18/11/2015 House of Commons

Order. Urgent question, Sir Gerald power. -- Howarth. Further to the

question asked by my honour`ble friend, may I ask the Secretary of

State for Northern Ireland, if she will make a statement about the

arrest of a former member of the parachute regiment on duty hn

Londonderry in January 1972? Mr Speaker, I thank the honour`ble

member for his question. As part of the ongoing investigation bx the

PSNI into the events surrounding Bloody Sunday in Londonderrx in

1972, a former soldier was `rrested for questioning on the 10th of

November. Only he were subsdquently released on bail. Criminal Court

investigations are a messagd -- matter for police to act

independently of government, so the government cannot comment on an

individual case. We remain unstinting in our admiration and

support for the men and womdn of the police and armed forces who have

sacrificed to ensure that tdrrorism would never succeed in Northern

Ireland, and its future would only ever be determined by democracy and

consent. Whether the current investigations will lead to criminal

prosecutions is a matter for the police and prosecuting authorities

in Northern Ireland. As the Prime Minister pointed out during his

statement on Lord Savill's report, the 250,000 people serving hn

Northern Ireland during the operation, and one in which I was

proud to play a part, the overwhelming majority carridd out

their duties with courage, professionalism and in integrity.

Thank you for allowing me to pose this question and I pay tribute to

my honourable friend for his service in Northern Ireland. When in 20 0

the Prime Minister made his memorable statement in the House

following the publication of the sample report following the events

of 1972, known elsewhere as Bloody Sunday, I and others hoped ` line

would be drawn under this tragedy. We now find that 43 years after this

event and three years after the first investigations, a soldier from

the parachute regiment who was in his early 20s and is now in his late

60s, is faced with a possible prosecution for murder with the

possibility of further arrests. There are two reasons this hs wrong.

What national interest is sdrved I bring in these cases to court? The

saddle enquiries about that there was no premeditation of murder. One

witness said that Martin McGuinness was on the other side of thd body

armed with a machine gun. These soldiers were not hired killers

they were seeking to do thehr duty to their country in a filthx Civil

War where the enemy was dressed in civilian clothes in distingtishing

from the local population. @s the Secretary State said last ydar, the

royal prerogative of Mercy was granted in Northern Ireland 365

times between 1979 and 2002. The sample report cost ?195 million and

took 12 years to compile but our service men based in Aldershot, and

some of them remain my constituents, had to make that decision is of the

-- snap decisions, the consdquences of which have hung over thel their

entire lives. What happened that day was a tragedy, particularly those

who lost their lives. But they are not the only victims, what `bout the

families of the 1441 soldiers who died in Northern Ireland in service

of their country? There was no enquiry into their deaths, no saddle

enquiries into the murder of -- no enquiry into the murder of `ny

civilians. I submit that it is immoral for the state to sedk nearly

half a century after the evdnt, that these men on trial, what ard those

who deployed there are bombs and bullets in the shadows are now in

government or received Royal pardons, an act of government, not

friend to exercise the royal friend to exercise the royal

prerogative of Mercy with ilmediate effect. Thank you, Mr Speakdr. I

hear what the honourable melber says, he has been a doughty and

outspoken champion of not only the Parachute Regiment and his

constituents but also of Brhtain's Armed Forces. This is not e`sy for

me either, I know what it is like to make those decisions under pressure.

We should not forget that the British Army is not above the law

and nor should it be. It is the difference between us and the

terrorist. And it is what m`kes us a professional army around thd world,

from some of those more tinpot armed from some of those more tinpot armed

forces elsewhere in the world. The House will have heard what he said

about the use of the royal probative of Mercy. What I would say to that

is, I cannot comment on these individual cases, these are a matter

for ongoing police enquiry. It is a long way from following a lhne of

enquiry to conviction, charging and caught. I am sure the House will

reflect on the Right Honour`ble member's call but I am definite that

we cannot comment on this c`se and the police must be allowed to do

their job and uphold the rule of law, the rule of law that I went as

a soldier to uphold in my thme in Northern Ireland. I think it is only

right and proper at this tile to pay tribute to our Armed Forces who are

at this very moment engaged in defending our freedoms or in harms

way. They operate to a high standard and should always remember the

difficult circumstances in which they serve. Does the Ministdr agree

with me that it is always dhfficult to criticise our Armed Forcds if

they fall below these high standards but we cannot and must not fail to

do so is evidence of wrongdoing exist? I quote the prime minister,

there is no doubt there is nothing equivocal, there are no ambhguity.

What happened on Bloody Sunday was What happened on Bloody Sunday was

both unjustified and unjusthfiable and it was wrong. And he apologised

on behalf of the British government. The whole report made

very uncomfortable reading for all of us. We must never forget the

victims and families for those who were killed both on Bloody Sunday

and throughout Northern Ireland and on so many other occasions. Can the

Minister confirm, so we are all clear, that the evidence given at

the saddle enquiry was precluded from being used in any court

proceedings in any individu`l? Can he confirmed the arrest was based on

evidence gathered since Jantary 2014, by the PSNI, when thex

announced the investigation? The PSNI has said there will be no

further arrests until the rdsult of a judicial review brought bx other

soldiers is concluded. Can he tell us when that will be concluded, and

what work they have undertaken to do under that review? There was an

input and announcement yestdrday about Stormont which came after many

weeks of negotiation, but they were not able to agree on legacy steps.

Will he outlined what steps he continues to take to pursue such

agreement? Does the case th`t we are discussing today, once again

emphasised the need for a comprehensive process to de`l with

these issues, and outstanding cases, however difficult? The whole

house will agree that the independence of the police `nd the

independence of the judiciary is central to any democracy. Btt a

process has to be sought and agreed, however difficult. Northern

Ireland is coming out of conflict. Huge progress has been made. The

Northern Ireland today is htgely different from that of yestdrday.

All of us who have visited on a regular basis has seen that for

ourselves. We have seen a ddsire to build for the future and thd hope

that everyone has for the ndw generation. So when the minhsters

answer these questions, will they also agree that the continuhng and

emerging issues from the past has to be dealt with as they cannot be

denied? Let us also not forget how far we have come. All partids, all

communities, the people of Northern Ireland, deserve huge credit for

that. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1st of all,

on the issue of testimony, `n important point that we recognise

that during the enquiry it was established that anyone givhng

evidence to that enquiry, their testimony could not be used as a

basis for conviction or indded to incriminate themselves. It was done

in a way so that we could fhnd out as much as possible by what happened

on that fateful day and therefore that is the principle that still

stands and the protection of their evidence as such is still an issue.

It does not exclude other evidence that is gathered later. I c`nnot

comment on the police investigation. It would be wrong for me to

interfere or indeed enquire too deeply into it as they must be left

to follow whatever course their investigation takes 2. On the issue

legacy, might admiration for my honourable friend the Secretary of

State for the Northern Irel`nd parties and the Irish Government who

had over 150 meetings over 35 roundtable meetings in the last 9

1/2 weeks, they resolved thd current impasse in Northern Ireland. They

have decided the best futurd is to move forward and not backwards. It

is regretful that legacy has been left out of the final agreelent in

so legislation however the `greement I signed yesterday does continue to

-- the agreement signed yesterday continues to commit the party to

dealing with the legacy. Thd victims of the Northern Ireland trotbles

will demand that. We have committed to still provide the funding for

that legacy enquiry to take place and I hope sooner rather th`n later

we get to a point where the policy we are examining can be enacted so

that we, in the end, can achieve justice for victims but also closure

from the troubles. Laurence Robertson. Thank you. The Mhnister

and the Prime Minister were right to draw the house's attention to the

separation powers which exist, but in order for people in Northern

Ireland and indeed throughott the United Kingdom to keep their faith

in the peace process, isn't it important that whoever is stspected

of committing any crimes ard fully investigated regardless of what

rules they may be playing in Government now? I totally agree with

my honourable friend. It is why not so long ago at this dispatch box

when a prominent member of Sinn Fein was arrested and indeed members of

the provisional IRA were arrested, I said quite clearly that we support

the PSNI in pursuing the evhdence that is presented to them to bring

them to justice whether thex are senior members of a politic`l party

or indeed members of a terrorist organisation, but that is not to do

the same thing as to equate individuals who work for thd British

Armed Forces doing their job to affect people who could not -- to

defend people who could not defend themselves. We endorse what the

Right Honourable member for Aldershot has said. Is it not the

case that we still have people in Northern are prepared to go out and

murder former members of thd security forces, and is it really

appropriate when a man offers to go into a police station for interview

that 3 police cars arrived `t his home to arrest him in full public

view, given his background? Surely, if we're going to do this, there

needs to be a more sensitivd way of doing it. We should not be placing

former and women who serve this country well and their families at

risk simply it would appear to appease some other party. The

gentleman is right to express concern. The manner in which anyone

is arrested and I can't comlent on this individual case, and if he has

issues with how and what manner that person was arrested, then I suggest

you take that up with the Chief Constable. I entirely endorse the

comments of the Minister and the shadow secretary. The current

circumstances in Northern Ireland could never have come about without

the extraordinary bravery and discipline of all those in security

forces who have allowed the peace process to take root. Picking up the

question from the shadow secretary, the Savile report, the most

extraordinary combination of detail, will the Minister confirm that all

the evidence given by soldidrs who were questioned is absolutely

untouchable and cannot be used on legal grounds to incriminatd them

and also that they are non-lilitary -- there are non- amenity is legally

protected. It is absolutely the case that the testimony used as given by

a former soldier cannot be tsed against that former soldier in any

future case. He is protected from incriminating him or herself, who

remember him -- who ever give that evidence. Mark Durkan. Thank you, Mr

Speaker. As the MP for the constituency in which the events of

bloody Sunday took place, I know I have to take care not to go so far

in rebutting some of the issues that were raised by the Honourable member

as to add to any impression of political pressure or polithcal

motive behind the current investigation or indeed any arrest.

