Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

1. If he will make it his policy to establish an academy for mathematical sciences.

[The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)]

The Government are committed to increasing the research and development allocation to a record £20.4 billion in 2024-25. Lord Vallance continues to meet mathematical science representatives to determine how best to support the sector. The Government are supporting the mathematical science sector in ways that best deliver for the taxpayer, without the time and expense required to set up a new organisation.

[Jack Rankin]

In the last financial year, the Department underspent by nearly £600 million. The proposed national maths academy was due to cost just £6 million—1% of that total. People are disappointed by this cancellation. Can the Secretary of State explain whether he cancelled the academy because he does not value the role of our national academies, or because he does not think mathematical sciences are important?

[Peter Kyle]

I have just explained all of the ways we are helping, assisting, supporting and driving mathematical science. The hon. Member has just listed all of the ways his party has failed that sector by underspending in many parts of Government and failing to commit the spending to the project that he is now calling on this Government to support.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the recent announcement of new funding for research and development in the Budget gives the sector really good clarity about investment across the coming years and about the way forward that this Government wish to take?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. He is quite right to highlight that, finally, science and technology in this country has a Government on its side and putting their money where their mouth is.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to protect the copyright of people working in the creative industries in the context of artificial intelligence.

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

We are absolutely determined to make sure that copyright and intellectual property are protected, as they always have been in this country. Our consultation is designed to do two specific things: to make sure there is legal certainty for AI developers and creative industries alike, and to make sure there is more licensing of copyright material by AI developers.

[Ms Billington]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. However, visual artists earn far below the minimum wage, and rely on copyright royalties to finance their work and continue to contribute to our world-leading creative industries—in Thanet and across the country. What reassurances can the Minister give that the plans for a copyright exception for AI learning will not further contribute to that financial instability and weaken the lifeblood of our creative economy?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She could big up her own constituency a little more, because Margate is probably one of the greatest centres of artists in this country. It is where Turner was trained and went to school, and where we have Turner Contemporary. It is also where Tracey Emin is doing so much work and many other artists as well. It is a brilliant hub.

We want to make sure—as we did in the last Labour Government, when we introduced the artist’s resale right—that artists can earn a living from their art. That is what we are determined to do. Just as last year New Zealand and Australia entered into the same agreement for an artist’s resale right, we want to make sure that there is a future revenue stream for every single artist in this country.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that transparency is crucial if creators are to understand where their works are being used by AI developers? Can he therefore assure me that the Government will legislate on transparency whatever the outcome of the consultation on copyright reform?

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point about transparency, which is a key element of our consultation. We have presented a package because we want to ensure there is a win-win here. We want AI developers to have the legal certainty that they need to develop their products in the UK as UK producers, and for creative industries to know when their works are being used, so that if they want to say no they can say no, and if they want to say yes they will be properly remunerated for it.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

3. What progress his Department has made on supporting technological innovation to accelerate NHS diagnostic processes.

[The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)]

My Department is working incredibly closely with the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and I are joined at the hip on these issues. That includes unprecedented investment in research and development to understand how better to diagnose disease. There is co-investment in initiatives such as health innovation networks, which have enabled 1.2 million patients to access proven innovations, and the digital centre of Government, which we have created, is partnering closely with the NHS to improve the deployment and innovation of technology.

[Josh Newbury]

I thank the Secretary of State for his response. My constituency of Cannock Chase has wide health inequalities, and particularly high levels of respiratory illness and bladder and brain cancer. In some parts of the country, NHS trusts are rapidly speeding up diagnostic waiting times by using highly accurate AI models, with the results checked by human clinicians. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are supporting such safe tech innovations to help fulfil our mission to build an NHS fit for the future?

[Peter Kyle]

I can indeed commit to that. The Government see the embrace of proven technologies and innovation as fundamental to the future survival of the NHS. I was incredibly happy to see that last autumn, the Royal Wolverhampton NHS trust began enrolling patients in a global-first trial of completely personalised cancer vaccines, as part of a £1 billion investment negotiated by my Department. That shows the way forward and how co-operation between Departments will deliver for patients and public service users across the country.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Early diagnosis saves lives. Randox in my constituency runs a number of NHS health checks from the Isle of Wight through to Lanarkshire. Will the Secretary of State encourage greater use of those checks, and will he visit Randox with me to see how we can further advance that technology?

[Peter Kyle]

I confirm that I have been working with the Health Secretary—indeed, we recently visited St Tommy’s across the road from here to see how new technology is being used in diagnostics. It is increasing the number of scans and improving the quality of those scans to diagnose disease early and prevent it from having the worst outcome. That is being rolled out across the country, and I am working closely with the Health Secretary to ensure that such innovations are put to good use for the country.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

Last month, the Select Committee brought festive cheer by hearing how British science is advancing the eradication of diseases such as cervical cancer, HIV/AIDS and malaria, through innovative and exciting new treatments and diagnostics. We also heard about the challenges of driving innovation through the NHS. Newcastle company AMLo Biosciences said that adoption is much quicker in the US, and others criticised bureaucratic procurement processes and a culture of inertia. Successive Governments have struggled with this challenge, so what specific steps is the Secretary of State taking with the Health Secretary to ensure that British patients benefit from innovation?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for that question and for the work that my hon. Friend’s Committee is doing to highlight the incredibly important challenge that we face as a Government and a country. For the first time, the Health Secretary has adopted the spreading of innovation through the NHS as a personal mission as part of the role of the Secretary of State, and we co-chair the Office for Life Sciences. Together, our two Departments are not only seeking to harness the power of technology, but working together, under the leadership of the Health Secretary, to drive that innovation. Such innovation cannot be locked up in one innovative health trust; it must be put to use across the NHS for every patient from every part of the United Kingdom.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

What progress has been made on using AI algorithms to analyse medical images of things such as tumours, fractures or other medical conditions? That was a pithy question, I think, Mr Speaker.

