18/04/2017

:00:00. > :00:00.they are saying about having an enterprise zone? As it happens, I

:00:00. > :00:00.was planning my domestic travel arrangements for the next five weeks

:00:00. > :00:11.and I will take the request in mind when I do that. The law president of

:00:12. > :00:19.the Council and the Leader of the House will -- House of Commons. With

:00:20. > :00:24.permission I would like to make a short statement about the business

:00:25. > :00:29.for tomorrow. On Wednesday the 19th of April, the House will be asked to

:00:30. > :00:33.approve a motion that allows the Prime Minister to seek an early

:00:34. > :00:39.Parliamentary general election under the fixed term Parliaments act 2011.

:00:40. > :00:42.This will be followed by consideration of the Lords

:00:43. > :00:47.amendments to the technical and further education Bill followed by a

:00:48. > :00:51.debate on the motion related to the section five of the European

:00:52. > :00:55.Communities Act Amendment act 1993. The business Thursday the 20th of

:00:56. > :01:01.April remains backbench Committee business as I have previously

:01:02. > :01:08.announced. I will make a further commitment for future business in

:01:09. > :01:12.the usual way on Thursday. Dressed by thanking the Leader of the House

:01:13. > :01:16.for her statement and for coming to the House to inform us of this

:01:17. > :01:20.change of business and the motion calling for the general election. I

:01:21. > :01:25.understand why it was so difficult to get leader out of the dash to get

:01:26. > :01:31.the date out of the leader for the date. The U-turn by the Prime

:01:32. > :01:34.Minister has been a long time in planning. I am also concerned that

:01:35. > :01:40.the Prime Minister chose to make a statement outside of Number Ten

:01:41. > :01:45.rather than to come to the House. This is a massive U-turn. At least

:01:46. > :01:49.seven times recently, on March the 20th, the Prime Minister has ruled

:01:50. > :01:52.out an early general election. The Prime Minister said I will not be

:01:53. > :01:56.calling a snap election and I am clear that we need a period of time,

:01:57. > :02:02.that stability to be able to do with the edges that the country is facing

:02:03. > :02:05.and have that election in 2020. Clearly, this Government cannot be

:02:06. > :02:09.trusted. Given that the general election is on the 8th of June and

:02:10. > :02:15.there are 25 working days until Parliament can be the salt can the

:02:16. > :02:18.Leader of the House let us know the exact date for the dissolution of

:02:19. > :02:22.Parliament? The statement of such importance could have been made to

:02:23. > :02:27.the House of Commons given the nature of this massive U-turn. Her

:02:28. > :02:31.Majesty 's opposition will make sure we promote stability and that there

:02:32. > :02:39.is an alternative and favour vision for this country. The honourable

:02:40. > :02:44.lady asked about the date for the dissolution. That is laid down in

:02:45. > :02:52.statute at hand to take place 25 days before the proposed date of

:02:53. > :03:05.Poland, the date of dissolution would be one minute past midnight on

:03:06. > :03:09.Wednesday the 3rd of May. I have to say, I do not recollect any previous

:03:10. > :03:16.Labour Prime Minister announcing a general election on the floor of the

:03:17. > :03:19.House of Commons. My right honourable friend this morning went

:03:20. > :03:27.about things in the time honoured fashion. What she is putting to the

:03:28. > :03:33.country is the case for this Government to go forward on the

:03:34. > :03:42.basis of a clear mandate to provide clarity and the stability that the

:03:43. > :03:46.entire United Kingdom needs. As we approach the historic task of

:03:47. > :03:52.implementing the referendum decision taken by the British people and

:03:53. > :03:55.forging the new, deep and special partnership with our friends and

:03:56. > :04:07.allies in the European Union that we all want to see. They pray Mr was

:04:08. > :04:13.made an announcement that was not linked to the media in advance. Can

:04:14. > :04:17.he confirm it is not the gift of the Prime Minister to decide if there is

:04:18. > :04:22.a general election, it is this House. If Her Majesty 's opposition

:04:23. > :04:26.does not want it, can't face it or are worried about annihilation, they

:04:27. > :04:36.will not vote for it tomorrow. I agree with my honourable friend. We

:04:37. > :04:40.were believing on these benches that this was not the time for these type

:04:41. > :04:47.of... The focus of this Government should be on. Brexit This is one of

:04:48. > :04:51.the most extraordinary U-turns and political history. The fixed term

:04:52. > :04:56.Parliaments act is the biggest waste of this House's time possible. The

:04:57. > :05:00.calling of a general election there returns to a Prime Minister and the

:05:01. > :05:04.interest of Party comes before the interest of country. In this

:05:05. > :05:08.election we will make sure that Scotland is fully protected from

:05:09. > :05:17.this Tory Government, taking us off the cliff edge of a hard Brexit. The

:05:18. > :05:22.Tories might play the petty Party political games, coming up against a

:05:23. > :05:25.woeful Labour Party but we on these benches will make sure that Scotland

:05:26. > :05:35.is fully protected from the worst of it. One of the friends, Mr Speaker,

:05:36. > :05:41.that the Prime Minister and the Party she leads will be taking to

:05:42. > :05:46.the people will be the case for the union of the four nations of our

:05:47. > :05:53.United Kingdom and our belief that those four nations are better off

:05:54. > :05:57.working together in that unique, injured in partnership of the United

:05:58. > :06:01.Kingdom. I would say to the honourable gentleman that the Prime

:06:02. > :06:07.Minister took our decision, a decision which she herself said this

:06:08. > :06:12.morning, she took with some reluctance because it is in the

:06:13. > :06:20.interests of the people of this country. It is in the interests of

:06:21. > :06:28.the entire nation that we have clarity and stability, and constancy

:06:29. > :06:32.of purpose as we move forward. Does the Lord President agree with me

:06:33. > :06:36.that this is one of the rare occasions where it is absolutely

:06:37. > :06:41.right that the statement was first made to the British people, not to

:06:42. > :06:45.this House, because it is they who are being asked to use the sovereign

:06:46. > :06:51.power to determine the composition of the new House? My honourable

:06:52. > :06:57.friend makes a cogent point. It will be for this House in the first place

:06:58. > :07:01.to decide whether to approve the motion that we debate tomorrow. And

:07:02. > :07:07.then if the Government's motion is carried, we will put our case to the

:07:08. > :07:13.people. The Prime Minister was not for calling a snap general election

:07:14. > :07:16.but now she is, perhaps sensing a political opportunity. The choice to

:07:17. > :07:23.go for an election now is horrors and horrors alone as was the choice

:07:24. > :07:32.of a hard Brexit. -- was for herself alone. Though the House be able to

:07:33. > :07:38.discuss the Party of Government's failure of NHS, tackling violent

:07:39. > :07:46.crime and dealing with people with disability and the benefits? I am

:07:47. > :07:50.astonished that the right honourable gentleman on the part of the Liberal

:07:51. > :07:59.Democrats was able to talk about opportunism with a straight face. It

:08:00. > :08:04.was a decision that the Prime Minister alone has to take to put

:08:05. > :08:07.forward the motion tomorrow. It would be a decision for every member

:08:08. > :08:14.of the House of Commons tomorrow when we meet to decide whether that

:08:15. > :08:19.is approved. Could my right honourable friend at the leader

:08:20. > :08:26.confirm, he confirmed his statement when Parliament will be the salts,

:08:27. > :08:32.when will Parliaments be...? The usual discussions are underway

:08:33. > :08:37.between the usual channels about the handling of business. On the

:08:38. > :08:42.assumption that the motion is carried by the House tomorrow, those

:08:43. > :08:49.discussions will intensify and I hope I can provide the clarity as

:08:50. > :08:54.soon as possible. The Leader of the House has given us an image of the

:08:55. > :08:59.Prime Minister being dragged kicking and screaming into calling a general

:09:00. > :09:05.election when she did not want one. Can we find time in what is left of

:09:06. > :09:10.this Parliament to have a debate about why she decided to trigger

:09:11. > :09:17.Article 50 and then throw the entire planet into doubt by then calling a

:09:18. > :09:21.general election which will waste at least three minds of the precious

:09:22. > :09:32.small amount of time we have to get the best deal for Britain? Far from

:09:33. > :09:38.throwing things into doubt, what the Prime Minister's decision has done

:09:39. > :09:43.is to provide, assuming that the people return the Government, and it

:09:44. > :09:48.will be a choice for the people, that they will be the clarity of

:09:49. > :09:52.having a mandate behind the Prime Minister and her Government to

:09:53. > :10:01.deliver a successful negotiation over the course, and he implemented

:10:02. > :10:05.over the course of a five-year term. Some members of this House, are

:10:06. > :10:09.labouring under the impression that the next general election will be a

:10:10. > :10:13.rerun of the referendum. Can the Leader of the House confirm that

:10:14. > :10:17.Article 50 will be triggered regardless of who wins at the next

:10:18. > :10:19.election, that there is no turning back?

:10:20. > :10:27.The wording of Article 50 is clear, and it is clear that any change from

:10:28. > :10:34.the two-year time table can only happen if it is agreed unanimously

:10:35. > :10:38.by all member states, including the departing member state. As my right

:10:39. > :10:42.honourable friend has made it clear, we must respect, whatever side we

:10:43. > :10:47.took in the referendum campaign, we must respect the sovereign decision

:10:48. > :10:51.that the British people took. Thank you Mr Speaker. Can I thank

:10:52. > :10:57.the leader of the House for his statement today. And assure him that

:10:58. > :11:00.the Democratic Unionist Party with support the motion tomorrow. We say

:11:01. > :11:03.bring it on. Bring on the election and let people support the union and

:11:04. > :11:08.the Unionist cause in Northern Ireland. Could I ask him also

:11:09. > :11:12.tomorrow if he will clarify the last date for those people who wish to

:11:13. > :11:15.register to vote, so there's clarity and certainty about the registration

:11:16. > :11:21.process, especially in Northern Ireland? Mr Speaker, clearly I don't

:11:22. > :11:26.want to pre-empt the decision that this House will take tomorrow. But I

:11:27. > :11:31.will try, assuming the motion is carried, I will try to provide that

:11:32. > :11:35.clarity as rapidly as possible. Mr Speaker, as the leader of the House

:11:36. > :11:39.says he doesn't want to pre-empt the decision tomorrow by this House. So

:11:40. > :11:49.wasn't the Prime Minister attempting to do that in naming June 8th? What

:11:50. > :11:52.the Prime Minister was doing this morning was making her ambition

:11:53. > :11:55.clear about the time frame for the general election. I have to say to

:11:56. > :12:00.the honourable lady that the date would have been the first question

:12:01. > :12:07.put to the Prime Minister in the House and outside had she not named

:12:08. > :12:11.a specific date. Mr Speaker, in January 2000, you may remember a

:12:12. > :12:15.debate which went on all night, seeing as you took an active part in

:12:16. > :12:20.it, the next day's business therefore didn't exist. Given the

:12:21. > :12:31.finance bill can sit until any hour tonight, what will the Government do

:12:32. > :12:34.in the event of theme not existing? You know, Mr Speaker, from that last

:12:35. > :12:39.intervention, I suspect that the honourable lady and his colleagues

:12:40. > :12:50.are a bunch of (inaudible) as far as the election is concerned.

:12:51. > :12:55.Mr Speaker, the leader of the House will agree with me, I'm sure, that

:12:56. > :12:59.the prime responsibility of this House is holding the Government to

:13:00. > :13:03.account. Doesn't he think that many not just in this chamber, but

:13:04. > :13:09.outside in the country, will receive the Prime Minister's rush to an

:13:10. > :13:14.early general election as being a strategy to evade responsibility for

:13:15. > :13:20.the chaos we've had in this country since the last Government arranged a

:13:21. > :13:25.referendum which they actually lost? The Prime Minister's decision is

:13:26. > :13:30.about inviting the British people in the national interest to return her

:13:31. > :13:34.to provide the leadership, the sense of direction and the clarity which

:13:35. > :13:37.this country needs and which the right honourable gentleman's party

:13:38. > :13:44.is so clearly unable to provide themselves. Will the leader confirm

:13:45. > :13:49.that should the legislation pass tomorrow, what we're doing is not

:13:50. > :13:52.voting for a new Prime Minister for just two years over Brexit, but for

:13:53. > :14:00.a new Prime Minister for the duration of a Parliament of five

:14:01. > :14:03.years? Many of us are expecting therefore that either the current

:14:04. > :14:08.Prime Minister or the leader of the Labour Party will walk through the

:14:09. > :14:10.door of Number Ten post June 8th, could he encourage my right

:14:11. > :14:15.honourable friend, the Prime Minister, to go head to head in as

:14:16. > :14:21.many TV debates with the leader of the Opposition as possible before

:14:22. > :14:24.June #th? -- 8th? Mr Speaker, I suspect that the electorate would be

:14:25. > :14:30.fascinated to see the outcome of such a debate. Could the leader of

:14:31. > :14:35.the House confirm to the House that in the event of the two thirds

:14:36. > :14:38.majority not being agreed tomorrow, that the only way the Government can

:14:39. > :14:48.call a general election was to table a vote of no confidence in itself.

:14:49. > :14:51.When does he plan to do so? We are intending to go into the debate

:14:52. > :14:57.tomorrow with a clear objective of persuading that two thirds majority

:14:58. > :15:02.to support the Government's motion. Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister was

:15:03. > :15:08.inconsistent about Brexit, now her iron determination not to call a

:15:09. > :15:13.general election tells me that she has a determination to have one. Can

:15:14. > :15:19.I assure the leader with Labour in a writhing mass, we in Plaid Cymru

:15:20. > :15:21.relish the opportunity to provide Welsh alternative to this

:15:22. > :15:23.opportunist right-wing Tory Government and will be voting yes

:15:24. > :15:29.tomorrowment -- tomorrow. Well, I suppose I

:15:30. > :15:33.should express my appreciation for the honourable gentleman's final

:15:34. > :15:39.phrase if not for the rest of his remarks. For weeks now, I've had

:15:40. > :15:43.constituents e mailing me and telephoning my office demanding

:15:44. > :15:45.because they're terrified of the changes to their personal

:15:46. > :15:49.independence payments regulations which we were to be finally allowed

:15:50. > :15:54.a debate and a vote on tomorrow. I notice that the leader of the House

:15:55. > :15:57.has suspended that. Will he guarantee that this House, this

:15:58. > :16:09.Parliament will have a chance to vote on and debate those before

:16:10. > :16:12.dissolution. The usual channels will discuss the allocation of business

:16:13. > :16:19.between the debate concluding tomorrow and the date of

:16:20. > :16:23.dissolution. The Liberal Democrats welcome the opportunity to take on

:16:24. > :16:33.this divisive, destructive Tory Government and its hard Brexit. Let

:16:34. > :16:37.me ask the leader of the House how much this general election will cost

:16:38. > :16:42.and why if the Prime Minister wanted to do it, is she not doing is on May

:16:43. > :16:47.4th, because the decision not to do so going to cost a lot of taxpayers'

:16:48. > :16:52.money. The answer to the honourable gentleman's question is that the

:16:53. > :17:01.time table for any general election is laid down by the fixed term

:17:02. > :17:06.parliaments act and the political parties that and referendums act and

:17:07. > :17:10.to have a general election on the same day as the local elections

:17:11. > :17:16.would not be possible given what the law requires. Mr Speaker, inflation

:17:17. > :17:22.is rising, real living standards are potentially going to decline, and we

:17:23. > :17:25.know that there will be very difficult negotiations with our

:17:26. > :17:30.European Union partners. Isn't the real reason the Prime Minister has

:17:31. > :17:34.called this so that she can avoid having a general election in 2020,

:17:35. > :17:40.which would be very dangerous for her party and she thinks she can win

:17:41. > :17:48.now in order to avoid dealing with the consequences of a hard Brexit?

:17:49. > :17:53.Well, the country I look at is one in which unemployment is falling,

:17:54. > :17:59.employment is at record levels, the deficit is down, and there are

:18:00. > :18:03.record levels of spending on key public services, made possible

:18:04. > :18:05.because of the strong economy that my right honourable friend the Prime

:18:06. > :18:09.Minister and Chancellor have fostered. So I would look forward to

:18:10. > :18:13.a general election in making that case to the people for that

:18:14. > :18:20.programme of political commitment and the leadership of my right

:18:21. > :18:25.honourable friend to continue. Mr Speaker, the Government's ridiculous

:18:26. > :18:29.rape clause came into force on April 6 with no Parliamentary scrutiny.

:18:30. > :18:33.The usual channels had promised a DL committee would be held to have

:18:34. > :18:37.Parliamentary scrutiny of this despicable policy. Will this now

:18:38. > :18:49.happen that given is to be dissolved very soon? Any change to the law, of

:18:50. > :18:53.course, has to go before Parliament, but I will put the honourable lady's

:18:54. > :18:57.point to my colleagues amongst the business managers, but I can't give

:18:58. > :19:03.her a immediate promise that she would get the time that she seeks.

:19:04. > :19:08.Can the leader of the House confirm was going to happen to the

:19:09. > :19:12.Manchester Gorton by-election given that potentially on May 4, there

:19:13. > :19:18.will be no Parliament for any candidates to be located to. Mr

:19:19. > :19:21.Speaker, there is no statutory provision that provides for the

:19:22. > :19:27.cancellation of a by-election when a general election is in progress. It

:19:28. > :19:32.is up to the judgment of the acting returning officer, whom one might

:19:33. > :19:37.expect to regard the by-election writ as having been superseded. This

:19:38. > :19:42.was the course of action taken by the acting returning officer in the

:19:43. > :19:50.one precedent that I found, which is dating back to November 1923.

:19:51. > :19:55.LAUGHTER Can the leader tell us whether the

:19:56. > :19:59.Prime Minister took soundings from the Secretary of State for Northern

:20:00. > :20:02.Ireland as to the impact of this announcement on the ongoing

:20:03. > :20:05.interparty talks? And does the Secretary of State for Northern

:20:06. > :20:11.Ireland still intend to bring legislation through this House and

:20:12. > :20:14.the House of Lord's in respect of rates and topping up the mandate for

:20:15. > :20:22.the current Assembly to appoint an executive? I mean, my right

:20:23. > :20:27.honourable friend the Northern Ireland Secretary is of course

:20:28. > :20:32.considering what difference, if any, should be made to his announced

:20:33. > :20:36.plans by the Prime Minister's announcement this morning. While I

:20:37. > :20:39.would thigh to provide -- try to provide absolute clarity as soon as

:20:40. > :20:44.possible, my expectation is that there would continue to be a need

:20:45. > :20:48.for such legislation. Could the leader of the House

:20:49. > :20:55.acknowledge that nonetheless, we will elect a metropolitan mayor who

:20:56. > :20:59.will take up office including taking up responsibility for transport.

:21:00. > :21:02.Account Government confirm that the buses bill will complete its

:21:03. > :21:09.Parliamentary passage Mr Dissolution? -- before dissolution?

:21:10. > :21:12.The passage of any bill through Parliament will depend upon the

:21:13. > :21:19.talks between Government and the official Opposition that always take

:21:20. > :21:22.place ahead a general election. In calling a snap election, is it

:21:23. > :21:27.seriously the view of the British Government that a UK election will

:21:28. > :21:32.really change the EU 27 negotiating position? If so, Mr Speaker, is it

:21:33. > :21:41.not guilting of living in a land of fantasy? I think that what will be

:21:42. > :21:48.important is that newly located leaders in France and in Germany

:21:49. > :21:54.will meet a newly re-elected Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, all

:21:55. > :21:58.of them with the confidence that they have money dates from their

:21:59. > :22:04.voters as they approach those negotiations in a constructive

:22:05. > :22:08.spirit. Thank you Mr Speaker, to date the Chancellor's refused to

:22:09. > :22:12.share any analysis of the impacts of Brexit with the Parliament. In fact,

:22:13. > :22:16.he seems to have refused to share it with the Secretary of State for

:22:17. > :22:18.exiting the EU given his symbolic performance in front of committee.

