28/03/2017 House of Commons

-- will the Foreign Secretary make representations? I think he's

repairing to the Americans. There have been numerous barbaric

air strikes by the Assad regime in the United States of investigating

and will produce a full report. We must now move on. Statement, the

Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Games broken sure. With permission I would like to make a statement on

recent events in Northern Ireland. Since the Northern Ireland election

on the 7th of March, I have been engaged with talks of the political

parties and Irish government in line with the well-established three

stranded porch. There has been one clear purpose, to re-establish and

includes a devolved administration that stored in accordance with the

1998 Belfast agreement and its successors. Progress has been made

on a number of visual stop these include on budget, a programme for

government, and ways of producing transparency and accountability. We

have seen further steps forward on ways to implement the Stormont House

agreement, to provide better outcomes for victims and survivors

of the Troubles. In addition, progress was made and around how the

parties might come together... It is clear that significant gaps remain

between the parties, particularly over the issues surrounding culture

and identity. Throughout this process, the government has been

active in making positive proposals to try and bridge those gaps and

help the parties to move things forward. In law, the period allowed

to form an executive from the date of the first sitting of the assembly

after an election is 14 days. That 14 day period expired at 4pm

yesterday with no agreement, and therefore no executive. This is a

source of deep disappointment and regret to me and many, and I know

there is widespread dismay across the country.

From all my extensive engagement across Northern Ireland, with

business, civil society and members of the public, I'm in no doubt

inclusive, devolved government is what the overwhelming majority of

the people want to see. Working for them, delivering on their priorities

and continuing the positive progress we have seen in Northern Ireland

over recent years. Devolved institutions up and running and

serving the whole community. Yet following the passing of yesterday's

deadline in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland has no devolved

administration. This also means other elements in the Belfast

agreement -- agreement, including the North and South bodies, cannot

operate properly. The consequences of all of this are potentially

extremely serious. The most immediate is the fact we are rapidly

approaching the point at which Northern Ireland will not have an

agreed budget. From tomorrow, a civil servant, the Department of

Finance permanent Secretary, will exercise powers to allocate cash to

Northern Ireland departments. This is an interim measure designed to

ensure services are maintained until a budget is agreed. We are keeping

close contact with Northern Ireland on these matters, and I understand

Department of financial set this up today. Beyond a short period of

time, this will have an impact on public services. What we're talking

about is the health service, schools, voluntary groups and

services for the most vulnerable in society. This is not what people

voted for on the 2nd of March top during the course of the past 24

hours, I have spoken to the leaders of the five main Northern Ireland

parties and the Irish government. I'm encouraged that there remains a

strong willingness to continue engaging in dialogue with a view to

resolving outstanding issues and forming an executive. And that must

absolutely remain a priority. The window of opportunity is short. It

is essential we are for that the intensity of discussions is stepped

up, with renewed intent and focus. And I believe a positive outcome

remains possible. To that end, I will continue over the coming days

to approach the Irish government as appropriate, and I will keep the

situation under close review. If these talks are successful, it would

be my intention quickly to bring forward legislation after the Easter

recess to allow an executive to be formed, avoiding a second assembly

election, for which I detect a little public appetite. I am also

determined to take forward the legacy bodies in the Stormont House

agreement and accordance with manifesto commitments, and will

involve a range of interested parties, including victims

commissioner. But in the absence of devolved government, it is

ultimately for the UK Government to provide for stability and

governance. We do not want to see a return to direct rule. As our

manifesto set out at the last election, it stated local services

should be determined by locally elected politicians and accountable

institutions. But should talks not succeed, the government will have to

consider all options. Therefore following the Easter recess, as a

minimum, it would be my intention to bring forward legislation to set a

regional rate to enable local councils to carry out their

functions. And to provide further assurance around the budget for

Northern Ireland. It is vital that devolved governments and all of the

under the institutions success of agreements is returned to Northern

Ireland as soon as possible. The government's unrelenting focus is on

achieving that objective. Northern Ireland need strong, devolved

governments to deliver for teachers, doctors and nurses, businesses,

industry and the wider community. To ensure it plays a full role in the

affairs of our United Kingdom. And to continue the work of the past two

decades, to build stronger, peaceful and prosperous future for all. That

needs to be the focus of everyone as we approach the crucial next few

days and weeks. I commend the statement to the House. David

Andersen. Thank you. I take this opportunity to begin by sending my

condolences to the family of PC Kieth Palmer, -- Keith Palmer.

Things have changed dramatically since the Secretary of State last

gave a statement to the House and called an election. The result of

the election reflects political institutions not delivering the way

the public to expect. We need a significant change in direction that

includes more governments as well as parties on the ground. They are not

just innocent observers, the public, the need this sad episode brought to

an end. We need direct and continuing intervention. From this

House, we must make sure that the hands of. Let them get on with it.

The people of Northern Ireland have spoken, and they have said clearly

there are no longer any minorities in the place they call home. They

want to be treated fairly, but the man that we get our act together now

and move forward on things pledged to them many years ago. Feel your to

do so is fraught with danger. The Secretary of State says the budget

has not been signed off. That will start impacting on businesses and

the general public. It is not fair to expect the Northern Ireland

Office to run Northern Ireland again. Brexit negotiations in

Northern Ireland are the most sensitive in all parts of the United

Kingdom. The European Commission's lead negotiator has identified

indications for the peace process as one of three main priorities to

enter the negotiations. We all have a stake in this process.

We cannot turn our backs on this situation as many advocated in the

1970s and 80s. Our collective future is at stake and nothing should get

in the way. The parties on the ground needed to take a long hard

look at themselves and stop selling this is what we want and start

saying what can we give to move forward. It is not easy, but it is

the only chance we have the resolve this. Mr Speaker, I haven't even

mentioned the force of the final straw in Northern Ireland was the

debacle that is the Renewable Heat Initiative. I call on the Secretary

of State to ask to look at whether financial burden in Bristol and the

people of Northern Ireland by this failure is limited and reasonable. I

say to the Secretary of State, among others envy you for the job that

this is due. We all want this to succeed. We should use all avenues

to reach that goal and I would like to ask the following questions.

Would he consider whether external support will help them reach an

agreement? History tells us that sometimes it is necessary and I can

show him that in recent talks with good friends of the peace process

from USC eight, they remain ready to help. We ensure that the Irish

government has hands-on involvement in the talks? Will he ensure that

the Prime Minister is fully engaged in the process? History has shown us

the real difference that can make. Will he ensure that unlike so far

there or multilateral, all-party talks set up as soon as possible in

the coming days? Mr Speaker, no one wants this to fail. That is

especially true of my party. We have a great deal invested in this

process and we do not want to see it collapse. Hopefully we can reach a

deal as soon as possible. This process has been build a

partnership, compromise and consensus. We have to build the

faith and confidence not just in the institutions, but much more

importantly, across the whole population of Northern Ireland. This

cannot be done unless politicians on one side are prepared to move from

the entrenched positions. Mr Speaker, this is not just abstract

debate for me. For 12 years, from 1993, I had the privilege to

represent 30,000 public sector workers in Northern Ireland. Many of

them spent years cleaning up the fault of the actions of field

politicians and terrorists. The ambulance personnel ignored the risk

to their lives to save the lives of others. The nurses dealt with the

mutilated, the traumatised and the dying. The porters were sharp end

with the fallout from yet another sectarian shooting. The social

workers helped the breed, those suffering from addiction and those

who are simply lost. Because officers tried desperately to find

homes for those burnt or bombed out simply because of their religion.

