>> Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab):
If she will list her official engagements
for Wednesday 3 April.
>> The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May):
April marks 50 years since the launch of our
longest sustained military operation, Operation
Relentless, and the beginning of our continuous
at sea deterrent. I am sure all Members on
both sides of the House will want to join
me in paying tribute to all the generations
of Royal Navy submariners, their families,
who sacrifice so much, and all those involved
in protecting our nation.
Tomorrow marks 70 years since the founding
of NATO. I assure the House that, under this
Government, the United Kingdom will continue
to play our leading role in NATO as it continues
its mission of keeping nearly 1 billion people
safe.
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.
>> Mr Cunningham:
I assure the Prime Minister that I will not
raise Brexit, which will be raised later.
I want to raise another very important issue.
Consultants and doctors at the university
hospital in my constituency have raised the
issue of the NHS pension scheme and the tapered
annual allowance, the consequences of which
are that doctors are retiring early and turning
down additional shifts for fear of paying
higher tax bills to the Government. That is
resulting in longer waiting times for patients
and a shortage of doctors and consultants.
Will she raise this with the Chancellor as
soon as possible and inform me of his answer?
>> The Prime Minister:
I am aware of the issue that the hon. Gentleman
raises. In fact, the Chancellor and the Treasury
are already in discussion with the Department
of Health and Social Care on this very issue.
The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that
the Chancellor is on the Treasury Bench and
has heard his point. I will make sure that
we confirm to him what comes out of those
discussions.
>> Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con):
With party loyalties being severely tested,
is my right hon. Friend aware that, as the
country and the world ponder whether Brexit
means Brexit and whether we will make a success
of it, Southend-on-Sea has been welcoming
ambassadors from all over the world to work
in partnership and on investment, looking
at our pier and building a new marina? Will
she consider bringing forward a meaningful
vote, for which I believe there is a majority
in the House, that Southend-on-Sea be declared
a city?
>> The Prime Minister:
I should just congratulate my hon. Friend
on so cleverly working in Southend’s claim
to become a city. As he says, it is very important
that we see that investment coming to our
country. The benefits and opportunities, when
we have got over this stage and delivered
Brexit, for building that better Britain and
building that better future, including in
Southend-on-Sea, will be there. It is for
all of us to ensure that we can get over this
stage, get a deal through, get to Brexit,
deliver on Brexit and build that better future,
of which I am sure Southend will be a leading
part.
>> Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab):
I join the Prime Minister in wishing the people
of Southend well, and I hope it does become
a city. [Interruption.] Is that okay?
I welcome the Prime Minister’s offer of
talks following the meetings I have held with
Members across the House, and I look forward
to meeting her later today. I welcome her
willingness to compromise to resolve the Brexit
deadlock.
When the Prime Minister began her premiership,
she promised to resolve the burning injustices
facing this country, so can she explain why,
according to the Government’s own official
figures, poverty has risen for all ages under
her Administration?
>> The Prime Minister:
No one in government wants to see poverty
rising, and we take this very seriously indeed,
but, as I have said previously to the right
hon. Gentleman, the only sustainable way to
tackle poverty is with a strong economy and
a welfare system that helps people into work.
That is why it is important that we have the
lowest unemployment since the 1970s and that
the number of homes where no one works is
at a record low. But we also need to make
sure that work pays. Let me just give the
right hon. Gentleman some figures: in 2010,
under a Labour Government, someone working
full-time on the national minimum wage would
have taken home £9,200 after tax and national
insurance, whereas now, thanks to our tax
cuts and the biggest increase in the national
living wage, they will take home more than
£13,700—that is £4,500 more under a Conservative
Government.
>> Jeremy Corbyn:
Official figures show that since 2010 child
poverty has increased by half a million, working
age poverty has increased by 200,000 and pensioner
poverty has increased by 400,000. Although
the Prime Minister is right to mention the
national minimum wage, whose introduction
her party strongly opposed, we should just
be aware of what the national minimum wage
actually means: it is £8.21 for over-25s;
for 21 to 24-year-olds it is only £7.70;
and for apprentices it is just £3.90 an hour.
These are poverty wages. There are now 8 million
people in this country in work and in poverty.
Many on middle incomes are struggling to make
ends meet. Universal credit is failing. Will
the Prime Minister today at least halt the
roll-out of universal credit and agree to
a thorough review of it?
>> The Prime Minister:
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, as we have
been rolling out universal credit, we have
been making changes to it. One of the early
measures we took when I became Prime Minister
was to change the taper rate. We have since
abolished the seven-day wait. We have ensured
that we have taken action to make it easier
for those who are transferring on to UC in
relation to their housing benefit. But, crucially,
there is only one way to ensure that we sustainably
deal with the issue of poverty—
>> Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown)
(Lab/Co-op):
A Labour Government.
>> The Prime Minister:
No, and I will come on to that. It is to ensure
that we have a strong economy that delivers
jobs, and better jobs, and that people can
keep more of the money that they earn. What
do we know would happen? From behind the right
hon. Gentleman, an hon. Member says, from
a sedentary position, that the answer is a
Labour Government. But a Labour Government
would spend £1,000 billion more than has
been proposed; a Labour Government would put
up taxes; and the Labour party has opposed
tax cut after tax cut. This is how you help
working people: tax cuts which keep people
in work; better jobs; and high employment.
