Oral Answers to Questions
Keir Starmer Excerpts(5 days, 11 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Our armed forces are working day and night to protect British lives and British interests in the middle east. RAF pilots have flown over 230 hours of defensive operations over multiple countries, shooting down multiple drones and protecting British lives and our allies. We thank them for their courage and professionalism.
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.
Sureena Brackenridge
Strengthening Britain’s defence capability and rebuilding our industrial base have never been more important. Will the Government’s £1 billion helicopter investment with Leonardo UK support skilled jobs across the UK, including at Tata Steel in Wednesfield and throughout the supply chains in Wolverhampton North East, where we are immensely proud of our Black Country steel and manufacturing heritage? Will the Prime Minister ask relevant Ministers to meet me to discuss securing more of those good jobs in Wolverhampton and Willenhall?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to arrange the meeting that my hon. Friend asks for. Our £1 billion investment in new helicopters is good news for steelmakers in her constituency, and secures thousands of jobs across the United Kingdom. We are making defence an engine for growth and jobs. We are building helicopters, new Typhoons in the north-west and new frigates, and creating a decade of shipbuilding on the Clyde—a Labour Government investing in our armed forces.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Why does the Prime Minister think now is the right time to increase the cost of petrol?
The Prime Minister
We are not increasing the cost of petrol. We are absolutely clear in taking the measures that are necessary to deal with the impact of the conflict in Iran. We are dealing with that with other allies. We are taking the necessary action, but the best thing that we can do is to work with others to de-escalate the situation.
As I said to the House last week, I took the decision that we should not join the initial US-Israeli offensive against Iran. The Leader of the Opposition attacked me for that decision relentlessly. She said that the UK should have joined the US and Israel in the initial offensive strikes. Yesterday, in the wake of the economic consequences, the Leader of the Opposition totally abandoned her position. She told the BBC:
“I never said we should join”.
She told the BBC:
“I haven’t said we should have gone in with the US”.
That is the mother of all U-turns on the single most important decision that a Prime Minister ever has to take: whether to commit the United Kingdom to war or not.
Mrs Badenoch
The mother of all U-turns is the Prime Minister saying that the Government are not increasing fuel duty. That is news to us, because last week the Chancellor stood up and said that fuel duty was going to increase in September. The Prime Minister told us at the start of the year that the cost of living was his No. 1 priority. Can he explain how a rise in fuel duty helps with the cost of living?
The Prime Minister
Fuel duty is frozen. It is going to remain frozen until September, and we will keep the situation under review in the light of what is happening in Iran. But the most important issue is de-escalating the situation.
I come back to the Leader of the Opposition’s position, because this is one of the most important decisions that a Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition ever has to take: whether to commit your country to war. The day after the initial US-Israeli strikes started, her shadow Foreign Secretary said that the US-Israeli initial attacks were absolutely right and that
“it’s a position my party supports.”
She asked why I have “not actually worked with” America
“to be much more proactive”.
Last Wednesday, the Leader of the Opposition said:
“we are in this war whether they like it or not. What is the Prime Minister waiting for?”—[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 803.]
Then yesterday she says, “I never said”—[Interruption.] I know the Conservatives don’t want to hear it. [Interruption.] I wouldn’t want to hear it if I were them. After all that, she says—
Mr Speaker
Order. Enough is enough. I cannot hear it. [Interruption.] Who wants to lead the first ones out? Right. We will have a little bit more silence.
The Prime Minister
After nine days of saying, “Join the war, join the war, join the war”, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition says:
“I never said we should join”,
and
“I haven’t said we should have gone in with the US”.
I will tell you what has happened, Mr Speaker: she and the Reform leader have been spooked, because they realise they have jumped into supporting a war without thinking through the consequences, and now she is furiously trying to back-pedal.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister seems to be answering last week’s questions. This week I am asking about fuel duty. He has said that he wants to help—[Interruption.] He has said that he wants to help with the cost of living. My constituents live in a rural area. They rely on their cars to get to the shops, take their kids to school or see their elderly parents, and they tell me that the rising cost of petrol is the single biggest cost affecting family finances. Does the Prime Minister not understand how important cars are to people in rural areas, or does he just not care?
The Prime Minister
We are working across all Departments and with allies to deal with the impact of the conflict in Iran, as the House would expect. If I had asked the Leader of the Opposition last week, her position would have been, “We support the initial strikes and we want to join the war.” This week, she says, “We don’t want to join the war.” I am sorry, but that is a screeching U-turn. Mr Speaker, in this job, you do not get a second shot at making the right call on taking your country to war. If she were Prime Minister, we would be in the war, and she would be coming back to Parliament a week later to say, “Oh, sorry. I got that one wrong.”
Mr Speaker
Order. Order! I am sorry I am interrupting you, but unfortunately we have to stick to Prime Minister’s questions, not Leader of the Opposition’s questions.
Mrs Badenoch
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, “If she were Prime Minister”, but if I were Prime Minister, HMS Dragon would have left a week ago. The only time—[Hon. Members: “More!”] The only time, he has taken decisive action was stopping Andy Burnham standing in the by-election.
Let us talk about what the people out there are worried about. I heard from a builder who has 115 employees using 75 vans. With the jobs tax, sky-high energy bills and now a hike in petrol prices, that builder is having sleepless nights. How does the Prime Minister justify a rise in fuel duty to that small business owner and millions more like him up and down the country?
The Prime Minister
There has not been a rise. Fuel duty is frozen. It is frozen until September.
The Leader of the Opposition mentions HMS Dragon. First, can I start by thanking those in the Royal Navy who are serving on HMS Dragon? Secondly, what has been happening is that it has carefully been loaded with the anti-strike ammunition and capability that it needs, and the Navy and civilians have been working 22-hour shifts. But in relation to those who are taking the action to defend us, what does she say? They are just hanging about—just hanging about. That is how she described our pilots in the region. Let me tell her what they have been doing: flying sorties in seven of the 10 countries in the region day and night, taking out incoming strikes and protecting the lives of others, while risking their own. If she had any decency, she would get up and apologise.
Mrs Badenoch
Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] Hang on. I think they should wait for it. I have never criticised our armed forces. I have criticised the Prime Minister. [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
No apology to our pilots who are risking their lives. And I am not going to take lectures from someone who says we should join the war and a week later says, “Can I change my mind? I got that wrong.” That is deeply embarrassing. But she is not the only one. Last week, the leader of Reform said we should be
“part of this with the US and the Israelis…We have to get rid of the regime.”
He said:
“We should do all we can to support the operation. I make that perfectly, perfectly clear.”
Until yesterday—screeching U-turn—when he said we should not
“get ourselves involved in another foreign war.”
Two parties packed with failed Tories, led by leaders who are not fit to be Prime Minister.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister does not want to talk about fuel duty, because he has absolutely no answers. The Conservatives are on the side of farmers. We are also on the side of drivers. We froze duel duty every year from 2011 and, in fact, we cut it in 2022, because we care about the cost of living. Labour thinks drivers are a cash cow and now it is hiking fuel duty for the first time in 15 years. Everyone in this House knows the pattern: first, he will march his Back Benchers up the hill, then they will be forced to defend fuel duty rises in the local elections, and then there will be another humiliating U-turn. Why does the Prime Minister not just stand up, admit he has got it wrong—again—and scrap the fuel duty hike now?
The Prime Minister
In the last two weeks, I have made two of the most important decisions a Prime Minister can make. The first is that we should not join the war in Iran. The second is that we should protect British lives and the British national interest. The Leader of the Opposition decided that we should join the war against Iran and a week later that we should not join the war against Iran, and to insult our armed forces. She has utterly disqualified herself from ever becoming Prime Minister. Thankfully, she never will.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue and I know that it is not only his mum who will be watching, but his constituents whom he serves very, very well. Our supercharger will significantly reduce costs for thousands of major industries. Eligibility for the scheme is being reviewed this year. I can tell my hon. Friend that we are working with the ceramics industry on whether the scheme can be extended to more firms. Under the previous Government, industrial energy prices doubled and over 1,000 jobs were lost in the sector. We will not tolerate that.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for her powerful and courageous speech in the debate on jury trials yesterday—I really hope the Prime Minister was listening.
Thirty years ago this week, a man carried four handguns into Dunblane primary school and murdered a teacher and 16 children. I was deeply moved by the BBC documentary about it last night and by the courage of the parents who campaigned for a ban on handguns to keep other children safe, including Mick North, who lost his five-year-old daughter, Sophie, on that dark day. Mr North has rightly called on the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) to renounce his description of the handgun ban as “ludicrous”—something the hon. Member still refuses to do. Mr North has also called for a review of firearms legislation to close any loopholes. Does the Prime Minister agree?
The Prime Minister
I certainly do. We must never forget the horror of Dunblane and we must never forget the young children and their teacher who did not come home from school. The campaign that families fought to make this country a safer place is a lasting legacy, and we should be enormously grateful for their courage.
Ed Davey
I thank the Prime Minister for his reply, and I hope the Government will close any loopholes.
This week, families across the country have seen petrol prices rise at the pump, mortgage rates go up and fixed energy deals get more expensive, all because of a war they did not start and do not support. The Leader of the Opposition has been competing with the hon. Member for Clacton to be Donald Trump’s biggest cheerleader, and the Prime Minister was right to reject their costly warmongering. Last week, I asked him to guarantee that energy bills will not rise by hundreds of pounds in July. He did not answer, so let me try again: will he give people that energy bill guarantee now?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, because people will be really worried about the impact on them. To reassure households, the cap is in place until the end of June—until July—so that deals with the situation for households. We are working with the sector and others, and with allies, to do everything we can to ensure that energy bills do not rise. We are working around the clock on that. The most important and most effective thing we can do is to work with our allies to find a way to de-escalate the situation.
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of Reform. Last week, they were urging us to join—[Interruption.] This is serious. [Interruption.] If they had been leading the country, we would be in a war. They have now come to Parliament to say—
Mr Speaker
Order. Who said “lying” again? I want that withdrawn. Is that withdrawn? [Interruption.] I will deal with it, thank you. I do not want any more from those on the Front Bench. We take this very seriously; calling another Member a liar is not acceptable.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right; families are crying out for change, which is why it is critical that we get this right. Our reforms will fix the broken SEND system, where parents have to fight for support, replacing it with tailored support that is personal to a child’s need. A Best Start family hub in every local authority with a dedicated SEND practitioner will also help families with the face-to-face support they need. My hon. Friend is a great advocate on this issue, and I am happy to ensure that he gets the meeting he is asking for.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Let us be clear on this. Donald Trump’s war in Iran is illegal and the situation that has unfolded since is verging on insane: oil is falling from the skies; sewers are exploding; and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is indiscriminately attacking both civilians across the region and cargo ships, as well as potentially even mining the strait of Hormuz, the economic consequences of which will be stark not just for the global economy, but for every single person living on these isles. Whether the Prime Minister accepts it or not, he did take us into that war when he allowed the Americans to use UK bases last week. [Interruption.] I have a specific question for him. He will have seen the same footage that I have of an American Tomahawk missile landing on a primary school, killing 110 children. Does he believe that to be a war crime?
The Prime Minister
We are all concerned by that footage, but let me absolutely clear with the right hon. Gentleman. We have 300,000 UK nationals, including Scottish citizens, in the region. Strikes, missiles and drones are being fired into the region, putting those people at great danger. We are taking action to protect them. I am astonished that the SNP is saying, “Don’t take action to support Scottish citizens in the region.” That is outrageous.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning for his constituents who are obviously concerned about this matter. As I understand it, National Highways has concluded that the best option for all users—pedestrians and cyclists—is a new crossing. I thank him for raising the points, and I am happy for Ministers to continue discussing the options with him.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising that really important issue. I discussed it with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) last night, particularly the approach of the all-party group. I thank her for her important work on this issue. I am very happy to meet the APPG and the victims; it is very important to do so. She will know that there is an ongoing police investigation, but that does not mean that we cannot have the meeting and listen to those who need to be listened to.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Derby is part of our industrial heritage and has a bright future. Initiatives such as Team Derby are so important to strengthen key sectors like defence, creating jobs and growth. Our £9 billion deal with Rolls-Royce to boost our fleet of nuclear submarines is testament to that, creating more than 1,000 jobs and safeguarding 4,000 more. Those who oppose all that must answer to the working people whom they claim to represent.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We are putting in place the youth guarantee, which helps young people into work. It is a serious issue. I remind the hon. Member that on the Conservatives’ watch one in eight young people were not in education, training or work.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. The Conservative party gave nothing but false promises for a decade. We will deliver the biggest transformation of transport in the north for a generation, providing up to £45 billion of funding. We are taking forward all the recommendations from the NAO report; that does not change the planning or trajectory of the project.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for raising that case. I do not know the particular details, but I will ensure that the relevant meeting is set up so that they can be explored.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Russia’s continued assault on Ukraine has devastated its healthcare system: hospitals are under extreme pressure and there is a critical shortage of specialist staff to treat the injured. That is why I, along with other British physiotherapists, travelled to Ukraine to train clinicians who are working under unimaginable strain. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking Tanisha Sandhu, Daniel Simm, Kay Joe and Anju Jaggi for their remarkable work? Will he commit to expanding UK-Ukraine clinical training partnerships?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I will. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the rest of the delegation for their commendable work in Kyiv. We recently announced a new package of support for Ukraine enabling highly skilled British surgeons, nurses and physiotherapists to mentor Ukrainian clinicians treating complex battlefield injuries. On one of my recent trips to Kyiv, I went to one of the hospitals where they were treating the burns of those returning from the frontline and it was humbling to see the work being done. I was extremely proud to know that the UK was helping in treating those who had such awful burns.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
We all want certainty for energy security, and oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years to come. I remind the hon. Member that 70,000 jobs were lost under the SNP and the Conservatives in the last decade. We want energy security, and we see new nuclear as part of that. What does the SNP do? It blocks that.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Silently and in semi-secrecy, London and the south-east of England are experiencing the largest mass eviction by a private landlord in decades. Criterion Capital has issued at least 130 no-fault eviction notices across its portfolio, including in Britannia Point in Collier’s Wood in my constituency. Those affected have done nothing wrong. They have paid their rent, looked after their homes and worked hard, and they are simply the victims of a voracious landlord that always wants more. Will the Prime Minister ensure that in the final weeks before the abolition of no-fault evictions his Government do all they can to hold Criterion Capital to account?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case. Renters should have security and I condemn any unfair evictions. I am proud to be abolishing section 21, a practice that has pushed thousands of renters into homelessness. I will make sure that the Housing Minister looks at the case that she has raised.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Fuel duty is frozen and it will be frozen until September. In the light of what is happening in Iran, of course we will look carefully at the situation. The right hon. Gentleman’s constituents need to know, and it is right that they know, that fuel duty is frozen until September—not fearmongering.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
The devastating fire on Union Street in Glasgow has destroyed small businesses and an iconic part of the city’s heritage, but the exceptional skill and courage of our emergency services prevented an even greater tragedy. We need a rapid, thorough investigation, with urgent implementation of recommendations. Local businesses, commuters and residents are already feeling the impact, and recovery must be a shared priority. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking our emergency services and in supporting efforts to rebuild that vital part of Glasgow?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that devastating incident for Glasgow. My thoughts, and I am sure everybody’s thoughts, are with those who have seen their businesses and their livelihoods destroyed. I thank the emergency services, which responded so quickly to the situation. The people of Glasgow have seen far too many historic buildings suffer terrible fires over the last few years. We are investing to protect heritage buildings in England, but we will keep a careful eye on the situation that he raises.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I will not make any apologies for spending more money in Scotland or in Wales to improve people’s lives. There has been record investment under this Government into Scotland. The question is: where’s the money gone, John?
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Last week, Members from across this House and the other place felt compelled to write to Jo Boydell, the chief executive of Travelodge, following reports that in 2022 staff in one of the company’s hotels gave a man a keycard and the room number of a woman staying alone. He then entered her room and sexually assaulted her. Most alarmingly, statements made by Travelodge implied that staff had acted fully in line with the company’s security and safety protocols and within industry standards. Will the Prime Minister join me in urging Ms Boydell to take us up on our invitation to meet all interested Members of this House and the other place to outline what action Travelodge is urgently taking to meet its duty to safeguard women staying in its hotels?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this absolutely shocking case and for talking to me last night about the details. My thoughts are with the victim, who had a right to be safe and who was failed in the most appalling way. Travelodge must take serious action to ensure such an appalling incident can never happen again. I am concerned at reports that the company has not met Members of Parliament; it should do so. I should add that the Safeguarding Minister wants to meet the company as well, and it should do that too.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I know there are strong views, and I acknowledge her personal connection, which shows how serious the issues are. It is a matter of conscience. It is for Parliament to decide the passage of the legislation and any changes. Scrutiny is a matter for the other place. We have a responsibility to make sure any legislation is workable, effective and enforceable.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Intelligence and Security Committee: Cloud Technologies Report
Keir Starmer Excerpts(1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
On Monday 5 January, I received the Intelligence and Security Committee’s closed report on cloud technologies.
I thanked the Committee for their diligent work and for the independent and robust oversight they provide.
The Government shared a formal closed response to the report with the ISC on Friday 6 March.
[HCWS1385]
Middle East
Keir Starmer Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
With permission, I will update the House on the situation in Iran and the wider region, and our response. The United Kingdom was not involved in the initial strikes on Iran by the US and Israel. That decision was deliberate. We believe that the best way forward for the region and for the world is a negotiated settlement in which Iran agrees to give up any aspirations to develop a nuclear weapon and ceases its destabilising activity across the region. That has been the long-standing position of successive British Governments.
President Trump has expressed his disagreement with our decision not to get involved in the initial strikes, but it is my duty to judge what is in Britain’s national interest. That is what I have done, and I stand by it, but it is clear that Iran’s outrageous response has become a threat to our people, our interests and our allies, and it cannot be ignored. Iran has lashed out across the region. It has launched hundreds of missiles and thousands of drones at countries that did not attack it, including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain and Oman. Overnight, Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, launched attacks on Israel, seeking to escalate the war.
There are an estimated 300,000 British citizens in the region—residents, families on holiday, and those in transit. Iran has hit airports and hotels where British citizens are staying. It is deeply concerning for the whole House and the whole country. Our armed forces are also being put at risk by Iran’s actions. On Saturday, Iran hit a military base in Bahrain with missiles and drones. There were 300 British personnel on the base, some within a few hundred yards of the strike. Last night, a drone hit RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. There were no casualties in this strike. It is important for me to say that our bases in Cyprus are not being used by US bombers. The security of our friends and partners in Cyprus is of critical importance, and I want to be clear: the strike on RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus was not in response to any decision that we have taken. In our assessment, the drone was launched prior to our announcement. Iran’s aggression towards Britain and our interests is long-standing, and that is why we have always ensured that protections for British bases and personnel are at their highest level.
It is very clear that the death of the supreme leader will not stop Iran launching these strikes. In fact, its approach is becoming even more reckless, and more dangerous to civilians. It is working, ruthlessly and deliberately, through a plan to strike not only military targets, but economic targets in the region, with no regard for civilian casualties. That is the situation that we face today, and to which we must respond.
I have been speaking to our Gulf partners over the weekend. They are outraged by Iran’s acts, particularly as they played no part in any strikes, and they have asked us to do more to defend them. Moreover, it is my duty—the highest duty of my office—to protect British lives. That is why we put British jets in the air—Typhoons and F-35s—as part of co-ordinated defensive operations. They have already successfully intercepted Iranian strikes, including taking out one drone that was heading towards a coalition base in Iraq that is housing UK service personnel. I pay tribute to our brilliant servicemen and women for putting themselves in harm’s way to keep others safe, and I know the whole House will join me in expressing our gratitude and respect.
It is simply not possible to shoot down every Iranian missile and every drone after they have been launched. The only way to stop the threat is to destroy the missiles at source—in their storage depots, or at the launchers. The US requested permission to use British bases for that specific and limited defensive purpose, because it has the capabilities to do so. Yesterday evening, we took the decision to accept that new request in order to prevent Iran firing missiles across the region, killing innocent civilians, putting British lives at risk and hitting countries that have not been involved. To be clear, the use of British bases is limited to the agreed defensive purposes. We are not joining US and Israeli offensive strikes. The basis for our decision is the collective self-defence of long-standing friends and allies, and protecting British lives. It is in accordance with international law, and we have produced a summary of our legal advice, which clearly sets this out. We will keep the decision under review.
We are not joining the strikes, but we will continue our defensive actions in the region. France and Germany are also prepared to enable US action to destroy Iran’s capability to fire missiles and drones from source. I have been in close contact with President Macron and Chancellor Merz in recent days, as well as President Trump and leaders across the region, to that end.
Be in no doubt: the regime in Iran is utterly abhorrent. In January, it murdered thousands of its own people; the full horror of that is still hidden from the world. For decades, it has sought to destabilise the region and export terror around the world. Its proxies in Yemen have targeted British ships in the Red sea; it has facilitated Russia’s attacks in Ukraine; and the regime’s tentacles have even reached these shores, posing a direct threat to Iranian dissidents and to the Jewish community. Over the last year alone, Iran has backed more than 20 potentially lethal attacks on UK soil, each of which we have foiled. So it is clear that the Iranian regime must never be allowed to get its hands on nuclear weapons. That remains the primary aim of the United Kingdom and our allies, including the US, and ultimately, this will have to be achieved at the negotiating table.
In this dangerous moment, our first thoughts are with our citizens in the region—friends, family members and constituents. I recognise the deep concern that the situation is causing for those involved, and for communities across the country. We are asking all British citizens in the region to register their presence, so that we can provide the best possible support, and to monitor the Home Office travel advice, which is being regularly updated. Across much of the region, airspace remains closed, and local authorities are advising individuals to shelter in place.
The situation on the ground may remain challenging for some time, so we are sending rapid deployment teams to the region to support our British nationals on the ground. We are in close contact with the travel industry and Governments in the region, including with our friends in the UAE, given the concentration of British nationals in that country. We are looking at all options to support our people. We want to ensure that they can return home as swiftly and safely as possible. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office phone lines are open to provide consular support, and Ministers are available to meet MPs to discuss any individual cases. We are also reaching out to communities across the United Kingdom, including Muslim and Jewish community organisations, and we are making sure that sites across the country, including places of worship, have appropriate protective security in place.
The situation in the region is developing rapidly, so we will continue to update the House in the coming days. I have spoken recently about the toll that global events are taking here at home. They come crashing into our lives with ever greater frequency, hitting our economy, driving up prices on the supermarket shelves or at the pump, dividing communities, and bringing anxiety and fear. That is why how we operate on the world stage matters so much.
We all remember the mistakes of Iraq, and we have learned those lessons. Any UK actions must always have a lawful basis and a viable, thought-through plan. I say again: we were not involved in the initial strikes on Iran, and we will not join offensive action now, but in the face of Iran’s barrage of missiles and drones, we will protect our people in the region and support the collective self-defence of our allies, because that is our duty to the British people. It is the best way to eliminate the urgent threat, prevent the situation spiralling further, and support a return to diplomacy. It is the best way to protect British interests and British lives. That is what this Government are doing. I commend this statement to the House.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the security briefing I received earlier.
This is a defining moment for the people of Iran, the wider middle east and the world order. I know that hundreds of thousands of British people still in the region, many sheltering from drone attacks, are fearful about making it home. I agree with the Prime Minister that everyone in the region should follow FCDO advice and register their presence with a British embassy. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether he is making contingency plans for a potential evacuation of UK citizens and what stage the operational planning is at?
Let me also pay tribute to our brave service personnel stationed in British bases in the region. I know that this will be an anxious time for them and their families. They all have our support.
We stand in solidarity with our allies, including Bahrain, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, who, along with others, have been on the receiving end of unprovoked aggression. On Saturday, our allies the United States and Israel took targeted action against the Iranian regime, a regime which for decades has been brutally repressing its own citizens, whose leader had the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iranians on his hands and of countless others around the world killed by Iranian proxies. This regime is the world’s foremost sponsor of international terrorism. It seeks to annihilate the world’s only Jewish state. It has said so repeatedly, and we should take despots at their word. It is a regime whose apparatchiks chant, “Death to Britain”. It has attacked British nationals and conducted multiple plots on British soil, as the head of MI5 has warned. It is manufacturing drones en masse for Russia—drones which are raining down on innocent Ukrainians. And it continues to try to develop nuclear weapons in flagrant violation of international agreement—nuclear weapons which, if obtained, would be an existential threat for this country.
The outcome of Ayatollah Khamenei’s death will, we hope, be a safer middle east and a safer world, with the future of Iran back in the hands of the Iranian people, but that outcome is not yet guaranteed. On Saturday, our allies in Canada and Australia immediately backed the action taken by America against this despotic regime in Tehran. I have made it very clear that the Conservative party also stands behind America taking this necessary action against state-sponsored terror. But over the weekend, statements from the Government and the Prime Minister provided no such clarity. It was only last night that the Prime Minister finally told us that the Government would allow our allies the use of our own air bases. Despite it being obvious that UK interests were under imminent threat, it took Iranian missiles hitting allies in the Gulf before he finally made a decision. And even after that, the Foreign Secretary said this morning that the Government have put limits on the actions of our allies operating from our bases. Unbelievably, in his statement today, the Prime Minister still cannot say whether he backs the strikes or not.
Today, the President of the United States has taken the extraordinary step of rebuking the Prime Minister publicly, saying that he “took far too long” to grant access. We are told that this dither and delay is because of concerns over international law, but I am afraid that that explanation simply does not hold. International law did not prevent our allies from clearly and unequivocally stating whose side they were on—you do not need international law to say whose side you are on. It has not prevented British Governments in the past from supporting strikes that we knew to be right. The shadow Attorney General said:
“If the doctrines of international law prove unable to restrain Iranian terrorism and mass murder, and tie the hands of democracies”
while forcing us
“to stand and watch Iranian atrocities, international law will have failed. It will have become a fundamentally immoral system of law”.
Why is it that under this Prime Minister, international law always seems to be at odds with our national interest? Why is it that we are giving away the Chagos islands and paying £35 billion for the privilege, rather than standing up for our national interest and protecting a crucial military base that, even now, our allies are using? We in this House are elected to stand up for Britain’s national interest. Where the Government do the right thing, the Opposition will always back them. Let me therefore reiterate our offer: if the Government bring forward legislation to fast-track banning the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, we will support them.
What national interest was served by refusing to help our allies for so long, particularly when we so need American support to protect the security of Ukraine and Europe? Are we going to see new UK military capabilities deployed to protect our security partners and our bases, including in Cyprus, as well as British nationals in the region? Will the Prime Minister also ensure that the Chancellor uses the spring statement tomorrow to set Britain on a clear path to spending 3% of GDP on defence? There is no point wanting action to make the world a safer place while being too scared to do anything except stand by and watch others. Our national interest and national security must be front and centre. The Conservative party will always work with our allies to make the world a safer place.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady asks about contingency plans for UK nationals. I can assure her and the House that we are working at speed with our partners in the region to take whatever measures we can to ensure that our people can return as safely and as swiftly as possible, and we will continue to do so. I am happy to update her and the House as we roll out those plans.
