24/10/2017 House of Commons

the run-up to all fiscal events but I've certainly heard my honourable

friend 's comments and will take them as a representation. Order.

Urgent question. John Woodcock. Thank you. To ask the Foreign

Secretary if he'll make a statement on the liberation of Raqqa and the

future of the campaign. Can I thank the honourable gentleman

for his continued engagement on this important issue. Raqqa was

officially liberated on the 20th of October. The Assyrian Democratic

forces supported by the global coalition against Daesh began

operations to liberate Raqqa in June 20 17. Military operations are

ongoing. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence

has highlighted the UK's continue leading role, and we paid tribute in

this House to their courage, commitment and effectiveness of

British forces overseas. The UK is the second-largest military

contributor to the global coalition and plays a role in the humanitarian

response. The liberation of Raqqa follows significant Daesh

territorial losses in Iraq including Mosul. Daesh has lost over 90% of

the territory it once occupied in Iraq and Syria. The Foreign

Secretary will provide a full update to the House in due course on the

counter Daesh campaign including the operation to liberate Raqqa and I

look forward to providing further information in due course. Can I

thank the Minister for that response. He will recall that in

November 2015 the then Prime Minister David Cameron made the case

for the liberation of Raqqa which has now been achieved, as central to

asking this House to endorse the air strike campaign from the RAF, which

has been taking place in Syria since that point. I would speak for the

whole house in adding to the Minister's tributes to the

professionalism of the Royal Air Force, how they have carried out.

There are significant questions over the conduct of some of the actions

by some of the forces in this campaign. The RAF has been

exemplary. In the short time I have, there are many questions that flow

from this. Three broad areas. First of all, what is the future in the

region? If the Minister can address how the UK will engage in attempting

to bring an end to the civil War which has already claimed around

500,000 lives, the vast majority actually at the hands of the Syrian

regime under President Assad, secondly, what will be the UK role

in reconstruction of the region? Thirdly, what will be the next steps

in the global campaign to defeat not only Daesh, which is clearly

disintegrating, but the evil ideology which has perverted so many

people in the region and has enticed to many Brits to come and join? If

in his response he can answer not only that but what the future will

be for the Brits who have been over to the region and now may be seeking

to return, and in conclusion, if I may say Mr Speaker. The Minister has

always been assiduous on this matter. I say to the government that

their failure to offer a statement to this House following the

liberation not only does it suggest a lack of respect for Parliament and

the British people, on whom we were asked to make the decision to send

the Royal Air Force into a theatre of combat, but also there is a worry

that it suggests a complacency and lack of grip which has too often

been the hallmark of the aftermath for governments both colours, in

attempting to maintain stability in the region following conflict. I'm

not going to make any evaluative comments about the motivation or

conduct of the government, suffice to say that the benefit of those who

aren't members of the House but attending to our proceedings, that

one of the principal motivations for the Speaker in selecting an urgent

question is the judgment that the matter needs to be treated of in the

House. Implicitly perhaps, that a government offer of a statement

might reasonably have been expected. Minister of State Alistair Burt.

Thank you, Mr Speaker and thank you to the honourable gentleman. To deal

with his last point first. There has been a range of statements made

regular periods in relation to both Iraq and Syria counter Daesh. I

intend to present a full statement which covers the range of activities

recently. I'd take his point about the liberation of Raqqa, a statement

is expected and will come in due course and cover other things. He

was right to raise the urgent question and I'm very happy to

respond. Yes, reminding the house that David

Cameron asked the house to support activity, because of the impending

crisis to civilians in the area where Daesh was active, and the

horrendous stories of abuse that were emerging. It is indeed to the

credit of the house that it recognised and supported that

action, and we have seen it carried through extraordinarily by those

forces that the house asked to take part. As far as the UK military

contributions are concerned, to date, the RAF has conducted 1609

strikes in Iraq, and Syria. 1348 in Iraq, 261 in Syria, using six

Typhoons, we have 1350 military personnel committed in the region,

UK troops have helped to train over to 57,000 Iraqi security forces so

far, which says a lot for the stabilisation in future so we pay

tribute to the forces and what they have done and the quality and

accuracy of air strikes with which they have been involved. The

honourable gentleman asked three specific questions, what happens

next in terms of activity stabilisation issues and ideology?

What happens next? Partner forces are closing in on Daesh's presences

in the river valley with the border with Iraq. Iraqi security forces are

closing in on Daesh and ensuring the ultimate military defeat. Nobody

should underestimate the importance of Raqqa to Daesh ideology, the fall

of Mosul and Raqqa is a tremendous blow to those who would have harmed

us and the taking of those cities are of immense importance. In terms

of stabilisation, in immediate terms we stepped up humanitarian support,

the Secretary of State announced an extra ?10 million this weekend to

restore health facilities, deliver medical support and relief, and

crucially clearly for landmines and explosives because in leading the

city, Daesh left a reminder of their killing machine behind them and we

are providing immediate support in relation to that but will, of

course, moved to have further stabilisation in due course as the

area becomes more stable. Lastly, she made the point in relation to

ideology. He is quite right to suggest that military action on the

ground is only one part of the contest with Daesh's ideology. We

must be prepared for them to change form, return to terrorist groups,

with more adherents to is evil ideology. We will tackle extremists

on simultaneous fronts by preventing foreign fighters from returning to

their country of origin. We will continue degrading their poisonous

narrative, decreasing their ability to generate revenue and denying a

safe haven in the virtual world as well. I was able to make the case in

the UN recently, also to ensure bringing Daesh to justice. Finally,

the honourable gentleman raised the point of returning fighters,

fighters returning to the UK can, of course, expect to be questioned

about their role and it would be a matter for the director of public...

The Crown Prosecution Service said any evidence against them. Fighters

who are captured in Iraq or Syria must be treated according to the

laws of armed conflict that they can one expect to stand trial if

offences are alleged against them. Mr Speaker, we should reject the

language coming out of Russia comparing the bombing of Raqqa to

the bombing of Dresden. Nonetheless, the result is not dissimilar. Will

my right honourable friend try and rectify a wrong which is so often

affecting us in the aftermath of these events by calling for a donor

conference and showing British leadership so that we can begin to

rebuild Raqqa and rebuild what little remains of a shattered life

of the inhabitants and those who used to live them? My right

honourable friend is correct to point to the immediate mystery of

the aftermath of those caught in the conflict, and the recognition the

world has, that it has a responsibility to work with those on

the ground, to rebuild areas of conflict, because that's the best

way of preventing conflict happening again. Firstly, the political

reconciliation so there is no sectarian difficulties in Iraq or

Syria, as these places return to conventional governance. The Syrian

Democratic forces have been at pains to minimise damage to the

infrastructure of the city as they have advanced but in an urban battle

like this, it's impossible to advanced against an enemy like Daesh

without causing damage at all. It must be remembered that their

tactics do not adhere to the conventions of warfare. They

booby-trapped buildings, taking other desperate measures to protect

their vile interests including the use of schools and hospitals of

their tactical -- is their tactical HQs. There will be a stabilisation

programme put forward, and it will come after there has been some

political decisions to ensure that reconstruction follows commitments

of those involved in the governance of Syria. I don't know about a donor

conference but I will take that story back to the Foreign Secretary.

Thank you for granting this urgent question, and let me thank the

Minister for his opening remarks, I wholeheartedly agree with his

sentiments and for once we are in union. The victory against Daesh in

Raqqa is a vital blow against an evil death cult and it makes a

mockery of their intentions to produce a caliphate. It shows them

for the weaklings and cowardice that they are. It's a reminder of the

battle that we and our allies were fighting on this very day 75 years

ago, the battle that destroyed the Nazis ambitions to control Egypt. We

recalled Churchill's words after that hard-fought victory and perhaps

we can turn them around? This is not the end of the beginning of Daesh

but the beginning of their end and we should be grateful for that. I

have some questions for the Minister and I hope he can address them in

his response, if he is unable to do so and we rely on the Foreign

Secretary to do so, we must make sure that he can answer these

questions. The first was the government's response to the

humanitarian crisis, the question has already been asked but the

second question is now that Daesh is in disarray in Syria, can he tell

the house, what is Britain's ongoing military mission in Syria? In short,

what is our strategy for the future of Syria and what is the role for

the military in that strategy? Particularly, what steps will be

government take to rebuild a form of sustainable governance in Raqqa and

what role will the groups who helped in that play in the future

administration, if any, and with Arab opposition forces who have

played a pivotal role in the campaign, will they be represented

as part of a genuinely viable peace process for Serie A as a whole? If

there is one thing that we can agree on, is the last thing that the

Middle East needs right now, another vacuum -- the peace process for

Syria. ?200 million has been channelled since 2015 to support the

so-called moderate opposition in Syria. Can the house be guaranteed

today that none of the money has ended up in the hands of Al-Nusra or

other jihadist groups because it would be a tragedy if, while rightly

celebrating the destruction of Daesh in Raqqa, we have British taxpayer

money being funnelled into organisations that are just as bad.