Will the Minister confirm that of the things that all the parties have

agreed in all of the discussions is that amnesty is no basis for dealing

with the past and therefore the house should avoid getting hnvolved

when there are particular investigations or particular arrests

and in respect to his last `nswer, will he qualify it by saying that

protection does not extend to the question of perjury, that Lord

Savile did warn several witnesses and that the occupation authorities

had taken a position that s`id they would only pursue the issue of

perjury which would be pursted in this jurisdiction because that is

where any possible perjury took place after the substantive course

in relation to what they call the substantive crime of possible murder

was dealt with, so people are looking to say that the

investigations in addition to possible murder should somehow be

part of the ban, will he be consulting with colleagues to see

whether or not the issues around perjury should be reconsidered by

the prosecuting authorities? The Honourable member is right that the

protection does not extend to the area of perjury, of witnessds

obviously giving testimony `t a public enquiry, and that wotld be

the same for any witness on that date in. On the area of amndsty I

can confirm doing that to rdad the whole legs lead -- legacy

discussions, amnesty was never part of that process, and that w`s not

something that either Government or parties wanted to commit to. Can I

pay tribute to George Hamilton and the PSNI. They are bound to follow

the evidence and we should support them in so doing, but would my

honourable friend accept th`t in following the evidence they are

likely to follow the actions of members of the Armed Forces 1st and

foremost, since PYRA were not in the habit of laying down Britain

evidence, so the branch is bound to give the impression that thhs serves

the historical revisionist `genda of Sinn Fein and comment on whdther

that is likely to be helpful or unhelpful to the peace procdss. My

honourable friend knows all too well, having been stood herd

previously doing this job, that what serves the peace process is the

reckoning of the past, the closure for victims, but also justice for

victims and the pursuit of former terrorists, if they have not been

convicted, or the pursuit of anyone else, that is what serves pdace and

recognising the huge sacrifhces made by members of the security forces

and the civilian population of Northern Ireland is what actually

brought us to the negotiating table. It is what actually defeated the

terrorists, and that is why we need to make sure that when we move

forward, we do so in a spirht that is measured, recognises word justice

needs to be done, but also not to indulge people that would lhke to

revise the past as if it was some big conspiracy against people. Lady

Hermon. Thank you, Mr Speakdr. We hear from the Prime Minister often

about the importance of havhng enshrined military covenant in law

in this country, and he is puite right to boast of that becatse it is

a wonderful thing to have done, but in that context, with the Mhnister

guarantee that the Ministry of Defence will pay for all legal

costs, that is the legal advice and the legal representation, top legal

representation, of any formdr soldiers who served in Northern

Ireland and who are charged in connection with any enquiry or

inquest such as those announced for Bally Murphy. I thank the honourable

lady for that question. The MoD recognises that we have a dtty of

care to all current and forler members of the Armed Forces. As an

essential part of that, we will pay for independent legal advicd so that

they are able to defend thelselves when they face legal proceedings or

matters related to the formdr service. Doctor Liam Fox. I agree

with what my honourable fridnd says about the need to uphold thd law. I

understand why any decisions about the prosecution must be inddpendent

and why he cannot comment on this particular case, but without

prejudging in any way any p`rticular case, does he understand th`t we

also have the need to uphold justice and that it will be defending a

natural sense of justice of many people in this country that the

behaviour of how the army bdhaved on a certain date 40 years ago is being

reopened when so many on thd IRA side were killed and have bden

granted amnesty? Does he agree with me that if we are to draw a line

under past events for the s`ke of peace, it should be drawn on both

sides? My honourable friend makes an important point. I would like to

correct him that paramilitaries and terrorists who have not been

convicted and were not part of the Good Friday agreement have not been

granted any amnesty. They are still subject to the full force of the

law. There are individuals no doubt who are still being looked for and

cases being prepared, so in that case I am afraid there is no blanket

amnesty, but he is right th`t what we should not do is let indhvidual

cases colour the very strong and successful work that are Arled

Forces did. We went to Northern Ireland, Mr Speaker, to protect

those people who could not defend themselves. That is a record that we

should be proud of, but that record can be besmirched, and it is the

same and always has been since the war or any other time that lembers

of the Armed Forces can think they are above the law and it is what

makes the difference -- makds us different from the terrorists. Isn't

it the case that former terrorists have been granted immunity from

prosecution and doesn't the Minister agree that no fair-minded pdrson

will understand why that sale right is not extended to British soldiers?

I think I have to correct the Honourable member. It is not my

understanding that anyone h`s been granted amnesty from prosecttion. I

think we shouldn't confuse some of the recent events with that meaning

of blanket amnesty, so no 1 is available to call on amnestx to

protect them from facing up to what they did, but he is right. H faced

nearly every week people who killed my soldiers sitting oppositd me but

I can do that because I think it is about the future and it is `bout

making peace to move forward for Northern Ireland. Cheryl Gillan My

constituency -- my constitudnt has written to me expressing dismay

about the arrest of the 66 ,year-old ex- soldier in my area. He writes,

you should be aware that thdre is a large and rapidly growing

undercurrent of anger and rdsentment of these actions within the current

military and more importantly amongst those many tens of thousands

of veterans who, like me, spent long months and years being stondd,

bonds, fired upon, enter, intimidated and vilified. I

understand the parameters whthin which the Minister is operating but

could you ensure that an explanation is brought forward rapidly `nd

matters are brought to a swhft conclusion to allay the angdr that

is reflected in this correspondence? I am tempted to say to my honourable

friend that I might have dr`fted part of that letter. I was told

vilified and abused for manx, many years on those tours. The anger is

real. I feel the anger of m`ny of my former colleagues of her

constituents about making stre that this is not used in some political

campaign and we are determined in the Government to make sure that it

is about the rule of law and the police have together the evhdence if

there is any evidence and it has to follow its course. It is a long way

from that. We are in a position where I cannot comment on the

current case, but we are currently topping that people being

questioned, under caution, `nd obviously arrested, but there is a

long way to go to make that jump to this is some form of campaign

against the British Army, btt I will say that we listen to what xou say,

the Government knows it is `bout moving forward and thereford we

shall do everything in our power to make sure we recognise and support

what the MoD are doing currdntly with our soldiers to face

prosecution or investigation to make sure they're giving the presentation

that they deserve. I am verx grateful for the urgent question

today and of course we recognise and support the rule of law and the

independence of the judiciary, but that is a real anger -- there is a

real anger amongst veterans and will the Minister take steps to dnsure

that the current inequality that allows for those in the armdd

services to be pursued with greater vigour, effort, than the terrorist

themselves, ends and will bd moved toward some level playing fheld in

future? I do not agree that there is an

inequality in the process. H do not believe that the police and the

Chief Constable are pursuing people with more birth than another group

of people. I think they will go where the evidence takes thdm and

they will follow them. The honourable members might like to

think, this is a process th`t will hopefully help many soldiers and

former RUC members clear thdir name. To have a process to clear xour name

is as important as not having a process which could lead people to

make full against them. --. Allegations against them. C`n I pick

up on his point that no one is above the law? I would entirely concur on

that. The perception is in this chamber amongst many members and

people in the country that our British soldiers are hunted, while

those who murder and kill and become politicians and still are, `nd I

personally faced them, are `llowed to work free. Can I also get him to

confirm that the identity of a soldier, and anyone else, bdcause I

believe it is before 1973, their identities will be kept secret? We

must all challenge the percdption that they are hounded. As I said

earlier, there were 250,000 people that served in those 25 years. No

one is hounding them. Peopld are following a course, the polhce must

be allowed to follow a course of enquiry. In order to help ehther

clear names or achieve justhce where there has been a breach in the law.

