Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

1. What steps he is taking to replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

I join you, Mr Speaker, in your tribute to Liam Laurence Smyth, and I wish the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) a very happy birthday.

The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will establish a reformed, human rights compliant and independent legacy commission that will carry out investigations and provide family reports on behalf of families who have waited far too long for answers.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I associate myself with your comments, Mr Speaker, about the Table Clerk and I wish him happiness in his next steps. I also wish the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) many happy returns.

Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill took place on 18 November, and the remedial order, which removed the protections from the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, was passed on 21 January, leaving our Northern Ireland veterans, of whom I am one, with no protections under the law. It feels rather like the Government have left our veterans in no man’s land, with no rounds in the magazine and no rounds in the chamber. How is that not a dereliction of duty?

[Hilary Benn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service in Northern Ireland. The dates for Committee stage and for the next stage of the remedial order will be announced in the normal way. Just to correct the record, if he is referring to the protections in the conditional immunity scheme that were set out in the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, that scheme was never enacted and has never had effect, so the arrival of the newly elected Government has not changed the position in that respect at all. As he will be well aware, the Government have brought forward in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill protections for veterans that were not contained in the 2023 legacy Act. We are consulting further with veterans and, as the Prime Minister has indicated, we will bring forward further proposals when Committee stage happens.

[Harriet Cross]

That answer will be of very little comfort to Northern Ireland veterans across the country, including the veteran from Turriff in my constituency who contacted me about this just last week. They are living in fear of vexatious claims, as I am sure the Secretary of State recognises, so why are the Government delaying bringing this legislation back to the House?

[Hilary Benn]

First, there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution, because for that argument to be advanced, as others have done in the House, one is saying that independent prosecutors bring prosecutions for vexation or politically motivated reasons, and that is not the case. When it comes to civil claims, the previous Government, in their legislation, left 800 civil claims against the Ministry of Defence in place, and it is almost unknown for an individual veteran to be called to give evidence in such cases.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)]

One of the lingering legacies of violence in Northern Ireland is our outrageous and distressing levels of violence against women and girls, in the echo of menace and threat that still exists in Northern Ireland. The murders this month of Ellie Flanagan and Amy Doherty bring to 33 the number of women and girls who have been murdered by men they knew. We grieve with their families, and we commend the family of Natalie McNally, who with decency and dignity finally got justice for her murder. Is the Secretary of State confident in all that he is doing on legacy that all possible levers are being used to tackle the disease of misogyny, including through Northern Ireland’s hate crime legislation?

[Hilary Benn]

I join my hon. Friend in what she says about the recent conviction for the brutal murder of Natalie McNally, and the deaths of Amy Doherty and Ellie Flanagan. It is a source of enormous sadness and—I would hope—shame that Northern Ireland is the one part of the United Kingdom where it is most dangerous to be a woman, in relation to violence against women and girls. One thing that we are doing in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is closing the loophole that was contained in the previous Government’s legislation. There will now be a means of investigating any sexual-related offences that occurred during the period of the troubles. If they meet the threshold for investigation by the legacy commission, the commission will investigate, but otherwise, once the Bill is passed, it will fall to the Police Service of Northern Ireland to examine the case.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

What reassurance can the Secretary of State give me and my constituents that the health and wellbeing of veterans will be taken into account if they are required to give evidence to the commission or coroners?

[Hilary Benn]

We have already made that clear in the protections that are contained in the Bill, including the right to give evidence remotely, application for anonymity and no cold calling. Veterans have welcomed the fact that we are now planning to put those protections in place.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

The Secretary of State says that there is no such thing as vexatious prosecutions. I think that he would do well to remember the cases of Phil Shiner.

In 1991, the SAS shot and killed three members of the IRA’s East Tyrone Brigade in Coagh. The coroner originally found that the soldier’s use of force was reasonable and proportionate, and that the IRA men in question had the intent to murder. A judicial review was brought against these findings, but in October last year it was thrown out by the High Court in Belfast, with the judge saying that the case was “ludicrous” and

“utterly divorced from the reality”.

Depressingly, this morning we hear that that case is to continue 35 years after the incident and after the soldier in question has been investigated for years. How can the Secretary of State think that is right?

[Hilary Benn]

Any citizen of the United Kingdom, as the hon. Member is well aware, has a right to bring a judicial review against any decision that has been made. It is for the courts to determine that. Having seen what the original judge said in throwing out the case, and given the fact that the inquest found that the use of force in that case was lawful, perhaps it is not surprising that the judge threw it out as having no merit whatsoever. If the case is continuing, we will have to leave it to the judicial process to decide what happens, but I have confidence in our courts.

[Alex Burghart]

Does not this case absolutely exemplify why the Government’s solution is entirely wrong? It reopens the door to vexatious litigation, which allows our veterans to be dragged through the courts, even when the courts themselves say that the case is ludicrous. It also exposes the absurdity of the fact that legal aid is paying for these challenges against our veterans—we are all literally paying for lawyers to bring vexatious litigation against our troops. The Government seem rightly to have paused their Bill. Will they please use this opportunity to think again and take a new approach that guarantees genuine protections for those who serve?