The community workers tried to convince young men and women facing

life on the dole that putting on a balaclava and picking up a gun was

not the way forward. It is these people and their children we are

letting down. Every time we say no or we can't or won't we betrayed the

trust they have put in us. These people did their job, it is time for

us all to do ours. I am grateful to the right honourable gentleman for

his clear comments on what is at stake here. Yes, this is about those

very individuals that he spoke to in his final contribution. Around the

health service, education, on the progress we have seen in Northern

Ireland is such a positive and constructive development and we all

have that showed determination and shared commitment to ensure that

that progresses into the future and that young people growing up in

Northern Ireland can look to the future with a strong, positive

intent of fulfilling their dreams, ambitions, aspirations and hopes. I

think that is a message that we can all agree on as we look to the days

ahead. He asked me a number of questions in relation to the process

moving forward and I would just say to him that there is no hands of

road by this government in relation to Northern Ireland. We take our

responsibilities very seriously in relation to political stability and

performance and, fundamentally, that sense of devolved government serving

the people of Northern Ireland and that is profoundly what we want to

see restored at the earliest opportunity. On the issues that he

highlights, on various different rows of different people and

organisations, I can say to him that the Irish government have been

actively involved over the last days and I pay tribute to the work of

Charlie Flanagan, the Irish Foreign Minister, who has worked alongside

me, consistent with the three stranded approach that governs these

discussions and governance of the framework and he has played an

extremely important part and has underlined the Irish government's

continued support for the devolved administration and the broader

institutions set out in the Belfast agreement and its successors are

able to function effectively and properly, which is what devolved

government sits at the heart of in terms of seeing the structure of

fulfilling its intent the Prime Minister has been fully engaged in

this process and the Prime Minister has been fully engaged in this

process and remains so. She has had a number of conversations with the

Taoiseach and I have been keeping her very fairer and understanding

the need to see that progress and supporting this process and will

continue to do so. The right honourable gentleman highlights the

issues of others who may be able to provide support. The important thing

to recognise here is that at its fundamentals, this is about the

parties themselves coming together, devolved elements of agreement and

the scope for outside partners is limited in terms of what that can

support and achieve. It is important in this context but about how we can

best find a way forward with that positive outcome. We are looking at

that intensification, but strengthening of the process moving

forward, working with the parties and I will continue to be discussing

with the parties in the immediate ours and days said the nature that

we have that process in place to get positive outcome that they

themselves have said they want to see. They want to see the return to

devolved government, seeing an Executive performance from the

people of Northern Ireland. We need to support them in that war,

galvanise them and give them all assistance to achieve that outcome

and I know that is what This House would endorse and that is the work

this government intends to bring about. In an attempt to accommodate

the extensive interest in this subject, appealed to colleagues to

ask brief questions without long preamble and, to the Secretary of

State, to offer us characteristically pithy replies.

Can I think the Secretary of State for advanced copy of his statement

and for engaging with me as chairman of the Select Committee regularly

during this process. When people turned out to vote in greater

numbers they did expect politicians to run affairs in Northern Ireland,

not the civil servants and, given the way we are going, could those

people not be forgiven for becoming disillusioned with the whole process

of devolution if we are not careful and shouldn't we therefore remind

all the parties in Northern Ireland that power-sharing means working

with people you do not like and accepting positions that, perhaps,

you would not automatically choose and if they do not do that then

power-sharing will not have a future? I think Mike right

honourable friend in his characteristic way has set out the

real issues and challenges. I commend him and the Select Committee

for their work in supporting activity and I appreciate the

conversations I have had with him over recent days. There is a great

deal at stake, it is about the parties recognising that need to

reach out, as they have demonstrated in the past, and providing the

context and ability for them to do so in the best interests of Northern

Ireland. I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his

statement. Let me pay tribute to Martin McGuinness and in his late

for the work they did in advancing devolution, their contribution was

and remains important. Now, given that the negotiating position seemed

set out in granite at the start of the process, it is little surprise

there has been movement -- little movement. It is moved through steel

made the deadlock the impasse without giving any impression of

compromise. Given the two major parties appear to have enough cold

shoulder left over to see them through the small window of

opportunity the Secretary of State refers to come is it perhaps worth

considering other options? That appears to be a presumption against

having another election but that would seem to be when this is

headed. What preparation is busy making for that new collection?

Considering also that the election will come in the middle of the early

Brexit negotiations, can he tell us what measures he is discussing that

will allow Northern Ireland politicians to play a proper part in

those negotiations and has he discussed with the premise to the

possibility of delaying the Article 50 trigger question mark given the

weight that Scotland has been treated over Article 50, I would

advise against anyone holding their breath on that. In the longer term,

is it perhaps time to revisit the principles of power-sharing and look

once again had weathered the two largest parties should be able to

hold the whole legislature in lockdown like this? Or perhaps it is

time for Stormont to set its own rules on how an Executive gets

formed? Finally, what consideration is being given the graduate salary

spent on politicians in a legislature which is not sitting?

Perhaps I can quickly run through some of the points the right

honourable Lady has said and now there is no intent to figure Article

50 late, but remains absolutely on course. The point she raises about

the role of engaging people across Northern Ireland and that process is

important. I have been engaged in talking to businesses, topping the

communities, ensuring that force is recognised and understood. That is

something which will continue into the future. What will be more

powerful as having the Executive in place, particularly those views and

making the case for Ireland. I also recognise the contribution of those

who have gone before and the point she made at the outset of her

question and, yes, how we need to reflect on the progress that has

been made in looking to the future. She spoke about an election.

Obviously, options remain open but I would say to her that there is no

public appetite and I don't discern any broader appetite in relation to

an election given we had won just over three weeks ago and the focus

needs to be on getting agreement on getting the positive outcome,

getting devolved government on its feet and that is the focus of work

ahead. None of us in This House should underestimate how incredibly

difficult it is for Northern Ireland's leaders to find common

ground on issues such as legacy and identity, which have been the cause

of tension and division for decades. Will the Secretary of State agreed

that if they can find a way to bridge those last divisions, they

will have the gratitude and support of the vast majority in Northern

Ireland who want devolution to work and play its part in moving Northern

Ireland forward toward a brighter and better future? I absolutely

agree and recognise and commend my right honourable friend for the

contribution she has made in that process. Yes, there are these issues

of legacy and identity that have been hugely challenging over so many

years, but I strongly discern that the will is there, the commitment is

there to find a way forward and, as she rightly says, how that would

have such an impact on generations to come. Yesterday the Democratic

Unionist party was at Stormont, ready and willing, along with other

parties, to form a government and set up the Executive. By the jury

the election were previously were now have we said preconditions were

set down red lines. We work in the Executive until November and we are

determined to continue to try to make devolution work in Northern

Ireland because we need a budget and functioning devolution. When Sinn

Fein walked away and collapsed the Executive in January they left us

without that budget without a functioning Executive at a very

challenging time. They did the same yesterday. Mr Speaker, while we are

determined to create the conditions for devolution and want devolution

to work in partnership with Sinn Fein and others, we need a willing

partner who are willing to realistically within the parameters

the Northern Ireland with devolved government within the United

Kingdom, within the institutions as agreed and with Brexit a reality.

Some of us fear that Sinn Fein have now decided that the term for

devolution is over and they are moving on to a different phase where

Demi and ambition is light southward.

I welcome his party's statement he has made on their commitment to

continue to engage, to continue to work, to see devolved government

getting back onto its feet again. I think that is an important point to

underline as we look to the days ahead. And yes, there is this real

challenge in relation to budget, and why I made the comment I did in my

statement. It is that fact of needing to continue the dialogue, to

give effect to what he has said. And I would certainly encourage him to

maintain that focus, maintain the progress, I believe that a positive

outcome is absolutely attainable. And obviously that duty we all feel

in ensuring we reach that positive outcome and creating an executive

that is delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. Can I thank him

for the measured on balance statement, and for the manner which

he has conducted negotiations so far. We all know this is not easy.

