Tributes to Her Late Majesty the Queen

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Saturday 10th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I now invite the House to resume its tributes to Her late Majesty. I expect to conclude tributes at 10 o’clock, when I shall invite Ministers to move the motion for a Humble Address to His Majesty. A hundred and eighty-two Members contributed yesterday, and many want to contribute today. I hope Members will therefore keep to the informal time limit of three minutes. I invite the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Thérèse Coffey, to speak.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing Ministers to participate in this debate. I really appreciate it, and I know that my constituents from Suffolk Coastal will, too.

Her late Majesty the Queen was a constant across the decades. As a child, I remember the silver jubilee; there were also celebrations for the golden, diamond and platinum jubilees, and commemorations of VE Day. The Queen brought the nation together at sad times, including for events at the Cenotaph, but there was also celebration of what makes our country great. The very first time my mother watched television was the coronation. Somebody nearby in her town of Wrexham bought a TV, and people came from the surrounding streets to watch the Queen being crowned.

The Queen’s impact was felt right around the world. I saw that when I was Minister of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In Kenya, in Uganda, and wherever I went, the Queen was held in the highest regard, and there were always representations made to her. Her impact was felt in world war two as well; I think of the broadcasts by the princesses. As a youth, in 1995—a long time ago—I went as a representative of the United Kingdom to the Anne Frank house, where there were pictures of the princesses. In her diary, on 21 April 1944, Anne Frank wished a happy 18th birthday to Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth of York, and wondered to which prince they would marry off this beauty. I am confident that our new King will also have that constancy, and that impact around the world, not only because of his work on the environment, but because he will sincerely continue the traditions of his mother.

Turning to Suffolk Coastal, I pay tribute to Rendlesham’s savvy parish council, which always puts on its parish fête on the same day as the trooping of the colour so we get the line-up of all the flypasts, whereas many other places pay for it. The Queen seemed to have a particular affection for Benjamin Britten and opera; she opened the 20th Snape Maltings festival in 1967, and when it burned down a couple of years later she came back to, in effect, reopen it. That affection carried on. Her love of music may not always have been evident, but people in this Chamber and elsewhere will know the special arrangement of the national anthem written by Benjamin Britten. Her love of music was further attested to by the fact that she authorised the name of only one other person on the coinage of the realm: Benjamin Britten.

I want to say on behalf of the people of Suffolk Coastal how much they will miss Queen Elizabeth II, and to pledge their loyalty and support to King Charles III.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)]

Like many in this House, I had the opportunity to meet and speak to the Queen on numerous occasions, but unfortunately the relationship did not start particularly auspiciously. I was invited to Buckingham Palace for what, as other Members will know, is an ancient, complex process of becoming a Privy Councillor. It was so complicated that I was called to a side room with five colleagues to have the process explained. We were told, “You will enter a large hall in Buckingham Palace, where Her Majesty will stand at one end. You will kneel on the red cushions, which go back some distance, on your right knees, holding a Bible in your right hand. You will switch that to your left hand, then take the Sovereign’s hand with your right hand and brush her hand, then stand and say, ‘Your Majesty.’”. I thought, “Brush her hand? Was that an instruction to brush her hand with my hand? With my sleeve? Or with a handkerchief?” As I was about to ask, we were called into the performance of the great ceremony itself. I thought, “No matter, I am fifth in the line to become a Privy Councillor, so I will watch my colleagues.”

My colleagues were all swearing on the New Testament, but as I am Jewish I was swearing on the Old Testament. I was at the back of the line and I thought that I would watch what was happening. Unfortunately, as we went into this large hallway, I found that it was so long that I could not see what was happening in the ceremony at the front. As I got closer, the field of view narrowed and the girth of my colleague in front of me widened, and I still could not see what brushing the hand actually entailed. With palpitations, I nervously knelt in front of Her Majesty the Queen, on the red cushion right before her. I switched the Bible, the Pentateuch, from my right to my left hand, and stretched out my right hand. She stretched out her bare, ungloved right hand and, to my surprise, moved it towards my face. It moved towards my lips. I pursed my lips. And it stuck! For what felt like an age she tried to pull it away and then, suddenly, “pop!”, her hand pulled away. I wanted the ground beneath me in Buckingham Palace to swallow me whole, but I remembered to stand up. “Your Majesty,” I quavered. She looked me right in the eyes with those wonderful sparkling eyes, as if both to acknowledge what had happened and also to forgive me in one turn. She said, “Ye...es!”. Mr Speaker, we never spoke of it again. God save the King.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Siobhain McDonagh.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to follow so many others in rising to pay tribute to her late Majesty the Queen on behalf of the people of Ilford North and the London Borough of Redbridge. The depth of our sorrow reflects—in part—the length of her reign, her lifetime of service and duty, and the devotion she gave to her family, our country and our Commonwealth, but it also reflects how special the woman beneath the Crown was: at once the head of our royal family and yet able to touch the hearts of every family in the land.

East London holds a special place in its heart for the royal family. During the second world war, King George VI and his family stayed in London during the blitz and visited families whose lives and livelihoods had been devastated by the Nazi onslaught. The then Princess Elizabeth visited Ilford to see those affected by the bombing the day after VE Day in 1945 and returned again in 1949 to see the one thousandth council home that had been built by Atlee’s Government. She is said to have remarked,

“of all the houses and estates I have visited, Ilford’s are the best”.

She also visited a care home where one elderly resident was so thrilled to meet the Princess that they immediately burst into tears of happiness.

I saw a similar outpouring of emotion when the Queen visited Ilford again for her diamond jubilee in 2012, where she unveiled a plaque to the dry garden created in her honour in Valentines Park. It spoke to the great challenge of climate change—a cause close to the heart of our dear King. One resident told the Ilford Recorder,

“we have always read about queens and princesses in the story books. To have the Queen in our neighbourhood, it’s like a dream come true.”

A dream come true—that is a sentiment I cannot imagine being elicited for a mere President, and one that was certainly elicited with no effort for Her Majesty the Queen. It hardly seems real that that dream has ended.



We are privileged to have lived in the second Elizabethan age. Her late Majesty the Queen oversaw our country’s transition from empire to Commonwealth, to a modern democracy, witnessing huge social changes throughout her lifetime. So many of my constituents are proud of those changes, and of course retain strong familial bonds across the Commonwealth. Her Majesty showed by example that tradition and modernity are not adversaries but well-suited companions, from her first televised address to her very last Zoom call. From the beginning of her reign, amid rationing and post-war reconstruction, to her address to the nation at the height of the covid pandemic, she reminded us that whatever the triumphs and disasters of our history, our country’s best days now lie ahead. History, like life, moves on.

His Majesty the King has told us that the grief of the nation, and indeed the grief of the world, has provided comfort to his family for their irreparable loss. I hope he knows that his presence in our lives in recent days has been comforting and reassuring too—and if I may say so, Mr Speaker, when the Queen welcomed the then Duchess of Cornwall into her family, the nation took her into our hearts. It is a privilege and a pleasure to see her take her place as Queen Consort.

We are blessed to have known the reign of Elizabeth II, our greatest Queen. May God rest her soul, and may God save the King.

[Mr Speaker]

Before I leave the Chair, let me remind Members and staff that a service will take place tomorrow at 6 pm in St Margaret’s Church for the parliamentary community to remember Her late Majesty the Queen. Will those wishing to attend please contact my office?

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

Her Majesty the Queen was the heart of Windsor, and it is in some ways fitting that my words will be the last of the Back-Bench tributes to Her Majesty. I wish to pass on condolences not just from me but from my many constituents to the royal family.

The Queen was an exceptional monarch through an extraordinary era. Even before her coronation, the young Elizabeth made a vow to devote her life to serving her country. She kept her promise, and she surpassed our expectations. She has been the constant in an ever-changing world not just for Windsor, but for the country, the Commonwealth, and in the hearts and minds of all those around the world. She has been the embodiment of the United Kingdom. She has been projecting all that is good about our nation across the globe for more than 70 years, and her image is our image to the world.

She was the omnipresent Queen. I have been listening to the tributes in this debate, and it seems as though the Queen has been to every part of our United Kingdom. Everybody has a story to tell and everyone in this Chamber has a story to tell. I can tell the House that, as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to parts of west Africa, everybody there has a story to tell as well. Everyone has a story to tell about our omnipresent Queen. Nationally and internationally, she is recognised.

Yet amid all her duties, responsibilities and commitments, the Queen remained ever-present in the Windsor constituency, one of her favourite homes. People felt her presence everywhere across the constituency—absolutely everywhere. As the MP, I have had the privilege of greeting Heads of State as they arrived in Windsor, albeit in the shadows of Her Majesty, and I could witness at first hand her incisive wit and her cool and calm humour, which set guests at their ease. Aside from seeing the Queen at Royal Ascot, the Savill garden, the Combermere barracks and the Victoria barracks, or at military parades, virtually every constituent will have seen or met her, or knew somebody very close to them who had.

If people lived in Windsor, there was no escape—none whatsoever. If they were strolling in Windsor Great park, they would inevitably bump into the Queen walking, driving or, in the past, on a horse. Their children were likely to see her at school or at college, and for anyone working for our many charities and good causes, it was inevitable that they would receive visits and great patronage from the Queen. When it came to our businesses, if the foundation stone of the building was not laid by the Queen, a plaque with her name was placed there on her opening it, or the business received a letter or an invite to the Castle. Whether people knew it or not, even when they were shopping in the King Edward Court centre in central Windsor, it was inevitable that they would bump into Her Majesty on occasion. She was everywhere: she was truly omnipresent. So I am not surprised—I am not—that her last official engagement was at the Thames hospice in our local area. It makes sense in so many ways.

In closing, it is difficult for me to express just how much the Queen will be missed in Windsor and how thankful we are to have known her. She was our omnipresent Queen—the Queen of constancy—and her image is our image to the world. In future, in this place and across the country, we must strive to live up to her image of us. In Windsor the Queen will live on in our parks, lakes and buildings, and in our memories. She will live on in her eldest son, and I say without hesitation, long live King Charles III.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Leader of the House.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

First, it is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), and I had a feeling he would have more anecdotes than I do.

It is truly an honour to close these two days of tributes to Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I have heard almost all of them either here or in my office, and truly every speech has been superb. I am so proud of how we, her Parliament, have come together to pay tribute, and I really think we have done her proud. Colleagues have sent condolences to the royal family on behalf of their constituents, and on behalf of the people of Bristol West and my own family, I do so, too.

From the opening speeches by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, followed by the Father and the Mother of the House, to those of the Members here now and the hundreds in between, I am grateful to each and every colleague, as I also am to the Clerks, Doorkeepers and staff who have enabled this to happen. I truly thank everyone. It is impossible to do the normal round-up closing speech, so I will try to pick out themes instead, because we have explored so many of service and of faith. We have had poetry and prose, and quite a lot of comedy. There have been perspectives from history and of progress. I am aware—I hope I have my dates right—that Her late Majesty’s first Prime Minister was born in 1874 and her last in 1975. What a span of historical perspective.

Many spoke wittily of their own time with the late Queen, to illustrate her character. To pick one out, who knew that the tale of a plate of cheese delivered with a wry raised eyebrow by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), could evoke the Queen so well? We have heard many stories of mishaps on footstools, some of them with Her late Majesty saving people’s dignity, but some of them just managing to turn it into a comedy moment.

The Mother of the House and many others spoke of the significance of the late Queen as a female leader and role model. Indeed, in her Christmas broadcast in 1966, the Queen said that

“it has been women who have breathed gentleness and care into the harsh progress of mankind.”

I have thought about that remark a lot in the past couple of days.

Some colleagues spoke eloquently of their time with the late Queen in other countries—the greatest diplomat on the world stage in our corner, representing Britain—and many talked about her close bond and relationships with our armed forces and others in uniform. We have toured all the nations and every region—it seems like every village, town and city—and felt the sense of pride that she had in all of this country and all of us in it, where she shook more hands, unveiled more plaques and gifted more smiles than anywhere else.

