Committee on Standards: Decision of the House

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I see that the Leader of the House is in the House, so it is a surprise to see the Minister for the Cabinet Office at the Dispatch Box today. He and I have faced each other across the Dispatch Box many times, and it is always a pleasure, but I am sure he, like me, wishes that his days as the nightwatchman were a thing of the past. Defending valiantly against hostile bowling on a sticky wicket of his Prime Minister’s creation—it is as if 2019 never ended.

That is because last week the Prime Minister damaged himself, and, despite the bravery of some Conservative Members, he damaged his party; but most importantly, he damaged our democracy. We are fortunate in this country: voters may not always agree with politicians—they often do not—but they do trust that disagreements are sincere, that their representatives are acting in the way that they think is in the public interest, and that we can resolve our disagreements in debate and at the ballot box. But when the Prime Minister gives the green light to corruption, he corrodes that trust; when he says that the rules to stop vested interests do not apply to his friends, he corrodes that trust; and when he deliberately undermines those charged with stopping corruption, he corrodes that trust—and that is exactly what the Prime Minister did last week.

Now, today, the Prime Minister does not even have the decency to come here either to defend what he did or to apologise for his action. Rather than repairing the damage that he has done, the Prime Minister is running scared. When required to lead, he has chosen to hide. His concern, as always, is self-preservation, not the national interest. It is time for everyone in this House, whatever their party, to draw a line and to send a message to the Prime Minister: enough is enough; we will not stand by while he trashes our democracy.

The case of the former Member for North Shropshire is simple. Everyone in this House has enormous sympathy for the tragic circumstances in which he lost his wife. His pain and his anguish are unimaginable. I wish to express my condolences to him, as I did at the time. The Committee on Standards rightly took those awful circumstances into account when considering his conduct. There was a serious and robust process. He had prior notice of the charges against him. He had legal advisers with him. He was invited to appeal against the commissioner’s findings in writing and in person, and he did so. The findings were clear—

“an egregious case of paid advocacy.”

He took money to lobby Ministers. That is against the rules, as it is in any functioning democracy, and it is corrupt. The Prime Minister should have told the former Member for North Shropshire that the right thing to do was to accept his punishment. His duty of care demanded that he do that. His duty to defend standards demanded that he do that. Basic decency demanded that he do that. Instead, the British people were let down, and the former Member for North Shropshire was let down, used as a pawn in an extraordinary attack on our commissioner for standards. We had threats to have money taken away from schools, hospitals and high streets unless Members voted to undermine the commissioner; Ministers sent out on the airwaves the morning after the vote to call for her to consider her position; and a sham committee proposed so that the Government could set the judge and jury for future cases. This was a deliberate course of action, but the Government were caught off guard by the public outcry and they have climbed down.

This was not a tactical mistake or an innocent misjudgment swiftly corrected by a U-turn—it was the Prime Minister’s way of doing business, a pattern of behaviour. When the Prime Minister’s adviser on the ministerial code found against the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister kept the Home Secretary and forced out the adviser. When the Electoral Commission investigated the Conservative party, the Prime Minister threatened to shut it down. When the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards looked into the Prime Minister’s donations, the Prime Minister tried to take her down. Government corruption—there is no other word for it.

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

Will the Leader of the Opposition give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will in just a moment. It is said that the Prime Minister does not believe that the rules apply to him, but it is worse than that. He absolutely knows that the rules do apply to him; his strategy is to devalue the rules so that they do not matter to anyone any more and to go after those charged with enforcing the rules so that breaking the rules has less consequence. That way, politics becomes contaminated. Cynicism replaces confidence and trust. The taunt that politicians are all in it for themselves becomes accepted wisdom and, with that, the Prime Minister hopes to drag us all into the gutter with him. No way. It only serves to convince people that things cannot get better, that Government cannot improve people’s lives, and that progress is not possible because politics does not work.

In the right hands, used in the right way and for the right reasons, politics can work, because politics can be a noble cause to build a better country and a better world. For some, it is also a great personal sacrifice. The plaques in this House to Airey Neave and Jo Cox, and the empty seat where just weeks ago Sir David Amess sat, are testament to that price. If we are to honour their memory, we have to defeat the politics of cynicism propagated by this Prime Minister.

[Mr Carmichael]

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving way. One of the rules we have always observed in this place is that we do not whip House business. Just about everything that has happened since last week can be traced back to the determination of the Government to whip that. Does he share my concern that we have heard nothing from those on the Treasury Bench today to say that, if we on this side of the House participate in future exploration of the rules, there will be no repetition of whipping the votes either for or against when those measures return to this House? Indeed, without that undertaking, it would be very difficult for anyone on this side to accept that what we hear from those on the Treasury Bench is a good faith exercise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I do share that concern. That would be a very easy thing for the Government to say today, and we have another two hours to run in this debate, so there is plenty of time to say it.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I could not agree more with the Leader of the Opposition that House business should never be whipped. Can he say whether he whipped his Members last week?

[Keir Starmer]

No. Our Members did not need whipping to know what the right decision was.

There are good ideas across the House about how we can improve standards to restore the trust that the Prime Minister has broken. There has been talk about cross-party working this afternoon. We are willing to work cross party and with the expertise of the Standards Committee to make that happen, but let me be loud and clear: we are not willing to work with the Government on their plans to weaken standards. There will be no cross-party agreement on weakening standards.

There are other ideas. The Labour party has long called for the MPs’ code of conduct to ban paid directorships and consultancy roles. The current code of conduct recognises that those roles are a potential conflict of interest but does not ban them. We voted to fix that in 2015, but we were blocked by the Government. A change along those lines has been recommended by the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life, but there has been no action by the Government. It is time to put that right.

In addition, the revolving door between ministerial office and the private sector is still in full swing. Ministers can regulate a company one minute and work for it the next. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments is too weak to provide the check and balance. It is time to shut the revolving door by banning those job swaps. This weekend, we were reminded of the appalling inevitable pattern: a large donation to the Conservative party, a stint as party treasurer, then an appointment to the House of Lords. The regulator has been ignored by the Prime Minister and broken in the process. There is no doubt that the House of Lords needs fundamental democratic reform, but we can act now to toughen the rules over appointments.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Leader of the Opposition is a former Director of Public Prosecutions. In 2003, under a Labour Government, the Committee on Standards set up the investigatory panel that contained rules of natural justice if it were to be implemented, which it was not in this case. As a former Director of Public Prosecutions, would he agree that the rules of natural justice could be avoided where an investigatory panel could have been set up but was not?

[Keir Starmer]

I understand the point, but let us remind ourselves of the process. The independent commissioner examines the complaint and comes to a finding. The charge is known and the individual can be legally represented and advised; I understand that the former Member for North Shropshire was legally advised throughout the process. The finding of the commissioner can then be appealed to the Committee, which can agree or disagree with the commissioner. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but on occasion, I think the Committee has disagreed, and therefore the appeal has been allowed and the individual has not faced a sanction.

Before that Committee, the individual can be legally advised, and I think the former Member for North Shropshire had two legal teams in the process. He was able to make a statement setting out his case and his defence. Every point that was made in his defence last Wednesday had been made by him to the Committee, as anybody who has read the report will know. It was rejected by the Committee. He was then questioned for a number of hours by Committee members. That is an appeal. That is due process. That is a much stronger position than millions of working people up and down the country face if they are disciplined in their workplace. We owe it to them to recommend it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I will make some progress.

On all the areas where we can improve, we can work together to restore trust and strengthen standards, but instead we have been invited into a sham process that is designed to force out the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. We are told that the main problem is that there was not a right of appeal, when there clearly is. That is why we have no interest in talking to the Government about how to weaken the current system.

The lack of common ground is fundamental. The Government want to weaken the system because the system keeps investigating and finding against them. The best solution is the simple one: they should change their behaviour. The Prime Minister should show some leadership. He should send a clear message that the rules apply to everyone, and that those enforcing the rules to prevent corruption will be supported by the Government, rather than forced out.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend not think that the sham is continuing even today? Not only is the Prime Minister not here, despite the importance of this issue, but the Leader of the House—who is here, which is right, because it is a House issue—is completely silent and the Minister who is in the place where the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister should be cannot even answer the basic question, from either side of the House, about how we proceed now and whether the Government will accept the recommendation from the Chair of the Standards Committee.

[Keir Starmer]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The Prime Minister should be here. Leadership is about taking responsibility, and if there is an apology to be made, that apology should come from the top, just as the direction came from the top last week to engage in this business in the first place.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will just make some progress, and then I will give way.

The Prime Minister could start by making three simple commitments. First, he should work with us to ensure that the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) faces a recall petition. It is completely unacceptable for a Member to be found guilty of sexually harassing junior staff, yet avoid the judgment of the electorate on the basis of a loophole. The Government have hidden behind that loophole. It is now time to come out of hiding.

Secondly, the Prime Minister needs to agree that no Member found guilty of egregious breaches of the MPs’ code of conduct can be recommended for a peerage. The Government cannot reward bad behaviour and corruption with a job for life making the laws of the land.

