Prime Minister’s Questions: 23 October 2019

Prime Minister’s Questions: 23 October 2019


>>Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton)
(Lab): If he will list his official engagements for
Wednesday 23 October.>>The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson):
The whole House will be shocked by the appalling news that 39 bodies have been discovered in
a lorry container in Essex. This is an unimaginable and truly heartbreaking tragedy, and I know
that the thoughts and prayers of all Members are with those who lost their lives and their
loved ones. I am receiving regular updates. The Home Office will work closely with Essex
police to establish exactly what happened, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary
will make an oral statement immediately after this Question Time. This morning, I had meeting with ministerial
colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings
later today.>>Dr Huq:
I completely associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the tragedy in
Essex—I do not normally do that, but on this occasion I am completely with him. It is good to see the Prime Minister at Prime
Minister’s Question Time. Until today, I think he had only ever done one—in 100 days.
We all know that he has a long list of shortcomings, so could he— Will he do something about
one that he does have some control over and get rid of Dominic Cummings?>>The Prime Minister:
I will try to reply with the generosity of spirit that the hon. Lady would expect from
me and just say that I receive excellent advice from a wide range of advisers and officials.
It is the role of advisers to advise and the role of the Government to decide, and I take
full responsibility for everything the Government do.>>Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales)
(Con): My right hon. Friend achieved what many said
was impossible and negotiated a new Brexit deal, which passed through the House last
night. Does he share my regret that many in the Labour party, including the Leader of
the Opposition, voted once again to delay our leaving with a deal on 31 October, not
least given that he told the House on 22 February 2016 that his party welcomed the fact that
it was now up to the British people to decide if we remained in the European Union?>>The Prime Minister:
As so often, my right hon. Friend has spoken with complete good sense. I do think it was
remarkable that so many Members of the House were able to come together last night and
approve the Bill’s Second Reading. I think that it was a great shame that the House willed
the end but not the means, but there is still time for the Leader of the Opposition to do
that and to explain to the people of this country how he proposes to honour his promise—which
he made repeatedly—and deliver on the will of the people and get Brexit done. Perhaps
he will enlighten us now.>>Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab):
I join others who have expressed their deep sadness at today’s news that 39 people have
been found dead in a lorry container in Grays. Can we just think for a moment about what
it must have been like for those 39 people, obviously in a desperate and dangerous situation,
to end their lives suffocated to death in a container? This is an unbelievable human tragedy, which
happened in our country at this time. We clearly need to look at the whole situation and look
for answers to what has happened. I do, however, also pay an enormous tribute to those in the
emergency services who went to the scene to deal with it. All of us should just think
for a moment about what it is like to be a police officer or a firefighter and about
what it was like to open that container and have to remove 39 bodies from it and deal
with them in an appropriate and humane way. We should just think for a moment about what
inhumanity is done to other human beings at this terrible moment. Yesterday, before the Prime Minister decided
to delay his own withdrawal Bill, he promised to maintain— Let me finish. Before he decided
to delay his own withdrawal Bill— If Members care to look at Hansard, they will see what
it says. The Prime Minister promised to maintain environmental, consumer and workers’ rights.
Why, then, did he have those commitments removed from the legally binding withdrawal agreement?>>The Prime Minister:
I do not think we could have been clearer yesterday in our commitment to the highest
possible standards for workers’ rights and environmental standards. Indeed, I think that
one of the things that brought the House together was the knowledge that, as we go forward and
build our future partnership with the EU, it will always be open to Members in all parts
of the House to work together to ensure that whatever the EU comes up with, we can match
it and pass it into the law of this country. That, I think, commanded a lot of support
and a lot of assent across the House. I must say that I find it peculiar that the
right hon. Gentleman now wants the Bill back, because he voted against it last night, and
he whipped his entire party against it. I think it remarkable that the House successfully
defied his urgings and approved that deal. What I think we would like to hear from him
now is his commitment to getting Brexit done. That is what the public want to hear, and
I am afraid they are worried that all he wants is a second referendum.>>Jeremy Corbyn:
The Prime Minister does not answer the question that I put to him, which was about environmental,
consumer and workers’ rights. I am not surprised, because he once said that “employment regulation”
was “back-breaking”, and he voted for the anti-Trade Union Act 2016, which stripped
