01/11/2017 Daily Politics

Morning, folks.

Welcome to the Daily Politics.

Is it right that Downing

Street investigate you?

Damian Green is the latest

Tory MP to be accused

of inappropriate conduct.

Theresa May has ordered

an investigation into allegations

that he made inappropriate advances

to a female Tory activist.

Mr Green has described

the claims as "absolutely

and completely untrue".

As discussion about an unhealthy

culture of abuse by powerful men

in British politics continues

to swirl around Westminster,

we ask what should be done.

On Brexit, Labour is mounting

a fresh challenge today to force

a vote to require the Government

to hand over the 58 secret studies

that have been carried out

about the economic impact of Brexit.

What do they say?

And we have full coverage of today's

big Parliamentary clash.

Prime Minister's Questions will be

live and uninterrupted from midday.

All that in the next 90 minutes,

and with me for the duration

are the Shadow Chief Secretary

to the Treasury, Peter Dowd,

and the Minister of State

for Climate Change and Industry,

Claire Perry.

Welcome to you both.

Now, this morning, there are more

allegations of sexual harassment

and assault in Westminster.

Yesterday, Downing Street said

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon

would not be investigated

by the Cabinet Office.

In 2002, he had put his

hand on the journalist

Julia Hartley-Brewer's knee

during a party conference dinner.

She said she did not regard

the incident as

"anything but mildly amusing".

And a list, thought to have

been compiled by staff

and researchers at Westminster,

detailing a range of mostly unproven

allegations about 40

Conservative MPs and ministers,

has been published on social media.

But most serious of all is the claim

by a young Labour activist

that she was raped by a senior

Labour figure in 2011.

Emma has the latest details.

Damian Green, the First Secretary

of State, and effectively

Theresa May's deputy,

is facing an investigation

after allegations that he made

inappropriate advances

to a female activist.

Kate Maltby has written

in the Times that, in 2015,

during a drink, they discussed

affairs in Westminster

and he said his own wife

was "very understanding".

She then describes

"a fleeting hand against my knee -

so brief it was almost deniable".

She claims she avoided Damian Green

but he later sent her a "suggestive

text" after she was pictured

in the Times wearing a corset

for a piece she'd written.

Damian Green has responded, saying:

"This untrue allegation has

come as a complete shock

and is deeply hurtful,

especially from someone

I considered a personal friend."

Theresa May has now ordered

an investigation into the incident.

The Cabinet Secretary,

Sir Jeremy Heywood, has been asked

to "establish the facts and report

back as soon as possible".

As he left his house this morning,

Damian Green briefly

spoke to journalists.

REPORTER:

Is your behaviour

appropriate, Damian Green?

Is it right that Downing

Street investigate you?

All the allegations

are completely false.

Thank you very much.

Do you regret your

behaviour, Mr Green?

But the Conservatives aren't

the only party facing allegations.

Labour has launched an independent

inquiry after party activist

Bex Bailey said she was raped

at a Labour event in 2011

and discouraged by a party

official from reporting it.

Bex Bailey is a former

member of the party's

National Executive Committee

and said her attacker was not an MP,

but someone more senior

than her in the party.

Labour has said it

takes the allegations

"extremely seriously".

Here's Bex Bailey speaking

to Carolyn Quinn on PM yesterday.

I was seriously sexually assaulted

at a Labour Party event by...

It wasn't an MP but someone

who was more senior.

To me, I told a senior

member of staff.

It was suggested to me

that I not report it.

I was told that if I did

it might damage me.

I wasn't given good advice.

I wasn't given a procedure

when I asked for it so that

I could see what would happen

if I did report it and

then make a decision.

It seemed to me that there

wasn't one that existed.

So there is a lot coming together

here, and it's important to an

packet. On the one hand, what might

be regarded as inappropriate

behaviour, but maybe no more than

that, then sexual harassment and may

be repeated sexual harassment making

it more serious and, from Bex

Bailey, a claim, an allegation of

outright rape, which is one of the

most serious criminal offences in

the criminal code. Claire Perry,

Damian Green is being investigated

by the cabinet secretary. How does

he go about that?

Well, any unwanted

sexual behaviour is completely

unacceptable in any workplace,

whether it is a party environment or

parliament, and I think it's

absolutely right that the specific

allegations that are made are dealt

with quickly and clearly, and I

can't comment on Damian Green's

case, and we heard him saying it

isn't true.

I was talking about the

process, really. Kate Maltby has

made the accusation, and Mr green is

reputed absolutely, in his words.

Where does the cabinet secretary yaw

is the cabinet secretary the

appropriate person to do this? Where

does he go?

We are bound the

ministerial code, but clearly, as

has been the case in the past in

Westminster, if their criminal

allegations being made...

These are

not criminal allegations. There are

other cases which would involve it,

but this one is not.

I think it's

right that ministers are

investigated by the cabinet

secretary.

But he is effectively the

Deputy Prime Minister. He chairs 13

cabinet subcommittees and he sees

Jeremy Heywood, the cabinet

secretary, every day. Is it right

that he should be investigating?

That is the great division between

the ministers and the government. I

think it is right to go through

procedure...

But is this the right

procedure? Nine Cabinet

subcommittees, it is.

In parliament,

which we don't have, we need a

cross-party independent system where

anybody with any allegation about

anybody working in Parliament, not

just ministers and MPs, feels they

can safely raise their concerns, and

we don't have that and, frankly, if

we want to make holiday place where

people want to work, we need a bit

Damian Green's accuser is not in

Parliament, she is a journalist and

an academic, and I wonder if this is

the correct procedure. For there was

a figure known as the Cabinet

Office's propriety and ethics

director general, a senior, in this

case, female civil servant. She

doesn't meet Mr Green everyday.

Wouldn't that be a more appropriate

independent assessment of what is

happening?

I can't comment on where

the cabinet secretary wants to take

it. From the Prime Minister's

initial reaction, the fact she has

made it very clear that there is no

room for any of this behaviour in

politics, the fact she was there for

the big statement by the leader of

the house... We are determined to

make sure Parliament and MPs both

uphold the law and demonstrate codes

of conduct and behaviour that are

irreproachable.

As I think you will

realise, that should go without

saying. But if, and I am putting it

in capital letters, if what Kate

Maltby is saying is true, and that

is established, does Mr Green have

to resign?

Damian has strenuously

denied these allegations.

Absolutely.

So there is a point

where you can't comment on cases,

drug

but did what he is accused of

doing... Is that serious enough if

true to be a cause of a resignation?