Thirdly, the Prime Minister must commit to a full and transparent investigation into Randox and the Government contracts. What do we know? We know that Randox has been awarded Government contracts worth over £600 million, without competition or tender. We know that the former Member for North Shropshire lobbied for Randox. We also know that he sat in on a call between Randox and the Minister responsible for handling the health contracts. Against that backdrop, there is obviously a concern that the use of taxpayers’ money and the effectiveness of our pandemic response may have been influenced by paid advocacy from the former Member for North Shropshire. If the Prime Minister is interested in rooting out corruption, he needs to launch a full investigation. If the Prime Minister is interested in restoring trust, we need full transparency, with all the relevant correspondence published—no ifs and no buts.

Last week, the Prime Minister damaged himself, he damaged his party and he damaged our democracy. He led his party through the sewers, and the stench lingers. This week, he had the chance to clean up, apologise to the country and finally accept that the rules apply to him and his friends, but instead of stepping up, he has hidden away. Instead of clearing up his mess, he has left his side knee-deep in it. Instead of leading from the front, he has cowered away. He is not a serious leader, and the joke is not funny any more.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will make sure that my hon. Friend has the relevant meeting as fast as we can organise it. I know that many parents, particularly those who have premature and sick babies, feel that the current system is not working well for them. That is why, I can tell my hon. Friend, we will legislate to allow parents of children in neonatal care to take extended leave. Details of the policy were published last year and we will bring forward the legislation as soon as possible.

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

Can I pay tribute to Ernie Ross, a formidable campaigner who served this place and his constituents with great distinction for three decades? I will pay my respects and tribute to James Brokenshire immediately after Prime Minister’s questions.

I thank the whole House for the way the tributes to Sir David were handled on Monday. We saw the best of this House, and I want to see if we can use that collaborative spirit to make progress on one of the issues that was raised on Monday: tackling violent extremism. It is three years since the Government promised an online safety Bill, but it is not yet before the House. Meanwhile, the damage caused by harmful content online is worse than ever with dangerous algorithms on Facebook and Instagram. Hope not Hate has shown me an example of violent Islamism and far-right propaganda on TikTok. What I was shown has been reported to the moderators but it stayed online because, apparently, it did not contravene the guidelines. I have to say, I find that hard to believe.

Will the Prime Minister build on the desire shown by this House on Monday to get things done and commit to bring forward the Second Reading of the online safety Bill by the end of this calendar year? If he does, we will support it.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the spirit in which he has approached this issue. I echo what he says about the need for co-operation across the House, because the safety of MPs—indeed, of all public servants and everybody who engages with the public—is of vital importance. The online safety Bill is of huge importance and is one of the most important tools in our armoury. What we are doing is ensuring that we crack down on companies that promote illegal and dangerous content, and we will be toughening up those provisions.

What we will also do is ensure that the online safety Bill completes its stages in the House before Christmas—or rather, that we bring it forward before Christmas in the way that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. I am delighted that he is offering his support and we look forward to that.

[Keir Starmer]

I think from that—this is not a challenge; it is to clarify—that the pre-legislative scrutiny will be finished in early December and the Second Reading could be before the end of this calendar year. We do need to get on with it.

Telegram has been described as the “app of choice” for extremists. If you can believe it, Mr Speaker, as we were paying tribute to Sir David on Monday—as we were paying our respects—Telegram users were able to access videos of murders and violent threats against politicians, the LGBT community, women and Jews. Some of those posts are illegal; all of them are harmful. Hope not Hate and the Board of Deputies have said that Telegram

“has facilitated and nurtured a subculture that cheerleads for…terrorists”.

Tough sanctions are clearly needed, yet under the Government’s current proposals, directors of platforms failing to crack down on extremism would still not face criminal sanctions. Why is that?

[The Prime Minister]

This Government have brought forward an online harms Bill and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has heard what I have said about the Second Reading before Christmas. In the collegiate spirit in which he began his questioning, I can tell him that we will continue to look at ways in which we can toughen up those provisions and come down hard on those who irresponsibly allow dangerous and extremist content to permeate the internet. I am delighted that he is taking this new tough line and I very much hope that he will get the rest of his party to join him in the Lobby with us.

[Keir Starmer]

I did start in a collegiate spirit, and I will continue in a collegiate spirit, because I listened hard to what was being said on the Government Benches on Monday about the concerns about this issue. We need to recognise the measures in the Bill, but we need tough and effective sanctions—that means criminal sanctions—and that does matter. It is, frankly, beyond belief that, as the Mirror reported yesterday, 40 hours of hateful content from Anjem Choudary could be easily accessed online. The Prime Minister and the Government could stop this by making it clear that directors of companies are criminally liable for failing to tackle this type of material on their sites. We do not need to delay, so in the collaborative spirit we saw in this House on Monday, will the Prime Minister commit to taking this away, looking at it again and working with all of us to strengthen his proposed legislation?

[The Prime Minister]

I have already said that we are willing to look at anything to strengthen the legislation. I have said that we are willing to bring it forward, and we will bring it forward to Second Reading before Christmas. Yes, of course we will have criminal sanctions with tough sentences for those who are responsible for allowing this foul content to permeate the internet, but what we hope for also is that, no matter how tough the proposals we produce, the Opposition will support it.

[Keir Starmer]

We are making progress. We have the Second Reading committed to before Christmas—that is a good thing—and I think the Prime Minister has now committed to criminal sanctions. At the moment, they are a fallback position at the discretion of the Minister. They should, in my view, be on the face of the Bill as the automatic default for the failure to act. If we are making progress on that, then we are beginning to address some of the issues that were identified across the House on Monday.

I turn now to the report of the commission for countering extremism, which was set up in the wake of the horrific Manchester bombings. Eight months ago, that commission made recommendations to plug gaps in existing legislation and strategy—gaps that extremists have been able to exploit and are continuing to exploit—yet Sir Mark Rowley, formerly head of our counter-terrorism policing, who led on those recommendations, said just this week:

“I have had no feedback from the Home Office on their plans in relation to our report on the absence of a coherent legal framework to tackle hateful extremism”.

Given the seriousness of the matter and the clear need for action, why have the Government not responded to this important work? Will the Prime Minister now commit to act swiftly on the commission’s recommendations?

[The Prime Minister]

The Government and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary work with all parties to tackle violent extremism. The UK has one of the strongest counter-terrorism and counter-extremism systems in the world, as a consequence of which we have foiled 31 terrorist plots since 2017. I pay tribute to the work of Sir Mark Rowley, with whom I worked extremely closely while I was in London, and all those who were involved in foiling those terrorist plots. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that they will receive the complete support of this House and of this Government; nor will we allow those who are convicted to be released early from prison, because that was one of the most important things that this Government passed and which the Labour party opposed.

[Keir Starmer]

Really, after the week we have just had, I do not want to descend to that kind of knockabout. [Interruption.] Either we take this seriously—I am taking my lead from what those on the Government Benches were saying on Monday about the need to tackle this—and go forward together, or we do a disservice to those we pay tributes to.

There are clearly problems with the Government’s counter-extremism strategy. Internet users are increasingly likely to come across extremist content online. The Government’s own independent reviewer has said that there is “no evidence” that the Government’s key deradicalisation programme is effective—that is the Government’s independent reviewer saying that—and we have seen a spate of lone-attack killings, with the perpetrator invariably radicalised online. We all, across this House, want to stop this, but at the moment things are getting worse not better, so what urgent plans does the Prime Minister have to fix these glaring problems?

[The Prime Minister]

I am all in favour of a collegiate and co-operative approach, in which case I think it would be a fine thing if the Opposition would withdraw their opposition to our measures to stop the early release of serious extremists and violent offenders. That is all I am trying to say, in a collegiate approach, and I am sure that that is what the people of this country would wish to see. But we will continue to do everything that we can to strengthen our counter-terrorism operation and to support all those who are involved in keeping us safe. Obviously, it is too early to draw any particular conclusions from the appalling killing of our colleague, but we will draw all relevant conclusions from that investigation.

[Keir Starmer]

The inescapable desire of this House on Monday finally to clamp down on the extremism, hate and abuse that festers online is incredibly welcome. However, closing down anonymous accounts would not have prevented the murder of Jo Cox or of PC Keith Palmer and, although we do not know the full circumstances surrounding his death, neither would it have saved Sir David. If we are to get serious about stopping violent attacks, we must stop online spaces being safe spaces for terrorists. We must ensure that unaccountable and arrogant social media companies take responsibility for their platforms. We must end the delays, get on with the legislation, and clean out the cesspit once and for all.

I have prosecuted terrorists and I have prosecuted extremists. I have worked with Sir Mark and others. Dozens of Labour MPs have worked hard on tackling social media companies on these issues. I started collegiately, and I will continue collegiately: we know what it takes, and we can help. Will the Prime Minister now capture the spirit that we have seen this week, and agree to work with us on a cross-party basis so that we can tackle violent extremism, and its enablers, together?

