21/12/2017

0:00:00 > 0:00:00Middle East?Mr Speaker, I think all members would condemn the sort of

0:00:00 > 0:00:03violence the honourable gentleman talks about and I do encourage him

0:00:03 > 0:00:11to seek an adjournment debate.Thank you. Order. Statements, the Leader

0:00:11 > 0:00:20of the House. The Leader of the House, Andrea Leadsom.In advance of

0:00:20 > 0:00:23my statement, may I apologise it is a little long but I do want to give

0:00:23 > 0:00:31a full account to the House.

0:00:31 > 0:00:41To address reports of bullying in Parliament. Recognising that

0:00:41 > 0:00:46Parliament can and must set a good example. In her letter to you, Mr

0:00:46 > 0:00:51Speaker, the Prime Minister made clear the need for a new grievance

0:00:51 > 0:00:56procedure and a cross-party working group on an complaints policy has

0:00:56 > 0:01:00been working hard over the last six weeks to consider evidence and draw

0:01:00 > 0:01:03up recommendations for new procedures. Good progress has been

0:01:03 > 0:01:08made. And during recess there'll be further discussion within the

0:01:08 > 0:01:12parties and amongst the staff bodies in order for a fuller report to be

0:01:12 > 0:01:18made in the New Year. There are many examples of good employers and

0:01:18 > 0:01:21professional working practises across Parliament. What we seek to

0:01:21 > 0:01:26do is make sure that this is the case for all. So the working group,

0:01:26 > 0:01:30chaired by myself on behalf of the Prime Minister, has been made up of

0:01:30 > 0:01:36two colleagues from Labour and one from the national Scottish, the DUP,

0:01:36 > 0:01:41Plaid Cymru and the Green Party, plus the Leader of the House of

0:01:41 > 0:01:47Commons and the convener from the other place. We have three staff

0:01:47 > 0:01:54members representing Maps unite and NUJ. They have ensured that staff

0:01:54 > 0:01:58voices have been heard loudly. We have been supported by Cabinet

0:01:58 > 0:02:05Office and parliamentary staff, including the work of jus teen

0:02:05 > 0:02:14Howell and Mr Mott, specialist. I am aware of the active interest that a

0:02:14 > 0:02:18number of colleagues have taken. For them it is a personal campaign to

0:02:18 > 0:02:21impro-ve the experience of those working here. I thank them for

0:02:21 > 0:02:27discussing their thoughts with me, particularly the honourable members

0:02:27 > 0:02:33for Luton South and my honourable friends the members for Woking and

0:02:33 > 0:02:39basing stoke. We have heard from a wide range of professionals, both in

0:02:39 > 0:02:44person and written submissions. These include the speakers of both

0:02:44 > 0:02:49Houses, Professor Childs, Rape Crisis, the Clarks of both houses,

0:02:49 > 0:02:52ACAS, the parliamentary commissions for standards and the chair of the

0:02:52 > 0:02:59Committee on Standards in Public Life, Unite, legal experts from the

0:02:59 > 0:03:03business world and Health assured. The group heard from staff on their

0:03:03 > 0:03:07views on the churl in Parliament and were grateful to those who spoke

0:03:07 > 0:03:14about their experiences. Or provide pd anonymous submissions. The group

0:03:14 > 0:03:18identified three guiding principals. Firstly, Parliament requires an

0:03:18 > 0:03:22independent process must be separate from the political channels.

0:03:22 > 0:03:26Secondly, much evidence was taken that claims of sexual harassment

0:03:26 > 0:03:30must be dealt with separately from claims of bullying and other types

0:03:30 > 0:03:34of harassment. Structures alone will not change the culture in

0:03:34 > 0:03:39Parliament. Other steps are also needed, including crucially an HR

0:03:39 > 0:03:44service for the staff employed by members and an expansion of training

0:03:44 > 0:03:47provision. As a result of the work of the group, and with the support

0:03:47 > 0:03:51of the speaker and the commission, there are a number of immediate

0:03:51 > 0:03:54measures which have been put in place to increase the level of

0:03:54 > 0:03:59support to staff across the estate T firstly, there would be a new

0:03:59 > 0:04:04interim provision of HR support and guidance for the staff of members

0:04:04 > 0:04:07beginning after the recess while consideration is given to the need

0:04:07 > 0:04:12for a broader HR service. HR support will also be available to members

0:04:12 > 0:04:17staff working on the parliamentary estate in squishtsy officers and

0:04:17 > 0:04:21those -- constituency offices and those collectively employed by the

0:04:21 > 0:04:25parties. In addition new training will be available, addressing a

0:04:25 > 0:04:30range of needs identified by the working group. This is in addition

0:04:30 > 0:04:33to the announced expanded heel assured helpline made available to

0:04:33 > 0:04:38members of staff across both Houses and other pass-holders across the

0:04:38 > 0:04:44estate. As you yourself requested the individual party policies and

0:04:44 > 0:04:47procedures for dealing bullying and harassment have been published on

0:04:47 > 0:04:52line. A great deal has been achieved. We also have a programme

0:04:52 > 0:04:56of work planned in to the New Year. The working group has clearly

0:04:56 > 0:05:01identified the need for new policies and procedures to tackle bullying

0:05:01 > 0:05:04and harassment, including sexual, which should be available to staff

0:05:04 > 0:05:08and members across the estate, which must be independence independent of

0:05:08 > 0:05:12the political parties. The proposals which follow are the outcome of

0:05:12 > 0:05:14substantial evidence taken by the working group. There is strong

0:05:14 > 0:05:19support from its members. It is the case, however, that further work,

0:05:19 > 0:05:23evidence gathering and consultation will be required before we can put

0:05:23 > 0:05:27new processes in place. They must attract the full support and

0:05:27 > 0:05:33confidence of staff, MPs and peers across Parliament. Some of the new

0:05:33 > 0:05:37policies that are under consideration are a new behaviour

0:05:37 > 0:05:43code to be consulted on, which would apply to all those who were in or

0:05:43 > 0:05:45for Parliament, including members, peers and staff, wherever they are

0:05:45 > 0:05:50work. This behaviour code could sit alongside the existing parliamentary

0:05:50 > 0:05:59codes of conduct, which may require amendment. The procurement of a new

0:05:59 > 0:06:02independent sexual service to provide a helpline and counselling,

0:06:02 > 0:06:11help and support to those wishing to make disclosures. It would provide

0:06:11 > 0:06:17support to claimants, to those including. To pursue a criminal

0:06:17 > 0:06:22justice route, or if they did not wish to go to the police then

0:06:22 > 0:06:25alternative strictly confidential resupport. The working group has

0:06:25 > 0:06:31taken evidence on the need for an independent mediation service to

0:06:31 > 0:06:34provide a helpline, counselling and investigation into incidents of

0:06:34 > 0:06:39bullying and intimidation. Finally, we discussed sanctions. These will

0:06:39 > 0:06:45differ according to the server severity of the grievance and to

0:06:45 > 0:06:50different individuals. For lower level complaints the range of

0:06:50 > 0:06:53sanctions could include training covering bullying and harassment, a

0:06:53 > 0:06:59full apolicy, as well as a review of the policy past. Further work needs

0:06:59 > 0:07:02to be carried out to ensure sanctions are appropriate, fair and

0:07:02 > 0:07:06enforcible. The functions of both the parliamentary Commissioner for

0:07:06 > 0:07:09Standards and the standards committee may need to be

0:07:09 > 0:07:13strengthened and reviewed to ensure fair representation and

0:07:13 > 0:07:18confidentiality. Considerable further work needs to be carried out

0:07:18 > 0:07:23before conclusions can be drawn. And of course any changes to standing

0:07:23 > 0:07:26orders, or to the Code of Conduct would require decisions by the

0:07:26 > 0:07:31House. Mr Speaker, the working groups' discussions have been

0:07:31 > 0:07:36underpinned by a persistent theme, that whilst there are many examples

0:07:36 > 0:07:40of excellent employers and working relationships here, there is a real

0:07:40 > 0:07:44need to improve the overall workplace culture of Parliament. One

0:07:44 > 0:07:50of the routes to this is proper independent HR support for member

0:07:50 > 0:07:56staff to minimise the problem of con tractual disputes. We need to work

0:07:56 > 0:07:59with the House authorities and staff to consider the best and most

0:07:59 > 0:08:03appropriate way of delivering this in the long-term. We also received a

0:08:03 > 0:08:08great deal of evidence on the need for voluntary and mandatory training

0:08:08 > 0:08:12for staff and employers. This would uncloud proper induction courses by

0:08:12 > 0:08:16staff employed by members. Whilst this is not within the terms of

0:08:16 > 0:08:23reference for the working group, it was made clear that enabling better

0:08:23 > 0:08:26support for better relationships could significantly improve the

0:08:26 > 0:08:29working atmosphere and a professional culture. The working

0:08:29 > 0:08:32group will consider the evidence further. Mr Speaker, we were

0:08:32 > 0:08:37grateful for your own contribution to the working group, where you made

0:08:37 > 0:08:40clear that the House of Commons commission stands ready to do what

0:08:40 > 0:08:44it needs to do to respond to any proposal from the working group,

0:08:44 > 0:08:48providing that the proposal combines independence and transparency. We

0:08:48 > 0:08:53recognise both the need for swift progress and also the need for

0:08:53 > 0:08:57careful consideration before taking action. Our next steps, therefore,

0:08:57 > 0:09:02are crucial. The working group will reconvene after recess to agree how

0:09:02 > 0:09:06the work can progress. We will look to closely at the policies we have

0:09:06 > 0:09:09identified as needing further work and consultation and begin to take

0:09:09 > 0:09:12further advice and evidence. There have been a number of proposals

0:09:12 > 0:09:18about how to take our work forward. These range from appointing a

0:09:18 > 0:09:22special Select Committee to maintaining a members and staff

0:09:22 > 0:09:25cross members committee. We will consider all ideas carefully. I want

0:09:25 > 0:09:29to make it clear that the work of the existing group is on going for

0:09:29 > 0:09:33the time being. We will continue to involve staff, peers and MPs

0:09:33 > 0:09:37collectively, each step of the way. Excellent progress has been made in

0:09:37 > 0:09:41a short space of time, Mr Speaker. I want to express my gratitude for the

0:09:41 > 0:09:45strong commitment shown by members of the working group and for the

0:09:45 > 0:09:50expertise provided by our specialist advisers. Finally, Mr Speaker, I

0:09:50 > 0:09:54will say this, the working group formed to bring about change and I

0:09:54 > 0:10:00recognise that change is not always easy, particularly somewhere with

0:10:00 > 0:10:03such long-standing tro decisions and customs where we live and work in

0:10:03 > 0:10:07the full glare of the media spotlight. But this cannot be an

0:10:07 > 0:10:11excuse. We should not rest until everyone working in Parliament can

0:10:11 > 0:10:16feel safe, valued and respected. We have a chance now to get this right.

0:10:16 > 0:10:20For everyone on the parliamentary estate, including staff, MPs and

0:10:20 > 0:10:24peers, and I hope to bring the working group's final proposals here

0:10:24 > 0:10:27in the New Year. Thank you.

0:10:29 > 0:10:35Can I thank the leader of the House for her leadership of the group and

0:10:35 > 0:10:39thank all honourable members. Everyone who took time to submit

0:10:39 > 0:10:43evidence and/or ral evidence, including you, Mr Speaker, giving up

0:10:43 > 0:10:48time to attend the hearings. And commitment by the speaker of both

0:10:48 > 0:10:52Houses is therefore there. Senior Clarks of both Houses were on hand

0:10:52 > 0:10:58for discussion and those who started the secretary tarry yacht, you

0:10:58 > 0:11:02responded magnificently trying to make sense of all our discussions.

0:11:02 > 0:11:14With you represented what is great about the work ethic in the House. I

0:11:14 > 0:11:25would like I would like to thank all those who attended in addition to

0:11:25 > 0:11:28all the work they do currently for members. The working party was set

0:11:28 > 0:11:33up by the Government with other party leaders in the wake of reports

0:11:33 > 0:11:37of sexual harassment in a variety of situations. I want to make the

0:11:37 > 0:11:39position of the opposition very, very clear. I do not think it is

0:11:39 > 0:11:43acceptable that the position of the opposition Labour Party was miss

0:11:43 > 0:11:47represented in the press at the weekend. There is a report but it is

0:11:47 > 0:11:51still a draft report and it should go out to consultation. Normally the

0:11:51 > 0:11:57report is agreed and after that the summary can be published. But Mr

0:11:57 > 0:12:02Speaker, the group sat for over four hours on one day and we came up with

0:12:02 > 0:12:06some good solutions, good, creative solutions, which the leader has, to

0:12:06 > 0:12:09some extent, set out in her statement. Suggestions are coming

0:12:09 > 0:12:12in, include from the public administration and constitutional

0:12:12 > 0:12:18affairs committee yesterday. It affects both Houses. I would like my

0:12:18 > 0:12:22counterpart, the Baroness of Basildon to be fully informed as she

0:12:22 > 0:12:26takes it through the other place. The working party does not come

0:12:26 > 0:12:30through the House by motion. If we are to have change we need to

0:12:30 > 0:12:33consult, reflect on the proposals and to make sure it is workable. We

0:12:33 > 0:12:39don't want to have to unpick it later. But it is vital that the

0:12:39 > 0:12:41people in the party hierarchy and those trade unions who represent

0:12:41 > 0:12:45staff in this place, who may not have had a place in the group are

0:12:45 > 0:12:49consulted T leader mentions a number of suggestions that can be put in

0:12:49 > 0:12:52place which can protect people now for the medium term and the longer

0:12:52 > 0:12:56term. But the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear to me

0:12:56 > 0:13:04and in his pet letter to the Prime Minister that the opposition wants a

0:13:04 > 0:13:07separate independent sexual harassment adviser support. The

0:13:07 > 0:13:10sexual adviser should be reported now, who have independent and

0:13:10 > 0:13:14qualified to take the complaintant through the process until the tender

0:13:14 > 0:13:18is out, which could be by the end of January and a new separate helpline

0:13:18 > 0:13:22to be set up now. If there are cases which exist now people don't feel as

0:13:22 > 0:13:27if there is nowhere to go with their complaints. We cannot have this vk

0:13:27 > 0:13:32couple. It could easily be done immediately. Will the leader of the

0:13:32 > 0:13:35House agree to do that now. Independent human resources of

0:13:35 > 0:13:39staff. Some belong to trade unions. Others do not want to. There are

0:13:39 > 0:13:43benefits to inJoing one. They have expertise and are familiar with

0:13:43 > 0:13:47employment rights. Given the possibility erosion of rights as we

0:13:47 > 0:13:51leave the EU there are concerns the Working Time Directive may be

0:13:51 > 0:13:55removed. It is vital those not in management have advice and

0:13:55 > 0:13:59assistance. I know the staff rep said they would like the service and

0:13:59 > 0:14:04cannot deal with the cases they have currently. This should be offered on

0:14:04 > 0:14:10an equivalent basis to the staff of the House. The HR support service

0:14:10 > 0:14:14should be expanded with sen yoor members of staff on how to inter--

0:14:14 > 0:14:17senior members of staff on how to interview. That should be separate

0:14:17 > 0:14:22to that offered to staff. There are policies which exist. The respect

0:14:22 > 0:14:26policy. We heard evidence, bill on what you have. It take hassen staff

0:14:26 > 0:14:30of this House 18 months to get this policy together. We need to use

0:14:30 > 0:14:35those expertise. There are many other policies and best practise.

0:14:35 > 0:14:45ACAS said they are working a media organisation to produce a policy on

0:14:45 > 0:14:50sexual harassment. With your swift action, health assured is now open

0:14:50 > 0:14:54to all. It has been expanded. So there is a route in for those who

0:14:54 > 0:15:07need it and they can be sign posted to different areas of expertise.

