G7 and NATO Summits

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement.

It was a Labour Government and a Labour Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, who helped found NATO, and it is an alliance that Labour will always value and protect. So we welcome agreement on the NATO 2030 agenda—in particular, strengthening NATO’s cyber-security capability. We also welcome the deepening support for our friends and allies in Ukraine and Georgia, and the recognition of the global security implications of the climate emergency, and for the first time, of the challenges that China poses to global security and stability.

On the UK-Australia trade deal, we all want to see Britain taking trading opportunities around the world, but the devil will be in the detail, and we look forward to scrutinising the deal in Parliament, in particular for its impact on British farmers and on food standards.

The G7 summit should have been the most important G7 in a generation—the first of the recovery, the first with a new US President, a chance for Britain to lead the world, as we did at Gleneagles in 2005 or after the global financial crisis in 2009; but whether on global vaccination, the climate emergency, middle east peace or the Northern Ireland protocol, the summit ended up as a wasted opportunity.

The priority for the summit had to be a clear plan to vaccinate the world. That is not just a moral imperative; it is in our self-interest, as the delta variant makes clear. Without global vaccine coverage, this virus will continue to boomerang, bringing more variants and more disruption to these shores. The World Health Organisation has said that 11 billion doses are needed—11 billion doses. The summit promised less than one tenth of that. No new funding, no plan to build a global vaccine capacity and no progress on patent waivers. The headlines of 1 billion doses may be what the Prime Minister wanted, but it is not what the world needed.

The same is true of the climate emergency. This is the single greatest challenge that the world will face in decades to come, but this summit saw no progress on climate finance. The communiqué speaks only of “commitments already made” and of those yet to be made. There was no plan, let alone a Marshall plan, to speed up cuts to global emissions, and there was little in the communiqué beyond existing commitments. This summit was meant to be a stepping stone to COP26, but, if anything, it was a step back.

It was also disappointing that there was nothing to suggest that any progress was made to restart the middle east peace process. A new Government in Israel, combined with a new US President, provides a real opportunity to end the injustice and finally to deliver an independent and sovereign Palestine alongside a safe and secure Israel. Sadly, the resumption of hostilities overnight shows the price of that failure. Did the Prime Minister discuss this with world leaders, including with President Biden?

The summit should also have been an opportunity to resolve, not inflame, tensions over the Northern Ireland protocol. It started with an unprecedented diplomatic rebuke from our closest allies, and it ended with the White House still speaking of “candid” discussions. It was overshadowed by the failure of the Prime Minister to make the deal that he negotiated—he negotiated—work.

The Prime Minister may think that this is all part of a grand diplomatic game, but Northern Ireland is far too serious for that. When a Prime Minister loses the trust of our allies and trashes Britain’s reputation for upholding international law, it is hardly surprising that we are left isolated and unable to lead.

Despite all this, I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will be pleased with the G7 summit, because it delivered everything that he wanted: some good headlines; some nice photos; and even a row with the French over sausages. That just shows how narrow the Prime Minister’s ambition for Britain really is. It is why this was never going to be a Gleneagles-style success, and why the Prime Minister played the role of host but not leader, of tour guide but not statesman. On those terms, this G7 was a success, but on any other, it was a failure.

[The Prime Minister]

In a long career of miserabilism and defeatism, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has really excelled himself there. It was a very powerful statement after a long and difficult period in which the world came together and decided to build back better for the world. One thing that he did not mention was the fantastic agreement that we reached to come together to support the whole of the developing world, which I think he should approve of, in allowing them to have access to clean, green technology, financed by the multinational development banks, but bringing in the private sector from around the world. It is a fantastic step forward for the world.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman nickels and dimes what happened on vaccines. I think that it was fantastic that, on top of the 1 billion that we have already given, the world agreed another 1 billion vaccines, when people are racing to vaccinate their own populations. They agreed another 1 billion vaccines from the G7— 100 million more from this country. He is constantly running this country’s efforts down. Of the 1.4 billion COVAX vaccines that have already been distributed, 500 million of them are directly due to the efforts of this country, which has given £1.6 billion to supporting COVAX and another £548 million to supporting Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.

As for climate change, I do not know what planet the right hon. and learned Gentleman is on. This was an extraordinary achievement by the summit. Not only did all countries commit to net zero by 2050, but we are long way towards getting the £100 billion that we need for climate change financing. He complains about the Northern Ireland protocol, but it is not at all clear what he believes himself. He says that he is not in favour of checks at the border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] There should be no border, he says. He is quite right. Then what is his policy? That is exactly what this Government are standing for. I would like to understand what he actually stands for. [Interruption.] We want to get rid of those checks, and if he will support us in doing so, I would be grateful, finally, for his support.

I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman said something positive about the NATO summit. I am glad of that, although it is striking that he is not joined, for once, by the shadow Foreign Secretary, as it is still her view, as far as I can remember, that we should get rid of the nuclear deterrent—our own nuclear deterrent, on which our NATO security guarantee relies. [Interruption.] Maybe that is not her position; maybe she has changed it. As for the trade deal with Australia, the shadow International Trade Secretary has said that she does not think it possible for the UK to export food and drink to Australia because it goes “off”—actually, this country exports £350 million-worth of food and drink. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should congratulate UK exporters, support the free trade deal and stop being so generally down in the mouth about everything.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The east midlands could have no more fervent or effective a champion, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his vision for the east midlands freeport and all the benefits that rail integration will bring. I know that he is about to have a meeting with ministerial colleagues to determine how the integrated rail plan can work with HS2 best to achieve his objectives.