I have learned a great deal more about how a constitutional monarchy operates from those who interacted with Her late Majesty in governmental office, and of her kindness to those whose governmental career had ended. Ardent monarchists and those with a different view alike expressed huge respect for her dedication to public service. Her ability to transcend politics and to represent the national mood meant that she was a unifying figure through which the public could share our nation’s joys and bring much-needed comfort in our country’s darkest hours. I feel that today we have transcended politics and come together.

Many speakers mentioned the late Queen’s pitch-perfect television statements during the pandemic, which so movingly connected our collective trauma in those fearful months in 2020 with the anguish instilled in the world war two generation. Remembering her invocation of Vera Lynn’s wartime message, “We’ll meet again” brings a lump to my throat—so poignant—but she also said:

“the attributes of self-discipline, of quiet good-humoured resolve and of fellow-feeling still characterise this country. The pride in who we are is not a part of our past, it defines our present and our future.”

Many spoke of how, aged just 21, the then Princess Elizabeth declared that her whole life, whether it be long or short, should be devoted to our service. That was a promise she fulfilled right until the very end. Grief, as Her late Majesty said, is the price we pay for love, but who would want to live without love? We suffer that grief willingly. Whatever the age at which our loved ones leave us, whether their life was long or short, we always grief for that lost presence—the years we are robbed of. We yearn for just one more week, one more day, just one more hour with them. Knowing how that feels, and knowing that the royal family must be feeling that right now, even in the midst of all the formalities and the public duties, we keep them in our hearts.

I hope that, by reflecting together on the Queen’s life over the past two days, we can appreciate the concept of a life well lived. Whether you are a brownie or an MP, whether you work in the NHS or in education, whether you were a key worker or a volunteer during the pandemic, whether you work in hospitality or a factory, whether you are simply a mother, a father, a brother, a sister, a friend or a neighbour, each day brings all of us a new opportunity to live up to the ideal set by the late Queen’s life well lived. That is perhaps the biggest tribute we can pay to the ultimate public servant, conscious as we go about our lives of how we can help one another, contribute to the common good and work toward an even better Britain. In the doing of duty and service, we sometimes think of sacrifice, but in the tributes offered here we can all recognise that, in fact, these make a good life. We MPs, who willingly chose our life of duty and service, can renew our commitment to them now as we celebrate the one who, though that life was thrust upon her, followed it unstintingly for 70 years. We must carry forward this Elizabethan legacy of public service for generations to come, for this truly is patriotism.

May Her late Majesty rest in peace and the legacy of the great Elizabethan age continue. May His Majesty King Charles III have a long and successful reign. Long live the King.

[Mr Speaker]

I now call the Leader of the House.

Tributes to Her Late Majesty The Queen

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I now call the Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister (Elizabeth Truss)]

In the hours since last night’s shocking news, we have witnessed the most heartfelt outpouring of grief at the loss of Her late Majesty the Queen. Crowds have gathered. Flags have been lowered to half-mast. Tributes have been sent from every continent around the world. On the death of her father, King George VI, Winston Churchill said the news had,

“stilled the clatter and traffic of twentieth-century life in many lands”.

Now, 70 years later, in the tumult of the 21st century, life has paused again.

Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was one of the greatest leaders the world has ever known. She was the rock on which modern Britain was built. She came to the throne aged just 25, in a country that was emerging from the shadow of war; she bequeaths a modern, dynamic nation that has grown and flourished under her reign. The United Kingdom is the great country it is today because of her. The Commonwealth is the family of nations it is today because of her. She was devoted to the Union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. She served 15 countries as Head of State, and she loved them all.

Her words of wisdom gave us strength in the most testing times. During the darkest moments of the pandemic, she gave us hope that we would meet again. She knew this generation of Britons would be as strong as any. As we meet today, we remember the pledge she made on her 21st birthday to dedicate her life to service. The whole House will agree: never has such a promise been so completely fulfilled.

Her devotion to duty remains an example to us all. She carried out thousands of engagements, she took a red box every day, she gave her assent to countless pieces of legislation and she was at the heart of our national life for seven decades. As the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, she drew on her deep faith. She was the nation’s greatest diplomat. Her visits to post-apartheid South Africa and to the Republic of Ireland showed a unique ability to transcend difference and heal division. In total, she visited well over 100 countries. She met more people than any other monarch in our history.

She gave counsel to Prime Ministers and Ministers across Government. I have personally greatly valued her wise advice. Only last October, I witnessed first hand how she charmed the world’s leading investors at Windsor Castle. She was always so proud of Britain, and always embodied the spirit of our great country. She remained determined to carry out her duties even at the age of 96. It was just three days ago, at Balmoral, that she invited me to form a Government and become her 15th Prime Minister. Again, she generously shared with me her deep experience of government, even in those last days.

Everyone who met her will remember the moment. They will speak of it for the rest of their lives. Even for those who never met her, Her late Majesty’s image is an icon for what Britain stands for as a nation, on our coins, on our stamps, and in portraits around the world. Her legacy will endure through the countless people she met, the global history she witnessed, and the lives that she touched. She was loved and admired by people across the United Kingdom and across the world.

One of the reasons for that affection was her sheer humanity. She reinvited monarchy for the modern age. She was a champion of freedom and democracy around the world. She was dignified but not distant. She was willing to have fun, whether on a mission with 007, or having tea with Paddington Bear. She brought the monarchy into people’s lives and into people’s homes.

During her first televised Christmas message in 1957, she said:

“Today we need a special kind of courage…so that we can show the world that we are not afraid of the future.”

We need that courage now. In an instant yesterday, our lives changed forever. Today, we show the world that we do not fear what lies ahead. We send our deepest sympathy to all members of the royal family. We pay tribute to our late Queen, and we offer loyal service to our new King.

His Majesty King Charles III bears an awesome responsibility that he now carries for all of us. I was grateful to speak to His Majesty last night and offer my condolences. Even as he mourns, his sense of duty and service is clear. He has already made a profound contribution through his work on conservation and education, and his tireless diplomacy. We owe him our loyalty and devotion.

The British people, the Commonwealth and all of us in this House will support him as he takes our country forward to a new era of hope and progress: our new Carolean age. The Crown endures, our nation endures, and in that spirit, I say God save the King. [Hon. Members: “God save the King.”]

[Mr Speaker]

I now call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Today, our country, our people, this House, are united in mourning. Queen Elizabeth II was this great country’s greatest monarch, and for the vast majority of us, it feels impossible to imagine a Britain without her. All our thoughts are with her beloved family—our royal family—at this moment of profound grief. This is a deep and private loss for them, yet it is one we all share, because Queen Elizabeth created a special personal relationship with us all. That relationship was built on the attributes that defined her reign: her total commitment to service and duty, and her deep devotion to the country, the Commonwealth and the people she loved. In return for that, we loved her, and it is because of that great shared love that we grieve today.

For the 70 glorious years of her reign, our Queen was at the heart of this nation’s life. She did not simply reign over us; she lived alongside us, she shared in our hopes and our fears, our joy and our pain, our good times and our bad. Our Queen played a crucial role as the thread between the history we cherish and the present we own; a reminder that our generational battle against the evil of fascism, or the emergence of a new Britain out of the rubble of the second world war, do not belong only to the past, but are the inheritance of each and every one of us; a reminder that the creativity, the hard work, the enterprise that has always defined this nation is as abundant now as it ever was; a reminder that the prospect of a better future still burns brightly.

Never was this link more important than when our country was plunged into lockdown at the start of the pandemic. The Queen’s simple message—that we would see family again, that we would see friends again, that we would be together again—gave people strength and courage when they needed it most. But it was not simply the message that allowed a shaken nation to draw upon those reserves; it was the fact that she was the messenger. Covid closed the front doors of every home in the country. It made our lives smaller and more remote, but she was able to reach beyond that, to reassure us and to steel us. At the time we were most alone, at a time when we had been driven apart, she held the nation close in a way no one else could have done. For that, we say “Thank you”.

On the occasion of the Queen’s silver jubilee in 1977, Philip Larkin wrote of her reign:

“In times when nothing stood

But worsened, or grew strange,

There was one constant good:

She did not change.”

It feels like we are once again in a moment in our history where, as Larkin put it, things are growing strange. Where everything is spinning, a nation requires a still point. When times are difficult, it requires comfort. And when direction is hard to find, it requires leadership. The loss of our Queen robs this country of its stillest point, its greatest comfort, at precisely the time we need those things most.

But our Queen’s commitment to us—her life of public service—was underpinned by one crucial understanding: that the country she came to symbolise is bigger than any one individual or any one institution. It is the sum total of all our history and all our endeavours, and it will endure. The late Queen would have wanted us to redouble our efforts, to turn our collar up and face the storm, to carry on. Most of all, she would want us to remember that it is in these moments that we must pull together.

This House is a place where ideas and ideals are debated. Of course that leads to passionate disagreement. Of course temperatures can run high. But we all do it in pursuit of something greater. We do it because we believe we can make this great country and its people greater still. At this moment of uncertainty, where our country feels caught between a past it cannot relive and a future yet to be revealed, we must always remember one of the great lessons of our Queen’s reign: that we are always better when we rise above the petty, the trivial and the day-to-day to focus on the things that really matter—the things that unite us—rather than those which divide us. Our Elizabethan age may now be over, but her legacy will live on forever. And as the children of that era, it falls upon us to take that legacy forward; to show the same love of country, the love of one another, as she did; to show empathy and compassion, as she did; and to get Britain through this dark night and bring it into the dawn, as she did.

We join together today not just to say goodbye to our Queen, to share in our mourning, but to say something else important: “God save the King.” Because as one era ends, so another begins. King Charles III has been a devoted servant of this country his entire life. He has been a powerful voice for fairness and understood the importance of the environment long before many others. As he ascends to his new role, with the Queen Consort by his side, the whole House—indeed, the whole country—will join today to wish him a long, happy and successful reign.

The emotions that we see across the nation today are echoed across the Commonwealth, to which our Queen was so committed; in the Church, to which our Queen was so devoted; and in the armed forces, which she led and her family served. Around the world, people will be united in mourning for her passing, and united in celebrating her life. We have already seen beautiful tributes flow from across the world. It would be impossible to capture them all here, but each one is a reminder of the esteem in which she was held, of what she achieved on behalf of her country and of the shared values that we treasure. The reason our loss feels so profound is not just because she stood at the head of our country for 70 years, but because in spirit she stood among us. As we move forward, as we forge a new path, as we build towards a better future, she will always be with us. For all she gave us, and all that she will continue to give us, we say thank you. May our Queen rest in peace. God save the King.

[Mr Speaker]

I now call the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley.

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

My constituents will wish me briefly to record their love and respect for, and gratitude to, Her late Majesty. We can give continuing life to her values and virtues, kindness, aspiration, perseverance and pride. We thank her; we miss her; and we should say what she would wish: God save the King.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the SNP, Ian Blackford.

--- Later in debate ---

[Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)]

I hope the House will not mind if I begin with a personal confession. A few months ago, the BBC came to see me to talk about Her Majesty the Queen. We sat down and the cameras started rolling, and they requested that I should talk about her in the past tense. I am afraid that I simply choked up and could not go on. I am really not easily moved to tears, but I was so overcome with sadness that I had to ask them to go away.

I know that, today, there are countless people in this country and around the world who have experienced the same sudden access of unexpected emotion, and I think millions of us are trying to understand why we are feeling this deep, personal and almost familial sense of loss. Perhaps it is partly that she has always been there: a changeless human reference point in British life; the person who—all the surveys say—appears most often in our dreams; so unvarying in her pole-star radiance that we have perhaps been lulled into thinking that she might be in some way eternal.

But I think our shock is keener today because we are coming to understand, in her death, the full magnitude of what she did for us all. Think what we asked of that 25-year-old woman all those years ago: to be the person so globally trusted that her image should be on every unit of our currency, every postage stamp; the person in whose name all justice is dispensed in this country, every law passed, to whom every Minister of the Crown swears allegiance; and for whom every member of our armed services is pledged, if necessary, to lay down their lives.