:22:19. > :22:23.This general election is all about clarity. So in the interests of

:22:24. > :22:28.clarity, will the analysis showing the impact of a hard Brexit versus

:22:29. > :22:34.Scotland staying in the single market, which is what my

:22:35. > :22:37.constituents voted for? Well, I could make the arguments that the

:22:38. > :22:42.honourable gentleman has heard before about the vital importance to

:22:43. > :22:46.Scotland of the United Kingdom sing the market. But what I would --

:22:47. > :22:50.single market. What I would say in particular, is that the Prime

:22:51. > :22:57.Minister's objectives of delivering a new, deep and special partnership

:22:58. > :23:00.with our friends and allies in the EU 27 will serve the economic and

:23:01. > :23:06.security interests of Scotland well as they will serve the whole of the

:23:07. > :23:10.United Kingdom well. Following on from my honourable

:23:11. > :23:18.friend, is the leader of the House in a position to confirm or deny if

:23:19. > :23:24.the 2017 Tory manifesto will say yes to a single market or will it be

:23:25. > :23:27.out? I will put the honourable lady on the priority mailing list for a

:23:28. > :23:38.copy of the Conservative Party manifesto. Mr Speaker, the Scottish

:23:39. > :23:43.Parliament recently voted by a margin of 69 to 59 in order that we

:23:44. > :23:46.could have a referendum. Yet the Prime Minister arrogantly told us

:23:47. > :23:52.now is not the time. If now is the time for this Parliament to decide

:23:53. > :23:55.shouldn't this Parliament empower the Scottish Parliament to allow the

:23:56. > :24:02.Scottish people to have a say on their future? Mr Speaker, the

:24:03. > :24:07.honourable gentleman and his Parliamentary colleagues have been

:24:08. > :24:11.demanding week after week that the Prime Minister seek a new electoral

:24:12. > :24:15.mandate from the people of the United Kingdom in order to deliver

:24:16. > :24:19.our exit from the European Union. She is doing just that. I think the

:24:20. > :24:24.honourable gentleman might welcome that if he's to be consistent rather

:24:25. > :24:27.than complain. Following the question from my

:24:28. > :24:30.honourable friend from Kilmarnock, he's right to say that the general

:24:31. > :24:33.election will be about clarity. So does the leader of the House like

:24:34. > :24:38.me, look forward to the clarity that the TV debates will give us and does

:24:39. > :24:43.he agree with me that any attempt by any political leader, especially one

:24:44. > :24:44.from the Government benches, to shirk from those invitations would

:24:45. > :25:00.be wholly unacceptable? The ahead of a's debate, it is

:25:01. > :25:06.premature to speculate for a start on about how the broadcasters will

:25:07. > :25:14.determine for election coverage. I will take on the comments as a

:25:15. > :25:18.representation. I was not going to speak but like everybody else sat in

:25:19. > :25:26.this chamber, and maybe the last time I get a chance. If you will let

:25:27. > :25:29.me finish. I came here to speak honestly and plainly and to speak

:25:30. > :25:34.like the people who are outside of this building. What I can not

:25:35. > :25:39.understand from what the Leader of the House has said today it is how

:25:40. > :25:50.any of this makes things clearer, makes us feel more secure. All I

:25:51. > :25:53.ask, how does this look to people outside? As somebody who came from

:25:54. > :26:03.outside, it looks like political opportunism. I think and I hope that

:26:04. > :26:08.people outside this building will look at what the Prime Minister said

:26:09. > :26:16.on the steps of Number Ten this morning and will believe that she is

:26:17. > :26:21.seeking an electoral mandate and an electoral mandate for herself as a

:26:22. > :26:27.leader of a Government that will then be in a position to carry

:26:28. > :26:31.through extremely challenging and ambitious European negotiations over

:26:32. > :26:36.the next two years and then implement the new partnership that

:26:37. > :26:42.we are seeking with the EU 27 after what's with the confidence to

:26:43. > :26:46.arriving from the fact, I hope, that the Government will enjoy a secure,

:26:47. > :26:55.including parliamentary majority for those measures from -- for an entire

:26:56. > :27:01.five-year term. The Secretary of state for foreign and Commonwealth

:27:02. > :27:05.affairs, Boris Johnson. With your permission, I should like to begin

:27:06. > :27:10.by paying tribute to the Britons that were killed in tragic

:27:11. > :27:14.circumstances in Stockholm and Jerusalem. Chris Pettit and was

:27:15. > :27:20.amongst four people who died in Sweden where the truck was driven

:27:21. > :27:26.into pedestrians. Hannah was stabbed to death in Jerusalem on Good Friday

:27:27. > :27:32.in a senseless attack. Our thoughts and players are with their families.

:27:33. > :27:36.I wish to update the House on significant foreign policy events in

:27:37. > :27:42.the last fortnight, in Syria and North Korea. These disparate

:27:43. > :27:49.challenges in comp is one common theme. In each case, hereditary

:27:50. > :27:55.dictators presiding over cruel tyrannies have challenged essential

:27:56. > :28:00.rules that underpin our world peace. The United States had responded with

:28:01. > :28:05.strength and resolve and in accordance with its traditional role

:28:06. > :28:09.as the guarantor of the rules -based system. In both cases the US has

:28:10. > :28:18.acted with the full support of the British Government. Turning first to

:28:19. > :28:24.Syria. At 39 minutes past six on April the fold, there was a chemical

:28:25. > :28:30.weapons attack on the town in a rebel held the province. The House

:28:31. > :28:38.will recall the horrifying aftermath. Adults and children were

:28:39. > :28:44.convulsed in agony, as the bodies were poisoned by nerve gas. Rescue

:28:45. > :28:49.workers tried to decontaminate the casualties and we saw children with

:28:50. > :28:54.oxygen masks clamped to the faces. Even by the standards of the Civil

:28:55. > :28:59.War that has claimed more than 400,000 lives, this was amongst the

:29:00. > :29:03.most shocking incidents. I want to repeat for the benefit of the House

:29:04. > :29:10.exactly what we know about that attack. There has been a concerted

:29:11. > :29:19.attempt to obscure the facts. We know beyond doubt that two aircraft

:29:20. > :29:30.took off from a near field where we know the chemical weapons are

:29:31. > :29:41.overhead when the attack took place. overhead when the attack took place.

:29:42. > :29:54.know that Sarin was used that had the chemical signature of Sarin used

:29:55. > :30:01.by the President Assad regime. The people had been exposed to Sarin gas

:30:02. > :30:03.and it is only one conclusion, that the President Assad regime almost

:30:04. > :30:11.certainly gassed its own people in breach of international law. Showing

:30:12. > :30:14.the emptiness of that agreement reached in 2013 guaranteed by Russia

:30:15. > :30:39.that was meant to read Syria of chemical weapons once and for all.

:30:40. > :30:45.The UN has a joint investigated mechanism with the mandate to

:30:46. > :30:53.determine any Party responsible for the chemical attacks in Syria. The

:30:54. > :30:57.House should be in mind that UN investigators have already found the

:30:58. > :31:06.President Assad regime guilty of using poison gas on three separate

:31:07. > :31:09.occasions in 2014 and 2015. Some members have suggested we arrange

:31:10. > :31:13.President Assad before the International Criminal Court. The

:31:14. > :31:18.only way of bringing Syria before the ICC would be through a referral

:31:19. > :31:23.from the UN Security Council. We tried that option in 2014, only to

:31:24. > :31:34.be thwarted by the Beatles of Russia and China. Sadly, the attack on Khan

:31:35. > :31:40.Sheikhoun, the Russian response has been to support President Assad once

:31:41. > :31:46.again. Russia cast its eighth veto in support of President Assad,

:31:47. > :31:49.blocking a resolution that would have demanded cooperation with the

:31:50. > :32:02.international investigation. On the day after the atrocity. The US was

:32:03. > :32:08.considering a response. The United States did take action, firing 59

:32:09. > :32:12.cruise missiles at the military airbase at which the gas attack was

:32:13. > :32:17.meant to have been launched. We were given advance notice of the

:32:18. > :32:22.operation but at no stage did the US administration asked for UK military

:32:23. > :32:26.help, only for political support. Advanced warning was given to

:32:27. > :32:32.Russian military personnel who were located with the Syrian Air Force at

:32:33. > :32:38.the same airbase to minimise the risk of casualties. The Government

:32:39. > :32:45.believes that the US action was a necessary, appropriate and justified

:32:46. > :32:50.response to an awful crime. As many as 20 Syrian aircraft are believed

:32:51. > :32:54.to have been destroyed. The sheer force of President Assad has been

:32:55. > :33:01.bombing civilians day after day for the last six years. -- the Air

:33:02. > :33:06.Force. The destruction of some of the strike aircraft will in itself

:33:07. > :33:14.save some lives. What is more important is president Trump's

:33:15. > :33:18.emphatic message that the era when President Assad's barbarism was

:33:19. > :33:24.meant with passivity and inaction has finally come to an end.

:33:25. > :33:28.America's determined response creates an opportunity to break the

:33:29. > :33:35.deadlock and pave the way for the political settlement of Syria's

:33:36. > :33:38.tragedy. That will only happen if Russia is prepared to bring

:33:39. > :33:43.President Assad to the negotiating table and begin a transition to a

:33:44. > :33:50.new Government that represents the sole chance of peace in Syria. After

:33:51. > :33:57.the chemical attack and the American strike it was the priority for the

:33:58. > :34:01.US Defence Secretary to convey that message to Russia with the backing

:34:02. > :34:07.of as many countries as possible. The combined weight of the G-7 and

:34:08. > :34:12.the like-minded countries from the region unanimously supported the US

:34:13. > :34:23.military action as a carefully calibrated response to a war crime.

:34:24. > :34:32.The mandated Tillison to go to Russia and to... I want to stress

:34:33. > :34:36.that we in the UK have no intention of dislodging Russian interests in

:34:37. > :34:40.the Syria, on the contrary, we recognise Russia's long connection

:34:41. > :34:47.with that country and the national interest at stake. Russia's position

:34:48. > :34:52.in the Syria does not depend on President Assad. The unmistakable

:34:53. > :34:56.lesson of six years of bloodshed is that President Assad can not deliver

:34:57. > :35:02.what his people and the wider world so desperately need, mainly a

:35:03. > :35:08.peaceful and united Syria. I hope I have the support of everybody in

:35:09. > :35:12.this House. I call on the Russians to end the blind support for

:35:13. > :35:16.President Assad. Stop the gas attacks and the barrel bombs. Allow

:35:17. > :35:21.the delivery of aid to those who need it. Deliver a real ceasefire

:35:22. > :35:25.and begin the political process that will include a transition away from

:35:26. > :35:32.President Assad. That was the message this Secretary to listen

:35:33. > :35:37.delivered on the 12th of April. -- Secretary Tillison. We will do as

:35:38. > :35:42.much as we can in the UK to hold accountable any were responsible for

:35:43. > :35:47.that gas attack. We will work with our American counterparts to create

:35:48. > :35:52.the conditions for Russia to work with us. And to escape its

:35:53. > :35:58.entanglement with the toxic President Assad regime. Which

:35:59. > :36:04.poisons Russia's international reputation just as surely as it

:36:05. > :36:09.poisons its own people. Mr Speaker, turning out to North Korea. The

:36:10. > :36:15.events of last weekend provided further proof of the threat that

:36:16. > :36:20.country poses to international peace and security. On Saturday, North

:36:21. > :36:27.Korea paraded an arsenal of cruise missiles in front of crowds. 24

:36:28. > :36:32.hours later, the region tested another missile although this time

:36:33. > :36:38.the launch failed. Last year alone North Korea tested two nuclear bombs

:36:39. > :36:45.and 24 missiles. I will remind members of all those tests, they

:36:46. > :36:52.break a series of UN resolutions dating back to 2006 when resolution

:36:53. > :36:59.1695 was passed by the Security Council. The North Korean regime

:37:00. > :37:04.threatened further tests on a weekly, monthly and yearly basis.

:37:05. > :37:08.The regime is developing intercontinental missiles which will

:37:09. > :37:12.be capable of delivering a nuclear strike on the mainland United

:37:13. > :37:19.States. These weapons have not been fully tested but no one can be

:37:20. > :37:25.complacent about the potential threat they pose. Yesterday I spoke

:37:26. > :37:29.to my Chinese counterpart. I urged him to use Beijing's unique

:37:30. > :37:36.influence to restrain North Korea and to allow peaceful resolution of

:37:37. > :37:41.this crisis. By suspending the coal imports from North Korea, China has

:37:42. > :37:45.given a welcome signal to exert pressure on the regime. Later this

:37:46. > :37:53.month I will attend a special meeting of the Security Council on

:37:54. > :37:58.North Korea. All hopes of progress rests on International cooperation,

:37:59. > :38:01.especially between China and the US. And the verifiable disarmament of

:38:02. > :38:08.North Korea's nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. The crisis in

:38:09. > :38:16.Syria and North Korea represent a challenge to the law -based

:38:17. > :38:20.international order in which this country believes. Britain's role is

:38:21. > :38:25.to stand alongside the United States and our allies as we confront those

:38:26. > :38:35.threats and in that effort we will not tire. I commend the statement to

:38:36. > :38:37.the House. May I thank the Secretary of state for his statement. May I

:38:38. > :38:45.join with him in sending my condolences to the families of those

:38:46. > :38:49.killed. The statement is overshadowed by another statement

:38:50. > :38:54.today. The issues at hand here are more important for the future of our

:38:55. > :38:57.world rather than the Prime Minister's cynical short-term

:38:58. > :39:01.manoeuvres. She talked about the need for stability and is happy to

:39:02. > :39:04.plunge the country into six weeks of uncertainty exactly at the time

:39:05. > :39:09.we're Britain needs to provide stable global leadership on issues

:39:10. > :39:17.like Syria and North Korea. We should not be surprised. The Party

:39:18. > :39:22.opposite is abdicating any effective leadership role for Britain. Turning

:39:23. > :39:27.first to Syria. We were all appalled by the dreadful attacks on civilians

:39:28. > :39:32.witnessed during the Easter recess. There was a horrifying chemical

:39:33. > :39:37.attack on Khan Sheikhoun, killing ordinary villagers and injuring

:39:38. > :39:41.hundreds more. Two days ago, and I was surprised the Foreign Secretary

:39:42. > :39:49.did not see fit to mention this, we saw a suicide bombing with dozens of

:39:50. > :39:55.children amongst those killed. They were lowered to the deaths by the

:39:56. > :39:58.promise of free crisps. A tragic remainder that in this conflict that

:39:59. > :40:03.President Assad does not hold the monopoly when it comes to atrocities

:40:04. > :40:07.against innocent civilians, including children. We need a

:40:08. > :40:13.peaceful settlement in Syria, no more than ever. Lastly, the Foreign

:40:14. > :40:17.Secretary said his priority was to build coordinated international

:40:18. > :40:22.support for the ceasefire and to intensify political process and I

:40:23. > :40:27.agree with him. Quite, rather than looking for coordinated action to

:40:28. > :40:31.properly investigate and punish the use of chemical weapons, is the

:40:32. > :40:35.Foreign Secretary instead to threaten more unilateral air strikes

:40:36. > :40:39.by the US against the President Assad regime, while rather than

:40:40. > :40:46.engaging in that peace process titty instead cancel his proposed talks in

:40:47. > :40:51.Moscow and in the process, -- in the peace process why did he instead

:40:52. > :40:54.cancel his proposed talks in Moscow. And rather than in shooting the G-7

:40:55. > :40:59.spoke with one strong voice in Syria last week, did he present them that

:41:00. > :41:01.they have to beat the bath to sanctions without doing any

:41:02. > :41:13.preparatory work? The only straw he can cling onto, we

:41:14. > :41:17.presume is this: That the United States State Department is still

:41:18. > :41:22.telling him what to say and do and which countries he is allowed to

:41:23. > :41:26.visit. And to that end, can I ask a final question on Syria, based on

:41:27. > :41:31.his close relationship with the Trump administration, can he clarify

:41:32. > :41:36.exactly what their strategy now is? Mr Speaker, turning quickly to north

:41:37. > :41:41.ceeament the Foreign Secretary rightly condemns the ongoing nuclear

:41:42. > :41:46.programmes. I hope he will agree like Syria, this is a crisis which

:41:47. > :41:49.can only be resolved through coordinated international action,

:41:50. > :41:54.through the deescalation of tensions and ultimately through negotiations.

:41:55. > :41:59.So can he assure us that Britain will argue against any unilateral

:42:00. > :42:02.military action taken by the United States and instead urgently back

:42:03. > :42:08.China's call for the resumption of the Six Party Talks? When it comes

:42:09. > :42:12.to North Korea, the world needs statesmanship not brinkmanship. We

:42:13. > :42:16.cannot afford blient loyalty to the Trump administration if they are

:42:17. > :42:20.leading us down the path to war. Peace in Syria and North Korea, our

:42:21. > :42:22.relationship with the Trump administration, these are vital

:42:23. > :42:26.issues for the future of the Britain and the world and as much as the

:42:27. > :42:32.Prime Minister would like the coming election simply to be about Brexit,

:42:33. > :42:36.we must ensure that these and other international concerns are not

:42:37. > :42:40.forgotten. To that end, my final question for the Foreign Secretary

:42:41. > :42:44.is this: Will he commit to join me in a televised debate between all

:42:45. > :42:51.the parties on foreign policy, no ifs, no buts, I'm ready to say yes

:42:52. > :42:55.now. So will he commit today to do like-wise? Announce the first

:42:56. > :43:02.election debate and put the party's promise of stable leadership on the

:43:03. > :43:08.line. Mr Speaker, obviously I'm

:43:09. > :43:13.disappointed that the Shadow Foreign Secretary should choose to intrude

:43:14. > :43:17.into this very, very important consideration, I think relatively

:43:18. > :43:23.separate issues of domestic political policy. We are trying to

:43:24. > :43:27.explain the position of the UK and indeed the West towards the Assad

:43:28. > :43:31.regime. Just to answer her serious point, by the way we're having a

:43:32. > :43:40.televised debate now, in case you haven't noticed. And we should

:43:41. > :43:44.continue in that way. We are engaged in trying to use the opportunity

:43:45. > :43:50.provided by American action to drive forward the political process. It is

:43:51. > :43:52.not easy and I think that in all honesty, the honourable lady should

:43:53. > :43:56.reflect on her approach. Because what we are trying to do does

:43:57. > :44:00.require a very great degree of cross-party support. We want the

:44:01. > :44:05.Russians to face up to the real option before them, which is if they

:44:06. > :44:09.continue to back Assad, they will be backing a regime that has been

:44:10. > :44:13.proved - and I hope the members heard what I said about the use of

:44:14. > :44:17.chemical weapons, proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to have used

:44:18. > :44:23.chemical weapons banned under international law. I would like them

:44:24. > :44:27.to accept there is a deal and that could be that they have an

:44:28. > :44:34.improvement in their reloigss with the Americans -- relations. They

:44:35. > :44:39.work together with the rest of us to tackle the scourge of Daesh. In

:44:40. > :44:42.return, I think what needs to happen is that the Russians need to

:44:43. > :44:46.understand that they must make a serious commitment to a political

:44:47. > :44:51.process. At the moment, they are not. They need to have a proper

:44:52. > :44:55.commitment to a ceasefire and at the moment, they are not making that

:44:56. > :45:03.commitment. They need to stop their client using chemical weapons. They

:45:04. > :45:10.said they would do that in 2013 and rather than simply parroting, I may

:45:11. > :45:14.say, the lines of the Kremlin, she should support the collective action

:45:15. > :45:24.of the West and indeed not just the G 7, but as I said, the like-minded

:45:25. > :45:29.countries. She has said that the West was divided, for instance in

:45:30. > :45:36.its attitude towards sanctions. Let' be absolutely clear, all we are

:45:37. > :45:43.trying to do is follow the evident shall trail where it leads and if

:45:44. > :45:46.the OPCW finds that there are members of the Syrian armed forces

:45:47. > :45:54.who have been responsible for that attack, then I hope she will agree

:45:55. > :45:58.that they should face sanctions. I hope she will agree that they should

:45:59. > :46:04.face sanctions. If she opposes that, I have to say, I find it absolutely

:46:05. > :46:10.extraordinary. The United States has moved to impose sanctions on a

:46:11. > :46:14.further 300 people. There is a very large measure of support from all

:46:15. > :46:23.Western countries for doing exactly that. Further more, it seems to me,

:46:24. > :46:29.unclear really from her account whether she is actually supportive

:46:30. > :46:33.of the American action at all. And I wonder whether she could enlighten

:46:34. > :46:38.the House, is she actually in favour of what the Americans did because

:46:39. > :46:44.for the first time in five years, what the Trump White House has shown

:46:45. > :46:48.is that the West is not prepared to sit by and watch while people are

:46:49. > :46:54.gassed, using weapons that should have been banned -

:46:55. > :47:06.THE SPEAKER: Order. Order. We appreciate the Foreign Secretary's

:47:07. > :47:11.enimtab style. I fear -- enimitable style, I think the honourable lady,

:47:12. > :47:15.in waiting to intervene wants a debate. Let us wait for the

:47:16. > :47:22.televised debate. The Foreign Secretary. Mr Speaker, I'm grateful.

:47:23. > :47:27.I was very, I was far from clear in listening to the right honourable

:47:28. > :47:34.lady's response whether she actually supports what the United States has

:47:35. > :47:39.done. I would like some ill loose dags on that. That has shown that

:47:40. > :47:45.the West is willing to stand up to the use of these vile peppons and it

:47:46. > :47:49.has given us a -- weapons, and it has given us a political

:47:50. > :47:52.opportunity. I think her best bet would be to support this Government,

:47:53. > :47:55.the efforts of the Western countries to drive that forward and get the

:47:56. > :47:58.Russians to deliver a genuine political solution.

:47:59. > :48:01.THE SPEAKER: Order. Order. I say to the honourable lady, all sorts of

:48:02. > :48:07.things might be judged by some people to be intolerable. But I'm

:48:08. > :48:10.afraid what is above all intolerable is to depart from the normal

:48:11. > :48:15.process. The honourable lady is a person of very considerable

:48:16. > :48:19.intellect and ingenuity, doubtless through her colleagues and possibly

:48:20. > :48:23.subsequent to the statement, she can find ways of giving expression to

:48:24. > :48:27.her concern, but at this point, if she could assume a Zen-like calm,

:48:28. > :48:35.the House itself would be the beneficiary of that. It is obviously

:48:36. > :48:39.right Mr Speaker, that a diplomatic joint approach in Syria is clearly

:48:40. > :48:43.more important than unilateral action. Will he therefore commit to

:48:44. > :48:46.continue to work very closely with our American allies and other

:48:47. > :48:53.partners and friends to bring an end to this barbaric slaughter in Syria?

:48:54. > :48:57.Mr Speaker, I'm grateful to my right honourable friend. That is exactly

:48:58. > :49:01.what we are engaged in doing. I do not pretend to the House that this

:49:02. > :49:07.will be easy. We have been here before. We have seen the

:49:08. > :49:11.Kerry-Lavrov rigmarole that went on for months and months. But this is

:49:12. > :49:20.an opportunity for Russia to recognise that they are supporting a

:49:21. > :49:24.regime that deserved the odium of the entire world. It is costing

:49:25. > :49:26.Russia friends and support around the world. They have a chance for a

:49:27. > :49:30.different approach and that is what we are collectively urging them to

:49:31. > :49:41.do. Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I thank the Foreign Secretary for

:49:42. > :49:46.advance sight of his statement and I associate myself with the

:49:47. > :49:52.condolences for those families in Sweden and Jerusalem. There should

:49:53. > :49:55.of course, be an international investigation sponsored by the

:49:56. > :49:58.Security Council and if that is blocked, it should be ordered by the

:49:59. > :50:01.general Assembly of the United Nations. The MEP niches exist for

:50:02. > :50:05.this to happen and UK Government must lead the way. The findings

:50:06. > :50:07.should then be taken to the international Criminal Court and

:50:08. > :50:12.those responsible should be arraigned and subjected to the force

:50:13. > :50:15.of international law. The US air strikes on the airfield are a

:50:16. > :50:19.demonstration of the unpredictability of the Trump

:50:20. > :50:24.administration, which many fear will only cause further escalation of the

:50:25. > :50:30.conflict. In their rush to congratulate that administration on

:50:31. > :50:33.its recent strike, do the UK Government consider the

:50:34. > :50:36.repercussions? Until now coalition aircraft have operated with relative

:50:37. > :50:41.freedom against Daesh in Eastern Syria. Now Russia has suspended

:50:42. > :50:45.US-Russia air operation as cord and the Assad regime will likely

:50:46. > :50:50.activate its extensive air defences. The skies above Syria therefore will

:50:51. > :50:54.be much more dangerous for UK pilots, while civilians on the

:50:55. > :50:57.ground will suffer even more. We on these benches have questioned the

:50:58. > :51:01.policy on air strikes from the very beginning. Now we must have answers

:51:02. > :51:07.Mr Speaker. What changes will be made to adopt to the changing

:51:08. > :51:11.situation? And how will this affect the aerial campaign against Daesh?

