G20 and Ukraine

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

With permission, I will update the House on my recent international engagements and our work to strengthen the security of our continent and economy, starting with the situation in Ukraine, which is at the forefront of all our minds. Over recent days, I have had detailed discussions with allies; I met our partners in the coalition of the willing during the G20, and I have spoken a number of times to both President Trump and President Zelensky, who I spoke to again earlier this morning.

We are united in wanting a ceasefire and a permanent end to the horrendous suffering that this war has brought to Ukraine. I have always said that our aim must be a just and lasting peace, and those words “just” and “lasting” are both important. I welcome the continued efforts of the United States to end the war and stop the killing. The initial draft of the 28-point plan included points that were not acceptable, but it also included some important elements that will be essential for a just and lasting peace. For example, it sets out steps on security guarantees from the US and partners. That is very significant. The discussions in Geneva took important steps forward, with progress between the US and Ukraine on an updated peace framework. I can reassure the House that that work is ongoing to refine the plan.

We are clear about the fundamental principles: that Ukraine’s sovereignty must be maintained; that Ukraine should be able to defend herself in future; and that matters about Ukraine and its future must be determined by Ukraine. We are clear that Ukraine’s voice must always be at the heart of the process, and that elements relating to Europe and NATO will need the consent of Europe and NATO members. There is still a long way to go and a tough road ahead, but we are more committed than ever to the cause and to keep pushing forward on the process. That is why later this afternoon President Macron, Chancellor Merz and I will convene the coalition of the willing, which now has 36 members, to discuss how we can advance the peace process and how we can continue to keep Ukraine in the fight right now.

Ukraine continues to hold the line and Ukrainians continue to mount a fearless defence of their country. They deserve not just our respect but our help and support. After all, it is not just our values that are at risk here; it is our security, too.

In addition to targeting energy and food prices, Putin continues to seek to undermine our security, including by sending Russian ships into our waters. The Royal Navy has intercepted two Russian ships in our waters in the last two weeks. Let me assure the House that we are more ready and determined than ever to protect our territory and protect the British people. As we work towards that end, we will never let up on the support that Ukraine needs: the vital defensive capabilities that it needs to protect its people and the economic pressure that we must continue to mount on Russia to cut off the fuel to its war machine.

The urgent need to take Russian oil and gas off the global market was something that I discussed extensively at the G20. That is vital, especially now as winter begins to bite in Ukraine and Putin continues his barbaric attacks on civilians and civilian energy infrastructure. As the House knows, and the British people know, there is only one nation that wants this war, only one nation that launched this illegal invasion and only one nation that deploys a constant barrage aimed at murdering innocent civilians. We saw that again last night with Russia’s strikes on Kyiv. Indeed, in the last week before last night, Russia had launched over 1,200 drones and over 60 cruise and ballistic missiles at Ukraine, killing children, like seven-year old Amelia, a Polish citizen who was killed alongside her mother by a Russian missile in Ternopil last Wednesday in an attack that took 34 lives in total.

Last night, as a family we celebrated my daughter’s 15th birthday. Later, I saw images on the news of a young girl about the same age being pulled from the rubble of a building in Ukraine, where her mother had just been killed. It is abhorrent—it is beyond belief—yet Ukraine lives that same story every night in its cities and every day on the frontline, where so many Ukrainians are killed fighting for their freedom.

We should not forget that Putin’s aggression, his illegal actions and his total disregard for human life have taken a huge toll on his own people. Thousands of Russian soldiers are killed every single day; 100,000 have been killed attacking Donetsk. In total, more than 1 million Russians have been killed or injured all because of the depraved ambitions of one man. We say again that this country will never falter in our support for the Ukrainian people. We will maintain a unity of purpose with our allies and we will focus on delivering the calm, serious leadership that is needed to advance a just and lasting peace for Ukraine and indeed the whole of Europe.

Let me turn to my broader discussions at the G20. I took the opportunity in South Africa to raise the ongoing and utterly horrifying situation in Sudan. We are working with our partners to break the restrictions on humanitarian aid and demand accountability. We must rally global pressure to stop the slaughter, achieve a sustained ceasefire and ultimately deliver a transition to civilian rule.

In South Africa I also chaired the Global Fund replenishment alongside President Ramaphosa, leading the charge in the global fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. That work has already saved over 70 million lives, yet malaria still kills a child under the age of five nearly every minute, 4,000 adolescent girls and young women still contract HIV every week and TB remains the world’s single deadliest infectious disease, even though we have had a cure for nearly a century. We will keep driving that project forward because it is the right thing to do and because it helps protect the United Kingdom from future pandemics and health emergencies.

A central priority at the G20 was delivering economic security and opportunity, as it is at every international meeting I attend. A strong economy allows us to be strong in the world. Economic security is national security. I can tell the House that we delivered for the British people this weekend, including through deals with South Africa for British firms to upgrade their railways and submarines, a £370 million deal for Rolls-Royce to supply jet engines to Algeria and a £4 billion deal with Indonesia for new ships, delivering 1,000 jobs in Rosyth, Plymouth and Bristol, and, if I may say, delivering another rebuke to all the people who prematurely wrote off British shipbuilding. We can only achieve those things—we can only deliver for the British people—by working with our partners. I think this is a moment to raise our sights.

The House will recall that it was when the global financial crisis struck that the G20 showed its full potential, with my predecessor Gordon Brown marshalling a global response to that crisis to protect the savings and finances of the British people. In this moment of growing fragility and crisis around the world, it is time once again to take a more purposeful, unified approach, focused on global growth and stability. I called for a response based on the right balance of investment and fiscal discipline, open markets, reforming the global trading system and tackling the cost of living crisis. That approach was echoed by the leaders’ declaration from Johannesburg.

I am also pleased to say that the summit confirmed that the UK will take on the presidency of the G20 in 2027—the first time that it has returned to the UK since 2009. It will be a proud moment for our country and part of our work to restore Britain’s international leadership, which was neglected for so long. We will use the presidency to drive the agenda I have been talking about today: to drive growth and opportunity, to create jobs, to cut the cost of living and to fundamentally strengthen the economic security of the British people. That is what we are doing at home and abroad, and 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.

We are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine and our support remains unwavering. Ukraine is battling the most flagrant breach of territorial integrity in Europe in recent times. We must never forget that the war was started by Putin, who is trying to extinguish a democracy on our own continent. It is important that we stand together to defend the principle that aggressors should not succeed.

The previous Conservative Government led Europe in support for Ukraine. We were the first country to provide modern, western-made battle tanks and to gift munitions and Storm Shadow missiles. We led the way on sanctions and trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers on UK soil. It is now incumbent on this Government to leverage British influence at this crucial time for the west. Putin’s relentless bombardment of Kyiv and KGB-style negotiating tactics show he is not serious about peace, which is why Russia must not be welcomed back into the international fold without a comprehensive peace agreement. Will the Prime Minister rule out support for readmitting Russia to the G7?

We all want this terrible war to end, and as the Prime Minister rightly said, elements of that draft 28-point plan were unacceptable. Conservatives are clear that the blanket surrender of Ukrainian territory would mean rewarding Putin’s unprovoked aggression. What is the Government’s position on reports that Ukraine’s territorial integrity is on the table? If Putin is seen to emerge stronger from these negotiations, all our potential adversaries will be emboldened. Let us be in no doubt, the axis of authoritarian states is collaborating to destabilise the west, aided by China, with Iran providing weapons and North Korea providing troops for Putin.

It is precisely for these reasons that the Government must continue to work extremely closely with the US and to understand its objectives. Parties such as the Lib Dems and the Greens, who are encouraging us to decouple from the US, are putting their anti-American prejudice above national security. Also, given that in the last fortnight the Royal Navy has intercepted two Russian ships in our waters, and with Russian spy ships pointing lasers at RAF pilots, it is a disgrace that Reform is still blaming NATO for Russia’s aggression, although perhaps it should come as no surprise when its former leader in Wales was sent to prison last week for taking bribes from Putin.

Earlier this year, many countries came together to form the coalition of the willing, pledging to strengthen support for Ukraine. Can the Prime Minister update us on the planning and readiness of the coalition of the willing? What is its scope and terms of mission? What can he tell us about a counter-proposal that is reportedly being submitted by the EU?

To stand with Ukraine, we need to know that we can also stand on our own two feet. Last week, the Commons Defence Committee warned that Britain was unprepared for a major attack and that the Government were making “glacial” progress towards conflict readiness, so it is concerning that reports indicate that the Ministry of Defence faces a potential budget cut this financial year of £2.6 billion. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether this is true or false? Meanwhile, the EU is reportedly demanding nearly €7 billion for the UK to buy into its defence fund. Conservatives warned that this would happen. At the time the UK-EU reset deal was being negotiated, the shadow Defence Secretary said that Labour had given away 12 years of British fishing rights in exchange for nothing. He was right. Will the Prime Minister rule out paying the EU for access to the Security Action for Europe—SAFE—programme?

It is extremely disappointing that Europe is still buying Russian oil and gas. Moscow should be denied safe harbours for its tankers and profits, and Europe should ban Russian oil and gas sooner than its current 2027 deadline. I believe that the Prime Minister agrees with that sentiment, so what pressure will he put on European countries to stop them buying Russian oil and gas?

The UK’s genuinely world-leading support has made a material difference to Ukraine’s ability to fight back against Russia’s illegal invasion—support that I remind the Prime Minister began under the Conservatives. Let us not forget that, in 2022, Russia thought it could capture Kyiv and subjugate Ukraine within days. So let us wake up and face that threat from Russia. Will the Prime Minister reassure the House that we will be boosting our own defence capabilities, as well as using our influence to ensure that secure future for Ukraine?

[The Prime Minister]

May I start by thanking the right hon. Lady for her support on Ukraine? It is really important that we stay united in this House. I readily acknowledge the role of the previous Government in leading on Ukraine and in bringing the whole House together on this issue, which they did for a number of years. This allowed us a platform on which to build the support that we are now putting in place.

In relation to membership of the G7 or G8, the focus at the moment is on a ceasefire so anything along those lines is a long way off. We have to remember that Putin is the aggressor here. He is the one who started this war. On territorial integrity, the sovereignty of Ukraine is paramount. That is why any questions about the future of Ukraine must be determined by Ukraine, and that is why I have been speaking frequently to President Trump and President Zelensky. I have spoken to President Zelensky probably five or six times in the last two or three days on a whole range of issues.

May I join the right hon. Lady in her comments about Reform? It is shocking that a senior official, its leader in Wales, has been jailed for over 10 years—a very significant sentence—for pro-Russia bribes. That is extraordinary. That is why I say again that the Reform leadership should have the courage to launch an investigation. How on earth did that happen in their party, and what other links are there? Today, this statement and the questions across the House will reinforce once again that Reform with its pro-Putin approach would have absolutely no role in bringing allies together on important issues across the globe.

The right hon. Lady asks about the coalition of the willing. Nine months ago, President Macron and I brought the coalition of the willing together. There are now 36 like-minded countries that meet and discuss frequently and align our positions and our support. That is a considerable achievement, and we have plans for security guarantees in relation to air, sea and land. On the text of the agreement that is being worked on in Geneva, there was, as she would have expected, an intensive discussion about this at the G20 involving a number of key allies, including the E3+3 and coalition of the willing allies. The strong consensus was that we should work with the text that is in existence—unacceptable though some parts of it are, because other parts are essential—rather than with a different text. That is the process that is going on in Geneva, and I think that is the right approach.

On defence spending, I have made my position clear, and it goes with the strategic review of defence as to how we take that forward. The SAFE negotiations are going on with the EU in the usual way, and one commitment I made in relation to our reset with the EU was that we would do it by quiet diplomacy, rather than by shouting from megaphones across the channel. The right hon. Lady asks about oil and gas, and this is really important. We are taking every opportunity to have extensive discussions to take Russian oil and gas off the market. This has to be done across Europe and beyond Europe, and I have had discussions beyond Europe on this issue. It is vital that we press ahead and we are taking every opportunity to do so.

May I return to where I started? I genuinely think it is important that we in this House are united on Ukraine. The only winner, if we divide on party political grounds, will be Putin. I again recognise the work and the lead that the previous Government took, which I was proud to support in opposition and I am proud to take forward as Prime Minister. I am grateful for the support that we are getting from the Opposition.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

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

May I begin by complimenting the Prime Minister on his work on the international stage? Is he aware that a statement was put out yesterday by the Chairs of Foreign Affairs Committees of 22 Parliaments across Europe, in which we made it clear that we are united in the belief that Ukraine’s sovereignty is vital not just for brave Ukrainians but for the continued security of Europe? We are therefore pleased to hear the Prime Minister assure the House that any plan that is to be agreed will be “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine”, but can he also assure the House that there will be “nothing about Europe without Europe”?

[The Prime Minister]

I can reassure my right hon. Friend that I did see that letter that was put out yesterday. She is absolutely right to say that this conflict affects not only Ukraine and its sovereignty but the whole of Europe, including the United Kingdom, in our values and our security, and materially in relation to things like the cost of living and the price of energy. Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine, nothing about Europe without Europe and nothing about NATO without NATO are key principles that sit behind the work that we are doing.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. If this is the end game for Putin’s illegal and murderous war, we have one chance to get it right and to safeguard the future of Ukraine and Europe. The stakes could not be higher. Many of us fear that President Trump is gearing up to betray the rights of Ukrainians, who have fought valiantly in the face of war crimes, torture and the abduction of thousands of children. The White House has tried to deny that Trump’s original 28-point plan was a Russian wish list, but that is precisely what it was.

We Liberal Democrats welcome the statement from the Prime Minister that Ukraine’s sovereignty must be maintained. When the Prime Minister speaks with the coalition of the willing this afternoon, will he relay that all major parties in this House agree with him on unequivocally ruling out any proposals that would limit Ukraine’s sovereignty to defend itself now or in the future, including its right to join defence alliances such as NATO? Will the Prime Minister also offer his support and that of the coalition of the willing by joining President Zelensky for any future negotiations with President Trump, so that President Zelensky does not have to suffer the indignity of being bullied by Trump on his own once again and so that Europe can show a strong and united stand?

The Prime Minister is absolutely right to request that Reform UK conducts an investigation into pro-Russian bribes. Will he also commission a second Russia report into Russian interference in our democracy? My hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) has brought forward a Bill enabling the unilateral seizure of Russian state assets in the UK. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether in his discussions with G20 partners he has secured any progress on plans to seize those frozen Russian assets, and if not, why not?

Will the Prime Minister use his role as the penholder for Sudan to take the lead at the United Nations to secure and enforce a country-wide arms embargo?

Finally, the Prime Minister did not mention China, despite reports that he met the Chinese premier at the G20. The apparent imminent approval of the Chinese super-embassy would be a moment of shame for this Government. Will the Prime Minister block this application and summon the Chinese ambassador to make clear that we will not accept Beijing’s efforts to spy on our Parliament, or to intimidate and harass Hongkongers in our communities?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for her support in relation to Ukraine—support which is important. Certainly, I will make a point this afternoon of expressing to the coalition of the willing how united this House is on the key principles. We are, I think, the closest respected and trusted ally of Ukraine, and that is why I have not only spoken intensively and extensively to President Zelensky over many months and years, but I have done so in particular over the past few days—a number of times a day, sometimes—including this morning, to do what we can to guide this into the right place.

I completely agree with the hon. Member’s comments about Reform. It is extraordinary that, in this Chamber, we are having a debate about a war which Russia has perpetrated on Ukraine, and a senior member of Reform has been convicted of pro-Russian bribes. Interference with democracy is of deep concern. We are having extensive discussions, including at the G20 and elsewhere, about what more can be done on the assets, and we are making progress. It is not straightforward, as she will know, but it is the subject of very extensive discussions to see what more we can do.

On the Chinese premier, let me just be clear: I said hello and shook the hand of the Chinese premier at the G20. We were in the leaders’ lounge together. It would have been a little bizarre and discourteous not to have done so, but we did not actually engage in any substantive discussion. The hon. Member raises the question of the embassy. That is obviously a quasi-judicial decision that will be taken in accordance with those processes.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the chair of the Defence Committee.

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

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement updating the House, but let us be under no illusions: President Trump’s originally proposed peace plan is humiliating and unpalatable to the Ukrainians, would be detrimental to our own European security and would reward the invading, annexing aggressor. That is why yesterday the cross-party House of Commons Defence Committee issued a very robust statement calling on the Government urgently to give full moral and practical support in whatever way they could, especially diplomatically, to our Ukrainian friends. Does the Prime Minister agree that at this critical juncture it is imperative that the UK, along with its European allies, shows clear and determined leadership and is actually around the table to negotiate, so that we can be a voice for our Ukrainian friends, because if we are not at the table, we will be on the menu?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his questions. In relation to the original plan, clearly there were elements that were unacceptable, and that is why I am pleased that progress has now been made in relation to it. I can assure him that we are giving support to President Zelensky and Ukraine at every level, and extensively, as my hon. Friend would expect. He is quite right that part of the reason we can have influence with our allies is that we are present at the international table in a way that we have not been over recent years.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has done a pretty good job of getting close to President Trump. Can he convince the tyrant bear that to reward him with land he has already taken would be bad enough, but it would be utterly egregious and appalling to allow him—the ruthless bear—to take land he has not even taken yet, in fortress Donbas? That would make Ukraine utterly defenceless, just as we allowed Czechoslovakia to be utterly defenceless when we forced it to give up the Sudetenland 85 years ago.

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the right hon. Member. The very idea of negotiating land that has not been taken in nearly four years of a conflict and has cost tens of thousands of lives is so obviously unacceptable that it should not be put forward or seen as a serious proposition. I agree with him wholeheartedly on that.

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

I once more thank the Prime Minister for his unstinting support for Ukraine, and for saying that nothing can be done for Ukraine without Ukraine. In the last few moments, a media source in the US has reported that Ukraine has agreed to the peace proposal brokered by the Trump Administration. I know the Prime Minister will not have the detail of that, but if that is the case—I know that he is making a statement now—will he come back and give the House the full details of what has been agreed by Ukraine, the US and potentially Russia?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, of course I will. From my discussions with President Zelensky this morning, I will need to look precisely at that, but I suspect it will not be the whole of the agreement that needs to be reached, because obviously the discussions so far have been predominantly Ukraine/US. Obviously, there are European elements that are important and NATO elements that are important which need further discussion, and of course none of this has been back to the Russian side yet. I will have a look at the report and look behind the headline, and if there is anything material to report, I will of course do so. My sense is that it will probably be progress on the Geneva exercise rather than the agreement of all elements.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that, if Ukraine has agreed to a proposal that has been brokered by the United States, it must be made acceptable to Russia and that we need to exert every possible pressure on Russia through increased military support, sanctions and the use of frozen assets to make Russia accept a ceasefire?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly agree with that wholeheartedly. We will see; I suspect it is the version that emerged from Geneva yesterday that is being talked about, but of course the next step is Russia, and we need to exert every pressure, whether that is capability, the assets, or oil and gas, on which we have been bearing down for a considerable period of time.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

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

I think we all understand that this is a breaking situation. In such an uncertain world, we know that allyship is integral to our security. The post-war generation created the NHS and NATO because they understood the power of collective solidarity. I am pleased to hear the Prime Minister talk about the importance of the Security Action for Europe negotiations, because our work with Europe is not about replacing our relationships with NATO but about strengthening them. Did he raise the SAFE negotiations with the President of the European Commission? This situation reminds us that we must get the European defence industry into a shape in which it can address the threats that we face from Russia. The UK must be part of those conversations.

[The Prime Minister]

I can assure my hon. Friend that negotiations are going on in the ordinary way in relation to SAFE and a number of other issues.

I am endeavouring the get the best information I can in relation to what is developing, and I will weave it into an answer if I get anything that will help the House.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

And will you come back?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly come back, but if I am able to update the House as we go along, I will endeavour to do so, so that others can ask questions about it.

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

I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to ensuring that decisions about Ukraine are not taken without Ukraine, and to upholding Ukraine’s sovereignty. Yet we know that Russia is trying to use this negotiation to undermine the future security not only of Ukraine but of Europe. In the light of the ongoing negotiations, will the Prime Minister confirm that any future deal will reject Russia’s references to

“ambiguities of the last 30 years”—

code for unravelling NATO back to 1997—and reject attempts to determine which nations may join NATO or where NATO may put its military assets?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, because we must always remember that this is about Europe as well as Ukraine. Putin’s ambitions are not limited to Ukraine, as the bordering countries are intensely aware. It is therefore important that we see this for what it is, and act accordingly as European allies.

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

I appreciate that this is a developing situation, but we know that at least 19,546 children from Ukraine have been stolen by Russia and sent to more than 400 locations across eight time zones. We know that 1.6 million children in the occupied territories are being subjected to militarisation and indoctrination. We know that 200 military training camps turn Ukrainian children into Russian soldiers. And we know that one in 10 of the Ukrainian children rescued from Russia have reported that they have been sexually abused. Will the Prime Minister remind President Trump that behind every one of those figures is a child? Will he assure the House that any peace plan agreed will deliver the safe return of all the Ukrainian children who have been stolen, and that Russia will be held to account for the war crimes that it continues to commit?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning and all her efforts to keep a constant light on that appalling situation. It is shocking that Russia is treating those children as a weapon of war, kidnapping and subjecting them to all sorts of abuse and ill treatment. We are doing and must do everything we can to safeguard those children and get them back to their families, where they belong.

