I know Members across the House will join me in paying our respects to His Holiness Pope Francis. I offer my sincere condolences to Scotland’s Catholic community who have this Easter lost a much loved and compassionate leader.
Just before the Easter recess, I had the privilege of leading the UK Government delegation to Washington DC, then on to Tartan Week in New York. The trip was a key part of my drive to promote brand Scotland around the world, to boost economic growth and to create jobs here at home.
Finally, Mr Speaker, to you, to Members across the House and to Scotland’s closest and most important neighbours, happy St George’s day.
Before you do so, Mr Speaker, I had better answer his question. [Laughter.] Too excited about St George’s day so I am, Mr Speaker.
We should all be proud of Scotland’s universities, the contribution they make to Scotland’s public life and their reputation as the best in the world, but 18 years of the Scottish National party have left some of those proud institutions in dire straits. Job cuts and course closures are the inevitable product of the SNP’s decision to deliver a 22% real terms cut to Scottish student funding since 2013. Scotland’s universities, their staff and their students all need a Scottish Government with a proper plan to turn this crisis around; they need a new direction with Scottish Labour.
I thank the Secretary for State for his answer and for his comments about the Pope. I make my response within the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and I note my membership of the University and College Union.
The university sector in Scotland has never been in a worse state. It is in a state of crisis, with job losses, both compulsory and voluntary, being contemplated across the whole sector in Scotland. It is young Scots who are paying the price. To balance the books, the Scottish Government are limiting the number of young Scots who can go to university, forcing universities to rely more and more on the recruitment of students from overseas. To be clear, that means that Scots are often sitting at home unable to access a place because students from overseas with lower qualifications are getting those places. Does the Secretary of State agree that Scotland’s young people must be supported and the university sector must be fully funded in Scotland?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for what he does to support higher education in Scotland. Thanks to the SNP’s higher education financial crisis, as my hon. Friend says, too many Scottish students are missing out on places. Labour has committed to ensuring that Scottish students from all backgrounds can access university, and that can only be achieved with a new funding settlement that both protects our world-leading universities and gives any Scottish student who wants to pursue university the opportunity to do so. I am proud to have made it from Wester Hailes education centre, in the Wester Hailes scheme, to the University of Edinburgh, but that story is becoming all too rare under the SNP Government. It is time for a new direction for Scottish universities.
I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks about the passing of His Holiness Pope Francis. I also wish all those not fortunate enough to have been born north of Hadrian’s wall a very happy St George’s day.
While he is not a graduate of the University of Aberdeen, like me the Secretary of State is a beneficiary of a Scottish university education. Scotland has some of the finest and most respected higher education establishments in the world, but as we saw last week at the University of Aberdeen, in warnings from the University of Edinburgh and, most starkly, at the University of Dundee, where over 600 jobs are being shed to make emergency savings, the current funding model, overseen by the SNP, is failing our institutions and our young people. I know we agree on that, but will the Secretary of State also acknowledge the devastating impact on Scottish university budgets of his own Government’s national insurance increase, adding £45 million to their salary bills, or will he continue to defend that job-killing, anti-growth tax on workers?
The shadow Secretary of State is defending the SNP’s dreadful record on higher education in Scotland. It is clear from the principal of the University of Edinburgh, Sir Peter Mathieson, that the problems the university is having to deal with are caused by the underfunding of students from Scotland, which has meant the books have had to be balanced with an ever-increasing number of international students. The number of international students at the University of Edinburgh, for example, is still going up, although not as high as projected, and that is the major cause of the financial problems at Scottish universities. The Conservatives would do well not to hide behind the SNP and support it in that process.
I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments about the death of Pope Francis.
In a rare consensus, I agree with much of what has been said by both the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State. Many universities are extremely concerned about the funding situation. Many of my constituents who are employees of universities or who have children at Scottish universities are concerned, particularly following the news of the 600 job cuts at the University of Dundee. I have spoken to the principal of the University of Edinburgh and he is also concerned about the funding model in Scotland, which is failing everyone. Will the Secretary of State discuss with the Scottish Government how they can make changes and put pressure on them to do so? The national insurance changes are not helpful, so it would help Scottish education if we had some changes there as well.
The hon. Lady’s question is slightly contradictory. On the one hand, she does not like the national insurance contribution increase, which has given the Scottish Government a £4.9 billion boost—the highest settlement in the history of devolution. That money should be going to the frontline of higher education, but it is not. On the other hand, she talks about a more generous funding settlement for universities. She cannot have it both ways. The funding model must change, and the Scotland Office is in touch with all our universities’ principals to see how we can work through this issue. This is a problem with the funding of higher education as a result of SNP policies and the Scottish Government.