:51:12. > :51:16.UK bombs will not bring peace in Syria. We call on the UK Government

:51:17. > :51:19.to rethink its tactics and have a revised military strategy in

:51:20. > :51:23.Parliament. While dialogue aimed at ending the conflict is welcome,

:51:24. > :51:27.above all we want hostilities to cease and civilians to receive the

:51:28. > :51:31.basic food, shelter and medical care which they so badly need. Finally,

:51:32. > :51:37.Mr Speaker, on the subject of North Korea, we urge all parties to lower

:51:38. > :51:43.tensions and use diplomatic means to work through disagreements. Yet this

:51:44. > :51:47.is more evidence of the need to implement multilateral disarmament

:51:48. > :51:52.and put an end to the existence of weapons of mass destruction in

:51:53. > :51:57.general and nuclear weapons in particular. Thank you very much Mr

:51:58. > :52:02.Speaker. I would point out that the honourable lady will know that the

:52:03. > :52:06.UK is already the second biggest donor in humanitarian aid to the

:52:07. > :52:11.region. We have a record there that we can be proud of. Just going back

:52:12. > :52:16.though to what she had to say about the American strike itself. I do

:52:17. > :52:21.find it, I must say, I looking at familiar faces here from the

:52:22. > :52:25.statements on Syria - month after month, I come here to update the

:52:26. > :52:30.House on what, how that tragedy has been unfolding. I see people who

:52:31. > :52:34.take a passionate interest in this subject and have called repeatedly

:52:35. > :52:40.for us to do more. Finally the United States has taken what we

:52:41. > :52:44.believe to be action, which I think is entirely appropriate, entirely

:52:45. > :52:49.appropriate, and somehow it fails to find favour with the honourable

:52:50. > :52:55.lady. I think it is a good thing but we should not, as I say, overstate

:52:56. > :53:01.the importance of what has happened from a military point of view. We've

:53:02. > :53:05.got to recognise that this is a political opportunity and it's an

:53:06. > :53:12.opportunity for the Russians to recognise the manner of regime that

:53:13. > :53:16.they are propping up. And that is what, the message that we need to

:53:17. > :53:22.get over loud and clear and unanimously. As for North Korea. She

:53:23. > :53:26.makes a good point about the need to get rid of nuclear weapons. I think

:53:27. > :53:30.it would be foolish, I hope she would agree, it would be foolish for

:53:31. > :53:33.the United States, for instance, to even begin thinking of getting rid

:53:34. > :53:40.of its nuclear weapons before we Shh... Have denuclearised North

:53:41. > :53:44.Korea. I thank the Foreign Secretary for the detailed evidence he has

:53:45. > :53:49.presented to the House about the responsibility for the nerve agent

:53:50. > :53:57.attack in Syria. Can I commend him for giving us the detail and in that

:53:58. > :54:02.sense, also invite him to depersonalise his assessment of the

:54:03. > :54:06.Syrian regime, simply around the personality of its president. We

:54:07. > :54:09.already have in place a mechanism by which that president will be held to

:54:10. > :54:14.account in future by the Syrian people if he wishes to seek that,

:54:15. > :54:17.under the international support group and conclusion in November

:54:18. > :54:22.2015. That process is agreed by 20 nations. We should be relying on

:54:23. > :54:26.that, not using our rhetoric that might make it a more difficult place

:54:27. > :54:32.in order to get into that process. Finally, if I can just ask him about

:54:33. > :54:36.North Korea. Could I invite him to put pressure on the United States to

:54:37. > :54:41.try and dial down the public rhetoric. There is an element in

:54:42. > :54:44.which the North Korea is something like an attention seeking child,

:54:45. > :54:49.that happens to belong to somebody else. In this case China. Whilst the

:54:50. > :54:52.United States has proper responsibilities to the other

:54:53. > :54:56.nations in the area about their security, ratcheting up the rhetoric

:54:57. > :54:57.with North Korea is probably the wrong way of publicly dealing with

:54:58. > :55:15.them. In I agree entirely. Our quarrel is

:55:16. > :55:23.not just with President Assad but with others in his regime. I think

:55:24. > :55:27.it will be possible, a map can be sketched out that can show you how

:55:28. > :55:33.to keep the institutions of Syrian Government and get rid of the most

:55:34. > :55:37.moderate elements of that regime. We need to get that idea across very

:55:38. > :55:43.clearly in the course of the next few weeks and months. On North

:55:44. > :55:47.Korea, I am sure his words are very wise on the day to avoid ratcheting

:55:48. > :55:57.up the rhetoric and he speaks from experience. In this arena, I believe

:55:58. > :56:04.that the key lies mainly with China. It is very much in the Chinese

:56:05. > :56:10.interest and the Russians, by the way, who share a border with North

:56:11. > :56:16.Korea. It is in the Chinese and Russian interest to rein in Kim Jong

:56:17. > :56:25.ill and to persuade him to abandon what I think is the path of self

:56:26. > :56:29.destruction. In the light of the American Vice President's visit to

:56:30. > :56:35.the region, one hopes to consult South Korea and Japan on the most

:56:36. > :56:37.effective way to contain North Korea's nuclear ambitions, and

:56:38. > :56:45.reflecting on the Foreign Secretary's recent experience at the

:56:46. > :56:49.G-7 summit, does he think there is potential for further economic

:56:50. > :56:57.sanctions directed at North Korea and does he think China would fully

:56:58. > :57:02.support such a step? If I may say so, the crucial thing is for the

:57:03. > :57:07.Chinese and others to implement those current sanctions that we have

:57:08. > :57:15.and to allow them to have full economic impact. There has been some

:57:16. > :57:20.doubt in recent months about the full application of those sanctions.

:57:21. > :57:28.People in North Korea are living in absolute misery and servitude. The

:57:29. > :57:32.trouble is that it can continue to live in that state for a long time

:57:33. > :57:39.to come unless the Government sees sense and we must work with the

:57:40. > :57:45.changes to persuade them. Given the fact that China in a most welcome

:57:46. > :57:50.manner, surprisingly did support sanctions at the UN in 2013, the

:57:51. > :57:53.chances they will come to the Security Council meeting and the

:57:54. > :57:58.positive frame of mind, the Secretary is right that Russia

:57:59. > :58:02.shares a small border with North Korea and it is a permanent member

:58:03. > :58:07.of the UN Security Council Andras Parti to the six Party talks, will

:58:08. > :58:12.my right honourable friend commit to having good discussions with his

:58:13. > :58:17.opposite number in China but also to talk to his Russian counterpart?

:58:18. > :58:23.This is another chance for Russia to rehabilitate its international

:58:24. > :58:29.reputation which is tarnished. He is absolutely right and he has great

:58:30. > :58:33.expertise in this matter. It is perfectly true that the economic

:58:34. > :58:39.relationship is overwhelmingly between China and North Korea.

:58:40. > :58:44.Russia certainly has a role and Russia should not be permitted to

:58:45. > :58:48.hide endlessly behind China's skirts. And that is a point that Rex

:58:49. > :58:59.Tillson made in Moscow on April the 10th. In 1988 etiquette talk --

:59:00. > :59:02.cross-party group from this House to see some survivors. There was a lot

:59:03. > :59:11.of discussion about who was responsible. People like Doctor

:59:12. > :59:18.Alistair Hay went out and brought back soil samples and evidence. I

:59:19. > :59:26.wonder if they use of experts in the UK are being used again to find

:59:27. > :59:35.again were the perpetrators of this terrible suffering on the Syrian

:59:36. > :59:39.people. Has the Foreign Secretary talked to people like that? Because

:59:40. > :59:45.of the experience in dealing with chemical weapons, they could help

:59:46. > :59:51.again. I remember the right honourable lady's efforts in

:59:52. > :59:57.respect. She played a big part in the hardening my own heart against

:59:58. > :00:04.Saddam Hussein many years ago. She campaigned on that matter with great

:00:05. > :00:12.effect and quite rightly. What we are doing today is supporting the

:00:13. > :00:17.OPCW's mission. They are setting up the expert fact-finding mission to

:00:18. > :00:21.try to assemble... I have sketched out all that we know about what

:00:22. > :00:28.happened on the morning of April the 4th, the best evidence we have so

:00:29. > :00:34.far. I believe it is very persuasive indeed. But the fact-finding mission

:00:35. > :00:43.will now do is to go and draw on a variety of sources, samples from the

:00:44. > :00:47.victims, environmental samples, fragments, footage, interviews with

:00:48. > :00:53.survivors and people who were first on the scene, medics and

:00:54. > :00:56.eyewitnesses. They will be able to draw on intelligence, flight

:00:57. > :01:03.tracking, meteorological information, that'll be shared by us

:01:04. > :01:10.and other countries concerned. Their experiences that such fight --

:01:11. > :01:15.fact-finding instances unable to find conclusions under difficult

:01:16. > :01:18.circumstances. It is that information that we need to create

:01:19. > :01:25.the evidential trail to the individuals who were irresponsible.

:01:26. > :01:30.There is good evidence already but we will use what we have where

:01:31. > :01:39.possible, not only to impose sanctions but also prosecutions for

:01:40. > :01:47.war crimes. Russia's position in Syria does not depend on President

:01:48. > :01:51.Assad but his regime in Syria is dependent on Russia, Russia must

:01:52. > :01:56.accept its responsibility for that attack. At its reputation is to be

:01:57. > :02:06.rehabilitated, the most important step would be to help ease the

:02:07. > :02:12.President Assad regime out of Syria. I absolutely agree with my right

:02:13. > :02:18.honourable friend. The crucial thing is for the Russians to understand...

:02:19. > :02:23.They have been three in the past to admit they have no deep spiritual

:02:24. > :02:30.affinity for basher al-Assad. They do not love him. They are ready to

:02:31. > :02:35.him for the time being. There can be no future for Syria with President

:02:36. > :02:39.Assad in power. We have to find a way forward. What we have to do now

:02:40. > :02:43.is to reach out to the Russians to get them to understand that point

:02:44. > :02:53.and to get them to commit to a serious political process and we

:02:54. > :02:58.should not abandon that goal. I regret any of the votes I

:02:59. > :03:07.participated in end preventing military usage in Syria. Is it not

:03:08. > :03:11.the case that there is to be no military retaliation over the

:03:12. > :03:16.chemical attack, it would encourage President Assad to do the same

:03:17. > :03:20.again? I believe he is absolutely right and that is why we have to

:03:21. > :03:24.acknowledge that the United States has changed the terms of trade in

:03:25. > :03:33.Syria and it is now up to us to make the most of that opportunity to get

:03:34. > :03:37.political change. Can I thank my friend for his statement and the

:03:38. > :03:42.tone in which he made it. One of the purposes of the American action the

:03:43. > :03:47.other day was, as it would've been in 2013, to demonstrate to President

:03:48. > :03:52.Assad that he could not military subjugate all his people. It would

:03:53. > :03:58.give to negotiations with he would have to concede something. The

:03:59. > :04:02.difficult question is this, have the Secretary of state for the United

:04:03. > :04:08.States as my honourable friend on that evening in some way, what would

:04:09. > :04:11.his answer have been? Does his Government consider themselves bound

:04:12. > :04:15.by what happened in 2013 and the statement of David Cameron

:04:16. > :04:19.afterwards? Does he intend to return the House to discuss that matter

:04:20. > :04:24.further what made to the United Kingdom be able to do to demonstrate

:04:25. > :04:28.its force and resolve against such actions as we saw from President

:04:29. > :04:37.Assad the other week? We were not asked. We were not asked for

:04:38. > :04:40.specific support. It is my belief but no decision has been taken, it

:04:41. > :04:47.is my belief that were such a request be made in future, whether

:04:48. > :04:50.it a reasonable request in pursuit of similar objectives, I think it

:04:51. > :05:02.would be very difficult for the United Kingdom to say no. Hannah was

:05:03. > :05:07.a student at Birmingham University and our thoughts and prayers are

:05:08. > :05:12.with her family and friends. As the foreigner office changed any travel

:05:13. > :05:20.advice after she was stabbed to death in Jerusalem? I repeat my

:05:21. > :05:26.condolences to her family. All I can say is that although we are offering

:05:27. > :05:30.consular assistance to her family as the moment we are not changing our

:05:31. > :05:42.general advice about travel to Israel. Given the foil propaganda

:05:43. > :05:46.role of President Assad in propping up a war criminal, could the Foreign

:05:47. > :05:50.Secretary update the House on what discussions he has had with the Home

:05:51. > :05:56.Secretary so we can send a very clear message that it is

:05:57. > :06:05.incompatible with British citizen ship? We do not discuss individual

:06:06. > :06:19.citizenship cases. I understand the feelings that she is expressing.

:06:20. > :06:25.The Foreign Secretary's original statement was comprehensive and

:06:26. > :06:31.measured but it had won significant omission, there was no mention

:06:32. > :06:37.whatsoever of Turkey. There are 3 million Syrian refugees in Turkey

:06:38. > :06:41.and as he knows, the Turkish Government had called for the no-fly

:06:42. > :06:47.zone. Others including myself had called for the no-fly zone. What

:06:48. > :06:51.discussions are the ongoing at this moment about how to protect

:06:52. > :06:59.civilians in Syria, not just from chemical weapons but also from

:07:00. > :07:04.barrel bombs? He is right to draw attention to the cardinal role of

:07:05. > :07:09.Turkey in this crisis. Turkey has borne the brunt of the huge tide of

:07:10. > :07:15.refugees. I agree with what he says about no-fly zones. It is something

:07:16. > :07:21.strongly supported by Rex Iverson and the US. They cannot deliver them

:07:22. > :07:25.without a ceasefire. This is why I returned this challenge we are

:07:26. > :07:28.making to the Russians. It is up to them not just to stop the barrel

:07:29. > :07:34.bombs but to deliver a real ceasefire. The Foreign Secretary

:07:35. > :07:39.dealt at length with the chemical attack but I was surprised he did

:07:40. > :07:44.not take the opportunity to condemn also the appalling attack on Shia

:07:45. > :07:55.civilians, 126 killed, 68 children that were fleeing. This illustrates

:07:56. > :07:58.the problem of being a Shia or Christian in Syria, how much can you

:07:59. > :08:08.rely on President Assad to protect you? We tried to engage regime

:08:09. > :08:13.change, removing Colonel Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein. We should protect

:08:14. > :08:17.minorities in the Middle East. I appreciate the point that he makes

:08:18. > :08:22.and he's perfectly right that our thoughts should equally be with the

:08:23. > :08:30.126 victims of that appalling attack, many of them also children.

:08:31. > :08:37.There are many victims in this conflict. Of the 400,000 that have

:08:38. > :08:42.died, in the last 5-6 years, I think we are now in the seventh year of

:08:43. > :08:48.this war, the overwhelming majority have been victims of the President

:08:49. > :08:53.Assad regime. And its supporters. It is for that reason that I must say

:08:54. > :08:57.that I understand his hesitations. They are shared by many people who

:08:58. > :09:03.think instinctively that it would be better to stay with the devil that

:09:04. > :09:12.we know. He is a very odious devil indeed. I am afraid that when I look

:09:13. > :09:16.ahead, I cannot see how President Assad can remain in power in Syria

:09:17. > :09:20.in the long-term. We have to go back a long way in history to find

:09:21. > :09:28.somebody who has murdered quite so many of his population and retained

:09:29. > :09:33.office. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. It is

:09:34. > :09:39.not for any of us to choose who runs Syria, that is for the Syrian

:09:40. > :09:44.people. Can I say to the Foreign Secretary we should judge at recent

:09:45. > :09:48.events in Syria and they will be successful if and only effort they

:09:49. > :09:56.form part of the comprehensive strategy to protect civilian life.

:09:57. > :10:05.In that regard, can I asked him what conversations he has had with the

:10:06. > :10:13.Secretary of state for getting the aid to those people in Syria who

:10:14. > :10:17.needed. We failed in Aleppo. I know people are being targeted as we

:10:18. > :10:21.discussed previously. Though the Foreign Secretary say what strategy

:10:22. > :10:26.do we have now to save civilian life, to get aid in and to get

:10:27. > :10:29.people who need to come out of Syria to seek medical attention out of

:10:30. > :10:32.Syria, and to help save every life that we can?

:10:33. > :10:37.I pay tribute to the consistent campaigning the honourable lady has

:10:38. > :10:40.done over the years. She's right to draw attention to the appalling

:10:41. > :10:46.humanitarian situation. There are still 1. 5 million people being

:10:47. > :10:52.besieged by Assad's regime and they're using starvation as an

:10:53. > :10:57.instrument of warfare. What we are trying to do is, going back to the

:10:58. > :11:01.earlier points, there must be a ceasefire and the Russians must make

:11:02. > :11:08.it possible for the humanitarian aid convoys to have access to those

:11:09. > :11:12.regimes. That is what we are trying to promote, Just Can't Get Enough in

:11:13. > :11:27.gentlemen Niamh ya, but at the talks as well. As I say, it is

:11:28. > :11:34.up to the -- They have their interests in Syria protected in the

:11:35. > :11:39.long-term. They can have a political role in the future of Syria, but

:11:40. > :11:42.what they've got to ensure is that there is a ceasefire, an end to the

:11:43. > :11:52.barrel bombs and a proper political process. Can the Foreign Secretary

:11:53. > :11:57.tell us what the outcome of this proper political process would be

:11:58. > :12:02.given that even common Tators who absurdly used to claim that there

:12:03. > :12:08.were 70,000 moderate fighters against Assad in Syria now accept

:12:09. > :12:14.that the overwhelming majority of the armed opposition are run by

:12:15. > :12:29.Islamists. Whilst accepting that Assad is a monster in the tradition

:12:30. > :12:35.of Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein, to replace him with a virulent Islamist

:12:36. > :12:41.regime? I must say I strongly agree with the wisdom of that remark. The

:12:42. > :12:45.essential thing will be to have a political process that preserves the

:12:46. > :12:52.institutions of the Syrian state whilst decapitating the monster.

:12:53. > :12:58.Thank you Mr Speaker. The international community failed in

:12:59. > :13:03.Syria for too long. We echo the comments made by the Foreign

:13:04. > :13:08.Secretary that some action was, indeed, needed and may be needed

:13:09. > :13:12.into future. Can I ask him, though, his statement was very firm, quite

:13:13. > :13:17.rightly, on Russia, but it didn't give a sense of how the Peace Talks

:13:18. > :13:25.will go forward, which clearly is also essential as well as Russia

:13:26. > :13:30.changing their position. As has been said by several honourable members,

:13:31. > :13:33.in the end the new constitution and arrangements for Syria will be a

:13:34. > :13:36.matter for the Syrian people. There are certainly people on either side

:13:37. > :13:39.of the debate in Syria who could come together to form a new federal

:13:40. > :13:47.government for that country and take it forward to a much brighter

:13:48. > :13:51.future. Russia's propped up the Assad regime

:13:52. > :13:54.for far too long. When I met the Russian ambassador a year ago, I

:13:55. > :13:58.urged him and asked him to request his government to find a new home

:13:59. > :14:01.for Assad outside of Syria to enable the political process to move

:14:02. > :14:05.forward and create peace in that country. He declined. Does my right

:14:06. > :14:11.honourable friend agree it's time for Russia to change its mind on

:14:12. > :14:15.that matter in -- matter? The Russian president actually suggested

:14:16. > :14:21.that Bashar al-Assad should find refuge in some Gulf country, which I

:14:22. > :14:25.won't upset by naming. Mr Speaker, the Foreign Secretary

:14:26. > :14:30.said in his statement I stress that we have no intention of dislodging

:14:31. > :14:33.Russia from Syria, well, we would be fools to think that we could, and

:14:34. > :14:39.then went on to say, but Russia's position in Syria does not depend on

:14:40. > :14:42.Assad. Now for the last seven years, Putin has supported Assad through

:14:43. > :14:45.thick and thin. He's not suddenly going to develop a conscience as

:14:46. > :14:49.we've seen with his actions over the years in Chechnya and elsewhere.

:14:50. > :14:55.Therefore, we're left in a position with the UN Security Council where

:14:56. > :15:00.Russia has a seat will constantly block any military attempts and

:15:01. > :15:03.therefore we're left with a scenario where Trump could take unilateral

:15:04. > :15:09.action as they've done on the airfield. I support that action. But

:15:10. > :15:12.how far are we supposed to support Trump without the support of the

:15:13. > :15:17.Security Council? Clearly, he could do that to Assad and he could do

:15:18. > :15:21.that to President Kim in North Korea. I disagree we strongly. I do

:15:22. > :15:24.think, of course, it's difficult, of course the Russians have been

:15:25. > :15:28.backing Assad for many years, but this is an opportunity now for them

:15:29. > :15:35.to have a new bargain, a bargain in which they have a ceasefire, a real

:15:36. > :15:37.political solution and in exchange they get a genuine relationship with

:15:38. > :15:44.the United States, they join the rest of the world in the war against

:15:45. > :15:48.Daesh and they have acknowledgement - yes I do - they have

:15:49. > :15:53.acknowledgement that they have a way out of the quagmire of Syria and the

:15:54. > :15:58.West will step in, once it's possible, to pay for the

:15:59. > :16:03.reconstruction of that country. Mr Speaker, Iran has committed

:16:04. > :16:07.hundreds of troops and billions of dollars in Syria, also in living

:16:08. > :16:11.memory many Iranians have suffered chemical attacks. They have been

:16:12. > :16:14.victims of it. Can my right honourable friend reassure the House

:16:15. > :16:17.that his department is taking advantage of the full diplomatic

:16:18. > :16:23.relations with Iran to put pressure on the Assad regime? Yes, we

:16:24. > :16:27.certainly are and I think one of the important points to make to the

:16:28. > :16:33.Russians is that in the end, it is the Iranians who are benefitting

:16:34. > :16:37.from any progress that the Assad regime makes. It is the Iranians who

:16:38. > :16:41.are the whip holders in that relationship and in the end, the

:16:42. > :16:46.Russians need to detach themselves from the Iranians as well as from

:16:47. > :16:51.Assad. Thank you Mr Speaker. I hear that

:16:52. > :16:55.the Secretary of State is saying, however a new report from Human

:16:56. > :17:00.Rights Watch suggest that US forces last month failed to properly

:17:01. > :17:03.confirm targets before launching a missile strike in Aleppo, killing

:17:04. > :17:08.dozens of civilians and as we've heard, including lots of children.