He is right to say the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, the

vast majority of members of this House, want to see institutions up

and running and the executive formed from the elected members. Would he

agree with me that there is one measure that could put pressure on

the parties to come back to the talks, and mate crystallised minds,

which would be to make it clear that should be a elected members not form

an executive, then the salaries and expenses will not be paid from the

public purse? Again I welcome the contribution. Certainly we will keep

all options under consideration. But the focus has to be on looking to

that outcome that sees parties coming together and getting devolved

government back on its feet at the earliest opportunity, because

actually that is what people voted for. I share the frustrations of all

those at the lack of progress in forming an administration, but as my

noble friend has observed, the absence of an administration should

not be a barrier to having a not be a barrier to having a

functioning assembly, which is more important now than ever. And if the

RHI issue remains in place, will he use his best officers to ensure that

the judge's enquiry comes to the earliest possible conclusion and

that we should not necessarily have to wait six months to see its

outcome? The eye RHI enquiry is starting to take effect and I think

everyone wants to see the answers and conclusion of that at the

earliest opportunity. It is obviously what crystallised a lot of

the situation we find ourselves in at the moment and I think it is

important that reports as soon as possible. With public enquiries,

they set their own timeline and procedures and processes in that

way. But I think he makes a point very powerfully on the need to see

the conclusion and ensure that we are able to make things on and be

seen to be moving things on as well. Because of its bloody recent

history, I think Northern Ireland has earned the absolute right to

have a decent future. With my right honourable friend agree with me that

a solution to the current impasse is crucial to the economic and social,

as well as political, welfare of the children in Northern Ireland? Most,

if not all of whom have never known the dark days of the third half of

the 20th century. Yes, I do in terms of the positive outcome we should be

looking for in terms of young people growing up in Northern Ireland. That

is what government should be building on. We have seen increases

in employment, prosperity in Northern Ireland, and I think that

is at the heart of what everyone would want to see continuing. I

thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He says progress has been

made on how parties might come together. Does he accept that the

impact of leaving the EU in Northern Ireland was a key issue in creating

instability in the election, but also in the talks, and it must be

addressed urgently? What progress was made in the discussions and we

does the progress it today? Will he convened the first roundtable of the

talks, because my understanding is there has not been one of all

parties, to establish a common approach and strategy for Northern

Ireland. I do not agree with the assessment in relation to the

European Union, and obviously the steps that lie ahead. I again

underlined the sense of the continued engagement focus I have on

this, in ensuring the voice of Northern Ireland continues to be

heard, and helps to shape the best possible outcome for Northern

Ireland as we look to the departure from the EU ahead. He speaks about

the process moving forward, and I can assure him of the focus on

intensification, of seeing we do get that more inclusive approach to the

discussions ahead because I think that is what will actually provide

the strongest possible foundations to get back positive outcome and get

the executive back on its feet again. With Article 50 about to be

triggered in the next 24 hours and the impact of that to be

significant, what representation has been made under half of Northern

Ireland that the GMC meetings so that the people of Northern Ireland

are not left behind in Brexit negotiations? My honourable friend

highlights the role the executive has played to date, and I would

point to the joint letter regarding... Some very significant

issues in respect of order and other issues, on the single electricity

market and agricultural foods. We will be very much in our thoughts as

we prepare for the days ahead. How will the discussions to come be

different to the talks we have had so far? What fresh initiatives is

the Secretary of State proposing, and wouldn't one be to get the Prime

Minister to Belfast as soon as possible, and involve the tee shot

macro -- teosioc as well? I have already spoken in relation to that

intensification, that inclusive nature, and it is that approach that

I will be taking alongside the Irish government and the Irish Foreign

Minister, to do precisely that, because it is that absolute intent

that we have is a government to do all that we can to get devolved

government back on its feet again, and we will do our utmost to achieve

that, which can be done. Will my right honourable friend give a

commitment to ignore the siren song we're hearing from the other side of

the to drag the Prime Minister to Northern Ireland, because it would

be perverse to reward intransigence on the part of some political

parties in Northern Ireland by having the Prime Minister on a tight

leash pulled across to the province. I think it is important that we keep

focused on the issues in hand, which are about the parties coming

together, finding resolution in relation to issues that firmly set

within the devolved space, and the work we can do with the UK

Government to support them. That remains our absolute focus. I

believe the positive outcome can be achieved with goodwill and good

spirits, and it is that environment we are determined to secure. Good to

hear the Secretary of State speaking of the inclusive devolved

government, but since the St Andrews agreement we have had a bit for one

side and a bit for the other, and it has been polarisation all the way

through. We need to go back to the spirit of the Belfast agreement, to

find a way forward together on health and education. With the

Secretary of State look at a new way forward, with it gets all of us

working together, with something different than doing the same thing

again and again? I know this is a gentleman has approached, based on

the settlement and legal structures in place. There may be that scope to

have the wider debate in the future, but we all about getting the

government back on its feet again, seeing governments engaging in a way

that will see the executive formed under its current structure, and

that is weirder focus lies. In supporting and sharing division that

my right honourable friends are passionately advocates, could I

bring him back to the last question and suggest that if intransigence

continues for long enough, there may be a point for fresh thinking, and

perhaps local government in Northern Ireland which he briefly alluded to,

make to play a larger role. Here raises an interesting point. I'm

sure over time the increasing responsibilities should be

encouraged further but it is about getting the executive in place to

support the work, which is where our efforts must lie in the short-term.

Political engagement, power-sharing and partnership government are vital

for the future of Northern Ireland, and working on an all Ireland basis

to deal with the issues presented to us by Brexit. Could the Secretary of

State detail what steps have been taken to secure the presence of the

Prime Minister and Teosioc at such talks, and what is the format and

timescale for such discussions, which hopefully will break this

logjam and bring people together in the spirit of power-sharing

government? The honourable lady was equally talking about Brexit and the

EU points, and there have been discussions between the Teosioc and

Prime Minister in relation to those very issues, recognising Brexit will

have impacts across the island of Ireland, and there are different

parts you can point to where we have, I think, shared commitments in

relation to the Irish government in that regard. I do say to her it is

about getting parties back round the table, looking at ways of bridging

the Gap Saturday, and we are determined to support that to get

that response. And he confirmed the latest impasse is not more money for

Westminster? In the last budget, the Chancellor announced an extra ?120

million for Northern Ireland, and we want to see an executive in place to

use that money effectively. Does the Secretary of State agree that the

people of Northern Ireland deserve more from their political leaders?

Institutions have teetered on the brink for years, now they have

collapsed. The formula to help that collapsing was clear. The Prime

Minister of the United Kingdom, the Teosioc and representatives from the

United States working hand in glove with Northern Ireland's politicians

to prevent the collapse of the institutions. Why does the Secretary

of State not understand that he alone does not have the necessary

authority to resolve these issues? I simply do not accept the analysis

that the right honourable gentleman has advanced. Again, I underline the

issues at stake here in relation to the parties and the devolved

elements. But I can assure him of the seediness and significance we

attach to the position we find ourselves in now. The whole issue of

devolved government in getting that back on its feet, delivering for the

people of Northern Ireland, all of those matters so many have said in

this chamber this afternoon about the future and what that means for

real people and public services, and therefore it is with that renewed

intent that we approach the short period ahead to get back consensus

to build bridges that need to be built to get that positive outcome,

and that is the resolve this government has shown and will

continue to show to deliver for Northern Ireland.

