>> Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP):
If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 5 July.
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
Today marks the 69th anniversary of the NHS, and
last week saw the 80th anniversary of the 999 service.
I know that Members on both sides of the House will join me in paying tribute to the incredibly
dedicated men and women who work tirelessly to save and improve lives day in, day out.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Later this week I will attend a meeting of the G20, where I will discuss the global economy,
counter-terrorism and sustainable development with my fellow leaders.
>> Hannah Bardell:
Her face smashed with an iPad, her body beaten, and forced to abort a baby girl: that is only
some of the domestic abuse that my constituent Lola Ilesanmi has suffered from her estranged
husband because she has refused to allow the genital mutilation of her daughter.
Lola is educated, has a mortgage, and had a good job with Royal Bank of Scotland until
the Home Office revoked her right to work.
I have been writing to the Home Office since March, and have got nowhere.
Will the Prime Minister now intervene to prevent the family from being deported, and to prevent
that three-year-old girl from being subjected to genital mutilation?
>>The Prime Minister:
The Home Secretary has obviously heard the case that the hon.
Lady describes.
The issue of female genital mutilation is one on which I think all of us, throughout
the House, are agreed.
It is an abhorrent activity; it should not be taking place.
Great efforts have been made in recent years in strengthening the law on female genital
mutilation, getting information out about the issue, and trying to support people in
communities where FGM is practised.
The message must go out from the House today that we will not accept FGM in this country.
>> James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con):
In the last few days Iraqi security forces, assisted by coalition airstrikes, have made
significant progress in eradicating ISIL fighters from Mosul.
That is a significant step forward in the military conflict against ISIL in Iraq, but
does the Prime Minister agree that the United Kingdom and the United States, in a broad
international alliance, need to work with the Iraqi Government to ensure that there
is reconstruction in places such as Mosul, and also to ensure that they are sufficiently
strong to withstand the poisonous ideology of ISIL as we seek to defeat it?
>> The Prime Minister:
My hon.
Friend is absolutely right: in order to keep the streets of Britain safe, we must continue
to attack Daesh in Iraq and Syria, and the UK is playing its part as one of the 71 members
of the coalition.
The RAF has conducted over 1,400 strikes, and over 500 British soldiers are on the ground
providing further assistance, but he makes the very important point that it is not just
about the military action that takes place; it is about how we ensure there is sustainable
reconstruction and rebuilding afterwards.
Our troops have helped to train over 55,000 Iraqi security forces personnel, and we are
providing more than £169.5 million in humanitarian aid and a further £30 million to help Iraq
to stabilise these liberated areas.
Together, we must also work not just in Iraq but internationally to ensure that the hateful
ideology of extremism is not able to poison the minds of people.
>> Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab):
May I start by wishing everyone a very happy Pride month, especially those taking part
in the Pride march this Saturday and similar marches around the country?
We should also be aware that a survey taken by Pride in London found that half of LGBT
people in London had experienced hate crime in the past 12 months.
I join the Prime Minister in wishing the NHS a very happy birthday, but I was hoping that
she was going to say a bit more about NHS staff and their pay during her birthday greetings,
because after a week of flip-flopping and floundering, we thought we had some clarity
from Downing Street at last.
On Monday, the announcement was that the public sector pay cap at 1% remains, and a rare moment
of agreement between Nos. 10 and 11 was seen, but yesterday we heard news that firefighters
will be offered 2% this year and 3% next year, so can the Prime Minister confirm whether
the public sector pay cap will remain for all other public servants until 2020?
>> The Prime Minister:
First, may I join the right hon.
Gentleman in wishing everybody who is going to take part in Pride London on Saturday an
excellent day?
I am sure it will be a very good occasion, as it always has been.
May I also say that I and all Members of this House value the incredibly important work
done by our public sector workers, including, yes, including those in the national health
service and others?
I understand why people feel strongly about the issue of their pay, but perhaps I can
just set out.