I associate myself with the comments about the devastating loss of Pope Francis and the compassion that he showed to the most vulnerable in our society. On a happier note, I wish all friends and family a very happy St George’s day. I also note my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to higher education.
The Secretary of State will know that the biggest financial impacts on higher education in Scotland have been Westminster policies, which is why the sector in the UK faces some challenges. We have the national insurance increase, Brexit, which I know he passionately opposed—or used to, anyway—and the hostile environment. Labour found common ground with Michael Gove on sticking him into the House of Lords, but it also found common ground with him on his commitment to decentralising migration. That has had a particular impact on the higher education sector, not least in Dundee, which has had the biggest financial hit. Will the Secretary of State let us know what progress he has made on that commitment by Scottish Labour?
May I give the hon. Gentleman and all his SNP colleagues our deepest condolences on the loss of Christina McKelvie? I think this is the first time that we have had Scottish questions since then.
I say again that the hon. Gentleman and his SNP colleagues voted against the Budget, which delivered an extra £4.9 billion for public services in Scotland. Some of that should have gone to frontline services, including to ensuring that our higher education sector was funded properly in the Scottish context. The SNP is very good at blaming everybody else for powers that do not belong to it, but what it should actually do is get a mirror. In the last seven days, the only increase it has made in using the budget given to it is £20,000 on the salaries of Scottish Government Ministers, who have all singularly failed.
I thank the Secretary of State for his kind remarks about the sad loss of Christina McKelvie. I also note the kind remarks made by the Prime Minister; the whole party is grateful for them.
Since the Labour Government do not want to talk about their commitments, let me help them out a little. We have time this Friday to discuss Scotland’s migration needs, with a Bill backed by the care, hospitality and tourism sectors. Internationalisation in education and research is crucial, so in a spirit of collegiality, instead of pandering to Reform as Scottish Labour too often does on migration and our relationship with the EU, will the Secretary of State work with us ahead of the Bill on Friday so that we can find some common cause to help the higher education sector?
There is complete denial about the problems in the higher education sector, which is devolved to the Scottish Government. We have made it clear that the immigration system we inherited from the previous Government is not working, that net migration is too high and that the interaction between migration and skills in the labour market is broken, so confidence in the whole system needs to be rebuilt.
Work is under way in government to link the work of Skills England and its equivalents, the Migration Advisory Committee, the Industrial Strategy Council and the Department for Work and Pensions to form a new framework to identify sectors that either do or do not have the adequate workforce, as well as skills strategies for the future workforce. There has been an overreliance on international recruitment. Lots of young people in Scotland—nearly one in six—are not in education, employment or training. That is a shambles. It should be Scotland’s shame, and we need to do something about it.
I commend the hon. Member for the consistent attention he has paid to this issue since he was elected last year and for educating us on it. Cancer remains Scotland’s biggest killer, with Cancer Research UK reporting that Scots are receiving worse cancer treatment than their neighbours in other parts of the UK. The national cancer plan for England will save lives that would otherwise be lost to cancer and deliver improved care and patient experience. Last year, a UK Labour Budget delivered the biggest settlement for Scottish public services in the history of devolution. It is time for the Scottish Government to step up and get serious about cancer.
I thank the Minister for her reply and very kind remarks. As in Wales and England, not a single NHS board in Scotland is meeting the 62-day cancer waiting time standard. That is a legacy of under-investment from the SNP in Scotland, from Labour in Wales, and from the Conservatives in England. To develop change and save lives, we need proper funding for cancer services. How will the Secretary of State for Scotland ensure that his colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care understand the importance of fully funding cancer strategies to avoid disasters like that devised by the SNP?
I assure the hon. Member that this is a priority for the Government, but as healthcare is a devolved matter, the Scottish Government are responsible for their own cancer strategies, including diagnostic services in Scotland. In England, improving early diagnosis of cancer—including breast cancer—is a priority for the UK Government, who are committed to transforming diagnostic services and will support the NHS to meet the demand for diagnostic services through investment in new capacity, including MRI and CT scanners.
My constituent Stephen found out that he had prostate cancer almost by accident when he was treated for something else. Thankfully, it was diagnosed early and he is on his way to a good outcome. Despite prostate cancer being the most common cancer for men in Scotland, it is not one of the tumour types that has been promoted for early diagnosis in the current Scottish Government cancer strategy. Will the Minister encourage the Scottish Government to make specific reference to prostate cancer when promoting early diagnosis?