I think that is very import`nt. We have to make the difference, that we

are the people that follow the rule of law. It is the terrorist to does

not. In answer to his second question, as I said to his right

honourable friend, I shall write to him about that detail in thd future.

Five years ago at the dispatch box, the Prime Minister took to his feet

to try and bring closure to the ?200 million report across the House and

in many sections of society people expressed the view that that was the

matter at an end. I made at addiction from this base at that

time that that would not be the end of the matter. -- I made a

prediction from this place. Will he accept that he needs to meet with

the Chief Constable of the police in Northern Ireland to ensure that

irrespective of whether people were in uniform or out of uniforl, if

they had machine guns or probably had submachine machine guns like

Martin McGuinness, they shotld be subject to the law, and questioned

equally, in order to be brotght before the court? The chief

constable is adamant that in all criminal enquiries he will treat

people the same. He will investigate and he will follow the course of

action. It is not that long ago that we were hearing cries about Sinn

Fein politicians being arrested and taken into questioning. I h`ve

confidence that the chief constable who is a respected individu`ls from

all sides of the House will follow his professional training and treat

everyone fairly in that process I cannot get involved in

investigation, I cannot see the chief constable to interferd,

because if I was and the result was saying that there was no evhdence in

a particular case, I would never get away with it, people would `ccuse me

of interfering and someone would be prevented from clearing thehr name.

I took out a patrol in the street of Belfast a few moments after we

discovered that our Battalion band had been blown up in Regents Park,

entertaining Londoners. And I will never forget the restraint showed by

Rifleman and other ranks under my command facing the taunts of IRA and

then their supporters on th`t occasion. That was just one example

of thousands of similar occ`sions where the Armed Forces showdd

unbelievable restraint in the face of a unbelievable provocation. I

think what my colleagues at that time and many veterans might feel is

that they want to say, what about Regents Park, Warren Park, Londay,

Tuesday, Wednesday, when thdse were happening? The Minister is right,

this has to be dealt with properly. But society wants a line dr`wn under

this now. I hear my honourable friend and what he says and I do not

disagree. Like him, I have had personal express of that restraint.

We should not forget the trdmendous pressure soldiers and policd were

put under every day, the provocation. I remember soldiers

being attacked and people p`rking their cars in front of ambulances so

they could not come to the rescue of our shoulders. -- soldiers. Inhumane

treatment, murder and the mhgration by part of a society that wd were

there to try and protect. Lhke him, I have real passion for what our

soldiers achieved, and the TK Government recognises that `nd

support that. But also like him he will recognise that those soldiers

that showed restraint are the ones that make us the best army hn the

world. It is their professionalism, it is the fact that they managed to

carry on and try and achievd a better result for the peopld of

Northern Ireland and the people they were there to protect. It is that

restraint that means that those people who have a chance to clear

their name should be allowed to clear their name, and it is those

soldiers who followed the rtle of law who are only ever let down by

those very few soldiers who break the law. Can I also concur with the

comments made by the Right Honourable member for Aldershot I

agree with him wholeheartedly. The diligence and zeal shown by the

authorities to question the detained Regiment soldier is causing us

concerned when that is comp`red to the people who have committdd

horrible crimes and are fred today, and in some places, in high

positions in the Parliament. Does the Minister feel this is a double

standard? . I was on the backbenches during the whole on the run process.

I cannot comment much furthdr other to say that it is my understanding

that the underruns are not subject to any amnesty, they are not free

from prosecution, and I hopd the prosecuting authorities herd what we

say today and will make surd that they continue where they can

prosecutions of any of thosd individuals that have committed

crimes against our Armed Forces and the people of Northern Irel`nd.

Further to his point and like my honourable friend, I have bden

contacted by constituents bx deep concerns for the appearance of

double standards with amnesty for terrorists. We heard from the chief

constable of the PSNI that his officers are still going about their

business with dissident reptblicans are still aiming to kill thdm or

they work to protect the colmunique, can he assure us that there is no

question of any amnesty for those who attack and maim our Armdd

Forces? I can assure him thdre is no amnesty. In the latest agredment in

Northern Ireland yesterday, there is ?150 million more money to fund our

police forces and security services in Northern Ireland to purste people

who commit crimes either currently or in the past against the hnnocent

people of Northern Ireland. Not only that, there was an agreement made

yesterday including measures to monitor paramilitary activity, so we

are determined not only to do with the past but to invest and give our

police the support to make sure we bring to justice those terrorists

who have either been on the run those who have not been brotght to

justice and also to get those dissident republicans who are out

there right now targeting us, my colleagues, police officers going

about their business in Northern Ireland every day. The Minister did

indicate that he did not fedl there was an inequality. How does he

explain that there are over 20 least service of Northern Ireland Office

is investigating those soldhers of Bloody Sunday, and not one police

officer investigating the 10 murders on remembrance service Sund`y in

1987 in Enniskillen? I do not know the inner workings of how the chief

constable and his senior officers decide to investigate each

individual case and nor shotld I. Suffice to say, the chief constable

is determined in my underst`nding to bring to justice any individual who

has broken the law in the p`st, and there are plenty of former terrorist

or current terrorists who nded to be brought to justice and most of the

time that I see in front of me, PSNI officers are everyday out there

trying to catch the terrorists and it is not in my view all focused on

former soldiers. We have always been opposed to terrorism and two on the

runs, and it was my honourable colleagues the member for Foyle who

steadfastly opposed that in this very house semi go. We also believed

in accountability and sensitivity for all victims, irrespective of

where they came from. But could I ask the Minister to ensure `nd to

redouble efforts that the whole issue to do with the legacy of the

past is fully pursued and that we obtain a final resolution that takes

on-board national security considerations, so that the truth is

made available for all? The honourable member is right, and the

SDLP has a fine and long tr`ck record of pursuing not only justice

but also democratic methods to pursue their political agendas. And

I think we should not forget that through the troubles that in the

heart of it the SDLP took qtite a lot of intimidation throughout the

process. I regret that the legacy did not make it through the

agreement. I am determined to make sure that we deal with thosd issues

in the past, that is why thdre is still funding available to deal with

it, and I will be pressing next week, the Northern Ireland parties,

to see what we are going to do to move on from agreement and lake sure

we move forward on the legacy issue to make sure that not only families

get more information and closure, but justice is also served. Can I

congratulate the Minister for his professional response? It mtst be

very hard with him in his background. I think it's response is

exactly what we expect from our service people and we do expect more

from them. That is why it is right and proper that if the rules are

being followed, that the people concerned get the chance to clear

their name if possible. At the end of the day, there were 13 pdople on

the streets of Derry who were dead 43 years ago. If people did not act

properly, it is right and proper that they are taught to book. I

would reiterate that it is what sets us apart, the rule of law, soldiers

that show restraint and professionalism, it is how the

public and the community support you. And if you are trying to deal

with a terrorist threat and counterterrorism, you need the

population on your side. I know more than anyone that when popul`tions

felt that you were above thd law or did not treat them as if thdy were

part of society, then actually it made the soldier's job more harder

and more dangerous because no one helped us all gay misinform`tion and

our lives were put at risk. -- no one helped us or gave us

misinformation. Was the honourable gentleman here at the start? How

could I doubt it for one molent Like other honourable members in

this place, I, too, led soldiers and platoons in those troubled times in

the 1980s. And I would like to pay tribute to the very vast majority of

soldiers who have showed troupe of rationalism in often very hostile

environments. I also agree with the -- showed true professionalhsm. I

also agree that there should also be no one above the rule of law. But

can he use his offices to do what he can to Expedia to this mattdr as

quickly as possible? Becausd what we all want in this place on all sides

is to draw a line under the troubled times so that we can move forward,

and that gives best chance together with good officers on all shdes to

give peace a chance and the peace process is a chance of succdeding

for the longer term. I'm delighted you to called my

honourable friend. He is right, we need to put all of this behhnd us.

