03/11/2015 House of Commons

any other MPS amasses in the crest of the governors and the officer up

smack union. We must now move on. Before we come to the urgent

question, I must advise the House that I have received a report from

the tellers in the ILOG be for division number 104 on the Housing

and planning Bill yesterday at 9:59pm and stop they have informed

me that the number of those voting aye was harmoniously reported.

Shocking! The member is easily shocked. As I was saying, until I

was in such a gentlemanly fashion interrupted, and above those voting

aye was reported as 228 instead of 218. The ayes were 218 and the noes

worth 305. The House is now better informed. Urgent question. Yvette

Cooper. To ask the development secretary to make a statement on

humanitarian aid for refugees in Greece and the Balkans. The

Secretary Of State For International Development. Thank you for giving me

the opportunity to discuss this matter today. More refugees may be

perilous journey across the Mediterranean into Europe last month

than in the whole of 2014. In October, 218,000 people crossed the

Mediterranean bring the total for the year so far to three quarters of

a million. Greece and the Balkan states have borne the majority of

that burden. Although the response to this has been led by the

governments of those countries, the UK has led the way when it comes to

supporting them and has been providing essential humanitarian

assistance across Greece and the West Balkans. This was part of the

EU ministers meeting I attended last Monday when we discussed this issue

of migration. In September, anticipating the impact of colder

winter months, we released ?11.5 million of life-saving aid for

refugees in Europe in the Balkans and Turkey. This past weekend I

announced a further additional ?5 million to support them with

sleeping bags, hygiene kits, nappies, clean water for people in

need increase in -- in need in Greece, Serbia and other countries.

We are giving ?25 million to supporting refugees arriving in

Europe but also those on their journey in North Africa. We continue

to respond to the request made. There was contribution which is

alongside this support my default is given in the Syria region over the

past four years. A total of ?1.1 billion makes us the second-largest

donor country and this support has enabled the vast majority of Syrians

affected by this crisis and displaced to stay in the region

rather than feel they need to make the journey to Europe. A tiny

fraction of the total number of displaced Syrians have sought asylum

in Europe and without the UK's humanitarian response, this number

would have been higher. We continue to monitor the situation across

Europe and we will consider further support us needs emerge. Can I thank

the secretary for the work department is doing both in the

region and in Greece and the Balkans. She will know that across

Europe, we are simply not doing enough. Too many people are dying,

too many children are suffering on Europe's soil and off Europe's

shores. I stored on the shore in Lesbos and saw that dinghies coming

in. They are offering discounts when the weather is worth -- worse, so

more are arriving. More work is being done by the volunteers but

there is not enough basic support to help. There were not enough rescue

boats. We have the case of a family who were in the water for five hours

and a baby pulled out by fishermen who then managed to resuscitate him.

There wasn't enough shelter and support. There isn't enough

blankets, enough basics imitation, toilets, taps and an aid worker told

me they were worried about cholera in Europe. There aren't enough

doctors or ambulances or even more looks to be able to help and this is

what Save the Children said yesterday. I was stopped by a child

shivering. Her hands and lips blue. Minutes later, we found three young

men unconscious with hypothermia, forced to sleep for three days in a

field to Kiefer papers. There were no tolerance for those queueing,

Sophie sees mixed in the flowing streams of drinking water. This is

in Europe, so we are all failing. Can I ask her to do three things.

First, to go to Lesbos and to the Balkans herself to see what is

happening, particularly to the camp which is just appalling and shall

shame us all. Would she urge for more direct immediate humanitarian

aid both from Britain and the wider Europe before more people die? Would

she also ensure that the British boats can return to the

Mediterranean to assist with the search and rescue said people don't

drown? Winter is drawing in and this is on our conscience. We need to

make sure there is action now. She raises some very important points

which are ones that I and my department have spent many years

working on very directly. She is right to set out the desperation

that leaves so many of these people to try and make what can be a fatal

journey in some cases from where they are in the Syrian region, to

make their way to Europe. In relation to the points she has made,

I can announce that having been in touch with front support and the UK

will be deploying a new ships to help provide search and rescue

facilities in the Mediterranean. We have had that request accepted, so

VOS Grace will be deployed. Royal Navy ships have saved a thousand

lives to date. She is right in relation to pressing other

countries, other European partners to do more. We can be proud as a

country of the work that we have done to help people affected by this

crisis in Syria but also latterly, as they have also arrived in Europe.

That has not just been the work that we have talked about in relation to

save lives of the Mediterranean. We have provided a sign of the

thousands of people and as I have set out, we are helping actively on

the ground to key agencies like the Red Cross, also others. She is right

to highlight that more needs to be done and that was the point I made

in Luxembourg last Monday at an EU minister meeting. Britain cannot do

this work on our own. We can be proud of the work that we are doing.

No country in Europe has done more. We need other European member states

to join us. I welcome the highlighting of this issue that she

is bringing with her own efforts. I thank my right honourable friend for

the work she is doing. Ten days ago, I was in costs as a member of a

small delegation from the Council of Europe. -- First-tier Tribunal

Immigration and Asylum Chamber. We could see how many of

thinking that there was a place for them in Europe. There were people

from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Can't we do something to

ensure these people are processed on the Turkish mainland without the

need for them to risk their lives crossing the Aegean? Much of the

discussion in Europe has turned to how we can work more effectively

with Turkey. It is worth pointing out that Turkey has around half of

the refugees who have left Syria. 2 million refugees. He is right to

highlight that. We are working with Turkey and we have done work with

them to help them in their humanitarian support and some of the

work I have set out that we are doing within Europe more broadly is

around registration and helping countries in Europe. Help and then

process the refugees who are arriving on their shores. It is not

enough to say that people have been cruelly misled. 570,000 migrants

have crossed the Greek border this year and because of the onset of

winter and the Russian bombardment, we are seeing a spike in arrivals.

The mayor says there is no room on Lesbos to bury any more refugees. We

note that 20 million is allocated and she has announced a ?5 million

emergency fund and we will be deploying a new ships. What action

will the British Government working with EU partners take to tackle the

increasing activity of people smugglers, the people they want to

resettle and can we have a progress check on this? Are there any other

plans to increase the number and woman Secretary of State recognise

that the Government will be commended for the money spent on the

camps in Syria. We are seeing a crisis unfolding in Greece and the

Balkans which shames the European family of nations.

This is an issue of European credibility. We have a world

humanitarian summit coming up next May. The UK is a country that has

been at the leading edge of providing support to people affected

by this crisis. But, it is important that, when we see people arrive on

European shores that they are effectively taking care of. I have

set out some of the work UK is doing. It is vital that other EU

member states play their role alongside our efforts, too. In

relation to people smuggling, some of the work that our ships in the

Mediterranean has done is to not just save lives but to catch some of

the potential people smugglers, too. That is why the dip plummet of the

matter to later this will an important part of tackling this US

crisis -- this crisis. And tackling the criminality at the heart of

this. Many of these people have been conned into giving away their life

savings and any running assets they have to be told that they can

possibly make a new life for themselves in Europe. But it may

never get them to where they want to get to. It is important that we

tackle the criminality. That is why it is important that the vulnerable

persons relocation scheme works as it does. We are enabling people to

really cake without having to put their lives in the hands of a people

smuggler in the first place. It is a safer, more secure route, but

critically, it enables us to target the people who are most abominable

in the camps and in the communities affected by this crisis who would

probably never have either the means or the capacity to even begin a

journey in the first place. We are on track. We said we would really

cake and support up to 20,000 people over this Parliament to come to the

UK and I can assure her that we are on track with our initial

resettlement of 1000 people by Christmas. Could I ask my Right

Honourable Friend, in following up the question from the Honorourable

Member for Christchurch, what percentage does My Honourable Friend

think are people who are fleeing for their lives, and what percentage are

people who are fleeing to get a better lifestyle? One of the

challenges, I think, that Europe has had in recent months is

understanding in detail the drivers the Aida refugee flows. These points

are not mutually exclusive. We are seeing some Syrians will not only

fleeing what they believe to be an unstable region, but also, in many

cases, they are very well educated and want to get on with their lives

and have a better life for themselves in Europe. Those are the

key drivers, instability and a search for opportunity. All of the

work we're doing, whether in the humanitarian arena in the Syria

region or indeed the doubling of the work we have done in the last two

years on economic development, creating jobs and livelihoods in

Africa, for example, that is why it is so important, because if people

do not feel that they have a life and a future where they are, in

today's modern world they will set off and find a better life and a

better future somewhere else. We welcome the announcement of

additional support, as winter approaches. I was interested in the

list of provisions being made available by the UK Government.