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

May I ask the Prime Minister to focus on the question of effective security guarantees? Security guarantees deter aggression only if there is no doubt that the guarantor will act in accordance with the guarantee that he has given. Therefore, if there is a security guarantee to unoccupied Ukraine, it is absolutely essential that the guarantor has some forces on the ground, because otherwise a guarantee to an unoccupied region that is a strategic vacuum can lead to a wider war by miscalculation by the killer in the Kremlin.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. That is why we have done so much work with the coalition of the willing on the capability and planning for land and sea; detailed plans are now as advanced as they can be until we know the next stage of the proceedings. It is also why I have worked so hard with the US to get a US security guarantee going alongside the coalition of the willing, so that the two go together. He will have seen that that is part of the discussion in Geneva, on which we have managed to make some progress.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I join many others here in welcoming the recent progress on the war in Ukraine at the G20, in Geneva and most recently. Putin is continuing to circumvent sanctions via other countries. Will the coalition of the willing work with those other countries, as the Prime Minister has explained will happen, to ensure that that money, which is continuing to fuel the war, is cut off? That will enable a just and lasting peace and the rebuilding of Ukraine.

[The Prime Minister]

The question of sanctions is absolutely vital, as is bearing down on any individuals trying to circumvent those sanctions. That is why we put in place the sanctions and the measures behind them. We work with allies to make them enforceable.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I think it is important to begin by stating that those on the far right who parrot the views of Putin, and those on the far left who seek to undermine NATO, are no friends of Ukraine. I was pleased to hear in the Prime Minister’s statement his unequivocal approach to responsibility in this regard—he rightly pinned it on one person: Vladimir Putin. The Prime Minister did, however, equivocate in response to the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the G8. Kaja Kallas of the European Union was very clear in her comments this morning that Russia cannot be in the G8—she said, “definitely not”. Surely he agrees?

[The Prime Minister]

Russia is the aggressor here. Obviously these are questions for the G7 to determine, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the focus is very much on the process at the moment, which is to get a ceasefire and an end to this conflict.

I join the right hon. Gentleman in his point about those on the left. The Green party, of course, says that we should pull out of NATO—at a moment like this. It also says that it would make renting out a property—landlords—unlawful, but make selling drugs lawful, outside the school gate. I have to say, I find that a little odd.

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

Last week in Rochdale, I joined our proud Ukrainian community to mark the Holodomor, which was Stalin’s forced famine of millions of Ukrainians in the 1930s. There is a modern-day Holodomor going on in Ukraine through the drone strikes and air strikes by Putin’s regime. Does the Prime Minister share my absolute disgust at the treacherous actions of the former leader of Reform in Wales, who lined his own pockets with cash from the Russian regime, and does he agree that Reform UK’s refusal to carry out a full investigation proves that they really are Putin’s poodles?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree. This is clearly a really serious case. Any other party would want to investigate to assure itself of how this could happen. This is not a minor transgression; it has now been visited with a 10-year sentence because it undermines our country. Surely the Reform leadership want to know how that happened on their watch, and what other links there are between their party and Russia. No wonder they are Putin-friendly. How on earth could they respond to a situation like this? There is no point in standing up and saying that you support Ukraine if within your own party, you are pro-Russian.

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

The Prime Minister’s role in marshalling European co-operation is essential and very welcome, but would it not be obscene and unconscionable for any country—indeed, one of the permanent five at the United Nations—to invade its neighbour and murder its citizens, and to get away with it and profit from it, let alone to rejoin the G7? Have we not seen this film before? Do we not know how it ends?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for raising this. That is why it is really important that we make the case for, and ensure that it is, a just and lasting peace—because we have seen this before. We have seen agreements brokered before without security guarantees, with the inevitable result that Putin will go again. That is why, in relation to all the principles I have been operating on, in setting up the coalition of the willing and in all my discussions, it has got to be a just and lasting peace. It has got to be one that actually deters Putin from doing this again, because we know that without that deterrence and those consequences, he has the ambition to go again, and he will go again, and we must guard against that.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his steadfast leadership on Ukraine. My constituent Roksolana is one of tens of thousands of Ukrainian people with a loved one “missing under special circumstances”. These families do not know whether their loved ones are detained, a prisoner of war or even alive. It is likely that Russia has not notified the International Committee of the Red Cross on the status of thousands more prisoners of war. On behalf of Roksolana and all the Ukrainian families I met this weekend at St Mary’s Ukrainian school who are seeking answers about their loved ones, can the Prime Minister assure this House that the UK will support every effort to ensure that Russia complies with international humanitarian law regarding the treatment and identification of prisoners of war?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this and for her work bearing down on this, in particular the meeting she had at the weekend. This is a really serious issue. We are raising it with our allies. It is further evidence of the total disregard that Russia has for any of the principles of war, even in an unjust war, and we will continue to bear down on it.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Over the past 18 months, the Prime Minister has shown himself to be influential and purposeful at significant times in this crisis, so I thank him for that. While events may be superseding the statement this afternoon, there are some principles that should not change. Aggression must not be rewarded. Violence should not pay. There has always been an alternative to violence. But when the Prime Minister says, rightly, that there should be a “just and lasting peace”, does he recognise that it may be difficult to sell a lasting peace to the people of Ukraine if so-called allies are forcing President Zelensky to accept an encroachment on his sovereign territory, and that those allies should be robustly defending Ukraine, rather than allowing so-called friends to allow the loss of territory?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member and give him my assurance that I am acutely aware of the need for this to be a lasting peace for Ukrainians. A large part of my discussion with President Zelensky is how we bring that about, but I am extremely mindful of the fact that this has to be just and lasting for the Ukrainians, who did not start this war, do not want this war, have suffered hugely under this war and need to be reassured that if there is a peace, it is going to last and they are not going to be subject to the same thing in just a few years’ time.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I commend my right hon. and learned Friend’s efforts to engage our allies in support for Ukraine. Does he agree that resolve, unity and support from the west are vital to give Ukraine the guarantees it needs for a lasting peace? How optimistic is he about the resolve and commitment he will secure from the coalition of the willing later today?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am very confident about the assurance from the coalition of the willing, because we have already agreed plans between the countries in the coalition of the willing that are as advanced now as they can be until we know the next stage of the process. Obviously, I want to ensure that that is forged or welded together with US guarantees alongside the coalition of the willing, which will then be the strongest possible guarantee.

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

The Prime Minister welcomed the inclusion in the 28-point peace plan of security guarantees. Point 10 of the proposed plan says that if Russia invades Ukraine, it would lead to

“a decisive coordinated military response”.

Who would co-ordinate that response, and what does the Prime Minister anticipate would be the UK’s part in it?

[The Prime Minister]

Without going into the details, the plans that the coalition of the willing have drawn up are about capability, co-ordination and command structure. A huge amount of military work has gone into exactly how that would operate in practice. These are not simply countries saying, “Here’s some capability that we’re prepared to put on the table,” as it were. They are military plans capable of being put into effect when they are needed.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for all his efforts on ramping up the economic pressure on Putin, including through oil and gas and the shadow fleet. On the $300 billion-plus of Russian sovereign banking assets in the west, we know there are a few holdouts in the European Union that do not want to mobilise a loan backed by those assets as a downpayment on reparations. Could he update us on what progress has been made to get that over the line and get that money moving?

[The Prime Minister]

A proposal has been put forward in relation to how the assets could be used. Obviously, that requires a high level of agreement by various interested parties. That is why extensive discussions are going on as to how we can make that progress. There is no pretending that it is simple and straightforward—it is not—but that should not stop us trying to make further progress.

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

I understand that the order of the day when dealing with Mr Trump is flattery. I am afraid that 42 years of experience in this House have not yet qualified me for that level of sycophancy. The presentation of a Kremlin wish list by the White House as a peace plan is risible, which the Prime Minister indicated rather more elegantly than I have. Will the Prime Minister seriously consider—if necessary, unilaterally—ensuring that legislation goes through so that the frozen Russian assets can be used to support the Ukrainian war effort?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

On the assets, I do want to make progress. My strong view is that if we are to make progress, it is better that as many countries as possible act at the same time. That is what we are trying to achieve. If we do that, obviously, we will take whatever steps are necessary. At the moment, my focus is on trying to progress this discussion, which has been difficult and fraught with risk. None the less, there is a willingness, I think, to move forward on it. Other discussions I had in the margins of the G20 were with countries outside of Europe to see whether they will act at the same time along with us if we get that far, because I think it is important to do so.

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I am very proud to represent Cardiff West in this place. Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, was elected to serve the people of Wales in the European Parliament, but as we now know, he served not only himself but the interests of Russia. Having admitted not one, not two, but eight counts of bribery, he is now serving 10 and a half years’ imprisonment. I know the Prime Minister will join me in condemning that treachery, but will he also join me in demanding that the leadership of Reform UK—who, typically, cannot be present here today—launch an independent investigation into this act of treason?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend puts the point very powerfully. It must be uncomfortable for the Reform party to hear this. This is completely undermining our national security. It cannot be right for a political party represented in this House to simply close its eyes and ears to this. There has to be an investigation. There has to be a level of reassurance that there are not other links to Russia within the Reform party, and on how this came about in the first place. His question is very good. It should be deeply uncomfortable for Reform MPs to hear this, knowing that they are sitting on their hands and doing absolutely nothing about it.

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

May I remind the House that last year I personally donated a five-figure sum, bought a pick-up truck, filled it with first aid supplies, drove it with friends and colleagues to Ukraine, and donated it to the brave soldiers of Ukraine. My support and Reform’s support for Ukraine has been rock-solid throughout, Prime Minister.

It is important that this House is united, which it is. Last week, when the 28-point plan emerged, we rejected it immediately. Just yesterday, I was with a Ukrainian delegation, and we were talking specifically about the leverage that European nations have with regard to the frozen assets, the majority of which are here in Europe. I urge the Prime Minister, among all the noise, to utilise that leverage, because that, I think, is one of the most powerful negotiating points that the west has against the vile dictator, Putin.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman could have said that Reform has seen sense and decided that it will have an investigation into what happened in the bribery case. I do not doubt that he drove that truck and personally committed that support, but the simple fact is that you cannot be pro-Putin and pro-Ukraine; you have to decide between the two, and Reform is pro-Putin—

[Richard Tice]

Rubbish!

[The Prime Minister]

Well, a Reform politician has just been convicted and given a 10-year sentence for taking pro-Russian bribes, so the case could not be clearer than that. There is an unwillingness for Reform to say, “We need to investigate how on earth that happened.” Can the hon. Gentleman not see the inconsistency in what he is saying?

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

It is feared that the brutality in El Fasher will only intensify and spread to Tawila and beyond if international action is not convened and focused on the resolutions that are needed, not least to stop the incursions with drones supplied via the United Arab Emirates and mercenaries. Will the Prime Minister say more about what happened in South Africa to put the necessary focus in place, and about the next steps to stop the expansion of the atrocities we are witnessing in Sudan?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising Sudan, because what was an appalling situation has become even more appalling over recent days and weeks. We discussed it pretty extensively at the G20. We support the work of the Quad that is aimed predominantly at a ceasefire, the provision of humanitarian aid—it is the worst humanitarian situation in the world—and bringing about a better resolution.

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I do my best to update the House in relation to the latest news about Ukraine? It is coming to me second hand, so if it turns out to be not entirely accurate, I hope that the House will forgive me and I will come back to correct the record. My understanding is that there is not a new agreement, but Ukraine has confirmed that it is happy with the draft that emerged in Geneva yesterday, which does not cover the question of territory. My best understanding is that this is a confirmation of what came out of Geneva, not a new set of proposals or agreements—I think that is what it is—but if I get more information, I will update the House and we can discuss it in due course.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The Prime Minister talks of having extensive discussions about limiting the export of oil and gas from Russia—the engine driving the Russian war machine. Danish waters could offer the key to killing the shadow fleet. An international convention regulating shipping going through those straits would stop the shadow fleet and stop a significant part of its activity supporting Russia. It would also drive environmental support through stronger regulations set out in such a convention. What considerations have the Prime Minister and his colleagues given to this?

[The Prime Minister]

We regularly discuss how we deal with the shadow fleet. The Danish authorities do a lot in their waters, as do the authorities in Norway and other countries in the region, and we are looking at what further we can do in relation to the shadow fleet. His underlying point about the oil and gas that are fuelling Russia’s aggression is hugely important. We need to ensure that that oil and gas is taken off the market, and that can only happen if we deal with the shadow fleet, among other things.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his continued support of Ukraine. Going back to the announcement about the £4 billion deal with Indonesia at the G20, may I thank the Prime Minister for his efforts in securing that maritime partnership programme for Babcock? It will benefit people in my constituency and secure hundreds of jobs. Does the Prime Minister agree that the partnership is testament to the skills and experience of the workforce at Rosyth, and will he continue to do everything he can to support shipbuilding in Scotland, and at Rosyth in particular?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Winning such deals, whether they be the Indonesian deal, which we finally concluded while we were at the G20, or the frigate deal with Norway, means competing against others in the world—we competed against France, Germany and the United States for the frigate deal—and that is only possible for us as a country because of the quality of the workforce, their professionalism and their commitment to delivering on time. After the frigate deal with Norway, I went up to the Clyde to see the workforce and to thank them for putting me in a position where we could secure that deal. I would be grateful if he passes those thanks on to his constituents.

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

Signals matter. Right now, Putin thinks he is getting his own way but, as a point of principle, would the Prime Minister sit around a table if the indicted war criminal Putin was sitting at it?

[The Prime Minister]

No, I would not. When I was at the United Nations Security Council last year, I took my first opportunity as Prime Minister to be very clear about where I stand. In that case, it was in relation to the Security Council, but the principle applies elsewhere. Leaders cannot subscribe to international law and the UN charter if they are in breach of it through this illegal war.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his work to secure peace in Ukraine and for his very good comments about BAE Systems, which is partially located in my constituency of Glasgow West. Point 24 of the Trump plan indicates that

“all civilian detainees and hostages will be returned, including children.”

The kidnapping of children is heinous and a war crime in and of itself. Surely, as a mark of good faith, Putin should not wait for any agreement on this or other plans, and should release those children immediately. In saying that, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for her work over many months on this issue. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that point 26 of that plan, that

“all parties involved in the conflict will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war and will agree not to make any future claims or pursue any grievances”,

cannot be tolerated?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend on both fronts. Of course those children should be released straight away. They should never have been taken in the first place and it is heartbreaking, as well as intolerable, that they are held for a moment longer. As for amnesty, no, I do not agree with amnesty for Putin and others for their illegal acts.

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

I am deeply concerned that it appears that American negotiators have been listening more to the unreasonable demands of the Russian aggressors than to the security needs of the Ukrainians. Will the Prime Minister assure me that in his conversations with President Trump he has made absolutely clear that the voices of Ukrainians have to be front and centre in securing any just and lasting peace?

[The Prime Minister]

I assure the hon. Lady that the principles that I have set out to the House—that matters on the future of Ukraine must be for Ukraine—have been the guiding principles in all our discussions and in everything that we have done.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and actions. If we achieve peace, as we all hope, the efforts to rebuild Ukraine cannot be only about infrastructure. They also have to focus on rebuilding people’s lives, from those who have been devastatingly injured or have lost loved ones, to civil society, which has been really tested. What will the UK Government do to ensure that funding and support is in place to allow not only the rebuilding of buildings, but the rebuilding of civil society?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. This will not just be about rebuilding infrastructure; it will be about the rebuilding of society. That is why I was really pleased last year to sign the 100-year agreement we have with Ukraine, which was intended to and does show that this is not just an agreement for the duration of the conflict, but something that goes well beyond the conflict to the lasting relationship that I hope our two countries will have.

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

I was very pleased that the Prime Minister mentioned Sudan; we cannot be blind to Russia’s malign interest there or across the Sahel. What discussions has he had with Prime Minister Modi about his approach to Russian oil and what appear to be his overly friendly social media posts towards President Putin?

[The Prime Minister]

I will not disclose all the details of my discussions, but the right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the principles I have set out to the House guide me in all those discussions.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for updating us all—this is obviously a fast-moving situation. Last week, at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, we harrowingly heard from our Ukrainian counterparts how 20,000 children have been abducted by Russia since this war began. May I ask him to reiterate that in the just and lasting peace we all seek, they are at the centre of all this? Will he send a clear and immediate message to say, as Pink Floyd might have put it, “Hey, Putin! Leave those kids alone!”?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the principle that my hon. Friend puts forward; I am not sure I would put it in quite the terms that she does, but the sentiment is shared. This is just shocking—the idea of kidnapping children as an act of war and a weapon of war is just so disgusting, frankly. We should do absolutely everything we can to ensure not only that the children are safe, secure and returned, but that there is full accountability.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, but if I may, I will caution him. I understand that the reports referred to by the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) are from a single source—an unnamed US official. I think we might be falling into a trap here, which others want us to fall into, of bouncing the Ukrainians ahead of an arbitrary deadline of Thanksgiving day. We need to ensure that officials and all of us are able to verify sources and corroborate them, even if they are reported in the mainstream media and repeated in the United Kingdom.

I believe I am still allowed to ask a question. What reassurance can the Prime Minister give to the people of this country and of Ukraine that President Trump’s very bad 28-point plan will not now be replaced by a bad 19-point plan? We all know from history that Ukraine, Europe, the United Kingdom and even our allies, the United States, will rue the day that we roll over for Putin. If we reward the aggressor, history tells us and we know that they come back for more.

[The Prime Minister]

My instinct is with the right hon. Gentleman on the breaking news. I spoke to President Zelensky about four hours ago—I have obviously spoken to him extensively, so I have a pretty good sense of where he is at on this matter—and I intend to speak to him again this afternoon.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Will there be another statement?

[The Prime Minister]

My instinct is that this probably is not anything of greater significance than what was coming out yesterday. If it is, of course I will make another statement. I spoke to President Zelensky this morning and got a very clear sense of where he is at, and I intend to speak to him again this afternoon. We have the coalition of the willing, and if there is anything, I will of course update the House.

The right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) is right to caution, and he is right in the underlying point he makes. We must hold to the principle that matters about the future of Ukraine are for Ukraine. That means that we must engage as extensively as we are doing with the President and the Ukrainians to ensure that, every step of the way, we are taking into account in a practical sense that matters for Ukraine must be for Ukraine, and that can happen only if we are talking to them in the way that we are.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I thank the Prime Minister for the leadership he has shown on Ukraine.

Year 6 students from St Margaret Clitherow Catholic primary school in Bracknell have written to me to express their deep concern about the ongoing crisis in Sudan, so I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership at the G20 on this conflict. What message does he have for those students who are concerned about this deep tragedy?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Will my hon. Friend please pass a message back to them to say, “Thank you for raising this”? It is important that they have done so. The fact that they raised it with him means that it has now been raised through him on the Floor of this House, so they are directly inputting into our democracy and accountability. I assure them that we are working with partners to bring about an end to the appalling situation in Sudan. It has been the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world not just in recent days and weeks, but for a very long time—it is simply worse and more intense. Will he reassure the students that we are doing everything we can with partners to bring an end to this awful situation and thank them for their input?

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

The Prime Minister referred to Putin’s barbaric attacks on civilian energy infrastructure. What discussions has he had with his G20 counterparts about learning from Ukraine’s experience to protect energy supplies and infrastructure from hostile Russian action?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. The attacks on energy supplies are intended to inflict damage on civilians in Ukraine, as they do on a regular basis, particularly as we go into the winter. We are doing two things: we are working with the Ukrainians on what more support we can give them to safeguard their energy supplies, and of course with allies we are looking at whether there are any issues we need to address in relation to any vulnerabilities we may have.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his updates on the G20 and, in particular, for his commitment to the Global Fund, which we should be really proud of. I was also very pleased to see Sudan referenced in the joint declaration of the G20 leaders—as the Prime Minister has said, it is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, but we are also hearing appalling accounts of war crimes. What more will the Prime Minister now do with global partners to secure a ceasefire, protect civilians and hold the warring parties to account for their crimes?

[The Prime Minister]

In particular, the Global Fund is so important—my hon. Friend heard the statistics that I went through. In relation to the wider situation, the focus is very much on a cessation of hostilities and on humanitarian support, which is desperately needed.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree with many assessments that make it clear that Russia is actually in a far weaker position than President Putin pretends, so long as we continue to support the war effort in Ukraine? That depends on us developing more independent, non-American capability, and the best way to do that is to fund the Ukrainians to develop their own capabilities so that they can continue to defend their own country.

[The Prime Minister]

It is important that we make it clear that Russia is in a much weaker position than it pretends. We should always remember that the early briefings and intelligence in relation to this conflict indicated, at the very beginning of the war, that Russia would achieve its end in a matter of a few weeks. Here we are, nearly four years in, and because of the fearless defence of the Ukrainians, supported by others, that has not been the case.

In relation to the damage being done to Russia’s economy by sanctions and other financial issues, we can see that they are doing real damage if we look at the inflation rate and the impact on its economy. The hon. Gentleman’s central point is really important. The plans of the coalition of the willing are premised on Ukraine having the capability that it needs, around which the plans that we have put in place would operate—not as a substitute or an alternative, but based on the Ukrainians having the ability and capability within Ukraine to do what it needs to do to safeguard and self-protect.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Trains, planes and submarines—the Prime Minister put the pride of Derby manufacturing front and centre at this G20. Millions saw him halfway around the world in Johannesburg on a train made in Derby, showing the world what our city is famous for. Will he tell us more about what the deals he has secured mean for my constituents who work at Rolls-Royce and in the rail sector? Will he continue his focus on winning international deals for more high-productivity, high-skills and high-wage jobs?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is an incredible champion for Derby. It was incredible to be in Johannesburg, sitting in a train that had been made in Derby. It is significant that countries around the world want to do deals with the United Kingdom because of the quality, professionalism and commitment of our workforce, whether they are in Derby in her particular case, or in other places across the country. Those particular trains will be used for the run to the airport and back, so they will be heavily relied upon in South Africa. I am proud that other countries are saying that it is the UK they want to do deals with, whether that is in relation to frigates, submarines or trains. She should be very proud of the workforce in Derby. If she could pass on my thanks to them for allowing us to do this work, I would be grateful.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. The draft deal states:

“It is expected that Russia will not invade neighboring countries”.