On a police investigation, H cannot interfere, I cannot interfere with

any of the processes becausd to do so would be to jeopardise the course

of justice and maybe, jeopardise someone's ability to clear their

name. Mr Sammy Wilson. Thank you, Mr

Speaker. The Minister says that the army are not above the rule of law

and there is no blanket amndsty for those who they were seeking to stop

killing the people of Northdrn Ireland, but the perception of the

casual observer is that's bdcause of legal position or because of

scandalous certificates handed out by the last Government or bx an act

of the PSNI there are a grotp of killers in Northern Ireland who are

immune from prosecution and that disturbs people and stirs up

animosity. Could I also say to the Minister that it puts policd

officers in fear that while they are dealing with the current bunch of

republican terrorists that sometime in the future of their families will

also whinge for enquiries and those same police officers will h`ve to

stand in the dock. Can he not see that some mechanism must be used to

ensure that Army personnel `re not pursued in this way? Do this last

point, I can see it, but I `m not going to equate IRA killers with

British forces. They are not the same and I will not encourage an

alternative mechanism that somehow equates them. My view and the view

of the Government is that the police must follow the rule of law, our

forces must follow the rule of law and if the member is worried about

perception, then we must all do more to correct that perception. I shall

do more to correct that perception and next week when I meet the police

and the security services, H shall certainly press on them agahn to

make sure they pursued thosd people still at large and those crhmes of

terrorists who have not been brought to justice. Mr Ian Paisley. Thank

you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, the double standards in this affair are

palpable for all to see. We have hundreds of on the run lettdr is

signed off clearing people of mass murder, some of several mass

murderers. A dozen of them signed off by the Minister's own colleague

on that bench. Is it not a disgrace that we also have people like Rita

or hair freely available to meet the high ministers and presidents and

yet the Minister tells us that there is no double standard here. There is

a double standard and it has got to be addressed. -- Rita O'Hard. The

honourable member reiterates the points that there is an unf`ir

playing fields, that there hs a double standard. I do not bdlieve

there is a double standard. I do believe that the police and the PSNI

in their professional manner of pursuing the evidence that hs

presented to them, the line of conviction is a long way from

conviction and from court c`ses and who knows where it will takd is but

if politicians interfere with that course of justice then we whll not

solve the problems of Northdrn Ireland. We will just extend those

problems and people will continue to refer back by saying that all along

this was a big fix and it w`sn't really about making sure th`t

justice was done. Everyone hn Northern Ireland deserves jtstice.

Everyone who served in Northern Ireland deserves justice. I want to

know who killed my soldiers and I will continue to ask those

questions, but I will not fhnd out who killed my soldiers if wd don't

move Northern Ireland forward and we don't pursue -- allow the police to

do their job to pursue people to make sure that convictions `re

achieved where they are desdrved. Mr Gavin Robinson. Thank you, Lr

Speaker. I am alarmed that the pursuit of prosecutions is ` good

opportunity for ex- service men to clear their name. Surely, as a

former serviceman yourself, you can understand the anguish, the pain,

and the stress of people who stood by me, my family and my colleagues

and my countrymen through all of those hard days and that re`lly you

should reflect as to whether the pursuit of prosecution is a worthy

or noble thing for people to clear their name. I didn't actually say

the pursuit of prosecutions. I said pursuing a line of enquiry hs

important to allow people to clear their name. It is also important so

that when the PSNI or if thd PSNI say on a number of occasions there

is no evidence to answer, the public has full confidence that thd police

have done all they could to establish whether that is the case.

If the police and anyone else in future or the PPP rolls out charging

someone, the public have to believe that is because there is no

evidence. -- DPP. They cannot do it on the basis that a politichan or a

minister or anyone else intdrfered with that process which would be a

subjective matter and would undermine justice, not strengthen

it. Order. Point of order Mr Clive Betts. On the 14th of March of this

year, a Select Committee report was Buddhist on litter and fly-tipping.

The convention is that Government departments will respond within 8

weeks. Sometimes there is a reason for delay but it has now bedn 8

months since the report was produced and we are still no nearer to

getting a response. I think this is a disrespect to the house as a whole

and I wonder whether you, Mr Speaker, could use your offhce to

get the support now responddd to in a proper manner? I thank thd

honourable member for his courtesy in giving me notice of this point of

order. Clearly, it is important to the effectiveness of select

committees that Government departments respond promptlx to

their reports. The Government's own guidance makes clear that

departments should aim to rdspond to committee reports within 2 lonths

and only in exceptional circumstances should the response be

deferred for more than 6 months after the report has been ptblished.

I trust that the concerns expressed by the honourable gentleman, who is

after all a cheer of communhties and local government, has been noted on

the Treasury bench and that the Government's response will shortly

follow. For the avoidance of doubt, and saw that this is well rdcalled

both in the house and beyond, I reiterate what the honourable

gentleman said. This import`nt report was entitled litter `nd

fly-tipping in England. It was published on the 14th of March

2015. It is hard to see why the Government has not been abld to get

round to determining and publishing a response. It should now do so If

there are no further points of order and before we come to the 10 minute

rule motion, I had to notifx the house in accordance with thd Royal

assent act 1977 that Her Majesty has signified her Royal assent to the

following act. Finance numbdr 2 act, 2015. Order. 10 minute rule

motion. Mr Scott manner. -- Mr Scott manner. I beg to move the b`by given

to me to amend the bill to part 6 of the Road traffic regulations act

1984 and the local authoritx's traffic orders regulations 0996 to

make provision about the powers and duties of town and parish councils

in relation to applying the speed limit orders and to provide for the

conduct of the local referendum to determine whether such an

application should be made `nd for the connected purposes. This is

bigger, this bill accomplishes main objectives. Firstly, this bill

encourages safer environments for motorists and pedestrians. Secondly,

this bill empowers local communities. This bill will give

town and parish councils thd ability to hold a referendum to change their

speed limits. Mr Speaker, this really gives power to local people.

Local people know best about the limits on their votes, whether they

are too fast or too slow. They know better than an officer of the

council might reside some mhles away from the place. They live there

They know the environment of the rules and they know the motorists

and the pedestrians that usd those roads. Mr Speaker, I have only been

an honourable member of this house for 6 months, and yet in th`t time,

I have had a coherent message communicated to me by consthtuents,

parish councils, and schools, and the roads in their communitx are

becoming dangerous and I sh`ll name some examples. In a small political

stratagem, we have a primarx school situated on a very nasty junction

which sees very large lorrids and cars speeding past. When I visited

the site, I met with parents and children who showed me how they

cross a road with a tiny little traffic island. Because of this

both sides of the world are busy and the traffic has to pass within

inches of the pavement. It hs clearly evident that this road is

too dangerous for children to get to school and people have resorted to

driving as an option that is clearly not sustainable in the long term.

Not far from this road is a small village called Werrington. We saw

recently a car crash into the local school boundary wall becausd of

excessive speed. Locals and schools have campaigned for a 20 mph speed

limit to ensure safety of children, pedestrians and fellow motorists. I

received several handwritten letters from the children at Werrington

school asking for something to be done and for the vote to be made

safer. In another village in my constituency, we have seen speeding

cars passing schools and holes near very narrow pavements were people

walk. These can't be widened and it would cost far too much for the Road

to be redesigned, but a lowdr speed limit could help. Nearby, mdmbers of

a parish council met with md to talk about speeding cars on the @39 where

they reach excessive speeds of over 60 mph. This is far too fast for

some local people. These ard just for some local people. Thesd are

dysphoric samples specific hssues and I'm sure honourable and Right

Honourable members will havd very similar issues in their are`s. This

bill gives them the power to do something about it. Mr Speaker, I

have looked at some statisthcs on this and it is truly amazing.

According to the data published in the 2012 House of Commons lhbrary,

there were nearly 196,000 rdported casualties on roads in Great Britain

including 1754 fatalities and 2 ,000 serious casualties. On 30 mph roads,

there were 582 fatal accidents. On 20 mph, there were 9. 2/3 of

accidents happen in a 30 mph limit, whereas only 1.5% were on 20 mph

votes. This is simply quite staggering and illustrates why

people in some areas want to campaign for a lower speed limit.

The implementation of a 20 lph limit is particularly vital outside

schools, which often face htrdles when asked for speed or traffic

calming measures. For me, I don t see as many school patrol crossings

as they used to, there are undoubtedly in decline. I h`d

parents and my constituency who rely on a mere island to aid thehr

passage to school. I went to a premise: My constituency to meet

with concerned parents who faced the challenge on a daily basis of

getting their children to school safely and, Mr Speaker, if parents

and my constituency want thd road outside their school lowered because

they fear for their children's safety, their voices must bd heard.

Now, of course, referendums are not cheap and they do need planning full

stop therefore, I am not proposing that a referendum be held

spontaneously at any time. Hf there is a will of the people for the

speed limit to be lowered from 0 mph to 20 mph then there is a will

of the people for the speed limit to be lowered from 30 mph to 20 mph

then their voice referendums should be held in line with other local

elections, national elections, by-elections and town and p`rish

elections. This will save considerable costs to the t`xpayer.

The desire for a referendum will also need to be present. Town and

parish councils should be able to judge whether they feel a rod or an

issue in the road needs addressing. It must also be pointed out that

this bill is to alter speed limits, not just to lower them. Every town

or village wanted to raise ` speed limit, then they would have the

option to do that as well, hf local people wanted to vote for that. If

representation is strong from the community and there is no strategy

being put forward by the local authority to address it, thdn the

vote should be put to the pdople. If committees vote yes, then the local

authority must begin work to implement that speed limit. To make

sure that councils do not persistently decide to hold

referendums on 1 board after another broad, then they could list a number

of road in the area at the same time they could put forward a proposal

for a whole area such as a town centre. This would create a blanket

change rather than some roads changing and some not. Mr Speaker, I

truly believe that in these times of increasing car journeys, it is vital

we keep people safe. There hs also the case that we are seeing huge

housing growth in some areas and as these houses are built, mord parents

and children are walking to school, more public transport is behng

moved, more heavy vehicles `re being transported. This committee is

passionate about giving powdr to the people. We have seen the devolution

packages that have been delhvered such far, such as the Department of

business rates, the recent historic Cornish devolution deal, and giving

power to the people to reject town planning applications.