Tents and sleeping bags. It would be interest in to know that people will

be supported so that they don't have to be sleeping out in the open in

winter. The best thing is to move people to secure, safe accommodation

so it would be helpful to know what help, support and advice to

government is giving to a rival countries to move them to safe

accommodation and ultimately whether this has to include some proportion

of people coming here to the UK, and shouldn't it be that the UK takes a

fair proportion of refugees, in proportion to the total number

coming to the EU? Support we provide is driven very much by the needs set

out to us by the agencies that we work with and the NGOs. I can

confirm that we have provided tents, for example, in Croatia. And we are

playing a role to ensure that the people arrive at reception centres,

they are dealt with and processed properly, but as the Right

Honourable Lady set out, there is an issue of scale here and it is an

issue that Britain cannot solve on its own. It is worth emphasising to

the House, also, that these countries were refugees are

arriving, they are the ones leading the response in that country, so it

is up to UN agencies and NGOs to work as part of a national response

from each country. What Britain is also doing is supporting those

countries, in order to have an adequate response. As a House is

hearing today, there are real challenges, given the swell in the

numbers of refugees arriving and the flow of them arriving on European

shores. We talked about the UK taking its fair proportion. The

reality is that we can be proud of the work the UK is doing to support

refugees affected by the Syrian crisis, whether it is the work we're

doing in the Mediterranean saving lives, whether it is the thousands

who have had asylum here already, or the safe and secure relocation

approach that we have two really cake people from the camps, or the

kind of support that I have set out more closer to home today. No

country in Europe is doing more than the UK. And I think the House should

be proud of that. Could I thank the Right Honourable Lady for Castleford

and ponder fact for raising this question. I agree with the points

she has made. Can I thank My Honourable Friend for the work that

she and the member for Watford are doing in this particular case. Can I

urge the government to engage directly with the governments of

those countries in which refugees are now, as winter comes. We cannot

allow bureaucracy or any other impediment to get in the way of

direct contact, offering support to the governments of Greece and other

Balkan countries to ensure that no lives are lost, needlessly. I can

assure him that we are doing just that. The problem he sets out is

actually one that we commonly face when trying to help any refugees,

wherever they are, and you only need to look at some of the challenges in

Lebanon when many refugees are in so-called informal entered

settlements, and that makes it harder for us to put in place water

and sanitation, to get education to children in some of those camps than

it otherwise would have been, when you compare it to the work that is

going on in Jordan, which is broadly more government-driven from the word

go. This is an issue that we are now facing closer to home on our own

shores in Europe, but I can assure the honourable gentleman that we are

working with those governments whilst urging other European

partners to step up to the plate. One of the factors driving more

refugees to Europe is the level of support for the UNHCR and world food

rubber in neighbouring countries. What can be done to ensure that the

levels of resource are there so that families who wish to stay in

neighbouring countries can do so? I understand that the UNHCR does not

enjoy in Greece and the Western Balkans as it does in countries

surrounding Syria. What can be done to enhance the work of the UNHCR on

the ground in Europe? Even now, the UN appeal is just over 40% funded

for Syria. The inevitable consequence is that it is hard for

the world food programme to meet all of the immediate needs that refugees

have in the region, let alone looking ahead to try and provide

some of the education that children need to drive some of the work on

livelihoods for young men who are refugees as an alternative to

setting on their journey towards Europe. He is absolutely right to

flag up that is a Barrett issue. On the second point, I will write to

him, Mr Speaker. -- that as direct issue. In my own constituency, I

attended a church service a few weeks ago where local people brought

inordinate amounts of goods to help the cause of refugees. What steps

can government take to make sure that those items go to where they

are most needed, but the biggest impact would be? Again, he

highlights the huge generosity of the UK public in responding to the

refugee crisis closer to home. I know of many NGOs helping to get

some of those very kind offers that have come through from people on the

ground so I would recommend to him that he looks on the part of our

government website where we set out some of the key places where people

can offer support, if they want, and that can help people to get

practically more involved. The Right Honourable Lady raised this point

today. I was in Lesbos recently. I found very similar things that she

observed Allsop 94% of those presenting on the island are

independently assessed to be refugees, not about being an

economic migrant. They were clearly running from war and fear of death,

instability for them and their children. Shameful that we as a

country will not take any of the people in those camps at the moment.

Last week I asked the Prime Minister and he dismissed my call for the UK

Government to accept 3000 refugee children within Europe. He

inaccurately claimed that there were worries that some of these would be

taken from relatives. The UNHCR has confirmed that ease our children

with no identifiable family. I will repeat, will the government worked

with Save The Children to take in 3000 children, unaccompanied, who

may otherwise face abuse, trafficking and exploitation? I set

out clearly the approach the UK has taken to helping people affected by

this crisis. Our approach is one that is safer and more secure and

takes people directly from the camps. I have also set out how we

have already provided asylum for several thousand people who have

arrived in the UK, who have made that journey because of the crisis.

In relation to the points on unaccompanied children, the point

Prime Minister was trying to make was, if you look at the case of

Jordan, around 80% of the children who originally arrived in Jordan

unaccompanied were subsequently able to be reunited with broader family,

so the point that the Prime Minister was quite rightly making was that it

is very easy in this House to talk about numbers of children,

emotively, but the reality is, we have to be extremely careful to make

sure that we are not making decisions on their behalf, which

fundamentally take them further away from the family that they may have

wished to be reunited with. He makes a point very well, and I have

responded to him, already. Obviously, in the European Union

there is not agreement how to deal with these problems. As the

excellent listener thought of talking through the Council of

Europe which covers many more countries about an overall

solution? We're having a range of discussions, to see how this

situation can be better managed here in Europe. It is not just the

challenge that we face in the Syrian region, frankly, to have the kind of

support of the scale that is needed but is currently not being

delivered. I see for myself some of the discussions amongst EU

ministers. They are part of countries within the Schengen

agreement region. There is very little agreement. And we need a

better approach but there's no political prospect that I can see at

the time, certainly last Monday, but achieving that. Therefore, whilst

those discussions need to go on, the UK is right to be providing

additional support on the ground, but clearly, we all need to keep the

key objective in mind, which is to help Syrian refugees in the region.

People are leaving the region because they are starting to see

food rations, for example, from the world food programme, cut. They are

worried about how their children will have an education, when so few

children are able to be in school, in spite of the best efforts of a

country like the UK, who was instrumental in setting up the no

lost generation initiative. We are working with the World Bank to see

how we can do better livelihood programmes. But there's no doubt

that the answer to this is a political position in Syria, but

also here in Europe, too. I would like to ask the Minister, who is

usually sympathetic, but I don't like the way she has dismissed the

concerns of children, those who have been separated from their

relatives. I wonder if she has had any discussion with EU ministers,

particularly about what happened in Italy, when 13,026 children who

arrived unaccompanied last year, 2707 disappeared after arriving. I

wonder what assessment is made aware these children are, and I would

support the Save The Children request of 3000. It is not very much

to ask for, surely, when 2000 unaccompanied children should begin

refuge in the United Kingdom? She is making this important point

clearly. The UK has worked with the Institutional -- International

Institution For Migration. -- International Organisation For

Migration. Sometimes very concerned and worried about even registering

with the authorities in the country that they might reach, because they

are worried they will not be able to continue on their journey. This is a

conjugated situation but I can assure her that we are playing a key

role in making sure we are getting support to refugees who arrived here

in Europe, including children. I commend my right honourable friend

for the effective way she is fulfilling the responsibilities of

her office. The fact that the UK is second to the US and the amount of

eight going into the region is testimony to her efforts. -- aid.