Think what we asked of her in that moment: not just to be the living embodiment, in her DNA, of the history, continuity and unity of this country, but to be the figurehead of our entire system—the keystone in the vast arch of the British state, a role that only she could fulfil because, in the brilliant and durable bargain of the constitutional monarchy, only she could be trusted to be above any party political or commercial interest and to incarnate, impartially, the very concept and essence of the nation.

Think what we asked of her, and think what she gave. She showed the world not just how to reign over a people; she showed the world how to give, how to love and how to serve. As we look back at that vast arc of service, its sheer duration is almost impossible to take in. She was the last living person in British public life to have served in uniform in the second world war. She was the first female member of the royal family in a thousand years to serve full time in the armed forces.

That impulse to do her duty carried her right through into her 10th decade to the very moment in Balmoral—as my right hon. Friend said—only three days ago, when she saw off her 14th Prime Minister and welcomed her 15th. I can tell you, in that audience she was as radiant and as knowledgeable and as fascinated by politics as ever I can remember, and as wise in her advice as anyone I know, if not wiser. Over that extraordinary span of public service, with her naturally retentive and inquiring mind, I think—and doubtless many of the 15 would agree—that she became the greatest statesman and diplomat of all.

She knew instinctively how to cheer up the nation, how to lead a celebration. I remember her innocent joy more than 10 years ago, after the opening ceremony of the London Olympics, when I told her that the leader of a friendly middle eastern country seemed actually to believe that she had jumped out of a helicopter in a pink dress and parachuted into the stadium. [Laughter.] I remember her equal pleasure on being told, just a few weeks ago, that she had been a smash hit in her performance with Paddington Bear.

Perhaps more importantly, she knew how to keep us going when times were toughest. In 1940, when this country and this democracy faced the real possibility of extinction, she gave a broadcast, aged only 14, that was intended to reassure the children of Britain. She said then:

“We know, every one of us, that in the end all will be well”.

She was right. And she was right again in the darkest days of the covid pandemic when she came on our screens and told us that we would meet again—and we did.

I know I speak for other ex-Prime Ministers when I say that she helped to comfort and guide us as well as the nation. She had the patience and the sense of history to see that troubles come and go, and that disasters are seldom as bad as they seem. It was that indomitability, that humour, that work ethic and that sense of history that, together, made her Elizabeth the Great.

When I call her that, I should add one final quality, of course: her humility—her single-bar-electric-fire, Tupperware-using refusal to be grand. I can tell the House, as a direct eyewitness, that unlike us politicians, with our outriders and our armour-plated convoys, she drove herself in her own car, with no detectives and no bodyguard, bouncing at alarming speed over the Scottish landscape, to the total amazement of the ramblers and tourists we encountered.

It is that indomitable spirit with which she created the modern constitutional monarchy—an institution so strong, so happy and so well understood, not just in this country but in the Commonwealth and around the world, that the succession has already seamlessly taken place. I believe she would regard it as her own highest achievement that her son, Charles III, will clearly and amply follow her own extraordinary standards of duty and service. The fact that today we can say with such confidence, “God save the King” is a tribute to him but, above all, to Elizabeth the Great, who worked so hard for the good of her country not just now but for generations to come. That is why we mourn her so deeply, and it is in the depths of our grief that we understand why we loved her so much.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Mother of the House, Harriet Harman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I now call Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, but I warn other Members that I hope to get many speakers in today. Please can Members take up to three minutes after Sir Jeffrey?

--- Later in debate ---

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

Today we are united in mourning our beloved Queen Elizabeth II. For 70 years, she has been a source of stability and comfort. She is the only monarch that many of us have known.

I begin my tribute by remembering the warmth and joy that the Queen brought to so many of us. She knew how to have fun and make us smile. We all remember when, joined by her beloved corgis, she teamed up with 007 to parachute into the opening ceremony of the 2012 London Olympic games, or when she took tea with Paddington Bear earlier this year. I attended jubilee events across Ynys Môn and saw the joy that the Queen brought to people’s lives. People came up to me, from Amlwch to Pentraeth, to share their personal experiences of meeting her.

As the head of our armed forces, Her Majesty was immensely proud of their professionalism and dedication. I know that the team at RAF Valley, where the Queen came to visit her grandson, and Ynys Môn’s veteran population will feel immense pride in having fulfilled their oath of allegiance to her.

The Queen was a frequent visitor to Wales. She visited the port of Holyhead and Beaumaris castle, opened Oriel Môn in Llangefni on Anglesey, and was awarded an honorary doctorate from nearby Bangor University. During her diamond jubilee visit to Wales, she said:

“I have travelled the length and breadth of this country during my sixty years as your Queen. Prince Philip and I have shared many of the joys and sadnesses of the Welsh people in that time and have always been struck by your sense of pride and your undimmed optimism.”

Her Majesty’s dedication to service and her contribution to public life are unparalleled. She provided inspiration to millions of women aspiring to the highest offices. She was a patron for Girlguiding and a long-serving member of the Women’s Institute, which had its first meeting on Anglesey.

We have shared the ups and downs of the Queen’s life, as she danced with us in victory and success, and mourned with us at times of grief. Her sorrow at the loss of her devoted husband, Prince Philip, was felt by us all. Although our sense of loss is immense, we must take comfort from the fact that she is once more at his side.

As our United Kingdom moves into a new era, I welcome the announcement by our new King today that his son, Prince William, who began his married life on Anglesey, where he was stationed as an RAF search and rescue helicopter pilot, will become our next Prince of Wales.

On behalf of the people of Ynys Môn, may I say diolch yn fawr, express my sincere thanks for a life well lived and send our condolences to the Queen’s family? God save the King, and God bless the Prince and Princess of Wales.

[Mr Speaker]

Finally, we have Louie French.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Queen lived a wonderful life of duty and service, and was an inspiration to generations of people across the world. It is a huge honour for me to pay tribute to her on behalf of the people of Old Bexley and Sidcup and also my family here in the UK and overseas in Canada. As a community, country and Commonwealth, we now come together to mourn the loss of our Queen, who was ever present in our lives, whether on national occasions, when singing the national anthem at public and sporting events, or—personally my fondest memory—when we watched the Queen’s speech over the family Christmas dinner. We all have our own personal and shared memories of the Queen, who will forever be in our hearts.

I am immensely proud to have discovered in the build-up to the platinum jubilee that an online poll confirmed Old Bexley and Sidcup—my home—as the most royalist constituency. When a French journalist asking for an interview told me that, I stopped and thought about my experiences locally, both growing up and now. Similarly to colleagues, at every primary school visit, the first question I was asked was, “Have you met the Queen?” As far back as I can remember, what do we do at most community events? We stand together and sing the national anthem. I am sure that those experiences are shared across the country. Little did I know last week when I sang the national anthem with the ambassador for Nepal at a community event with our brilliant Bexley Nepalese Gurkhas and Nepalese community that that would be one of the last times that I would have the pleasure of singing “God save the Queen.”

During the wonderful platinum jubilee celebrations, there were more than 140 official street parties in Bexley. I understand that was one of the highest numbers in London, reflecting how cherished the Queen was locally. It was my immense privilege to attend many of those community events.

I remember the excitement when the Queen last visited the London Borough of Bexley in 2005 to officially reopen Danson House in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett), just over the border from mine. She was greeted by crowds of well-wishers. It is also important to remember a previous visit to Bexley. In 1953, she visited Erith in the constituency of the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) after devastating floods. That is a reminder of how the Queen was there for us throughout the good times but also the bad, and of how her presence brought both comfort and hope to people at times of concern in an ever-changing world.

The Queen was an inspiration to millions around the world. She was a fashion and sporting icon through her love of the horses. She was the mother and grandmother of our great nation, and who can forget the corgi emojis from the platinum jubilee, which highlighted the evolution of technology during her reign and how she embraced it? Mr Speaker, I think I found something there that no one has said in 11 hours.

Rest in peace, Your Majesty. As a working-class lad from Bexley, it was my greatest honour to swear an oath of allegiance to you on entering this place. You make us all proud to be British—and, in my case, an Englishman. We will continue to serve loyally your heir and son, King Charles III. All of the royal family are in our thoughts and prayers. On behalf of the people of Old Bexley and Sidcup, I say, “God save the King.”

[Mr Speaker]

This is the House is at its best. United in grief, we are brought together with so many stories and memories in the moving tributes that have been paid. We have had 182 contributions and tributes today. A big thank you to you all, and a big thank you to the staff of the House, the police, the security, the catering and everybody involved—and especially the Clerks, who are in their fine wigs today. Thank you to you all for what you have done.

UK Energy Costs

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we start the debate, I want to put on record that I am very disappointed that a written ministerial statement that is relevant to it has only just been made available, in the last five minutes. Such statements should be made available, whenever possible, at 9.30 am. When they are relevant to a debate, as is the case today, it is doubly important for them to be available in good time. I am sorry that this has happened. I consider it to be discourteous to the House, and I hope that is not the way the new Government intend to treat the House. Rather than judging it to be deliberate, I will put it down to bad management or incompetence.

We now come to the general debate on UK energy costs. Before I call the Prime Minister to open the debate—[Interruption.] This is not the day for that, given the way the House has been treated. I am defending Back Benchers and I expect a little more decorum from you.

Before I call the Prime Minister to open the debate, I should point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of her opening speech is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

[The Prime Minister (Elizabeth Truss)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UK Energy Costs.

Earlier this week—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just one second, Prime Minister. We have started the debate, and I do not want to hear any more from that particular Bench. If I do, I will go and get that cup of tea early.

[The Prime Minister]

Earlier this week, I promised that I would deal with the soaring energy prices faced by families and businesses across the UK, and today I am delivering on that promise. This Government are moving immediately to introduce a new energy price guarantee that will give people certainty on energy bills, and will curb inflation and boost growth. The guarantee—which includes a temporary suspension of green levies—means that from 1 October a typical household will pay no more than £2,500 per year for each of the next two years, while we get the energy market back on track. It will save a typical household £1,000 a year, and it comes in addition to the £400 energy bills support scheme. It supersedes the Ofgem price cap, and has been agreed with energy retailers.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

For those using heating oil, those living in park homes or those on heat networks, we will set up a fund—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry about this, Prime Minister. Can I just say that I do want a running commentary from Members giving me advice? I certainly do not need it.

I do not want to interrupt you, Prime Minister—it is up to you to give way when you feel it is appropriate—but I just want to let you know that the written ministerial statement has now been printed, and I hope it will be brought into the Chamber for everybody to see.

[The Prime Minister]

As I was saying, for those using heating oil, those living in park homes or those on heat networks, we will set up a fund so that all UK consumers can benefit from equivalent support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Copies of the written ministerial statement have been made available to some Members, but there are not enough for everybody—[Interruption.] If I might finish my point of order: is it possible for sufficient copies to be made so that we can all see the statement?

[Mr Speaker]

As we both know, that is not a point of order, but it is certainly a clarification that the copies are now coming out. We are printing them as fast as possible to make sure that all Members have the ability to read them. It is with great disappointment that we are doing so, but that is a matter of fact.

[The Prime Minister]

Instead of taking the Opposition’s approach, we are taking an approach that is pro-growth, pro-business and pro the investment we need for our country’s energy security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

A lot of Members wish to get in, so think of others once we have got through the Front Benchers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alberto Costa]

I am very—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has had one intervention. What I am bothered about is that there are a lot of people who want to get in. I do not want to stifle the debate, but I do want to make sure that everybody gets a voice.

[Mrs May]

I apologise, Mr Speaker, for being generous in taking interventions.

The Government are also key to driving greater private sector investment in low-carbon solutions, for instance by de-risking investment in early-stage technologies—we have already heard about some early-stage technologies—and emerging sectors such as hydrogen production. Greater investor certainty cuts the cost of new technology, drives innovation, creates jobs and boosts economic growth. The Government’s unequivocal support for this agenda would be a positive signal not just for our green tech industry, but for the ambition of the UK economy more broadly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I am just about to finish.

People need help with their bills today, and that is what the Government are providing. But Britain led the world through the industrial revolution. If we grasp the opportunity now, we can lead the world in a cleaner, greener form of growth.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the leader of the SNP, Ian Blackford.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

I think it is fair to say that the current regime is not fit for purpose, which is why we are in this situation today, so an urgent review of that is absolutely required.

