Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we begin, I believe it would assist the House if I remind Members of the decision in question and the procedure on this motion. The decision before the House is whether or not to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges at this time. It will be for the Committee to report back on whether it considers there has been a contempt. While it is perfectly in order for hon. Members to question the veracity of the Prime Minister’s responses to the House cited in the motion, it is not in order to challenge more generally the truthfulness of the Prime Minister or any other hon. or right hon. Member. Good temper and moderation must be maintained in parliamentary language.

Much of what might be said today has already been said in response to the Prime Minister’s statement on Tuesday. Previous debates on such motions have been relatively short. Since 2010, the longest such debate has been for one hour and 29 minutes, and debates have been as short as seven minutes. That said, an amendment has been selected and the motion is of great importance. The debate may continue for as long as it takes unless either there is a successful closure motion to bring the debate to an end or we reach 5 o’clock, in which case the debate will be adjourned to a future day. I would also say that if the debate becomes very repetitive, we may have to consider whether to do closure earlier, but I will leave that to how the debate develops. Any Members who wish to speak need to stand to ensure that they catch my eye at the beginning of the debate.

The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has tabled a motion for debate on the matter of privilege, which I have agreed should take precedence today. I inform the House that although I have selected the amendment in the name of the Minister for the Cabinet Office, I understand that it is now the Government’s intention not to move it. I call Keir Starmer to move the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I lost my mother to covid in the first lockdown. It was a very painful experience because she was in a hospital bed and, as we obeyed the rules, we could not be by her side when she passed. I have made my disquiet known to the Prime Minister a couple of times, and he has taken that on board. I am deeply unhappy about how No. 10 performed over the period in question. However, I suggest to the right hon. and learned Member that it is perfectly natural in this country to weigh all the evidence before deciding on intent. As the central issue is whether the Prime Minister misled Parliament, does he agree that, in us all accepting that the matter should be referred to the Privileges Committee, that Committee needs to weigh all the evidence before coming to a decision, and that that includes the Sue Gray report?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I say to Members that interventions are meant to be short? If you are on the list to speak and you intervene—I know that the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) is not and would not want to be as he has made his speech—you will go down the list.

[Keir Starmer]

I am sorry for the loss in the hon. Member’s family. We all send our condolences. I know how difficult it has been for so many during this period. In relation to the substantive intervention, I have two points, which I will develop later. First, there is already a clear case before the House: the Prime Minister said “no…rules were broken”, and 50 fines for breaking the rules and the law have already been issued, so there is already a reasonable case. Secondly—I understand the sentiment behind the intervention—if the motion is passed, the Committee will not begin its substantive work until the police investigations are complete, so it will have all the evidence before it, one way or the other, to come to a view. That is within the body of the motion and is the right way; the way it should work. I hope that addresses the concerns raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

That is a shame. I thought that we were having a reasonably serious debate—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) needs to sit down. In fairness to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), he has taken a lot of interventions, but I certainly do not need her standing up and waiting to catch somebody’s eye.

[Keir Starmer]

If the debate descends into a shouting match, Mr Speaker, we lose the principle that is there to defend all of us, including all the Conservative Members. We are not claiming a principle to support those on the Opposition Benches and not those on the Government Benches; it is a principle that supports us all. If we fail—

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I agree. We have a duty here today, in relation to this motion and these principles. If we fail in that duty, the public will not forgive and forget, because this will be the Parliament that failed—failed to stand up for honesty, integrity and telling the truth in politics; failed to stand up to a Prime Minister who seeks to turn our good faith against us; and failed to stand up for our great democracy.

It is not just the eyes of our country that are upon us. There will also be the judgment of future generations, who will look back at what Members of this great House did when our customs were tested, when its traditions were pushed to breaking point, and when we were called to stand up for honesty, for integrity and for truth.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

Part of this is about the Prime Minister. My habit over 46 years has been not to make a public or private comment about a party leader, whether mine or someone else’s, and I do not propose to change that now. If I have something to say to a Prime Minister, I say it directly, as I did first with Harold Wilson, and have done with most other Prime Ministers since then.

My preference would be to back the amendment, but if it is not going to be moved, I cannot do so. This is not the right time for the House to make a decision. The words in the amendment are ones that I would support, and I am sorry that the House will not be able to consider them. I may be in the minority in that, but that is not a problem in the House; it happens to a lot of people.

The words in the third paragraph of the Prime Minister’s statement on Tuesday spell out the situation: he said that he did not think, in effect, that it was a party, or that the rules had been broken. He now accepts that the situation has been judged differently by the police. I do not think we should build a great big cake on top of that admission and acceptance; the House would do better to leave it like that.

It would also be better—I am not challenging you, Mr Speaker—if the House decided that the reference to the Committee on Privileges should be made when all the information is available from the Cabinet Office report and the results of the police investigation.

The last thing I want to say—without attacking the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting)—is that those who heard the “Today” programme this morning heard repeated references to the local government elections on 5 May. Whatever the Leader of the Opposition says, part of what is before the House today is a straightforward attempt to gain party political advantage, and I intend to have no part of that.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the leader of the Scottish National party, Ian Blackford.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

I will come on to that in a little more detail, but the Tory MPs who are here, and those who are not here for whatever reason, should show some moral fibre and show a backbone. They should recognise what this Prime Minister is doing to the very fabric of our democracy. Today of all days, they should do the right thing and support this motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and of the leaders of so many other parties in this House.

We should not forget that, when the Tories put this Prime Minister into Downing Street nearly three years ago—[Interruption.] Actually it was the Conservatives who elected Boris Johnson as their leader. The important fact is that the Tories knew exactly the kind of person they were putting into the highest office in the land. They knew his track record; they knew his character; they knew who he was and what he was; and they still chose him as their leader. Conservative Members know better than anyone else in the House that a trail of scandal and lawbreaking was always going to define his time in office.

In three short years, those who made those predications have unfortunately not been disappointed. The sleaze and the scandal has been ten a penny. From lying to the Queen to illegally proroguing Parliament—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have to be careful. I have asked for moderate, more temperate language. I am not having the Queen brought into it. Withdraw that point.

[Ian Blackford]

In deference to you, Mr Speaker, I will do so.

Let us not forget the fact that the Prime Minister was found by the highest court in the land to have illegally prorogued this Parliament.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I said this at the beginning, and I know the right hon. Gentleman will want to stick to what I said. We cannot go beyond the terms of the debate. I know he is very good and can stick to the script that I have explained.

[Ian Blackford]

I will happily take your guidance, Mr Speaker. Of course, we will reflect on the Supreme Court’s judgment.

Stuffing the House of Lords with Tory party donors, VIP lanes for covid contracts, and even dodgy donations to decorate Downing Street—this is who the Prime Minister is. It is who he has always been. As Prime Minister, he has done exactly what it says on the tin. The real point is that as the days pass with him staying in power, it is who the entire Conservative party has become.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

How we get confession from a Prime Minister who denies everything, I just do not know.

Mr Speaker, I know you will understand that I cannot let this moment pass without a special word for the spineless Scottish Tories. In fairness, the Scottish Tory leader is probably the only person in the Conservative party who finds himself in a deeper hole than the Prime Minister. In fact, he is so far down a political hole that he obviously found it impossible to dig his way out and make it down to London to vote his boss out tonight. I understand that plenty of people back home are looking forward to the Scottish Tories being given a straight red in the council elections in a few weeks. [Interruption.] There we go again. I hope people in Scotland are watching, because what we see is the Conservatives trying to shout down parliamentarians in this House. That is what is happening.

For most people, it is very understandable—[Interruption.] There is Scotland’s answer from the Tories: “Let’s shout Scotland down.” That is what they are doing this afternoon. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can we just calm down? I want to hear the right hon. Gentleman, and I know he wants to get back on track. He does not want to distract from this important debate.

[Ian Blackford]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

It is understandable that most people’s main reaction to the flip-flopping Scottish Tory leader and his support for the Prime Minister is disbelief and justified anger. I have to admit that, when I reflect on the position of the Scottish Tory leader, my main reaction is something I know he will appreciate far less. I actually feel sorry for him, because he is by no means the first person to have his career ruined by the Prime Minister. That pile of people is a mountain high. Everybody, and I mean everybody, is eventually thrown under the Boris bus. As we saw yesterday, not even the Archbishop of Canterbury is safe. Clearly, the days of the Church of England being the Conservative party at prayer are long gone. The Prime Minister’s party is obviously praying to another god these days, although no doubt even that will not guarantee its salvation.

