Prime Minister

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Written Corrections

[Sarah Bool]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

G7 and NATO Summits

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

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

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

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

She went on:

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

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

“This sort of thing requires real thinking.”

Then she said:

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

That is how unserious they are.

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

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

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

House of Lords Appointments

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

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

Role of party leaders

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

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

Role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission

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

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

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

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

Appointments to the Cross Benches

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

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

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

[HCWS718]

Prime Minister

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Written Corrections

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

Written correction submitted by the Prime Minister:

[The Prime Minister]

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

Machinery of Government: Cyber-security and Defence Exports

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

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

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

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

[HCWS679]

Investigatory Powers Commissioner

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

I have today laid before both Houses a copy of the annual report of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Brian Leveson. This report covers the activities of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, the former Office for Communications Data Authorisations, and the Technology Advisory Panel for 2023.

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

Overall, Sir Brian’s report demonstrates the good level of operational compliance and respect for the law of our security and intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies and other relevant public authorities when using investigatory powers. Where the Investigatory Powers Commissioner has identified concerns, our agencies and Departments are working hard to address these. I thank them all for their hard work to protect the UK, at home and abroad.

Now in its seventh year, IPCO continues to provide independent oversight of the use of investigatory powers, providing assurance to both the public and Parliament that privacy safeguards are applied. In March 2024, IPCO merged with its sister organisation, OCDA, to become one organisation, while retaining the IPCO name. While the merger was outside of this reporting period, the work of both organisations is presented as one in this report. I wish to express my sincere thanks to Sir Brian, his team of judicial commissioners and all the staff at IPCO for their work.

Maintaining public trust and confidence in the exercise of investigatory powers is vital for national security and public safety, and a top priority for this Government. This report demonstrates the high quality of oversight over our intelligence and security agencies’ use of the most intrusive powers. I am satisfied that our oversight arrangements are amongst the strongest and most effective in the world.

In accordance with section 234(6)(b) of the IPA, I wish to notify both Houses that the report contains no material considered too sensitive to be published. Following consultation with relevant Government Departments and agencies, the contents of this open report are not prejudicial to national security or ongoing investigations.

I will be sending a copy of this report to Scottish Ministers, as required under section 234(8) of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, and I commend this report to the House.

[HCWS660]

UK-EU Summit

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

With permission, I will update the House on the three recent trade deals that we have struck in the national interest.

First, however, I would like to say something about the horrific situation in Gaza, where the level of suffering, with innocent children being bombed again, is utterly intolerable. Over the weekend we co-ordinated a response with our allies, as set out in my statement with President Macron and Prime Minister Carney last night. I want to put on record today that we are horrified by the escalation from Israel. We repeat our demand for a ceasefire, as the only way to free the hostages; we repeat our opposition to settlements in the west bank; and we repeat our demand to massively scale up humanitarian assistance to Gaza. The recent announcement that Israel will allow a “basic quantity of food” into Gaza is totally and utterly inadequate, so we must co-ordinate our response, because this war has gone on for far too long. We cannot allow the people of Gaza to starve, and the Foreign Secretary will come to the House shortly to set out our response in detail.

Let me turn now to the three deals that this Government have struck. The principles we took into the negotiations are clear and simple. Does it drive down bills? Does it drive up jobs? Does it strengthen our borders? In each case, the answer is a resoundingly yes. These deals release us from the tired arguments of the past and, as an independent sovereign nation, allow us to seize the opportunities of the future—a clear message, sent across the globe, that Britain is back on the world stage.

We have a trade deal with the world’s fastest growing economy, India, cutting tariffs for British industries, which is a huge boost for our whisky and gin distilleries—their only concern now is whether they can produce enough to sell—and for our car manufacturers, with tariffs slashed from over 100% to just 10%, and no concessions on visas. We have a trade deal with the world’s richest economy, the United States, slashing tariffs, saving thousands upon thousands of jobs in car manufacturing in places like Jaguar Land Rover, protecting our steel and aluminium exports, and safeguarding the interests of our hugely important pharmaceutical sector.

But I can already see that, when it comes to this hat-trick of deals, it is our new partnership with the EU that the Opposition most want to talk about—and given their abject failure to strike a deal with India or the US, I cannot say I blame them—so let me spell out the benefits of this deal, which gives our country an unprecedented level of access to the EU market: the best access of any nation outside the EU or European Free Trade Association.

I will start with our security. When Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine over three years ago, a gauntlet was thrown down, and it is our responsibility to step up. That is what this world demands, and it is what this partnership delivers, strengthening our national security through a new security and defence partnership that paves the way for British defence firms to access the EU’s €150 billion defence fund. That will support British jobs, British wages and British livelihoods.

The partnership also increases co-operation on emissions trading, saving UK businesses from having to pay up to £800 million in EU carbon taxes—once again, backing British businesses. The deal will drive down bills with increased co-operation on energy, because the agreement negotiated by the Conservative party left us with a more expensive way of working with our neighbours—a needless rupture, despite our grids being connected by undersea cables. This partnership brings those systems together again, benefiting British bill payers and boosting clean British power in the North sea.

This partnership also strengthens our borders, because again, the previous deal left a huge gap and weakened our ability to work together to tackle illegal migration—the ultimate cross-border challenge. It closes that gap, including joint work on returns, preventing channel crossings and working upstream in key source and transit countries, co-operating along the whole migration route to strengthen our hand in the fight against the vile smuggling gangs. It boosts our co-operation on law enforcement, combating terrorism and serious organised crime with closer operational work with agencies like Europol and better sharing of intelligence and data, including, for the first time, facial imaging.

This partnership helps British holidaymakers, who will be able to use e-gates when they travel to Europe, ending those huge queues at passport control. It delivers for our young people, because we are now on a path towards a controlled youth experience scheme, with firm caps on numbers and visa controls—a relationship we have with so many countries around the world, some of which were even set up by the Conservative party. We should be proud to give our young people that opportunity. And, not for the first time, this Government have delivered for Britain’s steel industry, protecting our steel exports from new EU tariffs and backing our steel sector to the hilt.

Last but certainly not least, we have a new sanitary and phytosanitary deal, as promised in our manifesto, which will cut the price of a weekly shop, meaning that there will be more money in the pockets of working people, less red tape for our exporters, no more lorry drivers sitting for 16 hours at the border with rotting food in the back, and no more needless checks—the inevitable consequence of the Conservatives’ policies, which made it so much harder to trade even within our own market, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The deal means that British goods that have long been off the menu in Europe can regain their true place, including shellfish, which are hugely important for Cornwall, Devon and Scotland. Not only does our deal on fish provide stability, with no increase in the amount that EU vessels can catch in British waters, but the new SPS agreement slashes costs and red tape for our exports to the European market. We sell 70% of our seafood to that market, so there is a huge opportunity that Britain’s fisheries, in which we have made a £360 million investment, will now look to exploit.

The reaction to this deal from business has been absolutely clear. Mr Speaker, I know you are a stickler for keeping to time, so I do not have time to run through the list of supportive quotes from businesses. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Prime Minister is correct.

[The Prime Minister]

This is not the full list, but the new partnership has been backed by the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI, the British Retail Consortium, Asda, Morrisons, Salmon Scotland, the Food & Drink Federation, the British Chamber of Commerce, Ryanair, Vodafone and producers of meat, milk and poultry—the list goes on and on. I wonder whether that long list of businesses coming out in support of the deal will temper the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition—but then again, for weeks now, she has been dismissive of the benefits of any trade deal, in defiance, frankly, of her party’s history. It is not just the Conservatives that I am talking about; the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is not here, and the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) have both shown, in their own way, that their parties simply do not get it; if your whole approach to our allies is about striking a pose, you do not get to strike a deal. What that means in a world like ours, where deals are ever more the currency of security and justice, is that you do not get to make a difference, and you do not get to deliver for Britain. That is what this partnership means.

