Oral Answers to Questions

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers I gave earlier in relation to universal credit and the importance of this system, which is encouraging people into work—200,000 more people are in work under universal credit and 700,000 people are getting money that they were entitled to but not receiving before. Universal credit is helping people into work and making sure that work pays.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

My constituents Mark and Panna Wilson have a little son, Aadi, who has the terrible condition of spinal muscular atrophy. He desperately needs the life-changing drug Spinraza, which is available in many other countries. I know that the Health Secretary is working on this urgently. Will the Prime Minister intervene to create a new route to market for this important drug, so that my constituents can get the life-saving treatment that their son needs?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. Obviously, as he will appreciate, it is important that we ensure, first, that patients get access to cost-effective innovative medicines, but at a price that is fair and makes best use of NHS resources. That is the independent system that we have through the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which reviews the evidence. I understand that Biogen has submitted a revised submission to NICE in relation to Spinraza and that a meeting of NICE’s independent appraisal committee took place early in March to consider its recommendations. It is clear that everyone at the Department of Health and Social Care and in NICE recognises the significance of this drug, but we need to ensure that the decision taken is made on the basis of the clinical aspects, together with cost-effectiveness. That is what NICE will do in looking at the new offer.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I will say a bit more about the statutory instrument in a few minutes, if the hon. Lady will bear with me.

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

I support the Prime Minister’s deal—I think it is a good deal—and I welcome the news that we will be voting on it again, but will my right hon. Friend look closely at the important proposals from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) to amend the unilateral declaration to provide more certainty, clarity and reassurance to those not yet ready to vote for the deal?

[Mr Lidington]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government have taken very seriously the comments from our right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and continue to have a dialogue with him and others to find the best way forward.

Overseas Electors Bill

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 22nd March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman: I do not see how it is relevant.

New clause 7 requires the Minister for the Cabinet Office to publish a report on postal voting arrangements for overseas electors. We talked earlier about the scale of the number of people who would be affected if the Bill were to take its full course. I think that all the issues raised in new clause 7 will have to be considered, and that the Government should keep an eye on whether or not everything is in place to deal with the consequences. This new clause is also fairly self-explanatory.

[Neil O’Brien]

New clause 7(3) says:

“The report shall, in particular, consider the effectiveness and cost of the International Business Response Licence for postal votes and any associated implications”.

What particular concern did my hon. Friend have about the international business response licence? I could not understand what the concern was here.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right to ask me to elaborate. If he were to look up how the IBRL operates he would see that its “At a Glance” guide says customers can

“Receive direct mail responses from overseas customers”

and

“Only pay for the responses you receive”,

which is all fine, but the third part says:

“Responses arrive in 7-10 working days”,

I hope my hon. Friend will consider that that might cause a difficulty. That is from the IBRL’s “At a Glance” guide to its service, and it seems to me that that might not be wholly suitable for an election, especially when we are dealing with huge volumes and all the rest of it. That is why I put that provision into the new clause: because I am not sure it fits the bill. The Government should have a duty to consider that very carefully and see whether there is a better system that should be used.

I am sure we all have examples of possible problems. In my part of the world in the Bradford district we have had some terrible things happen with postal voting and postal vote fraud over the years, and we must always be very careful. When we are having a huge extension of voting and of postal voting we must be cautious, and this provision is merely an attempt to show some caution in moving forward and make sure we are not causing problems that might not have been expected at the time.

[Neil O’Brien]

For the benefit of the Minister who will have to implement new clause 7 can my hon. Friend make clear what his expectation is on timing? It seems from the tenor of his remarks that he is expecting this review to take place before commencement; is that the case?

[Philip Davies]

I would like that to happen: before having an extension it would be useful to have a review of where we are now, because that might highlight some of the areas of concern. So, yes, I would like to see that done sooner rather than later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend thinks that flattery is going to get him everywhere, but on this occasion I am not entirely sure that it will. It is very kind of him to say what he did, and—if I may reply in kind—no one is better than him at asking incisive questions and getting to the nub of things, particularly given his background. The problem is that we pass so much legislation in this place covering such a wide area that, no matter how good or bad any of us might be, we just cannot keep on top of it all. It is impossible to do that, and we sometimes need a prompt to remind us of the pieces of legislation that have gone through. I do not think it would do anyone any harm if a report came out that made them think, “Oh yes, I remember this piece of legislation. I’m interested in this one.” Even the best of us forget from time to time what legislation has been passed through this House.

