18/04/2017 House of Commons

they are saying about having an enterprise zone? As it happens, I

was planning my domestic travel arrangements for the next five weeks

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

the Council and the Leader of the House will -- House of Commons. With

permission I would like to make a short statement about the business

for tomorrow. On Wednesday the 19th of April, the House will be asked to

approve a motion that allows the Prime Minister to seek an early

Parliamentary general election under the fixed term Parliaments act 2011.

This will be followed by consideration of the Lords

amendments to the technical and further education Bill followed by a

debate on the motion related to the section five of the European

Communities Act Amendment act 1993. The business Thursday the 20th of

April remains backbench Committee business as I have previously

announced. I will make a further commitment for future business in

the usual way on Thursday. Dressed by thanking the Leader of the House

for her statement and for coming to the House to inform us of this

change of business and the motion calling for the general election. I

understand why it was so difficult to get leader out of the dash to get

the date out of the leader for the date. The U-turn by the Prime

Minister has been a long time in planning. I am also concerned that

the Prime Minister chose to make a statement outside of Number Ten

rather than to come to the House. This is a massive U-turn. At least

seven times recently, on March the 20th, the Prime Minister has ruled

out an early general election. The Prime Minister said I will not be

calling a snap election and I am clear that we need a period of time,

that stability to be able to do with the edges that the country is facing

and have that election in 2020. Clearly, this Government cannot be

trusted. Given that the general election is on the 8th of June and

there are 25 working days until Parliament can be the salt can the

Leader of the House let us know the exact date for the dissolution of

Parliament? The statement of such importance could have been made to

the House of Commons given the nature of this massive U-turn. Her

Majesty 's opposition will make sure we promote stability and that there

is an alternative and favour vision for this country. The honourable

lady asked about the date for the dissolution. That is laid down in

statute at hand to take place 25 days before the proposed date of

Poland, the date of dissolution would be one minute past midnight on

Wednesday the 3rd of May. I have to say, I do not recollect any previous

Labour Prime Minister announcing a general election on the floor of the

House of Commons. My right honourable friend this morning went

about things in the time honoured fashion. What she is putting to the

country is the case for this Government to go forward on the

basis of a clear mandate to provide clarity and the stability that the

entire United Kingdom needs. As we approach the historic task of

implementing the referendum decision taken by the British people and

forging the new, deep and special partnership with our friends and

allies in the European Union that we all want to see. They pray Mr was

made an announcement that was not linked to the media in advance. Can

he confirm it is not the gift of the Prime Minister to decide if there is

a general election, it is this House. If Her Majesty 's opposition

does not want it, can't face it or are worried about annihilation, they

will not vote for it tomorrow. I agree with my honourable friend. We

were believing on these benches that this was not the time for these type

of... The focus of this Government should be on. Brexit This is one of

the most extraordinary U-turns and political history. The fixed term

Parliaments act is the biggest waste of this House's time possible. The

calling of a general election there returns to a Prime Minister and the

interest of Party comes before the interest of country. In this

election we will make sure that Scotland is fully protected from

this Tory Government, taking us off the cliff edge of a hard Brexit. The

Tories might play the petty Party political games, coming up against a

woeful Labour Party but we on these benches will make sure that Scotland

is fully protected from the worst of it. One of the friends, Mr Speaker,

that the Prime Minister and the Party she leads will be taking to

the people will be the case for the union of the four nations of our

United Kingdom and our belief that those four nations are better off

working together in that unique, injured in partnership of the United

Kingdom. I would say to the honourable gentleman that the Prime

Minister took our decision, a decision which she herself said this

morning, she took with some reluctance because it is in the

interests of the people of this country. It is in the interests of

the entire nation that we have clarity and stability, and constancy

of purpose as we move forward. Does the Lord President agree with me

that this is one of the rare occasions where it is absolutely

right that the statement was first made to the British people, not to

this House, because it is they who are being asked to use the sovereign

power to determine the composition of the new House? My honourable

friend makes a cogent point. It will be for this House in the first place

to decide whether to approve the motion that we debate tomorrow. And

then if the Government's motion is carried, we will put our case to the

people. The Prime Minister was not for calling a snap general election

but now she is, perhaps sensing a political opportunity. The choice to

go for an election now is horrors and horrors alone as was the choice

of a hard Brexit. -- was for herself alone. Though the House be able to

discuss the Party of Government's failure of NHS, tackling violent

crime and dealing with people with disability and the benefits? I am

astonished that the right honourable gentleman on the part of the Liberal

Democrats was able to talk about opportunism with a straight face. It

was a decision that the Prime Minister alone has to take to put

forward the motion tomorrow. It would be a decision for every member

of the House of Commons tomorrow when we meet to decide whether that

is approved. Could my right honourable friend at the leader

confirm, he confirmed his statement when Parliament will be the salts,

when will Parliaments be...? The usual discussions are underway

between the usual channels about the handling of business. On the

assumption that the motion is carried by the House tomorrow, those

discussions will intensify and I hope I can provide the clarity as

soon as possible. The Leader of the House has given us an image of the

Prime Minister being dragged kicking and screaming into calling a general

election when she did not want one. Can we find time in what is left of

this Parliament to have a debate about why she decided to trigger

Article 50 and then throw the entire planet into doubt by then calling a

general election which will waste at least three minds of the precious

small amount of time we have to get the best deal for Britain? Far from

throwing things into doubt, what the Prime Minister's decision has done

is to provide, assuming that the people return the Government, and it

will be a choice for the people, that they will be the clarity of

having a mandate behind the Prime Minister and her Government to

deliver a successful negotiation over the course, and he implemented

over the course of a five-year term. Some members of this House, are

labouring under the impression that the next general election will be a

rerun of the referendum. Can the Leader of the House confirm that

Article 50 will be triggered regardless of who wins at the next

election, that there is no turning back?

The wording of Article 50 is clear, and it is clear that any change from

the two-year time table can only happen if it is agreed unanimously

by all member states, including the departing member state. As my right

honourable friend has made it clear, we must respect, whatever side we

took in the referendum campaign, we must respect the sovereign decision

that the British people took. Thank you Mr Speaker. Can I thank

the leader of the House for his statement today. And assure him that

the Democratic Unionist Party with support the motion tomorrow. We say

bring it on. Bring on the election and let people support the union and

the Unionist cause in Northern Ireland. Could I ask him also

tomorrow if he will clarify the last date for those people who wish to

register to vote, so there's clarity and certainty about the registration

process, especially in Northern Ireland? Mr Speaker, clearly I don't

want to pre-empt the decision that this House will take tomorrow. But I

will try, assuming the motion is carried, I will try to provide that

clarity as rapidly as possible. Mr Speaker, as the leader of the House

says he doesn't want to pre-empt the decision tomorrow by this House. So

wasn't the Prime Minister attempting to do that in naming June 8th? What

the Prime Minister was doing this morning was making her ambition

clear about the time frame for the general election. I have to say to

the honourable lady that the date would have been the first question

put to the Prime Minister in the House and outside had she not named

a specific date. Mr Speaker, in January 2000, you may remember a

debate which went on all night, seeing as you took an active part in

it, the next day's business therefore didn't exist. Given the

finance bill can sit until any hour tonight, what will the Government do

in the event of theme not existing? You know, Mr Speaker, from that last

intervention, I suspect that the honourable lady and his colleagues

are a bunch of (inaudible) as far as the election is concerned.

Mr Speaker, the leader of the House will agree with me, I'm sure, that

the prime responsibility of this House is holding the Government to

account. Doesn't he think that many not just in this chamber, but

outside in the country, will receive the Prime Minister's rush to an

early general election as being a strategy to evade responsibility for

the chaos we've had in this country since the last Government arranged a

referendum which they actually lost? The Prime Minister's decision is

about inviting the British people in the national interest to return her

to provide the leadership, the sense of direction and the clarity which

this country needs and which the right honourable gentleman's party

is so clearly unable to provide themselves. Will the leader confirm

that should the legislation pass tomorrow, what we're doing is not

voting for a new Prime Minister for just two years over Brexit, but for

a new Prime Minister for the duration of a Parliament of five

years? Many of us are expecting therefore that either the current

Prime Minister or the leader of the Labour Party will walk through the

door of Number Ten post June 8th, could he encourage my right

honourable friend, the Prime Minister, to go head to head in as

many TV debates with the leader of the Opposition as possible before

June #th? -- 8th? Mr Speaker, I suspect that the electorate would be

fascinated to see the outcome of such a debate. Could the leader of

the House confirm to the House that in the event of the two thirds

majority not being agreed tomorrow, that the only way the Government can

call a general election was to table a vote of no confidence in itself.