Firstly, can I warmly welcome the remarks of the right honourable lady

on the front bench. Highly appropriate and much appreciated.

This is something the whole house has been engaged in collectively and

she speaks as she does and it is appreciated by all. The houses

demonstrating that as far as Daesh is concerned in its ideology there's

nothing between us and it will be a united front against them. I'm

pleased she mentioned Al Alamein, partly because I was there on

Saturday. The much travelled Minister managed to get the

opportunity to represent Her Majesty's government laying the

wreath on the half of the United came -- United Kingdom to

commemorate this at 75th anniversary of that battle that turned the tide

of the war and the tide in Africa. I was proud to stand with members of

the Commonwealth who fought with the Desert rats and those from the UK,

and those who represented the German and Italian governments, to

recognise that 75 years after Europe has achieved much by coming together

and demonstrating the tolerance and ability of forgiveness which, I'm

afraid, is rather lacking sometimes in other parts of the Middle East

where memories are long and dates are often remembered for the wrong

reasons but I am proud to represent the United Kingdom, along with

representatives of the military and our ambassador, and also served Tim

Laurence, representing Commonwealth graves Commission, of whom he is the

vice-chairman, I apologise, Admiral Tim Laurence. In response to the

questions, humanitarian relief recognised ongoing as detailed and

more information if she wishes. As far as the military is concerned,

recognising firstly that we do not quite know what will come next. The

military will remain engaged as long as there is a need for them to be

there, as I indicated the strategy to further close off the avenues for

Daesh in the Euphrates Valley will be supported by UK personnel, until

there is the possibility that military action can recommence and

coalition forces can be put under pressure. The coalition forces and

their activity clearly, it is essential that the coalition which

came together, which the honourable lady rightly says comprises a large

number of those from the Kurdish region, in Syria and Iraq, and those

from other areas, there are ongoing discussions as to how the coalition

will stay together. But I do think it is premature to say anything

about disbanding, they should be kept in place until there is no

further military threat and it will be advised by my right honourable

friend committee secretary for defence or Foreign Secretary in due

course. In terms of support going in the wrong direction, I remember

since 2011 it has been a continued concern that trying to provide

support for legitimate opposition forces recognising that in those

very difficult circumstances arms get traded, money gets traded, and

there has been a determination to ensure that supplies that went to

forces, to support them, did not go in the wrong direction. As far as is

possible, that is still the case and that is carried out. I cannot say

with absolute certainty, not a single pound or element of aid has

gone in the wrong direction. There are difficulties on the ground where

forces must cooperate with one another to overcome Daesh but it is

the absolute determination of the government to ensure that as far as

possible the risk is minimised and I can assure the honourable lady that

is the case. It's an extraordinarily busy and conscientious bee, and I

speak for the whole house in saying how delighted we are that he

represents us on these important occasions in all sorts of different

parts of the globe. Doctor Gillian Lewis. -- Doctor Julian Lewis. Does

the Minister except that the reason bombing Daesh was so much more

controversial in Syria than it was in Iraq is the same as the reason

why there were so many more aria air strikes in Iraq then there have been

in Syria, namely that we wanted the ground forces of the government to

win in Iraq, but we claim not to want the ground forces of the

government to win in Syria. Does he accept that the outcome of the

welcome squeezing out of Daesh in Syria is that this is down to a

combination of the Kurdish led Syrian democratic forces, and the

Syrian government forces, whether we like it or not, and the so-called

70,000 moderates are now well and truly dominated by Islamist 's and

we ought to be careful who we support, as the opposition spokesman

said? I'm not going to go over previous discussions in relation to

this, Mr Speaker. I understand the point my right honourable friend

asks, but the coalition forces in relation to Syria that have been

back in relation to Iraq to contain a variety of forces, but not Syrian

regime forces. We still hold, and our right to, hold a Syrian regime

responsible for a large proportion of the atrocities in Syria which

should not be forgotten or glossed over. President al-Assad is

responsible for launching murderous attacks on his own people and is

right to separate insofar as possible coalition forces fighting

Daesh from those in their regime. We welcome the news that Daesh have

been defeated in Raqqa after the three-year rule over the city. We

also welcome the pledge of the humanitarian aid. Does the Minister

agree that in order to sustain a military achievement in Raqqa,

rebuilding efforts need to start immediately? What funds have have

been allocated for Raqqa and the wider region? Jihadists needles had

to be captured where possible and tried for heinous war crimes, some

of which can only be tried in The Hague, for the whole world to

witness, rather than, and I quote, the only way of dealing with them

would be to kill them. This would of course only fuel IS recruitment. I

thank the honourable gentleman for his support. Those two elements of

the stabilisation of reconstruction after conflict. That my right

honourable friend addressed the other day. That is to provide the

immediate assistance needed. That helps to clearly for landmines,

restock hospitals and mobile surgical units, provide 145,000

medical consultations, immediate relief for innocent people that have

been displaced and improved access to clean water and care for pregnant

women. Longer term, resources have not yet been allocated. But will be

done in conjunction with UN and other donors who will be providing

support. The honourable gentleman put his finger on the necessity for

inclusive governance in a difficult area, and that will be a matter for

the Syrian people and will also be a matter for the political

negotiations which we expect to start in Geneva in November to look

at the overall governance where we will have to take into account the

political situation in the area, which will be difficult. In terms of

those returning to the UK and the situation there, just to make it

clear as the Defence Secretary said on the 12th of October, those who go

to Syria put themselves in danger. Those who go to Syria to take action

against the UK and the interests put themselves in particular danger, and

if they are involved in conflict or planning actions which will take the

lives of British citizens, they run the risk of being killed themselves.

Those who surrender to forces, those in the area, must expect to be

treated by the laws of armed conflict and to be treated properly

and humanely in terms of being brought to justice. Those who return

to the UK will also be questioned about their activity and brought to

justice. It's important that justice is seen as the ultimate outcome for

those who have committed wrong, but those who are a present danger to

the UK run a greater risk and it is right that they do so. May I thank

my right honourable friend for his detailed and full answers. May I

pressed him on a couple of areas that he hasn't yet addressed. Does

he not agree that the finality of the conflict in Raqqa gives daylight

Russia's claimed that it was supporting the fight against Daesh.

Does this... May I therefore call upon him and his colleagues to

represent the Russian government that the actions they are taking in

Syria are against the interests of humanitarianism and against the

interests of civilians? Could he perhaps represent them but what they

are actually doing is making a new problem for themselves in the

future. I thank my honourable friend and the chairman of the Foreign

Affairs Committee. Russia's engagement in this has clearly been

to stabilise the Assad regime and their primary objective has been to

secure their interests in Syria, and through Assad secure their interests

that way, rather than recognise he had turned against his own people

and join in a coalition of interest to secure a peaceful transition and

reform as part of the end of the conflict. It's clear there are

operations against Daesh which haven't been taken part in by regime

forces or those who have supported them like the Russians, and other

actions being taken. I'm not sure if it's true to say that in all cases

Russia hasn't taken action against Daesh forces, they will have done so

when those forces were threatening the regime. That is when they will

have taken that action. However, the Geneva talks that will start will

inevitably involve Russia as a participant in trying to see what we

can do now towards the end of the conflict to provide stabilisation. I

can make it clear the UK will echo remarks made by the chairman of the

foreign affairs select committee. We recognise Russia's responsibility in

the conflict but now they have a responsibility to remedy some of the

problems they have caused. Some members of this has received and

continue to receive considerable abuse for the decision we tech in

November 2015 to support the extension of the RAF mission to

Syria. Does the liberation of Raqqa and this considerable setback to

Daesh not show we were absolutely right? Yes, in a word. We've been

learning over time Mr Speaker the consequences of not taking action.

We've all learned there are consequences of action and

consequences of in action, and sometimes the choices are

impossible. It's perfectly clear, decisions not to do anything will

almost inevitably result in the situation becoming gradually worse

and more difficult for those involved. The right decisions have

got to be taken on intervention or not but the decision of the House to

support the determination to take action in Syria was the right one.