I think we are an dangerous

territory. For too long, women who

have brought forward allegations of

abuse have been told they are not

serious enough to warrant

investigation, and we have heard

shocking things cross-party on what

has and hasn't been done. We need a

culture where people feel, if they

feel there has been wrongdoing, feel

comfortable coming forward.

But

people will only come forward if

they know there are consequences,

and what I'm trying to establish is

whether line is. Andrea Leadsom, the

leader of the house, made the line

quite low, low a criminal charge.

She said it was if it made people

feel uncomfortable what I'm trying

to establish is the kind of

behaviour that Mr Green is accused

of, is that the kind of behaviour

which should cost you your job if

it's true?

Will have to let the

cabinet secretary disciple if you'll

forgive me, there are some very

serious allegations being made about

party officials and MPs, and it is

absolutely right that we investigate

those for the... So why is there no

investigation into Michael Fallon?

Because somebody is determined,

perhaps based on the reaction of the

lady who made this point, that this

wasn't a level of comfort. But I

don't think we should sit in a

television studio and try to opine

on what people feel that somebody

may or may not want...

I'm not

asking for an opinion, in that

sense. I'm asking what the

guidelines should be, in terms of

what is inappropriate enough to cost

you your job.

We don't have

guidelines now, and that's the

problem.

Is it more serious than

what Michael Fallon or Damian Green

have been accused of? That is what

has happened to this young Labour

activist. Her name is Bex Bailey.

This is not a case of inappropriate

behaviour or harassment. This, she

claims, is rape. And yet, when she

went to the Labour Party, not only

did she get no help, she was

basically told to shut up about it.

It's shocking, I don't think there

is any other word for what happened

to that poor woman, and it's

shocking. And the fact that the

person didn't look into it, didn't

investigate it, is itself shocking,

and that's why we've set up an

independent investigation.

But it's

worse because, not only did she get

nowhere individually, and she got

onto the NEC, your party's ruling

council, she, without mentioning her

circumstances or experience, she

attempted to get mechanisms in place

which would make it possible to

handle these claims, to give them a

proper airing, and for justice to be

done, and she got nowhere.

That's

right, and that is the point I was

making.

And that was years ago.

It

was shocking, and what we have done

is to set up an imprint desperately

to set up an interesting -- to set

up an independent investigation.

Why

didn't the NEC act?

They should have

acted it is dreadful.

By 2017, it

took break to put into place proper

procedures. National Grid took a

break.

Procedures were set in place

early on in 2015 to look into

allegations like this. I don't deny

it. I think it's important that we

set up in regards to this one, an

independent investigation as to

happened at that particular point,

and Don Buchler, -- dawn Buchler,

our women and equality 's shadow

minister, a set of a walking party

to look at -- a working party to

look at this.

I would suggest that

the Conservative and Labour parties

and Westminster as a place of work,

none of you has the proper

procedures in place, particularly

for women who find themselves,

whether it is more at the moderate

end of the scale or act the most

serious end, they feel they have

almost nowhere to go, and the places

they do have to go do not do them

justice. They are effectively given

career advice to shut up.

Ever since

I came into politics, I've been told

it's different in Westminster, we

have traditions and weird sitting

hours, that's how it is. To attract

and retain the best people in

politics, we have to clean up our

act. And I think it's really

important that we do this on a

cross-party basis. I think the Prime

Minister is right foot

I think,

whatever it takes to get this

culture right, to get the

investigation process right, so

people feel like they've had a

proper hearing...

You'd do it

together?

The speaker has

indicated...

What about this list of

40 Tory politicians. We are not

naming these people. Known way of

verifying them. -- there is no way.

If there are specific named

allegations against individuals, as

the Prime Minister said, they will

be investigated, but I also think

that their names on that list where

there are strong denials by the MPs

involved, and again we shouldn't be

relying on lists sold to media

outlets in order to publicise

inappropriate behaviour. We have to

have, I think, a cross-party system

in the House of Lords as well, that

means that anybody who has a concern

can bring it forward in a Safeway

and know that it's going to be taken

seriously. Is the case now. -- in a

safe way.

We shall see in

Westminster I think this is going to

come at Prime Minister's Questions.

Yesterday, Brexit Secretary

David Davis gave evidence

to a House of Lords committee

on the EU negotiations.

In it, he conceded

that the withdrawal deal

will likely favour the EU,

but he believed future

trading relations would be

more equally beneficial.

It comes as the Government confirmed

it is recruiting up to 8,000 more

staff over the next year

in preparation for

the UK's departure.

This is what David Davis had to say.

The withdrawal agreement on balance

would probably favour the union

in terms of the things

like money and so on.

Whereas the future relationship

will favour both sides and will be

important to both of us and,

of course, in Article 50,

as you know, it says

taking into account

the ongoing relationship.

Well, it seems to us

you can't take something

into account until it exists.

So we see them as inseparable.

This afternoon, Labour will seek

to up the pressure on ministers

over their refusal to release

a series of Brexit impact studies.

On Monday, the Government confirmed

it has prepared 58 reports looking

at different sectors of the economy,

ranging from aerospace and aviation

to tourism and legal services.

But it is resisting calls

to publish them, saying

to do so would undermine

the UK's negotiating position.

Labour will today use

what it calls an "ancient,

but still effective" Parliamentary

tool, called a "humble address",

to force the Government's hand.

We shall see what happens. Why

shouldn't these 58 studies be put

into the public domain?

They have a

material impact on the outcome of

the negotiations as we move to

negotiations about what is the right

trade deal. And I think one of the

things we have seen is the

Government is actually have been far

more transparent than we thought

they might be at the start of this

process. We wanted lots of

Parliamentary scrutiny and we have

had that but I think it's absolutely

right, I imagine the EU is doing

this, if we are assessing the impact

of certain outcomes on different

trade sectors, I think we should be

keeping that quiet until we progress

in those negotiations. The EU is not

publishing its assessment either.

Is

the British Government that we're

talking about, if we don't see the

studies, how can we judge if you get

a good deal or not?

That will be put

to the test.

One of the things... It

won't be if we can't see the

studies.

We've had a clear steer

from David Davis that Parliament

ought to have a final vote on the

shape of the deal.

But what I'm

saying is how do we judge the

content of the deal if we haven't

seen the impact studies on these 58

industrial sectors?

We will see the

outcome of the deal and what the

various trade-offs might be and I

think where we are going is the

closest possible relationship with

the EU, so we can maintain these

benefits of cross-border flows,

which has a big influence on some

sectors more than others.

