01/12/2015 Tuesday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to Tuesday in Parliament,

Parliament readies itself for a day of debate

We have taken care to ensure that in tabling this notion we have listened

to views on all sides of this house. But there are calls to give MPs

longer to decide. This is no way to treat the house,

the voters, or, indeed, our Armed Forces.

And questions for the Defence Secretary on the number of

Have we got our Lawrence of Arabia? Someone who can get all of these

troops together and bring them all to fight under one flag, if there is

such a thing as fighting under one flag?

This week, the decision on whether to carry out air strikes in Syria

against the terror group Islamic State will dominate the Commons.

MPs rejected air strikes against Syrian government targets

in 2013, but have since backed strikes against IS in Iraq.

Ministers say it is illogical to carry out strikes in Iraq but not

Syria as IS does not recognise the border between the countries.

But for the time being, attention was focused on the day-long

The Leader of the House, Chris Grayling, announced the debate will

knock out Prime Minister's Questions and other parliamentary business.

Many were not happy about the arrangements.

The truth is that the government never really intended to proceed

tomorrow with the business that was announced last Thursday. They always

intended to make an emergency business statement today, to abandon

the opposition day tomorrow and told the vote tomorrow.

Chris Bryant said the prime minister should have announced

And there was another problem - the motion had only just been

So, on one of the most important issues we face, the security of our

country, the safety of the people of Syria and of our own Armed Forces,

we are expected to frame our opinion on a motion we haven't even seen

yet. We asked Mr Speaker for a two-day debate, I did so two weeks

ago, and the Leader of the Opposition repeated that call

yesterday. I recognise the government has tabled motions to

allow a longer day than usual tomorrow, but what really is the

hurry? All in all, surely to heavens, this is no way to treat the

house, our voters, or, indeed, our Armed Forces. Far from inspiring

confidence in the government's judgment, shenanigans of this nature

seriously undermine it. The Cabinet has considered and discuss this

matter this morning and reached a decision and therefore brought this

matter to the house as quickly as possible after the conclusion of

that Cabinet decision. Tomorrow's debate is the equivalent of two

normal days debate in regard to its length. In total this matter will

have been discussed in the house for 20 hours since last Monday. We have

taken care to ensure that in tabling this motion we have listened to

views from all sides of this ounce -- house and I make no apology for

taking time to consider those views and come up with a motion which I

believe reflects the views of the majority of this house and I believe

and hope that will command the support of this house tomorrow and I

am absolutely confident we are not only doing the right thing

procedurally, but also if we vote that way tomorrow we will be doing

the right thing for this country. It is not only on these grounds that

people are arguing about this. Conservative members of public have

very serious questions that they want to put tomorrow and, depending

on the answers, they will not necessarily vote for this motion

tomorrow so, could we not extend the debate even further? It is so

difficult, I would imagine, for people outside, on such a crucial

issue, however we vote, that we confine it to one day, even though

it is extended time. Why is it impossible for the House of Commons

not to at least give two full days? It would be a travesty of people are

limited to very short speeches of three or four minutes. Can I make an

appeal to the leader and right across the house that the front

bench speeches not take up an inordinately long time, as sometimes

they do. The leader of the house needs to think again about this

issue. Bringing issues to debate on War and peace to the house is a

reasonably recent innovation. There was a situation where the Leader of

the Opposition and the leader of the second largest opposition party, and

I suspect other parties, have asked for a two-day debate. It is not just

the amount of time for the debate but the time for consideration

properly motions. As the leader of the house does not concede this he

is threatening a dangerous precedent and the very important one. Is it

because the Prime Minister is more interested in dividing the Labour

Party and uniting the country? In response to points of order,

the Speaker, John Bercow, said it was up to

the government to propose how much time was needed for debates, and not

the Speaker - but he'd be willing to And the issue dominated thinking

in Westminster. Many MPs have raised the issue

of ground troops, which are seen as essential to

defeat IS, as well as air strikes. David Cameron has highlighted

70,000 local troops who might But MPs are increasingly

wondering about that figure. And when the Defence Secretary

and his team came before MPs, Last week the Prime Minister said

