Covid-19 Update

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 5th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

When it comes to attacking hard-working public servants, why does the right hon. Lady continually attack our testing operation, for instance, which has done a fantastic job throughout this pandemic?

There were several things in that intervention that were simply completely the inverse of the truth. We are not cutting cancer services; we have invested more in oncologists. We have 4% more oncologists this year than last year and 5% more radiologists. She asks about ambulances, and yes, of course everybody should get an ambulance who needs one. That is why we have invested £55 million more in the ambulance service. There are 500 more ambulance staff now than there were in 2018, 10,000 more nurses and 5,000 more doctors than there were last year. That is because of the investment that we are making—£36 billion—every penny piece of which the Opposition voted against.

To come to testing, it really is extraordinary that the Opposition run down this country and its achievements time and again. We are doing 520,000 PCR tests every day and 1.25 million tests every day. We have done 400 million tests in the country—more tests per head in this country than in any other European country. The right hon. Lady talks about schools. We delivered 31 million tests to schools in the run-up to Christmas. She made an incredible point: she said that this country did not have its own diagnostics capabilities. She does not know what this country is doing—unbelievable! Let me tell the Opposition Front Bench that in this country we have the largest lateral flow test manufacturing facility—in this country! They should go and visit it. They do not know what they are talking about. It is in Nottingham, and we buy them all. By the way, the right hon. Lady talks about the testing regime, but it is thanks to the efficiency of our testing regime that the Leader of the Opposition, whom we wish well, is not currently in his place. It is thanks to the testing regime that the right hon. Lady is able to speak from the Dispatch Box at all, so she might as well support it. It has done an incredible job.

Two final points. The Opposition voted continually against our funding for the NHS that has made this possible, and let us be in no doubt that they would have kept this country in lockdown from 19 July. They were opposed to our measures. Members on their Front Bench chorused that we needed tougher restrictions as we came into omicron and said that we needed a road map for lockdown. That was their approach, and what would have been the result? Another body blow to the UK economy and to our ability to fund our NHS. That is the fundamental difference between this Government and that Opposition: we have a plan for getting through covid; all they do is carp from the sidelines.

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for resisting calls from the Labour party and others for more restrictions before Christmas, and also for the changes that he has announced today. Omicron is less serious than previous variants. We will see new variants appear in future, and the likelihood is that they will continue to be less serious. It is not in the national interest to partially or wholly shut down sectors of our economy every time we see a new variant. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to inform the House whether and how the Government will change their approach when new variants arise?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is totally right in what she says. We simply cannot go on, as a country and as a society, reaching endlessly for lockdown, which is the Opposition’s instinct, no matter what the cost and no matter what damage it does. We have to remain cautious, and I am afraid that I cannot tell the House that we can rule out absolutely everything to protect the public, but as I said to the country last night, I am confident—that is why I am repeating it today—that we can get through this wave of omicron with the balanced and proportionate approach that we are taking. I am glad to have my right hon. Friend’s support. For the future, we need the polyvalent vaccines that can deal with any type of covid mutation and variant, as well as the therapeutics, and that is what we are investing in as well. And as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) should know, we are investing more per head than any other country in Europe.

COP26

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

If I may say so, Madam Deputy Speaker, that was the usual pathetic attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to suck and blow at once. He was trying to congratulate the UK Government on success at COP but somehow attack me, and I think it is pathetic. Let me take the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s points in turn.

On Australia, it has signed up to net zero for the first time ever. On coal, no COP has mentioned phasing out coal before; 65 countries have now committed to phasing it out altogether by 2040, including the four biggest users of coal-fired power stations: Poland, Indonesia and others. He talks about climate finance and the UK Government rescinding their commitments, which is simply untrue. We have doubled our commitments to tackling climate change around the world and helping the developed world, with £12.6 billion, as he knows full well. That commitment way outstrips that of most other countries.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about UK leadership. The UK, throughout the campaign—which has been going on for two years—to get the right result and keep 1.5° alive, has been way out in front under this Government. We were the first major economy to legislate for net zero; 90% of the world has now followed us. At COP, we had one of the most ambitious nationally determined contributions of any country. If it had not been for the UK Government, nothing at all would have been included to do with nature and protecting forests. The world listened to us at COP because they knew that our 10-point plan was not only cutting emissions but helping to generate hundreds of thousands of new high-wage, high-skill jobs. They can see that that programme will enable them to power past carbon and develop their economies.