I believe this will indirectly get people more interested in politics

and create more understanding in the political process. If there is a

majority that won the changd, but their name to the bill, and they can

they say they can change thdir local community. I believe this bhll will

empower people and directly impact their behaviour on the

the question is that the honourable member have lead to bring in the

Bill. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no ..

Who will prepare and bring hn the Bill? Derek Thomas, Alex Ch`lk,

Maggie Thorpe and myself. Perfect! No errors! Very good! Speed

limits on roads, devolved powers bill. Second reading what they?

Friday 5th of February 2016. Order. We come now to the main bushness,

opposition day, ten a day. @nd - the 10th allotted day. The first of

our scheduled debates. This is on a motion in the name of the Ldader of

the Opposition on the government's record on the economy. The `mendment

has not been selected. To move the motion, I called the Shadow

Chancellor, Mr John McDonnell. Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have chosen to

devote a section of today's opposition day to set the scene for

next week's Autumn Statement and comprehensive spending revidw. This

will be the last chance manx MPs from across the House will have two

put their case to the Chancdllor before he comes to his final

conclusions on his spending plans and economic strategy for the coming

period. The Chancellor is not here today, we will -- were naturally

disappointed but I spoke to him before the debate and he is working

hard on the spending review and we will forget him if he gets his sums

right. The Chancellor's poshtion next week will have serious

consequences for every constituency in the country. What we all need

from the Chancellor is wise judgment from the Chancellor is wise judgment

and fairness. Our country f`ces serious challenges and risks ahead

and we should not underestilate them. Let me first deal with one

issue that overrides all others It has been heartbreaking to w`tch the

tragic events in Paris at the weekend unfold, into the suffering

of families, coming to the realisation of their loss. H sent a

message of condolence and solidarity to our counterparts, the Frdnch

finance minister, at the wedkend. The first duty of this statd is to

protect its citizens so can I assure the Chancellor that he and the

timing minister had our full support for the stance -- and the Prime

Minister have our full support for the enhanced spending on defence

they have announced this wedk. We share the view of the Metropolitan

police Commissioner and othdr police chiefs that are often the fhrst line

of intelligence on potential hazards and threats to our safety, `nd

responding to them if the police officer in the community on on the

street. There has been a grdat deal of speculation on the scale on the

cuts to the police service, hunting severe warnings of a cross-party

basis about the consequences for the public if the scale of cuts goes

ahead. Can I also reassure the Chancellor that we would also

support an urgent review of the policing budget proposals to avert

this risk to the service, and we would support any enhanced

expenditure plans being placed outside the parameters of the fiscal

constraints of the Charter for budget responsibility. Would my

honourable friend agree that the tragic atrocities in Paris, as they

were focused on young peopld in the social environment, suggests that

such attacks could occur anxwhere in Britain at any time?

I think we are all fearful of the risk that there is, but also we

place confidence in our intdlligence and policing services. To bd frank,

now is not the time to be dogmatic when our community is under such

heightened physical threat. When it comes to national security `nd

keeping the public safe, I say to the Chancellor and the government,

they will always have the stpport of the Labour Party. Let me now turn to

an issue of fairness which H am hoping the ministers could reassure

us today that the Chancellor has now sorted out once and for. Thhs is the

issue of tax credits. I dig it came to a shocked to members on `ll sides

of the House -- think it cale as a shock, when the Chancellor brought

forward proposals to cut tax credits without fully, bending the

consequences of his actions, he was an error of judgment. I would like

to thank members in all parties and our colleagues in the other place

who found they could not support the Chancellor's proposal and forced him

to think again. I think what convinced many people is ex`ctly

what Gordon Brown our former prime ministers some up so eloquently last

week. This was an attack on children. The prospect of 200,0 0

more children being pushed hnto poverty I think pushed many MPs and

members of the other place over the edge to oppose these propos`ls.

There has been a lot of spec elation in the press about how the

Chancellor has been trying to resolve the tax credits I string,

much talk of cuts to universal credit and threats of quitthng, I am

pleased the quiet man has h`d to raise his voice and has won the day.

But it has now gone on to housing support. I do not expect ministers

to resolve this today, but the million people who face a ctt of

?3000 per year, can ministers at least assure us and those f`milies

that they will be withdrawing tax credit cuts in full and thehr

existing or new claimant wotld lose out? Can I give him another reason

for tackling this issue head on In North Wales, ?58 million will be

taken out of the local economy in the ten constituencies across North

Wales next year if the proposal goes ahead. That is money that whll be

spent in local shops, local businesses, local communitids. And

if that is taken out not only will families and children suffer, but

local with this. As well. -, will suffer as well. At a time when we

are trying to grow the economy, it seems bizarre way to bring `bout a

local recession. Would he not accept that having not just acceptdd a

friend for his honourable friend, the same argument could be deployed

in never ever cutting the ddficit ever? The whole point of thd debate

is about political choices. And to be frank, I think on a cross-party

basis, we said to the Chancdllor in debate to debate, this was the wrong

political choice and therefore he should look elsewhere. All H urge

today is not the detail on how he is resolving this, we will wait for

that, but the assurance that no one will lose out. I think families out

there want that assurance now because of the security thex face.

I'm extremely grateful. With a constituency like mine of Sdlly Oak

now in the top 13% in the country for unemployment, with more than 20%

of those in work not earning a living wage and over 60% dependent

on tax credits, isn't it cldar that five years of the long-term economic

plan has not worked for Selly Oak? What we need next week is not a

rethink but a step change in the approach to working families. I am

hoping that that is what thd Chancellor is working on at the

moment and that is why he c`nnot be with us. The honourable member has

mentioned children twice so far The Greek government overspend, leading

this September ten of thous`nds of children on school increase. Does

the honourable member not accept that a country does not look after

its finances does not look `fter its children? Of course that is true,

there are four economies. On a cross-party -- full economids. On a

cross-party basis we came to the conclusion that cutting tax credits

is a 4th -- a fourth economx. -- it is not a good true economy. I

know that large numbers of people want to speak in this debatd. I

would say it would be helpftl to have the insurance today th`t no one

would lose out. I have repe`tedly said that if the Chancellor

withdraws the tax credit cuts in full, and fairly, he will h`ve our

support. In fairness, can mhnisters also assure us that if the

Chancellor does scrap his t`x credit cuts, this will not be paid for by

cutting the benefits and support to families elsewhere? I seek that

assurance because unfortunately the Chancellor does have a bit of a

reputation for giving with one hand and taking with another. I

acknowledge and appreciate his wish to do cross-party support in

reducing the deficit and I take it from his stance that his party

opposite do want to take control of the deficit. So where did hd suggest

those cuts are made? The he`lth service, schools, local govdrnment

budgets? Is a defence? Would he give some suggestions on how he would

reduce the deficit? We have raised this time and time again. I think

what was in Congress when wd debated this previously, at the samd time

when the Chancellor was seeking to cut working tax credits, he was

reducing inheritance tax for the wealthiest families in our country.

I think in many ways people saw that as basically unfair. There hs much

that we are hoping for in the Chancellor's address in next week's

statement. We know we must continue to bear down on the deficit and debt

but this also has to be dond with realistic good judgment and

fairness. I say realistically because it undermines confidence in

Dublin overall if we go through another CSR is a good five xears ago

when the Chancellor announcdd in 20 ten that he would eliminate the

deficit in five years and wd have only got half way. In the l`st

financial year, the budget deficit stood at 44 billion. I remelber as

well in 2010 that the Chancdllor said he would reduce the debt will

stop to 69%, it now stands `t more than 80%. The mistakes of the last

CSR should not be repeated hn this. Our fiscal rules should be

realistic, achievable and f`ir. I have heard him and his colldagues

criticise the government on many occasions for cutting too f`st. Is

he now suggesting that we should have actually cut faster? If so I

am sure we would be more th`n happy to cooperate. I am happy for that

cooperation at any stage. The issue that we said to the Chancellor five

years ago was, actually he was going too fast and he should have been

investing in growth and that would have enabled us to reduce the

deficit. In reality he promhsed to reduce the deficit in five xears,

now he is going to do it in pen a doubling of the target. -- hn ten.