away employment protections. The provisions in the Bill offer no real protection at all. Yesterday, during the debate on the Bill,
the Prime Minister pledged that the NHS was safe in his hands. If that is the case, will
he be backing our amendment in the Queen’s Speech debate tonight, which would undo the
very damaging privatisation of so much of our NHS?>>The Prime Minister:
The right hon. Gentleman is showing complete ignoratio elenchi—a complete failure to
study what we actually passed last night in that historic agreement. It is very clear
that it is open to the House to do better, where it chooses, on animal welfare standards
or social protections, as indeed this country very often does. We lead the way: we are a
groundbreaker in this country. I am afraid to say that the right hon. Gentleman has no
other purpose in seeking to frustrate Brexit than to cause a second referendum. As for the NHS, this is the party whose sound
management of the economy took this country back from the abyss and enabled us to spend
another £34 billion on the NHS—a record investment—and, as I
promised on the steps of Downing Street, to begin the upgrade of 20 hospitals, and as
a result of the commitments this Government are making, 40 new hospitals will be built
in the next 10 years. That is this party’s commitment to the NHS.>>Mr Speaker:
Order. Mr Russell-Moyle, you are an incorrigible individual, yelling from a sedentary position
at the top of your voice at every turn. Calm yourself man; take some sort of soothing medicament
from which you will benefit.>>Jeremy Corbyn:
Two questions and we are still waiting for an answer, although we could do with a translation
of the first part of the Prime Minister’s response. I hate to break it to the Prime Minister,
but under his Government and that of his predecessor, privatisation has more than doubled to £10
billion in our NHS. There are currently 20 NHS contracts out to tender, and when he promised
40 hospitals, he then reduced that to 20, and then it turns out that reconfiguration
is taking place in just six hospitals. So these numbers keep tumbling down for the unfunded
spending commitments that he liberally makes around the country. The Prime Minister continues to say that he
will exclude our NHS from being up for grabs in future trade deals. Can he point to which
clause in the withdrawal agreement Bill secures that?>>The Prime Minister:
The right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong in what he says about privatisation of the
NHS, and I must resist this, because those 40 new hospitals and those 47,000 extra clinical
staff, including 17,000 nurses, were not paid for out of private funds; they were paid for
by the NHS, and the reason we are able to pay for them is because the Conservative party
and this Government believe in sound management of the economy—not recklessly putting up
corporation tax, not recklessly wrecking the economy and renationalising companies in the
way that he would do. The right hon. Gentleman asks about the NHS
in any future free trade deal, and I understand his visceral dislike of America and his visceral
dislike of free trade.>>Jeremy Corbyn:
I actually asked the Prime Minister which clause in the Bill protects our NHS, and obviously
there is time for him to help us with an answer on that. He should also be aware that no public
capital allocations have been made for the funding commitments that he has announced;
all he is said is that there is seed funding. I am not sure what seed funding is, but it
does not sound like the commitment we were seeking, and it sounds awfully like private
finance going into the NHS to deal with the issues it faces. Less than one year ago, the Prime Minister
said that any “regulatory checks and…customs controls
between Great Britain and Northern Ireland” would damage “the fabric of the Union”. Given that this deal clearly does damage the
fabric of the Union, does he still agree with himself?>>The Prime Minister:
I know that this was raised many times in the House yesterday, and I believe that the
Union is preserved, and indeed we are able to go forward together as one United Kingdom
and do free trade deals in a way that would have been impossible under previous deals.
This is a great advance for the whole UK, and we intend to develop that together with
our friends in Northern Ireland. But I must say to the right hon. Gentleman and indeed
his colleagues on the Front Bench that I think it is a bit rich to hear from him about his
sentimental attachment to the fabric of the Union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland
when he has spent most of his political lifetime supporting the IRA and those who would destroy
it by violence.>>Jeremy Corbyn:
The Prime Minister has a habit of not answering any questions put to him. Northern Ireland
will remain on single market rules within the EU on goods and agricultural products,
and the rest of the UK will not. As the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson)
pointed out yesterday, that will create a very real border down the Irish sea, which
the Prime Minister told a DUP conference, in terms, he would never do—and it was not
that long ago; it might have been when he was trying to become the Tory party leadCowaner. The Prime Minister told the House on Saturday
there would be no checks on goods moving between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, yet yesterday
the Brexit Secretary confirmed to the Lords European Union Committee that Northern Irish
businesses sending goods to Britain would have to complete export declaration forms.