Let me make some progress. Good, profitable businesses seeing a tsunami of cost increases, with energy costs at its core, are quite simply facing a fight for survival. It is clear that today’s plan does not go nearly far enough to mitigate the expected cost increase facing employers. The UK Government need to grasp the scale of this emergency.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I wish to say something about the announcement that has just been made about Her Majesty. I know that I speak on behalf of the entire House when I say that we send our best wishes to Her Majesty the Queen, and that she and the royal family are in our thoughts and prayers at this moment. I am not going to take any contributions on this now; if there is anything else, we will update the House accordingly.

[Ian Blackford]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me say, I am sure on behalf of all colleagues, that we are saddened to hear the announcement that has been made. The thoughts and prayers of us all will be with Her Majesty the Queen and indeed with the royal family.

In reality, the one big political question—the real question—was how today’s plan would be paid for and who would pay for it. Ever since the new Prime Minister took office, we have been waiting for these answers, but after all the waiting it could not be any clearer. She set it out very brazenly: the Prime Minister’s plan means that the public pay. She has made the political choice to tax families instead of companies—to put profit over people. Instead of a windfall tax, she has chosen a new Tory tax: the Truss tax—the Truss tax that means that, in the months and years ahead, households and businesses will be punished with higher bills, higher interest rates and higher mortgage costs. A Truss tax means cuts to the vital public services that people rely on and that are used to support the most vulnerable. A Truss tax means a threat to the Scottish budget, which the Scottish Government are using to protect our population and shield workers and public services as best they can.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

7. What steps his Department is taking to help restore devolved government in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to his new position.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)]

Good morning, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to be here this morning in this role. It means that we will not be speaking to each other quite as much as we have done in the past, but I very much appreciate the way that you have interacted with me in my previous role; thank you, Sir.

I obviously intend to continue the excellent work of my two predecessors. I will be speaking to each of the Northern Ireland party leaders and will urge them to form an Executive as soon as possible. I know the House shares my view that Northern Ireland needs a stable, fully functioning devolved Government to deliver on the issues that matter most to people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She had some experience of working with me when I had my Foreign Office role at the beginning of this year. I would like to think that we did work constructively together. I demonstrated that I will happily work with all parties and all communities in Northern Ireland and I intend to continue in that frame as I move forward.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place and pay tribute to both of the Northern Ireland Secretaries that we have had since July. I particularly pay tribute to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara), and his predecessor’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis).

Let me ask at the outset whether the Government’s position on getting Stormont up and running is unchanged. To date, we have heard that

“there is no excuse for the DUP not being back in government”,

and also:

“Unless we get an Executive we can’t help those families in Northern Ireland.”

Is that still the case?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I can 100% agree with my hon. Friend. He is completely right. It is important that goods and services that are available in England, Scotland and Wales are fully available in Northern Ireland and that goods and services can flow properly. The problems that the protocol has, probably inadvertently, put in place mean that that is not the case now, and we need to solve that issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Richard Thomson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the scale of the challenge. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, came to Northern Ireland to meet the Communities Minister and the Economy Minister to seek ways that the UK Government could get help directly to people who need it so desperately in Northern Ireland. We are absolutely clear—the whole House will understand this, and my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State made it clear earlier—that the protocol is a negotiation between the Government of the United Kingdom and the European Union. We have committed publicly and straightforwardly to fixing the challenges of the interpretation and implementation of the protocol, and we believe that while we crack on with that, the parties should crack on with reforming devolved government in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will know that the cost of living will continue to be exacerbated by the absence of Stormont and a functioning Executive. Protocol issues are being prayed in aid as an inhibitor to the restoration of Stormont. He has worked his socks off over the summer to try to bring things to a helpful and meaningful conclusion. Is he in a position to update the House on the progress he has made?

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that question and I say to him that he is held in deep affection across Northern Ireland. He is right to identify Northern Ireland’s unique energy challenges, which I have seen and heard about myself on visits in recent weeks. I know that the new Prime Minister will be hearing those messages too and will want to update the House as soon as possible.

Let me use this occasion to pay tribute to the wonderful visits team in Northern Ireland, whom my right hon. Friend will remember—Nadine, Kathryn, Nicola, Helena and George. They have supported me so brilliantly on the 277 visits that I have carried out over the last 12 months as Minister of State, 107 of them to businesses.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Tonia Antoniazzi.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the Resolution Foundation told the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee that there had been a disgraceful lack of discussion about the cost of living crisis in Northern Ireland. Ofgem does not exist there, so there is no price cap on energy; 68% of homes are fuelled by oil, so costs went up in February; and a non-functioning Executive means that there is no £400 support payment. Can the Minister tell us why the Government have allowed the people of Northern Ireland to suffer for longer, and how he intends to right that wrong?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. He will know that I am a not very good but passionate sportsman in a whole host of sports, and I recognise what getting more women involved in all sorts of sports can do to benefit communities, people, their health and everything else. I will do everything I possibly can using sport as a tool to both get involved in all the communities in Northern Ireland and try to encourage more women into sport at the same time.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the new Prime Minister to her place—and I know she will want to ensure that any statements will be made in the House first.

The Prime Minister was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The hospitality industry is vital, and I will make sure that our energy plan, which will help support businesses and people with the immediate price crisis, as well as making sure there are long-term supplies available, will help businesses as well as helping individual households.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I congratulate the Prime Minister on her appointment? When she said in her leadership campaign that she was against windfall taxes, did she mean it?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right: we do need to address the issues that businesses face. The package that we will announce tomorrow will do just that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the SNP.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

On her first full day as Prime Minister, she has failed to rule out—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let us hear the next question.

[Ian Blackford]

The Prime Minister may have changed, Mr Speaker, but it is the same old Tories shouting us down.

On her first full day as Prime Minister, she has failed to rule out a Truss tax on households and businesses. Instead of targeting the profits of massive corporations with a windfall tax, the Prime Minister’s plan appears to be a decade-long raid on the bank accounts of ordinary taxpayers. These costs must not be passed on to consumers and businesses by deferring bills. The Government must announce an enhanced windfall profits tax, making sure that those oil and gas producers pay their fair share from excess profits. Does the Prime Minister understand that her first act as Prime Minister will now define her: a Truss tax that households and businesses will be paying for years to come?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I am determined that we deal with the issues facing us as a nation. We do have problems with our energy supply, due to the appalling war being perpetrated by Putin in Ukraine. That is why I will take immediate action to deal with the energy crisis; my Chancellor will take immediate action to reduce taxes and make sure we are growing our economy; and our new Health Secretary, who is also the Deputy Prime Minister, will take immediate action to make sure that people are able to get appointments with their GP and proper NHS services.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

All sides of the House should wish to help the Prime Minister to be successful in tackling the problems facing the country.

When I raised one of them in July with the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), he said that I could talk to the Housing Minister, but the Housing Minister retired within 17 minutes of hearing that. [Laughter.]

Will this Prime Minister look at why the Planning Inspectorate is able to overturn councils’ planned protections for green lungs?

And will she look at what is happening to the Goring Gap in relation to the A259 in the Worthing West and the Arundel and South Downs constituencies, because local councils have no role if they cannot protect what matters most to them?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I am determined to tackle the issues we face in energy, and I look forward to the Scottish Government playing their part by building new nuclear power stations.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want a nicer Parliament and that question was not a good example. I certainly do not want the word “corrupt” being used against the new Prime Minister. [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) will withdraw that comment.

[Hannah Bardell]

Sometimes the truth hurts, but I am happy to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

As a country, we are facing a very serious crisis in energy, caused by Putin’s war in Ukraine. We are facing—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) is getting very carried away. I know that as a former teacher he will want to show better behaviour than he is showing at the moment.

[The Prime Minister]

We are facing very serious issues as a country, partly as a result of the aftermath of covid and partly as a result of Putin’s war in Ukraine. What the British people want is a Government who are going to sort it out, and that is what I am determined to do as Prime Minister: sort out the energy crisis, get our economy going and make sure that people can get doctors’ appointments. That is what I am focused on.

Heatwave Response

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Kit Malthouse)]

I would like to make a statement on this week’s heatwave. Coningsby in Lincolnshire broke records yesterday when it registered a provisional reading of 40.3°C. According to the Met Office, no fewer than 34 locations around the United Kingdom exceeded the country’s previous highest temperature of 37.8°C, which was set in 2019.

We have seen a collective national endeavour to prepare for and manage the effects of the heat, from town hall to Whitehall and across various industries, to keep people safe and infrastructure functioning. From water companies and rail engineers to public servants across the land, everyone has pulled together, with members of the public responding in a responsible way that took the pressure off vital public services.

Our national resolve has been exemplified by our fire and rescue services, for many of which yesterday was the busiest day since world war two. They were undoubtedly stretched, but coped magnificently. The systems in place to make sure that the fire services can operate nationally as well as locally worked well. In tinderbox conditions, they have dealt with dozens of wildfires around the country over the past 24 hours. Fifteen fire and rescue services declared major incidents and handled emergency calls the length and breadth of the country.

Sadly, at least 41 properties have been destroyed in London, 14 in Norfolk, five in Lincolnshire and smaller numbers elsewhere. On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and, I am sure, the whole House, I would like to pass on our sincere condolences to those who have lost their homes or business premises. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is working closely with local authorities to provide support to them.

Throughout recent days, the Prime Minister has monitored our work and has been specifically briefed on a number of occasions; we briefed him again this morning. The Prime Minister was briefed during the wildfires by Mark Hardingham—the chair of the National Fire Chiefs Council—and the civil contingencies secretariat. He has passed on his thanks to all the brave firefighters who have sought to control the flames in such debilitating conditions. I would also like to pay my tribute to the fire control staff, officers and support teams for their essential work and to the other agencies that have made such tremendous efforts in recent days: the NHS, our emergency call handlers, the police and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, among many others.

Hon. Members will be relieved to know that some pressure on these services will now ease as the fiercest heat has subsided. Many incidents are now being scaled back. Thunderstorms are likely this afternoon, but for much of the country, more clement, dry conditions are the pattern for the coming days. The Met Office, however, stresses that the summer is likely to bring further hot weather and wildfire risk remains elevated. That is why we are treating this heatwave as an exacting test of our national resilience and contingency planning. As always, there is no room for complacency.

We have seen over the past few days what we can achieve when we prepare properly and then work closely together. Owing to the technical expertise of the weather forecasters who predicted with admirable precision the peak of the heatwave and how high the temperatures would be, the Government were able to launch an advance campaign of comprehensive public advice. Our early data shows how, well before the heatwave arrived, people were taking on board that advice from the UK Health Security Agency, the NHS, the chief and deputy chief medical officer, emergency services and key agencies on the ground.

Because of our established local networks and colleagues in the devolved Administrations, we had people spread across the UK ready to step in when it mattered. I am particularly grateful for the co-operation and support that we received from the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. We all need to manage these events together.

I would like to give some examples of how people taking the right action helped to mitigate the effects of the extreme weather, starting with the heeding of advice. Fully five times as many people accessed NHS England internet pages on how to manage the symptoms of heat exhaustion in the critical week beginning 11 July. We had feared that our vital 999 call services would come under untold pressure, yet as the mercury climbed inexorably on 18 July, fewer 999 calls but more 111 calls were made than the week before. That suggests that the public had heeded the advice to avoid 999 except in emergencies.

With travel, once again people were playing for the team. The public stayed at home to avoid the heat, not venturing far. The data bears that out: on Monday, footfall at major London stations was at approximately 35% of normal post-pandemic levels. Network Rail reports that passenger train numbers yesterday were approximately 40% down on the previous week. We did not forget those who cannot easily leave their homes; we asked people to look out for the elderly and for vulnerable family members and neighbours.

Tragically, 13 people are believed to have lost their lives after getting into difficulty in rivers, reservoirs and lakes while swimming in recent days; seven of them, sadly, were teenage boys. I would like to pass on our sincere condolences and those of the whole House to the families of the victims for their terrible loss.

