Oral Answers to Questions

Boris Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

I know colleagues across the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to our dear friend and colleague, Dame Cheryl Gillan, who sadly died last week. MP for Chesham and Amersham for 29 years, she will be remembered for being a strong voice for her constituents, for being a brilliant campaigner, including her advocacy for autistic people and their families, and for being the first female Secretary of State for Wales. I also want to pay tribute to Baroness Shirley Williams, a pioneer for women in politics and in Government, and to our former colleague Peter Ainsworth, who was passionate about his causes, especially the environment.

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.

[Mr Mohindra]

Dame Cheryl represented her constituents with considerable effectiveness for nearly 29 years and is already sorely missed in this place, especially by many of the newer Members, as she was so kind to us in our first months in Westminster. One of her passions was the protection of chalk streams, in particular the River Chess, which passes through my constituency of South West Hertfordshire. Many MPs are increasingly concerned about reports of partially treated sewage being released into our rivers, with knock-on health impacts for both humans and animals. Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that this Government will actively protect our rivers and streams?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise the concern we fully share about sewage overflow into rivers such as the Chess. That is why we have set up the storm overflows taskforce to address the matter, working with the water industry, regulators and environmental groups. Last month, we announced plans for legislation to address that very issue.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

May I join the Prime Minister in his remarks about Dame Cheryl Gillan, who I worked with on a cross-party basis and remember with fondness? Ian Gibson also passed away this week. Both commanded respect on all sides of the House and will be sadly missed.

I also pay tribute to Shirley Williams. She was a great parliamentarian, and a formidable Minister and Cabinet Minister. She loved this House, the other place and, frankly, anywhere she could debate ideas and politics. For many years, she was Labour’s loss, but today she is Britain’s loss, and my thoughts are with her family and loved ones.

Does the Prime Minister believe that the current lobbying rules are fit for purpose?

[The Prime Minister]

I join the right hon. and learned Gentleman in what he said about Ian Gibson.

I share the widespread concern about some of the stuff we are reading at the moment, and I know that the Cabinet Secretary shares my concern as well. I do think it is a good idea in principle that top civil servants should be able to engage with business and should have experience of the private sector. When I look at the accounts I am reading today, it is not clear that those boundaries have been properly understood. I have asked for a proper independent review of the arrangements that we have, to be conducted by Nigel Boardman, and he will be reporting in June. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has any representations he wishes to make on the subject, he should do so to Mr Boardman.

[Keir Starmer]

I know that the Prime Minister is launching an inquiry. That inquiry is not even looking at the lobbying rules; I am not sure it is looking at very much at all. Every day, there is further evidence of the sleaze that is now at the heart of this Conservative Government. [Interruption.] They can shake their heads. Let us just look at the latest scandal. A wealthy businessman, Lex Greensill, was hired as a senior adviser to David Cameron when he was Prime Minister. We have all seen the business card. After he left office, Cameron became a paid lobbyist for Lex Greensill. The next thing we know, Cameron arranged access for Greensill to Cabinet Ministers, Ministers and senior officials, and he lobbied for taxpayers’ money on behalf of Greensill Capital.

We also know that the Chancellor “pushed” officials. We know that the Health Secretary met Cameron and Greensill. We know that senior officials met Greensill Capital regularly, and now, even more unbelievably, we know that the Government’s former head of procurement, no less, became a Greensill adviser while he was still a civil servant. Does the Prime Minister accept that there is a revolving door—indeed, an open door—between his Conservative Government and paid lobbyists?

[The Prime Minister]

This is a Government and a party that have been consistently tough on lobbying. Indeed, we introduced legislation saying that there should be no taxpayer-funded lobbying and that quangos should not be used to get involved with lobbying. We put in a register for lobbyists. There is one party that voted to repeal the 2014 lobbying Act, and that was the Labour party in its historic 2019 election manifesto, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has yet to repudiate. It did so because it thought the Act was unfair and restricted people’s ability to make representations to politicians. I think that that is absurd. Will he now say that it is absurd to repeal the 2014 lobbying Act?

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister talks of the lobbying Act. Who was it who introduced that legislation? David Cameron. Who was it who voted for the legislation? Half the Conservative Front Bench. We said that it would not be tough enough, and where did that legislation lead? Two years later, David Cameron camping out in a Saudi desert with Lex Greensill, having a cup of tea. I rest my case in relation to that legislation.

Let me try another very simple question. Is the Prime Minister aware of any other Government official who had commercial links with Greensill or any other lobbying role while working in Government?

[The Prime Minister]

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has any such information, he should of course make it available to Mr Boardman; that is the point of his review. It is an independent review. It will be coming to me by June, and it will be laid in the Library of the House of Commons.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about lobbying. He is being advised by Lord Mandelson of Global Counsel. Perhaps in the interests of full transparency, so that we can know where he is coming from, Lord Mandelson could be encouraged to disclose his other clients.

[Keir Starmer]

I have not heard a defence that ridiculous since my last days in the Crown court. It is called the shoplifters’ defence—“Everyone else is nicking stuff, so why can’t I?” It never worked. I remind the Prime Minister that I not only prosecuted shoplifters; I prosecuted MPs over the MPs’ expenses scandal, so I stand on my record. That line just isn’t going to wash with me.

It was a former Prime Minister—and, I suspect, now a former lobbyist—who once said:

“This isn’t a minor issue with minor consequences… government contracts—worth hundreds of billions of pounds are potentially at stake.”

Can the Prime Minister now answer the question that the Chancellor has been ducking for weeks? How was it that Greensill Capital—a company employing David Cameron—got the green light to give hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayer-backed loans?

[The Prime Minister]

While the right hon. and learned Gentleman was prosecuting MPs, I was cutting crime in London by 23% and cutting the murder rate by 50%. He asks about lobbying on behalf of Greensill. Again, I do not wish to embarrass the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but he does not have far to look. There was one person asking for Greensill bank to be able to use the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, and that was the shadow Defence Secretary.

[Keir Starmer]

This just gets weaker and weaker. It does take me back to my defence days in the Crown court —just ridiculous. The shadow Defence Secretary—

[The Prime Minister]

It was rather a good point!

[Keir Starmer]

It really was not a good point; if you think that is a good point, you have got real problems.

The shadow Defence Secretary was speaking for his constituents and for local jobs. That is a million miles away from being a paid lobbyist texting friends in Government. The Prime Minister says there is going to be an inquiry, but the person he has appointed worked for the same law firm that lobbied to loosen lobbying laws. You could not make it up.

What we need is to overhaul the whole broken system. This afternoon, Labour’s motion calls for a proper parliamentary inquiry into the scandal. If the Prime Minister is so concerned about this, he should welcome the motion. After all, to quote David Cameron, his old school friend:

“Sunlight is the best disinfectant”.

So, will the Prime Minister vote with Labour today for a full, transparent, independent inquiry?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have been better off supporting the lobbying Act and the Labour party would have been better off not campaigning to get rid of it. It toughens up our laws, and I think that his own proposal is simply to have, yet again, politicians marking their own homework. What the country wants—[Interruption.] That is what it is—a Committee of MPs to look at it. It will not do a blind bit of good. That is why we are having a proper, independent review. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has any representations or allegations to make about what has taken place, he should make them to the eminent lawyer who has been asked to do this, who will be reporting to us by June.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister should be voting with us, not blocking a proper inquiry. The Greensill scandal is just the tip of the iceberg—dodgy contracts, privileged access, jobs for their mates. This is the return of Tory sleaze. It is now so ingrained in this Conservative Government. We do not need another Conservative party appointee marking their own homework. Actually, the more I listen to the Prime Minister, the more I think that Ted Hastings and AC-12 are needed to get to the bottom of this one.

We know the Prime Minister will not act against sleaze, but this House can, so can I urge all Members of the House to come together this afternoon to back Labour’s motion, and to start to clean up the sleaze and cronyism that are at the heart of this Conservative Government?

[The Prime Minister]

That is why we are putting in an independent review. That is why we have tougher laws on lobbying—a great shame that Labour opposes them. Yes, we are getting on with rooting out bent coppers. We are also appointing and hiring thousands more police officers. We are fighting crime. We are fighting crime on the streets of our cities while the Opposition oppose the police and crime Bill, which would put in tougher sentences for serious sexual and violent offenders—absolutely—and they then encouraged people who went out and demonstrated to “Kill the Bill”. We are getting on with protecting the public. That is absolutely correct. We are getting on with protecting the public of this country from crime of all kinds. We are getting on with the job of running this country, of rolling out a vaccination programme—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Prime Minister, I think we ought to at least try and address the question.

[Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)]

It is a year this week since I had the privilege of starting to volunteer at Watford General Hospital, and over that time I have been fortunate and privileged to work alongside some inspirational and selfless volunteers. As the nation reflects this week on the importance of schemes to support young people, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will meet me to explore the creation of an NHS cadet scheme to pay tribute to those who have volunteered over the past year and also create a lasting legacy for generations to come?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for what he is doing. I thank everybody at Watford General Hospital for the support they have given throughout the pandemic, particularly the volunteers, who play a massive part in our vaccination roll-out programme. I fully support the NHS cadet scheme—part of our work to establish a volunteering legacy for young people following the pandemic.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Mòran taing, Mr Speaker. May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition about Dame Cheryl Gillan and Shirley Williams?

The Scottish Government have passed landmark legislation embedding the UN convention on the rights of the child into Scots law, a real revolution in children’s rights. Every party in the Scottish Parliament supported it, even the Scots Tories; it has been welcomed everywhere except here in Westminster. Instead of supporting this new law, the UK Government are, shamefully, taking the Scottish Parliament to court in order to strike it down. Apparently, the only basis of the UK Government’s legal case is that the law constrains Westminster powers. So, Prime Minister, can you do everyone a favour by explaining how protecting children’s rights in Scotland threatens the Tory Government in London?

[The Prime Minister]

This is complete nonsense. The Government of the United Kingdom ratified the UN convention on the rights of the child 30 years ago. We all supported it. This is nothing to do with the rights of vulnerable children, which we all protect; this is simply an attempt by the SNP to stir up constitutional chaos and create another fictitious bone of contention between themselves and the rest of the country. If they really cared about the rights of the child, they would do much more to improve education in Scotland, where they are so lamentably failing.

[Ian Blackford]

The rights of the child—this is an Act passed by the Scottish Parliament and supported by every party, and yet the Prime Minister’s Government are taking our Parliament—our Government—to court. There is nothing technical about this, and the Westminster Government want to strip away the rights of children in Scotland. This is a tale of two Governments: we have an SNP Scottish Government delivering the baby box, doubling the Scottish child payment and providing free school meals to every primary school child; at the same time, this Tory Government are robbing children of their rights in Scotland. Quite simply, the SNP Scottish Government have worked, and will continue to work, to ensure that Scotland is the best place for a child to grow up. This legal challenge threatens that; it is wrong and it is morally repugnant, Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister commit to withdrawing his legal challenge today? If not, we will see you in court.

[The Prime Minister]

The best thing the SNP can do, as I have said, for the rights of the child in Scotland is to improve their shameful record on education and to tackle the issues that matter to the people of Scotland: to tackle the tax regime they have put in place; and to do better on fighting crime and drug addiction in Scotland. They should be looking at the issues that really matter to the people of Scotland, but instead they are going into the elections next month yet again on a campaign to break up this country. That is all they can think of: break up this country—destroy our country—and call a referendum, in a way that I think is completely irresponsible at a very difficult time when we want to bounce back stronger together.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

The A55 expressway is of huge importance to north Wales, linking the region to the main motorway network. It is also, as was noted in the recent interim report on the Union connectivity review, the principal freight artery for the port of Holyhead. The road is in desperate need of improvement, and has been for many years, so will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will make it a priority to use their powers under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to upgrade the road for the benefit of the people of north Wales?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is completely right. Sir Peter Hendy has rightly identified the potential of the A55, and the best thing the people of Wales can do to guarantee these vital upgrades is elect a Welsh Conservative Government on 6 May.

[Mr Speaker]

We now go to Vicky Foxcroft. Vicky, I understand you are going to sign; can you speak and sign at the same time for the benefit of all?

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

[In British Sign Language] Why is there no interpreter in the room for briefings?If the Prime Minister did not understand that, imagine how those who rely on British Sign Language feel at his press briefings. Some £2.6 million was spent on the new press room, yet there is still no interpreter; what message does he think this sends to disabled people?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and grateful for the way she has set out her question. I will revert to her as soon as I can.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is thanks to the sacrifice of the British people during lockdown and the great success of the vaccination programme that lots of small businesses across the whole country and in my constituency of Derbyshire Dales, such as Brocklehursts, which supplied clothing to Prince Philip, can remain open? Will my right hon. Friend join me in a campaign to shop local as we come out of lockdown?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. Yes, I certainly will encourage her and everybody else to shop local as we come out of lockdown, as I very much hope that we will be able to do. My right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary has announced that £830 million of funding from the future high streets fund has been allocated to areas, including my hon. Friend’s, to encourage that shopping that we all hope and want to see.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) [V]]

May I extend my condolences and those of my constituents to the Queen and the royal family for their sad loss, and to the families and colleagues of Cheryl Gillan and Shirley Williams? Will the Prime Minister tell the House when he last spoke to former Prime Minister David Cameron?

[The Prime Minister]

The honest truth—I cannot remember when I last spoke to Dave, but if the hon. Lady wants to know whether I have had any contact with him about any of the matters that have been in the press, the answer is no.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Those who helped to develop, test, approve and manufacture the vaccines deserve our praise. Will my right hon. Friend also recognise that the successful roll-out of the vaccination programme has been based on the dedication of the NHS staff and the myriad volunteers who have made the process so easy for so many people?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is completely right. This has been a colossal team effort. It has been led by the NHS, with GPs very often doing the lion’s share of the work, but they have been supported by the Army, by local council officials, who have also been absolutely magnificent, and, as colleagues have said, by volunteers as well.

[Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)]

The interim findings of Sir Peter Hendy’s Union connectivity review are very much to be welcomed. He highlights the improvements that need to be made to the railways in north Wales, linking up with Merseyside and Manchester, as well as the A55. Those improvements, of course, can help to level up the region. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the projects in north Wales identified in Sir Peter Hendy’s work will receive a fair chunk of the £20 million of development funding as part of the agenda, and will he commit to implementing the findings of Sir Peter Hendy’s final report when it is released in the summer?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. We will look at what Sir Peter has to say. He has come up with some very interesting interim proposals, particularly about improving connectivity along the north Wales coastline—the routes into Merseyside. On the A55, I repeat what I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones): there is a great opportunity to do that if people will vote Conservative and vote for a Welsh Conservative Government on 6 May.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]]

In 2007, my friend Adam Price, then the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, proposed the Elected Representatives (Prohibition of Deception) Bill. At this distance in time, it would be unkind to quiz the Prime Minister on the detail, but he is seen as a big thinker, so perhaps he could tell the House what he thinks of the principle of that Bill, which is that on important matters of public policy, politicians must not lie.

[The Prime Minister]

I have a high regard for the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, remember happy times with his colleague Adam Price. I do not remember the details of his Bill, but I think we would all concur with the basic principle that the hon. Gentleman has just enunciated.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Former police inspector Kash Singh set up One Britain One Nation, otherwise known as OBON, to bring together all communities, all classes, all ethnicities, races and religions to celebrate being British. OBON Day is held in June. However, next week, on 22 April, will be the launch at a school in Bradford. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Kash Singh on his fantastic initiative for all communities to come together in a common pride of being British? Will he also make a message for the launch next week?

[The Prime Minister]

Well, I’ll do my best. I fully support what my right hon. Friend is doing and I congratulate Kash Singh on his work. It is incredible at this time that there are people who want to split our country up, rather than bring us together. That is what the SNP want. It is an absolute tragedy that they still think like that. I think they are going to change, but I wish everybody at OBON all the very best.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

  Contrary to the conclusions of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report, institutional racism still exists. Forty years since the Liverpool 8 uprisings, black communities continue to suffer racial injustice and the report downplays the structural inequalities that still exist. The Resolution Foundation announced today that the unemployment rate for young black people rose by 35%, compared with 13% for their white counterparts. Can the Prime Minister confirm the allegations that Downing Street redrafted the report to change the narrative? Does he agree that the report should now be withdrawn?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, when we look at and read the report in detail, the Government are not going to agree with everything, but there are some interesting observations and some interesting ways of looking at things. We will be responding in due course, but what we say is that nobody should be in any doubt as to the reality of racism and the struggle that too many people face. We will do everything we can to stamp it out, particularly to help young black people get the jobs and the education they need.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend will know, as we build back better we need to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers. Will he therefore agree to work with EngineeringUK and Big Bang Digital to provide a short online introduction to this year’s event to reinforce the message that a career in engineering is rewarding, creative and can transform the world around us for the better? Will he recognise the extraordinary contribution that engineers have made and are making in our battle against covid?

[The Prime Minister]

Engineers and scientists of all kinds have been crucial in the fight against covid, and this is the moment to become an engineer or work towards being an engineer. We are putting a huge £640 billion investment into the infrastructure of this country over the next few years. We will need skilled young people to go into engineering, and that is why we put in the T-levels. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his initiative, and I will do my best to support him.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Given his ancestry, the Prime Minister will be more than familiar with the phrase “a fish rots from the head down”—it is a Turkish proverb. Put simply, since he became the Prime Minister the sound of Big Ben’s bongs has been replaced by the cash till sound of big donor bungs. There has been a threefold increase in bungs from property developers. Last summer, we had the case of Richard Desmond and the Communities Secretary. More recently, we have had Ministers dishing the dosh between constituencies, and the Health Secretary handing—or involved in—a contract with his pub landlord for £30 million-worth of PPE. Now, we have a Chancellor and Health Secretary who have sought to grease the wheels of involvement with Greensill and David Cameron. What does this say about the Prime Minister’s leadership of his Government?

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong in what he says, particularly about my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Health Secretary; I do not believe that he should have spoken in those terms. What I will say is that there is one party in this place that brought in tough rules on lobbying, and another party that campaigned at the last election to get rid of those rules because of its relationship with the trade unions, because it wanted them to continue in the obscure, opaque way in which they were being run, and because it wanted people to be able to continue to lobby parliamentarians in the way that they always did. Look at the Labour manifesto from 2019. If the Leader of the Opposition repudiates it now, why does he not go ahead and do so?

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) [V]]

In the past few months, a number of my constituents have taken to the streets to help tackle the problem of littering; I pay particular tribute to constituents in Colsterworth whom I met recently. Will the Prime Minister join me in backing the Grantham Journal’s spring clean campaign? Can he assure my constituents that the Government are doing all they can to tackle littering?

[The Prime Minister]

I share my hon. Friend’s indignation about litter. I think that it is one of the things on which the whole of the country and, I hope, the whole of the House are united. That is why we are doing the Respect the Outdoors campaign to encourage people to follow the countryside code and pick up their litter. Obviously a lot of people are meeting outdoors at the moment because of the pandemic; they must obey the basic laws of respect for other people—pick up their litter. We are putting money into new litter bins and, yes, we are increasing on-the-spot fines for littering. I know there will be many libertarians in this place who think that is unfair and draconian. Personally, I think it is the right thing to do. I abhor litter, and I urge anybody who sees anybody throwing away a crisp packet to tick them off and tell them to pick it up.

[Mr Speaker]

I suspend the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Boris Johnson Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

I beg to move,

That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty expressing the deepest sympathies of this House on the death of His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and the heartfelt thanks of this House and this nation for his unfailing dedication to this Country and the Commonwealth exemplified in his distinguished service in the Royal Navy in the Second World War; his commitment to young people in setting up the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, a scheme which has touched the lives of millions across the globe; his early, passionate commitment to the environment; and his unstinting support to Your Majesty throughout his life. 

It is fitting that on Saturday, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh will be conveyed to his final resting place in a Land Rover which Prince Philip designed himself, with a long wheelbase and capacious rear cabin, because that vehicle’s unique and idiosyncratic silhouette reminds the world that he was above all a practical man, who could take something very traditional, whether a machine or, indeed, a great national institution, and find a way, by his own ingenuity, to improve it, to adapt it for the 20th and 21st centuries.

That gift for innovation was apparent from his earliest career in the Navy. When he served in the second world war, he was mentioned in dispatches for his

“alertness and appreciation of the situation”

during the battle of Cape Matapan, and he played a crucial role in helping to sink two enemy cruisers. But it was later, during the invasion of Sicily, that he was especially remembered by his crewmates for what he did to save their own ship. In a moment of high danger, at night, when HMS Wallace was vulnerable to being blown up by enemy planes, he improvised a floating decoy, complete with fires to make it look like a stricken British vessel, so that the Wallace was able to slip away and the enemy took out the decoy.

He was there at Tokyo bay in 1945, barely 200 yards from the Japanese surrender on the deck of USS Missouri, but he was not content just to watch history through his binoculars. It seemed that he used the lull to get on with repainting the hull of HMS Whelp, and throughout his life—a life that was of necessity wrapped from such a young age in symbol and ceremony—one can see that same instinct to look for what was most useful and most practical and what would take things forward.

He was one of the first people in this country to use a mobile phone. In the 1970s, he was driving an electric taxi on the streets of London—the forerunner of the modern low-carbon fleet—again, a vehicle of his own specifications. He was not content just to be a carriage driver. He played a large part in pioneering and codifying the sport of competitive carriage driving. If it is true that carriage driving is not a mass-participation sport—not yet—he had other novel ideas that touched the lives of millions, and developed their character and confidence, their teamwork and self-reliance.

It was amazing and instructive to listen on Friday to the Cabinet’s tributes to the Duke and to hear how many Ministers were proud to say that they or their children had benefited from taking part in his Duke of Edinburgh Award schemes. I will leave it to the House to speculate on who claimed to have got a gold award, and who a bronze, but I believe that those Ministers spoke for millions around the world and across this country who felt that the Duke had in some way touched their lives—people whose work he supported in the course of an astonishing 22,219 public engagements; people he encouraged and people, yes, whom he amused. It is true that he occasionally drove a coach and horses through the finer points of diplomatic protocol, and he coined a new word—dontopedalogy—for the experience of putting your foot in your mouth. It is also true that, among his more parliamentary expressions, he commented adversely on the French concept of breakfast; he told a British student in Papua New Guinea that he was lucky not to be eaten, and the people of the Cayman Islands that they were descended from pirates; and he said that he would like to go to Russia except that, as he put it,

“the bastards murdered half my family.”

But the world did not hold it against him. On the contrary, they overwhelmingly understood that he was trying to break the ice, to get things moving and to get people laughing and forget their nerves. To this day, there is a community in the Pacific Islands that venerates Prince Philip as a god, or a volcano spirit—a conviction that was actually strengthened when a group came to London to have tea with him in person. When he spoke so feelingly about the problems of overpopulation, humanity’s relentless incursion on the natural world and the consequent destruction of habitat and species, he contrived to be at once politically incorrect and also ahead of his time.

In a quite unparalleled career of advice, encouragement and support, he provided one particular service that I believe we in the House know in our hearts was the very greatest of all. In the constant love he gave to Her Majesty the Queen as her

“liege man of life and limb”,

in the words he spoke at the coronation, he sustained her throughout this extraordinary second Elizabethan age—now the longest reign of any monarch in our history. It was typical of him that, in wooing Her Majesty —famously not short of a jewel or two—he offered jewellery of his own design. He dispensed with the footmen in powdered wigs. He introduced television cameras, and at family picnics in Balmoral, he would barbecue the sausages on a large metal contraption that all Prime Ministers must have goggled at for decades, complete with rotisserie and compartments for the sauces, and that was, once again, a product of his own invention and creation.

Indeed, as an advocate of skills, craft, science and technology, this country has had no royal champion to match him since Prince Albert, and I know that in due course, the House and the country will want to consider a suitable memorial to Prince Philip. It is with that same spirit of innovation that, as co-gerent of the royal family, he shaped and protected the monarchy through all the vicissitudes of the last seven decades and helped to modernise and continually to adapt an institution that is above politics, that incarnates our history and that is indisputably vital to the balance and happiness of our national life.

By his tireless, unstinting service to the Queen, the Commonwealth, the armed forces, the environment, millions of young people and not so young people around the world and countless other causes, he gave us and gives us all a model of selflessness and of putting others before ourselves. Though I suspect that he might be embarrassed or even faintly exasperated to receive these tributes, he made this country a better place, and for that he will be remembered with gratitude and with fondness for generations to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Boris Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 March.

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

The last 12 months have been the most difficult for a generation, and I know that the thoughts of the whole House are with all those who have lost loved ones during the pandemic. I also want to pay tribute to every person in this country for playing their part, whether working on the frontline, staying at home to prevent the spread of the virus, or working on vaccine development and supply. It is that vaccination programme that has brought hope, allowing us to set out the cautious but irreversible road map out of lockdown.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Stephen Farry [V]]

Many independent countries, from Switzerland to New Zealand, have bilateral veterinary agreements with the European Union and face lower non-tariff barriers than the UK, despite our very high standards. With the Food and Drink Federation reporting a massive drop in UK food exports—over 90% in some areas—and with sanitary and phytosanitary checks constituting the main challenge for the Northern Ireland protocol, surely the Prime Minister should be making it a priority to negotiate a bespoke UK-EU veterinary agreement?

[The Prime Minister]

That is exactly why we put in temporary and technical measures to allow free trade to continue across the whole of the UK. It is very important for those who object to the measures that we have taken that the protocol should uphold the principle of east-west trade, as well as north-south trade, and that is exactly what we are trying to do.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

In Sussex, by the end of this week we will have delivered 1 million covid jabs. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the local vaccine heroes and, in particular, to Adam Doyle and his leadership in Hailsham, to Charlotte Luck in Uckfield, and to Dr Susie Padgham in Crowborough? Does the Prime Minister agree that the UK’s success is built on the confidence that people have in the fantastic vaccine technology and that should, and when, our constituents be contacted to have a vaccination, they should definitely take up the first available appointment?

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Adam Doyle, Charlotte Luck and Dr Susie Padgham for all their efforts, and my hon. Friend is completely right in what she says about the foundations of the UK’s vaccine success. I had my jab on Friday. I do not know whether you have had yours, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] You certainly have. I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has had his. I encourage everybody to get it.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

May I start by joining the Prime Minister in his remarks about yesterday’s day of reflection for the 126,000 people who lost their lives to covid? That is a shocking number, and behind every one of those numbers is a grieving family. As soon as restrictions lift, there must be a full public inquiry, because that is the only way we can get to the bottom of the many mistakes that were made during the pandemic and find justice for those who have suffered so much.

Why did the Prime Minister promise at the last election that he would

“not be cutting our armed services in any form”?

[The Prime Minister]

That was because what we were going to do was actually increase spending on our armed services by the biggest amount since the cold war. We are investing £24 billion in modernising our armed forces, with no redundancies, and keeping our Army at 100,000, if we include the reserves. I must say that I take it slightly amiss from the right hon. and learned Gentleman given that he stood on a manifesto to elect a man who wanted to pull this country out of NATO.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister is fighting the last war. Is he trying to pretend, hidden in that answer, that the Army stands at over 100,000—the number that the Prime Minister just quoted? When the Secretary of State for Defence made his statement to the House on Monday, he was absolutely clear:

“I have therefore taken the decision to reduce the size of the Army…to 72,500 by 2025.”—[Official Report, 22 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 638.]

Only this Prime Minister could suggest that a reduction from 82,000 to 72,000 is somehow not a cut.

The Prime Minister did not answer my question, which was: why did he make that promise? He said, before the last election—it is all very well him looking up—that

“we will not be cutting our armed services in any form”.

What did he do this week? He cut the British Army by 10,000; he cut the number of tanks; he cut the number of planes for our RAF; and he cut the number of ships for the Royal Navy. I say “he”—the Prime Minister did not have the courage to come to the House himself to say what he was doing. Let me ask the Prime Minister a simple question, going back to that promise before the election: did he ever intend to keep his promise to our armed forces?

[The Prime Minister]

Not only did we keep our promise in the manifesto, but we actually increased spending by 14% more than that manifesto commitment. It is frankly satirical to be lectured about the size of the Army when the shadow Foreign Secretary herself wrote only recently that the entire British Army should be turned into a kind of peace corps, and when, as I say, the Leader of the Opposition stood on a manifesto and wanted to elect a leader who wanted to disband the armed services. We are making a massive investment in our defences and in our future. It is wonderful to hear the new spirit of jingo that seems to have enveloped some of those on the Labour Benches—they don’t like it up ’em, Mr Speaker.

[Keir Starmer]

Let’s try this for up ’em. The Prime Minister might want to avoid the promises he made, but I have found an interview that he gave during the general election campaign. Here is the headline: “No troop cuts—Tories will maintain size of armed forces”. The article then goes on to quote the Prime Minister: “Boris Johnson has promised that he will not make any new cuts to the armed forces. He also promised”—the Prime Minister might want to listen to this—“to maintain numbers at their current level, including the Army’s 82,000.” Now, I know the Prime Minister has form for making up quotes, but can he tell us whether he thinks the newspapers have somehow misquoted him? Or does he now remember making that promise?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, because there will be no redundancies in our armed forces and, as I said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if we include reserves, we are even keeping the Army at 100,000. On top of that, we are doing what is necessary to modernise our armed forces, taking them into the 21st century. We are building more frigates and investing in cyber-warfare. We are doing all the difficult things that Labour shirked during its time in office, including modernising and upgrading our nuclear deterrent, which half the shadow Front-Bench team would like to remove, leaving Britain defenceless internationally.

[Keir Starmer]

I have every respect for our reservists, but the Prime Minister is just playing with the numbers. He knows very well that the numbers have been cut. The trouble is that we just cannot trust the Conservatives to protect our armed forces. [Interruption.] Let us look—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, let us look at their most recent manifestos. These are the manifestos that Conservative Members stood on. The 2015 manifesto—[Interruption.]

[Keir Starmer]

The 2015 manifesto said:

“We will maintain the size of the regular armed services”.

The 2017 manifesto:

“We will maintain the overall size of the armed forces”.

In 2019, the Prime Minister said that

“we will not be cutting our armed services in any form.”

The truth is that since 2010 our armed forces have been cut by 45,000 and our Army will now be cut to its lowest level in 300 years. Let me remind the Prime Minister and Conservative Members why this matters. Lord Richards, former Chief of the Defence Staff, has warned that with an armed force of this size now

“we almost certainly…would not be able to retake the Falklands…and stop genocides”.

[Interruption.] He says it is rubbish. That is Lord Richards, Prime Minister. After 10 years of Conservative government, is the Prime Minister not ashamed of that?

[The Prime Minister]

This Conservative Government are massively proud of the investment that we made in our armed forces which, as I have said, is the biggest uplift since the cold war. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should look at what the NATO Secretary General had to say about our investment, which is absolutely vital for the future success of the alliance and, indeed, for the security of many other countries around the world. It is a £24 billion investment—investment in the future combat air system, the new Army special operations Ranger Regiment, £1.3 billion to upgrade the Challenger main battle tanks, a massive investment in the Typhoon squadrons and so on.

We are investing in the future. Yes, of course, we have had to take some tough decisions, but that is because we believe in our defences and we believe that they should be more than merely symbolic. It is the Labour party that is consistently, historically—it is hilarious to be lectured about the Falklands, Mr Speaker—weak on protecting this country. It was most visible last week during the debate on the integrated review, when it was plain that those on the shadow Front Bench could not even agree to maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent. That is absolutely true, Mr Speaker.

[Keir Starmer]

What is weaker than making a promise to our armed forces just before the election, then breaking it and not being prepared to admit it—not having the courage to admit it? There is a pattern here. The Prime Minister promised the NHS that they would have “whatever they need”; now nurses are getting a pay cut. He promised a tax guarantee; now he is putting taxes up for families. He promised that he would not cut the armed forces; now he has done just that. If the Prime Minister is so proud of what he is doing, so determined to push ahead, why does he not at least have the courage to put this cut in the armed forces to a vote in this House?