But in all seriousness, that unjustified attack on the archbishop gives another toxic insight into the thinking and methodology of this Prime Minister. His modus operandi is very simple: when he finds himself under political pressure, he finds someone else to blame—anyone else, just as long as he never takes responsibility himself, because nothing and nobody else matters. The only thing that does matter is that this Prime Minister will stop at nothing to save his own skin. That is why Conservative Members should not save him today. Think about it: he would not even lift his finger to help them. So if they have any self-respect, they need to ask themselves why they should even be contemplating walking through the Lobby for him.

Let me end on this point. It might surprise hon. Members to hear, from a party that is unapologetically seeking out of this very institution and out of this Parliament, that I actually do care how it acts and operates, and about the values it holds. I care deeply for this reason. Today’s motion is not just about this Parliament or about this place. We should all know by now that democracy and decency are under assault the world over. If we fail to defend these values in every single institution we are part of, these values will decay and decline. It was George Orwell who famously said:

“Political chaos is connected with the decay of language”.

I know that people are deeply fearful about just how real that prophesy has felt in the last few years because, when language decays, so does the truth and so does trust in our politics. A Prime Minister who cannot be trusted with the truth marks the end of that dangerous decline. So if today is about anything, it has to be about finally ending that decline.

That decline did not start with this Prime Minister, but it needs to end with him. We should all be very clear as to what the consequences are if this House fails to act today. If we don’t act—if we don’t stop—this Parliament will be endorsing a new normal in this Parliament and across our politics: a new normal where no one is held responsible, no one is held to account and no one ever resigns. That is exactly why this motion matters, because it can and it will only ever become a new normal if we put up with it. It only becomes normal if those responsible are not held to account and are not made to answer for their actions. So I genuinely say to Members from across the House, but especially those Members opposite: if they have any interest in maintaining some dignity and decency in public life, they should finally hold this Prime Minister to account for his actions and remove him from office. They should support this motion, they should submit their letters of no confidence and they should finally show this Prime Minister the door.

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

Thank you for calling me so early in this debate to deliver my sermon, Mr Speaker. If I may, by means of parish notices, let me wish Her Majesty a happy 96th birthday.

My intention was to vote against the Government’s amendment and that would still be my intention were it to be moved. I appreciate the efforts by my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip to find a way through—he is somebody we are lucky to have in his role—but we were at risk of making a mistake. The original motion is perfectly acceptable and allows for much of the spirit of the amendment. For example, the publication of the Gray report would be automatic upon the conclusion of the Metropolitan police’s work. There was no need to complicate matters.

The Ukraine situation is of huge importance, but the invasion of a sovereign nation by a dictatorial aggressor should not be a reason why we should accept lower standards ourselves. I have told the Prime Minister to his face that I think he is doing a good job in robustly supporting the Ukrainian Government. Her Majesty’s Government, along with our nation, can be proud of their role and generosity. Let us give credit where credit is due. However, much as I may have tried, I cannot reconcile myself to the Prime Minister’s continued leadership of our country and the Conservative party. I say this by means of context, so that everyone, particularly my constituents and colleagues, can understand my position, without hiding my views with ever more elaborate disguises. To those constituents who disagree with me, I say that I appreciate their anger, just as I can appreciate the anger of colleagues. However, say what you mean and mean what you say.

I submitted my letter of no confidence to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) in December last year. I did so for the following reason. It followed the leak of the Allegra Stratton mock press conference video. I believe that in that video she did nothing wrong. She nervously laughed and sought to make light of an embarrassing situation. To see her crying on her doorstep, feeling the full weight of responsibility and anger of a country, was deeply moving and I felt immensely sorry for her. I hope that she is well and will be able to continue her distinguished career. But what alarmed me most was that, later that evening, a press preview of the winter covid plan B measures was brought forward to try to move matters on. We debated those measures at length, but we can agree, if not on their extent or importance, that they none the less sought to compel or restrict what people in this country could do. I therefore thought to myself: if a Government were prepared to bring such measures forward earlier in order to distract from their own embarrassment, the Prime Minister was no longer fit to govern.

I care deeply about my colleagues. I know that a number are struggling at the moment. We have been working in a toxic atmosphere. The parliamentary party bears the scars of misjudgments of leadership. There can be few colleagues on this side of the House who are truly enjoying being Members of Parliament at the moment. It is utterly depressing to be asked to defend the indefensible. Each time, part of us withers.

I have questioned my place in this party in recent months and perhaps that is symptomatic of a swathe of our voters in the country, but I tell them firmly that I am not going anywhere and I urge them to stick with us in the forthcoming elections. But for us to maintain their trust and confidence, we must be seen to do the right thing. It is our responsibility—it is the Conservative parliamentary party’s responsibility. We must stop delegating and delaying our political judgment. We each only have our own limited and imperfect integrity. We cannot keep spending it on others whom we cannot be sure will not let us down.

I have great empathy for all those who worked at No. 10 and in the Cabinet Office. They bore an immense burden and worked under the most intense pressure. They worked hard and made sacrifices. I extend that same empathy to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who knows more than most the personal challenges and personal battles that came from the pandemic. But the matter before us is one at the heart of this institution, of our Parliament.

I love this place, believing it to be a place of high ideals and purpose. What is said here matters. Quite apart from the Facebook clips about roundabouts and drains in our constituencies, or indeed the confected anger to wind people up, it should be a place venerated by those of us given the singular honour of being sent here. Of course it can be a pantomime, a farce, turgidly boring and obscure, but it should always be reasonably honest. It is for that, I hope not naive, principle that I cannot support the amendment and I will vote for the motion. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Come on, Mr McDonnell—you have been here longer than most people! We do not want to clap after every speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member makes a good point. We have had some discussions about that issue outside the Chamber. The difficulty is that I am not sure that is a matter for the Standards Committee or the Privileges Committee; I think it is a matter for the Committee on Procedure. There is a good argument for putting something in place so that there is a right of reply. I cannot go further, for reasons of which the hon. Gentleman may be aware—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not want to open up that area of debate. I know exactly what is going on—we can leave that part of it there.

[Chris Bryant]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

My second point about fair process is that it is actually quite a high bar that the Privileges Committee will have to consider. As the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, I do not think it is debated that the House was misled. I think even the Prime Minister admits, in effect, that the House was misled. It was said that rules were not broken and it is self-evident that rules were broken, so the House was misled—it got a false impression. The question is whether that was intentional. The Committee will have to devise ways to investigate whether there was an intention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I think the hon. Gentleman is agreeing with me, so—

[Mr Speaker]

We will leave it at that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Unless I misheard the right hon. Gentleman, he has just said that I wrote something—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. He says he did not, so that clears that mess up.

[Ed Davey]

Instead, Conservative MPs have so far ducked their responsibility, only eroding that public trust and confidence even further.

The Solicitor General, for example, once said that his red line for resignation from the Government was if there was a “scintilla of a suggestion” of unlawful action. Well, the Prime Minister has been fined by the police, yet the hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) is still drawing his Government salary. By keeping the Prime Minister in his job, Conservative MPs have made themselves guilty by association. They should know that if they vote to kick the can down the road again, if they vote to bend the rules to let one of their own off the hook again, if they do not hold this Prime Minister to account for his law-breaking and lies by voting him out, their constituents will hold them to account at the ballot box.

Perhaps the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) should listen to the vet in his constituency who says:

“If I broke the rules and lied about it, I would get struck off. So why hasn’t the Prime Minister been?”

Lifelong Conservative voters in Guildford are saying they cannot vote for the Conservatives any more. Conservative Members complain about elections; the problem is that if they will not hold this Prime Minister to account, the electorate will have to hold this Prime Minister to account.

A constituent of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) tells me that his MP—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are mentioning a load of Members and Members’ constituents. I hope the Members were notified that they were going to be namechecked.

[Ed Davey]

I am sorry but I have not notified them. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Shh. So I would suggest that we do not name any more unless the Members are aware of it. It is only fair that we do that.

[Ed Davey]

I take your ruling, Mr Speaker. I was quoting from their constituents. That was the point, so that their voices could be heard in this House.