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

This is the first PMQs since the Prime Minister and Carrie got married, so may I offer my warm congratulations to the Prime Minister and his wife and wish them a happy life together? I have to say that I admire the way they managed to keep it secret. I join the Prime Minister in his comments about Carers Week. I also send our deepest sympathies to the four people killed in Sunday’s terror attack in Canada. It was, as the Canadian Prime Minister said, an attack motivated by hatred and Islamophobia, and we must all unite against that at home and abroad. May I ask the Prime Minister to pass on our thoughts and condolences to the Canadian Prime Minister when he sees him later this week?

Why does the Prime Minister think that his now former education adviser, Kevan Collins, described the Government’s education plan as a “half-hearted approach” that

“risks failing hundreds of thousands of pupils”

and that

“does not come close to meeting the scale”

of what is needed?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, I want to thank Kevan Collins for his work, but above all I want to thank pupils, parents and teachers for everything they have done throughout this pandemic. The struggle has been enormous and, in addition to the extra £14 billion we have committed—taking per pupil funding up to £4,000 in primary schools and up to £5,150 in secondary schools—we are now putting another £3 billion into educational catch-up with the biggest tutoring programme anywhere in the world, and it is based on the best evidence that we could find and that Sir Kevan could supply.

[Keir Starmer]

Let me get this right. In February, the Prime Minister appoints an expert to come up with a catch-up plan for education—a highly respected expert, who consults widely and comes up with a plan—and the Treasury baulks at it and says, “We’ll only provide 10%.” Yes, one tenth of what is needed. The Prime Minister, whatever he says, rolled over and children lose out. So much for levelling up.

Let me help the Prime Minister with the numbers. The funding he announced last week is about £50 per child per year. Even if you add in previous announcements, in England it is only £310 per child over four years. The US has a catch-up plan worth £1,600 per child, and in the Netherlands it is £2,500. So can the Prime Minister explain why, when he was told by the expert he appointed that only an ambitious, fully funded catch-up plan would do, he came up with something that, in the words of the same expert, is too small, too narrow and too slow?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman needs to catch up on his mathematics because, in addition to the £14 billion I have already mentioned, there was already another £1.5 billion of catch-up funding. This is a £3 billion catch-up plan, just for starters, and it includes the biggest programme of tuition—one-to-one, one-to-two, one-to-three tutorials—anywhere in the world.

We all know there are schools and classrooms in this country where children are getting private tuition, thanks to the hard work of their parents. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks about levelling up. What we want to do is to get on the side of all the kids who do not have access to that tuition and to support them. That is what I mean by levelling up.

[Keir Starmer]

Who does the Prime Minister think he is kidding? He asked Kevan Collins to tell him what was necessary to catch up. Kevan Collins told him, and he said no. Who does he think he is kidding? The Chancellor’s decision—I assume it was the Chancellor’s decision; it always is—to hold back the investment that is needed is a completely false economy, as the long-term costs are likely to be at least £100 billion, and probably more. Who will be hardest hit? Kids from disadvantaged backgrounds.

If the Government do not change course, this will hold Britain back for a generation. Here is the difference between us and them: when Labour says education is our No. 1 priority, we mean it. That is why we published a bold £15 billion plan for every child to catch up on education, and we are putting it to a vote this afternoon. If the Prime Minister is really serious about this, he would back the motion. Will he do so?

[The Prime Minister]

Mr Speaker, I will tell you the difference between us and the party opposite: we put in the tough measures that are needed to give kids across the country a better education. When we rolled out the academies programme, which has driven up standards, who opposed it? They did. When we put in tough measures to ensure discipline in schools, they opposed it. At the last election, they even campaigned to get rid of Ofsted, which is so vital. [Interruption.] They did. He stood on a manifesto to get rid of Ofsted.

Will he now say that he supports not only our tuition programme but our radical programme to support teachers with better training? We are now putting in not only a starting salary for teachers of £30,000, which we have introduced, but another £400 million to support better training for teachers. That is what we are backing in our party. These are serious, costed reforms, based on evidence, unlike anything he is producing. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can we have just a little less shouting? I remind the Prime Minister that this is Prime Minister’s questions, and it is not about the agenda of the last general election. [Interruption.] Ofsted was not the question. I am not interested in what the Opposition put on the agenda; I am more interested in you answering the question.

[Keir Starmer]

Mr Speaker, let me take this very slowly for the Prime Minister. The Collins review, commissioned by the Government, was very clear: if the Collins proposed action is not taken, the attainment gap will rise by between 10% and 24%. That was on a slide shown to the Prime Minister last week. He talks about the various measures, so let us look at this more closely. Which part of our plan—the plan being voted on this afternoon—does he oppose? Is it breakfast clubs for every child? Does he oppose that? Is it quality mental health support in every school? Does he oppose that? Is it more tutoring for every child who needs it? Does he oppose that? Or is it additional investment for children who have suffered the most? Which part of our plan does the Prime Minister object to? If he does not object to it and he agrees with it, why does he not vote for it?

[The Prime Minister]

With great respect, Mr Speaker, I do think I am entitled to draw attention to what the Labour party stood on at the last election. They have not yet repudiated it; they did want to get rid of Ofsted. But I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if he is now saying that he supports our tutoring programme—that is what I understood from him just now—that is a good thing, because hitherto what has happened is that the kids of well-off parents, thanks to their hard work, have been able to rely on private tutoring. What the Government are now doing is coming in on the side of all the other kids who do not get access to that tutoring—6 million children will have access to tuition thanks to this programme. It is a fantastic thing; it is a revolution in education for this country. If he is now saying that he supports it, that is a good thing, although I have learnt in the course of the last year that his support can sometimes be evanescent.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister pretends he is here for the other kids. The report says that the attainment gap will go up by between 10% and 24% if the action is not taken, and he has just rejected it. How can he be on the side of the other kids? Come off it! We have been here before: free school meals—U-turn; exams fiasco—U-turn; and now catch-up. The Prime Minister has been all over the place when it comes to education, and he is on the wrong side of it again.