[The Prime Minister]

I am proud of what we are doing to increase spending on the armed forces by the biggest amount since the cold war. The only reason that we can do that is that, under this Conservative Government, we have been running a sound economy. It is also because we believe in defence. We have been getting on with job. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about nurses and investment in the NHS. I am proud of the massive investment that we have made in the NHS. Actually, we have 60,000 more nurses now in training, and we have increased their starting salary by 12.8%. We are getting on with the job of recruiting more police—20,000 more police. I think that we have done 7,000 already, while they are out on the streets at demonstrations, shouting, “Kill the Bill”. That is the difference between his party and my party. We are pro-vax, low tax and, when it comes to defence, we have got your backs.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I genuinely mean this: I do not believe that any Member of Parliament would support that “Kill the Bill”. We are all united in this House in the support and the protection that the police offer us and nobody would shy away from that.

[Keir Starmer]

The question, Prime Minister, is why not have the courage to put it to a vote. That question was avoided, Mr Speaker, like all of the questions. We all know why he will not put it to a vote. Let me quote a Conservative MP, the Chair of the Defence Committee, because he recognises—he has experience and respect across the House—that this review means

“dramatic cuts to our troop numbers, tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and more than 100 RAF aircraft”.

He went on to say—this is your MP, Prime Minister—

“cuts that, if tested by a parliamentary vote, I do not believe would pass.”—[Official Report, 22 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 644-645.]

Those words are not from me, but from the Prime Minister’s own MPs.

I want to turn to another issue that affects thousands of jobs and many communities across the country. Some 5,000 jobs are at risk at Liberty Steel, as well as many more in the supply chain. The UK steel industry is under huge pressure, and the Government’s failure to prioritise British steel in infrastructure projects is costing millions of pounds of investment. Will the Prime Minister now commit to working with us and the trade unions to change this absurd situation, to put British steel first and to do whatever is necessary to protect those jobs?

[The Prime Minister]

Just a reminder—I am, of course, happy to co-operate in any way—that the steel output halved under the Labour Government. I share very much the anxiety of families of steelworkers at Liberty Steel. That is why my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has had, I think, three meetings with Liberty Steel in just the last few days to take the question forward and see what we can do. We are actively engaged. We are investing huge sums in modernising British steel, making a commitment to British steel plants and making them more environmentally friendly.

We have a massive opportunity, because this Government are engaged on a £640 billion infrastructure campaign: HS2, the great Dogger Bank wind farm, Hinkley, the Beeching railway reversals. All these things that we are doing across the country will call for millions and millions of tonnes of British steel. Now, thanks to leaving the European Union, we have an opportunity to direct that procurement at British firms in the way that we would want to, whereas I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would like nothing more than to take this country back into the European Union and remove that opportunity for British steel and British steelworkers.

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

Last night, I spoke with young people in Aberconwy about their experiences of 12 months living with lockdowns. They were very articulate about the challenges they have overcome and their concerns for the future, such as finding a job and moving to a new university. Does the Prime Minister have a message for Evie, Jonas, Saul and Lauren, and for other young people thinking about their futures and a life after lockdown?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes; my message is just to thank them for what they have put up with and to say that I am sorry about how difficult it has been for their generation. I do not think there is any group of young people who have been put through so much and who have had to sacrifice so much in our lifetimes. We owe it to them to repair their education and get them into work as fast as we possibly can. That is why we have set out the £2 billion kickstart fund and many other schemes that I hope will be useful to my hon. Friend’s constituents.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]]

Yesterday, my brilliant colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), made his final speech to this Parliament. He is standing for the Scottish Parliament and is doing the right thing by stepping down as an MP. By doing the right thing, he will avoid a dual mandate and a separate by-election that would cost the public £175,000. The Scottish Tory leader in Westminster is also seeking a place in the Scottish Parliament, but he is refusing to step down as an MP. As his boss, will the Prime Minister order the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) to resign his seat, avoid a dual mandate and save the taxpayer £175,000—or are dual mandates one more Tory policy where they think greed is good?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) is doing an excellent job of holding the Scottish National party to account for their manifold failings, not least on education—failing to deliver on crime and failing, in my view, to deliver for the people of Scotland, so caught up as they are in their desire for independence and another referendum for separation. I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned that so far, but perhaps he will now.

[Ian Blackford]

[Inaudible] simply yet again a Prime Minister failing to answer a question and that charge that “greed is good” in Tory policies.

We know that Tory leaders in Scotland have a habit of dodging democracy. Baroness Davidson is fleeing the House of Lords and the current Tory leader is too feart to stand in a constituency. No wonder this morning’s Daily Record declared that the Scottish Tories have

“exposed themselves as shameless…nasty”

and just “plain daft”. It also says:

“They are led by…a man so devoid of imagination that when asked what he would do if he was prime minister for a day, replied: ‘I would like to see tougher enforcement against Gypsy travellers.’”

Does the Prime Minister really have confidence in a Scottish Tory leader who does not even have the courage to put himself before the voters in a Scottish constituency?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course. The right hon. Gentleman represents a party that is so devoid of imagination that they cannot come up with any workable solutions to help the people of Scotland improve their education, improve the fight against crime, or cut taxes in Scotland, where they are the highest in the whole of the UK. They are so devoid of imagination that they are a one-track record—all they can talk about is a referendum to break up the United Kingdom. That is their song. I am amazed, actually, that it is twice he has not mentioned it—maybe he is getting nervous of singing that particular song. It is rather curious. He is not coming back now, is he, but next week, or after Easter, let us see if he mentions it again.

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend has already said, the steel industry is fundamental to our future in the UK, and we cannot reach our net zero commitments or our infrastructure targets without steel. Liberty Speciality Steel in my constituency has an uncertain future because of the funding challenges faced by Liberty Steel Group. The Stocksbridge works is a strategic asset of national importance. So what assurances can my right hon. Friend give my constituents that the Government will do what it takes to safeguard jobs and livelihoods and secure the future of steelmaking in the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is a passionate and successful advocate for her constituents and for steelmaking in this country, in which this Government passionately believe. That is why, as I said to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), we are supporting the UK steel industry with more than £500 million of relief, and also with huge investments to make our steelmaking greener and more competitive. We will do everything we can to ensure that we continue with British jobs in producing British steel with the infrastructure investments that I have mentioned and directing procurement at British jobs in the way that we now can.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

The Prime Minister talks about restoring freedoms as we emerge from the lockdown, yet he is pushing a Bill that will restrict one of our most fundamental freedoms—the right to peaceful protest and peaceful assembly—and tomorrow he is asking for another blank cheque to restrict everyone’s freedoms until September, even though we now know that the vast bulk of the Coronavirus Act 2020 is not needed to tackle the pandemic. So will the Prime Minister, for once, match his actions to his words, drop these draconian laws, and instead publish a road map to revive civil liberties and freedoms in our country?

[The Prime Minister]

I sympathise very much with the right hon. Gentleman’s desire to see freedoms restored, and I want to do that as fast as we possibly can. That is why we have set out the cautious but, we hope, irreversible road map that we have, which I hope he supports—and I hope the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras also supports, although you can never tell. What we also want to do is make sure that we are able to deal with the very considerable backlog that we have faced because of the pandemic: making sure that we have powers still to accelerate court procedures with Zoom courts; making sure that we allow volunteers to continue to help in the NHS and retired staff to come back to the colours; and making sure that we have powers that are necessary in education. It is important to be able to continue with those special measures for the months ahead, and that is why we have set out the Bill as we have.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

  My constituent Tracy Felstead is at the Court of Appeal today, along with 41 other sub-postmasters. She is seeking to clear her name in a grotesque miscarriage of justice: the Post Office Horizon scandal. The Court has heard about the “institutional imperative” to back a flawed IT system and to convict sub-postmasters, destroying the lives of decent men and women in a ruthless determination to protect the Post Office come what may. Taxpayers will be picking up the bill for this multimillion-pound reckless wrongdoing. Does the Prime Minister agree that, in order for justice to be truly done, those responsible for this failure and its cover-up must be held to account? Does he agree that heads should roll?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly understand my hon. Friend’s strong feelings on this issue, and her campaign is shared by many Members across the House. That is why we launched the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry, which has made quite fast progress. Yes, we do want to learn the lessons. Yes, we do want to make sure that the right people are held to account for what happened and that the Post Office never repeats a mistake like this.

[Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) [V]]

  Subject to certain conditions being met, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 allows for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to call a referendum on Irish reunification and for Northern Ireland to leave the United Kingdom within seven years of a previous referendum. Those conditions for a referendum have all been more than met in Scotland since the independence referendum in 2014, seven years ago. We are allegedly a Union of equal nations, so why, as a democrat, will the Prime Minister not agree to a section 30 order, enabling the democratic will of the people of Scotland to be measured? Is it because he is fearful of the likely outcome?

[The Prime Minister]

I knew it would n0t be long—there they are! There are a couple of reasons. First of all, senior members of the hon. Member’s party said that it was a “once in a generation” event in 2014. I think that that point of view is shared across the House, and quite rightly. The other reason, which is absolutely plain to people in this country, is that we are all trying to build back better and get out of a pandemic. That is the priority for the British people—it is the priority for the whole country —and I think people are, frankly, amazed to hear the Scottish nationalist party still, in these circumstances, banging on about their constitutional obsessions.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

  Scottish rugby legend Doddie Weir lives in my constituency and has been diagnosed with motor neurone disease. Doddie’s foundation, the My Name’5 Doddie Foundation, is campaigning alongside the research community, patients, MND Scotland and the MND Association for the Government to invest £50 million over five years to establish a virtual MND research institute. I understand that positive discussions have already taken place with the Health Secretary, but it is important to ensure that other priorities such as this are not lost in the pandemic. Will the Prime Minister commit the Government to supporting this initiative, so that we can work towards finding a cure for this devastating disease?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for raising this important question and for championing research into motor neurone disease, and I thank him also for raising the excellent work of the My Name’5 Doddie Foundation. We have spent £54 million in the last five years towards this cause, and we are looking at ways significantly to boost the research that we are supporting.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]]

A year into this crisis and more than 126,000 lives have been lost. Behind that staggering figure are millions grieving for their loved ones. In my family, we have lost an entire generation. I could not hold my mum’s hand as she lay dying, and I recently lost both my father and mother-in-law within just days of one another. Grieving families like mine want and deserve to understand what happened and whether anything could have been done to prevent this tragedy. Will the Prime Minister today commit to launching a full public inquiry into the handling of the pandemic as soon as current restrictions are lifted?

[The Prime Minister]

I want to say to the hon. Gentleman that I know that the whole House shares my sympathies and my sorrow for his loss, and we sympathise also with his entire family. I know that his experience is one, as he rightly said, that has been shared by far too many families up and down the country. That is why, as soon as it is right to do so, as soon as it would not be an irresponsible diversion of the energies of the key officials involved, we are of course committed to an inquiry, to learn the lessons, to make sure that something like this can never happen again.

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just try and push us through to get through the list?

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

On 3 May, Wembley is scheduled to host the finals of the FA Vase and FA Trophy—not from this season, but delayed a year from the last one. But that date means that no fans can go, even though a trip to Wembley to follow their team is like a holy grail, especially for the smaller clubs. The MPs for the clubs involved—the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) and myself—have raised this with the Football Association. Will the Prime Minister join us in encouraging those scheduling the matches to do all they can to move the date, so that the fans can attend?

[The Prime Minister]

I hope very much that the Football Association will have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said and that they will do what they can. I look forward to 17 May, when spectators, according to the road map, may return.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

Seventeen months ago, Prime Minister, on 23 October 2019, I stood in this place and asked you what you were going to do to get medical cannabis to children suffering from rare forms of epilepsy. You said to me that you recognised their “desperate difficulties”, and that you would take up the matter “personally” with me. Their difficulties are still desperate and you have not taken this up personally with me. In the interim we have developed new medicines, distributed them around the country and given them to people who need them, free of charge. Why are we discriminating against these children? What are they—are they worth less than the general public? Will the Prime Minister move to make medical cannabis available to children with epilepsy? If you could please, Prime Minister, take this opportunity personally, five minutes of your time today could go a long, long way.

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to do whatever we can to meet the hon. Gentleman and take the matter forward, but the Dutch Government, I am told, have confirmed they will allow the continued supply of Bedrocan oil against UK prescriptions until at least the summer—

[Ronnie Cowan]

Until July.

[The Prime Minister]

Until July, as the hon. Gentleman says. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is working to find a permanent solution and I have no doubt that he will be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) [V]]

Given the past 12 months I, like many others, would not want the job of Prime Minister, even for all the tea in China. However, the job does give opportunities to directly improve the lives of people who are very, very sick. March is Brain Tumour Awareness Month and over 100,000 people have signed a Brain Tumour Research petition calling for the Government to match brain tumour research funding with that for other devastating cancers. We know from covid that properly funded research really can bring improved care, treatment and a cure. Will my friend the Prime Minister meet me to receive the petition, when it is safe to do so?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he is doing to champion research into brain cancer. I know, from activists in my constituency, where Centre of Hope runs the Hillingdon brain tumour and injury group, how vital it is, because too often people do not appreciate the number of people who are the victims of brain tumours. We have put another £40 million into brain tumour research and we are certainly going to put more. I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]]

My constituents Ronald and Julia Sheriff’s daughter Danielle currently lives in Gran Canaria. Last year, aged just 33, she suffered an aneurysm. Danielle remains deeply unwell and her family are crowdfunding to bring her back home to live. They have been advised that when she does return home, she will not be eligible for the treatment that she needs on the NHS. Please can the Prime Minister support the crowdfund for Dani, and give his personal assurance that she will receive the care that she needs from our NHS?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising the case. My deepest sympathies are with Danielle and her family. I will make sure that the relevant Health Minister meets her to discuss the case as fast as possible.

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) [V]]

Forty years on from my predecessor Dame Peggy Fenner’s opposition to the closure of Chatham dockyard, with the loss of thousands of jobs, I am now opposing the closure of what today is Chatham docks, with the loss of over 1,000 skilled jobs. Closing this regionally important asset, home to successful maritime and construction businesses—all growing, in spite of covid—to make way for flats represents short-term profit for the landowner at the expense of long-term economic and environmental benefit. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me, local councillors and the “Save Chatham Docks” campaign that coastal infrastructure plays a significant role in the growth of our local economies, creating jobs and clean maritime technology that contributes to our net zero ambition?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. One of the reasons we put £24 billion into defence alone is that it drives 400,000 jobs around the country, including the building of new frigates and new ships of all kinds. I hope very much that Chatham will benefit from the £100 million funding we put in on 24 December to rejuvenate coastal towns. The planning issue my hon. Friend raises is a matter for the local council, but I do hope a solution can be found that gives the benefits that she describes for the local community.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]]

Last night, I met again with leaseholders whose lives have been torn apart by the cladding and building safety scandal. The Prime Minister will recall that he told the House on 3 February that “no leaseholder should have to pay for the unaffordable costs of fixing safety defects that they did not cause and are no fault of their own.”—[Official Report, 3 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 945.]No ifs, no buts: an unequivocal pledge. The Government’s measures so far fall well short of fulfilling it, so could the Prime Minister say now not what has been done, but what he will do to deliver his promise?

[The Prime Minister]

In addition to the £3.5 billion of investment that we have provided to remediate the cladding and the £1.6 billion that we have already done, we are providing a new scheme for leaseholders in the lower-risk buildings of, I think, the kind that the hon. Gentleman is describing, to pay for unsafe remediation over the long term. There will also be a new levy and tax on developers, so that they also contribute to the remediation costs.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

Before the Prime Minister became Prime Minister, we had a discussion to do with the prescribed medical use of cannabis, and how it was helping to save really seriously ill children—not hundreds or thousands, but about 150. We changed the law in November 2018 to make it legal for those prescriptions to be written by top consultants. Today, we have three children who have it free on the NHS, and about 150 children whose families have to beg and borrow and remortgage their homes so that they can pay about £2,000 a month. I say to the Prime Minister that this is wrong. As a father, like I am, we would do everything possible for our families, and these families are doing everything possible for their children. Can we have a follow-up meeting to the one in 2018, where I will bring one of the mothers who gets it free—not to stop her getting it free, but to explain to the Prime Minister how wrong it is that children’s lives are going to be lost if we have to go through the process that the NHS is proposing?

[The Prime Minister]

This is the second time I have been asked about this; I thank my right hon. Friend very much, and he is right to raise it. We will make sure that we have a proper meeting with the Department of Health so that we can resolve the issue of how to make sure that the supply of the Bedrocan or the cannabis-based products that are coming from Holland can be made secure, and can continue.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I personally thank you, Mr Speaker, for your support for Parliament’s covid memorial quilt. Prime Minister, after PMQs, I will be presenting my cross-party private Member’s Bill, the Coronavirus (No. 2) Bill, to Parliament. It is based on scientific advice, Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies guidance, and lessons learned. Will the Prime Minister please commit to reading this Bill and providing me with a written response, maybe by tomorrow—I know that is a bit of an ask—but, if not, within the next two weeks?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to make that commitment.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) [V]]

To paraphrase the late, great, much missed Eric Forth, I believe in individual freedoms and individual responsibility. I believe that individuals make better decisions for themselves, their families and their communities than the state makes for them. I loathe the nanny state, and I believe in cutting taxes. Prime Minister, am I still a Conservative?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) [V]]

We learned today—unfortunately, from the media, rather than a Minister—that the Treasury has informed the Office for Veterans’ Affairs that its budget is to be cut by 40%, from £5 million to £3 million. This cannot be right, as just yesterday Graeme Dey, the SNP Scottish Government’s Veterans Minister, announced a further £1 million to support Scottish veterans alone. These disparate positions are irreconcilable. This is a tale of two Governments, so will the Prime Minister follow the SNP’s lead and assure the House today that he will not allow this cut to UK funding for veterans?

[The Prime Minister]

Not only was this the first Government to create a Veterans Minister specifically with a charge of looking after veterans, and not only have we invested in them, but we have taken steps to protect our armed services veterans from vexatious litigation, pursued by lefty lawyers of a kind sitting not a million miles away from me today, who pursue them long after they have served Queen and country and when no new evidence has been provided. We tried to protect them, we have protected them and the Labour party voted against it.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) [V]]

The Prime Minister has always enjoyed his visits to my constituency of North West Leicestershire, whether it is Ashby-de-la-Zouch on the eve of the historic referendum or Castle Rock School, Coalville last August. He will therefore be pleased, but not surprised, that Leicestershire County Council for the last three years has been the most productive county authority in the country, despite also being the lowest funded. Can my right hon. Friend assure all the residents of Leicestershire that our Conservative-controlled county council will imminently benefit from fairer funding and the Government’s levelling-up agenda so that it can continue to deliver excellent public services?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. I thank Leicestershire County Council for the way it is conducting itself and for delivering value for money. That is what the elections that are coming up in May are all going to be about, and invariably these Conservatives deliver better value, deliver better services and lower taxes. That is what Leicestershire County Council has done, and I congratulate it on it. I fully agree with what my hon. Friend has said.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

The Government are saying that the community renewal fund is a fantastic opportunity for Wales, yet Bridgend county is not listed as a priority place for the fund. On 10 February at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister invented a world-leading battery plant for Bridgend in response to the significant job losses we have faced across my county borough in the last two years, something the Prime Minister has still refused to apologise to my constituents for. When will he stop treating my constituents as an afterthought, keep true to his promise of not a penny less for Wales and ensure that he brings real investment to my constituents in Ogmore?

[The Prime Minister]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, in Ogmore and across Wales, the people of Wales and the Welsh Government will receive an additional £5.2 billion of resource funding, on top of the spring Budget funding of 2020-21; £800 million of the levelling up fund is going to the devolved nations; and each local authority in Wales—each local authority in Wales—will receive £125,000 in capacity funding. I look forward to working with him and with Welsh local government to deliver those improvements.

[Mr Speaker]

That was the final question, and I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements before we start the next business.

Integrated Review

Boris Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy, which we are publishing today.

The overriding purpose of this review, the most comprehensive since the cold war, is to make the United Kingdom stronger, safer and more prosperous, while standing up for our values. Our international policy is a vital instrument for fulfilling this Government’s vision of uniting and levelling up across our country, reinforcing the Union, and securing Britain’s place as a science superpower and a hub of innovation and research. The review describes how we will bolster our alliances, strengthen our capabilities, find new ways of reaching solutions, and relearn the art of competing against states with opposing values. We will be more dynamic abroad and more focused on delivering for our citizens at home.

I begin with the essential fact that the fortunes of the British people are, almost uniquely, interlinked with events on the far side of the world. With limited natural resources, we have always earned our living as a maritime trading nation. In 2019, the UK sold goods and services overseas worth £690 billion—fully a third of our gross domestic product—sustaining millions of jobs and livelihoods everywhere from Stranraer to St Ives, and making our country the fifth biggest exporter in the world. Between 5 million and 6 million Britons—nearly one in 10 of us—live permanently overseas, including 175,000 in the Gulf and nearly 2 million in Asia and Australasia, so a crisis in any of those regions or in the trade routes connecting them would be a crisis for us from the very beginning.

The truth is that even if we wished it, and of course we do not, the UK could never turn inward or be content with the cramped horizons of a regional foreign policy. For us, there are no far away countries of which we know little. Global Britain is not a reflection of old obligations, still less a vainglorious gesture, but is a necessity for the safety and prosperity of the British people in the decades ahead.

I am determined that the UK will join our friends to ensure that free societies flourish after the pandemic, sharing the risks and burdens of addressing the world’s toughest problems. The UK’s presidency of the G7 has already produced agreement to explore a global treaty on pandemic preparedness, working through the World Health Organisation to enshrine the steps that countries will need to take to prevent another covid. We will host COP26 in Glasgow in November and rally as many nations as possible behind the target of net zero by 2050, leading by example since the UK was the first major economy to accept this obligation in law. Britain will remain unswervingly committed to NATO and preserving peace and security in Europe.

From this secure basis, we will seek out friends and partners wherever they can be found, building a coalition for openness and innovation and engaging more deeply in the Indo-Pacific. I have invited the leaders of Australia, South Korea and India to attend the G7 summit in Carbis Bay in June, and I am delighted to announce that I will visit India next month to strengthen our friendship with the world’s biggest democracy. Our approach will place diplomacy first. The UK has applied to become a dialogue partner of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and we will seek to join the trans-Pacific free trade agreement.

But all our international goals rest upon keeping our people safe at home and deterring those who would do us harm, so we will create a counter-terrorism operations centre, bringing together our ability to thwart the designs of terrorists, while also dealing with the actions of hostile states—it is almost exactly three years since the Russian state used a chemical weapon in Salisbury, killing an innocent mother, Dawn Sturgess, and bringing fear to a tranquil city. I can announce that the National Cyber Force, which conducts offensive cyber-operations against terrorists, hostile states and criminal gangs, will in future be located in a cyber-corridor in the north-west of England.

[Mr Speaker]

Chorley.

[The Prime Minister]

Close, Mr Speaker.

We will also establish a cross-Government situation centre in the Cabinet Office, learning the lessons of the pandemic and improving our use of data to anticipate and respond to future crises.

The first outcome of the integrated review was the Government’s decision to invest an extra £24 billion in defence, allowing the wholesale modernisation of our armed forces and taking forward the renewal of our nuclear deterrent. The new money will be focused on mastering the emerging technologies that are transforming warfare, reflecting the premium placed on speed of deployment and technical skill, and my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will set out the details next week.

Later this year, HMS Queen Elizabeth will embark on her maiden deployment, leading a carrier strike group on a 20,000-mile voyage to the Indo-Pacific and back, exercising with Britain’s allies and partners along the way and demonstrating the importance that we attach to freedom of the seas.

By strengthening our armed forces, we will extend British influence, while simultaneously creating jobs across the United Kingdom, reinforcing the Union and maximising our advantage in science and technology. This Government will invest more in research and development than any of our predecessors because innovation is the key to our success at home and abroad, from speeding our economic recovery, to shaping emerging technologies in accordance with freedom and openness. We will better protect ourselves against threats to our economic security.

Our newly independent trade policy will be an instrument for ensuring that the rules and standards in future trade agreements reflect our values. Our newly independent sanctions policy already allows the UK to act swiftly and robustly wherever necessary, and we were the first European country to sanction the generals in Myanmar after the coup last month.

In all our endeavours, the United States will be our greatest ally and a uniquely close partner in defence, intelligence and security. Britain’s commitment to the security of our European home will remain unconditional and immoveable, incarnated by our leadership of NATO’s deployment in Estonia.

We shall stand up for our values, as well as for our interests, and here I commend the vigilance and dedication of hon. Members from all parties, because the UK, with the wholehearted support of this whole House, has led the international community in expressing our deep concern over China’s mass detention of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang province, and in giving nearly three million of Hong Kong’s people a route to British citizenship.

There is no question that China will pose a great challenge for an open society such as ours, but we will also work with China where that is consistent with our values and interests, including in building a stronger and positive economic relationship and in addressing climate change.

The greater our unity at home, the stronger our influence abroad, which will, in turn, open up new markets and create jobs in every corner of the UK, not only maximising opportunities for the British people, but, I hope, inspiring a sense of pride that their country is willing to follow in its finest traditions and stand up for what is right. With the extra investment and new capabilities of the integrated review, the United Kingdom can thrive in an ever more competitive world and fulfil our historic mission as a force for good. I commend this statement to the House.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

We want the integrated review to work. Threats to our national security are increasing; they are becoming more complex and less predictable. The Government must get this review right, but it is built on foundations that have been weakened over the past decade. The Prime Minister has spoken of an era of retreat; he is right. In the last decade of Conservative Government, defence spending and pay for the armed forces both fell in real terms. Our armed forces’ numbers have been cut by 45,000, and there is still a black hole of £17 billion in the defence equipment plan. Although we welcome the long-overdue increase in capital funding, the creation of a counter-terrorism operations centre and new investment in cyber, the Prime Minister cannot avoid the question that everyone in our armed forces and their families will be asking today: will there be further cuts to the strength of our Army and our armed forces? The British Army is already 6,000 below the minimal level set out in the last review. It has been cut every year for the past decade, and it is being reported that the Army will see a further reduction of 10,000, alongside fewer tanks, fewer jets for the RAF and fewer frigates for the Royal Navy.

Prime Minister, if those reports are untrue, can that be said today? Successive Conservative Prime Ministers have cut the armed forces, but at least they have had the courage to come to this House and say so. This statement was silent on the issue. After everything that the armed forces have done for us, the Prime Minister has a duty to be straight with them today.

Turning to foreign policy, Britain needs to be a moral force for good in the world once again, leading the fight against climate change; strengthening multinational alliances, including NATO; championing human rights; valuing international development; and ensuring that trade deals protect high standards and public services. But there is a huge gap between that and the Government’s actions. The review rightly concludes that Russia remains the most acute threat to our security. That is not new. Eighteen months ago, the Russia review concluded that the threat was “urgent and immediate”, so why has none of its recommendations been implemented?

The integrated review talks about the importance of upholding international law, I agree, but from Europe to the Indian Ocean, this Government now have a reputation for breaking international law, not defending it. We welcome the deepening of engagement in the Indo-Pacific region, but that comes on the back of an inconsistent policy towards China for a decade. Conservative Governments have spent 10 years turning a blind eye to human rights abuses while inviting China to help build our infrastructure. That basic inconsistency is now catching up with them.

The review also talks of conflict resolution, yet there is nothing about updating our arms export regime, and in particular suspending arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The Prime Minister’s statement did not mention international development, and I wonder why—because he is cutting development spending for the first time in decades and denying the House a vote on it. If global Britain is to mean anything, it cannot mean selling arms to Saudi Arabia and cutting aid to Yemen.

I voted for the renewal of Trident, and the Labour party’s support for nuclear deterrence is non-negotiable, but this review breaks the goal of successive Prime Ministers and cross-party efforts to reduce our nuclear stockpile. It does not explain when, why or for what strategic purpose, so the Prime Minister needs to answer that question today.

On trade, we recognise the need for new and ambitious trade deals. There needs to be a major boost in UK exports over the next decade, but that has to start with making a success of the Brexit deal, and that will not happen unless we remove the new red tape that is now holding British businesses back.

Britain should and could be a moral force for good in the world. After a decade of neglect, this review was the chance to turn a corner, but there is now a very real risk that our armed forces will be stripped back even further, and that this review will not end the era of retreat—in fact, it will extend it.

[The Prime Minister]

First, we have one of the toughest arms export regimes in the world under the consolidated guidance. Anybody listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not realise that we are the second biggest international donor of aid in the G7.

It is absolutely preposterous to hear the Labour leader calling for more investment in our armed forces when this is the biggest investment in our armed forces since the cold war—£24 billion—and when it was not so long ago that he was campaigning very hard, without dissent, to install a leader of the Labour party as Prime Minister who wanted to withdraw from NATO and disband our armed forces. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) heckles me from the shadow Front Bench, but it is ridiculous for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to talk about our nuclear defences when the reality is that Labour is all over the place. The last time the House voted on protecting our nuclear defences, the shadow Foreign Secretary voted against it, and so did the current Labour deputy leader. They want to talk about standing up for our armed forces. Just in the last year, the Labour party has been given the opportunity to back our armed services, our armed forces, our troops and our soldiers in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. They had the chance to stand up for veterans. They voted against it on a three-line Whip. Those are the instincts of the Labour party—weak on supporting our troops, weak on backing Britain when it matters, and weak on defence.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has pointed out that the present Labour leadership is more on the side of Ernest Bevin, who was against fascism and against the left wing both at home and abroad, and that is a sign of some kind of unity.

The Prime Minister did not mention development much in his statement, and I ask him to meet us to have a discussion on it. The question of meeting the 0.7%—70p in every £100 of our income—has been agreed; the Government said that that would be maintained. They now say that there will be a gap and it will be restored. We want that gap to be evaporated—to go away and not to happen. The aid goes down with our income; it should go up with our income, and we should meet the commitment we made in successive manifestos. I leave it to the Prime Minister to say when those who are concerned for aid for Yemen, the Voluntary Service Overseas and others will get an answer as to whether they will be cut as well. I want to stand beside the Prime Minister as well as behind him, and we want to do what he wrote in our 2019 manifesto and proudly meet that commitment.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his points. People listening to this debate might not grasp that this country is actually the biggest European donor to Yemen; we have given £1 billion over the past six years and £87 million this year. I do not think people grasp that we are giving £10 billion in international aid. We can be very proud of what we are doing. Of course, we will return to the 0.7% target when fiscal circumstances allow.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]]

I thank the Prime Minister for advance copy of his statement, and I thank my Scottish National party colleagues, led by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) and for Stirling (Alyn Smith), who compiled on behalf of the SNP a substantial and constructive submission to the consultation on the review.

This statement is one more insight into just how hollow the brand of global Britain actually is. The Prime Minister’s rhetoric always fails to come close to reality. Today, the Prime Minister preaches about international obligations, but only yesterday we saw that our closest partners in the EU are bringing his Government to court for breaking international law.

The Prime Minister talks about partnership with nations around the world in the very week that the most senior figures in the US, including the Speaker of Congress, warned against the UK’s increasingly unilateralist approach. The chasm between the Prime Minister’s rhetoric and the reality of his Government’s actions is deeply damaging. Just because the Prime Minister wastes £2.6 million on desperately trying to copy the White House’s press briefing room, that does not hide the reality of the UK’s weakening global influence.

