International Update

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Andy Burnham)]

With permission, I wish to make a statement on the United Nations General Assembly and related international events that have occurred since the House last met.

Before I do so, let me first welcome my hon. Friend the new Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali) to her place. What a journey, from child refugee to Parliament, and what a country—that this story of hope could happen here. I know my hon. Friend will enhance this House in so many ways, and I look forward to working with her.

I took a clear message to the United Nations: after a decade of turbulence, Britain is back and can be relied upon as a consistent and stable partner in an uncertain world, always upholding the shared values set out in the UN charter, rejecting aggression wherever we see it, and always steadfast in our support for Ukraine, as I assured President Zelensky at our meeting in New York.

In the three weeks since that meeting, Russian strikes have intensified even further, with more attacks on civilians: on apartment blocks housing innocent families; on buses carrying innocent children. When I spoke to President Zelensky on Saturday, he described the step change from Russia, including daylight attacks intended to break the will of Ukraine and ours. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that that will never happen. In recent days, we have announced new funding to help Ukraine get through its fifth winter under Russian bombardment and a new sanctions package so that over 90% of Russia’s oil-producing capacity is now covered by UK sanctions.

The quickest way to get diesel back on to world markets without rewarding the aggressor is an energy ceasefire, with both sides stopping their attacks. I raised this with President Trump in New York. It is what Ukraine wants to see, so I welcome President Trump’s announcement yesterday of a reciprocal energy ceasefire. President Zelensky has assured me that Ukraine would immediately implement it when a start date is confirmed, and I will be discussing this further with him in the coming days.

NATO is a defensive alliance. We do not seek confrontation, but our resolve to defend our allies and ourselves is absolute, and I was clear in all of my meetings, including with the NATO Secretary-General in Oxfordshire, that we will meet our NATO commitments in full.

We know that Russia is conducting a campaign of hybrid attacks and sabotage across Europe. In Berlin last week, Chancellor Merz and I agreed a new partnership to tackle these hybrid threats. We must be clear-eyed about attempts to destabilise our democracies. It is why, in my speech to the UN General Assembly, I confirmed our commitment to establish a new centre for information defence, as recommended by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. More broadly, this is a moment to deepen collaboration with our partners, which is why in Berlin I indicated Britain’s openness to Germany joining the global combat air programme alongside Italy and Japan.

In my meeting with President Trump, we discussed the situation in the middle east. I confirmed Britain’s decision to send air defence and a Voyager aircraft to Saudi Arabia to provide air-to-air refuelling support. I can confirm today that it has already completed 14 operational missions. This support is needed to protect civilians. I condemn the appalling attacks on the King Khalid International airport. We will continue to stand with Saudi Arabia against the Houthis.

Since UNGA, we have been in close contact with the US about protective security at our shared bases. I thank our police and military personnel for their swift response to the incidents at RAF Fairford and RAF Molesworth. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will update the House on the incident at RAF Fairford, but I can confirm our assessment that it is highly likely to have been co-ordinated in Iran, almost certainly directed by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. We will not tolerate these threats on our soil. We will crack down on Iran’s use of criminal networks, using our full range of powers to target them and their funding streams, and we will bring further sanctions to restrict the capacity of Iran and the IRGC to do us harm.

In my meeting with the President, I also raised the Falkland Islands and the clear and declared will of the islanders to remain British. I emphasised that point in my speech to the General Assembly and that we will also always do whatever it takes to uphold their will.

In New York, I also had a positive meeting with the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, about the forthcoming UK-EU summit. I can confirm to the House today that it will take place in Brussels on 20 November. This summit presents an opportunity to make progress on two crucial issues: boosting UK growth and controlling illegal immigration. On the table is a trade deal on food and drink products, a deal on emissions trading, progress towards linking our energy systems, a new youth experience scheme, and deeper co-operation on immigration.

This summit presents an opportunity to make progress on two crucial issues: boosting UK growth and controlling illegal immigration. On the table is a trade deal on food and drink products, a deal on emissions trading, progress towards linking our energy systems, a new youth experience scheme and deeper co-operation on immigration. The summit will also be an opportunity to raise our concerns about “Made in Europe”, and it is clear to me that there is an opportunity to make progress in all of these areas. Together, these deals will add the equivalent of over £10 billion per year to the UK economy by 2040, with the potential to add significantly more. We should not turn our backs on this opportunity, and I hope Members from all sides of this House will get behind the Government’s efforts to land a positive outcome. It is a chance to cut costs and bureaucracy for sectors like farming.

At present, entire truckloads of plants or fresh produce can be destroyed because of a single missing stamp or a minor paperwork delay. Fresh meat and fish spoil while waiting in trucks, and tonnes of exports have to be written off. Our largest food export, Scottish salmon, faces a 100% rate of document checks at the border, costing us around £100 million in lost exports. British burgers and other fresh meat products cannot be sold in the EU. Seed potatoes from Scotland and shellfish from Wales are banned. This is having a real impact on businesses, and the agreement on the table could reverse some of that damage. For farmers and food producers, it would lift a burden that can reach £1,400 on a single shipment. For our small businesses, it would mean no more export health certificates, which can cost up to £200 each time. For households, it would ease the pressure on prices in the supermarket. It could help lower energy costs for households and businesses alike.

In Northern Ireland, the proposed energy deal could cut wholesale energy costs by 20%. On immigration, we could link up our law enforcement efforts once again, sharing more data and criminal records of foreign nationals, as well as ensuring faster electronic evidence from the phones of those behind the gangs. It is in Britain’s interests to secure a deal along these lines, and I will work hard over the next five weeks to achieve that. I believe that our chances of doing so will be enhanced by being open to a discussion about our relationship with the EU in the longer term. If we are serious about promoting growth, controlling immigration, upholding our values and security, it is a conversation that we must have. Sticking with the status quo is not good enough for Britain. Worse, it would be a major dereliction of duty to turn away. We need to take a calm, clear-eyed, rational look at the world as it is today, to consider what is best for our country.

Our immediate priority is securing a successful outcome at the summit, and I believe we should then set up a serious dialogue about the different options for our relationship in the long term. At every stage, the British public will be the boss, and I am clear that public opinion currently supports a pragmatic approach, like the one I am suggesting, but if we go into this further phase, we will proceed with care and complete transparency. This is the leadership we need to draw a line under a decade of drift and division, and to take the country forward.

Beyond Europe, a confident Britain is ready to play our part on the global stage as we take up the presidency of the G20 in 2027. I confirmed in New York that we will place artificial intelligence centre stage in our presidency, to capture the incredible opportunities it presents while guarding against the risks. Leading voices like the president of Microsoft are saying Britain is the world leader on AI safety, so we are well placed to take on this role, and to work towards agreeing a single set of global principles and standards on AI, in our G20 presidency year.

The message to the world is clear: Britain is back. On so many fronts, we are playing our part and looking confidently to the future. We are leading again, so our country can hope again. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. Since we last met, Iran has sponsored an attempted terror attack on a British military base; President Trump has withdrawn support from President Zelensky; and Saudi Arabia has been bombarded with Houthi missiles and asked Britain to come to her aid. UK household energy bills are set to rise by nearly £300 in January, and diesel prices have hit £2 a litre for the first time ever. Against that backdrop, the Chancellor will deliver a Budget in two weeks.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that there is a £35 billion black hole in the public finances. More borrowing or more taxes are on the way, because we know that the Prime Minister will not cut spending. This is at a time when families and businesses are already suffering under the weight of £70 billion in Labour’s tax rises. So what has the Prime Minister chosen to focus on today? Brexit. His exact words earlier this year were that

“the last thing we should do right now is rerun those arguments”,

yet here he is, unpicking the deal that this country signed with the EU, a decade after the referendum. He is not going to get a better deal. Not only are the EU tough negotiators, but he has already revealed his entire negotiating hand. He has just blurted out everything he wants in this statement. I will tell him now, as a former Trade Secretary, that that is not how you conduct negotiations. He has told them everything, and negotiations have not even started—unbelievable!

Over the weekend, on “The Rest is Politics” podcast, the Prime Minister implied that the referendum result was illegitimate because of Russian interference. Where has that come from? We all remember that in 2018, the head of MI5 said that there was no evidence that Russia had influenced the EU referendum result. Even this morning, the Prime Minister’s own Foreign Minister could not say if the evidence existed. Will the Prime Minister confirm, here and now, whether he believes that the referendum result was legitimate? If he does not, will he publish the evidence that Russia swung the result of the 2016 referendum? From my perspective, this is just another example of him trying to distract the country, rather than solving the immediate challenges we face.

Just as some people thought that all Britain’s problems would be solved by leaving the EU, some now think that all our problems will be solved by rejoining it. Neither of those are serious positions; they are lazy thinking from people who do not have solutions to the real problems that we face, such as on defence. The Prime Minister told us that he would set out a target date for spending 3% of GDP on defence at the spending review in the spring. That spending review has now been delayed until next autumn. Labour delayed procurement by a year to hold the strategic defence review, then the defence investment plan took another 18 months. The armed forces now have to wait at least another 12 months to find out what they are getting. The defence of the realm is the first duty of any Government, and kicking it into the long grass is a dereliction of duty.

I welcome the support that the Prime Minister has set out for our allies in Saudi Arabia and Ukraine, but they will require money, and serious questions on defence still need to be answered. The United States has withdrawn its bombers from RAF Fairford. Can the Prime Minister tell us why? What does that mean for the safety of our British aircraft and, more importantly, British personnel at that base?

The Prime Minister said in his statement that we will not tolerate threats from Iran on our soil, so were he and his Foreign Secretary aware of those threats before the Foreign Secretary met and shook hands with the Iranian Foreign Minister at the UN? Does the Prime Minister now think that the Foreign Secretary was wrong to do that?

On 18 July, we were told that the Prime Minister would grant licences for the Jackdaw gas field and Rosebank oilfield. We are still waiting for a decision nearly three months later, as a global energy crisis is looming. Can the Prime Minister now confirm exactly when he will approve those licences? Britain cannot afford to wait until the end of the decade for him to act—he is the Prime Minister for today. Rather than promising things on the never-never, here are some things that he could do right now: cut welfare, fund our defence, drill in the North sea, bring down people’s taxes, get young people into work, build new prison places and put more police on our streets. He could do all those things today if he cut spending. That is what I would do. Instead, he is trying to reopen yesterday’s arguments to avoid today’s decisions. What this statement shows is the difference between Labour and the Conservatives. We have answers to today’s problems; they are living in the past.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Lady. She started on the right point, which is the situation in the middle east, and the extent to which it is affecting cost of living pressures here at home—the cost of filling up at the pump, and the costs that people are feeling more broadly. She is absolutely right to say that that is where our focus should be. It is where my focus was when I had all my meetings in New York, and it is why I have taken action to remove VAT from electricity bills this month. We are acting quickly on the cost of living, and we will continue to do that.

I was listening carefully to what the right hon. Lady said about the European Union. One could only conclude from what she said about unpicking the deal—the deal that is supposedly so good for Britain—that she will be defending the status quo. I am sure that I heard her say at her conference that increasing growth would be the operating principle of any Government that she leads, so how can she justify turning her back on a deal, which is potentially on the table now, to add billions to the UK economy? How can the Conservatives justify turning their backs on farmers and the food industry, who are finding it hard to export to Europe? I think they need to reflect on that. She says that I have revealed what I want to do, and that this is no way to negotiate—because the Tories were so good at negotiating deals with our partners, weren’t they?

To address the right hon. Lady’s point, I implied no such thing in my comments on “The Rest Is Politics” podcast. I think she should go back and look again. It is a matter of record that Russian actors sought to interfere in the 2019 general election, and we think it is inconceivable that this was the first time. I have a question for her. I listened carefully to what she said at her conference last week. Twice, she was asked directly whether she thought Brexit had been good for London. Twice, she could not answer—she could not even address the question. That is not going to be good enough for a party that wishes to lead this country once again. It is not leadership to turn your back on growth and on building the British economy.

On defence, this Government are already spending £14 billion more every year than the Conservatives did in their last year in government. We will continue to work with our US counterparts on RAF Fairford. Can I say to the right hon. Lady that every single Foreign Secretary, including David Cameron as the last Conservative Foreign Secretary, met representatives of the Iranian Government? She should look back at that, as well as at her own record in government.

The Leader of the Opposition stands there today and says that she will build new prison places. Why is there a crisis in our prisons? It is because the Conservatives did not build those places when they were in office. We are dealing with the issues that she left behind. We are the ones providing leadership in difficult times. It is about time that she faced up to some of those realities about the mess they left behind.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for treating concerted attempts to undermine our democracy with the seriousness they deserve. While it is always difficult to measure the success of such campaigns, it is also difficult to believe that Russia would bother if there was not at least a chance it might succeed. One thing is for sure: over the past 10 years, Russia has certainly got better at it, while at the same time, elements of the British state have been far too complacent about it. To hear the Prime Minister announce a new centre for information defence was encouraging. Can he assure the House that this centre will be publicly accountable and scrutinised by Parliament, and in particular by the Foreign Affairs Committee?

[The Prime Minister]

I can indeed give those assurances to my right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I thank her for the work that she has done in making that recommendation. She is right to say that the wrong approach was taken in the past. The Intelligence and Security Committee report in 2020 said that the last Government failed to seek evidence of any potential interference in our democratic processes. We will not make the same mistakes in the next decade as were made in the last. The new national centre for information defence is about putting Britain in a strong place to face the challenges in a difficult world, and that is what we will do.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister forgive me if I put some words in his mouth? Does he think this is a reasonable statement: “Look, I have been elected by my MPs to serve a full term of government. I am going to get on with bread-and-butter issues, such as the care system, pensions and asylum. Of course, we like a good, close relationship with our partners on security in Europe, but”—this is the Prime Minister speaking—“I say this to the people: I am very wary about reopening the whole Brexit wars. There were years of harrowing negotiations and an even worse deal. I give an absolute commitment that I will not seek to join the EU unless there is a general election first and I offer the British people a full referendum”?

[The Prime Minister]

May I say to the Father of the House that I stand by every single one of those words? I am not reopening the referendum; I respect the referendum result, as I just said a moment ago. What I will do is take a pragmatic approach when I can boost growth in the British economy and when I can increase co-operation to get a grip on boat crossings across the channel. I will do those things where I believe they can be in the country’s best interests. The deal that I have inherited coming into office represents an opportunity to secure progress on both those things. The case I am putting to the House this afternoon is that it is a dereliction of duty for any Member to turn away from that possibility, when we can support the food industry, we can support farmers, and we can get Britain growing more strongly again. Our responsibility in this House is to serve this country’s best interests, and that is what I will do.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and in particular his efforts to assist our allies, to forge closer ties and to help de-escalate the situation in the middle east. It is clear that President Trump’s efforts to lift sanctions on Russian diesel and then buy it are a real kick in the teeth for our Ukrainian friends and will allow Vladimir Putin to further fuel his deadly war machine. Nations such as India, which was slapped with tariffs for buying Russian fuel, will no doubt decry that move and be left bemused by these haphazard, hypocritical policies that prevent our long-term strategic aims from being achieved.

However, there have also been reports that United States officials have been contacting European counterparts to stop Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries, and are also limiting the supply of weapons and intelligence. Has the Prime Minister had any such discussions with our US or European allies about why we need to continue to support our Ukrainian friends?

[The Prime Minister]

I will always support our Ukrainian friends, and I can say to my hon. Friend that I called President Zelensky on Saturday afternoon precisely because I recognised that he was in the middle of a very difficult 24 hours. I can also say to the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke to the United States Treasury Secretary at around the same time, and talked about the importance of an energy ceasefire. It was good to see that proposal emerge from the President yesterday. It is the best possible outcome in the circumstances that we are in: it will get fuel flowing into the market as well as protecting Ukraine throughout the winter ahead of us, and we will continue to make the case for it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

Following the loss of his father, Roy, may I start by offering the Prime Minister’s family my deepest sympathies? I am sure that we were all moved by his words about his dad, and his determination to fix social care and tackle the devastating impact of dementia on sufferers and their families. I hope that we can work across this House to make that happen.

Let me now turn to the Prime Minister’s words about Europe. His predecessors turned a blind eye to the disastrous consequences of the Conservatives’ Brexit deal, so it was welcome to hear him recognise that damage today. We on these Liberal Democrat Benches have consistently argued that their Brexit deal has made us all poorer, weaker and less safe, so I am glad that the Prime Minister has arrived at the same conclusion, but now it is time to do something about it.

The test of the Prime Minister’s ambition is straightforward, if he wants growth and if he wants to cut the cost of living. Will he drop Labour’s red lines now, and open negotiations on joining the single market and a customs union? It would be a real dereliction of duty to refuse now to fix a deal that we know is not working. Every day, every week, every month of delay means more unnecessary costs for British businesses, more pointless red tape, more pain for British families. Being outside negotiations on AI safety, “Made in Europe” regulations and migration agreements does this country real harm. Fixing our relationship with Europe is more important now than ever, especially at a time when President Trump is waging a trade war with Canada while signing a new trade deal with Putin. Never before have we seen a US President so hostile to the UK and our allies, and so friendly to our adversaries. We cannot afford to fudge or dodge on this issue, and especially on Ukraine, so will the Minister bring together a coalition of the willing behind a joint statement condemning Trump’s diesel deal with Russia and calling on him to cancel it?

Let me finally refer to the Prime Minister’s comments about Russian interference in the Brexit referendum. That took courage, after the Conservatives had spent so long suppressing the evidence. Will the Prime Minister now present it to the House in full, alongside any evidence of interference in other UK votes, so that we can understand the threat and make it a national security priority to protect our democracy from attacks such as that?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words about my dad. They are much appreciated.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the harm done to food and farming, and to other industries, by the Brexit deal. It would seem that the Conservative party is in denial about this, and not open to seeing how we can move forward to a better position for the country. Indeed, it is clear that British public opinion has moved, and I believe that the public would now favour that. We are not ideological but pragmatic in taking steps to support growth and improve our approach to tackling irregular migration. If we can secure a good deal, I hope that I can count on the right hon. Gentleman’s support and that of his colleagues when it comes before the House. But as much as I want to improve growth in the UK, I also want to maintain trust in politics, and I am afraid I am not prepared to revisit the red lines in our manifesto.

On Ukraine, I have had discussions with Chancellor Merz about bringing forward a meeting of the coalition of the willing. I can update the House further as that proceeds.

Finally, on the Brexit referendum, I think it is really important to be open with people about everything that we have lived through in the last decade. I have been open, but I am also making sure that Britain is in a position where we do not face the same again. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will support the new national centre for information defence, so that Britain never again faces the risk of interference in our democratic process.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

I commend the Prime Minister on what has been a flying start on the world stage, and I welcome news of a better, stronger deal with Europe that will cut costs and cut bills this winter. It is very clear to us, on the evidence that we have received, that the deal we inherited has left red tape strangling our businesses in general, and strangling small businesses in particular. The EU’s “Made in Europe” proposals risk destroying any ambitions to reindustrialise our country. To avoid that peril, we will have to get serious with the EU in tackling unfair competition from China. Will the Prime Minister reserve the right to introduce new tariffs on unfairly subsidised imports from China, so that British and European businesses have a fair and level playing field on which to compete?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] My apologies—my right hon. Friend. I am still getting used to being back, Mr Speaker. I agree with him about the red tape that our businesses are facing. I have read out examples in the House this afternoon. The Conservatives used to be the first party to stand up and say, “Oh yes, let’s remove red tape from our businesses.” It sounded mightily like they were defending that red tape this afternoon. What has happened to them? They were meant to be the champions of free enterprise, but it falls to us to remove the red tape, and I will work hard to get that deal.

I agree with my right hon. Friend that “Made in Europe” presents risks to British manufacturing, and I know that he will have concerns about the automotive industry in the west midlands. I am raising those concerns with European partners. It is important that we get to an arrangement that works for both the UK and the EU. After all, we are both trying to deal with the same issue: the damaging effect that Chinese exports are having on our industries. The way to approach this is to do it together, and that is the case that we are making to the EU.

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

On the Prime Minister’s international agenda, should he not also focus on the appalling humanitarian situation in Darfur, Sudan, and avoid making policy on Israel, the timing of which enhances Netanyahu’s prospects of re-election? On Yemen, as well as defending Saudi Arabia from the outrageous Houthi attacks, should the Prime Minister not use Britain’s deep historical links and connections to Yemen to support constitutional negotiations and prevent the situation from getting any worse?

[The Prime Minister]

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that ending the suffering in Sudan is very high on the Foreign Secretary’s list of priorities, and that tackling the aggression from the Houthis is something that we are taking extremely seriously. Of course, we are providing support to Saudi Arabia, as I have mentioned this afternoon, and we will be prepared to consider further requests as and when they come in, but I cannot accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about Israel and Palestine. In this House, we have long supported a two-state solution. If we do nothing when a tender process to build on the west bank is moving forward, we will allow that two-state solution to die in front of our eyes. The Foreign Secretary is not prepared to allow that, I am not prepared to allow that, and we strongly defend the stance we have taken.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

In my negotiations with Commissioner Šefčovič, I agreed not only the re-accession of the United Kingdom to Erasmus+, but that at this year’s summit we would deliver the food and drink agreement to bear down on costs in supermarkets and an emissions trading scheme linkage meaning that hundreds of millions of pounds in carbon taxes do not need to be paid by UK businesses, as well as opportunities for young people to work, travel and study in the UK. So can I say to Prime Minister that anyone who sets their face against the deal that I hope he pushes over the line on 20 November is in favour of adding costs to businesses and households?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right, and I commend him for the excellent work he did to lay the groundwork for this deal. He is right: in these circumstances and at this moment in time, it is incumbent on every Member of the House to do whatever we can to relieve pressure on British business, and that is what we will do. It is interesting that this afternoon the country will be able to see that we are prepared to do it, but the Opposition are not.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

The Prime Minister opened today’s statement with the words that he

“took a clear message to the United Nations: that…Britain is back and can be relied upon as a consistent and stable partner”.

Is the same true of the Prime Minister? If so, can he tell me whether he plans to honour the Brexit referendum outcome, as he said in May when courting the Brexit voters of Makerfield, or is he planning to overturn it either partially or fully?

[The Prime Minister]

I say to the right hon. Lady that I am always a stable and consistent partner. Indeed, I will honour the result of the referendum, as I always have for the last 10 years—that is a clear commitment, as is the commitment to our manifesto, as I explained just a moment ago—but I am also going to lead and will be prepared to set out options that I think Britain should consider. If she is saying that she is happy with the status quo, she is in a minority in this country. People know that Britain can do better than this. I am determined to secure better for Britain. I am just surprised that the Opposition are setting their ambitions for our country so low.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I for one am really relieved that the Prime Minister is not going to take any lessons from any member of the previous Conservative Government on negotiating with Europe, given what a mess they made of it. Their irrational hatred of anything to do with Europe meant they took us out of the biofood security alert, meaning British farmers do not get told when there is foot and mouth, and took us out of the Eurodac system—[Interruption.] You took us out. I am watching the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) say, “What?” She might want to look at some of the details that she helped negotiate. They took us out of the Eurodac system, meaning we do not get the asylum data, which makes protecting our borders harder. So will the Prime Minister assure me and my constituents that he will not let Tory mistakes make border control and British farming harder to do, but will put the national interest first, seek that data and ensure that we have a future of working with Europe, not hating it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I just remind Members to please address the Chair, so we do not get into attacks on each other.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the loss of immigration control that has come with the inability to access data across the European Union. It is something that the people who promoted this idea need to take on board and be held to account for, because the reality is that we are in a weaker position when it comes to controlling immigration than we were just over 10 years ago. It is really important, as we go into this next phase, that those on all sides of the House support the British position in this negotiation. Is any Member of this House truly saying to me this afternoon that they do not want to have access again to that European immigration information? If they are saying that, they need to be honest about it.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

I welcomed the Foreign Secretary’s speech on Sudan at the UN General Assembly. The Prime Minister recently said that he would be “really concerned” to lose Sheikh Mansour, vice-president of the United Arab Emirates and owner of Manchester City FC, from Manchester, but does he recognise that the same individual is reported by outlets including The New York Times to have a “central role” not only in Man City’s contested success but in the genocide, famine and forced displacements happening across Sudan because of the Rapid Support Forces? When will the Prime Minister stand up to Sheikh Mansour and the UAE, and call out their dishonest roles in Manchester and in fanning the flames of conflict, leading to the world’s biggest humanitarian disaster in Sudan?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is clear that we want a humanitarian solution in Sudan without fear or favour, and we will make that case very clearly to the UAE. On the wider issue, I can confirm, Mr Speaker, that all my dealings will be published this afternoon in relation to any meetings with the owners of Manchester City.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. He may be aware that the Ukraine Solidarity Campaign is today protesting outside the US embassy in London against President Trump’s diesel deal, which will directly fund Putin’s war machine: a war machine that broke its promise to stop targeting Ukraine’s energy infrastructure less than 24 hours after it was committed to; a war machine that continues to bombard Oleshky, a city in the grip of a humanitarian crisis where people are being starved to death; and a war machine that is complicit in the forcible deportation and abduction of at least 20,651 Ukrainian children. Will the Prime Minister impress upon the President of the United States that his diesel deal will cost his own voters, my constituents and the people of Ukraine their safety?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for the powerful way in which she puts her question. I assure her that Britain will always take the strongest possible approach towards sanctions on Russia. The Foreign Secretary recently announced new sanctions on the shadow fleet, crypto and oil companies in Russia. We will continue to take that action and, we hope, set a lead that others will follow.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

As the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee who oversaw the publication of the Russia report as soon as the Committee was reconstituted, may I ask the Prime Minister to explain to the House exactly how he thinks Russia was able to alter the result of the referendum?

[The Prime Minister]

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I did not say that. I did not at any point say that it altered the result. I simply come back to what I said earlier: it is a matter of record that Russia has sought to interfere in elections—the 2019 general election—and we think it is inconceivable that this was the first time.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister quite rightly mentioned in his statement the fact that 90% of Russian oil production is covered by UK sanctions. I very much welcome what he had to say about joining international calls for a ceasefire on attacks on energy installations. When he is discussing this matter with President Trump, will he remind him that the biggest reason for high diesel prices here and in the United States is not the war between Russia and Ukraine, but what is going on in the strait of Hormuz and in Iran? Will he remind the President that the action he is taking will not cut the diesel price and that all it will do is fuel the Russian war machine?

[The Prime Minister]

I assure my hon. Friend that we are using our good offices on every front to ensure that we get a solution on the cost of energy. As I said before, in Ukraine an energy ceasefire is the best way to get fuel flowing into the market, and that has to be a reciprocal ceasefire. We are also doing whatever we can to support the bringing forward of a solution in the middle east. I discussed both those matters with President Trump in New York, and Britain stands ready to play its part on both fronts.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Iran clearly views this country as its enemy, and I fear that it smells weakness. It has attempted to attack Diego Garcia, Akrotiri and now Fairford. Does the Prime Minister agree that this demands a robust response, and will he confirm that if Iran is successful in attacking one of our bases, we will use direct action against it in legitimate self-defence? Will he provide enhanced support and assistance to our friends and allies who are under constant attack from Iran and its proxies—not just Saudi Arabia, but the United Arab Emirates and Israel?

[The Prime Minister]

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are providing the most robust response to the situation. We have introduced a tough sanctions regime. We are taking every step that needs to be taken in close consultation with our counterparts in the United States. There is no suggestion at all that Britain is not playing its part.

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

Derby has the manufacturing talent and capabilities to help Britain succeed on the international stage, and with a brilliant £1 billion order for 29 new battery-electric trains at Alstom in Litchurch Lane, we are on a roll in our city. Does the Prime Minister agree that by championing British manufacturing on the international stage we can secure more of that work, and the jobs our communities desperately need?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he has done with colleagues in Derby to secure that investment and those new jobs. The great city of Derby will be a big beneficiary of this Government’s drive to reindustrialise the country. I was at Alstom with my hon. Friend and saw what is being done and the apprenticeships there. We are proud of what is going on in the city. I will ask the Chancellor and the First Secretary of State to do everything they can to drive the maximum value for British jobs from every pound of public procurement in this country.

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

As Liberal Democrats, we have long been calling for global leadership on AI from the UK, so I am pleased to hear the Prime Minister talk of that. We cannot get the best out of AI if we cannot protect people from the worst, and the UK should be leading on that. We also need to learn from online safety, and it needs to be Governments that lead the charge, not big tech. Will the Prime Minister listen to the Lib Dem call for an international AI safety institute, based on the International Atomic Energy Agency, based here in the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

We already have the AI Security Institute, and to be fair, I pay tribute to the previous Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who was instrumental in the establishment of that institute. It is because of that that the president of Microsoft was on the radio this morning saying that Britain is now regarded as the world leader in AI safety. What we must not be, however, is complacent, which is why I am putting AI at the top of the agenda for Britain’s presidency of the G20. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady and Members from across the House to ensure that Britain brings together a global code of standards and principles that can capture the benefits of AI while guarding against the risks it poses.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

First, I thank my right hon. Friend for his speech at UNGA, in which he committed, or recommitted, the United Kingdom to be a consistent and stable partner in upholding the shared values of the UN charter. That will be increasingly important as we enter the G20 presidency.

I spent last week with the chairs of the Ukrainian Parliament’s British friendship group, Deputy Speaker Korniyenko and Lesia Vasylenko, and they talked to me about how this El Niño winter is going to be the hardest ever winter in Ukraine. Just this week, Kyiv’s sewerage system broke due to electricity outages because of Russian attacks. What additional support can we give, particularly to Kyiv, in terms of generators, solar panels, thermal batteries and other humanitarian support to ensure that they can get through the exceedingly hard and difficult winter that is coming to Ukraine?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think any Member of this House has done more than my hon. Friend to support Ukraine through its darkest hour. On the issue of protecting Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, as well as helping it with renewable and sustainable energy systems, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was in Ukraine last week and talked about these very issues. He also visited the site of one of the bomb attacks that killed children—people may have seen the photos. We are as engaged as my hon. Friend, and we will not waver in any way, shape or form. We will be there till the end, as I know will he.

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

I am quite sure that the whole House will applaud the Prime Minister’s reaffirmation of this country’s support for Ukraine and will support the additional sanctions that we are seeking to impose.

President Trump has effectively driven a coach and horses through those sanctions, has torn up the bill that he himself signed in the White House and, for the sake of his domestic audience, is seeking to blame President Zelensky and Ukraine for the oil shortages that the United States is now facing, rather than placing that blame where it truly lies, which is with his disastrous expedition in Iran.

The Prime Minister did not answer the question from the leader of the Liberal Democrats. Will he answer it now? Will he join my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in unequivocally condemning this act of treachery by the President of the United States?

[The Prime Minister]

I made it clear in my statement that, when I heard the news, I was immediately on the phone to President Zelensky to offer any help that I could provide. I think that where Britain can best provide help is in trying to bring people back together to get a solution that works for Ukraine. More than anything in these circumstances, we have to think about what will be most helpful. Of course, it is critical to get the US, as we discussed in New York with President Trump, back to the concept of an energy ceasefire, and that is what he announced yesterday.

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

My constituents in Pendle and Clitheroe want immigration to be controlled and managed in the best interests of the country, and I know that the Prime Minister’s constituents in Wigan feel the same. Can he confirm that, as long as he is Prime Minister, there will be no return to freedom of movement?