I commend my hon. Friend for her commitment to her constituents, and pass on the best wishes of the whole House to Stephen in his recovery. Her constituents, like mine, are constantly on the receiving end of late diagnoses because of the underfunding of cancer services that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) has mentioned. We will, of course, continue to raise this issue with the Scottish Government as part of our ongoing commitment to deal with Scotland’s biggest killer, which is cancer.
Thanks to the Barnett formula, a Labour Chancellor and 37 Scottish Labour MPs, Scotland’s public services have received the biggest ever financial settlement from the UK Government, but how has the SNP spent it? Well, despite the best efforts of our extraordinary NHS staff, every week, thousands of Scots will wait more than eight hours in A&E, and more than 100,000 Scots have been stuck on an NHS waiting list for over a year. Doctors, nurses and—most of all—Scottish patients have been failed by 18 years of SNP mismanagement. We desperately need a new direction.
There has been a noticeable increase in the number of people contacting my office about accessing GP services, and about long waiting times for hospital appointments and operations. Those who live in the Isle of Arran and actually get an appointment often cannot get to it, because they cannot get a ferry there and back on the same day. That is a different point, but as a former manager in the NHS, I have seen the consequences of the shortage of GPs in Scotland. There has been a recent successful recruitment campaign in different parts of England; does the Minister agree that it is time for the Scottish Government to utilise the Barnett consequentials in order to improve access to NHS services in Scotland through robust workforce planning, and to follow the example of the NHS in England and get GPs successfully recruited?
I thank my hon. Friend, not just for her service to her constituents but her previous service in the NHS. As she has noted, thanks to Labour, NHS waiting lists in England have fallen month on month, because this Government have a plan and we have invested. Sadly, it is a completely different story in Scotland, as she has pointed out. Like mine, her constituents see a situation in which almost one in six people are now stuck on a waiting list. John Swinney has announced this SNP Government’s fifth NHS recovery plan in less than four years, but patients and staff know that it is not good enough, and we need a new direction.
The Minister is right to speak of the wonderful NHS staff that we have, but she also speaks of a new direction that is required. Let me give the House a clue as to what new direction she might be speaking of. The Good Law Project revealed this month that more than 60% of donations to Labour’s Health Secretary, totalling £372,000, came from individuals and companies linked to the private healthcare sector. As the same Labour Health Secretary is so fond of saying, all roads lead to Westminster, including on NHS funding. With cuts to public services coming down the line, is the Secretary of State—or the Minister—worried about the influence of private health donors on Cabinet colleagues?
The hon. Gentleman says that there have been cuts to public services. Let me put on record once again that this Labour Government pledged to end austerity, and we have, with a record settlement for Scotland’s public services. That money has been squandered by the SNP Government, such that we are still in a situation where nearly one in six Scots are on a waiting list. South of the border, waiting lists have fallen for the fifth month in a row. That is the difference made by a Labour Government with a plan and a willingness to fund it.
I am proud of the enormous contribution North sea workers have made to our country. Oil and gas will be an important part of our energy mix for decades to come. We have a workforce who lead the world, and we are determined to secure their long-term future in the energy industry, including oil and gas. The UK Government will soon respond to our recent consultation on supporting the energy transition in the North sea, and I am in the north-east tomorrow, turning on a wind farm and also meeting leaders in the oil and gas sector.
If the UK achieves net zero in 2050, we will still consume about 14 billion barrels of oil and gas a year. We are currently on track to produce 4 billion barrels a year. Will the Secretary of State explain why he prefers to import our energy, rather than produce it ourselves?
The national mission of this Labour Government is to get to clean power by 2030, but that means three things: renewable power, nuclear power, and oil and gas. As I have said already, oil and gas will be with us in the Scottish and UK context for decades to come.
A recent report by Offshore Energies UK showed that if the UK oil and gas basin continued to be used until 2050, it could produce half our oil and gas needs. That would do wonders for jobs in the north-east of Scotland, the north-east economy, our energy security and the energy transition, and it would also bring in £12 billion to the Treasury. On top of that, it would bring in £150 billion of economic growth to the UK, which I am sure everyone in this House and the Government would welcome. Will the Secretary of State please have a word with the Energy Secretary and ask him to stop his policies, which are continuing to ruin our oil and gas sector, and for once back north-east Scotland?
On the oil and gas sector in 2050, I have already mentioned at the Dispatch Box, as has the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, that oil and gas will be with us for decades to come, including to 2050.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an opportunity for significant economic growth in Scotland from getting right a just transition from oil and gas to clean power? In my constituency, the landing space at the port of Leith previously used by the oil and gas sector has been transformed by investment from Forth Ports into the largest renewable hub in Scotland. Will he join me in welcoming this investment in Leith, and will he outline how his Department will help secure every job possible in the transition from oil and gas?