The EU countries should continue to contribute to aid in the region like

we are doing, we wouldn't have the skill of the problem that is

presenting itself on the Turkey, Greece border. He is right. The cost

that many European countries will now put into supporting refugees who

felt they have had no chance but to set off on a life or death journey,

is immense. It would have been far better, far more effective and far

more value for money and enable support to get to many more people

had it been put directly into the UN effort on the ground working with

generous countries like Lebanon, like Jordan. You have taken so

many. If we had worked with them more effectively, many of the

refugees would have done what they wanted to have done which is to stay

there and hope that in time they could rebuild their lives and

possibly go back to Syria. The minister is right to be robust on

the issue of criminology, sorry, criminality. The only way to deal

with this is through Europe poll. We're not giving them more resources

to deal with this? Will she tell the House today how many Syrian refugees

have arrived in the UK following the Prime Minister's pledge? It is a

simple question which is not being answered and it would be good to

reveal this to the House. We are not going to give a running commentary

on how many refugees have already been resettled here, not least

because they need to be able to get the support and treatment and chance

to get on with their new lives here without the glare of the media upon

them. On his point in relation to Europol, I will make sure Home

Office ministers write to him with further details. With the 3000

unaccompanied minors and the words on those generalities, can I press

her on the specifics of a man who fled Saddam Hussein's murderous

regime 14 years ago and whose two daughters aged 14 and 15 are

currently unaccompanied and seeking asylum in Germany. Can I ask her on

this specific case, for her and her colleagues to meet with me, to cut

through the bureaucratic claptrap that I have had from the Home Office

on this case, so these children can be reunited with their parents in

Wakefield? She raised this case with me and it is not one that I have

been familiar with and I am very happy to look at the details and if

necessary, meet with her. She sets out, this issue of many refugees is

that many going to Germany. That is where there is an existing Syrian

Dyas bra, which is why the flows there have been larger than they

have been here to the UK although we have provided asylum to many of the

Syrians have arrived. I will look at the case and be prepared to meet

with her. We have been talking today about symptoms. The real cause as a

minister knows, is the fact that 11 million Syrian people have had to

flee their homes. 7 million internally displaced, 4 million

refugees. What is the Government doing to stop the barrel bombing by

the Assad regime, the brutality, the fact that 250,000 people have

already died and many more will do as a result of Russian air strikes

and barrel bombing? What are we doing about humanitarian corridors

and protection of the population inside Syria? He has raised possibly

one of the most important elements of the response to this Syrian

crisis. It is incredibly important now get to people inside Syria. Many

of our cross for supplies are going into the country from Turkey and it

is only two years to get UN Security Council resolutions to do that

effectively. The terms of the way forward, the action by the Russians

are simply taking this further away from being able to reach a political

long-term settlement in Syria. As we have set outcome we believe more

action needs be taken against Eisele, which is perpetrating huge

atrocities on the Syrian people. -- Isil. The Greek economy is in crisis

but the Greek economy is at the front of this crisis. Will she agree

with me that the Greek people have shown extraordinary resilience in

the face of this pressure? I have seen the kindness of volunteers

feeding 1000 people in Greek feeding stations. The pressure on public

services means the Greeks are simply unable to process people waiting for

transit papers while they are on islands like Lesbos. Will she worked

to ensure that people desperate for travel papers do not have to wait

four days in worsening weather in order to be able to move on? Feeding

and housing people is one thing but making sure they are able to get the

papers they need is another. She is right. It is not just about giving

people the bare essentials to be able to survive day-to-day. We are

providing support to those registration facilities she has

talked about. This issue of host communities and their generosity is

one that is right to mention. I have met communities in Lebanon and

Jordan who have seen their population double in a matter of

possibly 24 months. It puts huge strain on existing populations and

why we are doing so much work with refugees but working with the

communities that they have arrived in. Mr Speaker, you may not be aware

but most of the refugees outside Syria are not living in camps like

Jordan. They are in host communities and that is why so much of the work

we have been doing is with local government and municipalities to

cope with those pressures. I was on Lesbos three weeks ago volunteering

at a camp and on the sure whether boats from Turkey coming. The

conditions are appalling and the scale of the human suffering and

tragedy is soul destroying. Every time we saw a boat, or we could do

was hope and pray for a safe landing. There was a shocking lack

of presence on the ground of official authorities and the larger

international charities that one would expect when faced with such a

crisis. The workers are overwhelmed. Will the Secretary of State consider

working and visiting at Lesbos and working with authorities to provide

British coordination systems and infrastructure at these camps

because of the rest of Europe won't step up to the plate, she should

bypass them and go to Greece directly? I have been the first

person to get on a plane and spend a lot of time in the region seen for

myself the issues in relation to refugees. I have no doubt that in

relation to the European situation, that would be no different. Those

visits are important and it was when I visited Lebanon that we decided to

do the work to get children into school. It was clear there was so

little facility she sets out, there is a scale of challenge on

organisation on the ground. These are country led initiatives and that

is the way they work. In spite of efforts by countries like the UK and

UN agencies, there is more work to be done to enable them to cope with

the flows of people who are arriving. It is white, alongside at

work, as I have announced today, the work that the ship deployment will

will make. We have discussed in this question the weight of refugees is

falling on countries least able to cope. I wonder if the Secretary of

State will tell the House if she has made any assessment about increasing

the numbers of refugees that the UK is willing to take on? We have set

out our scheme which is the responsible one stop he is right to

point out this issue of where refugees are. The reality is 85 plus

percent of displaced people in the world today, and we have a record

number, they are in developing countries. The countries that are

least able to cope rather than developed countries. For example,

here in Europe, which is why the weight of our responses has been

helping those countries in Africa, helping countries like Ethiopia,

that a 700,000 refugees, which you don't see in the paper, but they

still need assistance in dealing with, to be able to cope with that.

Can I ask the Minister to consider further the response she gave to my

right honourable friend, the chairman of the hair -- Home Affairs

Select Committee? Transparency is important because the Prime Minister

made a pledge and it was about specific numbers. It is important

for public confidence that we do know how many people have arrived

and will she think again about her reluctance to let the public know?

We're had the Minister... I do apologise. The minister responsible

for the relocation scheme was in the chamber earlier. I have no doubt he

will be watching this series of questions. We will update the House

but what we hadn't planned to do and would be doing is giving a

day-to-day running commentary. I want to ask about the vulnerable

persons relocation scheme. I am disappointed that the Minister for

Syrian refugees has left the chamber. My point is this. I was at

a meeting on Friday -- on Friday in Hull and there are people who are

keen to take people on the scheme. A few days later, they then received a

letter saying that the funding had been reduced by two thirds which

means those local authorities are not in a position to be able to take

those Syrian refugees that we all want to bring to this country. Can

the Minister right to me and explain why the Home Office have done that

and what effect that has on the thousands of refugees that we are

expecting here by Christmas? I will follow this up with the Home Office

and will respond with more details. Turkey is playing a critical role.

They have taken 2 million refugees compared to the 20,000 the UK will

take. As the Secretary of State had time to assess the impact of the

victory? Does this lead to changes in regards to Turkey's attitudes to

the camps in Turkey and what we the knock-on effects for the islands of

Greece and the Balkans? The mandate for the Turkish governments means

stability in terms of the partners we have been working with stop there

is a huge and above refugees in its midst. To go back to the honourable

member's question in relation to save savings, which I didn't answer

at the time, we need to be very clear that whilst safes owns may

seem appealing on the face of it, getting them in place effectively

with a UN backing to that, enabling them to be delivered safely for

people on the ground, is absolutely key. We would never want to put in

-- to pull people in a position where they thought they were in a

safe service and it proved to be fatally not the case. There is a

certain amount of evidence where refugees are worried that if safes

owns our setup, they may be forced back over the border into Syria and

that is one of the reasons triggering some refugees to leave

those camps and make the journey now towards Europe. I can assure the

House that we are looking at all necessary and possible means to make

sure we protect very vulnerable refugees but we also have a

responsibility to make sure we don't put them in a situation that could

put them in even more danger. Can I ask the leader of the if he

will make a statement about the rationale which was applied in

determining which members of the UK delegation should be reappointed

the Parliamentary Assembly of the the Parliamentary Assembly of the

Council of Europe? And you, Mr Speaker. Can I pay tribute to My

Honourable Friend for the work he has done on the Council of Europe

over the past few years? He will know that decisions about

appointments to delegations is a matter for the different political

parties and are places on the delegation are allocated in

proportion to representation in Parliament. Normally, decisions are

taken through the usual channels and approved wider leaders of the

parties represented on the delegation. I appreciate My

Honourable Friend's disappointment in the changes for this Parliament

but I am sure that he will take advantage of his extra time in the

Chamber by making more of his customarily pithy and perceptive

contributions to the debate. It is most reassuring to have confirmation

from My Honourable Friend that the issue of reappointment was not a

stunned merit! -- based on merit. Can I ask My Honourable Friend what

consultation has been carried out with the political parties as

specified on page 174 of Erskine May? And why won't she confirmed

that the real reason why three independently minded former

ministers have been purged is because we voted in favour of a free

and fair EU referendum, with a strict 28 day period of purdah

recommended by the Council of Europe and our own electoral commission?