To say it is “expected” is wholly inadequate, given that we cannot place our trust in the words of leaders such as Vladimir Putin. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to ensure that this agreement includes clear, enforceable safeguards? What measures are being implemented to strengthen the UK’s resilience against Russian interference?

[The Prime Minister]

On the security guarantees, planning has taken place with the coalition of the willing. That needs to be put together with the US guarantee to ensure that it is not an expectation that Putin does not invade Ukraine again, but that there is an absolutely clear message that if he does, there will be consequences. It is only if that is in place, with strong guarantees and credibility, that we will be able to deter Putin. Without those guarantees, he will, as we have seen in the past, simply breach any agreement that was reached in due course. We need to bear down on Russian interference in our democracy, and we will continue to do so.

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

My friend the Scottish journalist Jen Stout has just returned from the grey zone between Russian and Ukrainian forces, where to try to evacuate the wounded or even to wander outside for a moment is to invite death from the sky by drones. The message she brings back from Ukrainians on the frontline is that they will not give up this territory that they have defended for years. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the message that comes from here—apart from the Lord Haw-Haws paid by Putin—is that their frontline is our frontline, that Ukrainian sovereignty must be respected and that we will stand with Ukraine?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The change in the use of drone warfare over the past three to four years has been accelerated and intense, to the point that now, as he reflects, if you are seen, you are dead. That is the effect of drone warfare, and everybody on the frontline understands that. Tens of thousands of lives have been lost defending particular lines, particularly in Donetsk. I will never forget visiting a hospital in Kyiv where I met those who had been burned very badly on the frontline. They were receiving treatment in those hospitals, and it was a poignant reminder of the impact that the war is having on Ukrainians. It is no wonder that they are not going to give that up after so much sacrifice.

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

What indication was there that Putin would accept even the earlier iteration of this agreement?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not able to say, because I have not been involved in any discussions with Putin, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect. The main thing is to be clear that the draft was not acceptable in a number of respects, but it did have essential elements that will be required. That is why work is being done to ensure that we get to a place that is acceptable to Ukraine and that can then be used as a basis, I hope, for some sort of negotiated outcome.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s emphasis on a just and lasting peace. Does he agree that while it is noble to want the fighting to stop, that can always be achieved in any conflict by giving in to the aggressor’s demands? History shows that that is not peace, but appeasement. Does he further agree that Ukraine must not be forced to give up its territory and long-term security needs, not only for its defence, but because it would weaken the very principles of sovereignty and the rules-based system, endangering us all?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the principles that my hon. Friend sets out. I assure him that at the meeting of the coalition this afternoon, I will make the point that I always make when we meet: while we are working for peace and trying to put in place security guarantees, we must not let up on keeping Ukraine in the fight now. That would be a big mistake, and I worry that because of the hope of peace, it is always possible that the focus goes off the fact that Ukraine needs support now to stay in the fight. We must never lose that focus.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

The Prime Minister’s statement says that Putin continues to seek to undermine our security. Can the Prime Minister give this House an assurance that when a deal is done to the satisfaction of Ukraine, our preparations for our security and defence against Putin—and he will not give up—will continue.

[The Prime Minister]

I can give the hon. Member that reassurance, but we will not wait until there is some agreement in place; we are taking those measures now.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

On behalf of my constituents, I congratulate the Prime Minister on demonstrating UK leadership by supporting the Ukrainian Government and President Zelensky in turning the 28-point peace plan, which very much appears to have been authored by Russia, into a much more acceptable 19-point peace plan, which clearly needs to be built on. Does the Prime Minister agree with me, and with the majority of my constituents who contact me, that it is vital that the UK and Europe remain steadfast in their support for Ukraine to achieve a lasting and just peace?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend and his constituents. We are doing everything we can to ensure that. It is remarkable that through the coalition of the willing, which is mainly European countries but not just European countries—Japan, Canada and Australia were centrally involved in our discussions over the weekend—there has been such a singular purpose in supporting Ukraine.

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

I appreciate that this statement might be being outpaced by events outside this Chamber, but negotiating this peace deal with Russia seems to be at odds with nearly four years of steadfast military support. The overriding message is that the rules-based order means nothing, that we will acquiesce to countries that breach sovereign borders, and that actions no longer have consequences. The Prime Minister may as well be waving a piece of paper at Heston aerodrome. The message this sends to our adversaries, and specifically to China, is that the west will be too weak to take action if China invades Taiwan. The Prime Minister mentioned earlier that Russia will face consequences if it invades again. When he talks about a just and lasting peace, what consequences will Russia face for its current actions, or can it act with impunity?

[The Prime Minister]

We had a pretty good tone up until now. I am not here waving some piece of paper; I am working with Ukraine and with other countries to try to bring about a just and lasting peace for Ukraine. We all want a just and lasting peace, but it will not happen if we do not have negotiations. We have to have those negotiations with clear principles about accountability and with strong security guarantees. The hon. Member is not doing this House a service by undermining a serious effort by international partners to bring about a just and lasting peace. It is very easy to speak in this House; it is much harder in practice to negotiate an end to a conflict on just grounds. We will do so, as we have done from beginning to end—and as the last Government did, in all fairness—by being clear that we are the closest ally of Ukraine and the most supportive country. I am proud that that is the approach we have taken in this House.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister rightly said in his statement that Putin continues to seek to undermine our security. Those efforts were aided and abetted by Reform’s Nathan Gill when he took Russian bribes. He is a traitor to this country. How plausible does the Prime Minister think it is for that just to have been an isolated incident? Does he think that Reform’s refusal to investigate its own party and find out how many more Putin puppets and traitors lurk there tells its own story?

[The Prime Minister]

The way I would put it is this: if the leadership of Reform were confident that there are no other pro-Russia activities and links in their party, they would surely want to have the investigation. The very fact that they will not look at this tells me that they are not confident of that, and they do not want any of us to know about it.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Will the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that he will oppose any peace deal that rewards Russia for its aggression, whether that means carving up Ukraine’s territory or allowing Russia to join the G7? If Putin gets what he wants, this will never end.

[The Prime Minister]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman’s constituents that we will absolutely fight for a just outcome and a lasting outcome. He can tell his constituents that we are working very, very closely with the Ukrainians on this, as we always have, and supporting them for as long as they may need that support.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today, and for his continued leadership on a global scale, particularly in respect of Ukraine. I also welcome what he said about the investment that the Government will put into the Global Fund, because I recognise the importance of tackling HIV, malaria and tuberculosis. However, may I put in a personal plea for my constituent Anne Strike, a Paralympian and a polio victim, and ask that we continue to lead on the world stage in the eradication of polio? We are so close, but global conflicts such the one in Ukraine will obviously lead to more instances of polio in the future.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a proud champion for Harlow, and I am pleased that he has raised polio in that context, linking it to his constituency. We must not lose sight of the devastating impact of polio, HIV/AIDS and TB. They are having a devastating effect across the globe, and they will be a threat to us as well if we do not act.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I, too, thank the Prime Minister for reaffirming his commitment to the Global Fund. I secured a Backbench Business debate about the fund last week, so we really do appreciate that.

The Army Training Regiment Winchester trains about 20% of new recruits, putting them through basic training. I was there last week to see the passing-out parade. However, it is scheduled to close next summer, and the replacement facility at Pirbright is not due to open until 2030 at the earliest, although we have heard that the opening will be delayed. Will the Prime Minister review that decision? A four-year gap between one facility closing and another opening, at a time when we are rightly trying to increase troop numbers, does not really make sense to anyone.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I do not have the details to hand, but I will ensure that I provide a full response in writing to the point he has raised.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Many of the Ukrainian refugees in my constituency have welcomed the continuity between the last Government and the current Government in respect of their support for Ukraine. President Zelensky is under great pressure from some within the American Administration to accept an unreasonable deal. Will the Prime Minister assure us that he will give his commitment to the President of Ukraine to ensure that he does not have to give in to the unreasonable demands for land surrender, for a restriction of Ukraine’s ability to defend itself in future, and for Russia not to pay for the crimes that it has committed in Ukraine? That is important for Ukraine, but it is also important to send Russia the message that we will not reward the aggressor.

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I can give him that reassurance. That is why we are working as closely as we are with the Ukrainians, particularly with the President but at all levels.

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

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as the host of a Ukrainian.

Given the growing instability around the world and the absence of the US President from both the G20 summit and COP30, how will the Prime Minister use the close relationship between the UK and America to ensure that Trump does not undermine the ability of global partnerships and agencies to keep us all safe from all types of problems in the future?

[The Prime Minister]

It is very important that we make the case for multilateral work across the globe, whether it is done by the G20 or by COP30. We will constantly make that case, because it is important for a rules-based system throughout the world—of which the United Nations is one part and the principles of war are another—but it is also in our own interests as the United Kingdom.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The Prime Minister has told the House today that he and the United Kingdom will never falter in support of Ukraine. Does that mean that the United Kingdom is not part of the pressure on Ukraine to concede territory that is already occupied? How could the ceding of territory be anything other than the rewarding of aggression and the whetting of the appetite of the aggressor?

[The Prime Minister]

The approach that we have taken is based on the principles that I have set out to the House, and is absolutely rooted in what the Ukrainians want out of this. That is why we are speaking to and working with them so extensively in relation to these negotiations. All matters involving the future of Ukraine must be for Ukraine, and that is the guiding principle in everything that I have been doing.

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

I was pleased to see that Sudan was included in the G20 consensus. Will the Prime Minister set out what that will look like in practice, given that the atrocities of El Fasher seem likely to be repeated in Kordofan? What protections will be in place for the safe passage of civilians and humanitarian workers, what will be done about the assistance funding gap, and, importantly, what conversations are taking place with or about states that are said to be funding the belligerents and keeping the war going, including the United Arab Emirates?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I can reassure her that we are having extensive conversations with the Quad, which is driving this forward, on all fronts but most immediately about the humanitarian situation, and we will keep the House updated.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for all that he does for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, indeed, for the western world. It is appreciated by many.

There is a plan that we all hope can end the war in Ukraine and stop the devastation and the killings. Our eyes are focused on that plan. I think of the innocents killed, the women and children targeted, and the massacres carried out by Russians. I think of the children as young as eight and women as old as 80 who have been raped by Russian monsters, and of the massacres in Bakhmut, where more than 200 people were found in a mass grave. And there is more: we can watch video of Russian soldiers torturing people and murdering people. I suggest that whatever peace will bring, it must ensure that the Russians who have carried out those terrible crimes are held accountable, so can the Prime Minister confirm that there will be retribution? As a Christian, I know that there will be retribution in the next world, but what I want to see is retribution in this world, and eternal damnation for the rest of their lives.

[The Prime Minister]

That may have been the last question, but it is a very important one, given the atrocities and the impact that this has had on all Ukrainians. I remember, in the early days of the conflict, seeing the images of civilians handcuffed and shot in the head, lying in the streets just outside Kyiv. It was shocking. I went to visit those communities when I was over there, and talked to the individuals. It was their brothers, their sisters, their families and their colleagues who had had their hands tied and been shot in the head, and it fell to them to pick the bodies up, put them in shopping trolleys, wheel them to their church, and try to give them the best burial they could in the circumstances. We should never lose sight of the human impact that these atrocities have, not only on those individuals but on all of us, myself included.

Covid-19 Inquiry Report: Modules 2, 2A, 2B and 2C

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

The chair of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry has today published the inquiry’s “Modules 2, 2A, 2B, 2C” report, which examined core UK decision-making and political governance.

The chair recognises the appalling loss of life and devastating socio-economic consequences as a result of the pandemic. I would also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the pain and suffering the pandemic caused.

However, the chair has also concluded that the Government pandemic response was repeatedly “too little, too late”, and that lessons were not learnt and mistakes repeated—exacerbating the impact of the pandemic. The chair has found that the Government fell short, with advice lacking proper economic and social modelling, the impact on vulnerable people not sufficiently considered, and the culture in the centre of Government described as “toxic”.

The chair has noted that decisions were being taken in the context of the UK being ill-prepared to deal with a pandemic. Since then, improvements have been made to the way the Government would respond to a major crisis. That said, it is clear that local government and our public services, including the NHS, are under immense pressure and in many cases have not fully recovered from the pandemic. The cost of the pandemic still weighs heavily on the public purse. This is why this Government are committed to driving growth in the economy and reforming of public services, so that when we face the next crisis, we do so from a position of national resilience.

I would like to thank Baroness Hallett and her team for their thorough work on this report. The Government will carefully consider all of the findings and recommendations of the report and respond in due course.

I have laid a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.

[HCWS1081]

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Let me start by congratulating Scotland on its magnificent victory last night. It qualified for the World cup for the first time since 1998—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I did not realise that you were all Scottish MPs!

[The Prime Minister]

Scotland qualified with fantastic goals, including a cracker from former Arsenal player Kieran Tierney, who was always a favourite with the fans.

My thoughts are with the communities across the country affected by severe flooding, particularly in Monmouthshire. I have been liaising with the First Minister of Wales, and I thank all our emergency services for their response.

My thoughts are also with the family and loved ones of Royal Fleet Auxiliary member James Elliot, who has sadly been lost. I know the contribution that the personnel of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary make, and the risks that they take in the line of duty. My thoughts and, I am sure, the thoughts of the whole House are with those who knew him at this tragic and difficult time for them.

Last Thursday, I visited Anglesey to announce the construction of the country’s first small modular reactor. That is the biggest investment in north Wales in a generation, creating more than 6,000 jobs.

On Monday, we introduced the largest overhaul of the asylum policy in modern times, restoring control and fairness, and creating safe and legal routes.

Today, I am pleased to announce that inflation is coming down. There is more to do, but it is an important step. 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.

[Kit Malthouse]

Many of us are becoming concerned that technical or procedural manoeuvres outside this House may be used to prevent Parliament from reaching a decision on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. The Government are neutral on the Bill itself, but I presume they are not neutral on the issue of democracy or the primacy of this Chamber. Will the Prime Minister reassure the House that the decision of elected Members—and, indeed, the wishes and hopes of the vast majority of the people we serve—will not be frustrated in this way?

[The Prime Minister]

I know the right hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this issue. As he says, the Government are neutral on the passage of the Bill. It is a matter of conscience; there are different and respected views across Parliament, and it is for Parliament to decide in the end on any changes in this Chamber. Scrutiny of the Bill in the Lords is a matter for the Lords, but the Government have a responsibility to ensure that any legislation that passes through Parliament is workable, effective and enforceable.

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

Q3. When the Conservatives were in government, they said that they would level up the country, but in fact they left the country divided. Austerity, de-industrialisation and stagnant wages all ripped the heart out of mining communities like the ones I represent. Everywhere we can see the legacy that the Conservatives left. How can it be right that the hard-working, loyal people in my constituency earn £400 a week, or £20,000 a year, less than people who live in Kensington? Will the Prime Minister declare that it is the Government’s moral purpose to eliminate economic injustice—starting, in the Budget next week, with an announcement of massive investment in the north, and wherever else poverty and low pay raise their heads?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. [Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh, but working people paid a very heavy price for 14 years of economic failure. Austerity damaged the economy and decimated public services; the botched Brexit deal stifled growth; and the reckless borrowing of the mini-Budget saw mortgages and the cost of living soar.

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. We are determined to tackle inequality; he will be pleased to know that under this Government, wages are up, but we need to do more. We have had a pay increase for the 3.5 million lowest-paid, and the Chancellor will deliver a Budget based on Labour values.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I associate Conservative Members with the remarks the Prime Minister made about James Elliot.

Can the Prime Minister tell us why his Government are the first Government in history to float an increase in income tax rates, only to then U-turn on it—all after the actual Budget?

[The Prime Minister]

I can inform the Leader of the Opposition that the Budget is actually next week. She only has one week to go, but I can tell her that it will be a Labour Budget with Labour values. That means that we will concentrate on cutting NHS waiting lists, cutting debt, and cutting the cost of living. Because of the decisions we have already made, inflation is down this morning, the Bank of England has upgraded growth, and we have a record £230 billion of investment in this country under this Government.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister says that the Budget is next week, but we read all about it in the papers. This is the first Budget to unravel before it has even been delivered. I am afraid that the Chancellor’s cluelessness is damaging the economy now. The Prime Minister needs to end this shambles, so can he confirm today that he will not break another promise by freezing income tax thresholds?

[The Prime Minister]

The Budget is one week today, and we will lay out our plans then. I have said what we will do, in terms of protecting the NHS and public services; what we will not do is inflict austerity on the country, as the Conservatives did, which caused huge damage. What we will not do is inflict a borrowing spree, like Liz Truss did, which also inflicted huge damage. Have the Conservatives learned anything? The Leader of the Opposition apparently has a golden economic rule—it is very important, this golden rule. It is £47 billion of cuts with no detail. No wonder the Institute for Government says that they are on very shaky foundations. They have not listened, and they have not learned.

[Mrs Badenoch]

It is quite clear that the Government are going to freeze thresholds; we did not get a clear answer from the Prime Minister, but this is really important. In her Budget speech last year, the Chancellor said:

“I am keeping every single promise on tax that I made in our manifesto, so there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax and national insurance thresholds”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]

Why was freezing thresholds a breach of the manifesto last year, but not this year?

[The Prime Minister]

Every week, the Leader of the Opposition comes along and speculates and distorts. Last year, the Conservatives predicted a recession, and what did we get? The fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first half of the year. They opposed NHS investment, and what did we get? Five million extra appointments in the first year of a Labour Government. The Conservatives tried growing the economy with millions on NHS waiting lists, with our schools crumbling and holes in our roofs. It did not work. What do they want to do now? Go back to the same failed experiment.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister talks about speculation. The only people who have been speculating are his Government, every single day for the last three months. He mentioned inflation in his last answer; inflation has nearly doubled since Labour came into office. He wants a round of applause because it has come down a little bit, but I will remind him that food inflation is up to 4.9%. That is making life miserable for all of those people out there.

[The Prime Minister]

The Leader of the Opposition talks about inflation, but it went to 11% and the country is still paying the price. Inflation is down this morning, wages are up and we have had five interest rate cuts, and that is because our fiscal rules are iron-clad. She and the Conservatives have no credibility on the economy. She was a Treasury Minister during the worst decline in living standards on record. She said that Liz Truss got the mini-Budget 100% right. There is not much room for flexibility there—100%; that is full marks. She might want to tell us whether that is still her position—100% right for Liz Truss.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I was a Treasury Minister at the height of the pandemic, and we cleaned up that mess. Perhaps the Prime Minister will clean up some of his own mess. I will repeat what the Chancellor said, because it is clear that the whole Labour Front-Bench team have forgotten:

“I have come to the conclusion that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]

That, however, is what Labour is planning to do next week. All this speculation is having real-world consequences. Just this morning, the UK chair of ExxonMobil said:

“The Government needs to understand that the whole industrial base of the UK is at risk unless they wake up and realise the damage their economic policies are doing.”

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the loss of UK industry is the price that the country has to pay for having a clueless Chancellor?

[The Prime Minister]

On ExxonMobil, it is a difficult time for the workforce there, and we must focus on supporting them. We have been meeting the company for more than six months and explored every possible reasonable avenue. It has been facing losses for the past five years. [Interruption.] It is best to do the detail before you chunter. The site is currently losing £1 million a week. The Leader of the Opposition talks about policy and approach. On energy policy, she follows Reform. On the European convention, she follows the man who wants her job. When her shadow Minister said that we should deport people who are lawfully here to achieve cultural coherence, she pretended that it did not happen. I could go on. She was the Trade Secretary who did not sign any trade deals. She was a cheerleader for the mini-Budget and a cheerleader for open borders, and when the Conservatives were crashing the economy, botching Brexit and running down the NHS, she was right at the centre. She has not got an ounce of credibility.

[Mrs Badenoch]

On energy policy, what we are doing is listening to industry. [Interruption.]

[Mrs Badenoch]

Just this morning, we heard from the chair of one of our largest energy companies. Last week, I had a roundtable with energy companies, and what they had to say about this Prime Minister and his Energy Secretary is unprintable. They are absolutely furious. Our oil and gas industry is dying, and the Prime Minister is standing there, saying he has had meetings. People out there are struggling and the Budget chaos is causing real anxiety. People are not buying houses, businesses are not hiring and they are cancelling investment decisions. Two weeks ago, the Chancellor called a ridiculous press conference to blame everyone else for her having to raise income tax, then last week she U-turned on her own U-turn. We can see that they are instead planning to freeze income tax thresholds, which she said last year would be a breach of their manifesto. They are making it up as they go along. Does the country not deserve better than government by guesswork?

[The Prime Minister]

Either we renew our country with Labour, or we go to austerity 2.0 with Reform and the Tories. The Tories left waiting lists at record highs and almost a million more children in poverty, and they wrecked our public services. The Leader of the Opposition comes here to talk down the country; we are turning the page, with more NHS appointments, free breakfast clubs, free childcare, more homes and better public services. That is what we are fighting for: a Britain built for all.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

Q4.  Standing in the heart of Weymouth, the Rectory is an iconic building. Formerly a theatre, once a bustling cinema and then a popular pub, it has stood empty for more than a decade. We want to turn the building into a thriving centre for arts and culture, hosting exhibitions and celebrating everything that makes Weymouth unique. Will the Prime Minister work with me and all the key players on the ground to revitalise the Rectory and reopen this fantastic building for our town?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a brilliant champion for South Dorset, and he is right to champion the revitalisation of our high streets. The Heritage Minister will be delighted to discuss how we can get this iconic building reopened, as he wants. I am pleased that Weymouth secured £20 million in Pride in Place funding, giving his community the power and resources to make a real difference to people’s lives.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s opening remarks? May I also join him in congratulating Scotland on their amazing win against Denmark, and wish them well in the world cup? I hope that Wales will qualify to join England and Scotland.