I commend my hon. Friend on the work she is doing, particularly in the port of Leith, to ensure that we can have the transition and have it well. She highlights the important thing about this issue and debate: the energy mix requires us to have renewable power and clean energy by 2030, but it also requires us to have nuclear power and oil and gas. The energy mix means that we do it all; it is not either/or.
The Secretary of State rightly outlines how important the oil and gas sector is to Scotland, and to the workers and businesses that rely on it, but if we are to have a truly just transition, we need to invest in new technologies such as hydrogen. Will he, therefore, join me in welcoming the shortlisting of the Selms Muir hydrogen project in Livingston for UK Government support, and outline how that will benefit my constituency?
On 7 April, the UK Government announced that eight Scottish projects had been shortlisted for the next stage of the hydrogen allocation round 2 process. My ministerial colleagues and I look forward to working with industry to deliver our vision for a thriving low-carbon, hydrogen economy in the UK. I commend my hon. Friend on the work he has done in pushing forward the project in his constituency.
Does the Secretary of State agree with the Scottish Labour leader, who says there is no question but that there has to be new oil and gas, or does he agree with his colleague the Energy Secretary, who has banned new licences in the North sea and is overseeing the accelerating decline of the UK’s oil and gas basin?
The Energy Secretary and his Department are involved in a consultation on the just transition at the moment, but I go back to my earlier answers: if we are to get clean power by 2030 and to have an energy mix in this country, we require oil and gas, we require renewables and we require nuclear. It is a simple process.
I think we all heard that, and I am sure Anas Sarwar did. The Secretary of State was unable to agree with his own leader in Scotland, and is so in hock to the UK Labour party that he cannot stand up for Scottish workers or the Scottish oil and gas industry. It has always been the party interest over the national interest for Labour, with no notice taken of the Scottish Labour party. Ten years ago, the Scottish Labour party was described by its own leader as being simply the “branch office”. Nothing has changed, has it?
The Government’s sole purpose initially, in their first few months in office, was to clear up the mess that the hon. Gentleman’s party left in this country, including the £22 billion black hole. We will get on with delivering our missions, including clean power by 2030. That is what we are focused on, because that is what is good for jobs, good for bills and good for the environment.
Under the Windsor framework arrangements, the Northern Ireland plant health label allows growers and traders to move plants and seeds for planting from Great Britain to Northern Ireland without a phytosanitary certificate, and Scottish businesses have benefited from that. For example, more than 1,500 tonnes of previously prohibited seed potatoes, mostly from Scottish traders, were moved to Northern Ireland from Great Britain last year.
As the Minister will know, according to McIntyre Fruit in Scotland, which also sells plants, it is easier to supply Japan than to send plants to Coleman’s garden centre in my constituency, and the same company is now seeing orders cancelled in Northern Ireland. At the weekend, Ewing’s Seafoods, Northern Ireland’s oldest fishmonger, had a 40-foot container filled with hundreds of thousands of pounds of fresh fish returned from Belfast to Scotland owing to administrative paperwork errors on seven boxes. Will the Minister, or the Secretary of State, meet me and representatives of those companies to discuss what can be done to ease the bureaucratic burden on both Northern Ireland and Scottish business?
I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman, but let me reassure him: the horticultural working group, co-chaired by senior officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Cabinet Office, was set up specifically to tackle issues involving the movement of seeds to consumers in Northern Ireland as a first priority. The hon. Gentleman has also mentioned other topics, and I should be happy to meet him to discuss them, too. The working group meets regularly to address such issues, and includes representatives of the Ulster Farmers Union, the National Farmers Union and the Horticultural Trades Association, as well as business leaders and representatives of a small number of other horticultural businesses.
Scotland produces world-class potatoes, which are supplied to our iconic fish and chip shops, such as the Real Food Café and the Green Welly Stop in Tyndrum, Vincenzo’s Fish and Chips in Stirling—its fish supper won an award last year—and Corrieri’s in Causewayhead; Robert and Peter Corrieri will retire this year after decades of service. Will the Minister recognise their value to our local economies, and assure me that more can be done to support the supply chains linking Scottish growers with these much-loved businesses?
As my hon. Friend knows, potatoes are a staple of our national dish, haggis, neeps and tatties. They are also a staple of my favourite breakfast, the dry potato scone. I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in recognising all the fish and chip shops in his constituency, and I would be delighted to accept invitations to a tour of fish and chip shops from any colleague on either side of the House who recognises their vital contribution.