This is being interpreted by Strasbourg as a direct interference

by government and the work of the Parliamentary SMB. The Leader of the

House said on Thursday he was aware of the desire of this House to

express its opinion on the membership of the new delegation and

had "no doubts the House will give the matter careful consideration".

How is this to be facilitated? Will she assure that this House can

expect its opinion before the list is transmitted by Mr Speaker to the

Parliamentary Assembly? As the list cannot be considered until the 27th

of November, does she agree that there's plenty of in which to do

this 's but she recalled a speech made by our Prime Minister on 26th

of May 2009, entitled "fixing broken politics"? In it, he says MPs should

be more independent and select committee members should be elected

by backbenchers and not appointed by the whips. He called for Parliament

to be a real engine of accountability and not just a

creature of the executive. Why do these fine words not apply to

Conservative members of the Parliamentary Assembly? Six months

into this role, I'm afraid I haven't suggested all of Erskine May, so I'm

afraid I don't know what 174 refers to, but as he points out, I will

make it my urgent duty to do so after this urgent question. I

recognise My Honourable Friend is disappointed. He has been appointed

by the leader of the Conservative Party on the last two occasions. The

run now indeed new people added to the delegation. The written

ministerial statement was made at 11:33am today. People can see that

if it is of interest to the House. I could read it out I am sure that the

House's time would be better served by moving onto more important

legislation. Piece of paper is available in the vote office now.

Far be it from me to intrude on private grief in the Conservative

Party... As we in the Labour Party have elections for these posts. I

recommend democracy to the party opposite. But, I must say, this

smacks of a rather vindictive attitude by the government towards

some of its own backbenchers. I have never agreed with the Honorourable

Member for Christchurch on a single thing in the history of our time in

this House. I am not entirely sure that he is always pithy. Nor am I.

But he is an extremely assiduous parliamentarian, as are the members

for Gainsborough and ambition who have also been removed and the only

rationale that I can detect at work in these appointments is anyone who

has disagreed with the Prime Minister is for the chop. It seems,

to be honest, the deputy of the House doesn't understand the rules

that govern this. The point of the Assembly is that its members are not

government representatives but Parliamentary representatives.

Indeed, the statute of the Council of Europe is clear, Article 25 a

says the consultative Assembly so consist of representatives of eight

member states, elected by its Parliament from among the members

thereof, or appointed from among the members of Parliament, in such

manner as it shall decide. The key point is that they are either

elected, which has not happened in this case, or appointed in such

manner as the Parliament decides, not in such manner as the Prime

Minister decides. Does the deputy realise that the way the government

has proceeded could well mean that the Assembly ends up questioning the

British delegation for the first time ever? Secondly, does she

realise, and accept, that the government has taken so long about

this since the general election, that the six months grace period

will have a rap and we will have no delegation from this Saturday on,

until it is agreed by the Assembly -- will have elapsed. This at a time

when the Assembly has important business to deal with, like the

ongoing suspension and boycott of Russia and the human rights

situation in Turkey, and all because the Prime Minister has stamped his

little foot. The honourable gentleman says he rarely agrees with

My Honourable Friend from Christchurch. It is a rare occasion

when I disagree with My Honourable Friend from Christchurch. Coming to

the point, I'm sure he recognises this is the same process that

happened in the last five years and he will be aware, decisions are

taken through the usual channels and approved by party leaders. I am not

aware that his party leader has objected to the representation of

the way this allegation has been put forward. I have a letter here from

the Ukrainian delegation to the Council of Europe to the Prime

Minister, representing the Georgian, Moldovan, polish and Baltic states.

In international politics it comes down to the bishop showing in

difficult circumstances to stop Mr Christopher choked is such a man who

has earned our trust and his leadership deserves our highest

esteem. The most important, it says, "it would be utterly regrettable if

because of his actions during the coming crucial months, the Russian

delegation will manage to have its credentials restored." I do not

understand why the leader of the has not come here. I would suggest that

the deputy reconsiders this position and the laser submission. It is

utterly wrong. And the Prime Minister should be ashamed of

himself. -- and delays the submission. My Honourable Friend is

right to pay tribute to the member for Christchurch for his work on the

Council of Europe, but there are new people, as happened as five years

ago, and as a consequence, I don't think it is unreasonable to see

change in this delegation as well. The urgent question of the

Honorourable Member for Christchurch highlights the rationales deployed

in determining the of such delegations. I would extend it

further to committees and other groups. The SNP is

uncharacteristically at one in relation to other members of this

delegation. Such allegations should reflect the current make-up of this

Parliament. To this end, I take this opportunity to express once more the

disappointment of these SNP benchers are being excluded from

participating in the joint committee on human rights. In this

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I should say, in

relation to any other such assemblies, committees or groups,

can I ask the deputy Leader of the House that, if she could recognise

the role of parties, regardless of size, that they make to this House,

and indeed, we are all of course democratically elected members of

Parliament. We have our part to play and this should be recognised and it

should always be appropriately and fairly reflected in all that we do.

The Honourable Lady is a new member of the Parliamentary Assembly that

has been put forward as has another member of the Scottish National

Party. All I will say on the matter about the joint committee on human

rights is that was a unanimous recommendation from the committee of

selection at which the SNP was represented and that was their

recommendation, which this House eventually voted upon. Mr Speaker, I

would have thought, after the rather ridiculous and mean-spirited attempt

to get rid of you at the end of the last Parliament, the government

would have learned a lesson about taking punishment attitudes to

appointments. This is not simply a representation for the government in

Europe, it is a representation for this House in a body that is going

to become aggressively more important as Europe becomes more

unstable and as matters such as the UNHCR become important to this

Parliament. Can he therefore return to the House with a procedure for

ratifying this so that the whole House can decide who represents it

's Mr Speaker, the convention has been that the representation is

split up by political party is represented in this House, and the

front of the school parties will take an approach is putting forward

nominations. The Conservative Party takes it away and puts the decision

of the leader of the political party. That is where the situation

is. I want to say to my Right Honourable Friend, there was no

attempt by the government in the last day of the last Parliament to

remove the Speaker. I think it matters, Mr Speaker, that that is

very firmly put on the record. I am not a member of delegation to the

Council of Europe, but a member of the Nato Parliamentary Assembly, and

I am pleased to say that I got the confidence of my colleagues in being

re-elected to serve on that delegation. Isn't it time the

Conservative Party recognised that we are now in the 21st-century and

actually put confidence and trust in their backbench MPs, so that the

individual members of Parliament decide who represents their party in

international bodies, rather than a top down, Leninist, leadership-led

structure? I don't want to lecture the Labour Party on the Rhone

element of democracy. The Conservative Party has led the way

in bringing democracy to the open. We were the first party to have the

primary back in 2003, something the Labour Party runs away from,

regularly. On the two fundamental problems here, one is the way the

Conservative Party chooses its members and the second, that this

House isn't deciding on the delegation, the Prime Minister is.

Can this problem be solved by allowing the whole House, in a whole

House election, to vote on who should represent us on this

Assembly, and that Mr Speaker, not the Prime Minister, submits that

list to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in his

name only? And could I remind the deputy lead of the House that whilst

she is a member of the government, she's also, as part of duties, here

to represent members of this House to the government, not always the

government to this House? I take those duties very seriously. And the

wise words that have been expressed today I'm sure will be listened to.

But, nevertheless, that convention that has been followed on multiple

occasions on appointing people has been followed in this case. There's

nothing to suggest anything has been disorderly about that. Is my

understanding that the Speaker will present the names. I thank the

honourable gentleman for bringing this matter to the House for us all

to have a contribution. I also agree that this House should be made up

Parliamentary representatives that they have picked from this House. I

share the concerns of the Honourable Lady for the SMB who put forward the

issue of the 20 of human rights. Our parties have been part of that

involvement. Could the deputy lead of the House perhaps just tell us in

this House what steps have been taken to ensure that the House

itself decide to the representatives will be, and the members will

decide, and not just one person? I can't give him any assurances

about the change of procedure. You should be aware that the honourable

member has been appointed to the assembly. There are 27 members of

Parliament and ten of them come from the 2015 intake. May I pay a tribute

to my right honourable friend, the member for Christchurch? I represent

a party and my honourable friend and I were in a lot of consultation over

the last parliament over the suspension of the Russians. I think

he did a terrific job on the Council of Europe. Many regard this as a

jolly but if they had studied the work my right honourable friend did

on that council delegation, they would realise what a serious

organisation matters and it needs people with knowledge and wisdom and

determination and that is what this house should be pointing to that

delegation. I agree the work undertaken is of utmost importance.