As a result of everything that we have done at COP, we have been able to keep 1.5° alive. As I listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I feel that he is finding it very difficult to reconcile himself to the fact of a United Kingdom diplomatic and environmental success. If he really meant all those fine words with which he began about UK negotiators and the COP, he should stick to that script, because that was the right one.

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. May I first echo the remarks made by my right hon. Friend about the appalling attack in Liverpool? The thoughts of everybody in the House are with the people of Liverpool.

I congratulate the UK presidency on the significant commitments made at COP26, notably by Governments on deforestation and methane but also by individual businesses on their work to achieve net zero. I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees that there is much more to be done—he said it in his statement. With the COP presidency, the UK has a critical role over the next year in ensuring that the commitments made are delivered on and in bringing the intransigent countries—notably, China, Russia and India—back round the table to raise their sights on what they are willing to achieve. Will he agree with that and set out what the Government’s immediate plans are for that work?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the vital importance of the private sector. I think that this COP was a breakthrough in many ways, but not least because of the emphasis that it placed on getting the private sector in to help developing countries in particular to meet their carbon targets. She is also right in what she says about the role of the COP presidency, because my right hon. Friend the COP26 President continues in his office for a year, and we will use that period—working with our Egyptian friends, who take over for COP27—to hold our friends and partners around the world to account for what they have promised, because it is only if they keep to what they have promised that we will be able to deliver for our children, and that is what we intend to do.

Speaker's Statement

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

I had the enormous privilege of working with James Brokenshire in government, first for six years in the Home Office and then in his roles as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and as Communities Secretary. James was a remarkable man, an outstanding Minister, a great constituency Member of Parliament and a true friend.

Words have been used by others such as “diligent” and “hard-working,” and he was both of those. As a Minister, he was assiduous in dealing with the briefs he read, thoughtful in his consideration of the issues and careful in his decision making, which is what you want from a Government Minister. He gave his time and effort because he understood the importance of the decisions he was making. He cared about people and he cared about the work he was doing, and that came through in all the decisions he made and in the way in which he reached out across this House to ensure those decisions were the right ones.

James was an outstanding Minister, but he was also a very good constituency MP. Very often if you try to contact a Minister on a Friday, they are in their office. More often than not, James was in his constituency. He understood that all of us are here because our constituents have placed us here, and anybody who is fortunate enough to become a Government Minister is only there because their constituents have placed them there. We should never forget that that is the basis of our being here and of our responsibilities.

James was a true friend. If, from what I and others have said, you get the impression that he was just a hard-working workaholic, I can say that James was great fun. Evenings with Cathy and James were evenings of fun and laughter. He was also a loving family man. I remember when he was first diagnosed with his lung cancer and he was stepping down from the Government. His first thought to me was about the impact it would have on Cathy and the family. He was a loving family man, he was out there in his constituency and he gave dedicated public service to this country.

The Government are the poorer for his loss, this Parliament is the poorer for his loss and our country is the poorer for his loss.

Tributes to Sir David Amess

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

Laughter, service, compassion: these are three of the words that spring to my mind when I think of David Amess.

Laughter, because you could never have a conversation with David without laughter and smiling, whether that was because one of the outrageous stories that he was telling, perhaps about one of his colleagues or somebody else—[Laughter.] It was always smiles, always laughter, always fun around David.

Service, because he had an extraordinary record of dedicated service to his constituents. I suggest to anybody who wants to be a first-class constituency MP that they look at the example of David Amess. He was deeply embedded in his constituency and, as we all know, championed it on every possible occasion. I do not think that a question or speech from David went by in this House without his constituency being mentioned. But he did not just promote his constituency here in the House. He was a part of it: he understood it, he knew it, he was in the community, he was of the community, and he was respected and loved by the community. His death is tragic and the manner of his death appalling, but isn’t it fitting that his last acts were acts of service to his constituents?