We won't

know that if you don't publish the

assessment. Wide do you want to see

them?

It's crucial to see what they

say and for transparency. It's

important we know what these

assessments say because if they have

an impact on tourism, which affects

my city region, Liverpool,

significantly, it's important that

we see them for that there's an

issue of transparency, about

openness, and the point Claire makes

about with had lots of discussions

on this, the reality is Parliament

at the moment RA zombie Parliament.

On zero hours.

You might be, Peter,

I'm not!

We are trying to drag every

single piece of information out of

the Government.

Have you seen any

impact assessment?

All departments

have been asked to put them

together.

Have you seen them?

No. My

teams have been involved in putting

them together. Can I just make the

point...

Hold on, you as a

Government minister in charge of

climate change and what's the other

one? Energy. Very important to this

country's future. And you have not

seen the impact assessment?

I've

been closely involved with a

negotiation team that what we want

to actually...

But you have not seen

the impact assessment on energy

Brexit could have?

I don't believe

there is one prepared for energy.

They managed 58 but not one for

energy?

Andrew, can we move on?

No,

this is outstanding. The Government

has prepared 50 at impact

assessments yet, on energy, which is

a huge part of our economy, both the

generation and distribution and

import of it by the French

connector, and Norwegian gas, one

has not been prepared?

I had a

conversation yesterday with a French

Minister about the impact of

interconnection. The impact

assessments will be a series of

technical -based analysis based on

different outcomes and if I can just

say, both in our constituencies

voted to leave, Peter. Brutal voted

out. 54%.

Let's not go there.

We

have to negotiate and get on with

this.

That's why he wants to see the

impact assessment.

If Peter's party

for one second could come up with a

stable view of what they want to

come up with Brexit, I know your job

is to oppose everything, but this is

serious national conversation where

we should do a bit more working

together.

For a national

conversation to be informed, you

have to have the data but you're not

prepared to publish it. Let me ask

you this. Do you think it'll be

worth the paper it's written on?

It's difficult to make a judgment

until you have seen it.

Had ever

seen an impact assessment which

turned out to be true?

It's

important to get indications and you

can tease out...

That's part of the

negotiation, Peter.

For example,

Brexit is not an event. It is a

process, a lead up to coming out,

but it is important to that, during

the process, we have as much

information as we can about

everything related to this from

energy right the way through to

environment. It's very important.

What is wrong with asking for those

getting that information?

Our people

have been looking through his impact

assessments because we know some of

the areas that there is one on gas

and another on fossil fuels. The

last time I looked, that's energy.

And you haven't seen it and you're

the energy minister?

Richard

Harrington is the energy Minister. I

have climate change and industry.

The point is... That's why we are

leading the world in fossil fuels.

How do you know if you've not seen

the impact assessment on fossil

fuels?

I can look at what we have

done historically and what we plan

to do and I can also tell you the

day-to-day conversations we have

with ministerial colleagues where we

are completely involved in setting

up the various negotiations on these

things are live and valid.

Do you

want me to put a word in for you to

see if I can get you to see these

papers?

I can see them without your

help, but thank you.

A brilliant

column in the Financial Times,

there's lies, dam lies and economic

impact assessments. You could be

chasing something here, transparency

I understand, but...

It may or may

not be the key to this, so why are

the Government wanting to keep them

under wraps? That is the question.

The more you try to keep things

under wraps, the more people...

The

Minister has not even seen them. Are

you voting this afternoon on this?

Of course. I am there every day.

Are

you going to vote against this?

I

shall look at it on the motions. Of

course I'm going to vote, I always

vote.

Have you ever found yourself

stumbling across something

on the internet that has completely

ruined your evening?

No, I'm not talking about some

dubious list of Tory MPs

and their predilections.

I'm talking Twitter,

I'm talking GBBO.

Yes, the Great British Bake Off.

Yes, Prue Leith, I'm talking to you,

Twitter's twit of the day.

How could you preempt the nation's

most important contest this year -

apart from the Conservative

leadership - by letting the cat out

of the bag over who won

Bake Off on Twitter?

I know you are in Bhutan,

six hours ahead, and didn't realise

the time difference.

And I know you feel more guilty

than a black forest gateau.

Very 1970s here!

Very 1970s here!

So why don't you console yourself

with a nice cup of Bhutanese tea -

or po cha cha suma,

as they say in Thimpu -

the drink that cheers.

And what better way to serve it

than in public service

broadcasting's finest

beverage vessel,

the Daily Politics mug?

All you have to do is guess

when all this happened.

And, Prue, we will tell

you who the winner is -

at the end of the show.

This moment occupies

a special place in my heart.

MUSIC: Driving In My Car by Madness.

# I've been driving in my car.

# It's not quite a Jaguar.

# I brought it in Primrose Hill.

# From a bloke from Brazil.

MUSIC: This Time by

England World Cup Squad.

# This time more

than any other time.

# This time.

# We're going to find a way.

# Find a way to get away.

# This time.

# Getting it all together.

# To win them all.

MUSIC: Mirror Man

by The Human League.

# Oooh-ooh.

# Aah-aah.

MUSIC: Save A Prayer by Duran Duran.

# Save it till the morning after.

# No, don't say a prayer for me now.

In their view, the cruise

missile is not a deterrent.

It's a weapon of death.

# Save it till the morning after. #

To be in with a chance of winning

a Daily Politics mug,

send your answer to our special quiz

email address - [email protected].

Entries must arrive by 12:30pm

today, and you can see the full

terms and conditions

for Guess The Year on our website.

That's bbc.co.uk/dailypolitics.

It's coming up to midday here -

just take a look at Big Ben -

Almost covered entirely in

scaffolding now.

Yes, Prime Minister's

Questions is on its way.

And that's not all -

Laura Kuenssberg is here.

All the stories swirling around

Westminster ranging from

inappropriate behaviour to sexual

harassment to rape. Hard for PMQs to

avoid that, I would've thought.

I

would be surprised if they avoid

this issue not just because it is

what a is talking about in

Westminster but also it's something

extremely important and, as days go

by, I do think we have entered a new

phase in all of this. From time to

time, stories like this have bubbled

up but there has always been a real

reticence among some of the victims

of this kind of behaviour, who work

across the road, to come forward,

and I do think, potentially,

particularly after yesterday and Bex

Bailey, I think we are seeing a

change in this celebrated apart is

not just nervous that what's going

to corrupt in their own party when

the rock is lifted up, but they also

are concerned to get this right.