Let me be very clear: there were two distinct and separate decisions over the weekend. The first decision was whether the United Kingdom should join the US-Israel offensive against Iran. We took the decision that we should not. The second decision—a separate decision and, actually, a separate request from the US—was whether we should permit the use of bases for the distinct, specific defensive purpose of collective self-defence of our allies and to protect British lives that were put at risk by the actions of Iran on Saturday and Sunday. We took the decision that we should do so.
I am clear in my mind that any UK action must always have a lawful basis. It must also always have a viable and thought-through plan, and it must be in our national interests. The Leader of the Opposition is, I think, saying that she would have joined the initial strikes whether they were lawful or not. I notice that she did not say that the shadow Attorney General said that they would have been lawful, just that the law should be changed. I think she said that the Opposition would have joined the initial strikes without regard to whether they had a plan. She was very critical of us not joining sooner—it is impossible to have that position without arguing that we could and should have joined.
I fundamentally disagree, and I will tell the House why. Where our military personnel take action, putting their lives at risk, it is our duty—my duty—to ensure that the actions have a lawful basis. On Saturday, we deployed UK pilots into the sky in the region, and they have been working there ever since. They deserve to know that their actions are lawful and that there is a viable, thought-through plan. I will not countenance committing our military personnel to action that does not have a lawful basis. That is not a fair thing to do to our serving personnel. No UK Prime Minister has ever committed our personnel to action unless it has a proper, lawful basis.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Although the attack on Iran by the US and Israel was ill-advised, ill-judged and illegal, it is absolutely no excuse for the Iranians to recklessly bombard its Gulf neighbours. Is the Prime Minister in a position to give us more details on what we are doing with our Ukrainian friends to support the collective self-defence of Arab nations against the Iranian Shahed drones that are causing so much damage in Ukraine and now in the Gulf?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for that important question. Ukraine, sadly, has more expertise than anyone in dealing with drones. That is why we are putting Ukraine’s expertise and our expertise together and using it to help our allies in the region as they struggle with drones as we speak.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for my security briefing.
Once again, President Trump has launched a unilateral and unlawful act. Ayatollah Khamenei was a brutal dictator and a monstrous war criminal. He supported Hamas and the 7 October atrocities, and he massacred thousands of his own people for daring to protest against decades of repression. I shed no tears for him. Instead, I think of all the innocent Iranian civilians who have lost their lives. I think of the US service personnel killed in action, our allies and partners in the region who are being outrageously targeted by Iran, and our British bases which have already faced attack. They did not choose this war; Donald Trump did, and he will bear responsibility for it.
We have seen before what happens when an American President launches an illegal war with no idea how or when it is going to end, and we fear for what comes next. In discussions with the White House, has the Prime Minister demanded to find out Trump’s plan for what comes next? Does the Prime Minister understand that when he fails to stand up to Trump, especially when he breaks international law, it makes our country less safe? How will the Prime Minister be sure that defensive operations from UK bases will not become offensive? In rightly protecting our allies in the region, can we be assured by the Prime Minister that he will not follow Trump’s lead down a slippery slope into a protracted conflict?
Finally, we rightly expect our brave armed forces to protect British citizens around the world in crises like this, but that includes tax exiles like Isabel Oakeshott and washed-up old footballers who mock ordinary people who stay in the UK and pay our taxes here. As we protect them, does the Prime Minister agree that it is only right for tax exiles to start paying taxes to fund our armed forces, just like the rest of us do?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. I agree that the response of Iran has been outrageous, particularly the hitting of countries that played no part in the strikes.
We have had extensive discussions with the United States at all levels, including the military-to-military level, continually over the course of the weekend. We deliberately took the decision not to join the offensive strikes that were carried out by the US and Israel. We did take the decision to take defensive action—first, by ourselves on Saturday with putting pilots in the sky, and, secondly, by allowing the bases to be used for purely defensive reasons. We clearly set out the legal basis upon which we took the second of those decisions. On the question about limits, it is limited to defence, and that is the basis upon which we have agreed the basing.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, I want to be clear that it is my duty—our duty—to protect all UK nationals in the region. We will endeavour to do everything we can in order to do so.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Iranian regime, including its late leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are of course no friends of our country, but I thank the Prime Minister for clarifying that the UK had no involvement in the Israeli and US strikes on Iran. Indeed, I send my heartfelt condolences to all those who have sadly lost loved ones in the region. I am extremely concerned about the safety of the millions of people in the region, including the thousands of Brits who live there or are currently stranded there. Will the Prime Minister please confirm what steps are being taken to ensure their safety, especially from the one-way attack drones; what steps are being taken to evacuate Brits who are stranded and want to come back to the UK; and what steps are being taken with our allies to de-escalate the situation?
The Prime Minister
In relation to the protection of our citizens, we will obviously continue operating defensively in the air in the region, taking out the missiles, drones and strikes. We have permitted the US basing specifically for the purpose of taking out Iran’s ability to launch the strikes in the first place. The US has the capability to do that, in particular.
On the question of citizens and their understandable desire to return home as swiftly and safely as possible, we are doing all that we can. We are working very closely with our partners in the region. I ask all UK citizens in the region to register their presence so that we can give them the best advice, keep them safe and bring them home as soon as possible.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Although many of us believe that we should be guided by the law of national self-interest, rather than so-called international law, does the Prime Minister agree that we are right to be cautious in this matter? The British public will warmly support him in defending British people and bases, but they are very sceptical about being dragged into the cesspit of middle east politics. They remember Iraq, which some of us voted against, and all the arguments about weapons of mass destruction. What evidence is there that Iran was on the cusp of acquiring nuclear weapons? Since when has regime change from the skies ever changed a regime?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. This Government do not believe in regime change from the skies. The lessons of history have taught us that when we make decisions such as this, it is important that we establish that there is a lawful basis for what the United Kingdom is doing—that is one of the lessons from Iraq—and that there is a viable, thought-through plan with an objective that has a viable prospect of being achieved. Those are the principles that I applied to the decisions that I made over the weekend. They are the principles that I applied to the decision not to get involved in the offensive strikes by the US and Israel. They are the principles that I applied separately to the separate decision on a separate request from the US to be able to take defensive action to hit the launchers for the missiles that are currently going into allies’ countries in the region and threatening our citizens and service personnel. I stand by both decisions.
I repeat: I am not prepared to commit our military servicepeople to action unless I am sure that what they are doing is lawful and has a viable basis. We can discuss what the law is on another occasion, but the law is what it is, and they deserve to know that their Prime Minister cares and pays attention to whether what I am asking them to do is lawful. I will always do that.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)
The Prime Minister will be aware that very many of our constituents remember the Iraq war, and they will have noted the similarities with this war: both in the middle east and both illegal. Of course, the current Iranian regime is horrible, violent, murderous and a threat to international order, but does he accept that our constituents are not prepared to see this country dragged into another war of the nature of the Iraq war?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member and assure her that we have learned the lessons of Iraq. That is why I have been so clear that there must be a lawful basis and a viable, thought-through plan. In relation to our nationals, I think all our constituents would expect our Government to take action to protect British nationals. We have 300,000 British nationals in the region, and they are at risk. We have already seen strikes on hotels where our nationals have been staying, and on airports. We have seen strikes near military bases, within hundreds of yards of our personnel. It is our duty to take the action we can take, and will take, to protect them.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Given that the Prime Minister has outlined that the Iranians attacked a United Kingdom sovereign base at Akrotiri, why does that not form the basis not just for hosting US forces on our bases, but for legal military action, taken directly at source against the Iranians for the launch of such missiles, as we did in relation to the Iranian proxies, the Houthis, in previous conflicts that he supported? Moreover, given the Iranians’ ability to exercise malign influence on the streets of this country, what reassurance can he give the House and the public at large about co-ordination across our intelligence and security capabilities to address the heightened threat on our streets?
The Prime Minister
In relation to the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, there is co-ordination going on for that very reason. As I set out in my statement, there have been 20 Iranian-backed plots to take action on our streets, all of which have been thwarted—I pay my respects to our security and intelligence services and the work that they do. In relation to his first point, two separate decisions were made over the weekend. We are in the sky taking action defensively with our allies. Among the reasons we agreed to the request from the US yesterday was that it has the capability to take out the missile launchers in Iran. That is why we gave permission for the US to use our bases: in order to reduce the threat to our citizens.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister has spoken about repatriating British citizens in the region. Will that be through the Ministry of Defence? If so, who will foot the bill: the MOD, the Treasury or those being repatriated?
The Prime Minister
We are working across all Departments on repatriation. At the moment, we are simply focused on working with our allies to get a plan together to get people out in the first place, and to do it as quickly and safely as possible. There is no intention to charge people for that.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The Prime Minister’s reaction at the end of last week appeared to many to be both anaemic and disappointing, and at variance with the other Five Eyes nations. Will he read the analysis of the shadow Attorney General, my noble and learned Friend Lord Wolfson KC, which shows not only that British active engagement and support is within international law, but that those who seek to use international law to constrain us in these circumstances have the effect of leaving tyrants and murderers in place to continue perpetrating their vile deeds with impunity?
The Prime Minister
We obviously co-ordinate with our Five Eyes partners. We were dealing with a specific request to take action, and it was important that we applied the principle, which actually has been applied by successive Governments, to ask and get legal advice on the question: is there a lawful basis for what is proposed, and does it have a viable, thought-through plan? [Interruption.] It is not a legal question; it is about making sure, before we ask our military personnel to engage in action that risks their lives, that that would be lawful. That is the duty of the Prime Minister. Previous Prime Ministers have taken exactly the same approach. I will, of course, read the shadow Attorney General’s advice, but I am very clear in the advice that I received. I will not commit our military personnel to unlaw action. That is not what they deserve or would expect; they are entitled to better than that.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Others have mentioned Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and I think many of us know the way this goes. There are responsibilities on all of our shoulders. The Prime Minister is right that there needs to be a plan. Has the US President shared with him what the plan is, or consulted him on it? We know from experience that it is easy for politicians to fire weapons and start a war, but it is when the shooting ends that the nightmare begins. That is why we need clarity on our role as an independent country that is not swayed even by Donald Trump.
When my right hon. Friend stood for the leadership of the Labour party, he clearly set out that there would be a vote in this House on any decision about military action. Can I therefore ask him to assure us that there will be such a vote in this House, so that we do not drift into this war as we have done in the past?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is right to urge caution—history teaches us that. This is why it is important that there is not only a lawful basis but a viable and thought-through plan. Obviously, we have had discussions at all levels with the US in relation to that. In relation to the decision I took yesterday, I am very clear what the lawful basis is and what the plan in relation to protection of our nationals is. On the question he raises about a vote, that is of course a vote on offensive action, deploying our troops or military, and that is not this situation.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Mr Speaker, you will recall that in 2003 this House voted to support George Bush’s war in Iraq, and that 10 years later we voted not to support Barack Obama’s intervention in Syria. I believed, and still believe, that on both occasions we made the wrong decision, but it was of critical importance for the political and even the social cohesion of this country that those decisions should be made in this Chamber. The people of the United Kingdom will not support an intervention that does not have a clear objective and a clear plan for the post-conflict period. Will the Prime Minister be guided by these principles, and will he ensure that this House is given its place in whatever is handed to us in the weeks and months to come?
The Prime Minister
Of course this House must hold accountability and debate this issue. In relation to the vote, there is no convention for a vote in relation to defensive action; only offensive action. And nor could there be: realistically, defensive action has to be taken at very swift notice. On Saturday morning, I had to take the decision to deploy our pilots to the sky in order to defend our UK nationals. There is no way we could have waited for a debate or vote in the House. Equally, last night I had to take a decision about the use of bases, and it was important that I did so as a matter of some urgency. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there must be a full debate in the House, but the vote in the House is in relation to deployment of military personnel for offensive action, and that is something I have advocated.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I have constituents and family in the region who are all terrified about what may come next. The world is an infinitely more dangerous place today than it was last week. Trump and Netanyahu chose to throw away diplomacy and launch a direct attack on Iran—an attack that, as the Prime Minister has said, can never be justified under international law. Equally, Iran’s indiscriminate attacks on airports and hotels across the Gulf are flagrant violations of sovereignty and clear breaches of international law. Does the Prime Minister recognise that this attempt at regime change, like so many others before it, will only result in years of instability and conflict in the region? What assurances can he give that the UK’s involvement will remain defensive and not turn into full-scale military involvement, as we saw in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya?
The Prime Minister
Can I be absolutely clear about the basis upon which the request was acceded to yesterday? It was the collective self-defence of our allies and the protection of British nationals. That remains the case. If it changes, I will of course make a different decision and inform the House. My hon. Friend can therefore rest assured that that is, and will remain, the basis of the action we have taken.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
British influence in the middle east is directly linked to the strength of our military and our willingness to use it. When he took office, the Prime Minister rightly increased defence spending, but that sum is now widely thought to be too little and taking too long. Will he unblock the argument between the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence, so that this House can always have confidence that we will maintain a military formidable enough to defend our borders, interests and values?
The Prime Minister
Yes, we are working at speed on that. It is an important point, and it is important that we do so. I remind the Conservatives that they hollowed out our armed forces. It was this Government that increased defence spending over the course of this Parliament.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
Over the weekend, I passed through Dubai airport, along with thousands of other people and many of my own constituents, as it turns out, and boarded a flight home. Shortly after leaving, we heard the news that this attack had happened, and my immediate thoughts went to the people who were still in the airport, who were then grounded and stuck there, not knowing where to turn or what was going to happen. Rather than the blatant aggression and angry sneers that we see from some of the Opposition, does the Prime Minister agree that what we need in this situation is calmness and a clear and strategic plan? That is what our constituents want.
The Prime Minister
I am sure that is what our constituents do want. Can I also say how concerned I think we all are across the House at the attacks on hotels and airports in particular? These are hotels that British nationals and others are using and airports, of course, that civilians are using. This is the extent of the strikes by Iran and the reckless disregard for civilian life that come with the targets it is working through.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The people of Iran have suffered decades of atrocities under the rule of an oppressive regime. However, as we have seen from Iraq and Libya, the removal of an evil head of state without a future plan for governance can lead to countries becoming failed states. While I welcome the Prime Minister’s reluctance to involve the UK in another protracted war in the middle east, I remain unclear on the Government’s vision for the region. Does the Prime Minister want regime change? Have his officials contacted the leading opposition figures, such as Reza Pahlavi, to arrange such contingency plans, or does he wish to negotiate a diplomatic solution with the current regime?
The Prime Minister
The immediate plan is obviously to take the necessary measures to protect our nationals. Look, I do not think anybody mourns the death of the supreme leader. I firmly believe that, ultimately, the only way forward is a negotiated outcome. Whatever the conflict going on, in the end it will have to end in a negotiated outcome, and that has been the consistent position of both parties for a considerable period of time.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
So far we have rightly focused on defending and protecting British citizens in the region. Can the Prime Minister confirm, though, that he believes that the future of the Iranian Government is a matter for the Iranian people and no one else? Can we focus our diplomatic efforts as soon as possible on de-escalation and peace, including identifying allies in a coalition of the willing to bring this to an end?
The Prime Minister
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that the future of Iran is for the Iranian people, and we must absolutely establish that as a founding principle, and that it is our duty to de-escalate in the region and globally. Of course, it is important that we are acting with our allies, and that is why I talked to both the Germans and the French over the course of the weekend on a number of occasions.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
For those of us who were ready to go into Iraq just over 20 years ago, the comparisons between this situation and that vote are absolutely zero. The reality is that nobody is talking about ground troops or a land invasion; we are talking about striking those that are targeting our friends and allies. In the past few hours, over 500 rockets have struck the United Arab Emirates, and no doubt many have struck bases around the area. Will the Prime Minister deploy HMS Dauntless and HMS Duncan in the Gulf right now? Both are in a state of readiness, and I am sure that the Defence Secretary could give that order this afternoon.
Perhaps most importantly, what conversations has the Foreign Secretary had with colleagues in the region? We talk about finding solutions in conversation with others, but frankly, at the moment it looks as if there will be conversation with nobody, because these events will be happening without our having any part in them.
The Prime Minister
Nobody is making the comparison with Iraq; there is a question of drawing lessons from Iraq. The lesson I draw is that there must be a lawful basis for the action we take, and there must be a viable plan. On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about operational matters, I will not go into that from the Dispatch Box.
As for the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the Foreign Secretary, we have at all levels—including the Foreign Secretary—been talking intensively to our allies over the past few days. They have been extremely grateful for what we have done and the way in which we have engaged. I have spoken personally to all the leaders in the region, so I am not sure what point the right hon. Gentleman is making about our not being involved—they are very grateful for the way we have been involved. The Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary have worked around the clock over the past few days to ensure that all the necessary conversations are had, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect and as he probably knows has been happening.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for setting out clearly the reasons Britain did not join the US and Israeli attacks on Iran. I also thank him for ensuring the defence of Britain’s Gulf partners and for protecting the 300,000 Britons in the region. I agree with him that diplomacy and a negotiated settlement are the best path to peace. Will he outline the role that Britain is playing to ensure that the Iranian people are listened to and have peace and security ahead, not more war and chaos, not another murderous Iranian regime, and not another US-imposed regime change?
The Prime Minister
We have been very clear: the future of Iran must be for the Iranian people, and in the end the question of nuclear weapons will have to be negotiated. We will always ultimately have to get to that point.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Prime Minister will understand why the ghosts of Iraq hang heavy over the Chamber at times like this. On that basis, does he agree that the best rebuke to the murderers in Tehran and the Iranian regime is the maintenance of the international rules-based system? More than that, we owe it to the people across the region to learn from the instability in the aftermath of Iraq, so what is the long-term viable plan?
The Prime Minister
We do need to learn the lessons of history. That is why the rules-based system is important. It is also what allows us to make arrangements to get our citizens home and to deal with other matters in conjunction with other countries. On the basis of the decision that I took last night, the plan is to take the necessary measures to protect British nationals. We are clear that, in the end, there has to be de-escalation and a return to negotiation.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his restraint so far in this operation, and for not heeding the calls of the Leader of the Opposition to get us embroiled in the reckless US and Israeli strikes on Iran. I still remember interventions in the region: colleagues not returning from Afghanistan, friends who were shot down over Iraq and tortured, and the massive destruction to civilians. Will the Prime Minister commit to limiting UK personnel to defensive operations to protect our citizens and allies, and not get us further embroiled in this unwise and dangerous war?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I will. I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend and the House that there will always be a lawful basis for any action that we take, and there must be a viable plan for it.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Over the weekend, I heard from families in my constituency whose loved ones—also constituents of mine—are among the 300 service personnel in Bahrain who were within metres of the Iranian missile strike. Given that we have known for some time about the build-up of US forces in the region, why did the activity to decommission HMS Lancaster in Bahrain continue, and—I trust that this is not an operational question—will those works be paused and service personnel withdrawn until the treat status has been downgraded?
The Prime Minister
In relation to the hon. Lady’s constituents, may I ask her to urge them, if they have not already done so, to register their presence as quickly as possible so that we can give them the necessary advice, because this is about how we get people out in the coming days? There are obviously wider questions in the region, but it is very important that we take the necessary measures in the coming days.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and now this illegal war on Iran—the reality is that time and again we are dragged into conflicts that are illegal, make the region less stable and result in devastation and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children. Have we not learned the lessons of the past? Will the Prime Minister make it clear from the Dispatch Box that Britain is not Trump’s poodle and never again will we be a launch pad for illegal and endless wars that have no plan and no end, and will he make it clear that any final decision will be made by this House?
The Prime Minister
I give my hon. Friend and the House my assurance that I will always act in the British national interest. That is the basis of the two decisions I took this weekend.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Will the Prime Minister confirm the exact limits of defensive operations and guarantee that those limits will not change, and will the UK withdraw consent to use our bases if there is proof that they are being used by the US to carry out offensive missions?
The Prime Minister
The basis is collective lawful defence in relation to our allies. The purpose is to take out the ability of Iran to carry out the strikes that are currently being carried out across the region and threatening British nationals, and the actions from our bases will of course be monitored, as the hon. Lady would expect.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
First, may I associate myself with the comments of the Prime Minister in giving thanks to our brave armed forces who are serving right now? I have constituents in South Derbyshire, as I am sure we all do across the country, who look at their TV screens and their social media and see some world leaders who appear reckless, both internationally and domestically, overseeing what looks like state-sponsored murder of people in their own country. So may I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his cool head in this engagement, and may I implore him to continue exactly as he is: taking all the evidence into account, making decisions that are within the law, and putting the interests of British citizens, both in the countries that are under attack and in the region and at home, first and foremost?
The Prime Minister
I have set out the principles on which I have taken the decisions that I have taken this weekend. We keep uppermost in our minds the protection of our citizens and nationals who are in the region. There are 300,000 of them; they are at risk, and it is very important that we do everything we can to keep them safe and secure.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The truth is that this dreadful Iranian regime has been a permanent threat to British interests and British citizens both domestically and abroad, attacking us and spreading its extremist ideology. Surely the Prime Minister understands that actually the United States and Israel have done the west a huge, huge favour in degrading the military capability of this terrible regime. Does he not understand that, after 10 years of negotiations that have failed, the west was left with no alternative? Does he understand also that in refusing to support the US, he has humiliated us on the international stage?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the regime is abhorrent, for all the reasons that I have already set out, but I think he is saying that because of that, it is perfectly right for a British Prime Minister to deploy and take action that would not be lawful. I simply and fundamentally disagree: I think it is a very important principle, when talking about our personnel, that we ensure that what we are asking them to do—and they are being asked to put their lives at risk—is lawful. I believe in that fundamentally; I am surprised if he does not.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
In his statement, the Prime Minister mentioned the drone attack on RAF Akrotiri and the UK’s support for the security of friends and partners in Cyprus. How is the UK co-ordinating efforts with the Cyprus Government to ensure the safety of the whole island, including the bases?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that I spoke to the President of Cyprus yesterday, and I am hoping to speak to him again later today. I repeat what I said earlier, because it is important for reasons that he and the House will understand. The bases in Cyprus are not being used and are not going to be used by the US. [Interruption.] I hear the question, “Why not?” The answer is that they are not suitable. It is very important that that is made clear, because the President and I have been discussing that, as my hon. Friend will understand.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
On Saturday, Prime Minister Carney said:
“Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.”
Why was our Prime Minister not able to make the same statement? Was Prime Minister Carney wrong?
The Prime Minister
I am not trying to pick divisions between our allies on this. I was presented with a different scenario: whether we should accede to two requests in relation to action to be taken. That is different and it requires careful consideration of both the lawful basis and the viable plan. That is the basis on which I took the two decisions that fell to me. Different decisions fall to other Prime Ministers.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his careful response to this issue and his ongoing commitment to the international rule of law. My constituent’s parents, Lindsay and Craig Foreman, are currently serving an appalling and unjustified 10-year sentence in Evin prison in Tehran. Other Governments have given detailed instructions to their nationals as to what to do if Evin’s prison gates were to open and order break down. Will the Prime Minister confirm that a plan covering that situation will be communicated to them to ensure their safety? Have the Government impressed upon the US and Israel the importance of not targeting Evin prison, as Israel did last year, given that the lives of two British citizens are at stake?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this case. I assure him that we have been and will continue to take all necessary action to safeguard those interests in relation to this case.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
RAF Fairford is in my constituency. The Government have now authorised the US air force to use RAF Fairford for defensive operations. Residents have been contacting me today, understandably concerned for their safety, especially given the recent events at RAF Akrotiri. Given that the Prime Minister has pledged to prioritise the safety of UK citizens, what assurance can he offer specifically to the people of Fairford that their safety and security will be fully protected now that UK airbases may be used in operations targeting Iran?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. I assure her and her constituents that all necessary measures are being taken to keep her constituents safe in relation to the use of the base in her constituency; that is a first-order priority for us, and that is what we are doing.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is right to be clear that UK military action has to be in line with international law, and that we were not involved in the offensive action of Israel and the US. He is also right to act to protect British lives and British interests in the face of Iranian attacks. In rightly drawing lessons from Iraq, does the Prime Minister agree that a failed state in Iran is not in the interests of the UK, nor in the interests of the wider middle east?
The Prime Minister
We have to learn the lessons. Collapsing and failed states have historically proved to be worse, so we do have to be careful.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
If a missile battery in Iran was continuing to target British bases, would an airstrike against it be offensive or defensive?
The Prime Minister
I think I have made clear the basis for the second decision: we have authorised the US to use our bases in order to take out the ability of Iran to make those strikes. That is legal because it is collective self-defence.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Iran’s reckless attacks have fuelled further regional instability, putting British people at risk along with our allies across the region. The attacks have naturally caused concern about what they mean for our own national security due to rising oil prices and the cost of living. Does the Prime Minister agree that the UK needs to act decisively in our own national interest, including on how this conflict could impact every household in our country?
The Prime Minister
We are very concerned about the wider impact. That is why it is important that we continue to argue for de-escalation and a return ultimately to negotiation.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
My party and I stand with all the brave Iranians who condemn the vile regime in Iran. We also condemn the deeply irresponsible and illegal attack by the US and Israel on Iran, which was launched in the middle of nuclear negotiations and led by Trump—a clearly unstable loose cannon—and Netanyahu, a war criminal. The UK must stand unequivocally against this reckless action. Will the Prime Minister publish the legal advice that he received on the initial American and Israeli strikes, not just the more recent advice on the defensive posture? Will he also commit to a vote in this House on any UK involvement in this war?
The Prime Minister
We are not at war, and we are not getting involved in offensive action that the US and Israel are taking. We have published a summary of the legal advice in relation to the decision that we took last night. That is in accordance with practice. It is not practice to publish legal advice or summaries in relation to defensive action.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I think the diffidence that we have heard towards international law this afternoon is as unwise as, perhaps, it is unsurprising. For the sake of clarity, can the Prime Minister confirm what would have needed to have been true for it to be legal for him to have joined the offensive strikes last week? Surely that would have required an imminent threat to our national security, which was simply not present when the decision to strike was taken.
The Prime Minister
I will resist setting out the full international law test, but it is clear what the test is—I think that is not disputed. As far as I know, nobody is challenging the Attorney General’s advice, the summary of which has been published for all to see; I do not think anybody is saying that that is the wrong advice. [Interruption.] I will look at the shadow Attorney General’s advice. I would be surprised if he advises that it would have been unequivocally lawful to have joined the initial action, but if the Leader of the Opposition will give me that advice, I will carefully consider it.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
May I take the Prime Minister back to his earlier position? I do not think his own MPs quite realise what he has said. He said that his reason originally for not allowing RAF Fairford, for example—or even Diego Garcia—to be used was that it would constitute, for him, a breach of international law, because it would mean that we were condoning an offensive operation. However, he has changed his position because of attacks on allies and on a UK base. That means that he is authorising the Americans to act in defence by taking out those kinds of missiles that would attack us. Surely that means that the UK armed forces—in this case, the Royal Air Force—could now be used by the Government in no breach of international law in a defensive action to take out those missiles as well.