0:15:07 > 0:15:11The leader mentions a new behaviour code but this is where more work

0:15:11 > 0:15:18needs to be done. There is a code, and as the chair said it could be

0:15:18 > 0:15:23amended. A reminder of the Nolan principles in public life, what

0:15:23 > 0:15:27constitutes sexist or racist behaviour. It need not be long, this

0:15:27 > 0:15:33mandatory training for every person in the House, two hours which will

0:15:33 > 0:15:37include fire safety and even cyber security. It is necessary for those

0:15:37 > 0:15:42who work here, not only to protect themselves on what is appropriate

0:15:42 > 0:15:46and inappropriate behaviour, but that is the right thing to do. As

0:15:46 > 0:15:59for sanctions, if it is for members there must be further discussion

0:15:59 > 0:16:01with the parties. The Labour Party is constantly refining its sexual

0:16:01 > 0:16:04harassment process. It has been looked at by a leading QC that we

0:16:04 > 0:16:06are in a much better place. Any process needs to be tested through

0:16:06 > 0:16:09the experience of a complainant, only that way will we know if it

0:16:09 > 0:16:14works. This is too important an issue. There needs to be expert help

0:16:14 > 0:16:19or consultants whether it's through a select committee or Parliamentary

0:16:19 > 0:16:24Forum, it will be set up to monitor outcomes and take forward further

0:16:24 > 0:16:27work and refine our policies. The majority of people working here on

0:16:27 > 0:16:33Monday, when you referred to members, dedicated and hard-working

0:16:33 > 0:16:36committed public servants doing what you believe is the right thing for

0:16:36 > 0:16:47the country. I hope it will have given power to the powerless as we

0:16:47 > 0:16:50protect vulnerable people and enable them to work in this centre of

0:16:50 > 0:16:58democracy.Mr Speaker, may I just say to the honourable lady that I'm

0:16:58 > 0:17:04very pleased to hear that she feels the work is progressing well, that's

0:17:04 > 0:17:09some good recommendations have been made. I think it is very pleasing

0:17:09 > 0:17:16she wishes to make urgent progress and I look forward to working with

0:17:16 > 0:17:26her closely on this in the New Year. Thank you.Thank you, Mr Speaker, I

0:17:26 > 0:17:30would like to thank the Leader of the House and the work alongside all

0:17:30 > 0:17:35colleagues over the last six weeks and I welcome the updates in the New

0:17:35 > 0:17:39Year and the group taking on this matter by the leader on behalf of

0:17:39 > 0:17:43the Prime Minister to get this right. I have been committed in this

0:17:43 > 0:17:48place to making a positive place for everyone working here and sitting on

0:17:48 > 0:17:52your diversity committee has very much been an honour but it has shown

0:17:52 > 0:18:01the amount of challenges that we have. As chair of the all

0:18:01 > 0:18:07Parliamentary group, we hosted an event here for staff, aspiring

0:18:07 > 0:18:12politicians, councillors, business leaders and...The Speaker: Order! I

0:18:12 > 0:18:17don't wish to be discourteous. We have a lot of business to get onto,

0:18:17 > 0:18:20I'm waiting to call someone else as well who has other pressing

0:18:20 > 0:18:27business. I need a single sentence question, nothing more.Can we all

0:18:27 > 0:18:32commit to using every area to make this a safe place to work and aspire

0:18:32 > 0:18:39to be?My honourable friend does a huge amount of this place to support

0:18:39 > 0:18:43particularly women but all equality issues and I absolutely commend her

0:18:43 > 0:18:51for that and will be delighted to work with her.As a member of the

0:18:51 > 0:18:54working group I want to commend the honourable lady for her leadership

0:18:54 > 0:18:59on this issue and the diligent way she's gone round trying to build

0:18:59 > 0:19:03consensus. We have made solid progress but it is profoundly

0:19:03 > 0:19:07disappointing we have been unable to deliver a report on this side of

0:19:07 > 0:19:12Christmas as anticipated and as expected by the rest of the people

0:19:12 > 0:19:17in this House. The Leader of the House has gone that extra mile to

0:19:17 > 0:19:22ensure progress has been made. But by failing to deliver this report we

0:19:22 > 0:19:27have let everyone down in this House, particularly the staff who

0:19:27 > 0:19:30were expecting quick and speedy progress and I'm appalled if there

0:19:30 > 0:19:35is any suggestion this might be getting punted into the long grass.

0:19:35 > 0:19:39We have an excellent report ready to go which has been agreed by all the

0:19:39 > 0:19:43parties in this House, practically all the parties, and has been agreed

0:19:43 > 0:19:55by all staff representatives. I want to join the leader in thanking the

0:19:55 > 0:19:58expert on sexual harassment, who with their extensive experience,

0:19:58 > 0:20:04have helped design the report that covers concerns raised by staff. I

0:20:04 > 0:20:07sincerely hope if there are parties in this House who may have issues

0:20:07 > 0:20:10about getting the process of delivering this report that they are

0:20:10 > 0:20:17quickly dealt with. It is far too important an issue to be lost in

0:20:17 > 0:20:20party political machinery so can I ask the Leader of the House to get

0:20:20 > 0:20:23people round the table as quickly as possible and make sure this report

0:20:23 > 0:20:28is delivered so we can start protecting people in this House.I

0:20:28 > 0:20:33would like to thank the honourable gentleman for his tireless work, he

0:20:33 > 0:20:36has been dedicated to making progress with this and I commend him

0:20:36 > 0:20:41for that. I share his enthusiasm for speedy work, speedy further

0:20:41 > 0:20:46progress. All colleagues will be aware of the need for careful

0:20:46 > 0:20:52consultation but we do need to make faster progress.I welcome my right

0:20:52 > 0:20:56honourable friend's statement and thank all of the members across the

0:20:56 > 0:21:03House who have worked on this. I am particularly keen to hear more going

0:21:03 > 0:21:07forward on the code of conduct and counselling made available. I have

0:21:07 > 0:21:11even raised with you the code of conduct, Mr Speaker, and it's also

0:21:11 > 0:21:16about the language which we know the importance of in this chamber. It

0:21:16 > 0:21:19can empower people but sometimes people use language to subjugate

0:21:19 > 0:21:25women.Yes, my honourable friend raises a really important point

0:21:25 > 0:21:33about language and I do encourage her to send in our own written

0:21:33 > 0:21:37submission to the working group.I want to say thank you to the Leader

0:21:37 > 0:21:40of the House for having a very open process that I have personally felt

0:21:40 > 0:21:45I could take part in throughout the process. What worries me about what

0:21:45 > 0:21:48has been said today, although I think it is good progress, what

0:21:48 > 0:21:54worries me is there seems to be quite a lot of kicking can down the

0:21:54 > 0:21:58road potentially and that we are not going to hear what is to happen, and

0:21:58 > 0:22:04I have to say I fear politics is still stopping some of those

0:22:04 > 0:22:11decisions and I want some assurances that whatever sanctions regime the

0:22:11 > 0:22:14working group has worked towards, whatever independent regime the

0:22:14 > 0:22:18working group has worked towards, it is swiftly as possible if come to

0:22:18 > 0:22:24fruition.The honourable lady has been very helpful and open with her

0:22:24 > 0:22:29views on this matter and I assure her I'm working to get this sorted

0:22:29 > 0:22:38as soon as possible.I'd like to thank the leader for her work on

0:22:38 > 0:22:42this working group, but as she knows there are glaring omissions in the

0:22:42 > 0:22:48work so far. For example the word violence didn't alter from her lips

0:22:48 > 0:22:52this morning. Can I suggest this working group is too narrowly drawn

0:22:52 > 0:22:55and she should consider setting up a special select committee on which

0:22:55 > 0:22:59all members of this House would apply to be elected because we want

0:22:59 > 0:23:06to make sure this is modern exemplar of a workplace fit for the rest of

0:23:06 > 0:23:12the world.I'm grateful to my honourable friend and I can assure

0:23:12 > 0:23:16him one of the proposals the working group is looking at is the provision

0:23:16 > 0:23:24of services by an independent sexual harassment and sexual violence that

0:23:24 > 0:23:31-- advocate. His comments about the proposed love select committee is an

0:23:31 > 0:23:34interesting one, I've also mentioned that as one of the proposals put to

0:23:34 > 0:23:37us. The working group will look carefully at the different

0:23:37 > 0:23:42suggestions for how we take this work forward to make sure we have

0:23:42 > 0:23:45consulted thoroughly and done our work very considerably and in the

0:23:45 > 0:23:54full knowledge across this place.I praise her diplomacy, what she has

0:23:54 > 0:23:57announced is fine as far as it goes but she knows it's important and

0:23:57 > 0:24:01urgent that we make more progress and indeed that many in the working

0:24:01 > 0:24:05group, including some members who cannot be here today, are

0:24:05 > 0:24:10disappointed and frustrated we are not further forward. She is right to

0:24:10 > 0:24:14say change is hard, would she agree vested interests, not least whips

0:24:14 > 0:24:20office is reluctant to give up their power, must not be allowed to derail

0:24:20 > 0:24:26parliament making progress on harassment?Again, I would like to

0:24:26 > 0:24:30thank the honourable lady for her contribution to the working group.

0:24:30 > 0:24:35She has worked tirelessly on it and also mention the honourable lady the

0:24:35 > 0:24:38Member for Brighton, who has spent a great deal of time and effort on

0:24:38 > 0:24:42this. I would however say to her that I have spoken to whips on both

0:24:42 > 0:24:46sides of the House and in fact on all sides of the House and all are

0:24:46 > 0:24:52very keen to see resolution of this matter and careful consideration but

0:24:52 > 0:24:56I do believe we will be in a point to make faster progress in the New

0:24:56 > 0:25:02Year.I congratulate my right honourable friend on her leadership

0:25:02 > 0:25:07and drive on this issue. Of course Parliament is a special and unique

0:25:07 > 0:25:11place of work but I think my constituents will be most reassured

0:25:11 > 0:25:16if the bespoke scheme that we come up with was a blend of the best

0:25:16 > 0:25:23independent complaints procedure in the private sector, the best

0:25:23 > 0:25:25independent complaints and grievance sector in the public sector, and the

0:25:25 > 0:25:38best example of an independent grievance from around the world.As

0:25:38 > 0:25:42I said in my statement, we want to be setting the best example, we

0:25:42 > 0:25:45don't just want to be following someone else but setting a great

0:25:45 > 0:25:49example and make sure the culture in this place is somewhere where

0:25:49 > 0:25:56everybody feels safe, valued and respected.May I join with others

0:25:56 > 0:25:59commending the Leader of the House on the work that has happened so far

0:25:59 > 0:26:03and recognise the journey to go because we all have some way to go

0:26:03 > 0:26:07before we can practice what we are preaching in this House. On that

0:26:07 > 0:26:11point, can I ask her to clarify, she said in her statement further work

0:26:11 > 0:26:16needs to be carried out to ensure sanctions are appropriate, fair and

0:26:16 > 0:26:26unenforceable. Will she and core -- ensure recall is on the table as an

0:26:26 > 0:26:33option and that severance payments will be received by those who have

0:26:33 > 0:26:38behaved inappropriately.Recall is set in law as a matter of fact so it

0:26:38 > 0:26:42is a possibility under certain conditions as a matter of fact. The

0:26:42 > 0:26:46working party has not yet finished its work or its evidence taking on

0:26:46 > 0:26:49exactly how that can be brought to bear here but we are very clear

0:26:49 > 0:26:52there will be ultimate sanctions, but let's also be clear, the issue

0:26:52 > 0:26:58for Parliament isn't one that only affects members, it affects peers

0:26:58 > 0:27:03and staff, nonmember staff around the parliamentary estate so there is

0:27:03 > 0:27:07a large amount of work which is why I was very clear the work on

0:27:07 > 0:27:10sanctions needs to be looked at further to make sure they are fair

0:27:10 > 0:27:14both to the person who's been alleged to have committed something

0:27:14 > 0:27:18bad and also to the complainant who deserves justice so there is more

0:27:18 > 0:27:24work to be done there.I'd like to thank the leader for her statement

0:27:24 > 0:27:30that contains some welcome measures, particularly the sexual violence

0:27:30 > 0:27:34advocate service, and could I also say I am extremely welcome that the

0:27:34 > 0:27:40system needs to be completely separate from the normal political

0:27:40 > 0:27:50channels. As the Leader of the House is aware, I note the behaviour code

0:27:50 > 0:27:54in the statement will cover a much larger number of people than members

0:27:54 > 0:27:58of this House. I wonder at this stage if you can answer the question

0:27:58 > 0:28:06well she is consulting further, who would look at the issue of

0:28:06 > 0:28:12investigating members, not members of this House but other people who

0:28:12 > 0:28:19may come under that cold.He raises a similar point of the honourable

0:28:19 > 0:28:21lady from Walthamstow, very important the sanction should be

0:28:21 > 0:28:25fair and appropriate to whatever is the employment contract or contract

0:28:25 > 0:28:29with members of the public that is held by the person about whom the

0:28:29 > 0:28:34accusation is being made so it will require further work to ensure

0:28:34 > 0:28:40sanctions are appropriate for the alleged perpetrator.Can I thank the

0:28:40 > 0:28:45GMB union for being the first Labour affiliate to building detailed

0:28:45 > 0:28:49questioning of potential MPs or candidates understanding of sexual

0:28:49 > 0:28:53harassment and for having the integrity to refuse to nominate

0:28:53 > 0:28:58people who don't have that understanding. Will the Leader of

0:28:58 > 0:29:02the House let us know whether those women who have previously complained

0:29:02 > 0:29:06don't feel their complaint has actually been heard, will they have

0:29:06 > 0:29:13recourse to this new system?A great deal of discussion on this point

0:29:13 > 0:29:19took place and it was recognised by the working group there would have

0:29:19 > 0:29:22to be certain limitations because theoretically otherwise you could be

0:29:22 > 0:29:27listening to allegations that were 40, 50 years old that potentially

0:29:27 > 0:29:35people... The allegations against were no longer living. It is

0:29:35 > 0:29:38absolutely our intention that people who have current investigations are

0:29:38 > 0:29:42obligations should be able to seek access to this independent

0:29:42 > 0:29:47complaints body, even though that body may choose for particular

0:29:47 > 0:29:53reasons not to then take up their obligations.

0:29:53 > 0:29:58There are some awful employment practises in Parliament. I know of

0:29:58 > 0:30:03MPs shouting at their staff till they ciesmt I know of MPs never

0:30:03 > 0:30:07advertising for their staff before they appoint. Interviewing on their

0:30:07 > 0:30:10own without anybody else in the room. Not going through a proper

0:30:10 > 0:30:14short listing process. All sorts of terrible practises. Wouldn't the

0:30:14 > 0:30:19best thing be for us to have a proper HR service available through

0:30:19 > 0:30:24the House so, that all MPs, the moment they arrive here, have a

0:30:24 > 0:30:29proper opportunity, if they maybe never employed or recruited people

0:30:29 > 0:30:34before, to learn good practise from the beginning?So the working group

0:30:34 > 0:30:38has taken evidence that has considered that. The overwhelming

0:30:38 > 0:30:41evidence is that Members of Parliament need to continue to

0:30:41 > 0:30:46directly employ their staff. It was very clear from staff evidence that

0:30:46 > 0:30:50support for good employment practises was needed. So to provide

0:30:50 > 0:30:53independent advise on employment matters. For members of staff, but

0:30:53 > 0:30:58also that training and this is an area I have mentioned in my

0:30:58 > 0:31:01statement, mandatory and voluntary should be made available, not just

0:31:01 > 0:31:05to members but to staff. There is an issue for many staff who, for

0:31:05 > 0:31:09example, were saying they would like to have proper induction, so when

0:31:09 > 0:31:15they come here they can be taked exactly where the table office is

0:31:15 > 0:31:19and so on, without having to ask other's advice. There is an

0:31:19 > 0:31:23opportunity here to set right some things which are fairly basic, all

0:31:23 > 0:31:30the way up to people understanding thoroughly what constitutes bullying

0:31:30 > 0:31:36and harassment, what constitutes a proper appraisal and so on. Many

0:31:36 > 0:31:41members have that experience but not all of them. We should make it the

0:31:41 > 0:31:45case every employer in this place has that training.Thank you. I am

0:31:45 > 0:31:50pleased some trade unions have had a voice on the working group. When is

0:31:50 > 0:31:57Parliament going to formally recognise trade unions?I would like

0:31:57 > 0:32:09to pay tribute to working party members, Max Freiedman Georgina -

0:32:09 > 0:32:14all three who work for staff in this place. They have done a great job.