I want to reaffirm the appreciation I have for my honourable friend on

the last ten years. A decision has been taken to bring people into the

delegation. Can I congratulate the deputy leader on his first

statement? Would the deputy leader welcome other urgent questions that

facilitate the washing of dirty conservative lemon in public? I am

sure we will be willing to help her. I thank the honourable gentleman who

was my predecessor in this role. He will be aware of standing at the

dispatch box. The question has been asked and hopefully the answer may

not be the answer the honourable gentleman wanted to hear but I

believe it has explained why the delegation is as it is. Can I

recognise the contribution my honourable friend for Christchurch

has made to the Council of Europe, in particular on the issue of

migration. Can I encourage him not to be so downhearted because if he

wants to re-examine the list, there are independent minded Conservative

members of Parliament on the list and members of Parliament from these

ventures who voted for the European referendum campaign. He was wrong to

suggest that the list is just full of Conservative... He has also

joined the Parliamentary delegation on behalf of the Conservative Party.

I am sure he will be a robust voice in Strauss Borg, raising important

issues on which all members of the Conservative Party are united. --

during the replies, it was made clear to the House that your

signature is required on this list of names before it goes to the

Parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe. I wonder if you

could advise the House, is it within your power to test the opinion of

this house as to the suitability of the names on that list? The short

cancer is, no. It falls to me to send to Strasbourg the list of those

appointed to the Parliamentary assembly delegation, together with

important documentation. These credentials can be transmitted a

week before the opening of the session. I will consider the point

made by the honourable gentleman and as he has made it, have essentially

done so. Let me be clear that I interpret my duty as being too

forward the names, not to offer a critique of them. On a different

matter, it has been drawn to my attention that Steve O'Connell who

is the London assembly member for certain and Croydon has been sending

e-mails to my constituents in which he states that the member of

Parliament for certain is happy to take up cases to do with rail

services on behalf of my constituents. I seek your guidance

and will give the member the benefit of the doubt. He is a new member and

I want to have a good working relationship with him. Could you

remind me, isn't there a good working relationship with him. Could

you remind me, is an American house of? I assume... I apologise if I

didn't hear him correctly. I assume he did notify the honourable member.

I am grateful to him and thank him for giving me notice of this point

of order. I confirm that it is a well-established convention.

The interests of electors should be represented only by the constituency

member and stop it is not possible or appropriate for me to ensure that

this convention is enforced. It is best to leave it to the good sense

of members to work out any problems between them. I know both honourable

members and I feel every confidence that they can be relied upon to do

just that. With your help from us, may I please seek your guidance? You

have rightly said in the past that the criteria is that they are

newsworthy and that people are talking about the issue in the dog

and duck. As you will appreciate, I am sure my distinguished... Order.

Let me just say this. The responsibility for determining

whether a matter is warranted for exchange on the floor of this

house, is that of the chair. I discharge that responsibility. I

discharge it in situ a slave. The honourable gentleman is a

distinguished member of this house and he knows that those decisions

are not subject to questioning by members. He had a go but he made a

bit of a mess of it. A user said you have to submit the names to the

Council of Europe. You do not have to submit them immediately, given

that the Council of Europe cannot act until the end of this month as

we have already heard. It is possible to have a debate on a

substantial motion that is not laid down by the Government. Would you

consider delaying matters to see if such a debate occurs? The most

sensible thing to say is that I will reflect on it. Rather than giving an

instantaneous reaction, it would be better to reflect on it. He has

raised a point that hasn't been raised in recent times and I think

it warrants consideration and possibly on my part, consultation. I

thank him for what he said. After that little array of points of

order, I think we come now to the ten Minute Rule Motion. I beg to

move to amend the planning list of building and conservation areas act

1990, to include environmental performance, health and safety and

maintenance costs. Also considering whether to include, retain all

released a building from a list compiled or approved under the 1990

act due to its architectural or historic interest, to make provision

about excluding parts of building structures from such lists. I moved

into a form which is a grade two listed building. Although there is a

public footpath running between my house and the cow shed, I believe I

would require listed building consent to put solar panels on the

cow shed roof as it lies within what is called the curtilage. It is a

corrugated metal building of no historical or architectural interest

and smells strongly of manure. Because of this experience, I

believe the requirement is a piece of red tape that these to be removed

for the benefit of the planet. For the people who occupy listed

buildings and to do nothing about the environment, to have their

excuse of curtilage removed. To free up more space for solar panels and

to fulfil our desire to be the greenest Government ever. We need to

protect the planet. By including the elements of the building we wish to

protect the listing, we will not put at risk the history we love and want

to cherish. I am only looking to make changes to grade two buildings

as Grade one and great to start protect deems deemed to be of

exceptional interest and of particular importance. I have

confidence that historic England have listed carefully all the

important elements in those buildings. In 2015 in England, there

were 376000 and -- 370 6999 listed buildings. Most of those were great

too. In North Herefordshire, we have 4150 listed buildings of which 81

Grade one, 233 great to Star and 3668 great too. Historic England's

website says, any omission from the list description of a feature does

not indicate that it is not of interest. Objects, structures and

buildings are fixed to a listed building or within its curtilage may

be protected by listing. These rules may mean that considerably more may

be protected by the listing ban is obvious from the list entry alone.

There can often be considerable uncertainty as to what is covered.

This is from their website. It is a criminal offence to carry out works

that require listed building consent without first obtaining the required

consent. Ignorance of the buildings status cannot be used as a defence.

The maximum penalty of carrying out works without permission is two

years imprisonment or an unlimited fine. All to stop if you solar

panels and some installation. I know that historic England understand the

need for change because according to their website, as of the 26th of

June 2013, some new list entries amended after that date may express

exclude buildings from protection. It is time to roll that common sense

out all great to buildings. Restrictions on listed status

prevent environmentally friendly changes to these buildings that are

necessary to protect our planet 's top older buildings can be

enormously expensive to heat and have high maintenance costs. The

owners must face up to their environmental and -- response busy

and save energy, not just turn up the thermostat. Many of these

buildings do not belong to wealthy people who can afford more oil. Even

those who can doing the wrong thing. It is far better to insulated

and save fossil fuel. We must make it easier for owners to make

energy-saving changes whilst protecting the sections of their

historic homes that are valuable. Owners will be able to spend more

looking after the buildings and become more affordable to live in,

thus opening the market to wider members of society. It is a question

of balance. Opening up the opportunities for great to owners to

do more for the environment while saving the features of importance to

historic England. If I may use Buckingham Palace as an example

although it is Grade one, the listing goes into detail about many

fine features both externally and internally at Buckingham Palace. In

reference to the roof, says, slate and leaded roof. Because the roof is

mentioned in the listing, it should be protected and solar panels would

therefore require listed building consent. However, many other great

two listed buildings where the intruder is not going to anywhere

near as much detail, should only have that which is listed protected,

just the same as Buckingham Palace. But every listed building is large

or expensive stop some homes happened to be within the curtilage

of a listed building. This curtilage Cap Shaul is a lazy and bureaucratic

device which is out of date. One of the most important points is it adds

cost and workload too overstretched council planning departments,

particularly at a time when they are under enormous pressure. Costs and

constraints which determine attracting the valuable. As well as

enforcement action which is time-consuming and risky and stop my

right honourable friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, often

talked about mending the roof when the sun is shining. He never says,

we need to ask the Council of the listing building consent to be

allowed to do so. We need to do more than simply meant the roof. We need

to use it for solar panels and insulated roof and be free to do so

without having to ask permission. It is time to change the curtilage

requirements and we need to be precise in what want to preserve and

stand-up for all that is good about our history and go forward

protecting all that is good about our planet. I beg to move.