We know that this will be a concerning time for businesses in Scotland. In 2024, 12.3% of goods exported from Scotland were exported to the United States. That is why the UK Government are focused on negotiating an economic deal with the US. As the Business and Trade Secretary made clear in his statement to the House on 3 April, the Government are resolute in our support for industries throughout the United Kingdom, and Ministers and officials will continue to engage with businesses to understand the impact that these tariffs may have.
May I associate myself with the comments about Pope Francis and Christina McKelvie, and wish you, Mr Speaker, a happy St George’s day? It is very important that we all celebrate our national identities but still come together as one United Kingdom. I hope that the Secretary of State and I were not too optimistic in our last exchange about trade with the US, in which we hoped that the Trump Administration would be a boost for Scottish business in the United States. What is he doing in the UK’s discussions with the United States to ensure that specific Scottish interests, such as those of the whisky industry, are part of the arrangements?
As I have said at the Dispatch Box before, it is vital that we do all we can to strengthen our diplomatic, cultural and business ties with the United States. I was in Washington and New York for Tartan Week in the week when tariffs were imposed on the rest of the world, and I made the case for Scotch whisky and Scottish businesses in particular. We are engaging with Scottish exporters and industry representatives to assess the potential impact of US tariffs, and remain in contact with US counterparts. Our pragmatic and calm approach has been overwhelmingly welcomed by businesses and industry. We will not address this important issue in a knee-jerk way to get retweets, unlike some others in this House.
Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the pragmatic and calm approach of our Prime Minister to this issue? He is working in the clear interests of businesses and consumers, in contrast to Opposition Members, who seem interested only in social media and quick headlines.
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The pragmatic approach of the Prime Minister and this Government to this issue has been welcomed by industry and businesses right across the United Kingdom. That is in the national interests of the UK. We work very hard together to make sure that the impacts of US tariffs on the UK are not as bad as we thought they might be.
The entire House will join me in paying tribute to His Holiness Pope Francis, an extraordinary man. His lifelong work on fairness will leave a lasting legacy. People of all backgrounds and beliefs were inspired by his humility and compassion, and the outpouring of grief and love that we have seen in the last two days or so shows the respect and admiration that he was held in around the world. I will attend his funeral on Saturday and pay tribute to his courage and leadership. May His Holiness rest in peace.
I also wish everyone in England a very happy St George’s day. There is a lot to celebrate: our history, our values and our culture.
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.
May I also wish those in the Chamber a happy St George’s day?
After a cost of living crisis overseen by the chaotic Conservative Government, many in the tourist industry in Torbay believed that they had weathered the storm, as did those in Devon and Cornwall. However, many in the tourist industry in Torbay fear that the Government’s national insurance contribution hikes and effective jobs tax could be the last nail in the coffin for some of those businesses. In the light of that, will the Prime Minister give me the pleasure of showing him round Paignton zoo this summer, so he can see this outstanding, amazing tourist attraction in Torbay? It is one of many across the west of England that, sadly, are massively impacted by the jobs tax.
May I start by wishing Jennie, the hon. Gentleman’s guide dog, a very happy birthday for yesterday? She is six years old—although she does not look particularly interested in my answer, I have to say.
I recognise the importance of tourism to the hon. Gentleman’s beautiful constituency—I have been there many times, and worked there for a short time—in driving growth and creating jobs. We have announced a new Visitor Economy Advisory Council, which will work with business to deliver a new strategy that is focused on supporting growth and the tourism industry. VisitBritain has also launched a new international marketing campaign to showcase Britain’s incredible heritage, culture and landscapes, and I know the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism will be happy to keep the hon. Gentleman updated.
My hon. Friend knows my personal commitment to delivering justice for victims of crime, who have been completely failed over the last 14 years. We are improving access to compensation through better online systems, and are equipping staff with the skills that they need to better support victims. We are of course also consulting on a revised victims code, which will increase the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner to ensure more accountability. I am happy to ensure that she meets the relevant Minister to discuss those issues.
I, too, wish everyone a happy St George’s day. Can I also associate myself with the remarks about the passing of His Holiness Pope Francis on Easter Monday? Being married to a Catholic, I know the profound loss for millions in Britain and across the world.
Does the Prime Minister now accept that when he said that it was the law that trans women were women, he was wrong?
Let me be clear: I welcome the Supreme Court ruling on this issue. It brings clarity, and it will give confidence to women, and of course to service providers. The Equality and Human Rights Commission will now issue updated guidance. It is important that that happens, and that all service providers then act accordingly. This Government’s approach, and my approach, has been as follows: to support and implement the Supreme Court ruling, and we will; to continue to protect single-sex spaces based on biological sex, and we will; to ensure that trans people are treated with respect, and we will; and to ensure that everybody is given dignity in their everyday lives. I do think this is the time to lower the temperature, move forward and conduct this debate with the care and compassion that it deserves, and I think that should unite the whole House.