That is under the Conservatives.
>> Jeremy Corbyn:
From a Government that rolled out austerity
and has caused such poverty across the country,
the Prime Minister really ought to think for
a moment about what she has just said. The
last Labour Government halved child poverty;
brought in children’s centres and Sure Start;
and reduced poverty across the whole country.
She seems to be ignoring the true impact of
universal credit. The Trussell Trust says
that in areas where universal credit has been
rolled out, food bank use has increased by
more than 50%. This week, we also learned
that another 400,000 pensioners are in poverty
compared with 2010. So why is the Prime Minister
pressing ahead with cuts to pension credit
for couples where one person is of pension
age and the other is not?
>> The Prime Minister:
Under a Conservative Government we have seen
the triple lock on pensions, which has provided
good increases for pensioners year after year,
and under this Conservative Government we
have seen the introduction of the new pension
arrangements for individuals who are pensioners.
Let us just remember what we saw under a Labour
Government. It is not under a Conservative
Government that we saw a 75p rise in pensions—it
was under Labour.
>> Jeremy Corbyn:
The last Labour Government lifted 2 million
pensioners out of poverty; this Government
have put 400,000 more into poverty. Age UK,
which I think knows a thing or two about this,
says that this proposal by the Government
is “a substantial stealth cut”. This year,
15,000 pensioner households could be up to
£7,000 a year worse off as a result of this
stealth cut.
I am pleased that the Prime Minister mentioned
the triple lock, because at the last general
election the Government alarmed older people
by pledging to scrap the triple lock and the
means-tested winter fuel allowance. Will the
Prime Minister give an unequivocal commitment
that this is no longer Government policy and
will not be in the next Tory manifesto?
>> The Prime Minister:
We have given our commitments to pensioners.
We are clear: we are keeping those commitments
to pensioners. What we have seen under Conservatives
in government is the basic state pension rise
by over £1,450 a year. That is in direct
contrast to what a Labour Government did for
our pensioners. We want people to be able
to live in dignity in their old age, and that
is what this Conservative Government are delivering.
>> Jeremy Corbyn:
I am sure that the whole generation of WASPI
women will be pretty alarmed at the lack of
action by this Government and the lack of
justice for them. Additionally, over 1 million
over-75s currently receive a free TV licence,
a scheme established by the last Labour Government.
This Government transferred the scheme to
the BBC without guaranteeing its funding.
Will the Government take responsibility and
guarantee free TV licences for the over-75s?
>> The Prime Minister:
We have been clear what we want the BBC to
do and, frankly, I think that the BBC is in
a position to be able to do that with the
income that it receives.
>> Jeremy Corbyn:
The last Labour Government guaranteed free
TV licences for the over-75s; this Government
appear to be outsourcing that policy to the
BBC. I think it should be an item of public
policy and not be left to somebody else to
administer on behalf of the Government.
The last Labour Government lifted 2 million
pensioners out of poverty and 2 million children
out of absolute poverty, and homelessness
was cut in half. Contrast that with this Government,
who have has put half a million more children
and 400,000 more pensioners into poverty,
and doubled homelessness. This, by this Government,
is a political choice. There is nothing inevitable
about rising poverty, homelessness and soaring
food-bank use in the fifth richest country
on earth. So yes, let us work to try to resolve
the Brexit deadlock, but unless this Government
tackle insecure work, low pay and rising pensioner
poverty, the Prime Minister’s Government
will be marked down for what they are—a
failure in the eyes of the people of this
country.
>> The Prime Minister:
The right hon. Gentleman cited the last Labour
Government—I did not realise that he was
such a fan of the last Labour Government.
He seemed to spend the entire time voting
against them when he had a Labour Government.
Let us just talk about what is happening under
this Government: a record rate of employment;
wages growing at their fastest for a decade;
debt falling; a long-term plan for the NHS,
and the biggest cash boost in the NHS’s
history; a skills-based immigration system;
more money for police, local councils and
schools; the biggest upgrade in workers’
rights for over 20 years; the freeing of councils
to build more homes; world-class public services—
>> Mr Speaker:
Order. Mr Russell-Moyle, you are behaving
in a truly delinquent fashion. Calm yourself,
young man. I had to have words with you yesterday.
You are a bit over-eager. It is not the sort
of thing that I would ever have done as a
Back Bencher.
>> The Prime Minister:
World-class public services; better jobs;
more homes; and a stronger economy—Conservatives
delivering on the things that matter.
>> Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham)
(Con):
As this week is World Autism Awareness Week,
may I ask my right hon. Friend to encourage
all Departments to follow the examples being
set by the Ministry of Justice, the Department
for Work and Pensions and the Department of
Health and Social Care, which are taking initiatives
to improve their engagement with people who
have autism in their families? I also ask
her to endorse the autism awareness training
course for Members of Parliament—offered
through the all-party parliamentary group
on autism and the National Autistic Society—which
will be held in this House on 1 May. As we
celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Autism
Act 2009, it would be good to see every MP
go through that training course to better
help their constituents.