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s question. I have visited Huddersfield hospital, which is one of the first hospitals to fully integrate AI in its radiotherapy and scanning work. Having stood there and seen its power for early diagnosis through its ability to detect patterns at an incredibly early stage, I am left in no doubt that, had my mother been scanned at that hospital, she would still be alive today. She was scanned three times, but the progress of her lung cancer was missed and she died several weeks after collapsing, with it not having been detected. This is the power of technology. AI is a human power that will transform lives and we are determined to ensure—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Secretary of State, please. I am sure you want me to get to the other questions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

Many of the companies I have spoken to who are supporting technological innovation in the NHS and beyond talk about their frustration at the comparative difficulty of getting funding in the UK and say that the British Business Bank could do much more to de-risk investment and unlock innovation. What are the Government doing to reform funding and provide an oasis in what has become known as the funding valley of death?

[Peter Kyle]

The first thing that we have done is increase to record levels overall the Government’s investment in R&D. Pioneering work is also going on through Innovate UK, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency and the different funding bodies that are available to take different levels of risk when it comes to supporting, creating and upscaling innovation. The work that the Chancellor is doing to reform our pension system will unlock capital, because fundamentally we must get more domestic capital into the venture capital community so that we can get domestic innovation supported by domestic capital to upscale and solve the challenges that the hon. Member talked about.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

4. If he will take steps to help tackle barriers to the roll-out of gigabit broadband to rural areas.

[The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)]

Only this week, we announced a £289 million contract that will deliver gigabit-capable broadband to 131,000 difficult-to-reach premises across England and Wales. We are determined to make sure that in every part of the country, including in the hon. Member’s constituency, we reach all those places.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. In some villages in my constituency such as Cannington and Nether Stowey, fewer than 10% of households have access to gigabit broadband, and download speeds are among the slowest in the country. Will he advise how his Department will ensure that, under the new contract, Openreach fulfils its obligations and my constituents get that faster broadband?

[Chris Bryant]

First, I commend the hon. Member, because this is the fourth time that he has asked a question of me broadly in this territory. In the words of Browning,

“Hark, the dominant’s persistence till it must be answered to!”

He is quite right: there are villages in his constituency where there is no proper gigabit-capable internet available. I am determined to deal with that, and I am happy to meet him because, in the words of the musical “Oklahoma!”, I am

“a girl who cain’t say no”.

I am very happy to meet him—

[Mr Speaker]

I can say no. [Laughter.] Come on!

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

5. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of increases in employer national insurance contributions on the science and technology sectors.

[The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)]

The Government have increased investment in R&D to record levels. We have also repaired the public finances, including the black hole left by the previous Administration. We have done so by protecting the smallest businesses through the impact of doubling the employment allowance to £10,500, meaning that 865,000 employers will pay nothing in additional tax.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the Secretary of State for his response. However, universities, which are at the heart of the UK’s research ecosystem, face an additional £372 million in annual costs due to the rise in employer national insurance. That threatens their ability to fund cutting-edge research, recruit top talent and support early career researchers. Does he recognise the detrimental impact that will have on research in this country? Will he explore measures to ensure that our global competitiveness in science and innovation is not undermined?

[Peter Kyle]

We have found ways to get new investment into universities, which we are putting on a solid financial footing. This is just the start. We always knew that we could not fix all the problems that we inherited from that last Administration in six months, but we are finding ways to take that great start forward to get new investment into universities. I reassure the House that the war on universities by that Administration has ended.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

“Companies like ours will be less incentivised to grow”.

That is the conclusion of Paul Taylor, founder of British tech unicorn Thought Machine, which employs more than 500 people. Britain is now missing out on new jobs and investment as a direct result of Labour’s national insurance jobs tax. When the Chancellor started punishing our tech sector, the Secretary of State failed to stand up to her. Why?

[Peter Kyle]

We have put the public finances on a solid footing. Our economy is now stable in a way that has not been the case for 14 years. The Conservatives want all the benefits of the last Budget without saying how they will pay for any of it. Until they do, they will not be taken seriously by anyone, including the business that the hon. Gentleman referenced.

[Alan Mak]

The truth is that the Labour Government are failing our tech workers, because they do not care about our tech sector. Last September, Paul said that he was very keen to list Thought Machine in London instead of New York, and one of his preconditions before listing is being able to grow the business as much as possible. Why did the Secretary of State allow the Chancellor to make growth harder for Britain’s tech sector at the Budget?