Is he aware that a young person in my constituency was radicalised at

university, went to Raqqa via Turkey. She and dozens of others are

authors of their own peril. Does he agree every effort should be made to

get them out safely? Mr Speaker, we've no facility to get British

citizens out of Syria. Those who have gone to Syria haven't been able

to access consular support because we cannot put British officials that

risk in trying to deal with that. Those who have gone to Syria have

gone at their own risk. Inevitably some people will return. I hope

those who have a story to tell about turning against Daesh are able to

convince others this is a false ideology and not to be seduced into

travelling abroad, may have a role to play in making that story clear.

In welcoming the liberation of Raqqa from Daesh, we recognise this is a

city that has experienced death and displacement on a huge scale. For

the 8000 civilians left, they are in a devastated city without access to

drinking water, sewerage, electricity, schools, hospitals and

the forces of Assad are a few kilometres away. Where does he think

responsibility for the rebuilding of Raqqa lies, and what will the UK

Government do to minimise any delays in this, arising from what he

referred to as political decisions? I think the truth of it is, in a

sense it's not a question of responsibility. Certainly the people

of the area haven't caused their own destruction. It makes sense for the

world to be supportive of efforts that will ensure a return to

normality, that people have decent lives. You can expect the UK to play

a leading part in supporting those efforts to rebuild schools,

hospitals and the economy. I think it's something the world will in. In

terms of the responsibility of the state, clearly the UK holds the

regime responsible for a significant part of what has been inflicted upon

their people. There has to be a political decision about moving

forward with the political process, before reconstruction can begin.

Decisions have got to be taken. It doesn't stop the immediate

humanitarian assistance in difficult situations to take place, but

longer-term reconstruction must follow a political settlement. Could

my right honourable friend outline, if he knows how many Daesh

terrorists have escaped from Raqqa and where they might be headed? I

don't know the answer to that question because it's impossible to

gauge. Talk seems to centre around the low thousands of foreign

fighters. I think over time it will become more clear. I'm not sure I

can say anything more accurate than that. It's clear some will attempt

to return to the whole area of the region and beyond from where they

came from. Some countries have supplied more fighters than others.

They will be a risk until they have all been interviewed, and those who

are responsible for crimes have been brought to justice for those crimes,

and others dealt with in other ways. My friend from Exeter referred to

the vote two years ago, unfortunately I wasn't able to take

part in that vote. But I welcome the liberation of Raqqa. But as the

Minister said, doesn't it prove that you can't win conflicts of this kind

simply from the air? You have to have ground forces. Can he take the

opportunity to reiterate our praise for the Syrian Democratic forces,

and particularly for the Kurds of Syria who have played a pivotal

role, and told the Turkish government stop attacking them?

Again, I'm grateful to the honourable gentleman who has always

been clear in his determination to take what he considered to be the

right action, regardless of political pressure against it. He's

been very courageous to do so. There are some battles which clearly

cannot be fought without ground troops, as recent conflicts in Iraq

and Syria have shown. There would have been known liberation of Mosul

from the no liberation of Raqqa. The UK hasn't taken part in those and

others have done so without support elsewhere. He was right to mention

the leadership of Kurdish forces in relation to the coalition forces,

who have been operating in Raqqa and the extraordinary work they have

done. Whatever difficult situations may be faced back in the Kurdish

region of Iraq, it's clear those fighters and those they represent

deserve to be treated with the greatest of respect, and any

political situation needs to be handled with great care and a lot of

dialogue between states, not undue pressure or force. I welcome the

news that Raqqa has been liberated from Daesh, especially Paradise

Square where they carried out public beheadings. I want to thank the

Minister for all the work he has done in securing a UN resolution to

locate and prosecute Daesh. Could the Minister provide us with an

update on that but also on the Geneva process? I'm grateful to her

kind remarks. I was pleased to have the honour of moving the resolution

at the UN recently, which was adopted unanimously by the Security

Council to further the work commenced by the Foreign Secretary,

the Foreign Minister of Iraq, to bring to justice those who have been

responsible for the crimes of Daesh, and to institute an investigative

process which will help in that work, and the UK will support that

and can see that resolution carried through. I met him in New York and

hopeful the Geneva process will will start in November but an absence of

conflict will help that process. And a situation where the people of

Syria have the chance to choose their leadership and one that isn't

imposed upon them. The Minister said some helpful things today, not least

about the cost of inaction being as possibly great as the cost of

action, a point made forcefully in the paper written by the honourable

member of the Tonbridge and mauling and Jo Cox, the cost of doing

nothing. In relation for the Minister agree it's vital that those

who have committed war crimes in Syria are brought to justice and

will he update the House on the British government's role in making

sure the Syrian government has prosecuted a campaign that has been

brutal and has bombed hospitals is brought to justice in whatever way

is possible? I thank the honourable lady for the

question, I hope it will please her when I'm meant the leader of the

White Helmets -- I met the leader of the White Helmets while I was there,

I give enormous credit to what they have achieved and her work and the

work of others in supporting them. In relation to bringing people to

justice, it's clear that those responsible for war crimes in any

circumstances, whether they belong to Daesh or the regime, should know

that justice is available against them. The processes against Daesh

are clear and the processes against the regime will be more difficult, I

suspect but where there is evidence it should be prosecuted and pursued

and the UK will be determined to see that carried through. I do not

suspect for a moment it will be particularly easy. Mr Speaker, like

all colleagues I welcome the military defeat of Daesh in Raqqa,

what stance has the international community taken to ensure that that

faculty microcode the region is not fuelled. My honourable friend's

knowledge of the area is considerable. We remember his long

campaign in making sure that we refer to Daesh as Daesh. We pay

tribute to that. The militias operating in the region which are

not always under control of coalition forces or in Iraq, every

attempt, as far as I am aware, has been made to ensure that the forces

occupying the grounds are under the control of the coalition, and

therefore try and minimise any danger of sectarian activity. We do

have two remember some of the militia have been involved in close

fighting and helping to relieve the areas. It is essential that those

who are responsible for them play a part in building a consensual

process of governance, and do not use them for sectarian purposes.

It's an opportunity for some to show new colours and take a different

direction than they have in the past, building stability rather than

disruption. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister referred rightly to the

accuracy of the 261 British strikes on Daesh in Syria, by which I

presume he also means to say that no, to his knowledge, no civilians

were casualties of British strikes. By contrast, the Russians said that

their whole aim in Syria was to attack Daesh and put an end to them.

95% of their attacks appear to have been on other opponents of Assad,

does that mean the Russians are liars or incompetent? Let me deal

with the first part of the honourable gentleman's question

first. Not .31% of coalition air strikes result in a credible report

of civilian casualties, highlighting the care taken to avoid such

casualties by the coalition. Whilst we have not seen any evidence that

we have caused civilian casualties, it is in the same as saying we have

not and will not do so, in closing up and fighting against a ruthless

terrorist enemy that uses civilians as human shields. Hopefully the

relief of Raqqa will make the likelihood still less than it

originally was. In relation to other air strikes that have taken place

and the use of other forces, it is a question for others to answer, that

the right honourable gentleman is correct. The care taken by the

coalition, particularly by the RAF, the rules of engagement in avoiding

strikes where it is known for civilians is clear. Others need to

be responsible for their actions but actions which have unnecessarily

taken civilian lives and air strikes that have done so make the process

of reconciliation afterwards so much harder and fuelled the causes of

further conflict which the UK has tried desperately hard not to do.

The Minister has mentioned Iran, can I ask for his judgment on whether or

not he thinks the role played in Syria and Iraq reflects a threat to

our interests? I wish we had more time, Mr Speaker. My honourable

friend's knowledge of the area is considerable and he brings it with

him to the house. I think we have been clear in trying to say that

there is evidence of Iran being a disrupter in the region. And its

activities in both Iraq and Syria, and in Syria supporting the Assad

regime and supporting their own interests in doing so but taking

part and being complicit with a leader waging war upon his own

people has made the region more unstable. And in Iraq, they must now

allow Iraqis to run Iraq. The Iraqi government to run a unified Iraq,

and must recognise their influence is confined to the border. And that

they have an opportunity to play a part in making the peace in the

region, but can only do so if they listen to the concerns of others and

recognise their influence can be used for better and in different

ways than they have done up to now. Mr Speaker, can I thank the Minister

for the work he has done on this difficult issue? Can I ask if he has

any idea how many UK nationals have left the UK to fight with Daesh and

the work they are doing with the Home Office to identify these

individuals and where possible repatriate? The short answer is I do

not know. I do not have a figure. We have always come as far as I

remember, we have worked on the numbers of relatively low hundreds,

but we do not know. I'm not going to put a figure on it. That would be

plucking a figure out the air but the numbers are not huge or as great

as some from other places. In terms of dealing with people when they

return, let me make clear that those who make their way... There is no

facility to return people, as I say. Certainly not from Syria. There are

no personal there and we have no responsibilities to do so in any

way. If people make their way back to the UK and are identified as

those taking part in complex in Syria and Iraq, they will be

detained and they will have to answer questions, while it is found

out exactly what they have done. It is the right and proper way of doing

so and those who commit offences can expect to face justice. My

constituents in Kettering I increasingly alarmed about the

number of British jihadists who have been fighting our Armed Forces

personnel in Iraq and Syria. My understanding is that they have

identified about 850 of them, of whom about 400 are back in the UK.

