Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 March.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Last night I spoke to President Zelensky to discuss progress that President Trump had made with Russia towards a ceasefire, and I took the opportunity to reaffirm our unwavering support for the people of Ukraine.

I am deeply concerned about the resumption of Israeli military action in Gaza. The images of parents carrying their children—young children—to hospitals that have emerged over the last few days are truly shocking, as is the sheer number of those who have been killed. We will do all that we can to ensure the resumption of the ceasefire in order to get the remaining hostages out, and to get aid that is desperately needed in.

The whole House will want to celebrate the extraordinary life of Group Captain John “Paddy” Hemingway, the last known pilot of the battle of Britain. The courage of his generation, the fearlessness, the sense of duty and the service, secured our freedom, and we will never forget them.

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

[Alberto Costa]

Brain tumours kill more children and adults under the age of 40 than any other cancer. From time to time all of us in our surgeries hear stories from our constituents that really get to us and twang the heartstrings. Last Friday, Laura attended my Sharnford surgery and told me of the tragic death of her energetic, loving six-year-old son Taylan from a brain tumour. All that she asked was for me to raise this matter nationally, and I am doing that now, but I want to go one step further. Will the Prime Minister agree to arrange a meeting for Laura, and the brain tumour support group known as Angel Mums, with the relevant healthcare Minister to discuss brain tumour research?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for doing what he was asked to do, and raising that case here. The loss of a child is unbearable, and I think that most us, including me, simply do not know how we would be able to react. I am sure that the whole House will want to send its deepest condolences to Laura, and to all Taylan’s family and friends.

I will happily ensure that the meeting the hon. Gentleman has requested takes place, so that we can give a reassurance that we are committed to supporting lifesaving and life-improving research and doing all we can to improve the way in which in we prevent, detect, manage and treat cancer.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

Q3. Like many people in Peterborough, I am passionate about tackling low pay and insecure work, especially for young people. Next month many of my constituents will receive a welcome boost in their pay packets owing to the increase in the national minimum wage that is being delivered by this Labour Government. May I thank the Prime Minister for ignoring the voices of those on the Opposition Benches who continue to oppose our plans to make work pay, and may I urge him to go further and faster in delivering our plan for change for working people?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend, who does a superb job for Peterborough. We are proud of the fact that our Employment Rights Bill is tackling the cost of insecure work, and that we are delivering that pay rise for 3 million of the lowest-paid. We know that the Leader of the Opposition opposes all that. She thinks that the minimum wage is a burden, and that maternity pay is excessive. It is the same old Tories. They opposed the minimum wage in the first place; they have learnt absolutely nothing.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

The Chancellor claimed that her Budget was “a once-in-a-Parliament reset”, so why are we having an emergency Budget next week?

[The Prime Minister]

We have delivered record investment into this country, we have had three interest rate cuts in a row and wages are going up faster than prices, which is a massive cost of living boost. That is in only eight months, after 14 years of absolute failure. What did the Conservatives leave? Interest rates were at11% and there was a massive £22 billion black hole in the economy. They crashed the economy; we are rebuilding Britain.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister knows why we are having an emergency Budget. It is because since the last one—since the Chancellor delivered her Budget in October—growth is down, borrowing is up and she has destroyed business confidence. Does the Prime Minister now regret raising taxes on business?

[The Prime Minister]

The Office for Budget Responsibility will present its numbers and there will be a spring statement next week. We have record investment into this country and interest rates have been cut. The Leader of the Opposition talks about national insurance. We had to fill the £22 billion black hole that the Conservatives left. We have invested in the NHS, schools and public services. We are pressing on with planning, with infrastructure and regulation.

I understand the Leader of the Opposition is straight-talking, so perhaps she can help us with this. Is she going to reverse the national insurance contributions increase? If not, what is the point? If so, what other taxes is she raising to fill the hole—one way or another?

[Mrs Badenoch]

The only black hole is the one that the Prime Minister is digging. He has shown absolutely no regret, but everybody knows that the Chancellor has made a mistake. That is why they are having an emergency Budget. Later today, Conservatives will vote to exempt hospices, pharmacies and care providers from her national insurance rise. Will he at the very least support exempting those vulnerable services from his jobs tax?

[The Prime Minister]

I notice the Leader of the Opposition did not say that the Conservatives would reverse the national insurance rises. That is exactly it: she wants all the benefits, but they cannot say how they are going to pay for them. She carps from the sidelines, but cannot make her mind up whether she supports or does not support national insurance rises. We have made provision for hospices and we have made provisions for charities, but we had to secure the economy. We had to fill the £22 billion black hole that they disgracefully left.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister has not made these provisions. He keeps talking about Budget benefits. Unemployment is not a benefit; businesses closing are not benefits. I asked him whether he would exempt hospices—even children’s hospices—from the jobs tax. He did not answer that question. His MPs know that this could affect end of life care, so I will ask the same question again: will he exempt hospices from paying his jobs tax?

[The Prime Minister]

We have already invested £100 million for adult and children’s hospices, with an additional £26 million in funding through the children’s hospice grant, but we cannot get away from the root cause of what we were doing in that Budget, which was fixing the economy the Conservatives left so badly damaged—a £22 billion black hole. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will start the next question with an apology.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I remember when the Prime Minister made—[Interruption.] If Labour Members want me to answer questions, we can swap sides.

I remember when the Prime Minister made that announcement. He has forgotten, because the money he is referring to for hospices is for buildings. It is not for the salaries hit by the jobs tax. As St Helena hospice in Colchester said:

“We cannot use this funding for salaries which is where we need urgent help.”

Why is the Prime Minister not listening to hospices?

[The Prime Minister]

I have already set out the position in relation to hospices. The Leader of the Opposition says that she wants to swap sides—heaven forbid! After 14 years of breaking everything, we are getting on with the job of fixing it, and all she can do is carp from the sidelines with absolutely no policy.

[Mrs Badenoch]

Winter fuel payments have been snatched. The jobs tax is hammering everyone from business to charities. The Chancellor promised a once-in-a-Parliament Budget; that she would not come back for more. In that Budget, she said:

“there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax…thresholds”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]

Ahead of the emergency Budget, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman repeat the commitment that she made?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady has such pre-scripted questions she cannot adapt them to the answers I am giving. I think she now calls herself a Conservative realist. Well, I am realistic about the Conservatives. The reality is that they left open borders and she was the cheerleader, they crashed the economy, mortgages went through the roof, the NHS was left on its knees and they hollowed out the armed forces. This Government have already delivered 2 million extra NHS appointments, 750 breakfast clubs, record returns of people who should not be here, and a fully funded increase in our defence spending. That is the difference a Labour Government make.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Q4. A lady came to see me recently who needed help. She had a disability, which means that her children have to help her cut up her food. They have to help her wash beneath the waist. They have to supervise her as she goes to the toilet. Under the Tory welfare system, we were able to get that lady on to a personal independence payment. Under the Prime Minister’s new proposed system, she will get zero—nothing. After 14 years of the Tory Government and many of us wanting to see the back of them, can the Prime Minister answer one question? What was the point, if Labour is going to do this?

[The Prime Minister]

I have lived with the impacts of disability in our family, through my mother and brother, all my life. I do understand the human impact, but the current system is morally and economically indefensible. We are right to reform it and nobody should be defending the broken status quo. We are proceeding on three principles: if you can work, you should work; if you need help into work, the state should help you, not hinder you; and if you can never work, you must be supported and protected. They are the right principles, and we cannot leave the current system as it is.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks on Ukraine and Gaza. I also pay tribute to Group Captain John “Paddy” Hemingway and all our heroes from the battle of Britain.

Members across the House will, like me, have heard from GPs, dentists, community pharmacists and care homes who are all deeply worried about the impact of the national insurance rise on the services they provide to patients. That is why the House of Lords passed a Liberal Democrat amendment to exempt NHS and care providers. That amendment comes before this House this afternoon, but we are hearing worrying reports that the Prime Minister will order Labour MPs to vote against it. Will the Prime Minister reassure the House and patients across the country that those reports are not true?

[The Prime Minister]

I start by pointing out that, because of the changes we made at the Budget, we were able to put record amounts of money into our national health service. It was vitally important that we did so. It is not right simply to oppose the measures we had to take to raise the money and at the same say, as the right hon. Gentleman does, that he wants the benefits of the increase in funding to the NHS. The two cannot sit together. We have already invested an additional £3.7 billion of funding in social care, including £880 million to increase the social care grant. We are taking steps, but the basic point remains: we cannot make the investment in the NHS if we do not raise the money. He cannot simply oppose any raising of money and at the same time welcome the money into the NHS.

[Ed Davey]

I think the whole House is disappointed by that reply. I hope that, ahead of the spring statement, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will think about taking that money from the NHS, and reverse that.

I would like to turn to the issue of illegal hare coursing. Criminal gangs are terrorising rural communities across our country, from Cambridgeshire to Devon, from Oxfordshire to Wiltshire. Men in balaclavas are threatening and abusing farmers, as these criminals tear across their fields in 4x4s. Farmers are warning that it is only a matter of time before someone is killed. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that we must act urgently against this appalling criminality? Will he back our calls for a comprehensive rural crime strategy, so that we not just stamp out hare coursing but keep our rural communities safe from all crime?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue, which is a matter of deep concern. We are already developing a rural crime strategy, but we will happily work with him and others to develop it further.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Q5. My constituents in Birmingham Northfield are deeply concerned about the scourge of knife crime, and I pay tribute to the professionalism of West Midlands police for its response to these horrendous attacks. However, there are still 1,200 fewer police officers and police community support officers in the force than in 2010, and a new bid for 150 more officers has been submitted to the Home Office. Will the Prime Minister look at this issue so that the police can do more to keep our streets secure and safe?

[The Prime Minister]

I join my hon. Friend in commending West Midlands police for keeping his community safe. We are doubling our investment to £200 million towards the recruitment of 13,000 neighbourhood police officers, giving every community a named officer to help tackle violent crime, and we are currently working through bids with forces to ensure that we do so. I will ensure that he gets a meeting with the Policing Minister.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

We have a deeply unfair and unequal economic system, where vast numbers of people are struggling while billionaires are getting richer and richer. Does the Prime Minister really think that the way to tackle this situation is to put the onus on older people, children, and now sick and disabled people, rather than on the shoulders of the super-rich—those who can most easily afford to pay—with a wealth tax? If the Prime Minister uses the phrase “difficult choices” in his answer, will he specify “difficult choices” for whom?

[The Prime Minister]

We do have a proportional tax system, and we have raised tax on the wealthiest under this Government. The hon. Lady’s advice would count for a bit more if her party’s manifesto had not been a recipe for £80 billion of extra borrowing, which would have done exactly what Liz Truss did to the economy—that would not help any of the people she is claiming to support.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

Q6. I welcome the Government’s ambitious growth plans for the Oxford-Cambridge arc, which promise to reverse years of decline and transform the eastern region by driving prosperity, creating jobs and delivering much-needed housing. Does the Prime Minister agree that the crowning achievement of these plans would be the establishment of a world-class theme park in Bedford borough, which would transform our local economy, create thousands of jobs and opportunities, and elevate Bedford as a national hub for leisure and tourism?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this important project, which we are working on. It is vital that we unleash the potential of the Oxford-Cambridge corridor—and, of course, Bedford—by generating growth, jobs and opportunities. We are doing that by speeding up the delivery of new infrastructure projects, slashing red tape and getting Britain building.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Q2. Many of my constituents have approached me about the inadequate treatment of young people with eating disorders. This year, despite a 30% increase in referrals, the majority of integrated care boards have cut real-terms funding. Currently, as I have seen in my own family and in my weekly surgeries, those who reach out for treatment are told, in effect, “Come back when you are thinner,” increasing both the human and financial cost of treatment. Does the Prime Minister agree that timely interventions are critical, and will he meet me to discuss how we fund them?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right: too many people with eating disorders are not getting the treatment they need. The NHS is expanding eating disorder treatment services with a focus on accessing treatment earlier and closer to home, and we are providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school. I will make sure that he is kept updated.

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

Q7. Labour’s flagship Crime and Policing Bill is designed to tackle the rise in antisocial behaviour, theft and shoplifting that occurred under the Tories. It will grant police the power to confiscate disruptive off-road vehicles, which will help to tackle the scourge of off-road bikes in my constituency. Does the Prime Minister agree that we are the party of law and order, and that we are fulfilling our commitments?

[The Prime Minister]

It is totally unacceptable for anyone to feel intimidated or unsafe due to the actions of reckless and selfish individuals. Whatever the vehicle, our Bill gives police forces stronger powers to seize them immediately and put a stop to antisocial behaviour. That is our plan for change in action, making our streets and communities safer.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

Q9.   Having had 14 years to get ready, Labour came into power with no plan to reform welfare. Now, in a panic because of their economic mismanagement, the Government are cutting benefits for disabled people without consulting them at all. It probably says in the Prime Minister’s folder that the High Court ruled that the Conservatives’ consultation was too short, but at least we consulted. The Government are not consulting at all. Will the Prime Minister explain why he is doing things to disabled people and not with them?

[The Prime Minister]

No, what it says in my folder is that the Conservatives had 14 years—[Interruption.] They did not need to consult; they just had to get on with it. They had a majority of 80 for their last five years of Government. They are now carping on about some of their ideas. They had 14 years and they did not implement a single one; they simply broke the system. They are in no place to lecture other people.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

Q8.   According to the charity Shelter, there are more homeless children in my city of Edinburgh than in the whole of Wales. That is an appalling legacy of 18 years of SNP Government. Does the Prime Minister agree that there should be no homeless children, and will he work with me, the Scottish Parliament and anyone who will listen to end child homelessness in Scotland?

[The Prime Minister]

The situation that my hon. Friend describes is an appalling indictment of the SNP record. The Conservative party left record homelessness in England. The SNP record is equally shameful: a record number of children in temporary accommodation. We are investing £1 billion to tackle homelessness, abolishing no-fault evictions and building 1.5 million new homes. Meanwhile, the SNP has cut its affordable housing budget. It has had the largest settlement since devolution. It has the power and the money; now it is time that it started delivering.

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

This morning, I received an email from Santander informing me that the Bognor Regis and Rustington branches in my constituency are both set to close. With four other bank branches having shut across the constituency in 2023 alone, the most vulnerable members of our society are being gradually cut off from essential banking services. Small cash-based businesses will also struggle to deposit their takings, faced with the added burden of travelling to Chichester or Worthing, making it even harder for them to operate. What decisive action is the Prime Minister taking to guarantee that people and businesses in my constituency and across the country are not left without access to cash and vital banking services?

[The Prime Minister]

We are rolling out 350 banking hubs across all communities. I will happily arrange for the hon. Lady to have a meeting with the Minister to discuss how that might affect her constituency.

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

Q10. First, let me welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement of £200 million from the National Wealth Fund for the industrial future of Grangemouth. Today, I want to ask specifically about the workers facing redundancy. Given the assurances from the Prime Minister on 18 February and repeated by Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour Leader, as recently as 4 March, can the Prime Minister confirm that the guarantee given on 18 months’ paid protection will be honoured for all those workers losing their jobs due to the Grangemouth refinery closure, including the shared services workers, and will he say how the payment can be claimed by all those affected?

[The Prime Minister]

Petroineos has said that every employee made redundant will get 18 months’ full pay. The Project Willow report, which has come out today, describes how we can support a sustainable industrial future for Grangemouth, which is incredibly important, delivering jobs and economic growth. As my hon. Friend references, I have announced £200 million through the National Wealth Fund to secure the site’s long-term future, and that is backed by the £100 million Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal and the training guarantee to support workers into good jobs. Those are all actions that we are taking on this very important issue.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Today, the House of Lords considers the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025, which diverge from the proposals of the inquiry report and the Government response. The regulations introduce new exclusions, treat victims inconsistently and downgrade some previously agreed awards, such as that for my constituent Owen Savill. Will the Prime Minister remember the promise made to victims such as Owen and think again?

[The Prime Minister]

The victims of this scandal have suffered unspeakably. I am pleased that at the Budget we set aside £11.8 billion to compensate them for this appalling scandal. I gently point out that the Conservative party was committed, rightly, to the compensation but did not provide a single penny in the column to pay for it. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority has been established and it began to make payments last year, with over £1 billion of interim payments having been made. We remain completely committed to co-operating with the inquiry and acting on its recommendations.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Q11.   Everyone is talking about “Adolescence”, the series by Knowsley’s own Stephen Graham and Christine Tremarco, which highlights online male radicalisation and violence against girls. The creators of the show are calling for screenings in Parliament and schools to spark change. Will the Prime Minister back the campaign to counter toxic misogyny early and give young men the role models that they deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. At home we are watching “Adolescence” with our children—I have a 16-year-old boy and a 14-year-old girl. It is a very good drama to watch. The violence carried out by young men, influenced by what they see online, is a real problem. It is abhorrent and we have to tackle it. We are putting in specialist rape and sexual offences teams in every police force and doing work on 999 calls, but this is also a matter of culture. It is important that, across the whole House, we tackle this emerging and growing problem.

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

The Liberal Democrats have long called for a UK-EU youth mobility scheme. Polling has repeatedly shown that the majority of Brits support the idea, including my constituents in Epsom and Ewell. A well-structured and controlled scheme would show that the Government are serious about providing opportunities for young people and backing British business. Will the Prime Minister stop sitting on the fence and finally commit to a youth mobility scheme?

[The Prime Minister]

We are working closely with our European colleagues, and the EU in particular, on a reset of the relationship. We will not be returning to freedom of movement—I have made that clear repeatedly —but we are making good progress.

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

Q12. The previous Government failed to properly support further and adult education over the past 14 years. In contrast, the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to technical qualifications has been encouraging. Last year’s Budget provided a welcome boost to some parts of the sector, but need and demand are outstripping available funding. Skills are crucial to the Government meeting their mission to deliver economic growth, build 1.5 million homes and transition to a green economy. Will the Prime Minister reassure me that the funding model will be reviewed, so that we do not see colleges having to turn away people who want to gain the skills that our country so desperately needs?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that further education plays a critical role in giving young people the skills and confidence that they need, and the training that we need for the future. We are investing £400 million in education for 16 to 19-year-olds this year, and our levy-funded growth and skills offer will create jobs in key industries. I can assure her that the funding will deliver enough places for young people.

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

Large spending announcements for defence would make people think that Britain is marching to war, but the Ministry of Defence is bimbling along with procurement systems that are better designed for peacetime. Will the Prime Minister use his good offices to bring British industry into this fight, and quickly?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, but the Opposition did leave a bit of a mess that we are clearing up, having hollowed out our armed forces and having not made the investment that we needed in our defence. We have announced the largest sustained increase since the cold war to 2.5% by 2027 and 3% in the next Parliament, subject to economic circumstances. We are getting on with the job and clearing up the mess that they left.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

Q13. My constituency has the greatest number of high-rise buildings with dangerous cladding in the country. On Friday, I visited Stratford fire station. Our brilliant local firefighters told me that 77 high-rise buildings in Newham and 165 in Tower Hamlets are covered in hazardous materials, with many of them deemed unsafe. Thousands of my constituents have been calling for justice for years. What are the Government doing to ensure that private developers are held to account for the dangerous cladding on high-rise buildings that they have built?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that remediation has been far too slow, and everybody deserves a safe and secure home. We have signed a contract with 54 major developers who will pay for or fix over 1,700 buildings, and we are accelerating that progress. We will take tough action against those who evade their responsibilities. We will recover taxpayers’ funds and make sure that those responsible pay up and fix unsafe buildings quickly.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

I come to this Chamber every week to ask sensible questions—[Interruption]—and I expect sensible answers, but all I get is glazed expressions and waffle from those on the Government Benches. I want to ask the Prime Minister a simple question on behalf of all the net zero sceptics. If we became net zero tomorrow, by how much would that reduce the Earth’s temperature? It is a simple question.

[The Prime Minister]

Net zero is of course not easy, but it is a huge opportunity to boost our growth, our jobs and our economy. The hon. Member knows my views on that. He complains, but Reform would have better ideas if it stopped fawning over Putin. I understand that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) wants to be Prime Minister, but he cannot even lead a party that fits in the back of a taxi.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Q14. One in five disabled people in social housing, and one in three disabled private renters, live in inaccessible housing. One of my constituents with severe fibromyalgia and post-traumatic stress disorder lives in a first-floor flat with no lift access. As we build the 1.5 million new homes that the country needs, will the Prime Minister ensure that they are built to be accessible and adaptable so that disabled and older people can live independently for generations to come?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that everybody needs to be able to access a home that is suitable for them and meets their needs. The planning rules already mean that councils must consider the needs of disabled people when planning new homes. We will go further, setting out our policies on accessible new homes very shortly. We are boosting the disabled facilities grant by £172 million, helping more people to make vital improvements and live independent lives.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

Despite Ukraine being the victim in Russia’s illegal aggression, President Zelensky has shown leadership to his people by committing to the US plans for a ceasefire. However, it is clear that Putin is playing for time and is still carrying out daily attacks on the Ukrainian people. Is now not the time to take those frozen Russian assets, seize them and give them to the Ukrainian people to strengthen their hand at the negotiating table and punish Russian aggression?

[The Prime Minister]

On both points, last night, following the discussions yesterday, I spoke to President Zelensky to discuss the way forward. On the wider question of assets, it is complicated—it is not straightforward—but we are working with others to see what is possible.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

The release of Project Willow today is a step forward in securing good jobs and an industrial future for Grangemouth. However, the Government need to work at pace to ensure that the recommendations in Willow are acted on. Will the Prime Minister outline what steps he will be taking to ensure that barriers to a rapid transition at Grangemouth are removed and investment is progressed as quickly as possible?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising Grangemouth again, for the second time in this session; that is because it is centrally important. He will have heard what I had to say about the projects that we are looking at to ensure the long-term future of Grangemouth, the interim measures that are being taken and, of course, the £200 million of the wealth fund that I announced just a few weeks ago.

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

The Prime Minister and I disagree on much—the family farm tax, the national insurance jobs tax and the cut in winter fuel payments—but we surely agree that the common good is built on public order. Crossbows in the hands of killers cost lives: they cost the lives of three innocent women last year. The previous Government moved to consultation over a year ago on the regulation of crossbows, their sale and use, and yet we have heard nothing since. They are as powerful as guns, as silent as knives. Will the Prime Minister agree for one of his Ministers to come to the House before Easter to give us a clear instruction about what the Government intend to do before any more lives are lost?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this shocking issue; he is right to do so. The case he refers to is truly shocking, as I think is agreed across the House. We are working on this and I will make sure that he gets an update so that he is across the detail of what we are doing.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Most Members of this House will be aware that the welfare system can be a nightmare to navigate and does, indeed, need reform, but could we have less of this rhetoric about the Prime Minister’s £5 billion package of disability benefit so-called reform being moral? There is nothing moral about cutting benefits for what may be up to a million people. This is not about morality; this is about the Treasury’s wish to balance the country’s books on the backs of the most vulnerable and poorest people in this society.

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is a passionate advocate on this issue and has been for a long time, and I pay tribute to her for that. However, as she rightly acknowledges, the current system is broken. This is where I disagree with her: I think that one in eight young people not being in education or training—that is a million young people—is a moral issue. All the evidence suggests that someone in that situation at that stage of their life will find it incredibly difficult ever to get out of that level of dependency. That cuts across the opportunity and aspiration that are the root of my values, and Labour values, about how we take working people forward. I do see it as a moral issue and I will not turn away from that. I am genuinely shocked that a million young people are in that position, and I am not prepared to shrug my shoulders and walk past it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Q1.   If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 March.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

I welcome the progress of talks between Ukraine and the United States. We must now redouble our efforts to get a lasting, secure peace. On Saturday, I will convene international leaders to discuss how we can make further progress.

I pay tribute to the bravery and dedication of all those responding to the ship collision off the east Yorkshire coast. Our thoughts and, I am sure, the thoughts of the whole House are with the family of the crew member who is sadly presumed dead.

This week we introduced landmark legislation to get Britain building, paving the way to restoring the dream of home ownership for working people across the country. We are also driving forward our Employment Rights Bill, the biggest boost to workers’ rights in a generation. That is our plan for change in action.

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.

[Mike Martin]

Russia has abducted at least 19,000 Ukrainian children and transferred them to Russia. They have been told that their parents do not love them, placed in Russian homes and been re-educated. For that despicable crime and others, the International Criminal Court has issued six arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and his gang. I note the Prime Minister’s previous fulsome support for the ICC and his comments just last night about the support that the UK will offer to Ukraine in achieving a just and lasting peace. Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House that British peacekeeping troops will be deployed to Ukraine only if the peacekeeping deal includes both the return of Ukraine’s children and Putin’s prosecution?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue, because it is an absolutely terrible case of abduction and kidnapping. When we say a lasting, just settlement for peace in Ukraine, it must of course involve dealing with that issue. As he would expect, we are raising it continually with our allies.

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

Q2. Telford and Britain voted for change in July, yet this week we saw the bizarre spectacle of the Conservatives attempting to bring back the Rwanda policy, clinging on to a gimmick that cost British taxpayers £700 million yet sent only four volunteers to Rwanda. As Labour works to secure our borders through our plan for change, does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is quite clear that the Conservative party has learned absolutely nothing?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is quite right. The Conservatives ran an open borders experiment that saw numbers go up to almost 1 million, and the Leader of the Opposition was the cheerleader, thanking herself for the lobbying that she did. The Rwanda scheme cost £700 million of taxpayers’ money to remove four volunteers. What a contrast: we have got the flights off and removed 19,000 people who should not be here. As with the NHS, prisons, the economy and everything else, we are clearing up the mess that they left.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Later today, the Prime Minister is meeting the family of Sir David Amess. Sir David gave this House and our country 40 years of service. I hope the Prime Minister will agree that getting the response to his murder right is vital not just to his family but to our democracy.

Every week, I speak to businesses that are letting go of staff or closing. Has the Prime Minister been given an estimate of how many people will lose their jobs because of his Budget?

[The Prime Minister]

On the question of Sir David, he was a deeply loved and respected colleague—behind me is his plaque, and there is the plaque in front of me for Jo Cox. I know that this was deeply felt by the House, but particularly, as I acknowledged at the time, by the Conservative party, which lost a colleague and a friend in the most awful of circumstances. I am meeting the Amess family later on today, and I will make sure that they get answers to the questions that they ask.

In relation to businesses, I am really pleased to say that we have thousands of new jobs in the economy. We have got more investment in than in the last 20 years—an absolute record. Wages are up higher than prices, and there have been three interest rate cuts—the best boost for the cost of living for a very long time.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister needs to get out more. Inflation is up, and estimates of job losses are between 130,000 and 300,000. His tax rises are hurting every sector of the economy. Things are getting worse for nurseries, which are writing to stressed parents right now telling them that fees will go up because of his jobs tax. Can he explain how more expensive childcare is good for the economy or for working families struggling to make ends meet?

[The Prime Minister]

We are putting in childcare—look at the breakfast clubs; there are two in the right hon. Lady’s constituency. She is rather forgetting the £22 billion black hole that the Conservatives left, which we had to deal with. That is why we had to take the necessary but right measures that we did in the Budget. What is her response? It is not that she would reverse them—oh no, she does not say that. She attacks what we have done, but she does not say that she would reverse it, because she wants all the benefits of our Budget in terms of investment, but does not want to pay for it. That is how we got into the mess in the first place.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister is out of touch. He should know that nurseries are charging more than £2,000 for full-time care—that is £24,000 a year after tax—and he is talking about 60p breakfast clubs. He has no idea what people out there are experiencing.

It is not just families: even councils must pay the Prime Minister’s jobs tax. To cope with that, the average council tax bill is increasing by more than £100 in April, after he promised to freeze it. Hard-working families’ money is going to the Chancellor instead of to social care and fixing potholes. Why should these families pay more for less?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady really should not denigrate what I think she called “60p breakfast clubs”. She should be welcoming them. She asks about council tax. The Tories put up council tax every year for 12 years. Their Local Government Association manifesto says that Government should:

“Remove the caps on Council Tax”.

Hampshire county council, which is Tory, wanted a 15% increase, and we said no. Slough borough council, which, again, is Tory, wanted 3%, and we said no. Windsor and Maidenhead council, which was Tory and is now Lib Dem, wanted 25%, and we said no. We are the ones doing the right things to get this country on the right track.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The point is that the Prime Minister promised to freeze council taxes, and they are going up. If he wants to talk about councils, let us look at Liverpool, or maybe Birmingham, where the rubbish is piling up so high. People vote Labour, and all they get is trash—just like what he is saying at the Dispatch Box.

People all over the country are suffering, not just in Birmingham. Millions of elderly people have had their winter fuel payments snatched away. At the same time, care home fees are set to go up by a devastating £3,000 because of the Prime Minister’s jobs tax. How does he expect pensioners on a fixed income to make ends meet?

[The Prime Minister]

This is why it is so important that wages are up higher than prices. It is why it is so important that interest rates are coming down. This is the biggest boost for the cost of living for a very long time. What we are doing is picking up and fixing the mess that the Tories left.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister is not looking at what is happening out there. Every day, I speak to businesses that are telling us that they think they are going bust, and as if businesses and families did not have enough to worry about, supermarkets say that food prices will increase by over 4% because of the jobs tax. That is before we get to the immoral family farm tax on the very farmers who work so hard to produce our food. What does the Prime Minister have against farmers, anyway? Does he not see that his Budget is killing farming in this country, and that he is making life so much harder for everyone else?

[The Prime Minister]

The Budget provided £5 billion for farming over the next two years—that is a record amount. We have set out a road map for farming, which has been welcomed by farmers, and many thousands of farms have benefited from the farming schemes. The right hon. Lady talks about prices; wages are going up higher than prices. It is the first time in a long time that that has happened, so families across the country are better off under Labour.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister has got no answers today. What the farmers are complaining about is the sustainable farming incentive, which he has just scrapped, or withdrawn.

The Government are making mistakes with this Budget, which is why in two weeks, the Chancellor will come to this House to present an emergency Budget that the Prime Minister said we would not need. They will try to make out that it is because of global events, but the truth is that the Government trashed the economy with their bad choices. They said that they would look after pensioners, then they snatched away winter fuel payments. They said that they would be pro-business, but they hiked taxes on jobs, and the Prime Minister promised to freeze council tax, but it is going up by £100. This is a high-tax, low-growth, job-killing Government. Will he use the emergency Budget to fix the mess he has made?

[The Prime Minister]

Under the Tories, inflation was 11%, with a £22 billion black hole and a mini-Budget that made us the laughing stock of the world, and they want to give us lectures on the economy? No, thank you very much.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Q4. With one in eight young people across the country not in education, employment or training, people in Rugby are worried about a wasted generation. Too many people with disabilities and health conditions are not getting the help they need to get into work, so will the Prime Minister set out how this Government will give everyone who is able to work the support they need, provide compassion to those who cannot work, and fix the broken welfare system left behind by—you guessed it—the Conservatives?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I come from a family that dealt with disability through my mother and brother over many years, so I understand the concerns he has raised. We inherited a system that is broken. It is indefensible, economically and morally, and we must and will reform it. We will have clear principles: we will protect those who need protecting, and we will also support those who can work back to work. Labour is the party of work, and we are also the party of equality and fairness.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

I would like to begin by giving a shout-out for Young Carers Action Day, which is today, but I promise the House that I will not sing.

The Prime Minister has rightly spoken about the need to get more people into work—he has repeated that today—so that people have more dignity, we can get the economy going, and we can cut the benefits bill after the disgraceful legacy left by the Conservatives. Does the Prime Minister recognise that the best way to help many disabled people into work is to support them properly, through more special equipment, training, better healthcare and so on? Will he also today calm anxieties that he himself has raised for many of us by saying that disability benefits for people who simply cannot work will not be cut?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have just said, we will support those who need support, but help those who can work into work. Those will be the guiding principles. What we have inherited is shocking—[Interruption]—and those on the Opposition Benches ought to be silent. One in eight young people is not in education, work or training—that is a lost generation. That is the inheritance. [Interruption.] They have plenty to say now, but they did nothing for 14 years, and that was a terrible inheritance.

[Ed Davey]

Turning to international issues, can I congratulate the Prime Minister on helping to secure the restoration of US military and intelligence support for Ukraine? Can I press him on progress to persuade President Trump against the damaging metal tariffs that are already hitting British industry? The Prime Minister knows that we on the Lib Dem Benches believe that we must be more robust with President Trump, like the Europeans and the Canadians. Will the Prime Minister fly out to Canada as soon as possible to show its new Prime Minister and the Canadian people that Britain stands with its Commonwealth allies against Trump’s threats and Trump’s tariffs?