Is the Prime Minister right on this, or is the Brexit Secretary right? They cannot both
be right.>>The Prime Minister:
Let us be absolutely clear that the United Kingdom is preserved, whole and entire, by
these arrangements, and indeed the whole of the UK will be allowed to come out of the
European Union customs union so that we can do free trade deals together. There will be
no checks between Northern Ireland and GB, and there will be no tariffs between Northern
Ireland and GB, because we have protected the customs union. This lachrymose defence
of the Union comes a little ill from somebody who not only campaigned to break up the Union
between Great Britain and Northern Ireland by his support of the IRA but also wants to
spend the whole of the next year not just on a referendum on the EU but on another referendum
on Scotland. That is what he wants. This is the threat to our United Kingdom—on the
Labour Front Bench.>>Jeremy Corbyn:
I really do wonder whether the Prime Minister has read clause 21 of his own Bill. The Good
Friday agreement was one of the greatest achievements of this House, led by a Labour Government
at that time. The Prime Minister unlawfully prorogued Parliament. He said he would refuse
to comply with the law. He threw Northern Ireland under a bus. He ripped up protections
for workers’ rights and environmental standards, lost every vote along the way and tried to
prevent genuine democratic scrutiny and debate. He once said that “the whole withdrawal
Bill, as signed by the previous Prime Minister, is a terrible treaty”, yet this deal is
even worse than that. Even if he is not that familiar with it, does the Prime Minister
accept that Parliament should have the necessary time to improve on this worse-than-terrible
treaty?>>The Prime Minister:
It is this Government and this party that deliver on the mandate of the people. I listened
carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman just said, but has he said it before. They
said we could not open the withdrawal agreement, and we did. They said we could not get rid
of the backstop, and we did. They said we could not get a new deal, and we did. Then
they said that we would never get it through Parliament, and they did their utmost to stop
it going through Parliament, but we got it through Parliament last night. This is the
party and this is the Government that deliver on their promises. We said we would put 20,000
more police officers on the streets of this country, and we are. We said we would upgrade
20 hospitals, and we are. We said we would upgrade and uplift education funding around
the whole country, and, even more than that, we are increasing the minimum wage, the living
wage, by the biggest amount since its inception. This is the party that delivers on Brexit
and delivers on the priorities of the British people.>>Hon. Members:
More!>>Mr Speaker:
Order. There will be more—colleagues can be entirely assured of that.>>Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con):
What plans he has to (a) encourage investment in and (b) improve the transport infrastructure
of northern Lincolnshire.>>The Prime Minister:
We will invest in infrastructure in every corner of the UK, including spending £13
billion on transport in the north of the country.>>Martin Vickers:
I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Three things that would encourage investment
in northern Lincolnshire and boost the local economy are free port status for the Humber
ports, improved access to those ports by upgrading the A15 between Lincoln and the A180, and
improved east-west rail freight connections. Will my right hon. Friend confirm his support
for those proposals?>>The Prime Minister:
I can indeed confirm support for those proposals. I well remember meeting my hon. Friend and
his constituents in a corridor in Portcullis House, and they raised with me the issue of
the railway crossing at Suggitt’s Lane. I assure my hon. Friend that Suggitt’s Lane
is never far from my thoughts and that, in addition to the other pledges I have made
today, I have undertakings from the Department of Transport that it will seek to find a solution
and a safe means for pedestrians to cross that railway line.>>Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber)
(SNP): The loss of life that we have learned about
this morning in Essex—39 people taken from this earth—should distress us all, and we
need to dwell on the fact that it happened in the United Kingdom: people put themselves
in such situations in the search of a better life. We must not just brush it off as an
incident. We have to learn the lessons of why it happened. Our thoughts and prayers
must be with everyone, including those from the emergency services who have had to experience
this most shocking sight this morning. We need more than just warm words and that being
the end of it. As a humanity, we must learn from this terrible, terrible tragedy. Within the last hour, the First Ministers
of Scotland and Wales joined forces to oppose this Tory Government’s damaging Brexit Bill—a
Bill that risks jobs, opportunities and our entire economic future. Scotland did not vote
for this toxic Tory Brexit or any Brexit. It voted overwhelmingly to remain. Will the
Prime Minister stop ignoring Scotland and confirm today that he will not allow this
Bill to pass unless consent is given by the Scottish Parliament—yes or no?>>The Prime Minister:
I note carefully what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, but, as he knows, the Scottish
Parliament has no role in approving this deal. On the contrary, it is up to the Members of
this Parliament to approve the deal. I am delighted to say that they did, although it
did not proceed with the support of many Scottish nationalist MPs—[Interruption.] Or any of
them. But if he really still disagrees with this deal and with the way forward, may I
propose to him that he has a word with the other Opposition parties and joins our support
for a general election to settle the matter?>>Ian Blackford:
There we have it. The legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament is meaningless
in the Prime Minister’s eyes. So much for the respect agenda, and so much for the message
in 2014 that we were to lead the United Kingdom and that this was a Union of equals—torn
asunder by the disrespect of this Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Well, Conservative Members do not like the
truth, but the people of Scotland have heard it from the Prime Minister today: our Parliament
does not matter. That is what this Prime Minister thinks of our Government in Scotland. Last night, the Prime Minister was yet again
defeated by this House. He said that he would pull his Bill, but he has not. He wants Scotland
to trust him, but how can we? Fired twice for lying, found unlawful by the courts, the
Prime Minister has sold Scotland out time and again. Parliament and Scotland cannot
trust this Prime Minister. If he so desperately wants an election, Europe is willing and waiting,
so what is stopping him? He must now secure a meaningful extension and bring on a general
election. Let the Scottish people decide our future in Scotland.>>The Prime Minister:
Well, what an exciting development! Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might pass some of
his courage down the line. On the point the right hon. Gentleman raises
about our commitment to the Union, he should know that, thanks to Scotland’s membership
of the Union, Scotland this year received the biggest ever block grant—£1.2 billion—with
£200 million more secured for Scottish farming thanks to the hard work of Scottish Conservative
MPs. Who is letting down Scotland? It is the Scottish National party, with its lackadaisical
Government: the highest taxes anywhere in the UK; declining educational standards; inadequate
healthcare; and a European policy that would take Scotland back into the EU and hand back
control of Scotland’s fish to Brussels. If that is their manifesto, I look forward
to contesting it with them at the polls.>>Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con):
When my right hon. Friend was seeking to become leader of the Conservative party, I was possibly
the only one of our colleagues who asked him for anything in return for their support.
[Interruption.] I am being charitable. I asked him for three things: first, that he would
get Brexit done; secondly, that he would make me a duke, because my wife fancies becoming
a duchess; and, finally, something on which the Leader of the Opposition certainly agrees
with me, which is that Southend becomes a city. When will these things happen?>>The Prime Minister:
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I can say to him that our policy
remains unchanged: we should leave the EU on 31 October, at the end of this month. We
will leave the EU on 31 October if Opposition Members will comply. That is what I will say
to the EU, and I will report back to the House in due course. On his other two requests of
a—>>Mr Speaker:
A duchess and a city.>>The Prime Minister:
On a duchess and a city, may I undertake to report back to the House on the progress we
are making, Mr Speaker?>>Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op):
I wonder whether the Prime Minister has seen the heart-breaking images of children being
killed, mutilated and seriously injured on the Syrian border. Given that the Turks are
members of NATO and old allies of ours, that we have fought with the Kurds, who are good
and trusted friends, and that the United States is a major ally of ours and the Prime Minister
has a good relationship with Donald Trump, will the right hon. Gentleman step up to the
plate and show that the British Government care about this and are willing to do something
about it?>>The Prime Minister:
I thank the hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely right to raise this issue. If I may say so,
this is an appalling state of affairs, and the House will be aware of what is happening
in northern Syria. The British Government have actively deplored this, and I have spoken
twice to President Erdoğan on the matter, both last weekend and this most recent weekend.
I urged him to cease fire and for a standstill. Everybody in the House shares the hon. Gentleman’s
feelings about the loss of civilian life. It is particularly unsettling to see some
of our close allies at variance. The UK is working closely now, as he would expect, with
our French and German friends to try to bring an understanding to President Erdoğan of
the risks that we think this policy is running, and of course to persuade our American friends
that we cannot simply turn a blind eye to what is happening in Syria. The hon. Gentleman
is entirely correct in what he said.>>Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con):
I am grateful for Members’ comments about the tragic events that unfolded in my constituency
this morning. To put 39 people into a locked metal container shows a contempt for human
life that is evil. The best thing we can do in memory of those victims is to find the
perpetrators and bring them to justice. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute
to all those who attended the scene this morning and showed incredible leadership and professionalism?
Let us remember that the scenes they witnessed will stay with them forever.>>The Prime Minister:
I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend and, indeed, other colleagues in the Chamber
have already said. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it is hard to put ourselves in the shoes
of those members of the emergency services as they were asked to open that container
and expose the appalling crime that had taken place. I share my hon. Friend’s strong desire
that the perpetrators of that crime—indeed, all those who engage in similar activity,
because we know that this trade is going on—and all such traders in human beings should be
hunted down and brought to justice.>>Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP):
In a dispute, diametrically opposed outcomes cannot be equally beneficial for both sides.