The Ayes have it, the Ayes have it. And is prepared to bring in the

bill? Planning, listed buildings and

conservation areas amendment, 1990. Second reading, 11 to March. The

clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day. European Union

approval is Bill, Lords, second reading. The question, oh, sorry. I

call the Minister to move. Thank you, Madam vividly Speaker, I take

to move that the bill be read a second time. The purpose of this

bill is to approve two draft decisions of the Council of the

European Union, for the UK to agree these at Council, Parliament must

first give its approval of Article 252 of the Treaty on the functioning

of the European Union, Article 352 allows the union to take out student

to obtain the objectives set out in the treaty but for which there is no

specific power given. The European Parliament must give its approval

and unanimous support must be given by all other member states. Section

eight of the European Union Act, 2011, provides that a minister may

make an Article 35 to decision about draft decision is approved by an Act

of Parliament. I am setting out this draft Council decision and will

provide members with the opportunity to decide in debate to approve the

measure is force of the First Division will enable the former

Republic of Macedonia to be granted observer status in the agency, the

UN's fundamental rights agency. The agency is a body of the EU body with

the objective of providing assistance and advice on fundamental

rights issues to the EU institutions and to member states when

implementing union law. It carries out the same role for EU accession

states with observer status. This does not extend to confidence of the

agency. The proposal has been in existence since 2010 and cleared the

UK Parliamentary scrutiny process in place at that time. The Greek

presidency lifted its block on the decision in April, 2014 and a

decision that emerged last year, with all of the memo states ready to

vote in favour of the decision. The UK has the enter the scrutiny

reserve pending approval by an Act of Parliament due to the crimes of

the EU Act. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has been an EU

candidate countries since 2005 but in recent years has been backsliding

on reforms. A political crisis has been unfolding in the country over

the last year which has raised concerns about the rule of law and

adherence to democratic principles. A European Commission report issued

in June set out a series of recommendations needed to return the

country to the half to EU accession. This included reforms

related to freedom of expression and the rule of law. Observer status at

the agency could allow the country to have access to assistance on

fundamental rights issues, they help tackle its reform challenges and

provide assistance and help to the country on human rights issues. The

second measure is a decision of the Council enabling the EU tripartite

social summit to continue to operate. The summit is a meeting of

representatives on the European social partner organisations, the

commission and Council, and it meets on the eve of the European Council

in spring and autumn, for high-level discussions between three parties on

aspects of the European agenda for growth and jobs. The tripartite

social summit was established by Council's decision in 2003. Under

the Treaty of Lisbon agreed in 2007, the legal basis of the summit,

Article 22 was repealed, and the decision to re-establish the new

decision of the legal basis of the summit. This takes into account for

changes in the usage and since the last decision. Given it also takes

account of the name changes are among the employer organisations.

The government is able to of the summit, of the need for jobs and

growth can support the labour market reforms needed in other member

states. Over the intervening decade, the apparent risk to the UK has

emerged during the existence of the tripartite social summit. The final

agreed text of the tripartite social summit measure has been published by

the Council. It has received consent from the European Parliament. I will

give way, yes. Can she tell us if there are any financial consequences

of these decisions? I can assure my Right Honourable Friend there are no

financial consequences as a result of these decisions. There are no

financial implications for the UK for either decision. I can confirm,

finally, that I do not consider that any of the bill's positions could

have been the right set out in the European Commission of human rights

and the smoke issue of compatibility of the bill with those rights. It is

the intention of the bill to come forth on the day for assent. The

question is that the bill now be read a second time. Nick

Thomas-Symonds. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm grateful to the

Minister for coming the House today to set out the provisions of this

bill. People will find it surprising that a relatively uncontroversial

measure like this has been introduced through primary

legislation when tax credit cuts affecting 3.3 million working

families was introduced through secondary legislation. Indeed, the

situation is actually worse than that, because we are having time,

today, on the floor of the House to debate this bill. Of course, we ran

out of time on the welfare reform and work built. When the last

grouping of 33 amendments was not reached, including issues as

important as cuts to social housing rents and changes to support the

mortgage interest scheme. Perhaps the greatest irony of all is that

the government couldn't find more time to discuss and debate the

abolition of child poverty targets. The issue of child poverty in

Britain, no less, whilst this bill actually facilitates similar

European-wide targets on poverty. Can I turn to the substantial

measures in the Bill? I do, of course, well, the former Yugoslav

Republic of Macedonia being an observer in the work of the European

Union agency on fundamental rights. The work that is done by the FRA to

fight racism, intolerance and xenophobia is crucial and I think it

is a positive step that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is to

be an observer in its work. As regards the tripartite social summit

ommer I was delighted to hear the minister talk in positive terms

about it. It was almost as if, Madam Getty the Speaker, she had

discovered her in a pro-European side. And how wonderful it was to

hear her praising that body. Because, what this bill does, and

let's be clear about it, is it continues the tripartite social

summit. It gives it a more specific remit, around achieving the targets

that are laid out in Europe 2020 agenda. I welcome that because it is

important, it is an important forum for EU partners to the Scottish

social and employment issues. And of course part of the Europe 2020

agenda is recognising that the EU has a coordinating role to play in

combating poverty by identifying best practice and national learning.

Indeed, the target has been set of reducing the number of people

threatened by poverty and social exclusion by at least 20 million, by

2020. Perhaps the Minister would like to clarify what role the UK is

going to play in this 2020 agenda, and how exactly the government

proposes to report on poverty and child poverty, in an internationally

comparable way, when the government has decided to abolish its own

domestic child poverty targets. And it is a quite remarkable anomaly, if

I may say so, that, given the international context which the

Minister has set out, and given the recent tax credit cuts, that there

should have been that abolition of the child poverty target. Let me put

it simply, Madam Deputy Speaker. Why, exactly, is the government

scrapping poverty targets at home and then promoting them abroad?

