23/03/2016 House of Commons

Statement, the Secretary of State I would like to make a statement about

the terrorist attacks in Brussels, and the threat we face in the United

Kingdom. The cold-blooded attacks from yesterday morning have shocked

and sickened people from around the world. 14 people were murdered and

106 wounded when two bombs exploded at Brussels airport. A further

attack at Maelbeek Metro Station one hour later killed 20 and wounded

more than 100 others. As the Prime Minister has just said, four British

nationals are among the injured, and we are concerned about one missing

British national. Their families have been informed and they are

receiving regular consular assistance. We are working urgently

to confirm if any other British nationals have been caught up in

these attacks. The investigation into these attacks is still ongoing.

These figures may change and it will take some time for a fuller picture

to emerge. But we know that Daesh has claimed responsibility. Mr

Speaker, these were ordinary people going about their daily lives -

family is going on holiday, tourists visiting the city, workers making

their way to their offices. They have been attacked in the most

brutal and cowardly way. I am sure the whole house will want to join me

in sending our thoughts and prayers to the victims, their families and

those who have been affected by these events. In Belgium, the

authorities have increased the country's terrorist threat level to

four, the highest level, meaning that the threat is serious and

imminent. Yesterday I spoke to my Belgian counterpart to offer my

condolences and to make clear that the UK stands ready to provide any

support that is needed. Belgium is a friend and an ally, and we work

closely together on security matters. Following the attacks in

Paris last November, we deployed police and intelligence service

resources to Belgium to support the insulin investigation, which last

week resulted in the arrest of Salah Abdeslam. This is the 14th attack in

Europe since the start of 2015. In January last year, gunmen killed 17

people at the office of Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket in

Paris. In February, two people were shot dead at a synagogue and cafe in

Copenhagen. In August, an attack was prevented on a train en route to

Paris. In November, 130 people were killed and many more injured in a

series of concerted attacks in Paris. There have been further

attacks in other parts of the world, including in Bangladesh, Saudi

Arabia, Lebanon, Kuwait, Egypt and in Tunisia, where 30 British

holiday-makers were murdered. More recently a suicide bomber killed at

least five people and injured more than 30 in an attack in the heart of

Istanbul. And there continues to be a threat from Northern Ireland

related terrorism. The murder of prison officer Adrian Ismay, who

died on the 15th of March, is a stark reminder of the many forms of

terrorism we face. In the UK, the threat from international terrorism,

which is determined by the independent joint terrorism analysis

centre, remains at severe, meaning that an attack is highly likely. In

the last 18 months, the police and security services have disrupted

seven terrorist plots to disrupt the UK. All were either linked to or

inspired by Daesh and its propaganda. We also know that Daesh

has a dedicated external operations structure in Syria, which is

planning mass casualty attacks around the world. Mr Speaker,

following yesterday for the attacks in Belgium, the Government took

precautionary steps to maintain the security of people in this country.

This morning, the Prime Minister chaired a second meeting of Cobra,

where we reviewed those measures and the support we are offering to our

partners in Europe. Border force has intensified checks at border

controls in Belgium and France, increased the number of officers

present at ports and introduced enhanced searching of inbound

vehicles. Further measures include security checks on some flights and

specialist search dogs at certain ports. The police also took the

decision to increase their presence at specific locations, including

transport hubs, to protect the public and provide reassurance. In

London, the Metropolitan Police have deployed additional officers on the

transport network. I can however tell the House that neither

deployment is in response to specific intelligence. As I have

informed the House on previous occasions, since 2010, the

government has undertaken significant work to bolster our

response to the threat we face from terrorism. Last year, the

Counter-Terrorism and Security Act provided new powers to deal

specifically with the problem of foreign fighters and prevent

radicalisation. We extended our ability to refuse airlines the

authority to carry people to the UK who pose a risk, and we introduced a

new power to temporarily seize the passports of those travelling to

engage in terrorism. This power has now been used on more than 20

occasions, and in some cases has led to longer term disruptive action,

such as the use of the royal prerogative to permanently cancel a

British passport. Investigatory Powers Bill will

ensure police have the powers they need to keep people safe in a

digital age. We are working to safeguard people at risk and

challenged the twisted narratives that support terrorism. This

includes working with community groups to provide support to deliver

counter narrative campaigns. Are channel programme works with

vulnerable people and provides an with support to read them away from

radicalisation. As part of the strategic defence and Security

review in November last year, this year we will update our

counterterrorism strategy contest. In addition we have protected the

counterterrorism policing budget and over the next five years will invest

an extra 2.5 billion in a bigger and more capable global security and

intelligence network including deploying over 1900 additional staff

at MI5, MI6 and GCHQ and strengthening the network of

computers experts in different places in the world. There is

measures announced to a significant strengthening of our domestic

response but as the thread continues to adapt and to morph we must build

on joint work with international partners. Is this House is aware the

UK enjoys the longest lasting security relationship in the world

to our allies United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

That relationship allows us to share information, best practice and vital

intelligence to disrupt terrorist activity, event the movement of

foreign fighters and stop messages of hate spreading. Following the

attacks in Paris last November by security and intelligence agencies

have strengthened corporation with their counterparts across Europe

including through the counterterrorism group which brings

together the heads of all domestic intelligence agencies of EU member

states, Norway and Switzerland. Through this for the UK has been

working to improve cooperation and coordination in response to the

terrorist threat and to exchange operational intelligence. We are

also working bilaterally to increase aviation security in third

countries. As I told the five country ministerial in debris,

defeating terrorism requires a global response and we will not

succeed by acting in isolation. The UK has intelligence and security

services that are the envy of the world. And some of the most enduring

international security relationships. Together with our

allies around the world we must act with greater urgency and try to

resolve than we have before. We must continue as we already do to share

intelligence with our partners, be proactive in offering our expertise

to help others and encourage them to do likewise. We must organise our

own efforts more effectively to support vulnerable state and improve

their ability to respond to the threat from terrorism. And we must

do more to counter the poisonous and repugnant narrative peddled by Daesh

and expose it for what it is, a perversion of Islam built on fear

and lies. This is the third statement to the House that I have

given following a terrorist attack in just over a year. Each horrendous

attack brings pain and suffering to the victims and their loved ones.

Each time the terrorist attack, aiming to divide us but each time,

they fail. Today all around the world, people of all faiths and

nationalities are standing in solidarity with Belgium, just as

they stood together after the other appalling attacks. In the UK people

of all backgrounds and communities, Muslim, Sikh Jewish, Hindu,

Christian and people of no faith, are united in our to defeat

terrorism. The terrorists sought to strike at the heart of Europe. They

seek to attack our values and they want to destroy our way of life, but

they will not succeed. These attacks occurred away from the shores of the

UK. But we should not forget that our own threat level remains at

severe which means an attack is highly likely. We will remain

vigilant this. The police and security services will continue in

their dedication to keep up people safe and the public should remain

alert. Together we will defeat the terrorists. This is the challenge of

our generation. And is the challenge that we will win. I commend this

statement to the House. Andy Burnham.

On this side of the House we support everything the Home Secretary has

said today. And assure her of our continued full support in

confronting this threat. Today our thoughts are with the families of

those killed or injured, of the British person missing, and with the

people of Brussels. We think of all the people who have suffered in all

of the attacks that the Home Secretary mentioned including last

week in Istanbul and Ankara. This was more a ban an attack on Belgium.