The Prime Minister cannot bring himself to admit that he was wrong; that was the question. He spoke about respect and dignity, compassion and lowering the temperature, so will he now apologise to the very brave hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) for hounding her out of the Labour party simply for telling the truth?
I have always approached this on the basis that we should treat everyone with dignity and respect, whatever their different views, and I will continue to do so. I will tell you, Mr Speaker, why: because when we lose sight of that approach and make this a political football, as happened in the past, we end up with the spectacle of a decent man—and he was a decent man, the previous Prime Minister—diminishing himself at this Dispatch Box by making trans jokes while the mother of a murdered trans teenager watched from the Public Gallery just up there. That will never be my approach. My approach will be to support the ruling, protect single-sex spaces and treat everybody with dignity and respect, and I believe there is a consensus in this House and the country on that approach.
There was no apology to the hon. Member for Canterbury. There is no taking of responsibility. The Prime Minister talks about political football; he practically kicked her out of his party—constructive dismissal. He talks about my predecessor. What about the abuse I faced from his MPs, who called me a transphobe for supporting what the Supreme Court has now clarified, to use his words? And where was he? He hid for six days without commenting on the Supreme Court judgment. Why did it take him so long to respond? Is it not because he was scared?
The only fiction here is the idea that the right hon. Member delivered anything in office. She held the post of Minister for Women and Equalities for two years, and she did precisely nothing. She provided no clarity on the law, and did nothing to improve women’s lives, which got materially worse under her watch. For example, the Opposition talk about hospitals and mixed-sex wards, up hill and down dale. What happened in the last decade? The use of mixed-sex wards in our NHS rose by 2,000%. There is a pattern of behaviour here: the Women and Equalities Minister who failed to do anything for women; the Trade Minister who failed to get a trade deal with the US; the Business Minister who failed to get a deal with British Steel. She is a spectator, not a leader.
I will tell the Prime Minister what I did. I stopped the gender—[Interruption.] I will, I will. When his Labour leader in Scotland was whipping his MSPs to get male rapists into women’s prisons, I stopped that gender recognition Bill. I helped commission the Cass review. I replaced the guidance on single-sex toilets. I made sure that the puberty blockers issue was resolved, while he was sitting there cheering on the ideology that was taking away safe spaces. And when the Prime Minister stayed silent last week, presumably waiting to hear what Morgan McSweeney thinks, on his WhatsApp groups some of his closest Ministers were plotting to overturn the Supreme Court decision. Labour MP after Labour MP stood up yesterday and challenged the ruling. How can we take his Government seriously on this?
I think the WhatsApp group the right hon. Lady should be worried about is the one with her shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). The mask has slipped, just one week before the elections. The shadow Justice Secretary is not here. A man who is doing everything he can to replace her, the man that most Conservative Members want as leader of their party, has admitted that Reform and the Tories are working together. He said:
“I want the fight to be united.”
He said he is determined
“to bring this coalition”,
as he calls it,
“together…one way or another”.
Well, I think we know what that means. Every Tory voter is appalled at the thought of paying for the NHS; every Reform voter hates what the Tories did for the last 14 years. They are not Conservatives; they are a con.
Who is playing political football now? The Prime Minister has no answers. Yesterday, Labour MP after Labour MP challenged the ruling. He should be more worried about his Back Benchers than my Front Benchers. His Labour Ministers called the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission “appalling”. Baroness Falkner’s role is critical to enforcing the Court’s judgment. She has had to put up with relentless abuse, not just from his Front Bench but from activists and ideologues. Reappointing her would be a clear sign that he is taking this issue seriously, so will he commit to reappointing Baroness Falkner when her term expires this year?
I have always said that the debate should be conducted properly, on the principle. I have said it many, many times. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that when they were in government, violence against women and girls reached record highs, rape prosecutions fell to record lows, and millions of women were left stuck on NHS waiting lists, unable to get the healthcare they needed. Under this Labour Government, NHS waiting lists are down by more than 200,000, and there are domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms. We strengthened access to maternity pay, something she called excessive. She talks about political footballs, but a coalition of Reform and the Tories is being formed behind her back. We know what it means when the shadow Justice Secretary and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) cook up a joint manifesto: NHS charging, pro-Russia foreign policy, and an end to workers’ rights. Just as the previous Government lost control of the economy, borders and health, in six short months she has lost control of her party.