Every year, there are more than 300 suicides related to problem gambling. It affects hundreds of thousands of families, tearing them apart. Meanwhile, online gambling firms are taking in record revenues of more than £7 billion a year. ITV News is reporting that one of them, Sky Bet, is moving its headquarters to Malta so that it can save tens of millions of pounds in corporation tax. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is time we taxed those firms on their UK profits so that they do not escape, wherever they are registered for tax?

[The Prime Minister]

I join the right hon. Gentleman in wishing Wales well, as well as Northern Ireland—I should like to see all four nations in the finals.

The right hon. Gentleman has raised the very important issue of suicide, in men’s health awareness month. I think that the whole House would want to work together on anything that can prevent it. If all of us think about individuals we may have known who lost their lives through suicide, we will recognise that it is something that touches almost every one of us and all our families as well. We will of course look at the link between suicide and gambling, and take whatever measures we can to reduce suicide. It is a very important issue.

[Ed Davey]

I thank the Prime Minister for his reply, and we look forward to the Government’s taking action on that.

Let me raise another domestic matter. Next to the River Cherwell in Oxfordshire, a field is now covered in an enormous mound of rubbish, 150 metres long and up to 12 metres high. The water is now lapping against the waste and carrying it into the river. It is just one of many sites where organised criminal gangs are illegally dumping their waste on our countryside and getting away with it. This is a shocking environmental emergency, so will the Prime Minister instruct the Environment Agency to clean it up now?

[The Prime Minister]

These are utterly appalling scenes. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a criminal investigation is under way and specialist officers are tracking down those responsible. The Environment Agency will use all available powers to ensure that the perpetrators cover the cost of the clean-up that must now follow. We have boosted the agency’s budget for tackling waste crime by 50% and given councils new powers to seize and crush fly-tippers’ vehicles, and lawbreakers can now face up to five years in jail.

[Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)]

Q8. Immigration is the No. 1 issue on the doorsteps of Bristol North East: most people will ask me about it. They want a firm but also fair approach, but they have been let down over many years. Controlling our borders and knowing who comes here is essential, not least to integration. What can the Prime Minister say to my constituents that will give them an assurance that the reforms that he and the Home Secretary are proposing—which I support—will be firm, but also fair?

[The Prime Minister]

I am proud to lead an open, tolerant, generous country. To maintain that principle, we must restore order and control, fix the utterly broken system left by the Conservatives, and end the division that others seek to exploit. That includes creating safe and legal routes and recognising those who contribute, integrate and strengthen our society, while at the same time reducing the number of illegal arrivals and removing those with no right to be here. That is a fair, progressive system which meets modern challenges.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The Governments of France, Germany and the United States have all extracted compensation from Libya for their citizens who were affected by Gaddafi-led terrorism across the world. Why are the British Government continuing to fail citizens of the United Kingdom who suffered to a huge extent through the importation of arms, and, in particular, the tonnes of Semtex that Gaddafi supplied to the IRA, giving rise to Enniskillen, Warrington, the Baltic Exchange and multiple other incidents? Why is no compensation being extracted from Libya for our citizens when it can be done for others? Will the Prime Minister at least meet representatives of the almost forgotten, but still campaigning, families of those affected by Gaddafi’s terrorism?

[The Prime Minister]

So many suffered from Gaddafi’s actions, and the hon. and learned Member is absolutely right to raise this really serious issue. We are working hard on it, and I will absolutely make sure that the meeting he asks for is set up with the relevant Minister, so that we can give the full position and take onboard what the families have to say.

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

Q9. On International Men’s Day, and in the spirit of Movember, I want to be open about my own past mental health challenges, in the hope that it might encourage other men to do the same. During the traumatic birth of my first son I nearly lost my wife, and a dark cloud settled over me—a cloud that lifted through conversation and support, and through the safe arrival of my second son. Bright days lie ahead. In the Public Gallery today is Mike from Menfulness, a fantastic charity in York giving men a place to talk. Will the Prime Minister, as a dad himself, agree that strength as a man means being open about our emotions, and that we should never face challenges on our own?

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his honesty. It is never easy to stand up and say what he has, and I hope he understands just how important that is for others who are suffering, who will be inspired to talk openly about their experiences, and, importantly, to get the help that they need.

I am really proud to publish the first-ever men’s health strategy today to tackle challenges that disproportionately affect men, including certain cancers and suicide, which is tragically the biggest killer of men under 50. We will invest millions in helping more men access mental health support, in better care for former miners, and in rolling out at-home blood tests to tackle prostate cancer. I thank my hon. Friend for speaking out; I think it is so brave and important. It has been done across the House—this is not a party political issue—but it is always very powerful. It is a model for all of us.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Q2.  Given the Government’s desire to improve our children’s educational outcomes and wellbeing, they are ignoring the elephant in the room. This morning I hosted a powerful roundtable with three secondary headteachers who spoke about the transformational effect that a complete ban on smartphones in their schools had had—improved behaviour, increased focus, far fewer safeguarding issues, and, most importantly, happier children. But for them the ban has been hard won, and it has sunk a huge amount of time. Will the Prime Minister tell me, and the thousands of headteachers out there who are crying out for this change, why his Government will not back them with a ban on smartphones in schools?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for her important question. I have teenage children in secondary school, and I know this is an issue for concerned parents and teachers. The reality of the statistics is that the majority of schools already ban smartphones—[Interruption.] They allow children to bring their phones to school but they ban them in schooltime and lessons. Of course we will always keep this under review, but we have got to take steps that will be effective. I agree with the sentiment of what the hon. Member is putting to me, but we need to deal with it effectively.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

Q11. One of the worst legacies of the last Conservative Government was the collapse in apprenticeships for young people in places such as Peterborough, shutting a generation out of opportunity. My city is determined to turn that around, with places such as Peterborough College—like many of our colleges—leading the charge. While I welcome the Government’s reforms, I still talk to too many young people who cannot access the training they need to rebuild Britain. Will the Prime Minister set out what more we can do together to ensure that Peterborough’s young people get the good jobs and apprenticeships they deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend’s dedicated campaign means that Peterborough has one of the first youth guarantee pilots in the country. We inherited an awful situation where almost 1 million young people were neither earning nor learning, and we refused to accept that. That is why we are delivering the new youth guarantee, investing a record £3 billion into apprenticeships and increasing the national minimum wage for 16 to 20-year-olds. Reform and the Tories say that the minimum wage is too high, but they are totally wrong. We are going to focus on every young person to give them the chance to succeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Anderson]

Our Reform-led councils have already identified savings of more than £330 million in the first six months.

[The Prime Minister]

indicated dissent.

[Lee Anderson]

The Prime Minister may shake his head, propped up by his gullible Back Benchers, but here is a challenge: will he guarantee that all the cancelled elections from this year and the proposed local elections for next year will go ahead in May 2026? Go on—be a man.

[The Prime Minister]

I did not realise the hon. Gentleman was quite so good at stand-up comedy. He talks about dog whistles. Last week, the leader of his party, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), said that he did not have time to condemn the racist comments of his fellow MP, the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin); he also said he did not have time to condemn members of his party calling children in care “evil”. He did not have time for that. I wonder if the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) could ask his party leader, sitting just next to him, whether he has time to give an explanation of the stories in today’s papers.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

Q14. Over the summer, large quantities of illegal cigarettes were seized in shops in my constituency. However, many of those shops were reopened the very next day. Does the Prime Minister agree that we have to make it easier to shut these shops down permanently so that we put these criminal networks out of business forever?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. There has been a surge in response to illegal shops selling products they should not be selling and not paying their taxes—this is very important. Raids in October saw more than 900 arrests, almost £11 million of criminal profits seized and almost £3 million-worth of illegal gear destroyed. We need to go further to protect our high streets, which is why we are giving councils powers to prevent certain shops from even opening, supporting them to deal with unwanted shops and, through the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, cracking down on rogue retailers who break the law.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Q6.  Eastbourne resident Pam was given a cheque for £125,000 by her terminally ill partner, which she went on to cash in. However, an error by the bank, Barclays, meant that only £125 was deposited. Barclays admitted the error, and then said it would compensate her with £250 for the inconvenience caused. Will the Prime Minister work with me to ensure that Barclays bank pays Pam the compensation she needs and deserves? While we are here, will he commit to imposing a windfall tax on the excess profits of banks like Barclays to bring bills down for struggling residents?

[The Prime Minister]

The case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent Pam is staggeringly bad—absolutely terrible. If he could provide me with the full details, I will make sure that the Government join him in doing whatever we can in his constituent’s case.

Before I sit down, I will take a moment to send my warmest congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on getting engaged on Thursday, I believe. The proposal was right here in Parliament—you never know what you might find in this Dispatch Box, Mr Speaker. On behalf of my party and, I am sure, the whole House, I wish him and Connor a lifetime of happiness.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

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

Q15. Crewe railway station is the gateway to the north, and indeed the shop window for my constituency, with an average annual footfall of 4.5 million people. I am working with Cheshire East council on ambitious plans for Crewe360 to deliver much-needed investment into the station and the land around it. We want to adopt the Railway Industry Association’s station investment zone proposals, which could deliver much-needed improvements in transport, housing, regeneration and economic growth. Does the Prime Minister agree that Crewe would make a perfect pilot for those proposals, and will he work with me to bring Departments round the table to make these plans a reality?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Because of our actions, house building near stations like Crewe will now be a default yes. That means tens of thousands of homes delivered far sooner for families, with great transport links as standard. I will make sure that he meets the relevant Ministers to drive forward growth. Every step we have taken to deliver more homes has been opposed by the parties opposite. They are the blockers; Labour are the builders.

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)]

Q7. It is an open secret that the gig economy is a magnet for organised crime and illegal workers. As Christmas approaches and demand increases, so do the associated risks. Will the Prime Minister please explain why enforcement in this area is so low and what he will do to restore order?

[The Prime Minister]

We are delivering a record crackdown on illegal working in the gig economy, and expanding right-to-work and facial recognition checks, which are really important. We are also introducing a new criminal offence of trespassing with intent to commit a crime through the Crime and Policing Bill.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

Based on their reaction today, Conservative Members may not care or remember, but every day I see the cost to my constituents in Bournemouth West of years of cuts to public services—youth services gone, neighbourhood policing decimated and no NHS dentist appointments. Can the Prime Minister confirm that there will be no return to austerity under this Labour Government?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly can. The austerity that the Conservatives imposed on the country destroyed our public services, and we are still paying the price. We will be cutting waiting lists, cutting the debt and cutting the cost of living—fair choices to secure Britain’s future, not a return to the failure of the Conservative party.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Q10. The Prime Minister has expressed “sincere regret” for appointing David Kogan as Independent Football Regulator. Will he now put on record the full amount that Mr Kogan has donated to his leadership campaign and his party, any hospitality he has received, and whether he declared these interests before appointing him?

[The Prime Minister]

They were all declared properly.

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

This Friday we commemorate the 51st anniversary of the Birmingham pub bombings, where 21 people lost their lives in what is still the largest unsolved murder in our history. The families do not believe that the approach set out by the Government will discover the truth, and they think that only a public inquiry will do. Can we now have the meetings in order to hear the families’ concerns directly, and agree an approach that will not just command confidence but find the truth about who bombed Birmingham?

[The Prime Minister]

My deepest sympathies remain with the bereaved and survivors of the horrific pub bombings in Birmingham in 1974. We believe that the most appropriate route is through the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, but my right hon. Friend has raised this issue directly with me and of course I will ensure that the relevant meeting is set up, so that he and the families can put their point of view for us to consider.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Q12. Mr Speaker, you and the Chamber will be well aware that I represent the biggest and most remote constituency in the UK, and I am bound to say that bank branches there are becoming rarer than sightings of the Loch Ness monster. We have no banks at all in the huge county of Sutherland. We have legislation that provides for access to cash, but what we do not have is legislation that provides for face-to-face banking services. I would be deeply grateful if the Prime Minister asked Treasury Ministers to meet me to discuss how we might update the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 to include some form of access-to-cash provision that will preserve face-to-face banking for my constituents and those in other remote areas.

[The Prime Minister]

I know how important face-to-face banking is to local communities. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are rolling out banking hubs. Decisions over locations are taken independently, but they should be rolled out wherever there is a need for one, and of course there is more to come. In answer to his question, I will make sure that he gets the meeting that he requests, so that we can have a look at his proposal.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

As the Prime Minister is aware, November marks Islamophobia Awareness Month. This Labour Government have shown a steadfast commitment to supporting Muslim communities, particularly through consulting on the definition of Islamophobia. Given anti-Muslim hate is at a record level in the UK, can the Prime Minister outline the steps this Government will take to tackle the rising level of racism and xenophobia against Muslims in Britain?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. He has always been a strong champion on this. Anti-Muslim hatred is abhorrent and has no place in our society. The increase in incidents must be addressed. It is why we are increasing funding to protect mosques and Muslim faith schools across the country. It is why we have announced a new fund to monitor anti-Muslim hatred and support victims, and we continue to work on the definition of anti-Muslim hatred.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Q13.   Everyone who cares about media independence and freedom will be relieved that RedBird has recognised that it cannot run The Telegraph, but there are serious concerns that it will burden the paper with unsustainable debt if the title is sold for less than half a billion pounds. Will the Prime Minister step in to prevent this from happening and enable a sale, at a lower price if necessary, without this toxic debt burden?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member raises a serious issue. I am not quite sure what he is asking the Government to do—to step in and nationalise it I do not think would be the right thing.

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

Meur ras, Mr Speaker. On 5 March at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister said these words:

“We do recognise Cornish national minority status—not just the proud language, history and culture of Cornwall, but its bright future.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 278.]

Since then, I have repeatedly asked Ministers for Cornwall’s unique place on this island to be recognised through devolution. When the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill comes back to the House next week, will the Prime Minister help me explicitly enshrine Cornish devolution and Cornish national minority status in that Bill?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Of course, he has raised this issue with me on a number of occasions already. He is a great champion for Cornwall. We will ensure that Cornwall’s national minority status is safeguarded in any future devolution arrangements. We have provided half a million pounds to support distinctive Cornish culture, including the Cornish language.

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

The Prime Minister knows that, last week, nine four-star generals made it plain that yesterday’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is doing harm to the British Army already. The most acute damage is being felt by the Special Air Service. It is already affecting its recruitment, retention, morale and operational effectiveness. As a result, lawyers acting for the SAS Regimental Association have sent a letter before action to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I know of no precedent for this in the entire history of the British Army, and this reflects—because it is so important—how important it is, so may I make a plea to the Prime Minister? Will he involve himself personally to ensure that 60, 70 and 80-year-old soldiers, who have carried out actions that most of us would view as heroic, are not persecuted in the coming years, because now it is a matter not of national security, but of national honour?

[The Prime Minister]

May I thank the right hon. Member for his question and reassure him on the protections that he seeks for veterans? It is a very important issue, and he has continually and rightly raised it. There will be protection from repeat investigations, so the commission does not go over old ground without compelling reasons. There will be protection from cold calling, and protection in old age, so that elderly veterans are respected. Those who do contribute to the legacy process will have a right to anonymity, a right to stay at home to give evidence remotely and a right to be heard through the commission. That is the work that we are doing, and I am happy to discuss it further with him.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

When the Prime Minister next meets the President of the United States, will he ask him if he knows any reasonably priced hotels near the MetLife stadium in New Jersey, where the world cup final is to be held, and, as we are about to provide the biggest boost to whisky exports since our trade deal was signed, will he gently ask the Chancellor to consider excise duties next week so that we Scots can continue celebrating at reasonable prices?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is important that we do everything we can to support whisky. I am really pleased with the progress we are making with the United States, and of course with India under that trade deal, and I will continue to discuss what more we can do with my hon. Friend.

Cabinet Committees

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Today I am publishing an update to the Cabinet Committee list. I have placed a copy of the new list in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS1073]

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

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

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

I, too, welcome the Canadian Speaker. I also welcome Mervyn Kersh to the Gallery today. He is a member of our greatest generation and a D-day veteran who entered Bergen-Belsen days after it was liberated. Mervyn is 100 years old. I am lucky to have met him twice, and I know that it took him many, many years before he felt that he could even begin to tell his story. We thank him for his service and the story he has told us in respect of it.

As we mark Armistice Day, we give our eternal thanks to Mervyn and all those who served, and we remember the extraordinary sacrifice of ordinary people who fought to defend our freedom. The House will also want to join me in remembering Holocaust survivor Manfred Goldberg. He showed the most extraordinary courage to share his testimony, and in his memory we must ensure that “never again” means never again.

I welcome the news that SSE has announced that it will spend £33 billion on clean energy projects in this country. That is a major vote of confidence in the UK economy, and it is happening because of our decision to embrace the opportunities of clean power. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about remembrance. I particularly remember being in west Africa in 1997, where I somehow managed to survive a bloody and violent attempted coup—if the Prime Minister wants any ideas on how to do that, he only has to ask. [Laughter.] Prime Minister’s questions last week was an absolute bin fire. If the Prime Minister is indeed intent on promoting the United Kingdom on the world stage, please can he promise the House that he will never ever be away on a Wednesday again?

[The Prime Minister]

It is always great to hear from Kwasi Kwarteng’s successor in his constituency. I am very proud to represent our country on the world stage, as I did last week at COP and before that in NATO. It is because of the reputation we have rebuilt over the last 16 months that other countries now want to do trade deals with us and place their orders with us.

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

Q2. I, too, associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister.The Prime Minister will be aware of the campaign being run by the trustees of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme to return the £2.3 billion investment reserve back to its members, 700 of whom are in Doncaster Central. The Labour Government delivered on their manifesto pledge for the mineworkers’ pension scheme last year, so will the Prime Minister also ensure that fairness and justice are delivered to the BCSSS members at the upcoming Budget, and will he meet me and other coalfield MPs to discuss this matter further?

[The Prime Minister]

I know how committed my hon. Friend is to righting historic wrongs for our mining communities, and I assure her that I am too. She will know that we have already transferred £1.5 billion that was wrongly kept from over 100,000 former mineworkers. Ministers have met the BCSSS trustees on several occasions, and the industry Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald)—is meeting them later today. I will make sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) is updated in relation to that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I associate my party with the Prime Minister’s comments about Remembrance Week and about Manfred Goldberg and Mervyn Kersh, who is in the Gallery today.

This morning on the BBC, the Health Secretary said that there is a “toxic culture” in Downing Street that needs to change. He is right, isn’t he?

[The Prime Minister]

My focus each and every day is on rebuilding and renewing our country. Let me be absolutely clear: any attack on any member of my Cabinet is completely unacceptable. In relation to the Health Secretary, he promised before the election that in the first year of a Labour Government we would deliver 2 million extra appointments. We did not deliver 2 million or 3 million or 4 million. We delivered 5 million extra appointments. Today the Health Secretary is in Manchester, where he is announcing that because of the action he has taken to abolish NHS England, he is putting more people on the frontline. He is doing a great job, as is the whole of my Cabinet.

[Mrs Badenoch]

What we heard the Health Secretary say this morning was that he wants to cut waiting lists, but we all know that there is only one waiting list he really wants to cut.

The Prime Minister is not going to do anything about the toxic culture, but this is his responsibility. Just last night, his allies accused not just the Health Secretary but the Home Secretary and even the Energy Secretary of launching leadership bids. These attacks came from No. 10—nowhere else: his toxic No. 10. The person responsible for the culture in No. 10 is his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney. Does the Prime Minister have full confidence in him?

[The Prime Minister]

Morgan McSweeney, my team and I are absolutely focused on delivering for the country. Let me be clear: of course I have never authorised attacks on Cabinet members. I appointed them to their posts because they are the best people to carry out their jobs.

The right hon. Lady asks about waiting lists—waiting lists are down under this Government. The number of GPs is up, and because we have scrapped NHS England we are investing on the frontline. That is what the Health Secretary is doing today: getting on with his job, and he is doing a very good job too.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I did not hear the Prime Minister give his full confidence in Morgan McSweeney. He says that these attacks are not authorised. The truth is that that means he has lost control of No. 10, because that is where they are coming from. But the real scandal is that, two weeks from a Budget, the Government have descended into civil war. Instead of fixing the mess they have made of the economy, they are all—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, they are all chuntering. These are the “feral MPs” that No.10 has been talking about. Those are not my words; they are No. 10’s words—his words.

Unbelievably, the Prime Minister’s advisers have been reduced to briefing that MPs cannot get rid of him—I am not making this up—because it would destabilise international markets. Why does the Prime Minister think that there would be a market meltdown if the Health Secretary took over?

[The Prime Minister]

This is a united team and we are delivering together. Look at what we are delivering: the fastest growth in the G7; five interest rate cuts; trade deals with the EU, the US and India—all of which the Conservatives opposed. We have delivered. I can update the House—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If people want to audition for a pantomime, I suggest they go to the Old Vic.

[The Prime Minister]

I can update the House. The Bank of England has upgraded growth today. We have secured £230 billion of private investment. Just this morning—I thought the right hon. Lady might welcome this—SSE has announced £33 billion of investment in clean power. That is what this team are delivering for the country: fixing the mess that the Conservatives left.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister is talking about growth and investment. While he desperately tries to cling on to his own job, perhaps he understands what it is like for all those people out there losing their jobs. How can he talk about growth? Yesterday, we learned that unemployment has risen to the same rate as it was in lockdown—180,000 jobs lost. Why does the Prime Minister think that unemployment has risen every single month since Labour took office?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me give the House the details: 329,000 more people are in work since the start of this year. Of course I accept that we need to do more in relation to unemployment. That is why we are transforming jobcentres, which the Conservatives opposed. That is why we are working with 60 major businesses to tackle ill health in the workplace and have invested £3.8 billion in tailored back-to-work support, which the Conservatives opposed. I also remind the Leader of the Opposition that average unemployment in the 14 years of her Government was 5.4%—higher than the rate today.