[Peter Kyle]

I think the hon. Gentleman missed the investment summit that the Government held just before Christmas, at which a record £60 billion was invested into this country, £24 billion of which was AI-related. That is almost as much going directly into AI as was committed in total at the previous Government’s investment summit. This Government are unlocking investment; the previous Administration wrecked our economy and public services, and failed to secure faith in our economy for foreign companies to invest in this country.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

6. What steps his Department is taking to increase levels of innovation in Staffordshire.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)]

In case the House has not heard, this Government are driving innovation, with a record £20.4 billion of research and development investment for 2025-26, powering an innovation-led economy across the UK. In Staffordshire, UK Research and Innovation is backing more than £29 million for 70 cutting-edge research and innovation projects. A stand-out example is Innovate UK’s support for the Staffordshire net zero skills for growth project, which is equipping the country to seize opportunities in the net zero transition.

[Leigh Ingham]

Towns such as those in my constituency are key to the economy, but can face unique challenges in accessing innovation opportunities. Please could the Minister tell me how she plans to ensure that towns such as Stafford and Eccleshall are able to access new jobs, skills, investment and growth opportunities?

[Feryal Clark]

The Department has a clear vision to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of global innovation—a place where cutting-edge businesses of all sizes can start and grow, and where local people have high-quality jobs, building on local strengths. I am delighted to hear about the new multimillion-pound facility being built at Newcastle and Stafford colleges’ Stafford campus in my hon. Friend’s constituency, supported by £15 million of Government investment. It will welcome learners from September and will help to provide the technical skills that businesses need, both now and in the future, to support regional and national productivity.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

7. What steps his Department is taking to utilise technology to improve access to public services.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)]

DSIT is leading the charge by establishing the digital centre of Government to harness technology and transform our public services. We are committed to improving digital inclusion and accessibility to ensure high-quality online services that are available to everyone. In the coming months, the Department will outline its plans and priorities for a digital centre and to advance digital inclusion.

[Lewis Atkinson]

Sunderland was recently named the UK’s smartest city by The Times. It was a pleasure to welcome the Secretary of State when he visited recently. More than 5,000 homes in our city now have assistive technology installed, supporting the independence of older and disabled people and improving their access to care. How do the Government plan to build on the example of Sunderland to improve access to public services across the UK?

[Feryal Clark]

The Government recognise the potential for digital technology to support people to live independently. We will set new national standards for care technologies and develop trusted guidance so that people who draw on care, their families and care providers can confidently buy what works and get the safest, most effective tech into their homes or services. In addition, we will take forward a range of initiatives in 2025-26, including funding more home adaptations and promoting the better use of care technology.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

What steps is her Department taking to help older people who do not feel comfortable utilising technology to access public services?

[Feryal Clark]

The hon. Gentleman will be happy to hear that the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018 require most public sector organisations to ensure their services are accessible to disabled and older people by meeting the requirements of the web content accessibility guidelines and by publishing an accessibility statement in the prescribed format. The Government Digital Service’s accessibility monitoring team reviews public sector websites to ensure compliance with the accessibility regulations and supports Departments to improve their services.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s approach to improving access through technology. However, the majority of the concerns that colleagues and I receive are from those who cannot use technology. Rather than improving access, for some, technology can act as a barrier. What is her assessment of the impact of digital exclusion in the UK? Will the digital inclusion strategy that she has announced include digital exclusion at all levels of Government?

[Feryal Clark]

Digital inclusion is a priority for this Government. We have set up the digital inclusion and skills unit to ensure that everyone has the access, skills, support and confidence to participate in modern digital society, whatever their circumstances. Work is ongoing to develop our approach to digital inclusion and co-ordinate across Departments, and we hope to announce more on that soon. We will work closely with the third sector, the industry, devolved Governments and local authorities to ensure that future interventions are targeted and based on individuals’ needs.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)]

We have seen fear and lies spread about life in Britain, with those who have done little or nothing to combat child sexual abuse stretching every sinew to jump on the bandwagon. This Government are committed to justice for the victims and punishment for the perpetrators of abuse wherever it happens and whoever commits it, and I pay tribute to the work of the Prime Minister and, in particular, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), in that regard. The illegal content codes that Ofcom set out last month are the single biggest change to online safety for a generation.

[Zöe Franklin]

In 2023, the Lords Communications and Digital Committee found that 1.7 million households were without internet. Will the Secretary of State outline how the Government are working to ensure that no one is left behind by the forthcoming switchover to internet protocol television?

[Peter Kyle]

The hon. Lady asks an important question. Broadcast TV is legally protected until 2034. This Government are committed to ensuring audiences can access television in a way that suits them. Too many people are excluded from digital activity because they lack the basic skills. In the not-too-distant future, I will be launching the digital inclusion plan. I know that the hon. Lady takes cross-party working very seriously, so I hope she will meet me so I can brief her on that work and involve her ideas as we develop it.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

T2. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Globally, billions of pounds of investment are flowing into companies that are creating new technologies to power data centres, and communities across the UK should be sharing the opportunity of well-paid, skilled jobs that that investment offers. In Derby, Rolls-Royce is a world leader in the development of small modular reactors. Does the Secretary of State agree that Rolls-Royce shows British innovation at its strongest, and would be a dynamic partner for any technology company wishing to invest in the future?