[Neil O’Brien]

I tend towards agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) rather than with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) about this and about the importance of evaluation. For the benefit of the Minister who would have to compile the report, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley is quite right to ask for a breakdown by parliamentary constituency, but would he also advise the Minister providing the report to provide a breakdown by host country of overseas electors, so that we could see whether our efforts to improve take-up were doing better in some countries than others? They might be going well in Spain but not so well in France, for example. Would my hon. Friend also welcome that information?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am certainly not going to disagree with him about that. However, I fear that he might have done untold damage to his career in this place by saying that he tended to agree with me rather than with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham. I am sure that the Whip on duty is busy writing that down even as we speak, in order to thwart his attempts at getting promoted. He might need to say at some point that he did not really mean it. We can pretend that he never said it and move on, if that would be of benefit. I certainly would not encourage him to say it on a regular basis—that would be fatal—but I am grateful to him for his support.

I am sure the whole House will be relieved that I am not going to read out the whole of new clause 10, because it covers more than three pages and that could take some time. I will take it as read that people can see it for themselves. It is quite detailed, and it may or may not find favour with colleagues, but I am anxious to move on—

[Neil O’Brien]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I am anxious to move on, but my hon. Friend clearly is not, so I will give way to him again.

[Neil O’Brien]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am genuinely confused about some parts of new clause 10. The deadline for registration for a general election in the UK is midnight 12 working days before polling day, and the deadline for applying for a postal vote is 5 pm 11 working days prior to an election. In the new clause, however, we have deadlines of both 18 and 13 days and at a time of 5 pm, which is before the end of most people’s working day these days. Will my hon. Friend explain why there is a discrepancy between the deadlines for UK-registered voters and those who will be voting overseas? Does he agree, on reflection, that 5 pm is not necessarily the right deadline?

[Philip Davies]

Well, in terms of the time of the deadline before an election for overseas voter registration to take place, if my hon. Friend will allow—he probably thinks I am trying to dodge his incisive question, but I want to come back to amendment 40, which touches on this subject, in due course—perhaps I can move on to that later.

[Neil O’Brien]

It sounds as though my hon. Friend will return to my question later, but one specific point about the new clause is that it refers to Scottish regulations. Do we have legislative consent for that? Do we need to? What is the position?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend has gone way beyond my expertise, which people will probably think is not a difficult task in itself. I am afraid that it would take greater minds than mine to answer the question whether those permissions are needed, have been acquired, would be required and have been given. I do not know. This shows the benefit of having proper scrutiny of legislation in this House and I commend my hon. Friend for doing that, but I am not sure that I am the right person to answer those technical questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. Personally, I see a difference, which is that people can quite legitimately register in different places in the UK because they can vote in all those places in a local election. If they are a council tax payer in Yorkshire and a council tax payer in Dorset, they are perfectly free to vote in both, quite properly and legally—there is nothing wrong with that—but they are not allowed to vote twice in a parliamentary election. They can register, but they can only vote once.

[Neil O’Brien]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Philip Davies]

I will in a second.

It seems to me that there is a difference for overseas voters, because they do not need to vote in the local election because they live somewhere else, so it is really about the parliamentary election. They do not need to be registered in two different places to vote in a parliamentary election, given that they can vote only once anyway. It is a question of where they last lived, so there is a difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not know the precise problem in Reading, but I am sure it exists in other places too. He is right to raise that. As I made clear earlier, if the House imposes duties on electoral registration officers, it is only right that we provide them with the resources to perform those duties—it would be completely unacceptable not to—so I take his point and would tend to agree with it.

[Neil O'Brien]

Further to the point from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), does my hon. Friend agree that there is a potential problem here for those who have been registered perfectly legitimately in two different places so that they can vote in two different local elections? If such a person became an overseas elector, it would be easy for them to forget to deregister themselves for parliamentary elections in one of the two places they were registered. It seems this is not an insuperable problem, because we could create a mechanism automatically to deregister them, but does he agree that that does seem to be an essential step to avoid accidentally criminalising people?

[Philip Davies]

Yes, I take that point, which is a good one. These points are all worthy of further consideration. I do not disagree at all. Equally, however, democracy is precious, and when people start calling results into question, because of people voting twice or whatever, it does massive damage to our democracy. A democracy works only when the losing side accepts it has lost. If it does not, perhaps because the result was rigged or people voted twice—we see this in dictatorships around the world where people do not accept results because of various irregularities—we are on a very slippery slope. We need to do whatever we can to eliminate discrepancies that call results into question. My hon. Friend is right, though, and I certainly am not for unnecessarily criminalising decent people just because they make a mistake; I just thought the issue so serious as to be worthy of further consideration.