The past 24 hours have shown that the Government are in total disarray. Conservative MPs are clearly too ashamed to back the Prime Minister but still too complicit to sack him. The people each of us represent know the truth. They know the Prime Minister deliberately misled them and deliberately misled this House. It is an insult to their constituents, especially bereaved families in their seats, and it will be another Conservative stain on our democracy. If Conservative Members fail to sack this Prime Minister, they will leave the British people no choice. In the council elections on 5 May, let alone the next general election, it will become the patriotic duty of every voter to send this Conservative Government a message that enough is enough by voting against them. The Prime Minister has held this House, and the whole country, in contempt for far too long. Now it must be this House’s turn to hold him in contempt.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

Of course, we want an expansion of renewables across the country, but I point my hon. Friend to the energy security strategy, which sets out our plan to ensure more rooftop solar, not just on commercial buildings but on public sector property.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Dr Alan Whitehead.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

The COP26 President acknowledges the tremendous contribution that solar has made and can make to the achievement of our net zero goals. I am sure that he also acknowledges that it is now one of the renewables that is cheapest and most quickly installed, so why are the Government ignoring its future development, having devastated the industry a few years back by precipitously withdrawing all support for development, and doing nothing to ease the penal planning restrictions on both domestic and ground-mounted solar installations? He says merely that he expects installations to increase fivefold by 2035, but without providing any support to allow that expectation to become a reality. Is it not time that the Government took seriously the contribution that solar can make to net zero targets?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and his Ministers are, of course, working on that. Again, at an international level, we are looking to start an agriculture breakthrough, so that we have a global focus on this issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Deidre Brock.

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

Facebook promoted ads containing outright climate falsehoods and scepticism during COP26, and it is reported that fossil fuel companies and lobbying groups spent an estimated $574,000 on Facebook ads during the summit, resulting in more than 22 million impressions. Many of these ads were directly aimed at undermining efforts to achieve climate progress. Does the COP26 President agree that the best way such businesses can help in the fight against climate change is to put the planet before their profits and come down hard on the climate naysayers? What action has he been taking to address that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

The hon. Gentleman has eloquently raised a number of domestic policy issues and I know that the Energy Minister would be happy to write to him on all of them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow COP26 President.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

The recent climate assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was deeply worrying, saying that current global policies will lead to warming of more than 3°, but it also offered hope in the dramatic fall in the price of renewables, which means they are now the right choice for cheap energy and to tackle the climate crisis. Given that onshore wind is the cheapest, cleanest, quickest form of power to deliver and is also supported by a large majority of the public in the UK, will the COP26 President explain why the Government persist—including in their recent strategy—with planning policies that in effect block onshore wind in England?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

As I have said, we want to see a managed transition. That is not going to happen overnight. My right hon. Friend will also know that we have set out in our domestic energy security strategy that future licensing rounds will have to be compatible with the climate compatibility checkpoint, which will be set out shortly.

[Mr Speaker]

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

The Prime Minister was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. He is a great champion for rural Cumbria and for bus services. He is right that Cumbria got another £1.5 million for buses. We want to put more into buses—I believe in them passionately myself—and I will ensure he has a meeting with the relevant Minister.

[Mr Speaker]

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

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

I join the Prime Minister in wishing Her Majesty a happy birthday.

Why did the Prime Minister’s press secretary Allegra Stratton have to resign from her job?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, Mr Speaker, I have been absolutely clear that I humbly accept what the police have said. I have paid the fixed penalty notice. What I think the country, and the whole House, would really rather do is get on with the things for which we were elected and deliver on our promises to the British people. [Interruption.] You could not have clearer evidence of the intellectual bankruptcy of Labour. [Interruption.]They have no plans for energy, they have no plans for social care—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

And they have no plans to fix the economy.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Prime Minister, sit down. I want to hear what you have got to say, but I cannot hear when you talk in that way. I am here in the Chair: please, if you can help me.

[The Prime Minister]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

No, I think we have had enough.

[Keir Starmer]

The state of it—the party of Peel and Churchill reduced to shouting and screaming in defence of this lawbreaker. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Now then, that is the last time. That Peroni that was just asked about—the hon. Member might have to go and take it. I do not want to hear any more, or else they will be drinking it.

[Keir Starmer]

Yesterday’s apology lasted for as long as the Prime Minister thought necessary to be clipped for the news. But once the cameras were off, the Prime Minister went to see his Back Benchers and he was back to blaming everyone else. He even said that the Archbishop of Canterbury had not been critical enough of Putin. In fact, the archbishop called Putin’s war

“an act of great evil”,

and the Church of England has led the way in providing refuge to those fleeing. Would the Prime Minister like to take this opportunity to apologise for slandering the archbishop and the Church of England?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

How many has he had? Mr Speaker —[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Prime Minister, just a second. I want to hear the Prime Minister’s answers. I expect it both ways.

[The Prime Minister]

It is an indication of the depths to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is willing to sink that he accuses me—[Interruption.] He accuses me of traducing journalists. What he says is completely without any foundation whatever. I did not attack the BBC last night for their coverage of Ukraine. He must be out of his tiny mind. I said no such thing, and there are people behind me who will testify to that. He is completely wrong. That is the limit of his willingness to ask sensible questions today.

This Government are getting on with the serious problems that require attention, such as fixing our energy supply issues and, by the way, undoing the damage of the Labour Government, who did not invest in nuclear power for 13 years, with a nuclear power station every year. We are standing up to Putin, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have elected a Putin apologist—that is what he wanted to do, and he campaigned to do that. We are fixing our economy, with record numbers of people now in work, productivity back above what it was, and over half a million more people on the payroll than there were before the pandemic began. That is as a result of the decisions—the tough calls—that this Government have made. We get on with the job, while they flip-flop around like flounders on the beach.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. I am very pleased to hear about the work that Govox is doing to support mental health and wellbeing, and we are putting more money into mental healthcare support—an extra £2.3 billion a year in the next financial year, which of course we can supply thanks to the decisions taken by this Government, which the Labour party opposed.

[Mr Speaker]

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

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

May I join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in wishing Her Majesty the Queen best wishes for her birthday tomorrow?

Last night, the Prime Minister may have convinced his Back Benchers and his spineless Scottish Tories to keep him in place for another few weeks, but the public are not so easily fooled. Eighty-two per cent. of people in Scotland said that they believed the Prime Minister lied to this Parliament, and to the public, about his law-breaking covid parties. Are they right, or should they not believe their lying eyes?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q6. This Conservative Government are raising taxes on working people in the middle of a cost of living crisis. May I press the Prime Minister on whether he agrees that it would add insult to injury if his Chancellor or any other Government Ministers were to benefit from overseas tax havens in their personal tax affairs?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. You are not responsible for that, Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

Good point, Mr Speaker, but we are responsible for cutting taxes for everybody, which is what we are actually doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

When are the Scottish people going to hear—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Prime Minister, sit down.

[The Prime Minister]

Sorry, Mr Speaker. When are the Scottish people going to hear an ounce of sense from the Scottish nationalist—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Prime Minister, we cannot both stand up at the same time. I am trying to be helpful. We have got to be more moderate in the type of language used. “Pinocchio” is not acceptable. I am sure the hon. Member wishes to withdraw it quickly.

[Richard Thomson]

Mr Speaker, I withdraw that, but he packs his bags and goes.

[Hon. Members]

That is not a withdrawal.

[Mr Speaker]

You have withdrawn it?

[Richard Thomson]

I withdraw.

[Mr Speaker]

Withdrawn. Let’s get on. Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

Sorry, Mr Speaker, but I do not know what the question is, because the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn it. The answer is that we are going to get on with the job, and it would be nice to hear an ounce of sense from the Scottish nationalist party, or see some competent government.

Easter Recess: Government Update

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2022 Commons Chamber

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

What a joke!

Even now, as the latest mealy-mouthed apology stumbles out of one side of the Prime Minister’s mouth, a new set of deflections and distortions pours from the other. But the damage is already done. The public have made up their minds. They do not believe a word that the Prime Minister says. They know what he is.

As ever with this Prime Minister, those close to him find themselves ruined and the institutions that he vows to protect damaged: good Ministers forced to walk away from public service; the Chancellor’s career up in flames; the leader of the Scottish Conservatives rendered pathetic. Let me say to all those unfamiliar with this Prime Minister’s career that this is not some fixable glitch in the system; it is the whole point. It is what he does. It is who he is. He knows he is dishonest and incapable of changing, so he drags everybody else down with him. [Interruption.] The more people debase themselves, parroting—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I cannot hear what is being said because there is so much noise. [Interruption.] Mr Fabricant, I am all right.