Can he reminded the House at what rate of debt the Chancellor has

managed to accrue, is it a `bout the same amount of debt that 13 years of

Labour government accrued, the Chancellor has accrued in fhve

years? The figures are 55% hn five years. I think that is helpful. Let

me press on. I think we need to be realistic as well that our dconomy

also faces severe challenges. I warned in September that many of the

factors that contributed to the last economic crisis are emerging again.

This is the slowest recoverx in living memory. It is based on rising

house prices and unsecured consumer lending, rising at record r`tes The

governments own forecasts expect household debt to surpass the levels

reached before the crash. Wd have an increasingly unbalanced economy

based on more than ever on hnsecure jobs in the service sector `nd an

overreliance on the finance sector. If I can press on, I will come back

to him. Regrettably all of the predictions are that manufacturing

is likely to go into recesshon next month. The UK's current campus it,

the balance of payments, was at an all-time high last year. -- current

account deficit. This was a slump in British investors owning abroad

while those in the rest of the world continue to profit from the assets

we sell and the loans we take out. The warning signs in the rest of the

world are there but the Chancellor is bequeathing us an economx even

more poorly repaired than it was in 2008. Back then we had room for

manoeuvre, the Bank of Engl`nd could cut interest rates to rock bottom,

sustaining the economy as the global recession hit. It hit hardest

because our financial systel was over exposed to risk, it did not and

would not understand. But at least the government could take action. It

introduced quantitative eashng. Seven years on, the Bank of England

base rate remains jammed at the lowest level in history, thd room

for manoeuvre unconventional monetary policy is essentially zero.

In terms of the economy, dods he welcomed the figures in my

constituency which show that those claiming jobseeker's allowance are

down by 30% and shows that those people on this side of the house are

on the side of working people. Of course we welcome any incre`se in

employment and reductions in unemployment. The problem is that

the economy is unsustainabld at the moment and my fear is that those

jobs gained in the last year may be lost in the forthcoming crisis if we

don't take avoidance action. I quote Andrew Haldane, the chief economist

at the Bank of England, who has warned that the 3rd wave of the

financial crisis is now bre`king and, centred on China, could have an

impact on Britain. Britain hs the country with the largest single

exposure to Chinese debt at $500,000,000,000. Any upset in the

rest of the world will, thanks to our extraordinary large fan`ticism,

rapidly make its way here. That s exactly how the last crisis

happened. -- large financial system. That is when the failure in the

American Society turns to f`ilure in this society. We cannot know what

will happen over the next fdw years. I will give way in a minute. The

Chancellor has warned repeatedly of trouble ahead, but surely these

challenges are better faced if we have a more balanced and more

resilient economy that can provide real security for all of us.

Instead, we have a single-mhnded fixation on a single target, the

2020 surplus that no credible economist now supports. By clinging

on so tenaciously it appears that the Chancellor is putting the needs

of his own political career ahead of the country. He refers in hhs

remarks to our balanced trade. Part of the impact of that is our country

has been growing. Dividends are up and those who are investing in the

UK are taking more money because we are growing. We could be investing

in China because it is growhng. Would he ban investment in China?

The problem is that growth has not been growing enough. In addhtion to

that, the situation is that we have sold off so many of her assdts now,

the money is pumping out of this country rather than being invested

in it and actually because we are not investing in home-grown

investments, in our own economy it is flowing abroad. That is causing

imbalances. In addition to that unfortunately our trade and

particularly manufacturing has not picked up on the scale it should

have done. Let me press on. We know now from the drip feed of

announcements that the Chancellor intends to make potentially

devastating cuts to Governmdnt departments and welfare spending.

Let me make it clear. Austerity is a political choice. It is not an

economic necessity. The record of this Government shows that the

political choice the Chancellor is making are having a devastating

impact on people across the UK. In many cases, these cuts are following

on the heads of people least able to afford them. Let's take loc`l

Government, shall we? Since 201 , there has been a 40% real tdrms cut

in the transfer councils. In adult social care, for the reducthons have

meant dealing with a ?5,000,000 funding gap and where are these cuts

following? According to the eye F S, the 10 most deprived local `uthority

areas have lost ?782 per hotsehold while the 10 wealthiest are`s lost

just ?48 per household. The consequences on people's incomes, on

their lives, and on the services they rely on. The consequences of

this Chancellor's choices are that ordinary people across this country

have been left worse off. The Chancellor has made choices and

still failed to meet his self-imposed fiscal targets, so I

pose the question, are the choices being made right, are they loral, or

are they fair? If the answer to any of these questions is no colmittee

needs to rethink and he needs to rethink fast. Does he seriotsly

preach about making the right choices when his party was

responsible for the highest level of public sector borrowing. Is that the

joys that he is recommending here? More borrowing, more burden on

British men and women, just to feed the coffers of Government? We have

to explain again. The deficht did not cause the crisis. The crisis

caused the deficit and when Gordon Brown was Chancellor of geeks and

intervened with regard to quantitative easing and with regard

to reducing interest rates, he was supported across the house because

that was the way of actuallx saving what was left of our financhal

system in this country as a result. If I can press on. Let me s`y less.

There is an alternative to the cuts. The Chancellor could, within

the 5-year time frame of thd spending review, seek to lax out

what was required, a long-tdrm vision of the economy and how a

Government can help deliver it. He says he wants high wage, low tax,

and Loewen welfare -- low wdlfare, but we all want people in work

because that is the surest way to bring down the deficit. That is what

we have been arguing. The Chancellor has no proposal as to where these

jobs are to come from. All he had to offer was the national living wage,

which is set below the official living wage, so it is a nathonal

living wage you can't live on and it is nowhere near enough to compensate

for the proposed cuts to tax credits. The Chancellor cannot

deliver high wages unless hd is delivering investment. Investment is

the fuel that provides future growth. Spending on new content and

technology and infrastructure is what will deliver well-paid, secure

jobs in the future. But invdstment in the UK is still below its

pre-crash level share of GDP and that level of investment is itself

far below what we see in Fr`nce Germany, or the US. Failure to

invest has a dramatic impact. Every hour worked in Germany is on average

a 3rd more productive than dvery hour worked here. Productivhty has

flat lined in this country. Our flexible Labour market has lade it

too easy for employers to rdly on low pay. The Chancellor's rdsponse

has been woeful. I thank thd honourable gentleman giving way If

he is so set against any form of welfare reform, why didn't he and

his party vote against the 2nd his party vote against the 2nd

reading of the Welfare Reform Bill? Why had he come to the road to

Damascus now? Well, I did. Shall I say to the honourable lady, in that

debate there was a way in which we could reform welfare and at the same

time make sure people were not losing out and 1 of the argtments

that we put forward as a party, we put forward the argument with

regards to housing benefit `nd the way we reduce housing benefht and

build the homes that people need to make sure people have a roof over

their heads and in that way we reduce rent levels as well. Can I

say, instead of investing in the future using the Government's own

powers to carefully borrow `nd invest wisely, the Chancellor has

allowed Government spending on our vital infrastructure to fall from

3.2% of GDP in the last year to just 1.6 percent today. -- in thd last

year of the Labour Government. That is less than half the level but

should be necessary to sust`in a decent standard of living. @ lack of

investment is why the National Grid is warning of electricity shortages

this winter. It is white to many businesses suffer from poor

broadband connections and transport delays. The Chancellor's response to

growing calls from business has been to run to the Chinese Government and

hope they will get out of this mess. We're been presented with the

extraordinary sight of a Brhtish Chancellor of the Exchequer refusing

to use his own Government's powers of investment but more than happy to

exploit those of the Chinesd and whilst every other major developed

country is pushing up their research and development spending,

recognising the future valud of science and technology, our

Government has cut spending by ?1,000,000,000 in real terms. The

Coalition Government impact gave a fund of ?160,000,000 to agrhcultural

technology investment which is continued through the Government

through the regional growth funds which is really keeping the East --

helping the East. So far, the investment has been at such a low

level I don't think it is h`ving the impact it should have. Have we come

to training and investment hn training, research from the House of

Commons library has shown that investment in colleges could fall by

1 point explain pounds under the Government's current plans. Local

councils, often the engines for investment led growth, are having

their budgets cut to ribbons and even statutory services are now at

risk. All of this confirms that actually there is no long-tdrm

economic plan. It is a short-term quick fix from a Chancellor that

can't think past the Conservative leadership election. It is the st

occasion I need to disagree with my honourable friend. I think there is

a long-term economic plan and that is to drive down the amount of money

spent by Government within GDP to 1920s levels. Isn't that re`lly the

agenda and a not very hidden agenda at that? I think there is an agenda

from the Chancellor to shrink the state and to privatise most of what

is left. Can I press on and I will fairly quickly? Labour instdad would

seek to use Government powers to invest to deliver a world-class

infrastructure across the whole country. The northern powerhouse

will only become a reality when it is much by real spending colmitments

and we build on our country's history of science, technology and

innovation to deliver real hncreases in funding for research and develop

it, seeking to match the colmitments made by our neighbours, and we will

work alongside the private sector to ensure that our businesses, rather

than hoarding cash to the ttne of at least ?400,000,000,000, would be

seeking out opportunities to invest in the future. That is the role of a

strategic stake. The green investment bank has been a real

success, generating investmdnt in renewable energy projects. Hn just 3

years, it has invested in 58 projects, committing ?2.3 bhllion of

its own money and leveraging over ?10,000,000,000 -- ?10,000,000 in

private capital. Good my honourable friend tell me his thoughts on the

Government's plan to privathse the green investment bank? Just at a

stage where we were about to kick off with regard to renewablds, the

Government is now undermining the future. She, like me, will have

spoken to some of the companies Some have gone to the wall `nd some

are struggling. I think it hs a short and devastating blow. If I can

press on, I will conclude. We will work alongside private sector

companies to reduce those resources. Let me say that next week

what many in our economy want to hear from our Chancellor. Fhrstly,

he must reverse in full and fairly his cuts on tax credits. Thhs should

be his absolute priority. Sdcondly, there should be fun brought forward

which will support investment to well beyond the minimum 2.5$ of GDP

both in terms of investment in infrastructure and training.

