Investigatory Powers Commissioner: 2025 Annual Report

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Andy Burnham)]

I have today laid before both Houses a copy of the annual report of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, the right hon. the Lord Leveson of Liverpool. This report covers the activities of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office and the Technology Advisory Panel for 2025.

The Investigatory Powers Commissioner provides independent oversight of the use of investigatory powers, as outlined in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. This oversight encompasses the inspection and authorisation by judicial commissioners of the use of these powers by over 600 public authorities. This includes the intelligence and security services and law enforcement agencies.

Overall, the report provides a positive assessment of the use of investigatory powers during the reporting period, finding that they continue to be exercised in accordance with the IPA 2016 and other relevant legislation. Lord Leveson notes the strong commitment to compliance demonstrated by those authorities within his remit, and their constructive engagement with IPCO’s oversight regime. While the report identifies a number of issues and areas for improvement, he is satisfied that our agencies and departments are working with IPCO to address them.

Maintaining public trust and confidence in the exercise of investigatory powers is vital for national security and public safety. This report demonstrates the high quality of oversight of our intelligence and security services and public authorities’ use of the most intrusive powers. I am satisfied that our oversight arrangements are among the strongest and most effective in the world.

Alongside its core authorisation and oversight functions, IPCO took on a significant additional responsibility in 2025: leading the independent investigation into the Agent X case following the High Court’s judgment. Lord Leveson and his team have delivered this important work while continuing to discharge their day-to-day responsibilities to the highest standard.

I would like to express my sincere thanks to Lord Leveson, the judicial commissioners and the IPCO team for their hard work throughout 2025. Their professionalism, dedication and unwavering commitment help to ensure that the UK remains a world leader in the oversight of investigatory powers.

In accordance with section 234(6)(b) of the IPA, I wish to notify both Houses that there is material considered too sensitive for the open report, on which I have been briefed separately. The contents of this open report are not prejudicial to national security or ongoing investigations.

I will be sending a copy of this report to Scottish Ministers, as required under section 234(8) of the IPA.

[HCWS430]

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 October.

[The Prime Minister (Andy Burnham)]

Today we welcome the Sultan of Oman on the occasion of the state visit, which is an opportunity to recognise the deep and historic ties between our countries and the vital role they have played regarding the strait of Hormuz.

As you say, Mr Speaker, today also marks the 60th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with that community today and with the people of Wales. I visited Aberfan on Monday and heard how the injustices the people suffered at the time and in the aftermath of the tragedy at the hands of the state still hurt. This is a day to recognise that and say sorry for it, but also to celebrate the strength and spirit of the community that has stood together through adversity all of these years.

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

[Clive Jones]

Like you, Mr Speaker, I have recollections of Aberfan and being at primary school myself at that time.

Too many patients are suffering because of treatment delays and having their cancers missed. My private Member’s Bill, the Cancer (Reporting and Strategy) Bill, would require annual reports to Parliament on cancer diagnosis, outcomes and delivery. Will the Prime Minister commit to supporting this Bill to ensure that his Government and all future Governments are held to account by this House for improving cancer diagnosis and outcomes?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and recognise his sincerity and personal experience in this regard. We have a national cancer plan to drive the improvements that he calls for. As part of that, we are also establishing an independent national cancer board, which I will ask to look at his proposal. Last week I met Archie Goodburn, with the Health Secretary, to look at how we can make the UK a world leader in trials for brain cancer treatments. There is huge progress, but we can work with him to deliver more.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

Q4. When Ian and Emma bought their flat a few years ago, they were told there was a 10-year warranty on its conversion from office buildings. The lift broke down in February this year and it is still not fixed. Emma is disabled, so she relies on that lift and has effectively been trapped in her own home for months. It turns out that the warranty does not cover the lift and residents are being asked for £50,000 to fix it. Will the Prime Minister update the House on when Gloucester residents like Ian and Emma can expect to see his commitment to leasehold reform move forward?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that question. I think we all feel for Emma, given the position she is in. I can give him an assurance that she and many thousands of others up and down the country need wait no longer for leasehold reform. We will bring forward the leasehold reform Bill as soon as possible—hopefully this year.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

May I associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, and those of the Prime Minister on the 60th anniversary of the Aberfan tragedy? We express our heartfelt and continued condolences to that community.

Last week I asked the Prime Minister to stop faffing about, so can I thank him for finally approving the Jackdaw gasfield? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I notice that there were no cheers from Members on the Government Benches. The Conservatives first approved Jackdaw in 2022. Rather than fighting the leftie activists who tried to block it, Labour appointed one of them as Energy Secretary. So many jobs lost, and so much time and money wasted. Britain cannot be a serious player on the world stage if the Government dither for two and a half years over approving a single licence. We have the resources, the expertise and the people; what we have lost is the confidence to make tough decisions. Will the Prime Minister now overturn Labour’s ban on all new oil and gas licences?

[The Prime Minister]

Can we get something straight at the start of Prime Minister’s questions today? We have made a decision that the right hon. Lady’s Government messed up. That is why there was the delay: because they did not do the process properly. We have made a pragmatic decision that will allow us to do two things. First, it will allow us to build a bridge to a renewable future, because the resources that come in from this decision will allow us to invest in renewables, bring forward clean energy and, in this Parliament, substantially delink gas and electricity prices so that we can bring bills down. It will also allow us to do more to help people with bills. I can tell the House today that I have asked the Chancellor and the Energy Secretary to look at whether we can remove standing charges from gas bills and to report back to this House at the earliest opportunity.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister mention process—it almost felt like Keir Starmer was still standing there. The Prime Minister talks about renewables. Of course we need renewables, but we live in the real world—the world that still depends on oil and gas. If we do not produce it, Britain and Europe will buy it from Russia. In July, the Prime Minister said:

“The question isn’t whether Britain will still be using oil and gas, the question is where does it come from.”

He was right. Does the Prime Minister accept that every barrel of North sea oil that we produce is a barrel that Europe will not buy from Vladimir Putin?

[The Prime Minister]

Can I find a point of agreement with the right hon. Lady? This decision does strengthen our energy security. It will release gas into British homes and British industries, starting in the next few weeks, and it supports us in a difficult time. I appreciate that she wants us to take further decisions that she messed up when she was in government, but can I make something really clear? The reason why they messed up those decisions is because they are quasi-judicial decisions. We will run those decisions properly. The Energy Secretary considered that decision against our climate obligations and concluded that it was consistent, and she will oversee the same process in relation to future decisions.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister says that this decision strengthens our energy security, so that means that he should approve all new oil and gas licences. He blames the process and our decisions, but he is the Prime Minister now, and we are facing a global energy crisis. Drilling more oil and gas in the North sea would give us more energy, more jobs and more tax revenue, which is something we desperately need. There is a red warning light flashing on the economy. Just this morning, total Government borrowing hit £3 trillion, its highest level ever. That is £100,000 for every household in the country. Even the Prime Minister’s former economic adviser, Andy Haldane—not someone I always agree with—has warned that Britain faces a “precarious fiscal backdrop”, so what is the Prime Minister doing to get borrowing down?

[The Prime Minister]

On energy, can I just say to the right hon. Lady that she is displaying for the House and the nation today why the Conservatives got those decisions wrong, because she and they did not give any regard to our climate obligations? These things have to be considered in the round, and they have been considered in the round. That is why the decision the Government have made is the right decision.

