Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 September.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

I start, Mr Speaker, by expressing our sincere condolences to His Majesty the King and the royal family on the death of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent. Her life was filled with compassion and dignity. She dutifully supported our late Queen Elizabeth II, comforted the runner-up at Wimbledon, and worked anonymously as a music teacher in Hull—typical of her unassuming nature and human touch. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, his family, and all those whose lives she touched.

Turning to other events, I condemn the strikes that Israel carried out in Doha yesterday. They violate Qatar’s sovereignty and do nothing to secure the peace that the UK and so many of our allies are committed to. I spoke to the Emir of Qatar last night, soon after the attack, to convey our support and solidarity. He was crystal clear that notwithstanding the attacks, he will continue to work on a diplomatic solution to achieve a ceasefire and a two-state outcome, on which he and I are of the same mind. That is why I met President Abbas on Monday and will meet President Herzog later today. I will be absolutely clear that we condemn Israel’s action. I will also be clear that restrictions on aid must be lifted, the offensive in Gaza must stop, and settlement building must cease. But however difficult, the UK will not walk away from a diplomatic solution. We will negotiate, and we will strain every sinew, because that is the only way to get the hostages out, to get aid in, and to stop the killing.

Last night, Russia launched drones into Poland in an unprecedented attack. I have been in touch with the Polish Prime Minister this morning to make clear our support for Poland. We will stand firm in our support for Ukraine. With our partners and through our leadership of the coalition of the willing, we will continue to ramp up the pressure on Putin until there is a just and lasting peace.

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.

[Mr Speaker]

I have sent a letter of condolence to the royal family on behalf of the Commons, following the sad news about the Duchess of Kent. Let us now come back to Dr Luke Evans.

[Dr Luke Evans]

One year on from the election, the country has seen a Transport Secretary resign over fraud, an anti-corruption Minister investigated for corruption, a homelessness Minister making tenants homeless, and a Housing Secretary not paying tax on her second house. We also have a Prime Minister who accepted more freebies than any other MP in the previous Parliament. Is this what the Prime Minister meant by “integrity” when he came to government?

[The Prime Minister]

Here is the difference: I strengthened the ministerial code and the independent adviser. The previous Deputy Prime Minister referred herself to the adviser, and there was a clear finding; she did the right thing. Contrast that with the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who was found to have breached the code under the previous Government. What did the then Prime Minister do? He ignored it. There was a resignation, but it was of the adviser, not the person who was found to have breached the code; the right hon. Lady still sits on the Opposition Front Bench. That is the difference.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

Q2. After almost two decades of the SNP—

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Ward]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. After almost two decades of the SNP and 14 years of the Tories, Kirkcaldy High Street has been in a state of decline. That is why the Chancellor was right to prioritise Kirkcaldy for multimillion-pound regeneration funding from the new growth mission fund, to build on the enormous potential of our town and its beautiful sea front. Does the Prime Minister agree that investment over decline is key for this Labour Government, and will he ask the new Business Secretary to meet me to discuss the funding?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner for investment in her high street. I can give her good news: thanks to funding committed by the Chancellor and this Labour Government, I can confirm today that subject to business case approval, we will approve millions to transform Kirkaldy’s high street and sea front. I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets the meeting she wants with the Business Secretary. The SNP has squandered the potential of high streets for two decades. Next year, people can vote for positive change with a Scottish Labour Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments about the Duchess of Kent; she lived an exemplary life of public service, and will be very much missed. I agree with the Prime Minister, as all of us in this House should: we stand shoulder to shoulder with Poland and all our NATO allies against Putin’s aggression. A NATO country has just had to defend itself against Russian drones. Now more than ever, we need our ambassador to Washington fully focused on this issue, and liaising closely with America. Does the Prime Minister have full confidence in Peter Mandelson?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me start by saying that the victims of Epstein are at the forefront of our minds. He was a despicable criminal who committed the most heinous crimes and destroyed the lives of so many women and girls. The ambassador has repeatedly expressed his deep regret for his association with Epstein, and he is right to do so. I have confidence in him, and he is playing an important role in the UK-US relationship.

[Mrs Badenoch]

This is interesting. The Prime Minister says that the ambassador has expressed full regret, but the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein have called for Lord Mandelson to be sacked. Just so the House is aware, in 2019, Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of child prostitution and sex trafficking, which took place between 2002 and 2005. That is the precise period when Lord Mandelson called Jeffrey Epstein his “best pal”. Was the Prime Minister aware of this intimate relationship when he appointed Lord Mandelson to be our ambassador in Washington?

[The Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Lady and the House would expect, full due process was followed during this appointment, as it is with all ambassadors. The ambassador has repeatedly expressed his deep regret, and he is right to do so. He is now playing an important part in the US-UK relationship.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I asked the Prime Minister if he knew about the relationship. The fact that he did not answer indicates that he probably did know. I was not asking a question about process; I was asking a question about his judgment. The Daily Telegraph reported today that while Lord Mandelson was Business Secretary, he brokered a deal with Jeffrey Epstein, and that this occurred after Epstein had been convicted of child sex offences. Given this new information, does the Prime Minister really think that it is tenable for our ambassador to remain in post?

[The Prime Minister]

The relationship between the US and the UK is one of our foremost relationships, and I have confidence in the ambassador in the role he is doing.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I think it is embarrassing that the Prime Minister is still saying that he has confidence in a man who was brokering deals with convicted child sex offenders while sitting in Government. That is a disgrace. This Government have repeatedly refused to declare Lord Mandelson’s full interests. As part of the appointment, there will have been extensive Government vetting, covering details and timings of Peter Mandelson’s dealings with Jeffrey Epstein. Will the Prime Minister publish all the documents, including those about Lord Mandelson’s interests?

[The Prime Minister]

As I say, full due process was gone through in relation to this appointment, as would be expected. As the right hon. Lady well knows, the publication of documents is subject to a procedure that includes an independent element. This would have been subject to the usual procedure.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister cannot answer any questions. That is not the behaviour of someone who has full confidence. The ambassador should be in the White House, talking about how we respond to an incursion into NATO airspace; instead, he is giving interviews about himself to The Sun. This is a man who has already had to be removed from Cabinet twice, and now we learn that he was brokering billion-pound deals with Jeffrey Epstein while he was Business Secretary.

I did not get a proper answer. The Prime Minister is talking about process, but this is not about process; this is about judgment. Just last week, I told him that he should sack his Deputy Prime Minister. Labour Members were all cheering and congratulating themselves, but she was gone two days later. His phase 2 is broken, and he has a wholly new Front-Bench team. I will ask him again: will he ensure that these documents are published? Will he actually instruct Peter Mandelson to publish all his correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein?

[The Prime Minister]

The Leader of the Opposition says that the ambassador should be in the White House, discussing NATO; he is. We all are discussing that—we did so through a number of international calls this morning—as well as Ukraine and the attack in Doha yesterday. I see that she is finally catching up with the questions that she should have asked last week about the Deputy Prime Minister. In the meantime, we have opened up a new school-based nursery; on Monday, we had the defence industrial strategy; and on Tuesday, we published NHS league tables to push up standards. We reopened Doncaster Sheffield airport yesterday, and today we have set out how we are repairing the concrete in our hospitals.

[Mrs Badenoch]

A load of waffle and whataboutery. All Labour Members are interested in right now is their pointless deputy leadership election, while the country out there is suffering from an economic crisis. The Prime Minister has an ambassador mired in scandal, not focusing on NATO. He lost his Deputy Prime Minister just last week for evading taxes. He has a new Home Secretary and a new Foreign Secretary who are just learning the ropes and not able to help with this issue. We have strikes crippling our capital city and damaging our economy. He could use the minimum service legislation that the Conservatives introduced to make the lives of the people out there better, but he will not, because he does not have the backbone to face down the unions. The unions are running the Government; all the deputy leadership candidates are chasing after them. With this Government, it is more strikes, more scandal and more chaos. Is not the link between all this his bad decisions, his bad judgment and his total weakness?

[The Prime Minister]

Our deputy leader contest started this week and ends on 25 October. The Conservatives’ leadership contest has been going on for months, and will continue for a very long time. [Interruption.] All this noise from the arsonists while we are putting out the fires that they left behind! Interest rates and waiting lists are down. Wages, investment and deportations are up. Now we are stepping up defence spending, creating new jobs, driving up standards in our NHS and rebuilding our crumbling schools and hospitals. This is a Government of patriots fighting for working people.

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

Q5. This Labour Government are getting our NHS back on its feet; there are 20,000 fewer patients on waiting lists at my local trust since the election, but there is still more to do, including making it easier to see a GP. Will the Prime Minister set out how the Government will give my constituents in East Worthing and Shoreham access to the healthcare that they deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

I am pleased that we have made progress on the NHS. We promised 2 million extra appointments in the first year of a Labour Government, and we have delivered not 2 million, not 3 million, but over 4 million extra appointments, with 2,000 extra GPs. We are clearing up the dangerous reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in our hospitals. The national league tables that we published this week will ensure that investment goes where it is needed most, and our 10-year health plan will see neighbourhood health centres in every community, treating patients closer to home. There is more to do, but we have made a lot of progress.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

I join the Prime Minister in sending our condolences to His Majesty and the royal family on the death of the Duchess of Kent. I also echo the Prime Minister’s condemnation of Netanyahu’s attacks on Qatar. Those are not the actions of a leader truly focused on getting hostages home. I hope that the Prime Minister will say that directly to President Herzog later today. On World Suicide Prevention Day, I thank all who are working to prevent suicides, from professionals to charities like the Samaritans.

When I talk to parents of disabled children, there is one complaint about Government that comes up time and again: all the hoops that parents must jump through, be it dealing with EHCPs, the DWP or HMRC. Caring is exhausting enough without all the forms, and the rules that show no understanding of the realities of life as a carer. That is something that Emily and I know well, and something that the former Deputy Prime Minister brought attention to last week. Will the Prime Minister work with carers across the House to overhaul systems for family carers, so that Government works much better for people looking after their loved ones?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman; there are too many hurdles and too many hoops that have to be gone through. That is why we are simplifying the system, and we will, of course, work across the House with all those who want to achieve that outcome.

May I also thank those dealing with suicide prevention? Probably everybody in this House knows someone who has taken their life. It touches all of us and we must do everything we can, together, to prevent suicide.

[Ed Davey]

Moving on, as the Leader of the Opposition said, Lord Mandelson has admitted to continuing his relationship long after Epstein was convicted, and that there are more embarrassing details that we do not yet know. People will be surprised by the Prime Minister giving Ambassador Mandelson such strong support today. Will he tell the House whether he has asked the ambassador what other compromising material the Trump Administration might have on him as he leads Britain’s negotiations with the White House?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have made clear to the House, full due process was gone through when the appointment was made.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

Q6. My constituent Connor Edwards lives with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome and craniocervical instability, which, in his words, means his head is slowly falling off his body. Having once enjoyed fishing and mountain biking, at the age of 30 Connor is now largely bed-bound and says his condition has destroyed his quality of life. He is having to crowdfund for treatment in Spain because the NHS cannot give him the help he needs. Will the Prime Minister ensure that I, Connor and EDS charities have a meeting with the Minister to discuss what more we can do to give thousands of people like Connor their freedom back?

[The Prime Minister]

I have read through the details of Connor’s case, which has just been summarised. It is heartbreaking. I thank my hon. Friend for consistently campaigning and championing all those affected. I will make sure that he gets the meetings he needs so that we can hear from Connor and others and learn from their experience.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Gaza is a graveyard. Yet rather than end arms sales, extend sanctions and stand by international law, the Prime Minister will today welcome into his home—a home entrusted to him by the people of these isles—the man who called for the collective punishment of the Palestinian people and who signed the artillery shells that destroyed their homes, their families and their friends; a man who will ignore every word the Prime Minister says. Would he invite Vladimir Putin into No. 10? Would he invite Benjamin Netanyahu into No. 10? What does it say of this Prime Minister that he will harbour this man while children starve?

[The Prime Minister]

For the record, we have suspended arms that could be used in Gaza, we have sanctioned extremists and we have suspended trade talks. The point the right hon. Gentleman raises is a very serious one. We all want an outcome that ensures that there is peace, that the hostages get out, that aid gets in and that there is a two-state outcome. It is the only way we will get peace in a region that has suffered conflict for a very, very long time. I will not give up on diplomacy—that is the politics of students.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Q7. Let’s talk about fracking. It contaminates the water table, it causes air pollution and the test drilling in Lancashire led to earthquakes. Will the Prime Minister stand up to the climate deniers? Will he ban fracking once and for all? Does he agree that those who are backing it are supporting fracking stupid reform?