The Prime Minister is clearly so uncomfortable talking about this subject. This is a choice between a Conservative party that stood up for common sense and a Labour party that bends the knee to every passing fad. This is a question about moral courage, and doing the right thing even when it is difficult. The truth is he doesn’t have the balls. The Prime Minister only tells people what they want to hear. He is a weathervane; he twists in the wind. He cheered an ideology that denied safe spaces to women and girls, because he thought it was cool to do so. He hounded a brave female MP out of his party for telling the truth he accepts now. And now, he is hiding behind the Supreme Court judgment. Is that not because he does not know what he actually believes?
I can only assume that that sounded better when the right hon. Lady said it in the mirror earlier. The truth is, it does not really matter what she says, because nobody—none of them behind her—believes that she is going to lead them into the next election anyway. It will be the shadow Justice Secretary, who is away plotting—that is why he is not here today—and the hon. Member for Clacton fighting over the bones of the Tory party. The Conservatives think Reform will give them its votes without changing their policy—absolutely no way. The hon. Member for Clacton will do what he always does: eat the Tory party for breakfast.
The net zero transition is a huge economic opportunity for this country, despite the naysayers on the Opposition Benches. We have had almost £44 billion of investment since July, which will deliver jobs across the country, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency—investment that the Opposition presumably do not want. We are ensuring we have the skilled workers that we need, launching Skills England and our new growth and skills offer to encourage even more apprenticeships, and supporting the industry-led plan for hydrogen to deliver the workforce needed for the industry of the future.
I also wish the House and the country a happy St George’s day, and join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the late Pope Francis. As a Christian, I found his compassion absolutely inspiring. My prayers are with Catholics in the UK and across the world, who will feel his loss particularly deeply.
I have previously raised with the Prime Minister the issue of North Devon district hospital. The previous Government promised to rebuild it, as they did hospitals across the south-west, in places such as Torbay and Musgrove Park. Unfortunately, they broke that promise, leaving appalling conditions like sewage leaks and patients being treated in corridors. Will the Prime Minister reconsider his decision to delay further the construction of new hospitals, and ask his MPs to vote for our motion today for new hospitals?
The previous programme, introduced by the Conservative party, was undeliverable and unaffordable, as I think the right hon. Gentleman knows and accepts. We have put the new hospital programme on a sustainable footing with a timeline that can be met—we are not prepared to trade on false promises, as the Conservatives did—and obviously we have also put record investment into the NHS.
I gently urge the right hon. Gentleman to one day get a bit more serious about the funding of these measures. Every week, he comes to the Chamber to push me on two issues: he pushes me to spend a lot more money, but at the same time, in the next breath, he opposes the measures in the Budget to raise the necessary money.
Unlike the Prime Minister, we had a funded programme at the election. I am disappointed with his reply—I hope he will actually visit some of these hospitals to see the urgent need for rebuilding.
At Merton Mead farm in Oxfordshire last week, I saw world-class British beef farmers at work. Farmers want the Prime Minister to be careful in a trade deal with President Trump. They were let down by the Conservatives’ appalling trade deals and worry that a bad US deal could allow American agribusiness to undercut them with inferior meat. Will the Prime Minister guarantee a vote in this House on any trade deal that he agrees with the United States?
The right hon. Gentleman raises a point that is of real interest and importance to farmers. We will negotiate, as he would expect, in the national interest and uphold the highest animal welfare standards. We are making progress on that, and there will then be a process if a deal is reached.
My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for Derby. She is right: whether it is the workforce I met at Alstom or the workers at Hitachi in County Durham, we will support our rail industry, providing certainty that delivers jobs, investment and security. I met those workforces. I know how worried they were a year ago, as she rightly says, when the previous Government were in charge. I am really proud that Derby will be the home of Great British Railways, because we are bringing railways back into public ownership to provide better services for passengers, cutting delays and cancellations and boosting growth across the country.
I and my party join the Prime Minister in his condolences for the passing of His Holiness Pope Francis.
The Prime Minister has often referred to his time working in Northern Ireland, and I have spoken to one of his bosses, who speaks of his diligence. In that vein, could he speak to his Northern Ireland team about their understanding of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement? In an interview, the Secretary of State seemed to think that it had been negotiated by Ian Paisley, rather than David Trimble and my party. His Northern Ireland Minister said at the start of this week that the future of Northern Ireland as part of the Union is dependent on opinion polls and she was not sure whether she was a Unionist. Will the Prime Minister confirm to me his understanding of the principle of consent and confirm to this House that he is a Unionist?
I thank the hon. Member for that question. I did work in Northern Ireland for five years and therefore appreciate at first hand how important these issues are. It was a very formative period for me in terms of my career and my thinking.