For years, we were told that this could not be done. What the Conservatives meant was that they could not do it. We were told that a deal with the US or India was impossible; what they meant was that it was impossible for them. We were told that a choice must be made between the US and EU; what they meant was that they could not do a deal with both. This Government can and will, because we stay in the room, we fight for the national interest, and we put the British people first. These deals represent a signal that we are back on the world stage—a global champion of free trade, playing our historic role on European security—but above all, they are deals that put money in the pockets of working people, because that is what independent, sovereign nations do. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. The Prime Minister talks about a hat trick of deals—they are own goals. In 2020, the Conservatives concluded the trade and co-operation agreement, the largest and most comprehensive free trade agreement in the world. We agreed to come back in five years with improved terms. This renegotiation should have been an opportunity to improve terms for our country, but the terms are improved for the EU. The Prime Minister can dress it up as much as he wants, but he has failed. It is bad for bills; it is bad for jobs; and it is bad for borders.

This is not a deal made for Britain; this deal is made for Labour’s public relations, to show Labour on the world stage, but it is a stitch-up for our country in return for short-term headlines. Let us take the Prime Minister’s abject failures one by one. First, on fishing, he has given away the prize most desired by EU member states, and he has done so for almost nothing. It is very easy to sign deals if you are prepared to give everything away for pennies. This deal locks out our fishermen until 2038. We are now in a worse position than the Faroe Islands—a set of islands with the population of Scarborough, but which gets to have annual negotiations. The Prime Minister quoted some organisations that welcome his deal—he does not listen to them normally—but he left one out deliberately: the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has described the deal as a surrender and a giveaway. This is a Prime Minister who would pay to give away his family silver. Why is the Prime Minister selling our fishermen down the river? Is it because they do not vote Labour?

Secondly, on food and agriculture, the Prime Minister is going to pay the EU to abide by laws that we have no say on. While British farmers struggle with the family farms tax that his Chancellor has imposed on them, their regulations will now be made in Paris and enforced in Brussels. It is a total capitulation. We are not in the EU, and we are not at the table, so can the Prime Minister tell us how he will ensure accountability for the hundreds of regulations that he has signed this country up to?

Thirdly, on energy, the Prime Minister has shackled us to the EU’s emissions trading scheme. That means that the Government can no longer cut energy costs without the EU’s permission. It will also unravel parts of the India free trade agreement that he has just negotiated. This is not a technicality; it is a betrayal. The House should be in no doubt that this means higher bills, more pain and less flexibility.

Fourthly, on the Prime Minister’s manifesto promises, he said that we would not rejoin the single market. He promised no new payments, and that he would protect British interests. That promise has lasted about as long as his commitment to protect pensioners’ winter fuel allowance. He said whatever was needed to win power, and now he will say whatever is needed to keep it, even if it means selling out our sovereignty, our businesses and the public.

The truth is that most of what was announced yesterday was not a deal. There was no binding agreement on anything. Most of the items outlined are simply agreements to enter into further discussions, which we are already having. The Prime Minister is boasting that we will now avoid airport queues because we will get access to EU e-gates. It sounds great, except it is not true; some airports already allow that, and this deal does not guarantee it anywhere, as each country still has to agree. That sums up this deal perfectly: it is a lot of spin to disguise the terrible substance.

Having previously ruled out a youth mobility scheme, the Prime Minister is now desperately trying to hide his latest U-turn by rebranding the scheme as an experience. That is risible. We have no details on any cap or time limit, which begs the question: why are the Government talking about increasing migration before they have got a grip on the small boats or the legal migration system? I know that the Prime Minister does not like answering questions, but people out there want to know. Can we have some honesty about what has been discussed? How many young European workers does the Prime Minister think would be acceptable, and will they be able to bring dependants?

Even the defence commitments in this deal are hopelessly one-sided. We are making payments, but the EU is offering dialogue and consultation. This is a pitiful return for the country that leads NATO in Europe, and has troops on the ground in Estonia, defending our allies. Can the Prime Minister tell us why there was not a single word in his statement about the money that we will now be sending to Brussels? Can he set out how much those payments will cost taxpayers? In government, details matter, and so does honesty. [Laughter.] Labour Members are laughing, but this is a bad deal for the country. Look at them. This is how they laughed at the Budget. They have no idea what it is that they have signed up to. The Prime Minister said that he would stay out of the single market; he is going into the single market for agrifood, electricity and energy. He said that he would stay out of the customs union, but he is accepting EU tariff rules. How does he plan to stop the EU changing them to our disadvantage? He has no idea, and neither do any of them.

The British people know when they are being misled. They know that headlines fail. The Prime Minister did not listen to the CBI on the jobs tax, and he did not listen to the Federation of Small Businesses on the family farms tax. This deal has already unravelled. The damage is becoming clear, and the political consequences will be huge, and here he is, trumpeting his success. When he stands up in a moment, he will deflect, dismiss and distract, but we all know the truth. This is a fiction of a speech, a fraud of a deal, and a failure of a Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

Oh dear. That was just such an unserious response. The right hon. Lady says that details matter in government; they matter in opposition as well. The SPS agreement cuts red tape and bureaucracy for all food and agricultural products going to the EU. It is a massive boost for our supermarkets, our farmers and others. Why is it that all the supermarkets have come out behind this deal? Because they know how important the SPS agreement is. It is completely in our favour. There is a huge amount of detail there. It is the best agreement.

On defence and security, we have greater operational co-ordination, and the right hon. Lady is against it at a time like this. It opens the gate to the EU defence procurement fund of €150 billion; that was a condition of the deal. She complains about emissions. [Hon. Members: “How much?”] I will tell you how much. Businesses were going to pay £800 million a year in tariffs that they will not now pay. That is why they are coming out in support of the deal. That is how much. The detail matters.

On energy, we are already connected, but we are not using that energy connection. We have electrical access to the market. On steel, we are getting rid of the tariffs. That will support British steel, but the right hon. Lady is against that, yet again. She says that e-gates access is already in existence; this deal clears the way for e-gates access. That is the huge difference it makes. [Interruption.] If any Conservative Members doubt that, they should travel across a border today and see the long queues.

On law enforcement, we have better operational working with Europol, and the right hon. Lady is against it. We have information sharing on facial mapping and dealing with criminal records, and she is against it. She is absolutely unserious. She is also against the India deal, which of course does huge things for trade in sectors such as whisky, where their only concern is whether they can produce enough. They have been absolutely clear about supporting the India deal—a deal that the Conservatives tried to do—and she now says that she is against it.

We have the US deal, which saved thousands upon thousands of jobs in car manufacturing and at Jaguar Land Rover. I do not know whether the right hon. Lady had the chance to make that trip to JLR, but she really ought to before she responds like that again. The US deal reduces tariffs on steel, so that our steel can be sold to America, and supports our whisky and gin, and she is against it. She is against every single deal. She is the only ex-Trade Secretary who is against every single deal. These deals have been welcomed broadly because they are good deals. You do not get a great long list of endorsements from all the business associations and companies for no—[Interruption.] The Conservatives are so unserious; they are lost in a descent into the abyss. They used to be a proud party of trading agreements, and they have slid off into the abyss. That is where they are.

On fishing, none of the rights negotiated by the Conservatives have been removed. There is no change in access for coastal communities, which is the same as before. There is no reduction in the British quota or increase in the EU quota; they are the same as before. We have reciprocal arrangements, which are the same as before. What is new is having the SPS agreement for the first time, and it is permanent. They were unable to do that. It reopens the EU market for shellfish and makes it much easier to sell British fish to our largest trading partner. That is hugely significant, because 72% of British fish is traded into EU markets, and it is now easier to do that. We are backing that with £360 million through our fishing and coastal grants. The Leader of the Opposition talks about the youth experience scheme. That scheme is capped, it is time-limited, and it is balanced.

In relation to standards, the truth is this: we are currently aligned in our standards, but we do not get the benefit of that. We want to continue to have high standards; that is what the British public want, and it is what this deal delivers. We will have a role in shaping any future rules, and application of them is specifically subject to our constitutional arrangements. We will have a process in this Parliament to apply the rules, but to be clear, we are already applying those rules at the moment—we are just not getting the advantage. This deal strips that away. It is good for our country and good for our economy, and it is a shame that the Leader of the Opposition cannot stand up and support it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

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

This deal is good for business and good for Britain. I congratulate the Prime Minister on embracing a good half of the Select Committee’s recommendations, which—if I might say so—were agreed on a cross-party basis. While some in this House are proposing trade barriers, the Prime Minister is building trade bridges, and that is in the national interest.