:17:09. > :17:14.They even destroyed a building they had even is stab lished was a

:17:15. > :17:18.mosque. As the UK Government cheer leads more US strikes in Syria what

:17:19. > :17:21.steps will the Secretary of State take to avoid more civilian deaths

:17:22. > :17:29.in Syria? I must say that obviously we deplore any civilian deaths in

:17:30. > :17:34.Syria. I do deplore any falls equiff lent of American actions and the

:17:35. > :17:38.dropping of barbaric weapons by the regime, banned in 1925. Can I

:17:39. > :17:43.welcome my right honourable friend's call for a peaceful and united

:17:44. > :17:47.Syria, who would disagree with that? And especially the need for

:17:48. > :17:51.humanitarian protection of civilians but would my right honourable friend

:17:52. > :17:56.agree that putting down shutters is never a productive way forward and

:17:57. > :18:03.in this light, can he confirm that he remains in regular contact with

:18:04. > :18:07.his Russian counterparts? Of course. Thank you Mr Speaker. I appreciate

:18:08. > :18:16.the statement from the Foreign Secretary, and we extend our

:18:17. > :18:19.sympathy and thoughts to the Bebing ton and Bladen families. Some of the

:18:20. > :18:22.devils that the Government has to deal with are home grown and this

:18:23. > :18:29.Government has been able to deal with them in the past. It seems

:18:30. > :18:33.attractive to remove one leader from power in terms of a regime change,

:18:34. > :18:38.does he accept that the real linchpin in Syria is Russia? And

:18:39. > :18:43.what are the true, what is the true state of his relationship with

:18:44. > :18:46.Russian officials between Her Majesty's Government and the Putin's

:18:47. > :18:51.regime? The honourable gentleman is absolutely right. In the end it was

:18:52. > :18:56.the Russian intervention that saved Assad's regime. It is now the

:18:57. > :19:00.Russians have it in their hands to chaining the out-- change the

:19:01. > :19:04.outcome in sear yar for the benefit -- Syria for the benefit of the

:19:05. > :19:08.Syrian people but for the benefit of Russia as well. I thank my right

:19:09. > :19:12.honourable friend for his statement. To echo the question from my

:19:13. > :19:16.honourable friend from Gainsborough, others are concerned about the

:19:17. > :19:20.phrase regime change and any policy that moves in that direction. Can he

:19:21. > :19:23.confirm if the US moves towards a more explicit regime change policy

:19:24. > :19:28.in regard to Assad that we would only support them after a vote in

:19:29. > :19:33.this House endorsing such a policy? The policy of the Government is

:19:34. > :19:37.spelt out clearly in resolution 2254, which calls for a political

:19:38. > :19:40.process leading to a transition away from Assad regime. I think the

:19:41. > :19:51.honourable gentleman will agree that is the right way forward. Thank you

:19:52. > :19:55.Mr Speaker. The Foreign Secretary confirmed that the regime has been

:19:56. > :20:00.responsible for three previous chemical attacks on their civilians.

:20:01. > :20:05.Given that, can he confirm whether or not there is international

:20:06. > :20:08.support for targeted sanctions against military commanders, despite

:20:09. > :20:13.the way that the negotiations went earlier? I should thank - I'm

:20:14. > :20:17.grateful for that. Because there was never a proposition to have general

:20:18. > :20:26.sanctions against Russia, for instance. That was a piece, a media

:20:27. > :20:32.ectoplax if you like. -- plasm, if you like, what we have is strong

:20:33. > :20:37.support for the idea of taking the evidence that the fact finding

:20:38. > :20:39.mission is going to be accumulating, using that to isolate the

:20:40. > :20:44.individuals who may have been responsible and by the way, there

:20:45. > :20:49.may be Russian military advisors who are already complicit in this and

:20:50. > :20:52.not only imposing sanctions on them, which I hope she will agree will be

:20:53. > :21:00.the right thing, I know she will agree will be the right thing to do,

:21:01. > :21:05.but also arraign them for war crimes. What role does the Foreign

:21:06. > :21:09.Secretary see the UK play in terms of the actions by the North Korean

:21:10. > :21:15.regime? The most important and useful thing we can do is to

:21:16. > :21:20.intercede with our Chinese friends to stress to them the huge influence

:21:21. > :21:25.they have in this matter, get them to use their economic weight to try

:21:26. > :21:32.to get Pyongyang to see sense. THE SPEAKER: Order. Point of order,

:21:33. > :21:36.Emily thornberry. Whilst refusing to answer the challenge of a televised

:21:37. > :21:41.debate by the Secretary of State to use the statement to make the most

:21:42. > :21:45.extraordinary claims. He's unaware of Labour's position in relation to

:21:46. > :21:50.this. We have made it abundantly clear that the way to proceed was

:21:51. > :21:52.for UN inspectors to establish who was responsible and challenge the

:21:53. > :21:57.international community, including the Russians, to take multilateral

:21:58. > :22:03.action against the perpetrator who is presumably Mr Assad.

:22:04. > :22:10.THE SPEAKER: What I would say to the honourable lady off the top of my

:22:11. > :22:14.head, unawareness whether real or proclaimed is not disorderly.

:22:15. > :22:19.Proceedings have been orderly. Some people may feel better informed

:22:20. > :22:23.others may not. But the honourable lady, who has very considerable

:22:24. > :22:29.experience both of this place and of pleading her case in the courts, has

:22:30. > :22:37.made her own point, with her own eloquence in her own way and it's on

:22:38. > :22:42.the record. Point of order. On Sunday, April 2, and again on Sunday

:22:43. > :22:45.9 April, the former Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Prescott claimed that

:22:46. > :22:49.my father, when a member of Parliament for North Antrim, had

:22:50. > :22:54.contrary to the Wilson doctrine, his phone tapped by the Security

:22:55. > :22:57.Services. This infringes on the rights and liberties of all 650

:22:58. > :23:01.members of this House and more importantly, on the rights and

:23:02. > :23:06.liberties of our constituents. What steps can be taken to verify Lord

:23:07. > :23:11.Prescott's claims and to hold to account those who failed to inform

:23:12. > :23:15.the Speaker at that time about this breaking of the Wilson doctrine? And

:23:16. > :23:17.what course is now open to Parliament to uncover the truth in

:23:18. > :23:20.this affair? THE SPEAKER: I'm very grateful to

:23:21. > :23:23.the honourable gentleman both for his point of order and

:23:24. > :23:28.characteristic courtesy of giving me advance notice of his intention to

:23:29. > :23:34.raise it. I would advise the honourable gentleman that if he

:23:35. > :23:37.believes that the privileges of this House have been infringed, the

:23:38. > :23:43.proper course of action is for him to write to me, setting out the

:23:44. > :23:49.facts of the matter. There is a very specific reason for my request to

:23:50. > :23:55.him in this particular circumstance to write. That is that he is

:23:56. > :24:01.essentially raising a matter of privilege. Traditionally, in such

:24:02. > :24:06.circumstances, the chair always advises a member to write to the

:24:07. > :24:10.Speaker. If the honourable gentleman does so, I would then make a

:24:11. > :24:16.decision on whether this should be per sued as a matter of privilege.

:24:17. > :24:19.We'll leave it there for now. I'm grateful to the honourable

:24:20. > :24:22.gentleman. If there are no further points of order... We come now to

:24:23. > :24:31.the ten minute rule motion. On here, Mr Speaker.

:24:32. > :24:35.I beg to move that leave be given for me to bring in a bill to make

:24:36. > :24:40.provision for the governance and operation of parish councils in

:24:41. > :24:45.England, and for connected purposes. I bring this bill forward today to

:24:46. > :24:49.make a fundamental point, that as we devolve power down to local

:24:50. > :24:53.communities, we should ensure that those councils to which we are

:24:54. > :24:58.giving more power should be run in a good way. Throughout all of public

:24:59. > :25:07.life, we should ensure that elected representatives adhere to the Nolan

:25:08. > :25:08.principles. They are selflessness, integrity, objectivity,

:25:09. > :25:12.accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. It is these

:25:13. > :25:19.principles that need to be at the heart of all governance, and indeed,

:25:20. > :25:24.of our parish councils. Madame deputies the, I have to begin by

:25:25. > :25:30.declaring my own involvement in local councils. Before coming to

:25:31. > :25:33.this place, I was a district and twice parish councillor. I have

:25:34. > :25:36.helped to produce a neighbourhood plan and sat on various parish

:25:37. > :25:41.council committees, and seen how parishes should work, both as a

:25:42. > :25:45.counsellor and now via feedback is a member of Parliament. I am very

:25:46. > :25:50.passionate indeed about the principle that decisions should be

:25:51. > :25:55.made as locally as possible, and as properly as possible. Indeed, as

:25:56. > :26:00.Campbell parish council is showing, they are now to agree the first

:26:01. > :26:04.stages of a neighbourhood plan. Good parishes can make a real difference.

:26:05. > :26:10.Committed people coming together in the best interests of their area. I

:26:11. > :26:15.am also fully in support of those calling for Eastleigh to have a town

:26:16. > :26:20.council, to give it a separate voice in the face of hostile development

:26:21. > :26:24.Eastleigh Borough council's missing local plan. I completely support the

:26:25. > :26:29.government's great devolution programme, which does exactly that.

:26:30. > :26:34.It empowers communities. I want to speak today about the most local

:26:35. > :26:40.form of government, parish councils. Across England, there is a patchwork

:26:41. > :26:42.of 9000 parish councils, each offering the closest form of

:26:43. > :26:48.representation in our democracy. Serving on these parishes or 80,000

:26:49. > :26:53.councillors, some elected, some unopposed, and some co-opted.

:26:54. > :26:58.However, a strong part of ensuring that localism and devolution agenda

:26:59. > :27:01.really works locally for people is ensuring that the councils and

:27:02. > :27:06.councillors are ready to receive these new powers. We need to ensure

:27:07. > :27:12.that parish councils are truly representative, representatives

:27:13. > :27:17.should come forward to offer a mix of talent, experience and a varied

:27:18. > :27:20.background, but sadly, in many areas, it is brutally undermined by

:27:21. > :27:25.party politicisation of parishes, and this bill would seek to reverse

:27:26. > :27:28.this. Multi-thing, where a counsellor sits on a number of

:27:29. > :27:34.different councils is not in itself a bad thing. # multi-hatting.

:27:35. > :27:41.Vertical multi-hatting, where a council is a parish and district

:27:42. > :27:44.councillor, helps foster good co-operation between these councils.

:27:45. > :27:48.However, I would like to draw attention to the growing negative

:27:49. > :27:51.edition of this, what I would like to call horizontal multi-hatting.

:27:52. > :27:55.This is where an individual sits on multiple parish councils. For

:27:56. > :28:00.example, there is a borough councillor in my constituency who

:28:01. > :28:04.sits on both Basildon parish council and west end parish council. The

:28:05. > :28:08.seat this individual is taking up could have been filled by someone

:28:09. > :28:11.who genuinely wants to contribute to their run community, rather than

:28:12. > :28:14.purely to be the political placeholder. Somebody who is not

:28:15. > :28:21.just seeking to qualify by simply being within three miles of one or

:28:22. > :28:25.two boundaries. In these instances, it really is a case of keeping seats

:28:26. > :28:30.told rather than keeping them warm, or rather, is it just a case of

:28:31. > :28:34.spying on the other camp? It is very much my view that there should be a

:28:35. > :28:39.restriction on this kind of horizontal multi-hatting, so people

:28:40. > :28:42.can get involved with their community and representation, and

:28:43. > :28:49.that political parties simply cannot block others from the community

:28:50. > :28:53.taking part. Secondly, this bill is to highlight the concerning weakness

:28:54. > :28:57.around safeguarding around parish councils. Often, a parish council

:28:58. > :29:04.will have a single member of staff in the form of a part-time clerk,

:29:05. > :29:07.and often, parish councillors will be involved in the local community.

:29:08. > :29:12.Many occupations they will be working within, and being in the

:29:13. > :29:16.lifeblood of the parish council. Two problems can arise from this.

:29:17. > :29:20.Firstly, a proper, effective safeguarding policy is difficult to

:29:21. > :29:27.maintain with limited staff time, and often a rather informal approach

:29:28. > :29:30.to governance. Secondly, and very seriously indeed, instances brought

:29:31. > :29:34.to my attention in both my constituency and elsewhere, parish

:29:35. > :29:43.councillors have used their position to bypass safeguarding. Parish

:29:44. > :29:46.councillors are using their position within their own communities and

:29:47. > :29:51.their status as a councillor in order to get appropriate access --

:29:52. > :29:54.inappropriate access to community places, such as community schools

:29:55. > :29:57.and local buildings. Clearly, it is very important that when we discuss

:29:58. > :30:01.these matters, we must balance the real need for good safeguarding with

:30:02. > :30:07.the right to run and stand in a local election. However, I believe

:30:08. > :30:14.this balance can be rightly struck by requiring all council candidates

:30:15. > :30:17.to be DBS checked as a first step towards being nominated for

:30:18. > :30:20.election. We also need to ensure that the best practice for

:30:21. > :30:25.safeguarding is instilled right down to our parish councils, and right

:30:26. > :30:27.across the country. That will include effective tracking and

:30:28. > :30:34.logging of potential interactions between councillors, well performing

:30:35. > :30:37.their duties, such as surgeries, particularly where vulnerable

:30:38. > :30:42.members of society will be approaching people for assistance by

:30:43. > :30:46.virtue of their counsellor status. This, of course, will mean more

:30:47. > :30:51.training and focus for parish councillors, and moving finally onto

:30:52. > :30:55.the final part of my bill, as we push our downwards to local

:30:56. > :30:59.communities, we also must provide those communities with access to

:31:00. > :31:07.outstanding training as their local representatives. In my discussion

:31:08. > :31:10.with the area branch of the National Association Of Local Councils, they

:31:11. > :31:16.have given the wonderful examples of wonderful and comprehensive parish

:31:17. > :31:20.training packages which can and must be implemented. I was particularly

:31:21. > :31:25.pleased to see Hampshire, under the brilliant councillor Colin Mercer,

:31:26. > :31:31.ensuring this kind of work is done for our new councillors. They have

:31:32. > :31:33.also provided me with a copy of their handbook, which they say is

:31:34. > :31:39.the most requested publication that they write. This handbook points out

:31:40. > :31:46.the way for a national standards of training for our parish councillors,

:31:47. > :31:49.and is clearly where we are giving more power and more responsibility,

:31:50. > :31:53.more discretion to parish councils, we need to fully understand their

:31:54. > :31:57.role in localism and the devolution agenda. I'm sure colleagues will

:31:58. > :32:03.sympathise with the feeling of having been elected and suddenly

:32:04. > :32:08.told to just get on with it. That is clearly not good enough. In planning

:32:09. > :32:12.for finance, for project management, for procurement, for key contracts

:32:13. > :32:16.and for challenging the complex issues which keep a vibrant

:32:17. > :32:21.community alive, those people making those decisions must have the best

:32:22. > :32:27.possible position to decide those outcomes, and I think we need to

:32:28. > :32:31.look in a more effective system -- at a more effective system of

:32:32. > :32:34.oversight for our parish councils, and also to give them confidence in

:32:35. > :32:39.that good decision making. I want to make it absolutely clear from my

:32:40. > :32:43.experience as a parish councillor and as an MP, the vast majority of

:32:44. > :32:44.our parishes are doing a fantastic job of representing their

:32:45. > :32:50.communities and working hard within it. However, in a tiny minority of

:32:51. > :32:53.cases where things go wrong, we need to make sure that someone is there

:32:54. > :32:59.to properly scrutinise and learn lessons, whether through expanding

:33:00. > :33:05.the remit of the ombudsman, of bringing in a clear and stronger

:33:06. > :33:09.code of conduct review, or indeed, through standard sports once again.

:33:10. > :33:14.We need to be able to tackle this issue. -- standards boards.

:33:15. > :33:18.Fundamentally, my own experience in my own political outlook means that

:33:19. > :33:23.I firmly believe in giving more power to local communities. Where we

:33:24. > :33:27.debate in this grand chamber and even grander building, it is worth

:33:28. > :33:31.remembering that people across the country this evening and across the

:33:32. > :33:35.week will be putting on their coats and walking up to their local

:33:36. > :33:39.village hall, and sitting regularly in their community spaces wanting to

:33:40. > :33:43.make their communities better, and their local areas a little bit

:33:44. > :33:47.better. I believe these measures will assist those councillors, and

:33:48. > :33:49.will make our parishes work better so they can continue to serve their

:33:50. > :33:55.residents fully and even more confidently.

:33:56. > :34:03.The question is that the honourable member have leave to bring in her

:34:04. > :34:11.bill will stop as many are of that opinion say aye. Of the country, no.

:34:12. > :34:17.The ayes have it. You will prepare and bring in the bill. Scott Mann,

:34:18. > :34:19.will Wrag, and Marie Trevelyan, John Howe, Amanda Solway, Antoinette

:34:20. > :34:54.Sandbach, Lucy Allen and myself. Parish council governance,

:34:55. > :35:00.principles of public life bill. Second reading, what day? Made 12.

:35:01. > :35:03.Made 12. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day.

:35:04. > :35:14.Finance (No 2) Bill, second reading. The amendment has been selected,

:35:15. > :35:17.movement to read the second motion. Thank you very much. I beg to move

:35:18. > :35:23.that the bill will now be read a second time. This government has

:35:24. > :35:25.long demonstrated that it can deliver a stronger, more secure

:35:26. > :35:31.economy. We see the economy demonstrating robust growth. The

:35:32. > :35:35.employment rate is at a record high, and the deficit has been brought

:35:36. > :35:39.down by almost two thirds since the pre-financial crisis peak, but we

:35:40. > :35:44.are in a much stronger position now than we were in 2010. But there is

:35:45. > :35:47.no room for complacency. Indeed, as we begin the formal process of

:35:48. > :35:51.Exeter and the European Union, we have an even greater incentive to

:35:52. > :35:55.provide a strong and stable platform for the future. But the debt and

:35:56. > :35:59.deficit are still too high, so we remain focused on getting the public

:36:00. > :36:02.finances in order, not continuing to endlessly borrow and jeopardise

:36:03. > :36:08.future generations, as some would have us do. I will just get a little

:36:09. > :36:12.bit further in and happily give way. Before setting out the contents of

:36:13. > :36:16.this bill in more detail, I should of course refer to the fact that the

:36:17. > :36:19.Prime Minister has today announced her intention to lay before this

:36:20. > :36:25.house a motion calling for an early general election. Earlier today,...

:36:26. > :36:30.Members should be paying more attention. Earlier today, the Leader

:36:31. > :36:33.of the House updated Right Honourable members on how that

:36:34. > :36:40.motion, if passed, will affect the business of the house, and we hope

:36:41. > :36:44.to hold constructive discussions with the opposition on how this will

:36:45. > :36:48.proceed. Returning to the matter in front of us, I will lay out, if I

:36:49. > :36:52.can, the themes of the bill, and then come to the honourable

:36:53. > :36:55.gentleman's intervention. Returning to the matters in front of us, we're

:36:56. > :37:00.clear that our taxes and the system underpinning them need to be fair,

:37:01. > :37:04.competitive, critically, paid. This finance bill will take the next

:37:05. > :37:07.steps in helping to deliver a fairer and more sustainable tax system,

:37:08. > :37:11.that can support our critical public services and get the country back to

:37:12. > :37:15.living within its means. This bill implements changes which respond to

:37:16. > :37:19.the challenges our tax system and indeed our society faces. This bill

:37:20. > :37:26.delivers an intergenerational fairness by tackling of health

:37:27. > :37:29.outcomes across and within age groups. It delivers changes that

:37:30. > :37:32.better reflect the ways individuals choose to work, enabling them to

:37:33. > :37:34.earn money and create wealth whatever their chosen business

:37:35. > :37:38.structure, but at the same time ensuring these choices are not

:37:39. > :37:42.distorted. And this bill delivers vital revenues to put our public

:37:43. > :37:46.finances on a sustainable footing and secure the future of public

:37:47. > :37:53.services that we all value, and helping to further bring down the

:37:54. > :37:59.deficit. I will give way. I am grateful to the minister. Will she

:38:00. > :38:03.confirmed that the OBR report which accompanied the last budget, compare

:38:04. > :38:07.to the one for last year's budget, downgrades above forecasts for each

:38:08. > :38:12.year in the forecasting period? I don't know if he was in the house

:38:13. > :38:15.earlier today, but in fact, the most recent statement we got on a growth

:38:16. > :38:22.forecast from the IMF so it actually upgraded today, and we see that all

:38:23. > :38:26.the economic indicators are pointing to robust growth, despite the

:38:27. > :38:34.knowledge challenges of the period ahead. Would he like to commend?