[The Prime Minister]

We will ban fracking for good, and let us be absolutely clear that the biggest risk to energy prices is staying hooked on volatile international fossil fuel markets. In stark contrast, Reform is ignoring local communities, putting green jobs and investment at risk and committing to higher bills by warning renewable companies not to invest. That is shocking.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Q3. A few short weeks ago, a constituent of mine died in a tragic fire at the Lady Bailey residential park in Winterborne Whitechurch. The fire was attended by 50 Dorset and Wiltshire firefighters and others. This summer alone, 900 grassland, woodland and crop fires have equalled the busiest year on record for that fire service, and I extend my thanks to all of them for all that they do. The Prime Minister will be aware that rural funding is always an issue and that the delivery of rural services is always a challenge. Will he arrange for the relevant Minister at the Home Office to meet me and senior officials in that fire service to discuss the needs of our rural area to ensure that my constituents and those across the counties of Dorset and Wiltshire are kept as safe as they possibly can be?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very sorry to hear about the case that the hon. Gentleman raises, and I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the friends and family of the constituent that he referenced. Indeed, our thoughts are with all those affected, particularly farmers, and I want to join him in thanking our firefighters, who have worked tirelessly to keep people safe. We have provided Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue authority with an increased budget of almost £75 million, but I will ensure that he gets the meeting he has asked for to ensure that we can properly support our firefighters and protect our farmland.

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

Q8. This morning, I spoke to the parents of a young man who is unemployed in my constituency. There are 20 people on the dole in my area for every job that is advertised. Unemployment is a personal crisis and a social crisis. Will the Prime Minister join me in reminding the House that unemployment is not a price worth paying, which the Conservatives clearly believe, and will he indicate that he will break with the failed economic orthodoxy that suggests that such a thing is true?

[The Prime Minister]

I am pleased that the employment rate is up, that inactivity is down and that we have created over 380,000 jobs since we have been in power. Going further, I know that my hon. Friend, as a proud Yorkshireman, will welcome the reopening of Doncaster Sheffield airport just yesterday, which was made possible by the decisions we have made. That is a Labour mayor working with a Labour Government to create jobs across the country.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Q4. Fifty-one Israeli arms companies are exhibiting at the Defence and Security Equipment International arms fair in London this week, and some of them even boast that their products are battle tested. We all know what that means: that they have been used to kill men, women and children. This Government often ask us what more we expect them to do when it comes to Gaza. Here is one thing: will be Prime Minister stop Israeli arms dealers parading their Gaza-tested weapons on UK soil?

[The Prime Minister]

We have very clear and strict rules in relation to this, and we have taken action in relation to arms sales.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

Q9. I thank the Prime Minister for his sympathy and words of condolence following the sudden and untimely death of Hefin David, our Welsh Member of the Senedd for Caerphilly. His contributions over the past 18 years as a councillor and as a Member of the Senedd since 2016 were always relevant, witty and incisive, and our thoughts are with his partner and his family. Drone Evolution, a manufacturer based in Caerphilly, and Airbus in Newport West are just two of the companies that will benefit from Labour’s investment in defence. Can I welcome the new defence industrial strategy and ask the Prime Minister to update the House on how the new defence growth zones will create more jobs across Wales and beyond?

[The Prime Minister]

Hefin was a proud Welshman and a champion for Caerphilly. We send our love and support to his partner, Vikki, and his daughters, family and friends.

Wales has a thriving defence sector and I am delighted that it will host one of our new defence growth zones. That is investing £250 million to make defence an engine for jobs and growth across the United Kingdom. That is what we get when we have a Labour Government in both Cardiff and Westminster working together to deliver for Wales.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Q11. My local borough commander in Romford tells me how much valuable police time is being wasted investigating trivial social media posts and non-crime hate incidents. Should the police not be patrolling our streets rather than moderating the internet? Will the Prime Minister commit to urgently updating the Public Order Act 1986 to reflect the realities of the digital age, so that our police are focused on tackling real crime and upholding freedom of speech, rather than suppressing it?

[The Prime Minister]

I have been clear on a number of occasions: I do want the police to concentrate on serious crime and on crime that matters most to our communities in each of our constituencies. I have said that before, and I say it again today.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Q10. People in Crackley and Bradwell and right across Newcastle-under-Lyme are sick and tired of antisocial behaviour going untackled. I welcome the Government’s commitment to taking back our streets, but we need action. Will the Prime Minister join me in urging the Conservative police commissioner in Staffordshire to use the resources that he has been given to support our local police and finally get a grip, so that my constituents can live their lives free of hassle and, most importantly, safely?

[The Prime Minister]

The Conservatives decimated neighbourhood policing. People should feel safe in their communities, and that is exactly why we have committed to putting 13,000 additional police personnel back in our town centres and communities. That means there will be a named police officer in every community, armed with tough new respect orders to break up antisocial behaviour. These powers are contained in our Crime and Policing Bill, which the Conservatives and Reform voted against.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

His Majesty’s Prison Stoke Heath in Shropshire has seen six deaths in custody in less than two years. That is above the national average. Will the Prime Minister join me in calling on the Ministry of Justice to ensure that there are enough resources and that the right governance is in place at Stoke Heath?

[The Prime Minister]

The Secretary of State for Justice will look into the matter and take up the suggestion, and I will arrange for a meeting as soon as possible.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

Q12. Vaccinations were invented in Berkeley in my constituency 230 years ago and, as a GP, I have jabbed literally thousands of children and adults. Will the Prime Minister update the House about our new roll-out of chickenpox vaccinations, which will further protect our children? Will he also join me in condemning other political parties that give a platform to people who spread false rumours about vaccination?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend speaks with great authority, and I am proud that Labour is protecting 500,000 children by rolling out chickenpox vaccines. In stark contrast, the man who wrote Reform’s health policy has made shocking and baseless claims that vaccines are linked to cancer, and that has been endorsed by the Reform leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—[Interruption.] They laugh at it. These dangerous conspiracies cost lives, and this shows that Reform cannot be trusted with our NHS.

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Sunnica solar farm, which runs through my constituency, was given permission by this Government, and there are more solar farm applications in the pipeline. My constituents are concerned that these applications are being made without a land use framework, which would have provided reassurance that the competing demands for land are balanced effectively. Will the Prime Minister commit to giving the land use framework statutory weight to ensure that land is used strategically to get the best out of it for new clean, renewable energy that genuinely benefits communities and for farmers, nature, water and housing?

[The Prime Minister]

It is important that we move to renewables in order to have energy independence and to keep our bills down, and this will benefit lots of communities, including the hon. Member’s. I want to reassure her constituents that we will of course follow process and that they will always have a say in any decisions that we make.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

Q13. The leasehold system is fundamentally broken. Thousands of leaseholders in Hendon are getting a raw deal, paying ever-rising service charges for ever-poorer service. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to ending the feudal system of leasehold once and for all. Will the Prime Minister share with the House what actions the Government are taking to help leaseholders and bring in a system of commonhold?

[The Prime Minister]

The previous Government shattered the dream of home ownership. We are reforming the outdated system so that leaseholders receive stronger rights, powers and protections. We will bring to an end the feudal leasehold system, reinvigorate commonhold and deliver the biggest boost to social affordable housing in a generation.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

Since May, my constituent Sue has received thousands of pounds-worth of fines after a criminal gang in London cloned her number plate and went on a rampage through the capital. In an age of increasingly sophisticated digital security, the number registration system seems like a remarkably analogue anachronism—it is ripe for abuse and it is failing drivers. Will the Prime Minister look at and pick up my Vehicle Registration Marks (Misuse and Offences) Bill, which I presented last week, to strengthen the legislation and ensure that police services have the tools they require to tackle that growing crime and protect law-abiding motorists?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sorry to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. That is an awful situation for anyone to find themselves in. I will of course look at his Bill.

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

Q14. I am sure that the Prime Minister recalls visiting the Ukrainian community in Acton with me soon after Putin’s illegal invasion. They still remember it fondly. They want me to ask him whether, next week at Trump’s state visit, he will harness to the max his unique role—with influence in the US and the coalition of the willing in Europe—and redouble all efforts to find a just peace, with security guarantees for them and war crimes punished, so that we can end this war, which has gone on far too long?

[The Prime Minister]

I do recall that visit—it was extremely good and very welcoming. Our support for Ukraine remains unwavering. The attack last night in Poland shows that Putin’s belief is that he can somehow act with impunity. That is why we are working so hard with the coalition of the willing to ensure that there are security guarantees as we go forward. We have made real progress in recent weeks; we must continue to ramp up the pressure on Putin.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Today is the 10th annual Back British Farming Day. Given that the Prime Minister has been so keen on resets in recent weeks, will he reset his relationship with our farmers and reverse the family farm tax?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me tell the House what we are doing. We are working with the former President of the National Farmers Union, Baroness Minette Batters, to review farm profitability—that is the key issue. We are delivering the 25-year farming road map, and we have struck a deal with the EU, which is of great benefit to farmers, and which of course the Conservatives say they will reverse. That is on top of the £5 billion that we put into farming in our last Budget.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

Today is World Suicide Prevention Day. It can be scary to talk about suicide, but we need to. So many of our constituents will know or love someone who has taken their own life, or they may have suicidal thoughts themselves. But suicide is not inevitable; it is preventable, and everyone has a role to play in saving lives. Will the Prime Minister reaffirm the Government’s commitment to preventing deaths by suicide and say how they are tackling this vital issue?

[The Prime Minister]

May I start by thanking and paying tribute to my hon. Friend for her work as my Parliamentary Private Secretary for the past 14 months? She has worked tirelessly and with huge commitment and respect across the whole of this House.

I think that suicide prevention matters to everybody in this House. I will reaffirm our commitment and I will work across the House with all Members to deal with suicide prevention.

Intelligence and Security Committee Report on Iran: Government Response

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

On 10 July 2025, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament published its report entitled “Iran”. I thank the Committee for the comprehensive report and the extensive work behind it.

Today, the Government are publishing their response to this report. This Government will take action wherever necessary to protect national security and the UK’s interests.

Together with our international partners, this Government are committed to addressing the full spectrum of the Iranian threat. We are clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon; that its support for Russia’s war in Ukraine must end; and that its destabilising influence across the region will be challenged. We have imposed further sanctions against individuals and entities linked to Iran—bringing the total to 450—to disrupt its malign activities and hold the regime to account. The UK, alongside France and Germany, has also triggered the “snapback” mechanism at the UN Security Council to reimpose proliferation-related sanctions and restrictions on Iran, in response to Iran’s serious nuclear escalation.

We are acting decisively to disrupt threats posed by Iran here in the UK. This includes placing Iran on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme to bolster our oversight of Iran’s activities. And following an independent review, we are working to develop a new state threats proscription-style tool, which will enable us to designate state-linked organisations that seek to do us harm.

I would also like to thank the intelligence and security agencies for their vital and relentless work to counter threats posed by states such as Iran. We will continue to prioritise the safety and security of UK citizens and interests, working swiftly and in partnership to confront all aspects of Iran’s hostile actions.

Copies of the Government response have been laid before both Houses.

[HCWS911]

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 3 September.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

On Sunday, we won the contract for the biggest defence deal that Norway has ever placed. That is a £10 billion investment, securing 15 years of shipbuilding in Scotland and across the rest of the United Kingdom. One day later on Monday, we launched 30 hours of free childcare for working families. Not only does that save working parents £7,500 a year, but it will transform the life chances of our children, because every child will start reception with an equal opportunity to achieve their potential. That is a Labour Government in action, delivering for working people.

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

[Dawn Butler]

Economically deprived high streets and poorer high streets are flooded with gambling shops. The “aim to permit” legislation prevents councils from saying no. My summer campaign on gambling reform has received loads of support, including from Gordon Brown, who says that if we tax the gambling industry, we will get £3 billion for our economy. Will the Prime Minister join campaigners and help me to end “aim to permit”, so that constituents such as his and mine can thrive?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It is important that local authorities are given additional tools and powers to ensure vibrant high streets. We are looking at introducing cumulative impact assessments, like those already in place for alcohol licensing, and we will give councils stronger powers over the location and numbers of gambling outlets to help create safe, thriving high streets.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I know the whole House will want to send our condolences to the family of our former colleague, David Warburton.