Because that is precisely what the government is facilitating. There's

no point members on the opposite benches shaking their heads. That is

what the Europe 2020 agenda and the bill is about. It is great to see

this pro-European moment, and even the member for working has come in

to see it, how great it is to see. -- for working ham. I would put it

finally, this week in conclusion. I will certainly give way to the

honourable gentleman for Wokingham. As the main purpose of this bill is

to propose new procedures to discuss unemployment and a lack of growth on

the continent, but as party think that getting countries out of the

euro on the wanted and could help them price themselves back into work

and get rid of the dreadful unemployment that now lays like a

pall over the south of our continent? It is in indication of

some of the paucity of my teenage years that I can remember watching

the TV in the mid-19 90s and seeing the member for Wokingham ploughing

his year skip the furrow very finally, as he always does. In

answer to his retching with regard to countries, that is a matter for

the countries themselves. I wouldn't be seeking to dictate to them. It is

a matter for the countries themselves. Can I finish on this

point? I will give way to the honourable gentleman. I agree with

some of what My Honourable Friend is saying but Greece was given a

bailout but on very strict conditions which were imposed upon

them, including restrictions on public sector workers taking

industrial action, that sort of thing. These were not have his

deciding these things for itself but having things imposed upon it by the

European Union. I am grateful to My Honourable Friend for that

intervention. I am sure, across the House, we have particular views of

the conditions that were imposed and I know that the honourable gentleman

does, too, and I thank him for raising that point. What I would say

about the European Union, in relation to employment rights, is I

would invite him to praise the work on equal treatment for part-time

workers, unpaid leave, on fair pay for agency workers. And I really

hope that, whilst hopefully today the House approves changes to the

tripartite social summit, that we can also take as an indication that

the government will not be signing away the employment rights that have

gained, over many years, for working people in this country, through the

EU, and that the decency of work will be a fundamental part of the

Prime Minister's renegotiation in the next few months. I hope we will

not detain the House for too long on this matter. Just a couple of points

that I did want to raise. Firstly, in answer to the honourable

gentleman, the reason we're having this debate is because in the EU Act

of 2011, we foresaw issues that would be coming down the track that

might be controversial, or not, but were worthy of copper scrutiny on

the floor of this House. And so, -- proper scrutiny. We had plenty of

debate. We did divide a few times but rarely on the floor of this

House. Because we wanted to ensure that we had proper scrutiny of what

was going on in our name, at European level. This is a provision

of that Act that is coming through. I understand where he is coming from

when he mentioned the comparison with tax credits, but equally, there

is an argument there, that that's what previous tax credit changes

have brought forward under statutory instruments. We foresaw this coming

therefore be amended the Act as it was then to ensure that we could

scrutinise these matters on the floor of this House. These two are

not the world's most exciting, but we will see more of these measures

coming forward and we'll have more and more time to talk about them. I

have visited Macedonia. I am a fan of Macedonia. I have been a member

of the European Parliament and seen how a neighbouring country has done

everything it can to stop Macedonian accession to the EU, and seen what

Macedonia itself has done, the massive strides it has taken towards

European Union membership. I am pleased to see that it is able to

become an observer in the work of the European Union agency for

fundamental rights. I do have concerns, actually, and

this is my only point on the Macedonian entry in this Approval's

Bill. The European Union agency for fundamental rights does come from

the European monitoring Centre on racism and xenophobia which had

unbelievably difficult financial and administrative problems in the past,

and I would like to check every now and again with the Minister to

ensure the problems this organisation had in the past which

actually lead to its name changed among other things have been

completely changed and that it does what it is meant to do and does not

duplicate other... I will give way. Thank you. I asked my honourable

friend to define observer. Does that mean the European Union observes

Macedonia? On Macedonia observes the European Union, for example, in

human rights? Is that what it means? It is a bit of both,

actually. I think you will find the agency has the following main tasks,

to collect, analyse and disseminate reliable information regarding the

situation of fundamental rights in the European Union. It also has to

formulate and published conclusions and opinions on specific topics on

its own initiative at the request of the European Parliament and

commission promoting dialogue with civil society and others to raise

public awareness of fundamental rights. We have a debate on going in

this country about where those rights should lie and what sort of

legislation should police them but Macedonia has had that debate in its

own pile meant and has applied to join the agency, willing to pay

appropriately to it and I do not see why we should step in its way. As I

said, the European Union agency for fundamental rights has had a number

of issues. It serves an important function in that member state voting

rights could potentially be suspended based on any report's

findings, from this particular agency. It has, you know, teeth, in

no uncertain terms. It has a decent operating budget in over 20 million

euros per year. But Macedonia has taken its own choice and I think it

is right to go down that route if it so chooses to. I do want to talk,

very briefly, about the draft decision on a tripartite social

Summit for growth and employment. They're both a new Council decision

attached, or following, Lisbon, which others the number of meetings

to be increased of this body, from ones to twice per year and for the

attend. The European Council is attend. The European Council is

allowed to host and facilitate the meeting and so this should not be

too much of a cost. But my questions on this are more about the direction

of travel of both this organisation, it duplication, its purpose of being

questions about what this does. questions about what this does.

Because this is not the economic and social committee, which actually in

the past I have called for the abolition of, because there is a

huge amount of costs, some members belong to one of three groups,

employers, employees and various other interests. The employers' grip

on the social and economic committee has businessmen and people from

lobbies -- group. Members of trade Unions, affiliated to the

Confederation, and a third group made up of lobbies from civil

society, most of which I paid for by the European Commission to lobby the

European Commission in different ways, to get the European Commission

to do more. Many European countries have that, but it is not that. Not

at all. This is a separate beast and it is a question of who are the

European Union's social partners? A list of their social partners,

organisations consulted called 154 of the future of the Treaty on

European Union, and that includes business Europe.

# Business Europe. Quite an interesting organisation. Not

surprisingly they have a view on the referendum we may be having here.

They get a small sum of money, 456,000, almost 457 -- 457 thousand

euros as payment under a grant received for a project running over

a couple of years of which the total budgeted cost was 1.2 million euros.

The members of Business Europe to include the CBI here in the United

Kingdom. That is one of the ways the CBI does receive some money from the

European Union. It also includes the other organisations, the European

Trade Union Confederation mentioned previously. There is also, and

actually the European Trade Union Confederation received 4 million

euros from European institutions and spent over 1 million euros of that

lobbying... Happy to give way to my honourable friend. Given the sums

mentioned, is it not possible these organisations may be more kindly

disposed towards the European Union because they have received these

substantial sums? I would like to think they would not be but I would

like to think, if I was a leading light in the CBI order the trade

union Confederation, that you would want to make sure you are in a

position where you would not be accused of being biased in one way

or the other. And actually receiving money from the European Commission,

that you then spend lobbying the European Commission for the European

Commission to do things, whether that be business organisations

lobbying for liberalisation or trade union organisations lobbying for

workers' writes on whatever that might be, it does seem it is almost

market in this area. I will give way. Thank you for giving way and

answering my question but just recently there has been some

controversy about the BBC receiving some millions of pounds from the

European Union for educational purposes, no doubt educating us all

about the rule of the European Union. Does he not think that for

organisations which are meant to be independent and impartial, to take

sums of money, large sums, from the European Union, that may have some

influence on them? Again I would like to think, I mean, I followed

very much what the gentleman and my friends and colleagues have been

doing on the Scrutiny Committee in this area where they have had a long

and ongoing dialogue with the BBC from when I was a member over the

last five years into this mandate of this Parliament, and I would like to

think that the BBC, and I hesitate looking in this direction at my

Scottish National Party colleagues, because I have a feeling they may

have a view on partiality in the BBC when it comes to certain matters...

I will certainly give way. In the opinion of the honourable gentleman,

does the BBC find it more difficult than an organisation -- when an

organisation like the EC gives the money doesn't find it more difficult

in terms of human rights, when it is taken away like the UK Government?

This is straying quite far away from a very narrow bill if we are going

to talk about the BBC. For Disney, Madame Deputy Speaker, -- forgive

me. I did kind of provoke that reaction from my SNP colleague. I

wanted to prove the point that actually when you raise questions

about the partiality of an organisation either by its funding

or its action, you may be devaluing that organisation's input to

anything important like perhaps a European referendum going forward.

And so going back to the point about who are the EU social partners that

we wish to be speaking about and with in this dialogue we are

facilitating in this particular European Union (Approvals) Bill, as

I say, the European Trade Union Confederation received 4 million

euros from them in 2014 and spent over 1 million of that lobbying the

EU institutions for more or less legislation in its own ways. The

European Centre Of Employers And Enterprises Providing Public

Services also in 2013 spent 120,000 euros lobbying the European Union

and received 155,000 euros from the European Union direct to DG

employment. I wonder about the added value of this social dialogue that

would be going on at the tripartite social Summit for growth and

employment. Like many things in the European Union, its apple pie in the

title... Who could possibly be against a tripartite social Summit

for growth? But if actually it delivers very little and the only

people there are speaking people paid by the European Commission to

then talk to the European Commission about these matters, then we have, I

think, a significant issue because the conversation is an ever

decreasing circle. The EU social partners have agreed to a number of

things in the recent past. There were important matters they wish to

discuss. To negotiate an autonomous framework agreement on active ageing

and an intergenerational approach, something we need to discuss,

obviously, at a national level let alone at a European level. To step

up efforts to improve the implication of their autonomous

framework agreements with specific focus on the eight ten member states

with that has been identified as insufficient. This is a group that

will lobby for more European regulation and harsher on the

mentation of directives. To highlight the importance of more

public and private investments. I would imagine my colleagues on the

opposite benches would have, I would like to have, a conversation,

especially under their new leadership, about that. It also says

in order to reach, and I read from the programme, to reach optimal

growth, to boost job creation and revive the EU industrial base.

Another part of the joint working programme is to prepare joint

conclusions, things we would all wish to see promoting better --

promoting better family life and gender equality to reduce the gender

pay gap. I cannot believe there would be a member of this House that

would not want to achieve that but I do wonder whether, having a group of

people paid for by the European Commission indirectly to turn up at

the summit once every six months to speak about these things, having

done so for quite some time without any concrete achievements, and in

fact maybe some of those ideals are going into reverse actually, that

perhaps we should be asking questions about the validity of

supporting such a social Summit for growth and employment. It also, and

not until quite recently did this become controversial, but it also,

one of the objectives, is to develop a mobility package and to address

loopholes and enforcement issues on work and to promote mobility of

apprentices. We are having a debate in this country now about mobility

and indeed the freedom of movement of workers and others and it is

quite interesting we are at one point promoting a debate and there

is a big debate going on amongst our European partners on this very

issue, whilst also funding a summit of the worthy and the good, to speak

about the same thing. I will happily give way to my honourable friend. I

am sure he will recall the great constitutionalist Walter Badger

distinguished there were two parts to the Constitution, the decorative

and the effective. Would he suggest this body is one of the more

decorative rather than the more effective parts of the European

Union constitution? I probably would, yes. I hate to beat around

the bush. I don't think it is worth funding this organisation. I think

it is to petition for adjudication's six. Considering how

many other ways the bodies that comprise this would that have -- how

they have other opportunities at a much higher and more direct little

to influence the thinking of the European Commission member states

and others, I really do wonder about the value of this, which is obvious

they why I am on my feet now to ask the Minister as to why, actually,

when we have an opportunity to stop this from happening, to cut this

duplication from... When we have an opportunity to remove some money

from the budget from being spent, The article states that the EU will

set up social dialogue while respecting the optometry of these

organisations. Can these organisations truly be autonomous

and EU funded at the same time? Will they not just be a taxpayer funded

eco-chamber? What authority they had until now on the old decision was

based upon an old article treaty to host these summits up to this point.