[Hon. Members]

Withdraw!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. What I will say is that I think the Leader of the Opposition used the word “dishonest”, and I do not consider that appropriate. [Hon. Members: “Breaking the rules!”] We do not want to talk about breaking rules, do we? I do not think this is a good time to discuss that.

I am sure that if the Leader of the Opposition withdraws that word and works around it, he will be able—given the knowledge he has gained over many, many years—to use appropriate words that are in keeping with the good, temperate language of this House.

[Keir Starmer]

I respect that ruling from the Chair, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister knows what he is. As I was saying, he drags everyone else down with him. The more people debase themselves, parroting his absurd defences, the more the public will believe that all politicians are the same, all as bad as each other—and that suits this Prime Minister just fine.

Some Conservative Members seem oblivious to the Prime Minister’s game. Some know what he is up to but are too weak to act, while others are gleefully playing the part that the Prime Minister cast for them. A Minister said on the radio this morning, “It is the same as a speeding ticket.” No, it is not. No one has ever broken down in tears because they could not drive faster than 20 miles an hour outside a school. Do not insult the public with this nonsense!

As it happens, however, the last Minister who got a speeding ticket, and then lied about it, ended up in prison. I know, because I prosecuted him.

Last week, we were treated to a grotesque spectacle: one of the Prime Minister’s loyal supporters accusing teachers and nurses of drinking in the staff room during lockdown. Conservative Members can associate themselves with that if they want, but those of us who take pride in our NHS workers, our teachers, and every other key worker who got us through those dark days will never forget their contempt.

Plenty of people did not agree with every rule that the Prime Minister wrote, but they followed them none the less, because in this country we respect others. We put the greater good above narrow self-interest, and we understand that the rules apply to all of us. This morning I spoke to John Robinson, a constituent of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), and I want to tell the House his story.

When his wife died of covid, John and his family obeyed the Prime Minister’s rules. He did not see her in hospital; he did not hold her hand as she died. Their daughters and grandchildren drove 100 miles up the motorway, clutching a letter from the funeral director in case they were questioned by the police. They did not have a service in church, and John’s son-in-law stayed away because he would have been the forbidden seventh mourner. Does the Prime Minister not realise that John would have given the world to hold his dying wife’s hand, even if it was just for nine minutes? But he did not, because he followed the Prime Minister’s rules—rules that we now know the Prime Minister blithely, repeatedly and deliberately ignored. After months of insulting excuses, today’s half-hearted apology will never be enough for John Robinson. If the Prime Minister had any respect for John, and the millions like him who sacrificed everything to follow the rules, he would resign. But he will not, because he does not respect John, and he does not respect the sacrifice of the British public. He is a man without shame.

Looking past the hon. Member for Lichfield and the nodding dogs in the Cabinet, there are many decent hon. Members on the Conservative Benches who do respect John Robinson and do respect the British public. They know the damage that the Prime Minister is doing; they know that things cannot go on as they are; and they know that it is their responsibility to bring an end to this shameful chapter. Today I urge them once again not to follow in the slipstream of an out-of-touch, out-of-control Prime Minister. I urge them to put their conscience, their country and John Robinson first; to remove the Prime Minister from office; to bring decency, honesty and integrity back into our politics; and to stop the denigration of everything that this country stands for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the SNP, Ian Blackford.

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

Let us remind ourselves that, on 8 December 2021, the Prime Minister denied that any parties happened at No. 10 Downing Street—the very same parties that the police have now fined him for attending. People know by now that the rules of this House prevent me from saying that he deliberately and wilfully misled the House, but maybe today that matters little, because the public have already made up their mind.

YouGov polling shows that 75% of the British public, and 82% of people in Scotland, have made up their mind on the Prime Minister. The public know the difference between the truth and lying, and they know that the Prime Minister is apologising for one reason, and one reason only, and it is the only reason he ever apologises: because he has been caught. After months of denials, his excuses have finally run out of road, and so must his time in office. The Prime Minister has broken the very laws he wrote. His trying to argue that he did not know that he had broken his own laws would be laughable if it were not so serious. Prime Minister, you cannot hide behind advisers. He knows, we know and the dogs in the street know that the Prime Minister has broken the law. This is the first Prime Minister to be officially found to have broken the law in office—a lawbreaking Prime Minister. Just dwell on that: a Prime Minister who has broken the law and who remains under investigation for additional lawbreaking—not just a lawbreaker but a serial offender. If he has any decency, any dignity, he would not just apologise but resign.

The scale and the seriousness of the issues we all now face demand effective leadership from a Prime Minister who can be trusted. The Tory cost of living crisis and the war crimes being inflicted on the Ukrainian people need our full focus. In a time of crisis, the very least the public deserve is a Prime Minister they can trust to tell the truth. For this Prime Minister, that trust is broken and can never be fixed. The truth is that a majority of people across these islands will never against trust a single word he says.

The questions today are not so much for a Prime Minister desperately clinging on to power. The real question is for Tory Back Benchers: will they finally grow a spine and remove this person from office? Or is the Tory strategy about standing behind a Prime Minister whom the public cannot trust with the truth?

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

We have always known that the Prime Minister was only ever sorry because he was caught bang to rights. This latest spin about the Met having it wrong is designed to bully the Met and provide cover to his Back Benchers who do not have the bottle to sack him, but the country has already concluded that he is either a liar or an idiot—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I said we want temperate language. We have the motion on Thursday. That is a different matter. For today, we are not using language like that.

[Karl Turner]

I withdraw the word “liar”, Mr Speaker, but the electorate will have already decided. Everybody knows that the Prime Minister is a lawbreaker. If the Met has got the wrong end of the stick, why does he not challenge the penalties before the criminal courts and have his day in court?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have to say that things have to go through the Chair, not to the SNP.

[David Morris]

I totally agree, Mr Speaker. But do you know something else? Most importantly, this Prime Minister is leading the world against Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, and the G7 leaders all respect him for that. And more to the point, so does President Biden. Prime Minister, will you please carry on leading this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

rose—

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

—that got—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. No, I decide; I am sorry, you cannot take my job. You are the Back Bencher, I am in the Chair. We do not use the word “lie”. I explained that earlier and I stand by it, so I am sure you will withdraw it immediately.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The sentence is not about the Prime Minister, but I will withdraw it if you do not like that word, Mr Speaker.

Those were the things that got Jeffrey Archer, Fiona Onasanya and Chris Huhne kicked out of this place or forced to resign. Of course, I have no hope of the Prime Minister’s Front Benchers, who are tax-dodging, Russian-financed snowflakes, but I do have higher hopes for his Back Benchers, so how many Back Benchers should have their credibility destroyed in supporting the Prime Minister?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let us try and see if we can keep it temperate and moderate. “There was no individual mentioned, so therefore it was within the rules”—that is not what I would expect, but that is where we are.

[The Prime Minister]

I heard what the hon. Member said. I do not agree with it, and nor do I agree with what he said about those on the Front Bench.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Having read the Prime Minister’s apology, may I say on behalf of the people of Argyll and Bute, is that it? It is no wonder I have been inundated with emails from constituents who believe the Prime Minister has been treating them like fools. Typical of the emails I have received is one this morning from Cathy in Helensburgh, who described the Prime Minister as

“a self-serving, truth-twisting charlatan.”

Of course I would never use such language in this place, but Cathy’s assessment is absolutely correct. Does the Prime Minister recognise this to be a widely held view of his character?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have asked for moderate and temperate language; that is not a clever way of getting around that. I ask the hon. Gentleman to think long and hard before doing that again—and this might be a warning to others. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like to withdraw the way he put that.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Mr Speaker, with respect to you and the Chair, I withdraw the remarks I made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Energy bills are soaring, wages are falling and the cost of living crisis is getting worse and worse, but while my constituents are forced to choose between heating and eating, the Chancellor is benefiting from the non-dom tax loophole and 17 of the Prime Minister’s 22 Cabinet members have refused to deny that they or their families benefit from tax havens or non-dom status. They are laughing in our faces while robbing the public purse. So I ask the Prime Minister, how many more children need to go hungry at night before he stops putting the greed of his super-rich mates before the needs of ordinary people?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can the hon. Lady withdraw “robbing the public purse”? That is just not the case.

[Zarah Sultana]

Yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Surely it is not a new Member for the SNP? I call Jeff Smith.

[Jeff Smith]

It is so busy I could not find a space, Mr Speaker.