[The Prime Minister]

I take my responsibilities to my constituents very seriously, which is why I have said consistently that the manifesto upon which Labour Members were elected will be fully respected. What we have to look at are the options that are available for the long-term relationship. In the next decade, this country needs to know where it is going. There are no assumptions here, and as I said in my opening comments, the British public will be the boss of whatever is decided.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister says that, when it comes to the relationship with the EU, the British public will be the boss. Given that Scotland last had a vote on whether or not to stay in broken Brexit Britain before Brexit was even on the cards, does he not think it is a wee bit cheeky to give the UK public the choice, the driving seat and the reins on whether or not to have a different future with the EU while refusing that same choice to Scotland on its future with the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that, like me, the hon. Lady looks at opinion polls from all parts of the country, including Scotland. No one in this House today is proposing a referendum.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I also was pleased to hear what the Prime Minister had to say about AI, both in New York and this afternoon in the Chamber. Can he confirm that it remains his view that decisions about global principles and standards for AI should be taken by democratically elected Governments representing working people and not by industry alone?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my right hon. Friend very forcefully. I am setting up a process under the banner of the G20 presidency that mirrors what this country did in 2008, when international agreement was needed about how to handle the financial crisis. The Canadian Prime Minister, who was very much involved at that time, has been in discussions with me about how we could create a process to mirror that for AI so that individual countries could go back and embed those principles in their own laws and statutes. That is what we are trying to achieve. I would be really pleased if the whole House would get behind this endeavour, as the UK is in the global spotlight.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

The so-called energy ceasefire is a farce. All but one of Ukraine’s oil refineries has already been destroyed. It is about protecting Russia’s oil refineries while Russia bombs Ukraine’s power grid into obliteration and it results in a health disaster. Will the Prime Minister commit to sending large-scale generators to Ukraine now, and will he stand by our Saudi allies at the UN Security Council and under chapter VII designate the Houthis as a terrorist organisation—yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

On the first part of the hon. Lady’s question, I heard her strong view on the energy ceasefire, but I heard from the President on Saturday afternoon and he was asking the UK Government to press for such a ceasefire. I think it is right that we hear him and do everything within our power. As I said, there has been some progress on that front in the last 24 hours. On the second matter, I will reflect on what the hon. Lady said and come back to her.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

Traders at Grimsby Seafood Village will welcome any action to reduce the Brexit red tape and bring down their energy bills. I think that they would also want to hear the Prime Minister say explicitly—he danced around in his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) earlier—that there will not be a return to freedom of movement and that in these negotiations we will not have to capitulate and join the euro?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said many times this afternoon, we will honour the manifesto in full. The red lines are in place and they will remain in place. The seafood purveyors of Grimsby will probably have noticed, when I was talking about their plight and the difficulties they face, the lack of support for them from the Conservative Benches. I think the Conservatives need to have a period of reflection on their approach on this whole matter and do something to help British businesses that are struggling right now.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The Prime Minister confirmed that the incident at RAF Fairford was likely to have been co-ordinated in Iran. Can he comment on the serious suggestions that some of those who have been arrested and then bailed had Iranian diplomatic immunity?

[The Prime Minister]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not going to get into those matters on the Floor of the House. The Home Secretary will make a statement later today and provide more detail.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

From catching “Pride” at the National Theatre to jamming the Smiths with Ukrainian troops, we know that this Prime Minister gets culture. Can he revisit pragmatically the Tory mess that has left the Really Useful Group, a theatre group, touring a production of “Phantom of the Opera” in Europe with a Chinese cast because of all the red tape and musicians crippled by costs with no cabotage agreements, because it is killing gigs and venues?

[The Prime Minister]

I say to my hon. Friend that those are precisely the issues that we believe need a second look. We need to take a more pragmatic approach, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations is having those discussions with Europe. We do want to see better arrangements for our British creative industries, because they deserve it. They are the best in the world and Europe wants to see and hear more from them.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Irrespective of how we voted in the referendum, I hope the Prime Minister will agree that if one wants to be called a democrat, one has to abide by that decision and make it work, but the Windsor framework illustrates that no deal is ever cast into tablets of stone and that things are capable of sensible evolution. Will the Prime Minister accept that at this time, as always, businesses large and small, urban and rural, need certainty? They need to know the regulatory regime in which they are trading, the opportunities that exist and the barriers that they may need to overcome. Will he commit that, whatever evolution he is envisaging, it will be delivered speedily to be able to give confidence, certainty and clarity to North Dorset businesses and those across the country?

[The Prime Minister]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on his pragmatic tone. He is absolutely right to approach it in that way. When I visit Northern Ireland, as I do, I hear a call for things to be changed and improved—evolved, as he said—and that is exactly right. I said in my statement that the energy cost-benefit for Northern Ireland could be significant: there could be up to a 20% reduction in wholesale energy costs. Why would I not do everything I could to deliver that for the people of Northern Ireland? He mentioned speed. If the whole House gets behind the drive to improve the deal, we will get it through more quickly.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for highlighting the effect of Brexit on the salmon farming industry. Salmon farming is worth £189 million to the Western Isles, with £34 million of that direct, and over 200 jobs. Similarly, fishing is worth £16 million, with most of that prawn exports to Spain and France. We are physically furthest from that EU market, but we need that deal—we need to get our fish and our produce in. While we are at it, let us get a deal for our young people to get them studying and working again in Europe.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend puts it so well, because he knows these issues so well—because of the travel times to market. If only Opposition Members had the level of understanding he has just demonstrated, we would be in a better place.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I note the Prime Minister’s remarks concerning Russian interference in some recent and not so recent elections, which raise serious questions for all of us who worry about the integrity of our democracy. Will the Prime Minister commit to reviewing whether campaign finance rules—both those in place at the moment and the welcome but limited steps being introduced in the Representation of the People Bill—sufficiently guard against foreign interference through political donations? In particular, may I encourage him to look at a cap on political donations to limit the influence of ultra-wealthy individuals and potential foreign interests?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State is leading a task and finish group on cleaning up politics, and I am sure that she would be very pleased to hear from the hon. Member on her proposals.

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

On 26 October 2021, when the Conservative Government’s Elections Bill was going through its Public Bill Committee, I was the shadow Minister, and I tabled a new clause relating to foreign interference in politics. The Minister then responsible for keeping our democracy safe replied in Committee that she had not read the Russia report and asked me to explain it to her. Does the Prime Minister share my concern that the Minister, now Leader of the Opposition, may not be fully across the details?

[The Prime Minister]

I was not aware of that, but I am aware that the Russia report says that

“written evidence provided to us appeared to suggest that HMG”—

I think that was Her Majesty’s Government at the time—

“had not seen or sought evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes”.

That is indefensible. This Government will not make that mistake. We will ensure that we defend British democracy in the next decade as it was not defended in the last.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

On illegal immigration, the Prime Minister will be aware that in the last month, three boats have left Normandy bound for the Solent and the south coast. The Government are giving France £662 million, yet the smugglers have simply moved down the coast. On 4 October, nearly 150 people landed in Gosport, against the will of local people and of the local council and against the safety advice of the police and crime commissioner. This sends a message to these evil people-smuggling gangs that this is now a viable new route. Given that no one from the Home Office had the courtesy to contact me before, during or after those 150 people were landed on the shores of my constituency, could the Prime Minister let me know what conversations are happening with France to try to shut down these routes from Normandy?

[The Prime Minister]

I will look into what the hon. Lady just said about not being informed, because if—well, I am sure it is true, and it is not good enough. We will seek to ensure that the Home Office improve on that, because these are difficult issues and I know that they were difficult issues as they were presented in her constituency. The answer is almost in what she said: we are working closely with the French, and it is precisely because of the success of that co-operation that the gangs are changing their tactics—obviously, she has seen the effect of that—but we will be relentless in changing ours to make sure they do not succeed. We will look at the issues that she mentioned and we will endeavour to ensure there is no repeat, but it is precisely because we are succeeding in reducing the number of boat crossings that they are having to try different routes.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to strengthening relations with our European neighbours. Can I give him one example of how he can boost economic growth by doing just that on the south coast? Thousands of the people I represent have called for international trains to come back to Ashford International. It would boost our economy by £2.7 billion and bring half a million more visitors to Sussex and Kent every year, and we have an international terminal sitting there ready to be used. It is a no-brainer, so will the Prime Minister give me his commitment that he will support this, like the Transport Secretary?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent case. She and I will ask the Transport Secretary to look into it and get back to her.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to the new national centre for information defence. It is a critical factor in preserving the integrity of our democracy, but he will be aware that the US State Department intends to spend tens of millions of pounds promoting ideological propaganda and supporting far-right parties in western Europe, potentially including the UK. Will he give the House the assurance that the new national centre will be free to go where it needs to go, without fear or favour, in investigating misinformation and disinformation, and that, where necessary, that will include the activities of the United States?

[The Prime Minister]

Indeed; I will give the hon. Gentleman that assurance here and now. That is exactly the point: it should be free to do that, and with independent oversight, as the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), said. Let us remember, the Russian Government spend over £1 billion every year on misinformation and disinformation, and we have to be open-eyed about that and start to respond accordingly. It is not about a ministry of truth, or whatever people want to say; it is about ensuring people are aware of what is being done, and where there is interference in our democratic process. It will be more successful if it carries the full support of all sides of the House, with the requisite independence and oversight.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. It is an absolute no-brainer that we move closer to our closest trading partner, the EU, and I know that thousands of businesses in my constituency of Monmouthshire will welcome the reduction in costs. I am sure that Monmouthshire farmers, too, will be delighted that they were at the centre of his statement, as they will be by the prospect of less red tape and lower costs when dealing with the EU. They were sold a lie by the Conservatives about Brexit. Can the PM confirm that Welsh lamb and Welsh beef exports will increase as a result of his statement and of the renegotiation with the EU?

[The Prime Minister]

Not as a result of the statement—if only I had that power—but yes, if we can secure the deal that I talked about in the statement. This is a really important moment for British farmers, who have had a very difficult year, and it is incumbent on me to do everything that I can. I can assure them—and my hon. Friend can assure them, because she heard it from me—that I will do everything that I possibly can to get this deal over the line in the next five weeks.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has adopted a fascinating negotiating strategy by revealing his hand and goals in advance of any discussions with the EU. Is he aware that the price of any deal therefore went up with every word that he said? As a former Trade Minister, may I also advise the Prime Minister—because his officials and Ministers clearly have not—that it may not be so easy after all, because of some of the clauses in the 70-plus other trade deals that we did with other countries to unwind all the things that he would like to do? It may not be as simple as he thinks.

[The Prime Minister]

May I just reflect on the negotiating geniuses on the other side of the House, whose main strategy, as far as I recall, was insulting every member of the European Commission and every member state? That went well, didn’t it?

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on his strong leadership at the UN and in preparing to host the G20. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I welcome the national centre for information defence. On the EU, we need to boost opportunities for our hospitality, accommodation and tech sectors; they are the ones that talk about the great opportunities for young people to study, work and live here and—for people in my constituency—to travel to Europe as well. I therefore welcome talk of a work experience scheme being discussed at the EU summit. Will the Prime Minister say more about whether that scheme will lead to a youth mobility scheme, which would boost growth in this country?

[The Prime Minister]

That will be very much part of the discussion at the summit, and I believe that that, too, is in our interests. If young people come here to study, they develop an attachment to the country, which often bodes well for us, for the rest of their lives, as do British students going the other way. These are the things that worked in the past, and there is no reason why this generation should not be able to take advantage of them. I welcome my hon. Friend’s generous support for what we are trying to do.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali), who was with us here earlier, and warmly welcome her to her place in this House. I also warmly welcome much of what the Prime Minister’s international update contained, particularly his recognition of Brexit’s disastrous effects on our country—as far as I am concerned, the faster we move to rejoin, the better—but there was no mention of the climate crisis. Does he not recognise that the climate crisis is one of the biggest international challenges facing us, that it requires us to keep fossil fuels in the ground, and that therefore—given that COP31 is coming up next month—the Government must rule out Jackdaw and Rosebank, and move with all speed to the future of clean, green, renewable energy on which this country’s future prosperity depends?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming what I had to say. On the climate crisis, I can assure her that I was not silent in my speech to the UN General Assembly; indeed, the Foreign Secretary convened climate crisis-related events in New York. As I have said before, we will be pragmatic on oil and gas, given that the country will continue to need to use them in the future, but where we agree is that it is essential that this country builds the strongest possible bridge to a renewable future.

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

Last week, one of the food production companies in my constituency contacted my office regarding an import of fish from the European Union which has been held at Suffolk Coastal Port Health Authority because of a labelling discrepancy. Delay and potential refusal of entry have significant financial implications for the business, with storage and associated costs continuing to accumulate while the container remains at port with the increasing likelihood that the stock will have to be destroyed as time goes on. May I ask for the Prime Minister’s reassurance that closer ties with Europe will make it easier for local businesses to import and export to the European Union?

[The Prime Minister]

One can only imagine the frustration of the businesses that are trying to get that produce released. The Minister for Europe just said to me, “We get calls like this all the time.” Why was there such indifference on the other side of the House to this situation? Why are we not working towards a pragmatic solution to get British goods flowing to market? I do not think the other side’s position is sustainable, and the example my hon. Friend has just given, speaking up for businesses in her constituency, is one that the vast majority of people would say, “Right, get that fixed” and we will.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, to which I listened carefully. In it, he said,

“our resolve to defend…ourselves is absolute”.

However, at that Dispatch Box on another occasion, he said that national security

“cannot come at the expense of social security.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 1036.]

Bearing in mind that our allies and our enemies are listening to our proceedings, could he make it crystal clear to the world that he has no higher priority than the national security of the United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

I can make it abundantly clear that national security is my highest priority and the Government’s highest priority, and we will set out how we will meet our NATO commitments in due course. But resilience builds from the community level up, and we also have to have an eye to the resilience of our communities in a very changing world, so I was talking about social security in the broadest sense. They go together. I want a resilient and strong Britain in the 21st century.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister knows from our discussion that the cost of living is the No. 1 issue that my constituents raise with me and are struggling with right now in Blackpool South. With the UK-EU summit now confirmed, does the Prime Minister believe that this is the perfect opportunity to deliver real benefits for Blackpool businesses and families, including lowering food prices, more opportunities for young people, stronger defence and, most importantly for many of my constituents, further immigration controls which we lost under the previous Government?

[The Prime Minister]

One of the most positive aspects of my meeting with President von der Leyen in New York was her openness to the conversation about restoring data sharing on immigration across Europe. That is something that Britain has long sought in the decade since Brexit. It is the control that we lost, actually, at the time of the referendum. It is one issue that does not get enough attention and it should get more. I say to my hon. Friend that I will work hard to see if we can get a practical arrangement on that very issue at the summit in November.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

There are only just over five weeks to go until the European summit that the Prime Minister has announced. The Prime Minister makes reference to our farmers, but the agricultural sector is putting out huge warnings at the moment. I wonder if the Prime Minister could specifically reference and refer to CropLife UK’s detailed report, which outlines that aligning the UK’s crop protection rules with the EU would slash farming income by up to £810 million in the first year alone, trigger steep falls in UK crop protection, and significantly negatively impact the progress made through the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. Can the Prime Minister comment on those concerns that are being made right now?

[The Prime Minister]

Where I can comment is in saying to the hon. Member that the National Farmers Union is very strongly in support of this proposed deal. Obviously, we need to get the details on the table, and I will listen to what he has got to say. If he sends me the report that he referenced, I will take a look at it. But there is strong support for what we are trying to do to support British food and farming.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

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

In August I had the privilege of visiting the Falkland Islands, an amazing place, where Government representatives told me all about the opportunities presented by the Sea Lion oilfield development fund. Whatever one’s opinion of the Sea Lion development, it is clear that the Government of Argentina cannot threaten those who choose to get involved in that project and cannot try to scupper it with external actions that do not match our ambitions. I ask the Prime Minister today to set out his view on that. Will he also unambiguously state that it is the Falkland Islanders’ right to determine where their resources go?

[The Prime Minister]

We have consistently demonstrated our unwavering support for the Falkland Islanders and indeed for the Sea Lion project. I made that very clear in New York. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is working hard on this issue and we will say more in due course.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

I fully recognise the need not to prejudice an ongoing investigation, but will the Prime Minister differentiate between the criminal investigations into the recent incidents at RAF bases and say what measures the Government are taking to establish whether other military bases face similar vulnerabilities, both at home and abroad, to protect our armed forces?

[The Prime Minister]

I assure the House that British police and security services have done everything that they should have done and have conducted the investigation in relation to RAF Fairford with the utmost rigour; that needs to be put on the record. The hon. Gentleman is right to press on base security more broadly, and I can assure him that I am working with the Defence Secretary to ensure that we are doing everything we can. We are confident in the way that we are managing the security of our bases, but we are not complacent and we will do everything necessary to secure them. I pay tribute to those who apprehended the trespassers at RAF Molesworth recently; that shows that we are being very vigilant when it comes to the security of our bases.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. To deter our adversaries, we are not only going to have to increase defence spending; we are also going to have to mobilise our financial markets. I welcome the many good conversations between the UK and Canada, but the founding of the defence, security and resilience bank will take political leadership. Will the Prime Minister take that step, stand with Prime Minister Carney, and ensure that Britain is at the forefront of building the financial power needed to deter our adversaries?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I have had discussions with the Canadian Prime Minister at a certain football ground on that very subject; I assure my hon. Friend of that. We are looking at how we can pursue procurement co-operation more broadly, and we will say more in due course.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

For the avoidance of doubt, will the Prime Minister confirm which country was responsible for the Jaguar Land Rover hack and, more importantly, whether there have been any repercussions?

[The Prime Minister]

I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

It is estimated that Scotland is some £30 billion a year worse off as a result of Brexit. We have already heard this afternoon about the problems faced by the fishing and agriculture sectors, but in addition, the creative industries, financial services, architectural firms, engineering companies and tourism have all identified problems arising for them and the people who work in those areas because of Brexit. In the EU summit to come, will the Prime Minister consider the opportunities there may be to advance the cause of those industries, particularly as they are so important to my home city of Glasgow?

[The Prime Minister]

I am looking forward to visiting Scotland later this week and I hope to have those discussions. We cannot accept the status quo—it is not good enough for Scotland or for Britain. I was encouraged by the pragmatic approach taken by the hon. Member for one of the Dorset seats—

[Simon Hoare]

North!

[The Prime Minister]

No. 10 North or Dorset North? [Laughter.] In the weeks ahead, I hope that we can encourage that same spirit of pragmatism among the rest of the Opposition Members.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his steadfast support for Ukraine and his early visit. However, next year there may be a potential problem for Europe—I see the Europe Minister and the Defence Secretary are in their places—because the rise of National Rally in France and Alternative für Deutschland in Germany might mean that support for NATO starts to fragment in some European nations. Will the Prime Minister work with the Defence Secretary and the Chancellor on defence planning and a defence budget should the United Kingdom need to do more for Ukraine in those circumstances?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to point to the changing picture in Europe. Obviously, we will have to be mindful of how that picture might change. I was pleased to welcome the NATO Secretary-General to Oxfordshire—we had an excellent discussion. Britain will remain at the heart of NATO and we will continue to do whatever we need to do. It is right that Opposition Members challenge the Government about our commitments to defence, but we are still the third biggest contributor to NATO and sometimes that point is missed. We are spending billions of pounds more as a Government than we were, and we will continue to spend more as we go forward.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

Younger generations in this country sacrificed a great deal during covid to protect older generations, and we all owe them our thanks for that. With the youth jobs grant and the Your First Home scheme, the Government are taking concrete steps to try to improve opportunities for young people. Of course the Prime Minister must prioritise economic growth in his discussions with the EU, but will he confirm that long-term commitment to Erasmus and the youth mobility scheme will be prioritised as well, so that younger generations can have the same opportunities that benefited my generation?

[The Prime Minister]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The youth mobility component of the deal matters as much to me as the other parts.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement—I hope that making an international statement in the House will become a regular feature for him. He has just come from the UN: what discussions took place about the future of the UN, the proper funding of the UN, the funding of the agencies of the UN and the reform of the Security Council and the General Assembly, so that the UN can play a real role in trying to bring about an end to the conflicts that are going on around the world? The world spent $2.7 trillion on arms last year, and it will be more this year. There is a role for international peace institutions to try to bring about ceasefires where possible and peace wherever it can be assured, so surely that needs to be on the agenda. Finally, in his reply to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), he said that there were concerns about the environment—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I think the Prime Minister has got the gist.

[The Prime Minister]

I met the Secretary-General of the United Nations in New York. Of course Britain will play its part in providing the support that the UN needs, ensuring that the UN’s standing rises in these times, because we need it more now than we have in recent times. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will always be open to reform of the UN.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

The Putin tax—the cost of Russian cyber and physical attacks on the UK—is costing the British taxpayer about £2.5 billion each year. My office conducted research over the summer, but we were unable to find a great deal of information about the true cost of Russian hostile activity because the Government do not collect that information. Will the Prime Minister commit the Government to collecting more of that information and to publishing it on a regular basis, so that the public know the true cost to the UK taxpayer of Vladimir Putin’s aggression?

[The Prime Minister]

That was a topic of conversation with Chancellor Merz in our meeting in Berlin last week. The cyber-attacks that both Germany and the UK face are multiple and pose serious risks for British businesses. That is why we have launched a new partnership on hybrid attacks. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of monitoring the data, and I will see what more we can do on that.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and his commitment to being more straightforward with the House than perhaps has always been the case over the last couple of years. In the light of that, will he give the House an unequivocal assurance that he believes that the Brexit referendum was legitimate? Will he say so on the record?

[The Prime Minister]

I will very much say so on the record: it was legitimate. I have always respected the result, and I have never questioned its legitimacy, but I am within my rights to point out where foreign actors are looking to interfere in British democracy.

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

The last 10 years of poor Brexit deals have taken a toll on our businesses and economy, including on a lot of small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency that are looking to grow. We all want less red tape for business and frictionless trade with our largest trading partners, so can the Prime Minister seek a deal that opens up possibilities for my breweries, farmers and manufacturers to help them grow?

[The Prime Minister]

If we get to a deal and it does not do all the things that my hon. Friend just mentioned, it will not be the right deal. I know that I will be in a stronger position the more that people in all parties in the House get behind what I am saying. That will put Britain in the strongest place to negotiate a deal. That would be a good negotiating strategy, and maybe the Opposition will consider it.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

The whole House will have noted that when the Prime Minister was asked about freedom of movement, he evaded the question. May I ask him directly—it is a simple yes or no—to say that in any future negotiation on rejoining the EU, freedom of movement will not be on the table?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is getting way ahead of himself. There is no proposal for a referendum; there is no deal on the table. All I have said is that, as we go towards this negotiation, it makes sense to consider also our longer-term options, because it helps our European partners if they know where Britain wants to go in the future. That is all that is being said at this moment in time.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

Britain has enormous strengths in AI. We attracted almost as much private investment as the EU 27 combined last year, but in an industry dominated by the United States and China, it is only by co-operating with our friends in Europe that we can achieve the scale necessary to keep ourselves safe and to thrive. Does the Prime Minister agree that a technology partnership is one of the ways in which we could rebuild our relationship with the EU?

[The Prime Minister]

That is an excellent thought, and that is exactly what we may be able to strengthen as part of our G20 presidency year. I point my hon. Friend towards the actions of the AI Minister, who has regained access to US AI frontier models for the AI Security Institute. That shows that we are in a good position to broker new standards on AI across the world and make arrangements with all our partners.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I commend the Prime Minister for his statement and specifically for his acknowledgment of the significant harm that Brexit has wrought on our communities. I welcome his desire for a serious conversation about the long-term relationship with the European Union. Does he agree that for any dialogue to be serious, it has to include a the full range of options, including membership of the customs union, the single market and possibly the European Union?

[The Prime Minister]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is taking an open-minded approach. At this stage, as we look to move beyond the decade that was not the best for Britain—let us be honest about that—it is right that we have a discussion in the House about where we want to go and where we want to take this country in the next decade. Let us be clearer about our direction in the next decade than we were in the last. That is what I will try to bring as Prime Minister for this country. I am not going to turn away from questions just because they might be awkward or difficult. That is what has got us into this position. We have turned away from things that we should have dealt with. I am not going to do that. I appreciate the spirit that the hon. Gentleman is showing today. That is what the country needs as we go forward.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on the work that he is doing with allies to promote resolution to conflicts around the world, particularly in the middle east and Ukraine. Nevertheless, my constituents remain extremely anxious about the effect of the situation in the strait of Hormuz on their fuel bills, going into what will probably be a difficult winter. Can the Prime Minister provide reassurance that he will try to protect the most vulnerable from increases in energy bills going forward, and will also continue our acceleration away from dependence on fossil fuels and further towards renewables, so that we are less open to energy price shocks in the future?

[The Prime Minister]

I can assure my hon. Friend that reducing the cost of energy is a core priority of this Government, as I said at the conference in Liverpool just over a week ago. I have already removed VAT from electricity bills; there is more to come, and we will set that out soon.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

If the Prime Minister is so keen to support our farmers, there is one step he could take that is entirely within his control, which is to scrap the family farm tax. Will he do so, and show a genuine commitment to our farmers?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Lady knows, changes have been made, but that is not the only issue affecting British farming, which is why I have made the statement I have made today.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister loves his music, as does Rob, a constituent of mine who is a member of the Musicians’ Union. He welcomed the Government’s plan for music, “Turn It Up”, and its support for local venues, but that plan is quiet about what the future relationship with Europe will look like when it comes to touring. With 59% of musicians saying that EU touring is no longer viable, will the Prime Minister commit to putting visa waivers for this specific purpose on the table on 20 November?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me be plain: I would like to see the return of visa-free access to Europe for British musicians and performers.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

On 28 September, Javier Milei initiated annex VII arbitration proceedings against the United Kingdom in relation to halting activities at the Sea Lion oilfield. That deadline expired yesterday, and I assume that we have not complied. The Government have already said that they would robustly defend the Falkland Islands against this, which is great. Javier Milei will now initiate proceedings under the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. I agree that we should push back against this. However, last May, the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), said from the Dispatch Box that the

“most proximate, and the most potentially serious”

legal challenge facing us about the Chagos islands was

“the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.”—[Official Report, 22 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 1291.]

Why are we prepared to defend the Falkland Islands against ITLOS, but not the Chagos islands?

[The Prime Minister]

I have been very clear this afternoon that we will defend the Falkland Islands, and I reiterated that to the Falkland Islands’ Government at our recent conference. I did discuss the matter of the Chagos islands in New York, and particularly the crucial need to secure the future of our base at Diego Garcia. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is what we will do.

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

Many of my younger constituents feel that their horizons have been shortened and their opportunities limited by the restrictions on their ability to travel, study and work in Europe, post Brexit. They simply want the same opportunities that were available to the generations before them. Does the Prime Minister agree that, through a new youth experience scheme, they should get those opportunities?

[The Prime Minister]

I believe that this generation, which has so much potential and so much promise, deserves the same thing that so many of us took for granted, which is the ability to travel and study in Europe with ease. That is why, as I said a moment ago, the youth mobility component of the proposed deal matters greatly to me.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

We now know that Iran has targeted bases on our soil. We already knew that Iranian agents who had been charged with terrorism offences entered the United Kingdom on small boats, so will the Prime Minister do what Reform UK would do—declare a national security emergency, because we have a gaping hole in our borders right now, send the Royal Navy into the channel, and shut down the entire asylum farce, once and for all—to truly fulfil his duty as Prime Minister, which is to keep the British people safe?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I can remember a time when the right hon. Gentleman stood up in this House and made serious proposals—sadly, not today. If he had checked the facts recently, he would have seen that small boat crossings are coming down under this Government. When he was Immigration Minister, what did they do? They went up and up. Those are the facts; he should engage with them.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that I absolutely love my town of Harlow. [Interruption.] Somebody who loved it even more than me, and apparently my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), was the late, great Jean Clark, a former Harlow councillor who sadly passed away during the recess. She will be dearly missed, and I would love the Prime Minister to pay tribute to a real Harlow legend.

The Prime Minister will be aware that many small and medium-sized businesses in Harlow depend on trade with the EU. They have been pressured by the increased red tape that we have seen since Brexit. Will he confirm to those businesses that he is not talking about a rerun of the Brexit referendum, or a rerun of those negotiations, but about ensuring that we get the best deal for businesses in Harlow?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has paid a touching tribute to Jean, and I am pleased to reiterate that from the Dispatch Box. I know that she will be much missed in Harlow. He is exactly right: this is not about rerunning anything, but about getting a pragmatic arrangement that improves the position. I think most of the common-sense people of Harlow will fully understand what I am trying to do.

[Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

Can I just get clarity? The Prime Minister said that he wanted to increase defence spending, but then he backtracked. He then said he would prioritise welfare—sorry, he promised to cut welfare, before prioritising it over defence. Despite his making a commitment to not reopen the Brexit debate, that is exactly what he has now done. He said here in the Chamber that there would be no referendum. Does that mean he would consider taking Britain back into Europe unilaterally?

[The Prime Minister]

I was trying to follow that question, but it was going on. The answer is no, full stop.

[Peter Swallow]

The Prime Minister is right to be honest with the British public. Brexit has made us economically and socially poorer; it has made it harder to tackle illegal immigration; and it is driving a cost of living crisis for my constituents. That is why the Prime Minister is also right to say that the status quo cannot hold. Can I urge him to take a position of maximum pragmatism ahead of the EU summit in November, so that we can make sure we get a closer relationship with Europe and a better deal for the British people?

[The Prime Minister]

I will absolutely do that. The quality of the conversations is already improving, and I am confident that we can steer things to a successful conclusion.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

In Bath, we led the rebellion against Brexit, and I have raised time and again here in Parliament how the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal has harmed hundreds of small businesses in my constituency. We have already heard this afternoon that endless paperwork and red tape harms not just the food and drinks industry, but all business sectors, and small businesses in particular. While I recognise that the Prime Minister is focusing on the next six weeks, can he outline his ambition for negotiating cuts to the red tape and endless paperwork for businesses across the board, to support small businesses like those in Bath?

[The Prime Minister]

That is the deal that is on the table. It is not for the whole economy, but for those sectors that I mentioned today. If we can land that, it points to our going further in the future. I appreciate that the hon. Lady has been a consistent voice on this matter. If only her pragmatism was mirrored by those on the Conservative Benches.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister will be aware of the concerns of our vehicle manufacturers about the consequences if the UK does not secure exemptions from “Made in Europe” as drafted, and I welcome his assurances that the Government are prepared to act to harmonise our approach on Chinese imports in order to achieve that. Does he agree that if there are any changes to tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, there is no reason for a different approach to be taken to Chinese electric bus imports?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend will remember that we visited Alexander Dennis in his constituency when Greater Manchester was buying buses from it. I have the strongest commitment to Scottish manufacturing, and indeed to manufacturing across the UK. We need to make common cause with Europe on the whole question of tackling Chinese exports and the damaging effect that they can have in undercutting British industry.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

In recent weeks, we have seen once again that Iran poses a grave threat to the British people and our allies. Our intelligence relationships are our first line of defence, and Israel is among our most valuable partners in countering that threat. Given the fallout from his decision to sanction Israeli settlements and the deteriorating relationship that has followed, will the Prime Minister give the House a clear assurance today that intelligence co-operation with Israel is continuing in full—or is he putting at risk the safety and security of the British people?

[The Prime Minister]

It is possible to have differences on one issue, but then to co-operate on others. Of course we co-operate on intelligence and security with many international partners, including Israel. We have also been in discussions about the British presence in East Jerusalem, and we work to secure British interests all the time.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

I would be very interested to hear what the Prime Minister has to say, in this international update, about companies in foreign ownership yet again closing down vital Scottish industries. This time, it is Syngenta’s Chinese owners in Grangemouth who will make 377 people redundant on site, and we all know that this means that thousands will be affected in the wider supply chain. The Prime Minister is right to talk about the pressing need to reindustrialise vast parts of the country. Will he come to Grangemouth and listen to local people who have had the heart ripped out of their community, and will he commit to spending the £200 million from the National Wealth Fund to save jobs and build the industrial future that Grangemouth and Scotland need?

[The Prime Minister]

I do want to visit Grangemouth, as soon as my diary allows, because I recognise some of the very difficult issues that my hon. Friend is dealing with, and we have to secure a good transition for industry in his constituency. I cannot give him a date today, but I give him a commitment that I will as soon as I can.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

Northern Ireland voted to remain, and believe you me, no part of the UK has suffered more through Brexit than Northern Ireland. If there is a chance to make sure that my constituents in Lagan Valley have cheaper electricity, we are there. What assurance can the Prime Minister give me today that he is in live discussions with my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that Northern Ireland gets the best out of any possible deal?

[The Prime Minister]

That is my intent, stated from this Dispatch Box. I hope that we can work with the hon. Lady and her colleagues to deliver what could be a very real change, felt by her constituents and many more.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

For the fourth time of asking, in any negotiations with the EU, will the Prime Minister rule out a return to freedom of movement?

[The Prime Minister]

It is not on the table, and it is not up for discussion. I am sorry that that does not suit the hon. Gentleman’s political purpose.

May I clarify something, Mr Speaker? The National Farmers Union is waiting to see the terms of any deal, so it is neutral at the moment. I thought that I had better correct the record before the end of this statement.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Does the Prime Minister view himself as the Prime Minister of Britain, or the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? I ask because the sanitary and phytosanitary deal that he seeks to negotiate with the EU is exclusively a GB-EU SPS deal, which means that Northern Ireland remains under the colonial rule of the EU on all SPS matters, whereas if it were a UK-EU deal, the UK could take back control in Northern Ireland of EU laws in which we currently have no say whatsoever.

[The Prime Minister]

I can say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that this will also have the effect of reducing checks in the Irish sea, which will bring a benefit for his constituents. Of course, the bigger benefits for Northern Ireland are in relation to energy, and I think that is something that his constituents would want me to pursue.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

The Prime Minister likes to present himself as a straight-talking kind of guy, but again and again he has been asked a straight question and not given a straight answer. Can he rule out—yes or no—taking Britain back into freedom of movement while he is Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not know how many times I need to remind the hon. Gentleman of the commitment that I made to the red lines in our manifesto, which include freedom of movement. I do not know if has just not been listening, even though he has been sat there all afternoon. It is simply not on the table in these discussions.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

The Prime Minister has spoken encouragingly about closer ties with the EU. Between this and the renewed appetite for electoral reform, I welcome the Labour party’s recent adoption of Liberal Democrat policy priorities. The leader of the Conservatives was right to say that the Opposition have won the argument—it just was not her.

On international relations, Britain has always straddled two global alliances: our European neighbours and our global Commonwealth brothers and sisters. With that in mind, in order to build a more comprehensive global security network, to unlock future growth and to add to the closer links with the EU to which the Prime Minister has committed, could he inform the House about the Government’s position on strengthening integration with Canada, New Zealand and Australia? Will he also meet the newly formed CANZUK all-party parliamentary group to discuss this important issue further?

[The Prime Minister]

I will at some point—I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on precisely when. I had an excellent conversation with the Prime Minister of Canada, as I mentioned a moment ago. I think there is huge importance in the English-speaking world uniting in this moment, working together and navigating a difficult climate, but also in forging new partnerships to do so.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The Falklands have to get explicit permission from this country to have new oil and gas licences, so will the Prime Minister consent to them? If the answer is yes, why is it okay to drill in the South Pacific but not in the North sea? If it is no, how does that figure with self-determination of the Falklands Islands?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is jumping to the conclusion that I have made decisions on matters in relation to the North sea, but I have been very clear that we support the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination. We will defend it resolutely in the face of hostility from Argentina, and the Foreign Secretary will say more on that in due course.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister, as a proud Unionist, will be acutely aware that despite Scotland voting overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, it was dragged out against its will because it is part of the United Kingdom. Since then, support for Scottish independence has only risen. Two thirds of the last 22 independent polls show support for independence, the Scottish Parliament has the highest majority ever of pro-independence MSPs, and it voted 72 to 55 in favour of a section 30 agreement for a referendum on Scotland’s future. In the Prime Minister’s own words to me last month, a “clear consensus” has now been met, so I ask him a simple question: what steps is he now taking with the Scottish Government to secure a legal pathway so that Scotland can decide its own future and rejoin the EU?

[The Prime Minister]

The discussions that I am having with the Scottish Government and will have later this month are on a model of deeper devolution for Scotland that can get growth going in all parts of the country. That is where my priority lies and that is what I will do.

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

I welcome the Prime Minister’s clarification that he believes that the UK referendum was legitimate. The Intelligence and Security Committee recommended six years ago that the UK intelligence community should produce an assessment of Russian interference in the EU referendum, and that an unclassified summary be published. That did not happen. Why does the Prime Minister think that his predecessors have been so reluctant to speak about Russian attempts to interfere in the referendum?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman might want to ask the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), sitting to his left, because the Russia report from the ISC found that Her Majesty’s Government had not sought evidence. Those are the facts as found by the Committee, and those are matters and questions for that Government rather than this one.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

The Prime Minister has told this House repeatedly about the involvement of Russian authorities in our democratic process, and the fact that they are willing to spend millions and millions of pounds to interfere in our democratic process. Given that, does the Prime Minister concur with me that photo identification at polling stations during elections is not just important, but an absolute necessity?

[The Prime Minister]

I would say that we do want to uphold the highest standards of security in our voting system, but the Bill before the House does that, as well as allowing more people the ability to vote.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Today was a very sad day for my residents in Mid Dorset and North Poole, with the very last sailing of the Barfleur from Poole to her twin town of Cherbourg in France after 34 years of continuous trade, and this is blamed on Brexit red tape, food export restrictions and travel limitations on people who can travel only for 90 in 180 days. Will the Prime Minister please ask his officials to do all they can to keep open the window of opportunity to keep this going, and make sure that the issue of UK ports and their role is included in the UK-EU summit?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady raises a really important point, and the Minister for Europe has just said that he is willing to meet her to discuss it, because it is a real shame, given that level of history. But again, that is why we are trying to negotiate a better arrangement. We will do exactly as she says, and look at how what we are trying to achieve could benefit British ports.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

Talk of an energy ceasefire shows once again how central energy security is to national security, so will the Prime Minister reassure the House that the rumoured cuts to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero budget will not undermine his Government’s ability to protect our critical energy infrastructure, or indeed to protect our constituents from the high energy bills that undermine society’s cohesion?

[The Prime Minister]

I say to the hon. Lady that protecting our critical national infrastructure and our energy infrastructure is a crucial part of national security. It is the essence of the deal—the partnership—we struck with Germany last week, and we will ensure that there is sufficient funding to achieve that via the Ministry of Defence and, indeed, DESNZ.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The EU asylum and migration pact ticks all the Prime Minister’s boxes in bringing control and safety to the asylum system, and it is cheaper than the bilateral agreements that his Government are making with France and Belgium, so why is it not on the agenda for his Government?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to look at what the hon. Gentleman is saying if he writes to me in detail on that very matter.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

During the last couple of hours, I have heard the Prime Minister talk about three of the four pillars of our national defence—our military, our resilience and our alliances—but he has yet to mention the crucial fourth pillar, which is the importance of the international rules-based order and the institutions that underpin it. Is he going to take any active steps to defend the International Criminal Court and the UK citizens who work there against the American sanctions that have been placed on it?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, we are looking at the decisions that have been reached in relation to that very issue, and we will of course defend any British citizens who have been unfairly treated.

[Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I have listened carefully to what the Prime Minister has had to say, and I am very grateful to him. Would he agree with me that in our international affairs we must do all we can to support the BBC World Service, which is the voice of this country to the world—the voice of truth and facts?

[The Prime Minister]

Indeed. I am a very big supporter of the World Service, and indeed of the BBC as a whole.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Will the Prime Minister state categorically that he is in no way considering a May 2027 general election?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

The US President’s disastrous war in the middle east has massively driven up the price of liquified petroleum gas and heating oil in my rural constituency. Pensioners and struggling families will be forced to leave their heating off, risking their health. As reducing bills is the Prime Minister’s stated priority, will he please consider removing VAT from heating oil and LPG, and include them in the energy price cap?

[The Prime Minister]

I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making. Obviously, different parts of the UK are more dependent on heating oil and that issue has really come to the fore throughout the course of this year, so I will consider what he has to say.

Just to clarify in relation to the previous question: yes, in no way am I considering a May 2027 general election.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

I know that the people of the Falkland Islands will be reassured by the Prime Minister telling President Trump and the UN General Assembly that the clear and declared will of the islands is to remain British, but will he please afford the same rights to the people of the Chagos islands? Surely, all citizens of overseas territories should have the right of self-determination and the right to stay British.

[The Prime Minister]

We will certainly uphold our obligations in respect of the Falklands Islands. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the issues related to the Chagos islands are different—they are not strictly comparable—but we will always take the right and fair approach.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

The Prime Minister is confident that close ties with the EU will deliver growth, but what evidence can he provide to this House that this will translate into tangible improvements for the communities that felt left behind by globalisation and then voted for Brexit? Does he accept that we have a duty to respect that democratic decision, and that reopening this deeply divisive debate must be justified by clear measurable benefits that could not be achieved otherwise outside the European Union?

[The Prime Minister]

The clear measurable benefits are containers and lorries full of fresh produce not sitting at ports and going off. That is a clear and measurable benefit to a business, as is extra several billion pound-sized growth in the UK economy. I would not be pursuing this were there not tangible differences for British business at the end of it. The figures are from the Treasury. They quantify an increase of at least 0.2% in UK GDP if we get the right deal, possibly more, and that is worth pursuing at this moment in time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

For the final question, I call Jim Shannon.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I did not negotiate the arrangement that is currently in place. What I am trying to do is make things better for the people of Northern Ireland. I am confident in saying to him that if we get the right deal on energy connection, that could make an appreciable difference for his constituents, as could the paperwork on Irish sea crossings as well. There are real benefits that I can achieve here that will improve things for Northern Ireland—possibly not to his complete satisfaction, but they are steps forward.

Cabinet Committees

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Andy Burnham)]

Today I am publishing a Cabinet Committee list. I have placed a copy of the new list in the Library of each House.

[HCWS332]

Church Appointments

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Andy Burnham)]

I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention steps that the Government are taking regarding Church appointments.

Restrictions set out in the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 prevent persons professing the Roman Catholic and Jewish faiths only from advising the sovereign on appointments to the Church of England and Church of Scotland. I have therefore transferred my constitutional responsibility to advise the sovereign on Church appointments to the Lord Chancellor.

It is, however, unacceptable for there to be a legislative bar against people of any faith performing all the functions of my office. The Government will therefore introduce a Bill at the earliest possible opportunity to correct this antiquated and archaic anomaly.

[HCWS325]

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 September.

[The Prime Minister (Andy Burnham)]

On Friday, we will mark the 25th anniversary of 9/11—a moment to remember the nearly 3,000 people who died, including 67 British citizens. There will be a ceremonial changing of the guard, and events across the country. Our thoughts will remain, on Friday, with the loved ones of all those we lost.

I also want to send our sympathies to the hundreds of people who will gather today at the funeral of PC Matthew Blades, including many serving police officers. We send our thanks to them all for their service and their work to keep our communities safe.

As we can see from looking around the Chamber, today is Back British Farming Day, and I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to everyone working around the clock to feed our country. Food security is national security, and we will continue to back British farming as a Government.

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

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the Prime Minister has a grip on the first three questions.

[The Prime Minister]

It does my heart good to hear my hon. Friend talk about rising hope in Kilmarnock and the masterplan for the town, backed by the Government with the Pride in Place funding—and yes, I can assure her that No. 10 North is as much at the service of her constituency as it is at the service of any constituency in the House. We will turn what is happening in Kilmarnock into real momentum for the town.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

After last week’s session, the country was thrown into confusion over whether the Prime Minister was or was not going to fund 3% for defence by 2030. After today he will have another five weeks off PMQs, but there are some serious threats to national security that cannot wait. His Chancellor resigned as Defence Secretary because the Labour Government would not increase defence spending to 3% by 2030. Does the Prime Minister think that he was right to quit?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said last week, I appointed this Chancellor because of his strong commitment to the defence of this nation—that was the reason—and we will honour our NATO commitments: 3.5% by 2035, and a target date for 3%. That will all be set out in the spending review. I do not feel, though, that the right hon. Lady gets the right to come to this House and claim the moral high ground and point fingers wherever possible, when defence spending was 2.3% of GDP and fell during 14 years of a Conservative Government. On this issue, I think we should do more problem solving than point scoring, and I say to the right hon. Lady that we would do our armed forces well if we could agree more on this crucial issue across the House.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister wants to talk about the past on defence spending, so let me refresh his memory and that of the House. I remember when he was the shadow Home Secretary, when the then Labour leader wanted us to leave NATO, disarm our nuclear deterrent and defund the Army, so I will not be taking any lectures from him.

The Prime Minister says the target is 2035. That is a decade away. If he cannot get to 3% by 2030, why should we believe he will get to 3.5% by 2035? The spending review is next year. Last week, I set out how we would get to 3% by 2030. The threats are now. Argentina is threatening the Falklands—now. Russia is threatening us in the North sea—now.

The Prime Minister did not answer my question. I asked him if the Chancellor was right to quit. The Chancellor was right to quit, which is why it is so wrong that he is not sticking to his principles. The Chancellor used to say that not hitting 3% by 2030 would put our troops at risk. He also said that Keir Starmer was “unable”, and the Treasury “unwilling”, to provide that funding. So is the Prime Minister unable, or is he just unwilling, to get that money by 2030?

[The Prime Minister]

This Chancellor, of all Chancellors, will be willing to provide that funding to our armed forces and back our defence investment plan. This Government’s commitment to the defence of this country is absolute. We have taken the strongest possible stance in supporting President Zelensky and Ukraine. We are playing our role around the world, and we will continue to do so.

The right hon. Lady mentions the plan that she has set out, and this is why I say that we should have an honest conversation across the Dispatch Box; I looked at it, and I do not think that taking £4 billion out of housing benefit is going to get the right consensus around this issue. That would create levels of homelessness in this country that we would not have seen before, with hundreds of thousands of children in temporary accommodation.

I say to the right hon. Lady that, yes, we do everything to support our national security, but it cannot come at the expense of social security. Having strong national security also depends on resilience in our communities. We on the Labour Benches will not be forced to choose between the two, and we will set out a plan to get to 3.5% by 2035 at the spending review.

[Mrs Badenoch]

It is unbelievable that the Prime Minister would say that. He is clearly unwilling. We need to fund our defence, not spend all our money on welfare. I cannot believe that he would actually say that. He is clearly unwilling, but there are ways to do this—he is not unable.

On Monday, Chris Rokos, Britain’s third biggest taxpayer, announced that he was leaving the country. That is £330 million of taxes walking out the door because of this Labour Government—every year, £330 million. His taxes could be going on defence. The Prime Minister is talking about spending more on welfare. The benefits bill is set to rise by £32 billion under him—that is not all of it; that is the rise. That money could be going on defence. The Prime Minister will not approve the Rosebank oilfield—£1.4 billion of tax revenue that could be going on defence. So, will the Prime Minister tell the country: where is he going to find the money to fund our defence?

[The Prime Minister]

I cannot comment today on quasi-judicial decisions, but we will take a pragmatic approach to oil and gas, as I have said before at the Dispatch Box.

Let us get to the heart of this question, as the right hon. Lady invites me to do. What is the right way to fund defence and, yes, bring the welfare budget down? She would make crude cuts to housing benefit. As I have said, if £4 billion is taken out in the next few years, families will be made homeless and rough sleeping on our streets will increase. So here is the Labour way—the way that we do it on this side of the House. We have set out plans for the biggest council house building programme this country has seen in a generation. If the right hon. Lady looks at research from the National Housing Federation, she will see that that is the route to save billions from housing benefit.

We will shortly respond to the final report of Alan Milburn, who is looking at the issue of young people not in education, employment or training—again, something left behind by the last Government. We will take the Labour way: change education, support our young people, and provide more mental health support. That is the Labour way to get the welfare bill down, and I say to the right hon. Lady that that is the right way to fund defence.

[Mrs Badenoch]

No, it is not. The truth is the Prime Minister does not know where he is going to find the money. He is talking about anything except defence, including council housing. He will not fund the military. I will tell you what he is funding though, Mr Speaker—Keir Starmer’s £35 billion surrender of the Chagos islands and its crucial military base. That is British sovereign territory. That is a weak decision, and it is no wonder that Argentina is now threatening the Falklands. We need to project strength. We need to show that British sovereign territory is non-negotiable. So why, just like Keir Starmer, is he planning to surrender the Chagos islands?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady has to do better than that. They are the worst kind of points to be scoring when the country is watching. We will not surrender our base at Diego Garcia—we are in discussions with the United States about that—and we will always respect the rights of the Falkland Islanders to choose to be British. That will never change under this Government, and we will be relentless in defending that.

[Mrs Badenoch]

We are talking about paying £35 billion to give away British territory, and all of that is happening while the Prime Minister’s Government are cancelling £30 million of vital training for British soldiers. He may be new to the job, so let me tell him what may not be in his briefing paper. Last year, defence funding fell in real terms—that is on this Government. To govern is to choose, so why is he choosing to send £35 billion to Mauritius when they cut the money to train our troops?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think the right hon. Lady is on strong ground when it comes to defence spending. It was 2.5% of GDP when the last Labour Government left office. It was 2.3% of GDP when the Government she was in left office. It is now set to be 2.7% in the next year. That is the reality of the situation—a Government who are strong on the defence of this country. That is what we are doing. It is why we have set out a defence investment plan that will be fully funded. I say to her again: it would be better to work across the House to get a fully and securely funded path to 3.5% of GDP by 2035 that will not change under any Government. That would send the strongest possible message to our armed forces. This is an area for problem solving rather than point scoring. I invite her to work with us on that, so that we can set out that clear path.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister seems to think that the last Government were a Conservative Government. The last Government were a Labour Government and they failed, which is why Keir Starmer resigned. He keeps talking about their record as if it was fantastic. If it was, then why is Keir Starmer not sitting there? Where Britain needs leadership, what we have at the moment is just vibes. He said he appointed the Chancellor because he cares about defence, but he will not fund it. Other countries are making claims over our sovereign territory. They smell weakness. He is pretending that he is the change candidate, but the fact is he is still failing to cut welfare, he is still paying to hand over a sovereign territory, and he is still not funding defence. On the issues that really matter, is he not just continuity Keir?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady mentions leadership. Let me tell her and the whole House where Britain is showing leadership. There have been Conservative politicians at this Dispatch Box—Labour politicians, too—for decades who have talked about the importance of the two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. Words from any politician about a two-state solution will be only words if they are not backed with action. Leadership is about taking action where there is injustice, where we need to correct unfairness: people being driven out of their homes, losing their homes, being intimidated in their daily lives. I credit the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who yesterday applauded the action that this Government are taking.

In this difficult and dangerous world, Britain has to stand for something. Britain has to show leadership. Britain has to stand for fairness against injustice. [Interruption.] Where people are being bullied out of their homes and intimidated, we will always stand with the underdog and take what action we can to support them. That is leadership on the world stage; Britain being true to what it has always been about. That is what the British people expect of us and that is what this Government will do.

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Bacon, I do not need advice from you. I am not responsible for the answers. The Prime Minister answers the questions. Do not look to me, please.

[The Prime Minister]

I am a more regular visitor to my hon. Friend’s constituency than she might realise, constantly nipping in and out for various reasons, so I know Warrington well. I believe it is a success story, actually; something of a jewel in the north-west crown. It is a growing town—almost a city, given how successful it has been in recent times—but it does need new infrastructure. I would like to see a remodelled Warrington Bank Quay, with high-quality east-west, north-south connectivity running through it. When it comes to leisure—Mr Speaker, you know this as much as anyone in the House and perhaps more than anyone—this is a Prime Minister who will back grassroots sport to the hilt. I assure my hon. Friend that I am happy to talk to her about the leisure centre she mentioned.

[Mr Speaker]

And watching Warrington Wolves, I hope. I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s opening remarks, not least about the 25th anniversary of the horrific terror attacks of 9/11. I welcome the Government finally banning imports from illegal Israeli settlements, something Keir Starmer should have done a long time ago. On Back British Farming Day, can I also celebrate British farmers? I hope the Prime Minister will do more than that and end the family farm tax.

Last week I asked about North Devon’s maternity unit, which is still closed. This week I have to raise Musgrove Park hospital, where the Prime Minister’s Labour colleague Baroness Amos found the “most challenging” maternity estate in the whole country. She described “leaking roofs”, a ceiling propped up by poles and room temperatures that put newborn babies at risk. No mother should have to give birth in such circumstances. Does the Prime Minister agree that Musgrove Park cannot wait until 2033 for work to start on a new maternity unit? Will he offer a meeting to local MPs, so we can move it forward? And will he make fixing the maternity scandal across our country a top priority of his Government?

[The Prime Minister]

That is a fair question. Let me first thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the statement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs. It is important that there is support across the House for what was announced. We have all stood together for the two-state solution. The reason my right hon. Friend decided to announce what he did when he did is obviously that the E1 settlement tender concludes before the Israeli general election. It was important to make a clear statement on where Britain stands, for Britain to show leadership. That is what we have done, but we appreciate the cross-party support.

On British farming, I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says and I will set out more measures later.

I looked into the issues with North Devon’s maternity unit, and the right hon. Gentleman will soon receive an update from me. He mentions Musgrove Park hospital in Taunton—a hospital I know. It points to a systemic challenge facing maternity services across the country, as various reviews have said. That is why my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will next week chair a meeting of the maternity taskforce in the Department of Health and Social Care. We will ensure that all the issues raised, including at the hospitals mentioned, are looked at in detail.

[Ed Davey]

I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. Britain should be the safest country in the world to have a baby. We will keep raising this issue until it is the safest.

The best legacy of the previous Conservative Prime Minister is our world-leading AI Security Institute, which is now essential to our national security, and to global security, in the age of artificial intelligence. But today, the Financial Times reports that Anthropic did not submit its latest model to the institute for testing, apparently due to pressure from the Trump Administration. Does the Prime Minister think it is acceptable for President Trump to undermine Britain’s efforts to keep the world safe from dangerous AI?

[The Prime Minister]

On the specific issue, the institute that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned is indeed a world leader, and is in daily conversation with industry partners, including Anthropic. Those conversations will continue. On the broader issue, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that AI poses risks to our national security, but it could also be the source of solutions for keeping us safer, and that was a discussion that we had yesterday. That is why I appointed a Minister for Artificial Intelligence to the Cabinet. We have lifted the level of conversation about artificial intelligence within Government, and the offer is open to colleagues on all sides of the House who want to be a part of that crucial discussion.

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

Q3. It is clear to me and many across this House that despite the hard work and dedication of all postal workers, Royal Mail’s management is failing in its obligation to provide a basic and reliable postal service. The people of Crewe and Nantwich are paying the price through missed appointments, late fees and, in some cases, even county court judgments. I have full confidence in this Prime Minister to deliver for our country. Will he join me in calling on Royal Mail’s management to do the same, including by working with the Communication Workers Union and through the implementation of the recommendations of the Select Committee report published earlier this year?

[The Prime Minister]

It is good for me to be able to credit the Communication Workers Union, because I know it has done a huge amount of work over the years to raise some of the issues within Royal Mail. It is because of that work that there has now been a commitment from the business to invest £500 million in frontline resourcing. Everyone in this House will know that standards have not been good enough, and people have been facing an unreliable service. We are committed, as a Government, to a comprehensive universal service obligation. That is what will safeguard Royal Mail’s future, but the company now needs to listen to what my hon. Friend is saying and get on and deliver it.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

In the coming weeks, energy bills will rise again for households across the United Kingdom; within the last few days, five major mortgage lenders have pushed up mortgage prices for households across the United Kingdom; and within the last few hours, the cost of a barrel of oil has gone to over $100, pushing up prices at the pumps for motorists across the United Kingdom. Despite that, the Prime Minister still seems fairly well liked. I will let you into a wee secret, Mr Speaker: I quite like the new Prime Minister. But popularity will not pay the bills during this winter’s looming cost of living emergency, so will the Prime Minister stand up now and tell people what he is going to do to help?

[The Prime Minister]

I will, Mr Speaker. I will remove VAT from electricity bills next month. It is not going to solve everything for people, but it will take a little bit of pressure off, and the hon. Gentleman should look out for further measures as we go through the year. I appreciate that it does not apply in Scotland, but we will impose a £2 cap on bus fares across England for the whole of 2027. We are doing this because this is a cost of living Government, and we want to give people hope that some help is coming. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his faint praise—it will get him everywhere.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Q5. In a capital city still scarred by the loss of 72 lives in the Grenfell fire, we have a second equally flammable and deadly risk. In bedrooms and corridors across London, low-paid deliverers for Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats are charging the tools of their trade: lethal lithium e-bike batteries. Every other day, the London Fire Brigade is called out to an e-bike battery fire, with a record 206 in 2025 alone. Will the Prime Minister commit the Government to banning the import of substandard e-bikes and converter kits, and will his Ministers attend my roundtable in October with regulators, delivery companies and insurers to find a way forward?

[The Prime Minister]

We recently consulted on the conversion kits that my hon. Friend mentions and will set out a response shortly. As somebody who formerly had responsibility for the Greater Manchester fire and rescue service, I fully understand the issue that she is raising, and she can expect a robust response on all the issues raised. I am not sure that I will be able to attend her roundtable, but I will ensure that a Minister does so.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Q4. Community energy is a fantastic way of empowering communities and helping with both energy security and the cost of living. The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee recently published a report in which we identified that people living around a community energy project still cannot buy that electricity because of complex market regulations. Beechen Cliff school in Bath has solar panels on its roof that produce lots of excess electricity during the summer months, but the many households living around it cannot buy and use it. Will the Prime Minister support the acceleration of change to market reform to ensure that we unleash the full potential of community energy?

[The Prime Minister]

We can absolutely give the hon. Lady that assurance. Our local power plan, backed by £1 billion from Great British Energy, is ensuring that every community in the country, including her constituents in Bath, can benefit from clean, affordable and locally generated energy. If she wishes to have a meeting with Great British Energy, I will facilitate that so that she can see how the plan can benefit her constituency more.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

Q6. The Prime Minister will remember his first visit as Labour leader to Gravesend, proving that he loves the south as much as the north. On that day, I spoke to him about the long campaign by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for the return and sustainable funding of the Gravesend-Tilbury ferry. Will the Prime Minister give his support again and help us to unlock barriers to back this ferry route, as connectivity matters for supporting high streets?

[The Prime Minister]

I am glad to correct at the Dispatch Box something of a myth, Mr Speaker. Like you, I do love the south of England, so I thank my hon. Friend for giving me that opportunity—[Laughter.] Okay, I love the south of England; on this issue, I will not speak for you, Mr Speaker.

On the day that I became Labour leader, I visited my hon. Friend’s constituency and saw where the ferry link used to go across the head of the river, providing critical connectivity for her constituents. I do not think it is acceptable that a link once there can just be abandoned and go. I will work with my hon. Friend to find ways of bringing that service back, supported by No. 10 North. She has my word on that.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Q7. I hope that the Prime Minister likes South Leicestershire as much as he likes the southern parts of England. Blaby, Enderby, Huncote, Cosby and Countesthorpe, to name but a few, are rural or semi-rural villages that have little in common with the urban area of the city of Leicester. The Government are going against the wishes of the residents of those villages, who have responded to the Government’s consultation and said that they do not want to be part of the city of Leicester. This has nothing to do with devolution; it is local government reform changing the boundaries. I have a very easy ask of the Prime Minister. He said that he is in listening mode; will he therefore meet me, the villagers of the areas that I have mentioned, and other stakeholders to discuss the issue of local government reform?

[The Prime Minister]

On this issue, I will agree to the hon. Gentleman’s request for a meeting. As announcements this week have shown, I believe that political reform always benefits from the highest degree of consensus, so I give him that assurance here and now.

[Mr Speaker]

Kim Johnson.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Q8. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker—I apologise. BT Openreach identified Liverpool as one of its 30 national hubs. However, in July this year, it decided to pull out of Liverpool, leading to the loss of 600 well-paid and skilled jobs. Will the Prime Minister join me in calling on BT Openreach to reverse its decision, and will he and the Government join me, the Communication Workers Union and the political leadership in Liverpool in doing everything that we can to ensure that these jobs and BT stay in Liverpool?

[The Prime Minister]

I think there are many people watching Prime Minister’s questions across the south of England who would now like Mr Speaker to be demoted in the way that my hon. Friend suggests. [Interruption.] This is very thin ice for a Leigh Leopards supporter to be on.

I am aware of the potential office closure in Liverpool by BT, and the number of job losses—up to 600, I believe. Steve Rotheram, the Mayor of the Liverpool City Region, and MPs have been in meetings, including with No. 10 North yesterday, discussing this and other issues. We will continue to work to support those jobs. Can I also congratulate the Mayor of the Liverpool City Region on bringing buses across the city region back under public control at the weekend, after 40 years of deregulation? That is change in action, protecting services for local communities.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Q9. Yr Heliwr in Nefyn is a community-owned pub, and it is buzzing with events fuelled by local beers and food. I have to declare an interest; I have shares in Yr Heliwr, and it makes my husband very happy indeed. Supporting businesses like Yr Heliwr is key for economic growth in coastal areas, but they are held back by a 20% VAT rate; in France, Spain and Italy, hospitality pays just 10%. Will the Prime Minister have a word with the Chancellor before the autumn Budget and cut VAT for hospitality to prove that postcodes furthest from London and Manchester will not be forgotten in his drive for growth?

[The Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Lady might know, I am something of a pub person myself. In my first week in office, I made the decision to cut business rates for pubs. We need to go further to support hospitality. I cannot commit, from this Dispatch Box today, to what she is asking, but she should wait for the Budget. We are keen to support high streets and hospitality up and down the country—in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and, indeed, Wales.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

Q10. With tech billionaires driving the deployment of artificial intelligence, many of my constituents are concerned about job losses, misinformation and the infrastructure needed to support the technology. In Sleekburn and Cambois, three vast—I mean vast—data centres are proposed on scarce industrial land that could be used for other industries that create far more local jobs. Communities are being asked to give up valuable land and suffer local disruption. Will the Prime Minister support a moratorium on future data centres until regulation catches up, and will he introduce a critical national infrastructure levy, so that host communities can share in the rewards? Will he also visit my constituency to hear local people’s concerns for himself?

[The Prime Minister]

I understand the concern that my hon. Friend is raising about data centres. I have to say to him that at this point, I will not go as far as a moratorium, but I agree that it is important that communities see the benefits of AI and data centre investment. I can say from experience that the data centre can be the magnet that clusters in other investment over time; that needs to be remembered. This Government have a policy that AI growth zones will allow local authorities to retain 100% of business rate growth, so that they can benefit communities.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Q11. In response to my question last week, the Prime Minister stated that he was “very aware of every word in the Good Friday agreement, and I will stick to it 100% as Prime Minister.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 50.]He will therefore know that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 contains a provision for a referendum on leaving the United Kingdom, but no equivalent provision exists in the law for Scotland. Does he recognise that the people of Scotland have an equal right to choose their own future, and that the conditions for a second independence referendum should be set out in law?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member mentions the Good Friday agreement, and I will stick to it 100%. I remind him, on the question of a border poll, that that is to be considered by the Northern Ireland Secretary when there is clear consensus in the country—when public opinion has changed to the point at which the call has to be considered. I would say that it is exactly the same situation in Scotland. I am not aware that there is majority public support for another referendum, and until that changes, there will not be one.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

Q13. I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment to mental health and to building a country that acts sooner when people need help. Five years ago, I lost one of my best friends, Sophie, to suicide after the birth of her third child; her little girl was just 10 weeks old at the time. Having a new baby can be a time of great excitement and joy, but for one in four women, it is a time of mental health challenges, from anxiety and depression to obsessive compulsive disorder and serious conditions like post-partum psychosis. I have introduced a Bill—Sophie’s law—to ensure that every pregnant woman gets a mental health check-in. Will the Prime Minister work with me to ensure that no one else struggles in the way that Sophie did?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the incredible work she is doing in memory of her friend; I know that her dad Nigel has also campaigned so strongly on this. I have always believed in whole-person care—in physical, mental and social care being delivered together. We are investing more in perinatal mental health and parent-infant relationships—more funding is going in—but I accept, as she is saying, that more needs to be done. I will look at her Bill. I understand the call for Sophie’s law and will make sure that a Health Minister meets her to discuss it.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Q12. Hertfordshire has one of the lowest numbers of mental health in-patient beds per head in England. When patients, including some young people, are in crisis, they can be sent hundreds of miles away, which undermines their recovery. The cost of private beds comes in at millions of pounds. Will the Prime Minister commit personally to looking at my three-year campaign to fund a mental health facility in Hertfordshire? It is shovel-ready, would improve health outcomes for patients, and would pay for itself within just a few years.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for that very direct and good question. She is right to point to wasted spending in the mental health system when people are sent hundreds of miles in search of a bed; those placements can be very costly indeed. We need to move to a more preventive mental health service, and I will look at the specifics in her constituency. This will all be considered as part of a mental health strategy that will come before this House before Christmas.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

Q14. I thank the Prime Minister for visiting my constituency during the recent wildfires in Stourbridge, and for meeting affected residents, emergency workers, volunteers and council staff. Will he join me in thanking the brave firefighters for giving their all in the most challenging conditions? On the hottest day of the year, the fire spread over 600 acres, destroying 19 homes and damaging many more. With extreme heat becoming the norm in a changing climate, what are the Government doing to ensure that our fire services are properly resourced for future wildfires?

[The Prime Minister]

I remember well my visit to Stourbridge; it will not leave me, actually, because of the devastation, and the loss of everything in a moment for so many families. My hon. Friend’s support for them was really visible on the day, and the community is clearly very strong; that was evident. I am going to be chairing a wildfire summit, and she is welcome to be part of that, if she wishes. Our fire services are not set up for the future. I mentioned community resilience before; we need a fire service that has a statutory responsibility to deal with flooding, that is equipped to deal with wildfires, and with back-up national aerial support, so that there is better support next time we see these issues. I give my hon. Friend my word that we will learn every possible lesson from what she and her community went through.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Despite long and historic disagreements between successive UK Governments and Israel, it has remained a steadfast ally in counter-terrorist efforts to keep our people safe in this country. We are now embarked, it seems, on a full diplomatic dispute with Israel and tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats. What advice was the Foreign Office giving Ministers on this matter, and what advice were the security services giving about our national security interest before this decision was taken?

[The Prime Minister]

We gave the most careful consideration to all of the issues involved, and indeed all of the risks. The Foreign Secretary and I took close advice from the security services and, of course, officials in the Foreign Office and in our embassies. The risk of the collapse of the two-state solution and the effect that would have on the middle east should concern us all. The risk is that it is dying before our eyes, and that requires us to have the courage to act. In the world that we are in, if Britain loses the confidence to lead on the world stage, where will we be? Where will this country be? It is right that we have taken this action. The Father of the House said yesterday that he “absolutely and fully” supports what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is doing,

“standing up for freedom, for morality and for justice for all people in this world.” —[Official Report, 8 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 891.]

Those were his words, and we take great heart from them.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 2 September.

[The Prime Minister (Andy Burnham)]

It was good to be back at this Dispatch Box yesterday for the first time in 16 years, and I understand that I broke records on my first day back for the longest statement in modern history. Thanks for your help with that, Mr Speaker.

On my engagements, this evening I will join Their Majesties the King and Queen and President Macron at the British Museum to celebrate the arrival of the Bayeux tapestry. The loaning of the tapestry is a great example of French-British co-operation—the same co-operation that has helped us reduce summer small boat crossings to a seven-year low. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I will have further such meetings later today.

[Ann Davies]

May I first welcome the Prime Minister to his place? I also welcome his exemption of offences including death by dangerous driving from early prison release, but this comes after months of anguish for bereaved families, including my constituent Lisa Jones, whose husband Aaron was killed on 23 December 2024. Will the Prime Minister now apologise to victims and their families who have been put through significant distress throughout this process? Can he also assure them that, unlike the Labour precedent, there will be no Government U-turn on this?

[The Prime Minister]

Can I start by paying tribute to the hon. Lady for the way in which she has represented the Jones family? I understand their anguish, and that of the many other families who found themselves in their position. I listened to what they were saying, and I came in and asked for changes to the early release scheme. We excluded rape, grooming and child sex offences, but on hearing those voices, I was not satisfied and I pushed the system to go further. As a result of that, we are going further and excluding death by dangerous driving and other manslaughter offences, so I hope she can now give that certainty to the family and that she will also give them my best wishes. I believe we are coming to the right position, and I can assure her that the Justice Secretary will be on top of this situation so that we ensure we are never in this position again.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff East) (Lab)]

Q3. My Cardiff East constituents are pleased that the Government are funding extra neighbourhood policing for us, but Cardiff is the only capital city in the UK that does not have specific capital city police funding. That means that, as a matter of course, neighbourhood police are pulled away from the job that they should be doing, and need to do, for my constituents. The Prime Minister knows Cardiff well. This historic anomaly is unfair and indefensible, so will he ensure that this problem is resolved once and for all by delivering capital city police funding for Cardiff?

[The Prime Minister]

May I start by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend for everything she has done to stand up for her constituents, but more so for Wales, particularly in her role as Secretary of State for Wales? I understand the point she is making: big cities outside London, particularly a capital city, face extra pressure that is not faced by other police forces. We are reviewing the funding formula as part of a wider programme of police reform. I would be happy to engage with her on that very issue as part of the review. We have ensured that forces, including South Wales police, are receiving a boost in their funding, but I understand the position of cities that are, if you like, the focal point that many people travel towards and the extra pressure that that results in. I know that from my previous job, and that is why I will pay very close attention to what she is saying.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his stamina? Three hours! [Laughter.] Yesterday, he faced 125 questions from MPs across the House. Of course, Labour and the Lib Dems just wanted more Government spending—that is, taxpayers’ money—but can he name a single spending request to which he answered no?

[The Prime Minister]

What I can say to the right hon. Lady is that I was quite clear in my statement about the need to get the welfare bill down. I do not want to be a Prime Minister who sees a situation where we have so many people in their 20s not in education, employment or training. I cannot defend that, and I want to change it by giving more support to young people, so that we start investing in their success rather than paying for failure, as we have done for many years under successive Governments. This seems to me to be one area where both of us can engage in problem solving rather than point scoring, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will take up my offer on that.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister avoided the question. He did not say no to a single spending request. Personally, I think it is delightful that he wants to make everyone happy, but a Prime Minister needs to be a leader, not a people pleaser. He is talking about working together on welfare. I already made that offer, but it does mean cuts—he wants to bring the welfare bill down by spending more money. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told the House that his summer of promises would be paid for by “reprioritising within Government”, so what exactly has he cut?

[The Prime Minister]

In terms of “what has he cut?”, tax is the simple answer to that question. Within days of taking office, I indicated that we would remove VAT from electricity bills. That will help people with the cost of living. Then, days later, with the support of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, we said that there would be a cut in business rates for pubs, social clubs and live music venues. This Government are lowering the cost of living and lowering the cost of business, and that is what we will continue to do. I say to the right hon. Lady that that has to be fully funded, and those commitments are fully funded. We made an early decision to be clear about our priorities. Digital ID is not a priority for me or for this Government. We reallocated the funding, and we made those commitments as a result.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I asked what the Prime Minister cut. He says tax cuts. He has not said where the money is coming from. He talks about digital ID—[Interruption.] Yes, I know he said digital ID, but the Chief Secretary to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), said that there was no money allocated to digital ID. You cannot cut something that never existed in the first place.

Lord O’Neill, a close friend of the Prime Minister, said yesterday’s statement in the Commons was

“the last thing investors wanted to hear”.

Lord O’Neill is a serious economist. He knows what he is talking about. Sure enough, yesterday the cost of Government borrowing rose to its highest in 18 years. How does the Prime Minister plan to tackle the Government’s rising debt costs?

[The Prime Minister]

I say to the right hon. Lady that I have worked with Jim O’Neill for 10 years. Jim O’Neill always gives me candid advice. We do not always agree, but he and I worked together to turn Greater Manchester from a former industrial heartland to the fastest-growing city region in the country. [Interruption.] Conservative Members complain, but where are their ideas about growth? When they were in government, we saw 14 years of stagnant growth. We saw 14 years of debt rising as a percentage of GDP. I say to the right hon. Lady that the turbulence on global markets is because of that exposure that they left behind. We are turning the corner. In the first half of this year, we have had the fastest growth in the G7. Borrowing fell to its lowest level in six years. We are cutting the deficit faster than any other G7 country. I say to the Conservative party and particularly to the right hon. Lady: that is problem solving rather than point scoring.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I do not know what any of that has to do with tackling the cost of increasing debt. Collaborating with Jim O’Neill is not how we are going to get debt costs down, and he said yesterday that the markets would be worried. The markets are clearly worried that we now have a spendthrift Prime Minister who wants to say yes to everyone but cannot tell us where the money is coming from. He needs to pay for all his new promises, and he has a choice: higher taxes, more borrowing or spending cuts. Yesterday he said, “Change begins with honesty”, so will he be honest and tell us: is he preparing to raise taxes again—yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

I say to the right hon. Lady that I have already indicated that my first moves were to cut tax, but like any Prime Minister, I am not going to write the Budget here. That will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I also say to her that he and I took a deliberate decision to set an early date for the Budget, so that we reduced the period for prolonged speculation of the kind that she wants us to indulge in today.

I also say this to the right hon. Lady and, indeed, the whole of her new shadow Cabinet, the majority of whom were part of a Government that lasted for 49 days—a short-lived Government that crashed confidence in the economy and hammered people’s mortgages. She took a decision at the weekend: she removed a shadow Chancellor who said that the Truss mini-Budget was a mistake and replaced him with one who helped to write the Truss mini-Budget. Dare I remind the House that the Leader of the Opposition herself is on record as saying that Liz Truss was “100% right”? What else can I say in response to all that, other than, “God help us!”?

[Mrs Badenoch]

The whole House will have heard that the Prime Minister did not rule out tax rises. Instead, what he did was lots of point scoring. He says he wants a new politics; he says he wants honestly, so why is he pretending that a junior Minister wrote that Budget? The fact is that gilt yields now, the cost of borrowing now—[Interruption.] Labour Members are laughing; I do not know why they are laughing. The cost of borrowing now is far more than it ever was under Liz Truss. The reason why that Budget failed is that spending was announced before the money to pay for it, which is exactly what the Prime Minister is doing right now. He says it is the new politics; it is the same old Labour politics—tax and spend. He did not rule out tax rises, and what markets see is a Government that cannot control their spending, so the markets will charge us more to borrow. That means higher mortgage rates for families. It makes life more difficult for businesses, and that pushes up the cost of living for everyone. Higher borrowing costs are the biggest threat to family finances, so will he rule out any more borrowing that will make people poorer?

[The Prime Minister]

May I say to the right hon. Lady something I said earlier? Debt was rising as a percentage of GDP under the Government that she, and her new shadow Chancellor, served in. He was hardly some PPS to the DEFRA Secretary, with all respect to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; he was a senior Minister in the Treasury on the day of the Truss Budget. The right hon. Lady mentions mortgage rates, and that was the day they spiked; that was the day the British public were hammered by the previous Government. We are taking the action needed to get debt down. This will be a Government grounded in fiscal responsibility. We will stick to the fiscal rules, but at the same time we will help to reduce cost of living pressure on our constituents. That is the approach we will take, and that is the approach that I suggest the Conservative party should follow, too.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The right hon. Gentleman is the Prime Minister now and he needs to answer the questions, instead of spending time attacking someone who has more private sector experience than his entire Cabinet. I asked him whether he would rule out more borrowing. He did not do so. We spend more servicing our debt than we do on defence—almost double. There is war in Europe. Yesterday, Germany confirmed that Russia was behind the attack on Leipzig airport. Tensions are so high that the director of the CIA flew to Moscow. We need the plan to hit 3% of GDP on defence now, but the armed forces will not know what they will be getting until next July’s spending review. There is a simple answer to this: cut welfare spending and invest that money in our defence now. Mr Speaker, the honeymoon is over. Isn’t it time for the Prime Minister to ditch the vibes and get serious about defending our nation?

[The Prime Minister]

I will start with the serious point made by the right hon. Lady, which is the announcement by the German Government yesterday in relation to the attack in Leipzig. That should unite the House in sending complete condemnation of that attack by Russia, and complete solidarity to support both Germany and Ukraine, and that position will not change.

That takes me to defence. The very reason I appointed this Chancellor to his position is because of his strong commitment to the defence of our country and to defence spending. We will fully fund the defence investment plan. At the spending review we will set out a plan to meet our NATO commitments by 2035. There is no problem with our commitment to defence. More broadly, the right hon. Lady has made a lot of accusations about what went wrong, but I go back to the position that she left. The country was not heading in the right direction. Now, we are heading in the right direction. Yesterday, I laid out a clear, coherent, credible plan for growth, based on 10 years of delivering it myself. This is grounded in reality. I want to take it to all parts of the country. It is all about bringing back a sense of positivity, a sense of possibility, with growth in every postcode. Let this country believe in itself again; let people have some hope. That is what this Government will do.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)]

Q4. There is promising and exciting evidence about the successful use of psychedelic therapy treatment for trauma, mental health, post-traumatic stress disorder and end-of-life distress. Unfortunately, as many psychedelics are schedule 1 controlled drugs, access for clinical research is bureaucratic and difficult. Will the Prime Minister, and Members across the House, consider supporting my amendments to the Health Bill that would keep safeguards in place but remove some of the barriers to some of that important research and treatment?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to his campaign on this issue. I was talking about getting an innovation-led economy going in all parts of the country, and that applies to research, including into life sciences. I strongly believe that we must address all barriers to high-quality research in the life sciences. I am happy to look at my hon. Friend’s amendments, and I will ask a Health Minister to meet him to discuss them. Of course, any changes must be evidence-based and proportionate and must maintain our safeguards.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

The Prime Minister said yesterday that Brexit ushered in

“a decade of low growth and stalled regeneration.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 27.]

He is right. Our economy is stuck in this mess thanks to the Conservatives—and the leader of Reform UK—and their terrible Brexit deal. Unless we grow the economy, there is no way that we can end the cost of living crisis or cut the cost of borrowing for the Government. The answer is staring the Prime Minister in the face: join the single market, get a new deal with Europe, and cut costs for families, businesses and Government. It is the bold step our country desperately needs. Will the Prime Minister take it?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right to share the analysis that I laid out yesterday. It is clear that the decade of low growth that we have had has been partly a result of Brexit. The sooner the Conservative party accepts that, the more we can start to face up to Britain’s future and where we go from here. I do want a closer relationship. I will build on the work of my predecessor. There are issues facing British farming right now. There are issues facing British steel right now. The “Made in Europe” agenda could pose significant problems for British steel. As he will know, we are approaching a UK-EU summit in the next couple of months. It is imperative, I believe, that we work hard to get a good deal for British steel and for British farming as part of that new deal that he talks about.

[Ed Davey]

I hope at that summit the Prime Minister will negotiate a good deal for our country, our economy and our defence, and that means rejoining the single market.

North Devon’s maternity unit has been closed for three weeks due to staff shortages, so women now have to travel for up to two hours to give birth. I cannot imagine the extra stress and anxiety that would have caused us when my kids were born. Women are even being taught how to give birth in their cars—that should be unthinkable in our country. Will the Prime Minister commit to reopening North Devon’s maternity unit in days, not weeks? Will he stop maternity closures across the country so that expectant mums never have to face travelling such terrifying distances?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly give a direct answer: I will commit to reopening it but not within days; I am not in a position to make that commitment today. But I am again in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman that it is not acceptable for his constituents—[Interruption.] Apologies—I realise his constituency is somewhere else. It is not acceptable for people living in the North Devon area to have to travel that far. Let me take that away.

I also say to the right hon. Gentleman with honesty that there are structural issues affecting maternity services across the UK. This is not the only hospital where there have been difficulties. As a former Secretary of State for Health, I am aware that there have been long-standing shortages of midwives across the country. It is right that we look at all those issues. I can give him a guarantee that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is looking at those issues following the recent maternity reviews.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

Q7. A wise man recently called for“good growth in every postcode and hope in every heart.”In Croydon, these cannot come soon enough. Gatwick’s expansion could provide Croydon’s young people with world-class employment and training opportunities close to their homes, but the previous Conservative Government’s cuts to rail infrastructure investment around East Croydon station could still put them out of their reach as they cannot physically get to them. Will the Prime Minister look again at the Croydon area modelling scheme, back my campaign to unblock the Croydon bottleneck and outline what this Government are doing to give young people in Croydon East access to the opportunities they deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

We certainly will do that. I am in no doubt over the importance of good transport connectivity to young people’s life chances, and I will ask No. 10 North to make contact with my hon. Friend so that we can get that scheme back on track. More broadly, we do need to change the way we support young people, and I have already announced a change to education so that we have a technical path for young people from 14—so that we give young people a path towards good T-levels, BTECs, work placements and degree apprenticeships and we support them with travel costs, which is something that I did in Greater Manchester. Bringing back hope very much starts with our young people—give them a clear path from school towards a good job. That is something that the current education system that was put in place by Michael Gove has sadly failed to do.

[Mr Speaker]

May I say to the Prime Minister that I admire his answering questions in detail, but my problem is I am not going to get through the list, and then we will both be in trouble with Back Benchers?

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

The people of Northern Ireland are absolutely scundered. At the moment, we have poisonous parading disputes and border poll spats; meanwhile, the Northern Ireland Assembly has no budget. Prime Minister, whenever we met last week, I think there was an acknowledgment that we can either have an unreformed Stormont or we can have sound public finances in Northern Ireland, but we cannot have both. Alliance has led the way on calls for changing our broken system of government in Northern Ireland. This is the Prime Minister’s chance to leave a legacy of functioning government in Northern Ireland; will he act?

[The Prime Minister]

I will work with the hon. Lady and her colleagues on precisely that. I was in Northern Ireland with the Northern Ireland Secretary last week. Our first responsibility is to get Stormont government up and running and functioning properly with a budget. I have empowered the Northern Ireland Secretary to go into talks to resolve that issue, and we can continue the conversation on the broader issues about reform once we have got that in place.

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

Q8. I am delighted that North Somerset is finally getting two fantastic new stations at Pill and Portishead with the reopening of the railway line, but—and I hate to sound greedy—with Bristol airport’s potential expansion on the horizon, it risks becoming one of the worst-connected major airports in the country. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that now we need a proper mass transit system for North Somerset and the west of England combined authority, linking Felton, the new Woodspring development, Long Ashton and the wider economic area?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that my hon. Friend worked hard on getting those new stations. People in Portishead and Pill have waited far too long for those new stations, but they are now on the way. It does reflect what I was saying to the House yesterday: the big cities of England—I am talking about Leeds and about Bristol—should have mass transit systems. I will work with the wonderful Mayor of the West of England, Helen Godwin, to make progress on that—to connect Bristol, its new arena, the station and the development of Temple Meads into a mass transit system that takes Bristol forward.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Q2.   I welcome the Prime Minister to his place. He knows the importance of protecting local green belt; indeed, he made it a key part of his by-election campaign in Makerfield. It is incredibly important in my constituency too, where there has been an 85% increase in the housing target and we are 89% green belt. The Prime Minister says that he wants to do things differently and share the burden across the country, so will he meet me to discuss a new path forwards?

[The Prime Minister]

It is about getting a balance, isn’t it? Yes, we need to protect green belt where we can, but we also need to build the homes that people need, and it is about striking a balance. In Greater Manchester, I always took a brownfield-first approach, and that is what I will do. I have asked the Chancellor to work with my Cabinet colleagues to release more public land so that we can build more homes on brownfield land, but I understand the concerns that the hon. Member is raising. I will ask the Housing Minister to meet him, to see if we can further build some common cause, but there is a balance to be struck. I say to Conservative Members that it is important that they do not turn their face away from building the new homes this country needs.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Kim Leadbeater.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Q9. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and welcome back. I also welcome the Prime Minister to his role. We have many shared passions—sport, music, and a deep sense of community. I know we both have a strong desire to ensure that everyone in our country has a sense of pride, identity and belonging—that everyone feels safe and no one feels lonely—but sadly, that is not always the case. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to support people in communities such as Spen Valley who may feel isolated or are dealing with antisocial behaviour such as speeding and dangerous driving, inappropriate use of e-scooters and offroad bikes, and fireworks, to give residents confidence that their concerns are being taken seriously?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because she speaks for many people at home, who will have been nodding away. I spoke to these issues in the Makerfield by-election, as we had an illegal waste tip, and it looked like nobody was taking any action on it. I think there is a case for going further on fireworks and regulating them. On antisocial behaviour more broadly, I supported Greater Manchester police in taking the toughest possible approach to rooting out antisocial behaviour through Operation Vulcan. I think that can be extended elsewhere. We should not accept that this is just the daily norm in communities. I happen to support the broken windows theory of policing. If we let small things go, bigger things come along, and we should change how we think about neighbourhood policing, as the Home Secretary is doing.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Q5. Our new Plaid Cymru Government have laid the foundations for change, showing what Wales can achieve with the powers we have. The Prime Minister says that devolving powers means better public services, and I agree with him, but policing in Wales is still controlled from afar here in Westminster. Will he please put his devolution instincts into practice and confirm that devolving policing will be on the table when he meets the First Minister next month?

[The Prime Minister]

The approach I will take—we met the Deputy First Minister at Port Talbot last week—is that where proposals come from the Senedd Government, we will give them fair consideration. We need to work together to get growth going, and we need to secure the future of Port Talbot together. If that can be done with more locally devolved power across Wales, I am absolutely ready to work with the right hon. Lady and the First Minister on that.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Q13. The British people should be under no illusion that the nation faces a significantly increased threat level, especially from Russia, but also that we have a US leadership for whom European security is no longer a focus or a priority. That is why it is imperative that we invest in our armed forces in the here and now, rather than being sorry later. Indeed, defence is definitely one area where vibes alone just will not be enough. Rather than kicking the can down the road, waiting for a fiscal event in a future year, will the Prime Minister urgently commit to charting a pathway to reaching 3% of GDP being spent on defence by 2030? As his Chancellor rightly noted, that is critical to keeping our country safe.

[The Prime Minister]

I have made that commitment, I have made it very clearly, and I have done so for a considerable time. I was in Ukraine last week for a very specific reason: to repeat it on the world stage. My hon. Friend can be absolutely sure of that. Alongside our commitment to defence, we also have to build the resilience of Britain. We need to ensure that the maximum amount of the funding committed to the defence investment plan goes back into the reindustrialisation of our communities. We should do more to maintain sovereign manufacturing and production capability here, and that will be a theme of my Government. We will make sure that British taxpayers’ money goes to supporting industry in our own country, to make us more resilient going into the future.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Q6. My private Member’s Bill on community-led homes aims to help combat widening inequality in the UK. In Cornwall alone during the last decade, more than half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money has been handed out to second home owners through tax loopholes, while the housing problems of locals have got significantly worse. The planning system is fuelled by greed rather than need, allowing land value speculators simply to fill their boots while housing problems get worse. Will the Prime Minister meet me so that we can identify tools within my private Member’s Bill to empower communities to address that desperate need?

[The Prime Minister]

I have worked with the hon. Gentleman over many years, and I remember that in the coalition years he did not always take that line, and I respect him for that. I will look closely at his private Member’s Bill. How about this? I will agree here and now to a meeting with him and all Cornish MPs to discuss what we might do, alongside his Bill, to put powers and levers within the devolution deal, so as to deal with those specific issues he has just raised in relation to second homes in Cornwall.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

Everyone is so excited about the return of the Bayeux tapestry, which comes back to our shores for the first time in almost 1,000 years. That is a testament to this Labour Government’s work to strengthen our relations with European neighbours. Hastings has often been at the centre of historical events, but we have not felt the benefits and we rank in the bottom 10 places nationally for social mobility. Thanks to my campaign, the young people I represent will get free priority access to the tapestry exhibition and not be priced out by the cost of a ticket. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that this is great news, and that the British Museum must do all it can to ensure as many as people from my area as possible can see the exhibition?

[The Prime Minister]

I will relay that very message tonight to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer who runs the British Museum. I hope I will do so with the support of those on the Opposition Benches. We want the maximum number of kids to have access and to stand in front of that tapestry while it is here in the UK. It is a major moment in our island’s history and it is such a powerful one. They learn about it in school; they should be able to stand in front of it. I credit my hon. Friend for the amazing campaign she has run. I know the school children in her own constituency will be there, but I can hear in her voice that she wants that for every child in this country. Let us see what we can do.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

Q10. I applaud the Prime Minister’s focus on civil society and on support for young people, but the fact is that in his time as Mayor of Greater Manchester youth employment did not improve. In fact, it got worse and no amount of taxpayer-funded support is going to fix that. Will the Prime Minister accept that the way to get young people into work is to provide meaningful tax cuts for businesses and to ensure that people who can work should be working?

[The Prime Minister]

I indicated that earlier today. Young people who can work should be working. I believe they want to work; the question is whether we have always given them the support they need. As Mayor of Greater Manchester, I proudly delivered a huge increase in the work placements attached to T-levels that benefited young people and I introduced a free bus pass for 16 to 18-year-olds to connect them to opportunity. Actually, the rise in NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—was not the same in Greater Manchester as in other parts of the country, so the hon. Gentleman might want to go back and check that. Let us work to get the best possible package we can to support our young people. It is too hard growing up as it is at this moment in time; we can make things better if we do so with cross-party support. That is the best message we could send to the next generation.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

The Labour Government have already delivered real investment for Bedford, including our community diagnostic centre, urgent care centre and funding for the Putnoe walk-in centre. I was pleased to open Bedford’s new mental health crisis house this summer, but the in-patient mental health services that my constituents lost in 2017 have never been replaced. Will the Prime Minister commit to working with me to take the next steps towards restoring adult and young people’s in-patient mental health provision in Bedford, so that my constituents can access the right care in the right place at the right time?

[The Prime Minister]

That last point is the point. We have to do better on mental health services, and the Health Secretary absolutely agrees. That is why we committed in the summer to community-based mental health provision: to make it easier for people to access that provision. I am aware of my hon. Friend’s concerns about Bedford hospital. I will work with the Health Secretary to address them with him.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Q11. Frankly, the Prime Minister did not answer any of the questions the Leader of the Opposition put to him on spending. Over the summer, the markets were clearly anxious when he failed to articulate the fiscal rules to Victoria Derbyshire. In his statement yesterday, he waxed lyrical about a decade when we had a three-day week and blackouts—presumably because he liked the music. But we now know what the international capital markets have made of that. Can he now, in front of this House, confirm what the fiscal rules are and categorically say that the Government will stick to them?

[The Prime Minister]

No borrowing to fund day-to-day spending, debt falling as a percentage of GDP by the end of the Parliament, and yes, we will.

[Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)]

In my constituency and across the country, we suffered devastating wildfires this summer. I am grateful to the Prime Minister for the action that he took, including the temporary ban on disposable barbecues, but we must face the fact that our climate is changing and communities such as mine are suffering the consequences. What more will the Prime Minister do to ensure that we are better prepared to prevent and tackle wildfires next summer, and will that include making the ban on disposable barbecues permanent?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend was an important voice during the summer. I am aware of the problems in his constituency on the border of Greater Manchester, and they are problems that we have seen for a number of years. He was right to mention the need for a ban on disposable barbecues but, more broadly, this is a bigger challenge, so I am going to call a wildfire summit, which he will be welcome to attend.

Our fire and rescue services are not set up properly for the changing climate. We do not have the most modern equipment, we do not have the same aerial support to tackle wildfires that we see in France, Italy and other countries, and dealing with the flooding that is expected in the latter part of this year is not even a statutory responsibility of the fire and rescue services. If my hon. Friend will join me at that summit, we can make further progress.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

Q12. The Energy Secretary will shortly choose between six National Energy System Operator pathway options for the strategic spatial energy plan, which will shape where and when energy infrastructure is developed over the next 25 years.ScotWind is key to Scotland’s industrial future: it represents £78.5 billion of potential investment, part of an overall package that Crown Estate Scotland estimates could support more than 21,000 jobs. However, this week the GMB union in Scotland, among others, has warned that the wrong pathway could deny energy transition opportunities for our world-class, skilled and experienced Scottish energy workers and industries. Given the last Administration’s betrayal at Grangemouth and Ardersier, can the Prime Minister commit today to selecting a pathway that will enable the full ScotWind pipeline, including floating offshore wind and the grid investment, to deliver Scotland’s energy potential?

[The Prime Minister]

That is exactly what I mean when I talk about supporting an industrial transition so that we can reindustrialise Scotland and other parts of the country. It must be done in a pragmatic way so that we can make the transition work rather than being too ideological about it, as other parties are, so I will work with the hon. Gentleman. I intend to visit Scotland soon to look in detail at the issues in the Aberdeen community, because I know that people have struggled with the impact of transition. Let us see what we can do to build common cause, and let us also look at Grangemouth, which could be the home of sustainable aviation fuel. I am interested in making progress on all those issues, and I will work with the hon. Gentleman on that.

[Mr Speaker]

With the final question, I call Samatha Niblett.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on his first Prime Minister’s questions; this is my first Prime Minister’s question too.

I want to declare an interest: I chair the all-party parliamentary group on sexual and reproductive health in the UK. The campaign for lifelong sex education that I launched with Cindy Gallop has received a tremendous response and support from many, including professionals in occupational health, medicine, nursing, public health and academia, the National Education Union and the police. I have discovered that the shame, guilt and embarrassment around talking about sex—and body parts like penis and vagina—are even leading to late diagnoses of health conditions including illnesses such as cancer for many people in my South Derbyshire constituency and across the country. I have discussed that with the Eve Appeal and with my constituent Louise Clarke, a GP who specialises in cancer of the vulva; they are really great for my campaign. As September is Gynaecological Cancer Awareness Month, and as the summer of sex comes to a close, will the Prime Minister agree to meet me to talk about the campaign?

[The Prime Minister]

I will indeed. My hon. Friend has been raising important issues that others have not spoken about—and it is clear to me that her summer was more exciting than mine. [Laughter.]

Direction of Government

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Andy Burnham)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the direction in which I will lead our country.

I come before this House having visited each of the regions and nations of the UK over the past six weeks, and Ukraine on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of its independence. The UK’s steadfast support has helped sustain Ukraine’s resolve over the past four and a half years, and particularly so in the last two. That was the achievement of my predecessor, and as he stands down from this place, I want to pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). He has given this country a lifetime of public service, particularly for those fighting for justice. When he delivered in this House on his promise to the Hillsborough families and everyone involved in the Hillsborough law campaign, it was a moment that I will never forget. His leadership took our party from one of its worst defeats to its best victories, and created a platform to change this country for the better. We will use it well, and we wish his family the very best for the future.

The position that my right hon. and learned Friend took on Ukraine, building on the work of his predecessors as Prime Minister, is one that I will not change, whatever the threats that we face. We do not seek escalation, but instead will stand firm in providing what help we can to enable Ukraine to defend itself from this illegal invasion. Britain’s defence starts in Ukraine, and the defence of our nation will always be my first priority.

On public safety, I know that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing our deepest condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, who were killed in the line of duty on the A66. We will do our best to support the Middlesbrough community, which is hurting and grieving right now, and we hear the call from the Members of this House who represent it for a discussion about investment in policing and police numbers.

I know that I also speak for the whole House in expressing my profound shock and horror at the devastating scenes on the Nepal-China border. My sympathies are with all those affected, including the families and loved ones of those missing in this appalling tragedy. The Foreign Secretary is doing everything he can to support the Nepalese Government and British nationals in the region. This is what the climate crisis looks like. We have just ourselves experienced what is likely to have been the hottest summer on record. This Government will meet the climate challenge, and I can confirm to the House that I will attend COP31 in Turkey in November.

I will build on the work of my predecessor in other areas. When I visited Dover in early August, staff from Border Force and HM Coastguard told me that extra police numbers on French beaches were beginning to deliver real results. I can report to the House today that that has continued throughout the last month, with the numbers arriving over the summer halved on last year, making this year, to date, the lowest for crossings since 2021. Tomorrow, when I welcome President Macron to the UK on the occasion of the opening of the exhibition of the Bayeux tapestry, I will thank him for the co-operation that has enabled us to prevent more than 48,000 people from crossing.

Where it is right to do so, I will build on what has been achieved. However, where necessary, I will not hesitate to make changes. One of the first things that I did after taking office was to review the plans to relieve pressure on prison places with the Lord Chancellor, who will provide a full update to the House following my statement. We took an early decision to exempt rape, grooming and serious child sex offences, and to fast-track work to see whether we could go further, after hearing the calls from the family of PC Andrew Harper and many others. As a result, we are now confirming that anyone convicted of manslaughter, death by dangerous driving or indecent assault will not see any change in their prison term. We will find additional prison places by deporting more foreign national offenders and finally grasping the nettle on an issue that the House has ignored for too long: indefinite imprisonment for public protection sentences—a now abolished policy, but one which to this day keeps people behind bars despite having already served more than their sentences.

None of this is easy, but I did what I always do: apply my values to a challenging situation and a care for people, which I spoke about in Downing Street. I believe the public will support me in recognising the clear difference between those who have served their time and more, and those who have not. We will bring forward legislation soon, but we can find a solution to end this injustice that balances public safety and basic fairness, and I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to help us do that.

This is politics done differently: problem solving over point scoring. It is what the country needs, it is what the public want more of, and it will characterise my time in office. I was pleased to begin cross-party talks over social care in the summer, and I thank the leader of the Liberal Democrats and the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) for the spirit in which that endeavour began. I wish the latter well as he leaves the Opposition Front Bench.

When it comes to the biggest issues facing the country—the economy and the cost of living crisis—people are looking for much more substantial change, as promised in our manifesto, and that is what I will bring. Britain is not where any of us would wish it to be. Things are not working as they should. Life is too expensive and too hard for too many. That is why this Government’s first moves were to give businesses and people a little breathing space. On tax, in my first week in office we cut VAT on electricity bills and cut business rates for pubs, social clubs and live music venues. We reinstated the £2 cap on bus fares for the whole of 2027. These measures will provide some relief. They were funded by reprioritising within Government, as the bedrock of our approach will be grounded in fiscal responsibility. But in the long term, lifting growth and living standards will require much more.

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

Who wrote this?

[The Prime Minister]

What I bring back to the House after 10 years away is a clear diagnosis of what has gone wrong. Let me lay it out clearly, particularly for the right hon. Gentleman, since he asked.

From the 1980s, this country took a series of wrong turns. Political power was centralised, economic power privatised and the country deindustrialised. Austerity followed, hollowing out councils and depriving them of the agency to act to reverse any of it, and then Brexit compounded the damage, ushering in a decade of low growth and stalled regeneration. [Interruption.] Change begins with honesty, and I am not hearing much of it this afternoon. Unless we are blunt about what went wrong, we will not turn things around. Far from “taking back control”, the combination of those policies took control out of the hands of communities up and down Britain.

For 40 years, too many places have been drifting. Too many British high streets tell the story of this decline. People yearn to see them restored to what they once were, as the Communities Secretary and I heard on our visit to Ilkeston in the summer, but they see no hope if we continue on the same path with a failed economic model, which does not trickle down much to places like theirs and instead allows wealth to be extracted and siphoned out. Britain’s water industry stands as a leaking monument to that approach—a country run in the private rather than public interest. That is now abundantly clear to voters of all parties, including the Conservative party.

The Government I lead will be relentless in giving people and places what they were promised 10 years ago: ownership and control. From that control over their destiny comes change and growth. I say this with confidence. [Interruption.] I do, and let me explain why. It is backed by a decade of personal experience of turning around one of the UK’s former industrial heartlands and turning it into the fastest growing city region in the country, bucking the low-growth trend. It has given me a clear theory of growth and I will apply it to all parts of the UK, learning from what has been achieved in Greater Manchester. For a long time the country did not have ambitions for its regions outside of London. It even talked of the “managed decline” of Liverpool. It took the devolution of power out of this place to allow our big city regions the ability to set new ambitions for themselves. Now, I want every single place across our regions and nations to be able to do the same, creating the conditions for good growth in every postcode.

In that spirit, I was glad to meet the Liberal Democrat leader of Cornwall council, with my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), on my recent visit. I know, like many rural economies across the UK, that Cornwall lacks a basic level of infrastructure, which in turn harms growth and holds back living standards and life chances, and I heard the cross-party call for a devolution deal. I understand concerns in this House about the potential emergence of a two-tier England—those with devolved power and those without—and I will not ignore them. So, I have asked No. 10 North to begin work with Cornwall council and its six MPs on a devolution deal with or without an elected mayor.

I today extend the same offer to all parts of England without devolved power. The First Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) will today write to every Member of this House setting out how they can engage No. 10 North in the service of the places they represent. I extended the same offer to the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, and the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland when I met them over the summer. As they rightly pointed out, their situations are different, but there is interest in what a local model of devolution could look like in each of the home nations, and we will discuss that with them at a special meeting of the National Economic Council next month.

This Government will oversee the biggest redistribution of power this country has seen. In July, we published a statement on the next stage of English devolution. It will include powers long requested by mayors, such as: post-16 technical education; employment support; and fiscal devolution, starting with the ability to set an overnight visitor levy to commence towards the end of the financial year 2027-28. The driving force behind it all will be No. 10 North. It will oversee the rewiring of the British state, the rebuilding of resilience in our communities and the reindustrialisation of our regions. The creation of No. 10 North was one of the first acts of this Administration and I believe that in time it will be seen as one of its most significant. It is a clear answer to the question with which this country has long wrestled: who, in government, drives growth? My theory of growth requires it to be driven with the full authority of the very centre of Government, in close partnership with HM Treasury.

No. 10 North has been set up with that full focus; the single front door on which regions can knock to get quicker, joined-up decisions from Whitehall, and through which power and resources will be passed to them. Resources will include human resources. This is because a state that has grown too large at the national level now needs to redirect civil service capacity regionally and locally, repairing the damage of austerity and making the service of place the state’s first priority. We can already see what is possible. I am glad No. 10 North was able to stand behind Mayor Richard Parker when he took urgent action in August to prevent the collapse of bus services across the west midlands, and I congratulate Mayor Steve Rotheram who this weekend, after four decades of deregulation, will see the first buses return to public control in the Liverpool city region. Taking back control of essential services such as transport is an enabler of a more productive economy, because it allows local areas to grab hold of the levers of power for themselves.

But driving growth demands we go further. It is taking far too long for businesses to get grid connections and they are being quoted prohibitively expensive sums of money if they try to bring those dates forward, as I heard on my visit to a farm near Truro. Household energy bills are the highest in Europe, and the cost of energy is impacting business and inward investment. Too many areas have seen water supplies disrupted this summer due to a lack of reservoir capacity. Our tourism industry is damaged by too many sewage spills. [Interruption.] “Why?” the Opposition say. It is a question they should ask themselves. This summer has shown us very clearly that water companies are failing to rise to the climate challenge. It cannot go on. Later in the year, our 10-year plan for Britain will set out plans for stronger public control over these essentials, making them work for people and places again.

Alongside that, we will empower all areas to expand the public housing stock, building on the first allocations from the social and affordable homes programme announced by the Communities Secretary last week. Bringing forward the biggest council home building programme since the post-war period is the Labour way to get the welfare bill down, as is reforming our education system, so that it balances academic and technical, and offers a path in life for all young people. Michael Gove calls this “bringing back stupid”, when in fact, for too many young people written off by his reforms, it is bringing back hope. Allowing mayors to shape technical pathways and provide work placements for young people, building back into colleges and schools from the needs of the regional economy, is the way to support more young people into work. So is prioritising more accessible, community-based mental health services, as we announced in the summer.

That will be a major part of our response to the forthcoming Milburn report, which will follow its publication in the autumn. For it to work, a more intentional approach to the reindustrialisation of Britain is required. We will support all parts of the country to take more public control over investment strategy, learning from the Greater Manchester model of a consolidated good growth fund drawn from their own funds, prudent loan borrowing and fragmented budgets held by Government bodies. We will back local industrial strategies—a policy of the Theresa May Government I am happy to revive—by identifying priority sectors and developing the triple-helix approach to economic development by entwining business, academia and Government behind the plan. This is the way we will build a pro-business culture and an innovation-led economy in all parts of the UK, finally capturing the long-term benefits of the invention that is in the DNA of our nation, backing our start-ups and scale-ups to stay in the UK where they were founded.

When I stood outside Downing Street six weeks ago, I said that Britain needs a circuit breaker after a decade of turbulence, negativity, point scoring and divisive politics. This is what I have outlined today: a clear, coherent and credible approach to growth that can unlock a feeling of positivity and possibility in every postcode in Britain. Our job here is to make it real by taking a place-first rather than a party-first approach. It starts with reasserting basic standards for Britain—that this is a country where no one sleeps rough and no community is blighted by an illegal waste tip—and, from there, working together to build a new sense of optimism around the country. We can make this next decade better than the last. We can lift the prospects of all our people and places. We can put more power into every postcode. We can let Britain believe again. We can bring back hope. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Can I welcome the Prime Minister to his place at the Dispatch Box and take this, my first opportunity to congratulate him on becoming Prime Minister? He has been in office for 43 days, during which I have learned how he puts the milk in his tea and exactly what he thinks about pork scratchings, but I have not had the pleasure of asking him any questions. We are all grateful that he has finally found time to come to Parliament to answer some.

It is only fair to be gentle with someone on their first day at work, so I am only going to ask the Prime Minister a few very simple but very serious questions. I hope that he can provide me with some simple and serious answers. I genuinely wish him well as he seeks to live up to the dignity and importance of the role. I was pleased to see him in Ukraine over the summer, continuing the Conservatives’ world-leading support for Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression. That being said, I am also very relieved to see that he has not brought his guitar with him today. His predecessor stood at that Dispatch Box two years ago sounding very triumphant, having just won a landslide victory. What went wrong? Where is he now? Gone. That job is not as easy as it looks from the outside. Labour MPs have not explained why they got rid of him. [Interruption.] They are laughing, but they have not explained it.

We on this side of the House understand that the country’s problems will not be solved by lofty promises alone. In the end, the Prime Minister will be judged on what he actually delivers. This is a very different job from being Mayor of Greater Manchester—a job where he did not have to pick winners and losers, make difficult trade-offs, or have to worry about our national security. He does now.

A Government’s first and most important duty is keeping the country safe. The last Prime Minister and his Chancellor left an enormous hole in Britain’s defence budget. We know that because the current Chancellor quit as Defence Secretary over that black hole, saying that it could put British troops at risk. He said that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030, and that not funding the defence investment plan reduces the readiness of our forces. Let me ask the Prime Minister very clearly: will he provide the funding that his own Chancellor said was necessary to keep British troops safe? That means 3% by the end of this decade.

Keeping this country safe also means defending our borders. The Prime Minister mentioned boat crossings, but we must be honest: boat crossings have not gone down because of anything that Labour has done. [Interruption.] They have not. We have to be honest. Boat crossings are down across all of Europe, and have been down for much longer. Let us be honest: the problem is still not solved.

The Prime Minister will have seen the extraordinary scenes in Ceuta over the summer, in which more than 70,000 people tried to cross into Europe. Many of those people would like to end up in the UK. This is not just a British problem; it is a growing global problem. Even Denmark is starting to send illegal migrants to other countries as a deterrent. That is exactly like the Rwanda scheme that the Conservatives put in place and Labour scrapped. We now hear that the Home Secretary is thinking about reviving a Rwanda-style scheme, so can the Prime Minister tell me—yes or no—if that is the plan?

Next, the Prime Minister must keep British people safe from dangerous criminals. It was interesting to hear the comments in his statement about early release. Before the summer, I sat with women who had experienced some of the most horrific crimes imaginable, and the perpetrators of those crimes were about to be let out of prison early. The Prime Minister told those women that it was too difficult to keep their perpetrators in jail. Then he changed his mind. The family of PC Andrew Harper appealed to the Prime Minister not to release his killers early. Again, the Prime Minister told them that it was a non-starter. Then he changed his mind. The Conservatives told the Government to create new spaces in the existing prison estate, and to get foreign-born criminals out of our jails. The Government said that we were wrong, but now they are doing both. The Prime Minister has had five different positions on early release in six weeks, putting the victims through hell with his indecision. Will he now set out a timeline for his promise to get more foreign national prisoners out of British prisons?

As well as keeping the country safe, the Prime Minister’s next big challenge will be making people in this country feel richer. The biggest mistake that Labour has made in office so far, and there have been quite a few to choose from, is that it has crushed our economy under the weight of nearly £70 billion in new taxes. The Prime Minister was not here for that, so I will give him the list: the jobs tax, the family farm tax, the family business tax, taxes on pensioners, taxes on workers and taxes on businesses. That is £3,500 a year for every working family. He says that he cares about the cost of living; Labour’s taxes have made that worse. Those taxes have cost people their jobs—thousands of jobs in oil and gas, and thousands of jobs in industry across our country. The recruitment market for new graduates is the worst it has ever been. There are 50% fewer vacancies than last year, which was already the worst on record. If the Prime Minister does not change course, he too, like every other Labour Prime Minister, will leave office with unemployment higher than it was when he came in. Can he guarantee, here and now, on the Floor of the House, that there will be no more tax rises in the autumn Budget?

The year is 2026, yet the Prime Minister said in his statement that everything has gone wrong since the 1980s. He is still complaining about Margaret Thatcher. I am 46 years old, Mr Speaker—I may not look it, but I am. He is talking about a woman who became Prime Minister before I was born. He is living in the past, and he wants to take us back to the 1970s. We Conservatives are for the future, not the past. That is the difference between them and us. His ideas are all about more Government control, more spending, more tax and more politicians. The Conservatives want people to keep more of their own money. We want businesses to grow, invest, expand and create more jobs. That is the difference between the Labour party and the Conservative party. His diagnosis is completely wrong. His theory of growth is completely wrong. He thinks that if the Government spend more money, we will all get richer, but that is not how this works. Companies are not leaving our shores because there is not enough government.

Another difference between us is in dealing with the ballooning welfare bill. Up and down this country, hard-working people are fed up of going to work and paying for their neighbours to sit at home with mild health conditions that do not stop them working. They are fed up of hearing, as we did this summer, that working in Boots is not good for your mental health—ridiculous. We are on the side of those hard-working, fed-up people. I ask the Prime Minister: will he stand up to his Back Benchers in a way that his predecessor never could and cut the benefits bill? It is a simple question.

The Prime Minister engineered it so that he could have as long a summer holiday as possible, so he should be ready with some answers. I am even hearing rumours that he does not want to do Prime Minister’s questions next week, but it is my job to ask him serious questions, and it is time for him to start answering. [Interruption.] I know Labour Members do not like hearing the questions, but they are going to hear them. It is my job to speak on behalf of all the people out there who want to know what he has planned, and it is time for him to start answering some serious questions. Governing is hard, but the country needs the Prime Minister to succeed. Where it is in the national interest, I will help him. He may find that Conservative votes come in handy when Labour MPs are too scared to do the right thing.

Britain faces many serious challenges to our national and economic security. There are difficult decisions to make, and they will show whether the Prime Minister is serious about governing. On defence, his own Chancellor said that 3% spending was needed to keep British troops safe; now, apparently, he does not believe that. On illegal migration, Labour scrapped the Rwanda scheme; now it appears to be considering a Rwanda-style scheme of its own. On prisons, the Prime Minister said that dangerous criminals could not be exempted from early release, and then he changed his mind. This country cannot afford a Government swerving all over the place. Labour has already tried government by U-turn, and it does not work. If he wants to be different from his predecessor, and wants to live up to the optimistic vision that he is painting, he is going to have to start taking this job seriously. That is not what we heard from the Prime Minister today, but that is what the Conservatives are offering.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Lady for the welcome that she gave me and her kind words; I appreciate the tone of some of what she had to say. I do want to try to work with her across the Floor of the House where we can. She mentions my summer. I notice that she spent hers travelling all the way to Rome to be told by the Italian Prime Minister not to do a deal with Reform. If she had called me, I would have told her that and saved her the trip.

The right hon. Lady was right to start with Ukraine, as I did. I mentioned the work of previous Prime Ministers in setting the right tone. Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak—everybody played a role in setting that tone, and it has been carried on by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). It is a very challenging situation, but I was there to send a very clear message that with a change of Prime Minister there does not come any change in Britain’s approach. I hope that I speak for the vast majority of Members of this House in making that completely plain.

The right hon. Lady said that the job of Prime Minister is different from the job of Mayor of Greater Manchester. I can vouch that I know that now, after six weeks in the role. She was wrong, though, to say that in that role I did not have to worry about national security. I did. Within two weeks of taking office, I had to deal with the appalling terrorist attack at the Manchester Arena.

I send all my best wishes to those who gathered last night at the Heaton Park synagogue to remember our friends who lost their lives and the incredible efforts of Rabbi Daniel Walker and others to hold the attackers at the door. We all send them our very best wishers and reaffirm again, hopefully from all sides of the House, that antisemitism is a scourge that we should work together to remove from our society.

The right hon. Lady mentions defence. She is right to, because it is a changing and challenging world in which we live, but I say to her directly: I appointed this Chancellor of the Exchequer precisely because of his commitment to the defence of our realm and the arguments that he has made. He will set out at the spending review the path to honouring our international commitments in full, as I said that we would when I was before the steps of Downing Street.

Those listening at home will find it hard to accept what the right hon. Lady said about the boat crossings, which are significantly down—halved on last year. She said that had nothing to do with anything that this Government have done. That is plainly not the case. I heard an Opposition spokesperson on the radio this morning trying to find any excuse to justify the numbers going down—the weather and all kinds of things. Can they not just accept that the action that we are taking is making progress? That includes the co-operation with the French that I mentioned. The Home Secretary and I will continue to look at all measures, and will be relentless in making sure that we continue to make progress, but the Conservatives would do well to recognise that significant progress has indeed been made.

On the early release of prisoners, I do not think there is any moral high ground for any party in this House. The Justice Secretary will shortly make a statement and lay out the timeline for the return of foreign national offenders. I hope that we can work together on the question of imprisonment for public protection sentences. Too often, issues in this House just get left. I left 10 years ago worried about this issue, and I come back to find that it is not resolved. Social care was something that I spoke about a lot when I left. I come back, and it is not resolved. We have to do better, don’t we? We have to find more ways of working across the House and not just leave issues unresolved with all the harm that that causes.

On growth, I cut tax twice in my first week. I say to the right hon. Lady that I am committed to bringing down the welfare bill not through crude cuts but in a way that provides the right support for people—particularly young people—whom, in my view, the education system has let down.

The right hon. Lady mentioned the 1980s, the legacy of which, I have to say to her, we are still struggling to reverse. It is the reason why—[Interruption.] Well, let us have the argument in this House. Why are people paying such high water bills, while the infrastructure is crumbling before our eyes? Why are energy bills in this country the highest in Europe? Why do Opposition Members represent constituencies where, year after year, bus services have been cut and the fares have gone up? They know the truth of what I am saying. Let us have some honesty so that we can deal with these issues properly.

The right hon Lady raised an ideological point. I noticed that yesterday she appointed a new shadow Cabinet, with a new shadow Chancellor—the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith); I welcome him to his position—who I believe was the author of the mini-Budget. [Interruption.] I think at least half the shadow Cabinet supported the Liz Truss Government. The right hon. Lady said that I have been in my position for 43 days. Well, may I turn that around? In six days, this Government will have outlived the Truss Government, and we will be here for a lot, lot longer.

I will work with the right hon. Lady where I can—we should make that commitment to each other today—but I will still point out where she is wrong. We will not take lectures when the country is moving in the right direction. You can see that on the economy, on small boat crossings and on the cost of living. We will continue to do that to turn this country around.

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

I welcome the Prime Minister to his office and to the Dispatch Box—[Interruption.]

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I and my fellow Committee Chairs look forward to welcoming the Prime Minister to the Liaison Committee very soon so that we can drill into his agenda in more detail.

I was pleased by the announcements over the summer on housing, which in London is really holding people back. One of the many challenges is releasing public land that was previously used for education or health, for example, for building on. Will he undertake to put a rocket under the release of that land where appropriate to best deliver housing?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. I look forward to my first appearance before the Liaison Committee. On the question of public land, she raises a really important issue. We have got to look at how we build as many council and social homes as we can to bring down the housing benefit and temporary accommodation bill, which is ruinous in London for London councils. We must find ways of doing that within the public purse. Public land is one way in which we can achieve that. I will be looking at a programme for the release of public land to build council and social homes, and I look forward to working with her on that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and I welcome him to his place. I associate myself with the condolences that he has sent to the family and friends of the police officers killed on the A66 and with his comments on the disaster on the Nepal-China border.

I wished each of the Prime Minister’s predecessors well, but given how that went for them perhaps he would prefer that I did not bother this time. I sincerely hope that he can turn things around, and quickly, because we all know how fed up people are. We hear it all the time. Every year, it gets harder to make ends meet, waiting lists seem to go up, more and more things seem broken, and the populists and extremists are eager to keep things that way so they can profit from it.

Everything the Prime Minister has described in his statement would be possible only if we fundamentally change the way we do politics in our country. Growing the economy, cutting the cost of living, fixing our public services, restoring people’s trust: those are things that every new Prime Minister has talked about. Yet they failed because they stuck to a broken political system; a system that makes it impossible to really change things for the better. The reason so much is broken in our country and can never be fixed is partly that our political system concentrates too much power in the wrong hands —in Westminster, in Whitehall and in big multinational companies. I think the Prime Minister gets some of that, judging by what he has been saying.

There are so many more problems in our political system: too much power in the hands of social media barons who interfere in our politics and crypto billionaires who use donations to buy influence; and too little power in the hands of our people. Britain’s political system too often rewards corruption and leaves everyone else feeling powerless. Our great country is being held back, and it will only be free to thrive again if we put real power in people’s hands.

We have been campaigning on that for decades and the Prime Minister has written about it. His decision over the summer to finally start cross-party talks on social care—talks I have been desperate to start for years and which Conservative and Labour Prime Ministers promised but failed to deliver—is a welcome step in the right direction. There is, however, a lot more work to do, and more fundamental change is needed to make our politics work for the people we serve. Will the Prime Minister start that work today? Listening to the calls of over 170 Members on the Opposition Benches and on his own, will he launch a national commission to change politics so that we can fix our country?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. There is plenty there that I can agree with and work with him on. Too much power in the wrong hands—that is what I was saying to the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) a moment or so ago. Can anyone in this House say that the water industry is sufficiently accountable to their constituents?

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Yes!

[The Prime Minister]

Okay, Northern Ireland—[Interruption.] Scotland. My apologies. There are models elsewhere that we can follow.

Can anyone say, with water in England, that the money that is siphoned out in salaries and dividends is justifiable when the system could not provide a basic service to people this summer? When sewage spills out on to our beaches and into our lakes, can anyone justify that? I am surprised that there is not more recognition of that from the Conservative party. Thirty years of privatisation has not left the system in a good state.

Changing some of those big things will require the different approach that the right hon. Gentleman calls for. I was pleased that he came, while on his holiday, to the cross-party talks on social care. I give him a commitment that I will keep them going until Louise Casey reports next year with her options. I hope, even then, that we might be able to find a consensus option that we take forward. I do not want to leave this position without having put all my political capital into solving this issue. As Health Secretary 16 years ago, I could not defend leaving people to lose everything they had worked for, but often only getting in return care that was sub-standard and not good enough. I know from my own family experience that that cannot carry on any longer. Nor can we defend the poverty pay for those people who care for other people’s parents and give everything of themselves to those roles. We owe it to millions out there to fix that. This is a test for this Parliament—what remains of it—to see if we can do that. I will work with the right hon. Gentleman to do that.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion of a national commission, there is a democracy taskforce working out of the Cabinet Office and I could certainly involve him in the work that that is doing. I am interested in political reform. I am interested in looking at how we restore trust in politics. I am prepared to look at all those issues—alongside the voting system, too—and I think he knows that. I believe that this Parliament needs to be a circuit breaker for the country. I do not believe we can carry on as we are. We are losing the trust and faith of the public. We need to act together to turn it around, and I look forward to working with him, precisely on that theme.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister is absolutely right: we must free our politics and bring back trust, and it seems to me that we could start doing it tomorrow. We could take foreign influence out of our politics by banning foreign money from our politics. I welcome the fact that the Government are going to amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 and cap such donations at £100,000, but given what has happened since the Rycroft review, I worry that the cap is not strong enough, and I think that the public agree with me. Given that this will probably be our last chance to protect our democracy before the next general election, will the Prime Minister give serious consideration to supporting my new clause 85, which would ban all foreign donations?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend and agree with her very strongly that we need to restore trust, particularly when it comes to foreign donations that seek to influence our politics. I am pleased she recognises the amendments that have been brought forward to the Representation of the People Act, which will be debated in this House later this week. I mentioned the defending democracy taskforce, which has been set up in the Cabinet Office. It needs to continue to look at these issues, and this will not be the last chance. We can come back to these issues in this Parliament, such is their importance.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on what he said about Ukraine and on how he conducted himself there? Our enemies should know that this House is completely and utterly united in standing behind the Ukrainian people. That was the most powerful part of his statement, precisely because we are working together, so may I encourage him in that direction? We all know that we are under mortal threat, that we must increase the defence budget and that the decisions to pare back the bloated welfare bill are extremely difficult, so why does he not take up the offer of the Leader of the Opposition to deal with this, to meet our international commitments, to reduce dependency, to ensure that we are living within our means, to work together and to do this now? “Action this day.”

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the Father of the House for what he said about Ukraine. I saw the sincerity with which he said it, and I appreciate it. It was important for me to make the journey last week. I know it was appreciated by President Zelensky, and he asked me to relay to this House and beyond how much he and the Ukrainian people appreciate the support that we have provided. We will continue to do so for as long as it takes.

On meeting our defence commitments and bringing down the welfare bill, I cannot defend a position where too many people in their 20s are on benefits, but what I say is, “Why is that the case?” I do not believe we have an education system that is setting up all young people for success. There is more that we can do to give young people work-related opportunity at 16, and there is more support we can provide for their mental health. Those are the approaches that we can take, I hope with cross-party support, to set our young people up for life, invest in their success and bring down the welfare bill in a sustainable way.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has spoken powerfully about the devolution of power and giving back control. Will he therefore ensure that the proposals for commonhold and leasehold reform, for which 5 million leaseholders in this country are waiting with bated breath, do give that power and control back to those people, through the right to enfranchise and the right to manage?

[The Prime Minister]

May I thank my good friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) and say to him that I am looking at every facet of the cost of living crisis and at where people face unfair charges that they cannot avoid? This area of leasehold is absolutely in that territory. I make a direct commitment to him today that it is my intention, and the intention of the Government, to bring forward the commonhold and leasehold Bill, so that we can finally reform this unfair system. We will do that in this Session.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

May I welcome the Prime Minister to his place and sincerely wish him well for the future? He will know the vital importance of livestock farming to this country. It is pivotal to the North Dorset economy. He will also know that there have been 783 confirmed cases of bluetongue since just 1 July. The cost of vaccination is £3 per sheep and £6 for cattle. What support can the Government give to livestock farmers, who are already hard pressed as a result of a very dry summer and a very wet winter?

[The Prime Minister]

I say to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) that I am probably not renowned for spending much time on farms—I am more likely to be found in the northern quarter of Manchester— but I was on a farm in Cornwall in the summer, precisely to engage and understand the issues that they are facing. I heard very clearly the issues that have been presented by this very difficult summer for farmers up and down the country. I will focus on farming because, for me, farming and food production are part of this country’s sovereign production and manufacturing capacity, which we will need to strengthen in the years to come. We will need to depend upon it, and therefore we need to strengthen it more. That is a clear commitment.

To give the hon. Gentleman some sign that I mean what I say, I did not go empty handed to Colwyn farm. I took a commitment to allow more flexibility over Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs funding, so that areas that previously could not be used for grazing can be used for that, and to funding to build reservoir capacity on farms, so that summer ’27 will hopefully be less painful than summer ’26. That is my commitment. I look forward to working with him to improve measures for farming.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to continuing Britain’s global leadership on climate action, including by going to COP31. I also welcome his focus on breathing space for people and businesses, but, as he said, it will take a lot more than that to deliver the growth and reindustrialisation that he is so committed to. I encourage him to read the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee’s report on the cost of energy, which includes our recommendations on how to bring down the disastrously high costs that are crippling the competitiveness of so much of British industry.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my good friend the Chair of the Energy Committee for that contribution. In the words of the Chancellor, we need to focus on the cost of living but also on the cost of business. We need to address those two things together and bring down the cost of energy, which is ruinous for households but also for businesses. As I said in my statement, the cost of grid connections can be huge, and the long wait that businesses can face is damaging for inward investment. We need serious reform to deal with those issues, and I look forward to working with him on that.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I welcome what the Prime Minister just said about strengthening farming. If he is serious about this, one of the first things he can do is ensure that our farmers do not have to compete with imported food that is produced to lower standards than we expect. On Thursday, the European Union will ban the import of beef from Brazil, because it is not satisfied that it is produced safely, and the USA, China and Norway are likely to do the same thing. Will the Prime Minister offer to our consumers and farmers the same protections that those Governments offer theirs?

[The Prime Minister]

I am listening carefully to what the right hon. Member is saying. All these issues are on the table at this moment in time, but particularly public procurement. I have been working with the First Secretary of State and the Chancellor to consider how we change British public procurement to support our own production and manufacturing base. I believe that there is so much more we could do to make sure that food grown on British farms is served in our schools, hospitals, prisons and beyond. I do believe that we can do a lot more through public procurement before we reach to protectionist measures, but I hear what he has had to say today.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on taking office and thank him profoundly for his tribute to the Cleveland police officers, PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, who were so tragically killed on 22 August. My constituents, and indeed constituents across Teesside, welcomed his remarks in the past week on support for Cleveland police, and I look forward to the Home Secretary’s statement later today.

The Prime Minister’s remarks on greater public control of public service and public utility provision are most welcome, and I look forward to discussing the nature of that public control in more detail in the coming weeks and months. One core aspect of that is the continued waste of public funds through the continued use of outsourcing to provide core public services. I trust that he will engage with key stakeholders who have provided yet more evidence that it makes complete economic sense to insource provision of our services. Does he agree that we must ensure that the new public interest test does its job of economic transformation and delivers, as we promised, the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. I was really distressed by what I saw in his community following the tragic death of our two police officers, and the seven lives lost in total. I know it has sent shockwaves through the community. I know from my previous role about the unfairness in police funding—or that is how it is felt in some parts of the country—and I know he and his colleagues feel that. We do need to look at that question as part of the Home Secretary’s wider police reform programme.

On the second part of my hon. Friend’s question, the manifesto commits us to the largest wave of insourcing in a generation, and my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State is overseeing that work. Taking one example that I mentioned in my statement, if we bring in employment support, often delivered through outsourced contracts, and put it under the control of mayors and combined authorities, who can spend that funding through the community, voluntary and social enterprise sector, I personally believe that money would achieve far greater results than it currently does.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Could the Prime Minister explain what was so particularly deserving about the Avanti train drivers that they warranted such a pay increase, or was it done just to avoid the embarrassment of the Cabinet not being able to get back and forth to his “No. 10 of the North” vanity project? Or do we take it that this Prime Minister will cave in to every trade union demand that comes across his desk?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady knows as well as I do the misery that her constituents have suffered on the west coast main line, particularly since her Government handed it over to Avanti West Coast. They should not be expected to put up with that. Manchester lost its services under her Government. We have to have a functioning railway line, and the agreement reached with the drivers will give that security of a good service to people in her constituency and across the north-west.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has hit the road running and is running into issues where action is long overdue. Following my six-year campaign to scrap “aim to permit”, I thank the Prime Minister for making that announcement over the summer. Local people will now have a say in what their high street looks like and the vibrancy of them, and local councils will now have a say too. Will the Prime Minister work with me to reinvigorate our high streets, and will he also implement a few more of my campaigns?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a doughty campaigner for improved services on our high streets, particularly pointing out the risks of the “aim to permit” regime, which has allowed the proliferation of adult gaming centres, for instance, in some of our more deprived communities. My whole approach will be to create an incentive regime that supports the businesses that are bringing good things to our high streets—hospitality businesses and others that give people a place to go and bring communities together—and to take action against those who do harm. In the summer we announced tougher action on vape shops, alongside adult gaming centres and other gambling venues. She deserves great credit for the campaign she has run, and I am pleased that she feels we can now begin to turn our high streets around.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I was encouraged to hear the Prime Minister talk about his support for political reform and, indeed, looking at the voting system, but can I push him to be a tiny bit more specific? He could bring in a change to the voting system ahead of the next general election if he wanted to—we would strongly back him—but if he does not want to do that, will he at least commit to kicking off a national commission on electoral reform?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady, who I know well, for that question. She may have heard me speak before about leaving this place 10 years ago, standing for the first time under a proportional system and seeing how it changed the conversation on the doorstep, where all of a sudden there was an incentive to look for a point of agreement, rather than to score points, as I have been saying. That experience changed me. Where I disagree with her is in saying that we should do that ahead of any general election, because I believe there needs to be a mandate to make that change. There are different views in this House, but I believe that we will need to get a consensus at the next election, and if there is that consensus, a change can be made in the next Parliament.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the work he has done to date on tackling the scourge of rough sleeping, which is so prevalent in many of our cities and towns and outside them. What vision does he have to include the voluntary sector in the crucial task of tackling rough sleeping?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend—I was going to say leadership rival, but I do not think she was ever fully in that category. She is absolutely right to point to the role of the voluntary sector in the mission that I have launched to end rough sleeping, if we can, by the end of this year. I do not think public funds alone will get us all the way; we will need to rely on voluntary contributions and the work of our charities. In the end, they are doing the work to tackle rough sleeping across the country. I believe it is incumbent on all Members of the House to put their shoulder behind this. I am looking at the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), because I remember the work he did and the private Member’s Bill that he brought forward. It should be a cross-party matter. In my view, nobody should sleep rough on our streets. We all have charities in our constituencies that are doing the most amazing work to support people. Any of us can find ourselves in that position, such is life these days. We should all get behind this drive. We should thank those organisations for their work, and let us see if we can give an offer to everyone in this country to come inside by Christmas.

[Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)]

In a volatile world, I think we can all agree that energy security is important, but so too is food security. I was interested in the answer the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) a moment ago, because in the eastern side of my constituency there is an application for a huge solar farm on prime agricultural land, when on the western side there are huge distribution warehouses with not a single solar panel on their roofs. Will he commit to review this situation, so that we can have a policy that safeguards both our food and our energy?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman’s point is characteristically clear and he makes a good suggestion that I will take up. I meant what I said when I thanked him for coming to those cross-party talks in the summer. I have always enjoyed working with him and wish him well in whatever comes next.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I welcome what the Prime Minister has said, and I particularly welcome his commitment to go to COP31. What will be even more important than him going there is what he says when he gets there: we look forward to him showing that the UK will continue to remain committed to fighting climate change here in the UK and to doing our bit overseas. Will he say whether, when he goes to COP31, he will be able to commit to the tropical forests forever facility, which the Government have been looking at? Will his fight on the cost of living continue to encourage people to make choices that support the environment, such as by having an electric vehicle, and will he bring down the cost of electric to support heating choices?

[The Prime Minister]

I strongly support my hon. Friend’s last point. I know from my experience in my previous role that when we electrified bus depots and the bus fleet in Greater Manchester, the running costs of the system came right down, which helped us to sustain the £2 fare cap that had been removed elsewhere. That is proof that action on climate can reduce the cost of living. Those two things should not be pitched as opposites—they can be causal. We can act on climate and we can bring down the cost of living. I will be at COP31, as he said. I recognise the importance of the rain forest, and we continue to provide support in the form of loans to support work to conserve it. I look forward to working with him on these issues and I hope to see him in Turkey.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

I welcome the Prime Minister to his place. In so doing, I extend my best wishes not only to him but to his family, as he takes up the manifold burdens of his new role. In his assent to high office, he was heard to report that the UK is not working and Westminster is not working —well, I am 100% in agreement with him on that, although my prognosis would be terminal rather than treatable. He understands that energy bills are now £600 higher than Labour promised they would be at the general election, and there is another large increase coming before Christmas. He touched on energy in his statement, so will he give us a date—between now and whenever the general election will be—by which energy bills will be £300 lower, just in the way that Labour promised?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the leader of the SNP in Westminster for his very kind words, which my family will appreciate. When I left this place, I could relate more to what I used to hear from SNP Members than when I used to be here, particularly when I sometimes found frustrations, let’s say, with Westminster and the way it works, but that is precisely why we need to rewire the system and get power out of Westminster and into the country. In my view, we do that and we keep the United Kingdom together, because then all parts of it will feel that it is working for them in the way that perhaps they do not feel at this moment in time. When it comes to energy bills, I have acted already to bring in that VAT cut on electricity bills. I recognise that is just a start, but I hope the hon. Gentleman sees it as a sign of intent.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister and welcome him to his place. I also welcome what he said about serving British food across the public estate in this country, but may I push him further to suggest that British food should be served on a British plate, made by British ceramics, and that the houses that he wishes to build should be made with British bricks? Could I encourage him to go as fast as he can on rewiring public procurement, so that British jobs in this country can be benefited by the British taxpayers’ pound?

[The Prime Minister]

I will be a staunch defender of the Potteries in this House, if not their football clubs. I do not know whether the Potteries are the north-west or the west midlands, but I am certainly very fond of them and I know the crucial importance of the ceramics industry to that part of the country. I do think that there is much more that we can do with public procurement in Britain to support crucial industries; I do not think that we have done enough in the past. Social value weighting can be applied to all public procurement, which makes it more likely that contracts will be awarded to British-based entities. I do not think that we should allow the culture of sending everything outside this country to continue—this will be a big change under this Government.

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

In welcoming the Prime Minister to his place, let me say that I noticed his criticism of the water companies—a justified criticism, in many cases. May I direct his attention to the predatory activities of another private company? National Grid is seeking to pre-empt the construction of a station on the Minster marshes, with no planning consent whatsoever and while the results of a Planning Inspectorate inquiry are still awaited. Would he be kind enough to intervene?

[The Prime Minister]

It is good to see the right hon. Gentleman again, and I appreciate what he said in endorsing my criticism of the water industry. We need to find significant reform; if that can be done cross party, so much the better. I am not familiar with the planning situation and the issue that he mentions, but I will look out for him, have a word with him and see if I can do something to look into it.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for visiting Port Talbot steelworks last week, and for highlighting the importance of securing and protecting our sovereign steel industry, which I know he will do in his role. Steel communities have long faced unfair global trading practices, but our new safeguards will still leave some steel manufacturing unprotected, including galvanised steel made by Llanwern steelworks in Newport. Will the Prime Minister work with business, trade, Tata and the trade unions to see what more can be done?

[The Prime Minister]

I was really pleased to visit Port Talbot last week. I know the importance of the steel industry in my hon. Friend’s part of the world—the history of it. I came away with a clear sense of what is possible: carrying through an industrial transition that will set up steelmaking for the rest of this century. Industrial transition is definitely another one of the things I have spoken about today that this country has not done well—in the past, we have allowed deindustrialisation before trying to help industry into a new era—and we need to make it work this time in south Wales. I said it to the trade unions last week, I said it to the leadership of Tata and I will say it to my hon. Friend in this House: we will make that happen, and we will guarantee steelmaking in south Wales for generations to come.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The Prime Minister has spoken a lot about the increase in the cost of living. Much of that is driven by the increase in energy prices, because of the rush towards net stupid zero and the multiple increase in renewables such as solar farms on our productive agricultural farmland. It is madness to import gas from overseas when we have our own gas in the North sea. When will the Prime Minister do the right thing: approve the licences at Rosebank, Jackdaw and elsewhere in the North sea?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not know if the hon. Gentleman was listening a moment ago when I was talking about how renewables can bring down the cost of living. I gave a very clear example in Greater Manchester: it costs £30 to charge a bus with electric charge, but it costs £200-plus to fill a tank of diesel. He really does need to look into the facts a little bit more before he makes statements like that in this House. Solar panels on people’s homes can bring down the cost of their energy. Yes, we need to be pragmatic—we will still need to rely on oil and gas for some years to come. The mistake he makes is saying that it has got to be one or the other, for political purposes; the truth is that it is going to have to be both.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I was proud to support the Feltham Convening Partnership’s young leaders summer programme last month. What struck me was their ambition for themselves and their community, as well as their call for more work experience opportunities. When the Tories and Lib Dems in coalition made work experience optional, placements fell by 60,000 in the first year—a drop from which we have never recovered. Does the Prime Minister agree that this Government’s work with employers like Sainsbury’s is now bringing hope, but that we must go further and faster, and we must not deny the next generation the promise of Britain?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work on this matter, and on apprenticeships in particular. What she has just said needs to be understood when we consider the Milburn report, because the decline in apprenticeships for young people lies behind some of the statistics that Alan Milburn has revealed. I give some credit to the Conservatives, because my experience in Greater Manchester was that the work placements that came with T-levels were a huge and positive innovation. Those 45-day work placements made a difference for young people. It was enough for them to feel that they could belong in the place where they were. I would like to work with Members across this House to see if we can turn a commitment of a 45-day work placement into a guarantee to all young people as part of our response to the Milburn report. The evidence I have is that those placements are hugely successful. Alongside that, we need more apprenticeships at 19 and more degree apprenticeships beyond that. That is how we give strong, structured pathways to our young people. The technical route is not bringing back stupid, but bringing back hope.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I share the Prime Minister’s vision of ending rough sleeping for good. He was very kind to refer to my private Member’s Bill, but there are two actions that he could take now that he is in office. First, the various different attempts at progress on Housing First could be brought together across the country, because ending rough sleeping is one thing, but building that network of support around people is vital. The second aspect relates to my second private Member’s Bill, which became law in 2023, but is still to be enacted. It would regulate the use of supported housing. Will he act now to make sure that it is enacted, so that vulnerable people are protected from rogue landlords?

[The Prime Minister]

I meant what I said earlier in praising the hon. Member. He has done a huge amount of work in this area, and I recognise it. He mentions Housing First. I think he was one of those who persuaded Sajid Javid, when he was in the Communities Secretary role, to pilot Housing First in three big city regions: the West Midlands, Greater Manchester and Liverpool. Exactly as the hon. Member said, it was hugely successful. It was about prevention, rather than paying for crisis. What I have experienced in my career is that it is more expensive to leave somebody sleeping rough than it is to give them simple accommodation every night, because of the cost of many visits to A&E, long stays in hospital or time in police custody, which add up to be more expensive than the simple provision of a room. I will look at the Bill that he mentions, and I will speak to the Communities Secretary about it, but this is something we can fix. When issues are fixable, we should work across the House to fix them. We can end rough sleeping—we did it in the pandemic, and I see no reason why we cannot do it again.

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

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place and thank him for his statement. I particularly agree with what he was saying about social security and tackling the drivers of the high rates of young people not in education, employment or training. If I may, I direct him to a report by the Work and Pensions Committee that came out just before the recess specifically on that point.

My question relates to the middle east. I know he has made reference in the past to the importance of being able to hold Israel to account. What does he think is the appropriate action that we and our partners can take not only in ensuring humanitarian aid and access, but in relation to the unlawful settlements? On so many occasions, the law has been broken, and there is a real danger that the Palestine state will not be viable if we carry on in this way.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my dear friend for her question, and I will certainly look up the Select Committee report. In answer to her point about the middle east, before I became Prime Minister, I issued a statement saying that I thought we needed to look again at the approach that we had taken, and to be clear about our values and what we believe is right. Obviously, matters are changing quickly. We have seen the worrying statement about the E1 settlements extension and the fast-track tender process. I think that that would lead to decisions being made before the Israeli election, which I understand could imperil, if not end, the two-state solution. These matters are urgent and need to be confronted, and I believe that we will be updating the House on them soon.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Just across from No. 10 North in Manchester, but also in many towns and cities throughout the country, women are being secretly filmed on a night out, and the videos are then posted online along with vile, degrading, misogynistic contents and comments. The women only find out once the videos have been shared 100,000 times and more, and they do not know what to do. We need to change something. Will the Prime Minister support the campaign to end this vile practice, and consider reform to make misogyny a hate crime?

[The Prime Minister]

These issues are very much at the forefront of my mind. As the father of two daughters, I think about them a lot, while remembering the change that we introduced in Greater Manchester following the appalling murder of Sarah Everard. It was a moment that created a powerful change in the conversation, challenging men, lads and boys for their behaviour and making it absolutely clear that violence against women and girls of any kind, including everyday harassment, is an issue with which they must be confronted and which they must address.

In recent days, I have met Georgia Harrison, who is doing amazing work in campaigning to protect women online and making the very reasonable request for any non-consensual explicit video to be taken down immediately rather than being removed after 48 hours, which is the current totally unsatisfactory approach. I can tell the hon. Lady that I will support her 100% in implementing that change, and also that we will think about the other points that she raised.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

There are 4.5 million unpaid carers in England. I have first-hand knowledge of the impact of that on carers and their families, having been a carer for two members of my own family, but I also know that for millions of carers the emotional and financial toll is far greater than what I faced. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that when the Casey review has been completed, funding will not be the reason for its recommendations not to be implemented?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that this issue matters to my hon. Friend personally, as it does to me. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), pointed out during our cross-party talks—and, powerfully, in the media—that family carers are often simply not seen, and sink slowly as the situation becomes more and more unbearable and unsustainable for them. I know that from my own family experience.

I give my hon. Friend my word from the Dispatch Box that social care will be a huge priority for me. We do need to support family carers, as the right hon. Gentleman said, and we also need to give much more support to paid carers, who, as I have said, are working on poverty pay. I will not leave this role until we have introduced a social care system that we can be proud of.

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

My constituents will have been pleased to hear from Sir Jon Cunliffe, who produced 88 recommendations last July. However, his diagnosis is rather different from that of the Prime Minister. He believes that governance and regulation are the key to better performance, rather than some ill-defined version of “better public control”, which, according to the Government’s own assessment, would cost more than £100 billion. Will the Prime Minister promise to enact all 88 of those recommendations without delay?

[The Prime Minister]

I appreciate that the Cunliffe report takes us forward, but it was to some degree limited in what it was able to consider, and I believe we need to look at all possible solutions for the water industry. I do not think we are in a position to say that what is being proposed will solve everything. It is very regrettable that the privatisation of water has left us in a position that we will find it very difficult to reverse. What has happened is that funding has left through salaries and dividends. Bills were kept low for a period of time, but it is the infrastructure that is suffering. Now, when we need to put those infrastructure problems right, it is bill payers who are being asked to pay 20%-plus on their bills—not those who siphoned the money out in the first place. It is an unsatisfactory situation. It is an industry where the shareholders never lose and the bill payers never win, and I say to the hon. Lady that it is simply wrong and unsustainable.

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

The Prime Minister’s commitment to regulate the funeral industry was extremely welcome. It was especially welcomed by those families who have been victims of rogue funeral operators, and I commend him for it. They are now asking when regulation will be brought into effect. Is this still a priority for the Prime Minister, and if so, when will the funeral industry finally be regulated?

[The Prime Minister]

I say to my hon. Friend that I was truly appalled when I heard about what happened, and I feel for any family who was a victim of that despicable crime. Today I offer him a meeting, on behalf of those families, to listen and to see how we can build a programme of change that will meet what has been exposed by this terrible crime.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Within a few days of the Prime Minister taking office, he announced business rates relief for pubs, clubs and live music venues, but I have spent the summer talking to businesses like hair salons, post offices and booksellers, all of which are just as important in the high street as those that have already been given help. Will he now commit to give business rates relief to all high street businesses and to get rid of this cost, which is destroying jobs?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for making a point that I made myself in the Makerfield by-election. I do think that there is more we need to do to support our high streets. I have made a start with pubs and live music venues, but I do believe we need to go further, in exactly the way he describes. I think it is a case of rebalancing the system—some of the large entities and warehouses do not, in percentage terms, pay the same amount in business rates—so that we can support those businesses on the high street that are doing public good and they are able to get a reduction to enable them to survive. That is something that I am looking at. I think we need to get serious about our high streets. We need to take action on those that cause harm—I have mentioned vape shops and adult gaming centres—and we need to do more to support those that do good.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I welcome the Prime Minister back to this place and to the Dispatch Box, and welcome the ambition that he has brought to this country? He will know that he will need time to achieve the things he has set out today, which is why I know that he will share my concerns about what is happening in British politics. Reform has accepted £9 million in donations this year alone, with £8 million of it coming from just three UK-based donors. That is more than has been received by the Labour party and the Conservative party combined. Chequebooks are already circling the next general election, and if we wish to defend our democracy and make sure that all voices can be heard equally, we need to make sure it is not money that talks.

I heard what the Prime Minister had to say to my colleagues about the defending democracy review. I welcome it and tomorrow’s legislation on UK donors, but he will know that there are people closer to home who wish to use their money to influence the process too. Can he confirm that his democracy review will look at caps on UK individual and company donors, and that we will legislate before the next general election so that we act?

[The Prime Minister]

I recognise the importance of the issues my hon. Friend is raising, for the reasons I gave earlier. The Bill we will debate later this week is a start, but I do not think that anyone on the Government Front Bench is saying that that is the end of the matter. We do need to go further. I encourage her to engage with the defending democracy taskforce and, certainly, I have an open mind about what those further measures might be.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

We in northern Lincolnshire look forward to the Prime Minister’s first visit in his new position. He will find that if he travels by train from Manchester there is an hourly service, but that if he travels from London there is no direct service. The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and I have been campaigning for 15 years to restore the direct service. If the Prime Minister could give us an early win, it would be a victory for me in 15 years but he could deliver it in 15 weeks. Will he have a word with the Transport Secretary and ask her to have yet another look at providing this service, which I know will be supported by his Parliamentary Private Secretary—the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin)—sat behind him? [Laughter.]

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I have only just got back to this House and already my PPS is lobbying me from behind, which is obviously helpful. My hon. Friend is right to do so and the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) is right to raise this issue. I remember, as chair of the Rail North Committee in my previous role, the concern of people in his part of the world. The rail connections to my part of the north are nowhere near what they should be. I heard scepticism on the Opposition Benches. If he is interested, I will fix a meeting for him with the team at No. 10 North so that he can put his case. This is why we took public control of the railways: so that we can start to put services back. There is no point in having public control if it does not deliver public benefit. In my view, every area needs a basic level of connectivity if we are to connect people to opportunity and get growth going in every postcode.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

It is a lamentable tale, but when my father started driving buses in the west of Scotland in 1964, Glasgow was better connected and cheaper to get around than it is now in 2026. With the centralising forces of the SNP Government in Holyrood and a lack of attention by the SNP council in Glasgow, could I ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to lend his moral clarity and expertise on this matter and get Glasgow’s buses moving again?

[The Prime Minister]

I have had a number of approaches from colleagues in Glasgow on how we can support them to move the bus system forward. I was surprised to hear how expensive bus fares are in the city. I believe that there have been moves to put them back under public control, but I am not aware that they have been supported by the Scottish Government. I hope the Scottish Government will provide funding and support to enable the Greater Glasgow area to move in that direction. [Interruption.] If I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected, but I did have a lot of people coming to me saying, “We’re not getting any support; can you help us move things forward?” A great city such as Glasgow should have public transport under its own control. From what I see in Scotland, there is something of the same problem as in England, where the capital city has a public transport system that is way beyond what anywhere else has. It is not that we are anti-London or anti-Edinburgh—it is great that they have those transport systems—but all parts of the UK need to have a level of infrastructure that is seen to be fair and, as I said before, connects all people to jobs and opportunities. Glasgow deserves that, too.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I welcome the Prime Minister to his place and I welcome his commitment to put power back into the heart of communities through a devolution programme, but in places such as Shropshire, where there is no immediate plan for a combined authority or a mayoral authority to be put in place, people are really worried that we will be left behind. Will the Prime Minister elaborate on his earlier comments and explain when authorities such as Shropshire will get those devolved powers—and, crucially, the resources to go with them—so that they can start turning around the lives of people in places such as North Shropshire?

[The Prime Minister]

It was a serious offer that I made at the Dispatch Box earlier today, to say that there could be a devolution deal for every part of England with or without an elected mayor. I do believe that it will only work if it is based on unitary local government. I do not think it will work with a two-tier system, but that is why I said to colleagues in Cornwall that I am quite happy to see if a deal can be done for a single unitary authority. That is what I understand Members of Parliament for Cornwall to want, working with the leader of Cornwall council. If that is the settled view, I am not going to try to impose anything else—let us work with that. The same could be true in Shropshire, but it needs to be effective and functional, and to be able to stand on its own two feet.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his role.

Ten months ago, my constituents were promised a public inquiry into our mental health trust, after 10 years of campaigning for it. People have died in the interim, and it is simply unacceptable. In writing about unaccountable power over the summer, I have seen the weaknesses not only in the decision-making processes, but in the lines of scrutiny to ensure that we can deliver for our constituents. Will my right hon. Friend work with me and join me in the work I have been doing to ensure that we are talking about the devolution not just of power, but of scrutiny to hold such bodies to account?

[The Prime Minister]

That is entirely what the Hillsborough law is about. It builds on a duty of candour that was already there in the NHS, but will now go further to those running NHS organisations and all NHS bodies. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this in more detail, because I can see how much it matters to her. I hope that is a helpful commitment.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister has spoken about his desire for a written constitution, arguing that a formal legal framework is necessary for the devolution agenda, yet in his short time in office he has already attempted unilaterally to defy the legally binding Good Friday agreement by declaring that a border poll is “off the table”. Does the Prime Minister recognise that he has no mandate to defy the constitutional wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, the people of Scotland or the people of Wales, and that any written constitution or devolution agenda must include a pathway for each of those nations to choose their own future?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. I answered a media question on a visit to Northern Ireland before meeting the various parties. The question was whether a proposal was being put to the meeting about a border poll, and my answer was that the purpose of the visit was to get functional Government in Stormont, because in my view that would most serve the people of Northern Ireland right now, and that I was not there to distract from that to other issues. I am very aware of every word in the Good Friday agreement, and I will stick to it 100% as Prime Minister. I care about Northern Ireland, which I visit often, and—how do I put it?—that situation pre-empted the meeting we were about to have and I was not there to discuss that.

The Good Friday agreement—if the hon. Gentleman reads it, as I am sure he has—is quite clear on the circumstances in which that issue arises, and as I have said, I honour the words of the Good Friday agreement. However, our common challenge right now is achieving functional Government in Stormont, and I believe everybody should work together to achieve that. I have asked the Northern Ireland Secretary to support that process, and I recognise the concerns people have about the budget in Northern Ireland. Those are the issues to be dealt with first and foremost, and that was the answer I gave to the media.

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place.

During the summer recess, I spent time engaging with organisations in my constituency that work with children and young people, and I was struck by their talking about young people being unable to interact with anything except their phones. Can I urge the Prime Minister to move forward at pace with the social media ban for under-16s?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that commitment.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The climate crisis is hitting hard already, and I was glad to hear the Prime Minister acknowledge that in his statement. We have just had the hottest summer since records began, farmers are facing the worst arable harvest since records began and the Met Office tells us today that extreme summers such as this year’s have been made 130 times more likely by burning fossil fuels. In that context, will the Prime Minister remember his words of last year, when he warned against the “siren voices” taking us down the path of “dependence on fossil fuels”? Will he stick to the manifesto promise not to drill any more oil and gas, and will he rule out Rosebank and Jackdaw, because the climate damage they would create hugely outweighs any possible benefit and will lead to more disasters such as we saw on the Nepal-Tibet border just last week?

[The Prime Minister]

I am ready to work with the leader of the Greens in this place, because I carry from my last role into this one a clear commitment to a carbon-neutral future. I do not resile from that in any way; I am proud of what I have done on that front. What the hon. Member has said is almost the opposite of what the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) said a few moments ago, but the wrong approach here is to be one or the other. We are going to have to find a way to make a transition from oil and gas to a renewable future, and that does not mean that it is all one or the other. There has to be a process where we can make a transition and do it as effectively and affordably as possible.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister back to this place and thank him for his statement.

We have rightly reset our relationship with the European Union, and now is the time to build on that progress and redouble our efforts to strengthen UK-EU co-operation. With the upcoming summit next month, can the Prime Minister reassure me and my constituents in Battersea that he will be bold and ambitious in seizing that opportunity, going further and faster to boost economic growth, remove unnecessary trade barriers and strengthen our economic relationship with Europe, as well as creating opportunities for young people in my constituency and across the country?

[The Prime Minister]

I recognise the work of the former Prime Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras, who changed the conversation with Europe when he came into office. I have had that played back to me from a number of European leaders. There is something to build on; good steps have been taken. The UK-EU summit is in front of us; it may be the month after next—we are still waiting to finalise. I hope we can make further progress there. There is no doubt that our growth has been hit in the last decade. There is no prospect of getting what we want for our farmers if we take an isolationist approach. We have to work more closely with Europe. That is the approach that I will take unapologetically. I hope my hon. Friend will have some success to celebrate soon.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister back to the House of Commons and genuinely wish him well in his endeavours. I gently point out, however, that No. 10 North is three hours south of my constituency; I hope his view of the north involves a whole-of-the-north approach. One measure that would not cost him anything and would be popular in the north, and across the whole of the UK, would be to rule out something that appeared in the previous Prime Minister’s Green Paper on the future of television: the suggestion that terrestrial free-to-view television could be switched off in 2034. That would mean that everyone would have to pay to watch television, which particularly affects the elderly, vulnerable and those who live in rural areas.

[The Prime Minister]

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that No. 10 North will be as much at the service of Scotland and his constituency as it will anywhere else. Members of this House will get used to seeing what an improvement it might be in getting answers out of Whitehall on many issues, including the one that he has just raised. I will give the right hon. Gentleman an honest answer: I am concerned about those plans too. I know that some of my constituents in Makerfield rely on Freeview. There is perhaps an opportunity to look at that as part of the BBC charter renewal process. I cannot give him a final answer today, but I recognise that he has raised a genuine issue that is of concern to his constituents. Let me have a proper look at it.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I heartily congratulate the Prime Minister on bringing back to the House a bit of optimism and hope, and on his summer tour. Had he made it round our way, he could have seen how, amid a hosepipe ban, Thames Water has been leaking 10,000 litres of water an hour in North Acton. He could also have seen how, at the same time, fat cat bosses are getting pay rises while they dump sewage into our beloved River Brent. I was pleased by the Prime Minister’s words on water today, so I ask him: when can we take this failing company back into public hands?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for what she said; it is my intention to bring back a bit more optimism around the country, to give people the feeling that things can be fixed. That is my style—to face things and fix things. It is the approach I will take to water, too. I do not know whether those on the Opposition Benches were supporting the status quo—it sounded like it, to a degree—but it is not defensible, in my view, for precisely the reasons my hon. Friend just gave. We are looking at options. I believe that we need a strengthened response, particularly when it comes to legislation. I am happy to work with my hon. Friend and plot out a path to repair our water infrastructure, bring down people’s bills and ensure that it is not always the public who are expected to pay for everything.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

On behalf of the DUP, I wish the Prime Minister well in his job. I hope that he does deliver on his promises on energy, the economy and so on. I note, however, that it took him only about 30 seconds to break his promise on no point scoring when responding to the Leader of the Opposition, although a bit of point scoring is not a bad thing.

The Prime Minister has pointed out that confidence in Government is important. In Northern Ireland, it has recently been shown that the Parades Commission—a public body with a very significant role in curtailing people’s freedoms—acted illegally, showing bias and showing disdain for applications from the Unionist community. The commission failed abjectly in its duty, and yet its arrogant members have refused to resign, even though they know they do not enjoy any public confidence. Will the Prime Minister have discussions with the Secretary of State to ensure that there is an immediate dismissal of this discredited body?

[The Prime Minister]

It is good to see the right hon. Gentleman again. I thank him for his comments; I am bringing a problem-solving approach. There will still be the odd point scored here and there—it would be a bit dull if I did not do a little of that—but where we can find common ground, we should. The public expect it. I think they are fed up of watching the television when things are broken and seeing us playing politics with those things. Let us see where we can make progress, and score the points where we cannot.

The right hon. Gentleman raises a very serious issue. As I said a moment ago, I was in Northern Ireland last week, where I met his colleagues as well as colleagues from other parties. I know there has been a serious loss of trust in the commission, and I know it needs to be addressed. The Northern Ireland Secretary has taken some action, but I believe more is to come.

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Prime Minister to his place and commend him for the direction and spirit of his statement.

Small and independent businesses are the lifeblood of my constituency. I hear regularly from owners such as Colin and Jack, who own two Feast coffee shops in Sheffield, that they are facing an onslaught of financial pressure. On my way here this morning, Jack told me how rising VAT and electricity prices have meant that there is very little left at the end of the month to pay himself. I know that this is the case for many other owners, and that it goes beyond the normal ups and downs of businesses. I welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to cut VAT on energy bills from October, but is he willing to explore how else we might be able to help small and independent businesses?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said to the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), I believe we need to do more to support the businesses that my hon. Friend talked about, and there will be more to come. The cost of doing business is too high. As I have said this afternoon, energy bills are too high for businesses and households, and we need the determination to bring those bills down and lower the cost of doing business. There will be more to come on that. This will be a pro-business and pro-small-business Government. Nobody should make any mistake about that. The approach that I led in Manchester was all about the public taking control of what they need to do in order to make a place functional for businesses and people. That is Manchesterism, and that is what we will bring nationally. It is all about setting businesses up to succeed. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to improve that business, and her high streets, too.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

As someone who was politically active in the Thatcher decade, may I gently remind the Prime Minister that it was the period that she did so well in because the Labour party was in a terrible state? For example, it embraced unilateral nuclear disarmament at the height of the second cold war—mercifully, a position that it has long left behind.

I welcome what the Prime Minister said about wishing to work consensually and across party lines. In that spirit, will he look again at the shameless gerrymandering around the local government reorganisation? At the beginning of the process, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) promised us that there would be no unnecessary fragmentation or boundary changes without strong reason for them, yet my constituency is being torn apart, with the Waterside, which has looked towards the New Forest for centuries, being taken over by Southampton. The same is happening elsewhere. That was not in his party’s manifesto. It is a good opportunity for the Prime Minister to show that he means what he says about consensus.

[The Prime Minister]

I will take on that challenge and ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said this afternoon. These changes do benefit from having the maximum consensus. On the Thatcher Government, we will probably have to agree to disagree, but I make one observation: we have a public housing stock that has 1.5 million fewer homes than in the ’80s and ’90s, and we now have 1.5 million people on housing waiting lists up and down the country. I would put it to him that that is a cause of further public cost, in terms of the number of people who are in a crisis situation. I think we can do better. I have been prepared to criticise the Government that I was in; maybe one day he might criticise the one that he was in, and then we will be able to find some solutions.

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister to his place and associate myself with all his comments about the two police officers sadly killed up in Cleveland. I speak with first-hand experience when I say that any police officer will start a shift not expecting to be able to go home at the end of it. It is really important that we recognise that. In that spirit, I ask the Prime Minister to give the commitment that the Government will always have our police officers’ backs, and to ensure that police forces are properly funded, so that my former colleagues can look after communities up and down this country.

[The Prime Minister]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I point to my record as Mayor of Greater Manchester: I had the back of all the thousands of officers who were out serving, keeping Greater Manchester safe, day after day. I pay tribute to the families of those officers we lost in Middlesbrough in the line of duty, sacrificing themselves for their community.

I also want to assure my hon. Friend that I heard the voice of PC Andrew Harper’s family before making my decisions on early release. Before I was here, this House passed Harper’s law. The spirit of that legislation really should have been honoured in that early release scheme, and it now will be. It always should be that this House gives the maximum recognition to those who put themselves at risk for our safety and that of everyone else.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The Prime Minister says that he puts devolution at the heart of his agenda, and I believe him. We both know that decisions are best made closer to the people they affect, but Wales still lacks the powers already available to Scotland, and even to Greater Manchester. That cannot be right. When he meets the First Minister next month, will he work with Plaid Cymru to make good that devolution gap on policing, on the Crown Estate, on rail and on the fiscal powers that Wales needs to build and prosper?

[The Prime Minister]

I am ready to have a constructive conversation with the First Minister, as I did when I met him in July in my first week in office. I believe from my own experience that a form of local devolution in Wales and Scotland might further strengthen the economy and public services. That is the point that I am making in relation to buses in Glasgow and other services as well. Where power is too centralised and too remote, sometimes poor decisions are made. My agenda is all about putting power in the hands of people at the community level, so that they can drive changes that are right for them. There is a model of local devolution that could be made to work in Scotland, in Wales and possibly in Northern Ireland, and I am ready to support that, if that is what the right hon. Lady wishes.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Social media and the harm that it does to our young people is one of the biggest issues brought to my attention by my constituents in Putney, as well as by people across the country. I am really glad to hear the Prime Minister’s affirmation that he will carry on with raising the age of those covered by the social media ban from 13 to 16. Will he further say that the ban will not be watered down at all, but will remain a full ban for all of the day, to reduce the harm done to our young people?

[The Prime Minister]

I think I am right in saying that the Leader of the Opposition made strong statements early in the year—going back to January—on this very issue, and I indicated then that I supported the strongest action, recognising the damage to children’s mental health that social media has been doing. That is an example of how I work and how I will work in this role. Where something is obviously wrong and causing harm, particularly to children, it is incumbent on all of us to act. From my point of view, there is no watering down; we do need to take action. Those of us with children can sometimes see the damage being done, and we should not just accept it. I will lead from the front on this issue.

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

I welcome the new Prime Minister to the Dispatch Box. I note that in his statement he referred to the biggest issues facing the country as being “the economy and the cost of living crisis”. Will he accept that one of the things that has damaged our economy and caused prices to be higher is the tax-and-spend Budget in November 2024? He has cut taxes twice—two small tax cuts—since he became Prime Minister. Will he commit that in the Budget there will be no further searching for new things to tax? The biggest message of hope he could send to the country today would be to rule out further tax rises.

[The Prime Minister]

May I say clearly to the hon. Lady and to the country more broadly that I fully understand the pressure that businesses are under? The cost of doing business is higher it than it should be, owing to the pressures from energy costs and other things. I do not come into this position in any way in denial about that. We need to take further steps to reduce the cost of business, and I have indicated a direction of travel on that today.

These are matters that we need to give the utmost consideration to. We need to get growth up. The hon. Lady tried to give an analysis, but we have had a decade of low growth—these issues go back, and are much deeper—which is why, in my statement, I laid out the issues very clearly, and put forward a plan for growth. That plan requires us to be pro-business, and to provide what support we can.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

I will follow your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. Neighbourhood police numbers are down, and youth services have been cut to the bone. Is it any surprise that youth crime is rising? Does the Prime Minister agree, as do the constituents of Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley, that we need to commit to both, not as optional extras, but with long-term ringfenced funding, so that we do not lose another generation to the streets?

[The Prime Minister]

If we are closing down digital space for young people, it is incumbent on all of us to open up more physical space in communities, and to repair the damage to youth services that was done 15 or so years ago. We will not get crime down without that. That is the other side of the coin to increasing police officer numbers. My hon. Friend has my commitment on that.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) asked the Prime Minister about bluetongue. He gave an answer about farming, but he will recall that he did not address the issue directly. He was elected for the first time to this place in 2001—I welcome him back—in the election that was postponed because of the foot and mouth disease outbreak. There are 754 reported cases of bluetongue in Great Britain already. It takes three weeks after the first dose of vaccine for sheep to become immune, and six weeks for cattle. This is an animal welfare disaster, a human tragedy, and a farm business nightmare. Will the Prime Minister make the tackling of bluetongue and the immediate delivery of the vaccine an urgent priority for him and his Government?

[The Prime Minister]

On my visit in the summer, I heard concerns about the availability of vaccine, and the time it was taking for farms to access it, so I am aware of the issue. I will seek an update from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary and, if necessary, I am prepared to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s visit to a farm in Cornwall over the summer, where, I believe, the work of the Labour Rural Research Group was mentioned to him. One of the LRRG’s campaigns is to end the rural penalty, whereby the cost of living is higher in rural areas, and there is weaker access to transport, energy, food and digital services. Will the Prime Minister confirm that it is his intention to make rural areas a priority during his premiership?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said before, and I am pleased to give my hon. Friend this assurance, I want to ensure that we do not have a two-tier England in which rural and coastal areas feel in some way shut out or left behind. There is a devolution deal that can be done for everywhere; he has my commitment on that. I encourage him to look at the letter from the First Secretary of State about No. 10 North; it is about providing for practical areas. I also encourage Members on all sides to start being practical about agreeing a combined authority, where that can be brought through. That, in our experience, is the best way to secure a building block for economic growth and to sustain important services. I want rural areas to benefit from exactly the same.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Over the summer, the Prime Minister opposed development on green spaces in his constituency, saying:

“It offers no benefit to the local community and will place huge strain on local infrastructure.”

My constituents face the same pressures, so will he commit to new and meaningful green-belt protections, to protect those green spaces in both our constituencies; make sure that houses are built only when there has been meaningful consultation with communities, when communities are being listened to, and when infrastructure is in place; and please, scrap the ridiculous “grey belt” definition?

[The Prime Minister]

My new constituency—in fact, it includes a good chunk of my old Leigh constituency, so I know it well—has been hugely developed over the years, and we have brought through significant new housing. Anyone who visited during the by-election will know that the infrastructure is struggling to cope with the number of houses that have been built in the constituency. All I am saying to the right hon. Lady is that I support taking a balanced approach where there has been significant development, but I do not think that it is sustainable to turn our back on all development completely. It is about a balance, and I will work in this role to find that balance with the right hon. Lady.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I hugely welcome the Prime Minister’s £422 million investment to end rough sleeping, but in Ealing Southall many of those on the streets have no recourse to public funds, so it is illegal for the council to spend money helping them. Many would go home, but they face delays getting travel documents and from closed police cases being left open. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the relevant Home Office and Housing Ministers meet me to ensure that Ealing Southall is not left behind when it comes to his groundbreaking pledge to end street homelessness?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and we will absolutely work in the way that she has described. The commitment is real, and it is not a temporary commitment. The money that she mentions is, as far as I am concerned, ongoing. “Everyone in” should be and will be the permanent policy of the Government that I lead. I do not believe that we should accept that anybody sleeps rough on a British street at any time, but I also know that if we are to help people on a journey away from the streets, it requires a whole-person approach, with all Departments working together. It can be done and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on it.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Earlier today, Members from across this House and the other place, along with stakeholders from throughout the United Kingdom, met to discuss the scourge of microplastic pollution. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on microplastics, and today we launched our report, the second in 10 years. I have an easy ask for the Prime Minister: will he organise a meeting for me, the stakeholders and Members from across the House to meet the relevant Minister to discuss the report’s recommendations?

[The Prime Minister]

I have given quite a few commitments to meetings today, so I will say to the hon. Gentleman, recognising the seriousness of the issue, that I will ensure that the relevant Minister meets him at his or her earliest convenience, given the seriousness of the issue and the report that he has done.

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

Over the bank holiday weekend, a treasured green space in Sawbridgeworth was decimated by building work without planning permission. Thanks to our community’s exceptional response, East Herts council was able to move quickly and secure an injunction, but across the country that is sadly the exception and not the rule. While this kind of unpermitted development is not a specific offence, residents in my community certainly felt that what started on Saturday was criminal. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he wants to tackle the thorny issues that make a real impact on people’s lives in communities like mine, so will he agree to meet me to discuss why we need to change the law to ensure that the police and local authorities have the right powers to stop this kind of unpermitted development in its tracks?

[The Prime Minister]

It is a real commitment of mine to ensure that the right powers are held at local level to take action on issues that matter to communities. We have had similar issues with illegal waste tipping in constituencies that leave people feeling that there is no accountability—almost a sense of lawlessness—and we cannot allow that to continue. I absolutely will look out for my hon. Friend to discuss this further. We can do more to empower local authorities, and he will have heard something I said in my statement: it was a real commitment to taking resources from a national level and bringing them back down, particularly to support local councils, which have in recent times, I am afraid, seen themselves hollowed out and they do not have the enforcement capability that they once had. We need to find ways of putting it back so that the people who do these things in communities can be held accountable and councils can enforce their own laws.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Our schools and colleges cannot be fuelled by hope alone. At the start of the summer, the Prime Minister outlined an overhaul of 14-to-16 education. This comes on the back of far-reaching reforms to special educational needs provision and a new—and as yet un-resourced—requirement to expand enrichment activities in our schools. Could the Prime Minister tell schools, and indeed parents, across the country how he is going to find the people and the cash to deliver all this? Our schools are at breaking point and teachers are leaving in their droves already.

[The Prime Minister]

I do recognise the need to fund education in exactly the way the hon. Lady describes. This goes back to the point I made about investing in success rather than paying for failure. We need to be serious about giving all young people a path to success, and therefore reducing the number of young people dependent on benefits in their 20s. This is a shift that we need to make. The Milburn report will hopefully lay out a way to do that, and I look forward to working with the hon. Lady on this important issue.

[Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister to his place. In this short time in government, we have done a fantastic job of changing the lives of young people—I always say that the next generation is our greatest legacy. The number of people not in education, employment or training is now below 1 million for the first time. Will the Prime Minister lay out what the strategy will be for people not in education, employment or training, and make it a national mission to give them the opportunity that they deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this should be a national mission. I talked earlier about a guarantee of a quality work placement between 16 and 18. We could look at doing more to support young people with transport costs, as we did in Greater Manchester. We need more youth apprenticeships—those went into decline, and we need to turn that around—and we need to see many more degree apprenticeships.

The point I am making is that we need to lay out a technical path from 14 for all our young people, so that we do not have a situation where it seems to them that the university route is the be-all and end-all—important as that is for those who want to go on it. Too many young people hit their middle teenage years, in year 10 and year 11, and cannot see where the path is going, and then they start to drop out. That is what I am determined to fix. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on that.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

It is hard to disagree with a lot of what the Prime Minister has set out, but I am going to make sure my conscience is clear. I worry. I worry about our economy. Whenever I hear the Chancellor refer to a continuity Starmer Administration, that is a red flag for me. My Lagan Valley constituents cannot pay their bills. They are struggling with life in a way that they have not known before. I believe that this Prime Minister is serious about wanting to reach those people. Believe you me, when we met in Northern Ireland last week, rest assured that I can guarantee this House is not interested in hearing about the stuff from our past. My constituents want to get on with life in the here and now—right here, right now. The VAT cut for electricity is soon to be engulfed by rising prices. Did the Prime Minister not have it right the first time, when he said that our people need a new economic model?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We had a good meeting last week. I do not disagree with what she says, and nor do I disagree with the power with which she says it, because many people watching this will be saying, “It’s too hard now; we need help.” The VAT cut on electricity did lead to a funding offer to the Northern Ireland Government, but I would be the first to say that that is only a start; it is a small step, for the reasons that she gives. We can do more to bring down the cost of transport, and we are going to set out more plans in the Budget to help with the cost of living. She should keep that level of determination to support her constituents. We will make this country feel better, more contented and more united if we are dealing with these issues in a meaningful way for them. I want that to be the hallmark of this Government.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Prime Minister to his place and thank him for his recent visit to the north-east, where he committed to trying to tackle the totemic infrastructure issue of the north-east, which is the dualling of the A1. I thank him for committing to find alternative ways to fund that. This afternoon, I and 12 other MPs, the mayor and—in the spirit of cross-party working—the local Conservative leader wrote to him to ask what more we can do to work with him and his Government to secure this generational change for infrastructure in the north-east.

[The Prime Minister]

I will ask the Transport Secretary to work with colleagues at No. 10 North to see what can be done to bring forward a new way of delivering this much-needed infrastructure. I know how critical it is. I do not think any region of the country—certainly not the south-west and the north-east—has a level of infrastructure that is acceptable. This is something that has been long promised and not delivered. Let us see whether No. 10 North can make the breakthrough.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for articulating a desire to reach across the political divide on issues that are common among all our constituents. across all our constituencies, more and more people are struggling to have a family—to have children. This is a greater and greater issue all across the country. In Staffordshire, for example, if a family need NHS IVF treatment, they are not even entitled to one round of treatment, despite the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence saying that they should be entitled to three.

The Prime Minister has a Health Bill coming to this House next week. I have tabled an amendment that would ensure that across England all our constituents can have the basic minimum recommended by NICE, so that they can have a family. Will the Prime Minister encourage his Health Secretary to look at the amendment and see whether there is a way to work across parties and have an impact on something that is so important to so many people?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman will be speaking for many people in his area, and I can see the passion with which he does so. I am not aware of the detail of the amendment at this point in time, but I will certainly ask the Health Secretary to take a close look. I do not like the idea of a postcode lottery in the national health service. There should be an expectation that services available anywhere should be available everywhere, particularly when it comes to an issue as important as this. I give him a commitment to look at the issue, but I will have to come back to him to let him know what we are able to do.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Prime Minister to his place. In July he pledged to end rough sleeping, and that is warmly welcomed by me and my constituents in Cities of London and Westminster, which faces the highest levels of rough sleeping in the country. We have already heard people raise this issue in the Chamber today. When I speak to people who have been sleeping rough, they talk to me about feeling passed from pillar to post; when they have been offered somewhere to stay in a hostel, they simply do not feel safe and secure in it. The Prime Minister has made important statements in the Chamber today. Will he work with me on the way in which local authorities are applying the issue of local connection and on the condition of hostels in this country, which is simply not good enough? We need a real focus on that if we are to meet this ambitious pledge.

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly work with my hon. Friend on this issue. I credit The Passage—I believe it is in her constituency—which is a wonderful charity that supports homeless people, and which I was proud to support on the morning I went into Downing Street. It focused me on what I needed to be focused on before I did that.

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. If people are passed from pillar to post, they will not settle enough to be able to begin their journey of recovery —that was all my experience on this issue in Greater Manchester. We had it right in the pandemic, when people were given a settled place to stay. When people are in the same place every night, that is when they begin to recover. I do not believe that it is beyond us to provide now what we provided then. That is why my commitment to Everyone In is a permanent commitment. That should allow organisations such as The Passage, and others doing brilliant work in this area, to start planning for the long term, and to turn around what is, sadly, a tide of misery for so many people. We are wasting money on failure when we could be investing in recovery. That is what we should do.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I welcome the Prime Minister to his place and thank him for his show of cross-party support for my campaign to scrap the time restriction on disability bus passes. I genuinely and sincerely appreciated the fact that he came to the parliamentary event and drop-in that we held last year with Whizz Kidz, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Bus Users UK, Transport for All, and many other charitable organisations, as well as the likes of Jackie Snape from Disability Action Yorkshire. The Prime Minister showed what cross-party working can do when he delivered that change for Greater Manchester, and is now rolling it out across England. I am grateful to him that, come next year, disability bus passes will not start at 9.30 am, because disabilities do not either.

The Prime Minister mentioned in answer to another question that he does not like postcode lotteries. With that in mind, one issue that will still exist relates to companion bus passes, which are granted to disabled people who need someone to accompany them. This is an issue where we will still see a postcode lottery. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has been campaigning on this vigorously. Will the Prime Minister look at this issue, and deliver the same cross-party success to scrap those injustices too?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman; he was kind enough to invite me to a meeting of the all-party group when he was campaigning on that issue, and we did work on it cross-party. I was pleased to be able to make that change as Prime Minister. It is something that will benefit a huge number of disabled people, but he is right that the job is not done because many disabled people will say that they cannot go out and live their life without a companion, and sometimes they cannot afford to pay for that. There is further work to be done, but let’s celebrate—I was going to say, “let’s celebrate the small wins,” but I do not think it is a small win because it means everything to somebody who now can, or will soon be able to, get out whenever they need with that change. I pay credit to the hon. Gentleman; he ran a great campaign. It was something I did in Greater Manchester—I was proud to support him. And that is the thing I am saying today: let’s do more of that.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister to his place. According to the Office for National Statistics, manufacturing directly contributes 15% to the economy of Staffordshire—double the national average—so I really welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to reindustrialisation, which is vital for towns like Stafford. Will he meet me and other interested MPs, particularly those who are members of the Reindustrialisation Research Group, so we can speak about this issue, specifically as it relates to towns? We know that towns have more manufacturing employment than cities, so to have growth in every postcode, with manufacturing booming again in towns, is going to make such a difference.

[The Prime Minister]

I could not agree more. The agenda of reindustrialisation goes hand in hand with lifting high streets, and I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned on both those things. I am serious in saying that we need quite a change in British public procurement to support our industries. As she will see as we go towards the Budget, we will talk more about what can be done to support high streets. Too many tell a story of decline. If we can turn them round, it could completely change the way people feel about the areas where they live. It could build that sense of optimism that can then make many more things possible. That is what I intend to do for her constituency and many others, working with her.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member on becoming Prime Minister and on his stamina at taking questions for already even longer than the longest world cup match. He has said some helpful and useful things about housing, particularly on rough sleeping. Could I ask him to look seriously at the issue facing renters living in the private rented sector, where the local housing allowance, in most cases, comes nowhere near the level of rent being charged? In reality, less than 2% of private sector rents are within the local housing allowance. Raising the local housing allowance often means chasing the market all the time, and it therefore costs more and more. He must know the numbers of people living in the private rented sector. Surely the obvious answer is to bring in some kind of ceiling—a rent control of some sort—to the sector, and immediately look at not postponing the rise in the local housing allowance, but to bring real relief to people who are desperately up against it and subsidising their rent out of their benefits. The current situation is not fair, it is not right, and I am sure that he would agree with me.

[The Prime Minister]

While I may have already outlasted the longest world cup match, I am sure that my right hon. Friend and I did a longer Q&A at a hustings in 2015—so this is just a small one.

I agree with what my right hon. Friend says about the change we need to see to the housing market. He mentions local housing allowance. It has been repeatedly frozen in recent years, and that has meant that the gap between benefits and rents has grown bigger and bigger. It is the biggest reason that London councils have a huge temporary accommodation bill, which I think has gone over half a billions pounds now. The freeze does not save money, because it just creates an unfunded pressure in council budgets. He may have seen that in our first allocations from the social and affordable homes programme, which I mentioned in my statement, London is the biggest beneficiary by some distance, particularly through the building of council homes in London. We have made a significant down payment there. I hear what he says about local housing allowance. We need a package of measures to turn the housing market around. Hopefully, some of what I have said today answers his concerns.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his words on cross-party working, which I know my constituents believe in very strongly. On that basis, I would like to endorse comments made by Opposition colleagues around farming, drought and bluetongue, all of which are very important to my constituents. To move on to the matter most immediately at hand for my constituents, Jodrell Bank in my constituency faces a significant problem in the medium term because of funding cuts. Would it be possible for the Prime Minister and No. 10 North to work with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) to address this issue?

[The Prime Minister]

Every one of my generation went on a school trip to Jodrell Bank, and there is no way that we can see its demise—it will not happen under my Government. I know that changes have been made in relation to research funding, but Jodrell Bank is a heritage asset for the country as well as a research asset. I will indeed set up the meeting that my hon. Friend requires. There must be a way to save Jodrell Bank, and I give her a commitment today at this Dispatch Box: we will find it.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

We have had the hottest summer on record, and we have had an exceptionally high number of tragic deaths in the rivers and seas around the country. At the same time, so many children are no longer able to learn to swim; over 200 public and school swimming pools have closed since 2020. Will the Prime Minister look at how we can better fund leisure centres and swimming pools to make sure that every child knows how to save themselves and to float—with the advice from the Royal Life Saving Society? Will he ensure that we do not have such a terrible summer again?

[The Prime Minister]

There have been too many tragic deaths this summer, and the best way to prevent that is to do exactly what the hon. Member said. Swimming should be an entitlement for young people on the curriculum, and I look forward to seeing how we can deliver that, working with her.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

My constituency includes the towns of Dumbarton and Clydebank, and both share proud histories as industrial powerhouses, not least in shipbuilding. If we are to reindustrialise every part of our UK—every postcode—that must include West Dunbartonshire. We have two sites on the Clyde ready for investment: Carless in Old Kilpatrick, and the former Exxon site in Bowling. Will the Prime Minister help me to restore industry to these sites, and will he visit my West Dunbartonshire constituency?

[The Prime Minister]

I will at some point—as soon as I can. In relation to shipbuilding, I worked with the Mayor of Liverpool, who was setting a contract for a new Mersey ferry and found that there was pressure to have it built overseas. Using social value commissioning, he and I worked together to ensure that the ferry was built at Cammell Laird in Birkenhead, and it will soon come into service in Liverpool. We need to see more of that. Too many buses are being bought from companies outside our shores, when we have Wrightbus in Northern Ireland and Alexander Dennis Ltd in Scotland and Scarborough. We should be doing more to back British business, and my hon. Friend can expect that fully from me, as well as commitments to the shipbuilding industry.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Can I say that I am flattered to be associated with the Prime Minister? It must be mistaken identity—I am not sure if he would be as flattered. I welcome him to the Dispatch Box and back to the House, and I welcome his commitment to Ukraine. I would like some clarity on the defence budget. It seems over the recess—of course, there has been no scrutiny of the Prime Minister and the Government over the recess—that there has been a talking up of the Government’s commitment to spending 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035. There has not been as much talk about meeting the 3% target by 2030. Would the Prime Minister like to inform the House and the country, given that his Chancellor, in his previous role as Defence Secretary, said that this country should prepare to be on a war footing?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a crucial issue that matters greatly to me and to the Chancellor. We will meet all our international commitments, and we will set out how at the spending review.

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister is right to pursue further devolution within the United Kingdom, but in my work on the Public Accounts Committee, I am regularly struck by how little the different parts of the United Kingdom appear to learn from one another, even when tackling very similar challenges. Devolution allows different places to take different approaches, creating real opportunities to learn from what works and what does not. As we devolve more power within the United Kingdom, does the Prime Minister agree that we must also get much better at grasping these opportunities, so that every part of the UK can learn from and benefit from the experience of others? Is he thinking about how we could bake this into further devolution in a way that it is not currently?

[The Prime Minister]

That is an excellent suggestion. It is exactly the thing No. 10 North was set up to do, and I will pass my hon. Friend’s suggestion on to them.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister speak multiple times about his trip to Cornwall, and I hope he enjoyed Exeter services on his way through Devon. It is disappointing that he did not spend more time in rural Devon in particular, because the biggest issue I dealt with over the summer was the Government’s local government reorganisation announcement, which will see a huge rural Devon constituency of 2,200 square miles with just 103 councillors, compared with 220 councillors for three urban centres of about 600 square miles between them. I accept the Prime Minister’s ambition for growth in every postcode, but he mentioned earlier the lack of infrastructure in the south-west. How can that version of local government reorganisation produce growth in every postcode? I urge him to revisit that decision with the Minister responsible, because, quite frankly, constituents across rural Devon are devastated by what it might mean for them.

[The Prime Minister]

I did intend to visit Devon at the same time, but I was diverted to Stourbridge—I hope the hon. Lady will understand why—because of the devastating fire in people’s homes that we saw in the middle of the summer. As I said before, I am prepared to look at local government reorganisation or ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to do that. Where possible, we need as much consent as we can get. If the hon. Lady is telling me that we need to work harder to find that, I am always prepared to do what I can.

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and welcome him to his place. The Prime Minister knows the Hoolickin family from Middleton, who tragically lost their beloved Michael as a result of the callous actions of a violent reoffender who should have been recalled to custody far sooner, if only the local probation service had been more rigorous in its monitoring. Will the Prime Minister commit to looking seriously at the Probation Service’s accountability and how it operates, so that serious further offenders are given no opportunity to cause further harm to constituents like mine?

[The Prime Minister]

I do know Garry and Lesley Hoolickin well; I have met them many, many times. The murder of their son was something that sadly could have been prevented. It was, in some ways, caused by chaos in the probation system, as my hon. Friend knows. When I was leaving this House in the middle part of the last decade, probation services were plummeting into chaos, and only in recent times have we started to lift them back up again. Personally, I think there does need to be accountability for what happened to probation services in that period. It was a disastrous reorganisation that had real human consequences, and I have always supported the call for work to give answers to the families who lost loved ones—truth and justice.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

We know that Labour’s NHS policy on mandatory advice and guidance and single point of access has led to deaths. We on the Opposition Benches warned about it, doctors warned about it, and patients warned about it, and we were told repeatedly that it was total nonsense, misinformation, opportunism and even conspiracy theories. Now the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, the Government’s safety watchdog, has produced a report linking this system to deaths and asked for a rapid review. The right hon. Gentleman has been a Health Secretary before. Will he commit to that review, to ensure there are no further delays in diagnosis and no further deaths as a result of this policy?

[The Prime Minister]

I have not yet had a chance to read that review. I will, and I will then seek to speak to the hon. Gentleman, to see what we can do.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

In my constituency, more than one in five people are employed in logistics and related industries, and they will welcome this Government’s focus on growth in every region. Given the impact that business costs have on consumer prices, what steps will my right hon. Friend take to improve the operating environment for logistics businesses and help ease the cost of living pressures for families? Will he commit to meeting with small family-owned logistics companies in my constituency?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Again, I cannot give a time commitment, but I will at some point do exactly as she asks and have that meeting. I recognise that the cost of doing business is too high. We need to show serious intent to bring it down, and that is what we will do.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Given that Chequers is in my constituency, may I welcome the so-called king of the north to his new Buckinghamshire residence? Next time he is at Chequers, before he heads off to enjoy the wonderful pubs in Wendover, as I know he has, could I persuade him to take a drive to the Buckinghamshire villages on the Oxfordshire border—villages like Ludgershall, Marsh Gibbon, Oakley, Long Crendon, Boarstall and Brill—and see for himself just how inappropriate it is to put an asylum centre just over that border at MOD Bicester? He can then make an intervention with the Home Secretary to ensure that a more suitable site is found for such a centre. While he is talking to the Home Secretary, could he ask her to respond to my letter containing a series of very detailed questions about this site that my constituents have been asking, which I sent to her over six weeks ago?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman says. He will have heard me say in my statement that small boat crossings are down, and the number of people coming over is down, but we still have a challenge in relation to accommodation. I will look at the issue. I think Piddington is nearby, and I know there are concerns in that community as well. The only thing I would say is that it cannot be only the most deprived parts of this country that are asked to deal with the whole issue of asylum accommodation. A balance has to be struck, but it has to be fair for everybody. I of course recognise that large-scale institutions can put pressure on nearby villages. Let me look at the issues that he raises; I can see that they are genuine, but this is an issue that has to be dealt with as a whole country, and that is what I will do.

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

September is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. I raised with the last Prime Minister the case of Max Hall. During our summer recess, Max passed away. He will forever be 14. Will the Prime Minister commit in his direction of Government to prioritise brain cancer—the biggest cancer killer of those under 40—and get his Ministers to meet with Max’s family and the organisations that support families, such as Brain Tumour Research and Brain Cancer Justice?

[The Prime Minister]

I will absolutely give my hon. Friend the commitment that I will ask the relevant Minister to meet them, and would he do me the favour of passing on my sympathies to Max’s family? That is devastating news. There is so much more we need to do on brain cancer. You can be sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will always do that in the name of my good friend Tessa Jowell, whose family still work on these issues. There is so much more that we can do. I know that these issues have been in the media recently. There is encouraging research being done. We need to see a breakthrough. I will keep a close eye on that meeting, and I am happy to work with him further on this issue.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Today the Prime Minister has spoken with great passion about empowering local people and allowing them to make decisions that affect their own lives. On that theme, could I ask the Prime Minister what action he will take to restore the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and its people to Northern Ireland when it comes to making the laws? Currently, laws in 300 areas are made by a foreign Parliament, not by this United Kingdom. These are laws we do not make and cannot change. Indeed, the Prime Minister inadvertently put a focus on this issue when he referred to the cut in VAT on electricity bills—a cut that could not apply to Northern Ireland because we are subject to foreign EU law that no one has voted for. In his crusade to empower local people, will the Prime Minister set about the fundamental task of restoring UK sovereignty—people’s sovereignty—to my constituency? Speaking of my constituency, he mentioned Wrightbus. May I invite him to visit it at the earliest opportunity?