The Prime Minister
There are two separate considerations, obviously; the first was the decision on whether to join the US and Israel in the first place, and the second was the decision that we took last night. We started taking defensive action on Saturday by deploying our pilots to the skies in the region, so we had already taken that action. We added to that defensive action last night by permitting the US to use our bases to strike at the capability of Iran to issue the strikes in the first place.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
It has been heartening to see the scenes of jubilation from Iranians, from Syrians and from British Iranians in this country at the death of the evil ayatollah. They hope that it will enable them ultimately to finally gain their freedom from this horrific regime. As the situation evolves, may I ask the Prime Minister to keep them in his mind’s eye? Will he engage and meet with some of the Iranian activists who reside in the UK? In addition, if it does look as if the regime is going to fall, can officials think about the ways in which we can support the Iranian people to rebuild their institutions and infrastructure, and to provide aid, just as we are currently doing in Syria?
The Prime Minister
We must be absolutely clear that the future of Iran is for the Iranian people, who have been brutally repressed for a very long time, including through the terrible actions that were taken in January this year.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
In his statement, the Prime Minister explained his disagreement with the US President about UK participation in the initial strikes, and I commend that decision. When the UK refused to participate in US interventions in Vietnam and Grenada, Harold Wilson and Margaret Thatcher kept their disagreements private, but that is difficult to do with Trump. Crucially, though, in the cases of Vietnam and Grenada, the UK stayed out. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that in the case of Iran, the UK is not going to get dragged into this war on the basis of collective self-defence in support of allies in the Gulf?
The Prime Minister
I hope I have set out my position clearly, and the reasons behind my decision. That is the basis upon which we made the decision last night; we will keep it under review, and if it changes, I will come back to the House.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
We have heard this language before, with military intervention dressed up as necessity or as being done out of humanitarian concern: Libya, Iraq—the list goes on. All those interventions led to devastating consequences for the people who lived there: hundreds of thousands dead, infrastructure destroyed, countries and regions destabilised, and the creation of a refugee crisis. I hope all those who are chomping at the bit for this war will welcome the extra refugees who will be coming on to our shores as a consequence. Article 51 of the UN charter does not allow for regime change, and I am so grateful to our Prime Minister for not joining in this illegal war by the US and Israel. I ask him, please, to continue with this direction, so that we do not get involved in another illegal war in the middle east.
The Prime Minister
I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that I will apply the same principles of whether there is a lawful basis and a viable case to the decisions that we take.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments about working with religious communities and trying to ensure their safety, but I was appalled—not shocked, I am afraid to say—as I am sure the Prime Minister was, to see at the weekend the deputy leader of the Green party once again protesting in support of the ayatollah. I am afraid that the Green party has become a magnet for all the people who the Prime Minister quite rightly kicked out of the Labour party. The hatred and fear that runs through Leeds now, which has been whipped up at times by Councillor Mothin, is a disgrace.
West Yorkshire police have begged Leeds city council to put in place a named person for hiring spaces run by the council, so that they can hold somebody responsible. The city council would not do so. My Jewish community are terrified about going into Leeds at the weekend. Will the Prime Minister work closely with all policing authorities to ensure that my Jewish community and other communities can be safe?
The Prime Minister
I think we were all shocked by the actions of the deputy leader of the Green party—although perhaps not surprised, given that party’s recent turn of direction. It is important that we all set our face against antisemitism. I have to say that the Green party’s argument that now is the time to get out of NATO and negotiate with Putin over our nuclear weapons is also contrary to the British national interest.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
There are direct flights from Newcastle to Dubai, and many Geordies in the region, including in the armed forces, so I thank the Prime Minister for the steps he is taking to support and protect them, and particularly for acting within international law. Iran is a murderous, despotic state that has frequently threatened, and does threaten, UK security, but the sight of bombs raining down across the Gulf will not make my constituents feel more secure, especially when the impact on democracy and human rights in the region—and, indeed, on the Iranian regime itself—is unclear, to put it mildly. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to help bring this conflict to an end and restore some semblance of security in the region?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the concerns of her constituents, and I understand just how worried they will be, as will all our constituents who are in the area. That is why it is important that we take measures in the region, as we are doing, to try to take the missiles out of the air. That is the reason we have given permission to the US to use the bases for the limited and specific purposes I have set out.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Last Friday, the talks in Geneva were apparently making good progress and there was hope that there would be some kind of agreement between the United States and Iran. Some 12 hours later, President Trump ordered attacks on Iran, the first victims of which were a group of schoolchildren attending school in the morning. They in no way can be held responsible for anything in Iran, whether human rights abuses or anything else.
In the Prime Minister’s statement, it is unclear to me under which circumstances US forces will be allowed to use RAF bases. Can they use bases in this country to attack Iran? Can they use RAF Akrotiri for that? Are we—this country—sharing information with the US to further its war aims against Iran? Could we not instead adopt a stance of trying to bring about an immediate ceasefire to prevent further dreadful loss of life across every country in the whole region and the danger of this escalating into a semi-global conflict?
The Prime Minister
The uses of the bases are for the collective self-defence of our allies and to protect British nationals—something I am sure the right hon. Member would agree with—and specifically to take out the ability of Iran to launch the strikes that are currently going into allied countries and putting our nationals at risk. Let me be clear that we are not using Cyprus for this purpose.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for his leadership. My thoughts are with serving personnel in the region. May I also mention our armed forces families in Cyprus, some of whom are my constituents? Clear communications from the Ministry of Defence will be crucial in reassuring these families, who are feeling worried and uncertain at this time. In light of the growing threat, may I ask the Prime Minister about the UK’s preparedness commitment under NATO article 3? Does he agree that we need a total Government approach to preparedness, with every Minister in every Department clear on their role in meeting our obligations to ensure that the UK can face the pressures of this increasingly unstable world?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for all that she does. I know she has a lot of military families in her constituency, and she is right to be concerned for them. I am sure that they will be feeling concerned. We will ensure that we liaise closely with them, wherever they are in the region, and do all that we can to protect them. We of course thank them for what they are doing. On the wider point she makes, it is important that the whole of Government is committed to the defence and security of the United Kingdom.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister happily says that he has learned the lessons of Iraq, a misadventure that his party is responsible for. Does he agree that the lesson of Iraq is not to use lethal force unless there is good evidence to do so and, in particular, unless there is a threat to the interests of this country, which there was not? Will he compare and contrast that with the situation that applies to what has happened over the weekend, when our friends and allies took pre-emptive action against a feral state that had enriched uranium to 60% and that posed a clear and present danger to ourselves, our interests and our allies?
The Prime Minister
It is important that we all learn the lessons of Iraq, and they are that there needs to be a lawful basis for action if it is taken and that there needs to be a viable case.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the fact that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Qatar. I thank the Prime Minister for his emphasis on compliance with the law. What discussions have the Government held with the Government of Qatar and other regional allies about co-operation to ensure the safety, security and support of British nationals? What joint measures have been agreed to assist British nationals in the region?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that I have spoken to all the leaders across the region in person, on the telephone, over the weekend, and that the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and others have been liaising very closely to ensure that we can take the best, swiftest and most effective action to protect our nationals.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
The Iranian regime is clearly abhorrent and no one would mourn its passing, but, as someone who fought in Afghanistan, I am grateful to the Prime Minister for saying that we need a viable, thought-through plan. Plainly the United States does not have that plan. President Trump said over the weekend that the US was planning to hand Iran over to some people, but then killed them by mistake.
One of my concerns is the 440 kg of 60% enriched uranium in Iran. If the regime is wiped out, the country will fall into chaos. What is the plan for that uranium?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman points to the reasons why I have proceeded on the basis that there must be a lawful case for what is done and a viable plan. For us, the immediate vision that is important is ensuring that we do what we can to protect our citizens and de-escalate the situation so that we can get to a negotiated outcome.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for his reassurance about the principles for involving the United Kingdom in any military action. For those on this side of the House, it is important that, as well as having a viable plan, we stand by the rule of law. Has my right hon. Friend been able to have any discussions with the Arab states, and with Turkey, about how we might build that plan for de-escalation as quickly as possible?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that we have been having discussions throughout the weekend with counterparts in the region to that end, about how we rise to the challenge that is currently before us, what action we can take to protect our nationals and our allies across the region, and how we can de-escalate.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I agreed with parts of it. I agreed with him when he said that the regime was an abhorrent one, that British civilians, British service personnel and British sovereign bases had been attacked, and that, “You cannot shoot all the drones out of the air; you have to attack them at source.” However, his statement then implied, very cleverly, two things: that we did not have, in international law, every justification for offensive action against Iran; and that only the Americans had the capability to carry out these offensive operations. Bearing in mind that the world is listening, would the Prime Minister like to state very clearly that he understands that he would be justified, on the basis that we had been attacked, in launching offensive operations against our attackers, and that we have the capability to do so?
The Prime Minister
I clearly set out the two decisions that I made over the weekend, including the decision on Saturday to start taking defensive action with our pilots in the region, and the decision last night to permit the US to use our bases for collective self-defence in order to take out the ability of Iran to launch the strikes in the first place.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
May I put on record my admiration for the skill and the bravery of our armed forces? We owe them a debt of gratitude now more than ever as they see action.
The Prime Minister was right to say that we must learn the lessons from Iraq, and all the other conflicts in which there has not been a viable end plan. Given that, can he reassure me that the decision to allow the United States to launch operations from our bases will be kept under constant review, so that the UK’s presence in this conflict remains a defensive one?
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The decision will be kept under review, and I will update the House accordingly.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is no surprise that drones have become a central element of Iran’s response. The Shahed drones that it deploys are relatively inexpensive, easy to mass-produce, and capable of causing significant damage. However, the interceptors that we use to bring them down are substantially more expensive. Given the rate at which Iran is deploying these drones against UK assets and our partners, and the scale at which they can be manufactured, that cost imbalance is a growing concern. What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to develop effective but more cost-efficient countermeasures to address these challenges, and will the Prime Minister now look again at bringing forward the timescale for increasing our defence spending?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady raises an important point. We are working at pace to deal with the drones and are working with our Ukrainian colleagues, who have been facing this for four years. We have been working with them on that, and we are working with them to help to protect allies who are under attack in the region.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Overnight, my constituents have lost the benefit—promised to them only last week—of savings on energy prices through the attacks on refineries across Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Oil prices have soared, and gas prices in Europe have surged by upwards of 52% in the last few hours. The longer this carries on, it risks escalation across the middle east. Closer to home, it impacts on the day-to-day lives of the British people through increased energy costs. What assessment have the Government made of the risk of energy prices to British households, and what efforts is the Prime Minister making to ensure that we can de-escalate sooner rather than later?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the impact on the day-to-day lives of our constituents. We are carefully monitoring that, as she would expect, and we are doing all that we can with our allies to de-escalate the situation.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
As a veteran, I agree with the Prime Minister that the safety of our armed forces and of British citizens should come first in any decision made in the future. Given the rapidly evolving situation, will the Ministry of Defence now expedite the promised defence investment plan, so that our industry can get on and make the capabilities that this country needs?
The Prime Minister
Yes, we are getting on with that as quickly as we can.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
We should all welcome the end of the Iranian regime—if it is the end of the regime. Those of us who were in this House for the decision on Iraq needed no convincing that Saddam’s was an evil regime. What we needed convincing on was that the attack was permissible in international law and that there was clarity about the exit strategy; it had neither of those, and nor does the US attack on Iran. The Prime Minister’s broadcast justification of the use of our bases spoke of enabling a defensive strike. Words have meaning: a “defensive strike” is a contradiction in terms. The usual phrase is “pre-emptive strike”, and in any language, a pre-emptive strike is an attack.
The Prime Minister
The use of the bases is to allow the US to use its ability to take out Iran’s ability to launch the attacks in the first place. I think that is relatively clear.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Houthis in Yemen have declared their support for Iran but have so far taken no pre-emptive action. Given that the UK has previously been willing to take action against the Houthis, would we be willing to do so again if they become involved?
The Prime Minister
I will not get into hypotheticals, but I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that when the last Government were in office and we were in opposition, we supported that action, as was the case when we were in government and the Conservatives were in opposition. He can see what the consistent practice is there.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
The brutality of the Iranian regime is unquestionable, but does the Prime Minister agree with many of our constituents still in the region, who will be deeply concerned at the indication from the United States today that it will increase its airstrikes on Iran? Can he assure us that he will redouble his efforts to take forward the strategy, which he has rightly set out today, of de-escalation and action that is in accordance with international law?
The Prime Minister
I acknowledge the concern of my hon. Friend’s constituents, as many of our constituents will be concerned. That is why it is our duty to take measures to protect them first and foremost, and to de-escalate the situation.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
I hope the Prime Minister agrees that current events show how vital military infrastructure is in the middle eastern region of the world. However, at the very moment when Diego Garcia is relied on as a critical asset, the Prime Minister proposes to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius and to lease back the airbase for our use. Does he not realise what a catastrophic policy this is? Will he abandon this misguided plan and ensure that the Chagos islands remain under British sovereignty?
The Prime Minister
The deal secures the islands so that they can be used for the important purposes that they are used for. It was vital that we got the deal; otherwise, we would not be able to carry out the operations in the same way.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
This conflict has already cost lives. Civilians are caught in the crossfire, and hundreds of thousands of UK nationals are stranded in the region. If it continues for weeks, that will only make it more difficult to evacuate our nationals, and it will cause a humanitarian catastrophe and damage to the world economy. Can the Prime Minister say more about what he will do in the coming days to work with our allies in the EU and the middle east to try to bring an end to this conflict, and to return to diplomatic negotiations, so that we can secure peace and security and protect civilian lives?
The Prime Minister
I reassure my hon. Friend that we are talking to our allies in the region and to allies in Europe—we talked to France and Germany, in particular, over the weekend—to be clear about the principles we are applying, and to ensure that we are doing everything we can to de-escalate the situation.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I seek clarity from the Prime Minister: given his initial refusal of permission for the use of bases by the US, is it the view of His Majesty’s Government that the initial strikes by Israel and the United States were illegal?
The Prime Minister
The question I was asked and I was answering was: what would be the lawful basis for anything the United Kingdom would do? That is the question that I considered over the weekend, and that is what guided me in the two decisions that I had to make about the United Kingdom.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I had 40 constituents with me this morning, and they were very concerned about the creation of a regional vacuum, specifically in places like Lebanon and Yemen. What steps is the UK taking to prepare for targeted stabilisation and humanitarian efforts in the countries that will be most exposed if the Iranian regime changes?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is very important that we take those measures in the countries that are most exposed, and we are talking to our allies about how we can do that.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit the west bank and Israel, where these actions were being anticipated, largely with some dread. The great sense I got from talking to both groups of people was of deep national trauma, caused in no small part by the actions of Iranian-backed terrorists. What does the Prime Minister know about the ultimate intentions of either the Israeli or the American Government? What is their exit strategy? What are their objectives? There can be no probability of regime change coming from all this, so how does it make the lives of the Iranian people any better, and the lives of those in the wider middle east any more secure?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising the matter of the west bank; it is a cause of great concern, which is only intensified by actions in recent days, and I am not surprised that they have caused deep concern in the west bank. As far as the UK is concerned, I have clearly set out what our strategy is, and the basis for the actions that we are taking.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee has heard multiple sets of evidence about the risk in our dependence on fossil fuels, given the volatility of prices. The way that oil and gas prices have gone up has been a salutary reminder of that evidence. Remember that gas sets the price for our electricity most of the time. Is not the energy transition not a matter of ideology, but a matter of national security importance, and economic importance?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Among the reasons for pushing ahead with renewables is that they give us energy security and independence, which is hugely important at a time like this.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
When British children are being bombed in Dubai, and the British military are being attacked in Cyprus, Qatar and Bahrain, why does it seem like the Prime Minister—I hope he will forgive me—is frozen with indecision, entangled in his own legalise, and fretting about his Back Benchers? He is looking to the left in his party as much as to the middle east. He will know that I have supported him time and again on what he has said about foreign policy decisions at the Dispatch Box, but I have to say to him that this is not his finest hour. He is looking very weak, and that is not in our national interest.
The Prime Minister
I have been absolutely focused only on British nationals this weekend. That has been the total focus of my attention, and the right hon. Gentleman does himself a disservice by suggesting otherwise.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
A constituent who fled Iran fought back tears as she told me that she wanted an end to the regime in Iran that had targeted her and her loved ones. She also said that she wanted absolutely no illegal military intervention from external forces. Does the Prime Minister understand that enabling the use of military bases by the Government’s allies—in this case, the US—and Israel’s illegal actions are dragging our country into a wider conflict, but that the Government have no power to determine the conflict’s outcome, and that that risks making us all more, not less, safe?
The Prime Minister
No. Our decisions were made to protect British citizens and British nationals, and I stand by those decisions.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Iranian regime is a murderous regime. It is an exporter of terrorism, and a threat to regional and national security, and its removal is good for British security and good for the Iranian people. However, what comes next is even more important than what has happened. The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that he wants a “viable, thought-through plan”. Does he think that President Trump has a viable, thought-through plan for what comes next?
The Prime Minister
We are obviously discussing all matters with the US, all the time. I am absolutely clear what our plan is, and what the basis for our decisions is, and I have set them out to the House.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Our primary duty at this time must be to ensure the safety of British nationals in the region—people like my constituents the Foreman family, who are trapped abroad and do not know when they will be able to come home. Their father’s medication runs out today, and they have no idea whether they will be able to obtain more drugs. What assurance will the Prime Minister provide that consular support will be there for families like my constituents, so that they get the medication they need and, ideally, come home as soon as possible?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that we are taking every step we can to ensure that these people have the support they need. That includes the steps taken over the course of this weekend.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments about our service personnel in Bahrain and Akrotiri, which I had the pleasure of visiting in the summer. It is difficult to know where to start with the confusion and cognitive dissonance shown in the Prime Minister’s statement. He is against attacking Iran because it has nuclear weapons, but he is willing to attack it because it has conventional weapons. On those conventional weapons, British sovereign territory in Akrotiri has been attacked, yet the Prime Minister is unwilling to use British RAF personnel to strike Iran. What would Iran, or any other state actor, have to do to this country for him to act?
The Prime Minister
We are using British personnel to defend Cyprus at this very moment.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
No one should shed a tear for the Iranian leadership; this was a brutal and oppressive regime. However, there are other brutal and repressive regimes in the world. A brutal and oppressive regime is never, in and of itself, a reason to attack a country. Can the Prime Minister please assure me that any involvement of British troops or assets in this conflict will be purely defensive?
The Prime Minister
I have set out the principles on which I will act. I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Any action will have to have a lawful basis, and a viable case for it.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
As long as the Iranian regime exists, it will continue to pose a direct threat to our security, and to stability across the region, yet Cabinet Office figures show that non-official development assistance integrated security fund spending for the middle east is set to fall by a third in the coming years. Will the Prime Minister explain why funding to counter Iranian threats is being reduced, when those threats remain so acute?
The Prime Minister
We are taking a number of measures to deal with Iranian threats, as the hon. Gentleman would expect.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The Prime Minister claims that lessons have been learned from Iraq, and I really hope that is true. Netanyahu and Trump instigated an illegal act of aggression, putting at risk the lives of thousands of people, including UK nationals and our military. Does the Prime Minister agree that diplomacy and de-escalation are needed if we are not to bring Britain into a reckless and catastrophic war, and can he provide details about this “viable, thought-through plan” to repatriate our nationals?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to apply the principles that I have set out, and will work to de-escalate across the region.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Iranian regime ignored the joint comprehensive plan of action, which completely failed. The Iranian regime’s terror activities have reached these shores, and while we meet here this afternoon, the Iranian regime’s rockets rain down on our allies across the middle east. That includes Hezbollah’s rockets into Israel. Will the Prime Minister clearly set out the evidence underpinning his view that the Iranian regime is in any way, shape or form interested in coming to the negotiating table?
The Prime Minister
My point is simply that in the end, there will ultimately have to be a negotiated outcome when it comes to nuclear weapons. At what point that happens is obviously unclear, particularly after the past few days. That is why it has for years been the consistent policy of both our parties that this should be a negotiated outcome. It was the hon. Gentleman’s party’s policy until Friday of last week.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Door-knocking in Ealing yesterday, I met a student whose parents fled Iran in 1979, and who told me how overjoyed they are to get rid of this despotic, tyrannical regime. Yet the methods used surely risk undermining the rules-based order. A girls’ school was hit, with 150 kids killed; we appear to have normalised the bombing of schools, hospitals, refugee camps and universities in Gaza by one of the two instigators of this action. What does the PM see as the end game of this war, and how will he stop Operation Fury turning into Operation Futility?
The Prime Minister
I have clearly set out the basis for the decisions I have taken, and my view that we should all do all we can to de-escalate the situation.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I thank the Prime Minister for his measured statement and restraint. The illegal action by Israel and the USA over the weekend, taking out admittedly a very repressive and brutal regime leader, has left the region and the world in turmoil, which is creating real fear, especially for our children. In fact, my 14-year-old asked me over the weekend, “Dad, are we all going to be okay?” I ask the Prime Minister this, as a father: what assurance he can give my son, and all the children in this country and the middle east, that he will do everything in his power to prevent the outbreak of world war three, which Donald Trump and Netanyahu are driving us towards?
The Prime Minister
The protection and security of British nationals is my foremost duty. I take it very seriously—that is why I took the decisions that I did over the weekend—and will continue to do so.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
Like many people in my constituency, I said prayers over the weekend while watching the events unfold. It is clear that the region is in a perilous state, and we need to de-escalate, follow the rule of law and get peace back on the table.
I have a related question on the region for the Prime Minister. As he will know, many in the House were passionate about ensuring a ceasefire in Gaza and ensuring that aid and humanity got in. We know that there have been closures of ways into the west bank and Gaza over the weekend. What reassurance can the Prime Minister give us that while we look towards Iran, we will not lose sight of the humanitarian need in Gaza and on the west bank?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. The ceasefire in Gaza is welcome but fragile, and not enough aid was getting in even under the circumstances before this weekend. We are working with others to ensure that we can alleviate the situation as quickly as possible.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Even if our military personnel are not deployed in offensive strikes, the additional air policing that the RAF is being committed to across the middle east means that it now has to do double the work, with no extra resources. What additional resources is the RAF being given to protect our service personnel in undertaking this activity?
The Prime Minister
This is the Government who have increased defence spending. I can assure the hon. Lady that our service personnel are working very hard as we speak to keep us safe and to protect the region, and we thank them for doing that.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
May I commend my right and learned hon. Friend for his resolute stand? It cannot have been easy to stand up to the President and not get dragged into this war, which has no apparent plan for its end. We made that mistake in 2003, and the result was disastrous. The President of the United States has made it clear that he wants to see regime change. Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether he has seen evidence of any plan to achieve that in our negotiations with the United States?
The Prime Minister
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are talking to the US at all levels, and there is real clarity about the action that we have taken and the basis and reason for that action.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
No one here is an apologist for the cruel Iranian regime, but the escalation initiated by the US Administration and the Israeli Government is illegal, and I am certain that the Prime Minister knows this. Hundreds of thousands of UK citizens are directly affected and at risk, and they include people from Dwyfor Meirionnydd. While there must be questions anon about a vote in this House as we fear that these defensive actions will slide into offensive ones, but we do not know how we will track that process. None the less, the question for today that people want us to ask is this: when will people be coming home, especially from Doha and Dubai?
The Prime Minister
I know that the right hon. Lady’s constituents, and all our constituents, will be very concerned, particularly since there are 300,000 British nationals in the region. We want to make sure that the answer to her question is that we will get them home as quickly and as safely as we can, and we are working with our regional allies on this as we speak.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his measured response so far. I have spoken to former constituents and friends who are British expats in the UAE. While they feel confident that the local Government there are doing all that they can to protect them, for clarity, will they too be considered for evacuation by the FCDO should it become necessary?
The Prime Minister
We are working with all our allies to ensure that all those who need our help get our help and are safely and swiftly removed from a region that is dangerous for them.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I think we can all agree that international law has an important role to play, but the world is changing and we must adapt to protect our national security. Given that international law is broad in nature and open to interpretation—we have seen that in the differing views of the Attorney General and the shadow Attorney General—for public accountability, and given the seriousness of this situation, can the Prime Minister tell us how many and which international lawyers he consulted before he made his decisions over recent days?
The Prime Minister
I am not going to disclose the full advice. International law does not just have an important role to play; it is vital if we are taking action that involves our personnel. That is why I took advice, and I have published the summary of that advice. I said that I will look at the shadow Attorney General’s advice. if he is setting out a lawful basis, I would be very interested to read it.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and his clarity on our adherence to international law. From Somalia to Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, history shows us that military interventions do not always lead to peaceful political transitions and often have wider regional and global repercussions. Can the Prime Minister reassure me that his focus will be on encouraging a peaceful transition for the people of Iran and de-escalating the situation regionally and globally?
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. I also underscore her point that the future of Iran must be for the people of Iran, who have been brutally repressed for a very long time.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
We must not conflate the appalling actions of Iran with those of the Iranian people, who have spent years fighting at great risk for change—and intensively over the last couple of months. The severe repression under the ayatollah has led many of them to actually welcome the actions of Trump and Netanyahu, but how are this Government going to ensure that Iranian voices are heard when decisions are being made about their future once military action finally subsides?
The Prime Minister
It is very important that we are clear on the principle that the future of Iran must be for the Iranian people, who have been brutally repressed, particularly but not only in recent months. We must consistently make that case, and we are doing so.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
This is an extremely dangerous moment, and Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya show where it can end up: with death, destruction, terror and chaos impacting tens of millions of people. Given that, should the Government’s focus not be on pushing Trump, Israel and Iran towards diplomacy, de-escalation and a ceasefire? Instead, by siding with Trump, has the Prime Minister not risked dragging us into a wider conflict, which leaves us all less safe? Mission creep would erode the distinction that he is attempting to make between offensive and defensive actions and would lead us to become fully embroiled in an illegal US war in the middle east.
The Prime Minister
My focus has been on the protection of the 300,000 British nationals in the region, who are at risk. It is our duty to take steps to reduce that risk and bring them to safety and security.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
A militarily degraded Iran would be welcomed by both the region and the world, but an Iran that still possesses enriched uranium and has the potential to become a failed state is something to be avoided at all costs—the Prime Minister recognises that. While it is uncertain what President Trump’s plan is, at some point there will clearly be negotiations, talks towards peace, and the cessation of action. Will the Prime Minister impress upon the American Administration that we now have an opportunity to link progress for ordinary Iranians—their democratic rights, freedoms and civil liberties—to that process, and not just view it as a military degradation exercise?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I agree with the way that he puts it. It is important that we acknowledge that the Iranian people have been brutally repressed for so many years.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
May I express my support for the Government’s handling of the events this weekend? I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s clarity today that international law is paramount and that priority is being given to the safety of UK citizens. Does he agree with me, however, that this will end only when Iran, the US and allies get around the table and talk about nuclear de-escalation, and when Iran abandons its nuclear ambitions? Will the Prime Minister tell us what conversations he has had with allies to ensure that happens?
The Prime Minister
We are having conversations with allies about de-escalating the situation and about how we get back to negotiation. In the end, at whatever stage it is, that will have to be part of the process.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
We should welcome the actions of America and Israel in trying to destroy a regime that, as the Prime Minister described, has exported terror all over the world, but why the weak-kneed response from the Government that we are limiting our bases to defensive actions. Will the Prime Minister clarify what he means by “defensive actions”? For example, are attacks on factories making drones that are used to deliver bombs defensive? Are attacks on the leaders planning the war against our allies in the middle east defensive? Would attacks on nuclear facilities be regarded as defensive? Would attacks on the infrastructure that is used to mobilise these weapons be defensive? What are the limits of this defensive action?