Will my right honourable friend agree that England Wales and

Scotland have limits on expenditure for political purposes, but little

or none for Northern Ireland? Could these limits be extended to Northern

Ireland? I am sure there are a range of measures we can look to for

elections and one issue is around political donations and other

greater transparency, something that has been at the forefront of some of

the discussions which have taken place over the last three weeks and

I want to see progress made in that regard. As a party, we have found

the premise the very engaged in this process. I don't know what others

are complaining about. I welcome the commitment by the Secretary of State

on legacy but it is essential he does not take a partial approach. We

do not want to see money given over for legacy inquests and no progress

made on the historical investigations unit. If that

happens, we will withdraw support for his proposals. It is important

that we deliver for all victims. That has been the consistent

approach of this government in wanting to see reform of legacy

inquests, but also progress made on establishing Stormont house

institutions, because there are families, there are survivors, there

are survivors living with this day in, day out and we have educated

them to provide a comprehensive approach that is able to provide

that way forward for all of them and that earnestly remains my intent. My

right honourable friend has already said several times that there is

very little appetite on the doorstep for another election so soon after

the last. Will my right honourable friend explained to the residents of

Northern Ireland what other the tools he might be considering in his

arsenal to get agreement without the need for a second election? As I

have indicated, we are focused on getting a positive outcome through

renewed talks. Legislating, as necessary to enable an Executive to

be put into place. As I have already said, I will keep all options under

consideration and how we address some of these immediate, short-term

issues in relation to the budget, these are at the forefront of my

mind. As one of the last direct rule ministers for Northern Ireland, can

I remind the Secretary of State that managing five departments from

Westminster is not a good form of government. History shows, however,

that when the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach engage with matters in

crisis and cleared their diaries and spend four or five days engaged with

that issue, crises are solved. Would he reflect on that as he determines

not to have direct route? As I have indicated, the Prime Minister and

Taoiseach are involved. I'd share his view in regards with direct

route. This is not something we want to contemplate, because I see it as

a step backwards, not forwards, which is why we must all redouble

our efforts to get the positive outcome, get agreement between the

parties and see an Executive formed. Can my right honourable friend tell

of the House what processes have been put in place with the Northern

Ireland civil service to ensure public services have the funding

they need? We have been working closely with the head of the civil

service in Northern Ireland and working with them as he works with

his own departments to ensure that the appropriate resources are there.

As I indicated in my statement, the reserve statutory precisions will be

used to ensure departments have the money to be able to maintain public

services. That can only be in place for a relatively short period of

time and the need to have political direction in place to set the

priorities remains urgent, which is why the work ahead of us is such a

significant priority for all of us. Sitting as an independent, I am a

very interested in discipline and bystander in these talks. From my

experience, I think it can be very important that this crucial stage to

try, if the government will, to change the dynamics of those talks.

There is no point heading into the same repeat arguments. Will the

Secretary of State give serious consideration to bringing back to

Northern Ireland a senior American diplomat who is well known to all of

the parties so that she could share these talks, her name is Barbara

Stevenson. I have not spoken to her. She has been volunteered without

knowledge. It seems that she was there for a long time as the

American consul in Belfast and she is well known to the parties highly

regarded. I have met Barbara Stevenson, so I am aware of the

person she is referring to. I would say is the issues that have been at

issue are primarily in relation to strand one under the Good Friday

Agreement structure, which has never been, even in previous discussions

were talks, being something that answered parties have been directly

engaged in. So, while we will maintain contact with all interested

parties, that is where the focus lies. That is where the UK

Government has the primacy and priority and whilst we will engage

in all sorts of different ways, it is about how we are able to build

those bridges between the parties. I look forward to discussing some of

these issues with the honourable lady outside of the House where she

might be able to share some offer thoughts. Would my right honourable

friend agree that the lasting image of the funeral of Martin McGuinness

was of Arlene Foster in a Roman Catholic Church with a coffin draped

in the flag of the Republic paying tribute to the body of a leader of

the IRA who had attempted to kill her father and witty urge all

parties in Northern Ireland to show similar acts of bravery, personal

bravery, to restart the peace process? I think that event was a

very powerful way that so many people were able to demonstrate that

sense of reaching out and the need for all of us to reflect on some of

the bigger issues at stake here for Northern Ireland. Some of the

symbolism, equally, shown by Sinn Fein in different ways over the

years as well. I think it is looking to the bigger picture, looking to

the future of Northern Ireland, looking to be Sherrock, inclusive

future that I think is at the heart of the solution here. I thought that

spirit will be maintained and strengthened in the days ahead, such

that we are able to get a positive conclusion. Honourable members on

these benches only ever want to support the government in resolving

these matters, so I say gently to him, but the perceived laissez faire

approach of the promised does him no favours. The Prime Minister was in

Wales last week, in Scotland this week, she should go to Northern

Ireland with the Taoiseach, convene talks and find a resolution sooner

rather than later. I respect the way in which the honourable gentleman

has made his point, but I do not accept his characterisation of the

laissez faire approach. The Prime Minister and Taoiseach have been

engaged, will continue to do so and we will do all that we can to get

the positive outcome that I know he would earnestly want to see in the

best interests of Northern Ireland. I am sure the Secretary of State

will share my view that if there was a simple solution such as the

premise to getting on a plane, that would have been done. Can he

reassure me that we will not allow one party, especially Sinn Fein, the

US elements of the security forces and historical enquiries as

bargaining chips and hold them to hostage in this negotiation process?

As a government we have primary responsibility in relation to

national security and that is a responsibility I feel very keenly.

It is the way forward we need to achieve in relation to

investigations of the past. We have put forward comprehensive proposals

but I want to see emerging into a broader public debate. That is

earnestly my intent and I believe that can be achieved in the weeks

ahead. Would it be Secretary of State confirm that Sinn Fein's

refusal to accept is legitimate role in these negotiations has led to a

protracted process, that Sinn Fein's refusal to have roundtable meetings

with all of the parties has meant that only their agenda is being

pursued and that Sinn Fein's demand that when dealing with the past, the

focus be on security forces rather than on the murderers which they

have illustrates that they had no intention of reaching an agreement

or comment to any compromise, they were simply wishing to pursue their

own agenda to the cost of people in Northern Ireland who are denied

devolution? Well, I am clear that we need a fair, balanced and

proportionate approach to those issues of the past and I think that

the Stormont House Agreement finds a way to achieve that as well as other

reforms as well. That is something that I have spoken to the Victims

Commissioner about and others over many weeks and will continue to

reenergise the process. What we need is the intensification of the talks

and the sense of goodwill and the sense of real intent to see the

fourth government back on its feet again. I think that all of the

parties have publicly stated their intent to seek that outcome and we

must do all that we can to create the environment with that succeeds

and we do get the inclusive devolved government that will serve the

people of Northern Ireland and for which they voted. We all want a

bright future for Northern Ireland and I wish all parties well in the

continuing talks to achieve a fully functioning Executive. Can the

Secretary of State tell us if there is more that can be done to ensure

representation for Northern Ireland in the Brexit process, given the

current circumstances? The obvious answer to the honourable lady is to

see an Executive in place, advocating for Northern Ireland,

ensuring the voice of Northern Ireland is heard within the

government, but also directly in Europe. I will continue to do my

work on going out into communities, listening to business, listening to

the community and voluntary sector and do my utmost to ensure that, in

my role, we get the best possible outcome for Northern Ireland through

the Brexit talks ahead. I believe that is eminently achievable and

that is the work that I will continue to do. I was special

adviser to the last Labour government to the point at which

direct route was last introduced. It took us for years to resolve that.

He has said he wants to intensify the talks, but he has failed to tell

us what he means by that and history does show that the engagement of the

Taoiseach and Prime Minister is the way in which we intensified those

talks and bring about a resolution. Could he explain why the government

are so resistant to taking that step? The government is focused on

getting the best outcome which is the return of devolved government.

He makes the point on the issues and He makes the point on the issues and

risks around direct road, which is risks around direct road, which is

why I have said what I have said about that not being something we

would want. We are keeping all options under review. It is the

sense of the work of the parties themselves and the role of the two

governments can play in that. That is what I have been doing alongside

Charlie Flanagan, the Irish Foreign Minister. We will continue to do and

play an intensive part, but as I have said in a statement, we need to

move to a new phase. We need to see the work of the parties coming

together in a more inclusive way. I have been talking to the party is

already about how we achieve that and we will see that progress in the

days ahead. Legacy has been mentioned today and history, but

will be Secretary of State confirm to the House today that he will

stand firm on the attempts by Republicans to rewrite the past of

Northern Ireland? It is important that we get that fair, balanced and

proportionate and equitable outcome from the systems we put in place. We

do recognise what happened in the past, that is what we proposed to

set up an oral history archive for people to give their testimony, to

be able to share what their experiences were. It is through this

comprehensive approach that I believe we will be able to see

progress had and Northern Ireland to its future, other than to its past.

