety across

Europe after this executive order? Thank you, Mr Speaker, of course she

is, I agree have much with a lot of what she had to say. That is why the

Prime Minister and I have taken the line we have about this measure. And

secondly, she speaks of hate crime and she is right to do so. I don't

want to see anything that stigmatises or entrenches divisions

or causes communities to feel unwelcome whether in this count are

ry are elsewhere. That is wrong we take hate crime seriously in our

country and we can be proud of some of the achievements we have made in

cracking down on those who forment mistrust. I thought the Prime

Minister's speech in Philadelphia was one of the best expositions of

the alliance and urge members to read this speech and see why this

relationship is worth continuing and would my honourable friend see the

warm response that the Prime Minister had from congressional

leaders and redouble our efforts to reach out to them as wise counsels

and friends in Washington. I agree with my honourable friend and there

is a wide measure of agreement across the Atlantic about some of

those essentials which he and I talked about, the importance of NATO

and promoting our values in freedom and democracy and the rule of law,

those are shared by many people in the Republican Party and of course

they also share our strong desire to develop our trading relations with a

new free trade deal. That was one of the great achievements of Prime

Minister's visit. I have to say to the Secretary of State that I found

the emptiness of his statement today to demean his great office of state.

Given that during President Trump's campaign he clearly set out that he

had a policy for banning Muslims, does he agree that this order

amounts to banning muz lips? -- Muslims. No, she will understand it

does not amount to that. Certain states have been singled out and I

believe that to be wrong because it discriminates on the grounds of

nationality. When President Obama came here during the EU referendum,

he voiced concern at what we were trying to do and we told him that it

was none of his business and it was due to us. While friends should be

table to speak to each other, does my honourable friend agree the

American people have voted Donald Trump to be their president and it

is their business how they defend their borders? I do agree with him

up to this point, I think it is also our duty to make our views clear to

the American president about this measure. We don't like it. We think

it is divisive, discriminatory and wrong assist said, but it is a

sovereign Government of a friendly country and they have taken this

decision by due process. If colleagues have been listening they

will have noticed the Foreign Secretary has been given pithy

replies. I would is for pithy single sentence questions without preamble

amble if if they want a preamble, keep it for the long winter've nings

ahead. Head o' -' -- - evenings ahead. What is the impact on this

order on British foreign policy objectives in the Middle East and

other areas with Muslim populations. Most countries in the Middle East

are exempt from these provisions, we will work with administration to

address the problems in the Middle East. Can I congratulate the Foreign

Secretary on standing up for British nationals and it is right we are a

friend of the United States, can he also point out to the administration

that we should steer clear of policies that could act as a

recruiting sergeant for Daesh. We have been extremely candid with our

American partners as I have been with the House about our

reservations, they include the grounds my honourable friend has

mentioned. Can Iry repeat the question he didn't answer. In light

of our special relationships with the United States, why did it take

the Government of the United Kingdom over 17 hours longer to get the same

assurances that the Canadians got? It is our duty to secure the best

possible deal for the citizens of the United Kingdom. What Canada does

is a matter for Canada. I have no knowledge of what deal they may or

may have not secured. This was an executive Orde order that caught

many departments on the hop and it has taken them some time to

elaborate the policy that we now have. As trump is a democratic

elected president of our closest ally, who is carrying out a promise

he made to the American people, can I commend the Foreign Secretary for

standing firm on the state visit, which is in our national interest

and after all, if pursuing policies that the UK Government didn't agree

with, barred any country from a state visit no, country would ever

get a state visit. I'm grateful to my honourable friend, to the best of

my knowledge, even Robert Mugabe have been entertained by the Queen

and I think most members of House would concede it is our duty and the

right thing to do to put in preparations now to put preparations

now for receiving our friend, our partner and the leader of the oldest

of great democracy and the most important ally that we have. What a

relief it was for those of us who didn't have to meet them. Does the

Foreign Secretary share my concern that the ban imposed on Iraq on US

nationals may damage bids to increase stability in that fragile

country? I'm were aware of that problem and I have heard

representations already from Iraqi politicians. There are as the my

honourable friend will know specific exemptions for those involved in

politics and I hope that their applications will be treated quickly

by the US. Does my honourable friend agree that while of course we can

say that we would not have such a policy in the UK, interfering in the