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted to join the right hon. and learned Gentleman in committing to tackle online harms and violent extremism together, and that is what the Government are doing. That is why we brought forward the online harms Bill, and that is why we are investing record sums in counter-terrorism. In addition, I think what the whole country and the whole House would certainly want to see—and I say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a collegiate spirit—is a commitment by the Labour party in future to support measures, and not to allow the early release of terrorists and those convicted of such offences from prison. If we hear that from the Labour party, I think it would be a fine thing.

Speaker's Statement

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

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

One of the first things I learned when I arrived in the House was that there are not many glamorous roles in opposition. No one gives you a guidebook on how to do these jobs; you are appointed, and off you go. Of course you can ask older, wiser heads, and you can appoint excellent staff, but generally you are on your own. There is one little-known exception to that rule—a secret in Westminster—and it is this: when you shadow a Government Minister of such decency and courtesy, and with such a sense of fair play that they reach out across the divide and provide helpful pointers, you are not on your own. And so it was for me. When, as a new MP in 2015, I was appointed as shadow Immigration Minister, I shadowed James Brokenshire.

I have to admit that I was unprepared for the vagaries of the Bill Committee rules—even years in the criminal justice system had not prepared me for the complexities of those arcane processes—but in one of my first outings in a Bill Committee, I almost missed my cue to make my argument. Now, some would see that as a blessing, but James was far too decent for that. He would not take advantage. He went out of his way to ensure not only that I was heard, but that I was heard with respect, and that was the characteristic—that was the character—that was James. From that day in 2015, we forged a friendship which lasted until his untimely death. On these Benches, my story is not an unusual one. Anyone who got to know James, who worked with him or against him, ended up respecting him and liking him and willing him to pull through.



At the time I got to know James, he was widely seen as an upcoming star of this House. As the Prime Minister has said, he had already played a key role in the creation of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and had begun to carve out a reputation as an unassuming but very effective Minister. He was a party leader’s dream: happy to roll up his sleeves and do the tough jobs with little regard for self-promotion. However, advancing your career in any walk of life is not just about hard work and talent, although James had those in abundance; it is about who you are, and it was little surprise when James got a full role in the Cabinet, first as Northern Ireland Secretary and then as Communities Secretary. He brought his calm and understated manner, his effectiveness and his respect for others to both roles, and he will be long remembered for that.

When someone is taken as young as James was, by a cruel disease like cancer, there is an inevitable sense that they were robbed of fulfilling their potential, and James was. He had achieved so much, but I strongly believe—we all strongly believe—that he had so much more to give. Characteristically, right to the end he was campaigning to remove the stigma from lung cancer in order to improve the lives of others—a cause I hope this House continues to champion in his memory.

James’s wife and young family are with us here today, and we send them our condolences. If I may say so, they should be very proud of their husband and father. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] They should know that across this House on all these Benches he commanded enormous respect and goodwill. Among his constituents, he was very well liked. He was a friend to many of us across the House, including me. Our politics is poorer without him. We will miss him, but we will all ensure that his memory lives on.

Tributes to Sir David Amess

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2021 Commons Chamber

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

In the last few days, there have been many tributes to Sir David, from politicians of all parties, from his constituents and members of the public, from friends and from family, and from faith leaders, especially the Catholic Church, of which he was such a devoted follower. Each tribute paints its own picture—of a committed public servant, of kindness and of a man whose decency touched everybody that he met. Taken together, these tributes are a powerful testimony to the respect, the affection and, yes, the love that David was held in across politics and across different communities. Together, they speak volumes about the man that he was and the loss that we grieve.

Sir David was a dedicated parliamentarian and his loss is felt profoundly across this House. We are united in our grief at this terrible time. We are thinking of David and his family. We are thinking, once again, of our dear friend Jo Cox, who was killed just five short years ago. I know that hon. Members and their staff will have spent the weekend worrying about their own safety. The emotion is the same across the House, but I remember just how acutely Jo’s loss was felt on these Benches, so today, on behalf of the entire Labour party, I want to lean across, to reach across and to acknowledge the pain that is felt on the opposite Benches, and I do. Of course our differences matter—after all, that is what democracy is about—but today we are reminded that what we have in common matters far more.

I spoke to Jo Cox’s parents on Friday afternoon because I knew that they would be reliving that terrible day. They said to me they were thinking of David’s family and how their lives would be changed forever. So today, just as the Prime Minister has said, this House holds in our hearts David’s wife, Julia, his children, Katherine, David Jr., Sarah, Florence and Alex, and all of those who loved him. We cannot begin to imagine what they are going through, but our thoughts, our love and our prayers are with them.

I also thank those who did everything they could to save David’s life and our emergency services, who run towards danger to protect us. I also want to take a moment for us all to think about David’s staff and what they must be going through. This Parliament that David loved so much has lost one of its finest advocates, his colleagues have lost a dear friend, and the people of Southend have lost one of their own.

Sir David was a dedicated constituency MP. When I visited Southend on Saturday, I was struck by the affection and the regard in which he was held by everybody I met. He rejected ministerial office to focus on Southend; we remember his historic battle to see it given city status, and I am so pleased about the announcement that the Prime Minister has just made. It is a fitting tribute to Sir David’s hard work, it really is—fitting because David delivered on the causes that he championed and cared about. He introduced a Bill that forced action on fuel poverty, he paved the way for better standards of fire safety and he delivered protections for animal welfare.

No tribute has emerged in recent days that resonates more vividly than that of David’s former parliamentary staffer Edward Holmes. As he was in his first job out of university, Holmes forgot to tell Sir David about an urgent call that the then Prime Minister David Cameron had made. He said that he felt terrified until he finally plucked up the courage to tell David, whose response was typical: “Don’t worry about that, Edward.” So relaxed was David that Mr Holmes says that he suspects he never actually called the Prime Minister back.

That tells of a politician who had his priorities right: one who put his people before his party, and his patch before his personal advancement. Even as a political opponent, he was a man and a politician we can all learn so much from. I use that phrase “political opponent” very deliberately, because David held his beliefs passionately but gently. I believe not only that we can learn from that, but that we have a duty to learn from it. Civility matters, and it matters in politics.

We must not lose sight of the fact that David’s killing was an act of terror in our country. We cannot help but think of Jo Cox, Andrew Pennington and PC Keith Palmer, who lost his life defending all of us in this place in 2017. We thank God that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) is with us in the Chamber today, and that the would-be attackers of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) were stopped in their tracks. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I know that politicians across the country and across this House have their own experiences of threats to their security. Today is a chance to remember David, but in the weeks and days to come we must confront the threats and violence that everyone faces in enacting this country’s democracy.

It is too early for us to comment on the exact motivations and circumstances of David’s killing, but I want to finish by saying this: a cowardly attack on a public servant doing his job is an attack on our country and on our way of life—a way of life that prizes tolerance, democracy and respect, that accepts our differences but cherishes our commonalities, that refuses to succumb to the poison of extremism. No matter what perverted cause, faith or ideology these attackers support, their intention is always the same: to sow division among us. That is why our response must always be to show that we will never be cowed, that our bonds to one another can never be eroded, that the hatred that took Sir David’s life will never win.

Our democracy is precious. It has held firm against many tests, but it is also a fragile, living thing. Let us use the memory of Sir David’s life and his passions to nourish it, to recommit ourselves in standing for the things that he stood for, the things that extremists will never comprehend—for decency in our disagreements, for kindness in our hearts, for our great democracy, and for the hope that through it we can make our country and our world a better place.

AUKUS

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about our friendship with Australia and the United States, and the security of the Indo-Pacific.

Yesterday I joined President Biden and Prime Minister Morrison to create a new trilateral defence partnership between our countries known as AUKUS. Australia has, for the first time, taken the momentous decision to acquire a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, and it has asked for our help in achieving this ambition. I am delighted to tell the House that we have agreed to this request and we shall place the UK’s expertise in this field, amassed over decades, at the assistance of our Australian friends. The first task of AUKUS will be an 18-month trilateral collaboration to determine the best way of delivering advanced nuclear submarines for Australia—emphasising, of course, that they will be powered by nuclear reactors, not armed with nuclear weapons, so the nuclear non-proliferation treaty places no prohibition on that work. The House will understand how Australia’s future possession of that capability will help safeguard the peace and security of the Indo-Pacific.

Nuclear submarines are the capital ships of our age, propelled by an effectively inexhaustible source of energy, allowing them to circumnavigate the world without surfacing, deriving oxygen and fresh water from the sea around them. While on patrol, they keep silent watch over vast expanses of ocean, protecting shipping, gathering intelligence, deterring adversaries, and guarding the trade routes on which our livelihoods depend.

To design, build, operate and then safely decommission a nuclear submarine ranks among the most complex and technically demanding enterprises yet devised. Only six nations possess nuclear-powered submarines, and to help another country join this tiny circle is a decision of the utmost gravity, requiring perhaps the closest relationship of trust that can exist between sovereign states. I hope that I speak for the House when I say that I have no hesitation about trusting Australia, a fellow maritime democracy, joined to us by blood and history, which stood by Britain through two world wars at immense sacrifice.

