Bal des Conscrits de Besse On vous propose de venir vous dévouer avec nous le temps dune soire, que se soit para fazer uma pausa pendente de suas regras, de souffler aprs les examens, ou tous simplement de passer (encore) une bonne soire avec nous. ) On se retrouve donc le 30 MAI la SALLE POLYVALENTE de BESSE La musique sera assur par Extremusic Disco-mobile et la Buvette sera au rendez-vous videment) On vous annonce que pour une grande partie dentre nous on sera en mode dcompression et on sera Done en GRANDE, trs GRANDE FORME. Leia mais 81 marcaram esse evento. Sua jornada começa agora. Recuperar a senha. Trérava fraterna do Tory sobre o referendo da UE quebrado como David Cameron, selvagens Boris Johnson A trégua conservadora do referendo da União Européia na segunda-feira entrou em colapso quando o primeiro-ministro atacou Boris Johnson e os ministros do gabinete se criticaram abertamente, escrevendo Peter Dominiczak e Christopher Hope. Em um sinal das divisões de aprofundamento sobre o referendo in-out, David Cameron usou uma aparição do Commons para condenar abertamente o Sr. Johnson, que no domingo anunciou que ele iria fazer campanha para levar a Grã-Bretanha da UE. Cameron sugeriu que o Sr. Johnson tomasse sua decisão simplesmente para promover sua própria ambição de se tornar primeiro-ministro. Ele também descreveu como uma sugestão aparente do Sr. Johnson de que a Grã-Bretanha poderia votar para deixar a UE antes de negociar uma solução melhor com Bruxelas. O primeiro-ministro é dito ser x201clividx201d com o Sr. Johnson. Que na segunda-feira indicou que o Sr. Cameron e seus aliados estão realmente exagerando x201d quando afirmam que um x201cBrexitx201d seria um x201cleap no darkx201d. Referindo-se ao seu próprio compromisso de demitir-se antes das próximas eleições, o senhor deputado Cameron disse: "Não estou de acordo para a reeleição, não tenho outra agenda do que é o melhor para o nosso país". O primeiro-ministro David Cameron aborda deputados na Câmara dos Commons, em Londres, para apresentar o argumento para permanecer na União Européia. Foto: PA A disputa aberta entre os dois conservadores seniores parece prejudicar um apelo feito pelo primeiro-ministro no sábado, quando perguntou a seus ministros para garantir que o debate da UE fosse uma discussão bem ordenada e bem ordenada201d. Hoje, em sua coluna Daily Telegraph, Lord Hague, ex-secretário estrangeiro, adverte que os conservadores poderiam perder as próximas eleições gerais se a batalha do referendo se tornar uma guerra amarga entre facções tóricas opostas. O Sr. Cameron respondeu por segunda vez às perguntas nos Comuns durante três horas, pois apresentou o argumento para permanecer na UE. No entanto, ele se encontrou na posição sem precedentes de ter suas observações imediatamente refutadas por um membro de seu próprio gabinete. Priti Patel, uma figura líder na campanha Leave Leave, disse: x201c O primeiro-ministro tentou muito, mas a UE se recusou a dar ao povo britânico o que eles queriam. As lutas internas no Partido Conservador vieram quando: Downing Street era hoje esperado para desvendar Uma carta pró-UE assinada por dezenas de empresas do FTSE x2013 muito menos do que inicialmente esperava que apoiasse sua campanha. O valor da libra sumiu para um mínimo próximo de sete anos contra o dólar depois que o Sr. Johnson apoiou um x201cBrexitx201d. O governo enfrentou acusações de x201cscaremongeringx201d depois de lançar um aviso de relatório de que deixar a UE tornaria a Grã-Bretanha mais vulnerável a ataques terroristas, levantar contas de telefone celular e colocar em risco bilhões de libras de negócios. Milhares de migrantes ficaram presos na Grécia segunda-feira após a Macedônia Abruptamente fechou a fronteira para os afegãos, criando um novo embotellamento à medida que os países europeus se esforçam para responder à crescente crise de refugiados nos continentes desde a Segunda Guerra Mundial. Falando no Commons na segunda-feira, o Sr. Cameron repreendeu repetidamente o Sr. Johnson, o prefeito de Londres. Ele inicialmente concentrou seu ataque em uma aparente sugestão do Sr. Johnson de que um x201cBrexitx201d poderia levar a um segundo referendo que a Grã-Bretanha poderia usar para negociar um melhor acordo de Bruxelas. Cameron disse: "Não me ocuparia da ironia de que algumas pessoas que querem votar para deixar aparentemente querem usar um voto de licença para permanecerem. Tal abordagem também ignora pontos mais profundos sobre democracia, diplomacia e legalidade. X201d No entanto, fontes próximas a Johnson disseram que ele aceita que x201cout significa outx201d e só está sugerindo que um Reino Unido fora da UE poderia negociar um acordo com Bruxelas com base no comércio . O primeiro-ministro David Cameron aborda deputados na Câmara dos Comuns em Londres, para apresentar o seu caso para permanecer na União Europeia. Foto: PA O Sr. Cameron também parece dirigir comentários para o Sr. Johnson quando ele disse: x201c Isso não pode ser descrito como algo além da incerteza de risco e um salto no escuro que pode prejudicar os trabalhadores do nosso país nos próximos anos, e isso é Não é uma questão teórica - esta é uma decisão real sobre a vida das pessoas. x201d Uma fonte próxima ao Sr. Johnson disse: x201cCest la vie. Não está remotamente zangado. Mas ele pensa que é importante que nos concentremos em fornecer os argumentos ao eleitor. Ninguém ganha obtendo pessoal nessas coisas. x201d Escrevendo neste jornal, Lord Hague emitiu uma advertência para seus colegas sobre deixar a questão dividir a festa. Boris parece muito cruzado - como um filho de catorze anos que foi informado para parar de mostrar por seu pai x2014 Laura Kuenssberg (bbclaurak) 22 de fevereiro de 2016 Ele escreve: x201cSo, apenas no ponto em que os conservadores estão mais divididos, eles também têm o maior Responsabilidade em décadas: se eles não conseguirem vencer as próximas eleições gerais, as conseqüências nacionais seriam graves. X201d Em uma reunião do Comitê de deputados de 1922 após a aparição dos recém-nascidos de Cameronx2019s, Steve Baker, um dos deputados Tory que apoia Votação, exortou O primeiro-ministro a ser bom para Borisx201d. O senhor deputado Cameron também usou essa reunião para esclarecer as observações que fez no começo deste mês, quando pediu aos deputados que ignorassem as visões eurocepticas entre suas associações de eleitorados. De acordo com um deputado presente na reunião, o Sr. Cameron disse: x201cI estava tentando dizer que era x2018 criar seu caso e suas associações irão respeitá-lo, mesmo que possa desagrar-se2019.x201d Enquanto isso, fontes próximas de Johnson disseram que se recusará a liderar A campanha Leave Leave, apesar dos eurocéticos, dizer que aumentaria sua campanha. Os deputados seniores também ontem disseram que a decisão do Sr. Johnsonx2019 de se juntar à campanha x201cBrexitx201d tinha envidiado todas as hipóteses de uma coroação para George Osborne, o chanceler, depois que o Sr. Cameron se retira. Sabendo o quanto Boris estava bravo com sua humilhação em Commons, por último, em maio, Amputor Osborne, ele ficará completamente lívido com as demolições demoradas. É assim que relatamos os dias de eventos dramáticos em nosso liveblog: como David Cameron e Boris Johnson desciparam em guerra aberta sobre o referendo da UE David Cameron aproveita Boris Johnson David Cameron deu uma pancada a Boris Johnson no referendo da UE como dois top Tories surgiram um contra o outro na Câmara dos Comuns pela primeira vez desde que o prefeito de Londres declarou seu apoio à Brexit. O primeiro-ministro usou uma declaração aos deputados para demitir a idéia - alegadamente lançada por Johnson - que um voto de licença poderia ser um prelúdio para garantir um melhor acordo em um segundo referendo. E, no que parecia uma referência levemente velada à aparente ambição de Mayors para sucedê-lo como PM, o Sr. Cameron disse aos Comuns que sua própria promessa de demitir-se nas eleições gerais significava que ele não tinha outra agenda além dos interesses da Grã-Bretanha. Deixando claro que um voto de licença seria seguido de negociações de retirada nos termos do artigo 50 do Tratado de Lisboa, Cameron disse: Infelizmente, eu conheci vários casais que começaram os processos de divórcio, mas não conheço quem tenha começado os processos de divórcio em ordem Para renovar seus votos matrimoniais. Seu comentário foi saudado por risos altos de deputados trabalhistas dirigidos a Johnson, cujo primeiro casamento foi dissolvido em 1993. O primeiro-ministro David Cameron aborda deputados na Câmara dos Comuns em Londres, para apresentar o argumento de permanecer na União Européia. Foto: PA Boris Johnson ataca Camerons extremamente preocupado Brexit teme que Boris Johnson tenha afirmado que os temores sobre o impacto econômico de uma saída britânica da UE têm sido exageradamente exagerados quando ele bateu em um desapontamento por partidários de um voto para manter os laços com Bruxelas. O Sr. Johnson rejeitou os argumentos feitos contra o Brexit por pessoas que não pensam que a Grã-Bretanha pode ficar em nossos dois pés. Ele disse que o primeiro-ministro advertiu que uma votação para sair seria um salto no escuro, mas o Sr. Johnson demitiu as advertências sobre o impacto na cidade. No período das perguntas de Mayors, ele disse aos membros da Assembléia de Londres: penso genuinamente que esses medos são exageradamente exagerados. Esses são os argumentos que ouvimos repetidas vezes - já ouvimos antes, lembro de ter ouvido isso em 2008, quando os mercados financeiros caíram, todos disseram que todos os bancos deixariam Londres. Lembro-me vividamente de ouvir isso no início da decisão sobre se entramos ou não no euro - as pessoas disseram que se não nos juntarmos ao euro, eles disseram que a rua Throgmorton iria quebrar e guinchar e grandes ratos mutantes roeriam os rostos Dos últimos banqueiros e todo esse tipo de bobagem. Não foi verdade, pelo contrário, a cidade de Londres é, predominantemente, o centro financeiro preponderante aqui nesta parte do mundo, de fato, é o maior da terra. Tem um conglomerado de habilidades e uma grande e enorme variedade de talentos que eu não acho que estariam comprometidos. Nenhum segundo referendo se os votos da Grã-Bretanha para a Brexit Downing Street derramaram água fria na perspectiva de um segundo referendo se o Reino Unido votasse em retirar da UE em 23 de junho, insistindo que uma votação para sair é uma votação para sair. A segunda opção do referendo teria sido divulgada pelo prefeito de Londres, Boris Johnson - que, dramaticamente, saiu a favor da Brexit no domingo - como forma de obter novas concessões da UE. Mas a porta-voz dos Primeiros-ministros não deixou dúvidas de que um voto de licença desencadeasse a saída do Reino Unido por meio do artigo 50 do Tratado de Lisboa, que prevê um processo de dois anos para negociar os termos da retirada dos estados de partida e suas futuras relações com a EU. David Cameron deixa Downing St para a Câmara dos Comuns fazer uma declaração após um fim de semana de negociações com os Estados membros da UE Foto: Heathcliff OMalley The Telegraph No entanto, ela deixou de dizer que o Sr. Cameron desencadearia imediatamente o Artigo 50, informando o Conselho Europeu de um Deixar o voto na cúpula dos líderes dos Estados membros da UE que deverão ter lugar em Bruxelas, de 23 a 24 de junho. Se o povo britânico votar para sair, o governo respeitará claramente o resultado disso, disse a porta-voz dos PMs. Eles vão então iniciar o processo para sair. Prefeito de Londres Boris Johnson fala com jornalistas fora de sua casa depois de anunciar que ele deve fazer campanha para deixar a UE, em Londres. Foto: Tolga AkmenLNP Boris Johnsons, pai, adverte sobre o fim do fim de carreira Johnsons pai, Stanley Johnson, ex-deputado e presidente Do grupo dos ambientalistas para a Europa, disse que seria uma paródia total sugerir que seu filho tinha optado por Brexit como um movimento de carreira. Não consigo pensar em mais movimentos de final de carreira do que fazer o que fez ontem, no sentido de que ele está deixando a prefeitura em maio, disse o Sr. Johnson mais velho. Se ele quisesse ter um bom trabalho no gabinete em 8 de maio, essa não é a maneira de fazê-lo. Robert Halfon: Estou votando para permanecer na UE porque estou assustado por um mundo incerto O MP conservador Robert Halfon disse ao The Telegraph porque ele está votando para permanecer na União Européia. Nenhum de nós sabe como o acordo negociado pelo primeiro-ministro será desempenhado - como apenas o tempo dirá - embora eu suspeite que haverá algumas mudanças reais. Eu também acredito que, pelo menos, o acordo pode ter parado a direção da viagem federalista. Mas a verdade é que, se o negócio é brilhante ou não, não faz diferença na minha decisão. Estou votando para ficar na UE porque estou com medo. Com medo da ascensão do islamismo em todo o mundo e o que isso significa em termos da batalha das civilizações. Assustado de eventos na Síria, o uso de armas químicas, a fraqueza da resposta do Ocidente - até muito recentemente. Assustado de um Irã forte, cujas asas podem ter sido cortadas em termos de armas nucleares - por enquanto, mas ainda atua como um grande opressor em todo o Oriente Médio financiando Hezbollah e Hamas. Assustado de uma Rússia re-emergente, recriando postes coloniais na Síria, suas ações na Ucrânia e envenenando seus próprios cidadãos em solo britânico. Assustado do futuro de uma ameaça existencial a Israel diante da chegada do ISIS em Gaza, um Irã hostil e o derramamento do conflito sírio. Assustado com o retorno das principais atrocidades terroristas para a Europa Ocidental. Com medo do ressurgimento do anti-semitismo. Amedrontado pelo enfraquecimento da economia chinesa e o efeito que terá sobre o mundo. Priti Patel responde aos argumentos da Camerons. Priti Patel, o ministro do Emprego, criticou a declaração dos Primeiros Ministros nos Comuns, dentro de poucos minutos, terminando. Ela disse: O primeiro-ministro tentou muito, mas a UE se recusou a dar ao povo britânico o que eles queriam. Os tribunais da UE e os políticos ainda estarão encarregados de nossas fronteiras, nossos tribunais e nossa economia. O acordo não é juridicamente vinculativo e pode ser frustrado pelos juízes da UE após a nossa votação. Mesmo que entrou em vigor, isso mudaria apenas um dos Tratados da UE. A única maneira de retomar o controle sobre nossa economia para liberar nossos negócios para criar mais empregos e crescimento é votar Leave. O acordo da UE é um espetáculo teatral para apaziguar os deputados Tory. O líder do Partido Trabalhista, Jeremy Corbyn, disse que foi mais do que decepcionante que a renegociação de Camerons não tenha abordado os principais desafios que a Europa enfrenta, incluindo lidar com as mudanças climáticas, tornando as empresas globais pagar impostos justos e combater o terrorismo. O líder trabalhista disse: A realidade é que toda essa negociação não tem sido sobre os desafios que o continente enfrenta, nem tem como enfrentar os problemas enfrentados pelas pessoas da Grã-Bretanha. Tem sido um espetáculo teatral sobre tentar apaziguar, ou não apaziguar, a metade do partido conservador dos Primeiros Ministros. Boris diz lixo, lixo depois que o PM responde à sua pergunta sobre a soberania britânica. Boris Johnson parece ter murmurado lixo, porque David Cameron respondeu a sua pergunta sobre como seu acordo retorna soberania à Grã-Bretanha. Depois de ser ridiculizado publicamente pelo primeiro-ministro, o Sr. Johnson finalmente teve a chance de fazer uma pergunta sobre o Sr. Cameron. Ignorando muita zombaria e gritos de colocar sua camisa, ele perguntou: Posso pedir ao meu Honorável amigo, o primeiro-ministro, para explicar à Casa e ao país exatamente o que este acordo devolve soberania de qualquer campo de lei que faça Este parlamento, o senhor deputado Cameron respondeu: Este acordo traz alguns poderes de bem-estar, traz alguns poderes de imigração, traz alguns poderes de resgate, mas mais do que isso porque nos esculpe para sempre de uma união cada vez mais próxima. Isso significa que a catraca do tribunal europeu que retira o poder deste país não pode acontecer no futuro. Mas, como o primeiro-ministro falou, o Sr. Johnson podia ser visto repelindo lixo, lixo. Boris parece muito cruzado - como um garoto de catorze anos que foi informado para parar de mostrar por seu pai x2014 Laura Kuenssberg (bbclaurak) 22 de fevereiro de 2016 Cam v Boris: a batalha começa David Cameron apenas jogou uma granada em seu relacionamento já tenso com Boris Johnson, zombando dele publicamente. Os padrões da noite Pippa Crerar prevêem que, com base em eventos passados, o Sr. Johnson não levará esse insulto deitado. Sabendo o quanto Boris estava bravo com sua humilhação em Commons, por último, em maio, Amputor Osborne, ele ficará completamente lívido com as demolições demoradas. Entretanto, George Eaton, do New Statesman, está desenhando comparações entre o Sr. Cameron e o Sr. Johnson e as infames batalhas entre Tony Blair e Gordon Brown. Tal como acontece com Blair e Brown, a batalha real está agora dentro do partido governante (Cameron e Boris). Cameron desce para guerra aberta com Boris. Sua guerra Tory aberta no Commons. David Cameron está jogando uma série de farpas minando a sugestão aparente de Boris Johnsons, poderia haver um segundo referendo após um voto sem eleição. Toda linha está sendo atendida por uma agitação da cabeça pelo prefeito de Londres. Os braços estão firmemente dobrados. MPs trabalhistas - por uma vez - são aqueles que gritam mais coisas extraordinárias nos Comuns. Os deputados trabalhistas animam Cameron e gritam mais, mais como ele derruba Boris Johnson. Momentos estranhos Brexit x2014 Steven Swinford (StevenSwinford) 22 de fevereiro de 2016 Quanto a Michael Gove, o Secretário de Justiça, que também apoiou Brexit durante o fim de semana, ele não está em nenhum lugar no banco da frente. O Sr. Cameron conclui sua declaração com uma lança clara em Boris: eu não estou de reeleição. Não tenho outra agenda. Ben Riley-Smith, Correspondente Político David Cameron lança um ataque surpreendente contra Boris Johnson no discurso de Commons David Cameron lançou um ataque selvagem contra Boris Johnson durante seu discurso nos Comuns no qual ele estabeleceu seu acordo da UE. O primeiro-ministro insinuou que o Sr. Johnson apoiava a Brexit por suas próprias ambições de liderança pessoal. Levando as sugestões de que o Sr. Johnson pode querer usar um Brexit para garantir um melhor acordo da UE, ele disse aos deputados: eu não considerarei a ironia de que algumas pessoas que desejam sair para permanecerem. Ele acrescentou que essa abordagem também ignora pontos mais profundos sobre democracia e diplomacia. Ele foi mais longe dizendo: Lamentamente, Senhor Presidente, conheci vários casais que começaram os processos de divórcio. Não conheço casais que tenham iniciado processos de divórcio para renovar seus votos de casamento. O Sr. Cameron disse: "Não estou de acordo para a reeleição. Não tenho outra agenda do que o que é melhor para o nosso país. Estou aqui dizendo o que eu acho. Minha responsabilidade como primeiro-ministro é falar claramente sobre o que eu acredito que é certo para o nosso país e é o que eu farei todos os dias durante os próximos quatro meses. O grande nome que Tories assista em alguns grandes nomes de Tory veio junto à Câmara dos Comuns para assistir a declaração histórica de David Camerons sobre a renegociação da UE. Jeffrey Archer - título completo Lord Archer de Weston-Super-Mare - está sentado na galeria de colegas olhando. Também o Lord Lansley, ex-secretário de saúde do senhor deputado Camerons, que presidiu uma polêmica reorganização do NHS, desistiu como deputado no ano passado e depois retornou ao Parlamento como um par. Ben Riley-Smith, Correspondente Político Cameron: o comércio da UE tem prioridade sobre a Grã-Bretanha David Cameron alertou os deputados que o comércio de negócios dentro da UE teria prioridade sobre os negócios com a Grã-Bretanha se o país votar para sair. O primeiro-ministro, falando no Commons, disse que levaria anos e anos para construir acordos comerciais fora da UE. Cameron disse que buscou reformas para tornar a UE mais competitiva. O primeiro-ministro David Cameron aborda deputados na Câmara dos Comuns em Londres, para apresentar o seu caso para ficar na União Europeia. Foto: PA Ele acrescentou que há compromissos para realizar acordos comerciais e de investimento com a Austrália, China, Índia, Japão e os EUA. Todavia, seus comentários não são bem vindos por muitos dos seus próprios pensionistas. Os eurocépticos do Tory balançam a cabeça atrás de Cameron enquanto ele avisa contra o modelo da Noruega para o Reino Unido se ele deixa a UE incomoda Curiosamente, Theresa May, o ministro do Interior, está sentada com o Sr. Cameron, mas não há nenhum sinal de Michael Gove, que optou por Brexit. Boris Johnson está no quarto, no entanto, e espera fazer uma pergunta sobre o PM. Cameron está prestes a enfrentar deputados em Commons David Cameron está prestes a apresentar seu acordo da UE aos deputados na Câmara dos Comuns após dois dias de conversações em Bruxelas. Ele esperará persuadir os deputados dos benefícios de combater a migração para proteger a Grã-Bretanha de uma união cada vez mais próxima e de novas proteções para a cidade de Londres. Mas ele enfrenta uma enorme contração, com vários membros de seu próprio gabinete apoiando Brexit e até 150 deputados Tory juntando-se à campanha para sair. Aqui está o Sr. Cameron retratado um pouco mais cedo, deixando 10 Downing Street quando ele se dirigiu para o Parlamento. David Cameron deixa 10 Downing Street para viajar às Casas do Parlamento no centro de Londres, Grã-Bretanha, 22 de fevereiro de 2016. Foto: Reuters Relações PM-Boris irrecuperáveis O relacionamento entre David Cameron e Boris Johnson agora é irrecuperável, de acordo com The Times Tim Montgomerie. Ele cita um insider que não aguenta muita esperança para a relação entre o casal depois que Johnson apoiou Brexit. Insider descreve o relacionamento de PM-Boris como irrecuperável. Claro que é recuperável, mas a fúria no Número 10 está atualmente fora da escala. E Nick Clegg, o ex-líder democrata liberal e vice-primeiro-ministro - lembre-se dele - também foi bastante assustador sobre a divisão entre os dois homens. Isto é o que você obtém com uma política de partido: o futuro do país reduzido a uni chums argumentando um com o outro. Apenas um deputado do escritório dos chicotes de Tories apoia David Camerons O acordo da UE Steve Barclay, um chicote conservador, saiu a favor de um Brexit. Ele é entendido como o único deputado no escritório dos chicotes para fazê-lo. Ele disse: O primeiro ministro merece um grande crédito por entregar o referendo como prometido no manifesto. É claro que ele conseguiu o melhor negócio disponível da Europa, mas isso não oferece o controle do jogo que nosso país precisa. Não há dúvida de que a Europa se integrará ainda mais, tendo em conta os requisitos do euro e a necessidade de responder a crises futuras como a migração. Precisamos decidir como um país se nos governamos ou continuamos a terceirizar nosso governo para Bruxelas. David Cameron descarta o segundo referendo quando se prepara para encarar os deputados de Brexit. Downing Street derramou água fria na perspectiva de um segundo referendo se o Reino Unido votasse em retirar-se da UE em 23 de junho, insistindo que uma votação para sair é uma votação deixar. O comentário ocorreu quando David Cameron se preparou para enfrentar deputados na Câmara dos Comuns para apresentar o argumento para permanecer na União Européia. A segunda opção do referendo teria sido divulgada pelo prefeito de Londres, Boris Johnson - que, dramaticamente, saiu a favor da Brexit no domingo - como forma de obter novas concessões da UE. Prefeito de Londres Boris Johnson fala para repórteres fora de sua casa depois de anunciar que ele deve fazer campanha para sair da UE, em Londres. Foto: Tolga AkmenLNP Mas a porta-voz dos Primeiros-ministros não deixou nenhuma dúvida de que um voto de licença desencadearia a saída do Reino Unido por meio do artigo 50 do Tratado de Lisboa, que prevê um processo de dois anos para negociar os termos da retirada dos estados de partida e suas futuras relações com a UE. No entanto, ela deixou de dizer que o senhor deputado Cameron desencadearia imediatamente o artigo 50.