When does he plan to do so? We are intending to go into the debate

tomorrow with a clear objective of persuading that two thirds majority

to support the Government's motion. Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister was

inconsistent about Brexit, now her iron determination not to call a

general election tells me that she has a determination to have one. Can

I assure the leader with Labour in a writhing mass, we in Plaid Cymru

relish the opportunity to provide Welsh alternative to this

opportunist right-wing Tory Government and will be voting yes

tomorrowment -- tomorrow. Well, I suppose I

should express my appreciation for the honourable gentleman's final

phrase if not for the rest of his remarks. For weeks now, I've had

constituents e mailing me and telephoning my office demanding

because they're terrified of the changes to their personal

independence payments regulations which we were to be finally allowed

a debate and a vote on tomorrow. I notice that the leader of the House

has suspended that. Will he guarantee that this House, this

Parliament will have a chance to vote on and debate those before

dissolution. The usual channels will discuss the allocation of business

between the debate concluding tomorrow and the date of

dissolution. The Liberal Democrats welcome the opportunity to take on

this divisive, destructive Tory Government and its hard Brexit. Let

me ask the leader of the House how much this general election will cost

and why if the Prime Minister wanted to do it, is she not doing is on May

4th, because the decision not to do so going to cost a lot of taxpayers'

money. The answer to the honourable gentleman's question is that the

time table for any general election is laid down by the fixed term

parliaments act and the political parties that and referendums act and

to have a general election on the same day as the local elections

would not be possible given what the law requires. Mr Speaker, inflation

is rising, real living standards are potentially going to decline, and we

know that there will be very difficult negotiations with our

European Union partners. Isn't the real reason the Prime Minister has

called this so that she can avoid having a general election in 2020,

which would be very dangerous for her party and she thinks she can win

now in order to avoid dealing with the consequences of a hard Brexit?

Well, the country I look at is one in which unemployment is falling,

employment is at record levels, the deficit is down, and there are

record levels of spending on key public services, made possible

because of the strong economy that my right honourable friend the Prime

Minister and Chancellor have fostered. So I would look forward to

a general election in making that case to the people for that

programme of political commitment and the leadership of my right

honourable friend to continue. Mr Speaker, the Government's ridiculous

rape clause came into force on April 6 with no Parliamentary scrutiny.

The usual channels had promised a DL committee would be held to have

Parliamentary scrutiny of this despicable policy. Will this now

happen that given is to be dissolved very soon? Any change to the law, of

course, has to go before Parliament, but I will put the honourable lady's

point to my colleagues amongst the business managers, but I can't give

her a immediate promise that she would get the time that she seeks.

Can the leader of the House confirm was going to happen to the

Manchester Gorton by-election given that potentially on May 4, there

will be no Parliament for any candidates to be located to. Mr

Speaker, there is no statutory provision that provides for the

cancellation of a by-election when a general election is in progress. It

is up to the judgment of the acting returning officer, whom one might

expect to regard the by-election writ as having been superseded. This

was the course of action taken by the acting returning officer in the

one precedent that I found, which is dating back to November 1923.

LAUGHTER Can the leader tell us whether the

Prime Minister took soundings from the Secretary of State for Northern

Ireland as to the impact of this announcement on the ongoing

interparty talks? And does the Secretary of State for Northern

Ireland still intend to bring legislation through this House and

the House of Lord's in respect of rates and topping up the mandate for

the current Assembly to appoint an executive? I mean, my right

honourable friend the Northern Ireland Secretary is of course

considering what difference, if any, should be made to his announced

plans by the Prime Minister's announcement this morning. While I

would thigh to provide -- try to provide absolute clarity as soon as

possible, my expectation is that there would continue to be a need

for such legislation. Could the leader of the House

acknowledge that nonetheless, we will elect a metropolitan mayor who

will take up office including taking up responsibility for transport.

Account Government confirm that the buses bill will complete its

Parliamentary passage Mr Dissolution? -- before dissolution?

The passage of any bill through Parliament will depend upon the

talks between Government and the official Opposition that always take

place ahead a general election. In calling a snap election, is it

seriously the view of the British Government that a UK election will

really change the EU 27 negotiating position? If so, Mr Speaker, is it

not guilting of living in a land of fantasy? I think that what will be

important is that newly located leaders in France and in Germany

will meet a newly re-elected Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, all

of them with the confidence that they have money dates from their

voters as they approach those negotiations in a constructive

spirit. Thank you Mr Speaker, to date the Chancellor's refused to

share any analysis of the impacts of Brexit with the Parliament. In fact,

he seems to have refused to share it with the Secretary of State for

exiting the EU given his symbolic performance in front of committee.

This general election is all about clarity. So in the interests of

clarity, will the analysis showing the impact of a hard Brexit versus

Scotland staying in the single market, which is what my

constituents voted for? Well, I could make the arguments that the

honourable gentleman has heard before about the vital importance to

Scotland of the United Kingdom sing the market. But what I would --

single market. What I would say in particular, is that the Prime

Minister's objectives of delivering a new, deep and special partnership

with our friends and allies in the EU 27 will serve the economic and

security interests of Scotland well as they will serve the whole of the

United Kingdom well. Following on from my honourable

friend, is the leader of the House in a position to confirm or deny if

the 2017 Tory manifesto will say yes to a single market or will it be

out? I will put the honourable lady on the priority mailing list for a

copy of the Conservative Party manifesto. Mr Speaker, the Scottish

Parliament recently voted by a margin of 69 to 59 in order that we

could have a referendum. Yet the Prime Minister arrogantly told us

now is not the time. If now is the time for this Parliament to decide

shouldn't this Parliament empower the Scottish Parliament to allow the

Scottish people to have a say on their future? Mr Speaker, the

honourable gentleman and his Parliamentary colleagues have been

demanding week after week that the Prime Minister seek a new electoral

mandate from the people of the United Kingdom in order to deliver

our exit from the European Union. She is doing just that. I think the

honourable gentleman might welcome that if he's to be consistent rather

than complain. Following the question from my

honourable friend from Kilmarnock, he's right to say that the general

election will be about clarity. So does the leader of the House like

me, look forward to the clarity that the TV debates will give us and does

he agree with me that any attempt by any political leader, especially one

from the Government benches, to shirk from those invitations would

be wholly unacceptable? The ahead of a's debate, it is

premature to speculate for a start on about how the broadcasters will

determine for election coverage. I will take on the comments as a

representation. I was not going to speak but like everybody else sat in

this chamber, and maybe the last time I get a chance. If you will let

me finish. I came here to speak honestly and plainly and to speak

like the people who are outside of this building. What I can not

understand from what the Leader of the House has said today it is how

any of this makes things clearer, makes us feel more secure. All I

ask, how does this look to people outside? As somebody who came from

outside, it looks like political opportunism. I think and I hope that

people outside this building will look at what the Prime Minister said

on the steps of Number Ten this morning and will believe that she is

seeking an electoral mandate and an electoral mandate for herself as a

leader of a Government that will then be in a position to carry

through extremely challenging and ambitious European negotiations over

the next two years and then implement the new partnership that

we are seeking with the EU 27 after what's with the confidence to

arriving from the fact, I hope, that the Government will enjoy a secure,

including parliamentary majority for those measures from -- for an entire

five-year term. The Secretary of state for foreign and Commonwealth

affairs, Boris Johnson. With your permission, I should like to begin

by paying tribute to the Britons that were killed in tragic

circumstances in Stockholm and Jerusalem. Chris Pettit and was

amongst four people who died in Sweden where the truck was driven

into pedestrians. Hannah was stabbed to death in Jerusalem on Good Friday

in a senseless attack. Our thoughts and players are with their families.