:38:35. > :38:38.I thank the minister. In the interests of the period up to pro

:38:39. > :38:46.legation, as we try to work out what remains in the bill, could she just

:38:47. > :38:54.tell me, tell the house, what... Where the ?2 billion to replace the

:38:55. > :38:57.non-razing of the national insurance contributions going to come from if

:38:58. > :39:02.she is so wedded to balancing the books? Well, the Chancellor was

:39:03. > :39:06.clear at the time that in the statements we have made about the

:39:07. > :39:09.budget and subsequent decisions, that we were looking to balance the

:39:10. > :39:12.budget is across the period. Clearly, going into a general

:39:13. > :39:16.election campaign, we will have more to say about that in the manifesto,

:39:17. > :39:21.and we will lay that out then. This is not the place for that. But there

:39:22. > :39:25.are measures... There are measures in this bill that are in immediately

:39:26. > :39:28.and openly about revenue raising, and we will come to some of those,

:39:29. > :39:32.and the Chancellor was very direct about that when he announced the

:39:33. > :39:36.budget, and indeed, at the time of the Autumn Statement as well. Let me

:39:37. > :39:40.say a bit about what the government had done to support fairness between

:39:41. > :39:43.generations. It is an essential priority that everyone should have

:39:44. > :39:46.access to the NHS when they need it and everyone should enjoy security

:39:47. > :39:50.and dignity in old age, and that is why in the spring budget, we

:39:51. > :39:54.announced an additional 2 billion, has just referred to, for adult

:39:55. > :39:58.social care. This means councils in England will have access in total to

:39:59. > :40:03.?9.25 billion of dedicated funding for social care more over the next

:40:04. > :40:08.two years as a result of changes introduced by this government since

:40:09. > :40:12.2015. On top of that, the last two fiscal events, we have done much to

:40:13. > :40:15.be build a better future for our younger children by helping people

:40:16. > :40:19.save more of the money they earn, investing in education and skills, a

:40:20. > :40:25.key theme of the Autumn Statement and of the budget, and by building

:40:26. > :40:29.more affordable homes. We will build on this work, in particular by

:40:30. > :40:30.helping to tackle childhood obesity and deliver a healthier future for

:40:31. > :40:44.our children. The youngest people in our society

:40:45. > :40:50.that are working our earning less than previous 29-year-olds have over

:40:51. > :40:56.here and. They are also less likely to own their own property, more

:40:57. > :41:06.likely to rent. What is she doing to ensure the stops and is reversed no?

:41:07. > :41:13.I have just talked about some of the things we're doing. Some of these

:41:14. > :41:21.one-time trends. Ultimately, if you want to be law will fear, high wage

:41:22. > :41:26.economy, you need to invest in young people from a young age. I think the

:41:27. > :41:33.package of skills unveiled recently a string to make the step changes to

:41:34. > :41:36.get into IP jobs for young people. With regards to housing, we

:41:37. > :41:43.acknowledge there are challenges the. We are looking to address

:41:44. > :41:48.those. With regard to childhood obesity, something close to my heart

:41:49. > :41:54.is a former public health official. Soft drinks are still one of the

:41:55. > :41:59.biggest sources of sugar in children's diet. It not only cost

:42:00. > :42:02.the productivity of the economy but the public purse. That is a great

:42:03. > :42:15.cost to the individuals, as well. The overall cost to the NHS totalled

:42:16. > :42:22.over ?6 billion a year. This will look to introduce a lady for soft

:42:23. > :42:31.drink manufacturers to pay for that. We have seen announcement from the

:42:32. > :42:36.likes of Tesco, the makers of Lucozade and I have had the number

:42:37. > :42:38.of discussions with companies in recent months and understand the

:42:39. > :42:44.effort and investment they are making to change the product and

:42:45. > :42:52.portfolio mix. Even though revenues were lower than expected, we

:42:53. > :42:56.welcomed in that since the predicted revenues are evil because the policy

:42:57. > :43:02.is working a way, but we will maintain the ?4 billion funding that

:43:03. > :43:06.we pledged to do. It is further evidence of the government been

:43:07. > :43:10.committed to tackling childhood obesity as part of a programme of

:43:11. > :43:11.work across government departments to deliver a access for future

:43:12. > :43:30.generations. They constituent has highlighted

:43:31. > :43:34.obesity has the second largest cause of cancer next to smoking. Can I ask

:43:35. > :43:41.to confirm that the measures will be part of the package of measures to

:43:42. > :43:46.tackle childhood obesity, those helping patents protecting them from

:43:47. > :43:57.junk food advertising and also to tackle a beast sugar content in

:43:58. > :44:02.school meals? She came to me to talk on a major close to my heart from a

:44:03. > :44:07.previous portfolio. Clearly, we are committed rate across government to

:44:08. > :44:13.tackling this. If I take one aspect of this. She mentioned other

:44:14. > :44:18.products are not in the scope of the lady. Public Health England are

:44:19. > :44:20.working very closely with manufacturers setting ambitious

:44:21. > :44:26.targets and that programme of work is well under way. If you look at

:44:27. > :44:29.the progress of this country meet on salt reduction, a world leading

:44:30. > :44:35.programme, all that was done through this close working and being

:44:36. > :44:40.ambitious and fishing industry. I think that is alongside the levy,

:44:41. > :44:46.which is turbo-charged that work, is a very substantial element in the

:44:47. > :44:50.plan and the Department of Health is doing other things to particular

:44:51. > :44:55.working things with schools and the money that will come from the levy

:44:56. > :45:01.means more can be done in that regard. Limit to another theme. This

:45:02. > :45:05.is something we have talked about as a strategic challenge not just for

:45:06. > :45:09.this country but for many developed countries and that is the different

:45:10. > :45:13.ways people are working nowadays. This bill takes important steps

:45:14. > :45:21.within the tax system to reflect the changing ways in which people choose

:45:22. > :45:24.to work. Individuals who work for a company pay significantly less

:45:25. > :45:29.national insurance than those who are self-employed. This can happen

:45:30. > :45:43.when people are doing very similar work. We believe tax receipts will

:45:44. > :45:46.be reduced by ?3.5 billion by 2021-22. We are committed to helping

:45:47. > :45:53.businesses large and small across the UK to succeed. We want the tax

:45:54. > :45:58.system to be feared to individuals working in different ways in the

:45:59. > :46:07.system must be sustainable. This will take initial steps to help out.

:46:08. > :46:15.First, the off payroll working rule for public engagements. This

:46:16. > :46:26.addresses the company the individuals working for. This will

:46:27. > :46:30.clear the current rules, which cost ?700 million a year. This change

:46:31. > :46:37.will reduce the tax differential between individuals working for a

:46:38. > :46:41.company and those working as self-employed. It will raise much

:46:42. > :46:48.needed revenue to pay for other services, such as social care. I

:46:49. > :46:53.want to assure honourable members that they will help still be helping

:46:54. > :46:57.investors by the allowances that have been introduced by the

:46:58. > :47:03.government means they will be able to invest up to ?50,000 without

:47:04. > :47:08.paying any dividend on that. It increases the amount individuals

:47:09. > :47:12.conceive. This has been increased by the largest ever owned, up to 20,000

:47:13. > :47:19.this year. General investors will still no pay any dividend tax. This

:47:20. > :47:27.will help address the rising cost of public finances. It is in that

:47:28. > :47:30.context that the dividing change should be considered. Moving on, it

:47:31. > :47:42.will further moderate the tax system by legislating and making takes

:47:43. > :47:48.digital. The administration of tax must change. With many people paying

:47:49. > :47:52.wages online, this is a natural extension of this reality. Many

:47:53. > :47:56.government departments have been brought into the digital age,

:47:57. > :48:00.including the taxation system and we need to continue their journey.

:48:01. > :48:05.Businesses will feel the benefit of getting the tax correct first time

:48:06. > :48:09.and cutting down on excessive administrative burdens in the long

:48:10. > :48:24.term. Simultaneously, making takes digital will help close the tax gap.

:48:25. > :48:28.All the studies conducted so far have indicated that this will

:48:29. > :48:35.present an additional cost for small businesses, who have to do this four

:48:36. > :48:39.times a year. In many parts of the country, small businesses do not

:48:40. > :48:48.even have good access to the Digital economy to make those returns. With

:48:49. > :48:53.regard to the latter, I looked at this in some detail recently. In

:48:54. > :48:57.terms of what would be required of people to, in terms of uploading

:48:58. > :49:08.digital data, the Meese the vast majority, he had a 90%, have access

:49:09. > :49:13.to high-speed broadband. With regard to changes for small businesses. We

:49:14. > :49:18.do not recognise some of the figures put out into the public domain by

:49:19. > :49:24.representative bodies. The Treasury has done their own analysis. But we

:49:25. > :49:28.do acknowledge this would be a big change for small businesses.

:49:29. > :49:35.Particularly those below the value of the tax threshold. This will mean

:49:36. > :49:43.that given the pilot has now started, this will mean that the

:49:44. > :49:48.system will be parted for two years before the small businesses into.

:49:49. > :49:57.But we cannot sustain the level of error and the size of the tax gap

:49:58. > :50:05.which occurs in SMEs in the long term. We need to tackle it. Serious

:50:06. > :50:10.developed countries across the world are digitising the taxation system.

:50:11. > :50:17.There are benefits to that. There will be challenges to during the

:50:18. > :50:24.transition, of course. I fully accept that we need to tackle the

:50:25. > :50:30.tax gap. Is she willing to look at the smallest businesses to opt in?

:50:31. > :50:42.Perhaps for five years, they could see how the system worked? We have

:50:43. > :50:48.already announced that those below the VAT threshold will have up until

:50:49. > :50:55.2019. Only then will become mandatory. We will debate this in

:50:56. > :51:00.more issue. Suffice to say, some of the alternative proposals that have

:51:01. > :51:07.advanced simply do not tackle this issue around the level of error and

:51:08. > :51:11.the tax gap. We need to address that because it is part of the general

:51:12. > :51:18.challenge we face about the sustainability of the tax base. We

:51:19. > :51:23.think this will benefit overseas million small businesses over that

:51:24. > :51:27.the United Kingdom, the majority of whom are conducting the banking

:51:28. > :51:33.online. This is very much going with the flow of free society is going.

:51:34. > :51:35.We have a package of support that will be via for the smallest

:51:36. > :51:41.businesses and we will have a chance to explore that maybe later,

:51:42. > :51:53.depending on how much time we get to debate the bill over the coming

:51:54. > :52:00.days. The HMRC will oversee this and make sure that the reforms are

:52:01. > :52:07.implemented smoothly. I have talked about how this can help the health

:52:08. > :52:13.and the tax system, but also, we want to talk about how we can keep

:52:14. > :52:17.he feel are unsustainable tax base to raise much-needed revenue in the

:52:18. > :52:23.process. This government remains committed to its fiscal Mandy of

:52:24. > :52:24.reducing the deficit. That is why we took the difficult decision to

:52:25. > :52:43.increase the standard rate of tax from 10% to 12%. The

:52:44. > :52:48.Chancellor was very direct in the wiki presented that, in that we

:52:49. > :52:54.which it needed to raise additional revenue. I have is I have outlined,

:52:55. > :53:04.the taxation system needs to be fair, they should be competitive.

:53:05. > :53:09.That is particularly important as we enter the next phase of negotiations

:53:10. > :53:14.with regard to as exiting the European Union. We need to retain a

:53:15. > :53:20.competitive edge and remain an attractive place for people to start

:53:21. > :53:24.up businesses and to attract inward investment. We have seen some

:53:25. > :53:30.excellent decisions in that regard in recent months. But taxation has

:53:31. > :53:35.to be paid. It should go without saying that it remains the case that

:53:36. > :53:40.although we have the lowest tax gaps in the developed world, we are one

:53:41. > :53:45.of the most transparent about how we measure and report on it, we want to

:53:46. > :53:51.tackle tax avoidance at all levels to ensure that everyone, no matter

:53:52. > :53:57.who they are, to make sure people pay be a great amount of taxation at

:53:58. > :54:01.the right time. This Finance Bill will take further action to make

:54:02. > :54:07.sure we get the tax revenues which are due by continuing with the work

:54:08. > :54:15.to tackle tax avoidance and evasion. We already have a strong track

:54:16. > :54:23.record in that regard. Since 2010, HMRC has secured around ?140 billion

:54:24. > :54:31.in additional tax revenue after tackling noncompliance, evasion and

:54:32. > :54:35.avoidance. We are at the forefront of many of the international

:54:36. > :54:39.discussions about tackling this. Some of the most thorny issues we

:54:40. > :54:45.face with regard to avoidance and evasion, particularly really include

:54:46. > :54:50.complex multinational businesses, can only be tackled in an

:54:51. > :54:53.international forum. We have worked closely with other international

:54:54. > :55:00.bodies and will continue to do so and read those discussions as we

:55:01. > :55:05.tackle them. This will no build on this by introducing overacting

:55:06. > :55:12.policies which are forecast to raise over ?5.5 billion by 2021-22. First,

:55:13. > :55:22.the government will update the rules as to how companies claim for tax

:55:23. > :55:30.differentials and losses. Companies will no longer be able to use the

:55:31. > :55:34.taxable profits to be offset. They will not be able to offset it with

:55:35. > :55:40.past losses when they make substantial profits. Taken together,

:55:41. > :55:41.these measures will raise nearly ?7 billion from large companies over

:55:42. > :55:50.the next five years. The bill will continue the

:55:51. > :55:53.government's crackdown on artificial disguise remuneration schemes, by

:55:54. > :55:57.introducing new rules and a new charge an outstanding loans from the

:55:58. > :56:01.5th of April, 2019. These changes will ensure that scheme users pay

:56:02. > :56:08.their fair share of tax and will bring in ?2.5 billion by 2020-21.

:56:09. > :56:11.Thirdly, in order to deter those who gain financially from enabling tax

:56:12. > :56:14.avoidance, the government will institute a new penalty for those

:56:15. > :56:19.who enable the use of schemes that are later defeated by HMRC. This is

:56:20. > :56:23.an area in which we have worked closely, and I think an area in

:56:24. > :56:30.which policy development has benefited from a real focus on

:56:31. > :56:34.quality tax policy making. We have worked closely with representative

:56:35. > :56:37.bodies to ensure that all people working within the spirit of their

:56:38. > :56:43.professional guidelines have nothing to fear from these new rules, but I

:56:44. > :56:53.do think it is really important that we actually do tackle the enable is.

:56:54. > :56:56.-- enablers. Members of Parliament feel they were given advice that was

:56:57. > :57:00.later revealed to have been very poor advice, but we have not had a

:57:01. > :57:06.system where those people who enabled the tax avoidance, we have

:57:07. > :57:10.actually been able to pursue them in the way we wanted, and that can't be

:57:11. > :57:15.right. So the provisions in this bill will mean that enablers of

:57:16. > :57:18.abusive arrangements can be held accountable for the activities,

:57:19. > :57:21.whilst ensuring, as I say, that the vast majority of professionals who

:57:22. > :57:28.provide advice and genuine commercial arrangements will not be

:57:29. > :57:32.impacted. Finally, in this area, Finance Bill 2017 will bring an end

:57:33. > :57:35.to a long-standing imbalance in the tax system by abolishing permanent

:57:36. > :57:40.non-Dom status. This will raise ?400 million each year by the end of this

:57:41. > :57:43.Parliament. As a package, these measures will ensure our tax system

:57:44. > :57:48.remains fundamentally fair and that people and businesses pay the taxes

:57:49. > :57:52.they owe. The reasons we have said that, it is not just because it is

:57:53. > :57:55.important to sustain the tax base, it is important for the revenue we

:57:56. > :57:59.need for vital public services, but it is also important and we all feel

:58:00. > :58:02.a sense that everyone is contributing as they should be, and

:58:03. > :58:08.that we are asking everyone to work within the rules. I think the quid

:58:09. > :58:13.pro quo for having a competitive unfair tax system is that taxes

:58:14. > :58:17.should be paid. -- competitive and fair. In conclusion, the finance

:58:18. > :58:21.bill before us today will help deliver a fairer, more sustainable

:58:22. > :58:25.tax system, one fit for the digital age and responsive to the different

:58:26. > :58:30.ways in which people choose to work. It will continue our work to tackle

:58:31. > :58:33.tax avoidance and evasion, help improve the nation's finances and

:58:34. > :58:38.pay for critical public services, and by taking a significant step to

:58:39. > :58:42.address the issue of childhood obesity, delivering a better future

:58:43. > :58:45.for our younger generation. This is a billet leathers on the

:58:46. > :58:48.government's plan for Britain, a stronger economy and a fairer

:58:49. > :58:53.society, and I commend this bill to the house.

:58:54. > :58:59.The question is that the bill now be read a second time.

:59:00. > :59:08.Thank you. There was plausibility through every sentence in the

:59:09. > :59:17.minister's speech. Plausibility run riot, but plausibility I don't

:59:18. > :59:21.accent. -- accept. But who would have thought we were there would

:59:22. > :59:24.would be here in a chamber packed out with scintillating debate on the

:59:25. > :59:33.day of a general election being called? I think not. If you weeks

:59:34. > :59:36.ago, -- a few weeks have passed since the Chancellor's shambolic

:59:37. > :59:43.budget U-turn. Today, the Prime Minister has announced a U-turn in

:59:44. > :59:48.relation to the general election. We all thought the lady was not for

:59:49. > :59:58.turning. She led us to believe this on at least several occasions, and

:59:59. > :00:02.of course, we were wrong. Apparently, the Prime Minister did

:00:03. > :00:06.not want one, and clearly in the last few days, she has had some

:00:07. > :00:15.Damascene conversion to democracy, apparently. What we had is the

:00:16. > :00:19.Brexit referendum last year, which gave authority to push on with

:00:20. > :00:26.Brexit, and we now find that the Prime Minister says she wants even

:00:27. > :00:29.more authority. I thought we were getting the Brexit vote push on last

:00:30. > :00:32.time after time, and clearly that was not enough. I done that the

:00:33. > :00:38.Prime Minister is feeling slightly insecure, possibly. I really don't

:00:39. > :00:42.know, but we are where we are. As the finance bill as a product of the

:00:43. > :00:48.budget, it is only right that we start this debate by offering a

:00:49. > :00:56.reminder of its contents. The budget continued, notwithstanding what the

:00:57. > :00:58.minister said, the government's prerogative of tax cuts for

:00:59. > :01:06.multinational corporations, and the super-rich. By the end of 2021, they

:01:07. > :01:11.would have received ?70 billion worth of tax breaks, paid for by

:01:12. > :01:17.those on middle and low incomes, and of course, the self-employed. That

:01:18. > :01:22.is a fact. There they are in the OBR's figures, the government's

:01:23. > :01:25.figures. That is the fact. The budget, however, failed to

:01:26. > :01:29.adequately address the social care crisis, which has now seen 900 adult

:01:30. > :01:33.social workers in England leave the profession every day, and goodness

:01:34. > :01:40.knows how many GPs getting their pension statements ready for moving

:01:41. > :01:42.on as well. It also did little to support small and medium-sized

:01:43. > :01:46.business owners, who are the lifeblood of this economy, and who

:01:47. > :01:51.are increasingly feeling the pressure as the economy slows, and

:01:52. > :01:54.inflation rises. More importantly, this budget demonstrated that this

:01:55. > :01:59.government is willing to break its manifesto commitments at the drop of

:02:00. > :02:09.a hat. Despite the Chancellor's bravado. The Chancellor's ineptitude

:02:10. > :02:15.is clear from the sea. The government has presided over the

:02:16. > :02:18.greatest depression since the 1920s, with earnings downgraded once again.

:02:19. > :02:20.The Home Secretary said in his budget speech that his government

:02:21. > :02:25.does not believe in spending and promising what they cannot deliver.

:02:26. > :02:29.I agree this is an important barometer to judge the government's

:02:30. > :02:31.record, so let's look at what the government has promised over the

:02:32. > :02:35.last seven years and what it has actually delivered. Went into power,

:02:36. > :02:40.the Conservatives committed to balancing the by 2015, a

:02:41. > :02:46.Conservative broken promise. That macro balancing the books. They said

:02:47. > :02:51.it would be pushed back to 2019-20, another Conservative broken promise.

:02:52. > :02:57.Instead by 2020, they plan to be borrowing an eye watering 21.4

:02:58. > :03:05.billion, and since 2010, ten out of the 14 government budgets and Autumn

:03:06. > :03:08.Statement have seen an increase in forecast borrowing. This

:03:09. > :03:11.government's record on borrowing has seen missed target after missed

:03:12. > :03:15.target with constant upward revisions. The government pledged

:03:16. > :03:21.that debt as a percentage of GDP would start to fall in 2015.

:03:22. > :03:24.Instead, it continued to grow. Another Conservative broken promise.

:03:25. > :03:29.On growth, the government's record has been one of epic failure. The

:03:30. > :03:34.OBR has now revised down the economic growth of 2016-18, and

:03:35. > :03:38.every remaining year of the parliament, notwithstanding the

:03:39. > :03:41.comments made before about the OECD. While British people wait to see any

:03:42. > :03:46.benefit, it seems the reality is that the only growth they can expect

:03:47. > :03:53.to see is the size of the government's finance bills. This is

:03:54. > :04:00.a whopper, coming in at 762 pages, longer than any previous finance

:04:01. > :04:04.bill, one of the largest pieces of legislation ever presented to this

:04:05. > :04:10.house. 762 pages, hardly riveting reading, I have to say, as well.