And then there was David’s compassion, born out of and strengthened by his faith: compassion for the vulnerable; compassion for those in need. But he did not just talk about it; he acted. He changed laws. He went out there and made a difference to people’s lives, because he was also an accomplished parliamentarian and he knew that a Back Bencher who is dedicated and resolute can make a real difference.

To echo some of the comments that have been made today, first of all, I think it is a wonderful legacy for David that Southend is now a city. But we can also add to the legacy of David Amess by ensuring that in all our political debates and our political discourse we bring to those debates and that discourse the same respect, decency and compassion that were the symbols of his life. Because David Amess made a difference. His compassion made a difference to people outside of this House. His kindness made a difference to people inside this House. Our thoughts and prayers are with Julia and the family. Their loss is devastating. His constituency has lost a much respected and loved Member of Parliament, this House has lost a remarkable and valued parliamentarian, and every Member of this House has lost a friend. May he rest in peace.

AUKUS

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what I think was a broad welcome of this AUKUS agreement. It is historic and it is good for the whole of the United Kingdom. There is no conflict with NATO; NATO members are obviously fully up to speed with what is happening and this in no way affects the NATO relationships, which are absolutely fundamental for our security. There is also no prospect of its breaking the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, as I informed the House earlier, and no risk at all that it will mean that the United Kingdom or any of our allies take our eye off the ball on the threat from the Putin regime or Russia. The House should therefore understand that this is a defence technology agreement that is very sensible given the huge geopolitical weight now to be found in the Indo-Pacific region; the economic growth in that area is phenomenal and the security issues there are very important for our country—such as in the maintenance of trade flows—and that is why it is vital that we take part in this agreement.

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend said yesterday that this partnership has

“the aim of working hand in glove to preserve security and stability in the Indo-Pacific.”

What are the implications of this pact for the stance and response the United Kingdom would take should China attempt to invade Taiwan?

[The Prime Minister]

The United Kingdom remains determined to defend international law, and that is the strong advice we would give to our friends across the world and the strong advice we would give to the Government in Beijing.

Afghanistan

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Just to help the House, let me say that we will be running this until around 4.45 pm. Not everybody is going to get in and people will be disappointed, but we are going to do our best, so let us help each other.

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

I join my right hon. Friend in commending all those involved with the Afghanistan airlift and all those of our armed forces who served in Afghanistan, 457 of whom, sadly, as we know, paid the ultimate sacrifice. We should all be proud of their achievements. Does he agree that as a result of NATO forces withdrawing from Afghanistan, the terrorist threat has increased? Will he confirm that all those involved in counter-terrorism work here in the UK will be given the necessary support to ensure that they can keep us safe?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. I know how much work she has done in her career to protect this country and to counter terrorism. As yet, we have no direct information on any increase in the threat, but I assure my right hon. Friend and the House that every effort will be made to make sure that our counter-terrorist agents have the resources they need to keep us safe.

Afghanistan

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He asks for a commentary on the respective military potential for power of the Taliban and the Afghan forces. It is pretty clear from what has happened that the collapse of the Afghan forces has been much faster than expected. As for our NATO allies and allies around the world, when it came for us to look at the options that this country might have in view of the American decision to withdraw, we came up against this hard reality that since 2009, America has deployed 98% of all weapons released from NATO aircraft in Afghanistan and, at the peak of the operation, when there were 132,000 troops on the ground, 90,000 of them were American. The west could not continue this US-led mission—a mission conceived and executed in support and defence of America—without American logistics, without US air power and without American might.