We have a deal, but we do not have a date. The Office for Budget Responsibility cannot score the gains, businesses cannot plan for the benefits, and we cannot suspend customs checks in Northern Ireland until we know when the new SPS checks will come into force. What timetable has the Prime Minister given his negotiators for when that SPS deal will come into effect? Business needs certainty, and for that, we need clarity.

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me pick up on my right hon. Friend’s point about the cross-party support of the Select Committee. There are Conservative Members who I think are ashamed by the response of the Leader of the Opposition, and know very well that these are good deals that should be supported. A number of her Back-Bench MPs are already coming out and saying that these deals are good and in the national interest. [Hon. Members: “Who?”] You know who they are.

I assure my right hon. Friend that we have moved at pace to get the deals, and our instruction to our teams now is to move at pace to implement them. That is what we will do. We negotiated these deals in a short number of months, and we will keep moving at the same pace.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the appalling situation in Gaza. When he is working with our French and Canadian colleagues to put pressure on Netanyahu, will he consider, with the French, formally recognising the state of Palestine?

Turning to the EU reset deal, the Prime Minister knows that we do not think this deal goes far enough to fix our broken relationship with Europe, but there are many parts of it that we welcome. We have long been arguing for an agrifood deal to help British farmers export to Europe; for a youth mobility scheme to give our young people incredible new opportunities and British businesses, especially in hospitality, a boost; and for closer alliances on defence in the face of Putin’s imperialism and Trump’s unpredictability. I welcome the progress on those issues, even if there is only very limited progress on things such as youth mobility.

We have all seen the terrible damage caused by the Conservatives’ Brexit deal, and hearing the Conservative leader complain today is like listening to a backseat driver who previously crashed the car. Our country has moved on from the divisive Brexit wars of a decade ago, and some Members of this House need to do the same. However, does the Prime Minister accept that this deal must be only the first step, and that we must be far more ambitious in strengthening our economic and security ties with our nearest neighbours? We believe that a bespoke customs union is a key part of that—not turning back to the past, but forming a new partnership that serves our national interest. I know that the Prime Minister once made that a red line, but he will accept that the world has changed since then, so will he open negotiations on a customs union to get a better deal for Britain—a trade deal to dwarf all other trade deals?

[The Prime Minister]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about this deal being a first step, it is intended that this is the beginning of a process to complete what we have already agreed. We also intend to have annual summits so that we can take our co-operation and co-ordination further, step by step, and we will do that while keeping to the red lines in our manifesto.

On the question of a customs union, the problem with the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal—as I know he knows—is that we have just struck deals with India and the US. If we now undo that good work, we undo all the benefits of those two deals. For JLR and other car manufacturers, this is the here and now of their jobs at the moment. That is why we had our red lines and kept to those red lines, and I am not prepared to rip up the benefits that we have negotiated in those deals.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I begin by thanking the Prime Minister for what he has said about Gaza. The message he is sending to Netanyahu’s far-right Government could not be clearer, and it should have the unanimous support of this House. It is essentially, “This must stop.”

Turning to the grown-up EU deal, which comes hard on the heels of the two other recent trade agreements, the Government are rightly confident that those deals will be popular and will provide great benefits to our country. As such, I ask the Prime Minister this: why not take this opportunity to fix a glaring hole in our democracy and simply put those agreements to a vote, allowing them to be scrutinised by this place? I can assure him that they will be passed.

[The Prime Minister]

As my right hon. Friend knows, there is a process for implementing any agreement. All of these agreements will require legislation, and therefore they will go through the House on that basis.

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

Can I just point out to the Prime Minister that nothing can undo the fact that 17.5 million people voted leave? They voted to take back control of our laws and stop paying money to the EU. That was a considerably larger number than the 9.7 million people who voted Labour at the last election, but now the Prime Minister is submitting to EU regulations without any control and starting to pay money back to the European Union—he is giving up control over our laws and restoring payments to the European Union. He will pay a bitter political price for this betrayal.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that we had red lines about not rejoining the EU—no single market, no customs union and no freedom of movement. We were told that it was impossible to negotiate a better deal with the EU with those red lines, but we have just done it. We have also shown that we are outside the EU, because as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, having deals with India and the US is inconsistent with membership of the EU. There could be no better evidence that we are not going back into the EU; nor are these negotiations on that basis. I know that the hon. Gentleman understands that well, so I am surprised at the way in which he has put his question.

As for control of borders, net migration quadrupled after Brexit to nearly a million. That was not controlling our borders; it was a complete lack of control by the Conservative party. On the question of payments, it is important to appreciate that we have achieved unprecedented access to EU markets without the budgetary payments of member states. That is an incredible achievement. The only payment under the SPS agreement is administrative—to support the relevant costs of implementing and administering the scheme. For schemes and payments where it is in our national interest, we will negotiate proportionate contributions, as already happens under the deal negotiated by the Conservatives—for example, in relation to research and development and Horizon. The hon. Gentleman knows all that very well.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate the Prime Minister on this achievement, on top of two great trade deals. This is important if we are trying to deliver growth in the economy. Could the Prime Minister outline what he thinks the two or three main gains are to boost the economy in short order, so that we can build the public spending that we so badly need?

[The Prime Minister]

Our approach has been on the question of bringing our bills down, which is why the SPS agreement is so important, and of protecting and driving up jobs, which is why the EU, India and US agreements are all so important. That is particularly the case for car manufacturing, but equally so for pharmaceuticals, which are protected under our agreement. However, there is a bigger picture: these are three individual trade deals, but taken together they show that other countries want to do deals with the UK now in a way that they did not before.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

With youth unemployment higher in Europe—in countries such as France, Spain, Portugal and Sweden—I can see why the EU pushed for a youth mobility scheme: to help get its youth unemployment figures down. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what impact assessment he has done of his youth scheme? What effect will it have on youth unemployment among young Brits, particularly white working-class boys, who suffer the most? Can he also tell the House today what cap he has put on the number of people coming to the UK? If he cannot, this is a bitter betrayal of British youth.

[The Prime Minister]

The agreement gives young people in the United Kingdom the opportunity to work, to study and to travel in Europe. It will be a capped scheme of limited duration and with visas. This, again, is something that everyone said we could not negotiate, and we have negotiated it. As for the right hon. Lady’s question about what we are doing for young people in this country, she should look to the Trailblazer scheme that we set up to help young people back into work.

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

Will the Prime Minister join me in inviting Conservative Members to celebrate the restoration of access to our British shellfishers, and the reduction in frictions on the 70% of our British seafood that is exported to the EU? Will he encourage those Conservative Members to get out there and help us to deploy the £360 million of fishing and coastal community funding that we have unlocked?

[The Prime Minister]

Under the Conservatives’ deal, shellfish was locked out, but it can now be sold back into the market, which is hugely important to places such as Cornwall. That is why their response to this is so uncertain and, if I may say so, un-Tory.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

On six separate occasions since the beginning of the year I have asked the Paymaster General about plans for a youth mobility scheme, and every single time he has told me that Labour has no plans. I realise that I was in error and should have asked about a youth experience scheme, but let me ask the Prime Minister now whether he has a timescale for when such a scheme can be put into operation and we can start to see the benefits that Liberal Democrats know it can bring to young people here in the UK and across the EU.

[The Prime Minister]

We have moved apace to get this far, but we now need to move apace to implement what we agreed yesterday, so we will be doing that, and we will update the House as we do so.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister and his colleagues on their success at the summit. The Government’s hard work has paid off: this is a good deal and a good first step. Businesses will benefit from a reduction in red tape, and consumers will see lower bills in the long run. The announcement on youth experience and Erasmus+ will be welcomed by the many young people in my constituency. I also welcome the recognition of the value of touring artists in both the EU and the UK. I realise that the barriers to touring are complex, but will the PM commit himself to keeping up the hard work so we can begin to reduce and break down those barriers?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has raised an important point about touring artists. We are absolutely committed to securing a better deal for them, and that will be part of the ongoing work as we move forward from this summit to the next.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I think the Front Benches need to calm the jets a wee bit. This is obviously not a surrender, just as it is obviously no substitute for membership of the European Union; nor, indeed, is it, as the Prime Minister has said repeatedly today, providing “unprecedented access” to the EU market—that is simply absurd.

