09/02/2017 House of Commons

support, they are often from vulnerable areas and we ensure that

the local authorities have that. We should be proud of our response.

Before we proceed to business question, I would like to congreat

late the member from new port West on his 82nd birthday and on reaching

the mid-point of his parliamentary career.

Business question. Valerie Vaz.

Can I ask the leader of the House to tell the House the forthcoming

business? Mr Speaker, perhaps just before I

answer the lady's question, I would associate myself with your

congratulations to the honourable gentleman, the member for Newport

West. Monday the 20th fabric, remaining

stages of the conflict builds, followed by the consideration of

amendments to the high-speed rail bill. Remaining stages of the

criminal finance bill, the uprating order 2017 and the draft guaranteed

minimum pension. Wednesday the 22nd of February, motions relating to the

police grant and local government finance reports. Thursday 23rd

February, opposition day allotted half day. There will be a debate on

a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist Party, followed

by business to be nominated by the backbench business committee. Friday

the 24th, Private member 's bills. The of the week commencing the 27th

of February will include on the Monday, estimates date, first

allotted day to be confirmed by the liaison committee. I should also

like to the House that on the 23rd and 27th of fabric, business will be

as follows. Thursday the 23rd, debate on publicly accessible

amenities for disabled people, followed by a debate on the second

report from the transport committee on the road traffic law enforcement.

Monday 27th of February, debate on and each petition relating to

attacks on NHS medical staff. Can't add that the leader of the house for

his statement and can I add my birthday wishes to the honourable

member, my predecessor, and to say that I did buy his book and I found

it very, very handy when I first came into the house. Good eye asked

the leader of the House will they be business questions on Thursday 20th

of July, or will that the allocated as a pre-recess adjournment date?

Could the leader of the House also say whether there is going to be any

progress on a debate in government time on restoration and renewal? In

absence of the member for Gateshead, I noticed the leader of the house

has appointed an opposition day on the 23rd of February. Will it be a

regular occurrence and can he ensure that the debate is listed by the

backbench committee could also have eight-day allocated to them? Mr

Speaker it was 15 years ago the Maastricht Treaty was signed this

week and in the same week in responding and respecting the

referendum we have voted to trigger Article 50 and leave the EU. In July

the Prime Minister said Brexit means Brexit. On this side we asked, what

does that mean and do you have a plan and a white paper? Seven months

later we have a speech at Lancaster house, a month later we have a White

Paper, which is the speech with a few grass. Can I ask the leader of

the house, on page nine it states that the government will afford a

White Paper on the great repeal bill. Is that a further White Paper

and can he ensure that if it is published, it won't be done on the

day of the Queen 's speech? There is a prospect of losing 32,000 jobs and

services if we leave the single market. And we have a statement on

what the government will do to secure those job and secure London's

place as the number one financial centre. The eeb budget is mentioned

twice, both times at section 8.5 one. Will the government be

revealing more words on the budget and more importantly, figures in a

statement. And can we have a definition of frictionless

negotiations which appears 12 times. And is the vote that we just had

frictionless, which really means meaningless? It was a sad day when

the government voted down all the amendments said the Prime Minister

cwah said the bill was an amended. The Prime Minister delivered for her

party, but not for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. The

government will want to take notes in negotiations because the Serious

Fraud Office has found that Rolls-Royce admitted it use

multi-million pound rights to secure export orders and received financial

support from the government's the agency in 1991 when it paid a $2

million bribe to win a contract in Indonesia. There is a review. Can we

have a statement to ensure what safeguards there will be as the

government negotiates trade deals around the world. At Prime

Minister's Questions yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked the

Prime Minister treatise whether a special deal was offered to sorry

for social care. The Prime Minister was dismissive and did not answer

the question. If there was no special deal for Surrey, why did the

Prime Minister not confirm this? I and other members want a memorandum

of understanding to secure our libraries and social care, so could

we have a statement on sorry gates? Turning to house matters, the member

for Barnsley Central has had his child poverty Bill talked up again.

I previously raised the issue of bills been taught out. It makes

parliament look petty. How can we move forward? Another government

response on the 16th of January says they don't accept this, but how can

we move forward? There are many hard-working members who have worked

hard on the bills and the woman to hard on the bills and the woman to

come through. Could we have a debate on EDM 190, signed by 201 members,

including from the front bench. When a person refers to a senator as

poker hunters, when cries of lock her up I shouted out when no offence

has been committed, when a person has consistently questioned the

birthplace of a president, when a president talks about America first,

but took his business anywhere but America, when a person forgets there

were Native Americans before he arrived in the US, then I, born in

Yemen of Indian heritage, who may or may not be directly affected by the

travel ban, and others, welcomed the support for us and the reputation of

Parliament. So could be leader of the house confirmed that the

government will not support any attempt to act on the letter to the

Prime Minister about comments made in a point of order in this Chamber?

And also confirmed that the House of Lords will not be threatened with

abolition when dealing with Article 50 legislation. It was on Monday Her

Majesty ascended to the throne 65 years ago and this house

congratulates her on that Sapphire milestone. Could I asked the leader

of the housework abrogation who issues an invitation for a state

visit? The Prime Minister day without with anyone? -- leader of

the house tell are two issues an invitation for a state visit? Can I

associate myself wholeheartedly with the honourable Lady's words about

Her Majesty's Sapphire Jubilee. That particular anniversary is a time for

reflection as her accession was possible because of the death of a

much loved father. Anyone in this house, no matter what views they

have on our constitutional arrangements, or want to share in

the tributes to Her Majesty's selfless service to the United

Kingdom over all those years. The arrangements for state visits have

not changed under this government, they are exactly the same now as

they were on the Prime Minister 's Blair and Brown. On the subject of

restoration and renewal, I'm not in the position to announce a specific

date. I can say to the honourable lady that the government's intention

will be that there should be a debate in government time before the

Easter recess. On her question about the arrangements for business and in

particular backbench business on Thursday 23rd, I am conscious that I

owe something of an apology to the chairman of the committee. It is

always difficult to accommodate the various pressures for time and date

that had been planned for an opposition half day have been lost

as a result of the Supreme Court judgment and the bill that we have

been debating early this week. The government has therefore agreed that

we will protect the time for the remaining backbench business

committee on Thursday 23rd and I will use my best endeavours to make

sure that we reinstate the time that we have lost four backbench business

committees as soon as possible. Now, she asked me about trade deals and

of course one of the things that has changed very markedly since those

days to which she referred is that Parliament has enacted the bribery

act and that has made a very profound difference the duties that

are imposed upon the directors and managers of the United Kingdom

companies when they do any sort of business overseas and in addition to

that, the terms of the International development act mean that aid and

help for the poorest in the world cannot be used to lubricate a trade

deal in the way that once might have been the case. She asked about the

White Paper on the great repeal bill. That is indeed a separate

distinct White Paper. I can't give her an exact date, but I'm conscious

that the Secretary of State will no there will be an appetite in the

House for members to read and I this white paper before we get onto

debates about that repeal Bill. -- read and digestive. -- digester. She

asked about Surrey County Council and social care. Clearly she missed

the public statements that were made by the Department of local

communities and local government yesterday. There is no secret deal.

Surrey County Council has asked if it can participate in one of the

pilot projects for the proposed 100% return of business rates to local

government responsibility. That is not possible in the 2017-18

financial year, but they, as any other local council, including the

honourable lady's, can apply to be considered in the 2018-19 financial

year. There is no memorandum of understanding, there is no secret

documents. Now she asked me about private members bills. I mean, the

reality is that there is not and there never has been under any

government some automatic right for legislation that is proposed to

become law, and even with government bills, when a government enjoys a

small majority, governments have to think carefully about what

legislation they bring forward on how to make sure that they secure

Parliamentary support. I take note of the strong feelings that have

been expressed in the early day motion led by her honourable friend

the member for Cardiff South. Members across the house are

entitled to have strong opinions, not just of what happens in this

country, but on what happens anywhere else in the world. So far

as the government is concerned, like previous governments of different

political parties, whatever view any of us as individuals might have on

any particular leader of another country, the reality is that

governments have two deal with other governments in the world as they

exist, and particularly with elected governments who can claim a mandate

from their own people. I would just say that the results of the election

in the United States is a matter for the United States, but despite the

bitterness and the hard-fought nature of the presidential election

campaign that Presidents Carter and Clinton, as well as President George

W Bush and Secretary hill to -- secretary Hillary Clinton or

attended President Trump Ozma inauguration and there was no

challenge to the legitimacy of the constitutional process involved in

that election. On the question of the House of Lords, the House of

Lords has a valid function under our constitutional arrangements in terms

of scrutinising and reviewing legislation coming up from the House

of Commons, as I'm sure they will do on the bill we have been debating

and as they have done on every other bill. There will also bear in mind

the reality of the referendum and the popular mandate that lies behind

the Article 50 decision. Finally, she did asked me at some length

about Europe. I simply had to say this to her.