[Hilary Benn]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be genuine protections. On the question of legal aid in Northern Ireland, that is a matter, as he well knows, for the Northern Ireland Executive. Given the case that he has cited, I was not aware that the previous Government at any point considered removing the right to bring judicial review against any decisions at all. If he is now advancing the argument that judicial review should not be available in certain cases, I would say good luck to him because that is a foundation of our legal system.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

On a recent visit to Northern Ireland, I met with numerous stakeholders, including veterans, victims and survivors, all of whom are seeking justice. Yet I fear that both the former legacy Act and the current troubles Bill conceive of justice too narrowly, while the constricting lens of lawyers is preoccupied with criminal sanctions and civil compensation. Stakeholders want answers, not retribution. That is why I have tabled amendments to the troubles Bill to formally provide the option of a restorative justice pathway for the many victims of the troubles who simply want to know what happened. Does the Secretary of State agree that restorative justice has an important role to play in reconciliation, and will he meet me to discuss supporting my amendments?

[Hilary Benn]

I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, and the House will have an opportunity in due course to consider the amendments that he has put forward. Most of the victims I have met—I am sure the same is true for the victims and families he has met—are looking for answers. Most of them recognise that, with the passage of time, the prospects for prosecutions of anybody are diminishing rapidly, and part of the focus of the commission is to help those families to find answers. When it comes to how families are then reconciled to the terrible loss that they have suffered, in the end it will be for each family to find their own way of doing that.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State and the Labour Government promised the people of Northern Ireland that they would repeal and replace the legacy Act. They have not. They promised through this two-year extended parliamentary Session that they would deliver legislation that attained support across the community. They have not. The Bill is delayed at the moment because of discord among those on the Government’s own Benches. What does he say to the victims in Northern Ireland who want to see progress?

[Hilary Benn]

I say very simply that the Government are keen to progress this. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is a very complex piece of legislation, in part because it is having to fix the mess that the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 left this Government to deal with. I make no apology for taking time to ensure that we get the legislation right, because, as he knows, this is the last best hope we have.

[Gavin Robinson]

The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has just heard from the chief constable of the PSNI, Jon Boutcher, who indicated that the Secretary of State has put in a claim to the Treasury for additional hundreds of millions of pounds to fund the legacy commission, yet the PSNI has nothing. It has £200 million of civil liability cases with it and no resources to progress. Even if it was asked for information, it could not provide it. Does the Secretary of State recognise that there is a legacy funding deficit within the PSNI, and will he similarly seek money for that?

[Hilary Benn]

The creation of the legacy commission took away from the PSNI some 1,000 cases, which it then fell to the commission to investigate. That cost has been transferred to the legacy commission. Whoever is investigating those cases, and whatever the system is, they will have to be looked into. When they are looked into, disclosure will be required.

[Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)]

3. What steps he is taking to mark the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

10. What steps he is taking to mark the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

11. What steps he is taking to mark the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

On 10 April we will celebrate the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, which nearly 30 years ago brought an end to the troubles and enabled Northern Ireland to establish a power-sharing Government. In the years since, Northern Ireland has been transformed, and I look forward to working with everyone to make further progress.

[Mr Foster]

We approach the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, which was historic in that it ultimately delivered peace for a generation. With the knowledge that it requires constant political co-operation and public support, its biggest challenge no doubt is the Tory-Reform policy of leaving the European convention on human rights. If the UK left the ECHR, that would undermine a core principle of the agreement. Does the Secretary of State agree that there are some within this Chamber who would wholly compromise the peace in Northern Ireland for short-lived, ill-judged political gain?

[Hilary Benn]

I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I do not understand why some are advocating removing the ECHR from the Good Friday agreement. It would be highly irresponsible, and it shows a complete lack of understanding about what the agreement involved. You cannot just walk in and pull out one of its pillars for the sake of party ideology.

[Jessica Toale]

The Good Friday agreement was a landmark achievement of the last Labour Government, and it is a beacon of hope for conflict-affected states around the world. Before coming to this place, I had the privilege of witnessing and experiencing the leadership of Northern Ireland’s young people in this area as they shared their experiences and the lessons from the Good Friday agreement. With that in mind, what is the Secretary of State doing to share the UK’s expertise and ensure that others affected by conflict can benefit from it?

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The biggest lesson of the Good Friday agreement is that it takes immense political courage to say yes, rather than to go on saying no. To pick up her point, at the end of last year the Foreign Secretary convened the western Balkans countries under the Berlin process at Hillsborough castle, where the First and Deputy First Ministers talked through how Northern Ireland has made this extraordinary progress. That is one example of how the lessons of that agreement are being heard around the world.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

The Good Friday agreement recognised the importance of addressing the suffering of victims of the troubles. Legislating for that remains unfinished business, as does the implementation of a border poll, for which there is significant support in the north. As we approach the anniversary of the agreement, does the Secretary of State agree that it is time to take action on both of those?

[Hilary Benn]

The provisions relating to a border poll are clearly set out in the Good Friday agreement. There is one criterion that governs such a decision, and at the moment there is no evidence that there is a majority for a constitutional change in Northern Ireland. I commit to the House, as I have done before, that I will uphold in letter and in spirit that bit of the Good Friday agreement.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

May I add to the tributes paid to the Table Clerk? Among all the advice he has given in the last 40 years, he gave particularly good advice on the meaningful vote, which left many of us traumatised, but he developed great expertise in that.

As we celebrate the Good Friday agreement, may I urge the Secretary of State to be crystal clear to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Northern Ireland politicians that there will be less money coming from GB, so there needs to be revenue raising and a sole focus on economic growth for the next Session of the Northern Ireland Assembly?