:04:11. > :04:18.Every single syllable of it, several times! In those hundreds of pages,

:04:19. > :04:23.you will search long and hard for anything that helps ordinary

:04:24. > :04:27.taxpayers. Instead, it is replete with ever more complex giveaways to

:04:28. > :04:32.corporations and the super-rich. But even those hundreds of pages are not

:04:33. > :04:37.enough for this government's giveaways to the rich. This mammoth

:04:38. > :04:41.bill will be supplemented by unprecedented numbers of statutory

:04:42. > :04:48.instruments on the back of the Treasury's already unheard-of use of

:04:49. > :05:01.them. 90 last session and 88 already in this session. Referring to Henry

:05:02. > :05:04.VIII's edict, it makes him look like a committed parliamentarian. Leaving

:05:05. > :05:07.aside the size of the legislation, it is matched only by the growth in

:05:08. > :05:12.Conservative broken promises. Is this government doing anything to

:05:13. > :05:16.deliver growth that benefits the average household? The Chancellor

:05:17. > :05:19.has consistently pledged action to tackle the UK productivity gap, but

:05:20. > :05:24.under this government, the UK's productivity gap at the G7 has grown

:05:25. > :05:30.by a fifth to the largest gap since 1991. The Conservatives wherein

:05:31. > :05:34.government at that point as well. This government has done little to

:05:35. > :05:40.tackle the scandal of chronic low pay and insecure despite falling

:05:41. > :05:47.unemployment, workers are currently suffering the worst decade of pay in

:05:48. > :05:51.70 years, years. Rising inflation is now outstripping wage growth, and

:05:52. > :05:58.real tempeh is now falling from around 40% of the UK workforce. The

:05:59. > :06:01.government's promise of a ?9 living wage has been consistently revised

:06:02. > :06:08.down, first to ?8.80, and now again to ?8 75p. Rising inflation sees the

:06:09. > :06:14.cost of living forever one going up, so it is clear that when it comes to

:06:15. > :06:17.introducing a wage that working people can live on, only a Labour

:06:18. > :06:20.government will deliver. This finance bill does little to address

:06:21. > :06:24.the crisis in living standards which many of our constituents are

:06:25. > :06:28.currently feeling. Nor does it offer support for small and medium-sized

:06:29. > :06:33.businesses that are facing rising costs and a lack of investment due

:06:34. > :06:39.to the government's hard Brexit strategy. If you can call it a

:06:40. > :06:43.strategy. I will give way. He is making some very interesting

:06:44. > :06:48.points. For good me, but they seem to be contrary to the fact is I see

:06:49. > :06:51.them. -- forgive me. I see businesses coming to Britain, icy

:06:52. > :06:57.investment moving to Britain, I see opportunity starting in Britain, and

:06:58. > :07:00.while it seems to run country to his argument, I wonder if he would like

:07:01. > :07:03.to address why international businesses see Britain as a land of

:07:04. > :07:09.opportunity" when he clearly does not?

:07:10. > :07:12.I suggest the honourable member should take his rose tinted

:07:13. > :07:17.spectacles off, if that is what he sees. We are all aware that the only

:07:18. > :07:20.conservative idea for the future post Brexit economy is to turn our

:07:21. > :07:28.once pride where the economy into a bargain basement tax haven. That is

:07:29. > :07:34.what the opposite side once. -- want. While we have had seven years

:07:35. > :07:42.of slogans from this government, while we are still only more on a

:07:43. > :07:46.cigarette packet's worth of evidence for the government's negotiated in

:07:47. > :07:50.Europe. They are nonexistent, and have been running Vista on for two

:07:51. > :07:54.or three years since the referendum. Other than the preparation to sell

:07:55. > :07:58.us down the river to tax avoiders and dodgy dealers across the globe,

:07:59. > :08:01.we will hear the government make great claims are tackling tax

:08:02. > :08:05.avoidance in this bill. We have already heard it from the minister,

:08:06. > :08:08.but it is a charter for tax avoidance. No amount of smoke screen

:08:09. > :08:12.and bluff can hide it. The Chancellor wants us to believe that

:08:13. > :08:16.measures to bring some non-dons into tax will really tackle the problem,

:08:17. > :08:22.but again and again, throughout the bill, we see measures preserving

:08:23. > :08:26.non-Dom special status and privilege in this group were domiciled

:08:27. > :08:29.taxpayers. Even their headline measure is undermined because they

:08:30. > :08:34.have chosen to preserve the non-Dom status of offshore trusts. How on

:08:35. > :08:38.earth is this going to get any more taxes paid when non-dons were

:08:39. > :08:45.forewarned that they could just hide their money in a trust and still

:08:46. > :08:49.keep it beyond the revenue's grasp? When is closing a loophole not

:08:50. > :08:52.closing a loophole? When it is hidden in a magic spreadsheet. So

:08:53. > :08:57.this bill also fails to introduce any meaningful measures that will

:08:58. > :09:03.tackle tax avoidance and evasion, which even this government admits

:09:04. > :09:07.cost at least ?36 billion a year. In short, this finance bill continues

:09:08. > :09:12.to push our country towards a low tax and low pay economy, where a

:09:13. > :09:18.small minority of the rich can get wealthier at the expense of

:09:19. > :09:22.everybody else. Yes? I thank him for giving way. I would love this to be

:09:23. > :09:25.a low tax economy, but is he aware that tax as a percentage of GDP will

:09:26. > :09:31.be at the highest level since Harold Wilson was Prime Minister?

:09:32. > :09:34.Well, I am grateful for the honourable member bringing that to

:09:35. > :09:38.my attention, but let me put it like this. If we had a Labour government,

:09:39. > :09:44.it would be even higher. The finance bill does nothing to fund the NHS,

:09:45. > :09:50.which is facing its worst crisis, and as the former Secretary of State

:09:51. > :09:55.for Health, Lord Lansley, said, the government planned for five years of

:09:56. > :10:00.austerity, but having ten years was neither planned for nor expected,

:10:01. > :10:07.and that came from a man who wasted ?3 billion on a top down

:10:08. > :10:09.reorganisation of the NHS. By underfunding and overstretching the

:10:10. > :10:11.NHS, the Tories have pushed health services to the brink will stop that

:10:12. > :10:25.must be on everybody's postbag. Keep the NHS, they feel it only

:10:26. > :10:30.right to ask for Labour are doing with regard to the NHS. We only need

:10:31. > :10:42.to look at one place to see how they are doing. Wales. Not doing very

:10:43. > :10:47.well. People are less satisfied than they are in England and even

:10:48. > :10:53.Scotland, with the Scottish National Party have been delivering even

:10:54. > :11:02.worse results. Can I draw the owner will be to waiting lists in England,

:11:03. > :11:05.3.8 million people. I think the honourable member should be more

:11:06. > :11:14.concerned with the 3.8 million people in England. A Conservative MP

:11:15. > :11:20.on the eve of a general election can boast about the NHS. If there's one

:11:21. > :11:25.thing for we know, people will know who the contrast with regard to the

:11:26. > :11:31.NHS. My honourable friend is completely right. I look forward to

:11:32. > :11:36.any of the members of wanting to send me the manifesto with regard to

:11:37. > :11:45.the NHS, I would be happy to look them through. I make it even more

:11:46. > :11:51.votes of Ebbw them through the doors of my constituency. The Finance Bill

:11:52. > :11:56.does nothing to help fund the NHS. By underfunding and overstretching

:11:57. > :12:00.the NHS, the Conservatives have cut health services to the brink. Bids

:12:01. > :12:07.have been cut by 10% since they came into government. Recruitment

:12:08. > :12:15.recruitment is at an all-time low. More are moving out of practice,

:12:16. > :12:21.community pharmacy funding has been savagely cut back by as much as 20%.

:12:22. > :12:28.As a result, as many as 3000 pharmacies face closure in rural

:12:29. > :12:42.communities. It is not the best record on the NHS. Simple as that.

:12:43. > :12:48.Of course, I accept what the member has said about the NHS faces, but

:12:49. > :12:53.since he described in an earlier part of the speech borrowing has

:12:54. > :13:00.been eye watering my hi, how would he propose to fund the gap which is

:13:01. > :13:09.required to increase standards in the NHS? I do fear airily to the ?70

:13:10. > :13:14.billion that this government have given away to corporations. That

:13:15. > :13:23.would be a start. I welcome the support for that. We have seen ?4.6

:13:24. > :13:29.billion cut from social care budgets. The Chancellor has only

:13:30. > :13:40.pledged to retain 2 billion of that for the next two years. This is half

:13:41. > :13:46.of what the Kings has said that the social care sector requires. It is a

:13:47. > :13:53.broken promise from the Conservatives. Another one. It is

:13:54. > :13:58.pitching the NHS and social care into further crisis. The government

:13:59. > :14:04.is behaving like an ostrich. It is coming back to bite them. Timing too

:14:05. > :14:09.small and medium businesses. They are contributing more to the British

:14:10. > :14:16.economy develop any other time. He will contribute ?270 billion to the

:14:17. > :14:19.United Kingdom economy by 2020, but this bill does little to meet the

:14:20. > :14:26.growing concerns that many business owners have. It is rates in favour

:14:27. > :14:33.of giveaways to big corporations. The question is, so can be right

:14:34. > :14:39.that a leading supermarket will its business rate bill fall by 105

:14:40. > :14:47.billion -- million pounds, while independent shopkeepers struggle

:14:48. > :15:00.with Aycliffe age hake in the bills. It needs to be more favourite

:15:01. > :15:08.towards SMEs. Rising business costs are creating a perfect storm for

:15:09. > :15:16.SMEs. Basic costs have soared by over 3% last year. They are expected

:15:17. > :15:20.to grow by ?6.8 billion by this year alone. Overall the Conservatives

:15:21. > :15:28.continue to look the other way and are in complete denial about this. I

:15:29. > :15:33.am very grateful. Does he welcome the additional funding of ?25

:15:34. > :15:43.million a year to support some businesses that no longer receive

:15:44. > :15:48.small business rate relief. I welcome that figure. But they should

:15:49. > :15:53.not have been put in a position in the first place. That is the fact of

:15:54. > :16:04.the matter. It is too little too late. The small businesses need all

:16:05. > :16:09.the support they can get. These are jobs, and the people who order the

:16:10. > :16:12.businesses have worked harder to make them go in the face going out

:16:13. > :16:19.of business because of government policy. Given that the larger stores

:16:20. > :16:24.have weathered the recession much better than many of the small

:16:25. > :16:31.businesses he is referring to, witty give any consideration to a policy

:16:32. > :16:40.introduced in northern Ireland, we are larger stores have a 15% premium

:16:41. > :16:45.on the rates in order to help finance small businesses in the town

:16:46. > :16:50.centres? If this was coming for the government say, I would say I would

:16:51. > :16:55.listen to the representations. We would listen to anything which would

:16:56. > :17:01.help small businesses. The decision in the Finance Bill with regard to

:17:02. > :17:06.alcohol duty, moving on to that, we'll only further undermine the

:17:07. > :17:14.local businesses under threat. 29 pubs are closing of the week. We

:17:15. > :17:18.welcome plans to introduce digitisation of taxation, this will

:17:19. > :17:24.put a huge administrative burden onto small businesses who are just

:17:25. > :17:28.trying to pay the taxation that they are a warning. So much for small

:17:29. > :17:35.business. There is no reason they should have to submit quarterly

:17:36. > :17:41.Digital returns. The do not have the tamer capacity to transfer over to

:17:42. > :17:47.digital capacity of the amount of stress for business rates. That is

:17:48. > :17:56.why we support the Treasury Select Committee view and of owners that it

:17:57. > :18:00.is better to exempt the smallest tax payers from quarterly reporting and

:18:01. > :18:03.fees in digital taxation to make sure it is great for everyone,

:18:04. > :18:15.rather than the Conservative Party making sure it is correct for all.

:18:16. > :18:20.It also places new burdens on HMRC. It is already teetering on the edge

:18:21. > :18:27.of the constant slashing of its resources in the past few years.

:18:28. > :18:32.Hundreds of staff already dismissed. Costing far more than the cuts have

:18:33. > :18:38.seized on the closure of dozens of tax offices across the country still

:18:39. > :18:44.to come. In my constituency alone, thousands of jobs at risk. Ogilvy

:18:45. > :18:50.with the ever-increasing responsibilities with just a

:18:51. > :18:57.skeleton staff remaining. Ogilvy reduction in navy is expected from

:18:58. > :19:08.tax digitisation, boat? Andrea there are no tax people feel to get the

:19:09. > :19:18.returns, so we close the tax gap needed to run the service? It is a

:19:19. > :19:26.false economy. I will defend HMRC. It is no Regis attack. Those

:19:27. > :19:31.exaggerations he has said. He should look at the publicly available

:19:32. > :19:36.figures with regard to the performance. What he said was far

:19:37. > :19:42.from the truth. The performance has been excellent in recent years, not

:19:43. > :19:49.least the ?140 billion raised in 2010 with regard to evasion. I think

:19:50. > :19:58.the attempt at plausibility has gone amiss. The reality is we are

:19:59. > :20:04.contacting people constantly by HMRC, not those on the front line

:20:05. > :20:09.who do a fantastic job. Thousands of them in my constituency. The idea

:20:10. > :20:16.that I would attack people in my constituency completely nonsensical.

:20:17. > :20:24.They are struggling against the odds stacked against them by this

:20:25. > :20:32.government. That is the reality. The odds are stacked against the staff

:20:33. > :20:38.by this government. The Finance Bill is a failure before it has even

:20:39. > :20:45.started. It is a busted flush. The minister referred earlier to helping

:20:46. > :20:49.householders. Or the government should do is that if they are

:20:50. > :20:57.setting aside resources to help householders, it should also be

:20:58. > :21:08.tackling the threat to the stability of the housing market by

:21:09. > :21:12.organisations such as Bellway, through the lease provisions they

:21:13. > :21:16.have is time people to the houses, it is an absolute outrage. The

:21:17. > :21:20.housing market is in danger if these sort of scams are allowed to

:21:21. > :21:24.continue. If we're going to deal with issues around the housing

:21:25. > :21:30.market, the government are quite regularly pitying resources to

:21:31. > :21:34.front, should be pulling these organisations in and telling them to

:21:35. > :21:43.stop ripping off people who bought houses from. This makes small and

:21:44. > :21:51.medium income tax payers, small businesses and the self-employed pit

:21:52. > :21:56.to decide in favour of the super-rich. It takes no serious

:21:57. > :22:01.issue to tackle tax avoidance. It includes another number of ghetto

:22:02. > :22:10.rose, it is just another smoke screen. -- get around. Does the

:22:11. > :22:15.honourable gentleman accept that this bill falls on from the

:22:16. > :22:25.government increasing the number of people in employment significantly.

:22:26. > :22:33.In my constituency, only 370 people are unemployed. Around 1 million

:22:34. > :22:37.people are on seal hours contracts. People are in insecure work. Of

:22:38. > :22:43.course I will come employment. But it has to be secure, well paid and

:22:44. > :22:47.sensible employment where people can sustain their families. Under this

:22:48. > :22:53.government, I am afraid for millions of people that is not the case. The

:22:54. > :22:59.reality is that you are unable to sustain an ordinary life with the

:23:00. > :23:07.income they are getting. His pledge to increase taxation for the goes

:23:08. > :23:16.directly contrary to his idea of raising employment. Raising the

:23:17. > :23:24.threshold on companies would see unemployment rise, not fall. I do

:23:25. > :23:30.not know which speech he was listening to, but I did not refer to

:23:31. > :23:34.raising taxation. I did not. I was asked the question from one of the

:23:35. > :23:40.honourable members behind me as to how I would pay for it. I indicated

:23:41. > :23:50.for example, for a start, corporations. ?70 billion over five

:23:51. > :23:57.to six year period. Giving relief to corporations. That is the sort of

:23:58. > :24:03.starting point we have got. As far as I am concerned, this bill takes

:24:04. > :24:06.is no longer -- no clearer to knowing whether the Conservatives

:24:07. > :24:10.will meet the target of closing the deficit. It has led them to borrow

:24:11. > :24:17.more than any other government in history and far more than any Labour

:24:18. > :24:24.government complains. That is the fact of the matter. I will give way.

:24:25. > :24:31.Thank you. Can he tell us how much the Labour Party would board all in

:24:32. > :24:37.his plan? A lot less than you. In short, this bill is another

:24:38. > :24:39.conservative broken promise. I urge the house to refuse the bill its

:24:40. > :24:53.second reading. It is a pleasure to speak in this

:24:54. > :24:56.nice, brief and moderate bill. I suspect the bill that passes the

:24:57. > :24:59.house in the next few weeks will be a bit thinner than this. I'm not

:25:00. > :25:02.sure I welcome the change to having it printed in one block rather than

:25:03. > :25:06.too. But I think I would like to focus my speech on the contents of

:25:07. > :25:08.the bill rather than trying to start the general election campaign we

:25:09. > :25:12.don't technically have till tomorrow. I'm sure I heard the

:25:13. > :25:15.gentleman say that Labour wanted tax to be a higher percentage of GDP

:25:16. > :25:20.than the government currently has it. I suspect if that is the Labour

:25:21. > :25:22.manifesto pledge, that will be appearing on lots of leavers from

:25:23. > :25:27.candidates on the side of the house rather than his own, because the way

:25:28. > :25:29.of achieving that is to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT. I

:25:30. > :25:35.suspect others will be very popular with the electorate. -- I suspect

:25:36. > :25:40.none of those will be very popular. Onto the other measures of this

:25:41. > :25:46.bill. The first measure I would like to briefly mention is, a moderate

:25:47. > :25:50.measure, but it is the one that allows employers to provide pensions

:25:51. > :25:58.advice and associated advice like impact on their taxation bills of

:25:59. > :26:04.their ploys, and allows that advice to be done tax free now up to ?500.

:26:05. > :26:07.I think we see real problems in understanding how the pension system

:26:08. > :26:09.works and how much they will have in their retirement and how much they

:26:10. > :26:13.need to save and how they should save it, any effort we can make to

:26:14. > :26:17.encourage people to take more advice, and good quality advice the

:26:18. > :26:26.earlier the better, has to be welcome. I welcome that increasing

:26:27. > :26:30.that actually from ?150 to ?500. Onto clause 31, the interest

:26:31. > :26:33.restrictions for corporates, where going forward, they will only be

:26:34. > :26:40.allowed to claim tax relief for interest up to 30%. Before I came

:26:41. > :26:43.here, I spent many years advising large corporates on their

:26:44. > :26:47.corporation tax bills, and wrestled with the very many efforts we have

:26:48. > :26:53.taken to get the interest deduction we allow down to a sensible level. I

:26:54. > :26:58.think there are well over half a dozen different anti-avoidance

:26:59. > :27:01.measures in terms of on allowable purpose or the worldwide debt cap.

:27:02. > :27:07.We have had all manner of attempts to get the right answer. But what we

:27:08. > :27:10.always had as a policy from successive governments, both

:27:11. > :27:14.Conservative, Labour and coalition, was, we saw it as a competitive

:27:15. > :27:17.advantage to the UK to try and attract inward investment, attract

:27:18. > :27:22.companies here by having a very generous interest deduction. So I

:27:23. > :27:25.think it is absolutely right that we recognise, in the era where large

:27:26. > :27:29.multinational corporations have been gaming the global tax system to a

:27:30. > :27:32.ridiculous degree, that we can't allow our system to be exploited by

:27:33. > :27:35.the excessive interest deductions, especially where they aren't even

:27:36. > :27:42.real commercial interest costs to the worldwide group. It makes sense

:27:43. > :27:48.for us to go along with a global consensus that interest should be

:27:49. > :27:53.30%. As a house, we all approve that. Just to give some scrutiny to

:27:54. > :27:57.what the downside impact on how we attract international investment is,

:27:58. > :28:02.how many businesses here employing large numbers of high skilled people

:28:03. > :28:05.are here for that interest deduction that we allow, effectively, and

:28:06. > :28:10.profits earned around the world, and what impact it will have on where

:28:11. > :28:15.they choose to locate in future. I hope that impact is zero, because as

:28:16. > :28:17.I say, this is a great place to do business and employ people. People

:28:18. > :28:21.don't come here to chase very generous tax deductions, but this

:28:22. > :28:26.will be an interesting policy change, to see how the impact of

:28:27. > :28:30.that works going forward. I think those rules are probably quite

:28:31. > :28:32.complicated. I think there are sensible exemptions for

:28:33. > :28:38.infrastructure investment, and we need to encourage private companies

:28:39. > :28:40.to invest in UK infrastructure. We don't give tax relief for large

:28:41. > :28:45.amounts of industrial buildings, which can be quite a large cast and

:28:46. > :28:48.infrastructure. We ought to be reforming those rules as well to

:28:49. > :28:52.make sure we have a competitive regime that, if you are a

:28:53. > :28:55.multinational company wanting to invest in infrastructure, the UK is

:28:56. > :29:00.the place you want to do it, and not somewhere else for tax purposes. I

:29:01. > :29:07.welcome the domicile rules that the minister outlined. I think people

:29:08. > :29:11.out there who try and understand tax cannot understand why rich people

:29:12. > :29:16.can avoid tax because of where their father was born, and that is the

:29:17. > :29:19.strange historic system we have had since the colonial days. I think it

:29:20. > :29:23.should be absolutely clear that, certainly if you were born here, you

:29:24. > :29:27.pay all UK taxes here, and if you have lived here a long time, you

:29:28. > :29:31.should be paying the same taxes. The idea you can move and live here for

:29:32. > :29:35.40 years, or even be born here and avoid certain taxes, has been a

:29:36. > :29:41.ridiculous way of exploiting our tax regime. We are working on making

:29:42. > :29:46.some steps to change them. Clause 71 on the soft drinks levy. I have had

:29:47. > :29:50.some concerns in debates about this. I think I would absolutely welcome

:29:51. > :29:54.taxes on unhealthy activities. I think they have a of taxes on and

:29:55. > :30:00.tobacco on offer very sensible reasons. -- alcohol and tobacco. I

:30:01. > :30:06.can see where we have an obesity crisis, we should be looking at

:30:07. > :30:12.taxes on unhealthy foods and drinks. I think we could have done a sugar

:30:13. > :30:15.tax, and I think what we should have, though, is consumers in the

:30:16. > :30:18.supermarket he'll get the they want to buy should be able to see

:30:19. > :30:22.something which says, this product is so one healthy for you, there is

:30:23. > :30:26.a tax on this so you will pay more for it. That is how we would get the

:30:27. > :30:31.behavioural change of someone walking down the aisles of a major

:30:32. > :30:36.supermarket. They could look and see full sugar cola, can his 10p more

:30:37. > :30:40.expensive than Diet Coke, because it is unhealthy, therefore, I will buy

:30:41. > :30:43.the Diet Coke. That ought to apply to ridiculously sized portions of

:30:44. > :30:48.cake or very bad for you sweets, or those of the things we eat that are

:30:49. > :30:50.unhealthy. Perhaps we ought to try to structure a sales tax on

:30:51. > :30:55.unhealthy products are actually get the behavioural change that we want.