[Peter Kyle]

I agree, of course. Technological innovation will be key to the move to net zero, and the UK will be at the forefront of that. SMRs are particularly exciting. I have met Rolls-Royce, which has a great advocate in my hon. Friend. I look forward to hearing more from him and seeing how we can support this exciting technology into the future.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

T3. What steps are the Government taking to support pioneering British companies, such as Cranfield Aerospace Solutions in Mid Bedfordshire, in their pursuit of hydrogen-powered flight? How will the industrial strategy ensure that the UK remains a global leader in sustainable aviation technology?

[Peter Kyle]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, one that the Government are committed to. That is why we increased research and development spending to the highest of any Government in this country. It will have a direct impact on the issues he raises.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we begin PMQs, I am delighted to welcome to the Gallery the Speaker of the Lok Sabha of India.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 January.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

I wish all Members of this House a happy new year. Our thoughts are with those affected by the recent flooding. We thank the responders who are working hard to keep communities safe.

This week, we published our elective reform plan to rebuild our NHS and end the Tory backlog. We will deliver where the previous Government failed, empowering patients, boosting productivity, more care in the community and incentivising reform.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Neil Coyle]

On behalf of everyone in Southwark and, I hope, the whole House, I offer the Prime Minister condolences on the loss of his brother over Christmas, and I wish everyone a happy new year.

Last July, the public overwhelmingly backed Labour’s manifesto commitment to halving violence against women and girls. Can the Prime Minister set out how today’s vote on the children’s wellbeing Bill is a crucial step to delivering that promise and protecting children without the delay of an unnecessary further lengthy inquiry?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend and other colleagues for their remarks about my brother.

My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. Violence against women and girls, abuse and child sexual exploitation are sickening, and many victims have been let down for a very long time by warped ideas about community relations and the protection of institutions. He raises the question of inquiries. There have been a number of inquiries, both national and local, including one covering Oldham. Reasonable people can agree or disagree on whether a further inquiry is necessary. This morning, I met some of the victims and survivors of this scandal. They were clear with me that they want action now, not the delay of a further inquiry. The Jay inquiry, the last national inquiry, was seven years. A further inquiry would take us to 2031. Action is what is required.

But whatever anyone’s view on whether a further inquiry is needed, what I find shocking is that anyone in this House would vote down the children’s wellbeing Bill this afternoon, with vital protections for the most vulnerable in our society. I urge the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw her wrecking amendment.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)]

The whole House has heard that the Prime Minister lost his brother during the Christmas period, so can I offer him, on behalf of my party, our sincerest condolences?

The new year has started with a focus on the decades-long rape gang scandal. Across the country, thousands of girls were tortured and sexually abused at the hands of men who treated them as things to be used and disposed of, destroying many lives forever. The Prime Minister mentioned previous inquiries. He is right: there has been an inquiry into child sexual abuse, but it was not about the rape gang scandal. In its 468 pages, it mentioned Rotherham just once. Is the Prime Minister confident that we know the full extent of rape gang activity?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I thank the right hon. Lady for her condolences, and I thank her for reaching out over the Christmas period when I lost my brother. I really did appreciate that, and I appreciate it today.

On the question of a further inquiry, there have been a number of inquiries, some of them localised, including the Mayor of Manchester’s recent inquiry. The national inquiry Professor Jay carried out took seven years. It had 20 recommendations, none of which were actually implemented by the Conservative party when it was in government. This is a really serious issue and we must focus, obviously, on the victims and survivors. There is no fixed view on the victims and survivors about a further national inquiry. There are mixed views. But there is a view, and I share this view, that what is needed now is action on what we already know. We already know—myself from personal knowledge when I was chief prosecutor—that warped ideas, myths and stereotypes about victims are at the heart of this. We have known that for a decade. The Jay report called for mandatory reporting; I called for it 11 years ago. What we need now is action.

What cannot be tolerated is the idea that this afternoon Opposition Members will vote down a Bill that protects children—[Interruption.] Let me just say this. One of the provisions in that Bill is to protect vulnerable children today, who are out of school, to prevent abusers from ever taking those children out of school. I implore Opposition Members to defy the misleading leadership of the Leader of the Opposition and vote for a really important Bill.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I am shocked that the Prime Minister would say that actions were not taken. He knows full well that we accepted 18 of the 20 recommendations from the Jay inquiry, and went further, launching a gangs taskforce which found 550 more perpetrators. That shows that there is still work to be done. In Rotherham alone, there have been more than 1,400 victims. Across Oldham, Bradford, Bristol, Rochdale and dozens more towns, there have been thousands more victims, but no one has joined the dots. No one has the total picture, and it is almost certainly still going on.

One victim from Telford—I know the Prime Minister says that victims have different views; we have different views across this House—says that she wants a national inquiry because

“it will hold people accountable in a way that previous inquiries haven’t”

It is very possible to have actions, take on more, and still have a national inquiry. Why will the Prime Minister not listen to victims and launch a national inquiry which would have the power to summon witnesses and make them give evidence under oath?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady says that the last Government accepted the recommendations, but they did not act on them. One of the central recommendations was for mandatory reporting, and it still has not been enacted. I called for it 11 years ago. Opposition Members have been tweeting and talking; we have been acting.