[The Prime Minister]

Canada is an ally, and a very important ally, too. I have spoken to our allies on many occasions about the situation in Canada. On the question of tariffs, like everybody else, I am disappointed to see global tariffs on steel and aluminium, but we will take a pragmatic approach. We are, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, negotiating an economic deal, which covers and will include tariffs, if we succeed, but we will keep all options on the table.

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

Lá Fhéile Pádraig shona daoibh agus Seachtain na Gaeilge daoibh. Deis lenár dteanga agus ár gcultúr a cheiliúradh ar fud an domhain. Happy St Patrick’s day, everybody, and happy Irish Language Week. It is an opportunity to use Irish language and celebrate Irish culture across the world.

It is an increasingly turbulent world, and relationships and norms have been turned upside-down over recent weeks, which is why I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach on re-establishing a warm and firm relationship at their summit last week. It is reassuring for all of us to know that whatever our constitutional future, that bond is lasting and refreshed. Will the Prime Minister join me in wishing a happy St Patrick’s day to all who value our shared bonds? May I take this opportunity to invite him, in August 2027, to Belfast, which was announced this week as the host of the Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann for the first time?

[The Prime Minister]

I join the hon. Lady in wishing everybody celebrating a very happy St Patrick’s day. She is right that we need a strong and settled relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland, and the need for that has never been greater. That is why I was delighted to host the Taoiseach in Liverpool last week at our first annual UK-Ireland summit. We have turned the page and started a new era in our relationship with Ireland. I would be happy to go to Belfast in 2027, but I want to go much sooner than that.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

Q3. In just 20 days’ time, new sentencing guidance will come into effect that the Justice Secretary has already conceded will be two-tier in its nature. It will mean that the colour of a person’s skin or their religion can mean that they are viewed with leniency in the eyes of the law. It will plunge public confidence in the judiciary into crisis, but it is avoidable. We Conservatives have tabled a Bill that, if backed on Friday, can stop this guidance in its tracks. Will the Prime Minister overrule his Justice Secretary, and confirm here and now that he will back that Bill, or will he simply step aside and prove that he has been two-tier Keir all along?

[The Prime Minister]

Everyone should be equal before the law, and that is why the Lord Chancellor has taken up the issue with the Sentencing Council, but the hon. Gentleman needs to do his homework. The proposal that he complains about was drafted in 2024, and the last Government were consulted. When they were consulted, what did they say? They said they welcomed the proposal. I understand that the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), is taking the Sentencing Council to court. Perhaps he should add himself as a second defendant, so that he can get to the bottom of all this.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

Q5.   I am proud to represent a constituency with eight synagogues, a thriving Jewish population and the United Kingdom’s largest Jewish cultural centre, JW3, but this week, I was horrified to read reports of rising antisemitism on NHS wards, and in particular about a shocking incident in which a Jewish NHS staff member was called a baby killer by a colleague. The NHS that I know and love is open to everyone, regardless of background. What is the Prime Minister doing to ensure that my Jewish constituents can safely use our beloved national health service?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the subject of those deeply concerning reports. It is completely unacceptable for anyone to experience racism, discrimination or prejudice in the health service, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary takes such reports extremely seriously, because it is a fundamental principle that the NHS provides care and treatment for everyone, regardless of race, faith or background.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

But it’s okay in the justice system?

[The Prime Minister]

This is a really serious issue. The hon. Gentleman has let himself down, and he knows it. I expect all trusts and healthcare providers to take necessary action against any staff who have expressed views that do not reflect the views and values of the NHS.

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

Q9. If he will make an assessment of the durability of UK-US relations.

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as the House knows, I am committed to strengthening those relations. The United States is an indispensable ally, and we are working together to try to secure a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. I have spoken to the President on a number of occasions, including this week.

[Dave Doogan]

I agree with those sentiments. This week’s ceasefire negotiations are a cause for great optimism, and I welcome the efforts of the Prime Minister’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, in leading on that priority. However, last week the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), that he had no knowledge of the United States’ planning to withdraw military aid from Ukraine, which the United States did the following day. It is against that backdrop that I ask the Prime Minister—because I know he wants a just and lasting peace in Ukraine that respects Ukraine’s borders and territorial integrity—what reassurance he can give the House that when he is impressing that priority on the President of the United States, the President is actually listening.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me give this reassurance. As soon as that step was taken, my team and I started work to try to ensure that we could return to a situation of full support for Ukraine. I will not detail everything that was involved over the last week, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that a huge amount of hard work, discussions and diplomacy was used with all our allies, and others, to ensure that we could get yesterday to go as well as we hoped it would. I am pleased that we made progress—I think that is very important for Ukraine—and I am extremely pleased that support has been put in, backed by the UK. So that is what I did once I understood what had happened. I am pleased with where we have got to, but, as ever, we must go further.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Q6. Disabled people in my constituency are frightened because they are again hearing politicians use the language of “tough choices”. They know from bitter experience that when politicians talk about tough choices, it means the easy option of making the poor and vulnerable pay. Instead of cutting benefits for disabled people, would not the moral thing—the courageous thing—to do be to make a real tough choice, and introduce a wealth tax on the very wealthiest people in our society?

[The Prime Minister]

The Conservative party left a broken welfare system that locks millions out of work, and that, in my view, is indefensible, economically and morally. Of course we must support people who need support; we must help those who want to work to get back into work, and I think there is a moral imperative in that. My hon. Friend talked about a wealth tax. We have raised money through the energy profits levy, taxing non-doms and air passenger duty on private jets, but this is not a bottomless pit, and we must kick-start growth to secure the economic stability that we need.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

Q13.   Most people would accept that we need more housing in this country, yet so often it is not accompanied by the necessary infrastructure. In my constituency, thousands of houses are proposed, yet without £250 million to upgrade junction 12 of the M5, the inspector is likely to rule our plan unsound. Will the Prime Minister use his upcoming Planning and Infrastructure Bill to see how developer and landowner contributions can more effectively build this vital infrastructure, which would benefit communities up and down the country?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right: we have to get the houses that we need built in his constituency and elsewhere—something that the Conservative party failed to do. That is why we have introduced the infrastructure Bill, which I think he welcomes. That Bill will get Britain building, so that we can deliver on those 1.5 million new homes through our plan for change. On the issue he raises, he and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) have been working together to try to resolve this issue, as I understand it, and I am happy to ensure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister, if that would help in taking it further.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

Q7.   May I commend this Labour Government’s landmark reforms to get Britain building through our plan for change? I look forward to working with Ministers to ensure that developers deliver what they promise to local residents, so that those in new homes have access to roads, GP surgeries and dentists, and do not create an extra burden for hospitals such as the William Harvey hospital in my Ashford constituency. What is the Prime Minister’s message to the blockers who are standing in the way of our building the homes and vital infrastructure that our country needs?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a dedicated campaigner for his constituents. We know who has been standing in the way for the past 14 years: the Conservatives, and they have learned absolutely nothing. The Leader of the Opposition claims that she has never opposed growth or development, but that is not what she is telling her constituents. Only last month, she wrote in her newsletter that she will

“keep working with Conservative colleagues”

to block a vital energy infrastructure project in her own backyard. She is not alone; the shadow Foreign Secretary, the shadow Defence Secretary, the shadow Environment Secretary—they are all at it. What a bunch of blockers!

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Q14. The Employment Rights Bill will grant union equality representatives the right to paid time off work. Will the Prime Minister grant special constables the right to take unpaid leave to perform their duties?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the question of special constables, who play a very important role in our communities in keeping us safe. The number of special constables dropped under the last Government. We support the existing employer-supported policing scheme, and we will support our special constables, but the number dropped under the last Government.

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

Q8.   I recently visited Middlesbrough’s James Cook university hospital, and learned of the brilliant work in the neurosciences department for the survivors of stroke, brain and spinal injuries, and many other conditions. It has only 18 rehabilitation beds to serve a population of some 1.4 million people, whereas the guidelines say it needs 80 beds, meaning that patients in the Tees valley do not get the rehabilitation they need. Will the Government remedy the position by ensuring that resources are allocated for meeting the ambition of developing a world-class neuro-rehabilitation centre, serving the Tees valley and beyond?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question; it is important to hear about the important work that the James Cook hospital is doing in his constituency. We are investing £350,000 in research on interventions that support people with functional neurological disorders, in order to rehabilitate them within the community. Of course, our plan for change invested £25 billion to cut waiting lists, speed up treatment and shift more care into the community. In relation to the hospital, I will make sure that he gets a meeting with the Minister to see what further can be done.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister look at the case of my constituents Mr and Mrs Adrian Fenton, who returned home from visiting France in their motorhome to discover an illegal immigrant concealed in the bike rack? They reported the matter immediately to the police, only to receive a fine of £1,500 from Border Force. Does he agree that my constituents ought to be thanked, rather than punished, and does he accept that this action will deter anybody from acting responsibly in the future?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for raising this important case on behalf of his constituents. I have seen some of the details, and I am concerned about it. I do think it is important, as he says, that the Home Office look into it, and therefore we will do so. I will ensure that he is updated in relation to that in due course.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Q10.   Veterans in Sefton, one of the many remarkable charities in my constituency, states that“Statistics can only partly measure the price paid by…servicemen and women. Incidences of broken marriages, suicides, alcoholism, deep depression, and homelessness among veterans remain largely unquantified.”Given that, will my right hon. Friend restate Labour’s commitment to providing our veterans with the holistic support they need and deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

We owe an extraordinary debt to our veterans. We are committed to renewing the nation’s contract with those who have served, and that includes the guarantees of homes for heroes for those who have served, dedicated mental and physical healthcare pathways in the NHS and dedicated support to help those leaving service using their skills to find new and fulfilling careers.

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

Yesterday, with no notice, DEFRA closed sustainable farming incentive applications, leaving thousands of farmers who want to deliver public goods waiting for a year without support. Can the Prime Minister assure British farmers that they will not be left stranded and unable to support environmental and food resilience goals due to lack of Government support?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Member knows, the SFI schemes have operated to provide quite considerable support so far. There have been a number of schemes: they have closed and then a new scheme has been put in place. In 2022 and 2023, the Conservatives closed them without the six weeks’ notice. But we do support farmers and we will be putting forward more details at the spending review. The difference in this Government is that we are funding the farmers, whereas the Conservatives failed to spend part of the budget.

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)]

Q11. In October 2023 in an interview with LBC, the Prime Minister said:“I think Israel does have that right”,when asked whether cutting off power and water to Gaza was appropriate. For 11 days now, Israel has blocked the entry of vital goods and aid into Gaza, subjecting over 2 million people to collective punishment and starvation. Israel’s decision to cut off electricity to a plant supplying drinking water to half a million people is yet another blatant violation of international law, and further evidence of genocide against the Palestinian people. In the light of these facts, does the Prime Minister still maintain that Israel is not committing genocide?

[The Prime Minister]

I am really appalled by Israel blocking aid when it is needed at greater volume and speed than it has ever been needed. Blocking goods, supplies and power entering Gaza risks breaching international humanitarian law and it should not be happening, and we are doing everything we can to alleviate that situation.

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

In his extremely important upcoming discussions with other nations about Ukraine, will the Prime Minister focus on the fact that it was standard Russian procedure to take over other countries by having bogus elections and installing puppet Governments? Will he therefore impress on other colleagues the need to be very wary of calls to hold elections in Ukraine during a wartime situation, which could result in the subversion and takeover by Russia of the entire country?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for raising a really important point. The track record is there for all to see. On top of that, we in this country did not hold elections when we were at war. That is a perfectly reasonable and normal course of behaviour. That must be part of our discussions as we go forward, including the meeting that I am convening on Saturday.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

Q12.   South Dorset is ready to play its part in making Britain a clean energy superpower, but after 14 years of Conservative failure, there are many untapped opportunities on our doorstep. Green investment opportunities such as Portwind, Morwind and a hydrogen storage hub are all coming down the track, so can the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that the Government will work with the Crown court on these projects, invest in key infrastructure and ensure that South Dorset’s green energy potential is hardwired into our plan for change?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about making Britain a clean energy superpower. We are committing £2.3 billion to support hydrogen projects, and I recognise the huge potential of South Dorset to become home to a storage hub. We are ensuring that public and private investment work together, which is exactly what the Crown Estate Act 2025 does, unlocking significant investment, boosting offshore wind and kickstarting economic growth.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

As the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned, the Prime Minister will meet today the family of our dear late colleague, Sir David Amess, who was so brutally murdered at his constituency surgery three and a half years ago. I plead with the Prime Minister to reverse the decision to deny the family a public inquiry, despite similar inquiries being held into other tragic instances. Will he please stop this shameful saga and heed the call from the Amess family—a heartbroken family—for a judge-led public inquiry into David’s death and the related failure of the Prevent programme?

[The Prime Minister]

May I acknowledge just how heartbroken they are? It is difficult to imagine what they have gone through and what they continue to go through. That is why it is very important that I meet them this afternoon, which I will, to discuss all the questions they want to raise with me. Sir David was a colleague respected and loved across the House. As I say, I absolutely understand how his family must feel about the tragic circumstances in which he died and everything that followed thereafter.

[Mr Speaker]

Final question.

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

Tomorrow marks 29 years since 16 children and their teacher were murdered at Dunblane primary school. In recent weeks, my constituents have raised with me the alarming fact that adverts offering handguns for sale are appearing on technology platforms such as Google and YouTube. Does the Prime Minister agree that technology companies have an obligation to all of us to do everything proactively possible to prevent such illegal advertising, and not to rely on a reactive, “We will remove it when it is reported,” approach, which is simply not good enough?

[The Prime Minister]

The thoughts, I am sure, of the whole House are with the victims of the Dunblane massacre, 29 years after the tragic event. The Online Safety Act 2023 will require online services to proactively remove such content from their platforms and prevent it appearing there in the first place. Those duties fully take effect from Monday and then we will ensure that all companies meet their obligations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Satvir Kaur (Southampton Test) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 March.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Tomorrow marks 13 years since six young British soldiers were on patrol in Afghanistan when their vehicle was struck by an explosive, tragically killing them all. Sergeant Nigel Coupe was 33, Corporal Jake Hartley was 20, Private Anthony Frampton was 20, Private Daniel Wade was 20, Private Daniel Wilford was 21, and Private Christopher Kershaw was just 19, a teenager. Tomorrow also marks the 18th anniversary of the death of Benjamin Reddy, a 22-year-old serving with 42 Commando Royal Marines, who was killed in Helmand Province in 2007. These men fought and died for their country—our country. Across the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, 642 individuals died fighting for Britain alongside our allies. Many more were wounded. We will never forget their bravery and their sacrifice. I know that the whole House will join with me in remembering them and all those who serve our country. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

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.

[Satvir Kaur]

The Prime Minister has rightly made growth his key mission, but can he outline for my constituents in Southampton Test how our Employment Rights Bill will not only deliver improvements for them, but put more money in their pockets as part of our plan for change?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is doing a fantastic job for her constituents. The Employment Rights Bill is the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation and will benefit more than 10 million workers in every corner of the country. It will tackle low pay, poor conditions and poor job security that hold our country back. It is pro-worker, pro-business and pro-growth.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Divisions between Ukraine and the US only serve Vladimir Putin. President Zelensky is right to try to rebuild his relationship with President Trump. He is keeping a cool head under very difficult circumstances, and I was glad to see President Trump receive his letter positively. What is the Prime Minister doing to help rebuild their relationship after a challenging week?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Member is absolutely right: we need to do everything we can to ensure that the US, Europe and Ukraine are working together on lasting peace. I am doing everything that I can to play my part in that, and I am in regular contact with all of the key players at the moment, including talking to President Zelensky yesterday afternoon.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. All of us in this House know that the British armed forces are a huge source of pride to our country. They put themselves in harm’s way to defend our values. As the Opposition, we support efforts to resolve the conflict, but we cannot write a blank cheque. If British peacekeeping troops in Ukraine were attacked—whether directly or via proxies—we could be drawn into conflict with Russia. Can the Prime Minister reassure all those who are concerned about the UK being drawn into war?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes; that is the last thing anybody wants to see. The whole point of ensuring that there is a lasting peace, and that any deal—if there is a deal—is defended, is to avoid conflict so that we do have peace. The way to ensure that we have peace is to ensure that there are guarantees for any deal that is in place, because the surest risk that there will be conflict is if Putin thinks that he can breach any deal that may be arrived at.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister is quite right, and we on the Opposition side of the House agree with him. The objective for his visit to Washington was to get that US security guarantee for Ukraine, and I commend his efforts in that very difficult task. None the less, on Monday the United States withdrew military aid for Ukraine. Can he update the House on the steps he is taking to persuade America that it is also in its national interest to provide a security guarantee?

[The Prime Minister]

I am pleased to inform the House that on Thursday of last week we did discuss security guarantees. The President made absolutely clear his commitment to article 5 of NATO, made absolutely clear that he would have our backs because of the relationship between our parties, and agreed that our teams would sit down together to talk through security guarantees. I have spoken to him, I think, three times since then on the telephone, because it is vitally important that we work with the US, with Europe and with Ukraine and ensure that if there is a deal, it has proper security guarantees in place.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I know that the Prime Minister is unable to comment on specific intelligence matters, and I am certainly not asking him to do that. However, there are concerning reports that the United States has instructed Britain to suspend intelligence sharing with Ukraine, and there are other reports that Five Eyes itself may be at risk. We need to ensure that America does not disengage. There are some in the House who argue that Europe should go it alone, but does he agree with me that without this country’s greatest ally, any peace agreement would place a terrible burden on Britain and our taxpayers?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree wholeheartedly. That is why, as in the debate we had just two days ago, I have always been clear that we need to ensure that the US, the UK, Europe and Ukraine are working together, but we must not choose between the US and Europe; we never have historically, and we are not going to do so now.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I thank the Prime Minister for his comments on that. He will know that it is not just the security situation that worries people; they are also concerned about trade wars and the economic impact of tariffs such as those levelled on Canada and Mexico yesterday. The best way to avoid America putting tariffs on Britain is to reach agreement on a trade deal. Following the Prime Minister’s trip to Washington, have talks on a UK-US trade deal begun?

[The Prime Minister]

I was pleased that in the meeting last week we did discuss an economic deal and agreed that our teams would indeed sit down rapidly to talk through a deal. That is what they are doing. As the right hon. Lady rightly says, that is far better than getting drawn into conflict in relation to tariffs.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I am glad that the Prime Minister has confirmed that those talks have started. People across our country are worried—worried about national security; worried about whether we can equip our military fast enough; and worried about whether we will deploy troops in Ukraine, and whether we will be able to keep the peace. They are also worried about our economic security—can we afford all this?

The world is changing fast and we need an entirely new approach to our economy and our energy security. The Budget last year halted growth with higher taxes and higher borrowing. Yesterday, farmers were protesting in Whitehall again. People are hurting. Will the Prime Minister now change course so we can have the economic security that we know we need for our national security?

[The Prime Minister]

We were doing so well. [Laughter.] What we inherited was insecurity in our economy. We inherited a £22 billion black hole, and we have now turned that around. We have got the highest investment coming into our economy. We have got wages higher than prices, and interest rates have been cut three times. That is the difference between stability with Labour and instability with the Conservative party.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

Q2. I commend the Prime Minister for the decisive leadership that he has shown in Europe and at home to bolster our collective security. The £13.4 billion increase in defence spending has been very much welcomed in my constituency. Will the Prime Minister outline how that increase in defence spending will boost jobs and growth in places such as Stevenage, and will he join me in visiting some of my constituency’s businesses?

[The Prime Minister]

Our plan for change is built on national security and that has to go hand in hand with economic security. As we return to 2.5% for the first time since the last Labour Government, that investment must mean UK skills, UK jobs and UK apprenticeships. I was very pleased that on Monday we were able to announce a new hub and new spending targets to help 12,000 small and medium-sized enterprises access the supply chain, which will boost economic growth. That will be really important in so many constituencies—and of course I will consider my hon. Friend’s invitation.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

Yesterday I visited Kingston’s Army Reserve centre and met members of the Royal Army Medical Service who had served bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s initial remarks.

On Monday the Prime Minister rightly said that a minerals deal only was not a sufficient security guarantee for Ukraine. The Trump Administration has since said that a minerals deal is the only guarantee on the table, and President Trump has removed military aid from Ukraine and said that the British cannot share American intelligence with Kyiv. Both those decisions mean that more brave Ukrainians will die, while further emboldening Vladimir Putin. Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he still believes that President Trump is a reliable ally? If Ukraine does not get a sufficient security guarantee from the White House, what is the Prime Minister’s plan B?

[The Prime Minister]

We work very closely with the United States on defence, security and intelligence, as we have done for many, many years; we are intertwined, and of course they are a reliable ally. We are operating on that basis day in, day out across the world, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.

In relation to the situation as it develops, obviously our only focus is on a lasting peace in Ukraine. There are many moving parts and there are many discussions to be had. What I am doing is staying focused on what I think is the single most important outcome: a lasting peace in Ukraine, which is good for Ukraine and for Europe and, of course, essential for the United Kingdom.

[Ed Davey]

The Prime Minister knows that we all support him in that effort, but may I take him back to President Trump’s reliability? Four British women have accused Andrew Tate of rape and human trafficking. British police have issued arrest warrants. The Tates have tried to escape justice, first to Romania and now to the United States. I am delighted that Florida has, thankfully, opened a criminal investigation. Does the Prime Minister agree that people who are wanted by British police for such appalling crimes should stand trial in our country? Given his assessment that President Trump really is a reliable ally, will his Government request an urgent extradition of the Tate brothers?

[The Prime Minister]

This is a live issue, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, and therefore I will tread carefully. The principle is absolutely clear: justice must be done in all cases, including in this case. But I will not go into the details because this is a live case, as he knows.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

Q6. I am supporting many parents in Exeter who are struggling to get the support they need for their children within the special educational needs and disabilities system run by Devon county council. One parent told me that their child was excelling, but after undergoing major surgery she needed additional support to get back into a mainstream school setting. That has not been possible due to the disarray of the SEND system in Devon and that child is now missing out. I welcome the new money going to the system. Will the Prime Minister provide an update on Government work that will also reform the SEND system, to ensure that every child in Exeter has the best start in life?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this familiar topic. We inherited a SEND system that failed to meet the needs of children and families. That is why we are investing £1 billion in SEND, alongside £740 million for councils to improve inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools and to ensure that special schools can cater for children with the most complex needs. We are working closely with partners in Devon to deliver an accelerated progress plan and we have deployed SEND advisers to offer support to the local authority.

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

By cosying up to Putin, Trump is making Europe less safe. We all recognise the need for Europe to adapt. Germany is changing its fiscal rules to boost investment in defence and infrastructure and creating a €500 billion fund to strengthen its future. Will the Prime Minister please consider a similar approach, focusing on strategic investment rather than imposing further hardship on the poorest through cuts to welfare and international aid?

[The Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Lady knows, it is important that, if we are to increase defence spending as we are, and to have that fully costed and fully funded, we need to put that plan before the House, which is what I did last week. She talks about fiscal rules and funding, but I have to say that it was highly regrettable that Plaid Cymru voted against £1.6 billion to fund public services in Wales. She needs to explain how that helps her constituents and the people of Wales.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Q7. This year marks 40 years since the Swann report exposed systemic racism and discrimination in the education system. Regrettably, none of its recommendations was recommended. One of the most damning injustices in the report was the misclassification of mainly black children as educationally subnormal, as identified in Steve McQueen’s BBC documentary. Given the historic nature of this and the impact it had on so many, will the Prime Minister consider a public inquiry to provide justice and recompense for those who have been affected?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this really important issue. All children and young people must be treated fairly, and there is no place for hate or prejudice in our education system. I will ensure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss this further.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Q3. This week President Trump has ended military aid to Ukraine, reportedly banned the UK from sharing US intelligence with Ukraine and is now seeking to lift sanctions on Russia to appease Vladimir Putin, a murderous lying dictator. Regrettably, it is clear that, for now, the US can no longer be relied upon for security and peace in Europe, so will the Prime Minister provide leadership to our allies by urgently making the decision to be the first leader to release seized Russian state assets to Ukraine under the established principle of international law, so that Putin must pay, as the aggressor?

[The Prime Minister]

On the question of assets, we are using the interest on the assets to help fund Ukraine and we are looking, with others, at whether it is possible to go further. Obviously, I will update the House if that is possible. But I have to say that, at a time when defence and security in Europe and the UK must be ramped up for all the reasons that the hon. Gentleman readily understands, the SNP maintaining its position of wanting to get rid of the single most effective deterrent that we have—the nuclear deterrent—really has to be explained in its historical context.

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

Q10. Labour is rolling out free breakfast clubs in primary schools, starting with 750 schools including Scapegoat Hill junior and infant school in my constituency. Under the Tories, only one in 10 schools had these clubs. Labour will make them available for all children. That will help to break down barriers to opportunity for every child. I know that the Prime Minister is as determined as I am to tear away the link between background and success, so will he update the House on how we will do that through Labour’s plan for change?

[The Prime Minister]

Labour promised free breakfast clubs in every primary school, and the first 750 will open in April, giving every child the best start in life through our plan for change. It will also put up to £450 a year back in the pockets of working families. I am delighted to say that two of the breakfast clubs will be opening in the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition in April, and I hope she will welcome them when they do.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridge-shire) (LD)]

Q5. On Monday, the Prime Minister talked about creating defence jobs across the country as we rebuild our defence industrial capacity. Will he and the Government bring forward an urgent plan for skills in the defence sector, and does he agree with his Education Secretary that the strategy for defence skills should sit purely under the Department for Education, and not an under-powered Executive agency?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue, because it is a duty to increase our spending on defence and security, but it also provides an opportunity for jobs across the country—good jobs, well-paid jobs, skilled jobs, as he rightly identifies, and jobs with a real sense of pride, and we are working on that.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Q15. My lovely grandad John Henry Richardson passed away in 1998 from work-related asbestos exposure. Today, in South Shields, we have one of the highest death rates from this silent killer in the United Kingdom. Will the Prime Minister look at introducing a national digital register so that we know where the asbestos is, and commit to a phased removal of it from public buildings?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that I am very sorry to hear what happened to my hon. Friend’s grandfather. These are just awful cases, and the deaths are terrible. I have no doubt that he was a wonderful man, and he would have been very proud to have seen her in her place today. I will ensure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Q8. St Hilda’s girls school looks set to join Immanuel Jewish prep as the second school in Bushey alone forced to close because of Labour’s VAT hike. That is a double hit to aspirations—first, to those of the parents, many of whom are not wealthy and who have described the significant sacrifices they have made to send their children to these schools; and secondly, it affects the excellent local state schools, including the one that I attended, which simply do not have the places, meaning that this policy will not even save money. May I therefore urge the Prime Minister, even at this late stage, to look again at the failures of this policy?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not doubt the aspirations of all parents for their children. What we have been able to do is ensure that we release the funding to ensure that our state secondary schools have the teachers they need. There is no point the Conservatives pretending that they are interested in state education when they left them without the teachers they needed.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

That is a lie!

--- Later in debate ---

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

Forty-eight children that we know of have been killed by known domestically abusive parents during court-permitted contact visits, including Paul and Jack Sykes, who were tragically murdered at the hands of their father in a house fire. Their mother, and my constituent, Claire Throssell has campaigned against the presumption of contact, which allows such abusers to have unsupervised contact with their children. Will the Prime Minister meet Claire and me to discuss the urgent need to remove the presumption of contact in law?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), who have both raised this critical issue. I particularly pay tribute to Claire. Her courage and strength are outstanding. Family courts must never be a tool that domestic abusers can use to continue their appalling abuse. We are expanding a number of Pathfinder courts to protect the welfare of children and are reviewing the presumption of involvement that she raises.

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

Q9. Daniel Coffey from Cullompton lost his life while serving in Iraq. His grandfather said yesterday that Vice-President J.D. Vance“should have a lot more respect for those who lost their lives”in response to Vance’s comment about“some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years”.Will the PM gently remind the US Government that the UK was there for the US following the 9/11 attacks when Lord Robertson invoked article 5, we were there for the US for the intervention in Iraq, and that they might remember our long-standing friendship when we think about security guarantees for Ukraine?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that—I know that he speaks for the whole House. We remember the role that we have played historically with our allies, and we remember in particular those who made the ultimate sacrifice in that duty for their country and for our allies. That is why it is so important that we make that point today.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Meur ras ha gool Peran lowen—happy St Piran’s day—to the hundreds of thousands of people in Cornwall and around the world who are celebrating it today. Will the Prime Minister confirm our Government’s commitment to national minority status for Cornwall, and will he join me in wishing Cornish folk the world over a very happy St Piran’s day?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, let me wish my hon. Friend, his constituents and everyone in Cornwall a very happy St Piran’s day. We do recognise Cornish national minority status—not just the proud language, history and culture of Cornwall, but its bright future. I know that he and Cornish colleagues will continue to be powerful voices for Cornwall.

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

Q11. Four weeks ago, the Northern Ireland coroner accused British soldiers of unlawful killing after they engaged with IRA would-be murderers. After careful reading, as far as I can see, that judgment was based on no evidence whatsoever. More than 100 special forces soldiers have been summoned before those inquiries; not one IRA leader has been summoned in the same way. Soldiers who serve our country with honour, heroism and skill are being punished in their declining years for doing nothing but carrying out their patriotic duty in the face of enormous risks. Given how the Prime Minister opened his comments, with which I associate myself, does he not think that he and his Government have a duty to protect those soldiers from such partisan parodies of justice in their declining years?

[The Prime Minister]

On the coroner’s ruling, I have not seen the details, I am afraid, so I cannot comment. On the broader point, it is right that we should protect those who serve our country, wherever they serve our country—getting the balance right is critical. I did not think that the legislation put forward by the Conservative Government achieved that, but I believe none the less that, in the interests of everybody in Northern Ireland, of all those who served and all those who are victims, we need to renew our efforts to find a way forward on this important issue.

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

My constituents in Hastings, Rye and the villages are fed up with the constant failures of Southern Water: dumping sewage in our sea, flooding, and leaving us without water for days—all while taking huge bonuses. We on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have been hauling in the water bosses one by one and hearing about their failures. The boss of Southern Water finally agreed to give my constituents millions in compensation for a major water outage. Will the Prime Minister tell me how the Labour Government are cracking down on the bad behaviour of the water industry?

[The Prime Minister]

I applaud my hon. Friend for her dedicated work on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and in her constituency. Last week, our Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 became law. It gives new powers to ban the payment of bonuses for polluting water bosses and bring criminal charges against lawbreakers. We are determined to fix our broken water system after years of companies pumping sewage into our waterways and infrastructure not keeping pace with demand.

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

Q12. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for his efforts to bring Europe together to ensure that we work to restore peace in Ukraine. The war in Ukraine has also demonstrated the need for greater food security and stronger supply chains, but if the Government force our farmers to sell their land because of the divisive family farm tax, they will undermine that. Ahead of the spring statement, will he think that policy through again and seek to end it? National security needs food security, farming and farmers.

[The Prime Minister]

We put a record amount into farming in the Budget—£5 billion. We have set out our road map for farming, which has been welcomed by the National Farmers Union. As the right hon. Lady knows, the vast majority of farms will not be affected by the provisions that we are putting in place.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

For months, my constituents in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme have been telling me how fed up they are with not being able to get an appointment because of the 8 am scramble. The last thing they need when they are ill is to have to pick up the phone and wait, and fight again to be first. It is great news that the Government’s new GP contract will start to resolve that, but can the Prime Minister reassure my constituents who cannot use technology that they will still be able to book an appointment?

[The Prime Minister]

Last week, for the first time in four years, the British Medical Association agreed the GP contract with the Government, worth an extra £889 million. Patients will be able to request appointments online from October, but I absolutely reassure my hon. Friend and others that that will free up the phones for those who need them most, and help end the 8 am scramble.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)]

Q13. Under his Labour Government, does the Prime Minister believe that the UK’s estimated 3 million millionaires should contribute more to our vital national security, or is it just the world’s poorest, by no longer benefiting from our international aid programmes, or the shameful almost 6 million children living in poverty in this country who should pay for it? What happened to the wealth tax, Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

I think all should, and all do, make a contribution at this vital time.

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

These are delicate moments for the country, and the Prime Minister has led with British values, moral courage and decency, as a true statesman, and with skilled and careful diplomacy. All elected politicians in this House must appreciate that everything we say could impact that diplomacy, so does the Prime Minister agree that a united House could help us to achieve a lasting peace?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me broaden out my hon. Friend’s words to the whole House, because it is hugely to the credit of this House that it is speaking loudly, in a united way and with one voice in the face of Russian aggression. That is why we must have lasting peace based on the sovereignty and security of Ukraine, but it certainly helps all those observing across the world to see this House speaking powerfully and with one voice, united across these Benches. I am pleased that we are able to continue in that way.