I now want to turn to this week’s G7, which will be the first major summit since the recovery. The UK needs to lead, not just to host. The priority must, of course, be a clear plan to vaccinate the world. As the delta variant shows, nobody is safe from this virus until everybody is safe. The Prime Minister has made big promises on this, but it needs a truly global effort to make it happen, so will he take the lead at the G7 and do whatever is necessary to make global vaccinations a reality?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. What the people of this country also understand is that not only were we able to give one of the first authorisations for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, but, thanks to the deal the Government did between the Oxford scientists and AstraZeneca, we were able to ensure that one in three of the 1.5 billion doses that have been distributed around the world are the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. That is global Britain in action, to say nothing of the billion vaccines that we hope to raise from the G7 this week.

[Keir Starmer]

That would sound a lot better if the Prime Minister was not the only G7 leader cutting his aid budget. I hear what he says about vaccines, but we also need clear global agreement and global funding. Hundreds of former leaders, businesses and development groups have called for exactly that kind of leadership at the G7, and that is what we need to see from the Prime Minister this weekend. The G7, bilateral discussions with President Biden and the possibility of a new Government in Israel also provide a real chance to restart a meaningful middle east peace process. The appalling violence recently, which killed 63 children in Gaza and two children in Israel, shows just how urgent this is. For too many people in Palestine, the promise of an end to the occupation and a recognised sovereign Palestinian state feels more distant than ever, so will the Prime Minister take the opportunity this weekend to press for renewed international agreement to finally recognise the state of Palestine, alongside a safe and secure Israel; to stop the expansion of illegal settlements; and to get a meaningful peace process back up and running?

[The Prime Minister]

It has been a long-standing objective of this Government, and I think it is common ground across the House, that the solution for the middle east peace process is a two-state solution. We continue to press for that, and I have made that position plain in my conversations with both the Palestinian Authority and of course with Israel.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman attacked the Government for failing to be sufficiently ambitious in our overseas aid spending—I think I heard him say that in that compendious question. [Interruption.] He is gesturing at the Government Benches. Under this Government we have spent more and continue to spend more than Labour ever did under Blair and under Brown, and even when they were spending money on Brazilian dancers in Hackney—which is what they did—to raise consciousness of global poverty. We are spending £10 billion a year at a time of acute financial difficulty for this country, and I think the British people know that that is the right priority for this country. If Labour Members want a vote on that matter, I remind them that the people of this country had an opportunity last month to vote on the way the Government were handling things and the balance that we were striking, and they adjudicated firmly in favour of the Government. The Opposition pontificate and prevaricate and procrastinate—

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I want to thank my hon. Friend for everything that he has done throughout this pandemic in the NHS, but also for raising this vital issue. I am proud that under this Government we are seeing the biggest increase for 15 years in treatment for substance abuse, but the specific points he raises we will make sure we address with Dame Carol Black, who is undertaking a review of drugs and treatment. We will make sure that his point is fed in.

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

May I join the Prime Minister in his comments about Hillsborough and Mike Weatherley?

This morning, the Prime Minister’s former closest adviser said:

“When the public needed us most the Government failed.”

Does the Prime Minister agree with that?

[The Prime Minister]

The handling of this pandemic has been one of the most difficult things this country has had to do for a very long time. None of the decisions has been easy. To go into a lockdown is a traumatic thing for a country. To deal with a pandemic on this scale has been appallingly difficult. We have at every stage tried to minimise loss of life—to save lives and to protect the NHS—and we have followed the best scientific advice that we can.

[Keir Starmer]

Can I remind the Prime Minister that one year ago, almost to the day, he said of his former adviser

“in every respect he has acted responsibly, legally and with integrity”?

This morning that same adviser has said that senior Ministers—these are his words—

“fell disastrously short of the standards that the public has a right to expect of its government”

and that lives were lost as a result. Does the Prime Minister accept that central allegation and that his inaction led to needless deaths?

[The Prime Minister]

No. Of course, all those matters will be reviewed in the course of the public inquiry that I have announced. I notice that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is fixated, as ever, on the rear-view mirror, while we on this side of the House are getting on with our job of rolling out the vaccines, making sure that we protect the people of this country. That has been the decisive development on which I think people are rightly focusing. I can tell the House that, in spite of the continuing concern that we have about the Indian variant, we are increasing our vaccination programme at such a rate that we can now ask everybody over 30 to come forward and get vaccinated.

[Keir Starmer]

It is no good the Prime Minister attacking me. It is his former chief adviser who is looking back and telling the world how useless the Prime Minister was in taking key decisions—his former adviser.

One of the most serious points made this morning is that the Prime Minister failed to recognise the severity of this virus until it was too late, dismissing it as another “scare story” like the swine flu. Does the Prime Minister recognise that account of his own behaviour? If so, will he apologise for being so complacent about the threat that this virus posed?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think anybody could credibly accuse this Government of being complacent about the threat that this virus posed at any point. We have worked flat out to minimise loss of life and to protect the NHS, while the Opposition have flip-flopped from one position to another, backing curfew one day and opposing it the next, backing lockdowns one day and opposing them the next, calling for tougher border controls one day and then saying that quarantine is a blunt instrument the next. We have got on with the job of protecting the people of this country from one of the worst pandemics in living memory, if not the worst in living memory. We have turned the corner, and it is no thanks to the loyal Opposition.

[Keir Starmer]

I can see that the evidence of his former adviser is really getting to the Prime Minister this morning in that response.

Another incredibly serious statement from the Prime Minister’s former adviser this morning concerns the conduct of the Health Secretary, including an allegation that the Health Secretary misled other Ministers and officials on a number of occasions. I do not expect the Prime Minister to respond to that, but can he confirm: did the Cabinet Secretary advise the Prime Minister that he—the Cabinet Secretary—had

“lost confidence in the Secretary of State’s honesty”?