º ao informar o Conselho Europeu de votação na sua cimeira dos líderes dos Estados-Membros da UE que terão lugar em Bruxelas, de 23 a 24 de Junho. Se o povo britânico votar para sair, o governo respeitará claramente o resultado disso, disse a porta-voz dos PMs. Eles vão então iniciar o processo para sair. Paralelamente à sua declaração à Câmara dos Comuns, o PM deverá lançar um Livro Branco do Governo sobre o resultado da sua renegociação da adesão britânica, bem como a apresentação de um instrumento estatutário no Parlamento, estabelecendo formalmente a data do referendo e o processo sob o qual o rival As organizações oficiais de campanha serão designadas. É provável que ele tenha uma viagem áspera no Commons dos pensionistas Tory e meia dúzia de ministros do gabinete que já declararam que irão votar em Brexit na pesquisa nacional. Fontes próximas ao Sr. Johnson - que efetivamente se colocou na liderança da campanha Out ao anunciar seu apoio - confirmaram que o prefeito e deputado de Londres deve comparecer à declaração e procurará fazer uma pergunta. A porta-voz do Sr. Camerons disse: O primeiro-ministro ficou claro o tempo todo que haverá diferentes pontos de vista sobre diferentes lados do argumento. Nossa mensagem para todos - tendo em mente que as pessoas estão subindo e descendo o país que votará neste referendo, em vez de apenas um indivíduo - é que queremos que a Grã-Bretanha tenha o melhor dos dois mundos. A porta-voz dos PM confirmou que os ministros que apoiam a retirada da UE continuarão a ser autorizados a falar do banco da frente, mas serão obrigados a deixar claro se eles estão expressando sua visão pessoal sobre a Europa e não a posição do governo. Perguntado se o senhor deputado Cameron estava preocupado com o facto de mais de metade dos deputados de sua própria parte poder acabar apoiando a Brexit, a porta-voz disse: reconhecemos que existem diferentes pontos de vista sobre esta questão, que cada indivíduo tem que pesar as questões com cuidado e fazer a sua própria julgamento. Porque o primeiro-ministro está entregando um referendo, isso significa que as pessoas que estão de frente para o país - e não apenas na Câmara dos Comuns - poderão ter sua opinião. Boris errada invoca o nome do meu avô Winston Churchill, diz Nicholas Soames. Boris Johnson não deveria ter justificado sua decisão de Brexit usando o nome de Sir Winston Churchill, disse o primeiro-ministro dos Primeiros-Primas da guerra. Sir Nicholas Soames, o deputado Tory da União Europeia, criticou Boris Johnson por ter invocado o espírito de seu avô, Sir Winston Churchill, em seu artigo em The Daily Telegraph quando ele saiu para a Grã-Bretanha para sair da UE. Ele disse ao Telegraph: x201cBoris admira muito o meu avô. Eu entendo que ele usa o nome do meu avô no artigo (Telegraph), o reza no auxílio, mas acho que está completamente abaixo da linha. X201d Sir Nicholas acrescentou: x201cI o admiro como pessoa, mas eu sinto que o seu navio de salto depois Um período terrível de flip-flopping dá sua total falta de convicção de que isso é realmente o que é certo. X201 eu sei x2013 Eu conheço o capital SABE x2013 que Boris não é um exterior, ele me disse que ele não é um exterior, eu sei que ele disse a outras pessoas que ele não é um x2013 externo, então acho que falta convicção e você não pode liderar nenhuma campanha se Você realmente não tem a convicção de fazê-lo. X201cI não entendo posição Borisx2019. Eu acho que é descuidado dos interesses da cidade de Londres, dado que o primeiro-ministro conseguiu algumas melhorias consideráveis para eles e não estou em falta para explicá-lo. Desculpe por me encontrar desnecessariamente contra um velho amigo. X201d Christopher Hope, o principal correspondente político Cameron adverte os deputados para se tratarem com respeito durante a campanha do referendo David Cameron irá implorar pessoalmente aos deputados das partes se tratarem com respeito durante o referendo Campanha em uma reunião de massa de seu próprio partido parlamentar esta noite. O primeiro-ministro concordou em participar de uma reunião de emergência do comitê de backbench conservador de 1922, no palácio de Westminster, em 1922. Uma fonte sênior do comitê de 1922 disse: x201c Ele virá para a reunião para enfatizar que todos nós tratamos as pessoas com respeito e como uma família. Nós queremos nos reunir após o referendo. x201d The Telegraph entende que Steve Baker MP, presidente dos conservadores eurocepticos para a Grã-Bretanha, responderá, agradecendo ao Sr. Cameron por ter vindo. Christopher Hope, o principal correspondente político George Galloway diz que as perguntas sobre ele que expulsam os eleitores da campanha de Brexit são infantis. O ex-deputado do Trabalho, George Galloway, criticou as questões infantis sobre se ele está desviando eleitores da campanha de Brexit. O Sr. Galloway foi um orador convidado de surpresa em uma manifestação para o grupo Cross-Party Grassroots Out em Londres na noite de sexta-feira. Mas sua aparição levou alguns membros do público a sair. George Galloway e Nigel Farage unem forças em um evento de campanha de adesão anti-UE em Londres. O Sr. Galloway foi confrontado com exemplos de críticas quando foi entrevistado pelo apresentador Jo Coburn na BBCs Daily Politics. Se você tivesse me dito que eu estava vindo para me discutir, eu teria dito que há assuntos muito maiores que o povo britânico está ocupado, disse ele. Não quero me defender de nada. Você não é o meu juiz. Você não é apto para ser meu juiz. Pressionado repetidamente sobre se ele poderia prejudicar a campanha de Brexit, o Sr. Galloway disse: Por favor, pare isso. Você me enganou em vir hoje, e todas as perguntas que você fez foram sobre mim. É tão infantil. É tão tablóide. Soubry: deixamos de falar sobre filas de Tory Anna Soubry, a ministra das empresas, disse que é hora de um debate adequado e adulto, em vez de se concentrar na posição de Boris Johnsons na UE. Ela disse à BBCs World at One: acho que todos correram o risco de perder o enredo aqui. Não estou sendo grosseiro, mas eu realmente não acho que este seja um ponto importante. Estamos em grave perigo de desligar milhões e milhões de pessoas que agora querem ouvir os argumentos e o debate. As pessoas vão querer saber se elas serão mais fortes como país, mais seguras como pessoas. Eles também querem saber o que parece se votarmos. Todos começaram este debate que a União Européia é inútil, mas, na verdade, a União Européia tem sido extremamente benéfica. Quero agora ter um debate adequado e adiantado sobre a continuação da adesão à União Europeia. Esta é a bolha de Westminster falando sobre as maquinações da festa Tory. No mundo real, ninguém está interessado. Theresa Villiers rejeita as chamadas para sair do papel da Irlanda do Norte depois de apoiar a secretária da Brexit Irlanda do Norte, Theresa Villiers, tem marcado pedidos para ela se demitir sobre sua posição de Brexit ridícula. Políticos nacionalistas e republicanos na região questionaram o cargo de Sra. Villiers na sequência da decisão de apoiar a campanha para que o Reino Unido saia da UE. Eles insistiram que o deputado conservador não está em sintonia com a opinião pública na Irlanda do Norte. Iain Duncan Smith e Theresa Villiers se juntam a ativistas que visitam os eleitores por telefone após o lançamento da campanha Leave Leave na sede dos grupos em Londres Foto: Getty Images Sinn Fein Stormont, o primeiro ministro, Martin McGuinness, disse que Villiers deve desistir. É claro que a maioria das pessoas no Norte tem um ótimo valor na nossa adesão à União Européia e quer que continue, disse ele. É estranho que Theresa Villiers agora defenda a retirada da UE quando os seus benefícios para o Norte são bastante óbvios. Não é surpreendente, no entanto, dado que ela não é eleita e não representa o povo do Norte que ela deve ser tão cortada da opinião pública. O líder da SDLP, Colum Eastwood, disse que o Secretário de Estado deve desistir se a Irlanda do Norte votou em permanecer na UE. Como eu disse repetidamente a ela, ela não representa a Irlanda do Norte nesta posição (saída da UE), disse ele. Ela não deve tentar falar em nosso nome. A spokeswoman for Ms Villiers responded: The Prime Minister has made clear ministers would be free to campaign in a personal capacity ahead of an EU referendum. The Secretary of State remains totally focused on her ongoing and determined efforts to build a brighter, more secure future for NI. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. In Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein, the SDLP and Alliance Party are all campaigning for the UK to remain within the EU. The Democratic Unionists are backing a Brexit. The Ulster Unionists have yet to nail their colours to the mast on the issue. Leave. EU campaign question whether Boris really wants Britain to leave European Union Boris Johnson has been told to clarify his position on the EU after he wrote in the Telegraph that it only really listens to a popular when it says no. Richard Tice, co-founder of Leave. EU, said: x201cLeave. EU is delighted to welcome Boris Johnson to the campaign for the UK to leave the European Union. Following, however, his latest Daily Telegraph column where he stated the EU x201conly really listen to a population when it says nox201d we are concerned that he still harbours a belief that the EU can be reformed and that the best way to achieve this is to vote Leave and then open up fresh negotiations. Mayor of London Boris Johnson speaks to reporters outside his house after announcing that he is to campaign to leave the EU, in London Photo: Tolga AkmenLNP x201cThe referendum question is plain and simple, do we stay in or leave the EU. When the British people vote to leave there will then be negotiations on the terms of departure, not new terms to stay. Anything less will be a breach of faith between the public and the government. Voting to leave must mean leaving the EU, no ifs, no buts, no last minute vows x2013 or the British people will rightly feel betrayed. x201d Zac Goldsmith: Why Im backing Brexit Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative London mayoral candidate, pictured here out and about in Westminster today, has explained why he has decided to back Brexit. Conservative Mayoral Candidate Zac Goldsmith sighted in Westminster. Mr Goldsmith will campaign for Britain to leave the European Union ahead of the June 23rd referendum. Photo: Ben PruchnieGetty x201cI recognise that opinion in London is at best divided on this issue, and it would be easier for me to quietly U-turn, he wrote in City AM. He added: x201cIt makes no sense for us to bind ourselves to a political bloc that is in decline we should be free to trade with the fastest growing markets and to attract talent from around the world. x201d Meanwhile, on the subject of Mr Goldsmith, he has published his tax return today after coming under pressure to do so. It seems he earns 22 times more from his trust fund that he does for his work as an MP. In 201415 his total income was 1,574,676 and he paid 692,870 in income tax. His rival Sadiq Khan, the Labour candidate, has promised to release his tax return this week. Camerons top business advisers REFUSE to sign letter endorsing EU reform deal At least six of David Camerons closest business advisers have refused to sign a letter endorsing his EU reform deal. Half a dozen of the 20 members of the PMs Business Advisory Group (BAG) will not put their name to the letter that is due to be published tomorrow. Sky News reports that a number of the companies have opted to remain neutral on the matter rather than backing Mr Cameron. Revealed: How Britain will pay MORE in benefits to some families under Camerons EU deal David Camerons deal contains the option to index child benefits payments to local living standards. It means cutting the payouts to parents whose children live in poorer states. In total it affects 34,000 claimants in the UK, and 500,000 across the EU. The biggest hit will be Poland, at 22,000, followed by Ireland, at 2,500, Lithuania at 1700 and France at 1,400. But what about the small number of migrants whose children live in wealthy countries - such as Denmark (23 kids), Norway (61), Luxembourg (14) and the Netherlands (288). An EU source confirms that for parents from states wealthier than the UK, the government will have to pay more in benefits. x201cThe option is to do it or not. But if you do it, indexation goes up as well down. x201d A quick reminder that this export of benefits - that consumed many hours of fraught negotiations on Friday - in total costs 25 million a year. Thats about the same as a fund set up by the government to buy minibuses for rural charities. And the indexation, brought in after 2020 for existing claimants, will save fraction of that. EU sources say they dont have figures for how much the UK will save. Spend it well Matthew Holehouse, Brussels Correspondent Boris: EU has changed out of all recognition Boris Johnson has just spoken again about the EU, saying it has become much more politically ambitious and has changed out of all recognition since Britain joined over 40 years ago. No10 tells Boris: No second referendum Number 10 has dismissed Boris Johnsonx2019s apparent suggestion there could be a second referendum if Britain votes for Brexit on June 23. The Prime Ministerx2019s official spokesman repeatedly said that David Cameron believes x201ca vote to leave is a vote to leavex201d when pushed on the idea that a No vote could not be final. In his Daily Telegraph column, Mr Johnson raised the possibility that Britain will not ultimately leave the EU in the event of an Out vote. He said EU history x201cshows they only really listen to a population when it says Nox201d and called for a cooperative relationship x201con the lines originally proposed by Winston Churchill: interest, associated, but not absorbed with Europe x2013 but not compromisedx201d. Asked about the idea of a second referendum, a Number 10 spokesman said there are only two choices for the British people, thats remain or leave. The spokesman indicated that Mr Cameron will use Article 50, the formal EU process for an exit, if Britain votes to leave. That would trigger a two-year countdown for Brexit and formally begin negotiations for withdrawal. Ben Riley-Smith, Political Correspondent Post-Brexit, how 1,200 British eurocrats could be jobless If the UK leaves then there will have to be x201cdiscussions and negotiationsx201d over whether British eurocrats are allowed to keep their jobs. It is causing a great deal of worry. The eligibility criteria makes clear that only EU nationals can work in the Commission, putting the fate of around 1,200 eurocrats in doubt. (If they do get laid off, theyx2019ll received 70 per cent of their salary for five years x2013 not too shabby.) Matthew Holehouse, Brussels Correspondent Brexit: English will remain official language of EU EU official accuses Boris of blackmail One EU diplomat has today accused Boris Johnson of x201cblackmailx201d. He said it would be impossible for his country to offer Britain anything more. A clause in the deal says that the Cameron deal will expire in the event of a no vote to prevent x201cbiddingx201d. x201cThis is it. The final offer. Itx2019s take it or leave it. It was a sufficiently difficult negotiation that we are not prepared to go beyond this. x201d Boriss wife Marina: Im a major major fan Marina Wheeler, the wife of London Mayor Boris Johnson, was in Westminster this morning to be sworn in as a QC at a ceremony in the 1,000 year old Westminster Hall at the Palace of Westminster. Marina Wheeler with her husband Boris Johnson as she is sworn in as a QC Photo: CHRISTOPHER HOPE Marina Wheeler, the wife of London Mayor Boris Johnson leaves their home in London. Photo: REUTERSStefan Wermuth Asked if she was proud of Mr Johnson, she told The Telegraph she was a major major fan, adding: It is important for debate and discussion. Christopher Hope, Chief Political Correspondent British sovereignty plans are delayed after Michael Gove backed Brexit David Cameronx2019s proposals for emboldening British sovereignty may not be revealed this week or include legislation, Number 10 has indicated. It comes after Boris Johnson publicly backed leaving the EU despite being personally taken through the proposals by the Prime Minister. Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, had initially been scoped out for coming up with a way to enshrine Britainx2019s sovereignty in law before it became clear he backed Brexit. The proposals are now being overseen by Oliver Letwin, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and one of Mr Cameronx2019s closest allies. While there was speculation the sovereignty proposals were due to be announced yesterday or today, it now appears we could be waiting longer than expecting. The Prime Ministerx2019s official spokesman was asked about when the proposals are due at this mornings briefing with Westminster journalists. x201cThe Prime Minister said yesterday on Marr in the coming days. He did not say this week, he said in the coming days, the spokesman said. They also questioned the assertion x201cthere is going to be legislationx201d to makes the changes x2013 meaning there is no guarantee of a new law. Ben Riley-Smith, Political Correspondent European Commission declines to shut down Boris Johnsons idea that Brexit could get better deal My colleague Matthew Holehouse, our Brussels Correspondent, writes: The European Commission declines to shut down Boris Johnsons idea that a Brexit vote could be used to leverage better terms. I ask Margaritis Schinas, Junckers spokesman, whether he will clarify for British voters whether they can use a No vote to secure new terms. No. We will not take any part on what might or might not happen after the British people vote. There is nothing else to be said for us. It is for the British people to take this further. He notes that the deal has a self-destruct clause that means the offer made to David Cameron will expire if voters opt to leave. He refuses to talk about how Article 50 - the Brexit clause - might be activated. We do not speculate about anything that may or may not happen after the 23 of June. We have no Plan B. We are not engaging in speculation. He says the European Commission will not be campaigning. Our role ends here. It is obvious why they wont campaign. It is up to the British government, the state to take part. It is of concern to the British people and the British people alone. During the Greek crisis, Mr Juncker made a passionate speech urging them to stay. Schinas will not be goaded into explaining why Juncker thinks the Greeks are more important. The Midday briefing and the EU office in the UK will remain in place. Jonathan Hill, British commissioner, will not campaign either as a member of the Commission. However, Mr Hill has made his views known - with a stream of tweets over the weekend. Completely unrealistic to believe UK could leave amp next day have access to single market for financial services on same terms as today. Not being in the room would lead to rules which do not reflect the UKs interests. The Commissions UK task force will remain in place to address questions that have to be thrashed out. David Cameron calls Cabinet ministers into Downing Street ahead of speech to Commons as more senior Tories back Brexit David Cameron called selected Cabinet ministers into 10 Downing Street this morning ahead of his speech to the Commons this afternoon in which he will set out his EU deal to MPs. Here we picture Theresa May, the Home Secretary, and Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary. The scale of divisions within the Government over Europe was exposed as ministers set out their positions ahead of the June 23 referendum. National security is a key argument used by David Cameron in making the case for a vote to remain in the 28-member bloc. Defence ministers Penny Mordaunt and Julian Brazier both set out their intention to campaign for Brexit. Armed Forces Minister Ms Mordaunt warned that without further EU reform the UK and the rest of Europe will never be as safe as it could be. The Portsmouth North MP said: I will be writing to my constituents to explain in detail my reasons for this decision, and how a Leave vote can pave the way to a relationship based on trade, free from the regulations which are holding back our businesses. I have thought long and hard about this, and what would be in the best interests of our city, our country and Europe itself. I think without further EU reform the UK and Europe will never be as safe, secure and prosperous as it could be. It needs reform to thrive and we have seen from these negotiations it is incapable of that. Anyone who wants further reform and a Europe based on democracy and therefore responsive to its peoples needs and concerns should vote to leave and trigger further negotiations. Reserves Minister and Canterbury MP Mr Brazier said: If we choose to stay in, we remain an open destination for those fleeing the economic consequence of the eurozones worsening crisis. We remain helpless to take steps in our national interest. The alternative is to re-join the rest of the world, keeping our influential places in the proven institutions of Nato, the UN and the Commonwealth. We can unshackle British business from Brussels micromanagement and negotiate a new relationship with our European neighbours. We buy far more from them than they do from us. And this will free them to construct a future which we chose not to join when we rejected the single currency. Britain can have a great future, if we take charge of our own destiny, resting in secure alliances and continuing to rebuild our global trade. James Wharton, minister for the Governments Northern Powerhouse agenda, confirmed he would be backing a Brexit. The Stockton South MP wrote on Twitter: I will be voting leave for brexit and supporting the excellent voteleave campaign. We should look to the world, not just the EU. x2014 James Wharton MP (jameswhartonuk) February 22, 2016 One minister who had more pressing issues on her mind was Tracey Crouch, who recently gave birth to her son, Freddie. The Sports Minister tweeted: 12 Dear journos, I gave birth 4 days ago. With respect only decision Ill make today is which breast pump to buy not how Ill vote in June x2014 Tracey Crouch (traceycrouch) February 22, 2016 22 I know you have job to do but my priorities are elsewhere. Desculpa. x2014 Tracey Crouch (traceycrouch) February 22, 2016 Tory MPs attack Boris Conservative MPs who are campaigning for Britain to remain in the European Union have broken ranks and attacked London Mayor Boris Johnson, and x2018de factox2019 leader of the Out campaign. Sir Keith Simpson, a senior Tory MP, said that Mr Johnson was more like Randolph Churchill than Winston Churchill. He said: x201cBoris was very Churchillian x2013 a man he admires but sadly his decision was more reminiscent of Randolph than Winston. Randolph was a more extrovert character who made the political weather who then catastrophically offered his resignation when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer that was accepted by the then-Prime Minister Lord Salisbury. x201d Christopher Hope, Chief Political Correspondent Flood of victims of EU stagnation coming to UK Defence minister Julian Brazier, the Canterbury MP who has opted for voting to leave the EU, has spoken of a flood of victims of European stagnation arriving to compete for jobs. Brexit: UKs credit rating could be downgraded Credit rating agency Moodys has warned that the UK Governments rating outlook could be downgrading if Britain votes to exit the EU because the economic costs outweigh the benefits. Thats according to Faisal Islam from Sky News. Credit rating agency MoodysInvSvc UK government rating outlook downgrade if vote to exit EU because economic costs..outweigh benefits Boris rebuked for Brexit talk at City Hall More on Boris Johnsons appearance at City Hall this morning. Mr Johnson was rebuked by the London Assemblys chair Jennette Arnold for straying away from the topic of the session, which was meant to be on Londons budget. It is not reasonable for you to use this as another platform for your views, she told the Mayor. The Mayor said it was absolute cobblers to suggest that the UK would not be able to thrive outside the EU. Liberal Democrat AM Stephen Knight highlighted 77.5 million funding in Mr Johnsons budget a jobs and growth strategy that puts Londons relationship with the EU at its core. He asked: Are you going to use the last few weeks of your mayoralty to undermine your own jobs and growth agenda for London Because it would appear that is exactly what you are doing. Mr Johnson said: We will remain an open, free-trading and dynamic economy under any circumstances. I really think it is illusory to think London would somehow wither away and die if it wasnt for our membership of the European Union. He added: It is simply inconceivable to imagine that they would want to cut us off. After all, we are massive net buyers of their goods, there is every reason for them to want to cut us a deal that would be extremely favourable. Boris Johnson attacks David Camerons wildly exaggerated Brexit fears Boris Johnson has claimed that fears over the economic impact of a British exit from the EU have been wildly exaggerated as he hit out at scaremongering by supporters of a vote to retain ties with Brussels. The London Mayor ended weeks of speculation on Sunday by announcing his support for a