The Prime Minister
Let me be absolutely clear that the action that we have authorised from our bases is to take out Iran’s capability to launch these attacks, which of course means taking out the launchers and the infrastructure that sits behind them.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his calm and measured approach and for his reassurance today. As the Member of Parliament for Portsmouth North and the mum of a serving personnel member currently deployed overseas, my first thought is always for the men and women we ask to stand in harm’s way. The Iranian regime’s reckless attacks are not abstract; they are direct threats to British service personnel and British citizens in the region. Will the Prime Minister, first, confirm that every measure is being taken to protect constituents on the ground? Secondly, will he assure the House that when we pursue de-escalation and democracy, operational decisions will be grounded firmly in one overriding principle: the safety of our British servicemen and women?
The Prime Minister
I know that a number of my hon. Friend’s constituents are deployed abroad. We are doing everything we can to protect them, and we thank them for the work that they are doing in the region.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I have heard a lot of legal analysis from the Prime Minister but nothing on what he thinks is morally right. Is not the biggest risk to international law when leaders hide behind legal advice to avoid taking responsibility for their decisions?
The Prime Minister
To ask our servicepeople to act when we do not have a lawful basis would be a dereliction of moral purpose.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
There is no doubt that the Iranian regime is abominable, but it is clear that the initial joint strikes on Iran were neither defensive nor lawful. As the situation dangerously escalates, hundreds of innocent civilians are now dead across the middle east and UK personnel and citizens are at risk. The Prime Minister has outlined that his aim is a negotiated settlement. Will he outline the tangible action that he and his international counterparts are taking now to secure a ceasefire so that negotiations can resume?
The Prime Minister
I reassure my hon. Friend that the actions we are taking are to protect British nationals, and we are working with others to de-escalate the situation.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Since we came to the Chamber, a senior Iranian commander has said that they would seek to bomb Cyprus to force out US aircraft from our sovereign bases. As a guarantor of Cyprus’s security and as a sovereign presence on the island of Cyprus, what concrete military devices and measures do we have in place in Cyprus to ensure that no further successful drone attacks can happen on the airfield? What assurances can the Prime Minister offer to Cyprus that no attacks will take place in Cyprus as a whole as a result of our presence there?
The Prime Minister
I will be absolutely clear again, because it really matters, that the US is not using Cyprus; it is our base. I will not go into operational details, but as the hon. Member would expect we are taking all necessary measures to ensure that Cyprus and the base are safe. I spoke to the President yesterday, and I hope to speak to him again later this afternoon.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Given the comments yesterday from the Iranian Foreign Minister that the IRGC is adopting a decentralised mosaic defence to fragment command and control structures and create even more unpredictable flashpoints, will my right hon. and learned Friend update the House on what steps he is taking with allies, including partners in the region, to mitigate such developments that threaten to escalate and prolong the conflict?
The Prime Minister
We have already put extensive sanctions in place, and we keep the situation under constant review.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I would like to come back to the drone attack on RAF Akrotiri and the alarming ease with which the Iranian regime was able to penetrate our defences and strike the airfield. That very much suggests that it has little by way of counter-uncrewed aerial systems capability and nothing by way of No. 2 Counter UAS Wing squadrons to deter such attacks.
Will the Prime Minister confirm what type of drone struck the airfield? Will he also confirm the origin of that drone? Did it fly from Iran all the way across Israeli airspace to strike Cyprus, or did it come from Hezbollah in Lebanon? Given that we have been attacking Daesh targets this year via Operation Shader, will he strike back at Hezbollah if it proves that the drone came from Lebanon?
The Prime Minister
I reassure the hon. Member, and through him everybody in Cyprus, that protective measures are in place. His description was not right, and it is not helpful to those living in Cyprus to cast it in those terms. [Interruption.] It really is not. As he would expect, extensive measures are in place—both US measures and UK measures—for the defence of Cyprus and the airbase there. It is very important that I make that absolutely clear.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Office’s preparation for a potential evacuation of Britons currently in the middle east and the Prime Minister’s commitment to their safety. However, among them will be a number of British residents who may have gone there for work or leisure—I have not heard them mentioned specifically today—who live their whole lives here and have their families here, like many of the 12,000 non-UK Commonwealth citizens who currently serve in our armed forces. People are concerned given the negative rhetoric surrounding those with indefinite leave to remain at the moment. Will the Prime Minister therefore confirm that all UK residents, and not just citizens, will be included in any evacuation? They are our people, too.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that reminder. I did mention it in my opening statement, but she is quite right that we must be clear that we will protect all those who need our protection. Obviously, where people need to get out, we are working with all of them to get them out as quickly and as safely as possible.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
After the fall of the regime in Iraq, there was no long-term plan and civil society collapsed. In 2004, I was in Op Telic 4 in Iraq, retraining the Iraqi police service. One day I asked my lance corporal, “How do we know if the recruits are former Ba’athist regime supporters or not?” He said, “We don’t. We’ve no idea who we’re training.” The US has attacked Iran with no clear strategy, and now this Government have agreed that UK bases can be used for defensive attacks. I am seriously concerned about the potential for mission creep when there is no clear understanding of Trump’s military objectives. In deciding to allow the US to use UK bases for defensive actions, UK military and civilian lives have been put at risk. Military operations with no clear objectives tend to fail, so can the Prime Minister explain how such a decision—which could lead to mission creep—was made when we have no understanding of Trump’s long-term military aim or post-conflict plan?
The Prime Minister
The decision was taken to allow the bases to be used to protect our nationals. It is worth considering the alternative, which is to recognise the risk to our nationals, have the opportunity to do something about it and take the decision not to. That would be a dereliction of duty, in my view.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Can I respectfully suggest to colleagues that by the time they get on to page 2 of their question, that question is too long?
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The Iranian regime kills its own people, funds terrorist proxies in Hamas and Hezbollah, backs Putin’s aggressive war in Ukraine, and now puts British civilians and our armed forces in the firing line. By some accounts, it is already a failed state. I absolutely back the Prime Minister’s decision to allow UK military bases to be used by the US for defensive strikes, given the attacks on our bases in the Gulf and Cyprus, but does he agree, given the threat that Iran poses on our streets here, that the absolute minimum we should do is proscribe the IRGC, along with any other organisations that threaten British civilians?
The Prime Minister
I can assure my hon. Friend that we keep that under review, and we have already put in place a considerable number of sanctions.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The Prime Minister has set out the threats posed by Iran with some clarity. Taking that into account, does he not recognise that treating international law as a rigid instrument as opposed to a flexible one, as he appears to do, risks binding our hands when it comes to national security?
The Prime Minister
I have made the point a number of times that it is important that there is a clear legal basis. I am not actually sure what the Conservative party’s position is. Are they saying that they would have joined the original strikes, irrespective of whether that was lawful or not? I have not heard a clear answer to that question. It would be very helpful to have one.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Iranian action in the strait of Hormuz and the attacks on energy infrastructure risk driving up energy prices here in the UK. Will the Prime Minister, in the coming days and weeks, make it clear that the blame for any rising energy prices lies with Iran? Will he also hold all possible discussions to support people in this country, including in my constituency, with any ensuing rising bills?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. This will be a concern for his constituents, and for so many of our constituents, and we will take every measure to protect them.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
People in Northern Ireland are entitled to be British, Irish or both. As such, many have travelled to the middle east on an Irish passport. We know that the FCDO has asked people to register. However, those Northern Irish citizens who have an Irish passport and are also UK nationals cannot register. Will the Prime Minister assure me that he will work to make sure that my constituents in Lagan Valley and across Northern Ireland will not be left behind?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. I will get to the bottom of it and make sure that the concern she has raised is properly, fully and swiftly addressed.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for raising the spectre of Iraq. We on the Labour Benches remember how a bloody invasion can lead to a brutal civil war. We know that the aftershocks of now will last years, not days. We are also seeing energy prices spiking, with oil up by 10% and gas up by 50%. Can the Prime Minister assure me that he will act to restore peace in the region and to keep life affordable for our citizens?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is important that he has raised that point and I thank him for doing so.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Prime Minister has been explicit on two decisions: one was that no bases would be used; now, some bases can be used. Could he set out specifically how this interacts with the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill and the exchange of notes from 1966 between the UK and the US?
The Prime Minister
It doesn’t. It is the simple use of bases operationally that has been agreed, as of last night.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to our brave service personnel, who every day work incredibly hard to keep us safe. I also pay tribute to him for his leadership on this matter. A number of people from my constituency of Harlow are trapped in Bahrain and Dubai, including one who is pregnant. What advice can the Prime Minister give to my constituents who are worried about their safety?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the case of his constituents; I am sure they are very anxious about the situation. I assure them and him that we are working at pace with our allies to get a safe and swift route for them to come out of the region, which is what they all want.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I want to go back to the original attacks. Last year, Trump told us that he was attacking Iran to destroy any possibility of it getting a nuclear weapon, and told us afterwards that he had “obliterated” the threat for years to come. Given that was the justification for the attacks last week, and now that Israel has said that they had been planned for months, their urgency seems questionable. What can the Prime Minister tell us about determining the facts around the justification and around the presence of nuclear materials, so that the basis of any future action is clear?
The Prime Minister
As I said, I took two decisions over the weekend. The second was to allow the bases to be used because of the actions of Iran and the need to protect our citizens, our nationals.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), is no longer in his place, but can I put on the record my support for the words of caution that he expressed earlier? Can I turn the Prime Minister’s attention to oil supplies? It is not just about the risks to shipping; I understand from contacts in the industry that some refineries in the region are shutting down. Clearly, that could have a serious impact on business in this country. Could the Prime Minister assure us that contingency arrangements are in hand to maximise oil supplies?
The Prime Minister
I assure the hon. Member that we are taking measures with our allies to safeguard the supply and to do all we can to ensure that we have the energy we need where we need it.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
While the ayatollah has been toppled, the IRGC remains intact, and it is indeed the head of the snake as the sponsor of global terrorism. Despite many urgings, the previous Conservative Government failed to proscribe the IRGC. The Prime Minister’s Government have made the promise to do so. Nothing has happened yet—if not now, when?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. and learned Member will know from her time in office that this is kept under review, but we have put extensive sanctions in place, as the previous Government did.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
Putting aside for a moment the rights and wrongs of the Prime Minister’s decision on Saturday morning, the BBC is in a unique position: running BBC Persian language broadcasting into Iran. Given that and given President Trump’s wishes for the Iranian people themselves to take control, will the Prime Minister put on the record whether he will work with the BBC over the coming days to ensure that there is more Government funding, wherever necessary, to broadcast what is required to the Iranian people?
The Prime Minister
It is very important that the BBC reports and broadcasts in the way that it does, and we support it in doing so.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
A 23-year-old Eastbourne lad, Cameron, is currently lying stranded in a Dubai hospital bed after falling very ill during a minutes-long stopover in Dubai over the weekend. During this window, the airspace closed. Cameron’s hospital bills are £1,000 a day, which he is being forced to pay up front despite having insurance. Cameron, who is watching, urgently needs to know the following. First, when will the Prime Minister outline his repatriation plan, if there will be one? Secondly, will he prioritise British nationals who are clinically vulnerable for repatriation, if it is medically safe? Thirdly, will the appropriate Minister meet me and Cameron’s family to ensure that he gets the treatment he needs before money runs out and to make sure that we get Cameron back to Eastbourne safe?
The Prime Minister
Cameron and his family and loved ones must be extremely worried. If the hon. Member would pass me the full details of that particular case, I will make sure that we do whatever we can to assist Cameron and his family.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Prime Minister has made it clear that he thinks there was insufficient imminent threat to justify our going with our allies in the initial strike. But this is now after the act of war—after the attack on UK citizens across the middle east, many countries of which were not participating, and on British sovereign territory. That means we can join in and we could be involved in offensive actions if the Prime Minister so chose. Why is he choosing not to, and why is he pretending it is for a legal reason when that legal reason has disappeared?
The Prime Minister
We started taking action on Saturday morning, with our pilots in the sky across the region, and they have been working ever since. We added to that yesterday afternoon by acceding to the request of the Americans to use our bases for the attacks on Iran’s capability to launch strikes in the first place.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I thank the Prime Minister for accepting that the reason the British Army is not involved is that it would be unlawful and illegal. Thereby, what America has done is illegal—an illegal attack that has led to the death of 167 girls aged between seven and 11. There are people sitting in this Chamber who oppose refugees coming to this country; they are the very same people who are asking for war. Would he be surprised if we had a sudden influx of refugees as a result of what has happened?
The Prime Minister
The actions I have taken have focused on our need to protect British nationals. It is in all our interests, including British nationals, that we do all we can to de-escalate the situation as quickly as possible.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I welcome the removal of the abhorrent Iranian regime, having seen its beginnings 47 years ago, when my father was a serving officer in the British embassy. We knew the Americans who were taken hostage. I add my thanks to our serving personnel, who are putting their lives at risk. Since the pre-emptive strike, there has been a sad but inevitable escalation in hostilities, so what can the Prime Minister do to persuade Donald Trump to go to negotiations—that is where we have to be—given that he believes only in win-or-lose situations?
The Prime Minister
We are working with all our allies, and having discussions at every level with the US and others about how to resolve and de-escalate the situation. Ultimately, it will have to be a question of negotiation.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I do not underestimate for a moment the gravity of any Government deciding to place their brave servicemen and women in harm’s way, but in circumstances in which our bases and citizens are being targeted by the terror machine that is Iran, why are the UK Government still equivocating over whether we are actively on the side of those who are determined to liquidate the threat? Why the equivocation?
The Prime Minister
We are not equivocating. Pilots have been in the sky since Saturday morning, hours after the attack, risking their lives. I am grateful to them for doing so. They went straight up there, and they have been up there ever since. There was no equivocation; they went up straightaway, and it was the right thing to do.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
This conflict has grounded travellers at Doha, including a constituent who has three young children waiting at home. Following the Prime Minister’s conversation with Qatari leaders, can he explain how evacuations will be prioritised, and what support is being provided on the ground to those who were expecting simply to pass through?
The Prime Minister
May I reassure the hon. Lady that we are working with the Qataris and others to ensure that we are able to get everybody to safety and security as quickly as possible? They are evolving plans, as she will appreciate. It is a difficult situation, but I can assure her that we are doing everything we can to get people out safely—they are our first priority.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
As the Prime Minister admits, following the illegal pre-emptive strikes and the killing of Iran’s leader, Iran has become more aggressive and more unpredictable in the region. How can we possibly be assured that further strikes, further attacks and further aggression will somehow calm the situation? Britain must not contribute to another conflict whose legality is in serious doubt. Will the Prime Minister now commit unequivocally to upholding international law, to publishing the Government’s legal advice, and to pressing for an immediate ceasefire and a return to diplomacy rather than allowing the United Kingdom to be drawn into another unlawful war?
The Prime Minister
It is my duty to protect British nationals—300,000 of them are in the region. The hon. Member will have heard the anxiety from various Members about their constituents being trapped in that situation, only too aware of the danger that they are facing. It is my duty to ensure that the risk to them is reduced. That is why we took the action that we did over the weekend.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
British Lance Corporal Brodie Gillon was killed by an Iranian ballistic missile in Iraq in 2020. When I arrived as a soldier three months later, our base came under attack from Iranian proxy militias eight times. The Iranian regime has gunned down tens of thousands of protesters in recent weeks. Morality is complex. I entirely support the Prime Minister’s view on the need for a negotiated settlement, given, sadly, the risks of regime change, but does he agree that any negotiated settlement needs to include protections against reprisals for protesters?
The Prime Minister
I very much agree, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service. It is really important that we approach this with clear principles about what we are trying to achieve and having learnt the lessons of history in terms of what happens after such conflicts.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)
Although I might not agree with all the conclusions that the Prime Minister has drawn, I am very grateful for the reverence and caution that he shows, and for the respect for human life that he has been trying to demonstrate. The limited time he had over the weekend to make decisions on how best to act reveals that he was not involved in all of the pre-planning, so may I ask why the UK is no longer at the decision-making table?
The Prime Minister
We talk to our allies all the time, as the hon. Gentleman knows and would expect, and we talked to them extensively over the weekend in response to the situation as it developed.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I applaud the Prime Minister’s judgment in this matter. I am in contact with British nationals trapped in a hotel in Qatar who are seeing missiles passing overhead, with more than 30 explosions just today. They texted me a few minutes ago to say there has been a lack of messaging from their Government. They are desperate for news on evacuation plans, but the consulate auto-reply is currently advising them on how best to enjoy Ramadan. Can the Prime Minister please ensure that our consulates redouble their efforts to give information and reassurance to our nationals across the region?
The Prime Minister
We are doing everything we can as quickly as we can. I will pick up the issue the hon. Gentleman has raised specifically, and will he please reassure his constituents that, he having raised it with me, I will do whatever I can to respond very quickly?
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)
US congressional staff were told on Sunday that Iran was not planning to strike American forces or bases unless Israel attacked Iran first. In other words, there was no intelligence indicating an imminent threat. Yet we have already seen pre-emptive strikes attacking a girls’ school, killing over 100 children. This has been condemned by UNESCO as a grave violation of humanitarian law, yet the Prime Minister did not bother to mention it. Continuing such actions is unlawful, and allowing them to take place from UK bases is unlawful, so I ask the Prime Minister: is the genocide of the Palestinian people not enough for this Labour Government? Is he proud to be another Labour Prime Minister obediently following Washington into yet another illegal war in the middle east, making us all less safe? Finally, how much does he enjoy being Donald Trump’s poodle?
The Prime Minister
I have set out the decisions I made over the weekend and the reasons for them. My first duty is to protect British nationals; it is the most important duty that I have, and I will continue to discharge it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Ayatollah Khamenei and his regime have denied religious minorities their freedom of religious belief for years—Christians, Sunnis, Shia’s and Baha’is. They killed 30,000 protesters in January 2026. Girls are abused and victimised regularly. Today the ayatollah is deservedly dead and burns in hell, and I for one put a shovel of coals on his head and hope his damnation will be a long one. The IRGC and the Basij paramilitary groups have the guns while the protesters have none, so what discussions has the Prime Minister had with the USA and Israel to destroy the murderous IRGC? And what discussions has he had with Madam Rajavi and the national Iranian Government in exile on their 10-point plan for a solution and a transparent way forward?
The Prime Minister
There are many discussions going on, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, and I understand his level of concern, particularly in relation to religious freedom. We are working with colleagues on those issues and I will update the House accordingly.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
I do not know what is more humiliating for the United Kingdom: the moral weakness of a Government who cannot distinguish between right and wrong, and who cannot even take a sovereign decision without consulting international lawyers; or the material weakness of a country that has just decommissioned its last frigate in the Gulf and, as the Prime Minister has said in his statement, does not have the capability to defend our own citizens in the region. Given this position of neutrality and impotence, will the Prime Minister clarify what exactly he means by defensive versus offensive action? The whole operation is offensive according to the terms that the Prime Minister has set out. Or does he expect that the British will have some sort of operational veto on individual American flights that take off from our bases?
The Prime Minister
We are taking action in the sky through our pilots and we have authorised the US to use our bases in order to attack the Iranians’ ability to strike, but I will take no lectures on morality from a member of a party that stood a candidate who said that you cannot be English unless you are white.
Oral Answers to Questions
Keir Starmer Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Four years into Putin’s barbaric assault, the courage of Ukrainians burns bright. We are extending sanctuary to Ukrainians in their time of need and providing the weapons and aid to support them in their fight for a just peace. We are degrading Russia’s economy and planning for a ceasefire that protects Ukraine’s sovereignty. That support will never falter. Yesterday I recommitted to President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people that we stand with them in the fight for freedom, democracy and the values that we all hold dear.
Let me also congratulate Team GB for their superb performance in the winter Olympics. They are brilliant ambassadors for our country, and I know that ParalympicsGB will also do us proud. 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.
Edward Argar
May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister in respect of Team GB and Ukraine?
A great former Prime Minister once said,
“You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning.”
Like the leader of my party today, she was a leader of principle and backbone, but we know this current Government are no stranger to the U-turn. Given that, can I gently tempt the Prime Minister to add one more to the current tally and help get Britain working again by backing the fantastic shops and businesses in Melton Mowbray town centre and in high streets across my constituency and beyond to succeed and grow by scrapping the Government’s business rate changes, which will hit so many of them hard in April?
The Prime Minister
It is good to see the right hon. Member in good form, particularly—if I may say so—after his health scare, which he and I have discussed a number of times.
The right hon. Gentleman discusses a former leader of his party. He was the former Health Minister who presided over record waiting lists; he was the former Prisons Minister who left the prisons overcrowded; and he was the former economy Minister under Liz Truss. We are picking up the mess and turning it around.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, because the ceasefire in Gaza remains fragile, and protecting Israeli and Palestinian civilians is critical to the next phase of the peace plan. I am proud of our commitment to a two-state solution, and we will be hosting the peacebuilding conference in March to build lasting peace and security for both Palestine and Israel. Hamas must decommission their weapons and destroy their terrorist infrastructure and can have no future role in running Gaza. While aid flows have increased, the level of need is still dire. The Israeli Government must stop blocking supplies and preventing the work of international non-governmental organisations. That is unconscionable, and it is costing Palestinian lives.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
May I associate the Conservative party with the Prime Minister’s comments about Ukraine and Team GB?
Before the Prime Minister and I became MPs, parties of every colour increased the cost of going to university. The system is now at breaking point for graduates. I believe that student loans have become a debt trap. It is time for all of us to do something about it. Will he cut interest rates on student loans?
The Prime Minister
I have to say I was glad to learn that the Leader of the Opposition has finally admitted that the Conservatives scammed the country on this— and that applies to everything that they did in government. We inherited their broken student loans system. We have already introduced maintenance grants, which they scrapped, to improve the situation and we will look at ways to make it fairer. We will do other things within the economy to help students. [Interruption.] What other things, Conservative Members ask? There was some news this morning, at 7 am, that energy bills are coming down by £117 for millions of families and young people struggling. That is guaranteed money off bills in April, driven by the action that this Labour Government have taken. We have promised to cut the cost of living—we are cutting the cost of living.
Mrs Badenoch
I asked the Prime Minister if he would cut interest rates on student loans—no answer. For the record, energy bills are still higher than when he came into office. He keeps talking about the last Government. In case he has not noticed, my party is under new leadership—a lot of people wish his was too, including his own Back Benchers.
Let us talk again about student loans and student fees, even, because to win the Labour leadership, with Labour Together, the Prime Minister promised to abolish tuition fees. In opposition, the Education Secretary said:
“Graduates, you will pay less under a Labour government.”
I wonder what happened to those people? Will the Prime Minister tell us whether graduates are paying more or less under Labour?
The Prime Minister
Many in her party are under new leadership, Mr Speaker—they are sitting on the Reform Bench. The only change the Leader of the Opposition has brought to her party is to make it smaller. She talks about interest rates on loans. Not only have energy prices come down this morning, but since we were last debating across the Dispatch Box, inflation has fallen as well, which has a huge impact on interest rates. It has fallen to 3% and the Bank of England says that it will keep on falling. That is only happening because of the decisions that we made at the Budget, opposed by the Conservatives. They talk about the cost of living: this Government are taking action. Under the Conservatives’ watch, inflation was 11%, which crippled students’ finances as their low rates went up.
Mrs Badenoch
I am amazed that while we are trying to talk about student loans, the Prime Minister has the cheek to talk about my party being smaller. His party is smaller too, including one MP who was arrested for child sex offences. Perhaps before he gets on his high horse, he should ask why his Back Benchers are saying that they are being called “the paedo defenders party”. [Interruption.] I did not say it—
Mrs Badenoch
I know that Labour Members do not like it, but I have not said anything that is not true, have I? Perhaps they should get off their high horse and stop making stupid jokes.
Why don’t we talk about student loans? Policies that may have been fine for 2012, with low interest rates, are not fine for 2026. The fact is that graduates are paying more, not less. On Monday, the Schools Minister was asked on the BBC why Labour froze the repayment thresholds. She said that the Government have “huge pressures”. Those pressures have been created by the Prime Minister’s taxes and borrowing to pay for more welfare. Why is the Prime Minister taking from students to give to “Benefits Street”?
The Prime Minister
What a nerve! Under the Conservative Government, student loan thresholds were frozen for 10 years. They broke the system—they did it with the bloke over there, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), when they were in coalition together—and we are fixing it.
The right hon. Lady used to say, just a few weeks ago, that she was going to focus on the economy to the exclusion of everything else, so I am doing her a favour by bringing us back to the economy. [Interruption.] Yes, desperate to talk about the economy. We have taken £117 off energy bills, and inflation is going down. The other thing that was confirmed on Friday was that borrowing is coming down, and we have the biggest surplus on record. That means that we have got the economy back under control, and we are fixing the public finances. I know that the party of Liz Truss does not understand any of this, but the Leader of the Opposition should welcome those changes when she next stands up.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister says that the Government are fixing the student loans system. How? He was not even talking about this until I raised it. The fact is that those policies—[Interruption.]
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is only talking about student loans now because I raised them. He says that the Government are fixing the problem, but the fact is that he is not. Why is it that I am willing to ditch old Conservative policies that do not work, but he wants to keep them? He is not going to do anything about it at all. On Monday, the Government voted to increase benefits yet again. The fact is that the Prime Minister is taking money out of the pockets of graduates and giving it to people who are not working. It is not fair.
It is not just that the Prime Minister is saddling graduates with debt. Yesterday, the Bank of England, where the Chancellor used to work—in customer services—said that the Prime Minister’s policies are fuelling youth unemployment. That is not coming from us; that is from the Bank of England. For the first time ever, youth unemployment is now higher here than it is in the EU. While he blames everyone else, our young people cannot get jobs; they are losing hope and even leaving the country. Will the Prime Minister tell us how he plans to deal with that?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady says that she is ditching failed Tory policies. That is a very long list—14 years of it—and it starts with the word, “Sorry”. When she says that word, we will take her seriously.
The right hon. Lady talks about the Bank of England. The Bank of England has reduced interest rates six times. We have seen a fall in energy bills. Inflation is coming down. Borrowing is coming down. She has not welcomed any of that. I know that she wanted to talk about the economy—she did not want to talk about anything other than the economy—so perhaps she will welcome the surge in retail sales as well. People are spending more on our high streets because of the action that we took. Wages were boosted for millions of workers—opposed by the Conservatives. Free breakfast clubs—opposed by the Conservatives. Free childcare—opposed by the Conservatives. On every measure that we are taking to improve the economy, what do they do? They oppose it.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is desperate to talk about the last Government so that he can distract from the mess that he is making now. The fact is that he is the Prime Minister today. This is a man who got legislation in to fix his own pension—just his, no one else’s. He will not sort out student loans for other people. He has no plan to get young people into work. He has no plan to help graduates to get out of the debt trap. [Interruption.] Labour Members can complain as much as they like, but these are facts. There are 411 Labour MPs, and not a single one of them has any imagination. We are the ones doing all the thinking.
The Prime Minister has already made 15 U-turns. Will he make another one next week at the spring statement to fix the student loans system?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member wants me to talk about this Government. Bills are down £117 under this Government. Inflation is down under this Government. Surplus is up, at a record. Resales—[Interruption.] She will not welcome the economic news, but the business community is welcoming the plan. Business confidence is up. The FTSE is at a record high. The president of the British Chamber of Commerce has said that this is the year our economy could turn around. The right hon. Member’s miserable strategy of talking down the economy is not working because Labour has a plan for Britain.
Mrs Badenoch
The economy will only turn around this year if the Prime Minister stops being the leader. Perhaps his party can do something about that. He wants us to welcome the economic news; I am sorry, but I am not going to welcome the fact that youth unemployment is at its highest ever. I am not going to welcome the fact that unemployment has increased every single month under this Labour Government. He is not doing anything about student loans because he is not governing, and he is not governing because he cannot govern. He is distracted by Labour scandal after Labour scandal. Even today, there is an inquiry into the inquiries Minister! That is all his party has offered since it came in.
The defining moment of this man’s premiership will not be breakfast clubs; it will be the sight of the man he appointed ambassador to Washington just last year getting arrested. No wonder Labour Members are calling themselves all sorts of things. He needs to stop moaning about us, and start fixing his useless Government. Why should the country have to put up with three more years of this?
The Prime Minister
Yet again, the right hon. Member has shown why she is so utterly irrelevant—carping from the sidelines and trying to talk down the economy. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Hello? Please, I want to hear the questions, and so do your constituents.
The Prime Minister
All the right hon. Member does is carp from the sidelines, talk the economy down and talk the country down. In the meantime, because of our work, what is happening? Energy bills are down, as announced this morning. Inflation—down. Borrowing—down. What is up? Retail spending is up. Investment is up. Business confidence is up. That is the difference a Labour Government make.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I know how meaningful Pride in Place investment is to my hon. Friend’s constituents. We are backing communities with the funding and powers they need to invest in their priorities: unleashing jobs, growth and opportunity. In answer to his question, I can confirm that the next wave of Pride in Place will invest in an additional 169 neighbourhoods, focusing on smaller areas and looking closely at deprivation. We are reversing the austerity that ripped the heart out of our high streets and our communities, and giving local people a real say over how money is spent.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I join the Prime Minister in congratulating Team GB on our most successful winter Olympics ever. I also join him in solidarity with our Ukrainian allies and friends after four years of them resisting Vladimir Putin’s war machine.
The former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has raised deeply shocking concerns that Jeffrey Epstein may have used British airports, and even RAF bases, to traffic young women and girls in and out of our country. This is appalling. The Prime Minister knows that I agree with Gordon Brown that there needs to be a full public inquiry into all this. If he does not agree with Gordon Brown, will he at the very least commit to releasing the flight logs and related documents—or will he wait for the House to force the Government to do that?
The Prime Minister
I think it is important to appreciate that there is obviously a police investigation going on, and I think it is right—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees with this—that that has to go wherever the evidence takes it. We have to let that investigation run its course before deciding what next action needs to be taken.
Ed Davey
I think we all agree that police investigations should take priority, but that does not rule out a public inquiry, and it certainly does not rule out releasing the flight logs, which I think really should be released.
On a different note, it has been revealed that a trustee of William Blake House, a care home for adults with profound disabilities, embezzled £1 million. There are very few homes in the country that offer this sort of care, and now it faces closure. As a father of a disabled son, I can tell the Prime Minister that this situation is one of my worst nightmares, and it is one of the worst nightmares of many parents with disabled adult children. The families of the residents have put forward a rescue plan to take over William Blake House and run it themselves. It will require His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to resolve the debt issue and the Charity Commission to appoint an independent board, so will the Prime Minister meet the families and back their plan?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this case, which is obviously a cause of considerable concern. Of course, I will make sure that the relevant meeting is put in place for all the individuals who need it.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am proud of the Equality Act, which was passed by the last Labour Government; we will always fight for working people. Compare that to Reform, who want to go back to the dark days, when people could be discriminated against because of who they are—ripping up protections for workers and renters, and ending the right of grieving parents to take a few days off work if the worst should ever happen to their child.
I also have to raise this: a death threat against my hon. Friend, the brilliant Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), was shared by Reform’s deputy council leader in Lancashire. It said that she “should be shot”. When death threats were made against the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), I stood at this Dispatch Box and condemned them outright. If he has any decency or backbone, he will stand up, apologise, condemn the comments, and sack the individual in his party. Will he do so?
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
At the age of 14, Michel Mandarin was forcibly removed from his home, the coral atoll of Île du Coin, dumped on the quayside in Mauritius, and forced to live on food scraps out of bins. He has resettled on those islands, yet he now faces a removal order from yet another Labour Government. Maybe twice in one lifetime, he is going to be asked to leave his homeland. Can I ask the Prime Minister this? This Government are full of human rights lawyers, within and without; why do the opinions and human rights of indigenous Chagossians not matter to him at all?
The Prime Minister
So the hon. Gentleman has neither the decency nor the backbone to condemn a death threat against a Member of this House, whichever party they are in. He does not have the decency or the backbone to condemn it and sack the individual. That just shows that his party has nothing to offer the country but grievance and division. Look at its candidate in Gorton and Denton—a man who says that anyone who is not white cannot be English. No wonder he has been endorsed by Tommy Robinson. That does not represent our country, and anybody who wants to stand against that hatred and division should vote Labour on Thursday—tomorrow—in Gorton and Denton.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. We are working relentlessly to tackle the supply of illegal drugs, and expanding police powers to test more suspects on arrest. The Green party’s policy is not just irresponsible but reprehensible— a policy of legalising cocaine, heroin, ketamine and the date-rape drug GHB, a drug that we know is used to spike the drinks of women. While we are making that an offence, the Green party’s proposals would shatter lives, increase antisocial behaviour, and see drug use running rife. I have to say, as the father of a 17-and-a-half-year-old son, that the idea that the argument is being made by the Greens that when he turns 18, in just a few months, it would be lawful to provide him with heroin and crack cocaine is absolutely disgusting.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that really important case on behalf of really important victims, and I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with those victims. Every report of a sexual offence should be treated seriously, every victim should be treated with dignity, and every investigation should be conducted professionally. The safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), is meeting the victims, and if the hon. Gentleman gives me the full details, I will make sure that his constituent is part of and included in those meetings.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that really important case. Let me tell him that I share his deep concern, and the deep concern of the community, over the incident at Manchester Central mosque—particularly as it took place during the holy month of Ramadan—and that we will not, and must not, relent in the fight against anti-Muslim hatred. We must not.
I remember visiting Peacehaven mosque in the wake of the awful attack there, and when I did, I committed £40 million to protecting mosques and community centres. It is a shame that we have to do that, but we do have to do it, and we are establishing a new fund to monitor anti-Muslim hatred and to support victims. I want to reassure my hon. Friend and the House that we will fight hatred and protect freedom of worship in this country.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I know that the hon. Gentleman shares our support for East West Rail, which is a vital project that will deliver better journeys and tens of thousands of jobs, and unlock up to 100,000 new homes. I agree that access to Bicester Village must be maintained—my children say that as well—and I think the company has put forward two options for replacing the crossing. I reassure him and his constituents that they will have the opportunity to express their views on what would work for them during the upcoming consultation.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, because restoring Belper mills is not just about delivering the housing that his constituents want, but about restoring an iconic world heritage site in the east midlands. We are investing over £1.2 billion in skills, supporting apprenticeships—including courses focused on heritage construction—recruiting 60,000 more construction workers, and backing new technical excellence colleges, so that we have the workforce to build the homes the country needs.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I know how important it is that we fix the crumbling roads that we inherited from the Conservative party. The hon. Gentleman’s county council will receive over £225 million as part of our £7.3 billion investment to tackle potholes. We are also implementing tough new standards so that councils have to prove that they are fixing the roads properly, and delivering £78 billion for councils to ensure that they can deliver excellent local services.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
May I thank my hon. Friend for her dedicated work on this issue? We are committed to phasing out animal testing wherever possible. Last year’s strategy, backed by £75 million, will accelerate new alternative testing methods. Alongside banning puppy farming and introducing stronger standards for zoos, we are ensuring that the UK is a world leader in animal welfare.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
In 2014, a man in my constituency was ambushed, violently beaten with a pickaxe handle and left lying in the street with serious injuries. At the time of the conviction, the judge called it a “brutal attack”. Many constituents have contacted me to express their concern that the perpetrator of this attack is still a sitting Labour councillor in Keighley and was recently pictured celebrating an election with convicted crack cocaine and heroin dealers. Prime Minister, on behalf of all victims of serious crime, will you, as the leader of the Labour party, ensure that Councillor Mohsin Hussain is not permitted to stand in the local elections this May?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising this matter. I will look into it straightaway and give him a full answer. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Fenton-Glynn, you are getting carried away with some other colleagues behind you—Mr Davies and others—but please!
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We inherited the highest industrial energy costs in Europe because of the failed policy of the Conservative party. Our British industry supercharger is cutting bills for major industries, but my hon. Friend is right to champion SMEs as well. I can confirm that we will appoint Ofgem to regulate and stamp out exploitation by third-party intermediaries, helping to reduce bills, and I will make sure that she gets a meeting with Ministers to discuss the issues that she has raised with me.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Even the embarrassingly loyal Scottish Labour party seems to have lost confidence in the Prime Minister. I say to the Prime Minister, “Please don’t let that put you off coming and campaigning in Scotland on your Government’s record,” but can he tell us why it is that those who were so close to him have abandoned him, given the Government’s record?
The Prime Minister
I remember when SNP Members used to sit down here on the Front Bench, did they not, before the election, and now they sit up there, because we won the general election in 2024 with a landslide majority.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
We are determined to halve the disadvantage gap and give all children the best start in life. I am delighted to see that a free breakfast club is opening in his constituency of Rochdale. Our actions will lift over half a million children out of poverty, and the Conservatives’ policy is to say they would plunge them straight back into poverty, which is disgraceful. Through our actions to reform the SEND system, we will create an inclusive system so that every child can go as far as their ability and talents will take them.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you will recall that, some months ago, I asked the Prime Minister why, as the Director of Public Prosecutions, he did not bring charges against Mohammed Fayed for rape and assault, and the Prime Minister replied that this did not cross his desk. I understand that the Met police delivered two dossiers to the Crown Prosecution Service, so if the Prime Minister did not see them, who did, and could he tell the House when he expects the Metropolitan police to bring charges against those who aided and abetted Fayed?
The Prime Minister
I stand by my answer. Hundreds of thousands of files are submitted to the prosecution service every year. It is important that the investigation is going on. I cannot tell the right hon. Member when the decision will be made or what the decision will be, as he well knows, but it is important that every allegation is properly investigated and properly dealt with according to the law.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. and gallant Friend is absolutely right. Our support for Ukraine is unwavering, and yesterday I chaired the call of the coalition of the willing and announced new sanctions to weaken Putin’s war machine. The Greens, by contrast, want to pull out of NATO and negotiate with Putin on our nuclear deterrent, and Reform is still parroting Kremlin talking points after its leader in Wales was jailed for taking Russian bribes. Both of them are weak on NATO and soft on Putin.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Oral Answers to Questions
Keir Starmer Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
On World Cancer Day, we are publishing our national cancer plan to transform care for patients. It means investment in cutting-edge technology, so that our exceptional frontline staff can give world-class care. It funds more tests and scans, meaning faster diagnosis and treatment, and tailored treatment in specialist centres. We will cover the costs of every family whose child needs to travel for cancer care, because their focus should only be on recovery, not worrying about money.
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.
Johanna Baxter
Up and down the country, this Government are restoring pride in place by investing in our high streets—the beating heart of our communities—yet in Paisley and Renfrewshire South, the SNP-led Renfrewshire council has done the opposite. It has sat on its hands while the owners of the Paisley Centre, who received planning permission to develop the centre some years ago, have sought support to transform our town centre. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is only the SNP’s lack of ambition and failure of leadership that is letting Paisley down, and will he work with me to restore pride in Paisley town centre?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a superb champion for Paisley. Her constituents deserve a Scottish Government who match her dedication. For our part, we have delivered a record funding settlement. We are investing £280 million in Pride in Place across 14 Scottish communities. We have secured shipbuilding on the Clyde for over a decade and have just announced an AI growth zone in Lanarkshire. The choice is clear: a third decade of failure under the SNP, or real change for Scotland under Anas Sarwar.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
The whole House will be disgusted by the latest revelations about Jeffrey Epstein. All of us want to see his victims get justice, but the political decision to appoint Epstein’s close associate, Peter Mandelson, as Britain’s ambassador to Washington goes to the very heart of this Prime Minister’s judgment. When he made that appointment, was he aware that Mandelson had continued his friendship even after Epstein’s conviction for child prostitution?
The Prime Minister
Let me start where I must: with the victims of Epstein. All our thoughts are with them. Our thoughts are also with all those who lost jobs, savings and livelihoods in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash. To learn that there was a Cabinet Minister leaking sensitive information at the height of the response to the 2008 crash is beyond infuriating, and I am as angry as the public and any Member of this House.
Mandelson betrayed our country, our Parliament and my party. He lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein, before and during his tenure as ambassador. I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near Government. That is why yesterday the Cabinet Secretary, with my support, took the decision to refer material to the police, and there is now a criminal investigation. I have instructed my team to draft legislation to strip Mandelson of his title, and wider legislation to remove disgraced peers. This morning I have agreed with His Majesty the King that Mandelson should be removed from the list of Privy Counsellors on the grounds that he has brought the reputation of the Privy Council into disrepute.
Mrs Badenoch
I asked the Prime Minister a very specific question. Did he know that Mandelson had continued his friendship with Epstein after the conviction? He says, “If I knew then what I know now”—but he did know. In January 2024, a journalist from the Financial Times informed the Prime Minister that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s house even after that conviction for child prostitution. Did the Prime Minister conveniently forget this fact, or did he decide that it was a risk worth taking?
The Prime Minister
As the House would expect, we went through a process. There was a due diligence exercise, and then there was security vetting by the security services. What was not known was the sheer depth and the extent of the relationship. Mandelson lied about that to everyone for years. New information was published in September, showing that the relationship was materially different from what we had been led to believe. When the new information came to light, I sacked him, but we did go through a due diligence exercise. The points that are being put to me were dealt with within that exercise.
In response to the Humble Address this afternoon, I intend to make sure that all the material is published. The only exemptions are anything that would prejudice national security—my first duty is obviously to keep this country safe, and when we drafted Humble Addresses in opposition, we always included an exemption for national security—or that would prejudice international relations. You and the House will appreciate, Mr Speaker, that in the course of discussions country to country there are very sensitive issues of security, intelligence and trade that cannot be disclosed without compromising the relationship between the two countries, or a third country.
So that I can be totally open with the House, I should also disclose that the Metropolitan police have been in touch with my office this morning to raise issues about anything that would prejudice their investigations. We are in discussion with them about that, and I hope to be able to update the House, but I do think I should make that clear to the House at this point, because those discussions are ongoing.
Mrs Badenoch
I will come to the Humble Address in a moment, but the Prime Minister cannot blame the process. He did know. It was on Google. If the Conservative research department could find this information out, why couldn’t No. 10?
On 10 September, when we knew this, I asked the Prime Minister about it at the Dispatch Box, and he gave Mandelson his full confidence—not once but twice. He only sacked him after pressure from us. I am asking the Prime Minister something very specific, not about the generalities of the full extent. Can the Prime Minister tell us: did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?
The Prime Minister
Yes, it did. As a result, various questions were put to him. I intend to disclose to the House—the national security and prejudice to international relations on one side; I want to make sure that the House sees the full documentation so it will see for itself the extent to which, time and time again, Mandelson completely misrepresented the extent of his relationship with Epstein and lied throughout the process, including in response to the due diligence.
Mrs Badenoch
What the Prime Minister has just said is shocking. How can he stand up there saying that he knew, but that he just asked Peter Mandelson if the security vetting was true or false? This was a man who had been sacked from Cabinet twice already for unethical behaviour. That is absolutely shocking.
That is why, later today, my party will call on the Government to release all documents relating to Mandelson’s appointment, not just the ones the Prime Minister wants us to see; this Government are trying to sabotage that release with an amendment to let him choose what we see—the man who appointed Mandelson in the first place. Labour MPs now have to decide if they want to be accessories to his cover-up. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that he will not remove the Whip if they refuse to vote for his whitewash amendment?
The Prime Minister
The first exemption is in relation to anything that could compromise national security. That is not a small matter, and many Members on the Opposition Benches will know precisely why that needs to be an exemption. When we were drafting Humble Addresses in opposition, we always made sure that that exemption was included because we knew how important it was to the then Government. I do not think I have seen a Humble Address without that exemption. Just to be clear, to vote to release something that would prejudice national security is wrong in principle.
The second exemption is in relation to things that would prejudice international relations. There will be discussions about security, intelligence and trade that are highly sensitive to the two countries involved, and to third countries. [Interruption.] Well, the Opposition have to ask themselves whether they want to vote to prejudice our national security. In fairness, I do not think that they do.
Let me reassure the House that the process for deciding what falls into those categories will not be a political process; it will be led by the Cabinet Secretary, supported by Government legal teams. They will be looking at the question of prejudice and they will be making that decision.
The only additional thing I want to put before the House, because there was a discussion this morning with the Metropolitan police, is that we are in discussions with them about any material that they are concerned will prejudice their investigation. We are at an early stage of that discussion, but I did not want the House not to know that that discussion is going on.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is talking about national security. The national security issue was appointing Mandelson in the first place. What he has said about the Humble Address is a red herring. Let me tell those Labour MPs who were not here in the last Parliament: Humble Addresses already exempt genuine national security issues. This is not about national security; this is about the Prime Minister’s job security. His amendment lets him withhold anything to do with international relations, but this whole appointment is to do with international relations, so if Government Members are voting for it, they are voting for the cover-up. If the Prime Minister is serious about national security concerns, he should ask the Intelligence and Security Committee to decide which documents should be released. Will he commit to doing so here and now?
The Prime Minister
I have set out the process. It will not be a political process. It will be led by the Cabinet Secretary, supported by the Government legal teams. I am pleased that the right hon. Lady, I think, now accepts that at least the first exemption that we have written into the amendment—in relation to prejudicing national security—is the right one.
Given the breadth of what has been asked for, we are doing everything we can to make sure that this information is fully transparent and disclosed, but the right hon. Lady and Opposition Members behind her will understand from their own experience in government the sensitivity of information about security, intelligence and trade relations that is inevitably caught in exchanges of this nature, and it is right that anything that prejudices—not touches on, but prejudices—international relations is protected within the disclosure.
Mrs Badenoch
If that was really the case, the Prime Minister would not mind if the ISC had a look. Let us be clear: he says the involvement of the Cabinet Secretary makes the process non-political, but that does not make it independent. What we want is an independent look. The ISC is independent, whereas the Cabinet Secretary works for him. We know that there will be a cover-up, because this matter implicates the Prime Minister and his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, a protégé of Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister chose to inject Mandelson’s poison into the heart of his Government on the advice of Morgan McSweeney. His catastrophic lack of judgment—he is telling us now that he did know—has harmed the special relationship. It has endangered national security—it is not the Humble Address; it is him—compromised our diplomacy, and embarrassed our nation. After all this, does he have the same full confidence in Morgan McSweeney that he had in Peter Mandelson?
The Prime Minister
Morgan McSweeney is an essential part of my team. He helped me change the Labour party and win an election. Of course I have confidence in him.
Whatever is slung across this Dispatch Box, I do not think it is right for the Cabinet Secretary to be denigrated in that way, or to suggest that he would be involved in a cover-up. There is the politics that comes over the Dispatch Boxes, but I honestly do not think it is right to impugn the Cabinet Secretary in that way. I suspect that, in their heart of hearts, many on the Conservative Benches would agree.
I am as angry as anyone about what Mandelson has been up to. The disclosures that have been made this week of him passing on sensitive information at the height of the response to the 2008 financial crash are utterly shocking and appalling. He has betrayed our country. He has lied repeatedly; he is responsible for a litany of deceit, but this moment demands not just anger but action, and that is why we have moved quickly by referring material to the police, publishing legislation so that we can remove titles from disgraced politicians, and stripping Mandelson of his Privy Counsellorship. That is what the public expect, and that is what we will do.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend? She campaigns tirelessly to stop these antisocial, dangerous bikes terrorising communities. Our Crime and Policing Bill will mean that police can seize bikes without issuing a warning, and can destroy them. Product safety law means that authorities have the powers to intervene to stop the sale of unsafe e-bikes, but I share her determination to get these bikes off our streets.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister for your responses to my tribute to Jim Wallace on Monday, and may I urge the whole House to read the wonderful tributes paid to Jim in the other place yesterday?
I have been thinking about how victims of Jeffrey Epstein, and the victims’ families, must feel. We are hearing more and more stories of rich, powerful men currying favour with a paedophile sex trafficker; for example, we hear of Peter Mandelson sending Government secrets to help Epstein enrich himself further. Mandelson was made ambassador to the United States, even after his links to Epstein had been extensively reported by both the Financial Times and “Channel 4 News”. Given that the Prime Minister now admits that he knew about those links before he gave such an important job to one of Epstein’s closest friends, can he tell us whether he thought at all about Epstein’s victims?
The Prime Minister
We looked at the material. There was a process, and the right hon. Gentleman will understand that there was then a security vetting exercise as well. That is why I started by saying that all our thoughts are with the victims of Epstein. The right hon. Gentleman is right to express anger at the material that has recently come out in relation to sensitive information in the aftermath of the ’08 crash. Yesterday, working with the Cabinet Secretary, we referred the material to the police, which has led to the criminal investigation that will follow.
Ed Davey
I think the victims of Jeffrey Epstein deserve far better than that; they deserve Peter Mandelson not being appointed in the first place. We do not even know the full extent of the British establishment’s involvement in Epstein’s appalling crimes, or how many British girls and young women were trafficked by him, so we need a full public inquiry, both to get justice for the victims and to protect our national security. The Polish Government think Epstein may have been spying for Vladimir Putin. Is the Prime Minister concerned that Peter Mandelson may have been leaking state secrets not just to a paedophile American financier, but also a Russian agent?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman talks of a public inquiry. Obviously, the focus now has to be on the criminal investigation, which has started. As he knows, that investigation will go wherever the evidence leads it. I have made it absolutely clear that the Government will co-operate, as he would expect, with that criminal investigation, wherever it goes.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, and confirm that we are looking at how we can strengthen the support in place for these children, so that no child falls between the cracks. Free breakfast clubs mean that every child is fed and ready to learn. I am delighted to see that there are three more in her constituency, as she says. I also want to mention Rushbrook primary academy, Oasis Academy Aspinal, Longsight community primary and St Bernard’s Roman Catholic primary school, Manchester. All will soon be operating free breakfast clubs in Gorton and Denton.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The victims and survivors of Epstein and his circle of the over-privileged elite are at the forefront of my mind here and now. Mandelson, we now know, described Epstein’s release from prison after he was sentenced for child sex offences as “Liberation day”. This man’s association with Epstein was known when the Prime Minister personally appointed him as the UK’s ambassador to the USA. How can we trust the Prime Minister’s judgment, and if we question that, how can we trust him enough for him to remain Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
Can I join in the right hon. Lady’s disgust at the comments she just read out? To be absolutely clear, the scale and the extent of the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein was not disclosed—on the contrary. It was not just not disclosed; Mandelson lied throughout the process and beyond the process. He lied, he lied, and he lied again to my team.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The deal we have struck with the EU means lower prices at the check-out, more choice on the shelf, and more money in people’s pockets. It is good for British fishers and farmers, who face less red tape selling our world-class produce into a crucial market. It comes alongside the opportunity for young people to work and travel across Europe, the work that we are doing to cut energy bills, and closer work on defence. All of that is opposed by Reform and the Tories, who sold the myth, botched Brexit, and left families and businesses paying the price.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Let me be absolutely clear about this: as soon as there were any allegations of wrongdoing by Phil Shiner, I had absolutely nothing to do with him.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am delighted that Aldershot will be hosting Armed Forces Day; it has a hard-working Labour MP and Labour council. Our historic defence spending uplift must be an engine for growth and jobs in the United Kingdom, which is why we have committed to spending an extra £2.5 billion with small and medium-sized enterprises. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital that we work in lockstep with our allies, particularly in Europe, to enhance and align our defence capabilities, and we are therefore working at pace to identify the most effective mechanisms for greater multilateral co-operation.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are committed to ending the use of all asylum hotels; there are now just under 200, compared with the 400 under the previous Government. Where military sites are used, the safety and security of local communities is our priority.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
It is because of strong local Labour MPs like my hon. Friend that towns like Hartlepool, treated as an afterthought by the Conservatives, are having their future restored. We are making billions more available so that councils can properly fund social care, and we are driving down the cost of living for parents and their children, including with three free breakfast clubs in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and more than 3,000 children there no longer incapacitated by the two-child limit. That is the difference a Labour Government make.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising that matter; I know how important it is for her constituents. We have taken measures in relation to strengthening oversight and the control we have, and we will not hesitate to go further. I will make sure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank the commanding officer and crew of HMS Duncan for their service, and I also thank my hon. Friend. I remember meeting the brilliant workforce in his region, and I know that the Defence Ministers will be delighted to do the same. Our record defence spending is supporting jobs and growth across the north-east. We invested £200 million in Octric Semiconductors in his constituency last year. As we increase defence spending, the north-east will play a major role, securing good, skilled jobs for generations to come.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member is right to raise that. Obviously, we will support the police with their investigation, but we will also press on with our work to halve violence against women and girls, which is very much about putting in place the support that is needed for all victims of violence. That is a crucial part of our work and I hope that we can work across the House in support of that.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in her pride in the vote to lift half a million children out of poverty, after hundreds of thousands were plunged into poverty by the Conservative party when they were in government. On her point about temporary accommodation, she is right that every child deserves a safe, warm and secure home. We are investing a record £3.5 billion in homelessness services and £950 million in local authority housing funds to deliver better quality temporary accommodation.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for his question and for his tireless campaigning on behalf of Christopher and also Fiona, who, as he points out, is with us today. Christopher’s death was a tragedy, and I agree that we owe it to Fiona—I am glad that she is here to hear this—and to other families to get this right. I can reassure him that work is under way to examine what action is necessary to prevent further such tragedies. That comes alongside our intention to consult on the liberty protection safeguards this year. I will make sure that the hon. Member is fully updated on the work as it progresses across government. I will ask that he makes sure that Fiona and others are updated as well.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. As negotiations are ongoing, we remain committed to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 and supporting new innovative technologies, as he will be pleased to know. The EU accepts that there will need to be areas where we retain our own rules, and we will always prioritise British interests as we negotiate our SPS agreement.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I have been campaigning for a Lincoln dental school for some years. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, thanks to the hard work of, among others, Professor Juster, Professor Read and Susie MacPherson, Lincoln medical school is now in a position to take on its first cohort from 2027. Will the Prime Minister provide the necessary funding for this cohort of students to start to help improve the oral health of people right across Lincolnshire?