[Neil O'Brien]

At risk of doing further damage to my career, I strongly agree with my hon. Friend about the menace of people voting in multiple places and the need for strong sentences for those who do. His new clause 11 suggests that people who vote in two constituencies should be eligible for up to a level 5 fine. For other types of electoral offence—for example, false registration of information, false registration in relation to postal voting, personation and so on—a person can receive a level 5 fine and a six-month sentence, and for things such as postal voting fraud they can get a two-year sentence and an unlimited fine.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we might want to rationalise the existing system for these different offences—there seems to be no rhyme or reason to it—and that we should review the maximum level 5 fine if it does not prove sufficient to deter people from committing what is a serious anti-democratic crime?

[Philip Davies]

Yes, I agree. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These are serious offences, and the criminal justice system should see them as such, so I very much share his sentiments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion, which has a great deal of merit. I am not entirely sure that a private Member’s Bill was the best route for this legislation, and we probably do need a bit more expertise, as he suggests. I certainly would not disagree with that.

I am not entirely sure whether I had got to new clause 12 or new clause 13, but, in the interests of trying to get through my amendments, I am going to move on to new clause 13 and hope that that was where I had got to.

[Neil O’Brien]

Before my hon. Friend moves on, new clause 12 calls for a report on electoral offences, including on whether the number has changed as a result of this legislation. Will he tell us how we might be able to pull apart the effects of the extension of the franchise in this Bill and the many other factors that could affect both the number of offences and the number of overseas electors? Page 9 of the Commons Library briefing on the Bill shows us that many factors, including electronic voting, referendum campaigns and general elections, cause the numbers to move far more than changes to the franchise.

[Philip Davies]

Yes, I understand my hon. Friend’s point, and it is a good one. New clause 12 is more probing than one that I intended to push to a Division. The point that I was trying to make when tabling it was that it seems that the chances are that more offences will be committed if we extend the franchise so widely. It is therefore right that the Government look into this point in some detail. A report therefore seemed to be a sensible suggestion. However, I understand his point and do not necessarily disagree with it.

New clauses 13 and 14 are basically sunset clauses. I am a big fan of legislation with sunset clauses, because it means that a Bill that turns out to be hopeless is put out of its misery without any further need to do anything. If it is particularly good legislation, presumably there will be no problem with somebody wanting to resurrect it or bring it back. Sunset clauses are a good way to ensure that we end up with good legislation and that we get rid of bad legislation. New clauses 13 and 14 offer different suggestions for how long the legislation should last—one of five years and one of three.

[Neil O’Brien]

I want to put the case against my hon. Friend’s argument in favour of sunset clauses. Last Friday, we were debating the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) (Amendment) Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), which would put an end to the sunset clause put on the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009. That sunset clause had no particularly clear rationale. I understand the case for such clauses when we do not know whether we will solve a problem by legislating, but when we are making a principled and permanent change, they seem unnecessary and could eat up the time of the House. Does my hon. Friend agree?

General Election (Leaders’ Debate) Bill

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Friday 15th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

I entirely agree, and I will touch on the fiasco at the previous general election later in my speech.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

I just want to put on the record my total opposition to leaders’ debates. They are trivialising and superficial, and we have a parliamentary system, not a presidential system. Each debate that has happened so far has actually reduced the amount of serious debate during an election campaign. I am totally opposed to leaders’ debates, and I hope that we never have them ever again.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I will consider carefully whether I agree—no, that is a complete load of rubbish. I respect his view, but it is very much an establishment view.

[Neil O’Brien]

It is also my view.

[Mr Bone]

I would not suggest for one minute that it was not also my hon. Friend’s view, but I would suggest that he and the establishment are closely linked.

As the Bill will affect future general elections, I hope that it will be of interest not only to Members of this House, but to members of the public and broadcasters. The Bill’s aim is for the leaders of political parties to debate their concepts, policies and visions on national television. I must say here that my hon. Friend actually made a good point in that television debates can be superficial, but I want proper TV debates—not prepared statements or questions and answers, but proper debates.

