UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Theresa May

  • Theresa May – 2022 Loyal Address Speech

    Theresa May – 2022 Loyal Address Speech

    The speech made by Theresa May, the Conservative MP for Maidenhead, in the House of Commons on 10 May 2022.

    I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

    It is indeed a privilege to speak in the debate on the Humble Address in Her Majesty’s platinum jubilee year. As others have already said, everybody across the House, including me, wishes Her Majesty all the very best and thanks her for her unstinting service and exemplary devotion to duty.

    I would also like, as others have, to recognise the passing of three excellent Members of the House: Sir David Amess, James Brokenshire and Jack Dromey. They all came into the House to make a difference and improve people’s lives, and they worked unstintingly to do just that.

    I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) on their excellent speeches in proposing and seconding the Humble Address.

    I want to speak about a few of the elements of the Government’s programme that I very much welcome. The modern slavery Bill will cement the Government’s commitment to enhance the provisions on supply chains. I understand that the first element will be an extension of the requirements on supply chains to public procurement, to Government Departments. That is important. In 2019, as Prime Minister, I committed the Government to use our power of public procurement to ensure that we were cleaning up supply chains and cracking down on modern slavery. I genuinely believe that dealing with supply chains is one of the key ways we can ensure that we eradicate modern slavery. Business has a huge role to play here and so do Government. Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was important, but of course it does not actually require action other than putting something in reporting accounts, which might be to say that nothing has been done about modern slavery. It is therefore excellent that the Government are now moving this forward and will enhance the legislation. I think it could be transformative.

    I welcome the social housing regulation Bill. One of the clear messages that came from residents and survivors of the terrible tragedy that was the fire at Grenfell Tower was the concern that for not just months but years the voice of residents in social housing had not been heard and had not been listened to by those in authority who had a responsibility to respond. That, we discovered from consultation across the country, was not unique to Grenfell Tower. Sadly, there were too many occasions where those responsible for social housing were simply not listening to the points their tenants were raising. It is important that we enhance the ability of tenants to have raise their voices and enhance the regulation regime. We must also ensure we do something that is so important: raise the value of social housing for people, so that stigma is not attached to social housing and being in social housing. We are all one community. The type of housing we live in should be irrelevant to how we are treated.

    The renters reform Bill is also important. I note that the briefing says it will provide 4.4 million households with more secure and higher quality homes. Renting is the only option for more and more people. For some it is the flexible option that they actively want, but it is not easy if people then live with the feeling that they could be evicted through no fault of their own. Dealing with no-fault evictions is a commitment that has been made previously—I seem to remember my Government made it—and I sincerely hope it will now be enacted through the Bill.

    On housing, it is important for the Government to recognise the many concerns that were expressed by the public, and by Members across the House, about elements of the Government’s planning White Paper. I understand that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), has heard those messages and is looking carefully at what should be in the planning Bill. We need more homes and we need to ensure that they are in the right place. We also need to ensure that their designs are in keeping with the community and the neighbourhood in which they are set.

    I believe that the Housing Secretary is interested in street votes, so that if somebody in a street wants to extend their house by two floors there could be a vote in the street and the street would decide whether that was a sensible thing to do. I simply say to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others on the Treasury Front Bench that the Government need to be very careful about the potential unintended consequences of such a move. I can well imagine a situation in which somebody persuades their neighbours in a street to agree to the sort of development that might enhance the value of their houses but which actually has a negative impact on the wider community and wider neighbourhood.

    On planning—this ties in with issues relating to the energy Bill—I urge the Government to take the opportunity to move ahead on building regulations to ensure that we embrace now the standards that will be required for us to reach net zero. New homes are still being built with gas boilers. They will be retrofitted in a few years’ time, so would it not make more sense for the regulations to ensure we make the moves now for net zero? However, I welcome the energy Bill. There is much in there that will help us to move to net zero, and that is excellent.

    I also welcome the national security Bill, which I expect will enhance our ability to deal with threats from hostile states. That is very important—it is increasingly necessary—and it is very timely.

    On Northern Ireland, there is reference in the Queen’s Speech to the legacy Bill. It is important, as I have said in the House, that we reach a point where there is the ability to try to draw a line under the past, but that must be done sensitively, in recognition of the sensitivities of all communities.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    Will the right hon. Lady give way?

    Mrs May

    I will.

    Mr Speaker

    I call Jim Shannon—welcome back.

    Jim Shannon

    I think an explanation is needed: I was at the Nigerian embassy getting my pass so that I can go to Nigeria at the end of May.

    It is really important for my constituents, for those who have lost loved ones—I could name the Ballydugan Four, Stuart Montgomery and my cousin—that people were murdered by the IRA but nobody was ever made accountable. I want justice; my relatives want justice; my constituents want justice. Does the right hon. Lady agree?

    Mrs May

    We welcome the hon. Gentleman back to his place. That is why it is important that these issues are addressed sensitively. They have been looked at consistently by some of my colleagues in relation to veterans who may find themselves being caught before justice, but it is important that people who lost loved ones during the troubles—the majority of those losses will have been at the hands of terrorists—can feel an understanding of, and are able to know, what happened. That is one of the things driving the Government’s intentions in relation to that Bill. Such people will want to feel some sense of closure, which they have not been able to have for so many years.

    I note that there was no reference to what has been referred to in the papers as a Bill in relation to—I am going to use this phrase—the Northern Ireland protocol and possibly to varying the terms of the treaty unilaterally. I say to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—he will not be surprised to hear this—that I do not feel that that would be the right move for the Government. The Government need to consider not just some immediate issues, but the wider sense of what such a move would say about the United Kingdom and its willingness to abide by treaties that it has signed.

    Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)

    I say to the former Prime Minister, with the great respect in which I hold her, that surely what is more important here is the Good Friday/Belfast agreement and the need to protect the political institutions. I stood in the election last week, and not a single Unionist Member who supports the protocol was returned to the Assembly. There is no consensus for that. It needs to be dealt with: it is harming our economy, driving up the cost of living and undermining political stability in Northern Ireland, and it threatens the Good Friday agreement.

    Mrs May

    I put a deal before the House that met the requirements of the Good Friday agreement and enabled us not to have a border down the Irish sea or between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Sadly, the Democratic Unionist party and others across the House chose to reject that, but it was an opportunity to have what the right hon. Gentleman wanted.

    I say to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that I am deeply disappointed that we see only draft legislation on a new mental health Act. The process for a new mental health Act was started in 2017. I said in the previous Queen’s Speech debate that I feared that we might not see a new Act until 2023. I now fear that we might not see a new Act until 2024, and given the proximity of a potential general election, that we may not see a new Act in this Parliament at all. Those suffering from mental health issues deserve better from the Government, and I encourage action on introducing a new mental health Act.

    I am also disappointed that we do not have an employment Bill, particularly to put through the policy of ensuring that tips that are left for waiters actually get paid to those individuals. It was a popular policy and I hope that the Government will think again about putting that through.

    The final issue about which I am disappointed is that we do not see a commitment to an independent public advocate, which was a 2017 manifesto commitment. I recognise that my right hon. Friend did not put it in the 2019 manifesto, but it was one of the key recommendations in the report that I commissioned from Bishop James Jones. Thirty-three years on from the Hillsborough disaster, it is time that we took action to provide much greater support for families who lose loved ones in public disasters—and there have been other disasters since Hillsborough. It would be a very fitting legacy for those who, sadly, have lost their lives at Hillsborough and in other disasters for that support to be provided through an independent public advocate. May I say to those on the Front Bench that the Government do not need to do any work, because the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) has a Bill that is written, which I am sure she aims to reintroduce to this House and which could be supported?

    Underlying the Government’s programme is the desire to level up the economy and encourage high-wage, high-skill jobs. Having a country that works for everyone is about levelling up opportunity across the country, but the economic background against which the Government are working does not make delivering those aspirations easy. The cost of living crisis is making life difficult for many across the country; we have rising inflation; we need to restore public finances; the number of people who are economically inactive in this country is rising; we have seen a hit to sterling; and forecast growth is well below trend. All those things make for a very challenging environment.

    At a time like this, the Conservative principles of sound public finances and competent economic management are needed more than ever. As we level up across the country, we should ensure that we are not a Government who work just for certain parts of the country, but a Government who truly work for everyone.

  • Theresa May – 2003 Speech to the Compassionate Conservatism Conference

    Theresa May – 2003 Speech to the Compassionate Conservatism Conference

    The speech made by Theresa May on 16 September 2003 to the Compassionate Conservatism Conference.

    I am sure many people in Britain would be surprised to know that the Conservative Party has hosted such a successful conference on Compassionate Conservatism.

    All too often, we have allowed ourselves to be portrayed as a party which cares nothing about compassion. As Iain Duncan Smith said earlier this year, we have let our opponents place us in a box marked self-interest. We all know that this is not the case.

    We know that many Conservative Party members up and down the country are at the heart of community groups and voluntary organisations that work with some of the most vulnerable people in our country. We know that Conservative councils deliver the best services for the least well off, for the lowest tax.

    Since becoming Chairman I have seen countless examples of how Conservative councils make life better for people. How they improve schools, how they make town centres safer, how they tackle graffiti and anti-social behaviour.

    Today I want to give a clear message.

    There is nothing inconsistent about being Compassionate and a Conservative. Indeed, compassion has always been at the heart of what we have been about. There has always been a rich vein of compassion running through the Conservative Party. We never stopped being the party of one nation, the party of the poor, or the party of the vulnerable. Conservatives have always been about providing the ladder of opportunity, and the safety net for those in need.

    Labour often think history began in 1997, so let me establish a few facts about Compassionate Conservatism.

    · We were the party that granted home ownership to a million and a half council tenants when we were last in office. In 1997 there were four million more home-owners than there were in 1979.

    · We were the party that helped hundreds of thousands of people gain access to university. By the time we left office, one in three young people went to higher education – up from one in eight in 1979.

    · We were the party that helped countless people set up their own business. There were a million more small businesses in Britain by the time we left office than there were in 1979.

    · The last Conservative Government offered more help to families on low incomes, to lone parents, to pensioners and helped expand opportunity so that social mobility became a reality for many.

    Labour would like us to believe that they have a monopoly on compassion.

    – Tell that to people trapped in crime-ridden estates.

    – Tell that to the mothers who see their children high on drugs, without any help or rehabilitation.

    – Tell that to the children trapped in failing schools.

    – Tell that to elderly people who use up all their life savings to pay for a vital operation that the NHS won’t provide for months.

    – What is compassionate about a Government that imposes so many regulations on care homes that they have to close, leaving thousands of elderly people with an uncertain future?

    There is nothing compassionate about New Labour.

    This is a Government that have shut the door on the policy of right to buy – denying home ownership – the fastest vehicle of social mobility to hundreds of thousands of people.

    This is a Government that has already slapped thousands of pounds in tuition fees on university students, and now plans to burden them even more with top-up fees – a policy which could end up deterring thousands of academically able people from disadvantaged backgrounds from entering university. Where is the compassion in that? It is a policy I am proud to say the Conservative Party has opposed, and which we are committed to reverse.

    Under Labour, the gap between the rich and the poor is wider now that it has been for over a decade. For all its talk about social justice, this is a Government in which allows a quarter of all pensioners to live below the poverty line.

    In today’s Britain a crime is committed every five seconds; record numbers of young people are caught up in a culture of crime and drug abuse; and people fear to walk out alone at night.

    That is just a snapshot of ‘compassion’ in New Labour’s New Britain. It is no wonder people are looking for an alternative.

    When I speak to people across Britain, they tell me that they simply want things to be better.

    They want better schools, better hospitals, better public transport, less crime.

    They can’t understand why they pay more tax, and the public services are getting worse.

    They are sick of the Government’s obsession with spin. They are tired of hearing about the Government’s latest target or initiative. What matters to them is whether the things on which they depend – the public services – are getting better or worse.

    To put it simply – they want a fair deal.

    This presents us with a challenge and an opportunity.

    But it is not enough for us to point out Labour’s failures.

    Nor can we simply point to our achievements when we were in office.

    Neither of these alone provide people with a fair deal.

    We have to persuade people that we can offer a genuine alternative to Labour.

    We need to persuade people that we can deliver the changes in the public services they need.

    For the last two years, that is what the Conservative Party, under Iain Duncan Smith, has been doing just that.

    This is how we are changing.

    As Iain said last week, we are now in our strongest position for ten years. We’re talking about the issues that matter to people. We’re offering solutions to the problems that concern people.

    And instead of Labour’s phoney compassion, we’re offering genuine solutions.

    Surely that is what opposition is about.

    And that’s what ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ is about too.

    Showing that we don’t have to settle for second best in the public services.

    That Government isn’t only about managing decline in the health service – but revitalising them.

    Showing that our goal shouldn’t be simply to curb crime, but to create a neighbourly society.

    Persuading people that inner city children shouldn’t be condemned to failing schools, but provided with a stepping-stone to success.

    That opportunity should be open to the many, not the few.

    Under Iain Duncan Smith, Renewing One Nation has had a central place within the Conservative Party. For that is surely our mission. To renew Britain. To breath new life into failing public services. To show that we can offer genuine alternatives.

    But why should people believe us? Labour promised the earth, and failed to deliver. People feel let down. People’s faith in New Labour has been betrayed.

    How are we going to convince people we are different? We have to show we understand their problems. And we are changing here too.

    The culture of politics is changing.

    People are tired of politicians who argue by throwing statistics at each other.

    They are sick of politicians who think the answer to a problem is to come up with a good slogan.

    People want to know what we stand for, not simply what we are against.

    On Sunday I attended the 30th anniversary of the foundation of the Cookham and Maidenhead branch of Amnesty International – based in my constituency. There was a time when the idea of a conservative attending an Amnesty International event was anathema to many Conservatives. Because we had difficulties with some things they did and said, we appeared to be completely against them. Now, we are grown up enough to say ‘we admire your commitment and recognise your dedication to fighting against injustice and although we don’t always agree with you, we are happy to work with you when we do, such as when Caroline Spelman met representatives of the Indian Government pressing the case for Ian Stillman.

    I believe that is the sort of constructive political engagement that Britain needs to reinvigorate British politics, because too many people have been put off political debate because of the way it is conducted.

    Too many people have lost faith in politicians because of the culture of British politics.

    That is not only bad for politics. It is bad for Britain.

    People want to know that we understand what they want – not simply what makes a good headline.

    We have to show people what a Conservative Government will do for them.

    How a Conservative Government will make their streets safer, how it will make our schools better, how it will improve health services.

    We have already made great progress doing this.

    Last year’s party conference was, I believe, our most successful for a decade. We unveiled 25 new policies that will begin to reverse the decline in our public services, and we have followed this with more announcements.

    Oliver Letwin has set out our commitment to recruit an extra 40,000 police – the largest increase in police numbers for a generation – and our pledge to provide intensive drug rehabilitation for every young hard drug addict.

    David Davis has set out our policy to allow thousands of more people to own their own homes.

    Damian Green has set out how we would give children stuck in failing schools the chance to go to better schools.

    Since then, we have unveiled new policies on health, crime and education.

    We have launched our policy to scrap tuition fees and oppose top-up fees.

    We have set out proposals to improve public health.

    We have begun our consultation on improving Britain’s transport.

    We have produced our own Green Paper on revitalising the voluntary sector. Up and down the country, each and every day, people from all walks of life take part in voluntary activities that knit together civil society. This is the front-line of compassionate Britain. A Government which neglects this well-spring of compassion will never tackle the problems facing Britain today. We will empower civil society in Britain to be an engine of social renewal.

    Labour think the answer to social problems is ever more state control. We disagree.

    Last week, Iain Duncan Smith and David Davis released a major critique of Labour’s culture of command and control, and promised that the next Conservative Government would cut through suffocating Whitehall bureaucracy and empower people on the front-line.

    Since the last party conference Iain has toured the length and breadth of Britain, telling people what a Conservative Government would do for them.

    We have been to some of our most deprived communities – the areas which have most reason to feel let down by Tony Blair.

    We’re not just going to these areas and telling them what we would do. Through organisations like Renewing One Nation, we are listening to them, to their problems, listening to the voice of people – people not obsessed with Westminster politics – to see what they want.

    And I think the fact that this conference is taking place is testimony to how much the Conservative Party is changing.

    Yesterday Iain Duncan Smith set out the Conservative Party’s approach to fighting poverty. Greg Clark has set out the policies that underpin the Fair Deal. Caroline Spelman has spoken of our approach to the developing world. Peter Franklin has spoken about drug rehabilitation. Jill Kirby has spoken about the role of the family. Oliver Letwin has spoken about helping young people off the conveyor belt to crime, and our mission to create genuine neighbourhood policing.

    Later we will hear from leading Conservative figures in local Government about how they are already tackling poverty and empowering communities where they live. We will hear about how Conservative principles, put into practice, can make a genuine difference.

    This afternoon we will hear from David Lidington about how Conservatives will resolve tensions between different communities in Britain – something we need now more than ever before. David Willetts will speak about a Conservative approach to welfare and poverty, and how we will free people from a culture of dependency.

    In a few weeks, we will meet for our annual conference, when even more policies will be set out about how we will take power out of the hands of politicians and bureaucrats, and give it back to the people.

    We won’t deal in slogans. We will set out our policies. People will know what we stand for. And then they will decide.

    This year’s local elections showed that people are already making that decision. Across Britain, people are deciding to come back to the Conservatives.

    On May 1st, we gained over 500 council seats and we are now the largest party in local government in Great Britain.

    People have realised that Labour have failed to make life better. Labour’s voters are abandoning them – not simply because Labour are addicted to spin, not simply because of the war on Iraq, but because they have broken their promise to make Britain better. As Iain said yesterday, there is no heart in Labour’s heartlands. Under Labour, people pay higher taxes, but live in a country of rising crime and declining public services. That is why people are turning to us to deliver a fair deal.

    As this conference has reminded us – there are conservative solutions to the problems Britain faces today.

    Conservative solutions that ensure no one is held back, and no one is left behind.

    But we cannot be complacent. Britain does face huge problems. Too many children leave our schools unable to read or write. Too many communities and town centres have been lost to drug dealers, vandals, and criminals. Too many people wait too long for vital hospital treatment.

    I believe compassionate conservatism offers the answer to these problems. Our party under the leadership of Iain Duncan Smith is providing these answers.

    We have to be disciplined. We have to stick to the course we have set.

    Our goal – as a party and as a country – must be to turn around the decline in our public services, and restore life to our communities.

    This is why we are Conservatives.

    We are Conservatives because we believe in One Nation. We believe that by Conservative principles we can address Labour’s failure.

    Renewing One Nation will be at the heart of our campaign.

    Our mission is simple. It is to make Britain better.

  • Theresa May – 2021 Speech in the House of Commons on David Amess

    Theresa May – 2021 Speech in the House of Commons on David Amess

    The speech made by Theresa May, the former Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 18 October 2021.

    Laughter, service, compassion: these are three of the words that spring to my mind when I think of David Amess.

    Laughter, because you could never have a conversation with David without laughter and smiling, whether that was because one of the outrageous stories that he was telling, perhaps about one of his colleagues or somebody else—[Laughter.] It was always smiles, always laughter, always fun around David.

    Service, because he had an extraordinary record of dedicated service to his constituents. I suggest to anybody who wants to be a first-class constituency MP that they look at the example of David Amess. He was deeply embedded in his constituency and, as we all know, championed it on every possible occasion. I do not think that a question or speech from David went by in this House without his constituency being mentioned. But he did not just promote his constituency here in the House. He was a part of it: he understood it, he knew it, he was in the community, he was of the community, and he was respected and loved by the community. His death is tragic and the manner of his death appalling, but isn’t it fitting that his last acts were acts of service to his constituents?

    And then there was David’s compassion, born out of and strengthened by his faith: compassion for the vulnerable; compassion for those in need. But he did not just talk about it; he acted. He changed laws. He went out there and made a difference to people’s lives, because he was also an accomplished parliamentarian and he knew that a Back Bencher who is dedicated and resolute can make a real difference.

    To echo some of the comments that have been made today, first of all, I think it is a wonderful legacy for David that Southend is now a city. But we can also add to the legacy of David Amess by ensuring that in all our political debates and our political discourse we bring to those debates and that discourse the same respect, decency and compassion that were the symbols of his life. Because David Amess made a difference. His compassion made a difference to people outside of this House. His kindness made a difference to people inside this House. Our thoughts and prayers are with Julia and the family. Their loss is devastating. His constituency has lost a much respected and loved Member of Parliament, this House has lost a remarkable and valued parliamentarian, and every Member of this House has lost a friend. May he rest in peace.

  • Theresa May – 2021 Statement on the Murder of David Amess

    Theresa May – 2021 Statement on the Murder of David Amess

    The statement made by Theresa May, the former Prime Minister, on 15 October 2021.

    Heartbreaking to hear of the death of Sir David Amess. A decent man and respected Parliamentarian, killed in his own community while carrying out his public duties. A tragic day for our democracy. My thoughts and prayers are with David’s family.

  • Theresa May – 2021 Speech on Afghanistan

    Theresa May – 2021 Speech on Afghanistan

    The speech made by Theresa May, the Conservative MP for Maidenhead and the former Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 18 August 2021.

    I had the opportunity to visit Afghanistan twice, but I recognise that there are others across this House whose experience is more recent, more vivid, more practical, and longer and broader than mine. But when I was there, I was struck by the commitment and dedication of our armed forces serving there and of other British personnel. All were doing what they could to give hope to the people of Afghanistan—people who, thanks to our presence, were able to enjoy freedoms they had been denied under the Taliban.

    Twenty years on, 457 British military personnel have died in Afghanistan, and many more have suffered life-changing injuries. Yes, many girls have been educated because of British aid, but it is not just that the freedoms once enjoyed will now be taken away; many, many Afghans—not just those who worked with British forces—are now in fear of their lives. It is right that we should open up a refugee scheme, but we must make absolutely certain that it is accessible to all those who need it.

    Of course, the NATO presence was always going to end at some point in time, but the withdrawal, when it came, was due to be orderly, planned and on the basis of conditions. It has been none of those. What has been most shocking is the chaos and the speed of the takeover by the Taliban. In July of this year, both President Biden and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated that they did not think that the Taliban were ready or able to take over control of the country. Was our intelligence really so poor? Was our understanding of the Afghan Government so weak? Was our knowledge of the position on the ground so inadequate? Did we really believe that, or did we just feel that we had to follow the United States and hope that, on a wing and a prayer, it would be all right on the night?

    The reality is that as long as a time limit and dates were given for withdrawal, all the Taliban had to do was ensure that there were sufficient problems for the Afghan Government not to be able to have full control of the country, and then just sit and wait.

    John Redwood

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that President Biden decided unilaterally to withdraw without agreeing and negotiating a plan with either the Afghan Government or the NATO allies, and that the response of the UK Government in the circumstances has been fast, purposeful and extremely well guided to protect the interests of UK citizens?

    Mrs May

    What President Biden has done is to uphold a decision made by President Trump. It was a unilateral decision of President Trump to do a deal with the Taliban that led to this withdrawal.

    What we have seen from the scenes in Afghanistan is that it has not been all right on the night. There are many in Afghanistan who not only fear that their lives will be irrevocably changed for the worse, but fear for their lives. Numbered among them will be women—women who embraced freedom and the right to education, to work and to participate in the political process.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to make the education of girls a key aim of his Administration, but in Afghanistan that will now be swept away. Those girls who have been educated will have no opportunity to use that education. The Taliban proclaims that women will be allowed to work and girls will be allowed to go to school, but this will be under Islamic law—or rather, under its interpretation of Islamic law, and we have seen before what that means for the lives of women and girls.

    Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)

    Some of the women who have shown most courage are the 250 women who serve as judges under the attempt that was made to impose a decent, honest legal system on Afghanistan. There is a particular fear that they are targets. The Bar Council and the Law Society have asked the Government to take cognizance of the particular risks they run. Will my right hon. Friend support the call for them to be given priority in being brought to safety, since they put their lives on the line for their fellow women and for their whole country?

    Mrs May

    My hon. Friend makes an important point. As has been said, there are many groups in Afghanistan who have put their lives on the line to support the Afghan Government, democracy and justice in Afghanistan, and it is right that we should do everything we can to support them in their time of need. However, as we know, under the Taliban regime the life of women and girls will sadly not be the same; they will not have the rights we believe they should have or the freedoms they should have.

    Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)

    There are already reports from sources in Kabul that the Taliban is executing collaborators and homosexuals. Does the right hon. Lady agree that complacency is absolutely misplaced, and what does she suggest we do to protect those people who need to get out?

    Mrs May

    The Government are doing much to protect people in trying to ensure that people can access ways of leaving Afghanistan. A point was made earlier about not just expecting people to get to Kabul, and I hope that is something the Government will be able to look into and take up.

    Apart from the impact on the lives of women and girls, we see a potential humanitarian crisis, at least in some parts of Afghanistan. We have cut our international aid budget, but I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary has told me that more funding will be made available to deal with this crisis.

    It is not just the impact on the people of Afghanistan that must concern us, however; we must be deeply concerned about the possible impact here in the UK. The aim of our involvement in Afghanistan was to ensure that it could not be used as a haven for terrorists who could train, plot, and encourage attacks in the UK. Al-Qaeda has not gone away. Daesh may have lost ground in Syria, but those terrorist groups remain and have spawned others. We will not defeat them until we have defeated the ideology that feeds their extremism.

    Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)

    One of the most concerning things that is happening is that several thousand al-Qaeda operatives have been freed from prisons in Bagram, Kabul and Kandahar. Is my right hon. Friend concerned that those people will go back to their old ways, or do we hope that they will somehow go into retirement? It seems to me that we are going to restart with a new round of international terrorism.

    Mrs May

    My hon. Friend has anticipated exactly the point I was about to make. The Taliban has said that it will not allow Afghanistan to become a haven for terrorists again. Yesterday, in the press conference, it said it would not allow anything to happen in Afghanistan that would lead to attacks elsewhere across the world. However, we must look at its actions, not its words, and, as he has just pointed out, its action has been to release thousands of high-value Taliban, al-Qaeda and Daesh fighters. Its actions are completely different from its words, and it is essential that we recognise the probability that Afghanistan will once again become a breeding ground for the terrorists who seek to destroy our way of life.

    Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)

    The right hon. Lady is making exactly the points that I hoped to hear from the Prime Minister and did not. The reasons that we went into Afghanistan in 2001 remain valid today. If the actions taken in recent weeks render a military solution to that problem impossible, we have to have a non-military solution. What does she see that non-military solution as being?

    Mrs May

    I will refer to that issue later. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the question of a military solution has not been there for some time, because our combat mission ended some years ago, but we have been trying to provide support to enable a democratic Government to take proper control of that country. I would be happy to talk to him sometime about my views. I think that we should possibly have reconsidered the idea of trying to impose a western example of democracy in a country that is geographically difficult and relies a lot on regional government when we were going down that route, but I will not go down that road any longer, despite his temptations.

    Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) rose—

    Mr Speaker

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

    Mrs May

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

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

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

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

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

  • Theresa May – 2021 Speech on Foreign Aid Cuts

    Theresa May – 2021 Speech on Foreign Aid Cuts

    The speech made by Theresa May, the former Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 13 July 2021.

    I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Government for enabling this debate today.

    I stood on a manifesto commitment to maintain international aid funding at 0.7% of gross national income—and not just that, because we said:

    “We will proudly maintain our commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on development”.

    Early last year, the pandemic hit. It had an immediate negative effect on the economy, yet in September 2020, when that effect on the economy had been seen, when public spending was increasing and when the Government were already borrowing hundreds of billions of pounds, they confirmed in their response to the fourth report of the International Development Committee that they would honour that manifesto commitment, saying:

    “a commitment enshrined in law and one to which the new Department”—

    the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—

    “will honour its responsibilities.”

    The Government went on to say that investing that 0.7% was at the heart of the vision of the Government’s integrated review for the UK

    “as an active, internationalist, problem-solving and burden-sharing nation.”

    Where is that vision now, as the Government turn their back on some of the poorest in the world?

    With GNI falling, our funding for aid was falling in any case. To reduce it from 0.7% to 0.5% is a double blow. This is not about palaces for dictators and vanity projects; it is about what cuts to funding mean: fewer girls will be educated, more girls and boys will become slaves, more children will go hungry and more of the poorest people in the world will die.

    The Government have promised what they see as a compromise, and I am grateful to the Chancellor for speaking to me last night. I asked how long it would take before the tests are met and we return to 0.7%. I was told, “Four to five years, but it could be sooner, because the economy is recovering so well.” If the motion is defeated tonight, it will be 0.7% from January next year. The Government appear to be saying to us, “We cannot afford 0.7% next year because the economy is doing so badly, but actually the economy is doing so well that we could very well be able to restore 0.7% very soon”. The Government cannot have it both ways.

    I certainly doubt whether the tests will ever be met in five years’ time. Meeting them depends not only on a significant recovery in the economy—the Office for Budget Responsibility is forecasting trend growth of less than 2%—but on the Government reining in their inclination to continue to increase public spending. We are told that there will be dire consequences for tax and public spending if this motion is defeated. We have borrowed £400 billion—where are the dire warnings about that? It seems that £4 billion is really bad news; £400 billion—who cares?

    Finally, as has been pointed out, the two tests have only been met in one calendar year in the past 20 years. I have been in this House for nearly a quarter of a century. During that time, I have never voted against a three-line Whip from my party. As Prime Minister, I suffered at the hands of rebels. I know what it is like to see party colleagues voting against their Government. We made a promise to the poorest people in the world. The Government have broken that promise. This motion means that promise may be broken for years to come. With deep regret, I will vote against the motion today.

  • Theresa May – 2021 Speech on HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

    Theresa May – 2021 Speech on HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

    The speech made by Theresa May, the former Prime Minister and current Conservative MP for Maidenhead, in the House of Commons on 12 April 2021.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Theresa May – 2021 Speech on Global Britain

    Theresa May – 2021 Speech on Global Britain

    The speech made by Theresa May, the former Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 11 January 2021.

    I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely right that trade brings prosperity and jobs, but global Britain is about much, much more than trade. It is about our shared values—our respect for human dignity, human rights, equality, the rule of law, freedom and democracy. It is about how we work with others who share those values to establish and maintain a rules-based international order that protects those values.

    Sadly, what we saw last week in the United States shows us how fragile the value of democracy can be when it is under pressure from populism and nationalism, fuelled by messages disseminated on social media. At the current point for the United Kingdom, post Brexit, dealing with covid and yet to deal with the societal and economic impacts of that, it is absolutely imperative that we reject any push towards nationalism and isolationism and that we recognise the importance of global Britain. Indeed, it is more important today than it ever has been.

    If we are going to lead, as we can this year, in G7 and the COP26, we also need to see a change in world politics, where absolutism—“You are either 100% for me or 100% against me, and no compromise is allowed”—has taken hold. We need to move away from the world of strong men facing up to each other. We need to find more ways in which we can work with those who share our values, because those values are under threat, and we need to work together to protect them.

    Global Britain has the position this year to enable us to do that, but in order to do it, we need to live our values ourselves. I have to say to the Government that threatening to break an international treaty shortly after signing it, threatening to break international law and cutting our international aid does not enhance the impact of global Britain. In fact, it makes it harder for us as global Britain to get our message around the world. We have been respected because of our 0.7% and respected because of what we do, not just because we are British.

    In the few seconds available to me, I want to mention one issue that is a clear and present danger to global Britain: the break-up of the United Kingdom. We often talk in this Chamber about Scotland and how important being part of the UK is to the Scottish economy. The reality is that England needs the rest of the UK as well. The United Kingdom has a seat on the Security Council of the United Nations; I doubt that England would have a seat on the Security Council of the United Nations. We need to think about the impact of this, and I particularly want to mention my concern about Northern Ireland at the moment. We have seen the issue of empty supermarket shelves—not all due to the protocol, but certainly the protocol is playing its part, and the Government need to deal with that issue. Global Britain has a role to play on the world stage, but in order to do that, the Government need to ensure that we maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom.

  • Theresa May – 2020 Speech on the Future Relationship with the EU Bill

    Theresa May – 2020 Speech on the Future Relationship with the EU Bill

    The speech made by Theresa May, the former Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 30 December 2020.

    I welcome the deal and I will be supporting it today. I welcome the fact that the official Opposition will be supporting this deal, but I did listen with some incredulity to what the Leader of the Opposition said. He said he wanted a better deal. In early 2019, there was the opportunity of a better deal on the table, and he voted against it, so I will take no lectures from the Leader of the Opposition on this deal.

    The Prime Minister has said that central to this deal are the tariff-free and quota-free trade arrangements, subject to rules of origin requirements. It would have been unforgivable for the European Union not to have allowed tariff-free and quota-free access, given that it signed up to that in the political declaration signed with my Government in November 2018.

    One of the reasons for supporting this deal is the security arrangements that have been put in place, which are very important. Access to passenger name records and Prüm are important, but there is an issue of timeliness of access to those and other databases such as the European criminal records information system. I hope, in operational terms and in practice, we will see little change to the ability to investigate as a result of the good relationships that have been built up.

    I think that the EU has made a mistake in not allowing us access to SIS II. I understand that it set as a principle that we could not have that access, but we should aim to try to find some resolution to that in the future, because it is an important database. It helps us in our fight against modern slavery and child abduction, and in identifying criminals across our borders.

    One area in which I am disappointed by the deal is services. It is no longer the case that UK service providers will have an automatic right of access to provide services across the EU; they will have to abide by the individual rules of a state. I understand that a lawyer advising on UK law in the Czech Republic will have to be resident, but in Austria will have not to be resident. That is just an example of the difference in the rules.

    The key area is financial services. In 2018, at Mansion House, I said that we wanted to work to get a financial services deal in the future treaty arrangement, and that that would be truly groundbreaking. It would have been but, sadly, it has not been achieved. We have a deal in trade that benefits the EU, but not a deal in services that would have benefited the UK. The treaty is clear that future negotiation on these points is possible, and I hope that the Government will go to that negotiation with alacrity and vigour, particularly on financial services.

    Of course, a whole structure is set up under the treaty. One thing it does not do is to excise the EU from our lives, because a whole structure of committees is set up, some of which, like the partnership council, will be able to amend the arrangement and make determinations on its operation and interpretation without, as far as I can see, any formal reference to this Parliament.

    Sovereignty has underpinned the negotiations since article 50 was triggered. Sovereignty does not mean isolationism; it does not mean that we never accept somebody else’s rules; it does not mean exceptionalism. It is important as we go forward that we recognise that we live in an interconnected world and that if the United Kingdom is going to play the role that I believe it should play in not just upholding but encouraging and promoting the rules-based international order, and in ensuring that we promote these interests and values and strengthen multilateral institutions such as the World Trade Organisation, we must never allow ourselves to think, as I fear that some in this House do, that sovereignty means isolationism.

    I say to all Members across the House that today is the time, as I have said before, to put aside personal and party political interests, which sadly too many have followed in the past, to vote in the interests of the whole UK and to support this Bill.

  • Theresa May – 2020 Comments on UK/EU Trade Deal

    Theresa May – 2020 Comments on UK/EU Trade Deal

    The comments made by Theresa May, the former Prime Minister, on 24 December 2020.

    Very welcome news that the UK and EU have reached agreement on the terms of a deal – one that provides confidence to business and helps keep trade flowing. Looking forward to seeing the detail in the coming days.