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

I note the point that my right hon. Friend is making about the importance of American support for our efforts in Afghanistan and those of our allies, but will he please set out when he first spoke personally to Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary-General of NATO, to discuss with him the possibility of putting together an alliance of other forces in order to replace American support in Afghanistan?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I spoke to Secretary-General Stoltenberg only the other day about NATO’s continuing role in Afghanistan, but I really think that it is an illusion to believe that there is appetite among any of our partners for a continued military presence or for a military solution imposed by NATO in Afghanistan. That idea ended with the combat mission in 2014. I do not believe that today deploying tens of thousands of British troops to fight the Taliban is an option that, no matter how sincerely people may advocate it—and I appreciate their sincerity—would commend itself either to the British people or to this House. We must deal with the position as it now is, accepting what we have achieved and what we have not achieved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

I had the opportunity to visit Afghanistan twice, but I recognise that there are others across this House whose experience is more recent, more vivid, more practical, and longer and broader than mine. But when I was there, I was struck by the commitment and dedication of our armed forces serving there and of other British personnel. All were doing what they could to give hope to the people of Afghanistan—people who, thanks to our presence, were able to enjoy freedoms they had been denied under the Taliban.

Twenty years on, 457 British military personnel have died in Afghanistan, and many more have suffered life-changing injuries. Yes, many girls have been educated because of British aid, but it is not just that the freedoms once enjoyed will now be taken away; many, many Afghans—not just those who worked with British forces—are now in fear of their lives. It is right that we should open up a refugee scheme, but we must make absolutely certain that it is accessible to all those who need it.

Of course, the NATO presence was always going to end at some point in time, but the withdrawal, when it came, was due to be orderly, planned and on the basis of conditions. It has been none of those. What has been most shocking is the chaos and the speed of the takeover by the Taliban. In July of this year, both President Biden and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated that they did not think that the Taliban were ready or able to take over control of the country. Was our intelligence really so poor? Was our understanding of the Afghan Government so weak? Was our knowledge of the position on the ground so inadequate? Did we really believe that, or did we just feel that we had to follow the United States and hope that, on a wing and a prayer, it would be all right on the night?

The reality is that as long as a time limit and dates were given for withdrawal, all the Taliban had to do was ensure that there were sufficient problems for the Afghan Government not to be able to have full control of the country, and then just sit and wait.

[John Redwood]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that President Biden decided unilaterally to withdraw without agreeing and negotiating a plan with either the Afghan Government or the NATO allies, and that the response of the UK Government in the circumstances has been fast, purposeful and extremely well guided to protect the interests of UK citizens?

[Mrs May]

What President Biden has done is to uphold a decision made by President Trump. It was a unilateral decision of President Trump to do a deal with the Taliban that led to this withdrawal.

What we have seen from the scenes in Afghanistan is that it has not been all right on the night. There are many in Afghanistan who not only fear that their lives will be irrevocably changed for the worse, but fear for their lives. Numbered among them will be women—women who embraced freedom and the right to education, to work and to participate in the political process.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to make the education of girls a key aim of his Administration, but in Afghanistan that will now be swept away. Those girls who have been educated will have no opportunity to use that education. The Taliban proclaims that women will be allowed to work and girls will be allowed to go to school, but this will be under Islamic law—or rather, under its interpretation of Islamic law, and we have seen before what that means for the lives of women and girls.

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

Some of the women who have shown most courage are the 250 women who serve as judges under the attempt that was made to impose a decent, honest legal system on Afghanistan. There is a particular fear that they are targets. The Bar Council and the Law Society have asked the Government to take cognizance of the particular risks they run. Will my right hon. Friend support the call for them to be given priority in being brought to safety, since they put their lives on the line for their fellow women and for their whole country?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. As has been said, there are many groups in Afghanistan who have put their lives on the line to support the Afghan Government, democracy and justice in Afghanistan, and it is right that we should do everything we can to support them in their time of need. However, as we know, under the Taliban regime the life of women and girls will sadly not be the same; they will not have the rights we believe they should have or the freedoms they should have.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

There are already reports from sources in Kabul that the Taliban is executing collaborators and homosexuals. Does the right hon. Lady agree that complacency is absolutely misplaced, and what does she suggest we do to protect those people who need to get out?

[Mrs May]

The Government are doing much to protect people in trying to ensure that people can access ways of leaving Afghanistan. A point was made earlier about not just expecting people to get to Kabul, and I hope that is something the Government will be able to look into and take up.

Apart from the impact on the lives of women and girls, we see a potential humanitarian crisis, at least in some parts of Afghanistan. We have cut our international aid budget, but I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary has told me that more funding will be made available to deal with this crisis.