The Prime Minister
I am pleased to hear the news about the dental school in the hon. Member’s constituency. We have put in further funding for dentistry. We were left with dental deserts across many parts of the country, but we are fixing that problem.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
As the Prime Minister has pointed out, today is World Cancer Day. As outlined in our cancer plan, early detection and diagnosis is vital. Will the Prime Minister agree to consider the campaign by my constituent Gemma Reeves, who is a nurse at the Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother hospital, to ensure that breast cancer screening is available for all women over the age of 40, and will he meet her to discuss how such a change would save lives?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely support that, and I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss it. Early diagnosis is so important for all cancers, and we must do everything we can to ensure that early diagnosis is the norm by default.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
I recently met one of the bravest women I know. Elizabeth was 14 when she was raped in Rotherham. She is one of the survivors of the rape gangs—one of the biggest national scandals in our history. While her first rapist, Asghar Bostan, was convicted and sentenced, she was, shockingly, subsequently allegedly abused by police officers serving in South Yorkshire police. One of those officers remains on active service today. Elizabeth made complaints through Operation Linden, but none of them was followed up. She rightly feels betrayed and failed by the very institution designed to protect her. Will the Prime Minister meet Elizabeth, rape gang survivors and me to commit that those who committed and covered up these abhorrent offences are put behind bars, where they belong?
The Prime Minister
I am deeply concerned about the facts that the right hon. Lady has outlined. If she could give us all the details, I will make sure that there is a follow-up meeting in relation to her concerns.
China and Japan
Keir Starmer Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
With permission, I will update the House on my visit last week to China and Japan, where we delivered for the British people.
With events overseas directly impacting on our security and the cost of living, I made it a founding principle of this Government that, after years of isolationism, Britain would face outwards once again. This was an 18-month strategy to rebuild our standing and we have delivered: strengthening our US relationship with our world-first trade deal; resetting our relationship with the EU; striking a groundbreaking free trade agreement with India; and now, thawing our ties with China to put this relationship on a more stable footing for the long term.
China is the second biggest economy in the world. Including Hong Kong, it is our third biggest trading partner, supporting 370,000 British jobs. It is also an undeniable presence in global affairs. It would be impossible to safeguard our national interests without engaging with this geopolitical reality. Yet we inherited a policy from the previous Government not of engagement with China, but of hiding away and sticking their heads in the sand. While our allies developed a more sophisticated approach, they let the UK fall behind. We became an outlier. Of my three predecessors, none held a single meeting with President Xi. For eight years, no British Prime Minister visited China—eight years of missed opportunities. Meanwhile over that period, President Macron visited China three times, German leaders four times, the Canadian Prime Minister was there a few weeks ago, and Chancellor Merz and President Trump are both due to visit shortly.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
They went on their feet, not on their knees. [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker
Thank you. Can we calm it down? I am sure you will want to catch my eye and I would like to hear what you have to say, so let us not ruin the opportunity.
The Prime Minister
In this context, refusing to engage would be a dereliction of duty, leaving British interests on the sidelines. Incredibly, some in this House still advocate that approach. But leaders do not hide. Instead, we engage and we do so on our own terms, because, like our allies, we understand that engagement makes us stronger.
Protecting our national security is non-negotiable. We are clear-eyed about the threats coming from China in that regard, and we will never waver in our efforts to keep the British people safe. That is why we have given our security services the updated powers and tools they need to tackle foreign espionage activity wherever they find it, and to tackle malicious cyber-activity as well. The fact is that we can do two things at once: we can protect ourselves, while also finding ways to co-operate. It was in that spirit that we made this visit.
I had extensive discussions, over many hours, with President Xi, Premier Li and other senior leaders. The discussions were positive and constructive. We covered the full range of issues, from strategic stability to trade and investment, opening a direct channel of communication to deliver in the national interest, enabling us to raise frank concerns about activities that impact our national security at the most senior levels of the Chinese system. We agreed to intensify dialogue on cyber issues and agreed a new partnership on climate and nature, providing much-needed global leadership on this vital issue.
I raised a number of areas of difference that matter deeply to this country. I raised the case of Jimmy Lai and called for his release, making clear the strength of feeling in this House. Those discussions will continue. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in touch with Mr Lai’s family to provide further briefing.
I raised our human rights concerns in Xinjiang and Tibet. We discussed Taiwan, wider regional stability, Iran and the middle east. I called on China to end economic support for Russia’s war effort, including the companies providing dual-use technologies, and urged it to use its influence on Putin to push for the much-needed ceasefire in Ukraine.
I also raised the fact that Members of this House have been sanctioned by the Chinese authorities. In response, the Chinese have now made it clear that all such restrictions on parliamentarians no longer apply. I want to be clear: this was not the result of a trade. Yes, Members will want to see more—I understand that—but that is precisely the point: ignoring China for eight years achieved nothing. This step is an early indication, not the sum total, of the kind of progress that this sort of engagement can achieve through leader-to-leader discussion of sensitive issues, in standing up for British interests.
My visit was also about creating new opportunities for British businesses to deliver jobs and growth for the British people. We took with us a brilliant delegation of nearly 60 businesses and cultural powerhouses—the very best of British—as an embodiment of what this country has to offer. If anyone is in doubt as to why this matters, I urge them to spend a few minutes with any one of those businesses; they will describe the incredible potential there and the importance of getting out there and accessing the market.
We made significant progress, paving the way to open the Chinese market for British exports, including in our world-leading services sector. We secured 30-day visa-free travel for all Brits, including business travellers. We secured China’s agreement to halve whisky tariffs from 10% to 5%, which is worth £250 million to the UK over the next five years—a significant win for our iconic whisky industry, particularly in Scotland. That lower tariff comes into force today. In total, we secured £2.3 billion in market access wins, including for financial services, £2.2 billion in export deals for British companies and hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of new investments.
In addition, we agreed to work together in some key areas of law enforcement. Last year, around 60% of all small boat engines used by smuggling gangs came from China, so we struck a border security pact to enable joint law enforcement action to disrupt that supply at source. We also agreed to scale up removals of those with no right to be in the UK and to work together to crack down on the supply of synthetic opioids.
We will continue to develop our work across all these areas, because this is the start of the process, not the end of it. My visit was not just about coming back with these agreements, but about the wider question of setting this relationship on a better path—one that allows us to deal with issues and seize opportunities in a way that the previous Government failed to do.
Finally, I will say a word about my meetings in Tokyo. Japan remains one of our closest allies; together, we are the leading economies in the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, and we are partners in the G7, the G20 and the coalition of the willing. Japan is the UK’s largest inward investor outside the United States and Europe.
I had an extremely productive meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan, where we set out our shared priorities to build an even deeper partnership in the years to come. Those include working together for peace and security, supporting Ukraine as we work for a just and lasting peace, and deepening our co-operation in cutting-edge defence production, including through the global combat air programme. We discussed how we can boost growth and economic resilience by developing our co-operation: first, in tech and innovation, where we are both leaders; secondly, in energy, where Japan is a major investor in the UK; and, thirdly, in trade, where we are working together to maintain the openness and stability that our businesses depend on. That includes expanding the CPTPP and deepening its co-operation with the EU. We will take all of that forward when I welcome the Prime Minister to Chequers later this year.
This is Britain back at the top table at last. We are facing outward, replacing incoherence and isolationism with pragmatic engagement, and naive posturing with the national interest. In dangerous times, we are using our full strength and reach on the world stage to deliver growth and security for the British people. I commend this statement to the House.
Mrs Badenoch
Mr Speaker, I am not worried about the Business Secretary; the entire business community thinks he is a joke and does not know what he is talking about.
As I was saying, of course we should engage with other countries, even hostile ones, but we need to do so with our eyes open and from a position of strength. That requires a Prime Minister and a Government who put our national interest first.
The Prime Minister
Let me see if I understand the right hon. Lady’s position. This is the Leader of the Opposition who said we should empty-chair the most important NATO summit for years, who would not turn up to the G7 and who would rip up our valuable trade deals with the US, India and the EU. This is the Leader of the Opposition who characterised Greenland as a “second-order issue”, and then undermined the Government’s position on sovereignty. When it comes to China, her policy is to stick her head in the sand, unable to influence anything. In a volatile world, that is not policy; that is an abdication of responsibility—no wonder members on her Front Bench are leaving in droves.
The Leader of the Opposition talks of the embassy. China has had an embassy in the UK since 1877. It is currently spread across seven sites. She is so busy trying to hold her party together that she has clearly not read the letter from the security and intelligence services. She claims great interest in the China embassy. She was offered an invite for a Privy Council briefing on the issue. What did she do? She chose not to attend. That is a dereliction of duty. Even worse, she sent in her place the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp)—that is a double dereliction of duty. Instead of taking up a Privy Council briefing, she took up a megaphone on the streets outside the embassy. I changed my party from a party of protest to a party of power. She is rapidly going in the opposite direction. Her reply this afternoon seems to be that we should engage with China, but not engage with China, and that, instead of leader-to-leader discussions where we raise all the opportunities and the difficult issues, each and every one of them, she would get a bag of sand and put her head in it and influence absolutely nothing. The Conservatives are so unserious about world affairs.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I am pleased to see that his trip went so well. This morning, I was in touch with the Scotch Whisky Association, which wants me to convey its congratulations to the Prime Minister on securing reduced tariffs on exports to China. There is, of course, more work needed, however—a Prime Minister’s job is never done. The biggest overseas market for whisky is, of course, the US, where the tariff is still too high. Will the Prime Minister confirm that this will not be the end of his support for the Scotch whisky industry and that he will continue to be an advocate for it?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can confirm that we are continuing to work with the US. Of course, the India deal we secured will also have an impact on whisky tariffs.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I start by paying tribute to my friend Jim Wallace, one of the great Scottish Liberals. I offer our thoughts and prayers to his family and many friends. Jim devoted his life to public service, his Christian faith and the cause of liberalism. But his judgment was not always impeccable, for it was Jim who gave me my first job in politics. We will miss him.
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of the statement. I listened to the Conservative leader, whose position now seems to be to oppose trade with the world’s biggest economies—so much for global Britain. With President Trump threatening tariffs again, just because of the Prime Minister’s trip, and with Vladimir Putin still murdering civilians in Ukraine, now more than ever the United Kingdom must forge much closer alliances with nations that share our values, our belief in free trade and our commitment to mutual defence. China shares none of those.
The Prime Minister’s main focus should be on the closest possible ties with our European neighbours, our Commonwealth allies and our friends such as Japan and Korea. Once again, he has made the wrong choice. However, unlike the Conservative party, we think he was right to go and engage. But just like with President Trump, he approached President Xi from a position of weakness instead of a position of strength, promising him a super-embassy here in London in return for relatively meagre offers from China.
The Prime Minister rightly raised the case of Jimmy Lai, whose children fear for his health after five years held in captivity, so will he tell us what Xi said to give him confidence that Mr Lai is now more likely to be released? Did he also challenge Xi on the bounties on the heads of innocent Hongkongers here in the United Kingdom, or the revelation that China hacked the phones of No. 10 officials for years? In other words, did he stand up for Britain this time?
Yet again, the Prime Minister had to spend time on a foreign trip responding to revelations about the vile paedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s relationship with Lord Mandelson. The Prime Minister has rightly said that Mandelson should resign from the other place, but since he has not, will he back a simple piece of legislation to strip him of his peerage? Surely this House could pass it tomorrow.
The Prime Minister
I start by offering my deep condolences on behalf of the Government in relation to Lord Wallace. He was a kind and decent man, and I know he will be sorely missed on the Liberal Democrat Benches. May he rest in peace.
Of course we need to build stronger alliances with our key partners, and that is what we have been doing, particularly with the EU. But the right hon. Gentleman is wrong: it is not a choice between doing that and engaging with China. One can do both, and that is what we are doing. Where there are opportunities, and where there are sensitive and really important disagreements, I think it is more important to have a meeting to discuss them.
The House is violently agreeing that there are issues that need to be discussed. The difference between us is that we think that having a leader-to-leader meeting to discuss those big issues is better than sticking our head in the sand, if we really want to influence them. So we can do both.
Yes, I raised the case of Jimmy Lai, and we have now spoken to his family about that discussion. Yes, I raised the case of Hong Kong. I raised a number of human rights issues, as I listed. The point is that, by being in the room and having the debate one to one, at leader-to-leader level, it was possible to raise those issues. There is frankly no point standing in this House shouting and screaming about issues if you are not prepared to get in the room to discuss them. It gets you absolutely nowhere.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I want to welcome the Prime Minister’s serious engagement with serious power: it is essential to safeguarding our national interest. The complexities of China require from Britain a whole-of-society approach, which is completely impossible until the Government publish a clear China strategy to explain what is off limits and how we are going to rebalance competition with Chinese industry that is six times over-subsidised compared with our firms. Last week in Europe, I heard very clearly from our partners that they are worried that the lackadaisical approach to policing Chinese competition risks deeper integration with Europe. The EU has 143 trade measures in place against China; we have none. So will the Prime Minister now follow up his meetings last week and publish a strategy, co-ordinated with our allies, so we can take out the guesswork and put in place the guardrails for this important relationship?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, the general approach was set out in the Lady Mayor’s banquet speech I gave just before Christmas. My right hon. Friend made a really important point about Europe. As I mentioned, President Macron went to China just a few weeks ago and Chancellor Merz is due to go very shortly, and my right hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that the three of us, as the E3, discussed in advance the approach we would take and agreed to discuss during our visits and afterwards the outcomes and how we go forward as a group of European nations.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
What absolutely unites everybody in this place is absolute outrage at the treatment of Jimmy Lai, a British citizen whose only crime is to campaign for democracy and to ask the Chinese to obey the spirit and letter of the solemn agreement that we made with them before the 1997 takeover. The Prime Minister said at the weekend that he had raised the case of Jimmy Lai “respectfully” with the latest Chinese emperor —“respectfully”? Does the Prime Minister not realise that the Chinese only accept strength—that everything is a deal—so why did he not say to them, “There will be no Chinese embassy until you stop spying on us in this House, you give an absolute assurance to us on Diego Garcia, and, above all, you free Jimmy Lai now”?
The Prime Minister
I raised the case of Jimmy Lai in terms with the President, as in fact I did, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, at the G20 when I met the President for the first time, and we have updated the family in relation to the progress we have made. But the position of the Conservative party seems to be that we should raise the case of Jimmy Lai by not going to China and raising the case of Jimmy Lai.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
We must engage pragmatically with our allies and with others around the world when it serves the national interest. That is why I welcome the Prime Minister’s engagement with our close ally, Japan, as well as with our major trading partner, China. I also welcome his commitment to the global combat air programme, which, as the Defence Committee illustrated, is of vital strategic importance as we develop the next generation of fighter jets. But our Japanese and Italian friends are understandably nervous, because we have as yet not put pen to paper on the full contract for Tempest, as was planned last year. Can the Prime Minister clarify when that fully formalised contract on GCAP will be penned, and can he also confirm that the timeline and programme will slide sideways?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important programme. He will be pleased to know I did discuss it with the Prime Minister in Japan, and we will be publishing our defence investment plan shortly.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you have been stalwart in standing with those of us who were sanctioned by the People’s Republic of China all those years ago, and you have been very clear that we stand as one in this House. Do you not find it as surprising as I do that the Prime Minister has come back with a deal that lifts the sanctions on those six of us who are still in this House, but not the one who is not, nor the lawyers, advisers and academics who support the work of this House? Is this not a direct affront to the democracy of this place, and an attempt to divide and conquer that we have seen China play against the European Parliament and that, sadly, has tricked our Government too?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for raising this point—I know how much it matters personally to him and to the others that he referenced. I raised this point directly, and the response was that restrictions do not apply to parliamentarians. I accept the challenge and the point that we need to go further, but that does not mean that what we have achieved should be put to one side. I accept that we must go further, and I will work with colleagues across the House to do so. In order to go further, we have to engage, and we have to engage at the leader level.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
Can I thank the Prime Minister on his grown-up approach to the UK’s engagement with China? Can I also congratulate him on the agreement for a crackdown on manufacturers of small boat engines and parts, which directly impacts my constituency? Given that the Conservative party would not have even gone to China, does the Prime Minister agree that the choice is between a Labour Government doing the hard yards to shut down the smuggler supply chains, and a Tory party that prefers posturing and permanent failure in the channel?
The Prime Minister
Sixty per cent of motors used to cross the channel are coming from China, so of course it is right to engage appropriately in China on this issue, and to get this agreement on information sharing and working to ensure that those engines cannot make their way from China to the north coast of France.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I will have another try at the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) in his original statement. Can the Prime Minister tell us what President Xi said about the case of Jimmy Lai, and what gave him confidence that we might see movement in the case soon? Can he also let us know what response he received on challenging the bounties put on the heads of dissidents here in the United Kingdom? Did he challenge the transnational repression that Hongkongers across the country fear? Is there any prospect of them being able to walk our streets without worrying about interference from the Chinese state?
The Prime Minister
As I have told the House, I raised the case of Jimmy Lai in terms. I will not go into the details of the discussions, save to say that we have subsequently spoken to Jimmy Lai’s family about that. In relation to the wider issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, including Hong Kong: yes, all those issues were raised.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I want to thank the Prime Minister for his incredible leadership on an international scale, which has a direct benefit to us domestically, not least through the disruption of the supply chain for small boat engines. I just wonder, because it is not a silver bullet to solve the challenge with immigration through illegal routes, whether the conversation came up about TikTok being used as a platform to share disinformation and misinformation to encourage people to make dangerous journeys.
The Prime Minister
We raised a number of issues in relation to smuggling. The focus was very much on the engines for small boats because of the fact that 60% of them are coming from China, and we need to stop that supply chain if we are going to deal with the crossings.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
In spite of the somewhat thin economic gruel with which the Prime Minister has returned, he was absolutely right to visit China. If I may return to the issue of human rights, particularly Jimmy Lai, did the Prime Minister say, as the whole House would have wished, that this British citizen—nearly 80 years old, held in solitary confinement and denied the chance to practice his religion—should surely receive clemency and be returned to the United Kingdom? Or did the Prime Minister merely deliver a written note?
The Prime Minister
No, I did not deliver a written note. I engaged seriously on the issue, as the right hon. Member would have expected me to, and I went into the details of the case that I was making in the way that he would have expected me to.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituent, the journalist and democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai, was convicted under Hong Kong’s draconian national security law. I have listened carefully to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister has said, and we have heard that he raised the issue on his visit. Jimmy Lai is now desperately unwell—his health is failing. I have heard what the Prime Minister has to say, and I am grateful that the Foreign Secretary will be speaking to Jimmy’s family. Can the Prime Minister share with us his assessment of whether we will see Jimmy Lai free in 2026?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she does on behalf of her constituents. Yes, I raised this issue in detail and made it clear that we were calling for Jimmy Lai’s release, plus other details of his health and the situation he is being held in. I believe it is the right thing to engage at the highest level on issues of such concern and to have that conversation—I believe that is a far better strategy than putting your head in the sand, which is apparently the policy of the Conservative party.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, when the Prime Minister was in China and Japan, he gave comment that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should testify before Congress in the United States. What the Prime Minister chose not to do was to offer an unreserved apology to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for appointing his other friend, Peter Mandelson, as the ambassador to the United States of America. Now that he is back from China and Japan, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to do just that, and does he agree with me that Peter Mandelson should be subject to a police investigation for potential criminality while in public office?
The Prime Minister
Only the SNP could go about this in this way—instead of welcoming the halving of tariffs on Scottish whisky, the right hon. Gentleman raises things that have absolutely nothing to do with China or Japan. Only the SNP has no interest at all in delivering for Scotland.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister recall that during the time of Brexit negotiations, the Tories told us that we had more to gain outside of the EU than inside it and that, within days of Brexit, we would be signing trade deals with the US and China that would be bigger than the trade deals that existed with the EU? What we got was a botched Brexit that isolated us from our European neighbours, and now the Tories want to extend that isolation to a global scale. Does the Prime Minister agree that Britain would not be treated decently or with any confidence by our global neighbours and friends if we had adopted such an approach?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that period in our history, because of course, this was 2015 and 2016. The Conservative party had a manifesto in 2015 that dealt with the question of a referendum in relation to Brexit and also set out its position on China. I had a look at that very manifesto this morning; the Conservatives’ position was to
“strengthen our economic links with China”,
including seeking a free trade agreement. That used to be their position, then they veered to the other side of the road, and now they stick their head in the sand and pretend that they can influence events.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Prime Minister’s position seems to be that if a bully is big enough, rich enough and powerful enough, the pragmatic thing to do is to pay into his protection racket. Can he at least show some sign of moral compass by accepting the fact that China is a repressive, brutal, communist, totalitarian state that dishonoured all the provisions of the Hong Kong agreement?
The Prime Minister
The Conservatives’ position seems to be that if one has concerns in relation to China, the pragmatic thing to do is to buy a bag of sand and put your head in it. I do not think that is going to influence anything—nothing said here has any influence if you do not have a meeting.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on last week’s handsome wins, including on visas in China—I just wondered whether the same issue arose in Japan. I did a brilliant visit to the Japan London school in my seat the other day, but that school is finding the dogmatic visa changes made by the Conservative Government burdensome. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look into that, and also praise the contribution of the Japanese in Acton, from sushi to bilingual education?
The Prime Minister
We had very productive meetings in Japan. Among the discussions was how we open up to more trade between our two economies.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Prime Minister has said that this visit to China was good for British jobs. Having wrongly granted consent to the Chinese super-embassy, can he confirm that it will be built with brilliant British steel from Lincolnshire, as opposed to Chinese steel?
The Prime Minister
It was this Government who took the action on Scunthorpe to ensure we had British Steel at Scunthorpe—it is one of the proudest things I have done.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, which faces into the world as it is. Des Browne, Baron Browne of Ladyton, is retiring from the other place after decades of distinguished public service as the Labour MP for Kilmarnock and the Defence Secretary and in his work on the prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons. China is a significant and growing nuclear power, with more than 600 warheads, and this week the US-Russia new START treaty comes to an end. Can the Prime Minister tell me if the UK is engaging with China at the highest levels to prevent the risk of nuclear weapons and combat nuclear proliferation?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to the contribution that Lord Browne has made. I assure my hon. Friend that our discussions with China did include how we derisk the risk in relation to nuclear weapons.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
When John Major went to Beijing, he spoke clearly and said, “We will not forget Tiananmen Square.” In contrast, the Prime Minister refused to say Jimmy Lai’s name until he was wheels up. I have never said that we should not engage with Beijing; I have said that we should not give it a propaganda visit. It is extraordinary to abrogate the responsibility of the Chinese Communist party, whose actions we had to respond to, therefore pausing trade talks, as if it has done nothing wrong. Finally, the Prime Minister met with Cai Qi, the man responsible for running two spies who were undermining this Parliament, but he excluded that from his statement. Why doesn’t he tell us why he thought it was acceptable to meet this man and what he got out of it in the British interest?
The Prime Minister
This is so pathetic. At the highest level and one to one, I raised each of the issues of difference between our two countries—each and every one of them—in the way that the House would expect, and that is what the Opposition are criticising. They seem genuinely to believe that these issues can be progressed or influenced by doing nothing about them. You have to be in the room to have a discussion, and that is what we did.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
It is right that the Prime Minister goes to China if he is acting in the best interests of all those living here. Last year, the Joint Committee on Human Rights undertook an inquiry into transnational repression. In front of us, we had Chloe Cheung, a young Hongkonger from Leeds who had a $HK1 million bounty put on her head. She told us about how she had been intimidated and harassed. Did the Prime Minister speak up for all the Hongkongers in the UK who have had bounties on their heads and who have been intimidated and harassed? Will he ensure that people living in the United Kingdom are safe from the Chinese regime?
The Prime Minister
That is exactly why we raised the issues of human rights at numerous levels on the visit.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I noticed that the mention of Japan took the Prime Minister one minute—the last minute—of a 10-minute speech on China and Japan. Japan is not only the largest inward investor into the UK, apart from the EU and US, but a vital liberal democracy in the Indo-Pacific and a key security partner in maintaining regional stability in the face of growing Chinese assertiveness. Given the growing security risks and strategic instability across the region, can the Prime Minister assure the House that engagement with Beijing will not weaken the UK’s alignment with Japan, which is one of our most important democratic partners?
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
With respect to the statement following the Prime Minister’s visit to China and Japan, I thank him for being in the room and challenging China on its appalling human rights record and for fighting for British jobs. With respect to his visit to Japan, did the issue of Toyota come up? Toyota is a significant employer in Derbyshire and worth more than £5.5 billion to the local economy. Can we do more with Toyota, because it is really good for jobs here?
The Prime Minister
Yes, we did discuss the car manufacturing going on at the moment and the potential for further work in that regard, along with other issues of trade broadening between our two countries.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Prime Minister will be aware that some 80% of the sanctioned dual-use items that Russia needs for the drones and missiles it is firing at civilians and children on a daily basis come from China. He says that he raised that matter. Did he get any assurance that China will stop supplying Russia?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to this issue. That is precisely why I raised it again in terms. I will not go into the details of the discussion, but I did raise it, for the very reasons that he sets out. Across this House, we are committed to a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. This has been an issue of concern for a considerable period, which is why I raised it.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent engagement in Tokyo and the strengthening of our relations with Japan as a key economic and strategic partner. Will he explain how small and medium-sized enterprises in Portsmouth, particularly those in maritime and defence such as Griffon Marine, alongside the creative industries, will benefit from deeper UK-Japan co-operation? My 18-year-old son Archie Cole is a professional wrestler, currently competing on Tokyo TV in “Magic Monday”, so I know at first hand how international engagement can open doors for individuals and Portsmouth’s local businesses alike.
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend’s son on his achievements. On SMEs and businesses, yes, we discussed how we can enhance our engagement and enhance growth and jobs right across all our constituencies, including my hon. Friend’s.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister accept that in his rush to hoover up economic crumbs from President Xi because of his appalling handling of our economy, he is having to increase strategic dependence on Beijing? The public see the risks the Prime Minister is taking with UK security; does he?
The Prime Minister
The Conservatives crashed the economy, so lectures from them on the economy are not welcome. As I said in my statement, national security is at the heart of our approach to China, as it is to every issue that we take up. It is quite possible to have a discussion about the opportunities available to our country while also safeguarding our national security. That is what we are doing in a grown-up, mature way.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), the anti-dumping measures that we impose on Chinese goods coming into this country protect hundreds of jobs in Stoke-on-Trent, whether in the ceramic tableware manufacturing sector or in the retreading of tyres at the Michelin factory. Can the Prime Minister give a guarantee that as the economic work with China continues, those measures will not be junked? The anti-dumping measures are not abstract: they protect hundreds of jobs in the part of the country that most needs them.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue and I can give him that assurance. I know how much it matters, and that is the approach we have taken.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Over the past weeks, thousands of Chinese fishing boats have been trapped, creating a blockage up to 300 miles long in the east China sea off Japan. This is seen by many as a strategy for a future blockade. Given the huge reliance on that route for trade, such action would cause a global economic shock, threaten thousands of jobs in Scotland and dramatically increase the cost of living. What explanation did the Prime Minister’s Chinese counterpart give for this behaviour? What subsequent discussions did he have with the Japanese Prime Minister about maintaining maritime security in the region?
The Prime Minister
That issue was raised in both China and Japan, because it is obviously a cause of concern. Regional instability matters not just in the region but globally, so I discussed it in both China and Japan.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, but will he tell the House what steps the Government are taking to protect parliamentarians and others in public life against foreign influence?
The Prime Minister
We have taken a number of measures, including the further powers and tools we have given to our security and intelligence services.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I echo the tributes to Jim Wallace. He was one of the most significant Scottish politicians of his generation and it was a privilege both to know him and to work with him.
We have established that the Prime Minister was in the room, but what difference will it make for people who were not in the room in Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
It will make a huge difference, which is why I discussed it with Volodymyr Zelensky before I went, in terms, and why I will discuss it with him again in the coming days, in terms.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership on his trip, including his words in Japan about the value of the global combat air programme, which is not only strategically important for global security and autonomy, but important for businesses that have grown out of my constituency, including BAE Systems and QinetiQ. Will the Prime Minister highlight the work he is doing to ensure that this critical endeavour makes progress?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because Japan is a key colleague and partner when it comes to defence and security, which is why, across a range of issues, we discussed what more we can do, including on GCAP.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
In an earlier answer, the Prime Minister mentioned Scunthorpe steelworks, where hundreds of my constituents are employed. We welcome the Government’s support to date. Was he able to discuss Jingye’s ownership with his Chinese opposite number, and can he give any positive assurances to my constituents about their long-term future?
The Prime Minister
May I give this assurance to the hon. Member’s constituents? We absolutely believe in the importance of steel being made in this country, and that is why we took the necessary measures, on a Saturday, as he knows, in relation to steel production in his constituency.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
The Prime Minister will know that many excellent west midlands businesses export to China, including great car makers such as Jaguar Land Rover, the Morgan Motor Company and Aston Martin. Collectively, those car exports are worth more than those from any other region in the UK, I would say. Can the Prime Minister outline how the results of his trip to China, including the agreement on 30-day visa-free travel, will benefit those businesses and drive jobs and exports in our region?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that JLR was there with us on the delegation in China, and it is acutely aware of the difference that better trade and economic measures with China will make to its business, and to jobs in his constituency.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
In 2023, the Intelligence and Security Committee reported:
“The UK’s academic institutions provide a rich feeding ground for China to achieve both political influence and economic advantage”.
Was interference in UK universities raised with President Xi?
The Prime Minister
I raised a wide range of issues of concern to this House with President Xi, as the hon. Member would expect.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Growing our relationship with China could boost our motor manufacturing industry. The Prime Minister will know only too well that small businesses in this sector are the engine of economic growth in my constituency and right across the west midlands. Can he set out how his visit will help small businesses in North Warwickshire and Bedworth?
The Prime Minister
This issue is so important, in terms of the opportunities that we have. That is why we had representatives from motor manufacturing with us. They are only too well aware of the great benefits that taking full advantage of the opportunities will have for her constituents and others.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister’s friend, Baroness Helena Kennedy, a sanctioned person, clearly believes that the juice was not worth the squeeze or, indeed, the price of the plane tickets, because she has described the returns the Prime Minister has secured as “meagre”. She is right, is she not?
The Prime Minister
I have known Helena for many years. We shared a room when we worked together in chambers. We agree on many things, but not everything.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for what he said about calling on China to end support for Russia’s illegal war effort. We cannot ignore the threat to our shores from Russia, as we know very well in Wales. Nathan Gill, the former Reform UK leader in Wales, is serving 10 and a half years in prison for taking bribes from Russia. Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning that treacherous activity, and reassure me that he will continue to push China on that important point?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I will, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the shocking case of Nathan Gill. As my hon. Friend rightly says, Nathan Gill got 10 and a half years for taking bribes in relation to Russia. The leader of Reform is not even interested enough to start an investigation to see whether that is the extent—which it will not be—of Russian influence in his party.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I just want clarification on the Members of this House who were formally sanctioned. The Prime Minister said:
“President Xi said to me that means all parliamentarians are free to travel to China”.
Does that mean that they are no longer legally sanctioned, and did he get that in writing?
The Prime Minister
That is my understanding in relation to all parliamentarians. I accept that in relation to others, we need to see how much further we can go.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Does he agree that the security of this country is the Government’s first and foremost priority at all times?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do. It is front and centre of everything we do, whenever we are acting on the world stage.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I want to follow up on the questions from the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), and from the hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), on the global combat air programme. The funding for the next round of GCAP is going to run out in a matter of months. That will affect Edgewing and the British phase of the programme. It has been reported that contract for the next phase of GCAP has been delayed, due to the delay to the defence investment plan. Will the contract be signed before the defence investment plan is published?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member will be pleased to know that this was a matter of discussion in Japan, and the defence investment plan will be published very soon.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Mark Carney rightly challenged fellow middle powers to stop “living within a lie”, and to recognise the changes in the geopolitical landscape, because comfortable assumptions about the international order are no longer true, and the system that we once benefited from cannot become the source of our subordination. It was therefore important to hear the Prime Minister’s firm commitment to GCAP in Japan. Does he agree that investment in programmes such as GCAP is essential if we are to address this geopolitical challenge?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do, and my hon. Friend is right to emphasise the changes in the geopolitical landscape; we have approached our relationship to the US, Europe, India and China accordingly.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
In the Prime Minister’s discussions on what he somewhat mildly describes as “areas of difference”, did he raise the discovery of kill switches and hidden comms devices in Chinese-manufactured solar panels? If he did, can he assure us that, rather than politely asking for this practice to stop, he demanded that it stop?
The Prime Minister
We raised all the sensitive issues, and we did it in direct terms, and in the room. That, to my mind, is the right way to try to make progress on these very important issues.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
It was a privilege to serve with Jim Wallace in Holyrood, and I associate myself with the tributes to him.
We have had trade deals with Europe, China and India worth hundreds of millions of pounds to Scottish businesses, and defence contracts that secure thousands of jobs. Can the Prime Minister tell us how he will build on this success for Scotland? Does he agree that it is about time the Scottish Government showed the same ambition for Scottish businesses?
The Prime Minister
It is astonishing that the Scottish National party is simply not interested in the progress that we have made on the India trade deal, which is hugely beneficial to Scottish businesses, or in the halving of tariffs that comes into effect today in relation to China. Businesses in Scotland know exactly what that means to them, which is why they are celebrating. SNP Members cannot bring themselves to even welcome it.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I certainly acknowledge the tariff easement for Scottish whisky, and for the apparently superior Bushmills whiskey from my constituency, but will the Prime Minister’s visit do anything to address the proliferation of heavily subsidised Chinese vehicles, which are flooding our nation, particularly in the bus sector? We have 500 subsidised Chinese vehicles on the streets of our capital city, courtesy of Transport for London, whereas in Scotland and in my constituency, we build the highest-quality buses. Will there be any action to support British buses as a result of what the Prime Minister is seeking to do?
The Prime Minister
I see that we have opened a whisky competition, but the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right: it is really important that we champion the building of buses and so much else in the United Kingdom. We have great examples of that, and we will always put the national interest first.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s report back from his visit to China and Japan. Previous Tory Governments refused to make such reports for many years. He says that the issues discussed included human rights, trade and security. I am particularly interested in what he had to say about the border security pact, because my constituents in Stevenage are very concerned about the small boats crisis. We already have international agreements with France and Germany, and this is a new one with China. How can I learn more about how this will work?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to put this as one package, because what we are doing on small boats with China is looking at the source of the engines; what we are doing with Germany involves the transport of those parts through Europe; and what we are doing in France is working with the French to tackle the crossings.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The whole House can see with its own eyes what is happening here. The Prime Minister, on paper, has the support of more than 400 MPs. If they want to show their support, they can fill every single seat on the Government Benches, as far as the double doors, but they are all drifting away as these exchanges proceed. Even at the start of his statement, the Prime Minister did not have the authority to command that they fill two or three Benches behind him. He is clearly on his way out. The problem is that in his desperation to shore up his position, he is trading away our national interests. Can he name a single tangible benefit that he has secured in respect of the rights of Hongkongers?
The Prime Minister
Yes, we raised the issues of Hongkongers. [Interruption.] We raised the issues. I find the Conservatives’ position astonishing. They say that they take these issues seriously. They say that these issues are “of great concern”. They stay here and raise these issues, notwithstanding the fact that no one else is listening, and then they say, “This is so important to me, but the one thing I do not want you to do is go to China and have a discussion about it at the highest level.” It is a pathetic, unserious approach to foreign policy.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Prime Minister may have noticed that the Japanese ambassador to the United Kingdom, Hiroshi Suzuki, was in Manchester recently, trying Boddingtons bitter. The Prime Minister will be aware of the importance of brewing to my constituency, and perhaps, in celebration of these trade deals, he would like to encourage the ambassador to come and sample some of the best beer in the brewing capital of Burton-on-Trent.
The Prime Minister
Yes, I certainly encourage that, and I will take the first opportunity to do so.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I am glad that the Prime Minister enjoys a dram as much as I do. For the record, I did welcome the Indian trade deal very publicly, so he may wish to correct the record on that. However, I want to focus on an issue that is important to employment in my constituency: the Ardersier site, part of the Cromarty Green freeport, in which Mingyang has expressed a significant investment interest. I fully understand the national security concerns that need to be addressed, but a decision is long overdue. The issue has been with the Government for a long time, and there is investor jitteriness. The supply chain is vexed about this, and the issue is certainly not helping with the just transition. It is putting important job opportunities at risk. When will the decision be made either to let Mingyang get on with it or to move on to another opportunity?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, which is of concern to his constituents across Scotland, and indeed the United Kingdom. No decision has yet been made, and I will update the House as soon as I can.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
Last Thursday, I held a public meeting with the Hong Kong community in Bishop’s Stortford. We met to discuss the proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain, but there was real strength of feeling about the case of Jimmy Lai and democratic freedoms in Hong Kong, so I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister raise the issue. Will he take this opportunity, for the benefit of my constituents, to set out the details of those discussions again? Will he also assure my constituents of this country’s commitment to those from Hong Kong who have made their home here, and reassure them that this Government will listen carefully to their views in the Home Office’s consultation on earned settlement?
The Prime Minister
Let me give my hon. Friend that reassurance for those from Hong Kong, in his constituency and throughout the country, on the support that we will put in for them.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The SNP Scottish Government undertook a secretive trip to Beijing last year, and caught a case of renminbi fever while they were there. They are now blundering around on the world stage, desperate for Mingyang to put money into Ardersier. Notwithstanding the jobs issue, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will take cognisance of national security issues? We do not want jobs at any cost, and we cannot allow wind farms to have Chinese kill switches fitted.
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say a moment ago, no decision has been made yet, but as I explained in my report back to the House, the overarching approach that we take to all matters involving China is that national security always comes first.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
On behalf of the all-party parliamentary group on Japan, may I say arigato gozaimasu to the Prime Minister for his visit? I hope that he had a sugoi time.
I think that all of us in the House are proud of the global combat air programme, which holds great opportunities not only for global, regional and UK security but for British jobs. The Prime Minister mentioned that Japan is already one of the main investors in the UK; does he share my hope that this programme, just like the Concorde programme with France all those years ago, will have knock-on benefits for British jobs and innovations in our economy?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and for his message over the weekend. Japan is a key NATO ally, is a member of the G7 and, of course, the coalition of the willing, and, as he rightly points out, has key investments in the United Kingdom. That is why we discussed all those matters, and the GCAP, when we were there.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Prime Minister mentioned his previous meeting with the Chinese President at the G20 in Brazil. One day later, 45 pro-democracy Hongkongers were sentenced. Uyghurs, Falun Gong, Tibetans, unregistered religious groups, human rights lawyers, pro-democracy campaigners, Hongkongers in this country and Jimmy Lai—what single, tangible difference has the Prime Minister made for their safety and security?
The Prime Minister
Of course there are concerns; they are aired in this House. The difference between our parties is that our position is that the mature and serious thing to do is to have leader-to-leader discussions about them, engaging with the issues. The Conservatives’ approach is to shout about the issues, get a bag of sand and put their head in it, and influence absolutely no one. It is so unserious. They will not be fit for government for many, many years to come.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
As the Prime Minister will know, many Japanese companies have their British home in my constituency of Bracknell, so I welcome his visit to Japan. Could he set out a little more about how we can further strengthen our relationship with our Japanese friends and allies, and what that will mean for my constituents?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to all those businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency, of which there are very many, as he rightly says. Enhancing our trade and economic ties with Japan is in the interests of both countries, and that is precisely what we are focused on.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Prime Minister has failed to stand up for Britain’s interests. From what we have seen, he could not even make it across Beijing’s red carpet without being guided along the way. What did the Prime Minister expect to receive in return for approving the Chinese super-embassy, and did the Chinese give it to him?
The Prime Minister
We have had a Chinese embassy in this country since 1877. It is currently over seven sites; it is now going to be on one. The security and intelligence services published a letter the day after the decision was made to say that it was better for security in this country, and I think that is the right approach.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for his continued international leadership. I know, however, that wherever he goes in the world, he is always thinking about Harlow, so what difference will a productive relationship with the second-largest economy and our third-biggest trading partner make to businesses in my constituency?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a champion for Harlow, and it has been so good to visit it so many times. We had 60 businesses in the delegation with us. They were enthusiastic about the opportunities that this visit would open up for them and for all the associated businesses—including in his constituency—that will be able to work with them on projects in the future.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is widely reported in the media that the Prime Minister and his entourage had burner phones when they went to China. Could he confirm that? If so, was the reason that he was worried he was being spied upon?
The Prime Minister
We took appropriate precautions, as we do whichever country we visit.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Like the Prime Minister, I am a musician and a strong advocate for the creative arts sector. Could he set out to the House a little more about why he took so many creative arts and cultural organisations with him to China? Does he agree that Britain is the best in the world at the creative arts, that they are good for trade, good for jobs and good for our young people in particular, and that the kind of visit he has been on will help with that, as will investment at home and abroad?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend; we are the best in the world. The people from the creative sector and the cultural institutions were with us on the visit because they could see the great advantage in better relations and better engagement, and not only in relation to the cultural aspects but because, of course, they are themselves really important businesses.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
The Prime Minister is very full of the abstract virtue of engaging with China and getting in the room with them. He used to say that Britain should not even sign a trade deal with China because of the persecution of the Uyghur people. Having now got into the room with the Chinese leader, can he tell the House a single thing that he achieved on behalf of the Uyghurs, or indeed on behalf of the security of this country?
The Prime Minister
Yes. Engaging is really important for the security of this country. Just for clarity, we did not sign a trade deal on the visit; we simply looked at the ways in which we can open the opportunities for businesses. There were 60 big businesses with us on the visit, and they are absolutely clear about the advantages to them. I would much rather take their view on the advantages than the nonsense that is being spouted on the other side of this House.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
China is helping to fund Russia’s war on Ukraine via the shadow fleet and Russian oil. First, can the Prime Minister unambiguously confirm that he brought up Russian oil and the shadow fleet, because they are not mentioned specifically in the statement? Secondly, what steps will China now take to end its importation of Russian oil, which is funding death and destruction across Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
This is a really important issue, which that is why I had a phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky the day before I left, and I will have a further discussion with him now that I am back. I raised the issue in terms during the course of the visit.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Further to that point, Russia has been able to triple its ballistic missile production because it has access to Chinese rocket fuel, Chinese machine tools and Chinese microprocessors. In return, China is receiving vast quantities of discounted oil, gas, aluminium and other natural resources. China is quite literally fuelling the war in Ukraine, so I ask the Prime Minister once again: what specific guarantees did he receive from the Chinese Government that they will work to de-escalate the conflict in Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
The reason I spoke to Volodymyr Zelensky was to have a discussion in advance on the precise terms in which we would approach this issue. I then followed through on that, and I will talk to President Zelensky about this again in the coming days. We are working hand in glove with the Ukrainians for the outcome that we all want: a just and lasting peace.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I welcome his successful trade missions to China and Japan. In particular, I am heartened by the strides made in Japanese co-operation. However, what steps forward remain in terms of the Chinese treatment of Christians, Uyghur Muslims, Falun Gong and other religious minorities? Was the Prime Minister able to use diplomatic soft power to bring about the changes required to provide human rights protection, to stop religious persecution and to enable successful trade between the two nations?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise these really important issues. I raised them myself during the course of the visit, and I thank him.
Oral Answers to Questions
Keir Starmer Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
In recent days, I have spoken extensively to our international allies, including European leaders and others, the US and NATO. We will continue to engage constructively to resolve issues, particularly those relating to international security, applying the principles and values that I set out on Monday.
In addition, this week, the Government have announced a landmark investment to support children with special educational needs, overhauled our water system, and today launched a £15 billion plan to create warm homes. At home and abroad, this Labour Government are delivering for the British people.
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.
Dr Sandher
We face an affordability crisis in this country. In the short term, our dependence on fossil fuels has led to a rise in energy bills, and in the longer term, the aftershocks of Thatcher mean that there are not enough good, non-graduate jobs. That is why today’s warm homes plan is such good news: batteries, solar, home insulation; getting bills down and wages rising; making life affordable. But we must go further, so can I ask the Prime Minister to do even more to make sure that life is affordable for my constituents—
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. I know how much he cares about making life affordable. We are taking £150 off energy bills. That is £300 for the 6 million poorest families, including almost 3,700 households in his constituency. The warm homes plan we are announcing today is the biggest ever public investment in upgrading British homes. It will lift 1 million households out of fuel poverty, tackling the cost of living. That is the difference a Labour Government make.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister following our lead on children accessing social media. In particular, I thank the shadow Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), 61 Labour MPs and the Greater Manchester Mayor for forcing him to think again.
The Prime Minister and I agree: the future of Greenland should only be decided by the people of Greenland. When the Prime Minister made that point to President Trump on Monday, did the President agree or disagree?
The Prime Minister
Engaging constructively on international security matters hugely, particularly when it comes to security in the Arctic, and that is the context in which this discussion about Greenland is going on. As we engage constructively, I have made my position clear on our principles and values. The first of those is that the future of Greenland is for the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone. The second is that threats of tariffs to pressurise allies are completely wrong. We will continue to engage constructively. I have had many international calls in recent days, and the Prime Minister of Denmark is coming to the United Kingdom tomorrow for bilateral talks. I want to be clear with the House: I will not yield—Britain will not yield—on our principles and values about the future of Greenland under threats of tariffs, and that is my clear position.
Mrs Badenoch
I am very glad to hear the Prime Minister say that. We all know that the people of Greenland do not want to be ruled by America, but does he agree that just as those in Greenland should decide their own future, so should the Chagossians?
The Prime Minister
I made my position on Greenland absolutely clear on Monday and a moment ago. President Trump deployed words on Chagos yesterday that were different to his previous words of welcome and support when I met him in the White House. He deployed those words yesterday for the express purpose of putting pressure on me and Britain in relation to my values and principles on the future of Greenland. He wants me to yield on my position and I am not going to do so. Given that that was his express purpose, I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition has jumped on the bandwagon. I had understood—[Interruption.] I had understood her position to be that she supported the Government’s position on the future of Greenland. Now she appears to support words by President Trump to undermine the Government’s position on the future of Greenland. She has chosen naked opportunism over the national interest.
Mrs Badenoch
We will note that when I asked him what the President told him, he could not tell us. Now he expects us to believe that he knows what is going on in President Trump’s mind. Let me remind him that his Deputy Prime Minister, then Foreign Secretary, used to say that if President Trump did not like the deal, it would not go ahead. Let us look at what President Trump actually said. The Chagos deal is
“an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”,
and a sign of “total weakness.” We did not need President Trump to tell us that; we have been saying that for 12 months.
Let us remind the Prime Minister: President Trump thought that the Prime Minister was doing this for money. The Prime Minister is giving away territory we own and paying £35 billion for the privilege. Why does he not just scrap this terrible deal and put the money into our armed forces?
The Prime Minister
The words from President Trump were expressly intended to put pressure on me to yield on my principles. What he said about Chagos was literally in the same sentence as what he said about Greenland. That was his purpose. The future of Greenland is a binary issue that is splitting the world at the moment, with material consequences. I have been clear and consistent in my position on the future of Greenland: the future is for Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone. The Leader of the Opposition has taken three positions in 10 days. Ten days ago she said that Greenland was “a second order issue”; four days ago she said she supported our position on Greenland; and now she is backing arguments intended to undermine our position—Britain’s position—on Greenland. This is an important national moment and yet again the Leader of the Opposition has shown that she is uncapable of rising to it.
Mrs Badenoch
I have already told the Prime Minister that we agree on Greenland; I am asking about the Chagos deal. That money—that £35 billion—should go to the armed forces. The world is changing and we are in a very different place—the most dangerous international environment since the end of the cold war. Last week, the head of the armed forces—not me, the head of the armed forces—warned that our military faces a £28 billion shortfall. Is he right?
The Prime Minister
I am proud that we are spending more on defence than at any time since the last Labour Government. [Interruption.] The strategic defence review has backed the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war. That is £270 billion this Parliament, making defence an engine of growth. That is a stark contrast. Ben Wallace, the longest-serving Conservative Defence Secretary, openly admitted that under the Conservatives’ watch our armed forces were “hollowed out”. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Bowie and Mr Cartlidge, it is continuous, week in and week out. There are a couple on the Government Benches who will also be going out for a cup of tea with you. Please, calm it down or you know the consequence.
The Prime Minister
They shout on a Wednesday and they defect on a Thursday. The loudest shouter used to be the former shadow Justice Secretary. We should take a note of who is shouting most loudly this week.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister wants to talk about defections. Let me tell him that when I had someone undermining my party, I sacked him. If he sacked—[Interruption.]
Mrs Badenoch
We all know that if the Prime Minister sacked everyone undermining his party, his Front Bench would be empty. Jokes aside, these questions I am asking are about our national interest. We support our armed forces in every possible way. Later today, my party will vote to protect our veterans from unfair prosecution; he is ordering his MPs to vote against them. In our national interest, and for the sake of all the brave people in the armed forces, past, present and future, will the Prime Minister do the right thing and vote in support of our veterans, not against them?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady is claiming strength. She read the guy’s defection letter and then at that point decided to sack him. What was she going to do? Correct the typos and give it back to him? [Hon. Members: “More!”] She should have sacked him when he made disgraceful comments about faces in Birmingham, but she failed to do so. And she smiles, saying it is a good thing she has cleared out—a good thing there are fewer Tory MPs. The rest of the country agrees with her completely in relation to that.
On the question of veterans protection, the last Government passed legislation that was struck down, leaving our veterans utterly exposed. We are putting in place proper measures to protect them.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister wants to talk about leadership. Three of his own Cabinet Ministers told The Times on Saturday that he needed to learn from me—[Interruption.]
Mrs Badenoch
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Back to the national interest. Instead of acting in it, the Prime Minister just tries to get through the day. On the Chinese spy hub embassy, he is too weak. On Chagos, he is too weak. On funding for the armed forces, he is too weak. On protecting our veterans from prosecution, he is too weak. I will support the Prime Minister when he does the right thing, but time after time, this Prime Minister has done the wrong thing for our country. Is it not the truth that he is too weak to stand up for our national interests?
The Prime Minister
I have spent the week working with our NATO allies to protect our national security and ensure we have unity in NATO. That is a matter of national importance, and the right hon. Lady has utterly failed to rise to the occasion and show the solidarity she could have shown in this House. She has spent the week trying to hold together what is left of the Tory party. She says I should learn from her. She has no judgment! Only a week ago, in relation to Greenland, she shrugged and said it was some “second order issue”. Terrible judgment! Then she flip-flopped with three different positions in 10 days on Greenland. She said Liz Truss’s mini-Budget was “100% right”. She said last week that she was “100% confident” there would be no more defections, just before the latest defection. I am beginning to think her judgment is not 100% reliable.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am pleased to confirm that last week saw the second biggest fall in NHS waiting times for 15 years. Waiting lists are down by more than 300,000, an extra 2,900 GPs have been recruited, and ambulances are arriving nearly 15 minutes faster this winter than they were last year. There is much more to do, which is why we are delivering the biggest upgrade to our ambulance fleet for many years. That progress has been made possible by Labour’s decisions, which are opposed by the opposition parties.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
We remember how Tony Blair ignored warnings from these opposition Benches and tied himself to an unpopular American President and a disastrous foreign policy, while close allies such as Canada and France looked on in horror. With Donald Trump increasingly acting like a crime boss running a protection racket, threatening to smash up our economy unless he gets his hands on Greenland, will the Prime Minister avoid Blair’s historic mistake, take our advice this time and join Prime Minister Carney and President Macron in standing up far more strongly to President Trump?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member is clearly not listening. I said that I will not yield on the principles and values that I uphold, and that this country upholds, in relation to the future of Greenland. But the relationship with the US matters, especially on defence, security and intelligence, and nuclear capability, and also on trade and prosperity. While he is trying to get soundbites, we must not forget that a war is raging in Europe—it is in its fourth year. The Russians are raining bombs down on Ukrainian civilians day and night, the temperature was minus 20° in Kyiv last night, and 60% of the people there are without power. People are erecting tents to keep themselves warm. We have to work with our allies, including the US, on security guarantees to ensure that we can do what we must do in relation to Ukraine. That does not mean we agree with the US on everything, and I have been absolutely clear about my position on Greenland and my position on tariffs, but it is foolhardy to think that we should rip up our relationship with the US and abandon Ukraine and so many of the other things that are important to our defence, security and intelligence.
Ed Davey
Of course we are not arguing that; we are arguing that the Prime Minister follows France and Canada—our close allies. Here is one thing that we can agree on: that the UK should strengthen our defensive capabilities, as the Prime Minister said earlier. But the Government are going far too slow in investing in our defensive industries. They have not even published the defence investment plan that was promised last autumn. That delay is putting critical industries, such as helicopter manufacturing based in Yeovil, at risk. Putin is waging a war in Europe, and Trump is threatening to undermine NATO. We have to rearm fast. So why will the Prime Minister not just get on with buying Great British helicopters made in the west country? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
The Prime Minister
That’s about the same cheer we hear across the whole country.
We are increasing defence spend to the biggest spend since the last Labour Government. We are doing that because of the decisions we took at the Budget in relation to the money that is available. The right hon. Member wants more money for defence spending, and he wants it faster, but what did he do at the Budget? Did he stand up and say, “I support this”? No, he voted against it, against the measures necessary to carry out the upgrade.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I send my deepest sympathies to Beryl’s family, and I will make sure that the Roads Minister meets them at the earliest opportunity. This shows why tackling potholes really matters. We are investing £2 billion in the east midlands to fix the roads and improve local transport. We are also putting in place tough new standards so that councils must prove they are fixing roads properly, and I am pleased that many excellent Labour councils across the country are leading by example.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
For decades, our rivers, lakes and seas have paid the price of a failing system. The water White Paper is a welcome first step in beginning to set things right, but there is a glaring gap: agricultural pollution contributes 40% of the pollution in our waterways but merits only a single page in this White Paper. Can the Prime Minister tell me why on earth this is the case? When will he start working with farmers to support river-friendly farming practices and treat agricultural pollution as seriously as sewage pollution?