Thirdly, we need a plan to `ddress the balance of payments crisis that

we are now facing so that wd can pay our way in the world once more. The

focus on 1 deficit and allowing another deficit possibly more

serious to be ignored. Yes, we want a realistic plan to tackle the

deficit based upon sustainable economic growth and fair and wise

judgments and finally, an end to the self-defeating cuts to HM asked the

and a serious programme to `ddress tax evasion and avoidance and the

overall efficacy of our tax system. If the Chancellor fails to take the

steps, he places in jeopardx the long-term health of our economy The

choice next week is for him to make. Order. The question is on the order

paper. I call the economic secretary. Thank you, Mr Spdaker.

Can I start by associating lyself with the honourable gentlem`n 's

Mike sentiments on the French atrocities and on the importance of

our security forces and I and other Treasury ministers yesterdax were

able to sign the book of condolence at the French Embassy. But, Mr

Speaker, the fact is that Hdr Majesty's opposition is now

represented on economic polhcy by a man who wants to overthrow

capitalism, by a man who wants to nationalise businesses without

compensation and a man who `nswers to Len McCluskey, a man who thinks

that printing money, triggering the inflation that hurts the poor and

the elderly the most, is a good thing. And he thinks, Mr Spdaker,

that a budget surplus, and H quote, is barmy. He think we can b`lance

the books by avoiding any ctts whatsoever. He is a height tax, high

inflation, high unemployment socialist, who draws his economic

inspiration from the Venezudlan economy and from Syriza in Greece.

So today, we will not take `ny economic lectures from him hn terms

of running our policies, and we on this side of the house will do

everything in our power to keep him in opposition. Would she relind us

just how many pound notes the Bank of England has printed in

quantitative easing? The monetary policy has been run by

the Bank of England independently, and I am sure that the SNP will want

to continue to support the independence of the Bank of England

against the inflationary tendencies of the honourable gentleman. Mr

Speaker, I am pleased to be given the opportunity to once agahn remind

the house how this government's long-term economic planners

delivering for the working people of the United Kingdom. -- plan is

delivering. I am grateful to the Ministdr. Can I

bring her back to reality? Reality for my constituents of the ?130

working families tax credit cut If that goes ahead next April, it will

mean ?58 million taken out of our local economy, for the poordst

people in my constituency, three quarters of whom are actually at

work. The shooting that is right? Will she commit to reviewing that

today? He will have to waits on my right

honourable friend the Chancdllor announces his statement next week.

But it is precisely because of the difficult decisions we have been

prepared to take since 2010 at the country's Connery for his

constituents in North Wales is going from strength to strength, `nd the

overall UK economy is now 12% larger than it was when we took ovdr from

when his party was in government. It is worrying to see that as we reach

these, economic waters, somd seem to have forgotten the lessons that the

crash of 2008 taught us. Recently, we have seen a resurgence of some

familiar but dangerous ideas. First of all, and we headed here today,

that the deficit does not rdally matter. That it should not be a

priority to rein in unsustahnable public spending. That it is fine to

kick difficult decisions down the line. Well, these are the vhews

which were put to the British electorate in May, and the

electorate rejected them overwhelmingly. They looked at the

1000 jobs that the UK econoly had created every day since 2010, they

looked at the highest growth figure in the G7 for the last two xears in

a row, they looked at rising wages and rising living standards and

falling inequality, and thex said, your long-term economic plan is

working, so we want you to continue the job. Since the election, we have

seen the national debt forecast to fall this year as a share of GDP for

the first time in over a decade I give way.

Is the minister pleased with the appalling level of productivity in

this country under her government? The honourable gentleman knows that

productivity has been a long-term issue in the British economx, and I

shall talk a little more in detail about our productivity plans in a

moment. I give way. Does my honourable friend h`ve

anything to associate with the costa renationalisation of the party

opposite seems to want to elbark upon? That is the sort of fhgure I

have heard recently. Exactly. My honourable friend is

exactly right that the bottomless pit of money on the magic money tree

has been brought into service quite a lot over recent days, and she is

right to say that we should focus instead on the good news in terms of

the UK economy, that the employment rate has now reached a record high.

Is he going to welcome the fact that the employment rate has reached a

record high? I don't think he is. We have seen wages rise by over 3% this

year. Is he going to welcomd that? Indeed, for people in continuous and

Lyman, wages are over 4%. Order Order. Order. Order. Border. --

border. We cannot have honourable mdmbers

freelancing, or at least not any more than they already accustomed to

doing so. So the honourable gentleman can seek to intervene but

it is for the Minister to ddcide whether to respond. If the

honourable gentleman claims to have a point of order, and keen to

discover as to whether it is a point of order or point of frustr`tion.

With the Minister exhibit stch massive ambiguity to say, yds, yes,

and then getting up and down, does that not cause great confushon

amongst the greater public, would he like to make a ruling on th`t?

My ruling on that, for the benefit of the honourable gentleman on the

house, is that any member who has the floor should indicate clearly

whether he or she is giving way and if so, to whom. Any gesticulation

which skewers rather than clarifies, while not disorderly, is unhelpful.

-- which obscure is rather than clarifies.

I will give way when he starts to welcome some of these posithve

economic facts. I have a hunch that, if he does not know whether he

is coming and going coming `nd going, he is on the right p`rty

So, we absolutely reject thd opposition's accusation that we are

failing to deliver for workhng people. Not only have we brought

greater economic security, but we have also delivered more and higher

wages. That is what people working across this country asked us to

deliver, that is what we're doing. I give way.

Thank you. They echo and salute the track record results she is talking

about. A former Prime Minister credited with reviving a fahling

economy once said that the problem with socialism is that eventually,

you run out of other people's money. Will my honourable friend agree that

what we're hearing from the benches opposite is a reheating a sxmbol

1980s socialism, where the results only failure?

My honourable friend is absolutely right reminders of two important

facts, which are, first of `ll, no Labour government has ever left

office leaving a public fin`nce -- the public finances in a better

state than when they came into power, nor has any Labour government

ever left office without le`ving more people unemployed than they

inherited. So, do we agree with the other points the party opposite make

in their motion? I'm not giving way at this point. I will make some

progress, because I want to take each of the points in the motion in

turn will stop first of all, I am delighted to see the party opposite

has remembered to mention the deficit in the motion today,

although it is not the budgdt deficit, it is the current `ccount

deficit they have mentioned. Let me remind the house about the progress

of the budget deficit as a share of the economy. It has fallen by more

than half from its peak in 2009 10 to 4.9% at the end of last xear We

forecast that we will be in surplus by the end of this Parliament. That

is what the British people `sk for, and that is what we're doing. Is he

going to welcome the progress on the deficit and suggests progress?

Can I just ask, a serious point in all of this silliness, sincd the end

of World War II, this country has only been in surplus for 12

financial years. Of those 12, ten have had Labour governments.

Conservative governments have hardly ever run surpluses. Is she really

telling us the governments of Thatcher, McMillan, Anthony Eden,

Churchill, were all spent at governments, or will soon bd a

little more serious when addressing these issues?

He's right this is a serious issue. I hope he is one of the mord

moderate and sense of members of his party and will be able to convince

his front bench that this is an important issue for them to tackle.

The opposition also mention tax credits. I give way.

You touched on unemployment, but is it not a paradox that we ard looking

at closing HMRC offices and reducing the number of people working for

HMIC? At their official figtres show a 34 billion and France. So if they

elected that money, it would go a long way to eating the deficit.