Please correct me if I am wrong, I do not believe there has been a

single prosecution for any offence. Can I make the Minister understand

that if no effective action is taken against these people in this

country, it is a positive signal for future potential jihadists to say we

can go and fight British services overseas because nothing will happen

to us when we return? Many terror offences have territorial

jurisdictions which means that people can be prosecuted in British

courts for terror activities in Syria or anywhere else in the world.

Any decision will be taken by the Crown Prosecution Service on a

case-by-case basis. It requires evidence of what people have done.

It doesn't require rounding people who have been in a particular place,

detaining them without legal process for doing so. It is essential that

it is found out what are doing and that will require the kinds of

investigative work that I announced to the house earlier, we have

promoted through the UN investigations unit which is

entirely designed to uncover evidence which brings people to

justice. It's a question of holding this number of people in reasonable

bounds so people know that there are people who have gone there and to

recognise that it is a number that is not as great as those from other

countries. There a determination in the UK make certain those who put

the country at risk, if they are returning, can expect to be

questioned, brought to the notice of the security authorities, and

subject to controls thereafter, according to our existing law. They

will be prosecuted and rightly so if they break the law. Thank you, Mr

Speaker. I'm sure that the whole house would agree with me when we

offer our thanks and congratulations to those and their families who have

participated in operation shader, what efforts are being made, given

what we learned in Falluja about the industrial use of IUDs in domestic

properties and in the ground we are supporting those who cleared the

IUDs? I thank durable lady and she is right to thank those and their

families for the sacrifices in Bob -- I thank the honourable lady. They

deliberately targeted some of the money given to deal with IUDs and

explosives in Iraq and Mosul. The UK is contributing to the landmine

tearing effort and will continue to do so. Further to earlier, right

honourable member is mentioning returning fighters to the UK, there

are a number in my constituency who have actively supported Daesh in

Syria and are now back home. I appreciate comments with regard to a

cross government response to those individuals and prosecutions where

it is appropriate but, in addition to that, can I be assured that to

keep the wider community safe, in my constituency and across the country,

that security services will be monitoring the activities of those

who have returned, even if they cannot be prosecuted because there

is insufficient evidence to ensure they are not radicalising their

communities on return to the UK? Absolutely right, more than 60

countries provide data to Interpol to build a global database of

foreign fighters who work with Daesh, which has grown from 40

people in 2013 to 13,000, which continues to grow. This information

helps us ensure that people in the UK are safer. The Speaker paid

tribute to the Kurdish Peshmerga forces in their fights in Syria.

When the Iraqi military and militia captured Kurdish held territory,

about splintering and he Daesh forces in future? Mr Speaker, the

Foreign Office and myself are in pretty close contact with the Iraqi

government and the Kurdish regional government in Iraq. Our

understanding is the process of recovering so-called disputed

territory has not been done through conflict but by agreement between

the government of Iraq and Peshmerga forces and Kurdish authorities. We

have been at pains to do all we can to say to both regional governments

and the Iraqi authorities to do nothing to risk a conflict, there

are Shia militias in the area but I understand responsible parties are

doing all they can to avoid conflict so a return to the dialogue must

take place between Kurdish representatives and the Iraqi

government in September. There is a significant presence of Al-Qaeda in

the Arabian Peninsula and Daesh in Yemen. What assessment has the

government made of the extremist threat in Yemen and what support

I'll be giving to the ground troops are Saudi Arabia, the UAE and

government forces who have tried to defeat the extremists in that

country? -- are we getting? A slightly wider question that in

regards to Daesh it is pertinent. We do not take part in the coalition

operating in Yemen, directly of course, the UK representatives are

available to ensure that international humanitarian law is

adhered to by those taking action using munitions supplied by the UK.

The work is ongoing but is not a direct part of the coalition. We

supported the coalition aims in pushing back and insurgency against

an elected government which we believe are open to the risk of more

ungoverned space in Yemen, wish UQ AP can operate with Daesh, we are

working extremely hard on efforts for negotiations starting again so

the conflict can come to an end as that is all that will secure the

area and deal with the risk of Al-Qaeda in the peninsular, the

honourable gentleman is quite correct. Mr Speaker, one of the most

horrifying elements of the war is the use of food. 90% of the United

Nations aid trying to get through checkpoints are turned back. Can he

tell us what the government is doing about that case and more broadly how

they are trying to fight President Assad's wage of starvation?

He's right, the area has returned to medieval conditions of war and siege

in which humanitarian aid, which ought to get through, is not allowed

to get through because of forces on the ground. We make strenuous

efforts through the UN and humanitarian agencies who do

extraordinary work and we should pay tribute to those working on the

ground in dangerous conditions to provide relief to try and get things

through. But it is difficult and will continue to make that case. In

relation to Raqqa, a lot of aid has been provided by the UK and 88,000

monthly food rations. When we can get things through we do and it's no

doubt the refusal of aid is used as a weapon of war and should not be.

It's in the interests of Assad and Putin to suggest life is returning

to normal in Syria. In the light of the meeting in Geneva in November

that the Minister has spoken about, can he say what more the UK

Government will be doing to ensure that Russians and other actors are

aware that they can be no lasting peace in Syria while Assad continues

to rule there and while there is not a role for peace-loving Sunnis and

all of the communities in Syria. In conversations with the P5, the House

can be absolutely clear that the points the honourable gentleman has

made were made to them. Russia is protecting its own interest in Syria

in what we consider to be an unconscionable manner. There can

only be a political resolution which gives the people of Syria the free

choice to choose their government. This isn't an easy process, and we

are giving all backing to Staffan de Mistura. It is essential the people

of Syria have the choice of their own president to govern in the

future. In some parts things are returning to normal but in areas of

serious conflict the situation is still miserable for civilians

attacked by their own government. I would like to congratulate him for

securing this urgent question. The decision to take military action in

Syria was obviously very controversial, but the decision in

my view was the right one. I want to pay tribute to the RAF and the

military servicemen and women in the region today and their

professionalism. I want to ask a question to do with UK foreign

fighters who may have left Syria and ended up in refugee camps in Turkey.

What are we doing to track those people down and return them to

justice? As I mentioned earlier, the acquisition of names onto the

Interpol database is extending the reach of national authorities in the

more than 60 countries where foreign fighters have gone to fight in Iraq.

But will provide the base for when those return. I'm not aware at the

moment of any efforts being taken to go to camps in order to identify

people before they return. I will find the answer and make sure it's

made available through the next statement of the Foreign Secretary.

Happily, the campaign against Daesh in Syria is coming to an end and

bringing hope to millions who suffered abuse from these evil

madmen. Is he concerned in light of events in Kirkuk last week that a

and Iran are turning their attention militarily towards the Kurds, and

does he see this as a potential source of conflict in the future,

and what role does he believe he can play and the government can play?

The first role I hope I can play is to try and urge the House to be

cautious of reports coming out from the region. It's not always entirely

clear what is happening on the ground and there are vested

interests trying to stir up more conflict than need be. At present

there is sufficient relationship between Baghdad and representatives

of the Kurdish government to enable dialogue to take place so that

conflict is avoided. I don't believe it is true that Iraq and Iran have

turned their attention to conflict in the Kurdish region. There is a

risk of conflict but everything we know about Prime Minister Abadi has

indicated he doesn't want to see conflict and that is being mirrored

by those in the Kurdish region. We are using all our efforts to make

sure that remains the case but we should be doing all we can both in

this House and at government level to try and urge the dialogue

necessary which we think is taking place. Point of order, Mr Ian

Stewart. Thank you Mr Speaker. You'll be aware of the growing level

of abuse and intimidation in many parts of our political system. Such

toxicity and danger is something which you have commendably

championed against yourself. May I ask if you have received any

indication from the women and equalities Minister if she wishes to

make a statement to the House to clarify the legal obligations or

political parties under the equalities act, and could you advise

me on how such matters might be urgently considered by this House.