[The Prime Minister]

The answer to that is no. I am afraid I have not had the benefit of seeing the evidence that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is bringing to the House, but I must say that I think what the people of this country want us all to do is to get on with the delicate business of trying to reopen our economy, restore people’s freedoms and get back to our way of life by rolling out the vaccine. I would have thought that that was a much more profitable line of inquiry for the right hon. and learned Gentleman today. That is what I think the people of this country want us to focus on.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. Either his former adviser is telling the truth, in which case the Prime Minister should answer the allegations, or the Prime Minister has to suggest that his former adviser is not telling the truth, which raises serious questions about the Prime Minister’s judgment in appointing him in the first place. There is a pattern of behaviour here. There was clearly a lack of planning, poor decision making, a lack of transparency and a Prime Minister who was absent from the key decisions, including five early Cobra meetings, and who was, to quote his former adviser,

“1,000 times far too obsessed with the media”.

Another central allegation briefed overnight is that the Prime Minister delayed the circuit break over the autumn half-term because covid was “only killing 80-year-olds”. I remind the Prime Minister that over 83,000 people over 80 have lost their lives to this virus and that his decision to delay for 40 days, from the SAGE guidance on 21 September until 31 October, will be seen as one of the single biggest failings of the last year. Having been told of the evidence, does the Prime Minister accept that he used the words “Covid is only killing 80-year-olds” or words to that effect?

[The Prime Minister]

We saw what happened during the pandemic. Particularly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about the September lockdown and my approach to it, and the very, very difficult decision that the country faced. Of course, this will be a matter for the inquiry to go into, but we have an objective test, in the sense that there was a circuit breaker, of the kind he describes, in Wales. It did not work, and I am absolutely confident that we took the decisions in the best interests of the British people. When it comes to hindsight, I just remind him that he actually—he denied this at the time and then had to correct it—voted to stay in the European Medicines Agency, which would have made it impossible for us to do the vaccine roll-out at the pace that we have.

[Keir Starmer]

It is not me giving evidence this morning; it is his former adviser, and I note the Prime Minister is careful not to refute these allegations. What we are seeing today is the latest chapter of a story of confusion, chaos and deadly misjudgments from this Government—from a Prime Minister governing by press release, not a plan. In the last 24 hours, we have seen the same mistakes made again, with the ridiculous way 1.7 million people in Bolton, Burnley, Bedford, Blackburn, Kirklees, Hounslow, Leicester and North Tyneside have been treated. In the light of the drip of these very serious allegations, the failure of the Prime Minister to provide even basic answers and continuing mistakes affecting millions of people, does the Prime Minister now recognise he must bring forward the timing of the public inquiry into covid, and that it should start this summer and as soon as possible?

[The Prime Minister]

No. As I have said before, I am not going to concentrate valuable official time on that now while we are still battling a pandemic. I thought actually that was what the House had agreed on. The right hon. and learned Gentleman continues to play these pointless political games, while we get on with delivering on the people’s priorities: 40 new hospitals; 8,771 more police on our streets; we are getting on with sorting out the railways; we are giving people—young people—the opportunity of home ownership in a way they have never had before, with 95% mortgages; and we have vaccinated. We have delivered 60 million vaccinations across this country, more than—he loves these European comparisons—any other European country, including 22 million second doses. That, with great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, is I believe the priority of the British people. That is really what they are focused on, while he voted to stay in the European Medicines Agency. The Opposition vacillate; we vaccinate. They deliberate; we deliver.

Covid-19 Update

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

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

May I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement? I clearly welcome the independent inquiry into the pandemic and the establishing of a UK commission on covid commemoration. Both are necessary; both will play an important part in learning the lessons and commemorating those we have lost.

Let me speak first for the families grieving the loss of a loved one. I, too, attended the covid memorial wall that the Prime Minister spoke of, opposite Parliament. It is moving. Everybody who has been there knows it is moving—thousands of hearts on the wall, stretching from one bridge to the next, and rightly facing this place. But I have also taken time to meet the grieving and bereaved families on a number of occasions, and to talk to them and with them about their experience. Those meetings have been among the most difficult I have ever had in my life, and the same goes for the staff who came with me and the other members of my team who were in those meetings, because what those families described was not just the loved one they have lost—the dad, the mum, the sister, the brother—and something about those individuals, nor was it just the fact that they had passed away. The hardest bit was the details. They told me about not being able to say goodbye in the way they wanted, whether that was in a hospital or elsewhere, and not being able to have a funeral in the way they wanted.

It was very hard to hear some of those stories, and lots of those families have searing questions about what happened—the decisions; what went wrong; why what happened happened to their families. So it is good that the Government are consulting the devolved authorities, of course it is, but the Government must also consult the families, because this inquiry will only work if it has the support and confidence of the families. I urge the Prime Minister and the Government to consult the families at the earliest possible moment.

The Government should also consult those on the frontline, who have done so much, whether in the NHS or social care or on other frontlines that we have seen, because they, too, deserve answers to the very many questions that they have, and they have done so much in this pandemic.

The next question is timing. The principle is that the inquiry should be as soon as possible. I understand that a statutory inquiry will take time to set up—of course it will—but why can it not be later this year? Why can it not start earlier? I want to press the Prime Minister on one particular point. The Prime Minister says the inquiry will start in spring 2022. Is that the inquiry opening and beginning to take of evidence in spring 2022, or is that starting work in setting up the inquiry? They are two very different things, and if it is the latter, the inquiry will not then be for many months afterwards, so if it is to formally open and start taking evidence in spring 2022, I would be really grateful if the Prime Minister made that clear.

Then there is the question of the terms of reference. Obviously, that will take time. There will have to be consultation with the devolved Administrations and, again, with the families and those on the frontline, but crucially with this Parliament. This House needs to be involved in the question of what the terms of reference should be. There will be different views across the House and they need to be heard, because this has to have the confidence of all in this Chamber.