The Leader of the Opposition has been a Member of Parliament for, I think, eight years, and her party were in government for seven and a half of those eight years. She was the Children’s Minister. She was the Women and Equalities Minister. I cannot recall her once raising this issue in the House, or once calling for a national inquiry. It is only in recent days that she has jumped on the bandwagon. In fairness, if I am wrong about that and she has raised it, I invite her to say so now, and I will happily withdraw the remark that she has not raised it in the House in the eight years she has been here, until today.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister is being very specific. I have raised this issue: I have raised it in speeches, and I have raised it publicly. The Prime Minister knows that as a Minister I would not have been speaking on this specific issue, because I was not a Home Office Minister, but let me remind him about other victims who came to me whom I did help. The victims of the Tavistock scandal came to me, as a Minister, and I did not send them away, like his Safeguarding Minister. I made sure, as his Labour party was calling me transphobic, that we launched the Cass review, which even his Health Secretary has accepted. We do right by victims.

The reason why a national inquiry is important is that this issue is systemic. It involves local and national officials, the police, prosecutors and politicians. The Prime Minister talks about some of the local inquiries, but these interlinked issues cannot be covered by local inquiries alone. In fact, the leaders of the Manchester inquiry resigned because they could not get evidence, they could not summon witnesses, and not a single person in a position of authority has been held to account. The Prime Minister called for nine inquiries during the last Parliament. Does he not see that resisting this one means that people will start to worry about a cover-up?

[The Prime Minister]

This is an important issue, and we have to focus on the victims and survivors. The lies, misinformation and slinging of mud do not help them one bit. The right hon. Lady raised a victim’s question, and quite rightly too. I accept that victims and survivors are in different places on this. Those I have spoken to are worried about the delay of a further inquiry. The last inquiry took seven years, which would take us to 2031.

Among the issues that have been raised with me—the right hon. Lady has been speaking to victims, and they will have raised this with her—is that it is very hard for victims and survivors to come forward to explain what has happened to them. They do not want to be rushed through this process, which is why the last one took seven years. It is not sensible to suggest that it can be done in a hurry, on the cheap and comprehensively. That would take us to, let us say, 2030 or 2031. The victims I have spoken to want action today. I agree with them on that, but what I genuinely do not understand is why anybody would vote against the children’s wellbeing Bill, which will protect children who are vulnerable today. It will kill the Bill. It will stop the provisions for children at risk today. I implore the Opposition to vote for the Bill. Do not wreck it in this misguided way.

[Mrs Badenoch]

It is very possible to have shorter inquiries, especially if they cover areas that have not been looked at yet. We do not need to repeat the work that has already been done; let us look at new areas. Former Labour MP Ann Cryer said that there were councillors and MPs all over the country who knew what was going on but were terrified of being labelled racist.

A national inquiry would ask if there was a racial or cultural motivation behind some of these crimes, where white girls were seen, as Jack Straw said, as “easy meat”. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) was sacked from Labour’s Front Bench for speaking out about rape gangs. Does the Prime Minister now recognise that sacking people for telling the truth creates a chilling effect that means victims are not listened to?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to call out anybody who has not acted properly in these cases. I have done it many, many times before, and it does not matter to me which political party they are in. I will call them out, and I will condemn them.

When I was chief prosecutor, I took measures to confront this issue head-on. The first of the mass prosecutions for an Asian gang was in Rochdale. My team came to see me, and they put a number of Asian men in the dock. They wanted the green light for the first of these cases to take place. I gave that green light, but on one condition, because it came to my attention that one of the men who was going into the dock had previously been arrested but not charged. I said, “You can bring the first of these mass prosecutions, but only if you look back at the file”—where we did not charge—“and tell me what went wrong in a report so that I can start to put it right.” That is what started the reforms I brought about.

That is the approach I took in practice, while others were tweeting and talking. It is the approach I would take now in any case where there is wrongdoing here, but what we have got to do now—Professor Jay has said this. We have had a number of strong findings. There are 20 on the table from Professor Jay. We have got to get on with action; do not block it this afternoon.

[Mrs Badenoch]

We need to focus on what this is really about. This is not about the Prime Minister’s work in the CPS, and I would say very respectfully to the Prime Minister that it is not about you; it is about the victims. Be a leader, not a lawyer. We know that people were scared to tell the truth because they thought they would be called racist. If we want to stop this from ever happening again, we cannot be afraid.

The Labour party has adopted the APPG definition of “Islamophobia”. The same APPG report said that talking about sex groomers was an example of Islamophobia. This is exactly why people are scared to tell the truth, and the lack of clarity means that innocent British Muslims are smeared by association. That is not fair, and only a national inquiry can solve this. Will the Prime Minister look again at the Labour party’s adoption of the definition of “Islamophobia” and its chilling effect, and rule out introducing it in government?

[The Prime Minister]

I will call out any aspect that has prevented anybody from coming forward, or any case from going forward, when it comes to violence against women and girls, child abuse or child sexual exploitation, as I have been doing for the best part of 15 years.

Yes, some people will say there should be a further inquiry—I accept that—but that means all the victims and survivors who give evidence need to be in a position to do so, and not all of them are. I have been speaking to them. Some think they are, but it will take time. All of the institutions will have to give evidence; that will take time. This will delay things until 2031.

We already know what the major flaws are. My argument is that we should get on with that action. That is why we are bringing forward the Bill this afternoon.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister has effectively told us that he is not able to do two things at the same time—[Interruption.] This issue of a delay is a weak excuse. I would say to him that, by refusing this inquiry, he is enabling those people who wish to smear all British Muslims based on the actions of a small minority. He is talking about distraction tactics. Let us have the truth.