I wish to update the House on significant foreign policy events in

the last fortnight, in Syria and North Korea. These disparate

challenges in comp is one common theme. In each case, hereditary

dictators presiding over cruel tyrannies have challenged essential

rules that underpin our world peace. The United States had responded with

strength and resolve and in accordance with its traditional role

as the guarantor of the rules -based system. In both cases the US has

acted with the full support of the British Government. Turning first to

Syria. At 39 minutes past six on April the fold, there was a chemical

weapons attack on the town in a rebel held the province. The House

will recall the horrifying aftermath. Adults and children were

convulsed in agony, as the bodies were poisoned by nerve gas. Rescue

workers tried to decontaminate the casualties and we saw children with

oxygen masks clamped to the faces. Even by the standards of the Civil

War that has claimed more than 400,000 lives, this was amongst the

most shocking incidents. I want to repeat for the benefit of the House

exactly what we know about that attack. There has been a concerted

attempt to obscure the facts. We know beyond doubt that two aircraft

took off from a near field where we know the chemical weapons are

overhead when the attack took place. overhead when the attack took place.

know that Sarin was used that had the chemical signature of Sarin used

by the President Assad regime. The people had been exposed to Sarin gas

and it is only one conclusion, that the President Assad regime almost

certainly gassed its own people in breach of international law. Showing

the emptiness of that agreement reached in 2013 guaranteed by Russia

that was meant to read Syria of chemical weapons once and for all.

The UN has a joint investigated mechanism with the mandate to

determine any Party responsible for the chemical attacks in Syria. The

House should be in mind that UN investigators have already found the

President Assad regime guilty of using poison gas on three separate

occasions in 2014 and 2015. Some members have suggested we arrange

President Assad before the International Criminal Court. The

only way of bringing Syria before the ICC would be through a referral

from the UN Security Council. We tried that option in 2014, only to

be thwarted by the Beatles of Russia and China. Sadly, the attack on Khan

Sheikhoun, the Russian response has been to support President Assad once

again. Russia cast its eighth veto in support of President Assad,

blocking a resolution that would have demanded cooperation with the

international investigation. On the day after the atrocity. The US was

considering a response. The United States did take action, firing 59

cruise missiles at the military airbase at which the gas attack was

meant to have been launched. We were given advance notice of the

operation but at no stage did the US administration asked for UK military

help, only for political support. Advanced warning was given to

Russian military personnel who were located with the Syrian Air Force at

the same airbase to minimise the risk of casualties. The Government

believes that the US action was a necessary, appropriate and justified

response to an awful crime. As many as 20 Syrian aircraft are believed

to have been destroyed. The sheer force of President Assad has been

bombing civilians day after day for the last six years. -- the Air

Force. The destruction of some of the strike aircraft will in itself

save some lives. What is more important is president Trump's

emphatic message that the era when President Assad's barbarism was

meant with passivity and inaction has finally come to an end.

America's determined response creates an opportunity to break the

deadlock and pave the way for the political settlement of Syria's

tragedy. That will only happen if Russia is prepared to bring

President Assad to the negotiating table and begin a transition to a

new Government that represents the sole chance of peace in Syria. After

the chemical attack and the American strike it was the priority for the

US Defence Secretary to convey that message to Russia with the backing

of as many countries as possible. The combined weight of the G-7 and

the like-minded countries from the region unanimously supported the US

military action as a carefully calibrated response to a war crime.

The mandated Tillison to go to Russia and to... I want to stress

that we in the UK have no intention of dislodging Russian interests in

the Syria, on the contrary, we recognise Russia's long connection

with that country and the national interest at stake. Russia's position

in the Syria does not depend on President Assad. The unmistakable

lesson of six years of bloodshed is that President Assad can not deliver

what his people and the wider world so desperately need, mainly a

peaceful and united Syria. I hope I have the support of everybody in

this House. I call on the Russians to end the blind support for

President Assad. Stop the gas attacks and the barrel bombs. Allow

the delivery of aid to those who need it. Deliver a real ceasefire

and begin the political process that will include a transition away from

President Assad. That was the message this Secretary to listen

delivered on the 12th of April. -- Secretary Tillison. We will do as

much as we can in the UK to hold accountable any were responsible for

that gas attack. We will work with our American counterparts to create

the conditions for Russia to work with us. And to escape its

entanglement with the toxic President Assad regime. Which

poisons Russia's international reputation just as surely as it

poisons its own people. Mr Speaker, turning out to North Korea. The

events of last weekend provided further proof of the threat that

country poses to international peace and security. On Saturday, North

Korea paraded an arsenal of cruise missiles in front of crowds. 24

hours later, the region tested another missile although this time

the launch failed. Last year alone North Korea tested two nuclear bombs

and 24 missiles. I will remind members of all those tests, they

break a series of UN resolutions dating back to 2006 when resolution

1695 was passed by the Security Council. The North Korean regime

threatened further tests on a weekly, monthly and yearly basis.

The regime is developing intercontinental missiles which will

be capable of delivering a nuclear strike on the mainland United

States. These weapons have not been fully tested but no one can be

complacent about the potential threat they pose. Yesterday I spoke

to my Chinese counterpart. I urged him to use Beijing's unique

influence to restrain North Korea and to allow peaceful resolution of

this crisis. By suspending the coal imports from North Korea, China has

given a welcome signal to exert pressure on the regime. Later this

month I will attend a special meeting of the Security Council on

North Korea. All hopes of progress rests on International cooperation,

especially between China and the US. And the verifiable disarmament of

North Korea's nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. The crisis in

Syria and North Korea represent a challenge to the law -based

international order in which this country believes. Britain's role is

to stand alongside the United States and our allies as we confront those

threats and in that effort we will not tire. I commend the statement to

the House. May I thank the Secretary of state for his statement. May I

join with him in sending my condolences to the families of those

killed. The statement is overshadowed by another statement

today. The issues at hand here are more important for the future of our

world rather than the Prime Minister's cynical short-term

manoeuvres. She talked about the need for stability and is happy to

plunge the country into six weeks of uncertainty exactly at the time

we're Britain needs to provide stable global leadership on issues

like Syria and North Korea. We should not be surprised. The Party

opposite is abdicating any effective leadership role for Britain. Turning

first to Syria. We were all appalled by the dreadful attacks on civilians

witnessed during the Easter recess. There was a horrifying chemical

attack on Khan Sheikhoun, killing ordinary villagers and injuring

hundreds more. Two days ago, and I was surprised the Foreign Secretary

did not see fit to mention this, we saw a suicide bombing with dozens of

children amongst those killed. They were lowered to the deaths by the

promise of free crisps. A tragic remainder that in this conflict that

President Assad does not hold the monopoly when it comes to atrocities

against innocent civilians, including children. We need a

peaceful settlement in Syria, no more than ever. Lastly, the Foreign

Secretary said his priority was to build coordinated international

support for the ceasefire and to intensify political process and I

agree with him. Quite, rather than looking for coordinated action to

properly investigate and punish the use of chemical weapons, is the

Foreign Secretary instead to threaten more unilateral air strikes

by the US against the President Assad regime, while rather than

engaging in that peace process titty instead cancel his proposed talks in

Moscow and in the process, -- in the peace process why did he instead

cancel his proposed talks in Moscow. And rather than in shooting the G-7

spoke with one strong voice in Syria last week, did he present them that

they have to beat the bath to sanctions without doing any

preparatory work? The only straw he can cling onto, we

presume is this: That the United States State Department is still

telling him what to say and do and which countries he is allowed to

visit. And to that end, can I ask a final question on Syria, based on

his close relationship with the Trump administration, can he clarify

exactly what their strategy now is? Mr Speaker, turning quickly to north

ceeament the Foreign Secretary rightly condemns the ongoing nuclear

programmes. I hope he will agree like Syria, this is a crisis which

can only be resolved through coordinated international action,

through the deescalation of tensions and ultimately through negotiations.