All relevant questions must be asked and answered. That must of course include the decisions made in the last 14 or 15 months—all the decisions made—but there are wider questions of preparedness and resilience, particularly of our public services, that need to be asked. There are reasons why the pandemic hit those in overcrowded houses and insecure work the hardest. They need to be addressed as well, and no inquiry that does not address those questions will give the answers that many deserve.

Finally, there is the question of who chairs the inquiry. Again this is too early, but the wider the engagement on that question the wider the likely support for the inquiry. We need an independent inquiry that has the full support of everybody, so that its conclusions bear real authority. That will be achieved with the widest embracing of the terms of reference and the chair of the inquiry.

Let me be clear: I welcome this inquiry and we will play whatever part we can to ensure that it works well and gets the answers to the questions. Again, we support the commemoration commission and will work on a cross-party basis to ensure that that is fully the sort of commemoration that the families, and others who have lost through this pandemic, feel is appropriate. That should, of course, be on a cross-party basis. It is above politics, and rightly so.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his support for both the measures announced today: the commemoration commission and the inquiry. He asked some entirely justifiable questions about engagement with the bereaved and those who have been on the frontline about the areas in which the inquiry will want to focus—all the background to the growth of the pandemic. I have no doubt that when it is set up the inquiry will certainly look at all of those, and we will make sure to have the widest possible consultation and engagement.

The House should understand that I feel personally very strongly that this country has been through a trauma like no other. It is vital for the sake of the bereaved, and for the sake of the whole country, that we should understand exactly what happened and learn the lessons. Obviously we have been learning lessons throughout, but we need to have a very clear understanding of what took place over the past 14 months.

We owe it to the country to have as much transparency as we can, and to produce answers within a reasonable timescale. I am sure the House will want to see that as well. Clearly that will be a matter for the chair of the inquiry and the terms of reference, when they are set up, but it is my strong view that the country wants to see a proper, full and above all independent inquiry into the pandemic of last year.

I must repeat to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I think the timing that we have set out is the right timing. I think that it would be wrong to consecrate huge amounts of official time and public health workers’ time to an inquiry when they may very well still be in the middle of the pandemic, but clearly, to clarify the point that he raises, the steps taken to set out the terms of reference and establish the chair of the inquiry will happen before the spring of next year. We will be getting it under way and taking some key decisions, but I think that the House will agree that it would not be right to devote the time of people who are looking after us and saving lives to an inquiry before we can be much more certain than we are now that the pandemic is behind us. I hope that that carries the approval of the House.

Debate on the Address

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Tuesday 11th May 2021 Commons Chamber

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

Before I turn to the Address, I want to pay tribute to Her Majesty. This was Her Majesty’s 67th Queen’s Speech. At a time of incredible personal loss for Her Majesty, it must have been one of the hardest to deliver, as she did this morning.

I congratulate the mover and the seconder for what were both fine speeches. The Address was moved by the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara). He was typically erudite and engaging, and I should not have been surprised, because I am told he is a former winner of the coveted “rising star” award at the Conservative party conference, although I think that was in the year 2000. Perhaps his star has risen again today. As a season ticket holder at Arsenal, I am very glad to learn that he supports the reds. I am also told that he has a black belt in taekwondo, so I now know who to call on at the next shadow Cabinet meeting.

The seconder of the Address, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), showed why she also is tipped as a rising star. She gave a fine, passionate speech. She is surely the only Member of Parliament who is also a qualified safari ranger, and once survived being charged by a rhino. Her speech showed how those skills have transferred nicely to the Westminster jungle.

We also remember those Members of this House who passed away in the last Session. In April we lost Cheryl Gillan, who served Chesham and Amersham with such distinction—I look up, because in this place I would normally see Cheryl sitting up there on the Back Bench. As a new Back Bencher in 2015, I had the privilege of working closely with Cheryl on a cross-party basis, and we quickly developed a mutual respect and friendship; I know that many hon. Members would say the same and will remember Cheryl, as I do, with warmth and affection.

It is a tradition during these debates to welcome new Members to this House, so of course I congratulate the new hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) on her victory. She now has the huge honour of representing that great town; I hope that she will forgive me if I say that I hope it is not for too long. I wonder what plans she has for the 40-foot inflatable of the Prime Minister.

I turn to the Address. After a year of sacrifice, this is a seminal moment in our national story. As the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire spoke about the pandemic, let me start with this point. Even before the pandemic, Britain needed transformative change to reset our economy, to rebuild our public services and to strengthen our Union and our democracy for decades to come. That is because, even before the pandemic, there were 5.7 million people in low-paid or insecure work and 4.2 million children growing up in poverty. Class sizes were at their highest for 20 years, one in seven adults were unable to get the social care that they need, and Britain had one of the worst levels of regional inequality in Europe. Most shockingly of all, life expectancy stalled, for the first time in a century. Let that sink in: life expectancy stalled, for the first time in a century.

That is the record of the last 10 years. That is the record that the Prime Minister is trying to run away from today. We can see why: because in the past year, the pandemic has brutally exposed the consequences of that decade of neglect. Tragically, the pandemic has shown that if you live in low-quality, overcrowded housing, if you are trapped in insecure work, if you are one of the millions of people who are one pay cheque away from hardship, this pandemic will have been harder for you than for most.

Today we needed a Queen’s Speech that rose to the scale of the moment, that rewarded the sacrifices of the past year and rebuilt the foundation. Instead, this Queen’s Speech merely papers over the cracks. It is packed with short-term gimmicks and distant promises—this Government are never short of those—but it misses the urgency and scale of the transformation that is needed in our economy, in our public services and in our society, and it lacks the ambition or a plan to achieve it.