It is not just the impact on the people of Afghanistan that must concern us, however; we must be deeply concerned about the possible impact here in the UK. The aim of our involvement in Afghanistan was to ensure that it could not be used as a haven for terrorists who could train, plot, and encourage attacks in the UK. Al-Qaeda has not gone away. Daesh may have lost ground in Syria, but those terrorist groups remain and have spawned others. We will not defeat them until we have defeated the ideology that feeds their extremism.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

One of the most concerning things that is happening is that several thousand al-Qaeda operatives have been freed from prisons in Bagram, Kabul and Kandahar. Is my right hon. Friend concerned that those people will go back to their old ways, or do we hope that they will somehow go into retirement? It seems to me that we are going to restart with a new round of international terrorism.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has anticipated exactly the point I was about to make. The Taliban has said that it will not allow Afghanistan to become a haven for terrorists again. Yesterday, in the press conference, it said it would not allow anything to happen in Afghanistan that would lead to attacks elsewhere across the world. However, we must look at its actions, not its words, and, as he has just pointed out, its action has been to release thousands of high-value Taliban, al-Qaeda and Daesh fighters. Its actions are completely different from its words, and it is essential that we recognise the probability that Afghanistan will once again become a breeding ground for the terrorists who seek to destroy our way of life.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The right hon. Lady is making exactly the points that I hoped to hear from the Prime Minister and did not. The reasons that we went into Afghanistan in 2001 remain valid today. If the actions taken in recent weeks render a military solution to that problem impossible, we have to have a non-military solution. What does she see that non-military solution as being?

[Mrs May]

I will refer to that issue later. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the question of a military solution has not been there for some time, because our combat mission ended some years ago, but we have been trying to provide support to enable a democratic Government to take proper control of that country. I would be happy to talk to him sometime about my views. I think that we should possibly have reconsidered the idea of trying to impose a western example of democracy in a country that is geographically difficult and relies a lot on regional government when we were going down that route, but I will not go down that road any longer, despite his temptations.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am really concerned about the time for Back Benchers. I did suggest that it was seven minutes, and we are now heading to 10. I did not put a time limit on, but I will have to do so after this speech.

[Mrs May]

I am very grateful for your generosity to me, Mr Speaker.

Another important element of our work in Afghanistan was stopping drugs coming into the United Kingdom. Sadly, that has not been as successful as we would have liked, but we supported a drug crime-specific criminal justice system in Afghanistan, and I assume that will now come to a complete end. Once again, that is another area where withdrawal is not just about Afghanistan but has an impact on the streets of the UK.

What must also be a key concern to us is the message that this decision sends around the world to those who would do the west harm—the message that it sends about our capabilities and, most importantly, about our willingness to defend our values. What does it say about us as a country—what does it say about NATO?—if we are entirely dependent on a unilateral decision taken by the United States? We all understand the importance of American support, but despite the comments from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I find it incomprehensible and worrying that the United Kingdom was not able to bring together not a military solution but an alternative alliance of countries to continue to provide the support necessary to sustain a Government in Afghanistan.

Surely one outcome of this decision must be a reassessment of how NATO operates. NATO is the bedrock of European security, but Russia will not be blind to the implications of this withdrawal decision and the manner in which it was taken. Neither will China and others have failed to notice the implications. In recent years, the west has appeared to be less willing to defend its values. That cannot continue. If it does, it will embolden those who do not share those values and wish to impose their way of life on others. I am afraid that this has been a major setback for British foreign policy. We boast about global Britain, but where is global Britain on the streets of Kabul? A successful foreign policy strategy will be judged by our deeds, not by our words.

I finally just say this: all our military personnel, all who served in Afghanistan, should hold their heads high and be proud of what they achieved in that country over 20 years, of the change of life that they brought to the people of Afghanistan and of the safety that they brought here to the UK. The politicians sent them there. The politicians decided to withdraw. The politicians must be responsible for the consequences.

International Aid: Treasury Update

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Programme motion
Tuesday 13th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Government for enabling this debate today.