So can he assure us that Britain will argue against any unilateral

military action taken by the United States and instead urgently back

China's call for the resumption of the Six Party Talks? When it comes

to North Korea, the world needs statesmanship not brinkmanship. We

cannot afford blient loyalty to the Trump administration if they are

leading us down the path to war. Peace in Syria and North Korea, our

relationship with the Trump administration, these are vital

issues for the future of the Britain and the world and as much as the

Prime Minister would like the coming election simply to be about Brexit,

we must ensure that these and other international concerns are not

forgotten. To that end, my final question for the Foreign Secretary

is this: Will he commit to join me in a televised debate between all

the parties on foreign policy, no ifs, no buts, I'm ready to say yes

now. So will he commit today to do like-wise? Announce the first

election debate and put the party's promise of stable leadership on the

line. Mr Speaker, obviously I'm

disappointed that the Shadow Foreign Secretary should choose to intrude

into this very, very important consideration, I think relatively

separate issues of domestic political policy. We are trying to

explain the position of the UK and indeed the West towards the Assad

regime. Just to answer her serious point, by the way we're having a

televised debate now, in case you haven't noticed. And we should

continue in that way. We are engaged in trying to use the opportunity

provided by American action to drive forward the political process. It is

not easy and I think that in all honesty, the honourable lady should

reflect on her approach. Because what we are trying to do does

require a very great degree of cross-party support. We want the

Russians to face up to the real option before them, which is if they

continue to back Assad, they will be backing a regime that has been

proved - and I hope the members heard what I said about the use of

chemical weapons, proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to have used

chemical weapons banned under international law. I would like them

to accept there is a deal and that could be that they have an

improvement in their reloigss with the Americans -- relations. They

work together with the rest of us to tackle the scourge of Daesh. In

return, I think what needs to happen is that the Russians need to

understand that they must make a serious commitment to a political

process. At the moment, they are not. They need to have a proper

commitment to a ceasefire and at the moment, they are not making that

commitment. They need to stop their client using chemical weapons. They

said they would do that in 2013 and rather than simply parroting, I may

say, the lines of the Kremlin, she should support the collective action

of the West and indeed not just the G 7, but as I said, the like-minded

countries. She has said that the West was divided, for instance in

its attitude towards sanctions. Let' be absolutely clear, all we are

trying to do is follow the evident shall trail where it leads and if

the OPCW finds that there are members of the Syrian armed forces

who have been responsible for that attack, then I hope she will agree

that they should face sanctions. I hope she will agree that they should

face sanctions. If she opposes that, I have to say, I find it absolutely

extraordinary. The United States has moved to impose sanctions on a

further 300 people. There is a very large measure of support from all

Western countries for doing exactly that. Further more, it seems to me,

unclear really from her account whether she is actually supportive

of the American action at all. And I wonder whether she could enlighten

the House, is she actually in favour of what the Americans did because

for the first time in five years, what the Trump White House has shown

is that the West is not prepared to sit by and watch while people are

gassed, using weapons that should have been banned -

THE SPEAKER: Order. Order. We appreciate the Foreign Secretary's

enimtab style. I fear -- enimitable style, I think the honourable lady,

in waiting to intervene wants a debate. Let us wait for the

televised debate. The Foreign Secretary. Mr Speaker, I'm grateful.

I was very, I was far from clear in listening to the right honourable

lady's response whether she actually supports what the United States has

done. I would like some ill loose dags on that. That has shown that

the West is willing to stand up to the use of these vile peppons and it

has given us a -- weapons, and it has given us a political

opportunity. I think her best bet would be to support this Government,

the efforts of the Western countries to drive that forward and get the

Russians to deliver a genuine political solution.

THE SPEAKER: Order. Order. I say to the honourable lady, all sorts of

things might be judged by some people to be intolerable. But I'm

afraid what is above all intolerable is to depart from the normal

process. The honourable lady is a person of very considerable

intellect and ingenuity, doubtless through her colleagues and possibly

subsequent to the statement, she can find ways of giving expression to

her concern, but at this point, if she could assume a Zen-like calm,

the House itself would be the beneficiary of that. It is obviously

right Mr Speaker, that a diplomatic joint approach in Syria is clearly

more important than unilateral action. Will he therefore commit to

continue to work very closely with our American allies and other

partners and friends to bring an end to this barbaric slaughter in Syria?

Mr Speaker, I'm grateful to my right honourable friend. That is exactly

what we are engaged in doing. I do not pretend to the House that this

will be easy. We have been here before. We have seen the

Kerry-Lavrov rigmarole that went on for months and months. But this is

an opportunity for Russia to recognise that they are supporting a

regime that deserved the odium of the entire world. It is costing

Russia friends and support around the world. They have a chance for a

different approach and that is what we are collectively urging them to

do. Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I thank the Foreign Secretary for

advance sight of his statement and I associate myself with the

condolences for those families in Sweden and Jerusalem. There should

of course, be an international investigation sponsored by the

Security Council and if that is blocked, it should be ordered by the

general Assembly of the United Nations. The MEP niches exist for

this to happen and UK Government must lead the way. The findings

should then be taken to the international Criminal Court and

those responsible should be arraigned and subjected to the force

of international law. The US air strikes on the airfield are a

demonstration of the unpredictability of the Trump

administration, which many fear will only cause further escalation of the

conflict. In their rush to congratulate that administration on

its recent strike, do the UK Government consider the

repercussions? Until now coalition aircraft have operated with relative

freedom against Daesh in Eastern Syria. Now Russia has suspended

US-Russia air operation as cord and the Assad regime will likely

activate its extensive air defences. The skies above Syria therefore will

be much more dangerous for UK pilots, while civilians on the

ground will suffer even more. We on these benches have questioned the

policy on air strikes from the very beginning. Now we must have answers

Mr Speaker. What changes will be made to adopt to the changing

situation? And how will this affect the aerial campaign against Daesh?

UK bombs will not bring peace in Syria. We call on the UK Government

to rethink its tactics and have a revised military strategy in

Parliament. While dialogue aimed at ending the conflict is welcome,

above all we want hostilities to cease and civilians to receive the

basic food, shelter and medical care which they so badly need. Finally,

Mr Speaker, on the subject of North Korea, we urge all parties to lower

tensions and use diplomatic means to work through disagreements. Yet this

is more evidence of the need to implement multilateral disarmament

and put an end to the existence of weapons of mass destruction in

general and nuclear weapons in particular. Thank you very much Mr

Speaker. I would point out that the honourable lady will know that the

UK is already the second biggest donor in humanitarian aid to the

region. We have a record there that we can be proud of. Just going back

though to what she had to say about the American strike itself. I do

find it, I must say, I looking at familiar faces here from the

statements on Syria - month after month, I come here to update the

House on what, how that tragedy has been unfolding. I see people who

take a passionate interest in this subject and have called repeatedly

for us to do more. Finally the United States has taken what we

believe to be action, which I think is entirely appropriate, entirely

appropriate, and somehow it fails to find favour with the honourable

lady. I think it is a good thing but we should not, as I say, overstate

the importance of what has happened from a military point of view. We've

got to recognise that this is a political opportunity and it's an

opportunity for the Russians to recognise the manner of regime that

they are propping up. And that is what, the message that we need to

get over loud and clear and unanimously. As for North Korea. She

makes a good point about the need to get rid of nuclear weapons. I think

it would be foolish, I hope she would agree, it would be foolish for

the United States, for instance, to even begin thinking of getting rid

of its nuclear weapons before we Shh... Have denuclearised North

Korea. I thank the Foreign Secretary for the detailed evidence he has

presented to the House about the responsibility for the nerve agent

attack in Syria. Can I commend him for giving us the detail and in that

sense, also invite him to depersonalise his assessment of the

Syrian regime, simply around the personality of its president. We

already have in place a mechanism by which that president will be held to

account in future by the Syrian people if he wishes to seek that,

under the international support group and conclusion in November

2015. That process is agreed by 20 nations. We should be relying on

that, not using our rhetoric that might make it a more difficult place

in order to get into that process. Finally, if I can just ask him about

North Korea. Could I invite him to put pressure on the United States to

try and dial down the public rhetoric. There is an element in

which the North Korea is something like an attention seeking child,

that happens to belong to somebody else. In this case China. Whilst the

United States has proper responsibilities to the other

nations in the area about their security, ratcheting up the rhetoric

with North Korea is probably the wrong way of publicly dealing with

them. In I agree entirely. Our quarrel is

not just with President Assad but with others in his regime. I think

it will be possible, a map can be sketched out that can show you how

to keep the institutions of Syrian Government and get rid of the most

moderate elements of that regime. We need to get that idea across very

clearly in the course of the next few weeks and months. On North

Korea, I am sure his words are very wise on the day to avoid ratcheting

up the rhetoric and he speaks from experience. In this arena, I believe

that the key lies mainly with China. It is very much in the Chinese

interest and the Russians, by the way, who share a border with North

Korea. It is in the Chinese and Russian interest to rein in Kim Jong

ill and to persuade him to abandon what I think is the path of self

destruction. In the light of the American Vice President's visit to

the region, one hopes to consult South Korea and Japan on the most

effective way to contain North Korea's nuclear ambitions, and

reflecting on the Foreign Secretary's recent experience at the

G-7 summit, does he think there is potential for further economic

sanctions directed at North Korea and does he think China would fully

support such a step? If I may say so, the crucial thing is for the

Chinese and others to implement those current sanctions that we have

and to allow them to have full economic impact. There has been some

doubt in recent months about the full application of those sanctions.