[Mrs Badenoch]

We left employment higher than it was after the last Labour Government. Let me tell the Prime Minister what is causing the increase in unemployment: his disastrous Budget last year. To be clear for all those Labour MPs shaking their heads, it is last year’s tax rises that have killed jobs, and that is what is going to trigger this year’s tax rises. This is the tax doom loop. There is only one way out of it, and that is to cut spending. Why is the Prime Minister instead offering welfare giveaways to save his own skin?

[The Prime Minister]

I will tell the Leader of the Opposition why we increased national insurance: it was because of the mess the Conservatives left the country in. The NHS was on its knees; now we have 5 million extra appointments, waiting lists are down and there are 2,500 more GPs as a result of our decisions. It is nearly the one-year anniversary, but on national insurance she still has not told us whether she agrees and admits that we should do it. If her position is that we should not, how would she find the money that we raised in the Budget? She has had a whole year to think about that question. Perhaps now she can give us an answer.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I would not have made the stupid mistake in the first place of putting up the jobs tax and killing jobs. Since Labour came in, it has been disaster after disaster. The Deputy Prime Minister—the new Deputy Prime Minister—is clueless about how many illegal migrant sex offenders he has let loose; the Culture Secretary is breaking the rules to give her donor a top job; taxes are set to rise even further; unemployment is at levels not seen since lockdown; and in the middle of it is a weak Prime Minister at war with his own Cabinet. It is not just him; it is all of them. There is no replacement; it is all of them. Two weeks before the Budget, is it not the case that this Prime Minister has lost control of his Government, lost the confidence of his party and lost the trust of the British people?

[The Prime Minister]

The stupid mistakes were made over 14 long years. The Conservatives broke the economy and now they think they can lecture us. Now they have this unserious idea that they can find £47 billion of cuts without saying where they will come from. No wonder that is called flimsy. Meanwhile, we are rebuilding the country: wages up, investment up, mortgages down. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Philp, you are meant to be a senior person on the Front Bench. You are meant to set an example—it is certainly a bad one today.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

Q3. Despite extra Government funding, adult social care services in my community are in disarray. My constituents also face a new fire risk because we do not have a fully functioning fire authority. This has all been caused by the dysfunction at Kent county council, because so many Reform councillors have been suspended for bad behaviour. Does the Prime Minister share my concern that Reform chaos is a risk to public safety?

[The Prime Minister]

My sympathy is with the people of Kent whose lives are being disrupted by the staggering incompetence of Reform. Kent county council was supposed to be the blueprint for what Reform would deliver across the country. Now we can see what that means: cutting local services, raising council tax and failing to protect the public. That is all Reform has to offer: grievance, division and total incompetence.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

May I associate myself with the earlier remarks of the Prime Minister and say what a great honour it was to join the royal family at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday to pay our respects to all those heroes who gave their lives for our country? We must never forget the sacrifice they made for our freedoms.

A great British institution is under attack from a foreign Government. President Trump is trying to destroy our BBC, not because he cares about the truth but because he wants to get away with his lies. Trump has undermined press freedom in America. Now he is trying to do the same here, disgracefully egged on by the leader of Reform. Will the Prime Minister tell President Trump to drop his demand for a $1 billion settlement from the BBC? Will he guarantee that President Trump will not get a single penny from British licence fee payers?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me be clear: I believe in a strong and independent BBC. Some would rather the BBC did not exist—some of them are sitting on the Reform Bench—but I am not one of them. In an age of disinformation, the argument for an impartial British news service is stronger than ever. When mistakes are made, the BBC needs to get its house in order. It must uphold the highest standards, be accountable and correct errors quickly, but I will always stand up for a strong, independent BBC.

[Ed Davey]

The Prime Minister is right to say that the BBC’s independence and impartiality are absolutely crucial. That is why we must stop President Trump undermining them, but he is not the only one; the last Government spent years undermining the BBC’s independence and impartiality. They put two Conservative cronies on the BBC Board. One has had to resign. The other is still there, but he has been repeatedly accused of interfering in editorial decisions and staff appointments. Robbie Gibb should have no role in appointing the next director general. Given that the royal charter gives the Government the power to remove him, will the Prime Minister sack him now?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly agree with the comment that the last Government undermined the work of the BBC—they undermined pretty well everything they did in 14 years. I am not going to go into the individual runnings of the BBC. I am a strong supporter of the BBC in the terms I have already set out.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

Q4. This is Care Leavers Month, when we remember the resilience and brilliance of our young people who have grown up in care, and I was delighted to welcome a group of Southampton’s care leavers to share their views with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), recently. But while this Labour Government are taking real action to support care leavers, a Reform councillor has disgracefully described children in care as “downright evil”—[Interruption.] He said it. Will the Prime Minister and, I hope, the whole House join me in condemning Reform’s vile rhetoric, and will my right hon. Friend reassure us that this Labour Government will continue to support the protections and opportunities for all our care leavers?

[The Prime Minister]

November marks the first ever Care Leavers Month, and this is a time to recognise that every child deserves support to achieve their potential. Through our landmark Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are requiring every local authority to help care leavers find secure accommodation. It saddens me that the Opposition parties voted against it. The comments about children in care being “evil” are utterly appalling, and now that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has heard them, I am sure that he will want to condemn them right now.

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

The Prime Minister—[Interruption.] No, I have only got 30 seconds. The Prime Minister has stated very clearly that he wants to close the migrant hotels by the end of this Parliament. Reform-led West Northamptonshire Council—a brilliantly led council—will be issuing foreclosure notices on three migrant hotels within the next few days, in response to grave public concern about the safety of women and girls on the streets of West Northamptonshire. Would the Prime Minister approve of us speeding up the closure of the migrant hotels?

[The Prime Minister]

We will grip the mess we inherited and close every hotel. At their peak, under the previous Government, there were 400 hotels; now there are only 200 remaining. The hon. Gentleman says that he does not have time to condemn the comment that children in care are “evil”. He has also not had the time, it appears, to condemn the racist comments of his own MP—utterly spineless.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)]

Q6. Last week I visited the new diagnostic centre at Withington community hospital, and as well as the 85,000 new appointments it is going to create, I was really pleased to see new solar panels and heat pumps being designed into the building. I thank the Prime Minister for his climate leadership and for attending COP. In the week of COP, what more can we do to ensure that new public buildings have green energy designed into them?

[The Prime Minister]

I was very proud to attend COP last week, and the UK is leading on tackling climate change, delivering energy security, getting bills down and generating hundreds of jobs across the country. We are investing over £250 million to put rooftop solar on schools, hospitals and military sites across the country, and that will deliver £400 million of savings to renew our public services.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

Q5. Successive Governments have imposed massive environmental tariffs on customers using UK-produced renewable electricity, but far less on imported carbon fuel mains gas. This is the main reason why those not on the gas grid—those living in rural Britain—pay a great deal more to heat their properties. Yes, renewable projects are important, but the huge environmental tariffs on our electricity bills are not fair. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge this injustice and commit his Government to addressing this?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely recognise the need to address the imbalance between electricity and gas prices. We are exploring options to create a fairer system, and I am happy for Ministers to keep the hon. Member updated on what we are looking at. It is thanks to those levies and Labour’s expansion of the warm homes discount that 6 million families will be getting £150 off their energy bills this winter. I know that he will welcome the £33 billion in investment from SSE, helping to connect clean energy to areas across Scotland where it is most needed.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

Q8. Prior to the general election, the Health Secretary visited Amber Valley and declared it an NHS dentistry desert. Since then, I have secured £240,000 of additional funding, encouraged my constituents to access the 16,300 emergency appointments in Derbyshire, and last week secured thousands of extra units of dental activity, but there is more to do. Can the Prime Minister update me on the progress of the contract negotiations with the British Dental Association and the timescale that the Department is working to?

[The Prime Minister]

I am appalled that we inherited such a situation where tooth decay is the most common reason that children between five and nine are admitted to hospital—in every children’s hospital on the Conservatives’ watch. I was very shocked when I first heard that, at Alder Hey hospital up in the north-west. More children between the ages of five and nine are being admitted to have their teeth taken out because they are rotting than for any other operation. That was the Conservatives’ record, and they should just be ashamed of it. That is why I am determined to rebuild NHS dentistry. I can confirm that discussions are under way with the sector, including the British Dental Association, on fundamental reform of the dental contract to get my hon. Friend’s constituents the care that they need and deserve.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Q7.  Jhoots Pharmacy has been responsible for repeated closures, leaving staff unpaid and residents without access to vital medicine. Unfit pharmacy owners such as Sarbjit Jhooty, who has severely neglected patients and staff in West Dorset and across England, should not be running our care system. Will the Prime Minister make time in the parliamentary schedule for emergency legislation to give the Government and regulators powers to pay staff, tackle improper pharmacy owners and directors, and ensure that scandals like this can never happen again?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this very serious issue, which has been raised by others across these Benches on previous occasions. It is simply not right that customers and staff have been so badly let down. The Care Minister has convened representatives from across the industry to resolve the situation as quickly as possible. I want to reassure the hon. Member that we are working speedily to consider how to strengthen regulation of these pharmacies, and I will update the House as soon as I can.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

Q9. During the debates on assisted dying, I and many others highlighted the importance of palliative care provided by hospices, but this vital work has been left reliant on donations and charity for far too long. Garden House hospice in Letchworth now faces a serious funding gap. I welcome Government investment in hospices, but will the Prime Minister consider broader reform to put hospice funding on a sustainable footing, and will he ensure that Ministers meet me to explore every option to keep Garden House hospice open?

[The Prime Minister]

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that £100 million has now been passed to Hospice UK, so places like Garden House in his constituency can create the best environment to deliver care. That is backed by a £26 million investment for children and young people’s hospices. We are also investing over £3 million in researching palliative and end-of-life care through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. We are working on further proposals to improve the access, quality and sustainability of care, and I will ensure that Ministers keep him updated.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

Q12. I would like to ask the Prime Minister for his help. It has been over six months since the Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of sex. Yet public institutions are still knowingly and intentionally breaching the law. HMP Downview, a women’s prison in Banstead, has five biological males in it. If that was not bad enough, those males are mixing with the women in the daytime without adequate supervision. Will the Prime Minister ensure that biological males are moved out of women’s prisons immediately?

[The Prime Minister]

The Supreme Court ruling must be implemented in full and at all levels—the hon. Lady is absolutely right about that. I will ensure that the particular examples she has raised are looked into and that she gets a proper reply on them.

[Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)]

Q10. With miles of golden sand and a bucketful of memories, Rhyl has been attracting visitors for generations. After millions of pounds of Welsh Government investment, and a £20 million UK Government neighbourhood fund, Rhyl is on the up. Does the Prime Minister agree that only with two Labour Governments working together can we restore pride in our Welsh seaside towns, and will he join me for a stroll on our new promenade to see just what Rhyl has to offer?

[The Prime Minister]

That is a very appealing invitation just at the moment. I am proud to be putting power and resources directly back in the hands of local people in communities like Rhyl. That £20 million can be used for the issues that matter most to them, including revitalising their high street—a cause that I know is crucial to many residents, including my hon. Friend’s constituents. That is just one of 14 communities across Wales benefiting from the Pride in Place funding. This is the renewal that people get with a Labour Government here working with a Labour Government in Cardiff.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Q13.  Maternity services are a vital part of women’s healthcare, but sadly too many women are being failed. At Cheltenham general hospital, the Aveta birth centre was temporarily closed for labour and births back in 2022. Last week we learned that there will be no decision about a potential plan for reopening it until spring next year. Does the Prime Minister agree that four years is far too long to ask local mums-to-be to wait, and will he reassure me that the temporary downgrade made under the Conservatives will not be made permanent under his Government?

[The Prime Minister]

Our starting point is that we must always ensure that every mother is heard and understood, and gets the quality of care that is needed. The independent national maternity investigation and local health needs assessment are due to report in spring of next year, as the hon. Gentleman says. It is right that the recommendations of both are closely considered in any decision for Cheltenham. I will ensure that he is kept updated as that rolls out.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Q11. I have long thought that you, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister would suit a magnificent moustache—and I am sure that you would be capable of growing a better one than mine. Many men, inside and outside this House, are growing our taches out this month to highlight the need for our health system, and men ourselves, to address preventable and treatable conditions to which all men are vulnerable, including prostate cancer, testicular cancer and mental health conditions such as depression. Does the Prime Minister agree that the first ever men’s health strategy, which is soon to be published, must lead to a major step change in the way our country helps men to stay well?

[The Prime Minister]

As my hon. Friend knows, my No. 1 priority is growth, so I am very glad to see his upper lip—he is obviously championing that himself. I send my best wishes to everyone growing a moustache this Movember. It is right to highlight that men are hit harder by a range of conditions, including cancer, cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. That is why our men’s health strategy will set out actions to improve the health of all men in England.

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)]

Q14. Every week we hear of a brutal murder, rape or stabbing, far too often perpetrated by someone who should not be in our country to begin with. Does the Prime Minister agree that, for cases in which the guilt is so undeniable, the crime so monstrous and the evil so irredeemable, the reintroduction of the death penalty for both foreign and domestic criminals should be put to the British people in a legally binding referendum?

[The Prime Minister]

Any attack is to be condemned. It is absolutely right, and we are determined to ensure, that there is a criminal justice response in relation to attacks, however they are carried out and whoever they are carried out by. But reintroducing the death penalty is not the answer to this. It did not work when it was in place. It led to the death of people who, it turned out, were in fact innocent. What we must do, as we are doing, is improve the criminal justice response in this country.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

Q15. I pay tribute to a new veterans group in Stevenage, The Muster Point, which was founded by Stuart Mendelson and Steve Black. Last week, I joined them in a continuous 72-hour vigil at Stevenage war memorial, where veterans shared stories of family and friends lost in war. But veterans deserve more than just our tributes, so will the Prime Minister commit to working with veterans in Stevenage and across the UK in delivering this Government’s new veterans strategy in full?

[The Prime Minister]

One of the greatest honours in this role is meeting and thanking our armed forces for their service, which we have been able to do during the course of this weekend and week. Our ambition is to bring the armed forces covenant fully into law in the next armed forces Bill, and we will do so. We are also renewing the contract with those who served through our veterans strategy, including Homes for Heroes, and a new network of support centres connecting charities and services with veterans. Labour patriots stand with all those who serve and have served our country.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

On that point, with the upcoming vote on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, nine of the most respected and experienced generals of a generation have publicly attacked the Government’s approach on lawfare against our armed forces, which they have said will erode trust in the justice system, and is a threat to national security. As a veteran who served in Northern Ireland during the troubles, I ask this: does the Prime Minister think they are all wrong, and when will he start standing up for our veterans?

[The Prime Minister]

I begin by thanking the hon. Gentleman for his service to our country. When former service chiefs raise an issue, we will of course engage with them—of course I respect their service and their views, and will do so. We are having to get rid of unlawful legislation, and we are putting in place a system with clear rights and protections for veterans. We will continue to try to get that balance right.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Four years ago I introduced a private Member’s Bill to ban the sale of wet wipes with plastic in them. The previous Government dragged their feet, but these wet wipes cause fatbergs in our sewers, put millions of pounds on our water bills for all our constituents and pollute rivers and seas. This Government promised to bring in the ban, and they are doing so now. Will the Prime Minister join me in celebrating a Labour promise delivered, and share the message that we should always bin wet wipes and other wipes, not flush them?

[The Prime Minister]

I commend my hon. Friend who has been a long-standing campaigner on this important issue. The public are right to be furious about how the last Government allowed sewage to pour into our lakes, rivers and seas. Alongside tough new powers to combat pollution, this ban will put an end to plastic wet wipes that litter our beaches, clog up our sewers and harm wildlife.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

Lloyds bank has more than 31,000 customers in my constituency, yet many of them, particularly the elderly and the vulnerable, are struggling to get out their own cash. That is because Lloyds has closed its branches in Brecon, Presteigne, Ystradgynlais, and before the end of this month in Pontardawe, despite making billions in profits and paying its CEO £5 million. Will the Prime Minister write to Lloyds bank and ask it to keep that last branch in Pontardawe open?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that, and I will look at the particular example he has raised. As he will know, we are rolling out hubs. Some of those are already in place and there are more to come, and I will happily update him on where they are likely to be.

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

Following the work of the eating disorders all-party group, I was horrified to hear that 19-year-old Lilly Cliff, who suffers from anorexia, has been placed on an end-of-life care pathway, after Rotherham, Doncaster and South Humber NHS foundation trust obtained a Court of Protection ruling to withdraw her treatment. The decision directly contradicts guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the statement from the Minister for Care in September that eating disorders are not a terminal illness. Will the Prime Minister urgently review that case to ensure that Lilly and her family receive the support they need, and that Lilly is given every possible chance to recover and live, and remind all integrated care boards, the NHS and hospitals, that suffering from an eating disorder is not a terminal illness?

[The Prime Minister]

My thoughts are with Lilly and her family. The details that my hon. Friend raises are deeply concerning. I know that he has raised this with Health Ministers and I will ensure that he gets a swift response. He is a powerful advocate for change, and I share his determination that everyone with an eating disorder gets the care and support that they need.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Keir Starmer Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

5.27 pm

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Before I come to the Bill, I put on record in this House my own tribute to the police, to the first responders and in particular to the heroic actions of the driver and members of staff on board the Doncaster to London train, where such a vile and horrific attack took place this weekend. We all share in the revulsion at this shocking incident, but there is no doubt that their collective action—their brave action—saved countless lives. I know that the whole country is grateful for that.

Thirty-six years ago, 97 men, women and children went to a Liverpool football match in Sheffield—it was an FA cup semi-final, an occasion of joy—and they never came home to their families. I invite the House just to reflect on that simple statement of fact and what that might feel like.

Nearly 15 years ago, when I was the Director of Public Prosecutions, I met many of the Hillsborough families during the independent panel led by Bishop James Jones. I will never forget what they told me in their testimony—painful to tell, painful to hear. It included the testimony of Jenni Hicks, who told me how she and her husband drove their two teenage girls to the game that day. They had to drive back later with an empty back seat. Every single story, every single experience is painful to the core—unimaginable to the core.

So before I come to the contents of the Bill, I want to begin this debate with a simple acknowledgment, long overdue, that the British state failed the families and victims of Hillsborough to an almost inhuman level. But those victims and their families—their strength, their courage, their refusal to give up; and their determination, no matter what was thrown at them, to fight for people they will never know or meet, to make sure that they never go through something like this again—they are the reason why we stand here today with this Bill, they are the reason why it will be known as the Hillsborough law, and they are the reason why we say clearly again what should have been said immediately: that their loved ones were unlawfully killed and that they never bore any responsibility for what happened in Sheffield that day, and we say it from this Dispatch Box today because the entire country knows what happened next.

We often call Hillsborough a tragedy, but it is more than a tragedy, because the disaster was not down to chance—it was not an accident; it was an injustice. And then further injustice was piled on top when the state subjected those families to enduring, from the police, lies and smears against their loved ones, while the central state, the Government, aided and abetted them for years and years and years. It was a cover-up by the very institutions that are supposed to protect and to serve, and it is nothing less than a stain on the modern history of this country.

And yet, can we truly say that Hillsborough was an isolated example? No, because there are also the Horizon scandal, Grenfell Tower, infected blood, the grooming gangs, Windrush, and more besides. We should also be blunt about the fact that there is a pattern common to all these scandals: time and again, the British state struggles to recognise injustice because of who the victims are—because they are working class, because they are black, because they are women and girls. That is the injustice that this Bill seeks to correct, and I hope that it commands the support of the whole House.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a couple of things are missing from this otherwise excellent Bill? The first is an acknowledgment of the role that the media played in covering up many of the wrongs that happened, and the second is a national oversight mechanism which would ensure that when recommendations are made, they are carried out.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for that intervention. Of course we must acknowledge the role that the media and others played in this—it was a cover-up at so many levels. As for an oversight mechanism, I do not think that the Bill is the place for it, but I do agree with the proposition that when there are inquiries, there needs to be a better way of ensuring that they are followed through.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The Prime Minister has listed a litany of scandals where there have been cover-ups. Will he reflect on including the Chinook disaster, in respect of which there have been repeated attempts to cover up the truth—the state of the aircraft that was sent out that night, in which we lost so many valued members of our intelligence service? Is that not a wrong that now needs to be righted?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising that. This Bill is obviously intended to deal with all the situations in which there needs to be a duty of candour, with consequences if that is not adhered to.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Prime Minister give way?

[The Prime Minister]

I will make some progress, but I will take further interventions later.

Let me now turn to the Bill itself, and first of all to the duty of candour. There are three parts to this, and the first is a new statutory duty of candour. At the Hillsborough independent panel, Bishop James Jones found that over 100 statements made by junior police officers had been deliberately altered to remove evidence unfavourable to South Yorkshire police—100 statements had been deliberately altered. I do not think there is anyone in this House who could possibly disagree that we must never let anything like that happen again. It is a disgrace, and the Bill before the House will tackle it.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the Prime Minister and the Government for bringing this Bill forward. I think it heartens us all to see its contents. Does the Prime Minister not agree that, with the rise of social media, there is more public scrutiny than ever before and less trust in our institutions? As he has outlined, the Bill is an opportunity to begin that journey of restoring public trust, but we must be mindful that nothing less than accountability can be acceptable. The public understand that mistakes can be made, but they cannot and should not forget when cover-ups take place.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Bill includes legal provisions to ensure that this can never happen again as a matter of law, but I have been clear—I have said this to the families on a number of occasions—that it is also the culture that has to change. The Bill is the architecture, but the culture of the state has to change.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Charlotte Hennessy, whose father Jimmy Hennessy was unlawfully killed at Hillsborough, has had conversations with the Prime Minister in which he has assured her that the law does not need to be watered down and will be delivered in its entirety. She is in the Chamber today. Will he make that promise in this House today?

[The Prime Minister]

Absolutely. I looked the families in the eye and made that promise, and I meant it. I say it again from this Dispatch Box: this Bill will not be watered down. This is such an important re-orchestrating of the relationship between the state and its citizens. It will not be watered down. I am very pleased to be able to affirm that from this Dispatch Box.