The event in question happened on 19 June 2020. Two days later, on 21 June, my constituent Steven’s partner died of cancer at home. In the weeks before that, she was in hospital. Steven said:

“When she needed me most, I was told I could not visit her because of the no visitors rule. In the texts I received from her, it was obvious that she needed somebody to just talk to and hold her hand.”

Steven obeyed the rules and, like so many people, he thinks the Prime Minister should stand down. The defence from Conservative Back Benchers seems to be that he cannot resign because we have a crisis in Ukraine. Does the Prime Minister think he is the only person on the Conservative Benches who is capable of leading the country through a crisis?

[Clive Efford]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

There is no point of order now—we are in the middle of statements.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Before the Russian invasion, the rationale for the national cyber strategy that we launched in December was to make the UK more resilient. As we have just discussed, that requires a whole of society approach, but it also requires specific action within Government, which is why I launched the further Government cyber strategy, working closely with the National Cyber Security Centre, which is a world leader in its field.

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Minister Rachel Hopkins.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister says that he is serious about eradicating Russian influence from our country, yet his Government have sat on their hands for two years, with the majority of recommendations of the Russia report still yet to be implemented. On cyber security, the Russia report exposed the complete lack of accountability within and across Government Departments when it comes to cyber matters. New legislation has only made lines of responsibility more confusing. We are vulnerable. The National Cyber Security Centre has managed an unprecedented 777 cyber incidents over the last 12 months, up from 723 the previous year, with 40% aimed at the public sector. Either the Government are not taking the Russian cyber threat seriously, or the Minister does not have control of his own Department. Which is it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Government were facing an emergency. PPE was needed immediately. It was obviously right to order more than was necessary—that was fundamental. At the beginning of the pandemic, nobody knew precisely how much would be needed, but we knew we needed supplies. The Government succeeded in getting domestic production, excluding gloves, up from 1% to 70%.

The hon. Gentleman refers to 50% of suppliers having something faulty: all that means is that in a shipment that may have been of tonnes of PPE, one item was faulty. It does not mean that 50% of the items received were faulty. That is a fundamental error that people have been making in deliberately misunderstanding what the National Audit Office has said. Our duty was to get PPE in quickly. That was done properly, professionally and to the benefit of the nation.

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Minister Rachel Hopkins.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

The Minister talks about value for money, yet we know that the Government handed hundreds of millions of pounds of our money to an offshore company involving a Tory peer, created just days before and without any transparency, that sold Government PPE at three times the price it had bought it for. It is now in mediation because the PPE was not even fit for use. Millions of items are now stuck in storage, costing us even more.

The Government refuse even now to reveal what they know about the company in question, and our letters to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster go unanswered. Perhaps the Minister will answer this: when will we finally get the promised procurement Bill? What safeguards will be in it to stop yet more public money from being wasted and to end the so-called emergency bypassing of procurement regulations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Wheeler]

People are being asked to move either three miles or eight miles away. They are having one-to-one bespoke meetings asking them how they would like to carry on working. As I say, all 411 jobs will be staying in the civil service because such important back-office jobs are needed. People are being asked to find where the best place is for them to work. If they want to carry on working in other civil service jobs in the area, they can transfer.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come once again to shadow Minister Rachel Hopkins.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

I am on a roll, Mr Speaker. The last time I asked whether the Government are planning to sack hard-working civil servants, as the Minister for Government Efficiency has proposed, he sidestepped the question. Now we know why. The Government have since announced the closure of 41 DWP offices across the country, in the middle of an economic crisis and when their services are needed more than ever. All of the offices being closed entirely are outside London, and the vast majority are in the very areas that have been promised more investment. So much for levelling up.

Will the Minister now tell us just how many jobs are at risk? Will she guarantee that there will be no compulsory redundancies, and will she explain how this fits into the Government’s plan to reform the civil service?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is another NHS treatment disaster in the making, in that there may be 10,000 or more people who have suffered serious injury or even death as a result of adverse reactions to the covid-19 vaccinations? Will he give an assurance that those people will get justice immediately rather than have to wait for decades?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is a very weak link. Sir Christopher is usually better than that. I think that is a poor effort from him. Let us move on to Kate Osamor.

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

5. For what reason the public inquiry into the covid-19 pandemic will not hold public evidence hearings until 2023.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

We will bring forward a Brexit freedoms Bill to end the special status of retained EU law. It will accompany a major drive to reform, repeal and replace retained EU law, thereby cutting at least £1 billion-worth of red tape for UK businesses. The Government’s “The Benefits of Brexit” paper reinforced Departments’ commitments in response to TIGRR, and Departments are pushing ahead in delivering the recommendations in its report.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Chris Stephens. Not here.

[Theresa Villiers]

Will the Government make progress on the TIGRR recommendation to replace the EU clinical trials directive with a new modern framework to ensure that people can access life-saving treatments quickly and that our world-leading medical research sector can thrive?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman is joining thousands of readers of the Sun and of the Sunday Express in pointing out ways in which we can cut red tape further. There is more joy in heaven over the one sinner who repenteth than over the 99 who remain pure.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

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

The Financial Times has reported that the checks on food imports that were due to be introduced in July will be delayed yet again. In the middle of a Tory cost of living crisis and a period of food insecurity that may have short-term benefits, but, as the British Veterinary Association has highlighted, it is not sustainable, and it serves only to highlight the absurd claim that Brexit would reduce red tape. What possible Brexit opportunity can the Minister identify from delaying these checks yet again, because of the extreme harm they would have caused, and what long-term solutions are the Government exploring?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to topicals, where I suggest there are a lot of free hits, as we have quite a little bit of time.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

The Chancellor has asked businesses to think very carefully about any investments that would in any sense support Putin and his regime. However, this is pretty hypocritical given that he and his family are still making millions from Infosys, a company still trading out of Moscow. We need to be united in our opposition to Putin. It cannot be one rule for us and another for the Tory elite.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We cannot use the word “hypocritical”.

[Fleur Anderson]

I am so sorry.

[Mr Speaker]

Just withdraw it and that would be great.

[Fleur Anderson]

Thank you, Mr Speaker; I withdraw it.

But I would like to ask if there will be an investigation, or there has been an investigation, into whether the ministerial code has been broken in this instance and what action will be taken given the Chancellor’s failure to declare his family’s huge shareholdings in this company.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)]

Veterans make brilliant employees, which is why employment is at the heart of our veterans strategy. It is also why we have introduced national insurance contribution holidays for those who employ veterans and a guaranteed job interview for veterans who want to join the civil service. Of course, I join my hon. Friend in thanking the veterans in his constituency who have so generously contributed to our collective effort on behalf of Ukraine. I also thank him for the work he does in concert with his veteran community in Banff and Buchan. If time allows, I would be delighted to visit his very beautiful constituency.

[Mr Speaker]

The House of Commons has signed the covenant, and the House of Commons Service is open to veterans.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Every one of the 65 million or so people in these four nations who has a mobile phone, tablet, iPad or Alexa-enabled device is a potential target for hostile nations seeking to damage our cyber-security, but the National Cyber Force budget amounts to 10p a month for each of those citizens. What representations has the Minister made to the Chancellor to raise that budget to a more reasonable level?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

I concur with my hon. Friend that the Commonwealth is of huge importance. He is right to highlight that, but it fits within the wider strategy of the integrated review as part of global Britain, including building on defence ties such as with the Australian and US Governments through AUKUS. This brings significant defence opportunities, as well as opportunities for Treasury policy such as freeports and for our wider work through the Department for International Trade on free trade agreements. This is all part of global Britain, of which the Commonwealth is a key stakeholder.

[Mr Speaker]

I call James Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

My mother calls me James or Jim, so you can choose, Mr Speaker.

I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for all his answers. On the recent fears of Russian cyber-attack, what contact and security support is there for our banking sector? What financial help or assistance can be offered to keep our institutions free from Russian cyber attack?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I thank my hon. Friend for his brilliant and inspired question. There are obviously difficulties with the Northern Ireland protocol, which was set out in the agreement to be amendable, changeable and alterable, and that must be done. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is working on that and it is important to get it right, because nothing must undermine the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a single entity. That is the Government’s policy, that is the Government’s aim and that is what will happen.