The Good Friday agreement is one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government. I pay tribute to everybody who helped to bring that about, because, as the hon. Member and other Members will know, it was such an important moment in the history of the conflict. I absolutely stand four-square behind its principles, some of which I was doing my part to help implement when I was working in Northern Ireland, and they will always drive me on the issues that he raises with me.
We are reforming a broken system—the system that we inherited. I think most people accept that it needs reform, because it traps people in unemployment and inactivity, and we need to reform it for that reason. The principles will be that we will provide support where support is needed. Where people want to get into work, we will help them into work. The current system operates against people who want to get into work and make that transition; if they can work, they should work. Moving into work is what halves the risk of being in poverty, and that is why we have invested £1 billion in tailored employment support. Of course, we are also introducing a new premium for those with the most severe lifelong disabilities who will never be able to work.
The right hon. Member raises an important issue. I visited Port Talbot a number of times and heard at first hand from the workforce. She may or may not know that even in opposition, before the election, I was talking to the owners to try to persuade them to delay their decisions, because I knew an election was coming. That is how important I thought it was. I remind her that at the same time, the then Prime Minister refused to pick up a call to the First Minister even to discuss the issue. I took a different approach, because I realised just how important it was.
The right hon. Lady compares the situation with the decision we took last week, but I remind her that the blast furnaces were turned off in January last year and the coke ovens in March 2024, which was before the election. That was the very thing I was trying to ensure did not happen, for reasons that she and the workforce will understand, and I was talking to the workforce throughout. Since then we have been able to negotiate an improved deal with Tata that means better terms for the workers, and we did that within 10 weeks. We are working hard to maximise opportunities from the £1.25 billion investment in an electric arc furnace, we are supporting those facing job losses with £80 million of funding to learn new skills, and we are supporting the supply chains and protecting communities.
The right hon. Lady talks about protecting working people, but she voted against the biggest devolution settlement since devolution. That includes more money for public services, including the NHS, and her party voted against it.
My hon. Friend is a real champion for Airdrie and Shotts. Over 60,000 Scots have been stuck, waiting for tests or treatment for over a year, which is a 46% rise in one year. Almost 50,000 fewer operations have been carried out compared with before the pandemic. To compare what the SNP is doing with what we are doing here in England, we have driven down waiting lists within six months, with six months in a row of reductions, and we have over 3 million extra appointments. Scotland’s NHS urgently needs change, but the SNP has no strategy or plan—it has absolutely no ideas.
I have set out our approach to China a number of times. It is not materially different from the approach in the last years of the previous Government, I might add. In relation to Scunthorpe, the deal that we had to deal with during recess was the deal negotiated by the last Government. We have taken sensible decisions in the national interest and will continue to do so.
I will leave that to you, Mr Speaker. I do not think it is for me to suggest that you donate your blood, although I am sure that you do and that we can support this jointly. We should take that up across the House under your leadership, Mr Speaker.
Let me join my hon. Friend in welcoming the new Brixton blood donor centre and the lifesaving support that it provides. Increasing donor diversity is a priority for the NHS, and we are working to increase Ro blood donations by engaging with communities who are more likely to have that blood type. I will ensure that she meets the relevant Health Minister to discuss what more we can do in this area.
We are doing everything available to us to protect car building in this country. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that two weeks ago, I made announcements about the zero emission vehicle mandate and what more we could do to support the industry. That was an immediate response to circumstances as they were, but I indicated at the time—and I do so again—that we will do whatever it takes to support our car industry.
I am deeply sorry to hear about Billy’s case; I am sure the whole House is. Our focus has to be on making sure that GPs spend more time caring for patients. That includes the investment of an additional £889 million in general practice in England, which has put over 1,500 GPs into surgeries since October. We did deliver a record settlement for Scotland’s public services to help fix our NHS and ensure that people like Billy get the care that they deserve.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that we need to go further and faster in kick-starting growth and attracting the investment we need to create jobs, and that our regulators must regulate for growth and not just for risk. We do want that continuity of leadership that he mentioned, and we are convening and getting people together to drive growth. We will take away the ideas that he put on the table.
I thank my hon. Friend for her question; I know this issue means a lot to her. We are clear on the principles for reform: protecting those with the most severe disabilities, who will never be able to work, as she refers to, and making sure that people with the most severe disabilities and health conditions will never again face the prospect of being constantly reassessed. We are making sure that extra financial support is based on the impact of a health condition or disability, not the capacity to work, and I can reassure her that we are carefully considering options for transitional protection.
Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the electorate in Scotland answered that question in July of last year? I remember that there used to be quite a few SNP Members sitting on the Opposition Benches; now it is a distant cry from up on the Back Benches.