I also welcome the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister has referred herself to the ethics adviser. She has admitted that she underpaid tax, so why is she still in office? There is not just a crisis at the very top of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet; there is a crisis brewing for the whole country. When was the last time that the cost of Government borrowing was so high?

[The Prime Minister]

I join the Leader of the Opposition in her comments about Mr Warburton. I think the whole House would unite on such an issue.

In relation to the Deputy Prime Minister, she has explained her personal circumstances in detail. She has gone over and above in setting out the details, including yesterday afternoon asking a court to lift a confidentiality order in relation to her own son. I know from speaking at length to the Deputy Prime Minister just how difficult that decision was for her and her family, but she did it to ensure that all information is in the public domain. She has now referred herself to the independent adviser. That is the right thing to do, but I can be clear that I am very proud to sit alongside a Deputy Prime Minister who is building 1.5 million homes, who is bringing forward the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation, and who has come from a working-class background to be Deputy Prime Minister of this country.

On the question of borrowing costs, they have risen across the world, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows. We are driving them down by getting debt down. That is hardwired into our fiscal rules; those fiscal rules are non-negotiable. I am not going to take lectures on the economy from the Conservatives, who crashed the economy. Mortgages went through the roof and there was a record fall in living standards.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I am not sure we would have heard all that sympathy if it had been a Conservative Deputy Prime Minister who was being attacked. I remember when the Prime Minister said that tax evasion was a criminal offence and

“should be treated as all other fraud”.

If he had a backbone, he would sack her.

But let us get back to the issue of borrowing. The Prime Minister did not answer the question about why it is so high. The Conservatives left him the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Under him, the cost of our borrowing is now higher than it is in Greece. Why does the Prime Minister think that is?

[The Prime Minister]

If it had been the Conservatives, there would not have been the accountability, which is now in place, because they spent years and years avoiding it. The right hon. Lady’s claims about the economy on their watch are about as credible as her place at Stanford University. [Interruption.] She leaves out of her account, because she wants to talk down the country, that we have the highest growth in the G7. I look forward to her getting up and welcoming that. We have had five interest rate cuts in a row, and, of course, £120 billion of investment in the first year of a Labour Government. That is a record.

[Mrs Badenoch]

It is a terrible record. I stand by every single thing that I have said. The Prime Minister cannot say why borrowing is higher under him. I will tell him why it is higher: it is because the Chancellor changed the fiscal rules so that she could borrow record amounts. She maxed out the country’s credit card, and that has pushed up borrowing costs. These are their bad choices. Former members of the Monetary Policy Committee are warning that

“we are heading for an economic crash”.

Why does the Prime Minister think that he is right and they are wrong?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady cannot resist it—she comes straight back to talk the country down at every opportunity. She does not welcome the highest growth in the G7. She could have got up and welcomed that, but no. What about the 380,000 jobs that we have created? She could welcome that, but no. What about the three trade deals that we have? Not only does she not welcome them; she opposes them. And, of course, she has not welcomed the Norway deal—the biggest deal for shipbuilding in a very, very long time. She should stop talking down the country and get behind the renewal that this Government are delivering.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister is dragging down the country. He is dragging it down. How can he stand there and say that he is creating jobs? Unemployment has gone up in every single month under this Labour Government. He does not know why borrowing costs are going up. Another reason is that the markets can see that he is too weak to control spending. Now we are reading that he wants to have another go at welfare costing. What makes him think that Labour Members will vote for it this time?

[The Prime Minister]

I think I saw that the Leader of the Opposition said this to The Sunday Times at the weekend:

“I have inherited a gigantic mess and I’m cleaning it up.”

She said:

“It’s very difficult…it’s going to take a while.”

I know exactly how she feels.

[Hon. Members]

More!

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Badenoch]

Labour Members can do the fake cheers as much as they like. The whole country knows what a mess of the economy they are making.

It is clear that taxes are going up for everyone—except, perhaps, the Deputy Prime Minister. I warned before the summer that we would face weeks of speculation about which taxes would be going up. The former head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said:

“This sort of…uncertainty is actively damaging to the economy.”

And now we find that we have to wait until 26 November for a Budget. Does the Prime Minister really think that the country, or the markets, can wait that long?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady said that the Opposition were not referring themselves to the ethics advisers. That is among the reasons they got booted out of office last year. She complains that we are going through the due process for a Budget and going through the necessary steps. We tried a Budget on their watch without going through those steps. What happened? They blew up the economy. We will take no lessons from them.

[Mrs Badenoch]

This is desperate stuff from the Prime Minister. This week, he had another reset. This morning, the Prime Minister scrapped his five missions. After scrapping his three foundations, his six first steps for change and his seven pillars for growth, the truth is that this man has got no clue—zero clue. But this is serious. The Prime Minister’s incompetence is hurting real people. They are losing their jobs and the cost of everything is going up, from energy bills to the weekly shop. This is a crisis made in Downing Street. Is it not the truth that he is too weak to change course, and too arrogant to admit he got things wrong?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not know what social media sites the right hon. Lady has been on this morning, but I think the chair of the Tory party said that this Government are the “firefighters”. Well, in a sense we are, because we are putting out the fires that the Conservatives created. They were the arsonists—the biggest fall in living standards on record, blowing up the finances. We have spent the first year putting out their fires—quite right too—but now we are delivering on the cost of living: funded childcare worth £7,500 for working families, free breakfast clubs and opening new school-based nurseries. That is what we are fighting for: the best start for every child in this country.

[Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)]

Q2. The Mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker, is delivering growth and jobs by backing SMEs such as Booghe Toys in my constituency, which has just doubled in size. Will the Prime Minister join me in praising this success and confirm that boosting ambitious small and medium-sized businesses across the UK remains a key priority of his Government?

[The Prime Minister]

May I recognise and congratulate the businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency? We have published our small business plan, which was very well received. It includes new rules; cracking down on late payments, which has long been asked for; a £3 billion boost to more business loans; and fairer business rate systems to support small businesses. That is why it was so warmly received.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

On behalf of my hon. Friends on these Benches, may I join the Leader of the Opposition in sending our condolences to the family of David Warburton?

I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to Annette Brooke, who served in this House for 14 years and sadly passed away last month. Annette dedicated her life to public service and serving the people of Dorset, and she is greatly missed.

We have all seen the horrifying images from Gaza: the babies so thin from starvation that you can see their skeletons; the bodies of children killed while queuing for water; the emaciated hostages still held captive by Hamas. The Prime Minister has rightly said he wants to stop all that, so when the one man in the world who has the power to stop that comes to our country on a state visit, will the Prime Minister look President Trump in the eye and urge him to use his influence on Netanyahu and Qatar to make it stop?

[The Prime Minister]

May I join the right hon. Gentleman in his comments about Annette Brooke, and also in his description of the horrifying situation in Gaza? It is horrifying. We are looking at a man-made famine, on top of everything else. That is why we are expending so much of our time, with partners, on seeking to bring about a ceasefire, to get humanitarian aid in at pace, to get the hostages out and, of course, to put forward a peace plan that can actually take us to a two-stage solution. Of course I will talk to all international leaders about that. I gently say to him that if he had not refused the invite to the state banquet, he could have been there two weeks on Tuesday speaking to President Trump himself. I am surprised; it is not an act of leadership to pass up that opportunity.

[Ed Davey]

I have to disagree with the Prime Minister on that—we are now debating this issue.

Here is an issue on which I hope the Prime Minister will agree with me. The European convention on human rights is a British creation that protects all our basic rights and freedoms: the rights of children, disabled people, survivors of domestic abuse, victims of horrific crimes—everyone. It protects care home residents from abuse and families from being spied on by councils, but the leader of the Conservative party and the leader of Reform want to join Russia and Vladimir Putin by withdrawing from the convention. The Liberal Democrats disagree, and so do the majority of the British people. Will the Prime Minister categorially rule out withdrawing from the ECHR, suspending it or watering down our rights in any way?

[The Prime Minister]

We will not withdraw from the European convention on human rights. We do need to make sure that both the convention and other instruments are fit for the circumstances we face at the moment, and therefore of course we have been, as we have made clear, looking at the interpretation of some of those provisions. It would be a profound mistake to pull out of these instruments, because the first thing that would follow is that every other country in the world that adheres to these instruments would pull out of all their agreements with this country. That would be catastrophic for actually dealing with the problem.

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

Q5. Scotland has a proud heritage as one of the world’s great shipbuilding nations. On behalf of the defence industry workers across Ayrshire and beyond, I welcome the largest export deal for new warships ever secured by the UK. Does the Prime Minister agree that this shows how, under Labour, we can build on our proud past to secure a brighter future for our shipbuilding industry?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I was very pleased to get the call from the Prime Minister of Norway on Saturday night, telling us that the UK had won this contract, beating off competition from the US, France and Germany because of the quality of shipbuilding in this country. This is a £10-billion deal—15 years-worth of shipbuilding, particularly in places like the Clyde, and thousands of skilled jobs in Scotland. It shows the importance of the defence industrial strategy, and the importance of Britain being taken seriously again on the international stage. It comes on top of the record investment in defence that we have already announced earlier this year.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I am joined today in the Gallery by the leadership of the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster, an organisation and young people who are passionate about youth work, our rural countryside and the future of farming and agriculture. Agriculture policy is devolved, but the Prime Minister’s agricultural inheritance tax is the thing that has them and young farmers across all the country despairing not just for their future, but the future of food security. When will the Prime Minister change course on the farm family inheritance tax, now that he is taking control of tax policy?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I welcome the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster to Parliament. I take this opportunity to say to the hon. Member and to them that we have invested more than £2.7 billion in farming and nature recovery—that has been welcomed—and of course we are developing a 25-year farming road map to make the sector more profitable. Again, that has been warmly welcomed. Their future will depend on that road map, and we will work with them.

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

Q6. This week, the Global Sumud flotilla, which includes British citizens, set sail for Gaza to break the illegal blockade and deliver much-needed aid. In June, a British boat, the Madleen, was threatened and its crew detained, but we took no action. Can the Prime Minister say what has been learned from this, and what steps are being taken to protect the British citizens on this flotilla?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises a really important issue in relation to the horrifying situation in Gaza. The Israeli Government are preventing urgently needed aid from getting in, which is why we are now seeing a man-made famine, and that should cause us all to pause and reflect. We are working with other countries to get aid in by any practical means, but land routes are the only viable and sustainable means of getting aid into Gaza on the scale that is required. Israel must lift the restrictions to allow aid agencies to deliver the life-saving supplies that are so desperately needed.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

Q3. So the Budget date has finally been announced, and once again, Scotland is some sort of distant afterthought. The Budget date has been left to the 11th hour because the Government do not know how to resolve their countless counter-bùrachs. It is a Budget date that has practically wrecked Scotland’s budgetary process, leaving it almost impossible for us to pass a budget before Christmas, and leaving great uncertainty for Scotland’s public services. Did you know, Mr Speaker, that they could not even be bothered to notify the Scottish Government, leaving them to find this out on social media? I ask the Prime Minister: how is this reset in relationships working out?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that at the last Budget there was a record settlement for Scotland—£50 billion a year. He talks about support. We have just won the Norway frigates contract. That is 15 years of shipbuilding in Scotland. The SNP First Minister has said what about that since Sunday? Absolutely nothing. I know we have another SNP question in just a moment. Perhaps that will be the opportunity to welcome the deal that we have won, and the jobs now for Scotland.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

Q10. Prime Minister, last year, my online safety forum of children and young people from every secondary school and college in Darlington found that 71% of our year 10s and 12s had been contacted by a stranger online, a shocking failure that our Online Safety Act will hopefully prevent going forward. Will he join me in calling on the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), and all opposed to this vital Act, to pick a side? Are they with us, parents and child protectors, or are they with the predators harming our children online?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is not here to represent his constituency in the House that he was elected to. No, he has flown to America to badmouth and talk down our country. It is worse than that, Mr Speaker: if you can believe it, he has gone there to lobby the Americans to impose sanctions on this country that will harm working people. You cannot get more unpatriotic than that. It is a disgrace. The Online Safety Act 2023 protects children from material on suicide, self-harm and online predators. Reform says it would scrap it. When its leader was asked, “Well, what would you replace it with?”, his answer was:

“There needs to be a tech answer. I don’t know what that is”.

You cannot run a country on “don’t know” answers.