affairs of a another country can be counterproductive when President

Obama found when he tried to influence the outcome of the EU

referendum last year. That is right and as things turned out I was

grateful for President Obama's intervention, but I think that we,

if I may say to the House, I think we have got the balance just about

right. It is difficult. We have have had to be careful with our American

partner, but we have secured protections for duals and UK

citizens. The Secretary of State earlier referred to matters of

taste, I find the man who talks of grabbing a woman by the pussy

disgraceful. The honourable lady will know that the Prime Minister

has herself said several times that such language is unacceptable. May I

thank the foreign secondary for answers in such a -- Foreign

Secretary for answering in such a way. Can I ask the Foreign Secretary

if he has a very special friend and they have been invited to a big

party, which is the better way of influencing them, banning them from

the party or taking them by the hand and saying quietly you would like

them to do. My honourable friend makes the point elegantly. We do not

agree with this policy and do not support it and it is not something

we would do, but we think the best way to effect change and influence

the White House is to engage a and to be as positive as we can. My

keenness to accommodate colleagues is undiminished, if people feel

they're going to add further insight to our proceedings by their

contribution, they can of course continue to stand, but it is not

compulsory to do so. Thank you, the Prime Minister wants to do business

with President Trump, presumably in the same way she does business with

Saudi Arabia and t UAE. Not a single terrorist attack on US soil has come

from one of the seven countries on the list. But 90% of the 9/11

hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Is there a conflict of

interest between the president's business interests? The the

honourable lady must have been thinking of something out when I

said these seven countries were already singled out by the Obama

regime for restrictions. I will attend a conference in New York in

March, can the foreign secondary assure me as a British subject born

in the Yemen that I will not be detainped at immigration for

questioning? Yes I can. If she has any problems, get on to us! People

like Robert Mugabe and Vladimir Putin had state visits, but none

were invited to address Parliament. Whose idea was it that President

Trump should be asked to do so? I like the way the Labour Party is

obsessing about points of protocol, but all this has yet to be

determined. Thank you Mr Speaker, the Foreign Secretary has said

British citizens should be treated on equal basis regardless of

religion or ethnic origin. Can I say this, when I entered the United

States before being a member of Parliament, on two occasions I was

stopped is at the United States immigration and asked what country I

was born N. I was born in Pakistan, but I'm a British national, but

should everyone write to the Foreign Office to make a representation to

the United States. I would point out to my honourable friend this of

course I assume took place donor the Obama administration. It is

something that I am happy to receive correspondence about. But he and

every other possess or of a UK pass port with travel. As a man of

Catholic literary taste, I'm sure he is familiar with the book the art of

deal, where Donald Trump said a good negotiating position is to start

with something so outrageous that will incite fury and then move to

something which may seem outrageous, but which comparison seems almost

reasonable. He will have analysed possible future actions by the

president, what conclusions has he drawn? The conclusion that anybody

looking at the president's rhetoric and what he has done, anybody would

conclude that his bark is considerably worse than his bite and

I think we have every opportunity to do... To every opportunity to do a

very, very good deal with him on all sorts of thing, not least a free

trade deal. What assessment has been done by the

United Kingdom government, namely that the Islam if all be propagated

at America could make it easier for Islamic State to recruit terrorists?

I agree with the phenomenon, to which he is alluding. And we all

need to work harder, with American partners to tackle that sense of

exclusion and isolation, driving extremism. When it comes to

refugees, women's rights, torture, can the Foreign Secretary explain

how many refugees were going to take to offset the ban, and will he think

that state visit? As I said earlier, this country has a proud record of

taking refugees and funding international organisations. And

campaigning for female victims of sexual violence. We have done more

than any other country in the world. And we continue those colleges. As

for the point about the state visit, repeatedly this afternoon, Her

Majesty the Queen has extended that invitation. It is proper that should

go-ahead. It will. Could the country come to the conclusion that the

government and the Foreign Secretary's responds to this foreign

policy is that the government is so desperate for post Brexit trade deal

our with the United States, willing to become an apologist for the

Donald Trump administration? Any fair-minded person, having listened

to what has happened, would understand that far from supporting

the policy, far from approving and agreeing with the policy, we have

worked with the incoming administration to modify the policy

and secure important protections for United Kingdom and dual nationals.

