0:00:00 > 0:00:03statesman-like demeanour which colleagues should seek to imitate.
0:00:03 > 0:00:14Order. Urgent question, Emily Thornberry.To ask the Secretary of
0:00:14 > 0:00:24State for common and -- for Commonwealth affairs for future
0:00:24 > 0:00:29arrangements for border arrangements for the republican violence.Where
0:00:29 > 0:00:38is he?Mr Speaker, I have been asked to reply. This government has been
0:00:38 > 0:00:43consistent in its commitments to Northern Ireland as the United
0:00:43 > 0:00:46Kingdom leaves the European Union. First, we will never accept any
0:00:46 > 0:00:51solutions that threaten the economic or constitutional integrity of the
0:00:51 > 0:00:55United Kingdom. Second, we will not accept a hard border between
0:00:55 > 0:01:01Northern Ireland and Ireland which will reserves the considerable
0:01:01 > 0:01:04progress of the political process over the recent decades. That is
0:01:04 > 0:01:09consistent with the Prime Minister's Article 50 letter through to our
0:01:09 > 0:01:14paper published last summer and the Prime Minister's Florence speech at
0:01:14 > 0:01:17last autumn. Most recently, the government enshrined both of these
0:01:17 > 0:01:23commitments quite clearly in the joint report we agreed with the
0:01:23 > 0:01:30European Union in December. I preserve our commitment to
0:01:30 > 0:01:33preserving the integrity of our internal markets with Northern
0:01:33 > 0:01:41Ireland. It also guaranteed an avoidance of a hard border between
0:01:41 > 0:01:45Northern Ireland and Ireland including any checks and controls.
0:01:45 > 0:01:52These agreements were approved collectively by the entire Cabinet.
0:01:52 > 0:01:59Those commitments have not changed nor will they.Thank you, Mr
0:01:59 > 0:02:02Speaker, for granting the urgent question. I am always pleased to
0:02:02 > 0:02:08hear from the Minister of State, I have to say it is an absolute
0:02:08 > 0:02:11disgrace and a huge discourtesy to this House that the Foreign
0:02:11 > 0:02:20Secretary is not hear himself to answer the questions of his memo.
0:02:20 > 0:02:25Especially as we saw him in London a few hours ago jogging in the snow
0:02:25 > 0:02:28and answering questions from the media. If he can answer their
0:02:28 > 0:02:32questions he really should be prepared to answer ours. What is he
0:02:32 > 0:02:36afraid of? Perhaps it is this, these questions go to the very heart of
0:02:36 > 0:02:40his credibility and the credibility of previous statements that he is
0:02:40 > 0:02:44made in this House. On November the 21st I asked the Foreign Secretary
0:02:44 > 0:02:49at this dispatch box whether he stood by the statements he made in
0:02:49 > 0:02:57frippery 2016 that a vote for Brexit would lead the border arrangements
0:02:57 > 0:03:00in Northern Ireland absolutely unchanged. That is what he told the
0:03:00 > 0:03:05House just three months ago. I repeat exactly that pledge. There
0:03:05 > 0:03:10can be no return to a hard border, that would be unthinkable. It would
0:03:10 > 0:03:14be economic and political madness. Everybody understands the
0:03:14 > 0:03:18ramifications of allowing such a thing to happen. But last night, Mr
0:03:18 > 0:03:23Speaker, despite the clear a big statement from the Foreign
0:03:23 > 0:03:27Secretary, we discovered his private memo to the Prime Minister on the
0:03:27 > 0:03:33same subjects. And on that, he wrote, it is wrong to see the task
0:03:33 > 0:03:36as maintaining no border. The government 's task, he said, is to
0:03:36 > 0:03:42stop the border becoming significantly harder, but even if,
0:03:42 > 0:03:47he wrote, a hard border is reintroduced, we would expect to see
0:03:47 > 0:03:5395% plus of goods past the border without checks. So let us be clear
0:03:53 > 0:03:57what this memo reveals. Contrary to the Foreign Secretary 's previous
0:03:57 > 0:04:01statements, he except that there will have to be changes to the
0:04:01 > 0:04:03current border arrangements. He accepts that there will need to be
0:04:03 > 0:04:09border controls that do not exist at present. The only debate is their
0:04:09 > 0:04:15degree of hardness. But surely the Foreign Secretary has learned by now
0:04:15 > 0:04:19that you cannot just be a little bit pregnant. Either there is a border
0:04:19 > 0:04:24or there is not. So my first question for the Minister is this,
0:04:24 > 0:04:30the Foreign Secretary told this House that there would be no new
0:04:30 > 0:04:34border arrangements and no changes to the status quo but this memo says
0:04:34 > 0:04:39the exact opposite. So which is the truth? What the Foreign Secretary
0:04:39 > 0:04:44said three months ago in public what he said three weeks ago in private?
0:04:44 > 0:04:47Now, the Foreign Secretary has already said what we have heard so
0:04:47 > 0:04:52many times on this issue, that there is some magical, technical solution
0:04:52 > 0:04:58which will allow goods to be checks, smuggling to be prevented and points
0:04:58 > 0:05:03of origin proved as easily as paying the congestion charge. But here is
0:05:03 > 0:05:08the truly magical parts, without even the installation of cameras.
0:05:08 > 0:05:11And as I pressed the Foreign Secretary repeatedly to tell us how
0:05:11 > 0:05:18on earth is this possible? Or is it just another addition to his ever
0:05:18 > 0:05:22growing list of fantasy from Boris Island to the Channel bridge. I
0:05:22 > 0:05:27welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary has already promised the
0:05:27 > 0:05:30media to his leaked memo in full and I hope that will provide some
0:05:30 > 0:05:34answers but can I ask the minister now for the benefit of this House
0:05:34 > 0:05:37and so that's my colleagues can question him on his answer to spell
0:05:37 > 0:05:43out in detail how this proposed invisible border will actually work
0:05:43 > 0:05:50in practice? Because if he cannot provide that the tell, Mr Speaker,
0:05:50 > 0:05:56we are left with the conclusion that all of us on this side and
0:05:56 > 0:05:59increasing number on his side accept that the only way to avoid a hard
0:05:59 > 0:06:03border in Northern Ireland is by staying in a customs union. The fact
0:06:03 > 0:06:11is the government knows that.We are extremely grateful to the Shadow
0:06:11 > 0:06:14Foreign Secretary but she has now exceeded her time. We must leave it
0:06:14 > 0:06:21there.I have one further sentence and I am done.Well, very well. Or
0:06:21 > 0:06:28that! I will be the judge of these matters. I'm grateful to you for
0:06:28 > 0:06:32your offer of services but I feel able to cope without one. And the
0:06:32 > 0:06:36Minister will have suitable time to respond. One sentence.The truth of
0:06:36 > 0:06:42this memo is that they are saying one thing in public what they are
0:06:42 > 0:06:44preparing for the reality in private and it is about time that this
0:06:44 > 0:06:54deception was ended.Forgive me. I don't wish to be discourteous to the
0:06:54 > 0:06:57honourable lady and certainly not to the Minister either, but the
0:06:57 > 0:07:00Minister of the Cabinet officer is not a Minister of State, he is a
0:07:00 > 0:07:05member of the Cabinet.It's so confusing as to who was going to be
0:07:05 > 0:07:09answering to this. I do apologise for having drafted one script and
0:07:09 > 0:07:13they're being somebody else.That was a nice try. It was very generous
0:07:13 > 0:07:19of me to allow her to make it.Mr Speaker, anybody would have thought
0:07:19 > 0:07:22that the right Honourable lady was nervous about facing me across the
0:07:22 > 0:07:30dispatch box again. Now, she did start by just questioning my
0:07:30 > 0:07:35credentials to be here. Can I just say this, since I both have Cabinet
0:07:35 > 0:07:40responsibility for Constitutional affairs, including for the
0:07:40 > 0:07:43implementation of devolution throughout the United Kingdom, and
0:07:43 > 0:07:48since I also chair the Cabinet amity on the domestic implementation of
0:07:48 > 0:07:53our Brexit arrangements, it seems to me perfectly reasonable that I
0:07:53 > 0:07:57should be responding to the questions. She asks about the
0:07:57 > 0:08:01position of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, my
0:08:01 > 0:08:07right honourable friend like every other member of the Cabinet stands
0:08:07 > 0:08:10behind our support for the Belfast agreement and for the December
0:08:10 > 0:08:16agreement reached between the United kingdom and the European Union. We
0:08:16 > 0:08:21are now at the very start of a negotiating period during which we
0:08:21 > 0:08:26will be discussing with our partners in the European Union Howell to give
0:08:26 > 0:08:33practical effects of the commitments that were entered into. Both to
0:08:33 > 0:08:40ensure that there was no north - south border between Northern
0:08:40 > 0:08:45Ireland and Ireland is and to ensure that there is no border customs
0:08:45 > 0:08:48between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The
0:08:48 > 0:08:54Prime Minister and the tsar have both said publicly that they believe
0:08:54 > 0:09:03-- Taoiseach. The ambitious and deep and special partnership that we are
0:09:03 > 0:09:07seeking with the European Union in the future. My right honourable
0:09:07 > 0:09:11friend, the Prime Minister, will be setting out my details to this on
0:09:11 > 0:09:14Friday.
0:09:14 > 0:09:22Mr Speaker, we have just heard the Prime Minister reconfirm her
0:09:22 > 0:09:25commitment to keep the Irish border open.I didn't wholly understand the
0:09:25 > 0:09:37second half of high reply to me. Does my right honourable friend
0:09:37 > 0:09:41really believe it will be possible to negotiate a position where the
0:09:41 > 0:09:46British Government decides what regulatory convergence it has and
0:09:46 > 0:09:49the British Government decides what regulatory convergence it will not
0:09:49 > 0:09:53have and the British Government is free to change its mind and move
0:09:53 > 0:09:57those boundaries at any time? What does he think the prospects of
0:09:57 > 0:10:03agreeing that with 27 other sovereign governments?
0:10:03 > 0:10:11I do not think there is the need for any misunderstanding about what the
0:10:11 > 0:10:16Prime Minister was saying. On the date when we leave the European
0:10:16 > 0:10:21Union, the treaties in the words of Article 50 cease to apply to the
0:10:21 > 0:10:26United Kingdom. The effect of the withdrawal bill, currently before
0:10:26 > 0:10:35the House of Lords, is that the direct effect of European Union law
0:10:35 > 0:10:38and diplomacy of European law in the United Kingdom will be
0:10:38 > 0:10:41distinguished. What we are now seeking is an agreement for the
0:10:41 > 0:10:46future which will take the form of a treaty governed by international law
0:10:46 > 0:10:51between United Kingdom and the continuing entity of the European
0:10:51 > 0:10:56Union. That is what we are seeking to do. The Prime Minister will be
0:10:56 > 0:11:04speaking about this with more detail on Friday.We know from leaked
0:11:04 > 0:11:07government figures that they will play fast and loose with jobs and
0:11:07 > 0:11:11the economy in trying to prevent another Tory civil war and there are
0:11:11 > 0:11:15concerns they may be doing the same thing over the Good Friday peace
0:11:15 > 0:11:19process to prevent Tory civil war. Will the Minister tell us, is it
0:11:19 > 0:11:26wrong to say the Foreign Secretary Tasker is maintaining no order? Will
0:11:26 > 0:11:33he tell us that if the implementation BDO is based on the
0:11:33 > 0:11:37principles, what impact it will have on the border? And finally, it is
0:11:37 > 0:11:44good to see the minister here, I enjoy a game of where is Wally, it
0:11:44 > 0:11:51is astonishing that the Foreign Secretary is not yet.Mr Speaker,
0:11:51 > 0:11:56the entire government is committed to their being no border between
0:11:56 > 0:11:59Northern Ireland and Ireland, or between Northern Ireland and the
0:11:59 > 0:12:03rest of the United Kingdom. Both those elements were central to the
0:12:03 > 0:12:10December joint report. Those are both firm commitments of the entire
0:12:10 > 0:12:14United Kingdom Cabinet and government. I would say to the
0:12:14 > 0:12:18honourable gentleman, that I think his strictures about the
0:12:18 > 0:12:23government's approach to jobs and employment stands somewhat in
0:12:23 > 0:12:27contrast to the reality, which is that within the United Kingdom at
0:12:27 > 0:12:39the moment, we have unemployment at a 40 year low.Has he seen the
0:12:39 > 0:12:43report prepared by the European Parliament's policy Department first
0:12:43 > 0:12:46citizen 's right and Constitutional affairs which concludes that a
0:12:46 > 0:12:51technical solution that will allow free movement of persons under the
0:12:51 > 0:12:58Common travel arrangement is possible and that we, there is no
0:12:58 > 0:13:05reason that we cannot implement it straightaway?I haven't had the
0:13:05 > 0:13:08pleasure of reading that report from the European Parliament yet but I
0:13:08 > 0:13:13will add to my reading list I think what my honourable friend has said
0:13:13 > 0:13:18is that there is evidence that there are people both here and in the
0:13:18 > 0:13:22Brussels institutions and in the 27 national governments of our EU
0:13:22 > 0:13:26partners who are keen to work constructively together to find an
0:13:26 > 0:13:30outcome that actually brings benefits in the future to resolve.
0:13:30 > 0:13:36Instead of complaining that the draft withdrawal agreement published
0:13:36 > 0:13:39this morning proposes to keep Northern Ireland in the customs
0:13:39 > 0:13:45union, subject to the single energy market and subject to EU rules on
0:13:45 > 0:13:49the environment and agriculture, is it not time that ministers finally
0:13:49 > 0:13:53accepted that it is their continuing failure to explain how they are
0:13:53 > 0:13:57going to keep an open border while leaving the customs union and the
0:13:57 > 0:14:04single market that is the cause of this problem? So will -- when will
0:14:04 > 0:14:12ministers explain when the proposed to achieve this?I drive the right
0:14:12 > 0:14:16honourable gentleman attention that there were three different options
0:14:16 > 0:14:22to ensure that there is no hard border between Ireland and Northern
0:14:22 > 0:14:27Ireland. The first of those, and the one that the government of Ireland
0:14:27 > 0:14:34as well as this government is strongly committed to and wants to
0:14:34 > 0:14:38see as the option we are able to deliver, is the one that settles
0:14:38 > 0:14:42this matter in the context of the overall future economic partnership
0:14:42 > 0:14:48between the UK and the European Union. We are looking forward to
0:14:48 > 0:14:51beginning the negotiating process which I hope we'll start off the
0:14:51 > 0:14:57publication today.Mr Speaker, we are coming up to the 20th
0:14:57 > 0:15:00anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement which allowed people of
0:15:00 > 0:15:05this nation to have their own identity and yet be citizens of the
0:15:05 > 0:15:09United Kingdom. That agreement also mocked and three conditions. It
0:15:09 > 0:15:16could only change with the agreement of the citizens of Northern Ireland,
0:15:16 > 0:15:19the government had to agree, and that the United Kingdom had to
0:15:19 > 0:15:23agree. Can you agree with me that this agreement must not be
0:15:23 > 0:15:26undermined and those who voted against it in the past should hang
0:15:26 > 0:15:30their heads in shame because it is an agreement that has kept the peace
0:15:30 > 0:15:38for 20 years?Mr Speaker, I am proud of what the Belfast agreement has
0:15:38 > 0:15:46achieved in making possible a period of peace and reconciliation with the
0:15:46 > 0:15:51Northern Ireland. I think none of us would claim that process is complete
0:15:51 > 0:15:57yet. But I think that the Belfast agreement was an historic start and
0:15:57 > 0:16:01it was attributed to hard work by successive governments to John Major
0:16:01 > 0:16:07and to Tony Leer both. I am happy to pay tribute to both of them. -- Tony
0:16:07 > 0:16:14Blair. I think my honourable friend made the important point in talking
0:16:14 > 0:16:19about the principle of consent. The principle of consent including the
0:16:19 > 0:16:23status of Northern Ireland was also written into the joint report and
0:16:23 > 0:16:26signed up to not just by the UK Government by the European Union as
0:16:26 > 0:16:38well.Can I welcome what the Secretary of State has said in this
0:16:38 > 0:16:43statement and also what the Prime Minister said very clearly at Prime
0:16:43 > 0:16:47Minister's Questions. It is ironic is it not that some of those people
0:16:47 > 0:16:51who complained Harrod is about creating a hard border between
0:16:51 > 0:16:54Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic have today welcome proposal
0:16:54 > 0:16:58from the EU which would create a hard brother between Northern
0:16:58 > 0:17:02Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The fact of the marker is
0:17:02 > 0:17:09there is a border between North and South. There are different
0:17:09 > 0:17:13currencies, different economic policies, but it is managed in a way
0:17:13 > 0:17:17that is sensible and pragmatic. The same can be done in relation to the
0:17:17 > 0:17:22future relationship. It has already been spelt out in the government's
0:17:22 > 0:17:30paper last August to use the Belfast agreement, more despicably to use
0:17:30 > 0:17:33the peace process to shave it in the way that some people want is quite
0:17:33 > 0:17:39frankly outrageous and disk visible. Let's back the arrangements that are
0:17:39 > 0:17:45in place but let's go forward and pragmatic and sensible way not
0:17:45 > 0:17:52create things that are not there.I welcome what the right honourable
0:17:52 > 0:17:56member for Belfast has said. Yes, there is of course a Judas diction
0:17:56 > 0:18:02order which gives rise to tax and other differences as well. -- Judas
0:18:02 > 0:18:07diction. Those are managed in a way that allows people to go about the
0:18:07 > 0:18:12lives on either side of that border without any kind of hindrance or
0:18:12 > 0:18:18delay whatsoever. Both we and the Irish government are determined to
0:18:18 > 0:18:23try and ensure that that state of affairs continues but also
0:18:23 > 0:18:30respecting the integrity of the United Kingdom.Of all the areas of
0:18:30 > 0:18:34the Brexit negotiations which give rise to high emotion, perhaps the
0:18:34 > 0:18:39one that most needs to be treated calmly, rationally and unemotionally
0:18:39 > 0:18:46as the Irish border. Can my right honourable friend assured me that
0:18:46 > 0:18:52they will continue to deal with this issue in that calm and rational way,
0:18:52 > 0:18:56and in doing that, can they perhaps persuade the commission 's
0:18:56 > 0:19:01negotiating side that they should concentrate, not just on one area of
0:19:01 > 0:19:06the December joint report, but on all three areas that were put
0:19:06 > 0:19:09forward by the British government originally.I agree wholeheartedly
0:19:09 > 0:19:15with what might honourable friend for Ashford says. His emphasis on
0:19:15 > 0:19:20all three strands is correct. It is important they should be no cherry
0:19:20 > 0:19:23picking between the different elements of the December joint
0:19:23 > 0:19:27report and I think it is important that we tried to approach these
0:19:27 > 0:19:34matters in the kind of calm, pragmatic way that he urged.The
0:19:34 > 0:19:37Foreign Secretary has claimed that congestion technology is the answer
0:19:37 > 0:19:42to border checks outside of a customs union. We know that the
0:19:42 > 0:19:49congestion charge checks fear is not what is inside them and includes 197
0:19:49 > 0:19:52camera sites around London that no one notices because they are in
0:19:52 > 0:19:56built-up areas and no one cares because the last time I looked there
0:19:56 > 0:20:01had been a long history of peace between inner and no to London. In
0:20:01 > 0:20:06Northern Ireland, there were four attacks on the lives of police
0:20:06 > 0:20:13officers. 58 shooting incidents and the PSN I have warned that any
0:20:13 > 0:20:18infrastructure at the Borders is a threat. So will you confirm that
0:20:18 > 0:20:22ministers rule out any physical infrastructure at the border, that
0:20:22 > 0:20:27cameras are physical and tell us, do they rule out new cameras at the
0:20:27 > 0:20:35border, yes or no?We stand by the words we committed to ourselves in
0:20:35 > 0:20:41December, which includes no physical infrastructure at the border.Can I
0:20:41 > 0:20:45support everything that has been said by my right honourable friend
0:20:45 > 0:20:54and the comets from my right honourable friend from Ashford. We
0:20:54 > 0:21:00are not going to rip our nation further apart. We not only have to
0:21:00 > 0:21:03have a pragmatic approach to browse about an honest approach to Brexit.
0:21:03 > 0:21:09The only solution to a hard border is membership to the customs union.
0:21:09 > 0:21:17They will get there in the end. My question is this, does he share my
0:21:17 > 0:21:22concern about democratic deficit. We know that 56% of people in Northern
0:21:22 > 0:21:27Ireland voted Remain. I wonder why. In the absence of the executive,
0:21:27 > 0:21:33given the composition of those Right Honourable members who sit in this
0:21:33 > 0:21:38place to represent Northern Ireland, where is the voice of the 56% in all
0:21:38 > 0:21:49of this?Mr Speaker, it is the government's hope that the political
0:21:49 > 0:21:54parties in Northern Ireland can agree to reconstitute the executive
0:21:54 > 0:21:59and the assembly as soon as possible. There is agreement across
0:21:59 > 0:22:04all the parties in Northern Ireland, that is what they do want -- that
0:22:04 > 0:22:09that is what they want to do. I hope any differences can be overcome.Why
0:22:09 > 0:22:14does the Secretary of State think that the Foreign Secretary wrote
0:22:14 > 0:22:18this letter? Was it because he did not know that the government had
0:22:18 > 0:22:24committed in paragraph 49 of the December agreement to its guaranteed
0:22:24 > 0:22:30of avoiding a hard border? Or was it because any commitment can be set
0:22:30 > 0:22:34aside in the service of the cause that the Foreign Secretary really
0:22:34 > 0:22:38cares about, which is the furtherance of his own career? Or
0:22:38 > 0:22:45was it something more sinister than Boris's self-love, which is now
0:22:45 > 0:22:49faced with the incompatibility of red lines around the customs union
0:22:49 > 0:22:55and the single market and the commitment to no hard border. There
0:22:55 > 0:22:59is a concerted ideological attack on that commitment to no hard border.
0:22:59 > 0:23:06And indeed to the Good Friday Agreement itself.Mr Speaker, I
0:23:06 > 0:23:10don't think I could have been clearer than I have been so far in
0:23:10 > 0:23:15these exchanges that the government is absolutely resolved to stand by
0:23:15 > 0:23:19both the Belfast agreement and all parts of the joint report of last
0:23:19 > 0:23:32December.Can I see how encouraged I am that everybody seems to want to
0:23:32 > 0:23:36avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland. The only people who seem to
0:23:36 > 0:23:40be threatening a hard border are people who are trying to leveraged
0:23:40 > 0:23:46their political advantage in domestic politics and the Republic
0:23:46 > 0:23:51of Ireland, trying to blackmail the whole of the United Kingdom into
0:23:51 > 0:23:55substantially changing the referendum result. Far more
0:23:55 > 0:24:00constituencies voted Leader of the House than Remain. It would be
0:24:00 > 0:24:03politically unsustainable for the issues around Northern Ireland to
0:24:03 > 0:24:07leveraged the whole of the United Kingdom into some kind of customs
0:24:07 > 0:24:12union as to correct any un-wholly unnecessary infrastructure at the
0:24:12 > 0:24:17border at Northern Ireland.We are at the start of the negotiations
0:24:17 > 0:24:20about the detail of the withdrawal agreement and then of the creation
0:24:20 > 0:24:26of the future, deep and special partnership we are seeking with a
0:24:26 > 0:24:34utopian friends and neighbours. -- European. And the economic
0:24:34 > 0:24:39partnership is something the Prime Minister will talk about on Friday.
0:24:39 > 0:24:46This is supposed to be a question and answer session, not debate. I am
0:24:46 > 0:24:54getting is years the Astec nods. -- I am getting enthusiastic nods. What
0:24:54 > 0:24:59is required is not an oration, but enquiry, which will either be
0:24:59 > 0:25:09brilliantly exemplified by Lady Hermon.What a task and I will keep
0:25:09 > 0:25:15to it. May I ask the secretary to take a few moments to confirm to the
0:25:15 > 0:25:20House that the Irish government has accepted that there will be no hard
0:25:20 > 0:25:25border and just as importantly, that the Irish government has accepted
0:25:25 > 0:25:34there will be no border down the Irish Sea?
0:25:34 > 0:25:38The Irish government like the rest of the EU signs up to and support
0:25:38 > 0:25:42its joint report in its entirety of last December and paragraph 42 of
0:25:42 > 0:25:50the joint report commits both parties, the UK and the EU, to
0:25:50 > 0:25:55uphold the totality of relationships embodied and expressed by the
0:25:55 > 0:26:00Belfast agreement. The totality of relationships embraces East- West,
0:26:00 > 0:26:08every bit as much as North- South. What lies behind the commission's
0:26:08 > 0:26:16partial decision to develop the options?I'm afraid that is not a
0:26:16 > 0:26:20question I can readily answer. I would just say to my right
0:26:20 > 0:26:25honourable friend that I think it is important that the commission
0:26:25 > 0:26:28recognises, as the Prime Minister said earlier, that's as far as the
0:26:28 > 0:26:36government is concerned, which ever side those of us round the Cabinet
0:26:36 > 0:26:41table voted or campaigns for during the referendum on the EU, our
0:26:41 > 0:26:47commitments to the union of the United Kingdom is absolute. There is
0:26:47 > 0:26:52no division whatsoever on this matter and I hope that our
0:26:52 > 0:26:59negotiating partners will understand that.I understand the Minister's
0:26:59 > 0:27:03clear frustration at the Foreign Secretary that it is not his task to
0:27:03 > 0:27:07try and defend the border but the Foreign Secretary did say this
0:27:07 > 0:27:16morning after his joke that he was going to publish the memo. When?We
0:27:16 > 0:27:25don't publish internal ministerial correspondence.Mr Speaker, can I
0:27:25 > 0:27:29congratulate my right honourable friend are not being provoked by the
0:27:29 > 0:27:32ridiculous statements coming from the European Union on this subject.
0:27:32 > 0:27:38Can I commend my right honourable friend the wise words of the right
0:27:38 > 0:27:42honourable member for North Belfast because that shows that you can have
0:27:42 > 0:27:45a border weather is regulatory divergences as there is at the
0:27:45 > 0:27:51moments, and why can't continue in the future?We are certainly seeking
0:27:51 > 0:27:56no hard border and hopefully the government of Ireland is committed
0:27:56 > 0:28:01to that objective as well. Having served six years for Minister for
0:28:01 > 0:28:10Europe, I'm used to trying to avoid provocation wherever it comes from.
0:28:10 > 0:28:13The Foreign Secretary's absence does us all we need to know about how
0:28:13 > 0:28:17accountable he feels he should be to this House, so I must ask the
0:28:17 > 0:28:23Minister instead, why was the Foreign Secretary speculating about
0:28:23 > 0:28:26the Northern Ireland - Ireland border becoming more difficult. --
0:28:26 > 0:28:33harder. What was he considering on the border?The right honourable
0:28:33 > 0:28:36gentleman served in the coalition government. He knows that the way we
0:28:36 > 0:28:42do government business is that ministers right and conversed with
0:28:42 > 0:28:45each other all the time but the policy of the government is the
0:28:45 > 0:28:53policy that has been at collectively agreed by the Cabinet. That is what
0:28:53 > 0:28:59I am the promised that set up this afternoon.Can I welcome the
0:28:59 > 0:29:04Minister's commitment to the joint report. Can I ask him to confirm
0:29:04 > 0:29:09that it is Her Majesty's government intention to stick by the agreement
0:29:09 > 0:29:18that were outlined in paragraph's 49 and 50 of the joint report and there
0:29:18 > 0:29:23is no intention to renege on any part of them?I can give my right
0:29:23 > 0:29:29honourable friend that assurance. Will the Secretary of State 's
0:29:29 > 0:29:32confirm for the benefit of his backbenchers and perhaps the DUP
0:29:32 > 0:29:38that the Northern Irish border backstop provision embodied in
0:29:38 > 0:29:42today's draft EU withdrawal agreement is exactly what the Prime
0:29:42 > 0:29:48Minister agreed to as he backstop in December 2017? And if he disagrees
0:29:48 > 0:29:58with me, if he disagrees with me, will his government produced an
0:29:58 > 0:30:03alternative text explaining what he did agree?What we have today is
0:30:03 > 0:30:10something that Mr Barnier has described as not necessarily the
0:30:10 > 0:30:13final version because this is a draft that the commission is not
0:30:13 > 0:30:16tabling for negotiation. The commission is tabling before
0:30:16 > 0:30:20discussion amongst the EU 27 Head of State and the European Parliament.
0:30:20 > 0:30:25When text comes to the table for negotiation, we will obviously
0:30:25 > 0:30:29consider that but I think, as the Prime Minister said earlier, it is
0:30:29 > 0:30:34important that there is not cherry picking and that the text of the
0:30:34 > 0:30:37withdrawal agreement when it is eventually concluded reflects all
0:30:37 > 0:30:46the paragraphs of the joint report equally and, at the moment, my
0:30:46 > 0:30:49feeling on the brief reading I've had so far, is that the current
0:30:49 > 0:30:57draft does not do that.Mr Speaker, can I welcome what my right
0:30:57 > 0:31:00honourable friend has said in pointing back to the joint report
0:31:00 > 0:31:04from just before Christmas which underlined both the commitments to
0:31:04 > 0:31:10the UK and EU to the Belfast Good Friday Agreement but also the
0:31:10 > 0:31:16constitutional settlement of the UK. In that regard, can he confirm that
0:31:16 > 0:31:19the joint report highlighted that primarily we need to focus on
0:31:19 > 0:31:22dealing with the Northern Ireland border through the broader
0:31:22 > 0:31:27negotiations and in that regard that he will encourage colleagues to
0:31:27 > 0:31:31focus on the August reports that the government published, setting out in
0:31:31 > 0:31:36detail how we should do that?My right honourable friend give some
0:31:36 > 0:31:39very good advice. We are certainly committed to taking the negotiations
0:31:39 > 0:31:47forward in that spirit.If the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
0:31:47 > 0:31:51really wants a united United Kingdom as we move forward in a situation
0:31:51 > 0:31:55where the nation is facing some of the most congregated decision it is
0:31:55 > 0:32:00hard to make the best part of 100 years, is he not going to have to
0:32:00 > 0:32:03build a bigger consensus than just around the Cabinet table? Does that
0:32:03 > 0:32:12not mean he is going to turn round to his colleagues and say, yes, you
0:32:12 > 0:32:16will come to Parliament and explain to Parliament what your views are
0:32:16 > 0:32:19and yes, Prime Minister, just sometimes you're not going to make a
0:32:19 > 0:32:24speech somewhere else, you're going to make a speech about the European
0:32:24 > 0:32:29Union, the most important issue facing this in this chamber.Just
0:32:29 > 0:32:31before the Minister offers his replies I should just advise the
0:32:31 > 0:32:37House of what I have been advised, namely that the Prime Minister will
0:32:37 > 0:32:44be making a statement on Brexit policy in this chamber on Monday.
0:32:44 > 0:32:50That I think is extremely welcome. I should just say in the name of the
0:32:50 > 0:32:52intelligibility of our proceedings to people who are not Members of the
0:32:52 > 0:32:57House that the decision as to whether to grant an urgent question
0:32:57 > 0:33:03is a matter for me, the Speaker, to have been granted today because I
0:33:03 > 0:33:06judge that they warranted the attention of the House, but as
0:33:06 > 0:33:12colleagues also note and others might not, the matter of who the
0:33:12 > 0:33:16government fields to respond to a question is a matter for the
0:33:16 > 0:33:21government. That is the situation. Minister for the Cabinet Office.Mr
0:33:21 > 0:33:25Speaker, I am always someone who will welcome Parliamentary consensus
0:33:25 > 0:33:29where that can be built. If the gentleman looks at the Prime
0:33:29 > 0:33:36Minister's records in being here and giving statements after her main
0:33:36 > 0:33:39European meetings and answering questions at length, he should agree
0:33:39 > 0:33:47it is a pretty good one.Mr Speaker, does my right honourable friend
0:33:47 > 0:33:50agree with me that the European Union continues to put the cart
0:33:50 > 0:33:55before the horse on this aspect? Surely we cannot know with any
0:33:55 > 0:33:59degree of certainty what arrangements will be needed on the
0:33:59 > 0:34:03Ireland border if any at all until we know what kind of trade agreement
0:34:03 > 0:34:08were going to strike.My honourable friend makes an important point and
0:34:08 > 0:34:12that is precisely why that's not only the Prime Minister, but the
0:34:12 > 0:34:17Taoiseach believe that the best option is to settle the border in
0:34:17 > 0:34:21the context of the overall economic partnership between ourselves and
0:34:21 > 0:34:28the European Union.By leaving the European Union we are taking control
0:34:28 > 0:34:33of our borders such as that at Holyhead, the government has also
0:34:33 > 0:34:37committed to no border between the Republic and Northern Ireland. Can
0:34:37 > 0:34:44the minister name any pair of countries that is regulated by two
0:34:44 > 0:34:49difference customs regimes?This is exactly the point I was making to
0:34:49 > 0:34:53the right honourable member for chicks free. The right way forward
0:34:53 > 0:35:02is to resolve these matters on the future of economic partnership.It
0:35:02 > 0:35:07is rightly the determination of the government to deliver the openly
0:35:07 > 0:35:10effective border with the qualifications made by the right
0:35:10 > 0:35:13Honourable member for North Belfast, surely all of the people of the
0:35:13 > 0:35:19island of Ireland have the right to that same practical determination to
0:35:19 > 0:35:26be shared by the same EU 27 with out being taking hostage by conditions
0:35:26 > 0:35:30that would in effect override the decision of the British people to
0:35:30 > 0:35:35leave the European Union and the agenda which is quite transparently
0:35:35 > 0:35:40on display today.We are at the start of a process of negotiation,
0:35:40 > 0:35:47not at the end of it. I do think the Prime Minister could have been
0:35:47 > 0:35:50clearer. No Prime Minister of any party who has served up until now
0:35:50 > 0:35:58including her good countenance an agreement which led to a Customs
0:35:58 > 0:36:04border between one part of the United Kingdom and another.The
0:36:04 > 0:36:08Minister has said he wants no border between Ireland and Northern Ireland
0:36:08 > 0:36:12but he is also said he does not want the border between the integral part
0:36:12 > 0:36:20of the United kingdom and the rest of Ireland. Well, I tell you this,
0:36:20 > 0:36:23Wells has two borders, one with Northern Ireland through the port of
0:36:23 > 0:36:27Holyhead and one with Ireland. What will happen with that arrangement?
0:36:27 > 0:36:31That is precisely why this needs to be settled when the overall
0:36:31 > 0:36:36arrangement. The right honourable gentleman will have noted in the
0:36:36 > 0:36:39endorsements of the continuation of the Common travel area between the
0:36:39 > 0:36:43United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland and also the fact that
0:36:43 > 0:36:46that's commitments was reflected today's draft text from the
0:36:46 > 0:36:56commission.Would it not be more sensible and logical if Michel
0:36:56 > 0:37:04Barnier focused more on the trade arrangements on the United Kingdom
0:37:04 > 0:37:08and the European Union where they have a 70 billion pounds surplus
0:37:08 > 0:37:12with the united kingdom rather than focusing just on one part of the
0:37:12 > 0:37:19United Kingdom? If they do that we may only need to focus on one part
0:37:19 > 0:37:24of the United Kingdom.Well, the trade surplus that the EU 27 enjoy
0:37:24 > 0:37:28with the United Kingdom, particularly in trading goods, is
0:37:28 > 0:37:34just one more compelling reason why it is to our mutual advantage to
0:37:34 > 0:37:37negotiate a future economic partnership which allows trades to
0:37:37 > 0:37:42be as frictionless as possible.The Secretary of State is doing his
0:37:42 > 0:37:49level best to fudge the principal question, if we go into negotiations
0:37:49 > 0:37:55that there will be no hard border between the Republic and the
0:37:55 > 0:37:58Northern Ireland, and no hard border down the Irish Sea, how do we begin
0:37:58 > 0:38:04to negotiate? What is the mechanism? The mechanism is set out in the
0:38:04 > 0:38:08joint report and in the government's various speeches and publications
0:38:08 > 0:38:12over the last 12 months. The latest of which the Prime Minister will
0:38:12 > 0:38:20deliver this Friday.Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wonder if my right
0:38:20 > 0:38:24honourable friend has pointed out that the Irish government that the
0:38:24 > 0:38:29biggest loser if there is not a sensible agreement on tariffs are
0:38:29 > 0:38:32imposed on Irish goods coming into the United Kingdom, that the Irish
0:38:32 > 0:38:38economy, there will be huge devastation to the Irish
0:38:38 > 0:38:41agricultural economy particularly. I wonder if he is suggested to their
0:38:41 > 0:38:45Prime Minister the question of whether his is willing to sacrifice
0:38:45 > 0:38:50the interest of the Irish economy on the high altar of European political
0:38:50 > 0:38:58integration?The economies of Ireland and of the United Kingdom
0:38:58 > 0:39:05are indeed intertwines but I would reassure my honourable friend that
0:39:05 > 0:39:10the Irish government and the Taoiseach are themselves committed
0:39:10 > 0:39:18in trying to resolve these matters an option A in the joint report,
0:39:18 > 0:39:21mainly through the means of an overall economic agreement between
0:39:21 > 0:39:36the United Kingdom and the European Union.Does he share my astonishment
0:39:36 > 0:39:44that is when four years his leadership and assess watchtowers
0:39:44 > 0:39:49and closed roads. Would he not agree with me that first of all there are
0:39:49 > 0:39:58clear practical proposals to avoid a hard physical border and this
0:39:58 > 0:40:02concern about Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic is more about the
0:40:02 > 0:40:13referendum result and keeping them in the customs union.The
0:40:13 > 0:40:18interventions on the front spent about this week have been about more
0:40:18 > 0:40:28about political opportunities than principle. The way forward is in a
0:40:28 > 0:40:29calm pragmatic spirit to take forward the negotiations that will
0:40:29 > 0:40:40shortly commence.Given that goods and services are routinely traded
0:40:40 > 0:40:43across land borders elsewhere in the European Union is it not possible
0:40:43 > 0:40:47that given the political will to achieve the desired outcome that is
0:40:47 > 0:40:51always needed? Will my right honourable friend ensure that we do
0:40:51 > 0:40:56not sign up to what the European Union dictate now but we look at the
0:40:56 > 0:41:06creative solution that has been used elsewhere in EU borders?
0:41:06 > 0:41:10Mr Speaker, this House has received assurance after assurance from the
0:41:10 > 0:41:14government that there will be no hard border in Ireland. Why then did
0:41:14 > 0:41:17the Foreign Secretary right in his memo that there was the possibility
0:41:17 > 0:41:25of such a hard border coming about? The policy of the government is the
0:41:25 > 0:41:30policy that has been agreed by the Cabinet, set out in error agreement
0:41:30 > 0:41:35to the joint report last December and expressed in the speech as the
0:41:35 > 0:41:43Prime Minister has given in the last 12 months.-- in error agreement.