It was an attack on the heart of Europe and on all of Europe. A

statement of intent from the terrorists which must now be met

with a raised and renewed determination to defeat them. Let me

start with immediate advice to UK citizens, we welcome the support

being provided to those caught up in the chaos that as we approached

Easter, many families may have travel plans that include travelling

to or through Belgium. Will the government consider issuing more

detailed travel guidance to them so people can make informed decisions

based on the best available information. We turn to

international collaboration, can she say more the nature of the immediate

support that has been provided to Belgium for the people will have

seen reports suggesting the suspects were links to the attacks in Paris

and known to Belgian police. This raises the question of whether the

Belgian authorities have sufficient capability to deal with the extent

of this problem. Is there more that can be done to support them on a

longer term basis, more broadly, can I say that given the global nature

of this thread, the Home Secretary was entirely right to talk about

deepening our collaboration with all European partners. Border security,

we are learning more about the extent of terror networks in

Belgium. As we do, this raises questions about travel between the

UK and Belgium. Britain has extensive air, sea and rail borders

with Belgium. We welcome the immediate steps taken yesterday to

strengthen the presence at our borders but is now a case for a

longer term review? Border Force operates juxtapose controls and six

locations in France however, in respect of Belgium, juxtapose

controls only apply in respect of Eurostar and not at the ferry

terminal. Will the Home Secretary immediately initiate a review of our

borders with Belgium with a view to strengthening them. She knows of the

concerns I have raised for about UK terror suspects on police bail who

have fled the country through seaports. We are proposing an

amendment to the policing and crime bill to close the loophole. Will she

give her commitment today to work with us on that. More broadly on

borders, I have concerns about further cuts that are coming

following the spending review. The Border Force has faced years of cuts

and stretched to limit. The new financial year starts in one week

but I noticed the Home Office has yet to publish a budget for the

Border Force. Will the Home Secretary, that today so there can

be a debate about whether that budget is enough. Surely now is the

time to strengthen the borders and not to cut them. UK preparedness, we

know that seven terror plots have been foiled in the past 12 months

and we thank all those in the police and security services who are

working to keep us safe. We must keep our own arrangements under

review, the public want reassurance about our ability to cope with Paris

or Brussels bar multiple simultaneous incident designed to

cause maximum fear and confusion. We know plans are on hand to improve

firearms capability in London and we welcome those but there is a concern

about the ability of cities outside London to cope. A Home Office report

on firearms capability published in July 2015 found the number of armed

officers had fallen by 15% since 2008 including a fall in Greater

Manchester and in Merseyside. There was a report in the Observer last

year that Scotland Yard had briefed the Home Secretary about their fears

of the lack of capacity in regional forces to respond to terror attacks.

Is this true and can she say more about this. As she reviewed the

ability of major cities to respond and can she provide assurance that

if there were to be a Paris or Brussels bar attack outside London,

that police and Fire Services have the necessary capability to respond.

In conclusion, while we think of the Belgium people today we remember

also that many victims of the world are indeed Muslims suggesting that

this terror is not about Islam. We also know at moments like this trait

anxiety will be felt in the British Muslim community with fears of

reprisal attacks, rising Islamophobia and hate crime. You

should recognise those concerns and will she today sent a message to

anyone who seeks to promote division or hate on the back of these attacks

that they will be dealt with severely. Will she condemn the ill

informed comments on UK television today by Donald Trump and take this

opportunity to distance the UK Government from them. They play into

the hands of the terrorists. They want to drive a wedge between the

Muslim community and the rest of society. Who are united in revulsion

at what happened yesterday. Daesh called the innocent people who died

and injured crusaders, they're nothing of the sort. They were

ordinary innocent people of all faiths and none living side-by-side

in one of Europe's great cities. This is the moment not for division

but maximum unity amongst peoples of all faiths and none. A moment to

reject those who preach Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and all

forms of extremism. Let this unanimous message go from this House

today that we stand together across it as a united country, that we

stand with our neighbour Belgium in their hour of need and that whatever

it takes and however long it takes, we will face and defeat this threat

to our way of life together. Thank you Mr Speaker and I thank the

right honourable gentleman for his comments and the way in which he has

adopted that tone. Everyone in this House condemns the terrorist attacks

and anybody who seeks to try to divide our communities we will stand

against. He mentioned a number of issues. On the issue of travel

guidance, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have updated

their website, they will continue to do so, they will monitor the

situation and update the travel advice on the website as becomes

necessary. I would say to these, on those travelling this weekend, we

have extra checks in particularly for example the Channel ports, so

maybe people may experience delays that they otherwise would not have

done and people should perhaps look at making sure they have ample time

when they are travelling this weekend. In relation to the

immediate support to Belgium, we had as I said earlier following the

Paris attack last November, already given support both in policing and

in Taligent services, to the Belgian government. -- intelligence

services. We are building on that and have made specific offers, but

the Prime Minister and myself. Areas where we believe we have an

expertise which could be of benefit to the Belgians and we look forward

to working with them in relation to that. On the issue of the borders

with Belgium at the Immigration Minister has already been having

some discussions prior to the attack taking place with a lot of ministers

about how Border Force operates at certain ports and how we can enhance

and increase our ability to act in those areas. Border Force is a more

flexible organisation now, it is able to draw on resource more easily

from around the country when it needs to surge capacity in certain

ports and that is exactly what it has been doing. On the firearms

capability, the uplift that we announced would take place in

firearms capability is not just about London. It is about looking

across England and Wales and the firearms capability that police

forces have. And the programme that has been put in place by the police

actually covers not just London but other areas, other cities and also

looks crucially at where it is felt there is most need to ensure that we

uplift firearms. When looking at uplifting the armed response

vehicles but also the specialist trained counterterrorism specialist

firearms officers as well. In relation to working with the other

emergency services, one of the measures we brought in, we started

this work a couple of years ago, it has been brought to fruition but

continues, that is the joint emergency services programme which

enables, brings the ambulance, fire and police together to enable them

to work better in terms of communication and more coordinated

maze of working. -- ways of working. He was right to raise the issue of

those in the Muslim community in the UK. The transport and Home Office

Minister has been speaking to a number of imams and other faith

leaders today about these issues. There are many people in the Muslim

community here in the UK who once again are standing up and condemning

the atrocities that have taken place in Brussels. He refers to the

comments I understand Donald Trump has made today. I understand he said

Muslims were not coming forward in the UK to report matters of concern.

This is absolutely not the case. He is just playing wrong. -- plain

wrong. That has been confirmed by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner

from the Metropolitan Police this morning.

There are people in Muslim communities around the United

Kingdom who are as concerned as everybody else's in the UK both

about the attacks but also about the perversion of Islam which underlines

the ideology which has led to violence. And we work with and we

will continue to work with them to ensure that everything that we do is

about uniting our communities, not about dividing them.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I share entirely the Home Secretary's

sentiments in commenting on this appalling attacks. In explaining the

level of security co-operation that we can achieve with Belgium and

indeed with other European countries, my right honourable

friend rightly drew attention to the co-operation which can be achieved

with the European Union mechanisms. Does she agree with me that it was

somewhat strange, the recent suggestions that those mechanisms

some way endanger our security wallet does she agree with me that

in fact they greatly enhance them and provide means by which that

co-operation can be improved coverage I thank my right honourable

friend for his comments and I do agree with him. I think there are a

number of mechanisms which we are a part of it in the European Union

which to enhance our security. As I said, we need to be operating in

defeating these terrorists on a global basis. And the co-operation

that we have with other countries is important as well. But there are

mechanisms that we can use within the European Union which are

benefiting our security. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the tone of

the Home Secretary's statement and I thank her for advance notice of it.

I wish to associate myself and the Scottish National Party with the

comments of the Home Secretary and others condemning outright these

appalling, devastating attacks in Brussels. Our thoughts are with

everyone affected in Brussels and across the globe. Like many other

honourable members of this House, I have spent time in the beautiful

city of Brussels over the years, and I have friends and colleagues there,

and my heart goes out to its many diverse citizens. We must not also

forget those affected by the outrages in Turkey. I add the

condolences of members on these benches to those of the rest of the

House, to all those across Europe who have lost loved ones in these

terrible atrocities. Our thoughts and prayers are with all of those

affected, most particularly with the family of the missing British

national in Brussels. We sincerely hope that his father and her sister

will find success in their efforts to locate him. I also wish to

associate myself with the comments of the Shadow Home Secretary and

others about the gratitude we feel across this House to all of those

who strive to keep us safe in the United Kingdom, whether it be the

police or the intelligence services. I would wish to reach eight the

comments of Scotland's First Minister that these terrorists must

not succeed and that we must unite as a community in order to negate

such threats across the United Kingdom and Europe. The Scottish

National Party is committed to protecting the people of Scotland

and keeping our community safe. Whilst we are aware of the

challenges we face from increasingly sophisticated, laws and terrorists,

the government in Scotland is committed to working with the UK

Government to fight against these threats against the freedoms we

value so dearly. I know that whilst the UK threat level has not been

changed, and we are reassured that there is no specific threat in

Scotland, the Scottish Government has taken swift action to place

police patrols at airports and rail stations to increase reassurance.