:30:56. > :30:58.There are lots of reasons the government have chosen to go down

:30:59. > :31:03.this route and target one particular product, but I think there is a real

:31:04. > :31:10.danger that the market for colour is so complicated that the consumer may

:31:11. > :31:13.not actually know this charge even exists. -- cola. I happen to be the

:31:14. > :31:19.supermarket the weekend looking at the various prices of colas, so I am

:31:20. > :31:23.quoting Tesco, and I should declare my wife works there, but there is no

:31:24. > :31:33.reason it is my nearest supermarket. I could buy a litre of Tesco's own

:31:34. > :31:42.cola for 50p, Pepsi for ?1.25, or Coke for ?1.66, and two for slightly

:31:43. > :31:45.more. How a consumer would know from those variations in prices, never

:31:46. > :31:48.mind all the promotions that come on, which is the bad one and which

:31:49. > :31:54.they should be avoiding, is not entirely clear. If you look at

:31:55. > :31:58.prices for smaller quantities, 600 millilitre bottle of Pepsi is 99p,

:31:59. > :32:03.about the same as a two litre one. Will he give away?

:32:04. > :32:07.I will. On the issue of soft drink, does he not understand the argument

:32:08. > :32:11.he is making very cogently, but does he not welcome the targeted nature

:32:12. > :32:13.of this fund, in other words, that the levy will go towards the

:32:14. > :32:16.Department for Education and help all of our children in all of our

:32:17. > :32:20.constituencies lead healthier lifestyles? That he work on that

:32:21. > :32:24.aspect, if he has concerns about other aspects?

:32:25. > :32:27.I absolutely welcome more funding to help children be healthy, more

:32:28. > :32:32.funding for sports, and I especially welcome that the largest employer in

:32:33. > :32:37.my constituency, Thorntons, has a big funding that they give to a

:32:38. > :32:40.school for sports. Absolutely, more funding for healthy activities for

:32:41. > :32:44.children has to be a good thing. I am a little nervous about

:32:45. > :32:48.associating taxes with individual spending. There is a real risk that

:32:49. > :32:56.if you do that, you end up with a very public hated tax system. --

:32:57. > :33:00.complicated tax system. I probable it wanted to link the spending

:33:01. > :33:04.directly to attacks. It is kind of him to give way. Just to clarify,

:33:05. > :33:09.one of the reasons the levy is a levy on producers is because we want

:33:10. > :33:12.to drive, as I say, the reformulation, and drawing on my

:33:13. > :33:17.previous role as public health minister, every study ever done

:33:18. > :33:19.across the world has shown that reformulating product as source is

:33:20. > :33:25.probably the number one most effective way of helping people

:33:26. > :33:31.tackle obesity, and that certainly if you talk to the supermarkets and

:33:32. > :33:35.some producers, as I have been doing for many months now, that is also

:33:36. > :33:38.the message they are getting back from consumers, from their own

:33:39. > :33:41.research, tackling the problem at source in terms of their formulas is

:33:42. > :33:44.what consumers want to see. I absolutely agree with that. If you

:33:45. > :33:47.can change what people consume without them knowing, without having

:33:48. > :33:52.to change their own behaviour, we will get calorie reduction is that

:33:53. > :33:58.we want. But if that is the argument, I am a little intrigued as

:33:59. > :34:02.to why we go for soft drinks industry, which has produced a diet

:34:03. > :34:05.brand which notionally has no calories and has innovated things

:34:06. > :34:09.like the new Coca Cola Light, which has reduced calories and showed up

:34:10. > :34:14.using sugar. So I think there is a real risk from that, industries that

:34:15. > :34:18.have spent lots of money developing popular product and marketing them

:34:19. > :34:21.think, well, actually, I can do all of that investment with all of that

:34:22. > :34:25.money and still get clobbered by a levy, whereas other industries that

:34:26. > :34:30.don't do that don't get that. Maybe I just shouldn't invest and run the

:34:31. > :34:36.risk. I think we can debate this at great length. I think we are trying

:34:37. > :34:39.to do here is absolutely right. The childhood obesity crisis is such

:34:40. > :34:42.that we have to take some measures. I accept this is a measure that

:34:43. > :34:49.target is something which contributes to that. As I say, I

:34:50. > :34:52.would like to see us have a clear feeling that consumers can see in

:34:53. > :34:57.the shop, a warning, this is unhealthy and will cost you more. I

:34:58. > :35:01.think that would be a better way of getting the behavioural change and

:35:02. > :35:05.the changing diets that we need. I think it would be more effective in

:35:06. > :35:08.the long run. Just on that, I really appreciate

:35:09. > :35:12.the point he is making, and have a lot of sympathy around the wider

:35:13. > :35:16.point he is making about reducing consumption of sugary food. I think

:35:17. > :35:20.it is really interesting, the point around making it obvious to people

:35:21. > :35:24.what they are, and if that could be done more widely, not just in

:35:25. > :35:27.relation to soft drinks, but things like pasta sauces, for example, with

:35:28. > :35:30.a huge amount of sugar in them, and I think there is a lack of awareness

:35:31. > :35:34.there, and that is one of the biggest things we can do to change

:35:35. > :35:37.behaviour, increasing awareness, rather than necessarily increasing

:35:38. > :35:42.the cost on all these things. I agree with that, and we should be

:35:43. > :35:47.targeting the ones people think would be healthy but in reality are

:35:48. > :35:51.not. I buy a smoothie thinking that has got lots of fruit in, it must be

:35:52. > :35:54.good for me, but it is actually quite high calorie as well. It is

:35:55. > :35:58.not a bad thing to consume that fruit. I need it as part of a

:35:59. > :36:01.balanced diet. You could say certain milk drinks are incredibly bad for

:36:02. > :36:05.you. I'm not entirely clear the levy applies to those. They may be worse

:36:06. > :36:12.for you than many soft drink. There is a whole range of products that,

:36:13. > :36:17.as I say, if we manage to structure a tax on something high sugar, high

:36:18. > :36:27.calorie, and work to the outcome we are after.

:36:28. > :36:31.Does the honourable member accept that this gives way to a debate, and

:36:32. > :36:37.therefore public awareness of sugar in drinks that some people were not

:36:38. > :36:43.aware of the now do know about? I think having a broader debate raises

:36:44. > :36:48.the understanding that a diet cola is much healthier than a full show

:36:49. > :36:56.the cola for most people. I think it is a healthy thing. -- full sugar.

:36:57. > :37:00.I'm not sure whether debates in this place or taxes on producers will

:37:01. > :37:04.affect people's consumer decisions in the supermarket, which I think is

:37:05. > :37:08.probably based on price, promotion and their personal preferences or

:37:09. > :37:13.historic buying habits. But I think it is something the government was

:37:14. > :37:20.right to tackle. To move on to cause 108, tightening up the rules for VAT

:37:21. > :37:27.collection from fulfilment businesses, which has absolutely

:37:28. > :37:30.become one of those areas where, as globalisation has changed how people

:37:31. > :37:33.structure their business and how they have people buy things online,

:37:34. > :37:41.I think we have seen a big weakness there and how people can avoid

:37:42. > :37:43.paying VAT that is due in the UK. We have a very generous turnover

:37:44. > :37:49.threshold. Most countries around Europe to let you have your first

:37:50. > :37:53.80,000 turnover VAT free. I think it is actually ?83,000. It is quite

:37:54. > :37:58.right we have that exemption, but we need to find ways of stopping people

:37:59. > :38:01.selling things on internet marketplaces and exploiting that.

:38:02. > :38:05.There is a big revenue leak there. It also makes it very hard for UK

:38:06. > :38:08.businesses who are resident here, who are trying to comply, to

:38:09. > :38:13.actually compete with those internet-based sellers who aren't

:38:14. > :38:16.charging VAT on products they ought to be charging it on. So I think all

:38:17. > :38:21.the measures we can possibly take to make sure anyone trading here who

:38:22. > :38:26.turns over more than 80,000 has to charge VAT on the things they sell,

:38:27. > :38:29.has to be something we do, and I look forward to seeing how those

:38:30. > :38:35.measures work and what the government can do on those. On

:38:36. > :38:41.clause 120, making tax digital, which we had an exchange on earlier,

:38:42. > :38:45.I do accept that we have to make tax more digital than it already is, and

:38:46. > :38:49.get people filing returns online. I can see where the government would

:38:50. > :38:53.want the information much earlier than they get it. Trying to take out

:38:54. > :38:56.the errors, individuals and businesses don't want to make

:38:57. > :39:01.errors, they want to get their taxes right. I'm not sure how much we help

:39:02. > :39:07.them adding 782 pages of this bill, so they have to try and work out how

:39:08. > :39:11.to comply with that. But I think it is the right thing to try and do. I

:39:12. > :39:15.just worry that if we rush the smallest businesses into this, we

:39:16. > :39:20.will end up with the wrong outcome. So I accept that where businesses

:39:21. > :39:27.are turning over more than 80000 and already filing their VAT quarterly,

:39:28. > :39:33.probably, they are already doing monthly PSYRE activities, presumably

:39:34. > :39:36.on a computer and reporting those. -- PAYE activities. They are

:39:37. > :39:41.gathering or the information they need and making these returns should

:39:42. > :39:47.not be unduly onerous. I think the advantages there do outweigh the

:39:48. > :39:48.downsides. Where I worry about a perverse outcome... Will he give

:39:49. > :40:12.way? I think he's slightly glossing over

:40:13. > :40:22.the problems for businesses. I was coming to the point. Businesses who

:40:23. > :40:33.are submitting VAT returns. And other ones who are submitting PAYE,

:40:34. > :40:38.small businesses normally do this once a year and deploy an accountant

:40:39. > :40:48.to do that. There's a risk that you go from an annual return compiled by

:40:49. > :40:51.a qualified person swapped for a quarterly system done by the

:40:52. > :40:56.individual itself, you could end up with much less accurate information

:40:57. > :41:02.when you use to her. We have to be careful we do not have to go from a

:41:03. > :41:07.relatively reliable annual situation to an unreliable for teams are your

:41:08. > :41:17.system. It could make the error is worse than was ever intended. Rather

:41:18. > :41:21.than paying an accountant for teams here, you would want to pay them

:41:22. > :41:27.once a year. I am thinking about how we face the Centre for the smallest

:41:28. > :41:33.businesses. Perhaps making it compulsory date a few years away,

:41:34. > :41:43.allowing people to maybe opt out at first if they feel they can comply.

:41:44. > :41:48.They can fainting to make sure they get it right, rather than the shock

:41:49. > :41:50.of finding they have got it wrong and be landed with the taxation

:41:51. > :41:56.Bill. These extra few years, it will Bill. These extra few years, it will

:41:57. > :42:05.then not be such a big shock as it could be. If this was meant to do

:42:06. > :42:11.away with error with regard to working out thanks, there are

:42:12. > :42:17.certain adjustments that can only be done at the end of year, the likes

:42:18. > :42:27.of stock. These will impact on companies. It can significantly

:42:28. > :42:33.already to the businesses and their costs. Those annual adjustments, you

:42:34. > :42:40.have to think about how you would do these a few moved to a quarterly

:42:41. > :42:44.system. I think maybe small businesses have that simplify, so I

:42:45. > :42:49.do not think those issues will apply to that extent. The government

:42:50. > :42:56.intend to expand those measures to make it easier for small businesses.

:42:57. > :43:02.On the first Finance Bill I spoke on, one of my amendments was that we

:43:03. > :43:08.moved the corporation taxes are much closer to the annual accounts

:43:09. > :43:14.system. It would be much clearer for business. Maybe the more things we

:43:15. > :43:20.have, eventually I will get to that dream I had several years ago,

:43:21. > :43:26.releasing I sounded rather optimistic on that. I think we

:43:27. > :43:32.should welcome that we relaxed the timetable for businesses. That is

:43:33. > :43:41.welcome. It will be welcomed by the small businesses in my constituency

:43:42. > :43:45.who had concerns on this. While we are on corporation tax and before it

:43:46. > :43:48.was talking about amendments, a was talking about amendments, a

:43:49. > :44:00.tabled the first amendments and another was to have companies fail

:44:01. > :44:05.one corporation tax submission for the entire group, rather than

:44:06. > :44:10.separate ones. We have restrictions on this bill about how much of the

:44:11. > :44:17.losses you can use going forward from previous years. We are allowing

:44:18. > :44:26.these to be allowed -- used across the group. That is a welcome change.

:44:27. > :44:32.As we leave the European Union and we used to include all the European

:44:33. > :44:37.Union companies need tax return, perhaps now is the time for us to

:44:38. > :44:40.look at what many countries do, allowing companies to fail one tax

:44:41. > :44:47.return to shore the whole profit for the whole group. Actually, I think

:44:48. > :44:52.that would help us tackle tax avoidance schemes which have made a

:44:53. > :44:56.plea on companies having different treatment. That would make things

:44:57. > :45:06.easier to comply and help catch tax avoidance. I hope we can look at

:45:07. > :45:15.issues like that. On the point about corporation tax, would he agree that

:45:16. > :45:19.the cut in corporation tax from 19% to 17% in 2020 is only going to be

:45:20. > :45:27.good for the economy? We have seen the previous cut saw an increase in

:45:28. > :45:33.revenue from corporation tax. This is these favourable place for

:45:34. > :45:39.business as we enter a war next phase of leaving the European Union?

:45:40. > :45:44.We need to send a signal that we are a great place to boot business. We

:45:45. > :45:49.want international investment to come here. Having a headline

:45:50. > :45:55.corporation tax that is as low as it is is absolutely the right thing to

:45:56. > :46:08.do. I welcome that. I welcome the move down to 17%.

:46:09. > :46:17.I thank him for his indulgence. Can he explain why Germany, which has a

:46:18. > :46:25.much higher headline rate of corporation tax, does so much better

:46:26. > :46:29.industrially? I would need to have attended many of his lectures to get

:46:30. > :46:37.more of an understanding on that. It is not something I have studied. I

:46:38. > :46:46.suspect it is not all going to corporation tax. Would he also

:46:47. > :46:53.appeared in mind that the most comparable comparable country as

:46:54. > :47:01.Ireland, which is a corporation tax of 12.5%? That has been very

:47:02. > :47:05.successful in attracting investment. It has got them through all the

:47:06. > :47:11.financial crisis. That is one thing they were not prepared to change and

:47:12. > :47:25.they have been very successful with that 12.5% rate. I celebrate the

:47:26. > :47:32.fact that Britain is the always corporation tax in the G20. Would he

:47:33. > :47:42.agree with me that actually, Britain and Germany spend similar amounts of

:47:43. > :47:46.spending on research and development, but when it comes to

:47:47. > :47:53.private sector investment, if we are going to lead a new revolution, it

:47:54. > :47:57.is important that we make sure our economy is attractive to invest in

:47:58. > :48:04.them that is what this Finance Bill does? Yes, if we were to enter a

:48:05. > :48:12.debate on the Germany economy, we could be here all night. A final

:48:13. > :48:16.point on corporation tax, we have a clause on Northern Ireland

:48:17. > :48:22.corporation tax and how we will make the lower rate work. I do hope we

:48:23. > :48:27.can get an executive form in Northern Ireland so we can have the

:48:28. > :48:39.slower rate. I do not think we will have to rush that clause two, given

:48:40. > :48:44.the current situation. Thank you. Would he accept the deep

:48:45. > :48:49.disappointment with in Northern Ireland, because of Sinn Fein 's

:48:50. > :48:55.insistent on unrealistic demands, they will not be an executive in the

:48:56. > :48:59.near future and therefore the ability to Northern Ireland to

:49:00. > :49:05.reduce corporation tax, which was one of the key pack parts of the

:49:06. > :49:11.economic strategy will be taken away from the executive? I agree with

:49:12. > :49:18.them. It is very regrettable that the power of which was long campaign

:49:19. > :49:24.for cannot be in place. We wanted that rate which was matching the

:49:25. > :49:33.Republic of Ireland in order to attract the same sort of investment.

:49:34. > :49:37.It is a need for Northern Ireland to find a way forward. That should not

:49:38. > :49:45.be lost within the context of as having a general election. Last year

:49:46. > :49:49.'s finance bill, the government accepted bringing in territory

:49:50. > :49:57.reporting for all large corporate with regard to annual tax

:49:58. > :50:02.submissions. The timetable is, having seen these reports, that poor

:50:03. > :50:11.being introduced, as a cup final remarks, Kelly welcome the

:50:12. > :50:17.encouragement of social investment by scene taxation being focused on

:50:18. > :50:25.the right things, not just avoidance. I saw that residents

:50:26. > :50:30.managed to buy a local pub which was going to be knocked down and turned

:50:31. > :50:37.into housing. Them we they managed to do that was to get 250 people to

:50:38. > :50:42.buy shearers. It was an example of what a community can do to save

:50:43. > :50:49.something which was important to the man I wish them every success in

:50:50. > :50:56.that. Finally, I wanted to talk about passenger duty. I do not want

:50:57. > :51:03.to go back through the whole debate. I wonder, as we leave the European

:51:04. > :51:08.Union, some of the restrictions drop only, if we are looking at measures

:51:09. > :51:14.which would encourage investment in regional airports which would help

:51:15. > :51:28.tackle congestion in London, help improve the era quality of London.

:51:29. > :51:39.-- air. Additional routes to regional airports or some way of

:51:40. > :51:44.which we can be lower AED for a new route, to encourage that you wrote

:51:45. > :51:54.to thrive? These measures would not have the big revenue hit, but would

:51:55. > :52:03.target we can spin to help fatal regional growth within the United

:52:04. > :52:09.Kingdom. We could see some interesting tax competition in

:52:10. > :52:15.Scotland in the future. We will see what is happening in the north of

:52:16. > :52:23.England. Overall, I welcome this bill. There are many important

:52:24. > :52:31.measures in here which will help protect our tax base and help tackle

:52:32. > :52:34.tax avoidance. I think it is very important and I hope these

:52:35. > :52:44.provisions survive whatever the discussions are over the next few

:52:45. > :52:48.days. He has quite rightly mention tax avoidance. Would he accept that

:52:49. > :52:54.there are measures within the bill tackling that, given the tax gap of

:52:55. > :52:59.nearly ?40 billion and the government target of ?5 billion

:53:00. > :53:05.between now and 2020, the issue of tax avoidance is not being taken

:53:06. > :53:20.seriously. There will be frustration that companies can still walk away

:53:21. > :53:25.without any tax bill. It is important to see what makes up the

:53:26. > :53:31.tax gap. Tax avoidance is actually a relatively small part of that. From

:53:32. > :53:41.memory, the largest part are people who operate in the black market and

:53:42. > :53:50.do not pay VAT or taxation. A large part is also due to it by small

:53:51. > :53:56.business. I think it is probably impossible to get the tax gap down

:53:57. > :54:02.to zero. That would involve some fairly heavy compliance bill. There

:54:03. > :54:06.will always be some level of tax that you cannot collect. The

:54:07. > :54:10.measures being taken progressively over the last seven years to tackle

:54:11. > :54:21.aggressive tax avoidance have been the correct ones. As you work for to

:54:22. > :54:26.scene when that gets to its five-year anniversary, what we think

:54:27. > :54:30.we can have the strategy around whether we need to have so many

:54:31. > :54:35.individual ones or whether we can rely on the general one. We have

:54:36. > :54:42.raised some questions about making taxation digital, if you want to get

:54:43. > :54:46.the tax down, making businesses more compliant on a regular basis will be

:54:47. > :54:51.a key part of that. We have to press on with that and make their work,

:54:52. > :54:57.for not wanting to risk going too far in that situation. There are

:54:58. > :55:05.more measures we could take to encourage people not to pay cash on

:55:06. > :55:10.hand to avoid VAT. As an individual, how do you know the person cutting

:55:11. > :55:13.your page is actually tax registered? There is perhaps a way

:55:14. > :55:20.we could have some sort of registration. I want to engage with

:55:21. > :55:27.people who are fully tax compliant. If you cannot do that may be able to

:55:28. > :55:32.hire someone else. A very good speech about the changing nature of

:55:33. > :55:40.the economy. I welcome the review by Matthew Taylor with regard to tax on

:55:41. > :55:47.companies and individuals within the Digital economy. Striking a balance

:55:48. > :55:54.between taxation and the growth in the employment market. It is

:55:55. > :56:00.something which needs to be tackled. It given to the national insurance

:56:01. > :56:04.debate. I welcome the way the public sector are engaging with

:56:05. > :56:09.individuals. We need to find a way of doing that. We need to find a way

:56:10. > :56:16.of doing that for a high paying individual show with the public

:56:17. > :56:18.sector. We need to make sure they have taxation of the way the

:56:19. > :56:29.taxation system was meant. The measures we have here, I accept the

:56:30. > :56:35.reduction was the right thing to do. What we want to make sure is that

:56:36. > :56:41.the tax system is not encouraging unscrupulous employers to make

:56:42. > :56:51.employees and self-employed to take the tax advantage for themselves. We

:56:52. > :56:56.do not want that going down the same route, with the employees then

:56:57. > :57:06.falling foul of not having the likes of sick pay or holiday pay. I can

:57:07. > :57:16.accept we have the necessity for a lower tax system, but people have to

:57:17. > :57:24.be employed in needle so generous taxation system. That is a very

:57:25. > :57:32.important part to play. I will wrap up by I wish the bill well.

:57:33. > :57:39.And now, they reasoned amendment. Thank you, I beg to move the

:57:40. > :57:42.amendment in my name and those of my honourable and Right honourable

:57:43. > :57:49.friends. We will oppose this finance bill, not so much... Well, somebody

:57:50. > :57:53.has to provide opposition! Not so much because of what it does, but

:57:54. > :57:59.more accurately, because what does not do. And so while, for example,

:58:00. > :58:02.we have the iniquity of Scotland's police and fire and rescue

:58:03. > :58:06.authorities paying VAT, and we know that is a long-standing problem,

:58:07. > :58:09.this government could and should have taken the opportunity of this

:58:10. > :58:14.finance bill to rectify it, but of course, they didn't. There was,

:58:15. > :58:19.though, in the budget, at least the recognition of the problems faced by

:58:20. > :58:21.Scotland's oil and gas sector, although no specific measures

:58:22. > :58:26.announced, only another options paper, which was effectively

:58:27. > :58:29.announced last year. This finance bill could and should have been the

:58:30. > :58:34.opportunity to make concrete proposals for UK content for oil

:58:35. > :58:40.exploration and decommissioning allowances to ensure the sector

:58:41. > :58:43.continues to thrive and flourish and provide substantial tax yields for

:58:44. > :58:46.decades into the future, but of course, it doesn't. What it does do

:58:47. > :58:53.is put at the duty of Scotch whiskey, increase insurance premium

:58:54. > :59:00.tax again by, I think, 20%, way above the rate of inflation will

:59:01. > :59:03.stop effectively treating the Scots whiskey industry and the insurance

:59:04. > :59:06.sector as a cash cow for the Treasury. Having said that, we

:59:07. > :59:10.welcome some of the measures in the bill, particularly those which

:59:11. > :59:12.attempt to clamp down on tax avoidance and evasion, and I welcome

:59:13. > :59:19.what the minister said about restricting the use of past losses,

:59:20. > :59:23.disguise remuneration, additional penalties for tax avoidance

:59:24. > :59:28.enablers, and the permanent removal of the permanent non-Dom status. But

:59:29. > :59:34.it is hard to see how this bill will assist in any substantial way to

:59:35. > :59:39.address the long-term UK challenge of improving productivity or even

:59:40. > :59:43.helping make society a little less in equal, which is actually vital to

:59:44. > :59:48.unlocking the growth potential we have. That is particularly the case

:59:49. > :59:54.when one considers that alongside this finance bill, are a set of

:59:55. > :59:57.welfare proposals which do not support inclusive growth, but rather

:59:58. > :00:06.drive a coach and horses through. They include a cut of ?30 per week

:00:07. > :00:10.for the EFA group for claimants placed in work-related activities.

:00:11. > :00:16.It also includes a 55% cut for the rate of ES aid for disabled people

:00:17. > :00:23.under the age of 25. And a freeze on the lower disabled edition for

:00:24. > :00:27.Universal Credit. There are changes for full-time students, who received

:00:28. > :00:30.disability living allowance or independence payments, who are now

:00:31. > :00:32.not treated as having limited capability for work, and are

:00:33. > :00:36.therefore not entitled to universal credit until they have been

:00:37. > :00:41.assessed, and therefore, facing long delays without support. But I don't

:00:42. > :00:49.want to digress too far from the bill. Delivering those cuts when

:00:50. > :00:52.disabled people and those on low to middle incomes are already facing a

:00:53. > :00:58.barrage of cuts from this government is a disgrace. And those cuts fly in

:00:59. > :01:02.the face not only of the Tories' last manifesto commitment to health

:01:03. > :01:08.more disabled people into the workplace, something which is vital,

:01:09. > :01:11.but they undermine the essential drive for real inclusive growth,

:01:12. > :01:16.vital if we are to grow the economy and maximise our potential.

:01:17. > :01:20.Will he give way? Yes, I will give way. I wondered if

:01:21. > :01:24.I might point out that under the Scotland act 2016, we are devolving

:01:25. > :01:28.benefit is worth ?2.8 billion to the Scottish Parliament. That is almost

:01:29. > :01:35.a fifth of Scottish spending, and it would be really interesting to hear

:01:36. > :01:38.some views about what you think, what the honourable member thinks

:01:39. > :01:42.about that, and indeed, to welcome the fact that we have such a strong

:01:43. > :01:46.economy provided by this government that indeed, the Scottish are able

:01:47. > :01:54.to have this much money gifted over to them. Gifted? It is their tax

:01:55. > :01:57.money! I'm sure the Scottish people will be delighted that the

:01:58. > :02:02.Honourable Lady... I'm sorry, I'm not sure what seed she is from, will

:02:03. > :02:08.be telling the Scottish people that we don't pay taxes, we are dependent

:02:09. > :02:12.to the largess of ladies like air in order to fund our welfare system! We

:02:13. > :02:15.have had a very small amount of welfare devolves, and I'm sure she

:02:16. > :02:19.wants to make a contribution like that, she can read out the rest of

:02:20. > :02:25.the briefing note which captures the deputies beat's I later. The Tories

:02:26. > :02:31.can grown all they like, they have called a snap election, and we have

:02:32. > :02:35.a finance bill on the same day. The minister did lay out what she wants

:02:36. > :02:42.to do in this bill, which is reduced the dividend nil rate from 2018-19

:02:43. > :02:45.from ?5,000 down to ?2000, and I will listen carefully in the next

:02:46. > :02:51.ten days or so to what the government say about this, and it

:02:52. > :02:57.may be that they can prove that only very wealthy people benefit from

:02:58. > :03:00.that allowance, and may be a reasonable change. However, it may

:03:01. > :03:05.equally be the case that many small and start-up is Nissan is dependent

:03:06. > :03:08.that money to tide them over, and that that measure will be nothing

:03:09. > :03:12.more than a tax enterprise, a disincentive to start a business, to

:03:13. > :03:18.create jobs and to empower local economies. I have to say, I did find

:03:19. > :03:23.it slightly jarring when the minister explained, while talking

:03:24. > :03:28.about that, that wealthy people could put lots more money into ices.

:03:29. > :03:36.That is fantastic for people who are ready wealthy. -- ISAs. They can

:03:37. > :03:41.save tax-free. But juxtaposing that with a change to the dividend nil

:03:42. > :03:44.rate down from ?5,000 to ?2000 might add a disincentive to people

:03:45. > :03:48.genuinely wanting to start a business, while allowing already

:03:49. > :03:55.wealthy people to save tax-free. That may have been the kind of error

:03:56. > :04:00.we would see driven by the old fiscal charter, and its requirements

:04:01. > :04:04.to run a permanent surplus, almost irrespective of economic conditions.

:04:05. > :04:07.The new fiscal charter is more flexible than the last one, and that

:04:08. > :04:13.should have made this kind of measure unnecessary, but of course,

:04:14. > :04:17.the government are still targeting a surplus early in the next

:04:18. > :04:22.Parliament. Let's see how early it is in the next next Parliament. And

:04:23. > :04:28.without digressing to far, the numbers and the timescale for even a

:04:29. > :04:35.modest surplus within four or five years look precarious. The forecasts

:04:36. > :04:42.for a current-account surplus a timely, not even reaching 1.5% of

:04:43. > :04:45.GDP. -- tiny. And if there is any capital flight or if sterling

:04:46. > :04:49.suffers further devaluation, which is quite likely if the Brexit

:04:50. > :04:55.negotiations go wrong again, highly possible, and the figures could fall

:04:56. > :05:02.apart very quickly indeed. At its heart, this is a finance bill being

:05:03. > :05:06.delivered with the pretence that the hard Tory Brexit is not happening.

:05:07. > :05:12.It sits in splendid isolation from reality. We cannot actually assess

:05:13. > :05:17.whether it will assist with the challenges which lie ahead. We

:05:18. > :05:21.cannot even assess properly what the consequences of the limited measures

:05:22. > :05:27.in it will be, because the OBR told us about Brexit at the budget, and I

:05:28. > :05:32.am quoting, there is no meaningful basis for predicting the precise end

:05:33. > :05:39.point of the negotiations, as the basis for our forecast. So in short,

:05:40. > :05:46.this finance bill, like the 2017 budget, is effectively based on a

:05:47. > :05:52.central assumption which pretends Brexit doesn't exist. A ridiculous

:05:53. > :05:55.thing to do, given Article 50 has already been triggered, and I will

:05:56. > :06:02.now happily give way. I'm grateful to him. He quotes the

:06:03. > :06:05.OBR, one of the few forecasters that was responsible enough a year ago

:06:06. > :06:10.not to make wild assumptions about what Brexit would mean. Most of the

:06:11. > :06:14.other forecasters thought they would know what would happen, and got it,

:06:15. > :06:18.hence be wrong, so it shows prudence, caution and common sense

:06:19. > :06:26.not to try and forecast that which is essentially unknowable. I think

:06:27. > :06:29.the Honourable gentleman has been on record attacking the OBR for

:06:30. > :06:33.forecast in the past, and if not, I apologise, but I'm sure many of his

:06:34. > :06:39.colleagues have. I don't think anybody seriously suggested that on

:06:40. > :06:44.day one, week one, month or even year one of Brexit, even before the

:06:45. > :06:48.negotiations were complete, it would result in any kind of catastrophe or

:06:49. > :06:55.reduction in GDP or any such other thing. The real danger is for the

:06:56. > :06:59.medium and long-term, and because the Honourable gentleman brings it

:07:00. > :07:04.up, let's remember what some of those forecasts have actually said.

:07:05. > :07:11.The Treasury themselves said we could lose up to ?66 billion from a

:07:12. > :07:18.hard Brexit. The GDP could fall by around 10% if the UK reverted to WTO

:07:19. > :07:20.rules. That echoed the chair of the Treasury committee and other

:07:21. > :07:26.assessments, including the London School of Economics, who said, in

:07:27. > :07:30.the long run, reduced trade, lowers productivity, huge problem for the

:07:31. > :07:35.UK. That increases the cost of Brexit to between 6.5 and 9.5% of

:07:36. > :07:42.GDP, and they put a range of figures on those costs of between 4.5 and

:07:43. > :07:49.six point ?5,000 per household. There are other assessments, from

:07:50. > :07:51.institutes, from FTSE senior executives, from the British

:07:52. > :07:55.Chambers of Commerce. The Honourable gentleman might not believe those.

:07:56. > :08:00.Some of them might not come to pass, but given those warnings are very

:08:01. > :08:05.real and very credible, one would imagine that would have instructed a

:08:06. > :08:09.far bolder finance bill. That is the point I was trying to make. If the

:08:10. > :08:13.Honourable gentleman wishes, I will happily...

:08:14. > :08:19.I thank him for giving way once again. I think the point I was

:08:20. > :08:24.trying to make is that we have had incredibly wrong forecasts from all

:08:25. > :08:28.of these illustrious bodies, and he was only wrong on the OBR. I

:08:29. > :08:32.criticised lots and lots of bodies, but the OBR was the one I singled

:08:33. > :08:36.out for not being so foolish as to make erroneous forecasts. The

:08:37. > :08:39.Treasury, the IMF, the Bank of England, all went ahead saying the

:08:40. > :08:43.day we left, it would be Armageddon. We were going to have a punishment

:08:44. > :08:46.budget, and this turned out to be nonsense, and I think it is much

:08:47. > :08:50.wiser of the current Chancellor to avoid this foolish speculation. I

:08:51. > :08:58.don't want foolish speculation, but nor do I want roasted spectacles of

:08:59. > :09:01.ostrich head in sand. There are very credible warnings of what Brexit

:09:02. > :09:06.might deliver, and if the government fails to mitigate what the risks

:09:07. > :09:12.might be, then the government are failing the people. I think that is

:09:13. > :09:17.incredibly important. To be fair in terms of what mitigation the

:09:18. > :09:20.government could do, and have done, the Chancellor did announce last

:09:21. > :09:24.autumn additional support for capital investment and for research

:09:25. > :09:28.and development, and he has reiterated since some of his R

:09:29. > :09:33.statements, and put more flesh on the bone of investment. However, the

:09:34. > :09:36.figures from last autumn's statement, the last Autumn

:09:37. > :09:44.Statement, show the public sector net investment actually falls 17-18,

:09:45. > :09:48.and presumably 18-19, depending what happens after the June election. The

:09:49. > :09:51.figures announced only a few months ago for public sector gross

:09:52. > :09:57.investment showed the figures falling again this year, compared to

:09:58. > :10:01.the forecasts made last winter, and not increasing again until 2020 or

:10:02. > :10:07.beyond. We would argue money should have been allocated and the finance

:10:08. > :10:11.bill should have reflected that, to mitigate the damage which we

:10:12. > :10:18.believe, and many others believe, is likely because of a hard Tory

:10:19. > :10:22.Brexit. Of course, it is not all about Brexit, Mr Deputy Speaker. Nor

:10:23. > :10:26.is it about simply reminding the house, and I won't do today, about

:10:27. > :10:31.the failures and broken promises on debt, deficit and others. It is also

:10:32. > :10:35.not about repeating the mistakes of the past on investment. We are now

:10:36. > :10:42.in such uncertain times that to protect jobs, to protect yield, to

:10:43. > :10:46.protect the current account, trade should be front and centre, but

:10:47. > :10:48.there was little sad about that today and nothing in the finance

:10:49. > :10:54.bill which would assist in that regard. When one considers that the

:10:55. > :10:58.budget red or tells is that the current account is in negative

:10:59. > :11:04.territory for what was the entire forecast period, and that the impact

:11:05. > :11:09.of net trade will be zero or a drag on GDP, without the impact of

:11:10. > :11:14.Brexit, for almost every year of the forecast period made in the budget,

:11:15. > :11:15.and that is after, I think, in near 15% devaluation in sterling since

:11:16. > :11:30.the referendum. My honourable friend intervened

:11:31. > :11:40.dearly about who growth will be generated. It is forecast to be on

:11:41. > :11:50.the uncertainty of Brexit ends, which we do not thing will be any

:11:51. > :11:58.time soon. This will be my essential government investment, of which we

:11:59. > :12:05.welcome, but when house price rises are thought to be probably about two

:12:06. > :12:10.or three times the inflation rate. There is nothing in the analysis

:12:11. > :12:18.which would help balance laptop at home. The figures are clear,

:12:19. > :12:22.notwithstanding one bullet, the last full year figures soar

:12:23. > :12:31.current-account figures deficit of 88 million in the red and deficit of

:12:32. > :12:37.over ?120 billion in trading. Nothing which would assist

:12:38. > :12:44.businesses to trade in a wave which would shrink or era would those

:12:45. > :12:49.deficits. This is the head and debate today because of other

:12:50. > :12:54.announcements. We will oppose this. Not for so much for what it

:12:55. > :13:00.contains, but because of what is missing. The budget which drives

:13:01. > :13:07.this bill is wilfully blind to the damage Brexit will do and the cult

:13:08. > :13:14.completely inadequate response to the challenges the economy will

:13:15. > :13:16.freeze. The original question was that this bill should be read as

:13:17. > :13:17.they contain. The question is as

:13:18. > :13:32.on the order paper. It is a pleasure to speak in support

:13:33. > :13:36.of the Finance Bill. It is a bill which prioritises economic

:13:37. > :13:42.stability. That is much to welcome within it. My constituents would be

:13:43. > :13:52.pleased by the increase in income tax threshold. But I want to address

:13:53. > :13:57.these soft drinks industry levy. This was announced in the budget one

:13:58. > :14:02.year ago and was reconfirmed in the chilled food obesity plan last

:14:03. > :14:12.summer. I should declare an interest. I do thought is a rather

:14:13. > :14:21.large Easter break in recent days. -- day for it. I welcome the Leavy

:14:22. > :14:26.in one lever of attacking this. That is no one silver bullet to attack

:14:27. > :14:33.the obesity crisis in the United Kingdom or the West in general. But

:14:34. > :14:40.I think the levy is necessary as a package of measures to tackle it. As

:14:41. > :14:47.part of the house select committee, if you had that is the baby a year

:14:48. > :14:54.ago regarding a sugar tax, I might have been somewhat uncertain. It is

:14:55. > :14:58.clear there is uncertainty today. I hope to convince someone dotes to

:14:59. > :15:04.ensure the provision passes without further amendment. Some facts about

:15:05. > :15:10.obesity. It currently affects around one quarter of adults in the United

:15:11. > :15:18.Kingdom. It is believed that could affect up to 70% of us by 2050.

:15:19. > :15:21.Obese children of former more likely to become obese adults. That is a

:15:22. > :15:31.clear need to tackle childhood obesity. I am glad to hear he is

:15:32. > :15:36.supporting the sugar tax. Would he agree this does not go far enough

:15:37. > :15:41.because it does not start until children are over two and some of

:15:42. > :15:47.the bad habits have started before then. Would he increased the scope

:15:48. > :15:52.of that policy? It is true that the health committee have called for

:15:53. > :15:57.additional measures, but I think the strategy of the plan is a step in

:15:58. > :16:04.the right direction. I will come onto for the points in due course. I

:16:05. > :16:09.was about to mention that one in five of those starting primary

:16:10. > :16:14.School, one in five or overweight, but by the end of primary school

:16:15. > :16:21.that has risen to one in three. The inequality between communities is

:16:22. > :16:26.also striking. Between 5-11 -year-olds in poorest

:16:27. > :16:33.neighbourhoods, some 60% are obese and this reduces down to 16% in the

:16:34. > :16:39.most affluent areas and that also lends itself to regional variation.

:16:40. > :16:49.We are seeing a bigger growth in obesity rates in poorer backgrounds.

:16:50. > :16:53.In Torquay, and one side of the hill on my constituency, people live up

:16:54. > :16:59.to 30 years longer than those on the other side. I hope this will go some

:17:00. > :17:04.way towards tackling this. If we look at the health effects on

:17:05. > :17:11.obesity on children, the main impact his tooth decay. It is the main

:17:12. > :17:24.cause of hospital admissions for 5-9 -year-olds. 179,000 teeth have been

:17:25. > :17:31.extracted from this age group every year. 25% of the age group have

:17:32. > :17:37.tooth decay and 90% of that could be preventable and sugar is the key

:17:38. > :17:45.cause of that problem. Looking at older children. In 15-year-olds, 40%

:17:46. > :17:56.have tooth decay. Millions are spent on extraction of teeth of

:17:57. > :18:00.undertakings. -- under 18 's. In adults, bed that is even more

:18:01. > :18:10.concerning. Not just tooth decay, but the likes of type two diabetes

:18:11. > :18:15.and a number of other conditions. In fertility, pregnancy problems, other

:18:16. > :18:22.health problems. Kidney disease, cancer. There are at least 15 types

:18:23. > :18:28.of cancer implicated with obesity. It is thought to be the biggest

:18:29. > :18:34.cause of preventable cancer after smoking. Over 18,100 cases of cancer

:18:35. > :18:40.estimated per year in the United Kingdom thanks to obesity and the

:18:41. > :18:50.types of cancer involved include some fairly well-known ones, such as

:18:51. > :18:55.and bowel. There is also an impact on the NHS. An estimated ?5.1

:18:56. > :19:02.billion per annum in the United Kingdom and on the economy in

:19:03. > :19:07.general. Lost productivity, unemployment and early retirement

:19:08. > :19:12.and welfare benefits. It is vital that we recognise the extent of the

:19:13. > :19:20.problem posed to health and well-being by the obesity crisis.

:19:21. > :19:25.How should we target this? It is believed that that is the genetic

:19:26. > :19:34.susceptibility to obesity. That is not that all obesity is down to

:19:35. > :19:44.genetics. But there is a belief that the genetic problems to leave people

:19:45. > :19:49.with the drive to eat. Education and exercise has an important place, but

:19:50. > :19:56.the reality is it has not succeeded as the main target against this

:19:57. > :20:01.problem. We have the issue of the loss of life stables and an

:20:02. > :20:10.environment whereby healthy foods need to be more available. Calorie

:20:11. > :20:20.intake overwhelms the need to check for these calories are made of. Many

:20:21. > :20:25.are driven to the intellectual and financial resources to deal with the

:20:26. > :20:31.problems they face, but it is not easy and children, of course, cannot

:20:32. > :20:35.be expected to exercise personal responsibility because they do not

:20:36. > :20:39.have the own freedom of choice. Serious measures are important in

:20:40. > :20:48.tackling this crisis. These include refurbishing targets. This will

:20:49. > :20:54.reduce sugar, fat, calories in the food that children eat. Advertising

:20:55. > :20:59.is also important. We have seen restrictions expanded from

:21:00. > :21:03.television to other media, the likes of social media. But that is

:21:04. > :21:08.potentially further things which could be done if necessary.

:21:09. > :21:15.Labelling is very important. Brexit offers an opportunity to because

:21:16. > :21:20.more flexible in the way that we label products. Discounts with

:21:21. > :21:27.supermarkets are very important. Planning paws for local authorities

:21:28. > :21:33.are also crucial. -- promotion. He makes an excellent point about the

:21:34. > :21:39.freedom for better labelling after we leave the European Union. One

:21:40. > :21:48.which could benefit particularly as the daily sector. Could we not do

:21:49. > :21:51.something which would help the shopping public support British

:21:52. > :21:59.farmers and British products? A very good point with regard to the

:22:00. > :22:02.flexibility with the likes of being able to put on her mini teaspoons of

:22:03. > :22:09.sugar listener product, which we cannot do at the moment. But the

:22:10. > :22:16.soft drinks levy, this is based on the fact that soft drinks are the

:22:17. > :22:21.biggest source of dietary sugar for children and contain little or any

:22:22. > :22:29.dietary benefit. Five-year-olds are believed to consume the road weight

:22:30. > :22:42.in sugar every year. That is food for thought. The experts believe fee

:22:43. > :22:51.sugar should be only 5% of the daily intake, but they are currently

:22:52. > :22:58.consuming 56 teams that. It relates to producers of imported soft drinks

:22:59. > :23:03.containing sugar. It is encouraging reformulation. The implementation

:23:04. > :23:07.date of April next year gives manufacturers claim to pursue

:23:08. > :23:14.reformulation and many have been doing an excellent job in achieving

:23:15. > :23:20.that. The levy also drives manufacturers to produce portion

:23:21. > :23:28.sizes and to mark the low sugar alternatives. 18p per litre would be

:23:29. > :23:39.levied when the sugar content exceeds five grand -- five grams per

:23:40. > :23:49.100 millilitres. According to my mathematics, this would be about 6-

:23:50. > :23:55.8p per drink. The hope is that this would be passed on to the consumers

:23:56. > :24:00.in the same proportion. It would not be any cross subsidy. One of the

:24:01. > :24:08.concerns raised was that those low sugar drinks or seal sugar drinks

:24:09. > :24:12.might end up picking up some of the extra cost levied on manufacturers

:24:13. > :24:17.by the sugary alternatives. I think that would be a missed opportunity

:24:18. > :24:28.to maximise the positive impact of the levy if that were to take place.

:24:29. > :24:38.I thank him for giving way. Will he join me in encouraging her important

:24:39. > :24:47.eating at breakfast play such an important part in education. I will

:24:48. > :24:53.indeed. I will come onto the positive impact of the slightly and

:24:54. > :24:58.the positive impact it has had on the debate in this country on sugar

:24:59. > :25:03.and obesity. To come back to this idea of cross subsidy in terms of

:25:04. > :25:07.drinks, I think we as a government should keep an open mind as to

:25:08. > :25:11.whether this is something which needs to be regulated.