I stood on a manifesto commitment to maintain international aid funding at 0.7% of gross national income—and not just that, because we said:

“We will proudly maintain our commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on development”.

Early last year, the pandemic hit. It had an immediate negative effect on the economy, yet in September 2020, when that effect on the economy had been seen, when public spending was increasing and when the Government were already borrowing hundreds of billions of pounds, they confirmed in their response to the fourth report of the International Development Committee that they would honour that manifesto commitment, saying:

“a commitment enshrined in law and one to which the new Department”—

the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—

“will honour its responsibilities.”

The Government went on to say that investing that 0.7% was at the heart of the vision of the Government’s integrated review for the UK

“as an active, internationalist, problem-solving and burden-sharing nation.”

Where is that vision now, as the Government turn their back on some of the poorest in the world?

With GNI falling, our funding for aid was falling in any case. To reduce it from 0.7% to 0.5% is a double blow. This is not about palaces for dictators and vanity projects; it is about what cuts to funding mean: fewer girls will be educated, more girls and boys will become slaves, more children will go hungry and more of the poorest people in the world will die.

The Government have promised what they see as a compromise, and I am grateful to the Chancellor for speaking to me last night. I asked how long it would take before the tests are met and we return to 0.7%. I was told, “Four to five years, but it could be sooner, because the economy is recovering so well.” If the motion is defeated tonight, it will be 0.7% from January next year. The Government appear to be saying to us, “We cannot afford 0.7% next year because the economy is doing so badly, but actually the economy is doing so well that we could very well be able to restore 0.7% very soon”. The Government cannot have it both ways.

I certainly doubt whether the tests will ever be met in five years’ time. Meeting them depends not only on a significant recovery in the economy—the Office for Budget Responsibility is forecasting trend growth of less than 2%—but on the Government reining in their inclination to continue to increase public spending. We are told that there will be dire consequences for tax and public spending if this motion is defeated. We have borrowed £400 billion—where are the dire warnings about that? It seems that £4 billion is really bad news; £400 billion—who cares?

Finally, as has been pointed out, the two tests have only been met in one calendar year in the past 20 years. I have been in this House for nearly a quarter of a century. During that time, I have never voted against a three-line Whip from my party. As Prime Minister, I suffered at the hands of rebels. I know what it is like to see party colleagues voting against their Government. We made a promise to the poorest people in the world. The Government have broken that promise. This motion means that promise may be broken for years to come. With deep regret, I will vote against the motion today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am indebted to everybody who serves the Government in whatever capacity. We have a lot of very tough decisions to make but we will continue to get on with delivering the people’s priorities—and by the way, we will continue to ensure that we deliver value for money, that we do not waste taxpayers’ money, and that Ministers follow the ministerial code.

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

In April 1989, 96 Liverpool fans were unlawfully killed at Hillsborough, yet nobody has been successfully prosecuted for their part in those unlawful killings. The most recent trial collapsed, because although it was accepted that police evidence had been altered, as it was evidence to a public inquiry, it did not constitute perversion of the course of justice. Will my right hon. Friend urgently look at the ramifications of that judgment for current and future public inquiries, and ensure that people are given the justice that has been so cruelly denied to the families of the Hillsborough 96?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. Of course, the families of the 96 who died in the Hillsborough disaster and those who were injured have shown tremendous courage and determination. My right hon. Friend raises a particular issue about the recent court case and asks for a review of the law. I can give her the reassurance that we will always consider opportunities to review the law and how it operates if necessary, and we will certainly be looking at the case she describes.

Debate on the Address

Baroness May of Maidenhead Excerpts

Tuesday 11th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

I applaud and welcome the aim of measures in the Queen’s Speech to deliver not just a national recovery from the pandemic but a recovery that makes the United Kingdom stronger, healthier and more prosperous than before—a country that truly works for everyone. As ever, the Queen’s Speech contains a number of commitments to legislation and other measures. I welcome the commitment to measures to improve mental health, but I note that yet again we do not have a specific reference to a new mental health Bill. I hope the Government have made it clear that they intend to bring a new Bill forward. I hope that that intent is still there and that we have not seen the timetable slipping further away from us because this is an important Bill for the Government to bring forward.