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that economic growth is the answer to many of the questions that the Executive and the Assembly are facing. Northern Ireland, with its dual market access, along with its innovation and ingenuity, has an extraordinary opportunity. Being in government requires taking difficult decisions with the money one has got. We are giving a record settlement to the Executive; they have to decide how to spend it most effectively.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

As the Secretary of State talks up the Belfast agreement, he of course ignores the fact that its primary pledge of no constitutional change without consent has been trashed by the Windsor framework, in that article six of our Acts of Union, no less, has been suspended, and in 300 areas Northern Ireland is subject to foreign jurisdiction. That is constitutional change without consent. More than that, the guarantee of cross-community support was removed to force through the four-year extension to the protocol. Surely the Secretary of State should realise that the Belfast agreement has been hollowed out to promote the nationalist agenda that he seems so ready to embrace.

[Hilary Benn]

I do not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument in relation to the Good Friday agreement. When it comes to the Windsor framework, those who advocated to leave the European Union did not think about the consequences for having two entities and one open border and how we could ensure that goods crossing the border would meet the rules of the respective entity—that is what the Windsor framework seeks to do. The Government are negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU, which has been widely welcomed by all parties across Northern Ireland.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that, in any marking of the end of violence, a key date is 1994, when the main violence perpetrators, the IRA, finally woke up to the reality that its ranks were riddled with informants and it was running out of options, so it declared a ceasefire, and that was followed by loyalist paramilitaries doing likewise? But civilised society should never applaud or celebrate murderers ceasing to do what they should never have started doing in the first place.

[Hilary Benn]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that there was always an alternative to violence—always. That recognition was finally achieved when the Good Friday agreement was negotiated and signed, and Northern Ireland has seen the benefits since. It shows, as I indicated earlier, that instead of saying no, which happened repeatedly on all sides, when people are finally prepared to compromise in the interests of peace, enormous benefits flow—in this case, to Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the world.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

4. If he will have discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential merits of providing funding for the development of a police training college at Kinnegar.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)]

We are all indebted to the men and women who serve in our police force, who work day in, day out to keep our communities safe. I know that the Police Service of Northern Ireland purchased the site in the hon. Member’s constituency last year. He will know that policing and justice is devolved, so the next steps are for the PSNI and the Executive to discuss a way forward.

[Alex Easton]

Does the Minister agree that policing in Northern Ireland has consistently showcased excellence, with some of the most courageous public service anywhere in the UK, and that the development of a new police college on a 54-acre site at Holywood represents a unique opportunity to build expertise? Will he agree to join me for a site meeting to discuss funding opportunities to develop that policing college in Northern Ireland?

[Matthew Patrick]

I would be very happy to join the hon. Member on that visit. He makes his case powerfully and rightly pays tribute to the brave men and women who serve in our police. I am sure that the Executive will have heard his case for the PSNI as well.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

5. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the spring forecast 2026 on Northern Ireland.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

Northern Ireland will directly benefit from the spring forecast, with almost £390 million in additional funding to the Executive over the next three years, including £231 million in 2026-27. That is money that the Executive can use to deliver on its priorities, which include transforming public services and promoting economic growth.

[Douglas McAllister]

The £379 million in Barnett consequentials announced by our Chancellor earlier this month is on top of the £370 million of extra funding announced in the Budget, and that is all in addition to the £19 billion funding settlement announced at the spending review. Does the Secretary of State agree that, with that record level of investment, it is now for the Executive to produce a balanced, multi-year budget that will deliver for the people of Northern Ireland?

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government have taken a decision to enable the Executive, if they wish to do so, to agree a multi-year budget. Discussions are taking place, we have had the open book exercise and I hope that the Northern Ireland Executive, given those considerable additional resources, will be able to find a way forward.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

As a result of the Government’s mismanagement of the economy, the spring statement forecast that economic growth and wage growth would go down and that we would have increased inflation, all of which will hit Northern Ireland more severely than other parts of the United Kingdom. Yet the Government refuse to do anything about the massive costs of the Windsor framework and have imposed, from 1 July, carbon taxes on sea transport from GB to Northern Ireland, which will hit our economy even harder. Why are the Government ignoring the real issues that face the Northern Ireland economy, through both their actions and their inactivity?

[Hilary Benn]

I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of what the Government are doing. We have brought economic stability to the country after the disaster of the previous Government, we have given record support to the Northern Ireland Executive and we are working through our negotiations with the EU to reduce the impact of the Windsor framework. The SPS agreement, which as I said is widely welcomed across Northern Ireland, is a really good example of that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

Though the funding in the spring statement is welcome, the Secretary of State told us that he was looking at alternative sources of funding for the charity sector because of the disappointment in Northern Ireland over the local growth fund split of 70:30. Will he update the House on his conversations?

[Hilary Benn]

Yes; I am working hard, together with the voluntary sector and, I hope, the Executive to find a way forward. There is £9 million available in resource to fund those schemes from 1 April. I held a meeting to encourage the voluntary sector to apply for a bid to Peaceplus, and with the considerable additional resources that have been made available to the Northern Ireland Executive, it is open to them to make a contribution so that the economic inactivity programmes, which we all value enormously, can continue.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The Northern Ireland Office and the Treasury are doing an open book exercise on how all the Departments of the Northern Ireland Executive are spending their block grant allocations. Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing their findings?