At the heart of this Queen’s Speech should have been a jobs plan—a plan to tackle unemployment, particularly the shocking levels of youth unemployment, and also to change how the economy works. That is not impossible. Just look across the Atlantic. There we see the kind of plan that is needed: a plan for long-term investment; a plan to make the economy more resilient, greener and more dynamic; and a plan to halve child poverty, to deliver a fairer tax system and to grow the economy from the middle out, not from the top down. But what do we see on this side of the Atlantic? A Queen’s Speech that pits regions against each other in a fight for limited funding, an economy still driven by chronic short-termism, a Government preparing to take money out of the pockets of working people and a Chancellor saddling businesses with debt when they need to invest.

This address spoke of plans to increase infrastructure spending. Well, about time! Britain should be leading the world on investment, but after 11 years of Conservative Government we are 124th out of 186 countries when it comes to capital investment in our economy, and the scale of what was in this address will not turn that around. This Queen’s Speech should also have provided a plan for better work. For too long, millions of people across Britain have worked longer for lower pay, so where was the employment Bill that was promised in the last Queen’s Speech and repeatedly promised by Ministers? Nowhere to be seen. What was needed was a game-changing employment Bill to end fire and rehire, to give proper rights to every worker from day one and to raise the living wage to at least £10 an hour and go further as quickly as possible. That measure alone would have boosted pay for 8.6 million workers. That is what a Labour Queen’s Speech would have delivered, alongside a green stimulus to create 400,000 jobs and a jobs promise for all 16 to 24-year-olds.

This address should also have included a clear long-term recovery plan for our NHS, but with waiting lists at a record high of 4.7 million, what we have heard today will come nowhere near the scale of the change needed. And it is unforgivable that there is no clear plan to fix social care. I remind the House that it is now 657 days since the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and said that

“we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all…with a clear plan we have prepared”.

Yet 657 days on from that promise, what did we hear in this address?

“Proposals on social care reform will be brought forward.”

No legislation, no new funding, no details, no timescale. Failure to act for a decade was bad enough, but failure to act after the pandemic is nothing short of an insult to the whole nation.

It is a similar story on skills and education. I care passionately about this. My dad was a toolmaker who worked on the factory floor all his life, and I know that it is only through world-class skills training, sustained investment and changing the way we think about vocational training that Britain can compete in the 2020s and 2030s. The Prime Minister’s rhetoric on lifetime skills is all very well, but the reality is different. Over the last 10 years, funding on adult education has been slashed by a fifth, and the number of apprenticeships fell by 200,000 in the three years to 2020, so we will judge the Government on their record, not on the rhetoric that we hear today.

It is the same story on crime and policing. Since 2015, recorded violent crime has doubled and antisocial behaviour has gone up in every area of England and Wales, yet the Conservatives call themselves the party of law and order. Violent crime has doubled and antisocial behaviour is on the up in every area in England and Wales. They have been in government for 11 years. And our courts now have a record backlog, meaning victims waiting years to get justice. Yet the Queen’s Speech will do nothing to address this. I know there is draft legislation now promised on a victims law, but the promise of a victims law has been in the last three Conservative manifestos. Six years ago, I introduced a private Member’s Bill for a victims law, with legally enforceable rights. It had cross-party support. There is cross-party support now. So it is not a draft Bill we need—it is urgent legislation.

The address also promised much on housing, but for many home ownership is further out of reach than ever. Among the under-45s home ownership has fallen by 800,000 in the last decade—a decade of neglect. House building targets are almost never hit, and rough sleeping has more than doubled since 2010. I see nothing in today’s address that will buck that trend or even attempt to repair the damage of the last decade. If the Prime Minister wanted to act, there is one area where he is guaranteed cross-party support: the cladding scandal. The Grenfell tragedy was four years and three Queen’s Speeches ago, yet thousands of people are still trapped in unsafe buildings, and hundreds of thousands of leaseholders are caught up in homes they cannot sell or afford. People are facing bankruptcy and great anxiety. If anybody needed any reminder of the danger of this, they should look no further than the fire in a block of flats in east London last week. There is no excuse for the Prime Minister’s inaction on cladding; that should have been in this address.

At a time when the United Kingdom is divided and public trust in our democracy is shaken, this Queen’s Speech was also an opportunity to rebuild the foundations of our democracy. Instead, what does it do? The electoral integrity Bill would make it harder for people to vote, it tramples on civil liberties and it discriminates. The Prime Minister must know that by introducing compulsory voter ID he will suppress turnout; it will disproportionately impact ethnic minorities and it will weaken our democracy. Labour will have no part in that. We also oppose plans in the judicial review Bill to weaken the power of our courts and curtail the right of judicial review. This Government simply fail to understand that our independent judiciary are a strength for our country, not a weakness.

And where is the legislation to fix the broken lobbying laws? The Prime Minister has chosen instead to put his faith in the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 —the Cameron Act. Where did that end? It ended with a Conservative Prime Minister being paid huge amounts of money by dodgy companies almost immediately after leaving office. Come to think of it, given the state of the Prime Minister’s current finances, I can see why he is reluctant to change that bit of legislation.

There are parts of the Queen’s Speech we will look to work with the Government on. Legislation to ban conversion therapy is long overdue. Conversion therapy is always wrong and indefensible, so we will look very carefully when legislation is brought forward, which must be done soon. We will also look carefully at the draft online safety Bill. That has been much delayed, and we need urgent and effective legislation. And we are always willing to work, on a cross-party basis, to end violence against women and girls. We will bring forward our own proposals on this in the coming days, but of course we will look at any legislation the Government bring forward in this area. Action on Russian and hostile state interference is also long overdue, and progress has been promised for nearly two years. So we will look closely at the promised counter-state threats Bill to see whether we can work constructively to bring about the change that is needed. But those are small glimmers in a Queen’s Speech that shows that the Government still do not understand what went wrong in the past decade and have no plan for the next.