For the information of the House, perhaps I can just set out what the current position
is.
Three public sector pay review bodies reported in March—they covered doctors and dentists,
NHS staff including nurses, and the armed forces—and the Government accepted the recommendations
of all three.
The firefighters’ award is not determined by the Government—it is determined by the
employers—and is not subject to a pay review body.
There are outstanding pay review body reports that cover teachers, prison officers, police
officers and those on senior salaries.
The Government will consider those reports very carefully and respond to them, but while
we do that, we will always recognise that we must ensure that we take decisions with
regard to the need to live within our means.
The right hon.
Gentleman and I both value public sector workers and our public services; the difference is
that I know we have to pay for them.
>> Jeremy Corbyn:
The public sector pay cap causes real shortages in nursing, teaching and many other professions,
as well as real hardship.
I had a letter last week from a teacher called David.
It’s all right: he is a teacher; he is doing a good job—all right?
He says:
“I have been teaching for 10 years.
I have seen my workload increase.
I have seen more people leave the profession than start, and no form of pay increase in
seven years.
The only thing holding the education system together is the dedication to struggle on
for the students and staff.”
He goes on to say that that dedication is “starting to run out”.
I say to the Prime Minister that what we are doing through this pay cap is recklessly exploiting
the good will of public servants like David.
They need a pay rise.
>> The Prime Minister:
The Leader of the Opposition refers to the number of nurses and teachers working in the
public sector.
Of course we now have more nurses in our hospitals than we had in 2010, and we have more teachers
in our schools.
But let me remind the right hon.
Gentleman why it has been necessary for us to exercise restraint in public spending,
including by capping public sector pay.
It is because we inherited the biggest deficit in our peacetime history.
We have acted
>> Mr Speaker:
Order.
I noticed earlier, Mr Mahmood, that you seemed to be in a very hyper condition today.
I recommend that you take some sort of soothing medicament or go and lie down for a little
while.
You will feel better at the end of it.
>> The Prime Minister:
We acted to bring the deficit down by a quarter and then a half, and it is now down by three
quarters.
At the same time, we have seen the economy grow and record levels of people in employment.
Our policy on public sector pay has always recognised that we need to balance the need
to be fair to public sector workers, to protect jobs in the public sector, and to be fair
to those who pay for it.
That is the balance that we need to strike, and we continue to assess that balance.
>> Jeremy Corbyn:
We have had seven years of tax cuts for the richest and tax breaks for the biggest corporations.
Last year, there was a net loss of 1,700 nurses and midwives to the NHS, and in the first
two months of this year alone, 3,264 have left the profession altogether—not a great
birthday present for the NHS, is it?
Last week, the Chancellor said:
“We all value our public services and the people who provide them to us.”
He went on to laud his own economic record by saying that we had a “fundamentally robust
economy”.
The Prime Minister found £1 billion to keep her own job; why cannot she find the same
amount of money to keep nurses and teachers in their jobs?
After all, they serve all of us.
>> The Prime Minister:
The right hon.
Gentleman talks about the number of nurses.
In fact, I think he was talking about the number of nurses who are registered in the
United Kingdom.
There are about 600,000 nurses registered in the United Kingdom; about half of them—300,000—work
in the NHS in England.
Contrary to what he says, we have 13,000 more nurses working in the NHS today compared with
2010.
I understand that it has been hard for people who have been working hard and making sacrifices
over the years as we have been dealing with Labour’s mismanagement of the economy, but
let me remind the right hon.
Gentleman of what happens when you do not deal with the deficit.
This is not a theoretical issue.
Let us look at those countries that failed to deal with it.
In Greece, where they have not dealt with the deficit.
What did we see with that failure to deal with the deficit?
Spending on the health service cut by 36%.
That does not help nurses or patients.
>> Jeremy Corbyn:
I hope that the Prime Minister is proud of her record of controlling public sector pay
to the extent that hard-working nurses have had to access food banks in order to survive,
and of frozen wages for teaching assistants, paramedics and council workers.