If Article 152 states that the European Union should respect the

diversity of national systems, given that our national system is not to

have this particular type of summit system, can the government guarantee

that the outcome of these meetings will not have any effect on the

European Commission's work programme, the very work programme

that it wants, this summit, wants to have some input into? And is there

an estimate for how much these meetings every six months will cost

and whether the UK presidency of the and whether the UK presidency of the

EU in 2017 will choose to host this? As I mentioned, a number of

questions on this area. I know that the European Union for social

affairs and inclusion has a regular dialogue with all the parties that

would come to this summit. There are other bodies in the European Union

that do exactly the same as this. And at a time when, actually we have

had votes in this place where I think we have been nearly unanimous

about wanting to cut out duplication of spending at a European level to

make sure that the massive contribution we make as a country to

the European Commission, to Europe, is spent in a wise fashion...

Considering I have a bit of form in this area having been a member of

European limit for ten years and raised many budgetary questions

about these very things, I wonder about the value of us are proving

this bill today. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It's

interesting that the clauses in this bill that we are discussing and

debating today underlined some of the positive work of the European

Union and I'm sure that members across the house will be debating

this, particularly as we debate our future in that union. Can I first of

all associate myself with some of the comments made by the member

about child poverty? And also discussing the tax credits last week

I think he made some excellent points. Today we draft the decision

about the Republic of Macedonia becoming an observer on the European

agency for rights, and Madam Deputy Speaker I would like to touch

firstly on the first of these relating to Macedonia and the agency

for fundamental rights. Can I say this first of all and I'm sure

members across the house will agree, I think European Union expansion in

2004 was one of the great triumphs of the European Union. It was a

triumph for Europe and a triumph for the United Kingdom as well and our

contribution to that, it has been good for us ever since. On that

point, although they are not there and a great deal of work is yet to

be done, I look forward to joining Macedonia and the other countries of

the Western Balkans into the into being -- into the European Union and

I hope that this is a step along the way. We have a great deal of work to

do but I think plugging that gap between Greece and Croatia will be a

welcome one. Can I also say that giving Macedonia observer status may

not help in the way it needs help at the moment. Earlier on the

Honourable member for Pontefract and Castleford brought forward the issue

to this house of refugees and I and others have made the point that the

countries who are least able to deal with the influx and the weight of

refugees in Europe are those who are taking the greatest strain, not

least Macedonia. If we look at the current refugee crisis, there are

areas that are front-line states that can be helped in this regard.

More help would be if the UK could take its fair share of refugees but

that doesn't seem to be forthcoming any time soon. I think also having

access to the work of some of these EU agencies would also help. What

help the UK is providing with fundamental rights in reference

particular to the crisis the Western Balkan nations are facing. On the

issue of the tripartite summit, I'm sure members across the house will

agree with me when we look at the impact the European Union has made

over the years on social issues, and this mission will be picked up by my

honourable friend, the member for South Persia. This will play a

role... Surely it can any be a good thing. Such an approach, an approach

that includes trade unionists and businesses and all others can be a

good thing and something where the European Union has led the way.

Finally on this and more broadly, I think that this issue we are looking

at today we see where the European Union brings added value to our

day-to-day lives. It helps with the promotion of fundamental rights and

it is particularly pertinent we are debating this with the refugee

crisis. I also think these issues underscore the need for us to remain

a part of the European Union and this bill underlines that. There is

another issue here, though, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is an issue

that was touched upon by the member for Daventry. It underlines the

scrutiny that this Parliament has over European Union legislation as

well. I often think that politicians from this place and elsewhere in the

European Union can be a little bit lazy sometimes when we hide behind

decisions that the European Union has made. We have to ramble a role

that the UK Parliament has to play and I would like to see an increased

role for the devolved administrations as well in that

process. What does he think would happen if

we said no? If the people say no... Well, we will have to see if the

people say yes or no but I think the scrutiny... What would happen if

this Parliament suddenly decided to vote this down. Is he seriously

suggesting that as a possibility? I can only speak for our side of the

house and I know that on our side of the house we will not be voting no.

I know that he cannot speak for his side of the house, in fact the

leaderships can barely do that at the moment! At least we are unified

on this side of the house... But we can be lazy when we look at European

Union decisions, we have to have a more honest approach, we have to be

more critical and be more open where we have backed European Union

decisions. On that point, we will be backing this today. Thank you, Madam

Deputy Speaker. I think we've just had a wonderful illustration of why

our democracy doesn't work on any European subject. He pretends not to

have understood my question. What would happen if the United Kingdom

Parliament suddenly voted against a solemn decision on the European

Union? He is not prepared to countenance that idea, he just said

I don't want to. But a lot of our constituents would like us to, they

would like us to stand up to the European Union and try to change it.

We are invited to agree to a change of arrangements over how we debate

and consult and tried to grapple with the huge problem of mass

unemployment, austerity, which is so visible in the south of our

continent, largely brought about by the Euro scheme... Today all we get

is this nonsense that there are one or two things that the European

union does that is fine so we will not grapple with the others. Where

are the voices against European Union austerity? He is right to

raise the point but does he agree with me that devolved

administrations should also be given greater scrutiny as part of this

process as well? Madam Deputy Speaker, that is another debate for

another day. We're not here to debate the relative powers of the

different parts of the United Kingdom. At the moment the member of

the European Union is the United Kingdom. We have precious few hours

left to make major changes to things that really matter on the continent

and I wish to explore briefly what we can do to engage with the problem

of mass unemployment, with the huge migrations of people who are unhappy

with their lot in other countries in the European Union and what we can

do about the austerity policies that are deep and vicious in parts of the

European Union and visited on countries like Greece, Spain and

Portugal by the European Union and the euro itself. I give away.

Forgive me for taking the gentleman back to the beginning of his speech

but he said that he would like to vote today on something. Does he

have anything specific in mind or hissy just looking for a fight with

the European Union? I was just using the illustration that there are

large areas where this Parliament is not allowed to vote against

something that is from the European Union. It could be as the result of

a treaty that some government side years ago. Doesn't the opposition

see it? We are losing our democracy. We are losing our right

to disagree with European decisions. We are losing our right to assert to

do things differently. I can think of at least 100 things that I wish

were better and different to come from the European Union, because I

think they get in the way of the prosperity and better wages and

better lifestyles for my constituents and the people in my

country, but that is not the point. The issue we are debating today is,

can we threw this bill have any impact on this hugely important

issue of the breakdown of employment, the denial of

opportunity to half the young people in large swathes of the south of our

continent and the impact that the Euro scheme is having on the

prosperity and the future life prospects of people. I find it

extraordinary that an opposition which is full of passion and

sometimes rightly so for anyone in Britain who doesn't have enough

income cannot bring themselves to say a single word for the tens of

millions of people in our continent that are being very badly affected

by this dreadful scheme. All those young people out of work, how would

they like to represent people where the young people and their

constituency knew they only had a 1 in two chance of having a job. The

right honourable gentleman's political hero Margaret Thatcher...

I had a great admiration for the late Prime Minister and I gave her a

lot of advice. Some might say not to surrender those powers under the

European Union act for the very reason that the rights on gentleman

has correctly identified. Although she accepted a lot of my advice, she

did not accept it on two very important things, one for majority

voting in the European Union and the other the poll tax on the

community... I don't think we have time to explore what would have been

better on those. If they insist on whitewashing this through as I'm

sure he will come of this body doing something useful for a change. It's

quite obvious as my honourable friend has already instanced,

although they discuss a number of fundamental issues that matter to

people across the European Union but especially in the euro area, they

have been unsuccessful to date. Clearly this social committee has

not been a voice against austerity policies increase, Portugal or Spain