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

Q14. The Scottish fishing industry, by volume and value, is the biggest in these islands, and in my constituency the port towns of Peterhead and Fraserburgh represent a large share of that industry in terms of landed catch and processing. I am sure that the Prime Minister enjoys the occasional fish supper, so does he agree that the interests and future of that industry must be secured and enhanced, as the Government pursue economic growth and reset their relationship with the European Union, especially through the forthcoming trade and co-operation agreement negotiations, so that the jobs of people who work in that sector can never be made expendable for the sake of some other interest?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I recognise the huge and historic importance of the fishing industry in his constituency, and others, and I am determined to make the sector more secure, sustainable and economically successful. We have already secured over 720,000 tonnes of fishing quota for the year, worth up to £920 million, including through agreements with the EU and Norway. We also want to tackle the problems of labour shortages, which he will be familiar with. I am pleased that his constituents in Peterhead will benefit from £20 million under our plan for neighbourhoods, and we will do everything we can in relation to that issue.

[Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)]

Medway Maritime hospital in my constituency of Gillingham and Rainham has today received a concerning Care Quality Commission report, following an inspection of the emergency department in February last year. Testimonies include patients having to wait up to 50 hours to be seen, and others being told to soil themselves because staff were not available to take them to the bathroom. Will the Prime Minister please outline what this Government will do urgently to tackle the crisis in our NHS, after 14 years of Tory mismanagement?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this case. Her constituents deserve the highest standard of care. The Conservatives left the NHS in dire straits. We are investing £26 billion and our reform plan will cut waiting lists. I am really pleased to say that waiting lists are down and we have delivered over 2 million extra appointments to get the NHS back on its feet.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Marriage between first cousins carries significant health issues for their children, many of which are not knowable until post-birth. When practised generation after generation, there is a significant multiplier effect. In addition, the real impacts on the openness of our society and women’s rights in our country are significant. After all, there are significant dynamics in sharing the same set of grandparents. On Friday, this Government have the choice to let my Bill to ban first cousin marriage go through to Committee stage. Will the Prime Minister think again before instructing his Whips to block this legislation?

[The Prime Minister]

Mr Speaker, we have taken our position on that Bill.

Ukraine

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Less than a week since I called on this House to show the courage of our predecessors, we see clearly before us the test of our times, a crossroads in our history. With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on my efforts to secure a strong, just and lasting peace following Russia’s vile invasion of Ukraine.

It begins in this House, where on Tuesday I announced the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war—a recognition of the fact that, once again, we live in an era where peace in Europe depends upon strength and deterrence, but also a rediscovery of the old post-war argument, long held on these Benches, that economic security is national security. Because the demands we now have to make of Britain must come alongside a new foundation of security for working people.

The tough choices that we made last week are not done. We must use the process of getting to 3% of our national income spent on defence to fundamentally rebuild British industry, and use our investment in military spending to create new jobs and apprenticeships in every part of the country. That is why last night I announced a deal that perfectly symbolises the new era: a partnership with Ukraine that allows them to use £1.6 billion of UK Export Finance to buy 5,000 air defence missiles, manufactured in Belfast. That means UK jobs, UK skills and UK finance pulling together for our national interest, putting Ukraine in the strongest possible position for peace, and protecting innocent civilians from the terror of Russian drones.

My efforts continued on Thursday, when I met President Trump in the White House to strengthen our relationship with America. Now, what happened in his subsequent meeting with President Zelensky is something nobody in this House wants to see. But I do want to be crystal clear: we must strengthen our relationship with America. For our security, for our technology and for our trade and investment, they are and always will be indispensable. And we will never choose between either side of the Atlantic—in fact, if anything, the past week has shown that that idea is totally unserious. While some people may enjoy the simplicity of taking a side, this week has shown with total clarity that the US is vital in securing the peace we all want to see in Ukraine.

I welcome the opportunity for a new economic deal with the US, confirmed by the President last week, because it is an opportunity that I am determined to pursue. I welcome the positive discussions that we had on European security, including his clear support for article 5 of NATO. I welcome the understanding, from our dialogue, that our two nations will work together on security arrangements for a lasting peace in Ukraine. I also welcome the President’s continued commitment to that peace, which nobody in this House should doubt for a second is sincere.

I now turn to the events of this weekend and the moving scenes that greeted President Zelensky as he arrived in London on Saturday. I saw for myself that he was taken aback when the crowd in Whitehall cheered at the top of their voices. They were speaking for the whole of our country—a reminder that this Government, this House and this nation stand in unwavering support behind him and the people of Ukraine. We resolved together to move forward the strong cause of a just and lasting peace in Ukraine.

Then on Sunday I hosted European leaders from across our continent, equally committed to this cause, including President Macron, Prime Minister Meloni, the leaders of NATO, of the European Commission and of the European Council, and the Prime Minister of Canada—a vital ally of this country, the Commonwealth and Ukraine, responsible for training over 40,000 Ukrainian troops. I also had the privilege beforehand of speaking online to the leaders of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, each of whom, close as they are to the frontline with Russia, stressed the urgency of the moment.

It was a productive summit. Together, we agreed a clear strategy: that the United Kingdom, France and our allies will work closely with Ukraine on a plan to stop the fighting, which we will then discuss directly with the United States. It is a plan with four clear principles, which I will now share in full with the House. First, we must keep the military aid to Ukraine flowing and keep increasing the economic pressure on Russia. To that end, alongside our partnership on air defence, we are doubling down on military aid. Already this year, we have taken our support to record levels. On Saturday, we also agreed a new £2.2 billion loan for Ukraine, backed not by the British taxpayer but by the profits from frozen Russian assets. Second, we agreed that any lasting peace must guarantee the sovereignty and security of Ukraine, and that Ukraine must be at the table when negotiating their future—that is absolutely vital. Third, we agreed that in the event of a peace deal we will continue to boost Ukraine’s defences and Ukraine’s deterrence. Finally, fourth: we agreed to develop a coalition of the willing, ready to defend a deal in Ukraine and guarantee the peace.

After all, the Ukrainian position is completely understandable. For them, the war did not begin three years ago; that was merely the latest and most brutal escalation. They have signed agreements with Putin before. They have experienced the nature of his diplomacy and the calibre of his word. We cannot accept a weak deal like Minsk again. No, we must proceed with strength, and that does now require urgently a coalition of the willing. We agreed on Sunday that those willing to play a role in this will intensify planning now, and, as this House would expect, Britain will play a leading role—with, if necessary, and together with others, boots on the ground and planes in the air. It is right that Europe does the heavy lifting to support peace on our continent, but to succeed this effort must also have strong US backing.

I want to assure the House that I take none of this lightly. I have visited British troops in Estonia, and no aspect of my role weighs more heavily than the deployment of British troops in the service of defence and security in Europe. Yet I do feel very strongly that the future of Ukraine is vital for our national security. Russia is a menace in our waters and skies. They have launched cyber-attacks on our NHS and made assassination attempts in our streets. In this House, we stand by Ukraine because it is the right thing to do, but we also stand by them because it is in our interests to do so. If we do not achieve a lasting peace, the instability and insecurity that has hit the living standards of working people in Britain will only get worse and Putin’s appetite for conflict and chaos will only grow.

A strong peace, a just peace and a lasting peace: that has now to be our goal. It is vital, it is in our interests and in its pursuit Britain will lead from the front. For the security of our continent, the security of our country and the security of the British people, we must now win the peace. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, and for our conversation earlier today. The United Kingdom is a free, democratic and sovereign country. We recognise that Ukraine is fighting for her survival and fighting to have the same freedom, democracy and sovereignty that all of us here enjoy. That is why both the Opposition and the Government are fully committed to supporting Ukraine and President Zelensky. I was also glad to see His Majesty the King welcome President Zelensky at Sandringham. As I said at the weekend, President Zelensky is a hero. He is a symbol of the bravery of the Ukrainian people.

There are of course many areas where the Prime Minister and I disagree, but now is the time for us to discuss where we do agree. I welcome all his actions this weekend to convene European leaders, as well as the focus on economic security, using UK Export Finance to support British jobs.

As the Prime Minister knows, we welcome the uplift in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, and we support the use of foreign aid to achieve that. We welcome a commitment to reach 3% in the years ahead, and we will support him in taking difficult spending decisions, including on welfare. We will return to the details of how the Government will fund this in the near future, but for now it is right that the Prime Minister is working with allies in Europe and with the United States to bring peace to Ukraine, and not a surrender to Russia.

As part of that, the Prime Minister has suggested that British troops could be deployed in Ukraine. There are obviously a range of possible options for what such a deployment could look like, and we are keen to work with the Government, but we will need details of any such plan. This will be a difficult but significant step. I know many in Parliament, and across our country, will be interested in what this entails, and I ask him to work with us so there can be effective scrutiny. I also welcome the coalition of the willing to support Ukraine and agree that Europe must do the heavy lifting. Will the Prime Minister update us on what European and other allies are willing to offer towards this coalition?

I welcome the use of the proceeds from frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. Does the Prime Minister have plans to go further and use the frozen assets themselves? Will he provide an update on the Government’s sanctions on Russian-linked individuals and confirmation that such sanctions would not be lifted in the event of a ceasefire? Will he update us on the steps that he and other allies are taking to ensure that Ukraine is at the negotiating table for any peace plan? What does he think can be done to heal the rift with Washington?

As the Prime Minister referenced in his speech, the Minsk agreements of 2015 failed to stop Russian aggression and ultimately did not return Ukraine’s territorial integrity. His second principle is that any lasting peace guarantees the sovereignty of Ukraine, so how will the Prime Minister work to ensure we avoid a repeat of the Minsk agreements? How can we ensure that any peace fully protects Ukrainian sovereignty?

At times like these, it is so important that we stand together to defend shared values and the fundamental basic principle that aggressors should not win. The Prime Minister will have our support to do that and to ensure that we continue to uphold the values that all of us in this Parliament hold dear.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her message and for our discussion this morning, and I thank her for her support for the measures that we are taking. It matters across this House that we are united on this issue, It matters to the Ukrainians and to President Zelensky. I can tell the right hon. Lady that he was moved by the reception that he got in our country on Saturday, and I felt very proud to be British on Saturday when our country spoke with one voice. The right hon. Lady reflects that through the unity that has been shown from Members from across the House, and I thank for that.

The right hon. Lady asks about the details of any deployment. We will, of course, put details before the House when we get to that stage—if we get to that stage. As I mentioned in our phone call this morning, I will ensure she gets whatever briefings she needs to be able to look at the detail before it is put before the House, so she is fully informed.

On the question of other allies, we had a long meeting yesterday with a number of allies. My strong view is that we have to move forward and lead from the front, and therefore we need a coalition of the willing. Otherwise, we will move at the speed of the most reluctant, which will be too slow. A number of countries and allies indicated their support; they will set that out in due course. I will not pretend that every country is in the same place on this issue. That is why I and others took the view that we should take a leading position and move forward, but I will give further details as they become available.

On the question of the frozen assets, the proceeds—the profits—are being used in the way that the House understands, in accordance with the statement I have just made. On using the assets themselves, it is a very complicated issue and not straightforward, but we need to do, and we are doing, more work to look at the possibilities, along with other countries, but I am not going to pretend that that is simple or straightforward.

On the sanctions, we introduced last week the heaviest sanctions that we have put in place, and the right hon. Lady is quite right that they must not be lifted just because there is a cessation in the fighting. They must be kept in place as a vital part of our armoury—something that did not happen with Minsk. She is quite right to say that we have to avoid the mistakes of the past, which is why a security guarantee is so important—a guarantee that we should lead, but which needs US backing if it is to act as a proper guarantee. Of course she is right to say that Ukraine must be at the table in any discussions about the future of Ukraine, and I think that is a common position across the House.

--- Later in debate ---

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

We all watched with alarm and distress the scenes from the White House on Friday, but equally, across the country, we were extremely grateful that we had a Prime Minister who had such a pitch-perfect response at the weekend. As he works towards a just peace for Ukraine, he has the support of the whole country in doing so.

Here is the question. The Prime Minister said on “Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg” that following the cuts to the aid budget, he would go through line by line to ensure that the priorities of Ukraine, Sudan and Gaza were all prioritised in a lasting peace. The difficulty is that after refugee costs, admin costs and the Department’s commitments to things like the World Bank and the UN are taken into account, it is hard to believe that there will be enough left in the budget to provide meaningful humanitarian support in those priority areas. Does the Prime Minister understand the concern of so many that these cuts could in fact, in the long term, hobble the very leadership that he has shown this weekend, which has finally given the world some hope?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. It is a very important issue. What I did last week was to announce the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, and the circumstances and the context require it. That decision had to be made, and I was determined that it would be fully funded so the House could see where the money would come from.

On the question of overseas aid, I am committed to it. What we will now do is go through line by line the funding and look at our priorities. Of course, Ukraine, Sudan and Gaza are right up there in our priorities, but I also want to work with others, and across the House if we can, on other ways of raising money and finance for development and aid overseas. I saw the president of the World Bank on Friday to have that very discussion; I want to have it, and I mentioned it in my discussions with other countries this weekend, many of which want to join in attempts to find other ways to leverage money, particularly from the private sector, where states cannot do it in the way that they might want to just at the moment. That is the approach we will take.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. We were all horrified by Friday’s scenes in the Oval Office. President Trump’s attack on the brave and dignified President Zelensky left everyone shocked and appalled—except, it seems, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). Nobody else watching those scenes could fail to understand that we have entered a new era—one in which the United States prefers to align itself with tyrants like Putin, rather than its democratic partners.

On these Benches, we have supported the Prime Minister’s actions and leadership—Britain leading the world, as we have so many times in the past, bringing together Europe and Canada in London to work towards a just peace that guarantees Ukraine’s sovereignty and security—but we need to reduce our dependency on the United States. With deep regret, I fear that President Trump is not a reliable ally in respect of Russia. In that regard, did the Prime Minister discuss with our European allies our proposals for a new rearmament bank and for seizing the tens of billions of pounds-worth of Russian assets to support Ukraine? In his conversations with the Canadian Prime Minister, was he clear that we stand with our Commonwealth ally in the face of President Trump’s threats?

Many of us were confused by Lord Mandelson’s comments yesterday, so can the Prime Minister confirm that they do not represent Government policy? Does he agree that the British ambassador should not be freelancing on American TV?

The Prime Minister will have our support if the UK continues to lead with our European and Commonwealth allies for Ukraine’s defence and our collective security.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. He talked about the scene on Friday afternoon—nobody wants to see that. My response was to recognise the urgency of the need to repair the breach, which is why I spoke to President Trump and President Zelensky on Friday night, and again on Saturday night. I am continuing in that work, because for me, the single most important thing is lasting peace in Europe and Ukraine. Nothing is going to deter me from that or cause me to lose my focus on it.

On the dependency on the US, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The US and the UK have the closest of relationships; our defence, security and intelligence are completely intertwined. No two countries are as close as our two countries, and at a time like this, it would be a huge mistake to suggest that any weakening of that link is the way forward for security and defence in Europe.

On the question of a rearmament bank, yes, I do think we should continue discussions with others as to what the possibilities could be. That formed some of the discussion yesterday with our allies. On assets, again, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the situation is complicated, but there are ongoing discussions. I spoke at length with the Canadian Prime Minister yesterday, because we had a bilateral meeting as well as the meeting with other colleagues. In that meeting, I was able to assure him of our strong support for Canada, which is a close ally of ours and a strong supporter of Ukraine. Canada has led the way on the training that has been so vital to Ukraine, so it was very welcome at the table yesterday.

In relation to the ambassador’s comments, the plan is clear. We are working, particularly with the French— I had extensive conversations with President Macron over the past week and intensively over the weekend—and talking to Ukraine as well. Those conversations are going on at the moment, and the intention is to then have discussions with the United States in relation to that plan. As soon as the details are available, I will share them with the House, but they are still being worked on at the moment. There is no guarantee of success, but I am not going to let up until we have done everything we can to ensure peace in Europe and peace for Ukraine.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, the warmth of his welcome and hugs for President Zelensky, and his show of leadership on defence and security matters in our continent as he hosted his Sunday summit of leaders in London. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that in our pursuit of a just, lasting peace, he will do his level best to convince President Trump to provide security guarantees for Ukraine, and to convince those NATO allies that are not spending 2% of GDP on defence to step up to the plate and do much more?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I am of course talking to President Trump about security guarantees—that formed a large part of our discussion on Thursday and our subsequent discussions. I think it is right that Europe does the forward leaning on this. We have to do more on security guarantees, but those guarantees need a US backing, and that is the very discussion that I am having.

On the question of spending, across Europe in this era, we now have to step up on capability, co-ordination and spending. That did form part of our discussions yesterday.

[Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I find myself in the strange and rather uncomfortable position of very much agreeing with the Prime Minister on everything he has said today. While I often take great delight in criticism of the Government, the Prime Minister did not really put a foot wrong this weekend.

However, he does need to go further. The small increase in defence spending that he announced was welcome, but fundamentally, we need a gear shift on this. I echo the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that when—and it will be when, not if—he has to make some really difficult decisions about balancing defence spending against domestic expenditure, we will not try to play politics. We will support him, because we need to send a message now to our friends in Ukraine and to potential aggressors around the world that we take our defence, the defence of our values, and the defence of our friends seriously.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the unity across the House, and he is absolutely right. It sends a message to those who want to challenge our values when they see this House united, whether on Ukraine or defence spending. We have to face this era with confidence and with unity across this House, wherever we can. It has been good to have him agreeing with me—we should do this more often.

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

First, I thank the Prime Minister for the leadership he has shown in pulling together all our allies yesterday in London and for acknowledging the bravery and sacrifice of the people of Ukraine. I was in Ukraine last week. I met the mayor of Kharkiv, a frontline city of 2 million people undergoing daily attacks and blackouts from Russian forces. He told me that a power project funded by the United States Agency for International Development had been cancelled at short notice. It would have generated 11.2 MW, shoring up their energy pipeline. Where others have stepped back, will we step forward and support such projects, using either Russian assets or our own aid budget?

[The Prime Minister]

Power supply is hugely important in Ukraine. Let us face it: power and energy have been weaponised by Putin; that is why he is attacking the power supplies to communities across Ukraine. We will work with Ukraine to ensure that its people have the security and power supplies they need as we go forward.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Our enemies should know that our Prime Minister has 100% support from us. I noticed in Moscow that they are referring to the small size of the British Army. Perhaps the Prime Minister could remind them of what the Kaiser said in 1914 about “the contemptible little British Army”. Will the Prime Minister tell President Putin and other tyrants that our Army, the most professional in the world, is quite capable of giving as good as it gets? To continue the historical allusion, as in 1939, if we do stand up to the mark with the French, it is best to have a security guarantee from the Americans.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his unity, because that is really important. I think I speak for the whole House in saying that we are very proud of our armed forces in everything that they do. They are at the leading edge. They are playing a key part in Ukraine, and they will continue to play a key part in the security and defence of Europe.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on bringing European leaders together at the weekend and on setting the record straight with J. D. Vance on the issue of free speech. President Zelensky is resilient and brave, just like the nation that he represents. In the second week of the war, when I went to Ukraine with my medical team, we could see at first hand that there is absolutely nothing that the Russians will not do. Will the Prime Minister promise that our support will not waver, and that he will continue working closely with our European allies to make sure that we bring about peace in Ukraine?

[The Prime Minister]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We will not waver. We will work with our allies.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement expressing the United Kingdom’s unequivocal support for President Zelensky and Ukraine. In view of the Prime Minister’s cuts to the aid budget, and with the eyes of the world focused on Zelensky, Ukraine and Russia, can he please reassure the House that he will not forget about the middle east, and in particular the decision by Netanyahu’s Government to block aid to Gaza? What representations is he making on behalf of the Government to reverse that? It is a breach of international law.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me be really clear: the decision to block aid going into Gaza is completely wrong and should not be supported in this House. On the contrary, more desperately needed aid should be going into Gaza at speed and at volume, and we are making those representations.

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

I congratulate the Prime Minister on his strong leadership in his response to the fast-moving events of the weekend. Will he recommit to increasing international aid spending to 0.7% when the fiscal circumstances allow?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I want to restore aid and development funding as soon as fiscal events allow. It is a principle I believe in, and I am proud of what we have done. In the meantime, I want to explore which other levers we can use to increase aid and development without necessarily increasing the spend within the Government budget.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

There are many issues on which the Prime Minister and I will passionately disagree, but when it comes to the security of Ukraine and support for President Zelensky, we are of course united. I too commend the Prime Minister for his announcement yesterday, and on his partnership during the summit with our European and, indeed, our Canadian allies. Unfortunately, it has been reported this afternoon that President Trump is set to meet American aides to discuss withdrawing military aid to Ukraine. Are those reports something that the Prime Minister recognises, and, if so, what impact will that have on the timetable to which he and President Macron are currently working?

[The Prime Minister]

I have not seen reports of the United States withdrawing support for Ukraine, and, as I understand it, that is not its position. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support on this issue, although I was somewhat concerned that the Scottish National party is continuing its suggestion that now is the time to abandon the nuclear deterrent. If ever there was a time to reaffirm support for a nuclear deterrent, it is now. We must not reduce our security and defence. The SNP’s decision is completely wrong-headed, and it should reconsider.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister’s actions this week demonstrated again why UK leadership in defence and security and on Ukraine is crucial. I also agree with him that it is important to strengthen our relationship with the United States. In the coming months, will he consider whether we should be proposing to hit 3% spending before the next election? We need to do what it takes.

[The Prime Minister]

I set out our position last week, which is that spending will be 2.5% by 2027 and 3% in the next Parliament, as fiscal circumstances allow.

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

The Prime Minister should surely be commended both for the meetings that he held in the White House last week and for the effective leadership that he showed over the weekend. Will he bear in mind, as he seeks to forge this coalition of the willing with urgency and vigour, that the GDP of Russia is some $2 trillion, while the GDP of the six European members of NATO that are the most committed is more than seven times that, at $15 trillion? That should surely add to the effectiveness of the deterrent and the work that he is now doing with European allies.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. We must not lose sight of the fact that the Russian economy is being damaged by the measures that we are taking collectively, particularly on sanctions, and we should have self-confidence in the ability of Europe to pull together, whether that is on military or financial issues, for the collective security of the defence of Europe. We have said many times that Europe needs to step up. Now is the time to step up; now is the time to lead. That is why I was pleased that in the last few days we moved things on a little in that regard.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for his continued strong leadership. In contributing troops, drones and munitions, Russia’s allies remain active participants in Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine. Will the Prime Minister please assure the House that alongside our allies we are closely monitoring Russia’s strategic partners during the ongoing peace efforts?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we continue to do that. We need to bear down on Russia and all those who support Russia in this illegal war.

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

We welcome the increase in defence spending, but when I served there were more than 100,000 troops and today there are just over 74,000. It is essential that we reverse the Conservatives’ irresponsible 10,000 troops cut. Will the Prime Minister commit to reversing this devastating cut so that the UK can credibly support collective European security in the absence of US support?

[The Prime Minister]

We will be undertaking a strategic review of our capability, gauging it against our challenge, and, obviously, I will put the results before the House in due course. I would just caution against the suggestion in the second part of the hon. Lady’s question—if I have got it right—that somehow we should take this as a moment to go it alone without the US. I fundamentally disagree; I think that would be wrong. We have never chosen that course in our history, and we should not choose it now.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for today’s statement, and for his diplomatic efforts to restore our international reputation since taking office. Will my right hon. Friend confirm the basic principle that no decision can be made about the future of Ukraine without including its elected leadership in the negotiations, and that any ceasefire must be adhered to by Russian aggressors and not just the Ukrainians?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree on both propositions. Ukraine needs to be at the table. There have to be security guarantees, because we know from history that Putin does not honour agreements that do not have security guarantees. That is precisely why we need one.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I echo the thanks to the Prime Minister for his leadership over recent days. He has definitely spoken for Britain when he has spoken on the world stage. May I ask him to join me in thanking the parliamentary staffers who, while he was doing that, were driving aid to Ukraine?

Quite rightly, the Prime Minister has brought together a coalition of European and NATO partners. Is he working on those further afield? As he knows very well, Australia has already donated Bushmasters, and many are concerned about Iran’s support for the Russians through its Shahed drone programme. Is he reaching out to our middle eastern allies as well?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the parliamentary staffers who have done such significant and important work. On the right hon. Gentleman’s important question about reaching out beyond Europe, I agree with him and we are doing that. This needs to be as broad a coalition as we can put together, with different capabilities. Each country should make whichever contribution is the most significant from its point of view, and I thank him for his support over the weekend.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister deserves plaudits for the skilful way in which he handled his visit to Washington last week, as he does for the resolve that he has shown in standing against Russia’s illegal invasion of the sovereign state of Ukraine. Surely, though, this is a moment to accept that the post-war international settlement has now been fractured and that the necessary rise in defence spending should be achieved by changing the fiscal rules, not by cuts to international aid, which will only see more people slain by famine, drought, disaster and war.

[The Prime Minister]

The reason why we will not change the fiscal rules is that we need economic stability. We experienced economic instability only a few years ago, under Liz Truss. The loss to our aid budget and all budgets would be far more profound if we go back to instability, and I am not prepared to do it.

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

It may be a great irony that a remainer Prime Minister used our Brexit freedoms as effectively as he did yesterday. Indeed, as No. 10 briefed, we are now in a unique position compared with the rest of Europe, and yesterday was a triumph. I also applaud him for saying such positive words about President Trump and our relationship with America, even if nobody behind him agrees.

But here is the key: President Zelensky has now accepted that he will sign the minerals agreement with America. America is going to put in £100 billion or whatever it is, and thousands of Americans will be in Ukraine. Is that, in itself, enough of a security guarantee, or does it mean that we need to send British troops? If we do, and given the size of our Army, how many?

[The Prime Minister]

The mineral deal is not enough on its own. May I just remind the hon. Gentleman that Russia is the aggressor and Zelensky is a war leader whose country has been invaded? We should all be supporting him and not fawning over Putin.

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

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, and I congratulate him on the excellent leadership that he has shown on the international stage. Does he agree that in order to achieve any lasting peace in Ukraine, Russia must return the 19,546 children it has stolen from Ukraine?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, because it is absolutely crucial. It is a moral outrage that those children have been taken, and of course we must ensure their safe return. That has to be part of any discussion, but she is quite right to raise it. We should do so more often.

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

The Leader of the Opposition has quite rightly and properly shown her support for the Prime Minister’s position, and I hope he will take comfort from the fact that he has the support of at least these Back Benches as well. Those of us who have had dealings with the Russians—in my case that is through the Council of Europe—know only too well that Putin’s Administration cannot be trusted, and that security guarantees are therefore absolutely vital if we are to succeed in getting a peace agreement, not a surrender. A surrender would lead to inevitable further activities in Georgia and Moldova, and then possibly in the Baltic states as well. Is that not right?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the right hon. Member completely. We know Putin’s ambitions, and we know that he is not a man to keep his word. We absolutely have to guard against those risks, which is why security guarantees have to go in, in relation to any deal that must be done. We must be vigilant on all fronts in relation to Putin because, as we know from our history, instability in Europe inevitably washes up on our shores. This is about our national security just as much as it is about the sovereignty of Ukraine.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)]

May I praise in the strongest possible terms the Prime Minister’s strong and pitch-perfect leadership, particularly in relation to the increase in the defence budget, and his statesmanship through this difficult time? He has spoken for the nation, and indeed has been the leader of the free world these past few days. While this negotiation is ongoing and Ukraine is still being bombarded, will he ensure that our partnership with Ukraine goes deeper, and that it still gets the drones, planes and arms it needs to make sure it can stay at the table while he is making his deal?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member makes a very good point, which is peace through strength. It is vitally important that Ukraine is put in the strongest possible position to fight on if necessary—there may not be a deal—or to be in the strongest position to negotiate if there are negotiations. On both fronts, we must not let up; on the contrary, we should double down and provide more support.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

May I, too, on behalf of my party, congratulate the Prime Minister on the work he has done this week, both in America and here in the United Kingdom. He has made a commitment to providing support to Ukraine to defend any peace agreement, but given the state of our armed forces and how overstretched they are, how sure is he that he can deliver on that commitment? Does he not agree that there needs to be a continued role for America in the defence of democracy against terrorising tyrants?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question and for his support. I do have confidence that we have the necessary capability. I do not take these considerations lightly. He is absolutely right that we should do this in conjunction with the US, working in the way we have for many decades now, which has ensured peace here and in Europe. We shall continue to work in that way.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his careful and considerate leadership this weekend. Does he agree that Putin will feast on western division; that the only people smiling on Saturday were those in Moscow, Tehran and Tbilisi; and that, at this delicate moment, it is vital that Members in every corner of this House continue to show the united front that the country expects and the House has shown over the past three years?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend: Putin does feast on division. When I was Leader of the Opposition, among the reasons I supported the then Government was the fact that Putin would have been the only winner if there was division in this House. That is why I commend the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative party for continuing that unity, because it demonstrates to Putin that we are a united House on this issue.

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

May I just point out that Vice-President J. D. Vance seems to be in favour of free speech, but not free nations? Do we not also have to point out, as others are saying, that there is no history of Vladimir Putin proving a trustworthy treaty maker? There can be no security and there is no path to a peace in Ukraine that is secure without the engagement of the Americans, the failure of their support risking a wider war in Europe that would inevitably draw them in. Can we quietly and diplomatically keep making those points to the White House, so that we have a chance of peace in our continent?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right: history shows that Putin is untrustworthy. That is why the Ukrainians are so concerned that there should be a security guarantee in relation to any deal: they have been here before, they have seen the credibility of his word and they know he is untrustworthy. That is why they are so concerned, and we share their concern and are working with them. He is quite right that we need the US to be working alongside us and with us, in the way we have done for decades, to ensure the security and defence of Europe. I will continue to do everything I can to ensure that that arrangement, which has proved so successful—the alliance that is NATO, the most successful and important alliance we have ever had—continues and goes from strength to strength.

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

The Prime Minister has our gratitude for steering a very difficult path over recent days and I welcome his statement. Defence is a vehicle for social mobility, career security and opportunity for our young people, as it has been for me. Defence has deep historical links with Londoners—the Gunners, the Hammers and Leyton Orient—but many Londoners are not actively engaged by defence at present. Does the Prime Minister agree that we must engage every part of our country not only with the serious challenge we face, but with the opportunities too?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I do think this needs to be a whole-nation approach, including young people. This morning we had in a number of small businesses in the defence sector, with apprentices and young people who explained to me why they wanted to work in the defence sector: not only the secure, well-paid and skilled job they would get, but the pride they would feel in working for the defence and security of their country.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

Following on from the previous question, the opportunities are not just for defence but for the NHS. In January, in the week of Trump’s inauguration, I went cross-party to visit Ukraine so that we could offer our support. While there I had the privilege of meeting veterans, many of whom had lost limbs and received world-leading prosthetics. The fact is that the Ukrainians are now world-leading in these matters. The 100-year partnership exists. What are we doing in the UK to supercharge not just defence but rehabilitation, which helps us and not just them?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. I went to Kyiv just the other week. There were many moving aspects, but one was some of our NHS workers in a burns unit in a hospital in Kyiv. I met some who had returned from the frontline with the most appalling burns—very difficult to see, watch and look at—and civilians who been caught up in blasts. I, for one, was very proud that we had NHS workers there, with the health workers of Ukraine, working together to do the very best they could for those in that burns unit. That is a small example of what she speaks of.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the growing push from numerous countries for a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. That must be a just peace. Too many lives have already been lost following Putin’s illegal and brutal invasion. But I am alarmed by the issue of deploying British troops on the ground in Ukraine and British military planes in the skies over Ukraine, because there is no getting away from the fact that that would risk our country coming into a direct military conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia. The consequences for millions of people in our country and across Europe of such a war and nuclear conflict really do not bear thinking about. Given the enormity of such a decision, will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring a vote in the House of Commons before any such deployment, in keeping with the important principles of our parliamentary democracy?

[The Prime Minister]

The risk to our country is if we do not fight for the peace. My position on the sustained deployment of our troops is that this House would of course want to discuss that and vote on that, but we are nowhere near that stage at the moment.