I welcome the commitment to legislate to deliver the lifetime skills guarantee. That delivers on the recommendations of the Augar report. Once again, I thank Sir Philip Augar and all his team for the work they did in that area. The issue of providing opportunities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) indicated earlier, lies at the heart of what we believe in as Conservatives: the concept of everybody having the opportunity of an education throughout their life and developing their skills, and a Government who create the environment in which jobs are created. That is core conservativism. We believe that people should be given the opportunity to go as far in their life as their talents and hard work will take them.

I welcome the reference to the UK leading the way on ensuring internet safety for all, especially children. Again, I note there is no specific reference to the online harms Bill, but I hope we will not see further delay on that Bill because, by bringing that legislation forward, the United Kingdom can truly show its leadership on this issue.

I welcome what I believe lies behind the references to legislation on elections: the abolition of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. It had its moment in 2010. It was necessary to calm markets and provide a degree of certainty, but as I found with my dealings with the Act it is perhaps now best consigned to the wastepaper bin.

Overseas aid was mentioned earlier by the Father of the House. The Queen’s Speech refers to a Government commitment

“to provide aid where it has the greatest impact on reducing poverty and alleviating human suffering.”

The aid budget would have been cut significantly anyway because of the fall in our GNI, but it is the Government’s intention to cut it further, from 0.7% to 0.5%. This will have an impact across the board, but particularly in an area that I am interested in: modern slavery. I know that the Global Fund to End Modern Slavery is already concerned that its funding from the Government has been cut by 80%. So projects helping to alleviate and to deal with modern slavery will be cut. I urge the Government to look again at this reduction because it is having an impact on the poorest and on suffering across the world. If we really want to show our values as a country, we should be doing everything we can to uphold those commitments.

I am pleased with the reference in the Queen’s Speech to

“invest in new green industries to create jobs, while protecting the environment.”

That shows what we as Conservatives know: the old argument that we can either deal with climate change and protect the environment, or have economic growth, is completely false. As this country has shown in recent years, we can have economic growth, and deal with our emissions and protect our environment. That is what we will be doing in the future.

I want, very briefly, to refer to three other issues. The Gracious Speech contains a commitment, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) in her excellent seconding of the motion, to bring forward laws to modernise the planning system. May I just say that we saw some of the best of the House of Commons today in the proposer, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara), and the seconder of the motion? On modernising the planning system to enable more homes to be built, of course we need to build more homes, but if the laws are based on the proposals in the White Paper, I fear this is less about modernisation than about giving developers greater freedom. Underpinning the proposals seems to be the concept that the reason more homes are not being built is the planning system. In fact, the last figure I saw from the Local Government Association showed that 1 million homes have been given planning permission but have yet to be built, so the issue is not just about the planning system.

A key issue in the White Paper proposals was the division of the area of a local authority into three different areas—we read that this may now be two: of growth and protection. In the growth area, outline planning permission was automatically to be given to developers. I have discovered that I have a slight difference of opinion with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble on this issue. Maybe we need to go for one of those drinks she was talking about. [Interruption.] Two drinks! You’re buying me two drinks.

[Katherine Fletcher]

indicated assent.

[Mrs May]

I think my hon. Friend felt that the proposal would bring greater local involvement. In fact, the White Paper proposals would bring less local involvement. They would reduce local democracy, remove the opportunity for local people to comment on specific developments, and remove the ability of local authorities to set development policies locally. I think the White Paper proposals would also lead to fewer affordable homes, because they hand developers a get-out clause.

We need more homes to be built. We need the right homes to be built in the right places. I fear that, unless the Government look again at the White Paper proposals, what we will see is not more homes, but, potentially, the wrong homes being built in the wrong places.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. Does she agree that this will particularly impact on the delivery of green homes and getting to net zero?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for her intervention, but I remind her of the commitment that the Government have already shown to the issue of green homes for the future in their proposals. There are issues that have yet to be looked at, such as retrofitting in relation to heating systems, but the Government are already starting to show the way forward on this. However, it is important, in looking at the planning system proposals, that those issues are also taken into account.