If the Prime Minister’s great deal is so good for Northern Ireland’s seafood producers
because it allows them access to the single market and customs union, how would he describe
his deal for the shellfish producers of my Argyll and Bute constituency, who fish in
the same waters for exactly the same catch but will not have access to the single market
and customs union? One has a great deal; what does the other one have?>>The Prime Minister:
The fishing communities of Scotland will have a fantastic opportunity, by the end of next
year, to take back control of their entire coastal waters—all 200 miles of them—and
to manage their fisheries in the interests of Scotland and thereby drive an even better
deal for even better access to European markets. That opportunity would be wantonly thrown
away by the abject, servile policy of the SNP, which would hand back control of Scottish
fishing to Brussels.>>Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Ind):
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend achieved the first landmark of his premiership by getting
the House to vote, by a comfortable majority, in favour of Brexit. If he now proceeds in
the reasonable and statesmanlike way I would hope for, he can go on to deliver Brexit in
a month or two’s time, before having a general election on the sensible basis of a mandate
for a Government on the fuller negotiations that will follow. Will my right hon. Friend
get over his disappointment and accept that 31 October is now just Halloween, devoid of
any symbolic or political content, and will rapidly fade away into historical memory?
Having reflected, will he let us know that he is about to table a reasonable timetable
motion, so that the House can complete the task of finalising the details of the withdrawal
Bill? We can then move on, on a basis that might begin to reunite the nation once again
for the future.>>The Prime Minister:
My right hon. and learned Friend makes a reasonable case; alas, we cannot know what the EU will
do in response to the request from Parliament—I stress that it was not my request but a request
from Parliament—to ask for a delay. We await the EU’s reaction to Parliament’s request
for a delay. I must respectfully disagree with my right
hon. and learned Friend, perhaps not for the first time, because I think it would still
be very much in the best interests of this country and of democracy to get Brexit done
by 31 October. I will wait to see what our EU friends and partners say in response not
only to the request for a delay from Parliament but to Parliament’s insistence that it wants
a delay. I do not think the people of this country want a delay and I do not want a delay.
I intend to press on, but I am afraid we now have to see what our EU friends will decide
on our behalf. That is the result of the decision that the Leader of the Opposition took last
night.>>Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde)
(Lab/Co-op): The National Farmers Union reported this week
that 16 million apples have rotted away, because the immigrant workers that normally pick them
for the country have chosen not to come. Immigration was clearly a big part of the EU referendum,
and the Prime Minister has promised a points-based system, but that is not going to allow for
people coming here to pick fruit. What does he intend to do to stop the scandal of British
food rotting away in the fields?>>The Prime Minister:
To the best of my knowledge, there are more EU nationals living and working in this country
than ever before, and, in many ways, that is a great thing, but we have, as the hon.
Gentleman knows, the EU national settlement scheme to encourage people to come forward
to register if they are in any doubt about their status. We will bring forward an Australian-style,
points-based immigration system to make sure that all sectors have access to the labour
they need.>>Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con):
I congratulate the Prime Minister on achieving so many things that the establishment said
were impossible. In the light of that, may I ask him to instruct the Cabinet Office to
examine how we can bring an end to male primogeniture and the ridiculous rules in the honours system
that value women less than men—hopefully before he makes good on his undertakings to
my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess)?>>The Prime Minister:
Speaking as the oldest son who has never seen any particular benefits from that rule, I
understand completely what my right hon. Friend says. I will reflect on her request. I think
that she speaks for many people around the country who wish to see fairness and equality
in the way we do these things>>Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP):
There are families across the United Kingdom who have children suffering from epilepsy.
Many have found that medical cannabis is a great help, but they have been driven either
to act unlawfully or to pay huge sums of money to gain access to medical cannabis. The Secretary
of State for Health stated on 19 March that in several months’ time it will be made
available. End Our Pain wrote to the Prime Minister on 19 September and is still to receive
an answer. When will the Prime Minister take the necessary action required to ensure that
those children can access medical cannabis legally and at no cost?>>The Prime Minister:
I understand that people who require the medical use of cannabis are going through desperate
difficulties, and, of course, it is right that we have changed the way we do things.