0:41:43 > 0:41:46The European Union approach to sequencing these negotiations means
0:41:46 > 0:41:50that the commission at the moment only has a mandate to negotiate the
0:41:50 > 0:41:53implementation phase and therefore these issues cannot be dealt with
0:41:53 > 0:41:58until after the end of March. So as my honourable friend agree that
0:41:58 > 0:42:03during this period, the guiding star for all of us as to be that the
0:42:03 > 0:42:06United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and European Union are
0:42:06 > 0:42:10agreed that there will be no art and physical border and that this debate
0:42:10 > 0:42:16is about the Foreign Secretary spar with our Foreign Secretary more than
0:42:16 > 0:42:24anything else.I think our honourable friend is spot on.It
0:42:24 > 0:42:27seems the government is happy to contemplate the hard border with
0:42:27 > 0:42:32Ireland, which would be a disaster for Northern Ireland. Is it clear
0:42:32 > 0:42:36now that the government has been negotiating in bad faith with
0:42:36 > 0:42:43Northern Ireland and the other countries of the EU? I think the
0:42:43 > 0:42:48lady's party would be happy with a hard border. The government... I
0:42:48 > 0:42:53don't want her or anyone in the House to be under any
0:42:53 > 0:42:56misapprehension, the government is absolutely committed to what it
0:42:56 > 0:43:00agreed in the joint report and we have ever since the referendum made
0:43:00 > 0:43:05it clear that we are not going to support our hard border on the
0:43:05 > 0:43:13island of Ireland. Can my right honourable friend confirm that trade
0:43:13 > 0:43:17between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is far greater in volume
0:43:17 > 0:43:22than between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, Northern
0:43:22 > 0:43:25Ireland and the European Union, Northern Ireland and indeed the rest
0:43:25 > 0:43:32of the world?Not only is that true, but it is also the case that trade
0:43:32 > 0:43:41between Ireland and the great Britain is more important than trade
0:43:41 > 0:43:45from south to north, between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Which
0:43:45 > 0:43:50reinforces the point it is the mutual interests of all parties to
0:43:50 > 0:43:56agree on an ambitious economic partnership for the future.Can the
0:43:56 > 0:44:00Minister confirm that cameras counters infrastructure. Can he
0:44:00 > 0:44:04point to an example anywhere in the world of an international border
0:44:04 > 0:44:08with no customs union and no border infrastructure, just one example
0:44:08 > 0:44:16anywhere?The language of the joint report is very clear, the associated
0:44:16 > 0:44:25physical infrastructure is ruled out.The success of modern Northern
0:44:25 > 0:44:31Ireland can be seen in the fact my friends whose parents used to dread
0:44:31 > 0:44:37the school run can with the kids off without a second thought. All these
0:44:37 > 0:44:42agree that there will be a full security assessment.There will be a
0:44:42 > 0:44:48proper analysis of security will be undertaken by the appropriate
0:44:48 > 0:44:51agencies in any and all circumstances where that is
0:44:51 > 0:44:56required. My honourable friend is right to say that one of the great
0:44:56 > 0:45:00achievements of constitutional politics in Northern Ireland, over
0:45:00 > 0:45:08the last 25 years, has been to bring about a measure of peace and
0:45:08 > 0:45:12security after decades when people lived under the threat of terrorism.
0:45:12 > 0:45:16And we should welcome and rededicate ourselves to making sure that
0:45:16 > 0:45:23process continues.He is forgetting the reason he is in the chamber this
0:45:23 > 0:45:26afternoon is because of the memo the Foreign Secretary wrote and no other
0:45:26 > 0:45:32reason. Can you answer the question and tell us why the Foreign
0:45:32 > 0:45:36Secretary wrote the memo to the Prime Minister?As I said to the
0:45:36 > 0:45:45Right honourable gentleman earlier, in any government, ministers, write
0:45:45 > 0:45:49letters and memoranda, have conversations from time to time. The
0:45:49 > 0:45:52policy of government under our system is the policy that is agreed
0:45:52 > 0:45:56collectively by the Cabinet and the policy of the Cabinet and government
0:45:56 > 0:46:09is what I have set out today.Can I also add... Does he agree that the
0:46:09 > 0:46:19evidence given that two -- two tier system could help to avoid the
0:46:19 > 0:46:25physical infrastructure we all want to avoid?Those where items that
0:46:25 > 0:46:29were also mentioned in the government's position paper that was
0:46:29 > 0:46:36published last summer about the Irish border. And I am not saying
0:46:36 > 0:46:42those were necessarily provide a comparison of solution, but it is
0:46:42 > 0:46:49evidence of goodwill in seeking pragmatic and sizeable ways forward.
0:46:49 > 0:46:59It has been deeply irresponsible. I would like to ask again, the Foreign
0:46:59 > 0:47:06Secretary wrote, if a hard border is introduced. He has been clear about
0:47:06 > 0:47:12their foreign -- Cabinet position was.Ministers, when they have
0:47:12 > 0:47:17private correspondent, engage in all sorts of speculative thinking to
0:47:17 > 0:47:22test out ideas before they are brought for collective discussion
0:47:22 > 0:47:28and decision. The government collectively is accountable to this
0:47:28 > 0:47:33House or the policies that the government has adopted. The
0:47:33 > 0:47:38government has ruled out both a hard border between Northern Ireland and
0:47:38 > 0:47:49Ireland, and border in the Irish Sea.How dare the EU propose a
0:47:49 > 0:47:57break-up of the United kingdom into two trading zones. Both levers and
0:47:57 > 0:48:01Remainers are increasingly angered by this stroppy petulant and
0:48:01 > 0:48:06unreasonable approach to these negotiations by the European Union.
0:48:06 > 0:48:09Will my honourable friend tell the EU in these negotiations they have
0:48:09 > 0:48:18not got off to a good start?I think that... What we learnt at the end of
0:48:18 > 0:48:252017 was that despite all the predictions about the imminent
0:48:25 > 0:48:30collapse of the negotiating process at that time, that with political
0:48:30 > 0:48:35will, both from London and from 27 partners, and the European
0:48:35 > 0:48:39Commission, that an agreement could be reached. And I think that provide
0:48:39 > 0:48:45a very good process -- basis from which to move forward now.Sir John
0:48:45 > 0:48:49Major and Tony Blair warned you in the EU referendum campaign that this
0:48:49 > 0:48:55would be it an issue. What he has said today in the dispatch box is
0:48:55 > 0:48:59simply impossible. We are not talking about a backbencher or a
0:48:59 > 0:49:02backbencher Ora Parliamentary undersecretary. We are talking about
0:49:02 > 0:49:07the Foreign Secretary who has a central role in the heart of
0:49:07 > 0:49:10negotiations, who is entertaining the prospect of a hard border that
0:49:10 > 0:49:16he says that Tasman ruled out. The only question is, is this the
0:49:16 > 0:49:21settled position of the government, is the Foreign Secretary says he is
0:49:21 > 0:49:26going to publish a memo Ireland when is he going to do it? Is it not the
0:49:26 > 0:49:29case that the Foreign Secretary should have had the guts to come
0:49:29 > 0:49:32here and answer for themselves and clean-up up his own mess if he
0:49:32 > 0:49:36cannot answer for him?The government was my policy is what I
0:49:36 > 0:49:41have set out. What we're doing at the start of the negotiating process
0:49:41 > 0:49:44is to bring forward ideas and develop those internally in
0:49:44 > 0:49:49government about how we would wish to give practical application to the
0:49:49 > 0:49:52commitments we have entered into. The Prime Minister will see more
0:49:52 > 0:50:00about on Friday.The differences in tax, economic strategy and currency
0:50:00 > 0:50:06has proven to be no hindrance to that free and open land. We give an
0:50:06 > 0:50:12absolute declaration that the UK will not, under any circumstances,
0:50:12 > 0:50:17implement and new Northern Ireland and Republic border. If the EU
0:50:17 > 0:50:24requires a new hard border, it is a matter for them and the republic to
0:50:24 > 0:50:29decide and implement. We, unilaterally if necessary, will
0:50:29 > 0:50:32honour the Belfast agreement and indeed strengthen our union of the
0:50:32 > 0:50:40UK.I think... My honourable friend was right to talk about the
0:50:40 > 0:50:45resolution of the United Kingdom government. In fairness, we do need
0:50:45 > 0:50:49to acknowledge that the government of Ireland, too, is committed to try
0:50:49 > 0:50:56and make sure that no hard border is created and the Taoiseach and his
0:50:56 > 0:50:59government are committed to working constructively as part of the EU 27
0:50:59 > 0:51:04with us to find a way forward in terms of a future economic
0:51:04 > 0:51:11partnership.There is a member of the House that lives closer to the
0:51:11 > 0:51:15Northern Ireland border than anyone else in the chamber. Can I ask this
0:51:15 > 0:51:20focus of a hard border, does the government and all his colleagues in
0:51:20 > 0:51:24the government, the Irish government and the EU negotiators understand
0:51:24 > 0:51:28that any top on a principle of a hard border is irrelevant because it
0:51:28 > 0:51:35would be totally impossible to police 310 crossing points and
0:51:35 > 0:51:38everyone locally would how to circumvent them if they tried!
0:51:38 > 0:51:44Particularly conscious that in County Londonderry people are
0:51:44 > 0:51:49commuting to and from work, businesses are supplying customers,
0:51:49 > 0:51:55people are travelling to and from the doctors across the international
0:51:55 > 0:51:57jurisdictional border. It is very important in terms of people being
0:51:57 > 0:52:02able to go about their everyday lives that we reach the kind of
0:52:02 > 0:52:05agreement to which the government here and the Irish government are
0:52:05 > 0:52:13committed.Would he just define for the House what the government meant
0:52:13 > 0:52:17work he said a guaranteed no hard border, what does that actually
0:52:17 > 0:52:27involved?It is exactly what we said in a commitment to the joint report
0:52:27 > 0:52:30in December and in the position papers that we published back last
0:52:30 > 0:52:40summer.Last night in the other place we had the second reading of
0:52:40 > 0:52:45the roads, trailer registration bill. It is the first piece of
0:52:45 > 0:52:51contingency planning. Can he clarify how the government will make sure no
0:52:51 > 0:52:54checks on the registration between the Republic of Northern Ireland and
0:52:54 > 0:53:00Northern Ireland and how this will be consistent with its current
0:53:00 > 0:53:04legislation on holiday?We do believe that the bill is completely
0:53:04 > 0:53:08compliant with our commitments under the joint report. But I will as the
0:53:08 > 0:53:14Transport Secretary to write to them with detail.The Good Friday
0:53:14 > 0:53:18Agreement is an international multiparty agreement, endorsed by
0:53:18 > 0:53:22referendums on both sides of the Irish border. The decision to leave
0:53:22 > 0:53:29the customs union and single market... Does he accept it is the
0:53:29 > 0:53:33responsibility of his government to bring forward detailed workable
0:53:33 > 0:53:38proposals as to how his government unilateral headlines can be made
0:53:38 > 0:53:42compatible and can he tell is how much longer we have to wait until we
0:53:42 > 0:53:46see those proposals in print?We are at the start of a process of
0:53:46 > 0:53:55negotiation. The honourable gentleman would not want me to go
0:53:55 > 0:54:00into entire detail. I hope when he sees what the Prime Minister says on
0:54:00 > 0:54:03Friday and when he has the opportunity to question her after
0:54:03 > 0:54:10her statement last Monday, that he will feel reassured.Thank you.
0:54:10 > 0:54:14Normally points of order come after. But this relates to these exchanges
0:54:14 > 0:54:20so I will take it now.Mr Speaker, would it be in order for it to be
0:54:20 > 0:54:23recorded that you quite rightly acknowledged a number of hours in
0:54:23 > 0:54:28that recent session that we had the urgent question for speaking too
0:54:28 > 0:54:33long. And not asking the short questions of course some honourable
0:54:33 > 0:54:38members are good at. But not all of us. The reason for that and you will
0:54:38 > 0:54:42correct me if I am wrong, is because we have never add a proper
0:54:42 > 0:54:49meaningful debate, or indeed a vote, on this or any other Brexit matter
0:54:49 > 0:54:55that would indeed help the government in its negotiations and
0:54:55 > 0:55:01indeed the uniter country. And this is just one of many examples, Mr
0:55:01 > 0:55:04Speaker, where Parliament's voices profoundly lacking in the whole of
0:55:04 > 0:55:14the Brexit process.There have been debates in the committee of the
0:55:14 > 0:55:21whole House report stage on the withdrawal bill. But outstayed of
0:55:21 > 0:55:27legislation, if memory serves me correctly, what the right honourable
0:55:27 > 0:55:35lady says is factually correct. She will know that I have an unbridled
0:55:35 > 0:55:43enthusiasm for debate, for votes, and for sitting in the chair for
0:55:43 > 0:55:53extended periods, listening to the intellects of Einstein and the
0:55:53 > 0:55:59eloquence of Demosthenes, which are so regularly on display, from my
0:55:59 > 0:56:07colleagues. In all parts of the House. And I cannot get enough of
0:56:07 > 0:56:14it. It may seem eccentric on my part, but I love listening to my
0:56:14 > 0:56:22colleagues. And the more debates, and the more votes, the better. I am
0:56:22 > 0:56:26most grateful to the right honourable lady on whose point of
0:56:26 > 0:56:34order I had only a moment's notice, but which I enjoyed. If there are no
0:56:34 > 0:56:38further points of order at this stage, we come now to the urgent
0:56:38 > 0:56:39question, Stephen Twigg.
0:56:44 > 0:56:48Can I ask the Minister of State for the foreign & Commonwealth Office to
0:56:48 > 0:56:51make a statement to the House on the Burmese government's failure to
0:56:51 > 0:57:01issue visas to the members of the international select committee?May
0:57:01 > 0:57:08I thank the honourable gentleman for local West Derby for his question,
0:57:08 > 0:57:14i:e., like him and deeply disappointed that the government of
0:57:14 > 0:57:19Burma have not granted visas. This displeasure has been communicated to
0:57:19 > 0:57:24the Burmese authorities. I accept that they do vital work providing
0:57:24 > 0:57:33important oversight of UK aid programme in Burma and beyond. The
0:57:33 > 0:57:41aid committee was due to travel on the 27th and 20th of February, when
0:57:41 > 0:57:49no decision on visas was received in the early morning of yesterday, it's
0:57:49 > 0:57:54then cancelled the Burma leg of its visit. I understand they will
0:57:54 > 0:57:59continue at the second part of that trip, travelling to Bangladesh,
0:57:59 > 0:58:11supporting the Rohingya refugees replace in those facilities. Burmese
0:58:11 > 0:58:14officials have indicated three reasons for the refusal. First,
0:58:14 > 0:58:23there is an extended public holiday in Burma. Secondly, access to rack
0:58:23 > 0:58:30kind state is restricted for security reasons. And finally, they
0:58:30 > 0:58:38were unhappy that individual members had signed a letter calling for the
0:58:38 > 0:58:42senior general of the Burmese army being called to account for the
0:58:42 > 0:58:49military's behaviour. It is right, I think, Mr Speaker, that this House
0:58:49 > 0:58:52takes a close interest in this sort of crisis and I know all members
0:58:52 > 0:58:57here will continue to do so. The government fully supports the work
0:58:57 > 0:59:09of the committee. A conference about in a tree was developed but the
0:59:09 > 0:59:15British ambassador in the country pressed repeatedly for visas to be
0:59:15 > 0:59:19approved both in Burma and in the Burmese embassy in London. I myself
0:59:19 > 0:59:22spoke yesterday morning over the telephone with the Burmese
0:59:22 > 0:59:26ambassador to raise the status of visas demonstrating just how
0:59:26 > 0:59:31seriously the FCO takes this matter, not least, as a courtesy to the
0:59:31 > 0:59:36House. I understand you also read to the Burmese ambassador, Mr Speaker,
0:59:36 > 0:59:39and he intends to reply formally setting out the reasons for the
0:59:39 > 0:59:53refusal. Through DFID, ... The first chance of UK funding is providing
0:59:53 > 0:59:59emergency food and safe water and hygiene for more than 180 thousand
0:59:59 > 1:00:06people. The UK's emergency medical team was deployed to save lives.
1:00:06 > 1:00:10This decision to deny visas is highly regrettable and will prevent
1:00:10 > 1:00:15the committee from seeing some of its work first hand. However, this
1:00:15 > 1:00:19government must and will remain committed to supporting Burma's
1:00:19 > 1:00:25poorest and most vulnerable people. Working with DFID, we will ensure
1:00:25 > 1:00:37the committee has all the access needed.In democracies,
1:00:37 > 1:00:40parliamentarians to criticise governments. This is a lesson that
1:00:40 > 1:00:47the Burmese government will have to learn.Thank you for granting this
1:00:47 > 1:00:53urgent question. Can I thank the Minister for his response. First of
1:00:53 > 1:00:56all, I would like on behalf of the entire committee to thank all of
1:00:56 > 1:01:00those who have worked incredibly hard over the last few days to try
1:01:00 > 1:01:05and sort this matter out, including you, Mr Speaker, as the Minister
1:01:05 > 1:01:08rightly pointed out, you wrote personally to the Burmese ambassador
1:01:08 > 1:01:13in London. The Minister himself for his intervention of which I'm very
1:01:13 > 1:01:20grateful. And the team in Burma particularly, the British
1:01:20 > 1:01:23ambassador. Sadly, it was all to no avail. The committee should write
1:01:23 > 1:01:27now be on its way to Burma where we were planning to look at some of the
1:01:27 > 1:01:33fantastic work that DFID funds in that country. We were told last week
1:01:33 > 1:01:38that our visas had been approved here in the United Kingdom, they had
1:01:38 > 1:01:42been processed and they were ready but the Burmese embassy in London
1:01:42 > 1:01:46was awaiting final approval from their government. Yesterday, our
1:01:46 > 1:01:49passports were returned to us without visas and clearly the
1:01:49 > 1:01:55failure of the Burmese government to grant these visas simply prevents us
1:01:55 > 1:02:00from doing our job as a select committee which is to oversee how
1:02:00 > 1:02:05overseas developer and assistant is spent in countries. I have no doubt
1:02:05 > 1:02:10that a major part of the reason this has happened is direct retaliation
1:02:10 > 1:02:14for the report that we published last month on the Rohingya crisis. I
1:02:14 > 1:02:19believe there is a direct connection between our report and these
1:02:19 > 1:02:23actions. I thank the Minister for shedding some light today in his
1:02:23 > 1:02:27response to this urgent question about the reasons that the Burmese
1:02:27 > 1:02:31have now given for denying our visas. I understand, Mr Speaker,
1:02:31 > 1:02:36that it was Aung San Suu Kyi herself who blocked the approval of our
1:02:36 > 1:02:43visas. Some will argue and some have argued this overnight on social
1:02:43 > 1:02:47media that as a result of this we should stop United Kingdom aid to
1:02:47 > 1:02:51Burma. I agree with the Minister that it would be a major mistake to
1:02:51 > 1:02:55stop supporting programmes that help the poorest, health programmes,
1:02:55 > 1:02:58education programmes that make a difference to the very poorest
1:02:58 > 1:03:03people. We should not punish them. However, with the Minister agree
1:03:03 > 1:03:07with me that it is now the time for us as a parliament and for the
1:03:07 > 1:03:13government to review the programme for Democratic change which is
1:03:13 > 1:03:17working with the Burnley 's parliament's? If we as
1:03:17 > 1:03:22parliamentarians are not permitted to go to that country and meet their
1:03:22 > 1:03:25political leaders and look at how UK aid is being sent whether it is
1:03:25 > 1:03:31right that our taxpayers resourced as is being spent on Parliamentary
1:03:31 > 1:03:43strengthening in Burma. -- Bernie 's parliament. Finally, I believe this
1:03:43 > 1:03:49is to silence the treatment of the Burmese government of the Rohingya.
1:03:49 > 1:03:53Does he agree that we must double our efforts on behalf of the
1:03:53 > 1:03:59Rohingya people so they get the justice they deserve?I thank the
1:03:59 > 1:04:02honourable gentleman for his thoughtful contribution as ever. And
1:04:02 > 1:04:05thank you for the kind words about the intervention of the Foreign
1:04:05 > 1:04:11Office. I think it is direct retaliation, I accept that. I would
1:04:11 > 1:04:14not like to speculate whether there has been a personal interception by
1:04:14 > 1:04:18Aung San Suu Kyi but we may learn more in the days to come and we will
1:04:18 > 1:04:22discuss matters then. May I say that I agree with much of what he has to
1:04:22 > 1:04:26say and please rest assured that particularly my right honourable
1:04:26 > 1:04:33friend the Secretary of State for DFID is working very closely to try
1:04:33 > 1:04:36and reorganise programmes that we have in Burma to take into account
1:04:36 > 1:04:41many of the concerns that he has but above all that we want to keep the
1:04:41 > 1:04:46interest of the most vulnerable closely in our minds. As I mentioned
1:04:46 > 1:04:48earlier on, we are one of the biggest single donors in this
1:04:48 > 1:04:54terrible crisis. We have provided money to both the Red Cross and the
1:04:54 > 1:04:59world food programme to provide assistance in the Burmese side of
1:04:59 > 1:05:06the border. To be honest, given the very severe humanitarian impact that
1:05:06 > 1:05:11heavy rain and cyclones could have on the population, we are heading
1:05:11 > 1:05:14into the cyclone season in the next month, this is something we will
1:05:14 > 1:05:20keep under very open review. I would also say, if I may, Mr Speaker, I
1:05:20 > 1:05:23was in Brussels deputising for the Foreign Secretary on Monday and we
1:05:23 > 1:05:30agreed at that point with the EU Council that the conclusions
1:05:30 > 1:05:35initiating an work Sue introduced targeted sanctions on elements of
1:05:35 > 1:05:42the Burmese military. This work is ongoing. You will appreciate some
1:05:42 > 1:05:47difficulties we face, not least because of the potential veto of
1:05:47 > 1:05:51some of the permanent members of the Security Council but we are doing a
1:05:51 > 1:06:03lot at the EU level as well.Having seen what is going on in Burma, it
1:06:03 > 1:06:06is imperative that we continue to assist the Rohingya people in their
1:06:06 > 1:06:15hour of need. I would urge the Minister to summon the Burnley 's
1:06:15 > 1:06:23ambassador -- their ambassador for Burma to spell out formally. Mr
1:06:23 > 1:06:26Speaker, for those of us that followed events in that country for
1:06:26 > 1:06:31some time now, our policy was to support Aung San Suu Kyi where we
1:06:31 > 1:06:34could and were told that the problems were with the military. If
1:06:34 > 1:06:39it is now the case that she is no longer part of the solution but is
1:06:39 > 1:06:44indeed in some way part of the problem, I do believe this is a time
1:06:44 > 1:06:52to reassess our relationship with the parliament, with the army in
1:06:52 > 1:06:55Burma and the training and assistance we have tried to give
1:06:55 > 1:07:02them to make them a more democratic military and indeed the range of
1:07:02 > 1:07:06bilateral relations where fibre that country. We simply cannot allow them
1:07:06 > 1:07:10to away with this kind of behaviour. I thank my right honourable friend
1:07:10 > 1:07:15and obviously he was the predecessor in the role that I now hold. And
1:07:15 > 1:07:24must, very depressing given the high hopes he had when he was in office.
1:07:24 > 1:07:28I gather given the number of visits he made to Burma at that time that
1:07:28 > 1:07:32we were moving toward some sort of democracy. In many ways, there are
1:07:32 > 1:07:39some lessons we have learned is perhaps in that time, as a small
1:07:39 > 1:07:43amount of democracy, the Rohingya will not included in the census, not
1:07:43 > 1:07:47allowed to vote in elections, in many ways we are seeing elements of
1:07:47 > 1:07:54the consequences of that. Major say in relation to his initial point
1:07:54 > 1:07:59about the Burmese ambassador, we will of course summon him over the
1:07:59 > 1:08:03course of the next week to express our deep displeasure at his
1:08:03 > 1:08:16government's actions.The refusal of visas for the international
1:08:16 > 1:08:18development committee by the Myanmar government is obvious the shocking.
1:08:18 > 1:08:29It seems to be a response to their critical report on the treatment of
1:08:29 > 1:08:33the Rohingya. It might be on the tightening of a use sanctions as the
1:08:33 > 1:08:37Minister mentions. Banning people is their stock response to criticism.
1:08:37 > 1:08:41They have also banned the UN fact-finding mission, the special
1:08:41 > 1:08:50rapporteur, the UN refugee agency. The UK has a £100 million aid
1:08:50 > 1:08:53programme and significant development investments. We have our
1:08:53 > 1:08:55own Parliamentary strengthening programme. It is completely
1:08:55 > 1:08:59reasonable for the international double in committee to visit Myanmar
1:08:59 > 1:09:04and see how these are going. I think the chair is right to say we need to
1:09:04 > 1:09:08think again about the Parliamentary strengthening programme but what I
1:09:08 > 1:09:11would like to ask the Minister is what is the Foreign Office going to
1:09:11 > 1:09:18do to secure access both for British parliamentarians and for the United
1:09:18 > 1:09:27Nations agencies?The Right Honourable lady will appreciate that
1:09:27 > 1:09:32these are very difficult issues. We are doing our best to work both
1:09:32 > 1:09:36bilateral and then the international community to try to secure that sort
1:09:36 > 1:09:42of access. We are also working quietly behind-the-scenes. There are
1:09:42 > 1:09:48individuals known to Aung San Suu Kyi over many years who have paid
1:09:48 > 1:09:53visits and at least advise her at the displeasure and concerns of the
1:09:53 > 1:09:59international community. And the reality is that the truth really is
1:09:59 > 1:10:06that the military do have a whip hand to very large extent on what is
1:10:06 > 1:10:11going on in Burma. We will continue to work tirelessly to and ensure
1:10:11 > 1:10:16that we move forward. We want to see some accountability for the crimes
1:10:16 > 1:10:21that have been committed and I hope that at some point when the UN
1:10:21 > 1:10:26fact-finding mission can enter a report that we will have a statement
1:10:26 > 1:10:29in the House setting out our position about the issue of impunity
1:10:29 > 1:10:33for the future.
1:10:33 > 1:10:36It is my strong belief that going back to my initial point and the
1:10:36 > 1:10:40point made by a the honourable gentleman from Liverpool West Derby
1:10:40 > 1:10:45we always have to remember that frustrating though it is and she
1:10:45 > 1:10:52rightly points out we have spent 100 win pounds a year on aid within
1:10:52 > 1:10:56Burma, that actually the work being done for the most vulnerable must
1:10:56 > 1:11:01continue. It is very easy for us to walk away. We want to be honest and
1:11:01 > 1:11:05try and find within the military in so far is that I'm more moderate
1:11:05 > 1:11:10elements we can begin to work with and that is why we have stock
1:11:10 > 1:11:13programmes of training for the military but we feel there are
1:11:13 > 1:11:17individuals there who we should try to keep lines of communication open
1:11:17 > 1:11:20with and we will continue to do that. This is one of the
1:11:20 > 1:11:23frustrations in many ways of democracy and diplomacy but we will
1:11:23 > 1:11:28continue patiently but with some urgency for the reasons I have said
1:11:28 > 1:11:31that given the humanitarian catastrophe taking place on the
1:11:31 > 1:11:38Bangladeshi side of the border to continue that.Mr Speaker, your own
1:11:38 > 1:11:41role was instrumental in setting up the Parliamentary strengthening
1:11:41 > 1:11:46programme. The purpose of which is to make their parliament more like
1:11:46 > 1:11:51ours. Therefore it would be folly to stop it no matter how insulted we
1:11:51 > 1:12:01properly feel.I do share the right honourable gentleman's concerns on
1:12:01 > 1:12:05this and I in a previous ballad I was on the business foundation for
1:12:05 > 1:12:08democracy I played a role in trying to work together and have integrated
1:12:08 > 1:12:10programmes and they think I'm a cross-party basis we would not I
1:12:10 > 1:12:18think to begin desert in the biggest hour of need some elements within
1:12:18 > 1:12:22Burma reveal strongly about this matter but equally Aphibarnrat
1:12:22 > 1:12:29honourable friend will recognise that there is a deep concern that we
1:12:29 > 1:12:32cannot continue as though it is business as usual in all our
1:12:32 > 1:12:35relations with the Burmese authorities but they very much hope
1:12:35 > 1:12:38there will be some individuals who will be able to work with to make
1:12:38 > 1:12:40that country a better and more democratic place in the years to
1:12:40 > 1:12:49come.It goes without saying how deeply disappointed I am to be in
1:12:49 > 1:12:51this chamber along with my International Development Committee
1:12:51 > 1:12:55colleagues when I am supposed to be on a plant like to Burma to see the
1:12:55 > 1:13:00good work that they are doing in areas also bitter disappointment
1:13:00 > 1:13:03that I find out just now that Aung San Suu Kyi is personally
1:13:03 > 1:13:07responsible for blocking the visas to give the essential work that we
1:13:07 > 1:13:14are providing to her citizens in her nation who are of the poorest and
1:13:14 > 1:13:17most fundable. Difficult as a substantial aid programme in Burma
1:13:17 > 1:13:20and our job is to go out there to see the good work being done and I
1:13:20 > 1:13:27would want to put on record as the member of Parliament for Dundee city
1:13:27 > 1:13:30currently considering whether or not to withdraw the freedom of the city,
1:13:30 > 1:13:34with heavy heart I feel I will be recommending that withdrawal of the
1:13:34 > 1:13:37freedom after hearing what I have heard today. Can the secretary tell
1:13:37 > 1:13:40me that what assurances he would give or indeed the Minister, what
1:13:40 > 1:13:44assurances can be given for future visits to Burma to see the essential
1:13:44 > 1:13:50work being carried out in the regions which include Bracken state
1:13:50 > 1:14:00and can he give us an opportunity to give a further explanation given the
1:14:00 > 1:14:04fact we are a democracy here and support democracy in Burma in
1:14:04 > 1:14:08particular Aung San Suu Kyi and widely very remarks, I sang that and
1:14:08 > 1:14:15I endorse anyone else to sign up later, if there are war crimes and
1:14:15 > 1:14:22mass atrocities being carried out in Rakhine state, I hope Aung San Suu
1:14:22 > 1:14:27Kyi is listening to this message today because she should also be
1:14:27 > 1:14:30speaking out. I would like to hear there will be further explanation
1:14:30 > 1:14:36and if there has been anything we have lost in this Parliament, is
1:14:36 > 1:14:39asked to be rebranded and lastly to have an apology from the Burmese
1:14:39 > 1:14:45authorities.May I think the honourable judgment but Andy West we
1:14:45 > 1:14:49were able to speak before the disappointment became apparent the
1:14:49 > 1:14:53refusal was in place and I wish him and the rest of the Committee all
1:14:53 > 1:14:56the rest and be able to see is much as they can in Bangladesh, but I
1:14:56 > 1:15:00think it is depressing and it would be more worthwhile to be able to go
1:15:00 > 1:15:05into Rakhine State to sit where I know is whether intended to be. I
1:15:05 > 1:15:14don't want to spend the time, to defend Aung San Suu Kyi but we have
1:15:14 > 1:15:17a bilateral relationship and we want to try to keep lines of medication
1:15:17 > 1:15:21open. The recognition has to be to the Burmese military who have been
1:15:21 > 1:15:24responsible for many of the atrocities that have taken place in
1:15:24 > 1:15:29the aftermath of the 20th of August and I think we should not forget
1:15:29 > 1:15:31that amidst great disappointment that was shared by many members of
1:15:31 > 1:15:35Parliament given the great high hopes they had with the new regime
1:15:35 > 1:15:40when it came into play only a couple of years ago. That we just say this
1:15:40 > 1:15:43about issues of accountability. The immediate task I think will be to
1:15:43 > 1:15:47support those who are building evidence and testimony. The task of
1:15:47 > 1:15:51been ongoing over the past six months. A number of organisations
1:15:51 > 1:15:56will be left collecting that testimony and we will be considering
1:15:56 > 1:16:01how best we can support that range non-governmental organisations. If
1:16:01 > 1:16:05it is Burma is not a party to the statute of the International
1:16:05 > 1:16:09criminal Court, Cosmo see PIC will not have jurisdiction, or it would
1:16:09 > 1:16:13only have jurisdiction over the alleged crime if Burma was to revert
1:16:13 > 1:16:18to accord, an unlikely scenario, or there was a referral to the UN
1:16:18 > 1:16:24Security Council which I think is unlikely. So we are working and hope
1:16:24 > 1:16:27to come back to the hazard some point before too long and working to
1:16:27 > 1:16:34a strategy of how impunity can be and account ability, can be put to
1:16:34 > 1:16:40those to some who have committed some of these terrible crimes.As a
1:16:40 > 1:16:43member of the Committee I'm a bit disappointed we are not going.
1:16:43 > 1:16:51Mainly because we were trying to see both sides, but the Burmese side and
1:16:51 > 1:16:56the Bangladeshi side, to see how these terrible -- terribly burnable
1:16:56 > 1:16:59people are being treated on either side and I think the Bangladesh side
1:16:59 > 1:17:08were doing a magnificent job -- terribly vulnerable people. We
1:17:08 > 1:17:13recognise it was a Bank Holiday, it was quite dangerous to go up there
1:17:13 > 1:17:17but we were prepared if we could possibly go to go and now we have
1:17:17 > 1:17:22been thwarted and I do think, I don't know whether there was truth
1:17:22 > 1:17:27in the fact that Aung San Suu Kyi did have a hand in it, but I hope
1:17:27 > 1:17:31the Minister will ask and find out and report back to this House
1:17:31 > 1:17:37because I think that this incredibly serious because someone who has her
1:17:37 > 1:17:43before, as many millions of people in this country have, the shine will
1:17:43 > 1:17:51definitely have gone off her halo if that is the case.I think I
1:17:51 > 1:17:54honourable than for what she says we will do our level best to try to get
1:17:54 > 1:17:58the bottom of exactly what has happened and who is responsible.
1:17:58 > 1:18:02That media say this. I know it is often felt when parliamentarians
1:18:02 > 1:18:07visit other countries that they all get teased by our constituents that
1:18:07 > 1:18:15say this is all one big jolly that we are heading off, I had to sit on
1:18:15 > 1:18:22my own part as many know I was speaking in these notes tragically
1:18:22 > 1:18:25in September, it has made a difference to my understanding to
1:18:25 > 1:18:33the situation and the two sides have happened, and my opportunity to go
1:18:33 > 1:18:38visit Bangladesh and I think it is invaluable work that is done and
1:18:38 > 1:18:41gives a real sense of perspective and certainly a Committee such as
1:18:41 > 1:18:47this rightly is holding a government department to account and needs to
1:18:47 > 1:18:51be able to see on the grounds the work that is being done. May I also
1:18:51 > 1:18:57take some tribute, not perhaps for me to pay tribute, hopefully the
1:18:57 > 1:19:01Committee, for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, I
1:19:01 > 1:19:05think she has expended huge amount of time and energy and passion on
1:19:05 > 1:19:09this particular issue. They think she is very much on top of the issue
1:19:09 > 1:19:12to recognise that we have to have some fundamental changes in the way
1:19:12 > 1:19:16in which we look at programmes particularly within Burma and I know
1:19:16 > 1:19:19that we are much respected across the globe for the tremendous
1:19:19 > 1:19:25contribution we have made since the row up prices came to pass. --
1:19:25 > 1:19:31Rohingya crisis.This is hugely disappointing for the Select
1:19:31 > 1:19:34Committee and shocking if it is true what the honourable member the
1:19:34 > 1:19:38Liverpool West Derby said that Aung San Suu Kyi may have been
1:19:38 > 1:19:42responsible for blocking the betas although it will not dampen the
1:19:42 > 1:19:45effort and determination to the Committee to keep the pressure on.
1:19:45 > 1:19:47Is it a clear signal that the diplomatic relationship is breaking
1:19:47 > 1:19:52down which is frankly understandable and in some way even reassuring
1:19:52 > 1:19:55because a regime that commit ethnic cleansing is no ally of hours. The
1:19:55 > 1:20:02Minister is absolutely right that we must continue to help support the
1:20:02 > 1:20:06most vulnerable people in May on my particular the Rohingya but can I
1:20:06 > 1:20:15press him for accountability for those in the military, a discussion
1:20:15 > 1:20:20with the security Council for the possibility to refer those who both
1:20:20 > 1:20:26for the responsibilities -- atrocities to the criminal court.
1:20:26 > 1:20:33The UK continues to work to maintain the UN Security Council's focus on
1:20:33 > 1:20:36Rakhine State and she will be very aware that in recent weeks, the
1:20:36 > 1:20:40Syrian issue has been very important and clearly last autumn a lot of
1:20:40 > 1:20:44focus on what was happening on the Korean Pincher but that is not to
1:20:44 > 1:20:50say we aren't persistent to try and get this as high-profile as possible
1:20:50 > 1:20:53and our own request the Security Council held Google briefing on the
1:20:53 > 1:20:5813th of to focus on the very specific issue of returns and the
1:20:58 > 1:21:05likelihood of returned happening. The UN security council statement,
1:21:05 > 1:21:14first decade, last year, the UK was that and focusing attention on what
1:21:14 > 1:21:18is happening in Burma. We are providing a response to the
1:21:18 > 1:21:21fact-finding report of the human rights Council which is due in March
1:21:21 > 1:21:26and be co-sponsored the UN human rights Council General Assembly
1:21:26 > 1:21:31resolutions. I have to say to the honourable lady however that the
1:21:31 > 1:21:35notion that we have a headlong rush to a UN Security Council resolution,
1:21:35 > 1:21:38the feeling on the ground from representatives is that almost
1:21:38 > 1:21:42certainly would be vetoed by the Chinese and probably by the Russians
1:21:42 > 1:21:47as well. That is not to say that at some point we might not test that
1:21:47 > 1:21:50further but I believe there are other avenues that we wish to pursue
1:21:50 > 1:21:54and one of the reasons that I have been so pleased to be able to work
1:21:54 > 1:21:57together with our colleagues in the European Union is that actually to
1:21:57 > 1:22:03get sanctions from that quarter as I think will make some progress
1:22:03 > 1:22:10particularly against leading lights within the military.I am
1:22:10 > 1:22:14pro-pleased that the Minister is in his place because his work on the
1:22:14 > 1:22:17question of Burma has been impressive over these many months
1:22:17 > 1:22:22and the work of the Ambassador country and has been impressive and
1:22:22 > 1:22:27none of this, I am sure he couldn't have done more. This is a very
1:22:27 > 1:22:34distressing scene. I have however torn between the desire to ensure we
1:22:34 > 1:22:37have oversight of the enormous on the money we're spending and that we
1:22:37 > 1:22:42promote cause of democracy and here I speak with an interest because one
1:22:42 > 1:22:48of the clerks who has been to make the door is the second clerk of the
1:22:48 > 1:22:54Foreign Affairs Committee and the clerk who is going... If they have
1:22:54 > 1:22:58learnt 1% of the knowledge that these two fabulous individuals can
1:22:58 > 1:23:03impart it would be a huge blessing to the Burmese people and a great
1:23:03 > 1:23:08blessing to do a Sinjar between the United Kingdom and Burma.I thank
1:23:08 > 1:23:16him for his insights and I will pass the message on. It is worth pointing
1:23:16 > 1:23:20out a little bit about the bilateral action that continues to take place.