The Gracious Speech commits the Government to bringing forward proposals on social care reform. This commitment has been made by Governments of all colours over the last two decades, and it is a bit rich for the Leader of the Opposition and other Labour Members to complain about the Government on this issue, given that they were 13 years in government and had, I think, six or seven different proposals, but never actually delivered anything on this. I know it is not an easy issue. I put forward a plan. It was comprehensively rejected, so I recognise the difficulty in trying to come forward with something here, but it is an issue that we need to grasp. The pandemic, and the issues around social care that came up in the pandemic, have shown the importance of this and of reform that genuinely provides a sustainable social care system into the future. However, it also needs to be a system that does not exacerbate intergenerational divisions.

[Chris Bryant]

I completely agree with what the right hon. Lady is saying on this. I just wonder whether we do not actually need to look at the issues that lead to dementia, making sure that there is more research, in particular, on acquired brain injury and concussion in sport, which does seem to have had a dramatic effect on the number of people who are now suffering from dementia, and whether that needs to feed into the process of looking at the issue of social care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman has been very adept in bringing into this debate an issue—acquired brain injury—on which he has been a doughty campaigner. I fully agree that the question of some of the issues around acquired brain injury—he mentioned brain injury in sport, which has particularly been raised in relation to rugby union recently—is an important one that needs to be considered.

Alongside the issue of social care, there is legislation on the NHS. One important issue will be the future of integrated care systems, and this feeds into the question of social care. The White Paper suggested that the Government were going to take a bureaucratic approach of requiring the boundaries of integrated care systems to mirror local authority boundaries. Currently, that would mean breaking up one of the most effective and high-performing ICS groupings—Frimley ICS—and doing that would adversely affect my constituents and others in east Berkshire or elsewhere, so I urge the Government, in looking at these issues, to allow for networks that make practical sense in delivering for people, rather than being hidebound by existing lines on a map. Groups that grow organically and work are surely of greater benefit than groups that happen to fit some bureaucratic idea of neatness.

Finally, I want to touch on—I recognise that today, particularly, this is a difficult issue—the references in the Gracious Speech to the Government’s intent to bring forward measures to deal with legacy in Northern Ireland. Today, we have heard—as the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) said—that the coroner’s verdict in the Ballymurphy inquest is that the 10 individuals concerned were all innocent victims, so this is a particularly difficult time to be looking at the issue of legacy in Northern Ireland. I grew up watching TV news reports of the troubles in Northern Ireland. Too many people died, the majority at the hands of terrorists. Too many were injured, too many lives were shattered, too many people lived in fear, too many families live wondering what has happened to their loved ones, and too many were left longing for justice. Today, as I say, the families of the 10 who were considered in the Ballymurphy inquest have learned what happened to their loved ones—that they were innocent victims.

The arguments in this place on the question of legacy in Northern Ireland have generally focused on the passionate arguments put by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends about the issue of veterans being prosecuted and brought to court years after the event. Of course we stand up for our armed forces, but as a country we live by certain standards and values, and by the rule of law. We should not wilfully ignore the breaking of the rule of law, including by members of the armed forces.

The argument for the protection of veterans has consistently failed to understand one basic point: we cannot legislate simply to protect British soldiers from prosecution; any legislation to protect British soldiers will cover terrorists as well. It is a very simple fact, but it seems impossible for many people to accept. Once we recognise the position, the options become clearer: either we continue to investigate, leading to prosecutions for everyone, including veterans, or we draw some sort of line.

I want to see Northern Ireland moving on, and I think that Northern Ireland will truly have a bright future only when it is able to look forward and not over its shoulder at the past. That is easy for me to say because I did not live there through the troubles—as I said, I just saw them on a television screen on the night, often night after night—and the reaction from politicians in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government to the proposals the Government have put forward have so far been negative. I simply say that our overwhelming interest, throughout this House, should be in a bright future for Northern Ireland. There comes a point at which we have to say, “Can we find a way to draw that line, to turn and look forward and to work together for a better future for all?”