Of course, we have still to work through the longer-term consequences of the heatwave. The true picture will not come until all incidents are analysed, all emergency teams are debriefed and all incident logs and data are reconciled. A great deal of data has yet to come in from colleagues in the devolved Administrations and from local authorities and agencies around the country. We recognise that we are likely to experience more of these incidents, and that we should not underestimate their speed, scope and severity. Britain may be unaccustomed to such high temperatures, but the UK, along with our European neighbours, must learn to live with extreme events such as these.

The Government have been at the forefront of international efforts to reach net zero, but the impacts of climate change are with us now. That is why we have a national adaptation programme under the leadership of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. As we have seen in recent days, we will continue to face acute events driven by climate change. It is the responsibility of Cabinet Office Ministers to co-ordinate work across Government when those events take place.

The Government will continue to build our collective resilience. To that end, the national resilience strategy, about which I was asked on Monday, will be launched at the earliest possible opportunity by the incoming Administration. In the meantime, I will continue to co-ordinate the work of teams across Government in building resilience to make sure that the country is ready to meet the challenges of the autumn, the winter and beyond. In that spirit, I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the deputy Leader of the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is right: Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service was severely tested yesterday. As I said earlier, it received mutual aid—from, I believe, as far afield as Merseyside—to help it in that battle, and I understand that those services will remain in situ to ensure that Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service can get back on its feet and deal with any event that may arise over the next few days. My hon. Friend is also right to suggest that, while we are very focused on the continuing elevated risk of wildfires, the long-term work enabling us not only to make our own contribution to the battle against climate change but to lead the world and challenge some of its biggest polluters to change their habits and their uses of fuel is critical, and I know that in Parliaments to come he will be at the forefront of that fight.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and

I thank the Minister for prior sight of this statement.

Let me begin by paying tribute to those in all the emergency services who, once again, have gone above and beyond to help their fellow citizens in a time of crisis. Let me also extend our sympathy to the people whose homes and businesses have been destroyed in the fires that raged across parts of England.

We may not have known anything like this before, with record temperatures being set in three of the four nations of the UK and the symbolic 40°C barrier being broken in England, but, sadly, I predict that this—or something like it—is here to stay. We are all going to have to live with it, and Governments are going to have to prepare for it in the future. Climate scientists have been warning us for decades that this day was coming, and it would be disingenuous in the extreme for anyone to claim that it was a one-off freak event or dare to compare it with the summer of 1976. This is the climate emergency. This is exactly what we were told would happen if we did not change our ways. This is what COP26 was all about, and that is why those who are still part of the Tory leadership race cannot, and must not, renege on the commitment to achieving net zero in return for securing votes from the party’s base.

Can the Minister tell me where is the plan to increase and bolster resilience so that the Government’s response to the guaranteed future heatwaves is more co-ordinated and strategic than what we have witnessed on this occasion? Given the melting roads, buckling rail tracks and dissolving runways, what plans are being considered to make our critical infrastructure more resilient to this type of heat? Finally, does the Minister agree with me—and, I suspect, the vast majority of the country—that the optics of the Prime Minister’s decision to party while parts of the UK literally burned showed a complete lack of self-awareness and a complete dereliction of duty?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. What we have seen over the last couple of days here is what many millions of people across the world experience on a regular basis. That is why it is so important to ensure that the commitments that have been garnered internationally are delivered on, but of course we also need to ensure that we do that ourselves.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow President of COP26, Ed Miliband.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

In the last two days, we have seen that the climate emergency is here and now, with wildfires raging across our country, tracks and runways melting, schools closing and the government under-prepared, and yet some people aspiring to the highest office in the land have suggested that tackling the climate crisis is a luxury that can be delayed—an indulgence, a niche project. Such people would put the safety of our citizens at risk. They are deeply irresponsible and they are economically illiterate. Does the President of COP26 agree that, given the demonstrable threat that we so obviously face, there is no place in serious political parties for such dangerous folly?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

I am not really in a position to repudiate anybody else’s proposals—[Interruption.] I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we have a clear plan for expanding offshore wind. There is another 32 GW—[Interruption.] I will come on to that. Another 32 GW is effectively in the pipeline. In solving the energy security strategy, we need to keep everything on the table. There is already 14 GW of onshore installed across the country, and where communities are positively welcoming of onshore in return for reduced bills, that is an issue that we should keep on the table.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Scottish National party spokesperson, Deidre Brock.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

The recent Climate Change Committee’s progress report concludes that the UK Government’s net zero strategy contains warm words but little tangible progress, and that it will not be fully credible until the Government develop contingency plans such as encouraging reduced consumer demand for high carbon activities. It also recommends carrying out a net zero tax review to see how that might best support the transition by correcting the distortions that often penalise low-carbon technologies. Do the Government intend to take action on these specific recommendations, and what will the President do to ensure that the next Prime Minister and Chancellor urgently act on all the Committee’s recommendations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

In this role, as my right hon. Friend knows, I am trying to corral international action. He raises an important point, and I will make sure it is raised with the appropriate Department.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the shadow Minister, Kerry McCarthy.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Last month the Climate Change Committee issued a scathing annual progress report warning of “major policy failures” and “scant evidence of delivery” on net zero. This week, as we have heard, the Government had to be dragged to court to be told their climate plans are so woefully inadequate that they are unlawful and must be revised.

What kind of leadership does it set if the country holding the COP presidency cannot get its own house in order? I know the COP President will say that the Conservative party’s leadership candidates have paid lip service to net zero, but does he really have any confidence that things will get better?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

In the words of Gloria Gaynor, “I will survive”. The point that the hon. Gentleman raises is that tackling the climate emergency is an issue for all of us—for Governments, civil society and individuals—and we all need to play our part.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that a British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

I would also like to welcome Lord Mackay, who is retiring today. He served many distinguished years as Lord Chancellor.

Before I call Kim Leadbeater to ask the first question, it is only fitting to note that this is likely to be the final time that the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) addresses the House as Prime Minister. I wish him and his family all the best for the future. We have been through many dark times in this House, and none more so than through the pandemic. That will always be remembered because of what this House did and because of the way that you conducted those duties during those dark times, Prime Minister.

I understand that Members will have differing views about the Prime Minister’s performance and legacy, and those views will be sincerely and passionately held, but I remind Members that our constituents and others around the world watch these proceedings. Let us conduct them in a respectful manner, focusing on issues and policies rather than personalities. I take this opportunity to remind Members of the words of Erskine May that

“good temper and moderation are the characteristics of the parliamentary debate.”

I expect to see that reflected today in the proceedings.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent question. The accession of both countries will be good for them and make all our allies safer, and I think it will make the whole Euro-Atlantic security area stronger. I am proud of the role the UK has played in that accession.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer.

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

I start by saying to the Prime Minister that I know that the relationship between a Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition is never easy, and this one has proved no exception to the rule, but I take this opportunity to wish him, his wife and his family the best for the future.

I put on record our gratitude to the fire and rescue services for all their courageous work yesterday in extreme temperatures. All our thoughts are with those affected by the fires, particularly those who have lost their homes. I join the Prime Minister in his comments about the bombing in Hyde Park and the other IRA bombings.

I also join the Prime Minister in his comments about the Lionesses. The coverage starts at 7.30 tonight on BBC One, and I am sure the whole country will be roaring them on. For anyone who does not fancy football, “EastEnders” is on, so if they would rather watch outrageous characters taking lumps out of themselves, they have a choice: Albert Square or the Tory leadership debates on catch-up. On that topic, why does the Prime Minister think those vying to replace him decided to pull out of the Sky News debate last night?

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

If only it were satirical. It is what the future candidates think of his—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We want to get through PMQs, because there are quite a few Members wanting to catch my eye. It would be more helpful if we got through things.

[Keir Starmer]

I appreciate that Conservative Members may not want to hear what their future leader thinks of their record in government, but I think the country needs to know. If only it were satirical, Prime Minister; it is what the candidates think of the record. Among the mudslinging, there was one very important point, because the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch) claimed that she warned the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) that he was handing taxpayer money directly to fraudsters in covid loans. She says that he dismissed her worries and that as a result, he “cost taxpayers £17 billion”. Does the Prime Minister think she is telling the truth?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I want devolution to work, and I have had some good conversations with Mark Drakeford, but the devolved authorities, particularly Labour in Wales, need to do their job properly.

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the leader of the SNP, Ian Blackford.

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

Mr Speaker, may I join you in wishing all the best, at his impending retirement, to—James Mackay and Beth, who are here. He has been a friend to many of us across the House, and we congratulate him on his service. I also join the Prime Minister in congratulating Jake Wightman on his success overnight in winning the 1,500 metres at the world athletics championships. What a fantastic achievement.

This week has seen historic records set across the United Kingdom, but let us look at the Prime Minister’s record-breaking efforts in office. His Tory Brexit slashed £31 billion from the economy—the biggest fall in living standards since the 1970s. People’s pay in real terms is falling at the fastest rate on record, and we have the worst economic growth forecast in the G20 outside Russia, and the highest inflation in 40 years.

Personally, I would like to thank the Prime Minister, in his capacity as Minister for the Union, for driving support for independence to new heights. Westminster is holding Scotland back. The economy is failing, and this Prime Minister has driven us to the brink of a recession. Has not the Prime Minister’s legacy of catastrophic mismanagement paved the way for the end of the Union?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that everybody who has served this Government loyally and well deserves recognition of some kind, but as for the honours list, I am afraid the hon. Gentleman will have to contain his excitement.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say that we wanted good temper and better, moderate language? I do not think we got it then—well, I know we did not.

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his support for the new city of Southend. Our brilliant hospital turns 90 next Tuesday, but our heroic NHS staff are hampered by the size of the A&E department. Conservative-led capital funding of £8.4 million to expand the A&E department was promised five years ago but has not quite arrived. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the new Health Secretary to give us the best birthday present ever and, in the words of Cuba Gooding Jr, “Show me the money”?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the Prime Minister has got the message—also, I would like to hear your question as well.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a brilliant champion for Essex and her hospital. I know the case is under review by the Department, but never forget it is only possible because of the money this Government are investing.

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

Q15. The Prime Minister will be remembered as a man of his word: “Pile ’em high”—200,000 dead, the most in Europe; “F- business”—[Interruption.] This is the truth; they don’t like it, do they? Let’s listen to the truth: 400,000 fewer people in jobs than before the pandemic if we include the self-employed, which the Prime Minister does not. So will he now keep faith with the 3.7 million people who have taken out student loans since this Conservative Government have been in power and who now face rising inflation in terms of rent, heating and eating, and who now must pay—[Interruption.] Listen to that rabble. [Interruption.] Listen to them.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Sit down a minute. When I stand, it is easier if the hon. Member sits down—it helps the whole House. I want to get to the end of questions, and I know that hon. Member is coming to the end of his question.

[Geraint Davies]

There are 3.7 million people who face 7% interest rates from September, as well as the inflation on heating and eating and rent, when mortgages are at 2%. Will the Prime Minister help those people in need, or will he help the City people—his friends—who are making all this money out of the cost of living crisis?

[The Prime Minister]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman what students want. They want to have a system where they do not pay back more than they borrow, and that is what we are putting in. They also want to make sure that they have a jobs market that will take them on with high-wage, high-skill jobs. The difference between Labour Members and us is that we get people into high-wage, high-skill jobs. They are prepared to let them languish on the dole, and that is the difference.

[Mr Speaker]

Final question: Sir Edward Leigh.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On behalf of the House, may I thank the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] On behalf of the House, may I thank the Prime Minister for his three-year record of service? On behalf of some of the most vulnerable people in the country, can I thank him for his insistence on rolling out the AstraZeneca jab, which has saved thousands of lives around the world? On behalf of the 17.4 million people who voted Brexit, may I thank him for restoring people’s faith in democracy? On behalf of northern towns, may I thank him for his commitment to levelling up? And most of all, on behalf of the people of Ukraine, may I thank him for holding high the torch of freedom and ensuring that that country is not a vassal state? For true grit and determination, keep going and thank you.