1:23:20 > 1:23:22Many members will be aware the Foreign Secretary was in Burma
1:23:22 > 1:23:27during the most recent recess and that Aung San Suu Kyi then stressing
1:23:27 > 1:23:32refugees must feel to returning home and need to be supervised at the
1:23:32 > 1:23:38UNHCR. Aung San Suu Kyi was spoken to no fewer than five times since
1:23:38 > 1:23:42the crisis began last August. I met her last September and the Defence
1:23:42 > 1:23:47Minister and Deputy First Minister -- deputy Foreign Minister, in
1:23:47 > 1:23:55Ecuador in November. I will, that work will continue to bring as many
1:23:55 > 1:23:59options as possible to be able to discuss as far as we can but there
1:23:59 > 1:24:03is some fantastic expertise that we need to try to channel into and keep
1:24:03 > 1:24:12the pressure on as far as possible. The United Nations High Commissioner
1:24:12 > 1:24:15for human rights has described what has been happening to the Rohingya
1:24:15 > 1:24:20as a textbook case of ethnic cleansing. Isn't the withholding of
1:24:20 > 1:24:22visas from myself and other members of the International Development
1:24:22 > 1:24:27Committee a textbook case and with an authoritarian regime with
1:24:27 > 1:24:31something to hide trying to shield itself from legitimate international
1:24:31 > 1:24:37scrutiny. And if Aung San Suu Kyi is indeed responsible for that, that it
1:24:37 > 1:24:42is nothing short of disgraceful. With the Minister agree with me that
1:24:42 > 1:24:45all this points to the fact that the international community has to be
1:24:45 > 1:24:51far more assertive in rising for unimpeded humanitarian access to
1:24:51 > 1:24:58Rakhine State?I would agree with that. I don't want to cast judgment
1:24:58 > 1:25:03until we know the facts about any involvement of Aung San Suu Kyi or
1:25:03 > 1:25:06other senior members in relation to the future but I think he is right
1:25:06 > 1:25:11that this is something that is a textbook case of the worst elements
1:25:11 > 1:25:16of an increasingly close regime but I would repeat to him as I have said
1:25:16 > 1:25:23at the outset, in the midst of our displeasure, anger, frustration at
1:25:23 > 1:25:27not being able to visit there, please remember the interests of
1:25:27 > 1:25:31those millions in Burma and so desperately need our help and
1:25:31 > 1:25:42support.
1:25:42 > 1:25:50Thank you for your letter, which was well received. When she was here,
1:25:50 > 1:25:56she said when she saw us discussing it, they were moving towards
1:25:56 > 1:25:58democracy, but unfortunately the country is heading in the wrong
1:25:58 > 1:26:05direction. Since I saw you cheered the parliamentary group in 2005, I
1:26:05 > 1:26:10always wanted to help move democracy, and that is what I intend
1:26:10 > 1:26:26to do as the coach here. -- co-chair. We will also look at the
1:26:26 > 1:26:31health for all of the ethnic groups. Does the Minister agree with me that
1:26:31 > 1:26:35now the International development committee is going to be carrying on
1:26:35 > 1:26:42its work, it will only be speaking to people which gives a one-sided
1:26:42 > 1:26:49view that the Bernd government could take some time to reply, but makes
1:26:49 > 1:26:53the work harder for those of us who want to take a holistic view of
1:26:53 > 1:26:58Burma as a country. -- a one-sided view that the Burmese man government
1:26:58 > 1:27:05could take.I do not know where he gets the time to do all of this
1:27:05 > 1:27:15work. Joking aside, please may I say this, I agree with everything he has
1:27:15 > 1:27:19to say, and we need to look at all sides to see what extent there is
1:27:19 > 1:27:24efficacy in being able to return to Burma at the earliest opportunity.
1:27:24 > 1:27:35Please keep the faith with Burma and by means. However, -- the Burmese
1:27:35 > 1:27:49man. Remember this is important work being done, and we have a lot of
1:27:49 > 1:27:55commitment going to historic reasons, but keep the faith.I am
1:27:55 > 1:28:00disappointed as one of the committee members refused if these are. I am
1:28:00 > 1:28:03also disappointed as a member of Parliament that represents a city
1:28:03 > 1:28:24that gave Aung San Suu Kyi not only the freedom of the
1:28:28 > 1:28:37city, but... Will the government look at convening an emergency
1:28:37 > 1:28:41summit to put sanctions in place not only against Burma, but possibly
1:28:41 > 1:28:50even considering Aung San Suu Kyi's family assets here in the UK. We
1:28:50 > 1:28:54will also immediately review some of our other aid products including the
1:28:54 > 1:28:59£500 million we have given to a university on a project with Oxford
1:28:59 > 1:29:06University last month to make sure that money is not being used for
1:29:06 > 1:29:25academic work which undermines the Rohingya.He is right to identify
1:29:25 > 1:29:30the fact that the issue around the Rohingya, terrible how it is, is on
1:29:30 > 1:29:35a different scale than other minorities, which have suffered for
1:29:35 > 1:29:40many decades. I think I have covered some of the issues about why we have
1:29:40 > 1:29:46not gone for the UN Security Council resolution at this stage, and I hope
1:29:46 > 1:29:53whatever investment is being made between Rangoon and Oxford is being
1:29:53 > 1:29:59done for positive reasons and we should not necessarily except, but
1:29:59 > 1:30:03need to get to the bottom of it.I was very depressed to learn last
1:30:03 > 1:30:08night that the visas had not come through. I do not know what the
1:30:08 > 1:30:12Hermes authority think we're going to do now, give up and shrug our
1:30:12 > 1:30:22shoulders? -- Burmese authority. We're not going to do that, we are
1:30:22 > 1:30:25democratically elected select committee. Within our parliament we
1:30:25 > 1:30:29do not have a quarter for the military, everyone is elected in the
1:30:29 > 1:30:35same matter. -- Manor. It is important to stress the money we
1:30:35 > 1:30:39give is the for the people and it does go to the military regime and
1:30:39 > 1:30:43it doesn't go through the military regime. The reason it is so month is
1:30:43 > 1:30:48the -- the reason it is so much is because of the militaries team. And
1:30:48 > 1:30:51I thank you, Mr Speaker, for everything you have done. You were
1:30:51 > 1:30:57one of the champions of Aung San Suu Kyi to get her freed from House
1:30:57 > 1:31:00arrest, and it was through you that you are able to get her to address
1:31:00 > 1:31:05both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall, a unique privilege
1:31:05 > 1:31:09for someone who is not officially head of state. Can I ask you, Mr
1:31:09 > 1:31:14Speaker than the Minister of State, to carry on with your work because
1:31:14 > 1:31:20the Rohingya problem is not going to go away but we do want to go to
1:31:20 > 1:31:25Burma and we want to see exactly how our money is being spent, so can I
1:31:25 > 1:31:32implore both of you to carry on and see if that can be done this year?
1:31:32 > 1:31:46Great pleasure to speak on the half of the Speaker on this matter. I
1:31:46 > 1:31:54should thank him for letting me get a word in. Sorry, this is not a
1:31:54 > 1:31:57subject for allegedly. We will keep in mind what is happening to
1:31:57 > 1:32:00Rohingya and other minorities, but also those of us who have the
1:32:00 > 1:32:12interest of Burma and Burmese people at heart.Can I associate myself
1:32:12 > 1:32:14entirely with my honourable friend's comments and share my horror of what
1:32:14 > 1:32:19we have seen in selecting the Rohingya people. Many of my
1:32:19 > 1:32:25constituents have written to me and rely on committees to shine a light
1:32:25 > 1:32:29on these dark situations. Can I urge the Minister and Secretary of State
1:32:29 > 1:32:34to look at examples from the past, such as our relationship with
1:32:34 > 1:32:44Zimbabwe, where we continued to support people in Zimbabwe while
1:32:44 > 1:32:49they had despotic regime. This is a very unusual case for visas to be
1:32:49 > 1:32:54denied in this way. Is he aware of any other examples of them being
1:32:54 > 1:33:01denied to politicians in a similar way?Thank you very much from the
1:33:01 > 1:33:08contribution. I must confess, it seems unique circumstances
1:33:08 > 1:33:08contribution. I must confess, it seems unique circumstances, it may
1:33:08 > 1:33:12not be but I will write to him regarding the situation of what is
1:33:12 > 1:33:18the situation of refusal of these as of this sort.Can I get assurances
1:33:18 > 1:33:24from Her Majesty's government that not a single penny of taxpayer money
1:33:24 > 1:33:30will go to the regime in Burma, who is increasingly not only a regime
1:33:30 > 1:33:42that practices genocide but also is becoming a rogue state?May I thank
1:33:42 > 1:33:46him for his contribution. I think all of us recognise we do not wish
1:33:46 > 1:33:51to do anything that props up a regime. May I put in a slight
1:33:51 > 1:33:59caveat, which is that we need to keep lines of communication open,
1:33:59 > 1:34:05and if it is felt not least by our ambassador Andrew Patrick on the
1:34:05 > 1:34:14ground, if it is felt there are individuals who need to keep the
1:34:14 > 1:34:21lines of communication open, I not rule it out.Despite the
1:34:21 > 1:34:26government's attempts to conceal the fact, the Burmese military actions
1:34:26 > 1:34:31look a lot like ethnic cleansing. Isn't it time that the international
1:34:31 > 1:34:37community started treating it as ethnic cleansing?Please be assured
1:34:37 > 1:34:45that the work does continue. Difficult to do this through the
1:34:45 > 1:34:48usual context, which would be a UN Security Council resolution because
1:34:48 > 1:34:55it would be retold. We had a meeting in November, and whilst
1:34:55 > 1:34:59understandably and rightly much of the world's focus must be on the
1:34:59 > 1:35:02humanitarian catastrophe that is happening and could get worse on the
1:35:02 > 1:35:06Bangladeshi side of the border, equally there is no an increasing
1:35:06 > 1:35:13focus, and I have had many meetings over the previous weeks and months,
1:35:13 > 1:35:18with the focus on diplomatic and political solution, not least the
1:35:18 > 1:35:28issues he points out.I visited the Rohingya refugee camp last year with
1:35:28 > 1:35:32the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and two nurses from
1:35:32 > 1:35:36Kettering General Hospital have returned from the Rohingya camps,
1:35:36 > 1:35:41successfully combating the spread of disease. Can I draw his attention to
1:35:41 > 1:35:46the problem on the Bangladeshi side of the border? Bangladesh has been
1:35:46 > 1:35:50incredibly generous in hosting the Rohingya refugees and going out of
1:35:50 > 1:35:56its way to assist them. But the Bangladeshis are overwhelmed with
1:35:56 > 1:36:00applications for visas from aid workers and the like, and they are
1:36:00 > 1:36:06having difficulty processing them in a timely way, holding up some of the
1:36:06 > 1:36:12aid. Can we help them in overcoming this problem?He is absolutely
1:36:12 > 1:36:15right, it is something we have identified and we are working
1:36:15 > 1:36:24together with DFID to get it sped up, and our own embassy in
1:36:24 > 1:36:26Bangladesh has made and will continue to make representations to
1:36:26 > 1:36:34ensure that NGOs and others, particularly relating to medical
1:36:34 > 1:36:44help, at able to get people on the ground in Bangladesh.Point of
1:36:44 > 1:36:48order, Jonathan Ashworth.We all heard at prime ministers questions,
1:36:48 > 1:36:51the Prime Minister rightly speak of the importance of early diagnosis
1:36:51 > 1:36:57when it comes to cancer. Yet, in today's newspapers we have learned
1:36:57 > 1:37:02that some CCGs are offering cash incentives to GPs not to refer
1:37:02 > 1:37:10patients to hospitals including cancer patients. We believe this is
1:37:10 > 1:37:12totally unacceptable. Has the Secretary of State for health given
1:37:12 > 1:37:16any notice that he intends to come to the House to make a statement to
1:37:16 > 1:37:21tell us how extensive this scheme is, so we can call upon the
1:37:21 > 1:37:31Secretary of State to rule out this an acceptable practice?Lowe, but it
1:37:31 > 1:37:34is open to the shadow Leader of the House today is this matter that the
1:37:34 > 1:37:41business question tomorrow, and I feel sure that having registered his
1:37:41 > 1:37:47concerns today, the honourable gentleman will articulate them in
1:37:47 > 1:37:54subsequent days until he elicits a ministerial response. Chris Bryant.
1:37:54 > 1:37:57You have always concerned yourself with the issue of political
1:37:57 > 1:38:01prisoners but I have discovered there is one in our own country
1:38:01 > 1:38:04because the Foreign Secretary declared this morning on television
1:38:04 > 1:38:10that he was desperate to be able to publish a letter to the Prime
1:38:10 > 1:38:13Minister referred to earlier, but now apparently the Prime Minister
1:38:13 > 1:38:20will not let him. So, the poor chap is languishing unable to fulfil his
1:38:20 > 1:38:23stated intention and desires. I just wonder, because obviously he wants
1:38:23 > 1:38:29to keep the House informed, he wants to be able to tell us what is going
1:38:29 > 1:38:33on. I do not know whether he has written two letters, and only one
1:38:33 > 1:38:38has got into the public domain, but I wondered if that is a way to free
1:38:38 > 1:38:42the Foreign Secretary so he is no longer a political prisoner in this
1:38:42 > 1:38:48way?I read what he said in reference to his correspondence and
1:38:48 > 1:38:52the activities of the Foreign Secretary, but not entirely for the
1:38:52 > 1:38:56first time and not uncharacteristically, I rather fear
1:38:56 > 1:39:01that the honourable gentleman might have invested me with powers I do
1:39:01 > 1:39:14not possess. I do not have power over responsibility for or the
1:39:14 > 1:39:19capacity to free the Secretary of State for following Commonwealth
1:39:19 > 1:39:33affairs. The Foreign Office One, he calls from a sedentary position.
1:39:33 > 1:39:37Some people might think it is a good thing I am not responsible for him,
1:39:37 > 1:39:45and other people may think it a bad thing. But it is a fact that I am
1:39:45 > 1:39:50not responsible for him other than in regard to his responsibilities to
1:39:50 > 1:40:01appear here. Shame, says the honourable gentleman! We must leave
1:40:01 > 1:40:04it there for no. We now come to the ten minute rule motion in the name
1:40:04 > 1:40:09of the honourable gentleman, the Member for Bassetlaw. Ten minute
1:40:09 > 1:40:15rule motion, John Mann.
1:40:15 > 1:40:19I rise to propose what I would suggest of the House is a very
1:40:19 > 1:40:25important legislative proposal that in the three weeks subsequent to me
1:40:25 > 1:40:32laid this proposed Bill before the public Bill office, to an incidence
1:40:32 > 1:40:39of occurred directly impacting me, my staff, my family, there are
1:40:39 > 1:40:44specific examples apply the powers we have in this country with
1:40:44 > 1:40:49internet companies are too weak and why this Bill would transform the
1:40:49 > 1:40:58situation. In those two weeks I have received a series of violent threats
1:40:58 > 1:41:05on Twitter directed to myself and my family and stop they are rightly in
1:41:05 > 1:41:14action by the police in the appropriate way. I immediately on
1:41:14 > 1:41:20receiving these series of tweets registered them in the Twitter style
1:41:20 > 1:41:29with Twitter, removes them from the public domain. The police will
1:41:29 > 1:41:36require the precise time that these tweets were sent. Not the tone with
1:41:36 > 1:41:43which I can provide them, where they go onto the Parliamentary system via
1:41:43 > 1:41:51e-mail but the precise time. Twitter refuses to provide these to me.
1:41:51 > 1:41:59Second example is in relation to Facebook. Whereby that is the
1:41:59 > 1:42:03gentleman I believe still in prison who was convicted in prison for a
1:42:03 > 1:42:10series of very aggressive internet attacks on other members of
1:42:10 > 1:42:17Parliament and myself. I was referred to directly in the court
1:42:17 > 1:42:24proceedings. A repeat has been last week put out through Facebook and
1:42:24 > 1:42:32immediately then this fake account, which is in my name with my face
1:42:32 > 1:42:38which could best be described as an century, and of course statements
1:42:38 > 1:42:43none of us in here including myself would never dream of making, and
1:42:43 > 1:42:50intend to incite violence against me which when originally done, at that
1:42:50 > 1:42:56impact with extremists, nicking directorates and specific threats in
1:42:56 > 1:43:07my locality. Facebook with that refused to assist and provide
1:43:07 > 1:43:13immediately deleted Facebook message. And yet again I could
1:43:13 > 1:43:17present that to the police because the individual originated it may
1:43:17 > 1:43:26still be serving a custodial sentence for precisely this form of
1:43:26 > 1:43:32activity with this example are part of the case taken against him. The
1:43:32 > 1:43:35purpose of this Bill was, if this was the broadcast media, television,
1:43:35 > 1:43:43if this was radio, but this was newspapers, and they failed to
1:43:43 > 1:43:48cooperate -- if this was newspapers, then I would be free to take civil
1:43:48 > 1:43:52action against them. Government could take action against them.
1:43:52 > 1:43:58Please could take action against them. To take action the courts
1:43:58 > 1:44:04would potentially be complicated but the fact it is possible would and
1:44:04 > 1:44:10does mean that newspapers with broadcast media, with radio, that
1:44:10 > 1:44:16they are cooperative. Both with individuals and with the police.
1:44:16 > 1:44:23When it comes to the internet company we have no such powers. Our
1:44:23 > 1:44:34law comes from the 1896 United States communications decency act
1:44:34 > 1:44:42section 2:3.0. -- 19 96. It says explicitly community is conferred
1:44:42 > 1:44:47upon the operators of internet services who are not to be deemed
1:44:47 > 1:44:50publishers of and therefore not legally liable for the words of
1:44:50 > 1:44:58third parties who use their services. In our law this comes from
1:44:58 > 1:45:05the European Commission and the European Union, the European
1:45:05 > 1:45:12directive 2000-31 of the European Parliament and Council of the 8th of
1:45:12 > 1:45:17June 2000 which was harmonised into UK law by an electronic commerce EC
1:45:17 > 1:45:26directive predilections 2002. It again gives publishers immunity
1:45:26 > 1:45:32explicitly to the internet companies which is not there in a free and
1:45:32 > 1:45:38competitive market for newspapers, television, radio. In other words a
1:45:38 > 1:45:44specific community only solely exclusively for internet companies.
1:45:44 > 1:45:54I am not seeking, and indeed I am sure Parliament would not seek, to
1:45:54 > 1:45:58interfere with the rights of free speech and the rights of a free
1:45:58 > 1:46:02internet. But the Democratic internet in exactly the same way we
1:46:02 > 1:46:10have a democratic media and free press has to have the ability that
1:46:10 > 1:46:16if there are criminal acts being carried out that directly impact on
1:46:16 > 1:46:20us, and these two examples do potentially in relation to me, my
1:46:20 > 1:46:26staff, my family. And indeed one has had a criminal prosecution and
1:46:26 > 1:46:32imprisonment. We ought to have the right to use that format. What would
1:46:32 > 1:46:39happen if we did? Internet companies would cooperate immediately. It is
1:46:39 > 1:46:44absurd that the police in this country cannot force Twitter or
1:46:44 > 1:46:50Facebook or Google or any of the others to provide evidence required
1:46:50 > 1:46:56for criminal prosecutions, criminal prosecutions. It is done on
1:46:56 > 1:47:04goodwill. And successive governments have attempted, are attempting, to
1:47:04 > 1:47:07get good codes of conduct, the internet companies have their
1:47:07 > 1:47:11conditions of service where they say what they will do. Well, let me give
1:47:11 > 1:47:17an example where I would consider taking action. It would be precisely
1:47:17 > 1:47:21where those terms and conditions have been broken and the internet
1:47:21 > 1:47:26company has failed to act appropriately. That is precisely an
1:47:26 > 1:47:29example where their own terms and conditions are being broken but they
1:47:29 > 1:47:35are failing to act. It cannot be right that our place with Twitter
1:47:35 > 1:47:42for example can wait very many weeks and are not guaranteed evidence they
1:47:42 > 1:47:48require, it could be to do with terrorism, other violent threats,
1:47:48 > 1:47:55but criminality cannot get that. This simple removal from exemption,
1:47:55 > 1:48:02equalising the markets with the television companies, with radio,
1:48:02 > 1:48:10the free newspapers, would create an equal playing field in the media
1:48:10 > 1:48:14market and would get rid of some of the absurdities which mean that the
1:48:14 > 1:48:23same thing can be impacted on, say, media, but run simultaneously with
1:48:23 > 1:48:28that those powers with the internet. There are countless examples. The
1:48:28 > 1:48:32House of Lords, there was a very good debate initiated by Baroness
1:48:32 > 1:48:40Kidron, I haven't got the time to go through that and I recommend that to
1:48:40 > 1:48:47the House, but she went through precisely a social media companies
1:48:47 > 1:48:49are commissioning, editing and curating content for broadcasting
1:48:49 > 1:48:57and our publishing. It affects our societal values. For example the
1:48:57 > 1:49:02spreading of fake news. We have seen it on the internet with the
1:49:02 > 1:49:07potential outbreak of measles from big news about inoculations, nothing
1:49:07 > 1:49:14government could do in relation to that if the internet company fails
1:49:14 > 1:49:17to act, public health in this country could be a threat. Should
1:49:17 > 1:49:21government choose to do that? That is a different set of questions.
1:49:21 > 1:49:25Different set of decisions. But government cannot do that because
1:49:25 > 1:49:29government doesn't have the power to do that. We are seeing mounting
1:49:29 > 1:49:37pressure. Germany has adopted a fairly modest system in terms of the
1:49:37 > 1:49:41potential to applying for a failure to remove content within 24 hours.
1:49:41 > 1:49:46Australia has built-in and ease safety Commissioner. This Bill
1:49:46 > 1:49:52suggests a similar thing could happen in this country. But at its
1:49:52 > 1:49:59core we need to treat the internet companies in exactly the same way as
1:49:59 > 1:50:04other media, whereby a free media can be taken to court if they are
1:50:04 > 1:50:10failing to cooperate on criminality. What is good enough for TV, radio
1:50:10 > 1:50:14and newspapers is good enough for social media and the internet. I
1:50:14 > 1:50:23recommend this proposed Bill to the House, Mr Deputy Speaker.As many of
1:50:23 > 1:50:34the opinion say aye. I come to who will prepare to bring in your Bill?
1:50:34 > 1:50:39Ruth Snead, Lucy Birdsall, Lillian Greenwood, Anna Turley, Nicky
1:50:39 > 1:50:47Morgan, Andrew Percy, Liz Seibel Roberts, Lisa Cameron, and myself.
1:50:47 > 1:50:57Excellent. John Mann. LAUGHTER
1:50:57 > 1:51:08Very important!
1:51:19 > 1:51:26Social media service providers... Second reading what they? Friday,
1:51:26 > 1:51:44April 27.On a Friday? Excellent. Keep going, while you can.
1:52:34 > 1:52:39The working group was convened by the Prime Minister last November,
1:52:39 > 1:52:56supported by all party leaders.The question is as order paper. The ayes
1:52:56 > 1:53:03have it. When I come to the motion on the Independent complaints and
1:53:03 > 1:53:11grievance policy, I have selected it in the name of Kevin Byron. I now
1:53:11 > 1:53:20call the Leader of the House to move the motion.Thank you, a bit of
1:53:20 > 1:53:23Groundhog Day here. I beg to move the motion standing on the order
1:53:23 > 1:53:27paper in my name and those of my working group colleagues. The
1:53:27 > 1:53:30working group was convened by the Prime Minister last November
1:53:30 > 1:53:37supported by all party leaders. To address serious allegations of abuse
1:53:37 > 1:53:40and harassment in Parliament. I announce the publication of the
1:53:40 > 1:53:50group's report before February recess, and I hope members have
1:53:50 > 1:53:54considered the more detail. We're all at the bid is no place for
1:53:54 > 1:53:59harassment, abuse and misconduct in Parliament. We need to ensure there
1:53:59 > 1:54:03are robust procedures in place so everyone is able to work with the
1:54:03 > 1:54:09dignity and protection that they deserve. I believe the working group
1:54:09 > 1:54:13proposals do that. During the course of its work, the group took
1:54:13 > 1:54:19extensive evidence in person and writing from a wide variety of
1:54:19 > 1:54:23stakeholders including parliamentary officials, staff of MPs and peers,
1:54:23 > 1:54:27trade unions, academics, authorities and sexual violence and legal
1:54:27 > 1:54:31professionals. The group also conducted a survey open to a wide
1:54:31 > 1:54:37range of people including a number of pass-holders who had not been
1:54:37 > 1:54:42asked for the experience of bullying and harassment. Many people have
1:54:42 > 1:54:45devoted a considerable amount of time to this work, and after more
1:54:45 > 1:54:52than 100 hours of discussion, consultation and consideration, I
1:54:52 > 1:54:55believe we have proposals for the House to consider today that will
1:54:55 > 1:54:58fundamentally change the working culture in Parliament for the
1:54:58 > 1:55:04better. I would like to turn to these proposals, and briefly set
1:55:04 > 1:55:10them out for the House. They are as follows. Firstly, Parliament will
1:55:10 > 1:55:14agree a shared behaviour code, which will apply to everyone on the estate
1:55:14 > 1:55:20or engaged in parliamentary business regardless of location, and will
1:55:20 > 1:55:25underpin the new policy. It will make clear the expectations for the
1:55:25 > 1:55:28behaviour of everyone in the parliamentary community and will be
1:55:28 > 1:55:32consulted on and on that basis. Secondly, the new complaints and
1:55:32 > 1:55:38grievance procedure will be independent from political parties.
1:55:38 > 1:55:42Thirdly, it was acknowledged that sexual harassment and violence are
1:55:42 > 1:55:47different from other forms of inappropriate behaviour, such as
1:55:47 > 1:55:49bullying and intimidation. Therefore, separate procedures will
1:55:49 > 1:55:53be agreed for those looking to raise a complaint regarding sexual
1:55:53 > 1:55:59harassment to those with a complaint of bullying. This is an important
1:55:59 > 1:56:03distinction, and while everyone has acknowledged the significance of
1:56:03 > 1:56:06complaints of sexual harassment, evidence from staff made clear that
1:56:06 > 1:56:17instances of intimidation and bullying are more prevalent. So, MPs
1:56:17 > 1:56:21staff need HR advice, which has been lacking, and this will go to a long
1:56:21 > 1:56:27-- go a long way of resolving workplace grievances. Importantly,
1:56:27 > 1:56:32the new system will be based on the principles of equality, it will be
1:56:32 > 1:56:36confidential and fair to all parties, it will be in line with the
1:56:36 > 1:56:41laws of natural justice, and it will command the confidence of those who
1:56:41 > 1:56:47will use it. The working group took advice at an early stage that rather
1:56:47 > 1:56:52than reinvent the wheel, we should work with and build on the many
1:56:52 > 1:56:58sound processes and systems already in place here. Today we are bringing
1:56:58 > 1:57:03forward a motion that will enable the House commission to authorise
1:57:03 > 1:57:06House officials to take forward the recommendations of the group and
1:57:06 > 1:57:14implement proposals in full. This is a big step towards creating a more
1:57:14 > 1:57:16professional environment and the Parliament among the best in the
1:57:16 > 1:57:24world in treating people with dignity and respect at work.I'm
1:57:24 > 1:57:28grateful to her forgiving way and want to commend her for her work on
1:57:28 > 1:57:32this report. She will agree that Parliament should be a for Best
1:57:32 > 1:57:39practice rather than playing catch up, so we need to make sure the
1:57:39 > 1:57:42procedures relate to everyone, including crucially extending to
1:57:42 > 1:57:48constituency officers, and visitors to offices as soon as possible. Can
1:57:48 > 1:57:55she reassure us that this is a real priority for her going forward?I
1:57:55 > 1:57:59would like to pay tribute to the honourable lady who is an assiduous
1:57:59 > 1:58:03contributor to the work of the working group, and I thank sincerely
1:58:03 > 1:58:09for her dedication. We can recall these happy hours debating that
1:58:09 > 1:58:15point, and we concluded in the end that this is a priority to make sure
1:58:15 > 1:58:24the behaviour code will extend protection to all those coming into
1:58:24 > 1:58:29Parliament, but in the immediate future we should focus on bedding in
1:58:29 > 1:58:33a new complaints procedure dealing with the Palace of Westminster and
1:58:33 > 1:58:36our work in parliamentary duties, and that as soon as possible, once
1:58:36 > 1:58:41it is bedded down through a review six months after its operation of
1:58:41 > 1:58:45how we should deal with others who come into contact with MPs, where
1:58:45 > 1:58:49there is the tricky grey area about, where is your public life and we
1:58:49 > 1:58:53lose your private life? I hope she is reassured once again by
1:58:53 > 1:59:00committing that we must look at that, she is exactly right.I
1:59:00 > 1:59:06appreciate her giving way. Can I ask, going into the definitions of
1:59:06 > 1:59:13bullying, why are the older versions... The most recent version
1:59:13 > 1:59:17takes away the issue of
1:59:17 > 1:59:19intentionality, because often perpetrators hide behind that.What
1:59:19 > 1:59:26I can say is that the work on the detailed procedures including
1:59:26 > 1:59:33definitions will be finalised once the authorities get under way to put
1:59:33 > 1:59:36the proposals in place, and if she wants to propose a different
1:59:36 > 1:59:41definition, I am very pleased to look at it and will take into
1:59:41 > 1:59:48account all views in the area. So, I am committed to ensuring that work
1:59:48 > 1:59:52proceeds apace over the next few months, and I am pleased to report
1:59:52 > 1:59:57the House authorities have already begun preliminary work on several
1:59:57 > 2:00:01work streams needed to implement these policies. Members will also
2:00:01 > 2:00:05want to know that the following four interim steps have already been
2:00:05 > 2:00:08taken to improve services available, and I have mentioned these
2:00:08 > 2:00:13previously because we wanted to ensure we had immediate steps
2:00:13 > 2:00:18following the serious allegations that we all heard about last
2:00:18 > 2:00:21November, so firstly, enhanced support arrangements have been
2:00:21 > 2:00:24provided through the extension of the employee assistance programme
2:00:24 > 2:00:29helpline run by health are sure to. Secondly, face-to-face counselling
2:00:29 > 2:00:34sessions can be offered with appropriate. Thirdly, an interim
2:00:34 > 2:00:38service providing HR advice for member staff was launched in
2:00:38 > 2:00:41January, and fourth, political parties have all updated the
2:00:41 > 2:00:47behaviour codes and published them on the parliamentary intranet. This
2:00:47 > 2:00:50demonstrates we have already taken urgent action, but the new
2:00:50 > 2:00:58procedures will go much further. For the benefit of members not present
2:00:58 > 2:01:02at my last statement, I will turn briefly to the process of making a
2:01:02 > 2:01:06complaint or raising grievance against a member of the House. As
2:01:06 > 2:01:09colleagues will appreciate, the process for raising complaints
2:01:09 > 2:01:14against other members of the parliamentary community such as
2:01:14 > 2:01:18peers, members and peers staff, and contractors, will each differ
2:01:18 > 2:01:22according to the role. All procedures are designed for the
2:01:22 > 2:01:25protection of staff and parliamentarians alike, and have
2:01:25 > 2:01:32their own is at the heart. So, it is intended that the House authorities
2:01:32 > 2:01:40will procure two independent services. 12 consider allegations of
2:01:40 > 2:01:50violence, and 12 consider workplace bullying. Where a resolution is not
2:01:50 > 2:01:54possible and a complaint is upheld, it will be referred to the
2:01:54 > 2:02:05parliamentary commission. The role of the commission will be expanded
2:02:05 > 2:02:09and reformed, she will be able to impose a new range of sanctions
2:02:09 > 2:02:14which may include a written apology, mandatory training or future
2:02:14 > 2:02:17behaviour agreements. The commissioner will be able to review
2:02:17 > 2:02:20any finding by the independent investigator, and where she does so,
2:02:20 > 2:02:25she will ensure that have investigations are also strictly
2:02:25 > 2:02:27confidential, that both the complainant and alleged perpetrator
2:02:27 > 2:02:33have access to all evidence, and crucially, each has a right to
2:02:33 > 2:02:37representation or to represent themselves. These measures will
2:02:37 > 2:02:42ensure fairness. In the most serious of cases, the Commissioner will
2:02:42 > 2:02:46refer her findings to the committee on standards. The committee can
2:02:46 > 2:02:49recommend to the House that an individual is suspended and the
2:02:49 > 2:02:54House will vote on the recommendation. It is to this route
2:02:54 > 2:02:59that the existing procedures under the recall of MPs after 2015 could
2:02:59 > 2:03:02be invoked. The trigger for a recall remains the same as it is now, and
2:03:02 > 2:03:09it is no plan for changes to primary legislation. The working group
2:03:09 > 2:03:13recognised the fact that those who work in this place are often in the
2:03:13 > 2:03:17media spotlight and that vexatious and malicious complaints at a risk.
2:03:17 > 2:03:21The new procedures will therefore ensure checks and balances are in
2:03:21 > 2:03:24place to guard against complaints, while also making sure complainants
2:03:24 > 2:03:32can come forward in a safe and confidential manner. I will turn
2:03:32 > 2:03:38into more detail in individual work streams to implement these streams.
2:03:38 > 2:03:41We expect six major work streams to be established, and I would like to
2:03:41 > 2:03:45address these individually. It is the intention that most of these
2:03:45 > 2:03:49work streams will be completed in three months' time more or less.
2:03:49 > 2:03:54Firstly, and importantly, a new behaviour code for parliament will
2:03:54 > 2:03:58be developed. This was a key recommendation of the working group
2:03:58 > 2:04:03report. It will ensure that we're all aware of and able to promote the
2:04:03 > 2:04:06high standards expected in the parliamentary community. It will
2:04:06 > 2:04:10cover all those working in Westminster and constituency offices
2:04:10 > 2:04:16and all pass-holders. With the approval of the House we will
2:04:16 > 2:04:19consult on the new behaviour code. It is important that those who would
2:04:19 > 2:04:24be subject to the code will have the opportunity to contribute to its
2:04:24 > 2:04:31development. This code must be something that underpins us all, it
2:04:31 > 2:04:36will be able to investigate and resolve allegations of bullying,
2:04:36 > 2:04:40harassment and sexual harassment. It will also be the cornerstone of
2:04:40 > 2:04:48cultural change... It is our intention the behaviour code will be
2:04:48 > 2:04:54brought forward within three months. Secondly, there will be an
2:04:54 > 2:04:56implementation work stream around the bullying and harassment
2:04:56 > 2:05:02procedure. This will develop detailed policies and procedures,
2:05:02 > 2:05:05and commission a new reporting helpline and workplace dispute
2:05:05 > 2:05:13resolution service. The new helpline will signpost new available
2:05:13 > 2:05:17services, and they will investigate independently allegations of
2:05:17 > 2:05:20bullying and intimidation. Dedicated emotional and practical support for
2:05:20 > 2:05:25all those involved in a complaint will be an important aspect of the
2:05:25 > 2:05:31new services. Thirdly, there will be a separate work stream... Could I
2:05:31 > 2:05:34just finished this point then I will give way? Thirdly there will be a
2:05:34 > 2:05:39work stream commissioning a new independent specialist service
2:05:39 > 2:05:43around sexual harassment and violence. A single point of ongoing
2:05:43 > 2:05:47support will be provided for complainants by an independent
2:05:47 > 2:05:53sexual violence adviser. Investigations of misconduct will be
2:05:53 > 2:05:58able to be conducted by an independent investigator with a
2:05:58 > 2:06:00specialist qualification in understanding sexual harassment. I
2:06:00 > 2:06:06will give way.Thank you for being generous with your time. Could I
2:06:06 > 2:06:12just caution the media once again about the issue of mediation due to
2:06:12 > 2:06:17the inequalities of power regarding billing and sexual harassment, --
2:06:17 > 2:06:22bullying. We want to ensure there are clear processes that ensure
2:06:22 > 2:06:27equality of power, and often mediation has the reverse effect.I
2:06:27 > 2:06:32hope I can reassure her that the issues she raises really was at the
2:06:32 > 2:06:36core of all of the evidence we took and all of the discussions we had
2:06:36 > 2:06:42done the determination of the working group to address the issue
2:06:42 > 2:06:48of imbalance of power, to make sure at the heart of the whole procedure
2:06:48 > 2:06:52is the interest of the complainant, so it is very much complainant lead,
2:06:52 > 2:06:59to ensure people do feel safe and able to come forward in a safe space
2:06:59 > 2:07:03without the fear of being intimidated further. So, I think I
2:07:03 > 2:07:08can reassure her on that point, but I am very happy to speak to her
2:07:08 > 2:07:14separately about that, if she wants further the assurance. Fourthly, new
2:07:14 > 2:07:18training is already available to help people understand more clearly
2:07:18 > 2:07:21what types of behaviour might be considered bullying or harassment
2:07:21 > 2:07:27and the impact it can have on individuals. This is the first step
2:07:27 > 2:07:31towards implementing the working group's recommendation that the new
2:07:31 > 2:07:34independent grievance and complaints policy needs to be supported by a
2:07:34 > 2:07:40comprehensive training programme. Training will be a significant work
2:07:40 > 2:07:44stream and will include learning opportunities for members and their
2:07:44 > 2:07:51officers. A new induction programme has also been introduced, with the
2:07:51 > 2:07:57first session this week in response to the working group's request.