Her front bench supported the decision to have the referendum. Her

front bench supported the notion that endorsed the Prime Minister's

timetable for triggering Article 50 before the end of March this year.

Her front bench last night supported the third reading of the unamended

bill. And therefore, I have to say, it is a little bit rich then for the

opposition front bench to be giving us lectures or posting tweets to say

the real fight begins now when they have been endorsing true their --

through their voices a and approach what the Government is taking. Could

we have a debate on how local councils review school catchment

areas? Is the leader of the House appear in my area the council are

seeking to tear up the catchment areas, meaning parents who have

invested in local housing in order to access the school will have to

look elsewhere in the future and fundamentally change the way their

children get to school? Can we have an urgent debate to make sure these

children are not disenfranchised today or in the future? I think my

honourable friend may wish to seek an adjournment debate through the

usual procedures. This are always difficult decisions. I think many of

us know that from time to time, because of changes in population, to

take the most obvious example, local authorities do need to review

catchment areas and those proposals are always subject to a period of

public consultation. I am sure that my honourable friend, as always will

be extremely forceful in representing the interests of his

constituents. Can I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the next

week. Can say say happy birthday to the member. He's the third shadow

leader of the House. It has been a thoroughly miserable, frustrating,

depressing couple of weeks. I think it showed this House at its absolute

and outeder worse. The Article 50 bill, rammed through Parliament at

break-neck speed. No amendments accepted. Very few amendments

considered. No report stage programme. No third reading debate

held. It was more like a medieval course than an advanced democracy.

Why was this rushed through at such a speed when we could have taken

time to consider the many amendments tabled? Massive disrespect not just

to this House but the many constituents who paid close

attention last week. The bill now goes on its way down to a friends

down the corridor. Unelected friends have been threatened with abolition

if they dare mess with this Government's bill. I am sure they

are now quaking if they don't do their patriotic duty, as the

Secretary of State said. I offer nothing other than encouragement to

these fine tribunes who will pick up the case. For us, it is very much a

win-win, whatever an outcome is here. Can I say to their Lordships,

reach for these barricades and take on this Government. Mr Speaker, we

need a debate about respect of devolved Parliaments in the nations

of the UK. It was not just this House voting on Article 50 this

week. The Scottish Parliament also voted. The overwhelming majority of

members rejected it. Just as every single Scottish Member of

Parliament, bar one. We have to be driven off this cliff edge with a

hardest of hard Brexit even though Scotland wants nothing to do with

this madness. Time is running out for Scotland's voice to be heard. I

am sure the leader of the House saw the poll, it is gently placing here

we have options to consider, if Scotland's voice is to continue to

be ignored. The leader of the Mr Speaker, I mean I felt at times

with the honourable gentleman's praise to the house that I could

sort of visualise the core Ron nets that are descending on him there. I

felt there was some hidden ambition that was finally shining through.

Can I say to him two things in response: First of all, the

allocation of five days for a debate on this two-clause bill, that did no

more than authority the Prime Minister to trigger Article 50, was

a, seems a perfectly reasonable allocation of time. It was an

allocation of time that had certainly even this week has allowed

something like half the members of the honourable gentleman's party to

participate in proceedings, either through speeches or interventions.

My impression, listening to some of the contributions from his benches

was that the atmosphere was far from being all doom and glooj. The

honourable je -- glam. The honourable gentleman entertained us

for an hour earlier this week and seemed to be enjoying himself

immensely at that time. The reality is though, as I said

earlier, Mr Speaker, is that this bill has been brought forward, in

response to a very clear referendum decision by the electorate of the

United Kingdom. And I think that does mean that this

is a very different type of bill from the bills that the House has

debated previously, to ratify various EU amending treaties over

the years. He asked, he complained about the alleged sort of lack of

respect and attention being paid to Scotland. As the Prime Minister

said, yet again, yesterday, the United Kingdom Government is

determined to work with the Scottish Government as well as with the

Government in Cardiff and in Belfast, to ensure that the

interests of every part of the United Kingdom are represented in

the negotiations on which we are about to embark. That commitment is

sincere. It is very strongly felt by the Prime Minister herself and it is

something that she's impressed on every member of the Cabinet. Local

concerns have been raised in Cambridgeshire, not least as the

excellent forensic work of my neighbour, into funding decisions

taken by the greater Cambridgeshire Local Enterprise Partnership. May we

have a debate in Government time to ensure there's proper transparency

and aaccountability so decisions are fair, properly scrutinised and their

et think Kaysy is properly tested? I think it is important that members

who I think on the whole do a good job in providing a forum for

bringing local business and local authorities together and for trying

to leverage private sector investment to, along with public

sector investment to support infrastructure projects. The members

do also have regard to the fact they are the kos todayians of public

money. They need to make sure they have proper rules on accountability

and transparency that would be expected with anybody who is in

receipt of taxpayers' money. My honourable friend may have the

opportunity to raise these issues further at CLG questions on Monday

27th of this month. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the

leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on social care

funding? As part of that, will he ensure and speak to the DCLG and ask

them to publish any contact there's been between Surrey and DCLG

ministers or aides so that debate can be informed. My local

Nottinghamshire authority is incan des send, as I am sure other

authorities are about the way it appears that Surrey has been offered

a sweet heart deal and they have been left to fend for themselves.

There's no sweet heart deal and Nottinghamshire is welcome to apply,

as Surrey wished to, to participate in the full return of business rate

finance to local authorities in the 2018/19 financial year. The, I think

the CLG statement yesterday ga if a full account of what has happened. I

think that a, there's been a lot of fuss and complaint about this, when

actually there's less of a story than the honourable gentleman

believes. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can we have a

debate on Armed Forces charities? I am very honoured to be the President

of Huddersfield Royal Air Force's association. If parliamentary

business had been different today I would have been at the crematorium

this afternoon for the funeral of tref ver Burgin. OBE. He was a

bomber pi lot in the Second World War and flew over Europe. He had a

successful 40-year career as a teacher. Last year he celebrated his

platinum wedding anniversary to Kathleen L the leader of the house

please pass on the condolences of every member of this House. He was a

very enthusiastic and popular member of the Royal Air Force Association

in Huddersfield. I thank my friend for that question.

I think that there is no-one in the future -- in the chamber who would

dissent tribute to the Trevor Burgin. It was good my honourable

friend was able to talk about his late constituent's career of service

because that does remind us that behind the statistics and behind the

generalities there are stories of true heroism and of a lifetime of

public service and commitment. I think all of us in our

constituencies are aware that Armed Forces charities do incredibly

important good work. Often quietly and unsung, in reaching out to

people who are still scarred by both the, by physical and mental

consequences to their health of their time in service.

Over 30 members are seeking to catch my eye now. May I just advise the

House that 36 members wish to speak in the first of the two backbench

business debates and 12 wish to contribute to the second. Therefore,

if I am to have any chance of accommodating that later backbench

interest, we need to be moving on close to 12. 30. Short questions and

answers, please. . Thank you. Last week I visited an

institute outside Cambridge where 1100 people are transforming our

understanding of the human genome. Over 235% of them are none EU

nationals. The senior managers impressed upon me the dwravety of

that situation. Many of those -- gravity of the situation. Many of

those are poorly played and would not work through the visa system.

Can we please have a discussion on this?

The honourable gentleman makes a point about his and other scientific

institutions. As the Prime Minister said, the Government regards the

securing of an early deal to secure the position, both of EU residents

already here and British nationals in other European countries is a

primary objective. We want that sorted as quickly as possible.

. Thank you. Would he find time in Government time for a debate should

the other place seek to delay beyond the end of March the passage of our

accession to Article 50, for this House to discuss the possibility of

either the abolition or full-scale reform of the other place?

