28/06/2017 House of Commons

I'm grateful to the honourable gentleman, and we will leave it

there for now. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the

day. Queen's Speech, motion for a adjourned debate on question. I in

for the House that I have selected amendment i in the Leader of the

Opposition. The question is that a humble address may be presented to

Her Majesty as on the order paper. I call the Shadow Home Secretary,

Diane Abbott. I rise to move the amendment, standing in the name of

the Leader of the Opposition, and that of my honourable friends. On

occasion, much of what we do and say in this chamber must seem to

ordinary members of the public looking on like something

approaching an elaborate game. But we on this side of the House believe

that this amendment today goes to the heart of current public

concerns. We wish to commend the response of the emergency services

to the recent terrorist attacks and the Grenfell Tower fire. We wish to

call on the Government to recruit more police officers and

firefighters. But above all we call on the Government to end the public

sector pay cap and to give emergency and public service workers a fair

pay rise. Because as we have seen, in recent months, in times of

national and personal crisis, it is to public sector workers the country

looks. We have all seen and read about the firefighters who ran

towards danger and into the blazing Grenfell Tower to save lives, and

some of us must have wondered whether we could have summed that

courage. We all know about the NHS workers who came in off shift to

save lives and help the Vic Tyms of the terror attacks -- the Vic

victims of the attacks. And we know of the gallantry of the transport

police who responded to the attacks. My mother was a nurse, and I know

that the dedication and commitment of our public service workers is

above price, but it is one thing for members of this House to praise

Oblak service workers for their bravery, heroism and effectiveness

at times of national emergency, but we need to treat them fairly every

other day of the year. This is what we on this side of the House think,

and increasingly, this is what the general public thinks. Ministers

will be aware that the latest attitudes survey reveals that eight

in ten people want more cash put into the NHS, seven in ten people

want more investment in schools, and six in ten want higher spending on

the police. I will come to Ministers' claims to have protected

police budgets late in my remarks, but at this point, let me say this.

The question Ministers have to answer is this. How long are they

going to continue to peddle hard-line austerity when their own

targets for closing the deficit recede ever further away, raising

the question as to whether savage cuts are not counter-productive in

terms of encouraging growth, and how long are they going to pursue

austerity when any parent who has a child at school, anybody that uses

an accident or emergency department, anyone who has an elderly relative

in need of social care, can see for themselves that cuts have

consequences, and that there is a human price to pay the Tory

austerity. I am grateful to the Shadow Secretary of State for giving

way, and I have much sympathy with the points she is making. I

colleagues and I will be supporting the amendment. Why has the number of

firefighters in Wales been cut by 20%? It is not for me...

LAUGHTER SHOUTING.

I think you will find that the funding available for the

administration in Wales has been cut. In her statement to the House

last week, the Home Secretary said, we have protect the police budget

from 2015. She went on to say, there has been a lot of scaremongering

about changes to the budget, and I repeat, here in the fight, that it

will be protected. -- here in the House. We will be aware that the

Government claimed that funds will make good any shortfall, but this is

a tax increase to provide funds, not Government protection of the budget,

and I wonder who she is accusing of scaremongering. Visit Her Majesty is

Mike Inspectorate of Constabulary, who said in March, policing in

England and Wales is in a perilous state as government cuts leads to

vulnerable victims being let down and tens of thousands of dangerous

suspect that large? Are they scaremongering? I thank my

honourable friend forgiving way. Would she agree with me that

particularly in the case of bobbies on the beat, that it does have an

undermining effect where people are doing excellent work around knife

and gun crime, particularly in hotspots, that taking away bobbies

on the beat does have an undermining effect on otherwise excellent police

work? I think the public fully appreciates that community policing

and bobbies on the beat are important, not just in knife and gun

crime, but also in providing the first line of connection,

communication, with the community, when we come to look at the issue of

terrorism. But I was wondering who it is the Home Secretary is accusing

of scaremongering. Is it that the president of the police

superintendents Association of England and Wales, who said, there

are now 34,000 fewer staff working in policing that there were in 2010,

including 19,000 fewer police officers? Or is it Steve White...

I am grateful. On your fame, has she heard that the new Met Police

coalition president Dick -- Cressida Dick has spoken about this. Has she

ever known a demand of more resources more publicly? Members

opposite can mock but Londoners are very concerned that within the

overall levels of crime, there are rising levels of violent crime,

rising levels of knife crime and gun crime and, no, I have never heard

the Metropolitan Police states or clearly about the problems in

relation to funding. I need is to make some progress. So, when the

home secretary accuses people of scaremongering, she must explain why

it is that every stakeholder in policing is telling us there is an

increasing problem with government cuts to policing. And we know that

over seven years of the Tories in government, we have 20,000 less

police staff, 10,000 fewer firefighters, 1000... Could I ask

whether she is able to tell me whether the honourable member who

got up to complain about police cuts is related to the previous

honourable member who was a new coalition government that they just

the number of police officers by 20,000? I am grateful to my

honourable friend for that helpful intervention. I ask the House to

focus on the information he has just brought forward. So, over seven

years of Eco Racing government, we have 20,000 fewer police staff,

10,000 fewer firefighters, 1000 fewer Border Force guards and when

the Conservatives came to office in 2010, they immediately cut security

service personnel by 650 and now, they expect plaudits when they

pledged to increase them. But all ordinary public sector workers have

been faced with key phrases and pay caps. Which has made them worse off.

And over that period, from the coalition Cabinet office 2010 at the

month of May this year, inflation has seen prices rise by over 15%.

So, in reality, whatever figures the government wants to draw round, but

because of the levels of inflation, public sector workers have had

effective cuts to their pensions and seen large-scale job losses. They

have been asked to do more with less. We, on the side of the House,

has said asking the security services and public sector workers

generally to do more with less is unfair, unworkable and

counter-productive. It has led to low morale, difficulties in

recruitment and retention, particularly in parts of the country

where house prices are spiralling, staff shortages and gaps in

services, and this public services are amongst some of the most

important services that any civilised society offers. My

honourable friend, the member for Leicester South, will highlight in

his remarks the effect of austerity and government cuts on our NHS. So,

our cuts in vital services, the police, the Fire service, the Border

Force, border service and security services have been serious. These

cuts are in addition to the cuts that have already forced out more

than 20,000 police staff. Let me speak about the counterterrorism

strategy and the labour welcomes the considered approach outlined in the

Queen's Speech. Too of the knee jerk reaction of the government has been

for the legislation. We believe it is correct to review what is

actually happening in relation to the evolving terrorist threat and

its many varied sources and purposes. But, the terms of the

counterterrorism if you are crucial, Labour police the following

questions must be addressed, and they're sufficient resources and are

being directed? Is the current legislation effective? What is the

role of community policing and gathering intelligence? Sometimes

ministers think that policing in communities has no role in combating

terrorism but we believe it has a role. Is there a danger that

communities are being alienated by Prevent, even though good work is

being done under the Prevent badge and should we be reviewing Prevent?

How can a community engagement be increased? Are the basic

precautionary measures such as installing barriers to passing

trucks that could be taken immediately? And as Maxell has said,

should they be used more frequently and be subject to better process? If

the government announced today that it was going to introduce more

barriers to coxswain barge Muchall is a long major thoroughfare as we

would support them and immediately advised to be issued to all elected

officials, not to remove existing barriers as the current Foreign

Secretary did when he was Mayor of London. Bat-mac Macksville. If this

government announced it was going to halt and release and reverse the

police budget cuts this year, we would support them. The government

has announced a commission to tackle extremism. We welcome such a

commission in principle, although some have suggested they are setting

it up because it cannot make good on it should be the promises to

introduce anti-extremism legislation. We would not that any

laws against incitement and against conspiracy and against murder. Some

perpetrators were known to the authorities. But we believe, I was

at the Finsbury Park mosque with faith leaders and the Prime Minister

and more than one of them raise the importance of a review of the

Prevent strategy and we believe in common with many members of the

communities involved, that the Prevent strategy, despite the good

work that has happened, needs to be reviewed. It needs to not run the

risk of alienating communities, we must work with all communities. The

terror threat confronts all of us and we must all confront it

together. But if they want to discuss with us, how we can help

engage all communities in the fight against our common threat of

terrorism, then we would be only too happy to help. I must make progress.