Given the limited time available, let me ask a number of specific questions to which we demand answers. On cuts to Army personnel, we were promised that 12,500 personnel would be stationed permanently in Scotland; not only does the current number remain well below 10,000, but overall cuts to the Army of 10,000 are expected. Is the Prime Minister prepared to admit that this is one more broken Tory promise to our armed forces and to the people of Scotland?

On international aid cuts, the review fails to reinstate immediately our moral obligation and the Conservative party’s manifesto commitment to spending 0.7% of gross national income on aid and development. Under the Prime Minister’s plan, countries devastated by war and famine—Yemen, Syria and South Sudan—will have their humanitarian aid slashed. Only this morning, it has emerged that the UK Government also plan to cut their human rights support and anti-corruption measures by a staggering 80%. If the Prime Minister is prepared to stand up for such callous cuts, is he also prepared to guarantee that he will allow for a straight vote on them in the House of Commons?

Finally, on Trident nuclear weapons, the review disgracefully endorses the attainment of 80 more of these weapons of mass destruction. Will the Prime Minister tell us who gave his Government the democratic right to renege on the UK’s obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

[The Prime Minister]

This Government continue to invest massively in projects that will bring benefit to the whole of the UK, including Scotland. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that there will be further investments in Lossiemouth, and that there is no threat to the Black Watch, which he and his colleagues sometimes like to raise in order to alarm people.

We will continue to invest massively in overseas development aid, which the right hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned. We are very proud of what we are doing—and by the way, it delivers 500 jobs in East Kilbride. We will continue to invest in shipbuilding, which drives jobs across the whole of the UK, and particularly in Scotland. It is fantastic to see ships being built by apprentices in Govan, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has. The only thing that endangers those investments and our working together as one UK—working with all the fantastic people in the armed services in Scotland—is the reckless referendum that his party insists on calling at the most inapposite time possible for this country.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I very much welcome the comprehensive ambitions set out in this important integrated review paper. There is a 1930s feel to the scale of challenges that we face today, with rising authoritarian powers, weak global institutions, and an absence of western leadership and collective resolve. I was hoping for a Fulton, Missouri moment when we finally call out China for the geo-strategic threat that it is, and a commitment to our aid budget. I do hope that the Prime Minister will summon that Atlantic charter spirit of working together with our closest ally, the United States, to strengthen the rules-based order, such as advancing the G7 to the G10, which could form the backbone for revising the trade and security standards that our ever-dangerous world so desperately needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I must say that I think there is a balance to be struck, because, after all, we have a strong trading relationship with China worth about £81 billion. China is the second largest economy in the world and a fact of our lives, and we must accept that fact in a clear-eyed way. But we also have to be tough where we see risk. That is why this Government have brought in the National Security and Investment Bill to protect our intellectual property. That is why we are protecting our critical national infrastructure. That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has done more than virtually any other Foreign Secretary around the world to call out what China is doing in Xinjiang. That is why this Government have offered a place—a refuge and abode—to 3 million Hong Kong Chinese who may be in fear of persecution as a result of what is happening in Hong Kong. This Government take a very, very clear-eyed approach to what is happening in China. It is a balanced approach and one that I think the British people understand.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have heard a lot of words like “ambition” and “innovation”, so let me bring the Prime Minister a little bit back down to earth, and sea. We have an aircraft carrier strike group with not enough aircraft and not enough ships to support it. We have rotting nuclear submarines, not a single one of which has been decommissioned. We have living accommodation for single personnel and families that is woefully inadequate and needing investment. Quite simply, the maths does not add up. The gap in what is needed to just deliver what is in-plan now is huge, even with the additional investment, so perhaps the Prime Minister could level with the House, the country and our armed forces and tell us now what is going to be cut so that this can be afforded.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady should recognise that this is the biggest commitment in spending on our armed forces since the cold war. Labour left a black hole in our defence money of £38 billion. [Interruption.] Yes, they did. This is a massive investment and it is designed to deal with the chronic problems that previous Governments have failed to address—modernising our forces with AI, with the future combat air system, and finally moving into cyber. I think that is the hard-edged investment this country needs to modernise our forces and take them forward. Labour consistently failed to do that.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

As the Prime Minister just mentioned the National Security and Investment Bill, I hope I can rely on him to help the Intelligence and Security Committee to remove the obstacles that are being placed in our way in wishing to scrutinise the work of the Investment Security Unit.

Although there are strong analytical aspects to this review, it is suggested on pages 62 to 63 that our adversary, communist China,

“is an increasingly important partner in tackling global challenges like pandemic preparedness”—

if you please—and that we want

“deeper trade links and more Chinese investment in the UK.”

Does not that unfortunately demonstrate that the grasping naivety of the Cameron-Osborne years still lingers on in some Departments of State?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Those who call for a new cold war on China or for us to sequester our economy entirely from China, which would seem to be the new policy of the Opposition, weaving, as they generally do, from one position to the next, are, I think, mistaken. We have a balance to strike and we need to have a clear-eyed relationship with China. Of course we are protecting our critical national infrastructure, and we will continue to do that, and we will make sure that through the National Security and Investment Bill we protect our intellectual property. We will take tough measures, as I have said, to call out China for what it is doing in Xinjiang. There is no one around the world who has done more on that matter than my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or this Government, and we will continue to do that. Companies that profit from trade in forced labour will not be allowed to do so in this country. I think the whole House should be very proud of what we are doing.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]]

I am really shocked that development is barely mentioned in the integrated review. When will the Prime Minister understand that full tummies, economic opportunity and stable Governments create the stronger, safer and more prosperous world that he wants, not more nuclear weapons? Looking at the cuts that we know of so far— cuts to the conflict, stability and security fund and 80% cuts in aid corruption work—how do they make sense to create this stable world? When do the Government plan to publish their development strategy, and will they actually consult the non-governmental organisations, the global south and, indeed, Parliament and the International Development Committee on this review? Please, tell us—we need to know the details.

[The Prime Minister]

As I have just explained, development remains an absolutely critical part of the UK’s foreign and overseas policy, and £10 billion is being spent this year alone. Given what this country has been going through and given that we have been obliged to spend £280 billion to prop up jobs and livelihoods, another £63 billion to support the NHS and £37 billion on supporting local councils, I think it is up to Members opposite to say which of that support for the NHS they would cut and what they would reduce to spend more on overseas aid. Of course we want the percentage to go back up again when fiscal circumstances allow, but I think people of common sense understand that £10 billion is a huge sum in the current circumstances, and they will appreciate that it is right to wait until fiscal circumstances have improved.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I very much welcome the integrated review as it is set out, and I welcome its aspiration to coherence. I also welcome the fact that many of the ideas, not just the author, have been stolen from the Foreign Affairs Committee, and for that I am very grateful. But may I ask that some of the aspects we have touched on in the past few years are addressed in the strategies that have not been clarified in today’s paper—strategies on artificial intelligence and, indeed, on different forms of financial threats? Where we need to see the UK setting up for ourselves is not just in aid and sticking to the 0.7%, which the Prime Minister has already touched on, but also in platforms, making sure that we do not just reallocate aid to defence, but actually increase the number of ships so that our presence in the east is real, not digital. We also need to look hard at the new threats—from cryptocurrency to the financial mis-dealings in the city of London—that threaten our national security so obviously, whether that is dirty Russian money or, increasingly, dirty Chinese money. We need to stand up for Britain’s interests and bring these tools together. This is a very welcome start, but will the Prime Minister please put some meat on those bones and make sure, when we hear the Command Paper next week, that we do not find that this is a snowstorm without the pounds attached?

[The Prime Minister]

It is a pretty big blizzard of a snowstorm when we consider that there is £24 billion and the biggest investment since the cold war. We cover every aspect of the subjects that my hon. Friend has just raised, from artificial intelligence to the threat of cryptocurrencies, and it remains the case that the UK, under these proposals, will continue to be able to project—one of the few countries in the world to be able to project—force 8,000 miles, thanks to our carrier strike force, and we are making the investments now. We are making the investments now that are grasping the nettle that previous Governments have failed to grasp for decades.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]]

Reneging on the commitment to retain 0.7% of GNI on development spending is a short-sighted mistake, and the Prime Minister’s promise that it will be just temporary is not good enough. After all, he said in his own party’s manifesto he would not cut it. Weasel words on aid will not wash. The Prime Minister has said a number of times during this statement so far that aid spending will be restored “when fiscal circumstances allow”, but we all know that the fallout from this pandemic is going to last years, if not decades, so will the Prime Minister promise the House today that this unlawful development cut will be for one year, and if it might be for longer, why does he not just seek a vote on it?

[The Prime Minister]

The habit of reading out questions that have been prepared means that I am obliged to return the hon. Lady the answer I gave just a little while ago. We will of course return to the 0.7% when fiscal circumstances allow, but I think that, in the meantime, most people in this country will be amazed, proud and pleased that, in spite of the difficulties we face, we are spending £10 billion on the poorest and neediest around the world.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

There is much to be welcomed in my right hon. Friend’s statement today, but is he not concerned that our position as chair of the G7 is undermined by Britain being the only country in the G7 that is cutting its development budget, in breach of our clear party manifesto commitment? If he is determined to pursue this aspect of his policy—I know my right hon. Friend; he is a democrat—when will he bring it to the House for a vote? Otherwise, he may be in danger, as from the start of the new financial year, of creating an unlawful Budget.

[The Prime Minister]

I have great respect and admiration for my right hon. Friend, who has campaigned for many years on international development and done much good, but I have to say, listening to contributions from around the Chamber, that we are in danger of talking Britain down. The investments we are making are colossal—absolutely colossal—by any international standards. We are the second-biggest contributor of aid in the G7 already, and in spite of all the difficulties occasioned by the pandemic, we are contributing £10 billion this year to support the poorest and neediest in the world. Yes, I can reassure my right hon. Friend that we will return to the 0.7% when the fiscal circumstances allow, but the law makes it very clear that when we have exceptional circumstances—I do not think anybody in this House or around the world would contest that we have had exceptional circumstances—we are entitled to vary that 0.7% commitment, and that is what we are doing.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]]

Given that the Prime Minister said the climate crisis is his No. 1 international priority, it is disappointing that there is a climate-shaped hole at the heart of the Prime Minister’s review, with resources dangerously diverted to nuclear weapons. Earlier today, the Foreign Secretary justified breaking our nuclear non-proliferation treaty obligations on the grounds that nuclear weapons are

“the ultimate insurance policy against the worst threat from hostile states.”

The logical consequence of that position is surely that every country should be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons on the same insurance policy grounds. If such nuclear proliferation happens, and since we are increasing our nuclear warheads by more than 40%, how could we possibly have any moral authority to speak out against it? If that nuclear proliferation happens, does the Prime Minister think the world as a whole will be more safe or less safe?

[The Prime Minister]

It is entertaining to see the shadow Foreign Secretary nodding along to the hon. Lady’s denunciation of nuclear weapons after what we heard from the Labour leader—quite extraordinary. I really do not think the hon. Lady can have been reading the integrated review at all, because it sets out very clearly that we will be investing £11.6 billion internationally on tackling climate change. It develops the 10-point plan that the UK is advancing for tackling the emission of greenhouse gases. It stresses that this is the major western economy to go for a net zero target by 2050. She should be applauding the document, but I have to assume that she has not yet properly read it.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

I very much welcome this integrated review, although I think there will be challenges in re-engineering Whitehall for this common purpose. How does my right hon. Friend assess the threat from Iran to the Gulf region and the UK’s strategic interests? What does he believe the opportunities are for increased peace and prosperity as a result of the signing of the Abraham accords between Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who knows whereof he speaks and has done much to advance the cause of peace in the middle east. It was an unexpected breakthrough for many in the foreign policy establishment to see the Abraham accords, and I think a significant and positive step forward. As for Iran, I must tell him—I am sure he knows—that we remain extremely concerned by Iran’s influence and disruptive behaviour in the region. In particular, of course, we are concerned by the risk of Iran developing a viable nuclear weapon. That is why we think it right that Iran should be in compliance with the joint comprehensive plan of action not just for the benefit of the region, but for the benefit and security of the people of Iran.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]]

This integrated review looks like a desperate, confused and self-important search for purpose, far, far removed from the concerns of the people of Wales. With Welsh trade with our most important trading partner, the EU, collapsing as a result of the fundamental political and strategic error of our exit, is it not increasingly clear that the best interests of my country would be served not by squandering billions and more on literally useless nuclear weapons, but by our ability to pursue our own course in the world?

[The Prime Minister]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the people of Wales voted to leave the EU. I think they did the right thing, for all sorts of reasons. Not that I think he supports them, but it is the Welsh Labour Government who continue to squander money hand over fist on all sorts of projects that I do not believe are in the interests of the people of Wales, including £144 million on a study for a bypass alone.

[Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) [V]]

I welcome this integrated review. I recognise how difficult it is to do one during a pandemic. I am worried about designating China simply as a systemic challenge, given the terrible events in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. Will the Prime Minister keep that under review? Does he agree that because the 0.7% cut is strictly temporary, relating to the pandemic, there is no need to amend legislation? Finally is not one of the most important reasons to build up Britain’s might to stand squarely behind individual British citizens in peril, such as Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, so that there are no more victims of Iran’s vile hostage diplomacy?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes indeed, my right hon. Friend is right in what he says about the ODA commitment and right in what he says about China. Of course we will keep that under review, although, as I said, the balance has to be struck. He is also right that the UK Government should stick up for British citizens, and I thank him for everything he did during his tenure as Foreign Secretary to secure the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. It is a disgrace that she remains effectively in captivity in Tehran, and on 10 March I raised that very matter with President Rouhani myself.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Will he outline the strategy to bring back into line recruitment of foot soldiers post covid, as well as recruitment of cyber-soldiers? May I highlight that the centre for cyber security in Europe is Belfast in Northern Ireland, with trained staff and low rates? Will he consider basing security in Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

The first point to make about the armed forces is that there will be no redundancies under this plan. There will be massive investment in our land forces and particularly in cyber-forces. We are taking the tough decisions needed to modernise and improve our armed forces. Yes, it is expensive—it requires £24 billion to do it—but it means taking historic and difficult decisions now, and that is what we are doing.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) [V]]

As someone who is proud to represent a constituency with tens of thousands of defence and aerospace jobs, I am delighted that at the heart of the review is investment in domestic industries. Does the Prime Minister think that increasing our sovereign defence manufacturing capability will assist us strategically in projecting power and sustaining operations across the globe?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, and one of the things that our defence investments can do is help to entrench our Union and build jobs and growth across the whole of the United Kingdom. There is now a steady stream of shipbuilding contracts and many other defence contracts that will drive high-quality jobs for a generation to come.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]]

Will the Prime Minister explain how building national resilience will include the digital transformation of the security and intelligence agencies, where the resources will come from, and whether it will include industry and international partners?

[The Prime Minister]

As I just said to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we are investing massively in cyber and in upgrading the cyber-skills of our troops.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]]

The late and respected American Senator John McCain said in a 2008 speech:

“We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact—a League of Democracies—that can harness the vast influence of the more than 100 democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.”

Can my right hon. Friend’s welcome vision, set out today, be aligned with smaller nations around the world such as Kurdistan, in northern Iraq, and Israel, which are vanguards of religious pluralism, democracy, a free society, the rule of law and security against terrorism? Can Great Britain lead a new alliance of democracies around the world, as proposed by the late Senator John McCain?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. Our commitment to Israeli security is unwavering, and we continue to work closely with our partners in the Kurdish region of Iraq.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister level with the country and tell us exactly how he plans to reduce the armed forces by 10,000 in the years ahead?

[The Prime Minister]

I have already explained that this is the biggest investment in our armed forces since the cold war, and there will be no redundancies across the armed forces.

[Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) [V]]

I have been absolutely honoured this year to spend time with the Royal Navy, as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. In a world where new powers are using new tools to redefine the international order, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we now invest in new technologies such as cyber so that our fantastic armed forces personnel are fully equipped to face 21st-century challenges to our nation’s defence?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed, and that is why we are investing in cyber and in shipbuilding. By the end of this decade, we will have 24 frigates, as opposed to the 15 today.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister says that he is tough on illegal migration at home, but withdrawing and reducing aid, development and military support in areas of conflict, famine, war and instability will drive a new wave of international migration. Does he not accept that he cannot be tough, and claim to be tough, on illegal migration at home if his policies are driving it to start with?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is not right; in fact, I think he is talking total nonsense. The most effective thing we can do to ensure that we protect ourselves against illegal migration is to do what we have done, which is take back control of our borders—a measure that he and the Labour party opposed, and that the Labour party would repudiate.

[Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) [V]]

I strongly welcome and support my right hon. Friend’s statement today on our post-Brexit strategy, which is set out in the integrated review. Does he agree that global Britain needs to maximise and co-ordinate its opportunities to promote and protect British industry and interests across the world, including those of our overseas territories?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend. He is quite right because this integrated review supports our overseas territories and our Crown dependencies, and our armed forces will continue to deter challenges to Gibraltar. We will maintain a permanent presence on the Falkland Islands, Ascension Island and the British Indian ocean territories. We will use our increased maritime presence around the world to protect the very territories and dependencies that he mentions.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]]

Today we heard the PM speak about a premium based on speed. However, Scotland’s waters make up over 60% of UK waters, while the Royal Navy’s most northern surface warship base is on the UK’s southern coast. Can he confirm that this review means that, despite regular territorial incursions from Russia’s navy and air force, Scotland still hosts no major surface warships—a fact that means that scrambling the fleet ready escort to Scottish waters takes 24 hours? How on earth is that a premium based on speed?

[The Prime Minister]

I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s emphatic desire, as a Scottish nationalist—a member of the SNP—for a UK defence role. I think he is absolutely right. But I can tell him that the salient point is that all our nuclear deterrent—all our submarines, I should say, are based on the Clyde.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) [V]]

I strongly welcome the much greater coherence that this review will deliver to our national security strategy, both for our nation’s immediate defence and so that all its elements are working together towards an open international order and being a force for good in the world, supporting open societies, human rights and good governance. As part of this, can I continue to assume that we will honour our commitment to be the country that leads the world in helping hundreds of millions of LGBT people to have the freedom to be themselves, with all the benefits that come from that for the prosperity of those states and the wealth of the spirit of the individuals involved?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is totally right. This is one of the areas that I know that every embassy and consulate in the Foreign Office campaigns on. I believe that we make a huge difference around the world. There are countries that have changed their policies on marriage and their approach to LGBT issues in response to British lobbying. The latest Magnitsky sanctions that we have implemented are in respect of Chechnya for its policy on LGBT issues. We will continue to campaign and evangelise for our values and our beliefs around the world.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

I draw the House’s attention to the fact that I am a member of the board of governors of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. In that capacity, I am aware of the importance of the work that it and other organisations do in protecting open, democratic societies across the globe. Not being a Scottish nationalist, I am also aware how important that is to the UK’s own national interest. Can the Prime Minister assure us that that work will continue despite the difficulties we face following the current financial year?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can. I have seen the excellent work that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy does around the world. I have personally attended debates that it has championed in countries where democracy is precarious, and I thank the hon. Lady very much for what she is doing.

[Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) [V]]

Our international ambitions must start at home, and through the integrated review we will drive investment back into our communities. It is essential that we ensure that the UK is on the cutting edge of innovation and create an entire country that is match-fit for a more competitive world. In my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent Central, advanced ceramics from local firm Lucideon recently landed on Mars. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sky is not the limit when it comes to innovation?

[The Prime Minister]

I am thrilled and amazed to hear that ceramics from my hon. Friend’s constituency have landed on Mars. That is not the limit of our ambitions, as she knows, because the National Space Council has recently approved all sorts of missions and ambitions for the UK. But the point of what we are doing is not just to push back the frontiers of science and knowledge across the universe, but to drive jobs and growth in her constituency and around the whole UK. That is the point of the global Britain agenda, because we believe that by exerting British influence in the world in the way that we are, we can drive the UK economy and drive prosperity here at home.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) [V]]

I declare my interest as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I welcome the recognition in the integrated review of threats to our democracy and the role that technology, disinformation and other forms of hybrid warfare play in those threats. On that basis, can the Prime Minister confirm that the online safety Bill that will be presented to the House this year will contain sufficient powers to tackle collective online harms, including threats to our democracy?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]]

The integrated review is clearly extremely welcome. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a vigorous approach to foreign policy that recognises the importance of the Indo-Pacific region is key? Does he also agree that a truly global Britain that forges strategic ties with future superpowers, such as Brazil, which partnered with us in the development of the Oxford vaccine, is also of crucial importance?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that I speak for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, for my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North himself when I say that we understand the importance of Brazil. I share his analysis about the future of Brazil. Together with the Canning of our times, the Foreign Secretary, we intend to build closer relationships not just with Brazil and the rest of the Mercosur countries, but with the Pacific Alliance countries too.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]]

With hostile states, non-state actors, terror and crime groups all posing a threat to the UK and our allies, it is important to be prepared to adapt and develop our cyber-technology and capabilities. However, increasing our nuclear weapons arsenal is something I cannot condone. Both President Biden and Putin renewed their bilateral New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty on nuclear weapons reductions just last month, so why is the Prime Minister going against the flow by increasing our arsenal?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we are committed to nuclear arms reduction. Indeed, we believe that China should be brought into strategic nuclear arms reduction, but one of the most important things about having a credible deterrent for friend and foe alike is setting out what we have, and that is what this integrated review does.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) [V]]

I thank the PM for an important statement about the future security of our proud nation. Addressing both the challenges and opportunities the UK faces in a more competitive world is needed, especially when those who seek to harm us are using all the tools of modern technology at their disposal. Lancashire has a proud history of engineering technology solutions, so does the Prime Minister agree that in the future more investment in our technologies, such as cyber, will be key to our defence? Will he take account of Lancashire’s skills and ability to deliver?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that my hon. Friend was listening very carefully to the statement, and she will have spotted that there is a commitment to the north-west and to cyber in Lancashire. [Interruption.] I have heard your representations, Mr Speaker. You will have to wait for the Defence Secretary to explain exactly where it is going to be. To boost those skills and jobs for the long term and to make that transformation in defence technology that Lancashire is undoubtedly going to lead, we are investing £6.6 billion in defence research and development over the next four years.

[Mr Speaker]

We will certainly take Lancashire, even if the Prime Minister cannot say whereabouts.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]]

The review and the Prime Minister’s statement are typically big on words, but scant on detail or strategy. It was a mass of contradictions steeped in a lack of realism when it comes to affordability and scope, and there was zero acknowledgement of the harm that years of underinvestment in our nation’s defence have caused. Ultimately, the world will judge him and his Government on their actions, so can he explain how breaching article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty fits with his commitment to international law?

[The Prime Minister]

I never saw such a seething mass of contradictions as the Opposition Front Bench, because we only have to go a few yards from the Leader of the Opposition to the shadow Foreign Secretary to find a complete gulf in their view on the very matter that the hon. Lady raises. The Leader of the Opposition claims to be in favour of the nuclear deterrent, and the shadow Foreign Secretary voted against it. The most consistent thing that our friends and allies, as well as our foes around the world need to know is that the UK is committed to the defence of this country and to our nuclear defence.

[Mr Speaker]

We do have to make sure that when we say how people voted, we are correct.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) [V]]

There is much to commend in this statement from the Prime Minister, but I am saddened to hear that we will be balancing the books on the backs of the poor. We are devastating the amount of money going to Yemen and Sudan, to mention just two countries where children, mothers and whole families are devastated by what they have to face. We are also aware that although funding is being decided, VSO currently does not know when that funding is coming. If it does not have funding by the end of this month, it will have to end its covid-19 response programme in 18 countries, leaving 4.5 million people without support. That decision cannot easily be reversed, so will the Prime Minister tell the House whether VSO will have some money to continue, and if not, when that funding decision will be taken?

[The Prime Minister]

I have much enjoyed working with my hon. Friend over the years, and I understand what she says about Yemen. I repeat: most people in this country will be reassured to know that the UK Government continue to be one of the biggest providers for the people of Yemen—the biggest in Europe. I strongly support VSO, which some of my family have done. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be setting out the position shortly.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]]

Despite 20 years of bloodshed, the integrated review makes only two glancing references to Afghanistan. Given that 150,000 people, including 457 British servicemen and women, have lost their lives in that conflict, will the Prime Minister say how the UK will help to establish a lasting peace in the region?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have repeatedly told President Ghani of Afghanistan, our commitment is for the long term. He knows the difficulties of the current situation, and the decisions that the US Government have to take. The UK is working hard to ensure that there is a viable process, and that we do not see a return to the kind of civil war that I am afraid has bedevilled Afghanistan. I believe that the legacy of this Government and this country in Afghanistan—and the commitment of British troops, as well as the loss of life to which the hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention—is a proud one. We must ensure that it is not betrayed, and that we leave a legacy in the education of women and the security of the people of Afghanistan that is lasting and that endures.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

As a former soldier, may I reassure the Prime Minister that taking the review back to first principles, and assessing the future capability requirements against the threat, is absolutely the right thing to do? Will he reassure me that where restructuring is needed—notably perhaps in my own service—our people will be looked after?

[The Prime Minister]

We are determined to look after all the wonderful men and women of our armed services, not just by protecting them after they have served, and by protecting veterans who may be at risk of vexatious litigation in the way I have described; we also have to ensure that we look after people during their service. In particular, we must look after families, who often bear the brunt of the commitments and sacrifices that our armed services make. That is why we have committed to wraparound childcare for those involved in our armed services.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

—[Inaudible.]

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) [V]]

May I welcome the Prime Minister’s putting diplomacy at the very heart of the integrated review? With new resources going into the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, do we not have an independent Britain which still needs to be at the heart of multilateral democracy, multilateral institutions and multilateral diplomacy around the world? That includes conflict prevention and conflict resolution.

[The Prime Minister]

We continue to support all the sustainable development goals that my right hon. Friend rightly mentions, and we believe passionately in diplomacy. The flag is going up around the world in embassies, legations and continents. The UK flag is going up, I am proud to say, in Australasia, Africa—around the world.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]]

Why on earth slash budgets used to tackle corruption and promote good governance around the world? Why slash support for the research that our universities do to help the poorest countries to combat disease? Are not these exactly the sort of soft-power policies that deliver positive results and earn respect, rather than extortionate, grotesque and provocative nuclear weapons spending?

[The Prime Minister]

This is the country that spends the most on the global vaccine alliance. This is the country that spends £548 million on COVAX and £1.6 billion on Gavi. We lead the world in health protection, in tackling conflict and poverty, in championing female education around the world. I really think international observers who come across Britons around the world working in these fields would simply not recognise the discussion and debate that they are hearing today in the House of Commons. They know that this is a country that is massively committed to the welfare of the poorest and neediest in the world and will remain so.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us go back to Florence Eshalomi.

[Florence Eshalomi [V]]

Many of my constituents are concerned that much of this review seems to have prioritised the global projection of hard power. The Government have chosen to cut our aid budget to countries in need, such as Syria and Yemen, and this will have serious knock-on effects. My constituent wrote to me and said:

“Britain has a good track record in recognising the crucial role that aid has in alleviating poverty and enhancing health equity.”

Does the Prime Minister agree that this Government’s cuts to aid will not just let the world’s poorest down, but make it more difficult for the Government to achieve their foreign policy objectives and maintain Britain’s global moral authority?

[The Prime Minister]

No, I do not remotely agree with that.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) [V]]

I share the view expressed by the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), at the start. I am proud to be a member of a party which, in its last manifesto, said that it would spend 0.7% of gross national income on overseas aid, but we all know that because of the fall in GNI, the 0.7% represents less money than it did a year ago. Now is not the time to cut our aid to Yemen or to withdraw our support for voluntary services overseas, so will my right hon. Friend consider bridging the gap by additionally donating extra supplies of the world’s finest, safest covid vaccine—the Oxford vaccine—to developing countries?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his suggestion. I remind him of what I said about the commitment of this country to overseas aid, which is enormous by any objective view. On the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, this is the only vaccine in the world, under the terms of the deal struck between the UK Government, the Oxford scientists and AstraZeneca, that is sold at cost around the world. I thank him for raising that, because it is another reason for people in this country to be proud of the outward-looking, engaging, fundamentally compassionate attitude of the British Government and people.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Dealing with authoritarian regimes around the world, especially those that do not want to play by the rules, is always complicated and difficult. I understand that, but we have to be consistent, coherent, determined and brutally tough when we need to be. What I do not understand, in relation to Russia and to China, is why the Government still refuse to declare what is happening in the Xinjiang province as genocide, why they have used every power to try to prevent Parliament from coming to a determination on that, why we will still not use the Magnitsky sanctions—which I applaud the Foreign Secretary for having introduced in the first place—against Carrie Lam for what is happening in Hong Kong, and why we still refuse to do enough about the dirty Russian money that is imperilling our financial transparency in the City of London and in our overseas territories.

[The Prime Minister]

As the House has heard many times, it is up to a competent court to determine whether genocide has taken place. We have consistently called out what has happened in Xinjiang, and what continues to happen. As for the use of Magnitsky sanctions, actually they have been used by this Government against Russia for what it did, and by the way, at that time, Labour Front Benchers, including the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, were sitting like great squatting Buddhas, immobile, while the then Labour leader was effectively endorsing the line from the Kremlin.

[Mr Speaker]

I think we need to be careful about what allegations we are making.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) [V]]

“Global Britain” remains the buzzword, and our armed forces have a key role to play with the integrated review. With that in mind, and given the many responsibilities that my right hon. Friend has committed to, can he reassure me that he will expand the Army to 100,000 as our chief ally, the US, has recommended, rather than see it wither on the vine to 72,000 by cutting recruiting, thereby avoiding redundancies?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Army, including reserves, will be over 100,000, but it is the duty of this Government to take the tough decisions that are necessary to modernise our armed forces as well. That is why we are investing £24 billion and undoing some of the mistakes that I am afraid were made by the previous Labour Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I will now suspend the House for two minutes in order for the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

Oral Answers to Questions

Boris Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 March.

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

The whole House can be proud of the UK’s vaccination programme, with more than 22.5 million people now having received their first dose across the UK. We can also be proud of the support the UK has given to the international covid response, including the £548 million we have donated to COVAX. I therefore wish to correct the suggestion from the European Council President that the UK has blocked vaccine exports. Let me be clear: we have not blocked the export of a single covid-19 vaccine or vaccine components. This pandemic has put us all on the same side in the battle for global health. We oppose vaccine nationalism in all its forms. I trust that Members in all parts of the House will join me in rejecting this suggestion and in calling on all our partners to work together to tackle this pandemic.

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.

[Daisy Cooper [V]]

The Government are throwing a staggering £37 billion at a test and trace system that we know has made barely any difference, yet they say they cannot afford to give more than a pitiful 1% pay rise to NHS workers. The Prime Minister has said that he owes his life to them. He stood on the steps of No. 10 and applauded them. So will the Prime Minister do more than pay lip service? Will he pay them the wage that they deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is indeed right that we owe a huge amount to our nurses—an incalculable debt—which is why I am proud that we have delivered a 12.8% increase in the starting salary of nurses and are asking the pay review body to look at increasing their pay, exceptionally of all the professions in the public sector. As for test and trace, it is thanks to NHS Test and Trace that we are able to send kids back to school and to begin cautiously and irreversibly to reopen our economy and restart our lives.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) [V]]

I recently visited Long Marston, Bovingdon, Rickmansworth and Berkhamsted to see the damage that flooding caused to our communities at first hand. Will the Prime Minister assure this House that as the weather gets better we will not lose the momentum of finding long-term, sustainable solutions to prevent flooding in the future and to give residents the security they deserve all year round, irrespective of the weather outside?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for what he is doing to campaign for his local area on flood defences. I thank the Environment Agency for the tireless, imaginative and creative work it does to find solutions, and we are investing £5.2 billion to build 2,000 new flood defences over the next six years.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Who does the Prime Minister think deserves a pay rise more: an NHS nurse or Dominic Cummings?