As someone who grew up on the leech- Fermanagh border for large periods

in the 70s and 80s, I worried there is a generation growing up you

forget what political violence looks like and what a hard water looks

like and the most changes come when prime ministers invest sufficient

political capital in the process and we have not seen the Prime Minister

since major or Tony Blair do that and we need to get the prime

ministers over there as soon as possible negotiating with the

parties. I simply do not accept the analysis were the approach that the

honourable gentleman is advocating. The Prime Minister has been actively

engaged, will continue to be civil and, equally, the shared

responsibility that the UK Government and the Irish government

to have around this. It is that approach that we will take. Our

desire to see devolved government back on its feet again, because that

is what people want to see. That is what people want to see delivered

for Northern Ireland and it is our intent to seek that is brought

about. Notwithstanding your stress on the constraints of brevity, I do

want to take this opportunity as MP for forward to a proper tribute to

the late Martin McGuinness, with whom and against whom I worked for

well over three decades in all sorts of contexts and Rose. As his

predecessor as Deputy First Minister, a former colleague in

government and counter-productive negotiations, I would say he went

from opposing the very institutions, the concept of the institutions in

which he went on to serve, to demonstrating a remarkable capacity

for outreach and acknowledgement. He used those shared offices, a proven

not only his better character in a democratic character but also the

transformative value of the institutions we are talking about.

In relation to his indication of legislation after the Easter recess,

can be Secretary of State tell us whether he is delivered --

deliberately precluding any such legislation including rectifying the

defects in how first and Deputy First Minister are appointed, which

no longer conforms with what was laid down in the Good Friday

Agreement or rectify the problems with the petition of concern which

has never operated consistently with what was laid down in

I know that issues around governance have formed part of the discussions

taking place during the talks over the recent weeks. He highlights the

petition of concern. There are other issues discussed during that period

as well. On legislation, my focus is on serving the people of Northern

Ireland, where public services and now challenged as a consequence of

budgetary issues having to be faced. Therefore, that is my real intent on

legislation that will need to be brought after the Easter recess.

Fundamentally, it is about seeing achievement of an agreement, and if

that agreement is there, with whatever requirements may form from

that, that is the opportunity to do so, which is why we need to use the

short few weeks ahead and getting agreement such that we can get

Northern Ireland back to Northern Ireland and... Will he

set out more by the is such reluctance to involve both the Prime

Minister and the Teosioc in the discussions to try to bring things a

conclusion? When we look at the situation we are now in, it is a

question of seeking to resolve some of the outstanding obstacles... It

is about the two parties coming together to get the outcome we would

earnestly want to see. I do not see that escalating in the way she

suggests is the appropriate way to achieve that. Obviously we will

continue to keep matters under review, but there are other ways

that we can identify and seek to identify an inclusive touch moving

forward, and while I will continue to have discussions with parties to

support them and bring it about. Secretary of State for his strength

of character and ship in the talks process. Sinn Fein's irresponsible

actions have left Northern Ireland without an agreed budget. Also, the

concerns of the voluntary sector. If Sinn Fein continue to block the

executive, will the Secretary of State consult members of this House

those who attend and participate in this House about decisions, and

making sure and adequate funding is in place for the people of Northern

Ireland? I want to see a positive outcome to the situation we are in,

seeing an executive with the principal parties involved in it

living for Northern Ireland. I still believe that can be achieved, but as

I have indicated, the UK Government takes its responsibilities

governance, political stability, hugely seriously, and we will take

all actions necessary and continue to consult colleagues here and

elsewhere on how that work is taken forward. This House will not forget

the fact that police officers have been murdered in Strabane and

Carrickfergus in recent weeks. What plans has he put in line to make

sure that funding for the PSNI is established and goes on, whatever

the outcome in relation to negotiations between the different

parties in Northern Ireland? I can say to him that additional funding

has been committed in terms of combating terrorism, and he

underlines the challenges and risks officers from the PSNI have faced

over recent weeks and years, injured and increasing

security. Something that events here have brought in stark focus of the

risk, challenges, personal issues that come into this, and I commend

them and the Security service and all agencies that do their

utmost, sometimes quietly and eyesight, here for the public in

Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein brought down the executive

at the and Sunday they selflessly blocked the restoration of the

executive for Northern Ireland, but the consequences and penalty of that

decision rests upon the shoulders of everyone in Northern Ireland, so

considering all the options open, will he confirmed consider what

Martial I say that he still earnestly believe that a positive

outcome, agreement the main parties can be achieved. Between we need to

approach these stop -- to build those bridges and get that situation

where an executive Sinn Fein can be brought about. With bad in Durban --

it is with that earnest endeavour that VDU government approach the

days ahead, but also I feel very days ahead, but also I feel very

keenly our responsibility is to the people of Northern Ireland, in

serving them, in seeing that we have public services delivering for them.

And it is that underlying intent that I have firmly in my mind of

deflation I believe will be necessary after this recess to

secure that thing that outcome for Google about. I know all Debbie

Abrahamson of debate on specific and important matter that shove urgent

consideration under the terms of standing order number 24. The

honourable member has 23 minutes in which to make such an application

top I seek leave that the House should seek to debate important --

urgent matter, namely the changed dependence payment regulations. On

the 23rd of February, the government issued new regulations to change the

way disabled people or people with chronic mental health condition

would be assessed or eligibility to Personal Independence Payment to

government's or analysis estimates that it will affect more than 160

dozen people, the majority of whom have mental health conditions and

will not be able to access the full support they would have been

entitled to under the previous ruling. And effective cap of ?3.7

million. These recommendations were laid down without any advisory

committee or debate in this chamber. In a letter dated the 24th of March

2017, from the Secretary of State to myself, he states his department

became aware of the decision of the tribunal on the 8th of December, 2.5

months before they laid their emergency legislation. The move to

undermine and subvert independent tribunal judgments is unprecedented,

and in my view marks very troubling behaviour by the government on cases

they lose. This could weaken Social Security tribunal judgments, and

make independent -- affecting them making independent decisions. Since

the 8th of December, the Security advisory committee and parliament

could have scrutinised and proposed any changes, but instead, although

the Leader of the House's belatedly committed to a debate still to be

determined, the government deliberately chose not to have a

debate before the 14 day grace period comes to an end on the 3rd of

April. According to advice received April. According to advice received

from the General office, if these regulations are not debated and

voted on before the 3rd of April, they will not automatically be

revoked should the House vote against them. In delaying the debate

the government is hoping that objection will be kicked into the

long grass. It is highly unusual that such a fundamental change

should be introduced by such negative statutory instrument in

this way, bypassing debate and scrutiny in the House. This is a

troubling subversion of democracy under this government. Yesterday the

other Place past regret motion tabled by my noble friend asking the

government to urgently reconsider regulations. However this elected

House of Commons have not had the opportunity to do so, therefore I

believe that we owe it to those who will be affected, primarily people

with mental health conditions, to hold this government to account. I

have listened carefully to the application from the honourable

member, and I am satisfied that the matter raised by her is proper to be

discussed under standing order number 24. Has she believe of the

House? The honourable member has obtained the leave of the House. I

am most grateful to honourable members for the ball into the stand

up! However it was in fact superfluous. Required only in the

event of indications of opposition. Nevertheless, the position is

extremely clear, the debate will be held tomorrow, Wednesday 29th of

March as the first item of public business. The debate will last 90

minutes, and will arise on a motion the House considered the specialist

matters set out in her application. Order. We come now to the ten minute

rule motion. I beg to move that we'd be given for me to bring a bill to

make provision for the enforcement of child arrangement orders to

establish a bottle of presumption of shared parenting under those orders

and to make provision for a commission to review and make

accommodations on family law. David and Sally separated after ten years

of marriage in September 2014. They had two children aged eight and five

at the time. David was a good father who did not want to stop being a

dad. That's just because his marriage had ended. However nearly

three years later and more than ?200,000 paid in legal fees, he is

still fighting through the complex and bureaucratic family courts to

see his children ate nights a month instead of the six that he has been

offered by Sally. Sadly, this is not a fictional story, it is in Family

Court. Not only have those two nights a month extra been

financially expensive for him, but sadly stop the visits undermining

the court order and the family relationship. Child arrangement

orders are made by the court to regulate the contact and residents

of children upon divorce. In the majority of divorces, they are

complied with. But in many cases a defaulting parent could act with

impunity. The courts are slow to respond and reluctant to penalise.