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

The Prime Minister’s very capable Defence ministerial team will have told him that even were he able to accelerate investment and expenditure on defence more rapidly than has already been outlined, there would be a considerable time lag, given the complexity of modern equipment, before industrial output could be ramped up. He talks about intensifying planning. Will he include the creation of a defence industrial expansion unit in the machinery that is being set up now? That way, as resources become available, the output of military equipment can be at the fastest possible rate.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. We already have a unit working on rapid deployment and procurement in relation to Ukraine, which, along with other aspects, need to be ramped up.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister showed unwavering commitment to Ukraine this weekend, and I stand with him on that. Will he reiterate this Government’s support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and our commitment to working with our allies in both the US and Europe so that we are in the best position possible to work towards a lasting peace?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the sentiment of my hon. Friend’s question. We will work with our allies and with the US towards the security and defence of Europe.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for the hard yards he is putting in at the moment for our national security. May I suggest another angle on which the House would appreciate an update? Last year, during an inquiry into Russian sanctions, the Treasury Committee received evidence that Russian hydrocarbons are still ending up in the UK. Could he explore the idea of improving our national security by ensuring that the oil and gas that we consume in this country come predominantly from this country?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is right: our energy independence is hugely important, and the last three years have shown that we are far too exposed. We will obviously look closely at the question of the hydrocarbons and the sanctions.

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

The beautiful weather over the weekend brought with it the promise of spring, and I hope the Prime Minister got at least two minutes outside to enjoy it. However, I am afraid the same weather in Ukraine will be greeted with dread by soldiers on the frontline, who know that the improving weather will bring an intensification of war. Will he commit to the strategic defence review taking into account his commitments in order to ensure an excellent security guarantee, so that Ukraine can once again greet the spring with hope?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right about the impact of the weather on the conflict in Ukraine. I am always struck by the resilience of the Ukrainians, both on the frontline and within their civilian population. After three long years of conflict, their resilience is humbling.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

On behalf of the Green party, I welcome the Prime Minister’s strong support for Ukraine, his work for peace and his commitment that there should be no decisions about Ukraine without Ukraine. However, given the scenes that we saw in the Oval Office on Friday, which people across the country will have been aghast at, given the bullying tactics of President Trump, and given the fact that Trump clearly views this as a business opportunity, how will the Prime Minister ensure that the interests of Ukraine remain front and centre in the peace deals?

[The Prime Minister]

By picking up the phone to President Trump and President Zelensky and making sure that we can focus on what matters most, which is lasting peace in Ukraine.

[Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister rightly reaffirms our commitment to our national security. While it is regrettable that foreign aid and the soft power that goes with it will, for a time, see a reduction, does he agree that without the necessary hard power to back what we say on the world stage, the impact of our international aid would be diminished in any case? Will he also outline how increased investment in defence strengthens both our armed forces and our ability to support Ukraine effectively?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the points my hon. Friend makes, in particular on our ability to support Ukraine in a number of different ways. It is important that we take these steps.

[Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

I also strongly support the Prime Minister’s considered approach to dealing with a powerful US President with whom he might not always agree, but with whom we can and must work very closely. Does he agree that one of the best ways to persuade the US that any security backstop is temporary is not only for us to ramp up defence spending, but for European NATO countries to agree to a new 3% target within a specified time period—a new target that shows the President that the backstop would not be forever? Has the Prime Minister had any discussions with Secretary-General Rutte along those lines?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. I really do appreciate it. Yes, we do need to ramp up European defence spending, and that discussion is happening at the moment. As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I have been in near-constant discussion with Mark Rutte at NATO on this issue and many others over the last few days.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership over the last week. Thanks to his actions, Europe is more united, our ties with the United States have strengthened and, critically, Ukraine is better supported. Our nation walks taller, thanks to what he has done in the last week. Does he agree that in ramping up our defence spending, we have to look at defence procurement, so that if our brave men and women find themselves in Ukraine, they have the equipment and support they need to do their job?

[The Prime Minister]

We do have to ramp up and improve our procurement, because we have to ensure that as we increase defence spending, we get absolute value for money and the best capability for the money we are spending. That means being much, much clearer and tighter on our procurement.

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

Three years ago, the sale of Chelsea football club realised £2.5 billion, which was to be used for the benefit of Ukraine. Today, that money remains frozen, and as Lyra Nightingale of Redress said this morning, there is a total lack of transparency about who has it and when it is going to be released. Can the Prime Minister tell the House when that money will be released for its intended purpose—to help the people of Ukraine?

[The Prime Minister]

The whole issue of assets and frozen assets is complicated, but I agree with the sentiment across the House: it is time to look at what options might be available. I do not think we should do that on our own; I think it needs to be done in conjunction with other countries. It is fiendishly complicated, which is why it has not been done so far.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

Not for a long time has a British Prime Minister been so important on the world stage, and the Prime Minister rightly deserves the support of the whole House. To protect our security, we have to make use of our incredible technology, but Government procurement often does not work for rapidly growing start-ups. Will the defence industrial review look at how we can improve procurement, so that we can make our technological advantage count?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, it will. Earlier today, we announced a new unit and targets for small and medium-sized enterprises, and I was very pleased to be able to welcome some of them to Downing Street.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I have the honour and privilege of representing a very large number of servicemen and servicewomen and their families, and they will be looking at this very anxiously indeed. Although they always stand ready to do their duty, does the Prime Minister agree that it would be utter folly if the United Kingdom, France, Norway or Canada sent their sons and daughters into harm’s way without all necessary security guarantees from the United States?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and it is why I am working so hard on security guarantees that are worthy of the name—that is, one that has a forward-leaning European element, but a US backstop and US backing; that is vital if it is to act as a guarantee. Of course, that is uppermost in my mind.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and the leadership he is showing at this moment of uncertainty. The quality of the contributions from Members on both sides of the House today shows this Parliament and this country rising to meet the moment. That is why it is so disappointing, but perhaps not surprising, that the Westminster leader of the SNP, the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), chose to make such juvenile and childish statements this weekend. Does the Prime Minister agree that the SNP leader’s juvenile comments on social media, and his party’s fundamentally unserious approach to our nuclear deterrent, show that the SNP cannot be trusted on the serious matter of the nation’s defence?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Different people will respond in different ways. Some will take to the keyboard as warriors; I picked up the phone to world leaders to try to resolve the situation.

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

Working together with our European partners is essential for security, stability and peace. Plaid Cymru commends diplomatic initiatives over the weekend. Boosted defence spending should not come at the expense of international aid or public services that are starved of resources. The Prime Minister talked of Tory fiscal failures, but protecting peace now calls for a bolder vision. Under what circumstances would he commit to looking again at the fiscal rules to ensure that the UK can responsibly invest in defence, humanitarian commitments and public services?

[The Prime Minister]

I do understand the right hon. Lady’s concern. As I explained to the House last week, the decision on defence was not one I wanted to take, but the defence and security of Europe required us to take it. On the fiscal rules, economic stability is vital. If we lose that, we will lose far more out of all our budgets. I will work across the House, in whatever ways we can, to increase development aid, notwithstanding the budgetary constraints. I spoke to the president of the World Bank on Friday to have that very discussion. Those discussions are to be had with other countries and institutions, and innovation and discussion across the House would be a valuable part of that exercise. The principle behind her question is the right one: we must support international development and aid.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

My constituency has welcomed hundreds of Ukrainian refugees into the community. I pass on their thanks to the Prime Minister for the strong leadership that he has shown over the past few weeks. The majority of these Ukrainians want to go back to their country when it is safe to do so, but a small minority of young Ukrainian refugees have approached me to say that they have laid down roots, built careers and started relationships here, but have no route to settled status. What consideration has the Prime Minister given to the lives of these young Ukrainians who want to make London their permanent home?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is my MP neighbour, and I remember that together, we saw some of the first Ukrainian refugees arrive in her constituency in the very early days. Obviously, we need to take this step by step, dealing with the conflict that it is. Many will want to return; some may not, but we are not, unfortunately, at the happy place where those who want to return can return. That has to be the first priority.

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

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) and many others, I congratulate the Prime Minister on his decision making over the past few days, and on keeping his cool when others were losing theirs. Most importantly, he followed the simple principle that when the UK and the USA are together, the world is a safer place. Those who cry for them to be split are mad; it is as simple as that.

When the Prime Minister talks to the American President, could he possibly nudge him on why Ukraine is important on a wider scale? As part of Russia’s deal with North Korea, the Russians have been handing very advanced subsea ballistic missile technology to the North Koreans. That will bring the whole of the United States within the target area for missiles. Reminding the President of that might be important. Finally, the coalition of the willing, no matter how big or powerful it is, cannot succeed if Russia demands the complete demilitarisation of the Ukrainian forces. They must be allowed to stand with their arms in case this breaks down again.

[The Prime Minister]

The North Korean element is a significant development that expands the threat and risk. We all need to see it in those terms. The sovereignty and security of Ukraine must be at the heart of this. Part of sovereignty is deciding for yourself what your defence capability is. We must not lose sight of that, because a security guarantee is not just what the Europeans or the US do. It is also Ukraine’s ability to defend herself as a sovereign country. She should be able to do that.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister was right to say in his statement that economic security is national security. The same is true of energy security, as we see in the clean power plan. May I encourage my right hon. and learned Friend to use our success in developing alternative energy technology to support Ukraine, giving it energy and national security as we ensure the same here?

[The Prime Minister]

Energy security in Ukraine is hugely important. It is being attacked every day, and that is why it is so vital that we help Ukraine defend its energy arrangements and work for a lasting peace, which will allow it to prosper and thrive as we all want.

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

I welcome the Government’s commitment to increasing defence spending, but I am troubled by it being done entirely on the back of the overseas development aid budget. I hope that the Prime Minister will keep an open mind on alternatives.

It was reassuring to see the uplift in air missiles explicitly linked to British jobs in Northern Ireland. What assurance can the Prime Minister give that defence spending on new equipment—be it weapons, kit or tech like drones and IT—will be focused on UK manufacturing and innovation, so boosting British growth?

[The Prime Minister]

I am really pleased that the announcement that we made over the weekend was for jobs in Belfast; that is hugely important. That is the model that we should follow. As we ramp up defence spending and capability, we should be looking at it predominantly supporting UK jobs and the UK economy. The secure, skilled jobs that go with that should be in our economy, because economic security is important in the UK, just as defence and security is important.

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

I join those thanking the Prime Minister for setting out how clearly the safety of the world and the future of Ukraine relies on this moment. I for one am saddened that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is no longer in his place, because he might have learned a thing or two. His previous advice to Prime Ministers was that when President Macron was elected, he would loathe us and be anti-British—how out of depth and out of touch with the British national interest that advice is. Given the coalition that the Prime Minister is building, and the concern of all of us about using resources effectively, will he please tell us a little more about what conversations he has had with our European allies on how we can reduce the duplication of effort involved in the plans going forward?

[The Prime Minister]

I do think it is important that we work with our European allies, whether on ramping up spending or on capability, but the point my hon. Friend made about co-ordination is also important. We have to learn the lessons of the last three years. Many European allies and others have provided capability to Ukraine, but it has not been co-ordinated enough. Our collective security and defence, to my mind, requires that we co-ordinate our efforts much more closely as well.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister share my concern and sadness that any settlement appears to involve acceptance of the Russian occupation of parts of the sovereign territory of Ukraine? Will he recognise that the Baltic nations will now feel even more exposed? While I welcome his telephone conversations with their leaders at the weekend, can he give an assurance that they will be at the table for any future discussions of European security?

[The Prime Minister]

On the question of territory, obviously there are discussions to come, but I take the tenor of what the right hon. Member said. On the Baltic states, he is right. Just before Christmas, I was at the joint expeditionary force meeting in Estonia to have discussions with them. I have been twice to the frontline in Estonia, where we have British troops. They feel immediately the threat, for very obvious reasons. I spoke to the Baltic states yesterday morning at some length, and assured them that we need to look again at the configuration when we have meetings of European and other allies to ensure that those states are properly represented, because, for them, the threat is very clear and very near.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and the outstanding global leadership that he is showing on this issue. I, too, returned from Ukraine last week after five days, and the one consistent message the Ukrainian people I met gave me—from residents to soldiers, and from businesses to politicians—was their immense gratitude for the leadership and support that the UK has shown since day one of this illegal war. Does the Prime Minister agree that now is the time for us to remain resolute as a House for the sake of the Ukrainian people, and that the 100-year partnership between our two countries is now more important than ever?

[The Prime Minister]

The 100-year partnership signals the depth of our relationship. I, too, have heard the thanks for our leadership, and I think it is right that I pay tribute to the Conservatives for the leadership that they showed from the very beginning of this conflict, which I was able to follow as Leader of the Opposition.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I add my voice to those congratulating the Prime Minister on the way he has conducted the last week and on the policy, which I think enjoys if not unanimous then largely unanimous support in this House. I gently point out to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) that our enemies watch this Chamber, and that speaking with one voice is very important. I also congratulate the Leader of the Opposition.

Does the Prime Minister agree that, as well as willing the ends, we need to will the means? At what point does he think he will bring forward a business plan for how we fund what is likely to be £60 billion or possibly £70 billion over the next five to 10 years, so that our military threat is credible, serious and something we can actually afford?

[The Prime Minister]

As soon as we have any details around plans, I will bring them to the House so that they can be fully discussed, because this needs to be not just a short-term response but a much longer-term assessment of how we ensure that Europe is kept safe and secure.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his continued leadership on the world stage. These past few days, I have felt particularly proud to be British, so I thank him for that. The Government are rightly already using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction, but what further actions are being considered to ensure that Russia pays the full financial cost of its illegal invasion?

[The Prime Minister]

Russia is already paying the cost through the interest. We need to look at whether we can go further on that, but it is complicated and we have to act with others. I will see what progress we can make, and let the House know if there is progress.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

I, too, had the honour of being in Ukraine for the third anniversary and, as other hon. Members have said, whether it was from communities, military personnel or Ukrainian politicians, the gratitude expressed to our nation for standing strong with the Ukrainians was clear to see. Before going to Ukraine, I held a roundtable in my constituency, and the Ukrainians who are here are clearly thankful for being given safety, but they also need the visa scheme to be amended so that their children can finish their education and they can secure meaningful employment without having time-limited visas. Will the Government review that issue to ensure that we stand with the Ukrainians here in the UK as well as those in their home country?

[The Prime Minister]

We will take the hon. Gentleman’s points into consideration. Obviously, the immediate situation confronting us is the question of how we settle the peace, but he is right to raise those other concerns.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

Can I add my voice to those around the country who have said how proud they are of our British Prime Minister, and how proud they are to be British? He has led from the front, and I hope very much that in the weeks and months to come, he will hold that in mind and strengthen his resolve as we move forward. He has already made reference to one of the priorities that Stefan Harhaj, the chair of Bury’s Ukrainian association, raised with me, which is the release of the 20,000 children who have been kidnapped and forcibly removed to Russia. Will my right hon. and learned Friend commit to securing their release and updating the House on a frequent basis on our achievements to this end?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, of course. That is a really important issue, and it should not be overlooked as we discuss the very many issues here. It is a moral outrage, and I think I speak for the whole House in saying that.

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

I, too, congratulate the Prime Minister on his composure and leadership, but, as his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) said, we have to ensure that we have the resources in place to tackle this. The whole of western Europe is in the same difficult financial and demographic position. Will he look again at finding the means to deliver on our promises? His leadership and rhetoric have been fantastic, but going forward we will need the hard power to back them up.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Member is right. That is why the conversation over the weekend has been about the specific issue of a security guarantee in Ukraine, but also, importantly, the wider issue of how Europe steps up more generally in its own defence spending, capability and co-ordination. That is an important part of the discussion. We should not just focus on the question of the security guarantees; they are part of the argument, but they are not the whole argument.

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister in these incredibly difficult times for the strong leadership he shows. Does he agree that one of the many things that has become clear in recent months is that the security of Britain rests on a secure Europe, that a secure Europe relies on peace in Ukraine, and that peace in Ukraine requires a unified stance against Russian aggression? Does he agree that as free peoples in the UK, Europe, America and our other allies, we must stand firm and stand together and show that democracy will be defended and tyranny will not be tolerated?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with all that, and I think the House agrees with it, too.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I note with great appreciation the order for Thales in Belfast. With Europe collectively being a long way short of self-sufficiency in defence, and with Putin more than likely to seek to exploit that deficiency, do the security guarantees required from the US effectively equate to those that would arise under article 5 of NATO? Is that the order of what we are talking about?

[The Prime Minister]

NATO membership is a form of guarantee; article 5 is a form of guarantee. There are different ways in which the guarantee can be put in place, but what is important is that it is effective and that those in Europe who are leading on this do it in conjunction with the US, so that Putin knows the severe risk that he takes if he breaches any deal that may be arrived at.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

I also commend the Prime Minister for the way he received President Zelensky after the disgraceful bullyboy tactics from President Trump and Vice-President Vance, and for his continued support for Ukraine. As the Ukraine Solidarity Campaign highlighted, increased military spending overall is not necessarily the same as increased military aid to Ukraine. Will the Prime Minister set out how much of that increased military spending will specifically be used to re-equip Ukraine? Is he not concerned that cutting the international aid budget risks increasing global instability and undermining support for Ukraine, both here at home and internationally?

[The Prime Minister]

We are stepping up our support for Ukraine, both in military aid and in other ways. In relation to the decision that I had to take last week, the security, safety and defence of Europe have to come first, but I am absolutely committed to doing what we can to increase the aid and development that we are able to provide, which is why I will look at the priorities and work with others on other ways to leverage the support that we might be able to put in place.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

I also congratulate the Prime Minister on the leadership he has shown this weekend—it is in the best traditions of British Prime Ministers dealing with the United States and dealing with Europe. Notably, when we were in the EU, we were able to do that.

May I press the Prime Minister on the upcoming Hague summit for NATO leaders in June? When the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and I were at the North Atlantic Council in the February recess, it was made clear that they would be bringing forward the plans that would be needed to defend Europe. Will he use his leadership so that if we suddenly have to spend more money, he is in a position where he will keep an open mind so that he can persuade all the other leaders that they also have to do that?

[The Prime Minister]

One of the principles I have held in mind over recent days is to ensure that what we do is co-ordinated with NATO, as it must be. We are deployed in different countries already, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. That is why I am in such close contact with the Secretary-General, Mark Rutte, on a near-constant basis.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for his stamina in all the meetings over the weekend and, not least, in coming to the House for an extra hour and a half—and counting—this afternoon to keep us informed. Like other Members from across the House, I took part in the trip to Ukraine for the third anniversary last week. Does he agree that while the cross-party consensus on Ukraine, including from the SNP, is welcome, the SNP Scottish Government must take action to ensure that businesses in Scotland benefit from the increase in defence spending and continue to contribute to the security of the United Kingdom and of our allies in Ukraine?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with that principle. The increase in defence spending is a duty but also an opportunity across the United Kingdom for good, well-paid and skilled jobs in many businesses.

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

It was welcome to hear the Prime Minister acknowledge Canada’s contribution to Ukraine’s self-defence and its status as a vital ally for the UK. Last week, he was asked by the press in the US about President Trump’s repeated calls for Canada to become a US state. The Prime Minister answered that he and Trump did not address the issue of Canada, but was not that meeting a good opportunity to remind President Trump about sovereignty and independence, including that of Canada?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes; it is a serious point. In the time we had available, I was most anxious to discuss the question of security guarantees, and that is why I devoted the vast amount of time I had to it. On the question of Canada, we should be absolutely clear that Canada is a vital ally to the United Kingdom and to the Commonwealth, and has played a leading part in relation to Ukraine—not least in the vital training that it has provided. We should be very proud of what the Canadians have done.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

I put on the record my thanks to the Prime Minister. I know that the entire House thanks him for the leadership that he showed over the weekend. In his statement, he talked about stepping up the economic pressure on Russia. As things stand, we know that Russia is circumventing the oil price cap. Its oil is being sold above $60, and around $190 billion flowed to Putin from oil sales last year. We in this country are in a unique position to enforce the cap because the insurance that the tankers depend on is written in London. Will the Prime Minister assure us that he will strengthen the oil price cap as much as possible, and may I request a meeting with a Minister to discuss in more detail how we might strengthen it?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right: we do need to take further measures. That is why we have taken specific sanctions against the shadow fleet and oil producers—to tackle that very issue.

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

Credit where credit is due: I commend the Prime Minister for the leadership that he has shown over the past week. Many Members across the House will understand the range of emotions that are felt before a deployment on global operations. Will the Prime Minister send a message to the brave men and women across our armed forces who are mentally preparing to deploy to Ukraine?

[The Prime Minister]

The message would be, “Thank you for everything you do. We support you in everything we do.”

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership on what is the defining moral issue of our time. There is no end of support for the Ukrainian people in Hertford and Stortford, but this has been an incredibly difficult time for Ukrainian families who have found safety in our community. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to directly reassure the Ukrainian community in my constituency of his commitment to work with international allies to end Russia’s illegal invasion and bring a just and lasting peace to Ukraine?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I will. I know that the Ukrainian communities here in the United Kingdom have been extremely anxious, particularly in the last few days. Having spoken to some of them myself, particularly those who have come from areas that are occupied by Russia, I know that they are extremely concerned about the ongoing situation.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I very much agree with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the steadfast support for Ukraine across the United Kingdom, and if my inbox over the weekend is anything to go by, my Hazel Grove constituents agree too. I also agreed with the comments of the Foreign Secretary last week about the need to move from freezing to seizing Russian assets—the principal, not just the interest. The Prime Minister remarked that this was a complicated issue, and anybody sensible would agree. What efforts is he taking with ministerial colleagues and others to simplify it, so that we can strengthen the hand of our brave Ukrainian allies?

[The Prime Minister]

We are doing what we can. It is not just something within the UK, frankly; it came up yesterday in the discussions. If there is any possibility of going further, and I do not know whether there is, it is going to have to be done with other countries at the same time. I do not want to get ahead of myself because it may simply be too complicated and too risky, but certainly there is an appetite now to look more closely at the possibilities of looking at these assets.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

At the weekend, a Ukrainian constituent said to me:

“As the bombs fell on my city last night, one thing remains unchanged: no one here wants a peace built on surrender or at the cost of dignity. So to those who stand with us—not just in words, but in truth—thank you.”

Does the Prime Minister agree that strong diplomacy, such as his, that encourages friends to defend our values, Ukraine and the international rules-based system is in the permanent interests of the UK, Europe, the United States and the wider world, and that it honours our Ukrainian friends, who have sacrificed so much?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says. Those are the principles and values that must be uppermost in our mind as we take our decisions.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I commend the Prime Minister and indeed the Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary for their ongoing support for Ukraine. I also commend the leadership that the Prime Minister has shown over the last few days. He mentioned not making a false choice between our allies the United States and Europe, and I completely agree. Does he agree that there is a historic opportunity for his Government, hopefully supported by the Opposition, and for this country to be a diplomatic, political and defence bridge between the United States and Europe?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I do think that there is that opportunity, which is why we will not make that choice between one side of the Atlantic or the other. That would go against our history, and that of the country and my party—actually, cross-party. The best way to secure the defence and security of Europe is to ensure that we are working both with our European allies and with the US in our special relationship.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

I declare an interest: as a member of the International Development Committee, I heard the news of the cuts to overseas development assistance to fund a rise in defence spending with a heavy heart. However, I wholeheartedly agree with the Prime Minister’s decision. Does he agree that international development and security are two sides of the same coin, and that we cannot have economic development in Europe and the wider world without a safe and secure Ukraine?

[The Prime Minister]

I do agree, which is why I remain committed to international development, and want to get back to a position where we can increase it. It is also why I want to work across the House to see what else we can do in the immediate and near term to pull other levers in relation to development.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for being consistent in his message to his allies that any future negotiated peace must include Europe and Ukraine, must be sustainable, and must protect the territory and sovereignty of Ukraine. However, achieving that lasting peace will require engagement with civic societies engaged in peacebuilding, atrocity prevention and long-term conflict prevention initiatives, all of which are currently funded by our foreign aid budget. How does the Prime Minister hope to achieve those objectives when he has just followed the Trump playbook and announced a plan to cut overseas aid spending by 40%?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not accept that characterisation. It is very important that we provide the funds we need for our defence spend, but what we have got from SNP Members is what we had at the Budget: yes, they want the biggest provision of money and finance for the Scottish Government that has ever happened under devolution, but no, they do not want to say how they would pay for that; yes, they want an increase in defence funding, but no, they do not want to say how they would pay for it. That is unserious.

[Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)]

In recent months, the Conservatives, who apparently lack the stamina that the Prime Minister displayed over the weekend, have confidently and repeatedly pronounced to the Prime Minister what the President of the United States will and will not do, all of which has turned out to be bluff and bluster. Does the Prime Minister agree that the UK Government have the best intelligence to support the UK national interest, and that the UK national interest would be better served with a bit less bluff and bluster, and a bit more optimism about what this great country can do to lead the way to make our world and our people more secure?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with that. I am proud of the fact that, as a country, over many decades and throughout our history, we have always stepped up when it has been necessary to step up. It is now time to do so again. We will do so and I am really pleased that, by and large, we have full support from across the House at a time when we need to step up.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Over the past few days, the Prime Minister has really risen to the challenge and it is right that most Members of the House have this afternoon commended him for being a statesman. In his statement, he said that the

“lasting peace must guarantee the sovereignty and security of Ukraine.”

Is that the pre-2014 Ukraine, the pre-2022 Ukraine or the Ukraine currently under Russian occupation? It is important that our European allies and America, as well as Ukraine, send the right message to China, who will be looking at this very carefully. If China thinks it can brutally invade Taiwan and secure a piece of territory there under some future security deal, that will not be good for anyone in the west. Will the Prime Minister bear that in mind?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point in relation to those around the world who will be looking in and observing the way in which we deal with Russia and with the risks from Russia, but that only underlines that any discussion about Ukraine must be done with Ukraine at the table, not by others.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

It is clear that Russian aggression is making our continent less safe. What we have seen in the past week is this House largely, this Government particularly, and this Prime Minister absolutely rising to that challenge. What steps will the Prime Minister take to ensure that our European allies also rise to that challenge and commit to spending 2.5% of their GDPs on defence?

[The Prime Minister]

We are working together to do what we can to ensure that all our colleagues rise to this particular challenge that is do with capability, spending and co-ordination. Those are among the things we have been discussing quite intensively over this weekend.

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

The difference between “decent” and “deceit” may only be one letter, but the gap defines a man’s character. Given what we saw on Friday, whatever the context of that meeting, when the Prime Minister next speaks to President Trump will he remind him of that and make sure that decency is at the centre of any negotiations?

[The Prime Minister]

Nobody wanted to see what we saw on Friday—I do not think there is any dissent from that—but it is important that we pragmatically work forward to what matters most, which is lasting peace in Europe. That is what conditions the approach that I have taken to this throughout the past few days.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership and particularly for the difficult but decisive decision to have that immediate increase in defence spending. He said earlier from the Dispatch Box that the tough choices were not done, and he is absolutely right. With a view to the future, is he able to say a little more about this idea of a rearmament bank? While I appreciate that it is at only a conceptual stage, could we do that together with our European allies and our friends in the Commonwealth as well?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I think we should look at all options, and I think this is one of the options that should be taken very seriously. That is what we are doing. It is important.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I commend the Prime Minister’s efforts to galvanise Europe and make it clear that Ukraine’s security is Europe’s security. Given President Trump’s reluctance to support Ukraine, is it not time that the Government bring forward emergency legislation to seize Russian assets, which can directly support the defence of Ukraine and its people?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the hon. Gentleman has heard my answer on that. We are looking at what can be done, but it is complicated, and it has got to be done—if it is to be done—with others.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I spoke to dozens of people on the doorstep over the weekend who welcomed the significant steps that the Prime Minister has taken to protect Europe’s borders and genuinely valued his leadership on this extremely important matter, so I thank him on behalf of my constituents. He will be aware that over the past week, Russia has launched more than 1,000 attack drones, nearly 1,300 aerial bombs and more than 20 missiles at Ukraine. Population centres continue to be targeted, with the aim of killing Ukrainian civilians. Does he agree that strengthening Ukrainian air defences is pivotal and does he welcome Lithuania’s announcement last week that it will soon hand over RBS 70 short-range air defence systems to Ukraine?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We should not lose sight of the fact that while we are discussing security guarantees and the like, Russia has been unrelenting in its attack on civilians, ramping it up while we talk of how to resolve this issue. Of course, we should do everything we can to assist Ukraine with their air defences.

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

The Prime Minister will know that one of the challenges is American voices suggesting that their focus should be on China, not Europe. I think a victory for Russia would also be a victory for China, but at a time when we are asking America to focus on our strategic interests, we should be willing to demonstrate our commitment to theirs. In that regard, can he reconfirm his commitment to AUKUS and update the House on progress?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me recommit to AUKUS and our strong support for it. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is absolutely right; China is watching very carefully what is happening in Russia, and we should always bear that in mind.

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

It is clear through his actions over the last few days—and, indeed, from the questions asked across the House today —that the Prime Minister has restored Britain’s place on the world stage. As a patriot, I thank him for that. It is also clear just how hard he is working to ensure that there is sustainable and lasting peace in Ukraine. I still find myself speaking to individuals—I believe they are a minority—who question why we are still sending money to Ukraine and why it is not being spent on Britain. Please can the Prime Minister say what he would tell them about why it is in Britain’s direct national interest to ensure that Ukraine wins this peace from a position of strength?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is in our national interest because insecurity and conflict in Europe always washes up on our shore—it has already done that. The cost of living crisis is far worse because of the conflict in Ukraine. Oil prices and energy prices have gone through the roof in the last few years because of the conflict in Ukraine. Working people in Britain are already paying the price, and there will be an even bigger price if we do not have a sustained and lasting peace in Ukraine. This is about Ukraine’s sovereignty —of course it is—but it is also about the safety and security of Europe and the safety and security of our country. That is why it is in our national interest for us to take the steps that we are taking.

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

May I join others in commending the Prime Minister for his diplomatic leadership over the last few days? Can he set out what steps he is taking to discourage third nations from providing hardware that the Russian military can use to prosecute its illegal war?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member makes a very good point. We are doing everything we can and bearing down on those third parties that are providing support to Russia, in whatever form, and we will continue to do so.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I commend the Prime Minister for his efforts to make sure that Europe continues to support the defence of Ukraine. The United States, however, has changed the conversation on Ukraine by appearing to put Russia first. The United States’ Defence Secretary now claims that Russia is not a significant cyber-security threat to the US any more; Elon Musk is publicly calling for the US to leave NATO; and the US vice-president is an effective mouthpiece for Vladimir Putin in the Oval Office. Considering all that, does the Prime Minister think that we and our European and Commonwealth allies can keep President Trump on board until a fair settlement for all the people of Ukraine is achieved?

[The Prime Minister]

I have had extensive discussions with President Trump, and I believe him to be completely sincere in his desire for lasting peace in Ukraine. He is sincere about that and he is right about that, and that is why we will work with him to do everything we can to bring about that lasting peace.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I, too, commend the Prime Minister for his international leadership in promoting a long-lasting and durable peace in Ukraine. I am pleased that he has reconfirmed the Government’s commitment to ensuring that sanctions on Russia are not lifted in the event of a ceasefire, but we all know that there is a vehement determination on the part of Putin to protect his regime and Russian interests. In the light of that, does the Prime Minister agree that it is critical that the Government take every action they can with international partners to ensure that Russia cannot circumvent international sanctions via its shadow fleet?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member is absolutely right about that, which is why we need to bear down on the shadow fleet. We are doing that through sanctions, and we are working with other countries to ensure that they do the same, because it is a vital part of the work that we need to do.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

We all want to see an end to this ghastly conflict in Ukraine and an end to the loss of so much innocent civilian life, as well as an end to the deaths of soldiers of all sides. Can I take the Prime Minister back to the answer he gave to the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) earlier? Under what circumstances does he envisage British troops being deployed in Ukraine, under what circumstances does he envisage them taking part in fighting activity against a belligerent, and will he guarantee that any such decision will come to the House before it is taken?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. There is one person who does not want lasting peace in Ukraine, and that is Putin. We have to hold that centrally in mind, and we need security guarantees in place, because Putin’s ambitions show that if there is a deal, he will not keep to it unless those security guarantees are in place. Those guarantees are the guarantees, not of conflict, but of peace—which is, I think, what everybody in this House wants, including the right hon. Member. Of course it is right that this House should have details and discussion of any security guarantees and the right to express its view, and I will ensure that that happens.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Earlier, the Prime Minister said that Russia is a menace in our waters and in our skies. That is obviously correct, so can he tell us which individual Minister has overall responsibility for the security of our offshore infrastructure, such as wind farms in the North sea? Given the vital importance of military tech and hardware, will he join me in condemning the idiotic divestment campaigns that seek to undermine our domestic defence manufacturing industries?