Contaminated Blood Scandal: Interim Payments for Victims

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. I note that she does not appear to be seeking the full debate that I recently wrote to her in support of, and I would commend my recent letter to her, wherein I suggested that perhaps a full debate would be in order when the House resumes, if the Leader of the House will agree. I frequently pay tribute to her, as she knows, for her long-standing work on this issue, and I ask her to accept from me that other people are also working hard on it, including my officials and officials from across Whitehall. She has been a resolute advocate for her constituent—also through her all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood—and I am seeking also to support the wider community of people who have been affected by this appalling tragedy.

The specific question that the right hon. Lady raises today concerns the compensation framework study. This was produced by Sir Robert Francis QC and was commissioned by my predecessor in her then capacity as sponsor Minister for the infected blood inquiry. I can tell the House that it was delivered to me as the current sponsor Minister for the infected blood inquiry only in March. Sir Robert had been asked to give independent advice about the design of a workable and fair framework for compensation for victims of infected blood that could be ready to implement upon the conclusion of the inquiry, should its findings and recommendations require it.

The Government published Sir Robert’s study some six weeks ago on 7 June. Sir Robert then gave evidence about his work to the inquiry last week, on 11 and 12 July. His evidence was quite detailed, quite lengthy, quite technical and forensic. As hon. Members will appreciate, Sir Robert’s study is a comprehensive and detailed one. It reflects the contributions of many victims and their recognised legal representatives, and of the campaign groups who have been representing the infected and affected communities so well. In total, Sir Robert makes no fewer than 19 recommendations that span the full spectrum of considerations for the creation, status and delivery of a framework, including non-financial compensation, for victims—both individuals who were infected by contaminated blood or blood products and those whose lives were affected after their loved ones or family members received infected blood or infected blood products.

The Government are grateful to Sir Robert for his thorough examination of these complex questions and the detailed submissions, and I wish to assure all those who have taken part that the Government are focused on making a prompt response. One of Sir Robert’s recommendations, and the focus of the right hon. Lady’s question today, is that the Government should consider making interim compensation payments to infected blood support scheme beneficiaries before a compensation scheme is established, in the interest of speeding up justice and giving some level of assurance and security to those who may not live to see the end of the inquiry. My colleagues and I are particularly and keenly aware of this reality. After all, it was this Conservative Government under my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is a very important debate but I do not think that people have advised the Minister on this and he is way over time. I do not know who has written his speech for him, but there are lots of people wanting to get in and a lot of business ahead. I presume he is nearly at the end.

[Michael Ellis]

Yes, Mr Speaker, just two paragraphs left. I apologise if I have run over.

I was saying that my colleagues and I are keenly aware of this reality. After all, it was this Conservative Government under my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead that launched the inquiry in the first place and it was this Government under the current Prime Minister that commissioned the compensation framework study last year.

To conclude, I can confirm to the right hon. Lady and the House that officials across Government are making haste to address this as quickly and thoroughly as possible. However, responsible government requires proper and careful consideration of how complex and important schemes can and should work, and it will take a little more time for the work to be completed.

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just say that we need to advise Ministers of how much time they have? When people are putting speeches together, can they please try to work within the allocated time, because all these Members here have great interest in this issue and need to get in.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Thank you for granting this urgent question today, Mr Speaker. The response from the Paymaster General is yet again wholly inadequate and insulting to those who have suffered so much over so many years. With over 3,000 people dead and over 419 of them dying in the five years since the public inquiry was called, and with one person dying every four days on average, people cannot wait a day longer than necessary.

As the Paymaster General set out at length, to avoid further delays the Government asked Sir Robert Francis QC in May 2021to undertake a parallel in-depth review of financial compensation ahead of the overall public inquiry concluding. Sir Robert found a “compelling case” for interim payments of at least £100,000 to those affected. Ministers have had these recommendations since March but they refused to publish them, saying that they wanted to publish their response at the same time. We waited and waited, then the review was leaked to The Sunday Times newspaper and the Government finally published in early June but not with their promised Government response. Last week, as the Paymaster General said, Sir Robert gave oral evidence at the public inquiry on 11 and 12 July, making the case again for interim payments.

The Government have already, rightly, granted £30 million of interim compensation for the Post Office Horizon IT scandal long before its public inquiry concludes, as well as interim payments for the Windrush scandal, but not for infected blood. Given the undoubted urgency, on 15 July Sir Brian Langstaff QC started a 10-day consultation on using his own powers to recommend interim payments ahead of his final report to which the Government will need to respond. Its 25 July deadline comes after the House enters the summer recess. As Mr Speaker has repeatedly said, this House should hear announcements first.

After decades of cover-up and appalling treatment, what exactly is preventing the Minister from announcing today, before the summer recess, that the interim payments recommended by the Government’s own independent reviewer will be paid? If not now, when? What is the timetable for the announcement on interim payments and on a response to the wider review? Will the Paymaster General tell me when we will see the Government’s submission, which I am sure his officials are preparing, to the independent inquiry on interim payments that Sir Brian has set up?

Extreme Heat Preparedness

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to the urgent question, I want to express my disappointment that the Government did not come forward with a general statement on the heatwave, given its potential to have wide-ranging and serious impacts on the nation. Members need to be able to scrutinise the Government on all issues arising from the current high temperature, especially as the Government felt it appropriate for Cobra to meet. If it is good enough for Cobra to sit and discuss, it is good enough for this House to hear about as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

The Father of the House raises an extremely important point about the ability of our emergency services to cope and their resilience. Each of those organisations and their leaders will have to take that into account over the months to come. I have said to the team internally that we must learn exactly such practical lessons during this brief but nevertheless severe period of weather. I am sure we will see impacts on the transport network and elsewhere in the next 36 hours, some of which we can mitigate, but it is probably the case that not all effects will be mitigated; we should learn those lessons. My hon. Friend raises an important point for the future.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Fleur Anderson.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing this hugely important urgent question.

On Tuesday, we will be in the hottest 1.2% of the world. Once again, when faced with a national emergency, driven by the climate emergency, which the Government could see coming a mile off, Ministers were asleep at the wheel. The Prime Minister is too busy planning parties, instead of planning for Britain. Is anyone else having déjà vu? As has been acknowledged, he has already missed two Cobra meetings on the red heat warning and is set to miss a third—the same man who missed five Cobra meetings in the weeks preceding the onset of the pandemic. It is clear that this finished Prime Minister has clocked off, but with 49 dangerous days to go. The heatwave is a reminder that the Government have not tackled the growing climate emergency facing our country, and the leadership election gives us little hope that that will change.

As Britain boils, will the Minister answer these questions? Where is the plan for the delivery of essential services and keeping people safe at work, on transport, and in hospitals, care homes and schools in the coming days? Where is the advice for vulnerable workers who face working in unbearable conditions? We need action on guidance for safe indoor working temperatures, and we need the Government to ensure that employers allow staff to work flexibly in the heat. We need a plan, not a panic. Labour already has a resilience plan for long-term, strategic emergency planning. Where is the Government’s national resilience strategy? Will the Minister give a date for its publication? It is already 10 months overdue.

It is the primary duty of any Government to keep the public safe. Britain deserves better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. In all our public messaging, we have tried to be balanced and moderate in our view, and to point to the particular vulnerability of certain smaller groups. Indeed, I have asked Secretaries of State to identify those vulnerable groups and possibly to target them with more urgent communication—particularly the elderly, who often live alone, and who we know from elsewhere in Europe are vulnerable in this kind of weather. My hon. Friend raises an interesting point about our adaptation to climate change. As we see more extreme weather events, we must bear in mind that we need to protect ourselves from the heat, but at the same time we need to be able to adapt to cope with the cold as well. That often creates a challenge.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Steven Bonnar.

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

I, too, commend the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing an urgent question on the extreme heat we are experiencing across these islands.

The Met Office has extended the amber alert in Scotland and declared a red alert for much of England and Wales. UK temperature records are expected to be broken in all four nations across the next two days, with temperatures to exceed 40° in England. We have reports that the RAF has suspended operations out of Brize Norton due to the runway melting, rendering it unsafe—these are unusual times.

The heatwave threatens to kill hundreds or even thousands of people. To ensure a continuous monitoring and response to the situation, the Scottish Government have continued to operate the Scottish Government Resilience Room. Of course, at a UK level we have heard that Cobra meetings have been held to discuss the emergency. Much as he did at the start of the covid-19 pandemic, our esteemed Prime Minister has declined to attend. We heard the Minister’s excuses for the Prime Minister’s continued refusal to deal with emergencies and crises, or even acknowledge them. We find it wholly unacceptable.

Lastly, I want to reinforce the message of how important it is to practise good water safety at a time like this. All too often in Scotland and in other places we hear of tragic accidents, when people, normally young or middle-aged men, enter open water to cool down or for some hi-jinks and encounter difficulties. I renew my call for caution and to think before entering any open waters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point and I am more than happy to reinforce his message. As he may know, we have issued a red alert for wildfires. We are very concerned and all fire and rescue services are stood up to deal with them as fast as they possibly can.

[Mr Speaker]

It might be worth having a helicopter capable of actually reaching the moors with the equipment to put the fires out, which they did not have last time.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

Working in extreme heat can really affect people’s health and can even be fatal. Spain has strict rules on working temperature: a maximum of 27° indoors and 25° when doing physical activity. Even the US guidelines are 24°, yet we have absolutely nothing here. With extreme heat becoming more regular in the UK, will the Government legislate for maximum working temperatures?

Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I inform the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey).

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

I beg to move,

That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.

I have no idea why the Leader of the Opposition has insisted that we must have a confidence motion today, when we could be sparing people from online harms—[Interruption.] That’s what he wanted. We could be fixing the defects in the Northern Ireland protocol, ending pointless barriers to trade in our country—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It might be helpful to say that it is the Government who put down the motion.

[The Prime Minister]

The Leader of the Opposition wants one, Mr Speaker, and since Labour Members want one and it is the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s constitutional prerogative, we will comply and we will win.

Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition why I believe that this is one of the most dynamic Governments of modern times, not just overcoming adversity on a scale we have not seen for centuries, but delivering throughout adversity. If he wants evidence of the temper and mettle of this Government, I remind him of how we began, when Parliament was deadlocked and he was shadow Brexit Secretary. Labour were the first Opposition in history to be absolutely petrified of calling a general election, and when they finally capitulated and agreed to submit to the verdict of the people, we sent the great blue Tory ferret so far up their left trouser leg that they could not move. We won the biggest Conservative victory since 1987 and the biggest share of the vote since 1979. We won seats they never dreamed of losing, from Wrexham to Workington, and from Bishop Auckland to Barrow. We turned Redcar bluecar, we saw 54 seats go straight from Labour to Tory, and we won by 80 seats. Then we worked flat out to repay that trust. With iron determination we saw off Brenda Hale and we got Brexit done. And although the rejoiners and the revengers were left plotting and planning and biding their time—I will have more to say about the events of the last few weeks and months in due course—we delivered on every single one of our promises.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Look, if the hon. Gentleman is saying that he is going to vote for confidence in this Government, I will certainly welcome his support. What I can tell him is that I believe that the achievements of this Government over the past three years have been very remarkable. As for his personal criticism of me, I am proud of what we have done and I am proud of the way I have been able to offer leadership in difficult times—let me put it that way.

The investment in the low earth orbit satellites has paid off. As I said, people in sub-Saharan Africa now have the chance to get an internet connection. It is a massive, massive success for global Britain. People around the world can now see the renewed ambition of this country, with the record £22 billion that we are investing to become a science superpower again and the new Advanced Research and Invention Agency. At the same time, the scientific solutions that we are providing are helping to solve the fundamental problems facing humanity.

On this sweltering day, let me remind the House that there are very few Governments in the world who could have organised a COP26 summit so far-reaching in its impacts. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) for what he did: committing 90% of the world to net zero by 2050, moving the world beyond the use of coal, moving from fossil-fuelled cars to electric vehicles, planting billions of trees around the world and launching the clean green initiative as we did at Carbis Bay, by which G7 Governments will now leverage the trillions of the private sector to help the developing world to use the clean, green technologies that offer economic as well as environmental salvation.