[Hilary Benn]

There will be a report from the Treasury to the Northern Ireland Executive. It is for the Executive to take the decision, but I say from this Dispatch Box that I would welcome its publication.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Hospitality adds nearly £2 billion to Northern Ireland’s economy, supporting more than 75,000 jobs, but last year more than 2,000 hospitality workers in Northern Ireland lost their jobs. Does the Secretary of State agree with Unite the union, of which I know he is a member, that this is the result of the Government’s disastrous national insurance rises?

[Hilary Benn]

The national insurance rise decision that the Chancellor took in her first Budget was necessary because of the woeful economic legacy left to this Government by their predecessor. If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to recognise that very basic fact, he has not been paying attention.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 March.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

An attack on Britain’s Jewish community is an attack on all of us. I am pleased to say that London ambulances have now replaced the Hatzola ambulances and that the NHS will pay for the permanent replacements. We are accelerating our social cohesion plan to strengthen our British values of tolerance, decency and respect.

We are also strengthening our communities by extending Pride in Place, announcing the locations of seven new towns and delivering over 300 new school-based nurseries. This is investment in our high streets, more homes and action to support working people with the cost of living.

Today, we will celebrate the installation of the new Archbishop of Canterbury. It is a key role in our national life and I wish her every success. 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.

[Cat Smith]

I would like to thank the Prime Minister for the £47 million that this Government have given to Lancashire county council to repair potholes. However, my constituents still feel like they need a moon buggy to navigate the streets of Lancashire, so would he agree that the Reform councillors of Lancashire county council are clearly wired to the moon if they think they are making effective use of this £47 million?

[The Prime Minister]

Can I extend my sympathy to residents in Lancashire who are being utterly failed by their Reform county council? It is the same picture across the country. In Kent, Reform is cutting social care. In Worcestershire, it is hiking council tax by 9% despite promising lower taxes. In Staffordshire, the scandals and infighting have been so bad that Reform is on its fourth leader in 11 months. It is a warning to the whole country: Reform has nothing to offer but chaos, grievance and division.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I asked the Prime Minister six questions last week and he did not answer a single one. He has a duty to this House to answer the question. Let us see if he can do better this week. I will start with a simple one. Will the Prime Minister approve the licences for the Rosebank and Jackdaw gasfields in the North sea?

[The Prime Minister]

Under statute, that is a matter for the Secretary of State, as the right hon. Lady knows. The same arrangements were in place under the last Government. Licences were granted, and they were then struck down because of the defects in the process of the last Government. But oil and gas are coming out of the North sea 24/7. They will be part of the energy mix for many years to come. We fully support all existing oil and gas fields throughout their lifespans, and in November we made changes to extend that to allow neighbouring fields to be exploited.

However, we need to take control of our energy prices. The only way to do that is through renewables. The Conservatives used to make that argument. One of their senior figures in 2022 said that it is

“investment in nuclear and renewables that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and keep down consumer costs.”

Who was that senior figure? The Leader of the Opposition.

[Hon. Members]

More!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is not the day to be thrown out, with a two-week break coming.

[Mrs Badenoch]

We can have renewables and oil and gas. The Prime Minister says it is a matter for the Secretary of State—I thought that he was the Prime Minister. He loves to hide behind legal process every single time. I wonder what a Director of Public—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Yasin, you do not want to test my patience, I am sure.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister loves to hide behind legal process. I wonder what a Director of Public Prosecutions would make of the defence, “Sorry, I can’t produce my WhatsApps—my phone has been stolen.” The Jackdaw gasfield could be up and running before winter. All that gas would be used here in the UK to heat 1.6 million homes. That is enough to power Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex put together. Will the Prime Minister approve the licences, or is the Energy Secretary running the Government?

[The Prime Minister]

Legislation has been passed. It is absolutely clear that the quasi-judicial duty under the legislation rests with the Secretary of State. I really think that if she is going to put this challenge to me, she needs to read the legislation. It is the legislation that the Conservatives applied for 14 years. It is exactly the legislation that they used to put the licences in place which were then struck down because the process was defective.

Let us be clear: when Russia invaded Ukraine, energy prices doubled. During the 12-day war, oil prices hit £100 a barrel. In the last four weeks, because we are on the fossil fuel rollercoaster, everybody is being held to ransom. The only way forward is to go further and faster on renewables. The Leader of the Opposition’s approach is to outsource our foreign policy and let the US decide whether we go to war, and to outsource our energy policy to Russia and Iran and let them set the price of energy. I will never do that because it is not in the British national interest.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister is hiding behind so many people. He is the Prime Minister; he can make this decision today. He is so weak that he is the first person to be pushed around by the Energy Secretary.

Let me remind the Prime Minister who is on my side: the unions—yes, they are on my side—including GMB, Tony Blair, RenewableUK—the very people he talks about are saying to drill in the North sea—Centrica, Octopus Energy and even Labour MPs. Let me quote one Labour Member, the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell):

“Offshoring our carbon emissions might give some a sense of moral superiority”

but it is simply

“impoverishing our own communities”.

We agree, so why does the Prime Minister think that he knows better than everyone else?

[The Prime Minister]

I am going to have one more go. The legislation, the statute—[Interruption.] The law prescribes the decision maker. The Opposition know that; they should be embarrassed. The Leader of the Opposition is attacking me without having read the legislation. The legislation sets out who the decision maker is: it is the Secretary of State, not the Prime Minister. It has to be the Secretary of State, and it is a quasi-judicial process—exactly the process that they ran for many years.

Oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years to come, but we do need to get on to renewables. We are discussing this because of the war. We need to de-escalate—[Interruption.] Yes, we are. That is why I stuck to my principles not to join the war and to act in collective self-defence. I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition does not get that. She wanted to jump into the war without regard for the consequences, and now she has done the mother of all U-turns and is stranded without a thought-through position. When she was asked at the weekend whether she approved of the war, she said, “Oh, that’s a difficult one.” It certainly is if you have absolutely no judgment.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I am going to let the Prime Minister in on a secret: he is the Prime Minister, and he can change the legislation. Hiding behind the Energy Secretary is pathetic. Under the Prime Minister’s Labour Government, we buy half the gas that we use from Norway. Last year, Norway’s Labour Government drilled 49 wells in the North sea. How many did Britain drill? Zero. For the first time since 1964, under this Prime Minister’s Government, Britain drilled no wells. Why is energy security the right policy for Labour in Norway, but the wrong policy for Labour in Britain?

[The Prime Minister]

So now the right hon. Lady’s attack is, “If you pass a different law, you can take the decision”—the decision she is challenging me today for not taking. It is absolutely ridiculous. All that would do is to slow the process down. Oil and gas is coming out every day. There is a mix of that and renewables, but the most important thing to do to get energy security is to ensure that we de-escalate this war. I know where I stand on this: we are not joining the war. She wanted to join the war, but she did not think through the consequences, and now she does not know where she stands on the most important issue facing this country at this time.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Norwegian Prime Minister is doing what is right for his country—if only our Prime Minister would do the same. Stopping all new drilling in the North sea was a reckless promise when he made it before the election; in the middle of a global energy crisis, it is catastrophic. Experts are predicting a £300 rise in bills in July. Approving new licences would show that he is serious about cutting bills. Why will he not do it?

[The Prime Minister]

Because of the action that we have taken, household bills are coming down by around £100 next month, then they will be capped for three months. That is what we are doing to protect households across the country. Who voted against it? The Tories and Reform, because they just do not get the impact on working people, who we will protect.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister says that bills are coming down; they are higher than they were when he came into office. He talks about what the Government are doing to help with energy bills. Families and businesses will suffer from the spike in energy costs because of his decisions. He could abolish the green taxes on their bills. He could stop the fuel duty rise. We could drill our own gas in the North sea. What is he doing? He is planning another giveaway to people on welfare. Yet again, he is taking money from those who work to give it to those who do not. First, we had the Budget for “Benefits Street”; now, we have the bail-out for “Benefits Street”. Does that not just prove that they have given up on being the Labour party and are now just the welfare party?

[Hon. Members]

More!

[The Prime Minister]

The Conservatives are the ones who doubled the spend on welfare. They were the ones with a broken system. When we tried to mend it, what did they do? They voted against it. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Dewhirst, you are testing my patience.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady talks about the spike in energy prices. That is because of the war, which I say we should not join and she says we should join, without following through on the consequences. Time and time again, she gets the big calls absolutely wrong. She wanted to drag us into the war—she got that wrong. She opposed taking control of energy security—she got that wrong. She opposed our decision to cut energy bills—she got that wrong. She seriously thinks that that will make her relevant—she has got that wrong.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Q3.   I thank the Prime Minister for the funding for three new primary school nurseries in Oldham, but may I ask him specifically about Monday’s Liaison Committee meeting, at which he agreed that the Israeli settlements in the west bank are unlawful and that their expansion threatens the viability of a Palestinian state? Will he confirm, as he said he would, that any potential bidder for E1 contracts from the UK knows that this is unlawful, and will he set out exactly what will happen as a consequence?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me do that. The Israeli settlements, including the E1 settlement, are a flagrant breach of international law and threaten the viability of a two-state solution. That is why, alongside international partners, we have sanctioned those responsible and their supporters who incite violence. We have consistently urged the Israeli Government to act to stop these incidents. We also recommend that settlement products are labelled so that consumers are informed, and we will continue to take the necessary action to defend Palestinians and protect the two-state solution.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about Monday’s despicable attacks on the Jewish community? Antisemitism has no place in our society. Given the potential links with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, I hope that the Government will move faster to proscribe the group as terrorists.

As a former Secretary of State for Energy who granted licences for oil and gas exploration, may I make a judgment on this argument? The Prime Minister is actually right, and the Leader of the Opposition is wrong—[Interruption.] The law is clear, and I believe in the rule of law.

Just before President Trump posted about his supposed negotiations with Iran on Monday, traders made hundreds of millions of dollars of extra bets on oil futures. This looks like Donald Trump giving his mates inside information so they can make themselves richer, while his illegal war in Iran makes everyone else poorer. It looks like corruption of the very worst kind. Does the Prime Minister share my fear that Trump is making his war decisions on the basis of what enriches him and his friends, rather than what makes peace in the middle east?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his verdict. At least he has read the law that the Leader of the Opposition obviously has not read. In relation to the traders, we have seen the activity there. What I can say is that all my decisions are based on the best interests of our country, and that is why I have decided that we will not get dragged into the war, unlike the Leader of the Opposition. I have decided that we will act in collective self-defence—in defence of ourselves and our allies. I comment on my actions, and those are the principles behind my actions.

[Ed Davey]

If Trump’s war pushes up energy bills by £500, the Chancellor’s very narrow plans simply will not cut it. While I do not fall for the crocodile tears of the leader of the Conservatives, who cheered on this illegal war without a thought for the impact on people’s energy bills, and while the Government are right to reject the idea of repeating Liz Truss’s blank cheque approach, the Government cannot ignore the millions of families who do not receive benefits and who already face a cost of living crisis. Can the Prime Minister at least guarantee to all those families and pensioners that he will not let their energy bills go up by £500 this year?