[The Prime Minister]

The security of our infrastructure—wherever it is, but including underwater—is the responsibility of the whole Government, but most of all, it is my responsibility as Prime Minister to ensure the safety and security of our country. The threats to our country come in many forms, and I take that responsibility extremely seriously.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

US security guarantees for any peace agreement in Ukraine are of course highly desirable, but given that the US Defence Secretary appeared to explicitly rule them out, we must of course consider other scenarios, and those guarantees should not be a show-stopper. With that in mind, European NATO GDP alone is 10 times the size of Russia’s, yet Russia spends $40 billion more annually on the war in Ukraine than Ukraine and her western allies do. Does the Prime Minister agree that if we were to close and exceed that gap today—perhaps by seizing the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets—Ukraine would have a credible path to victory and a just peace?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

On the question of security guarantees, it is important that the US and the UK teams are working together on this, and I take comfort from that and concentrate on that. I do not think that is highly desirable; I think that is essential. We should be putting everything into ensuring that that is the way that we move forward. On the question of the assets, the hon. Gentleman has heard my answer. I understand why he asks it, but it is a complicated question.

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

I, too, thank the Prime Minister for his support to President Zelensky yesterday, following the circus that was his meeting with President Trump and Vice-President Vance in the Oval Office. Following the Prime Minister’s discussions with President Trump last Thursday, can the Prime Minister provide assurance regarding the ongoing presence in this country of the US Air Forces in Europe at current levels and give reassurance that the US’s half-a-billion-pound Defence Infrastructure Organisation investment in the European infrastructure consolidation project’s new joint intelligence analysis complex at RAF Molesworth —also the home of the NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre —will not be put in jeopardy, given the change in European posture of the new US Administration?

[The Prime Minister]

I am absolutely clear that President Trump and I want to strengthen the relationship between our countries. We have spoken openly about it. We are very close on defence and security. We both know that, and we both want to strengthen that alliance. That is a good thing for both the United States and the United Kingdom.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership over the weekend. In the statement, he talks about UK jobs, UK skills and UK finance pulling together for our national interest, so may I also welcome the announcement of the £1.6 billion investment in Thales in Belfast in regards to the procurement of those 5,000 air defence missiles that will defend Ukraine, but also our democracy? While that investment in our private sector is welcome, may I just ask the Prime Minister to remember to invest also in our armed forces personnel? We require them and we will need them and want to support them as we ask them to step forward into a challenging time. While there may be those making comment around the quantity, can the Prime Minister remind others listening and watching that it is the quality of our armed forces that counts?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the quality of our armed forces, and we are all very proud of what they do in the vital defence of our country. I am pleased that we have been able to progress with the deal in Belfast so that those well-paid jobs will be there in Belfast, as well as the jobs in the supply chains that will then feed in to that contract.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I add my own congratulations to the Prime Minister on this weekend’s successful summit. It was refreshing to see a British Prime Minister not only standing alongside our allies, but working constructively with them and putting us at the heart of Europe, where we belong. Can the Prime Minister tell me how he intends to maintain the positive momentum from this weekend and ensure that Britain’s voice is heard loud and clear, particularly in the European Union, as it continues its own internal discussions on how to support Ukraine and counter the threat from Russia?

[The Prime Minister]

We will continue our discussions with our European allies. They have meetings this week, and further follow-on meetings are planned coming out of yesterday. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, between those meetings, we are in constant touch with each other about how we take forward the plans we are working on.

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

“Scottish soldiers could be in Ukraine by end of the year”, was the headline in The Herald newspaper this morning, based on quotes from First Minister John Swinney in answer to questions from the BBC. Notwithstanding that the British armed forces have many fine and gallant young Scots serving with them, can the Prime Minister confirm that the decision on—indeed, the burden of— deploying British troops anywhere sits with him and with this House, and not with a divisive First Minister and the head of a devolved Administration.

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, and a good thing too, because the First Minister confirmed his view that we should weaken our defences by getting rid of the nuclear deterrent. What a good thing it is that the security, safety and defence of the whole United Kingdom rests with this Government here.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for his leadership. He will have heard the support of the Liberal Democrats, and of many others on both sides of the House, for his leadership in Europe and his correct identification of Russia as the threat in this scenario. Having referred earlier to the Russian cyber-threat to the NHS, among other things, does he share my concern about the fact that, overnight, United States Defence Secretary Hegseth has announced the stepping back of US counter-cyber measures against Russia? Does he believe that that is a good choice by the Americans?

[The Prime Minister]

I will not provide a running commentary on American decisions, but there have already been cyber-attacks on our NHS, and we must be vigilant about such attacks. The Russian threat is multifaceted. Everything, pretty much, is being weaponised, and that is why it is important that we always link back what is happening in Ukraine with what is happening in our country.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I thank the Prime Minister for everything he has done over the last few days—it has been admirable. Will he endeavour to ensure that we prioritise military spending on outcomes rather than, strictly, the amount of money that is spent? The rush to avoid criticism of underspending often means that cost-effectiveness can be lost. Should not the defence and international aid budgets be viewed as a rolling average over several years rather than annually, to avoid the accounting gymnastics that might otherwise happen every March?

[The Prime Minister]

It is important to ensure, as we spend more on defence, that we get value for the money that we are investing, and the best capability. The hon. Lady is right: it is, in a sense, the outcome that matters here, which is why the strategic review is going through the challenges that we face and the capabilities to ensure that they match up. She is right about the need to ensure that there is value for money and we are getting the best we can in terms of the capability that we need.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I warmly congratulate the Prime Minister on his actions and his leadership in recent days, and, indeed, on his stamina here this afternoon. Apart from Putin’s puppets who scarpered from the Chamber more than an hour ago, the House knows full well that support for Ukraine is essential to maintaining the rules-based world order; the question with which we are all wrestling politically is how we pay for it. The Prime Minister said in his statement that there was a “crossroads in our history” and that this was a “new era”. Surely, in these circumstances, it is a moment when the Prime Minister and the Chancellor may need to look again at the straitjacket of their fiscal rules, and start taxing the wealthiest in the country rather than building this essential investment in defence on the backs of the poorest.

[The Prime Minister]

I think it important that we are able to fully fund the increase in defence spending, and that we were able to explain where the money is coming from straight away. We need certainty and security in our economy. We should not lose sight of the fact that if we lose security in our economy, all our budgets will be affected and we will all be a lot poorer for it, which is why we have taken the approach that we have. Fiscal rules are important and we will stick to them, but we will look, with others, at innovative ways of ensuring that we can raise the necessary money as we go forward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

For the final question, I call Jim Shannon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I definitely have the strongest legs in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker! I have been bobbing up and down for about three hours.

I thank the Prime Minister very much for his statement and his leadership. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, and as everyone in the House will know, I am very proud to be British, and this week we in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are very proud of our Prime Minister for his stance. I welcome it, and I wish to convey that to him from my constituents and everyone I have spoken to.

We in the Democratic Unionist party welcome the £1.6 billion contract to supply thousands of advanced air defence missiles to Ukraine, announced by the Prime Minister yesterday and featuring on the front pages of the Northern Ireland papers today. The deal will secure 200 new jobs for Thales, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) wishes to thank the Prime Minister for that as well. According to my right hon. Friend, most of the people who work at Thales live in my constituency, and I am very pleased about that, because it means extra work for my constituents and a few extra jobs. I welcome equally the clear indication that we are standing firm in support of Ukraine as it battles against Russia. Will the Prime Minister please confirm that this support will seek to broker peace, but not until we do right by the people of Ukraine, and that that remains our foundational principle?

[The Prime Minister]

On the principles, the hon. Gentleman is right, and I am so pleased about the jobs in Northern Ireland. As for the bobbing, when I came here 10 years ago, I saw the joint gym session that we go through in these statements, particularly long ones. It is something to behold, but I suppose it keeps us all a bit fitter and a bit healthier, which has to be a good thing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement this afternoon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 February.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

This week marked three years since Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine. The courage of the Ukrainians is inspiring, and across this House we stand with them for as long as it takes. That is why we are increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027, with an ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament, as economic and fiscal conditions allow. This afternoon, of course, I will travel to the US to have discussions with President Trump about the enduring security partnership between our two countries.

I am also delighted that we have announced the first 750 schools to start offering free breakfast clubs. This is our plan for change in action, ensuring every child has the chance to thrive.

I am sure the whole House will want to join me in thanking Amanda Pritchard for her service as chief executive of NHS England, and I wish her well for the future.

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

[Dr Evans]

Could the Prime Minister tell this House whether the outcome of his Budget was by design or by mistake? Did he mean to push 100,000 pensioners into poverty with his own analysis when he removed the winter fuel allowance, or was that a mistake? Did he mean to decimate family farming when he changed inheritance tax, or was that a mistake? Did he mean to tax GPs, care homes and hospices when he raised national insurance contributions, or was that a mistake? Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether they are acceptable collateral damage in his path for change, or simply mistakes that need rectifying?

[The Prime Minister]

I will tell the hon. Member what was a mistake: leaving a £22 billion black hole that we had to sort out. We took the difficult decisions, investing in our NHS, and I would have thought he would have welcomed the 2 million extra appointments that we have achieved in the first seven months of a Labour Government. That is the difference our Budget is making to people.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

Q2. I am delighted that Calton and Grange primary schools in my city of Gloucester will be among the first 750 schools to get free breakfast clubs, and I am pleased that this Government are already delivering on their manifesto promises in less than a year. So will the Prime Minister agree with me that, by helping working parents with childcare and delivering the best start to the day for every single child, we are delivering opportunity for the next generation?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are pleased that two of the early adopter schools will be in his constituency. We are ensuring that all children of primary school age can get access to free breakfasts and at least 30 minutes of free childcare. That means every child ready to learn, and parents of course supported with up to £450 a year back in their pockets. That is the change a Labour Government make.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I wish the Prime Minister every success on his trip to Washington. The visit to see President Trump must serve our national interest. The Prime Minister and I are completely united in our support for Ukraine as a proud and sovereign nation. What specific steps will he take to ensure Ukraine is at the negotiating table for any peace settlement?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her words about the forthcoming trip. It is right, and I think the whole House will think it is right, that Ukraine must be at the table at negotiations. There can be no negotiations about Ukraine without Ukraine. That has been my consistent position in all of the discussions that I have had. That will continue to be my position, because this is about the sovereignty of Ukraine and the Ukrainians’ ability to decide for themselves the future of their country, so they must be at the table.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I thank the Prime Minister for that answer, and as I said, I wish him every success. We want to support him on this issue.

Turning to the details of the plan the Prime Minister set out yesterday, over the weekend I suggested to him that he cut the aid budget, and I am pleased that he accepted my advice—[Laughter.] It is the fastest response I have ever had from the Prime Minister. However, he announced £13.4 billion in additional defence spending yesterday. This morning, his Defence Secretary said the uplift is only £6 billion. Which is the correct figure?

[The Prime Minister]

I am going to have to let the Leader of the Opposition down gently: she did not feature in my thinking at all. I was so busy over the weekend that I did not even see her proposal. She has appointed herself the saviour of western civilisation; it is a desperate search for relevance.

If you take the numbers for this financial year and the numbers for the ’27-28 financial year, there is a £13.4 billion increase. That is the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, and will put us in a position to ensure the security and defence of our country and of Europe.

[Mrs Badenoch]

That was not very clear. How is it that the Defence Secretary says £6 billion, but the Prime Minister says £13.4 billion? The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said the Government are playing “silly games with numbers”. How has he found this difference in numbers?

[The Prime Minister]

We went through this two weeks ago, going over the same question again and again. Let me say it again: if you take the financial year this year, and then you take the financial year for ’27-28, the difference between the two is £13.4 billion. That is the same answer. If she asks again, I will give the same answer again.

[Hon. Members]

More!

[Mrs Badenoch]

Someone needs to tell the Prime Minister that being patronising is not a substitute for answering questions. He has not answered the question. What he has said is different from what he said yesterday. We are still not clear where the money is coming from. We want to support him. He has also said that we should put British troops on the ground in Ukraine, but we have not seen the detail of any proposals. Would his new spending plans allow him to fund that commitment effectively?

[The Prime Minister]

I think it is the same question again. It is £13.4 billion—that is the difference between this year and ’27-28.

The Leader of the Opposition asks a serious question about the security guarantees in Ukraine. That is extremely important, because the worst of all outcomes, if there is to be a cessation of hostilities, would be for it to be a short break, rather than a sustained and lasting peace. That means there have to be security guarantees, and I have indicated that we will play our full part. There has to be US backing; otherwise, I do not think it will deter Putin. We are working on that. I am having extensive discussions on it. I am not in a position to put details before the House today, as she well knows, but I will continue down that route. I want a lasting peace in Ukraine and Europe for the safety and security of Ukrainians, Europeans and, of course, everybody in this country.

[Mrs Badenoch]

This is an endeavour that we want to support the Prime Minister in, but we need to know exactly what we are supporting. We need clarity and transparency over the money, and we also need to know where the money is going. This morning, the Defence Secretary could not say whether the Chagos deal would come out of the defence budget. Can the Prime Minister confirm to the House that none of the defence uplift includes payments for his Chagos deal?

[The Prime Minister]

The additional spend I announced yesterday is for our capability on defence and security in Europe, as I made absolutely clear yesterday. The Chagos deal is extremely important for our security and for US security, and the US is rightly looking at it. When the deal is finalised, I will put it before the House with the costings. The figures being bandied around are absolutely wide of the mark. The deal is for well over a century. The funding I announced yesterday is for our capability, and will put us in a position to rise to a generational challenge. That is what that money is all about; I thought the right hon. Lady supported it.

[Mrs Badenoch]

We need to make sure we are supporting a plan that is clear and transparent. Yesterday, the Prime Minister set an ambition for defence spending to reach 3% in the next Parliament, and we agree with him on that. However, that could be 2034—almost a decade away. That is too slow. We do not know how he will pay for it. We cannot raise taxes further, and we already pay more on debt interest than defence.

Everyone in this House will have heard the Prime Minister not answer the previous question, so I will ask again: is he paying for the Chagos deal with this defence uplift or not?

[The Prime Minister]

I have just dealt with that question, Mr Speaker. The money announced yesterday is going to our capability in order to put ourselves in a position to defend the security of both our country and Europe. The Leader of the Opposition asked about defence spending. She gave what people have described as a rambling speech yesterday, where she could not say what defence spending should be. We have been absolutely clear. We have set out a full, credible, costed plan, and I thought she supported it.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

Q5. The Prime Minister will be aware that in coastal communities such as mine in East Thanet, people develop cancer earlier, get treated and diagnosed later and die younger. Can he give the House an update on the Government’s plans to implement the recommendations by the chief medical officer, Chris Witty, for tackling poor health in our seaside towns?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. She is right that cancer patients are waiting too long for diagnosis and treatment. Addressing healthcare inequity is part of our 10-year health plan, which aims to halve the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and the poorest regions, and we are already making progress on that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

May I start by wishing the Prime Minister well on his trip to the White House? It will not be an easy meeting, but we are all behind him for the sake of our national interest. It is already clear that, sadly, under President Trump, we will not be able to rely on the United States to help ensure our security against Russian aggression, which is why we strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to increase Britain’s defence spending. But Europe must do far more to rearm in the face of Putin’s threat and the UK must lead on that. That is why we back the idea of a new European rearmament bank, so that we can finance a big increase in manufacturing capacity without the need to cut Britain’s vital soft power. Will the Prime Minister look at this idea, work across this House and across Europe, so that we can make a European rearmament bank happen?

[The Prime Minister]

I shall resist the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that we somehow have to choose between the US and our European partners. I do not believe that to be the case. I want to strengthen our already strong relationship with the US, because it is vital that we do so. I of course want to work with our European allies on defence capability and on what more we need to do in relation to capability, co-ordination and funding. In the longer term, there is an ongoing discussion among allies as to future funding, and I am happy to share that with the House as it evolves.

[Ed Davey]

I hope the Prime Minister is successful in keeping the US on board with our European allies. I am glad that he is talking about finance and defence. If he were to push this European rearmament bank at the summit of European leaders on Sunday, I think that he would be pushing at an open door. Certainly, Prime Minister Tusk is supporting the idea from the Polish point of view.

Let me turn now to domestic matters, with the cost of living crisis hitting so many of our constituents. Families in my constituency are really angry that Thames Water is sending them bills this April that will cost them £150 a year more. Thames Water has already let down so many people, whether it is through leaking pipes or pumping its filthy sewage into our rivers. A third of customers’ bills are already used just to pay the interest on Thames Water’s debt, and now the company will borrow £3 billion more. Is it not time to stop making people pay for bailing out the vulture funds that are drowning Thames Water in debt? Will his Government just put this firm out of its misery and put it into special administration, so that we can sort out that mess and the mess left by that lot on the Conservative Benches?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is certainly right about the mess made by that lot. We obviously have our water Bill, which contains very strong measures, and I think that he supports them.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Q6.  We have heard extraordinary rhetoric coming out of Washington in recent days and we have seen fascist salutes on our screens. We have witnessed wild statements about Palestinians being expelled from Gaza, and we have seen our allies labelled “dictators”. Britain’s interests are best served by standing with Ukraine, working closely with our European allies, upholding international law and remaining a strong part of NATO. Will the Prime Minister assure us that this will form a central part of his message when he meets world leaders this week?

[The Prime Minister]

We certainly stand with Ukraine—I think I speak for the whole House when I say that. As I set out yesterday, NATO is the bedrock of our security. It has been our most important alliance for many, many years, and it is as important today as it has ever been. We build that alliance by working with the US. We have a special and deep relationship with the US—that is not just words, but to do with security, defence, and intelligence capability, which are vitally important for both sides—but we also work with our European allies. It is that ability to work with the US and our European partners that has held the peace for so many years, and needs to hold the peace for many years to come.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the SNP.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Prior to the election, the Labour party promised to reduce energy bills by £300, yet on its watch, energy bills are about to increase by almost £300. Is the failure to keep that promise a consequence of Government incompetence, or has the Labour party been caught lying to the public?

[The Prime Minister]

We are very proud of the fact that we are pushing forward for energy independence, which will keep our bills lower. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well what my position is; however, I note again that he is very quiet on the SNP record, and I will tell hon. Members why. Just this week, we have seen the attainment gap widen in Scotland. Numbers of pupils leaving schools with no qualifications rising; those from deprived areas going to work falling. Instead of playing the politics of grievance, SNP Members need to take responsibility for their own record.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Q8.   My constituent Mike Addison was one of a kind. A physical disability rugby league world champion with England and Warrington Wolves and an avid volunteer for the club and foundation, he was a friend to everyone who knew him. Tragically, he died at age 45, having taken his own life. One death by suicide is too many, and every suicide is preventable. However, Office for National Statistics data puts the rate in the north-west at more than double the rate in London, with a 17% increase last year. Will the Prime Minister outline what more can be done, working across Government, to help Warrington meet our target of eliminating suicide?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that tragic case. My thoughts, and I am sure those of the House, are with the family, friends and teammates of Mike at Warrington Wolves. She is right that one death by suicide is one too many and reducing the number is a vital part of our health mission. We are recruiting an additional 8,500 mental health workers who are especially trained to support people at risk of suicide. We are committed to taking forward the suicide prevention strategy for England and I am sure the whole House supports that.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Q3.  I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement committing us to increased defence spending and reaffirming the UK’s support for Ukraine and its democratically elected leader, President Zelensky. He is a wartime leader like Winston Churchill, who also had to delay elections because his country faced an existential threat. As the Prime Minister travels to Washington, with this House and the country willing him to succeed, will he invoke the legacy of Churchill in making the case for the UK to be the key in bridging transatlantic relations, to bring us all together for the sake of freedom and democracy across the world?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for his question, and may I pick up on both elements? First, President Zelensky is a democratically elected leader and suspending elections was precisely what we did in this country when we were fighting in the second world war. Secondly, yes, the UK has successfully been a bridge between the US and Europe for many years. It is vital that we continue in that role. That is why my message to President Trump is that the relationship between our two countries needs to go from strength to strength—it is already strong—while we work at the same time with our European allies.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

Q9. On Monday night, there was a brutal double stabbing in my constituency, which adds to a long line of horrific knife attacks that have included three fatalities over the past two years. I know that the Prime Minister is aware of the particular challenges we face in Bournemouth. Although crime has been going down, I know there is much more that he will want to do. Will he join me in praising the crucial work done by organisations such as Changes Are Made, which provide positive activities such as boxing to young people, and will he share what more the Government can do to tackle knife crime in communities such as mine?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that really important issue. Yesterday, we introduced our Crime and Policing Bill, which is central to our plan for change and to halving knife crime. It involves new powers to seize and destroy knives found on private property and a new criminal offence of possessing a bladed article with the intent to cause harm, plus tougher penalties for selling dangerous weapons to under-18s and stricter rules for online sales under Ronan’s law. We will continue that work.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Q4. The floods of 2013-14 devastated Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury, and the flooding last January was not much better. But shockingly, the River Thames scheme as currently proposed continues to leave my constituents at risk. The council was asked to cough up tens of millions but, like many, it is cash-strapped. Does the Prime Minister agree that the only option to protect my constituents is to fund channel 1 of the River Thames scheme as national strategic infrastructure, which really it is?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member has raised this issue before, which obviously is important for his constituents. We inherited flood defences in their worst state on record, which is why we are investing £2.6 billion to protect over 50,000 properties. I understand that the options to reduce flood risk to these communities are being considered as part of the Datchet and Hythe End flood alleviation scheme. I will ensure that he has a meeting with the relevant Minister to take forward the work.

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q11. In order for the Government’s growth agenda to be a success, it must be felt in all areas of the country, including Doncaster and South Yorkshire, where we have green growth transport companies such as Hybrid Air Vehicles and Clean Power Hydrogen, alongside the reopening of Doncaster Sheffield Airport. Will the Prime Minister put on record his support for Mayor Ros Jones, who has led on the airport reopening? Will he set out how the growth agenda will override traditional investment patterns mainly in the south of England and bring prosperity to South Yorkshire and the north as a whole?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I will. Doncaster has a proud industrial heritage of rail, steel and coal, and extraordinary potential for industries of the future, from hydrogen to artificial intelligence. We are focused on devolving more power and funding to metro Mayors to support regional industry. We will work with the Mayors of Doncaster and South Yorkshire to support efforts to reopen Doncaster Sheffield airport.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Q7. I have the privilege to represent the home of Speyside malts, one the finest Scotch whiskies. Last week, the UK Government unveiled damaging plans to grant a different definition of single malt to English producers from that of Scottish single malts. That is entirely inconsistent with the global reputation of the quality of single malts, and seeks to tear up the well-established definition of a single malt, pulling the rug yet further from under the Scottish whisky industry. Given the backlash from the industry and the damage that it could cause to Scotch whisky exports and jobs, will the Prime Minister’s word on whisky be his whisky bond? Will he back the industry to the hilt and scrap these plans?

[The Prime Minister]

We do support Scotch whisky. It is a really important part of our economy, and that is why we allocated £5 million in the Budget to it and why we are working with Brazil, which is worth £25 million for Scotch whisky. That is what we are doing to support that sector in Scotland. In another sector, at the weekend I was very pleased to announce the £200 million investment in Grangemouth and in future generations there.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

Q12.  Yesterday I returned from Ukraine, having spent four days with a cross-party delegation of parliamentarians. The Ukrainians we met from across society had one simple message: they were deeply thankful for our partnership, and they wanted us to know that they can overcome the Russian invasion because they must. Does the Prime Minister agree that alongside our welcome 100-year partnership, now is the time for the UK to redouble our efforts alongside our European partners to help secure Ukraine’s future as a free, democratic and sovereign European nation?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I do. I am proud of the way that the United Kingdom has risen to the challenge of the past three years in a united way, through the capability and funding that we have provided to Ukraine and also by throwing open homes here to those fleeing. I was privileged to welcome some of the families to Downing Street on Monday. It was a human reminder of the impact on them, their children and their families.

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

Q10.   The whole House wants the Prime Minister’s meeting with President Trump to be a success, which requires credibility on our defence spending commitments. The Leader of the Opposition gave the Prime Minister the opportunity to rule out unambiguously funding any Chagos deal from the defence budget, but I am not clear that he did that. I want him to be taken seriously in Washington, so I will make it really easy for him: will he rule out funding any Chagos deal from the defence budget—yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, when the deal is complete, I will put it before the House with the costings. The money yesterday was allocated to aid our capability and is the single biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

The whole country stands behind the people of Ukraine, but there is a view that taking money from aid and development to spend on armaments and tanks makes people less safe, not more safe, because the desperation and poverty that so often leads to warfare is what aid and development money is supposed to counter.

[The Prime Minister]

As I said yesterday, overseas development is important, and I am proud of what we have done. It was not a decision that I took lightly or wanted to take, but it is important at this moment that we put defence spending and the defence and security of our country and Europe uppermost. We will, of course, make sure that we are able to fulfil our humanitarian obligations in relation to Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan and other vital work. I want to be clear: we do of course want to go back and increase that funding as soon as we are able to do so.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Q13.  I hope the Prime Minister knows that when he travels to Washington to meet the former leader of the free world, he does so with the hopes and prayers of this House and the country; probably no more serious a meeting could be taking place. While the subject of Ukraine will clearly dominate, will he undertake to raise with President Trump the fact that Canada is a valued, respected and much-loved member of both NATO and our Commonwealth? This childish nonsense of a 51st state should be called out by the Prime Minister for what it is.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue. The UK and Canada are close allies and have been for a long time, with a partnership based on a shared history and a shared set of values and a determination to be an active force for good in the world. We work closely with Canada on issues of the Commonwealth, on NATO and, of course, Five Eyes intelligence sharing. We will work to strengthen that relationship.

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

Barrow and Furness has always been ahead of the times in high-skilled engineering. In the light of the Prime Minister’s historic commitment to raise defence spending—the biggest increase since the end of the cold war—I invite him to visit and see the many small and medium-sized enterprises who can support this vital supply chain. Does the Prime Minister agree that investing in those businesses will not only deliver our nuclear deterrent but improve security and the economy for us all?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that, and we will obviously consider her invitation. Defence spending already supports more than 430,000 jobs across the United Kingdom and I recognise the contribution made by the workers in Barrow and Furness.

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

Q14.   In my constituency, the planning inspector chose to use the term grey belt to pass a battery energy storage system application before the order was laid in the House to change the national planning policy framework and without recognising the moratorium for local authorities to manage their local plans. The decision failed to recognise the green belt that protects us against urban sprawl, and it failed to recognise the proximity to a school, a church and a graveyard. Can the Prime Minister define what grey belt actually is, or is it simply a grey area to allow for inappropriate development?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not across the details of the right hon. Member’s case, as she will understand, but I am in favour of making sure that we can have the infrastructure and the houses we need to grow our economy. One of the problems we had over the past 14 years was an assertion or rhetoric that we wanted homes and infrastructure, but when the decision for all that came up, the answer was always no. The answer cannot always be no.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I thank the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for their efforts to secure the release of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, the British human rights campaigner who has been imprisoned in Egypt for over 10 years. The Prime Minister will know—he has met the family—that his mother is on the 150th day of her hunger strike and her health is failing rapidly. May I ask the Prime Minister to pick up the phone to President Sisi and seek the release of Alaa to save his life and that of his mother?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this really important case. As he says, I met the mother and the family just a few days ago. It is an incredibly difficult situation for them. I can assure him that I will do everything I can to ensure the release in this case. That includes phone calls as necessary. I have raised it before and I will raise it again. We raise it and will continue to do so. I gave my word to the family that that is what I will do, and I will.

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

Q15.   People in Northern Ireland are sick to the teeth of paramilitaries, the menace of sectarianism and keeping people stuck in the past. In the light of the announcement yesterday on transition, does the Prime Minister recognise that people will be highly sceptical of the process? There must be real learnings from the failed transitions of the past. There can be no rewards for paramilitaries for hanging on, but there must be robust criminal justice, flags off lampposts and streetcorners, and community-funded policing to allow communities that have been brutalised by paramilitaries to finally look forward to a confident and shared future.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important and obviously sensitive issue. We are committed to making progress towards ending paramilitarism once and for all in Northern Ireland. That is why we have agreed to support a short independent exercise to look at a formal process. I will make sure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland keeps her updated.

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

Prostate cancer is now our country’s most common cancer, yet there is no national screening programme. We made progress towards that in government, but there is more to do, which is why I am delighted to have joined the charity Prostate Cancer Research as an ambassador. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for his engagement thus far. Will the Prime Minister ensure that we have a targeted national screening programme for the groups most at risk of prostate cancer, so we can not only save the NHS money and make progress towards the Government’s early diagnosis targets, but, most crucially, save thousands of lives?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, and I thank him for using his authority and reputation to support this vital cause, which will make a material difference. I look forward to working with him on it. We share a commitment to detecting prostate cancer earlier and treating it faster. We must do that. Our national cancer plan will improve the way we treat cancer right across the country. I will make sure he is fully informed of the steps we are taking and will work with him.

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

Will the Prime Minister join me in wishing all Welsh citizens everywhere a very happy St David’s day on Saturday? Will he also join me in welcoming the latest news of the £600 million investment by Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners to ensure that Bute Energy and Green GEN Cymru can take forward the bold ambition to achieve 100% green electricity production by 2035 in Wales, thus providing much-needed sustainable green jobs for the people of Wales?

[The Prime Minister]

I wish my hon. Friend and her constituents a very happy St David’s day, and join her in welcoming the significant new investment in her constituency that will ensure good, well-paid skilled jobs and the transition to energy security and lower bills. I know her constituency will play a vital role in that.

[Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that our biggest single foreign policy priority is the preservation of NATO with America at its heart? If so, following his welcome announcement yesterday, is the next step to talk to our European allies and for all of us to agree to spend 3% of GDP on defence within a specified timescale, so we can look the President in the eye and say that Europe is finally pulling its weight on defence?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman entirely on the priority in terms of NATO. Putin thought he could weaken NATO. He has only made it stronger and larger. NATO’s strength comes from the US, European partners and others working together, and that is absolutely the focus of my work at the moment. It is right, as he says, that European countries, including the United Kingdom, need to do more on capability, co-ordination and defence spend. That must be seen not as a project separate to NATO, but as part of an essential project that ensures NATO is there for decades and decades to come preserving the peace, just as it has been for 75 years.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

The Grangemouth refinery closure has loomed over central Scotland since Petroineos’s announcement in November 2023. Two weeks ago, Scottish Labour colleagues and I met the National Wealth Fund to make the case for investment in Grangemouth. I strongly welcome the exceptional commitment that this Labour Government have shown to Grangemouth by committing £200 million from the National Wealth Fund. Can I ask the Prime Minister what steps the Government will be taking to secure permanent good jobs at Grangemouth?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for being such a great champion for Scotland and his constituency. Grangemouth is really important to communities in Scotland and to the economy in Scotland. It is not a charity case; it has incredible potential and huge opportunity. That is why, at the weekend, I was pleased to announce £200 million from the National Wealth Fund to incentivise private investment. That follows the £100 million in the growth deal that we announced earlier. This is about securing jobs for decades to come in Grangemouth. It is a really exciting opportunity and we intend to seize it.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that His Excellency Mr Afrim Gashi, the Speaker of the Assembly of North Macedonia, enjoyed questions.

Defence and Security

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Let me begin by giving my word to this House that the statement was not given to the media. I will absolutely have an inquiry into that. I spoke to you, Mr Speaker, this morning. I would not be discourteous to you, the Leader of the Opposition or the House in that way. I give you that assurance from this Dispatch Box. I apologise to the Leader of the Opposition, and I will have that inquiry.

Three years since Russia launched its vile assault on Ukraine, I would like to address the international situation and the implications for Britain’s national security. In my first week as Prime Minister, I travelled to the NATO summit in Washington with a simple message: NATO and our allies could trust that this Government would fulfil Britain’s and, indeed, the Labour party’s, historic role of putting our collective security first. I spoke of my great pride in leading the party that was a founding member of NATO, the inheritor of the legacy of Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin, who not only stood behind Winston Churchill in wartime, but won the peace by establishing the great post-war order here and abroad.

It is a proud legacy, but in a world like ours it is also a heavy one, because the historical load that we must carry to fulfil our duty is not as light as it once was. We must bend our backs across this House, because these times demand a united Britain and we must deploy all our resources to achieve security.

Mr Speaker, as a young man, I vividly remember the Berlin Wall coming down. It felt as if we were casting off the shackles of history; a continent united by freedom and democracy. If you had told me then that in my lifetime we would see Russian tanks rolling into European cities again, I would not have believed you. Yet here we are in a world where everything has changed, because three years ago that is exactly what happened.

Britain can be proud of our response. British families opened their doors to fleeing Ukrainians, with the yellow and light blue fluttering on town halls and churches the length and breadth of the country. The Conservatives in government were robust in our response. I supported that in opposition and I applaud them for it now. We have built on that, bringing our support for Ukraine to a record level this year.