[The Prime Minister]

As I told the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) earlier on, we owe a massive debt as a society, and I do personally, to the nurses of our NHS. That is why we have asked the public sector pay review body, exceptionally, to look at their pay. I want to stress, however, that, as the House knows, starting salaries for nurses have gone up by 12.8% over the last three years, and it is thanks to the package that this Government have put in place that we now have 10,600 more nurses in our NHS than there were one year ago and 60,000 more in training.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister says nurses’ pay has gone up; I know he is desperate to distance himself from the Conservatives’ record over the last decade, but as he well knows, since 2010 nurses’ pay has fallen in real terms by more than £800. And he did not answer my question—it was a very simple question. The Prime Minister has been talking about affordability; he could afford to give Dominic Cummings a 40% pay rise. He could afford that; now, he is asking NHS nurses to take a real-terms pay cut. How on earth does he justify that?

[The Prime Minister]

I repeat the point that I have made: I believe that we all owe a massive debt to our nurses and, indeed, all our healthcare workers and social care workers. One of the things that they tell me when I go to hospitals, as I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman does too, is that in addition to pay one of their top concerns is to have more colleagues on the wards to help them with the undoubted stress and strains of the pandemic. That is why we have provided another £5,000 in bursaries for nurses and another £3,000 to help with the particular costs of training and with childcare. It is because of that package that this year we are seeing another 34% increase in applications for nurses. This Government of this party of the NHS are on target to deliver 50,000 more nurses in our NHS.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister talks about recruitment; there are currently 40,000 nursing vacancies and 7,000 doctors’ vacancies. How on earth does he think a pay cut is going to help to solve that? Frankly, I would take the Prime Minister a bit more seriously if he had not spent £2.6 million of taxpayers’ money on a Downing Street TV studio, or £200,000 on new wallpaper for his flat. They say that charity starts at home, but I think the Prime Minister is taking it a bit too literally.

Let me try something very simple: does the Prime Minister accept that NHS staff will be hundreds of pounds worse off a year because of last week’s Budget?

[The Prime Minister]

No. Of course, we will look at what the independent pay review body has to say, exceptionally, about the nursing profession, whom we particularly value, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman should also know, and reflect to the House, that under this Government we not only began with a record increase in NHS funding of £33.9 billion, but because of the pandemic we have put another £63 billion into supporting our NHS, on top of the £140 billion of in-year spending. It is because of this Government that in one year alone there are another 49,000 people working in our NHS. That is something that is of massive benefit not just to patients but to hard-pressed nurses as well.

[Keir Starmer]

My mum was a nurse; my sister was a nurse; my wife works in the NHS—I know what it means to work for the NHS. When I clapped for carers, I meant it; the Prime Minister clapped for carers, then he shut the door in their face at the first opportunity.

The more you look at the Prime Minister’s decision, the worse it gets, because it is not just a pay cut; it is a broken promise, too. Time and time again he said that the NHS would not pay the price for this pandemic. Two years ago, he made a promise to the NHS in black and white: his document commits to a minimum pay rise of 2.1%. It has been budgeted for, and now it is being taken away. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister shakes his head. His MPs voted for it, so why, after everything the NHS has done for us, is he now breaking promise after promise?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman voted against the document in question, which just crowns the absurdity of his point. Under this Government we have massively increased funding for our amazing NHS, with the result that, as I say, there are 6,500 more doctors this year than there were last year, 18,000 more healthcare workers and 10,600 more nurses. We are going to deliver our promises—I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that—and we are going to go on and build 40 more hospitals and recruit 50,000 more nurses, and we are going to get on and deliver on our pledges to the British people. We are going to do that because of our sound management of the economy and the fastest vaccine roll-out programme of any comparable country which, frankly, if we had followed his precept and his ideas, we would certainly not have been able to achieve.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister says that he voted for it; he did. Now he has ripped it up—2.1% ripped up. If he will not listen to me, he should listen to what his own Conservative MPs are saying about this. This is from his own side. This is what they say—behind you, Prime Minister. “It’s inept.” “It’s unacceptable.” “It’s pathetic.” These are Conservative MPs talking about the Prime Minister’s pay cut for nurses, and that was before his answers today. Perhaps the most telling of all the comments came from another MP, sitting behind him, who said:

“The public just hear ‘1 per cent’ and think how mean we are.”

Even his own MPs know that he has got this wrong. Why is he going ahead with it?

[The Prime Minister]

What the public know is that we have increased starting pay for nurses by 12.8% over the past three years. They know that, in the past year, this Government have put another £5,000 bursary into the pockets of nurses, because we support them, as well as the £3,000 extra for training. It is very important that the public sector pay review body should come back with its proposals, and we will, of course, study them. As I say, it is thanks to the investment made by this Government that there are 49,000 more people in the NHS this year than last year. That means that there are 10,600 more nurses helping to relieve the burden on our hard-pressed nurses. That is what this Government are investing in.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister says, “We support them. We’ll reward them.” He is cutting their pay. [Interruption.] “Not true”, he says. Prime Minister, a 1% rise versus a 1.7% inflation rise is a real-terms cut. If he does not understand that, we really are in trouble.

Mr Speaker, the Government promised honesty, but the truth is that they can afford to give Dominic Cummings a 40% pay rise, and they cannot afford to reward the NHS properly. The mask really is slipping, and we can see what the Conservative party now stands for: cutting pay for nurses; putting taxes up on families. He has had the opportunity to change course, but he has refused to do so. If he so determined to cut NHS pay, will he at least show some courage and put it to a vote in this Parliament?

[The Prime Minister]

The last time that we put this to a vote, the right hon. and learned Gentleman voted against it, as I said before. We are increasing pay for nurses. We are massively increasing our investment in the NHS. We are steering a steady course, whereas he weaves and wobbles from one week to the next. One week he is attacking us and saying that we should be doing more testing, and the next week he is denouncing us for spending money on testing. One week he calls for a faster roll-out of PPE, and the next week he is saying that we spent too much. He has to make up his mind. One week, he calls for a faster vaccination roll-out when he actually voted—although he claims to have forgotten it—to stay in the European Medicines Agency. Perhaps he would like to confirm that he voted to stay in the European Medicines Agency, which would have made that vaccine roll-out impossible. We vaccinate and get on with delivering for the people of this country. We vaccinate, he vacillates, and that is the difference.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

The incredible success of our vaccination programme, for which the Prime Minister and this Government deserve immense credit, now means that tourism businesses in Blackpool can look forward to a successful summer season when the economy reopens. When the time is right, will the Prime Minister support a campaign encouraging people to holiday here in the UK this summer, and will he join me in Blackpool to launch that campaign and to showcase everything that we have to offer?

[The Prime Minister]

I will look very carefully at my diary to see whether I can actually get up to Blackpool. I have many happy memories of joyful evenings spectating at the illuminations of Blackpool. I know that Blackpool will play an important part in the tourism recovery that we hope to see this summer if we continue on our road map.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

Yesterday, the Prime Minister published his plans for an Erasmus replacement, without any consultation or discussion with the devolved Governments. The replacement scheme offers lower living support, no travel support and no tuition fee support. Why are this Tory Government taking opportunities away from our young people?

[The Prime Minister]

That was a delightfully concise question, but the hon. Member is wrong about the difference between Erasmus and the Turing project. Unlike the Erasmus scheme, which overwhelmingly went to kids from better-off homes, the Turing project is designed to help kids across the country, of all income groups, get to fantastic universities around the world.

[Kirsten Oswald]

That is just not the case. We know that we cannot trust a word that the Prime Minister says on this. He told us that there was no threat to the Erasmus scheme, but he clearly will not match EU levels of support. And it is not just us saying it; his own Scottish colleague, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), told the BBC last week that young people will not benefit from Brexit. The Government have saddled a generation with tuition fee debt, and are now closing the door on Erasmus. It is no wonder that students are choosing the SNP and independence for a prosperous future. Prime Minister, will you think again, do the right thing, engage with our EU friends and rejoin Erasmus?

[Mr Speaker]

May I just remind Members not to use “you”?

[The Prime Minister]

I think students should choose the Turing project because it is fantastic and reaches out across the whole country. I believe, by the way, that they should reject the SNP—a Scottish nationalist party, Mr Speaker—because it is failing the people of Scotland, failing to deliver on education, failing on crime and failing on the economy. I hope very much that the people of Scotland will go for common sense. Instead of endlessly going on about constitutional issues and endlessly campaigning for a referendum, which is the last thing the people of this country need right now, I think people want a Government who focus on the issues that matter to them, including a fantastic international education scheme like Turing.

[Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) [V]]

  My right hon. Friend will recognise that while covid restrictions have been in place, children have not only had to learn online rather than in the classroom, but have also missed out on cultural, artistic and sporting activities with their peers. At the same time, cultural, artistic and sporting organisations have remained restricted in what they can do, and, despite the considerable help offered to them, are still in need of Government support. Will he consider how we might put those two things together and provide for enrichment activities that are available to all young people over the coming months, funded by the Government and provided not by hard-pressed teachers, but by our outstanding culture and sport sectors while they are unable to reopen to the wider public?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend has been a great champion of the arts and culture sectors, and he is completely right about the role that they can play for young people in the recovery. That is why we hope that the massive £2 billion recovery fund that we have given to thousands of theatres, orchestras, choirs, music venues and others will be used for the benefit and the cultural enrichment of young people up and down the country.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Prime Minister’s fantasy bridge to Northern Ireland could cost £33 billion—this, while our road and rail networks have been absolutely decimated from decades of underinvestment. The Conservative party got a grand total of 2,399 votes at the last Assembly election. What mandate does he think he has to override the democratically elected people of Northern Ireland to impose a bridge that goes through miles of unexploded munitions and radioactive waste?

[The Prime Minister]

If the hon. Member had read the article I wrote this morning in The Daily Telegraph, he would have seen that the things that we have set out in the Hendy review will be of massive benefit to Northern Ireland. That includes upgrading the A75, which is the single biggest thing that people in Northern Ireland wanted, by the way, and which the Scottish nationalists—the Scottish National party—have totally failed to do. The review also includes better connections east-west within Northern Ireland, which we should be doing, and better connections north-south within the island of Ireland. It is a fantastic Union connectivity review. The hon. Member should appreciate it; it is the way forward. I am amazed, frankly, by his negativity.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

Despite the claims of Eastleigh Liberal Democrats, my constituents will be delighted to know that the concrete section of the M27 will start to be resurfaced this summer. Does the Prime Minister agree that this shows that it is Conservative Governments who invest in infrastructure and that if elected in May Conservative candidates like Jerry Hall will deliver for the people of Eastleigh, Hedge End and West End?

[The Prime Minister]

That is absolutely true. It is Conservative Governments who invest in Eastleigh; it is Conservative Governments putting £640 billion into an infrastructure revolution. I congratulate Jerry Hall on what he is doing to resurface the road and to make it quieter, and I hope that he will be duly elected in May.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

In extending the £20 uplift to universal credit, which we welcomed at the beginning of the pandemic, the Prime Minister was clearly conceding that social security support in the UK is inadequate, so while I welcome the fact that it has been extended for six months, I would like to see it being made permanent. But can he tell the House why, if it was so inadequate, it was not extended to those on legacy benefits, such as disabled people?

[The Prime Minister]

Throughout the pandemic we have done whatever we can to look after people throughout the country, whether those on benefits or those who have lost their jobs, sadly, because of the pandemic. I am very proud of what universal credit has been able to achieve, and I think that the hon. Gentleman should perhaps take it up with his friends in the Labour party who actually want to abolish universal credit.

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) [V]]

Last week Grimsby celebrated the Chancellor’s announcements of the towns fund and the Humber freeport, and it is clear to the people of Grimsby that this Government are determined not to neglect the town like Labour predecessors. Our next challenge is to raise skills and educational achievements in the town. Will the Prime Minister outline how people can take advantage of the new lifetime skills guarantee that he is launching next month?

[The Prime Minister]

The fantastic thing about the lifetime skills guarantee is that in very, very tough circumstances, with many people having, I am afraid inevitably, to seek new jobs and to find ways of retraining, as will happen in a changing economy, it offers everybody—adults over 23—the opportunity of £3,000 for an A-level-equivalent qualification. I think it will be absolutely instrumental in helping young people of beyond school age to retrain and get the jobs they need. The lifetime skills guarantee: it is the first time it has been done.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]]

It takes 16,000 dedicated nurses to staff Northern Ireland’s health service, costing around £380 million per year. That is less than 2% of UK sales for just one internet giant, Amazon, whose revenues doubled during lockdown. What possible reason can the Prime Minister and his Chancellor, who both talked about the need to pay for this pandemic, have to not apply a modest windfall tax on those businesses who have benefited so much from the pandemic, in order to properly pay those staff who worked so hard to bring us through the pandemic?

[The Prime Minister]

Actually I think that the hon. Lady is making an important point about the discrepancy in the tax paid by some online businesses and some concrete businesses. That is an issue that the Chancellor is trying to address in an equitable way, working with colleagues in the G7 and around the world.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) [V]]

We have seen the disgraceful way the EU has responded to UK fish exports. Part of the answer is for UK consumers to buy British fish. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries, could I invite the Prime Minister to join a fantastic British chef to show us how easy it is to prepare and cook a dish using British-caught fish?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to take up my hon. Friend’s suggestion. I am not the greatest chef myself, but I have made, and can make, from memory, a fish pie with haddock and prawns, which I undertake to do.

[Mr Speaker]

British haddock.

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

People like my constituent, Tessa Stevens, have had to keep their salons shut despite shrinking Government support, unchanged overheads and decreased profits. I am urgently seeking the Prime Minister’s support to protect the immediate and long-term recovery of beauty businesses and the jobs they support. Will the Prime Minister explain why his Government refuse to listen to the beauty industry, which is calling for VAT to be temporarily reduced to 5% for hair and beauty businesses, similar to what has happened to businesses in other sectors such as hospitality, tourism and culture?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right in what she says about the importance of beauty businesses. They do an amazing job, and we want them to bounce back very strongly from the pandemic. I want high-street beauty salons to be opening up in the way that they were in the past, rather than people going round and giving services and cutting hair at home. It is very important that we revive high-street salons, and that is why we are continuing with the cautious, but irreversible road map out of this, which will enable a full recovery for the entire sector. In the meantime, as she knows, the Chancellor has extended furlough and all the other provisions that are necessary.

[Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)]

May I warmly welcome the Union connectivity review that has been announced this morning? It is brilliant news to connect the whole of the UK, but in West Dorset, we have single-track railway lines. We have a three-hourly rail frequency, yet we have the highest level of roadside pollution anywhere in the UK. Will my right hon. Friend kindly support a levelling up rail proposal that will not only look to support West Dorset, but also some of the most deprived areas in the south-west?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend knows whereof he speaks. He is probably one of the greatest experts on railways in this House, and we are certainly determined to follow his lead and to upgrade services in the west country and in Dorset. He knows what is happening at Dawlish and elsewhere. Network Rail has identified proposals, including the improvement of the performance of the west of England line, which is currently being assessed. He is knocking at an open door.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) [V]]

Back in 2012, commissioning for alcohol and drug addiction treatment was taken out of the NHS and handed to local authorities, and those services are now overwhelmed after a decade of cuts and fragmentation. Last year, the UK recorded the highest number of alcohol-specific deaths since records began. Addiction is an illness that can be treated, so will the Prime Minister urgently investigate the rise in deaths and bring addiction treatment back into the NHS within mental health services and give it the funding it requires?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to draw attention to the importance of addiction treatment and its relationship to mental health, and that is why the Government are investing record sums in mental health—£13.3 billion—and treatment for alcoholism is of course part of that.

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) [V]]

I have seen first-hand, visiting both St George’s Hospital and County Hospital in Stafford, the great work being done to support people, including veterans, with their mental health. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, sadly, the covid-19 pandemic is likely to have had a negative impact on people’s mental health, and will he commit to working with me and the Stafford mental health network to improve and increase mental health provision in Stafford?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I am certainly very happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend, or to make sure she gets access to the relevant ministerial authority. What we are doing, in addition to the £13.3 billion I spoke of, is supporting mental health charities throughout the pandemic, and in particular focusing on the mental health needs of children and young people. That is why I appointed Dr Alex George to be our youth mental health ambassador.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

This Government are failing young people. Before the pandemic, apprenticeship starts were down by 28% for under-19s and £330 million of unspent levy went back to the Treasury, falling short by 81% in creating the promised 100,000 new apprenticeships. This month, I will be holding my fifth apprenticeships and jobs fair in Bristol South. Will the Prime Minister join me in urging all young people to support that fair, and will he apologise to them for failing them so far?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that jobs fairs are an important thing, and I know that colleagues across the House do them, but I also think that the Government can be proud of our record in getting record numbers of young people into employment. We now face a very severe problem caused by the pandemic, which we are addressing not just with the lifetime skills guarantee that I mentioned earlier with but the kickstart funds and the restart funds, with £2 billion going into kickstart alone, to help young people into the jobs that they need.

[Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)]

After putting in a fantastic bid, Southport last week got a £37.5 million town deal. That will be transformational and represents the levelling-up agenda of the Prime Minister and this Conservative Government. When his diary allows, will he come to Southport to see these projects as they unfold and the impact they will have on the lives of my constituents?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. I am told that the boulevard of light on Lord Street rivals the Champs-Élysées itself, and I will certainly keep my hon. Friend’s invitation in mind.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

In this House, we all know the importance of the people who have looked after our vulnerable loved ones over the past year when we have been unable to do so, so will the Prime Minister explain to me why in this country we have 375,000 care workers on zero-hours contracts?

[The Prime Minister]

I am proud of what the Government have done to increase the wages of care workers across the country, with record increases in the living wage. This country is unlike most other countries in the world in the speed with which we have vaccinated care home workers and their elderly charges.

[James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) [V]]

I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment to levelling up the north, the benefits of which we are already beginning to see, with a £15 million allocation from the Government’s transforming cities fund enabling the plans to reopen Golborne station in my constituency to progress. Will the Prime Minister not only welcome that progress but back my campaign to reopen Kenyon Junction railway station, which will help unlock the potential of Leigh, provide my constituents with a vital rail connection between Liverpool and Manchester, and ensure that Leigh is no longer one of the largest towns in the UK without a railway station?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to support my hon. Friend’s initiative, and I understand that Golborne, which he represents, was the sight of the world’s first railway junction.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]]

Anthony Jones, a ferociously bright student at Stirling University, was looking to do a master’s degree in Amsterdam. Pre- Brexit, the course fees were £2,168. Post Brexit, the fees are £14,600. The Turing scheme will not touch the sides of what is necessary. Would the Prime Minister like to apologise to Anthony and countless hundreds of thousands of students like him for limiting their life horizons against their will?

[The Prime Minister]

No, because I think that the Turing scheme is fairer and will enable students on lower incomes to have access to great courses around the world. I believe it is a highly beneficial reform of the way we do this, and it is truly global in its ambitions.

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

With a new station at Meir, investment in Longton station and restoration of the Stoke to Leek line, does my right hon. Friend agree that investment from this Government has the potential to reverse the Beeching cuts, restore our local railways in Stoke-on-Trent and cement our position as one of the best-connected places in the whole UK?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend; I know that he supported the bid for the reinstatement of the Stoke to Leek line. That is currently being assessed by the Department for Transport as one of the Beeching reversals, which are so popular around the country and so right, and he can expect an outcome in the summer.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]]

If the Prime Minister is serious about levelling up the country, does he honestly think that favouring the Chancellor’s Richmondshire constituency over Barnsley for financial support is the best way to do it?

[The Prime Minister]

We are devoted to levelling up across the entire country, and that goes for Barnsley as well as everywhere else.

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) [V]]

I know that the Prime Minister shares my commitment to conservation around the world, and I am sure he agrees that we have to reverse the tide of deforestation. Will he ask Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to look seriously at my proposals for a kitemark scheme for food products in the UK, so that consumers can see clearly whether the products they buy come from sustainable sources or from producers who are doing further damage to our environment?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to look at my right hon. Friend’s interesting suggestion for a kitemark scheme. In the meantime, this Government are leading the world in tackling deforestation, with a £3 billion investment being led across Whitehall.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Boris Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

After 11 months in this job, it is nice, finally, to be standing opposite the person actually making decisions in this Government. The trouble is that it is those decisions that have left us with the mess we find today: the worst economic crisis of any major economy in the last 12 months; unemployment at 5% and, as the Chancellor said, forecast to rise to 6.5%; and debt at over £2 trillion. I am sure this Budget will look better on Instagram. In fact, this week’s PR video cost the taxpayer so much I was half-expecting to see a line in the OBR forecast for it, but even the Chancellor’s film crew will struggle to put a positive spin on this.

After the decisions of the last year and the decade of neglect, we needed a Budget to fix the foundations of our economy to reward our key workers, to protect the NHS and to build a more secure and prosperous economy for the future. Instead, what we got was a Budget that papered over the cracks rather than rebuilding the foundations, a Budget that shows the Government do not understand what went wrong in the last decade or what is needed in the next. The Chancellor may think that this is time for a victory lap, but I am afraid this Budget will not feel so good for the millions of key workers who are having their pay frozen, the businesses swamped by debt, the families paying more in council tax and the millions of people who are out of work or worried about losing their job. Although the Chancellor spoke for almost an hour, we heard nothing about a long-term plan to fix social care. The Chancellor may have forgotten about it, but the Labour party never will.

The British people will rightly ask, why has Britain suffered a worse economic crisis than any major economy? The answer is staring us in the face. First are the Chancellor’s decisions in the last year. This is the Chancellor who blocked a circuit break in September. Ignoring the science, he told the British people to “live with” coronavirus and “live without fear”. A few weeks later, we were forced into an even longer and more painful lockdown. Whatever spin the Chancellor tries to put on the figures today, as a result of his decisions, we have suffered deeper economic damage and much worse outcomes.

That is nothing compared with the decade of political choices that meant that Britain went into this crisis with an economy built on insecurity and inequality. The Chancellor referred to the last 10 years. As a result of those 10 years, we have an economy in which 3.6 million people are in insecure work, wages have stagnated for a decade and over 4 million children are living in poverty. Critically, we went into this crisis with 100,000 unfilled posts in the NHS and after social care had been ignored and underfunded for a decade. Government Members voted for all that. Today’s Budget does not even recognise that, let alone rectify it.

It is clear that the Chancellor is now betting on a recovery fuelled by a consumer spending blitz. In fairness, if my next door neighbour was spending tens of thousands of pounds on redecorating their flat, I would probably do the same. [Laughter.] But the central problem in our economy is deep-rooted insecurity and inequality, and this Budget is not the answer to that. The Chancellor barely mentioned inequality, let alone try to address it.

Rather than the big transformative Budget we needed, this Budget simply papers over the cracks. If this had been a Budget for the long term, it would have had a plan—a plan to protect our NHS; a plan to fix social care. I can tell the House this: a Labour Budget would have had the NHS and care homes front and centre. But this Budget is almost silent on those questions. If this had been a Budget to rebuild the foundations, it would have fixed our broken social security system. Instead, the Chancellor has been dragged, kicking and screaming, into extending the £20 uplift in universal credit, but only for a few months—once again, deferring the problem. As a result, insecurity and the threat of losing £1,000 a year still hang over 6 million families. [Interruption.] They ask what we would do. We would keep the uplift until a new, fairer system could be put in place.

If this Budget was serious about rebuilding our shattered economy, it would have included a credible plan to tackle unemployment. The Chancellor said very little about the kickstart scheme, no doubt because—

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

Rubbish.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister says, “Rubbish.” That is no doubt because the kickstart scheme is helping only one in 100 eligible young people—rubbish is the right word, Prime Minister. In six months, it has supported just 2,000 young people, yet youth unemployment is set to reach 1 million. Like so much of this Budget, the Chancellor’s offer is nowhere near the scale of the task.

Of course, the biggest challenge for this country is the climate emergency. The Chancellor just talked up his green credentials, but his Budget stops way short of what was needed or what is happening in other countries. This Budget should have included a major green stimulus, bringing forward billions of pounds of investment to create new jobs and new green infrastructure. Instead, the Government are trying to build a new coalmine, which we now learn might not even work for British Steel. If anything sums up this Government’s commitment to a green recovery and jobs for the future, it is building a coalmine that we cannot even use.

If the Government were serious about tackling insecurity and helping those most at risk from covid, this Budget would have fixed the broken system of statutory sick pay and, at the very least, filled the glaring holes in isolation payments. This is not difficult to fix. The Government should just make the £500 isolation payment available to everyone who needs it. That would be money well spent, and, a year into the pandemic, it is a disgrace that it is not made available.

If the Government were serious about fixing the broken housing market, they would have announced plans for a new generation of genuinely affordable council houses. Instead, 230,000 council homes have been lost since 2010, yet the Chancellor focused today on returning to subsidising 95% of mortgages. I know what Members are thinking: “I’ve heard that somewhere before.” Perhaps it was because the Prime Minister announced it five months ago in his conference speech? No, I do not think anybody heard that. I remember now: it is what Osborne and Cameron came up with in 2013. What did that do? It fuelled a housing bubble, pushed up prices, and made owning a home more difficult—so much for generation buy! I have been saying for weeks that this Budget will go backwards, but I did not expect the Chancellor to lift a failed policy from eight years ago.

This Budget fell far short of the transformative change that we need to turbo-charge our recovery for the decades to come. There was no credible plan to ease the burden of debt hanging over so many businesses, which is estimated at £70 billion. This Budget asks businesses to start paying that money back whether they are profitable or not. That affects millions of businesses. It will hold back growth, because businesses will have to pay back money they never wanted to borrow, instead of being able to invest in their futures and create jobs in their local areas. It is both unfair and economically illiterate.

This Budget also falls far short of what was needed to support the self-employed and freelancers, unless, of course, they are one of the Chancellor’s photographers. After a year of inaction, we will look at the details of what the Chancellor announced, but, from the figure of 600,000 that he mentioned, it certainly looks like millions will still be left out in the cold.

The Chancellor’s one nominally long-term policy was in his references to levelling up, but what does that actually look like? It is not the transformative shift in power, wealth and resources that we need to rebalance our economy. It is not the bold long-term plan that we need to upskill our economy, to tackle educational attainment or to raise life expectancy. It certainly is not a plan to focus Government resources on preventive services and early years. For the Chancellor, levelling up seems to mean moving some parts of the Treasury to Darlington, creating a few free ports, and re-announcing funding. That is not levelling up; it is giving up.

Instead of putting blind faith in free ports, the Chancellor would be better served by making sure that the Government’s Brexit deal actually works: for Britain’s manufacturers, now facing more red tape when they were promised less; for our financial services, still waiting for the Chancellor to make good on his promises; for the small businesses and fishing communities, whose goods and produce are now left unsold in warehouses; and for our artists and performers, who just want to be able to tour.

Turning to other parts of the statement, we will wait for the detail about the so-called super deduction, but it is unlikely to make up for the 10 years when the levels of investment growth have trailed so many other countries. Of course we welcome the creation of the national infrastructure bank, which is something for which we have called for years, although it would have been better if the Government had not sold off the Green Investment Bank in the first place. We also welcome the introduction of green saving bonds. I have to say what a good idea it is to introduce a new set of recovery bonds.

The trouble is that the scale of what the Chancellor announced today is nowhere near ambitious enough. The long-overdue commitments to extend furlough, business rate relief and the VAT cut on hospitality are welcome, but there is no excuse for holding the announcement of that support back until today, and of course we will look at the detail.

There are very few silver linings in this Budget. The IMF and the OECD have said that now is not the time for tax rises. We are in the middle of a once-in-300-years crisis. Our economy is still shut and our businesses are on life support, so it is right that corporation tax is not rising this year or next. In the long run, corporation tax should go up. The decade-long corporation tax experiment by this Government has failed, but no taxes should be raised in the teeth of this economic crisis, so it is extraordinary that the Chancellor is ploughing ahead with a £2 billion council tax rise affecting households across the country. Why is he doing that when every economist would tell him not to? Perhaps we find the answer in this week’s Sunday Times, which quoted a source saying that the Chancellor’s argument was:

“Let’s do it all now as far away from the election as possible.”

The Telegraph on 27 January reported:

“Raising taxes now means they can be reduced ahead of the next election, Rishi Sunak tells Tory MPs”.

The Mail in September reported that the Chancellor was to hike taxes and then lower them before the next election. Let me be crystal clear: the proper basis for making tax decisions is the economic cycle, not the electoral cycle.

Behind the spin, the videos and the photo ops, we all know that the Chancellor does not believe in an active and enterprising Government. We know he is itching to get back to his free market principles and to pull away support as quickly as he can. One day, these restrictions will end. One day we will all be able to take our masks off, and so will the Chancellor, and then we will see who he really is. This Budget sets it up perfectly, because this is a Budget that did not even attempt to rebuild the foundations of our economy or to secure the country’s long-term prosperity. Instead, it did the job the Chancellor always intended: a quick fix, papering over the cracks.

The Conservatives spent a decade weakening the foundations of our economy. Now they pretend they can rebuild it, but the truth is that they will not confront what went wrong in the past and they have no plan for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

I should thank the Chancellor for advance sight of his statement but, of course, much of it—against the usual protocol—has already been leaked to the media. It is perhaps worth stating that what is contained in the Budget should be announced in this House and should not be pre-announced in the media.

The Budget comes at a critical moment—a moment when people right across these islands can have faith that the end of the pandemic is finally in sight. Just as millions of people are now being injected with the hope of the vaccine, this Budget should have injected the economy with the stimulus package that it desperately needs.

The Institute for Public Policy Research advised the Government to “boost...like Biden”, to generate an investment-led recovery. Instead, the Chancellor has produced a Budget that offers people the bare minimum— a Budget that completely fails to take responsibility for the bollocks that they have made of Brexit. Indeed, when we look at the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts and the years 2023, 2024 and 2025, we see a forecast of 1.7%, 1.6% and 1.7% growth. Where is the ambition? This is a Budget that has a poverty of ambition.

When we contrast the response of the US Administration in that fiscal stimulus of President Biden and put that in a historical context, what we see, over the course of the last decade, is that US GDP growth has been 10% greater than that of the UK, and it is that failure to deliver growth that is imperilling our national finances. It is that lack of ability to deliver growth that holds back tax receipts. It is that lack of ability to deliver growth that constrains the opportunities for people, that holds back the growth in productivity, that holds back the growth in wages, that leaves so many of our people living in poverty.

Between the lines of the statement today, there were also the surest of signals. The conversion of this Prime Minister and this Chancellor to increase public spending was only ever temporary. Today, we have a Tory Chancellor returning to type. He is clearly itching to turn off the state spending taps. This Budget is carefully laying the ground for more Tory austerity, a decade more of Conservative cuts, because the Tories do not regret—[Interruption.] I can see the Chancellor shaking his head, but he had the opportunity today to continue the £20 uplift to universal credit and make it permanent—and not just make that permanent to give some hope for those who depend on universal credit, but to extend it to legacy benefits. What did we get instead? We got a commitment to contain it—to leave it in place—for a further six months. In other words, when the restrictions on lockdown have come off, the £20 uplift to universal credit comes off as well. Where is the compassion and dignity for those who need that support? They will continue to need that support right after we come out of this crisis. That is the Tory party that has reverted to type.

Of course, the Tories do not regret the austerity that they have inflicted over the last decade. They are nostalgic for it. We are told by the Chancellor that there have to be cuts to spending. We are told that there have to be tax increases, but we know that he is deliberately setting out a false choice, because we heard nothing today about the need not just here, but right around the world to create the circumstances for investment-led growth. Where is the agenda that the UK is going to take to the G7 to make sure that we work collectively to deliver a better future for everybody out of this pandemic? Every credible economist knows that to protect and secure the public finances, we must create the circumstances for recovery for growth and that this has to be investment-led.