People in North Korea are living in absolute misery and servitude. The

trouble is that it can continue to live in that state for a long time

to come unless the Government sees sense and we must work with the

changes to persuade them. Given the fact that China in a most welcome

manner, surprisingly did support sanctions at the UN in 2013, the

chances they will come to the Security Council meeting and the

positive frame of mind, the Secretary is right that Russia

shares a small border with North Korea and it is a permanent member

of the UN Security Council Andras Parti to the six Party talks, will

my right honourable friend commit to having good discussions with his

opposite number in China but also to talk to his Russian counterpart?

This is another chance for Russia to rehabilitate its international

reputation which is tarnished. He is absolutely right and he has great

expertise in this matter. It is perfectly true that the economic

relationship is overwhelmingly between China and North Korea.

Russia certainly has a role and Russia should not be permitted to

hide endlessly behind China's skirts. And that is a point that Rex

Tillson made in Moscow on April the 10th. In 1988 etiquette talk --

cross-party group from this House to see some survivors. There was a lot

of discussion about who was responsible. People like Doctor

Alistair Hay went out and brought back soil samples and evidence. I

wonder if they use of experts in the UK are being used again to find

again were the perpetrators of this terrible suffering on the Syrian

people. Has the Foreign Secretary talked to people like that? Because

of the experience in dealing with chemical weapons, they could help

again. I remember the right honourable lady's efforts in

respect. She played a big part in the hardening my own heart against

Saddam Hussein many years ago. She campaigned on that matter with great

effect and quite rightly. What we are doing today is supporting the

OPCW's mission. They are setting up the expert fact-finding mission to

try to assemble... I have sketched out all that we know about what

happened on the morning of April the 4th, the best evidence we have so

far. I believe it is very persuasive indeed. But the fact-finding mission

will now do is to go and draw on a variety of sources, samples from the

victims, environmental samples, fragments, footage, interviews with

survivors and people who were first on the scene, medics and

eyewitnesses. They will be able to draw on intelligence, flight

tracking, meteorological information, that'll be shared by us

and other countries concerned. Their experiences that such fight --

fact-finding instances unable to find conclusions under difficult

circumstances. It is that information that we need to create

the evidential trail to the individuals who were irresponsible.

There is good evidence already but we will use what we have where

possible, not only to impose sanctions but also prosecutions for

war crimes. Russia's position in Syria does not depend on President

Assad but his regime in Syria is dependent on Russia, Russia must

accept its responsibility for that attack. At its reputation is to be

rehabilitated, the most important step would be to help ease the

President Assad regime out of Syria. I absolutely agree with my right

honourable friend. The crucial thing is for the Russians to understand...

They have been three in the past to admit they have no deep spiritual

affinity for basher al-Assad. They do not love him. They are ready to

him for the time being. There can be no future for Syria with President

Assad in power. We have to find a way forward. What we have to do now

is to reach out to the Russians to get them to understand that point

and to get them to commit to a serious political process and we

should not abandon that goal. I regret any of the votes I

participated in end preventing military usage in Syria. Is it not

the case that there is to be no military retaliation over the

chemical attack, it would encourage President Assad to do the same

again? I believe he is absolutely right and that is why we have to

acknowledge that the United States has changed the terms of trade in

Syria and it is now up to us to make the most of that opportunity to get

political change. Can I thank my friend for his statement and the

tone in which he made it. One of the purposes of the American action the

other day was, as it would've been in 2013, to demonstrate to President

Assad that he could not military subjugate all his people. It would

give to negotiations with he would have to concede something. The

difficult question is this, have the Secretary of state for the United

States as my honourable friend on that evening in some way, what would

his answer have been? Does his Government consider themselves bound

by what happened in 2013 and the statement of David Cameron

afterwards? Does he intend to return the House to discuss that matter

further what made to the United Kingdom be able to do to demonstrate

its force and resolve against such actions as we saw from President

Assad the other week? We were not asked. We were not asked for

specific support. It is my belief but no decision has been taken, it

is my belief that were such a request be made in future, whether

it a reasonable request in pursuit of similar objectives, I think it

would be very difficult for the United Kingdom to say no. Hannah was

a student at Birmingham University and our thoughts and prayers are

with her family and friends. As the foreigner office changed any travel

advice after she was stabbed to death in Jerusalem? I repeat my

condolences to her family. All I can say is that although we are offering

consular assistance to her family as the moment we are not changing our

general advice about travel to Israel. Given the foil propaganda

role of President Assad in propping up a war criminal, could the Foreign

Secretary update the House on what discussions he has had with the Home

Secretary so we can send a very clear message that it is

incompatible with British citizen ship? We do not discuss individual

citizenship cases. I understand the feelings that she is expressing.

The Foreign Secretary's original statement was comprehensive and

measured but it had won significant omission, there was no mention

whatsoever of Turkey. There are 3 million Syrian refugees in Turkey

and as he knows, the Turkish Government had called for the no-fly

zone. Others including myself had called for the no-fly zone. What

discussions are the ongoing at this moment about how to protect

civilians in Syria, not just from chemical weapons but also from

barrel bombs? He is right to draw attention to the cardinal role of

Turkey in this crisis. Turkey has borne the brunt of the huge tide of

refugees. I agree with what he says about no-fly zones. It is something

strongly supported by Rex Iverson and the US. They cannot deliver them

without a ceasefire. This is why I returned this challenge we are

making to the Russians. It is up to them not just to stop the barrel

bombs but to deliver a real ceasefire. The Foreign Secretary

dealt at length with the chemical attack but I was surprised he did

not take the opportunity to condemn also the appalling attack on Shia

civilians, 126 killed, 68 children that were fleeing. This illustrates

the problem of being a Shia or Christian in Syria, how much can you

rely on President Assad to protect you? We tried to engage regime

change, removing Colonel Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein. We should protect

minorities in the Middle East. I appreciate the point that he makes

and he's perfectly right that our thoughts should equally be with the

126 victims of that appalling attack, many of them also children.

There are many victims in this conflict. Of the 400,000 that have

died, in the last 5-6 years, I think we are now in the seventh year of

this war, the overwhelming majority have been victims of the President

Assad regime. And its supporters. It is for that reason that I must say

that I understand his hesitations. They are shared by many people who

think instinctively that it would be better to stay with the devil that

we know. He is a very odious devil indeed. I am afraid that when I look

ahead, I cannot see how President Assad can remain in power in Syria

in the long-term. We have to go back a long way in history to find

somebody who has murdered quite so many of his population and retained

office. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. It is

not for any of us to choose who runs Syria, that is for the Syrian

people. Can I say to the Foreign Secretary we should judge at recent

events in Syria and they will be successful if and only effort they

form part of the comprehensive strategy to protect civilian life.

In that regard, can I asked him what conversations he has had with the

Secretary of state for getting the aid to those people in Syria who

needed. We failed in Aleppo. I know people are being targeted as we

discussed previously. Though the Foreign Secretary say what strategy

do we have now to save civilian life, to get aid in and to get

people who need to come out of Syria to seek medical attention out of

Syria, and to help save every life that we can?

I pay tribute to the consistent campaigning the honourable lady has

done over the years. She's right to draw attention to the appalling

humanitarian situation. There are still 1. 5 million people being

besieged by Assad's regime and they're using starvation as an

instrument of warfare. What we are trying to do is, going back to the

earlier points, there must be a ceasefire and the Russians must make

it possible for the humanitarian aid convoys to have access to those

regimes. That is what we are trying to promote, Just Can't Get Enough in

gentlemen Niamh ya, but at the talks as well. As I say, it is

up to the -- They have their interests in Syria protected in the

long-term. They can have a political role in the future of Syria, but

what they've got to ensure is that there is a ceasefire, an end to the

barrel bombs and a proper political process. Can the Foreign Secretary

tell us what the outcome of this proper political process would be

given that even common Tators who absurdly used to claim that there

were 70,000 moderate fighters against Assad in Syria now accept

that the overwhelming majority of the armed opposition are run by

Islamists. Whilst accepting that Assad is a monster in the tradition

of Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein, to replace him with a virulent Islamist

regime? I must say I strongly agree with the wisdom of that remark. The

essential thing will be to have a political process that preserves the

institutions of the Syrian state whilst decapitating the monster.