The deal does provide for co-operation on carbon storage, so will the Prime Minister build on that good work by committing his Government to providing the financial support that is necessary to take forward the Acorn project in the north-east of Scotland?

[The Prime Minister]

The deal does allow us to move forward on renewables and carbon capture as part of the package around renewables, which is why it is so important across the United Kingdom, but particularly in Scotland because of the potential for job opportunities there, so of course we will press on in that regard. I would gently ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider again why he should not support this deal for the benefit of the whisky sector in Scotland, and given that yesterday Salmon Scotland came out hugely in favour of it. He should stand up and support the work that we are doing.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

My constituency is home to the world’s oldest biscuit factory: Carr’s has been making Table Water crackers, ginger nuts and custard creams for many decades, and in about 15 years’ time it will celebrate 200 years in business. Can the Prime Minister say more about the importance of this deal to food and drink businesses such as pladis, which owns and operates the Carr’s biscuit factory?

[The Prime Minister]

For food, for biscuits and all the content covered by the SPS agreement, this deal is a massive step forward. It gets rid of the red tape and bureaucracy that cost each business thousands upon thousands of pounds. This is good for biscuits, good for business.

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

May I have a serious answer to a very narrow and specific question? We know how many fishing rights the Prime Minister was prepared to give away for how many years in order to accede to the EU’s demands, but how much UK taxpayers’ money is he willing to hand over to the EU in order to sign up to its protectionist demands?

[The Prime Minister]

I remind the right hon. Lady that nothing that was negotiated on fishing by the previous Government has been given away; quite the contrary. On costs—I gave a full answer earlier—we are not paying into the EU budget in the way that EU members do, and that is why this unprecedented access is so important. In relation to schemes and programmes, yes, we will make a proportionate contribution, on the same basis, with the same principles, that the Conservative party—the then Government—negotiated the current arrangements on Horizon and research and development. It is hard to see why, having negotiated those arrangements, it is now suddenly against them.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The energy industry is central to our mission for growth, but it is also important to our tackling of the generational challenge that is climate change. This is a sentiment felt in my constituency, which is proud to be a regional hub of carbon capture and hydrogen storage. Will the Prime Minister explain how the deal supports the energy industry so that we can pursue the growth, bring down energy bills and tackle climate change?

[The Prime Minister]

It does so in two ways. It makes permanent the energy chapter in the current deal, and it goes beyond that to allow us to co-operate and co-ordinate more closely on energy; we have the ability for connection already, but we can now take better advantage of it.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Successive Governments and successive Parliaments have caused unnecessary and at times intolerable damage to our Union. We recognise the reductions in some checks on some issues, but can the Prime Minister explain why, if animals and animal products are now suitable to come to Northern Ireland free of checks, the European Union is still intent on banning the very veterinary medicines that are taken by those animals? If standards are the same in the United Kingdom and the European Union—and this Parliament has already decided that CE markings will be retained—why are products and manufactured goods not part of the arrangement? Will the Prime Minister confirm to this Parliament that it is his intention to rid Northern Ireland of the Windsor framework and to get rid of the barriers within our Union?

[The Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the SPS agreement that we have negotiated for the UK as a whole is good for Northern Ireland because it complements the current SPS agreement for Northern Ireland that it comes up against. That will be a huge step forward for Northern Ireland, which I know he cares about, and others care about, and I care about. It is among the advantages of the SPS deal that we have struck.

I do understand the issue of veterinary medicines, and we are working to resolve the problem that the right hon. Gentleman has rightly described. I think we are in a better position to resolve it by co-operating and co-ordinating with the EU, which is what we are doing. On the Windsor framework, it is important that we implement the agreements that we have in place, because the blunt truth is that no one will make further agreements with a country that walks away from agreements that it has already put in place.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

The last Tory Government left the British people at the back of the European queue. That was true for exporters, for farmers and for businesses, but most obviously it was true for my constituents who stood and watched other nations skip through the e-gates at airports while they waited for hours. Given that East Renfrewshire holidaymakers are eager to spend more time at the poolside and less time at passport control, can the Prime Minister tell me when he expects to see the benefits of the arrangements involving the use of e-gates?

[The Prime Minister]

The arrangement we got to yesterday with the EU has absolute clarity: there is no impediment to e-gates, which means that we can now work with member states to get them in place as quickly as possible. We have already started our work with them to get e-gates through. [Interruption.] We have now cleared the barrier and are getting on with it. For many years, we have had queues because of the Conservatives’ bad deal—so pipe down.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

The most pernicious part of this deal is dynamic alignment, by which we become an automatic rule-taker from the European Union. Labour has been briefing journalists that we have an opt-out from that. I have read the document in detail, and we do not. Besides, the ECJ is the ultimate arbiter in a dispute, so the EU will always win. The British people voted peacefully and democratically to leave the European Union, so why has the Prime Minister surrendered that right and made us a rule-taker from the EU once again?

[The Prime Minister]

I had forgotten about some of the nonsense that is spouted. On the question of how the rules are made, they will go through a parliamentary process in this House.

[Mr Francois]

After they have been changed.

[The Prime Minister]

We are already aligned. We are in alignment; we are just not getting the benefit of it. This deal gives us the benefit, which will be counted in business, jobs and bills. In relation to an independent arbiter, under this agreement there is independent arbitration where there are disputes.

[Mr Francois]

Subject to the ECJ! [Interruption.]

[The Prime Minister]

They all know this. Every trade deal has an arbitration clause to deal with the settlement of disputes. All trade deals have that, including all the trade deals that the Conservatives negotiated.

On the question of the ECJ, if an issue of European law needs to be referred by the independent arbitrators to the court, it will give a ruling on the interpretation. It will then pass back to the arbitrators to make the final decision. That is how trade deals work, but I understand the Conservatives’ new policy. Their new policy is against any trade deals. That has never been the Conservative party’s policy before, but it is good that we have clarity now.

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

This deal is very welcome, particularly for my farmers in Morecambe and Lunesdale. When I was a young person, I benefited from a year in New Zealand and a year in Spain. Can the Prime Minister assure me that he will do everything he can to ensure that other young Brits get the same opportunities that I did?

[The Prime Minister]

I want young people in this country to have the opportunity under the scheme to work, to travel, and to involve themselves in volunteering and other activities in Europe.

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

Thanks to the appalling deal that the Conservatives did with the EU in 2020, we saw farmers lose 34% of their export market into the European Union. That contributed to a 41% drop in incomes for livestock farmers in my constituency and across the country, so we are encouraged to hear about the access to the European market for our farmers. Can the Prime Minister say more about that and when farmers in Westmorland and beyond might avail themselves of those opportunities?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, which will be of huge interest to his constituents. If I have got his number right, he said there was a 41% drop in trade because of the deal that the previous Government did for farmers, who they claim to champion. As he will appreciate, this deal ensures that food and agriculture going into the EU will, under the SPS agreement, do so without any red tape or bureaucracy. That will make it much easier for his constituents, and for farmers generally, to trade in the EU market and will bring down their costs, which is hugely important for farmers and his constituents.

On the question of timing, we will do it as quickly as possible. We are moving at pace. I appreciate that for farmers in his constituency and across the country, it is hugely important to undo the damage that the previous Government did.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the Prime Minister on this deal. Manchester has a student population of over 100,000, many of whom I represent. They will be pleased to hear, as I am, that the UK and the EU will develop a scheme focused on student exchange, supporting young people to study, volunteer, work or travel across Europe. Does the Prime Minister agree that this deal will provide life-changing experiences for our young people and strengthen our broken relationship with the EU for generations to come?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I can confirm that I want those experiences and opportunities for our young people, and I think the country wants those experiences for young people. I am not even sure the Conservatives are genuinely against better opportunities for our young people to work and travel in Europe.