Many thanks Mr Speaker. Given a number of psychologists have

suggested that President Trump has displayed signs of narcissism, will

be Foreign Secretary be seeking a psychological opinion himself? Their

respective of the psychological traits of various world leaders, I

have not had a chance to consult the register, to see if she is indeed a

psychologist..., we will be working with the President and the

partnership with the United States is absolutely vital not just for

security, but also for the entire world. This order does not

stigmatise just on nationality, as the Secretary of State has said, it

is also on the basis of faith. This is a Muslim ban. It has been

admitted by those who the president asked to help them, so why is the

Secretary of State insisting on pretending that these people are not

doing the very thing that they themselves are telling us they are

doing. To the best of my knowledge, the president has himself has

associated himself from that characterisation of this policy. I

have two remained the House, these seven countries do not comprise the

world, Muslim and had been singled out by President Obama for

restricted visa regulations. Given the Donald Trump administration

seems intent on trading on humanities, when was the first time

the Secretary of State called his opposite number to express his

upset? My opposite number has not been confirmed in office yet, but we

have had conversations with representatives of the Donald Trump

administration. I wonder if the Foreign Secretary can comment on the

blog up from Gary Gibbon on C4, stating that the Prime Minister was

told about the united states refugee ban. That it was coming before the

signing of the executive order. Can the Foreign Secretary confirmed or

deny that fact? I do not comment on confidential conversations between

the Prime Minister. I do not comment on confidential conversations

between the Prime Minister and the United States president. But what I

can tell the house, as soon as we had a full understanding of the

measure that they brought in, had we decided to intercede to get the

protections that we need. Thank you Mr Speaker. When the Prime Minister

visits the native states, and Trump held her hand, was he going to tell

her what his intentions were going to be? No deal is better than a bad

deal?! I could quite make out the earlier part... Not but I totally

agree with that last part. Holocaust survivors have said that this

remains them of the 1930s. Is this a time for appeasement, standing up

for British values? I think it is time for prospective. Time to stop

demeaning the Holocaust. I was in Washington last week, with the Nato

assembly, and the administration, offices of state of the United

States, congressmen and senators took us apart. They can stand by us,

our values are under attack with this administration. Does the

Foreign Secretary appreciate what comes out of your and the statements

that we make are very important to those Americans who want to fight to

retain values? I thank the red honourable lady for what she has

been doing with the Nato assembly, I think it is important that we talk

to partners about the importance of organisations and we have got many

friends on Capitol Hill who agreed profoundly. But the Wheaton nail

those arguments down is to engage with the Donald Trump

administration. -- way to. The ban affects the resettlement of refugees

from seven countries, many of whom have been waiting for years, ready

to go to the United States before the ban came in. What is he going to

do, to use this special relationship, to speak up for the

rights of people, victims of war? We have made the position clear. We

believe that the United States has a record of taking refugees, already

taking 12,000 from the Syrian conflict and I hope that they are

going to think again. Does the Foreign Secretary not share concern,

granting this invitation to the president, it could get us some

short-term brownie points... But lose respect and trust from many

other countries, until recently we had the same boundaries of decency,

tolerance and respect. I think you have got to turn that on its head.

Other countries are looking to us to engage with the new American

administration. Reflecting concerns. Getting across messages. On Nato,

trade, values that unite us. This shameful lack of immediate

condemnation, from the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, it

is a disgrace to this house. The government often talks about global

influence, but they do not seem to have influence, or guts to condemn

this? The impact this is going to have, on some vulnerable people,

specifically Muslims. It strikes me that the question was composed long

before she actually came to the statement, and she has heard what I

had to say. Any fair-minded person who has listened to what I have had

to say, about what the United Kingdom government has done over the

last 48 hours could not have said what she said. Would the Foreign

Secretary agree with me, that regardless of the exemption of

United Kingdom nationals, the Donald Trump Presidency is going to be

tainted by this bigoted, immoral ban? That the Prime Minister is

tainted by this hand association, and he is tainted by complacency?

Very important point. The leadership of the Labour Party has been talking

to the IRA not so many years ago. Possibly still does. What we are

advocating, engagement with the government of the most powerful

nation on earth, on which the security of the world depends. Time

the Foreign Secretary not understand why this is perceived as

discriminatory towards Muslims? The seven countries are Muslim majority,

and the president himself has said that those minorities from those

countries, including Syrian Christians are going to be exempt? I

do not think much to choose between us, on our perspectives. I have

already said repeatedly this afternoon, I believe this to be

divisive, discriminate tree, and wrong. Repeating the words of the

right honourable lady. That is my view. It could be

counter-productive, that is the view of many members, that is the point

that we are also making. Does the Foreign Secretary accept the point

that this sort of action is exactly what Isis want? Because it plays

into the false narrative the west is anti Muslim? What President Trump

has done, it is not just immoral, it is also a threat to security?