Well, I'm, I am more optimistic than my Right Honourable friend, because

I think that there is an awareness in the House of Lords that as an

unelected chamber that there are conventions that apply to how they

scrutinise and deal with legislation and while I don't want to take

anything away from their proper constitutional role, I think members

of the House of Lords have been congis sent of the fact this is the

elected House and we voted by a huge majority. And behind that vote lay

the bigger vote of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Can we have a debate on the legal definition of the word normally,

please? In the Scotland act 2016, clause two states it is recognised

that the Parliament of the United kingdom will not normally legislate

with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish

Parliament. This government continues to ignore the wishes of

the Scottish Parliament over things such as Article 50, can we find out

what else the government intends to ride roughshod over in terms of the

devolution agreement? The ears of every lawyer in the country will

have pricked if we are to have a debate I would normally. I repeat,

the government has been absolutely consistent in saying that the

interests of the entire United Kingdom, from fair Isle to the

series, will be fully represented in how we approach these negotiations.

-- to be silly islands. Last month I hosted a reception by rural England

which welcomed the report which was called the state of rural services

2016. The report considers the impact of oral challenges. For

instant, health, education, transport and broadband. Last week I

chaired a meeting on the impact of losing our services. For all

residents are becoming frustrated. -- rural. Would my honourable friend

got a debate to consider funding to rural services? We have questions on

the 27th of February and the first and 2nd of March. There will be a

review of the fair funding formula to see whether authorities

throughout the country are getting their fair share. Whilst the

Department for Work and Pensions office in my constituency will not

face immediate closure, the jobs there will be relocated to Cardiff

in the next three years. Before that happens in those jobs are lost from

my local community, can we have a debate as to whether the strategy --

as to the strategy of the Department of Works and pensions relocating

their offices. The principle behind the changes has to be the right one,

that the department stops paying out unnecessarily rent on property that

is partly empty, uses a smaller estates, particularly given the

significant fall in unemployment, and uses paving is -- savings to

help people who are finding difficulties getting back to work.

This weekend the report of the defence subcommittee chaired by my

honourable friend for Plymouth will be published. It is entitled, who

guards the guardians and sets out in detail circumstances whereby a

charlatan was able to abuse legal aid to hound British soldiers who

served bravely in Iraq and did nothing wrong. Can we at the

earliest opportunity have a statement as a result of

consultations between the MoD, the Northern Ireland Office and the

Department of Justice as to what will be done in terms of legislation

to make sure nothing like this can happen again to form a service

personnel who served in Northern Ireland. As the Prime Minister made

clear yesterday this is an issue that we take very seriously and I

can assure my right honourable friend that when the report is

published that ministers from those departments that he has mentioned

all want to study that closely and to consult with our honourable

friend for Plymouth about the potential implications on policy.

It's actually a month ago I asked about the new line on the HS2

running through Derbyshire which means there will be two HS2 lines

running through Derbyshire, a fast track and a slow track. It will

bring disruption on the village of Newton, which will result in them

losing their homes. I called upon the Secretary of State for Transport

to intervene and had no reply. Can we have a statement about this? How

far will be government take it without consulting the people of

Newton? Sort it out! Mr Speaker, I know only well the impact that the

HS2 proposals have upon those communities who live close to the

designated route. I will undertake to the honourable gentleman to

ensure that the Secretary of State for Transport is reminded about his

enquiring, about this matter. It is right that the people he represents

should get a proper response from HS2 Limited and I want to make

certain that that happens. The Leader of the House will recall last

week I spoke about the mounting excitement in Cleethorpes in

anticipation of the visit from the Northern Powerhouse Minister. You'll

appreciate that it's now at fever pitch with the visit, only 24 hours

awake, and people are talking about a parallel career path with the last

frontbencher to visit Seaview Street which was my honourable friend the

member for Maidenhead. More seriously, Mr Speaker, be Seaview

Street traders won an award in the British high street awards. Up and

down the country traders are facing difficulties. Could we have a debate

to discuss the future of our high streets? I can't offer the debate in

government time. I think this is an important issue, it affects many

communities. The growth of online sales means there are challenges

faced by small retailers and it is important that retailers are able to

learn from those high streets that are successful and innovative in

managing to keep their customers. I think that the will now be a whole

swathe of my ambitious and trusting ministerial colleagues who will be

making a beeline for Cleethorpes at the earliest opportunity. Can we

have a statement on the shock and disappointment being felt across

Scotland at the failure of former England captain David Beckham to

gain a knighthood? This is particularly the case since he had

been advised that his support for the better together campaign in 2014

would play well with the establishment and in turn-up is

nightfall. -- in turn, help his knighthood. Surely the Leader of the

House can bend one for Beckham? I wasn't quite sure whether the right

honourable gentleman was speaking on behalf of Mr Beckham, or perhaps

there was another motive there. Atherton yearning for the knighthood

himself, but I can honestly say to him that this is not a matter for

me. The Leader of the House will know I am keen to have another

debate on International women's a which is forthcoming in March, but

meanwhile it is lesbian and gay and transgender month. Can we have a

debate around Brexit as Hampshire County Council starts to slide the

rainbow flag? The United Kingdom had a very strong and proud tradition of

human rights and liberal values before we entered the European Union

and that will continue after we have left the European Union and I think

that my honourable friend only has to look at another non-EU country in

Europe, like Norway, to see that there is no bar to a liberal

approach to individual rights as a result of being apart from the

European Union. Currently it is possible for the widowed parent of a

newborn baby to receive up to ?119,000 over 20 years, but if a

partner dies after the 6th of April 2017, bereavement payments will be

limited to ?9,800 over 18 months. Can we please have a debate in

government time to discuss these reforms which will cause severe

hardship to grieving families. There will be questions to the Secretary

of State for Work and Pensions on our first day back, so I think the

honourable lady will have an opportunity then. Mr Speaker, I

don't know whether you have attended a speedway meeting, but it has

always attracted a family audience. Racing has taken place in my

constituency, but as a consequence of a disagreement, one of the local

teams will start the season 25 miles away. Can we have a debate on this?

If my honourable friend wants to draw the attention of the Minister

of sport, I'm sure she will want to know what is happening in the

Speedway world in the Midlands. This is a matter for the government is an

independent governing bodies of the sport rather than something where

Minister should be intervening. I should say to be honourable member

for Bolsover but before I came into the Chamber this morning, I did

select for the first Thursday when we return from the half term recess

his proposed subject matter for the end of Day adjournment debate.

Thursday the 23rd of February. Mr Ian Murray. I wonder if we could

have a statement from the Leader of the House himself, in fact he could

do it now, on how the government brings bills forward to this house?

It's quite clear because the government did not programme in

certain stages to the EU withdrawal bill and obviously they did not

intend to accept enquiries from members. The Ulissi intended to ride

roughshod over the process and it makes the last three days a sham.