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

In Boston and Skegness, my fishermen are furious that the Prime Minister has surrendered the fishing industry. My constituents are furious that he has surrendered on freedom of movement and on rule taking under the ECJ. But there is good news: does Prime Minister accept that he has also surrendered the jobs of many of his Back-Bench MPs to Reform at the next general election?

[The Prime Minister]

I will happily explain to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents the huge benefits of these deals, measured in jobs that will be saved, jobs that can now thrive, and bills that will come down. It is really important for our economy that we have these deals. That is in the interests of his constituents, and it is in the interests of the whole country.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

When it comes to evaluating the merits of the deal, who would the Prime Minister suggest my Livingston constituents listen to? Should it be the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, NFU Scotland or Salmon Scotland, all of which have welcomed the deal, or should they listen to John Swinney, who is lining up with the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) in a desperate, misguided attempt to create a constitutional grievance over a deal that the Deputy First Minister of Scotland has called “important progress”?

[The Prime Minister]

I was surprised to see the SNP First Minister line up with Reform and the Leader of the Opposition against a deal that has been welcomed by the likes of Salmon Scotland, a huge exporter from Scotland, because they know it is good for their business. That is a pretty small and miserable club for the SNP to be in.

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

If the Prime Minister is right that our food standards are already in alignment with those of the EU, why could we not have negotiated the deal on the basis of mutual recognition of those standards, as other countries have done, rather than open ourselves up to having to alter our standards in line with whatever the EU may decide to change in the future?

[The Prime Minister]

That is a very good question that the right hon. Gentleman should put to Boris Johnson.

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

I absolutely welcome this deal, which puts us on the map as an outward-looking nation again. Above all, the benefits that it brings young people in Edinburgh South West are absolutely worth noting. We know that the deal will bring lower bills for people shopping for food and buying energy across the UK. Based on that, can the Prime Minister understand why the SNP is uniting with Reform and the Conservatives to take an isolationist approach on international trade?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I do think it is really hard to fathom, and I hope that SNP Members reconsider their position, because lining up against better trade and better business opportunities for Scotland is not in Scotland’s interest. To be lining up with Reform is not a place that I would expect them to be, but that is where they are.

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

I admire the Prime Minister’s faith that this deal may well end the tired arguments of the past, but judging on today’s display, I think we need to end the Conservatives—the tired party of the past to my right—before that is the case. A generation of young people have missed out on the opportunities offered by the Erasmus scheme due to the disastrous Brexit deal negotiated by the Conservatives. We are encouraged by the words in the deal about the Erasmus scheme, but what is the timescale for offering that opportunity to our young people once again?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think the Conservatives need any help in retiring from the national stage—they are well on their way. It is obviously important that we take a balanced approach in negotiating access to Erasmus. As with other aspects, we want to move ahead on what we have negotiated as quickly as we can. We have moved at speed to get this far, and the instruction from both sides is to move at speed on the other elements.

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

I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when she says that what matters is whether the terms of the deal have improved for the country, and that detail matters. Some 16,000 firms in this country stopped exporting to Europe under the deal that her Government negotiated and exports dropped by a third, because the price of her Brexit was paperwork. Under this deal, the Government are getting rid of the much-hated export health certificate, which is worth an extra £200 on every single consignment. This Government’s deal will help business; her Government’s deal hurt business. Can the Prime Minister confirm that as part of reviewing the charges at the border, he will also look at that the Tories’ hated border operating model, so we can really get business moving?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend puts her finger on it. Under the Tories’ deal, there was huge bureaucracy, huge red tape, huge cost to businesses. The reason businesses have come out to support this deal in huge numbers is because they know it will make life better for them, improve their business opportunities, and drive our economy forward.

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

I asked the Prime Minister on 7 May to reassure the House that he would not hand over hard-won controls over UK fishing waters in backroom deals with Brussels. In reply, he said:

“a better deal…can be had.”—[Official Report, 7 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 679.]

Does he agree that EU access to our waters until 2038 is only a better deal for Brussels and nothing short of a betrayal of British coastal communities?

[The Prime Minister]

The deal we have struck makes it easier for fishermen to sell into the EU market. Some 72% of their fish is sold into the EU market. Until we came along with the SPS agreement, which is permanent, they had to put up with the red tape, bureaucracy and added cost that the Tory party negotiated with disastrous consequences. This makes it easier for them to sell their fish into the market, which is hugely important to them. On shellfish exports, which were banned by the Tory party, the door is open again and they can sell into the market—hugely important.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I put on the record my thanks to the Prime Minister and the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office for this landmark first step in the Government’s reset with the European Union. As the Government remove barriers to trade, what further information can the Prime Minister share with the House about how the deal will bring down the cost of living, including for my Bolton West constituents?

[The Prime Minister]

I point my hon. Friend to the endorsements from the very many supermarkets yesterday who made precisely that point. It will allow them now to lower the price of goods and food on their shelves. That is good for them and their businesses, it is good for working people, and it massively helps with the cost of living.

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

These incremental improvements are welcome as we begin to move on from some of the illusions of Brexit, although we had all this and far, far more 10 years ago. The Prime Minister once argued that

“we should retain the benefits of the single market”.—[Official Report, 1 May 2017; Vol. 630, c. 879.]

Given his recent tendency to dismiss the views of others, what would he say to his younger self?

[The Prime Minister]

I think last week I was overly rude and I apologise. I do respect the right hon. Member, and she makes a serious point. We are now outside the EU. We had red lines in our manifesto on the single market. We have kept to those red lines and delivered a very good deal.

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

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on securing this deal. Does he agree with me that the attitude displayed by the Conservatives betrays a fundamental dislike and mistrust of all things European, which makes them totally inadequate to accept any sort of deal whatever with the EU? Can he confirm that no matter where an international trade deal is done, whether through World Trade Organisation rules or with Europe, there is always an arbitration system?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I do not think the Conservatives are just against all things European, because they say they are against the India deal as well. That is a deal they tried for eight long years to negotiate. It is deeply embarrassing for them to say that that was what they were trying to negotiate and now they are against it. They are against the deal with the US, which they said they wanted to negotiate, which saves thousands upon thousands of jobs. Go to Jaguar Land Rover and tell those workers that you are going to reverse the deal, and look at the expressions on their faces. It is further evidence of the decline of the Tory party, away from free trade. I never thought I would see that, but we are seeing that now under this Leader of the Opposition. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about arbitration clauses: they are there in every trade deal that has ever been struck.

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

I do not want to be a dog in the manger, but the Prime Minister’s statement appears to be very strong on self-congratulation and very short on detail. I know he does not like answering detailed questions, but the response he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) was quite simply unacceptable. When will this deal be signed off in a form that this House will be able to debate properly and vote on?

[The Prime Minister]

The detail of the agreement we reached yesterday was set out in a document which we released during the course of yesterday. If the right hon. Gentleman has not had the chance to see that, I will make sure that he does. On the detailed text that follows, obviously that needs to be drafted in legal form so that everybody can see it, of course, and we can debate and scrutinise it. None of this can go through without legislation, so he will have that opportunity. It is quite right that he presses for it.

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

The new UK-EU agreement is a welcome and pragmatic step towards rebuilding a strong trading relationship with our closest economic partner:

“this deal will help reduce costs, cut red tape, and make it easier for Scottish businesses to compete and grow across European markets.”

Those are not my words, but the words of the chief executive of the Scottish chambers of commerce. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that when Labour negotiates, businesses and customers in my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire South benefit?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are reasons why the Scottish chambers of commerce is coming out in support of the deal. It recognises the huge benefits. It is very important that we do everything we can for working people and businesses in Scotland. That is what we are delivering.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

On behalf of the Green party, I broadly welcome the progress made at the summit yesterday. It is not quite the step change we need, but it is a step forward towards the closest possible relationship with our closest neighbours that we continue to champion. I would gently point out that it is hardly unprecedented, because, of course, up until we left the EU we had a much better relationship. Given that free movement of people, in addition to goods, services and capital, is such an important component of growth and building good relationships, why is the Prime Minister being so timid on the youth mobility scheme, given the huge benefits it would offer to our young people and our country as a whole?