Thank you Mr Speaker. The international community failed in

Syria for too long. We echo the comments made by the Foreign

Secretary that some action was, indeed, needed and may be needed

into future. Can I ask him, though, his statement was very firm, quite

rightly, on Russia, but it didn't give a sense of how the Peace Talks

will go forward, which clearly is also essential as well as Russia

changing their position. As has been said by several honourable members,

in the end the new constitution and arrangements for Syria will be a

matter for the Syrian people. There are certainly people on either side

of the debate in Syria who could come together to form a new federal

government for that country and take it forward to a much brighter

future. Russia's propped up the Assad regime

for far too long. When I met the Russian ambassador a year ago, I

urged him and asked him to request his government to find a new home

for Assad outside of Syria to enable the political process to move

forward and create peace in that country. He declined. Does my right

honourable friend agree it's time for Russia to change its mind on

that matter in -- matter? The Russian president actually suggested

that Bashar al-Assad should find refuge in some Gulf country, which I

won't upset by naming. Mr Speaker, the Foreign Secretary

said in his statement I stress that we have no intention of dislodging

Russia from Syria, well, we would be fools to think that we could, and

then went on to say, but Russia's position in Syria does not depend on

Assad. Now for the last seven years, Putin has supported Assad through

thick and thin. He's not suddenly going to develop a conscience as

we've seen with his actions over the years in Chechnya and elsewhere.

Therefore, we're left in a position with the UN Security Council where

Russia has a seat will constantly block any military attempts and

therefore we're left with a scenario where Trump could take unilateral

action as they've done on the airfield. I support that action. But

how far are we supposed to support Trump without the support of the

Security Council? Clearly, he could do that to Assad and he could do

that to President Kim in North Korea. I disagree we strongly. I do

think, of course, it's difficult, of course the Russians have been

backing Assad for many years, but this is an opportunity now for them

to have a new bargain, a bargain in which they have a ceasefire, a real

political solution and in exchange they get a genuine relationship with

the United States, they join the rest of the world in the war against

Daesh and they have acknowledgement - yes I do - they have

acknowledgement that they have a way out of the quagmire of Syria and the

West will step in, once it's possible, to pay for the

reconstruction of that country. Mr Speaker, Iran has committed

hundreds of troops and billions of dollars in Syria, also in living

memory many Iranians have suffered chemical attacks. They have been

victims of it. Can my right honourable friend reassure the House

that his department is taking advantage of the full diplomatic

relations with Iran to put pressure on the Assad regime? Yes, we

certainly are and I think one of the important points to make to the

Russians is that in the end, it is the Iranians who are benefitting

from any progress that the Assad regime makes. It is the Iranians who

are the whip holders in that relationship and in the end, the

Russians need to detach themselves from the Iranians as well as from

Assad. Thank you Mr Speaker. I hear that

the Secretary of State is saying, however a new report from Human

Rights Watch suggest that US forces last month failed to properly

confirm targets before launching a missile strike in Aleppo, killing

dozens of civilians and as we've heard, including lots of children.

They even destroyed a building they had even is stab lished was a

mosque. As the UK Government cheer leads more US strikes in Syria what

steps will the Secretary of State take to avoid more civilian deaths

in Syria? I must say that obviously we deplore any civilian deaths in

Syria. I do deplore any falls equiff lent of American actions and the

dropping of barbaric weapons by the regime, banned in 1925. Can I

welcome my right honourable friend's call for a peaceful and united

Syria, who would disagree with that? And especially the need for

humanitarian protection of civilians but would my right honourable friend

agree that putting down shutters is never a productive way forward and

in this light, can he confirm that he remains in regular contact with

his Russian counterparts? Of course. Thank you Mr Speaker. I appreciate

the statement from the Foreign Secretary, and we extend our

sympathy and thoughts to the Bebing ton and Bladen families. Some of the

devils that the Government has to deal with are home grown and this

Government has been able to deal with them in the past. It seems

attractive to remove one leader from power in terms of a regime change,

does he accept that the real linchpin in Syria is Russia? And

what are the true, what is the true state of his relationship with

Russian officials between Her Majesty's Government and the Putin's

regime? The honourable gentleman is absolutely right. In the end it was

the Russian intervention that saved Assad's regime. It is now the

Russians have it in their hands to chaining the out-- change the

outcome in sear yar for the benefit -- Syria for the benefit of the

Syrian people but for the benefit of Russia as well. I thank my right

honourable friend for his statement. To echo the question from my

honourable friend from Gainsborough, others are concerned about the

phrase regime change and any policy that moves in that direction. Can he

confirm if the US moves towards a more explicit regime change policy

in regard to Assad that we would only support them after a vote in

this House endorsing such a policy? The policy of the Government is

spelt out clearly in resolution 2254, which calls for a political

process leading to a transition away from Assad regime. I think the

honourable gentleman will agree that is the right way forward. Thank you

Mr Speaker. The Foreign Secretary confirmed that the regime has been

responsible for three previous chemical attacks on their civilians.

Given that, can he confirm whether or not there is international

support for targeted sanctions against military commanders, despite

the way that the negotiations went earlier? I should thank - I'm

grateful for that. Because there was never a proposition to have general

sanctions against Russia, for instance. That was a piece, a media

ectoplax if you like. -- plasm, if you like, what we have is strong

support for the idea of taking the evidence that the fact finding

mission is going to be accumulating, using that to isolate the

individuals who may have been responsible and by the way, there

may be Russian military advisors who are already complicit in this and

not only imposing sanctions on them, which I hope she will agree will be

the right thing, I know she will agree will be the right thing to do,

but also arraign them for war crimes. What role does the Foreign

Secretary see the UK play in terms of the actions by the North Korean

regime? The most important and useful thing we can do is to

intercede with our Chinese friends to stress to them the huge influence

they have in this matter, get them to use their economic weight to try

to get Pyongyang to see sense. THE SPEAKER: Order. Point of order,

Emily thornberry. Whilst refusing to answer the challenge of a televised

debate by the Secretary of State to use the statement to make the most

extraordinary claims. He's unaware of Labour's position in relation to

this. We have made it abundantly clear that the way to proceed was

for UN inspectors to establish who was responsible and challenge the

international community, including the Russians, to take multilateral

action against the perpetrator who is presumably Mr Assad.

THE SPEAKER: What I would say to the honourable lady off the top of my

head, unawareness whether real or proclaimed is not disorderly.

Proceedings have been orderly. Some people may feel better informed

others may not. But the honourable lady, who has very considerable

experience both of this place and of pleading her case in the courts, has

made her own point, with her own eloquence in her own way and it's on

the record. Point of order. On Sunday, April 2, and again on Sunday

9 April, the former Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Prescott claimed that

my father, when a member of Parliament for North Antrim, had

contrary to the Wilson doctrine, his phone tapped by the Security

Services. This infringes on the rights and liberties of all 650

members of this House and more importantly, on the rights and

liberties of our constituents. What steps can be taken to verify Lord

Prescott's claims and to hold to account those who failed to inform

the Speaker at that time about this breaking of the Wilson doctrine? And

what course is now open to Parliament to uncover the truth in

this affair? THE SPEAKER: I'm very grateful to

the honourable gentleman both for his point of order and

characteristic courtesy of giving me advance notice of his intention to

raise it. I would advise the honourable gentleman that if he

believes that the privileges of this House have been infringed, the

proper course of action is for him to write to me, setting out the

facts of the matter. There is a very specific reason for my request to

him in this particular circumstance to write. That is that he is

essentially raising a matter of privilege. Traditionally, in such

circumstances, the chair always advises a member to write to the

Speaker. If the honourable gentleman does so, I would then make a

decision on whether this should be per sued as a matter of privilege.

We'll leave it there for now. I'm grateful to the honourable

gentleman. If there are no further points of order... We come now to

the ten minute rule motion. On here, Mr Speaker.

I beg to move that leave be given for me to bring in a bill to make

provision for the governance and operation of parish councils in

England, and for connected purposes. I bring this bill forward today to

make a fundamental point, that as we devolve power down to local

communities, we should ensure that those councils to which we are

giving more power should be run in a good way. Throughout all of public

life, we should ensure that elected representatives adhere to the Nolan

principles. They are selflessness, integrity, objectivity,

accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. It is these

principles that need to be at the heart of all governance, and indeed,

of our parish councils. Madame deputies the, I have to begin by

declaring my own involvement in local councils. Before coming to

this place, I was a district and twice parish councillor. I have

helped to produce a neighbourhood plan and sat on various parish

council committees, and seen how parishes should work, both as a

counsellor and now via feedback is a member of Parliament. I am very

passionate indeed about the principle that decisions should be

made as locally as possible, and as properly as possible. Indeed, as

Campbell parish council is showing, they are now to agree the first

stages of a neighbourhood plan. Good parishes can make a real difference.