We should not pretend that any of this has been easy. Working people have already felt the cost of Russian actions through rising prices and bills. None the less, one of the great lessons of our history is that instability in Europe will always wash up on our shores and that tyrants like Putin only respond to strength. Russia is a menace in our waters, in our airspace and on our streets. It has launched cyber-attacks on our NHS and—only seven years ago—a chemical weapons attack on the streets of Salisbury.

We must stand by Ukraine, because if we do not achieve a lasting peace the economic instability and the threats to our security will only grow. And so, as the nature of that conflict changes, as it has in recent weeks, it brings our response into sharper focus; a new era that we must meet—as we have so often in the past—together and with strength.

The fundamentals of British strategy are unchanged. I know that the current moment is volatile, but there is still no good reason why they cannot endure, so let me now spell out to the House exactly how we will renew them for these times. First, NATO is the bedrock of our security and will remain so. It has brought peace for 75 years. It is as important today as the day on which it was founded. Putin thought he would weaken NATO; he has achieved the exact opposite. It remains the organisation that receives the vast bulk of our defence effort in every domain, and that must continue.

Secondly, we must reject any false choice between our allies—between one side of the Atlantic and the other. That is against our history, country and party, because it is against our fundamental national interest. The US is our most important bilateral alliance. It straddles everything from nuclear technology to NATO, Five Eyes, AUKUS and beyond. It has survived countless external challenges in the past. We have fought wars together. We are the closest partners in trade, growth and security.

So this week, when I meet President Trump, I will be clear. I want this relationship to go from strength to strength. But strength in this world also depends on a new alliance with Europe. As I said in Paris last week, our commitment to European defence and security is unwavering, but now is the time to deepen it. We will find new ways to work together on our collective interests and threats, protecting our borders, bringing our companies together and seeking out new opportunities for growth.

Thirdly, we seek peace not conflict, and we believe in the power of diplomacy to deliver that end. That of course is most pressing in Ukraine. Nobody in this House or this country wants the bloodshed to continue—nobody. I have seen the devastation in Ukraine at first hand. What you see in places such as Bucha never leaves you. But for peace to endure in Ukraine and beyond, we need deterrence. I know that this House will endorse the principle of winning peace through strength, so we will continue to stand behind the people of Ukraine. We must ensure that they negotiate their future, and we will continue to put them in the strongest position for a lasting peace.

Fourthly, we must change our national security posture, because a generational challenge requires a generational response. That will demand some extremely difficult and painful choices, and through those choices, as hard as they are, we must also seek unity—a whole-society effort that will reach into the lives, the industries and the homes of the British people. I started this statement by recalling the era of Attlee and Bevin, and this year we will mark many anniversaries of that greatest generation. We must find courage in our history and courage in who we are as a nation, because courage is what our own era now demands of us. So, starting today, this Government will begin the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We will deliver our commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence, but we will bring it forward so that we reach that level in 2027 and we will maintain that for the rest of this Parliament. Let me spell that out. That means spending £13.4 billion more on defence every year from 2027.

However, we also face enemies that are sophisticated in cyber-attacks, sabotage and even assassination, so our intelligence and security services are an increasingly vital part of protecting both us and our allies. On top of the funding of 2.5% that I have just announced, we will recognise the incredible contribution of our intelligence and security services to the defence of our nation, which means that, taken together, we will be spending 2.6% on our defence from 2027.

We must go further still. I have long argued that in the face of ongoing and generational challenges, all European allies must step up and do more for our own defence. Subject to economic and fiscal conditions, and aligned with our strategic and operational needs, we will also set a clear ambition for defence spending to rise to 3% of GDP in the next Parliament.

I want to be very clear: the nature of warfare has changed significantly. That is clear from the battlefield in Ukraine, so we must modernise and reform our capabilities as we invest. I equally want to be very clear that, like any other investment we make, we must seek value for money. That is why we are putting in place a new defence reform and efficiency plan, jointly led by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary.

This investment means that the UK will strengthen its position as a leader in NATO and in the collective defence of our continent, and we should welcome that role. It is good for our national security. It is also good for this Government’s defining mission to restore growth to our economy, and we should be optimistic about what it can deliver in those terms. But, in the short term, it can only be funded through hard choices. In this case, that means we will cut our spending on development assistance, moving from 0.5% of GNI today to 0.3% in 2027, fully funding our increased investment in defence.

I want to be clear to the House that this is not an announcement that I am happy to make. I am proud of our pioneering record on overseas development, and we will continue to play a key humanitarian role in Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza, tackling climate change and supporting multinational efforts on global health and challenges like vaccination. In recent years, the development budget was redirected towards asylum backlogs, paying for hotels, so as we are clearing that backlog at a record pace, there are efficiencies that will reduce the need to cut spending on our overseas programmes. None the less, it remains a cut, and I will not pretend otherwise. We will do everything we can to return to a world where that is not the case and to rebuild a capability on development. But at times like this, the defence and security of the British people must always come first. That is the No. 1 priority of this Government.

But it is not just about spending; our whole approach to national security must now change. We will have to ask British industry, British universities, British businesses and the British people to play a bigger part, and to use this to renew the social contract of our nation—the rights and responsibilities that we owe one another. The first test of our defence policy is of course whether it keeps our country safe, but the second should be whether it improves the conditions of the British people. Does it help provide the economic security that working people need? Because, ultimately, as Attlee and Bevin knew, that is fundamental to national security as well. We will use this investment as an opportunity. We will translate defence spending into British growth, British jobs, British skills and British innovation. We will use the full powers of the Procurement Act 2023 to rebuild our industrial base.

As the strategic defence review is well under way, and across Government we are conducting a number of other reviews relevant to national security, it is obvious that those reviews must pull together. So before the NATO summit in June we will publish a single national security strategy and bring it to this House, because, as I said earlier, that is how we must meet the threats of our age: together and with strength—a new approach to defence, a revival of our industrial base, a deepening of our alliances; the instruments of our national power brought together; creating opportunity, assuring our allies and delivering security for our country.

Mr Speaker, at moments like these in our past, Britain has stood up to be counted. It has come together. And it has demonstrated strength. That is what the security of our country needs now, and it is what this Government will deliver. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

May I first thank the Leader of the Opposition for her support in relation to today’s announcement and on Ukraine? That is important to the Government, to the House and, most of all, to the Ukrainians and President Zelensky. They want to see unity in our House—they value unity in our House—as they enter, after three years of conflict, a very difficult stage in the war with Russia and against Russian aggression. I hope and believe that we can maintain that unity in relation to Ukraine, as we have done for three years. I am very proud that this House has done that, notwithstanding a change of Government, for three long years—we will continue to do so.

The Leader of the Oppositions asks about the money for defence, security and intelligence. There was new money in the Budget in relation to that, but what I am doing here is in addition to the 2.5%, which is the increased defence spend as it has always been understood, to recognise that the nature of the threats to our county are different now, and that the security and intelligence services play a key part for us and our allies in our defence. That takes the total to 2.6%.

The Leader of the Opposition asks whether we will tax or borrow to pay for the 2.5%. The answer is no, which is why I have today set out precisely how we will pay for it, pound for pound. That has meant a difficult decision on overseas development—a very difficult decision, and not one that I wanted or am happy to take. But it is important that we explain where the money will come from in terms and today. I was only ever going to come to the House with a plan that had a timeline and a percentage in it, and an answer to the question, “How will you pay for it?” I would not have come to the House with a fanciful plan.

The Leader of the Opposition says that they had a plan—[Interruption.] She says, “Of course we did.” I have my views on that, but the Institute for Government said that the Conservatives’ pledge of 2.5% by 2030 did “not add up” and was “not a serious plan.” The Institute for Fiscal Studies called it “misleading and opaque”. I am not giving my view; I am giving the view of other bodies on the plan that the Conservatives put forward. They said that they would fund it by cutting the civil service, and then increased the civil service by 13,000. I am not prepared to operate in that way, which is why we have taken the difficult decision on overseas development today, to be absolutely clear on where the money is coming from.

In relation to the Leader of the Opposition’s final point on the approach that we take here and whether there is a difference between us, I hope not. What I have set out was NATO-first, as the bedrock of our security. I hope that is common ground, whatever we may call our respective positions. I also set out that we must not choose between the US and our European allies. That is what I fundamentally believe, and I will resist that choice. I hope that is common ground between us, notwithstanding the language that she uses, because it is important, not for exchanges over the Dispatch Boxes, but for the future defence and security of our country and of Europe.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I know he has a lot to say, but I have a lot of Members to get in, including other party leaders.

[The Prime Minister]

I do agree that our alliances are important, and that is why NATO is the bedrock of our approach. It has been for many, many years and will continue to be. I do accept that European allies and the UK have to step up and do more. In our heart of hearts, I think across this House we have known that this moment was coming for the last three years. We have put that plan before the House, and of course, I will do everything I can to strengthen the alliance and the relationship between the US and the UK. It is a special relationship. It is a strong relationship. I want it to go from strength to strength.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. Three years ago, Putin began his brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and as we watched Russian missiles rain down on Ukrainian cities, we feared he might have struck a decisive blow to Ukraine and its sovereignty, yet Putin underestimated the strength of the ideals we share with our Ukrainian friends of democracy, truth and liberty. He underestimated the courage and grit of Ukrainian soldiers, who have spent three years heroically resisting Putin’s war machine.

Britain stood together with our allies in support of Ukraine, and families up and down the country opened their doors wide for Ukrainian refugees, because we know that Ukraine’s fight for democracy and liberty is our fight, too. In this House, we stood strong together, and yet three years on, the future of Ukraine and security in Europe seems even more perilous. Then, Washington was clearly on our side, but now, the United States is voting with Russia, Belarus and North Korea in the United Nations. President Trump labels President Zelensky a “dictator”, but not Vladimir Putin.

After the second world war, Britain came together with allies around the world to establish NATO and, with America, agreed to underwrite security on this continent, recognising that a threat to the security of one nation was a threat to the security of all nations. The events of the past few days are clear: that era is over. We may be watching before our very eyes the betrayal of our Ukrainian allies by America, and with it, the potential betrayal of Europe and of Britain, too. We must respond. Now it is up to the United Kingdom to lead in Europe. As a nation, we must seize this moment.

It is for our national interest that Liberal Democrats have supported the Prime Minister’s proposals on Ukraine, including British troops joining a reassurance mission in Ukraine if a just settlement is reached. That is why we strongly support the Prime Minister raising defence spending to 2.5%, preferably using seized Russian assets to pay for extra defence support for Ukraine. We will scrutinise all aspects of the Government’s spending plans carefully, but I hope that moving at pace to 2.5% means that Ministers will shortly announce the reversal of the Conservatives’ short-sighted cut of 10,000 troops from our armed forces.

The Prime Minister is right: we must go further, so will he initiate talks between all parties in this House to establish the vital consensus needed to take us to spending 3% of GDP on defence as soon as possible? The Prime Minister will know that for months, we Liberal Democrats have urged the Government to seize frozen Russian assets, which amount to over £20 billion, and repurpose those funds for Ukraine’s defence. Will he take immediate steps to gather European leaders and begin the seizure of Russian assets, so that we can support Ukraine no matter what America does? Will he, on his trip to Washington, try to persuade President Trump to do the same—to make Russia pay?

The Prime Minister will know that the whole country will be willing him on, hoping that he might be able to persuade Donald Trump to change his mind on Ukraine. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches think he is right to try, but should that not work, will he be clear where the United Kingdom then stands? Will he make it clear that, if absolutely necessary, it will be with Ukraine and our European allies, not Putin and Trump?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support on Ukraine; it has been steadfast, and it has been across this House. For the same reasons that I gave to the Leader of the Opposition, that is important not just here but to those in Ukraine.

We do need to step up and lead in Europe—we have been saying that for a very long time. All European countries need to do more, and now is the moment to do so, but we need to do that together with the US, because what is needed more than anything is a lasting peace. A ceasefire that simply gives Putin the chance to regroup and to go again is in nobody’s interest. A lasting peace means that we must talk about issues such as security guarantees. We are prepared to play our part, as I have indicated, but I have also indicated that to be a security guarantee, it requires a US backstop—US support for that security guarantee. That is at the heart of the case I have been making for some time.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, of the assets that have been seized already, the interest on those of £3 billion has already been committed to Ukraine, and we are working with our European allies to see what more can be done in relation to the funding that will be necessary. Stepping up means stepping up on capability, on co-ordination and on funding, which is what we have done today with this statement.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

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

I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and this strong commitment to defence spending. I welcome as well the work being done with the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary on ensuring that we get as much value as we can for each pound spent on delivering capability. Will the Prime Minister reaffirm his commitment to the parliamentary scrutiny of that spending, including on the most sensitive areas?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, of course; it is extremely important, and my hon. Friend knows that well. She is absolutely right to say that we must get value for money. This is a huge increase in defence spending. It is very important that it is used on the right capabilities in the right way, and that is why we intend to get a much better grip on the money that will be put in.

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

I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement. I personally think it is a start, not a finish—I think we will find that we have to raise defence spending further—but I welcome it none the less, and on behalf of all of this House and my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), I will support it.

The Prime Minister is due to go to Washington. One problem we have there is that they seem to have reached the conclusion that peace is simply the absence of war. Can he remind the President that a peace without justice, the right to freedom and choice in democracy is not peace, but a partial ceasefire? He might also remind the President that the last great test we faced united the United Kingdom and America, with Lady Thatcher and Ronald Reagan taking decisions that moved Europe in the right direction. Can he appeal to the President that, instead of running around making adverse comments, he should link hands with the United Kingdom to persuade the rest of Europe to step up, as we are now stepping up?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. The point he makes about a lasting peace and what it must be is really important. This is not just about stopping the fighting; it is about an enduring and lasting peace for Europe and, of course, the sovereignty of Ukraine—the sovereign ability to choose the alliances that Ukrainian people want, to choose their own Government and to choose how they defend themselves in conjunction with others. It is about the sovereignty of Ukraine, but it is also about the values and freedoms across Europe, including our values and freedoms. That is why this is such an important moment to ensure that NATO is as strong as it has been in the last 75 years as we go forward, and that the bond between us and the US is as strong as it has ever been. That has to be part of the case—the argument—and the way in which we have stepped up today and will continue to do so.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, and particularly his commitment to accelerate the increase in defence spending, although I fear that we may have to visit the 3% target before the next Parliament. It is very important that we have a whole-society approach to defence. Will he be bringing forward a strategy to make that happen, particularly around the great need to improve our reservist forces?

[The Prime Minister]

It does have to be a whole-society response, which is why I set that out in my statement in the House, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it. Of course it has to be a driver of industrial growth and our industrial strategy.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Aside from a few of Putin’s poodles, who are not in their seats in the Chamber today, we are of course united in our support for the people of Ukraine, and in wishing the Prime Minister well in his discussions with the President of the United States later this week. But I am afraid that is where the unity ends, because while we support increasing defence spending, we cannot support the populist playbook of cutting foreign aid. Indeed, that position was shared and agreed with by the Foreign Secretary just a matter of days ago, when he said that it would be a “big strategic mistake” that would allow China to step in. Why was the Foreign Secretary wrong, and the Prime Minister right?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support on the question of Ukraine, which is important. I reassure him that the decision that I have taken today on development aid is not an ideological one. I absolutely understand its importance—it is a difficult and painful decision, but a necessary one. He talks about choice. SNP Members welcomed the biggest settlement since devolution in the Budget, but they voted against it because they could not take a choice. The right hon. Gentleman welcomes the increase in defence spending, but he does not want to say how he will fund it. Grown-up choices about the future of Europe require grown-up decisions and choices, and that is what we have done.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)]

Instability in Europe washes up on our shores, and I accept the hard decision that the Prime Minister has made to invest in defence, which means difficult decisions on international development. Can we please invest more in cyber, given the disinformation and cyber-attacks that our country faces on a daily basis?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that because cyber is one of the tools for warfare these days. That is why we increased funding in the Budget, and why I have adjusted the 2.5% to 2.6% in the case presented to the House today.

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

I agree entirely with the strategic direction that the Prime Minister has set out. Defence and security must come first, but he does have choices about how he funds that important uplift. In the last Parliament, he and I voted together against balancing the books on the backs of the poorest people in the world. Does he still think that vote was right?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I am proud of that vote at the time, and proud of the work that our country has done on development. This is not a decision that I want to make, and I absolutely want us to get back to more funding on overseas development and increasing those capabilities. Some of that will be helped if, as we are doing, we get the asylum backlog down and stop using that money to pay for hotels, which is not what it is intended for. This has been a difficult decision. The right hon. Gentleman knows how much I value overseas development and how important it is, but I thought, and think, that the most important thing today is to be clear about the commitment we are making on defence, to spell out the reasons that we are making those decisions, and to set out penny and pound exactly how it will be funded. I would not come to the House with a plan that was not credible and not costed, because that would be far worse for our country, but I accept the tenor of what he says about the importance of the issue.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for the leadership that he has shown in these uncertain times. As the Member of Parliament for the home of the British Army, I know that this is hugely welcome news for my constituency and that my community is ready to serve. What will the Prime Minister do to help to create jobs in the defence sector in my community?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Given the make-up of her constituency and constituents, they are hardwired for this. This is an important obligation that we must rise to, but it is also an opportunity to ensure that the jobs that will be generated are British jobs, with British skills, in all our constituencies. We will endeavour to ensure that that is the case.

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

We are pleased to hear the announcement that the Government will increase defence spending to 2.5%, but we are still waiting for the strategic defence review to be completed, as without that we are in the dark. Will the SDR be announced soon, and if not, will the Prime Minister outline how the additional money will be spent?

[The Prime Minister]

The SDR is advanced and I will come to the House with it as soon as we can. I want to make sure that we have properly identified the challenges and capabilities. Obviously, we have put the funding forward today. We will do that as soon as we can, and when we do, it will be a credible plan for the House.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his tireless efforts to bring security to Ukraine, because its security is our security. Does he agree that that is possible only because we are one United Kingdom, and that that strength, that solidarity, is possible only because our four nations work together? Does he agree that those who attempt to fragment that Union in these perilous times do us great harm?

[The Prime Minister]

I do agree with that. As the United Kingdom we have always stood up in moments such as this, and we stand up again as the United Kingdom and are proud to do so. This is an important moment and a juncture after three years of a conflict, and the whole House will be aware of the potential consequences of decisions in coming weeks. It is a time for us to pull together.

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

President Trump says that he wants his legacy to be that of a peacemaker. In his difficult conversations with the President in a few days’ time, will the Prime Minister remind him that the reason the enforced division of Czechoslovakia before the war was a step on the road to disaster, but the division of Germany at the end of the war did not lead to world war three, was that the western half of Europe at the end of world war two was not demilitarised? If there is to be a stable Ukraine after any such enforced division, there must be military protection for the unoccupied half of Ukraine.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about peace. It is what everybody wants, not least the Ukrainians, but it must be a lasting peace and not a temporary ceasefire. I agree that that means it needs security guarantees. The configuration of that needs to be agreed, but the security guarantees must be sufficient to deter any further aggression. Otherwise it will be a ceasefire, and that would be the worst of outcomes for the whole of Europe.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership and the announcement today, committing us to 2.6% of GDP on defence spending, and 3% beyond that. That is in stark contrast to the 14 years of erosion of defence spending, the hollowing out of our services, and the service life that resulted. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the reforms put forward by the Defence Secretary are essential to delivering deterrence and to preventing further acts of Russian brutal imperialist aggression in Europe?

[The Prime Minister]

The reforms are really important. The strategic review is very important, and the funding is very important. This is a moment when we must step up and play our full part in the defence of our country and the defence of Europe. I have already commented on the plan that the Conservative party put forward at the election. I have not quoted my words; I have quoted the words of the Institute for Government, which said—[Interruption.] Well, I would say what I think, but what the Institute for Government said was perfectly right. The plan was not properly funded and it was not a credible plan. We have put a credible plan before the House, and I am glad it has been welcomed.

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

Plaid Cymru stands firm with the need to safeguard Ukraine’s sovereignty, because international security is also national security. However, the UK will now cut the already diminished foreign aid budget to fund military spending. National security calls for building peace, as well as for armed forces. Given the importance that overseas aid plays in preventing conflict, building democracy and curbing warmongering tyrants, to paraphrase the Foreign Secretary, surely cutting foreign aid too is a massive strategic and moral mistake?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady is right to raise the importance of overseas development—I have said that from the Dispatch Box a number of times—but this is a moment when we have to step up and increase our defence spending. Of course, everybody in this House would wish that was not the situation. We have had a peace dividend for many years, but that has come to an end. We have to step up and our first duty is to keep the country safe, which requires a credible plan. I accept that it is a difficult plan—this is not a decision that I wanted to make—but it is a credible plan for the defence and security of our country and of Europe.

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. I agree with him that it is the beginning, not the end, of the process, but does he agree that it is not just how much money we spend, but how well we spend it? Will he join me in thanking all our armed forces personnel for the commitment they show day in, day out to defending our nation?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with both those propositions, and about what we spend and how we spend it. Speaking for myself, the Government and, I am sure, the whole House, we thank our armed services for what they do on our behalf, day in, day out.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

It is without doubt that enduring peace is achieved only if we have enduring security arrangements, so I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement on defence expenditure and the commitment to it. However, I reiterate my observation, and the observation of others, on the way that that money is spent. For a generation, we have been complacent. There is significant dysfunctionality in the way that industry works with Government on the procurement and delivery of defence capabilities in this country. I urge him to keep his Defence Secretary in place for the duration of this Parliament, so that we can find some common purpose, across this House, and deliver enduring reforms that stand the test of time. Treasury after Treasury has found it impossible to get to grips with defence expenditure—we must achieve that in this Parliament.

[The Prime Minister]

The Defence Secretary has just asked me whether he could reply to that question. The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Procurement and the grip on defence spend has not been in the right place, and we have not used our businesses in the way that we could have done in the past. I gently say that the past 14 years might have been a good period to have got to grips with that, but we need to get to grips with it now. I think that will be welcomed by the whole House, because we need to do that.

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I and many of my colleagues started our careers in the shadow of Putin’s first invasion of Ukraine, back in 2014. We knew then what Putin was capable of and what Putin intended to do. However, our service was marked by swingeing cuts from the Conservative Government that left our armed forces lacking key capabilities. There is an old saying that if you want peace, prepare for war, so will the Prime Minister assure me that the extra cash will be well spent to cover those capabilities and to take advantage of the new technologies we desperately need?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

May I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her service? She is absolutely right that this money must be well spent on the capability that we need, and it will be.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and I wish him well as he goes to America to persuade the Americans to side with democracy, rather than vote with dictators. There will be a long lead-in time before we see the effects of today’s announcement. Given that and the overstretched commitments of our armed forces, how will he give assurances to the Ukrainians that Britain will be able to supply arms and personnel to defend any peace agreement that is reached?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. On the question of security guarantees, intense discussions are going on about how that would look and what that might involve. I am absolutely confident that we can play our full part. I will not disclose details to the House for reasons that he will understand, but I am confident that we can and will play our full part in whatever security guarantees may be needed. They will, of course, be with US backing, which is important if they are to be proper guarantees.

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

I welcome the uplift in defence spending but, as the Prime Minister has recognised, there has been a difficult decision about our aid budget. Like many hon. Members, I have seen at first hand the impact of the aid budget, not only on tackling poverty but on our own stability and prosperity. I welcome what the Prime Minister has said so far, but will he reassure us that our commitment remains to get back to 0.7% of GDP for overseas aid, as soon as fiscal circumstances allow?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I want to see that. Notwithstanding the difficult decision we have taken today, I reassure the House that it is important that vital issues, such as those in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine, are prioritised for reasons that are obvious to Members across the House.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Members across the House recognise the need to invest more and to invest differently in defence and security, but it is unbelievably counterproductive and short-sighted to fund that by slashing aid to the poorest and most fragile countries, or by squeezing already stretched departmental budgets. Why will the Prime Minister not fund this by increasing taxes on the most wealthy, rather than placing the burden on the poorest?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think the plans put forward by the hon. Lady, as far as I have seen them, are realistic. To make a commitment such as the one we have made, we have to put forward a credible, costed plan in which we can say with certainty precisely where the money is coming from. That is why we have taken the difficult decision that we have taken today.

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

The Prime Minister’s statement hits the nail on the head, unlike the rantings of J. D. Vance on European freedom of speech at the Munich security conference. I know the statement will be particularly welcome at the Ealing ex-servicemen’s club, so will the Prime Minister recommit to our veterans, to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and to organisations like the Army cadet centre in Acton and the Territorial Army reservists in Wood Lane, either of which would welcome a visit, for those who have served our nation and those who will do so in the future?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I am happy to make that commitment. I ask my hon. Friend to carry that message to her constituents, along with my thanks and those of the Government and the House.

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

When the Prime Minister flies off to Washington, he will go with the confidence that this House and the whole country are behind him and wish him well in that very difficult meeting. We know that this country and our continent face possibly the most dangerous moments that we have experienced since the height of the cold war. I welcome his statement on increasing defence spending, which some of us would say is a couple of decades overdue. Will he accept that the benchmark for the success of the defence review is not some arbitrary percentage of what we are spending, but whether we are spending whatever is necessary to give back to our armed forces the warfighting capability that is the only real deterrence that the Russians will respect? I very much doubt that 2.5% or 3% will be enough; I do not say that as a criticism, but because, as a nation, we must be prepared for that.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his sentiments. At a moment like this, it is important that I am able to carry the House with me as we undertake the next stage of these discussions about the security and defence of Europe. It is a very important generational moment, and this House and this country have always come together and stood up at moments like this. I know he has long been a supporter of increased defence spending and capability, and of the notion that there must be a warfighting capability. He is right about that, which is why we have made the decision we have today.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and his strong leadership. Does he agree that as we rightly reassert the concept of taking responsibility—of responsibility being taken by our own military, people and economy, and by our friends on the continent of Europe—we must also reassert the responsibility of all countries to defend the international rules-based system, which has at its core the concept that bullies must not get away with invading their neighbours? If they do, not only will we dishonour the bravery and sacrifice of our Ukrainian friends, but our collective security will be weakened.

[The Prime Minister]

Two of those rules-based systems are fundamental: the UN charter and the NATO framework and all the articles in it. Those are hugely important rules-based frameworks that we must absolutely adhere to. I wrote many times about the UN Security Council as a lawyer. In my first appearance at the Security Council, I was sitting at the table with a country that was in clear violation of the charter, and I did not feel at all comfortable.

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

I have distinct memories of, three years ago, helping my Ukrainian friends and colleagues flee the country as tanks came towards their homes. Since then, people across Harpenden, Berkhamsted and Tring have opened their doors to those from Ukraine, but the hope that they once had has turned to fear of what is happening globally. Can the Prime Minister assure the British people that when he speaks to President Trump, he will push for lasting peace, and highlight the importance of working with our European colleagues?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank, through the hon. Lady, everybody in this country who has opened their doors to Ukrainian refugees. I am very proud of the fact that we have done that, and that the Ukrainian flag flies in so many places across the country. I can reassure her constituents that this announcement today and the approach that we are taking are to ensure that peace continues, but for peace to continue, we have to put ourselves and Ukraine in the strongest possible position, and this is a step along that road.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

It is shameful that in such a volatile world, for far too long, conversations around defence spending have involved a lot of hot air and not much hard action. Colleagues from across the House will today have to recognise that the Prime Minister has changed that, with a clear, funded and needed plan for investing in our defence. Supply chains are so important to security, so he will recognise, as I do, that what matters is not just what we spend, but where we spend it. How will he make sure that our whole Government are united in the effort to build up our domestic supply chain capacity, when it comes to key defence assets?

[The Prime Minister]

This is where the industrial strategy and growth are so important, because as we move to greater defence spend, it is vital that we ensure that supply chains are in this country, as far as they can be, and that they lead to British, well-paid and secure jobs. We know that the defence sector already provides many well-paid jobs across the country. I want more.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Almost on that point, Mr Speaker, what an abdication of responsibility and duty it is that not a single member of the Reform party is able to ask a question of the Prime Minister this afternoon on these precious issues of defence and security. They are treated with a very different level of seriousness by Members on the Conservative and Government Benches.

Many have asked the Prime Minister about the use of Russian frozen assets. Anybody who has studied the issue with regard to Libya will know just how complicated international law and convention has made the defrosting of frozen assets so that they can be put to proper use. In his discussions in Washington and with the other European leaders, can the Prime Minister press for urgent, collaborative and international reform of those rules, so that those frozen assets can be used to help the Ukrainians and their military to defeat Russian aggression?

[The Prime Minister]

The point that the hon. Gentleman raises is important. The process is very complicated, for reasons that he will understand. Obviously we have been able to use some of the interest on those frozen assets, which has proved valuable to Ukraine, but we need to work with our European colleagues and to collaborate on other legitimate, proper ways to raise further funding, and we will continue to do that with our allies.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement from the Prime Minister. This is a major commitment to our defence; I think it will be heard across the world and welcomed by our allies, particularly those facing Russian or Iranian aggression. How will the Prime Minister ensure that British businesses, which are so crucial to our defence, are supported in their important task?

[The Prime Minister]

That has to be done through the industrial strategy and the growth strategy that we will put in place, but it is vital that this is seen as not just a duty and responsibility, which it is, but as an opportunity for British businesses, and for well-paid, secure jobs, which are so vital to so many communities.

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

The Prime Minister knows that he can rely on the support of the SNP when it comes to efforts to restore Ukrainian sovereignty in the face of Russian aggression, despite the baseless rhetoric from those on the Benches behind him. I would like him to acknowledge that.

I welcome the Prime Minister raising defence expenditure to 2.5%, albeit by 2027, which will be three years after the election, despite the pledge being in the Labour party’s manifesto. However, it cannot be right to balance the books at a cost to the poorest in global society, when there is a Government Budget of £1.1 trillion. When he goes to Washington on Thursday and gets his pat on the back from the President of the United States, will he spare a thought for those—predominantly women and children—who will suffer immeasurably, and some of whom will die, as a result of his decision today?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support on Ukraine. The First Minister has set out that support in clear terms in recent days; that is important, and I acknowledge it. We have had to make difficult decisions, but as he and the House know, wherever there is war and conflict, it is the poor and the poorest who are hit hardest. There is no easy way through this, but we have to ensure that we win peace through strength, because anything other than peace will hit the very people the hon. Gentleman has identified harder than anybody else on the planet. That is why it is so important that we have taken the decision we have today.

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

National security is the first duty of any Government, so I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement, and his strong leadership today. This Government are rising to the challenge of investing in our defence, whereas the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has said that Vladimir Putin is the leader he admires the most, and that NATO provoked Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Does the Prime Minister share my concern that those comments play right into the hands of Britain’s enemies?

[The Prime Minister]

You do not show patriotism by fawning over Putin.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

No decent Government cut international development budgets lightly. The Prime Minister’s discomfort is plain for all to see and will be shared across the House, but will he look at other things that perhaps present easier choices—in particular, his choice to spend billions of pounds on Mauritius? Will he repurpose that money in defence of our armed forces?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously in the short term, we have to make decisions between the here and now and the commitment to 2.5% in 2027. Having looked at the available options, this was the choice that had to be made, and that I think would have been made by any serious Prime Minister making the commitment that I have made today. Of course, we need to look at other things as we go forward from here. Many people across the House have mentioned, and I have set out, the ambition of getting to 3%, but I will put forward only credible costed plans to this House, not fantasy figures. [Interruption.] The Opposition chunter away, but this is a moment for a serious, costed plan. It is not the time for ridiculous, uncosted plans.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I think the entire House agrees that our safety and that of our allies depends on showing Putin that we have the resolve and resources to defeat him. We are far more prosperous than he is: European NATO’s GDP is $24.5 trillion, and Russia’s is only $2 trillion. Clearly, the matter before us is converting those resources into fighting forces and matériel in the years ahead. Can the Prime Minister assure me that the strategic defence review and our defence industrial strategy will ensure that we have long-term orders that give us the capacity that we need, as well as secure supply chains, inputs such as steel and, of course, the ability to scale rapidly if we need to rearm?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising those points. They are all important, and of course, they have to be hardwired into the work we do as we go forward.

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

The Prime Minister will have the support of both sides of this House when he goes to see President Trump on Thursday. If he fails to encourage the US to become the backstop for Ukraine, though, no matter how much he increases spending in the next couple of years, there will be difficulty. What conversations is the Prime Minister having about a backstop for Europe to make sure that Ukraine gets that support?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not going to pre-empt the discussions I will have, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I absolutely believe that we should play our full part in any security guarantees—if that is what happens; we do not even know whether we will get to that stage—but I also absolutely think there needs to be US backing for that, because I do not think a security guarantee will be operative without that backing.