But this is not just in the public sector.
Across the economy, wages are rising by 2.1% while inflation is at nearly 3%.
Six million workers already earn less than the living wage.
What does the Prime Minister think that that tells us about seven years of a Conservative
Government and what they have done to the living standards of those people on whom we
all rely to get our public services and our health services delivered to us?
>> The Prime Minister:
I will tell the right hon.
Gentleman what has happened over the past seven years.
We have seen record numbers of people in employment—nearly 3 million more people in work.
We have seen the introduction of the national living wage—never done by Labour, but introduced
by a Conservative Government.
We have seen 4 million people taken out of paying income tax altogether and a cut in
income tax and a change in the personal allowance that is the equivalent of £1,000 a year to
basic rate taxpayers, including nurses.
That is a record of good management of the economy—you only get that with the Conservatives.
>> Jeremy Corbyn:
The Prime Minister simply does not get it.
>> Mr Speaker:
Order.
We have plenty of time.
I am quite happy to run on for some considerable period of time.
People who are making excessive noise should try to calm themselves and perhaps just give
a moment’s thought to whether they would like to be viewed by their constituents shrieking
their heads off.
It is very downmarket.
>> Jeremy Corbyn:
There is a low-pay epidemic in this country, and it has a terrible effect on young people.
Those in their 20s will earn £12,500 a year less than the generation before.
They are the first generation to be worse off than the last.
They are less likely to be able to buy their own home, more likely to be saddled with debt,
and more likely to be insecure, low-paid work.
Except for more misery, what do the Prime Minister and her Government actually offer
the young people of this country?
>> Hon.
Members:
Jobs!
>> The Prime Minister:
To echo the words of my colleagues, we offer young people more jobs, more homes, and the
opportunity to own their own home.
Let me just tell the right hon.
Gentleman what is not fair: it is not fair to refuse to take tough decisions and to load
debts on to our children and grandchildren; it is not fair to bankrupt our economy, because
that leads to people losing their jobs and their homes; and it is not fair to go out
and tell people that they can have all the public spending they want without paying for
it.
Labour’s way leads to fewer jobs, higher prices and more taxes.
Labour’s way means that everyone pays the price of Labour.
>> Jeremy Corbyn:
When Tories talk of tough choices, we know who suffers: the poorest and most vulnerable
in our society.
Young people employed on zero-hours contracts are more likely to have worse mental and physical
health.
Students who have worked hard at university graduate with £57,000 of debt that will stay
with them until they retire.
Let me spell it out to the Prime Minister: this is the only country in which wages have
not recovered since the global financial crash; more people are using food banks; 4 million
children are living in poverty; there is record in-work poverty; young people see no prospect
of owning their own home; and 6 million people are earning less than the living wage.
The low-pay epidemic is a threat to our economic stability.
Will the Prime Minister take some tough choices and instead of offering platitudes, offer
some real help and real support to those in work and to young people, who deserve better
and deserve to be given more optimism, rather than greater inequality?
>> The Prime Minister:
We actually now see that the proportion of people in absolute poverty is at record lows.
The right hon.
Gentleman asks for help for those who are low paid, and I reiterate to him the help
that we have given to people who are low paid: we introduced the mandatory national living
wage—the lowest earners’ fastest pay rise in 20 years; we have cut taxes for basic-rate
taxpayers and taken people out of paying income tax; and we are doing what is important for
this country, which is ensuring that there are jobs and an economy providing those jobs
for people, because the best route out of poverty is being in work.
I know that he has taken to calling himself a “Government in waiting”.
Well, we all know what that means: waiting to put up taxes; waiting to destroy jobs;
and waiting to bankrupt our country.
We will never let it happen.
>> Hon.
Members:
More, more.
>> Mr Speaker:
Order.
I understand that the House is excited about hearing the right hon.
Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan).
>> Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con):
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
I know that the Prime Minister and her Ministers, and many other Members of this House, are
committed to better mental health care for everyone.