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

Q4. Mr Speaker, I am sure that you, like me, got to enjoy everything that UK hospitality has to offer over the summer. Fifteen local pubs received nominations in my community pub awards. I visited places including the Bull Inn in Battle, the Castle Inn in Pevensey, the Swan Inn in Dallington, the New Inn in Westfield and Sidley working men’s club. Many of them told me how hard-hit they have been by Labour’s jobs tax. UKHospitality estimates that 80,000 jobs have already been lost, and the British Beer and Pub Association says that a pub a day will close this year. Can the Prime Minister name a single pub landlord who thinks that the Deputy Prime Minister’s Employment Rights Bill will help, rather than just make things worse?

[The Prime Minister]

I hope the hon. Gentleman paced out the visits to all those pubs, and did not do them all in one go. UKHospitality has welcomed our small business plan, which obviously applies to pubs. [Interruption.] Yes, it has. The reason is that it permanently lowers the business rates that they pay, and it tackles late payments—something for which it has been asking for a very, very long time. The Conservatives talked about fixing that, but they never delivered. We are delivering.

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

Q13.   My constituents have endured four major fires in recent months across our community, including one that caused the devastating destruction of Cumbernauld’s iconic St Mungo’s church, yet the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is consulting on downgrading Cumbernauld fire station, increasing response times and putting lives at risk. Will the Prime Minister make representations to the Scottish Government that they should not risk lives with cuts to our vital emergency services?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the whole House is sorry to hear about the awful fires that my hon. Friend’s constituents have faced, including the destruction of St Mungo’s. I know just how important that church was to the local community. The Scottish Government have received the largest settlement in the history of devolution—£50 billion a year. That should be focused on the issues that matter to her constituency. I will take this up, and make sure that we raise it with the Scottish Government.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

Q7. First of all, I refer to my comments earlier in the week, since the Prime Minister’s research is not up to scratch. George Reid, a former Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament and MP, passed away over the summer. He was a humanitarian to his very fingertips. He abhorred the demonisation of asylum seekers, including those desperate enough to cross the channel in small boats. Figures published by the House of Commons Library show that the number of asylum seekers who are forced to cross increased dramatically after Brexit, as a result of our leaving the Dublin regulation. Instead of punching down and joining in with the victim blaming of Reform and the Conservatives, will the Prime Minister reject their isolationism and look to rejoin the Dublin convention, which every other country in western Europe has joined?

[The Prime Minister]

There is nothing progressive about people crossing the channel in small boats—nothing at all. We need to ensure that that stops.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the question of the Dublin agreement. We had a returns agreement with the whole of Europe, but it was ripped up when we left the EU by people who made promises that that would not be the case. We are rebuilding that relationship—we have reset it—and we now have a returns agreement with France. We would not need a single returns scheme with France if we had not ripped up the Dublin agreement.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Q15. We are at a very dangerous political moment, with opinion polls warning that for the first time in our country’s history, we risk the election of an extremist far-right Government. We all have a duty to prevent that. To do so, do we not need to rebuild support through a return to real Labour values, with real action to tackle poverty and inequality, a wealth tax on the super-rich, and ethical foreign policy that takes a strong, principled stand on war crimes, whoever commits them?

[The Prime Minister]

We do stand at an important moment: we can have the politics of renewal under this Government, or the politics of grievance under Reform. Reform does not want to fix the problems; it wants the grievance to continue. The last thing it wants is improvement in the lives of working people in this country, because it feeds off the problems and grievances being there. That is the difference.

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

Q8. Admiral Lord West was head of the Royal Navy, Chief of Defence Intelligence and a Labour Security Minister, and he sits on the Intelligence and Security Committee. When he writes in the national press denouncing what he calls the“disgraceful decision to hand over ownership of the Chagos archipelago”,adding that he does “not accept that the move is ‘absolutely vital for our defence and intelligence’, as the Prime Minister claims”,should we rely on his professional judgment or not?

[The Prime Minister]

I have the misfortune to disagree with him.

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

New mums and dads in my constituency tell me that one of the things they worry about most is whether they can afford the childcare that they need to be able to go back to work. That is why it is great that parents will be able to save up to £7,500 a year on nursery fees, thanks to this Labour Government. Does the Prime Minister agree that not only is investing in childcare important for tackling the cost of living crisis, but it will help to remove barriers to deciding to have children in the first place?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I was very proud to make our announcement about childcare on Monday. As she says, rightly, it will save families on average £7,500 in a cost of living crisis, but crucially, it also applies from nine months to four years. Under the previous Government, there was a disparity at age four between children arriving at reception, with some barely out of nappies, and others quite articulate. That locks in inequality for life. I am really pleased that the measure that we announced on Monday unlocks that, ensuring that every single child aged four gets to the starting line in reception with a fair chance of going as far as their talents will take them.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Q9. While the Conservative party deludes itself with the myth of endless fossil fuels, the rest of us know just how ridiculous and reckless that is. Extracting more oil and gas from the declining North sea basin will do nothing to protect energy security or jobs. The Prime Minister himself has stated:“Climate action is at the heart of this government’s mission for the protection and prosperity of Britain and the world.”With a decision looming on the Rosebank oil field, will the Prime Minister prove that his words mean something, and finally put an end to this climate-wrecking project?

[The Prime Minister]

I did notice that the Leader of the Opposition went to Scotland, I think, this week to announce that if she ever became Prime Minister, which is extremely unlikely, she would pull down £50 billion of investment in renewables in Scotland. This is good, secure jobs of the future—absolutely reckless behaviour. The Opposition have not learned anything.

The Greens have a new leader—unfortunately for the hon. Lady—and we can now see what they really stand for: withdrawal from NATO at a moment like this; totally unfunded spending that would blow up the economy; and blocking all planning proposals. They also have a leader who has made—to say the least—some very strange comments about women. There is only one party delivering fairness and tackling the climate crisis and that is the Labour party.

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

Prime Minister, in September 2021, you met ex-Arsenal player Michael Thomas in Portcullis House alongside other former footballers of the V11, when I hosted them in Parliament. Last night, the BBC broadcast the V11 documentary, exposing the fraud perpetrated against them and the financial abuse that they have suffered within the footballing system. They have all suffered terrible financial loss, but His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is still chasing them for taxes from funds that were defrauded from them. Prime Minister, will you join me in meeting Michael Thomas and other players to see how we can protect victims of fraud and, instead, go after the perpetrators of fraud?

[The Prime Minister]

I will, and I have met Michael Thomas a number of times. Of course, he has a special place in my heart, having scored that winning goal at Anfield when we won the league—although the less said about winning at Anfield at the moment probably the better. The serious point is that these are sporting heroes who have brought us so much joy, and they should have proper support from their sporting bodies on both health and welfare. Michael Thomas and others are running an important campaign to bring this to our attention. We do need a trusted system that takes the wellbeing of our sports people seriously, particularly those in vulnerable positions. I know that the Minister for Sport is in contact with the campaigners.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

Q11. On a recent visit to the UK Space Agency, based in my Oxfordshire constituency, I learned of the huge value created by our space sector, generating more than £7 for every £1 invested. Given the Government’s decision to scrap the UKSA as an executive agency, will the Prime Minister guarantee its international credibility, its operational independence and its budget? And will he visit Harwell Campus to hear what our brilliant space companies need from Government?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this important issue, and reassure him that we do want to keep the huge expertise and knowledge of the UK Space Agency staff, including those working in his constituency. We have already secured almost £300 million in contracts from the European Space Agency and this will cut costs, reducing duplication, so we can really focus on growing this important sector.

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

Since the start of the full-scale invasion into Ukraine, Russia has stolen, abducted and indoctrinated at least 19,546 children. It is one of the most heinous crimes of this war. I warmly welcome this morning’s announcement of an additional package of sanctions on those perpetrating these crimes, and will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will do everything possible to return these children to their homes?

[The Prime Minister]

I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s campaigning on this really important issue. Russia’s policy of forced deportations and indoctrination of Ukrainian children is despicable, and anybody who has heard the stories or seen the pictures cannot be other than profoundly moved. We have taken firm action. This was one issue that we discussed two weeks ago in Washington when I went over with other leaders to ensure that we are all imposing maximum pressure. Among the very many horrors of the Ukraine conflict, this is right up there as one of the absolute worst.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Q12. Like many, I was deeply concerned that a police force deemed it necessary to take five armed officers to arrest a comedy writer from a flight. Some may have found Mr Linehan’s comments offensive, but that is not the point. If we do not support speech that we do not like, we do not support free speech. Will the Prime Minister commit to reviewing our speech laws to ensure that legitimate free expression is protected and will he condemn the culture within the public sector that prioritises this dangerous and perverse nonsense?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this point. He will have seen that the commissioner put out a statement this morning in relation to this case. I have been clear throughout that we must ensure that the police focus on the most serious issues and the issues that matter the most to our constituencies and all communities. That includes tackling issues such as antisocial behaviour, knife crime and violence. We have a long history of free speech in this country. I am very proud of that, and I will always defend it.

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

In a week when the Prime Minister has worked tirelessly to place Clydeside, Glasgow and Govan at the epicentre of Type 26 shipbuilding, is he as perplexed as I am at the radio silence from the SNP and the contempt that the SNP continues to show for the defence sector? Does he agree that it is a contempt for jobs and growth and an 18-year-long contempt for Scotland?

[The Prime Minister]

I am perplexed that the First Minister has not welcomed the deal. It is a massive deal for Scotland—it is 15 years of shipbuilding. I would have expected the First Minister to hold a press conference to celebrate what we have done with this deal. Those 15 years of shipbuilding are extremely important to the Clyde and many industries, and they are a reflection of the professionalism and dedication that workers in Scotland have shown over many years. I urge the First Minister to come forward and welcome this deal.

[Mr Speaker]

For the final question, I call Sir John Hayes.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Q14. Mr Speaker, I know you will agree that flags and banners, in bringing national pride, nourish individuals’ sense of worth and nurture our shared sense of belonging. Will the Prime Minister take steps to ensure that across every part of our kingdom, alongside the crosses of St George in England, St Patrick in Ireland, St Andrew in Scotland and the red dragon in Wales, our flag is flown on every Government and public building—hospitals, schools, police stations and railway stations—for every Briton deserves the chance to see a forest of flagpoles and the flutter of the Union Jack?

[The Prime Minister]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s pride in our country’s flag. It represents our history, our heritage and our values. That is why we display it. I was the Labour leader who put the Union Jack on the membership card for the Labour party, and I was very proud to do so. It belongs to all of us. We should be proud of it and value it.

Young Futures Hubs

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention the following machinery of Government change.

I am today announcing that delivery responsibility for the cross-Government Young Futures hubs will move from the Department for Education to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. This will bring ownership in line with overarching youth policy and delivery.

This change is effective immediately.

[HCWS894]

Intelligence and Security Committee: Iran Report

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament has today laid before Parliament a report entitled “Iran”, which examines the Iranian threat to the UK and the UK’s response.

The Committee’s inquiry began in 2021 and concluded taking evidence in August 2023.

The Government recognise and welcome the independent and important oversight provided by the Committee. I thank the Committee for the comprehensive and detailed nature of the report and the extensive work behind it.

The Government will consider the Committee’s recommendations carefully and respond in full, in due course.

[HCWS803]

Prime Minister

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Written Corrections

[Sarah Bool]

It is National Diabetes Week, and as someone living with type 1, as we both are, Mr Speaker, I am more than aware of the serious complications of diabetic ketoacidosis—DKA—which can prove fatal if not caught early enough. A quarter of children are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when in DKA, and that could be avoided with early diagnosis. Will the Prime Minister commit to rolling out a national universal screening programme, as seen in Italy, for type 1?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for championing this really important issue. My late mother had diabetes, so I know at first hand just what a struggle it can be and how important this is. Type 1 diabetes is not preventable, as she knows, but the sooner we can reach people, the sooner we can care for them. We have a screening programme in the UK available to families across the country, and over 20,000 children have already taken part. It is really important that we continue to deliver that, but I thank her for continuing to champion this and to raise her voice on this very important issue.

[Official Report, 11 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 974.]

Written correction submitted by the Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer):

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for championing this really important issue. My late mother had diabetes, so I know at first hand just what a struggle it can be and how important this is. Type 1 diabetes is not preventable, as she knows, but the sooner we can reach people, the sooner we can care for them. We have a screening programme study in the UK, and 20,000 children will be recruited to take part. It is really important that we continue to deliver that, but I thank her for continuing to champion this and to raise her voice on this very important issue.