As we look forward to the months ahead, we need to deliver a vision of a better future and we need leadership to do this. So, for the people of Scotland this Budget comes at a critical moment of choice. Post-Brexit and post-pandemic, Scotland now has a choice of two futures: the long-term damage of Brexit and more Tory austerity cuts, or the opportunity to protect our place in Europe and to build a strong, fair and green recovery with independence. This May, every citizen will cast their democratic decision on who they trust to rebuild our society and our economy in the wake of the pandemic. It will be a clear choice: Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands, or in the hands of the Tories and this Prime Minister and Chancellor. Let’s just say that we are looking forward to the verdict of the Scottish people.

Let me turn to the immediate priorities that this Budget should have dealt with. I am sorry to say that the Chancellor stood up today and doubled down on exactly the same mistakes that he has been making throughout the pandemic. Temporary extensions and temporary support can only ever mean a temporary reprieve for those millions who have been crippled by uncertainty for months. The Chancellor’s temporary timelines for pandemic financial support completely contradict his own Government’s policy. On the one hand, the UK Government rightly tell people that they will follow data not dates when it comes to public health, but when it comes to financial support, Tory policy is defined by dates, deadlines and cliff edges.

Businesses and workers on furlough needed certainty last March and last autumn, and they need it now. Frankly, Chancellor, to expect businesses that have been closed to make increasing contributions to furlough is simply unacceptable when they do not have the cash flow to pay for it. More temporary extensions and the tapering off of furlough fall well short of what businesses need. The Chancellor should make the commitment that full furlough support at 80% wage support will remain available to businesses as long as restrictions remain in place—no deadlines, no dates, no ifs and no buts. That is one clear commitment that would immediately stabilise support for every struggling sector.

The cut-off date for entry into job retention schemes should also be revised, ensuring that support is available to the growing numbers who have started new jobs since the end of last October. We welcome the VAT cut, but it should have been retained at 5% for much longer, and it should be extended to businesses such as hair and beauty businesses, which also need the support. While we welcome the ongoing support for rates relief, it does not go as far as the Scottish Government have in providing 100% rates relief for the calendar year across the retail, hospitality, leisure and aviation sectors.

One of my biggest criticisms of this Budget is that it completely fails to recognise the sheer scale of the other pandemic our communities are suffering—the poverty pandemic. After a decade of underinvestment and Tory cuts, the last year has deepened the UK’s poverty crisis and widened gaps in inequality. Yes, many have been in a position to save and build up financial deposits during these lockdowns, but Chancellor, millions more are literally struggling to survive. Some 14.2 million UK adults are now categorised as having low financial resilience. That is an increase of 3.5 million since the beginning of the pandemic. Let me take an example from my own constituency. In January 2020, the community food bank in south Skye and Lochalsh delivered 25 food parcels in one month. In December 2020, that same food bank was delivering 200 bags of food per week.

Last year, this Government were forced into providing a £20 uplift for universal credit. It was literally a lifeline for millions. It was needed then, and it is needed now. Six million people are now claiming universal credit—a 98% increase since the pandemic began. Today, this Tory Chancellor is telling those 6 million people not to get too comfortable with that lifeline, and that in a matter of months it will be gone. Where is the compassion, Chancellor? Where is the support for people? Does he really think that this is good enough and that it is acceptable that so many people—so many families and so many children—have been left in poverty? He can avert his eyes and look away because he does not want to know the harsh reality. The Chancellor does not understand what it is like to be poor in Boris Johnson’s Brexit Britain. Chancellor, do the right thing. This should never be temporary; it should be permanent, and let us make sure, out of this Budget, that that policy is changed. Making the £20 universal credit uplift permanent must also extend to legacy benefits. And Chancellor, while you are at it, finally abolish the cruel benefit cap and end the two-child limit.

The Chancellor should also be using this Budget to support those most impacted throughout the pandemic. The Women’s Budget Group found that women were twice as likely to be key workers as men but are far less likely to be eligible for statutory sick pay. It also found that young women were disproportionately likely to work in the sectors that were hardest hit by previous lockdowns. The Chancellor could support these women by finally introducing a real living wage and a liveable sick pay for all.

We know that after a decade of Tory decisions, child poverty has risen to alarming levels. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and baby bank charity Little Village found that 4.2 million children are living in poverty, including 1.3 million babies and children under the age of five. This is supposed to be a civilised society. It is supposed to be a caring society. The Chancellor has just congratulated himself on his Budget. Chancellor, where is the plan to get these 4.2 million children and their families out of poverty? Where is the plan to get these young children and babies out of poverty? Where is the sense of responsibility from a Government? What we can see is a Chancellor who is not even prepared to engage; he is looking away—and no wonder, because this Chancellor should be embarrassed by what he has done. This Government need to wake up to the scale of the child poverty crisis, and they could start by matching the Scottish Government’s game-changing £10 child payment.

While we are on the subject of fighting poverty, let me say how disappointed I was by the failure of the Labour shadow Chancellor at the weekend to state her party’s clear support for making the universal credit uplift permanent. In the space of a week, Labour told us that its position on wasting billions on Trident nuclear weapons on the Clyde is non-negotiable but cannot even say what its position is on keeping this lifeline for struggling families. We know we are living in strange times when George Galloway pledges his support for the Tories and the Labour party sits on the fence when it comes to Tory cuts. We would nearly feel sorry for the new Scottish Labour leader, severed at the knees by his Westminster bosses before he even gets started.

Not only does this Budget signal the return of Conservative cuts; it also confirms that the Chancellor continues to snub the excluded. In time, when people reflect back on this period, it will be a damning indictment of this Tory Government that they were prepared to coolly ignore 3 million of their own citizens during a pandemic.

[The Prime Minister]

You talk such utter rubbish.

[Ian Blackford]

Well, well, well, Prime Minister—try telling that to the 3 million people who have had no financial support from your Government over the course of the last year. You should be utterly ashamed of the dereliction of responsibility from a Government who are supposed to provide leadership to all their people. So much for putting your arms around all the people of the United Kingdom! Three million people have been ignored and abandoned by a Prime Minister and a Chancellor who could not care less.

Oral Answers to Questions

Boris Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

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.

[Derek Twigg [V]]

Halton Borough Council ran out of funding for discretionary covid isolation payments despite the strict criteria for eligibility. Just 171 constituents have been helped. The council has applied for further funding, but what the Government have offered will not be enough. Other constituents failed to qualify for help due to the criteria set by the Prime Minister’s Government. Will he look again at this and bring forward a properly funded scheme so that no constituent is in a position where they cannot afford to isolate? We need this to happen if we are to continue to drive down covid-19 infections.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and pay tribute to the work of everybody on Halton Council for everything that they have been doing throughout this pandemic. I know it has been very tough on council officials—and, indeed, on everybody else. Central Government have put in another £4.3 billion to help councils throughout the pandemic. We will continue to support our local authorities and he will be hearing more from the Chancellor next week.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]]

If the UK is to become the Saudi Arabia of wind power, off my coast of North Norfolk is surely the capital. But the current piecemeal and environmentally damaging connection method to the national grid is holding us back, as was proven by the Vattenfall judicial review just last week. We need legal and regulatory reform now. Prime Minister, could this be a job for the new Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform to help us to implement the much-needed offshore transmission network and meet our net zero targets?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes indeed. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign to make his constituency the Riyadh, or possibly the Jeddah, of offshore wind. I can tell him that we are certainly looking at the issue of the transmission network review and we are developing the necessary regulatory changes.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

The principles behind the Prime Minister’s recovery plan—of caution and it must be irreversible—are plainly right, but one of the biggest threats to that is misinformation about the risks of the deadly virus. For example, there have been people saying that covid statistics

“appear to have been manipulated”

and that Monday’s road map is based on “dodgy assumptions” and “false modelling”. Does the Prime Minister agree that these kinds of comments are irresponsible and undermine our national recovery?

[The Prime Minister]

The road map that we have set out will, I believe, set us on a cautious but irreversible journey to freedom. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman supports the four steps of 8 March for schools, 12 April for shops, 17 May for hospitality and 21 June for everything. The data supporting all of that has been available to the House since I announced it on Monday.

[Keir Starmer]

I think the Prime Minister dodged that question, no doubt because all those comments came from his own MPs—some of the 60 or so members of the Covid Recovery Group. Perhaps the Prime Minister should have a word with them.

Another big threat to the recovery plan is that around three in 10 people who should be self-isolating are not doing so. That is a huge gap in our defences, and the small changes on Monday will not fix it. That is why Labour has called for the £500 self-isolation payment to be made available to everybody who needs it. Will the Prime Minister just fix this?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that those who are asked to self-isolate already have the £500 test and trace support payment, and I think he also knows, because he supported the road map on Monday, that the eligibility criteria are being extended to allow parents and guardians who are staying off work also to receive a payment, provided they meet the criteria. I think he is aware of that.

[Keir Starmer]

Three out of 10 people who should be self-isolating are not doing so. That matters to millions of people, and it matters if we are going to get the virus under control. The chair of Test and Trace said that people are “scared” to come forward for a covid test because they cannot afford to isolate. The chair of Test and Trace says they cannot afford it. The Government’s Joint Biosecurity Centre concluded that “unmet financial need” was why some lower-income areas are seeing “stubbornly high” infection rates. Why, after all the billions the Government have thrown around, is it still people in low-paid jobs who are at the bottom of this Government’s priorities?

[The Prime Minister]

Actually, I think that most people looking at what we have done throughout the pandemic and looking at the £280 billion package of support can see that it is the poorest and neediest in society—those on the lowest incomes—who have been at the top of the Government’s priorities, and that is quite right. We will continue to act in that way, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be hearing more about that next week from the Chancellor. That is in addition to the discretionary funding we have given councils to support those who need it most, including those who have to self-isolate.

[Keir Starmer]

Here is the difference. If you need £500 to isolate, you are out of luck. If you have got the Health Secretary’s WhatsApp, you get a £1 million contract.

Turning to next week’s Budget, I do not expect the Prime Minister to pre-empt what is in the Budget—if I want that, I can read it on the front page of The Times —but will he at least agree with me today that now is not the time for tax rises for families and for businesses?

[The Prime Minister]

I don’t know about you, Mr Speaker, but the Budget is happening next week, and it is not a date that is concealed from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He knows when it is happening and he knows what to expect, but it is preposterous for him to talk about tax rises when he stood on a manifesto only a little over a year ago to put up taxes by the biggest amount in the history of this country. It is the Labour party—including his Labour council in Camden—that puts up taxes across the country. That is the way Labour behaves, and it is thanks to prudent fiscal management by this Government that we have been able to fight this pandemic in the way that we have.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister wants to talk about tax rises, and he should, because it matters. Councils up and down the country are being forced to decide now whether to put council tax up. That is a £2 billion rise on families. I am not blaming councils. They have been starved of funding for a decade, and Labour and Conservative councils are in the same position. For example, the Prime Minister might want to concentrate on his own constituency. His own council, Conservative-run Hillingdon, is voting to increase council tax by 4.8%. Does the Prime Minister think that the council is right to do that?

[The Prime Minister]

Hillingdon Council, in common with most Conservative councils, has been running lower council taxes than Labour up and down the country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is completely wrong, so I will correct him. The top 10 highest council taxing councils in this country are run by the Labour party, and they are all going to put their taxes up, except for one in the top 10, which is Burnley, which is currently in no overall control. He talks about London and my own record on taxes, but he should talk to the current Labour Mayor of London, who is putting up his council tax by 10%. I can tell him that the previous Conservative Mayor of London cut council tax by 20%. That is what Conservative councils do.

[Keir Starmer]

The fact is that £15 billion has been taken out of council budgets over the last 10 years. The Prime Minister should stop blaming others for the damage he has done. He quotes the Mayor. This is the former Mayor who bought water cannon that could not be used, spent millions on a garden bridge that never got built and then more recently gave a pay rise to Dominic Cummings.

This is yet another PMQs with no answers. The truth is this. The Government spent a decade weakening the foundations of our economy and our country. As a result, we have the highest death toll in Europe. We have the worst recession of any major economy. Families are facing council tax rises and millions cannot afford to self-isolate. And all the Prime Minister offers is a return to business as usual. Next week’s Budget is a chance to choose a different path, to build a stronger future, to protect families, to give our key workers the pay rise they deserve and to back British businesses by supporting 100,000 new start-ups. Will the Prime Minister do so?

[The Prime Minister]

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will only wait until next week, I think he will find that we will do far more than that paltry agenda he has set out. It is quite mystifying to see the way that he weaves hither and yon like some sort of druidical rocking stone. One week he claims that he supports the vaccination roll-out. The next week, he attacks the vaccine taskforce, when it is spending money to try to reach hard-to-reach, vaccine-resistant groups, and says that that kind of spending cannot be justified. He calls for us to go faster with rolling out vaccines, when he would have stayed in the European Medicines Agency, which would have made that roll-out impossible. He vacillates. We vaccinate. We are going to get on with our agenda, cautiously but irreversibly taking this country forward on a one-way road to freedom, and I very much hope that his support, which has been so evanescent in the past, will genuinely prove irreversible this time.

[Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) [V]]

The Prime Minister’s road map will provide many of my constituents in Morley and Outwood with a vision of hope that life is set to return to a new normal before the end of June, allowing us to celebrate the great British summer. Can he inform the House of the pre-emptive actions that the Government are taking to spot, prevent and limit the damage of any future health emergencies, so that local economies in constituencies such as mine have certainty that this will be their last lockdown?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of local outbreaks and how to tackle them, particularly with the threat of new variants, which she rightly raises. That is why we have a very tough border regime but also a programme as we go forward for surge testing—door-to-door testing—to ensure that, when there is a local outbreak, we keep it local and keep it under control, as we are trying to do at the moment with the South African variant.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]]

Next week’s Budget gives the opportunity to tackle the financial costs of this pandemic. The UK has suffered its worst recession in 300 years. We now need a Government who understand the scale of this crisis, yet at the very moment that we need maximum investment to recover, the Tories are threatening austerity cuts that will leave lasting scars on all our communities. Families have already seen their incomes slashed under this Government, and now the Tories want to impose a public sector pay freeze and cuts to universal credit. Will the Prime Minister rule out a return to Tory austerity cuts and commit to a major fiscal stimulus of at least 5% of GDP, or will he threaten the recovery and leave millions of people worse off?

[The Prime Minister]

I am proud of the massive investments that the UK Treasury has made throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, with £13 billion and more going to Scotland and huge sums going throughout the country. I wish that the Scottish nationalist Government would spend that money better, because it is very sad to see some of the failures in education policy in Scotland and the failures in their criminal justice policy and fighting crime. I think what the people of the whole UK and, I believe, the people of Scotland would like to see is less talk about a referendum, which is the right hon. Gentleman’s agenda, and more talk about the real issues facing our country.

[Ian Blackford]

The Prime Minister is boasting, but the cold, hard reality is that the United Kingdom has suffered the worst slump of any major economy and 120,000 people have lost their lives. That is under your guidance, Prime Minister. Coronavirus has exposed the deep inequalities under this broken Westminster system. After a decade of Tory cuts, millions of families are in poverty and UK unemployment is soaring.

In contrast, in the United States, President Biden understands what is needed. He has proposed a $1.9 trillion stimulus package to restart and renew the American economy. Prime Minister, will your Government follow the example of the US and boost the economy like Biden, or is the Tory plan to return to type and impose yet another decade of Tory austerity?

[The Prime Minister]

This Government are investing £640 billion in infrastructure alone throughout the UK—a massive programme to get our country rebuilt and restarted again. I think that is what people would like to focus on, rather than the right hon. Gentleman’s agenda. He has talked about our broken politics, our broken country. All they want to do is break up Britain with another referendum, and I think that is the last thing this country needs at the moment.

[Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister knows how important the rail link between Southport and Manchester Piccadilly is for my constituents and those living in the wider Lancashire area. All the changes put forward by the Manchester rail recovery taskforce are unacceptable: they would stop this service from happening and take our levelling-up agenda off track. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss changes to these proposals, so that we can keep this service and keep my constituents with the service that they have come to rely on and which is vital for their economy?

[The Prime Minister]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign for better local transport, and we are investing massively in rail connectivity in his area and in local bus routes. The particular line that he advocates is, I know, one of great interest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and I will make sure that he has a chance to discuss it personally with my hon. Friend.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) [V]]

Can I start by thanking the Government for their change of policy, announced today, on the vaccination priority for people with learning disabilities, despite the Prime Minister’s rather more equivocal answer to me on this last Monday?

Today, millions of Uyghur people in China live in fear under a cruel regime. The BBC, international media and human rights non-governmental organisations are all reporting on forced labour camps, women being raped and sterilised, and families being separated. This is a genocide happening in front of our eyes. So does the Prime Minister agree with me that, unless China ends this genocide, Britain and Team GB should boycott the winter Olympics in Beijing next year?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the appalling campaign against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has set out the policies that he has—the package of measures to ensure that no British companies are complicit in or profiting from violations. We are leading international action in the UN to hold China to account, and we will continue to work with the US, friends and partners around the world to do just that.

The right hon. Gentleman raises a point about a sporting boycott. We are not normally in favour of sporting boycotts in this country, and that has been the long-standing position of this Government.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) [V]]

Penrith and The Border struggles with poor broadband and phone signal connectivity, with download speeds around 56% of the UK average. Many of my constituents have been quoted large and unfeasible sums for new cables to be installed, which is often their only option to improve coverage. I welcome the potential of the shared rural network, the gigabit voucher scheme and the universal service obligation to help, but what reassurance can my right hon. Friend give my constituents that Government are striving to address these broadband and phone signal notspots in rural Cumbria?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for all he does to campaign for the hardest-to-reach areas in rural Cumbria. I know that we are doing all we can because I raise it virtually every day, and we are rolling it out as fast as we can. We have committed about £5 billion to connect those areas, £1 billion for the shared rural network agreement and a voucher scheme to target predominantly rural areas, but we are intending to get everything we can possibly done in the next five years.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]]

Is the 40% cut to Transport for the North’s budget part of the Prime Minister’s plans for levelling up the north?

[The Prime Minister]

There has been no such cut, and we intend to invest massively in Northern Powerhouse Rail, and in railways in the north and across the entire country.

[Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Although hospitality has had to close its doors, in true black country spirit many of my venues have been entrepreneurial and now offer a great takeaway service. To celebrate that entrepreneurial spirit, today I am launching a “favourite takeaway” competition in my constituency. Will the Prime Minister join me in launching that competition, and will he also join me in a takeaway from the winning entrant when he is next in wonderful Stourbridge? He will receive a very warm welcome, and I would be happy to throw in a trip on the country’s finest shuttle, which I hope to see soon, called the “Stourbridge Dasher.”

[The Prime Minister]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on what she is doing to champion takeaways in Stourbridge. I am not sure it would be environmentally friendly for me to order a takeaway from Stourbridge to Westminster, but I thank her very much for her initiative. I look forward to visiting the hospitality sector in her constituency as soon as possible.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

The education and wellbeing recovery of children from the pandemic is one of the biggest challenges facing our country. We went into this pandemic with rising child poverty, a widening attainment gap, and school funding falling in real terms. Given that, does the Prime Minister believe that the 43 pence per pupil per day announced today really cuts it? If he does, would he be happy to see that amount spent on his own children?

[The Prime Minister]

I passionately disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said about the spending that was going on. Even before the pandemic we were increasing funding for primary schools—up to £4,000 per pupil, and £5,000 for secondary school pupils—and putting up starting salaries for teachers across the board to £30,000. That was a massive investment in education across the board, including in further education.

The catch-up funds now amount to £2 billion—[Interruption.] No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. They amount to £2 billion. Yes, we will have to do more, because this is the biggest challenge our country faces. We will get it done. We are able to do it because we have been running a strong economy. We had the resources to do it, because we had not followed the bankrupt policies of the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party.

[Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)]

Janene Maguire in my constituency, a mother of three, suffered a unusual, unexpected and immediate cardiac arrest that sadly saw her pass away in February 2000. Twenty years later, in August last year, one of her daughters, Cara, strangely suffered the same fate, with an unexpected cardiac arrest. Fortunately, her friend Michael was with her. He was a former soldier and thus trained in first aid and lifesaving, and despite Cara’s heart stopping for 20 minutes, he managed to save her life. In September last year, the UK Government made it mandatory for CPR skills to be taught in secondary schools, but despite a campaign and a letter from all my Welsh Conservative colleagues, the Minister for Education in Wales has declined to do that. Will my right hon. Friend throw the weight of his office behind my campaign to have CPR skills taught in Wales, so that the Maguire family, and those like them, no longer have to suffer such tragic circumstances?

[The Prime Minister]

The sympathies of the whole House will be with my hon. Friend’s constituents and their family and friends, and I agree very much about the importance of learning CPR. That is why we introduced it into the curriculum for all state funded schools in England. It is of course a devolved issue, but I share his urgency that the policy should be adopted in Wales as well.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) [V]]

  There has been much focus of late on children returning safely to school. In my constituency, successive cohorts of pupils have had to wade through overflowing drains to get into school, and they are routinely evacuated from flooded classrooms. That takes a huge toll on the quality of their learning. Will the Prime Minister work again with Lancashire County Council and the headteacher of Town Green Primary School to ensure that no child in West Lancashire loses a vital day of education, especially to flooding-related issues?

[The Prime Minister]

I sympathise very much with the hon. Lady’s constituents and the pupils who have to put up with disruption caused by flooding. I know that the Environment Agency continues to work very actively with the county council to resolve the issues and that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister has written to her about what more can be done.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) [V]]

  My right hon. Friend will know that pubs have been closing all over Britain for decades now, tearing the hearts out of communities. This terrible pandemic has made things even worse. Part of the problem is undercutting by cheap supermarket booze. Surely, now that we are out of the EU, we can do as we please with beer duty. Differentiation in favour of on-sales could deliver great benefits to pubs in communities such as Clacton, at nil cost to the taxpayer. Will my right hon. Friend commit Ministers to looking at that differentiation proposal?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, which I am sure will be heard with great interest around the country. There is just such a review being carried out after consulting pub owners, brewers and others, and I know that the Chancellor is looking very closely at the findings.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) [V]]

I was disappointed that the Prime Minister did not accept my offer to meet him when he recently visited my constituency’s wonderful Fujifilm vaccine complex in Billingham to celebrate our local success story. I could have taken him to nearby Billingham food bank, where he would have learned that over a third of the children in my constituency live in poverty, yet two in five of those same children are still not entitled to free school meals because the threshold is so low. Will he urgently address that scandal, take long-term action on universal credit and school meals, and help free our children from poverty?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly am proud of what universal credit is doing. It is odd to be attacked by a Labour Member over universal credit when it is his party’s policy to abolish that benefit, but the best thing we can do for families in Billingham is to ensure that there are very good jobs there.

It was wonderful to see what is happening in Teesside under the leadership of Mayor Ben Houchen—the investment that is going in by Fujifilm and others, which will create long-term jobs. It is the belief of those on the Government side of the House that that is the route out of poverty—fantastic education and top-quality jobs—and that is what this Government aim to deliver.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) [V]]

My right hon. Friend will recall from his visit in 2019 that the port of Bristol would make an excellent location for a great western freeport. The West of England Mayor, Tim Bowles, has submitted a bid that could create 50,000 jobs in the region. Will the Prime Minister back our bid, and does he agree that, with house prices in the west of England sitting at nine times average earnings, we need a home building revolution to provide much more affordable housing for our young people as we build back better?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says about home building and the need for housing across the country. We sometimes hear that this is a problem mainly in London and the south-east. It is not at all; it is everywhere in the country, as he rightly says. I thank Tim Bowles, the Mayor of the West of England, for everything that he has done as he stands down. We intend to help build on his legacy with a massive home building programme and home ownership programme across the country.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]]

  Before the Budget is finalised, will the Prime Minister ensure that his Chancellor reads the Trussell Trust’s new report, “Dignity or Destitution? The case for keeping the Universal Credit lifeline”? His Government have been incredibly generous to pals with personal protective equipment contracts, so surely, instead of cutting employment-related benefits to the lowest real-terms level in 30 years, he must now afford some basic dignity to 6 million people on universal credit and make the uplift permanent.

[The Prime Minister]

We will continue to look after people throughout this pandemic and beyond, and the best thing we can do across the whole country is to bounce our economy back as fast as we can and get people into high-quality jobs. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), that is the agenda of this Government.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

I start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary for his announcement of a new high school for Radcliffe, on the back of my campaign. This new high school will kickstart the regeneration that the town desperately needs. On towns such as Radcliffe and Prestwich, which have not received towns fund or future high streets funding, can my right hon. Friend advise on what assistance this levelling-up Government can provide to make sure these towns are not forgotten?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his successful campaign to get a new high school; it is absolutely vital. The best place for kids is in school, as I hope we will hear from the Labour party very shortly. We are investing in his area to the tune of £660 million and more through the local growth fund, and £54 million through the getting building fund —and, of course, we are also investing in the transport network. Next week, the whole House will hear even more about what we propose to do to steer a path, cautiously but irreversibly, out of this pandemic, allow this economy to recover, and build back better across the whole of the United Kingdom.

[Mr Speaker]

I am suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

Covid-19: Road Map

Boris Johnson Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the road map that will guide us cautiously but irreversibly towards reclaiming our freedoms, while doing all we can to protect our people against covid. Today’s measures will apply in England, but we are working closely with the devolved Administrations, who are setting out similar plans.

The threat remains substantial, with the numbers in hospital only now beginning to fall below the peak of the first wave last April, but we are able to take these steps because of the resolve of the British public and the extraordinary success of our NHS in vaccinating over 17.5 million people across the UK. The data so far suggest both vaccines are effective against the dominant strains of covid. Public Health England has found that one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine reduces hospitalisations and deaths by at least 75%, and early data suggest that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine provides a good level of protection, although since we only started deploying this vaccine last month, at this stage the size of the effect is less certain. But no vaccine can ever be 100% effective, nor will everyone take them up, and like all viruses, covid-19 will mutate.

As the modelling released today by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies shows, we cannot escape the fact that lifting lockdown will result in more cases, more hospitalisations, and sadly more deaths. This will happen whenever lockdown is lifted, whether now or in six or nine months, because there will always be some vulnerable people who are not protected by the vaccines. There is therefore no credible route to a zero-covid Britain or indeed a zero-covid world, and we cannot persist indefinitely with restrictions that debilitate our economy, our physical and mental wellbeing, and the life chances of our children That is why it is so crucial that this road map should be cautious but also irreversible.

We are now setting out on what I hope and believe is a one-way road to freedom, and this journey is made possible by the pace of the vaccination programme. In England, everyone in the top four priority groups was successfully offered a vaccine by the middle of February. We now aim to offer a first dose to all those in groups five to nine by 15 April, and I am setting another stretching target: to offer a first dose to every adult by the end of July. As more of us are inoculated, so the protection afforded by the vaccines will gradually replace the restrictions, and today’s road map sets out the principles of that transition.

The level of infection is broadly similar across England, so we will ease restrictions in all areas at the same time. The sequence will be driven by the evidence, so outdoor activity will be prioritised as the best way to restore freedoms while minimising the risk. At every stage, our decisions will be led by data not dates, and subjected to four tests: first, that the vaccine deployment programme continues successfully; second, that evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths; third, that infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations, which would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS; and, fourth, that our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new variants of covid that cause concern.

Before taking each step, we will review the data against these tests. Because it takes at least four weeks for the data to reflect the impact of relaxations in restrictions, and because we want to give the country a week’s notice before each change, there will be at least five weeks between each step. The chief medical officer is clear that moving any faster would mean acting before we know the impact of each step, which would increase the risk of us having to reverse course and reimposerestrictions. I will not take that risk.

Step one will happen from 8 March, by which time those in the top four priority groups will be benefiting from the increased protection they receive from their first dose of the vaccine. All the evidence shows that classrooms are the best places for our young people to be. That is why I have always said that schools would be the last to close and the first to reopen. Based on our assessment of the current data against the four tests, I can tell the House that, two weeks from today, pupils and students in all schools and further education settings can safely return to face-to-face teaching, supported by twice-weekly testing of secondary school and college pupils. Families and childcare bubbles will also be encouraged to get tested regularly. Breakfast and after-school clubs can also reopen, and other children’s activities, including sport, can restart where necessary to help parents to work. Students on university courses requiring practical teaching, specialist facilities or onsite assessments will also return, but all others will need to continue learning online, and we will review the options for when they can return by the end of the Easter holidays.

From 8 March, people will also be able to meet one person from outside their household for outdoor recreation, such as a coffee on a bench or a picnic in a park, in addition to exercise, but we are advising the clinically extremely vulnerable to shield at least until the end of March. Every care-home resident will be able to nominate a named visitor, able to see them regularly, provided they are tested and wear personal protective equipment. Finally we will amend regulations to enable a broader range of covid-secure campaign activities for local elections on 6 May.

As part of step one, we will go further and make limited changes on 29 March, when schools go on Easter holidays. It will become possible to meet in limited numbers outdoors, where the risk is lower. So the rule of six will return outdoors, including in private gardens, and outdoor meetings of two households will also be permitted on the same basis, so that families in different circumstances can meet. Outdoor sports facilities, such as tennis and basketball courts and open-air swimming pools, will be able to reopen, and formally organised outdoor sports will resume, subject to guidance. From this point, 29 March, people will no longer be legally required to stay at home, but many lockdown restrictions will remain. People should continue to work from home where they can and minimise all travel wherever possible.

Step two will begin at least five weeks after the beginning of step one and no earlier than 12 April, with an announcement at least seven days in advance. If analysis of the latest data against the four tests requires a delay, then this and subsequent steps will also be delayed, to maintain the five-week gap.

In step two, non-essential retail will reopen, as will personal care, including hairdressers, I am glad to say, and nail salons. Indoor leisure facilities such as gyms will reopen, as will holiday lets, but only for use by individuals or household groups. We will begin to reopen our pubs and restaurants outdoors; hon. Members will be relieved that there will be no curfew, and the Scotch egg debate will be over because there will be no requirement for alcohol to be accompanied by a substantial meal. Zoos, theme parks and drive-in cinemas will reopen, as will public libraries and community centres.

Step three will begin no earlier than 17 May. Provided that the data satisfies the four tests, most restrictions on meetings outdoors will be lifted, subject to a limit of 30, and this is the point when you will be able to see your friends and family indoors, subject to the rule of six or the meeting of two households. We will also reopen pubs and restaurants indoors, along with cinemas and children’s play areas, hotels, hostels, and bed and breakfasts. Theatres and concert halls will reopen their doors, and the turnstiles of our sports stadiums will once again rotate, subject in all cases to capacity limits depending on the size of the venue. We will pilot larger events using enhanced testing, with the ambition of further easing restrictions in the next step.

Step four will begin no earlier than 21 June. With appropriate mitigations, we will aim to remove all legal limits on social contact and on weddings and other life events. We will reopen everything up to and including nightclubs, and enable large events such as theatre performances above the limits of step three, potentially using testing to reduce the risk of infection.

Our journey back towards normality will be subject to resolving a number of key questions, and to do this we will conduct four reviews. One will assess how long we need to maintain social distancing and face masks. This will also inform guidance on working from home, which should continue wherever possible until this review is complete, and it will be critical in determining how Parliament can safely return in a way that I know hon. Members would wish.

A second review will consider the resumption of international travel, which is vital for many businesses that have been hardest hit, including retail, hospitality, tourism and aviation. A successor to the global travel taskforce will report by 12 April so that people can plan for the summer. The third review will consider the potential role of covid status certification in helping venues to open safely, but be mindful of the many concerns surrounding exclusion, discrimination and privacy. The fourth review will look at the safe return of major events.