Today, the UK and Australia defend the same interests, promote the same values and face the same threats: we are as closely aligned in international policy as any two countries in the world. One of the great prizes of this enterprise is that Australia, the UK and the US will become inseparable partners in a project that will last for decades, creating opportunities for still greater defence and industrial co-operation.

The integrated review of foreign and defence policy described Britain’s renewed focus on the Indo-Pacific, a region that is fast becoming the geopolitical centre of the world, and ever more important for British trade and therefore British jobs and British livelihoods. If there were ever any question about what global Britain’s tilt towards the Indo-Pacific would mean in reality, or what capabilities we might offer, this partnership with Australia and the US provides the answer. It amounts to a new pillar of our strategy, demonstrating Britain’s generational commitment to the security of the Indo-Pacific and showing exactly how we can help one of our oldest friends to preserve regional stability. It comes after the UK’s success in becoming a dialogue partner of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and our application to join the trans-Pacific free trade area.

At the same time, this project will create hundreds of highly skilled jobs across the UK, including in Scotland, the north of England and the midlands, reinforcing our industrial base and our national scientific expertise, exemplified by the British companies participating in this week’s Defence and Security Equipment International event.

A nuclear submarine programme exists within a different realm of engineering from any other marine project, requiring a mastery of disciplines ranging from propulsion to acoustics. In these fields and many others, we will have a new opportunity to strengthen Britain’s position as a science and technology superpower, and by generating economies of scale, this project could reduce the cost of the next generation of nuclear submarines for the Royal Navy, helping us to renew our own capabilities.

While our partnership will begin with nuclear-powered submarines, now that we have created AUKUS, we expect to accelerate the development of other advanced defence systems, including in cyber, artificial intelligence, quantum computing and undersea capabilities. This partnership will open a new chapter in Britain’s friendship with our closest allies, help to safeguard the security of the Indo-Pacific, create jobs at home and reinforce our country’s place at the leading edge of technology. I commend this statement to the House.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of his statement. The recent events in Afghanistan show us how precarious international stability can be. New challenges can emerge and issues in faraway corners of the globe can quickly turn into threats at home, so Labour welcomes increased co-operation with our allies. Australia and America are two of our closest security partners. Sharing resources and intelligence with them and enhancing capabilities makes them safer, makes Britain safer, and makes the world safer.

The lesson of the past few weeks is that Britain must look after our most important relationships, or our influence and security quickly decline. Labour welcomes this announcement, but may I ask the Prime Minister to outline in a bit more detail what the agreement means in practice? The strategic review identified China as a “systemic competitor”. China’s assertiveness does pose risks to UK interests in a secure Pacific region, in stable trading environments and in democracy and human rights. We need to deal with those risks, defend our values and defend our interests, but the same review also rightly stated that the UK must maintain a commercial relationship with China, and we must work with them on the defining global issues of the day, such as climate change and pandemic preparedness. Without diplomatic strategy and skill, those goals will come into conflict. So what plan does the Prime Minister have to ensure that this new arrangement increases, rather than decreases our ability to influence China?

In order to protect our security and interests, we also need to look after our broader alliances. NATO remains our most important strategic alliance. It is also the most successful, having delivered peace and security in Europe for three quarters of a century. Whatever the merits of an Indo-Pacific tilt, maintaining security in Europe must remain our primary objective. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that the arrangement will not see resources redirected from Europe and the high north to the Pacific? Will he also guarantee that the arrangement will strengthen rather than weaken the NATO alliance, including our indispensable bilateral relationship with France? We are also in the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing arrangements with Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the US, which is vital to our security. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that this new trilateral arrangement will not weaken our intelligence capabilities by producing a two-tier Five Eyes operation?

Finally, the arrangement clearly brings potential economic opportunities for Britain. We need the well-paid, high-skilled jobs that the defence industry provides in every corner of Britain. The Prime Minister said that the project will create hundreds of skilled jobs. Will he give more detail on what he has done to ensure that Britain gets its fair share of any contracts that come out of the arrangements? What will he do to ensure that no region or nation in Britain misses out on any job opportunities that the arrangement may bring?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for welcoming the statement and AUKUS. I will answer some of the detailed points that he made.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman began by asking whether AUKUS was in any sense adversarial to China and how we will manage the relationship with China. It is important for the House to understand that it is not intended to be adversarial towards any other power; it merely reflects how the close relationship that we have with the United States and Australia, the shared values that we have and the sheer level of trust between us enables us to go to the extraordinary extent of sharing nuclear technology in the way in which we propose. Obviously, we also have a shared interest in promoting democracy, human rights, freedom of navigation and freedom of trade around the world, which are values and perspectives that I hope the whole House will support.

On the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about NATO, the House should be in no doubt that the Government’s commitment to NATO is absolutely unshakeable and indeed has been strengthened by the massive commitments that we have made. With the biggest uplift in defence spending since the cold war—£24 billion—2.2% of our GDP now goes on defence spending. He rightly raises the question of our military relationship with France, which, again, is rock-solid. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the French, whether in the Sahel, where we are running a joint operation against terrorists in Mali, or in Estonia, where we have the largest NATO operation.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked reasonably about the jobs that this great project will unquestionably produce. What I can say is that there will be an 18-month scoping exercise to establish where the work should go between the three partners, but clearly there are deep pools of expertise throughout the United Kingdom, whether in Derby, Plymouth, Scotland or Barrow. I have no doubt whatever that it will bring hundreds of high-skilled, high-wage jobs of the kind that we want to see, and increasingly are seeing, in our country.

Finally, it is a pleasure to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s change of heart about NATO—I had to say this, Mr Speaker, pain me though it does—after he only recently campaigned to install a Prime Minister who wanted us to withdraw from NATO.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her kind words. On her substantive point, she is entirely right to raise the issues investigated by Baroness Cumberlege. We have given the report full consideration, accept its overarching conclusions and are committed to making rapid progress in addressing all the areas that it mentions, including the one that my right hon. Friend covered today.

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

I join the Prime Minister in his comments about Emma Raducanu—a tremendous success in the US Open—the Battle of Britain and the G7 Speakers conference. May I also offer my condolences to the Prime Minister on the loss of his mother? As I know at first hand, losing a parent is never easy.

How many extra hours a week would a single parent working full-time on the minimum wage have to work to get back the £20 a week that the Prime Minister plans to take away from them in his universal credit cuts?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind words. On his substantive point about universal credit, it is absurd, because the Labour party—[Interruption.] I will give you a statistic, Mr Speaker: every single recipient of universal credit would lose their benefits under Labour, because it wants to abolish universal credit. I think that this House and this Government should be very proud of what we are doing and continue to do to support the low-paid. It was another Conservative institution, the living wage, that increased the incomes of families on it by £4,000 a head. What the Labour party wants to do is keep this country in lockdown and keep this country in furlough without moving forward at all.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister did not answer the question. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions seems to think that it is an extra two hours a week, so let me make it even easier for the Prime Minister: is the correct answer higher or lower than that?

[The Prime Minister]

What I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that under this Government, for the first time in decades, wages are rising. Wages across the board are rising, and they are 4.1% up on where they were before the pandemic. In fact, I am very pleased to say—[Interruption.] Of course, what the Opposition want to do is continue to take money in taxation and put it into benefits. We do not think that that is the right way. We want to encourage high wages and high skills. That is the difference between this Government and the Labour party. I think it is a good thing, for instance, that Costa Coffee is now paying 5% more than it was before the pandemic—and never forget, Mr Speaker, that if we had listened to Captain Hindsight, Costa Coffee would still be closed.

[Keir Starmer]

It wasn’t a difficult question, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] It is silly, they say. “How many hours would someone working full time on the minimum wage have to work to make up for the cut?” is apparently a silly question. I will give the Prime Minister the answer to the question. The number is much, much higher. A single parent—who could be a constituent—working on the minimum wage and already working full time would need to work more than nine hours a week on top of that full-time job just to get back the money that the Prime Minister has taken away from them. They are already working full time. They have kids. How on earth does the Prime Minister think they are going to find the time to work an extra nine hours—in truth, an extra day every week?

[The Prime Minister]

I will tell you what we are doing, Mr Speaker, to support people on low incomes. We are supporting them not only with the living wage, but with 30 hours of free childcare, and by freezing petrol duty and extending the heating allowance to 780,000 people across the country—but, even more important than that, for the low-paid we are encouraging measures to see their wages rise. We are investing in their skills. We are investing in work coaches.

There is now a dividing line between this Government and the Opposition. We want a high-wage, high-skills economy with controlled immigration; what they want is low wages, low skills, and uncontrolled immigration. That is what they stand for.

[Keir Starmer]

Let us test that right now. We have had three questions and the Prime Minister has not answered one of them, and it is obvious why.