G7 and NATO Summits

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

This Labour Government are focused on delivering security for the British people—national security, economic security, and social security. On social security, I recognise that there is a consensus across the House on the urgent need for reform of our welfare system, because the British people deserve protection and dignity when they are unable to work, and support into work when they can. At the moment they are failed every single day by the broken system created by the Conservatives, which achieves neither. I know that colleagues across the House are eager to start fixing that, and so am I; all colleagues want to get this right, and so do I. We want to see reform implemented with Labour values of fairness. That conversation will continue in the coming days, so that we can begin making change together on Tuesday.

Mr Speaker, with permission I will update the House on the G7 and NATO summits, where the middle east was at the forefront of our minds. For decades, it has been the stated policy of the UK and our allies that Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon. No one who cares about the security of our country, or the future of the middle east, could live with that eventuality. For decades we have worked to prevent it, and on Saturday night the US took a big step towards resolving that threat.

There is now a window for peace. We urge Iran and Israel to honour the ceasefire and seize this opportunity to stabilise the region. That is our priority—to get Iran back around the negotiating table with the US. Ultimately, that is how we will ensure a complete, verifiable, and irreversible end to Iran’s nuclear programme. We are using every diplomatic lever to support that effort, because further instability would pose grave risks to the region and beyond, taking us even further away from freeing the hostages and easing the intolerable suffering of the Palestinians. There is also an opportunity now to push for a ceasefire in Gaza, and we must seize it. I have been discussing this with other leaders, and we will keep pushing to put the region on a better path. I have also spoken to the Emir of Qatar to express our solidarity after Iran’s unacceptable attack on the Al Udeid airbase. We took the necessary action to protect British military personnel ahead of that attack, and we will continue to support all our citizens in the region.

Mr Speaker, this crisis has punctured once again the mistaken idea that domestic and foreign policy concerns are separate, and that action in one area is at the expense of the other. The truth, now more than ever, is that international problems rebound on us at home, impacting our security and our economy. Our national security strategy is clear. In this era of radical uncertainty, faced with growing conflict, state threats, illegal migration, organised crime and terrorism, the only way to respond to these issues is by being strong, both at home and on the world stage, by pursuing a foreign policy that answers directly to the concerns of working people. That is the approach I took to NATO and to the G7.

NATO is the most successful military alliance the world has ever known and the cornerstone of our defence for over 75 years. Our duty is not merely to reflect on that success; we must equip the alliance for the future. I have long argued that this is the moment for Europe to make a fundamental shift in posture. That is what the UK has done, delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war and setting out a landmark shift in our defence and deterrence in the strategic defence review.

Yesterday, NATO allies stepped up as well, to meet this moment and create an alliance that is stronger, fairer and more lethal than ever. Together, we signed a new defence investment pledge of 5% of GDP by 2035, including, for the first time, wider issues of homeland security and national resilience, like protecting our cyber-security and our energy networks. This is in lockstep with our national security strategy and we are already investing in these areas. Under NATO’s new definitions, we estimate that we will reach at least 4.1% of GDP in 2027, on the way to 5% by 2035. Allies also agreed to review both the balance and the trajectory of these requirements in 2029 to coincide with the scheduled review of NATO’s capability requirements, ensuring that we keep pace with threats and technologies as they evolve.

With this historic commitment, we are continuing our proud tradition of leading in NATO, picking up the torch from Attlee and Bevin. And now, following their lead, we will seize the opportunity created by this moment to align our national security objectives and plans for economic growth in a way not seen since the 1940s, renewing industrial communities the length and breadth of our country, boosting defence production and innovation. Our investment in Britain's nuclear deterrent alone will support 30,000 high-skilled jobs.

I want to speak directly about our deterrent capability. It has kept this country safe for decades, but we recognise the grim reality today that the nuclear threat is growing. So we are renewing our existing at-sea capability and we are going further still. I can tell the House today that we will procure at least 12 F-35A fast jets, and we will make them available to bear nuclear weapons, if necessary. That marks the return of the Royal Air Force to nuclear deterrence for the first time in three decades, the biggest strengthening of our deterrence posture in a generation, keeping our country safe while also supporting 20,000 jobs.

The NATO summit sent a message of intent that will be heard around the world, but this must be joined by renewed support for Ukraine, because if we let Putin succeed there, the deterrent effect of NATO’s new plans would be fatally compromised. So I told President Zelensky at Downing Street on Monday that we will harden our resolve. We struck an agreement together to share battlefield technology, accelerating our support for Ukraine’s defence, while boosting British security and British jobs. We committed to providing hundreds more air defence missiles, paid for not by the British taxpayer, but with money from Russia’s frozen assets.

And, together with Europe, Canada and our Indo-Pacific partners, we announced that we will deliver €40 billion of military aid to Ukraine this year, matching last year’s pledge in full. There is a path to a just and lasting peace, but it will only come through flipping the pressure on to Putin. His position is weaker than he claims, so I urged all our partners, including the US, to step up the pressure now, with more sanctions and more military support to bring Russia to the table, to agree an unconditional ceasefire, leading to serious negotiations.

Let me turn to the G7 summit, where, again, my priority was to deliver in the national interest. Again, I can report some significant progress. Leaders agreed to take decisive action on illegal migration, following the UK’s lead in using hard-headed measures such as sanctions. We marked an export contract with Canada worth over £500 million, creating jobs here at home. We secured Canada’s agreement to ratify Britain’s entry to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—a trading bloc worth $12 trillion.

We secured President Trump’s signature to fully implement our trade deal, which will slash tariffs on British goods. His executive order will remove aerospace tariffs completely and cut tariffs on cars from the 27.5% that British car makers face now to 10% in a matter of days, saving thousands of jobs in the west midlands and around the country. I have been to Jaguar Land Rover many times now; I have looked those workers in the eye, and I know what this means to them, their families and their whole communities. That is who I am representing at summits like this—the working people of Britain.

Navigating this world requires cool heads. It defies simplistic answers and knee-jerk judgments. We do not pretend that we can fix every global problem, but we can carve a unique path through these dangerous times to secure and renew Britain in an era of global instability. That is what our plan for change is all about: putting Britain’s national interest first.

After years of economic chaos, we have delivered economic stability for the British people. After years of our armed forces being hollowed out, we are building up our military, firing up our industries, leading in NATO, supporting Ukraine and keeping Britain safe. After years of fraying alliances, we are rebuilding and shaping them to serve the British people. We have focused every ounce of our global influence to deliver for working people and to deliver in the national interest, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to those who were late into the Chamber, please do not stand. I call the Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

We live in more volatile times than many of us can remember, with conflicts in many parts of the world that are evolving in a very fast and dangerous way. There has never been a more important time to work with our allies and to be absolutely serious in our response. That response was unserious.

To suggest at a time like this that the Prime Minister attending the G7 summit and the NATO summit is avoiding PMQs is unserious. What happened at NATO yesterday was historic. It was very important that, at a time like, NATO showed unity and strength, with a commitment to the future, not just to the past. That took a huge amount of work with our allies over the last few days and weeks. We were centrally involved in that, crafting the final outcome, and were recognised as having done so. I am proud that we helped put that summit into the right place yesterday, and the world emerged safer as a result. That was the unanimous view of 32 allies on leaving NATO yesterday. For the Leader of the Opposition to belittle it just shows how irrelevant she and her party are becoming. They used to once be serious about these issues, and they used to be capable of cross-party consensus, but all of that is slipping away. We have led on Ukraine and secured three trade deals.

The right hon. Lady talks about the prospect of US attacks. She must have overlooked the fact that on Tuesday, when I returned from the G7, the first thing I did was go straight into a Cobra meeting to plan for all contingencies, including a possible US attack on Iran. I will tell her why I did that, although we did offer a Privy Council briefing, so she knows this. We have military personnel co-located in nearly all the bases across the middle east, and I was therefore extremely concerned immediately upon my return to take every step to ensure that I had the highest levels of assuredness that we had the preparations in place to keep our people and our assets safe, should the need arise. Far from being blindsided, we were planning through last week, we were talking to the Americans, and we were put on notice about everything they did. She simply does not understand the nature of the relationship at that level.

In relation to Diego Garcia, let me disabuse the right hon. Lady. We do not have to give Mauritius advance notice under the treaty. That is absolutely clear.

The right hon. Lady talks about defence spend. We are the party that has increased defence spend to the highest level since the cold war—2.5%. The Conservatives talked about it; we did it. She says we do not know where the money is coming from, but she was pressed on this in an interview not so long ago, and she said that

“we talked about getting to 3% by 2030 and we couldn’t make the numbers work.”

She went on:

“We need to find a way to make the numbers work”.

I was intrigued by this interview, and I thought she was about to lay it out. Then she said:

“This sort of thing requires real thinking.”

Then she said:

“Let’s start looking at what we can do…It’s about us setting up task forces”.

That is how unserious they are.

The right hon. Lady asked about the Ukraine communiqué. As she will know, had she actually studied it, the way that NATO works is an iterative process. Therefore the position on Ukraine has not changed for NATO, and it has not changed under this Government. On the contrary, we are recognised as leading on Ukraine and as the closest ally of Ukraine, working with them the whole time. That is something I am proud of. I think it is something the House is proud of, because we had been doing this on a cross-party basis, and the sooner we get back to that, rather than the unserious response of the Leader of the Opposition, the better.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

In the year since the election of this Labour Government, Britain is back as a force for good on the world stage. Following the outbreak of conflict in the middle east last week, I was proud to see the Prime Minister lead calls for calm, cool heads and de-escalation. In its aftermath, we must take seriously the renewed defence commitments that the Prime Minister has made at NATO, but we must also proudly wield the soft convening and convincing power that the UK has in spades. That soft power has historically been the key to successful diplomatic efforts in Iran, securing the joint comprehensive plan of action, and in the wider middle east and around the world. Can the Prime Minister confirm what the Foreign Affairs Committee has learned from our conversations with our European allies, which is that Britain is quietly and effectively stepping up to lead the fight against Russian disinformation and cyber-warfare, and that the investment we will be putting in will be well spent?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question, and she is absolutely right. The need to de-escalate was the central focus going into the weekend and coming out of it, and I am very pleased that we have reached a ceasefire in relation to the conflict in Iran. We absolutely need that to hold.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the soft convening power of the United Kingdom. It is an incredible asset and, yes, I can confirm that we are working with others in relation to Russian disinformation and cyber-attacks, which, as the House knows, are a regular occurrence.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for early sight of his statement. The Liberal Democrats agree that it would have been wrong to leave an empty chair in front of the Union Jack at the table for the G7 and NATO. It is astonishing, and I share his surprise, that it is now Conservative policy not to attend the G7 and NATO.

I am glad that the Prime Minister has signalled retreat on his welfare plans. I hope that he will now listen to everyone and not just his Back Benchers.

On the G7, despite the progress that he outlined, it remains extremely damaging to the world economy that the United States and Donald Trump continue their policy of protectionism. Can the Prime Minister update the House on whether he has had discussions with other G7 and, indeed, NATO colleagues about how we could persuade President Trump to resile from protectionism?

On NATO, the Prime Minister is right to say that Putin’s imperial ambitions present a once-in-a-generation threat to our security. Last week, I travelled to Estonia to meet British troops and Estonian leaders, including Prime Minister Michal. The Estonians have not forgotten the repression enforced by Russian tanks, nor the murder of four former Prime Ministers at the hands of the Kremlin. They are under no illusions about the threat posed by Putin, and we must not be either, so I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to NATO’s new spending target.

In the face of Russia’s war machine, the British Army remains an essential guarantor of our country’s security and that of our allies. When I met our incredible troops stationed in Estonia, I was inspired by their skill and professionalism. We need to get more brilliant people like them into the military, so will the Prime Minister consider the Liberal Democrats’ proposals to move more quickly to reverse the Conservatives’ cuts to the Army, and back our new £10,000 bonus for recruits? It is vital that we take such measures, as Putin continues his barbarism in Ukraine.

Our commitment to Ukraine’s defence must be increased, not reduced. In addition to the actions that the Prime Minister outlined, can he confirm whether he has held more discussions with partners on not just using the interest from frozen Russian assets, but seizing those assets, so that we can bolster our support for Ukraine and pay for a faster increase in defence spending? The Estonians believe they have a plan to deal with all the complications that he mentions when I ask him questions about this. Is he prepared to meet me to discuss the Estonians’ ideas about how to break the backlog so that we can seize those assets?