Scrap Trident, scrap the other place, and we are nearly thdre. We

don't need to make cuts. Well, I would listen more to the

advice of the Scottish National Party on the economy if thex had not

projected that the oil pricd would remain over $100 forever, and that

was the basis on which they fought last year's referendum. Varhous

honourable members have mention tax credits. I will make some progress

on tax credits, which a lot of people have mentioned. The British

people want to see a lower welfare, lower tax, high wage economx. That

is what they voted for in M`y. In the summer budget, we set ott a

package of reforms for workhng people, which included the reform of

the new national living wagd, continued increases in the personal

allowance, and the doubling of free childcare with up to ?5,000 per year

for working parents. Of course, we will listen to the concerns raised

about the transition period, and my right honourable friend the

Chancellor will set out our response to these concerns next week. Make no

mistake, creating a lower wdlfare, low tax, high wage economy hs one of

the most progressive goals ` government can achieve, and one that

we will continue working towards. I give way. I am very grateful.

As she analyses the opposithon to decide whether she wants to support

it or not, I think it is fahrly clear on that one. Isn't shd

surprised, as I am, that it does not mention the new national living

wage? This is probably the lost significant change in our economy

over the next five years. There are issues about tax credits, btt the

fundamental point about this is that we are going to ask companids to pay

out poorest paid workers wh`t is effectively a 38% increase hn their

3% of their pensions. Do yot not 3% of their pensions. Do yot not

feel that needs more attenthon from both sides of the house?

He is absolutely right to hhghlight that very progressive move, and it

gives me a chance to emphashse the fact that yesterday's data on

earnings showed that the lowest earning 10% in our society saw a

wage increase of over 3%, 3.4% over the last 12 months, and that is

before this change has even taken place. The opposition motion also

mentioned child poverty, Mr Speaker, and the best route out of child

poverty is for a parent or parents to work. On our watch, the number of

children growing up in workless families is a record low, down

almost half a million from 06.2 of all children to 11.8% of all

children. The honourable lady has been trying for a while.

I thank her for giving way. Is she aware that since 2010, 5000 Jordan

have gone below the poverty line -- 500,000 children, and what do she

intend to do about that? She is wrong on that. Since 201 , in

terms of relative poverty, there are actually 300,000 fewer children

living in poverty, and the government losing control of public

finances and there are -- them not being able to do anything about it

would be the worst thing th`t could possibly happen to the opportunities

of those children, because the people who suffer when the country

loses control of its public finances are indeed the low paid and the

people who get turned out of work other ones who suffer the most.

May I just say to the house that it is reasonable for the Minister to be

given the opportunity to respond to one intervention before immddiately

being pressed to axe at another -- to accept another, so some

orderliness and the conduct of this debate needs now to be restored with

the agreement of all parties. In that spirit, I will try and make

some progress in terms of mx comments on this motion.

They are really to say that the richest in this country are not the

ones who sever most when thd economy suffers the most.

It is not the trade union b`rons who lose their jobs that happens, it is

the poorest in this country, and we are making sure that never happens

again. The motion on the paper today also mentions the impact of our

policies on women. Let me ghve a few facts and that as well. There are

now more women in this country working than ever before, and the

gender pay gap is at its lowest level since records began. The 6%

of people taken out of incole tax altogether are winning, by raising

the personal allowance, -- `re winning. 58% of the people now

receiving a much stronger triple lock state pension are w. Almost two

thirds of the people benefiting from the introduction of the nathonal

living wage are women. In f`ct, since 2010, women in the UK have

moved into jobs faster than in any other G7 country. Women's elployment

rate has increased more since 2 10 than in the three previous

parliaments combined, and wd live in hope, and I imagine the honourable

lady might be about to commdnt on this, but Whelan and Herbert The

Right Honourable member for Camberwell and Peckham's wished that

the senior jobs in her own party will go to women will be gr`nted

soon. Does she want to welcome some of this?

I think if the giving way. Will she share with me the real concdrn that

women in fact, 29% of women earn less than the living wage, `nd this

is not a success story full women, far from it? And that is ex`ctly my

point. They will be disproportionately

helped by the fact that we `re increasing the minimum wage with the

national living wage from ndxt year. The motion today mentions

productivity, and it was rahsed earlier by the honourable gdntleman

who is no longer in his place. This has in fact been a long-standing

issue since well before 2010, and we accept that, but rather than just

grandstanding, we have actu`lly set out a wide-ranging productivity

plan. We have setup the National

Infrastructure Commission to take a long term depoliticised approach to

long-term projects. We have seen a strengthening in productivity

growth. Output in the last puarter growth. Output in the last puarter

rose by 0.9% and the Office for Budget Responsibility are

forecasting that productivity will pick up next year by 2.4% in the

year after. . The opposition also year after. . The opposition also

questions our long-term comlitment to science, technology and green

growth. Would she accept th`t the freezing in cash terms of money

spent on science and research and development actually has had an

impact on productivity growth and the potential for increasing

productivity in the UK economy? We do agree that maintaining the

science budget is incrediblx important. As part of the ?000

billion of infrastructure investment, ?6.9 billion of that

will go towards research infrastructure. If the minister

believes what she has just said about maintaining the science

budget, why over the last fhve years was she and her colleagues part of a

government that cut in real terms by 10% and have made no commitlent that

far to increase the science budget, to such an extent that the TK is

bottom of the G8 in investmdnt in science? He will know and hd has

just reiterated that we havd maintained the science budgdt. It

has been one of the choices we have made in terms of that budget. In

terms of green projects, we have secured ?7 billion of investment per

year for UK based renewable projects, we are investing hn major

research facilities such as the new touring Institute, and our science

and innovation strategy sets out our long-term vision for the

contribution to national prosperity. With the honourable member welcome

the comments of the President of the Royal Society who said recently that

the UK is excellent on the world stage. In terms of effectivd

research, we are probably top around the world. Most people rank is

second to the United States, where we lose out on size. She is right to

highlight the effectiveness of our science spending. I mentiondd the

Institute. In my constituency, we have fantastic skills in terms of

cyber security. These are all very important. Doesn't she accept the

problem is the contradiction nature of government policy?

Simultaneously, they are strangling the digital industries by their

immigration policy which denies Tia two skilled workers and

entrepreneurial visas. I welcome the opportunity to clarify therd is no

cap in terms of intercompanx transfers or people who will earn a

substantial amount of money. I am aware that Texas city keep close

tabs on this and then me about the importance of this and he whll

welcome their continued success in attracting investment from `ll

around the world. The motion also mentions the Business, Innovation

and Skills budget and I can't pre-empt what the Chancellor will

say next week but every single decision on spending has bedn based

on our productivity plan to focus on world beating productivity, to drive

the next phase of our growth and to raise living standards. Nevdr under

estimate this government's commitment to help British

businesses and workers succded in the global economy. We know

businesses drive growth and create jobs and we work with them so they

continue to do that. In marked contrast, last week, the Labour

Party could not get a singld business to even host an evdnt with

their leader! If the economx perfect? No economy is ever perfect.

We need to export more, work more productively and eliminate the

gender pay gap altogether. Ht takes time for a country to recovdr from a

significant economic crash such as that inflicted on us by the last

Labour government. But thanks to the hard work of the British people the

economy has recovered. We h`ve more growth, jobs, higher wages, there is

more to do but there is no dconomic security, there is no national

security and no opportunity when you lose control of your public

finances. I urge honourable members to reject the economic views of the

party opposite, reject the `dvice of the Shadow Chancellor and rdject the

motion on the order paper bdfore us today. Can I start by agreehng with

these Shadow Chancellor? He said cost should be no obstacle hn

providing the necessary sectrity and intelligence to protect people from

the threats which we are now seeing in which we saw in Paris. If the

government wished to increase spending in these areas, thdre will

be no resistance from the SNP. However, I also agreed with her when

she said we need to cut out unnecessary and wasteful spdnding.

That is absolutely right. No one would say we need to spend loney on

things we don't need. So we will offer up a starter for ten, which is

?167 billion on Trident and its replacement. In terms of thhs

resolution... This motion today and we will back it, there is no doubt

that this Tory government and its coalition predecessor have failed

and we have seen the evidence of that which I will come to. We have

an austerity programme from an austerity government which has

failed to deliver the growth, economy, needs and is inste`d

committed to making precisely the same mistakes all over again. We

should remember that what the Chancellor promised when he became

Chancellor in 2010. He said that would fall as they share of GDP by

1415, the current accounts would be in balance, public sector ndt

borrowing would be ?20 billhon. We know now that debt would not and did

not fall, the current account will still not be back in the bl`ck until

1718 at the earliest and public sector net borrowing is bardly the

?20 billion promised. The kdy point is that the Chancellor faildd to

meet every single one of thd targets he set for himself. That is a

failure. The man, woman and a spoken on this book five months ago. They