vote to leave the European Union despite a plea by David Cameron to join him in supporting the campaign to remain in the 28-member bloc. Mr Johnson dismissed the arguments made against Brexit by people who dont think Britain could stand on our own two feet. He said the Prime Minister had warned that a vote to leave would be a leap into the dark but Mr Johnson dismissed the warnings about the impact on the City. At Mayors question time, he told London Assembly Members: I genuinely think those fears are wildly exaggerated. Those are the arguments that we have heard time and time again - we heard it before, I remember hearing it in 2008 when the financial markets crashed, everybody said that the banks were all going to leave London. I remember vividly hearing it in the run-up to the decision of whether or not we go into the euro - people said that if we didnt join the euro, they said that Throgmorton Street would crack and yaw and great mutant rats would gnaw the faces of the last bankers and all this sort of nonsense. It didnt turn out to be true, on the contrary the City of London is overwhelmingly the preponderant financial centre here in this part of the world, indeed it is the biggest on earth. It has a conglomeration of skills and a huge, huge range of talents that I dont think would be jeopardised at all. Mr Johnson said: In any case like this there will always be people who say we should stick with the status quo. But the trouble with the status quo is that it is formidably bureaucratic, it is producing more and more legislation over which neither our parliament nor any parliament in Europe has any control. He told City Hall that Brussels reach had extended into areas that we never dreamed of when we joined in 1972. Mr Johnson said: I think there will be arguments both ways and you will certainly hear, in the next few months, all sorts of people scaremongering and you will hear people saying that we cant survive outside Europe. Dismissing the Anglo-scepticism of the argument, he said: There are people who dont think Britain could stand on our own two feet, and all the rest of it. I have to say I think that is profoundly wrong. I think that the people who make these arguments are the same as the people who warned that we shouldnt leave the ERM, which turned out to be the salvation of the UK economy and they are the same as the people who said that we had to join the euro, which turned out to be a catastrophic mistake and a very unfortunate enterprise. I am inclined to take those views with a pinch of salt. I hear all sorts of prognostications from the City, I read plenty of people who think actually that the British economy could prosper outside the European Union, and not just the British economy but London and the City of London too. Labour leader in the assembly Len Duvall pointed out that business organisation London First had warned that a Brexit would cost the capital 13.9 billion a year and 75,000 jobs to the London economy by 2030 and HSBC was prepared to move 1,000 jobs to Paris if the UK voted to leave. Stay in the EU, say British businesses Most British businesses say the concessions the Government has extracted from Brussels in recent days have done little to change attitudes towards the European Union, with a clear majority wanting Britain to remain a member. Two polls x2013 from the Institute of Directors (IoD) and manufacturersx2019 trade body EEF x2013 each found that six out of 10 of their members support Britain remaining in the European Union. The news came as it was reported an open letter about the impact of Britain leaving the EU signed by FTSE 100 bosses will warn a so-called x201cBrexitx201d would x201cput the UK economy at riskx201d. Members of the IoD said the agreement hammered out over the weekend by the Prime Minister, David Cameron, was a x201creasonable dealx201d for their businesses, focusing on cutting red tape and unnecessary legislation, a move away from x201cever closer unionx201d, and protection for the City. EEF members highlighted similar concerns, with 75pc saying that Brussels bureaucracy is the biggest issue they have with our EU membership. Britain more vulnerable to terror post-Brexit Sir Hugh Orde, former president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, has told LBC that Britain will be more vulnerable to terrorism if it leaves the European Union. All sorts of terrors will be threatened in an attempt to persuade us to stay Tory MP Desmond Swayne, who is a minister for international development and a former Parliamentary Private Secretary to David Cameron, has warned of a campaign of fear from those hoping that Britain will remain in the EU. Mr Swayne, who confirmed on his website that he is backing Brexit, said: All sorts of terrors will be threatened in an attempt to persuade us to stay. In the long term however, our prosperity will depend on our competitiveness, and I am confident that outside the EU we have the ability to deliver greater competitiveness than we can within it. Of course, there are risks about leaving, but I believe that the risks are greater if we stay. The MP for New Forest West voted to leave the Common Market in 1975 and said that his stance was not a new position but he added: EU migrant access to UK benefits was one of the areas where the PM was not as successful in the renegotiation as he originally hoped. He has improved the situation, but the new agreement does not match his original ambition. My fundamental problem is that he had to ask at all. The rules that govern the receipt of benefits in the UK, funded by the UK exchequer, ought to be the exclusive prerogative of our own UK Parliament, and not a matter for horse trading at the EU Council. He added: Fundamentally I want to live in an independent country that can reach its own decisions, and control its own borders. We cannot do so in important respects so long as we remain in the EU. I will be voting to leave. Hopefully, second time lucky. David Cameron and Boris Johnson set to clash David Cameron and Boris Johnson are set to clash in the Commons as the Prime Minister lays out his case for staying in the European Union. As the referendum battle gets under way for real, Mr Cameron is due to give MPs details of the new membership deal he struck with EU counterparts following marathon talks in Brussels. The premier has insisted he managed to win special status for the UK, with restrictions on benefits for migrants and an exemption from ever closer union. But Mr Cameron is likely to get a rough ride from Tory backbenchers and half-a-dozen Cabinet ministers who have already declared they will be voting for Brexit in the national poll on June 23. Sources close to Mr Johnson - who has effectively put himself at the head of the Out campaign by announcing his support - confirmed that the London Mayor and MP is due to attend the statement and will seek to ask a question. Boris: Plenty of time to talk about Brexit Boris Johnson seemed coy as he stepped out of his London home on Monday, telling reporters there would be plenty of time to talk about Britains great future outside the EU in the next few weeks. Surrounded by a throng of eager media, the London mayor had on Sunday gone against the Prime Minister David Cameron to declare his support for Britain leaving the EU. Yet this morning the Mayor seemed more focused on his final budget at City Hall than on the Brexit. Excuse me Ive got to go to my last budget at City Hall, he began. Which is going to continue to cut council tax and invest in vital infrastructure. Mr Johnson then mounted his bike and cycled off leaving a trail of photographers in his wake. Ford: Britain needs to be part of single market Head of Ford Motors Mark Fields stressed that the manufacturer valued the ability to operate within Europe. Speaking to the BBC, he said: We think its really important that we are part of a single market, and we also think very strongly that the UK in a reformed EU is important, but of course thats going to be up to the British public to vote on. Ford currently employs 14,000 people in the UK. Asked if an out vote would affect investment or production, Mr Fields said the firm would do the appropriate things to secure the competitiveness of our business going forward. Pound suffers biggest drop in almost a year as Boris Johnson sparks Brexit fears The pound suffered its biggest drop against the dollar in almost a year after London Mayor Boris Johnson said he will campaign for Britain to leave the European Union. Sterling fell by as much as 1.5pc to 1.4192 against the dollar this morning, marking the biggest drop since March 2015, as experts said the influential Mayors decision made a British exit from the bloc more likely. The pound also fell by as much as 1.2pc to x20ac1.2786 against the euro and hit a two-year low against Japans yen. Sterling had a positive start to the year, but analysts warn that 2011 could be as volatile as 2010 for currency Photo: DBURKE Alamy Mr Johnson said David Cameron, the prime minister, had done his very best in securing a deal from Brussels on its EU membership. However, writing in The Telegraph, Mr Johnson said staying inside the union would lead to an erosion of democracy. Cabinet minister John Whittingdale bets 1,000 David Cameron will remain PM if Brexit wins A Cabinet minister has bet 1,000 that David Cameron will remain as Prime Minister even if he suffers a damaging defeat in the European Union referendum. John Whittingdale, who is backing a vote to leave the EU, insisted that defeat would not spell the end of Mr Camerons time in Number 10. The Culture Secretary agreed a charity wager with TV presenter Piers Morgan when challenged about the impact losing the referendum would have on Mr Camerons political future. Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport John Whittingdale arrives at Downing Street Photo: Stefan RousseauPA Mr Cameron has said he will not seek a third term as prime minister and he is expected to come under intense pressure to quit if he suffers the humiliation of ending up on the losing side after the June 23 referendum. Mr Whittingdale, one of five full Cabinet members who have expressed their support for a vote to break from Brussels, in opposition to the Prime Minister, said Mr Cameron had already achieved a better deal for the UK if it voted to stay and he would lead negotiations if the country decided to leave. He told ITVs Good Morning Britain: Even if we vote to stay in, we will be in a better place than we were before under the old terms. If the British people decide that it is not enough and that we should leave, then he will respect that decision and he will be the first to go and negotiate a new deal so that we do get the best possible outcome. He added: If we win the campaign, then I am confident the Prime Minister will continue in office. Morgan challenged the minister: I will bet you 1,000 to charity that if you guys win - and you may well - David Cameron has two hopes of remaining Prime Minister: No hope and Bob Hope. The Cabinet minister shook hands on the wager and Morgan tweeted: Just bet JWhittingdale 1000 on air that Cameron wont be PM if he loses EU referendum. He accepted. eventually. Fallon dismisses Boris view as expected Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, has dismissed Boris Johnsons support for Brexit saying that it was expected and no one is particularly surprised. Mr Fallon sought to downplay the significant win for the Leave campaign, adding: People are going to take different views on this. It is a matter of judgement. In the end each of us has a vote. Speaking to BBC Radio 4s Today programme, Mr Fallon admitted that David Cameron would have liked Mr Johnsons backing for his EU deal. Well obviously he would have liked more support from Boris but hes taken his individual view, he said. But it is up to each individual citizen to make their view now. He insisted that it would not lead to the break-up of the Government or the Conservative Party. Even those who wanted to leave made it absolutely clear at the Cabinet that we are going to come together again because there is work to be done, he said. If you look back at the 1975 referendum, the then Wilson government came back after the referendum. The party stayed right through that parliament. The PM to his credit is allowing members of his Cabinet to dissent. Hes allowing Tory MPs to express different views. Mr Fallon admitted that Britain could survive on its own and we could certainly make a go of it but the country would be safer and stronger remaining a member of the EU. He said: Our security rests on NATO, not on the European Union, but it adds to that security. It can do things NATO cant. For example we were able to persuade the rest of Europe to apply sanctions against Russia in the wake of the annexation of Crimea. It complements the security we have in the West. Of course it is frustrating when you are dealing with 27 other countries, but the point is this if you are outside you wouldnt have any influence at all. Like or not, the European Union has many faults but if you were outside it would still be there. Were the fifth biggest economy in the world and we could certainly make a go of it, but around half of our trade is within the European Union. It is perfectly possible for Britain to survive on its own but the argument is are we safer and stronger Boriss dad Stanley Johnson: This could be career-ending move Stanley Johnson, the father of Boris Johnson and former MEP and chairman of the Environmentalists for Europe campaign group, warned this morning that his sons decision to back Brexit could be career-ending if the Leave campaign loses the referendum. But Mr Johnson added that he thought his son, the Mayor of London, had made a well-thought-out move. I think he has done a really well-thought-out move. When I say move, it is a move in the sense it represents his deep conviction that at this moment this is what he needed to do, he told BBC Radio 4s Today programme. Honestly, I think to say this is a careerist sort of move would be a total travesty. I cannot think of any more career-ending move than to do what he did yesterday, in the sense that he is leaving the mayoralty in May. If he wanted to get a nice job in the Cabinet on May 8 this is not the way to do it. Asked whether in a years time people would be saying this was the moment his son put himself on course to become prime minister, Mr Johnson replied: Who can say Boris call for Brexit is decision in search of justification Boris Johnsons decision to support the Brexit campaign is a decision in search of a justification, shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn has told ITVs Good Morning Britain. Mr Benn, who will campaign to remain, said the Mayor of Londons column in The Telegraph had accepted there are risks to Britain leaving the European Union. Boris: Why Britain should say no to EU Boris Johnson today says that Britain has a x201conce in a lifetime opportunityx201d to vote to leave the European Union as a way of securing an entirely new relationship with Brussels based around the single market. Writing in The Daily Telegraph. Mr Johnson calls for Britain to be x201cbravex201d and says that x201cthere is only one way to get the change we need x2013 and that is to vote to gox201d. He says that x201cEU history shows that they only really listen to a population when it says Nox201d. x201cEU history shows that they only really listen to a population when it says Nox201d Unlike some of those backing a x201cBrexitx201d, Mr Johnson raises the possibility that Britain may not ultimately leave the EU in the event of a x201cLeavex201d vote. He calls for Britain to have a deep and co-operative relationship with the EU x201con the lines originally proposed by Winston Churchill: interested, associated, but not absorbed with Europe x2013 but not comprisedx201d. His decision will electrify the referendum campaign and came as a major blow to David Cameron just one day after the Prime Minister called the June 23 vote. It sets the stage for a leadership campaign that looks likely to see Mr Johnson face off against George Osborne, the Chancellor, for the chance to succeed Mr Cameron when he steps down. x201cThis is a once in a lifetime chance to vote for real change in Britainx2019s relations with Europe, x201d Mr Johnson adds. x201cThis is the only opportunity we will ever have to show that we care about self-rule. A vote to Remain will be taken in Brussels as a green light for more federalism, and for the erosion of democracyx201d Mr Johnson only informed the Prime Minister of his final decision by text message nine minutes before making a public address declaring that he would back a x201cBrexitx201d. It is understood that he was swayed during talks last week with Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, who is also backing the campaign to leave the EU. Mr Johnson and Mr Gove are already being described by insiders as a new axis of power in the Conservative Party to rival Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne. The two senior Tories are joined by five other Cabinet ministers in backing the out campaign. In the end, it is now expected that 13 junior ministers will back a x201cBrexitx201d alongside around 150 Tory MPs. x201cThis is a once in a lifetime chance to vote for real change in Britainx2019s relations with Europe, x201d Mr Johnson adds. x201cThis is the only opportunity we will ever have to show that we care about self-rule. A vote to Remain will be taken in Brussels as a green light for more federalism, and for the erosion of democracy. x201d He says that it time x201cto seek a new relationship, in which we manage to extricate ourselves from most of the supranational elementsx201d. And he rejects claims made by Mr Cameron and his Cabinet allies about the x201crisksx201d of a x201cBrexitx201d. Mr Johnson writes: x201cWe will hear a lot in the coming weeks about the risks of this option the risk to the economy, the risk to the City of London, and so on and though those risks cannot be entirely dismissed I think they are likely to be exaggerated. We have heard this kind of thing before, about the decision to opt out of the euro, and the very opposite turned out to be the case. x201d In a major blow to Mr Cameron, the Mayor of London rubbished the Prime Ministerx2019s claims that his renegotiated settlement with Brussels has achieved x201cfundamental reformx201d of the EU. In his Telegraph article, Mr Johnson suggests that because of the EUx2019s influence, Mr Cameron and other politicians are x201cimpotentx201d on key issues like immigration. x201cSometimes the public can see all too plainly the impotence of their own elected politicians x2013 as with immigration, x201d Mr Johnson writes. x201cThat enrages them not so much the numbers as the lack of control. That is what we mean by loss of sovereignty x2013 the inability of people to kick out, at elections, the men and women who control their lives. We are seeing an alienation of the people from the power they should hold, and I am sure this is contributing to the sense of disengagement, the apathy, the view that politicians are x201call the samex201d and can change nothing, and to the rise of extremist parties. x201d He warns that the European x201cproject has morphed and grown in such a way as to be unrecognisablex201d and makes clear that there is x201cnothing necessarily anti-European or xenophobic in wanting to vote Leave on June 23x201d. Mr Johnson says that the influence of European courts on British life is x201cunstoppable and it is irreversiblex201d. x201cThat is why EU law is likened to a ratchet, clicking only forwards, x201d he writes. x201cWe are seeing a slow and invisible process of legal colonisation, as the EU infiltrates just about every area of public policy. Then x2013 and this is the key point x2013 the EU acquires supremacy in any field that it touches because it is one of the planks of Britainx2019s membership, agreed in 1972, that any question involving the EU must go to Luxembourg, to be adjudicated by the European Court of Justice. x201d Mr Johnson writes that the Prime Minister x201chas done his very bestx201d over the course of his renegotiation and praises his bid to reassert the sovereignty of the British Parliament with a new Bill to be brought forward in the coming days. However, he says the Prime Ministerx2019s reforms x201ccannot stop the machine at best it can put a temporary and occasional spoke in the ratchetx201d. Calling for voters to be unafraid of a UK outside the EU, Mr Johnson writes: x201cIf the x2018Leavex2019 side wins, it will indeed be necessary to negotiate a large number of trade deals at great speed. But why should that be impossible We have become so used to Nanny in Brussels that we have become infantilised, incapable of imagining an independent future. x201d Allies of the Prime Minister were last night furious at Mr Johnsonx2019s decision to back the x201cLeavex201d campaign. They accused him of making the announcement as part of a x201ccalculated leadership bidx201d x2013 an accusation that Mr Johnson yesterday rejected. According to well-placed sources, Mr Johnson had given the Prime Minister his personal assurance just weeks ago that he intended to back the x201cInx201d campaign. It is now expected that following Mr Johnsonx2019s declaration, wealthy donors will swing behind the x201cLeavex201d campaign and pour resources into the bid to take Britain out of the EU. Mr Johnson yesterday said he will not play a prominent role in the campaign and will not debate against Conservatives backing the x201cInx201d campaign. Lord Heseltine, the former deputy prime minister, last night released a statement attacking Mr Johnson. He said: x201cIf he were to be successful in his ambition to cut us off from Europe, the flags would fly in Frankfurt and Paris in his honour. At a stroke, he would have blown away the safeguards for our financial services industry that the Prime Minister has just secured. That is to risk countless jobs across our country from Edinburgh in the north to Bournemouth in the south and, of course, London itself. The statement was released by the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign and echoed Mr Cameronx2019s claims that a x201cBrexitx201d would be a x201cleap in the darkx201d, risking accusations of a smear campaign against the Mr Johnson. Exclusive: Boris Johnson writes in The Telegraph, explaining why he is backing the Leave campaign The London mayor writes: There is only one way to get the change we want x2013 vote to leave the EU. At a time when Brussels should be devolving power, it is hauling more and more towards the centre, and there is no way that Britain can be unaffected Boris Johnson backs LEAVE campaign Boris Johnson has joined the campaign to leave the European Union, putting himself at loggerheads with David Cameron and George Osborne. The Mayor of London emailed the Prime Minister on Saturday to inform him of his decision but he only confirmed by text message just nine minutes before his public statement yesterday. In a move that will electrify the referendum campaign, Mr Johnson decided to back a x201cBrexitx201d despite personal appeals from Mr Cameron to support his position. Mr Johnson said that he had decided to act because the European political project was in danger of getting out of proper democratic control. Sovereignty is peoples ability - the ability of the public - to control lives and to make sure that the people they elect are able to pass the laws that matter to them. The trouble is, with Europe that is being very greatly eroded, he said. You have got a supreme judicial body in the European Court of Justice that projects down on this 500 million people territory a single unified judicial order from which there is absolutely no recourse. In my view, that has been getting out of control. There is too much judicial activism, there is too much legislation coming from the EU. He praised Mr Camerons attempts at renegotiating a deal with the EU but said: I dont think that anybody can claim that this is fundamental reform of the EU or of Britains relationship with the EU. Amid chaotic scenes, Mr Johnson insisted that he had agonised over the decision before finally declaring his hand. The last thing I wanted was to go against David Cameron or the Government but after a great deal of heartache I dont think there is anything else I can do, he said. I will be advocating vote leave. because I want a better deal for the people of this country to save them money and to take back control. It will come as a major blow to Mr Cameron and will be seen as a coup for the x201cLeavex201d campaign. He follows Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, who on Saturday confirmed he was backing the bid to leave the EU in the minutes after Mr Cameron called the referendum. Mr Johnsonx2019s declaration for the out campaign will also put him in pole position to succeed Mr Cameron as Conservative Party leader. Mr Osborne, the Chancellor, had previously been considered the frontrunner in the leadership race. The Mayor of Londonx2019s decision comes after months of flirting with the out campaign. However, until recent days Downing Street insiders were confident that Mr Johnson was set to support the Prime Ministerx2019s position. Mr Cameron on Sunday morning used an appearance on the BBCx2019s Andrew Marr programme to appeal directly to Mr Johnson to back the x201cRemainx201d campaign. REACTION TO BORIS JOHNSONS STATEMENT A Number 10 spokesman Our message to everyone is we want Britain to have the best of both worlds: all the advantages of the jobs and investment that comes with being in the EU, without the downsides of being in the Euro and open borders. Leave. EU campaign group Wed like to offer the Mayor of London a warm welcome to the Brexit campaign, said Leave. EU co-chairman Richard Tice. We share his vision of a UK with full, democratic control of its affairs, and a relationship with Europe based on free trade and voluntary co-operation. However, this referendum will be decided by the people, not politicians, and we hope the media will make sure their voice is heard as well. Who are the outers Zac Goldsmiths father set up and funded the anti-EU Referendum party in 1995 and his Eurosceptic views influenced his sons take on the 28-state bloc and Britains role within in. A minister in the same department as Michael Gove and ex-aide to Grassroots Out supporter David Davis, Dominic Raab is a member of the EU Fresh Start group, set up with fellow Eurosceptic MPs. George Eustice is one of the founding members of EU Fresh Start and stood as a UKIP candidate at the 1999 European Parliament elections. He also campaigned against the Euro. Having previously claimed he is not an outer Boris Johnson is perhaps the least likely Eurosceptic, particularly given his family background as the son of a prominent pro-EU father and a former student of the European School in Brussels. Despite once working as the European marketing director for a communications agency, Mr Grayling is firmly in the No camp and was the first cabinet minister to speak out in an article in the Daily Telegraph. The former press office for the Referendum party, the anti-EU group funded by Zac Goldsmiths father, Ms Patel has long-held Eurosceptic views based on a desire to regain control from Brussels. One of the most committed Eurosceptics in David Camerons cabinet, Iain Duncan Smith was one of the original Maastricht rebels. John Whittingdale is a council member of the Eurosceptic think tank European Future, chaired by Grassroots Out member Tory MP Bill Cash and set up to oppose the Maastricht Treaty. Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport John Whittingdale arrives at Downing Street Photo: Stefan RousseauPA A former MEP for six years before becoming an MP, Theresa Villiers bases much of her argument for wanting to leave the EU on her experiences in Brussels and before that as a lawyer. Iain Duncan Smith and Theresa Villiers join activists canvassing voters by phone following the launch of the Vote Leave campaign at the groups headquarters in London Photo: Getty Images His views on why the UK would be better off out have been shaped by his time in Government and the way ministers are hamstrung by Brussels - something he claims to have experienced first hand as the former justice secretary. Oral Answers to Questions The Secretary of State was asked Energy Supply 1. Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con): What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on the supply of energy in Scotland and if he will make a statement. 907627 The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael): I have regular discussions with colleagues on issues affecting the energy sector in Scotland, including with the Scottish Government on energy supply issues. Miss McIntosh: People in north Yorkshire have noted with great interest that the Scottish Government have banned fracking for the moment. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on progress towards a debate on energy supply not only for Scotland, but for the whole of the United Kingdom Mr Carmichael: My hon. Friends key words were for the moment. The Scottish Government have come forward with a moratorium, and I am sure that we shall all watch the debate with keen interest. I remind her and the House that we removed the Scottish provisions from the Infrastructure Bill, and that the power to license onshore exploration for oil and gas will be devolved under the Scotland Act that will come after the next election. Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab): When the Secretary of State meets the First Minister, will he get informationthis is not in the public arenaon how much compensation is being paid to wind farms in Scotland from his and my electricity bills as a consequence of the fact that they are, in my view, inefficient Mr Carmichael: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman seeks that information from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, it will be forthcoming. Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD): I am sure that the Secretary of State, as a highlands and islands MP, will share the sense of anger and injustice at 25 Feb 2015. Column 300 SSEs 2p surcharge on electricity costs, given that it made a profit of 1.5 billion last year. Will he do everything possible at the UK level to ameliorate this state of affairs, not least by endorsing the excellent campaign by Press and Journal Mr Carmichael: I rarely have any difficulty in endorsing a campaign run by The Press and Journal . The question of the price being paid by electricity consumers across the highlands and islands is complex, but I know that we all benefit from being part of the wider UK energy market. Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): Scottish generators, including Longannet, provide 12 of the electricity going into the British network, but pay 35 of the transmission charges. The Secretary of State has been in government for five years. What has he done to end that discrimination Mr Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that transmission charging is the responsibility of Ofgem, the energy market regulator. He will also be aware of the work that Ofgem has been doing with other parts of the energy industry in relation to Project TransmiT. Angus Robertson: Last week, the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister about this very subject, asking the UK Government to initiate a dedicated capacity assessment for Scotland, informed by stakeholder views, and take steps to transfer to the Scottish Parliament the authority to set our own national reliability standard for electricity. Having failed to end the discriminatory transmission charges, will the UK Government agree to those reasonable suggestions Mr Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman and the First Minister must both be aware that National Grid has a constant process of reviewing energy supply. The system operators in Scotland have stress-tested 140 scenarios in which Longannet and other Scottish fossil fuel generators were closed, and National Grid has the tools to keep the lights on in every one of those scenarios, including by being resilient against one-in-600-year risks. Those are the facts, and they are preferable to the sort of scaremongering that we hear from the nationalists. Mr Speaker: We are now better informed, I am sure. Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): But is the Secretary of State satisfied that the capacity of the electricity interconnector between Scotland and England is sufficient and will not act as a brake on competition in the supply and generating markets Mr Carmichael: That is exactly the kind of work that is within the ambit of National Grid and Ofgem. Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab): I have raised many times the devastation caused by abandoned coal mines in my constituency. The Secretary of State will be aware of the proposal for an exemption from carbon price support, which would greatly help their restoration and create 1,000 jobs. Can we expect good news on this in the Budget, and does he agree that 25 Feb 2015. Column 301 the Scottish Government should step up to the plate with some of their 500 million surplus to help the restoration Mr Carmichael: First, I am happy to pay tribute to the hon. Lady, who has been a doughty fighter for her constituents interests in this regard. As for what will be in the Budget, I am afraid that, like the rest of us, she will have to wait and see, although I can assure her that my Department remains engaged on this issue. We continue to work closely with the Scottish Government on their joint taskforce, which will next meet in March. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will represent the UK Government on that occasion. Cross-border Trade 2. Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con): What assessment he has made of the potential effect on cross-border trade between the north of England and the border region of Scotland of the proposals of the Smith commission. 907628 The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael): As a result of the clear no vote in the referendum, there remain no barriers to trade across the whole of the UK. Nothing in the draft clauses changes that. Guy Opperman: Does the Secretary of State agree that all political parties need to come together to ensure that airports such as Newcastle in the north-east have air passenger duty support so that they are not unfairly disadvantaged by the proposals of the Smith commission Mr Carmichael: I assure my hon. Friend that the basic principle of the Smith commission proposals is that there should be no detriment to any part of the UKthat was very much what the people of Scotland voted for on 18 September. Of course, it remains to be seen what will happen to levels of APD, once it is devolved, but he should take comfort from the fact that the principle is already well established that variable rates within the UK are possible, and he would be well advised to speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that regard. Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP): Had the Smith commission been faithful to the famous vow and had the Better Together parties not watered down the tepid Smith commission, does the Secretary of State think that the benefits to the north of England, as well as to Scotland, would have been greater Mr Carmichael: I know that it hurts the hon. Gentleman and causes him genuine pain, but the truth of the matterhe will have to accept this sooner or later, so he might as well get on and accept it nowis that the Smith commission has delivered on the vow. That was why his party signed up to it, even if, having done so, the Scottish National party could not run away from its commitments fast enough. Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (LD): The single market of the United Kingdom is vital to the fish processors and agricultural producers of 25 Feb 2015. Column 302 Berwickshire, the coat hanger manufacturers of Jedburgh and the world-class knitwear manufacturers of Hawick, among others, so does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the major achievements of the Smith commission was to bring more powers to Scotland, but preserve that single market Mr Carmichael: Yes, absolutely. I particularly enjoyed joining my right hon. Friend recently in his constituency and learning from him about not only the challenges but the opportunities facing the knitwear industry. I know that that industry is of great importance to the economy in his area, and he has been a remarkable champion of it over the years. Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab): There is obvious eagerness within local authorities in the south of Scotland to have closer trade links with their counterparts in the north of England, as evidence from the work of the Scottish Affairs Committee suggests. Does the Secretary of State intend to engage with the Scottish Government to ensure that the borderland areas are able to exploit their full potential Mr Carmichael: Indeed. I am well aware of the work of the borderlands initiative and am more than happy to engage with it in any way it considers would be helpful. That has been very much the approach that I have taken in dealing with Scotlands island communitiesthe Western Isles, Orkney and Shetlandon their Our Islands Our Future campaign. I suggest that this Governments willingness to hand power back to communities in Scotland bears very favourable contrast with the SNP Government in Edinburgh, who seem determined to centralise everything. Living Wage 3. Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab): What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on practical steps to encourage employers to pay the living wage. 907629 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell): I have regular discussions with the Scottish Government on a range of employment issues. The UK Government support businesses that choose to pay the living wage, where that is affordable and does not cost jobs. Jim Sheridan: I thank the Minister for that response, which seems somewhat aspirational rather than ambitious. He will be aware that the Scottish Government at Holyrood refused to support the call for a living wage that was put forward by Labour in Scotland. Will he follow the example set by my local Labour-controlled Renfrewshire council, which has not only introduced a living wage, but used the procurement process to encourage its suppliers to pay the living wage David Mundell: There are excellent examples of local authorities taking forward initiatives with the living wage, and South Lanarkshire council is one. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman heard the speech that my colleague, Ruth Davidson, made to the Scottish Conservative conference on Friday in which she called for help and 25 Feb 2015. Column 303 support for businesses that promoted the living wage. I hope Scottish Labour and the Scottish Government will support her in that regard. Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (LabCo-op): A Labour Government will ban the use of exploitative zero-hours contracts, which leave people not only not making the living wage, but unable to make a living on the minimum wage. Why will this Government not do the same David Mundell: The hon. Lady forgets that there was actually a Labour Government up until five years ago who took no action whatever on zero-hours contracts. This Government have banned exclusivity in zero-hours contracts, which is what leads to exploitation. Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab): This Government are constantly making claims about new jobs that have been created in Scotland since the last election. Of those new jobs, what proportion have been in low-paying industries David Mundell: Since this Government came to power, 107 jobs a day have been created in Scotland. I am afraid that the hon. Lady has had a memory lapse, because she cannot remember the position on employment when this Government came to power and she cannot accept the good news of the creation of new jobs. Margaret Curran: What I do remember is that the Labour Government implemented the minimum wage in the face of opposition from the Conservative party. According to new research from the House of Commons Library, 82 of these new jobs are in the low-paying sectors. That news comes days after the TUC revealed that one in five workers in Scotland is paid below the minimum wage. Just this morning, the Office for National Statistics revealed that 28 of workers are on zero-hours contracts. This Government stand up for the wrong people: they help out their friends who have been avoiding their taxes, yet they do not help those who work hard and play by the rules, but do not even get a decent wage in return. Will the Minister take any action in what remains of the last days of this Government to help ordinary working people to get a decent wage, or is the only hope is that in 71 days time, we get rid of this out of touch Government and get a Labour Government who will put working people first David Mundell: The hon. Lady could start by endorsing Ruth Davidsons proposal to incentivise the paying of the minimum wage, and that is actually a fact, not rhetoric. As I have told the hon. Lady on numerous occasions, if she has evidence of people not being paid the minimum wage, she should bring that forward. Yesterday, the Government did something the Labour Government never did: we named and shamed 70 companies, including some in Scotland, that do not pay the minimum wage. What she should be celebrating is the fact that this Government have delivered 107 jobs a day in Scotland, 1,645 of which are in her constituency, as can be seen from the drop in jobseekers allowance claimants. 25 Feb 2015. Column 304 Property Taxes 4. Dame Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab): What recent discussions he has had with Ministers of the Scottish Government on property taxes in Scotland. 907630 The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael): As part of the Scotland Act 2012 implementation process, UK Government Ministers have been in contact with Scottish Government Ministers to discuss devolved taxes, including property taxes, since the beginning of this year. Dame Anne McGuire: May I encourage the Secretary of State to be a little more forthcoming and share with the House his view on whether Revenue Scotland is ready for the transfer of property taxes in April Mr Carmichael: The right hon. Lady will understand my hesitation when I say that we have to take the Scottish Government at their word. They assure us that they are ready and we have done everything within our power to assist them. If it should transpire that there are further difficulties that have not yet been foreseen or disclosed, we will do everything that we can to ensure that the system operates. Fiona ODonnell (East Lothian) (Lab): Does the Secretary of State see the SNP Governments U-turn on the land and buildings transaction tax as a cause for concern or the sincerest form of flatteryTartanTories Mr Carmichael: I think that is quite remarkable. The whole point of devolution is to allow the Scottish Government to do things differently. We devolved stamp duty land tax under the 2012 Act. They came forward with something that was different until this Government introduced a new system, when before we knew it they had changed to follow what was happening in the rest of the United Kingdom. Work Programme (Job Outcome Payments) 6. Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): For what proportion of participants in the Work programme in Scotland job outcome payments have been made to providers of that programme. 907632 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell): Work programme participants are some of the hardest to help and can experience multiple barriers to finding work. There are two providers in Scotland: Ingeus has supported 21.2 of all claimants into a job outcome and Working Links has supported 20.4 of claimants into a job outcome. Sheila Gilmore: The Work programme has performed worse in Scotland than in any English region. In the meantime, successful local projects such as the Engine Shed in my constituency have had to close. Does the Minister agree that powers over this should be devolved as quickly as possibleand not just to the Scottish Parliament, but to local authorities 25 Feb 2015. Column 305 David Mundell: I certainly agree that the Engine Shed was a great project. I have made it clear to the Deputy First Minister that if proposals are brought forward after the election for the devolution of the Work programme, separate from other items to be devolved, I would have an open mind about that. Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con): Thanks to this Government, those helped into employment though the Work programme do not have to pay income tax on the first 10,000 they earn. Does the Minister agree that that represents progress towards economic growth in Scotland and opportunities for its young people David Mundell: Absolutely. Some 32,620 people in Scotland have found work through the Work programme, which means they can bring home a wage, support their family and play a part in their wider community. Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): By any measure the Work programme has been a failure. It has wasted public money and let down the people depending on it. When will the Government listen to not only the Smith commission, but the dozens of civil society organisations in Scotland that have called for employment support to be devolved so that we can develop an integrated system in Scotland that actually works David Mundell: I do not think that the 32,620 people who have found work through the Work programme would agree with the hon. Ladys assessment. It is now time for her party to come forward with its proposals for an alternative to the Work programme, rather than just criticising the Government and calling for more powers. This Government have given a commitment to effect a transition to such a programme, but first we need to know what it will be. 11. 907637 Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab): The Work programme is obviously failing in my constituency and in the city of Dundee as a whole, where only one in seven participants actually get a job. What will the Minister do to address that problem David Mundell: I fully acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has been a fervent campaigner on this issueand, indeed, on employmentin his constituency, but I am sure that he welcomes the fact that over the past five years, under this Government, the number of jobseekers allowance claimants in his constituency has gone down by 842some 27. 9. 907635 Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab): Unemployment in the Motherwell, Wishaw and Bellshill area rose again last month, with more than 500 young people now unemployed. Why has the Tory Work programme failed them David Mundell: I absolutely dispute the claim that the Work programme has failed them. The Work programme looks to help the most vulnerable people into work, and people have moved into work over the past five years in the hon. Gentlemans constituency, where the JSA claimant count has come down by 1,403some 39. I am sure that even he welcomes that. 25 Feb 2015. Column 306 Smith Commission 7. Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): What public consultation his Department is carrying out in Scotland on the draft clauses published following the recommendations of the Smith commission. 907633 The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael): The Scotland Office is holding a series of events across Scotland to enable stakeholders to provide feedback on the draft clauses and how the new powers might be used. I can announce to the House today that the Government will now begin a public information campaign to enable people in Scotland to learn more about the devolution settlement and how it is changing. Interruption. This campaign will use social media, local media and an information booklet for every house in Scotland. Interruption. Mr Speaker: Order. There is a lot of noise in the Chamber. The House and perhaps the nation should hear Mr Christopher Chope. Mr Chope: The nation would be interested to know that draft clause 1 has been widely condemned as legally vacuous. What is the Secretary of State going to do to ensure that the people of Scotland realise that it is legally vacuous and that if they support it, they will be supporting a meaningless constitutional proposal Mr Carmichael: I absolutely refute that suggestion and the hon. Gentlemans characterisation of that analysis as being widespread. 13. 907639 Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): Has the Secretary of State specifically discussed the question of varying tax bands under the Smith agreement, which seems a marvellous opportunity for Scotland to decide how it treats people with differing levels of income It might be different from the way they are treated in the rest of the UK. Mr Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman is right and he takes the debate in a direction in which it has to go. Surely the time has come when we should no longer be discussing where powers lie, but discussing what can be done with the substantial powers that the third most powerful devolved legislature anywhere in the world will have as a result of these proposals. Mr Speaker: What a delicious choice. I call Mr Alan Reid. Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The out of touch House of Lords Constitution Committee has said that not enough thought has been given to the impact of giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote. I hope the Government will reject this recommendation and give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to have their say on who represents them in the Scottish Parliament. Mr Carmichael: I confess that I always hold their lordships views in very high regard, but they would not normally be the first port of call that I would make when I was looking for advice either on democratic elections or on young people. The order will be before 25 Feb 2015. Column 307 their lordships House tomorrow night. I am confident that it will be passed, as it was passed in this House, without Division. Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab): Given the powers that the Scottish Government already have, has the Secretary of State ever received an apology from them for their failure to spend 34 million on disabled children and their families and instead using it for the gimmick of keeping council tax static Mr Carmichael: There are many, many things for which the Scottish Government should apologise and I suspect that in the event that these apologies ever start coming, the right hon. Gentleman and I will not be at the top of the list to receive them. He is right, though, to point out that the freeze on council tax has caused real difficulties for many local authorities in Scotland, which will be outraged to see the size of the Scottish Governments underspend this year. A1 Dualling 8. Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): What discussions he has had with Scottish Government Ministers on the co-ordination of programmes to dual the A1. 907634 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell): The provision of road transport in Scotland is a devolved matter. Department for Transport Ministers did, however, offer to work with Transport Scotland on a joint feasibility study on dualling the A1. The Scottish Government chose not to take up that offer. Sir Alan Beith: Now that this coalition Government have committed 290 million to dualling the A1 on the English side of the border, should not the SNP Government in Scotland bring forward plans to dual remaining single carriageway sections on the Scottish side of the border David Mundell: I agree with my right hon. Friend. He may be aware that my colleague John Lamont MSP has been making exactly that call. Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): As we await the dualling of the A1, has the Minister heard of the success of the average speed cameras on the A9 Accidents have been cut by 97, speeding is down by 90 and the road experience has been totally transformed. Will he now get his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to abandon his reckless and irresponsible campaign to take those cameras down and put my constituents at risk once again Mr Speaker: Order. I think I was very generous. The hon. Gentleman started banging on about the A9, rather than the A1, but we will let him off on this occasion. David Mundell: It is worse than that, Mr Speaker. We constantly hear complaints from the hon. Gentleman about this place intruding into the affairs of the Scottish Parliament, and yet he raises an issue that is solely the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. 25 Feb 2015. Column 308 English Votes for English Laws 10. Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): What discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on the potential implications for Scotland of English votes for English laws. 907636 The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael): There is clear consensus that change is needed to address the anomalies in our constitutional arrangements, but no consensus on what form this change should take. The solution must be fair to all parts of the United Kingdom and strengthen the links between our family of nations so recently reaffirmed in the referendum in Scotland. Mr Turner: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that most Scots, unlike Labour Members, recognise the unfairness of their MPs at Westminster intervening to affect English schools, English health and English councils now that those matters have been devolved from England to Scotland Mr Carmichael: I think I have already acknowledged that there are substantial anomalies within our constitutional arrangements. I caution the hon. Gentleman, however, about being too enthusiastic about replacing these anomalies with ones that could be even bigger. Prime Minister The Prime Minister was asked Engagements Q1. 907692 John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (LabCo-op): If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 February. The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today. John Woodcock: British support in Ukraine is welcome, but combined efforts against President Putins naked aggression have been woefully lacking. When the Prime Minister leaves office in 70 days, is he content for his place in history to be the Prime Minister whose weakness left Britain mired in years of conflict The Prime Minister: At the end of this Parliament, I believe that Government Members can be proud of the fact that we closed the massive black hole in our defence budget left by Labour. We can be proud of the fact that we see Voyager airplanes flying out of Brize Norton. We can be proud of the fact that we are building two aircraft carriers. We can be proud of the fact that we have got the Type 45 destroyers. We can be proud of the fact that submarines are rolling out of the hon. Gentlemans constituency and into the seas of the Atlantic to keep our country safe. Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con): Last year my right hon. Friend strongly supported my Bill, which became the International Development (Gender Equality) Act 25 Feb 2015. Column 309 2014, to protect women and girls from female genital mutilation and similar abominations. My amendment on Report to the Serious Crime Bill to protect young girls and women at risk from FGM in this country gained 272 votes. There were many deliberate abstentions, but it was defeated by a three-line coalition Whip. Following a letter from the Minister before the Report stage, several matters remained unresolved. I tried to intervene but I was not allowed to do so. Will my right hon. Friend write to me to explain how these young girls and women will be fully protected under the guidelines under the Act and otherwise The Prime Minister: I commend my hon. Friend for his Bill and for the campaign that he has waged in favour of that Bill and of equality in how we deliver aid and in this vital area. On the specific issue of the piece of legislation that he is referring to, my understanding is that we believe that the law as drafted covers the point that he is concerned about. I will of course write to him. But let me be absolutely clear: I think the work that we are doing, supported right across the House, in terms of combating FGM and forced marriage, and making sure that there are real rights for women in our country and across the world, is of vital importance. Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab): The reputation of every Member of this House is damaged when we see revelations such as those that we have in the past couple of days. Can I take it from the Governments amendment today on second jobs that the Prime Minister is proposing no change to the current system The Prime Minister: Let me start by agreeing very much with the right hon. Gentleman that the allegations made against two very senior Members of this House of Commons are extremely serious they need to be properly investigated. I believe that both Members have done the right thing by referring themselves to the House of Commons standards commissioner, and in having the Whip withdrawn and, indeed, retiring from this House. I think that is vitally important. I certainly do not rule out further changes, but the most important thing we can do is to make sure we apply the rules: paid lobbyingbanned non-declaration of interestsbanned and making sure wrongdoing is investigated and punished. We are not making no change we have just passed a lobbying Act, and we have also passed a recall Act so that people can sack their MP. Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister does not rule out further change, and he has a chance to vote for change tonight. This is what he wrote in 2009: Being a Member of Parliament Interruption. Mr Speaker: Order. The questions will be heard, and the answers will be heard. It is a very simple point, which I hope everyone can grasp. Edward Miliband: This is what he wrote in 2009: Being a Member of Parliament must be a full-time commitmentThe public deserves nothing less. Double-jobbing MPs wont get a look-in when Im in charge. 25 Feb 2015. Column 310 The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman says we should look at the specifics. The difficulty with his specific proposal is that it would allow, for instance, someone to be a paid trade union official, but it would not allow someone to run a family business or a family shop. Like many of his proposals, it is not thought through it is whipped up very quickly. If he thought it was such a good idea, why did he not put it in place four years ago Edward Miliband: Let us agree now that we will rule out anyone being a paid trade union official, a paid director or a paid consultant. Say yes, and we can restore the reputation of this House. Interruption. Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Efford, calm yourself. I fear you are about to explode, man. Get a grip. We must hear the answer from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister: That is not the only problem with the right hon. Gentlemans proposal. Let me take another problem with the proposalhis cap on earnings. Let me take a specific example Interruption. I have got as long as it takes. Let me take a very specific example. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), who is Labours education spokesman, would have last year earned over a 10 cap from being a college lecturer. I happen to think that is a very good thing: he brings to this House some outside experience, and he tops up that experience. I have to say it is a pity it does not show up in his education policy, but none the less, it is a good thing. Fundamentally, there is a disagreement between the right hon. Gentleman and me. I think Parliament is stronger when we have people with different experiences coming to our House, but we must impose strict rules and punish people when they get it wrong. Edward Miliband: We can definitely make progress. Let us agree to the principle of a cap, and we can consult on the level of the cap. The motion today is very specific about being a paid director or a paid consultant, and I have said from the Dispatch Box that we will also ban people who are a paid trade union official, the point the Prime Minister made to me. I repeat the offer to him: let us get it done, let us agree this to restore the reputation of the Houseyes or no The Prime Minister: The problem is that the proposal in front of us allows for paid trade union officials, but does not allow for someone who runs a family business. I have to say that the problem with the right hon. Gentlemans proposal is not just the nature of the proposal there is also a problem with the timing of his proposal. He first put it forward two years ago. In the previous yearI have done some workthe person with the highest outside earnings on the Labour side was David Miliband. The right hon. Gentleman has not thought it through, he has not worked it out, it is totally inconsistent: it is like almost every other policy he comes up with. 25 Feb 2015. Column 311 Edward Miliband: So the Prime Minister is worried about the precise text of the motion. I am very happy by whatever means we can, perhaps by a manuscript amendment, to insert paid trade union officials. He and all his right hon. and hon. Friends will have the chance in the Lobbies tonightthis is a very big testto vote for two jobs or for one. I will be voting for one job. What will he be voting for The Prime Minister: Where the Leader of the Opposition is absolutely righthe put this in his letter to me this weekis that the British people need to know that when they vote they are electing someone who willnot be swayed by what they may owe to the interests of others. The biggest problem we have on that front is that the trade union movement owns the Labour party lock, stock and barrel. So I make an offer to him: if there is no more support from trade unions for the Labour party, then we have got a deal. Edward Miliband: If the Prime Minister wants to talk about party funding, let us talk about a party bought and sold by the hedge funds and a man who appointed a self-declared tax avoider as his treasurerthat is the Conservative party. He has one more chance. He talked big in opposition about change. He will be judged on the way he votes tonight. He should vote for one job, not two. Last chance: yes or no The Prime Minister: The problem with Members of Parliament being swayed by outside interests is best seen in this one example. This is the first Parliament in the history of Britain to pass an Act on lobbying. The Labour party has been lobbied by the trade unions to get rid of that Act. What have they agreed They have agreed to scrap the lobbying Act. That is what they have done. They are owned lock, stock and block vote by the trade unions. Mike Crockart: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank hon. Members for their welcome. I have harangued the Prime Minister on many occasions to do more on nuisance calls, so it is right today that I thank the Government for the announcement that was made on the subject by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport this morning. Of course, vulnerable consumers will still be targeted today and tomorrow by vicious scammers, who will pay no heed to the announcement. I therefore ask him politely to do all he can to help me set up a national call blocking scheme to protect vulnerable consumers in his constituency and in mine. The Prime Minister: I will certainly look at the specific suggestion that the hon. Gentleman makes. I can announce today that we are changing the law to make it easier to hit companies with fines of up to 500,000 if they 25 Feb 2015. Column 312 pursue nuisance calls. That will be welcomed up and down the country. I am sure that parties from all parts of the House will be doing a little light telephone canvassing and will be talking to people, but such things should never be done by nagging people or being a nuisance, which is what can happen. Proper punishments are being brought in today. Q2. 907693 Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance): It costs 40 more to train a teacher in Northern Ireland than in England. Does the Prime Minister share my concern that, despite commitments to tackle the costs of division in the Stormont House agreement, other parties have blocked Alliance attempts to desegregate teacher training in a way that would save money Does that suggest to him, as it does to me, that their commitments to a shared future are not worth the paper they are written on The Prime Minister: I say to the hon. LadyI think we are in absolute agreement on thisthat we have to break down the barriers between communities. That is what the shared future agenda is all about. The Stormont House agreement should make that move faster. We are beginning to see shared campuses for education institutions in Northern Ireland, but we now need to see the sorts of things that she is talking about, such as shared approaches on teacher training, that can reduce costs and deliver a better service. That is what the agreement should be about. Q3. 907694 Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con): Last Friday, I held my fourth Pendle jobs and apprenticeships fair, which was attended by more than 30 local companies and more than 700 jobseekers. Will the Prime Minister congratulate all those who have got jobs or started apprenticeships in Pendle since 2010 Unemployment in Pendle has fallen by 36 in just the last year, showing that our long-term economic plan is working. The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who works tirelessly to support his constituents. I think these job fairs that many Members of Parliament have taken part in and run can do a huge amount in making sure that local people can see the opportunities that are being opened up by a successful and growing economy. In Pendle, the claimant count has fallen by 54 since the election, with the long-term youth claimant count falling by 50 in the last year alone. That shows that, as the OECD itself said yesterday, Britain has a long-term economic plan, it is working, and we should stick to it. Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): As we have heard, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition agree that the reputation of politics needs improving, but would the Prime Minister agree that the latest format put forward by the broadcasters for TV election debates will not contribute to that The broadcasters need to realise that these debates are for the benefit of voters as well as themselves, and that the unfair, irrational and legally implausible exclusion of the people of Northern Ireland from those debatesparticularly the DUP, which has more votes and more seats than some parties that are includedcannot be justified. So will the Prime Minister agree to go back to the broadcasters and 25 Feb 2015. Column 313 demand a rethink on the basis of justice and fairness, so that they come forward with proposals that he and the rest of us can agree to The Prime Minister: I have a lot of sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman says. My argument was that you could not include one minor party without anotherobviously I was referring specifically to the Greens on that occasion, but now, with it having been decided to include Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, there does seem to be a difficulty in not addressing the question of the DUP. Certainly my party stands in every part of the United Kingdom, so I do think that is important, but I am sure his case will be taken seriously. Q4. 907695 Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con): Following the Chancellors significant commitment to London last week to create half a million jobs, build 100,000 new homes and invest 10 billion in transport infrastructure, does the Prime Minister agree that this is not just a long-term economic plan for London but, in stark contrast to other parties, which only offer London a mansion tax, is a commitment to make London the greatest capital city on earth The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is correct, because this plan for London is about being incredibly ambitious and trying to outpace the growth of New York, adding 6.4 billion to the London economy by 2030. That is what we are trying to do to see a higher growth rate. We have created something like half a million extra jobs in London since the election, and we need to keep on with that progress. As the OECD said yesterday: The UK is an actual textbook case, or is fast becoming, of best practice of how good labour market and of how good product market reform can support growth and job creationmy main message to you today is well done. Well done so farBut finish the job. It said, You have a long-term economic plan, but you need to stick with it. That is the view of the OECD, and that, I believe, should be backed by everyone in our country. Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab): Last week, three young women from my constituency left their homes, travelled to Turkey Interruption. Mr Speaker: Order. I think we will start this question again. The hon. Lady has an extremely serious question to ask, and it must be heard by Members on both sides of the House with courtesy. Rushanara Ali: Last week, three young women from my constituency left their homes, travelled to Turkey and are now thought to have been smuggled into Syria. Their families are devastated. I know that the Prime Minister is making every effort to find them and encourage their return. Will he set up an urgent inquiry into these events to ensure that families, schools, mosques, youth clubs, internet companies and all agencies are guided on how they can better protect our young people The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this heartbreaking case, which we also discussed in the House on Monday. Clearly, anyone 25 Feb 2015. Column 314 who saw the parents on the television talking about their children could not help but be moved by their plight. What I have done is asked the Home Secretary to look urgently, with the Transport Secretary, at all the protocols we have in place about young people and travelling, and at what airlines do and what we can do. My understanding is that the police did respond relatively quickly in informing the Turkish authorities, and that what the Turkish Deputy Prime Minister has said about a three-day delay is not accurate, but there are always lessons to learn. On this occasion, I suspect the lessons will be not just that we can tighten arrangements on aeroplanes and at our borders, but that we all have a responsibilityschools, parents, families, communities, universities, collegesto fight this poisonous radicalisation of young peoples minds. Q5. 907696 David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con): Tomorrow, the Minister for Universities, Science and Cities will be in Cheshire to sign our local growth deal. It is a deal that will deliver two bridges for Warringtoninfrastructure that has been much needed for the past 30 years. Does the Prime Minister agree that the fact we are finally addressing such infrastructure needs demonstrates a commitment to the north-west that was completely lacking under the previous Government The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend who has campaigned consistently on this issue. When I visited his constituency, he showed me the difference that those announcements will make to Warrington South. As a result of implementing the Cheshire and Warrington local growth deal, we expect to proceed with the construction of a high-level bridge crossing the Manchester ship canal. A new high-level crossing from the A56 Chester road will open up a substantial area of land for development immediately south of Warrington town centre. That will provide traffic relief, resilience, jobs, homes and livelihoods, which is what our long-term plan is all about. Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab): Why did the Prime Minister deem it appropriate to outsource his response to one of my concerned constituents to a political correspondence manager housed in No. 10 Downing street, on paper bearing a Conservative party logo and with contents that referred to a Conservative manifesto and a Conservative Governments legislation It concluded in the hope that theythe Conservative party, I presumecould rely on my constituents support for many years to come. No Member of the House is permitted to use our parliamentary offices or revenues for political party campaigning. No. 10 Downing street does not become the property of its incumbents political party, so will the Prime Minister apologise not only to my constituent, but to the country for this gross misuse of national property and revenue The Prime Minister: If a letter was sent from the hon. Lady to me to be answeredsuch letters should always be answered by the Prime Minister to other Members of Parliament, and I will look into what happened in that case. Let me put on record how hard the correspondence unit works because it gets thousands of letters, including from Members of Parliament, every week of the year. I will look into that and ensure that she gets a proper 25 Feb 2015. Column 315 reply from me. I say to all those living in Hampstead and Kilburn that they will be getting lots of letters from me in the coming weeks. Q6. 907697 Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con): Last week my right hon. Friend launched the franchise competition for rail services in East Anglia, including a demand for state-of-the-art rolling stock. He may be aware that some Members of the House want a long review of franchise competitions, leading possibly to a renationalisation of the railways. Does he understand the delays and misery that that would cause to commuters and travellers in Ipswich, Norwich, Colchester and up and down the Great Eastern main line if that were ever to happen The Prime Minister: First, I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he and other MPs from East Anglia have done to press for better rail services. We have a clear view, which is that we want to achieve journey times to Ipswich in 60 minutes and Norwich in 90 minutes, and that is what the reforms are all about. On this day, it is worth saying happy birthday to the shadow Chancellor, given that he always makes quite a lot of noise on the Opposition Benches. Part of the aim of this programme, when the right hon. Gentleman has plenty of time after the election, is that he will be able to get to see Norwich City in just 90 minutes. I think that is only fairhe gives me a birthday present every week, so I thought I would give him one today. Q7. 