I am a founder of the Loughborough Wellbeing Project, and I recently visited the CAMHS––child
and adolescent mental health services—eating disorder service in Leicester.
As a result of this Government’s careful financial management, £1.4 billion more is
going into mental health services.
How can the Prime Minister ensure that that money is getting to frontline NHS services
consistently?
>> The Prime Minister:
First, let me commend my right hon.
Friend on the work she has done in setting up the Loughborough Wellbeing Project, and
I am happy to join her in paying tribute to the work of the eating disorders service in
Leicester.
As she says, it does incredibly important work, and we must do more to transform the
mental health services that we provide for young people and mental health in general.
That is why, as she says, we are putting more money into mental health, and our spending
on mental health reached a record £11.6 billion last year.
We do need to make sure that that funding gets through to frontline services.
One example of that is the work we are doing to ensure that teachers and staff in schools
are trained to better identify and better deal with mental health problems when they
are present in children.
I saw that when I visited Orchard School in Bristol last week, where excellent work is
being done, really improving the quality of services for young people with mental health
problems.
>> Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP):
As we meet here today, the funeral is taking place at St Peter’s Free church in Dundee
of the former leader of the Scottish National party and Member of Parliament for Dundee
East from 1974 to 1987.
I am sure the House would like to join me in commemorating the life and contribution
to politics of the late, dearly missed friend and colleague Gordon Wilson.
The UK government have not announced any measures to address rising inflation and slowing wage
growth, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies has described as “dreadful”.
As workers face more than a decade of lost wage growth, and endure the worst period for
pay in 70 years, does the Prime Minister think she is looking out for the “just about managing”?
>> The Prime Minister:
First, may I say to the hon.
Gentleman, as I did last week, that I am sure all Members of this House will wish to offer
our condolences to the friends, family and colleagues of the late Gordon Wilson, and
recognise the role he played in politics in the United Kingdom, including in this House.
I say to the hon.
Gentleman, as I have said to the Leader of the Opposition, that what is important is
that we ensure that we have an economy that is increasing the number of jobs, because
the best route out of poverty is for people to be in work.
That is what we are doing.
We have seen nearly 3 million more jobs being created over recent years.
That is important for people.
We also help people by, for example, cutting taxes—that is exactly what we have done
for people who are lower paid—and introducing the national living wage.
Those are measures that are giving people real help.
>> Ian Blackford:
Of course it is the forecast of a rise in in-work poverty that should concern us, in
particular, the likely increase of young people in poverty over the lifetime of this Parliament.
Since the 2010 general election, the FTSE 100 has risen by 39.6%.
Monetary policy, not least quantitative easing, has helped drive up financial assets, while
workers have paid the price for austerity.
Workers will earn no more by 2021 than they did in 2008.
Will the Prime Minister give workers a pay rise?
>> The Prime Minister:
I would have thought that the hon.
Gentleman, particularly with his background, would have recognised the role played by monetary
policy, including quantitative easing, in ensuring that we have the jobs in the economy
that are so important to people.
>> Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con):
Will my right hon.
Friend tell me what steps the Government are taking to drive value for money and efficiency
in the aid budget, to ensure that the taxpayers’ money is used to promote global peace and
security in the national interest?
>> The Prime Minister:
I am proud that the Government are committed to honouring our international commitments
on aid.
That is important for this country, because that money is saving lives and building a
more stable and prosperous world, and that is firmly in our UK national interest.
Nevertheless, my hon.
Friend is absolutely right that we need to make sure that the money we are spending is
being spent properly and efficiently.
I assure him that my right hon.
Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is driving value for money and
efficiency in the aid budget, focusing on greater transparency, boosting payment by
results, and driving value for money from DFID suppliers.
In 2011, we set up an independent aid watchdog, together with stronger systems and controls
in DFID.
It is important not only that we are committed to that money, but that we make sure it is
spent well.
>> Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab):
My young constituent paid a £300 house-reservation fee to Pattinson estate agents, but the agents
will not refund it after their landlord client withdrew from the contract because my constituent
refused to pay 12 months’ rent in advance.
She faces having to pay another agent non-refundable fees of £650 to secure a different property.
When will the Prime Minister act to put an end to these rip-off fees and stop these agents
capitalising on young people and others?
[900219]
>> The Prime Minister:
The hon.
Gentleman should look at the Queen’s Speech, in which we referred to what we are doing
in this area.
We recognise these issues.
He says “When?”, but he will recognise that in this House we need to ensure that
we get right any legislation that we introduce, so that it actually works.
We recognise the problem and we are going to do something about it.
>> Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con):
In 2008, I tried to amend the Animal Welfare Act to extend sentences for cruelty to animals
from weeks to years.
Will my right hon.
Friend see what can be done to ensure that people who are wilfully cruel to animals are
punished far more severely?
>> The Prime Minister:
I am grateful to my hon.
Friend for raising this issue.
We all share a high regard for animal welfare and it is important to have in place strict
laws to ensure that we deal properly with people who are not looking after animals.
Anyone who is cruel to an animal or does not provide for its welfare needs may be banned
from owning animals, given an unlimited fine or, as he says, sent to prison.
My hon.
Friend is right that sentencing is an issue, which is why the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs regularly holds discussions with the Ministry of Justice on sentencing
policy for animal welfare offenders.
>> Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC):
With the civil service reportedly having to explain in crayon to the Cabinet that there
is no “have your cake and eat it” Brexit option, will the Prime Minister come clean
and admit that she is prioritising her own absolutist red lines, not people’s jobs
and wages?
>> The Prime Minister:
I am afraid the hon.
Gentleman and others will have heard the answer before: we want to negotiate the best possible
deal for the United Kingdom that ensures we have a comprehensive free trade agreement,
that we can continue to trade with our European partners, that we have a new deep and special
partnership with the European Union, and that we are growing our economy.
But it is not just about our relationship with the European Union; it is about the trade
deals that we will do with countries around the rest of the world and it is about ensuring
sound management from a Conservative Government.
>> Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con):
Looe harbour commissioners have highlighted to me the valuable contribution that retired
police sergeant—and now special constable—Russ Hall has made to maritime policing.
Does my right hon.
Friend believe that joined-up working with other agencies is essential and can make a
positive contribution to beating crime in small harbours and helping to protect our
borders?
>> The Prime Minister:
I join my hon.
Friend in recognising Special Constable Russ Hall’s contribution in her constituency.
She makes an important point; indeed, when I was Home Secretary I brought together various
agencies—the police, the Border Force and others—to look at how we deal with protecting
our borders.
That joined-up working can make a real and positive contribution.
As she will know, what matters is not only how we do that but ensuring that we have an
impact—and crime has fallen by a third since 2010, to a record low.
>> Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab):
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for advising me about my blood pressure.
When I go to the hospital to see my consultant on Monday, I am sure that he will give me
the same advice.
My blood pressure rises when I go into hospitals and see all those nurses who are overstretched,
overworked and underpaid, and having to use food banks.
The Prime Minister pays lip service to them and will not look at ending the public sector
pay cap.
I now make a plea to her; she should listen not to my right hon.
Friend the Leader of the Opposition, but to those nurses and do something about the public
pay sector cap.
>> The Prime Minister:
I set out my position in response to an earlier question by the Leader of the Opposition.
People may not realise that there is not only the overall public sector pay increase, but,
for many nurses, increments or progression pay as well.
A typical band 5 nurse will receive 3.8% over and above the 1%.
>> Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con):
It is a strong economy that powers this Government’s investment in the NHS and a strong economy
that allows this Government to create 1,500 new medical school places and some new medical
schools.
Does the Prime Minister agree that Lincolnshire’s unique rurality and sparsity makes a compelling
case for a new medical school in this great county?
>> The Prime Minister:
My hon.
Friend makes an important point, which is that we can pay for our public services only
if we have that strong economy.
That is absolutely the basis of it.
As he said, we will train 1,500 new doctors every year to ensure that the NHS has enough
doctors to continue providing that safe compassionate care that we all want to see.
The Department of Health is currently looking at how to allocate these places, and will
publish its consultation response shortly.
It is also looking at the possibility of new and aspiring medical schools bidding for those
places.
I am sure that, as he has always been a champion for his constituents and his constituency,
he will continue to make an excellent case for Lincolnshire.
>> Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab):
On Saturday, the shadow Chancellor and I joined staff from Picturehouse Cinemas outside the
Ritzy in Brixton who are striking because their employer refuses to pay the London living
wage and has outrageously sacked their trade union representative.
Will the Prime Minister join me in calling on Picturehouse Cinemas, which made a profit
last year of more than £80 million, to pay its staff the London living wage and to reinstate
the local reps immediately?
>> The Prime Minister:
That is about a relationship between employers and their employees.
Overall, what is of importance is that the Government are taking the right decisions
to ensure that we are growing the economy and providing those jobs for people in the
first place.
>> Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con):
I thank the Prime Minister for taking time during the general election to come up to
Banchory and campaign in my constituency where we did rather well.
Does she agree that it is utterly shameful that the Scottish Government have, for the
second year in a row, had to go pleading to the European Commission for an extension to
the farm payment deadline?
Is that not proof, if further proof were needed, that the Scottish National party is failing
rural Scotland?
>> Mr Speaker:
Order.
We are fascinated to hear the answer, but I should just say that, although I am very
interested to hear the answer and we will, the Prime Minister is not responsible for
the Scottish Government.
>> The Prime Minister:
I welcome my hon.
Friend to his place in this House.
I very much enjoyed my visit to Banchory during the election campaign.
What he says is absolutely right.
Time and again in this Chamber, we hear the Scottish Nationalists demanding more powers
for Scotland, yet what do we see?
We see that they are failing to deliver for the Scottish people with the powers that they
already have.
Yet again, Scottish schools are now outperformed in every category by schools in England, Northern
Ireland, Estonia and Poland.
Powers are kept in Edinburgh rather than being devolved to local people and, as he says,
yet again we see farmers waiting months for their subsidy payments.
The simple fact is that the SNP’s policies are not in the best interests of the people
of Scotland.
>> Mr Speaker:
Order.
I say to the hon.
Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), who persists in gesticulating in
an extremely eccentric manner, that he seems a little discombobulated from the world he
inhabits, which is a very unhappy state of affairs that cannot long continue.
>> Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD):
The Southern rail dispute is causing real damage to the economy of Eastbourne and the
south-east.
My constituents have had a dreadful time, with a shocking service provided—or not
provided—over the past 18 months.
This simply cannot go on.
Will the Prime Minister enlighten me, my constituents and the House as to why the Department for
Transport and the trail operator will not meet the unions at the same time and in the
same room together to negotiate a deal?
>> The Prime Minister:
I recognise the problems that have been experienced by Southern rail passengers—the matter has
been raised by a number of colleagues in the House, including my hon.
Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), who raised it last week.
I am very disappointed that ASLEF and the RMT have called more industrial action, which
is completely unnecessary; all that it will do is cause more disruption and frustration
for passengers.
The recent independent Gibb report said that the main cause of widespread disruption on
Southern rail has been union action, so I urge the unions to call off the strikes, work
with the operator and deliver the services that passengers need.
>> Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con):
If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 5 July.
Businesses across my constituency will be cock-a-hoop to hear that their calls for better
broadband are being answered by the digital infrastructure investment fund, which will
unlock about £1 billion for full fibre service and help them create jobs, particularly in
rural areas.
Does the Prime Minister agree that that is exactly the sort of infrastructure spend we
need to get our country Brexit ready?
>> The Prime Minister:
My hon.
Friend makes a very important point.
This country is already a digital world leader, and we are committed to ensuring that we remain
so.
We already see 93% of the UK accessing superfast broadband, and we are on track to reach 95%
by the end of the year, but we want to see more commercial investment in the gold-standard
connectivity that full fibre provides, which is why we have launched the digital infrastructure
investment fund.
Companies across the UK, including in Brentwood and Ongar, will be able to apply for match
funding for projects and see fibre delivered right to the doorstep.
Yesterday we also announced 100% business rate relief for those businesses rolling out
new fibre.
This is important.
We want to continue to be a world leader in digital, and the actions that the Government
are taking will ensure that we will be.
>> Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC):
Police officer numbers in Wales have dropped by 10% since the Prime Minister’s party
came to power.
If policing were devolved, as it is in Northern Ireland and Scotland, Welsh police forces
would have extra funding worth £25 million at their disposal, which would more than replace
those lost officers.
What justification is there for refusing to devolve policing?
>> The Prime Minister:
We have been around this discussion before.
Let me address the central issue of what the hon.
Lady is talking about, which is police budgets and the number of police officers.
We have been protecting police budgets since 2015, as I believe is acknowledged across
the House.
We are also ensuring that the police have the capabilities they need to deal with new
types of crime, by creating the national cybercrime unit and the National Crime Agency.
Those are all important steps to ensure that the police can do their job of cutting crime,
and crime is at a record low.
>> Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con):
I thank the Prime Minister for introducing the trade, agriculture and fisheries Brexit
Bills in the Queen’s Speech, which will be welcomed right across the west country.
However, we are facing significant challenges with our rural post office network at the
moment, with the transition from community branches to community village stores and community
buildings.
Some of those moves have been smooth and some have not.
Will she take a look at that to see whether there is anything more the Government could
do to help my constituents?
>> The Prime Minister:
My hon.
Friend makes an important point.
It is right that we should recognise the role that post offices play in rural communities,
and not only in places such as Camelford and St Minver in his constituency, but in the
constituencies of other hon.
Members.
We have invested more than £2 billion in the network up to 2018.
The number of post offices is actually at its most stable for decades.
But he is absolutely right.
I urge the Post Office to help make it as easy as possible for shops that want to take
over postal services to be able to do so.
>> Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab):
Some 2,400 people have died as a result of the NHS contaminated blood scandal—more
than Hillsborough and all the other disasters over the previous few decades put together.
On 25 April, the former right hon.
Member for Leigh presented compelling evidence to Parliament of a criminal cover-up on an
industrial scale, so will the Prime Minister now do the right thing and order a public
inquiry for the whole United Kingdom?
>> The Prime Minister:
The hon.
Lady raises an important issue.
I know that Members’ thoughts will be with all those who have been affected by this terrible
tragedy of contaminated blood.
Serious allegations have been made, and Ministers at the Department of Health will obviously
look at information that has been brought to the House.
If any hon.
Member has any further information or evidence that they believe is important, it should
go to Ministers so that they can properly investigate it.
We are providing more compensation than any previous Government, and we committed £125
million extra funding last July for those affected by the contaminated blood tragedy.
The Department of Health will look at any new evidence that is brought forward.
>> James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con):
Rather than celebrating the NHS, the Labour party has rather shamelessly tried to weaponise
it as a mere tool for political campaigning.
Will the Prime Minister assure me that decisions on services such as the 999 service will be
clinical decisions, not those of politicians who are trying to weaponise our public services?
>> The Prime Minister:
My hon.
Friend is absolutely right.
It is very important that decisions relating to services provided by the NHS are taken
on a clinical basis by those who understand the needs and requirements of people in different
areas.
That is why we set up NHS England, which has a plan for developing services in the NHS
over a five-year period.
It is important that politicians allow clinicians and others in the NHS to make the decisions
they need to.
>> Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op):
I know that the House will be thinking of my constituents Connie Yates, Chris Gard and
Charlie at this incredibly difficult time.
It is clear that if Charlie remains in the UK no further treatment is available and that
life support will be switched off.
There are differing views about the chances of the nucleoside bypass therapy, which other
children—albeit with less severe forms of Charlie’s conditions—have benefited from.
I understand that the chances of improvement for Charlie are low, but the doctors would
be able to say within three months whether Charlie was responding and whether that change
was clinically beneficial.
If there is any room for discretion in the court rulings for Great Ormond Street to allow
Charlie to leave and to transfer his care to doctors at Columbia University, and if
he is sufficiently stable to receive treatment, would the Prime Minister do all she can to
bring the appropriate people together to try to make this happen?
>> The Prime Minister:
The hon.
Lady is right to raise the concerns of her constituents in this matter.
I am sure that the thoughts of all Members of the House are with the family and Charlie
at this exceptionally difficult time.
It is an unimaginable position for anybody to be in, and I fully understand and appreciate
that any parent in these circumstances would want to do everything possible and explore
every option for their seriously ill child.
I also know that no doctor ever wants to be placed in the terrible position of having
to make such heartbreaking decisions.
The hon.
Lady referred to the fact that we have that court process.
I am confident that Great Ormond Street hospital has considered, and always will consider,
any offers or new information that have come forward along with the wellbeing of a desperately
ill child.
>> Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con):
When the Prime Minister and I left our comprehensive schools to go to university, we entered a
privileged elite.
Will she confirm that as a result of tuition fees, introduced by Labour and improved by
the coalition, more young people from working class and poor backgrounds are now going to
university than ever before?
Some people say that there are fewer.
Are they right or are they wrong?
>> The Prime Minister:
I am very happy to join my right hon.
Friend in recognising that she and I left comprehensive schools and went to universities
at a time when the number of people going to university was significantly lower than
it is today.
I am also grateful to her for reminding the House that, actually, it was the Labour party
that said it would not introduce tuition fees and then, when it got into government, introduced
tuition fees.
Under the current system, we are seeing more young people than ever going to university,
and crucially—to address the point she raised—disadvantaged 18-year-olds are 40% more likely to go to
university now than they were in 2009.
>> Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab):
The Prime Minister herself commissioned Bishop James Jones to report on the experience of
the Hillsborough families.
Given the painful evidence before us that parts of the state still do not know how to
treat bereaved families or the survivors of catastrophe, will she now give me the date
when she will publish Bishop Jones’s report?
>> The Prime Minister:
I have not myself yet seen Bishop Jones’s full report.
I am not able to give the hon.
Lady a date when I will publish it, but she raises a very important point.
The reason why I asked Bishop James Jones to undertake this work was precisely because
I was concerned about the way in which the bereaved families at Hillsborough had been
treated over far too many years, and obviously we have seen the result of the Crown Prosecution
Service decisions last week.
This is why we have committed in the Queen’s Speech to introducing an independent public
advocate who will be able to act on behalf of bereaved families in cases of public disaster.
It is important that they are able to have that support alongside them, because too many
families have to fight over many years to get justice, as we have seen in Hillsborough.
I want to ensure that they have help and support in doing that.
>> Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con):
Given the Government’s record in freezing fuel duty, will the Prime Minister resist
recent siren calls to raise it, because this hurts the lowest paid the most?
Will she also do everything possible to make sure that when the international oil price
falls, that price is properly reflected at the pumps so that we can have a Britain that
works for every motorist?
>> The Prime Minister:
May I first commend my right hon.
Friend, who has been championing this issue for all the years that he has been in the
House?
The work that he has done as a great campaigner on this and, indeed, other issues has been
recognised by the Government in changes the Government has made.
As he knows, I am pleased that we have been able to do what we have done in relation to
holding down fuel duty.
I think he is trying to tempt me down a path which I will not go down, because, as he knows,
decisions on these matters are taken at the time of fiscal events.
>> Mr Speaker:
Order.