0:32:14 > 0:32:16They have consulted widely with staff. There are some technical

0:32:16 > 0:32:22reasons why it wouldn't be possible to requ irsome sort of, across the

0:32:22 > 0:32:26board, recognition of trade unions. But nevertheless, in the work of the

0:32:26 > 0:32:30working group we have taken evidence on how valuable some of the support

0:32:30 > 0:32:36from trade unions can be. THE SPEAKER: I think the hom lady

0:32:36 > 0:32:40means staff of Members of Parliament. That is a matter that

0:32:40 > 0:32:45can be further considered. It is just important to put on the record,

0:32:45 > 0:32:50for the benefit not least of those attending to our proceedings who are

0:32:50 > 0:32:55not members of or employed by the House, but the House itself most

0:32:55 > 0:32:58certainly recognises trade unions. And negotiates with the staff of the

0:32:58 > 0:33:04House. I recognise the other issue at which I think the honourable lady

0:33:04 > 0:33:11was hinting and that can certainly be further discussed. I am in no way

0:33:11 > 0:33:15an obstacle to a development on that front, if that is the settled or

0:33:15 > 0:33:23general will of members. Thank you. If there is an HR

0:33:23 > 0:33:27service, then surely it could recognise trade unions for member

0:33:27 > 0:33:31staff in the way described. Can I thank the Leader of the House for

0:33:31 > 0:33:34her work on this. It cannot be right that it is easier to sanction a

0:33:34 > 0:33:42member of this House for disorderly conduct in the chamber than it is to

0:33:42 > 0:33:47sanction them for disgraceful behaviour outside of it. If she

0:33:47 > 0:33:51cannot find unanimity in her working group, that this issue belong to the

0:33:51 > 0:33:58House. If she cannot get it in the working group, perhaps she could

0:33:58 > 0:34:02produce a draft we can all comment on.

0:34:02 > 0:34:06The leader of the House? I thank the honourable gentleman.

0:34:06 > 0:34:10The working group is working as fast and as carefully as it possibly can.

0:34:10 > 0:34:15As I said in my statement we hope to be able to produce that report in

0:34:15 > 0:34:23the New Year.Further to my honourable friend's question, I was

0:34:23 > 0:34:27branch secretary of Unite union in Parliament a few years ago. I was

0:34:27 > 0:34:30involved in legal conversations about recognition. It is a complex

0:34:30 > 0:34:35process. There is not a firm legal barrier in the way. It is a crucial

0:34:35 > 0:34:38process, the cleaning up, the culture in this place. I am grateful

0:34:38 > 0:34:43to your support. I beg the leader of the House to reconsider her

0:34:43 > 0:34:46statement just now there'll be no recognition of Unite, the union,

0:34:46 > 0:34:50here. I can assure the hom lady that is

0:34:50 > 0:34:54not what I said. I said we took evidence on it. There are some

0:34:54 > 0:34:58technical challenges. Also because Members of Parliament employ their

0:34:58 > 0:35:02staff directly there is not necessarily a lever by which to

0:35:02 > 0:35:04require people to make such decisions for themselves. I am not

0:35:04 > 0:35:09ruling anything out. I am merely trying to enlighten the House on the

0:35:09 > 0:35:17evidence taken by the working group. I thank the leader of the House for

0:35:17 > 0:35:20her hard work, for her energy and diligence in this matter. It is very

0:35:20 > 0:35:29good to have that over some 11 meetings over 30 hours. We Saturday

0:35:29 > 0:35:35-- we sat on the committee. I share her disappointment that there should

0:35:35 > 0:35:40be any delay but welcome the progress so far. Can the leader of

0:35:40 > 0:35:44the House outline the next steps to ensure a robust system to ensure

0:35:44 > 0:35:47no-one is harassed or bullied without action being take no-one the

0:35:47 > 0:35:52mean time?Well, I would like to thank his honourable friend, the

0:35:52 > 0:35:56member for South Belfast for her very strong and diligent

0:35:56 > 0:36:00contribution to the working party. She made a very strong contribution.

0:36:00 > 0:36:05In particular bringing in the specific issues in constituency

0:36:05 > 0:36:07offices, particularly in the context of Northern Ireland, which the

0:36:07 > 0:36:11working group found very helpful. As I have said in my statement, the

0:36:11 > 0:36:16working group will continue to meet. We will reconvene in the newer and

0:36:16 > 0:36:22seek to make progress as swiftly as we can.

0:36:22 > 0:36:25THE SPEAKER: Order, statement the parliamentary Under-Secretary of

0:36:25 > 0:36:31State for local Government. Minister Marcus Jones.

0:36:31 > 0:36:36Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would firstly like to wish you, Mr

0:36:36 > 0:36:42Speaker, and fellow members of the House, a very merry Christmas.

0:36:42 > 0:36:47With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to thank you for the

0:36:47 > 0:36:53opportunity to update the House on our plans a new funding models for

0:36:53 > 0:36:57supported housing. This update follows an earlier debate on this

0:36:57 > 0:37:02issue on 25th October and responds to the recent resolution of the

0:37:02 > 0:37:08House. Mr Speaker, we all agree that supported housing is an invaluable

0:37:08 > 0:37:12lifeline for some of the most vulnerable people in our society,

0:37:12 > 0:37:17which is why this Government is determined to ensure that the

0:37:17 > 0:37:22funding model that underpins supported houses, boosts the supply

0:37:22 > 0:37:27of this Housing housing and delivers a good quality of life for people

0:37:27 > 0:37:31who depend on it. The House will be aware that we set out our plans for

0:37:31 > 0:37:35doing this through a written ministerial statement on 31st

0:37:35 > 0:37:41October. In this, we confirmed that we will not apply the local housing

0:37:41 > 0:37:46allowance rates to tenants in supported housing or the wider

0:37:46 > 0:37:50social rented sector and that we will introduce this new approach

0:37:50 > 0:37:55from April 2020, rather than April 2019, to ensure that vital support

0:37:55 > 0:38:00provided to vulnerable people is not interrupted or indeed put in doubt.

0:38:00 > 0:38:05We said that funding for housing costs for sheltered housing will

0:38:05 > 0:38:10stay in the welfare system. We will introduce a sheltered rent for

0:38:10 > 0:38:15sheltered and extra care housing, a type of social rent that will cap

0:38:15 > 0:38:20the amount that sheltered providers can charge for gross rent. We will

0:38:20 > 0:38:24work closely with the sector to set these limits at an appropriate level

0:38:24 > 0:38:29and more generally to protect provision and new supply. We will

0:38:29 > 0:38:33bring in existing supply at their existing levels of rent and service

0:38:33 > 0:38:39charges. We also said that long-term supported housing such as permanent

0:38:39 > 0:38:45housing for people with learning or fiscal disabilities, or long-term --

0:38:45 > 0:38:51physical disabilities or long-term mental ill health will remain in the

0:38:51 > 0:38:57welfare system and look to develop greater cost control. All provided

0:38:57 > 0:39:02by the welfare system will continue to be funded at the same level by

0:39:02 > 0:39:07local authorities in 2020. Housing costs will be funded directly by

0:39:07 > 0:39:10local authorities through a ring-fence grant. This ring-fence

0:39:10 > 0:39:15will remain in the long-term. The amount of grant funding will

0:39:15 > 0:39:20continue to take account of the cost of provision and the growth in

0:39:20 > 0:39:27supply required. There are real advantages to this new approach, by

0:39:27 > 0:39:30retaining funding for long-termer term supported housing and sheltered

0:39:30 > 0:39:34housing in the welfare system, we are giving the sector in the words

0:39:34 > 0:39:39of the home group, the certainty we need to get on and build more homes.

0:39:39 > 0:39:43And they have not hesitated to act, Mr Speaker. They have already given

0:39:43 > 0:39:48the go ahead for £50 million of capital investment in three new

0:39:48 > 0:39:51supported housing schemes so, the sector is feeling optimistic about

0:39:51 > 0:39:58the future. Which can only be good news for supported and sheltered

0:39:58 > 0:40:05housing tenants. We are proposing a new model to take account of the

0:40:05 > 0:40:11needs it presents all short-term provision, for example hostels and

0:40:11 > 0:40:16women's refuges currently funded will be funded at the same level by

0:40:16 > 0:40:21low cart authorities in 2020. As noted aed the recent budget 2017.

0:40:21 > 0:40:27The documents within that budget there will be a transfer of funds

0:40:27 > 0:40:32from welfare spending to my department from 2020/20216789 The

0:40:32 > 0:40:37Right Honourable member for Wentworth voiced concerns on October

0:40:37 > 0:40:4125th over future funding levels for supported housing after 2020. I

0:40:41 > 0:40:46would like to take this opportunity to reassure him that the amount of

0:40:46 > 0:40:50grant funding for this part of the sector after 2020 will continue to

0:40:50 > 0:40:54take account of the cost of provision and the growth of future

0:40:54 > 0:41:00provision. I recognise there are also concernses about the new

0:41:00 > 0:41:03arrangements for local authorities to directly fund short-term

0:41:03 > 0:41:07accommodation and how it will work. Again I want to make it absolutely

0:41:07 > 0:41:10clear, Mr Speaker, that our aim in making these changes is to allow

0:41:10 > 0:41:15residents to be able to keep and find work without having to worry

0:41:15 > 0:41:19about meeting their housing costs at a particular difficult time in their

0:41:19 > 0:41:25lives. The changes will also help people to move on without carrying a

0:41:25 > 0:41:29legacy of rent arrears and debts to ease the administrative burden for

0:41:29 > 0:41:34providers, who will no longer need to collect rent and service charges

0:41:34 > 0:41:39from residents. Councils have a strong interest, too. In sustainable

0:41:39 > 0:41:43short-term accommodation, which meets local needs, the new model

0:41:43 > 0:41:48gives a bigger role in commissioning short-term accommodation, as well as

0:41:48 > 0:41:54a strategic planning rule for strategic housing. Something the

0:41:54 > 0:42:00local Housing Association has welcomed. And this strong local

0:42:00 > 0:42:04focus encourages greater engagement at a local level with positive

0:42:04 > 0:42:08outcomes for residents at the forefront. We have set out a

0:42:08 > 0:42:13framework, that provides certainty, stronger oversight, cost control and

0:42:13 > 0:42:18most vitally focus on good outcomes for tenants that is needed to boost

0:42:18 > 0:42:22housing supply in this incredibly diverse sector. Having done that we

0:42:22 > 0:42:27are working closely with the sector on the detail. We are formally

0:42:27 > 0:42:31consulting on sheltered rent and on the short-term funding model. My

0:42:31 > 0:42:36honourable friend for Gosport, the minister for the Department for Work

0:42:36 > 0:42:40and Pensions and my honourable friend, the minister in the Home

0:42:40 > 0:42:45Office and myself have also met sector representatives. I am pleased

0:42:45 > 0:42:48to say overall the response has been positive. We acknowledge some of the

0:42:48 > 0:42:54concerns that have been expressed and we will continue to work with

0:42:54 > 0:42:56local authorities, providers and tenants to get this right. The

0:42:56 > 0:43:01people who live in supported housing, vulnerable older people,

0:43:01 > 0:43:07people with learning disabilities and physical disabilities, women and

0:43:07 > 0:43:09children fleeing horrific domestic abuse and the homeless deserve no

0:43:09 > 0:43:15less. Mr Speaker, before I conclude my statement I would just like to

0:43:15 > 0:43:22thank all of those people who are working to deliver sheltered and

0:43:22 > 0:43:25supported housing across our nation during this festive period. I would

0:43:25 > 0:43:30like to thank them for the hard work and all they do to support the most

0:43:30 > 0:43:34vulnerable people in society. Mr Speaker, I commend this to the

0:43:34 > 0:43:41House.I join the minister in thanking those helping the homeless.

0:43:41 > 0:43:46I thank the minister for his earlier copy of his same time. Although I

0:43:46 > 0:43:49fail to see anything fresh, I nevertheless welcome this. This

0:43:49 > 0:43:53House has played a big part over the last two years in getting Government

0:43:53 > 0:43:59to reverse its previous plans on supported housing. Individual

0:43:59 > 0:44:04members on all sides have spoken strongly, as have charities and

0:44:04 > 0:44:08Housing Associations, to warn of the folly and the flaws in the funding

0:44:08 > 0:44:14changes. The joint Select Committee report has laid a cross-party basis

0:44:14 > 0:44:19for the Government re-think. We have led three opposition debates and

0:44:19 > 0:44:22this statement, as the minister says, responds to the resolution of

0:44:22 > 0:44:27the House on the last of these. In that Labour debate on 25th October I

0:44:27 > 0:44:33warned that the devil is always in the detail and in the funding. To

0:44:33 > 0:44:36say this statement today does nothing to clear up concerns on both

0:44:36 > 0:44:42fronts. On funding the minister repeated the same flawed promise. He

0:44:42 > 0:44:45says all short-term provision currently funded be I the welfare

0:44:45 > 0:44:49system will continue to be funded at the same level by local authorities

0:44:49 > 0:44:57in 2020. Only a commitment for 2020, no pledge beyond that when the red

0:44:57 > 0:45:07book, last month, showed the Treasury has inked in cuts half a

0:45:07 > 0:45:15billion in 2021/2022. Can he confirm no cut in funding in the second

0:45:15 > 0:45:21second quubs quent years? Quent -- subsequent years?

0:45:26 > 0:45:30This is precisely the problem, it will be ministers that make grant

0:45:30 > 0:45:33decisions in the future, ministers who say they have taken account of

0:45:33 > 0:45:39the costs and growth, unlike the welcome move to keep other types of

0:45:39 > 0:45:44supported housing within the welfare system, this will no longer be needs

0:45:44 > 0:45:48lead, no longer based on the right to help with housing costs for

0:45:48 > 0:45:54individuals. This is why some are saying it is unlikely with these

0:45:54 > 0:45:59plans providers would be able to secure loans to develop new services

0:45:59 > 0:46:03or be able to ensure regulators by providing short-term supported

0:46:03 > 0:46:12housing is financially viable in the long term. What would he make to

0:46:12 > 0:46:17provide this reassurance? In addition, confusion about how the

0:46:17 > 0:46:25system will work in practice. The plan is to keep residents are

0:46:25 > 0:46:29entitled to housing benefits but services with the new grant won't

0:46:29 > 0:46:33charge rent or drawdown and cash in the entitlement so what happens if

0:46:33 > 0:46:37the service does not receive grant? Convert their residents receive

0:46:37 > 0:46:41housing benefit? If it receives grant for some but not all

0:46:41 > 0:46:48residents, can some still get housing benefit? And would he

0:46:48 > 0:46:55consider cutting down the definition of short-term to two weeks, making

0:46:55 > 0:47:01people eligible for claiming housing benefit? And finally, what will he

0:47:01 > 0:47:04do to ensure organisations that don't currently deal with local

0:47:04 > 0:47:08authorities, don't for instance get supporting people funding, don't

0:47:08 > 0:47:13fall through the gaps in the new system? Finally, in future years I

0:47:13 > 0:47:21have to say students will be giving -- given this as a case study in

0:47:21 > 0:47:25disastrous decision-making. This is that their policy rewrite in two

0:47:25 > 0:47:29years since George Osborne made the decision to give the Treasury big

0:47:29 > 0:47:32cost savings and the Government still hasn't got it right, so will

0:47:32 > 0:47:37the Minister accept that government must work further with Parliament

0:47:37 > 0:47:42and with the housing sector to meet the terms of the resolution and sort

0:47:42 > 0:47:47out a good long-term system for the future and the funding of supported

0:47:47 > 0:47:56housing?Thank you, Mr Speaker and this is the season of goodwill to

0:47:56 > 0:48:00all men and women and the right honourable gentleman set off in his

0:48:00 > 0:48:09remarks so well but then wasn't too vested in his spirit. He mentioned

0:48:09 > 0:48:14short-term accommodation and what would happen post-20 20. If he looks

0:48:14 > 0:48:20he will clearly see there is a transfer from DWP to DCLG to cover