The Prime Minister cannot tell the House the full scale of the scandal. He does not want questions asked of Labour politicians who may be complicit. He will not listen—[Interruption.] He will not listen to the victims who are calling for a national inquiry. He is making this all about this afternoon’s Bill. Later today, he will tell Labour MPs, including those representing Telford, Rochdale, Bristol, Derby, Aylesbury, Oldham, Bradford, Peterborough, Coventry, Middlesbrough, Newcastle and Ramsgate, to vote against a national inquiry into the gangs that have systematically gang-raped children in their constituencies. This is one of the worst scandals in British history—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is a very, very important issue that matters to the country. It matters to all of our constituents, and I want to make sure they can hear what is being said by the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister.

[Mrs Badenoch]

This is one of the worst scandals in recent British history. How will Labour Members explain to their constituents that obeying the Prime Minister’s Whip is more important than doing the right thing?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady is right to say it is one of the worst scandals; it is terrible. That is why I acted on it. Her recently acquired view is that it is a scandal, having spent a lot of time on social media over Christmas. Not once in eight years did she stand here and say what she has just said—not once in eight years. The previous Government did not act on the recommendations. They want a national inquiry. We had a national inquiry: the Jay inquiry. The report made 20 recommendations—not a single one implemented. She talked about doing two things at once. The Conservatives cannot kill the Bill this afternoon—wreck the Bill—and protect children.

Everyone will remember the dreadful case of Sara Sharif. This is the girl who was taken out of school and abused by an abuser. This afternoon’s Bill fixes that gap. I am looking across the House, and I know there are hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who know very well that what is in this Bill is necessary, that it is the right thing to do, and would want to vote for the Bill. I urge them to think twice about following the short-sighted, misguided, bandwagon-jumping, non-leadership approach of the Leader of the Opposition.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

Q3. My constituent Annemarie, like countless other armed forces families across Aldershot and Farnborough, is living in shabby military accommodation which, after 14 years of Conservative neglect, is simply not good enough. I therefore welcome the Ministry of Defence plan to buy back thousands of homes in my constituency. Will the Prime Minister set out how sorting out the bad deal left by the Tory Government will make life better for Annemarie and others like her living at the home of the British Army?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We all owe an extraordinary debt of thanks to those who serve. By reacquiring over 36,000 service family homes, including 1,700 in her constituency, we can rapidly transform substandard accommodation. The deal we have done also saves the taxpayer around £230 million per year in rent and follows the largest pay rise for the armed forces in over 20 years. There is, of course, still work to do, but this is a major step forward.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

Happy new year, Mr Speaker. I join others in offering my personal condolences to the Prime Minister on the loss of his brother. May I take this opportunity to express my sadness at the passing of a much-loved member of the Liberal Democrat family, Baroness Jenny Randerson?

Fixing the care crisis is urgent for the millions of elderly and disabled people who are not getting the care they need, for the millions of family carers who are making huge sacrifices to fill the gap, and for the NHS, when over 12,000 people are stuck in hospital beds and cannot get out of hospital because the care is not there for them. The Prime Minister is right to say that we need a cross-party approach, but as Sir Andrew Dilnot has said today, that need not take three years. Will the Prime Minister please speed up that work so that 2025 is the year we finally rise to the challenge of fixing care?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue and thank him for his condolences. Yes, we do need to get this right. I want a cross-party consensus on the issue and I invite him to work with us, as I know he will. It is important and he is right to say that we need some action now. We have taken immediate action by providing £3.7 billion of additional funding in the Budget for social care and another £86 million to allow 7,800 more disabled and elderly people to live more independent lives, and we have increased the carer’s allowance. We have set this up in stages, so we can act and improve as we go along, while making sure we have consensus for the bigger changes that may be proposed in the review. I invite him and Members from across the House to work with us, so we can get this right and ensure what we put in place endures beyond just a few years.

[Ed Davey]

If the Government do not bring in long-term social care reforms this year, their NHS reforms in this Parliament will fail, so I hope the Prime Minister will revisit the timetable.

Moving on, while the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) may miss out on his big allowance from Elon Musk, the spectre of the richest man in the world trying to buy a British political party should give us all pause for thought. After years of the Conservatives taking millions of pounds of Russian money, will the Prime Minister now work with us to bring in long overdue reforms to party funding, so that power in this country lies with the voters, not wealthy overseas oligarchs?

[The Prime Minister]

I think we all had a smile on Sunday when the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) said how cool it was to have the support of Musk, only for Musk to say he should be removed just a few hours later—that is the rough and tough of politics. Of course, we are looking at the question of funding more generally.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

Q5. I welcome the efforts this Labour Government have made to reset our relationship with the European Union and to seek to remove unnecessary trade barriers. The trading links between the UK and mainland Europe are of particular importance to my constituency, so will the Prime Minister support my efforts, and those of other Kent colleagues, to restore an international train service to Ashford International station to help economic growth in my constituency, Kent and the wider south-east?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this question. Businesses in his constituency have been badly let down by the deal made by the last Government. We are resetting and strengthening that relationship, on the economy, energy and security, to deliver the growth we need. I know this is an issue of considerable frustration to his constituents. The decision in question is ultimately for Eurostar, but we are keen to see international services reinstated to Ashford as soon as possible and I will be happy for the Rail Minister to update him on the latest discussions.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Scottish National party.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I will begin by doing something unusual, which is to commend the Prime Minister on his earlier answers to the Leader of the Opposition. I also pass on my party’s condolences to him on the loss of his brother.