Actually to try to make this a

moment and make the Parliament 2017

a parliament which created a change

and I suspect by the end of the day

we will see more proposal from the

Labour Party by tightening up their

procedures again.

The key word there

for me is 2017. It's only 2017 that

we are now getting around to this.

The understandable reluctance of

women in particular to come forward

and you can understand what happened

from Bex Bailey's experience, but

the consequence of that is it

allowed Westminster and the

political parties and Government not

to do too much about it, not to put

procedures in place.

Yes, I think

that has been part of the... There's

been lots of issues here, but one of

the problems has been when people

don't speak up firstly it's very

hard for the political parties to

know what they're dealing with. If

it's not open and discussed, then

it's been very difficult to tell

what the true scale of this kind of

thing is. Everyone has heard these

allegations from time to time. But

until people were willing to put

things on record it's very hard to

know genuinely how widespread an

issue this is. And we have also seen

this as an issue for young men and

for young women, when these issues

have bubbled up before, there are

people who feel when they've tried

to speak out and they have been

penalised. Sometimes they have

slinked away from Westminster and

part of the issue here is loyalty is

whether currencies around here.

That's not just the whips hanging

onto awkward information to get

people to vote the way they want to,

but because Westminster attract

ambitious people who want to come

here quite often want to change the

world and they want to make a

difference so do people want to

start their career being pointed to

as some kind of troublemaker? With

some kind of way that they will be

attacked themselves and since Bex

Bailey came forward yesterday, I

talk to people who have been

affected by these issues who told me

this was in their mind, they felt

they would not be believed and they

feared they would be damaged in

terms of their own futures if they

spoke up. The other thing which is a

structural issue is MPs employ their

staff directly. We're not talking

about a traditional business is how

do you complain about the bass to

the boss? There's no big HR

department. There's no real

structure. When these things are

bubbled up over the years,

Parliament has never quite grasped

that and there have been various

proposals. Should the expenses

regulate to be the ones in charge of

it? There were ideas David Cameron

considered a 1922 committee not keen

on having some kind of corporate

Hellas employing a couple of

thousand researchers -- beer

but this is not just an issue in

Parliament. This is an issue in the

culture of Parliament. And politics

and other industries. But there is

something different here because

Westminster works on power and

loyalty is one of the things which

boils the wheels and when people

really, really care about their

party, they have sometimes been

persuaded to hold things back for

the greater good.

Which is what Bex

Bailey appears to have done. It is

interesting the way things work,

Laura, if this is a watershed

year...

And it may not be.

If it is,

how society works now cut it takes

the scandal surrounding a Hollywood

mogul to result in a potential major

change in Westminster.

That is quite

something. I would also say that

certainly I have been in Westminster

for nearly 20 years now and most

people would concur the atmosphere

is less secretive, less full of

awful things going on in dark

corners. It has improved if you want

to use that word. But are there

things that people have carried

around with them for a long time

that they feel they have not been

able to share, yes, absolutely

estimate

the whips office in both parties,

having date on someone but not using

it to bring justice, keeping it...

When I was a Government whip in

2013, that is not true, actually

there were attempts made in 2013 to

set up a cross-party independent...

We will come back to that because we

got to go straight

I know that members across the house

will have been appalled by last

night's cowardly terrorist attack in

New York. Our thoughts are with all

of those affected and we stand

united with the people of New York.

Members on both sides have been

deeply concerned about allegations

of harassment and mistreatment in

Westminster. This demands a

response, and that is why the leader

of the house has been meeting with

her counterparts, and we are hopeful

all sides can work together quickly

to resolve this, and I have written

to all party leaders inviting them

to a meeting early next week so we

can discuss a common, transparent,

independent grievance procedure for

all of those who work in Parliament.

We have a duty to ensure that

everybody coming here to contribute

to public life is treated with

respect. This morning I had meetings

with ministerial colleagues and

others. In addition to my duties in

the house, I will have further such

meetings later.

Is the Prime

Minister where there have been some

very powerful research that's been

done on the question of high speed

rail? What it says is that, in the

leafy suburbs of the south, the

first 140 miles, 30% of it has been

dedicated to tunnelling to avoid

knocking down houses. Yet, in the

north, we are now told that the

percentage is only 2% for the whole

of the north. Why? Because HS2 says

it's too costly, so knock the houses

down. Will she arranged for a

meeting with people from my area in

order to avoid another 30 houses

being knocked down in Newton, part

of Bolsover? And isn't it high time

that this government stopped

treating our people like

second-class citizens?

I say to the

honourable gentleman that I'm sure

the Department for Transport will be

happy to look into the question that

he has raised but, of course, HS2,

the reason why we are doing HS2 is

it is important to increase the

capacity of the railway lines going

through to the north. This will be a

very important contribution to the

UK economy. And I can assure him, if

he looks at everything this

government has done, with the

Northern Powerhouse, the Midlands

engine... Be significant investment

in infrastructure across all parts

of the country, this is a government

that wants to ensure this is a

country that works for everyone.

I

want to join the Prime Minister and

add my thoughts are with New

Yorkers. The shocking scenes in New

York will have brought back awful

memories of terrorist attacks there

and, as we degrade and destroyed

Daesh, at its base, it will exploit

its death cult ideology. Will my

honourable friend urged our

international partners to join with

us in delivering the recent UN

resolution to investigate and

prosecute Daesh terrorists so we can

hold them to account for their vile

part?

My honourable friend raises an

important point, and it's important

that we ensure we have a complete

response to this issue of the threat

of terrorism. That involves dealing

with the problem at source. It must

also involve dealing with terrorism

wherever it occurs. But our message

is clear, that our values will

prevail, that the terrorists will

not win. As we do this, we need to

ensure that we work with

international partners. We want to

try and make sure that there is in

Syria Iran, that we develop -- Syria

and Iraq. That we develop safe

spaces as they re-emerge from this

terrorist threat, that has been on

their street but also affected

people across the world. Crucially,

and we have done a lot of work in

this, in helping those in situ to be

able to gain evidence that can be

used to ensure that anybody who is

involved in the horrors of attacks

that we see, that anybody involved

in those attacks can actually be

brought to justice.

On the question

of the sex harassment allegations

that the Prime Minister quite

rightly referred to, to put on the

record, I am happy to meet with the

Prime Minister and all party leaders

to discuss this. We need better

protections for all in this house.