On the economy, I am not sure that the right hon. Lady has read last week’s report from the International Monetary Fund, because if she had read it, she would see its clear conclusion that Britain is the stand-out nation for deficit reduction and the joint fastest growing country in the G7. Britain is the country that, only yesterday, saw unemployment down and improved labour market statistics. It is time that the right hon. Lady talked the country up, rather than constantly talking it down.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I asked the Prime Minister how he was getting borrowing down—he did not answer. He is talking about the IMF report. I have looked at it, but I do not think that he has, because it downgrades the forecast for next year. It also talks about deficit reduction plans in 2029, which is after an election. The Government are not going to be here after that election. They have not made any cuts. We are spending more on interest payments than we do on schools, the Army and the police combined. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is worrying about loud music on trains. This is not serious. The only solution to the challenges facing our country is to cut spending and cut borrowing. The out-of-work benefits bill is set to rise by £50 billion under this Labour Government, so will the Prime Minister get a grip and cut the welfare bill?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady asks me about cutting spending. I did exactly that on my first day in office with the digital ID programme, so that we could take action to support people and remove VAT from electricity bills, which is what we have delivered—a tax cut.

The right hon. Lady asks about the big decisions, and I want to come directly back to what she is saying. I am not going to apologise for doing the small things that help people have better lives, but I also take the big decisions that the Conservatives have avoided for many years. Let me go directly to one: social care. I grasped the nettle in a way that nobody on their side ever has. I made a difficult spending decision to lay a path towards a national care service. Have they had the time to read the covid inquiry report yesterday about the appalling state of social care as it went into the pandemic, the hundreds of thousands of British people who suffered as a result of that, and the lives that were lost? I need no lectures from the Conservatives about taking tough decisions on social care. I suggest they go away from this PMQs, read that report and have a period of reflection.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I asked the Prime Minister about welfare—he did not answer the welfare question. That is because he is not planning to cut welfare. This morning, The Telegraph exposed that the reforms he is talking about will not save any money before 2030; in fact, the Prime Minister’s plan is to save money on welfare by spending more money on welfare. This is ridiculous. He is talking about big decisions, but he has not made any decision on social care. Talking about it is not making a decision. He is going to keep spending more, and that means he is going to keep borrowing more. We know where that leads. This morning, inflation rose to 3.5%, the third rise in a row. Families are paying higher bills and more for their weekly shop, and it is leading to higher mortgage rates. Does the Prime Minister accept that his failure to control borrowing is contributing to higher inflation?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think the right hon. Lady was listening to what I said. I did take a difficult decision to lay a path to the national care service, and it involves a change to the triple lock. I am happy to stand at this Dispatch Box and defend that, because I am confident that we should support older people financially, but with better social care support in later life. That is my decision. I am happy to stand here and defend it. Where is the Conservatives’ decision on social care? When are they going to respond to what the report said yesterday?

On welfare, I will do the same. I do not want to see anybody in their 20s on benefits in this country; I want to see them in work, in training, in education. That is the reform that we will bring forward on the back of the Milburn report. The right hon. Lady mentions inflation. She may notice that there is a situation ongoing in the middle east of which we do not have full control. What I can say to her is that the fundamentals of the British economy are getting stronger and stronger under this Government. We will take the right long-term decisions. She should wait for the Budget, when she will see that laid out in this House.

[Mrs Badenoch]

We are waiting for the Budget, and next week at the Budget the Prime Minister has a choice: he can cut spending, he can cut the deficit or he can cut tax. There is no other way. That is why that is the Conservatives’ plan. It is a plan that even his former economic adviser Andy Haldane says is the better way. Will he follow that plan, or will he bottle it just like Keir Starmer did?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, there are signs of growing strength in the British economy. Before the Budget next week, we will have a new book published about the mini-Budget of a few years ago. Opposition Members have gone quiet, because the authors of that mini-Budget are sitting on the Opposition Benches, including the shadow Chancellor. Does anybody on this side or anybody around the country believe that party, of all parties? The Conservatives have the audacity to come to this House and lecture us about how to do a Budget. People in this country—British households—are still paying the price of their disastrous Budget.

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

Q8.   Last week, three-year-old Maryam Ghanem was pulled from her home in Gaza, badly burned, having watched her mother be killed by an Israeli airstrike. On the same day, Irish writer Sally Rooney’s publisher announced that it would stop distributing her books across the UK because she is donating her royalties to Palestine Action, which was proscribed by Keir Starmer’s Government. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that the previous Government’s response to Gaza was inadequate, and his Foreign Secretary, making a powerful move on sanctions last month, has said that those campaigning for change were right, but the proscription remains in place. That has had extraordinary consequences for freedom of expression, including for constituents of mine who are facing terror charges for peaceful protest. Will the Prime Minister commit to reviewing the proscription of Palestine Action and righting this unnecessary wrong?

[The Prime Minister]

We agree that the scenes from Gaza and the west bank are deeply distressing, and that is why the Foreign Secretary has taken the action that he has. We will not stand by when the viability of the two-state solution is threatened, and he has made a further statement in relation to that this week. The proscription of Palestine Action followed a rigorous and evidence-based process that came before this House and was endorsed by Parliament. The matter is a live legal case, so I will not comment further.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats

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

May I associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, and the remarks of others about the terrible tragedy in Aberfan 60 years ago? Our thoughts and prayers are with the survivors, their families, and the whole community there.

I find it amazing to hear the Conservative leader talk about the economy after everything that her party did to wreck it. The single biggest thing that the Prime Minister could do to fix growth is take the UK back into the European single market and the customs union, on which the Conservatives failed the country. That would boost revenues, so we could raise the personal allowance and give everyone a tax cut. When I pushed the Prime Minister last week on a new economic strategy based on trade with Europe, he said no. Is he really saying, after all that he has rightly said about the damage that the Conservatives’ Brexit has done to our economy, that he will wait until after the next election before considering the single market?

[The Prime Minister]

We have ahead of us a UK-EU summit on 20 November. It is an opportunity for the House to come together and get a good deal for food producers, for farmers in this country and for Northern Ireland in relation to energy costs there, as well as, hopefully, more co-operation on illegal migration. It is an opportunity to take an important step back to secure growth in the British economy and more control of migration. I am picking up the message that the right hon. Gentleman will give us that support. We are already working to reduce the risks from the Made in Europe initiative, and we are making good progress there. If the House were to come together—I wait for the party opposite to do so—it would put me in the strongest position to go to that summit and get a good deal for British farmers and British food producers, which is exactly what they need.

[Ed Davey]

We need to grow our economy. Without a proper plan—a more urgent plan—for re-engaging with Europe on trade, next week’s Budget will not be the growth Budget that our country needs.

This week, Ukraine’s defence system was seriously undermined by the US restricting access to Elon Musk’s Starlink system. Musk says that the order came from the White House, but The Telegraph and The Wall Street Journal have revealed that he put the idea to Donald Trump. I understand the Prime Minister’s reluctance to criticise the President of United States, but does he agree that directly aiding Putin in this way is beyond the pale? Will he work with European allies to prevent Elon Musk from obtaining the licences that he wants, because that would make our continent even more dependent on his satellite system?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course I have concerns about any move that diminishes the military capability of Ukraine in the position in which it finds itself. The right hon. Gentleman is right about that, and I am sure that the sentiment is echoed throughout this country, but the situation is currently fragile and needs careful handling. There were talks in Oslo yesterday at which the UK Government were represented. We need to handle the situation carefully so that we can bring back all sides to get the support behind President Zelensky and Ukraine. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the UK Government are working on every single level to bring that about.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

Q9.   Endometriosis affects about 1 in 10 women in the UK, and I have heard from many women in Colchester and north-east Essex who are living in chronic pain with the condition—a pain that is prolonged by unnecessarily long waits for treatment and diagnosis. What steps are the Government taking to speed up access to treatment?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this condition in the House. I know that women across the country suffer terribly with it, and often feel that they are not seen and not listened to when it comes to the treatment that they need. Our women’s health strategy sets out precisely how we will improve treatment for conditions that uniquely or disproportionately affect women, including endometriosis. It is about redesigning clinical pathways and removing the need for repeat appointments. There is a lot to do, but I can assure my hon. Friend that this is very high on the Government's agenda.