The truth is that these low-paid workers cannot work longer hours to get back the money that the Prime Minister is cutting from them. He knows it; they know it. Millions of working families will be hit hard—very hard—by the Prime Minister’s universal credit cut, and the reason, I tell the Prime Minister, is this. Why would those people have to work an extra nine hours—a full day every week—to get that £20 back? It is because of his broken tax system. He has just said how good it is, so let us test it. After his national insurance rise, for every extra pound that those workers earn, his Government will take more than 75p from them. That is why they have to work for those nine hours—one whole extra day.

The Prime Minister has just said that he is going to raise wages, and what else he is going to do, but that is the situation. Why is the Prime Minister making a bad situation worse for working people by hammering them with a cut in universal credit and a tax rise?

[The Prime Minister]

Actually, what we have done with our local housing allowance is increase by £600 the amount of money available to exactly the type of person the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned. He has attacked the plan that we announced last week to fix the backlogs in the NHS. I have to say that I thought it utterly incredible that the party of Nye Bevan should have come to the House last Wednesday and voted against measures that would fix the NHS. It is quite clear that ours is now the party of the NHS, and that the Opposition simply do not have a plan. They do not have a plan for universal credit—they want to abolish it—and they do not have a plan to fix the NHS or social care.

[Keir Starmer]

An unfair tax rise which will not fix social care and will not clear the NHS backlog is not a plan. The Prime Minister pretends that there is no alternative but to hammer working people with tax rises and universal credit cuts, but that is not true. His approach means that a working single parent who is a qualified nurse would lose £1,143. A supermarket worker could lose £1,093. A teaching assistant could lose £1,081. At the same time, the Prime Minister has wasted billions on crony contracts, cut taxes for people buying second homes and handed out super tax deductions for the biggest companies. That is not taking difficult decisions; that is making political choices. So why is the Prime Minister choosing to take a tax system that is already loaded against working people and making it even more unfair?

[The Prime Minister]

It is absolutely ridiculous that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should attack the Government over salaries for nurses when we have put them up by 3% on top of the 12.8% rise that we introduced, when we are hiring 50,000 more nurses and when we are putting another £36 billion into the NHS and social care on top of the £33 billion that this Government invested when we came into office. One in 10 of the people in this country are now on an NHS waiting list. Labour Members know that the NHS backlog needs to be fixed, they know that this Government have a plan and they know that Labour has absolutely nothing to say.

[Keir Starmer]

I just wonder what the millions of people on low wages who are facing a £1,000 cut will think of that. This country’s success is built by working people, but the tax system is loaded against them. The Prime Minister may not understand the pressures facing families across the country, but we do. The reality is this. Taxes on working people: up. National insurance—[Hon. Members: “”Up!”] Council tax—[Hon. Members: “Up!”] Energy bills, food prices, burdens on families: up, up, up. The Prime Minister needs to get real and understand the terrible impact of his decisions on working people across this country. This afternoon, he has the chance to change course, to vote with Labour to cancel the cut to universal credit and then to stop clobbering working people with unfair tax rises. Will he do so?

[The Prime Minister]

I can see that the panto season has come early—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Not only has the price of batteries fallen vertiginously, as has the cost of solar power, but I can tell my hon. Friend and the people of Thanet South that they have huge opportunities. The cost of wind power in this country has fallen by 70% just in the last 10 years. What I think the people of Thanet want to see, and I am sure my hon. Friend exemplifies it, is a spirit of Promethean technological optimism.

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

I want to ask the Prime Minister about the promise he made to the British people to

“guarantee that no one needing care has to sell their home to pay for it.”

Does that guarantee still stand?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I know the House has been away, but it is still Prime Minister’s questions.

[Keir Starmer]

I noticed that the Prime Minister did not stand by his guarantee that no one will need to sell their house to pay for care. Let me explain why he did not. Under the Prime Minister’s plan, someone with £186,000 including the value of their home—that is not untypical for constituents across the country—who is facing large costs because they have to go into care will have to pay £86,000. That is before living costs. Where does the Prime Minister think they are going to get that £86,000 without selling their home?

[The Prime Minister]

As I think everybody understood in the long statement yesterday, this is the first time that the state has come in to deal with the threat of these catastrophic costs, thereby enabling the private sector—the financial services industry—to supply the insurance products that people need to guarantee themselves against the cost of care. What we are doing is lifting the floor—lifting the guarantee—up to £100,000, whereby nobody has to pay anything, across the entire country. We still have to hear from the Opposition what they would do to fix the backlogs in the NHS and fix social care after decades of inertia and inactivity. What would the Leader of the Opposition do?

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister’s plan is to impose an unfair tax on working people. My plan is to ensure—[Interruption.] My plan is to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share. That is the difference. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to both sides that I need to hear the question. I also need to hear the answer. If there are some Members who do not want to hear it, I am sure that their constituents want to hear it. It is not good to shout down either side when they are either asking or answering a question. Please, our constituents are interested. I want to hear, and they will want to hear. Keir Starmer.

[Keir Starmer]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister’s plan is to impose unfair taxes on working people; my plan is to ensure those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share. I know Conservative Members do not like that. The truth is that the Prime Minister’s plans do not do what he claims. People will still face huge bills. Many homeowners will need to sell their homes. He is not denying it, when he could have done. The Prime Minister has failed the only test he set for himself for social care. It was in the manifesto—another manifesto promise, Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

indicated dissent.

[Keir Starmer]

It is no good shaking your head. And who is going to pay for the cost of this failure? Working people. Under the Prime Minister’s plan, a landlord renting out dozens of properties will not pay a penny more, but their tenants in work will face tax rises of hundreds of pounds a year. A care worker earning the minimum wage does not get a pay rise under this plan, but does get a tax rise. In what world is that fair?

[The Prime Minister]

Actually, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed that this is a broad-based and progressive measure. The top 20% of households by income will pay 40 times what the poorest 20% pay; the top 14% will pay half of the entire levy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about his plan. Well, I have been scouring the records for evidence of the Labour plan, and I have found it. In 2018, the current shadow Minister for Social Care, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), joined forces with Nick Boles and Norman Lamb to promote a new dedicated health and social care tax based on national insurance. Where is she? I can’t see her in her place, Mr Speaker. She said that this was to be the country’s “Beveridge moment”. Is the Labour party really going to vote against the new Beveridge moment tonight?

[Keir Starmer]

Mr Speaker, let me tell you what an ambitious young Member for Henley said in 2002 in this House:

“national insurance increases are regressive”—[Official Report, 17 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 667.]

I wonder what happened to him. If the Prime Minister is going ahead with this unfair tax, can he at least tell us this: will his plan clear the NHS waiting list backlog by the end of this Parliament—yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the whole House, indeed the whole country, can appreciate that we at least have a plan to fix the backlogs and we at least understand that the only way to fix the long-term underlying problems in the NHS and the problem of delayed discharges is to fix the crisis in social care as well, which Labour failed to address for decades. We are going ahead and doing it. What I have just understood from the right hon. and learned Gentleman—out of that minestrone of nonsense has floated a crouton of fact—is that he is going to vote against the measures tonight. They are going to vote against plans to fix the backlogs and to fix social care. Vote Labour, Mr Speaker, wait longer.

[Keir Starmer]

It was a yes/no question. You either clear the backlog or you don’t. The Prime Minister cannot even say that he will do that. So there we have it: working people will pay higher tax, those in need will still lose their homes to pay for care and he cannot even say if the NHS backlog will be cleared. [Interruption.] He gesticulates, but they are all breaking their manifesto promises and putting up taxes for their working constituents for this? Tax rises are not the only way he is making working people worse off. Some 2.5 million working families will face a doubly whammy: a national insurance tax rise and a £1,000 a year universal credit cut. They are getting hit from both sides. Of all the ways to raise public funds, why is the Prime Minister insisting on hammering working people?

[The Prime Minister]

We are proud of what we have been doing throughout the pandemic to look after working people. We are proud of the extra £9 billion we put in through universal credit. I think people in this House and across the country should know that Labour wants to scrap universal credit all together. We believe in higher wages and better skills, and it is working. That is why we are investing in 13,500 work coaches and £3,000 a year for 11 million adults across this country to train under the lifetime skills guarantee, and it is working. For the first time since 2019, after years and years of stagnation, wages are rising for the lower paid. Labour believes in welfare; we believe in higher wages and higher skills and better jobs.

[Keir Starmer]

Higher wages and higher skills, the Prime Minister says. How out of touch he is! [Interruption.] Conservative Members laugh. What do they say to Rosie, because Rosie is the sort of person that this impacts on? Laugh away. A single mother working on the minimum wage in a nursing home, she got in touch with me. She will lose £87 a month due to the universal credit cut—a huge amount to her. She will now also be hit with a national insurance tax rise. She has asked for more shifts and she cannot get them. She is unable to get further help with childcare. What does the Prime Minister—what does the laughter—say to Rosie?

This is a Government who underfunded the NHS for a decade before the pandemic, took £8 billion out of social care before the pandemic, and then wasted billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on dodgy contracts, vanity projects and giveaways to their mates. They cut stamp duty on second home owners, gave super tax deductions for the biggest companies and now they are telling millions of working people that they must cough up more tax. Is this not the same old Tory party, always putting their rich mates and donors before working people?