This sends a damaging message that court orders are optional, not

mandatory, that the relationship with the nonresident parent is

meaningless rather than crucial, and that the system is inequitable

rather than robust. In the worst cases, and nonresident parent,

usually the father, can be denied contact with his child for several

years. If they do not have a spare ?10,000 to spend on legal fees, they

are essentially raised out of the life of their child, with no remedy

whatsoever. How can this be humane for a child, how can it be fair to

the parent? Yes, the welfare of the child is paramount, and abiding

principle of family law, and children are less likely to

experience depression, teenage pregnancy and delinquency than

relationships with both parents are safeguarded. Children without a

father than the life often struggle to reach their full potential stop

academically, socially and emotionally. Family Court make huge

life changing decisions for parents children, off thresholds of proof

that are far lower than required to achieve enforcement. No wonder the

criminal threshold for content is rarely met and judges failed to

assert their authority quickly under the Children Act or subsequent

legislation in 2006 at 2014. Data from the Ministry of Justice

reveals that of the 4654 enforcement applications, a mere 1.2% were

successful. So, although the latter of the law sets of discretionary

penalties, they are rarely applied in practice. The rise unfounded

allegations of domestic violence as a defence to enforcement is

worrying. A new approach is needed. A tougher three strikes approach

where residents should be transferred if safe, not

theoretically, imposed. Confiscation of driving licences and password

should seriously be considered by Parliament. Legislation that

emphasises the importance of both parents in the lives of children,

other than in cases of violence, is needed in England and Wales. Real

enforcement is one way of doing this. Shared parenting is another.

Madam Deputy Speaker, an assumption of keep errant -- shared parenting

should be a key principle would determine the contact and residents

of children. This would not be an explicit statement of a 50-50 time

division and it does not mean shared care. As Professor Patrick

Parkinson, former president of the International Society of family law

has made clear, it should come as a minimum, meaning the child has a

right to a meaningful relationship with both parents and as long as

their safety is not at risk. This is commonplace around the world and

operates without difficulty. It could assure the child the

opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional

contact with both parents. It would encourage parents to share the

rights and responsibilities of raising the child as the law states.

Or it could provide for frequent and continuing contact with both parents

as in California. It could go even further, to encourage the love,

affection and contact between the children and parents as in Colorado.

Only of these examples would be a more appropriate starting point for

judges when setting Child Arrangement Orders, not the good

form of parental involvement, direct or indirect, currently on the

statute books since 2014. While that was an improvement on the previous

position, parental involvement can amount to a birthday card for a

Christmas card in the worst cases. Non-resident parents, many fathers,

can be airbrushed out of the lives of their children by the current

system. We cannot keep telling fathers they have equal

responsibilities and then not give them the opportunity to carry them

out. Shared parenting and robust enforcement form part of a package

of reforms that are needed if we are to bring our family law into the

21st-century. Our antiquated system reflects norms of the 1950s and 60s,

rather than relationships of the day and many issues remain unresolved.

Leaving gaps for Parliament to fill. They commission, the last no more

than one year should be lodged by the government to enquire into the

following issues and report back with recommendations for reform.

Firstly, as the Court of Appeal highlighted, the fault this divorce

law results in absurd outcomes, despite being a loveless marriage,

the petitioner was unable to divorce her husband because of the archaic

rules requiring her to prove fault on his forehead. The reality is that

not all marriages end because of fog. We therefore have a lock which

promotes the force of allocating blame, setting the parties on a

needless confrontational path, fuelling animosity and costs. The

commission should report on whether it is time for no-fault divorce.

Secondly, financial remedies and maintenance are rooted in a bygone

era when women were financially dependent on their husbands. The

reality today is that many women are able to support themselves and

divorce should not mean an automatic entitlement to lifetime support from

an ex-husband. Scotland, North America limit payments, white don't

we? Unless the noble Baroness's Bill secures Royal Assent, a commission

should make recommendations on how to strike a better balance so

England can shed its reputation as the divorce capital of the world.

Thirdly, cohabiting couples with children at the fastest-growing type

of family in the UK. Between 1996 and 2016, the number of couples in

this position increased from 1.5 million to 3.3 million, yet they

have no right in the event of a split. Enquiry into what basic

protections are justified would be valuable. Fourth, the enforceability

of prenuptial agreements should be settled by Parliament. If we are to

support marriage, we have two except people get married later in life

with asset earned before and during the union. Those should be protected

if the parties agree, not put at risk and they commission should

enquire into this. Fifth, reform of the oblique way in which family

courts operate in public need to sell review. Far too many children

are taken into care for wholly inadequate corporately argued

reasons, according to the gym is Monday, President of the family

division. Only the glare of publicity will allow this to stop.

We need to move the cloak of secrecy and open up our family courts.

Lastly, most from the dispute need not see the inside of the courtroom,

but instead you'd better incentive to use mediation or solicitor

negotiation. For example by virtue of the cost penalty for parties who

dropped out of the process, saving costs, time and party should be

priorities. I am not married and it will not surprise you when I say

that I do not have the battle scars of having lived through a nasty

divorce. My views are informed by my previous work as a barrister in the

civil justice system for ten years, but they speak as an objective

onlooker moved by stories of injustice, hopelessness and deep

sorrow. The force is dramatic but need not be a tragedy which befalls

thousands of non-resident's parents. The question is that the honourable

member have leave to bring in the Bill. As many are of that opinion

say aye. Of the country, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it.

We will prepare and bring in the Bill? Robert Neil, Frank Field,

Caroline Ansell, Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan, Lucy Allen, Mr David

Burrows, Keita away, Mr David Lambie and myself.

Family Justice Bill. 12th of May 2000 17. Neighbourhood Planning Bill

number three. The question is as on the order paper. As many are of that

opinion say aye. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The

couple proceeded to read the orders of the day. The planning Bill,

consideration of Lords amendments. I must draw the attention of the House

to financial provision engaged in Lords amendments four, five, 23, 40,

44, 48 to 50 and 84. I also remind the House that certain motions

relating to the Lords amendments will be certified as religion

exclusively to England or to England and Wales, set out on the selection

paper. If the House divides an anti-certified motion, a double

majority would be required for the motion to be passed. We will begin

with the government motion to disagree with the Lords amendment

22, with which we will consider government amendments an and B in

Leeds. I call the Minister to move to disagree with Lords amendment 20

two. Before I get into the detail of the amendment, I would like to put

on record my thanks to my noble friend and ministerial colleague,

Lord born the ably steered this Bill through the Lords. I would like to

thank one of my distinguished predecessors as housing minister,

Lord Young, who led on the compulsory purchase provisions which

we will touch on in the third of the three groups which are discussing

this afternoon. Finally, I would like to thank all peers who

contributed positively to the debate in the other place. The Bill has

benefited from their constructive challenge of scrutiny and I am

pleased that this Bill received a warmer reception that the Housing

and planning Act did one year ago. I wish to turn now to permitted

development rights for the change of use the mission of pubs and to

update the House on steps were taken in respect of the permitted

development for the change of use from office to residential. First

double speak to the government amendments in respect of committee

development rights on the change of use or demolition of pubs. Let me

start by assuring honourable members that we have listened to both houses

and the support of the members have expressed a valued community pubs.