2:07:57 > 2:08:01Other individual areas of work, including the fifth work stream, are
2:08:01 > 2:08:09already underway, including work to prepare for a third-party supplier
2:08:09 > 2:08:14of HR advice. This will be supported by a new member staff bit, and the
2:08:14 > 2:08:17first draft has already been compiled by IPSC and the House
2:08:17 > 2:08:23authorities. Finally, the working group has been clear back to
2:08:23 > 2:08:26implement a number of the proposals, the sixth work stream will develop
2:08:26 > 2:08:32the Met and processes of the parliamentary -- the re-met and
2:08:32 > 2:08:40processes of the parliamentary processes in each House. This means
2:08:40 > 2:08:43liaising with each other as necessary. Changes will also be
2:08:43 > 2:08:48likely to be needed at the end of these processes to the existing
2:08:48 > 2:08:56parliamentary codes, not least to... I welcome the clarity given by the
2:08:56 > 2:09:04order paper, and I can assure members that having recently met
2:09:04 > 2:09:08with the new commissioner of the standards myself and Shedlock --
2:09:08 > 2:09:11scheduled a meeting with the standards committee, I can give the
2:09:11 > 2:09:15assurance that consultation will continue and will form a key part of
2:09:15 > 2:09:23the next age of our work. It is important that the development of
2:09:23 > 2:09:27these work streams is underpinned by fairness, confidentiality and add a
2:09:27 > 2:09:30key ignition of the unique environment in which these
2:09:30 > 2:09:34procedures are being implemented. The new arrangements must be
2:09:34 > 2:09:39monitored and reviewed and embedded as part of a wider change in
2:09:39 > 2:09:46culture. I would like to pay tribute in this regard to the political
2:09:46 > 2:09:55affairs committee. Unfortunately the letter was omitted from the list of
2:09:55 > 2:09:58written submissions, for which I apologise. One of the suggestions
2:09:58 > 2:10:03made in the submission was the importance of the review and
2:10:03 > 2:10:06scrutiny of the working group's proposals. It is our attention --
2:10:06 > 2:10:11intention that once the proposals have been implemented, a Crosshouse
2:10:11 > 2:10:16body order group will assess the operation of the new processes. In
2:10:16 > 2:10:22the meantime a steering group whose membership will be based on the
2:10:22 > 2:10:24composition of the working group will oversee the implementation
2:10:24 > 2:10:31period.
2:10:31 > 2:10:32I am period.
2:10:32 > 2:10:32I am confident period.
2:10:32 > 2:10:32I am confident the period.
2:10:32 > 2:10:32I am confident the measures period.
2:10:32 > 2:10:32I am confident the measures the period.
2:10:32 > 2:10:34I am confident the measures the working group has recommended will
2:10:34 > 2:10:36provide the basis with the significant and sustainable changes
2:10:36 > 2:10:42to which we all aspire. A parliament that provides dignity and work for
2:10:42 > 2:10:48all. We need to make sure that our Parliament is among the best in the
2:10:48 > 2:10:56world, demonstrating our commitment to equality, justice and fairness. I
2:10:56 > 2:10:58hope the House will interest the working group's recommendations
2:10:58 > 2:11:10today.The question is as on the order paper.Then I think the Leader
2:11:10 > 2:11:14of the House but opening the debate, it is now the fourth time this
2:11:14 > 2:11:18matter has been before the House and it is good we can continue to debate
2:11:18 > 2:11:23this important topic. We have had three statements and know this
2:11:23 > 2:11:27motion. If we cast our minds back it was to the first meeting the Prime
2:11:27 > 2:11:31Minister and leaders of other representatives of the party, that
2:11:31 > 2:11:37was on Monday the 6th of November 20 17. The report was published on the
2:11:37 > 2:11:438th of February 20 18. I certainly have passed it on to every member of
2:11:43 > 2:11:48the opposition. I want to place on record my thanks to all the staff
2:11:48 > 2:11:56involved putting together the report and all colleagues involved in the
2:11:56 > 2:11:59working group. All this motion does is set out the works at the House
2:11:59 > 2:12:03authorities have to undertake. There needs to be time at how to put the
2:12:03 > 2:12:08processes and procedures in place and of course the working group
2:12:08 > 2:12:12can't do that. To pick up the point of my friend the honourable member
2:12:12 > 2:12:22for York Central who worked on this sector previously, what happened to
2:12:22 > 2:12:25the full-time permanent person who feeds into the some of the leader
2:12:25 > 2:12:35has outlined in detail the work that needs to be done so I will confine
2:12:35 > 2:12:44myself to very two reef areas. As to training, and any programme, I don't
2:12:44 > 2:12:51consider to be, it is not the judgment of people's views but just
2:12:51 > 2:12:56to ensure everyone is in the same place, and it will be useful for all
2:12:56 > 2:13:05members to update with the latest and behaviour in a working place.I
2:13:05 > 2:13:14am grateful. Can we not ensure that training is mandatory, face-to-face
2:13:14 > 2:13:18and also we don't have to wait until the next Parliament but it is
2:13:18 > 2:13:24brought in within this year.I think the honourable friend for her
2:13:24 > 2:13:29comments and I've would want to see this from any training programme. I
2:13:29 > 2:13:33think we expect something to be put in place after three months when the
2:13:33 > 2:13:40permanent person has looked at all the details of what they have to do.
2:13:40 > 2:13:47The Leader of the House knows that a few people have been asked and were
2:13:47 > 2:13:52allowed to join the group, but in my view I think the steering group
2:13:52 > 2:13:56should be a bit more representative and perhaps include other groups and
2:13:56 > 2:14:02unions. I would support the inclusion of the House trade union
2:14:02 > 2:14:06side to widen the representation slightly but maybe the numbers on
2:14:06 > 2:14:10the steering group need to be reduced. But most importantly to
2:14:10 > 2:14:16wear number of new initiatives set up and when those events first hit
2:14:16 > 2:14:24us in November Mr Speaker acted very swiftly and extended the helpline to
2:14:24 > 2:14:2924 hours and seven days a week from health assured and it would be
2:14:29 > 2:14:33useful to have those figures and how that is used, perhaps at the next
2:14:33 > 2:14:36commission meeting because it would be six months it would have been
2:14:36 > 2:14:43extended to every single person working on the estate. I don't
2:14:43 > 2:14:46underestimate the amount of work that these to be done by the House
2:14:46 > 2:14:49authorities and while it is useful to get updates from time to time
2:14:49 > 2:14:57they do need to be left to get on with the work. Consulting with the
2:14:57 > 2:15:04member programmes Valley and his Committee and Essex and his
2:15:04 > 2:15:08Committee and all members of the other have something to offer. It is
2:15:08 > 2:15:12only when processors are in place and usable we know if they are
2:15:12 > 2:15:17robust and command the sport of those who seek to use them. The
2:15:17 > 2:15:21opposition support the motion is tabled and amended and look forward
2:15:21 > 2:15:27to be updated. We thank the staff are taking on this task so we have a
2:15:27 > 2:15:30truly modern Parliament where everyone knows the boundaries of
2:15:30 > 2:15:43acceptable behaviour in a safe and secure workplace.
2:15:43 > 2:15:48It is just a few months since Parliament faced a wave of
2:15:48 > 2:15:53allegations and bullying and sexual harassment, and atmosphere in richer
2:15:53 > 2:15:57times it was hard to distinguish, serious cases from the proliferation
2:15:57 > 2:16:06accusations and rumours. It exposed a lack of credible and transparent
2:16:06 > 2:16:11and robust system for existing complaints and periods is about
2:16:11 > 2:16:14bullying and sexual harassment. It led to the establishment of the
2:16:14 > 2:16:19working group and their report which I fully support and it is carefully
2:16:19 > 2:16:23drafted and reflect a great deal of thought and discussion. The working
2:16:23 > 2:16:27group has proposed to burst the adoption of a new shared behaviour
2:16:27 > 2:16:31code for all who work in Parliament and its members. Secondly the
2:16:31 > 2:16:38introduction of a new independent complaints and grievance policy to
2:16:38 > 2:16:41reflect this. There's not unsurprisingly concentrates on
2:16:41 > 2:16:45creating new rules and the procedures for investigating
2:16:45 > 2:16:49incidents and complaints by police to try to address the present
2:16:49 > 2:16:53hodgepodge arrangements from which different categories of people and
2:16:53 > 2:16:59the glaring gaps of this system of how we employ and care for our
2:16:59 > 2:17:06staff. The working group has rightly spent a lot of time discussing and
2:17:06 > 2:17:10defining what constitutes the bad behaviours that must be called out.
2:17:10 > 2:17:15But there is also a need to address how Parliament arrived at this
2:17:15 > 2:17:19situation. How a culture of tolerance towards bullying and
2:17:19 > 2:17:23sexual harassment became embedded and let substantially unchallenged
2:17:23 > 2:17:28until now. Very few people who come into political life at whatever
2:17:28 > 2:17:34level and would have the capacity in this building to work in Parliament,
2:17:34 > 2:17:40very few are bad people and most are appalled about the culture that has
2:17:40 > 2:17:48been exposed. So how have we let this happen close like after all,
2:17:48 > 2:17:52MPs are already subject to the House of Commons code of conduct will stop
2:17:52 > 2:17:56as employers we are already covered by employment law and there is the
2:17:56 > 2:18:00respect policy there to protect staff of the House. It is clear
2:18:00 > 2:18:04however that there needs to be a wider and continuing discussion
2:18:04 > 2:18:09about the positive attitudes and kinds of behaviour that we want to
2:18:09 > 2:18:15promote in Parliament and in public life and what the values and
2:18:15 > 2:18:17principles are upon which those positive attitudes and behaviours
2:18:17 > 2:18:24should be based. The remit of the public administration Constitutional
2:18:24 > 2:18:30affairs Committee which I chair includes oversight of the Committee
2:18:30 > 2:18:32and public web, ministerial code, civil service code and special
2:18:32 > 2:18:38advisers code and the workers concerned with leadership and
2:18:38 > 2:18:42governance in the civil service and public bodies so we have done a lot
2:18:42 > 2:18:47of work on this area. In December they submitted evidence to the
2:18:47 > 2:18:52working group showing drawing on work it has carried out in other
2:18:52 > 2:18:57areas. This was in the form of the letter to the Leader of the House
2:18:57 > 2:19:00which might right honourable friend very kindly acknowledged was not
2:19:00 > 2:19:03included amongst the record of written submissions received by the
2:19:03 > 2:19:06group and I know it was substantially discussed and I'm
2:19:06 > 2:19:12grateful to the spokesman for the opposition for drawing attention to
2:19:12 > 2:19:18it. Some of the reasons for our failures are practical and
2:19:18 > 2:19:22procedural. The working group has made great strides to address these.
2:19:22 > 2:19:29However it is also clear that there is confusion among MPs and others
2:19:29 > 2:19:32about the behaviour should be subject to public scrutiny. And what
2:19:32 > 2:19:37should be regarded as entirely private. As we argued in our
2:19:37 > 2:19:42submission to the Parliamentary commission standards review of the
2:19:42 > 2:19:46House of Commons code of conduct last year this commission is not
2:19:46 > 2:19:52resolved by our own current Commons code. Far from it. As PACAC set out,
2:19:52 > 2:20:01in fact, I was there is a fundamental ambiguity as to whether
2:20:01 > 2:20:06our Commons code of conduct is intended to function as a set of
2:20:06 > 2:20:09principles which govern the whole of members behaviour which would
2:20:09 > 2:20:14naturally extend to a degree into private sphere of MPs conduct or
2:20:14 > 2:20:21whether it is intended simply as a set of regulations which are mostly
2:20:21 > 2:20:26about financial disclosures relating only to an MP's public role. And in
2:20:26 > 2:20:30fact the 2015 code states that it does not seek to regulate what
2:20:30 > 2:20:35members do in their private and personal lives and yet it is clear
2:20:35 > 2:20:37from these recent controversies that it is not always possible to keep
2:20:37 > 2:20:44the two are separate as many of us would like. The risk is now that
2:20:44 > 2:20:50this new behaviour code will be once again mainly concerned with rules
2:20:50 > 2:20:55and regulations and new procedures for enforcement and that this is
2:20:55 > 2:21:00just patched onto the present system which has manifestly failed in at
2:21:00 > 2:21:02least one of its main objectives, which is to promote public
2:21:02 > 2:21:06confidence in the standards we observe in Parliament we should not
2:21:06 > 2:21:13be surprised if problems continue to rise. The working group is right to
2:21:13 > 2:21:18promote a system of training to support the new behaviour code. I
2:21:18 > 2:21:21think there is going to be some problems persuading some of our
2:21:21 > 2:21:23colleagues that they should be subject to such training and I will
2:21:23 > 2:21:29come to that point in a moment. It is easy to put into a document like
2:21:29 > 2:21:34this but the practicalities of persuading people to participate,
2:21:34 > 2:21:38but what about extending that to training about what the seven
2:21:38 > 2:21:44principles of public life are actually intended to mean in our
2:21:44 > 2:21:51lives and of all the public figures in this place? I give way.I can't
2:21:51 > 2:21:54quite keep waiting until he tells you whether or not he will agree
2:21:54 > 2:21:58that in order to persuade colleagues to undertake some training, some
2:21:58 > 2:22:01kind of sanctions might concentrate people's minds. For example having
2:22:01 > 2:22:08paid out or something similar.I am so much more in favour of persuasion
2:22:08 > 2:22:14than coercion. And in the end can I just tell the honourable lady you
2:22:14 > 2:22:20can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink. You could
2:22:20 > 2:22:24force MPs to attend a training session but what kind of attitude
2:22:24 > 2:22:28would they have two words that training if they did not feel it was
2:22:28 > 2:22:34something they wanted to do. Just take a step back and think about how
2:22:34 > 2:22:40we want to do this. I do agree with her. Unless we promote conversation
2:22:40 > 2:22:45and understanding about the principles and values that should
2:22:45 > 2:22:48guide behaviour, the risk is confusion about what is acceptable
2:22:48 > 2:22:56or not will persist. Rules and regulations are of course important
2:22:56 > 2:23:00but PACAC's work has shown so often that when rules are not underpinned
2:23:00 > 2:23:02by clear principles and values which are understood, discussed and talked
2:23:02 > 2:23:08about, the outcome is a preoccupation with compliance with
2:23:08 > 2:23:13the rules rather than upholding but reflects the values and principles
2:23:13 > 2:23:19that we want to see upheld. The road to damnation, the road to damnation
2:23:19 > 2:23:25is all too congested these days with people who argue as conduct was,
2:23:25 > 2:23:33could, within the rule, unquote.I am very much enjoying his comments
2:23:33 > 2:23:39and it is what we can do to improve the culture of this place and I
2:23:39 > 2:23:42wholeheartedly endorse his suggestion of training on the simple
2:23:42 > 2:23:49principles of public life. I think we probably need some sanctions in
2:23:49 > 2:23:52training but we need a different way of looking at it, there is an
2:23:52 > 2:23:54arrogance people have and they seem to take the view that they didn't
2:23:54 > 2:23:58need training as a learning should be something that we stop at the age
2:23:58 > 2:24:01of 18 when we leave full-time education rather than something we
2:24:01 > 2:24:06should continually aim to find out more and work out how to do our job
2:24:06 > 2:24:08and fulfil responsibilities better, continual learning and continual
2:24:08 > 2:24:16training.I couldn't agree more with the honourable lady and they so much
2:24:16 > 2:24:20want there to win this argument and hearts and minds with this idyllic
2:24:20 > 2:24:28rather than have to resort to coercion which would be so
2:24:28 > 2:24:32counter-productive in terms of what she really wants to be achieved,
2:24:32 > 2:24:40because to avoid just being preoccupied with compliance in the
2:24:40 > 2:24:44future, but the regulations and the principles and values that we won't
2:24:44 > 2:24:49behaviour to reflect must be clearly set out and adjudicated. Perhaps
2:24:49 > 2:24:53only a breach of the rules attracts sanction but nevertheless there
2:24:53 > 2:24:58needs to be some authority and we suggest in respect of MPs the
2:24:58 > 2:25:01Parliamentary Commissioner for standards who will at least call
2:25:01 > 2:25:04that people who are failing to live up to the principles and values we
2:25:04 > 2:25:08have all signed up to. They also argued in our submission that the
2:25:08 > 2:25:13rules should be adjudicated by a separate person with appropriate
2:25:13 > 2:25:17legal expertise and the appointment of legal advice the Parliamentary
2:25:17 > 2:25:21Commissioner for standards is a really good step in that direction
2:25:21 > 2:25:24and in fact the Parliamentary Commissioner for standards has one
2:25:24 > 2:25:28of the thought leaders is perhaps one of the more important than her
2:25:28 > 2:25:33role as adjudicator of rules.
2:25:33 > 2:25:36The working group recognises the need for comprehensive training for
2:25:36 > 2:25:41MPs, peers and staff to help them understand harassment and sexual
2:25:41 > 2:25:48abuse and to assist professional practice and members in their
2:25:48 > 2:26:00positions and employers. It is essential to
2:26:03 > 2:26:08who will not have the authority to carry out that kind of training that
2:26:08 > 2:26:13the honourable lady referred to earlier. The culture of an
2:26:13 > 2:26:19organisation is the responsibility of its leaders. We parliamentarians
2:26:19 > 2:26:25must be the champions of change or will not happen. And we must be held
2:26:25 > 2:26:28accountable for its success. We cannot delegate this vital
2:26:28 > 2:26:32government's function to anyone else, and normal parliament secure
2:26:32 > 2:26:39public trust if we seem incapable of exercising effective governance. I
2:26:39 > 2:26:46give way.I wondered what his concerns are about the standards
2:26:46 > 2:26:50committee and the role of the standards committee when it comes to
2:26:50 > 2:26:54identifying what is relevant sanction? Because the standards
2:26:54 > 2:27:00committee is made up of some MPs are least, it could be open to the
2:27:00 > 2:27:04accusation of MPs marking their own Hallmark, is essentially it is MPs
2:27:04 > 2:27:13who will make your own decision over whether a colleague is expelled long
2:27:13 > 2:27:20enough.All of these are good ideas, in terms of marking our own
2:27:20 > 2:27:24Hallmark, I think this is an unavoidable consequence of the
2:27:24 > 2:27:29constitutional position of this House and the other place. But what
2:27:29 > 2:27:37must be much more explicit is the advice on which we are marking our
2:27:37 > 2:27:41own Hallmark, and that is why I think having legal advice for the
2:27:41 > 2:27:45parliamentary commission over standards is important, and in the
2:27:45 > 2:27:49end having someone who simply adjudicates or provides an
2:27:49 > 2:27:53adjudication on far clearer legal principles by someone who has
2:27:53 > 2:28:00juridical experience of judging evidence and drills, someone like a
2:28:00 > 2:28:04judge, rather than this vague arrangement we have at the moment.
2:28:04 > 2:28:08That is not to criticise any past or present parliamentary commissioner
2:28:08 > 2:28:11for standards, it is just we asked the person to take on the
2:28:11 > 2:28:18responsibility to adjudicate on rules and evidence they may not
2:28:18 > 2:28:22actually have much training and experience to do so. It is not a
2:28:22 > 2:28:28qualification for the job, it is only one of them, rather than the
2:28:28 > 2:28:34qualification. I hope that answers the question. On the instruction of
2:28:34 > 2:28:36an independent complaints and grievance policy to underpin the
2:28:36 > 2:28:42behaviour code, I am delighted the working group has recognised the
2:28:42 > 2:28:46need to make sure behaviour can be addressed effectively. They have
2:28:46 > 2:28:51also recognised appropriate support is available for complainants and
2:28:51 > 2:28:55alleged perpetrators and crucially the need for an HR service for MPs
2:28:55 > 2:29:00and peers staff. I would like to endorse the conclusions, the latter
2:29:00 > 2:29:05of which was included in the working group. -- submission to the working
2:29:05 > 2:29:16group to the recent scandal is in large part about a failure of our
2:29:16 > 2:29:20own governments. This stems from a degree of a field by Parliament to
2:29:20 > 2:29:25establish means by which we can be more mindful of ourselves as an
2:29:25 > 2:29:31institution. As always, every action there is are crying for more
2:29:31 > 2:29:35comprehensive rules and tougher sanctions against those who break
2:29:35 > 2:29:39them, which is undoubtedly important. Good governance is also
2:29:39 > 2:29:42however about much more than this, and we now have an opportunity to
2:29:42 > 2:29:47have a much more positive conversation about what values we
2:29:47 > 2:29:53want to promote and that we expect public leaders to live by them. They
2:29:53 > 2:29:56hope the proposed behaviour code will clearly set out these
2:29:56 > 2:30:01principles and values and that the review and scrutiny of the new
2:30:01 > 2:30:09system's success will assess how successfully the principles and
2:30:09 > 2:30:14values are embedded in attitude and behaviour. This reform also needs to
2:30:14 > 2:30:19be properly integrated into reformed House of Commons code of conduct,
2:30:19 > 2:30:23and I know my right honourable friend has said there will be
2:30:23 > 2:30:30changes to the code as a consequence to this. My right honourable friend
2:30:30 > 2:30:32the Leader of the House emphasised how the working group agrees that
2:30:32 > 2:30:38there should be a review of the recommendations once implemented.
2:30:38 > 2:30:42The recommendation is that this should be overseen by a joint
2:30:42 > 2:30:45committee of both houses, which should also include representatives
2:30:45 > 2:30:49of unions and employees, organisations like the working
2:30:49 > 2:30:55group, and it should cover the codes of conduct of both houses. If such a
2:30:55 > 2:30:59review is not conducted and we fail to integrate the new arrangements
2:30:59 > 2:31:03fully with the existing arrangements in both houses, I feel we will not
2:31:03 > 2:31:08have established a robust system for the future that we all wished to
2:31:08 > 2:31:16see.Thank you, it is a pleasure to follow the honourable gentleman. I
2:31:16 > 2:31:21always seem to follow him with debates in this House, which is
2:31:21 > 2:31:25probably how it should be given his thoughtful contributions. I want to
2:31:25 > 2:31:32give about -- discuss a couple of the issues. Can I thank the Leader
2:31:32 > 2:31:35of the House and congratulate her for the state leadership she offered
2:31:35 > 2:31:40throughout the working group, she mentioned 100 hours, and I looking
2:31:40 > 2:31:45at my colleagues behind me and I have to say it was not the most
2:31:45 > 2:31:48peaceful 100 hours throughout the sessions, and there was a fractious
2:31:48 > 2:31:53debate around some of the issues, but I think this is a solid
2:31:53 > 2:31:58cross-party piece of work, and I have to concede, I do not think in
2:31:58 > 2:32:05my 17 years in the House but I have been involved in a piece of work
2:32:05 > 2:32:10that is so comprehensively looked at, which is tribute to all members.
2:32:10 > 2:32:15Mainly those in the chamber here today, in the way they diligently
2:32:15 > 2:32:18approach the work underway it is done. It is a privilege to be part
2:32:18 > 2:32:23of this working group and I hope to have played some part in designing
2:32:23 > 2:32:28this hugely important report. I also want to pay thanks to the many
2:32:28 > 2:32:32witnesses that came in front of the working group and the staff that
2:32:32 > 2:32:36played a vital role in helping provide testimony to the working
2:32:36 > 2:32:43group. I want to thank the Secretariat, some of whom are here,
2:32:43 > 2:32:54regarding this debate and produced what is a very readable report. It
2:32:54 > 2:32:58is also a new way of working, and possibly they most innovative
2:32:58 > 2:33:07feature is we have the staff from the House on the working group, and
2:33:07 > 2:33:11I think what that does is give added legitimacy to this report and
2:33:11 > 2:33:18hopefully go a long way to ensure it is taken up with a great deal of
2:33:18 > 2:33:26confidence from the staff who worked on the report. I hope that in the
2:33:26 > 2:33:31future we involve the staff in the work, particularly when it comes to
2:33:31 > 2:33:34House issues. We need to hear the voices of the staff because as we
2:33:34 > 2:33:39found out in the report, they have solid contributions to make about
2:33:39 > 2:33:46how the House functions. I believe this is a significant and ambitious
2:33:46 > 2:33:52piece of work which will hopefully help to redefine the culture in the
2:33:52 > 2:33:55Westminster workplace, and for me the most important part of this
2:33:55 > 2:34:01report is the first sentence of the first paragraph which reads, all
2:34:01 > 2:34:05those who work for or with Parliament have a right to dignity
2:34:05 > 2:34:10at work. Something you would feel does not need to be said, but it
2:34:10 > 2:34:14underpins everything throughout this report, and I believe it cannot be
2:34:14 > 2:34:22said enough and reiterated enough as we go forward. If we look at the
2:34:22 > 2:34:25parliamentary state, -- estate, 50,000 people work in and around the
2:34:25 > 2:34:31estate. You have we are done demanding members of parliament,
2:34:31 > 2:34:36even weirder House of Lords, and the staff who provide support so we can
2:34:36 > 2:34:40stand here and make these grand speeches and impress our
2:34:40 > 2:34:45constituents. It is our staff that provide us. So it is full of very
2:34:45 > 2:34:47diverse and sometimes we're done strange people, we would have to
2:34:47 > 2:34:55conclude and concede. There is one thing in common that should unite
2:34:55 > 2:34:58everyone in this estate, and that is the conviction that everyone who
2:34:58 > 2:35:06works here has the right to expect an environment free from bullying
2:35:06 > 2:35:09and harassment, especially sexual harassment. There should be zero
2:35:09 > 2:35:16tolerance for any inappropriate behaviour. And this report was not
2:35:16 > 2:35:21created in a vacuum, it was a response to some very serious
2:35:21 > 2:35:27allegations that emerged at the end of last year, when all parties got
2:35:27 > 2:35:29together and decided something had to be done and this had to be
2:35:29 > 2:35:37addressed. It was such an issue that something had to be done. It is also
2:35:37 > 2:35:47part of the wider part of debate going on following the Hardy when
2:35:47 > 2:35:56steam allegations in Hollywood. We are at a critical juncture about the
2:35:56 > 2:36:05debate. -- Harvey Weinstein. Have to decide what is and is not acceptable
2:36:05 > 2:36:10and make an important contribution to dignity in work. It is absolutely
2:36:10 > 2:36:20essential that Parliament leads the way. This is the forum of national
2:36:20 > 2:36:24debate, and we would be shirking in our responsibility if we did not put
2:36:24 > 2:36:27out the strongest possible statement that it is not acceptable in this
2:36:27 > 2:36:34place as it should be unacceptable in any workplace across the United
2:36:34 > 2:36:37Kingdom. If we did not lead the way and put in place procedures and
2:36:37 > 2:36:43processes to deal with our own issues, we would be letting down the
2:36:43 > 2:36:46people we serve across this country. We should set the example and I
2:36:46 > 2:36:53believe this document does that. It sets out clearly our commitment to
2:36:53 > 2:36:59put our own House in order. We have sort of got a sense of how big scale
2:36:59 > 2:37:05this problem is in our particular work place because as part of our
2:37:05 > 2:37:09work in the working group we commissioned a short survey asking
2:37:09 > 2:37:14people in Parliament about the experiences, and we got a very solid
2:37:14 > 2:37:19response from members of staff who worked across the estate, when asked
2:37:19 > 2:37:26about the experiences regarding bullying. 1377 responses. The
2:37:26 > 2:37:40results of the survey, combined by the survey done by Unite gave us a
2:37:40 > 2:37:45sense of what was going on, and some results were shocking. It revealed
2:37:45 > 2:37:48that the bullying, harassment and sexual harassment had been a feature
2:37:48 > 2:37:57in the lives of so many people who work in Parliament. 39% of all
2:37:57 > 2:38:00respondents have reported an experience of sexual harassment or
2:38:00 > 2:38:03bullying in the past year. 19% reported experience of sexual
2:38:03 > 2:38:11harassment including sexually inappropriate behaviour. I have
2:38:11 > 2:38:16received an e-mail from the young woman's trust, an important e-mail
2:38:16 > 2:38:20which I saw too late to include in this part of my speech, but it
2:38:20 > 2:38:23emphasised clearly that there are issues in workplaces right across
2:38:23 > 2:38:27the country, and the figures the sound in the workplace is that young
2:38:27 > 2:38:36women currently work in is similar to what we found in the House of
2:38:36 > 2:38:47Commons. What we have heard is a new shared code of behaviour which will
2:38:47 > 2:38:50underpin the new complaints and grievance policy. What we will have
2:38:50 > 2:38:57is a new transparent system that will apply natural justice at its
2:38:57 > 2:39:05core. It will be independent of the political parties, and that is a key
2:39:05 > 2:39:11feature. There have been concerns raised about the political parties'
2:39:11 > 2:39:17ability to do this, and I think all parties are just bad at doing this
2:39:17 > 2:39:22stuff. What we have several unresolved cases of people who have
2:39:22 > 2:39:26been charged with all sorts of activities, who have still not had
2:39:26 > 2:39:32this how to properly, -- had it heard properly, and there is a lot
2:39:32 > 2:39:37of discussion about the failure to take this up because of the fear
2:39:37 > 2:39:42that the political parties will try to defend and protect their own
2:39:42 > 2:39:44political interest, so an independent route is therefore
2:39:44 > 2:39:48absolutely essential. Partied it will still be available for people
2:39:48 > 2:39:54who feel it is more important for them, but I feel that the
2:39:54 > 2:40:01independent route will be the one routinely used, and if anyone raises
2:40:01 > 2:40:04concerns it will be through the independent route that it will be
2:40:04 > 2:40:08taken. Another feature I found helpful is the proposal that all our
2:40:08 > 2:40:15staff secure... I was quite shocked there was not that facility
2:40:15 > 2:40:19available for members of staff, and it is essential, given we are going
2:40:19 > 2:40:25to go forward with new codes of behaviour and procedures about
2:40:25 > 2:40:28grievance resolving, that the supporters going to be given to
2:40:28 > 2:40:33stuff. I think this is an important new innovation which I am certain
2:40:33 > 2:40:40will be warmly received by members of staff throughout the House.
2:40:41 > 2:40:43It is the concerns about sexual harassment that led to this group
2:40:43 > 2:40:49being set up will stop in a report we recognised that sexual harassment
2:40:49 > 2:40:54is for the bleak different to other forms of inappropriate behaviour and
2:40:54 > 2:41:02requires and definitions, deceive you as. This new confidential steam
2:41:02 > 2:41:04will provide practical and emotional support to any complainant and
2:41:04 > 2:41:11respect absolutely that complainants have confidentiality and have no
2:41:11 > 2:41:13obligation to report criminal offences to the police although they
2:41:13 > 2:41:18will be supported if they feel it is appropriate to do so. All reports
2:41:18 > 2:41:24will be handled by a specialist independent sexual violence adviser
2:41:24 > 2:41:27who will be a single point of contact throughout the seedings and
2:41:27 > 2:41:30I think the way this has been designed will give confidence to
2:41:30 > 2:41:36anybody who wants to bring forward and respect confidentiality and the
2:41:36 > 2:41:39proper road mapping of how complaints are going to be conducted
2:41:39 > 2:41:46and progressed. Sanctions are important. I was disappointed when
2:41:46 > 2:41:52over Christmas a draft report was leaked to the press and the way that
2:41:52 > 2:41:56the press sought to portray present this was nothing overdone and
2:41:56 > 2:42:02apology that slap on the wrist that members if they were found to be
2:42:02 > 2:42:05guilty in respect of any transgression committed, but there
2:42:05 > 2:42:09was never anything of the sort. We have put forward a range of
2:42:09 > 2:42:14sanctions which will be in place from resolution dispute resolving
2:42:14 > 2:42:20where there might be necessary for an apology but it goes on and
2:42:20 > 2:42:26includes right up to the possibility of recall of an MP and expulsion of
2:42:26 > 2:42:30a member from the House of Lords and the full range of sanctions is
2:42:30 > 2:42:36included in the report. Lastly I want to talk about the culture of
2:42:36 > 2:42:40that house because this issue has come up again and again and it is
2:42:40 > 2:42:44really important that we have a look at this. I hate the culture in this
2:42:44 > 2:42:49House. I could never been bond of being in the Commons. I know some of
2:42:49 > 2:42:53my friends think it is a fantastic place to live and work but I was
2:42:53 > 2:42:56buying it a little bit uncomfortable. It is maybe the
2:42:56 > 2:43:01Scottish nationalist in me that creates a little bit, that grew
2:43:01 > 2:43:06grapes. This House has a peculiar historic culture that practically
2:43:06 > 2:43:12loses patriarchy and abuse of power. I had a female friend in the House
2:43:12 > 2:43:15just a few months ago and was very conscious of these issues and she
2:43:15 > 2:43:19told me that the portraits in this place were practically seeming to
2:43:19 > 2:43:23harass you because the way the images are all set up and the
2:43:23 > 2:43:28defining feature of this has are embedded in this historic patriarchy
2:43:28 > 2:43:32that we have in this place. Our workplace is a weird bastion of
2:43:32 > 2:43:39privilege where we call friends and strangers and the legislation is
2:43:39 > 2:43:49designed in a sea of blues with the bar is that we have and the...He is
2:43:49 > 2:43:54making a good point about the sea of alcohol in this place and witty
2:43:54 > 2:43:59share my concerns, I was in an event at one o'clock this afternoon and
2:43:59 > 2:44:04wine was being served, does he consider the appropriate?I am
2:44:04 > 2:44:09grateful for her to raising this, I want to come evidence that is
2:44:09 > 2:44:14compelling that we came across and that is from Sarah child who --
2:44:14 > 2:44:20Sarah Giles. A fantastic report that somehow got to the part about how
2:44:20 > 2:44:27this plays does business, the environment we work and made some
2:44:27 > 2:44:34practical suggestions about how this is, don't try to suggest to me that
2:44:34 > 2:44:41it is good working practice, that it allows people getting home to their
2:44:41 > 2:44:46families, it is nonsense, we do it because we are committed to doing
2:44:46 > 2:44:49it, I don't think anybody would convince me that this would be good
2:44:49 > 2:44:55practice. Dates back to the example of this place, we should lead the
2:44:55 > 2:44:59way in terms of good normal working practice. In Scotland we have
2:44:59 > 2:45:01designed our Parliament round the normal working day and if we should
2:45:01 > 2:45:07do it so could we, as we go forward I think we will continue to engage
2:45:07 > 2:45:10the work of Sarah, I couldn't commend her report another when it
2:45:10 > 2:45:13comes to having a look at the culture and environment of this
2:45:13 > 2:45:21place.I think the member but giving way and he is making some very
2:45:21 > 2:45:26powerful points. With the number of me that everyone in this chamber, we
2:45:26 > 2:45:30are here today are very important job and responsible job, we are
2:45:30 > 2:45:35making the laws which dictate and set the parameters for people right
2:45:35 > 2:45:39across the United Kingdom and is the knot at the very heart of this we
2:45:39 > 2:45:44can talk about the culture and environment and the bars, but there
2:45:44 > 2:45:47is an important issue about personal responsibility, the individuals
2:45:47 > 2:45:52across all of the parties should know better, take personal
2:45:52 > 2:45:56responsibility and should act in an appropriate and respectful way to
2:45:56 > 2:45:58everybody regardless of the working hours and regardless of the bars and
2:45:58 > 2:46:10the restaurants.I must take that as a personal chastisement. Sometimes
2:46:10 > 2:46:16enjoy a pint of the guest ales in the strangers bar. The honourable
2:46:16 > 2:46:19lady is right, it is all about personal behaviour but we have an
2:46:19 > 2:46:23unusual workplace. I don't know any other Mac workplace in my
2:46:23 > 2:46:27constituency which would have six buyers as a feature of its normal
2:46:27 > 2:46:31business, I think we have to recognise that because of the way
2:46:31 > 2:46:35this is setup, the way the whole designed it can lead to difficult
2:46:35 > 2:46:40issues and we begin to see in the course the past year, the member per
2:46:40 > 2:46:43Essex and Harwich and West Essex remembered how historically we got
2:46:43 > 2:46:49to this place but it is a little to do with how this is as had been
2:46:49 > 2:46:52constricted and designed in the way we do business so I think all these
2:46:52 > 2:46:56things are perhaps, I am glad I had got onto this because you mentioned
2:46:56 > 2:47:01training in his contribution and we spent hours and hours discussing the
2:47:01 > 2:47:05issue of training and I think we got to a reasonable place where a
2:47:05 > 2:47:09consensual view started to emerge about how we should report this in
2:47:09 > 2:47:13the working group report. I am of the view that the should be
2:47:13 > 2:47:17compulsory training and I actually supported the idea that they would
2:47:17 > 2:47:22be a kitemark given to members of Parliament who have been the
2:47:22 > 2:47:26training, members of staff who are looking round about who they should
2:47:26 > 2:47:28work for will see a kitemark attached to a member of parliament
2:47:28 > 2:47:33knowing they had been through training and they would have a
2:47:33 > 2:47:36better expectation of a good workplace environment as opposed to
2:47:36 > 2:47:43somebody who rejects draining out of hand and weather might be issues, as
2:47:43 > 2:47:45figure was a good suggestion I couldn't convince the House. It
2:47:45 > 2:47:50actually came from the staff represented on the group. I think as
2:47:50 > 2:47:56a way forward, training would be mandatory for new members of
2:47:56 > 2:48:00Parliament, the honourable gentleman makes a good point. Most members of
2:48:00 > 2:48:02parliament here have never been employed as before. I was never an
2:48:02 > 2:48:12employer. Those of us who come from a more modest background when it
2:48:12 > 2:48:15comes to these issues are perhaps never been employers before. I
2:48:15 > 2:48:19didn't know how to manage staff. He had to learn through experience and
2:48:19 > 2:48:23do it on the job. I think there is something really helpful and useful
2:48:23 > 2:48:28about being given that training, not just about issues to do with quality
2:48:28 > 2:48:31but issues to do with out to be a good employer and I think there is
2:48:31 > 2:48:34nothing wrong with that and they welcome the recommendation that in
2:48:34 > 2:48:40the next Parliament members will be obliged to go through training.
2:48:40 > 2:48:42Sometimes the people who will rush to go to training who are those of
2:48:42 > 2:48:47us who are interested and I have no issue about taking training and I
2:48:47 > 2:48:51look forward to it but is how about how we dragged the old dinosaurs and
2:48:51 > 2:48:55those who have a more traditional view of the workplace environment
2:48:55 > 2:48:58that might go to influence some of their approaches to play members of
2:48:58 > 2:49:01staff and it is how we get them and maybe that kitemark issue would be
2:49:01 > 2:49:06the way that divides people who are prepared to have important quality
2:49:06 > 2:49:13planning...I think he may, to encourage them because I know we
2:49:13 > 2:49:17have been so many draft of this report on this issue but the good
2:49:17 > 2:49:23employer standard idea is is in paragraph 81 and 79 and I was very
2:49:23 > 2:49:28happy we did get to the place of saying until such time training is
2:49:28 > 2:49:32mandatory, records will be publicly available which might help focus
2:49:32 > 2:49:39minds before compulsion is actually there.There is a kitemark related
2:49:39 > 2:49:42issue, may be slightly different to what was eventually agreed but they
2:49:42 > 2:49:50do accept that. I think it is a welcome addition to this report.