[The Prime Minister]

We had a clear red line in our manifesto on freedom of movement. We did that because we had a referendum, and at the heart of that referendum, or one of the key issues, was freedom of movement. Everybody made their case and the country voted to leave. We respect that and that is why we put the red line in. What we have now negotiated is a scheme that does not cross our red lines, but is good for young people both here and in Europe.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

I would like to turn to the co-operation aspect of the agreement, on which I congratulate the Prime Minister. When I was an international liaison prosecutor, my colleagues and I in the Crown Prosecution Service, Eurojust and Europol were relieved when the trade and co-operation agreement was finally agreed. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that this new deal enhances and improves our ability to tackle cross-border serious and organised crime, and to keep the people of the UK safe?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her previous work. One of the important things I was able to do when I was chief prosecutor was to play a part in Eurojust. Before we left the EU, we could play our full part in Eurojust. That meant we shared evidence, strategy, arrest arrangements and issues about where a case would be prosecuted. We want to ensure that we improve law enforcement by making sure that, wherever we can, we can co-operate better with Europe. That was not possible under the deal that the Conservative party negotiated. I want to make sure that we have better co-operation on criminal justice issues.

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

The previous deal done by the Conservatives tied up many businesses in red tape, so I warmly welcome the progress on SPS. But advanced manufacturers in my constituency are part of integrated supply chains with the EU and they are still tied up in red tape. In light of the further summits that will be held, will the Prime Minister outline what the Government will do to reduce that red tape and allow them to grow jobs in my constituency?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. On SPS, we have taken that step—the red tape goes—but we do want to reduce trade barriers wherever we can, both with the EU and with anywhere else, frankly. At a time when we are moving into a new era on trade and the economy—we certainly are—we need to reduce trade barriers across the country for the reasons we set out.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his work on this deal, which takes important steps in resetting our relationship with the EU. Beyond the lowering of trade barriers, the prospect of a youth experience scheme will excite many of my younger constituents. Does the Prime Minister agree that far from being a concession, a youth experience scheme, mirroring agreements that we already have with countries like Australia and New Zealand, would create fulfilling cultural opportunities for young people across the country?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree. I would remind the House that we have agreements in place with a number of other countries, some of which were actually negotiated by the Conservatives. I find it hard to believe that anybody in this House genuinely wants to make it harder for our young people to work, study and travel in Europe.

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

We need 15 billion barrels of oil and gas between now and 2050; we are currently expected to produce just 4 billion. New licences would support tens of thousands of jobs in this country and tens of billions in tax revenue. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the agreement on alignment on climate policies will not stand in the way of common-sense restoration of new licences in the North sea, so that we can produce the oil and gas we must consume in this country?

[The Prime Minister]

We have been clear about honouring new licences, and there is nothing in this deal that cuts across what we have said previously on that.

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

A trade deal with the world’s fastest-growing economy, which the Tories failed to achieve; a trade deal with the world’s richest economy, which they also failed to achieve; and a trade deal with the world’s biggest trading bloc, which the Tories and Reform would tear up, despite the enormous benefits for British businesses, consumers and tourists—does the Prime Minister agree that all that, plus financial stability, investment in key public services and our national security and infrastructure, makes the UK the best place to start and grow a business in the world? Would he further agree that given our fantastic quality of living, our great universities and our skilled and passionate people, the north-east should be the destination of choice for such investment?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that the three trade deals taken together do indicate that other countries want to negotiate and deal with the UK because they can see the path that we are on. That is good and it should be welcomed, because there are huge benefits. Of course, the north-east and my hon. Friend’s constituents should benefit under all three of those deals.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

The people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union in 2016, and overwhelmingly support rejoining it today—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members might want to listen. That fact has been continuously ignored by successive UK Governments. The limited measures this Government have announced do not come anywhere near to repairing the hammer blow that Brexit will continue to inflict on our public finances. Indeed, the UK Government’s own figures show that the cost of Brexit is 20 times greater, or 4% of GDP, compared with this deal. Does the Prime Minister recognise that by continuing to pursue this disastrous Brexit policy, he is demonstrating that Westminster Governments will never work in the interests of Scotland?

[The Prime Minister]

I find it impossible to follow the hon. Gentleman’s reasoning. He thinks we should be in the EU—that was voted on, but he is entitled to his position. However, he is also against a closer relationship. I do not understand why the SNP is against this deal. This is a closer relationship. There is a complete contradiction in the argument that he is making, which is completely out of kilter with Scottish businesses, which are welcoming what we achieved yesterday. On behalf of Scotland, the SNP should be welcoming it.

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

I congratulate the Prime Minister on securing this sensible, pragmatic deal, which demonstrates that we can respect the result of the 2016 referendum without settling for a bodged Boris Brexit. Does the Prime Minister agree that if the Conservatives and Reform want to rip up this deal, they should have to explain to my constituents why they should pay higher prices for food and energy?

[The Prime Minister]

I completely agree—the Conservatives and Reform should go around the country and explain to our constituents why they should pay higher prices. I think they would get a pretty universal response.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Our fishermen had been promised, and the EU had agreed, that annual access agreements would be reverted to from 2026, but, seemingly at the 11th hour, the Prime Minister abandoned our fishing communities, our fishing fleets and control of our seas by handing not a three, four or even five-year access agreement, but a 12-year multi-annual agreement to the EU. He sold out our fishermen to meet his self-imposed deadline for announcing the agreement and has shown that he will not stand strong for UK fishermen. Can he confirm that Parliament will have the final say on the fisheries deal, and that it will not be ratified elsewhere by unelected officials in Whitehall or Brussels?

[The Prime Minister]

The simple fact of the matter is that, under the agreement the Conservatives struck, it was much more difficult for fishermen to sell into the European market. We are making it much easier—it is 72% of their stock. Shellfish can be sold back into that market again, and we have set up a fund for our fishing communities. The alternative, which was to come off the current agreement and then negotiate every year with no certainty at all, would not be good for anyone.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on this deal, which will benefit so many of my constituents; it is exactly what businesses in my constituency asked for when they sent me to Parliament. The youth mobility scheme will benefit local farmers, but I want to know how young people in my area will also benefit from it opening up experiences and opportunities that they would never have otherwise dreamed of. The scheme must not just benefit middle-class kids on their gap year.

[The Prime Minister]

I agree wholeheartedly. It has to benefit all our young people, whether through work, travel or study, and we will make sure that it does. We want to provide young people with this important opportunity and help them to take advantage of it.

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

How will Britain’s head start in gene-editing technology be impacted by the rule-taking reversionary measures that the Prime Minister has announced?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

We are discussing and engaging on that issue, which, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, is important.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Morrisons has said that the deal will

“ease…pressure on food prices”,

Asda has said it

“has the potential to significantly reduce costs and bureaucracy”,

and the British Retail Consortium has said it will help to “keep costs down”. Does the Prime Minister agree with their assessment that this deal will help families in Bracknell Forest and across the country facing a high cost of living?

[The Prime Minister]

The deal will massively help my hon. Friend’s constituents because it will bring costs down. Morrisons is not the only supermarket that has come out in support of the agreement—pretty well all the supermarkets have come out openly supporting it. There is a reason for that: it will bring the prices on their shelves down, and that is good for working people across the country.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I welcome the SPS part of yesterday’s agreement, as I am sure will all the farmers of South Devon and those exporting fish and shellfish from Brixham. The Prime Minister may not know the answer to my question, but perhaps one of his Ministers will. Will bivalve molluscs that are fished in grade B waters, which are very important for one of my major exporters, be included in the SPS agreement?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. I am not going to pretend that I have the answer in my back pocket, but I will make sure that she gets a proper, detailed answer to her question, which she can then make use of with her constituents.

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

It is brilliant that the Brexit logjam that has cast a long shadow over this House for so many years has been smashed by this Prime Minister. Could he indicate when we might hear a bit more about the youth experience scheme that has been so yearned for and so welcomed by the universities and the English language teaching sector, and also by my staff, team and son, who were born too late to have a say in any of the mess that the Tories left behind?