>> The Prime Minister:
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for
the work that she did to bring in the Autism
Act 2009. It was very important; it was groundbreaking.
It was the first piece of parliamentary legislation
to be linked to the condition of autism. I
thank her and the members of the all-party
parliamentary group on autism for their work
on this important issue, including in highlighting
the awareness week, and in ensuring that autism
training is available for Members of Parliament.
I hope, as she does, that Members from across
the House take that up. We are reviewing our
autism strategy to ensure that it remains
fit for purpose, because we want to know what
is working and where we need to push harder
to transform our approach, so we will continue
to look at the issue, which she rightly highlighted
in her work on the Act. I welcome that, and
congratulate her on the work that she continues
to do on the issue.
>> Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber)
(SNP):
It is well known that the SNP supports a people’s
vote and has supported revocation, but all
the way through this process, right back to
2016, the SNP and the Scottish Government
have sought compromise. We have published
document after document, including “Scotland’s
Place in Europe”, which we know Michel Barnier
has read; he says it is an interesting document.
Why does the Prime Minister continue to ignore
Scotland’s voices? Why has she restricted
herself to inviting the Leader of the Opposition
to formal talks? Why has she not invited the
Scottish Government and the Welsh Government?
Why is it that Scotland’s voices are being
ignored by this Prime Minister and this Government?
>> The Prime Minister:
I am meeting the First Minister of Scotland
later today, and we will be talking to her
about Scotland.
>> Mr Speaker:
Order. The right hon. Gentleman asked a question,
and the Prime Minister is answering it. Let
us hear, fully and courteously, the answer.
>> The Prime Minister:
Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I say, I am meeting
the First Minister of Scotland, and the First
Minister of Wales, later today. The right
hon. Gentleman asks why I offered to meet
the Leader of the Opposition. I am happy to
meet Members from across the House to discuss
the Brexit issue, but I think I am right in
saying that the Leader of the Opposition and
I both want to ensure that we leave the European
Union with a deal, whereas of course the right
hon. Gentleman, as he has just said, has a
policy of revoking article 50. That means
not leaving the European Union at all.
>> Ian Blackford:
I asked about formal talks. I am well aware
that my friend and colleague is meeting the
Prime Minister this afternoon.
>> Mr Speaker:
Order. Members are becoming very over-excited.
The right hon. Gentleman has a right to be
heard, and he will be heard.
>> Ian Blackford:
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me make it clear
that the voices of Scotland will not be shouted
down by Conservatives in this House. The important
factor here is that the Prime Minister is
having formal talks with the Leader of the
Opposition. Scotland will not accept a Tory
or a Labour Brexit. Scotland voted to remain
in the European Union, and we simply will
not be dragged out against our will. Will
the Prime Minister now engage in formal talks
with the Scottish Government, the Scottish
National party and other Opposition parties
to make sure that our voices are heard, and
that the desire to stay in the European Union—the
best deal for all of us—is listened to and
respected?
>> The Prime Minister:
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, because
we have met to talk about these issues, just
as I have met other party leaders from across
the House, I am always happy to meet party
leaders from across the House. I want to find
a way forward that delivers on the referendum
and delivers Brexit as soon as possible, but
in a way that means that we do not have to
fight the European parliamentary elections,
and in an orderly way for this country. He
talks about voices from Scotland; I can assure
him that there are indeed strong voices for
Scotland in this House—they sit on the Conservative
Benches.
>> Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con):
Can I urge my right hon. Friend the Prime
Minister, on behalf of all the people of Selby,
to put her weight behind the campaign for
step-free access for Selby railway station?
I am sorry to disappoint colleagues with my
line of questioning, but this matter is very
important for the people of Selby. In this
day and age, it is totally unacceptable that
those who are unable to walk up stairs—people
with disabilities—are denied access to public
transport. The people of Selby demand action.
>> The Prime Minister:
First, I thank my hon. Friend for his service
as a Government Minister since 2017. He has
worked extremely hard, serving as both a Wales
Office Minister and a Government Whip simultaneously,
and I am sorry that he has resigned. I also
thank him for raising the important issue
of access to public transport, particularly
access to stations for people with disabilities.
He asked me to add my weight to the campaign,
but I have to say that his considerable weight
has been behind the campaign for a long time.
As a campaigner!
>> Mr Speaker:
Order. The Prime Minister was referring to
the hon. Gentleman’s qualities as a campaigner.
That is what she was saying. She was not looking
at the hon. Gentleman when she made that remark;
she was saying it on the basis of her knowledge
of him.
>> The Prime Minister:
As I said, my hon. Friend has been campaigning
hard on the issue for some time. I understand
that the Department for Transport will announce
tomorrow the stations that will benefit from
funding for accessibility, if my hon. Friend
can have just a little patience and wait for
the announcement.
>> Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab):
When the Prime Minister sits down later this
afternoon with my right hon. Friend the Leader
of the Opposition and the shadow Brexit Secretary,
no doubt she will hear that Labour’s policy
on Brexit is to secure membership of a customs
union and the single market, and—crucially—to
get a people’s vote on any deal. If the
Prime Minister accepts that compromise, she
can pass her deal and leave office. Will she
do so?
>> The Prime Minister:
The purpose of meeting the Leader of the Opposition
today is to look at the areas on which we
agree. There are actually a number of areas
on which we agree in relation to Brexit: we
both want to deliver on leaving the EU with
a deal; we both want to protect jobs; we both
want to ensure that we end free movement;
and we both recognise the importance of the
withdrawal agreement. We want to find a way
forward that can command the support of this
House, to deliver on Brexit and the result
of the referendum, and to ensure that people
can continue to have trust in their politicians
doing what they ask us to do.
>> Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con):
Robert Small and David West were two young
men from the Fareham area with their whole
lives ahead of them. While suffering with
mental health problems and under the care
of Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust, they
tragically took their own lives. Few can imagine
the grief endured by their families, who have
since been campaigning for a change at Southern
Health, which has struggled with systemic
issues and problems for some years. Will my
right hon. Friend reassure me that the Government
will work with me and other Hampshire MPs
to secure vital changes at Southern Health
so that such tragedies may be avoided?
>> The Prime Minister:
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important
issue. I extend my deepest sympathies to the
families and friends of the constituents she
referred to. These incidents are very concerning.
I understand that the local trust and the
county council have pledged to work together
more closely to resolve issues, but we remain
absolutely committed to transforming mental
health services around the country. We are
providing record investment for these services,
and we have an ambitious plan to increase
the workforce and deal with the issues. I
reassure my hon. Friend that action will be
taken to ensure that we can prevent such incidents
from happening in the future. They were terrible
incidents, and our sympathies are with the
family and friends of the victims.
>> Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab):
This afternoon there will be a reception in
Parliament to honour the 51 Muslims killed
in Christchurch. In the wake of that horrific
terror attack, mosques were targeted in Birmingham
and Newcastle. There is a global rise in Islamophobia,
including in the ranks of the Tory party.
In an article for The Times this week, their
party chairman could not even utter the word
“Islamophobia”. How can they deal with
a problem they cannot even name? I ask the
Prime Minister, for the third time, when will
the Conservative party conduct an inquiry
and adopt the all-party parliamentary group
on British Muslims definition of Islamophobia?
>> The Prime Minister:
As I believe I have said to the hon. Gentleman
before, when any allegations of Islamophobia
are made, against elected Conservatives or
members of the Conservative party, we take
them very seriously and action is taken in
relation to those individuals. He referred
to the attacks on mosques. I absolutely condemn
any attacks against mosques, or indeed against
any place of worship. I am pleased to say
that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary
has increased the funding available to help
protect places of worship against attacks.
This has no place in our society and we should
all be working to ensure that people can go
to their place of worship and feel safe and
secure in this country.
>> Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con):
Does it remain the Prime Minister’s position
that the Leader of the Opposition is not fit
to govern?
>> The Prime Minister:
Yes, I think my right hon. Friend will know,
having heard my remarks about what I think
a Labour Government would do to the economy,
that I do not think the Labour party should
be in government. It is the Conservatives
who are delivering for people. The Leader
of the Opposition and I have different opinions
on a number of issues, and I will highlight
just one. When this country suffered a chemical
weapons attack on the streets of Salisbury,
it was this Government, with me as Prime Minister,
who stood up to the perpetrators. The right
hon. Gentleman said that he preferred to believe
Vladimir Putin than our own security agencies.
That is not the position of someone who should
be Prime Minister.
>> Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)
(PC):
The British Government are in meltdown, Westminster
is completely dysfunctional, and this morning
the Wales Office lost its fourth Minister
in a year. Who could possibly say that Westminster
is working for Wales?
>> The Prime Minister:
The hon. Gentleman should look at the funding
that has been made available to Wales by this
Westminster Government. He talks about the
Government of Wales. There are indeed issues
there that I think we should be focusing on,
such as the national health service in Wales
under a Labour Government. Yes, Members may
well point. That is what we see when Labour
is in office: a national health service that
has not met its A&E target for over a decade.
>> Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con):
According to polling that has just been published,
over 58% of the British public have expressed
a wish to have a final say on the Brexit process.
Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that,
with the ongoing impasse here in Westminster,
and despite her best endeavours to pass her
deal, and indeed the ongoing endeavours of
the House to find a compromise, the British
public are right increasingly to think that
they should have a final say before proceeding
with Brexit?
>> The Prime Minister:
I know how passionately my hon. Friend has
campaigned on this issue for some time now.
He refers to the deal that the Government
have put forward being rejected. Of course,
the Leader of the Opposition’s deal has
also been rejected by this House, as has a
second referendum. What I believe we should
be doing is delivering on the result of the
first referendum, which is why I will be sitting
down with the Leader of the Opposition later
today.
>> Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston)
(Lab/Co-op):
My constituent Georgia Stokes has two children
with autism who have been unable to get the
support they need and are therefore not at
school because of incorrect diagnoses. Every
child with autism is unique, which is why
awareness raising and education about autism
is vital. Some 34% of children on the autism
spectrum say that the worst thing about being
at school is being picked on. This World Autism
Awareness Week, will the Prime Minister commit
to speeding up the time between referral for
autism and diagnosis, and will she promise
to fund mandatory training for healthcare
professionals so that parents such as Georgia
are not left to fend for themselves?
>> The Prime Minister:
The hon. Lady again raises the important issue
of autism. I am sure that, as constituency
MPs, we all see cases where parents have found
it very difficult to get support for their
children who are on the autistic spectrum.
It is important to ensure that there is the
awareness and the ability to deal with this
issue. As I said in response to my right hon.
Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham
(Dame Cheryl Gillan), we are looking again
at our autism strategy, because we want to
ensure that we have in place all we need to
support those with autism.
>> Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con):
Last week in this Chamber, the Prime Minister
said that the Leader of the Opposition is
“The biggest threat to our standing in the
world, to our defence and to our economy”
In her judgment, what now qualifies him for
involvement in Brexit?
>> The Prime Minister:
Every Member of this House is involved in
Brexit. I want to deliver Brexit. I want to
deliver Brexit in an orderly way. I want to
do it as soon as possible. I want to do it
without us having to fight European parliamentary
elections. To do that, we need to get an agreement
through this House on the withdrawal agreement
and a deal. The House has rejected every proposal
that has gone before it so far, as well as
a second referendum and revoking article 50.
I believe that the public want us to work
across the House to find a solution that delivers
Brexit, delivers on the referendum and gives
people faith that politicians have done what
they asked and actually delivered for them.
>> Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP):
After two years of Brexit deadlock, intransigence
and a seven-hour Cabinet meeting, the best
the Prime Minister can do is invite the leader
of the British Labour party to become the
co-owner of her Brexit failure. Let me ask
her: had she been the Leader of the Opposition
and been invited into a trap like that, would
she have been foolish enough to accept?
>> The Prime Minister:
Across this House, we all have a responsibility
to ensure that we deliver Brexit and that
we do it as soon as possible and in an orderly
way. It is entirely right, and I think members
of the public expect it, for us to reach out
across the House to find a way through; they
want a solution. The country needs a solution,
and the country deserves a solution, and that
is what I am working to find.
>> Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con):
In the past fortnight there have been two
incidents involving knife crime in my city
of Chelmsford, and my constituents are extremely
concerned. Can my right hon. Friend give us
an update on this week’s knife crime summit?
>> The Prime Minister:
My hon. Friend raises a very important issue.
Our thoughts are with the family and friends
of her constituents. It was a very important
summit that we held on Monday. I was pleased
to bring together people from the police,
across Government Departments, community groups,
the judiciary, healthcare and a wide range
of activities to recognise the importance
of taking a holistic, collective approach
to dealing with knife crime. We will be consulting
on a statutory duty to deal with knife crime
as a public health issue, which is important,
to ensure that everybody plays their part.
After the summit I was able to meet a number
of families who had lost children—I say
children, because these were teenagers—as
a result of serious violence involving knife
crime and a shooting. The horror and devastation
of these attacks is brought home when sitting
down and listening to the families who have
seen promising young lives cut short in this
tragic way. We are committed as a Government
to working not just across Government but
with society as a whole to deal with the scourge
of serious violence, which is taking so many
young lives.
>> Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport)
(Lab/Co-op):
Back in June last year, I asked the Prime
Minister to help fund the recycling of the
20 old nuclear submarines tied up and rotting
in Devonport and Rosyth. Today’s National
Audit Office report shows that the Ministry
of Defence has no funded plan to do this work,
and no submarines have been dismantled since
1980—that is the year I was born. Will the
Prime Minister now extend the civil nuclear
clean-up to make sure that it includes all
the Royal Navy submarines, so that we can
deal with this issue, and make that part of
her legacy in office?
>> The Prime Minister:
We remain committed to the safe, secure and
cost-effective defuelling and dismantling
of our nuclear submarines as soon as is practically
possible. The MOD continues to act as a responsible
nuclear operator by maintaining its decommissioned
nuclear submarines to meet the necessary safety
and security standards. I think its commitment
is illustrated by the recent success in the
initial dismantling of the submarine Swiftsure,
which has been followed immediately by the
initial dismantling of Resolution. The MOD
will continue to work with the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority to achieve steady-state disposal
of our laid-up submarines as soon as possible.
We are working on this. The Labour Government
had 13 years as well, and what work did they
do during those 13 years on this decommissioning
issue?
>> Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con):
Why is a Conservative Prime Minister, who
repeatedly told us that no deal is better
than a bad deal, now approaching Labour MPs
to block a WTO Brexit when most Conservative
MPs want us to leave the European Union with
a clean break in nine days’ time?