There was provision for a report stage. Whether there would be

debating time will depend as always on whether amendments were carried

on maps -- or not come and also how long the house would debate the

report. The member for Newport West has been an outstanding

parliamentarian and I want to wish birthday. I was once his

constituents and his antics drove me to run for parliament, so I must

thank him. This parliament works because we have two houses and

sometimes the other place as agreed with this house and annoys the

government. That is no reason to threaten it with abolition. Can we

have a statement from the Leader of the House confirming that? That

government's position is we respect the constitutional role of the House

of Lords and as I said earlier the House of Lords itself accepts that

as an unelected house it needs to abide by certain conventions. Thank

you to you and other members for the kind comments. I'm less happy that I

will carry the burden of a life that are responsible for the honourable

member's political career. We should have a debate in this house on

procedure during division so we can enjoy the singing of the Scottish

National party choir. The only bright spot in yesterday's evening's

bleak mean-spirited chauvinism was hearing those glorious words of the

European anthem. Looking forward to the great

European ideal on which this government is trampling now, the

idea that day will come when all humanity will be one family. Hear,

hear! It rightly is awash man who highlights the importance of singing

and I think my advice to honourable ladies and gentlemen on the Scottish

National Party bench would be that we have an all-party, and staff as

well as members Parliamentary choir that the crypt every Monday evening,

and I know many SNP members will be welcome to join those who already

participate. I am not shoo how to follow that. We

have heard of the ?30 million investment, all of which is good for

jobs in Corby. We must never be complacent. Can we have a statement

from ministers on real news rather than fake news on the number of jobs

created and investment into the UK industry since 23rd June? My

honourable friend makes a very good point. I think that the additional

investment projects that have been announced in the United Kingdom

since the referendum are a tribute to the underlying strengths of the

economy of this country and that is a strength which this Government is

determined to build further. On behalf of The Right Honourable

member for Gateshead who is indisposed with a prolapsed disk, I

am sure that the whole House will wish him a speedy delivery, but on

behalf of the Backbench Business Committee we were placed in a

position on our meeting on Tuesday, I know that the chairman has writ on

the the leader about this particular issue. We believed that we had the

full day on 23rd. We allocated two debates for the 23rd. And that has

left us in a very difficult position. Can I say that the budget,

I understand, will be on 8th March and then there'll be a succession of

day's debate on that. Even if we fill every Thursday between now and

then, we will not get all of our allotted days on the business

committee. We have on 2nd March, we have prual le kated Welsh affairs

and a debate on International Women's Day which falls on the day

of the Budget. Can I ask my Right Honourable friend to ensure that we

get the second of March as a backbench business day and that on

23rd February, the protected time is sufficient for a proper debate on

theish shoo u we chosen for debate which is -- the issue we have chosen

for debate, child referees in Greece and Italy. If I may, because there

was a terrible incident in my constituency yesterday where a young

man was stabbed at Queensberry station. That meant the whole

station was closed, not only with passengers inconvenienced but this

was a gang fight. Can we therefore have a statement at some stage of

what action the Government is going to take to combat knife crime so

that no other individuals suffer this terrible fate? On the points

about the Backbench Business Committee, as I said earlier, what

has happened as regards is terrible. I am sorry that of that decision. I

can give assurance that the protected time will be allowed for a

full debate on the subject the committee continues to recommend. I

will do my best to try and ensure that the time that was lost to refer

the debate is made up as rapidly as possible. I will take into account

the remarks about March 2nd. I know how important the annual St David's

Day debate is for all members. On his point about the constituency

case, I think that the sense of shock which came through in my

honourable friend's question will have been shared right across the

House. I will make sure that the Home Secretary is alerted to this

particular case, but he will know that the pen atties for knife --

penalties for knife crime have been increased and the police are doing

their utmost to combat that kind of crime he described.

THE SPEAKER: We need one-answer questions from now on. 41 years ago

ten Protestants were murdered by the provisional IRA at king's mill. A

man was charged because his hand print was found on a vehicle

involved in that atrocity. This morning, the public prosecutor has

said to the families that is not sufficient evidence to prosecute the

alleged IRA man. At the same time of soldiers being dragged through the

courts in Northern Ireland. When we will get equity in prosecutions in

Northern Ireland? As the Secretary of State has made clear that he's

working to try and address the issue of the way in which souleder --

soldiers have been unfairly singled out. The service is independent of

directions, I cannot comment on this particular case. Anybody who knows

about Northern Ireland will know the scars of the king's mill massacre

still remain to this day. Residents in my constituency have been let

down by a house builder not completing their houses to the

standard. This week they have been let down because there was no

provision for a new houses ombudsman. Can this will raised with

the relevant Housing Minister? I will make sure the minister is

alerted. I would say on Monday 27th February there'll be questions to

local Government community ministers where she may raise this point

again. My constituent, Mr Christopher

Bronsdon is an anomaly in the civil service pensions arrangement by

which short-service employees leafing service lose their

contribution to the pension pot. People like him have lost ?100

million in recent years as a result. Can we have a debate on this issue.

The best advice is to apply for an adjournment debate. If he wants to

write to me with details I will pass it on to ministers. I was pleased

that Surrey County Council spoke out about the scandal in social care

funding. If it is bad there, think how much worse it is in Hull. The

third most deprived area in the country. Forecasting a ?45 million

shortfall in social care funding by 2020. After the revelations of

yesterday, can all the Members of Parliament outside the stock broker

belt be given the telephone phone number of Nick, so we can all text

him to get the best deal we need for our areas. Better get through to the

right Nick! That sometimes proves quite tricky! Nobody pretends there

is not a serious challenge for our country in terms of social care. It

is a serious challenge. That's why the Government has increased funding

through the better care fund and social care present. In the mead

unanimous term we need to make sure the most successful local

authorities are able to de deacceptate their through those who

are not doing so well and that health and social care work more

closely together. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The

international trade secretary told me earlier, that investors in the US

are reluctant to invest in Scotland because they fear Scottish

independence. How much money are we talking about? What projects? What

is the UK Government doing to ensure Scotland is open for business? I

think, as I said earlier to my honourable friend, the member for

Corby t track record of the United Kingdom since the referendum, has

been that we continue to attract investment here from all around the

world. If there are particular difficulties in attracting

investment to Scotland, then the honourable gentleman might look, for

example, at the recently approved budget by the Scottish Government

which has made Scots the highest taxed people anywhere in the United

Kingdom. A prison was taken to an unknown

location by agents from Iran's intelligence agency on January 4th

during a family visit in the prison. In a statement a British

parliamentary commission warned about the threat to his life and

called for international action for his release. Will the leader of the

House agree to an urgent statement in this matter because time is of

the essence? To the good fortune of the honourable gentleman, the man

with the responsibility to the Middle East, he is on the front

bench. He would have heard the remarks and will want to respond to

him. With industrial action today the

human rights commission and the chair of the economics advising the

Joint Committee on Human Rights they are at their limits of what they can

do can we have a debate about the funding of the human rights

commission, so that victims of hate crime are protected? I mean, the

honourable gentleman may wish to seek an adjournment debate. The

qualities commission is, operates at arm's length from ministers. They

have to take their own decisions about how they live within their

means in the way every public authority has to live within its

means. Can we have a debate in Government

time to allow the House to reflect on the full input of what the

supreme has said in respect of the convention so the important

questions about the future are not left to contend along with other

frictions and fictions of the great repeal bill? There'll be questions

to the Secretary of State for Scotland on Wednesday 1st March,

when there'll be opportunities for this matter to be raised. And I am

absolutely certain that when we get, after the Queen's Speech, to the EU

repeal bill, that there'll be ample opportunity then for all these

questions to be debated. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can we have a

Government statement on the intended timetable of the joint ministerial

council for European negotiations given the Brexit committee were told

recently as yesterday that committee has not begun to consider the

article of 50, that some reports suggest might be submitted four

weeks from today. While the joint ministerial committee meetings are

important, the contacts between UK ministers and their counterparts in

the three devolved administrations and between UK Government officials

in all relevant departments and officials in the devolved

administrations continue on a daily and weekly basis. So, that the

consultation, the understanding of the particular priorities of the

devolved administrations is part of the mainstream work of UK Government

departments. Mr Speaker, yesterday at the

Scottish Affairs Committee the Jobcentre closure plans were called

illogical. An aquality assessment on greater detail. On the stake closure

plans and the moratoriums and closures that members across this

House and across these island have confidence in that this Government

actually knows what it is doing? I suppose it is a forlorn hope that

the honourable lady, members of her party might actually take some

pleasure in the massive falls in unemployment and the growth of

employment that we have seen in this country, inclieding in Scot wland

and -- including in Scotland and Glasgow. It cannot be right for the

Department for Work and Pensions to be spineding money unnecessarily on

buildings that are -- on spending money unnecessarily on building that

are not occupied to give additional advice and support to people,

perhaps with disabilities or long-term unemployed, who want and

need that additional support to get back into employment.

Yesterday TSB bank announced the closure of a canvass branch line.

All three branches would have vanished. Can we have a discussion

about the Post Office to delive day-to-day banking facilities on the

capability of an? That may be a good debate for a backbench debate or for

an adjournment debate if the lady is fortunate enough in the ballot.

Thank you. Not only did the Scottish Parliament vote against Article 50.

It dealt with all votes and amendments less than five minutes.

Does he agree if we had electronic voting in this House, it would not

only would we have, not only would we have more time for debate, even

if we had less time to sign the oh to joy? Call me old fashioned. I

think it is quite a good idea that people should be present in

Parliament in order to vote. When you move to electronic voting and

you can vote remotely I think that disconnects the decisions about

voting from the debate itself. Thank you, Mr Speaker. May we have

an important debate on mobility payments to assist children who

require palliative care? There is a cutoff that children must be aged

three, that I am campaigning to change. The honourable lady makes an

interesting point. I am not aware of the details of this particular

issue. If she would like to give me some more detail I will take it up

with the appropriate minister. She may wish to seek an adjournment

debate from you, Mr Speaker. Can we have a statement on the Government

definition of a marriage-like relationship? My constituent is

under imminent threat of deportation because the Home Office do not

recognise Robert's relationship with his fiancee, Chloe. As committed

Christians that I have not cohabited before their marriage. Can this

statement be considered urgently by the Government?