The chief medical officer and NHS England have made it clear that cannabis-based products
can be prescribed for medicinal use. It must be up to doctors to decide when it is in the
best interests of their patients to do so. I can tell that the hon. Gentleman does not
find my answer satisfactory, so I will take up the matter personally with him and with
the Secretary of State for Health so that he gets the satisfaction that he needs, and,
more importantly, his constituent gets the reassurance they need.>>Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con):
When a high-profile person has been wrongly accused of a sexual crime and has had his
livelihood and reputation destroyed, following which the police, it seems, would rather fight
him in court than compensate him, might the Prime Minister consider making it clear to
the police that it is their duty to address injustice rather than create and perpetuate
it and that they should pay compensation rather than waste taxpayers’ money on malicious
litigation designed to avoid doing so?>>The Prime Minister:
Yes, I completely agree. There is obviously a very difficult balance to be struck, because
clearly we do not wish in any way to discourage the police from investigating and prosecuting
offences, wherever they may be and no matter how high in office the people in question
may be. None the less, where the police do get it wrong and where they have manifestly
got it wrong, there should be a duty on them not just to apologise, but to make amends.>>Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab):
When is the Prime Minister going to sort out the difference between the BBC and the Government
in relation to his party’s manifesto commitment at the last general election to maintain free
television licences for the over-75s? When is something going to be done about this?>>The Prime Minister:
The BBC has the funds, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well, and it should be funding
those free TV licences. We continue to make that argument vigorously with the BBC. The
hon. Gentleman asks me to put the screws on the BBC. Believe me, we certainly will.>>Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con):
Telford needs its A&E and its women and children’s centre. The town will have a
population of 200,000 within the next 10 years. It is a new town—a former mining town—with
pockets of deprivation and poor health outcomes and, while funding is being pumped into the
affluent county town of Shrewsbury some 20 miles away, Telford is losing vital services.
Will my right hon. Friend reverse the decision of the Health Secretary to approve this plan,
and urge him to listen to the needs and concerns of my constituents and the representatives
of the local area?>>The Prime Minister:
As I have seen myself, my hon. Friend is a battler for the people of Telford; she does
a great deal of good work for them. As a first step, my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary
has called on the A&E at the Princess Royal Hospital to stay open as a local A&E,
but has asked the NHS to come forward with further proposals for better healthcare in
Telford. However, I will certainly take up my hon. Friend’s further points with him.>>Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab):
The elderly and vulnerable are more at risk from scamming than ever before, and just this
week Age UK has highlighted that the Government’s decision to scrap free TV licences for the
over-75s will put them at further risk of scamming; it is expecting fraudsters to collect
the licence fee, door to door, once the Government’s decision has been implemented. Will the Prime
Minister please prioritise the economic crime that scamming is, give the police the funding
they need to investigate and prosecute these crimes, and reverse his decision to scrap
free TV licences for the over-75s?>>The Prime Minister:
I must correct the hon. Gentleman, who just said this is our decision. It is the decision
of the BBC. [Interruption.] No, come on, Opposition Members should be clear about what is happening.
It is up to the BBC to fund these licences. The hon. Gentleman’s point about scamming
is a reasonable one. We will ensure that we give people the protection and security they
need—not least through another 20,000 police officers on the streets of our country.>>Mr Speaker:
Given that there is widespread sadness that the very popular and respected hon. Member
for Watford (Richard Harrington) will be standing down at the next general election, it gives
me great pleasure to call him now.>>Richard Harrington (Watford) (Ind):
Thank you, Mr Speaker; it gives me great pleasure to be called. As you have pointed out, this
may unfortunately be my penultimate Prime Minister’s questions and will unfortunately
be your penultimate Prime Minister’s questions, but I hope that it will not be my right hon.
Friend the Prime Minister’s penultimate Prime Minister’s questions. Is the Prime Minister aware that many Members
who, like me, voted for his Bill last night but voted against the programme motion would
be delighted to accept a reasonable compromise for the proper scrutiny of the Bill, and that
this was not a vote for revocation in disguise?>>The Prime Minister:
I thank my hon. Friend for his support. I thought he was going to ask about the hospital
in Watford, which I am delighted to say is going to be rebuilt, along with many others
across the country. I congratulate him on being the Conservative Member of Parliament
for Watford. I am delighted with all the work he has done for his constituency. On the Bill, I am delighted that the House
voted in favour of it. Unfortunately, as I say, it willed the end but not the means.