When I was at the Finsbury Park mosque last week, they would have

been concerned that members opposite do not want to take part seriously

in a debate of this nature. I have noted that there was no promise of

further legislation on counterterrorism and we know that

Matt Hill has said that the security services already have enough powers,

we on the side of the House Kincora and it now seems the majority of the

cabinet King Carlos also. But the key issue when it comes to fighting

terrorism remains resources. The party opposite has constantly sought

to betray us as not facing up to the challenges posed by terrorism. But

we, in our duties, whether it is the inner cities, whether it is areas

like London Bridge or Finsbury Park or Manchester, we, in our

communities, says up to the day-to-day threat of terrorism and

disorder and, so nobody takes those issues more seriously than members

on the side of the House. We speak for our communities, we speak for

the parents concerned that their children may be drawn into terrorism

activity and we seek to offer practical remedies, practical

support, we seek to support the government in strategies that do not

run counter to our liberties and community support.

We say that talking tough on terrorism and anti-social behaviour

is cheap. Security like all decent services in any civilised society

costs money. The records show that sends 2010, the Tories have proved

I'm willing to spend what is necessary to keep us safe. We only

have to look at what has happened to police numbers, we only have to look

at what has happened to Border Force officials and we only have to look

at the closures of fire stations and the cuts and fire officers. The

Labour Party is prepared to spend the money, commit the resources to

keep us safe. And, in closing, let me... Closing... In closing let me

say this... The Shadow Home Secretary is not giving way. Diane

Abbott. In closing, let me say this, I said at the beginning that some of

what we do in this House might appear to the public, looking on,

whether they are looking at us on their television screens reading

about it in the newspaper, it might seem to some people that some

members of this House see this as a. We don't... -- see this as a game.

On the side of the House we are fully aware of the fair and the

horror with which the public regards recent terrorist averages and the

fire at Grenfell house. We are talking about practical measures,

real Jim Eadie involvement and above all, the resources to keep our

communities safer. Order, the original question was that an

address be presented to Her Majesty on the order paper, amendment I has

been proposed on the order paper. The request has been that the

amendment be made. I call the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd. Thank you, Mr

Speaker. I can agree with one thing that the right honourable lady has

said and that is that we do agree that the response from the emergency

services to the series of attacks and the tragedy at Grenfell Tower

has been truly heroic. The brave men and women of our emergency services

were able to suppress their own emotions of fear and anger and as

she has said, rushed in to save lives, putting their own on hold and

their own thoughts on hold. The response to the Westminster Bridge

and London Bridge attacks were fantastic. I have had the ability to

meet first-hand paramedics and police officers who were first on

the scene. It is because of their bravery that people are alive today

who otherwise might have perished. The same is true of the Grenfell

Tower fire, lives were saved because of the skills and the sacrifice of

the brave men and women of our emergency services. We wore them a

huge debt of gratitude and we stand behind them. I would say to the

right honourable lady, nobody thinks of this as a game. We want to engage

with you and debate with you because these are important subjects to be

discussed, but we are all serious about what has happened and what

could happen in the future, and what steps we need to take. In terms of

her concerns about cuts to the Fire Service firstly, let me remind you

of some facts. Sorry, remind the House of some facts, Mr Speaker. The

fire crew was only seen in Grenfell Tower within six minutes, and over

200 firefighters responded. Can the Shadow Home Secretary suggest the

numbers were inexcusable? We should also remember that the number of

fire incidents has halved in the last decade but the number of

firefighters has fallen by less than 20%. They do an incredibly good job.

And when it comes to firefighter recruitment, the government does not

recruit fire and police staff, chief officers do and it is up to each

Fire and Rescue Authorities to manage their resources and decide

when and who to recruit. In fact, some fire and rescue services are

reporting an increase in the recruitment of full-time

firefighters. Public safety is an absolute priority for this

government and under my watch, Fire and Rescue Service is and the police

will continue to have the resources that they need to do their important

work. In terms of policing, I will give way in a moment. I want to make

points about resources because the right honourable lady has made some

good points about this and I want to address them. In terms of resources,

let us talk about the police. Since 2015, we have had protected the

police budget. Since 2015, in cash terms, in order to maintain that, it

is correct that the chief officers must maximise their access through

the precept, in order to be able to say that be protected in real terms,

I have to draw attention to the police transformation fund, and this

is one of the differences between the side of the House and that side

of the House. The side of the House know that we must focus on outcomes,

that means continuing the business of police reform, continuing to fund

it through the police transformation fund, because we are most concerned

with outcomes. How do we get the best results for victims, how do we

get the best results for communities? I give way to the right

honourable gentleman. She is right to talk about police

reform, which is important, but it misrepresents the Labour Party say

that we are not interested in that. We introduced police community

support officers whilst in government, and there was a constant

reform. The real point is the party opposite have cut budgets not since

2015 but since 2010, and that has been a massive cut in police budgets

which has affected my constituents in Wrexham. I am delighted to have

the honourable gentleman's support on police reform. He was right that

there were cuts between 2010 at 2015, but we must look at the

outcomes, and crime fell by a third jury that period. I am grateful to

the Home Secretary forgiving way. Can she confirmed that the

commission of the Metropolitan Police, the Head of Counter

Terrorism, the head of the National Crime Agency and the chair of the

police Chiefs Council have written to her as Home Secretary saying that

the counter-terrorism policing and protective security grant will fall

in cash terms by 7.2% over the next two years? I can confirm to the

honourable gentleman that I have received this letter, and I will be

speaking to all those individual leaders of those groups. The issue

they are drawing attention to is because of the events that we have

seen over the past three months. They are under tremendous strain.

There are additional resources being deployed in order to work on the

investigation in Manchester on the ongoing investigations into some of

the terror events, and we recognise that and will be working with them

to see how we can support them going forward. I thank the Minister for

giving way. She mentioned that she felt there were 20% cuts to Fire

Services in the country. On Merseyside the figure is higher.

Since 2011 we have had a loss of nearly 300 firefighters, that is

31%, and one third of fire engines. Both of the fire stations, the only

two in my constituency, closing, which will make the situation less

safe for my constituents, so will she look again at the funding for

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service for my constituency? But I would ask

the honourable lady what are the outcomes in her constituency? What

are the level of fire is taking place? What is the work that they

are doing? I would ask that a first look at the outcomes before coming

straight back for more resources. My right honourable friend is

presumably not wholly taken in by the Shadow Home Secretary posturing

as a defender of people's safety when in 1989 she famously signed an

early day motion calling for the scrapping of MI5 and the

Metropolitan Police's special Branch. It is such an important

point. It is a sad truth that the front bench, not the backbench, I

know, but sometimes the front bench of the opposition have such a poor

record on supporting the people who actually do such great work to keep

us safe. Mr Speaker, I will make some progress first in

interventions. We continue to invest in priorities like the NHS and

national-security because we on this side know it is only with a strong

economy that we can find our NHS, protect our elderly and back

Britain's differences. The speech we heard last Wednesday set out the

Government's legislative agenda for the next two years. It will build on

our strong record of achievement in the last Government,, crime has

fallen by a third, legal highs band, 900 bogus colleges close, police and

intelligence agencies given more powers and tools to keep the public

safe, and ambitious programme of police reform which I'm delighted to

hear we may continue to get some support from the opposition on. 100

metres pounds of funding provided to tackle violence against women and

girls. A proud record on the NHS. NHS spending protected. More

doctors, more nurses, more midwives and more GPs, and last year, the NHS

treated more people than ever before. Now we will build on the

foundations we have laid, working even harder to create a Britain that

works for everyone, and above all else, this is a Government committed

to keeping families, communities and our country safe. Like her, I want

to hear about outcomes, and I know that recently one of the outcomes

for West Midlands Police was that as police officers are pulled away onto

anti-terror alerts and more high alert policing that the call-outs,

the chief constables said the call-outs on other crimes have to be

downgraded, and one of the things that was downgraded was call-outs on

domestic violence. I would say to the honourable lady that the past

three months have seen an extraordinary series of attacks that

have put treasure on our police, and they have dealt incredibly well with

it by having mutual aid coming from different areas to support them. So

we recognise that there has been a particular search. I don't think her

point holds water that we have to operate as though there were this

level of attacks every three months, but I do recognise and I will be

engaging with police chief officers to find out whether they have the

support that we expect them to have despite the additional work that

they need to do. I will make some progress and then I will come back

to more interventions. In the last Parliament, we announced a 30%

increase over five years in Government spending on

counter-terrorism, increasing spending from 11.7 billion to 15.1.