This house must involve workplace

trade unions in that, but it is also

incumbent on all parties to have

robust procedures in place to

protect and support victims of

sexual abuse and harassment. I join

with the Prime Minister in sending

our solidarity with the people of

New York and then mayor, Bill de

Blasio, for the appalling terrorist

attack yesterday. I hope the whole

house will join me in paying tribute

to two former Labour can -- two

former Labour colleagues, who passed

away this week, candy Atherton, the

member for Falmouth and Campbell,

and Frank Doran, the member for

Aberdeen North, who both did

enormous good work at opposite ends

of the UK to represent their

communities and constituencies would

they will be missed by all of us,

especially in the Labour Party, who

they served so well for their entire

lives. In 2010, the Labour

government intervened through HMRC

to shut down an Isle of Man scheme

used to import yachts into the EU

and thus to avoid tax. A similar

scheme has recently been exposed

relating to the import of business

jets into the Isle of Man. So can

the Prime Minister assure the house

that HMRC investigates these new

allegations diligently?

The right

honourable gentleman has made a

number of references in his

question, and I will address all of

them. On the first point, it is

absolutely essential, and he is

right, that we have processes, that

political parties have processes to

deal with allegations of misconduct,

but also that, obviously, we have

the ministerial code and proper

investigations take place against

that, where that is appropriate, but

I believe it is also crucial for

everybody working in this

Parliament, be they working for a

Member of Parliament, for the house

authorities or a journalist working

in this Parliament, that there are

proper processes in this Parliament

for people to be able to report

misconduct and for that to be dealt

with, and I think that is very

important, and I'm grateful for him

saying he will meet with me, and I

hope other party leaders... I see

the leader of the SNP is nodding his

head. To look at this particular

issue. Can I also join him in paying

tribute to both Frank Duran -- Frank

Doran and Candy Atherton. Frank

Doran was first elected in 1987,

serving two separate terms as the MP

for Aberdeen, chairing the

administration committee for five

years and he was a tireless

campaigner for safety in the oil and

gas industry, and I'm sure everybody

will recall his commitment in this

house and join me in offering

condolences to his family and

friends, and Candy Atherton, first

elected in 1997, when I was first

elected, and she served for eight

years as an MP, but she was a strong

campaigner for women's rights and

disability issues and continued to

champion those causes on Cornwall

council after leaving this house,

and I'm sure that members across

this house will join me in offering

my condolences to her family and

friends. The right honourable

gentleman talks about tax avoidance,

and I can assure him that, where

cases are referred to HMRC in

relation to tax avoidance, they take

those seriously and look into those

measures seriously. We have taken

action collectively as a government

over the last few years, since 2010,

when he first came in, and we have

secured over £150 million of

compliance revenues since 2010 from

a number of measures we have taken

to ensure that we clamp down on tax

evasion and avoidance.

957 business

jets in the Isle of Man seems a bit

excessive for any island anywhere,

and I hope it is investigated and

you tax is investigated from those

people trying to avoid it. -- the

tax that is due. Allegations of the

scale of tax docking -- tax dodging

involved range up to 119 billion,

the size of the NHS budget. The Isle

of Man VAT avoidance allegations are

part of a wider link from the

Bermuda -based law firm said the a

similar scale the Panama Papers.

Will the Prime Minister commit the

HMRC to fully investigate all

evidence of UK tax avoidance and

evasion from this league, and

prosecute where feasible?

I had

given the right honourable gentleman

and assurance in my first answer

that HMRC does take these issues

very seriously, does investigate and

thus take action and, where

appropriate, tax loopholes are

closed. What is important is that,

if we look at the record we have,

and I mentioned the 160 billion in

additional compliance revenues since

2010, we have announced or intimated

over 75 measures since 2010 to

tackle tax avoidance and evasion.

The right honourable gentleman

referred to one that was done by

Labour. We have been continuing to

act on this particular issue, so we

will be raising billions of pounds

more as a result. But I reassured

him... I think most people would

recognise that HMRC actually does

rather want to collect tax. That its

job, and it does look to make sure

it can do so as much as possible.

Well, it's rather strange then that

Britain reportedly has blocked a

French led proposal which would have

placed Bermuda on the European Union

tax haven blacklist. Perhaps the

Prime Minister could explain why

that would be the case? The Panama

Papers exposed many wealthy

individuals and big businesses who

avoided tax through offshore trusts.

Labour backs any necessary changes

to toughen our laws against

aggressive tax avoidance of just

yesterday, Mr Speaker, we tried to

strengthen legislation on beneficial

ownership of trusts, with amendments

we placed to the finance bill why

did the government vote against

them?

Can I say to the right

honourable gentleman that he raises

the issue of British Overseas

Territories. In fact, this

government has taken action in

relation to those British Overseas

Territories, action that was not

taken by the previous Labour

government. So, if he says to me

that this whole question of tax

evasion is something that needs to

be constantly looked at, and

government needs to be prepared to

act, my answer is, yes, we are and

we will.

There is a strange kind of

pattern here, because, in 2015

alone... In 2015 alone am a

Conservative members of the European

Parliament voted against five

reports to introduce methods of

fighting tax avoidance and evasion.

Last week, HMRC admitted that

multinational companies avoid paying

5.8 billion taxes in 2016. Despite

this, HMRC is currently cutting

another 8000 staff. So can the Prime

Minister assure the house that, in

the upcoming Budget, instead of more

cuts to HMRC, they will get more

resources to tackle the scourge of

aggressive tax avoidance and

evasion?

I have reassure the Right Honourable

gentleman. HMRC is acting since this

Conservative Party came into

Government in 2010 and will continue

to act but, of course, in asking

these questions, he might want to

reflect on why it was before the

dissolution of Parliament earlier

this year, it was the Labour Party

that stopped and refused to support

a tax avoidance and evasion measures

brought forward by this Government.

His party stopped it.

Mr Speaker, my

question was why Conservative MPs

opposed what Labour was proposing

yesterday? So, Mr Speaker... Last

month's European Parliament

committee of enquiry set up in the

wake of the Panama papers, claimed

that the UK is obstructing the fight

against tax dodging and

money-laundering. And, just last

week, the EU's competition

Commissioner announced an enquiry

into UK taxation rules that may have

institutionalised tax avoidance by

multinational corporations. Isn't

the Prime Minister concerned that

vital revenue is being lost to fund

schools and hospitals? Will she

change the rules in the budget?