[The Prime Minister]

Well, let me now give my verdict. The right hon. Gentleman is right about the Leader of the Opposition wanting to join the war, and she is wrong about that. [Interruption.] At least the right hon. Gentleman has read the legislation on which I am being challenged; it does help. [Interruption.] At least the right hon. Gentleman is right that it was the leader of the Conservative party who said, “Let us all go to war,” without thinking through the consequences. We are now discussing the consequences.

In relation to the support, we have made clear the principles and the approach that we will take. We will keep this under careful review. Energy bills for households are capped until the end of June. It is really important that I make it clear that that will happen whatever happens in the conflict, because I know the public are concerned about that. We will then put in place appropriate support, and we will look at how we put the principles behind it.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

Q4. May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks on the terrible Golders Green attack? Rebuilding trust and integrity in our democracy matters deeply to my constituents in Southampton. Shamefully, it does not matter at all to some, particularly the senior Reform UK politician who has been convicted of taking bribes from Russia. Does the Prime Minister agree that there has never been a more urgent need to defend our country from hostile forces that would try to undermine our democracy, and will he set out what concrete steps he is taking to crack down on foreign interference in British politics?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The Communities Secretary will make a statement later on the Rycroft review, which sets out the stark threats posed by illicit finance. I can tell the House that we will act decisively to protect our democracy. That will include a moratorium on all political donations made through cryptocurrencies, and I hope that will be welcomed across the House. There is only one party leader who has shown that he will say anything, no matter how divisive, if he is paid to do so.

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

“Smash the gangs”—that is what the Prime Minister promised us. “Trust me, I will stop the boats from coming.” But 70,000 people later, with 1,000 in the last week and too many young men who pose a threat to national security, is it not time to admit that “smash the gangs” has been a total, abject failure—along with, frankly, most of his other policies? Is it not time he told us, as summer approaches, what is plan B?

[The Prime Minister]

That is from the man and the party who voted against giving law enforcement counter-terrorism-style powers to tackle this. The hon. Gentleman wants the grievance; he does not want it sorted. He has absolutely no judgment. Again, he said, “Let’s join the war. Let’s all go to war.” I want to make it perfectly clear that he wanted the war. A week later, he did a screeching U-turn: “We don’t want to go to war”—and he says we should trust his judgment. It is hard to take anything he says seriously. He promised lower tax, and now Reform councils are hiking council tax by 9%. This is what he said about Worcestershire:

“We took…control of a virtually bankrupt council. I wish we hadn’t bothered.”

He asks for people’s votes, and then he abandons them. Reform does not want to solve problems; it only wants to exploit them. I am thankful for the opportunity to change this country for the better; he says he wishes that he had not bothered winning councils. Reform is an absolute disgrace.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Q5.   May I thank the Prime Minister for the £35 million of funding, announced this week, to transform the Crucible theatre and keep the world—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear the hon. Member’s question, as do those who are interested in snooker.

[Dr Tidball]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I thank the Prime Minister for the £35 million of funding to transform the Crucible theatre and keep the world snooker championship at the heart of Sheffield? I want my constituents to be able to enjoy this fantastic tournament, day and night, and to travel in by tram-train from Stocksbridge to Sheffield via Oughtibridge, Wharncliffe Side and Deepcar. I am grateful to our South Yorkshire Mayor, Oliver Coppard, for kick-starting these plans. Will the Prime Minister work with me and the South Yorkshire Mayor to ensure that we get spades in the ground for a tram-train extension to Stocksbridge as soon as possible, so that my constituents can enjoy the snooker?

[The Prime Minister]

I see that Reform Members have walked out. They obviously realise that they are absolutely snookered. [Hon. Members: “More!”]

[Mr Speaker]

More? No, I don’t think so!

[The Prime Minister]

Sheffield and the Crucible theatre are the beating heart of snooker, and I am delighted that they will host the world snooker championship for many years to come. This is what Labour stands for: investing in things that make us proud of the places where we live. I reassure my hon. Friend that we are working closely with South Yorkshire combined authority on better transport links and providing over £1.4 billion to spend on its priorities, which could include a new tram fleet and more modern stops, or delivering extensions.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Q2.   Last week, I met my constituents Rob and Lizzie at the Kings Arms hotel in Melrose, which they run as part of a family business of 10 hotels across Scotland. They employ over 250 people, but their national insurance bill is going up by £280,000 because of Labour’s tax on jobs. We need to get Britain working again, but this Government’s policies are doing the opposite. Does the Prime Minister understand the damage that he is doing to our economy, and how does he expect businesses like this to survive?

[The Prime Minister]

The steps we have taken have been to repair the damage done by the previous Government. We took those steps, and the spring statement showed the results of those steps: inflation coming down; interest rates coming down; and the economy stabilised. I know the Conservatives do not understand that, because they blew up the economy in the first place.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

Q6.   My constituents Tony and Rebecca Wadley received insulation under the Tory Government’s ECO4 scheme, but the work left their home with black mould, leaks, damp and even a solar fire—damage now requiring £100,000-worth of repairs. Rebecca is suicidal, Tony has had pneumonia and their asthmatic son cannot live at home. Like many others, they are required under the rules to use the same contractor responsible for the faulty work, but only up to £20,000. Will the Prime Minister commit to overhauling this broken system, so that my constituents and many others can receive fully funded repairs carried out by a competent builder?