As we proceed through these steps, we will benefit from the combined protection of our vaccines and the continued expansion of rapid testing. We will extend the provision of free test kits for workplaces until the end of June, and families, small businesses and the self-employed can collect those tests from local testing sites.

In view of these cautious but, I hope, irreversible changes, people may be concerned about what they mean for the various support packages for livelihoods, for people and for the economy, so I want to assure the House that we will not pull the rug out. For the duration of the pandemic, the Government will continue to do whatever it takes to protect jobs and livelihoods across the UK, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will set out further details in the Budget next Wednesday.

Finally, we must remain alert to the constant mutations of the virus. Next month we will publish an updated plan for responding to local outbreaks with a range of measures to address variants of concern, including surge PCR testing and enhanced contact tracing. We cannot, I am afraid, rule out reimposing restrictions at local or regional level if evidence suggests that they are necessary to contain or suppress a new variant which escapes the vaccines.

I know there will be many people who will be worried that we are being too ambitious and that it is arrogant to impose any kind of plan upon a virus. I agree that we must always be humble in the face of nature and we must be cautious, but I also believe that the vaccination programme has dramatically changed the odds in our favour, and it is on that basis that we can now proceed.

Of course, there will be others who believe that we could go faster on the basis of the vaccination programme. I understand their feelings, and I sympathise very much with the exhaustion and the stress that people and businesses are experiencing after so long in lockdown. But to them all, I say that today the end really is in sight and a wretched year will give way to a spring and a summer that will be very different and incomparably better than the picture we see around us today. In that spirit, I commend this statement to the House.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the telephone call between us earlier today. This is the third time that the Prime Minister has announced a plan to come out of national lockdown. In the past, we have emerged without sufficient caution, without a clear plan and without listening to the science. We cannot afford to make those mistakes again. This has to be the last lockdown. The vaccine roll-out, as the Prime Minister said, has been remarkable, and I pay tribute to everybody involved. It is the light at the end of the tunnel, but if we are going to get there, we have to tread very carefully. I am glad that the Prime Minister spoke today of caution, of this being irreversible, of assessing the data and following the evidence. Those are the right guiding principles—and, I have to say, it is a welcome change from some of the language the Prime Minister used in the past. I urge him now to stick to that.

I turn to the substance of the matter. First, on schools, we all agree that the priority must be for all children to be back in school as quickly as possible and to stay in school. We want that to happen on 8 March, as the Government have promised. The confidence of parents, teachers and school staff will be critical, so will the Prime Minister please confirm that the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser support the full reopening of all schools on 8 March? Will he commit to publishing all the relevant medical evidence on this issue?

Will the Prime Minister also indicate what the Government are doing to overcome the huge logistical challenges this presents? He touched on mass testing in his statement, but there was nothing on Nightingale classrooms and extra capacity, which is a huge problem, particularly for schools with smaller buildings. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how he will deal with that in just over two weeks’ time?

Let me turn to a linked issue. Within weeks of schools returning last autumn, thousands of teachers and school staff were self-isolating, causing huge disruption to the running of schools and children’s learning. We do not want that again. That is why Labour called for the early vaccination of all teachers and school staff. In my own constituency, the fantastic Crick Institute, which has been doing amazing work, has been vaccinating hundreds of people a day. The institute has been very clear to me—and publicly—that it could be doing more, and it is obvious to me that over one weekend it could have vaccinated all teachers and school staff in Camden if it had been allowed to do so, without bumping anyone else from the priority list. There are similar examples across the country. Will the Prime Minister see what more can be done to speed up the vaccination of teachers and school staff to ensure that children and young people not only return to school on 8 March, but stay in school having returned?

Let me turn to isolation support. As we release health measures, however gradually, there is a risk that infection rates will go up; the Prime Minister made that clear in his statement. It is therefore more important than ever that test, trace and isolate is working and working well. One of the most concerning figures in a recent SAGE report is that only three in 10 people who should be self-isolating are actually doing so. It is obvious that one of the main drivers of this is insecurity at work. As the chair of Test and Trace has said, people are “scared” to take the test because they cannot afford to self-isolate. That not only harms our health response, but it costs the economy too—and it has to be fixed. We have proposed that the £500 isolation payment, which is currently only available to one in eight workers, be made available to everyone who needs it. Will the Prime Minister consider that? If we do not shift the three in 10 figure, there will be a huge hole in our defences.

I turn to economic support. The Prime Minister announced a road map today, but it will not have escaped businesses that many of them will not be able to open until mid-April at the earliest, and many not until mid-June. I am not questioning the health basis for that decision, which I support, but I am reiterating what we have always said—that health restrictions must be accompanied by proper economic support. It makes no sense to announce today that businesses will be closed for many more weeks or months without announcing new economic support at the same time. The Prime Minister says, “Well, the Budget will be next week”, but there is nothing stopping him saying today that business rates relief will be extended, that furlough will be extended, or that the VAT cut for hospitality and leisure will be extended. Businesses are crying out for that certainty and the Prime Minister should give it to them today.

The Prime Minister should also announce proper support for the 3 million self-employed who have been left out of all support for the last year. I was asked about this issue again on LBC this morning, by a self-employed business women who is at her wits’ end at the lack of Government support. This road map means that she may not be able to get her business up and running again until mid-June. Surely the Prime Minister needs to act now to close the gap for those 3 million people.

We support the twin principles that the Prime Minister has set out today—that the lifting of restrictions must be both cautious and irreversible. But I know that the Prime Minister will come under pressure from those on his own Benches to go faster and throw caution to the wind. Last week, it was reported that around 60 of his own Members of Parliament called for the end of all restrictions by the end of April, and I am sure that there are going to be similar calls this afternoon. I hope that the Prime Minister takes the opportunity to face this down because if the road map is to work, he needs to listen to the chief scientific adviser and the chief medical officer, not to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) or the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). If the Prime Minister does, he will have our support and will secure a majority in the House. If he does not, we will waste all the sacrifices of the last 12 months.

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his overall support for the road map. Indeed, I also welcome his support for the vaccine roll-out. I am sure that many people will be glad to hear what he says. I cannot help but remind you, Mr Speaker, that he did vote to stay in the European Medicines Agency, which would have made a vaccine roll-out of this speed impossible.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that it is a priority to get schools back safely. I am delighted that he agrees with that. I can certainly say that that plan for all schools to go back on 8 March is supported by the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser. It would be a good thing if he could perhaps persuade some of his friends in the unions to say so as well and to say that schools are safe



The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the importance of self-isolation. We will continue to support those who are asked to self-isolate and, indeed, increase our package of support for them. As for the support for business and for the self-employed, which he rightly raised, we will continue to put our arms around businesses and livelihoods around the country, as we have done throughout the pandemic, and the Chancellor, who has been extremely creative in this respect, will be setting out the details in the Budget next week, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman would expect. Overall, I think we can safely say that we have had cautious support from the Leader of the Opposition today, but bitter experience has taught me that his support is very far from irreversible. Who knows what he will be saying next week, but I am glad of it today.

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. May I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today? I particularly welcome the return to school on 8 March, but there is another sector that is important for jobs in my constituency, fundamental to our economy and critical to global Britain—the aviation sector. He says that there will be a taskforce report by 12 April so that people can plan for the summer, but that will not allow people to plan. At every stage, the Government have taken weeks, following these reports, to provide certainty to the industry. The industry needs three months’ preparation from the point of certainty, so I ask him to look again at the timetable for the taskforce report and to bring it forward so that we can open up our international air travel and ensure that Britain is open for business.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. She is quite rightly a doughty campaigner for the aviation industry and all that it brings to our country. I can tell her that we will continue to support that industry throughout these difficult times, but I believe that setting a deadline of 12 April for the report of the newly formed, reconstituted travel taskforce will give people time to make their plans for the summer. If things go well, and if we can meet these “not before” dates, I believe there is every chance of an aviation recovery later this year.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]]

The success of the vaccine roll-out, led by our incredible NHS staff, is something to behold and something that we are all thankful for. For the first time in many months, people across these islands are genuinely hopeful that an end to the current lockdown is finally in sight, but people also know that one major threat could undo much of that hope. The spread of new international variants of the virus now poses the single biggest threat to finally getting out of the pandemic. That is why quarantine measures for international arrivals are so important. We simply cannot afford to get this wrong. That is why the Scottish Government have taken tough but absolutely necessary action. Those arriving in Scotland on an international flight have to quarantine in a hotel for 10 days. In England, though, the policy applies only to people travelling from red list countries.

The evidence shows that people across the United Kingdom are demanding stronger measures to prevent the spread of any new variant. YouGov polling last week showed that only 18% support the UK Government’s rules on quarantine, while a massive 72% of people across the United Kingdom prefer the Scottish Government’s comprehensive approach. Prime Minister, your plan to end lockdown will be worthless if your insufficient quarantine measures allow a new variant in through the back door. People right across the United Kingdom are continuing to make huge sacrifices: children are not yet physically at school, families are isolated and there is a loneliness epidemic. People are really struggling, and all this cannot be for nothing. Do not leave the back door open. Do not risk all the hard work and all the sacrifices that have been made.

Given all that is at stake, can the Prime Minister explain why the UK Government are failing to introduce the strong quarantine measures that the public across the United Kingdom are demanding? Will he think again and introduce the Scottish Government’s comprehensive approach for international travellers? Let us all do what we need to do to drive down the spread of the virus and get us all into a position where we can reverse lockdown and begin to restore social interaction for all our wellbeing.

[The Prime Minister]

We have among the toughest quarantine measures anywhere in the world, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, including the mandatory incarceration in hotels appointed by the Government if people return from one of the 33 red list countries. We will continue to impose very, very tough controls on people coming into this country. He should also know that we are confident that all our vaccines are effective in reducing death and serious disease, and we have no reason to doubt that they are effective in reducing death and serious disease from the new variants as well. He should also know that over the course of the next few months we will see new vaccines to defeat these vaccine-escaping variants and that is evolving the whole time. Other than that, I was delighted by the unaccustomed note of optimism with which he began. He is not often notable for his optimism in this House. He is rolling his eyes, but I rather liked it when he began with optimism. I think he should stick to it; I think it suits him. More optimism from him would be nice to hear.

[Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) [V]]

Talking of optimism, the Prime Minister’s approach feels similar to that of Harold Wilson, who said he was an optimist but one who always carried a raincoat. The Prime Minister’s caution is absolutely right in the face of these new variants, when we are potentially so close to the finishing line. But as we get there, will he recognise the brilliant work of our health and care staff by building back better for them, potentially in next week’s Budget, by announcing that we will finally make sure we are training enough doctors and nurses with a long-term workforce plan and by giving the social care sector a 10-year plan, just as we gave the NHS 10 years ago?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. I pay tribute again, as I have many times before, to the incredible work of not just our NHS staff, but our social care staff, who have really borne the brunt of the pandemic and have done fantastically well. We will certainly be bringing forward reforms of social care, in addition to the massive investments we have already made.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) [V]]

The road map to recovery must put people hit hardest by this pandemic first, not least people with learning disabilities. They have died at rates that are more than three and half times those for the rest of the population, yet many are still not being prioritised for vaccination. Jo Whiley has spoken powerfully about how “hideously unfair” it was to be offered the vaccine before her sister Frances, who is now in hospital with covid after an outbreak in her care home. I know that many other carers across the country feel the same while our loved ones remain so vulnerable to this virus. So will the Prime Minister tell us when, on his road map, everyone with a learning disability will have been offered their first jab?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right to draw attention to the particular suffering endured by vulnerable groups throughout this pandemic. That is why those with learning difficulties, those with particular vulnerabilities, do appear high up in the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation priority list, which I am sure is exactly what he would expect.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) [V]]

First, can I congratulate the Prime Minister on his incredibly bold decision last year? It is due to that and getting the vaccines roll-out going that we are now looking at the eventual end to this covid nightmare, so he deserves all the plaudits he gets for that and more. I agree with his caution in this roll-out and going back to being unlocked, but I just say to him that the hospitality sector is a very big employer of the poorest in society and it is they who have suffered the most in terms of incomes. Nearly half of those businesses are talking about closing, so I wonder whether he would feel it possible to review again the nature of opening up inside those restaurants and pubs, to check that there is no real risk beyond that for any of the other elements he is opening up and, if that is the case, to take that bold decision as and when the data dictates it?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for what he said just now. I totally understand where he is coming from and the urgency of those in the hospitality sector who want to open up as soon as possible, as indeed we all do. Everybody in this House wants that to happen, but we also understand the risk of another surge and the consequent risk of a fourth lockdown, which I do not think anybody wants to see, least of all the businesses concerned. What we have in this road map are dates—admittedly, they are “not before” dates—to which businesses can now work: 12 April for outdoor hospitality, 17 May for indoor hospitality. That gives at least some certainty. I think, in this very, very difficult time, with these difficult trade-offs, people would be prepared to trade some urgency and some haste for more certainty and more reliability, and that is what we aim to give.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]]

Diolch yn fawr, Mr Lefarydd. Workers across the UK still face a hopeless choice: self-isolating and suffering a loss of earnings, or going to work, where they risk spreading the virus. Eight months ago, I raised the very problem of the UK’s unfit sick pay system with the Prime Minister, but there are still people in work who cannot afford to self-isolate. Ahead of the Budget, will the Prime Minister commit to raising and expanding statutory sick pay once and for all as a key long-term lesson to be learned from this pandemic, or is he content for our poorest communities to be blighted by ill health now and quite possibly again in future?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Lady and repeat the point that I have made to her many times before, although I am grateful to her for raising this again: we will continue to look after people throughout the pandemic. We have increased benefits. There is the payment of £500 and other payments that we will make available. Our undertaking is to make sure that we protect people, whether they are self-isolating or are forced not to be able to work throughout the duration of the pandemic, and she will be hearing more about that from the Chancellor on 3 March.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Thankfully, my right hon. Friend has clearly stated today that an extreme zero-covid approach is impracticable. Can he confirm that most, if not all, of his key scientific advisers now accept that our strategic goal must be and is a practical, vaccine-based method of controlling covid like any other serious respiratory virus, such as influenza?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is completely right in the analogy he draws. The only reason I am able to say to the country that we must learn to live with covid as we live with flu in the long term is, of course, because we have this vaccination programme and the capability to evolve our vaccines.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]]

As well as welcoming the success of the vaccination programme, I want to emphasise that there is a lack of sufficient financial support for self-isolation. There is, in the words of one of the Government’s own advisers, a “huge gaping hole” in the Prime Minister’s covid strategy. The payments are not enough and they are not reaching the right people. So as well as fixing that once and for all, will he also take this opportunity to respond, with the seriousness it deserves, to the High Court’s ruling on Friday that the Secretary of State acted unlawfully by failing to publish covid contracts? No one has ever suggested that Ministers did not need to act fast to procure PPE and other covid-related contracts, but transparency matters, even in a crisis, so if the Government have nothing to hide, will the Prime Minister now publish details of who benefited from the VIP lane, who lifted the velvet ropes for those favoured companies, what price they were paid and why they were chosen? Parliament and the country have a right to know.

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, we will continue to look after those who are self-isolating and improve their support where we can, as I have said. As for the contracts that the hon. Lady just mentioned, all the details are on the record, and of course it was right to work as fast as we possibly could to get the PPE that this country so desperately needed.

[Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) [V]]

I thank the medics and the volunteers who have worked so hard in providing covid-19 vaccines across the kingdom. In the Wakefield clinical commissioning group area alone, more than 87,000 vaccines have been administered. The vaccine roll-out is the fundamental route out for us, ensuring that we are able to return to our much lamented normality and properly follow the pathway that has just been outlined by the Prime Minister. I am concerned that vaccine disinformation has specifically targeted ethnic minority groups, leading to some refusing the vaccine when they are offered it. Can my right hon. Friend outline what steps the Government are taking to encourage black, Asian and minority ethnic groups to receive the vaccine when they are offered it?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and congratulate him on the spectacular throne on which he appears to be sitting. Not so long ago, he and I were together in the Al-Hikmah community centre in Batley. I thank all those involved in this roll-out, including the community groups up and down the land that are doing an outstanding job in promulgating vaccinations. He raises a very important point, and I thank him for what he is doing to promote vaccinations for everybody.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]]

My constituents are seeking explanations. Most of them have lost income, many have lost their jobs and all are facing varying degrees of stress, ranging from the very severe to concern about their lives. Many local small businesses have closed for good because they see no future and they are not getting the support that they need. Yet, Mr Speaker, answers are required from the Prime Minister: how £10.5 billion of NHS contracts were awarded without tender; how a further 99% of all NHS contracts were awarded, again, without tender; and how, last week, the High Court found that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care had not acted legally in the awarding of those contracts. I ask the Prime Minister to do two things: will he end this scandalous privatisation of our NHS, which is happening before our very eyes; and will he replace the Health Secretary with somebody who will stand by and obey the law and publish in advance all contracts that are due to be let, so that the public can see how their money is being spent.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

To the best of my memory, the Labour Opposition were advocating during the early stages of the crisis that we should secure PPE from, I think, a theatrical impresario who specialised in capes and gowns and a football agent who claimed to be able to get hold of masks. We went as fast as we possibly could to get PPE and those who are now denouncing us for going too fast were those who were complaining back them that we were not going fast enough.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]]

My right hon. Friend and the Government have rightly been unapologetic throughout this pandemic in their determination to safeguard children’s educational opportunities and wellbeing. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, once all schools reopen on 8 March, the Government will be putting in place all the measures necessary to keep them open, working with academy trusts and, crucially, local authorities to avoid any further disruption to our children’s education?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend because that is exactly why we wish to take this cautious but irreversible approach to make sure that we do not have to go back into measures that would keep kids out of school again. He is quite right in what he says.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]]

I welcome the progressive road map of the Prime Minister and the Government, which, of course, is underpinned by the incredibly successful roll-out of the vaccine. Can the Prime Minister confirm that we have no supply issues and are on target to give the second dose to all of those on the NHS frontline who are due them in the next few weeks? Can he also assure us that this will not adversely affect the continuous supply and availability of first vaccines for the informal carers of those who are shielding?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is completely right to raise this and to care deeply about supply. We have no supply issues at the moment, and we are confident that we can meet our targets.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) [V]]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on the fact that sunlit uplands now beckon us. He is right to say that the threat remains substantial, because while we are unlocking, at this stage only a third of the adult population has been vaccinated. What will the Government do to minimise the threat of another lockdown—for example, by strengthening the track, trace and isolate operation, particularly at a local level; providing covid-safe spaces, so that it is easier for people who are infected to self-isolate; and deploying testing capacity more effectively, such as testing schoolchildren twice a week in schools, as we will already be testing teachers?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in the ideas that he puts forward. Test, track and trace has been improving the whole time over the period of the pandemic. He is right to draw attention to the potential of lateral flow testing, not just in schools—as he says, we will be doing it twice a week for secondary school pupils after the first couple of weeks—but rolling it out for companies and local communities to take up as an additional support and an additional way of fighting the disease.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) [V]]

I know that the Prime Minister was in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) last week to see the vaccine programme being rolled out by the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board at Cwmbran Stadium. I join him in thanking all the Welsh NHS staff and volunteers who are working so hard to save lives by rolling out the vaccine programme. However, does he agree with me and many people across Newport West that every single penny of public money must be accounted for? If so, what is he going to say to his Health Secretary, who, according to the Court, breached his legal obligation by not publishing details within 30 days of contracts being signed? We have had two attempts at getting the Prime Minister to answer, so I am hoping it is third time lucky.

[The Prime Minister]

I am going to ruthlessly repeat what I said before, which is that I believe that it was absolutely right for this country to secure PPE as fast as we possibly could, just as it has been right to roll out a vaccine programme as fast as we possibly can. It was great to be in Cwmbran and see what they are doing there. That is thanks to the dynamic work of the NHS and everybody in the Department of Health and Social Care, including the Health Secretary.

[Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) [V]]

Today I hosted a Zoom meeting between Bolton North East’s pubs and restaurants and the Minister for Small Business, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully). Can the Prime Minister ensure that we allow businesses enough time to improve our hospitality’s operating data and make the dates in 2021 utterly delectable?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for what he is doing to help local businesses and rally them. If we can stick to this road map—and I believe that we can—there is not long to go now for those businesses. For hospitality in Bolton, there are two dates: there is outdoor hospitality on 12 April and then indoor, with all its potential, on 17 May. That gives some dates for us all to think about and for business to work towards, and I hope that it will be of some reassurance to them.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Some eminent members of SAGE have indicated that they are concerned about a resurgence with the return of children to schools. Can the Prime Minister say whether the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser support reopening schools in their entirety on 8 March? During the last term, many schools suffered an enormous amount of disruption because staff were off isolating. Is not the best way to prevent that from happening in the future to ensure that all school staff are vaccinated?

[The Prime Minister]

I have a deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman as he and I have clashed many times over issues in London, but I think he uncommonly showed a failure to follow what I already said in my answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer): the CMO and the CSA both approve of reopening in full.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) [V]]

More than anything, the nation’s businesses need certainty in order to plan. Today’s road map provides that certainty, and the reopening of schools is a welcome and critical element of it. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is important that, like navigating lock gates on a canal, we now proceed sequentially, as fast as possible, but always in a forward direction?

[The Prime Minister]

As anybody who has steered a narrowboat or barge on a canal will know, the important thing is not to oversteer and then be forced to correct and bump the sides of the canal. That is what we are trying to avoid, which is why we are embarking on a cautious but irreversible approach.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]]

I will leave it to another time to ask the Prime Minister why we did not have adequate PPE stocks given the fact that Exercise Cygnus in 2016 stipulated that we needed to increase our PPE stockpiles.

I was really concerned about the tone of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care when he did the media round yesterday: he seemed to imply that he had done nothing wrong and that the judge was the one making a mistake. This is not how a healthy democracy works, so I repeat the questions asked by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas): will the Prime Minister publish all outstanding contracts, because there are outstanding contracts that have not been published; bring an end to the emergency procurement powers; and reintroduce a tendering process?

[The Prime Minister]

I can see that there is a concerted attempt to make a point about this issue today, but I must say that the Government made every effort to secure PPE as fast as we possibly could, and I think that is what the people of this country wanted. We ended up with 32 billion items of PPE and, thanks to Lord Deighton, the PPE taskforce and others, we now have the capability, which I think will reassure the hon. Lady’s constituents more than anything else, to make 70% of our PPE needs in this country.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) [V]]

It is brilliant news that we have now vaccinated one in three adults in the UK—it is a huge testament to British science; to the NHS; to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) and his whole team; and to everybody involved in the vaccination programme, not least my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree that because of his swift roll-out of the vaccine programme, we are now in a much stronger position to start to ease restrictions and put ourselves back on the path to some form of normality much sooner than we would have been able to without a vaccination roll-out programme?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, of course. My hon. Friend is completely right and I thank him very much for what he just said. The only reason why this road map is possible—we are one of a tiny number of countries around the world that have been able to set out a road map with dates and milestones this far ahead—is the vaccination roll-out programme.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) [V]]

The people of this country have endured so much in the past year, including personal tragedies among the highest excess death toll and job losses under the worst damage to any major economy. But they have also seen the Prime Minister’s closest adviser, Dominic Cummings, break the covid regulations, the Home Secretary break the ministerial code and now the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care break the law to hide crony contracts—all without consequences. Will the Prime Minister end this system of one rule for his Tory pals and another for the rest of us?

[The Prime Minister]

Contained within that question was possibly another suggestion that we could have done things differently with the procurement of PPE. All I will say is that the contracts are there on the record for everybody to see. I think most people in this country will understand that in very difficult if not desperate times last spring, we had to work as fast as we possibly could.

[Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, especially the announcement on schools. He is right to be driven by the evidence. Last week, Professor Mark Woolhouse told the Science and Technology Committee that during the whole year

“there has been very, very little evidence of any transmission outdoors happening in the UK.”

Will my right hon. Friend continue to look at the evidence and see whether it is possible to bring back outdoor activities such as sports during the weeks ahead? With the spring weather coming, that would be a great boon to millions of people throughout the country.

[The Prime Minister]

Of course my right hon. Friend is right to raise the point about outdoor transmission. That is why, on 8 March, with the return of schools, we are also going to be seeing school sport, which is great, plus outdoor recreation one on one in the way that I described earlier on, and then on 29 March it is the rule of six plus two households together, plus more sport outdoors of all kinds, up to and including, I think, rugby with tackling but without the scrums, as I understand the guidance.

[Mr Speaker]

Welcome to rugby league!

[Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) [V]]

Analysis by the Royal College of General Practitioners of NHS England’s covid-19 vaccination figures shows that people of black ethnicity are half as likely as people of white ethnicity to get vaccinated and people of Asian ethnicity are under two thirds as likely as their white counterparts to accept vaccination. What additional specific steps will the Prime Minister take to encourage greater uptake of the vaccine in those communities?

[The Prime Minister]

The number of people receiving the vaccine is actually increasing in all communities on roughly the same gradient, but the hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise the concern that I think everybody has about uptake in some communities. It is now going faster. We have rolled out a network of community champions. I think we have put about £23 million into supporting community champions for hard-to-reach, vaccine-resistant communities. The most important thing is for everybody to get across the message that the vaccine is a wonderful thing and everybody should get it: “Get your vaccine when you get your message from the NHS.”

[Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

I welcome very strongly the reopening of schools. After what we have put them through over the past year, it is time we prioritised the interests of our children and young people. The Prime Minister sets out a programme based on data, not dates, and that must be right, but will he please publish the precise criteria for each of those stages to be met? Finally, when the renewal of emergency powers is due, will he undertake to bring that vote to the House before the Easter recess and not after?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes indeed: there is going to be a massive data dump—I think that is the word I have been quoted today. Some colleagues may already have seen some of the data that is available, underpinning the road map that we have set out. There will of course be another vote in this House about these measures before Easter, and then those measures, in turn, elapse on 21 June in the way that I have described.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]]

Local council public health teams will continue to be pivotal in controlling the virus, but the Government’s decade of austerity and cuts has damaged their capacity, and the public health grant last year—2020-21—was 22% lower per head in real terms compared with 2015-16. Will the Prime Minister tell the House when the public health grant allocation for this year will be announced and whether it will include a significant real-terms increase to ensure that councils can continue to keep our communities safe?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful to councils, and particularly public health officials, for the incredible work that they have done in the past year—the absolutely amazing work that they have done. We are supporting them with another £4.7 billion, as the hon. Lady knows, to support local councils in everything they do, and we will continue to offer support throughout the pandemic.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) [V]]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for the precautionary approach that he is pursuing to lifting the lockdown. It is clear that the impact of covid will be with us for some time, and I would thus be most grateful if he could confirm that this plan is co-ordinated and synchronised with the measures that the Chancellor will announce in the Budget, and that there will be ongoing support both for badly affected businesses in sectors such as hospitality and for those people who are relying on the £20 uplift to universal credit.

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, of course we will make sure that we continue to look after people throughout the pandemic, as we have done since the beginning. The Chancellor will be setting out next week exactly what we are doing.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]]

Greater Manchester has been under local restrictions since the end of July, and it has been a long few months, so I welcome the road map out of lockdown and also the success of the vaccine. As somebody who has just about shaken off long covid symptoms 11 months after contracting covid, can I urge the Prime Minister not to forget those still struggling and the many more who will develop long covid as a consequence of the latest wave of the virus? As the economy switches back on and as lives return to normal, will he also commit to doing more for those who still do not have access to long covid clinics and who still do not have access to support or help, so that nobody is left behind?

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman back on fighting form. Having enjoyed lively on-screen debates with him in the past, it is good to see him back in shape. He is right to draw attention to the long-term consequences of the disease, and we will do everything we can to alleviate suffering and to continue to invest in support for those who need it.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

First, I thank the Prime Minister for the measures to get our children back to school on 8 March, which is very welcome—it is something we have called for, and I think he should be congratulated on that—and also for the speed of the vaccine roll-out. Could I just press him a little on the thoughts behind vaccinating groups 1 to 9, which is everyone over 50 and those aged 16 to 64 with a health condition that makes them vulnerable to covid? Those groups account for 99% of deaths and around 80% of hospitalisations, so for what reason, once they have been vaccinated and protected from covid by the end of April at the latest, is there any need for restrictions to continue?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The difficulty is that, of course, there will be at least a significant minority who either have not taken up the vaccine in those vulnerable groups for the reasons that the House has been discussing or who, having had the vaccine, are not given sufficient protection. We believe that the protection is very substantial, but there will be a large minority who will not have sufficient protection. The risk is that letting the brakes off could see the disease surge up in such a way as again to rip through a large number or rip through those groups in a way that I do not think anybody in this country would want. I am afraid it is pure mathematics; there is still a substantial body of risk. We also need to wait and see exactly what the effects of the vaccine are. There is some promising data, but I think what the country would want at this stage is caution and certainty and irreversibility, and that is what we aim to provide.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]]

Throughout this crisis, the Government have been slow to offer the financial support that people need. From 3 million people excluded from any support, to thousands of people failing to self-isolate because they cannot afford to miss work, it is clear that we need to do more. Will the Prime Minister confirm that, to get through the next few months, the Budget will bring forward adequate financial support for everyone who cannot work due to the pandemic, including those who are self-isolating, rather than the current system, which sees too many people fall through the cracks?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I certainly can confirm that, and the hon. Member should wait to see what the Chancellor has to say next week. I think colleagues on all sides of the House would concede that the programmes of support that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has brought forward have been extremely effective and generous by virtually all international comparisons.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Those of us who represent constituencies where retail, hospitality and tourism are an absolute lifeblood will welcome the dates and the fact that domestic holidays in England are open as normal for the summer, but may I ask the Prime Minister to give a little more detail on the global travel taskforce, which reports by 12 April? Will it set out the requirements regarding testing, vaccination certificates, social distancing and face masks and, I hope, measures towards an end to quarantine?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. The travel taskforce will be looking at all those things—quarantine, destinations and so on and so forth. I think at the moment one consideration is that we need to make sure that there are countries that will be willing to accept British tourists in the way that we would like to see. Some of them have stepped forward and said that they will, but they are currently not very numerous.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]]

Lateral flow testing is central to the Prime Minister’s educational reopening plans, so can he explain why our only real-world published figures—from the student asymptomatic testing programme in Scotland before Christmas—showed that almost 30% of positive tests turned out to be false when subject to a confirmatory polymerase chain reaction test? Considering the financial, educational and mental health impact of self-isolation, does the Prime Minister share my concerns that a lot of students will be told to self-isolate for no reason?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not recognise that figure. Lateral flow tests are extremely valuable in isolating asymptomatic positive tests and in helping schools to restart. That is why we are pursuing them.

[Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) [V]]

I welcome the statement today and the prudent and cautious measures to reducing lockdown restrictions. We have all had our role to play in combating the virus, and it is a role that will continue for some time, so will the Prime Minister join me in saying thank you to all my constituents in Stourbridge for their continued patience and resilience, whether that is the fabulous Dudley NHS, my care homes, Mary Stevens Hospice, all those unsung heroes, my teaching fraternity, the army of vaccinators, all key workers and those essential workers who have kept us fed and watered—truly heroic efforts by one and all?