The House of Commons has, alas, voted to delay Brexit again. We must now see what the EU
says about that request for a delay, and I will be studying its answer very closely to
see how we proceed.>>Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green)
(Lab): Last Saturday, Haringey Borough football club
players experienced racist slurs, were spat upon, and experienced the most disgusting
behaviour during a grassroots football match. Will the Prime Minister congratulate the manager,
Tom Loizou, on taking the players off, which was a very courageous decision, and can he
explain to the House why bigotry has been emboldened under the current Government?>>The Prime Minister:
I was with the hon. Lady until her last point. I certainly think that racism in football
is utterly disgusting and should be stamped out at every possible opportunity. She will
have seen what happened in Bulgaria. I am delighted to say that the head of the Bulgarian
football association was dismissed from his position as a result of what happened in that
match. We will certainly be making sure that we do everything we can to stamp out racism
of any kind, wherever it takes place in this society and whatever form it takes.>>Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con):
Connectivity across Angus is one of the most urgent issues in my constituency and I want
to see full coverage: mobile roll-out throughout my constituency. I therefore wholeheartedly
support the shared rural network initiative, which is a joint initiative between the Government
and the four main mobile providers ensuring that we have masts in “not spot” areas
and reciprocal agreements between the operators to ensure that my constituents, and constituents
across the United Kingdom, have that access. Will the Prime Minister assure me that he
understands that connectivity is a top priority in Angus, and will he ensure that the funding
that needs to go into this initiative to get it going will be given?>>The Prime Minister:
Once again, the voice of Scotland—the voice of Angus. I thank my hon. Friend very much.
We are indeed engaged in not just levelling up the provision of gigabit broadband across
the whole of the country but improving the 4G mobile signal as well. It is our ambition
to have 95% of the UK covered by the 4G mobile signal. We have made changes to the regulations
and the planning laws to make it easier for the infrastructure to be put in place—and
my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has just assured me that her particular request is
going to be addressed.>>Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab):
The Mayor of London has cut air pollution in central London by a third in the first
six months of his ultra low emission zone. Does the Prime Minister support the Mayor’s
plan to expand that zone and does he still oppose the third runway at Heathrow that will
reverse these gains?>>The Prime Minister:
I am as scandalised as the hon. Gentleman about the failure of the Mayor of London to
improve air quality, if that is what I understood him to have just said. When I was Mayor of
London, just to pick a period entirely at random, we cut NOx—nitrous oxide—emissions
by, I think, 16% and we cut particulates by 20%. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that this
Government have the most far-reaching ambitions of any society in the EU to improve air quality.
As for the Heathrow third runway, it remains the case that I have lively doubts about the
ability of the promoters of that scheme, as I think he does, to meet standards on air
quality and noise emissions, and we will have to see how the courts adjudicate in that matter.>>Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con):
In this House, we defend forever the right to peaceful protest, yet on 15 August, and
just three weeks ago, pro-Pakistani organisations held violent protests outside the Indian high
commission. This Sunday, there is the threat of 10,000 people being brought to demonstrate
outside the Indian high commission on Diwali—the most holy day for Hindus, Sikhs and Jains.
What action will the Government take to prevent violent protests this Sunday?>>The Prime Minister:
I join my hon. Friend, who speaks strongly and well for his constituency, in deploring
demonstrations that end up being intimidating in any way. He will understand that this is
a police operational matter, but I have just been speaking to my right hon. Friend the
Home Secretary, and she will be raising it with the police. We must all be clear in this
House that violence and intimidation anywhere in this country are wholly unacceptable.>>Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab):
Eight consultations on, and millions of people are still caught by the leasehold scandal.
At what stage are the Prime Minister and his Government going to get a grip and end this
feudal system once and for all?>>The Prime Minister:
I thank the hon. Gentleman, because he raises something that is of great importance to all
our constituents. We are delivering a strong package of reforms. We will legislate to ban
new leasehold houses, reduce future ground rents to zero in all but exceptional circumstances
and close the legal loopholes that currently subject leaseholders to unacceptable costs.
He raises a very important issue, and believe me, we are on it right now.>>Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con):
A toxic and carcinogenic bromate plume is threatening my constituency. There are plans
to drill a new gravel quarry in Smallford, which may disturb the plume and cause it to
enter the watercourses. Will the Prime Minister use his good offices to ensure that the Environment
Agency does not allow quarrying on this gravel pit until the toxicity of the bromate plume
has been fully assessed?>>The Prime Minister:
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point about the toxic bromate plume, which reminds
me of the emanations we sometimes hear from parts of this House. I will get on immediately
to the Environment Secretary and ensure that she takes it up.>>Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab):
Women who face sexual abuse often stay silent and suffer alone. They blame themselves for
the shame and guilt that they feel. They break down and cry alone because they feel that
no one will ever believe them, and they fear repercussions if they speak out. The fear
of not being believed means that brave women put on a smile and go about their daily lives,
an example of which we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield).