0:48:20 > 0:48:26the cost of supported housing, short-term supported housing going

0:48:26 > 0:48:31forward. We are absolutely clear and we will come forward with further

0:48:31 > 0:48:37plans following the consultation on how we will assess future provision

0:48:37 > 0:48:43and how we will deal with that, and what we will need to make sure that

0:48:43 > 0:48:49the providers have a sustainable position going forward to reflect

0:48:49 > 0:48:54inflation. The tenants themselves will not lose the ability to the

0:48:54 > 0:49:01housing costs and we fully expect that people will be in a position

0:49:01 > 0:49:08when the system comes into effect that they will have the help and

0:49:08 > 0:49:12support they need. I would say to him we do not expect people will

0:49:12 > 0:49:15have opportunity to claim housing benefit for the same service at that

0:49:15 > 0:49:19point but what I would say to him is there are deficiencies in the

0:49:19 > 0:49:23current system that he just doesn't acknowledge, like I mentioned in my

0:49:23 > 0:49:31original speech in terms of women going into a refuge being able to

0:49:31 > 0:49:35work because sometimes they cannot claim housing benefit and therefore

0:49:35 > 0:49:41cannot work. We are also working closely with the sector. There are

0:49:41 > 0:49:45number of things he mentioned in relation to how it would work with

0:49:45 > 0:49:50local authorities and what I say to him is we are putting in place a

0:49:50 > 0:49:53strong statement of expectations, we are also going to put in place very

0:49:53 > 0:49:59strong grant conditions within the ring fence. In terms of the point he

0:49:59 > 0:50:03mentioned about the two years for short-term supported accommodation,

0:50:03 > 0:50:07what I can tell him is within the working groups we had, and we had a

0:50:07 > 0:50:12working group looking at this, providers across the sector, and

0:50:12 > 0:50:16whilst they weren't absolutely clear, what they came up with is the

0:50:16 > 0:50:23two year period as a sort of minority verdict and that's why we

0:50:23 > 0:50:27have followed the situation we have. Just to reassure the House, this

0:50:27 > 0:50:31Government is absolutely committed to protecting the most vulnerable

0:50:31 > 0:50:34and we are confident that working with the sector we can get this

0:50:34 > 0:50:41right.This is an extremely important matter and I'm keen to

0:50:41 > 0:50:45accommodate colleagues' interest in it but can I remind the House there

0:50:45 > 0:50:53are two heavily subscribed debates to take place when this exchange has

0:50:53 > 0:50:59been concluded and it would be good if contributions did not expand to

0:50:59 > 0:51:03fill the time available. What we are looking for here is a short question

0:51:03 > 0:51:09and of short reply. The former will be brilliantly exemplified, as

0:51:09 > 0:51:13always, by the author of the textbook on the matter Sir Desmond

0:51:13 > 0:51:22Swain.Will account be taken of the security measures that are proper to

0:51:22 > 0:51:31refugees dealing with people fleeing domestic violence?I thank my

0:51:31 > 0:51:34honourable friend, indeed that is an important consideration and

0:51:34 > 0:51:38certainly part of the housing cost and it actually reflects why at the

0:51:38 > 0:51:44moment housing benefit for refugees is actually higher to reflect those

0:51:44 > 0:51:51type of costs than it is in terms of general needs that housing benefit.

0:51:51 > 0:51:55I welcome the introduction of the sheltered rent principle, it seems

0:51:55 > 0:51:59the right thing to do, but I don't think it's too difficult to pinpoint

0:51:59 > 0:52:02where this Government has come in for criticism over paying the

0:52:02 > 0:52:06housing costs of the most disadvantaged members of our society

0:52:06 > 0:52:09so can the Minister give a guarantee there will be no penny-pinching,

0:52:09 > 0:52:14that the extra care housing costs will be met in full by central

0:52:14 > 0:52:18government without quibble or caveat. That is a straight

0:52:18 > 0:52:22up-and-down responsibility of a modern government. The costs for

0:52:22 > 0:52:26delivery cannot just be passed onto local government, charities or

0:52:26 > 0:52:31housing providers. You might encourage him to drop the mantra

0:52:31 > 0:52:34that providing housing support for people is about getting them into

0:52:34 > 0:52:38work and just say that it's about helping people with their housing,

0:52:38 > 0:52:43making sure people are in decent housing is an honourable aim within

0:52:43 > 0:52:47itself, it doesn't need additional aims. In the October policy paper

0:52:47 > 0:52:50there was an explicit commitment of additional funding to Scotland and

0:52:50 > 0:52:55Wales as a result of the implementation of this policy. Can

0:52:55 > 0:52:58he say whether that remains the intention and if so what the

0:52:58 > 0:53:03indicative song is in each case. Lastly it is very welcome that there

0:53:03 > 0:53:07will be some security of supply for support for people getting back into

0:53:07 > 0:53:11housing and hopefully moving on to managing their own houses but can

0:53:11 > 0:53:14the Minister sake if there is an intention to provide additional

0:53:14 > 0:53:17resources for the outreach work and street work that helps find the

0:53:17 > 0:53:25people in need in the first place? Just a cover that last point the

0:53:25 > 0:53:30honourable lady raised first, this is about the housing costs that we

0:53:30 > 0:53:34are talking about today rather than the support costs which she

0:53:34 > 0:53:38mentioned in that sense. To take on the rest of the questions, in

0:53:38 > 0:53:51relation to sheltered rent, that will also cover extra care, and I

0:53:51 > 0:53:54can assure the honourable lady this is not about penny-pinching and I

0:53:54 > 0:54:00can also reassure her on the point of work. The point I was making was

0:54:00 > 0:54:05about women's refuges where there are often women who are being abused

0:54:05 > 0:54:08and subject to domestic violence but have reasonable jobs and without

0:54:08 > 0:54:13giving up those jobs they wouldn't qualify for housing benefit and I

0:54:13 > 0:54:19can't see how that is right at all. 70% of people in supported housing

0:54:19 > 0:54:26as well or older people so in reality they are not people we would

0:54:26 > 0:54:30expect to work so I just want to clarify that. I also want to clarify

0:54:30 > 0:54:36we are working with the devolved government in Scotland on all

0:54:36 > 0:54:42aspects of this policy and we will be confirming the funding that goes

0:54:42 > 0:54:47to Scotland and Wales in due course. What is being done to highlight and

0:54:47 > 0:54:50promote the best examples of supported housing and to condemn and

0:54:50 > 0:54:56call out the worst?My honourable friend makes a good point and this

0:54:56 > 0:54:59is one of the reasons for reform because there are some appalling

0:54:59 > 0:55:05examples of supported housing and because in housing benefit system

0:55:05 > 0:55:09there are no checks and balances, it means people get away with providing

0:55:09 > 0:55:13that appalling provision and get paid the same for that is another

0:55:13 > 0:55:20provider would that providing a good quality service. We will work with

0:55:20 > 0:55:23the LGA and the sector so we put strong conditions in place to make

0:55:23 > 0:55:28sure the best practices followed everywhere.Can the Minister clarify

0:55:28 > 0:55:33how funding domestic violence refuge provision at the same level today

0:55:33 > 0:55:40will address the shortfall across the country. Around 90 women and

0:55:40 > 0:55:43their children are being turned away every day from refuge provision

0:55:43 > 0:55:51across the country. Without an increase in refuge provision and

0:55:51 > 0:55:53without establishing a national network, the Government will fail to

0:55:53 > 0:55:59guarantee every woman and child fleeing can be kept safe in a

0:55:59 > 0:56:03refuge.The honourable lady makes a good point, every woman should be

0:56:03 > 0:56:09protected and have a safe place to go. There are more spaces than in

0:56:09 > 0:56:132010 but she makes a good point and we are doing a full audit next year

0:56:13 > 0:56:17to see what provision is like across the country and that will allow us

0:56:17 > 0:56:26to see where the gaps and challenges are.Can I commend the Minister for

0:56:26 > 0:56:30the work is done in a complicated area. Can he assured me he will

0:56:30 > 0:56:35continue to liaise closely with the sector to address the short-term

0:56:35 > 0:56:38emergency accommodation and secondly the need to stimulate much-needed

0:56:38 > 0:56:45new development.I'd like to thank my honourable friend for his kind

0:56:45 > 0:56:49words and commend him for the hard work he has put in on this

0:56:49 > 0:56:54particular issue. He mentioned short-term supply, on both fronts we

0:56:54 > 0:56:58will be working closely with the sector to make sure this happens.

0:56:58 > 0:57:02It's already happening, the home group have confirmed they are

0:57:02 > 0:57:05spending another £50 million on supported housing but we want to

0:57:05 > 0:57:09make sure the £400 million we have in capital funding goes out and

0:57:09 > 0:57:14builds good quality supported housing to build on the other

0:57:14 > 0:57:19housing units we have built since 2011.Will the Minister commit to an

0:57:19 > 0:57:23annual review of these arrangements to see if the investment he says is

0:57:23 > 0:57:28going to, was in fact come, and can he also confirm when the Government

0:57:28 > 0:57:33will have a long-term sustainable plan for the sector?I can reassure

0:57:33 > 0:57:37the honourable gentleman what we are putting in place is a long-term

0:57:37 > 0:57:41sustainable plan for the sector, and I would say to him that we are

0:57:41 > 0:57:44working with the sector very closely to make sure they are reassured of

0:57:44 > 0:57:52that.Will my honourable friend meet with me with north Staffordshire

0:57:52 > 0:57:56YMCA and north Staffordshire women's aid to discuss some of the concerns

0:57:56 > 0:58:02they have for short-term supported housing?I thank my honourable

0:58:02 > 0:58:06friend who is a strong campaigner for the people of Stafford and

0:58:06 > 0:58:11Staffordshire and I would be glad to meet with him and the YMCA and his

0:58:11 > 0:58:14local women's aid to talk about short-term accommodation. I've met

0:58:14 > 0:58:18with members on both sides of the House to discuss this issue and I'm

0:58:18 > 0:58:24very welcome to do so.I share my right honourable friend's concerns

0:58:24 > 0:58:29about moving from a demand led system for people in need of

0:58:29 > 0:58:33short-term supported housing. Will the Minister say what will happen if

0:58:33 > 0:58:37a local authority has no allocation left to meet the needs of honourable

0:58:37 > 0:58:43individuals? Will the central government be underwriting costs in

0:58:43 > 0:58:48those circumstances?This is about getting the system right. We have

0:58:48 > 0:58:52until 2020 to do that. We need to make sure we have our assessment of

0:58:52 > 0:58:56needs in particular areas right, areas will have to set out a clear

0:58:56 > 0:59:01plan to say what the future need in a particular area will be. We will

0:59:01 > 0:59:06be working with them on that because we are clear we want there to be the

0:59:06 > 0:59:10ability for people to have access to the various types of short-term

0:59:10 > 0:59:19supported accommodation going forward.I commend my honourable

0:59:19 > 0:59:25friend for the action he's taken so far. By definition, people in

0:59:25 > 0:59:28supported housing are vulnerable but far too often we concentrate on what

0:59:28 > 0:59:34they can't do rather than what they can do. But clearly one of the

0:59:34 > 0:59:38problems people face is complicated form filling or asking for money

0:59:38 > 0:59:43which is their entitlement. Can he looked during this transitional

0:59:43 > 0:59:47phase at streamlining the process so we take the anxiety out of those in

0:59:47 > 0:59:51supported housing so they can fulfil their real potential in what they

0:59:51 > 0:59:57can do in society?My honourable friend as usual hits the nail on the

0:59:57 > 1:00:01head and he's right that at a time when people are in crisis in their

1:00:01 > 1:00:05lives, form filling and bureaucracy is not the first thing on their mind

1:00:05 > 1:00:09and he is also write a lot of these people have a significant amount of

1:00:09 > 1:00:13potential. With our new system we will take that form filling and

1:00:13 > 1:00:25bureaucracy out of the way so we can support people when they

1:00:26 > 1:00:31Homelessness has been on the rise over the last two year model. Are we

1:00:31 > 1:00:35confident now the government's statements today will put security

1:00:35 > 1:00:41into place that is needed to tackle what the right honourable member for

1:00:41 > 1:00:47Waverley says around short-term needs and longer term investment?I

1:00:47 > 1:00:51am confident we can achieve that in terms of short-term supported

1:00:51 > 1:00:57housing. I am confident the other measures the government is taking,

1:00:57 > 1:01:02having supported the Homelessness Reduction Act and various other

1:01:02 > 1:01:07programmes, including Housing First we are looking to pilot will make a

1:01:07 > 1:01:17difference in tackling homelessness and make a difference.I recently

1:01:17 > 1:01:21visited supported housing in my constituency and saw the excellent

1:01:21 > 1:01:26work going on. Will the Minister to commit to continue to encourage and

1:01:26 > 1:01:34support this vital sector?I absolutely will. I want to reassure

1:01:34 > 1:01:37the short-term providers in his constituency, we are continuing to

1:01:37 > 1:01:44work with the sector. We are loosening to some of the concerns.

1:01:44 > 1:01:48It is important when you meet the short-term providers, when we

1:01:48 > 1:01:51explain what we're looking to do, they are reasonably warm to the

1:01:51 > 1:01:56things we are looking to do. But they also say to others we've got to

1:01:56 > 1:02:02get it right, convince them, for example, the ring fencing, is for

1:02:02 > 1:02:08the long term and we are seeking to do that.The Minister claims he

1:02:08 > 1:02:15wants to help the young, vulnerable homeless but in Mike constituency,

1:02:15 > 1:02:21Crossroads the hostel for young people is funded by the Salvation

1:02:21 > 1:02:24Army, housing allowance and Lancashire County Council but this

1:02:24 > 1:02:30government is butchering the County Council's budgets. How can he

1:02:30 > 1:02:38reassure me Crossroads will stay open?I have given access to council

1:02:38 > 1:02:46another nine 5p for adult social care. I take the point of what he

1:02:46 > 1:02:57makes for his constituency that run programmes by homeless people.

1:02:57 > 1:03:06Order. Point of order, briefly Chris Stephens.Thank you, Mr Speaker. I

1:03:06 > 1:03:17sent you a copy of the letter I received from Circle. I will gently

1:03:17 > 1:03:25describe it as being in temperate. It gives an interpretation of data

1:03:25 > 1:03:31protection of the Data Protection Act 1988 and the members of the

1:03:31 > 1:03:35House should seek approval from constituents. Could you provide me

1:03:35 > 1:03:38with an interpretation of data protection as it applies to members

1:03:38 > 1:03:47of the House?I am grateful to the honourable member. I am sited on the

1:03:47 > 1:03:52matter, because he alerted me to the thrust and I have seen the letter

1:03:52 > 1:03:54the honourable gentleman has received from the chief Executive of

1:03:54 > 1:04:00circle, a substantial letter which has caused him considerable

1:04:00 > 1:04:05disquiet, not to say consternation. I would expect all organisations

1:04:05 > 1:04:13dealing with honourable members or their staff to respect the

1:04:13 > 1:04:17constitutional responsibility of members of Parliament to pursue

1:04:17 > 1:04:20issues on behalf of their constituents and to be both helpful

1:04:20 > 1:04:26and courteous to them in doing so. Just as I am sure we would expect

1:04:26 > 1:04:33ourselves and staff to be in, in our dealings with others. I can make no

1:04:33 > 1:04:37comment on the substance of the disagreement between the honourable

1:04:37 > 1:04:42member and the chief executive of circle. But I can confirm in the

1:04:42 > 1:04:46words of the information Commissioner guidance, the data

1:04:46 > 1:04:53protection, processing of sensitive personal data, collected

1:04:53 > 1:04:59representatives order 2002, and matter raised in the House some

1:04:59 > 1:05:07months ago, upon which I ruled that the time, provides a basis with the

1:05:07 > 1:05:10disclosure of sensitive personal data by organisations responding to

1:05:10 > 1:05:13members acting on behalf of individual constituents. The order

1:05:13 > 1:05:20doesn't place an obligation on organisations to disclose personal

1:05:20 > 1:05:24sensitive data to members who raise matters on behalf of constituents.