We introduced measures to disrupt the travel of foreign fighters. We

passed the Investigatory Powers Act which gives agencies more powers and

tools they need to keep people safe and secure... Further to her answer

to the lady opposite, does it not increase treasures on police when

there are calls for days of rage and other actions on the streets that

pull the police into London and takeaway resources from areas such

as mine in Hertfordshire that do have to do mutual aid? It is a very

good point. We need to make sure that in this time when we have such

terrible national events taking place that perhaps everybody gives

out the message that we should support our police by having less

protests of that type. I will make some more progress. We also

legislated in the previous Parliament to strengthen our

response to terrorist financing with the common finances act. We have

also projected overall police funding in real terms since 2015 and

funded an uplift in the armed police officers. That is not true! Last

Friday I and a group of MPs from what West Midlands met with the

Police and Crime Commissioners, and they told us the funding for the

police has been cut by ?145 million in the West Midlands, that is 27%,

resulting in officers being reduced by 2164, which is a quarter, and PC

are sos by half, and the closure of Dudley's main police station, so I

would like to ask her whether she would allow myself and a group of my

colleagues to come and talk to her about the terrible level of cuts

that her Government is imposed on West Midlands Police. He puts it so

kindly, I am keen to have a tour, Topic. I would say to him that I

assume that the figures he's looking at are from 2010, when I am

referring to the figures from 2015, which have been protected in cash

and real terms. What I would say to the honourable gentleman is I would

welcome no doubt a visit from him perhaps to my police Minister to go

through the figures and reconcile his thoughts with mine. I don't

think we are going to do it across the House right now. I'm grateful

for the Home Secretary forgiving way. She has said there is an uplift

in armed police officers. Would she recall that the day I left office as

police Minister in 2010, we had 7000 armed police on the streets of

Britain, and we now have 5500, a 20% cut. So will she reflect on that

statement and corrected for the House? I don't particularly recall

that day, but I would say to the honourable gentleman that I stand by

what I say, which is that we are funding a significant armed uplift,

and these are trained on a different level to the ones that he oversaw as

police Minister. These are much more effectively trained to the high

level of counter-terrorism that is required on this level. I am

grateful to my honourable friend. Could she confirm that the way we

now operate police officers is that the old days of a police officer

being an accredited firearms officer has completely changed, and now we

have effectively squads of crack officers properly trained in all

aspects of serious policing who frankly do a far better job than we

have seen for many a long year? My honourable friend is exactly right,

and we are in the process of recruiting in addition to those

armed officers additional security staff. Over 1900 additional security

staff, and in order to combat counter-terrorism, we also work with

technology companies to tackle terrorist and extremist use of their

platforms, and the UK has been leading in driving a global response

on the subject. Leading CSPs announced the formation of an

industry led global Forum to counter-terrorism which they

committed to following a meeting in March. Would the right honourable

lady not agree that in the perfect utopian society you would have no

police at all, as Sir Thomas more would have it? So it is clearly not

about numbers and vast amounts of cash, but effectiveness, would you

not agree? I thank my honourable friend and welcome him to the House,

thank you for his comment about wanting a much more peaceful world,

something we can all endorse. I give way. I'm grateful to the Home

Secretary. I have been listening with great interest to what she has

been saying in her contribution. Surely therefore she would welcome

the private members bill being introduced by my colleague in the

Other Place, which is calling for an independent resource audit the

English and Welsh police forces, and would she offer Government support?

I thank the honourable gentleman for drawing my attention to it, and I

will take a look at it. I look forward to coming back to the right

honourable gentleman, but I will make progress now. In terms of what

else we are to combat terrorism, earlier this month the Prime

Minister and President Akron announced measures to tackle

terrorism on the Internet -- president Ted Mack three.

I think if you see them for yourself, you will find they do a

really positive job in in gauging with communities. In addition,

voluntary tailored programmes of support to people at risk of being

radicalised have supported over a thousand at risk individuals since

2012, but as we have sadly seen with the recent attacks at Westminster,

Manchester, London Bridge and Finsbury Park, the country faces an

increased risk of terrorism. People dead and hospitalised, families torn

apart, communities left grieving. The Government must do everything in

its power did TV the scourge of terrorism, and where we can learn

more and improve, we will. That is why as set out in the gracious

speech, our counter-terrorism approach across government will be

looked at to ensure that the services have what they need to

protect our country. If the review finds that further legislation is

needed, then this House can be assured that we will put this before

Parliament. And as I announced last week, there will also be a separate

review of the handling of recent terror attacks to the good weather

lessons can be learned about our approach to these events. This will

be conducted by the police and MI5, and I have asked David Anderson to

provide independent scrutiny. I am going to continue for a while. We

will establish a new commission to support the Government in

eradicating extremist ideology in all its forms. Britain is a

wonderfully diverse, inclusive and open country, which many people

proudly call home. Time and again, we have seen our communities come

together, demonstrating unwavering acts of kindness, compassion and

support for one another, but Disney's secret that there are those

in Britain who do not share our values, who do not share our

compassion outlook, who despise our way of life and wish to do us harm.

That is what we saw in Finsbury Park, Westminster, London Bridge and

Manchester. Streamers and cannot just be ignored, and neither can it

be explained away. Extremists need to be confronted, and the narratives

they used to weaponised people and breathe this horrific violence need

to be called out and taken head-on, not afforded accommodation. Would

she accept that talk of Islamic extremism in particular is in danger

of being misinterpreted as being too much Islam when of course Islam is

the Arabic word for peace, and the problem is those who perverts,

distort and blaspheme in the name of Islam, and the true Islam was shown

by Imam Mohammed who stood in front of the Keller and said that life is

sacred, and would she not want to pursue a route that says the Islamic

community should work with us to target those who would distort Islam

and correct their interpretation rather than talk about Islamic

extremism, which is in danger of making out that Islam is the

problem. That is a very good point. We all need to choose our words

carefully, but we also need to call out what we believe it is. We should

talk about radical extremist ideology, whether it is Islamic or

far I'd, but we need to be clear that we are equally hostile to both,

and we will take action when either are doing damage to society.

Following up body honourable gentleman has just said about the

use of terminology, does she accept that there is a valuable store of

experience from the past in the way in which agencies tackle the

doctrines of fascism and Nazism and subsequently of Marxism Leninism,

and questions like the use of vocabulary mean that we need a

specialist agency to co-ordinated this effort in the future as we did

successfully in those past instances?

I thank my honourable friend for his contribution. This may be something

the new commission for extremism might want to look at. Since 2015 we

have had a strategy and at the heart of it is a partnership with

communities to make sure we build on British values. We have published a

hate crime action plan and funded additional security measures at over

50 places of worship. We are supporting 53 civil society groups

that are confronting extremism in their communities. But defeating the

evil ideology of extremism is one of the greatest challenges of our time

and there is more that we must be able to do. That is why we will have

the new commission. The commission will support the government to

identify and eradicate extremist ideology in all forms, across

society, online, will work with communities, public and civil sector

groups to promote and defend our democracy, freedom of belief and

expression, the rule of law, mutual respect and opportunity for all. It

will advise the government on what new powers might be needed to tackle

the evolving threat. Work is underway on the design of the

commission. Mr Deputy Speaker, turning to the future immigration

system, the gracious speech included an Immigration Bill. This will allow

the government to end the EU rules of free movement of EU nationals in

the UK, ensuring we have the flexibility to create a fair and

controlled immigration system. It will give us control over the

numbers of people who come to the UK from the EU and welcome those with

the skills and expertise to make the nation better. What these rules

looked like will depend on the needs of the UK and we will consider all

the options of the future system carefully. It is imperative we

understand what the impact could sectors of the economy and the

labour market and we make sure businesses and communities have an

opportunity to contribute their views on any future system. As now,

new immigration rules will be subject to scrutiny by Parliament.