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

The Energy Secretary herself has admitted that Jackdaw will not bring down bills and will create only 27 jobs. The 2024 Labour manifesto said that the climate crisis is the greatest global challenge we face, and the UN has warned today that we are breaching safe climate limits, meaning more of the heatwaves, wildfires and catastrophic floods that killed thousands this summer. Can the Prime Minister explain why he is pouring more fuel on the fire of climate breakdown? Does he disagree with the overwhelming scientific consensus that fossil fuels must stay in the ground, or was the oil and gas lobby simply too difficult to ignore?

[The Prime Minister]

The gas would still be needed; it would just be imported from somewhere else if we did not use our own reserves. In these difficult times, when we have resources, the public would expect us to use them to secure jobs in Aberdeen, and I am sure that people in Aberdeen appreciate what has been announced. There is, however, a big difference between an ideological approach, which is what the hon. Lady is putting to the House, and a pragmatic approach, which is what I am announcing today. The truth of the matter is, the revenue that comes into the Treasury from this decision will enable us to speed up the roll-out of renewables and build towards a clean energy future. In the end, that will help us delink gas and electricity prices and get bills down.

[Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)]

Q12. My constituents should be able to rely on deliveries from Royal Mail, but post is being held up for weeks on end, and it is causing serious issues for far too many people. Will the Prime Minister join me in urging the senior leadership of Royal Mail to do the right thing by my constituents and our postal workers, and put in place a system that works?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right: Royal Mail’s service has been unacceptable for far too long. The leadership have been asked in to see Ministers on a regular basis. Ofcom is looking at the situation as well. Let us be clear: they need to bring forward a plan to restore service standards to the level they need to be at. They need to do it quickly, or we will consider further measures.

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

Q2. Last week the Prime Minister struggled to disclose all his dealings with the owners of Manchester City football club, so I ask him this: in September, did he have a meeting scheduled with Khaldoon Al Mubarak?

[The Prime Minister]

I answered the hon. Gentleman last week, and I set it out very clearly in the statement that I made. It was all covered in that statement, and there is no more I need to add.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Q14.  Waits for NHS mental health care are far too long. Our constituents are 200 times more likely to wait 18 months for help with a mental health condition than for a physical health condition. A key reason is that, for a long time, there have been clear standards set for physical health access that we are all familiar with—four hours for A&E, and 18 weeks for physical health—but such standards have not been set by successive Governments for mental health. Our manifesto promised to reform the NHS to give the same focus and attention to mental health as to physical health. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the forthcoming mental health strategy delivers on that and sets clear standards, to reduce mental health waits for people of all ages?

[The Prime Minister]

The mental health strategy will do precisely that. It will confirm the plan to open 100 new community mental health centres across the country to get mental health support right into communities, and the Health Secretary is ensuring that we also bring forward 59 mental health emergency departments to give same-day support to people experiencing a crisis. I am pleased to say to my hon. Friend that there will be one of each in Sunderland.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

Q3. My constituent Matilda Davis was a wonderful and devoted mum, and a full-time carer for her disabled seven-year-old child. Despite providing round-the-clock care, she received almost no support, leaving her physically and emotionally exhausted. Last October social workers visited Matilda, and she took her own life 15 minutes after they left. She was 36. Research from the University of Birmingham shows that 41% of parent carers have contemplated suicide. Will the Prime Minister meet with me and Matilda’s family to discuss mandatory suicide prevention training for local authorities and other measures, so that no more families suffer such a devastating loss?

[The Prime Minister]

I will ensure that a Minister meets the hon. Lady to discuss that proposal, because I find myself in agreement with it. The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) has been very powerful on this point about unpaid carers or family carers who often sink under their responsibilities and find it very, very difficult. Sadly, in the case of Matilda—the hon. Lady’s constituent—it is obviously a devastating situation, so I will arrange that meeting, and I thank her for raising the issue in the House today.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

Q15. My constituent Ian has a rare and aggressive form of cancer that is now, sadly, incurable. Clinicians have advised that regorafenib is the only remaining life-extending option. Until recently, the drug was provided free of charge through the compassionate use scheme. Following the Government’s announcement on VAT reform, the developer, Bayer, has withdrawn from the scheme—the only company to do so—leaving Ian with no further options. Ian does not have the luxury of time, so will the Prime Minister urgently commit to ensuring a solution to the VAT issue, to provide Bayer with certainty to rejoin the scheme, and will he meet my constituent to see the real-life impact of these life and death decisions?

[The Prime Minister]

I recognise that Ian is obviously in a very difficult position. I am pleased to say the Exchequer Secretary has announced that we will bring forward a new approach to this issue. We have been working on a solution that will remove VAT as a barrier to free-of-charge donations of innovative medicines. It will be permanent, backdated to 23 June, so that it supports companies to continue to make donations. We will set out the details shortly, and I am sure a Minister will be pleased to meet my hon. Friend, too.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Q5.  Last week, the Prime Minister was kind enough to pay me a compliment, so let me return the favour. When he was Mayor of Greater Manchester, the Greater Manchester police had more police officers than before he was appointed. When I was Home Secretary, Essex police had more officers than at any point in its history. However, over the last 10 years, the Metropolitan police has failed to recruit, and police numbers have fallen. So what is it that he was able to get right and that I was able to get right, but that Sadiq Khan catastrophically has failed to get right?

[The Prime Minister]

The second round of auditions, Mr Speaker! I saw Essex got a mention this week, but it was still a question about London. I did increase police numbers in my time as Mayor of Greater Manchester, but the right hon. Member will know it is not something you can do from the local level alone; you need Government support as well to do that. Sadly, that support for the Metropolitan police was not forthcoming in sufficient quantity during the period that he was in office—so he cannot come here and absolve himself of any responsibility in his quest to come second to Sadiq next year.

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

The Prime Minister will remember that, in 2013, he met me to discuss the hormone pregnancy test drug Primodos, and he has supported the affected families since. One of them is his own constituent Marie Lyon, who has led this fight for decades. More recently, Marie suffered a heart attack—a stark reminder that time is running out for the families who have already waited a lifetime. Now that he is the Prime Minister, will he meet me and Marie to finally deliver the justice that these families deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

I will. Marie Lyon has been an incredible, indomitable fighter for women affected by Primodos. I pay full tribute to her. I was so sorry to hear about her recent illness, but I can say from this Dispatch Box today that, as Prime Minister, I will work with Marie and my hon. Friend to get justice for the Primodos victims.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Q6. The Prime Minister will be aware that the Northern Ireland Executive have now been without an agreed budget for the seven months of this financial year. Is he aware that that means my party colleague Robbie Butler, the Health Minister, has neither the finance nor the legal ability to pay our health and social care workers their agreed pay award for this year, and that they are now balloting for industrial action? Will the Prime Minister work at pace with the Northern Ireland Secretary and the Northern Ireland Executive to get a budget agreed that will deliver for our health and social care workers in Northern Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman and colleagues will know that I did go to Northern Ireland shortly after coming into office to speak to all parties, including on this very important issue of the budget. I returned here and found more money for Northern Ireland, in a very difficult situation, I have to say, when we are finding more money for defence—despite what the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) says, we will fully fund the defence investment plan. Even in those circumstances, I found extra money. There comes a point when people have to work together to set a budget. It cannot always be our responsibility. We stepped forward and I ask all parties in Northern Ireland to do the same: set a budget and get Stormont functioning as it should.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