1:05:24 > 1:05:29However, it provides a legal basis for doing so and removes unnecessary

1:05:29 > 1:05:36bureaucracy and the late. Consequently, in the great majority

1:05:36 > 1:05:41of cases, organisations will be able to release sensitive, personal

1:05:41 > 1:05:45information about a particular constituent to the member without

1:05:45 > 1:05:48advising the constituent of this, provided the disclosure is

1:05:48 > 1:05:55reasonable and necessary for the purposes of, or in connection with,

1:05:55 > 1:05:59responding to a request from the constituent. I hope it is helpful to

1:05:59 > 1:06:04the honourable gentleman and when members people across to the

1:06:04 > 1:06:09relevant offers to obtain a copy of the official report and study my

1:06:09 > 1:06:15response, they will similarly concluded that it is helpful. If

1:06:15 > 1:06:21there are no further points of order and I see the beaming countenance of

1:06:21 > 1:06:24the honourable gentleman and I wish him all the best for Christmas and

1:06:24 > 1:06:28the New Year. Seeing as there have been so many festive greetings this

1:06:28 > 1:06:32morning I should take the opportunity to say now, to members

1:06:32 > 1:06:36who will not be here much later, I wish them all a Merry Christmas.

1:06:36 > 1:06:41Thank them for their huge and unstinting efforts over this year

1:06:41 > 1:06:46and express the confident expectation and hope they will

1:06:46 > 1:06:52redouble them next. We now come to the backbench debate on Russian

1:06:52 > 1:06:58interference in UK politics and society. A considerable number of

1:06:58 > 1:07:04members wish to speak in this debate. There will be three, front

1:07:04 > 1:07:08bench speeches towards the end and therefore I think I can say with

1:07:08 > 1:07:15some confidence, the opening speech by the right honourable gentleman, a

1:07:15 > 1:07:19very senior denizen of the House and formerly deputy leader of it, will

1:07:19 > 1:07:27not exceed 15 minutes. Mr Tom brake. Thank you, I will seek to stay

1:07:27 > 1:07:31within your limits and hope to gain some credit for it in the near

1:07:31 > 1:07:35future. This is a very welcome opportunity to debate this subject

1:07:35 > 1:07:40and I thank the backbench business committee for making the time

1:07:40 > 1:07:45available and the colleagues who supported the bed. I am pleased we

1:07:45 > 1:07:49have a very good representation of senior members here who have a

1:07:49 > 1:07:53long-standing interest in the subject of Russia. The premise of

1:07:53 > 1:07:59this debate is the UK is at risk of neglecting the threat Russia poses

1:07:59 > 1:08:03and I would argue Russia is a clear and present danger. It presents a

1:08:03 > 1:08:08threat to our democracy. Some may consider that to be alarmist, but I

1:08:08 > 1:08:13hope to explain why it is not. I am not going to be able to cover, in

1:08:13 > 1:08:18the 15 minutes, all areas of concern, such as the impact of dirty

1:08:18 > 1:08:22Russian money in the UK and the UK Government's apparent unwillingness

1:08:22 > 1:08:29to hunt it down or the extent to which the energy industry is

1:08:29 > 1:08:36vulnerable to Russian takeovers or leveraged, or the appropriateness of

1:08:36 > 1:08:40the London Stock Exchange floating EN plus. But I suspect other members

1:08:40 > 1:08:44will contribute to this debate who will pick up on those issues. Why do

1:08:44 > 1:08:49I make this alarmist statement about Russia? First of all, clearly there

1:08:49 > 1:08:54have been attempts by the Russians to influence the outcome of a number

1:08:54 > 1:08:59of elections. According to the Henry Jackson Society, there isn't one

1:08:59 > 1:09:03smoking gun, but it is a case of joining up the dots and Russia does

1:09:03 > 1:09:07have a history of interference. The threat is not new, it has been

1:09:07 > 1:09:13around for a decade, especially in the stony and and Georgia elections

1:09:13 > 1:09:20in 2008 and 2009. There was the well-publicised Russian interference

1:09:20 > 1:09:25mainly post-Scottish independence referendum where they tried to

1:09:25 > 1:09:29discredit the result of the election. We have seen in the US,

1:09:29 > 1:09:34the most famous example of side interference through the activities

1:09:34 > 1:09:36of the Internet research agency which spent over $2 million on

1:09:36 > 1:09:43activity in America alone over the last two years. That was funding

1:09:43 > 1:09:48directly authorised from the Kremlin. There is a pattern of

1:09:48 > 1:09:51behaviour which suggests Russia will have interfered in the EU referendum

1:09:51 > 1:09:58as well. I will give way. .He referred to this having taken place

1:09:58 > 1:10:04over the last decade. Hasn't this been the pattern of behaviour since

1:10:04 > 1:10:11the Bolshevik coup 100 years ago?As I said earlier, I only have 15

1:10:11 > 1:10:14minutes in which to contribute to this debate, whilst I agree with

1:10:14 > 1:10:21him, we could go back a lot further. He may wish to do so, I don't know

1:10:21 > 1:10:24if he is making a speech in this debate. But I am focusing on recent

1:10:24 > 1:10:32activity. This information emerged last month about hundreds of Twitter

1:10:32 > 1:10:39accounts probably run from St Petersburg. And it showed at least

1:10:39 > 1:10:46419 fake accounts tweeted about Brexit, a total of just under 3500

1:10:46 > 1:10:50times. That was mostly after the referendum had taken place, rather

1:10:50 > 1:10:54than before. Research at city University from October showed there

1:10:54 > 1:11:03was a 13 13,500 strong army and social media at around the time of

1:11:03 > 1:11:10the referendum and the roads posted no less than city 5000 tweets about

1:11:10 > 1:11:16the referendum showing a clear slant towards the Leader of the House

1:11:16 > 1:11:21campaign. Although there was no evidence of any Russian involvement.

1:11:21 > 1:11:24He has mentioned about Twitter so far and most of the hard evidence we

1:11:24 > 1:11:28have seems to come from Twitter. But I wonder if he agrees part of the

1:11:28 > 1:11:33reason why the evidence comes from Twitter is because Facebook don't

1:11:33 > 1:11:37cooperate in the way I which I believe they should do in order to

1:11:37 > 1:11:44get to the root of these particular problems?I am indeed, going to come

1:11:44 > 1:11:48onto Facebook and some negative and positive things about their

1:11:48 > 1:11:54activities. One thing I should say is, I am not attacking the Russians,

1:11:54 > 1:11:59I am attacking the Russian government. The other thing I should

1:11:59 > 1:12:03say, some of the activities the Russian government, or people

1:12:03 > 1:12:07associated with them, might have been involved with, might be

1:12:07 > 1:12:11activities of the State actors are conducting as well. This isn't just

1:12:11 > 1:12:16about Russia, although this is clearly the subject of the debate.

1:12:16 > 1:12:21The US has a gaping vulnerability for operations carried out by the

1:12:21 > 1:12:25USA and other malicious actors across social media environment. In

1:12:25 > 1:12:30the USA, just one account from the Troll factory in St Petersburg

1:12:30 > 1:12:35managed to amass 120,000 followers, interacted with the tram campaign

1:12:35 > 1:12:39leaders and was quoted in newspapers like the Washington Post as the

1:12:39 > 1:12:45voice of the American right. I asked the minister whether he is happy the

1:12:45 > 1:12:49UK has adequate defences against such interference? Whilst Aaron

1:12:49 > 1:12:54Banks and Nigel Farage may be Putin fans, President Putin is not a

1:12:54 > 1:13:00friend of this country. I will give way in a second. Russia will only

1:13:00 > 1:13:04have interfered in any elections here to damage the UK and indeed the

1:13:04 > 1:13:13EU security.The honourable member is making a brilliant point. Has he

1:13:13 > 1:13:17noticed the American national Security strategy published this

1:13:17 > 1:13:21week specifically recognises this threat, whereas our national

1:13:21 > 1:13:27security strategy, does not?It is a good point and do something I will

1:13:27 > 1:13:34come onto. Clearly it is a source of concern. There is no soft power in

1:13:34 > 1:13:39Putin's eyes and the use of social media to interfere is and weaponised

1:13:39 > 1:13:44tool, as far as he is concerned. The covert interference is supplemented

1:13:44 > 1:13:50by more overt attempts to create immediate counter narrative. We're

1:13:50 > 1:13:57now talking about Russia today. The chief editor is on the record

1:13:57 > 1:14:00comparing it to the Ministry of Defence, saying we are fighting an

1:14:00 > 1:14:06information war against the whole of the Western world, referring to the

1:14:06 > 1:14:09information weapon which is choosing critical moments and saying about

1:14:09 > 1:14:14their task in peacetime is to build an audience so they can fight the

1:14:14 > 1:14:22information war better next time. Not surprisingly, Chatham House and

1:14:22 > 1:14:27Henry Jackson C RT as a tool to destabilise the nation from the

1:14:27 > 1:14:37Kremlin. RT was breech of the come because of stories about Assad and

1:14:37 > 1:14:44chemical weapons. But off gum have never enforced sanctions as and when

1:14:44 > 1:14:56it was appropriate. In terms of the numbers, Ofcom have sanctioned 87

1:14:56 > 1:15:01broadcasters, RT not been subject of sanction over that time. So that was

1:15:01 > 1:15:07ten years up until March 20 17th and found broadcasters have breached the

1:15:07 > 1:15:12broadcasting code 2500 times. I don't think anyone is advocating

1:15:12 > 1:15:17shutting down RT, what I am advocating is ensuring it abides by

1:15:17 > 1:15:21the broadcasting rules and if it doesn't, appropriate action is taken

1:15:21 > 1:15:26every time, I would suggest, by Ofcom. A further question, I would

1:15:26 > 1:15:31like to know if the Minister is happy with Ofcom's actions and

1:15:31 > 1:15:36things if they do consistently pursued RT for breaches in the wake

1:15:36 > 1:15:43he would like them to. And the other channels, which I would like Ofcom

1:15:43 > 1:15:46to be more active in pursuing when threats are made to the particular

1:15:46 > 1:15:50community on some of the channels that broadcast here. Is he happy

1:15:50 > 1:15:56with the actions of Ofcom?

1:15:56 > 1:15:59I do not think any British parliamentarian should take money

1:15:59 > 1:16:04from RT and I do not think they should be appearing on RT. The only

1:16:04 > 1:16:11exception to that rule might be if they have a completely unedited, say

1:16:11 > 1:16:17what they want, not going to get chopped, edited, cut by RT. Apart

1:16:17 > 1:16:22from that, I do not think anyone here or in the House of Lords should

1:16:22 > 1:16:26ever appear on that channel. The only time RT ever contact me is when

1:16:26 > 1:16:30I have said something critical about the Government, I am happy to say

1:16:30 > 1:16:35things critical about the Government on the BBC, and RT are trying to

1:16:35 > 1:16:39create an agenda about attacking the Government at every turn, I will not

1:16:39 > 1:16:44facilitate that process. The next issue I want to touch briefly is

1:16:44 > 1:16:49whether the Russians or infiltrating or leaking content from political

1:16:49 > 1:16:54party systems. We know what they did in relation to the Democrats and

1:16:54 > 1:16:58they also hurt the Republicans but they only released the information

1:16:58 > 1:17:03in relation to the Democrats -- they also hacked. We know they attempted

1:17:03 > 1:17:08to infiltrate Emmanuel Macron's team setting up a number of websites with

1:17:08 > 1:17:12pseudo- official titles that could e-mail members of staff to try to

1:17:12 > 1:17:18get them to click on links and provide back door access to their

1:17:18 > 1:17:22systems. I understand Macron defeated that by inserting some fake

1:17:22 > 1:17:26news into the content they were trying to access so the story was

1:17:26 > 1:17:30demolished because of the inconsistencies within the story

1:17:30 > 1:17:36itself. Of course, members will know Macron had a more aggressive, more

1:17:36 > 1:17:40muscular stance towards Russia than any of the other political parties

1:17:40 > 1:17:43in the French presidential election and that is why I believe he was

1:17:43 > 1:17:46targeted in the way the others were not although I understand the other

1:17:46 > 1:17:55French political parties were also targeted but the Russians were

1:17:55 > 1:17:58interested in releasing information related to him in particular. Mr

1:17:58 > 1:18:02Putin has said they are not necessarily associated with the

1:18:02 > 1:18:12government, patriotic hackers. But one has to suspect they have got the

1:18:12 > 1:18:16endorsement of the Russian government because they could clamp

1:18:16 > 1:18:19down on the so-called patriotic hackers if they wanted to. I wanted

1:18:19 > 1:18:23to ask the Minister, very easy question, I'm trying to make them

1:18:23 > 1:18:28clear so I know the box can provide a written answer for the Minister to

1:18:28 > 1:18:31read out on the record straightaway, will the Minister give consideration

1:18:31 > 1:18:36to making UK political parties part of the critical national

1:18:36 > 1:18:40infrastructure and the implications of taking such a step? To be able to

1:18:40 > 1:18:45ascertain what the level of threat is, we do have to assess it

1:18:45 > 1:18:50accurately. Otherwise I do risk coming across as a conspiracy

1:18:50 > 1:18:55theorist. I know I do already on Brexit on that issue, but I do not

1:18:55 > 1:19:01want to become the person known for conspiracy theories. The difficulty

1:19:01 > 1:19:06we have at the moment and it is because frankly no one has

1:19:06 > 1:19:09investigated it properly yet and it is only one that has been done we

1:19:09 > 1:19:15will know and I regret the fact it took so long for the ISC to be

1:19:15 > 1:19:20reconstituted, I welcome the fact they have stated Russia will be the

1:19:20 > 1:19:23topic they will focus on, but I would like to ask the Minister

1:19:23 > 1:19:28whether he thinks they should give priority to that and also that he

1:19:28 > 1:19:31would ensure or want them to work effectively with the Electoral

1:19:31 > 1:19:39Commission so that the Electoral Commission cannot... The places

1:19:39 > 1:19:45where they cannot go, the security services or ISC can. An inquiry

1:19:45 > 1:19:48would help us establish accurately the level of threat. We know that

1:19:48 > 1:19:54the Facebook... Picking up on the earlier intervention, they have been

1:19:54 > 1:19:58asked by the Electoral Commission to look at examples of paid ads from

1:19:58 > 1:20:05Russia but they were not asked to look at the use of trolls or bots.

1:20:05 > 1:20:13We know it is a very incomplete richer. The Russians apparently

1:20:13 > 1:20:18spent £17 50 on advertising, does not quite sound right to me -- is

1:20:18 > 1:20:24very incomplete picture.We are not talking about a few Twitter or

1:20:24 > 1:20:29Facebook accounts, in the case of the David Jones account, more than

1:20:29 > 1:20:33100,000 followers, listed as one of the most influential Twitter

1:20:33 > 1:20:37accounts in the last general election, yet it purports to be from

1:20:37 > 1:20:43Southampton and tweets at the Russian time zone, surely the social

1:20:43 > 1:20:47media companies have a greater role to play in identifying fake accounts

1:20:47 > 1:20:52for the integrity of the debate we should all enjoy online?I agree

1:20:52 > 1:20:57entirely and I do not know whether she was but I think I have engaged

1:20:57 > 1:21:00in exchanges with David Jones and I clearly will not continue to do so

1:21:00 > 1:21:07because he was a very prolific tweeter, whatever he or she was, in

1:21:07 > 1:21:13the campaign. As I understand, according to Facebook, neither the

1:21:13 > 1:21:20foreign & Commonwealth Office need a -- or Number 10 have given advice as

1:21:20 > 1:21:24to what to look for and if that is correct, it is a concern. I hope the

1:21:24 > 1:21:31Minister will concern.-- I hope the Minister will respond. The Americans

1:21:31 > 1:21:35looked up 47 accounts, provided to the inquiry by intelligence agencies

1:21:35 > 1:21:40and the member is right to say our agencies have only offered I think

1:21:40 > 1:21:47one. The other risk we have to be careful or if there is money

1:21:47 > 1:21:53transferred onshore, some of the illicit money may have come from UK

1:21:53 > 1:21:58onshore accounts.I thank him for that intervention, another aspect of

1:21:58 > 1:22:02this I will not be able to dwell on at great length in the few minutes

1:22:02 > 1:22:08that remain, but Facebook or doing work on add transparency and I

1:22:08 > 1:22:12welcome that and I would be comfortable with the idea of having

1:22:12 > 1:22:17a printed and published on that political ads I place and I think

1:22:17 > 1:22:19that would help people to understand who was actually promoting

1:22:19 > 1:22:25themselves. I wonder if the Minister would support that particular

1:22:25 > 1:22:30suggestion. And the issue of authentication. On Twitter, I and I

1:22:30 > 1:22:37suspect every member here is there with a bluetit on Twitter, confirmed

1:22:37 > 1:22:46as real people -- blue tick. And maybe Facebook should do something

1:22:46 > 1:22:52similar. So we know they are not just sitting in an office block on

1:22:52 > 1:22:59the outskirts of Moscow. We need to resource our response appropriately

1:22:59 > 1:23:03and I have concerns as a minister, when I had dealings with the

1:23:03 > 1:23:06Electoral Commission, they do not have the resources to do this and if

1:23:06 > 1:23:10they are trying to get into activity abroad, clearly that is not within

1:23:10 > 1:23:15their remit and they would not have any expertise, so we need to see how

1:23:15 > 1:23:18they can access that and the Minister is nodding so hopefully

1:23:18 > 1:23:26will be able to clarify. I hope he is confident that the Electoral

1:23:26 > 1:23:29Commission have the resources and the expertise or can at least access

1:23:29 > 1:23:36it. I give way.I'm grateful for him giving way. Can I agree with him and

1:23:36 > 1:23:41ask him to emphasise this point about the resources to investigate?