Having-macro an issue that has been annoying many of my EU constituents,

who have been here for many years is whether the government will admit

they will now face an income threshold if they wish to bring a

family member here to the UK and for many of them who are on low incomes,

for example, nurses on band five and below 22,000, they will not be able

to bring a family member here. Can she confirmed that and will she

conduct an investigation? The Prime Minister made her statement about

the EU nationals this week. I would urge her to reassure her

constituents who fall into that cohort, but they maintain those

rides until at least we leave the EU and then after that they will have

two years in which to apply. I cannot give her any more details

more than that in terms of other rights. Those elements of other

rights are subject to discussion with the European Union at the

moment. But I would say the Prime Minister was cleared those 3.2

million are going to be allowed to stay. We have additional discussions

with the EU about elements of those rights, but I hope members will take

that message back to any of their concerned EU citizens in their

constituencies. I will give way. Can she clarify whether it is her

intention that a different set of rules after Brexit will apply to EU

nationals and nationals from outside the EU, who are visiting the United

Kingdom? I would say to the honourable gentleman, those

discussions have not yet concluded. What we have said is they will have

this special right depending on when we negotiate the cut-off date,

whether it is from whether Article 50 was invoked or when we actually

leave the EU, but there will be existing rights in place for all

those who can accumulate the five years and bows, depending when the

cut-off date is, add to it because... I am going to make some

progress. We will also bring forward a domestic violence abuse bill. It

is chilling that everyday women and girls across the UK are being

subjected to the most horrific abuse in their own homes. I am incredibly

proud of the work the Conservative Government has done to support

victims, bring perpetrators to justice and prevent those vicious

crimes from taking place. In the last parliament we published our

strategy to end violence against them in and girls. We made it clear

everyone needs to play their part, friends, family and the police and

we pledged ?100 million funding. We brought in domestic violence

protection orders, and disclosure scheme and a specific offence for

controlling or coercive behaviour. Focus on this crime has contributed

to improvements for women. For the number of people suffering domestic

abuse is too high. There are 2 million victims of domestic abuse

every year in England and Wales and this is 2 million, too many. Too

often, domestic abuse is not properly understood, recognised or

dealt with and it can leave a devastating impact. Our landmark

domestic violence and abuse Bill is aimed at addressing this insidious

crime. I will give way. The bill is very welcome, what will she say to

reassure those who fear that the definition, which is now going to be

produced, may not be strong enough to capture the level of emotional

and financial abuse which terrorises too many women in the UK today? I

know the honourable gentleman has done a lot of work in this area and

I would like to reassure him and stakeholders that we will be

consulting widely to make sure we get it right so it does deliver the

sort of strength of purpose he is referring to. The fact it will

create a legal definition of domestic abuse to ensure it is

properly understood, which will make sure we don't have the same

situation of isolated pieces of domestic violence, not being added

up into a pattern of really grotesque form of domestic violence,

which some women have been subjected to. It will also lead to better

protection and better prosecutions, we believe. It will ensure if

abusive behaviour involves a child the court can hand down a sentence

which reflects the devastating and lifelong impact that abuse can have.

In addition, it will establish a domestic violence and abuse

commissioner who will stand up for victims and survivors, raising

public awareness and holding local authorities to account. I will give

way. Is it possible within the remit of the commission, she could also

look at those victims of domestic violence who subsequently are

subject to a new form of abuse, which is a constant return to court

by ex-partners demanding extra access to the children? This is a

way of intimidating, bullying and impoverishing many of those who have

the children in their care? Yes, absolutely and that is the sort of

issue I would expect us to look at in this domestic violence Bill, to

make sure that abuse doesn't take place. We want to be a society where

domestic abuse isn't tolerated, where victims feel safe and

supported and perpetrators are punished and we look out for the

situation the honourable lady has just raised. Victims deserve the

best treatment and justice than we will make sure they get it. I have

the opposition will support this. Turning to have, as the government

continues to strengthen economy, we can continue to invest in the NHS.

Supporting the public service on which we all depend. As we have set

out in our manifesto we have increased health spending by ?8

billion a year in real terms by the end of parliament. Well-being is

just not being strong in body, it is being strong in mind. This

government recognises mental health should be given equal priority to

physical health. That is why we will consider a reform of mental health

legislation and it is prioritised in the NHS. We have been looking at the

Mental Health Act to make sure the law is working for those who need

support and we will be publishing a Green paper on children are young

people'smental health to make sure best practice is being applied and

there is sufficient access to support. In ten years, there will be

2 million more people over the age of 75 and it is essential they will

be able to live well and get the care they need. The government has

invested an additional ?2 billion into social care to relieve

pressure, but more needs to be done, which is why the government is

committed to listening to views on how to reform the system. Plans will

be consulted on in due course. This is a government with purpose,

determined to deliver the best Brexit deal to secure a strong

future as we leave the EU. I will give way. My right honourable friend

will know there is much concern on both sides of the House about the

situation for women who live in Northern Ireland, seek terminations,

who cannot get them over in Northern Ireland, come to England but find

themselves getting charged by the NHS. Can she give an undertaking

that access for those terminations will not be affected and women can

still come here from Northern Ireland and get that treatment? She

is absolutely right, we are committed to health care for women

and that includes access to terminations. We are a government

with purpose, I am sure the right honourable gentleman will have an

opportunity to speak at the end of this debate! We are determined to

secure the best Brexit deal, determined to bring the United

Kingdom closer together. Intent on building a strong economy and fairer

society, taking action to keep families, communities and the

country safe. I am not going to give way, the honourable lady will have

the chance to make her own remarks. We will be challenging extremism,

protecting the vulnerable, giving mental health the attention it

deserves and improving social care for the long-term. Putting ourselves

up the service of millions of ordinary working people, for whom we

will work every day in the national interest. Setting out a programme

for a Britain that works for everyone. I rise to address matters

pertaining to security arising from the speech. My honourable friend

will address health matters later. As I do so, I speak to the SNP's

amendments to remove Scottish Fire and rescue from VAT without delay. I

am hoping they will support the Labour Party amendment. The SNP have

consistently opposed the party opposite's austerity agenda and the

manner of which we won the election in Scotland, indicated that in these

times, the PEI cap is no longer attainable. On the matter of police

and Fire Service cuts, the Scottish Government has not impose the sort

of cuts that have been seen south of the border. I will come to that

later. I want to look in particular at the proposals for a counter

extremism commission, the proposals to review whether the police and

security services have the powers they need and concerns I and my

party hold about the scope of the repeal bill, particularly for

justice and home affairs issues. I also want to address the potential

impact of Brexit on our security arrangements. The European Union

enables European nations to come together, not just for the economic

and social good, but to tackle crime and terrorism in the interest of all

citizens across Europe. Last year, Rob Wainwright, the current British

director of Europol, in the event of Britain new leaving the European

Union, it would be difficult to negotiate security packs and trying

to do so would be a damage limitation exercise. We have yet to

hear any detail about how the government proposes to address this

problem. We need to look at it closely. The Scottish National Party

has welcomed the Prime Minister's change in tone and rhetoric

following the attack at Finsbury Park. We were very pleased to hear

the Prime Minister are quite all forms of extremism and we hope that

signals the beginning of an approach by the government that will not

single out any particular group in our community for counter extremism

or terrorism measures, because we believe measures to counter

extremism are important, but they must not be allowed to create

division amongst our diverse communities across the United

Kingdom. We continue to be concerned that despite the government's failed

attempts to introduce a counter extremism and terrorism bill in the

last Parliament, they have yet to offer any legal or definition of

extremism or British values. We are concerned that the new plan in the

speech to establish a commission to look at these measures risks

bypassing parliamentary scrutiny and the need for legal certainty on

these very nebulous terms of extremism and British values. I was

pleased to hear the Home Secretary said in response to a question from

me last week, any recommendations the commission brings forward will

be fully scrutinised by this Parliament. We have already heard

about the prevent strategy which has been controversial and concerns have

been raised about its implementation. Can I respectfully

suggest the UK Government look how we have implemented the prevent

strategy in Scotland as a model on how things might be improved. The

counter terrorism is a reserved issue, the implementation of

policies to counter extremism is the responsibility of the devolved

institutions and in Scotland we have worked hard to recognise we have

diverse communities and they must all be allies in ensuring all our

citizens are safe and the prevent delivery in Scotland has benefited

from positive relationships, fostered with all communities in

Scotland through years of regular engagement.