there were 70,000 Syrian fighters, including the Free Syrian Army with

whom we have coordinated attacks against Iceland day Esch. What is

the make up of the different groups? You have different cultures and

different religious factions and different levels of training and

qualities of equipment and they have different goals. The Free Syrian

Army want to get rid of Assad and other groups within there are small

groups that only want to defend their territories that they

presently defend. Have we got our Lawrence of Arabia? Someone who can

come and get all of these groups together and bring them together as

one and fight under one flag? The Defence Secretary said

the estimate came from These are the 70,000 who we estimate

and would define as being able to do two things. First is to be able to

play a part in supporting a different type of government in

Syria, and, indeed, being part of it and secondly being able in the

fullness of time to take the fight to Isil. That is what we mean by

moderate opposition forces in Syria. They were not, he said,

a New Model Army. There are groups throughout Syria

that add to give you the overall figure of 70,000, so they are not

all in one place and they are fighting on a whole range of

different fronts but they are fighting President Assad and one of

the reasons for us getting more involved in tackling Isil in Syria

is to relieve the pressure on them so they are not being squeezed by

both sides, by both myself and my Assad. Is there a single commander

who can weld all of this together, as Lawrence of Arabia tried to do

100 years ago? That I am not sure. Let me ask General messenger to give

me a little bit more on the breakdown of the 70000 and its

future deployment. I think we would be wrong to characterise them as a

ragtag army. I mean, if we look at what they have managed to defend

against over years, if you look at what they have managed to achieve in

terms of territory preservation, both in the North and the South, it

is considerable and they have been up against enormous pressure,

techniques such as barrel bombing and other indiscriminate forms of

violence, which have brought violence to their populations as

well as their combatants. I do not think we should dismiss them, but

will also -- but nor should we try and invent some coherence where it

doesn't exist. I do not think anyone is arguing the fact about whether

there might be 70,000 people ready to take up arms on a local or

regional basis, the question is how moderate are they? Are they really

moderate, or are they in fact Islamist? I cannot get into the

detail because the level of classification of this briefing but

I can say that there is a spectrum of extremism and... I am sorry, I do

not accept that at all. These groups are known to exist and the Prime

Minister has come forward with a figure of 70000 and he has obviously

got a basis for that figure and there is nothing of a sensitive or

classified nature about which of these known groups he is including

in his total, and which he is not, and as the Prime Minister is asking

us to make a decision based in part on this idea that there is some

Democratic third force between the devil and the deep blue sea, as the

government sees it, of Assad and Isil-Daesh, I think the public and,

indeed parliamentarians, are entitled to know how are these

70,000 made up? They cannot be possibly something sensitive about

which of the forces out there which are known to exist, such as the ones

that make up the Islamic front, whether they are included in the

total or not. You would have too wash the joint intelligence

committee for the detail. I really do not see why that has to be a

secret. All we're asking is which of the known groups are included in

70,000 or not, and I really think that breakdown ought to be public

and no one was going to do that now, I take it. We will certainly reflect

on that. These groups all subscribe to is lamb. When you say Islamist,

there is a separate debate there as to how you would define that. What

we can go on is the best assessment that the joint intelligence

committee can make as to which of these groups would be prepared to

play their part in a new and peaceful Syria. That, really, I

think is the most important thing of all.

You're watching Tuesday in Parliament on BBC Parliament.

After consumer concerns, one MP asks for children's fancy

But now, the first Treasury Questions since the Chancellor's

Autumn Statement, and Labour's Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell

The Chancellor bowed to Labour pressure last week and made a U-turn

Although tax credits will not be cut in the new year, as planned,

the cuts to universal credit are going ahead in full.

How much will a single parent with one child, who works part-time on

the so-called national living wage, lose as a result of his planned

First, let me say that I did not feel a huge amount of Labour

pressure last week, but I am happy to see the honourable

With universal credit, we are introducing a fundamental

Anyone on tax credits, including in the case that he refers to,

who is moved on to universal credit by the Department for Work

and Pensions from next year, will have their cash awards protected.