2:49:50 > 2:49:57This is a really important report and I think it was certainly worth
2:49:57 > 2:50:01spending 100 hours in the course of those last few months and I see this
2:50:01 > 2:50:05as being more than just a report for this House, a think this could be a
2:50:05 > 2:50:11blueprint for complex workplaces red Prosser country and possibly be the
2:50:11 > 2:50:17start -- right across the workplace and the culture of this place. There
2:50:17 > 2:50:23is no going back. I will give way.I thank him very much. I am fascinated
2:50:23 > 2:50:29by his remarks on training and I agree with about 99% of what he is
2:50:29 > 2:50:32saying but I wonder if he could comment further for us on what his
2:50:32 > 2:50:36thoughts about when training is being taken how often people should
2:50:36 > 2:50:40renew and undergo that training because we all know that workplaces
2:50:40 > 2:50:43change very fast and legislation changes faster was considered
2:50:43 > 2:50:46acceptable maybe ten or 15 ago isn't any more and I would be interested
2:50:46 > 2:50:52in those comments.It is not something we consider and she is
2:50:52 > 2:50:56right that such is the fast changing and evolving workplace environment
2:50:56 > 2:50:59that the should be a requirement for people to come back and refreshed
2:50:59 > 2:51:03because we are seeing new innovations and I look at colleagues
2:51:03 > 2:51:08and I can see any real objection to that and I think as we go forward it
2:51:08 > 2:51:12might be something we consider as we do a bold with this report. I will
2:51:12 > 2:51:20give way.Surely if we look outside this place, along with almost every
2:51:20 > 2:51:22other industry, there is something called continual professional
2:51:22 > 2:51:24development and of the dinosaurs don't like being dragged into that
2:51:24 > 2:51:30they know what the alternative is.A useful contribution. My workplace
2:51:30 > 2:51:34background was in a rock band so I am not all that familiar with some
2:51:34 > 2:51:38of the things that maybe have gone on in an industry before but I will
2:51:38 > 2:51:40take lessons from the honourable gentleman who nobody what he is
2:51:40 > 2:51:45talking about. I will conclude -- who seems to know what you're
2:51:45 > 2:51:48talking about. This is a helpful and worthwhile document. I believe there
2:51:48 > 2:51:52is no going back in the quest for equality. We have reached the
2:51:52 > 2:51:58defining point last year when all these issues starting to emerge in
2:51:58 > 2:52:03the range of societal campaigns online, people who just decided they
2:52:03 > 2:52:09had had enough, there is no going back and I hope that this report
2:52:09 > 2:52:14were maybe mark the beginning of the end of some of the horrible and
2:52:14 > 2:52:20appalling practices we have seen in this House over the years.I am
2:52:20 > 2:52:23grateful, it is a great pleasure to follow the honourable gentleman in a
2:52:23 > 2:52:30more reflective mood and sometimes displays and has, as I think if it's
2:52:30 > 2:52:35the serious subject matter and he dealt with it very seriously and
2:52:35 > 2:52:41that is a great pleasure to follow his comments. I also want to admire
2:52:41 > 2:52:44support -- add my support to the motion that the leader mood that is
2:52:44 > 2:52:49before us and they report that backs it up and the proposals. I just had
2:52:49 > 2:52:54a few things I wanted to add to the debate. Several colleagues have
2:52:54 > 2:52:59referenced the events of last year that triggered this particular set
2:52:59 > 2:53:06of proposals and work but I just want to put on record that actually
2:53:06 > 2:53:11when I became government Chief Whip in 2015, shortly after that there
2:53:11 > 2:53:17were a number of issues and has and this was an area of work which I had
2:53:17 > 2:53:22started in training on a cross-party basis working with all the parties
2:53:22 > 2:53:25in the House looking to see if we could improve the way this has dealt
2:53:25 > 2:53:31with some of these issues. Initially parties obviously have their own
2:53:31 > 2:53:37processes and for various reasons they don't command the confidence, I
2:53:37 > 2:53:41think either of members and I think members of my party weren't entirely
2:53:41 > 2:53:46comfortable processes that were controlled by political parties, and
2:53:46 > 2:53:50I think that was also the view that was expressed by people who worked
2:53:50 > 2:53:56in the House and those outside they didn't the confidence that a party
2:53:56 > 2:53:59run process even if it was a fantastic process it simply wouldn't
2:53:59 > 2:54:03have commanded the confidence and it was very clear from the views that
2:54:03 > 2:54:07were expressed to me both by colleagues, the conversations I had
2:54:07 > 2:54:12with members of other parties, and indeed the representatives of
2:54:12 > 2:54:18members of our staff that came to see me, but a house process covering
2:54:18 > 2:54:23all members of Parliament on a cross-party basis would be the best
2:54:23 > 2:54:30way of proceeding and we started, Mr Deputy Speaker, to set some of those
2:54:30 > 2:54:36processes in train and it was to my disappointment that the European
2:54:36 > 2:54:40Union referendum intervened and terminated the career of David
2:54:40 > 2:54:43Cameron and indeed myself in government and we weren't able to
2:54:43 > 2:54:50bring those processes to fruition, so I was actually very pleased, I
2:54:50 > 2:54:53wasn't pleased about why the leader of the House had to put these
2:54:53 > 2:54:57processes in place but I was very pleased that she responded so
2:54:57 > 2:55:02strongly to the events that took place last year. Both in parliament
2:55:02 > 2:55:08and outside it and actually put those processes and train and I was
2:55:08 > 2:55:11pleased it was done on a cross-party basis and I was pleased that all the
2:55:11 > 2:55:15parties took part in the process and we have come up with the
2:55:15 > 2:55:19comprehensive report which I have taken the trouble to study and I
2:55:19 > 2:55:31think that would be a step forward.
2:55:31 > 2:55:35I would like to thank the honourable member for gold Ford, who served as
2:55:35 > 2:55:41my executive, and working with me, she led many of these issues as part
2:55:41 > 2:55:44of the office. -- the honourable member for Gilford. Colleagues on
2:55:44 > 2:55:56this side of the House and the other side know
2:56:02 > 2:56:06that... She made it clear how strongly she takes these matters,
2:56:06 > 2:56:14and I wanted to make sure it was on the record that my banks were
2:56:14 > 2:56:18expressed for her efforts when she was deputy Chief Whip. Although it
2:56:18 > 2:56:22is clear from the things that have been talked about publicly and the
2:56:22 > 2:56:27responses to the survey that the honourable member mentioned,
2:56:27 > 2:56:34bullying and harassment affects all members of staff. It is indeed the
2:56:34 > 2:56:42case that it does affect female members of staff more severely than
2:56:42 > 2:56:47others, and if we are to get more women to be members of Parliament
2:56:47 > 2:56:52and work in this House and be treated as equals in dealing with
2:56:52 > 2:57:05this is incredibly important, but we're working to try to get more
2:57:05 > 2:57:09female members of conservative, and I am behind this because I think it
2:57:09 > 2:57:13will have that effect. I wanted to talk about furnace. When the report
2:57:13 > 2:57:18was first produced, there was some comment outside the House. -- about
2:57:18 > 2:57:28fairness. There was some comment about how the proposals mean the
2:57:28 > 2:57:32investigations take place in private without everything being published,
2:57:32 > 2:57:38but I think that is like most workplaces. In most places when
2:57:38 > 2:57:40someone makes a complaint about another employee, in the workplace
2:57:40 > 2:57:45the matters are not published in national newspapers, and I always
2:57:45 > 2:57:48thought in this House that it was true when we were going through the
2:57:48 > 2:57:52difficulties on expenses but a good test for members of Parliament is
2:57:52 > 2:57:59for us to be judged at least by the standards we expect of everyone
2:57:59 > 2:58:05else, so the processes that would be used for us to deal with complaints
2:58:05 > 2:58:11about bullying and harassment should be the same processes exist in
2:58:11 > 2:58:16up-to-the-minute workplaces, and those are ones you would not expect
2:58:16 > 2:58:21everything to be published in a national newspaper, but I do welcome
2:58:21 > 2:58:25the fact it refers in the report to the fact you have to recognise that
2:58:25 > 2:58:30sometimes when there are examples bullying and harassment, there
2:58:30 > 2:58:41patterns of behaviour and sometimes people need the confidence to come
2:58:41 > 2:58:43forward, and sometimes it is only when people are aware that there is
2:58:43 > 2:58:47an issue with someone's behaviour that they are willing to come
2:58:47 > 2:58:54forward. It is a difficult balance to get right, to protect the
2:58:54 > 2:58:58confidentiality and those who might be unfairly accused, but also for
2:58:58 > 2:59:03members of Parliament, we employ large numbers of staff, and if a
2:59:03 > 2:59:07member of Parliament has a complaint made against them and they are
2:59:07 > 2:59:10identified, it would not be difficult for newspapers to identify
2:59:10 > 2:59:15which of the members of staff had probably made the complaint, so
2:59:15 > 2:59:27having a disciplinary process... It is not helpful. The report is very
2:59:27 > 2:59:32welcome. I wanted to say something in response to what the honourable
2:59:32 > 2:59:37member said about the standards committee, I do think that her issue
2:59:37 > 2:59:44about marking our own homework would have been a reasonable point before
2:59:44 > 2:59:47lay members were added to the standards committee, but I think for
2:59:47 > 2:59:52members of the public, the fact that they are utterly members on the
2:59:52 > 2:59:55standards committee should give them the confidence that the members of
2:59:55 > 3:00:01Parliament on the standards committee cannot just decide things
3:00:01 > 3:00:07by standards they consider appropriate, and it is important
3:00:07 > 3:00:14they bring an outside valuable perspective.I am not 100% sure of
3:00:14 > 3:00:18my facts, but I am sure the lay members do not actually thought, so
3:00:18 > 3:00:22although I would agree that it is a great step forward that there are
3:00:22 > 3:00:26there, I have concerns that it will be MPs who are seen to be voting on
3:00:26 > 3:00:31the colleagues, even if we have had an independent and good procedure
3:00:31 > 3:00:36until that point, I still think it is a weakness.If you are talking
3:00:36 > 3:00:43about a serious sanction, and if we were talking about expelling the
3:00:43 > 3:00:47member of Parliament or suspending them for a period where conditions
3:00:47 > 3:00:54would kick in, that is a decision for the House, not the standards
3:00:54 > 3:00:58committee. The House would be furnished with a report from the
3:00:58 > 3:01:01parliamentary commissioner, and the report of the standards committee,
3:01:01 > 3:01:05and I think the change that was very valuable when we introduced lay
3:01:05 > 3:01:10members was members of the House would be aware that even if the
3:01:10 > 3:01:14member of Parliament on the committee had had a view, the lay
3:01:14 > 3:01:19members are able to have their views expressed in my report of the
3:01:19 > 3:01:22committee, and I see the chairman of the committee I think was nodding to
3:01:22 > 3:01:36that. Let me just complete the point and I will give way.
3:01:36 > 3:01:40So it is not just the views of members of Parliament going before
3:01:40 > 3:01:46the House, it is the views of the lake committee, so that can affect
3:01:46 > 3:01:53our views of what is and is not acceptable.He is right that lay
3:01:53 > 3:01:56members present when decisions are made gives the standards committee
3:01:56 > 3:02:04more authority, but there is something odd about the committee
3:02:04 > 3:02:10itself adjudicating about rules and evidence when that is something that
3:02:10 > 3:02:21should be done by a lawyer.
3:02:26 > 3:02:31To be told, this is the judgment, and if you overturn it your
3:02:31 > 3:02:36overturning a respectable opinion, on your head be it.I listen to do
3:02:36 > 3:02:41what he says, and I put a fair bit of weight on it given that he chairs
3:02:41 > 3:02:44the committee, I do not entirely agree, though. I have taken the
3:02:44 > 3:02:49trouble over the years with standards committee reports,
3:02:49 > 3:02:57particularly serious ones and to read the report of the parliamentary
3:02:57 > 3:03:04commissioner, and the thing that always struck me, I have often
3:03:04 > 3:03:06looked at how thorough the parliamentary commissioner has
3:03:06 > 3:03:11looked into, particularly serious allegations, and I have often
3:03:11 > 3:03:16thought to myself, if you were ever tempted not to uphold the standards
3:03:16 > 3:03:22of behaviour, you would not want to be subject to that level of scrutiny
3:03:22 > 3:03:28because it is fairly exacting. I do not know how many people have looked
3:03:28 > 3:03:34at this, but it has been looked at in some considerable detail. The
3:03:34 > 3:03:46report put before the committee are far and detailed, and when I have
3:03:46 > 3:03:50read the reports of the committee on standards, I have felt that they
3:03:50 > 3:03:55have been very balanced, tough and fear, and it is not clear when you
3:03:55 > 3:04:03read the reports of any bias coming into them from a particular party
3:04:03 > 3:04:07view of members of Parliament, I have always got the system is pretty
3:04:07 > 3:04:24good. I think the only gap was rectified by the addition of lay
3:04:34 > 3:04:40members I had a situation where there was one view, but the judge in
3:04:40 > 3:04:43court give a much harsher view, which completely undermines the
3:04:43 > 3:04:54authority of the system
3:04:58 > 3:05:03we have.I do not entirely agree, but I do not want to deviate from
3:05:03 > 3:05:08the debate on this into a wider debate about standards. My final
3:05:08 > 3:05:18point was actually about training and culture. I think the Member for
3:05:18 > 3:05:22Perth made a sensible point when he spoke about the backgrounds of
3:05:22 > 3:05:32members of Parliament. I will pick up slightly on his comments about
3:05:32 > 3:05:37assuming everyone on this side has a privileged background, which is not
3:05:37 > 3:05:43true, and I will not or him with the fact I was the first person to go to
3:05:43 > 3:05:46university and my father was a labourer, and we have not had any
3:05:46 > 3:05:54members of parliament in the family before. He makes a sensible point
3:05:54 > 3:05:59that members of Parliament have a very varied set of backgrounds. Some
3:05:59 > 3:06:04of us have employed significant amounts of people, some will have
3:06:04 > 3:06:10worked in a business grabbers, and experience of management teams, and
3:06:10 > 3:06:18others will have come -- in a business for others, and experience
3:06:18 > 3:06:20of management teams, others will have come in without that
3:06:20 > 3:06:30experience. Often mistakes are made not because of ill intent, but as my
3:06:30 > 3:06:35honourable friend said, members come with the best of intentions, but
3:06:35 > 3:06:48often do not have the skills, but it is about the expectations you have,
3:06:48 > 3:06:51and managing HR supports you can be better trained and better supported,
3:06:51 > 3:06:55but you also have to have someone to ask -- you also have someone to ask
3:06:55 > 3:06:57questions that they are challenging issues you're not comfortable
3:06:57 > 3:07:07dealing with, I think that is very valuable. I welcome the training in
3:07:07 > 3:07:11part of the induction process for new members of Parliament, and I do
3:07:11 > 3:07:16not think there was a massive gap between the honourable lady and my
3:07:16 > 3:07:20honourable friend, I do think everyone should go through the
3:07:20 > 3:07:24training, but the challenge is this, you can mandate that everyone goes
3:07:24 > 3:07:32through a training course, but you cannot mandate that the people who
3:07:32 > 3:07:35turn up will listen attentively and change their behaviour having
3:07:35 > 3:07:40attended the training, and it seems to me that the people least likely
3:07:40 > 3:07:45to go to the training of those most in need of it, so the challenge is
3:07:45 > 3:07:52to do what the honourable lady said, which is to persuade people that
3:07:52 > 3:07:56they should go on the training and listen to the training, change their
3:07:56 > 3:08:03behaviour. I do think the proposals set out about publicising whether
3:08:03 > 3:08:07people have been on the training, so the is peer pressure that people
3:08:07 > 3:08:14feel they should go, and the staff they might want to hire puts
3:08:14 > 3:08:18pressure on them is a good sign, but for new members of parliament, it
3:08:18 > 3:08:23should be the standard set of training that every Parliament
3:08:23 > 3:08:29undertakes solely undertake the expectations correctly. That leads
3:08:29 > 3:08:32to my second half of the point, which is about the culture of this
3:08:32 > 3:08:46place. On the debates we have had, I was perhaps fortunate in having
3:08:46 > 3:08:49worked for two businesses which took management and how they treated
3:08:49 > 3:08:53their people very seriously, and I went on training courses about how
3:08:53 > 3:08:57you manage people, how you set expectations and what was expected,
3:08:57 > 3:09:05and staff members were empowered to speak up and it was recognised
3:09:05 > 3:09:09speaking up was the right thing to do about a range of issues, whether
3:09:09 > 3:09:14it was about how they ran the business or behaved, and that set
3:09:14 > 3:09:18the right sort of culture. That is not always the case. I was thinking
3:09:18 > 3:09:23through some of the things that have happened over the last few months,
3:09:23 > 3:09:28and there have been examples of behaviour, and people have said
3:09:28 > 3:09:32things like, this sort of behaviour was acceptable a few years ago, and
3:09:32 > 3:09:37things seem to have changed. I was thinking back to when I started my
3:09:37 > 3:09:41working life when I left university, which tragically is a lot longer ago
3:09:41 > 3:09:48than I care to remember, 1991, and I was thinking through some of the
3:09:48 > 3:09:51specific examples we have read about, whether it is members of this
3:09:51 > 3:09:56House or outside, and you have heard people say that this sort of
3:09:56 > 3:10:02behaviour used to be acceptable, and I got back to when I started 27
3:10:02 > 3:10:06years ago, and all sort of things were not acceptable 27 years ago.
3:10:06 > 3:10:10The difference was that 27 years ago and more recently, people used to
3:10:10 > 3:10:15get away with behaving like that. The thing that has changed is not
3:10:15 > 3:10:19that the behaviours are no longer acceptable, actually they never wear
3:10:19 > 3:10:25acceptable, the difference now is people cannot get away with them,
3:10:25 > 3:10:29which is right, and that is an improvement. What we are trying to
3:10:29 > 3:10:32deliver with the training and the change of culture is that everyone
3:10:32 > 3:10:37accepts that not only are those sort of behaviour is not acceptable, no
3:10:37 > 3:10:53one is going to let them get away with it.
3:10:53 > 3:10:58It changes the culture it will have taken a huge step forward. I am very
3:10:58 > 3:11:04happy to support the motion. And coming into the House.Can I just
3:11:04 > 3:11:08say I still want to make sure that we get equal time. We are going to
3:11:08 > 3:11:1420 26. If we all work for about ten minutes. It will be very helpful.
3:11:14 > 3:11:22Could I first of all say that the Committee on Standards has discussed
3:11:22 > 3:11:26the report and authorised me to write to the Leader of the House
3:11:26 > 3:11:31setting up their unanimous views that the committee welcomes the
3:11:31 > 3:11:38report strongly. It supports its commitment to zero tolerance on
3:11:38 > 3:11:42sexual harassment, bullying and harassment in the Parliamentary
3:11:42 > 3:11:51community. Members will have seen... A member of a table that was signed
3:11:51 > 3:12:03by all that people. We were a little surprised, I have to say not to have
3:12:03 > 3:12:14been mentioned in the motion. Could I say to the Leader of the House,
3:12:14 > 3:12:18I'm sure I could say this on behalf of all members of the committee, I
3:12:18 > 3:12:23welcomed what was said earlier in relation to the Standards Committee
3:12:23 > 3:12:29and the Parliamentary commission being involved in future work. The
3:12:29 > 3:12:33House ought to take note that we are currently performing a long planned
3:12:33 > 3:12:38review of the code of conduct which will be announced in due course.
3:12:38 > 3:12:41Obviously the current review will be informed by the working groups
3:12:41 > 3:12:50report. As members have said, the committee is unique in that it
3:12:50 > 3:12:58contains lay members. Can I just react to one or two exchanges that
3:12:58 > 3:13:01have taken place? It is true to say that the lay members are not allowed
3:13:01 > 3:13:12to vote. It was the wish of this House. My understanding is that this
3:13:12 > 3:13:17House did not want to bring the law inside this House and its
3:13:17 > 3:13:23committees. The honourable member for North Essex are talking about
3:13:23 > 3:13:27printing the law and peered that would be a big step as I understand
3:13:27 > 3:13:32it. I'll get you in a minute. The reason that the lay members have not
3:13:32 > 3:13:35been involved is because I understood we were advised that we
3:13:35 > 3:13:40could not take them on without breaking the law into the committee
3:13:40 > 3:13:44system. I still think if we are going to legislate in any state,...
3:13:44 > 3:13:50I'm going to give way, but just let me say this. I don't understand that
3:13:50 > 3:13:56Casey talked about there. About the judge taking a hard line on the case
3:13:56 > 3:14:01and what the committee did. We don't get involved in taking our
3:14:01 > 3:14:04judgements in terms of the law. The law is a completely different
3:14:04 > 3:14:08process. From time to time, we will send members there if it is felt
3:14:08 > 3:14:15that it is a matter for the law. I will give way.I am grateful to the
3:14:15 > 3:14:21honourable gentleman for giving way. I'm not going to name the case I was
3:14:21 > 3:14:25referring to because it is too tiresome. It was a case where the
3:14:25 > 3:14:29committee adjudicated on someone who then tried to make the same case in
3:14:29 > 3:14:34a court of law under a completely separate jurisdiction, he lost his
3:14:34 > 3:14:44case and he was criticised. The point is, these proposals is not
3:14:44 > 3:14:48about bringing the judiciary into our own proceedings. It is not about
3:14:48 > 3:14:53that. It is about the House of pointing our own legal person to
3:14:53 > 3:14:56make these adjudications on behalf of the House, on behalf of this
3:14:56 > 3:15:01committee so that he has a far more unimpeachable judgement handed to
3:15:01 > 3:15:06his committee on which to act then what he is compelled to work with at
3:15:06 > 3:15:12the moment.I think I know the case with the honourable member talks
3:15:12 > 3:15:15about now. He did not agree with what happened with him and he went
3:15:15 > 3:15:20to the courts and got nowhere with it. In that respective if it's a
3:15:20 > 3:15:24case that I'm thinking about, the court agrees with what the committee
3:15:24 > 3:15:33had said. Anyway, the current system is a series of merely reactive
3:15:33 > 3:15:46measures. Initially this scandal in the 1990s. It was arguably skewed
3:15:46 > 3:15:52too much towards the issues of financial impropriety. Important as
3:15:52 > 3:15:57they are. It neglects other aspects of members's conduct in their
3:15:57 > 3:16:06behaviour towards other people. Would he consider financial
3:16:06 > 3:16:10impropriety, but the challenge that we face moving forward in for
3:16:10 > 3:16:14finding the balance between the personal life of members and when
3:16:14 > 3:16:17actually conducting their Parliamentary duties, particularly
3:16:17 > 3:16:20in relation to sexual harassment. Does he foresee any questions about
3:16:20 > 3:16:25that and the way we implement policies?I think that is the issue
3:16:25 > 3:16:28that has to be looked at. I think the honourable member was there when
3:16:28 > 3:16:34I gave evidence. It was around October of last year that this House
3:16:34 > 3:16:39will have to come to a decision on what is a personal and private
3:16:39 > 3:16:43activity and what is not. That is something that you may be asked to
3:16:43 > 3:16:50do in the coming months. Over the years, the independent cylinders
3:16:50 > 3:16:55commission has done its best to try to address the imbalance and look at
3:16:55 > 3:17:05ways to update the current coat of paint -- current code of conduct.
3:17:05 > 3:17:08The House in the past resisted attempts to incorporate some of
3:17:08 > 3:17:13these changes. But I am glad that the working groups report has now
3:17:13 > 3:17:16given fresh impetus to developing a new comprehensive system of
3:17:16 > 3:17:22standards and behaviours. The committee contains a pool of
3:17:22 > 3:17:26expertise on the part of collected and lay members which we believe
3:17:26 > 3:17:30will be of real value for developing the new process. We are keen to be
3:17:30 > 3:17:34in the system and are in the process of setting up a meeting with the
3:17:34 > 3:17:37Leader of the House to discuss how we can help. I understand that is
3:17:37 > 3:17:45now in the diary, I am pleased to say. I comment as is inevitable with
3:17:45 > 3:17:48such ambitious and far-reaching proposes, there are a number of
3:17:48 > 3:17:52challenges concerning details on process as well as some issues of
3:17:52 > 3:17:55principle which will need to be addressed as part of the
3:17:55 > 3:18:00implementation. My letter sent out what these are so I will not detain
3:18:00 > 3:18:05the House long and summarising them. We will need to consider how the new
3:18:05 > 3:18:09arrangements will work alongside the existing system. It is crystal that
3:18:09 > 3:18:14the new system should be seen to operate fairly and impartially, due
3:18:14 > 3:18:18process is important because it secures the rights of everyone
3:18:18 > 3:18:24involved. One proposal in the report might proceed in parallel will
3:18:24 > 3:18:28police inquiries. This would represent a clear breach with the
3:18:28 > 3:18:31current existing practise which is set out in a memorandum of
3:18:31 > 3:18:34understanding between the committee, the commissioner and the
3:18:34 > 3:18:38Metropolitan Police. And this will require careful consideration. Also,
3:18:38 > 3:18:48the implications of the report proposals of other anomalies. One of
3:18:48 > 3:18:53these is for future discussion. The six work stream that the Leader of
3:18:53 > 3:18:56the House mentioned is going to be an area that the committee and the
3:18:56 > 3:19:02Commissioner are likely to be involved in. Today I simply want to
3:19:02 > 3:19:06express the committee's support for what is trying to be achieved. And
3:19:06 > 3:19:09as for the House that my colleagues and I and the Commissioner are
3:19:09 > 3:19:13committed to working closely with this group to turn the new system
3:19:13 > 3:19:19into a reality as soon as possible. Could I just finished on this? There
3:19:19 > 3:19:23was comment about the lay members earlier not having a vote in the
3:19:23 > 3:19:27committee. It is many years since there has been a vote in the
3:19:27 > 3:19:32committee. We work on the basis of getting an agreement by all people
3:19:32 > 3:19:36in there. But each one of those seven lay members of the committee
3:19:36 > 3:19:42are asked when we create a report if they have got anything they want to
3:19:42 > 3:19:47put down outside of what the report has come to. That has never happened
3:19:47 > 3:19:51yet. They have far more power each one individually then the seven
3:19:51 > 3:19:55elected members have together. And I hope the House begins to understand
3:19:55 > 3:20:00that and stop repeating some of these remarks that this is a
3:20:00 > 3:20:04committee that is murky one another's homework. It is not. It is
3:20:04 > 3:20:07a committee was lay members, we should be looking at having lay
3:20:07 > 3:20:11members on other committees as well. I have argued for this for many
3:20:11 > 3:20:17years before we actually got it. I served on another council as a lay
3:20:17 > 3:20:23member overseeing doctors and medical professionals. And we should
3:20:23 > 3:20:27not be afraid to do that. It is independent, notwithstanding the
3:20:27 > 3:20:37absence of a vote.The question is that the amendment be made.Thank
3:20:37 > 3:20:42you. It is a great privilege and pleasure to contribute to this
3:20:42 > 3:20:46debate to follow the right honourable gentleman. And all the
3:20:46 > 3:20:51contrary the other contributions that have been made. I have some
3:20:51 > 3:20:58short points. I am very lucky to be elected to record I've are
3:20:58 > 3:21:01interested in this debate. This year women entering into Parliament is
3:21:01 > 3:21:05something we want to support and see more of. I pay tribute to this for
3:21:05 > 3:21:16my honourable friend. Also I know that there are many champions of
3:21:16 > 3:21:23women on all sides of the House. Of course the Member for North Mercer
3:21:23 > 3:21:30talked about these issues. I think that we ought to be proud that we
3:21:30 > 3:21:34have a number of incredibly competent women in this House. I see
3:21:34 > 3:21:38them sitting on all sides and are more than capable of holding their
3:21:38 > 3:21:42own despite the patriarchy. It is important that we signal to other
3:21:42 > 3:21:44people who wish to enter this plays that they are going to be welcomed
3:21:44 > 3:21:51when they get here. So, I just want to touch on the issue of culture.
3:21:51 > 3:21:55And my own experience is also from running my own business. I don't
3:21:55 > 3:21:59come from an exotic or privilege background. I got there from hard
3:21:59 > 3:22:07work. By experiencing many failures and setbacks. It is an misconception
3:22:07 > 3:22:12that people who have a business are somehow privilege. I did learn about
3:22:12 > 3:22:16managing teams. And the one thing that I did learn from a mentor is
3:22:16 > 3:22:20that culture eats strategy for practise. It is about the culture.
3:22:20 > 3:22:25It is about the leadership. You can have as many reports or practises or
3:22:25 > 3:22:30training as you want. If that is not followed through, if that is not
3:22:30 > 3:22:34lived and breathed, by deeds not words, I'm afraid we might as well
3:22:34 > 3:22:39all give up go home. I think that what we have seen is a fantastic
3:22:39 > 3:22:46response to this issue and I do pay to breathe -- I do pay tribute to
3:22:46 > 3:22:50everyone who has played their part. This is a issue that has gone on for
3:22:50 > 3:22:55such a long time. It is long overdue. The bull has been taken by
3:22:55 > 3:23:01the horns and I really do hope it came go up the very highest level of
3:23:01 > 3:23:05all political leaders on all sides of this House. All of us need to
3:23:05 > 3:23:08live and breathe it. The reason why it is so important is because our
3:23:08 > 3:23:13staff are very vulnerable. They are relatively speaking, maybe not all
3:23:13 > 3:23:19of them, some of them are quite young. They don't come from a lot of
3:23:19 > 3:23:22experiences of other workplaces. For some of them it is the first place
3:23:22 > 3:23:28they have actually worked. If you have a young woman, on an older man
3:23:28 > 3:23:33or... There is an issue of the gender imbalance here that is very
3:23:33 > 3:23:37sensitive issue. I think that can be very difficult for a young woman or
3:23:37 > 3:23:42a young man in their first job to tackle that and to have the
3:23:42 > 3:23:47confidence to raise that and to know that it will be taken seriously. I
3:23:47 > 3:23:52really do think the consideration that has been placed on this point.
3:23:52 > 3:23:55It goes back to the root of the issue. The root of the issue is
3:23:55 > 3:24:00about power and the abuse of power. How easily that can be very
3:24:00 > 3:24:04detrimental for young people, for honourable people who are vulnerable
3:24:04 > 3:24:07because they are working in this unique workplace and supporting us
3:24:07 > 3:24:15in our challenging duties. I think we have reduced the issue of
3:24:15 > 3:24:20leadership. That is absolutely critical and essential. I hope we
3:24:20 > 3:24:25can all do our part by holding our colleagues to account in however we
3:24:25 > 3:24:29do that. I think this issue of training needs to be taken forward.
3:24:29 > 3:24:36It is not enough to just train once. I have the great delight of actually
3:24:36 > 3:24:41having 2 degrees I worked in HR for many years and like my honourable
3:24:41 > 3:24:46friend, I had a lot of training. I was asked to the person giving the
3:24:46 > 3:25:01training. And I recognise it is one thing to
3:25:01 > 3:25:05Change is difficult organisational change is really, really hard, to
3:25:05 > 3:25:10make it stick. We need to have close attention to that, we need to be
3:25:10 > 3:25:13united in our determination to drive this through for the benefit of all
3:25:13 > 3:25:18the people who work here and all the people looking at us to be examples.
3:25:18 > 3:25:23I end by thanking very much again for the work that has been done and
3:25:23 > 3:25:28hope it'll lead to a change.Jo Swinson.It's a delight to follow
3:25:28 > 3:25:32the honourable member for Redditch, sounds like she's got some excellent
3:25:32 > 3:25:35skills and perspectives that will be important in the consultation as we
3:25:35 > 3:25:39go forward about how to make this organisational culture change stick.
3:25:39 > 3:25:44I very much welcome the motion and the debate today is a member of the
3:25:44 > 3:25:48working group. As well as some specific comments on what we put in
3:25:48 > 3:25:52the report I also wanted to talk about the wider context that we are
3:25:52 > 3:25:57facing here because we've come at this issue in Parliament from the
3:25:57 > 3:26:01events of the end of last year, but that followed hot on the heels of
3:26:01 > 3:26:05the Weinstein scandal, we've had in recent weeks the issues in the
3:26:05 > 3:26:09charity sector. An important point for us to remember is, this is not a
3:26:09 > 3:26:13problem in any one specific industry, this is a problem that is
3:26:13 > 3:26:18endemic across society, across every sector. And therefore it's important
3:26:18 > 3:26:23we get our whole house in order with our own procedures, but we also need
3:26:23 > 3:26:27to understand that wider perspective on it and that wider societal
3:26:27 > 3:26:31cultural change that as parliament we have a goal in leading. That is
3:26:31 > 3:26:39why it's vital what we do is of an excellent quality, and it can act as
3:26:39 > 3:26:42a beacon to other organisations and institutions that are trying to
3:26:42 > 3:26:49grapple with similar issues. For all that we've seen these cases in
3:26:49 > 3:26:54politics hit the headlines, I'm painfully aware of how many women
3:26:54 > 3:26:58are in positions of so much less power than those connected to this
3:26:58 > 3:27:02place, where this doesn't even hit the headlines, women working low
3:27:02 > 3:27:05paid jobs. We saw the briefing for the young woman's trust saying three
3:27:05 > 3:27:11in ten young women have experienced sexual harassment at work. This is
3:27:11 > 3:27:16something happening all over the country. The working group was
3:27:16 > 3:27:19generally positive, and occasionally frustrating experience, but partly
3:27:19 > 3:27:22because we were grappling with difficult issues. I'd like to praise
3:27:22 > 3:27:26the contribution of the staff, particularly the three
3:27:26 > 3:27:30representatives of staff who work for members in the various parties,
3:27:30 > 3:27:34and also the experts that advise the group. I for one learned a huge
3:27:34 > 3:27:40amount from listening to what they had to offer and in part in terms of
3:27:40 > 3:27:44their wisdom. These issues are not easy to deal with, we all say we
3:27:44 > 3:27:47want to deal with this and get it right but there are sensitive issues
3:27:47 > 3:27:53to work through. The Forest of Dean number talked about the issue of
3:27:53 > 3:27:58confidentiality, on the one hand if names are published that might
3:27:58 > 3:28:01encourage others to come forward you might spot more patterns, but at the
3:28:01 > 3:28:05same time, it might discourage people from coming forward because
3:28:05 > 3:28:10of fear their own anonymity will be breached. We had a lot of
3:28:10 > 3:28:14discussions about how you work through their systems, how you deal
3:28:14 > 3:28:16with historical allegations, how you deal with people who have gone
3:28:16 > 3:28:20through a different process and are very upset with how that went. There
3:28:20 > 3:28:26are no easy answers to some of these. The issue of the interplay
3:28:26 > 3:28:29with the criminal justice system we also discussed at length and while
3:28:29 > 3:28:34we want to make sure support is there for people who want to take a
3:28:34 > 3:28:38criminal conviction weather has been sexual assault, we recognised from
3:28:38 > 3:28:41the survey we did that a tiny proportion of people said in no
3:28:41 > 3:28:45circumstances would they feel comfortable to go to the police, I
3:28:45 > 3:28:49think it was 2%. We looked clearly at how we could provide people with
3:28:49 > 3:28:52the support if they wanted to do that, but also to give them control
3:28:52 > 3:28:57so if they wanted this to be pursued as a grievance, a case of
3:28:57 > 3:29:00professional misconduct, it could be dealt with as unemployment issue
3:29:00 > 3:29:04rather than necessarily them being forced to have faith in the criminal
3:29:04 > 3:29:09justice system, which they may not do. That is why because this is not
3:29:09 > 3:29:13easy the review clauses we suggested are so essential. What we're
3:29:13 > 3:29:19proposing today I am very confident will make things much better. I'm
3:29:19 > 3:29:23also confident it won't be perfect and will only improve if we can
3:29:23 > 3:29:26review it regularly, learn from what works well, but there may well be
3:29:26 > 3:29:29cases where it doesn't work well and we need to be able to make sure we
3:29:29 > 3:29:33can take those lessons on board and not be overly defensive about that.
3:29:33 > 3:29:40I also wanted to touch on the issue of gender. Harassment, bullying,
3:29:40 > 3:29:43sexual harassment happens to men as well as women but we know from the
3:29:43 > 3:29:50server it happens more to women. The Right Honourable member for
3:29:50 > 3:29:57harrowing of Essex said, how did we let this happen? This is an
3:29:57 > 3:30:01institution that was designed by men, built for men, and for the
3:30:01 > 3:30:06large part of its existence has been run by men and almost exclusively
3:30:06 > 3:30:12men. And therefore the place of women within the institution, in
3:30:12 > 3:30:16this chamber itself, or within the stuff that support the work we do,
3:30:16 > 3:30:22is not necessarily been viewed on an equal basis. I think it's
3:30:22 > 3:30:25interesting if we speak to women in Parliament, we know, we all have
3:30:25 > 3:30:29these experiences of being talked over in meetings. Being questioned
3:30:29 > 3:30:33about whether you are allowed to be somewhere. Whether you've got the
3:30:33 > 3:30:37right to be on the terrace or in a particular lift during a division,
3:30:37 > 3:30:40whether or not you are a researcher or clean instead of a member of
3:30:40 > 3:30:47Parliament. -- cleaner. The way women journalists, bravely, reported
3:30:47 > 3:30:52somebody said to her here comes the tarty. How many other women
3:30:52 > 3:30:56journalists have had similar experiences and worse? In terms of
3:30:56 > 3:30:58the way they've been treated by people in this place. I remember
3:30:58 > 3:31:02when I was a minister learning about a former minister from the House of
3:31:02 > 3:31:07Lords who had basically engaged with his female, with his male private
3:31:07 > 3:31:10office staff, but wouldn't speak to the female private office staff or
3:31:10 > 3:31:14take them seriously because they happen to be women, even if they
3:31:14 > 3:31:17were more senior. These things do happen, we know these things happen.
3:31:17 > 3:31:23I was really struck by the young woman's trust briefing that said 89%
3:31:23 > 3:31:29of women MPs and 58% of men MPs say sexism still exists in Parliament.
3:31:29 > 3:31:36That golf is significant, almost all women now say there are still
3:31:36 > 3:31:39instances of sexism but just over half of men recognise that is the
3:31:39 > 3:31:42case and that golf is part of the problem we have and part of the
3:31:42 > 3:31:48complacency that still exists. We are only talking about gender, but
3:31:48 > 3:31:55race, LGB PT, socioeconomic, all these barriers. -- LGBT. It's not
3:31:55 > 3:31:59every man that does this, but this kind of behaviour is present in
3:31:59 > 3:32:02every single political party and we all experience it and see it from
3:32:02 > 3:32:07time to time. It's not just a few bad apples, it's cultural. In fact
3:32:07 > 3:32:11women as well, we'll have the capacity to make these assumptions,
3:32:11 > 3:32:14to make thoughtless comments. When we're somebody with a position of
3:32:14 > 3:32:18power, those comments have so much more force, so we have an extra
3:32:18 > 3:32:22responsibility to be aware of this. I would just say to all members of
3:32:22 > 3:32:26the house, I say it myself as well, often when we see these things
3:32:26 > 3:32:29happen they are tolerated or somebody rolled their eyes or they
3:32:29 > 3:32:33are embarrassed, but it's not always called out, because it might feel
3:32:33 > 3:32:36uncomfortable or inconvenient or it's easier not to rock the boat.