My constituent Joe Bennett, who is in the Public Gallery, has not seen his parents Craig and Lindsay Foreman since January 2025, when they were arrested and detained by Iran, and presented with fake charges of espionage. I thank the Foreign Secretary and his predecessors for their work on this case, but will the Prime Minister consider additional action, including a clear public condemnation of their detention as arbitrary and unlawful in international law, and provide them with diplomatic protection, as we have in other cases, to increase the pressure on Iran to bring Craig and Lindsay home?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. and learned Friend is doing a sterling job in speaking up for his constituents. I agree that Lindsay and Craig’s sentence is appalling and unjustifiable. That is why the Foreign Secretary has raised this case directly with his Iranian counterpart. We will continue to pursue the case relentlessly until Lindsay and Craig are safely returned home to the UK and reunited with their family.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Q7.   Three million households are in debt on their energy bills, pushing up everyone’s energy bills by around £50 a year to cover it. As a result, energy companies and Ofgem are ringing the alarm bell that the almost £7 billion of energy debt in this country is now undermining the sector’s ability to make the investments that could lower bills in the long term. Will the Prime Minister be more ambitious than the VAT cut on electricity and reviewing the standing charge on gas, and introduce an essential energy guarantee, where 50% of average use is charged at a cheaper rate permanently, to cut bills and help families and the energy sector to escape Britain’s energy debt crisis?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady makes a very strong point. Getting energy bills down, gas and electric, is at the very top of my list of priorities. It matters for households. She described the number of people in debt, which is an appalling situation for so many people to be in. It matters to businesses, too. Businesses are struggling with the cost of energy and to get grid connections. That is why the energy sector needs significant reform, and we will make it. We will go further, on the back of the VAT cut, and we will set out more in due course.

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, you will remember that the last Labour Government established children’s trust funds, but sadly around 80,000 children across the country, including my constituent James Gilbert, are unable to access them due to an expensive and bureaucratic courts process for those who lack mental capacity. Will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring that this Government finally fix this problem, which has left our campaigners frustrated for over six years since they first raised it with Ministers?

[The Prime Minister]

I know how important this issue is. Child trust funds for disabled children are crucial, and they need to be unlocked quickly. I will ensure that Treasury Ministers are working with other ministerial colleagues to make progress quickly; hopefully we will have an answer for my hon. Friend soon.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Q10.   The Prime Minister has said that he wants growth in every postcode, but current devolution plans mean that West Dorset risks being left behind as other regions gain devolved powers in investment. A Wessex mayor could unlock £460 million in additional annual funding and generate as much as £16 billion of additional economic output over the next 30 years. Will the Prime Minister commit to a mayor of Wessex by 2028?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I am always happy to create more mayors. [Laughter.] I am not joking—yes. I would like to see a fully devolved south-west of England. I know Cornish Members were in No.10 North this week to discuss a devolution deal. I met Devon Members this week who are seeking the same. I will offer the same to Wessex Members. Let us move quickly to get a fully devolved Wessex and south-west of England.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

We know the Prime Minister likes a pint—including, as he told me, a pint of Burton’s finest, Bass—so he will be sad to learn of the news from Carlsberg of the planned closure of Marston’s brewery next year. This puts at risk 310 workers and our historic ales, like Bass and Pedigree, being brewed in Burton upon Trent. Will the Prime Minister meet with me to discuss how to safeguard the site and keep it as a brewery?

[The Prime Minister]

I do like a pint—sadly, I am spending less time in pubs these days, but I will certainly make up for that by meeting my hon. Friend and having a chat about the home of brewing in this country, Burton upon Trent. It is a proud tradition. I was sorry to hear about the potential job losses, and we will see what we can do to support my hon. Friend and his constituents.

[Zoe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

Q11.   At Guilford’s probation hostel, experienced staff are being refused skilled worker visa sponsorship because their salaries fall below the Government threshold, despite earning over £42,000 when essential overtime is included. I understand from local probation management that this could affect hundreds of staff across the 104 probation hostels in England and Wales at a time when probation services are already under huge pressure from the Government’s early release scheme. The Government have made special visa provision for prison officers, so why not for probation staff, who also protect the public? Will the Prime Minister review these rules urgently before experienced probation staff are lost from the service, which is already stretched to breaking point?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is right that we have to do everything we can to support our staff in the Probation Service right now. I will ask the Justice Secretary to look at those rules and come back to her.

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

One hundred years ago this month, my family’s proud tradition of service and contribution to Britain began when my grandfather, Imam Mohamed, travelled from Indian Punjab to serve in the Royal British Hong Kong police force. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister share my concern that, in the light of ITV’s exposé of elected Reform politicians indulging in racist behaviour, families like them, of whom there are thousands in this country, will wonder who now represents them? Can he reassure me that the Government he leads will make sure that everyone’s contribution is respected and recognised?

[The Prime Minister]

I will always do that, and I pay tribute to the people who work in social care, who cared for my dad, and who come from around the world to provide support to people, and we thank them for their contribution. It is incumbent on all parties represented in this House to root out the politics of poison, which has seeped far too far into our politics. Where unacceptable, racist and discriminatory comments are made, the firmest of action should be taken on the back of those revelations. That should unite us all in this House, and we are still waiting to see the right level of action from the party opposite.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Q13. Unlike the Government’s shameful attempts to hand over the sovereignty of the strategically important Chagos islands, will the Prime Minister confirm that this time the Government will strongly oppose the case being made by the Government of Argentina to the international tribunal to try to stop the exploitation of oil reserves around the Falkland Islands, which is authorised by the United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

Indeed we will, and I am happy to make that clear again today. We will take the firmest of action to support the Falkland Islands—the right to self-determination of the islanders, who chose to remain British not so long ago. The Defence Secretary has met his counterparts to reiterate that position, and the Foreign Secretary too. I raised the matter with President Trump. There is no diminution in our strong support to keep the Falkland Islands British.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

North West Leicestershire has an out-of-hospital survival rate for cardiac arrest of just 3.5%—roughly a third of the national average. I have been championing greater defib access and hosting CPR training, and last week I hosted the British Heart Foundation, Resuscitation Council UK and Cardiac Risk in the Young, among others, for a roundtable in Parliament. Discussions focused on the importance of CPR education and defib provision and the benefits of heart screening among young people. October is Restart a Heart Month; will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss my mission to improve cardiac arrest survival rates and defib accessibility, and consider how we can reduce the shocking stat of 12 young people dying each week of an unknown cardiac arrest?

[The Prime Minister]

I strongly support my hon. Friend on that issue. Having had the training myself, and having used a defibrillator once before, I know that they save lives. We should commit to ensuring that they are clearly and publicly available in all communities—something that I have long called for—so I would happily work with my hon. Friend on that. The 10-year health plan talks of a shift from hospital to community. The Health Secretary and I are determined to make that a reality, and heart care is a prime example of where we can make a difference.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

This week, The Sunday Times reported on its front page how Ministry of Defence police attempted to prosecute five members of the SAS over bogus allegations made by our enemies. They arrested the soldiers and subjected them to continuous—and frankly incompetent—investigation for three years while they were fighting ISIS on our behalf. That action has travelled like a shockwave through Hereford, destroying morale and undermining one of our best fighting units. Nobody wants to put soldiers above the law, but will the Prime Minister speak to the Defence Secretary and stop British agencies acting with credulous complicity with enemies that are trying to use lawfare against our soldiers?

[The Prime Minister]

I am aware of the high levels of concern among those who served in the SAS, and the right hon. Gentleman has spoken to that. Without going into all the details, I am happy to meet him to discuss the case and see how we can resolve some of the issues that arise from it, giving an assurance to people who served this country that we will have their back and always treat them fairly.