Let me explain to the Chancellor exactly what a single parent with

one child who works part-time on the national living wage will lose.

They will lose an average of ?2800 a year as a result

This was not an Autumn Statement that supported families,

If he reversed the tax giveaways to the wealthy

that he announced in his Summer Budget, he could reverse fully these

cuts to family incomes, while still achieving his fiscal mandate.

Universal credit is a new benefit where it will always pay to work and

it will always pay to expand the number of hours that are worked.

It will get rid of a complex series of benefits.

Let me make this point, since the gang of four on the other side

The honourable member for Leeds East, who is a Shadow Treasury

Minister, has not bothered to turn up today because he is marching

on the Labour Party's headquarters on a Stop the War march.

The truth is that until the Shadow Treasury team get their act together

in this Chamber, their cases will not be listened to seriously.

But George Osborne couldn't resist one reference to the moment

when the Shadow Chancellor quoted from Chairman Mao's Little Red Book

Is he therefore intending to go on and on, to the delight of the Home

We promised to turn the British economy around and that is exactly

I know that the honourable gentleman is out of

sorts with the cultural revolution that is taking place on his Front

Bench at the moment, but I just hope that in the modern Labour Party,

The Labour MP wanted to know how much preparation had been going on

for a Yuki exit from the European Union. Are you seriously saying that

we are already committed to a referendum, the negation

renegotiations are on the way... This is a cause of action we are now

going on. That would be a recipe for disaster. It is a perfectly

reasonable remark. The objections of the Government are to seek an

improvement in our relationship with the European Union so we can remain

in it. And that is what our policy-making is directed towards.

It is the policy of the Government changes,... You mac I am not

criticising the civil servants. To direct the eventuality of an

outcome. We must prepare for the eventuality of another Coalition

Government, or a minority Labour Government or a Conservative

Government. If the outcome of the referendum has a far greater impact

on the markets than the outcome of the general election would. It is

accepted by all sides in this discussion that should the UK vote

to leave the EU, that would not happen overnight. It would happen

over a period of months, at the minimum, and over that period, the

British civil service and British citizens would do as we always do.

You mac I hope we are not going to find that out. You mac I urge you to

approach this differently. You mac it is reckless, giving the gravity

of the situation. We had a panel as part of our enquiry, the range of

people from businesses. People complained about not knowing about

benefits. They want to make informed decisions. Do you not think it is in

the public interest to have some understanding of the choice they

have faced? Was advocating withdrawal in the referendum will

have to explain... Are you advocating withdrawal? You are the

Chancellor, I wouldn't mind the Prime Minister advocating. Why

should Nigel Farage have any say in the Outlook? When it comes to

Europe, we are focused on the renegotiation. Those who will

advocate a withdrawal from the European Union will have to set out

what the alternative is. So when is the referendum on EU membership

likely to be held? The Minister for Europe said there were certain times

in the year when it would be ill-advised to hold major electoral

events. It also seemed unlikely the Government would hold a referendum

while also holding the presidency in the second half of 2017. Do you have

a preferred date for the referendum? I know the date by which it has got

to be held. The discussion we have had in Parliament means it cannot be

held during the Scottish and Welsh Assembly election days. It would be

a brave person who held a referendum on Christmas Day. We are going to

try and negotiate this as soon as we can, provided we get the agreement.

We have got to mac users to do that. We will have that in the latter half

of 2017. Basically, we have given ourselves and the Department has

given us two years in which to get the best possible deal for Britain.