[The Prime Minister]

Very sadly, Mr Speaker, what you are hearing is the same old nonsense from Labour, because they want to scrap universal credit. I have every sympathy for Rosie and I admire her and families up and down the land, but the best thing we can do for them is have a strong and dynamic economy. As I speak, our economy is the fastest growing in the G7, because we have had the fastest vaccine roll-out and the fastest opening up of any comparable country. Never forget that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have kept us in the European Medicines Agency; he attacked the Vaccine Taskforce; and if we had listened to Captain Hindsight in July, we would not have the fastest growing economy in the G7—we would still be in lockdown. [Interruption.] It is true. If we listened to him today, we would not be trying to fix the NHS backlogs and we would not finally be dealing with social care. This is the Government who take the tough decisions to take this country forward.

Health and Social Care

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement—I think I had almost as much notice as the Cabinet. May I also thank everybody who works in the NHS and social care? During the darkest days of the pandemic they kept our health service from collapsing, they looked after the elderly when others could not and they rolled out the vaccine, which has finally provided the light at the end of the tunnel. Despite their efforts, we are facing the toughest winter in the history of our health service. Not only do we have the threat of another covid surge, but waiting lists for diagnosis and treatment have reached record levels, we risk cancer survival rates going backwards for the first time ever, and social care remains neglected and strained. It is a crisis, but how did we get here?

The pandemic has undoubtedly placed the NHS under huge strain, but that is only part of the story. A decade of Conservative neglect weakened the NHS. Waiting lists had spiralled—up 2 million before the pandemic. Targets were missed, on cancer, on accident and emergency, and on mental health, before the pandemic. The same is true on social care, with £8 billion cut, despite growing demand, before the pandemic. Carers were on poverty wages, without secure contracts, before the pandemic. There were 100,000 vacancies before the pandemic. And the Prime Minister has just referenced the 30,000 hospital beds occupied by those who should go into the community—this is before the pandemic—and he called that an “indictment of failure”. Who had been in government for 10 years at that stage? Just remind me. Prime Minister, an “indictment of failure” is an accurate description of the situation in our health service and social care before the pandemic, so the pretence that he is “only here” because of the pandemic is not going to wash. He is putting a sticking plaster over gaping wounds that his party inflicted. He made that commitment on social care before the pandemic, and he said he would pay for it without raising taxes before the pandemic.

Yes, the NHS urgently needs more investment, but the backlog will not be cleared unless the Government hit the 18-week target set out in the NHS constitution—the Prime Minister did not mention that. It was set and it was met by the last Labour Government. Let me ask a direct question: if there is to be improvement, Prime Minister, can you commit today to hitting the target and clearing the backlog by the end of this Parliament—yes or no? I know he likes to avoid these questions, but if he cannot answer that basic question, it is clear he has not got a plan.

Let me turn to social care. Under these proposals, people will still face substantial costs. I heard what the Prime Minister said, so I have another direct question for him: can the Prime Minister guarantee that under his plan no one will have to sell their home to fund their own care—yes or no? [Hon. Members: “He just told you.”] Well, let us hear him make the commitment, at the Dispatch Box, that under his plan no one will have to sell their own home to fund their own care, and then we will come back to it.

Social care is about so much more than this. The blunt and uncomfortable truth is that under the Prime Minister’s plans the quality of care received will not improve—there is no plan for that. People will still go without the care that they need—there is no plan for that. Unpaid family carers will still be pushed to breaking point—there is no plan for that. Working-age adults with disabilities will have no more control over their lives—there is no plan for that. Pay and conditions will not improve for care workers—there is no plan for that. Let me spell it out: a poorly paid care worker will pay more tax for the care that they are providing without a penny more in their pay packet and without a secure contract.

[The Prime Minister]

indicated dissent.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister shakes his head; my sister is a poorly paid care worker, Prime Minister, so I know this at first hand.

This is a tax rise that breaks a promise that the Prime Minister made at the last election, a promise that all Conservative Members made—every single one of them. It is a tax rise on young people, supermarket workers and nurses; a tax rise that means that a landlord renting out dozens of properties will not pay a penny more, but the tenants working in full-time jobs will; and a tax rise that places another burden on businesses just as they are trying to get back on their feet. Read my lips: the Tories can never again claim to be the party of low tax.

The alternative is obvious: a timetable and plan to clear waiting lists, just as we did under the last Labour Government, and a comprehensive reform plan for social care that deals with the inadequacies that I just pointed out and drives up the quality of provision—not just tinkering with the funding model. We do need to ask those with the broadest shoulders to pay more, and that includes asking much more of wealthier people, including in respect of income from stocks, shares, dividends and property. [Interruption.] Chancellor, I was listening. The Chancellor knows the numbers just as well as I do—he will have done the sums and we have done them. Tinkering and fiddling with dividends will not do it. The Government are placing the primary burden on working people and businesses struggling to get by.

As I have said to the Prime Minister, if the Government come forward with a plan to genuinely fix the crisis in social care and they have a fair funding model, yes, we will work together. Thousands of families who are struggling with the current system and only want the best for their loved ones deserve nothing less.

[The Prime Minister]

Now we know why over decades the Labour Government totally refused to deal with this problem, and now we know why both Blair and Brown failed to do it: the right hon. and learned Gentleman has absolutely no plan. I was waiting, and I am amazed that he sat down. What is his answer to the backlogs in the NHS? What is his answer to the problems in social care? The Opposition have absolutely no plan. They have no idea how they would raise the money.

Let me answer some of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s questions. We will of course be investing in social care. I thank his sister for what she is doing in social care, but we have lifted people’s wages across the country with record increases in the living wage; we are investing in 700,000 training places for people in social care; and we are making sure that we invest £500 million—that is in the plan I announced today—in the social care workforce.

What this plan will also do is enable us to get our wonderful NHS back on its feet and enable it to deal with the backlogs. The right hon. and learned Gentleman totally failed to explain how a Labour Government would do that. One year of capital gains tax would not even begin to deal with this problem. He has not got a solution and it is deeply irresponsible of him to come to this place without having any kind of alternative.

Let us be in no doubt: if we did what we have heard from the Labour party over the past few weeks, we would still be in lockdown, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposed coming out of stage 4; we would have absolutely nothing by way of dealing with the NHS backlogs; and after decades of inertia from the Labour party we would have absolutely no way of dealing with the anxiety of millions of families across this country who face the prospect of catastrophic social care costs.

This Government are dealing with those things—we are dealing with all of them. We are getting on with it. We are taking the decisive action. We are doing it all together. This is the Government who get on and deal with the people’s priorities; this is the Government who tackle social care; and, indeed, this is the party of the NHS.

Afghanistan

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2021 Commons Chamber

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

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

The heroes on the ground in Operation Pitting are the best of us: the ambassador stayed to process every case that he could, paratroopers lifted people from the crush, Afghan soldiers continued to serve alongside us to the end, and thousands of others risked their lives to help others to escape. They faced deadly violence and deliberately-engineered chaos with courage, calm and determination. Thanks to their remarkable efforts, thousands were evacuated, British nationals have returned safely to their families and Afghan friends are starting a new life here in Britain. Speaking directly to those who served in Operation Pitting, I say thank you: your service deserves recognition and honour and I hope that the Prime Minister will accept Labour’s proposal to scrap the 30-day continuous service rule so that medals can be awarded for your bravery.

The entire Army, our armed forces and veterans deserve proper support for mental health. The new funding announced today is welcome, but it is unlikely to be enough. Previous funding was described as “scandalous” by the Select Committee, and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs is still being cut. All those involved deserved political leadership equal to their service, but they were let down. They were let down on strategy. The Prime Minister underestimated the strength of the Taliban. Despite intelligence warnings that “rapid Taliban advances” could lead to the collapse of the Afghan security forces, a return to power of the Taliban and our embassy shutting down amid reduced security, the Government continued to act on the assumption that there was no path to military victory for the Taliban. Complacent and wrong.

Those involved were also let down by a lack of planning. Eighteen months passed between the Doha agreement and the fall of Kabul, yet as the Prime Minister now concedes, only 2,000 of the 8,000 people eligible for the Afghan relocations and assistance policy—ARAP—scheme have been brought to Britain. A strategic review was published to much fanfare, but it did not mention the Taliban, NATO withdrawal or the Doha agreement. And the Prime Minister convened a G7 meeting on Afghanistan only after Kabul was lost.

Because of this lack of leadership, the Government have left behind many to whom we owe so much. In the last few weeks, MPs have had thousands of desperate calls from people trying to get to safety. Many remain in danger, including the Afghan guards who protected the British embassy. In my constituency—I am not alone; Members across the House will have had this—cases involve Afghans who applied for the ARAP scheme weeks and sometimes months ago and who were clearly eligible but were not processed quickly enough by this Government and did not make it to the planes. The stress levels for them and their families, and for all our teams and caseworkers, has been palpable in the last few weeks and months. A familiar and desperate story to many on both sides of the House.