The Prime Minister also spoke about the conflicts and crises in the middle east. He is right to push even harder for a ceasefire in Gaza. People around the world will question whether military action, rather than diplomacy, will actually make us safer in the future. We must redouble our efforts for a just peace in the region, and that must include self-determination for the Palestinian people. Will the Government finally commit to recognising a state for the Palestinians?

[The Prime Minister]

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions? He started by asking whether I have discussed with other G7 partners the question of US tariffs. Yes, we frequently discuss trade, the economy and, frankly, the challenges that those tariffs put in place for all economies. That is the sort of co-ordination and discussion that goes on all the time, and it will continue.

On the troops in Estonia, I have visited them a number of times myself. They are incredibly brave, and they have a real sense of purpose. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, at NATO, the frontline states on the border with Russia were leading the charge in relation to the work that we had to do yesterday to renew and take forward the pledges that we make.

The right hon. Member asked about reversing the cuts to the Army. We will begin the work of reversing those cuts. When the Conservatives came into government, there were 100,000 in our Army; when they left, there were 70,000. I think that is what Ben Wallace meant when he said they had “hollowed out” our armed forces.

On the question of the assets, and whether they themselves can be seized rather than just using the interest, I have been discussing that with colleagues, as the right hon. Member would expect. It is complicated, as he knows. There is not one view, frankly, on this issue among colleagues and allies. I am very happy to see the proposals that he has received from Estonia, I believe, or any others, but it remains complicated. I have to say that allies are in different places on this, but we will continue to discuss it.

On a ceasefire in Gaza and recognition, I think it is very important that we have been pressing the case, particularly, in recent days, quite urgently and in close collaboration with our colleagues—the E3 of Germany, France and the UK are working very closely together at the moment—to say that this is the moment to press on from Iran to a ceasefire in Gaza, and I mean that that should happen in days, not weeks or months. I do think there is a window of opportunity here. I hope that it happens but I cannot predict that it will. I do think that all of us should do all we can to ensure that, along with a ceasefire in Iran, we push to that ceasefire in Gaza.

On the question of recognition, it has long been our party’s policy—this Government’s policy—to recognise Palestine at the right time in the process to bring about the peace, because I think that without a two-state solution there is little prospect of lasting peace in the region, and that remains our policy.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

Last week, as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I visited NATO headquarters in the UK, where I met fantastic young men and women who are learning great skills as they prepare to defend Britain abroad. However, my constituents, when they see cuts of such great amounts—for example, as proposed in the welfare Bill—may well ask why defence spending is rising. For the benefit of my constituents, could the Prime Minister simply and briefly set that out?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on her elevation—I have not seen her personally since then—which is very well deserved.

My hon. Friend raised a really important point. It is right that we recognise that the first duty of the Prime Minister is to keep the country safe and secure in a volatile world, and that is a duty that I take extremely seriously. We do live in a volatile world, and it is not just something that happens overseas and has no impact on us. What has happened in the Ukraine conflict has already had an impact on her constituents in relation to their energy bills, the cost of living and so much else. We can see, from the last week or two, the impact that the conflict in Iran was having on oil prices, which again has a direct impact on her constituents. So it is absolutely right and in our own interests that we take the necessary measures in relation to defence spend. I should also say that we are determined to ensure that, as we spend more on defence, that is reflected in good, well-paid jobs in the United Kingdom, including in her constituency. On all three fronts, that is the answer I give to her constituents.

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)]

The Iranian regime has long presented a threat to the United Kingdom. As the Prime Minister and I have both experienced, our security services have foiled almost 20 Iranian-backed plots here at home. The prospect of such a regime having nuclear weapons is unacceptable, so I welcome the US and Israeli action. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that we and our European allies should now trigger snapback sanctions unless Tehran admits the International Atomic Energy Agency and allows it to fully verify that all efforts to enrich enhanced uranium have ceased?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question and endorse what he says about our security services, which, as he knows very well, do an incredible job in the most difficult of circumstances and at great speed, and they have foiled a number of plots that would have caused widespread panic, violence and destruction.

On snapback—I thank the right hon. Member for raising this—that is a consideration that we are discussing with our allies. I do think that it has to be part of the pressure that we apply. Exactly when and how snapback is applied will obviously be a question for discussion, but he is absolutely right to say that that is the very discussion we should be having at the moment, and I thank him.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s statement and his commitment to increase defence expenditure, but given that we are looking to improve public services—the health service, social care, education and the police—is it realistic to do that within the current tax envelope? Has the time not come for us to review how we tax wealth, as opposed to work, to ensure that those who can bear the heaviest load do so?

[The Prime Minister]

On defence spend, when we set out the commitment to 2.5% by 2027-28, I set out at the same time how we would fund it. We will continue to take that approach to any spending commitment we make. My hon. Friend will know that we made a commitment in our manifesto to not raise taxes on working people. We will keep to that commitment.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I welcome the element of the Prime Minister’s statement where he explicitly links defence, diplomacy and domestic security. He is absolutely right to highlight that interconnection. Therefore, will he revisit the spending review, which sees 4.5% and 5% real-terms reductions in Home Office and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office budgets, to make sure that they can actually do their jobs within that interconnected system? To pay for that, will he ensure that his Chancellor removes the job-destroying taxes on employment and reduces the tax burden, which is seeing entrepreneurs and wealth creators leave the country in their droves? Will he show real leadership and ensure that his Back Benchers do not prevent his Front Benchers reducing the cost of our welfare bill so we can pay for these incredibly important governmental functions?

[The Prime Minister]

On Home Office responsibility for domestic security, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why it is important that, under the new definition of NATO, resilience at home is now included, because cyber-attacks are commonplace, energy has been weaponised, and many counter-terrorism operations have to be carried out in relation to state threats. We were very careful in the spending review to ensure that there was adequate money on all those threats. I went through that myself, so I can give him that assurance. On money coming in and out of the country, he will no doubt want to celebrate that we have had record investment under this Labour Government in the past 12 months: £120 billion, including the single biggest investment of £40 billion two days ago from Amazon, which is a sign of confidence in this Government that will be measured in many jobs across the country.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Rochdale has been a proud home for Ukrainians ever since they were forced to flee Soviet starvation, murder and oppression in the 1930s and 1940s, so many in my constituency will warmly welcome the decision to send 350 advanced air missiles to Ukraine, built in Britain and paid for by the interest on seized Russian assets. Does the Prime Minister agree that Russia, not Ukraine, should pay the price for Putin’s barbaric war?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I do. It is very important that when we send those missiles to Ukraine, we emphasise: first, that we are supporting Ukraine, as we have done throughout; and secondly, that that is paid for not by the British taxpayer, but with the interest on Russian assets that have been frozen.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that, in the context of the threat posed by Putin, we must provide more guidance and support to Britons to prepare them for the possibility of a future conflict, and that that should involve a national resilience campaign?

[The Prime Minister]

I do think we need to focus on resilience. In a sense, the shift to 5% is a reflection that national resilience is becoming ever more central in our own national defence, in particular on: cyber, where there are frequent attacks from other states; energy, where we have seen from the Ukraine conflict that energy has been weaponised; and counter-terrorism, with state-backed actions in this country, many of which have been thwarted. But the hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to do more on resilience.

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

While the Prime Minister was in his rightful place at the NATO summit this week, I was in my constituency for the opening of the Janet Harvey hall, a £250 million installation that will turbocharge shipbuilding in this country and put it in the service of our defence sector. The Prime Minister knows Govan shipbuilding very well. Labour recognises that the defence of our country is now inextricably linked with the growth of our economy and investment in our public services, but that view is not universally shared. I therefore ask the Prime Minister to urge the SNP Government to back our defence sector as we do, for the sake of jobs and prosperity in Glasgow South West and beyond.

[The Prime Minister]

I urge the SNP to back our defence spend and the jobs that brings with it, but also our defence stance. As I understand its position, the SNP is against the single most effective capability we have, which is our nuclear deterrent, at a time of the greatest volatility we have seen for decades. That is simply wrong in principle, and I urge the SNP to change it.

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

At the NATO summit, was the Prime Minister able to add his voice to the congratulations and thanks that the NATO Secretary-General paid to President Trump for the successful military strike on Iran’s nuclear programme?

[The Prime Minister]

We have long argued that Iran should not be capable of having a nuclear weapon, and what happened on Saturday night was a big step to alleviating that threat. That was the subject of many comments at the NATO summit, along with the congratulations for the ceasefire that has now been brokered and the emphasis we now need on getting Iran around the negotiating table, because if it is to be irreversible and verifiable, it is important that it is done through negotiation. That is what we are focused on.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, especially on defence. Politics is about priorities and, as I know he knows, the most important responsibility of Government is the defence of the country and its people. I echo the sensible points made by the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak)—sadly, they were not made by those on the Opposition Front Bench—and in particular his point about our intelligence services, who are the finest in the world. There are those whom we will never know and never see, but who have kept this place, our democracy and our communities safe. Will the Prime Minister assure me that, as we seek to invest more in defence, there is a particular focus on supporting our intelligence services?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Our intelligence services do an incredible job, and I pay tribute to them. As he will know, from now on, where the intelligence services are contributing to our national defence, that will be included in our defence spend. It will not be included in the 2.5%—that is core defence, as always understood—but will be added to it, taking it to 2.6% in 2027-28.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

It will not have escaped anyone’s notice that while the Prime Minister was rightly away at the G7 and NATO summits, he made tens of billions of pounds of unfunded spending commitments, yet next week he expects Members of Parliament to vote with him to remove money from disabled people who need help to go to the toilet. How can he justify making a moral argument for security abroad while removing security from disabled people at home?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, when we announced the 2.5% increase in defence spending, we made it very clear where that money was coming from, and it was not coming from welfare spend, as he very well knows. I do believe in the moral duty—and it is a moral duty—to defend our country, which means working with our NATO allies to ensure that we have the most effective deterrent. He cannot give lectures on the moral duty to protect our country while maintaining a position of casting aside the single most effective deterrent we have. That is unserious.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I recently visited a NATO air force base in Poland as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme I am taking part in with the RAF. There, I saw at first hand the importance of working closely with our NATO allies to defend our nation and keep us secure, as we witnessed the scramble to the skies to ward off Russian fighter jets. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he is prioritising the wellbeing of our armed forces personnel, both at home and abroad, so that they can continue to keep us and our allies safe?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It is, of course, Armed Forces Week. Among other things, we have given the armed forces their single biggest pay increase in many years, and made a strong commitment to other aspects, including their accommodation. It is important that we recognise and reflect what they do for our country, and that we ensure we are able to retain the brilliance of our armed forces.

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

I very much welcome NATO’s commitment to 3.5% core defence spending, and 5% on a broader definition by 2035, for all NATO member states. However, the Prime Minister and the Government have published spending figures only up until 2030. When will they publish public spending plans for 2030 to 2035? Is it not incumbent on them to show how the target of 3.5% for core defence spending will be met by the Government? Otherwise, it is just an unfunded promise.

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, when we presented the strategic defence review, we had already set out the path to 2.5% and the ambition for 3%. I think it is right that all NATO allies have now agreed the 5% by 2035, subject, of course, to review in 2029 of both the trajectory and balance. The reason for that, as he will understand, is that NATO itself is reviewing its capabilities in 2029, and the reviews will therefore coincide.

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

Diplomacy is the best way to prevent and de-escalate risk and ensure long-term security. What discussions took place on how to escalate the focus on diplomacy in the middle east in order to resolve the situation in Gaza—clearly, the architecture is not delivering at pace—as well as on the forgotten war in Sudan?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I reassure her that we are having discussions with other leaders not just at NATO and the G7, but on a daily basis about the architecture and the path, and how we can use diplomacy to get to a ceasefire in Gaza, and to a much better place in Sudan; I thank her for raising Sudan, which is not raised often enough. We are doing that at speed, and are trying to bring as many allies with us as possible. If the Iran ceasefire holds— I hope that it will—that will create the space to say that now is the time for that ceasefire in Gaza. That is only the first step, of course, in the route first to recovery, and then to a two-state solution.

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

After a worrying start, President Trump has now strengthened NATO, both by extracting promises of more money and with the positive comments he made at the end of the summit. Has the Prime Minister had a chance to assess whether that means that President Trump’s love affair with Vladimir Putin is beginning to cool?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I think it was really important that NATO was united in the way that it was last night, and I do not just mean the comments of President Trump—I mean having the whole 32 countries on the same page at a really important moment for NATO. The right hon. Gentleman will understand how much hard work, guile and diplomacy went into ensuring that was the outcome. I think there was a real sigh of relief around the world that this was the position. On Putin, we are urging that this is the moment to push further to get Putin to the table for an unconditional ceasefire; President Zelensky has said for many weeks that he is prepared for those talks. We discussed that as allies, and I have discussed it many times with President Trump, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Would the Prime Minister care to comment on what our adversaries will think when they hear the Leader of the Opposition mistakenly say that we cannot afford our defence commitments? Does such a fatuous response keep our country safe?