All members will see we have accepted the principle of the

amendment introduced to this Bill in the other place and on the

amendments set out the detail of how we will take that principle forward.

The amendment commits us to update the town and country planning water

2015 to remove the permitted development rights for the change of

use demolition of drinking establishments, including pubs. In

table amendments, I would reassure honourable members we have continued

to engage with the passage of this Bill with interested members and

bodies such as the campaign for real ale and the British beer and pubs

Association. I can confirm that we will remove... Will also remove the

permitted development rights to change to an office for up to two

years and the school for a single academic year. In making these

changes the government is keen to avoid any potential unintended

consequences. As such, we are clear that the best way to support pubs is

to retain the day for drinking establishments use clause four pubs,

wine bars and other borrowers. Doing so will allow pubs to innovate and

intensified their use, for example, the opening pub gardens were

providing live music without facing the risk that this would be a change

of use which requires a full planning application. Our intention

in retaining the US class is to allow pubs to develop within this

class without having to seek planning permission, affording

unintended consequences and unnecessary cost and bureaucracy. I

will happily give way. Campaigners in my constituency have campaigned

for the removal of permitted development rights for ten years, so

I welcome the New Clause. The question of timing is crucial. If

the time window for the regulations is too large, developers will simply

bring forward their plans and pubs will continue to become car parks or

retail warehousing. When will the regulations the updated? If she goes

with me I will make that crystal clear and provided the reassurance

she is looking for. The changes mean that in future a planning

application will be required in all cases. This will also be the case

for premises in mixed-use, for example as a pub and restaurant.

This addresses the long-standing call that there should be

consideration and an opportunity for the community to comment on the

future of their local pub. It is important that local planning

authorities have relevant planning policies in place support this

decision taken. Once we have made these changes, the current

provisions, which we move permitted development rights for the change of

use of pubs which are listed as community assets are no longer

necessary and will fade away. I will happily give way. Will there be any

provision or requirement about the viability of the pub in that promise

soon there will be some kind of case that those who wish to change would

be able to? Clearly those arguments which could be made by an applicant

in respect of a particular planning application but the government is

not proposing to allow any permitted development rights in that regard,

it would allow the local authority to reach a decision that I am sure

in respect of the right honourable gentleman and others, those with the

arguments that would be considered when planning applications were

made. Importantly, we have listened to the points made about the need

for pubs to expand their food offer in order to meet changing market

needs and support the continued viability. The issue by right

honourable friend is concerned about. But the symptom getting rid

of the permitted development rights which allow for the permitted

development rights with a lover Camilla -- demolition or change of

use, we will allow a new US to allow drinking establishments to extend

their food offering so as to become a

I will finish this point and then give way to the honourable

gentleman. The Government believes this will ensure pubs have nothing

to fear in terms of requiring planning permission or enforcement

against the change of use were a pub is extending its bid offer and this

will give them vital flexibility. I am grateful to the Minister for

giving way and the Government for listening to the powerful case that

was made. I think the new mixed class is an elegant solution to the

issue that was raised in the other place but can the Minister does

clarify on the record that in keeping with what he is proposing

that the same removal of permitted development rights that is now going

to operate in A3 and A4 classes will now operate in the mixed class? I

think he will get exactly the clarification that he is looking

for. The answer is yes. I will come onto it in my speech later on. I am

grateful to him for his kind words. The intent of the Government is very

much to honour the principle behind the idea but we think this is a

better solution that provides more flexibility and will do a better job

of ensuring their viability. I will give way. I congratulate the

Minister of his flexible approach to this bill and as he previously

agreed in his constituency, will he be offering a date very soon saw

that I can consider whether to include a pub in his itinerary? That

has to be one of the finest invitations I have received. I am

very much looking forward to visiting his constituency. I am

trying to combine it with an event in the Sheffield city region looking

at housing, but he serves on legal committee of this legislation and is

a passionate advocate of it and has worked very hard in his own

constituency to encourage planning and I am very but looking forward to

meeting those community groups with him. I hope we can get him a date as

soon as possible with or without the benefit of a visit to a local pub.

At the same time as making these changes, we also want to protect

local planning authorities from any compensation liability arising from

the removal of national permitted development rights. We will do this

by amending the compensation regulations to limit to 12 months

the period of any potential liability on local planning

authorities when the rights removed. Now wish to take the opportunity to

update the house on the outcome of the debate in the other place in

respect of the permitted development right for the change of use from

office to residential. This was an issue that we debated at some

length. I notice an issue where there are differences of opinion on

both sides of the house. Honourable members will know that this

permitted development right is making an important contribution to

housing delivery in this country. With over 12,800 homes delivered

thanks to this right in the year ending March 20 16. The Government

has always recognised that in certain areas there have been

concerns about the local impact of this right and therefore we have

outlined an approach which provides flexibility for those areas that

were meeting their housing requirements to have a greater say

over whether the permitted development right for the change of

use shall apply. Somebody for those areas that are not delivering 100%

of the housing requirement, the figure that they have identified in

the local plan and can continue to do so after the removal of the

rights and are able to demonstrate that it is necessary to remove the

right to protect the immunity and well-being of their area, then the

Secretary of State will not seek to limit article four directions

applying to that area. We intend to publish the first housing delivery

test data in November for those that are not familiar this is one of the

key reforms set out in the housing white paper where we are now holding

local authorities to account, not just for producing a plan but also

for delivering the houses set out in that plan on an annual basis, so

this will indicate local authorities in November whether this additional

article for flexibility will apply to directions they brought forward.

For those interested in further information on this change, Madam

Deputy Speaker, it can be found in the House of Lords library in a

letter from a minister and colleague dated the 18th of March and we will

be providing detailed guidance before November. We are also making

a further change, bringing forward ventilation to enable local planning

authorities to charge planning application fees when permitted

development rights have been removed by an article for direction. That

recognises those developers that have removed this permitted

development right for sound policy reasons, so whilst the Government's

position remains that the developing fight is making an important

contribution to delivering the homes that we desperately need in this

country, we have these two small changes demonstrating a degree of

flexibility to allow those local authorities that are not delivering

the homes that are needed in the area and if they wish to apply and

article four direction and then to be able to charge planning

application fees for applications in those areas. I will give way. My

constituency has lost a lot of office-based recently added a lot of

that is done because of the demand so high. Doesn't you share my

concern that this may give a perverse sense not to deliver on

housing because of the area doesn't mind and I'm not saying this is the

case about losing office space it is an easy win to allow the offices to

shrivel on the vine and I am very concerned that this does not do

this. I think my honourable friend shares my concern that we need to

ensure that St Albans as quickly as possible get an up-to-date local

plan in place that provides for the housing that is all desperately

needed in that part of the world. I know she has spoken about that

several times and I think my honourable friend would share that

local authority concerned. We need to avoid that and I think my

reassurance to would be that there are plenty of other things that the

Government is going to be doing to make sure that local authorities

delivering the housing that is required in their area. But where

people do have legitimate concerns about the impact this permitted

development right on the level of office space they have in the area

which she clearly does in this case, then provided their council is

delivering the housing that is required then we want to give

Simplex ability and I know that she will be working very closely with me

to try to ensure that St Albans makes progress on that issue. So to

conclude my remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker, returning to planning for

pubs, I hope and indeed it seems to be the case that Honourable members

will accept the assurances that I have given today and agree that we

have reflected the will of Parliament. Members of both houses.