I'm grateful to the gentleman for his point of order. I've received no

such indication as yet from the Minister for Women and Equalities,

who as it happened I saw last night at an event in which she spoke

eloquently and with conviction on the subject of the importance of

interfaith harmony. It is open to a Minister to volunteer a statement.

The honourable gentleman is referring to an ongoing problem,

arguably of greater salience, scope and prominence. Than in the past. If

there is no such statement but the honourable gentleman possibly

supported or accompanied by colleagues from across the House

wishes to debate the issues, it is open to him to seek either a 1.5

hour debate in Westminster Hall or to approach the chair of the

Backbench Business Committee, and to seek a debate under its auspices.

That is the best and most practical advice I can give to the honourable

gentleman who has raised a serious matter in a measured way. Sorry? I'm

sure the government Whip has got something to say but it doesn't need

to be said in the chamber. It will be of great interest I'm sure. I'm

not sure there's much to add. If it's on the same matter, the answer

is no. Order. The honourable lady raised a point of order with me

yesterday. She sought my guidance and I offered her my guidance. If

the point of order is on a similar matter to that which the honourable

gentleman has just raised, and to which I have responded with crystal

clarity, there is nothing to add. Further to the point of order and my

point of order yesterday, I would like to seek some clarification on

the basis of... Order, forgive me. I have really dealt, as I think is

extremely clear, with a serious matter raised in a very measured way

by the honourable gentleman and given clear advice. If there are

people who are unclear on the basis of what I've said, I'm frankly

surprised by that, but it is open to them to approach me for further

guidance. What they shouldn't seek to do, I'm sure the honourable lady

wouldn't seek to do so for one moment, what they shouldn't seek to

do is to appease the procedures of the House. I've tried to help the

honourable lady and we will leave it there for now. Point of order. Where

an MP is elected by Parliament to represent asked on a foreign

delegation, and is subsequently sent home from that delegation for

inappropriate behaviour, will those cases always be reported back to the

body that elected them, and have they been in the past? What I would

say to the honourable gentleman is as follows. He's raised an extremely

important matter, and again for the avoidance of doubt, I do not

consider or treat it like -- treat it lightly. The House will note that

the honourable gentleman raised the issue in extremely broad terms. I

don't knock him to doing that but I say it by way of factual response. I

say to the honourable gentleman on advice about raising a point of

order in the House is not necessarily an effective way, or

even necessarily a proper way, of pursuing an allegation of

impropriety against anybody, whether a member of the House or anybody

else. If the honourable gentleman has grounds for supposing there has

been impropriety by an honourable or right honourable friend the, falling

short of possible criminality which would obviously be considered

elsewhere, I ask the honourable gentleman to write to me. I'm sure

he's interested in the issue rather than for examples securing

Parliamentary attention. I know that wouldn't motivate him in anyway. If

he's concerned about the issue, and I respect that, he's got a

particular point he wants to raise with me in writing, I assure him and

more widely I assure the House that I will give the matter my urgent

attention. I hope that's helpful to the honourable gentleman. Further to

the point of order, Mr Speaker, my motivation is to clarify what is the

policy and procedure of the House, in such a circumstance where a

member has been elected at any stage by this Parliament. Will that be

reported back? As I've just been advised, where a question is

hypothetical, it is quite difficult to provide a concrete answer. I

would certainly expect that if a suspected abuse had taken place,

that would be reported in all likelihood to the political party of

which the suspect was a member, depending upon the nature of the

visit, that is to say it visit organised by or with sponsorship

from a Parliamentary body, it might also be reported elsewhere? I would

hope and expect such occurrences or alleged abuses would be reported,

and if they are reported, they can expect, or those who are reported

them, can expect them to be investigated. I hope the House can

see that far from brushing aside the honourable gentleman's concern that

any other member, I am keen those matters should be properly explored,

but they are not necessarily best explored via the point of order

procedure on the floor of the chamber. The honourable gentleman

from Milton Keynes swap my guidance. I gave him clear and practical

guidance which I expect he will follow, and if practical guidance is

what people want, that is what I am seeking to provide. If there are any

further points of order that are unrelated I'm happy to take them, if

not we should proceed. We should indeed proceed. The ten minute rule

notions. I beg leave to bring in a Bill to make provision for

affordable homeownership, to required the inclusion of rent to

buy homes in a definition of affordable housing, to make

provision for a minimum proportion of new affordable housing to be

available on affordable rental by terms, to provide relief from stamp

duty when an affordable rent to buy home is purchased, and for connected

purposes. It is beyond dispute that homeownership is by far and away the

most popular and desirable form of housing tenure. This is confirmed by

the British social attitudes survey which shows 86% of people aspire to

own a home. Homeownership also lies at the heart of a true property

owning democracy in which young and old alike are able to take

responsibility for their own lives. Homeownership facilitates

flexibility in the size and location of accommodation, taking into

account changes in the face of employment or additions to the

family. It also encourages long-term financial independence from the

state and therefore from taxpayer subsidies. With homeownership so

popular and so manifestly in the public interest, one is bound to ask

the question why has it been allowed to decline? It is now at a 30 year

low of only 63%. I think the answer is a lack of

affordability. In most parts of the country, the price of houses has

increased far faster than earnings. The greatest impact has been upon

younger buyers. In the 1980s, six out of ten of those aged under the

age of 40 were homeowners. Now, fewer than four out of ten. To her

credit, the Prime Minister clearly wishes to correct this public policy

failure, which is having such an adverse impact upon the next

generation of aspiring homeowners. Proposals in the affordable

homeownership bill should be particularly appealing to the

government. This is not least because proposals do not add to the

nation's debt but by ensuring some land set aside by the 16 planning

agreements for affordable housing is earmarked for homes built for

affordable rents to buy. My bill requires the government to put

beyond legal dull for local authorities must treat affordable

rental by -- rent to buy. For those not familiar with affordable rent to

buy, it works by producing an accessible route for those who

cannot feed immediately afford a budget. The still require upfront

funding but under affordable rent to buy, families take out a fixed

five-year renewable short hold tenancy and agree to pay and

affordable rent, 80% of the market rent, normally, for a period of

five, ten, 15 or 20 years. I paying an affordable rent, families can

begin to save towards a deposit. In addition, under the scheme,

pioneered by a small number of imaginative local authorities,

tenants receive 10% of the property's market value as a gifted

deposit to add to their savings and reduce mortgage costs at the point

of purchase. On becoming 100% homeowners after five, ten, 15 or 20

years, tenants are able to access a wide range of mortgage products,

utilising the creditworthiness that they would have developed during

their time as tenants. The security of tenure also enables families to

develop roots in their local community. The model to which I

refer is wholly funded by institutional investors. Substantial

funds have been forthcoming but a further ?40 billion will be

available under the system for new affordable homes, at no cost to the

Exchequer. It can provide homes at ?200,000 each. That could provide

200,000 such homes. A significant way of addressing the problem we

have with housing in the country. But this is all subject to one

caveat, which is the purpose of this bill to address. Currently,

affordable rent to buy doesn't come clearly within the definition of

affordable housing. The bill requires it should so do. There

needs to be an explicit reference to affordable rent or buy in the

National planning policy framework definition of affordable housing.

Such clarity would enable many more local authorities to take forward

these innovative schemes. There should be no problem with clarifying

the definition for in traditional affordable rent to buy schemes, one

in three purchases are moving directly from the social rented

sector and almost all others are from the housing waiting list. The

briefing published in late August states there is no all-encompassing

definition of affordable housing in England. Indeed, there is a good

deal of ambiguity in the way the term affordable is used in relation

to housing. Mr Speaker, it is to fill this vacuum which is why I

brought forward the bill to provide a definition of affordable rent to

buy and subject to consultation this will be the definition. Affordable

rent to buy housing is housing made available at a rent level that is at

least 20% below market rent, including service charges where

applicable, and later made available to the tenant living at the property

to buy at a cost which may be less than market value. Provision must be

made for receipts and a proportion, thereof, to be recycled for

affordable housing provision if the subsidy is withdrawn. Eligibility is

determined with regard to local incomes and house prices. I have the

housing minister on the Treasury bench will embrace this or a similar

definition. -- I hope. Despite Parliamentary questions and letters

from a number of colleagues, many of whom are co-sponsors of the bill, we

are still waiting for a result. It may be that we are waiting for an

announcement made not by my honourable friend that the

Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 22nd of November but whether it be