We recognise that the way people are radicalised is changing, so we must

remain vigilant and refresh our approach accordingly but continue to

to work with the communities rather than against them in making sure

terrorist messages will not resonate. Can I turn now to the

question of whether the police and security services have all the

powers but they need? We in the SNP believe they do have sufficient

powers at their disposal, but the parliament to be looking at whether

the police and security services have sufficient resources to fight

terrorism. I'm fortified in that view by the quote from Max Hill, QC,

when he said my view coming into the scrutiny, which we were told to the

PM was to conduct, we do have the appropriate laws in place and that

essentially the police and security services and those whose job it is

to keep us save happy powers at their disposal. Mr Deputy Speaker,

our police and security services... It is already a crime to incite

violence, those suspected of terrorist activity can be searched,

and those imprisoned and convicted of plotting attacks can be locked up

for life, so we have the powers. During the passage of the

investigatory power bill, the Scottish National Party urged that

the Government should concentrate its resources on robust and targeted

surveillance of suspects rather than subjecting the whole population to

bank its suspicion list surveillance. During the election

campaign and after the terrible terrorist atrocities, the prime

Minster rightly faced a very difficult questions about the

resources she is putting into targeted surveillance. The Prime

Minister was Home Secretary. In years and it is clear her influence

is still holds sway, for example in the immigration targets which

continue to be missed. The Prime Minister must face up to her

responsibility for cuts to police budgets and police numbers in

England which have been dictated by her party's narrow austerity

measure. It is not have to be this way, Mr Deputy Speaker. In Scotland,

the Scottish Government have increased police numbers, and in

particular have invested in the number of trained police armed

responders whilst still balancing our budget. Mr Speaker, we have been

able to do that despite the UK Government's repeated refusal to

remove the burden of VAT from police Scotland. Police Scotland is the

only territorial police authority in the United Kingdom are unable to

recover VAT. I and my Scottish Government colleagues have

repeatedly raised this with the UK Government. I wrote to the minister

about the issue earlier this year. The SNP have tabled an amendment

calling on the Government to rectify this anomaly and we call them a game

to do that today. They recently rectified the anomaly for a number

of national bodies full stop now it is time to do it for police

Scotland. But notwithstanding, the Tory Government failure to rectify

that anomaly, the contrast between Scotland and the UK in policing

terms could not be starker. 20,000 police officers have been lost in

England, but in Scotland we have maintained 1000 more than the number

we inherited when the in-house and the first came into power in 2007

and we have also increased fire and police others. In the days following

the Manchester attack, police Scotland were able to provide

heightened cover aren't policing without having to call on resources

of the military. We have also protected the police resource budget

since 2011, in England, the Home Office has cut the amount it has

spent on pleasing by 20%. It is time for the party is a pitch to

diverging attention from that when the resulting of police and

emergency services and followed the Scottish Government's lead in giving

these services the resources they need. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have

already said that international corporation is essential to keep

Scotland in the rest of the UK from the threats from cyber crime and

terrorism. In this Parliament, SMP will... We will oppose any moves to

use security cooperation as a bargaining chip in negotiations with

our European friends and neighbours. It is too important for that. The

Gracious Speech promised a new law concerning protection of personal

data. We will not be able to continue with our EU colleagues

unless we are protected with EU laws. In practice, there will be

limits to how closely the UK and the EU 27 can work together if we in the

United Kingdom are no longer accountable or subject to the

oversight and adjudication of supranational institutions such as

the European Court of juices. The European Court of Justice took a dim

view of the provisions for the's as many of us have warned would occur

when the bill was going through the house. If the UK does not comply

with EU law on data sharing and produces protection, our former

partners will not be able to share information with us under the laws

by which they are bad. That would be a disaster for security cooperation

and a disaster for business and universities and research. I am a

little concerned that the Gracious Speech does not mention any specific

pieces of legislation in relation to many of these areas of home affairs,

and they confirmed that the repeal Bill will include powers allowing

changes from negotiations to leave the hoof. It is vital that ministers

and civil servants is and not handed vast powers to change our legal

landscape without scrutiny, particularly in relation to security

matters. It is also vital that with home affair matters, I'm delighted

that the Prime Minister, the secretaries of State and Secretary

of State for Scotland have now indicated that legislative consent

will be put for the repeal Bill. Finally I want to return to human

rights protections. During the election campaign, the Prime

Minister spoke about ripping up human rights to fight terrorism. I

suspect this attack was an attempt to distract from her own security

failings and the impact of policing cuts in England. I renew my request

to the Home Secretary to confirm there is nothing in the Human Rights

Act of the European Convention of human rights that would stop a

robust approach to terrorism and will she please today confirmed

there are no funds to terror human rights to tackle terrorism. I remind

her that the UNHCR affected... These are condom entry and mutually

reinforcing objectives which must be pursued together as part of the

state's duty to protect people in their jurisdiction. Terrorism is a

fundamental attack on our way of life and we must response robustly

and appropriately, but it is times like this that human rights must be

protected and cherished and not attacked and undermined. The

announcement by the Crown Prosecution Service today in

relation to Hillsborough, we have seen the prospect of justice being

brought about after many years after the Human Rights Act 20. Proper

enquiry into the Hillsborough disaster. If we report human rights

in this country, we undermine the traditions that we stand for and

share in this House, and we play into the terrorist's hands. Thank

you Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to start by extending on behalf of all

of my constituents our most profound sympathy to the victims and their

families of the horrific events of the recent attacks in Manchester,

when Rudd West Minster bridge and the appalling Grenfell Tower fire. I

think the decree was profoundly struck by the immediate inclination

of people throughout the country to offer comfort and support to those

in desperate need. It is I believe, Mr Deputy Speaker, incumbent on all

of us to measure our language as we come to deal with these events. I

wish to place on record my deep shock at the words that the Shadow

Chancellor has recently used that the fire at Grenfell Tower amounted

to murder. That was an inexpressibly appalling thing to say. In a

civilised society that can be no room for this kind of talk. It is

not normal, it is not politics as usual. It is disgraceful and

intolerable. All of us in public life have a duty to measure with

care what we say in an era of brutal untruths and to try and retain the

language of reason and proportion. So in this Queen's speech, it is a

moment the Government to set out its programme. I believe for the rest of

the country to regain its sense of balance. I want, as do my

constituents, to see our Government exercise resolution, prudence,

integrity and humility at a very difficult time in our affairs. I

want the Government to also exercise what Field Marshal Lord Montgomerie

rightly called the's and have determination and energy. I place on

record that I think our Prime Minister has all of these qualities

in abundance and I commend and strongly support her. If they manage

to do that, my constituents, to who I am most grateful for their

confidence, will be content. Quite apart from the immense complexities

and difficulties and grave uncertainties of the Brexit

negotiations. This country has more than its fair share of major issues

What is it in our system that seems to mean we cannot arrive at a sane

national plan like other countries that deals effectively, humanely and

decently with care for the elderly in all its complexity. I say get on

and do it and work across all the parties and with all expertise that

this country has to get this done. Incidentally generally speaking I

worry very much about the denigration of expertise at all

levels one and a deeply complicated world demands it more than ever. On

many issues on reform to the care of elderly, on housing policy, on

prison reform, on skill shortages, on nursing and leadership in the

NHS, all of these are issues which cannot be shirked any longer. The

Government must exercise its world to see that these matters are dealt

with. The speech sets out a good way ahead to promote fairness and

transparency in the housing market and to tackle unfair practice in the

energy market to secure good properly funded schools, a very

important issue in Mid Sussex. Highways jobs for the skills and an

increased living wage for those in work. I think our constituents

expect us to see to it that this is all done as well as an unrelenting

effort to continue building of a strong economy in the safe hands of

my right honourable man the Chancellor and the more obvious

return to the Conservative facts of life. Mr Deputy Speaker in my 34

years here, I do not think ever seen a way ahead that is more complex or

more difficult for our country than it is now. In particular the ongoing

low-level of education achievements into many parts of this country. A

separate lap of skills, low wages for too many, geographic, economic

and wealth inequality and intergenerational into inequality

and a very naive approach indeed to international trade relations. If we

have to leave the single market, obviously that restricts us from

accessing the world's most skilled peoples and unless a good way is

found to resolve this then it will further negatively influence our

productivity. This is relevant to many of our industries and of course

for our universities which are widely regarded as some of the very

best in the world. Although Mr Deputy Speaker my views on

immigration are well known, I have to say that in my judgment,

persisting with the inclusion of students in the immigration targets

makes no economic sense whatsoever and surely it is absolute madness to

have halved our student intake from dynamic India to the benefit of

America in Germany. Whatever happens in Brexit, we should be wanting to

attract even more of these talented young people to our country and this

is all of the peace with Britain retaining a global view of the

world. Mr Deputy Speaker Britain seriously lacks key skills, there is

a grave shortage of graduates in engineering and science made all the

more acute due to the clamp-down on immigration which I have to tell my

friend is already dissuading important young talent to come in to

these shores as any employer of Ph.D. 'S will confirm. I have a

suggestion in this rich at -- in this regard, they should scrap

tuition fees for the core subjects, all of which are critical for our

survival as our transition from the industrial to the digital world goes

on at pace. A fact hardly seeming to appear on the Government's radar.