Can

I say to the right honourable

gentleman we have taken an extra

£160 billion in additional

compliance revenue since 2010 and he

says measures being proposed this

week, as I said in my previous

answer, we would have had more tax

evasion measures in place if the

Labour Party had not blocked of

before the last election. This party

in Government has not just been

acting in the UK. We have been

working with the Crown dependencies,

the British Overseas Territories,

and leading the world, it was the

Conservative Prime Minister that put

this on the agenda of the G7 anergy

20 four international action against

tax avoidance and evasion.

If we are

leading the world perhaps she can

explain how the amount of tax paid

by the super-rich in income tax has

fallen from 4.4 billion down to 3.5

billion since 2009. Earlier this

year, the Public Accounts Committee

said the HMRC record of getting

multimillionaires to pay their taxes

was dismal and the super-rich were

getting help with their tax affairs

that is not available to other

taxpayers. Our schools budget has

been cut. More people waiting longer

for treatment.

In the

order. We do tend to have

overexcitement every week but I give

notice as usual I would like to get

to the end of the order paper and

facilitate backbench enquiries, as

well, so members are eating only

into their own time forth I have got

all the time the world.

Since

members to get so excited, I must

say it again, our schools budgets

are being cut, more people waiting

longer for treatment on the National

Health Service. More elderly and

disabled not getting the social care

they need. Does the Prime Minister

think it is acceptable that, when it

comes to paying taxes, there's one

rule for the super-rich, and another

the rest of us?

The top 1% of

earners in this country are paying

28% of the tax burden. That is the

highest percentage ever under any

Government. And, once again, he is

wrong forth over the next two years,

£2.5 billion extra is being put into

our schools, as a result of

decisions taken by this Conservative

Government. But I will tell him, he

talks about spending on schools and

hospitals. I will tell him where the

real problem lies full sub today be

spent nearly £50 billion in payments

on interest to those we have

borrowed from as a result of the

legacy of the Labour Party.

That is more than we spend on the

NHS pay bill, it is more than we

spend on...

Order,

Answer will be heard as I

Answer will be heard as I indicated.

Mr Gates, you are a senior denizen

of the House. This excessive jester

Galatea and is not good for you,

man. Calm yourself.

We spend £50

billion on debt interest every year,

payments to people we have borrowed

from, more than the NHS pay Bill,

more than our schools budget, more

than we spend on defence. That as a

result of the economy we were left

by the Labour Party Government. And

what does the right honourable

gentleman want to do? He wants to

borrow £500 billion more to make the

situation worse and leave even less

money for schools and hospitals.

Tim

Lawton.

On August 22, 2015 in my

constituency, 11 men tragically lost

their lives in the airshow disaster.

26 months later, no decision has

been taken on criminal charges and

coroners inquest has been delayed

again until November next year. The

families of the victims have just

had their application for

exceptional case funding rejected by

their legal aid agency and they will

likely be the only persons at the

inquest not legally represented.

Will my right honourable friend

agreed to look at this case again

and to meet the families to ensure

that they have proper access to

justice in this exceptionally tragic

case which is a much wider public

interest for safety at all levels?

Can I say he raises a very important

issue and I can understand the

concerns of the families. In

relation to this. He talks about the

timetable for decisions being taken

for the Department for Transport has

accepted the recommendation and they

are working with the air accident

investigation Branch to determine

the scope of the review. The Civil

Aviation Authority has accepted all

recommendations, so there was

considerable work going on to learn

the lessons from this disaster. But

we're also committed ensuring that

people, where there is a public

disaster, people have proper

representation and this is an issue

I will ask the Lord Chancellor to

look at in relation to the questions

raised.

Ian Blackford.

Thank you,

can I associate myself with the

remarks made by the Prime Minister

went to talk about the zero

tolerance there has to be for bad

sexual practices and behaviour and I

certainly commit my members to work

with the Government to make sure

that we can have a system we can be

proud of that protects all members

of the Houses of Parliament. Can I

pass on my condolences to the family

and friends of Frank Gordon for his

sad death this week. Can the Prime

Minister tell the House how much a

working single parent can expect to

lose because of the roll-out of the

Universal Credit?

Can I first of all

say to the honourable gentleman that

I'm grateful to him for agreeing he

wants to work across the House on

this important issue. If I may just

say to him, he referred to sexual

misconduct, I think what is

important is that we list not just

sexual misconduct and also bullying,

as well because that is also

important. He has raised the role of

Universal Credit with me before. The

reason why we have brought in to

replace it is to ensure that when

people are encouraged into the

workplace and in work, they are able

to keep more of the money they earn.

That's an important principle we

will continue to underpin that.

The

reality is that new research shows

that working single parents could

lose an average of £1350 a year.

Because of the cuts to work

allowances. Universal Credit is fast

becoming Theresa May's poll tax. The

Prime Minister has a habit of you

turning. Will see you turn one more

time and fix the problems with

Universal Credit?

Can I say to the

honourable gentleman, I have

underlined the principle which lies

behind Universal Credit which I

believe is very important and that

is why when we look at the support

given to people it isn't just about

the support they receive in

financial terms but also about

helping them to get onto the work

ladder, ensuring they can actually

meet the requirements of getting

into the workplace and when they are

in work they can keep more of the

money that they earn. I think that

is an important principle and we

will continue to roll-out Universal

Credit looking carefully at the

fermentation of Universal Credit as

we do so, because we are doing this

in a careful way over a period of

time, but the important principle is

Universal Credit is a simpler system

which ensures people keep more as

they earn more.

Mr Speaker, in

Amersham we are acutely aware that

infrastructure is vital for economic

success particularly of other parts

of the country. However, we still

have areas that do not have access

to high-speed broadband, and with

the advent of electric vehicles, we

are going to need to install an

extensive charging network. Could

the Prime Minister tell me what

further action the Government can

take to ensure the timely completion

of our broadband infrastructure and

what it can do to guarantee the

rapid roll-out of electric vehicle

charging points soap Buckinghamshire

residents and businesses cannot just

bear the brunt and the burden of

infrastructure development, but can

take advantage of the opportunities

offered by modern technology?

She's

absolutely right that we want to be

able to ensure we take the

advantages offered by modern

technology. That's why these are

issues addressed in our industrial

strategy and we will continue to

address them and we recognise that

when we talk about infrastructure in

this country actually increasingly

the IT broadband infrastructure is

part of that, it's not just the

physical roads and rails

infrastructure. We are investing 790

minute and pound improving

broadband, our big investment up to

1.7 billion, and we are leading the

world in the development of electric

cars and we need to ensure we have

those vehicle charging points so we

have put in place grants and policy

measures to ensure that we see those

charging points so people can take

advantage of it.