This is the time for a transformative agenda to rebuild Britain’s foundations after a decade of neglect and a year of national sacrifice—to change the foundation of our economy, invest in the future, solve the social care crisis, clean up our politics and clean up the mess that this Government have created over a decade—but, once again, it is a chance that has been squandered.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. He and the whole House are aware of the pressure that young people, in particular, can feel as a result of doctored images. As part of the consultation on the online advertising programme, we will look at what we can do, and I know that we will be responding to the Select Committee’s report in due course.

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

May I join the Prime Minister in wishing Her Majesty a very happy birthday? The last few weeks have been a time of incredible personal anguish and we all send Her Majesty and the royal family our very best wishes.

May I also join the Prime Minister in his comments about the verdict in the George Floyd case? There has been justice in that case.

Even as an Arsenal season ticket holder, I join the Prime Minister in his comments about the European super league, which would have destroyed football. We now need to get on with the other changes that are necessary.

Finally, Mr Speaker, may I send my condolences to the family of Frank Judd, who died earlier this week? Frank was a much-loved Member of this House and the other place for many decades and was highly respected as a Labour Minister. He was a great internationalist and campaigner for peace and human rights and he will be sadly missed.

What does the Prime Minister think is the right thing to do if he receives a text message from a billionaire Conservative supporter asking him to fix tax rules?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I echo the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s remarks about Frank Judd.

In response to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question, if he is referring to the requests from James Dyson, I make absolutely no apology at all for shifting heaven and earth and doing everything I possibly could —as I think any Prime Minister would in those circumstances—to secure ventilators for the people of this country, to save lives and to roll out a ventilator-procurement process that the Labour-controlled Public Accounts Committee itself said was a benchmark for procurement

[Keir Starmer]

Let us be clear what the texts show. The Prime Minister was lobbied by a wealthy businessman and close friend for a change in the tax rules; the Prime Minister responded: “I will fix it”. Then, after a discussion with the Chancellor, whom everybody seems to be lobbying these days, the Prime Minister texted his friend to say, “it is fixed”. How many other people with the Prime Minister’s personal number has he given preferential treatment to?

[The Prime Minister]

I recall the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying at the time that we should do everything that we could to get more ventilators. Indeed, he congratulated the roll-out—he said well done to everybody involved in the ventilator challenge.

May I just remind the House of what we were facing in March last year? We had a new virus that was capable of killing people in ways that we did not understand. The only way to help them, in extremis, was to intubate them and put them on ventilation. We had 9,000 ventilators in this country; we secured 22,000 as a result of that ventilator challenge. I think it was entirely the right thing to do to work with all potential makers of ventilators at that time. And by the way, so does the former leader of the Labour party—a man to whom I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman should listen—Tony Blair.

[Keir Starmer]

I am surprised the Prime Minister brings up former leaders as it is his former leader—his friend Dave—who is at the heart of much of this.

I acknowledge that thousands of businesses stepped up during the pandemic. That was a good thing and we celebrate that. The difference is that they did not all have the chance to text the Prime Minister to ask him to fix the tax situation in exchange for doing so. That is the difference.

At the heart of this scandal are people’s jobs and wasted taxpayers’ money. Take, for example, the thousands of jobs at Liberty Steel that are on the line in Hartlepool, Rotherham and elsewhere following the collapse of Greensill Capital. The Prime Minister has not fixed that—in fact, he has done nothing to help steelworkers. Is it now quite literally one rule for those who have the Prime Minister’s phone number and another for everybody else?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman calls it a scandal; he voted for the changes that we brought in. He called our ventilator challenge an outstanding success and I think he was completely right. This is a Government who get on, deliver for people in distress and deliver on the people’s priorities.

Yes, of course I am concerned for the families of steelworkers up and down the country. That is why the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has been meeting the unions and the management of Liberty Steel repeatedly over the past few days. We believe in British steel. It was under the last Labour Government that jobs in steel fell by more than 50% and output fell by more than 50%. We now have a 5 million-tonne pipeline of British steel, with our massive infrastructure investments, and we intend to use our new freedoms under Brexit to make sure that procurement goes to British companies.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister says, “We believe in British steel”. Well, do something. I have to say to him that steelworkers waking up this morning will find it deeply offensive to hear the Prime Minister boasting to his friends that he is the First Lord of the Treasury and can give them the backing they need. He will not give the steelworkers the backing that they need. This shows that, once again, favours, privileged access, and tax breaks for mates are the main currency of this Conservative Government. If that is not the case, if one of the 3 million self-employed people who have been excluded from Government support for over a year and now face bankruptcy texted the Prime Minister to ask for a tax break so that they could survive, would he change the rules for them, too?

[The Prime Minister]

This Government have supported the self-employed with more than £14 billion throughout the pandemic. That is part of a vast package of support for jobs and livelihoods across the country. We continue to do everything it takes. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should take back what he said about the ventilator challenge. He attacks the ventilator challenge—our efforts to get more ventilators at a very, very difficult time for this country—in the same way, by the way, in which he opportunistically attacked the Vaccine Taskforce at a critical moment, which he will recall. We take the tough decisions that are necessary to protect the people of this country and get things done.

[Keir Starmer]

If I had to correct the Prime Minister for everything that he gets wrong, I would be here all day. I take it that that is a no as an answer to the question in relation to the 3 million. There we have it: an open door for those with the Prime Minister’s number; a closed door to the 3 million. What this shows once again is the extent of the sleaze and cronyism that is at the heart of his Conservative Government. Let me try another way, Prime Minister. If an NHS nurse, who has been working on the frontline during the pandemic, had the Prime Minister’s phone number, would they get the pay rise that they so obviously deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

I am proud of what this Government have done to support the NHS throughout the pandemic with record investment of another £92 billion. To help nurses, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we put in, last year, the bursary of £5,000, plus the £3,000 on top to help with training and the costs of childcare; and in the past couple of years, a 12.8% increase on the starting salary. Above all, we are helping the profession by recruiting more nurses than ever before. There are already 50,000 more people in the NHS this year than there were last year, and 10,600 more nurses. That is what I would say to many of the nurses that I have talked to in the past few days and weeks, and we will continue to back them to the hilt.

[Keir Starmer]

If the Prime Minister had been talking to the NHS frontline he would know how insulted they are by his pay cut after everything they have put in over the past year. They did not get a text from the Prime Minister; they got a kick in the teeth. Mr Speaker, there is a pattern to this Government: the Prime Minister is fixing tax breaks for his friends; the Chancellor is pushing the Treasury to help Lex Greensill; the Health Secretary is meeting Greensill for drinks; and David Cameron is texting anybody who will reply. Every day, there are new allegations about this Conservative Government: dodgy personal protective equipment deals; tax breaks for their mates; and the Health Secretary owning shares in a company delivering NHS services. Sleaze, sleaze, sleaze, and it is all on his watch. With this scandal now firmly centred on him, how on earth does he expect people to believe that he is the person to clean this mess up?

[The Prime Minister]

I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman why this Government are doing the right thing at the right time. The difference between us and the Labour party is, I am afraid, staringly obvious. We get on with taking the tough decisions to protect the people of this country and to take our country forward, uniting and levelling up. We take the tough decisions to procure tens of thousands of ventilators in record time, which, apparently, he now opposes. We put forward tougher sentences for rapists and violent criminals, which he then opposes on a three-line Whip. We take tough decisions to stick up for the fans of our national game. While captain hindsight snipes continually from the sidelines, this Government get on with delivering on the people’s priorities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[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—

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Commons Chamber

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

In supporting the Humble Address, I would like to echo the remarks made by the Prime Minister and, on behalf of my party, to come together today in appreciation of a life well lived, a life of service and of duty, and a life that shaped modern Britain and provided much needed stability to our national story.

My thoughts, first and foremost, are with Her Majesty the Queen and the royal family. Prince Philip was a man of many titles—Duke of Edinburgh, Lord High Admiral, a royal Commander, Baron of Greenwich—but above all he was a much loved father, grandfather and great- grandfather. To Her Majesty the Queen he was not only her beloved husband, but, in her words, her “strength and stay” for seven decades, so it is right that, today, this House and the country come together to pay tribute not just to a man, but to the virtues he personified, and to his ceaseless optimism about the country Britain can be and what the British people can achieve.

The life of Prince Philip was extraordinary, lived in a century on fast-forward and a time that saw world war, a cold war, the fall of empire, 20 Prime Ministers, and the invention of the television, the internet, artificial intelligence and technology so extraordinary it might have seemed to a lesser person as if from another world. Throughout that time, the monarchy has been the one institution in which the faith of the British people has never faltered. As we have seen once again in recent days, the royal family has a connection with the British people that runs as deep today as it did when Philip Mountbatten married the then Princess Elizabeth in 1947. That is not by chance; it reflects the quiet virtues, the discipline and the sacrifices we commemorate today.

My own connection to the Duke of Edinburgh began long before I entered this place. Like millions of other children, I—aged 14—started the Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme, or the DofE, as we called it. My first activity was to volunteer at a local mental health hospital where, unbeknown to me at the time, my late grandad would later be admitted. My final activity was wandering around Dartmoor in a small team, with a compass and a map in the pouring rain, frantically trying to find our way. Mr Speaker, if that doesn’t prepare you for coming into politics, nothing will.

In recent days, I have been struck by the countless stories of lives turned around by the DofE Award—young people who found their confidence and found their way. This was summed up by a 14-year-old girl who said, on passing her bronze award, that she felt:

“I can do anything now.”

The DofE Award now covers 130 countries and has helped millions of people around the world. It is perhaps the best symbol of the Duke’s global legacy. He was also patron to more than 800 charities and organisations. He was the first president of the World Wildlife Fund. He was the patron of the British Heart Foundation. He was president of the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, and he was chancellor of the Universities of Cambridge, Edinburgh, Salford and Wales. He carried out, as has been said, a staggering total of more than 22,000 solo engagements, and countless others alongside Her Majesty the Queen.

The Duke will also be remembered for his unstinting support of our armed forces. It was in Dartmouth in 1940 that he graduated as a naval cadet. As the Prime Minister has described, he went on to a distinguished naval career. Today, the British armed forces mourn one of their greatest champions.

The Duke was a funny, engaging, warm and loving man. He loved to paint. His work has been described, characteristically, as

“totally direct, no hanging about. Strong colours, vigorous brushstrokes.”

He was also a great lover of political cartoons—not something the Prime Minister and I can say often, although I saw a cartoon this weekend that I think captured this moment of national and personal loss perfectly. It depicted Her Majesty dressed in black, looking back at her shadow and seeing the Duke standing there, as ever at her side, attentive and holding her hand.

Britain will not be the same in the Duke’s absence. For most of us, there has never been a time when the Duke of Edinburgh was not present. At every stage of our national story for the last seven decades, he has been there, a symbol of the nation we hope to be at our best, a source of stability, a rock.

Her Majesty once said:

“Grief is the price we pay for love.”

The Duke loved this country and Britain loved him in return. That is why we grieve today. But we must also celebrate him: a life lived in vigorous brushstrokes, like his painting, and we offer up this tribute, “To the Duke of Edinburgh, for a lifetime of public service, the gold award.”

[Mr Speaker]

I now call the Father of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[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.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am struggling to hear the Leader of the Opposition, and I will hear the Leader of the Opposition. Please, I want respect for the Prime Minister and I expect the same for the Leader of the Opposition.

[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.

Integrated Review

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[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.