Finally may I make a respectful suggestion to the House of Commons

and to the Government. I think pretty much all of us in this house

Mr Deputy Speaker are deeply concerned about the question of

trust in public life. The Government has a very difficult tasks ahead and

they need to remember that competence generates trust and

respect. I want that to be the aim. To be a competent and effective

government and therefore they trust of the people who did and did elect

us. Yvette Cooper. Thank you Mr Speaker, it's good to follow my

partner who makes a good speech. Can I join the shadow secretary in

paying tribute to our police force and emergency services who have

dealt with so many difficult incidents in the last few weeks and

also our sympathies are the victims, both of the terror attacks and the

grand for fire. -- Grenfell fire. This speech follows on, from the

Prime Minister as if nothing has changed when in fact it is a lot has

changed and the Prime Minister called the election wanting a

landslide and instead has a hung parliament. And that means that this

parliament must work differently and that it means the Queen's speech has

to respond differently as well. Many people want to speak the debate

today so I will keep my remarks short and concentrate on two areas

were think the Government needs to change course as a result of the

hung that has been delivered to us by the electorate. First on public

services, and second on the approach to the Brexit negotiations. Mr

Deputy Speaker, this week the Government recognised the importance

of investing more in public services in Northern Ireland. It has rightly

supported additional investments in school, in hospitals in Belfast,

what about a Birmingham Bristol or in many other parts of the country?

I would support the DUP's call for more investment to stop school cuts

in Portadown but I also want to stop the school cuts in Pontefract as

well. They are right to support for jobs in County Down, but what about

places across the rest of the country as well? The Government

cannot say to parents, patients, people needing support from police

officers that as a result of a hung parliament, that they will have to

face further cuts, teachers being lost, services being squeezed, but

those in Northern Ireland can still have additional funding and cannot

say to Crowley, to the police chiefs to everyone doing a magnificent job

under difficult circumstances and who are overstretched, that somehow

the Government can find ?1 billion to support Northern Ireland's and to

support the Government keeping its own jobs but cannot support the

additional resources that the police and emergency services need to

support their jobs at this difficult time as well. And that is why I

think the Government has to rethink. It would be easy to decide now to

not go ahead with the cuts and the capital gains tax. Instead to cancel

those and put that investments into additional police officers on our

street instead. For the Government also to recognise that if we care

about recruitment and retention in our public services, especially in

the national Health Service were in many parts of the country they are

struggling to recruit nurses and doctors that they need, to continue

with this public service pay cap will make it harder for all of our

services to get the talented staff that they need and in the end

that'll cost all of us including the governments more in the long run. In

the second area where I think the Government will need to change

course is in its approach to the Brexit negotiations. Britain voted

for Brexit in the referendum and parliament has voted to trigger

Article 50 but the Prime Minister did not win the free hand that she

wanted for the Brexit negotiations. She asked Fritz Lee voters said no

so that means that they need to change their approach to the

negotiations as well. If we are to get a deal which is not only the

best for our culture but also sustainable and does not unravel in

a few years' time, that is not undermined because there are so much

disagree with not just in the House that across the country then there

has to be an effort to build a consensus around the deal as well.

Not just to get an agreement in Europe to build the consensus across

Britain which is why I would urge the Government to not just keep

pursuing negotiations through a narrow alley that to open up the

process and to set a cross-party commission to hold the Brexit

negotiations. Or to find otherwise of including more voice some more

transparency, to strengthen the power so the select committee for

Brexit and this house can properly have its say as well. I know that

that does me difficult woes are working and it's a challenge for the

frontbenchers with sexually both front benches and the whole house

would benefit if we find a different way to do this. I'm very grateful

for the honourable lady giving way, as usual she's making very powerful

persuasive speech. I agree with what she says that would she extend that

to give the Scottish and Welsh government a place and a say in the

negotiations to leave the EU? I do certainly think the governments of

both Scotland and Wales needs to be involved and in Northern Ireland to

because this has to be something that works for the whole of the

United Kingdom. I think that is possible but only if all sides of

the houses or frontbenchers behave in a different way and recognises

the responsibility on us by the parliaments we have been given. It

means the Great Repeal Bill that the Government will be wanting to put

forward, through Henry VIII powers because in a hung parliament the

legislature cannot hand over huge power to the executive, the

legislature itself must be involved in the decision step by step along

the way. The Right Honourable Member for Mid Sussex was right when he

said that the course before us is more complex than anything he or I

can remember at any time and with a hung parliament we will have to work

differently but that has to start with the Government and I would urge

them to do so today. To start by changing course on public services,

to change public sector pay and supporting public sector workers but

also to change course in the approach to Brexit and doing so in a

way that builds consensus and not division, that ought to be the

spirit of what the Prime Minister has said. Doctor Julie Lewis. Thank

you Mr Deputy Speaker, it's an honour to be re-elected once again

to represent the lovely New Forest East constituency. I'm sorry to

interrupt, I should've announced there is a time limit of six minutes

and that is in order to accommodate as many people who want to speak as

possible. Just six minutes starts now. I would at least benefit from a

few extra seconds. Now there is plenty to welcome in the speech from

the prioritisation of mental health to the forthcoming visit of the King

and queen of Spain which will give us all the chance to show that our

friendship with that great country is as enduring and immovable as the

Rock of Gibraltar. I will touch however on to other aspects of the

Queen speech and these will not come as a surprise to the colleagues who

know my own areas speciality. The first is the reiteration of the

Government 's's pledge to continue to meet the Nato commitment to spend

at least 2% of national income in defence. I'm sorry to say it is not

enough. One of the things that the Defence Select Committee managed to

establish through a great deal of hard work and original research by

its professional and dedicated staff, was the comparison over the

decades of what had happened to defence as regards the Graaf showing

something very different for other high spending subjects. And so we

found that in the early 1960s, we spent similar sums, about 6% of GDP

on welfare as on defence. Now we spend six times as much on welfare

as we spend on defence. In the mid-19 80s, we spent similar sums at

about 5% of GDP on education, on health and on defence. Now we spend

two and a half times as much on education and nearly four times as

much on health as we spend on defence. At the height of East West

confrontation every year from 1981 until 1987 we spent between 4.3 and

5.1% of GDP on defence. And yet, even after the Cold War had

finished, even as late as the financial year 1995-96, we were

spending 3% of GDP on defence and we were not including things like war

pensions and MOD civil service pensions.

I happily give way. I thank the former chair of the select, he for

giving way. He liked me was at a dinner last night where it was

pointed out that 2% without pensions and all the other bizarre thing is

that this government ads in to get us to 2%, France will be spending 56

billion on defence and Germany, when it gets to 2%, will be at 70

billion. We are at 36 billion. How can we hold our heads up high and

say we can defend ourselves with sums like that? The honourable Lady

is a staunch defender of everything to do with different in this country

in addict is right and it is a measure of the management downwards

of our expectation is that we are supposed to ring the church bells in

triumph at not falling below the bare minimum that Nato members are

supposed to achieve. We really do have to rethink this, we really

should be looking at 3% of GDP and not this bare minimum of 2%. But I

mainly want to move on to what it said in the Queen's speech about the

creation of a commission for countering extremism to support the

government, it says, in stamping out extremist ideology in all its forms

both across society and on the Internet so it is denied a safe

place to spread. That implies, but it is not explicit hummer that this

new body is going to be some form of executive agency and what I want to

hear from the front bench is that that will be the case. Because at

the moment we are approaching a key point where it looks likely that the

territory seized by Isil-Daesh is going to be retaken from it. And

that will rightly be hailed as a considerable achievement that we

need to remember that only a few years ago no one had heard about

Isil-Daesh and everybody was overwhelmingly concerned with

Al-Qaeda. I would suggest that went Isil-Daesh has been removed from its

territory, and it was unusual that a terrorist organisation could seize

territory because by doing that it gave up the advantage of

invisibility which is what most terrorist organisations make maximum

use of, so when that Isil-Daesh moment has passed, there will be

other groups which will take its place, perhaps fighting in different

areas and perhaps not trying to seize territory. This will go on and

on as long as there is no effective response to the underlying ideology.