[Mr Speaker]

With the final question, I call Amanda Martin.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

On Monday, the Children’s Commissioner found that Portsmouth is, devastatingly, the 12th hardest place in England to be a child, and the worst place in England to access post-16 education provision. However, Hampshire, the county that we sit in, is one of the best places to be a child. Does the Prime Minister agree that this must be a wake-up call for my Lib Dem city council, and that we must do all we can to ensure that this changes? Portsmouth’s children and young people deserve so much better.

[The Prime Minister]

I agree—they do. That is why we are going deeper than just thinking about how we help people in their 20s or late teens into work; we need to rethink how we support young people in the 21st century in Portsmouth and elsewhere. One of the things is an education system that balances academic and technical education, and that gives young people routes into good jobs. The Education Secretary is working hard on that. I know that that will give all young people in Portsmouth a path to a good life. It is the kind of change that will make a difference, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on delivering it.

Covid-19 Inquiry: Module 6 Report

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Andy Burnham)]

The chair of the UK covid-19 inquiry has today published the inquiry’s module 6 report, which examined the impact of the pandemic on the publicly and privately funded adult social care sector across the four nations of the UK. I have laid a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.

The chair highlights the “devastating impact that Covid-19 had on people receiving and providing care and their loved ones”, including the “immense distress and harm” caused by visiting restrictions. She recognises the extraordinary lengths that care workers and unpaid carers went to in providing care during the pandemic.

I recognise the pain and suffering caused by the pandemic and the lasting impact it continues to have on many people. I am acutely aware of the experiences of people receiving and providing care during the pandemic, and the impact on their wellbeing, dignity and independence, as well as the time being separated from their loved ones. I pay tribute to family and friends who provided care and support, and to the dedication, compassion and professionalism shown by staff and volunteers working across adult social care, who supported and protected some of the most vulnerable people in exceptionally difficult circumstances.

The chair’s report has noted “that for too long the adult social care sector has been undervalued and under-recognised” and entered the pandemic in a fragile state with long-standing workforce shortages, financial pressures and limited pandemic preparedness planning. She concludes that the protections put in place for people receiving care and those supporting them came too late, highlighting weaknesses in testing, isolation and discharge arrangements, PPE availability, guidance, visiting restrictions and data collection. She recommends strengthening pandemic preparedness across adult social care through clearer planning, improved workforce support, more robust inspection and oversight and data collection, and better arrangements for isolation, visiting and end-of-life care.

The Government are committed to learning the lessons from the inquiry and ensuring that the social care sector is prepared for a future pandemic. We will consider carefully the findings and recommendations of the report and respond in due course. We will use these findings to continue development of our adult social care pandemic action plan, and we will also respond to Baroness Casey’s review when it is published.

I have set out my vision for a national care service. This will be person-centred, highly integrated with health services and preventative in its character, helping people lead as independent and fulfilling lives as possible and providing dignity and peace of mind. We are delivering reform through significant additional investment in adult social care, including introducing a fair pay agreement for care workers and developing a new workforce action plan. We are also appointing a champion for unpaid carers, developing neighbourhood health services, and taking immediate action on adult safeguarding, dementia and motor neurone disease.

I would like to thank Baroness Hallet and her team for their thorough work on this report.

[HCWS395]

Prime Minister

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2026 Written Corrections

[Nigel Farage]

MI5 boss Sir Ken McCallum yesterday revealed that there have been 50 arrests in the last year linked to Iran, and I have to say that this Government deserve praise. They deserve praise for proscribing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—a very important move. But every single week there are young, unidentified males from Iran coming into this country, some of whom pose a genuine security threat to our nation. Is it not time the Government recognised that what is going on in the English channel is a national security emergency?

[The Prime Minister]

Can I start just by recognising, with the charges that have been laid against the individual responsible for the murder of Ann Widdecombe, and indeed for also making threats against the hon. Member, that it has been a hard time for him and his family?

[Official Report, 14 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 364.]

Written correction submitted by the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham):

[The Prime Minister]

Can I start just by recognising, with the charges that have been laid against the individual accused of being responsible for the murder of Ann Widdecombe, and indeed for also making threats against the hon. Member, that it has been a hard time for him and his family?

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 October.

[The Prime Minister (Andy Burnham)]

I add my tribute to Sir David on the fifth anniversary of his death. David was someone of whom I was very fond and with whom I worked very closely on the Health Committee when I arrived in this House in 2001. We send our deepest condolences to David’s family. There is more work to be done on the security of Members of this House, and we will do it.

I look forward to welcoming President Zelensky to Downing Street later this afternoon. Our support for Ukraine is unwavering. I have asked for further military and financial support to be drawn up ready for the coming weeks.

Later today, I will also meet Archie Goodburn, an incredible athlete and inspiring campaigner for brain cancer research.

Finally, I also pay tribute to Councillor Pat Karney, who served north Manchester for almost 50 years as a councillor in such a dedicated way. He saw the city through some of its greatest challenges and has fittingly been called “Mr Manchester” on the front page of the Manchester Evening News today. Thank you, Pat, for your contribution to Manchester and to politics in our country.

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

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Prime Minister sees himself as a man of candour, so will he tell the House whether anyone associated with the running of Manchester City football club raised the charges that they were facing, and have now been found guilty of, with either him or any member of his team?

[The Prime Minister]

They did not raise those issues with me. I am very happy for everything to be set out in full, Mr Speaker. That is why I asked the Greater Manchester combined authority, in response to a call from the Leader of the Opposition and others, to set out a full statement of my key dealings with the owners of Manchester City football club. That statement, which was published on Monday, includes the issues in the news today, and that is the position.

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q2. I am sure we were all incredibly moved by the Prime Minister’s tribute to his late father at Labour party conference, and I wish to pass on my personal condolences to him and his family. During the Prime Minister’s speech, I thought about my own grandparents, who were both former teachers with decades of public service, but when they needed looking after, they had to go through their savings and their pension just to receive the care that my granny needed.I am sure that that story will resonate with thousands of people in Ipswich and across the country, because we have a care system that puts profit before people, leaving behind not only the people who depend on this service, but the incredible people who work within it. As a Labour and Co-operative MP, I ask our country’s first Labour and Co-operative Prime Minister whether he will consider the co-operative approach to social care so that we can finally put people before profit.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and pass on my sympathies in relation to his grandparents. Any family in this country who has lived through the journey of dementia and experienced the social care system will know that we should not accept the status quo. The failure of this House to fix social care through the decades does not reflect well on any party. We will fix it. We will create a national care service. In laying out the path to that national care service, I can give him my word as the Labour and Co-operative MP for Makerfield that co-operative principles will be at the heart of the new national care service.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister for the words about Sir David Amess. We on this side of the House miss him dearly, as do his family. He was a fellow Essex MP and a very good friend to me and to so many across this House, and I know that he is still very much loved by his constituents in Southend.

The Prime Minister has had a busy few weeks: tying himself in knots explaining why national security should not come at the expense of social security, and bumbling into a row—still ongoing—about Manchester City. I do not think that his carefully worded answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) will suffice—it does not sound like that one is going away. He also spent the last 48 hours trying to unsay that Russia influenced the 2016 referendum when we all heard him say it. Does he ever get tired of putting his foot in his mouth?

[The Prime Minister]

I am glad that the right hon. Lady raised my comments, because it gives me an opportunity to say to the whole House how I intend to lead this country. We have lived through a decade of division, and we know that hostile actors have been seeking to interfere in our democratic process. That is a matter of fact. We need to call that out and look straight at it in a way that the Conservatives did not.

I have a quote here from the right hon. Lady when she stood at this Dispatch Box when she was responsible for steering through the Elections Bill. She said:

“I have not read the Russia report”.––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 384.]

They did not want to see it. They wanted to look in the other direction. I will not do that. I will draw a line. I will defend our democracy, and I will lead this country forward with positivity, unity and hope in the next decade.