[The Prime Minister]

No, it does not. It was frankly embarrassing to suggest that I should not have been at NATO or the G7, and I think the Leader of the Opposition’s Back Benchers recognise that. That is not the traditional position of the Conservative party, and the sooner the Conservatives get back to their former position, the better.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Was there any discussion about the killing zones that currently constitute the provision of humanitarian aid in Gaza?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, there was. There is real concern about the intolerable position in Gaza and what we can do to alleviate it. We have repeatedly said that it is intolerable, and that the current arrangements for aid are never going to work and cannot be maintained. Urgent diplomacy is under way to alleviate that situation, and we will continue with those efforts.

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement on defence spending, especially during Armed Forces Week. Does he agree that this is a landmark, historic commitment, reflecting both the scale of the threats that we face and this Labour Government’s commitment to the security and defence of our country?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend: the commitment is landmark. It is very important, it shows the resolve of NATO, and it reflects the resolve of this Labour Government. I am pleased that we were closely involved in crafting and bringing together the agreement that was reached yesterday.

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

The Democratic primary in the most cosmopolitan city in the world has demonstrated that people will no longer support hypocritical and disingenuous politicians. I am sure that the whole House agrees that Iran must not have nuclear weapons, but as a lawyer, the Prime Minister will understand that the attack on Iran by Israel and the US did not engage the Caroline principle, which allows for a pre-emptive strike. Does the Prime Minister agree with that analysis? If he does not, can he say from the Dispatch Box that he supported those attacks?

[The Prime Minister]

If we all agree that Iran should not have nuclear weapons, it is about time that we did something about it. What happened on Saturday night was a big step towards alleviating that threat, which is important. We now need to complete on that. The way to do that is through the talks that are now needed to get Iran back to the table, in order to make sure that the position is irreversible and can be verified, and that is what we are focused on.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership in recognising the need for a strategic response. It has been 35 years since the Options for Change defence review began bringing down defence spending from 4.1% of GDP. We have spent that dividend, gambling that we would not need to defend our values, and a generation has benefited from that bet, but now we must take our chips off the table and reinvest in our security. Does the Prime Minister agree that we must level with the public about the threats that we face and the cost of under-investment in our armed forces?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I do agree. That is why we have begun the hard work of reversing the damage done under the previous Government. My hon. Friend is right about the dividend that has been enjoyed, but we must now make sure that there is a defence dividend—that higher spending in that area is reflected in good, well-paid jobs in the United Kingdom that boost our economy across all parts of our communities.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The former Prime Minister has just welcomed the US military action against Iran at the weekend. Why cannot the Prime Minister bring himself to welcome it, too?

[The Prime Minister]

I have said that we need to alleviate the threat, and that we have taken a huge step towards alleviating the threat. I have discussed that with G7 and NATO colleagues, and with President Trump. Everybody was very pleased that there was such unity on it.

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

The forced deportation of children is illegal under international law, yet Russia continues to steal Ukraine’s future, one child at a time. Was the issue of Ukraine’s stolen children discussed with our allies? What more is being done to return those children to their homes and families?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter. She has campaigned hard on this. It is central that if there is to be a ceasefire and a lasting peace in Ukraine—and I hope that there is—it must involve the return of the children. We have discussed that many times, and will continue to do so.

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

Since the second world war, our national security has been based broadly on three pillars: our physical defences, which the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement; the alliances that we have built, which he also mentioned; and the international rules-based order, which he did not mention. What discussion did he have at either summit about the importance of international law, and the undermining of its credibility through the inconsistent way that it has been applied in the conflicts in Ukraine and in Gaza? In particular, did he try to persuade President Trump to lift the United States sanctions on the International Criminal Court?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I have long been an advocate of the international rules-based order, and I discuss that regularly with allies. NATO itself is a rules-based framework, and an important one at that. We need to maintain these rules-based systems to make sure that they are fit for purpose. I would add that the same is true for trade and the economy.

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

As a member of the cross-party UK delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I have had the opportunity to meet Ukrainian Members of Parliament, who make the powerful case for continuing support from NATO allies. It has become clear in recent months that other countries in the region—Poland and the Baltic states of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia —are growing ever more nervous about their vulnerability to invasion by Russia. Can the Prime Minister comment on the UK’s efforts and dialogue with those countries at this unsettling time? Does he agree that the security of the Baltic states is important for our national security?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Baltic states are incredibly nervous at the moment. That has been the case for the past three years or so. We engage with them regularly, and I engage with their leaders regularly. They have been brought into the coalition of the willing, and on the occasions when they cannot attend, I have a special session with them, because their concerns are of such importance to us.

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

I welcome the increase to defence spending and the revised targets. Earlier this year, at the spring statement, we saw cuts to official development assistance—the overseas aid budget—to fund defence increases. The ODA budget is integral to our international security abroad, so will the Prime Minister rule out any further cuts to this budget for defence spending increases?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member is right to emphasise the importance of overseas aid, and that was a difficult decision. I want to put it back up to 0.7%, rather than taking it down. In the meantime, I am exploring other ways that we can find funding for overseas aid, and working with other countries to that end, because I do not think that we can just wait until we are in a position to increase the funding again.

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

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today, and the leadership that he is showing on the world stage in really uncertain times, which, beyond the confines of this place, I know are genuinely welcome in my community in Hertford and Stortford. As we mark Armed Forces Week, veterans and servicemen in my constituency will welcome the Government’s commitment to strengthening our national security, so for the benefit of my constituents, can the Prime Minister set out a little more how we are supporting our armed forces to keep us safe and honouring the service of veterans across the country?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me first pay tribute to the veterans in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country. We have already put in place a number of initiatives, particularly in relation to homelessness and veterans, and more broadly in relation to accommodation and the support for not just veterans, but our armed service personnel. That is vital not only as a reflection of their contribution, but to ensure that we deal with the retention crisis among those serving, which was caused by the Conservative party.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Although we may disagree on the detail, I agree with the Prime Minister that, as far as possible in this place, it would be better to keep partisan politics out of national security issues. Who knows, I may get the Whip withdrawn for saying that, but so be it. There are things that go beyond party politics. I thank the Prime Minister for all his hard work in the national security interests of this country.

On the G7, the Prime Minister mentioned sanctions. In his statement, he said that he urged the United States to do more on sanctions. Is he aware that the United States is actually urging the United Kingdom to do more on sanctions when it comes to Russia? Can the Magnitsky legislation be widened and deepened, so that it captures more Russian assets, and possibly other countries that may have sanctions imposed on them soon—for example, Georgia?

The joint expeditionary force was mentioned at the NATO summit. The Prime Minister will know, having attended the Norway meeting some weeks ago, that Ukraine is a JEF partnership nation. Does the UK support Ukraine becoming a full member of the joint expeditionary force? If so, when might that happen?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for his questions; they are all good ones, so I will endeavour to answer each part of them. Sanctions are being discussed intensely, as he will understand, and there are two elements. The first is the immediate application of sanctions in relation to Russia. We are attempting to ensure that we all act together—the US, the UK and the EU. That is the focus of our discussions and what we are urging on the US. The right hon. Member will know that there is a piece of legislation in the US that is ready to go; that needs to be co-ordinated with what we are doing. In the longer term, we need to look always at whether there is more we can do within the framework on sanctions, and we can discuss that in this House.

The right hon. Member raises an important point about Ukraine and the JEF. We have been a leading advocate of Ukraine having a role in the JEF. Ukraine already has an enhanced partnership with the JEF—the first of its kind. That was done the last JEF meeting that we had in Norway a few months ago, where we were one of the leading nations pushing for that greater involvement. We will see over time whether that partnership can be taken further, either with the JEF or NATO, but it was an important first step—not only a reflection for Ukraine but also a message to Russia.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership in representing us around the world in the last two weeks—exactly where he should be. Does the Prime Minister want to remind the Conservatives that it was a Labour Government who last spent 2.5% of GDP on defence, and can he set out how increasing our defence spending will keep our country safe and support high-quality manufacturing jobs in West Bromwich and the whole nation?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to remind the House that we had 2.5% of GDP on defence spending under the last Labour Government, and we will have it under this Labour Government. In 14 long years, the Conservatives did not do that.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I welcome the increase in defence spending. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to explain where the money is coming from, particularly as his Government continue to weaken our economy and when another expensive benefit U-turn—on top of the winter fuel U-turn—is on its way?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady must have missed the record investment in our country in the last 12 months of £120 billion, the four interest rate cuts, and the fastest growth in the G7 in the first quarter of this year. Every time we have increased defence spending, as we did with the 2.5%, we have at the same time set out where the money is coming from.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I found the Leader of the Opposition incredibly disappointing, so goodness knows what those on her own Benches think. While she is talking Britain down, may I commend the Prime Minister for the leadership he has shown this week? Could he say a little more about how businesses in the defence supply chain, particularly in the Teesside defence and innovation cluster, can contribute to the national mission for defence and security?

[The Prime Minister]

There are two or three principles here. First, we need to see the increase to our defence spend reflected in good, well-paid jobs in constituencies across the country. Secondly, the big sectors in defence will obviously benefit, but we have also put together a hub for smaller supply chain businesses—which, whether defence-specific or not, are in pretty well every constituency —to ensure that they take advantage of the contracts and extra spending on defence. In that way, we can ensure that there is a dividend back in the United Kingdom from the extra spend we are putting in place.

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

There has been some recent confusion from Defence Ministers surrounding the purchase of 12 F-35A nuclear-capable fast jets. Can the Prime Minister please inform the House of the proposed in-service date for this important capability?

[The Prime Minister]

We made the commitment to that capability, and we are now talking to allies about precisely what the timetable will be; I will update the House. The important thing is that the commitment is there. It is a commitment to the NATO initiative, and it brings us within that initiative. Therefore, there are a lot of moving parts, but we have made a very firm commitment, and I will set out the timeline and progress on that in due course.

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

F-35As—hard power; BBC World Service—soft power. Does the Prime Minister agree that the World Service is a crucial element of our soft convening power?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. I have long been a supporter of the BBC World Service. My hon. Friend’s question chimes with other questions about the soft power of this country. We have incredible soft power and incredible strength in our diplomacy, and that very often achieves results in a way that then makes it less necessary to use the hard power.

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

There is scepticism in my constituency that the increase in defence spending might create good local jobs there. As I have already pitched to the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary, and earlier this month to the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, alongside my local authority CEOs, I know that Huntingdon is recognised as the home of UK defence intelligence capability and of US operations in Europe as well as NATO’s. Given that 10% of the equipment budget is now pledged for developing new technology, along with the £400 million defence innovation fund, will the Prime Minister back my commitment to leveraging the designation of RAF Wyton as a Ministry of Defence trailblazer site to build a defence technology cluster that will create highly technical local jobs and build new defence capability from Huntingdon?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the hon. Member is in discussion with Ministers about this, and we look forward to taking that forward. In relation to the scepticism of his Huntingdon constituents, I reassure them that this increased defence spend will bring yield to Huntingdon in the defence-specific sectors and in the supply chains.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and his leadership. The International Development Committee recently published a report showing that international humanitarian law is under threat like never before and that attacks on aid workers are rising. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the UK will be a champion for IHL, and could he elaborate on conversations about upholding it in relation to Gaza as well as Sudan and the many other countries around the world ravaged by conflict?

[The Prime Minister]

We have an absolute commitment to international humanitarian law, and it is extremely important that we keep to that, whether in Gaza or Sudan. It is the framework through which we make our decisions.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

When it comes to the evils of terrorism and aggression across the middle east, all paths lead back to the Iranian regime—be that the sponsorship of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis or, indeed, at the heart of the regime, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Although I fully appreciate that the Prime Minister will not speculate on proscription from the Dispatch Box, will he at least reflect on how it can be that, despite calls from both sides of the House over many years to proscribe the IRGC, it still has not happened, not least given that he took the right and proper action to proscribe Palestine Action after the attack on Brize Norton last week? How is it that the IRGC still sits un-proscribed?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we keep proscription under constant review and will not hesitate to take the most effective measures against the Iranian regime. He will know that we have already sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety, including individual commanders, but we do keep the matter under constant review.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

I praise the Prime Minister for his work on the new 5% target and on ensuring that we reach it for our national security and core defence. Does he agree that just as the Labour Government in the 1940s helped to found NATO, this Labour Government could help found a multilateral defence development bank that would ensure that we reach 5% by the mid-2030s?