[The Prime Minister]

I always love visiting Northern Ireland, so who knows? On the hon. and learned Gentleman’s main point, I will probably disappoint him. Obviously, the arrangements put in place are about supporting the economy of Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland can get the benefits of access to both markets. It is important that he sees the benefits of the arrangement that the Windsor framework brought as well.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has rightly described council tax as “highly regressive”, saying that it is unfair that people in Greater Manchester often pay far more than people living in London. Does he agree that that same injustice is even more stark in towns like Hartlepool, where a band D household pays £2,556 a year compared with £1,048 in Westminster? He has rightly attacked that unfairness, so will he now commit to attacking the problem and replacing the hated council tax system that hammers towns like mine?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think I can go all that way from the Dispatch Box today, but I understand the point my hon. Friend makes. A council tax system based on 1991 valuations is not going to deliver fairness across the country. The first steps at reform were taken in last year’s Budget. We need to proceed with consensus on this issue, if we can. I understand what he is saying, but the more wholesale reform might have to wait for another day.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

At the weekend, the Prime Minister stepped in to ensure that his No. 10 North railway service continued, so in that spirit of problem solving, will he use his office to ensure that rapid action is taken to restore a reliable service from King’s Lynn to King’s Cross for my North West Norfolk constituents, who had 380 trains cancelled in July and 280 in August?

[The Prime Minister]

I have said to the Transport Secretary, and she agrees, that the performance of the railways over the summer we have just had has been nowhere near good enough. On a very hot day, passengers on a train from Edinburgh to London had no working toilets on the entire train, and coming back from Cornwall and Devon, the train that I was on was abandoned at Taunton—I think we have all had those kinds of experiences. The railways need to improve and public ownership of them needs to drive that improvement. I will be convening a rail summit soon to discuss the summer just gone—I would be happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me with details of the service he mentioned—because we need to see significant improvement on our railways.

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

I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to grasp the nettle of social care reform. At Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS foundation trust, which is a well-performing trust, about 20% of beds are filled with people who should be getting better at home, but with a 10% vacancy rate in social care, we cannot fix the problem without having high-quality jobs and progression in social care. Will the Prime Minister direct Louise Casey to look at that area of social care so that we can build a national care service that people want to work in?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The first stage of any social care reform should be workforce reform to create the foundation on which to build a new approach and a more preventive, higher quality service that actually keeps people out of hospital. I think it starts with people’s pay, terms and conditions, their prospects for progression and their ability to move towards the NHS. I have always favoured seeing this as a single approach across all care. I am happy to work with him on that, because from my point of view, he has articulated perfectly the first stage of social care reform.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has spent all summer trying to be all things to all people. My constituents in Broxbourne want the Government to cut wasteful spending, lower taxes and get a grip on our immigration system, which all require tough decisions to be made by the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister choose his left-wing Back Benchers or will he choose the British people?

[The Prime Minister]

There was nothing easy about reopening early release. I was listening to the British people when I made changes to exclude rapists, groomers and those guilty of the most serious sexual offences against children from the scheme, and then went even further to exclude manslaughter and other historic child sex offences. Regardless of what the hon. Gentleman might read on social media, I do take difficult decisions. I have done that for 25 years as an elected politician and it is what I will carry on doing. The proposals that the Justice Secretary will outline soon show that that is exactly the nettle that I have grasped.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister to his place. He is right to say that we need more power and more ownership back in the hands of our communities. My constituency of Aylesbury is in a relatively wealthy part of the country, but if he were to talk to people at the Vineyard food bank or the Youth Concern drop-in he would not know it, because that overall wealth masks significant inequalities within Buckinghamshire. In fact, people in parts of Aylesbury live on average 11 years less than people in the wealthier parts in the south of the county. What does more control and more ownership look like for my residents, particularly those at the sharp end of the inequalities that I have described?

[The Prime Minister]

It is so important that rural communities do not feel shut out from the drive towards devolution. That is why I have made that clear commitment today. I believe that rural communities can benefit from public control of bus services, possibly more than urban areas, because bus services in rural areas are so fragile, expensive and often intermittent. It is only moving to a regulated service that can put in place a decent, reliable bus service for people. That is something that we should support for rural areas, working through No. 10 North, and we should put it into effect for our rural communities as much as for our urban areas.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Gorthugher da ha meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. On behalf of my Cornish parliamentary colleagues, I welcome the Prime Minister’s recognition of Cornwall’s special case, his visit to Cornwall and his kindness in communicating with me in advance of that meeting. Notwithstanding his experience in his previous job, does he recognise that the metropolitan template is not appropriate in all circumstances when dealing with devolution? There are Celtic regions and nations, such as Cornwall, that require a bespoke settlement. I know that we will be discussing the matter at No. 10 North and I welcome that opportunity. I hope that the Prime Minister will engage in it with a very open mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

It is a very real offer and I am glad that it finds favour with my hon. Friend—I call him that because we have worked together over a number of years. I heard some groans from the Opposition Benches when I mentioned the overnight visitor levy, but bear in mind that many of us will have been on summer holidays where we have spent a few extra euros to recognise the benefit we get from using services in a local area. If such a power was extended as part of a devolution deal, it could be quite transformational for Cornwall because it could open up a new revenue stream to address infrastructure. That would be a choice for Cornwall, but I want to consider a devolution deal that gives real levers that can help Cornwall and other rural areas to start to improve their services. It might provide the revenue to sustain bus services, for instance. It is about fairness. We heard about the unfairness of council tax. It cannot be right to make residents pay for all the services when visitors should make a fair contribution as well. As British tourists, we pay it elsewhere, so I do not see why visitors to Cornwall should not pay a little extra. That is the type of discussion we need to have—it is not a fluffy discussion but a real discussion—about what can be done to move Cornwall forward. I am ready to do that and maybe make it a template for other rural areas across England.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

May I figuratively raise a glass to the Prime Minister’s much-needed 20% cut to business rates for pubs, clubs and live music venues? That really is a win for our high streets, but other hospitality businesses—the hundreds of hotels, cafés, restaurants, fish and chip shops and takeaways right across my constituency—need support with the cost of business rates. These are family-owned businesses, and they are the backbone of our high streets. Ahead of the Budget, will the Prime Minister look closely at widening the support so that other hospitality businesses can benefit?

[The Prime Minister]

I assure my hon. Friend that I am giving close consideration to that very suggestion.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, many happy returns.

I welcome the Prime Minister to his place, and I welcome his words. In an answer to someone else, he said that he will always demand the highest level of recognition for those who put themselves at risk to keep us safe. I am sure that after six weeks of being Prime Minister he includes in that our amazing armed forces, yet our Northern Ireland veterans face a never-ending process of prosecution, absent any new or compelling evidence. Does he think that our Northern Ireland veterans need more protection? If he does, what will he do about it?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before the Prime Minister responds, let me say that questions need to be super short. Let us keep the responses tight as well, Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

I mentioned the Good Friday agreement earlier. It is important to deal properly and fully with all the issues that are still there and need to be addressed. I do not think it is a case of leaving anything hanging over anybody. The commission proposed in the Bill allows answers to be given for those who are still seeking answers. This is about the right protections for veterans, too. Amendments will be brought forward soon, and we can discuss them as a House then.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I am extremely proud to have seen the huge expansion of clean energy over the last two years—a key way in which we are tackling the horrendous climate change that we have seen this summer. In fact, my constituency is the biggest clean energy generator in the whole country, with Heysham 1 and 2 nuclear power stations. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the clean energy revolution will continue under his Government and will continue to be a top priority?

[The Prime Minister]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that commitment.

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)]

The Prime Minister has reeled off a list of policies since coming into office. Interestingly, he has failed to mention one major intervention: his Government have continued his predecessor’s policy of arming Israel—an apartheid state that has committed and continues to commit genocide in Gaza. Instead of deflection and the boring nice-guy act, will he finally admit to the House that he has chosen to continue arming Israel and is therefore complicit in the genocide of the Palestinian people?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think the hon. Lady was in the House at the time, but I did signal a change on Israel and Palestine when I came into office as Prime Minister. A further statement will be made to the House very shortly.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Prime Minister will know that the commitment he has made on social and council housing will be very welcome in places such as Bracknell, where lots of families are waiting for a home. However, that is undermined when social housing providers sell off their social homes through the disposals process. I know that we are taking steps to address that issue through the Social Housing Bill, but I am concerned that we are not going far enough. It is good to see the Housing Minister in his place. Will the Prime Minister work with him to address this issue and ensure that we can stop disposals?

[The Prime Minister]

The Housing Minister has just assured me that we will look at the very issue my hon. Friend raises, so he may want to pursue that conversation with him.

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

The Prime Minister spoke earlier about deindustrialisation. That is exactly what is happening in my constituency, but that deindustrialisation is being caused directly by Labour’s energy policies. The energy profits levy, the ban on new licences and the delay in approving Jackdaw and Rosebank are all having a huge impact on thousands of jobs. Will the Prime Minister take a different approach from his predecessor and protect jobs in the oil and gas sector?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I have been very clear that I will take a pragmatic approach, and the hon. Gentleman will see that in action soon.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. He mentioned the triple-helix model, but what is missing from that model in Scotland is that local authorities are not empowered to play their part. On Friday, Liz McAreavey from the Edinburgh chamber of commerce and the chief executive of the Glasgow chamber of commerce wrote to the Prime Minister asking that he works with the First Minister in Scotland and city region leaders right across the Edinburgh-Glasgow region to forge a devolution deal that enables these cities to meet their full potential. Will he take that offer seriously?

[The Prime Minister]

It is certainly on offer from me to have a devolution deal that does precisely what my hon. Friend says and gets business, academia and local government all pulling together. Obviously it is a matter for the Scottish Government—I am not going to go round their back—but I hope that we can agree something at the National Economic Council next month.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

As the Prime Minister looks ahead to what is predicted to be one of the wettest winters on record, my constituents are expecting more of the same: Southern Water pumping sewage into our precious chalk stream, the River Lavant, which feeds directly into Chichester harbour. What does he believe is an acceptable timescale to get to grips with the water industry and regulate it properly, rather than a review that has delayed everything and is limited in scope?

[The Prime Minister]

I understand the last point, and I have hinted at it today. The Cunliffe review was too limited and should have looked at all options for the water industry. I do not want this issue to drag on, but I do not believe we have a water industry that is fit for the climate challenges of the future, for the reasons that the hon. Lady has given. We will come forward with our proposals soon; it will not be too long.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s plans for the biggest redistribution of power that this country has ever seen. Does he agree that in addition to redistributing power via geography, we need to rebalance power between the generations? Will he have a look at my ideas of a youth triple lock and a dedicated Minister for younger and future generations?

[The Prime Minister]

I think this House will need to have a very profound debate when the Milburn report is published. We need to make a generational change in the way that we support our young people, and I will engage my hon. Friend fully in that discussion.

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

Towns and villages across my constituency are often besieged by utility and engineering works. Will the Prime Minister look at and personally respond to my campaign for a statutory duty to co-ordinate those works to keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Yes—this issue used to drive me mad as Mayor of Greater Manchester. Only the capital has had some of those powers, but everywhere should have them. I am in full support of what the hon. Gentleman says.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It was a pleasure to welcome the Prime Minister to Portsmouth this summer when he visited His Majesty’s naval base. It was especially good to welcome a fellow north MP to Portsmouth North! He saw at first hand the dedication of our armed forces, so does he agree that supporting personnel and their families remains a priority? Like the police, they should offer proper paternity leave for every serving father and ensure that our self-employed fathers are no longer left behind.

[The Prime Minister]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. We need to provide the very best support we can to those who serve in our armed forces. I know that the Chancellor, in his previous role, did a lot to improve forces accommodation. There is more that we can do, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on that. I enjoyed my visit.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

My mum and I survived domestic abuse when I was a child, but today many victims are petrified about their own survival in the light of the early release scheme. I know the Prime Minister has already excluded perpetrators of some offences from that scheme and pulled out the stops there, but what stops will he pull out to further protect victims of domestic abuse?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not want to steal the thunder of the Justice Secretary, but he will soon announce a much-enhanced licensing and tagging regime in which victims will be able to be given a say in the setting of the restrictions. We are moving for the first time to a system of restriction zones, rather than exclusion zones. That means that the victim is much more in control and we are not allowing people just to have places that they cannot go into; we are instead giving them a zone that is the only area they can go into. That completely alters the balance in favour of victims.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

As the MP for Aldershot, I was really pleased to hear that the Prime Minister has held bilateral talks with Prime Ministers Carney and Frieden, who are leading the founding of the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank. For the past 18 months, I have pushed for the UK to join this multilateral bank, because I believe that we must work internationally to fund defence. Will the Prime Minister commit the UK to standing with our allies and joining this world bank for defence? It could unlock millions in investment for our British defence industry.

[The Prime Minister]

We will certainly look at that scheme, and indeed we are doing so. I have been in touch with the Canadian Prime Minister. There are other schemes in Europe. We need to be pragmatic about our defence commitments and look at all ways of collaborating so that we can save money, as my hon. Friend suggests.

[Lara Bird (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

Scotland is not a region, and nor should it be treated as one. Those in Scotland are hurt and frustrated at the way the Prime Minister has conducted the conversation around devolution and so arrogantly dismissed the pro-independence mandate that the Scottish people gave. Why does the Prime Minister think he can dismiss the democratically elected mandate of the Scottish people?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly have not in any way disrespected Scotland. I came to Scotland to support the opening of the Commonwealth games in my first week in office. I met the First Minister. He shared some of his concerns about the Council of the Nations and Regions. He felt it did not give due consideration to the nations, and I listened to that, as well as putting the proposals on the table about more local devolution. I have not done anything of the kind the hon. Lady describes. Similar to Northern Ireland, it is about when public support changes and the position changes. I do not follow all the polls in Scotland, but I am not aware that they are consistently showing a change and a need for another referendum.

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

Across the east midlands, persistently low apprenticeship start rates mean that loads of our young children do not get the opportunities they deserve. As the Prime Minister witnessed in Derby, there are some excellent examples of young people with good apprenticeships. Will he work across industry to make sure that we increase the rate of apprenticeship starts, so that more young people can get a start in life?

[The Prime Minister]

It was brilliant to be at Alstom with my hon. Friend and to see all the apprentices that it employs, as well as those employed in its supply chain. It is a model for what we want to see elsewhere. We need to make a massive change in this area. It should be a big part of our response to the Milburn report, and I can give my hon. Friend a commitment that that is exactly what I will be seeking to do.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

The Prime Minister’s warm words about rural and coastal communities will be seen, I am afraid, like the chocolate Freddo bar that he said he could not affect the price of: sweet, but ultimately insubstantial. Similarly, his triple-helix theory of growth is like the purple sweet in Quality Street: largely nuts. We need much more detail, Prime Minister. Rural communities are crying out for help. We need action. We cannot have the Stone Roses’ “Fool’s Gold”.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member has worked hard at that question. Full marks for creativity. It must have looked great in front of the mirror, and it was still pretty good in the House. On the triple-helix model, perhaps he needs to speak to Baroness May down the corridor, because that was her theory in the local industrial strategies that I mentioned, and it has worked pretty well in Greater Manchester. I would not dismiss it quite so quickly. Greater Manchester had average growth for a decade of more than 3%; maybe there is something worth looking at there.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and also for the fact that his first visit after being elected as leader of the Labour party back in July was to the north—north Kent, in this instance. Does he agree that his visit showed him that we need to continue to invest in our infrastructure? In our case, that is the lower Thames crossing, but we also must fix our crumbling roads, such as Galley Hill Road in my constituency. We need to double down on infrastructure to have growth in every postcode, do we not?

[The Prime Minister]

I completely agree. It was striking that people were pointing out the loss of the ferry service between his constituency and Tilbury. [Interruption.] Sorry, between Gravesend and Tilbury—have I got that right? That type of connectivity is crucial to local communities, and I completely agree with my hon. Friend. No. 10 North is there to get that infrastructure back in, and I hope he will work with it.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I welcome the Prime Minister to his place with his message of optimism, hope and change for water, climate change and procurement. On procurement, may I be presumptuous and give him a quick win? We can remove Palantir from the federated data platform in the NHS and replace it with a Greater Manchester model that works today and supplies more than Palantir does or ever can. That is an easy win.

[The Prime Minister]

I have already got Members on the other side of the House championing my achievements as Mayor of Greater Manchester. The hon. Member makes a good point.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister to his post. My constituency of Amber Valley is made up of three small manufacturing towns with surrounding villages, but it has been overlooked for far too long, so I am pleased to hear the Prime Minister speak of growth in every postcode. My constituents will be particularly pleased to hear about reindustrialisation after our largest employer, Denby Pottery, recently closed its doors for the last time after 217 years. Can the Prime Minister advise how we can prioritise constituencies like mine, which are still experiencing the effects of deindustrialisation?

[The Prime Minister]

I was sad to hear about Denby Pottery, and I know my hon. Friend’s part of the world fairly well. We are serious about making sure that where there are world-class sectors in our communities, we back them properly and help them transition to future technologies. We have not done that well as a country in the past; we will do it much better in the future.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I am glad that the Prime Minister had a nice tour of the UK over the summer. Had he come to the Isle of Wight, he would have heard about our No. 1 cost of living issue, which is the price of travelling to and from the Isle of Wight. It is astronomical, and it is harming our tourism economy and restricting access to health and education. If he stands by his comments about people power and putting power back into communities, will he at least be open to creating regulatory powers so that we can control the prices levied by private equity companies, put passengers first, and ensure that the Isle of Wight is treated fairly, just like every other community in the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member sounds like he could be speaking from the Government Benches. I got a lot of jeers from the Opposition when I talked about public control earlier this afternoon, but that is precisely what he is calling for, and he is right to do so. It enabled me to reduce bus fares in Greater Manchester, and I do not see why it would not enable him to reduce ferry fares. Bring me a proposal—that is what I say to him. I will look seriously at it, because I understand completely how critical those transport links are to opportunity and growth, both on the island and on the mainland.

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

I welcome the Prime Minister to his place, and I thank him for the positive actions he is taking, particularly to end rough sleeping by Christmas. Will he join me in thanking the amazing charities and organisations in Southend that do so much good work in this area, including the Homeless Action Resource Project—HARP—St Vincent de Paul, the One Love Project, the YMCA and Off the Streets? Can he give me an assurance that this policy is only the start of solving a problem that can often involve a complex set of individual circumstances?

[The Prime Minister]

When we think of rough sleeping and homelessness, bricks and mortar is only part of it. In effect, what we are talking about is a journey of recovery. That was the Housing First philosophy that was discussed earlier. It is about giving people a firm base, and then giving them the support to move forward. Every person in my view is capable of recovery. We just need to give them the circumstances in which it can happen.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

The extremes of this summer cannot simply be wished away with emollient phrases like it not being all “one or the other” when it comes to new fossil fuel drilling. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he meant that all our climate commitments are at risk from his Government, or just this one?

[The Prime Minister]

The climate commitments in our manifesto are not at risk. I have made clear today that we need to plan for a carbon-neutral future. I am not one of those who will pander to those going in a different direction. I was convinced as Mayor of Greater Manchester that our future lay in adopting renewables, and I am of the same view as Prime Minister. Where I differ from the Green party is on its ideological, rather than pragmatic, approach to getting there. That, I am afraid, might delay the transition that the hon. Member seeks.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Chris Vince—and how I have missed him!

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

This is a very serious matter indeed, and I believe that news has broken about it as we have been gathering a statement from the German Government about the incident at Leipzig. I want to leave the House in no doubt that the UK stands in full solidarity with Germany in the face of these egregious and unacceptable attacks. Russia’s attempts to undermine our united resolve and our willingness to support Ukraine are futile and doomed to fail, and we will be steadfast in the face of them. I am in touch with Chancellor Merz, and we are working closely with our allies to defend any threats to NATO and our allies, and to NATO territory. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this matter; it is a very serious development, and it requires the most intense European co-operation in response.

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

I wish the new Prime Minister the very best, and welcome his commitment to a better kind of politics.

Nationally, 4.4 million people are now in council tax debt, 1.2 million more than in the previous year, and last year 1.7 million instructions were made for bailiffs. Bailiff use comes at a significant human and economic cost, so will the Prime Minister look at this issue? Will he, for instance, consider revoking regulation 45 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, which allows councils to call in bailiffs, and introducing a new duty of care that puts harm reduction at the heart of council tax collection and helps to write off unfair debt?

[The Prime Minister]

I happen to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know that there have been moves to improve the regulation of bailiffs, but I would encourage the 10 councils in Greater Manchester to take a different approach to debt, because many people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine fear the sound of the letterbox opening or a knock at the door. Personal debt can be completely destructive of people’s mental health, and I think that there is a different and better way, which the hon. Gentleman has described.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

When the Prime Minister travels up the west coast main line through Milton Keynes and Bedfordshire, he will be travelling through a bit of the country where there is a lot going on. We are building many new homes, we are building a new hospital, a new railway line and a new theme park, and we are expanding Luton airport. Without a devolution deal, however, we cannot make those projects a success for the area, and there is a fear that we will be left behind. Will the Prime Minister work with local councils and Members of Parliament to deliver a devolution deal as quickly as possible? Unlike many of the local MPs, including me, some local councillors are still not convinced of the benefits of devolution. What would the Prime Minister say to them about the benefits that it would bring to Milton Keynes and Bedfordshire?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that the evidence is undeniable when it comes to growth. I have mentioned Greater Manchester, and the Liverpool city region is now growing at a faster rate than the UK average, which, for most of our lives, was simply was not the case. It is not in managed decline; it is actually flourishing, and my hon. Friend’s area is, as well. However, it can go even further. The model of devolution in England is working, and I want it to be available to all areas. If my hon. Friend wishes to lead a delegation to No. 10 North, I will ensure that he receives the warmest possible welcome.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I know that the Prime Minister is a huge advocate for the combined authority system of devolution. I have good news for him: all of London’s 32 boroughs called for exactly that in London, in a rare cross-party call last year. In the spirit of cross-party working, and to apply his experience from Manchester to the rest of the UK—as he has said that he wishes to do—will he reshape London’s devolution settlement by at last giving London boroughs a seat at the table when making decisions with the mayor?

[The Prime Minister]

I am aware of that change. Obviously, the Greater London Authority was created by statute, and there are other voices in the mix, including those of London Members of Parliament. I will always respond to a change when it is brought to me with a clear consensus and cross-party support. I am not aware that that exists fully across London, but if such a proposal were brought to me, I would always look at it carefully.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

The previous Prime Minister announced a £200 million fund to create a green industrial revolution in Grangemouth. My constituency needs to be reindustrialised, and my communities need to be re-energised. I know that the Prime Minister is as passionate as I am about both those things. Will he make it a top priority to reindustrialise Grangemouth, get good, secure jobs into the town, and build the industrial future that Grangemouth and all of Scotland need?

[The Prime Minister]

I understand that there is a possibility of sustainable aviation fuel production at Grangemouth. I find that very interesting, and I keep coming back to it. Perhaps my hon. Friend wishes me to persuade No. 10 North to support him in the development of that proposal; I know that there is a financial commitment, but if we do reindustrialise, the money that we put forward to support that process can pay us back over many years to come, through a bigger and flourishing economy in all parts of the UK.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Last week, the High Court delivered a killer blow to the Parades Commission in Northern Ireland, uncovering unlawful decision making. For 28 years, the commission has denied Portadown District the right to return home from its annual church parade. All Unionists and grassroots loyalists have said that they have no confidence in the Parades Commission, but today, staggeringly, the Prime Minister’s Government have said that it has their full backing. The belligerence and arrogance of these commissioners is staggering. May I ask the Prime Minister to intervene and give them their P45s?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not know whether the hon. Lady is right about the full backing. I believe that an independent review of the Parades Commission and the process that it undertook has been announced. The Northern Ireland Secretary has already taken some steps, and the review of the process will go further. We will work hard to ensure that the trust of all communities—but particularly the communities that the hon. Lady represents—in the commission is restored.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

I commend the Prime Minister for his commitment to building good growth in every postcode. Throughout Lichfield, Burntwood and the Villages, my constituents will say that there is a real opportunity to look at High Speed 2. There have been almost endless delays and disruption from roadworks and road closures on the stretch that would have linked Birmingham to Crewe and Manchester. There has been nothing but pain, and nothing but an anchor on our growth—and for all that pain we will see no gain. No station is planned anywhere in Staffordshire, and no new services are planned anywhere in the county. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss how we can make this project work for every postcode along the line?

[The Prime Minister]

I think there is a need for a resolution on what will happen from Handsacre to Manchester via Crewe, and a solution for the communities in between. This cannot be left where it is indefinitely. I understand the points that my hon. Friend has made, but given my past role, I hope he will be assured that this is something that I know a lot about.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker.

There are teachers in West Sussex who are giving up running after-school clubs so that they can take on a second job, because the cost of living, and particularly the cost of housing, is so high in the area. One of the issues is that West Sussex has the fifth-lowest secondary unit of funding in schools. Will the Prime Minister review minimum per-student funding levels, so that they truly reflect the cost of living in West Sussex?

[The Prime Minister]

I will ask the Education Secretary to look at precisely the issue that the hon. Lady has raised.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

On the subject of social care, does the Prime Minister agree that there is a fundamental unfairness in dementia care being means-tested, while cancer care is funded by us all through general taxation? Is not that unfairness the issue that we need to address?

[The Prime Minister]

I have always said that we will not have a health and care system that is fit for the 21st century until it supports people with dementia as well as it treats people with cancer. We are some way from that, but it is the goal we should be working towards.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I welcome the Prime Minister to his role, and I also welcome his commitment to restoring local ownership and control. Sadly, that has not been the experience of my residents in Bicester, Piddington, Blackthorn, Ambrosden and Arncott, who face a proposal for the building of a huge asylum centre, costing millions of taxpayer pounds. Fifty-five days ago, the Government said that this was an urgent application, yet it remains veiled in secrecy and has not been published. Will the Prime Minister honour that commitment to restoring local agency, withdraw the urgent application, and publish the details, so that they can be scrutinised by the people who should be scrutinising them—local people and local representatives?

[The Prime Minister]

I am aware of the concern, and it is similar to the issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). All I can say is that I give the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) a commitment that I will familiarise myself with all the details of the planning application. I will happily report back from this Dispatch Box when I have done that.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

May I welcome the Prime Minister to his place and invite him to my place? There are good flight connections from Manchester to the Western Isles, where he will see that we have the highest concentration of community-owned wind farms in the country. If he really wants to fulfil the potential of the energy transition, these communities should be given priority access to grid connections, and he should use the muscle of GB Energy to give communities and local councils the ability to buy shares in renewable schemes anywhere in their area. It is devolutionary, it is revolutionary, and the template for how to do it is in Na h-Eileanan an Iar.

[The Prime Minister]

That was put very well, and this is exactly the agenda that I have been talking about from the Dispatch Box today. All parts of the UK need to have control over basic services, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to support what he is saying.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

For the final and 125th question, I call Gideon Amos.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Over the summer, the national maternity review confirmed what we all feared in Taunton: Musgrove Park hospital’s maternity unit is the most challenging estate in the country. It cannot be right that mums are giving birth in 30° heat, and that staff are fainting when they are looking after them. If that is the most challenging estate in the country, they cannot wait until 2033. Will the Prime Minister please look at moving forward the new maternity unit at Musgrove Park as an urgent priority?

[The Prime Minister]

I remember well visiting Musgrove Park in my days as a Health Minister. I did some work shadowing at the hospital, so I know how much it is in need of renovation. I will look into the issue. Across the NHS this summer, staff have been working in unbearable conditions, and it is the same for patients. I know that this is high on the Health Secretary’s agenda, and I will come back to the hon. Gentleman when I have had a chance to look at the latest status of that issue.

Early Parliamentary General Election

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Now is the time for a general election because it will strengthen our hand in the negotiations on Brexit. Now is not the time for a second Scottish independence referendum because it would weaken our hand in the negotiations on Brexit. Strength and unity with the Conservatives; division and weakness with the Scottish nationalists.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister give way?

[The Prime Minister]

I will just make a little more progress.

I believe that our plan for Brexit delivers on the will of the British people. It is the right approach for Britain and it will deliver a more secure future for our country and a better deal for all our people. But it is clear that other parties in this House have a different view about the right future for our country, while Members of the other place have vowed to fight the Government every step of the way.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I will give way to the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), and then I will make progress.

[Andy Burnham]

I can see how it suits the Prime Minister’s purposes to make this election all about Brexit, but does she accept the possibility that it may just become a referendum on her brutal cuts, which have left older people without care, schools sending begging letters to parents and a record number of homeless people on the streets of Greater Manchester?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course when we come into the general election campaign, people will look at a wide range of issues. They will look at the fact that pensioners are £1,250 a year better off because of the actions of the Conservative Government. They will look at the fact that 1.8 million more children are in good or outstanding schools. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about impact on the economy, I suggest he searches his memory for the time he spent as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, when Labour were trashing the economy of this country and leading us to virtual bankruptcy.

European Council

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

May I tell the Prime Minister that it is not just in Scotland where there is a fear that the right wing of her party is dictating the terms of this debate and pushing us towards a Brexit deal that favours London and the south over the north? May I ask her to dither no more, and to establish a Brexit committee of the regions and nations, and give places like Greater Manchester equal and fair representation in this crucial debate?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have repeatedly said in this House, this Government will be negotiating a deal that will be good for the whole of the United Kingdom. That is why we have been listening to businesses and others from across the whole of the UK—yes, the devolved Administrations, but also people from the regions of England and businesses from across the whole of the UK—to understand the interests and what we need to take into account as we negotiate the deal.

European Council

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am well aware of the impact uncertainty has on businesses making future decisions about investment here in the United Kingdom. It was in that light that I set out the framework of the timetable for invoking article 50. I have also given clarity to both employers and employees about the legislative position that will apply on day one when we leave the European Union: EU law will be brought into UK law, as part of the great repeal Bill, to ensure that there is no legal vacuum. The Government will continue to speak about these matters. I understand the point my right hon. Friend makes, but I think he knows full well that if the Government were to set out every jot and tittle of our negotiation position, that would be the best way to get the worst deal for the UK.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

A few moments ago, the Prime Minister failed to adequately answer the important question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton). Has the Prime Minister carried out any detailed analysis of the impact the harder form of Brexit she seeks will have on the economy in the regions, in particular the north? If she has, will she publish it? If she has not, will she concede that her anti-EU rhetoric, and her talking up of a hard Brexit over the last month, has been deeply irresponsible?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, as I said in response to the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton), we are looking at the impacts on different parts of the United Kingdom. The premise of the right hon. Gentleman’s question is a false one. He talks about the hard Brexit that the Government are going to take the country into. There is no suggestion of that whatsoever. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that all of these matters are binary decisions between either being able to control immigration or having some sort of decent trade arrangements. That is not the case. We are going to be ambitious for what we obtain for the United Kingdom. That means a good trade deal as well as control of immigration.

Points of Order

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just now, during Prime Minister’s Question Time, the Prime Minister appeared to suggest that the number of people waiting longer than 18 weeks for an operation had gone down since his reorganisation. I have the figures here. In April 2010, 20,662 people waited longer than 18 weeks. In April 2014, the figure was 29,417. The number has gone up. Do you not think, Mr Speaker, that the Prime Minister might correct the record before he leaves the Chamber?

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I can tell the House and the right hon. Gentleman that the numbers waiting longer than 18, 26 and 52 weeks to start treatment are lower than they were at any time under the last Government. Those are the facts. The Opposition were caught out with dodgy statistics yesterday, and I think that they have just done it again.