3:32:36 > 3:32:39Part of what we need to do is to be challenging and tackle that culture
3:32:39 > 3:32:44through the work we do in this place. In terms of specific issues
3:32:44 > 3:32:49on the report I want to touch on a couple very briefly. On the
3:32:49 > 3:32:52behaviour code, this will be the foundation of what we do, and the
3:32:52 > 3:32:56widest possible involvement of members of staff of those who are
3:32:56 > 3:32:59not in those categories is vital to make sure it is built on that shared
3:32:59 > 3:33:03sense of values and it has, therefore, the resonance we need it
3:33:03 > 3:33:07to have, that people really buy into it. There has been discussion about
3:33:07 > 3:33:12training. I do think it's essential. Certainly anyone employed, it should
3:33:12 > 3:33:16be part of what they have to do in order to be able to access funds
3:33:16 > 3:33:22from trips to pay somebody. But also on harassment and the issue of
3:33:22 > 3:33:25content. When I did an interview on the day of the release of this
3:33:25 > 3:33:29report, I was challenged by John Humphrys on the today programme.
3:33:29 > 3:33:33Surely MPs know what is appropriate behaviour. You know, if that were
3:33:33 > 3:33:36universally the case we wouldn't be in this situation in the first
3:33:36 > 3:33:46place. And I think that there is no room for complacency. The #MeToo
3:33:46 > 3:33:52movement shows us that. We need relationship and sex education in
3:33:52 > 3:33:56schools for all peoples, I'm dismayed at the government rolling
3:33:56 > 3:33:59back on that. I'll give way to the Right Honourable gentleman.Such a
3:33:59 > 3:34:04good speak, particular the point about assumptions because if you
3:34:04 > 3:34:08want to change culture, everyone has to stop making assumptions about
3:34:08 > 3:34:11your own beliefs and what other people's beliefs are. You need to
3:34:11 > 3:34:15talk about that and get it into the open without judgment. The other
3:34:15 > 3:34:20thing I would agree with her wholeheartedly on is about training
3:34:20 > 3:34:24for MPs who employ staff. Ultimately if you haven't been through a basic
3:34:24 > 3:34:27training package, well then why should the taxpayer allow you to
3:34:27 > 3:34:32employ your own staff?I would certainly welcome his support for
3:34:32 > 3:34:37those points. I would say some of what we experience in these issues
3:34:37 > 3:34:42of harassment, some are undoubtedly deliberate, with the intent to do
3:34:42 > 3:34:46what is being done, entirely with knowledge, but I think some of it is
3:34:46 > 3:34:50also inadvertent. It is to tackle that complacency that the training
3:34:50 > 3:34:53is so essential. There will be people who don't understand the
3:34:53 > 3:34:58impact of all of the words that they use. I attended a recent session on
3:34:58 > 3:35:02anti-Semitism which was a fascinating session by the Holocaust
3:35:02 > 3:35:06educational trust. I think the more we can listen and learn to the
3:35:06 > 3:35:09experience of others, it helps us to engage in a more mature weight on
3:35:09 > 3:35:14these issues. That cultural change is important. Sarah Childs is the
3:35:14 > 3:35:21member for Perth and North Perthshire, she recommended ways we
3:35:21 > 3:35:25could change the culture and gave evidence and talked about
3:35:25 > 3:35:28challenging the exceptionalism of MPs, that we think we're in a unique
3:35:28 > 3:35:31scenario. Yes, there are many elements of our job that are unusual
3:35:31 > 3:35:35but it should be some kind of excuse for not having basic professional
3:35:35 > 3:35:39standards whether in terms of good implement relationships, which if we
3:35:39 > 3:35:43had good employment practice that would deal with large part of the
3:35:43 > 3:35:47problems we are experiencing here, not entirely, but a large part. Or
3:35:47 > 3:35:50whether it's evenly match your approach to late-night sittings as
3:35:50 > 3:35:54if it's a badge of pride. It's the equivalent of having your jacket on
3:35:54 > 3:36:02the back of the chair in the office. It's not how modern are effective. I
3:36:02 > 3:36:05also agree with the member for Brighton Pavilion that we need to do
3:36:05 > 3:36:09it as fast as possible, extend the behaviour code to the behaviour of
3:36:09 > 3:36:13members of Parliament and staff of Parliament. Wherever they are. When
3:36:13 > 3:36:17they are in that role, carrying out duties, whether in the constituency,
3:36:17 > 3:36:22office or at some event or here in Parliament. I know others want to
3:36:22 > 3:36:25speak so in conclusion the problems we are facing are not unique to
3:36:25 > 3:36:28Parliament but we all have a part to play in dealing with them. This
3:36:28 > 3:36:33motion today and this report is an important first step, it will lead
3:36:33 > 3:36:35to a real improvement and hopefully help us to get our own house in
3:36:35 > 3:36:42order.Jess Phillips.I like everybody else want to commend the
3:36:42 > 3:36:46work done by the leader, Shadow leader and everybody on the working
3:36:46 > 3:36:51group. 100 hours sounds... I would definitely have lost the will to
3:36:51 > 3:36:54live halfway through I think in the negotiations. I think everybody
3:36:54 > 3:37:00worked really, really hard. I think it has been done relatively quickly
3:37:00 > 3:37:03for this place. I mean, it's the quickest thing I've known go through
3:37:03 > 3:37:10since I've been here. There are just a few points I wanted to raise.
3:37:10 > 3:37:14Slight concerns about how we might take this forward. By and large I
3:37:14 > 3:37:19think it is brilliant, where there are not often easy answers to
3:37:19 > 3:37:24anonymity, privacy, this isn't easy. People who are outside of this
3:37:24 > 3:37:28building can say these things are easy but when you're actually here
3:37:28 > 3:37:32it is quite different. I also want to place on record, we talk about
3:37:32 > 3:37:37the events of last November and this being the reason we are all here, I
3:37:37 > 3:37:48want to say thank you to Lex Baillie and Kate Maltby... And others, who
3:37:48 > 3:37:55all have the guts to come forward and say people who were powerful had
3:37:55 > 3:37:59not always behaved the best with them and they deserve huge praise
3:37:59 > 3:38:08and merit. One of my concerns around the issue of representation during
3:38:08 > 3:38:15any process in the sexual harassment and leader of the house said both
3:38:15 > 3:38:17parties would be entitled to representation, which is absolutely
3:38:17 > 3:38:25as it should be. Fair in every system in the land, whether trade
3:38:25 > 3:38:29union representation union representation. I do have a concern
3:38:29 > 3:38:33about how we will make sure in this place there is an equality of arms
3:38:33 > 3:38:37in that representation, because if you are a case worker working in one
3:38:37 > 3:38:42of our offices and somebody sexually harasses you and the person who's
3:38:42 > 3:38:50actually you is a very wealthy peer for example, I worry that one person
3:38:50 > 3:38:55has a really good representation and can frighten people with legal
3:38:55 > 3:39:00letters. I've received some myself in these past few months. That
3:39:00 > 3:39:08worries me greatly, that there will be an unfair imbalance. If the
3:39:08 > 3:39:13Weinstein issue teaches us anything, it's that rich men know how to use
3:39:13 > 3:39:21the law to get away with murder. And that, I think, we need to make sure
3:39:21 > 3:39:25we are addressing that all the way through this process. Also I have
3:39:25 > 3:39:29one slight issue about the independence of MPs being
3:39:29 > 3:39:33decision-makers. Not with regards to their marking their own homework,
3:39:33 > 3:39:35I'm satisfied, I didn't know anything about the numbers till
3:39:35 > 3:39:41today. I'm satisfied actually with the explanations I've heard. In the
3:39:41 > 3:39:49report one of the decision-making lines is, if a member of our staff
3:39:49 > 3:39:54perpetrate sexual harassment or bullying and harassment, that we are
3:39:54 > 3:39:57one of the decision-makers. So I as the employer would be the
3:39:57 > 3:40:00decision-making. It seems completely acceptable, that's what it would be
3:40:00 > 3:40:07like in the world, the member for Forest of Dean it's the same
3:40:07 > 3:40:11standard as their employer. Except in this place we are in close
3:40:11 > 3:40:16quarters with our employees, I employ only one person here. She is
3:40:16 > 3:40:22very, very close to me and I feel incredible loyalty towards her. I
3:40:22 > 3:40:28walk around this building and see people's children who are members of
3:40:28 > 3:40:31Parliament who work in this building. People's partners work in
3:40:31 > 3:40:37here, people's families. I'm not entirely sure that a member of
3:40:37 > 3:40:42Parliament could be completely and utterly without bias in a case
3:40:42 > 3:40:46against a member of their staff. And I think that definitely needs to be
3:40:46 > 3:40:53looked into, because... I'll gladly give way.
3:40:53 > 3:41:00I hope to be able to assure reassure her. We didn't come up against this
3:41:00 > 3:41:04as she rightly says, there are some very close, unusually close
3:41:04 > 3:41:09relationships in this place. But when there is a finding that there
3:41:09 > 3:41:15is something against in the way of an... And a member fails to take
3:41:15 > 3:41:24action, it is been up on that claimant to take the MP. I hope that
3:41:24 > 3:41:34reassures you.That does reassure me to some degree. My only concern is
3:41:34 > 3:41:42that complainant having to do an awful lot of work in making sure
3:41:42 > 3:41:45that they are supported all the way through that. I get going back to
3:41:45 > 3:41:51the equality of arms to make sure that... We are much more hopeful
3:41:51 > 3:41:55than most people and much more frightening than most people. -- we
3:41:55 > 3:42:03are much more powerful than most people. I'd like to think that I
3:42:03 > 3:42:09could recognise that and try to employ it with appropriateness. The
3:42:09 > 3:42:15truth is, I still worry that there will be a power imbalance. Although
3:42:15 > 3:42:19I think the Working Group has done everything that they could possibly
3:42:19 > 3:42:28to find -- to do a very difficult thing. I will finish by doing
3:42:28 > 3:42:39just... All. I mean, I will give way.I am grateful to the honourable
3:42:39 > 3:42:46Lady because I think she rightly points to the necessity that MPs as
3:42:46 > 3:42:49employers because we are public figures must be held to a much
3:42:49 > 3:42:57higher standard than we would expect of an ordinary small businessman. We
3:42:57 > 3:43:01are accountable and we are expected to be accountable and we Ards
3:43:01 > 3:43:09leaders and example setters. And I think the report addresses that and
3:43:09 > 3:43:13her concern. There is going to be HR support from outside for the staff
3:43:13 > 3:43:17of members of Parliament so they get the support of counselling they need
3:43:17 > 3:43:21to take a complaint against their employer in a way that has not
3:43:21 > 3:43:28existed before.I totally recognise that and as I say, not even broadly,
3:43:28 > 3:43:32I am very happy with the progress that has been made and I personally
3:43:32 > 3:43:42felt very listened to. I think the shadow leader for that. The system
3:43:42 > 3:43:47will need to be tested as we go through it. And lots of people have
3:43:47 > 3:43:52talked about review. It will be strength tested by those who go
3:43:52 > 3:43:56through it. What we have to make sure in this place is that we don't
3:43:56 > 3:44:03do is when the first case comes and and it is not as it should've been,
3:44:03 > 3:44:08that we close ranks with each other and that certainly I will always
3:44:08 > 3:44:13commit to being the person who closes ranks with the people on the
3:44:13 > 3:44:23outside. So I commend the report. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It
3:44:23 > 3:44:28feels almost like Christmas is upon us. Nearly all men can stand
3:44:28 > 3:44:33adversity, but if you want to test a man's's character, give him power.
3:44:33 > 3:44:35That is something that Abraham Lincoln said. What we have been
3:44:35 > 3:44:41talking about today is what happens when it does tend to be mainly men
3:44:41 > 3:44:48have power and how power can be missed misused. I want to pay
3:44:48 > 3:44:52tribute to all those people who work for a hundred hours for working at
3:44:52 > 3:44:55this issue through that vein and recognising it is about many
3:44:55 > 3:44:59different ways that power can be abuse. This place is powerful and
3:44:59 > 3:45:07full powerful people. I took part in an assembly on sexual harassment.
3:45:07 > 3:45:11And it is a very sobering moment when you think what to tell young
3:45:11 > 3:45:16women of our country about sexual harassment now in 2018 in the
3:45:16 > 3:45:21environment of the MeToo Movement and the environment of Harvey
3:45:21 > 3:45:24Weinstein and the environment of what we have seen and our charity
3:45:24 > 3:45:29sector. Each individual is responsible in terms of this motion
3:45:29 > 3:45:35and what happens next but we know we have a wider unit. It is not enough
3:45:35 > 3:45:40to simply pay lip service and save this should not be happening. It is
3:45:40 > 3:45:44to ask what are we all doing to make sure that it never happens again.
3:45:44 > 3:45:47And the messes that we send out through Parliament to this work and
3:45:47 > 3:45:51we know this work must continue has wider ramifications because it sets
3:45:51 > 3:45:55the bar for other agencies. None of us can claim that Parliament has
3:45:55 > 3:46:01covered itself in glory. We have been too slow. It is like leaving a
3:46:01 > 3:46:05horse to water, instead of recognising that some of those
3:46:05 > 3:46:09donkeys have no place in our political process. Now is our
3:46:09 > 3:46:13opportunity to say that we are going to make a stand not just Parliament
3:46:13 > 3:46:17by a crossed Public life because it matters to those girls. The freedom
3:46:17 > 3:46:20that we would want all those girls to be able to acknowledge their
3:46:20 > 3:46:26potential. In the run-up to it International Women's Day. I just
3:46:26 > 3:46:30want to say four point that I hope the Leader of the House will take on
3:46:30 > 3:46:33board. Bearing in mind that some of us have been called sheltie feminist
3:46:33 > 3:46:41today. First and foremost, the question about training. I
3:46:41 > 3:46:47understand where he is coming from. We have been inspiring each other in
3:46:47 > 3:46:51issues around gender equality and feminism. Either stand his point
3:46:51 > 3:46:54about catching more flies with honey than vinegar, but it is something
3:46:54 > 3:46:58like this that people who are least resistance are the most likely to
3:46:58 > 3:47:04need to change. We cannot simply keep asking nicely and then
3:47:04 > 3:47:08apologising to the people would have to do with the consequences. That is
3:47:08 > 3:47:12why it matters we have six and relationship education for every
3:47:12 > 3:47:16young person in this country. And I hope we'll all renew our resolve not
3:47:16 > 3:47:23to backslide now. That is my second point to the leader. I think this
3:47:23 > 3:47:28does have to fit into this wider context. We know it is not by
3:47:28 > 3:47:35accident that people end up as pass-holders. How do people get
3:47:35 > 3:47:41involved whose matter how do people get employed? Inevitably it is one
3:47:41 > 3:47:47part of the puzzle of the jigsaw about how to become involved in
3:47:47 > 3:47:49public life. I want to pay tribute today to the women who have come
3:47:49 > 3:47:54forward as part of a labour of campaign and given their stories. It
3:47:54 > 3:47:58tells us that we have work to do within our own political movement. I
3:47:58 > 3:48:02think it is across political parties. This process will only be
3:48:02 > 3:48:06as good as the people were coming into political activism and
3:48:06 > 3:48:10political activism will only be as good for the environment as we
3:48:10 > 3:48:14create. How do we fit that in without broader work about making
3:48:14 > 3:48:20sure there is no hiding for those people who to abuse power. My third
3:48:20 > 3:48:25point is what happens when we find people who behaved inappropriately.
3:48:25 > 3:48:29I have been consistently asking about recall. And I'm so pleased to
3:48:29 > 3:48:34see that this is the agenda. I believe we need to have the sanction
3:48:34 > 3:48:38that none of us want to admit to but know that it needs to be in the
3:48:38 > 3:48:41process when someone is found to have behaved in these ways. We have
3:48:41 > 3:48:46heard today about whether standards will come into it and if there is a
3:48:46 > 3:48:53case of taking the initial question about sections out of the commission
3:48:53 > 3:48:57and giving it to a independent third-party who would then advise us
3:48:57 > 3:49:01so we can take out any suggestion of political favour or fear of the
3:49:01 > 3:49:06constant to the consequences. If recall is the right course of
3:49:06 > 3:49:10action, it should be on the table because the transgression is serious
3:49:10 > 3:49:14enough that the local community that that person represents needs to have
3:49:14 > 3:49:17the right to say something. None of us would want to send one of those
3:49:17 > 3:49:21young girls to go and see their Adam Peaty knowing that that person has
3:49:21 > 3:49:26behaved in a way we would not tolerate in any other workplace. And
3:49:26 > 3:49:31the fourth thing I want to say is we know that this is just another
3:49:31 > 3:49:34staging posts. This is the fourth time that we have debated this. We
3:49:34 > 3:49:40know that there is much more work to do. I want to pledge my support in
3:49:40 > 3:49:44keeping going. I fear there are some, particularly some of his
3:49:44 > 3:49:47plays, who may have even been accused of things who are hoping
3:49:47 > 3:49:51that after the title and subsides, this issue will go away and life
3:49:51 > 3:49:59will go back to normal. Let us not make 2018 like 2017. Let's make 2018
3:49:59 > 3:50:03the point when the fans really did shift. That means we have to keep
3:50:03 > 3:50:09going and see these cases through. As awkward and difficult as it is.
3:50:09 > 3:50:13We all those young women I spoke to today so much more, but that is at
3:50:13 > 3:50:23least something we can promise them. As one of the members of the Working
3:50:23 > 3:50:27Group. I really do wish to congratulate everyone involved.
3:50:27 > 3:50:30Everyone who undertook this timely long and drawn out and demanding
3:50:30 > 3:50:40task. I think it is worth stating the obvious fax. This process has
3:50:40 > 3:50:44come up in cooperation for all the people who sit in this House and
3:50:44 > 3:50:48representatives of people employed here and trade unions. I want to
3:50:48 > 3:50:52commend the many witnesses who spoke to us and particularly the
3:50:52 > 3:50:56specialist adviser of sexual harassment. I would also like to
3:50:56 > 3:51:05commend the Leader of the House for her patient work. This is a critical
3:51:05 > 3:51:10step in transforming Westminster into a 21st-century workplace. Again
3:51:10 > 3:51:16let us take a moment to state an obvious thing. Consider how
3:51:16 > 3:51:23ineffective all of us would be here without the staff. They balanced the
3:51:23 > 3:51:34conflicting demands and enable us to show composed face to the public.
3:51:34 > 3:51:38And the flip side of that is this is a tiring and pressurised
3:51:38 > 3:51:42environment. There is a toxic mix of power, ambition and vulnerability.
3:51:42 > 3:51:50Much of which of course has played out behind closed doors. Again, the
3:51:50 > 3:51:56decentralization of this and any workplace it is a matter of
3:51:56 > 3:52:03equality. I think much of our discussion is out of fear of where
3:52:03 > 3:52:11we draw the lines. The unique nature of terms of MPs staff who are
3:52:11 > 3:52:21employed by MPs directly who could only go to that an MP or the MP
3:52:21 > 3:52:24party. That is why the independent nature of this policy is so
3:52:24 > 3:52:32significant. While of course political parties must endeavour to
3:52:32 > 3:52:36ensure that their policies are fair without prejudice, the question of
3:52:36 > 3:52:42whose interests are best served wall was remaining in those woods. There
3:52:42 > 3:52:48is an amount of work again for my discussion today I think this is
3:52:48 > 3:52:51obvious, that still needs to be done. Over and above the
3:52:51 > 3:52:55recommendations that have been brought here today. There has been
3:52:55 > 3:53:00quite as sophisticated discussion on this. Another point I would like to
3:53:00 > 3:53:06raise, is a matter of how we include visitors to constituency offices
3:53:06 > 3:53:11which needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. Also, how to
3:53:11 > 3:53:17decide when and where elected members or to whom the supplied and
3:53:17 > 3:53:21their staff are engaged in Parliamentary duties, be that
3:53:21 > 3:53:29hearing once Mr on visits or abroad. We need clarity on this to ensure
3:53:29 > 3:53:41fairness. This will of course be a semi judicial process. There has
3:53:41 > 3:53:48been some discussion, I would draw attention to the fact that this
3:53:48 > 3:53:52report does anticipate changes in clues and changes to the voting
3:53:52 > 3:53:57arrangements with in the committee. We are of course doing our best to
3:53:57 > 3:54:01merge together the structures that we have in this House alongside
3:54:01 > 3:54:05cultural change. This will be challenging, but I think we have the
3:54:05 > 3:54:10balance as best we can and we will be moving ahead with that. I would
3:54:10 > 3:54:16urge that there is a campaign to inform staff of the new human
3:54:16 > 3:54:19resources facilities. I know it is there and I know we have talked
3:54:19 > 3:54:24about it, but we need to remind people that this is their when they
3:54:24 > 3:54:34needed. The independent complaint policy in itself and I think the
3:54:34 > 3:54:39particular emphasis for our staff to constituency officers who are not
3:54:39 > 3:54:44necessarily part of the same discussion that we have here. The
3:54:44 > 3:54:50process of forming new staff could go into the future. It is not a one
3:54:50 > 3:54:54event. Just as the size, I think affective human resources facilities
3:54:54 > 3:55:03being available to MP staff, these will address the minor and mundane
3:55:03 > 3:55:09problems and in doing so they will prevent the problem from escalating.
3:55:09 > 3:55:13Quite a bit of discussion about training as well today, it's
3:55:13 > 3:55:17important we depersonalise this. There has been an individualistic
3:55:17 > 3:55:21approach to this matter as a whole. This isn't a threat to individuals
3:55:21 > 3:55:28but anyway we bring about change as an entire body, the training we
3:55:28 > 3:55:31participate, not as a threat to individuals, it's part of the
3:55:31 > 3:55:36bringing about a change, this is our corporate leadership to do that. To
3:55:36 > 3:55:40close, and what I would like to commend with this document in
3:55:40 > 3:55:45particular, how politicians have been able to rein in that
3:55:45 > 3:55:49inclination to console as individuals, to overemphasise the
3:55:49 > 3:55:53potential for political motivation in the complaints. This final report
3:55:53 > 3:55:57has kept the balance between supporting complainants and
3:55:57 > 3:56:06resisting and overemphasis on vexatious complaints. The success of
3:56:06 > 3:56:10how these initiatives will be measured will be from a culture of
3:56:10 > 3:56:13deference and outmoded power structures to a culture of respect
3:56:13 > 3:56:17among equals working together in our many Parliamentary workplaces
3:56:17 > 3:56:24wherever they may be. The future success will require rigorous
3:56:24 > 3:56:27monitoring and implementation just as the contribution of staff and
3:56:27 > 3:56:31union representatives acted on a number of occasions, frankly, as the
3:56:31 > 3:56:34glue which held the working group together. So it's essential there is
3:56:34 > 3:56:41a full role. , representatives of unions, or unions who have staff
3:56:41 > 3:56:48here in the house. That they are represented. These policies are not
3:56:48 > 3:56:53complete. They will evolve in practice and in review. But I am
3:56:53 > 3:57:00confident they are catalysts of change.Caroline Lucas.Thank you
3:57:00 > 3:57:05very much Madam Deputy Speaker. I think there is a sad irony that on
3:57:05 > 3:57:08this hundredth anniversary of the time when the first women won the
3:57:08 > 3:57:11vote Parliament has been under the spotlight as a place in which women
3:57:11 > 3:57:15in particular do face so much harassment and mistreatment. As we
3:57:15 > 3:57:20know, one in five people working in Westminster report experiencing or
3:57:20 > 3:57:24witnessing sexual harassment in the last 12 months, twice as many women
3:57:24 > 3:57:28as men record incidents. It was a real privilege to serve on the
3:57:28 > 3:57:32cross-party working group set up to respond to this routine sexual
3:57:32 > 3:57:35misconduct, and indeed the concurrent routine failure to handle
3:57:35 > 3:57:39complaints either fairly or in some cases at all. I want to join others
3:57:39 > 3:57:42in paying particular tribute to the leader of a house for her leadership
3:57:42 > 3:57:46and commitment to seeking consensus for the recommendations from the
3:57:46 > 3:57:51working group. The report we produced I think we'll set up a
3:57:51 > 3:57:57support system where previously there was none. It also establish an
3:57:57 > 3:58:01independent framework in which complaints can be heard and,
3:58:01 > 3:58:04crucially, anybody who report sexual misconduct will have access to a
3:58:04 > 3:58:07complaints procedure that specifically is designed to
3:58:07 > 3:58:11differentiate between those cases and bullying. That was the first and
3:58:11 > 3:58:14arguably most important change the working group pressed for.
3:58:14 > 3:58:18Complainants will have access to somebody with expertise in
3:58:18 > 3:58:20supporting those who experience sexual misconduct, somebody who
3:58:20 > 3:58:23understands the complainant has to be in control about the next steps
3:58:23 > 3:58:28and who will fight for their rights to be upheld. Parliament should lead
3:58:28 > 3:58:33by example, not take it more power away from those who make complaints,
3:58:33 > 3:58:36as happens repeatedly elsewhere. I'm very pleased this has been reflected
3:58:36 > 3:58:41in the working group recommendations. That is progress,
3:58:41 > 3:58:45and it was possible due to having one of the country's best qualified
3:58:45 > 3:58:49expert in sexual harassment in an advisory role on the working group,
3:58:49 > 3:58:52meaning our work and decisions were informed by evidence and best
3:58:52 > 3:58:57practice. Thanks must go to her, but also to the whole secretariat for
3:58:57 > 3:59:00their tireless work, to all the experts who supported us, and I
3:59:00 > 3:59:05would echo the words of the Honourable member for Perth and
3:59:05 > 3:59:07North Perthshire about the importance of staff representatives
3:59:07 > 3:59:11in our negotiations, it really did make our process far more effective
3:59:11 > 3:59:19and inclusive. A complaint centred approach is just the start. The next
3:59:19 > 3:59:21steps are of equal importance, especially the question of
3:59:21 > 3:59:27sanctions. To some extent, that question of sanctions is in the
3:59:27 > 3:59:30hands of political parties, and I welcome the commitment all parties
3:59:30 > 3:59:34have made to reviewing and improving their own processes. At the Green
3:59:34 > 3:59:42party we've committed to referring cases to an external body, which is
3:59:42 > 3:59:45how we will ensure independence and transparency. I'd like to make the
3:59:45 > 3:59:47case that smaller parties are at a disadvantage when it comes to
3:59:47 > 3:59:52resource in those more robust systems for training and constant
3:59:52 > 3:59:55evaluation. I would ask Parliament might be encouraged to look at this
3:59:55 > 3:59:57on the grounds that I believe there should be some element of funding
3:59:57 > 4:00:02for political parties, and this would be a good place to start. I
4:00:02 > 4:00:08made that point at the working group meeting. I've had previous
4:00:08 > 4:00:11complainants and MPs tell me they have zero confidence in their
4:00:11 > 4:00:15parties to deal with cases fairly, or take appropriate action against
4:00:15 > 4:00:18perpetrators. That's the threat of a by-election would be enough to kill
4:00:18 > 4:00:25off the prospect of sanctions. A vast amount of work must be done to
4:00:25 > 4:00:29undo the years of sweeping under the carpet that have taught us to a
4:00:29 > 4:00:33place of distrust and despair. No political party is perfect and I'm
4:00:33 > 4:00:37certain my own party will have it's an ongoing learning to do as
4:00:37 > 4:00:40confident in procedure and more vocal discourse on harassment right
4:00:40 > 4:00:44encourages more people to come forward. Today I want to pay tribute
4:00:44 > 4:00:46in particular to labour and all of the women with the coverage they've
4:00:46 > 4:00:50shown in terms of raising that within the Labour Party. The
4:00:50 > 4:00:56challenge for political parties will be to be brave enough to accept no
4:00:56 > 4:01:00party, no organisation, no one, is exempt from this. But that together
4:01:00 > 4:01:04we can work together to challenge that culture of harassment, and that
4:01:04 > 4:01:08it can change if we are committed enough to do that. And we must
4:01:08 > 4:01:11prioritise the voices of those coming forward over party
4:01:11 > 4:01:17reputation. However, the working group is clear many of those
4:01:17 > 4:01:21experiencing sexual misconduct would not be protected by party policies,
4:01:21 > 4:01:24even if those were the best possible. That is why we've
4:01:24 > 4:01:27recommended the development of a shared and binding behaviour code
4:01:27 > 4:01:30that covers everyone working in Parliament including all MPs, peers
4:01:30 > 4:01:34and Parliamentary staff. That code which will be developed in detail in
4:01:34 > 4:01:39the coming months is crucial. Volunteers, staff employed by
4:01:39 > 4:01:42political parties, contractors, officials working in Parliament, all
4:01:42 > 4:01:45of them will be entitled hand-held to the high standards of treatment.
4:01:45 > 4:01:51It'll cover behaviour in any designated place of work, or in the
4:01:51 > 4:01:54cause of Parliamentary duties or activities at home and crucially
4:01:54 > 4:01:59also abroad. The working group wasn't able in the timescale
4:01:59 > 4:02:03involved to reach agreement on how best to protect visitors to
4:02:03 > 4:02:07constituency offices and I was reassured by what the leader of the
4:02:07 > 4:02:10house and said earlier in our debate, saying it would be a
4:02:10 > 4:02:14priority for her going forward. We've had quite a bit of debate
4:02:14 > 4:02:19about the role of the standards committee, and while I do appreciate
4:02:19 > 4:02:23that the inclusion of lay members on that committee does improve the
4:02:23 > 4:02:26situation, I do think the recommendations in this report about
4:02:26 > 4:02:30looking again at how the standards committee works are going to be
4:02:30 > 4:02:34important. I do think there is risk of how this looks to outside this
4:02:34 > 4:02:39place, to looking inside. If it seems to them as if the outcome of a
4:02:39 > 4:02:43complaint is in the hands of people, politicians, who may have a vested
4:02:43 > 4:02:47interest in not taking it any further, I think it will undermine
4:02:47 > 4:02:51all the good work we've done to date. I think there is a risk we
4:02:51 > 4:02:56could be perceived to leave the system open to abuse by political
4:02:56 > 4:03:00string bowlers and other career makers or breakers. It flies in the
4:03:00 > 4:03:04face of what constitutes best practice and is utterly at odds with
4:03:04 > 4:03:07the stand-up principle of an independent system which underpins
4:03:07 > 4:03:12the working group report. They risk perpetuating the lack of trust
4:03:12 > 4:03:16keenly felt by the staff these new procedures are supposed to protect
4:03:16 > 4:03:21and risk further reputational damage by opening a sub, rightly, to
4:03:21 > 4:03:25accusations we are dragging our feet were letting perpetrators off the
4:03:25 > 4:03:29hook. We've made huge strides in the last hundred years but still have a
4:03:29 > 4:03:33patriarchal political culture that is, negates against woman and
4:03:33 > 4:03:37bodies. A complaints mechanism fit for purpose work to transform things
4:03:37 > 4:03:40overnight but will make a big difference and send a loud signal
4:03:40 > 4:03:46that we recognise the problem. But that difference and that signal
4:03:46 > 4:03:51will, themselves, be seriously undermined if MPs are left deciding
4:03:51 > 4:03:56on recall and other sanctions. I want to say a few last words about
4:03:56 > 4:03:59culture change and I have been very heartened by the number of people on
4:03:59 > 4:04:04both sides of the house if stressed the importance of culture change. It
4:04:04 > 4:04:08was not formally within the remit of our working group but I'm very glad
4:04:08 > 4:04:12we did stray into it. It's very right that we did. I think it does
4:04:12 > 4:04:16show we have an opportunity to start to dismantle the power inequalities
4:04:16 > 4:04:20that exercise such a damaging grip on politics and to replace them with
4:04:20 > 4:04:24a culture founded on dignity, equality and safety from harassment.
4:04:24 > 4:04:28One that goes further than sanctioning those who haven't yet
4:04:28 > 4:04:32grasped why grabbing somebody's knee without permission is a problem, one
4:04:32 > 4:04:36that also seeks to educate. I'm sorry that we didn't manage to get
4:04:36 > 4:04:39agreement for compulsory content training in this Parliament, though
4:04:39 > 4:04:43I'm glad we had the famous kite mark by any other name, we decided not to
4:04:43 > 4:04:47call it a kite mark. The Honourable member for Perth and North
4:04:47 > 4:04:51Perthshire will be glad there is still the idea of a naming and
4:04:51 > 4:04:53shaming device. It could still mean that proper compulsory content
4:04:53 > 4:04:59training might not start happening until 2022. I do think it's not
4:04:59 > 4:05:03right that staffers and visitors to the parliamentary estate have to
4:05:03 > 4:05:07wait another five years to be guaranteed safety in the workplace.
4:05:07 > 4:05:11But I want to put on a record formally now I believe we will have
4:05:11 > 4:05:15failed all of those of experience sexual misconduct and who
4:05:15 > 4:05:18experienced it in future if we don't continue the momentum started in
4:05:18 > 4:05:21this working group to take radical steps when it comes to culture
4:05:21 > 4:05:25change. The immunity once enjoyed by the powerful and influential is
4:05:25 > 4:05:28starting to wear off, but perhaps only because we are under a
4:05:28 > 4:05:31spotlight and right now there are loud, strong voices for change. It
4:05:31 > 4:05:36has to continue, those loud voices need to continue to be heard. This
4:05:36 > 4:05:40issue must not be allowed to be kicked into the long grass.
4:05:40 > 4:05:45Arguments like only those who employ staff should have to participate in
4:05:45 > 4:05:48training, nor should those kinds of arguments be allowed to gain
4:05:48 > 4:05:52traction. Every single peer and MP must learn about consent, bullying,
4:05:52 > 4:05:56to understand the power they hold and the weight of their actions.
4:05:56 > 4:06:01That education has to be ongoing and delivered by experts attacking
4:06:01 > 4:06:04misconduct and bullying. Crucially, I do believe, sadly, that this
4:06:04 > 4:06:08training does need to be accompanied by a system of financial penalties
4:06:08 > 4:06:12imposed on those who fail to cooperate, it's been recommended by
4:06:12 > 4:06:15the Public Administration and Constitutional affairs committees
4:06:15 > 4:06:18and could include withholding pay and allowances. The systems and
4:06:18 > 4:06:24processes have to have teeth or they will be rendered meaningless. Madame
4:06:24 > 4:06:26Debord is bigger, unfortunately, serious sexual harassment and
4:06:26 > 4:06:32bullying is endemic in Westminster. -- Madam Deputy Speaker. The
4:06:32 > 4:06:36behaviour in this chamber is part of the problem. I knows you and your
4:06:36 > 4:06:38colleagues will continue to show leadership in that respect as well
4:06:38 > 4:06:43as demanding much more from colleagues. Finally I want to echo
4:06:43 > 4:06:46those Honourable members who have already talked about the importance
4:06:46 > 4:06:52of ongoing evaluation review and development. We must make sure as we
4:06:52 > 4:06:56go along we're tracking to see how effective our new procedures are.
4:06:56 > 4:07:02That must also include those cases not taken forward. We need to devise
4:07:02 > 4:07:06mechanisms for trying to capture ones that don't even come into
4:07:06 > 4:07:10contact with the system. I disagree profoundly with the witnesses
4:07:10 > 4:07:12evidence to the working group was that we don't have a problem because
4:07:12 > 4:07:17no one ever reported one. A final few words about complainants wishing
4:07:17 > 4:07:21to remain anonymous. We've protected that right and reflected the
4:07:21 > 4:07:24importance of building up a picture that includes those cases, for
4:07:24 > 4:07:28example, if an individual is accused by a number of different people,
4:07:28 > 4:07:32that is a pattern of behaviour that can be investigated further, whether
4:07:32 > 4:07:35or not formal complaints are made. Of course we must uphold data
4:07:35 > 4:07:39protection laws but I'm pleased I think we found ways within the
4:07:39 > 4:07:42framework to pay attention to cases where the complainant wishes to
4:07:42 > 4:07:46remain anonymous. Madam Deputy Speaker, though the working group
4:07:46 > 4:07:49doesn't go as far as I would have liked in some areas, I'm proud of
4:07:49 > 4:07:55the extent to which we've signalled a 0% tolerance to sexual misconduct,
4:07:55 > 4:08:00making politics a world genuinely attractive, accessible and safe for
4:08:00 > 4:08:04irrespective of gender, race, sexuality or background is a prize
4:08:04 > 4:08:08from which society as a whole can only benefit. I'm reassured with the
4:08:08 > 4:08:11kind of response we've had from all sides of the house today that is
4:08:11 > 4:08:17something we can do, that we can make a real difference.Thank you
4:08:17 > 4:08:24Madam Deputy Speaker.Today marks a positive step forwards towards
4:08:24 > 4:08:27achieving a working environment that treats everyone with the dignity and
4:08:27 > 4:08:30respect they deserve when they come to work. Further work is needed but
4:08:30 > 4:08:33I do want to take this opportunity to thank all those who have helped
4:08:33 > 4:08:38us get to this point. So can I first thank all members of the working
4:08:38 > 4:08:44group, the Honourable members for Walsall South, Brent Central, Perth
4:08:44 > 4:08:46and North Perthshire, East Dunbartonshire, Brighton Pavilion,
4:08:46 > 4:08:53Belfast South... My noble friend Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, Lord
4:08:53 > 4:08:57Hope of Craighead and our staff representatives Max Friedman,
4:08:57 > 4:09:02Georgina Koester and Emily Cunningham, for all of their
4:09:02 > 4:09:06dedication and perseverance over the last few months. I'd also like to
4:09:06 > 4:09:10thank the amazingly hard-working members of the secretariat, Nick
4:09:10 > 4:09:14Beach, Andrew Boro, Christopher Clarke, Ian Hook, Justine Henin,
4:09:14 > 4:09:18Alex Langley, Helen Mott, Anna Murphy, Sophie Sommerville and Kate
4:09:18 > 4:09:23Emms, as well as my own leaders of his team. Their help, support and
4:09:23 > 4:09:27advice has been invaluable and I sincerely thank them for their drive
4:09:27 > 4:09:30and determination. I'm very grateful to all those who gave written or
4:09:30 > 4:09:35oral evidence to the group and for colleagues or sides of the house and
4:09:35 > 4:09:41in the other places given their own thoughts and advice. Adam Deputy
4:09:41 > 4:09:44Speaker, this Parliament must lead by example. It is a right not a
4:09:44 > 4:09:49privilege to be treated with dignity and respect at work. This place must
4:09:49 > 4:09:54set the best example of a workplace that protects and support all those
4:09:54 > 4:09:58working in it. So can I assure all those who contributed and who care
4:09:58 > 4:10:04deeply, as I do, about changing the future for all who work here, that
4:10:04 > 4:10:08I'm 100% committed to seeing this through. No rolling back, no
4:10:08 > 4:10:12watering down, and no delay. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope the house
4:10:12 > 4:10:17will support this motion.The question is that the amendment be
4:10:17 > 4:10:27made. As many as are of that opinion say aye. The ayes have it, the ayes
4:10:27 > 4:10:32have it. The motion as amended, as many as I wrote that opinion say
4:10:32 > 4:10:42aye. On the contrary know. The ayes have it, the ayes have it.