[The Prime Minister]

An independent audit of the previous Government’s failed insulation schemes shows unacceptable levels of failings. We have acted to make sure poor-quality installations are fixed. It is important that those responsible are held to account for the cost of remediating the issues. I do recognise that there are some complicated cases, and I will make sure a Minister looks at my hon. Friend’s constituents’ case and that urgent action is taken.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Q9. The Prime Minister says that he is concerned about the cost of living, so can he explain why he allowed his Local Government Minister to give permission to Reform-led Worcestershire county council to inflict that 9% council tax hike on my constituents?

[The Prime Minister]

Reform has to take responsibility for its decisions, but its Members have moved out.

[Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)]

Q7. Two members of the same family in my constituency recently suffered serious health problems. The NHS was there for them, as we would expect, and they are both hopefully on the road to recovery. The recently departed hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) had a different idea, which was that we should have an insurance-based health policy—an American-style policy—but that family, whose costs would have been $1.2 million, would have been crucified financially by what happened. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to say that our principles for the NHS are that it is universal for everybody, that wealth does not give privileged access and that this is a public service, not a private service?

[The Prime Minister]

I am deeply sorry to hear about the case that my hon. Friend raises. We are the party of the NHS, and we will always fight to ensure that it remains free at the point of use. We inherited an NHS on its knees, but we are seeing progress: waiting lists are down; patient satisfaction is improving; and we have the best ambulance response times for half a decade. There is much more to do, but we are delivering the investment that is needed—and it was opposed by who? The Tories and the now departed Reform Members.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Q11.  My constituent Susan suffered horrific, unimaginable, lifelong injury from a pelvic mesh implant. She lost her business, her marriage and her health, and lives in constant 24-hour pain. I would like to congratulate the new Minister for Public Health—the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson)—on her appointment, after her tireless campaigning on this issue, which has clearly been recognised. However, more than two years after the Hughes report set out clear recommendations for redress, thousands of women such as Susan are still waiting for a Government response. Can the Prime Minister tell Susan and the thousands of other women like her how much longer they will have to wait?

[The Prime Minister]

Can I thank the hon. Member for raising Susan’s case? It is really important that she does so, and I am deeply sorry for the enduring harm that patients have suffered. Ministers have met campaigners and the Patient Safety Commissioner to discuss their recommendations, and I can assure the hon. Lady we will provide a full response to the Hughes report recommendations at the earliest opportunity. I am happy for Ministers to update her on the actions we have taken and to discuss the particular case that she has raised with me.

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Q8. I recently met Graham and Malcolm, who bravely shared their lived experience of addiction to monkey dust, a synthetic cathinone causing significant problems in Stoke-on-Trent. They shared the challenges that they faced in recovery—challenges caused by a lack of joined-up working between local services, including mental health and housing services. I am now setting up a taskforce to address those gaps and to learn from excellent local projects, such as SPHERE. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss how, together as a country, we can tackle this pernicious drug?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work. She is right to highlight the growing threat posed by dangerous synthetic drugs. Alongside deploying new detection methods at the border to seize drugs, we are investing in better mental health support and drug addiction treatment, with almost £26 million for Stoke-on-Trent. I will ask a Health Minister to discuss her important work with her.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

Q15. As we move towards the Easter recess, I am sure the Prime Minister’s thoughts are turning to the miracle of resurrection. My constituents have asked me to resurrect something: cash in shops. One in seven shops in the past year has moved to being cashless. That risks leaving behind those on low income or the elderly. Indeed, we heard today about the risk posed to our economic liberty by the move to digital devices, as mobile phones can be lost, stolen or other. What is the Prime Minister doing to ensure that nobody is left behind in a cashless society?

[The Prime Minister]

It is really important that nobody is left behind in a cashless society. The vast majority are moving online, but we need to remember that some do not want to, or cannot, and we must ensure that provision is in place for them as well. I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that issue.

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

Q10.   The Government have shown that they take seriously justice and violence against women and girls. In my constituency, I have been made aware of a case in which two children of a convicted paedophile have been trying to change their surname but cannot, because both parents have to agree. They are caught in a trap not of their making. Will my right hon. and learned Friend, and/or the relevant Minister, agree to meet me to hear how the legal system is denying justice to those children, and to discuss what we can do about it?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. It is shocking and horrifying to hear what those children have to go through. I am absolutely clear in my mind that this should not be happening. I can inform him that I have instructed Justice Ministers to look at what they can do. They will review the payments, and see what else they can do. I am really pleased that he has raised this issue, so that we can now act on it, and I will ensure that he gets the meeting he is asking for.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is responsible for the rise of antisemitism worldwide and here in the United Kingdom; for inciting extreme Islamist attacks; for attacking dissident Iranians and British citizens; and for fomenting all sorts of hate marches. I have a very simple question. We are now at war with Iran, whether we like it or not, yet the reality is that we have never dealt with this organisation. This is not party political; will the Prime Minister make the decision now to proscribe this brutal bunch of thugs and send them packing, or arrest them and put them in jail right now? Get rid of this organisation.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that really important and serious point. He knows that we have sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety, and have imposed over 230 sanctions since coming into office. The existing proscription powers are not designed for a state organisation, but we keep this under review—as did the last Government.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