This is not the first time there has been talk of commissions of this

sort. Back in 2013 David Cameron had a task force on countering extremism

and ideology and on that occasion also evidence was taken. But I

really believe that any future successful plan needs to draw on the

similar threats that we faced and overcame in the past. As I said in

an intervention earlier, there were huge agencies that were called into

existence to counter other totalitarian ideologies. This rather

massive book was never meant to be published, it is called The Secret

History Of Pwe which was the political warfare executive, it was

a classified history of all the work in bid to counter fascist and Nazi

ideology and it was only published in 2002. Similarly there was an

organisation, the information research department at the Foreign

Office that worked on a grand scale to counter the poisonous ideology of

Marxism Leninism. What we need today is something equally wide-ranging,

equally proficient and equally capable of answering the thoughtful

interjection of the honourable member from Swansea West when he

talked about the vocabulary we should use, whether it is Islamic,

un-Islamic, or only violent extremism, we need an agency to do

that and until we get that and it operates to scale, we will continue

to have groups cropping up to implement the ideology. We don't

want that to happen. It is always a pleasure to follow the honourable

gentleman from New Forest East and as he discusses the issue around

this new commission for countering terrorism I look forward to debating

with him and many other members and listening to what the government has

had to say at this an important initiative and we need to get it

right. As this house debate any issue around security and home

affairs come not just today but in the coming weeks and months, we have

to recognise what has happened in the last few weeks. With the

terrorist outrages in Manchester and London Bridge and the Muslim welfare

house at Finsbury Park and of course the tragedy at rental tower. Those

issues and how this house response to it will be a measure of whether

this parliament is serving the British people properly. As I look

at this Queen's speech and try to address some of the dues and others

that will occupy this Parliament there are three things I want to

bring out. One is sovereignty, one is security and one is regulation.

On sovereignty, as we debate the issues around Brexit, it seems to me

that we need to recognise that criminals, terrorists that organised

crime, do not recognise borders. They love borders, they can hide

from justice, they can seek succour. So how we as a country keep our

people safe and secure will partly be determined in how we work with

other countries. In the European Union we had developed over a period

of time a set of organisations and policies and systems that was

keeping our people safe, Europol, the European criminal record

information system, the Schengen information system, the European

Arrest Warrant, these were systems and policies which helped our people

and court terrorist and rapists and murderers. And as we debate our

future relationship with these very important crime-fighting systems, we

have to get it right. Some have said during the Brexit debate that we

will still be part of those, don't worry. I do worry. I went to Europol

in 2000 and met the head, Rob Wainwright, a Brit, who was a MI5

agent. He led and lead that organisation very well but after

Brexit it will not be a Brit leading Europol. And in the setting up of

these institutions the British government over a period of time and

parties of all different colours were absolutely at the centre of

developing the rules for these crime-fighting mechanisms. We will

not be after Brexit. I really worry about how these will evolve and it

is a very important discussion. I also worry of course about the

government's position on the European Court of Justice which

manages issues around these European crime-fighting institutions. The

rejection of the European Court of Justice is a serious mistake by the

government and I think they will come to rue it. But as we talk about

security, these European cooperation systems are fundamental but also is

the need for more police. We heard from the Shadow Home Secretary, the

mess that the current government has made in the police. We have heard

from the Met Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick, that this is a

serious situation and I consider the government can quote figures after

figures but if they look at what is happening in our constituencies,

they will note the effect the cuts are having on police on the ground

and in my own constituency since May 2015 we have lost nearly 10% of

police officers which is having a big impact and crime is going up.

That is the real impact and the government has got to stop these

police cuts. In the Queen's speech we have seen this the most -- a

proposed commission for countering extremism. It does beg many

questions. Will it be independent? Will it be accountable to this

house? Will it reach out to all groups who want to help the

government fight extremism and will it look at all causes of extremism?

Extremism must have multiple causes of course, common sense suggests

that if the case, whether it is terrorist groups recruiting, hate

preachers, there are many causes of extremism but there is one cause I

want to focus on briefly and that is Islamophobia. Islamophobic is rife

in our country. We don't speak out enough against it. British Muslims

play an incredibly important and positive role in our society but

that is rarely recognised. And in the media above all the way they are

reported by some newspapers makes it seem as if British Muslims are the

enemy within. This house needs to speak out against those press barons

who allow that to be reported. In the sun we had a headline a few

months ago, one in five British Muslims sympathies for jihadis. The

Prez relate it said that was significant that Maccabi press

regulator said that was significantly misleading but the

headline still come. These headlines are irresponsible and when the Prime

Minister and Home Secretary meets newspaper editors I hope this will

be number one on their list because if we are not countering

Islamophobia we're not working against one of the issues that is

creating extremism. My last point is on regulation. We challenge the

weight we debate regulations are not always bad, many are superb. I am

afraid Conservatives have an ideological block on some

regulations. I was once told by NMP that regulations were communist. I

told him that thou shalt not kill was a good revelation and it was

brought in before Marx and Lenin. It is a pleasure to follow the Right

Honourable member for Kingston and Surbiton. When the NHS was launched

in July 1948 it was on three core principles. That it should meet the

needs of everyone, that it should be free at the point of delivery and

that it should be based on clinical need and not the ability to pay and

those in continue to serve as very well and are supported across this

house and had been reinforced by the NHS Constitution. The extraordinary

success of the NHS and public health has been in delivering an increase

in life expectancy and seeing many people survive into adulthood who,

even when I qualified as a doctor many years ago, would not have

survived. But it leaves all of us with a team responsible at it and a

challenge to make sure we can continue to provide and meet the

needs of everybody as we move forward into the coming decades.

What I would like to see is the Right Honourable Lady opposite

pointed out about the importance of joint working across this house, as

we have a different parliamentary arithmetic, I agree with her and I

would also like to extend that to the way we talk about funding of

health and social care. It is my view that we can no longer... Of

course I give weight. I thank the honourable lady for giving way. I

would like to tell her about Pauline who told me last week about her mum

who is 79 and has dementia, heart failure, suffers seizures, is unable

to eat or go to the toilet or address on her own and she agreed it

was a scandal that need resolving because she has been denied a funded

care place in a care home. The honourable lady makes a very

important point and the case she illustrates is something we will all

the across this house in our surgeries but what I would say to

her is that we will not resolve this by having constant arguments about

how we are going to achieve this. We must agree across the house how we

are actually going to provide sustainable long-term funding. I

would commend the work of the House of Lords select committee on

providing long-term sustainable funding for health and social to and

I very much welcome in the gracious speech of the commitment from

ministers to look at sustainable solutions for social care but I

would call on the government to extend that to health and social

care because if we continue to look at these two systems in isolation,

we fail exactly the kind of patients and individuals that the honourable

lady opposite has referred to. I do hope that we will see that because

again, the parliamentary arithmetic of this place is such that there is

an additional responsibility for all of us to say, what can be achieved

by the end of this Parliament? What can we achieve when the NHS reaches

its 70th birthday next year? I would say that by working together we can

achieve something really remarkable and I call on all members from all

parties to work to make that happen. I would also very much welcome in

the Queen's speech the draft patient safety bill. And I welcome the

proposals within it but I would say to the Secretary of State that there

is something we also need to get to grips with here and that is the

impact of the workforce and the workforce challenge across health

and social get on patient safety. I agreed with the points that have

been made that it is time for us to think again about the impact of the

public sector pay cap. Because there is no doubt in my mind that seven

years of this cap are now having a significant impact on morale within

the health service. And across our wider public sector. And again, I

think the change in the parliamentary arithmetic and the

message we have had from the electorate is very clear on this.

They do value our public services and they do want to see this

addressed and I think that one of the ways we will address the

recruitment and retention and morale is by delivering them a fair pay

settlement. I hope we can make further progress on that. Again, we

only achieve the funding that is required for that by realistic

cross-party working. What we saw during the election campaign and the

manifesto was actually something that did try to address the issues

of intergenerational fairness in how we fund these services and it may be

that as we go board and look realistically at how we are going to

fund our public services that we need to take ideas from all parties

in order to achieve what we want to achieve so that we can do something

about public sector pay and improve the

One area I would like to touch on is around mental health and could start

by declaring a personal interest in that I'm married to a consultant

psychiatrist who is registrar of the Royal College of psychiatrists. I

very much welcome that this is the party that legislated the parity of

esteem but what we do know is that parity of esteem needs to be

translated into practice. We need to say parity of esteem translated into

the welcome extra funding being put into mental health actually reaching

the front line and delivering. I'm very pleased to see the proposals of

the... I had the Secretary of State will look at the select committee

health and education committees and look at the proposals and the

suggestions that we have seen within that. I also hope that the Secretary

of State will look again the select committee at suicide prevention.