Outside this place, temperatures continue to plummet, energy bills continue to rise and the winter fuel allowance has been unacceptably taken away from so many vulnerable pensioners. The Prime Minister intimated prior to Christmas that he had no regrets about any of the decisions that he has taken in office. Does he understand that the public do?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his condolences.

We took some tough decisions. They led to a Budget that delivered the largest settlement to Scotland since devolution began. If he thinks we should now reverse that, he should say so. The money has been given, so now the SNP has the money, the power and no more excuses for the non-delivery that we see in Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman wants me to reverse that, he should say so.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Q6. Feeling safe in our communities is among the most basic of human needs, but after 14 years of Tory cuts to Durham’s frontline police—[Interruption.] After breaking the criminal justice system, too many of my constituents are victims of violence, theft and antisocial behaviour and those crimes too often go unpunished. I know the Prime Minister has had a lifelong commitment to protecting victims. What assurances can he give my constituents that our new Government will be tough on crime and on the causes of crime?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that important issue. I have to say, when he said that there were cuts to police and somebody opposite said “Boring!”, that tells us everything we need to know about the last 14 years. My hon. Friend is right: we need to crack down on those committing vile acts in our communities. That is why our plan for change puts 13,000 extra police and police community support officers into neighbourhood policing, and includes a 3.5% real-terms increase and tough new respect orders. Where they lost control, we will take back control and deliver safe and secure communities.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

My constituent Dipak first opened the doors to his pharmacy in 1991 and he has been serving the Chelmsford community ever since, greeting many of his patients by name. However, Dipak’s business is struggling. His NHS contract no longer covers the cost of the drugs he has to dispense. For example, he has sometimes been forced to pay over 100 times more than his contract provides for a particular mental health drug. Dipak is dipping into his life savings to keep his pharmacy afloat and I am sure that many other pharmacists across the country are doing the same. Does the Prime Minister agree that no pharmacist should be forced to use their own money to keep their pharmacy viable?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important and challenging case. Community pharmacists like Dipak play a vital role in our health service. As she knows, the Department of Health and Social Care sets drug tariff prices and regularly assesses what pharmacies are reimbursed to ensure that overall they are paid fairly. If the hon. Lady is prepared to share the details further with me, I will have a review carried out by the team of the case she has raised.

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

Q7. Last year, I was honoured to accept an invitation from the European Jewish Association to go to Krakow and discuss the role of Holocaust education in tackling the rising tide of antisemitism across Europe. We also visited Auschwitz and Auschwitz-Birkenau, where we laid wreaths and paid tribute to the many victims of the Holocaust. Given that this month marks the 80th anniversary of the liberation of those evil places, will the Prime Minister set out what this Government are doing on Holocaust education to ensure that never again means never again?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. Antisemitism is completely abhorrent and has no place whatsoever in our society. I recently met Jewish community leaders in Downing Street to discuss what further we can do to combat antisemitism, and that includes allocating £54 million for the Community Security Trust to continue its vital work, committing to building a new Holocaust memorial and learning centre and providing at least £2.2 million to continue the funding for Lessons from Auschwitz. I look forward to working with others on those important proposals.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

Q4. Businesses such as Hicks in Harpenden, charities such as the Hospice of St Francis in Berkhamsted, and health and social care providers such as the Elms medical practice in Harpenden, are among those up and down this country that are warning the Government about the negative impact of the proposed changes to national insurance contributions. When will the Prime Minister heed those warnings and, at the very least, look at exemptions for health and social care providers, as has been done for the NHS?

[The Prime Minister]

We had to deliver a Budget to wipe the slate clean, to deliver a stable basis for our economy and, at the same time, to repair our public services. That is why we invested £25.6 billion over two years in the NHS, including additional funding for GPs and hospices. We are taking measures to ensure that funding is there to support our vital services.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q11. Every week, I visit constituents living in the most appalling, overcrowded social housing, some with triple bunk beds in the bedroom and the parents on a sofa bed in the living room. The nearest available property to buy would be £500,000, and that is out of reach for these hard-working families. I really welcome our Government’s commitment to 1.5 million new homes. Will the Prime Minister agree that we need clear targets for the number of social housing units, so that families in Hackney can live in dignity?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend describes an appalling housing situation, and one that will be familiar to a number of MPs on both sides of the House. That is why we will deliver the 1.5 million homes that we desperately need across the country. The Budget announced £500 million for the affordable homes programme—that is hugely important—£100 million of which will go the Greater London Authority. We will also reform the right to buy, to deliver a fairer, better value and more sustainable scheme where long-standing tenants can buy their own home.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Q9. Over the past 10 years, more than £500 million has been handed to holiday home owners in Cornwall through various tax loopholes, while local families are being evicted from their homes to make way for yet more holiday homes. As the housing crisis worsens, the six Cornwall MPs are determined to reverse this situation and address the issues before the end of this Parliament. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet us, so that we get the full backing of Government and deliver first, rather than second, homes for the good of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. We are committed to building those 1.5 million homes, which includes 4,500 new homes every year in Cornwall. I do recognise the point that the hon. Member makes, which is that excessive concentrations of short-term lets and second homes in places such as Cornwall can impact the availability and affordability of homes. That is why we will enable councils to charge a premium on the council tax bills of second homes, abolish the furnished home lettings regime and introduce a registration scheme for short-term lets. I am happy to make sure that he and his Cornish colleagues get the meeting that they want with the Housing Minister to discuss that further.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