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

Will the Prime Minister give way?

[The Prime Minister]

I will take one more intervention and then I will press on.

[Ayoub Khan]

I thank the Prime Minister for giving way. Does he agree that one of the most powerful lessons from Hillsborough, and indeed from the Grenfell Tower and Post Office scandals, is that truth delayed is justice denied? And does he agree that, while this Bill rightly places a duty of candour upon public authorities, it must also compel Ministers themselves to uphold that same duty when addressing this House, so that accountability begins at the very top? That includes the misleading information that was given from that Dispatch Box by his Minister last week in relation to the hooligan Maccabi Tel Aviv fans.

[The Prime Minister]

I really think that, with the Hillsborough families here in the House with us—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I was trying to pay close attention, but I may have missed it; we do not accuse each other of giving misleading information at the Dispatch Box. One should be mindful of the language that one is uses.

[The Prime Minister]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also think that we owe the families a better debate than this descending into party political point scoring. I hope we can continue the debate in that way.

This Bill will tackle that injustice so that when tragedy strikes and the state is called to account, in inquiries, inquests and other investigations, public officials—from police officers to the highest offices in the land—will be subject to that duty. That means that an injustice like this can never again hide in some dark corner of the state. Failure to comply—failure, therefore, to act with candour, transparency and frankness—will now carry criminal penalties, including being sent to prison.

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

As a sponsor of the private Member’s Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), I fully welcome this Bill’s introduction, and I welcome that the protections include criminal offences of misconduct in public life. Can the Prime Minister assure me and others that those new offences will be able to be applied retrospectively?

[The Prime Minister]

No, they will not be able to, but that is not a deficiency of this Bill; it is a long-standing constitutional rule. This will be about offences moving forward. But I will just make the point—because I do think it is important—that these measures will apply across the United Kingdom, and I would like to place on record my thanks to the devolved Governments for their collaboration on this.

I can also announce that the Government intend to bring forward an amendment to extend this duty to local authority investigations in England, which will make sure that when an inquiry or investigation is set up by a local authority—for example, the Kerslake inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombings—there can also be that duty of co-operation and candour in the search for the truth.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I recognise the strength of the case that the Prime Minister is making. He will understand the interest that the Intelligence and Security Committee has in clause 6 of the Bill, which provides for certain exemptions for those who work for the intelligence agencies. It then says that those people should report internally within their organisation any information that may be of use to an inquiry or investigation. Will he give some thought to how the Government might develop a concept of what then happens to that information, about which the Bill is broadly silent? He will understand that many will be concerned to ensure that when information is reported internally within the intelligence agencies, it none the less finds its way to those who should have it, in order to give reassurance about what the Government are seeking to achieve more broadly in this Bill.

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, a lot of thought has been given to the particular issue of the security and intelligence services. The Bill is clear that the duty applies, but has a different way of applying it. I think that gets the balance right, and obviously there are various national and public interests to protect in so doing.

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

I congratulate the Prime Minister and thank him for bringing forward this Bill, which represents an epic struggle by the Hillsborough families, who are to be much admired and praised, but this will extend beyond Hillsborough, as the Prime Minister has said. I thank him on behalf of the families of Christie Harnett, Nadia Sharif and Emily Moore, who suffered great loss under the auspices of the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS foundation trust, which lacked a duty of candour when those terrible tragedies struck. I hope that he can give consideration to a full, judge-led public inquiry, because the families are in search of truth, justice and accountability.

[The Prime Minister]

To reassure my hon. Friend, the House, the families and all others affected by such scandals, these are clauses in a Bill that will soon be sections in a piece of legislation, but they are more than that: they change the nature of the relationship between the state and its duties to its people. That is so important. Yes, this Bill is the legal architecture, but something much bigger than this has to be put in place.

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

rose—

[Maria Eagle (Liverpool Garston) (Lab)]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I will take the hon. Lady’s intervention, then I will come to my right hon. Friend.

[Tessa Munt]

I welcome this Bill. Will the Prime Minister reassure me and my constituents that organisations that are contractors for public authorities and public bodies will also be covered the provisions of the Bill? It is important that where responsibilities are deferred to other bodies, they too are captured by the clauses in this Bill.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady anticipates my next point, which I will make before taking an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). We have to recognise that in some scandals, such as the Post Office Horizon scandal, the boundaries between the public sector and the private sector are complicated. In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, clause 4 of this Bill applies the duty to some private bodies, particularly those delivering public functions and those with relevant health and safety responsibilities, as well as relevant public sector contractors—in the Post Office case, Fujitsu—for that very reason. We have to recognise that the boundaries are blurred, and we need to make sure that the duty extends appropriately.

[Maria Eagle]

The Prime Minister knows that, for over two decades, the legal system failed to provide truth and justice to the Hillsborough families, and it was only a non-legal process—the Hillsborough independent panel—that finally set things right on the road to truth, justice and accountability. Does he see any prospect, therefore, that we will include in the legislation at a later stage provision to ensure that a Hillsborough independent panel-type process can be offered to families involved in future disasters, to try to circumvent the long-standing failure of the criminal justice system to offer truth and accountability to families quickly?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her work and campaigning on this issue over many years. She makes a powerful point about the independent panel. I first met Bishop James Jones 15-plus years ago now, and I genuinely think he was among the first to listen properly—knowing what listening means—to those who were giving evidence to his panel, which is why the report that he made was so well received and respected. We will certainly give consideration to whether panels like that can serve a useful purpose in future.

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

The Prime Minister is being very generous in taking all our questions. I congratulate him on introducing this Bill, but can the duty of candour be applied fully to all investigations, including independent panels, and not just statutory inquiries? Does he agree that the command responsibility must rest personally with those in charge, not simply with the institution?

[The Prime Minister]

This does apply to non-statutory inquiries, so my hon. Friend’s point is covered in the Bill. I will press on.

The second part of the duty of candour is a professional duty of candour for all public servants, because the Nolan principles of public service—honesty, integrity, accountability, selflessness, objectivity, openness and leadership—are not some kind of optional extra, but the very essence of public service itself. Every public authority will now be legally required to adopt a code of ethical conduct based on those principles, and to set out consequences for staff who do not comply, including disciplinary sanctions up to and including gross misconduct.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

The Bill is a huge step forward for accountability and transparency for families who face what must feel like the most impossible of circumstances. Some families living in my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of Corby are still trying to get clarity about the possibility that dumped toxic waste and contaminated land have caused health complications. Could the Prime Minister spell out how the Bill will ensure that any public official who abuses their power and tries to cover it up will be held accountable?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can confirm that. I want to emphasise the point again, because it is so significant, that out of the most unbelievable suffering, these families—these victims—have pushed for a change that took far too long, but that will now benefit and safeguard people whom they will never meet and never know. I find that kind of campaigning humbling, and we thank them for it.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Will the Prime Minister give way?

[The Prime Minister]

I will just make a bit of progress, and then I will take further interventions.

Finally in relation to the duty of candour, it is underpinned by a new criminal offence of misleading the public, which is aimed squarely at public servants who wilfully mislead the British people in a reckless, intentional or improper way. In cases such as Hillsborough, lies and dishonesty from the state grievously harmed the very people it was supposed to serve, and that must never happen again.

However, the Bill is not just about the duty of candour, because anyone familiar with how justice failed families and victims must also recognise that the lack of parity in our legal system played a significant role. I remember Margaret Aspinall—I met her many years ago now, and she is with us today—telling me that she had to scrape together every last penny for legal representation, including the money paid out by insurers for the death of her son James, who at the time was pretty much the same age as my son who comes to football with me. That is what she had to do, and we have to recognise that injustice piled on the other injustices.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I join others across this House in welcoming this important Bill, and I welcome and align myself with all the points the Prime Minister has made. Will he join me in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for his tireless campaigning to push for this law to reach the statute book? The Prime Minister is absolutely right that grieving families have faced the might of the state alone, and were forced to crowdfund lawyers while public bodies hired whole legal armies. Does he agree that, by guaranteeing legal aid at inquests, we can finally end those David and Goliath battles for justice once and for all?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely extend that tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), who I think was at the game and who has campaigned tirelessly in this place and beyond to help us get to the position today where we can introduce the Bill. I do pay tribute to him and I am very pleased to do so from this Dispatch Box, as we introduce this important legislation.

[Carla Lockhart]

Will the Prime Minister give way?

[The Prime Minister]

I will just make some progress and I will come to the hon. Member.

On the question of parity, what happened and what happens in so many cases is that families either have to scrimp and try to find the money for legal representation, or they have none. And what are they met with—the Hillsborough families were met with this—at inquests and inquiries, the working people who have had to save for justice? They have been met, time and again, by armies of state-funded lawyers; the deep pockets of the state—taxpayer money—has been harnessed for the explicit purpose of fighting against justice. The Bill aims to correct that inequality so that justice and the state serve all, with a new duty on public authorities to engage lawyers at inquests and inquiries only where necessary and proportionate, and to ensure that their representatives behave with the sensitivity and respect that victims and their families deserve.

The Bill will also ensure that no bereaved family has to face an inquest alone, with the largest expansion of legal aid in a decade granting access to free legal aid for all inquests where the state is an interested party, so that working people like Margaret and the Hillsborough families will never again be faced with such inequality on legal representation, or, as in many cases, simply left with none.

I will take the intervention I promised.

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank the Prime Minister. He is speaking very powerfully about families and about human stories. I commend him for the number of human stories he has talked about today in this place. Will he agree to meet the families of the Chinook disaster, when 29 lives were lost and two pilots wrongly blamed? The families have been consistently refused even a meeting with Ministers, officials and Prime Ministers who have gone before. Will he do the right thing and meet them, and ensure that the Bill also covers them?

[The Prime Minister]

I think there may have been meetings. If not, we will get meetings set up. [Interruption.] I am being told that there will be one, but I take on board what the hon. Lady says. I will make sure that there are the appropriate meetings, and will update her on exactly what form they will take and when they will take place.

The rebalancing of legal representation is a fundamental change in the balance of power in our justice system, and I genuinely hope that the whole House will support it.

Taken together, the measures in the Bill can be a landmark piece of legislation. I am determined—as I said in an intervention, having given my word to the Hillsborough families and having worked in partnership with them on this legislation—that the Bill will not be watered down. When it is in statute, it will rank as one of the great Acts of this Labour Government, a moment when the tireless campaigning of working people to right a historic wrong was finally recognised in this place and made our country better. That is all the campaigners have ever wanted. This has never been just about Hillsborough and those families; it has always been about everyone.

Madam Deputy Speaker, if they were to come down to this Dispatch Box—I won’t extend the invitation, because I suspect they readily would—I know, because I have heard them many times before, what they would say. They would say, “You must keep going. This is not done until it is done.” I want to therefore put on record in this House my deep gratitude to everyone who has worked with us on the journey to this point: Hillsborough Law Now; my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool West Derby, for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who were all at the game; so many hon. Members from across Merseyside, past and present, as well, of course, as the Mayors of Liverpool and Manchester, all of whom have never stopped fighting for this Bill; Inquest, which facilitated so much of the engagement so we could be a Government who listened; Bishop James Jones, who chaired that crucial Hillsborough independent panel; the countless other campaigns that this issue touches on, many represented in the Gallery today; and, most of all, Margaret, Steve, Charlotte, Sue, Jenni, Hilda and every single member of the families affected by Hillsborough. I know that what they really want is not thanks or acclaim; they want change and they have waited 36 long years for change.

It is my honour, as Prime Minister, to bring the Hillsborough law before the House and to open today’s debate. It should never have taken this long, but we are here now and we must get it over the line: a legacy of justice, change and national renewal for the 97. That is what we are here to deliver today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 29 October.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

The scenes of destruction emerging from Jamaica are truly shocking. Both the Foreign Secretary and I have been in close contact with our Jamaican counterparts in recent days to offer the UK’s full support. I can update the House: HMS Trent and specialist rapid deployment teams are pre-positioned in the region, and we stand ready to provide humanitarian support.

Awaab Ishak died five years ago from a respiratory condition caused by exposure to black mould in his flat in Rochdale. He was just two years old. No child should grow up without the safety and security of a decent home. For far too long, millions of people have lived at the mercy of rogue landlords and insecure contracts. Labour is ending that. Despite the best efforts of the Tories and Reform, who voted against it, our Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is now law, including Awaab’s law.

Fighting for working people: that is the difference that a Labour Government make, and on that issue, this Government have secured the biggest deal to manufacture Typhoon fighter jets in this country for almost 20 years. We secured that deal because the UK is back as a leading and trusted member of NATO. That is a timely reminder for the Green party, whose policy is to take us out of NATO; for the Putin-friendly Reform party, which would have no standing with NATO; and for the Leader of the Opposition, because you do not win NATO deals by not turning up to NATO summits.

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.

[Nick Smith]

I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about supporting Jamaica.

Across our country, and in Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, off-road bikers are a menace. They tear up our environment, and turn our streets into racetracks. After years of Tory cuts, Gwent police are now tackling that. Does the Prime Minister agree that police forces, and communities such as mine, are seeing the difference that Labour can make in power?

[The Prime Minister]

I share my hon. Friend’s determination that everyone should feel safe and secure in their community. Neighbourhood policing was decimated by the Conservative party, and we are restoring it with 3,000 extra officers by spring. We are also giving them the powers that they need, including tough new respect orders that allow the police to seize and destroy vehicles within 48 hours. The Tories walked through the Lobby, with Reform, to vote against our Crime and Policing Bill.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Last year, in its manifesto, Labour promised not to increase income tax, not to increase national insurance, and not to increase VAT. Does the Prime Minister still stand by his promises?

[The Prime Minister]

I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition is now finally talking about the economy. I can update the House: retail sales are higher than expected; inflation is lower than expected; growth has been upgraded this year; and the UK stock market is at an all-time high. The Budget is on 26 November, and we will lay out our plans then, but I can tell the House now that we will build a stronger economy, cut NHS waiting lists and deliver a better future for our country.

[Mrs Badenoch]

Well, well, well; what a fascinating answer. It is not the same answer that I received when I asked exactly the same question, word for word, on 9 July. Then, the Prime Minister replied with just one word—yes—and then he sat down with a smug grin on his face. What has changed in the past four months?

[The Prime Minister]

As the Leader of the Opposition well knows, no Prime Minister or Chancellor will ever set out their plans in advance. But I can say this: the figures from the productivity review that is being undertaken—which is a judgment on the Tories’ record in office—are now coming through, and they confirm that the Tories did even more damage to the economy than we had previously thought. We will turn that around. We have already delivered the fastest growth in the G7 in the first half of this year, five interest rate cuts in a row, and trade deals with the US, EU and India. The Tories broke the economy; we are fixing it.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The right and learned hon. Gentleman says that no Prime Minister or Chancellor will say these things before the Budget. Has he told his Chancellor? She has been out there flying kites, causing constant speculation around the Budget that is damaging the economy. All week, the Government have been briefing about tax rises. What we have heard is that he does not have a plan, so we have some ideas for him. [Interruption.] It is quite clear that they need some ideas. On the Conservative Benches, we believe in scrapping taxes on family homes. Yesterday, we voted to abolish stamp duty; Labour voted against it. Even the former Deputy Prime Minister, who resigned in disgrace for not paying stamp duty, voted to keep it. I remind them that on this side of the House we know that abolishing stamp duty is how we get young people on the housing ladder and get the economy growing. So why will he not scrap this terrible tax?

[The Prime Minister]

Why did the Tories not do it, then, in their 14 years in office? As I said, the productivity review figures are now coming in, and those show the true extent of the damage that they did. The Leader of the Opposition asks us to take advice from them. These figures are coming out, and we all know that austerity damaged the economy on their watch. The botched Brexit deal damaged the economy on their watch. Liz Truss’s mini-Budget damaged the economy on their watch. So we will take no lectures or advice from them on the economy. They will not be trusted on the economy for generations to come. That is why I can be clear that, at our Budget, there will be no return to austerity—that is what broke the country—and no return to the instability of their mad borrowing spree, and we will end the unfairness and low growth that squeezed living standards for working people. That is the path to national renewal.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Conservatives reduced the deficit every year until the pandemic. We more than doubled the personal allowance. We left 4 million more jobs than we found from Labour. We brought inflation down to 2%; it has nearly doubled—[Interruption.]

[Mrs Badenoch]

On our record, we brought inflation down to 2%; it has doubled under the Prime Minister. We left him the fastest growing economy in the G7; it is no longer. The truth is, the Government have no ideas; we are giving them some. There is another way to get growth: cutting welfare spending and getting people into work. Last month, I offered to work cross-party with him to bring down welfare spending, because he knows and we know that he would rather dip into people’s pockets than upset the people behind him. Instead of tax rises, will he work with us to find a way to cut welfare spending and get Britain working again?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady talks about the Conservatives’ record, so let us go through it. They crashed the economy. Inflation went up to 11%. Mortgages went through the roof. Welfare spending went up by £33 billion. And they want to give us advice! They reduced the UK to a laughing stock. Because of our Budget, waiting lists have come down, wages are up, mortgage rates are down and other countries want to do deals with us. Just on Monday of this week, the Turkish Government signed an £8 billion deal for Typhoons. Earlier this year, the Norwegian Government signed a £10 billion deal for frigates. That is because of the Budget that we passed—fixing the mess that the Tories left.

[Mrs Badenoch]

It is not because of the Budget that the Prime Minister passed; I started that deal back in January 2024, and I welcome it. [Interruption.] It has nothing to do with the Government’s Budget; we are lucky the deal is still happening. I welcome the £8 billion deal that he has done with Turkey, but I remind him that just last month his Chancellor borrowed £20 billion. He will have to sell a hell of a lot more jets to make up for that. He will not rule out any tax rises, he cannot cut spending and he is increasing unemployment. This man knows nothing about economic growth, except how to destroy it. In his weakness, he has caved in to the unions on their regulations that will cripple businesses, costing them £5 billion every year. [Interruption.] Yes, please do speak up, because I want every single business out there to hear Labour MPs heckling when we talk about the damage that they are doing. I ask the Prime Minister: how on earth can he consider adding more burdens for these firms to deal with?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady has overlooked the fact that we had the highest growth in the G7 in the first six months of this year—and that growth has just been upgraded—and we had three interest rate cuts. We are not going to take lessons from the Conservatives. She has now introduced what I think she calls a “golden economic rule”. This golden rule that she is now putting forward—very golden!—is £47 billion-worth of unspecified spending cuts, with no detail whatsoever. Let me put that in context: that would mean 85,000 fewer nurses, 234,000 fewer teachers or cutting every police officer in the country twice over. No wonder the Institute for Government said she is on “shaky foundations”. That is exactly what caused the problem in the first place.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The fact that he has to stand there and make stuff up just shows what kind of Prime Minister he is. We had an itemised list worth £47 billion; £23 billion was on welfare spending, which I asked him to work with us to cut. He refuses to do so. All he knows how to do is tax, tax, tax. If you work, the Government tax you more. If you save, they tax you more. If you buy a home, they tax you more. None of these taxes were in their manifesto, which he had four years to prepare. He is raising taxes because he is too weak to control spending. He is blaming us, he is blaming the OBR. Last week, they were blaming Brexit. Is it not the truth that with this Prime Minister, it is always someone else’s fault?

[The Prime Minister]

The Conservatives were kicked out of office because they broke the economy. They will not be trusted for years to come. The right hon. Lady cannot tell us what her position is on the last Budget, and she has a phantom £47 billion with no foundation as we go forward. That is exactly the mess that they caused, and they have not changed one bit. Meanwhile, we are fixing their mess: 5 million extra NHS appointments, five interest rate cuts, and growth and wages are up. That is the change a Labour Government make.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)]

Q3. As Palestinians try to rebuild their lives amid the rubble of Gaza, last night once again dozens of innocent people were killed by Israeli airstrikes. What will the UK do, along with our international partners, to hold the Israeli—the Netanyahu—Government to account for their actions, and what more can we do to ensure that aid gets in as the Israel Defence Forces block aid in breach of both the peace agreement and international law?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this point. I am deeply concerned by the strikes. This underlines the fragility of the ceasefire deal. All sides need to uphold President Trump’s peace plan. It is the only route to long-term peace for Israelis and Palestinians. We are of course in close touch with the US and regional allies pushing for de-escalation. The scale of destruction in Gaza is unimaginable. The immediate priority remains getting aid in at the speed and the volume needed.

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

May I associate myself with what the Prime Minister said about Jamaica, and indeed all the islands and countries affected by Hurricane Melissa? Our thoughts and prayers are with them all.

I am sure the whole House will also want to join me in paying tribute to Prunella Scales. I suspect I am not the only Member of the House with a “Fawlty Towers” DVD box set. She will be greatly missed.

Across Europe, in countries like Poland, Germany and France, we have seen evidence of dangerous Russian political interference. Last month, the former leader of a major party in Wales pleaded guilty to taking bribes to make pro-Russian statements. The evidence shows that Nathan Gill was a close confidant of the current Reform party leader for years. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is time we had an in-depth investigation into Russian meddling and money in British politics?

[The Prime Minister]

I join in the right hon. Member’s comments on Prunella Scales.

On the question of Russian interference, it is a serious problem in countries across Europe, including in our country, where it is a constant threat. For NATO allies, the conflict in Ukraine and dealing with Russian aggression is the No. 1 issue. That is why I have to say the Reform party would be an absolute disaster for our defence. We are a trusted member of NATO; we would not be a trusted member if we were Putin-friendly. We are leading the coalition of the willing, giving security and comfort to 30 other countries. That would collapse under Reform because it is Putin-friendly, and it would be a real threat to our defence and our security.

[Ed Davey]

I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s reply, and I agree with him on Ukraine, but I do hope he will look to have an investigation into this Russian interference in our politics.