The Prime Minister
We inherited a real mess on water, and we are taking the most effective and far-reaching measures to deal with it. I wonder what the hon. Lady, as someone who stood to lead her party, makes of how her leader is responding to this global uncertainty. He is saying that this is the time to withdraw from NATO; that this is the time to kick the US out of our military bases; that this is the time to negotiate—hear this—with Putin to give up our nuclear deterrent. I am sure that Putin would be very quick on the line for that one. It is as reckless and irresponsible as their plan to legalise heroin and crack cocaine. That is the Green party now—high on drugs, soft on Putin.
Mr Speaker
Order. We do not ask the Opposition questions. These are questions for the Prime Minister, not the other way around.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am very pleased that we are backing my hon. Friend’s home town of Clydebank with £20 million of Pride in Place funding. Just this week we hosted a reception to meet people who are working hard to change their neighbourhoods across the United Kingdom. That is Labour delivering on national renewal. As my hon. Friend rightly says, compare that with the SNP, which is more interested in squabbling over independence than using a record settlement to fix Scotland’s public services.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Prime Minister
We delivered a record settlement for Northern Ireland in the Budget to strengthen public services and to kick-start growth. The local growth fund, designed in partnership with the Executive, will see £45 million every year to support local growth. I am very happy to make sure that Ministers meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss his particular concerns.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to Jessica and all the women, and others, who are campaigning on these vital issues. Far too many women are left waiting for care in serious pain. That is why we are investing £8 million in research on diagnosis, treatment and pain management. I know that the Minister for women’s health will be keen to talk to my hon. Friend about her proposals on this issue, which I thank her for raising.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising this case, and I am truly sorry to hear about his constituent. If he would not mind following up with the details of the case, I will make sure that it is dealt with urgently on behalf of his constituent.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
May I congratulate Kevin and thank police across our country who are working hard to protect our communities? The Conservative party decimated local policing, and we are restoring it. There will be 3,000 more neighbourhood police on our streets by spring, which is an example of the change that people will feel this year. Our Crime and Policing Bill will give officers more powers to tackle knife crime, shoplifting and antisocial behaviour. I want officers to have those powers as swiftly as possible; the Tories and Reform voted against them.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The Prime Minister
That comes from the party that broke our criminal justice system, just as it broke our economy and our NHS. It hollowed out local policing; we are restoring it, with 3,000 new officers in the spring of this year.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I have made our position clear. I have set out my principles, and I am not going to yield on those principles. As I said on Monday, of course we need to protect our national interest, and we will always protect our national interest, but simply hurtling into a trade war at the first opportunity would hurt working people and businesses across the country. That is why I am working hard to ensure that we do not get to that point, and I will continue to act in the national interest.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Prime Minister may be aware that my local authority in the East Riding of Yorkshire is the lowest-funded per pupil for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and his local authority in Camden is the highest—an inequality that he has repeatedly pledged to end. Well, the results are in: next year, children in my local area will receive just under £1,000, and children in his local area will receive over £3,800. The gap is getting wider. Will he explain to the House why he thinks that children in my constituency are worth so much less than children in his?
The Prime Minister
We are applying their formula—the one that you put in place in government—[Interruption.] We are changing it—[Interruption.] Special educational needs are probably raised with me more than any other issue that is raised in the House. We are proposing reforms. The problem that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to interrupt, Prime Minister, but Mr Holden, as shadow Secretary of State for Transport, you will be getting the express train out of here.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman may be making himself the next candidate for the Thursday defections—[Interruption.] Oh, maybe it is someone else. Those that shout loudest end up on the Reform UK Bench—[Interruption.] Reform is supporting our recycling moves, because soon it will be a party entirely made up of—
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I was humbled to visit Greater Manchester police after the Heaton Park synagogue attack. The professionalism and bravery that they showed was remarkable. We have boosted total police funding and Greater Manchester will receive up to £902 million, an increase of over £31 million. I reassure my hon. Friend that we will continue to work with her and local leaders to make our streets safe.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
My constituency of Melksham and Devizes does not have a minor injuries unit, leaving many to travel far afield, to Bath or Swindon, to access A&E services. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss the need for an expanded hospital provision in my constituency?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this on behalf of his constituents. I will ensure he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to talk through his particular concerns, so that we can seek to address them.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Labour is boosting funding for councils that were chronically underfunded by the Conservatives. I pay tribute to Labour councils delivering results for my hon. Friend’s community, in stark contrast to the division and chaos we have seen from Reform councils, wherever they have been elected.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Tens of thousands of people across Kent and Sussex were without running water last week. While the response of South East Water was shambolic, the Staplehurst emergency help team got a bottled water supplier, set up a collection station and delivered water to vulnerable people. Using only volunteers, they supported local people, businesses, farms and care homes with 20,000 bottles of water. Does the Prime Minister think, as I do, that South East Water should be ashamed to be schooled in crisis response by the volunteers of the Staplehurst emergency help team? Has he, like many of my constituents and many of our colleagues, lost confidence in South East Water’s chief executive?
The Prime Minister
The situation is completely unacceptable. We welcome Ofwat’s investigation into the company—that is the right thing to do. The Environment Secretary met company bosses last week to stress the need for accountability, and Ministers are continuing to chair daily meetings, but the situation is totally unacceptable and needs to be fixed.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am proud of this Labour Government delivering the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. We are ending exploitative zero-hours contracts and unscrupulous fire and rehire practices, plus we have changes to parental leave and sick pay. Workers will benefit from those rights in April, and they should never forget that Reform and the Tories opposed every single one of them.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
One of the last meetings that I took as shadow Justice Secretary was with the parents of Lenny Scott. Lenny Scott was an exceptionally brave prison officer who uncovered corruption in his prison. He left the service, and years later he was hunted down and brutally murdered. Because he died after leaving active service, there was never any compensation paid to the children he left behind. I know that the Prime Minister would want to right that wrong. I wrote to the Justice Secretary privately after I discovered this—I should say that Lenny Scott’s parents never asked for any support. Will the Prime Minister correct this, ensure that this brave man’s children have the support that they need as they grow up without the father they deserve, and join me in thanking all the brave men and women who serve us in our Prison Service?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I will make sure that it is looked into as a matter of urgency, given the circumstances that he has set out.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
This is an issue of real concern to parents. As the father of two teenage children, I know just how much of a concern it is. That is why we will have a consultation to look at expert and international evidence to get this right, and we will respond by the summer. That includes looking at the question of the age at which children can access social media and at restrictions on addictive features. I am also concerned, as is the Education Secretary, about the screen time of those under the age of five. We will look at all those issues and make sure that Ofsted checks the enforcement of bans during school.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
The Bertie Arms is a fantastic family pub, but because of the Chancellor’s tax raid on local business, it faces a 2,000% increase in its business rates by 2029. That means that the Treasury will lose £200,000 in tax take and Uffington will lose the heart of its community. The Prime Minister promised not to put up taxes on working people, so how does he justify a 2,000% tax attack on working family businesses like this pub?
The Prime Minister
We are working with the sector to put in the necessary support. I remind the hon. Lady that 7,000 pubs closed on the Conservatives’ watch, and she did not say a word about it.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
Since day one, my hon. Friend has fought for her constituents on this issue, and I pay tribute to her for that. I agree that the University of East Anglia would be an excellent candidate for any future additional funded dentistry places available. We are also reforming contracts and making sure that dentists spend more time working in the NHS, delivering thousands of extra appointments to fix the failure we were left with.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Children with disabilities and special educational needs in Somerset will be severely hit if the Government go ahead with removing the remoteness uplift from authorities. Will the Government commit to ensuring that councils with the largest land areas—of which Somerset is one—are properly reimbursed for the costs of remoteness, so that children in my constituency do not suffer?
The Prime Minister
We understand the challenges in rural communities, and we will look at that as part of the work we are doing on reform.
Dr Chowns
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understood that the purpose of Prime Minister’s questions was for the Prime Minister to answer questions from MPs, yet—
Oral Answers to Questions
Keir Starmer Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
May I start by condemning, in the strongest possible terms, the sickening repression and murder of protesters in Iran? The contrast between the courage of the Iranian people and the brutality of their desperate regime has never been clearer. We have called out this brutality face-to-face. We are working with allies on further sanctions and doing all we can to protect UK nationals.
Time and again under the Conservative party, towns and cities across the north were failed. Today, this Labour Government deliver change: a major new rail network across the north and a new northern growth strategy. That is the renewal that this country voted for.
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.
Lincoln Jopp
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks, particularly about Iran.
Visiting schools in my Spelthorne constituency is one of the great joys of this job, so I was, frankly, appalled to hear that the Labour Member of Parliament for Bristol North East (Damien Egan) was prevented from visiting a school in his constituency because he is Jewish. This is antisemitism and it is happening in plain sight. With all due respect to the Prime Minister, I do not want to know how he feels about this; I want to know what he is going to do about it.
The Prime Minister
Can I start by thanking the hon. Gentleman for raising this case, because it is very serious and very concerning? All Members of Parliament should be able to visit anywhere in their constituency, schools or other places, without any fear of antisemitism. We do take this seriously. We are providing more funding for security and support that we are putting in across the country, and we will be holding to account those who prevented that visit to the school.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. The Hillsborough law will right wrongs of the past, changing the balance of power to ensure the state can never hide from the people it should serve. I think some of the families are with us in the Gallery here today, and I will be meeting them later on this afternoon. I have always been clear that the duty of candour applies to the intelligence services. I made a commitment that we would not water down the Bill, and the amendments we have put forward strengthen it. It is right that there are essential safeguards in place to protect national security, and we have got that balance right. We will meet the families and outline the next steps on Monday in relation to that crucial balance.
Mrs Badenoch
Yes, you did say that. My question to the Prime Minister is: does he agree?
The Prime Minister
I am determined to make it harder for people to work illegally in this country, and that is why there will be checks, which will be digital and mandatory. I will tell the Leader of the Opposition what this Government are doing: whether it is on planning, child poverty, employment rights or investing in our NHS, we are taking the right choices for Britain, but the Opposition oppose every single one. She talks about U-turns and consistency, but her party, which used to recognise the challenge of climate change, now runs from it; it promised to cut immigration, but then lost control of it; it once took great pride in our diversity, but now talks of deporting our neighbours to achieve “cultural coherence”. Don’t get me started on consistency: the Tories had five Prime Ministers, six Chancellors, eight Home Secretaries and 16 Housing Ministers—they had more positions in 14 years than the Kama Sutra. No wonder they are knackered; they left the country screwed.
Mrs Badenoch
A lot of waffle, Mr Speaker, but it is still a U-turn. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner)—this is so interesting—has said:
“Labour MPs must think very carefully before defending policy decisions publicly. This stuff leaves us looking really stupid.”
I am sorry to tell him that Labour MPs have been looking stupid for a long time. Let us look at some of the other things the Prime Minister did not get right the first time, starting with the family farm tax. Some farmers were so terrified that they sold their farms last year, only for the Prime Minister to U-turn two days before Christmas. Will he apologise for the misery he has caused countless farmers?
The Prime Minister
The principle we put in place on inheritance tax is the right one. We listened, and we made an announcement. What we are doing is turning the country around. [Interruption.] Yes, we have changed the country; we have changed the failed approach of the Tory Government, who crashed the economy and sent mortgage rates through the roof, left millions stuck on NHS waiting lists and presided over the worst Parliament for living standards on record. We are turning that around and changing that: inflation and interest rates are coming down, waiting lists are coming down and wages are up more in the first year of a Labour Government than in 10 years of a Tory Government.
I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is taking advice on change. She had in Nadhim Zahawi to ask his advice on how to change and how to save her party—please don’t tell me she listened to his accountant! The next day, after giving her advice, he jumped ship to Reform—the 23rd former Tory MP to do so. I do not know which is more pitiful: the flood of former Tory MPs deserting her sinking ship or the Reform party so desperate to launder any old failed Tory politician.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister does not need to worry about me—I’m all right. I did not hear an apology to the farmers; has he even apologised to the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), who stood up for farmers only to have the Whip removed? The Prime Minister treats his MPs so badly. They follow his lead, and he hangs them out to dry every time.
Let us turn to another area that the Prime Minister has got wrong. His Budget doubled business rates for thousands of pubs. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether there is going to be any change to his business rates policy?
The Prime Minister
We are working with the sector to ensure that it gets the support it needs. I have to say that the Leader of the Opposition’s new-found concern for pubs will come as a surprise to anyone who remembers the 7,000 pubs that were closed under the Tories. As Business Secretary, she did not say a word about it.
We support business, and we also support workers, which is why we have passed our Employment Rights Act 2025. On Monday, the Business Secretary and I went to Croydon to discuss the Employment Rights Act with workers there, who were very keen on the paternity and maternity rights that the Leader of the Opposition opposes. While we were at Ikea, they showed me their new prototype: the Ikea shadow Cabinet. The trouble is that nobody wants to buy it, it is mainly constructed of old dead wood, and every time you lose a nut it defects to Reform.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister did not answer the question about business rates. It sounds like he does not know what his policy is. It has been a farce from start to finish. On Monday, the Business Secretary said that the Chancellor did not even realise the impact of her business rates policy—no surprise there—and yesterday the tax office said that it did tell the Government what the impact would be. Can the Prime Minister be clear? Did he understand the impact of his own policy on pubs?
The Prime Minister
We are working with the sector. The right hon. Lady has not explained why she said nothing about the 7,000 pubs that closed on her watch. We are doing other things on the cost of living to help people and to make sure that they can get out and spend money in pubs and hospitality. We are boosting the minimum wage. What did the Tories do? They opposed it. We are freezing rail fares and prescription charges. What did they do? They opposed it. We are taking £150 off energy bills. What did they do? They opposed it. She said nothing when pubs were closing and she opposes every measure now.
The right hon. Lady said a moment ago, “I’m all right.” She clearly did not listen to the advice of Nadhim Zahawi, because what he told her he has now made public. He told her that the Tories failed on mass migration and failed on our armed forces, and he told her that she is leading
“a defunct brand…that the nation…can no longer trust.”
No wonder he has joined the Tory migration to Reform—it is the second Boriswave.
Mrs Badenoch
I asked the Prime Minister whether he understood the impact of his own policy; he did not say yes. The reason why he U-turns all the time is because he is clueless. He is blowing around like a plastic bag in the wind, with no sense of direction whatsoever. Let us be clear: this mess goes beyond pubs. The whole hospitality industry—cafés, hotels and restaurants, they are all being clobbered by Labour’s tax hikes. There is an answer to this: Conservatives would abolish business rates for small businesses on the high street. [Interruption.] Government Members are all chuntering, but the Prime Minister is already agreeing with us on the family farms tax and he is already agreeing with us on digital ID; why does he not make it a hat trick and abolish business rates for the high street?
The Prime Minister
The Tories crashed the economy and now they want to give lectures. The right hon. Lady is wondering why nobody is listening to them—nobody is ever going to listen to them on the economy ever again. In 18 months, because of the decisions we have made, inflation is falling and the Bank of England says it is coming back down to target; we have had six interest rate cuts in a row; wages are up more in the first year of a Labour Government than under the first 10 years of the Conservative Government; and we beat the forecasts on growth for 2025. We are turning this country around after the appalling mess they left it in.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister says that no one is going to listen to us—who is going to listen to him? The winter fuel allowance? U-turn. WASPI women? U-turn. The two-child benefit cap? U-turn. Grooming gangs inquiry? U-turn. The family farms tax? U-turn. Digital ID? U-turn. Jury trials?
Mrs Badenoch
We hope so. I think that is going to be the next one. Week after week, the poor people sitting people sitting behind the Prime Minister have to defend the indefensible, only for him to U-turn a few days later.
One of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet Ministers told a journalist that
“What’s happening at the moment is extraordinarily bad.”
Another said:
“We’ve gone through a catastrophic series of mis-steps.”
Yet another Minister said
“we are so unpopular at the moment I’ve come to the conclusion it’s worth rolling the dice”
on a new leader. They are right, aren’t they?
The Prime Minister
Here is the difference: I changed my party, and that is why we stand here with a majority Labour Government. The Leader of the Opposition sits there with her party that lost two thirds of its MPs at the last election, and she is losing more every week. They are queuing up to join the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and his laundry service for disgraced Tory politicians. Meanwhile, inflation is down, wages are up and waiting lists are down. Labour is turning the corner and changing this country for the better.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend draws attention to the important work of the Mayor of London. Nobody should be talking our country down or talking London down. She is right to say that since we came into office the number of knife crime offences is down, but there is more to do. We are introducing new powers to seize knives and increasing the penalty for selling knives to under-18s. [Interruption.] What did the Conservatives—they are chuntering—do? They voted against those provisions. What is obvious about London and Reform is that it has got a candidate for mayor who does not like London, a new ex-Tory recruit who struggled to pay his taxes in this country and a leader who spends more time in France than in his constituency.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I associate myself and my party with the Prime Minister’s comments on Iran. I encourage him to go even further on sanctions and proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Sandra is 71. She has bladder cancer. Just after Christmas, she went into her local A&E. She had to wait 31 hours on a trolley or on a plastic chair to be admitted. Last year, more than half a million people waited for over 12 hours in A&E to be admitted—more than any year in the history of the NHS. This corridor care crisis was created by the Conservatives, but it has got worse under Labour. Will the Prime Minister end this scandal by taking up our plan to end all 12-hour A&E waits this year?
The Prime Minister
May I first say through the right hon. Member to Sandra that that is simply not acceptable for her or anybody else? I would appreciate it if he passed that on to her directly. We have put record investment into the NHS so that we can turn this problem around, and we are turning it around.
The right hon. Member puts forward his plans for change, but he never votes for the increase in investment and the measures needed to put them into practice. You cannot change things without investing in them. You cannot call for change and vote against a Budget that puts record investment into the NHS.
Ed Davey
We saw what happened to the last Government when they failed to improve the NHS, and if the Prime Minister is not careful, that will happen to his Government.
Last month I asked the Prime Minister to get a grip of South East Water, which had left thousands of people in Royal Tunbridge Wells without water. Now it has happened again, not only in Tunbridge Wells but in East Grinstead, Burgess Hill, Haywards Heath and other parts of Kent and Sussex. Families, pensioners, schools, care homes and businesses have been without any water since Saturday, and the water company bosses involved now stand accused of misleading Parliament over their failures. South East Water keeps failing its customers over and over again, so will the Government immediately strip it of its licence?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this, because the situation is clearly totally unacceptable. He will want to know that Ministers have chaired daily emergency meetings to hold the company to account to deliver on the change that is urgently needed in all the areas that he mentioned. We have also doubled the compensation rates for individuals and businesses and we are absolutely clear that the company must urgently invest in infrastructure. We will publish the water White Paper in due course, but we are holding those daily meetings to hold the company to account.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend as a dedicated campaigner on this and so many other issues. I am delighted that today we are announcing a transformation in journeys across the north. Of course, this was promised many times by the Conservatives but never delivered. We are taking action and delivering. We are working with Kirklees council to prepare the business case for the first phase of upgrading the line, and I know that the Transport Secretary will be happy to discuss the details of that with my hon. Friend.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
At question time last week, the Prime Minister seemed to intimate that the Government were bringing forward amendments to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Within hours of him saying that, the Irish Government’s Minister for Foreign Affairs said that any “significant changes” must have the
“full agreement of both Governments”.
Is the Prime Minister intending to bring forward amendments to the flawed Northern Ireland Troubles Bill? Will he give me a reassurance that the Irish Government do not have a veto over legislation in this House?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that. I spoke to the Taoiseach about it in December, and I know that he is committed to delivering on this issue. The new legacy unit has been established in the Garda, and I am confident that the Irish Government’s other commitments will be delivered as set out in the joint framework. For the first time, information held by the Irish authorities is being shared with the reformed legacy commission, meaning that more families and victims of terrorism are getting information about what happened to their loved ones.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am proud of what we are doing on child poverty, lifting half a million children out of poverty. The Conservatives’ policy is to plunge them straight back into poverty, and they should be ashamed of that. The situation my hon. Friend draws my attention to is appalling. Parents and teachers are furious that the Conservatives left schools literally crumbling. We invested £20 billion to rebuild around 800 schools, and our aim is that all schools and colleges in England that are not being fully or substantially rebuilt are free from RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—by the end of the Parliament. I will ensure that a Minister meets her to discuss this issue.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising that. He knows we inherited a terrible situation: waiting lists, missed performance targets and hospitals such as Stepping Hill left to crumble—the Conservatives should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. I am pleased that the new out-patients building is open, and because of our decisions, the local trust will receive £75 million in capital funding. Progress is being made. His local trust has seen waiting lists fall by almost 3,000, and the number of waits of over a year is down by 67%. I will ensure that he gets the meeting he wants to discuss the details further.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. The actions of Grok and X are disgusting and shameful. Frankly, the decision to turn it into a premium service is horrific, and we are absolutely determined to take action. We have made it clear that X has to act and, if not, Ofcom has our full backing. We will introduce, and are introducing, legislation. To update the House, I have been informed this morning that X is acting to ensure full compliance with UK law. If so, that is welcome, but we are not going to back down. X must act. We will take the necessary measures. We will strengthen existing laws and prepare for legislation if it needs to go further, and Ofcom will continue its independent investigation.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising that. It is astonishing that Reform defends Musk on this issue. I said that the images are disgusting; Reform’s position on this issue is disgusting. This is weaponising images of women and children and they should never be made, and that is why we are acting. Reform refused to do anything about it, but more than that, on the point she raised, it would scrap the Online Safety Act 2023, which stops children accessing pornography and content on suicide, self-harm and eating disorders. Reform is an absolute disgrace and knows nothing about protecting children.
Several hon. Members rose—
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
This is a question of values and freedom. I am proud of the British workers, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency, supporting our Ukrainian allies. Ukrainian soldiers are defending European values on the frontline every day. In the event of a ceasefire, a multinational force will carry out defence and deterrence operations and conduct training, planning, recovery and regeneration of Ukrainian forces. This week, the leader of Reform said that Russia had a casus belli—that means a justification for war—in invading Ukraine. He is a Putin apologist using Russia’s talking points.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Diego Garcia is a vital military base with important capabilities for our allies. It is integral to our security. Our decision was welcomed by our allies, the Five Eyes, India and the United States. It was opposed by our enemies, including Russia. Now we can add the Tories and Reform to that list. The Tories are following Reform; Reform is following Putin.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My thoughts, and the thoughts of the whole House, are with all those so awfully impacted by the terrible road traffic accident in my hon. Friend’s constituency over the weekend. On her question, we are determined to restore the dream of home ownership. That is why there has been £39 billion of investment to deliver the biggest boost in social and affordable housing in a generation. Through planning reforms, the new homes accelerator and new towns, we are determined to deliver the homes that people need.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for what we are doing about violence against women and girls. I agree that this is not about women or men, or boys or girls; it is about both. That is why I was very pleased to bring forward our men’s health strategy, one of the first of its sort, to deal with the challenges that young men in particular, in my view, have growing up, particularly to do with social media, and to go further on the question of suicide, which I know the whole House is prepared to work together on—and quite right, too.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
As trade envoy to New Zealand, I visited Eden Park in Auckland last year to hear about the exciting plans to bring the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo to New Zealand. Next month, that plan becomes a reality, and one of Scotland and the UK’s greatest military displays will take place in Auckland. That spectacular event is testament to the exciting and successful trading relationship between the UK and New Zealand. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating and thanking everyone who has made it a reality?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo, which is absolutely brilliant, as anybody who has seen it will attest. I am so pleased that it is heading to New Zealand. That is another example of Scotland’s unique contribution to our international image, our culture and our tourism. We all wish them the very best of luck in their performance. I know that it will be very well received.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I disagree, as the hon. Member knows, with the decision of the West Midlands police. The Home Secretary will today make a statement in relation to that. Home Secretaries used to have the power to remove chief constables. That power was stripped by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. The hon. Member knows who was making decisions in the Home Office at the time—it was he, working for Theresa May, who stripped that power away.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I wish you a belated happy new year, Mr Speaker. However, for the 4.8 million leaseholders across England, it is not a happy new year; they will receive large bills in a matter of weeks. They have been waiting patiently for us, a new Government who said we would deliver change, to bring forward legislation on leasehold and commonhold. When will we see that legislation, so that we can put those leaseholders out of their misery?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. We will bring forward proposals very shortly.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the case of Clover. NHS England and the National Institute for Health and Care Research recently agreed funding for two world-first clinical trials relating to the use of cannabis-based products. That could help these medicines to become more routinely available in the NHS. I will ensure that she gets the meeting that she wants with the relevant Minister to discuss what else we are doing.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
The people I represent are fed up with Southern Water, when it comes to everything from sewage and broken pipes to water outages, even on Christmas day. In November, millions of plastic beads washed up on our beaches, and we discovered that they came from a Southern Water treatment plant. I am campaigning for water companies to stop using this outdated plastic bead method, and to bin the beads. We are really concerned about the impact on wildlife, and have a massive clean-up operation on our hands. More than 5,000 people have already supported my campaign with the Sussex Wildlife Trust. Does the Prime Minister share my horror about this dereliction of duty by Southern Water, and will he join me in calling for it to face the full force of the law for that terrible pollution incident?
The Prime Minister
I credit my hon. Friend with having helped to expose this scandal, and with working with everyone in her community to volunteer to clean up the beaches. That is the very best of who we are. People are right to be furious that, for far too long, water companies were allowed to get away with polluting our seas and beaches. The Environment Agency is leading a full investigation. More generally, we are ending unfair bonuses for polluting water bosses, abolishing Ofwat, and introducing tougher penalties to hold companies to account.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
There are no done deals here; we are going through the proper process.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The staff at West Hertfordshire teaching hospitals NHS trust, which operates Watford general hospital in my constituency, have been very busy bees. They recently won trust of the year and a performance recovery award at the 2025 Health Service Journal awards. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the amazing team at Watford general, and thank them for all the hard work they have done to achieve this admirable accolade? Imagine what further achievements they will make when they have their new hospital and new facilities.
The Prime Minister
I will join my hon. Friend, and thank not only the staff in his hospital, but NHS staff across the country, who worked so hard over Christmas and new year, which is a notoriously difficult time.
Intelligence and Security Committee: Cloud Technologies Report
Keir Starmer Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I have received the Intelligence and Security Committee’s closed report on cloud technologies.
I thank the Committee for the comprehensive report and their diligent work throughout this inquiry. I value the independent and robust oversight which the Committee provides.
The Government will share a formal closed response to this report with the ISC in due course.
[HCWS1223]
Machinery of Government
Keir Starmer Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention the following machinery of Government change.
I am today announcing that overarching policy and response responsibilities for severe space weather will move from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will be responsible for co-ordinating across Government to ensure that appropriate capabilities are in place, so that impacts from severe space weather are minimised. This will bring about efficiencies by centralising the management of space risks, including their assessment, response, recovery, and mitigation in a single Department.
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will retain its responsibilities for mitigating the impacts of severe space weather events on the energy sector. The responsibilities of the Met Office and UK Space Agency, the latter of which will join the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology by April 2026, will be unaffected by this change.
This change will be effective immediately.
[HCWS1200]