[The Prime Minister]

We will develop the plan on the youth experience scheme with our partners. We have instructed our teams to move on all fronts as quickly as we can.

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

The Prime Minister states that a new security and defence partnership will pave the way for British defence firms to access the new European defence fund, which I am sure we can collectively agree will allow our continent to defend ourselves against Putin’s autocratic regime. How long does the Prime Minister think access to this fund will take—weeks, months or years?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

It will certainly not take years. The whole point of the fund is to be part of the collective response to the challenge in Ukraine. The fund was one of the initiatives that came out of the work that we were doing with the coalition of the willing. Everybody involved wants to move at speed, and that is the basis on which we have approached this matter. What yesterday does is knock out one of the gateway issues that we were otherwise facing, so that we can work with others to access the fund, but we will work as quickly as we can, because the situation in Ukraine is extremely serious and will need to be addressed as soon as possible.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Prime Minister for negotiating this deal, which is good for the UK and, according to umpteen businesses, good for Scotland. As someone who benefited from a year in France many years ago, I welcome the work that is under way to give young people in my constituency access to a youth experience scheme, but will the Prime Minister work at pace to ensure that our sportspeople and musicians can showcase their talents and are no longer subjected to the Tories’ botched Brexit?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. We will work as quickly as we can on that issue, because, whichever way people voted, they did not vote to stop creatives and sportspeople crossing national boundaries to showcase their talent—in whatever way that may be—so we do need to resolve it.

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

The impact of the Creative Europe programme between 2014 and 2019 on the UK arts, film, publishing and other creative sectors was hugely beneficial, and not just for practitioners and organisations but for the country as a whole. Will the Government look into the possibility of participating again in this creative programme to further boost the economic potential of our creative industries?

[The Prime Minister]

We set out yesterday the areas where we had reached agreement. We will now have annual summits, but we will approach that matter on a value-for-money basis.

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

I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Paymaster General on this deal, which makes the people of York Outer better off, and, in particular, on the agreement on e-gates, which the Conservative party could never achieve. Will the Government prioritise e-gates talks with member states in popular holiday destinations such as Spain, Portugal and France to ease summer travel chaos for sun-seeking Brits?

[The Prime Minister]

We already are doing so, because it is important that we now get on with this as quickly as we can.

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

Ursula von der Leyen yesterday said that a second step of further negotiations is required before British firms would be eligible to compete for joint procurements aligned to the Security Action for Europe fund. The Prime Minister spoke warmly about the positive industry response, but the chief executive officer of the ADS Group has said that it was “somewhat underwhelming” in its lack of detail. Therefore, what is the detail on which further negotiation is required before British firms even have the possibility of bidding for access to the SAFE fund, let alone creating thousands of jobs?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me answer the hon. Member directly. The first thing was to get through the first gateway. As this is a fund that is being set up at the moment, the second gateway is to negotiate our way into the scheme. That was always the two-stage process. The scheme itself has not been in existence for very long and is being developed, and so, along with our European partners, we will move that on at pace.

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

Although residents and businesses in York will welcome this deal, our university sector is our second largest export. Will the Prime Minister say more about how this deal will benefit higher education, not least in our research base but also in being able to attract the very best into our country?

[The Prime Minister]

We do want to attract the very best into our country and we will continue our efforts to do so. The measures that we set out yesterday will now help in that effort. They are not the total sum of our effort, but they will help in that effort.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

After every EU summit, the people of Northern Ireland have been subjected to spin, broken promises and, in some cases, downright lies. The Prime Minister today said that the new SPS agreement will mean no more lorry drivers queuing for 16 hours at the border with rotting food in the back and no more needless checks that made the borders trade so difficult, even within our own market between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If what he is saying is true, can he tell me today that the £140 million border post being built in my constituency, spread over 10 acres and designed to carry out the very checks that he says are now disappearing, is no longer necessary and that its construction can now stop?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Member raises an important point. What we want to do with this agreement is ensure that we do remove unnecessary checks wherever they are, but we particularly had in focus the situation between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I want to ensure that we have real improvement in the situation on the ground and do not go to unnecessary expense. I genuinely believe that, for Northern Ireland, this was a big step in the right direction yesterday. We will continue to ensure that we make progress.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Unlike the SNP’s singular failure wholeheartedly to support our defence sector, this deal is good for Scottish defence firms. Does the Prime Minister agree that Scottish firms gaining access to the €150 billion European defence fund is a huge opportunity for jobs and manufacturers in Scotland and in my constituency of Central Ayrshire?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, absolutely. Getting that gateway open is hugely important for Scottish defence and security businesses. Those businesses are world leading, and so it would be a welcome opportunity for them.

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

The Labour Government cannot answer how much the Chagos deal cost. The Labour Government cannot answer how much NHS England has cost. Can the Prime Minister tell us how much this reset deal will cost, and that there will be no further expenditure to the EU?

[The Prime Minister]

I have set out how the costs will be approached, but what we are not going to do is make those budgetary payments that other EU members make. We will look at proportionate payments into schemes, as is currently the case in relation to Horizon, which was negotiated by the previous Government. But the cost of the Tories to the country has been absolutely incalculable.

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

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on securing a landmark deal with our European neighbours? The Prime Minister will know that my constituency has been a leading light in the creative industries for a long time—and not just because my predecessor was a double Oscar-winning actress. Local actors have been coming to me expressing their frustration about securing work in Europe because of delays with work visas, and also because of the limit of 90 days for UK nationals. Can the Prime Minister reassure my local performers that they will not just be waiting in the wings while the rest of Europe takes centre stage?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter, as it is of great importance to her constituents and to many others. Our creative sector is incredible. Whether people voted leave or remain, I honestly do not think that anybody really wanted or intended that our creatives should have difficulties getting on with their trade, and we will work at pace to try to resolve that.

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

British people having access to e-gates is welcome. As the Minister for EU Relations told the BBC, it should ensure more time for UK residents when abroad. But my constituents have a better suggestion for achieving that. Does the Prime Minister agree that we should be developing a reciprocal travel arrangement, so that Brits can return to six-month visits to the continent, as EU visitors can here, doing away with the confusing 90-day and 180-day rule.

[The Prime Minister]

The e-gates will make a huge difference and will probably be the first impact that many people see. Hopefully, we will get those in train just as quickly as we can. We are also looking at other measures.

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

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and this deal. Perhaps most important to people in Gateshead will be the downward pressure on food prices, so I ask the Prime Minister, when it comes to food prices and to this deal, would he rather listen to Asda, Morrisons and M&S, or to the Leader of the Opposition, who does not think that sandwiches are food?

[The Prime Minister]

I listen to businesses on this, and they are universal in what they say about food. That is why I am surprised that the Conservative party is against a deal that brings down the price of food.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Dynamic alignment undermines sovereignty, and to undermine sovereignty does not just undermine the central principle that 17.4 million people voted for; it also undermines everybody who respects the democratic outcome of that referendum. Therefore, if the Prime Minister will not think again about this Brexit betrayal, will he, at the very least, reinstate the European Scrutiny Committee of this House, so that this House can scrutinise every single rule that we now have to take rather than make?

[The Prime Minister]

I have set out the position in relation to how the rules will be applied. We are already aligned, but we do not get the benefit. This deal allows us to get the benefit, which is why businesses are so in favour of it. Every trade deal requires agreement on both sides as to the way forward, and this agreement is no different.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on this common-sense reset. Does he agree that the Conservatives slammed the door of opportunity in the faces of younger generations with their useless Brexit deal, and that this youth mobility scheme opens up life-changing experiences for young people from Southampton? Will he also say how schools and universities can have input into shaping the best scheme possible?

[The Prime Minister]

The scheme does provide great opportunity, and we will make sure that all those interested are able to help us in the design of it.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I want to re-emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). A constituent of mine runs an agricultural consultancy. This requires travel to the EU, which is especially frequent during seasonal peaks, and he has been hampered by the rolling 90-day rule. The issue is that EU citizens can come to the UK for 180 days in 365. We are asking for an equalisation of that scheme. Is the Prime Minister going to look at that?