Last week, I questioned how the Prime Minister can accept the damage of Brexit while refusing to do anything meaningful about it. The damage is clear, with the Financial Times reporting that lower productivity growth alone has blown a £20 billion black hole in the public finances—just part of the Brexit black hole that the Conservatives and Reform will not apologise for. Last week, he rejected my plan for a new customs union, so can I ask him what action he will take to change the Brexit deal, or is he just planning to complain about it?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Member must have overlooked the fact that there was a UK-EU summit earlier this year, in which there were 10 strands to the change that we have already agreed in relation to the relationship with the EU, including closer trading relationships and closer work on defence and security; that is an iterative process that we will continue into next year. But he is absolutely right about the botched deal of the last Government and the damage that has done to our economy. We are just seeing some of the figures coming through in relation to that. That is one of the factors behind the way they crashed the economy.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Q4. Football is a game based on fairness, yet brilliant clubs that unite communities every week, like Hartlepool, are being held back by a fundamental unfairness. The 3UP campaign—backed by 72 national league clubs, including Hartlepool United, and championed by Hartlepool legend Jeff Stelling—seeks to grant a third promotion place from the national league to league two. This simple change would be transformational for these historic clubs, many of which are over a century old. While I accept Arsenal may never directly benefit from such a change, does the Prime Minister agree that this campaign to put football first would help the new football regulator to protect club heritage, ensure stability, and put fairness and fans back at the heart of our game?

[The Prime Minister]

Can I start by wishing Hartlepool United the best for this season? My hon. Friend will appreciate that the structure of the leagues is a matter for the leagues themselves, but I commend his campaign and everything that he is putting behind it. I also pay tribute to the staff, fans and players of Sheffield Wednesday at this difficult time. We have delivered the Independent Football Regulator to stand up for fans and to make sure that clubs have fit and proper owners. The Conservatives used to support that, but now they oppose it.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Prime Minister has a deep understanding of policing in Northern Ireland and its importance. He knows about the ongoing national security threat and about the additional costs of dealing with the legacy of our past. He knows that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has been underfunded, and that the Northern Ireland Executive have rightly brought forward a stability programme for it. He also know that it is under strength; in 2020, New Decade, New Approach suggested that there should be 7,500 police officers in Northern Ireland, but today there are 6,200.

Does the Prime Minister know, however, that the Treasury did not look favourably on a request to draw on the reserves for a data breach that cost £120 million? Does he recognise that, in Treasury terms, the incident was “unforeseen, unaffordable and unavoidable”, and therefore matches the Treasury’s criteria? To set aside that money in-year would be 10% of the PSNI’s overall budget—it is not affordable. Can I ask him to think about this issue again, in engagement with the Chancellor, and to ensure that our Police Service of Northern Ireland and the national security threat that it faces are not hampered by in-year financial rules?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue, which I know is of real concern to him. I reassure him that I am in regular contact with Chief Constable Jon Boutcher and the PSNI on it, as he would expect. As he is aware, we provided a record settlement of £19.3 billion a year on average for the Executive, and we invested £113 million in additional security funding for the PSNI to help to address specific security challenges. While it is for the Executive to set the PSNI budget, I reassure him that our commitment is to keeping people safe in Northern Ireland.

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

Q5.   I am speaking on behalf of my constituents Shannon and Tyler, who lost their two-year-old son Hudson earlier this year. Worried about their son, they called 111 and were told that he had gastroenteritis. In fact, Hudson had a twisted bowel and, after being rushed to hospital a few days later, he tragically died.Shannon and Tyler are full of praise for the NHS medical staff who worked so hard to save their son’s life, but they just wish they had been offered an in-person appointment sooner, which might have given a more accurate diagnosis. They want Hudson’s legacy to be better access to face-to-face NHS appointments for children under five, so that other families do not face this tragic situation. Their online petition on the matter has gained over 80,000 signatures. Will the Prime Minister join me in sending the best wishes of the House to Hudson’s family, and will he ensure that they meet a Health Minister to discuss their courageous campaign?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that tragic case. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in saying that we send our sympathies and thoughts to Hudson’s parents, Shannon and Tyler. I will make sure that they get the meeting that he has asked for. This is exactly why we are working to improve access to face-to-face appointments for those who want one. To enable that, we have delivered the largest cash uplift for GPs in a decade, have put over 2,500 GPs into general practice, and are upgrading 1,000 surgeries to deliver 8 million more appointments.

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)]

Q2. Earlier this week, I got to see the very best and some of the worst of our national health service. When my own daughter needed it, it was there, but when an 89-year-old gentleman in the restaurant I was eating at collapsed, it took over an hour and 15 minutes from my first call to the arrival of two exhausted paramedics.Basildon hospital has just been downgraded to inadequate in the latest Care Quality Commission report. I invite the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care—or the Prime Minister, if he has time in his schedule—to visit Basildon with me so that he can thank the staff for their exceptional work and get to grips with the problems they are facing.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue and for the two examples that he has given. The downgrading of Basildon hospital is deeply disappointing. The Care Quality Commission has set out immediate actions for the trust leaders to deliver improvements. Our decisions in government have seen a £26 billion boost for our NHS, helping to deliver over 5 million extra appointments. I gently point out that he was elected to represent a Reform party that would dismantle our NHS and charge people to see their doctor.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Q7. Reform says that it stands up for the working class, but the truth is that it never has—its Members voted to block the Employment Rights Bill again and again. Does the Prime Minister agree that only this Government are on the side of working people? It is Labour that is creating tens of thousands of jobs, like in our deal with Turkey; it is Labour that is getting rid of zero-hours contracts; and it is Labour that is protecting workers from unfair dismissal from day one.

[The Prime Minister]

I am proud that we have delivered the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation—which the Tories and Reform have voted against at every turn, as they always do with any form of workers’ rights and protections. The deal that we struck on Monday with Turkey is worth £8 billion, 20,000 jobs and 10 years of work in manufacturing the Typhoons. It was possible only because we are a trusted member of NATO. Reform would be an absolute nightmare on defence—it would not be a trusted member of NATO because it is Putin-friendly.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

Q6. Targets for cancer patients beginning treatment within 62 days have not been met by any NHS trust for 10 years—a legacy of the last Conservative Government. If those targets had been met in every month of 2025, so far nearly 3,000 breast cancer patients would have started their treatment on time. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the national cancer plan, which I asked for a year ago, makes it possible for the 62-day target to be met, along with recruiting much-needed cancer specialists and replacing outdated equipment?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, which I know is personal to him. We are investing £600 million to improve diagnostic capacity and are rolling out new radiotherapy machines, including, I am pleased to say, in his local trust. We have seen real improvements, with 148,000 more people now having cancer diagnosed or ruled out within 28 days, but I acknowledge that there is more to do. The national cancer plan will set out how we will go further and deliver the best care for every patient.

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

Q8. The big four banks have been allowed to abandon our high streets, basically closing their branches with impunity. Between 1999 and 2025, my constituency alone lost banks in Guide Post, Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, Bedlington and Blyth. Meanwhile, those banks made more than £40 billion profit in the last year alone—they are absolutely drowning in cash. The manifesto pledge to roll out 350 banking hubs is to be welcomed, but its quirky—almost bizarre—qualifying criteria need detailed revision. Will the Prime Minister commit to a wholesale review of personal face-to-face banking, which would enable local residents and businesses, alongside many vulnerable people, to access their own money in their own time on their own high street?

[The Prime Minister]

I know how important face-to-face banking is on our high streets. As my hon. Friend says, we have committed to rolling out 350 banking hubs across the United Kingdom, and over 180 are already open. However, I want to reassure him that 350 is not the limit; although decisions over hubs are taken independently, they can be rolled out wherever a community needs one. I am happy to make sure the relevant Minister follows up with details for him.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Q9.   I am proud that the last Government introduced the triple lock, and we have committed to keeping it. [Interruption.]

[Mike Wood]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The triple lock was a great achievement of the previous Government, and we will be keeping it. From April, pensioners with private pensions as low as £2 a month will be paying income tax for the first time. At last year’s Budget, the Chancellor was clear that extending the freeze on personal allowances would breach Labour’s manifesto commitment. Will the Prime Minister prove the media speculation wrong, keep his promise and guarantee that there will be no extension to the freeze on personal allowances?

[The Prime Minister]

The freeze was introduced by them. That is why it is coming in next year.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

Q12. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), when he was an official, produced a devastating report on the Home Office. Reading it, it shows a Department characterised by disarray and defeatism. There have been 12 Home Secretaries over the past 30 years. Some were better than others, but none managed to get the Department to deliver the services that people should be able to expect in this country. Will the Prime Minister give the new Home Secretary the necessary resources and policy interventions to ensure that she can be successful?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. She is bearing down on the challenges at the Home Office—most of them inherited from the last Government. We will make the changes necessary, and I have every confidence in the Secretary of State to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Q10. Given all the hatreds there are in the world today, was it not a lovely moment to see the King and the Pope pray together in the Sistine chapel? Does it not give us hope that these historic divisions can be resolved? Does it not give us hope that, despite the fact that Ukraine and Gaza may seem intractable problems, if we have the will to preserve the freedom of all people to live in their own country, and if we have the will to have faith in our common humanity, these problems can be resolved and we can win through?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree. I thought that the King and the Pope praying together sent an incredible message to the world and was very powerful. I agree that if we all work together, we can bring people together, notwithstanding the very many difficulties and challenges around the world and in our own country. It is why we should, so far as we can, unite on national patriotic renewal in this country, rather than have the toxic division we see from some on the Benches opposite.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Q14.   Cambridge is one of the most intensive science and innovation clusters in the world, and that success is based on openness to talent. At the moment, in many American universities there are many well-qualified people pondering their futures. That presents a fantastic opportunity, but it is a global competition. What are our Government doing to make the destination of choice for those people the United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend’s constituency is just one example of why the United Kingdom is a world leader in educating and attracting the brightest minds. Our immigration White Paper includes changes to make sure that more of the world’s best graduates and entrepreneurs start their careers and businesses here. We are also boosting our research and development sector with more than £86 billion, to ensure that we continue to attract the best and the brightest.

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

Q11.   Last weekend I spoke to Paul, who runs Bah-Humbug Sweets in Littlehampton, and yesterday I heard from Matt, a tech entrepreneur whose British company employs thousands worldwide. Their businesses could not be more different, but they both told me the same thing: this Government are piling on new taxes, regulation and costs that are making it harder to create jobs, invest and grow. So when will the Prime Minister stop choking opportunity and start backing the people who create jobs in the first place?

[The Prime Minister]

Our small business plan was widely welcomed by small businesses across the country, not least because of their input into it. The hon. Lady complains about the measures we had to take at the last Budget, including national insurance—[Interruption.] The Conservative Front Benchers are saying that we chose to take them, but they still cannot say whether they would reverse them. They know nothing about the damage they did to our economy.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I am wearing all black today to demonstrate my sorrow over a fatal stabbing that took place in my constituency yesterday. We all know that one death is one death too many, but I have had two deaths in my constituency in the last few weeks. My community needs reassurance. Knife crime must end. Will the Prime Minister say what more his Government are doing to tackle knife crime?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising these tragic cases, which have a huge impact on families, friends and communities. I know that she is a passionate and dedicated campaigner on this issue. Every single life lost to knife crime devastates communities. That is why we banned zombie knives and ninja swords and are strengthening controls on online knife sales. We are also giving stronger powers to the police in our Crime and Policing Bill, which both the Conservatives and Reform voted against.

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

Q13. I recently had the privilege of visiting Fitzwaryn school, the only special school in my Oxfordshire constituency, to see the excellent care and education it provides. Given the urgent need for more funding for additional special schools and to enable special schools to spread their expertise to mainstream schools, what does the Prime Minister say to parents and education workers who are desperately worried by his Government’s decision announced last week to delay reforms to the special educational needs and disabilities system?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that. I think the broken SEND system has been raised with me more frequently than any other issue at Prime Minister’s questions. We need to review it because it is not working for any of those involved, particularly children and parents. It is important that we get it right and, in so far as we can, that we get a consensus on how we go forward. That is what we are attempting to do.

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

A fourth patient has entered the glioblastoma drug trial set up in memory of my late sister. Today, we are joined by Ben Trotman, a patient of a similar trial in 2022 that was funded by the Jon Moulton foundation. Since then, Ben has married Emily, and in March they welcomed beautiful baby Mabel. When will the National Institute for Health and Care Research spend the £40 million given in 2017 for trials on brain tumours, or will glioblastoma patients always have to rely on the grief stricken or the philanthropist for life and hope?

[The Prime Minister]

I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend’s sister Margaret, who was a guiding figure in the Labour party and left a powerful legacy in helping us to tackle brain cancer. We are determined to improve cancer survival rates and hit all NHS waiting times in relation to cancer so that no patient waits longer than they should. That is why we are investing £1.5 billion in new surgical hubs and diagnostic scanners to help deliver over 30,000 more procedures and over 1.2 million diagnostic tests.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I recently met about 20 independent local traders in Totnes who are furious that the last bank in town will close in January and that Link has refused to consider a banking hub. My businesses and constituents—1,100 of them have signed a petition—deserve better. The Prime Minister just told the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) that a banking hub can be rolled out wherever a community needs one, so will he now back my campaign, ask his Ministers to write to Link and instruct it to grant a banking hub to Totnes, and review the eligibility of rural towns for such hubs so that we can keep our vital high streets alive?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that. She will have heard the answer I gave a few moments ago. I will ensure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister so that she can put the case for the banking hub in question.

Digital Identity Scheme: Departmental Responsibility

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 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 update. In order to deliver this cross-Government priority, the Cabinet Office will have overall responsibility of the new digital identity scheme, including policy development, legislation and strategic oversight.



The Cabinet Office will work alongside the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, who will be responsible for the technical design, build and delivery; and other Departments. This will be effective immediately.

[HCWS981]

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 October.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

As you have just said, Mr Speaker, today marks four years since the horrific murder of Sir David Amess. Sir David was much loved across the House, kind and generous, and I know it was a huge loss to many Members opposite. May he rest in peace.

As we remember Sir David and our friend Jo Cox, of course, I want to take this opportunity to condemn unequivocally the death threats made against the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I know the whole House will welcome the justice that has been done. Whatever our disagreements, we are all parliamentarians, and I will not stand for violence or threats against our democracy.

Mr Speaker, on that point, may I update the House on the China spy case? I am deeply disappointed by the outcome. We wanted to see prosecutions. Mr Speaker, I know just how seriously, rightly, that you take these matters. National security will always be the first priority of this Government, and we will always defend against espionage. In recent weeks, baseless accusations have been put about by the party opposite. Let me set out the facts. The relevant period was when these offences took place. That was under the Conservative Government between the years of 2021 and 2023. That period was bookended by the integrated review of 2021—the beginning of the period—and the refresh of that review in 2023, setting out their policy. These statements of Government policy were very carefully worded to not describe China as an enemy. Instead—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Stuart, somebody who is on the Speaker’s panel, and who I have told once before, should know better. Do not question my judgment. I thought it was important that the Prime Minister tells the House first rather than somewhere else. Please, this is very important to me and to the House. I take it seriously, so I do not need any more side comments.

[The Prime Minister]

The review of ’21 and the refresh of ’23 were very carefully worded to not describe China as an enemy. Instead, they stated that they would “increase…national security protections” where China poses “a threat” and that the then Government would “engage…with China” to “leave room” open for “constructive and predictable relations”.

The deputy National Security Adviser, Matt Collins, set out the then Government’s position in a substantive witness statement in 2023, which was subsequently supplemented by two further short statements. The Cabinet Secretary assures me that the DNSA faithfully set out the policy of the then Tory Government. I know at first hand that the DNSA is a civil servant of the utmost integrity, and those Opposition Members who worked with him, I am sure, would agree with that assessment.

Under this Government, no Minister or special adviser played any role in the provision of evidence. I cannot say what the position was of the previous Government in relation to the involvement of Ministers or special advisers. If the Leader of the Opposition knows the answer to that question, and I suspect that she does, I invite her to update the House.

Last night, the Crown Prosecution Service clarified that, in its view, the decision whether to publish the witness statements of the DNSA is for the Government. I therefore carefully considered this question this morning, and after legal advice, I have decided to publish the witness statements. Given the information contained, we will conduct a short process, but I want to make it clear that I intend to publish the witness statements in full.

To be clear, had the Conservatives been quicker in updating our legislation—a review that started in 2015—these individuals could have been prosecuted and we would not be where we are now. I am happy to answer any questions on this.

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.

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

Q1. Last week I visited Rayner, a world-leading provider of cataract solutions based in Worthing, a winner of this year’s King’s Award for Enterprise for innovation, and a fantastic employer of local apprentices. I welcome the Government’s ambition to get two thirds of our young people into an apprenticeship, further education or university. What will the Prime Minister do to ensure that every young person in East Worthing and Shoreham has the skills they need to thrive?

[The Prime Minister]

We want a country where young people are supported, where the quality of teaching is raised and where every skilled apprentice is valued and respected. We have set a new target of two thirds of young people to be in an apprenticeship or university. That will smash the glass ceiling and renew our country. We have supported this with a record £3 billion budget for more apprenticeships, more technical colleges and guaranteed training, apprenticeships or work for all 18 to 21-year-olds.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Mr Speaker, thank you for marking four years since the terrible murder of Sir David Amess. I know the whole House will want to join me in remembering our former colleague. He is very much still in our hearts and minds. The way he died reminds us that the security of Members and this Parliament is paramount, so it concerns us all that the case against two people spying on Members of this House has collapsed. It is simply unbelievable.

Exactly as I expected, the Prime Minister had to be dragged out at the top of PMQs to give a statement that answers no questions. [Laughter.] I don’t know what they are laughing at; we are talking about the security of this Parliament. He had to be dragged out only to repeat more obfuscation. It is simply unbelievable that he is trying to say that the last Government did not classify China as a threat, so I will refresh his memory.

In 2021, the previous Government’s integrated review described China as

“the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security.”

In 2024, the then Minister for Security said from the Dispatch Box that China poses a threat. But let us leave aside the Government. In November 2022, the director general of MI5 classified China as a threat in his remarks. How is it possible that the Government failed to provide the evidence that the CPS needed to prosecute?

[The Prime Minister]

The substantive evidence was provided in 2023 by the previous Government. That is when the witness statement was submitted. I am going to disclose it; Members will all be able to read it. The substantive evidence was written, disclosed and submitted in 2023, under the previous Government. I note that the Leader of the Opposition did not indicate whether Ministers were involved in that at the time.

The Leader of the Opposition questions what is in the refreshed reviews of 2021 and 2023. Let me be clear: the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, gave a speech at Mansion House one month after the arrests. It was called “Our position on China” and set out the Government’s policy. He said in that speech that summing up China as a “threat” in “one word” would be

“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise.”

He was Foreign Secretary at the time.

It was not just the right hon. Member for Braintree. The Leader of the Opposition was Business Secretary at the time. In September 2023—the relevant year—she said:

“We certainly should not be describing China as a foe”.

It is worth looking up the word “foe” in the dictionary. It does not end there. In September 2024, she said:

“I have shied away from calling China a threat”.

She is playing politics with national security.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister can read the beginning of a quote, but let me finish that quote. At the end of the quote that he just read out, I did describe China as a threat. But his whataboutery neglects the fact that the spies were charged under a Conservative Government and let off under Labour.

The Prime Minister has not answered any questions. On Monday, the Security Minister repeatedly told the House that Ministers did not take decisions and that it was the deputy National Security Adviser who had full freedom. Are the Government seriously saying that only one man—the deputy National Security Adviser—had anything to do with this failure? Is that Prime Minister seriously saying that the deputy did not discuss with the National Security Adviser, the Home Secretary or anyone in Downing Street? Is the Prime Minister seriously saying that?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, and let me explain why. First, the case was charged under the last Government, according to the evidence submitted under that Government, who set out their policy position. What was on issue in the trial is not the position of the current Government, but the position of the last Government. They carefully avoided describing China as an enemy because that was their policy at the time. As far as the position under this Government is concerned, no Minister or special adviser was involved. I will double-check this—[Interruption.] This is important. After the charging decision, the prosecution were very careful about who would then see the witness evidence. I will double-check exactly what instruction was taken, but I can be absolutely clear that no Minister was involved, no special adviser was involved in this. I am as assured as I can be that the prosecution was saying that it would be the witnesses only who would be involved in short updates to the evidence that was submitted under the previous Government.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The end of the answer was different from the beginning of the answer. What on earth is the point of us having a lawyer rather than a leader as the Prime Minister if he cannot even get the law right on a matter of national security? He keeps going back to the CPS. The CPS has said that it was satisfied that it was right to charge in August 2024. The Sunday Times reported that Jonathan Powell, the Prime Minister’s National Security Adviser, convened a secret meeting to discuss the security consequences of the China spy trial. Did that meeting happen, or is The Sunday Times making it up?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady is clearly not a lawyer or a leader. The problem for her is that I do actually understand the law, and I know what has to be proven. I have also looked at the evidence that was put in under the last Government in relation to this case. There was a meeting in September; that did not involve the National Security Adviser discussing the evidence in any way. One further point: the final statement in this case was submitted in August 2025. There was no further submission of evidence, one way or the other, after any discussion in September. This is a red herring—a completely scurrilous allegation made by the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister has now twice directly contradicted the words of his Security Minister. They cannot both be right. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee could not get any answers from the Security Minister. The CPS said that it was satisfied that the decision to charge the case in April 2024—not August—was correct on the basis of where the law stood at that time. This is a matter of fact, not a matter of what the previous Government had thought, or of the case not meeting a legal test—it did. Something must have changed when the charges were brought and when the case collapsed. The charges were brought under the Conservatives and collapsed under Labour. Will the Prime Minister tell us what changed, and what collapsed the case?