1:23:41 > 1:23:45There is a danger that we are sidetracked into the social media

1:23:45 > 1:23:49side of this one ultimately the more important thing is the money. Does

1:23:49 > 1:23:57he believe that the Electoral Commission is sufficiently equipped,

1:23:57 > 1:24:02resourced and empowered to properly follow the money? To ascertain where

1:24:02 > 1:24:08donations come from, whether the original donors really own the money

1:24:08 > 1:24:16and whether they need more powers or the agencies and the Electoral

1:24:16 > 1:24:22Commission together need more powers to properly tracked the finance?My

1:24:22 > 1:24:25short answer is, no, and clearly that is something that needs to be

1:24:25 > 1:24:30acted on. Not just political parties, it is tracking the money

1:24:30 > 1:24:36associated with political movements in terms of the leave campaign or

1:24:36 > 1:24:39perhaps Momentum, having some clarity about whether money is

1:24:39 > 1:24:43coming from and so on. We would all benefit from that, if was more

1:24:43 > 1:24:54transparency. I will give way... One more time, quickly.Until we get a

1:24:54 > 1:25:00change in mindset among these bodies, additional resources will

1:25:00 > 1:25:06not have the necessary impact, they have got to have the will and

1:25:06 > 1:25:09necessary policy framework and the resources may follow that if they

1:25:09 > 1:25:12are not sufficient and that applies not just the Electoral Commission

1:25:12 > 1:25:16but right the way across the agencies of government.I thank him

1:25:16 > 1:25:19for that and yes, I think this debate is partly about giving them

1:25:19 > 1:25:23the will and telling them they have the backing of Parliament to take

1:25:23 > 1:25:27the action needed. I will just conclude by reading out the few

1:25:27 > 1:25:38questions I had left for the Minister.

1:25:39 > 1:25:42Have been generous in taking interventions. As I understand it,

1:25:42 > 1:25:44the Government have not tasked the intelligence and security services

1:25:44 > 1:25:46to investigate Russian subversion as a high priority, Russia are a tier

1:25:46 > 1:25:49one threat but the strategy does not mention defence against Russian

1:25:49 > 1:25:52interference in our political system, will he press for that to be

1:25:52 > 1:25:57changed? On the funding of political movements, does he agree that

1:25:57 > 1:26:01financial and accountability for political movements must be improved

1:26:01 > 1:26:06as well? On the inquiry, will the Minister confirm the UK Government

1:26:06 > 1:26:11will proactively seek and supply any relevant information to the inquiry,

1:26:11 > 1:26:16rather than sitting and waiting to be approached? And finally, social

1:26:16 > 1:26:21media companies, they are indeed on a positive side team to work with

1:26:21 > 1:26:25governments to try to close some of the loopholes we have referred to

1:26:25 > 1:26:29today. I think we need to make sure Russia are held publicly to account,

1:26:29 > 1:26:34whether that is through Ofcom, ministers confirming they know, as

1:26:34 > 1:26:38they have done in relation to the NHS hacking by North Korea, when

1:26:38 > 1:26:42they know the Russians have been actively hacking our systems, they

1:26:42 > 1:26:48should make that clear. The ISC need to come forward with the report.

1:26:48 > 1:26:51Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been very pleased to have the opportunity

1:26:51 > 1:26:57to raise this debate and what I hope is that the House will give the

1:26:57 > 1:27:00Minister that if he needs to go away and ensure that in respect of

1:27:00 > 1:27:07government departments, it is an FCO Cabinet Office and DC MS issue, that

1:27:07 > 1:27:12is part of the problem, that they will grab the bull by the horns and

1:27:12 > 1:27:14make sure Russia, because of the threat it prevents to the UK, is

1:27:14 > 1:27:21dealt with with the degree of seriousness that is required.The

1:27:21 > 1:27:27question is that this House has considered Russian interference in

1:27:27 > 1:27:32UK politics and society. As Mr Speaker said, there are a number of

1:27:32 > 1:27:37colleagues wishing to contribute to this debate and to the later debate

1:27:37 > 1:27:44so I am afraid I am going to have to impose an immediate five minute time

1:27:44 > 1:27:48limit and I would urge colleagues to be very aware that if they take

1:27:48 > 1:27:51interventions, it is likely it reduces the time for others. Damian

1:27:51 > 1:27:57Collins.It is a pleasure to follow the honourable member, I

1:27:57 > 1:28:08congratulate him on security -- securing the debate. He raised many

1:28:08 > 1:28:11points and I would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say

1:28:11 > 1:28:17about the important questions later on. This feels very timely to me

1:28:17 > 1:28:21because on Tuesday, the Digital, culture, media and sport select

1:28:21 > 1:28:24committee held our first evidence session on fake news and

1:28:24 > 1:28:28dissemination, looking in particular at Russian activity in Catalonia

1:28:28 > 1:28:35around the referendum, some of my staff tweeted a link on my Twitter

1:28:35 > 1:28:39account where you could watch the hearing, then according to an

1:28:39 > 1:28:46article today, a Russian account shared a link with the threat we

1:28:46 > 1:28:49should be careful because we could all be wiped out in a single stroke.

1:28:49 > 1:28:55I do not know if that was the entire nation or the select committee,

1:28:55 > 1:28:57nevertheless, it was interesting. On a previous occasion when I happen to

1:28:57 > 1:29:02share a link with an interview I had had with Hugo Rifkind, based on the

1:29:02 > 1:29:07facts of the US Senate investigation into Russian activity in the

1:29:07 > 1:29:09presidential election, the official Twitter account of the Russian

1:29:09 > 1:29:14Embassy in London compared me to Joseph Goebbels in seeking to spread

1:29:14 > 1:29:19big lies about what Russia is doing. Let us not be under any illusion,

1:29:19 > 1:29:23not just anecdotally, but also in terms of the systematic way Russia

1:29:23 > 1:29:27is using information as a weapon of war and seeking to intervene in the

1:29:27 > 1:29:30democratic processes of other countries. It is undermining people

1:29:30 > 1:29:34was my confidence in public institutions, causing division and

1:29:34 > 1:29:38hatred and it is part of its strategy of breaking down

1:29:38 > 1:29:41cooperation between countries and states in western Europe. That is

1:29:41 > 1:29:46what Russia is doing. I want to focus very specifically on the role

1:29:46 > 1:29:51of the social media companies and the way in which they are responding

1:29:51 > 1:29:54to the different investigations. My select committee wrote to Facebook

1:29:54 > 1:30:00asking them for evidence, not just of paid for advertising through the

1:30:00 > 1:30:05service in the referendum and the last general election here, we asked

1:30:05 > 1:30:09them to identify activity by fake accounts across all the platform as

1:30:09 > 1:30:15well. Much of the activity in America was based on pages set up to

1:30:15 > 1:30:19promote links to sites where fake news and disinformation was being

1:30:19 > 1:30:22shared and also to organise fake events as well. It is important we

1:30:22 > 1:30:26understand the breadth of what is being done. Facebook's response so

1:30:26 > 1:30:34far is that only a tiny amount of money... It isn't the based on

1:30:34 > 1:30:37looking at the accounts identified as part of the American

1:30:37 > 1:30:41investigation. Those accounts themselves were given to Facebook by

1:30:41 > 1:30:44the US intelligence services. Facebook had never proactively look

1:30:44 > 1:30:48on their site for evidence of this activity. Their position in this

1:30:48 > 1:30:52country is they will not do that, they will not, they are refusing to

1:30:52 > 1:30:59conduct the research themselves. As the member said, it must be possible

1:30:59 > 1:31:03for them to look at the geographical location of accounts, the

1:31:03 > 1:31:07characteristics of accounts where information is being shared from.

1:31:07 > 1:31:11That is how they make money, you are right. To understand how to target

1:31:11 > 1:31:17users with information based on what they think they are interested in.

1:31:17 > 1:31:20They could conduct preliminary research to look for the

1:31:20 > 1:31:23characteristics of fake accounts linked to Russian agencies based on

1:31:23 > 1:31:32their platform and at the moment they are refusing to.

1:31:32 > 1:31:49Facebook quarterly money worth $4 billion.Marks a caller said

1:31:49 > 1:31:56tackling this issue would hit the bottom line. Facebook were only

1:31:56 > 1:32:00responding to questions put by the Electoral Commission. A narrower

1:32:00 > 1:32:04focus because of the Riemann Electoral Commission has. They are

1:32:04 > 1:32:09not answering questions put to it as give her more evidence regarding

1:32:09 > 1:32:14Russian linked activity across the site including in pages, Group

1:32:14 > 1:32:17accounts and profiles, not just restricted to advertising. We have a

1:32:17 > 1:32:21right to receive information from them and they can conduct research.

1:32:21 > 1:32:26They conducted their own research looking at fake accounts during the

1:32:26 > 1:32:30French presidential election which led to the deletion of 30,000 fake

1:32:30 > 1:32:34accounts and profiles. If they can do it in France, they can do it in

1:32:34 > 1:32:39the UK. But at the moment they will not do it. If their position is they

1:32:39 > 1:32:43will only respond to official intelligence directing them towards

1:32:43 > 1:32:46fake activity, our intelligence services need to be on the lookout,

1:32:46 > 1:32:57if that is the open trigger to get Facebook to act.The

1:32:57 > 1:33:01national-security adviser said this was not the main priority and indeed

1:33:01 > 1:33:05just spoke generally about security threats, would he agree this should

1:33:05 > 1:33:10be the number one priority? Absolutely, it must be a major

1:33:10 > 1:33:14priority. We have to recognise Russia is engaged in a multilayered

1:33:14 > 1:33:19strategy to cause instability in the West. Information and fake news is

1:33:19 > 1:33:24one of the tools they use. In the select committee this week, when you

1:33:24 > 1:33:29look at the Catalan referendum, Russian newsagents, RT and Sputnik

1:33:29 > 1:33:34where the fourth largest sources of information, all linking the

1:33:34 > 1:33:46separatist cause.I grew up in Germany and when we were referring

1:33:46 > 1:33:50to Russia and funding German terrorism at the time, we've seen as

1:33:50 > 1:33:58paranoid fantasist. The wall came down, our fears were reconfirmed

1:33:58 > 1:34:03when the file is opened. It must be a national recognition across the

1:34:03 > 1:34:08board and people themselves need to see this as a real threat.

1:34:08 > 1:34:12Absolutely, people must take it as a real threat. It's not enough for the

1:34:12 > 1:34:15tech companies to sit back and say we won't do anything unless you come

1:34:15 > 1:34:20with the evidence. We're not prepared to act will conduct their

1:34:20 > 1:34:23own research. I don't believe as rather individual users of these

1:34:23 > 1:34:26platforms understand the way in which they can be targeted and the

1:34:26 > 1:34:34reason they the information they receive. It creates confusing echo

1:34:34 > 1:34:36chambers, and people are systematically targeted. Not just

1:34:36 > 1:34:42with fake news but partisan content and it is being done by foreign

1:34:42 > 1:34:46actors. If we don't see this as a threat to the Democratic

1:34:46 > 1:34:50institutions of this country, we are deluded ourselves and the threat to

1:34:50 > 1:34:54the Western way of life. Tech companies need to do more. Same

1:34:54 > 1:34:58issues apply to Twitter. They have analysed accounts and information

1:34:58 > 1:35:03given to it by the US intelligence services. More work has been done

1:35:03 > 1:35:08because it is more open platform and because Facebook is close, it is

1:35:08 > 1:35:17not. The tech companies need to do more and it has to be a higher

1:35:17 > 1:35:23priority for the intelligence services as well.It gives me a

1:35:23 > 1:35:26enormous pleasure to follow the honourable gentleman, let me commend

1:35:26 > 1:35:30him for the work he's doing. I wrote to his committee at the beginning of

1:35:30 > 1:35:36the suggesting such an enquiry and I am delighted they doing one. When I

1:35:36 > 1:35:39started asking questions about this I was treated as a bit of a crank.

1:35:39 > 1:35:43But I am pleased to say we have multiple investigations and

1:35:43 > 1:35:50enquiries, including that of the Honourable members committee. We

1:35:50 > 1:35:52have multiple investigations by the Electoral Commission we have the

1:35:52 > 1:35:57molar investigation. What strikes me and worries me about this, they are

1:35:57 > 1:36:03independent Parliamentary bodies. They knock the government,

1:36:03 > 1:36:05responsible for maintaining our security and defence is on the

1:36:05 > 1:36:08government has the power to get to the truth and the bottom of all of

1:36:08 > 1:36:14this. I will restrict all of my marks because I put a lot of the

1:36:14 > 1:36:19evidence in the public domain. I do hope the Minister will address and

1:36:19 > 1:36:25explain what seems to be the government's in in dealing with

1:36:25 > 1:36:31this, why aren't the government dealing with this themselves, while

1:36:31 > 1:36:39leaving it to others. The central question which has been raised, has

1:36:39 > 1:36:43the government tasks to our intelligence and security services

1:36:43 > 1:36:46with investigating Russian subversion as a high priority? The

1:36:46 > 1:36:51information I have is that the government has not. If that is the

1:36:51 > 1:36:57case, why not? If Bush is classified as a Tier one threat but the 6-point

1:36:57 > 1:37:00National Security strategy doesn't mention defence against Russian

1:37:00 > 1:37:04interference in our political system, it's not good enough. I

1:37:04 > 1:37:08would be grateful if the Minister could listen to these questions or

1:37:08 > 1:37:11his officials can so they can pass him the answers. What is the

1:37:11 > 1:37:16government doing to support the work of the committee and his robust

1:37:16 > 1:37:20response to the inadequate response from the tech companies, showing

1:37:20 > 1:37:24nothing short of contempt for Parliament. He needs a government

1:37:24 > 1:37:29and intelligence services to support the important work he's doing. What

1:37:29 > 1:37:34is the government itself doing to get the tech companies to reveal ad

1:37:34 > 1:37:41purchases and make it easier to block social media accounts? What

1:37:41 > 1:37:45discussion has UK had with UK media companies with the voluntary

1:37:45 > 1:37:50agreement reached in France not to report materials that had been

1:37:50 > 1:37:55accessed by illegal hacking. What cooperation is the government giving

1:37:55 > 1:37:58the enquiry? When the Foreign Secretary last answered a question

1:37:58 > 1:38:02for me on this, he said he had received no request for help from

1:38:02 > 1:38:08Muller. Given several of the senior figures who have been indicted by

1:38:08 > 1:38:12Muller, conducted their central activities in Britain. It is

1:38:12 > 1:38:16unbelievable and inconceivable to me, that there could not have been