[Mrs Badenoch]

It sounds like the Prime Minister is digging in, but you cannot fight misinformation with misinformation. This is the first time I have ever heard the head of MI5 slap down a Prime Minister for doing Russia’s dirty work for them. Either the Prime Minister knew what he was doing on that podcast—trying to undermine the 2016 referendum—or he opened his mouth on a matter of national security and said the first thing that came into his head. Does the Prime Minister agree with the director general of MI5 that talking up Russian interference was a mistake?

[The Prime Minister]

I could ask the Leader of the Opposition whether she has even read the Russia report yet. I also wonder whether she has read the full comments from Sir Ken McCallum or whether she heard the comments from the former head of MI6. If she had, she would not have made the statements that she just made in this House. I think it is important that we are clear-eyed about what happened in the past. There is incontrovertible evidence that outside actors—enemies of this country—have interfered in our democratic processes, and it is inconceivable that that was not taking place across the whole of the last decade.

[Mrs Badenoch]

Still digging in—it was not me that MI5 was talking about. The fact is, this Prime Minister will say anything instead of dealing with the tough decisions that only he can take—like on Britain’s energy security. In July, he said that he would approve the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields in the North sea. What is he waiting for? If he had approved them back then, we would have British gas warming British homes this winter. Will he now—[Interruption.] It is true: all the gas from Jackdaw goes on to the British grid. Will he now stop faffing about and approve Rosebank and Jackdaw?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady asked me what I am waiting for. I have had to wait for the Government process, which was struck down by the courts under the Conservative Government, to be fixed. They messed it up, and we inherited that situation. I will take a pragmatic approach on oil and gas. We will set out our decisions shortly.

[Mrs Badenoch]

So much time wasting. This is a Government who approve importing oil from Russia and approve new drilling off the Falkland Islands but will not approve new drilling in the North sea. The truth is that the Prime Minister is delaying a decision on energy to avoid a row with his Back Benchers, just as he is avoiding another row on cutting welfare.

The Times reports that 2 million people are being paid sickness benefits, and they may not even be sick. Billions of pounds are being paid to people who should not be getting that. The last time a Prime Minister tried to cut welfare, Labour MPs stopped him. They are still chuntering now—look at them. Is the Prime Minister afraid to cut benefits because he does not want a fight with his Back Benchers?

[The Prime Minister]

We commissioned the Milburn report because we do not want to see a country where young people in their 20s are stuck on benefits. I want a system where we give the right support to young people up front so that they can be in training, education or employment from 16 onwards. They do need better mental health support, and I have argued for a different education system that gives parity to technical education alongside the university route. We will bring forward the Milburn report soon. We will set out our response to it. We will bring down the welfare bill.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I did not ask the Prime Minister about the Milburn review, but, if he wants to talk about it, I spoke to Alan Milburn and he said that the review was due before the Budget. The Prime Minister has kicked it into the long grass.

The Budget is in two weeks. Let me tell the Prime Minister what should be in it: cutting welfare to fund defence. In a BBC interview on Sunday, the Defence Secretary refused to commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030. People used to resign over this. I see that he is not here today—he is still not doing his job. That is the money that Britain needs to keep us safe. Now, the Prime Minister will not even tell us what his plan is for another year. Why will he not announce a date for 3% in this month’s Budget?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said, I am meeting President Zelensky this afternoon. We will honour our commitments to him and his country, and we will honour our NATO commitments, as I have said every time that I have appeared at this Dispatch Box. The right hon. Lady will have to wait for the Budget.

The right hon. Lady comes here every week and poses as the world-leading authority on defence. She talked about interviews. I recall a recent interview she gave about the Conservatives’ plans for an iron dome. Then she said, “It isn’t our plan.” Then it emerged that it was briefed by her team, which does not sound like she is in control of her own policy on defence. Then, under questioning from Mr Ferrari on LBC, she said

“you’ve got to speak to a defence expert about exactly how it works.”

Obviously, we worked out in that interview that she was not a defence expert, and I think Mr Ferrari is still waiting for an explanation.

[Mrs Badenoch]

A month ago, the Prime Minister was boasting that it was time to engage in problem solving rather than point scoring. It seems that is another thing that he said without thinking.

The Prime Minister wants to talk about defence, so let us talk about defence. The Conservatives are the only party that actually has a plan to get to 3% by 2030. I asked him about the Budget, and he said he is meeting President Zelensky. President Zelensky is not writing the Budget; he is. The last two Labour Budgets have been a total disaster.

Yesterday I met a beauty salon owner who is struggling with the impact of Labour’s tax rises. She told me that she is dipping into her pension to pay the young people she employs. That is the brutal reality for tens of thousands of small business owners after just two years of Labour. The Prime Minister entered Downing Street promising the biggest change in 40 years. Now Labour MPs are briefing journalists that they hope this Budget

“does as little harm as possible”.

Is he not too busy appeasing his MPs, excusing his own mistakes and avoiding difficult decisions to give the country the leadership it needs?

[The Prime Minister]

I used my conference speech to face up to difficult decisions. I faced up to a difficult decision on supporting older people in later life, related to adjusting the triple lock so that we can lay the ground for a national care service. I took a difficult decision about developing closer ties with Europe, supported by a majority of people in this country. Why? Because we have the chance to do a deal before the end of the year that can add growth to the British economy and support our farmers and our food industry.

Let me finish today in a spirit of problem solving, not point scoring; in a spirit of unity with the right hon. Lady. I will make one further point about her conference speech. I commend her for drawing a line under a decade of division when she drew a line between her and Reform for suggesting that her children were not British. That is wrong in every single respect. She was brave and she was right to call it out. That is what I want to see more of in the next decade, as we go forward.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Q3. Almost 10 years ago, the shutters on Southall police station were pulled down for good because of austerity cuts by the Conservative Government. A shuttered police station in the middle of our town centre makes criminals feel that they can get away with it, and residents feel like no one cares. Does the Prime Minister agree that we must do all that we can to end the blight of empty and shuttered buildings in our town centres? Will he back my campaign to pull up the shutters on Southall police station so that local residents can feel safe again?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend puts her points very powerfully. High streets across the country, including in Southall, have for too long been a symbol of the decline of our towns, and I am determined to do something about it. Immediately, I cut business rates for pubs, clubs and music venues by 20%, working with the Chancellor when I came into office. We are bringing forward a high streets strategy later this year. We have announced a £210 million package for councils to reopen empty buildings. I will look at the specifics on the police hub. This issue should be one that unites this House and one where we can work together.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Hon. Members: “More!] They will be getting more. Mr Speaker, can I join you, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in praising the late Sir David Amess and sending our condolences to his family? He was a man who was respected across this House and who had friends across this House.

When the Prime Minister announced cross-party talks on social care over the summer, I was delighted and immediately accepted because getting this right really matters. He said then that to build a lasting solution on funding care, we were going to have to listen to each other and find common ground. He said that when he tried before, back in 2009, his mistake had been leaving it too close to an election. Does he still think that now? If we are to find the common ground well before the next election, will he tell us when the next round of cross-party talks will be?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to admit that again now. I was working then with a colleague of Members now on the Lib Dem Front Bench, Norman Lamb, and it did get too late. It got caught up, inevitably, in the climate of the election. Then it happened to Theresa May in 2017, and Labour Members were perhaps doing the point scoring at that point in time. This is not an issue for point scoring. When is this House going to learn that? How long is it going to turn away from this issue? My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) mentioned his grandparents. I saw mine go through the care system and I vowed as a Minister in the Blair Government that I would not let it happen to my parents, but it has just happened. It is not good enough, for him or for the many thousands of people like him, but also for the people who work in social care, who give everything to it. I see the right hon. Gentleman’s genuine commitment to this issue. It will be difficult, but let us get on and build this national care service and raise the esteem of politics with people across this country.