907698 Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (LabCo-op): In the United States, senators and congressmen face a cap on their outside earnings of 15. Why is that appropriate for them but not for us The Prime Minister: If the cap is such a good idea, why are we not voting on it in the House of Commons tonight If we want evidence that Labours policy has been written on the back of a fag packet, that tells us all we need to know. Obviously, with plain paper packaging we will be helping, Labour Members to have more room to write their policies on. Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con): May I assure my right hon. Friend Interruption. Mr Speaker: Order. Sir Peter must be properly heard from start to finish. Sir Peter Tapsell: May I assure my right hon. Friend that I am not a paid trade union official but I fear that if Members of the House are not allowed a second job, membership of it will soon be largely confined to the inheritors of substantial fortunes or to those with rich spouses, or to obsessive crackpots or those who are unemployable anywhere else The Prime Minister: I want to be clear that the Father of the House does not fit into any of those categories. He makes an important point: Parliament is stronger because we have people with different experience. When we look around this Parliament, we see we have actually got practising doctors, practising dentists, people who served our country in Afghanistan or Iraq, and people who run family businesses or have other interests. What 25 Feb 2015. Column 316 we want is a Parliament where people can come and share their experience and make some points, instead of just having a whole lot of trade union sponsored ciphers. Q8. 907699 Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab): I have asked the Prime Minister this question before and he did not answer: how many jobs should an MP have The Prime Minister: At the moment I am both the Member of Parliament for west Oxfordshire and I am the Prime Minister. To be honest, I do do constituency work every day, but I would mislead the House if I said that I spent more time on my constituency work than being Prime Minister. That is worth while reflecting on. Q14. 907706 Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): It being so successful, I wonder iffor the convenience of the House and particularly for Opposition Membersmy right hon. Friend could set out the details of our long-term economic plan. The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The plan is about skills, infrastructure, jobs and cutting taxes, but above all it is about peoples livelihoodssecuring jobs and livelihoods for people across our country. The fact that Labour Members cannot talk about the economy any week when they come to this House is because we have created a thousand jobs every day this Government have been in office. They are keen to talk about second jobs because they do not want to talk about the jobs revolution in our country. They do not want to talk about the apprenticeships. They do not want to talk about business creation, and they do not want to talk about the OECD and the fact that our economy grew faster last year than any other major economy in the west. They cannot talk about the economy because they have got nothing to say about it. Q9. 907700 Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab): Is the Prime Minister aware that as a result of a 40 cut in the disabled students allowance many disabled students say that they might have to drop out of the courses they are on Will he undertake to have an urgent review of that problem, because obviously I am sure that he does not want that to be the case The Prime Minister: I have looked specifically at this issue and had a constituency case connected to it. I will go back and look over it again, and perhaps write to the right hon. Gentleman, but it is important to recognise thatwith the reform of disability living allowance going into personal independence paymentsmore of the most disabled people will be paid at the higher rate. Q10. 907702 Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con): I know the Prime Minister shares my enthusiastic support for organ donation and my joy at the 63 increase in what is the most wonderful gift that anyone can give since the organ donation task force reported in 2008 Interruption. Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. It is discourteous to interrupt an hon. Member in the middle of his or her question. Let us hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say: it is a matter of manners. 25 Feb 2015. Column 317 Glyn Davies: Will the Prime Minister take an early opportunity, should one arise, to join me in helping to raise awareness of that wonderful achievement and to drive on the creation of ever greater success in the future The Prime Minister: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We have seen a very substantial increase in organ donation. That has been done without moving to a system of presumed consent, which I know the House discussed and voted on previously. I was not in favour of that, but I am in favour of doing more to lead by example and making sure that hospitals are pursuing the best practice. There has been a remarkable increase, and if there is anything I can do to help with his campaign, I would be delighted to do so. Q11. 907703 John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): The lobbying Act, which the Prime Minister mentioned earlier, did absolutely nothing to affect those who are lobbying specifically for commercial gain. Will he now introduce a register of professional lobbyists not to stop it, but so we all know what they are up to The Prime Minister: First, before I answer the hon. Gentlemans question, may I congratulate him on being appointed as the new chair of the parliamentary Labour party I hope that in 70 days time he will be able to conduct a root and branch inquest into what went wrong. Let me answer the hon. Gentlemans question specifically. If he supports the lobbying Act, can he explain why trade unions in Britain have lobbied the Labour party to get rid of the Act If we want an example of what is wrong with British politics, it is the massive money that goes from the unions to the Labour party that buys their candidates and buys their policies. The only reason their leader is sitting there is because a bunch of trade union barons thought he was more left-wing than his brother. That is what is wrong with British politics and that is what needs fixing. Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD): When the Prime Minister wrote to my local newspapers heralding the work done to bring superfast broadband to Somerset, was he aware that, according to the Governments own figures, Somerset has 41 coverage at the moment BTs monopoly means that it will be the only organisation able to bid for the next phase of connections. That offers very little hope for the residents and business people in my area who do not have access to superfast broadband. What is he going to do about that The Prime Minister: What we are going to do is continue spending record sums on broadband roll-out. We have seen across the country that it is almost double from the 40 we inherited. There is more to do in the most rural areas, including the hon. Ladys constituency. All local councils now have searchable websites so people can see when they expect broadband to get to their area. We need to look at creative solutions to make sure we get to the last 5. It is a very important part of our long-term economic plan. That can only be secured by a Conservative majority Government. Q12. 907704 Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab): I welcome the fact that the Government have been forced to accept our demands for people to be protected when 25 Feb 2015. Column 318 buying tickets in the secondary ticketing market. If the Government had listened to us last year, thousands of rugby world cup and Ashes cricket fans would have been saved from having to pay more than face value for tickets. Why are the Government always on the side of people like bankers, tax dodgers and the organised gangs behind ticket touting in the secondary ticketing market, and never on the side of ordinary people in the street The Prime Minister: This is something that has happened after four and a half years of a Conservative Prime Minister that never happened after 13 years of a Labour Prime Minister. I will tell the hon. Gentleman whose side we are on: we are on the side of working people, because we are getting them jobs, we are cutting their taxes, and we are helping with child care. We sit opposite a party that is the party of Len McCluskey and the trade unions. Q13. 907705 Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): Does the Prime Minister agree with me that, hot on the heels of devolving powers on transport and housing, the welcome announcement that Manchester will take control of its 6 billion NHS budget shows the coalitions commitment to local decision-making for Manchester, in stark contrast to the Labour Government that oversaw the closure of Withington hospital from Whitehall The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this is an important breakthrough. It has been made possible by our reforms. It will help to bring the NHS and social care together. The shadow Health Secretary, who presumably knew absolutely nothing about this, does not understand that eight Labour authorities in Greater Manchester have been talking to us and working with us about how to make this a reality. What a contrast: people working together to improve the NHS, instead of trying to weaponise it across the Dispatch Box. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): Last year, more than 3,000 desperate migrants drowned in the Mediterranean. Several hundred have already died this year trying to reach a place of safety. Many people, in absolute desperation, turn to traffickers to try to escape the crisis in Libya and in many other places. They are victims of war and oppression. The European Union is closing down Mare Nostrum, which has saved a very large number of lives, and is instead instituting something that will only protect Europes borders, not search for and rescue people. Will the Prime Minister go back and ensure that Europe adopts a humanitarian approach of saving these desperate people and supporting these desperate migrants who are trying to survivethat is all, survivein Libya The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, but I am afraid that the statistics do not necessarily back up the case he is making. Mare Nostrum was a genuine attempt by the Italians to deal with this problem, but I think I am right in saying that more people died during the operation of that policy than when it was brought to an end. There are some answers. We need to make sure we press ahead with the Modern Slavery Bill, an historic piece of legislation taken through by this Government, that is doing a huge 25 Feb 2015. Column 319 amount to deal with the problem of people trafficking. Yes, we need to do more to stabilise countries such as Libya and others on the Mediterranean, from which many of the problems derive. That serves to underline the important work done by our development budget. 25 Feb 2015. Column 320 25 Feb 2015. Column 321 Service Personnel (Ukraine) Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of UK personnel to train Ukrainian forces. The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon): The Governments position from the outset has been that we deplore Russian aggression in Ukraine. We do not believe that there is a military solution. There needs to be a diplomatic solution, which can be enabled through sanctions, pressure and the economic weight of Europe and America. Obviously, however, as the Prime Minister has said, where we can help a friend with non-lethal equipment, we should do so. The second Minsk agreement of 12 February provided a framework for stabilising the situation in eastern Ukraine. We want it to succeed and we urge all sides to take the necessary steps to implement it. In the light of continued Russian-backed aggression in eastern Europe, the UK is committed to providing additional non-lethal support to the Ukrainian Government to help their forces deal with the pressures they are facing. As the Prime Minister confirmed in Parliament yesterday, we are providing additional non-lethal support by sending advisory and short-term training teams. This support, provided at the request of the Ukrainian Government, will help their armed forces develop and maintain the capacity and resilience they need, and help reduce fatalities and casualties. Support to the Ukrainian armed forces is not new we have been providing it for some time. This includes support on anti-corruption, on defence reform and on strategic communications and procurement. Over the last year, we have also provided personal protective equipment, winter fuel, medical kits and winter clothing for the Ukrainian armed forces. As part of the wider Government effort to support Ukraine and ensure a robust international response to Russias aggression, UK personnel will now provide to the Ukrainian armed forces medical, logistics, infantry, and intelligence capacity-building training from mid-March. Most of the advisory and training support will take place in Ukraine, but well away from the areas affected by the conflict in the east of the country. The number of service personnel involved will be around 75. In respect of medical support, we will provide combat life-support training through a train the trainer package to multiply the numbers trained. The logistics team will identify and help improve deficiencies within Ukraines logistics distribution system. The infantry training package will focus on protective measures to improve survivability, and the intelligence capacity building team will provide tactical-level analysis training. We are considering further requests from the Ukrainian Government for support and assistance, and we will work closely with key allies through the Ukraine-US-UK-Canada joint commission. In the meantime, Russia must abide by its commitments at Minsk. That means making the separatists withdraw their heavy weapons, stopping continued separatist attacks so that an effective ceasefire can hold, and allowing effective monitoring to take place. 25 Feb 2015. Column 322 Mr Jones: Let me begin by apologising to the Secretary of State and the House on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). As the Secretary of State knows, my hon. Friend is currently making a scheduled visit to our armed forces who are involved in Operation TOSCA. Members on both sides of the House are rightly concerned about the serious and ongoing situation in eastern Ukraine, and about the question of an imminent ceasefire. Labour Members have made it clear that the international community must be ready to increase diplomatic pressure on the Kremlin should Russia fail to implement the ceasefire and change course. We support these non-lethal steps to improve the capacity of the Ukraine armed forces, but the public will want not only to know what strategic rationale lies behind the announcement, but to ask questions about the operation itself. If this deployment is to succeed, it must form part of a broader NATO strategy. How does the Secretary of States announcement fit into the broader NATO strategy on Ukraine, and what discussions has he had with our NATO partners about the deployment What is the overall strategic objective of the deployment, and how long has it been in the planning How does it fit into the wider ongoing diplomatic efforts to bring about a peaceful resolution to the current crisis Let me now ask some specific questions about the operation itself. What force protection arrangements will there be for the UK service personnel who are involved in this operation, and how long does he expect the deployment to continue What will be the legal status of the UK forces while they are in Ukraine As I have said, we support these non-lethal steps to reinforce the Ukrainian forces logistical, medical and intelligence capabilities. We also pay tribute to, and recognise the professionalism of, those of our armed forces who will take part in this vital operation. Michael Fallon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Let me make it clear at the outset that Ukraine has the right to defend herself, and to defend her sovereign territory. The hon. Gentleman asked what was our strategic objective. It is to help Ukraine in that task: to help it to build up the capacity and resilience of its armed forces, and above all, when we can, to help to reduce the number of fatalities and casualties that are occurring. The hon. Gentleman asked about NATO. This is not a NATO deployment it follows a decision by the United Kingdom Government. Obviously we consult our allies very closelyI hope to do that in Washington very shortlyand NATO has set up a couple of trust funds, to which we have contributed, as part of its partnership with Ukraine. Nevertheless, this is not a NATO operation A number of our allies are considering providing non-lethal assistance, and the United States is already doing so. As for how the deployment fits in with other efforts, it accompanies our continuing diplomatic efforts. I should emphasise that this country has been at the forefront of the efforts to impose sanctions on Russia. I should also emphasise that it is leading the efforts to ensure that 25 Feb 2015. Column 323 those sanctions are renewed, and to make Moscow understand that unless its aggression ceases, it will face further sanctions and additional international isolation. The hon. Gentleman asked about force protection. The training will be carried out either around Kiev itself or in the west of the country, an area that we know well and where exercises and training take place. Obviously, however, we will continue to assess what force protection is required for each specific mission. The hon. Gentleman asked about the status of our trainers. I want to make it very clear that we are providing this training capacity at the request of the Ukraine Government. Each of these things has been asked for by Ukraine we are answering Kievs call. Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): The trouble with sending advisers is that, as the Americans found in Vietnam, and as many other nations have found since, mission creep eventually results in the sending of combat troops. Given that Ukraine is an area the size of France, where whole German armies of tens of thousands of men were enveloped and destroyed in the second world war, is there not a real danger of that We must rule out sending ground troops, and we should concentrate our efforts on promoting peace, self-determination in the east within Ukraines borders, and solving what the Foreign Secretary described as a sink of corruption in Kiev. We should send advisers to help to sort out corruption, not wage war. Michael Fallon: We already provide advice and support on how to tackle corruption inside the Ukrainian Government. We have done so over the past few months and, indeed, I think even before then. As for mission creep, may I make it absolutely clear that we are not deploying combat troops to Ukraine, and we will not do so We are providing non-lethal assistance that has been requested by the Ukrainian Government to enhance the capability of their armed forces and to attempt to reduce the number of fatalities and casualties that they have suffered. John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (LabCo-op): Of course everyone wants a diplomatic solution to the crisis, but are the Government not at risk of showing naivety in the face of a calculating thug in President Putin Every time that the right hon. Gentleman stands at the Dispatch Box and rules out a military solution from the UK and its allies he makes such a military catastrophe more likely by emboldening Putin. Michael Fallon: I do not accept that. We have to make it clear to Russia that it has to cease its aggression and its encouragement of the separatists in eastern Ukraine. The best way to do that, as we are already doing, is through sanctions and political pressure on Russia. Equally, it would not be right to refuse the call that we have received from Kievfrom the Ukrainian Governmentto help with some of the basic training, support and equipment that they need. Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): The whole House will recognise that there is a risk here, but does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is in our interests to check President Putins aggression Does he also agree that that is entirely consistent with our obligations under the 1994 Budapest agreement, signed by Boris Yeltsin, John Major and Bill Clinton 25 Feb 2015. Column 324 Michael Fallon: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has experience of serving in the Ministry of Defence. He is right about the aggression that Putin has shown. We need to stand up to that, but there are a number of routes to that. They are political and diplomatic: we do not think that there is a military solution to the conflict. However, where we have been asked to help, we should do so. We are a friend of Ukraine, and we should come to the help of a friend in need. Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): Like the Defence Secretary, I abhor the Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine, and I support the EU sanctions approach. Has he had the opportunity to review the Ukrainian media The Kyev Post writes: The United Kingdom stunned officials across Europe with a unilateral announcement that it would send 75 troops to UkraineEU officials in Brussels first learned of the decision when contacted by the Kyiv Post for comment, and were unable to provide one. Why do our allies seem to be so badly informed, and why did the Government not come to the House and make a proactive statement to Parliament Michael Fallon: On the latter point, I announced in Defence questions on Monday that we were preparing such a package, and the Prime Minister gave details of the package to the Liaison Committee yesterday. One thing we cannot be accused of is not keeping Parliament informed: we are keeping Parliament informed. As for consultation with allies, of course we talk to them. I meet my fellow Defence Ministers in NATO all the time, and I shall meet another one later this afternoon. I saw High Representative Federica Mogherini yesterday. This is a decision for the UK Government this is not a NATO deployment. It is a decision by the UK Government to respond to a request from the Ukrainian Government. Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con): I welcome the Governments initiative, particularly if it is alongside our allies in the United States. The Ukrainians need the ability to defend their homeland against a much more powerful aggressor and they require equipment such as unmanned aerial vehicles for reconnaissance and targeting. They require anti-tank capability and encrypted communications. Is not the argument that we cannot give defensive equipment to a country under threat because it might provoke a further reaction from Russia simply a bullys charter that is already discredited by history Michael Fallon: I agree with my predecessor but one as Secretary of State. We are supplying defensive equipment. It might not be lethal, but it does help the Ukrainian armed forces better defend themselves. As I said in my initial statement, in addition to the secondment of 75 trainers we are considering a further request from the Ukrainian Government for additional equipment and support. That is non-lethal, but we reserve the right ultimately to keep it under review. Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): The Secretary of State said that the 75 trainers would mostly be in Ukraine. Where else will they be operating from If any Ukrainians are coming to the UK for training, can we have an absolute assurance for the citizens of the UK that we will not face another incident such as those in Bassingbourn, where we were training Libyans and 25 Feb 2015. Column 325 members of the Cambridge community were assaulted Can we have an assurance about how many are coming to the UK and where else they will be trained Michael Fallon: It is slightly unfortunate that the hon. Lady has compared the general purpose force we were attempting to traina very raw force of recruits from Libyawith the Ukrainian armed forces. She asked me a straightforward and quite reasonable question about where else the training might be. There will be, and has already been, some training in the UK, but there can also be training in countries alongside Ukraine. We are looking at where the training can best be provided, but it is likely that most of it will be provided in Ukraine, in the Kiev area or elsewhere in the west of Ukraine, areas that are very familiar to the British military as we have been on exercise there in the past. Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): It is of course very important that there should be non-lethal support and training, but in a parallel situation in north-east Iraq, where we are training the peshmerga in Kurdistan, we have discovered that the Americans and other EU allies are training on the front line and they find that much more effective than the kind of training we have been providing about 100 miles behind the front line. Is there not an argument that, although that support is non-lethal, we might find a way to move the troops forward so that they can advise the Ukrainians where they are doing the fighting Michael Fallon: I do not think it is right for other countries to get involved in the conflict in eastern Ukraine. On the contrary, Russia should now be withdrawing its heavy weapons from eastern Ukraine and be putting pressure on the separatists to lay down their arms. On the location of the training, we are not putting combat troops anywhere near the front line. The training we have been providing to the peshmerga in northern Iraq has, as my hon. Friend says, been well away from the front line. We have trained more than 1,000 peshmerga as well as supplying them with machine guns and ammunition. Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab): We know for a fact that the Russians are supplying lethal weapons to the rebels. NATOs response has been pretty woeful, but may I ask a specific question about what the Secretary of State said I am sure that he mentioned that he was considering what else can be done about further requests, so will he enlighten the House on what more might be being considered to be put in place in the future Michael Fallon: We have had a series of requests from the Ukrainian Government, including lists of equipment of all kinds. I do not want to give too many details, but we are looking at these shortfalls in their capacity and at what further training we might be able to provide in addition to the infantry training, logistics and medical and intelligence capacity-building training I described. Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD): I welcome the Secretary of States announcement. These are proportionate and sensibly judged measures for us to take. We are good at this sort of thing and as we have been asked to 25 Feb 2015. Column 326 help it is only right that we should do so. Let us not exaggerate the scale of what we are doing, however. The idea that 75 trainers will lead to creep into a mission in an area the size of France is clearly far-fetched, but we should be willing to respond to anything more of a similar kind and we should do so on a pan-governmental basis to help the Ukrainian Government build up their capacity more widely. Michael Fallon: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend, another former Minister in the Ministry of Defence. He has got it exactly right. We should respond to requests. Ukraine is our friend, it is in need and we should respond to requests, whether they are for equipment or additional training. I want to assure the House that that is exactly what we will continue to do. Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): Is the Secretary of State aware that mission creep knows no boundaries That has happened so many times, as evidenced by the point made much earlier by one of his hon. Friends. In Vietnam, it started with only a little request. On Libya, not so long ago in this House I asked about mission creep and did not get a satisfactory answer. I never could and now I know the result: ISIL roaming over large areas of Libya. That is what mission creep did. As sure as night follows day, Ukraine will now realise that the United Kingdom is a participant in the battle and will ask for more. What is he going to do then Michael Fallon: It is rather odd to describe the operations in Libya as mission creep. This was a mission to get rid of Gaddafi and to help the Libyan people get rid of a brutal dictator a dictator I believe the former Labour Government rather cosied up to Mr Skinner: No, Mrs Thatcher did to get more oil during the pit strike Michael Fallon: It was a mission to help the Libyan people get rid of a dictator and give them the chance of choosing a better future. Obviously, we would want to see the situation in Libya improve. This is a closely defined training mission. We think it is right to respond to the call for help. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should shun such a call, I cannot agree with him. Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con): Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week Prime Minister Yatsenyuk told me that he regarded Britain, alongside America, as Ukraines strongest allies, and his statement this afternoon confirms that Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have a special responsibility as a signatory of the Budapest memorandum to help Ukraine Specifically, will he consider the requests made by the Ukrainian Government for defensive weapons such as counter-battery radar, electronic jamming equipment and anti-tank weaponry Michael Fallon: My hon. Friend is probably as knowledgeable as anybody about the affairs of Ukraine, as he chairs the all-party group. It is very clear to us that the Ukrainian armed forces are in desperate need of further equipment and they have supplied lists of equipment 25 Feb 2015. Column 327 they would like. We are focusing, as I have said, on the non-lethal equipment we can supply and are considering the additional requests. Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): At the very least, the House is entitled to know what equipment the Secretary of State is considering supplying to Ukrainians. So far, the Secretary of State has been very unwilling to detail any of those requests. We are entitled to know what is under consideration. Will he now give us some more detail on the nature of the equipment he is actively considering, as he outlined in his response Michael Fallon: As soon as we make a decision on what equipment to supply or to gift, we will of course inform Parliament in the normal way. If the equipment is to be gifted, a minute has to be laid before Parliament and that will be done. Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): Like many people, I take an increasingly bleak view of the situation when we examine the psychology of this aggressor. What measures has my right hon. Friend taken with colleagues across Government to look at the possibility of this happening in other areas on the western boundary of Russia What work should we be doing now to prepare for requests similar to that that he has received from the Ukrainian Government from countries such as Moldova or, God forbid, a NATO country, as we would be required to respond differently to an attack on one of those countries Michael Fallon: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee yesterday, we can now see a pattern of behaviour around the borders of Russia. We have seen it in Georgia and elsewhere. The first thing that we had to do about that was to stiffen up NATO to ensure that we had a rapid reaction force worthy of the name. That was agreed at the NATO summit last September, and we have now agreed our contribution to it. We will be a framework nation in 2017 and we will be seconding staff to the two divisional headquarters, in Poland and Romania. We will also be seconding staff to all six of the forward integration units. We are encouraging other NATO members to make similar commitments in order to reassure the members on NATOs eastern flank that we are ready to stand by our commitments under article 5. John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Whatever the Secretary of State might say, to the real world this will look like military intervention. At what point is he going to come here and seek the agreement of the House of Commons to this Michael Fallon: There is a well-established convention that if we were engaged in offensive military operations in a country we would of course come to the House, as we did last September when we obtained the authority of the House to carry out air strikes in Iraq. This, however, is not a military operation. We are providing trainers and advisers to help the armed forces of Ukraine better to defend themselves and to help to reduce the very high number of fatalities and casualties that they are suffering. Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lesson of the cold war is that we secure peace through strength I 25 Feb 2015. Column 328 very much welcome this intervention, but we in the west must decide whether we are going to indicate our resolve to deter Russian aggression or not. Will he remind our American allies, whom I very much welcome as part of this initiative, that it was the sailing of their sixth fleet into the Black sea that stopped the invasion of Georgia in its tracks When are the Americans going to come to this initiative with force Michael Fallon: I am looking forward to discussing this with the new American Secretary of Defence, Ash Carter, whose appointment I hope the whole House will welcome. I say to my hon. Friend that we cannot simply leave the defence of our continent to the Americans. They are involved in the joint commission with Ukraine, alongside Canada and ourselves, but it is also important for NATO to have the resolve to defend its own borders. That is why I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes the commitments made at the NATO summit, which we now need to follow through. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): I should like to ask the Secretary of State for Defence how far the Government have really thought this thing through. Does he acknowledge that 75 trainers will be followed by 150 trainers, and that they will be followed by more and more The gifting of weapons is being talked about, and we are now moving into a situation in which we are going to be in the conflict in Ukraine. NATO wants Ukraine as a member, contrary to everything that was agreed following the break-up of the Soviet Union on the non-alignment and independence of that country. Instead of upping the military ante, why will not the Government put huge efforts into trying to demilitarise Russian militarism and NATO expansionism, in order to bring about a longer-term sustainable peace in that area The danger of getting involved in a hot war in central Europe has got a bit closer as a result of the Secretary of States statement today. Michael Fallon: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are not supplying weapons and we are not attempting to escalate the conflict in any way. As I have said, we believe that in the end the answer has to be diplomatic and political, and the pressure therefore continues to be applied, through sanctions and so on. He invites us to help to demilitarise eastern Ukraine, but I think he ought to ask himself who has militarised the area and who has supplied weapons, tanks and heavy artillery across the border. It is now up to President Putin to withdraw his heavy weaponry, as was agreed at Minsk, and to implement the agreement that he has signed up to. Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): As a follow-up to what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said about the 1994 agreement between Russia, the United Kingdom, Ukraine and the United States, under which the sovereignty of Ukraine was guaranteed in return for getting rid of the one third of the Russian nuclear arsenal that it had on its soil, may I suggest that there is an oblique lesson for us now as we think about whether we should replace the independent nuclear deterrent and whether we need to keep it Michael Fallon: So far as the 1994 agreement is concerned, it is for all parties to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine, but that has not happened in this Russian-backed aggression and the movement of heavy 25 Feb 2015. Column 329 weapons and artillery from Russia across the border into eastern Ukraine. So far as the nuclear deterrent is concerned, the House debated the matter a few weeks ago and recorded one of the largest majorities in recent years in favour of building the successor submarines. Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con): It is clearly correct to support the effectiveness of the Ukrainian army and its capacity to protect the country from Russian aggression, but back in 2013 when we undertook the training of the Libyan troops, the Libyan Government paid for that training. Will the Secretary of State tell us who is to bear the cost of the proposed training in Ukraine, and whether there is any financial limit on the UKs assistance to that country Michael Fallon: At the moment, we are bearing the cost of the training, and the costs involved in gifting any non-lethal equipment will be borne by my budget. So far as the Libyan training is concerned, I am afraid that I have to tell my right hon. Friend that although the Libyan Government had committed to pay for it, they have not quite paid for it all yet. Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): We must all be concerned by the expansionist tendencies of the Putin regime, and it is therefore important to provide a robust response to the situation in Ukraine, but if we are going to train troops there, would not the logical step be to give them the wherewithal to use that training Why are we not in a position to consider making equipment available to them as well Michael Fallon: We have not taken that decision. The equipment that we have supplied is non-lethal essentially it is to help the Ukrainian armed forces to protect themselves better and to reduce the number of casualties. We do, however, reserve the right to keep that position under review. Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con): My right hon. Friend has assured the House that we are giving non-lethal aidthat it was asked for and that we have given it. Have we been asked for lethal aid and, if so, what was our response Michael Fallon: The Ukrainian military has identified a whole series of equipment shortfalls that it would like to filla lot of its equipment is east European it is old Soviet equipment that does not fit naturally with oursbut our decision at the moment is not to supply lethal aid. Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con): Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that, regardless of any force protection measures taking place before 25 Feb 2015. Column 330 deployment, our people will be legally authorised under any future rules of engagement to pick up weapons and defend themselves if they need to Michael Fallon: We will assess the force protection that is required for each of the different training teams. As I have told the House, we expect the training to be carried out in areas well away from the fighting, right over in the west of Ukraine or around Kiev, where our troops have exercised before and are used to exercising. I will of course keep my hon. Friends point under review. David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con): As a Member who has taken parliamentary delegations to Ukraine, spoken in the Ukrainian Parliament and believes himself to be a supporter of Ukraine, I say to my right hon. Friend that I am worried about this decision. All along, we have underestimated Russian sensitivities about Ukraine, and the Lords report said that we have sleepwalked into this mess. I fear that the thought of NATO troops, from us, in Ukraine will further destabilise things in the long term and will be used, possibly in March, by the Russians for further intervention. I do not think we have got the measure of Russias concerns about what it sees as a country that is very much part of its immediate diaspora. Michael Fallon: There are, of course, Russian concerns, but above all there are Ukrainian concerns. It is eastern Ukraine that has been destabilised by Russia this is a country whose sovereign territory has now been invaded by personnel from the Russian armed forces. As for my hon. Friends fear about NATO troops, let me emphasise again that these are not and will not be NATO troopsthis is not a NATO mission. This is the British Government deciding to respond to a request for help by our friends in Kiev. It is right that we should answer that call and provide the training capacity, in which our armed forces excel, to help reduce fatalities and casualties. Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con): I welcome the Governments announcement, and my right hon. Friends robust stance against Russian aggression and this threat to Ukrainian sovereignty. Can he tell us what engagement his Department or the Government more widely have had with the newly elected Moldovan Government, given the great uncertainty and concern about Trans-Dniester on the border between Ukraine and Moldova Michael Fallon: Indeed there is exactly that concern. As I have said, this seems to fit a pattern of Russian interference right along its southern and western border, and we need to be mindful of that. I have not yet had the opportunity to meet or talk to my Moldovan counterpart, but I look forward to doing so in due course. 25 Feb 2015. Column 331 Employment of People with Disabilities (Reporting) Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab): I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require listed companies, public bodies and voluntary agencies to report annually on the number and percentage of people they employ who have disabilities and for connected purposes. In the UK today, more than 11 million people are living with a disability, impairment or limiting long-term illness, and nearly 7 million of them are of working age. That is nearly one in five of the working population. People with disabilities continue to face many barriers in accessing work, whether they have a visible or invisible disability or illness. The barriers may be physical but they are also cultural. That is the situation despite the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and Equality Act 2010, which provided a legal platform to challenge discrimination based on disability. Even before that, the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 and the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1958 prohibited employment-related discrimination against disabled people. Although some progress has been made, only 47 of working age disabled people are in employment, compared with nearly 80 of non-disabled people, and the figures vary considerably for different disabilities. So there is a disability employment gap of more than 30, and it has widened slightly in recent years. Although 4 million people with disabilities are working, another 1.3 million are available to and want to work but are currently unemployed. The vast majority of disabled people used to work, so this is such a waste of their skills, experience and talent. Attitudes, perceptions and judgments can get in the way of identifying someones talent or skills, and for people with disabilities that can be magnified, particularly in a job interview or at work. A man in his 40s from Oldham told me that after an operation to remove a benign tumour left him disabled, he applied for hundreds of jobs but kept being knocked back. His experience was ignored and instead he was made to feel like a liability. He said: Im ex-army, disciplined and driven to work like millions of other disabled people. I just need a chance. Adrian, from Saddleworth, who is in his 50s, left work in 2013, suffering from severe depression as a result of bullying. Now fully recovered, he is desperate to get back to work. He said: I think many employers look at mental health issues in your medical records and see it as a weakness. Working-age disabled people are twice as likely to be living in persistent poverty as non-disabled people, and that has implications for disabled peoples families, too. Families with one disabled member make up one third of all the families living in poverty. With the recent changes to social security support introduced by this Government, including nearly 24 billion to be cut from 3.7 million disabled people by 2018, the poverty and inequality experienced by disabled people are set to get worse. There are also implications for the economy and society as a whole research from the Social Market Foundation has estimated that halving the disability 25 Feb 2015. Column 332 employment gap and supporting 1 million more disabled people into work would boost the economy by 13 billion a year. There are many reasons for the disability employment gap, including a lack of information and advice for employers. Discrimination against disabled workers is still prevalent. A recent survey showed that 15 of disabled people felt they had been discriminated against when applying for a job, and one in five felt that they had been discriminated against while in work. Information is not enough to address thisleadership is needed. Governments set the tone for the culture of society explicitly, through their policies and laws, and more subtly, through the language they use and what they imply, which collectively tells us who they think are worthyor not. This Government have made their views abundantly clear, from their swingeing cuts to social security support for disabled people to their overhaul of the work capability assessment process, which managed to be both dehumanising and ineffective. Their new sanctions policy has targeted the most vulnerable, bringing people to the brink, and people have died under it. We must also not forget their closure of Remploy factories for disabled people and their replacing them withwell, nothing. The chaos and inadequacy of the specialist employment support programme, Access to Work, which last year supported only 35,000 disabled people into work and at work, and the jobcentres disability employment service, with one adviser providing support to 600 disabled people, again reveal this Governments priorities. But what I, and many others, find so deeply offensive is the pejorative language that has been used by this Government, as they refer to people receiving social security as shirkers and scroungersand that includes people with disabilities and limiting illnesses. The Government and anyone else who wilfully misrepresent the facts should be ashamed of themselves. My Bill is a very modest step to help address that prevailing culture. People with disabilities should be able to access the same opportunities that everyone else can, including being able to use their talent and skills to the best of their ability. No one should feel they are unable to reach their full potential or that their hopes and dreams do not matter. By requiring employers with more than 250 employees to report the number and proportion of people with disabilities they employ, my Bill seeks to raise their awareness of the disability employment gap in their own organisation, prompting them to consider this information and what they may do about it. As we know, what is not measured or reported is rarely acted on. This is not about red tape it is about what sort of society we want. On its own, reporting will do little to address the disability employment gap. In addition to leadership from Government, we need leadership from organisations to shift attitudes to disability in the workplace. Training for employers, and more widely, can help develop empathy and change attitudes and behaviour. We also need practical measures to support disabled people at work, enabling them to thrive and protecting them from prematurely leaving the labour market. Some disability charities have recommended more flexible leave arrangements, as well as extending the Access to Work programme, which currently supports only a tiny minority of disabled people. 