>> The Prime Minister:
I say to my right hon. Friend that I was absolutely
right: no deal is better than a bad deal,
but we have got a good deal. We had a chance
last Friday to ensure that we would leave
the European Union on 22 May, and I am grateful
to all colleagues who supported that motion,
some of whom, I know, doing so with a very
heavy heart. But I want to ensure that we
deliver Brexit. I want to ensure that we do
it in an orderly way, as soon as possible,
without fighting European elections, but to
do that we need to find a way of this House
agreeing the withdrawal agreement and agreeing
the way forward. It is on that basis that
I have been sitting down with Members across
the House and will continue to do so in order
to ensure that we can find a way forward that
this House can support.
>> Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab):
Grace Warnock is a young East Lothian constituent
of mine who has Crohn’s disease. Using accessible
toilets, she has faced negative comments and
abuse from adults, but this has inspired her
to create Grace’s sign to remind everyone
that there are people with invisible disabilities,
who have every right to use accessible toilet
facilities, and that society should have a
heart. Will the Prime Minister join me in
endorsing Grace’s campaign to standardise
toilet signage to ensure that anyone—anybody—with
a disability feels able to use accessible
toilets without abuse?
>> The Prime Minister:
I commend Grace for the work that she has
been doing on this issue—sadly, coming out
of her own personal experience. I think the
hon. Gentleman has raised a very important
issue. We want to make sure that people with
invisible disabilities are able to access
public toilets and can do so in a way that
does not lead to the abuse that, sadly, Grace
suffered. I fully recognise the campaign that
she is fighting, and I think it is an excellent
campaign.
>> Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North
Hykeham) (Con):
The people of Sleaford and North Hykeham—like
myself, like the country—voted for Brexit
and want to see it delivered. I understand
the Prime Minister’s saying that we have
to look at the balance of risk. Indeed, I
looked at the balance of risk myself and supported
her deal, and I urge others in our party to
do so. But if it comes to the point when we
have to balance the risk of a no-deal Brexit
versus the risk of letting down the country
and ushering in a Marxist, antisemite-led
Government, what does she think at that point
is the lowest risk?
>> The Prime Minister:
First, I thank my hon. Friend for the support
she has shown for the Government’s deal
and for the encouragement she is giving to
others to support that deal. I want to see
that we are able to deliver for her constituents
and for others across the country and that
we, as I say, deliver Brexit, and do it as
soon as possible. In delivering Brexit, we
need to ensure that we are delivering on the
result of the referendum. That is what I said
yesterday, and that is what we will be looking
to do.
>> Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP):
The Prime Minister stated last night that
she will meet the Leader of the Opposition.
Can she indicate for the benefit of my party,
the Democratic Unionist party, but also for
all Members of this House, which of the Leader
of the Opposition’s Brexit policies she
thinks she could accept?
>> The Prime Minister:
I am going to be in discussion with the Leader
of the Opposition, but as I indicated earlier,
I think the Leader of the Opposition and I
both want to deliver leaving the EU and to
deliver that with a deal. I think we both
agree that the withdrawal agreement is a part
of any deal. I think we both agree that we
want to protect jobs and ensure high standards
of workers’ rights. I think there are a
number of areas on which we agree; the question
is, can we come to an agreement that we can
both support that would command the support
of this House? That is what the talks will
be about.
>> Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk)
(Con):
Seventy years after the founding of NATO,
will the Prime Minister find time today to
look at the situation facing Northern Ireland
veterans, some of whom are being arrested
and charged with murder, nearly 50 years after
the alleged events and where there is no new
evidence? What signal does that send to youngsters
looking to join the armed forces? Will she
try to make solving this part of her legacy?
>> The Prime Minister:
I recognise the issue that my hon. Friend
has raised, and obviously the concern has
been shared by our hon. and right hon. Friends
and others across the House. The current system
for dealing with the legacy of Northern Ireland’s
past is not working well for anyone. As I
have said previously in this Chamber, around
3,500 were killed in the troubles, and the
vast majority were murdered by terrorists.
Many of these cases require further investigation,
including the deaths of hundreds of members
of the security forces. The system to investigate
the past needs to change to provide better
outcomes for victims and survivors of the
troubles and to ensure that our armed forces
and police officers are not unfairly treated.
The Ministry of Defence is also looking at
what more can be done to ensure that service
personnel are not unfairly pursued through
the courts in relation to service overseas,
including considering legislation, and we
continue to look at how best to move forward
in relation to the issues of the legacy in
Northern Ireland.
>> Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth)
(Lab/Co-op):
South Wales Police is doing a brilliant job
in Cardiff South and Penarth, in spite of
pressures, dealing with knife crime, drugs,
domestic violence and so much more, but it
does not get capital city funding, unlike
in other capitals, which makes the pressure
worse. Will the Prime Minister look at this
again urgently, and does she agree that we
would be better off spending billions on our
police instead of Brexit?
>> The Prime Minister:
I understand that South Wales Police has been
given extra funding in relation to dealing
with knife crime. It is important that we
deal with this issue. The hon. Gentleman raised
Brexit, and it is also important that we deliver
on the result of the referendum and do what
is necessary to ensure that we are prepared
for leaving the European Union, which is exactly
what the Government are doing. However, we
are focusing on the issue of serious violence,
as witnessed by the knife crime summit that
we held earlier this week.
>> Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con):
In agreeing with the 14 members of the Cabinet
who are happy for the United Kingdom to leave
the European Union next week, can I ask my
right hon. Friend whether she will set out
her vision for the benefits that will come
to the United Kingdom from no deal?
>> The Prime Minister:
I say to my hon. Friend, first, that he should
not believe everything that he reads in the
newspapers; the Cabinet came to a collective
decision yesterday. Secondly, I have always
been clear that I think the opportunities
for the United Kingdom outside the European
Union are bright. I believe we can build that
greater Britain and that brighter future for
everybody. I believe we will do that better
by leaving with a good deal. I believe we
have a good deal, and that is why I have been
working to ensure that we can leave, do so
as soon as possible and in an orderly way,
and build that brighter future.
>> Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab):
Despite the repeated efforts of my hon. Friend
the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan)
and others in calling on the Prime Minister
to adopt the all-party group on British Muslims’
definition of Islamophobia, the Prime Minister
refuses. Despite repeated calls for an independent
inquiry into institutional Islamophobia in
the Tory party by the former chair, Baroness
Warsi, the Muslim Council of Britain and the
Tories’ own Conservative Muslim Forum, the
Prime Minister again refuses. The London Mayor,
Sadiq Khan, said just a few days ago: “I
have never received an explanation let alone
an apology for the openly Islamophobic campaign
the party ran against me in London in 2016,”and
that the attacks on him continue. I ask the
Prime Minister directly today: will she now
show some leadership and at the very minimum
apologise to London Mayor Sadiq Khan for the
Islamophobic campaign led by her party?
>> The Prime Minister:
As I said in response to the hon. Member for
Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), any allegations
made in relation to the Conservative party
are investigated carefully by the Conservative
party and action is taken. This Government
have been doing more to ensure that the police
can deal with issues around hate crime. When
I was Home Secretary, I required the police
to ensure that they were properly recording
incidents of hate crime, so that we could
better identify Islamophobia. I am pleased
to say that my right hon. Friends the Communities
Secretary and the Home Secretary recently
chaired a roundtable on anti-Muslim hate crime.
It is being taken seriously by the Conservative
party and by the Government.
>> Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con):
It is worth everyone in this place remembering
that for people outside there is far, far
more to life than Brexit, as illustrated by
many of the questions today. In Loughborough,
we are very proud of Loughborough University
being the best university in the world for
sports-related subjects. One group of athletes
who have been much undersung in recent weeks
are our Team GB athletes who took part in
the Special Olympics in Abu Dhabi. One hundred
and twenty-seven athletes returned with 169
medals, over 60 gold. Will the Prime Minister
congratulate them, and does she think it might
be time for GB to host the next Special Olympics?
>> The Prime Minister:
I will look very carefully at my right hon.
Friend’s suggestion in relation to the Special
Olympics. I am very happy to join her—I
am sure everybody across the whole House will—in
congratulating our GB team on the significant
haul of medals they brought back from the
Special Olympics. May I also say how much
we value Loughborough University and the work
it does on sports-related matters?
>> Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab):
Headteachers and governors in my constituency
have cut school budgets to the bones. They
are now desperately concerned about the impact
on children. The Prime Minister’s own advisers
have been sent into schools and, as reported
by Schools Week, their ideas are truly shocking:
reducing lunch portions for some of the most
disadvantaged; holding back money for charities;
and even employing unqualified teachers. Does
the Prime Minister agree with me that these
suggestions belong to the days of the workhouse,
not 21st-century England?
>> The Prime Minister:
The hon. Lady knows that we are increasing
the funding—£1.3 billion extra—available
to schools. I am sure she will want to welcome,
as I do, the fact that there are 22,500 more
children in the Bristol local authority area
in good and outstanding schools since 2010.
>> James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con):
Further to the question from my hon. Friend
the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), I
thank the Prime Minister for the invitation
she extended to me to her knife crime summit
on Monday. Does she agree that, while the
numbers and powers of police officers are
important, we need to send a message to people
who would never wear a t-shirt made in a sweatshop
and look carefully at the air miles of the
food they buy, yet seem not to make the connection
between the drug use they have in their personal
lives and the damage done to young people
on our streets? Will she send a message that
it is not acceptable?
>> The Prime Minister:
My hon. Friend raises a very important point.
If we look at the extent to which knife crime
is gang and drug-related, many people across
our society need to ask themselves what they
are doing to ensure we deal with knife crime
and not see drug-related gangs committing
these crimes, so that we are able to rid our
society of what I believe to be the curse
of drugs. I believe they have those impacts.
They are bad, and that is why it is important
that, as a Government, we have a very clear
drugs strategy to take people off drugs and
ensure we deal with this issue. My hon. Friend
makes a very important point: it is a matter
not just for Government or police, but for
all of us across our society to deal with
these issues.
>> Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP):
Freedom of movement is a good thing. It is
good economically: EU citizens exercising
their free movement rights contribute to our
GDP. It is good socially: our communities
are more diverse and more successful as a
result. And it is good for our young people,
who can go to Europe to study and to work.