The debates proposed by the Bill would happen between the date of the dissolution of Parliament and the date of the general election. It anticipates a minimum of three debates, one involving the leaders of all the parties represented in the House of Commons on the last day of the Parliament before the general election and two debates between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The Bill would make it compulsory for all leaders of parties represented in Parliament to take part in the all-leader debate and, obviously, for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to participate in the other two.

[Mr Bone]

I do agree. I thought of including that in my speech, but I chose not to do so because of length. Prime Minister’s questions are very important, not least because I came up on the ballot again this week.

The Bill would allow a commission to invite the leaders of parties not represented in Parliament if it deemed them to have popular support in the country. Those leaders would not be obliged to take part. There could have been a case in the past, for instance, for letting the UK Independence party take part, and who knows what new parties will be about at the next general election?

[Neil O’Brien]

How does my hon. Friend propose to establish the support in the country for such non-parliamentary parties? Would we look at opinion polls, or would we simply put our finger in the air? It seems entirely arbitrary.

[Mr Bone]

I have said that that would be for the independent commission to decide.

[Neil O’Brien]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Bone]

I thought it was my speech, but go on.

[Neil O’Brien]

I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for being so generous with his time. He seems to be proposing sweeping Henry VIII-style powers for the commission, which is entirely inappropriate.

[Mr Bone]

If I ever get to the end of my speech, my hon. Friend will hear why that is not the case.

For the debates to take place, my Bill proposes the creation a wholly independent commission to oversee them. The majority of Members who took part in the Westminster Hall debate on the subject—including Labour, Conservative, SNP and Plaid Cymru Members—agreed that we should have a new independent body created for the sole purpose of running these debates, which shows that there is considerable cross-party support.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), an able Minister with responsibility for the constitution, argued that there is no need for an independent commission and that it is up to the parties to decide whether they go along. In fact, the Government’s response to the petition said:

“Participating in a televised election debate is down to the discretion of the political party invited to debate.”

We have seen the chaos when political parties take responsibility for debates. In December, we were promised by both the Government and the Opposition that we would have televised debates on the EU withdrawal agreement, which did not happen. There were endless reasons, including because it would clash with “Strictly Come Dancing” or with the final of “I’m a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here!” The parties clearly thought that what their leaders were watching on television was more important than informing the public on the withdrawal vote.

Even when the parties have said that they would like a debate on perhaps the most important issue in our lifetime, Brexit, they have failed to make good on their promises. It is obvious that the parties did not want their leaders to debate, which may have been because the leader of the Conservative party was promoting Brexit but did not believe in it and the Leader of the Opposition believed in Brexit but was opposing it. Such things would be taken out of the hands of the parties; it would be done directly by the commission. This cannot keep happening. We cannot keep listening to promises, and my Bill means that the leaders would have to debate on television—it would be the law.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to absolutely give that assurance. We would not use that issue in any sense in the negotiating strategy. We want to work with the Irish Government to ensure that we are providing a good Brexit for the UK and for Ireland, and I believe that would be a good Brexit for the European Union.

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

One of my constituents in Oadby has written to me to say, “I voted for Brexit and I urge you to support our Prime Minister unreservedly and vote for this Brexit deal.” Another constituent in Great Glen says, “The Prime Minister has done a terrific job in trying circumstances. The headbangers from all sides and the supine attitude of the Labour party has meant she has had an impossible job, but she has done so well.” Finally, a third from Saddington writes, “I am an employer of 30 people in the Harborough constituency. To vote against the deal will cause political chaos and open the door to the worst possible scenario for this country—a far left Labour Government.” Does the Prime Minister agree with me that my constituents have got a lot more common sense than the Members opposite, who want to stop Brexit and fundamentally damage our democracy?

[The Prime Minister]

I think, Mr Speaker, that this can be an occasion where I give a very short answer: yes.

Progress on EU Negotiations

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have made clear before that we will be working to ensure that the future relationship can be in place on 1 January 2021.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

I spent eight years of my life campaigning against European integration and for a referendum, and I never thought the day would come when I held in my hands a negotiated, detailed plan of the British Government to leave the European Union—it is a huge achievement.

As I decide what I think about this deal, I think about three things, Prime Minister. First, I think about your incredible success in breaking the European Union’s red lines and in securing tariff-free access to the European Union’s internal market without paying in £10 billion every year and without having to give up control over immigration. That is a huge thing that the European Union has moved on, and we should recognise that. The second thing I think about is the fact that every single business group is backing this deal, and the Marxist shadow Chancellor is against it. The third and final thing I think about is that I have listened all afternoon to people saying again and again that they are going to try to stop Brexit. Does the Prime Minister agree that if the people who want to stop Brexit are successful, a large number of people in this country will feel that our democracy has been profoundly undermined?

EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I always try to build bridges. I hope that what I have said is of some assurance to colleagues in all parts of the House. As I said earlier, I think that the motion as worded goes wider than what the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, in all fairness to him, was clear about in his introductory speech.

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Lidington]

I will, and then I really must make progress.

[Neil O'Brien]

I am incredibly thankful to my right hon. Friend for his thoughtful tone in this debate and for the important reassurances he has given to the House, but could he give me one more reassurance, which is that he opposes in principle the thin end of the wedge on the Order Paper? I worked with brilliant civil servants for five years, and if they had to give any legal advice in full, written as if it were for publication every single time, their jobs would simply be impossible.

[Mr Lidington]

I want to come on to that point now. Where I part company with the Opposition motion is over the proposed disclosure of Law Officers’ formal advice. Everyone in the House will know that there is a strong long-lasting constitutional convention, followed by Governments of all political parties, that the opinions of the Law Officers remain confidential. That is reflected in the words of the ministerial code, which seeks to balance the Government’s twin duties of accountability to Parliament and maintaining confidentiality where necessary and appropriate. The code explicitly provides that

“Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public,”

but also expressly notes that the advice of Law Officers and even the fact that such advice has been sought or obtained

“must not be disclosed outside Government without their authority”—

that is, the authority of the Law Officers themselves.

Furthermore, “Erskine May” on page 447 specifically states that

“the opinions of the law officers of the Crown, being confidential, are not usually laid before Parliament, cited in debate or provided in evidence before a select committee, and their production has frequently been refused”.

“Erskine May” goes on to explain that

“The purpose of this convention is to enable the Government to obtain frank and full legal advice in confidence.”

Successive Governments have upheld that principle because the work of Government—Governments past, present and future, of different political persuasions—benefits from receiving such frank, confidential advice. The convention exists for very fundamental constitutional reasons, and to uphold the rule of law.

The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras referred to the entrenched tradition of privileged legal advice: in this country, we operate on the basis that advice given by a lawyer to his or her client, whether an individual, a corporation, the Government or a political party, should be treated as confidential. Although he cited exceptions to that, those exceptions were about litigation in court, rather than about the circumstances we are deciding here.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

I strongly welcome the extra £20 billion and the long-term plan for the NHS, but does the First Minister agree that, at a time when local authority budgets are under pressure, it would be attractive to have more pooling of budgets between health and social care?

[Mr Lidington]

It is important that the national health service and local authorities work closely together to ensure that community-based care, funded from whichever source, is effective and meets patients’ needs. I know that the new Health Secretary, like his predecessor, is determined to take that forward further.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

Q1. If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 18 April.

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

This week, the UK plays host to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. I know the whole House will want to join me in welcoming to London leaders from 52 countries, who collectively represent a third of the world’s population. Over the coming days, we will discuss a range of shared priorities, from oceans and cyber-security to continuing to tackle malaria and ensuring all children have access to 12 years of quality education. With 60% of the Commonwealth under the age of 30, the summit will have a particular focus on how we revitalise the organisation to ensure its continuing relevance, especially for young people.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Neil O'Brien]

The whole House will be aware of the stories of people who came to this country from the Commonwealth more than 45 years ago—people who are facing the anxiety of being asked for documents they cannot provide to prove their right to reside in the country they call home. Will the Prime Minister update the House on what she and the Government are doing to provide reassurance in these cases?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises a very important issue, which I know has caused a great deal of concern and anxiety, so I would like to update the House.

People in the Windrush generation who came here from Commonwealth countries have built a life here; they have made a massive contribution to the country. These people are British. They are part of us. I want to be absolutely clear that we have no intention of asking anyone to leave who has the right to remain here. [Interruption.] For those who have mistakenly received letters challenging them, I want to apologise to them. I want to say sorry to anyone who has felt confusion or anxiety as a result of this.

I want to be clear with the House about how this has arisen. Those Commonwealth citizens—[Interruption.]

Syria

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

In recent weeks we have heard claims from the Russian Government that the British Government were behind the nerve gas attack in Salisbury. Does the Prime Minister agree that that is typical of Russian propaganda, that it shows that Vladimir Putin is not serious about stopping the use of chemical weapons, and that he must not be given a veto over this country’s foreign policy?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.