1:38:16 > 1:38:20contacts between the US investigators and authorities and

1:38:20 > 1:38:24the British authorities. So either our own agencies are not keeping the

1:38:24 > 1:38:33Foreign Secretary in the loop or he missed -- misspoke in his reply to

1:38:33 > 1:38:39me. I have tabled several written questions about contacts between

1:38:39 > 1:38:42government ministers and the Institute which are still

1:38:42 > 1:38:46outstanding and I will be grateful if the Minister could chase of

1:38:46 > 1:38:50replies. Will he, or will he ask our intelligence and security services

1:38:50 > 1:38:54to look into the roles of Vladimir Antonov, the subject of an EU arrest

1:38:54 > 1:38:58warrant and on to Rome and above, and any relationship they may have

1:38:58 > 1:39:04had in the past with the former Ukip leader, Nigel Farage. Though he also

1:39:04 > 1:39:08care to comment on reports that broke just before this debate

1:39:08 > 1:39:14started, that a man arrested in Ukraine, suspected of being a

1:39:14 > 1:39:16Russian spy, was photographed with our Prime Minister in Downing Street

1:39:16 > 1:39:22just back in the summer. Finally, as already mentioned, this is one for

1:39:22 > 1:39:27the party leaders and the whips. But surely, it's time for British

1:39:27 > 1:39:32politicians to stop making idiots of themselves, by appearing on and

1:39:32 > 1:39:36taking money from Kremlin propaganda outfits like Russia today or

1:39:36 > 1:39:44Sputnik. It pains me to say there are still some of these useful

1:39:44 > 1:39:48idiots on the left in British and international politics. My message

1:39:48 > 1:39:54to them is, Russia is a nasty, nationalistic, ultraconservative,

1:39:54 > 1:39:59corrupt clapped off pushy, it is racist and homophobic and makes in a

1:39:59 > 1:40:03secret of wanting to undermine our democracy. If this debate is nothing

1:40:03 > 1:40:08but give the government a bit of warmth in tackling this threat I get

1:40:08 > 1:40:14some reality in our political discourse, it will be up useful

1:40:14 > 1:40:19debate indeed.We're coming up to Christmas which marks the birth of

1:40:19 > 1:40:26Christ and the bringing of hope to mankind. But we had the dissolution

1:40:26 > 1:40:32of the Soviet Union on the 26th of December 19 91. When I was elected,

1:40:32 > 1:40:37270 people lived under direct rule in elections of any real value of

1:40:37 > 1:40:42the Soviet Union and a further 137 million in the other countries in

1:40:42 > 1:40:48the Eastern bloc of Europe. On the 26th of December 1991, Gorbachev

1:40:48 > 1:40:51went on television to announce this long nightmare was over. As he went

1:40:51 > 1:40:57in to sign, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, his pen didn't work

1:40:57 > 1:41:01and he had to borrow a working pen of a CNN camera crew filming the

1:41:01 > 1:41:06event. We should believe in the Southern tree of Nations, the

1:41:06 > 1:41:10principle of non-interference, it in the internal affairs of other

1:41:10 > 1:41:14nations. We should be proud of the park this country played in the

1:41:14 > 1:41:21downfall of the USSR and communism in Europe. Alongside Saint Paul II,

1:41:21 > 1:41:27Margaret Thatcher and President Reagan, we were instrumental in

1:41:27 > 1:41:31disbanding totalitarianism. At the same time, the current Leader of the

1:41:31 > 1:41:34Opposition and the Shadow Home Secretary were going on motorbike

1:41:34 > 1:41:39tours of East Germany. If he might have been accused of interfering in

1:41:39 > 1:41:43the internal affairs of the Soviet Union, we can be proud of it. In

1:41:43 > 1:41:48those years, there were dozens and dozens of Soviet defections of

1:41:48 > 1:41:51eastern Germany and Poland, they were posing a direct threat to our

1:41:51 > 1:41:58freedom and democracy. But here, we are talking about alleged Russian

1:41:58 > 1:42:03interference in UK politics and society. We hear things like

1:42:03 > 1:42:08undermining our democracy. Can we look at the evidence. The Oxford

1:42:08 > 1:42:15Internet Institute... I will give way.Hasn't the current head of the

1:42:15 > 1:42:20SSB only this week outlined that in fact they see themselves as the

1:42:20 > 1:42:24spiritual heirs of the checker and the KGB. Doesn't that tell you all

1:42:24 > 1:42:32you need to know about them.I am not seeking to defend the Putin

1:42:32 > 1:42:38regime, there is so much in Russia that is not perfect. I was a member

1:42:38 > 1:42:42of the presidential elections, it is not a perfect democracy, but let's

1:42:42 > 1:42:47keep a sense of proportion. So much progress has been made, Russia is an

1:42:47 > 1:42:52infinitely freer and better place than it was under the Soviet Union.

1:42:52 > 1:42:56But it's not perfect, it's not pleasant and it's not all sort of

1:42:56 > 1:43:01democracy and I do not defend the Putin regime, but I want to get a

1:43:01 > 1:43:06sense of proportion in this debased and look at the evidence from the

1:43:06 > 1:43:11Oxford Internet Institute, part of Oxford University. They into

1:43:11 > 1:43:15investigated over 100 Russian linked Twitter account in the run-up to the

1:43:15 > 1:43:20EU referendum. The results are worth noting. They found, first, that

1:43:20 > 1:43:26Russian Twitter accounts shared with the public, contributed little to

1:43:26 > 1:43:31the overall Brexit conversation. Russian news content was not widely

1:43:31 > 1:43:37shared among Twitter users. And only a tiny proportion of YouTube content

1:43:37 > 1:43:43was of clear Russian origin. The fact is, the majority of the UK

1:43:43 > 1:43:49population, by a significant extent, is not on Twitter.I am familiar

1:43:49 > 1:43:55with the study he is referring to, but that is narrowly focused and

1:43:55 > 1:44:02there is the evidence of 13,000 Bots accounts on Twitter link to Russia

1:44:02 > 1:44:07that were deleted shortly after the referendum. Read the technical

1:44:07 > 1:44:11companies to be co-operating fully so we can understand the scale of

1:44:11 > 1:44:17it.Of course we must keep a sense of proportion but I'm quoting from a

1:44:17 > 1:44:20well established Institute. I want to give another point of view, which

1:44:20 > 1:44:25is fair enough in this debate. The majority of the UK population are

1:44:25 > 1:44:30not on Twitter. And of those users, they don't even login daily.

1:44:30 > 1:44:36Facebook did an investigation into the tourist Russian control factor,

1:44:36 > 1:44:42called the Internet research agency and they found this. If this is the

1:44:42 > 1:44:47best Russia can do to overturn our longer established parliamentary

1:44:47 > 1:44:53democracy, I think probably that we can rest at ease. No, I am going to

1:44:53 > 1:44:58finish now. The paranoid tendency to see a red under every bed is very

1:44:58 > 1:45:03much alive. There is an explanation. There is an explanation for this

1:45:03 > 1:45:09paranoia. 'S victory, the success of Brexit in the referendum. Things are

1:45:09 > 1:45:15not going the way of liberals and they cannot accept that people, the

1:45:15 > 1:45:19workers even, the workers are abandoning their ideology. Presuming

1:45:19 > 1:45:26they ever agreed with it.

1:45:26 > 1:45:30The left has a psychological need to find an excuse for why do people are

1:45:30 > 1:45:36misbehaving. I will not give way. Russia is that excuse today. Perhaps

1:45:36 > 1:45:41the reality is the voters might not agree with the established liberal

1:45:41 > 1:45:46consensus on Brexit, perhaps voters in Britain, America, Poland,

1:45:46 > 1:45:49elsewhere, they have legitimate concerns they feel are not being

1:45:49 > 1:45:53addressed, these concerns must be addressed and we in this House must

1:45:53 > 1:45:58be the ones to address them. This was the wisdom shown by Disraeli and

1:45:58 > 1:46:06others in expanding the electorate, this is the British constitution

1:46:06 > 1:46:09that adapts, evolves and bends instead of breaking. The fact is the

1:46:09 > 1:46:12referendum was a free and fair vote of the British people and if there

1:46:12 > 1:46:17was foreign interference, it was so ineffective, I doubt it made any

1:46:17 > 1:46:23difference at all to the final result. It was not the work, Madam

1:46:23 > 1:46:28Deputy Speaker, of foreigners somewhere distant plugging at

1:46:28 > 1:46:32computers and unleashing Twitter bots, authority comes from above but

1:46:32 > 1:46:36power comes from below and it came from the people. If we do not

1:46:36 > 1:46:41accommodate the legitimate concerns of ordinary people, we undermine the

1:46:41 > 1:46:44foundations of our parliamentary democracy. We might find ourselves

1:46:44 > 1:46:54replaced and irrelevant, as Carl Gorbachev did in 1991.-- as

1:46:54 > 1:46:57Gorbachev did. There has always been a group of people on the left of

1:46:57 > 1:47:05British politics who were useful idiots for authoritarian communism,

1:47:05 > 1:47:09that included people who on many other issues were very sensible, I

1:47:09 > 1:47:19refer to Soviet communism and new civilisation is written in 1930.

1:47:19 > 1:47:22There have also been a group of people on the far right in British

1:47:22 > 1:47:29politics who are admirers of the strong leader and the national

1:47:29 > 1:47:38identity and the patriotic purpose of the Russian or in the Soviet

1:47:38 > 1:47:43regime. They loved Uncle Joe and today many like Vladimir Putin.

1:47:43 > 1:47:49Putin has over recent years tried to develop a relationship with various

1:47:49 > 1:47:55groups within Europe for his own national interest and ideological

1:47:55 > 1:48:03goals. He has used in that process a man, and ideologist, from the far

1:48:03 > 1:48:07right who has connections with the American Bob Wright and also had

1:48:07 > 1:48:15connections with people including Nick Griffin, Nigel Farage, Marine

1:48:15 > 1:48:21Le Pen -- with the American alt right. They attended conferences in

1:48:21 > 1:48:30Russia. You can read the file ideology he has tried to create some

1:48:30 > 1:48:42kind of Eurasian monolith based upon authoritarian ideology and crushing

1:48:42 > 1:48:47religious minorities -- the vile ideology. That is the point at the

1:48:47 > 1:48:55essence of the Russian state, how is it going to develop? Putin has used

1:48:55 > 1:49:02this man and at one point, he was referred to as Putin's Rasputin. I

1:49:02 > 1:49:10think there's some concern in many other European countries about this

1:49:10 > 1:49:17kind of work. The European Parliament on the 25th of November,

1:49:17 > 1:49:222016 carried a resolution by a very large majority referring to Russia

1:49:22 > 1:49:27using a wide range of tools to challenge democratic values and

1:49:27 > 1:49:33divide Europe. We have seen different tools used at the

1:49:33 > 1:49:40interference in the elections that has already been mentioned, plus the

1:49:40 > 1:49:46attempted coup in Montenegro, the way in which the Hungarian regime

1:49:46 > 1:49:52has been given support financially by various forms of investment, and

1:49:52 > 1:49:59I geologically, it then acts as a Trojan horse in the EU against

1:49:59 > 1:50:03actions on Russia because of the invasion and annexation of Ukraine

1:50:03 > 1:50:15-- and ideological. I will give way. I thank him for his -- him

1:50:15 > 1:50:19generously giving way. I believe it is important to be aware of

1:50:19 > 1:50:22beginnings. I was celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall, living

1:50:22 > 1:50:27through cold war Germany, and I hoped Russia had changed, but only a

1:50:27 > 1:50:30year ago, I went back, I talk to people who told me that

1:50:30 > 1:50:35unfortunately Russia was now facing the same threats and the same

1:50:35 > 1:50:42problems they had faced in the cold War.Order. The honourable lady

1:50:42 > 1:50:49needs to make a brief intervention, there is a lot of pressure on time.

1:50:49 > 1:50:55Yes, absolutely. The idea that there is this fantastic, miraculous

1:50:55 > 1:51:04transformation in 1989, 1990, it is sadly not the case. There is an

1:51:04 > 1:51:07authoritarian kleptocracy was the word used earlier, there is a regime

1:51:07 > 1:51:15where the leaders of the opposition are locked up, where journalists

1:51:15 > 1:51:21disappear or are killed, where polonium is used to murder people on

1:51:21 > 1:51:30the streets of London, and were the Russian regime, the Russian

1:51:30 > 1:51:33government, it is not a democracy in any sense we understand it,

1:51:33 > 1:51:40everybody knows that Vladimir Putin is going to be president until 2024.

1:51:40 > 1:51:46And everybody knows that there is a regime there which will continue.

1:51:46 > 1:51:54That is not democracy and there are very serious flaws about that

1:51:54 > 1:52:01society, but what is more serious is the attempt to undermine cohesion

1:52:01 > 1:52:07and its sow discord among Europeans and within our society. In the time

1:52:07 > 1:52:12left to me, I just referred to the kind of tweets put out by the

1:52:12 > 1:52:21Russian Embassy. They had the European Union stockade on fire and

1:52:21 > 1:52:25the giant Russian bear and the flag flying over the European Union

1:52:25 > 1:52:32stockade was the LGBT flag which tells you all you need to know about

1:52:32 > 1:52:35the ideology of the Russian government and the Russian state.

1:52:35 > 1:52:42These are not fringe elements, this is the core of the government. I

1:52:42 > 1:52:46refer members to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report in the last

1:52:46 > 1:52:51Parliament published in March and the Government's response to it, and

1:52:51 > 1:52:55we have got to look seriously at these questions. I do a lot of

1:52:55 > 1:53:00tweets and I get quite a lot of trolls. You can identify some of

1:53:00 > 1:53:05them by the fact they have eight numbers after the name because they

1:53:05 > 1:53:09are produced by algorithms and they come out very odd times in the night

1:53:09 > 1:53:15and I often tweet back, what is the weather like in Moscow? All of us

1:53:15 > 1:53:21need to realise they are trying to interfere in our politics, they are

1:53:21 > 1:53:25trying to create discord and we need to be vigilant and the Government

1:53:25 > 1:53:33must do much more.I congratulate the honourable gentleman of course

1:53:33 > 1:53:37Fulton on obtaining this debate. There are some very serious issues

1:53:37 > 1:53:43to discuss and to bring into the public domain -- Carshalton. We need

1:53:43 > 1:53:48to keep a sense of proportion. I agree with the honourable gentleman

1:53:48 > 1:53:52for Ilford South that Russia has not fundamentally changed its character

1:53:52 > 1:53:56since the days of the tsar and it has always been somewhat paranoid

1:53:56 > 1:54:03about the outside world aggressively defensive and we are seeing the same

1:54:03 > 1:54:09characteristics today. I am afraid to describe the, as he put it, kind

1:54:09 > 1:54:12of tweets coming out of the Russian Embassy in the same terms as the

1:54:12 > 1:54:17threat we were facing in the cold War, it is getting things a little

1:54:17 > 1:54:21out of proportion. There are serious issues here but I think we should

1:54:21 > 1:54:26discuss them responsibly and I want to explain what I mean by that. I am

1:54:26 > 1:54:32very reluctant to take up extra time. Briefly.They are not

1:54:32 > 1:54:36understanding all the way through Russia has a full spectrum response,

1:54:36 > 1:54:42they have all the stuff in the cultural areas in the cold War, has

1:54:42 > 1:54:47he noticed the size of the recent exercises in the Baltics that Russia

1:54:47 > 1:54:51conducted? They do not see it as different, part of a full spectrum

1:54:51 > 1:55:00approach.I completely agree. But the fact is, today's Russia is a

1:55:00 > 1:55:03shadow of the former power of the former is the union. I will very

1:55:03 > 1:55:09briefly.One important difference. Although the conventional weaponry

1:55:09 > 1:55:12has been somewhat hollowed out, significant investment is going into

1:55:12 > 1:55:18it, and there is significant investment in active measures and

1:55:18 > 1:55:23the largest nuclear arsenal. Russia's destructive power is no

1:55:23 > 1:55:29less than before, it has lost conventional power, but it makes the

1:55:29 > 1:55:32situation more unstable.I concur with what my honourable friend is