now or on the 22nd of November, something must be done about this

because we need to open up the ?40 billion of private institutional

investment in our housing which we desperately need. If one looks, Mr

Speaker, as some of us may do at the and website of affordable

homeownership schemes, it is depressing. There is certainly no

reference to anything as imaginative as the schemes to which I have been

referring. To anyone interested in looking at it, I've avoided the need

to do so because it has an overview saying how you can have help with a

rent to buy I said, through home owned -- help to buy loans, equity

and so on. But it does not address the real problem that there are many

people in this country who want to embark on the road to homeownership

but cannot even afford to save for a deposit because they are paying full

market rent rather than an affordable rent. So, Mr Speaker, I

hope the government will take seriously the issues raised in this

bill. Finally, the significant fiscal changes affecting housing in

the last 30 years is the policy of the Treasury to treat stamp duty as

a cash cow. Stamp duty is a significant burden for those moving

into homeownership. It's a transaction tax and has had the

consequences of reducing the number of transactions. My bill would

enable the government to give special relief from the burden of

Stamp duty in line with a vow of government policy to promote

homeownership among first-time buyers. I also hope we can hear more

about that in the budget. The bill, Mr Speaker, should enjoy the support

of everybody in this house because it works in the vein of public

opinion and would enable more people to reach their aspiration are

becoming homeowners in the United Kingdom. I beg to move. Gray the

question is the honourable member have lead to bring in the bill? As

many are of the opinion say iron? Of the country, no. -- say aye? The

ayes habit. You will bring in the bill? Craig Tracy, Phillip Potter

bone, Steve double, Robert Halfon, Philip Davies, Sir Edward Leigh, Sir

Desmond Swain, and myself. Affordable homeownership bill.

Second reading, what day? Friday the 3rd of November, sir. Friday the 3rd

of November, thank you. Order. We now come to the emergency debate,

just before I called the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and

Pensions I should advise the house that the debate can last for a

maximum of three hours. There is a very significant number of

colleagues in excess of 25 colleagues wishing to speak in the

debate. Of course there is no time limit on front speeches, but I would

be grateful if the front benches would tailor their contributions to

take account of the interest of their backbench colleagues. Debbie

Abrahams? Thank you, Mr Speaker. If I could thank you once again for

granting the emergency debate. It is so important to the people we

represent. It's very important we have the opportunity to return to

the issue of University Agricola verse of credit roll out, following

in from the debate last week. The motion calling for Paws to the

programme was unanimously approved by 299 votes to zero. Since then,

we've heard nothing from the government asked they will want to

do to fix Universal Credit in response to concerns brought last

week. I welcome the minister to his place but I would like to ask why

the Secretary of State is. -- is not here to answer. I understand

emergencies happen but I've not had a satisfactory response from his

office and apparently Downing Street are none the wiser either. The press

report the government is considering a reduction to the six-week payment

when making a claim. If this is correct, when will this happen and

will he explain why the government deems it accessible to cook up

acceptable to brief the media but not make a statement to the house?

Does he recognise constitutional implications of his government's

actions to date? I'm very grateful but did she notice at the weekend

virtually every conservative, or representative of the government

conservative who spoke to the government on the matter that

problems were not the policy but implementation but the six-week

delay is a policy decision and it was there from the beginning and is

causing the poverty and problems. My honourable friend is absolutely

right and I think to be fair some of the Conservatives members opposite,

and indeed a Conservative assembly member has recognised real issues

with the structural design of Universal Credit and has even said

it is indefensible. As it stands, there's overwhelming evidence of the

harmful impacts of Universal Credit like rising credit, rent arrears and

evictions. The government must take action or face serious

constitutional questions. The government has had three sitting

days to respond to legislature, keeping the house and the country

along with 7 million people expected to be the programme waiting. Will my

honourable friend give way? The government figures have indicated

that 90,000 families will be transitioned onto Universal Credit

service over the next three months, or 90 days. On average, for every

day that they delay making a decision on this, would my

honourable friend agree that there are about 1000 further families

every day who has two weight those six weeks to get further into debt?

My honourable friend is absolutely right. That is why it is so urgent.

This is why the debate is so urgent. We cannot wait. Although it is a

small proportion of the full number who will have Universal Credit

rolled out to them, it amounts to a 63% increase in the number of people

he will be on full service over the next six months. -- who will be

able. Does she accept that 50% of those people who have received

Universal Credit have received it early enough and applied for an

advanced payment? Just to pick up on my honourable friend is, it is a

loan. That is one of the important points that I would like to make.

I'm very grateful to the honourable lady, I think she nailed it in a

remark she made moments ago. There is to be just three sitting days

since the opposition Day debate. Well we to prove suppose that the

government response to the debate, is it fair to expect Her Majesty's

government to respond to that debate within three sitting days? I will

come onto that in a moment because the precedent was set by the current

government opposite. Can I make these points? I will come onto that.

The government has had three sitting days to respond to the legislature.

It may be useful to quote the now first Secretary of State, the member

for Ashford who, in the last defeat of the government this type, raced

the point of order and said "In the wake of the devastating vote for the

government, have you had any indication that the ministers intend

to come to the house and make a statement about how they propose to

change their policy as the house has now spoken?" That was in 2009 and

within 3.5 hours a statement from the then government was made. The

member for Ashford changed his tune a little last Thursday when he said

all governments had to abide by the rules of Parliament. We are a

Parliamentary democracy but as the speaker said last night, opposition

day motions like that are non-binding and so do not engage

government activity particularly. You

This has raised a fundamental question to report said the

Government no longer content to fire conservative members of Parliament

to vote against opposition Day motions. I will. She referred

earlier to the fact that the interim payment was in her words a loan. If

it wasn't a loan, it would increase the overall quantum benefits being

paid. Is that what she is proposing, to increase the overall quantum of

benefits being paid? I will come onto exactly what I am proposing

very shortly. If the Government's position is that opposition date

bait motions should have no binding effect on the actions of Government,

this fundamentally alters the relationship and balance of power

between the executive and Parliament, namely the departure

vote on legislation and matters of confidence, they can ignore the

decisions and will of Parliament. This is very dangerous ground

indeed, Mr Speaker. It needs to be seen in the context of the blatant

power grab by the executive, as we witnessed at last month's second

reading of the EU Withdrawal Bill. It would suggest there is a change

in precedent here if the honourable lady is accusing the Government

office. These have never been binding on the Government. That is a

president, position entrenched by the fixed term Parliament act.

Badger, I am grateful to the honourable member for his comment,

but the point is that we need to have an urgent response to this

really, really important issue. Mr Speaker, what we are calling for is

a clear set of proposals from this Government as to how they might

reflect the will of the house and pours Universal Credit roll-out,

while the issues I raised and many more that I have no time to our

fixed. I thank my honourable friend way for securing this debate. Was

she surprised as I was about the lack of a denial of the seriousness

of the issues that are coming through from the Government benches

right now? Those common to give no succour to my constituents, one of

them a mother of three currently sipping on her cousin was accurate,

effective from home because of nonpayment of rent due to Universal

Credit delay. This is not about the Government. This is about real

people, our constituents. My honourable friend raises such an

important case. It is absolutely shocking in 2017 the fifth richest

economy in the world that we are having cases brought to our

surgeries day in and day out. The thing is, it is going to get worse

and this is unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable. Thank you for giving

way. At the moment, it feels to me to pause Universal Credit determined

by statutory instrument as you will note has passed, there is another

opportunity in January when there will be another month of an in-built

bars in the system. If we could find some compromise with the Government

and make some significant changes to the policy such as reducing the

weight to four weeks. Would that change your point of view? It needs

to happen ardently, as the honourable member knows. This is

already happening. Already 55 areas this month are having full service

rolled out to them. The colder months are upon us. Christmas will

be around the corner any moment now. We need urgent response now. I thank

my honourable friend forgiving way. I have had a number of cases but one

in particular over the last Christmas period waited for two

months without any money to get any redress. When we come to the

constitutional question on this, democracy can only work if everyone

gets involved and it is no good the Government bypassing Parliament to

do that. I totally agree with what my honourable friend is saying. We

must have a response of Government, a Government that is going to listen

to the will of the house and the people that we represent. It is not

good enough just to say that it is not a binding motion. We need to

have action. I thank my honourable friend forgiving way. Does she agree

with me that the pause is now urgent? The roll-out will begin

halfway through November in my area. Six weeks later, it is Christmas.