[The Prime Minister]

I have said that I will publish the witness statements in full. The whole House will then see exactly what was set out in 2023 in the substantive witness statements, and exactly what was set out in the two supplementary witness statements. The right hon. Lady will then realise that what she has just said is entirely baseless.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The CPS has said in the clearest terms that this prosecution was dropped because this Government did not provide the statements it expected. Why should we believe a man who at the last Prime Minister’s questions said that he had full confidence in the best friend of a convicted paedophile? Forgive us if we do not trust a word he says. This all stinks of a cover up. Given his statement earlier, will the Prime Minister publish today not just the Government witness statements, but also the meeting minutes, and all the correspondence that he had with the CPS?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me be clear: the only process I want to go through is in relation to some of the individuals in the statements to make sure that they know that this is coming up. I can assure the House that there is no substantive delay here.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I know this is of acute concern to a number of people. I will have the statements out in full. There is a bit of proper process that I need to go through—the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) will understand why that is necessary—and then they will be published in full. The right hon. Lady asks about minutes etc. There are the usual rules and process for Government. I remind her that the substantive issues in this case were discussed at meetings under the previous Government, so the Opposition are asking me to disclose the discussions that they had in relation to the witness statements in the first place.

[Mrs Badenoch]

Mr Speaker, you deserve better, and this House deserves better, than the evasive answers that we have had from the Prime Minister. Even the former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler has accused the Government of being “economical with the truth” on this issue. The Prime Minister cannot tell us why Jonathan Powell had a secret meeting, when the Security Minister said he had no involvement the case. He cannot tell us why his Government did not provide evidence that China was a threat, and I suspect that the statements will not prove that either. He is blaming his civil servants, the media and the last Government. He cannot explain why he could not see this case through. He should have seen this case through.

Let me be clear about what has happened: a serious case involving national security has collapsed because this Government are too weak to stand up to China. If the Prime Minister cannot protect the Members of this House, what does that say about his ability to protect this country?

[The Prime Minister]

The case did not proceed because the policy of the past Government did not meet the test that was necessary. That is the long and the short of it. Far from evading, I have said that I will disclose the full witness statements, and set out exactly what was in them, and exactly what the subsequent statements say. The allegation that somehow they were changed—that the first and second statements are different—is completely and utterly unfounded. This is a pathetic spectacle. Instead of taking responsibility for the fact that they failed to update the law—the review into the legislation was in 2015—the Conservatives took eight years to change the law. Had they done that more quickly, this case would have proceeded. It was their failure, and they are just slinging mud. Meanwhile, we are getting on with renewing our country, planning reforms to get Britain building again, online hospitals for waiting lists, and new opportunities for young people. Labour is building a better future; the Conservatives cannot even come to terms with their past.

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

Q4. Derby is a city on the up, but unfortunately this last year we have been devastated by knife crime. Nasty Tory austerity decimated frontline policing, and we are now paying the price for that. At my regular city centre safety summits, the message is clear: to turn the page, we need action, not words. Can the Prime Minister update my constituents on the action that this Government are taking to ensure that all our residents, visitors and workers can enjoy our city centre safely?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend will have heard at our conference from Pooja Kanda, who I have met a number of times. Her son Ronan was fatally stabbed. Iusb am proud that we have delivered Ronan’s law to tackle the sale of ninja swords; we have also banned zombie knives and strengthened controls for online knife sales. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work in setting up the city safety summits.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

May I associate myself and my party with the tributes to David Amess? On behalf of my party, may I also pay tribute to Ming Campbell, who is being laid to rest today? That is the reason why my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) cannot be here. I thank you, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister and other Members of this House for the very kind tributes paid yesterday.

We welcome the new level of transparency from the Prime Minister, and we will scrutinise the witness statements closely, but it is clear that there are still many questions to be answered, including questions from Hongkongers. Hongkongers in St Albans and across the UK settled in our communities after they fled repression at the hands of the Chinese state, but they now see a British Government who want to make it harder for them to settle here permanently, refuse to impose targeted sanctions on Chinese officials who put bounties on Hongkongers’ heads, refuse to rule out a Chinese super-embassy and are failing to tackle Chinese espionage. Hongkongers are starting to ask whether the Prime Minister is trading away their security and safety in our communities for a cosier relationship with Beijing. What is the Prime Minister’s answer to them?

[The Prime Minister]

The answer is no. We have given and will continue to give support to Hongkongers, who need and deserve that support. The hon. Lady will be assured that the Jimmy Lai case is raised regularly at every opportunity by my Ministers and by me.

[Daisy Cooper]

I think Hongkongers will require a lot more reassurance and action from this Government. It is not just the Chinese Government who are a threat to our country. On Monday, the far-right, racist hate-preacher Tommy Robinson, who is on trial for allegedly refusing to comply with counter-terror police, claimed that his legal costs are being paid by Elon Musk. It is outrageous that a man who has so much control over what people read online every day could be funding someone who stokes far-right extremism on our streets. If it was Putin, the Government would surely act. Will the Prime Minister commission the security services to assess the threat that Elon Musk poses to our democracy, and to recommend measures that this House can take to stop that?

[The Prime Minister]

We look across the board at threats to our democracy, and must continue to do so. I will not comment on the particular case, given the state of legal proceedings.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

Q6. Next year marks the 75th anniversary of the battle of the Imjin river, where the 29th Infantry Brigade’s last stand prevented the capture of Seoul during the Korean war. That hill is now called Gloster Hill as a proud testament to the incredible bravery of one of those battalions, our glorious Glosters. Will the Prime Minister join me in calling for a commemoration of the glorious Glosters, and all those who fought to defend democracy, liberty and freedom in South Korea?

[The Prime Minister]

I join my hon. Friend in marking the heroism and sacrifice of the 29th Infantry Brigade, which is an enduring example of the bravery of all our armed forces. I know that Defence Ministers would be happy to discuss commemorating their courage. Our debt to the armed forces underlies our commitment to veterans, which includes delivering homes for heroes and a new network of veteran support centres, backed with £50 million.

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

Ahead of his party conference, the Prime Minister told the BBC that he was not sure whether he would campaign in Caerphilly for the by-election on 23 October. This is an important by-election in Wales, but with just over a week to go, the Prime Minister has not shown his face there yet. What is the problem? Is it his party’s decision to close 10 libraries in the community? Is it cuts to disability support? Or is it perhaps the fact that even the council leader resigned from the Labour party and is calling on people to support Plaid Cymru?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady leaves out of her count that we provided £21 billion—the largest ever settlement for Wales—and what did she do? She voted against it, if you can believe it. While we are on the question of money, I noticed that this week, the right hon. Lady accepted figures showing that independence would cost every Welsh person £7,000. Her party should be honest about the cost of their policies to the people of Wales.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

Q8. For the past year, I have been campaigning for a new special educational needs and disabilities school to open at the Osprey Quay site on Portland. There are far too few specialist school places for children with SEND in my part of the world, so local families urgently need to see that school open its doors. A new school there would provide around 70 new places for local children. Given the urgent need to finally get this school up and running, will the Prime Minister commit to working with the Department for Education and Dorset council to ensure that a SEND school opens on Portland without further delay?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I know just how important that school is to parents and children in his constituency, and share his determination to fix the broken SEND system. That is why we have boosted investment in SEND to £12 billion, to put new facilities and tailored support in place for children who have long been failed. We want decisions to be taken swiftly, and I will ask the schools Minister to update my hon. Friend about that particular school.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Q2. Those on family farms in North Yorkshire and across the UK are increasingly worried about the tax changes coming up next year. We really need the next generation of family farms to keep farming for our national food security. The Centre for the Analysis of Taxation has produced an excellent, detailed academic report proposing a number of compromise amendments and changes that would both deliver for the Government and protect the family farm. I realise that the Prime Minister cannot comment on the Budget, but will he and the Chancellor look at that report as they prepare for the end-of-November Budget?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that food security is national security. I believe that our reforms strike the right balance, enabling investment in the public services that rural communities rely on. I thank him for drawing my attention to that report; he is right to do so. What really matters is increasing the year-on-year profitability of our farmers, which is why the former president of the National Farmers Union is leading a review of farm profitability for us. We are also delivering a 25-year farming road map and boosting export opportunities through the EU and US trade deals. That is backed by the £11.8 billion in the Budget for farming.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

Q10. As many Members know, I am currently being treated for stage 2C skin cancer. I am responding well, but only because it was caught early and because I have had the very best of NHS care. Not everyone is so fortunate. Zoe Panayi, a 26-year-old from the Isle of Wight, was told that her mole was harmless. She had it removed privately, but it proved to be malignant. She tragically died in 2020. Her family—Charlie and Eileen are in the Gallery today—have shown extraordinary courage, working with my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) and me to campaign for Zoe’s law: compulsory testing of all removed moles. Will the Prime Minister meet us, and Zoe’s family, to discuss how we can make this a reality?

[The Prime Minister]

On behalf of the House, I wish my hon. Friend the very best for his recovery. I know that this is a deeply personal campaign for him—a campaign that is also supported by our hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West. May I send my deepest sympathies, and pay tribute to, Zoe’s family, who are with us today? Their bravery is staggering, and I share their determination to improve cancer survival rates. That is why we are investing billions to see earlier diagnosis and faster treatment of cancer, and are developing a national cancer plan. Of course, we will get a meeting set up, and if the family are available and it is convenient —I do not know whether it is—I will ask the Health Minister to meet them later today, or, if that is not convenient, at the earliest possible opportunity, so that they can have that discussion.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Q3. Business confidence has fallen for five consecutive quarters, and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has said that there are significant concerns in the housing market. The Prime Minister could inject some confidence back into the economy, he could help working families to get on to the housing ladder, and he could even simplify the tax affairs of his Cabinet if he adopted the policy advocated by the Leader of the Opposition of scrapping stamp duty on residential properties. Will he at least give a commitment not to raise property taxes in his nightmare-before-Christmas Budget?

[The Prime Minister]

We will certainly not be following the Leader of the Opposition. She unveiled what she called her “golden economic rule”, I think it was, which involves £47 billion of spending cuts—that is a fifth of the NHS budget—with not a shred of detail about where the money would come from. The Institute for Government said that it was based on “shaky foundations”. More unfunded tax cuts, and more austerity for public services: the Conservatives have not listened, and they have not learnt.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Q11. Between 2021 and 2023, 41 mental health patients in the care of the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust lost their lives. That led to a damning report from NHS England and calls from my constituents for a public inquiry. This is not just historic; my surgeries are still filled with harrowing stories of failure. Will the Prime Minister join my calls for that public inquiry, to get to the bottom of what went wrong and to rebuild confidence with new, more appropriately sized local NHS mental health trusts that are fit to serve our constituents?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has been a strong advocate for his constituents on this issue. The Health Secretary has met the families affected by these failures twice, I think, this year to hear their stories, and I want to make it clear that what happened to their loved ones is unacceptable. The Health Secretary is currently considering the best way forward so that families get the answers that they deserve. It is right that they receive any update first, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we will provide that update as soon as we are able to do so.

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

Q5. Later this afternoon I will be launching a small business survey so that the 3,000 small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency, which employ thousands of my constituents, can have their say about what is like to run a business under a Labour Government, and what their concerns are ahead of the Budget. However, I want to give the Prime Minister the opportunity to provide a word of hope that I can share. Will he tell my constituents that he has heard the pleas of SMEs and their fright about the Budget, that he will scrap business rates for hospitality and leisure as well as the family business and family farm taxes, and that his Government will commit themselves to no further tax rises for business?

[The Prime Minister]

Just a few months ago we published our small business strategy, which was based on what small businesses said to us. I will make a copy available to the hon. Lady so that she can give one to each of her constituents before they respond to the survey.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Q12.   After 14 years of neglect, this Government are renewing the infrastructure of Britain—and for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, that is spelt B-R-I-T-A-I-N. Nowhere is this renewal more clearly needed than at the A226 Galley Hill Road in Swanscombe in my constituency, which collapsed more than two years ago, and there is no fix in sight. Does the Prime Minister agree that the announcement of the transport structures fund in the spending review shows that this Government are ending the Conservative decline and getting on with fixing broken roads like Galley Hill?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right: the Conservative party let roads crumble after years of under-investment. We are building infrastructure that working people rely on, with £1 billion to repair bridges, tunnels and flyovers across the country and £92 billion in major road and rail upgrades. We are rebuilding Britain; the Conservatives cannot even spell it.

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

Q7. Much like the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), my constituents are served by the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys mental health trust. They face travelling to York or Middlesbrough for local in-patient beds, with some people being sent as far afield as Glasgow or Southampton. This is completely unacceptable, and we need a provision of local mental health in-patient beds. I welcome the openness to an inquiry into TEWV, but my concern is that while that is going on, we need real action so that the continued failings do not see the loss of any other lives. What steps will the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State take now to reassure our constituents and to rebuild trust in TEWV?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) a moment ago; I say again that what happened to his constituents is unacceptable, and we will give the answer as soon as we can. In the meantime, the hon. Member asks what is happening. We are getting on with recruiting 6,700 additional NHS mental health staff, we are building 85 new dedicated mental health emergency departments, and we have boosted NHS spending on mental health by almost £700 million.

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

Q13.   I thank the Prime Minister for his strong words at our party conference in calling for unity at a time when many feel that our country is divided, and in rightly calling out racism. I am a second-generation immigrant, born in this country, and people like me and so many of our constituents have every right to be here. No one should face hatred because of the colour of their skin. Does the Prime Minister agree that some of those on the Opposition Benches who seek to stoke division and keep close company with those who accept Russian bribes cannot and should not be trusted to govern this country?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend captures the choice before us as a country: we can either give in to division or come together as a country and renew our country. This is National Hate Crime Awareness Week, and in the past fortnight we have seen the horrific terror atrocity in Manchester and a despicable arson attack on the mosque in Peacehaven. I want to be clear as Prime Minister: I am proud to lead and to serve this beautiful, tolerant and diverse country. An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

Q9. Calithea Studios in Mid Dunbartonshire is a prime example of a business doing everything the Government ask. The owner of this beauty salon and her three employees each earn less than £30,000 a year, yet the business will pay the Government over £36,000 for the year in VAT, employer’s national insurance and pension contributions. Does the Prime Minister think it is fair that the hard-working owner, who is providing jobs and training on the high street, contributes more to the Exchequer than she earns in a year? Does he believe this encourages entrepreneurship, which is important for economic growth and local jobs?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Lady will know, we have protected business rates bills from inflation and extended relief at 40%, with new, permanent lower rates set and introduced for retail, hospitality and leisure. As part of our small business plan, we are providing £3 billion so that lenders can offer more loans to small businesses. We are, of course, introducing the most significant package on late payments—a real issue for small businesses—and reforms that are bigger than any in the last 25 years.

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

Q14. Can the Prime Minister update the House on the Government’s elections Bill? Does he agree that in the light of recent court cases and the conviction of Reform’s former leader in Wales, no party whose leaders take Russian bribes can be trusted to defend our democracy?

[The Prime Minister]

Labour is introducing an elections Bill to protect our democracy from foreign interference. But look at Reform. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and his deputy, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), worked alongside someone who took money to spread Putin’s propaganda. Whatever their denials, they have serious questions to answer about what they knew, but that is the choice: Kremlin cronies sowing division or Labour patriots working for national renewal.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

The lines that we have heard from the Government in recent days have been a conflation of fabricated stories trying to set up straw men and knock down things that have not been said. The real question in this whole debate is whether or not the Director of Public Prosecutions charged legally and properly. If they did, then the Official Secrets Act is valid, and all this talk about the National Security Act 2023, which I introduced, is completely irrelevant. If they did not, why is he not charging his successor with abuse of power? Well, we know the reality, Mr Speaker. Although the Prime Minister has answered the question about evidence, the real question is: what political direction did this Government give to their officials before they went to give evidence?

[The Prime Minister]

Absolutely none—absolutely none. I will also tell the right hon. Gentleman this: I was the chief prosecutor for five years, and I can say that in those five years, which included three years under the coalition Government, when we were taking difficult decisions on MPs’ expenses, not once—not once—was I subjected to political pressure of any sort from anyone. That is the tradition in this country. It is a proud tradition, and it is one I uphold as Prime Minister, just as I upheld it when I was Director of Public Prosecutions.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the statement that the Security Minister made earlier this week and then again in answer to a question today, I have been misquoted—and the misquote, I think, is significant. It has been said that I, in a speech at Mansion House, said that describing China as a threat was

“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise.”

The quote was that describing China or our policy “in one word” was

“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise.”

In that speech, I went on to say of our policy:

“First, we will strengthen our national security protections wherever Beijing’s actions pose a threat to our people or our prosperity.”

I finished by saying:

“And when there are tensions with other objectives, we will always put our national security first.”

How can I get redress for this misquote, Mr Speaker?

Speaker’s Statement

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I first thank you for that generous tribute to our dear friend Ming?

I want to let the House into a secret about Ming Campbell: he was obsessed with sport—as one might expect from someone who was the captain of the Scottish men’s team at the Commonwealth games. I remember him talking about how he had been captivated by the 1948 London Olympics at the age of seven, listening to it on the radio with his mother, and how he had decided back then that he wanted to run at a future Olympic games. It is a dream of so many young boys and girls, but Ming—thanks to his determination, drive and work ethic—actually made it happen: he represented our country at the Tokyo games in 1964.

For a man once known as “the Flying Scotsman”, who set a new British 100-metre record at 10.2 seconds and who was probably the fastest person ever elected to this House, Ming was never one to brag about his sporting accomplishments. In fact, he was such a gentleman and so averse to boastfulness that it could be hard to get him to talk about them at all. I remember when Wayne Rooney broke a metatarsal in his foot ahead of the 2006 World cup. Ming had told us a story about how he had suffered an injury before the 1964 Olympic games and how hard he had worked to overcome it. We were all begging him to go on the radio, tell that story and encourage Wayne Rooney—a rare chance for the Liberal Democrat leader to break into the biggest sport story of the day—but Ming would not do it. I have to admit that it was frustrating at the time, but it was also a mark of why he was so respected and admired. That level of modesty is rare in anyone, especially in a politician, but those of us who knew Ming knew that it was simply the kind of man that he was.

It says a lot about Ming’s many and varied accomplishments that his extraordinary sporting achievements—being Britain’s fastest man and representing his country at the Olympics—will not be what he is most remembered for. Nor will he be most remembered for his law career, though he excelled at that too. He was even offered the chance to become a judge on Scotland’s High Court in 1996, but he turned it down because by then, as he put it, politics had got into his blood. And so, what Ming will be most remembered for is his enormous contribution to British politics—a parliamentary career spanning five decades, including 28 years representing North East Fife.

I got to know Ming early during his first Parliament, when I was the party’s economics adviser based in our Whips Office. Even then, he already had so much gravitas. He was so charming, so thoughtful and so respected. Ming was among those few MPs who were genuinely grandees from the first day they were elected, but his calmness, reasonableness and intense decency masked a radical politician: a man who never forgot his roots after growing up in a Glasgow tenement, and who was driven by a deep commitment to social justice. He said it was his role and the role of the Liberal Democrats to “rattle the cage” of British politics, and he did—especially, as you said, Mr Speaker, when it came to foreign affairs and defence, on which he led for our party for over 18 years, including, of course, in the lead-up to and after the Iraq war.

I remember how difficult a decision it was for us to oppose that war. It felt like we were not just going against the Government, but taking on the full might of the British state and the United States too. The way Ming tackled it, with his typically steady, forensic and lawyerly approach, gave us both the confidence and resolve to speak up strongly for what we believed. He made our position firmly rooted in respect for international law. At a time when the world was in turmoil following the horrific terrorist attacks of 11 September, Ming provided principled leadership with his trademark combination of morality, courage and wisdom, and he continued to do so, whether as leader of our party, as a respected member of the Intelligence and Security Committee and of the Foreign Affairs Committee, or in the other place.

I benefited greatly from Ming’s advice and guidance over more than 30 years, and turned to him often about foreign affairs in my own time as leader. I will miss his wise counsel, as I know many of us will. But, more than that, he was an incredibly warm and caring friend—a colleague with such generosity and humour. He called his late wife Elspeth his rock, and she was always by his side—mostly with a cigarette. They were such good fun and such great company.

It was once said of Ming that he

“runs the risk of giving politicians a good name.”

Well, he certainly did that. His passing is a moment for us to consider how we are all viewed as politicians and what changes we could make, both individually and collectively, to further the cause of good, decent, hopeful politics—something that Ming embodied entirely.

Ming Campbell was a dedicated public servant, a tireless champion for Fife, St Andrews and the United Kingdom, and a true Liberal giant. I know all of us in the Liberal Democrat family and across this House will miss him terribly.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Everyone in this House knows what an honour it is to represent our country, but for most of us that appreciation comes from the rather sedentary position on these Benches, not from the international running track where Lord Campbell of Pittenweem first represented Great Britain at the Olympic games in Tokyo in 1964. He remained quick on his feet as a barrister, before becoming an MP, where, I am told, he made the most of his talents by sprinting door to door while canvassing. Ultimately, of course, he became a respected voice on foreign and defence affairs, becoming leader of the Liberal Democrats. This was despite many overtures from one of my predecessors, his old Glasgow University friend John Smith, to join the Labour party as a young man. No, Ming, as many came to know him, was determined and he knew his own mind.

Ming Campbell was authoritative on the subjects that he was passionate about, so it was no wonder that he had the respect and admiration of colleagues across the House, who recognised his wisdom and unfailing kindness over 28 years of service as a Member of this Parliament. Today we remember his commitment to Scotland and in particular of course to Fife—championing its industries from fishing to, in his case, flying—as well as becoming chancellor of the University of St Andrews, where he spoke of his joy at meeting students and young people full of hope for the future—a future he had done so much to shape. It was a full life, well lived alongside Elspeth, his beloved wife of more than 50 years. We are all enriched by his sense of duty and commitment to this country. He stands in the finest traditions of this House, so it is a privilege, on behalf of the Labour Benches, to pay tribute to the “Flying Scotsman”. May he rest in peace.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.