[Mr Speaker]

That is the end of Cabinet Office questions. We now come to the urgent questions, as no statements were forthcoming.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mike Freer]

Actually, I secured the first Westminster Hall debate on the subject in 2015. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that, if it were easy, Governments would have done it before. We have taken time to analyse the results, and we have had a significant response. It is important that we get this right; that is why we are analysing the significant response and bringing forward the legislation later this spring.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I would also like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) for his incredible bravery. Can the Minister reassure me, and indeed the whole House, that legislation on conversion therapy will be introduced to this place prior to the conference that is scheduled to be hosted by the Government in the summer? Will he let us know how preparations for the conference are going?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend raises a very fair point. Both the national LGBT survey of over 100,000 LGBT people and the in-depth Coventry report demonstrated that violent and harmful talking conversion practices continue to take place. That is why we need to act.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the SNP spokesperson.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I would like to add my best wishes to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis). The Scottish Government are clear about the need to act to end conversion practices in Scotland. They have established an expert advisory group to inform their approach to banning this abhorrent practice. The group will include people with personal experience of conversion practice, representatives from LGBTI organisations, faith communities, mental health professionals and academics; it will meet for the first time tomorrow and complete its work by the summer, reflecting the Scottish Government’s recognition of the urgency of the issue. Given that the UK Government’s consultation on their proposed ban ended on 4 February, can the Minister confirm that the UK Government’s approach will be taken forward on a similarly inclusive and urgent basis?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gillian Keegan]

The passage of the Down Syndrome Bill has given a platform to many people with the condition. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman greatly enjoyed meeting actors, models and many other people with Down syndrome who showed how much they can achieve during the recent parliamentary events, and we look forward to continuing to showcase that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Taiwo Owatemi.

[Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

I, too, want to associate myself with the comments about the hon. Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis).

A constituent recently contacted me about her struggle with the cost of living crisis. She is the sole carer of a young daughter and, after 25 years of misdiagnosis, she has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. She is already struggling to make ends meet and now her energy bills are set to triple. Last week’s spring statement included nothing about mental health and barely mentioned disabilities, whereas Labour has a plan to ease the cost of living and provide mental health services for 1 million more people each year. Where is the Government’s plan to help the millions of people like my constituent?

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I commend the hon. Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) for his bravery in speaking out. We wish him all the best. I think I speak for everyone in the Chamber when I say that we are here to support him.

Disability charities estimate that the number of disabled people in fuel poverty could double this year. A constituent recently told me, “I stay in bed to keep warm and to keep up with my energy costs. I skip meals to cope with my grocery costs.” Will the Government and the Minister support our call to reinstate the £1,000 universal credit uplift and to keep in line—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call the Minister. Come on, this is far too long.

[Chloe Smith]

I assure the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) that I regularly meet many disabled people and disability organisations. I am aware of this issue and the natural anxiety about rising costs felt by many who live on a fixed income. That is why the Government are already acting in the way I set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

T3. I welcome the Down Syndrome Bill and fully support its passage through Parliament. How will the Minister ensure that from the perspective of equality the Bill will not have the unintended consequence of prioritising support for Down’s syndrome over other genetic and chromosome disorders? Some of those, although not as well-known, are thought to be just as prevalent, if not more so, and certainly no less impactful for the families affected, for example, 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I ask Members, please, not to walk in front of other Members while they are asking questions.

[The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)]

The Government are committed to considering the overlaps and linkages of the experiences of people with Down’s syndrome and those of people with other genetic conditions, such as 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, in the development of the guidance. The national call for evidence will ensure that the guidance also benefits people with other genetic conditions too.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State, Anneliese Dodds.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, may I associate myself with the warm and supportive remarks made from all across this House to the hon. Member for Bridgend?

Women are bearing the brunt of the Conservative cost of living crisis. At the sharp end, as the Women’s Budget Group has said, they are the “shock absorbers” of poverty, cutting essentials for themselves so that their kids do not go without. So will the Minister inform the House as to what assessment her Government have made of the financial impact of the Chancellor’s autumn Budget last year and his spring statement last week?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I would be very supportive of a Margaret Thatcher day, but I think that is more a question for the Prime Minister than for me. My hon. Friend will know that all parties do quite a lot to support women into elected office and across the House we can agree that that is an important thing to continue.

[Mr Speaker]

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

The Prime Minister was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The joint expeditionary force, or the JEF, is an increasingly important grouping of the Nordic countries, the Baltic countries, the Dutch and ourselves, and we are committed to working together in an active way to counter Russian aggression and support our Ukrainian friends. We had a successful meeting a couple of weeks ago and will have further such meetings in the course of the next few weeks.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Leader of the Opposition.

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

May I start by joining the Prime Minister in his remarks in relation to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis)?

Does the Prime Minister still think that he and the Chancellor are tax-cutting Conservatives?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. We are spending £69 million already to support the roll-out of superfast broadband in Wales. I wish the Welsh Government had not withdrawn their broadband scheme, but we will do our best to make up the difference as fast as possible.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to SNP leader Ian Blackford.

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

It is good to see the hon. Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) in the Chamber, and I commend him for his statement earlier today.

Last night, millions of families will have been desperately trying to figure out how they will possibly afford the £700 energy price hike that will hit them this Friday. At the very same time, Tory MPs were gathering across the street for a champagne bash in the Park Plaza. We all know that the Tories partied during lockdown, and now they are—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Fabricant, Easter is upon us. I do not need you to ruin your Easter. Let us hear—[Interruption.] Order, all of you. Let us hear SNP leader Ian Blackford.

[Ian Blackford]

They shout and scream when we are raising the Tory cost of living crisis. We all know that the Tories partied during lockdown and now they are partying through the cost of living emergency.

Last week the Chancellor got it badly, badly wrong with the spring statement, and ever since the Prime Minister has been busy briefing against him, saying that more needs to be done. For once I agree with the Prime Minister. So if he really believes that more needs to be done, can he tell us exactly what he will order his Chancellor to do to help the millions of families who are facing a £700 price hike this Friday?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we are doing everything that we can, with the £9.1 billion and the cold weather payments. The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the problem, and we are making huge investments in supporting people right now, with another £1 billion, by the way, through the household support fund to help vulnerable families. But when he talks about the cost of energy in Scotland, how absolutely preposterous it is that the Scottish nationalist party should still be opposed to the use of any of our native hydrocarbons in this country, with the result that the Europeans are importing oil and gas from Putin’s Russia. It is totally absurd.

[Mr Speaker]

Just for the record, it is the Scottish national party.

[Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)]

Q7. Following on from the publication of the schools White Paper, one of my most important campaigns is to secure provision of quality post-16 education within the Bolsover constituency, where there is currently none. Young people in my constituency have to travel long distances at considerable cost to access their education. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss how we can right this wrong for the young people of the Bolsover constituency and give them the education that they deserve?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hon. Members]

Sit down!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. You will sit down, please. I hope that we have come to the end of the question.

[Matt Western]

The Chancellor is so out of touch, he is contactless. The public believe that the—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Shut up and be quiet—behave yourselves.

I hope that is the end of the question. I think the Prime Minister has got the gist of it, because I certainly have.

[The Prime Minister]

Much as I admire the hon. Gentleman’s style, I think it would be better in a light essay in The Guardian. What we are doing is tackling the cost of living by dealing with the spike in energy prices and making sure that we take the right long-term decisions to take this country forward—decisions that Labour completely shirked.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the need to provide local homes for local people. We totally understand that—by the way, we are building a record number of homes in spite of all the difficulties that we have faced—and that is why we have introduced higher rates of stamp duty on second homes, removed the second home discount and are using £11.5 billion to build 180,000 affordable homes across the country. It is always the Conservatives who build affordable homes—that is true—and Labour who talk about it.

[Mr Speaker]

Final question: Sarah Olney.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Q12. Last Friday, it emerged that there had been an oil spill in Beverley Brook, a river that flows through Richmond Park to the Thames. Black waste oil and iridescence can now be seen along 13 km of the watercourse, posing a serious threat to fish and local wildlife. The Environment Agency is investigating, but it is understaffed and underfunded while also battling water companies over sewage discharge. Will the Government commit to strengthening the powers of the Office for Environmental Protection, as the Lib Dems tried to do through the passage of the Environment Bill, so that it can hold the Government and other public authorities to account over environmental damage in the same way that the European Commission was able to?

[The Prime Minister]

I know what is behind the hon. Member’s question: a desire to return to the jurisdiction of the European Union. We want to ensure that we use our landmark Environment Act 2021 to continue to improve the quality of our rivers, and that is what we are doing.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We will let the Chamber clear before we start the statement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hart]

Again, I can only say that it would be unhelpful and inappropriate for me to predict and prejudge what the Chancellor will be saying in the Chamber in a matter of minutes. All I can say is that these are conversations—[Hon. Members: “Go on!”] I would like to, but I am not going to. These conversations have been a regular part of—have dominated—the Wales Office’s connection with the Treasury in the last few days and weeks. As I say, the hon. Member has not got long to wait, and I hope he can bear with me.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

The boss of oil giant BP said last month that it had more money than it knows what to do with, which is completely the opposite situation to that of households right across Wales that cannot cope with record inflation and astronomical energy bills under the watch of the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, so why will he and the Chancellor not agree to a one-off windfall tax on oil and gas producers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alexander Stafford]

The flow of goods through free trade is a critical priority for prosperity, whether in the village of Wales in Rother Valley, or in the great nation of Wales. What role does my right hon. Friend see for freeports in that, and how might a freeport in north Wales—for example in Anglesey—help to improve the problems associated with a central corridor and the working of the Northern Ireland protocol?

[Mr Speaker]

He means Holy Island.

[Simon Hart]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The concept of freeports is indisputably positive, and others who have gone down that route with the launch of English freeports are already able to report inward investment, and good sustainable jobs that will contribute to our economic recovery as well as our net-zero ambitions. As I said, in Wales there will be a number of very high quality bids. We have committed in the manifesto to at least one freeport in Wales, and hopefully we may be able to expand on that over time. The long wait for a decision, and the many months of wrestling with the Welsh Government to reach a conclusion that we can all live with, are nearly at an end.

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies]

It is always a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend. I assure him that this Conservative Government will continue to support floating offshore wind in a way that will have the support of the public.

[Mr Speaker]

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

The Prime Minister was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend and all those involved in the two big schemes that we have now for welcoming people from Ukraine. The Homes for Ukraine scheme is now open; I think that about 40,000 have already applied and 150,000 families across the country have said that they want to welcome Ukrainians. That is a fantastic thing, and I thank Baldock and District for helping to lead the way.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Eight hundred loyal British workers fired over Zoom, instantly replaced by foreign agency workers shipped in on less than the minimum wage—if the Prime Minister cannot stop that, what is the point of his Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend very much, and he is absolutely right about smoking; it is the biggest single cause of preventable death in this country. As he will know, Javed Khan OBE is undertaking an independent review of smoking, and I am sure he will want to take my hon. Friend’s suggestions into account.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the SNP here, Ian Blackford.

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

In a matter of seconds, at 12.16 pm, a Virgin Atlantic aircraft is due to depart Heathrow airport to go to Warsaw to pick up 50 young orphans who have left Ukraine and are coming to spend the next period of their life in Scotland, with the sanctuary we can offer them. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has helped to make sure that we can offer a new start to these young people, away from the war. I thank the Governments in London and in Edinburgh, and in particular the immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), and the refugee Minister in the House of Lords, Lord Harrington. This is a good day for those 50 young people, but let us hope that it is the beginning of something much more significant for many more young people we can offer sanctuary to.

This morning, we have official confirmation that inflation is at its highest level in 30 years, but families do not need official confirmation to know that the cost of food and energy is now at a price they simply cannot afford. The very people who bore the brunt of the health pandemic are now being hammered by the poverty pandemic. This is not just a cost of living crisis—this is an emergency. That is why, in Scotland, the SNP Government are doubling the Scottish child payment and raising the benefits they control by 6%—that is double the rate the Chancellor has proposed for the benefits that he has control over. So this is a very simple question for the Prime Minister: if he truly understands that this is an emergency, will he match the Scottish Government’s commitment and lift all benefits by 6%?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Q13. The Prime Minister met the chairman of P&O owners DP World to discuss setting up a freeport in London. Just last year, the Foreign Secretary also met DP World. DP World runs ports in the UK that employ more than 600 workers. If the Prime Minister wants to remove the latest suspicion of his conflicts of interest, will he tell his Dubai millionaire friends that if they want contracts to run freeports here, they must reinstate P&O workers and guarantee the jobs of DP World workers too?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We need to use more moderate and temperate language in this Chamber.

[The Prime Minister]

I have one overwhelming interest, which is to protect and preserve the jobs and livelihoods of the British people. That is what we are doing. That is what we will do with the P&O workers, but we will also ensure that we continue to attract overseas investment in the record ways we currently are. The Opposition would drive it away—we will not.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I am afraid that I will not, and I respectfully disagree. I will side with the local authorities of whatever political colour or composition who are trying to serve their constituents. They of course need to be held to the rule of law and be accountable, but I am not on the side of the lawyers suing local authorities.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Scottish National party spokesperson Angela Crawley.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

In their consultation response the Scottish Government highlighted that in the initial UK Government approach to Windrush:

“No amount of evidence or reasoned argument proved able to persuade the Home Office of the catastrophic errors which had occurred.”

The HRA was instrumental in securing justice for the Windrush victims, and the UK Government later said they would learn lessons from those failings. Should they not start by ditching plans to overhaul the legislation that was instrumental in securing justice for the Windrush victims?

[Dominic Raab]

It is really important that the hon. Lady raises the question of the Windrush scandal. Hon. Members across the House would agree that that should never have happened, but of course it happened throughout the entirety of the entry into force of the Human Rights Act and there was nothing about the Act that led to the situation being addressed in this House—that was down to hon. Members who became aware of what had happened because of members of our communities who had been affected. Frankly, the Human Rights Act did not stop Windrush and had absolutely no role in remedying it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Angela Crawley for her second question. No, she does not want it, so let’s try somebody else. I call Gavin Newlands.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

4. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on seizing the assets of sanctioned Russian oligarchs.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend puts it perfectly. Of course, the sanctions will have and are having an economic impact. We have no quarrel with the Russian people. The blame for that impact lies squarely at the door of the Kremlin, and I think the whole world knows that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State, Steve Reed.

[Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)]

First, Mr Speaker, let me associate myself and my party with your comments earlier about PC Keith Palmer and others who died five years ago today.

The Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report states that under this Government, some UK law firms became “de facto” Russian state agents and played a role in

“promoting the nefarious interests of the Russian state”,

including oligarch’s assets. Will the Minister tell the House what he has done to stop UK law firms such as Debevoise & Plimpton, Cleary Gottleib Steen & Hamilton and Steptoe & Johnson acting as enablers of Russian criminals and the Kremlin?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I would be absolutely delighted to come and visit. I should say, of course, that the biggest Crown court in the midlands is Birmingham’s, which was the first that I visited after getting this job. My hon. Friend is right that we have to look at the issue regionally. There are significant variations, but the most important thing we can do is have wider capacity across the country. Alongside the almost half a billion pounds of funding that my hon. Friend mentions, key measures include increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers so that we can free up almost 2,000 days in the Crown court, where the most serious cases can be heard.

[Mr Speaker]

You could always reopen Chorley court. That would help.

[Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last week, the roof of Sheffield magistrates court fell in, delaying countless cases. A rape case was delayed when toilet water leaked into a courtroom at Maidstone Crown court in Kent. Survivors of rape already wait three years for their case to come to trial. How many cases have been delayed in total over the past five years because the Government have failed to fix crumbling courts?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

We are looking at a package of measures including financial assistance and also technical assistance, which is crucial to the preservation of evidence. The kinds of things I am analysing with colleagues across Whitehall include specialist IT capabilities and other expert areas such as police and military analysis—all the things that the ICC will need.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Afzal Khan.

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

Can I bring the Minister on to a more domestic issue? Victims of domestic abuse and other serious crimes are more often than not denied justice due to the broken criminal justice system. Legal aid provides a lifeline to those who need it most, but the system is on its knees due to chronic underfunding. Sir Christopher Bellamy QC recommended a minimum fee increase not as an opening bid but as a necessary first step to nurse the legal aid system back to health. How will the Minister stop the continuing haemorrhage of criminal solicitors and barristers from the workforce in the meantime, so that further victims are not denied access to justice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northampton-shire) (Con)]

T4. Today would have been Harry Dunn’s 21st birthday. Instead, his twin brother Niall faces this fabulous milestone alone and there is still no justice for Harry’s family from the tragic killing of him by an American citizen who was driving on the wrong side of the road. I know that the hearts of colleagues from across the House go out to Harry Dunn, his whole family and all his friends, particularly his brother. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has done so much to try to help, give the House an update on what is being done to deliver justice for Harry?