The Government do not even know how many UK nationals and Afghans eligible under the ARAP scheme have been left behind to the cruelty of the Taliban. A national disgrace. Even if they could identify who they had left behind, the Government do not have a plan to get everybody out. Kabul airport remains closed to international flights, safe passage has not been created to Afghanistan’s neighbours and, whatever the Prime Minister says today, there is no international agreement on the resettlement of Afghan refugees. We have a Prime Minister incapable of international leadership, just when we need it most. [Interruption.] I know that that is uncomfortable. The terrible attacks from ISIS-K highlight the new security threat, and the Government must act quickly to co-ordinate international partners to ensure that the Afghan Government’s collapse does not lead to a vacuum for terrorists to fill. There is also a desperate need for humanitarian support. A return to 2019 levels of aid spending is necessary, and where is the plan to ensure that it does not fall into the wrong hands?

To those who have managed to escape Afghanistan and have arrived here in the UK, we say welcome: I know that you will give much to this country as you make it your new home. All you need is help and support. I am pleased that indefinite leave to remain will now be granted to all those who arrive by safe and legal routes. Local authorities across the country are trying to play their part, but they have been in the dark as to how many people they will be asked to support and what resources they will have to do so. We will look at the letter to which the Prime Minister referred and examine the details.

History will tell the tale of Operation Pitting as one of immense bravery. We are proud of all those who contributed. Their story is made even more remarkable by the fact that, while they were saving lives, our political leadership was missing in action.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not put many questions to me. He made the general assertion that the Government had not been focusing on Afghanistan but, as far as I can remember, he did not even bother to turn up to the first of my three statements on Afghanistan in the House this year—I do not know where he was—such was his instinct and such was his understanding of the importance of the issue.

Actually, the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s figures are quite wrong. Before April we helped 1,400 people to safety from Afghanistan and, under the ARAP scheme, between then and 14 August we helped a further 2,000. As he knows very well, between 14 and 28 August this country performed an absolutely astonishing feat, and of course we will do everything we can to help those who wish to have safe passage out of Afghanistan. That is why we will continue, with our international friends and partners, to apply whatever pressure we can on the Taliban, economic and diplomatic, to ensure they comply, as they have said they will.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman should, in all candour, acknowledge the immensity of the achievement of this country’s armed forces in, for months, planning and preparing for Operation Pitting and then, contrary to what he just said, extracting almost double the number they originally prepared to extract. It was a quite astonishing military and logistical feat.

One thing I welcome is the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s congratulations to the armed forces for what they did.

Afghanistan

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the staff for recalling Parliament for today’s debate.

Before I come to the urgent issue at hand, let me join you, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister in condemning the appalling shootings in Plymouth last week. We all send our condolences to the bereaved families. We must resolve to ensure that firearms do not get into the hands of dangerous people, and finally get to grips with the way that hate thrives on the internet.

Turning to Afghanistan, it has been a disastrous week—an unfolding tragedy. Twenty years ago, the Taliban were largely in control of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda were using the country as a training ground and a base for terror, including plotting the horrific 9/11 attack. There were widespread human rights abuses, girls were denied an education, women could not work and being gay was punishable by death—all imposed without democracy.

Since then, a fragile democracy emerged. It was by no means perfect, but no international terrorist attacks have been mounted from Afghanistan in that period. Women have gained liberty and won office, schools and clinics have been built, and Afghans have allowed themselves to dream of a better future. Those achievements were born of sacrifice—sacrifice by the Afghan people who bravely fought alongside their NATO allies, and British sacrifice.

More than 150,000 UK personnel have served in Afghanistan. They include Members from across this House, including the hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), the hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), and the hon. and gallant Members for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) and for Wells (James Heappey). They and the tens of thousands of others deployed in Afghanistan served in difficult and challenging circumstances, and the Labour party and—I am sure—everybody across this House thanks each and every one of them and of the 150,000. Many returned with life-changing injuries and, tragically, 457 did not return at all.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Later today, I will attend the service at RAF Lyneham, outside Royal Wootton Bassett, to commemorate the 10th anniversary, which falls today, of the last repatriation through Bassett. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the message to the people I will see today must be that those young lives were not wasted but played an absolutely essential role in deterring and destroying terrorism and carrying out so many other good works in Afghanistan?

[Keir Starmer]

I wholeheartedly agree with that point and will address it in one moment.

For many of those who returned from Afghanistan and other places around the world, mental health has been an all-too-familiar issue. It is raised by veterans time and again. The events of the past few days and weeks will have exacerbated the situation and reopened old wounds—everybody across this House will know of examples—so we must improve mental health services for our veterans.

On the point that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) just made, I wish to address directly all those who served in Afghanistan and their families—especially the families of those who were lost. Your sacrifice was not in vain—it was not in vain. You brought stability, reduced the terrorist threat and enabled progress. We are all proud of what you did. Your sacrifice deserves better than this, and so do the Afghan people.

There has been a major miscalculation of the resilience of the Afghan forces and staggering complacency from our Government about the Taliban threat. The result is that the Taliban are now back in control of Afghanistan. The gains made through 20 years of sacrifice hang precariously. Women and girls fear for their liberty. Afghan civilians are holding on to the undercarriage of NATO aircraft—literally clinging to departing hope. We face new threats to our security and an appalling humanitarian crisis.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

For all the reasons that the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, does he not agree that President Biden is actually wrong when he talks about American sacrifices in a civil war? The Taliban are not at war with a regime; they are at war with the civilised values of justice, equality and tolerance, which all of us hold dear, and against which it respects no international boundaries.

[Keir Starmer]

I agree with the hon. Member and thank him for that intervention.

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

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

Let me make some progress and then I will give way.

The desperate situation requires leadership and for the Prime Minister to snap out of his complacency. The most urgent task is the protection of our diplomatic staff still working heroically in Kabul, and the evacuation of British nationals and Afghans who have risked their lives. Let me be clear: the Labour party fully supports the deployment of troops to that end. We want it to succeed just as quickly and safely as possible.

The Defence Secretary has said that some people who have worked with us will not get back—unconscionable. The Government must outline a plan: to work with our allies to do everything possible to ensure that that does not happen; to guarantee that our troops have the resources they need to carry out their mission as effectively and safely as possible; and to work to provide stable security at the airport in Kabul so that flights can depart and visas can be processed. We all know how difficult that is. We all know how hard everybody is working on the ground and we fully support them.

I raise an issue not by way of criticism, but just to get some reassurance: there are reports from non-governmental organisations that an evacuation plane left almost empty this morning because evacuees could not get to the airport to board that plane. As I say, we are not challenging the work on the ground—we know how difficult it is—but, if that is true, we would like to see that matter addressed at an appropriate moment.

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

May I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman back to the statement that the President of the United States made the other day? Does he not agree that that took on the terms of a sort of shameful excuse? Given that the President had blamed the Afghan armed forces, who have lost nearly 70,000 troops in trying to defend Afghanistan, and given that corruption had stripped away much of the pay, money and support of those forces, the American decision to withdraw aircraft cover was almost certainly going to lead us to this situation. Does he not think that that is shameful?

[Keir Starmer]

The US is, of course, an important ally, but to overlook the fighting of the Afghan troops and forces, and the fact that they have been at the forefront of that fighting in recent years, is wrong. It is wrong for any of us to overlook that or the situation in which they now find themselves.

The urgent task is, of course, the evacuation. Equally urgent is the immediate refugee crisis.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will make some progress and then I will give way.

Many Afghans have bravely sought to rebuild their country and they did so on a promise of democratic freedoms, the rule of law and liberty for the oppressed, including women and girls. They are our friends and that was our promise. They are now fearing for their lives. We do not turn our backs on friends at their time of need. We owe an obligation to the people of Afghanistan. There should be a resettlement scheme for people to rebuild their lives here, with safe and legal routes. It must be a resettlement scheme that meets the scale of the enormous challenge, but what the Government have announced this morning does not do that. It is vague and will support just 5,000 in the first year—a number without rationale. Was that based on a risk assessment of those most at need, or was it plucked out of the air? The offer to others is in the long term, but for those desperately needing our help now, there is no long term, just day-to-day survival.

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

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that as well as marking the need for a much bolder and more ambitious resettlement programme, this disaster must mark a turning point for our failed asylum system, in particular by getting rid of the so-called hostile environment and the Nationality and Borders Bill, under which a women fleeing the Taliban with her children on a boat across the channel would be criminalised? Does he agree that that Bill must now be revised?

[Keir Starmer]

I will come on to the specifics of the system. Yet again, the Government seem ill-prepared and unwilling, just as they have been too slow to provide sanctuary to Afghans who have served alongside Britain. There have been too many reports of eligible Afghans facing bureaucratic hurdles, and too many are being unfairly excluded. Having known for months that the date of withdrawal was coming, the Home Office is not close to completing the process that it has already got up and running. The process was designed to help 7,000 people, yet Home Office figures this week showed that only 2,000 have been helped so far.