The frightening statement from Daesh promising further attacks, saying,

what is coming is worse and more bitter, is where I turn to the Home

Secretary for reassurance. People right across the UK will be sitting

at home worried for their families and their communities. What

reassurances can the Home Secretary give the House today about how safe

we are in the United Kingdom? What action is her department taking to

ensure that we are protected from and capable of dealing with any

future attempt at attack? I note that during her statement, the Home

Secretary referred to the fact that all seven plots which have been

disrupted in the UK were either linked to or inspired by Daesh

propaganda. Does she accept the importance of undermining Daesh's

propaganda capabilities, especially online, and what is she doing to

address that? Finally, as I have said many times before in this

House, what is of the utmost importance when faced with such

serious kernel and terrorist attacks is to ensure that our response is

proportionate, targeted and effective. The terrorists aim to

instil fear and to divide us and destroy our freedoms and civil

liberties, and we must not give into that narrative. We must ensure that

additional measures are taken keep our communities safe and united. I

am very reassured about what the Home Secretary has said about

remaining united with our Muslim brothers and sisters in Britain. I

would associate myself with what the Shadow Health Secretary said and

invite her to condemn Donald Trump's comments in the British media today.

Will the Home Secretary finally assure me that she will keep our,

the importance of having a united community across the UK at the core

of her efforts in fighting terrorism? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The honourable lady has referred specifically to the issue of threat

and safety and security here across the whole of the United Kingdom. As

I said and as she will know, the threat level from international

terrorism is not set by ministers, it is set independently by the joint

terrorism analysis centre. And they have maintained that at severe.

Which means that an attack is highly likely. Against that background, as

I also said in my statement, the police have increased their presence

at certainty locations, notably at certain transport hubs. And we have

increased the action which is taken by border force at various ports.

And that is right. Obviously, we will keep those levels of activity

under observation. We will monitor that according to the nature of the

threat that we see. But it is for us all to be vigilant. I think the

public should be alert, not alarmed. We do everything that we can to keep

the public safe and secure. But of course, underlying this is the need

for us to ensure that particularly our security and intelligence

agencies are able to access the intelligence which enables plots to

be disrupted. That doesn't mean them having the powers that we believe

are right for them to have in order to be able to do that well. She

talked about the counter narrative. It is absolutely right that as part

of the work that we do, we should be dealing with the poisonous ideology

which is leading people to violence. That work is being done. We do work

through the counter-terrorism internet referral unit, to ensure

that pieces are taken down from the internet. The speed at which that is

happening is now something like 1000 piece is getting taken down each

week. It has increased significantly in the last year or so. We have been

leading for the establishment of such a unit at Europol, which is now

enabling that capability to be available not just in the United

Kingdom but across the European Union.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. One of the most effective weapons that the

police and security services have infighting Daesh terrorism is a

constant flow of information and intelligence from within the various

Muslim communities in this country. Will the Home Secretary be able to

assure the House that she and the government will continue to make

every effort to ensure that in all those communities, there remains the

instinctive habit of co-operation with the police and security

services, so that this vital flow of information is maintained? My right

honourable friend is right to refer to this as a vital flow of

information. And from time to time we do look to make sure that the

opportunities are available to people to come forward in a variety

of ways with information that they feel is important. So, for example,

the Metropolitan Police have on occasions undertaken campaigns of

encouraging people to come forward with information. We did this

particularly in relation to people who might be travelling to Syria. We

continue to look to make sure that every opportunity is available for

people in Muslim communities and others who feel that there are

concerns which they need to express to the government through various

forms, that they are able to do so. As he says, that intelligence is

absolutely vital. Can I commend the Home Secretary's

statement and the unity of all parties in support of what she has

said? She was right to protect the counter-terrorism budget last

November. At least two of the Paris attackers had gone to Syria to fight

and then had return to Europe. 800 British citizens have now gone

abroad. 400 have return to. I accept her assurances about the borders

between our countries and other EU countries. -- returned. But my

concern is the external border of the EU. Anecdotal evidence suggests

a come from Turkey into Greece. Will she assure the House that the Greek

government is given all the support it needs in order to be able to

track people when they return to Europe in the first place? Once they

get inside, the Schengen free area means they can travel anywhere they

like. It is that external border which is so critical. The right

honourable gentleman is right that the external border is important.

That's why within the European Union we have been arguing with others for

a strengthening of that external border. It will also be aware that

this is an issue which pertains in relation to the migration crisis in

Europe, and of course, at the European Council last week,

decisions were taken about enhancing our ability to strengthen that

border. We have already given significant support to Greece in

their way in which it is able to deal with those people coming across

the border. We are looking to enhance that support to Greece and

we stand ready with others to make sure that the work that takes place

at that border is appropriate, in order to identify people and ensure

that those who should be returned to Turkey are. He then referred to the

Schengen border free zone. Of course the United Kingdom and has its own

border, where we are able further to check people coming across into the

UK. Will the Home Secretary at knowledge that this is now the

existential threat of our times, and our people are in danger? But will

she acknowledge that now, as in all of the 1000 years of our island

history, the channel is our best boardwalk. Therefore, following on

from that last question of jihadist, and Schengen, being able to access

all parts of Europe, with European passports, will she Institute

vehicle checks, checks on all vehicles, entering the United

Kingdom from Continental ports? And will all passports of people

entering our airports or ports be checked against intelligence

sources, whether or not they have European passports? I can say to my

honourable friend that as I indicated in my statement, border

force has increased the checks it is making at certain ports. But I think

there is a misunderstanding in the question that he asks me. We do have

checks at our borders. We are able to check passports of people at the

borders when they come through. That is an important part of the

structure that we have in the UK. It is an important part of our security

and we will retain it. Does the Home Secretary agree with me that groups

like Daesh no longer distinguish between the near enemy and the far

enemy? And will she also accept that the twisted ideology she refers to

includes European values such as religious freedom, human rights and

democracy as an offence against God? The honourable gentleman is right

that Daesh is obviously indiscriminate in those who it would

choose to attack. And of course, we should never forget that in the

terrorist attacks which have taken place, if you look at the operations

of Daesh, it is not only attacks in Europe, in Turkey, elsewhere in the

countries which I referred to, but of course, nearer to where they are

in Syria and Iraq, many Muslims have died as a result of attacks by

Daesh. So they are indiscriminate in the people that they are attacking.

And they are attacking our values, which as he you are fundamental

values of democracy, of freedom of religion, of law and order, which

underpin our society. That is why it is so important for our society to

say once again, and why I welcome all the comments made from around

this Chamber, which go out from this House today, that we will not let

the terrorists defeat us. On a recent visit to Europol, the Home

Affairs Select Committee viewed one of the horrific videos on the

internet created by Daesh. The propaganda which they used to

recruit people to their hideous cause. Does my right honourable

friend agree with me that the security services and police need

modern, digital powers, including bulk powers, to destroy these

criminals and keep us safe? Those powers are necessary for

police and security services. It is precisely why we are putting the

Investigatory Powers Bill through the House which includes those

powers to ensure those whose job it is to keep us safe have what they

need to do that job. It is the duty of government or

political leadership to protect citizens. The global list of

atrocities that the Home Secretary has cited shows this is a worldwide

jihadist ideology, the fight against which we cannot opt out of in the

hope that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone. Can I

implore the Home Secretary to make this battle not just one of the

critical public safety which is essential but also of the values

that my honourable friend spoke about of democracy, human rights,

equality between men and women and the freedoms that we enjoy in this

country and in others. I absolutely agree. He is absolutely right that

this is not something that we can walk away from foot. We can't say if

we do nothing we will be safe and secure. We need to fight this

ideology, fight these terrors, we need to ensure that the values that

underpin our society are maintained. These are the values that they are

attacking, that they're trying destroy. It is one of the reasons

why the government has not -- looks not just as a counter terrorism

strategy but also a counter extremism strategy and promote the

values underpinning what makes this country such a great base to live.

Values which are shared across the UK and across all communities.

