Privilege: Conduct of Right Hon. Boris Johnson

Debate between Theresa May and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am pleased to hear from the Chairman of the Defence Committee that he will support the report. I think he can take it from the fact that I just said that the Committee report matters, the debate matters and this vote matters that I think people want to see us come to a conclusion today.

If people see us making rules for them and acting as if they are not for us, that trust that I spoke about between the public and Parliament is undermined. If they see Members of this House trying to save the careers of friends who have been clearly found by due process to be guilty of wrongdoing, as happened in the case of Owen Paterson, their respect for us is eroded. Without that trust and respect, their faith in our very parliamentary democracy is damaged.

As MPs, we are in some sense leaders in our communities, but with that leadership comes responsibility. We each and every one of us bear the responsibility to put the people that we serve first, to be honest with them and with one another, and to uphold the standards of this place. We all know that in the rough and tumble of parliamentary debate between people of opposing views there will be exaggeration, careful use of facts and, in some cases, misrepresentation, but when something is said that is wrong and misleads the House, we are all—not just Ministers—under an obligation not to repeat it and to correct it at the first opportunity. Above all, we are all responsible for our own actions. Beyond that, this House has a responsibility to ensure that standards are upheld by showing that we are willing to act against the interests of colleagues when the facts require it. In this case, I believe they do.

The decision of the House on the report is important: to show the public that there is not one rule for them and another for us; indeed, we have a greater responsibility than most to uphold the rules and set an example. The decision also matters to show that Parliament is capable of dealing with Members who transgress the rules of the House—if you like, to show the sovereignty of Parliament. Following an unsettling period in our political life, support for the report of the Privileges Committee will be a small but important step in restoring people’s trust in Members of this House and of Parliament.

I say to Members of my own party that it is doubly important for us to show that we are prepared to act when one of our own, however senior, is found wanting. I will vote in favour of the report of the Privileges Committee and I urge all Members of this House to do so—to uphold standards in public life, to show that we all recognise the responsibility we have to the people we serve and to help to restore faith in our parliamentary democracy.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Theresa May and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Just to help the Chamber, I understand it is two former Prime Ministers.

Tributes to Baroness Boothroyd

Debate between Theresa May and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 28th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

It is with great sadness that all of us will rise today to pay tribute to the late Baroness Boothroyd, and our condolences are with her family and friends.

To go from high-kicking on the theatrical stage to mastery of the tumultuous stage of the House of Commons is quite a journey. As the woman who broke that glass ceiling to become the first woman Speaker in 700 years, Betty Boothroyd will always have her place in history but, as the shadow Leader of the House said, for those of us who served in this Chamber when Betty was Speaker, we remember not just her historic achievement but the manner in which she conducted her role. She always knew the right point to intervene with a witty remark, a sense of humour, a gentle put down or a strong rebuke, and from Betty the rebukes could be very strong.

When I came to this House in 1997, there was a new Conservative Member who had been very successful in business. Indeed, he had been fêted as a very successful businessman. On the day on which I and a number of my colleagues were called to make our maiden speeches, he rose time and again but was not called. In fact, it was some weeks later that he made his maiden speech. I always thought that was just Betty saying, “It doesn’t matter how important you have been elsewhere, it is what you are in here that matters.” It was about her love of this House of Commons and her belief in Parliament.

For so many years of her life, Betty devoted her time to politics, to social justice and to where her heart was in politics—the Labour party—but she really loved this place and she believed in democracy. She supported this place when she was Speaker, she upheld its traditions and its standards, and she enhanced the role of Speaker of this House of Commons.

But she was not just a strong Speaker, she was a woman of warmth, fun and entertainment. I remember the soirees in Speaker’s House that brought together friends and MPs. The singing around the piano has already been mentioned, and it created a great sense of camaraderie among those who would otherwise have been exchanging sharp remarks across the Chamber. She brought people together. Her warmth was important, and she reminded us of the importance in this place of humanity, which she showed so well through everything she did.

I consider it a privilege to have known Betty Boothroyd, and I consider it an honour to have served in this Chamber under her Speakership. May she rest in peace. We will always remember a remarkable, amazing, impressive woman.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Mother of the House.

UK Energy Costs

Debate between Theresa May and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 8th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alberto Costa]

I am very—

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Mrs May]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I am just about to finish.