Q12. On 16 July 2005, Private Leon Spicer and Private Phillip Hewett, both from Tamworth, and Second Lieutenant Richard Shearer from Nuneaton, were tragically killed in Iraq. More than 20 years on, our communities continue to remember their service and reflect on the ultimate sacrifice they made. The Staffordshire 3 Group, chaired by Anthony Frith, has worked tirelessly to fundraise for a memorial, which is due to be unveiled next month—an event to which, of course, the Prime Minister is warmly invited. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to these three brave men, and in commending the Staffordshire 3 Group for its dedication to ensuring that their legacy is never forgotten?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for the invitation, and join her in paying tribute to Private Leon Spicer, Private Phillip Hewett and Second Lieutenant Richard Shearer. Their bravery and sacrifice in defence of our values will never be forgotten, and I am delighted to hear that a memorial will be unveiled. I also pay tribute to all those serving in the middle east today, shooting down threats to our allies and protecting our people.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the attack on the Jewish community in Golders Green; there is no place for hatred, antisemitism or violence of any kind against individuals.

An independent panel of senior judges found no basis for misconduct proceedings against the British chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, King’s counsel, yet reports suggest that elements within the Court’s governing body are seeking to disregard those findings, while ICC officials continue to face external pressure and sanctions. Given the UK’s commitment to the rule of law, and as a human rights lawyer himself, will the Prime Minister set out the steps that he will take to defend the independence of the ICC and support British nationals carrying out international judicial roles?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not going to comment on the internal proceedings of the Court. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we support the Court; we are party to the treaty, and there are legal obligations that flow from that.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

In my constituency, we have a cohesive and diverse community, with a significant Jewish population, a thriving Muslim community and many others from various different backgrounds all living together and supporting each other. I was therefore appalled to learn of the arson attack against the Jewish community in Golders Green this week, and was deeply concerned by the outrageous comments of the shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), last week about the community iftar in Trafalgar Square, which were seemingly supported by the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Prime Minister assure me and my worried constituents that he and his Government will do all they can to stamp out hate and hate speech in our communities?

[The Prime Minister]

I want to say again what a shocking antisemitic attack this was in Golders Green, and to be absolutely clear that an attack on British Jews is an attack on all of us. On Monday morning, I met Jewish community leaders to talk through what we could do on ambulances, on security and on the social cohesion plan. I will also say that I was really struck by the fact that the Jewish community came out last week against the shadow Justice Secretary’s comments; they are standing in solidarity with Muslims who wanted to pray in Trafalgar Square. Equally, at the Eid events we had on Monday, Muslims stood in solidarity with our Jewish community. That is Britain, contrary to what the shadow Justice Secretary said last week, supported by the Leader of the Opposition. That is how far they have fallen.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

Thames Water is lurching from crisis to crisis. Last year, it was let off record fines for pumping sewage into rivers by Ofwat. Ofwat is allowed to do that, under rules laid out in the Water Industry Act 1991. Will the Prime Minister consider scrapping those rules, to stop Ofwat letting water companies off the hook?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this deeply concerning matter. We are looking at what more we can do, because this has been of too much concern for too long, and we need to act.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the covid inquiry graphically laid bare last week, the NHS was starved of the investment it needed under the Conservatives, and nowhere more so than at Northwick Park hospital; its brave and extraordinary staff worked around the clock during covid, looking after many of my constituents. Given the very welcome, substantial investment in improving the NHS that the Government have committed to, will my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister encourage the Health Secretary to support plans for a new intensive care unit at Northwick Park?

[The Prime Minister]

The covid report is a stark reminder of the extraordinary efforts of health workers to keep this country safe. We are delivering record investment and reform that our NHS needs, and while decisions about local infrastructure are made by integrated care boards, I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the Minister to discuss this particular case. Today, NHS satisfaction rates have risen for the first time since the pandemic; that is the difference a Labour Government are making.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I call Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst for the final question.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On 21 November last year, Robert Clancy, a hugely valued and much loved member of my staff, took his own life. He was 29. While successive Governments have done a great deal to deal with the scourge of suicide in this country, there is much more that can be done. Will the Prime Minister personally commit to meeting me to discuss how we can prevent others from experiencing the unimaginable pain that Rob’s family and friends have endured?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the case of Robert Clancy. We are happy to work across the House on all that we can do in relation to suicide. I am pleased that we have been able to put in place a strategy; that is the action of this Government, but it needs to be the action of all of us, and I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets the meeting that he is asking for. I thank him again for raising this case; it was really important that he did.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I refer you to paragraph 22.9 of “Erskine May”, which stresses the primary importance of ministerial responsibility? We have to admit that Prime Ministers have always tried to dodge questions at Prime Minister’s Question Time, and you are not responsible for the answers that they give, but what we have seen in recent weeks is not just dodging questions; in reply to every question the Prime Minister is asked, he refers to the Leader of the Opposition’s policies. This is not Leader of the Opposition’s questions; it is Prime Minister’s questions.

[Mr Speaker]

Once again, as I said last week, I do not have responsibility for, or authority over, answers. It is incumbent on Ministers to try to ensure that there is an answer, but it is not for me to judge whether the answer is correct. That would be politicising the Chair. If that is what the House wishes to do, it can by all means do that, but I have not got that power.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the rules about how many questions a Member needs to stay in the Chamber for after speaking?

[Mr Speaker]

None whatsoever, because we are in Prime Minister’s Question Time.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have given advance notice to you and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). There is an important tradition and custom in this House that Members remain in the Chamber for at least—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is absolutely not a point of order, and is not relevant, and I have certainly not had any indication of what you are asking me.