The honourable member for Leeds North West is here and my honourable

friend for Bristol is in the chamber and she is also lobbying me

considerably on this issue. They have spoken with great passion about

the need to allow consideration of the change of use of pubs. Our

amendments before the house today set out how we will ensure the

successful delivery of these changes and I can connect to the house today

that we will lay the secondary regulation by July as soon as we can

essentially after this Bill hopefully received Royal assent and

on that basis I hope that Honourable members on both sides of the house

will support this amendment that I bring to them. The question is that

this house disagrees with the Lords and the amendment. Thank you very

much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am glad to speak in support of the

Government's commencement. Which I think will make a material

difference to the fortunes of many of Britain's 48,000 pubs, give

certainty to investors in the pub trade and crucially put communities

back in control of decisions that have a real bearing on their

community. I speak as chair of the old parliamentary pop group and also

as an enthusiast. There are many people and groups I would like to

record my appreciation to words on securing this important bill. Lord

Kennedy who brought the amendment in the House of Lords was very

successful in in assuring such overwhelming cross-party support

that the Met were persuaded to adopt this amendment, to the pub

supporting campaign groups, to my fellow members of the APPG on pubs

who heard it really informative round table on pubs. I would also

like to acknowledge as the minister did the important work done in this

area by my predecessor as chair of the APPG, the Honourable member for

Leeds North West who opposed the motion at committee stage in the

Commons which subsequently was moved by my honourable friend and think it

is also right to acknowledge in some way what the Honourable member for

Bristol North West said as the originator of this in her amendment

to a different bill, but the case she made then is that -- has been

important in bringing about this change. I was also like to

acknowledge the Government for having taken the step of Brockley

adopting been motion that there was some hostility to previously. It

does take courage to change your mind and the Honourable member team

to the reception committee assured us that the Government was listening

and the actions of the Government on this occasion suggest that he was

good to his word and so there is all due credit required and in

acknowledging that. Madam Deputy Speaker, there is nothing quite like

your visit - your first visit to any British pub and I know I am not

alone in feeling that little frisson of excitement the first time you

step through the door of a new pub for the first time, pushing open

that creaking door and wondering what will be waiting for you behind

it, and adult version you might think of a real life Advent

calendar. Behind every door, a different surprise. As the door

creaks open, you wonder how the pub will be laid out and will you be

able to get a table, who will be in there and how many people will be in

there and what will be on the walls and what will the bar look like,

each pub different. Will the bar Steward's says be a picture of

welcoming joy or maybe not. Will they have a log fire in the winter

or will they have a garden in the summer, is dart boards, a pub dog or

cat, will there be a loudmouth propping up the bar, commenting on

topics of which they have assumed a level of expertise from a programme

they once saw on television. Whether they will be performing or

commenting on the performance of the local member of Parliament and

asking whether you will be claiming the pint back on expenses. It never

grows old, that one. And finally, what the pub will be serving,

because there is so much more to visiting a pub than just having a

drink. And I think that is of course the magic of it. I know my own

favourite beers and I can pop into the Morrisons down the road and buy

as much of it as I like. A lot cheaper than I could buy it in many

pubs. But the drinker just a fraction of the experience. I think

the magic comes from the entire ensemble and just as there is a

magic to visiting any property first time, so there is a joy it to having

a local in which you really feel at home, where you find the characters

and the beers, the landlord or landlady, the decor almost as

familiar as if it was in your own home. So we live in different times

and let's be candid, difficult times for many in the pub trade. The days

were a single public and running a single proper decade at a time was a

staple of any high street are long gone. The long-standing publican is

now becoming a rarity and I think our communities are the poorer for

it, but those communities often still do have that connection, that

long-standing relationship with their local pubs, whether they be

regular attenders or occasional visitors, that pub is a part of

their community. One that too often we all take for granted. And the

feature that is only really missed when it is under threat are gone.

Now the Deputy Speaker, let me assure you that none of us are

advocating that unpopular or poorly run pubs have a right to exist.

Community that do not back their local pub cannot assume that it will

always be there. When I bought my house back in 1998, Peter Minnis was

my local. But he of landlords in just a few years and it is gone. The

only reminders of the plaque on the wall but reminders were at once

stood and the local bowling green that is still called the terminus

bowling club even though the pop that they took their name from is

long gone. In a small like Jester, I have to walk a mile to reach what

you would, local and I think that is a comment on the times that we live

in. If we do not get out and support our pubs, it is no good complaining

when you're gone. Similarly, the industry knows that we live an

evermore competitive world. The competition for the leisure pound

has never been fiercer. From satellite television and the bottle

at home to an array of takeaways and restaurants to suit every palate,

the alternatives to a pint in a local are many and pubs will

continue on occasions to close, but I think what really sticks in the

crore of communities is when popular, well used pubs or even pubs

that surveys in trouble in the community that may well be on the

poor management at a particular moment in time are lost for good

without the community having any say about it. I think it is really

important to recognise that the tenant in a pub, not just a business

owner, but as the guardian of something precious in that community

and the responsibility on the pub owning business to ensure that the

Guardian the point has the wherewithal to protect that precious

asset that they are responsible for running is a very significant one. I

will give way. I thank the Honourable gentleman for giving way

and for his kind words. This particular amendment that we are

supporting today is to tackle the scourge of predatory purchasing,

especially by supermarkets, which are the worst at that. Does he think

now it is time for Camra to look again at the agreement they have in

place because it does not work. Both support the amendment and agree

that it has been necessary because previous measures were not working.

In terms of the Co-op, I met them recently and they were constructive

saying in every case they would go to plan application. It's

interesting that he has met the Co-op recently because last year the

public were misled by the Co-op that they would not taking pot coat is

viability by a factor which they have been doing so which has been

shown by camera branches so they speak with forked tongues. I hope he

will stick holding them to account. We certainly will. If he has

evidence that since those reassurances were given that they

are going down this process without seeking planning permission then I

would be supportive of what saying. In Chesterfield we had a huge

campaign not just about the Co-op but about the issues talking about.

To save the Crispin on Ash gates road when enterprise wanted to sell

it to Tesco. The campaign one and Tesco pulled out only for a new

developer to demolish the pub and then consulting on what should

happen on the land that replaced it in the housing eventually was placed

where the pub once stood and in my previous role I met so many groups

around the country trying to save the pub is that they loved and the

ones communities depended on. It is wrong a developer could do this. It

is wrong that a building, potentially a community asset could

be knocked down before the community had a say. The coalition government

did attempt to take steps to reinforce the right of communities

but was well intentioned it was like trying to catch a flood in a cup.

The great amendment today proposed by Lord Kennedy was that it gives

certainty to everybody involved in the industry and we never forget

that the pubs in Britain are an industry with investors who need

certainty. The danger of going down the localism route is that when

businesses consider investment decisions, they are faced with

dozens of approaches, these approaches also left councils at the

mercy of aggressive legislation and expected them to go to the legal

defence to protect pubs. The assets has given some communities a

precious opportunity to fight for the pub they loved but sometimes it

means the only time you could save a pub was by becoming its owner. There

is some value and that activism but you shouldn't be willing to buy a

pub to have a view on it. The APPG heard from the community team which

bought the Antwerp arms in Tottenham which use the legislation to save

the pub. We heard from Wandsworth Council who puts an article four

direction on 20 of the locals and they deserve credit. The danger of

using article four directions is that the landscape is different...

We have to go live to the Scottish parliament. SNP 's will conclude the

debate calling for a second referendum on independence. The vote

and the motion will take place at 5pm this afternoon. You can watch

live coverage of the Commons on the red button service or on our

website/ parliaments. It is worth in our sadness last week

we were reminded of the common humanity and core values that unite

us. We came together to proclaim our commitment to that most cherished

principle of all democracy. The debate today at its heart is about

democracy. It is about the right of people in Scotland to choose a

future end in itself it is