I think that people around the world can see more clearly than ever before that we have in this country—and, I think, in this House—a renewed willingness as global Britain to stand up for freedom and democracy. There could be no better proof of that than our campaign to help the Ukrainians. If it is true that I am more popular on the streets of Kyiv right now than I am in Kensington, that is because of the foresight and boldness of this Government in becoming the first European country to send the Ukrainians weapons—a decision that was made possible by the biggest investment in defence since the cold war. Although I think that that conflict will continue to be very hard, and our thoughts and prayers must continue to be with the people of Ukraine, I do believe that they must win and that they will win. Although that may, of course, be of massive strategic importance in the face of Putin’s adventurism and aggression, when the people of Ukraine have won it will also be a victory of right over wrong and of good over evil. I think that this Government saw that clearly, saw it whole and saw it faster than many other parts of the world. That is why I have confidence in this Government.

By the way, I have absolutely zero confidence in the Opposition. Eight of them—I never tire of saying this, and everyone must be saying it right up until the general election—eight of them, including the shadow Foreign Secretary, voted to discard this country’s independent nuclear weapon. I do not believe they would have done the same thing in standing up to Putin in a month of Sundays.

Last week I went up in one of our 148 Typhoon fighters, and I flew out over the North sea, over Doggerland. The drowned prairies are now being harvested again with tens of gigawatts of clean green energy. We will have 50 GW of offshore wind by 2050, and thanks to this Government’s activism I am proud to say that offshore wind is now cheaper than onshore wind. I looked down at that ghostly white forest of windmills in the sea, financed with ever growing sums from international investors, and I thought, “This is how we will fix our energy problems; this is how Europe should be ending its dependence on Putin’s gas.” I am proud of the way we have responded to the challenge, with a nuclear reactor every year rather than one every 10 years—or none at all, as was the ridiculous and catastrophic policy of the last Labour Government.

And then the wing commander interrupted me, and for a glorious period I was at the controls of the Typhoon. I did a loop the loop and an aileron roll and a barrel roll, and then—I am coming to the point, Mr Speaker—I handed back the controls. In a few weeks’ time, that is exactly what I will do with this great party of ours. After three dynamic and exhilarating years in the cockpit, we will find a new leader, and we will coalesce in loyalty around him or her, and the vast twin Rolls-Royce engines of our Tory message, our Conservative values, will roar on: strong public services on the left and a dynamic free-market enterprise economy on the right, each boosting the other and developing trillions of pounds of thrust. The reason we will keep winning is that we are the only party that understands the need for both.

Whatever happens in this contest, we will continue to fight for the lowest possible taxes and the lightest possible regulation. The Opposition’s problem is that they would try to fly on one engine, kowtowing to the union barons, endlessly inflicting more tax and more spending, endlessly giving in to the temptation to regulate us back into the orbit of the European Union, and flying round in circles.

Some people will say, as I leave office, that this is the end of Brexit. Listen to the deathly hush on the Opposition Benches! The Leader of the Opposition and the deep state will prevail in their plot to haul us back into alignment with the EU as a prelude to our eventual return. We on this side of the House will prove them wrong, won’t we? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Some people will say that this is the end of our support for Ukraine. [Interruption.] That is exactly the analysis. The champanskoye corks have allegedly been popping in the Kremlin, just as the Islington lefties are toasting each other with their favourite “Keir Royale”. But I have no doubt that whoever takes over in a few weeks’ time will make sure that we keep together the global coalition in support of our Ukrainian friends.

Some people will say—and I think it was the Leader of the Opposition himself who said it—that my departure means the eventual victory of the Labour party. I believe that those on this side of the House will prove the Leader of the Opposition totally wrong, and that in due course we will walk the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras into the capsule at Newquay that I mentioned earlier, and send him into orbit, where he belongs. And I tell the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who speaks for the Scottish nationalists, that it is time for him to take his protein pill and put his helmet on, because I hear it will not be long before his own party is taking him to Shetland and propelling him to the heavens.

This Government have fought some of the hardest yards in modern political history. We have had to take some of the bleakest decisions since the war, and I believe that we got the big calls right. At the end of three years, this country is visibly using its newfound independence to turbocharge our natural advantage as the best place in the world not just to live and to invest but to bring up a family. With a new and incontrovertible spirit of global leadership, I believe that we can look to the future with rock-solid confidence not just in what this Government have done but in what they will do and will continue to do. I commend this motion to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I now call the Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer, to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Chair has been very clear at times about being conscious of language. From my understanding, the Chancellor has denied that accusation. Perhaps you could guide the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) on how to temper his language.

[Mr Speaker]

What I will say is that I want everybody to think carefully about what they say in this Chamber and the effect it has on people, which does concern me. Neither the Clerks nor myself can hear a lot of what is being said. Could the House just turn it down so we can hear?

[Keir Starmer]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

They all know it cannot go on. Just read their resignation letters. The right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) went after saying this is

“The last straw in the rolling chaos”.

The hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) had enough of “defending the indefensible.” And the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) simply said the Prime Minister is an

“apologist for someone who has committed sexual assault”.

When the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) resigned, he accused the Prime Minister of not conducting Government “properly, competently and seriously.” I presume he was talking about their appalling joint economic legacy of the highest inflation and the lowest growth in the G7, leaving us with the highest tax burden since rationing and with diminished public services. That is the record, but the rhetoric does not match it. He suggested the Prime Minister is not prepared to “work hard” or “take difficult decisions,” and he implied that the Prime Minister cannot tell the public the truth. They all read the letter, and they know what he said.

But this week, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) is trying to convince us to ignore all that—apparently, he has changed his mind; asked a straight question, he will not tell his party that the Prime Minister is dishonest. Now he is saying that the Prime Minister is actually a “remarkable” man with “a good heart”. It is pathetic; there can be no one worse placed to rebuild the economy than the man who broke it. There can be no one worse placed to restore trust than the man who propped up this totally untrustworthy Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman realises why we are having this debate. It is because so many—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Holden, you, quite rightly, asked a question and, like yourself, I would like to hear the answers. Let’s move on.

[Keir Starmer]

We are having this debate because dozens of Front Benchers resigned their posts because they would not serve this Prime Minister. They are sacking him because he is untrustworthy. That is why we are having this debate. Normally in a debate such as this the Prime Minister asks for a vote of confidence so that he can carry on, but this one—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am very bothered about where this is going. The use of language needs to be brought into a more temperate manner and we need to calm it down. Let’s see how we can try to progress in a more orderly way, while being more temperate in what we are saying.

[Keir Starmer]

So, Mr Speaker, why are they leaving him with his hands on the levers of power for eight weeks? This is eight weeks where the British public must trust the word of a Prime Minister who has been sacked because he can’t be trusted; eight weeks where Britain will be represented abroad by someone who has lost all respect at home; and eight weeks of a caretaker Government led be an utterly careless Prime Minister. Anyone who thinks that doesn’t matter, and that these are just the quiet summer months when everyone goes to the beach, is in denial about the severity of the challenges our country faces.

The war in eastern Ukraine drags on; the Nord Stream pipeline has been shut down; flights are being cancelled left, right and centre; and Britain is facing an unprecedent heat wave, as our climate changes in front of our very eyes. These are serious challenges—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not think that these are challenges. These are serious issues that will require serious leadership. Hard decisions will have to be made. This is not the summer for Downing Street to be occupied by a vengeful squatter mired in scandal. Every day they leave him there, every hustings they refuse to distance themselves from his appalling behaviour and every vote they cast today to prop him up is a dereliction of duty. It is a reminder that the Prime Minister has only been able to do what he has done because he is enabled by a corrupted Conservative party every step, every scandal and every party along the way.

I know that there has been fearmongering that this motion might lead straight to a general election. Sadly, that is complete nonsense, but you can see why they fear the electorate. After 12 years of failed Tory Government, Britain is stuck—stuck with a low-growth economy; stuck at home, unable to get a passport or a flight; stuck on the phone, trying to get a GP appointment. Our taxes are going up, food and energy bills are out of control, and the public services we rely on have simply stopped working. And every Tory standing to lead their party has given up on trying to defend—[Interruption.] Prime Minister, they have no confidence in you—that is why you are going. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We really are struggling to hear. I want to be able to hear, and then we can make better judgment calls. Both the Clerks and I are struggling. Please, can we calm it down and think about what we are saying?

[Keir Starmer]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Britain deserves a fresh start with Labour, free from those who got us stuck in the first place, free from the chaotic Tory party and free from those who propped up this Prime Minister for months and months. And here is the difference: under my leadership, the Labour party has changed, and we are ready to do the same for the country—to get our economy growing, to revitalise our public services, and, after this Prime Minister has damaged everything around him, to clean up politics. This House should make a start by voting no confidence in this Prime Minister this evening.

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

In June 2016, there was a vote of no confidence in the then leader of the Labour party. I do not know whether the present leader of the Labour party voted yes or no. If he can remember, did he vote confidence or no confidence in his predecessor?

In 2019, his predecessor moved a motion of no confidence in the Government, saying that the issue should be put to the people. It was put to the people in the 2019 general election, and the present Government came in with a majority of 80.

I have it on reasonable authority that the deputy leader of the Labour party has said today that Boris was, in effect, the magic that helped. [Interruption.] I am glad that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) has confirmed that.

The issue before the House now is whether people would have any more confidence in the Labour party becoming a Government, and the answer is no.

In June 2016, when the then leader of the Labour party lost the no confidence vote by 172 votes to 40—the 40 may have included the current Leader of the Opposition—20 of the shadow Cabinet had walked out, but the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) walked in. The interesting question is whether the way in which he has spoken today is part of a leadership bid to take over the Labour party properly rather than just in name.

He describes himself as red and green, but mixing red and green together produces an unpleasant kind of brown. Does he accept that the Labour party is not yet trusted by the British people?

By voting confidence in the Government, this House will be saying, as the British people did in 2019, that we prefer us in government, not them.

That is not to say that the Government have got everything right. If I were taking part in the Thursday Sir David Amess debate, I could list the things on which the Government could make changes.

I want them to drop the privatisation of Channel 4, as there is no point in it, and I want them to reconsider the question of whether the Holocaust Memorial should be in Victoria Tower Gardens. There are a number of other issues that I could take up.

The issue today is: do we want to change the party of Government, and the answer is no. I rest my case there.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the SNP.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am relieved that we can hear the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, and that we no longer have the Prime Minister bawling at those who are speaking as he leaves the Chamber. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that what we want over this period of change is dignity? We want dignity in the House and dignity in the country, and we did not see that from the Prime Minister in his behaviour on the Front Bench today.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think I make that decision, and I do not need any recommendations. The behaviour on both sides has not been exceptional today. Come on, Ian.

[Ian Blackford]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, although I have to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is important. These are matters that are of interest to the public, and we need to treat each other with a degree of respect and dignity.

Let us come back to the Prime Minister. He broke his own laws in office and he broke international law, but the thing that ultimately brought him down was the fact that he could never, ever be trusted with the truth. That is the record, and that is now the Prime Minister’s legacy. He should not be allowed any room to rewrite that record and that legacy—even for seven weeks. It has not escaped anyone’s notice that this Prime Minister has lived his life thinking that the world owes him a living. He has not had the grace to stay today to hear the opening speeches in this debate. That tells us everything that we need to know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

My goodness! The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have respect for him, but there for all to see is the lack of compassion, decency, humanity or recognition that people in highland constituencies are not getting the benefits that other people are getting. That is what happens with this Conservative Government.

Let us come back to the Prime Minister and his sense of entitlement—that he deserved to be Prime Minister, that he deserved to be above the rules and that he deserves the dignity of staying in office over the summer. But this place and the public owe him nothing. Only this weekend, he again showed why he is unfit for office by skipping Cobra meetings to do his favourite thing: attend yet another party. Another party! That is one thing that we might have thought he would learn. After being caught breaking his own laws and being fined by the Metropolitan police—the only Prime Minister in history to be fined in office—he turns his back on his obligations at a time of emergency over the effect of global warming, and he attends parties. That tells us everything that we need to know about the priorities of this Prime Minister. People have suffered enough under this most careless, casual and reckless inhabitant ever to have been entrusted with the office of Prime Minister. He does not deserve another day, never mind another seven weeks.