4:10:42 > 4:10:47The title of the private build sent down for consideration today.Middle
4:10:47 > 4:10:57level Bill.No.We will take new clause one which will it will be
4:10:57 > 4:11:09convenient to consider. Sir Christopher choke.I bake to move
4:11:09 > 4:11:13new clause one, minimum debt requirements. The Commissioner much
4:11:13 > 4:11:18assured that the water in the waterways must be a minimum depth of
4:11:18 > 4:11:25three feet. In the event that the depth is not maintained, no boaters
4:11:25 > 4:11:31should be required to pay any charge. And the background to this
4:11:31 > 4:11:44new clause is the principle of quid pro quo. Because the petitioners are
4:11:44 > 4:11:49concerned that new charges and obligations are being brought in
4:11:49 > 4:11:54without them getting anything in return. But before I expand on that.
4:11:54 > 4:12:01Can I say that because all of these new clauses and amendments are being
4:12:01 > 4:12:05grouped together in one, we are effectively discussing the Bill as a
4:12:05 > 4:12:12whole. I think every single part of the Bill is included in one or other
4:12:12 > 4:12:16of the amendments. And I'm grateful to my friend for confirming that
4:12:16 > 4:12:23that is the situation. I must make a few introductory remarks by saying
4:12:23 > 4:12:30that I know I am the petitioners much appreciate the way in which the
4:12:30 > 4:12:34promotion of this Bill have responded positively to the points
4:12:34 > 4:12:42made. As a series of good points that out in the promoter's statement
4:12:42 > 4:12:51and the people who worked on the committee I think that everybody
4:12:51 > 4:12:56agrees that this is to a credit to this House that this Bill has been
4:12:56 > 4:13:04looked at in such detail. Obviously, when we had the Second Reading
4:13:04 > 4:13:07debate, number of points were made and the petitioner and the
4:13:07 > 4:13:13commissioners responded to those and some of those responses were
4:13:13 > 4:13:16reflected in amendments that were brought forward at the Committee
4:13:16 > 4:13:21Stage and at the same time when the petitioners had a chance to be
4:13:21 > 4:13:26heard, over I think three days, many of their points were accepted. I
4:13:26 > 4:13:32think the stage where we are now is the amendments were put forward as a
4:13:32 > 4:13:39result of those were representation, question whether those amendments go
4:13:39 > 4:13:45far enough, could beach week in some way. -- could beach week in some
4:13:45 > 4:13:54way. I am sure that when the Bill does go to the Other Place, there
4:13:54 > 4:13:57will be a petition against it and we will be able to see the extent to
4:13:57 > 4:14:06which the petitioners arguments are accepted today prior to the Bill
4:14:06 > 4:14:12going to the Other Place. Because obviously it is open at any stage of
4:14:12 > 4:14:15the promoter of the Bill to say, I think that is a good point, we have
4:14:15 > 4:14:25not thought of that. I'm behalf of the promoters, he is a very good
4:14:25 > 4:14:32listener. And I am sure that will go well for the future. So this is a
4:14:32 > 4:14:43Bill that has been never objected to. I think it is now much better
4:14:43 > 4:14:47Bill, but although much better, it does not mean it is not capable of
4:14:47 > 4:14:53further improvement. That is the whole purpose of putting forward
4:14:53 > 4:15:00these new clauses and amendments this afternoon. Paragraph 2.3 of the
4:15:00 > 4:15:05statement on behalf of the promoter of the middle level commissioners in
4:15:05 > 4:15:13support of the Bill makes clear that the commissioners currently do not
4:15:13 > 4:15:17receive any income from the navigation of the waterways. With
4:15:17 > 4:15:22the passage of this Bill they will see income. New clause one is
4:15:22 > 4:15:33designed to ensure that the quid pro quo is that if the waterway is not
4:15:33 > 4:15:37navigable, those charges should not be applied. The petitioners believe
4:15:37 > 4:15:49that under case law that means the commissioners must provide something
4:15:49 > 4:15:52beyond what is already provided in return for making additional
4:15:52 > 4:15:59charges. I think you accept that is a reasonable proposition. The march
4:15:59 > 4:16:05cruising club specifically are of the opinion that if you are able to
4:16:05 > 4:16:09charge the boaters to use the system of navigation, it is essential that
4:16:09 > 4:16:18voter facilities are available and also there is adequate depth of
4:16:18 > 4:16:21water and that is maintained or introduced at a minimum standard and
4:16:21 > 4:16:27where that does not apply, then there should be a waving of any
4:16:27 > 4:16:36requirement to pay any charges. Yes, of course I would.As you would be
4:16:36 > 4:16:40aware. This does affect my constituency because without the
4:16:40 > 4:16:48middle level commissioners, we wouldn't have many thousands of
4:16:48 > 4:16:57farmland. The key point here is that the money that was previously spent
4:16:57 > 4:17:01on navigation unlocks, on these waterways, if it is actually funded
4:17:01 > 4:17:06through this charge, there will be more money for flood defenses. And
4:17:06 > 4:17:11flood defenses are absolute key issue and a priority in this part of
4:17:11 > 4:17:15my constituency. Do you agree that the principle of the Bill is
4:17:15 > 4:17:21actually really fit for purpose? Now he has got his involvement with
4:17:21 > 4:17:29these various amendments, but the principle is still very strong.I
4:17:29 > 4:17:36think the principle is that if the farmers and I know that my
4:17:36 > 4:17:40honourable friend has a significant interest in farming, if farmers are
4:17:40 > 4:17:46going to benefit from this type of scheme that I don't see why they
4:17:46 > 4:17:50should not have to pay for the benefit that they are getting. From
4:17:50 > 4:17:56that scheme. And that is what this is all about. I don't hold myself
4:17:56 > 4:18:03out as an expert on anything, but certainly not on this. I am told
4:18:03 > 4:18:09that if if there was no longer any land drainage, then the navigation
4:18:09 > 4:18:17would be actually a much wider, more effective, deeper and so on. So in a
4:18:17 > 4:18:20sense, the land drainage which enables the farmers to make their
4:18:20 > 4:18:28profits off the land is of direct benefit to the farmers, as the
4:18:28 > 4:18:36navigation would be there anyway. I don't know if you except that sure
4:18:36 > 4:18:42analysis of it. Maybe he is a better student of geography than I am. That
4:18:42 > 4:18:49is what I am informed. In that sense, Mr Deputy Speaker, when the
4:18:49 > 4:18:52commissioners were first given their role, it was on the basis that they
4:18:52 > 4:19:00would recover charges from the land owners rather than the users of the
4:19:00 > 4:19:07navigation. And so if there are going to be charges introduced for
4:19:07 > 4:19:13the use of the navigation, then the argument is those charges should be
4:19:13 > 4:19:16in respect of enabling the navigation to be kept open and
4:19:16 > 4:19:24usable by those who are being charged for using it. That seems a
4:19:24 > 4:19:32perfect and equitable way to do it. That is the background to the first
4:19:32 > 4:19:40Amendment of the new clause.Before he moves on, will he give way? I am
4:19:40 > 4:19:44very grateful to him. I apologise for missing his opening statement.
4:19:44 > 4:19:54But could he... Could he tell me how many times that this depth of water
4:19:54 > 4:19:59is not maintained to this level? Is this a solution looking for a
4:19:59 > 4:20:06problem or is this a genuine problem?I'm afraid I am not brief
4:20:06 > 4:20:11to have an answer to that particular question. All I can say is that is a
4:20:11 > 4:20:15general comment that this is a point which has been raised by the March
4:20:15 > 4:20:20cruising club and I imagine they would not be concerned about this if
4:20:20 > 4:20:26it was not a problem. That is all I can say to my honourable friend. The
4:20:26 > 4:20:31March cruising club believe that this is a very important issue for
4:20:31 > 4:20:35them. There should be this adequate depth of water to make sure the
4:20:35 > 4:20:46navigation is available. That brings me onto a new clause two which is a
4:20:46 > 4:20:51requirement to provide specified facilities. That would require the
4:20:51 > 4:20:57commissioners within 12 months of the day of the act coming into force
4:20:57 > 4:21:02providing facilities at those locks. Including a laboratory, freshwater
4:21:02 > 4:21:10point, beings, etc. They should also provide a minimum of ten moorings
4:21:10 > 4:21:14for up to seven days capable of accommodating a boat up to 50 feet
4:21:14 > 4:21:20in length. This is, again, a quid pro quo. If the commissioners want
4:21:20 > 4:21:29to make money out of the navigation, it would be sensible for them to be
4:21:29 > 4:21:35able to make sure that there are proper facilities for those vessels,
4:21:35 > 4:21:38which are using the navigation and will be paying significantly for
4:21:38 > 4:21:51that privilege. A similar point is raised a new clause three. By the
4:21:51 > 4:21:55March cruising club to say that the commissioners must within 12 months
4:21:55 > 4:22:08of the day this act comes in to force and of course... I understand
4:22:08 > 4:22:10the commissioners have more or less guaranteed that this is what they
4:22:10 > 4:22:16are going to do provide these facilities, but what the
4:22:16 > 4:22:20petitioners, understandably, want to ensure is that those undertakings
4:22:20 > 4:22:26and expression of good intention are properly reflected on the face of
4:22:26 > 4:22:30the legislation rather than just being left as a matter of good will.
4:22:30 > 4:22:39I will give way.Shortly there is very few precedents for putting this
4:22:39 > 4:22:45on the face of the Bill, specific infrastructure. I think it would
4:22:45 > 4:22:57some way cheapen the Bill and I think make it... The voting interest
4:22:57 > 4:23:03what they want above all else they want really good navigable waters,
4:23:03 > 4:23:09that are well maintained at the rate depth so they can enjoy both at
4:23:09 > 4:23:18different time peered and then if there is a service of revenue that
4:23:18 > 4:23:23means other facilities indeed can be looked at in the future. I would
4:23:23 > 4:23:25urge my right honourable friend putting this on the face of a Bill
4:23:25 > 4:23:33is not a good idea.I am glad that my honourable friend agrees that the
4:23:33 > 4:23:37provision of these facilities is a good idea, but I cannot understand
4:23:37 > 4:23:41why he thinks requiring them to be provided on the face of the Bill is
4:23:41 > 4:23:52not a good idea. He says there is no need. I suppose it is an issue of
4:23:52 > 4:23:57trust as to whether or not the undertakings can... Will be
4:23:57 > 4:24:05honoured. We have had precedent in other bills, private bills in this
4:24:05 > 4:24:09House, for example, in the North London cemetery Bill. Where the
4:24:09 > 4:24:20promoters of the Bill giving an undertaking which was then put on...
4:24:20 > 4:24:25Put in the public domain and that may be another way of resolving this
4:24:25 > 4:24:31problem. It seems what my right honourable friend is saying is that
4:24:31 > 4:24:35everyone is in agreement that these facilities are necessary and
4:24:35 > 4:24:43desirable and should be provided. So, that brings me onto new clause
4:24:43 > 4:24:48four, which is saying the commissioners must within 12 months
4:24:48 > 4:24:57enable access of moorings under a boot NT system. Operated by the
4:24:57 > 4:25:01commissioners. Not an unreasonable suggestion. This is a practise that
4:25:01 > 4:25:09is commonplace in the boating industry. Then I think the most
4:25:09 > 4:25:15important of these five introductory new clauses, Mr Deputy Speaker, is
4:25:15 > 4:25:19new clause five, which would make provision that no voter should be
4:25:19 > 4:25:24required to pay any charges under the provisions of this act until the
4:25:24 > 4:25:28facilities and moorings specified in the act are maintained in good
4:25:28 > 4:25:36repair and in working order.
4:25:36 > 4:25:40Should the users be required to pay before they got the facilities or
4:25:40 > 4:25:44should they only be required to pay once facilities are there? It seems
4:25:44 > 4:25:55to me that is an important issue.I particularly support new clause five
4:25:55 > 4:26:02Mr Deputy Speaker because I struggle to find a reason anybody couldn't
4:26:02 > 4:26:06support new clause five because it only seems to be fair. I wonder
4:26:06 > 4:26:10whether or not my honourable friend had had any discussions with either
4:26:10 > 4:26:14the promoter of the bill or the people behind it to find out if
4:26:14 > 4:26:21they, too, thought it was just a clause they would accept or what
4:26:21 > 4:26:23logical reason they have for not accepting it.We haven't reached
4:26:23 > 4:26:28that stage yet, I have to say, my honourable friend. It may be my
4:26:28 > 4:26:34fault because I haven't actually sat down with the promoters of this bill
4:26:34 > 4:26:37and discussed in detail these particular issues. My understanding
4:26:37 > 4:26:43is that there have been quite a lot of discussions around this in the
4:26:43 > 4:26:49context of the committee stage and that the petitioners, for the
4:26:49 > 4:26:56reasons I've set out, are still unhappy and feel that there needs to
4:26:56 > 4:26:59be a new clause incorporating this particular condition. Of course I'll
4:26:59 > 4:27:03give way.I thank the Honourable member for giving way and I am
4:27:03 > 4:27:06finding his speech of some interest, would he be interested to note
4:27:06 > 4:27:12clause four was amended in the committee to make clear revenue from
4:27:12 > 4:27:16navigation would only be spent on navigation purposes and this was
4:27:16 > 4:27:20done in response to the petitioners concern is to ensure the confidence
4:27:20 > 4:27:22they could have, that effectively whilst they are getting something
4:27:22 > 4:27:27for nothing, they would get something for what they pay and it
4:27:27 > 4:27:30would be clear navigation fees would go on navigational facilities and
4:27:30 > 4:27:36costs.I thank my honourable friend for his intervention. We'll be
4:27:36 > 4:27:40coming on to clause four and amendments to clause four. I'm not
4:27:40 > 4:27:45going to do anything other than say the petitioners and I are very
4:27:45 > 4:27:49pleased that new clause four was introduced into the bill in the
4:27:49 > 4:27:53committee stage in response to concerns expressed. I mentioned at
4:27:53 > 4:27:59the outset, because it was brought in at that stage, doesn't mean it's
4:27:59 > 4:28:05perfect. This is really why we've got these new clauses, these
4:28:05 > 4:28:09preliminary new clauses, and some amendments to clause four which I
4:28:09 > 4:28:14shall come to in due course. I think it's much easier for people to
4:28:14 > 4:28:19follow proceedings if we go, start at the beginning and go clause by
4:28:19 > 4:28:26clause.Yes? And very grateful, but would he agree with me that if new
4:28:26 > 4:28:30clause five were not accepted it would, in effect, mean people would
4:28:30 > 4:28:34say it was absolutely fine for the charges to be made, but the
4:28:34 > 4:28:40facilities not to be in good repair and working order and that would be
4:28:40 > 4:28:46intolerable if that were not accepted.I hear the Honourable
4:28:46 > 4:28:50friend speaking on behalf of the promoters say in my honourable
4:28:50 > 4:28:57friend would be wrong about that. Let's wait until we get to
4:28:57 > 4:29:01discussing clause four, which was introduced at the committee stage,
4:29:01 > 4:29:06to see whether we can tease more information out on all the
4:29:06 > 4:29:15implications. As far as... This brings me on to the amendments, Mr
4:29:15 > 4:29:21Deputy Speaker. Amendment number one, page two clause one, line 24,
4:29:21 > 4:29:27it basically says it's an unreasonably short period of time
4:29:27 > 4:29:37between this bill obtaining consent and being implemented. It specified
4:29:37 > 4:29:45it should only be 28 days, and it seems to me that it would be
4:29:45 > 4:29:51reasonable for that period to be six months. It would come into force at
4:29:51 > 4:29:59the end of six months beginning on the day which it was passed. I would
4:29:59 > 4:30:02not say it was the most important of all the amendments but it would be
4:30:02 > 4:30:06interesting to hear from the promoters asked why they don't think
4:30:06 > 4:30:10it's a reasonable position to have, because we know under the provisions
4:30:10 > 4:30:16of this bill they're going to have to draw up bylaws and it doesn't
4:30:16 > 4:30:23mean they can't start working on the bylaws in advance of the bill being
4:30:23 > 4:30:29passed into law and then leaving a period of six months until it
4:30:29 > 4:30:36implemented, bearing in mind the fact we're dealing with a lot of
4:30:36 > 4:30:41laypeople who are... Who will probably need a lot of notice of the
4:30:41 > 4:30:49changes that are going to be made under the provisions of this bill.
4:30:49 > 4:30:54So, amendments two, again, is, in a sense, a drafting amendment. When we
4:30:54 > 4:31:06get the definition of what is polluting, it seems to me, it's much
4:31:06 > 4:31:13easier to keep that as an objective test and so I've got no problem
4:31:13 > 4:31:16defining polluting matter as sewage or any other injurious matter,
4:31:16 > 4:31:23whether solid or liquid. We were let our imaginations run to wild on all
4:31:23 > 4:31:28that. What I find more difficult Mr Deputy Speaker is what is meant by
4:31:28 > 4:31:35the word offensive. What is added by including that, because essentially,
4:31:35 > 4:31:40what is offensive to one person may not be offensive to another. It's a
4:31:40 > 4:31:44subjective test. I'd be interested to know from my honourable friend
4:31:44 > 4:31:50what he thinks that subjective test adds in that particular part of the
4:31:50 > 4:31:59interpretation section on polluting matter. In relation to amendment
4:31:59 > 4:32:02three, I'm going through these quite quickly but as I don't think there
4:32:02 > 4:32:07is any need to spend a lot of time on amendments to which there should
4:32:07 > 4:32:13be a short and succinct answer saying, yes, I agree with the
4:32:13 > 4:32:16honourable gentleman, I think these are good amendments and we'll be
4:32:16 > 4:32:20happy to incorporate them in the bill. As far as amendment three
4:32:20 > 4:32:28goes, this is more of a probing amendment. Because we are in the new
4:32:28 > 4:32:35age of electricity. The definition of power driven vessel here includes
4:32:35 > 4:32:43a vessel propelled by detachable outboard engine. But it doesn't
4:32:43 > 4:32:50include a sailing boat, rowing boat, or canoe. Fine. Now that we've got a
4:32:50 > 4:32:57new generation of electric motors, why don't we introduce in a bill
4:32:57 > 4:33:06like this an incentive for people to use electric power on these
4:33:06 > 4:33:12waterways as photos? Because electric power is a much less
4:33:12 > 4:33:19polluting and better for the atmosphere. -- use these waterways
4:33:19 > 4:33:24as boaters. If it's quiet, as these new cards seem to be, it would
4:33:24 > 4:33:32hardly disturb anybody, as the boat powered by an electric motor glides
4:33:32 > 4:33:39down the route of the navigation. So I'd be interested in the thoughts of
4:33:39 > 4:33:45my honourable friend on that. And indeed on recognising the minister
4:33:45 > 4:33:49on the front bench, who's come along to help us in our deliberations.
4:33:49 > 4:33:54Maybe this is an issue as well which the government might be interested
4:33:54 > 4:33:58in thinking about introducing some sort of incentive for the use of
4:33:58 > 4:34:05electric motors rather than outboards. I know that in my
4:34:05 > 4:34:12constituency if there were more electric driven vessels rather than
4:34:12 > 4:34:17power driven vessels, a lot of my constituents would be very happy.
4:34:17 > 4:34:22That could be the opening up of a much larger issue, but why not start
4:34:22 > 4:34:29raising it on the first occasion to today? Which takes me on to
4:34:29 > 4:34:38amendment four Mr Deputy Speaker, which is about the use. Are we
4:34:38 > 4:34:42talking about the use of the vessels. It says in use in relation
4:34:42 > 4:34:46to any vessel on the waterway includes launching the vessel onto
4:34:46 > 4:34:52the waterway, keeping or mooring it on the waterway. I've got no quarrel
4:34:52 > 4:34:55with the rest of it, navigating getting it on the waterway and
4:34:55 > 4:34:59letting it for higher. But there seems to be a lot of concern about
4:34:59 > 4:35:05what happens when people have a vessel which is kept at the side of
4:35:05 > 4:35:15the waterway, even in a marina, always used as a houseboat. Are we
4:35:15 > 4:35:25really saying it is about using the vessel on a waterway? Under this
4:35:25 > 4:35:29definition, it would amount to using the vessel on a waterway and it
4:35:29 > 4:35:35doesn't seem to me that really fits in with common sense, using a
4:35:35 > 4:35:38waterway means, surely, using it, navigating it, letting it for
4:35:38 > 4:35:45higher. It doesn't include keeping or mooring it on the waterway. That
4:35:45 > 4:35:57is amendment number four. Number five is a more extensive version of
4:35:57 > 4:36:05the same concern, which has been raised by a number of the
4:36:05 > 4:36:16petitioners. Because the extension of waterways, they say they find the
4:36:16 > 4:36:21amended definition in this bill compared with what it was like
4:36:21 > 4:36:25before it went to committee is, I quote, a move in the right
4:36:25 > 4:36:31direction. But it still serves to extend the jurisdiction and control
4:36:31 > 4:36:35of the commissioners into privately owned property, such as marinas,
4:36:35 > 4:36:39which will usurp the rights of property owners to decide who and
4:36:39 > 4:36:44which boats can use the water over their land. And the petitioners feel
4:36:44 > 4:36:48this is an unwarranted interference with the rights of private citizens.
4:36:48 > 4:36:53And at the very least there should be provision for boat owners whose
4:36:53 > 4:36:59vessels remain permanently within the marina to make an offer what a
4:36:59 > 4:37:08declaration, a sort of waterway
4:37:08 > 4:37:09the marina to make an offer what a declaration, a sort of waterway, so
4:37:09 > 4:37:15they are no longer reliable for the charges. I think it's a very good
4:37:15 > 4:37:18analogy. If you don't use your vehicle, your motor vehicle, on the
4:37:18 > 4:37:23road, you don't have to pay the tax, the road tax. If you're not using a
4:37:23 > 4:37:28houseboat on the water, why should you have to pay for these charges
4:37:28 > 4:37:35and why should you? That issue could be resolved by having a narrower
4:37:35 > 4:37:42definition of waterway and that, indeed, is what amendment number
4:37:42 > 4:37:53five six to do, because it says at line 17, or is it lying 18... The
4:37:53 > 4:38:01waterways mean... Including the waterways set out in the schedule,
4:38:01 > 4:38:06that is what we would understand that the waterways. The banks of
4:38:06 > 4:38:12those waterways and any water in the middle level, which is what this
4:38:12 > 4:38:17bill is about. What I take objection to is... I don't see why it should
4:38:17 > 4:38:23include a lake, pond, marina was substantially enclosed water
4:38:23 > 4:38:27adjacent to those waterways. And from which any vessel may be
4:38:27 > 4:38:30navigated, whether or not through a lock or into the waterways
4:38:30 > 4:38:39themselves. If a vessel is navigated to the waterway, then it is in the
4:38:39 > 4:38:45waterway and it is liable under the provisions of this bill. But if it's
4:38:45 > 4:38:49not navigated in there, doesn't seem to me it is relevant to say it could
4:38:49 > 4:38:57be navigated. So this, one way of reducing the scope of the definition
4:38:57 > 4:39:00of waterways, about which the petitioners remain concerned, would
4:39:00 > 4:39:10be to support amendment number five. When we turn to amendment under six,
4:39:10 > 4:39:23which is to clause three, this is a new clause introduced as a result of
4:39:23 > 4:39:28the work of the committee. That dealt with this. It establishes a
4:39:28 > 4:39:33navigation advisory committee. And the petitioners are very pleased
4:39:33 > 4:39:43about that. But they think this needs further definition and that's
4:39:43 > 4:39:48not a criticism of the people who brought forward this amendment, but
4:39:48 > 4:39:53I think, as we know, the way we deal with legislation in our houses,
4:39:53 > 4:40:01sometimes an amendment can be improved when further considered.
4:40:01 > 4:40:07And the concerns of the petitioners are that the duty on the
4:40:07 > 4:40:10commissioners, though it is a good idea, it gives too much discretion
4:40:10 > 4:40:14to the commission is over, for example, the Constitution of the
4:40:14 > 4:40:21proposed navigation advisory committee.
4:40:21 > 4:40:25They think that all many further consideration and criteria as to the
4:40:25 > 4:40:29election and effectiveness of the committee's advice. The fact the
4:40:29 > 4:40:32committee is to consist of persons appointed by the commissioners who
4:40:32 > 4:40:37appeared to be to the commissioners, representatives put full control
4:40:37 > 4:40:41over the membership of the proposed committee, firmly within the
4:40:41 > 4:40:48commissioner's discretion. And if I looked at amendment number six, that
4:40:48 > 4:40:53deals with that particular point, because amendment number six would
4:40:53 > 4:41:01change subsection number two of section three so that instead of
4:41:01 > 4:41:04saying the committee is to consist of persons appointed by the
4:41:04 > 4:41:08commissioners who appeared to the commissioners to be taken to get a
4:41:08 > 4:41:12representative, it would actually say that who are representative.
4:41:12 > 4:41:16What could be the problem was not that straightforward English
4:41:16 > 4:41:19language. Why aren't we going to have a committee consistent --
4:41:19 > 4:41:23consisted of burst and appointed who are representative of recreational
4:41:23 > 4:41:27motor boating interest in the waterways, the interest of
4:41:27 > 4:41:30individuals who use the vessels and other navigation issues etc. Why
4:41:30 > 4:41:43have such this expression when a plain English would suffice?I think
4:41:43 > 4:41:45the honourable gentleman for the speech he has given and the point
4:41:45 > 4:41:49he's making but would he agree that slight danger with this amendment if
4:41:49 > 4:41:52it says are representative of all the items meaning someone would have
4:41:52 > 4:41:54to represent all those areas when the whole point of a representative
4:41:54 > 4:41:59committee without people who represent the friend areas, the same
4:41:59 > 4:42:01way as we all represent different uncertainties even though we have
4:42:01 > 4:42:06the same duty as a member.The point my honourable friend makes is a
4:42:06 > 4:42:11brilliant one but is nothing to do with this. Because actually, what it
4:42:11 > 4:42:16says is it is not a question of what they are representative of, because
4:42:16 > 4:42:21that spells out. It's a question of whether they are representative of
4:42:21 > 4:42:26those groups set out or whether they appeared to the commissioners to be
4:42:26 > 4:42:31representative of. It seems to me that it is here, you should be quite
4:42:31 > 4:42:34easy to establish whether someone is representative of these particular
4:42:34 > 4:42:37interest, rather than appearing to be commissioners to be
4:42:37 > 4:42:43representative of them, but anyway that is my response to my honourable
4:42:43 > 4:42:53friend's intervention.I had intended to make a point of order
4:42:53 > 4:42:58when he stopped speaking. On the point of early -- order, earlier
4:42:58 > 4:43:02today Toys "R" Us announced the company has gone into
4:43:02 > 4:43:08administration, ramifications in my constituency. I spent majority of
4:43:08 > 4:43:11the day time to get in touch with administers with no success. Can I
4:43:11 > 4:43:15ask if you have been given any advancement of a statement now and
4:43:15 > 4:43:18how can members of Parliament do their job if they cannot get in
4:43:18 > 4:43:20touch with the company to seek security for the staff that for
4:43:20 > 4:43:27them?Normally I would not take the point of order but as Christopher
4:43:27 > 4:43:30has stopped I recognise that would be a frustration not to get it.
4:43:30 > 4:43:36First of all, it's on the record now. I have been given no notice
4:43:36 > 4:43:39from ministerial statement about this series issue of Toys "R" Us but
4:43:39 > 4:43:42I recognise you are representing your constituents and I hope the
4:43:42 > 4:43:46message has gone loud and clear that Toys "R" Us should be waking up with
4:43:46 > 4:43:48the member of Parliament to ensure that you can represent the workers
4:43:48 > 4:43:54right there. Sir Christopher.Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you.
4:43:54 > 4:44:00Unfortunately my children are so old that they don't benefit from visits
4:44:00 > 4:44:06to Toys "R" Us, but anyway it's very sad when any long-established
4:44:06 > 4:44:22business goes into administration. Mr Deputy Speaker... In terms of the
4:44:22 > 4:44:27wording of this about the weather people are representative or who
4:44:27 > 4:44:30appeared to be to the commissioners to be I wondered whether my
4:44:30 > 4:44:34honourable friend thought the commissioners might hear some kind
4:44:34 > 4:44:37of legal action on the basis of whether or not somebody could be
4:44:37 > 4:44:41determined to be a representative and how that might be the case and
4:44:41 > 4:44:46that somebody might say I don't think these people are
4:44:46 > 4:44:49representative for X Y and Z and therefore it puts the qualification
4:44:49 > 4:44:53in to help them get out of a potentially sticky situation. I
4:44:53 > 4:45:00wonder if that was the explanation for why it was worded as it was.I
4:45:00 > 4:45:02think it's a more plausible explanation than the one being put
4:45:02 > 4:45:08forward by our honourable friend. I think we said enough about that. We
4:45:08 > 4:45:12will hear what our honourable friend thinks about it when he comes to
4:45:12 > 4:45:20mind up a response to this debate. -- wind up. As far as the other
4:45:20 > 4:45:28amendment six, seven and eight are concerned to clause three, the
4:45:28 > 4:45:34petitioners are concerned that the requirement that the commissioners
4:45:34 > 4:45:39must take the committee's views into consideration has limited use
4:45:39 > 4:45:43because the commissioners could say that they have taken those views
4:45:43 > 4:45:47into consideration but found them to be of no value. The only remedy for
4:45:47 > 4:45:51in such failure to take the committee's these properly into
4:45:51 > 4:45:54account would be judicial review which is strictly time-limited,
4:45:54 > 4:46:00expensive and hugely unreliable. With historic by as they think in
4:46:00 > 4:46:05favour of authorities. I don't know about that, but certainly they are
4:46:05 > 4:46:12right in saying that judicial review is a long and expensive way of
4:46:12 > 4:46:18seeking redress. So, in the lives of those concerns, I put forward
4:46:18 > 4:46:22amendment number seven, which says that instead of the commissioners,
4:46:22 > 4:46:28this is in subsection six of clause number three, instead of the
4:46:28 > 4:46:30Commissioner requiring commissioners must take into consideration any
4:46:30 > 4:46:36matter, the commissioners must give full consideration because there's a
4:46:36 > 4:46:38difference between taking into consideration and giving
4:46:38 > 4:46:43consideration is seems to me, and that if the commissioners give full
4:46:43 > 4:46:48consideration to any matter that would be useful and to reinforce
4:46:48 > 4:46:53that point, at the end, amendment number eight which would add at the
4:46:53 > 4:46:56end, they give full consideration to any matter, recommendation,
4:46:56 > 4:46:59representation which may from time to time be referred or made to them
4:46:59 > 4:47:01by the committee and the Sobhi amendment number eight and in the
4:47:01 > 4:47:06advent of -- event of not accepting such representation or
4:47:06 > 4:47:09recommendation give full reason for that decision. It seems to me that
4:47:09 > 4:47:15what provide the sort of protection that the petitioners are seeking and
4:47:15 > 4:47:21would actually strengthen clause three and make clause three and even
4:47:21 > 4:47:31more effective addition to this bill than it is currently. Turning now to
4:47:31 > 4:47:39amendment clause four and amendment nine, amendment nine would be to
4:47:39 > 4:47:52leave out subsection number two of clause four, and this is in essence
4:47:52 > 4:47:57a probing amendment to draw attention to this whole issue,
4:47:57 > 4:48:01because as my honourable friend said in an earlier intervention, this
4:48:01 > 4:48:05whole issue of charges and constraints upon the way in which
4:48:05 > 4:48:12charges can be made is a useful amendment to the Bill. But I'm
4:48:12 > 4:48:17suggesting that it could be linked more specifically with each of the
4:48:17 > 4:48:24different uses for it which charges will be recoverable, and therefore
4:48:24 > 4:48:31in amendment number ten, I'm suggesting that in exercising the
4:48:31 > 4:48:35power and subs -- power under subsection 18 rather than the will
4:48:35 > 4:48:39of section one the commissioners must aim to secure that taking
4:48:39 > 4:48:47one... Does not exceed the annualized cost incurred by
4:48:47 > 4:48:49commissioners in respect of navigation under the navigation act
4:48:49 > 4:48:55and it seems that that is relating to the use of any waterway by any
4:48:55 > 4:48:59vessel. Those would be the charges for the use of the waterway and they
4:48:59 > 4:49:04would link indirectly with the functions in respect of navigation
4:49:04 > 4:49:11under the navigation act. I'm a much more dubious about the linking in
4:49:11 > 4:49:17the reasonable charges for the provision of services and facilities
4:49:17 > 4:49:22in respect of the waterways and their banks because those... They
4:49:22 > 4:49:30not linked in with taking... They're not separated out from the more
4:49:30 > 4:49:37general and nor is there a requirement for registration of any
4:49:37 > 4:49:43vessel under navigation bylaws. It seems to me that those charges
4:49:43 > 4:49:52should be separately identified and accounted for and undergo the test
4:49:52 > 4:49:55of taking one financial year with another that the charges under those
4:49:55 > 4:50:02subsections should not exceed the annualized cost. So, this is a
4:50:02 > 4:50:12refinement of clause four, but I think it would actually improve
4:50:12 > 4:50:23clause number four significantly. And if one looks at amendment number
4:50:23 > 4:50:3711... Again, this is dealing with this issue, but that refers to the
4:50:37 > 4:50:46annualized issue and then what I wanted to do also was draw attention
4:50:46 > 4:50:51to amendment number 12, which covers that as well saying that
4:50:51 > 4:50:53commissioners may revise, weight or remove any charge pics under
4:50:53 > 4:50:59subsection one AA in different charges may be fixed for different
4:50:59 > 4:51:06cases or classes. -- 1A. It would be extending the discretion may have,
4:51:06 > 4:51:10but making sure there were specific to the different categories of
4:51:10 > 4:51:20activity for which they can recover charges. Amendment number 13 is
4:51:20 > 4:51:28again a probing amendment. It is to leave out subsection number four. I
4:51:28 > 4:51:33was wondering whether we could hear some more explanation as to why the
4:51:33 > 4:51:36commissioners want to make use of the services and facilities referred
4:51:36 > 4:51:44to in subsection 1B subject to such terms and conditions as may be
4:51:44 > 4:51:48specified in writing and I'm sure that it would be Fozz -- possible to
4:51:48 > 4:51:55get an explanation of that. I think the most radical amendment that I
4:51:55 > 4:51:59put forward in relation to clause number four, and I hope this will
4:51:59 > 4:52:04find favour with members of the House right across the House, and
4:52:04 > 4:52:11that is amendment number 14 at the end which we say no charge of the
4:52:11 > 4:52:15parable in respect to these of a waterway by a vessel being used by a
4:52:15 > 4:52:22person whose registered disabled. Mr Deputy Speaker, the reason I raised
4:52:22 > 4:52:30it is because it's quite an issue about disability and the use of
4:52:30 > 4:52:35waterways and the use of powers similar to the powers which are
4:52:35 > 4:52:45being sought by the promoters of this bill. And those powers have on
4:52:45 > 4:52:53occasions than I think one can say abused, and people who are disabled
4:52:53 > 4:53:03have found themselves pillared and discriminated against quite
4:53:03 > 4:53:10severely. And why should it not be possible to exempt disabled people
4:53:10 > 4:53:17from the provisions of these charges? There is a press cutting
4:53:17 > 4:53:25that I've been sent from April 2015, from Wiltshire, where a disabled
4:53:25 > 4:53:35boat owner living on the canal was faced with up to £76,000 in cost as
4:53:35 > 4:53:42a result of action being taken, which the people who are acting on
4:53:42 > 4:53:56his behalf, the trust, they took the view that it was a... Instead of
4:53:56 > 4:54:04allowing this disabled individual who was living on incapacity
4:54:04 > 4:54:07benefits and disability living allowance is, instead of allowing
4:54:07 > 4:54:16him to repair his boat over a period of time, they imposed strict
4:54:16 > 4:54:21conditions of his license and required him to vacate not only his
4:54:21 > 4:54:28boat, but also what was his home and insult was added to injury by the
4:54:28 > 4:54:36fact that he was denied legal aid and the legal officer of the
4:54:36 > 4:54:42national chattels association represented him instead -- national
4:54:42 > 4:54:46travellers Association.I'm just waiting to see how it links in with
4:54:46 > 4:54:51the Bill.It linked in with amendment number 14, because
4:54:51 > 4:54:57amendment number 14 would exempt... I'm more bothered about the canal
4:54:57 > 4:55:01and that particular individual was not actually on the middle levels or
4:55:01 > 4:55:05affected by it, so I understand in reference, but not in detail.I
4:55:05 > 4:55:09accept we don't want to go into anymore detail than I've already
4:55:09 > 4:55:15done, Mr Deputy Speaker. But the analogy is that the powers that are
4:55:15 > 4:55:18being sought in this bill by the middle level commissioners are
4:55:18 > 4:55:24almost identical to the powers which have already been obtained by other
4:55:24 > 4:55:31organizations such as the canal and river trust which operates on the
4:55:31 > 4:55:36Kenneth Navin canal. I get way.
4:55:36 > 4:55:44Can you tell me, is there a serious demand from disabled people from the
4:55:44 > 4:55:47community to actually have this extension? Because I have a number
4:55:47 > 4:55:57of disabled constituents, and as I have pointed out, Mr Deputy Speaker,
4:55:57 > 4:56:05there are many versions of my constituency who, I have not come
4:56:05 > 4:56:11across any demand from disabled people. We have great respect for
4:56:11 > 4:56:16disabled community, but is he really saying that the requirement, or
4:56:16 > 4:56:21decide to give an exemption from the charges, and make this much more
4:56:21 > 4:56:27bureaucratic and also, they're very proud and do they really want is
4:56:27 > 4:56:34exemption?They'd only get the exemption if they apply for it.
4:56:34 > 4:56:41Disabled people are proud and I have a lot of disabled members of my
4:56:41 > 4:56:44constituency. But that does not mean that they don't benefit or cherish
4:56:44 > 4:56:54the ability to park their cars using the benefit of the parking permit.