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

The point that I wanted to make to the Prime Minister was about the situation facing Afghan Sikhs. I know from my constituency casework that there are Afghan Sikhs in the system who are waiting for clearance from the Home Office; I call on the Government to process them as quickly as possible and not leave all those people in the system waiting any longer than they have to at the moment. They are terrified by the idea of being sent back home, and despite the reassurance given to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), I do not see any movement from the Home Office to give them the legal status that they need.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. Members on both sides of the House have given examples of individuals and groups who are very obviously at risk in Afghanistan and need to come out as quickly as possible. That is why the question arises as to what is behind the 5,000 number, and why others are having to wait so long.

The scale of the refugee crisis requires an international response, but we must lead it, and lead with a resettlement programme that meets the scale of the challenge. The scheme must be generous and welcoming. If it is not, we know the consequences now: violent reprisals in Afghanistan; people tragically fleeing into the arms of human traffickers—we know that that is what will happen—and more people risking and losing their lives on unsafe journeys, including across the English channel. We cannot betray our friends. We must lead.

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

The right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of people fleeing, but we have yet to assess whether anyone outside Kabul is able to get to a place of safety. Does he agree that a safe corridor needs to be opened to an international border so that those who are not near Kabul can also get to safety via third countries?

[Keir Starmer]

There is huge concern, as all hon. Members will know, about our line of sight beyond Kabul at the moment. Again, that calls into question where the 5,000 number comes from, because at the moment we are not even in a position to assess the position outside Kabul. We cannot betray our friends. We must lead.

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

Were the Government of this kingdom to be overthrown by a wicked and brutal regime, I venture that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would want a leading role in the resistance. He would not be queuing at the airport, would he?

[Keir Starmer]

When I was Director of Public Prosecutions, some of my prosecutors in Afghanistan were at huge risk, working on counter-terrorism with other brave souls there, so I will not take that from the right hon. Gentleman or from anybody else.

Once the immediate challenges are addressed, we face an uncertain and difficult future. The Taliban are back in control and we cannot be naive about the consequences. We have lost our primary source of leverage in political discussions, and everything that we have achieved in the past 20 years is now under threat.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I will make some progress and then give way.

The Prime Minister is right to say that we cannot allow Afghanistan to become a training ground for violent hate and terrorism, but that will be more difficult now that Afghanistan has descended into chaos. If preventing al-Qaeda camps is now the limit of our ambition, we are betraying 20 years of sacrifice by our armed forces and we are betraying the Afghan people, who cannot be left to the cruelty of the Taliban.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

My right hon. and learned Friend speaks about the lack of ambition and urgency, and that summarises everything about the Government’s approach to this crisis and many others. Is it not telling that when we had an Afghan Government whom we wanted to support, the UK Government cut the amount of overseas aid that we sent, but now that the Taliban are in charge, the Government are talking about increasing the amount of overseas aid?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. I will come to the question of aid in just a minute, because it is a very important point in the context of what has happened in recent weeks and months.

[John Redwood]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I am going to make some progress and then I will give way.

We have to use every tool that remains at our disposal to protect human rights in Afghanistan. The Government are right not to recognise the Taliban as the official Government—the Prime Minister has made that clear—but that must be part of a wider strategy, developed with our UN security partners and our NATO allies, to apply pressure on the Taliban not only to stamp out a resurgence of terror groups, but to retain the liberties and human rights of Afghans. We must work with Afghans and neighbours to ensure that there is consistent pressure, and there must be a UN-backed plan to ensure that our aid budget is used to support humanitarian causes in Afghanistan, not to fund the Taliban.

This is a difficult task with no guarantee of success, so it should concern us all that the Prime Minister’s judgment on Afghanistan has been appalling. Nobody believes that Britain and our allies could have remained in Afghanistan indefinitely, or that Britain could have fought alone. NATO leaders were put in a difficult position after President Trump agreed with the Taliban that all US forces would withdraw by May 2021. But that agreement was made in February 2020—18 months ago. We have had 18 months to prepare and plan for the consequences of what followed—to plan and to prepare for the resettlement of refugees and those who have supported us; for supporting the Afghan Government in managing the withdrawal; and for securing international and regional pressure on the Taliban and support for the Afghan Government. The very problems we are confronting today have been known problems for the last 18 months, and there has been a failure of preparation.

The lack of planning is unforgivable, and the Prime Minister bears a heavy responsibility. He mutters today, but he was in a position to lead and he did not. Britain holds a seat at the United Nations Security Council. We are a key player in NATO. We are chair of the G7. Every one of those platforms could and should have been used to prepare for the withdrawal of forces, and to rally international support behind a plan to stabilise Afghanistan through the process and keep us safe.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I will give way in a minute.

Did the Prime Minister use those platforms in those 18 months to prepare? No, he did not. What did he do instead? We debated this: he cut the development budget, which was key to the strength and resilience of democracy in Afghanistan. He makes a great deal today of the money he is putting in, but £292 million was spent in Afghanistan in 2019, and £155 million in 2021. That is short-sighted, small-minded and a threat to security.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I will give way in a moment, but I am going to go through this list. The right hon. Gentleman failed to visit Afghanistan as Prime Minister, meaning that his last trip—as Foreign Secretary, in 2018—was not to learn or to push British interests, but to avoid a vote on Heathrow. Hundreds of thousands of British people have flown to Afghanistan to serve; the Prime Minister flew to avoid public service.

The list goes on. In March this year the Prime Minister published an integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy. It was a huge review. He boasted that the review would

“demonstrate to our allies, in Europe and beyond, that they can always count on the UK when it really matters.”

The Afghan Government were an ally, yet the integrated review made just two passing references to Afghanistan. The review did not even mention the Taliban. It did not mention NATO withdrawal or the consequences of the Doha agreement. It did cut the size of the Army—the very force that we are now relying on—and we criticised that at the time. Eye off the ball; astonishingly careless. The question is: why was the Prime Minister so careless? Why did he fail to lead? It comes down to complacency and poor judgment.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Starmer]

I will give way in a moment; I am going to make this case.

There was a calculation that withdrawal would lead to military stalemate in Afghanistan and that that stalemate would accelerate political discussions. Seeing this in July, Members on both sides of this House warned the Government—read Hansard—that they may be underestimating the threat of the Taliban. That was ignored, and the Government’s preparation for withdrawal was based on a miscalculation of the resilience of the Afghan forces and a staggering complacency about the Taliban threat.

The Prime Minister is as guilty as anyone. This Sunday he said:

“We’ve known for a long time that this was the way things were going”.

That was not what he told the House in July, when he stood there and assured Members that

“there is no military path to victory for the Taliban”,

and went on to say:

“I do not think that the Taliban are capable of victory by military means”. —[Official Report, 8 July 2021; Vol. 698, c. 1108, 1112.]

The British Government were wrong and complacent, the Prime Minister was wrong and complacent and, when he was not rewriting history, the Prime Minister was displaying the same appalling judgment and complacency last week.

The British ambassador’s response to the Taliban arriving at the gates of Kabul was to personally process the paperwork for those who needed to flee. He is still there and we thank him and his staff. The Prime Minister’s response to the Taliban arriving at the gates of Kabul was to go on holiday—no sense of the gravity of the situation; no leadership to drive international efforts on the evacuation. The Foreign Secretary shakes his head. [Interruption.] What would I do differently? I would not stay on holiday while Kabul was falling. There are numerous examples of leaders on both sides of the House who have come back immediately in a time of crisis. [Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary is shouting now, but he was silent—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Prime Minister was heard and I want to hear the Leader of the Opposition. I do not want people to shout. You may disagree, but you may also wish to catch my eye. Do not ruin that chance.

[Keir Starmer]

The Foreign Secretary shouts now, but he stayed on holiday while our mission in Afghanistan was disintegrating. He did not even speak to ambassadors in the region as Kabul fell to the Taliban. Let that sink in. You cannot co-ordinate an international response from the beach. This was a dereliction of duty by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and a Government totally unprepared for the scenario that they had 18 months to prepare for. It is one thing for people to lose trust in the Prime Minister at home, but when the trust in the word of our Prime Minister is questioned abroad, there are serious consequences for our safety and security at home.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

In one moment.

Recent events in Afghanistan shame the west—and not just the scenes of chaos. What does our abandonment of the Afghan people say to those brave people around the world living under regimes that pay scant regard to human rights but resisting those regimes in pursuit of democracy, equality and individual freedom? What does this retreat from freedom signal to those who are prepared to stand up for it? What does this surrender to extremism mean for those prepared to face it down? What does it mean for those nations who support an international rules-based system when we hand over power to those who recognise no rules at all? That is the challenge of our time.

The British and Afghan people will have to live with the consequences of the Prime Minister’s failure. We have fought for 20 years to rid Afghanistan of terror—terror that threatens our security here in Britain and liberty in Afghanistan. The Taliban are back in control. The Prime Minister has no plan to handle the situation, just as he had no plan to prevent it. What we won through 20 years of sacrifice could all be lost. That is the cost of careless leadership.