1:55:32 > 1:55:37saying but we need to keep this cyber warfare into perspective,

1:55:37 > 1:55:43particularly in terms of political interference. The committee I chair

1:55:43 > 1:55:47produced a report on lessons learnt in the EU referendum in March, 2017,

1:55:47 > 1:55:52and it touches on this issue, in fact, well in advance of the

1:55:52 > 1:55:58honourable gentleman for exit or, if I may say. It will also conduct a

1:55:58 > 1:56:01post-2017 general election inquiry and we will continue looking into

1:56:01 > 1:56:07these issues and I should declare a tangential interest, I was a

1:56:07 > 1:56:11director of folk leave at the time of the referendum and I can attest

1:56:11 > 1:56:15we were aware of a certain amount of odd looking cyber activity -- vote

1:56:15 > 1:56:19leave. We speculated the crash of the online voter registration system

1:56:19 > 1:56:24was the result of a cyber attack. This was disputed by the Government

1:56:24 > 1:56:28and it continues to be disputed but whether or not it is true, the

1:56:28 > 1:56:31Government needs to create a more resilient system. The report

1:56:31 > 1:56:36highlighted the need not only to consider the potential for foreign

1:56:36 > 1:56:40interference in elections or referendums, but to examine its real

1:56:40 > 1:56:44nature of this potential interference. We found that while

1:56:44 > 1:56:50the UK and US understanding of cyber this predominantly technical,

1:56:50 > 1:56:57Russian and Chinese use what is turned as a cognitive approach based

1:56:57 > 1:56:59on understanding mass psychology and how to exploit the fears of

1:56:59 > 1:57:05individuals -- what is termed. That is to say, they are less interested

1:57:05 > 1:57:08in the apparent intended effects of their activities, whether or not

1:57:08 > 1:57:14they alter the balance of the debate or affect people's voting intentions

1:57:14 > 1:57:17is entirely secondary, they are much more interested in being seen to be

1:57:17 > 1:57:24able to do what they do, they want to be seen tweeting the face of the

1:57:24 > 1:57:27West, flaunting their capabilities, acting illegally, proving what they

1:57:27 > 1:57:32can do, and that we cannot stop them. They want us to react and it

1:57:32 > 1:57:38is somewhat of a dilemma, they want us to hold debates like this,

1:57:38 > 1:57:43resident Putin is manipulating this debate, he will be chortling in the

1:57:43 > 1:57:48Kremlin that we are discussing these matters and putting Russia sank

1:57:48 > 1:57:56Saturn -- putting Russia centrestage. It is also important

1:57:56 > 1:58:01that they can report this to their domestic audience, as evidence,

1:58:01 > 1:58:05however incredible it may seem to us, of their power and influence in

1:58:05 > 1:58:09the world. This has clear implications in relation to what we

1:58:09 > 1:58:13understand the cyber attack to be on the nature of such cyber attacks and

1:58:13 > 1:58:18how we respond both physically and politically. I commend the Prime

1:58:18 > 1:58:21Minister for adopting a tough stance on this, I commend the establishment

1:58:21 > 1:58:29of the 2016 national cyber security centre, but we do need to use this

1:58:29 > 1:58:34work to understand better what the real motivations are. The Government

1:58:34 > 1:58:38published its response to the report on the EU referendum yesterday in a

1:58:38 > 1:58:42command paper and I welcome that. The Government says it is taking the

1:58:42 > 1:58:47issue of cyber security extremely seriously, the centre played an

1:58:47 > 1:58:51important role in monitoring key systems for unusual activity in the

1:58:51 > 1:58:56run-up to the 2017 general election, and the Cabinet Office also convened

1:58:56 > 1:59:00a dedicated monitoring and response throughout the election period to

1:59:00 > 1:59:04ensure any risks emerging in the immediate run-up to and during the

1:59:04 > 1:59:07election were coordinated effectively. In its response to the

1:59:07 > 1:59:10report, the Government says it will continue to work closely with the

1:59:10 > 1:59:13Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral

1:59:13 > 1:59:17Administrators to continue to assess the threat to the UK's democratic

1:59:17 > 1:59:20process to implement further measures to mitigate the risk. What

1:59:20 > 1:59:24we can be assured of in terms of the paper-based voter system, it is much

1:59:24 > 1:59:31more difficult to manipulate than an electronic voting system. But we

1:59:31 > 1:59:36remain vulnerable to the broader attempt to use social media as a

1:59:36 > 1:59:38platform of influence. Further consideration should be given to the

1:59:38 > 1:59:41Electoral Commission's recommendation in 2014 that the law

1:59:41 > 1:59:49be changed to ensure online advertising would have an equivalent

1:59:49 > 1:59:54to print. How you control offshore operators is extremely government

1:59:54 > 1:59:58Billy Booker difficult. I would encourage the government to include

1:59:58 > 2:00:01an analysis of key actors and the level of threat they really

2:00:01 > 2:00:04represent and I would encourage them to ensure the work is translated

2:00:04 > 2:00:09into an effective and coordinated response and further to our report,

2:00:09 > 2:00:13I call on the Government again to commit to presenting annual reports

2:00:13 > 2:00:19to Parliament on these matters. But we must avoid the temptation to

2:00:19 > 2:00:23overreact, to start suggesting that there have been massive changes to

2:00:23 > 2:00:27public opinion created by this relatively tiny amount of social

2:00:27 > 2:00:31media activity, otherwise we are playing into exactly what they want,

2:00:31 > 2:00:37we are questioning the very processes that they want to have

2:00:37 > 2:00:40questioned, the questions they want to generate, and we must avoid doing

2:00:40 > 2:00:48that because it is completely unnecessary.

2:00:48 > 2:00:51This is an important debate and I congratulate the honourable member

2:00:51 > 2:00:57for securing the debate. The world is interdependent in a way it has

2:00:57 > 2:01:01never been before and it is understandable how this creates

2:01:01 > 2:01:11insecurity and uncertainty. We are now looking for solace in identity

2:01:11 > 2:01:14politics and national becomes a plaything of populace. Facebook and

2:01:14 > 2:01:20Twitter have become the populist perfect dwelling place where the

2:01:20 > 2:01:28world can be exposed in an advert form and bite sized chunks. Media is

2:01:28 > 2:01:32just as likely to be used in spreading lies and quackery of all

2:01:32 > 2:01:39descriptions. Facebook admits a third of the US electorate have seen

2:01:39 > 2:01:44Russian promoted this information during the presidential election. In

2:01:44 > 2:01:49the Sunday Times in October, General Lancaster in an investigation into

2:01:49 > 2:01:55Facebook said, of Russia's use of the media, its involvement focused

2:01:55 > 2:02:00on America's fragmentation and started to exacerbate the country's

2:02:00 > 2:02:06social and political divides. It targeted focus on what it already

2:02:06 > 2:02:12knew people thought I gave them more of the same. He goes on to say, used

2:02:12 > 2:02:16falsehoods knowing the company had no interest in reading them out,

2:02:16 > 2:02:20manipulated feelings, and people behind the campaign are doing a

2:02:20 > 2:02:29better job of studying Facebook fan anyone in government. So Russia, it

2:02:29 > 2:02:34would seem our experts are using social media to twist arguments to

2:02:34 > 2:02:41feed the populace and cause division. The investigations by

2:02:41 > 2:02:46journalists from the Guardian revealed the links between Russian

2:02:46 > 2:02:49involvement in Brexit, referendum and the UK society in general. We

2:02:49 > 2:02:53have thousands of Twitter accounts to based in Russia that were

2:02:53 > 2:03:01activated during the Brexit referendum. Now there is an

2:03:01 > 2:03:06investigation about the true origin of its funding. Other speakers can

2:03:06 > 2:03:08go into better detail about that but I wanted to mention other things

2:03:08 > 2:03:14about what Putin's intentions are. He wants to promote nationalist

2:03:14 > 2:03:18parties which could lead to the fragmentation and fracture of

2:03:18 > 2:03:22European states and institutions, but is prepared to ignore the

2:03:22 > 2:03:26sovereignty of other countries, such as Ukraine. He will use every device

2:03:26 > 2:03:30at his disposal to make sure his opponents are divided, discontented

2:03:30 > 2:03:34and grievances are fed and he knows to play the tune of identity

2:03:34 > 2:03:39politics. One of the reasons I was so opposed to Brexit is that by

2:03:39 > 2:03:47leaving the EU we were playing the Russian's game for them. I divided

2:03:47 > 2:03:49economic union on Russia's doorstep would do them nicely. That is where

2:03:49 > 2:03:54we find ourselves. For my work on the Defence Select Committee as

2:03:54 > 2:03:59well, we worry about what will happen with our commitment and

2:03:59 > 2:04:06Trump's commitment to Nato. Our ability as a nation to defend itself

2:04:06 > 2:04:10adequately as we pursue a more independent defence strategy because

2:04:10 > 2:04:19of Leith in some secured as we can secure an independent trade

2:04:19 > 2:04:23strategy, and we need to ensure our trade links in a global trading

2:04:23 > 2:04:32power. The defence strategy expert I talk to have said we cannot

2:04:32 > 2:04:37contribute to the country the way we do to Nato, whilst pursuing an

2:04:37 > 2:04:39independent defence strategy, we cannot do both together because we

2:04:39 > 2:04:47cannot afford to do both. That is another win the Putin. What Putin

2:04:47 > 2:04:52wants to see is the great unravelling of old alliances,

2:04:52 > 2:04:55International institutions, to his benefit. We cannot allow that to

2:04:55 > 2:05:00happen because what is at risk, I believe, is our way of life. Liberal

2:05:00 > 2:05:03democracy is being challenged in a way I do not thing has been

2:05:03 > 2:05:09challenged since the 1930s. I do not believe Putin wants a military

2:05:09 > 2:05:13conflict, but in the 21st century there is more than one way to

2:05:13 > 2:05:16confront your perceived adverse Ariz is through cyber and disinformation

2:05:16 > 2:05:26which enters society under the radar. We need to tighten political

2:05:26 > 2:05:30advertising and that more closely at the potential for foreign powers

2:05:30 > 2:05:36funding politics and we need to our social media organisations to do

2:05:36 > 2:05:39things to tighten things up, otherwise the government will have

2:05:39 > 2:05:43to step in to do it. We have a responsibility to take a step back

2:05:43 > 2:05:49to consider, we best think afresh to what we are creating with social

2:05:49 > 2:05:54media and it is for the benefit of all democracies...Order. Due to the

2:05:54 > 2:06:00large intervention colleagues have taken, which always has implications

2:06:00 > 2:06:03for others, I am afraid after the next speaker I will have to reduce

2:06:03 > 2:06:14the time limit to four minutes. Doctor Julian Lewis.I won't take

2:06:14 > 2:06:20any interventions. I would like to ask if any honourable member in this

2:06:20 > 2:06:25chamber other than perhaps the member for Ilford South and the

2:06:25 > 2:06:35honourable member for Worley, feels a flicker of recognition for the

2:06:35 > 2:06:38names of the following organisations. The International

2:06:38 > 2:06:42union of students, the world Federation of scientific workers,

2:06:42 > 2:06:46the world Federation of Democratic youth and above all, the world peace

2:06:46 > 2:06:52Council. They were part of an magnificent array of Soviet

2:06:52 > 2:06:57international propaganda front organisations, that plied their

2:06:57 > 2:07:01disreputable trade through half a century from the end of the 1940s,

2:07:01 > 2:07:07right up until the downfall of the Soviet Union. And they were well

2:07:07 > 2:07:12funded, they were very active and they were almost wholly, at least as

2:07:12 > 2:07:20far as the United Kingdom was concerned when ineffective.

2:07:20 > 2:07:23Ineffective because they were clunky, ineffective because they did

2:07:23 > 2:07:28not understand the way in which British people and British

2:07:28 > 2:07:33parliamentarians think and operate. I have heard something in every

2:07:33 > 2:07:37speech, and indeed every intervention that's been made with

2:07:37 > 2:07:44which I agreed. We are all on the same page, we all understand that

2:07:44 > 2:07:48Russia is not a modern constitutional democracy, that

2:07:48 > 2:07:53Russia will do everything within its power to promote its messages and to

2:07:53 > 2:08:01undermine the messages of those it perceives as its adverse Ariz. I

2:08:01 > 2:08:05always hesitate to quote one of the most evil men who ever walked the

2:08:05 > 2:08:14face of the Earth and that is Doctor Yosef Goebbels. But he knew a thing

2:08:14 > 2:08:20or two about propaganda. And one of his central tenets was, the purpose

2:08:20 > 2:08:27of propaganda is not to change minds, it is to find out what they

2:08:27 > 2:08:33already believe and reinforce it. There is a very good reason for

2:08:33 > 2:08:39this. Because except, and it is an important exception, except when you

2:08:39 > 2:08:43are dealing with young minds who have not had a chance to form their

2:08:43 > 2:08:48value systems and opinions. I have come to the conclusion, through

2:08:48 > 2:08:53working in this field for a long time before I entered the House of

2:08:53 > 2:08:57Commons, people are much more resistance to the effect of

2:08:57 > 2:09:00propaganda than they are given credit for, when it comes to

2:09:00 > 2:09:07changing their minds. The effect of propaganda may be too disheartened,

2:09:07 > 2:09:13but it's not generally to them unless they are impressionable and

2:09:13 > 2:09:18most people are not. I said I wouldn't and I won't come out of

2:09:18 > 2:09:24consideration to others. I am sorry. Therefore, I would like to follow on

2:09:24 > 2:09:27a bet that the argument the honourable member for Ilford South

2:09:27 > 2:09:33was developing when he talked about different stages in society. I think

2:09:33 > 2:09:39that apart from failed states, you have three main types of society. We

2:09:39 > 2:09:44have totalitarian extremism. You have ruthless authoritarianism and

2:09:44 > 2:09:49you have constitutional democracy. And sometimes, you only have the

2:09:49 > 2:09:53choice between the first or the second, because their third takes

2:09:53 > 2:10:00time to evolve. And the reason why the rush of today, though dangerous

2:10:00 > 2:10:06play is not nearly as dangers as the Soviet Union of yesterday, is

2:10:06 > 2:10:13because it has moved largely from totalitarian extremism to ruthless

2:10:13 > 2:10:19kleptocratic authoritarianism. The reason why totalitarian extremism is

2:10:19 > 2:10:25a dangerously as it has an ideology that finds resonance in the target

2:10:25 > 2:10:30societies, the ideology for example of the work of's paradise. There are

2:10:30 > 2:10:34no fifth columnists of young, British people who are bowled over

2:10:34 > 2:10:39by the masculinity, alleged or real Vladimir Putin. There were plenty

2:10:39 > 2:10:45who were fooled by the concept of the worker's paradise, so by all

2:10:45 > 2:10:52means, so by all means be careful. By all means, recognise that Twitter

2:10:52 > 2:11:02can affect young, impressionable minds. But remember one thing, to

2:11:02 > 2:11:04defend ourselves properly, we need to defend ourselves in the cyber

2:11:04 > 2:11:07field against cyber attack on our infrastructure, rather than worry

2:11:07 > 2:11:17too much about ineffective propaganda measures.Chris Bryant.I

2:11:17 > 2:11:21have to say, although I admire the honourable gentleman, I find that

2:11:21 > 2:11:27utterly naive and complacent in the end. Because you cannot just say

2:11:27 > 2:11:32Russia is a klepto Chrissy and say that is fine. It is a security

2:11:32 > 2:11:37state. It is being run ruthlessly and preventing elections, preventing

2:11:37 > 2:11:42journalist from doing their proper job, murdering journalists and

2:11:42 > 2:11:45making sure journalists elsewhere in the world are put out of their jobs

2:11:45 > 2:11:51are not able to scrutinise Russia properly. Even the Russian embassy's

2:11:51 > 2:11:58presents in the UK I think flounces every single one of the normal rules

2:11:58 > 2:12:03of an embassy. It wrote to the Speaker on a previous occasion to

2:12:03 > 2:12:08try to prevent a debate taking place on Russia here. They have tweeted

2:12:08 > 2:12:13aggressively against several members of this House and they even tried to