[Ed Davey]

The Prime Minister knows that I share his passion to get this right. He knows that I share his passion to work cross-party to find consensus, which is the only way we can put this right, but I hope we can get on with the cross-party talks. We cannot push this to the end of the next decade. We have to act now for the millions of people who need our help.

Can I move on to other matters? Scared of the mid-terms, President Trump has done a deal with Vladimir Putin to buy Russian diesel, ripping up international sanctions against Putin. The Prime Minister studiously avoided commenting on Trump’s behaviour on Monday, but this House deserves to know his position, as do President Zelensky and our brave Ukrainian allies. So let me ask the Prime Minister this: does he not agree that this is yet another shameful Trump betrayal of the Ukrainian people and European security?

[The Prime Minister]

Can I first say that I will arrange a new round of cross-party talks on social care, certainly before the end of the year, but hopefully within the next month? The former shadow Health Secretary from the main Opposition came, and I will make sure it is available to all parties in this House.

On the question about what is happening in Ukraine, obviously I am looking very much now at my meeting with President Zelensky in a couple of hours. I called him on Saturday because I recognised that it was another very dark and difficult moment for him as they contemplate a winter that will be severe for his people. I recognise that he is carrying the heaviest of weights right now and it is extremely difficult for him. What I have to do in my role is try and repair bridges so that the support comes back, and therefore I should, at this moment in time, be careful in terms of laying the ground to bring people back together. That is the role I intend to play. It is the right role for me to play in this moment. I will listen to President Zelensky carefully, but he will not be going away from Britain today empty-handed.

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

Q5. The school of my six-year-old constituent Hollie does not allow siblings to attend school events. Her brother William has profound, multiple, life-limiting disabilities and needs 24/7 specialist care. He is also a delightful little boy. As they cannot bring William or leave him with a babysitter, this effectively means that Hollie’s parents must always stay away from school events, missing everything from parents’ evenings to Christmas plays and phonics workshops. Yet Catalyst Academies Trust, which runs the school, and its CEO, Tony Parfett, have repeatedly refused to make an exception to accommodate William or even to meet myself to discuss ways forward. Will the Prime Minister back my call for the Catalyst Academies Trust to do the right thing, and can he ensure that academy trusts are meeting their reasonable adjustment obligations to disabled children and their families?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving me advance knowledge of this case, and I will be honest in saying that it worries me. It is crucial, clearly, because of the circumstances that my hon. Friend describes in relation to Hollie’s school, that the family are able to spend as much time together as is possible. That is why I have asked the Department for Education to speak to the trust. It must be possible to resolve this situation. It should not be causing any stress to the family. I would ask that they do it without delay.

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

MI5 boss Sir Ken McCallum yesterday revealed that there have been 50 arrests in the last year linked to Iran, and I have to say that this Government deserve praise. They deserve praise for proscribing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—a very important move. But every single week there are young, unidentified males from Iran coming into this country, some of whom pose a genuine security threat to our nation. Is it not time the Government recognised that what is going on in the English channel is a national security emergency?

[The Prime Minister]

Can I start just by recognising, with the charges that have been laid against the individual responsible for the murder of Ann Widdecombe, and indeed for also making threats against the hon. Member, that it has been a hard time for him and his family? There is a lot we disagree on, but I defend his right to say it, and I will work hard to secure his safety and that of every Member of this House. We will involve all sides in the Lovegrove review that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has established.

On the issues related to Iran, obviously we have seen the issues at RAF Fairford recently. They have been dealt with in the right way and with the utmost seriousness by the police and security services. The key point is that, of course, we do need to get boat crossings down. I hope the hon. Member would recognise that they are coming down and removals are up. There is much more to be done, but there is clearly progress in the right direction.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think we are going to get through the list. We really are going to have to try to speed up some of the answers.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

Q6. It is tough growing up in Britain today. With one in five young people now with a mental health condition, the wellbeing of our young people remains in crisis. In communities such as mine in Croydon East, where young people are waiting up to four years for support, families are desperate for help. Can the Prime Minister outline what his Government are doing to invest in early mental health support in communities across the country and how he will tackle the long wait for support that is robbing young people of their future?

[The Prime Minister]

I am going to go back to the response to the Milburn review. I think we need to give guarantees of mental health support when young people need it—not waiting months, not waiting years, but exactly when they need it—and that will be a part of my response.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Q4. Exactly five weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister if he would back my three-year campaign to get a new mental health in-patient hub in Hertfordshire, which would begin to pay for itself as soon as it is built. I know that the Prime Minister understands the principle of invest to save, because he himself has used this argument to explain why building social homes will reduce the housing benefit bill. So will he stick to his principles and, having reviewed the proposal that I sent him, now commit to provide the up-front resources to build this self-funding mental health hub in Hertfordshire?

[The Prime Minister]

I will be writing to the hon. Lady soon. This might sound disappointing, as we will not be taking forward her specific suggestion, but we will be bringing forward four new community mental health centres across Hertfordshire, as part of 159 across the country. I will be happy to ensure that the Health and Social Care Secretary works with her to involve her in the design of those new hubs, so that we can deliver the mental health support that she is rightly calling for.

[James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)]

Q9. This summer I visited a holiday activities scheme, whose organisers told me they had to increase the size of the lunch portions because children were hungry, and with schools closed, it was the only meal some of them were getting. The Prime Minister has rightly talked about the need to tackle the cost of living crisis and bring people hope again, which is essential in my constituency. Will he join me, our trade unions and community organisations in prioritising the elimination of food poverty? No child in our country should go to bed at night feeling hungry.

[The Prime Minister]

I praise my hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) who has run the Right to Food campaign, and our trade unions—I am a proud supporter of them, and they have supported me, and I declare that interest in that matter as discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) recently. We do need to expand access to free school meals, which the Government are doing, to half a million more children, and we have tripled investment in breakfast clubs. We need to keep working so that no child goes hungry on any single day in this country.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Q7. In rural Somerset distance has a price. Every school bus, bin round and pothole fix costs more, yet the Government are diverting hundreds of millions from rural to urban councils, leaving Somerset £21 million a year worse off. Roberta from Martock told me yesterday that people need more affordable homes, but slashing funding will not build a single one. Will the Prime Minister use December’s settlement to restore remoteness funding to Somerset—yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

As Prime Minister I am determined to ensure that we support all communities in this country, including our rural communities. I will listen carefully to what the hon. Member has to say as we bring forward our plans to show that we are on the side of her constituents.

[Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

Q11. A recent BBC “Disclosure” documentary exposed violence, open drug dealing, child exploitation, and a staggering 1,200 sexual offences recorded in Glasgow city centre in the year to March 2026. We must have an honest discussion about the city’s pressures, including addiction, deprivation, immigration and community cohesion. While SNP underfunding has crippled local public services, and Glasgow city council’s response has fallen short, Reform is exploiting public safety fears to stoke racial division in our welcoming city. Will the Prime Minister hear this call for help and support a co-ordinated response to make Glasgow safer?

[The Prime Minister]

Policing is obviously a devolved matter, but I am very open to working with the SNP Government, Police Scotland, and Glasgow city council to deal with the issues that my hon. Friend is referencing. As Mayor of Greater Manchester, I brought forward Operation Vulcan, which was a multi-agency approach to changing Cheetham Hill, and it did rip out entrenched criminality in that area. I am more than happy to talk to my hon. Friend about how we pioneer that in Glasgow too, and that offer is open to her.

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

Q8. The Leader of the Opposition has made her position on doing deals with other parties crystal-clear. Will the Prime Minister make it equally clear, following the Green party’s descent into the most abhorrent antisemitism, that he will rule out co-operating with it?