[The Prime Minister]

There is a debate going on across allies as to how we can work together on the increased spending: on the spend itself; on the financial arrangements, be that development banks or others arrangements; and on ensuring that we co-ordinate our capability, because the last thing we want is everybody spending more money in an unco-ordinated way. There has been intense discussion about that.

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

The situation in Scotland is very difficult. I welcome the news that we are to go further with our at-sea deterrents, and of course the nuclear missile Trident boats are based at Faslane. But as we have heard, First Minister John Swinney and his SNP Administration do not back nuclear weapons. Further, they have created a hostile environment for defence firms in Scotland because they will not back any firms that make ordnance. This week we have also heard former First Minister Humza Yousaf claim—wrongly—that allowing our American allies to use the Prestwick air base to refuel is some kind of war crime. What can we do to nullify the threat to British security from these fifth columnists?

[The Prime Minister]

Beat them. This is not just the usual politics; it is a serious question of national security. The at-sea nuclear deterrent is housed in Scotland, and just a few months ago I went and saw one of the subs coming back in. It was a very humbling experience, quite frankly, and I got an even deeper sense of what they do for our country. It should be supported in its own right and as an essential deterrent. That matter is among the reasons that we need a change of Government in Scotland.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, which shows that international co-operation and the ability to forge relationships of trust and human empathy are signs of strength, not weakness. Our country is stronger for his leadership and pursuit of peace globally through diplomatic means.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we can deter war and defend our allies such as Ukraine only if outward-looking diplomacy is backed up by ever stronger armed forces and an ever stronger economy; that those matters ought to unify all in the House; and that it is very unfortunate that we have seen petty, party political games from the Leader of the Opposition?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree. All I can say is that, in fairness, I see on the faces of some Conservative Members disquiet at the approach that the Leader of the Opposition took. That is not surprising.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Under the 5% defence investment pledge, resilience spending appears to include energy infrastructure. Given the evidence about Chinese-made cellular internet modules and kill switches, will he say categorically that China must be kept out of all critical infrastructure, including wind turbines and solar panels?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue. Obviously, we carefully review and monitor any Chinese involvement in any elements of security. But it is right that we now include resilience in our overall definition of national spend, and act accordingly.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment to keeping our country safe and for his effective diplomacy to that end. While our international aid budget is now diminished, it remains my belief that the work we do to prevent and respond to humanitarian crises around the world plays a crucial role in global stability and security and, in turn, in our own. Can the Prime Minister reaffirm his commitment to that vital role for the UK in the world?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can. My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue and describe it as she did. We are a leader on this and continue to be. We want to get our aid budget back up, but in the meantime I want to work with other countries to find other ways of financing that support as a matter of some urgency.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I welcome the increase in defence spending, but how on earth is the Prime Minister going to pay for it when his party cannot agree on a small reduction in the welfare bill?

[The Prime Minister]

When we went to 2.5%, we set out in clear terms both the date and the way we would pay for it. That is the way we do business on the Government side of the House. For 14 years, the Conservative party lost control of the economy, left our armed forces hollowed out and left a £22 billion black hole. Frankly, they are in no position to lecture anyone about these issues—still less after the response of the Leader of the Opposition, which shows exactly why the party is sliding into irrelevance.

[Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)]

It is clear today that the Leader of the Opposition should never represent the United Kingdom on the world stage —it was absolutely outrageous.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement. Following the comments of other hon. Members, may I ask him what assessment he has made of the potential opportunities for Scotland-based defence and aerospace industries, which already support hundreds of jobs in Coatbridge and Bellshill, arising from the expectation that spending will reach 4.1% of GDP by 2027? Does he share my concern that the SNP’s disjointed defence policy risks jobs and investment in Scotland? We need to fight that at all costs.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend should not worry too much about the Leader of the Opposition representing our country—she never will. If she did, presumably the chair at the NATO summit would have a little sticky note on it saying, “Busy at PMQs”. That is how unserious her point is.

On the substantive question of jobs in Scotland, there is now the real potential to build on what Scotland does. It has a proud history in relation to our defence and security. This provides an opportunity to build on that platform.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Prime Minister very much for his statement. Nobody in the House can doubt the sincerity of his careful words and commitment to what is best for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the G7 and NATO summit. The Prime Minister will be aware of my support for Israel and that of so many in this great nation. The situation was, I believe, one of the major issues of the summit. Can the Prime Minister please outline whether time was taken, with our closest ally, the United States of America, to discuss steps that can be taken to cut the head off the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, ensure that the USA bombing of the Iranian nuclear programme was a success and thereby secure a truce and lasting peace in the middle east?

[The Prime Minister]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have that discussion with our US allies, both at leader level and between our teams, on an ongoing and constant basis. Israel has the right to be safe and secure, and it is neither safe nor secure at the moment. We have to be absolutely clear about that and about the right of Israel to defend itself. That means discussions about the IRGC and Iran, which has been a constant source of threat, terror and conflict in the region. Yes, we discussed not just the attack on Saturday, but the further measures that can be taken to ensure that Iran never has the capability to develop nuclear weapons.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and his leadership—something that I am sure is welcomed by our allies around the world, if not by the Opposition.

My right hon. and learned Friend mentions that there is now a window of opportunity for peace in the middle east. I am sure that we would all want that to come to fruition. However, given the continuation of deadly attacks on Palestinian people seeking food, can the Prime Minister advise, following his discussions, whether there is any prospect of Israel allowing the United Nations and other humanitarian organisations to resume food distribution in an ordered and fair way?

[The Prime Minister]

They should do that, and we are urging that they do. The current arrangements are intolerable and are never going to work; we need to be really clear about that. We will continue to urge that, with our allies and talking to leaders across the region, as my hon. Friend would expect. But now is also the time to push on for the broader ceasefire, to alleviate the situation more generally and allow a path to open for the long-term conflict resolution that is needed.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

It is the first duty of any Government and Prime Minister to keep this country safe. The Prime Minister takes that role incredibly seriously, in stark contrast to what we have seen today from the Leader of the Opposition.

The Prime Minister has visited Blackpool many times since becoming leader of our party. At Blackpool sixth-form college, young people told him that they were crying out for local jobs in the Blackpool area, to keep them there. Will he ensure that the defence increase to 5%, which is welcome, creates the decent, well paid jobs on the Fylde coast so that young people in Blackpool can get those jobs where they live?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. I have visited Blackpool many times, as he knows. I know first hand just how important it is for those young people to see money going into their economy, with jobs in Blackpool for them. I profoundly remember asking a group of 17-year-olds, I think, at a sixth-form college in Blackpool how many were proud to be from Blackpool. They all put their hands up. When I asked them how many thought that their future jobs would be in Blackpool, only one put their hand up; the rest all thought they would have to leave Blackpool to get the jobs they wanted. We need to turn that around. This gives us an opportunity to start doing that.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today. From a personal point of view, I thank him for his recent visit to Harlow and Downs primary school, which recently received an excellent Ofsted report.

Does the Prime Minister agree that to achieve the sustainable and long-term peace that we all so desperately want—in the middle east, in Gaza, in Ukraine and in Sudan—we must work together with one voice and with all our NATO allies? That is why his leadership on a global level is so important and why it is so important that he attends all these events to represent our proud nation.

[The Prime Minister]

My most recent visit to the primary school was to roll out our free school meals policy. I was happy to do that by serving school meals myself—if all else fails, I’ve got a back-up.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At a time like this, the House usually comes together and speaks with one voice, and we are the more powerful for it. President Zelensky has told me on a number of occasions how much that means for his people. In fairness to the Conservative party, it has always been resolute on Ukraine. The Leader of the Opposition needs to look again at her approach. At a time like this, the sooner we get back to the kind of cross-party unity that we had, the better. Our adversaries know that when they see unity here, that is much more of a problem for them than when they see unserious division.

Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) (No. 2) Bill

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

House of Lords Appointments

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

I am today setting out the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in making nominations to the House of Lords.

Role of party leaders

As democratically elected representatives, it is for political parties to decide who will best represent them when making nominations to the House of Lords. The Government announced in December 2024 that political parties must now provide citations that clearly set out to the public why an individual has been nominated to the House of Lords. I expect party leaders to take full responsibility for properly considering the suitability and quality of their nominations, including whether nominees have the skills, ability and willingness to contribute to the work of the House and have a commitment to high standards in public life.

The House of Lords works best when there is a diversity of perspectives represented, including from all the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Party leaders should consider this when making nominations to ensure the second chamber better reflects the country it serves.

Role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission

The House of Lords Appointments Commission is an independent advisory body, responsible for vetting all peers to the House for propriety and for nominating non-party political individuals to the Prime Minister of the day for appointment to sit as Cross-Bench peers in the House of Lords. Advice on propriety is separate from judgments about the suitability of candidates, which are for political parties.

The vetting process is the same for all nominations for life peerages, although the vetting for ministerial appointments to the House of Lords may be completed on an expedited timeline.

The commission can decline to support a nomination on propriety grounds and will inform the relevant political party if this is the case. It is a matter for the Prime Minister to decide whether to recommend an individual to the sovereign. In the unlikely event that I, as Prime Minister, were to proceed with a nomination against HOLAC’s advice on propriety I would write to the commission and this letter would be published on gov.uk. HOLAC would write to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to notify Parliament that their propriety advice had not been followed.

The commission may also provide advice on whether there are any presentational risks associated with a nominee. The commission does not withhold support for a nominee due to presentational risks.

Appointments to the Cross Benches

I will continue to ask HOLAC to make nominations for individuals to sit as Cross-Bench peers. HOLAC invites applications from the public and assesses candidates against the criteria set out on its website. On my invitation, HOLAC will then put forward successful nominees to me, and I will recommend them to His Majesty the King for appointment.

In addition, as Prime Minister I will continue to recommend directly for appointment a limited number of candidates to sit as Cross-Bench peers based on their public service, including both distinguished public servants on retirement and individuals with a proven track record of service to the public. These nominations will continue to be vetted for propriety by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.

This Government set out a commitment in our manifesto to reform the process of appointments to the House of Lords to ensure the quality of new appointments and to seek to improve the national and regional balance of the second Chamber. This statement is further evidence of our commitment to taking pragmatic and straight- forward steps to strengthen and clarify our existing arrangements in support of this commitment.

[HCWS718]

Prime Minister

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Written Corrections

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

It has been over two decades since a Labour Government banned the cruel practice of fur farming, but the job is not done. Real fur and fur products are still being imported into the UK. This week, I delivered a petition to No. 10 with over 1 million signatures calling for a fur-free Britain. My private Member’s Bill would deliver exactly that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to close the loopholes, ban the import and sale of real fur, and finally put the fur trade out of fashion?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her campaign. I know that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will have heard her representations. We have commissioned the expert Animal Welfare Committee to produce a full report on the responsible sourcing of fur to inform the next steps that need to be taken, and we are committed to publishing an animal welfare strategy later this week.

[Official Report, 4 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 304.]

Written correction submitted by the Prime Minister:

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her campaign. I know that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will have heard her representations. We have commissioned the expert Animal Welfare Committee to produce a full report on the responsible sourcing of fur to inform the next steps that need to be taken, and we are committed to publishing an animal welfare strategy later this year.

Machinery of Government: Cyber-security and Defence Exports

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention the following machinery of Government changes.

I am today announcing that responsibility for Government and public sector cyber-security will move from the Cabinet Office to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. This change will strengthen technology resilience and policymaking across the public sector by better integrating cyber-security responsibilities and expertise into the Government Digital Service. This change is effective immediately.

I am also confirming that responsibility for defence exports promotion—comprising the majority of UK Defence & Security Exports—will move from the Department for Business and Trade to the Ministry of Defence. In line with the defence industrial strategy, this will enable the Government to develop a single defence exports offer, driving a significant and sustained improvement to performance while giving stronger backing to our world-class defence industry. It will directly connect exports with the MOD’s wider procurement and international activity. The creation of a single Departmental lead for defence exports will deliver on the Government’s first mission of delivering economic growth as well as their first duty of protecting the UK. Responsibility for security and cyber exports will remain in the Department for Business and Trade. This change will take effect on 31 July.

[HCWS679]