The Home Secretary referred to the fact that they're shabbily dedicated

external operation structure in Syria which is planning a mass

casualty attacks around the world. It is self-evident that it is easier

for Daesh to progress both attacks against us if they have an area of

territory the control from which to project that force. Now there is a

cessation of hostilities in Syria was the Home Secretary agree that it

is absolutely our priority to assist those Syrian forces who have ceased

hostilities, to assist them to recover the territory now controlled

by Daesh in Syria. I thank my honourable friend for his comments

and he was right to draw the attention of the House to the fact

that in this fight against this brutal terrorist group, this is not

just about what we are able to do in terms of our own security or

security with partners, but about what happens in Iraq and Syria and

the action being taken against Daesh there. It is also important of

course that we see a solution being brought to the conflict in Syria and

that is why the government is looking at the issue not just in

terms of the protective security in the UK or intelligence sharing but

also the action it is necessary to take in Iraq and Syria and of course

the action in terms of the diplomatic effort to bring about

that Lydia Ko solution and stability to Syria. -- political solution. I

want to stand with the Home Secretary and the people of Northern

Ireland will stand with the people of Belgium in this time, given we

endured three decades of this type of terror. The Home Secretary also

referred to Adrian Ismay who was murdered last week and she will be

aware of the necessity of cross-border cooperation on the only

land bordered the UK has with the Irish Republic. What levels of

increased corporation are they going to be now in the face of this, in

order to prevent any further ingress by international terrorists who may

use the Irish Republic as a base from which to launch attacks in the

UK? We are working closely with the Irish government to look at those

areas where it is possible for us to work more closely, to enhance our

collective security across Ireland and the UK. Of course there are

measures that we are able to use which helped that security in terms

of cross-border arrangements between the Republic of Ireland and Northern

Ireland and other parts of the UK. We do talk to the Irish government

about how we can enhance our level of corporation to ensure that we

keep both the Republic of Ireland and also the UK as safe and secure

as we can. On the question of security at

ports, my right honourable friend will know that Holyhead is the

second busiest ferry port in the country and as such are

significantly important point of entry from within the Common travel

area. Ishii satisfied that the security arrangements at Holyhead

are adequate to address the terrorist threat as she perceives

it, especially in terms of checks on vehicles and foot passengers? The

extent to which Border Force operate checks at various ports and

something that is constantly kept under review. And looked at in

relation to the threat and the perceived risk. He refers to the

Common travel area and that is one of the issues we have been working

with the Irish government on looking at how we can enhance our collective

external border security to ensure that internal border security within

the Common travel area is also improved. Our unique intelligence

capability helped first identified that it was terrors that brought

down the Russian plane in Egypt at a time when it was being denied by the

Russians themselves. Can she assure the House that there are no

unnecessary obstacles in us sharing such vital information with our

European partners and allies in a timely fashion to help them fight

this scourge? I can assure the right honourable gentleman that we are not

only sharing information and intelligence with our European

partners, we are encouraging others within the European member states

and others to share intelligence so we can build that collective

picture. The terrorists know no boundaries or borders we need to

work together to ensure we can deal with them.

Issuing advice on travel to the public, which they will rely on to

make an informed choice, will the Home Secretary make sure that we

have safety first of course but it is important that we do not allow

terrorist to close down our way of life and also that we are mindful of

the impact of that advice on partner nations. I think particularly of

North Africa in recent times and the impact advice has had on Tunisia

specifically. My honourable friend is right to point out that of course

when an attack takes place such as took place in Tunisia where we saw

the murder of the many British holiday-makers and of course action

was taken in relation to travel advice and working with the Tunisian

government. If people do not travel of course it has an impact on the

economy of the country such as that but I can assure him in looking at

travel advice and issuing its guidance on travel, the Foreign and

Commonwealth Office looks at a range of issues but of course what must

come first is our desire to ensure the security and safety of British

citizens. I would like to echo the Home

Secretary condolence. Belgium in Brussels have suffered a severe blow

and we stand in solidarity with them. I would also like to echo what

you said about the Muslim community is here and the most council for

Britain have been quick and forthright in condemning these

attacks. -- Muslim Council of Britain. After Paris the

Metropolitan Police said they were recruiting an extra 600 and police

officers. Is that a programme that now needs to be accelerated? I think

there is absolute unanimity around this House in combination of these

terrible attacks. In relation to the armed response from the Metropolitan

Police, there are two elements to the upgrade in terms of the number

of firearms officers. 600, that figure is not the recruitment of new

firearms officers of the training of officers who already exist in

certain parts of the Metropolitan Police to be able to carry firearms.

That training as I understand it is underway. We are also offers

including underway the uplift in armed response vehicles across the

country that I referred to earlier. The event yesterday underlined that

this is an international threat which requires an international

response. Domestically taking every effort to strengthen our domestic

capability in the Investigatory Powers Bill. Can the Home Secretary

assure the House that in talking to international partners, she is

ensuring that the bill can be practical and swiftly enforced

elsewhere benchmark I'm happy to give that reassurance. Once the key

issue is of course in the bill has been the question of being able to

exercise and issue lawful warrants against internet servers providers

located elsewhere, especially in the US. We have continued to assert the

extraterritorial jurisdiction that we have always asserted in this Bill

in relation to those powers but we are also discussing with the US

Government the possibility of an agreement that will ensure that

there is a solid basis on which such exchange of information can take

place. If the Home Secretary satisfied with

security at international airports with flights to the UK? We have a

programme and were working with the Department for Transport, looking at

airports across the world and assessing the security arrangements

that are necessary and there are occasions when we ask airports to

increase their security arrangements. That is a regular

programme that takes place. Obviously when a particular incident

takes place such as the attack in Tunisia, then we provide a very

particular focus on security available there, not just in tourist

resorts but the airport as well. I welcome the statement and indeed

the cross-party condemnation of these terrible acts that have taken

place in Belgium. Sadly these two German terrorists have got

sophisticated digital communication capabilities. Can she tell the House

would support she is receiving from intranet service providers to help

support in this battle against these extremists? Our interaction with

intranet service providers is of different types. There is the

question of access, interceptions in exchange of the issue of a lawful

warrant. This is an issue where we are looking at an agreement with the

US particularly in relation to that. But intranet service providers have

also been involved in the work we have been doing to look at how we

can ensure that the vile propaganda that has put out by Daesh and other

terrorist groups can be taken down from the intranet. At how companies

can use their own terms and conditions to ensure that propaganda

is not there to infiltrate the minds of those who could be radicalised.

Could I add my party was my deepest sympathy with all the people who

suffered in Brussels yesterday. Could the secretary of state

reassurance soccer fans travelling from Wales and other UK nations to

the Uefa European Championships this summer that every step will be taken

to ensure their safety at football stadiums? There is a very well used

method of cooperation that we have with other countries when they're

hosting major events such as the European football. And police have

already been discussing with their counterparts what arrangements are

in place and of course we will continue to monitor those

arrangements. We want people to be able to go and have a good time,

enjoy the football and be able to have the confidence in their

security. My right honourable friend is quite

right to identify the importance of digital and signals intelligence.

She will be aware of the recent conflict if that is the word between

Apple and the FBI over the San Bernardino terrorist attack. What

steps is she taking to talk with companies like Apple, Samsung and

blackbery, to try to make them cooperate for the safety of all our

people in the UK and elsewhere? We have regular meetings both

artificial and ministerial level with a variety of the internet

companies and communication service providers generally to discuss their

interaction with the legislation the government is introducing and the

Investigatory Powers Bill and how the powers that law enforcement and

security services have in relation to access to this information. It is

important, as more and more people are communicating across the tenet

go -- the internet, we need to make sure powers are available to

agencies and police. And that is what we're doing in the

Investigatory Powers Bill. Can I thank the Home Secretary for

her statement. It was clear following the Paris attack that

there were deficiencies in intelligence and policing and

linking to what was going on in Belgium. Is she happy with the

lessons and they have been carried forward to intelligence services in

this country? Intelligence services in this country have obviously been

looking at any attack that takes place elsewhere in the world, they

look of the information available about that and see what lessons we

need to learn in relation to that. The key issue that has been this

increase in cooperation and intelligence sharing that impossible

and has come off the back of these attacks. But it is important that we

learn lessons when things happen. What happened here in the UK sadly,

because of the attacks we have suffered from in the past, we have

developed the way in which we deal with these issues, particularly post

7/7 and we work with others so we can share our experience with other

people. I very much welcome the statement by

the Home Secretary and all that she has said. Does the Home Secretary

agree with the comments made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, that

Europe needed to regain the capacity to use the logical language to

counter terrorism? And linked to that, one has to take down the

poisoned propaganda online, but what steps are being taken to work with

faith communities to put up a counter narrative online? I was not

aware of the comments of the Archbishop of Canterbury. But I

think he is right, it is important that that narrative... It is a

perversion of a theology, but it is important that theological argument

is used in countering that perverted ideology. And that is exactly what

is happening. The Home Office does work with people in communities in

relation to this. As I am sure he is aware, there are many imam is who

themselves to put on the internet and elsewhere a counter theology, to

try to make sure that this perversion of Islam is not the one

which winds through. Can I thank the Home Secretary for her statement?

She will know that the key to defeating this evil is to

understand, disrupt and defeat their Terra networks. A key element of

this is their funding. Can I ask her to give an assurance that she is

working closely with colleagues in the Treasury and across government

to target the funding for this murderous activity? Yes, we are

doing that. We are looking to see what more we can do to enhance the

ability to deal with terrorist funding. But it is also the case

that the United Nations came together last year for the first

time I think, finance ministers from 70 countries, to look at this whole

question of financing of serious crime and terrorism, to see what

more action could be taken globally. Within moments of these atrocities,

constituents of mine in GCHQ will have deployed resources towards

assisting their Belgian counterparts. GCHQ is a vital and

unique Cape ability. Can the House be assured that it will continue to

have the resources it needs to meet what is regrettably a growing

threat? My honourable friend is absolutely right. Of course, the

people in GCHQ will have responded in support of the authorities in

Belgium, but also date in, day out, are doing their work to keep us

security and intelligence agencies security and intelligence agencies

and law enforcement response that we have here in the United Kingdom. I

think it is world leading. It is respected around the world and long

may it continue. Our thoughts are with the victims of the terrorist

attacks and their families. Can I ask the Home Secretary, she will be

aware that racist incidents and Islamophobic incidents will up

following terrorist attacks, and far right and extremist groups seek to

exploit that space. And that takes up a huge amount of policing

resources. Will she gave an assurance that there will be the

support to the police to make sure that we have proper security and

support and reassurance in communities like mine? Yes, and we

have supported the police in that work. But we have also done more, we

are trying to make sure, through the commitment we have for example to

identify clearly when hate crime takes place, which has a rigid look

religious element, that we are able to record that, so that we get a

much better picture of what is happening. And she is right that we

often see after a terrorist attack, we do see an increase in ante-

Muslim incidents taking place to and the police at local level will be

doing everything to make sure that they can deal with those. We are all

shocked and saddened by the attacks in Brussels, but understandably,

members of the Jewish community in my constituency are especially

concerned about the risks facing them. Can the Home Secretary update

the House on her assessment of those risks and the steps the Government

are taking to deal with them? I can understand what my honourable friend

is insane. Of course the Jewish community here in the United Kingdom

incidents over the last year, indeed incidents over the last year, indeed

couple of years. It is a great cause for concern for us. The Government

is working in a number of ways to ensure that there is the proper

response to those incidents. And that we give the message

collectively, and it is an important message from this House as well,

given by the Prime Minister as well, over the last few days, that we

condemn anti-Semitic incidents which take place. The Jewish members of

our community are every bit as much part of our British community as the

Muslim members, the Sikh members, the Hindu members, and those of no

faith, and the Christian members. Mr Speaker, further to the previous

question, does she accept that the best people to make the point that

Daesh is perverting the true face of Islam is not herself or the Prime

Minister or any nor Muslim, but any and all Muslim groups here and

abroad who reject violent jihadism? So is she prepared to make the

sometimes difficult calls to empower and back those groups here and

potentially regimes abroad who do that, despite the fact that they may

not accord sometimes to all of the liberal, secular, democratic values

which we hold dear, rightly, in This Place? As a government, we do work

with those who wish to give that message and to counter that

narrative of the perversion of Islam which comes from the ideology which

underpins this terrorism. We do that through a variety of community

groups here in the United Kingdom. But also as I indicated, there are

many imams here in the United Kingdom and around the world, and I

have met some of them, who are actively working to spread the

theological message which is different - and that is important

work. My right honourable friend will be well aware that, very sadly,

a large number of British citizens have gone to join IS in Syria. A

large number have return to. Does represent a potential terrorist

risk, but also they may poison other people is minds. What assurance can

she give the House that those people returning will be apprehended and it

will be made sure that they do not represent a threat to our security?

Obviously, we gave some extra powers to the police and the authorities in

the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act which was passed last year. But

what I can say to my honourable friend is, over and above that, when

somebody is returning, to make sure that they are look at on a

case-by-case basis. There are some people for whom certain

interventions will be necessary and will be put in place. That that will

be determined on a case-by-case basis. Regrettably I stand again to

condemn these barbaric attacks in Brussels and in Turkey. And to say

that these people are not of my faith, nor should they be considered

by anybody to be linked to that faith. I congratulate the Home

Secretary on what she is putting into the intelligence services, but

will she look at the Border Agency, where there are a number of issues

that we have to deal with, especially people with a passports

who come through, not checked properly to make sure where they

have been? There does need to be also funding look at in local

policing, where, especially the local police community support

officers, who contribute hugely towards tackling radicalisation and

dealing with intelligence? And finally, can she look at the issues

of hate crime, of all communities, and ensure that local authorities

and police are able to deal with that? In relation to the last point

on hate crime, he is absolutely right. This is an issue which we

police. By looking at the recording police. By looking at the recording

of these hate crimes, we have done that. We are hoping to identify a

better picture of what is happening. And can I commend the honourable

gentleman for the resolute stance that he has consistently taken. This

is sadly not the first time that he has stood up in this Chamber

following an attack to say that these attacks will not take place in

his name. That is a message which will be echoed in Muslim communities

throughout the United Kingdom and I commend him for his resolute stance

on that issue. In relation to the e-gates, we do look at the number of

Border Force staff who are available to support those people going

through the e-gates, but in itself, it is part of our security

resilience at the border. Can I pass my sympathy and solidarity to all of

those in Belgium impacted? The Government has published its stay

safe principles to guide the public in the event of attacks in this

country, particularly those in mass transit. Can I ask on yes, more can

be done by the rail operators and airline companies to ensure this is

prominently displayed? Whilst the message is bleak, we would all be

the better for reading it. It is an interesting suggestion which I will

take up with the Secretary of State for Transport. Mr Speaker, it is

believed that one man responsible for the Paris attack comes from the

Molenbeek district of Brussels. I understand he was able to visit

Birmingham last October. Can the Home Secretary confirm that he did

visit the UK? Does she know who accompanied him, and can she ruled

out that it was anyone associated with the present atrocity? I can say

to the honourable gentleman, he asks me to refer to people who were

involved in the current atrocity which has taken place in Brussels.

Obviously, this is an ongoing investigation and we are working

very closely with the Belgian authorities to ascertain as much

information as possible about the individuals who were involved. Mr

Speaker, local media in West Yorkshire this lunchtime are

reporting that the family of one of my constituents believe that he is

the Daesh terrorist Richard online, responsible for a recent suicide

bombing in Iraq which is claimed to have killed and injured more than a

dozen people. It is clear that local families have deep concerns about

the radicalisation of family members. How can we support these

families and tackle terrorism together? My honourable friend has

raised a very important point. It is precisely the need to ensure that

people do not move down this path of radicalisation, which underpins the

Prevent strategy which we have in place, the use of the Channel

programme, and through that, at local level, we want to support

those who have concerns within their family or community about what is

happening within their family or community in relation to these

matters. But also ensure that where there is somebody who is at risk of

radicalisation, action can be taken to ensure that that individual does

not follow that path. I think it is important we have put Prevent on a

statutory basis now, which I think strengthens that ability to act

within communities. I would say to anybody who has any concerns about a

member of their family or any individual, to contact the

authorities at a local level so that appropriate support and help can be

given. I want to be associated, as does my party, with the comments of

the Home Secretary in relation to the terrorist attacks in Belgium,

but also in relation to the murder of the prison officer Adrian Ismay

in Belfast. Does the Home Secretary believe that the European Convention

on Human Rights gives any additional protection to those who may be

intent on carrying out terrorist activity? The honourable gentleman

might know that I have had my own interactions with the European

Convention on Human Rights when it has been used to try to prevent me

from deporting from the united -- deporting people from the United

Kingdom. In certain cases we were able to ensure that extradition of

individuals who we thought were a danger here... But I think the

operation of the European court and the European Convention is something

which should be look that. That's why the Government is looking at the

possibility of a Bill of Rights and its interaction with the European

Court of Human Rights. An important section of the UK border exists in

my constituency at Gatwick airport. Can I therefore seek assurances from

my right honourable friend that Border Force has been strengthened

at that location? Particularly as it accepts many flights from the vast

Schengen area, and we need to ensure of course that terrorists who might

have made it into Europe can't then make it into the British Isles? Yes,

Border Force have looked across airports and seaports at where they

need to enhance the checks that are taking place. They are very

conscious of the fact that over the coming weekend, it is a particularly

busy weekend for Gatwick in relation to the holiday period, and will be

taking action accordingly. I commend her for her courage and

fortitude in this difficult time. At this stage of the investigation it

would seem those who activated the bombs at Brussels airport did so

before getting through security. Can I ask is that any intention to

upgrade or have spot checks for instance outside the security system

we presently have because it clear something more needs to be done.

That is an interesting point and a has-been commentary on this issue in

the media. The practical problem is if you instigate security at an

earlier stage then you simply create a crowd in a different place. So

that is why it does not necessarily solve the issue of removing the

ability to mount an attack which would attack a large number of

people. The police presence at certain ports and airports has been

increased, the visible security presence there. But I think the kind

of measure he talks would not necessarily remove the opportunity

for terrorists to attack a large number of people.

The appalling events in Brussels underlines the vital work done by

our security services to keep us safe and in recent debates on the

Investigatory Powers Bill all parties are -- adopted a celebrity

tone. I would welcome that tell and I hope in the committee stage we can

arrive at a bill that all parties can support.

I would hope that we can do that, I believe we have put a bill, that

response to the forts from three Parliamentary committees, we have

revised the bill accordingly so the bill now before the House has had

those revisions. It is now of course in committee stage. The security

minister and the Solicitor General will take the bill through from

committee stage and I would hope that given the tone adopted in the

debate and today in interventions that have been made, that we could

see a constructive process going through the media stage and when the

bill comes back to this House, that we can see a bill on the statute

book which delivers the safety and security for the people in this

country that it needs to. It is urgent that we increase the number

of armed officers to rapidly responds -- respond to an incident

as happened in Brussels. It would be ashamed of that was the late anyway

because police officers had to make decisions about committing demands

on their resources. -- competing demands.

We have made extra money available for the upgrade in armed response.

I welcome the tenor of the statement and it clear reason and resolve. In

terms of firearms capability what discussions has she had with the MoD

about the potential availability of military support to civilian law

enforcement especially outside major metropolitan areas M there are

arrangements in place for military assistance to the civil power which

can be operated in certain circumstances. Following the attacks

that took place in January in Paris last year we looked at enhancing

that capability for the military to support the police were multiple

attack to take place and those arrangements are in place. So there

is greater ability for the military now to be able to be called on art

and earlier stage if necessary by the police. -- at an earlier stage.

The Secretary of State has provided welcome reassurance about the

tracking of terrorist movements. Could she explain more about what is

underway here and across Europe to stop the flow of weapons and

explosives? We have been clear within the European environment that

we need to do more across Europe in relation to firearms in particular.

And I'm pleased to say that following representations the

European Commission has produced a new draft directive in relation to

firearms. I'm clear that we should ban dangerous semiautomatic weapons,

that the session is taking place, but we are very clearly pushing for

a much greater ability across the EU to deal with the movement of

firearms. Having worked in Brussels for

several years, my thoughts naturally are with friends and former

colleagues in Belgium as well as with the families of those murdered

and maimed yesterday morning. Whilst effective security cooperation with

other European Union countries is vital, would my right honourable

friend also look at how we can it effectively exchange appropriate

security information analysed through membership of other

international organisations like Nato? Well we need to make sure we

are using every available opportunity where it is appropriate,

to exchange security information, support, intelligence and to work

together. That is why as I said we have Corporation, and we work within

the EU and also other areas in response to within the United

Nations there has also been a greater understanding of some of the

measures that need to be taken. Order.

Point of order. I am most grateful. I would like your advice, Mr

Speaker, on a select committee report that has only just been

published this morning. I'm afraid it relates specifically to some of

the business that is before the House today. In the public

administration and constitutional select committee report, into a

complaint against HS2 Ltd, in fact it was upheld by the ombudsman who

find HS2. The committee have been in receipt of published a large of

evidence that is highly critical of HS2 Ltd. After investigation, the

select committee has declared that the culture of defensive

communication and misinformation within HS2 is not acceptable. And

unless the people responsible for delivering HS2 understand that first

and foremost they serve the public and take action to reflect this,

then they will continue to be vulnerable to the criticism that

they have disregard for the public who are impacted by HS2. Obviously

only been published this morning, it has been impossible to table

amendments to the bill today, relating to this report and relating

to this poor communication and disregard for people affected by

HS2. Could you advise me whether it would still be possible in this

House to call for a separate debate on this report and look into the

continuing disrespectful behaviour of HS2 Ltd and its management. My

response to that point of order is twofold. First as I'm sure that she

will be aware, it will not satisfy her but I say it is a matter of

fact, the report which is referred is tagged to the third reading

debate on the bill. That is to say, it is highly germane to that debate.

Secondly, when the right honourable lady asks if she can call for a

separate debate on that report, the answer is that most certainly she

can seek such a debate and she may well be successful in obtaining such

a debate, at this point I do not know. But that of course will not

assist her in terms of the schedule business for today. The matter that

are up for debate in the House today will naturally proceed. And must do

so in terms of good order. Nevertheless the right honourable

lady who is a wily operator, has made her point in her own way and it

clearly on the record. That seems to bring a warm smile to the face of

the honourable gentleman, the member for The Cotswolds. Who's birthday

allegedly it is. Always useful to have a bit of information! I wish

the honourable member for The Cotswolds are happy birthday and

look forward to hearing his point of order. Thank you for the good wishes

and he will know that I very rarely make points of order in this House.

But on this occasion I would seek your advice as to how I might not be

the business managers on this HS2 report and a third reading,

inadequacy of time, because millions of people up and down this line and

this highly complex large project are affected by this bill. And I

think that three hours for report and third reading is not sufficient

to give Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents and to

make representations on this complex project. Let alone those members of

the select committee, who some of them spent 160 working days sitting

on the select committee and some of whom may not get the chance to give

the House the benefit of their wisdom as to how the hybrid select

committee procedure could be improved. In response to the point

of water first, let me acknowledge and pay tribute to the extremely

unselfish and consciences work that he and others did on the committee

under the distinguished and stoical chairmanship of the honourable

gentleman, the member for pool. Secondly I would say to the

honourable gentleman that if the government Chief Whip were here, he

would have heard the honourable gentleman's point of order but he is

not, so he will not. That said I feel sure that the thrust of it will

be conveyed to the Chief Whip Annalong. As members now, and I will

of course come to the right honourable lady, as members know,

these are not matters for the Chair. Members are ventilating their real

sense of grievance and unhappiness. These are matters of course for the

business managers to determine. They make their own judgment. And people

operate at their own level. What they judged to be a proper treatment

of business and of the thoughts on these matters of members. Including

minorities. But those are not judgment that I can second guess. We

will have views, but I think I should probably leave it there. I

rarely make a point of order in this House but I'm grateful that you have

understood the frustration that we feel as members representing the

affected constituencies. The fact is with the roughly 50 amendments, if

we put them in the time available, one hour for the first group, two of

the second group, there would be no time even to discuss them. A lot of

work has gone in, a lot of excellent assistance from the clerks, has gone

into creating amendments. Could you use your good offices when you speak

to the Lord Speaker to draw her attention to the fact that whilst

amendments were tables, have had little opportunity to debate and

push them. That is an extremely well chosen and thoughtful point of order

from the right honourable lady. Again I acknowledge what she said,

she rarely raises of order. And her seriousness of purpose is I think

respected in all parts of the House. I will indeed convey that sentiment

to the Lord Speaker. I think the unhappiness is well known. It is a

matter of fact that amongst those affected, there will be a real

consternation about this. That the individuals affected are a minority

of the electorate is not in doubt, but they will be very unhappy about

this. That is not something that should be lightly dismissed by the

executive branch of our political system. There will be those who

think all you do is get the business through and that is all that

matters. I'd quite hard-headed and perhaps even cynical about it. But

people ought to have regard to the views and interests of minorities.

They might on a particular issue one-day be in that position

themselves. And they will then want the very protection that the right

honourable lady and right honourable gentleman are seeking. I will relate

the concern to the Lords Speaker. It was always my understanding that

if one wish to add 1's name to amendments, as long as one did it

the day before, the day on which the order paper was to be published,

that that was sufficient. So I was surprised on reading the order paper

today for consideration of the bill that the personal visit I made to

the private ill office yesterday to do that, where no one had suggested

to me that I was too late in order to add my signature to a number of

the amendments on the order paper, my name does not appear at all. And

I wondered if that was a matter on which you could shed any light. I

have just been advised by the way, we have been extremely well served

as always by our clerks, who do their business with great commitment

and power. I have just been advised on this matter. And that advice is

that I will cause the matter to be investigated. The truth is off the

top of my head I have no idea why the honourable and learning

gentleman posmack name has not been added to the amendment. One would

seem lower lip -- ordinarily it would be. His understanding of the

normal practice is as usual quite correct. We will have the matter

looked into but I hope it will be trumpeted to the good people of the

Beaconsfield constituency that the honourable and Leonard gentleman

sought to have his name added to the amendments and the work in progress

is he may yet succeed in that mission.

Mr Speaker, I hope I am not trying your patience too much by a further

point, but I did want your advice on the matter, not least for this House

but for the people watching these proceedings outside the House, it

may be of interest to know the Channel Tunnel Bill went through the

House. It was not guillotined and lasted until 1:50am and only after

that it was followed by a third reading. Mr Speaker, could you

confirm that on the timetable motion, as it sits, on the order

paper today, that if any member of the House chose to push an amendment

to a vote, in either the first or second group, that it would eat out

of the time that would be allowed for members to discuss, because

constituents are not going to understand why members in this House

do not press these amendments to the vote, but if we press the amendments

to the vote, the Government has engineered this is that it means we

would have no time to discuss it. For example, there may be members

here who wish to have their amendments voted on but if they did

so they would rob the opportunity for people across both sides of the

House affected by this Bill of speaking, and as you pointed out

yourself, Mr Speaker, it is only a very small minority because both the

main parties in this House are whipped to vote for this Bill. Are

in is correct. Again I always appreciate our proceedings are

intelligible to people beyond this place and so let it be stated on the

wreck that these exchanges have not eaten into the time for debate at

all. Indeed they have only caused the member with the Ten Minute Rule

Motion to be obliged to wait patiently before being able to speak

to it but it has not in any way detracted or ticking time from the

debate on the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill. But the

honourable lady is correct that if members seek a division on a

particular amendment, that will eat away at the remaining time available

for debate. A lot of people will feel that is a very regrettable

state of affairs, to put it mildly. I hope what the honourable lady says

about President of the Channel Tunnel Bill... -- precedent. And as

far as I am aware he is a person of robust constitution and perfectly

capable of staying in the chamber for that public policy and I have

never had reason to suppose his Parliamentary Undersecretary of

State who has taken charge of the proceedings today... No discourtesy

is intended to the honourable gentleman but I have heard no reason

to question him on strenuous endeavour over a period. Patsy will

add to that now. Further point of order. Could I point out last

night's Has Bush was not objected to -- perhaps he will add to that now.

As part of the process -- last night's proceedings. Indeed the

right honourable lady herself attended three times for a total of

two hours and ten minutes in total. That is a matter... We will come

back to it but that is a matter of indisputable fact and I thank the

Minister of State for taking his opportunity to make that point. So

far as last night is concerned, that also is a matter of fact. It was not

objected to. The business of the house motion appertaining to this

matter was of course subjected to on Monday evening by the right

honourable lady. If it had been objected to last night there would

have been a requirement for a debate today on members' concerns and that

would have eaten into the available time. The absence of an objection

last night and the fact I have just mentioned -- facts have just

mentioned are of course I would say causally linked. To that point of

order and the courteous contribution from the dispatch box by the

Minister of State, I would like to confirm I did object to this motion

but on discussions with the business managers and was informed if I

objected the second night it would come back and eat into the time for

the debate today which of course would be completely self-defeating.

I think the point was made on the first day when the objection was

made and the Minister should really understand the procedure in that

sense. The right honourable lady has put the matter fairly and squarely

on the record. I am always happy to hear points of order and respond to

them. I think it is there to say that for now we have exhaust that

the rain and we should move on to the ever patient honourable

gentleman, the member for North Norfolk. Ten Minute Rule Motion, Mr

Norman Lamb... -- we have exhausted that ground. I beg that leave be

given to bring in a bill to amend the misuse of drugs act 1971 to

provide for the Lawful Production, Packaging The Packaging, Market,

Sale And Consumption Of Herbal Cannabis, In Specific Circumstances

By Certain Persons And For Connected Purposes. Mr Speaker, it is long

overdue we call time on the so-called war on drugs, launched 45

years ago by the then president of the United States of America,

Richard Nixon. In that time billions of dollars every year go straight

into the hands of organised crime, governments around the world have

been corrupted by the drugs trade, thousands upon thousands of people

have lost their lives in countries like Mexico and a warm beer, profits

from the drug trade have funded terrorism, as recognised by the

United Nations Security Council, and thousands of our fellow citizens

every year -- like Mexico and Colombia. There is an urgent and

compelling case for a more rational approach. Thankfully, around the

world fence is breaking out. In the United States Colorado, Alaska,

Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia have all the lies

cannabis, introducing a regular tree market. They have done the same

thing in Uruguay. In Portugal, they have decriminalised drug use, and

move which now has cross-party support from right to left. Instead,

they take a health -based approach. Drug related deaths and sexually

transmitted diseases due to drug use have dramatically decreased as a

result of that change. And now in Canada the new liberal government

there has been elected on a manifesto which commits them to

legislative or the legalisation of cannabis. My plea is that in this

country we should base our approach on evidence and on reducing harms

rather than on fear and anxiety about public reaction. My sense is

that the public are in many respects are way ahead of the politicians on

this subject. My starting point, Madame Deputy Speaker, is that I am

instinctively hostile to drugs, legally and illegal. Tobacco kills

about 100,000 people in our country every year. Alcohol causes untold

damage to so many families, including its association with

domestic violence, and it leads to violence on our streets. The most

potent strains of cannabis also carry health risks, including

psychosis and memory loss. But do we really think that we best protect

people by leaving the supply of cannabis in the hands of organised

crime? No criminal is interested in your welfare. They have no idea what

they are buying when people choose to buy cannabis. They have no idea

how potent the product is they are buying. So-called skunk is widely

available on the criminal market in every town and city across our

country. Any idea we can protect people by keeping it illegal is

fanciful. No one now believes we can actually win the war on drugs. So

public policy, intended to protect people from harm, actually achieves

precisely the opposite. And we put billions of pounds every year into

the pockets of organised crime. What a spectacularly stupid

self-defeating policy. Now, some people raise the legitimate anxiety

about people moving from cannabis to harder, more dangerous drugs. But

that risk is self evidently far higher when you are buying from a

criminal, who has no interest or who has a direct interest in persuading

you to do just that. On top of that, we criminalise tens of thousands of

people every year for the use of cannabis, blighting their careers,

damaging their life chances and restricting their ability to travel.

Cannabis would be sold... I apologise. We know that many people

with mental ill health resort to cannabis as a relief from the pain

that they suffer. And then we criminalise them. What a cruel

unjust policy. And we criminalise multiple sclerosis sufferers and

many others who use cannabis to relieve pain. So I strongly support

the End Our Pain campaign. And there is a real hypocrisy here. Whilst all

those people are knocked back by criminal conviction, there is

usually more privileged go on to build successful careers. How many

members of this Government have smoked cannabis, whilst maintaining

their support for the conviction of their fellow citizens? The Prime

Minister was a reformer. It was also reported he and others were caught

smoking cannabis at Eton. He has gone on to do quite well, yet having

signed up to a Home Affairs Select Committee report in 2002 Colin for

the then Labour Government to initiate a discussion on alternative

ways, including the possibility of legalisation and regulation --

calling for. He then retreated, once elected Conservative leader, and now

seems implacably opposed to reforms. Why has the Prime Minister changed

his mind? Why continue to a lower our fellow citizens to be put at

risk with the possibility of criminal convictions for doing

exactly what he did -- allow I've fellow citizens. My party, the

Liberal Democrats, commissioned an expert panel to advise on a more

rational approach. The panel was made up of experts and included the

retired Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire, Tom Lloyd, and the

current serving Chief Constable of Durham, Mike Barton. They know

better than anyone the drain on police time in dealing with

possession of drug offences. Their advice is rational, wise and valid

and points to a very different approach. This Bill seeks to

implement their approach. The framework they propose is based on

the primary goal of enhancing and protecting public health and

community safety with a particular focus on the health and well-being

of vulnerable and marginalised groups. It is guided by evidence, it

is deliberately cautious and proposes regular reviews. It sets

out plans to establish a cannabis regulatory authority, producers and

products and sales would be licensed. Cannabis would be sold

through licensed outlets. They would be mandatory provision of health

advice to consumers at the point of sale. Cannabis would be sold in

plain packaging. There would be a minimum age of 18 for purchase and

consumption. Critically, there would be controls on potency, there would

be a minimum requirement of 4% CBD, which is important in reducing risk

of the pendants, psychosis and memory loss. No such safeguards of

course are available on the current criminal controlled market. The

expectation is that sales could raise up to ?1 billion in tax. That

would be... There would also be significant savings of police time

so they can focus on serious and violent crime. Limited amounts of

home growing for personal use would be per -- permitted with an

enforceable limits of plants per household. The scheme would also

permit small-scale licensed production for membership -based

cannabis clubs, similar to those that have existed for years in

Spain. These would have to be operated on a not-for-profit basis

and subject to limiting of the size of clubs to less than 100 adult

members and limiting per member production and supply. It would also

remain a serious criminal offence to drive whilst in period by cannabis.

Madame Deputy Speaker, I understand why, for many people, the first

instinct might be to be fearful of the consequences of legalising

cannabis. Yet thinking through the disastrous consequences of

maintaining prohibition of this drug the profiting -- like the profiting

of criminals, the health risks because you don't know what you're

buying, the Chronicle Isa of so many people, including those with mental

ill health and multiple sclerosis -- criminalisation of so many people.

It leads to the view that a new and more rational approach is needed.

The question is that the right honourable member have to in the

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

That ayes have it. Who will repair and bring in the

bill? Tim fell, Nick Clegg, Alistair Carmichael, Caroline Lucas, Paul

Flynn, Michael fabricant, Crispin Blunt, Peter Lilley and myself.

Norman Lamb. Cannabis legalisation and regulation

Bill. Friday, 22nd of all a second reading. -- April.

The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day. High-speed

rail, London to West Midlands Bill, as amended in the select committee,

not amended in public bill committee, to be considered.

We begin with new clause 19 with which it will be convenient to

consider new courses 1-4. Mr Robert Goodwill. I beg to move the new

clause 19 B read a second time. I must confess I feel a bit of a queue

jumper, Ione added my name to this new clause and amendment 15 last

night. I will be brief, I know the honourable member opposite will want

to expand on these and explain why his case was so compelling and

convincing to the government. I think it is another example of how a

new railway will be delivered on a cross-party basis and also with

support of the great cities of the Midlands and the North. I welcome

new clause 19 on vocational qualifications but I believe in the

importance of ensuring we utilise the opportunities HS2 will create

for skills and jobs. This is while we invested in a national College

for high-speed rail. This new clause would bolster the importance of

delivering skills as part of the development of HS2 and so the

government supports the amendment being part of the bill.

It is important that the national construction College are involved in

this skills initiative. I look forward to soon be in Doncaster with

the opposition Chief Whip to cut the first sod in that. It is important

we look at skills across the board. And the hub and spoke arrangement we

wish the college to be will allow other qualifications and educational

establishments to fully engage. I also welcome amendment 15 from the

opposition relating to clause 40 eight. The purpose of that is to

ensure the regeneration opportunities resented by HS2 are

maximised in a timely way. This is a backstop power and expect local

authorities using existing powers will be these opportunities. In the

event that there are issues impeding development this para gives the

ability to step in and ensure development aggressors. It is

clearly important that such development takes into account

relevant development plans and the amendment has been tabled by the

honourable member for Nottingham South. I urge all members to support

this amendment. Turning to other proposed changes, a number of new

clauses and amendments have been proposed. Constituents affected by

HS2, these amendments have been proposed before. This process has

delivered clear benefits to the constituency affected including a

2.6, during tunnel extension meaning almost 86% of the route in her

constituency is in a tunnel under arrest in cutting. Her consistency

also benefited from the removal of an area of sustainable placement and

noise barriers. I acknowledge the points made but do not believe these

causes should be added to the bill. I would also like to address new

clause 20 about nationalisation of rail services. An area of

ideological difference between the government and the opposition. And

therefore something I am unlikely to limits on and I suspect vice versa.

It is clear to the government that the franchise process delivers

better services, better value for money and a better railway. Since

privatisation the railway industry has been transformed with passenger

journeys more than doubling over the past 25 years. We believe this is

the right approach overall for UK railways. In any case the amendment

is unnecessary as under existing legislative and work as possible for

the state to operate rail services as happened temporarily on the east

Coast mainline. It is possible and indeed quite likely in my view that

the state could run HS2 initially to prove certainty of operation and

passenger numbers. The long-term successful future of HS2 is a

privately operated franchise in my view is the best way forward.

Given that this amendment is a promise of power, it means it is

available going forward. What is the objection to a proposal of this

kind? This part is already available and therefore this amendment is

superfluous. I very much doubt the members on the opposition benches

will agree that nationalisation of railways is not the way forward.

They seem to be stuck in the 1970s. But I hope my explanation may have

provided sufficient explanation as to why this power is not required.

We have given consideration to the other opposed amendments tabled in

this grouping. I do not believe they belong on the face of the bill as

they have already been considered in the select committee process. So to

conclude I hope the members will support the inclusion of new clause

19 and amendment 15 to clause 40 eight. I urge the withdrawal of

others that I do not believe are required. The question is the

government new clause 19 B read a second time. Andy McDonald. I'm

delighted to be able to contribute to this important debate and play a

part in the progress of this bill. We fully appreciate the importance

of this vital piece of infrastructure and the benefits it

will bring to the country for generations to come. It is not

common to find such consensus in the House but I'm pleased that the

government and the opposition understand the need for this

high-speed railway. HS2 was of course the brainchild of the

previous Labour government but I readily acknowledge the work the

current government has done in the project. It is to be very much

welcomed by the country that we have such consensus across the House on

such important national infrastructure projects. In the same

vein I turn to new clause 19. It concerns vocational qualifications.

In case it might be thought this not still entrenched opposition to these

proposals, could I say that speaking not only for myself but for many of

my friends, honourable friends and in Staffordshire where we get no

benefit from this at all in terms of the damage it is doing to our

countryside, I wish to register my opposition to this in its entirety.

I'm grateful for the intervention. I think I used the word consensus and

not unanimity! I do sincerely thank the Minister, the member for Whitby

and Scarborough for his constructive approach to the issue and adding his

name to mine by way of support. There is agreement across the House

that both jobs and skills are a core part of the case for HS2 and I know

the recent report calls for much deeper strategic engagement with

trade unions across the railway industry and accordingly I take this

opportunity to congratulate the minister and HS2 Ltd for the

positive engagement with the TUC in securing an agreement to make sure

trade unions, it and their suppliers, work together to maximise

HS2's economic and labour market potential.

Is he worried about the possible job impact on the existing railway, as

most passengers will come from journeys they would otherwise have

made on existing trains. Presumably there would be a decline of fairs

and revenues and job opportunities on the existing railway.

I think he misses the point, this is about impacting positively on

capacity issues. That is the singular and most important purpose

of this development. With your indulgence, and I just carry on a

bit longer. In the words of the magnificent France's O'Grady, it is

clear that trade union engagement is vital to ensuring that HS2 is

delivered to time and to budget. That is delivered in a manner that