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

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, because although difficult decisions have had to be taken today, the alternative is inaction—which, of course, is also a decision. Does the Prime Minister agree that the lesson of history is that Ukraine’s survival and its defence are completely indivisible from our own?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I do. That is why I say that this is not just about the sovereignty of Ukraine, but about European defence and security and our own defence and security. We have already paid a heavy price in this country—the contribution we have made has had an effect on our cost of living, our energy prices and so much else—but this is fundamental. It is about our values; it is about our freedom; and it is about understanding who Putin is, and what his ambitions are. We must never forget that.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

With some of our European allies likening our predicament in 2025 to that of 1938, the increase in defence spending announced today by the Prime Minister is welcome, but I am concerned that it will come too late. Will the Prime Minister look at Liberal Democrat proposals to increase the digital services tax, which would raise £3 billion this year?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not accept the argument that this has come too late. It has come at the point at which we are able to put a credible, costed plan before the House. We have known for three years that this moment was going to come, and the last few weeks have accelerated this and made it more urgent, which is why I have made the statement I have today.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership today. He is undertaking the first duty of any leader, which is the defence of the nation, and reiterating the fundamental British value that our country opposes fascists, and never appeases them. He rightly talked about renewing the social contract with the British people when it comes to jobs, skills and industry. Does he agree that if we are to do that, it must reach every part of our country, including areas that I represent that are far too often left behind?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I do. We must rise to that challenge. Many of the well-paid, skilled jobs in the defence sector are found across the whole United Kingdom. We need to ensure that there are more of those well-paid, skilled jobs across the whole United Kingdom.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for acknowledging that although what has been said today is very important, he and the Government will need to come back to us on getting towards 3%. In response to an earlier question, the Prime Minister said that the peace dividend is gone. Does he agree that we also need to look at welfare spending, given that in the current circumstances, no serious country can spend more on welfare than on defence?

[The Prime Minister]

I do agree with that. The last Government let welfare spending spiral by an additional £30 billion. Some 2.8 million people are out of work because they cannot go to work due to some health-related issue. That is a very high number. It is out of control, and we have to get it back under control.

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, with which I agree. Does he agree that Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin showed that the defence of the United Kingdom and Europe against totalitarianism is at the core of this House’s values and those of our party? Does he also agree that what we can learn from their great political lives is that we will face very many difficult public spending decisions over the next decade, and that our moral duty as a Government is to take those decisions, however difficult or heartbreaking they may be?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend. These are difficult decisions with very real consequences, which I acknowledge. As an earlier contributor said, though, the alternative to action is inaction, and in the light of the last three years and particularly the last few weeks, inaction would be completely the wrong thing for our country and our continent.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I absolutely agree with the Prime Minister that this is an important moment for our nation, and I welcome the rebalancing of expenditure towards defence. However, does he agree that the success of our national security posture will be judged not by percentages but by the strength of the deterrent that we build, and is it his abiding commitment to be unwavering in building such a deterrent?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, it is, because I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is the strength of our deterrent that counts in a moment like this. I am very proud of our armed forces—those who have provided so much for so long—but now is a time to ask more of them and to step up.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister spoke about the threat that Russia poses in our waters. Just a few weeks ago, I saw a piece of undersea cable that had been cut, almost certainly by a Russian vessel. What more can the Government do to protect Britain’s undersea infrastructure from foreign attack?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. It is a bit like cyber: the way in which conflict, war and aggression are demonstrated these days is changing, and we must protect our vital assets, including the cables under the sea. I have had extensive conversations with European allies and NATO about how we can better protect that infrastructure.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I have been to war three times, each time working for an American general—General Schwarzkopf in the first Gulf war, the outstanding David Petraeus in the second Gulf war, and General Richard Mills of the US Marine Corps in Afghanistan. One of the lessons that keeps coming up after those wars is that we have to prepare for the fight that we do not want to have. I absolutely welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today. As well as sending the Chancellor into the new defence reform and efficiency team, I encourage him to take a personal interest in the way that this money is spent, in order to prepare us for the fight that we do not want to have.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service to his country, and he is absolutely right that we have to prepare for the fight that we do not want to have. I can assure him that as Prime Minister, I have a very keen personal interest, duty and responsibility in all these matters.

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement from my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister. In places such as Telford—which has a proud defence sector—companies, communities and supply chains need certainty. British taxpayers will be demanding that their money is used to enable British-based companies to support our British troops around the world. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that each and every pound will be diverted to British industry or British-based industries, enabling them to support our interests around the world?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly want that to be the case wherever we can. That is why we will have the plan for reform and efficiency, but that needs to be translated into British skills and secure British jobs in every constituency across the land.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

It is disappointing that the Prime Minister’s statement did not include any reference to the United Nations, or a pathway to end the dreadful conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan or the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Clearly, his statement will have a massive effect on the poorest people in the poorest countries in the world through a cut in overseas aid budgets, but what effect will it have on the poorest people in this country—for example, those disadvantaged by the two-child benefit cap or by the housing crisis that so many face? The Prime Minister says that tough decisions are coming up; what is going to be the effect of the increase in defence spending on the poorest people in this country?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman says I did not mention the UN. The UN charter is at the heart of this, because Russia is in breach of it. Russia is an aggressor that has invaded another country and is occupying part of that country, and it will go further if it is encouraged down that line. That is why we need to take these decisions. It is the first duty of Government to keep our country safe and secure. That is a duty I take extremely seriously. The poorest people in this country would be the first to suffer if the security and safety of our country was put in peril.

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

The Prime Minister is absolutely right to say that NATO is the bedrock on which we found our alliance. He is absolutely right to say that we can only achieve peace through strength, and he is absolutely right to cut the foreign development budget to pay for a £13.4 billion increase in defence spending. It is a difficult decision, but there is nothing more important than the defence and security of the British people. What conversations has the Prime Minister had or does he hope to have with our European allies about their defence spending? Does he hope to see increases across the continent in the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

As my hon. Friend may know, I have had extensive discussions with all our European allies. Those have been particularly intense over the past three or four weeks, and I will continue to have those discussions, because it is right to say that Europe and the United Kingdom need to step up. We need to do that alongside our allies. That means capability, co-ordination and spending. The best way, in my view, to do that is in a collegiate, collaborative way, working with our allies. That is what I have been doing.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

In a world where our adversaries are intent on blunting our national security and prosperity, I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and thank him for his commitment to increase defence spending. Can he update the House on what actions the Government are taking to discourage BRICS nations and other emergent high-growth economies from advertently or inadvertently doing anything that would assist Russia in its pursuit of its invasion in Ukraine?

[The Prime Minister]

This is a really important issue, and it is important that, as well as sanctions, we bear down on those providing assistance to Russia, whether that is countries or individual businesses. We shall continue to do so, working with allies.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

My right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister is absolutely right to say that this is a generational moment for this country’s security. I pay tribute to this generation’s armed forces and all those who work in the defence sector, including in Stevenage, where they are refitting the Storm Shadows for use by Ukraine for its security and our security. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the increase in defence spending he has announced today will, done properly, also help the wider economy?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend’s constituents working in Stevenage for their important work. It is important that we make sure that this spending is measured in jobs and secure jobs across the country.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Last night, I attended a concert in Bath abbey called “Together We Stand”. The Ukrainian deputy ambassador was there, and he particularly praised the direct link that my Bath council had formed with the city of Oleksandriya. It has formed such strong people-to-people contact, and it is enduring and provides direct support. What more can the Government do to encourage other councils to form these direct links to Ukrainian communities?

[The Prime Minister]

I am pleased to hear about that direct link. I think that people-to-people contact is important, both in relation to our appreciation and understanding of what is going on in Ukraine and in relation to the resilience of Ukrainians. I support any such initiatives.

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

I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. In particular, I know that the Ukrainian forces on the frontlines will be reassured today. Clearly, the aid spending decision will not have been taken lightly, but following reductions at the US Agency for International Development, it does mean tens of billions out of the global aid system, which could be exploited by Russia and China. Will the Prime Minister consider a deadline for ending the accounting of asylum costs to the aid budget, which is currently 28%, or £4.2 billion of money that should be used on aid spending overseas?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. It is a really difficult decision, and it is important that we make clear that we remain committed to the work we are doing in Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan. It is important, as he rightly says, that we get the asylum numbers down and the processing done so that we can end the ridiculous use of money—money that should be for overseas aid—on hotel bills in this country. That spiralled under the last Government.

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

As a veteran, I welcome the move to 2.5%. It is a milestone on the right track to increasing defence spending to 3.0% and probably beyond, particularly given that defence chiefs are reported to have requested 2.65%.

With increasing defence spending and suggestions that British forces may be involved in a peacekeeping mission, along with ongoing support to Ukraine, it is reassuring to see that we are not prepared to acquiesce to Russian belligerence. With that in mind, as the Prime Minister prepares to meet President Trump, will he clarify with the President why the US sided with Russia and North Korea yesterday, voting against the European resolution that Russia should withdraw from Ukraine at the UN General Assembly?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service. Our position on the UN resolution was clear from the way we voted yesterday. I think that sends a very powerful signal of where we stand, and that is with Ukraine.

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

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today, his commitment to 2.5% defence spending and his continued engagement with our international partners. As we are a proud maritime nation that is facing threats from Russian interference with undersea cables and from incursion into our waters by the shadow fleet, does he agree that now is the time to bolster our Royal Navy?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I think it is important that we bolster across our forces. There are threats on land, threats in the air, threats at sea and, indeed, threats under the sea. It is important that we can meet all those threats.

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

I welcome this important statement from the Prime Minister. The Liberal Democrats support an increase in defence budgets and the leadership in Europe that the Prime Minister has described. The Prime Minister spoke about the need for unity and a whole-society approach. He will have heard the concerns from across the House about the way he is proposing to fund this increase in the defence budget, and the deep concern that it will create opportunities for our adversaries, Russia and China, around the world. Will he undertake to meet other parties to build the consensus behind the funding of 2.5% and then 3%, so that we can maintain the unity and the national purpose that he has so eloquently described?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for his support and that of his party. That is important at a moment like this. So far as the funding of the 2.5% is concerned, that has been set out today. The commitment on the ambition to get to 3% is something that we need to talk about across this House. I will work with all parties on any issue of the security and defence of our country.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has delivered a powerful statement today, and I know that his unwavering commitment to the defence of the realm will be greatly appreciated by my constituents in Stockton North. He mentioned the industrial strategy. Does he agree that we need to start immediately to mobilise our steel, chemicals and shipbuilding industries, working with regional groups such as the Teesside defence and innovation cluster to ensure that we build the capability that we need for our defence supply chains at home?

[The Prime Minister]

The industrial strategy and steel within it are vitally important, as my hon. Friend and the House will know. Steel and our ability to manufacture it are vital to our security, and we must do everything to ensure that is preserved into the future.

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

Scotland wants to play its full part in this great national endeavour at this moment of peril, yet, almost incredibly, tomorrow the Scottish Parliament will discuss stripping defence companies of state funding. It is remarkable. The measure may not pass, of course, and I certainly hope it does not. Will the defence industrial strategy take into account what is happening in Scotland, where certain elements seem to be siding with other national interests, so that we can protect our defence industry and this great country?

[The Prime Minister]

Across the country, it is important that we stand by our defence sector and enhance our defence sector. We should thank those who work in it for what they are doing. Today’s announcement will mean that there is more yet to do.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, this Government’s unwavering support for Ukraine and this very necessary decision to increase defence spending. As someone whose close family has served in our armed forces, I know that over the years as a country, we have not always provided our servicemen and women with the equipment and support that they deserve. Can the Prime Minister reassure the House that this funding will be used to ensure that our servicemen and women are provided with that equipment and that support and with respect, given that they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for our country?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, that is hugely important, and we will ensure that we do so. I had a family member who served and whose ship went down, and I will never forget the agony that my mother went through until she knew for sure that he was safe. That is what is on the line each and every day for our armed services.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his very strong statement. He has talked of a national security position, a whole-society response and a time for us all to pull together. May I ask him to ensure that Northern Ireland businesses are part of that national response? May I also ask the Government to recognise and support the strategic and long-term importance of the Aldergrove military base and RAF station in Northern Ireland, which is able to contribute to not only our national but our international defence? Will the Prime Minister ask the Secretary of State for Defence to meet me to discuss those two issues?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the question of Northern Ireland. It is important for this to be a whole-United Kingdom effort and contribution, and for us to ensure that those opportunities are there across the whole United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. I will of course ask the Defence Secretary for that meeting, and I am sure he will agree to it.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

I spent all last week in Ukraine, and had the opportunity to meet a Defence Minister and a number of soldiers on the frontline. The Defence Minister painted a bleak picture of the situation there, including the fact that Russian production of arms continues to go up and up and up. Meanwhile, the soldiers I spoke to on the frontline are facing unimaginable challenges, and need much more resources to win this fight. I strongly welcome the announcement that defence spending will reach 2.5%, that support for Ukraine will be increased and that defence spending will reach 3% in the future, because I am convinced that we face an existential crisis in the world.

However, as one who founded the Labour Campaign for International Development, I am pained by today’s other news, and I hope we can get back on track for 0.7% as soon as possible. In that spirit, may I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the last Labour Government’s record of thinking of innovative and different ways of securing development finance, and may I ask him to meet me, and other Labour Members with development experience, to consider alternative ways of financing support for development, such as special drawing rights from the International Monetary Fund and more debt relief?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to international development. He is absolutely right about that, and we will of course work across the House on alternative and innovative ways in which to support development around the world.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcements wholeheartedly, and encourage him to get to 3% as soon as possible. However, we do not just need a monetary value; we need to know how and where the money will be spent, and that will be done through the strategic defence review, which gives assurance to our allies, deterrence to our enemies and, most important, confidence in our troops. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the SDR will be published in the spring—in a couple of weeks’ time—or will it be delayed until June, as the statement seemed to suggest?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I did not mean to imply that in the statement; I was referring to the security strategy. The SDR is well under way, and as soon it has been completed I will put it before the House, but what is most important is for us to get it right rather than meeting a timeline. I am not seeking to delay it, but I am absolutely clear in my own mind that we need to ensure that we understand the challenges we face, and the capability.

I am particularly struck by the developments that have taken place during the three years of the conflict in Ukraine. The way in which the fighting started three years ago is very different from the way in which it is happening now. I was there a few weeks ago, and among the things I took away was the need for us to learn the lessons of Ukraine and bind them into what we are doing, rather than thinking that we are dealing with the world of even two or three years ago. That is why I want to ensure that this is the right review and the right strategy to put before the House.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Let me start by drawing attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of the GMB defence manufacturing trade union. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to rebuilding the UK’s industrial capacity in defence.

All Governments face a balance between international collaboration and avoiding dependency on complex supply chains which can limit freedom of action, as some of our allies have found in their attempts to aid Ukraine. Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the objectives of the spending announced today must be to maintain and strengthen our sovereign freedom to aid our allies and defend our own shores?

[The Prime Minister]

I do agree with that, and I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments about the supply chains, which are vital to the security effort.

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

The former United States Defence Secretary Jim Mattis once said:

“If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.”

Can the Prime Minister not see that funding this uplift through official development assistance is short-sighted and a strategic and moral mistake, because prevention is cheaper than wars, because this gives more leverage to Russia and China, and because we do it on the backs of the world’s poorest? In fact, it is something that I never thought I would see a Labour Government do, and a pitiful inheritance from 1997. Given that it is a policy choice and not a retrospective fiscal one, and given that it is in direct contravention of the law passed here in 2015, which rules out the link between levels of defence and development funding, will this Labour Government be repealing that law?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is right to say that prevention is better than war—that is why it is important that we prepare our defence to be able to secure and maintain the peace, and that is precisely why I made my statement today—but she is wrong about the law, and we are not going to repeal it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a surprise not to be called last, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. It has encouraged everyone in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we thank him for that. As for an increase in defence spending from 2.5% to 3%, let me gently remind the House that during the cold war it was 7%—so we have a bit to go yet to catch up, but there we are.

The new defence and security agreement with Norway is to be welcomed, but I am a great believer in ensuring, while we build new rooms in a house for new family members, that existing family members are comfortable at home with us. What discussions has the Prime Minister had with our closest ally, the United States of America, about aligning our defence strategies and solidifying the network of information-sharing?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. We already work closely with Norway on defence and security, and we want to enhance and strengthen that, which the bilateral relationship will do. Of course we need to work with the United States, and I will be leaving for the US tomorrow. I have already had a number of conversations with President Trump, and our teams are speaking continually about these very important matters.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the ever-patient Charlotte Cane to ask the final question.

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

I welcome much of what was in the Prime Minister’s statement, particularly what he said about our continued support for the brave people of Ukraine, but I was shocked by what he has described as a difficult and painful decision to cut overseas aid. I suggest that it was nowhere near as difficult and painful as it will be for the very poorest families who find that our aid is no longer there for them. It is also hugely short-sighted, because helping communities to be stable and secure reduces the risk of war and unrest. Will the Prime Minister please assure us that he will look for less damaging ways of funding this much-needed increase in defence expenditure?

[The Prime Minister]

It is a difficult decision—there is no getting away from that—but we cannot have a situation in which Members of this House stand up and support 2.5%, heading to 3%, and then cannot agree, or will not take the difficult decisions that are necessary in order to get there. I am not pretending that this is an easy decision, and I am certainly not pretending that it is a decision I wanted to make as Prime Minister. It is a decision that I am driven to make for the security and safety of our country and our continent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the Prime Minister. We got in all the Members who were bobbing throughout.

Machinery of Government

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 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.

On 4 September 2024 I announced that the Government would respond in full to the Grenfell phase 2 inquiry report within six months. In response to one of the report’s recommendations, I am confirming today that responsibility for fire will move from the Home Office to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. This change will bring responsibility for building safety and fire under a single Secretary of State, providing for a more coherent approach to keeping people safe from fire in their homes. The Home Office will retain management of the airwave service contract on behalf of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and will remain responsible for the emergency services mobile communications programme and His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services.

This change will be effective from 1 April 2025. The Government will respond to the full report in due course.

[HCWS455]

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 February.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

This week, we progressed our Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to deliver counter-terrorism style powers to bring vile criminal smuggling gangs to justice. We announced a further £350 million to get Britain building and deliver 1.5 million new homes that our country desperately needs, including more affordable homes. We have also slashed the red tape that holds businesses and working people back, creating 10,000 more apprentices.

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

[Imran Hussain]

I am proud to have played my part in helping to draft what has become the Employment Rights Bill. A new poll shows that three quarters of the British public back the stronger workers’ rights in the Bill, including better sick pay, yet that lot over there—the Tories and Reform—disgracefully voted against it. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition does not even believe in maternity pay or the living wage. Our statutory sick pay is ranked as one of the lowest in Europe; it needs to be brought in line with the living wage. Will the Prime Minister back my campaign to strengthen the Bill further so that sick pay is at a level that will finally stop punishing workers for being sick?

[The Prime Minister]

Our plan for change delivers the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation through our Employment Rights Bill, ending exploitative zero-hours contracts and the scandal of fire and rehire and expanding statutory sick pay to 1.3 million employees. Of course, that is on top of the pay rise for 3 million of the lowest paid. I would have thought the Leader of the Opposition might support the protection of day one employment rights, given where she is going, but she thinks maternity pay is excessive. Our plan is pro-worker and pro-growth.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me be clear: I do not agree with the decision. The Leader of the Opposition is right that it is the wrong decision. She has not quite done her homework, however, because the decision in question was taken under the last Government, according to their legal framework. However, let me be clear: it should be Parliament that makes the rules on immigration; it should be the Government who make the policy. That is the principle. The Home Secretary is already looking at the legal loophole that we need to close in this particular case.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister did not answer the question. If he plans to appeal, the appeal might be unsuccessful, and the law will need to be changed. If he does not appeal, the law will definitely need to be changed. He talks about a decision made under the previous Government, but it was not made by that Government; it was made by the courts. The issue we are discussing today is about judicial decisions. We cannot be in a situation where we allow enormous numbers of people to exploit our laws in this way. There are millions of people all around the world in terrible situations—we cannot help them all, and we certainly cannot bring them all here. Will the Prime Minister commit to bringing forward that new legislation or amending his borders Bill?

[The Prime Minister]

I have already said that the Home Secretary has already got her team working on closing this loophole. We do not need to wait for that; we are getting on with that, because we are taking control. The Conservatives lost control of immigration: we had nearly 1 million people come into this country; we had an open borders experiment. On Monday this week, they voted against increased powers to deal with those who are running the vile trade of people smuggling. Same old Tories: open borders, empty promises.

[Mrs Badenoch]

If the Prime Minister was on top of his brief, perhaps he would be able to answer some questions. Given this crazy decision and so many others, new legislation is needed to clarify the right to a family life in article 8. [Interruption.] I am not talking about what he just said; I know Labour MPs do not understand much of what they are saying. The Prime Minister literally wrote a book on the European convention on human rights. This is a situation where we need to put our national interests before the ECHR. Does he agree that we should legislate, even if lawyers warn that that might be incompatible with human rights law?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady complains about scripted answers; her script does not allow her to listen to the answer. [Hon. Members: “More!”] She asked me if we are going to change the law and close the loophole in question one—I said yes. She asked me again in question two—and I said yes. She asked me again in question three—it is still yes.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not listen to question one. I asked if he would appeal the decision. He did not answer that. He is not listening; he is too busy defending the international human rights law framework.

This case has arisen because a Palestinian came to the UK from Gaza in 2007. He is now a British citizen. This is precisely why we need to break the conveyor belt—from arriving in the UK to acquiring indefinite leave to remain and then a British passport, and now a right to bring six family members here as well. Just last week, the Prime Minister bizarrely claimed that a British passport was not a pull factor for those coming to the UK. Will he now support our plans to toughen the process on indefinite leave to remain and make getting a British passport a privilege, not a right?

[The Prime Minister]

The Conservatives presided over record high levels of immigration. It reached nearly 1 million. It was a one nation experiment in open borders. The right hon. Lady was the cheerleader; she was the one campaigning for more people to come and thanking her own side when they supported her campaign. So, before she lectures us, she needs to reflect on her own record.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is the Prime Minister now. The people out there want to know what he is going to do about the situation. He needs to spend less time whining about the last Government and do his job.

I thought the Prime Minister and I agreed that Israel had a right to defend herself, yet the judge in this case noted that the family were facing a humanitarian crisis

“as a consequence of the Israeli Government’s indiscriminate attempts to eliminate Hamas”,

and Government lawyers accepted that. Is the Prime Minister allowing lawyers to change the position on Israel, and was that because of advice from the Attorney General? If not, why on earth did Government lawyers accept the argument that Israeli actions were “indiscriminate”?

[The Prime Minister]

Government lawyers put the complete opposite argument. The right hon. Lady talks about being on top of her brief; she has no idea what she is talking about. I will tell her again: we need to change the law. That is why the Home Secretary is already closing the gap. I know the script does not allow any adaptation, but this is getting tedious.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister has not read the judgment. I suggest that he does so. Very serious questions are now being asked about the Attorney General, the Prime Minister’s personal friend and donor. Even Labour Ministers are concerned. One Labour peer, Lord Glasman, has called him

“the absolute archetype of an arrogant, progressive fool”.

If we are serious about protecting our borders, we need to make sure that we appoint people who believe in our country and everything we stand for. It is not clear that the Attorney General does.

The Government are now recruiting a new chief inspector of borders, who lives in Finland and wants to work from home. This is not serious. Why should the British public put up with it?

[The Prime Minister]

The individual in question was appointed in 2019 by the last Government to a senior position. He then worked for five years from Finland. We have changed that, and he will now be working from the United Kingdom full time. It was Finland under them.

The Leader of the Opposition talks about the Attorney General; she sat round the Cabinet table with an Attorney General who was later sacked for breaching national security.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Q2.   Long-standing traders in the CPS Centre in Culcheth were devastated to receive eviction notices giving them just 28 days to vacate the premises, entirely out of the blue and on spurious pretexts from the new owner, the shell company Shivat Haminim Capital. So far, the owner and its legal representatives have failed to hear tenants’ concerns and mine, and to negotiate a way forward. Does the Prime Minister share my concern about this situation, and will he set out our plans to protect independent businesses that are the heart of our high streets and communities?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising an issue that is obviously of real concern to businesses in her constituency. We expect landlords to meet their obligations to make buildings safe, and we support robust enforcement action from the regulators if they fail to do so. I will ensure that my hon. Friend secures a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss what steps can be taken in this particular case to support the businesses on which her constituents rely.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

Eighty years ago this week, the allies began a pincer movement against German forces between the Ruhr and the Rhine. British and Canadian troops attacked from the north, Americans from the south. British, Canadian and American soldiers were fighting shoulder to shoulder to defeat fascists. Eighty years on, President Trump seems to have forgotten all that. His tariffs against steel and aluminium will hit Canada the hardest, but they will also hit jobs and the cost of living in our country. In reminding President Trump who America’s true and long-standing friends and allies really are, will the Prime Minister also prepare a plan for tariffs in return, starting with tariffs on American electric cars?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to refer to our history and the 80-year anniversary. We were fighting alongside the Americans, and that is among the reasons why we have a special relationship.

British steel is an essential part of our heartlands and we will not abandon our skilled workforce, but a level-headed assessment of the implications is needed, and that is what we are going through at the moment. However, we will always put our national interests first, and steelworkers first.

[Ed Davey]

It seems to me that, given the way in which President Trump and his ally Musk are operating, they need to hear of strong measures and hear strong words even from their allies.

Let me move on to the subject of Ukraine. If it is forced to surrender its own sovereign territory to Russia, that will be the greatest betrayal of a European ally since Poland in 1945, but President Trump says Ukraine may end up Russian, and he wants American money back. I think we all fear where this could end, and the dangerous implications for our defence and our security. Can the Prime Minister reassure the House that he and other European leaders have given sufficient support to President Zelensky so that he cannot be bullied by Trump and Putin into accepting a deal that would effectively hand victory to Russia?

[The Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I met President Zelensky in Kyiv just a few weeks ago—it was my eighth meeting. The position since the outbreak of this conflict has been a united position across the House of supporting Ukraine, and I was able to reiterate my position, which is that we must put Ukraine in the strongest possible position. That matters now just as much as it mattered at the beginning of the conflict, and I did discuss with him what more we and our allies can do to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Q3. Two years ago, from the Opposition Benches, I published my “Healthy Britain” report, recommending a cross-departmental approach to improving health and wellbeing. Now that we are in government, I am delighted that Ministers have hit the ground running—because running is obviously very healthy. Will the Prime Minister confirm that last week’s announcement of an increase to the public health grants, which will help local services to focus more on prevention and early intervention, is just the start of a long-term strategy that will make Britain healthier, happier and more productive; reduce pressure on the NHS; and promote growth?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the important role that local communities play in supporting healthy lifestyles. I am delighted that we are providing almost £4 billion for the local health services that people rely on—things like health visitors, stop smoking services and drug abuse treatments. I will make sure that she meets the relevant Minister to discuss this issue.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

Prime Minister, I get it: nobody wants to get into a trade war. But, unlike Peter Mandelson, sometimes you have got to stand up for what you believe in. My friends in the DUP have learned nothing from their mistake of backing Brexit, and think that tariffs are a laughing matter. Does the Prime Minister agree that we need to stand up for ourselves, we need to back our workers and we need to back our businesses—not just in Lagan Valley but, indeed, across the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, of course. The US and the UK share a strong and balanced trading relationship. We invest hugely in each other’s economies, and we will continue to work closely with President Trump to boost growth and to create jobs. I reassure the hon. Lady that we will always act in the best interests of businesses and working people across the whole of the United Kingdom, including, of course, Northern Ireland.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q4. I was baffled on Monday when, given the chance to support legislation, backed by the National Crime Agency, to crack down on criminal smuggler gangs and secure our borders, Conservative and Reform Members linked arms in the voting Lobby to vote against it. The Conservatives spent three years and £700 million on their ludicrous Rwanda scheme, and saw four volunteers returned. Does the Prime Minister agree that there is only one party that is serious about repairing our broken immigration system?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, and let me remind Reform and the Tories what they voted against earlier this week in our borders Bill. They voted against making it an offence to organise the buying, selling and transport of small boats, against making it an offence to endanger lives at sea, and against powers to arrest suspected people smugglers before the smuggling takes place. They voted against. They voted for open borders—both of them.

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

Q5. Last week, the Prime Minister gave yet another threadbare excuse for why he and his north London lawyer friends are giving away the Chagos islands. This is his decision, and he must own it. More importantly, he cannot tell us, British taxpayers, how much this is going to cost. Is it £9 billion? Is it £18 billion? Is it £52 billion? The Times has called this botched deal “insane”, members of his own Cabinet reportedly think it is impossible to understand, and one of his own MPs thinks it is the worst thing that the Labour party has ever done. Can the Prime Minister tell us which word he thinks best describes this deal?

[The Prime Minister]

I set out the position in relation to the Chagos islands last week. I also offered the Leader of the Opposition a high-level briefing on this matter. She still has not taken me up on the offer of that briefing. The Conservatives are asking questions without wanting to know the facts. It is extraordinary that someone who wants to be Prime Minister does not want to know the facts, even when she is offered a high-level briefing. The hon. Gentleman would be better informed if she took me up on the offer of a briefing.

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

Q6. The Prime Minister will, I am sure, want to congratulate Newcastle United on reaching the league cup final after Arsenal’s exit. In National Apprenticeship Week, will he also congratulate the 600 apprentices learning trades, from welding to quantity surveying, as part of the Tyne bridge restoration programme? While I know that he cannot confirm bridging the funding gap left by the Tories, will he confirm that he is looking forward to seeing the Tyne bridge restored in time for its 100th birthday in 2028?

[The Prime Minister]

I am going to struggle to sound delighted with the result of that particular football match, but it will be a special day for Newcastle fans. The Tyne bridge is an iconic north-east landmark and I congratulate the apprentices who are helping to restore that vital piece of infrastructure. As usual, the Tories made empty promises that they had no intention of keeping, including £2.9 billion-worth of transport commitments that were never funded. We will look at the capital projects around the spending review and let my hon. Friend know as soon as we can.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

Q7.   My constituents Peter and Maureen have been married for 70 years. Peter is 93 and for the past few weeks has been stuck in a hospital ward waiting to go home because a care package has not been arranged. Peter is missing home and missing Maureen. Will the Prime Minister reassure my constituents the social care crisis will be tackled this year?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue and the particular case of her constituents. I also know that this is deeply personal to her and, if I may, I extend my deepest sympathies to her and her family for their loss. We have taken immediate action on social care. We have already delivered £3.7 billion of additional investment. We are working on the first ever fair pay agreement for the sector and, of course, we are boosting carer’s allowance. I invite her and everybody to work with the House on the longer-term reform that we need.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

Q9. James Rennie is an outstanding specialist school in the heart of my constituency. Having converted every spare corner into classrooms and exceeded its published admissions numbers, and already having 43 applications known for this September, it is bursting at the seams and cannot expand any further. What is clearly needed is a new specialist school for north Cumbria. What assurances can the Prime Minister give my constituents that his Government will put children before ideology and allow local authorities to tackle the shortage in special educational needs and disabilities provision?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this vital issue. It is not the first time it has come up. We are supporting mainstream schools to increase SEND expertise while also establishing dedicated SEN units, because we need to make sure that special schools can also cater for those with the most complex needs. We are working on this. It has come up time and again, but we are taking those vital initial steps.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

Q8. Dorothy House is an amazing hospice supporting terminally ill people in Frome and East Somerset and their families, including my good friend Lisa. Next year, Dorothy House will be looking forward to celebrating 50 years of service, but it will also face an additional cost of £422,000 thanks to the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions. Will the Prime Minister commit to meeting me and representatives of the hospice sector to hear at first hand about the impact of the increase in NICs, and to working to find a solution?

[The Prime Minister]

Everyone deserves high-quality and compassionate end-of-life care. The hon. Member knows that we inherited a £22 billion black hole in our public finances, and that is why we took the difficult but right decisions to invest in our public services. I do recognise the pressures that hospices are facing, and that is why we are investing £100 million into hospices, with an additional £26 million to support children and young people’s hospices. I will make sure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)]

Q14. A significant part of the dreadful legacy left by the previous Conservative Government is the chronic underfunding of transport infrastructure, especially in the north-east, as we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah). Does the Prime Minister agree with me and the North East Mayor, Kim McGuinness, that redevelopment of the disused Leamside line would reconnect Gateshead with north Durham, and that increasing the capacity on the east coast main line would help to bring the Metro to Washington in my constituency, bringing much-needed jobs, growth and opportunities to my region?