25 Feb 2015. Column 333 Although a number of employers do exceptional work in recruiting and retaining disabled employees, how does this apply to their procurement policies and supply chains Of course more also needs to be done to help disabled people into work. As has been reported in recent Select Committee on Work and Pensions inquiries, the work capability assessment needs replacing with a more holistic, whole-person assessment. Instead of the increasingly punitive sanctions system, more appropriate support needs to be provided. One employment adviser helping 600 disabled people will just not cut it. It is more than 70 years since legislation was first introduced to prohibit employment-related discrimination against disabled people. Sadly, we are still fighting to address this discrimination and the inequality in employment that people with disabilities still face. Changing attitudes and behaviour needs cultural changeit needs leadership. My Bill takes another step along this path for fairness. That Debbie Abrahams, Dame Anne Begg, Sheila Gilmore, Glenda Jackson, Teresa Pearce, Alex Cunningham, Mr Peter Hain, Mike Kane, Caroline Lucas, Alison McGovern and Grahame M. Morris present the Bill. Debbie Abrahams accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March, and to be printed (Bill 178). 25 Feb 2015. Column 334 Opposition Day 18th Allotted Day Bankers Bonuses and the Banking Industry Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (LabCo-op): I beg to move, That this House believes bonuses should be rewards for exceptional performance and that, following the banking scandals that have emerged in the last few months, this years bank bonus round should reflect this principle further believes that a tax on bank bonuses should be levied in order to fund a guaranteed paid starter job for young people who have been out of work for over a year, and that this tax should cover allowances paid by banks which attempt to get round the EU bonus cap calls on the Government to reform the rules on bankers bonuses by extending clawback of bank bonuses that have already been paid in cases of inappropriate behaviour to at least 10 years and by also extending the deferral period for senior managers to 10 years, in line with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and further calls on the Government to implement wider reform of the banking industry to increase competition and boost net lending to small and medium-sized businesses. As we enter this years bank bonus season, I am reminded that seasons used to be for football and fashion, but it now seems that we have a season for bank bonuses as well. I am delighted to have this opportunity to set out everything that a Labour Government would do to reform the banking sector in this country, and to highlight the areas where the current Government have failed to make the necessary reforms. Earlier this month, in our Opposition day debate on tax avoidance, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), with whom I have traded places today, explained how the tax system is underpinned by the principles of fairness, trust and transparency. Those principles are equally applicable to the banking sector. Just as a Labour Government will restore those principles to the tax system, ensuring that tax loopholes are closed, tax dodgers are caught, and everyone pays their fair share, so we will restore them to the banking sector. In doing so, we will be acting in the best interests of businesses, consumers, the wider economy and the banks themselves. Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con): The hon. Ladys motion seeks to increase competition in banking. Will she therefore explain why the Labour Opposition voted against the Financial Services Act 2012, which specifically encouraged competition in banking services Cathy Jamieson: Having sat on the Bill Committee for that piece of legislation, I remember well the considerable discussion that there was. If the hon. Gentleman has read our paper on banking reform, he will know that we support the reference to the Competition and Markets Authority to ensure that we get new challenger banks in the system. That will be an important feature of our reforms in government. Our programme of reform, as stated in our recent paper on banking, is designed to undo the reputational damage that has been inflicted by the financial crisis and the subsequent scandals. Our approach will help to 25 Feb 2015. Column 335 restore the trust and confidence of savers, businesses and investors, and to ensure that fair dealing, integrity, prudence and probity are once again the pillars on which Britains banks are founded. In a global industry, an international reputation for good practice can only be a competitive advantage. Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): Does the hon. Lady believe that the tripartite system, which was brought in by the previous Prime Minister and the shadow Chancellor, was one reason why our banking system was left so much more vulnerable in the difficult time that we had Does she accept that the Labour party should take responsibility for that Cathy Jamieson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we did have a global financial crisis. The Labour party has accepted that perhaps the regulation could and should have been tighter we have said that on numerous occasions. I was not in this place at the time of the financial crisis, but I do not recall many on the Conservative Benches making the case for tougher regulation. Indeed, the opposite is true they were actually looking for light-touch regulation. I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but perhaps he should look at his own partys record on this matter as well. Cathy Jamieson: I want to make a bit of progress, but I will give way once more to the hon. Gentleman. Guy Opperman: Clearly, regulation is needed, but it is only because we have relaxed some parts of the regulations that we have been able to allow up to 20 new challenger banks to be established since 2010. Does the hon. Lady think that her proposals will encourage or discourage challenger banks The evidence thus far is that Labour has voted against every single measure that would create greater competition in banking. Cathy Jamieson: I am now becoming a bit confused about what Conservative Members are arguing for here. Do they want more or less regulation Interruption. Did I hear someone say both The important issue here is to ensure that regulation is fit for purpose, and that we do not simply have more of the same when we talk about new entrants into the banking system. Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con): Let me help to clarify the matter for the hon. Lady. The point that she was trying to make is that having an enormous amount of regulation can be ineffective and bureaucratic, but, equally, having too little regulation will not work. What we need is effective regulation. One of the most effective aspects of regulation, when it comes to changing behaviour, is the potential for criminal prosecution of those who do wrong. That is not mentioned in her motion. Will she address that during her speech Cathy Jamieson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving some clarity. He is absolutely right that regulation is part of the process, but we also need a culture change and an attitudinal change. He is correct to identify the lack of prosecutions. Although that is not mentioned specifically in the motion, I recommend that he reads 25 Feb 2015. Column 336 Labours document, which takes account of that point. Our agenda is not entirely punitive, because it is driven by economic imperatives. We all know that the performance of the banking sector is vital to the health of Britains economy. It employs more than 1 million people, each of whom has an important role to play in advising businesses and consumers, and helping them to manage their money, invest wisely and plan for the future. Without the banks, consumers would be unable to save and borrow. Businesses would not have access to the patient finance that they need if they are to grow and to create high-quality, well-paid jobs. Too often in recent years, many banks have fallen short of the very high standards that we expect of them that is a view shared across the House. In many instances, they have not acted with trust and they have not acted fairly. At times, they have acted recklessly and unethically. Instead of helping their customers, they have exploited them. Banks and their employees operate in a high-skilled environment, dealing with sophisticated financial instruments that are often beyond the ken of the average consumer and small business owner. Rather than using that knowledge to guide and advise consumers, they have, in some instances, abused that knowledge to exploit them. In investment, consumer and business banking, banks have betrayed the trust of customers and undermined the integrity of the industry. In doing so, they have totted up some truly colossal sums in fines. Indeed, 2014 was a record year for fines in the City of London, culminating in the 1.1 billion fine levied by the Financial Conduct Authority on five banks, including HSBC and the Royal Bank of Scotland, for their part in the forex fixing scandal. In recent times, four UK banksBarclays, HSBC, RBS and Lloydshave also paid 1.5 billion in compensation for mis-selling interest rate hedging products. Other recent scandals include LIBOR fixing and the mis-selling of payment protection insurance. Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con): I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way she is making an intelligent speech. With regard to the recent fines, is it not fair to say that in the vast majority of cases the actions that led to those fines were perpetrated under the old regulator, the Financial Services Authority, and that the bringing to justice, meaning the fining, has been done under the new regulatory regime Does that not reinforce how bad the old system was and how good the new one is Cathy Jamieson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what I think was a bit of a compliment about me making an intelligent speech. Of course, he then proceeded to make a party political point by trying to shift the emphasis back on to what happened before, and I understand why he would seek to do so. It is important to acknowledge that there have been changes, but there is no evidence yet to suggest that all the behaviours that led to wrong decisions being taken have changed, so we still need to keep an eye on that. Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con): I would like to give the hon. Lady an opportunity to rise above the party politics that the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), were he hereI note that he is notwould no doubt be indulging in. Does she welcome 25 Feb 2015. Column 337 the 5 million funding from LIBOR sources that has benefited charities up and down the country, including the East Anglia air ambulance in my constituency Cathy Jamieson: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. The shadow Chancellor is not here, but neither is the Chancellor, so I am not sure what point she was trying to make in that regard. I recognise that a significant amount of money has gone to support valuable organisations such as the one she mentioned, but I hope that she was in no way suggesting that the banks should not be paying attention to their current ways of operating. We must ensure that we never again have a situation in which those fines are necessary, so hopefully things will change. Charlie Elphicke: Will the hon. Lady confirm that the forex and LIBOR scandals took place before this Government were elected, and that it is this Governments regulatory regime that has taken action to deal with them Does she also agree that bonuses tripled in four years under her Government, and that under this Government they are a fifth of what they were Much progress has been made, and she ought to give the Government credit for the work they have done. Cathy Jamieson: I will always give credit where it is due, but we also have to look at what has happened on this Governments watch. As the hon. Gentleman knows, what we have seen with HSBC over the past few weeks shows that it can take a considerable time for some of those issues to come to light and be dealt with. The important point is to have a regulatory environment in place that allows those issues to be dealt with quickly, rather than just put to one side. We also need a change in culture to ensure that those things do not happen again. Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): My hon. Friend is making a very important point. She will remember that after the LIBOR scandal the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards set out a programme of reform for the banking sector. Is she as concerned as I am that those reforms have not gone nearly far enough in their implementation We need a proper investment bank and proper competition in banking, and we must also ensure lending to businesses. Cathy Jamieson: My hon. Friend makes a useful point. I am confident that he has read the paper we published on that, which highlights the need to ensure that finance gets to small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, and the important role that a proper British investment bank can play. Earlier this month we saw a new and startling example of impropriety, with the allegations that HSBCs Swiss subsidiary actively advised customers on how to avoid, and indeed evade, tax. I want to emphasis again that all those activities are symptoms of a wider culture that has seeped from investment to retail banking. That culture has been characterised by short-termism and the pursuit of profit at the expense of all elsein many cases, at the expense of the banks own customers and the wider economy. That culture led to banks exploiting their consumers and ripping off the taxpayer. 25 Feb 2015. Column 338 That culture has also caused banks to lose sight of what should be their core function. The role of our high street banks is, or should be, twofold: they must serve the needs of consumers, providing basic borrowing and saving facilities and loans for mortgages to buy homes and they must provide finance to businesses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) suggested, enabling them to start up, grow and create well-paid and secure jobs. However, lending to business has fallen by over 55 billion since 2010, despite an array of Government schemes, such as Project Merlin and the funding for lending scheme, all of which have to varying degrees failed to deliver. Despite that, however, and despite all the scandals, the banks have continued to pay lavish bonuses to a small cohort of senior employees. Mark Garnier: The hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way. She says that business lending is not quite what it was in the old days, but is it not fair to say that business lending in the old days was incredibly irrational and irresponsible, and that that led to the financial crisis that brought the banks down We want the banks to lend, but we do not want them to lend irresponsibly and create another crisis. Cathy Jamieson: I do not think that anyone is suggesting that we want irresponsible lending. We want those businesses that are valuable, sustainable and want to growI am sure that the hon. Gentleman has heard from them in his constituency, as I have in mineto be able to access finance. That is the important point. Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab): My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous in giving way to Conservative Members, and I would like to quote another Conservative, albeit not a Member of this House. Kay Swinburne, an MEP for Wales, had this to say on the subject of the court case in Europe that the Government decided to contest with our money: I can tell you there is not a single constituent I have met that actually thinks we were right to have taken that to the courts. She then suggested that bankers could be a little more innovative in getting around the cap. That is the real voice of the Conservative party, even if Conservative Members are not expressing it here today. Cathy Jamieson: I was planning to say something about the cap later, but my hon. Friend has made her point with words that I would have difficulty bettering. Let me return to banks paying lavish bonuses. The public are understandably still questioning why, with wage stagnation and the cost of living crisis that they are all facing, senior bankers have continued to reward themselves in that way. Let us look at the figures. Last year, bonuses at Barclays were up 10 to 2.4 billion and those at Lloyds were up 8 to 395 million. The Royal Bank of Scotland, 79 of which is owned by the taxpayer, announced a bonus pool of 577 million. Some may say that that is all well and good, because it is just senior bankers enjoying the hard-earned fruits of their labour, but that is more difficult to justify in the light of recent scandals and given that two of the UKs four largest banksBarclays and RBShave experienced drastic falls in profits. Earlier this week, with impeccable timing, of course, HSBC announced its bonus pool for 25 Feb 2015. Column 339 the year, awarding its chief executive, Stuart Gulliver, 7.6 millionI repeat, 7.6 millionand paying 330 of its top employees in excess of 1 million, despite the revelations of recent weeks and a 17 fall in profits. It would be remiss of me not to refer to the role that the Government have played in all this. As well as the failure of their schemes to galvanise lending, they have failedthis point was made my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddishto implement all the reforms recommended by the Independent Commission on Banking and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. They ignored Labours pleas for action to regulate benchmarks when the LIBOR scandal first came to light, and they have actively aided and abetted bankers efforts to safeguard their bonuses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) pointed out, the Chancellor launched an ill-fated and misguided legal challenge to the EU bonus cap, which limits bonuses to 100 of fixed pay or 200 with shareholder approval, which still seems fairly generous. Mark Garnier: What troubles me about a lot of what the hon. Lady is saying is that she is confusing how much bankers have been paid with how one goes about paying them. While many of us would agree that having pay packages of millions of pounds is an issue in itself, it is not to do with bonuses. She will probably propose in due course that bonuses should be clawed back over a period of 10 years, which I recommended as a member of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, so I agree with her entirely about that. However, capping bonuses reduces the amount of money that can be clawed back. In fact, if one pays a banker 1, 90p should be paid as a bonus, because then there will be more to claw back and therefore more sway over that banker to encourage them to behave better. Cathy Jamieson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I know that he made those points during the work that he did. I am glad to hear that he agrees with us on some of this, and I will deal with a number of his points later. We still have to look at the actions of this Government in taking on the legal challenge to the EU bonus cap, however. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not suggest for a moment that that was a sensible thing to do. I do not think that the public saw it in that way Charlie Elphicke: Will the hon. Lady give way Cathy Jamieson: No, I want to finish this point. As I said, it seemed that the scenario proposed was still fairly generous, but it was obviously not generous enough for the Chancellor, who decided to take legal action. The quest ended in failure after he meekly admitted defeat at the hands of the EUs lawyers, but not before he had wasted thousands of pounds of taxpayers money in legal fees. Let us remember that this Chancellor will not devote himself to ensuring that tax avoiders and evaders are brought to book, when the first thing that he does is to challenge something of that sort, but he will devote himself to defending the right of bankers to receive high bonuses, while spending taxpayers money as he does so. 25 Feb 2015. Column 340 The Chancellor has been a diligent defender of bankers on the home front, too. Last year he had to be pressurised by Labour and others into refusing to give taxpayer-owned RBS the shareholder permission it needed to breach the cap and to pay bonuses of 200 of salary, and he still has serious questions to answer on HSBC. Over recent weeks, he has done his best not to answer them and has sent his Treasury Ministers out to do the talking for him. On Monday, he finally put in an appearance, yet he did not have any answers at all, so we need to keep asking the same questions. Did he discuss allegations of tax evasion at HSBC with Lord Green before Lord Green was made a Tory Minister why has only one person been prosecuted out of 1,100 names and why has he signed a deal with Switzerland that could prevent HMRC from getting its hands on similar information in future He has been Chancellor for nearly five years and this is his responsibility. He needs to start taking his responsibilities seriously. If he does not, people are going to draw their own conclusions. Let me move on to Labours reforms. It has been clear since this Government took office that they do not have the stomach for the serious reforms that we need. As our motion explains, a Labour Government will do things very differently. Our starting point, as I outlined, will be trust and fairness. We believe that banks should serve the needs of their customers and the economy, and that bonuses should be a reward for exceptional performance, not a compensation for failure. Cathy Jamieson: I will, in the hope that the hon. Gentleman is going to agree with my last point. Guy Opperman: I do agree that there is a need for greater competition. Let me ask the hon. Lady this question again: why did she troop through the LobbyI presume that she did so with the rest of her colleaguesto vote against the provisions on greater competition in the Financial Services Act 2012 Cathy Jamieson: As I said to the hon. Gentleman earlier, perhaps he would like to take some time to read the report that we produced last week, which shows that we need to make several changes to ensure that there is greater competition. I do not see anything inconsistent in that and I hope that he will choose to read the report. I want to return to the point that bonuses should be a reward for exceptional performance, not a compensation for failure. Cathy Jamieson: I want to finish my point. I have been very generous and time is moving on. David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con): Will the hon. Lady give way just on this point Cathy Jamieson: No, I am going to finish the point that I began. Forex News Data source: FX Street Disclaimer :This material is provided by FXStreet as a general marketing communication for information purposes only and does not constitute an independent investment research. Nothing in this communication contains, or should be considered as containing, an investment advice or an investment recommendation or a solicitation for the purpose of buying or selling of any financial instrument. All information provided is gathered from reputable sources and any information containing an indication of past performance is not a guarantee or reliable indicator of future performance. Users acknowledge that any investment in FX and CFDs products is characterized by a certain degree of uncertainty and that any investment of this nature involves a high level of risk for which the users are solely responsible and liable. We assume no liability for any loss arising from any investment made based on the information presented here. Legal: HotForex é uma marca registada da HF Markets (Europe) Ltd uma empresa de investimento cipriota (CIF) sob o número HE 277582. Regulada pela Comissão de Valores Mobiliários (CySEC) sob o número de licença 18312. A HotForex é regida pelos Mercados de Directiva relativa aos instrumentos financeiros (DMIF) da União Europeia. O site hfeu é operado pela HF Markets (Europe) Ltd. Aviso de Risco: Os produtos de alavancagem de negociação, como Forex e CFDs, podem não ser adequados para todos os investidores, pois possuem alto grau de risco para o seu capital. Certifique-se de que compreende perfeitamente os riscos envolvidos, tendo em conta os seus objetivos de investimento e nível de experiência, antes da negociação, e, se necessário, procure um conselho independente. Leia a Divulgação de risco completa. A HotForex não aceita clientes dos EUA, Canadá, Bélgica, Irã, Sudão, Síria, Coréia do Norte e Japão. Copyright 2017 - Todos os Direitos Reservados Aviso de Risco: Os produtos de alavancagem de negociação, como Forex e CFDs, podem não ser adequados para todos os investidores, pois possuem um alto grau de risco para o seu capital. Leia a Divulgação de risco completa. Aviso de Risco: Recorde que Forex e CFDs são produtos alavancados e podem resultar na perda de todo o capital investido. Considere nossa Divulgação de Riscos.
No comments:
Post a Comment