The DWP will not be open on Christmas Day, which means many of

my constituents will have to wait until the New Year for any

assistance. Which is why our local food bank is looking to collect 15

tonnes of extra food to deal with the demand. Does she agree with me

that it is time this Parliament listened and the Government listened

to what Parliament is saying and acted to alleviate this obviously

unavoidable hardship? -- obviously unavoidable. Again, my honourable

friend make such an important point and I will pick up on the point you

made about the food banks. The good banks are running out of food as

this scheme is being rolled out. What is going to happen to these

families that desperately need these financial supports? I thank my

honourable friend forgiving way. My constituent has severe mental health

problems. He has been signed off as sick until December. We go out on to

Universal Credit in November and he has been advised that if he doesn't

prove that he is looking for work, you will be sanctioned and his

benefits will be stopped. Does she agree that it is dangerous where

they are essentially overriding the views of registered doctors? Again,

my honourable friend make such an important point about the impact of

an work conditionality. We know that there are about a million people on

zero-hour contracts who may not know from one week to the next whether

they are able to work 35 hours a week or not. We know how much harm

it is going to do. This is people doing the right thing, potentially

being sanctioned if they are deemed that they are not working long

enough hours. My horrible event is being very generous with her time. I

raised the issue of private sector landlords being reluctant to rent

properties to people on the credit. But does she also know that social

landlords will more frequently issue a notice indicating that they will

seek possession of a property if people are in arrears for only a

week, and is it also not scandalous that as people approach the

Christmas period that such a letter and read will be hanging over them?

Absolutely. What we are hearing about, what is happening now, surely

this isn't right. This must stop, this. I'm going to make some

progress of that is all right and then I will take further

interventions. So we must, for those who may not have been keeping up

with the hundreds of stories and we have already heard them now from

colleagues from both sides, we must make sure that the Government

hardship programme is amended to take account of the real hardship

that is happening and this is not just from claimants. It is from

charities that are dealing with claimants. It is from many, many

other organisations as well. And there are three key issues with a

Universal Credit. First of all, around programme design flaws. They

have been there since the outset, as I mentioned last week. The cuts that

were introduced in 2015 and various implementation failures. So first

round the programme launch, as we have heard, the six-week wait being

applied to new claimants before any payment is received is particularly

Draconian, and having real impact. Four weeks of this is to allow

Universal Credit to be backdated, but an additional week week was

added as policy and a week awaiting payment to arrive. And this is

believed to be one of the primary drivers of the rising debt arrears

that we are now seeing. I am very grateful. She refers to a six weeks

delay before any payment is received but she is aware that payments are

made available at the initial stage suit is not quite the case that it

is six weeks before any payment is received. Would you accept that? No,

I don't. So half of those in rent arrears entered into rent arrears

after making the claim and I think that is so important to stress. One

in four we know are waiting more than six weeks. One in ten are

waiting more than ten weeks. The Government may claim... Badger, I

appreciate my honourable friend giving way. Would she agree with me

that with one and a half million people on housing benefit in the

private rental sector and private landlords not having the

collectability or even the patients that housing associations and

councils will have that if 50% of those million and a half people who

will be on Universal Credit, should they lose their homes it will be an

absolute catastrophe? And we know the real issues around the housing

crisis at the moment, so I think the honourable member makes a very fair

point indeed. The Government claim that payment one month in arrears is

to mimic the world of work. But we know that data published shows that

a quarter of the lowest rate, those most likely to be on Universal

Credit, are paid every week or fortnightly. As my honourable friend

the member for wood or West said, given that nearly 400,000 more

people are due to go on Universal Credit over the winter, at this

rate, 80,000 people will be waiting more than six weeks and 40,000

people more than ten weeks for their first payment. This is my last

intervention. I am very grateful to my honourable friend forgiving way.

She's making a very important point these policies are not accidental.

They are baked into the Universal Credit policy and that is why it is

not unreasonable to Aceh governor to respond within three sitting days,

to the opposition Day debate last week. But will my honourable friend

agree with me with my concern is that the Universal Credit payment is

only make you one member of a household and the consequences of

that for domestic violence victims? Again, my honourable friend make

such an important point. I am going to come onto all the different

issues that there are. I raise the issue of the so-called advanced

payment and as I have is mentioned in response to the intervention,

this is in fact a loan. It has to be paid back in six months. Other

design issues I mentioned last week included... I am sorry. I am not

taking any more interventions now. Other design issues I mentioned last

week included the payment being made to one member of the household,

predominantly men. And the second earner is predominantly women,

facing much reduced working hours. The severe disability premium

payments are not incorporated into Universal Credit. Rent is paid to

the claimant rather than the landlord. Self-employed people are

subject to the punitive minimum income floor, which fails to reflect

the reality of the peaks and troughs in their working hours. And that in

work conditionality is coming down the track, meaning a million working

people visiting job centres and facing financial sanctions if they

fail to work the hours their job coach teams they must. On top of

this, Mr Speaker, there is the real-time information was and for

which there is no time limit to disputes leading to more delays in

payments and of course the child element of Universal Credit, which

has been reduced from 20 to 19 years. Turning now to the cuts to

the programme since it was introduced, Universal Credit was

meant to signify the system, but was also meant to make work pay.

Principles we have always supported and still do. Unfortunately, the

2015 summer but it sort the rate slashed and the rate at which it was

withdrawn has dramatically increased. As the Institute for

Fiscal Studies stayed in response to this budget, this meant that the

promise that work would always pay was lost. The cuts would the work

allowances from ?222 a month to ?192 per month for a couple with two

children claiming housing costs. A cut that will result in an estimated

340,000 additional people in poverty by 2020. It also left some families

as much as ?2600 a year worse off. Those with three children will be

facing even more difficulty as the Government has decided that the

state should play no role in supporting the life chances of the

third child. Mr Speaker, a whole generation of children will now be

born without the support offered to their siblings, a break with the

historical principle that the state would not punish children for the

circumstances of their parents. And single parents have been

particularly badly hit. In real terms, a single parent working with

two children, a teacher working full-time, will be ?3700 a year

worse off. do this is before we reach the

government freeze on Social Security which is predicted to push half a

million more people over the poverty line and their analysis shows in

2020 the freeze will mean a family of four receiving Universal Credit

will be ever a worse off, on top of the other cuts I outlined. -- over

worse off. Considering the Universal Credit beyond 2020, given that this

was introduced with an inflation level at 0.3% and it is now 3%. As I

revealed last week, the action group's forthcoming report as to

make these cuts will see 1 million more children pushed into poverty,

300,000 of them under the age of five. What does it say about this

government? That their policies knowingly pushed children into

poverty? The Secretary of State, the minister and many others on the side

of the house try and suggest data that apparently shows a 3% increase

in employment outcomes under Universal Credit when compared with

the previous system was evidence that Universal Credit works in

getting people into work. However, what they fail to add was that this

data was from 2015, before cuts were implemented. Will the Minister

commit now to updating this figure or will he retract the numerous

times he used these particular statistics? It's also worth noting

that the most recent figures show and underspend on tax credits by as

much as 2.4% on what was projected by the office of budgetary

responsibility. Can the government provide the exact figure on the

savings it created? Couldn't some of this underspend be put toward

sorting the problems we encounter under the new programme? I will

return to this point. I'm so sorry, I won't now. Turning to the

implementation failings, leaving aside the many changes to the

schedule in the programme of the last few years, the most recent

roll-out has been beset with issues. I'm glad the government listened to

Labour and will be replacing the high cost phone line to a freephone

phone line. Can the Minister provide me with a timetable as to when it

will happen and also assure me that the freephone line will not be

funded by the taxpayer but by the contractor psycho. Other

implementation issues remain including people being denied

prescriptions and dental treatments -- by the contractors. And not

knowing about alternative arrangements or payments. I have

been inundated with e-mails and calls from people telling me their

Universal Credit horror stories, the self-employed woman worried she is

going to lose her business and home when she goes to Universal Credit.

I've had so many from people who are self-employed, you would not believe

it. They are really concerned about what it will mean to them. A private

landlord, who was worried that three of his tenants owe him thousands of

pounds in arrears and Universal Credit, although they had never been

in arrears before. Southwark Council estimate on average there are

arrears of ?1700 per Universal Credit tenant. Premiums disappear as

well as other disability support. Even current and former DWP advisers

are expressing deep concerns about the programme and the fate of

claimants. I come back to my askeds. Enter the six-week wait, bring it

forward by at least one week. If it is two, as widely reported, it would

make a huge difference. In short alternative payment arrangements are

offered to all claimants at the time of their claim, to suggest it

already happens is more than a little disingenuous. The DWP

guidance is vague, to say the least. The alternative payment arrangement

options include fortnightly payments, split payments and

payments directly to the landlord. Thirdly, reconsider closing one in

ten job centres at the same time as rolling out the programme, it is

nonsensical that this is happening at the same time. Finally, given the

latest assessment from the Obiang, which shows a projected 5%

underspend which is equivalent to ?660 million, will the government

committed to investing it back into the programme, for example, to

eliminate the two child limit? Can I also remind him my earlier question

on lifting Social Security freeze from 2020? This is all reason for

the government to respect the will of the house. This country's elected

representatives and pours Universal Credit full-service roll-out. I

stand ready to work with them in the national interests to address these

issues and avert the disaster that is Universal Credit. The decision of

the house on pausing the Universal Credit full-service roll-out, I call

the minister Damian Hines... Thank you. We had a very good debate last

week, with around 80 members contributing. As I said then, there

were passionate, thoughtful and insightful speeches from across the

house. I'm also aware that many honourable members wish to take part

in the debate today and for that reason I will keep my remarks brief.