[The Prime Minister]

May I condemn the motion that was passed, unequivocally? It is wrong, it is antisemitic, and Labour Members will have nothing to do with it. We will always take the right response when it comes to any partnerships that we have with other parties, and we cannot support a partnership with a party that holds the position that has recently been adopted.

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

Q12. On a recent visit to Stirling high school, senior pupils studying politics and modern studies asked me about everything from climate change to war in the middle east. One young woman asked how young people can know they are being heard by politicians, so I have brought her question here so that she and her classmates can see that a question asked in their assembly hall can get an answer from the Prime Minister. Whether we are discussing mental health, housing, jobs, our relationship with Europe or the upcoming report on NEETs—those not in education, employment, or training—we are discussing their future. How will the Prime Minister ensure that we talk with young people, rather than just about them, and show them that their ideas and opinions shape the decisions that we take in this place?

[The Prime Minister]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more strongly. I will be in Scotland on Friday making a speech on these issues, looking at how we can do more to support young people and help the Government in Scotland develop their approach to getting more young people into work. We also have the Your First Home scheme that we have brought forward. We need to do much more to help young people get themselves established in life, and we will do that in all parts of the UK, including Scotland.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Q10. Despite the desperate need for pitch space in my constituency, Udney Park playing fields in Teddington have lain derelict for over a decade. The most recent owner, a Chinese business man, has now been sanctioned by the British Government and has had his assets frozen. Given that the Prime Minister has made it clear that he wants communities to take back control of precious sites like Udney Park, will he work with me to ensure those playing fields are put back in the hands of the community, right where they belong?

[The Prime Minister]

I am a complete champion for green space and physical activity, so I am concerned to hear about the situation that the hon. Lady’s constituents are in. I have just had a commitment from the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), to meet her to get this situation unlocked, and I hope that is helpful to her.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

Q13. It is now nearly 10 years since the Grenfell Tower fire. I welcome the recent progress on criminal accountability, but from Hillsborough to infected blood to the Countess of Chester hospital, too often inquiries and inquests make recommendations that sit on a shelf, leaving victims chasing answers and avoidable harms continuing. Will the Prime Minister give his support to an independent national oversight mechanism to sit alongside the Hillsborough law, and ensure that when tragedies like Grenfell do occur, the state is held properly accountable for change?

[The Prime Minister]

May I agree strongly with my hon. Friend? I remember bringing the Hillsborough families to meet the Grenfell families shortly after the disaster. It is painful that it has taken so long for charges to be laid, but at least they have been laid now. I know the First Secretary has met with the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee this week to look at the oversight mechanism that he describes. I am confident that we can develop a model that gives exactly the commitment that he is looking for. I want to leave him and his constituents in no doubt whatsoever: as Prime Minister, I will work to support him every day to get justice for Grenfell.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

The national planning policy framework is 130 pages long. The London plan is over 500 pages long. The mayor’s guidance to the London plan is over 2,000 pages long. Will the Prime Minister concede that because of that, added to the increase in taxes that his Government are putting on businesses and employers, Labour has been a disaster for home building in London, pricing young people out of the market and putting pressure on home counties constituencies, like mine?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman just gave me a moment of déjà vu—I remember standing up in this Chamber auditioning for a mayor’s job many years ago. [Interruption.] He did not do a bad audition, but maybe it needs a little bit of work because the Administration that he worked in left some of that bureaucracy behind in London City Hall. I hope he will show more candour and directness than the Leader of the Opposition if he is ever asked the question, “Has Brexit been good or bad for London?” What is his answer?

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)]

The 60th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster, which claimed the lives of 116 children and 28 adults, will be marked on 21 October. In the coming days, the community will mark the occasion with a range of events. As a precursor, this evening in Portcullis House the Lewis Merthyr band will perform a piece of music dedicated to the lost children of Aberfan. It was the most unimaginable horror that befell the village, and just how the community came together in the days and months ahead was, and is, testament to the spirit of the people of that community, who responded with such dignity and fortitude. It is fitting that the chair of the Aberfan memorial charity and a survivor of the disaster, Mr David Davies, is with us in the Gallery. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to those who were lost and to what Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II described as the most “indomitable spirit” of the people and community of Aberfan?

[The Prime Minister]

I will be meeting David shortly. I look forward to paying tribute to him as the chair of the Aberfan Memorial Charity for all the support he has provided over the years to the relatives of the 144 people who died, many of them children, and the families who have lived with that grief for generations. I intend to visit Aberfan next week on the occasion of the 60th anniversary. I pay tribute to the whole community for the strength that they have shown over the years and to the wonderful representation that my hon. Friend has given.

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

It has been 43 days since the Prime Minister received a letter signed by all Opposition parties expressing support for the Lobular Moon Shot Project, which seeks funding to fight the insidious disease that is lobular breast cancer. Sadly, no response has been received. When the Prime Minister was the Mayor of Greater Manchester, he committed to supporting the Lobular Moon Shot Project. Will he reaffirm that commitment from the Dispatch Box?

[The Prime Minister]

I will indeed, and I remember the meeting very well. I speak as someone whose family has been affected by breast cancer. I look forward to meeting the group again, perhaps with the hon. Gentleman and with other colleagues on all sides of the House.

[Mr Speaker]

Final question.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

In recent weeks, the Argentine Government have increased their economic aggression towards the Falkland Islands. Given that, will the Prime Minister update the House on the actions that the Government are taking in response to that belligerence?

[The Prime Minister]

Our position is unwavering: the Falkland Islands are British and will remain so, because that is the overwhelming will of the Falkland Islanders. We have made that clear to Argentina directly. We will not allow the islanders to be used as a prop in Argentinian domestic politics. I raised this issue directly with President Trump just a few weeks ago. We will not allow Britain or the Falkland Islands to be bullied in this way. We will seek to resolve the situation, but we will not hesitate to use more robust measures if necessary.

Bills Presented

Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Angela Rayner, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Alex Norris, Secretary Stephen Kinnock, Emma Reynolds, Uma Kumaran, Vicky Foxcroft, Matthew Pennycook, Florence Eshalomi and Jim McMahon, presented a Bill to make provision about fire safety in buildings containing multiple dwellings, including provision for the assessment and remediation of external walls that give rise to risks from fire, and the mitigation of such risks, in taller buildings; to make provision for the obtaining and recording of information about buildings containing residential accommodation; to make provision about liabilities in connection with unsafe construction products; and to make other provision in connection with the safety and management of residential buildings.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 155) with explanatory notes (Bill 155-EN).

Flooding

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

George Freeman, supported by Helen Morgan, Dr Ben Spencer, Steff Aquarone, Terry Jermy, James Wild, Jerome Mayhew, Adrian Ramsey, Blake Stephenson and Dr Roz Savage, presented a Bill to make provision about the responsibilities and duties of certain authorities and agencies in respect of inland flood prevention; to make provision about the powers of local flood authorities and Internal Drainage Boards; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the funding of local flood authorities and Internal Drainage Boards; to provide for the designation of Internal Drainage Board pumps as critical national infrastructure; to require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on the potential merits of establishing a Flood Compensation Fund to support homeowners whose primary residence has become unsaleable as a direct result of flooding; to make provision about flood reinsurance schemes; to make provision about the responsibilities of developers and water companies in respect of the provision of drainage for new housing developments; to make water companies statutory consultees for certain planning applications; to place a duty on fire and rescue services to respond to flood events; to make provision about national and local digital mapping of flood incidence and risk; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 157).

Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and War Pension Scheme (Report) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Josh Babarinde presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the potential merits of disregarding compensation received under the War Pension Scheme and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme for the purpose of calculating entitlement to Pension Credit and to other means-tested benefits for which such payments are not disregarded in full; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 158).

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.]