Individual cases are of course subject to an independent system of

appeals under our immigration and asylum rules. And ministers do not

intervene in the way in individual cases. And those rules do provide

for tests to try and distinguish between people who are living

together as a matter of convenience, and sadly that does sometimes

happen. And those where it is a genuine and committed relationship

within marriage or without. I courage her to write to the

Immigration Minister but that particular case. Thank you, fair

trade fortnight is just around the corner, it could be marked with a

debate on how fair trade policy affects the poorest people. I think

UK support for free trade can be enormously beneficial to people

living in poor countries. Because it means that they should be able to

get ready access to customers, in our country, without tariffs will

other regulations getting in the way. And trade, and enterprise, has

shown its self again and again over the decades as the best long-term

guarantee of economic growth and prosperity for people in poorer

countries all around the world. Order. I will come to the points of

order but forgive me if I say this first. I have received a report from

the tellers in the no lobby yesterday for division number 157 on

the EU notification of withdrawal bill, in respect of amendments

number 86. They have informed me that the number of those voting no,

was erroneously reported as 327, instead of 337. The ayes were 288

and the noes were order. Point of order Louise Hage stock and I can't

quite believe that I'm having to raise concentric scare in his house

again. But after the scandal around it, HMRC revealed that they would

never again use a private group to deal with tax credits. Today the

government have written a ministerial statement to say that

they are transferring tax error and fraud to the DWP and they will be

seeking an outside provider. This is a disgrace will you turn on

government policy, is there anything you can do to ensure that they

minister comes to this hazard explains why this U-turn has

happened and ensure that they are properly held to account. Ministers

are responsible to their own statements and responsible for their

subsequence adherents, I don't seek to adjudicate. The short answer is

that it isn't for me to say that a minister must come here today, we

have scheduled business that is very heavily subscribed. The honourable

lady, with her usual persistence and indefatigability has put her concern

on the record and it would have been heard on the Treasury bench. Knowing

the honourable lady as I have come to do over the last 21 months, I

rather doubt that she will let the matter rest. She may well think

about it over a period of several days when we are in recess and if

she is dissatisfied with what is said, or as the case may be not said

by government, doubtless she will return to it when we return. Point

of order Mr Peter Grant. Thank you Mr Speaker, yesterday, the Minister

of repeatedly referred to yesterday and repeatedly said that it gave

members the opportunity to vote for or against a trade deal. The wording

of the motion on which the house divided makes no reference

whatsoever to support or opposition to the trade deal. I accept that the

Minister is acting in good faith. Can he advise me whether there are

some people, so that the record of the proceedings correctly mark what

was divided on yesterday. The honourable member has made his own

point in his own way and it is on the record for all including his

constituents to see. Moreover I understand that at the end of the

European committee be, there was a vote on an amendment moved by the

honourable member Full Squad is the West. -- for Swansea West. That vote

was 7-5 against the amendment and indeed the record shows that the

honourable member photo kill and South Persia was in demonology of

five. Thereafter the motion was passed unopposed -- and the

honourable member was in the minority of five. I'm not sure that

there was anything else that I can add, I'm not seeking to be but use,

but he can try again. Very well briefly. The motion that it was

divided on was not the same motion that we divided on on Monday

evening. The motion as described by the Minister were different to the

terms of the motion which the house actually divided, the third division

make no reference to support for or opposition to what was described by

the Minister on a number of occasions. It is fair to say that

this chair is not responsible for what I might say textual exegesis, I

have not looked at the text of the amendment, and I haven't compared

and contrast it that text with the words uttered from the Treasury

bench by the Minister this morning. Clearly the honourable gentleman has

made such a close study, and may well have profited by it. I did

there is anything further I can do today, what I will say is that the

honourable gentleman is in sense in gauging in a debating point, perhaps

a legitimate one with the Minister, and at least today it seems that he

would have had the last word. Hopefully says somebody from a

sedentary position. Even that the record has just had to be corrected

to reflect what is perhaps understandable human error in the

division lobbies last night and given the intense number of votes

that we can expect when the great repeal bill comes forward, does that

not suggest that electronic voting might actually help avoid some of

these human errors, and can you perhaps tell us Mr Speaker whose

decision ultimately would it be, to introduce electronic voting in this

house? The honourable gentleman never misses an opportunity, that

would be the decision for the house. There does be absolutely care about

that. A change could be agreed, only, by the house, and equally the

house could agree not to do so. If there are no

further points of order, and the appetite at least today has been

satisfied, we come now to the backbench motion on Israeli

settlements in the occupied Alice Tinney and territories. As things

stand, I must warn colleagues, that it would seem almost inevitable,

that there should be a five-minute limit on back bench speeches because

approximately 35 or 36 colleagues wish to contribute. The motion in

the first instance will be moved by Sir Desmond Swain. I beg to move the

motion on the order paper in my name and in the name of other honourable

members. Given the investment that we have made in a two state

solution, my question to the Minister is, aside from standing on

the touchline is, watching the players on the field and shouting

advice, what more can we do, whilst our friend and ally, pursues a

policy on settlements which is bound so proceeding, to deliver a

situation where the two state solution becomes actually

geographically and economic the unworkable. Now yesterday my right

honourable friend the member for Congo are rightly challenged the

Prime Minister on the need, for face to face negotiations. And he is also

a champion, of the case for greater investment, in strategies and

projects to bring about the integration of Palestinian and

Israeli citizens. And he's right about that as well. If we take our

diffident ploy using Jerusalem who travel in daily on a tortuous

commute, from the areas around Bethlehem. These are young people in

their mid-20s, to mid-30s. The only interaction that they ever have with

an Israeli subject, is when during the journey, they are challenged, to

show their papers under what I would call the operation of the pass laws,

which exist to ensure that their ability to live, stay and work in

their own city is restricted. Now I understand entirely, how we got to

that dreadful situation. We got there because of the obscenity of

suicide bombing. And no government, Israel could not possibly have

tolerated the wholesale slaughter of its innocent citizens in that

respect. The key question for us, having got to this dreadful

situation, how do we get back from it? It is one thing to demand quite

properly, face to face negotiations, but on the other hand, at the same

time, to pursue a policy in respect of illegal settlements, which

actually makes those negotiations so much more difficult, particularly

so, when those, when that policy is driven by an increasingly strident

ideology. I will give way when I had developed my argument. An

increasingly strident ideology. On Monday night, when the bill was

passed in the car Knesset, retrospectively, legalising 4000

homes in illegal settlements, the Minister for culture welcomes that

results saying" it was the first step towards full Israeli

sovereignty over Jude dear and Samaria. " He chose his words

carefully. And I might say Mr Deputy Speaker, when President Trump was

elected, the interior Minister no less -- Judea and Samaria. The

Interior Ministry welcomes that saying "We are witnessing the birth

pangs of the Messiah, when everything has been flipped to the

good of the Jewish people." Mr Speaker gave a rather different

gloss on the election of Mr Trump on Monday, but nevertheless, it is

clear, it is absolutely clear, that a significant proportion of the

Israeli political establishment, are in thrall to an increasingly

strident settler movement that regards Palestine as a biblical

theme park. Judea and Samaria. Now the more strident, more aggressive,

out riders of the settler movement, I'm not people that you would

necessarily welcome as your neighbour. -- are not people.

Particularly I refer to what is happening in Hebrew on. If we set

aside some of the ruses that I used to acquire property, nevertheless

when the settlers moving. It is actually the Palestinian neighbours,

who have too wrecked grills and meshes and fences over their windows

-- Haft to direct. To exclude the projectiles and the Rec use. And the

reaction of the security forces, to protect their newly resident

citizens, is to impose an exclusion zone, too cordoned off and sanitise,

the access and the areas around those properties. And sober seeding,

Palestinians find that they are excluded from the heart of their

city and indeed from the area of their own homes. It has all of the

appearance of what we used to describe has petty apartheid. Now

when Senator Kerry explained at the turn of the year, why the United

States would no longer pursue its policy of exercising the veto, in

respect of UN resolution 2334, he said that if the two state solution

was abandoned, Israel could no longer be both a democracy, and a

Jewish state. It would have to accommodate

Palestinian citizens and all the civil rights and political rights

within the state of Israel. I carefully. Didn't John Kerry also

say, and this is a direct quote, this is not to say that the

settlements are the whole or even the primary cause of the conflict,

of course they are not, nor can you say that if the settlements were

suddenly removed you'd have priest without a broad agreement, you would

not. That's what he said and the honourable gentleman could have

submitted a more balanced motion that reflect the wide-ranging...