[Mr Speaker]

So that the House is aware, let me say that this is sub judice, so please be cautious in your answer, as I would expect that you would be.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Secretary of State for Justice to make a statement, let me say that I understand that the content of it has been extensively trailed this morning, including through tweets from the Secretary of State’s Department and from the right hon. Member himself. I have made it clear previously that important policy announcements need to be made first to this Chamber, not to the media. I repeat that again today. It is a discourtesy to the House and to the Members, and I expect Ministers to make sure that this does not happen again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

Absolutely not. We are very clear that we have to keep all options on the table. Article 16 is part of the protocol and, if we cannot resolve these issues, it is the proper legal process to take things forward. Ultimately, the right result, and the result on which we and the Foreign Secretary are focused, is getting a resolution by agreement with the EU. Be in no doubt that we are determined to make sure Northern Ireland can access goods from Great Britain in the way it should, which we should all support.

[Mr Speaker]

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, not here.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Many of us in this House are deeply concerned about the lack of progress in these negotiations. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the sovereignty issue for Northern Ireland still remains on the table with regard to EU lawmaking? Although the context is quite different, it is worth remembering that we are also dealing with the Ukrainian situation, which is also an issue of sovereignty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend gives an example of one area where we are keen to see flexibility from the EU, so that we can see some resolution. We have put forward a range of constructive proposals to meet the objectives—respecting the single market of the EU while making sure that we achieve our prime priority, which is protecting all aspects of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement—such as the green channel proposals, which can deal with east-west customs and those SPS burdens that he mentioned. We have to make sure that we find a resolution that works, and that means goods can flow from Great Britain to Northern Ireland—the goods that are not at risk of moving to the EU—in the way they always have done.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State, Peter Kyle.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has told the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) that negotiations on the protocol have only a 30% chance of success. Does the Secretary of State share that assessment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

In February this year we put a further £250 million into the Executive to allow them more flexibility, on top of their underspend, to support people at a time when there are such pressures. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight another of the many areas where the protocol is creating real problems on the ground for people in their everyday lives. We must remember that the protocol itself says it will not disrupt the everyday lives of people in their communities; the right hon. Gentleman has given yet another example of how the implementation of the protocol is doing exactly that. That has to stop.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Richard Thomson.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I associate myself and my party with the Secretary of State’s remarks at the outset about victims of historical abuse and the forthcoming apology.

Another important part of the Northern Ireland protocol is article 3, which says:

“The United Kingdom shall ensure that the Common Travel Area and the rights and privileges associated therewith can continue to apply…in particular with respect to free movement to, from and within”—

the island of Ireland—

“for Union citizens and their family members, irrespective of their nationality.”

Does the Secretary of State recognise the potential economic and political strain that the introduction of an electronic travel authorisation system could put on freedom of movement across the border? What engagement does he plan to have with the Government of Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic and their partners in the EU in respect of how to make sure such frictions do not take effect?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that we deliver on our promise, as is the Prime Minister, as we set out last summer, and indeed that we deliver on all our commitments in the New Decade, New Approach deal, which brought Stormont back.

[Mr Speaker]

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

The Prime Minister was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

Twelve years in power and that is the best the Prime Minister can do. The Ukrainian people are fighting for democracy. We must stand with them, and that means taking the toughest possible measures against Putin. Let us be honest that there will be costs here at home. We can withstand those costs, and we must, by using a windfall tax to keep bills down for working people and by starting a new era of energy policy, never again at the mercy of a dictator, by supporting new nuclear after years of neglect, sprinting on renewables, including onshore wind, and having an urgent national mission to upgrade homes, ending years of dither and delay. Why is the Prime Minister offering the same failed energy policy that cast us into the security crisis and allowed bills to rocket? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear the answer. Standing up will not catch my eye; in fact, it has the opposite effect on me.

[The Prime Minister]

What we are junking is the failed energy policies that left us without enough nuclear power, and what we will do is go forward with policies that allow this country to be independent in our energy supply, maximising renewables, making sure that we use transitional hydrocarbons and going for nuclear as well. As I say, I am overjoyed that Labour now seems to occupy that position. What we will also do, and here the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been supportive, is ensure that as a House of Commons we work together to maintain our opposition to Vladimir Putin’s vile war in Ukraine. There, together with the toughest possible economic sanctions and by maintaining our military support for the people of Ukraine, I have no doubt that although there will be dark days ahead and difficult times, we will come through it stronger. I have no doubt that Vladimir Putin will fail and we will succeed in restoring a sovereign and independent Ukraine.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. He is a fantastic champion for his constituents in Wantage. As I understand it, the decision on the Abingdon reservoir has not actually been made, but we would expect Thames Water to consult further on the proposal. I know that it will have heard the points that he has rightly made.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to SNP leader Ian Blackford.

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

We are now 14 days into Putin’s war. In that time, I have genuinely tried to work constructively with the UK Government and I will continue to seek to do that. Nobody should support the Government, however, when it comes to their response to the refugee crisis—760 visa approvals in two weeks is disgraceful.

In that time, Poland has taken over 1.2 million refugees, Hungary has taken over 190,000 refugees, Germany has taken over 50,000 refugees, Italy has taken over 7,000 refugees and Ireland—a country of just over 5 million people—has given sanctuary to three times as many refugees as the United Kingdom. Those numbers do not lie; they tell a devastating truth. Does the Prime Minister find it acceptable that his Home Secretary has overseen one of the slowest, most bureaucratic and incompetent refugee responses in the whole of Europe?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady very much and she raises an important issue. Clearly, the spike in energy prices is going to fall most heavily on vulnerable people such as the ones she mentioned, and we will certainly be looking at ways to abate their costs.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Paul Holmes.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. If he would be kind enough, I would be grateful if he passed me the details of the case that he mentioned and I would be happy to give it to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We are moving heaven and earth, because we understand the value to this country of refugees. We also understand the imperative of helping people fleeing a war zone in terror. That is why the people of this country want to open their arms, and we are going to help them to do it with a new humanitarian route, in addition to the family reunion route that we have already set out. That family reunion route alone could bring hundreds of thousands of people here. I think the whole House understands that; we will do even more through the new humanitarian route.

[Mr Speaker]

That is the end of Prime Minister’s questions. Please leave quietly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

As the hon. Lady will know, we had a big focus on nature at COP26 and we had a commitment from over 140 countries representing over 90% of forests around the world to ensure that they are protected. We will of course continue to work on this issue with partners around the world.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to PMQs, I wish to remind Members of what I said last week. I want concise, focused questions so that we can get through the list, and I want much less barracking and heckling of Members. That behaviour is discourteous and does nothing to enhance the representation of our House, or its ability to scrutinise the Prime Minister. I expect Members to reference one another in a courteous and orderly fashion.

Finally, I want to welcome to our Gallery the Ukrainian ambassador—[Applause.] Your Excellency, we generally do not allow applause in this Chamber, but on this occasion the House quite rightly wants to demonstrate our respect and support for your country and its people in the most difficult of times.

Before we start, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

The Prime Minister was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, my hon. Friend knows whereof he speaks. He is a great advocate of UK food and farming. That is why we are increasing the farming investment fund to £48 million. We have a massive opportunity, particularly for UK fruit and vegetables.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Leader of the SNP.

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

May I join you, Mr Speaker, in welcoming the Ukrainian ambassador to our proceedings?

With every passing hour, the world is witnessing the horrors of Putin’s war in Ukraine. In Kherson, a family of five—a mother, her parents, her six-year-old daughter and her baby son—were murdered in cold blood by Russian troops. In the same city, a 12-year-old boy watched his mother die as he desperately attempted to save her from the rubble of her own home. These are war crimes happening in Europe right now.

Vladimir Putin is a war criminal, and, one day soon, he must face justice in The Hague. To prosecute Putin and his regime, the full range of war crimes charges need to be used, including the crime of aggression by a state, but the UK has always refused to sign up to the prosecution of this crime in international law. Surely with Putin’s crime of aggression in plain and horrific sight in Ukraine, now is the time to drop that opposition. Will the Prime Minister meet with me to discuss this, and will he amend the UK War Crimes Act 1991 and support the International Criminal Court prosecution of Putin for his crimes of aggression against the people of Ukraine?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That ends Prime Minister’s questions. I will just let the Chamber settle down before points of order.