As well as casting verdict on the Prime Minister, today is also the chance to hold to account those who propped up his Government for so long. With every new candidate and every new campaign video for the Tory leadership, we are bombarded with talk of fresh starts and of hitting the reset button. I hate to break it to those candidates, but it is not lost on any of us that most of that talk is coming from the same people who backed this Prime Minister from day one and sat around his Cabinet table until the very end. Try as they might, they cannot hide the uncomfortable truth that they want us all to magically forget—that their party has been in power for 12 deeply damaging years. Fresh starts, new starts or clean starts simply do not exist after 12 years of the chaos that now defines their time in charge, and definitely not when they have already failed to get rid of the Prime Minister they put in power.

The herd might have moved last week, but it has very quickly fallen back in line and reverted to Tory type, as we have seen this afternoon. The Tories have stayed with this Prime Minister until the bitterest of ends, and today proves that they are staying with him still. Their failure to get rid of him means that we now finally need get rid of the lot of them, because today proves another thing: the only fresh start that will work is a general election—an election that will offer the Scottish people the chance and the choice of an independent future. On these Benches, we relish that campaign and the choice that is coming.

The need to put an end to this Tory Government is underlined by the terrifying spectacle of the leadership race under way throughout this building. No sooner had the race begun than it became clear that it was not just a race to get into Downing Street; it was a race to the toxic right. The policy proposals so far have amounted to tax cuts for the rich at the same time as millions of families are struggling to put food on the table, to watering down our climate targets when we can literally feel temperatures soaring, particularly in this place, and to doubling down on the hostile environment when the Rwanda policy has already gone beyond the point of morality.

The new Tory vision of these candidates is every bit as disturbing as the old one. While they are tearing lumps out of each other in this contest, they are ignoring the very thing that they are all responsible for: the Tory cost of living crisis ripping through every household on these islands. The contest has also exposed that they are completely out of credibility. Never again can those on the Conservative Benches claim economic literacy. During this leadership campaign, the Tory candidates have not just discovered a magic money tree; they have apparently found a magic money forest. The billions in tax breaks for the rich that they are bidding over always come at a price for the poor.

One of the most telling insights of the contest came from the current Chancellor, whose policy is to cut 20% from all public spending. That means 20% cuts to the NHS, to welfare and to our Scottish Parliament. The Tories imposed one decade of devastating austerity, and now it seems the new Tory vision is gearing up to inflict another. If ever there was a reason to vote no confidence today, surely that is it.

Of course, we on the SNP Benches are now well used to our country’s constitutional future being discussed and dictated by Tory politicians and Governments, who Scotland has not voted for or had any confidence in since 1955. The last number of weeks have been no different. It turns out that democracy denial was not just an attitude of the Prime Minister; it is now official Tory policy. The idea of a voluntary union of nations was clearly dead and buried long ago according to the Tory party, because every single candidate for the Tory leadership has fallen over themselves to tell us just how they are going to deny Scottish democracy—and we know why. They have long since run out of ideas and run of road in defending the Union, so now they are running scared of democracy.

I am genuinely sorry to say that the Labour party has now joined in that too. In the space of the last week, the leader of Labour party told us he was ruling out two things. The first was an independence referendum that—let us not forget—the Scottish people have voted for. The second was a return to the European single market and freedom of movement. He did not rule that out for now; he ruled it out forever. So not only will this place and these parties try to deny our right to a democratic vote on our future, but they will forever deny our return to the European Union.

If ever there were two motivating arguments to secure our independence, surely there they are. If that is really the Better Together strategy, it is in worse trouble than I even thought. The crucial point that those reunited Better Together parties need to understand fully is this: not only does Scotland have no confidence in this Tory Government, we have no confidence in Westminster control over our country. The parties here might not like it, they might try to deny it, but that is democracy—and them’s the breaks.

We want a different future—a future where we get Governments we vote for, where our democratically elected Parliament cannot be overridden and undermined, and where we have a secure foundation on which to build the economic and social future that we want. We want a new Scotland at the heart of the European Union. That is the future we can have confidence in. We have lost control in this place; we have lost confidence in Westminster.

[Mr Speaker]

Lots of Members want to speak in this debate. To try to accommodate them, can we start off by aiming for four minutes per speech?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What we are trying to do is get back from the covid backlog. It is undoubtedly the fact that people have not been going into their offices. If we take the DVLA as an example, the mail was not being opened. It was piled up in room after room because people were not going in. Some 4 million envelopes were unopened because people were not going into the office, because of a combination of the requirements of covid and the excessive rules of the socialist Welsh Government that made it very difficult for people to go in. That backlog has to be dealt with, but technology is unquestionably the answer. Try renewing your tax disc with the DLVA, Mr Speaker: you can do it in seconds. You no longer have to go into a post office to do it. That is the type of efficiency we need.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Minister for that very thorough answer, but we have to move on otherwise nobody else will get in, and we all want to hear Lee Anderson.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

2. What recent progress his Department has made on implementing the Veterans Strategy Action Plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Fresh fruit and vegetables are very important to everybody’s diet. We would like more people, especially people from poorer households, to be able to afford more. One of the problems is that we do not have enough people in the UK now to pick the British crop of fresh fruit and vegetables. How will we ensure that that happens?

Can we also ensure that fresh fruit and vegetables from overseas can get to supermarkets faster? I do not know what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s experience is when he buys peppers, courgettes, onions or potatoes, but my experience these days is that they have all gone off by the time I get home.

[Mr Speaker]

Come to Chorley market; they are nice and fresh.

[Chris Bryant]

It’s a bit of a long way from the Rhondda.

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about access to ambient and fresh food for all of us. I know that the Home Secretary is in constant discussion with colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the industry about the provision and balance of labour that we encourage to come to the country to help us with summer harvesting, for example. We also need to work hard to ensure that the bulk of our imported fresh food gets here quickly and can enter the supply chain extremely quickly. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and I will work closely over the summer to ensure that our short, straight supply lines are maintained as efficiently as possible.

I have a small domestic tip for the hon. Gentleman that I learned from a friend who works in the industry. It is extremely important that the chill chain is maintained. If he can get chilled food as quickly as possible into his fridge, it will last a lot longer than if he leaves it hanging around and then chills it again. That is particularly true of dairy products.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

Aberdeen Financial Fairness Trust and Bristol University have tracked the fortunes of UK households since the beginning of the pandemic. They report that one in six UK households is suffering serious financial difficulties, and the situation is getting worse. Many households have reduced the quality of the food they eat, sold possessions or cancelled insurance to help them to cope. Single parents, disabled people and larger families are among the worst affected. What steps does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster intend to take to tackle the price rises that are driving this inequality and poverty?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, I agree philosophically and practically, because you will notice, Mr Speaker, that my hon. Friend and I carefully refer to taxpayers’ money when the socialists normally refer to it as Government money. There is no such thing; there is only taxpayers’ money that we have a duty to protect. When they are in office we see botched IT projects such as the NHS one that my hon. Friend referred to, costing £26 billion, but what have we done? We have an IT project that is working like billy-o, looking after hundreds of thousands of extra universal credit applications through the pandemic. The Tories know how to spend money sensibly.

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just that that was far too easy a wicket for the Minister to bat on? Patricia Gibson.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

Well, crikey! This Government have a track record of waste and siphoning off public money through contracts given to friends of and donors to the Tory party. The Procurement Bill is an opportunity for them to end that reckless approach by making a cast-iron commitment to maximise the value of every pound of taxpayers’ money spent. What is value for money under a Tory Government? Is it an excuse to slash services and leave an open goal for their dodgy mates to profit at the public’s expense, or will they take a page out of Labour’s plan to buy, make and sell in Britain, which would distribute economic, social and environmental value across the country by boosting British businesses?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. For the record, may I say that it is easier if I call Members? I was actually calling Patricia Gibson, but do not worry—it is fine: I will come back to her later.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Once again, we hear the socialists calling for two different things, contradictorily, within the same question. First we should be focusing on value for money—yes, I absolutely agree—and then we should be putting all the hobby horses of the left into the procurement process. We want value for money, and that is what is being legislated for in the other place, and the Bill will come to this House in due course.

[Mr Speaker]

Patricia Gibson!

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was down for a topical question, but as I listened to the sound of an alternative universe being played out in the Chamber with this talk about taking care of taxpayers’ money, I felt compelled to get to my feet.

The Public Accounts Committee has described the UK Government’s procurement of £4 billion of unusable personal protective equipment during the pandemic—which has had to be burnt—as the result of a “haphazard purchasing strategy”. Governing is all about responsibility, and we know how much those on the Treasury Bench care about looking after taxpayers’ money, so will the Minister explain who he thinks should be accountable and responsible for the “haphazard purchasing strategy” which has seen £4 billion go up in smoke?

[Mr Speaker]

I think the Minister has got the gist.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

You are right, Mr Speaker: I have got the point, and it is a terribly bogus point. At the height of the pandemic, all Opposition Members were calling for PPE to be delivered “yesterday”, and the Government managed to increase the proportion of domestically produced PPE from less than 1% to nearly 80%, excluding gloves. The hon. Lady talks as if the Scottish National party, our separatist friends, were any good at this. May I say to her “ferries, ferries, ferries”? That was one of the biggest and most scandalous wastes of money, and it was done by the SNP.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to shadow Secretary of State, Angela Rayner.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I welcome the new Ministers to their places on the Treasury Bench for what could be their first and last Cabinet Office orals. It is a pleasure to be here with them. Last week, the Prime Minister finally admitted to meeting former KGB agent Alexander Lebedev, a man who was sanctioned by the Canadian Government. This was directly after a top-level NATO meeting and just weeks after a chemical attack by Russian agents on British soil. No officials or security were present. I have written to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster but am yet to receive a reply, so I hope he will answer my questions now. Did the Prime Minister take any papers from the NATO meeting? Was his phone compromised? Why do Foreign Office records show the presence of an unidentified guest? Given his responsibilities for national security and ministerial standards, does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster believe this was inappropriate conduct by the Prime Minister?

[Angela Rayner]

I really hope that that “due course” is very quick, because this is an issue of national security, which is obviously of concern to many of our constituents. Let me move on to another very serious issue. Yesterday, our country reached the dark milestone of 200,000 covid deaths, which is a tragedy for our country and all those who have lost loved ones. The Prime Minister delayed the start of the public inquiry into the Government’s handling of the pandemic, with the hearings not expected until 2023, making a full inquiry unlikely before the next election. This week, reports suggest that the Government are trying to block evidence to the inquiry, with Ministers fearful that they could be sued for damages and officials apparently making evidence that could be withheld. There can be no hint of a cover-up or excuses for Ministers dodging scrutiny. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster deny those reports that have been put in the press? If not, how can he assure us and the public that the process will be independent?

[Mr Speaker]

May I remind you that this is topical questions?

[Kit Malthouse]

The right hon. Lady has her very own brand of toxic, which she attempts to pump into everything that the Government do. [Interruption.] No, no, we cannot conduct debate in this House on the, “When did you stop beating your wife?” questions. This inquiry will be independently chaired and thoroughly conducted. It will have statutory powers to summon evidence and witnesses, in the way that others have done. We are determined to learn the lessons of the covid pandemic, notwithstanding some of the enormous, difficult but nevertheless globally important decisions that the Prime Minister had to take, not least acquiring vaccines and researching vaccines before anybody else. Nobody thinks that everything that happened during the pandemic was perfect, but to start her contemplation of this issue by maligning the motives of those Ministers who put their shoulders to the wheel at a time of national emergency is, frankly, disgraceful.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Just to correct Opposition Members, let me say that we will have a new leader by 5 September—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are getting out of hand. These are topical questions and you should be short and to the point. Do you want to ask your question or not? If not, I will move on.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T3. . The Procurement Bill is being scrutinised in the other place. One issue is how we ensure that new, small businesses get the opportunity to bid for government business, get contracts and demonstrate value for money. What measures will my right hon. Friend take to make sure that we do that?