That silence provides the perpetrators of the abuse with the get-out-of-jail card they
need. Today, I ask the most powerful man in the United Kingdom one simple question: does
he agree that any woman who is subjected to sexual abuse of any kind should be believed—yes
or no?>>The Prime Minister:
The hon. Lady raises a crucial issue that many people in this country feel is not being
sufficiently addressed. That is one of the reasons we have expanded the provision of
independent domestic violence advisers and independent sexual abuse advisers. Every woman
in this country who is a victim or a potential victim of domestic violence or sexual abuse
should have the certainty of knowing that there is somewhere she can go and someone
she can turn to for reassurance and support. It is vital that, as a society, we ensure
that. I do not believe that, as a country, we are doing enough to bring rapists to justice.
The level of successful prosecutions for the crime of rape is frankly inadequate, and I
wish to raise that with the criminal justice system, because I have looked at the numbers,
and they are not going in the right direction. Women must have confidence that crimes of
domestic violence and sexual abuse are treated seriously by our law enforcement system.>>Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con):
I know that the Prime Minister, like me, is a big supporter of Spaceport Cornwall, where
we aim to launch satellites into space from Europe’s first horizontal spaceport by 2021.
To achieve that, we need Government agencies to ensure that the contracts and regulations
are in place. Will he ensure that the UK Space Agency and the Civil Aviation Authority have
the resources they need and work at pace to make the most of this exciting opportunity?>>The Prime Minister:
I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he is doing to promote the prospects of the new
spaceport in Newquay which this Government are constructing; he is doing an outstanding
job. I think we all have a favourite candidate for the person who is best placed to trial
one of the new vessels that we propose to send into space. If it is a horizontal spaceport,
I am anxious that it will take off at a horizontal trajectory, in which case, even if we were
to recruit the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) to be the first pilot,
there is a risk that he would end up somewhere else on earth—maybe Venezuela would be a
good destination.>>Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP):
Mr Speaker,“I would vote to stay in the single market. I’m in favour of the single
market,”and if the European Union did not exist, we would have to “invent” it. Those
are not my words—they are the Prime Minister’s. What was it about the trappings of power that
led him to abandon reason, embrace Brexit and put so many jobs, so much trade and so
much prosperity at risk across these islands?>>The Prime Minister:
As I said in the House on Saturday, there are clearly two schools of thought—two sides
of the British psyche—when it comes to this issue. The House has been divided, just as
the country has been divided. I happen to think that, after 47 years of EU membership,
in the context of an intensifying federalist agenda in the EU, we have a chance now to
make a difference to our national destiny and to seek a new and better future, as a
proud, independent, open, generous, global free-trading economy. That is what we can
do. That is the opportunity that this country has, and I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman
will support it and help us to deliver Brexit, deliver on the mandate of the people and get
it done by 31 October.>>Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con):
Last week saw damaging US tariffs applied to many iconic Moray products such as single
malt Scotch whisky and shortbread. These industries have nothing to do with the dispute between
the US and the EU, so what are the Government and the Prime Minister doing to get those
tariffs removed as quickly as possible?>>The Prime Minister:
My hon. Friend campaigns valiantly on that issue, and he is absolutely right. Both the
Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have raised the matter personally with our counterparts
in the United States. It is a rank injustice that Scotch whisky is being penalised in this
way, and we hope that those tariffs will be withdrawn as soon as possible, but it has
been raised repeatedly at the highest level.>>Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD):
I would like to associate myself and my Liberal Democrat colleagues with the remarks made
earlier about the horrific deaths of 39 people in Essex. It is good manners to say thank you when our
friends help us out, so would the Prime Minister like to express his gratitude to the 19 Labour
MPs who voted for his deal last night and to the Leader of the Opposition for meeting
him this morning to help push through his bad Brexit deal?>>The Prime Minister:
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me that opportunity, and I do indeed express
my gratitude, as I think I did last night. I am happy to repeat that today, for the avoidance
of doubt, to all Members of the House who have so far joined the movement to get Brexit
done and deliver on the mandate of the people. I do not think I can yet count her in that
number. Perhaps I could ask her, in return, to cease her missions to Brussels, where,
to the best to my knowledge, she has been asking them not to give us a deal. That was
a mistake. They have given us an excellent deal, and I hope that, in the cross-party
spirit that she supports, she will endorse the deal.>>Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
(Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.>>Mr Speaker:
I say to the hon. Gentleman in all courtesy that points of order come later. I am playing
for time, as Members beetle out of the Chamber, before I call the Home Secretary. I merely
note en passant that there is a distinguished orthodontist observing our proceedings today,
accompanied by his splendid wife—I wish them a warm welcome to the House of Commons;
it is good to see them. Momentarily, when Members have completed their beetling out
of the Chamber quickly and quietly, we will be able to proceed with the statement by the
Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *