Baroness May of Maidenhead
Member of the House of Lords · Conservative · United Kingdom
“First, I worry that the Bill is removing yet further the powers of the Office of Rail and Road to hold the railways and Great British Railways to account. I remember when Tom Winsor was the Rail Regulator, and a rather determined Rail Regulator he was too, but after him, things got a little mushy.”
“Not only will that cost the taxpayer money, completely unnecessarily; it is as if somebody in the Department for Transport—maybe the Minister, maybe a civil servant, or perhaps a special adviser—has suggested, “Actually if we’re going to make a change, people need to see there’s a change, so let’s repaint all the trains”.”
“My third concern is this. Last week, the new Member of Parliament for Makerfield, who it is widely assumed will soon be our Prime Minister, made a speech in which he applauded and spoke up for the interests of place, of locality, of that sense of belonging to an area, of local identity.”
“That ability is going to be wiped away by this Bill and by the creation of Great British Railways. It is an issue I argued with Keith Williams when he was producing his report, and I recognise that on this side of the House, our hands are not entirely clean in relation to the concept of Great British Railways, albeit with differences from…”
“I did so not just as shadow Secretary of State for Transport for a period, but also because a lot of my constituents were commuters and the train service mattered to them. But I had the advantage of dealing with those issues in an era of privatisation. I remember British Rail.”
“My Lords, first, I declare my interest as a member of the GWR stakeholder advisory board, ably and knowledgeably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I add my voice to the Minister’s remarks on the 21st anniversary of those terrible attacks on our transport system.”
The complete record
Every one of 941 lines we hold for Baroness May of Maidenhead, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 19.
“My desire to bring this forward was first brought about by the case—the very sad case—of my constituent Bryony Hollands, who was killed by somebody under the influence of drugs and drink, but there have been other constituency cases, such as those of Eddy Lee and Max Simmons. On their behalf, on behalf of their families and on behalf of all those affected by this, I say simply to the Government, thank you. I would like to focus on a number of areas where I worry that there could be unintended consequences of the measures being brought forward by the Government in this Bill. I absolutely see the reason for bringing forward the serious violence reduction orders, but I welcome the fact that they are being piloted, because I think there could be unintended consequences in two areas. The first is in stop and search.”
“I join the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary in sending my condolences to Sarah Everard’s family and friends. There are elements of this Bill, which is a very large and significant Bill, that I really welcome: the action on unauthorised encampments, on serious violence, on people in positions of trust and on changes to sentencing. I particularly, of course, welcome the change to sentencing for death by dangerous driving, which reflects the change I proposed in my ten-minute rule Bill. It was supported, as the shadow Home Secretary said, across the whole of the House, because many Members of this House have constituency cases that have been affected by this, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) indicated in his intervention.”
“My right hon. Friend makes some very important points about our health staff and the vaccination programme, which has been absolutely superb in this country. Does he recognise that the creation of a new vaccine centre and medicines manufacturing centre were part of the life sciences deals that were enabled by the modern industrial strategy? Will he welcome the modern industrial strategy?”
“Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), because Labour’s answer was always to pick winners; we agreed with business the sectors that needed to be strengthened and in which we were strong, and let the market decide the companies that were going to be the winners. We need to continue with that effort. The industrial strategy was welcomed by the private sector and it was recognised internationally. Do not abandon it. Build on it, for the sake of all our futures.”
“That was the modern industrial strategy. The Government say they need a new framework. My right hon. Friend has said that that framework builds on the industrial strategy, but it does not. There are two reasons why this is the wrong approach. First, we need a long-term strategy. We cannot just magic a plan out of thin air and expect it to work in a year or so—we need something that will work longer term. We should make changes where necessary, not just for the sake of making a change. Secondly, a huge amount of effort went in, with Government working with the private sector, to develop that modern industrial strategy. The private sector welcomed it, because it was not about picking winners. This is where I depart from the former Leader of the Opposition, the right hon.”
“We could extend the definition of R&D expenditure or increase the rate, but we must act. We need investment in innovation, not in chief executives’ Jacuzzis. Another area I want to emphasise for my right hon. Friend is that there is a lot of talk from Government—we all do it and we have done it in the past—about capital spending, and infrastructure is always what we reach for. We must never forget, however, that human capital is increasingly what we must be investing in. We should be ensuring that there is effort and funding available for the skills White Paper and for the response to the Augar review. What we need to build back better is a plan that transforms the economy: ideas and an innovation economy; people investing in skills; upgrading infrastructure; and making this the best place to grow and start a business.”
“Of course there is every prospect that Brexit will have a continued impact in reducing the size of our economy into the future. So we need to focus on growth, and I will say a little more specifically about that in a moment. I am concerned that the Government have simply adopted the Treasury orthodoxy that if we wish to encourage investment by business, all we do are capital allowances. I can tell my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary that year after year that is the answer the Treasury comes up with. If we want an innovation economy, we need to invest and support investment in areas that encourage growth and innovation, and that means research and development. We are to see another consultation on R&D tax credits—I believe it is the third in three years. I have to say to him: stop consulting, just get on and do something.”
“The intergenerational divide between young and old has been exacerbated by the measures taken to deal with the pandemic, so it is absolutely right that we take measures to restore our public finances and do not simply land the bill on young people and future generations. I know there are those, including some of my colleagues, who will say, “You don’t need to do anything to taxes. You just need to have growth”, but one worry from this Budget must be the OBR forecast for growth. It is forecast in the medium term not to return to the pre-financial crisis level of an average annual rate of 2.5%, but to be around the pre-covid rate of 1.5%. There is no doubt that the pandemic has had an impact, but pre covid the uncertainty around Brexit was also having an impact on our economy.”
“On other specific issues, I wish to refer to one group who are badly affected by the impact of dealing with the pandemic: women. There is evidence to show that lockdown measures have been particularly difficult for women, and that there are women who have abandoned their careers because they have found it impossible to juggle the requirements of lockdown, with home schooling and so forth, with their careers. We need those women in the workplace. We need those female entrepreneurs for our future. I urge the Government to look actively at what they can do to deal with that issue and to encourage women entrepreneurs. Another group badly affected by the pandemic are young people, with the hospitality sector being a case in point.”
“I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In unprecedented times, I commend my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for recognising the need to combine continued support for people in jobs, even as we see the light at the end of the tunnel of this pandemic, with the need to restore our public finances and to set us on the path of growth for recovery in the future. I will not dwell on the first of those, but I welcome specifically the funding for tackling domestic abuse, focused as it will be on the perpetrator programmes often overlooked in the past. However, I continue to fail to understand why the Treasury, and, I fear, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, seem institutionally incapable of understanding the significance of the aviation sector for jobs and for our economy.”
“The industry needs three months’ preparation from the point of certainty, so I ask him to look again at the timetable for the taskforce report and to bring it forward so that we can open up our international air travel and ensure that Britain is open for business.”
“I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. May I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today? I particularly welcome the return to school on 8 March, but there is another sector that is important for jobs in my constituency, fundamental to our economy and critical to global Britain—the aviation sector. He says that there will be a taskforce report by 12 April so that people can plan for the summer, but that will not allow people to plan. At every stage, the Government have taken weeks, following these reports, to provide certainty to the industry.”
“I join the whole House in paying tribute to Captain Sir Tom Moore, who was indeed an inspiration to all of us, a beacon of light at a time of darkness and a true gentleman. I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware that my ten-minute rule Bill would increase the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving to life imprisonment. The policy and the Bill have cross-party support. The policy has Government support; the Bill does not. The Government say they will introduce the policy in their sentencing Bill, of which we have as yet seen no sign. So, will the Government now give Government time to my Bill to ensure that this necessary change is put on the statute book as soon as possible?”
“Friend take to put in place the principles that underpinned the Wessely review—I thank Sir Simon Wessely once again and his team for their work—of less coercion, better choice and control for service users, better care, and a reduction in inequality and discrimination, while dealing with the growing number of people who have mental health problems, some as a result of the pandemic?”
“May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this White Paper and also on his continued commitment to this issue during what have been really challenging times for him and his Department in dealing with the pandemic? I fear, though, that the legislation might not be on the statute book until 2023. Meanwhile, GPs and hospitals caring for my constituents tell me that there is an increasing problem with mental health and increasing numbers of people with mental health problems, particularly young people. So what steps can my right hon.”
“Yet again the right hon. Lady is raising the issue of continuity agreements, but may I just gently say to her, echoing the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that many countries were not willing to go beyond the continuity agreement until we had actually left the European Union? What was important for business was that word “continuity”—signing those agreements, so that at the point at which we left they could carry on trading on the basis on which they had been. Excellent work was done, not just in the past year but in the year or two beforehand by the previous Secretary of State for International Trade as well.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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, that, 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.”
“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.”
“The public and Parliament want to support the Government to take the right decisions, and to do that we need to have the right figures, the right data and the proper information.”
“How many small independent shops will be left? The Government must have made that assessment, so let us see it and make our own judgments. I want to make one point about public worship, echoing the concerns of others. My concern is that the Government today making it illegal to conduct an act of public worship, with the best of intentions, sets a precedent that could be misused by a Government in future with the worst of intentions, and that has unintended consequences. The covid-secure remembrance service in Worcester cathedral will now be turned into a pre-recorded online service. Surely, the men and women who laid down their lives for our freedom deserve better than that.”
“This leads to a problem for the Government, because for many people it looks as though the figures are being chosen to support the policy, rather than the policy being based on the figures. We need these proper analyses; we need to know the details behind these models; and we need to be able to assess the validity of the models. There is one set of data that has not been available throughout. There is a lack of data on the costs of the decisions being made: costs in non-covid treatment in the NHS, and in non-covid deaths; costs in domestic abuse; costs in mental health, with possibly more suicides; and of course costs to the economy, with jobs lost, livelihoods shattered, businesses failing and whole sectors damaged. What sort of airline industry will we have as we come out of this? What sort of hospitality sector will there be?”
“We need a proper assessment of how the tiered approach is working. There are other examples of figures being used in a way that I think has been unhelpful to Parliament and to the public. Let me take the 4,000 figure. The decision to go for this lockdown appears to have been based—partly, mainly or to some extent—on the prediction that there would otherwise be 4,000 deaths a day. But if we look at the trajectory shown in that graph, we see that we would have reached 1,000 deaths a day by the end of October. The average number of deaths in the last week of October was 259, by my calculation. Each of those deaths is a sadness and our thoughts are with the families, but it is not 1,000 deaths a day, so the prediction was wrong before it was even used.”
“It would have had to have been repeated, possibly again and again, and I doubt if any economy could have borne the irreparable damage that would have done, with the impact on lives that that would have had, which would have been significant. Of course, the Government introduced the tiered approach. I would echo the comment made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) that one of the issues with that approach is that we have not had a proper analysis of its impact. The evidence from Liverpool shows that the number of cases is falling. I raised this in a briefing the other day and was told that that was because fewer students were coming forward to be tested. But when we look at the figures, we see that the number of cases is actually falling across the age ranges.”
“May I first say that I do not envy my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government the decisions that they are having to take and the difficult position they find themselves in? This pandemic has challenged Governments across the world, and Ministers have been under relentless pressure in dealing with this issue. However, just as Ministers are making tough decisions, so is Parliament, and Parliament will make better decisions if it is fully and properly informed. I want to comment on the circuit breaker idea. I looked at the SAGE paper of 21 September and what was absolutely clear was that this was not a two-to-three-week circuit breaker, full stop, end of story.”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. The Government appear resigned to the prospect of no deal, yet one area in which they should not be resigned to the prospect of no deal is security. I note that my right hon. Friend made no mention of security in his statement this afternoon, and the Prime Minister made no reference to security in his letter to parliamentarians on 16 October. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if the UK walks away with no deal, then our police and other law enforcement agencies will no longer have the necessary access to databases such as PNR—passenger name records—to be able to continue to identify and catch criminals and potential terrorists in order to keep us safe?”
“May I say through my right hon. Friend to our hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) that if he wants to know what companies are doing, he should look at company reports and accounts, and he will see that real action has been taken by companies, who have explored their supply chains, ensuring that there is no modern slavery in them.”
“Given a previous planning inspector’s decision, most of those homes will be in Maidenhead, not in the Windsor part of the constituency, and there is already an implication that green belt needs to be built on. But those numbers are less significant than the increase that is faced in the part of my constituency under Wokingham Borough Council. That council, over the past three years, has seen the delivery of homes over and above its target, but its target of 789 homes per year is now to be more than doubled, to 1,635 homes per year.”
“But we will not do that by removing local democracy, cutting the number of affordable homes that are built and building over rural areas. Yet that is exactly what these reforms will lead to. We do need, as I said, to build more homes, but we will not do that by forcing local authorities to grant more planning permissions to developers so that they can build more homes to bring the price down, because developers simply will not do it. The Government need to think again, and they need to understand the impact that their proposals will have throughout the country—an impact that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight so ably set out. But I want to focus on my constituency. For the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, the housing target will go up by 21%.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this debate on a very important subject, and on his excellent speech. We need to build more homes; the Government are absolutely right about that. We need to level up across the country; the Government are right about that, too. But the problem with the algorithm on housing numbers is that it does not guarantee the building of a single extra home and, far from levelling up, it forces more investment into London and the south. That is a mechanistic approach and it is ill-conceived. We need to reform the planning system. We need to ensure that that planning system sees the right number of homes being built in the right places.”
“As Cox Green Parish Council in my constituency has said: “The real block to delivery is the developers’ appetite to build at a level which will affect house prices and their profit margins.” It says of the Government’s approach: “All that this strategy will accomplish is to further undermine public confidence in the planning system.” My second objection is to the fact that this does not level up, as was very ably set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. What the new algorithm does with regard to levelling up is fly in the face of the Government’s flagship policy. My point is simple: these proposals do not deliver on Government policies. The Government need to think again and come back to this House with a comprehensive proposal for a proper debate and—dare I say it?—a meaningful vote.”
“One of the difficulties is that councils often find that, because of the way the five-year land supply is calculated, they reject planning permission and it is then allowed on appeal because there is not a five-year land supply. Why not count previously granted planning permissions in the five-year land supply, giving developers an incentive to build them out, because otherwise they would not get planning permissions in the future? What the algorithm does is build up planning permissions; it does not build houses.”
“They have urged the Government to think again, and to ensure that a realistic and manageable plan is put in place, which is achievable and does not create more problems than it solves. I say to the Minister that one of the strongest arguments, if not the strongest, against this new housing algorithm—I would have thought that the Government might have abandoned algorithms by now—is that it simply does not deliver a single extra home. We want those homes to be built, but one of the problems that we see at local level is that developers just constantly put in planning permission applications. What we will see is not homes being built, but more planning permissions being built up by those developers.”
“I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on those points. What seems to be happening is that if councils have delivered in the past—and they deserve to be congratulated on that—they are being forced to deliver even more in the future. Yet, by definition, if you have delivered in the past, you have less land on which to deliver in the future. It just does not seem to make sense, particularly when those who have not delivered are being rewarded by lower target numbers. That is the opinion of parish councils and town councils across the Wokingham area, including those in my constituency—Charvil, Remenham, Ruscombe, St Nicholas Hurst, Sonning, Twyford, Wargrave, and Woodley town council, part of which covers my constituency.”
“My hon. Friend has been setting out throughout his speech that the Government want clauses 41 to 45 because of the bad consequences that could come from an interpretation of the withdrawal agreement. If the potential consequences of the withdrawal agreement were so bad, why did the Government sign it?”
“Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) mentioned, article 16 says: “If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.” Clauses 41 to 45 are not necessary.”
“The Government have acknowledged the existence of the arbitration procedure, but they are saying that they would enter into that in parallel with the operation of the elements of this Bill. The message, it seems to me, is very clear: it is that if we do not like the outcome of the arbitration panel, then we will break international law and we will not accept it. Yet, again, that is breaking the international treaty—an agreement that UK Government signed—because it is breaking article 175, which says that the view of the arbitration panel shall be “binding” on both parties. However, there is not just an arbitration process available. As the right hon.”
“This is because the withdrawal agreement put a border down the Irish sea and the Government cannot accept that—but the Government did accept it when they signed the withdrawal agreement with the European Union, and I assume that, when they did so, the Government signed that in good faith. Yet here we have clauses 41 to 45 saying that the Government should have the ability to renege on parts of the withdrawal agreement to break international law. There are three reasons why I believe that these clauses have no place in the Bill. The first, which has been referred to in earlier interventions, is that it is unnecessary. There is an arbitration process available. Under article 175, the ruling of the arbitration panel should be binding on the UK and the EU.”
“It is with some regret that I rise to speak on clauses 41 to 45. May I just say to the Minister that the overall intention of the Bill—of ensuring a functioning internal market within the United Kingdom—is absolutely right? I believe passionately in the integrity of the United Kingdom. It is not just a belief; I think it is good for the prosperity of all parts of the United Kingdom. Today, we are focusing on the parts of the Bill that relate to the Northern Ireland protocol, part of the withdrawal agreement—the withdrawal agreement that was signed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister less than a year ago. I can say to the Minister that, in my view, clauses 41 to 45 have no place in this Bill. We are told that they are there because the EU either is acting in bad faith, or might act in bad faith.”
“I have to say to my hon. Friend that I wish I had £10 for every time I have given way to him in a debate or a statement over the last few years, but I will give way to him on this one occasion.”
“It will lead to untold damage to the United Kingdom’s reputation and puts its future at risk. As a result, with regret I have to tell the Minister that I cannot support this Bill.”
“I can only see, on the face of it, that it is because the Government did not really understand what they were signing up to when they signed the withdrawal agreement. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) described the Government’s action as unconscionable. As has been said, Lord Keen resigned because he said that he found it increasingly difficult to reconcile his obligations as a Law Officer with the Government’s policy intentions. Frankly, I find it difficult to understand how any Minister can go through the Lobby to support these clauses. I consider that, in introducing clauses 41 to 45, the Government are acting recklessly and irresponsibly, with no thought for the long-term impact on the United Kingdom’s standing in the world.”
“If we pass this Bill with clauses 41 to 45, and in so doing accede to the Government’s wish to break international law, I believe it will have a detrimental effect on people’s trust in the United Kingdom. As the United Kingdom negotiates trade deals around the rest of the world, why should anybody we are negotiating with believe that we will uphold what we sign up to in those agreements if we have said clearly, “If we don’t like it after we’ve signed up to it, we’ll break it”? This is a country that upholds the rule of law. That is one of the things that make us great; it is one of our characteristics. We propound and uphold the rule of law around the world. The Conservative party upholds the rule of law—it is one of our values and characteristics —yet we are being asked to tear up that principle and throw away that value. Why?”