[The Prime Minister]

Both my hon. Friend and the North East Mayor are dedicated campaigners on this issue. The Conservative party left us with a host of unfunded promises, and public transport is in dire condition. Expanding the Metro network has huge potential to drive growth and unlock new housing. I am pleased that progress is being made on the business case.

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

Q10. Earlier this week we learned that the Prime Minister’s close friend, the Attorney General, has in the past advised Caribbean nations on seeking trillions of pounds in reparations. He has been a key player in the surrender of the Chagos islands and the related fiasco, which will cost taxpayers up to £18 billion, and he has even advised Gerry Adams, who is standing in line to get compensation from the British Government in Northern Ireland legacy payments, the quantum of which could cost up to £2.7 billion. Given the Attorney General’s track record, does the Prime Minister have faith in his motives, and does he have confidence that his best friend represents good value for the British taxpayer?

[The Prime Minister]

We have long had the principle in this country that everybody is entitled to legal representation, which means that lawyers do not necessarily agree with their clients. Conservative Members used to believe in that principle. If they now disagree, they should go to see the victims of very serious crime, including sexual crime, and tell them that, under their provisions, a lawyer who disagrees with a perpetrator would not be able to represent them, meaning that victims would be cross-examined by perpetrators. That has never been the Conservative party’s position. If it is now, it should say so.

[Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)]

Allergy school, launched this week by the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, is a free programme to support children with food allergies. Allergic disease is a growing issue in this country, with more than 20 million people in the UK affected. For this reason, it has never been more important for us to have a national allergy strategy and an allergy tsar to drive and co-ordinate action. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming this programme, and will he meet me and the foundation to talk about how we can work together to drive this forward?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this really important issue. Hospital admissions for allergies have risen sharply in the last two decades. I welcome the work of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation. We will respond to the recommendations of the national allergy strategy group in due course, and I will make sure my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss it.

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

Q11. My Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage has seen a 35% population increase in the last 20 years. My constituents recognise the need for affordable housing, but the current planning system is not delivering the GP surgeries, dentists and transport options they need. Will the Prime Minister restore faith in the planning system and, as well as focusing on housing numbers, deliver the local targets for health services and wider infrastructure that growing communities need?

[The Prime Minister]

We are, of course, delivering 1.5 million homes, but we are also creating communities for the future. The hon. Gentleman is right that that must include good schools, GPs and reliable transport links, which is what makes a good community. Just today we have announced an additional £350 million to deliver more affordable homes so that more people can realise the dream of home ownership.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

This week is National Apprenticeship Week. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for apprenticeships, I can tell the Prime Minister that employers are very pleased to see this week’s announcements, which will make a real difference both to completion rates and to the flexibility around apprenticeships. Does the Prime Minister agree that schools should be promoting apprenticeships alongside A-levels and other options? And can he tell us what more he will do to support more young people into apprenticeships?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has raised this issue, and that we will be able to give employers more flexibility on maths and English requirements. This is really important, as many young people did not get the maths qualification they wanted but are very well suited for the future and want to play their part. They can now get an apprenticeship under our changes. These 10,000 extra apprenticeships are delivering for them, giving them a chance to contribute to our economy.

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

Q12.   Yesterday, the farming Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), told a conference of farmers that farming is “not high on the pecking order”for this Government. Given the heartless family farm tax, will the Prime Minister say if his Minister is correct—yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

Farming is top of the agenda, as far as I am concerned. That is why we put £5 billion to support farmers in the Budget—[Interruption.] The Conservatives failed to spend £300 million on farming on their watch. We have set out our road map, which has been welcomed by the National Farmers Union, as the hon. Lady very well knows. It was described as “long overdue”; I wonder who did not do it before?

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

As a graduate of the Croydon Youth Philharmonic Orchestra, the Prime Minister will know that youth services can broaden a young person’s horizons beyond what they could ever imagine. With national spending on youth services having declined 73% since 2010, will the Prime Minister outline how this Government will bring youth services back into our communities, will he look at giving them the statutory protections they deserve and will he visit Croydon East to see at first hand the vital role youth services play in my constituency?

[The Prime Minister]

My days with the Croydon Youth Philharmonic Orchestra were a long time ago now, but we fully recognise the importance of youth services. They save lives and help young people to live safe and healthy lives. We have been developing our plans for the new national youth strategy, to bring power back to young people and help every young person realise their potential.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Q13. Every 22 minutes, a child in this country loses a parent or a loved one. That is 40,000 children every year facing a trauma that many of us here know can last a lifetime. Charities such as Winston’s Wish do a fantastic job providing support for young people, particularly when schools are closed or there is no one else to turn to. However, at the moment there is no simple way for the children to know about those charities or for the charities to contact the children. Will the Government back my private Member’s Bill this summer to enable that to happen? Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss how we can ensure that another generation of children will not have to face that trauma?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for her ongoing work and campaign on that important issue. The cross-Government bereavement group continues to look at how we can improve access to the support that children and young people need at those difficult times. Of course I will ensure that she gets the meeting she wants with the Minister to discuss this further.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

Yesterday marks the 20th anniversary of the launch of the Make Poverty History campaign and of a fantastic speech, remembered by all of us who were there, delivered by the late, great Madiba. That campaign inspired a generation of campaigners and a great Labour Government to deliver unprecedented action to tackle global poverty, lifting millions out of poverty. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to some of those campaigners and commit to doing all he can to ensure that Britain plays its full part in helping to eradicate global poverty today?

[The Prime Minister]

It is a really important issue. We pay tribute and, of course, we continue to play our full part.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

Q15.   Basingstoke hospital, which is used by residents of half of my North East Hampshire constituency, has had its rebuild delayed by 15 years, despite no ministerial visit to see the worsening conditions. It is estimated that maintaining the hospital for those 15 will cost almost as much as the rebuild itself. Will the Prime Minister explain the logic of making taxpayers pay twice?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady’s constituents are right to be frustrated about the empty, unfunded promises that were left behind by the Conservatives—a point made by her and by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy). Under the previous Government’s plan, a new hospital in Basingstoke would simply not have been delivered because it was unfunded: it was a promise without anything behind it. We have put in place a funded, deliverable plan that will see the hospital built, and we will work closely with the trust to ensure that it is.

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

The Government’s devolution plans are a welcome progressive development to shift power and resources from Whitehall to our communities. There are discussions now about the process and the realisation of benefits for our communities. Will the Prime Minister assure my residents in Worthing West, and those in all constituencies starting priority devolution programmes, that Sussex devolution will give us meaningful control of our local priorities, including housing, transport and social care?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising devolution, which will see her constituents in Sussex get meaningful control over local priorities. The devolution priority programme will see a wave of mayors elected next year, including in Sussex. I believe that those with skin in the game make the best decisions about their communities.

[Mr Speaker]

For the final question, I call Andrew Mitchell.

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

The Prime Minister will be well aware of the global vaccination fund, Gavi. One of the United Kingdom’s great success stories, it has vaccinated from deadly diseases more than a billion children under five, it presents real value for money to British taxpayers and more than 80% of our constituents support it. Will he give the House an undertaking that Britain will continue that leadership and make a decisive pledge at next month’s replenishment conference?

[The Prime Minister]

This is a really important issue, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly points out. I have long supported it and will continue to support it, and I will share details with him just as soon as I can.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 February.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

I know the whole House will be appalled by the death of a young boy in Sheffield on Monday. Our hearts go out to his family and his loved ones. Knife crime blights our communities and we redouble every step to ensure that young people are kept safe.

On Monday, I met other European leaders in Brussels to discuss the vitally important focus on security and defence in a volatile world. I am determined to reduce barriers to trade, making it easier for businesses to do business and ensuring that a better relationship with our European partners delivers for the British people.

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

[Dr Hudson]

Sadly, suicide is the biggest killer of young people under 35. Andy Airey, Tim Owen and Mike Palmer are the 3 Dads Walking. They each tragically lost their precious daughters, Sophie, Emily and Beth, to suicide. They have campaigned tirelessly for suicide prevention to be included in the school curriculum in an age-appropriate way.

We met the previous Prime Minister in Downing Street and suicide prevention was added to the relationships, sex and health education curriculum guidance for consultation last year. I know that the Prime Minister has met the three dads and supports their campaign, but sadly progress has stalled. Will the Prime Minister please meet me and the three dads so that we can finally get this over the line and ultimately save young lives?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for steadfastly raising this really important issue, particularly during Children’s Mental Health Week. I have met the 3 Dads Walking. They are inspirational and their courage is extraordinary. As the father of young children, I do not know how they are able to campaign in the way that they do. I am not sure I would be able to do so. Of course, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will meet them again and push this really important agenda forward.

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

Q3. Eighty-six per cent. of trains at Kearsley station in my constituency were delayed or cancelled in the past 12 weeks. That is widespread through Bolton South and Walkden. My constituent Sophie, who commutes from Walden to Manchester, told me that “almost every day one peak time train is cancelled. And when the train finally turns up it’s overcrowded”. Recently, she was stranded for hours after constant cancellations because train crew were unavailable. Can the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that this Government are committed to building reliable railways after 14 years of Tory chaos?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that the Conservative party left our railways in a terrible state. Two years of strikes cost our economy £850 million in lost revenue. You cannot grow the economy if you cannot run the railways. We will launch Great British Railways to focus relentlessly on passengers and to clamp down on delays and cancellations. I am pleased that Northern has announced the largest ever investment in its fleet to deliver 450 new trains, meaning more comfortable and reliable journeys for my hon. Friend’s constituents.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me deal with the serious issue that the Leader of the Opposition raises in relation to the Chagos case. This is a military base that is vital to our national security. A number of years ago, the legal certainty of that base was thrown into doubt. Let me be clear, Mr Speaker, and I shall pick my words carefully. Without legal certainty, the base cannot operate in practical terms as it should. That is bad for our national security and a gift to our adversaries. Some within the Conservative party know exactly what I am talking about. That is why the last Government started negotiations about sovereignty and about securing the long-term use of the base. They were right to do so. That is why the last Government conducted 11 of the 13 rounds of those negotiations, and they were right to do so. That is why this Government have completed that process, and we were right to do so.

Mr Speaker, I will set out the details when they are finalised and they will, of course, be presented to Parliament, but if the Leader of the Opposition is properly briefed on the national security implications when she is asking these questions, which she is perfectly entitled to do, then she knows exactly what I am talking about in terms of national security and legal certainty. If, on the other hand, she is not properly briefed on the national security implications, she is not doing her job, she is not concerned about national security and she is not fit to be Prime Minister.

[Mrs Badenoch]

How can anyone believe that this man is defending UK interests when he bends the knee to anyone who asks him? His answer was so weak and so waffly it is no wonder that he needs a voice coach. But he did not answer the question I asked him—why the Energy Secretary was not defending our country. The Secretaries of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs received nearly £400,000-worth of donations from Lisbet Rausing. It is her money that is behind the court case that will stop an £8 billion investment, threaten thousands of jobs and endanger energy security for all of us. Did the Energy Secretary refuse to defend UK interests because he is funded by billionaire eco-zealots?

[The Prime Minister]

I shall come to that very issue, but I notice that the Leader of the Opposition did not say that she was briefed about the Chagos issue. This is important. When she became Leader of the Opposition, I said to her that I would give her a briefing on any national security issue if she asked for it. That is very important to the way that we run our democracy. She has not asked for a briefing on the Chagos case. That is because she is more interested in chasing Reform than in national security.

Oil and gas will be part of our energy supply for many years to come. We have been absolutely clear about that, but we are going through a transition. It is important because that transition to renewable energy will give us lower bills and energy security, it will take Putin’s foot off our throat and it will be good for the national interest.

[Mrs Badenoch]

That is a weak answer, because the Prime Minister does not know what is going on. Last week, I asked about the employment Bill; he did not know what was going on. We asked about the education Bill; he did not know what was going on. Let me tell him what is going on. Perhaps he can answer some questions. Shell has said that a one-year delay to Rosebank will cost £350 million and the loss of 1,000 jobs. Equinor has said that a two-year delay to Jackdaw will cost £800 million. The only benefit that I can see is the £400,000 to Labour Ministers. At a time of war in Europe, threatened energy security and increased competition from the US and elsewhere, we should be getting British oil and gas out of the ground. Does the Prime Minister have the guts to take on Labour donors and his Energy Secretary and approve the licence applications when they are resubmitted?

[The Prime Minister]

The Leader of the Opposition does not even want to know what is going on; otherwise she would have asked for the relevant briefings. She knows the position on Rosebank. She knows that the court case has meant that the licence has to be reviewed. There is a process that has to be gone through in the proper way. She understands that, but yet again she is proving that all she can do is student politics, and playing party politics.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I am speaking on behalf of the people of this country. When Labour negotiates, our country loses. The Prime Minister talks about bringing growth and investment. Last week, he lost a £450 million investment from AstraZeneca that we negotiated, which would have delivered growth immediately. That same day, he also lost the £8 billion oilfield investment that would have delivered next year. Business is abandoning the North sea because of his decisions. What signal does he think he is sending to investors?

[The Prime Minister]

As the Leader of the Opposition knows, AstraZeneca’s was a commercial decision. She must understand that. All she does is come here every week carping from the sidelines, talking our country down. We have the highest investment for 19 years. PwC says that we are the second best place to invest in the world. The International Monetary Fund has upgraded growth. Wages are up. Inflation is down. There is more to do: reforming planning and regulation, building new homes, and supporting a third runway at Heathrow. What unites those? Championed by Labour, opposed by the Tories.

[Mrs Badenoch]

It is so hard to believe anything the Prime Minister says. This is a man who needed “emergency” voice coaching on Christmas eve. This Government are so clueless they are borrowing £8 billion for GB Energy—a vanity project that is not great, not British, and does not produce any energy. Its own chairman admitted that it will take 20 years to create just 1,000 jobs. Meanwhile, 200,000 jobs are at stake in our oil and gas sector right now. Does the Prime Minister think that 1,000 jobs in 20 years’ time are worth more than the 200,000 jobs that we have now?

[The Prime Minister]

Again, the Leader of the Opposition clearly has not been briefed, or does not want to be briefed. GB Energy will be a publicly owned energy company that will drive the move to renewables. It is not about the number of jobs in HQ; it is about the thousands upon thousands of jobs that it will generate to give us energy security, which is something we did not have under the last Government, and take Putin’s boot off our throat—something that did not happen under the last Government. They lost control of the economy. We are getting it back.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister can waffle for as long as he likes, but we know that Labour promised to bring energy bills down by £300. Instead, bills are going up. He is freezing pensioners while shovelling money to Mauritius. The Prime Minister is not just managing decline; he is creating decline. He has the power to grant these licences, open these oil and gas fields, save British jobs and bring down bills. Why does he find it so hard to do the right thing?

[The Prime Minister]

She really needs to look into how these licences are granted. I appreciate that the Conservatives’ reset seems to be having no policies apart from cutting pensions, and having no briefings on relevant issues. Let us just remind ourselves that they presided over the biggest drop in living standards on record. Mortgages went through the roof, and they left a £22 billion black hole. We learned last weekend that, under the last Government, £35 billion was lost on benefit fraud and error. Who was in the Treasury at the time? The shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), and the Leader of the Opposition. They want to give lectures. No thanks!

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Q8.   The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) says that his party is “open to anything” when it comes to changing our NHS and open to an “insurance-based system”. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that under a Labour Government the NHS will be there for everyone when they need it, not having to worry about the bill?

[The Prime Minister]

The NHS is the lifeblood of our country, and that is why we invested £25 billion at the Budget—a record amount—and are making it fit for the future through our plan for change. What a contrast with Reform, whose leader has said that those who can afford to pay should pay for healthcare. Under Labour, the NHS will always be free at the point at use for anyone who needs it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

Can I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the terrible murder of the 15-year-old in Sheffield and say that we support any effective action against knife crime that the Government propose?

At his first Prime Minister’s questions, I told the Prime Minister about my constituent Andrea. A full-time carer for her mother, Andrea is one of thousands of carers caught up in the carer’s allowance scandal, hounded by the Department for Work and Pensions for repayments. The Prime Minister accepted that there was a problem and set up an independent review, and we welcome that. But two months after the announcement of the review, Andrea received a letter summoning her to a tribunal next week. Her mother’s health has been deteriorating—she has had to go into a care home—and this is the last thing Andrea needs. Will the Prime Minister step in and do the right thing and cancel Andrea’s tribunal and all proceedings against carers like Andrea, at least until the review is concluded?

[The Prime Minister]

We set up the independent review, and I know the right hon. Gentleman welcomes that, and it was the right thing to do. I do not know the details of Andrea’s case, but if he provides them to me, I will certainly make sure that we have the details and look into what has happened in her particular case.

[Ed Davey]

I am grateful for that reply. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions wrote to me and was not interested in engaging, so I hope the Prime Minister will be.

Turning to foreign policy, last night many of us were alarmed to hear President Trump speak about forcibly displacing 1.8 million people from Gaza. The Prime Minister has spoken to the President on several occasions now. Does he personally believe that Trump recognises the dangers of statements like this to the fragile ceasefire in Gaza and, indeed, to the security of both Palestinians and Israelis? I am glad that the Foreign Secretary has confirmed that the Government’s position is still a two-state solution—I think that has support on all sides of the House—but will he reassure the House that this position and our concerns on these dangerous statements from the President will be communicated to the White House directly and firmly?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue. The most important issue on the ceasefire is obviously that it is sustained and that we see it through the phases, and that means that the remaining hostages come out and the aid that is desperately needed gets into Gaza at speed and at the volumes that are needed.

I have, from the last few weeks, two images fixed in my mind. The first is the image of Emily Damari reunited with her mother, which I found extremely moving. The second is the image of thousands of Palestinians literally walking through the rubble to try to find their homes and their communities in Gaza. They must be allowed home. They must be allowed to rebuild, and we should be with them in that rebuild on the way to a two-state solution.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

Q11. The announcement of a third runway at Heathrow is obviously a massive boost to growth in the economy. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important that the economic boost is spread around the UK, and will he therefore agree to ask the relevant Minister to meet me and other Glasgow MPs with the chamber of commerce to discuss the possibility of a new supply chain hub being created in the city, where the materials for Heathrow’s expansion could be reassembled?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that the new runway at Heathrow can boost economic growth across the whole country. It would boost the economy by billions and create over 100,000 jobs across the UK, with 60% of the economic benefits outside London and the south-east. It is good for Scottish passengers and Scottish businesses—and particularly for Scottish salmon, which is the No. 1 export passing through Heathrow and has been worth £970 million over the past five years. I will happily ensure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

I can assure the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) that Reform wants healthcare to be free at the point of delivery—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but there appears to be some panic on the Labour Benches—I am not surprised. I would like to ask the Prime Minister for some advice—[Interruption.] They really are panicking, aren’t they?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Farage]

What do I say to the 25,000 constituents in Clacton—including 99-year-old Jim O’Dwyer, who flew a full set of missions on Lancaster bombers as tail-end Charlie—who are losing their winter fuel allowance and feeling the pinch, while at the same time we are prepared to give away a military base and pay £18 billion for the privilege of doing so?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member talks about panic. The only panic is for people who know that his policy would be to charge them for using the NHS. What he should say to the people of Clacton—when he finally finds Clacton—is that they should vote Labour because we are stabilising the economy and boosting their jobs.

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

Q12.   Many of my constituents are expressing their frustration at the net migration figures, which quadrupled—increasing by nearly 1 million—under the last Tory Government. Unbelievably, the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), has admitted that her party is proud of their open borders experiment on Britain. Will the Prime Minister explain what he is doing to bring those numbers back under control?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for raising that point. We know that the Leader of the Opposition lobbied personally to remove annual limits on student and work visas. The shadow Foreign Secretary still thinks that the Conservatives have a great record on immigration, forgetting that they quadrupled it and that it reached almost 1 million a year. Our Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will give stronger powers than ever to tackle people smugglers. We have already removed 16,000 people who have no right to be here. The question for the Opposition is this: will they walk into the Lobby with us next week to secure our borders?

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

Q2. After she was kidnapped and shot, Emily Damari was held in captivity by Hamas in United Nations Relief and Works Agency facilities, confirming the fears of many of us that UNRWA is riddled with Hamas sympathisers. The British people do not want our aid stolen by Hamas. Does the Prime Minister agree that we should stop funding Hamas, follow the example of other nations and divert our aid to other, more trustworthy agencies?

[The Prime Minister]

On Emily Damari, I have spoken with Mandy on many occasions, including when she did not know whether or not her daughter was alive. Just listening to her was to really understand the torture that she went through. I spoke just the other day to Emily herself about the conditions in which she was held, and I will of course continue to do so. To be absolutely clear—and the hon. Gentleman knows this—we are not funding Hamas and never will. We condemn Hamas, and everybody in this House should condemn Hamas.

[Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

Q14.  Some 54,000 women a year lose their jobs when they are pregnant or on maternity leave, and one in 10 human resources managers say that they would be reluctant to hire a woman who they even thought might start a family. The law has not solved this, so will the Prime Minister please meet me, The Dad Shift and Pregnant Then Screwed to discuss the ringfenced paid paternity leave that is needed to bring about change?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises a very important issue in relation to maternity pay and maternity leave. The Leader of the Opposition thinks that maternity pay is excessive. That is the difference—we know that workers’ rights are pro-growth, and I am proud that our Employment Rights Bill will introduce parental leave from day one, which means that 1.5 million more employees will be entitled to unpaid parental leave and 30,000 more fathers will be entitled to paternity leave. I am happy to ensure that my hon. Friend gets the meeting with the relevant Minister.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Q4.   I know that, like everyone in the House, the Prime Minister is an honourable Member. On that basis, can he repeat his assurances that all rules were followed while the country was in tier 4 lockdown in December 2020, not just by him but by his team, and also by his voice coach, Leonie Mellinger?

[The Prime Minister]

In December 2020, I was in my office, working on the expected Brexit deal with my team. We had to analyse the deal as it came in at speed and prepare and deliver a live statement at speed on one of the most important issues for our country in recent years. That was what I was doing. What were the Conservatives doing? Bringing suitcases of booze into Downing Street, partying and fighting, vomiting up the walls, leaving the cleaners to remove red wine stains. That is the difference. I was working—they were partying.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)]

I know that the whole House will support the Prime Minister’s comments and send our thoughts to the family of Harvey Willgoose and all those who loved him after his tragic and senseless death on Monday. I support the Government’s actions to tackle the sale of certain knives online, but before the national media attention moves on from yet another tragic death of a young person, I know that the Prime Minister will agree that in order to tackle the scale of the crisis engulfing too many of our communities, we need a whole-system, cross-Government approach to address the root causes of violence. Will he commit his Government to such a national strategy?

[The Prime Minister]

This incident was horrific and senseless, and I thank my right hon. Friend for raising it. I think the thoughts of the whole House are with the victim’s family and friends, and the school community and wider community who have been impacted by this. We are all grateful to the first responders—the police officers and the medical staff who attended the scene—and it is right that South Yorkshire police are given the time and space to carry out their investigation.

We need to do everything we can to bear down on knife crime. It is too easy to get knives online, and it is too easy to carry knives without proper consequences. That is why we have made it an absolute priority in government to absolutely bear down on knife crime, and I hope that it is a cross-party issue.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Q5. I know that the Prime Minister will share my deep concern that families in my constituency, particularly those with disabled children, face agonising waits for essential adaptations to council housing. In my inbox, I have cases where delays have left people unable to use the bathroom or even access a kitchen to simply make a cup of tea. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss how we can make sure that councils have the funding they urgently need to build and retrofit homes, to ensure that all children have the start in life they deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising what is a really important issue for his constituents and for so many constituents. I am pleased to confirm that we have put down £69 billion for councils—that is a 6.8% cash-terms increase—including up to £3.7 billion in vital additional funding for social care. We have doubled the funding for the disabled facilities grant, with an additional £86 million to allow 7,800 more disabled and elderly people to make improvements that enable more independent lives, and we will continue to do so, working across the House.

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

Eighty-three proud pottery workers woke up on Monday morning with no job, following the collapse of the 200-year-old Royal Stafford pottery firm. It is a crisis in our ceramics industry, with escalating prices for energy, and fake and foreign imports causing a real problem. Will the Prime Minister, through his offices, arrange for the energy companies to meet Ceramics UK and the GMB, as the voice of the workforce, so that we can hammer out a new deal? Will he promote, through public procurement, buying British so that proud manufacturing jobs in Stoke can be protected?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this really important issue. It is obviously a question of jobs, but it is also a question of identity and a sense of place. Of course we will work with the energy companies and have the relevant meetings, as he suggests.

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

Q6. Agnes lives in my Bicester and Woodstock constituency. In 2019, when she was nine, she was referred by her GP to child and adolescent mental health services. Agnes has had to wait more than five years for an assessment for the neurodiversity that has caused her crushing mental health problems. Last year, when Agnes’s dad, Jim, sought to accelerate her appointment, he was told that CAMHS could not see her or prioritise her appointment“unless Agnes is actively trying to kill herself.”Jim asked me to raise this case because he wants to ensure that no other child goes through the same experience as his daughter. Will the Prime Minister meet Agnes, Jim and me to hear their story?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue in that way, and I pass on to Agnes and Jim how impactful what he has said is, and how important it is that he continues to raise this issue. Far too many children and young people are waiting far too long to receive the mental health support that they need, and we are determined to ensure that more children and young people can access high-quality mental health support in a timely manner.

[Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)]

Llandudno is a beautiful seaside town and a wonderful place to visit, but businesses are struggling with a rise in shoplifting. In many cases, thieves are stealing in full view of staff because they just do not fear the consequences. The recent funding boost for neighbourhood policing is very welcome, but will the Prime Minister please tell my constituents what more the Government are doing to tackle retail crime and deter repeat offenders?

[The Prime Minister]

For far too long, crimes such as shoplifting have been written off as “low level.” That is wrong; such crimes are devastating. The Conservative party left us with rising crime and effectively told the police to ignore shoplifting of under £200-worth of goods. We have got rid of that shoplifters’ charter, and we are working hard to ensure that we take a grip where they lost control.

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

Q7. Following the earlier question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), I want to raise an equally troubling case. My constituent retired from the police force to care for his wife, working a part-time job to help pay the bills. As his earnings were not consistent, there were times when he was above the carer’s allowance threshold, causing later payments to be withheld. He is now owed thousands of pounds, and recently he was diagnosed with grade 4 glioblastoma, which has made the situation even more serious. Will the Prime Minister agree to look at the situation and ensure that the Department for Work and Pensions supports rather than penalises carers?

[The Prime Minister]

Again, we have obviously set up the independent review into exactly what happened in those cases, which was the right thing to do. We will look at individual circumstances, so if the hon. Member is willing to pass the details to me, we will look at them.

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

Audit Scotland recently exposed the incredible funding crisis facing our councils in Scotland, with a £759 million funding gap. It also reported that the 12 councils that make up the Strathclyde pension fund are reducing their employer contributions from 19.3% to 6.5%. Does the Prime Minister agree that instead of taking money out of workers’ pensions, the Scottish Government should appropriately fund our councils?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the failure of the Government in Scotland. They do not want to talk about that failure. They have got the powers, and they have got the resources; they just have not got any excuses left.

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

Q9. When he next plans to visit Scotland.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member asks about visiting Scotland. As he knows, my first visit, within days of becoming Prime Minister, was to Scotland, where I met the First Minister. I have also visited Scotland for the meeting of the Councils of the Nations and Regions in October, for the Interpol General Assembly in November and for the British Irish Council in Edinburgh in December. I look forward to going again very soon.

[Dave Doogan]

Interestingly, the Prime Minister could not tell me when he will next be visiting Scotland, but does he agree with the withering assessment of the eminent politics professor Sir John Curtice, who says that the current UK Prime Minister is

“the worst thing that ever happened to Anas Sarwar”?

If he does not—and he should—does he think that it is stripping Scottish pensioners of their winter fuel payment, abandoning workers in Grangemouth or attacking the national insurance payments of farmers that has catastrophically torpedoed Labour in the polls in Scotland? When he does get a date, he can even bring his Chancellor with him to back him up on the numbers—assuming that she is still Chancellor by then.

[The Prime Minister]

I remember when that rhetoric used to come from SNP Members sitting down there—

[Dave Doogan]

That’s the same answer you gave the last time.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Doogan, I want no more.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member has to shout because the SNP Members are so far away at the back and there are so few of them that otherwise they would not be heard.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

My constituent Matthew and his mum Catherine, alongside Emma Murphy and Janet Williams, have campaigned for many years to get compensation for families affected by the epilepsy drug sodium valproate. Twelve months on from the Patient Safety Commissioner’s report on this matter, those harmed are still waiting for the recommendations to be implemented. How much longer will the individuals and families impacted by valproate need to wait for the clarity they seek? Will the Prime Minister arrange for a Health Minister to meet valproate campaigners to discuss this important matter?

[The Prime Minister]

This is obviously a really important matter. I understand that the Minister for patient safety met patient groups before Christmas to hear their stories, their accounts and their experiences at first hand. We will provide an update on the Patient Safety Commissioner’s report at the earliest opportunity to the House.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

Q10. We all know how the song goes:“You’ve got to know when to hold ’em,Know when to fold ’em, Know when to walk away,And know when to run”.We in Northern Ireland have done all of them, because the system of government that we have is a gamble. Well, I am not prepared to roll the dice on the people of Lagan Valley, who have already been without government 40% of the time. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says that he wants to stop the cycles of collapse, and so do I, but do not then turn around and tell us in Northern Ireland that we cannot deliver public service transformation, if no steps are taken to stop the collapse. The people of Northern Ireland who I represent—nationalist, Unionist and unaligned, like myself—are all out of aces. Our public services are on the floor. Will this Government be the one to step up to the plate, reform the institutions, end the veto and stop rolling the dice on the people of Northern Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

Since 1998, the Good Friday agreement has delivered a far more peaceful society in Northern Ireland, and that is really important. Restoration of power sharing was a significant milestone, and it allows the institutions to make progress on the most important issues to the people of Northern Ireland. We will continue to work with all parties to that end.

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I was delighted recently to visit Chaucer school, a great school in my constituency with fantastic young people and innovative and motivated teaching staff, but 14 years of Tory government did not do enough for more than 300,000 children across the country attending schools that are stuck and kept receiving poor Ofsted judgments. Will the Prime Minister set out how this Government will tackle inequality and tear down barriers to opportunity through our plan for change?

[The Prime Minister]

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will ensure that all schools can innovate, that new teachers are qualified and that every child receives a consistent core education to set them up for success in life.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

Q13. Five months ago, the Care Quality Commission reported that two thirds of maternity units in England were unsafe, and years of unsafe staffing levels have resulted in the NHS paying an astonishing £1.15 billion a year in compensation due to avoidable injuries caused during childbirth and sometimes deaths. The previous Conservative Government allowed maternity services to deteriorate to the point where many consider it to be a public health crisis. Will the Prime Minister commit to improving maternity care and women’s health services as a top priority, so that our maternity unit in Winchester and those around the rest of the country are the safest places in the world for women to give birth?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this important issue. Women and babies deserve the highest standards of care through pregnancy, birth and the months that follow. We are committed to recruiting thousands of new midwives for the NHS while providing support to trusts that are failing on maternity care. We are working with the NHS as it delivers a three-year maternity plan, which is making good progress in improving services, including for his constituents.

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

Last week I had the opportunity to visit two of the local jobcentres that serve my constituency. The dedication of the staff I met to helping our local community, supporting people into work and adapting to the area’s needs was inspiring. Does the Prime Minister agree that we must listen to their frontline experience as we look to remove the barriers to work that keep people locked out of jobs? Will he visit those teams with me to see the work that they do?

[The Prime Minister]

Our “Get Britain Working” White Paper sets out the biggest reforms to employment support in a generation, backed by £240 million of investment. Through our plan for change, we will boost living standards and have more secure, rewarding jobs to make work pay.

Prime Minister

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Written Corrections

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister thinks that he can distract people from what is wrong with the Bill. This is not about breakfast clubs and school uniforms. Teachers and parents will be horrified at just how bad this Bill is. Even his own MPs may not realise it, but the Bill will cut teachers’ pay—it cuts pay for 20,000 teachers. His Education Secretary says that there is “not a ceiling” for pay—[Interruption.] Labour Members are all shaking their heads; they clearly have not read the Bill. The Education Secretary hasn’t read the Bill either, because clause 45 means that teachers’ pay will be capped. Did the Prime Minister know that the Bill as it stands will cut teachers’ pay?

[The Prime Minister]

We do need flexibility in our schools. If the Leader of the Opposition had hopped off social media for a while, she would have seen the amendment put down this morning to achieve that end.

[Official Report, 22 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 999.]

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

[The Prime Minister]

We do need flexibility in our schools. If the Leader of the Opposition had hopped off social media for a while, she would have seen the amendment announced yesterday to achieve that end.