[The Prime Minister]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her brilliant question. I plant my flag firmly on everything she has just said and echo it sincerely. I add my thanks not just to the people of Stourbridge for their patience and resilience, but to the people of the entire country.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) [V]]

Too often, children and young people have been an afterthought during this pandemic. Aside from lost learning, many children are feeling anxious and lonely due to not seeing their friends and missing out on play and other activities. We know that one in four has self-harmed in the past year, that eating disorder rates are soaring and that demand for acute beds is reaching crisis point, so will the Prime Minister please commit to providing a ring-fenced resilience fund for schools, as proposed by YoungMinds, to ensure that young people are given the mental health support they so desperately need?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to draw attention to endurance and the things we have asked young people to put up with this year and over the past 12 months. There cannot be a generation like it, who have experienced so much disruption to their education. She is right to call attention to the pressures and stress that that has caused. We have invested massively in mental health provision, particularly for young people’s mental health. One of the things we have done is appoint a young people’s mental health ambassador in the form of Alex George, but the top priority for the Government is now not just to get kids back in school on 8 March, but to make sure that we remediate their education with a programme of much more than £1 billion. The Secretary of State for Education will be setting out more about our plans to help those pupils later this week.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) [V]]

The people of this country are desperate to be set free as soon as possible. As my right hon. Friend knows, many of the tourism and hospitality businesses in Derbyshire Dales have been hit heavily by this pandemic, so please will he encourage the country to book self-catered, self-contained accommodation for staycation holidays in places like Derbyshire Dales this summer, where families are able to minimise mixing with other people but have some fun?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is completely right, and, as she will have heard just now, the option to book a staycation is, all being well, now there for 12 April, and I cannot imagine there are many lovelier destinations around then than the Derbyshire dales.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) [V]]

Following the High Court ruling that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care acted unlawfully by failing to comply with the transparency rules, will the Prime Minister now publish the names of the companies awarded contracts that were introduced to high-priority lanes by Ministers, hon. Members, peers and officials, and set out any material, financial or fiduciary responsibility or relationship between each company and the persons responsible for that introduction to the priority lane?

[The Prime Minister]

I repeat the answer I have given several times: all these contracts are published in the normal way.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, and we all recognise the huge work that has been done to make the vaccine roll-out a success, but may I press him on why some of the dates are set as “no earlier than”? If we believe in the vaccine, the programme and the data, is not the logic that if the data shows we can move to free up sectors of the economy sooner, we should not artificially hold them back? Surely that is following the data. Should there not be a little more flexibility there?

[The Prime Minister]

We need to see the data and the effect of each successive relaxation. As I explained to the House, we need four weeks to assess whether the relaxation has caused a surge in the virus, because that is the time it takes—so, from the opening of schools until 12 April. We will need to assess that, and then we will need a further week to give people due notice, and the same onwards through 17 May to 21 June and so on. The reason for that cautious but irreversible approach is that I think people would rather have certainty than urgency. We are going as fast as we reasonably and responsibly can, but if there is a trade-off between haste and certainty, I think people would prefer certainty.

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

The Prime Minister will appreciate that parts of my constituency and others in West Yorkshire have been in heightened restrictions and higher tiers since last summer when others had many more freedoms. Our people and businesses have paid a disproportionately high price in the national effort to tackle covid, and because of this many areas are building back from a more challenging position. Can the Prime Minister confirm today that funding packages will address this specific inequality and that there will be no return to regional tiers, ensuring that our recovery from covid is truly a national recovery?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, the hon. Lady should wait to hear what the Chancellor says next week, and we will make sure we go forward as one nation together.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

May I congratulate all the staff and volunteers, particularly at the Bosden Moor surgery in Offerton in my constituency, where I had the privilege of joining them as a marshal for the car park on Friday afternoon as they administered over 500 vaccines? My right hon. Friend says he is led by the data, not the dates, yet his statement outlines many dates, so will he commit to publishing the thresholds of data that will determine the easing of lockdown measures?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes indeed, my hon. Friend can examine all the data that we have published today. I have set out the criteria by which we will proceed, and I thank him for what he is doing to marshal people in the car parks.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

On 18 February, the UK Government announced £18.5 million for four research projects to better understand the causes, symptoms and treatment of long covid. However, the linkage between sepsis and covid, and between long sepsis and long covid, as evidenced by the UK Sepsis Trust, was not mentioned. Will the Prime Minister please outline his plans to make sure that this very important linkage is included in those research projects?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we will look at sepsis, which is a deeply distressing condition, and at whether it has any association with covid.

[Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) [V]]

I thank the Prime Minister for setting out these measures today. I know that everyone is keen to start socialising in a safe way as soon as possible, so will the Prime Minister allow pubs to reopen their gardens as quickly as possible? If six people can buy alcoholic drinks from a shop and meet in a park, I hope that pubs will be given a chance to provide a takeaway service to allow consumption in their gardens as soon as possible.

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. That is why 12 April is the date.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Last month was the worst on record for new aircraft orders, and the aerospace sector, which is so important to my constituency, will suffer a long time after these restrictions are lifted, along with tourism, travel and aviation, as we have heard. Will the Prime Minister therefore commit to continuing support for those areas of the economy, which drive so much of the value of the economy, but which will suffer from a much longer lag before they are able to pick up again?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. That is why we have done everything we can through Time to Pay and other means to try to look after the aviation sector, although it has been incredibly hard for that sector, which matters a great deal to our country. The best way forward for it is to get people flying again. As I said, it is a bit of a time to wait, but the travel taskforce will be reporting on 12 April, and I am hopeful that we will be able to make progress this summer, but we will have to wait and see.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) [V]]

As an animal welfare champion, I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister mention zoos, but in terms of being able to get out there and visit these places and go to pubs, he described certainty as more important than urgency, and mentioned his concern for the unprotected, unvaccinated element of the population, who could be holding the rest of us back. What more can we do to encourage people who might not have taken up the vaccine to make sure that they get jabbed and let the rest of us out?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, we must encourage everybody to take the vaccine, which is a wonderful thing. One of the problems is that, at the moment, we are not, as my hon. Friend knows, vaccinating children—children are not approved for the vaccine, although they are possible vectors of the disease. As he knows, there are also people who are vulnerable to the disease, even though they may have been vaccinated—there will be at least a percentage—so we have to make sure we proceed with caution and in a way that means we do not have to go back.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) [V]]

Do the Prime Minister and his Government intend to do anything at all for the 3 million or so people who have been excluded from financial support since the start of this pandemic?

[The Prime Minister]

We have provided about £15 billion for the self-employed and will continue to look after them in any way we can.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) [V]]

I welcome the Prime Minister setting out the road map as promised, and it is great that schools will be returning, including, importantly, with their sporting activities. However, with that in mind, 8 March would also have been the optimal time to reintroduce for every one non-contact sports such as golf, which it is scientifically proven can to participated in safely during the pandemic. Will the Prime Minister set out why it has not been possible to reintroduce those sports at this stage, given that that will leave millions of people having to wait for another five weeks before they can return to their favourite form of exercise?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is quite right to vent his frustration. I share his frustration; as somebody who yearns to go out and play sport myself, I understand completely how he feels. We must face the fact that, by comparison with any period last year, the virus remains very prevalent in our country, and we have to continue to keep it under control. What we are trying to do is a cautious but irreversible approach, and he only has to wait for another three weeks beyond 8 March to be able to hit a golf ball with a friend.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]]

The Prime Minister’s handling of this pandemic has been marked by false promises and inconsistent messaging. Hospitality was covid-secure, yet it had an arbitrary curfew imposed on it and it was then closed down. Today, that industry, which is the lifeblood of coastal tourist towns such as mine, has heard that people can meet outside in a park, yet outdoor areas of safe, regulated pubs, bars and restaurants cannot open until April. It simply cannot see the logic behind that. Can the Prime Minister explain where he found it?

[The Prime Minister]

The logic lies in containing a pandemic, and I think people in this country understand that. I deeply sympathise with the businesses in the hon. Lady’s constituency. The wonderful hospitality sector across the country now has a date to work for—to look forward to—for outdoor hospitality and for indoor hospitality, and I think people would rather have certainty than anything else.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) [V]]

Further to my question to the Prime Minister on 27 January and representations from Medway MPs, Medway will now have a mass vaccination centre, and I thank the Prime Minister and the Government for that. The impact of covid-19 on the mental health and wellbeing of young people has been raised with me repeatedly by local schools and the local university. The Children’s Commissioner, Anne Longfield, has suggested that all schools should have a dedicated mental health worker. Is that something that the Government will look to take forward, or will there be specific alternative support for young people? With that, I thank the Prime Minister for his recent response to me with regard to the report that I sent him from Professor Young at King’s College London on mental health and covid-19.

[The Prime Minister]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and the people of Rainham on the vaccine centre and everything that they are doing. He is completely right to raise mental health. That is why we are investing massively in supporting children’s and adult mental health, and I recently appointed Alex George to be mental health ambassador for young people.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

As the Prime Minister charts his road map out of this third national lockdown, he has undoubtedly presided over a disastrous response to the pandemic—one of the worst in the world. The sluggishness, double-mindedness and mixed messaging has led to billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money going into crony contracts with firms with links to the Tory party. We have one of the worst economic crises of any major economy in the world, and we have the worst death toll in Europe: more than 100,000 people have died, including members of my family. Would the Prime Minister like to take this opportunity to apologise to the British people and reassure them that the steps he is now taking will not lead us into yet another lockdown?

[The Prime Minister]

The purpose of this road map is to be cautious but irreversible, and if I take it from what the hon. Gentleman has just said that he supports the road map, then I am glad to have his support.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) [V]]

I fully support my right hon. Friend’s cautious approach. However, he will know that coastal resorts have been particularly badly hit, as they rely to a considerable extent on the hospitality sector. That said, northern Lincolnshire and the Humber can play a major part in the post-pandemic economic recovery. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that the Government will continue to support established and new businesses in the area?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. We will ensure that we support businesses throughout the pandemic. I am absolutely certain that the hospitality industry in Cleethorpes and the surrounding area will bounce back very strongly indeed.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister indicated in his statement that wearing face masks will still be a factor in the fight against covid over the months ahead. Many people with hidden disabilities are unable to wear face masks, yet many of them face abuse when they go out in public and people do not realise that they are exempt from wearing face coverings. Will the Prime Minister commit to a public awareness campaign for people with hidden disabilities so that they do not face abuse in public?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. I will make sure that we do even more to get that point over to people, so that people who cannot wear face masks because of their disabilities do not face that kind of abuse.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]]

Will the Government do more to improve air flow, control and extraction in health settings, and to make more safe use of powerful ultraviolet cleaners to reduce cross-infection further?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend raises a very interesting point. Our scientific advisers are looking at everything we can do, including the means that he suggests, to reduce transmission of the disease.

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) [V]]

Scientific research from leading Scottish universities has today shown substantial reductions in serious covid-19 hospital admissions following the administration of the first dose of the vaccine. Given this success, does the Prime Minister agree that it is now time to prioritise critical public servants, such as teachers and other key workers, to ensure that maximum protections are in place as we begin to ease our way out of this lockdown?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that most people in this House would agree that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation was right in its prioritisation of those who are most vulnerable, and that our ambition in the vaccine roll-out programme should be to vaccinate first those who are most at risk of serious disease and death; that is the right approach.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) [V]]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement this afternoon and very much hope that it is matched by the First Minister’s statement to the Scottish Parliament tomorrow, because it is better for business—not least the tourism and hospitality sector—that the whole country moves at the same pace. In that vein, does the Prime Minister agree that the incredible success, pace and take-up of the vaccine just shows what this country can achieve when we do it together?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is completely right. It has been a stunning example of the whole of the UK working together to roll out a programme that has been absolutely vital for our whole country. Co-operation with the devolved Administrations has been terrific on this, but it is something that could not have been achieved without the UK working together.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) [V]]

The Prime Minister should know that there can be no post-pandemic economic recovery without a strong and healthy UK steel industry, but he should also know that our steelworkers are having to compete with one hand tied behind their backs because electricity costs our steelmakers 86% more than in Germany and 62% more than in France. What steps will the Prime Minister be taking to reduce British electricity costs to internationally competitive levels so that our steel industry can thrive in the wake of the pandemic?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. Of course, that was one of the consequences of some of the taxes and some of the skewing of the prices that have been chosen over many years by Governments. We want to ensure that we have a steel industry in this country that is able to compete, and we must indeed address the discriminatory costs of energy; he is completely right to raise this point.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Just a quick reminder that questions should be about the covid statement.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]]

Thank you very much on behalf of Whipsnade zoo, but will the Prime Minister now instruct that a further test case be taken to the courts so that those hospitality businesses whose business interruption insurance is still not paying out can get the relief that they need, having paid thousands in premiums, for decades in some cases?

[The Prime Minister]

I do hope that the businesses concerned receive the compensation that they are owed and deserve from their insurance packages, but in the meantime I urge my hon. Friend to look out for what the Chancellor is going to say next week about continued support.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) [V]]

I welcome the road map that has been put before the House this afternoon, because Bradford has had extra restrictions since July. The Prime Minister outlined plans for opening the hospitality industry by 12 April, but he said that the wedding industry, with its larger venues, would not be able to open before 21 June. For some businesses, those 10 weeks could make the difference between closure and bankruptcy. We have some amazing wedding venues in Bradford; they are a big part of our industry here. Like restaurants, they could open with people staying 2 metres apart, so I urge the Prime Minister to reconsider whether wedding venues could be opened sooner. I invite him to come and look at some of our amazing wedding venues in Bradford West, as we have so many beautiful ones.

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to take up the hon. Lady’s invitation to visit the beautiful wedding venues of Bradford. I know that they do an amazing job there. But, in answer to her point, we cannot do full Cecil B. DeMille weddings earlier than 21 June—we can do smaller weddings before then, as she knows—but at least the great businesses that she talks about now have a date to think about and to aim for.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and in particular for the inclusion of dates that will help businesses to plan. However, with respect to international travel, the inside page of our passport requests, in the name of Her Majesty,

“all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance”.

With regard to quarantine hotels, may I remind the Prime Minister that just because a policy is popular, that does not mean that it is right?

[The Prime Minister]

I have a high regard for my hon. Friend, whom I have known for many years, and I know that he speaks for many in our party and beyond in what he says. These are difficult judgments to make, as I know he appreciates, but it is right, when we are facing a pandemic and the risk of new variants, to have a very tough border and quarantine policy indeed.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]]

The Prime Minister has been asked several times about how the Government procured contracts during the pandemic. My question to him is slightly different. Are there any plans for the Government to claw back any of the funds spent on pandemic contracts that have failed—for example, those that have delivered unusable or unsafe personal protective equipment, at great expense to the taxpayer?

[The Prime Minister]

Some 99.5% of the PPE that we have received has been of a high standard, but of course, where people have fallen down on their contracts, we will claw back the money that we have paid.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) [V]]

I want to congratulate our NHS and my right hon. Friend on the great British success story that is the vaccination programme. Because the UK is ahead of others on vaccination, we can open up sooner. My right hon. Friend said that he would focus on data, not dates, but these five-week dates seem arbitrary. If progress against the four tests looks better than expected, might the Government be flexible and review the data and restrictions on a weekly or fortnightly basis, and not on pre-determined dates?

[The Prime Minister]

These “not before” dates are not arbitrary; they are crucial. They are determined by the time we need to evaluate the impact on the pandemic of the openings-up that we are doing. For instance, we will need four weeks to see whether the opening of schools has caused an uncontrollable surge in the pandemic, and then a week to give advice and so on. So they are not arbitrary; they are dictated by the science, and that is the right way forward. But if we look at the overall road map, it is beyond what many other countries are currently able to achieve, and that, as my hon. Friend rightly says, is thanks to the roll-out of the vaccination programme.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]]

Five local NHS areas in England, including Hammersmith and Fulham, have vaccinated 73% or less of the over-70s, despite the best efforts of NHS and public health staff and volunteers. This falls to a 60% take-up for the most deprived tenth of residents and below 50% for some ethnic minority groups. As the country moves on to vaccinate younger and less at-risk groups, what comfort can the Prime Minister give to the quarter of my elderly and vulnerable constituents that his Government have left behind?

[The Prime Minister]

Take-up is accelerating among all those groups, but the hon. Member is right to say that it has been slower in some groups than in others. That is why we have rolled out the network of community champions. However, it is also important for him and for all of us to champion the uptake of vaccines across all our communities in our constituencies.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]]

The vaccine roll-out has been more successful than even the most optimistic of us could have predicted in December. While the Prime Minister is clearly right to insist that this road map must be irreversible so that we do not risk a further lockdown, will he ensure that, if vaccinations prove to be as effective as we all hope, the Government can continue to review whether later stages might progress more quickly as long as the numbers of deaths and hospital admissions continue to fall?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which I am sure will have occurred to many other colleagues and people up and down the country. I have given the reason for the interval between the dates I set out: we need to be certain about the impact of the relaxations we are making, with the four weeks plus one that we need. The other point is that I think people would much rather have a date they know is as certain as it can possibly be at this stage to fix on and work towards rather than more uncertainty and fluidity.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) [V]]

Last week, I met Kathy the practice manager and the team, including volunteers, at St James medical practice who have vaccinated thousands of people in North West Norfolk. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to them and those at other sites in Kings Lynn and Snettisham who are making it possible to reopen our hospitality sector—albeit more slowly than some would want—as well as importantly reopening our schools and other businesses in the coming weeks?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I do. I thank everyone involved in the vaccination programme in North West Norfolk, and I thank my hon. Friend for championing the vaccinators.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]]

Last week, the gaps in support all-party parliamentary group heard evidence on how tens of thousands of women have been forgotten about during the pandemic. Will the Prime Minister meet with Maternity Action, Pregnant Then Screwed, Bethany Power and Sonali Joshi to hear how he can redress the unfairness faced by those who were pregnant and on maternity leave during the pandemic?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member makes an important point. I will certainly ensure that the relevant Minister receives such a delegation.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) [V]]

In view of the Prime Minister’s sensible commitment to act on the basis of data not dates, which I fully support, will he clarify whether there is scope and flexibility in his road map to go faster in relaxing restrictions if the vaccination programme proceeds more rapidly than expected and the data shows enhanced effectiveness of a vaccine—as more of that data comes forward—resulting in radically reduced transmission and hospital admissions? Surely if we are following the data, that flexibility has to work both ways.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is already a very fast unlocking programme by other international standards. As I have explained, the timetable is dictated by the intervals we need to evaluate the effect of each successive unlocking. I think that what people want to see—what businesses want—is as much certainty as possible, rather than uncertainty, and that is what we aim to provide.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) [V]]

Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not hear the Prime Minister’s reply just then because one of the Zoom operators was talking to another Member. The Prime Minister is absolutely right to say we should be driven by the data and not dates, and that his dates are therefore subject to review. Given the stunning success of the vaccination programme, with the evidence today of how it prevents serious illness and death, why is he not prepared to bring his dates forward, as well as back, if the data justifies that?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman did not hear my answer to the previous question, so I will repeat it, because his question is identical to several previous questions. The answer is that we need time to evaluate the success or otherwise of each unlocking; we need four weeks to see what has happened. We must bear in mind that we are dealing with a disease that is extremely contagious and large numbers of people who are still unvaccinated and still very vulnerable, so we have to proceed with caution. That is why there is the five-week interval that we have. The second reason is that we want a timetable that we can stick to. People would really much rather have a sense of certainty and security—the maximum possible certainty and security—rather than any sense that this is fluid again and the date they have in their heads could change. That is very, very important. Certainty in this particular road map is of great value.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

In Wales, excess deaths over the five-year average are 13% more, compared with a figure of 20% more in England. So will the Prime Minister ensure that the UK Government website says, “If you live in more highly infectious areas of England, you should not travel to Wales”?

[The Prime Minister]

The restrictions throughout the country apply in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and they will continue to apply for the duration of the pandemic.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]]

I really welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, which will give certainty to businesses and constituents in Harlow, and it is good news about school re-openings on 8 March. Given that so many children have lost months of school, with an impact on their education, attainment and mental health, will he ensure that every pupil is assessed for their loss of learning and how much catch-up is needed? Will he consider extending the school day, not by putting an extra burden on teachers and support staff, but by using civil society to offer sporting activities, mental health support and academic catch-up, where necessary.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend. That is exactly why I have appointed Sir Kevan Collins to be the educational recovery commissioner, to champion all those ideas and initiatives that my right hon. Friend has just rightly mentioned. He will be hearing more about that all later this week.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]]

Although the Government’s announcement that indoor care home visiting for one named person—one named relative—is to be permitted from 8 March sounds like progress, the fact that this remains a matter for guidance only is very concerning. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has heard too many examples of previous guidance on this issue not being followed, denying meaningful visits when they might safely be facilitated. The Joint Committee has drafted regulations that would ensure that nobody in a care home was denied a face-to-face visit without a carefully thought through, individualised risk assessment. Will the Prime Minister commit to bringing these regulations into force?

[The Prime Minister]

I direct the hon. and learned Lady to what I said earlier about ensuring that people get the ability to see a nominated visitor, and I remind her of the sad reality of the infection that we have seen in care homes and the need to protect against it. There is a balance to be struck, as she knows.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Everyone—especially young people, small businesses and the hospitality and pubs sector—in North West Durham and across the country have made massive sacrifices to achieve the huge progress in tackling the pandemic. As long as the Government’s world-leading vaccine programme continues, the road map means that we will be out of almost all restrictions by late June, with the certain approach that the Prime Minister is pushing for. May I extend an invitation to the Prime Minister, his fiancée Carrie, Wilfred and Dilyn to visit North West Durham this summer, to see some of Britain’s most beautiful but least well-known countryside?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. Wild horses would not keep me away from North West Durham.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]]

Earlier this month, nearly half the constituents I surveyed reported severe financial insecurity. Shockingly, almost a third also said that they struggled to afford daily living costs. That is the financial reality of millions around the country. One respondent told me that they feel utterly hopeless about their financial situation. The Prime Minister could now deliver some peace of mind for my constituents by agreeing to extend the support schemes that have kept many families afloat during this crisis, including payments for people self-isolating. Will he do so?

[The Prime Minister]

We will continue to look after people throughout the pandemic.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

Our vaccine roll-out has been an amazing success so far, and I want to thank those in the Eston primary care network, Redcar Hospital, James Cook University Hospital and the Government for their efforts in delivering it. We are hitting targets and reaching new milestones each day, and soon we will have the Novavax vaccine, made in Teesside, to help us as well. When does the Prime Minister expect this new Teesside vaccine to be approved by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency?

[The Prime Minister]

I was thrilled to go up to Teesside to see the site where the Novavax vaccine will be made and look at one of the bioreactors that will be used. I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact date by which the MHRA will give approval, but we are pretty confident that it will be forthcoming before too long.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) [V]]

Is the Prime Minister aware of the Catch Up With Cancer campaign and the urgent need for funding to clear the cancer backlog? Otherwise, we risk turning the covid crisis into a cancer crisis, with tens of thousands more lives lost. Will he commit to the funding to create a world-class cancer service and work with the Catch Up With Cancer campaign to deliver the investment in the cancer workforce, new equipment and IT networks that we urgently need to tackle this backlog?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, and the hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. That is why we are investing an extra £52 billion into the NHS but also tackling the backlog caused by the pandemic in cancer and many other conditions. The point he makes should be attended to by all those who think that another wave of covid is something we can simply put up with easily. The NHS is already under terrific pressure, and the more covid we have, the more it displaces other vital treatments, as he rightly points out.

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) [V]]

This morning I visited Manor Academy in Mansfield Woodhouse to see the amazing job it has done in setting up covid testing for pupils and staff. It is very keen to see its children back in school, as it knows that the inequalities that existed pre covid will only have been exacerbated by closures. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that wide-ranging support will be offered to schools to address not just academic issues but the social and emotional challenges that many children will face as a result of those closures?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. One of the most important things we can do is not just support kids’ mental health, address those issues and help teachers to address them, but also invest in one-on-one tutoring, which will be of massive value to kids who have come under particular stress and who have fallen behind but who may show great potential that needs to be unleashed. One-to-one tutoring is something we will be investing in heavily.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) [V]]

To add to the helter-skelter of various pending cliff-edge dates—stamp duty, the eviction ban, business rates, universal credit, the furlough—a little known one ended yesterday, with the expiry date on those who are shielding being able to claim a four-month supply of free vitamin D. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether the 1.7 million new shielders just added to the list will be eligible? Will he advertise this more widely, and, given how vitamin D builds immunity to all viruses, even for people who are not yet eligible for their vaccination, will he commit to a year-long advertising campaign for all? Kellogg’s is on board; will he do it?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for what she says about vitamin D. She is right about the value that that vitamin can have and we will make sure that we give it due publicity.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) [V]]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today and acknowledge the tremendous leadership that he has shown in driving forward the vaccine programme. As my right hon. Friend is aware, the tourism and hospitality sectors are vital to the Fylde economy and they are ready and willing to trade their way to recovery. Will he assure me that he will keep the sector at the front of his thoughts both ahead of next week’s Budget and when implementing his road map?

[The Prime Minister]

The tourism sector is absolutely vital for our country and the faster that we can get it open, the better, but the best way to open it up fastest is to have a road map from which we do not deviate and on which we are not forced to go backwards. That is what we are setting out today and I am glad that we have my hon. Friend’s support.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) [V]]

The Prime Minister has today acknowledged the importance of holidays abroad but also that strict quarantine is essential to address the global transmission of covid. The aviation sector has estimated that, at best, aviation will return in the UK to only a third of 2019 levels this year and that full recovery could take five years, so when will the Government release their delayed aviation recovery plan, and what additional support will they provide for communities such as mine and the Prime Minister’s, who are dependent on the aviation sector for employment?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady will be hearing a lot more about that and other matters on 12 April.

[Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) [V]]

My right hon. Friend has quite rightly placed emphasis on the reopening of schools, with the return to school of all children in England on 8 March. In Wales, primary schoolchildren aged seven and under will return this week, while it is hoped that the remainder of primary schoolchildren and some older pupils taking qualifications may return on 15 March. However, there appear to be no plans until after Easter in Wales—beyond the reopening of some non-essential shops—for most secondary school pupils to return. Will the Prime Minister urge the Welsh Government to reconsider their approach, given the harm that young people have already endured during the pandemic?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. Obviously, that is a matter for the devolved authority, but I am sure that he shares my hope that all pupils will be back in school as fast as possible and that we will hear from the Labour party in Wales that schools are safe.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]]

In Liverpool, only 23% of those who applied for a test, trace and isolate payment received it, and over two fifths of them received a discretionary payment from money that is now exhausted. Effectively facilitating isolation will be key in preventing the resurgence of the virus via new strains that might compromise the vaccine, so does the Prime Minister accept that eligibility for the test, trace and isolate payment is not drawn widely enough to provide support to those who need it and who cannot afford to stop work without extra help? Will he agree to extend it to include all those people who have no access to statutory sick pay?

[The Prime Minister]

We will continue to support all those who are isolating. Indeed, we will do what we can to increase our support for them, but we will also support everybody throughout this pandemic. The hon. Lady should wait for the Chancellor to announce his Budget next week.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I want to welcome and to raise a hallelujah, along with parents and children, for the good sense of schools returning for all pupils from 8 March. It is the right thing to do on so many levels. May I ask the Prime Minister, however, what evidence has driven his decision that outdoor sport—not in-school outdoor sport, but wider outdoor sport—for those same children cannot go ahead for another month? Furthermore, can he say why, after all the good work that they did last year to create covid-secure environments, restaurants and cafés face another three months before they can open in any meaningful way? What is the evidence that he has seen that has convinced him to make that decision today?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Outdoor sport for schools can go ahead from 8 March, as I said earlier. The evidence for all the decisions that we have taken—a massive quantity of scientific evidence—has been deposited today with the House.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]]

Our covid rates in Yorkshire have fallen much more slowly than in London and the south-east, partly because fewer people can work from home and more people in our towns have to go out to work to keep our factories and distribution centres running. The Prime Minister keeps saying that he is supporting self-isolation, but most workers are not getting that support, and that is particularly hitting our manufacturing towns. Will he think again? Will he extend that support, help those workers, and help us to get our rates down?

[The Prime Minister]

We are increasing our support, as I have said, for people who are self-isolating and continue to look after our workers throughout the pandemic. The best thing for all those businesses in Yorkshire is to continue, as they are doing, to get the disease down and keep it under control.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am afraid that we have mislaid Alec Shelbrooke, but we will try to return to him. We move straight to Vicky Foxcroft.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]]

Disabled people have been one of the hardest hit groups during this pandemic. Communication with disabled people and those shielding has been poor. Far too often, communications have been late and not in accessible formats, but the Prime Minister can seek to rectify that now. Will he provide a clear road map for those people shielding so that they know when it is safe for them to rejoin society?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. The road map is here. It is the one that the hon. Lady should have with her now. It is online, and the measures specifically for disabled people and for those shielding are clearly set out.

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) [V]]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his sensible and measured statement, just as I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) in thanking all those across the Tees Valley involved in the vaccine roll-out so far. Children and parents will be delighted that schools across England will return on 8 March. I fear greatly that white working class children will have borne the brunt of the lack of progress in educational attainment during this time. May I urge a specific focus on targeted support for those young people as we rebuild our country?

[The Prime Minister]

I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We will support all pupils who have suffered loss to their learning as a result of the pandemic. That is why we have now distributed 1.3 million laptops and put another £1.3 billion into catch-up of all kinds. He is totally right to focus on this. It is the No. 1 challenge that the country now faces.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

University students, many of whom were not eligible for furlough for their part-time jobs, were already struggling financially. Today’s road map suggests that the vast majority of those students will not be able to return to their university accommodation until after Easter at best. They are legally being prevented from returning to accommodation for which they are obliged to pay. Does the Prime Minister think that that is fair? If he does not think that it is fair, what will he do about it?

[The Prime Minister]

I sympathise deeply with students who have had a time at university that no other generation has put up with. I sympathise deeply with their sense of unfairness, with the experiences they have had. They have been heroic, by the way, in the in which they have been able to bring the disease down in some university towns by obeying the guidance. We will do whatever we can to support them, working with the university sector, to make up for the experiences they have been through and to make sure, insofar as we can, that we help them to get compensation.

[Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today and the sustainable way out of this situation. It is absolutely right that we prioritise the reopening of schools and getting all children back into the classroom. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is now essential we work with parents, teachers and schools to develop a long-term plan for pupils to catch up on the education they have missed out on, particularly in areas like Bolsover?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why Sir Kevan Collins has been appointed as the education recovery commissioner. We will be setting out plans that are intended not just to remediate the loss that kids have suffered during the pandemic, but to take our educational system forward and to do things that we possibly would not have done before to find new ways of teaching and learning that will make up the difference for those kids and more.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We have relocated Alec Shelbrooke, so we will now go to him.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) [V]]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my constituency there are a lot of strong community events, especially things like Zumba classes, about which I get a lot of emails. When does my right hon. Friend envisage indoor activities like Zumba classes will be allowed to start again in village halls and the like?

[The Prime Minister]

If one can do outdoor Zumba, then 29 March is the date—assuming you cannot do it one on one, in which case you could do it earlier. Indoors, as my right hon. Friend will have picked up from what I said earlier, is currently down for 17 May, along with all other indoor settings.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]]

Macmillan Cancer Support warns that more than 100,00 people who live with cancer in the UK are struggling to cover basic living costs due to the impact of covid-19. Tragically, many cancer patients who are having difficulty paying for essentials have experienced suicidal thoughts in recent months. Will the Prime Minister commit to making the £20 per week universal credit increase permanent and extend the uplift to legacy benefits?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is totally right to raise the issue of cancer patients and other patients who need treatment. We are going to do everything we can to clear the backlog as fast as we possibly can. That is one of the reasons we have to keep the covid virus going down. He will hear more next week from the Chancellor about supporting people across the country.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It seems to me that many of the 88 people who have gone before me and been critical of the Prime Minister have been wise after the event, so let me now do precisely that and plead guilty to the charge. If severe quarantine measures had from the very start been as effective as in Australia, and, equally, if tough local lockdowns had been as effective as those in China, does that not rather beg the question—why we did not do it over a year ago? I do not say that to be difficult, but to learn for the future and to ponder on what we should do next time. I think many people in the country think it is better to be tough on foreign travel than tough on children attending schools.