If the Prime

Minister is serious about building a

country that works for everyone, why

are under 25 is not included in the

national mood and wage? And also

apprentices, 3.15 hour?

It's

important we have the national

living wage. It was this party which

introduced it. That has happened and

has had an important impact on

people and obviously the national

living wage continues to increase.

Will the Prime Minister join with

the local Government ministers

positive comments this week

welcoming family hubs and pushing

carriage our excellent Conservative

councils to be champions of these

hubs which can so improve the lives

of children including the most

runnable children by strengthening

their families?

Can I thank her for

raising this point. I hope we all

recognise the value of stable and

strong families and this is an issue

she has championed through her time

in this House but also outside of

this House as well and I am happy to

join her in welcoming the

development of family hubs and I

would encourage Conservative

councils across the country to be

champions of this.

Thank you. Is the

Prime Minister aware that my city of

Dundee has been repeatedly in the

news last week. It launched its

European city of culture bid and is

now the world centre for

pharmaceutical innovation and the

Wall Street Journal listed it as one

of the top ten places to visit on

earth, making it Scotland's coolest

city. Wouldn't it be great if the

Prime Minister today can finally

tell the innovative, the creative

and cool people of Dundee and

surrounding area, what precisely is

the UK Government's date for

delivering its fair share of the

deal?

I'm sorry, I didn't hear the

end of it. What is important for the

honourable gentleman, he stands up

and speaks and waxes lyrically about

his city of Dundee and I was asked

about the Dundee city of culture

last week and made the point that,

of course, a number of places across

the UK may put in those bits but on

the creative industries I'm pleased

to see that element of the day in

Dundee, as well and tasted the deal

will be an important deal for Dundee

and the surrounding area is at other

city deals in Scotland have been for

with those have been agreed.

Cheltenham general's A&E is hugely

valued by me and my constituents and

we want to see it preserved and

enhanced. Does my right honourable

friend agree with me that local NHS

managers must listen very carefully

to the voices of my constituents and

others in Gloucestershire and ensure

that any proposals can truly command

local support?

My honourable friend

raises an important issue, because

we are very clear that proposals

should be developed at a local level

I local commissions, but taking

account of and listening to the

views of local residents and

constituents on those particular

matters. I think it is important

that local people are heard and can

know that decisions have been taken

in the light of any concerns they

raise, and I understand any

proposals for urgent care developed

by the Gloucestershire authority

will be subject to proper

consultation.

The government will

today published its first report

detailing progress towards ratifying

the Istanbul Convention on violence

against women. After five years,

hopefully today's report signals it

won't have to wait long for

application. But women suffering

domestic violence don't have the

luxury of time, so this is why the

Prime Minister is sorting out

misogyny and harassment in place,

will she ensure that all women have

somewhere safe to go when fleeing

violence?

I say to the honourable

gentleman that, over the past few

years, but when I was Home Secretary

and under the current Home

Secretary, we have taken steps in

relation to funding in relation to

domestic violence, but that funding

is ring-fenced over a period of

time, so there can be a greater

certainty for organisations working

in this area. There is much for us

to do because, sadly, we still see

domestic violence and abuse taking

place. One of the other steps we are

taking is to bring in new

legislation in relation to domestic

violence, which I hope will clarify

the situation, but we need to

address this across a wide variety

of action.

How we treat our farmed

animals is an indication of our

civility as a nation. And we in this

country have a record of which we

can be rightly proud. Does my right

honourable friend share my concern

that there have been reports that,

as a result of leaving the European

Union, there may be a relaxation of

those standards? Can she take this

opportunity to reassure me that that

is not the case, and that in fact we

will seize the opportunity to

improve standards and thereby

enhance the reputation of British

produce?

I can assure my honourable

friend... First of all, I can agree

with him that we are proud to have

some of the highest animal welfare

standards in the world, and we want

to continue to be able to have that

reputation as a country where we

have those high standards. So

leaving the EU isn't going to change

that. We remain committed to high

animal welfare standards and, as my

honourable friend says, that may

give an opportunity to enhance those

standards, so we can further show

people the reputation this country

as is somewhere where they can be

safe and secure in the knowledge of

conditions in which their food has

been prepared.

The Prime Minister

will be aware that 4 million

children in our country are growing

up in poverty, and that number has

risen. Two thirds of those children

are from working families. Does she

still seriously believe that the

introduction of Universal Credit

will balloon -- will bring that

number down?

The number of children

in absolute poverty has actually

come down under this government.

But, of course, we need to be aware

of the impact of decisions. We are

looking carefully at the

implementation of Universal Credit,

but I will repeat the point I made

in response to the question from the

leader of the SNP, which is that the

point of Universal Credit if it is

more straightforward, a simpler

system, but also it helps people get

into the workplace and ensures that

they keep more of the money that

they earn, which I think is

important.

This government's

industrial strategy makes the

historic commitment for a fairer

distribution of infrastructure

spending across the regions, our

roads, railways and digital

networks, and in advance of the

White Paper, would my honourable

friend confirm this commitment and

between rebalancing of our economy

by more investment spending in the

regions, not least in Yorkshire?

My

honourable friend stands up well for

his county and his constituency on

this matter, but I am very happy to

confirm to him that we will maintain

that commitment in our forthcoming

industrial strategy White Paper,

because we want to see a fairer

distribution of infrastructure

spending across the country, and we

want that because we know that

infrastructure investment is

important to unlocking economic

opportunities and economic growth

and productivity in our towns,

villages and cities. Of course, we

have backed this with ambitious

commitments to increase spending on

infrastructure by 50% over the next

four years, but I can assure him we

will be looking at that spending

across the whole country.

I'd like

to thank the Prime Minister for her

opening words about the horrific

revelations this week, but can I say

to her that, three years ago, I

brought evidence to her in this

house that whips had used

information about sexual abuse to

demand loyalty from MPs. I have

brought my information to her in

this house, and I warned her at the

time that, unless real action was

taken, we risked repeating those

injustices again today. On three

occasions, I asked her to act and,

on three occasions, she did not. Can

I ask her, in this of all weeks, for

the fourth time, will she finally

take concrete action to tackle this?