Q13. This Government are committed to using the criminal justice system to tackle violence against women and girls, but when an abuser can use a child custody battle to continue their abuse, as has happened in the case of one of my constituents, it is clear that we need to raise the issue in the civil courts too. Will the Prime Minister please look at ending the absurd assumption that a domestic abuser’s involvement in a child’s live is advantageous to their welfare?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, absolutely. My hon. Friend is right; family courts must never be a tool that domestic abusers can use to continue their appalling abuse. That is why we are expanding the number of new pathfinder courts to provide dedicated support to survivors and protect the welfare of children. We are reviewing the presumption of parental involvement and will set out our position in due course. I will make sure that he meets the relevant Minister to discuss this further.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Q10. May I associate myself with the remarks of the Liberal Democrat leader and others today? I wish a happy new year to everyone, but 2025 is already proving a challenge for many of my constituents—pensioners, families, small businesses, the hospitality industry, GPs and social care providers, as others have said. They know that the SNP has failed to deliver for Scotland. They hear the Prime Minister when he says that the Conservatives left the economy in a mess, and they know that Governments have to make difficult decisions. But what they are asking me is: when will this Government do something positive for them to overcome the negative impacts that they are facing from the Budget?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. May I express to her something that I should have expressed to the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, which is our condolences about Jenny Randerson? I apologise; I overlooked that earlier.

The hon. Lady raises the failure of the SNP and the legacy of the Tories. I am proud that this Labour Government delivered the largest budget settlement for Scotland since devolution. That means, in answer to her question, that 100,000 workers in Scotland benefit from the increases to the national minimum and living wages each year. An estimated 3.2 million people in Scotland will benefit from the extension of the 5p cut in fuel duty, which of course comes on top of the £125 million to set up Great British Energy in Aberdeen. It reinforces the point that the SNP has the powers but has a terrible record, and the Tories left a terrible legacy. We are getting on with delivering for Scotland.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

Q14. Last year, this Labour Government delivered justice for members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, and 45,000 members of the similar British coal staff superannuation scheme are keen to see their £2.3 billion investment reserve returned to them, which could boost coalfield communities such as mine in Cannock Chase. Will the Prime Minister meet retired miners, trustees and coalfield MPs to discuss what can be done for BCSSS members up and down the country?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I was pleased that the first increased payments to mineworkers’ pension scheme members were made at the end of November. I understand the strong feelings on the British coal staff superannuation scheme, which is why the Minister for industry met the trustees last year. We will work with the coal staff trustees to consider their proposals once the new mineworkers’ pension scheme arrangements have been agreed.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Q12. First, we had a Chancellor who embellished her CV, then we had a Transport Secretary with a fraud conviction, and now we have an anti-corruption Minister who is being investigated for corruption. I know that the Prime Minister likes living in free accommodation, but does he really think that it is appropriate that his Minister is being given free housing by the political allies of some very dubious foreign regimes?

[The Prime Minister]

The City Minister has acted appropriately by referring herself to the independent adviser. We brought in our new ministerial code to allow Ministers to ask to establish the facts, and I am not going to give a running commentary on that important exercise.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the help that you have given me over the last couple of days. I wrote to the England and Wales Cricket Board regarding the upcoming game against Afghanistan on 26 February, and the championship trophy. I have met with the ECB, and we are calling for the game to be boycotted. I thank everybody for the support that I have had across this House and in the other place. I also thank the Prime Minister very much for his intervention with the International Cricket Council yesterday, but will he please agree to meet his counterparts in South Africa and Australia, and ask them to boycott the games as well?

[The Prime Minister]

There has been an appalling erosion of the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan. We should all condemn that suppression of freedoms in the strongest terms. That is why we have provided additional aid, at least 50% of which will go to women and girls. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is in touch with our international counterparts on this issue. I welcome the England and Wales Cricket Board making strong representations to the International Cricket Council on Afghanistan’s women’s cricket team.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Setting aside the matter of grooming gangs, the Opposition amendment on today’s Order Paper sets out very clearly why the Bill that we will be debating is so deeply flawed. If it is to become an Act of Parliament, it will have to be completely rewritten in Committee. The Prime Minister has made much from the Dispatch Box of his service as the public prosecutor, so could he tell the House why, during his time in that capacity, he declined to instigate a prosecution, for rape and sexual abuse, against Mohamed Fayed?

[The Prime Minister]

That case never crossed my desk.

[Mr Speaker]

That completes Prime Minister’s questions.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During an answer about police numbers, the Prime Minister said that someone on the Conservative Benches shouted “Boring!” May I correct the record following a request from Hansard? I actually said “Bingo!”, because of the repetitive and overused clichés that the Prime Minister was using.

[Mr Speaker]

You have corrected the record. I would not have owned up in the way you did, but there we are.