Can the Prime Minister be honest about the
benefits of freedom of movement and ensure
that we retain those benefits?
>> The Prime Minister:
We want to ensure we have a migration system
that enables us to welcome people into this
country on the basis of the skills they will
bring and the contribution they will make
to this country, not of the country they happen
to come from. When people voted to leave the
European Union in 2016, they sent a clear
message that they wanted things to change.
One of the things they wanted to change was
to bring an end to free movement and to ensure
that it is the UK Government who are able
to make decisions about who can come to this
country.
>> Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con):
As the Prime Minister seeks to get her short
extension upon the short extension, will she
make it absolutely clear to the European Union
that if they turn around and say that it has
to be a long extension and that we will have
to fight the European Union elections, she
will say no, no, no?
>> The Prime Minister:
We had the opportunity on Friday to cement
that extension to 22 May and ensure that we
left on 22 May. As I said earlier, I am grateful
to all who supported that motion. Some did
so with some difficulty, and with a very heavy
heart. I now want us to find a position where
we can, across the House, support the withdrawal
agreement and a deal that enables us to leave
on 22 May without having to hold European
parliamentary elections. We can only do that
if we come together and find a way forward
that this House is willing to support.
>> John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab):
The Prime Minister and I are both fans of
Geoffrey Boycott, who was perhaps not best
known for compromise in his prime but, like
many of us, has mellowed with the years. In
the spirit of the times, will the Prime Minister
find time in her busy diary to look at the
compromise proposals advanced by the Mayor
of South Yorkshire on the important subject
of Yorkshire devolution?
>> The Prime Minister:
We are looking seriously at issues around
Yorkshire devolution. I know that it has caused
some concern and there are different opinions
about how it should be taken forward. The
hon. Gentleman references Geoffrey Boycott,
and one thing that I have always admired about
Geoffrey Boycott is that he stayed at the
crease, kept going and got his century in
the end.
>> Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con):
Further to the last question, once the Prime
Minister has dealt with the rather tricky
issue that is Brexit, as I am sure she will,
will she move on to the much more difficult
problem of devolution in Yorkshire? Now that
the Secretary of State has ruled out devolution
to the whole of Yorkshire, will the Prime
Minister consider a devolution deal to the
York city region, to include the city of York
and the glorious county of North Yorkshire?
>> The Prime Minister:
We recognise that there is in Yorkshire, as
I have just said, enthusiasm for and dedication
to the concept of devolution, and its potential
to release and harness local people’s sense
of identity with Yorkshire and be of ongoing
benefit to the people of Yorkshire. We need
to find the right proposals that will suit
the area, and I believe that my right hon.
Friend the Communities Secretary has met the
Yorkshire leaders. Discussions are continuing
with them about a localist approach to devolution
in Yorkshire different from the One Yorkshire
proposal, which did not meet our criteria.
>> Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD):
Reports from the Cabinet yesterday suggest
that two proposals were put forward for cross-party
co-operation to solve the Brexit crisis. One
of them was to work with the Leader of the
Opposition to deliver a Labour Brexit. The
other was to work with the 280 MPs across
the House who will support the Prime Minister’s
deal subject to a confirmatory referendum.
Why does she trust the Leader of the Opposition
more than the people?
>> The Prime Minister:
I want to ensure that we find a resolution
that the House can support, such that we can
deliver Brexit in a timely fashion. I believe
it is important to do that as soon as possible,
and I want us to do it without having to fight
the European elections. I believe it is absolutely
right, and the public would expect us, to
be willing to work across the Chamber to find
a resolution to this issue.
>> Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con):
Conservative-led Redditch Borough Council
has recently submitted its bid for the future
high streets fund. Will the Prime Minister
add her support to that bid, because the people
of Redditch deserve to have our town unlocked?
Does she agree that it is only with Conservatives
in our town hall that we can continue to unlock
Redditch after years of Labour neglect?
>> The Prime Minister:
I commend Conservative-led Redditch council
for the work that it is doing to unlock the
town and to unlock the high street. My hon.
Friend tempts me to support one bid over others,
but there will be other of our hon. and right
hon. Friends who wish me to support bids from
their towns. It is important that we have
made this money available, and I congratulate
Redditch council, under the Conservatives,
for all that it is doing to ensure the vitality
of the town.
>> Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Ind):
I find myself in a slightly curious position,
sandwiched between the Liberal Democrats and
the Welsh nationalists. I reassure my constituents
and hon. Members that I remain a progressive
Conservative while I am, sadly, independent
in this House.
The Prime Minister’s late conversion to
compromise is welcome, but I am sure she will
understand the scepticism of those of us who
have been working on a cross-party compromise
for many months. Can she reassure me that
she will enter discussions with the Leader
of the Opposition and other parties without
the red lines that have bedevilled the Brexit
negotiations so far?
>> The Prime Minister:
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s indication
that he remains a progressive Conservative
in his thinking on various issues. I approach
the discussions in a constructive spirit,
because I want to find a resolution of this
issue. I want to ensure that we can do what
people told us we should do, which is to deliver
Brexit in an orderly way that is good for
this country.