He's sneering, but they more balanced notion to the two state

solution that I want to see. I certainly wasn't sneering. I accept

entirely that's what John Kerry said. The motion could not frankly

be more anodyne. I see my honourable friend wishes to intervene. I'm very

grateful. Is now not that I'm more than ever that the United Kingdom

government has to be entirely consistent and remind the world

without any qualification that settlements and occupied Palestinian

territory are illegal without qualification? I absolutely agree.

Does my right honourable friend still wish to intervene? In a

moment? Very well. I returned to the point that I made with respect to

John Kerry, the key question I return to is the one that I put to

the minister at the start. What do we do? What can we do? Well, I was

delighted by the activism of the United Kingdom government in respect

of the security resolution... Not yet, to 334, as a consequence of

that. I was of course this made by the subsequent inactivity of Her

Majesty 's government in respect of the Paris conference. But it comes

back to the question of what do we do every time there is some other

outrages announcement in respect of settlements? What we do, and I'd

heard the minister... I will not give way. I've heard the Minister

Sayed from the dispatch box, we make representations at the highest

level. And I've said it myself at that dispatch box. And of course we

do make those representations and I'm certain that the Prime Minister

will have made those representations on Monday to the Prime Minister. I

last made those representations to Israeli politicians in a meeting in

the Canas it with the chief negotiator with the Palestinians and

Deputy Prime Minister, and halfway through the meeting, he stormed out,

announcing that I had launched a brutal assault. Well, as you know Mr

Deputy Speaker, I am a pussy by comparison to my honourable friend

on the front bench, the member for East Bournemouth, who is a terrier.

And I am absolutely convinced that his representations will be much

more robust than mine. But so long as they remain representations,

exactly that, the government of Israel will continue to act with

absolute impunity. So the question to the Minister is, what do we do

beyond representations? What else exists in his armoury to escalate

the situation? And that, of course I accept, is an extraordinarily

difficult question because Israel is our friend, our ally, a democracy, a

nation where we have huge commercial interests is, and with which we

share vital intelligence agendas. I'm afraid he missed his

opportunity. Can I make one suggestion? One gentle suggestion as

I conclude to my honourable friend? He might consider giving effect to

this house's instruction that we should recognise the Palestinian

state. Now, I've heard, I have heard my honourable friend say that we can

only do this once, and therefore we need to choose the moment where that

will make the maximum impact, and I agree with him. But he needs to

consider this. It would be truly absurd if we were to delay that

recognition until after the point at which the reality of any such

Palestinian state could actually be delivered. The question is as on the

order paper and what I would suggest to members is, we will have to start

with a five-minute limit and if we can be tight we will get everybody

in on the same amount of time. Richard Burton. Thank you for

scheduling this debate and I congratulate the honourable

gentleman for the way he introduced it. Look, these debates always bring

out sharply differing opinions on both sides, that's inevitable. But

there is one thing on which there has always been, in my experience,

consensus in this house, across the Chambers, and that is that the best

way to peace between Israel and Palestine is a two state solution

where both peoples have equal rights to sovereignty in viable and

contiguous states. Now of course fall, lasting peace involves more of

dealing with settlements, of course it does. But the reason settlements

are the focus of today's debate, and rightly so, is because the continued

expansion of settlements, the infrastructure around, the

accompanying demolitions that precede them is creating, as the

honourable gentleman said, a new physical reality in the West Bank

that is destroying the possibility of a viable Palestinian state ever

being established. It's making physical changes to the map of the

West Bank, carving it up into different segments, separate from

each other, and in the end it resembles a Swiss cheese. It does

not resemble anything that at the end of the day could be a reliable,

contiguous state. I give way. I am grateful to my honourable friend for

giving way. Does he agree that this policy of ongoing settlement

expansion is not only an intolerable infringement on the right of the

Palestinians, it is also a long-term threat to the stability and security

of Israel postmark and people who care about the security of Israel in

the longer term and its future as a democratic and a Jewish state ought

to be opposing these policies and supporting the progressive voices in

Israel? My honourable friend is absolutely right and I am

particularly pleased that he also mentioned progressive voices that

exist in Israel, could they do exist. One of the most insidious

things happening at the moment our actions being taken by some of the

Israeli right, sadly supported by the Israeli government, to silence

those voices. Some organisations are breaking the silence, they have the

guts and integrity to stand up and say this is wrong. Now, we know that

the footprint of settlements, 6000 new unit announced in the last few

weeks, the footprint of settlements now makes up over 42% of the

landmass of the West Bank. And we know that whatever the numbers, and

the honourable gentleman made this point, whatever the numbers, the

reality is that every single settlement built on occupied land is

an awful under the Geneva Convention. This echoes the point by

the honourable gentleman, if settlement building does not stop,

the two state solution that will inevitably follow means that the de

facto annexation of the West Bank by Israel, we saw another move towards

that in the last week with the regularisation law retrospectively

declaring illegal Israeli settlements on expropriated private

Palestinian land. I commend the Attorney General of Israel for

declaring that unconstitutional. But the direction of travel is clear.

With this law and the massive expansion of settlements that is

taking place mean that whatever Israel calls it in theory,

annexation is happening in practice. Are we in his view now beyond the

point where a viable Palestinian state could be set up were there to

be agreement to do that? Or does he think there are still perhaps

grounds for some optimism? I still think that the long-standing policy

of this house to support the two state solution is right. But the

chances of it are disappearing, let's make no mistake about that.

And I'm afraid I can't give way any more as there isn't time. I'm sure

the honourable lady will have her chance a little bit later. But this

is what John Kerry was getting at, if you end up with de facto

annexation of the West Bank, that gives Israel a choice. Either it can

say that everybody living there should have a vote and equal rights

equal to its own citizens or it says that they do not. If it says they do

have those rights then the future of Israel with a Jewish majority is at

an end. If it means that they do not have those rights then Israel can no

longer claim to be a democracy. Not only that, but if you have to factor

annexation while maintaining systems of laws and controls that

discriminate against the majority of people that live there and denied

basic democratic rights, what term can you use describe what you are

left with but a form of apartheid? And if you go there today and look

at the reality of life for Palestinians on the West Bank, it is

difficult to come away with the impression that what is happening

there already is a creeping culture of apartheid. Is it any wonder,

therefore, that if you talk to Palestinians today, particularly

young Palestinians who have never experienced anything but the

grinding weight of occupation, they increasingly tell you that what they

regard as the international community constantly going on about

the two state solution is a cruel deception on them and their lives

and they say actually we are getting to the stage, we don't care how many

states they are, we just want to be ensured that we have equal rights

with everybody else. So we are left with choices, I think, about what we

do about this. The honourable gentleman is quite right to put this

to the Minister. We can either continue with the mantra that we

support a two state solution in theory all we can do something. So I

have two questions for the Minister. Firstly, what actions, not just

words, is the UK Government prepared to take to differentiate Israeli

settlements in the occupied West Bank from Israel itself? And as

settlements are illegal should there not be a clear message from the

government that any trade preferences either before Brexit or

after Brexit do not apply to settlements, and that that will be

enforced, that UK businesses should not collude with illegality through

any financial dealings with settlements or through the import of

settlement goods to the UK? And I conclude on this, and it echoes the

point made by the honourable gentleman, five years ago the then

Foreign Secretary William Hague said, we reserve the right to

recognise a Palestinian state bilaterally at the moment of our

choosing when it can best help bring about peace. In October 2014 this

house asked the government to act on that. So will the Minister agree

with me that when the two state solution that we all support is now

under threat like never before that now is the time to act on that

bilateral recognition? We have to ask ourselves if not now then when?

And if not now, aren't those Palestinians who believe that we

talk a good story but we do nothing to end their misery actually right?

Thank you, and I congratulate the two honourable gentleman who have

introduced this debate. Secretary Ceri's speech after resolution 2334

was outstanding in its depth and balance. And friends of both Israel

and Palestine must address the central charge of Kerry that the

status quo is unsustainable and is both a threat to a democratic Israel

and a viable Palestinian state. The argument that resolution 2334, John

Kerry's speech, the Paris conference and even this motion are hollow

words and simply serve to harden enchanters are self-serving

nonsense. Reiterating basic tenets of international law and ceaselessly

searching for peace cannot be dismissed in this way. I shared

Kerry's analysis that settlements are not the whole or even the

primary cause of the conflict. I welcome his work on securing

Palestinian acknowledgement that the reference in the Arab peace

initiative included the concept of land swaps, and he is right that

even if the settlements were removed you would not have peace without a

border agreement. Since Oslo, Palestinians have been betrayed by

two decades of factional eyes leadership, by the international

community and disastrous consequences of the implementation

of the Oslo process, historically by their Arab neighbours, in a

catastrophic way that they first advance their own interests ahead of

Palestinian cause and also historically by Britain. In our

failure to deliver the second half of the Balfour declaration. It is

also true that over 100 years of Palestinian leaderships they have

never missed an opportunity for missing an opportunity. Today those

encouraging violence are again betraying the opportunity to present

the Palestinian cause with legal and moral authority.

But while admitting the enormity of these issues, one shouldn't belittle

the Cirrus Miss of the settlement issue. Settlements are in legal

under international law for a reason. I'm very grateful to the

distinguished chair of the foreign affairs select committee to allow me

to intervene but I wonder if he would just comment on what message

it sends out to the international community, that UN resolution after

UN resolution has been ignored and what they can do to make sure that

we can action the one that has just been passed. I agree with the

honourable gentleman, such a distinguished addition of the

foreign affairs, has he knows we have an outstanding quarry into the

British policy towards the Middle East peace process and we will

engage in detail, over the months ahead. I thank the honourable

gentleman for giving way, having been in Gaza a Kohlschreiber century

ago when he is slow process started, are we not in a situation where if

we do not recognise and enforce international law, we send a message

to other countries in the world that if you cover something in concrete,

we will let you get away with it and we will pay the price for it. I

agree with the honourable lady, we are dealing with a catastrophe. With

its implications, of the settlements. We should not belittle

the issue. Settlements are illegal under international law for a

reason, you can't conquer someone else's territory and then colonise

it. The end of that era was codified in the Geneva convention and

-- in 1949. Our experience has been decolonisation, that it should have

happened over the last 50 years at the hands of a nation born out of

the moral authority of the appalling treatment of the dues in Europe over

centuries, that culminated in the Holocaust, is deeply troubling for

the admirers of the heroic generation that founded the state of

Israel. We rightly talk about all that should be celebrated in Israel,

which is often described as a beacon of our shared values in a troubled

region. But the truth is that Palestinians, the Arab world, the

wider international community, including R.N. Population,

increasingly see Israel through the clouded prism of settlements. I will

at the end of my honourable friend allows me at the time. Within Israel

there is no consensus on settlements and the recent regularisation law

has raised a particularly rancorous debate, it was the son of a former

Prime Minister and daily cooed member of the car Knesset who dubbed

the law as the robbery law. While the head of the Zionist union called

it a threat to Israel. And we might also remember that parliaments can't

make legal what international law prescribes. He is making good

points, does he agree with me that the expansion of illegal settlements

is the despair of many people who wish Israel well and plays precisely

into the hands of those who believe that there is a cynical intent never

to pursue a two state solution. I wholly agree with my honourable

friend. And it is stress is me, that the recent signals from the

government, briefing against the Kerry speech, not participating in

the Paris conference, receiving an Israeli premier who has just resided

over the regularisation law and is indeed domestic trouble. Despite the

formal reiteration of the British position on settlements, suggests

that it doesn't fully appreciate the seriousness of this obstacle to

peace, and the threat to the values of a nation, that how history of

personal, economic and security relationships makes a firm friend

and ally. Friends should not allow each other to make profound and

damaging mistakes. Which is why I support this motion. Thank you Mr

Deputy Speaker, before I addressed this motion I want to start by

condemning the rocket attack on Israel last night when Islamic State

fired for rockets from the Sinai peninsular into Eilat and I expect

the whole house will want to join me on to that. Three weeks ago I

produced a ten minute ruling in support of and its national funding

for Israeli - Palestinian peace and at the outset I made clear my

opposition to the continuing settlement building in the West

Bank, a policy that as I said threatens the viability of a future

Palestinian state, the case of which is an arguable, does immense damage

to Britain's standing in the world and it will put at risk that which

is most precious about Israel's character, its Jewish and democratic

character. But I also make clear that settlements are not the only or

even the principal opposition to peace. As the former US secretary of

state John Kerry who has been much quoted said today in his final

speech on the Middle East, the core issues can be resolved, it is with

leadership on both sides, committed to finding the solution. In the end

"I believe that negotiations did not fail because the gaps are too wide

but because the level of trust was too low. I don't believe that

settlement building in the West Bank does anything to contribute to

raising those levels of trust, in fact quite the reverse but let us be

clear, trust has to be built and earned by both sides, it is

unfortunate that today's motion makes scant recognition of that

fact, so let me outline some of the factors beyond settlement building

that contribute to that lack of trust. I'm very grateful, last month

I had the privilege to be on a delegation to Israel and Palestine,

and we met a group of young Palestinians and young Israelis who

are working together, on IT and technology, and that is surely the

way forward to build the trust that she talks about. I absolutely agree

with my honourable friend, I have also visited that project and it is

inspiring and coexistence is building trust. I don't believe

trust is built, when the Palestinian Authority pumps out and unrelenting

stream of anti-Semitic incitement. Children's programmes that teach

their young audiences to dues, the naming of schools, sports

tournaments and streets after so-called martyrs and the payment of

salaries to convicted terrorists or when it suggests that as the person

is state media regularly does, that all this row is occupied territory

and when it continues to insist a right to return for the descendants

of Palestinian refugees to pre-1967 Israeli territory. I don't believe,

that trust has been built by the experience of Gaza, a territory that

Israel unilaterally withdrew from 12 years ago only to see it come under

the control of Hamas. A group that is committed to the creation of a

Palestinian Islamist state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean

Sea. Who use Gaza... I wonder whether, she has been talking about

trust, I wonder how she would assess the evacuation of settlements, of

settlers, 8000 of them from Gaza to be greeted by almost 20,000 rockets.

The honourable gentleman makes his point himself, and we all know that

to be greeted by a thousand rockets as gauge do anything but create

trust. And of course Hamas use it as a base, Gaza to indiscriminately

fire rockets into Israel, which is what I think he's referring to and

to build tunnels to carry out terrorist attacks. I would give it

away any further. And it which is treatment of women, its political

opponents, LGBT community and journalists, shows absolutely no

respect for basic human rights of Palestinian people. Nor is trust

built when those international institutions which might be expected

to foster a settlement and promote the values of peace and

reconciliation, show that they cannot act as honest brokers. The UN

General Assembly that ended its 20 16th annual legislative session with

20 resolutions against Israel. And only six resolutions on the rest of

the world combined. That included three on Syria, one each on Iran,

North Korea and Crimea. 20 on Israel. There is no balance there.

The UN human rights Council which in its first decade of existence

adopted 135 resolutions, 68 of them attacking Israel. More than half. Or

Unesco which has denied the Jewish people's deep historic connection

with Judaism's holiest sites in Jerusalem. As supporters of a two

state solution, we should commit ourselves to building with and

between histories and Palestinians. We should do that in both words and

our actions. In Dow words, we should seek to avoid emotive language which

feeds a narrative convict him and villain. We should recognise and

encourage a need for compromise and we should never fail to acknowledge

the complexities of a conflict which has endurance for decades and whose

roots run deep. In our actions we should steer clear of simplistic

solutions, such as the BDS movement. A movement which by seeking to

delegitimise and demonise the world's only Jewish state, is both

morally wrong and does nothing to further the cause that it claims to

support. We should give knowing coachman to those who denies

Israel's right to exist and refuse to announce violence. Hamas and

Hezbollah are no friends to the cause of two state solution. And we

should do all that we can to assist those in both Israel and Palestine

who are working for peace and reconciliation. That is why I

believe that the greatest contribution that Britain can make

towards building strong constituencies for peace in Israel

and Palestine, is by increasing our support for coexistence work. People

to people projects that bring together it is radius and

Palestinians at the grassroots level, and backing the establishment

of an international fund for Israeli and Palestinian peace. The absence

of such constituencies is all too apparent. While 59% of Israelis and

51% of Palestinians still support a two state solution, he's already

slim majorities are fragile and threatened by fear and distrust

between the two people. So after two decades, there is now a significant

body of evidence indicating the impact that coexistence projects can

have, despite the challenging environment in which they exist.

Those participating in such programmes report higher levels of

trust, high levels of cooperation, more conflict resolution values,

less oppression and loneliness. These are the kind of measures that

we should be supporting, I call on the government to support

international fund for history and Palestinian peace. Thank you Mr

Deputy Speaker, I have no doubt that today we would see an impassioned

debate and we have already got off to a good start and we can see quite

clearly used from both sides of this particular issue. I think it is

right however to begin by emphasising that as other members

have said, is ready settlements are not by a long stretch the main

obstacle to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The number ten

spokesman said in December, that it is far from the only problem in this

conflict. And the people of this rail deserve to live free from the

threat of terrorism, which they had to cope with for far too long. Mr

Deputy Speaker, it seems to be the narrative that the conflict we see

today started in 1967 when it's regained control of West Bank and

Gaza. And I ask these members to consider why then was the violence

in this region, why did it predates the existence of the settlement. It

is worth recalling that the West Bank and Gaza were occupied prior to

1967, not by Israel but by Jordan and Egypt respectively. During these

occupations they refused to grant citizenship to Palestinian refugees,

where is the condemnation of Jordan and Egypt? Nor did they surrender

the territory for a Palestinian state, where is that condemnation of

Egypt and Jordan? The international outcry was deferred until Israel

occupied the disputed land at which point it became unacceptable for

that occupation to take place. From that point onward it was

unacceptable, prior to that no condemnation. I wish to make the

point that legality is not subjective, it is often said that

Israeli settlements are illegal. But stating this repeatedly does not

make it true. Please bear with me, for a moment. The West Bank and Gaza

remain as they have always been, disputed territories. Under

international law. It has never been a Palestinian state. So the

territory remains odourless, that is a strong argument for some. It is

not so one that I necessarily ascribed to -- remains without an

owner. The whole point of the chamber, is that we achieve exposes

argument and discuss them and not seek merely to rehearse in trench

positions, otherwise what is the point of a debate. I will give way

to the gentleman. I was simply going to say that I

think he's making an important point. The truth is that in 1947 a

Palestinian state was proposed but not established by other Arab

countries who chose to invade Israel at the moment of the establishment.

A Palestinian state could have been established at any point in the next

20 years by Egypt who was controlling Gaza, or Jordan who were

controlling the West Bank. I think is completely right to make this

point. I am grateful for the intervention. When people criticise

Israel for demolishing tunnels and building walls and erasing

buildings, they make no comment when Egypt does exactly the same. The

international community is silent on Egypt and only vocal on Israel. And

as the honourable member for Enfield North said, where is the balance? I

made the point about the view that some people believe that settlements

are not illegal because the land is odourless, I don't subscribe to that

view, but the reason it is important to make it is because people hold

that the very firmly, it is a divisive issue. As the honourable

member for Enfield North said, it is a fundamental issue of building

trust and unless you can build trust and deal with the issue of disputed

lands then that trust deficit is going to continue. I think the

honourable member for giving way, and on the issue of trust would he

not agree with me that the issue of trust was almost ended as far as

Israel was concerned when, as a result of removing all settlements

from Gaza, the only result was a torrent, avalanche of rockets and

missiles as a result? My honourable and long-time friend makes a good

point. Everybody talks about Israel giving up land for peace, they have

given land, they did not get peace. I have to say I wholly support, I

wholeheartedly hope and support a two state solution and that it can

be established with trust on both sides, but only two parties can

decide on borders and other status issues and those two parties are

Israel and the Palestinians. Accordingly I welcome the fact that

direct peace talks remain the best way to secure a solution. Direct

talks between the two parties involved, not European conferences

excluding one of the parties. And as I said before the two state solution

we also bought should be the end -- we all support should be the end and

not the start of the process. I strongly believe that debates like

this need to focus on the whole and complex picture and not just one

particular aspect. Likewise, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not believe

that the UN Security Council resolution 2334 helps advance peace

as it focuses on Israeli settlements and only serves to reward

Palestinian intransigence and unilateralism. On particular

concerns of my constituents, 2334 defines east Jerusalem as

Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 including the Western Wall, the

Judaea and holiest sites, and this area includes the holy sites of

Christianity where Jesus practised his ministry. This definition

implies that both dues and Christians visiting their holiest

sites are acting illegally and that is an affront to both alike. I'm

trying to reflect the concerns, I will not give way, I'm trying to

reflect the concerns of my constituents. Honourable members may

not like the views of my constituents but it is my job to

represent my constituents in balanced debate, whether or other

honourable members dislike it or not, that is the purpose of a

constituency MP and that is what I seek to do. I have already said,

Israel has given up land for peace, it has not had the piece, and it is

important that this government continues to support, nudge and

cajole our ally to take the right course. But acting unilaterally, a

premature declaration of statehood for the Palestinians would put back

peace and not pursue it. If we support the Balfour declaration we

must stand alongside our ally, Israel, and make it work. Thank you.

Ian Paisley. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do believe the point that

has been made and that is the best way to resolve this apparent

intractable problem is the way that peace processes have been resolved

around the world and that is by face-to-face negotiations by the

people on the ground and not by grandiose schemes which play to

certain galleries and certain outside influences. And I think that

that's an important starting point for any peace process that could

ultimately work. Settlements are a symptom of the conflict in Israel,

they are not the cause. And if anyone thinks that they are the

cause of the conflict they do not understand what has happened in that

land. History shows that the unilateral removed meant of

settlements in the past, the evacuation of settlements in the

past did not generate peace at all, but in fact inspired more rocket

attacks and the deaths of more innocents in other settlements,

that's what they actually did. And instead of being part of a peace

process, the unilateral removed meant of settlements would be a

peace by peace process, a step-by-step process towards more

attacks on innocent people. So let's stop the hand-wringing, let's stop

the pretence that it unilateral move on a settlement will make peace, it

actually work, and for some, not in this chamber, but for some it is

cover for more aggression and foremost, I believe, it is misguided

view on what is happening on the ground. You can't negotiate away

settlements in advance. I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way

and I support the point that he's making. Would he like to contrast

the failure of Israel's unilateral decisions to remove settlements from

Gaza in relation to securing peace and compared that with the agreement

that was made with Egypt in 1979 when Israel withdrew and demolished

its settlements as part of an agreement, an agreement which has

lasted to this day? The right honourable lady who has much

experience and knowledge of the area makes a vital point. In fact if you

look at the history of the area, Israel has a very good track record

of agreeing concessions on territory whenever peace is made, that was the

history in 1979, whenever they made an agreement, what did they do?

Israel gave up critical, Sinai, 91% of the territory that they won in

1967, they gave that up once peace was agreed, as part of that piece

they again moved into the settlement in Sinai and destroyed it completely

and removed it. In Jordan, what was the attitude of the Israelis?

Whenever they got a settlement they redeployed both sides to their

respective sides and agreed to the international boundaries, so I think

the point made by the honourable lady is supported by facts on the

ground at the end of a peace process. You cannot, and I have been

part of a peace process, you cannot make a major concession at the

beginning of a peace process and think it starts at that point, you

make the concessions at the end on the basis of an agreement, that's

what needs to take place. I think the honourable gentleman for giving

way. Can he just tell the house whether he agrees that Israeli

settlements are illegal and actually while it is not the only factor it

is critical to ensuring that we address that and we acknowledge

that. Second point in relation to Gaza is that 800,000 children are

living in, as the former prime ministers described it, one of the

world's biggest open prisons. These are major humanitarian issues that

we need to confront and address. To be absolutely clear I am not

dismissing any of the major humanitarian issues, I have absolute

sympathy and absolute concern and passion for the needs of Israeli and

Palestinian children, Israeli and Palestinian men and women, that they

live in a new, harmonious, peaceful countries. What we have to get to

the point of how do we get to that solution of countries? And the only

objective, the terms of reference for any negotiation should be the

starting point, and where we want to get to is a piece fell, -- peaceful

secure Israel side-by-side with a sovereign Palestine. That is a two

state solution and the only way you will achieve that is by face-to-face

negotiations by the practitioners on the ground. Most members will have

had the opportunity in the last day or so to walk through the upper

committee corridor and see the project which shows women from

across Israel and Palestine of different races, different creeds,

different backgrounds are asked to do one thing, and that is to paint

an olive tree. And all of those different women have given very

different perspectives. But they've painted the same thing in all its

glory. And the important issue of that experiment shows that if you

put the people together on the ground and allow them to negotiate

and do something face-to-face you will ultimately get to a solution.

So the message that we should send out today is very clear and

unequivocal. Only Israelis and Palestinians sitting down together

face-to-face can actually sort this out and achieve peace in a much

tortured and battled region. Due to the number of interventions we are

going to have to go down to four minutes already. Thank you. And I'd

like to give credit to everybody who has spoken, I think every speech has