[The Prime Minister]

I think my right hon. Friend speaks for many people in the country when he says that. We do have a very tough regime on international travel—one of the toughest in the world—and we will certainly be making sure we learn all the lessons we need to about the early handling of the pandemic.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]]

Events and exhibitions companies in my constituency are still struggling to get any support for lost business. The fact that they are not customer facing means that they do not get the retail, hospitality and leisure grant. The fact that they have not actually been forced to close, although they service businesses that have, means that they have lost out on the council’s now closed local restrictions support grant. They are not arts organisations as such, so they do not get the Arts Council funding, and the advice and guidance that is being given to local councils about what grants they should be giving to the events and exhibitions sector is incredibly vague and inconsistent. What reassurance can the Prime Minister give me that, in the Chancellor’s Budget next week, there will finally be help for those companies, like the ones in my constituency, that are absolutely on their last legs?

[The Prime Minister]

I am acutely conscious of the businesses that have fallen through the cracks, as it were—wholesalers, for instance, that have found it difficult to qualify under one scheme or another—and we are doing absolutely everything we can to make sure that we give the support that people want. There is extra discretionary funding available for councils to support such businesses, and the hon. Member will be hearing more, certainty from the Chancellor next week.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Millions of young people have had their lives put on hold over the past 13 months and they have been the least likely to suffer severely from this virus, so I wonder whether the Prime Minister can look ahead and inform me and the House what we can do to help those university students who are going to enter the job market for the first time and those leaving school. Right now they look ahead and they look, post lockdown, into a world that is very uncertain, and their future must be safeguarded, so what can we do?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises a vital point, and that is why we have the £2 billion kickstart fund in addition to many other schemes to help young people into work and to help them with what could be a very difficult transition, but the best thing possible is to get the economy open and firing again.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

The German equivalent of furlough, the Kurzarbeit scheme, will be accessible to employers until at least the end of this year. Given that the Prime Minister said that the United Kingdom would “prosper mightily” outside the European Union, why cannot his Government—or why will not his Government—provide that level of certainty and support to employers on these islands so that they can plan with some confidence for our new post-pandemic normal?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member will be hearing a lot more next week about the support that we are going to give throughout the whole of the UK. While we are on the subject, perhaps he could confirm that the Scottish nationalist party would have remained in the European Medicines Agency? I think he is a member of the SNP.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]]

Last year, a wonderful young couple in my constituency had to cancel their wedding because of covid. They contacted me this morning so that I could ask the Prime Minister whether he could guarantee their wedding would be able to go ahead on 1 July, and if he can, Briana and Jordan will send a wedding invite in the post tonight.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. I cannot absolutely guarantee that Briana and Jordan’s wedding will be able to go ahead on 1 July, but if we can stick with this road map, and I hope very much that we can, then all is set fair for them, and I hope the sun will shine on them both with or without my presence.

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) [V]]

We have more than 120,000 covid deaths, the highest death rate of any large country in the world, and the deepest recession of any major economy. This is the Government’s horrific pandemic record. The Prime Minister now claims that he has taken a cautious approach to easing restrictions, but Government scientists themselves have warned that the big bang reopening of schools on 8 March could lead to the infection rate rising above 1, triggering an exponential increase in cases. Nine education unions have described the plans as “reckless”, so instead of repeating his mistakes, will the Prime Minister listen to teachers and scientists, and follow the devolved Administrations with a phased return to schools?

[The Prime Minister]

Perhaps the hon. Member might direct her fire at her own Front Bench and the Leader of the Opposition, because he has just quite rightly supported those plans. I think she has possibly been failing to pay attention—[Interruption.] No, he is withdrawing his support. I told you—I told you—but there you go. We have been here barely two hours, and it has gone again: one minute you have it, the next minute it has gone. There you are. I thought he was with us on reopening schools, but never mind.

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) [V]]

The success of our north Wales economy is critically dependent on visitors from the rest of the UK, and indeed the world. Llandudno is the queen of resorts and is the largest in Wales. Our hoteliers are eager once again to open their arms and offer a warm welcome to visitors. Will my right hon. Friend continue his good work with the Welsh Government to ensure that no obstacles are put in the way of visitors? Will he confirm that shared prosperity funds will be used to accelerate economic recovery in places like Aberconwy?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend mentions Llandudno, where I recall spending an absolutely hysterical new year’s eve in the St Tudno Hotel. I seem to remember it was 1997—a wonderful year. I wish that hotel and all others in Llandudno all the very best. We will get them open just as soon as we possibly can. I thank my hon. Friend for his representations.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]]

What the Prime Minister said earlier about a zero-covid solution is simply not true. Since he lifted lockdown prematurely in December, which I voted against, we have had 60,000 deaths, whereas there have been fewer than 1,400 deaths across all the countries with a zero-covid plan, despite their populations being 20 times bigger than ours. Those unnecessary deaths are on him, and he is still refusing to learn the lessons. Last month, the Prime Minister called schools “vectors of transmission”, yet he is recklessly forcing 10 million school pupils and staff to return on just one day. Does not that run the very real risk of the virus running out of control yet again?

[The Prime Minister]

This is one of those moments when I sympathise very much with the Leader of the Opposition, because there speaks the authentic voice of the union-dominated Labour left. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right in what he says. I think most people in this country understand that schools need to go back. I just heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) that he does support schools returning on 8 March, which is good news.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) [V]]

Prime Minister, you have timed step two perfectly. Why do I say that? Fosse Shopping Park in my constituency—one of Britain’s biggest out-of-town shopping centres—has expanded, with a £168 million investment including the UK flagship Next store. It was due to open last year; obviously, covid did not allow that, but it will open just as soon as you allow it to open. Will you do the honours, come and cut the ribbon, and help to boost consumer confidence across our country?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have told the House, non-essential retail will reopen on 12 April. I doubt that I am essential to the opening of Fosse Park, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the invitation. I am sure that if I cannot get there, he will do a magnificent job in my place.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]]

I am very concerned about the large numbers of care home staff in black and ethnic minority groups who will not take up the vaccine. Local authorities have for weeks been asking the Government to supply the detailed data they need to identify and resolve vaccine non-compliance. As the Prime Minister knows, the vaccine roll-out is a race against time. Will he make the data available today, so we can ensure that enough people take the vaccine to reach the herd immunity necessary to prevent another lockdown?

[The Prime Minister]

We are making as much data available as we possibly can. Clearly, we cannot make people’s medical records available because that would breach patient confidentiality. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the question of take-up among some groups and care home staff. That has been increasing, but we all need to work together to ensure that we encourage everybody to come forward and take the vaccine.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

The Prime Minister raised the possibility of new variants having an impact on the plan. Ordinarily, the laws of natural selection will favour more benign variants. However, lockdown reverses that, favouring the more potent. Therefore, in addition to an urgency on the basis of the economic and social costs of lockdown, there is indeed also a scientific urgency to lift it, isn’t there?

[The Prime Minister]

I defer to my right hon. Friend’s doubtless superior understanding of the biology of the variants, but I have a couple of reassuring points for him. First, we have no reason to think that our vaccines are ineffective in preventing death or serious illness against all the variants of which we are currently aware. Secondly, our scientists are getting ever better at evolving new vaccines to tackle the new variants.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) [V]]

The Prime Minister is right to prioritise education and to say that people can now do outdoor activities more freely—or, at least, they will be able to over the coming weeks and months—but he says nothing about outdoor education, which is an industry of vast importance to us in the lakes and dales, and of great value to young people right across the country. There are 15,000 people employed in the sector; at least, there were, but some 6,000 have now lost their jobs. If we lose that sector, it will be very difficult ever to get it back and we will suffer hugely as a country if that happens. Will the Prime Minister agree to reopen outdoor education or residential stays from the summer term, so that we can take advantage of the skills of the professionals in outdoor education to help our young people to re-engage with a love of learning and to tackle many of the mental health issues that they face? If he is not able to make that guarantee, will he at least do what has happened in Northern Ireland and Scotland by providing a bespoke financial package to support and save our outdoor education sector?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really interesting point. As he knows, indoor education is opening on 8 March. Given that transmission is much less likely outdoors, I would have thought, a fortiori, that outdoor education should be able to open on the same date, but I will make sure that we get back to the hon. Gentleman if that should, for any reason, turn out not to be the case. I cannot see why it should not be the case, but we will get back to him.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) [V]]

As the owner of one of my local hair salons has just said, the future now looks a little brighter thanks to this road map. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking the wonderful volunteers, GPs, pharmacies and nurses who have helped to administer thousands of vaccines in my area? Will he also ensure that the Chancellor announces in his Budget support for the wedding, hospitality and events sectors, which will have to wait just a little bit longer now before they can fully reopen safely?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has caught the tone exactly right; there is just a little bit longer to go now. The Chancellor will be setting out the support that we need to put in place for all the businesses that he mentions. I echo his support and thanks to them, particularly to hair salons, which I look forward to being able to use myself without too much delay.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement.

Intelligence and Security Committees Northern Ireland-related Terrorism Report

Boris Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2021 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

On 5 October 2020, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (ISC) published its report entitled “Northern Ireland-Related Terrorism” (NIRT). Our thoughts remain with those who have been impacted by the enduring threat of violence in Northern Ireland, in particular the friends and families of those who have lost their lives.

Today, the Government are publishing their response to this report.

I remain grateful to the Intelligence and Security Committee for its continued independent oversight and scrutiny. I would like to thank the former Committee for their work in the last Parliament, and I look forward to working with the appointed Committee in the future.

Copies of the Government responses have been laid before both Houses.

[HCWS781]

Oral Answers to Questions

Boris Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)]

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 February.

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

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.

[Gary Sambrook]

Over the past week, thousands of people across Frankley Great Park and south Northfield have done what has been asked of them and gone and got a test, because of a small number of South African variant cases in the constituency. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking Dr Justin Varney, Councillor Simon Morrall and Birmingham City Council for everything they have done to scale up mass testing across Frankley Great Park? Will he encourage anyone who has not had a test so far to get one at one of the designated sites?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue and, indeed, join him in thanking the NHS staff who are scaling up the surge testing in the way that he describes. I encourage everybody in the area and, indeed, throughout the country to get a vaccine when they are asked to do so.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

May I begin by thanking everybody involved in the vaccine roll-out? We have now vaccinated 12.6 million people and are on course to vaccinate the first four priority groups by the end of this week. That is a truly amazing achievement.

Can the Prime Minister confirm today that the Government will extend business rates relief beyond 31 March?

[The Prime Minister]

I am glad to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman join in the praise of the vaccine roll-out, which is indeed a tribute to NHS staff, the Army, the volunteers and many, many others.

On the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about the extension of business rates relief, he knows that this Government are committed to supporting businesses, people and livelihoods throughout the pandemic. That is what we will continue to do, but he should wait until the Budget for the Chancellor to explain exactly what we are going to do.

[Keir Starmer]

I think that answer was that the Prime Minister cannot give an answer yet, but hundreds of thousands of businesses are affected by this. The trouble is that businesses do not work as slowly as the Prime Minister—they need an answer now. As the British Chambers of Commerce says, businesses

“simply can’t wait until the March Budget.”

Let me try another vitally important question for businesses and for millions of working people. Can the Prime Minister confirm today that the furlough scheme will be extended beyond April?

[The Prime Minister]

I think most people in this country are aware that we are going through a very serious pandemic in which rates of infection have been steadily brought down thanks to the efforts of the British people. I also think that Members of this House are familiar with the notion that in just a few days we will be setting out a road map for the way out of this pandemic—a road map that I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues will support, although their support, as we know, tends to be a transitory thing: one week we have it, the next week we do not. He will not have to contain himself for very long.

[Keir Starmer]

Let me let the Prime Minister into a secret: he can take decisions for himself and he does not need to leave everything to the 11th minute. If I were Prime Minister, I would say to businesses, “We will support you now. We will protect jobs now.” The CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce have all said the same thing: they all say that they cannot wait until the Budget. The Prime Minister may disagree with me, but he is actually disagreeing with businesses. Why does the Prime Minister think he knows better than British business?

[The Prime Minister]

Most businesspeople that I have talked to—I have talked to a great many in the past 12 months—would agree that no Government around the world have done more to support business, wrapping our arms around it. I am delighted to hear this enthusiasm for business from the Labour party, which stood on a manifesto to destroy capitalism at the last election and, indeed, to dismantle the very pharmaceutical industry that has provided the vaccines on which we now rely. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now repudiate that policy?

[Keir Starmer]

We all know what the Prime Minister once said that he wanted to do to business. We on these Benches would rather listen to businesses.

We have no decision on business rates, no decision on furlough. Let us try another crucial issue. This time there is no excuse for delaying, because this has to be decided before the March Budget and the Prime Minister does not need to check with the Chancellor—will he now commit to extending the evictions ban on residential properties beyond 21 February?

[The Prime Minister]

I have said repeatedly that what we will do in this Government and throughout this pandemic is put our arms around the British people, support them throughout the pandemic and make sure that they are not unfairly evicted during the pandemic. That is what we will do. What I very much hope that we hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that he has had not only a Damascene conversion to the importance of business, but a Damascene conversion to supporting all the Government’s policies that support business, rather than sniping from the sidelines. Why does he not get behind us and back the Government, back us in our efforts to back business and back the British people?

[Keir Starmer]

I am not going to take lectures from a man who not only wrote two versions of every column he ever wrote as a journalist, but proposed Donald Trump for a Nobel peace prize and gave Dominic Cummings a pay rise.

Let us go back to the question. Another area where the Prime Minister has repeatedly delayed and now changes his policy pretty well every day is securing our borders against variants of covid. Every week, the Prime Minister comes here and says, “We have one of the toughest regimes in the world”. We know that his Home Secretary disagrees with him. We know that the Health Secretary disagrees with him. Luckily, Oxford University keeps track of how tough border restrictions are in every country. It says that there are at least 33 countries around the world that currently have tougher restrictions than the United Kingdom—33, Prime Minister—including Canada, Denmark, Japan, Israel and many others. In fact, Oxford University says that we are not even in the top bracket of countries for border restrictions. It is 50 days after we first discovered the South African variant —50 days. How does the Prime Minister explain that?

[The Prime Minister]

There are some countries in Europe that do not even have a hotel quarantine scheme such as the one that we are putting in on Monday. We have among the toughest border regimes anywhere in the world. People should understand that, on a normal day at this time of year, we could expect about 250,000 people to be arriving in this country. We have got it down to about 20,000, 5,000 of whom are involved in bringing vital things into this country, such as medicines and food, as we discussed last week and which the right hon. and learned Gentleman agreed was a good idea. Unless he actually wants to cut this country off from the rest of the world, which, last week, I think he said that he did not want to do—unless of course he has changed his mind again—I think that this policy is measured, it is proportionate, and it is getting tougher from Monday. I hope that he supports it.

[Keir Starmer]

The truth is this: the Prime Minister is failing to give security to British businesses and he is failing to secure our borders. The Prime Minister often complains that we never put forward constructive proposals, so here are two for him: support businesses and protect jobs now by extending furlough, business rates relief and VAT cuts for hospitality; and, secondly, secure our borders with a comprehensive hotel quarantine on arrival. No more delays: will he do it?

[The Prime Minister]

We have just announced the quarantine policy, which, as I have said to the House, is among the toughest in the world and certainly tougher than most other European countries. I am delighted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now supporting business—not a policy for which he was famous before—in his latest stunt of bandwagoneering. He has moved from one side of the debate to the other throughout this crisis. Some people have said that this is a “good crisis”. Some people have said that this crisis is

“a gift that keeps on giving”.

Those people sit on the Labour Front Bench. It is disgraceful that they should say those things. This is one of the biggest challenges that this country has faced since the second world war and, thanks to one of the fastest vaccine roll-outs anywhere in the world, it is a challenge that this country can meet and is meeting. I believe that this vaccine roll-out programme is something that this House and this country should be very proud of.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

  I thank the Prime Minister for the decisions he took last year that have meant that the vaccine programme is in such a good position this week. Despite that success, it is vital that the programme keeps pace with the changing variants. Will he update the House on where the UK stands on ensuring that the UK supply chain is in place and that we do not get behind as the virus mutates?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend asks an extremely important question. We recently announced an agreement for 50 million doses with the manufacturer CureVac because we believe that that may help us to develop vaccines that can respond at scale to new variants of the virus. As the House will have heard from the chief medical officer, the deputy chief medical officer and others, I think we are going to have to get used to the idea of vaccinating and then revaccinating in the autumn as we come to face these new variants.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head up to Ross, Skye and Lochaber with the Scottish National party’s Westminster leader, Ian Blackford.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]]

New research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the baby bank charity Little Village has revealed that 1.3 million children under five in the United Kingdom are living in poverty. That is a truly shocking figure that should make this Tory Government utterly ashamed. The Scottish National party has repeatedly called for a financial package to boost household incomes and reverse this Tory child poverty crisis. The Prime Minister has the power to tackle child poverty right now by making the £20 uplift to universal credit permanent and extending it to legacy benefits. The Tory Government have been stalling on this for months. Will the Prime Minister finally act, or will he leave millions of children out in the cold?

[The Prime Minister]

The whole House and this country should be proud of the way in which we have tried to look after people—the poorest and neediest families throughout the country—not just with universal credit, which the Opposition would actually abolish, but by helping vulnerable people with their food and heating bills through the £170 million winter grant scheme, and looking after people with the free school meal vouchers. As I have said before, we will put our arms around the people of the entire country throughout the pandemic.

[Ian Blackford]

I have to say that that was pathetic—that was no answer. We are talking about 1.3 million children under five in poverty. Let me quote:

“She cried on her doorstep because I gave her nappies, wipes and winter clothes for her child. I went away with a lump in my throat.”

Those are the words of Emilie, a baby bank worker who is supporting families that the Tories have pushed into poverty through a decade of cuts. They do not need more empty words from a Prime Minister who simply does not care enough to act.

This morning, a new report from Citizens Advice Scotland warned that Tory cuts could reduce the value of universal credit by as much as a quarter, just when people need that money the most. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet me and other Opposition parties ahead of the Budget for an urgent summit on tackling child poverty, or will he be yet another Tory Prime Minister who leaves a generation of children languishing in poverty?

[The Prime Minister]

I must say that I reject entirely what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. I do not believe that any Government could have done more to help the people of this country throughout this pandemic, and we will continue to do so. Yes, of course we bitterly lament and reject the poverty that some families unquestionably suffer. It is tragic that too many families have had a very tough time during the pandemic, but we will continue to support them in all the ways that we have set out. I may say to the right hon. Gentleman that there is a profound philosophical difference between him and me; the Scottish nationalist party is morphing into an ever more left-wing party that believes—

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Hear, hear!

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Hear, hear!

[The Prime Minister]

There you go, Mr Speaker. They believe fundamentally that it is the duty of the taxpayer to pay for more and more and more. We want to get people into jobs, and it is in that respect that the Scottish nationalist party is, I am afraid, failing—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Prime Minister, we both know that you are only teasing and trying to wind up the leader of the SNP; please, let’s drop it. Let us move on, because Lee Anderson is waiting for you.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) [V]]

  A new freeport for the east midlands will create over 60,000 new jobs and provide a massive boost for employers such as Caunton Engineering and Abacus in Ashfield. After decades of neglect from Labour MPs, we now feel an sense of hope in the red wall seats. My mum and dad voted Conservative for the first time at the last general election and were touched when the Prime Minister acknowledged that their votes were lent. Could my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister please reassure my mum and dad, my friends, my family and all my constituents that our area will never be let down again?

[The Prime Minister]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for everything he is doing for Ashfield. He and I have had enjoyable times campaigning for the people of Ashfield and will continue to do so. I can tell Paul and Jenny that our commitment to levelling up is absolutely rock solid throughout this country.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]]

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llefarydd.

As we just heard, the Government claim to have a levelling-up agenda underpinned by a research and development road map. The trouble is that the Tories’ track record on this is not good: in fact, it is abysmal. Wales receives the lowest R&D spend per person of the four nations, at around 40% of spend per head in England, and Westminster’s obsession with the golden triangle of Oxford, Cambridge and London shows no sign of abating. Will the Prime Minister now commit to a further devolved R&D funding settlement to the Senedd, or is he content for Westminster’s road map to be Wales’s road to nowhere?

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid that I think that the right hon. Lady is doing Wales down, the people of Wales down and the ingenuity of Wales down, because I think about a quarter of the airline passengers in the world are borne aloft on wings made by the Welsh aerospace sector. Bridgend is going to be one of the great centres of battery manufacturing in this country, if not the world. Wales is at the cutting edge of technology under this Government’s plans for record spending on R&D—£22 billion by the end of this Parliament—and Wales, along with the whole of the rest of the UK, will benefit massively.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) [V]]

The UK has fallen behind Europe in tapping the potential of geothermal heat and energy in places like Crewe. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss how we can ensure that geothermal helps us to build back better with a revitalised package of incentives for industry?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent point he makes about Crewe and the way it is now in the forefront of deep geothermal energy exploration. I am very happy to meet him to discuss what we can to further geothermal energy in Crewe, diary permitting.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) [V]]

This Government said that no council would be suffering as a result of the pandemic, and the Chancellor said that he would do everything—“whatever it takes”—to help them. Yet Tory-controlled Bolton Council has just announced £35 million of cuts in towns and an increase in the council tax budget of 3.8%. Can the Prime Minister assure my constituents and my town that that money will be given to them, or will this join a long list of Tory failed promises?

[The Prime Minister]

I want to congratulate the great Conservative-controlled council of Bolton on everything that it is doing and continuing to do throughout this pandemic to look after the people of Bolton. I know what incredible work the local officials do, and I thank them very much for it. Since we believe so strongly in local government, as a creature of local government myself, I am proud that we have invested £4.6 billion in supporting local government just so far in this pandemic.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

From rainforests to coral reefs, the world’s ecosystems are at risk of catastrophic decline. That was the conclusion last week of the Dasgupta review, which my right hon. Friend rightly welcomed. This threat to our biodiversity is not just a moral failure; it is economically short-sighted too. When I asked Professor Dasgupta to carry out this work, he told me that it would not be complete until after the UK had hosted the COP26 summit. But now, given that the summit has been delayed until later this year and that it will take place alongside our presidency of the G7, does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK has been presented with a unique opportunity to show global leadership on how we can better protect our most precious asset—nature?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I thank him for what he is doing in this area. I want the House to know that we want the UN COP26 summit to be a landmark event, not just for tackling climate change but for biodiversity. I think it is high time that the leaders of the world took a step to reverse the loss of habitats and species that we have seen over the last century.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]]

  It is estimated that up to 400,000 people are living with the debilitating effects of long covid, and some of them are NHS heroes, who caught covid in that first wave. Nearly a year later, I have heard from a doctor who says she wonders whether she will ever be able to walk unaided again, let alone manage a full day of work. Does the Prime Minister recognise that, for this group, long covid is an occupational disease, and will he set up a compensation scheme similar to what we offer our armed forces, so that we ensure that those who have lost their livelihoods by saving lives are fully supported?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady, because she is right to highlight the incredible sacrifice and effort of NHS staff, many of whom, sadly, have contracted covid in the course of their duties, and a great many of them have sadly continued to be affected by that disease. We must study the long-term effects of covid and ensure that we continue to look after our wonderful NHS staff throughout their careers.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) [V]]

Can the Prime Minister confirm today that all students will be back in school no later than 8 March, and will he commit to starting any phased return straight after half term, so that the damaging effects of being away from school are not drawn out for any longer than is absolutely necessary?

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly confirm that we will do everything we can, and I know that the settled will of most people in this House is to get our schoolchildren back on 8 March, if we possibly can. I will be setting out for my hon. Friend as much as we can say on Monday, and then in the week of 22 February, we will be setting out a road map and the way forward for schools. We have to make sure that we keep this virus under control. It is coming down, but we cannot take our foot off its throat.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]]

Having sat on the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill Committee for 15 months, I was a sceptic as to the economic benefits of the project for the north-east, but HS2 is going ahead, at least in the south. It is therefore crucial that the eastern leg of HS2 goes ahead, not just for Yorkshire and the east midlands, but for the north- east. The Prime Minister has made repeated promises to the people of the north-east of his intention to level up and to connect and create opportunities for people here, in places like Gateshead. As we strive to recover from the damage done to so many families and businesses by the pandemic, will the Prime Minister commit to beginning the work on the eastern leg of HS2, starting in the north-east and to run simultaneously with the construction in the south, so that our region is not forced to wait another couple of decades for 21st-century rail connectivity?

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly confirm that we are going to develop the eastern leg as well as the whole of the HS2. The hon. Gentleman will be hearing a lot more about what we are going to do with our national infrastructure revolution and about what we will do to improve not just rail transport, but road transport in the north-east.

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) [V]]

Q19. There is no shortage of commitment or compassion in my town of Eastbourne for homeless people, who are vulnerable and need complex support. However, neighbouring Brighton continues to send its homeless to our town, and we do not have the resources to meet this need. Three homeless people have died, and I believe that there will be inquests. Brighton is not engaging with Eastbourne Borough Council in any meaningful way, and a further 51 placements have been made in recent weeks. Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging Brighton and Hove City Council leaders to engage on this as a matter of urgency?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. I thank Brighton and Hove City Council for co-operating with Eastbourne Borough Council in getting this done. There must be co-operation. No one in this country should be sleeping rough or homeless as a result of this pandemic or, indeed, through any other cause. We have invested £700 million this year to help people off the streets, and it continues to be a national priority. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government for what he is doing and the various taskforces that are currently at work to prevent people from coming out on the streets again as we lift the restrictions.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

At the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea, there have been 526 cases of coronavirus since last September. The Prime Minister told us at Prime Minister’s Question Time:“All staff who can work from home are doing so”—[Official Report, 28 January 2021; Vol. 688, c. 374.]But in March last year, 250 people were working on site, and now the numbers are in their thousands, and they are facing a more infectious and widespread disease. Yesterday, 90 people were sent home following the latest outbreak of coronavirus just before the weekend. Given that BT is on standby to install home secure technology to allow homeworking, will the Prime Minister meet me and the Public and Commercial Services Union ahead of the strike ballot next week, so that workplace numbers can be reduced until the vaccine is rolled out, to keep people safe and avoid an unnecessary strike?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this with me again. Thanks to the working from home strategy that the DVLA has been pursuing, of a workforce of 6,000, there are currently thankfully only nine cases of covid to the best of my knowledge, and three of those individuals are working from home. We are rolling out lateral flow tests; a huge number of lateral flow tests are being distributed to the DVLA. The long-term solution—or the medium-term solution, I should say—is to vaccinate and to roll out the vaccination programme. That is what this Government are doing in Wales and across the country.

[Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) [V]]

Families across West Bromwich East who have been affected by cancer, just like my own, know all too well that early diagnosis and treatment can save a life. According to research by Macmillan Cancer Support, there are over 70 people in my constituency and 50,000 across the UK with a missing cancer diagnosis. Cancer has not stopped during the pandemic, so with that in mind, will the Prime Minister commit to making the resurgence of cancer diagnosis services a top priority as restrictions begin to ease?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend; I know that this issue is very close to her heart, and she is right to raise it. Of course there are pressures from covid, but we are also worried that some people may not be coming forward for the cancer treatments that they need. I urge everybody who needs to get their treatment: help the NHS to help you. Come forward and get your treatment as you normally would.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

The Prime Minister said in November that the £1.5 billion green homes grant would be extended to March 2022, yet in a written answer last week, the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth said that the money would not be carried over from this financial year to next. With just seven weeks to go, a paltry £71 million has been spent so far. Why is he cutting £1 billion from the green homes grant that he promised for businesses, homeowners and the environment?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is on to something, but she is barking up the wrong tree. We are not cutting the green homes grant. The problem is that there has not been enough take-up, and we want to encourage people to take it up and make use of the opportunity to reduce the carbon emissions of their homes.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) [V]]

The Prime Minister has said, and he has written in his foreword to the environment White Paper, that he is pledged to protect the countryside. The countryside is more than just a bit of green belt around the home counties. In Westgate, Birchington and Herne Bay in my constituency, and indeed across much of the garden of England, there are plans to smother acres of prime agricultural land in housing that is not needed for local people but that is needed to grow the crops to reduce the amount of food we import at a cost of carbon emissions. If the Prime Minister is the friend of the countryside, will he announce an immediate moratorium on the use of all farmland for housing, while the whole policy is reviewed?

[The Prime Minister]

I think I have just heard my right hon. Friend say that he wants an immediate moratorium on the construction of all housing. Maybe I misunderstood; I do not think that to be realistic. What I can certainly tell him is that we will take very seriously the points he makes. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has met him, and will be glad to meet him again, to discuss the subject he raises. However, this Government’s commitment to nature and to the countryside is unmatched. We have just consecrated 30% of our land surface to nature.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]]

I had a meeting recently with the PCS about public sector pay and heard from constituents in Shotts and Calderbank who work for UK Government Departments, both of whom are struggling to cover a real-terms pay cut over decades—one has to take partial early retirement so that the lump sum can keep him going. What will the Prime Minister say to the Chancellor to convince him of the need to properly reward all those who have been on the frontline during the covid pandemic? Will he at the very least follow the Scottish Government’s lead in fully funding a rise in public sector pay?

[The Prime Minister]

We have seen above-inflation increases in public sector pay, and that is quite right. We particularly support increases in investment in our NHS, and the hon. Gentleman will know of the package we have put in place for nurses. However, the single best thing we can do is support the living wage, which this Government introduced, and which we have now increased by record amounts two years in a row. [Interruption.] I see the Scottish nationalist party—forgive me, national. I do not know whether they are nationalists—perhaps they could clear it up.

[Mr Speaker]

We cleared it up earlier for you.

[The Prime Minister]

Are they a national party without being nationalists? It is an interesting semantic point, Mr Speaker. However, I think they are trying to claim that they pioneered the living wage. I do not think that is right. I seem to remember that it was a certain mayoralty in London that massively increased the living wage—when they were not off the starting blocks.

[Mr Speaker]

In which case, let us go down to Somerset to Ian Liddell-Grainger, who is ready on the starting blocks.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]]

Mr Speaker, thank you as always. I am delighted my right hon. Friend is defending democracy by pushing ahead with local elections, but here in the land of King Alfred the people desperately want to give their verdict on Somerset County Council, which I am afraid has been using covid money to spend on things that have nothing to do with the pandemic. It has submitted to the Government a form that says nothing, and I fear that my right hon. Friend has been misled. We need a referendum down here to test public opinion quickly, but does my right hon. Friend—a proud man of Somerset, who understands history more than most of us—not agree that the time has come to put our county back together and that the whole of Somerset should be looked after by Somerset? I know that King Alfred would approve of that, and I know that the people of Somerset will certainly support the Prime Minister if he supports us.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is a great advocate of Somerset and is committed to his constituents. I thank him for what he is doing. He has raised this issue twice with me now, and I thank him for that, but may I humbly suggest that the best way forward is for the consultation to proceed and for local people to decide what the best form of local government is that they want?

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) [V]]

  The Prime Minister is now aware of the problems that we warned about over many months before the Northern Ireland protocol was introduced. These problems are scheduled to get worse from April. Will he outline a timeline, as indicated in last week’s e-petition, whereby people in Northern Ireland, and indeed across the UK, will be able to enjoy free trade across the nation, including from GB to NI, like that enjoyed by every other independent trading nation?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. I have made it absolutely clear to our EU friends and partners that we want to make our relationship work, but it is also absolutely essential that there should be untrammelled free trade and exchange of goods, people, services and capital through all parts of the UK. We will do everything we can to ensure that that is the case, including, as I have said in the Chamber before and to the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, invoking article 16 of the protocol, if necessary.

[Mr Speaker]

I am suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.