Committed people coming together in the best interests of their area. I

am also fully in support of those calling for Eastleigh to have a town

council, to give it a separate voice in the face of hostile development

Eastleigh Borough council's missing local plan. I completely support the

government's great devolution programme, which does exactly that.

It empowers communities. I want to speak today about the most local

form of government, parish councils. Across England, there is a patchwork

of 9000 parish councils, each offering the closest form of

representation in our democracy. Serving on these parishes or 80,000

councillors, some elected, some unopposed, and some co-opted.

However, a strong part of ensuring that localism and devolution agenda

really works locally for people is ensuring that the councils and

councillors are ready to receive these new powers. We need to ensure

that parish councils are truly representative, representatives

should come forward to offer a mix of talent, experience and a varied

background, but sadly, in many areas, it is brutally undermined by

party politicisation of parishes, and this bill would seek to reverse

this. Multi-thing, where a counsellor sits on a number of

different councils is not in itself a bad thing. # multi-hatting.

Vertical multi-hatting, where a council is a parish and district

councillor, helps foster good co-operation between these councils.

However, I would like to draw attention to the growing negative

edition of this, what I would like to call horizontal multi-hatting.

This is where an individual sits on multiple parish councils. For

example, there is a borough councillor in my constituency who

sits on both Basildon parish council and west end parish council. The

seat this individual is taking up could have been filled by someone

who genuinely wants to contribute to their run community, rather than

purely to be the political placeholder. Somebody who is not

just seeking to qualify by simply being within three miles of one or

two boundaries. In these instances, it really is a case of keeping seats

told rather than keeping them warm, or rather, is it just a case of

spying on the other camp? It is very much my view that there should be a

restriction on this kind of horizontal multi-hatting, so people

can get involved with their community and representation, and

that political parties simply cannot block others from the community

taking part. Secondly, this bill is to highlight the concerning weakness

around safeguarding around parish councils. Often, a parish council

will have a single member of staff in the form of a part-time clerk,

and often, parish councillors will be involved in the local community.

Many occupations they will be working within, and being in the

lifeblood of the parish council. Two problems can arise from this.

Firstly, a proper, effective safeguarding policy is difficult to

maintain with limited staff time, and often a rather informal approach

to governance. Secondly, and very seriously indeed, instances brought

to my attention in both my constituency and elsewhere, parish

councillors have used their position to bypass safeguarding. Parish

councillors are using their position within their own communities and

their status as a councillor in order to get appropriate access --

inappropriate access to community places, such as community schools

and local buildings. Clearly, it is very important that when we discuss

these matters, we must balance the real need for good safeguarding with

the right to run and stand in a local election. However, I believe

this balance can be rightly struck by requiring all council candidates

to be DBS checked as a first step towards being nominated for

election. We also need to ensure that the best practice for

safeguarding is instilled right down to our parish councils, and right

across the country. That will include effective tracking and

logging of potential interactions between councillors, well performing

their duties, such as surgeries, particularly where vulnerable

members of society will be approaching people for assistance by

virtue of their counsellor status. This, of course, will mean more

training and focus for parish councillors, and moving finally onto

the final part of my bill, as we push our downwards to local

communities, we also must provide those communities with access to

outstanding training as their local representatives. In my discussion

with the area branch of the National Association Of Local Councils, they

have given the wonderful examples of wonderful and comprehensive parish

training packages which can and must be implemented. I was particularly

pleased to see Hampshire, under the brilliant councillor Colin Mercer,

ensuring this kind of work is done for our new councillors. They have

also provided me with a copy of their handbook, which they say is

the most requested publication that they write. This handbook points out

the way for a national standards of training for our parish councillors,

and is clearly where we are giving more power and more responsibility,

more discretion to parish councils, we need to fully understand their

role in localism and the devolution agenda. I'm sure colleagues will

sympathise with the feeling of having been elected and suddenly

told to just get on with it. That is clearly not good enough. In planning

for finance, for project management, for procurement, for key contracts

and for challenging the complex issues which keep a vibrant

community alive, those people making those decisions must have the best

possible position to decide those outcomes, and I think we need to

look in a more effective system -- at a more effective system of

oversight for our parish councils, and also to give them confidence in

that good decision making. I want to make it absolutely clear from my

experience as a parish councillor and as an MP, the vast majority of

our parishes are doing a fantastic job of representing their

communities and working hard within it. However, in a tiny minority of

cases where things go wrong, we need to make sure that someone is there

to properly scrutinise and learn lessons, whether through expanding

the remit of the ombudsman, of bringing in a clear and stronger

code of conduct review, or indeed, through standard sports once again.

We need to be able to tackle this issue. -- standards boards.

Fundamentally, my own experience in my own political outlook means that

I firmly believe in giving more power to local communities. Where we

debate in this grand chamber and even grander building, it is worth

remembering that people across the country this evening and across the

week will be putting on their coats and walking up to their local

village hall, and sitting regularly in their community spaces wanting to

make their communities better, and their local areas a little bit

better. I believe these measures will assist those councillors, and

will make our parishes work better so they can continue to serve their

residents fully and even more confidently.

The question is that the honourable member have leave to bring in her

bill will stop as many are of that opinion say aye. Of the country, no.

The ayes have it. You will prepare and bring in the bill. Scott Mann,

will Wrag, and Marie Trevelyan, John Howe, Amanda Solway, Antoinette

Sandbach, Lucy Allen and myself. Parish council governance,

principles of public life bill. Second reading, what day? Made 12.

Made 12. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day.

Finance (No 2) Bill, second reading. The amendment has been selected,

movement to read the second motion. Thank you very much. I beg to move

that the bill will now be read a second time. This government has

long demonstrated that it can deliver a stronger, more secure

economy. We see the economy demonstrating robust growth. The

employment rate is at a record high, and the deficit has been brought

down by almost two thirds since the pre-financial crisis peak, but we

are in a much stronger position now than we were in 2010. But there is

no room for complacency. Indeed, as we begin the formal process of

Exeter and the European Union, we have an even greater incentive to

provide a strong and stable platform for the future. But the debt and

deficit are still too high, so we remain focused on getting the public

finances in order, not continuing to endlessly borrow and jeopardise

future generations, as some would have us do. I will just get a little

bit further in and happily give way. Before setting out the contents of

this bill in more detail, I should of course refer to the fact that the

Prime Minister has today announced her intention to lay before this

house a motion calling for an early general election. Earlier today,...

Members should be paying more attention. Earlier today, the Leader

of the House updated Right Honourable members on how that

motion, if passed, will affect the business of the house, and we hope

to hold constructive discussions with the opposition on how this will

proceed. Returning to the matter in front of us, I will lay out, if I

can, the themes of the bill, and then come to the honourable

gentleman's intervention. Returning to the matters in front of us, we're

clear that our taxes and the system underpinning them need to be fair,

competitive, critically, paid. This finance bill will take the next

steps in helping to deliver a fairer and more sustainable tax system,

that can support our critical public services and get the country back to

living within its means. This bill implements changes which respond to

the challenges our tax system and indeed our society faces. This bill

delivers an intergenerational fairness by tackling of health

outcomes across and within age groups. It delivers changes that

better reflect the ways individuals choose to work, enabling them to

earn money and create wealth whatever their chosen business

structure, but at the same time ensuring these choices are not

distorted. And this bill delivers vital revenues to put our public

finances on a sustainable footing and secure the future of public

services that we all value, and helping to further bring down the

deficit. I will give way. I am grateful to the minister. Will she

confirmed that the OBR report which accompanied the last budget, compare

to the one for last year's budget, downgrades above forecasts for each

year in the forecasting period? I don't know if he was in the house

earlier today, but in fact, the most recent statement we got on a growth

forecast from the IMF so it actually upgraded today, and we see that all

the economic indicators are pointing to robust growth, despite the

knowledge challenges of the period ahead. Would he like to commend?

I thank the minister. In the interests of the period up to pro

legation, as we try to work out what remains in the bill, could she just

tell me, tell the house, what... Where the ?2 billion to replace the

non-razing of the national insurance contributions going to come from if

she is so wedded to balancing the books? Well, the Chancellor was

clear at the time that in the statements we have made about the

budget and subsequent decisions, that we were looking to balance the

budget is across the period. Clearly, going into a general

election campaign, we will have more to say about that in the manifesto,

and we will lay that out then. This is not the place for that. But there

are measures... There are measures in this bill that are in immediately

and openly about revenue raising, and we will come to some of those,

and the Chancellor was very direct about that when he announced the

budget, and indeed, at the time of the Autumn Statement as well. Let me

say a bit about what the government had done to support fairness between

generations. It is an essential priority that everyone should have

access to the NHS when they need it and everyone should enjoy security

and dignity in old age, and that is why in the spring budget, we

announced an additional 2 billion, has just referred to, for adult

social care. This means councils in England will have access in total to

?9.25 billion of dedicated funding for social care more over the next

two years as a result of changes introduced by this government since

2015. On top of that, the last two fiscal events, we have done much to

be build a better future for our younger children by helping people

save more of the money they earn, investing in education and skills, a

key theme of the Autumn Statement and of the budget, and by building

more affordable homes. We will build on this work, in particular by

helping to tackle childhood obesity and deliver a healthier future for

our children. The youngest people in our society

that are working our earning less than previous 29-year-olds have over

here and. They are also less likely to own their own property, more

likely to rent. What is she doing to ensure the stops and is reversed no?

I have just talked about some of the things we're doing. Some of these

one-time trends. Ultimately, if you want to be law will fear, high wage

economy, you need to invest in young people from a young age. I think the

package of skills unveiled recently a string to make the step changes to

get into IP jobs for young people. With regards to housing, we

acknowledge there are challenges the. We are looking to address

those. With regard to childhood obesity, something close to my heart

is a former public health official. Soft drinks are still one of the

biggest sources of sugar in children's diet. It not only cost

the productivity of the economy but the public purse. That is a great

cost to the individuals, as well. The overall cost to the NHS totalled

over ?6 billion a year. This will look to introduce a lady for soft

drink manufacturers to pay for that. We have seen announcement from the

likes of Tesco, the makers of Lucozade and I have had the number

of discussions with companies in recent months and understand the

effort and investment they are making to change the product and

portfolio mix. Even though revenues were lower than expected, we

welcomed in that since the predicted revenues are evil because the policy

is working a way, but we will maintain the ?4 billion funding that

we pledged to do. It is further evidence of the government been

committed to tackling childhood obesity as part of a programme of

work across government departments to deliver a access for future

generations. They constituent has highlighted

obesity has the second largest cause of cancer next to smoking. Can I ask

to confirm that the measures will be part of the package of measures to

tackle childhood obesity, those helping patents protecting them from

junk food advertising and also to tackle a beast sugar content in

school meals? She came to me to talk on a major close to my heart from a

previous portfolio. Clearly, we are committed rate across government to

tackling this. If I take one aspect of this. She mentioned other

products are not in the scope of the lady. Public Health England are

working very closely with manufacturers setting ambitious

targets and that programme of work is well under way. If you look at

the progress of this country meet on salt reduction, a world leading

programme, all that was done through this close working and being

ambitious and fishing industry. I think that is alongside the levy,

which is turbo-charged that work, is a very substantial element in the

plan and the Department of Health is doing other things to particular

working things with schools and the money that will come from the levy

means more can be done in that regard. Limit to another theme. This

is something we have talked about as a strategic challenge not just for

this country but for many developed countries and that is the different

ways people are working nowadays. This bill takes important steps

within the tax system to reflect the changing ways in which people choose

to work. Individuals who work for a company pay significantly less

national insurance than those who are self-employed. This can happen

when people are doing very similar work. We believe tax receipts will

be reduced by ?3.5 billion by 2021-22. We are committed to helping

businesses large and small across the UK to succeed. We want the tax

system to be feared to individuals working in different ways in the

system must be sustainable. This will take initial steps to help out.

First, the off payroll working rule for public engagements. This

addresses the company the individuals working for. This will

clear the current rules, which cost ?700 million a year. This change

will reduce the tax differential between individuals working for a

company and those working as self-employed. It will raise much

needed revenue to pay for other services, such as social care. I

want to assure honourable members that they will help still be helping

investors by the allowances that have been introduced by the

government means they will be able to invest up to ?50,000 without

paying any dividend on that. It increases the amount individuals

conceive. This has been increased by the largest ever owned, up to 20,000

this year. General investors will still no pay any dividend tax. This

will help address the rising cost of public finances. It is in that

context that the dividing change should be considered. Moving on, it

will further moderate the tax system by legislating and making takes

digital. The administration of tax must change. With many people paying

wages online, this is a natural extension of this reality. Many

government departments have been brought into the digital age,

including the taxation system and we need to continue their journey.

Businesses will feel the benefit of getting the tax correct first time

and cutting down on excessive administrative burdens in the long

term. Simultaneously, making takes digital will help close the tax gap.

All the studies conducted so far have indicated that this will

present an additional cost for small businesses, who have to do this four

times a year. In many parts of the country, small businesses do not

even have good access to the Digital economy to make those returns. With

regard to the latter, I looked at this in some detail recently. In

terms of what would be required of people to, in terms of uploading

digital data, the Meese the vast majority, he had a 90%, have access

to high-speed broadband. With regard to changes for small businesses. We

do not recognise some of the figures put out into the public domain by

representative bodies. The Treasury has done their own analysis. But we

do acknowledge this would be a big change for small businesses.

Particularly those below the value of the tax threshold. This will mean

that given the pilot has now started, this will mean that the

system will be parted for two years before the small businesses into.

But we cannot sustain the level of error and the size of the tax gap

which occurs in SMEs in the long term. We need to tackle it. Serious

developed countries across the world are digitising the taxation system.

There are benefits to that. There will be challenges to during the

transition, of course. I fully accept that we need to tackle the

tax gap. Is she willing to look at the smallest businesses to opt in?

Perhaps for five years, they could see how the system worked? We have

already announced that those below the VAT threshold will have up until

2019. Only then will become mandatory. We will debate this in

more issue. Suffice to say, some of the alternative proposals that have

advanced simply do not tackle this issue around the level of error and

the tax gap. We need to address that because it is part of the general

challenge we face about the sustainability of the tax base. We

think this will benefit overseas million small businesses over that

the United Kingdom, the majority of whom are conducting the banking

online. This is very much going with the flow of free society is going.

We have a package of support that will be via for the smallest

businesses and we will have a chance to explore that maybe later,

depending on how much time we get to debate the bill over the coming

days. The HMRC will oversee this and make sure that the reforms are

implemented smoothly. I have talked about how this can help the health

and the tax system, but also, we want to talk about how we can keep

he feel are unsustainable tax base to raise much-needed revenue in the

process. This government remains committed to its fiscal Mandy of

reducing the deficit. That is why we took the difficult decision to

increase the standard rate of tax from 10% to 12%. The

Chancellor was very direct in the wiki presented that, in that we

which it needed to raise additional revenue. I have is I have outlined,

the taxation system needs to be fair, they should be competitive.

That is particularly important as we enter the next phase of negotiations

with regard to as exiting the European Union. We need to retain a

competitive edge and remain an attractive place for people to start

up businesses and to attract inward investment. We have seen some

excellent decisions in that regard in recent months. But taxation has

to be paid. It should go without saying that it remains the case that

although we have the lowest tax gaps in the developed world, we are one

of the most transparent about how we measure and report on it, we want to

tackle tax avoidance at all levels to ensure that everyone, no matter

who they are, to make sure people pay be a great amount of taxation at

the right time. This Finance Bill will take further action to make

sure we get the tax revenues which are due by continuing with the work

to tackle tax avoidance and evasion. We already have a strong track

record in that regard. Since 2010, HMRC has secured around ?140 billion

in additional tax revenue after tackling noncompliance, evasion and

avoidance. We are at the forefront of many of the international

discussions about tackling this. Some of the most thorny issues we

face with regard to avoidance and evasion, particularly really include

complex multinational businesses, can only be tackled in an

international forum. We have worked closely with other international

bodies and will continue to do so and read those discussions as we

tackle them. This will no build on this by introducing overacting

policies which are forecast to raise over ?5.5 billion by 2021-22. First,

the government will update the rules as to how companies claim for tax

differentials and losses. Companies will no longer be able to use the

taxable profits to be offset. They will not be able to offset it with

past losses when they make substantial profits. Taken together,

these measures will raise nearly ?7 billion from large companies over

the next five years. The bill will continue the

government's crackdown on artificial disguise remuneration schemes, by

introducing new rules and a new charge an outstanding loans from the

5th of April, 2019. These changes will ensure that scheme users pay

their fair share of tax and will bring in ?2.5 billion by 2020-21.

Thirdly, in order to deter those who gain financially from enabling tax

avoidance, the government will institute a new penalty for those

who enable the use of schemes that are later defeated by HMRC. This is

an area in which we have worked closely, and I think an area in

which policy development has benefited from a real focus on