I will, of course, look back at the

questions that the honourable lady

said that she raised with me in this

house. I issue she raised those with

me when I was Home Secretary. I will

say to her that I am very clear that

the whips office, and I hope this

goes for all whips offices across

this house, should make clear to

people that, where there are any

sexual abuse allegations that could

be the criminal nature, that people

should go to the police. It isn't

appropriate for those to be dealt

with by whips offices. Those should

go to the police. That continues to

be the case. I will look at the

questions she raised with me, but I

am very clear that we will take

action against those, where there

are allegations that we see, and the

evidence is there that there has

been misconduct. Can I just say to

the honourable lady, I hope we will

all send a message from this house

today that we want people in this

place to be able to feel confident

to bring forward cases, and we need

to make sure that those cases... No,

we need to ensure that those cases

are dealt with in a way that people

can have confidence on both sides

that they will be properly

investigated. That means, and I want

to see a good process within this

parliament, so that people feel they

don't have to go to a party

political process in order to have

their allegations considered.

My

constituency of Aldershot is the

home of the British Army. It is home

to many thousands of service men and

women, are loyal, resolute in stead

fast in their service to the Crown.

Will my right honourable friend

agree, when her busy schedule

allows, to visit the Aldershot

Garrison to meet with service men

and women, and to thank them for

their service?

Can buy first of all

assure my honourable friend that we

recognise that the men and women of

our armed services serve with great

distinction and loyalty, and we are

all grateful to them for the service

they give this country. That is why

we are committed to maintaining 10%

of being spent on defence. He kindly

invites me to visit his

constituency, and I will be happy to

do so, if my diary allows.

A few

days ago, the Chancellor told the

house that the government could not

afford to borrow £50 billion to

invest in housing, because of the

burden on the next generation. The

Communities Secretary says that the

government must borrow £50 billion

because of the burden on the next

generation of an affordable. Can she

adjudicate?

I have to say to the

honourable gentleman, there is no

need to adjudicate on the government

agrees it is necessary for us to

ensure we are building more homes in

this country. We have already

announced to enable that. We have

put a number of proposals before the

house in the White Paper. We were

pleased to announce the extra £2

billion for affordable housing at

our party conference, and the extra

£10 billion in the cup to buy

scheme, which genuinely helps people

get their first foot on the housing

ladder. More housings is being built

under this element and we will

continue to see that.

Earlier this

week, in my constituency, I horrific

farmhouse claimed the lives of a

father and five young children. This

has had a devastating effect not

just on the family but on the

community around it. Would my

honourable friend join me and this

house in sending our sympathies to

the family of the breed and the

villagers and the town? -- the

family of the reef. That is along

with the emergency services. -- the

family of the bereaved.

My

honourable friend has raised what I

know is a tragic case, I'm sure that

everybody across the house would

want to join with him in sending

condolences to the family and

friends of those affected by the

fire. This was a terrible tragedy,

and it isn't just the family

themselves that have been affected

but the local community as well and

I know that the emergency services

did sterling work, and I am pleased

to commend the work that they did

and their bravery and

professionalism. The Secretary of

State for Wales has spoken to the

police, and they will remain in

touch over the coming days, but once

again our emergency services do an

amazing job protecting us, and we

have seen this in so many instances.

They never know when they are going

to be called out to such a tragic

incident.

With today's news that the

Electoral Commission is

investigating Arron Banks, the main

financial backer of Brexit, along

with the significant British

connections being uncovered by the

American justice department's

special council, Robert Muller,

investigating Russian interference

in the US presidential election,

will she assure me that the UK

Government and all of its agencies

are cooperating fully with the

Robert Marlow investigation, or that

they will do so if asked? -- Robert

Muller.

We take very seriously

issues of Russian intervention or

attempts to intervene in electoral

processes, or in the democratic

processes of any country, and we

will do so for any other states

which were involved in trying to

intervene in elections. We work

closely with our United States

partners, and I can assure them, as

part of that relationship, we

cooperate with them when required.

Last month, I was in the Kurdistan

region of Iraq and I referred

customer declaration of members

interests, but I saw people's

enthusiasm for independence and the

fresh dialogue with Baghdad. The

subsequent statements are wholly

unjust and unacceptable. We'll be

promised except that Depeche Mode

and the Kurdistan region, to whom we

owe so much, both for resisting

Daesh and helping keep our own

streets safe, they remain vital to

our security, and can she do all

that she can to encourage a

resolution based on full respect for

the constitution and the democratic

will of the Kurdish people?

We are

working with international partners

to defeat Daesh together with the

global coalition. Daesh is losing

territory. The action that has been

taken is having an impact. It

finances have been hit, its

leadership are being killed and its

fighters are demoralised, but we

want to see political reconciliation

in Iraq and a political settlement

to the Syria conflict to deny Daesh

saves space and prevent

re-emergence. He raises a particular

point in relation to Iraq and

Kurdistan. I say to him that we have

always been there as a government

that any political progress towards

independence should be agreed with

the government of Iraq. We want to

see political reconciliation in

Iraq, but we have urged all parties

to promote calm, to pursue dialogue

and to take this issue forward

through dialogue.

An hour ago, the

government published this report,

the patronising disposition of

unaccountable power. It's a report

of Right Reverend James Jones, which

the Prime Minister herself

commissioned to ensure that the pain

and suffering of the Hillsborough

families isn't repeated. Given what

we have heard in this session, and

given the events surrounding the

Grenfell Tower disaster, I think

that I worry that the pain and

suffering of the Hillsborough

families is already being repeated.

So can the Prime Minister commit her

government to supporting both a duty

of candour for all public officials

and, as this report requires, an end

to public bodies spending limitless

sums providing themselves with

representation which surpasses that

available to families?

Obviously the House will appreciate

that I have to be careful what I say

immigration to the Hillsborough

issue because of the ongoing

committal proceedings, but I want to

pay tribute to James Jones.

Throughout the time his work in

chairing the panel, the work he did

as my advisor on this issue and

working with the family forums, I

think he's done an excellent job and

once again his report into the

experiences of the Hillsborough

families which is being published

today is important and Government

will need to look very carefully at

the 25 points of learning which have

come out of it and we will want to

do so because I've always been very

clear that the experience of the

Hillsborough families had should not

be repeated. That's why we have

looked and are committed to the

concept of the Public Advocate

because we want to ensure that

people have the support that they

need and it's important that we

learn the lessons from Hillsborough.

I was involved in making the

decision which enabled the

Hillsborough families to have legal

support. On a basis I think is fair

in relation to other parties

involved in that inquest and I can

assure her that we will not forget

the Hillsborough families who have

been dignified throughout the many

years but they have been waiting for

justice. We will not forget them, we

will not forget their experience and

will ensure we learn from that and

learn from that to improve the

experience of others in the future.

Can I cheekily make another diary