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

Debate on the Address

Debate between Theresa May and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 10th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I will.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Jim Shannon—welcome back.

Committee on Standards

Debate between Theresa May and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I take no interventions. I wish to make my limited points.

In this place, we set rules for people through the laws that we pass. We expect people to obey those rules. We also set rules for our own behaviour as Members of Parliament and we have a right to expect that each and every one of us obey those rules. Sometimes mistakes will be made inadvertently, but the process of independent investigation and a Committee set up by this House with lay members should be able to differentiate those cases and to deal with them.

It has been suggested that, as a result of what happened on 3 November, the rules need to change. I do hope that the Government will be looking urgently and seriously at the 2018 proposals from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I do not think that they quite reflect the motion that the Opposition are putting to the House tomorrow, but they do suggest a clarification and a tightening up of the rules on MPs’ outside interests. It would be a mistake to think that, because someone broke the rules, the rules were wrong. The rule on paid advocacy is a long-standing one. The problem came because there was an attempt to effectively let off a then Member of the House, and that flew in the face of the rules on paid advocacy and in the face of the processes established by this House.

It has also been suggested, as a result of what happened on 3 November, that there are questions about the role of MPs. We should not conflate or confuse those two issues. The first is about ensuring that no company or individual can gain an unfair advantage by paying a Member of Parliament to advocate on their behalf. That is a matter for the code of conduct of Members of this House and the rules of this House. The second is an issue of the service that MPs give to their constituents, and that is a matter for their electorate. Damage has been done to this House. We can start to repair that damage by accepting the report of the Committee on Standards, and I urge every Member of this House to support that motion.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Afghanistan

Debate between Theresa May and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 6th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

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

Afghanistan

Debate between Theresa May and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Mrs May]

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

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

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

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

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

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Debate between Theresa May and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 12th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

I join with the Prime Minister and everyone across this House in sending my heartfelt condolences to Her Majesty the Queen on the death of His Royal Highness The Prince Philip. Our thoughts and prayers are with Her Majesty and the whole royal family.

In recent days, there have been many tributes to Prince Philip: some from those who knew him well, some from those who had barely met him, and some from those who had never met him, but whose lives he had touched. I had the privilege of meeting him and having a number of conversations with him. He was a truly remarkable man; a man of so many talents. We have heard some of them referred to already today: a distinguished naval officer, an inventor, an innovator, a designer, a painter, a sportsman, and so much else.

What always struck me when he spoke, when I was having those conversations with him, was not just the incredible breadth and wide range of interests that he had, but the depth of knowledge that he had about each of those interests. He did not just dip into a subject; he did not pick something up because it was fashionable. He was deeply interested, he cared, and he understood the importance of getting to know the issues that he was involved in. He was indeed a man ahead of his time, particularly in the areas of the environment and conservation, but that was not a passing whim. He deeply loved the natural world; he understood nature; and he was passionate about wanting future generations to be able to enjoy and benefit from the natural world, too.

I remember, on my first visit to Balmoral as Prime Minister, Prince Philip driving me and my husband around the estate and talking to us about it. It was as if he knew every single inch of it. He talked about the ancient Caledonian forest, about the birds, many of which were protected, about the animals and plants on the estate, about the changes he had seen over the years, and about what was needed to ensure that the environment could be protected and enjoyed by future generations. He was indeed a man ahead of his time. He showed his deep knowledge, but he was also an immensely practical person.

He was also a man of high standards. That did indeed come through in his attention to detail in the cooking of the meat at the Balmoral barbecues. But I also remember a black tie event, hosted by the then mayor of the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, which Prince Philip was coming down from Windsor castle to attend, but probably for no more than half an hour. Now, some people might have said, “You’ll have to take me as you find me, so I’ll just turn up and that will be it,” but he dressed immaculately in black tie. He took the time and trouble because he had high standards, but also because he respected the event and the people attending, and he wanted them to be at their ease.

I remember my last day at Balmoral. My husband and I, as everybody knows, enjoy walking. Prince Philip had very kindly suggested a particular walk, so we were grateful for the suggestion and set off. When we got back to the castle, several hours later, we were told that Prince Philip did indeed enjoy this walk, but normally he drove around it in a car. I am not sure whether it was a test—and, if it was, whether we passed it. On that last visit, when we went to say our farewells, initially we could not find Prince Philip. When I eventually caught up with him, he was watching the cricket. How I would have loved to have stayed and watched the cricket with him.

I am a Berkshire MP, and in Berkshire we feel a particular connection with the royal family. Prince Philip set up the Prince Philip Trust Fund, which provides grants to individuals and causes in the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, and many of my constituents will have benefited from that trust fund. Among the causes it focuses on are young people, and this is reflected, as others have said, in the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme. It is one of his particular legacies that he had this passion for enabling young people to find themselves, challenge themselves, broaden their horizons and develop what are, for some, life-changing skills.

Millions across the world have much to be grateful to him for, but perhaps the most important aspect of his life was his absolute commitment to supporting Her Majesty the Queen. It is in no way comparable, but I do know how important it is to have a husband—a partner—who is a source of strength and a rock in times of trouble. As a hugely talented person, Prince Philip could have been enormously successful in his own right, but he put his life to ensuring the success of his wife. It was that willingness to put himself second and to serve, to understand the importance of duty and to exercise it day in, day out, that will be his true lasting legacy, and that should be an inspiration to us all.

All of us here in the UK and across the Commonwealth have so much to be grateful to him for, and we say thank you. He understood the requirements of responsibility, the demands of duty and the sacrifices of service. We will never see his like again. May he rest in peace and rise in glory.

[Mr Speaker]

We will now hear from the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Harriet Harman.

Civil Service Appointments

Debate between Theresa May and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 30th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let’s hear from a former Prime Minister: Theresa May.

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I first pay tribute to Sir Mark Sedwill and thank him for his extraordinary public service over many years? I served on the National Security Council for nine years—six years as Home Secretary and three as Prime Minister. During that time, I listened to the expert independent advice from National Security Advisers.

On Saturday, my right hon. Friend said:

“We must be able to promote those with proven expertise”.

Why, then, is the new National Security Adviser a political appointee, with no proven expertise in national security?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Theresa May and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

Q7. Does the Prime Minister think that it was the Labour party voting against the abolition of stamp duty for 69,000 first-time buyers, or the Labour party voting against 50,000 extra school children getting free school meals that convinced local voters in the elections last week to vote Conservative as the only party on their side? That is why the Conservatives retained control of Westminster and Wandsworth councils, and it is why they gained control in places such as Redditch, Basildon and Barnet.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The Prime Minister is not responsible for the Labour party, but I am sure that she will be able to respond appropriately.

[The Prime Minister]

I can say to my hon. Friend that she is right about votes that took place in this House where the Opposition did vote against the abolition of stamp duty for those young first-time buyers, which is proving so helpful. Last Thursday, when millions of people across England went to the polls to vote for their local councils, we saw that the real winners were ordinary people. More people are now able to get the benefit of Conservative councillors who keep their council tax lower and provide good local services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the four fantastic new Conservative councillors—[Interruption.] Their election takes the control of Redditch Borough Council from the Labour party to the Conservative party—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] If her diary permits, I ask her to visit Redditch at the earliest possible opportunity to back our fantastic local campaign to unlock—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I call the Prime Minister. Let’s get on with it.

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the newly elected Conservative councillors. I gave a list of councils earlier where people had rejected Labour, like Barnet, Dudley and Peterborough. I can add Redditch to that list, and indeed other councils around the country. Many congratulations to her, to those councillors and to all the volunteers and activists who work so hard.

Litvinenko Inquiry

Debate between Theresa May and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 21st January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government take extremely seriously their prime responsibility for maintaining the safety and security of British citizens. We have, for example, introduced legislative proposals, and continue to do so, to ensure that our security and intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to keep us safe.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Last but certainly not least, I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Given the revelation that President Putin most likely signed off on the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko and the fact that decency and moral correctness mean nothing to the Russian authorities, does she agree about the importance of sanctions? That said, many people inside and outside the House, and perhaps she herself, are frustrated that sanctions do not seem to be biting in the way they should. Will she outline what new and unique sanctions are in place to make these people more accountable?

Counter-terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Theresa May and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I beg to move, that this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 2 to 39.

[Mrs May]

On the day the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill was last considered by this House, news of the appalling events in Paris and the brutal murders at the office of Charlie Hebdo were still unfolding. What followed was a two-day manhunt for those responsible, a horrific attack on a Jewish supermarket and further murders of innocent people. Those attacks were yet another reminder of the very grave threat we face from terrorism, a threat that we have discussed in this House on many occasions. I am certain that everyone in this House is committed to ensuring that the police, MI5 and others have the powers and capabilities they need to keep the public safe. That is why we brought forward the Bill and sought its swift progress through Parliament.

Since the Bill was sent to another place, it has been the subject of robust scrutiny. A number of substantial amendments have been made to ensure that these new powers will deliver the optimum capability for our agencies, and to reassure the public that they will be used appropriately and proportionately. They were all Government amendments, which were broadly welcomed by their lordships, and I hope and expect that they will find similar favour in this House. I will now turn to the amendments themselves.

Two amendments were tabled by the Government to part 1 chapter 1 of the Bill, which concerns the temporary seizure of travel documents from individuals reasonably suspected of wishing to travel overseas to engage in terrorism-related activity. Amendments 1 and 2 make provision for civil legal aid to be made available where appropriate at the hearings of applications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to extend the 14-day time period in which an individual’s travel documents may be retained. This is an issue in which the Joint Committee on Human Rights took considerable interest. Legal aid is already available for judicial review proceedings in England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland, subject to individuals’ meeting the statutory means and merits tests.

Turning to temporary exclusion, as I have made clear to this House at earlier stages, the Government are absolutely committed to the appropriate and proportionate use of this power. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration indicated on Report, we carefully considered the constructive suggestions from David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, on the matter of judicial oversight, and following that consideration, we tabled amendments to introduce oversight of the power in line with his recommendations. Specifically, the amendments propose the creation of a permission stage, before the imposition of a temporary exclusion order, and a statutory judicial review mechanism to consider the imposition of the order and any specific in-country requirements.

Communications Data and Interception

Debate between Theresa May and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I must move on. We have to get everybody in. I think the Home Secretary has enough to go on.

[Mrs May]

In the interests of brevity, let me say that I disagree with the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick).

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. Communications data in particular are an absolutely vital tool in investigations and in bringing criminals to justice. They have been a particularly important tool in recent cases of child abuse, and they are also important with regard to the serious crimes I mentioned earlier, including murder. It is vital that we have access to this tool, in order to be able to keep people safe and bring perpetrators of those crimes to justice.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Last but certainly not least, the hon. and gallant Gentleman Bob Stewart.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe we have a duty to pass this fast-track legislation quickly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, unless we do so, the police and the security services will not have the powers that may stop innocent citizens of this country dying?

Border Checks Summer 2011

Debate between Theresa May and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We want to hear what the right hon. Lady has to say. We want a debate on Home Affairs, so let us listen to what is said. If she does not wish for hon. Members to intervene, she will not give way. If she gives way, that is fine, but at the moment, we must listen to her.

[Mrs May]

As I said, I did not give my consent or authorisation for any of those decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I will not give way.

I was about to deal with the questions raised by the shadow Home Secretary. She has repeatedly said that I have not answered her questions. If she reads Hansard, she will find that I have, but let me answer them again. She asked for the precise terms of the pilot scheme that I authorised. I have just set out those terms. I authorised the pilot, under limited circumstances, to allow UK border force officers to use more intelligence-led checks against higher-risk passengers and journeys, instead of always checking EEA national children travelling with parents and in school groups against the warnings index, and always checking European nationals’ second photographs in the chip inside their passport.

The shadow Home Secretary also asked whether I, Home Office Ministers or Home Office officials signed off the operational instruction distributed by UKBA. The answer in all three cases is no. This was a regular operational instruction, and she should know that Ministers—neither under this Government nor under the last—do not sign off such instructions. UKBA operational instructions are signed off by UKBA officials. She asked whether the operational instruction distributed reflected Government policy, and I can tell her that yes, it did, in that it allowed for a risk-based assessment—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) should know better than to keep standing.

[Mrs May]

The operational instruction did reflect Government policy because it allowed for a risk-based assessment when opening the biometric chip of EEA passports and checking EEA national children against the warnings index when they were travelling with parents or as part of a school party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hon. Members]

Give way.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not need advice from the Back Benches, especially from the back row.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford asked how many people Ministers expected would not be checked, and whether an impact assessment would quantify that figure. The answer is that under the terms of the pilot I authorised, all adults would be checked against the warnings index, as would all non-EEA nationals of any age, which, incidentally, was not always the case under the Labour Government of whom she was a member.

Let me reiterate: whatever the shadow Immigration Minister keeps saying, the only incident of which I am aware when passengers were waved through passport control without any checks at all did not occur during my pilot. It happened in 2004, at Heathrow, under the right hon. Lady’s Government.

Let me tell the House what this Government are doing to secure our border: a National Crime Agency with a border policing command and e-Borders to check passengers in and out of the country. We have tough enforcement: 400,000 visas were rejected last year and 68,000 people with the wrong documents were prevented from coming to Britain. We have policies to cut and control immigration: economic migration—capped; abuse of student visas—stopped; and automatic settlement—scrapped. There are compulsory English language tests, tough new rules for family visas and changes to the Human Rights Act. We have a clear plan to get net migration down to the tens of thousands.

What do we hear from the Opposition? Nothing. Nothing on the cap on economic migration. Nothing on the clampdown on student visas. Nothing on settlement. Nothing on sham marriages. No wonder, when the Leader of the Opposition’s policy adviser said that Labour lied to the public about immigration—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Nobody will be able to hear anything either in the House or on the television broadcasts. I am sure everybody on both sides of the House wants to hear the Home Secretary.

[Mrs May]

The public want us to reduce and control immigration, and at long last they have a Government who will do just that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I remind the House that there is a six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Theresa May and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I understand that, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has been very helpful.

[Mrs May]

I think the hon. Gentleman, and I take a different view on the issue he raises about scientific research and the application of freedom of information provisions. However, although we disagree, I am happy to ensure that an appropriate Minister will be available to meet Universities UK and discuss this matter with it.

I have already paid tribute to the members of the Committee and to all Members who have contributed to our various debates on the Bill. I wish to pay particular tribute to the tireless and sterling work done by the Department’s Under-Secretaries, my hon. Friends the Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone). They have steered the Bill through its parliamentary stages with great skill—and, I must say, significant patience in dealing with all the issues that have been raised. I also thank all the officials who have worked on the Bill.

As a result of Members’ scrutiny, the Committee and subsequently the House have agreed a number of important changes to the Bill. We have clarified the circumstances in which DNA may be retained for a period where someone has been arrested for, but not charged with, a serious offence. We have further clarified the extent of regulated activity, including bringing those working with 16 and 17-year-olds within scope and making provision for statutory guidance to be issued to regulated activity providers. We have also provided for the establishment of the new disclosure and barring service to give a more efficient end-to-end service to employers and voluntary organisations. Further, we have strengthened the protection for motorists in private car parks at the same time as we have provided further help for landowners to combat unauthorised parking.

We are fortunate that in this country, it has not taken bloody wars and violent revolutions to weave into the very fabric of our society and parliamentary democracy the freedoms and liberties that we hold so dear. We take them for granted at our peril. Once lost, they are not easily regained. They need to be nurtured and protected. It is in this spirit that I wholeheartedly commend the Protection of Freedoms Bill to the House, and look forward to its safe and speedy passage through the other place.

Women (Government Policies)

Debate between Theresa May and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The premise on which the hon. Gentleman began his intervention was incorrect, because he failed to recognise that we are dealing with a structural deficit. This is not about the world recession, but about the structural deficit that was built up by the previous Labour Government.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We must remember that this is a debate about women. We do not want to go too far talking about the deficit. I know that the two tie in, but we are in danger of having a deficit debate rather than ensuring that the women’s debate is heard.

[Mrs May]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall move off the —[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that something like a third of the deficit was excess investment—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Answer came there none to my challenge to the hon. Gentleman.

The Government’s action is taking Britain out of the danger zone, but we are also taking action to deal with Labour’s record deficit in a way that protects the most vulnerable, whether they are men, women or children. We have therefore had to take some difficult decisions on public spending, but in a way that has allowed us to protect the public service on which women most rely—we are increasing spending on the NHS in real terms every year. The Opposition cannot say that they would do that, because they would cut spending on the NHS.

Yes, we have had to implement a public sector pay freeze, but that has allowed us to protect against more public sector job losses. Even as we implement the pay freeze, we are protecting the lowest-paid public sector workers, almost two thirds of whom are women. Again, the Opposition cannot say that they would do that.

Yes, the Government have had to make tax changes, but as we have done so we are lifting 880,000 of the lowest-paid workers out of income tax altogether, the majority of whom are women. That was opposed by the Labour party, which is surprising given that it claims to be committed to redistribution.