So if we get a good deal that we can recommend to the British people,

there is no point we can, is there? But it depends on getting a good

deal. Now, questions in the House of Lords

marked world AIDS day. Peers have challenged the Government

over the overseas support it gives AIDS is the biggest killer

of women of reproductive age. AIDS is the second-biggest killer

of adolescents. In 2014, 1.2 million people died

of an HIV/AIDS-related illness. There are 36.9 million people living

with HIV, and most people living with HIV are

in middle-income countries. Therefore it is vital that

when addressing the possible withdrawal of programmes and funding

from middle-income countries, the Government look at indicators other

than the blunt instrument of GNI. Approximately 50% of Global Fund

resources are directed to We use our seat

on its board to encourage it to focus on key populations,

as the noble Lord is aware. As middle-income countries graduate

from aid, we work with the Global Fund, UNAIDS, national governments

and civil society to encourage 35 out of 121 low-income

and middle-income countries have increased their spend on AIDS

by more than 100%, with all domestic spending on AIDS

amounting to some 60% of the total. Does the Minister agree that this

confirms the long-standing role of communities

in addressing the epidemic in the years ahead, and the critical

importance of investing in a strong community health presence to broaden

the reach of their services? Can she assure us that these vital

services will not be threatened by DfID's planned withdrawal

of budget support? There is no withdrawal

of budget support. However, we do need to ensure that

the support we are giving is to those people who are in most need

and are unable to self-finance. The low-income,

high-burden countries need our support the most but we continue

to work in middle-income countries. So there is no withdrawal -

just smarter, Lord Fowler was Health Secretary

in 1986 and led the first official drive to educate British people

about the dangers of AIDS. There are 36 million people

around the world living with HIV, yet WHO estimates that half of them

are untested and undiagnosed. Is not the reason why people do not

come forward the prejudice against them and

the criminal law against gay people Given that so many

of these countries are inside the Commonwealth, should not the

British Government take the lead in Of course stigma

and discrimination drive key At the recent CHOGM talks in Malta,

we very much had that conversation. I reassure my noble friend that we

spend ?6 million a year on research programmes, including understanding

how social drivers increase HIV infection, and on supporting people

in those countries. The minister was pressed to go

further by the Conservative, Is not the criminalisation of

homosexuality simply incompatible Is the noble minister aware that

there are now many thousands of AIDS My Lords, that is one of the key

messages which we must reinforce, whether that is that the

Commonwealth level or outside of the Commonwealth. Is the noble lady

where that there are now many thousands of AIDS orphans,

particularly in Africa? They frequently find other family members

take their parental possessions and they are destitute. Does the British

Government has any programmes in Africa to support such children? The

minister said the UK worked closely with organisations to ensure orphans

received health care and education. Children's fancy dress costumes

should be as flame-resistant as nightwear, the Conservative MP Anne

Main has told the House of Commons. Introducing a bill under

the ten-minute rule, she said dressing up had changed

a great deal in recent years and it When I was a child,

dressing up meant raiding a box containing mum's old clothes, hats

and shoes, and going to parties However, what my era -

the late 1950s and early 1960s - suffered from was dangerous,

flammable nightwear. Every year up until 1964,

many small children were admitted to hospital with horrific burns,

and indeed many died. In 1964,

the Daily Mail led a campaign for safer nightwear, and later that

year this House decided to act. The nightwear standard became

law and was updated in 1985. Toys are tested against the rate

of spread of the flame. You mac that is based child's

ability to drop run away from a toy. These are all sort toys that cannot

be dropped or walked away from. The test should also be used for

children's nightwear. In the United States, a child's dress up garment

has a much higher level of protection. It might not catch fire

for up to three seconds of exposure to a flame.

Media star Claudia Winkleman knows only too well from personal

experience the horror of a child's costume catching alight.

I pay tribute to her high-profile awareness campaign,

which has led to many of our high street stores voluntarily

making their play clothes to the higher nightwear standard.

However, as the standard is only voluntary, there will still be

It is hard to sort out the good from the bad, as price is not

Good Housekeeping magazine recently tested some widely available

Halloween costumes, all of which met the current EU standards.

Interestingly, the cheapest in its flammability

Anne Main argued that it would take too long to lobby for an EU-wide

tightening up of legislation, but she said Britain could act

Some types of clothing, such as nightwear, are subject to

That is domestic rather than EU legislation, and it provides a

precedent for the UK legislating in this way without breaching EU law.

It reflects the general principle that EU legislation sets minimum

European-wide standards, which do not prevent member states

from putting in place national legislation that goes beyond them.

Sometimes that is called gold-plating.

While unopposed, unless these plans are adopted by the Government, they

I'll be here for the rest of the week, but for now, from me,