4:56:54 > 4:56:59But the answer, the direct answer to my honourable friends intervention,
4:56:59 > 4:57:03I have not received any representations prior to the speech
4:57:03 > 4:57:07from disabled constituents of his. If I had, I would have preferred
4:57:07 > 4:57:16them to him. The canal and river trust dealing with this issue in
4:57:16 > 4:57:21Wiltshire, they accepted in principle, that they should not have
4:57:21 > 4:57:26enforcement taken against them, as they would taken against an
4:57:26 > 4:57:32able-bodied person. But they have not yet been very keen to
4:57:32 > 4:57:39communicate that policy to disabled people there. But, all I can say is
4:57:39 > 4:57:43that, when one looks at the way in which these pounds have been used in
4:57:43 > 4:57:51other parts of the country, and waterways, then there is a potential
4:57:51 > 4:58:02issue here. I've insured that it is discussed, as we know and the other
4:58:02 > 4:58:09place, there is even more interest in promoting the cause of disabled
4:58:09 > 4:58:14people than there is in this house, I think. And it may be that when
4:58:14 > 4:58:19this bill gets to the other place, that they will wish to pursue the
4:58:19 > 4:58:28content of amendment 14 if it is accepted today. So, Mr Deputy
4:58:28 > 4:58:39Speaker, that takes on to the amendments 15 and 16. And these are
4:58:39 > 4:58:45amendments, not designed to leave out clauses five and seven, and I
4:58:45 > 4:58:53put them in order to enable us to have a debate on the content of
4:58:53 > 4:59:00those clauses should it be thought desirable. But, having regard to the
4:59:00 > 4:59:07time, it seems to me that probably the best thing to do would be to not
4:59:07 > 4:59:13speak to those amendments, but to get on and go on to one or two... My
4:59:13 > 4:59:21honourable friend says that that is a shame, but... Anyway! One each on
4:59:21 > 4:59:35that one!He wanted to make a very...Because the river depending
4:59:35 > 4:59:41on which part of my constituents you are, flows into this. So what causes
4:59:41 > 4:59:57a wider issue.I think it's very important that my honourable friend
4:59:57 > 5:00:01has been able to put an interest in this subject matter. In the way that
5:00:01 > 5:00:10he has. We then get onto the amendment number, let's turn the
5:00:10 > 5:00:19right page over, amendment number 17, page eight clause nine, leave
5:00:19 > 5:00:37subsection three. One can see that, line 35, this is about when, this
5:00:37 > 5:00:44the deal with clause nine, and what it would do is add or remove the
5:00:44 > 5:00:55provision that says whenever it vehicles left, unless it is not
5:00:55 > 5:01:08passable Centura, race and remove the vessel. While it's quite clear,
5:01:08 > 5:01:13and the other parts of the clause that if a vehicle, the vessel is
5:01:13 > 5:01:18abandoned in the waterway and is absolutely interfering with the
5:01:18 > 5:01:22navigation. Then obviously it needs to be removed very quickly. But when
5:01:22 > 5:01:27one takes into account, Mr Deputy Speaker, the very wide definition
5:01:27 > 5:01:34that there is of waterway, which have already spoken, it seems to me
5:01:34 > 5:01:43the inclusion of subsection three is potentially oppressive. Because, it
5:01:43 > 5:01:51means that the commission is going to, for example, enter a Marina and
5:01:51 > 5:02:04take action and remove the vessel at a considerable cost. No more than 28
5:02:04 > 5:02:10days of notice. So that amendment is to leave out that power from the
5:02:10 > 5:02:27bill. And clause... Can I just come on out to close 11, which is to deal
5:02:27 > 5:02:37with the requirements of registration and clause page 12,
5:02:37 > 5:02:47clause 11. It includes a very important amendment, which is
5:02:47 > 5:02:52promoted by the cruising club and others, and this relates to the
5:02:52 > 5:03:04level of charges that can be... Increased in any one year. And what
5:03:04 > 5:03:09it does is, it introduces a requirement that such charges do not
5:03:09 > 5:03:16increase above inflation. And the reason for that is because many of
5:03:16 > 5:03:24the people who are boaters and, maybe some of them are represented
5:03:24 > 5:03:29by my honourable friends here this evening, many of those people are
5:03:29 > 5:03:35not very well-off and financial terms, and they need to be owed to
5:03:35 > 5:03:41plan their budgets and cares and what the costs are going to be of
5:03:41 > 5:03:48having a vessel on the waterway, they need to have a surgeon to for
5:03:48 > 5:03:52example that the charges are going to be level and cannot increase by
5:03:52 > 5:04:00more than the rate of CPI index every year. Mr Deputy Speaker,
5:04:00 > 5:04:06counsel tenses, counsel
5:04:06 > 5:04:07every year. Mr Deputy Speaker, counsel tenses, counsel, they have
5:04:07 > 5:04:12made some exceptions to that recently, the general proposition is
5:04:12 > 5:04:21that they can not be increased by more than CPI. And then, I am going
5:04:21 > 5:04:32to rush to the last amendment. Because...OnNet
5:04:35 > 5:04:41that the bill doesn't state initially what the themes are, would
5:04:41 > 5:04:51you not preferred the bills stayed with that should be?As wise as I
5:04:51 > 5:04:59would like to agree, I think the level of fees, this got to be some
5:04:59 > 5:05:04discretion. The level of the fees needs to relate to the duties of the
5:05:04 > 5:05:16game to be carried out. And funded by the seas. -- fees. The money for
5:05:16 > 5:05:26the fees has to be spent particularly on navigation.You do
5:05:26 > 5:05:29not need to explain were very discussed, and I know you're not
5:05:29 > 5:05:42attempting to do the.This is amendment number 26, clause 15,
5:05:42 > 5:05:50line... The protocol of removing vessels, the commissioners must in
5:05:50 > 5:05:54consultation with the navigation adviser committee, publish and
5:05:54 > 5:06:03maintain a protocol by virtue. In my amendment is, instead of in
5:06:03 > 5:06:09consultation with, in conjunction with. Because it seems that the
5:06:09 > 5:06:14advisory committee should be working jointly with the commissioners,
5:06:14 > 5:06:18rather than adjusting consultation with the commissioners of this
5:06:18 > 5:06:35important matter. So that, that that amendment. And when we look at the
5:06:35 > 5:06:41subparagraph on subsection four of clause 14. That again is an
5:06:41 > 5:06:45amendment to try and reduce the powers conferred upon the
5:06:45 > 5:06:53commissioners under way that they have been exercise. As he said at
5:06:53 > 5:07:00the beginning, this is a much and improved bill compared to what it
5:07:00 > 5:07:06was. It obviously would not be possible to test the will of the
5:07:06 > 5:07:16house on each one. And I'm glad that you agree with me, Mr Deputy Speaker
5:07:16 > 5:07:25on a proposition. But I know the motives of the bill are worrying,
5:07:25 > 5:07:28because you're discussing these things today, whether night means
5:07:28 > 5:07:35they'll be discussed further when the bill gets to the other place.
5:07:35 > 5:07:38And I my understanding, when the bill goes into the other place,
5:07:38 > 5:07:45there are many people will put in petitions and I ensure that the
5:07:45 > 5:07:53other place will build upon the discussions that we are having on
5:07:53 > 5:07:56this bill. So that eventually the bill will be even better than it is
5:07:56 > 5:08:10now. I beg to move clause one.
5:08:12 > 5:08:18Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am proud to respond, I
5:08:18 > 5:08:24may not be the most conventional way, the detailed reservation of the
5:08:24 > 5:08:32honourable member for chair, it does make sense, and we wish to support
5:08:32 > 5:08:38the bill is it stands. While it is narrow in scope, it has
5:08:38 > 5:08:46satisfactory, and is taking place in committee and stations at an end.
5:08:46 > 5:08:53The mid-level of defence try to retain
5:08:58 > 5:09:05pass between 1663 and 1874, so we appreciate that the legislative
5:09:05 > 5:09:07framework want to pay the commissioners is in need of an
5:09:07 > 5:09:17update. Because all of the all of the mainland is below sea level, the
5:09:17 > 5:09:21waterways could pose a significant risk to the estimated hundred
5:09:21 > 5:09:25thousand people living and working in the area. In the simplest terms,
5:09:25 > 5:09:31this will allow the commissioners to bring in revenue from boat owners,
5:09:31 > 5:09:35which will be used to improve the waterways. The agency denial which
5:09:35 > 5:09:39are trust, all similar powers in
5:09:43 > 5:09:51an line with his neighbours, it can make a real difference and the
5:09:51 > 5:09:56waterways, though I appreciate the desire from local boat users from
5:09:56 > 5:09:59facilities as he heard, this will allow the commissioners to raise
5:09:59 > 5:10:05revenue to deliver this. The chief executive commissioners, has said
5:10:05 > 5:10:10around 1500 vessels and use their looks every year, and are on a
5:10:10 > 5:10:14hundred bucks are hiding unlicensed on the waterway. He believes that is
5:10:14 > 5:10:22the largest reservoir in the country. I cannot something
5:10:22 > 5:10:29organisation but owners said they should be done I cannot think bill
5:10:29 > 5:10:32could be a money gathering excess of the commissions. However there are
5:10:32 > 5:10:40positions and the bill, as outlined already which prevent the
5:10:40 > 5:10:43commissioners from raising more navigation revenue then they spend
5:10:43 > 5:10:50on navigation. This is not simply a matter of money gathering, and that
5:10:50 > 5:11:01proper safeguards are in place. They also noted that the waterways is
5:11:01 > 5:11:04associated, the residential boat owners Association, the Association
5:11:04 > 5:11:10of waterway cruising clubs, would support the bill, I understand they
5:11:10 > 5:11:16remain in support. So the detailed reservations, at some of the
5:11:16 > 5:11:22interventions from others.
5:11:22 > 5:11:26I wondered whether or not she had any sympathy for any of the
5:11:26 > 5:11:29amendments put forward by my honourable friend and in particular
5:11:29 > 5:11:32the one about the no charge being payable for the use of the waterway
5:11:32 > 5:11:36by a vessel being used by a person whose registered disabled. Is that
5:11:36 > 5:11:42not something that the Labour Party would welcome?And grateful for that
5:11:42 > 5:11:45intervention. Andersen he makes a valid point and we will want to
5:11:45 > 5:11:49increase the accessibility so that everyone can enjoy the waterways. It
5:11:49 > 5:11:51is certainly something we would consider further in later
5:11:51 > 5:11:54discussions on the Bill but not something that we will be seeing go
5:11:54 > 5:12:00to a vote later today. Taking all this into account, Mr Speaker, Mr
5:12:00 > 5:12:04Deputy Speaker, we are satisfied this bill is sensible in updating
5:12:04 > 5:12:07the legal framework that sets out the role of the middle level
5:12:07 > 5:12:11commissioners bringing them into line with what now standard practice
5:12:11 > 5:12:14across comparable waterways. Despite its unusual journey through
5:12:14 > 5:12:19Westminster we have no problems in supporting this bill this afternoon.
5:12:19 > 5:12:23Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to get another opportunity
5:12:23 > 5:12:26to speak in relation to this bill. Given its already been through a
5:12:26 > 5:12:30second readings I will focus my remarks on the amendments we have
5:12:30 > 5:12:35today and the changes made in committee. As it's been referred to
5:12:35 > 5:12:37by the honourable member for Halifax there's been a number of positive
5:12:37 > 5:12:40changes that were made in this bill to respond to the petitioners
5:12:40 > 5:12:45concern and I was grateful to hear in the opening remarks from the
5:12:45 > 5:12:47honourable member how he referred to the fact that there have been
5:12:47 > 5:12:52changes made in people had been listening to what was said. But I do
5:12:52 > 5:12:56think it's appropriate to briefly go through and say why I don't think
5:12:56 > 5:13:01it's appropriate for the amendment and the New Clause is proposed to be
5:13:01 > 5:13:03accepted. Briefly in terms of New Clause one it sets a minimum
5:13:03 > 5:13:13navigation that's lower than the one under current legislation. New
5:13:13 > 5:13:16Clause at number two, three, four and five referred to specific
5:13:16 > 5:13:20facilities that could be provided. The thing is it was suggested in one
5:13:20 > 5:13:23of the interventions made it does not seem logical to pursue on the
5:13:23 > 5:13:27face of statute where we have things like a coin-operated water shower.
5:13:27 > 5:13:32It also means we have dangers of this legislation becoming completely
5:13:32 > 5:13:36outdated if it fits on the front of a primary piece of legislation. It
5:13:36 > 5:13:41does also make sense for the uses by the mechanisms proposed in the Bill
5:13:41 > 5:13:45to be able to discuss what are the appropriate facilities? And also for
5:13:45 > 5:13:49example by including some of these items it means that if they don't
5:13:49 > 5:13:52get planning permission for example it could render particular powers
5:13:52 > 5:13:56any effective and therefore I would urge the House to reject all the
5:13:56 > 5:14:03Clause is proposed. Very briefly I will give way.I certainly take the
5:14:03 > 5:14:08point he makes on the other specific points, but New Clause five does not
5:14:08 > 5:14:13actually have anything specific, it just maintains that something should
5:14:13 > 5:14:17be in good repair and working order so I wondered if that New Clause was
5:14:17 > 5:14:22not accepted, what with the appropriate remedy be for the
5:14:22 > 5:14:24boaters to make sure they were not paying for something they weren't
5:14:24 > 5:14:28able to actually use?I think the honourable member for his
5:14:28 > 5:14:32intervention. I think what we are clear about is the way New Clause
5:14:32 > 5:14:37four was amended means that income can only been used for navigation
5:14:37 > 5:14:40purposes and income navigation purposes, and ultimately there
5:14:40 > 5:14:44becomes a chicken and egg situation. If the commissioners are going to
5:14:44 > 5:14:47provide the type of facilities people want to see on the middle
5:14:47 > 5:14:50level, in consultation with navigation users, there will need to
5:14:50 > 5:14:55be money raised to provide those facilities. The alternative is to
5:14:55 > 5:14:59ask those paying for drainage to provide the secured -- the abilities
5:14:59 > 5:15:03to be provided initially which is neither a fair or applicable way of
5:15:03 > 5:15:07looking to get the resources into actually pay for the facilities to
5:15:07 > 5:15:10be provided. This cannot be a money raising exercise. It's absolutely
5:15:10 > 5:15:16clear what the purpose of any money raised by navigation are for. People
5:15:16 > 5:15:23are already paying council tax in terms of drainage and via a.On the
5:15:23 > 5:15:29question of navigation I wonder if you could help me understand whether
5:15:29 > 5:15:33this historical public right of navigation by extending those powers
5:15:33 > 5:15:36into privately owned waters and private Marines, would that give the
5:15:36 > 5:15:43middle level commissioners complete control to charge boats with
5:15:43 > 5:15:47licensed these?I thank the honourable member for Peterborough
5:15:47 > 5:15:50for her intervention and an amendment was made to the billing
5:15:50 > 5:15:53committee to make clear that where someone owns the waterways and
5:15:53 > 5:15:57branded properties only there is that would not extending the powers
5:15:57 > 5:16:01to there. In terms of the marinas themselves it's worth noting they
5:16:01 > 5:16:05permitted that promoted the Bill the marinas covered have wish to be
5:16:05 > 5:16:09included within this. In case of the marinas there is no definition
5:16:09 > 5:16:13between the water. You're not talking a lock or key, we are
5:16:13 > 5:16:16talking there's no waterway so there has been a wish to manage it as a
5:16:16 > 5:16:20whole system. For example registration applies across a lot to
5:16:20 > 5:16:23me don't have different safety standards are different insurance
5:16:23 > 5:16:27requirements which should be a benefit to her constituents. Coming
5:16:27 > 5:16:32on to burst of the amendments, amendment number one -- first of the
5:16:32 > 5:16:35imminent. He talked about extending the time period for bringing this
5:16:35 > 5:16:39bill into effect. It's worth noting that in terms of many of the
5:16:39 > 5:16:44provisions around construction and use -- he's their the month
5:16:44 > 5:16:46transition period has been undertaken but he does not make
5:16:46 > 5:16:50sense to lay off all the provisions of this bill for that link the
5:16:50 > 5:16:53period. For example promoters of new duty to have regard to the interest
5:16:53 > 5:16:57of both dwellers bass boat dwellers, that would not make sense to delay.
5:16:57 > 5:17:05In relation to amendment number two, I think it is quite clear, where did
5:17:05 > 5:17:09the any other event that come from? It is similar to the requirements
5:17:09 > 5:17:12under the environment agency's powers to control discharges into
5:17:12 > 5:17:17water for work purposes under section 163 of the water resources
5:17:17 > 5:17:20act, 1991. If the well-established definition I hope that will reassure
5:17:20 > 5:17:26him. In terms of amendment number three, he said it was a probing
5:17:26 > 5:17:29amendment. The issue is adding electric vehicles onto the end of a
5:17:29 > 5:17:34provision that also includes power vehicles under sail. I think does
5:17:34 > 5:17:37not take account where technology could go as he alluded to in the
5:17:37 > 5:17:40fact that electric motors are becoming much more powerful,
5:17:40 > 5:17:43certainly far more powerful than a sealed vessel ended up not make
5:17:43 > 5:17:48sense for that to be excluded although as I say I noted he said it
5:17:48 > 5:17:54was a probing amendment. Amendment number four, it would actually have
5:17:54 > 5:18:01issues that the promoters would find unacceptable as it potentially them
5:18:01 > 5:18:04-- removes the need for a static vessel to meet construction and
5:18:04 > 5:18:08safety standards or insurance requirements. I think given the
5:18:08 > 5:18:11issues we have been debating over the past year view left with a
5:18:11 > 5:18:16indispensable that houseboats don't have those. Moving on to amendment
5:18:16 > 5:18:21number five. This extends the commissioner's powers in an odd way
5:18:21 > 5:18:27and could see them having to be required to dig out virtually every
5:18:27 > 5:18:30watercourse in the area, which is not actually unnavigable course, so
5:18:30 > 5:18:36again that's not an amendment would suggest. The idea of having a
5:18:36 > 5:18:40waterway sonnet does not really reflect the fact that the idea that
5:18:40 > 5:18:44taking care of by the change made around someone's own boat in their
5:18:44 > 5:18:47own property and only they use that. I would be very different parking it
5:18:47 > 5:18:50in a marina for example, the equivalent of parking it in a public
5:18:50 > 5:18:59car park. Coming onto some of the other amendments. Number six, I made
5:18:59 > 5:19:05the point in my intervention about how this could require that this
5:19:05 > 5:19:09would potentially allow challenges, the honourable member pointed out
5:19:09 > 5:19:13around who had been appointed, if someone felt that they did not
5:19:13 > 5:19:16represent them. We did not yield... I don't feel that an appropriate or
5:19:16 > 5:19:21helpful addition to the Bill and that would potentially make it easy
5:19:21 > 5:19:26to challenge the advisory committee and frustrate its establishment.
5:19:26 > 5:19:36Coming onto his further amendments, nine, 16 and 22. One of the reasons
5:19:36 > 5:19:41for not wishing to accept these amendments is that the point of
5:19:41 > 5:19:46making this a practical power is to have a simple registration claim
5:19:46 > 5:19:49that can be enforced. Getting into an argument about whether a boat is
5:19:49 > 5:19:53being used or not seems neither sensible nor appropriate,
5:19:53 > 5:19:57particularly if we are talking about looking to have basic construction
5:19:57 > 5:20:01and safety standards and insurance standards. In exactly the same way
5:20:01 > 5:20:04as if you park a car on a public road it does not matter if you are
5:20:04 > 5:20:10driving or not it needs to be roadworthy and have a vehicle tax.
5:20:10 > 5:20:14Therefore this is a president that's similar in other areas of
5:20:14 > 5:20:17legislation, so again I would suggest that these amendments are
5:20:17 > 5:20:25both unwelcome and unnecessary. In terms of amendments ten and 11, the
5:20:25 > 5:20:33Bill makes it very clear, the provision and how the cost from
5:20:33 > 5:20:37navigation would be used to fund benefits for navigation. Therefore
5:20:37 > 5:20:41again I don't believe either of these are necessary. As for
5:20:41 > 5:20:48amendments 12 and 13 then we do not... It does not seem
5:20:48 > 5:20:52unreasonable. For example allowing the commissioners to set conditions
5:20:52 > 5:20:56on use facilities such as clean showers afterwards and not abusing
5:20:56 > 5:21:00waste facilities, does not seem an unreasonable thing for them to wish
5:21:00 > 5:21:03to do and could completely undermined the purposes of providing
5:21:03 > 5:21:07those facilities if they are not able to provide a basic regulation
5:21:07 > 5:21:13system for how they are used, which have been common in many, many other
5:21:13 > 5:21:17environments. Amendment number 14, I appreciate the honourable member's
5:21:17 > 5:21:21process for ensuring disabled people have a strong voice in this chamber
5:21:21 > 5:21:25and I know along with the Member for Shipley, he's a passionate advocate
5:21:25 > 5:21:28around you quality had his pursuit of the women and equality committee.
5:21:28 > 5:21:34The one way I would make, it's quite flawed because it refers to -- the
5:21:34 > 5:21:371.I would make, it refers to a registered disabled when the
5:21:37 > 5:21:43registered disabled person with a polity by the disability act so as
5:21:43 > 5:21:48the House would not be sensible to bring that in. I would also urge the
5:21:48 > 5:21:54House to reject... Very briefly.I'm very grateful. I appreciate his
5:21:54 > 5:21:58ability to find a technical reason why he should not accept the
5:21:58 > 5:22:04amendment, but does he accept the principle behind the amendment?We
5:22:04 > 5:22:10are in report stage and the jobs look at the technical detail of the
5:22:10 > 5:22:15Bill. Do I support the principle? I think it's about my own counsel for
5:22:15 > 5:22:20example or does not offer a parking concession and fees to those who
5:22:20 > 5:22:25hold a blue badge on the inability to use reserved space is very close
5:22:25 > 5:22:28so that principle is established in many areas, so again I don't think
5:22:28 > 5:22:33the principle of this is one to take for. This is not about for example
5:22:33 > 5:22:37someone needing an extra facility because they are disabled. This is
5:22:37 > 5:22:41about a boat on the navigation and wherever they pay the same charge as
5:22:41 > 5:22:46everyone else, that treated exactly the same. -- effectively treated
5:22:46 > 5:22:50exactly the same. It does not seem to make any sense to remove the
5:22:50 > 5:22:53ability to promote reciprocal arrangements and could end up
5:22:53 > 5:22:59costing boat owners more if they have to have separate licenses and
5:22:59 > 5:23:02separate registration and different standards, so again I would urge the
5:23:02 > 5:23:08House to reject amendments 15 and 16. Coming onto amendment 17, 18, 19
5:23:08 > 5:23:11and 20, again there will be a protocol put in place so I don't
5:23:11 > 5:23:16accept the suggestion that the existing powers would be oppressive.
5:23:16 > 5:23:20Removal of the health boat would only be done in the last result in
5:23:20 > 5:23:24where it's proportionate to do so. -- of a houseboat. Coming to a
5:23:24 > 5:23:28conclusion, amendment number 23 seems to make little sense to only
5:23:28 > 5:23:33apply to this particular cap to the application fee and not the
5:23:33 > 5:23:38registration fee, it could produce reverse a long one and again suggest
5:23:38 > 5:23:43it ejected. The same goes, he talked about amendment number 26. My own
5:23:43 > 5:23:51view is that this would confuse the Bill as if things are being done in
5:23:51 > 5:23:55conjunction with rather than consultation. If someone wishes to
5:23:55 > 5:23:59take legal action would've a ticket against? They could take it against
5:23:59 > 5:24:05members of the navigator a committee -- and it could act as a deterrent
5:24:05 > 5:24:10for anyone wanting to be involved. Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many
5:24:10 > 5:24:15good reasons for this bill to pass. It's been examined in great depth in
5:24:15 > 5:24:19opposed a bill committee and on the floor of this House. I thank the
5:24:19 > 5:24:21honourable member for Christchurch where his great interest in the
5:24:21 > 5:24:24scrutiny he put the scrutiny he put this bill do but I would urge the
5:24:24 > 5:24:27House and members here to reject all the new clauses and all the
5:24:27 > 5:24:33amendment is necessary to do so. Thank you.David Rydings.Thank you,
5:24:33 > 5:24:36Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm pleased to make the very short speech in
5:24:36 > 5:24:42support of the Bill on amended. I do want to congratulate the honourable
5:24:42 > 5:24:47member for Torbay and those who sat in on the committee stage. They seem
5:24:47 > 5:24:56to have done a great deal of clever and thoughtful work. I know very
5:24:56 > 5:25:02little about the middle level bill, but I do know a lot about the canal
5:25:02 > 5:25:06where we had similar issues about leading to update and the
5:25:06 > 5:25:11arrangements of who was able to more the boat and who was able to
5:25:11 > 5:25:15therefore be charged for facilities. That was done without some
5:25:15 > 5:25:19difficulty, because there was opposition, but eventually people
5:25:19 > 5:25:22have seen the sense and that does include things like shutting the
5:25:22 > 5:25:28canal on certain days when there is very limited need for use of that
5:25:28 > 5:25:33canal, to allow people to dare I say, get easier passage over the
5:25:33 > 5:25:38canal because we have lots of bridges, and I think it is right and
5:25:38 > 5:25:42proper that these particular arrangements should be visited from
5:25:42 > 5:25:47time to time to make sure that we had a fit for purpose canal system
5:25:47 > 5:25:51and the waterway system in general so I would like to add my own
5:25:51 > 5:25:54congratulations for the work you have done and to make sure that this
5:25:54 > 5:25:59passes through without amendment.
5:25:59 > 5:26:09I had the pleasure of taking evidence on this legislation, I and
5:26:09 > 5:26:12colleagues and two from the opposition have considered the
5:26:12 > 5:26:17objections in great detail, and this is made in response. I think the
5:26:17 > 5:26:25honourable friend for their conduct as well. Before the House strikes a
5:26:25 > 5:26:33balance between a clear need, and the legitimate concerns for those,
5:26:33 > 5:26:38recommended the new middle level bill to the house. I will give way.
5:26:38 > 5:26:45Thank you very much for giving way. Could they assure me that families
5:26:45 > 5:26:52wouldn't suffer consequence and also could you confirm that the licensed
5:26:52 > 5:26:59the, the revenue acquired from licence fee would be spent on their
5:26:59 > 5:27:08facilities?The interest taken in this particular matter. I'll be
5:27:08 > 5:27:12going in greater detail and review, if the interest of how strollers are
5:27:12 > 5:27:18not take into account. The other matter was to deal with licence
5:27:18 > 5:27:23fees. Also within the bill is that effectively, the money that is
5:27:23 > 5:27:28raised on this should be spent on navigation. And as I understand it,
5:27:28 > 5:27:32it's likely that actually that isn't going to be enough to cover the
5:27:32 > 5:27:42whole costs. I said it strikes the right balance, and it is a case that
5:27:42 > 5:27:49we located at a level, lay down and mid-19th century. And do not reflect
5:27:49 > 5:27:55the reality of the modern world. This will bring it into line with
5:27:55 > 5:28:03neighbouring systems, prevent the diversion away from proper proper
5:28:03 > 5:28:07prevention methods, and shall be standard on all British waterways.
5:28:07 > 5:28:13Some will reject to this bills, because an ancient right offering
5:28:13 > 5:28:19navigation, under close scrutiny my constituents and I do believe
5:28:19 > 5:28:25that,... When the previous middle level was drafted, they were used by
5:28:25 > 5:28:33commercial and industrial shipping. The zones anomaly that respect. It
5:28:33 > 5:28:38was sensible to concentrate the navigations on commercial shipping,
5:28:38 > 5:28:45of the today the situation entirely, and see very little very commercial
5:28:45 > 5:28:56traffic. It is lay right therefore that we get... Than many of the
5:28:56 > 5:28:57keeping the waterways now that
5:29:01 > 5:29:07be only consideration, it also raises concerns about the supposed
5:29:07 > 5:29:14right to free navigation. Some can be made not to levy, and naturally
5:29:14 > 5:29:20when public funds may be laid out to obtain an artificial navigation, it
5:29:20 > 5:29:25is just those of benefit that should pay. And remember the middle levels
5:29:25 > 5:29:36are only navigable waterways. The commissions are responsible for both
5:29:36 > 5:29:40of these features, forgot their ability to levy funds from those
5:29:40 > 5:29:43using the waterways, we have no choice but to maintain the right
5:29:43 > 5:29:48diverting money for defenses. As always basic fairness, they should
5:29:48 > 5:29:56change. The committee heard another important objection which I like to
5:29:56 > 5:30:01address here. Those who paid the fee will receive in exchange? This is a
5:30:01 > 5:30:04perfectly reasonable concern, I like to briefly explain how the bill has
5:30:04 > 5:30:08entrusted. Get a commitment from the commissioners they were not under
5:30:08 > 5:30:16any circumstances, in fact I am told that they will raise less than that,
5:30:16 > 5:30:21does another they will only undermine their own fund-raising
5:30:21 > 5:30:27efforts and they said it to a level that discourages the use of levels.
5:30:27 > 5:30:30There were a man at a competitive level and live the rest of the
5:30:30 > 5:30:38network, and effective market. Those using the navigations while
5:30:38 > 5:30:46maintaining the navigations themselves, the funds earned. A
5:30:46 > 5:30:47president there are
5:30:52 > 5:30:57at present, there only to public facilities in the entire system. All
5:30:57 > 5:31:03of these need to be paid for it does not seem right that local taxpayers
5:31:03 > 5:31:08are asked to fund these improvements and the actual beneficiaries can
5:31:08 > 5:31:11injure them free of charge. Another objection heard by the committee
5:31:11 > 5:31:18that the new rules in question are the commissions power to move
5:31:18 > 5:31:24vessels, without authority. Some conditioners were worried that they
5:31:24 > 5:31:31were too short a period. He even alleged that the violated the human
5:31:31 > 5:31:44rights of those that lived on the level. This began a specific
5:31:44 > 5:31:48exemption was written to have a purpose. Beyond that, the bill
5:31:48 > 5:31:55contains several additional methods. It provides a clear definition of
5:31:55 > 5:31:59the lawful authority to which vessels can be removed and specifies
5:31:59 > 5:32:03that any notices will be served to the vessels in question. Plus 15
5:32:03 > 5:32:09says protocol specifies that removal of us will be a last result.
5:32:09 > 5:32:14Moreover, of course their team, L
5:32:19 > 5:32:23the middle level navigation will see the best and most explicit
5:32:23 > 5:32:26protection for owners and users of dwellers, a part of this countries
5:32:26 > 5:32:34waterways. I concluded that these protections are more than etiquette
5:32:34 > 5:32:46to -- adequate of moving abundant or more vessels blocking the use of
5:32:46 > 5:32:50this obstructing navigation of the narrow waterways. Finally, I'd like
5:32:50 > 5:32:58to mention bylaws and regulations. Requiring vessels to be insured to
5:32:58 > 5:33:01proper safety standards, while providing a period of adjustment to
5:33:01 > 5:33:09those using that to make sure they're up to code. Some not only
5:33:09 > 5:33:13for others, but before it became a dumping ground for unsafe vessels
5:33:13 > 5:33:18which are no longer legal under par for the network. Furthermore, as
5:33:18 > 5:33:23they will be adopting standards are a soon to neighbouring areas,
5:33:23 > 5:33:28minimal disruption for a winter in these navigation as part of a
5:33:28 > 5:33:33broader network, in short, this bill will modernise by resuming any
5:33:33 > 5:33:45enhancing its historical character, and future generations.This bill
5:33:45 > 5:33:51affects my constituency along with many others. About the modern
5:33:51 > 5:33:54drainage bells brought in in the 18th century they would not have
5:33:54 > 5:34:00homes and we would have nearly 200,000 prime land, so is vital to
5:34:00 > 5:34:08my constituency, obviously, it's important to boat owners as well.
5:34:08 > 5:34:12Elected Frank my honourable friend, I agree exactly with what he just
5:34:12 > 5:34:25said. The nature of this bill, the wikis within, I think what is real
5:34:25 > 5:34:31important as we have a regime, that is simple and transparent and not
5:34:31 > 5:34:37too bureaucratic. And a great respect of our, so the technical
5:34:37 > 5:34:43amendments added to allow with the sentence. But the high is not
5:34:43 > 5:34:48telling what would complicate or make it more bureaucratic. And what
5:34:48 > 5:34:54we want is a simple bill with a charging system that really fits the
5:34:54 > 5:34:57purpose and we want to build up a position of trust between the
5:34:57 > 5:34:58commissioners they'll be playing
5:35:02 > 5:35:13paying these navigation keys. It so important my constituency.Thank you
5:35:13 > 5:35:21very much Madam Deputy Speaker, I can be relatively brief. The
5:35:21 > 5:35:24government supports this bill which is promoted by middle level
5:35:24 > 5:35:29commissioners. A stacked tree constituted under the middle
5:35:33 > 5:35:39the previous amendments that this sought to put forward here, by
5:35:39 > 5:35:45believe in all the points that have been raised in doubt with a
5:35:45 > 5:35:49particular by our honourable member, who has a creep grasp of the details
5:35:49 > 5:35:50of the bill.
5:35:54 > 5:35:58-- deep grasp of the details of the bill. These acts are considerably
5:35:58 > 5:36:03out of date and do not align with modern requirements or the statutory
5:36:03 > 5:36:07framework applicable to other navigation authorities. In
5:36:07 > 5:36:10particular, at the current legal framework, which covers the
5:36:10 > 5:36:15commissioners does not include adequate provision for the vessels
5:36:15 > 5:36:19using the waterways of the levying of charges and waterways for
5:36:19 > 5:36:24centuries. As result, they do not receive any income for navigation
5:36:24 > 5:36:29waterways and this is meant that money raised through drainage,
5:36:29 > 5:36:37rather then flood defence purposes, which is contradictory to policy. It
5:36:37 > 5:36:47enabled them to find their waterways -- fund their waterways, authorities
5:36:47 > 5:36:53for example have the canal and rivers, just and the authority. I
5:36:53 > 5:37:02read the report this and hope that it will pass an amended.Madam
5:37:02 > 5:37:06Deputy Speaker, we had a good thoughtful debate, and I'm grateful
5:37:06 > 5:37:18to everybody who has participated in it. I like to think of friend who is
5:37:18 > 5:37:22conceded to some of my minutes were sensible and perhaps the new
5:37:22 > 5:37:30clauses, is not accepted by promoters tonight that they will be
5:37:30 > 5:37:43taken forward and the other place as it inevitably will be. This is a
5:37:43 > 5:37:47considerable concern to the petitioners them very grateful that
5:37:47 > 5:37:54my I will friend having got to his feet, it's quite than usual in these
5:37:54 > 5:37:59debates for the person who is actually gone to the detail, coming
5:37:59 > 5:38:05care to explain his reasoning ability did I like to thank my
5:38:05 > 5:38:07honourable friend and other members of the committee for the work that
5:38:07 > 5:38:11they did in the courteous way in which they dealt with the concerns
5:38:11 > 5:38:23which are being confessed. Instead of hiding under a Bush, they didn't
5:38:23 > 5:38:24show
5:38:27 > 5:38:34I'm also grateful to the member of how facts showing some sympathy for
5:38:34 > 5:38:40my amendment, even though she cannot bring herself to support them yet.
5:38:40 > 5:38:50There are a number of amendments out there today can house because I
5:38:50 > 5:38:57think people will be much better for them to be dealt with and at the
5:38:57 > 5:39:01other place, the head Pat has developed the buses
5:39:06 > 5:39:16can I say that I do think, that amendment 14 is one in which bears
5:39:16 > 5:39:20further consideration. Another 14 for the benefit of those who are
5:39:20 > 5:39:29living in the debate, amendment 14 clause 11, at the end, and
5:39:29 > 5:39:37respectively so our way to a driver who is identified as disabled. In
5:39:37 > 5:39:55response to that by my other friend, thankful on all through my work. He
5:39:55 > 5:40:01answers the point that he made, and makes it much easier for someone up
5:40:01 > 5:40:08for debate if they know that there are parts of been answered. In
5:40:08 > 5:40:14relation to disabled people, he sees on the fact that registered disabled
5:40:14 > 5:40:21is no longer with the R a D, a category service and this amendment
5:40:21 > 5:40:28would be for people registered as disabled with a mid-level
5:40:28 > 5:40:35commissioner. So in order to have these boats, come its registration
5:40:35 > 5:40:46system and that's that system will include
5:40:46 > 5:40:51I don't think the objection is a valued one. If I put the amendment
5:40:51 > 5:41:00with on the D perhaps it might have been. I hope that we'd be able to
5:41:00 > 5:41:06support this on the basis that it is... There are a lot of people who
5:41:06 > 5:41:11are disabled who got considerable difficulties and I think it will be
5:41:11 > 5:41:18a reasonable cross subsidy to be paid by all other voters if they
5:41:18 > 5:41:23were prepared to cross subsidize those who register with the
5:41:23 > 5:41:26commissioners as being disabled. The only other issue I raise in
5:41:26 > 5:41:33conclusion is that I note from what's been said that there is a
5:41:33 > 5:41:36move here to ensure that the vessels which are substandard are
5:41:36 > 5:41:41effectively going to be removed. I hope that is not going to be done in
5:41:41 > 5:41:43a way that's harassing, because as the chairman of the all party
5:41:43 > 5:41:50Parliamentary group on mobile phones or park homes, I think there's a lot
5:41:50 > 5:41:54of concern that largely elderly people living in Park homes find
5:41:54 > 5:41:58themselves harassed just because their park home has not been updated
5:41:58 > 5:42:04for 20 years or so, and I think there a danger that in the drive for
5:42:04 > 5:42:09what I might describe as gentrification in the waterways,
5:42:09 > 5:42:13that we may be working against the interests of the people who have
5:42:13 > 5:42:20been resident on those waterways for many, many years and whose vessels
5:42:20 > 5:42:23are not up to modern standards, but are for their purposes perfectly
5:42:23 > 5:42:29good vessels. I hope that the commissioners and the promoters
5:42:29 > 5:42:35won't abuse that power which we are giving them. Madam Deputy Speaker, I
5:42:35 > 5:42:41would seek to withdraw New Clause one and ask the House to express its
5:42:41 > 5:42:46opinion on amendment 14. In other words, whether or not the House
5:42:46 > 5:42:55would like to give disabled people who are using these inland waterways
5:42:55 > 5:43:00in vessels which are registered with the commissioners, give them the
5:43:00 > 5:43:04right to be able to do so without having to pay charges. So, I would
5:43:04 > 5:43:10like to move amendment 14.Is it your pleasure that New Clause one be
5:43:10 > 5:43:20withdrawn? New Clause one with John. We therefore come to amendment
5:43:20 > 5:43:28number 14. Sir Christopher to move formally.They to move.The question
5:43:28 > 5:43:34that amended 14 boot. So many of that opinion say iMac. Of the
5:43:34 > 5:43:36contrary no?