Suicide remains the single biggest cause of death in men under the age

of 50 and for young people of both sexes. This is a core challenge

going forward, one issue we identified is something that is also

within the proposals and that is how we involve the families of those who

have serious mental health challenges in their care and

treatment. That doesn't mean running roughshod over the important

principles of confidentiality, very often these are simple things like

making sure health professionals are aware of the consensus statement on

how you actually achieve consent. I also hope that we can make further

progress and I welcome the progress we have made so far on reducing the

use of cells as a wholly inappropriate place of safety for

those with mental health problems. There is far more we can do in terms

of improving mental health and also we have excellent proposals in the

five-year forward view, this is all about implementation and I urge the

Secretary of State to do everything that he can to make sure the money

reaches the front line, that there is transparency about that and

that's what we can make further progress. Thank you Mr Deputy

Speaker and could I say it is a pleasure to follow the Honourable

Member for tartness to in the last Parliament shared the health select

committee. It is widely accepted that the adult sector is in a crisis

in the UK. Over recent years funding has fallen and the demand has risen

and the sector has not kept up the pace. The Queen 's speech has failed

to address long-term funding by the crisis that is currently

overwhelming the care sector and the NHS as well. Hospitals and surgeries

for, social care is on its knees and staff are working under impossible

conditions with a system struggling to cope. The choice to provide less

funding is compromising safe staffing levels. They talk about

providing extra funding but this is set against the backdrop of enforced

savings in the NHS which far in excess of the extra money they keep

us that the NHS is going to get. However to look at social care is

simply care for the elderly is simply wrong and counter-productive.

Social care in 2015 - 16, nearly 33% were under the age of 65. They

account for almost 50% of expenditure in social care, working

age adults with a learning disability accounted for 33% of

total expenditure at almost ?4.6 billion per year. What we need to do

is recognise the full cost of social care and how those costs are going

to be met. I have to say in the last fading few months of the Labour

government the tripartite talks on ministers on how we could meet the

cost of social care. Both members of the set, the Right Honourable Member

for emphasised we needed to take control. I have to say if there is

any example that shows we need to take control, it was the shambolic

mess the Conservatives got into during the general election

campaign. Is there going to be a cap or not. We need to take national

action in relation to this, the sooner the better. Another couple of

points, as a past officer I would urge the Government to publish the

new Tobacco control plan. We have been waiting 18 months for this.

Smoking rates among adults and children have fallen by target

levels and rates of smoking during pregnancy are below 10%. That is why

Britain is a world leader in Tobacco control with the UK coming top in

control policies and passing legislation that goes further. I

don't know if he shares my concern but when the EU Tobacco directive

included faith think that that improvement he is now seen may well

tail off as it is becoming more difficult to take up fading and get

themselves off cigarettes. We have gone far better off than the

European directors have told us today. My understanding is the new

Tobacco control plan will have they ping in it and national NHS England

have told us it is 95% safer than using cigarettes and that is a fact.

There are some 2.8 million people who smoke, it is thus a way to get

into in, who have voluntarily gone on to and we need to make sure the

action plan for tobacco recognises that and more will need to be done.

That might mean in public places as well have to say. I will give away

for the last time. I declare an interest, is it not only healthier

and safety, isn't it an issue of social justice because it is far

cheaper to complete than smoke. I have to say some people who say they

don't like vaping because it is owned by tobacco companies are

wrong. I have been running against tobacco companies and they are wrong

to choose that attitude. Mr Speaker I wonder if the right honourable

gentleman was aware that of course the European tobacco products

directive introducing, making more difficult for vaporising was

introduced by a petition Labour Member of the European Parliament

and the Conservatives at the time made exactly this point is that it

would restrict it. I am aware of it and I'm also aware that is good for

public health and I support it. Can I move on very quickly and one area

the NHS has contributed to smoking cessation is in huge network of

community farms which is an area treated I believe in a very shoddy

manner by the last government. In January of this year the group I'd

shared launch an investigation into the Government 's's reforms of

community pharmacies and the reforms dented confidence in the sector and

raised questions about the Government 's commitment. The group

heard that community pharmacies can address the biggest challenges and

we made recommendations as an all-party group that would help

strengthen the ability to serve patients and mitigate negative

impacts of reforms. The overriding priority is for community pharmacies

and the Government to come together to develop and realise a shared

vision of clinical services in community pharmacies. I hope the

Government will take heed of the report and work constructively with

the can the sector. Reforms have gone through and there has been a

decrease of money into NHS pharmacies and money to take stock.

I want to finish that section and say in the 2012 social care act, the

Government gave responsibility for governments to reduce health and

equality -- health inequalities and population health and running down

our pharmacy sector community is not the way to do that. They should be

working as health professionals and help improve populations, to keep

the pressure off the NHS. I have one minute now and I just want to say

nearly all of the work that is performed by our superb staff in the

NHS, we are all aware of staff morale remaining very low and the

situation has been worsened by the return cuts to pay to the Government

's's pay cap. Estimates say currently that between 2010 and 2016

over ?4.3 billion was cut from NHS staff salaries, these other people

that treated terrorist attacks and the people who treated the five

victims a few weeks ago. No more of this. The Government should remove

the pay cut to retain and attract staff to address the workforce

shortage and to ensure stay the -- safer patient care. I will support

the amendment if it is put to the helps. -- the House. It is a

pleasure to follow on from the honourable Member who made some

extraordinarily sensible points. May take this opportunity to associate

myself behalf of my constituents in East Devon with the earlier tributes

paid to victims of Grenfell Tower and the terrorist attacks and also

pay tribute to the extraordinary work of the emergency services and

NHS staff for their incredible efforts. Mr Deputy Speaker, in the

2017 speech, the only mention on social care was that my ministers

worked to improve social care and will bring forward proposals for

consultation. This is in line with the revised section of the 2017

Conservative manifesto. There have been no more plans announced of the

details or when it will be published so when the green paper is published

it will be vital that elderly people will be given a fair chance to

respond and to put their views forward. While the system needs to

be fixed, it is incumbent I believe to have a frank and honest

conversation on how we fund and provide social care to the most

vulnerable in our society. This issue has been kicked into the long

grass for too long. I have two office to make this afternoon. The

first is this. There are over 850,000 people in the United Kingdom

living with dementia, that is the equivalent to the entire population

of Devon and these numbers are expected to double in the next 20

years. There are over 12,000 people living with dementia in Devon and

4500 with dementia in East Devon. The number of over 65 is in Devon

will increase from 195,500, in 2015 to too much and 64,420 30, an

increase of 35.5%. 17% of the UK population are over the age of 65

compared to 24% of the Devon population. 2.38% of the population

of England are over the age of 85, compared to 6.25% of the population

are bloodless Alderton in my constituency who are over the age of

85. In other words, the rest of England will look like my

constituency in 2050 with the ageing demographics. East Devon has over

40,000 over the age of 65 so my offer to the Government as this, if

you get long-term social care right, if you want to get it right

nationally than look at what the country is going to look like in

2050 which is what town to my constituency look like now. So get

it right in Devon and you get it right. I'm sure my honourable friend

will act as a guinea pig to get social care right in this country,

that is often one. The second of is building on what

some of us tried to do with the Prime Minister some bugs before the

general election when we went to see her a cross-party group, to talk

about long-term care and we thought it should be a political issue and

we should build on earlier reports to get this right. Our efforts were

not taken up at that point but in this new spirit following the

election I believe we would all be prepared to work together and come

again to make the offer. And where better to start than to build on the

fairer care funding report from the Bulut report of July 2011 which

contains many good things, not least a cap -- the Dilnott report. It also

includes some form of insurance to cover the cap and we should leave

nothing off the table but I believe it should be a cross-party group who

steers the government forward. Those are the offered -- of the offers I

make, to work with other backbenchers to work together to get

social get right in this country and to offer up particular East Devon as

the guinea pig, the template to get a properly integrated social care

system integrated public with the rest of the NHS and if we get it

right there, we get it right across the nation and everybody will be

enormously grateful. I want to talk primarily about the state of GP

services with particular reference to a surgery being closed on a