The honourable lady pushed us to respond to last week's vote. It may

help, before coming to substantive measures, I put the boat into

context. -- I put the vote into context. We take part fully in all

proceedings of the house including opposition debates. Last Wednesday,

the secretary... I just said not yet. Large numbers of Conservative

MPs made valuable contributions. The decision on whether or not to vote

is a matter for members and their parties... And Mr Speaker, as you

noted last week, it is a legitimate one to take. Universal Credit was

fully legislated for in 2012 and in subsequent SIs and it was debated by

Parliament. The honourable lady. I just want to ask the minister if he

thought we had such a good debate last week why did his party abstain

from voting? Mr Speaker, I will come to many of the things that came out

of the debate. As I said, the legitimate decision to vote, or

otherwise, in such a debate, there is much that you take from a debate

like that and I thought it was a very high-quality session of the

house. Mr Speaker, I will not... The right honourable gentleman. I have

asked the Secretary of State twice, and now the minister twice. On

advice for me to take home to Birkenhead. On the Secretary of

State's advice, he says the roll-out of Universal Credit in Birkenhead in

November will all go hunky-dory. No need to worry. People are not going

to be reduced to hunger and perhaps destitution. On the other hand, we

have a food bank in Birkenhead buses on the experience of other areas

where the benefits have been rolled out, they will need to raise another

15 tonnes of food in the coming year. Should I go home and tell

people not to pay any attention to the food bank, they are

scaremongering? Or put all of our trust in the Minister that this will

work? Mr Speaker, it is right he has put that point forward a number of

times. Last time he put it in the context specifically of Christmas, I

am aware that organisations like the banks do have an increase in their

activity at Christmas time. I think we have to be careful, in describing

reasons for the usage of the banks to individual causes... I am

responding to the gentleman next to me... I understand the strong

passion in the debate but members should respectively wait for the

Minister to deal with one intervention before immediately

seeking to embark upon another. If I may gently say so I think the

Minister himself is a most courteous fellow and should be treated with

courtesy. Minister? In response to the right honourable gentleman, the

last time we said we do not expected to happen, we want the system to

work as well as it can. We approved the advice, on advances to ensure

that people get the assistance that they need... If you forgive me,

unconscious of the time and the large number of people who wish to

take part. This is not the food bank thinking up ideas or targets. This

is our food bank talking to other food banks in other areas that have

already had the roll-out. On that basis they suggest in the coming

year, not just Christmas, they need to raise an additional 15 tonnes of

food. Are they scaremongering? Should we put them aside? Should we

believe them? The government will not be able to deliver universal

benefit without reducing people to hunger? Does that make you proud? I

will not say a word against the right honourable gentleman's

feedback or suggest they are doing anything else negative or anything

like that but in response to the question, we do not expect these

things to happen as we want the system to work as well as I possibly

can, and it continues to improve in its performance and we continue to

evolve and improve the system. If he will forgive me, we also continue an

active dialogue with members across the house, and others outside and we

listen to concerns. Where we hear about improvements and identify

needs to be made, we make them. As the Secretary of State and I said in

closing the debate last week, the government will roll out the benefit

gradually and adjust as necessary as we go. The opposition are asking for

a pause in the roll-out. We already have planned pauses in the roll-out.

We just had one and another is scheduled for January. These breaks

in the schedule had intentionally been built in. They illustrate my

point of a slow and considered roll-out, rather than the

alternative Big Bang approach, an approach which members opposite may

recognise from 2003, with the disastrous implementation of working

tax credits with billions misspent and many families left without money

for six months, and many more facing huge repayment bills. The honourable

gentleman. If the government is so confident in their position why have

they refused to publish the risk register set out for the whole of

Parliament? They are asking what has been planned for? These debates risk

registers in a number of different policies, this all happened when the

Labour Party were in government as well. I think people in general

would agree that it is important for the management of government to be

able to consider these things in the way that they are. Mr Speaker, the

honourable gentleman...? The speaker is a courteous man, I haven't

received a response yet, I was open to question him on the point that

prior to coming to this point, this policy is flawed because it relies

on hardship payments from day one. Hardship payments that should not be

a policy decision. He could do the decent thing now and pause this, or

even reduce that period. I ask him to respond directly to that point?

Mr Speaker, this system replaces a deeply flawed one, and striving to

face up head on to endemic problems that we have had for decades. They

were left to difficult to deal with. A system where complexity and

bureaucracy had so often served to stifle the independence, limit

choice and constrain outlook of claimants. And unlike the tax credit

roll-out in 2003, the Minister of the government built in a slow

roll-out and then proved adaptable in terms of the portal, advances and

the ever-increasing speed with which these claims are being made? By

honourable friend is quite right, we will not remake those mistakes of

the past and that is why it is such a careful and gradual process.

Universal Credit, my honourable friend. Would he agree, therefore,

that by doing the roll-out in a steady period of time over nine

years, it enables us to continue to learn and adapt as we go on and

develop the best system which is clearly what we are doing? Mr

Speaker, I agree entirely. It is a process so important to going

through and optimising the system is Universal Credit helps you into

work, and get on in work. Eventually, we estimate around 7

million people will be benefiting from the advantages that it brings

with a quarter of a million more people in paid work as a result. It

is already working. Three separate studies show with Universal Credit

people getting to work faster than with JS say and when they are there,

they do not face the cliff edges that have held people back. Thank

you, Mr Speaker. The debate in January, January the 16th, the

government listen to the debate and some requests. There have been

changes which have improved but it is the cuts and savage

implementation of the sanctions that are the hardest and giving a loan to

somebody already in debt does not help at all, we should not be doing

that. Well, we do think that having a

system with conditionality is important. The level of sanctions is

down quite significantly your idea and the vast majority of people are

not receiving sanctions. As you yourself said... I am very grateful

to the Minister. Wallaby flexibilities Labour asked for was

the opportunity to pay rent direct to the landlord so that the tenancy

is protected. Is that something the ministers considering? Not only

considering, but in response to my Right Honourable friend, over a

third of tenants in the social rented section have had arrangements

for vulnerable claimants, for those for whom that particular arrangement

is important. As you said last week, Mr Speaker, what we do in this house

is important. Members insights are important as well. Indeed, members

of Parliament are uniquely placed to funnel and convey feedback, critique

and proposals for improvements. I thank my honourable friend forgiving

way and I would pay tribute to him since debris of this year he has

engaged with my constituents to improve Universal Credit, but taking

into account this debate that we have had in the last few days, would

you not agree with me that to make Universal Credit truly flexible and

personalised, but also fair, it is now necessary to ensure that first

payments are made faster and private sector landlords are able to set up

payments on the same basis as social landlords? Well, Mr Speaker, we are

continuing to improve processes and that does include on that point he

made around making sure that alternative payment arrangements in

the private rented sector work as well as they can. That is an issue

on which he and I have had an opportunity to talk before. And from

the debate last week... Yes, of course. In looking at what might be

available to him, would you look at the situation in Northern Ireland,

where by default payments are made directly to the landlord? Where

payments are made only two weekly basis unless claimants request

otherwise, and where splits payments again are made on the basis of

demands from the individual claimants, if those changes were

introduced in Northern Ireland and are working effectively, would he

take some guidance from that? It is of devolution that that you will get

different systems operating as there is a different approach in Northern

Ireland. A different approach again in Scotland. There is a different

approach again in Scotland. They're not exactly the same. Just for

clarity, I should mention that all three of the things that he has

identified, that is to say rent paid directly to landlords as we does

disgust and also more frequent claimants and split payments which

came up. All these things are possible in England as well when

appropriate for individuals. I do want to press on now because I don't

want to take up too much time from the debate. From last week's debate,

as well as the general commentary received and heard, I have also

taken away a number of points that were raised for action. There were

some individual cases and also a policy in process matters. These

included, as we were just saying, how we can prove arrangements for