[The Prime Minister]

We are looking at a range of issues. I completely understand the point the hon. Lady makes and the frustration that the situation causes for her constituents and for people across the country.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

I spent this morning with British metal manufacturing businesses, which are so important in my constituency and across the west midlands. Like so many other sectors, this industry welcomes the deal, particularly the emissions trading scheme linkage and the steel safeguarding that will boost jobs, boost trade and cut red tape. Does the Prime Minister agree that this deal firmly backs UK manufacturing and metal industries, and will he continue to bang the drum for them here and around the world?

[The Prime Minister]

I firmly agree with my hon. Friend, and what she says applies not just to this deal but to the India and US deals. We have made real progress when it comes to our exports.

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

Given that my constituents overwhelmingly voted to take back control of their borders in the 2016 referendum, what safeguards is the Prime Minister putting in place to ensure that his youth experience scheme is not open borders by the back door, which would be seen by my constituents as yet another Brexit betrayal?

[The Prime Minister]

The scheme will be time-limited, visa-led and capped. It is a good scheme for young people in this country to go to Europe, and it will have those features, which we negotiated because we had a red line about freedom of movement.

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

Calder Valley is home to many of the small and medium-sized enterprises that simply stopped trading with Europe because of the disastrous deal agreed by the Conservatives. Can the Prime Minister assure me that he will not stop here with this deal, but will continue to work to open more of our borders to more of our businesses?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. The Federation of Small Businesses has come out strongly in favour of this deal because it knows the impact it will have on small and medium-sized businesses.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I thank the Prime Minister for the statement. The deal is certainly a step in the right direction, and having closer ties with Europe has got to be good for businesses and farming. Specifically on medicine supplies and shortages, I have heard from a worryingly large number of people in Winchester with chronic health conditions who require vital daily medication to manage their condition—anti-seizure medication or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medication, for example. Will the Prime Minister commit to removing medicine supply barriers with Europe and to delivering an agreement with the European Medicines Agency to ensure that we can free up such supplies?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member will have seen how far we got yesterday, but we obviously want to move forward from there. We will look at a range of other issues. I cannot make any promise or commitment here—it would be wrong to do so—but where there are frustrations, we want to unblock them. Common sense drives this.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

We have deals with India and with the United States, and now this Government are repairing our relationship with Europe—something that I and thousands of my constituents welcome. I congratulate the Prime Minister and ask him to go as fast as possible to secure the finalisation of the scheme that will allow our young people to live, work and study in Europe.

[The Prime Minister]

I endorse my hon. Friend’s comments, and we will go at pace to move on the commitments we made yesterday.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Some of the free trade deals we already have require us to have autonomy over our regulation. The Prime Minister has said today that we will not be a rule taker because we can discuss the rules in this place, but discussion is not the same as control. Can he confirm that he has not ceded control to disapply or diverge from regulations in Europe?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady will see from the agreement text that it is subject to our constitutional arrangements, and in the application of the rules, it is the application in this House that matters.

[Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)]

Can I put on record my thanks to everyone who has worked so hard to get this hat-trick of deals across the line? The EU is Wales’s biggest trading partner, with over 90% of Welsh lamb that is exported going to the EU. Does the Prime Minister agree that this landmark agreement is brilliant news for food and drink producers in Wales, not least mussel producers and farmers in my constituency?

[The Prime Minister]

This deal will make a huge difference to my hon. Friend’s constituents, and she is absolutely right to champion their interests. It will hugely help their businesses, trade and local economy.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

In an earlier answer, the Prime Minister said that he would continue with the implementation of the Windsor framework. That will see more bureaucracy and red tape introduced between Great Britain and Northern Ireland before an SPS deal can be delivered. If the Prime Minister’s partnership with the EU is so positive, does he not agree that it would be better to pause the implementation of any more bureaucracy and red tape that would add costs to Northern Ireland businesses before his deal can be achieved?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think we should pause the implementation of deals that we have already got, but I do agree with the underlying sentiment that we should be doing everything we can through this deal and in further steps to ensure that trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the same as across the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

As the proud owner of two English bulldogs, I welcome the reintroduction of pet passports. Not only will this make it easier for us to travel to Europe with Clive and Bertie, but it will bring down the cost massively. That is not the only part of the deal that will bring bills down for British consumers. Can the Prime Minister tell us how my constituents will benefit from this deal?

[The Prime Minister]

An hour and a half, and we have only just got to pet passports—but I am really glad my hon. Friend mentions it. The deal contains an advance for pet passports, along with the many other advances that will progress as soon as possible. I assume that the Conservatives are against pet passport progress as well.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

Will the Prime Minister admit to the British people that this deal takes the country back under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, which is now able once again to overrule our courts, meaning we are surrendering our judicial sovereignty?

[The Prime Minister]

No, that is just wrong under the agreement. There is an independent arbitration—

[Mr Francois]

Subject to the Court!

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

It is the same as the Windsor framework, which the right hon. Gentleman’s party negotiated. This is an important point: it is an independent arbitration process. There is the same process for pretty well every trade deal that is struck, not just by us and other countries but by most other countries. In this particular case, if the independent arbitration needs reference on a point of law, it is referred to the ECJ, which then refers it back to the independent arbitrator to make a decision. That is how it operates.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I warmly welcome this landmark deal with the European Union. I welcome in particular the commitment to work towards a youth experience scheme to once again allow our young people to live, work and travel freely in Europe. Does the Prime Minister agree that although this Labour Government are taking important steps to open up opportunities that will shape our young people’s future, the Conservatives are dangerously stuck in the past?

[The Prime Minister]

I do agree. I think they are lost in the past—actually I think they are lost all together now, on a decline into oblivion. As I say, a once great party that used to support trade deals is now against every single trade deal. It is a pretty extraordinary turnaround.

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

Paragraph 27 of the common understanding published yesterday requires the “immediate application” of European Union rules relating to food, sanitary and phytosanitary safety. Can the Prime Minister set out what measures would be open to the EU should this Parliament choose not to adopt those new European Union laws?

[The Prime Minister]

We are not making an argument for lowering our standards, and we are proud to have high standards at the moment. We want to maintain those high standards, but there will of course be provision, should the occasion arise, for dealing with any conflicts that may emerge.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

The Business and Trade Committee visited Brussels earlier this year, where we saw at first hand how the previous Conservative Government damaged our relationships with our close trading partners—and British businesses paid the price. Can the Prime Minister confirm that this Labour Government are putting our national interest first in getting the deals, showing that Labour is the party of business?

[The Prime Minister]

I can. We have approached this on a serious, pragmatic basis. We have got a deal with 10 strands that massively takes our country forward. That is on top of the India deal and the US deal. The Conservatives spent many years failing to get these deals; that is the truth of it.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

In the UK-EU summit, co-operation on access to medicines was noticeably scarce. That is an area where we are falling massively behind compared with our European allies. Can the Prime Minister ask the Minister for Secondary Care to meet me, so that we can discuss why only 25% of new cancer medicines approved by the EU are fully available in the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member raises an important point, and we will continue our discussions with others to try to resolve some of the frustrations—to which, common sense would suggest, we can find a better solution, and we will.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Sunderland is proud to be a city of makers, from cars to music. Without reversing Brexit, those makers need access to Europe, whether that is exporters such as Nissan, which need the certainty to export, or musicians, who need the freedom to tour. Can the Prime Minister outline how this deal will support good jobs in Sunderland, whether they be in the motor or the music industry?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me rest on my hon. Friend’s first example, which was of cars. The India deal, which massively slashed the tariff on cars, is good for car manufacturing and good for car exports, and the deal with the US saves thousands upon thousands of jobs in the car industry, which is why it should be welcomed.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Many will be concerned that the Prime Minister’s EU deal does not cover the UK’s participation in future EU research programmes. How will the Prime Minister ensure that we can participate in future EU research programmes once Horizon finishes?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Member knows, we are committed to Horizon. We will retain that commitment to research, because it is so important for our national interest.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

It never ceases to surprise me how little the Opposition understand about making trade deals. Perhaps that is why they never made a good one. We do not need to explain that to the 19,000 small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency; they have been choked by the red tape agreed by the Conservatives. Those businesses agree with the Federation of Small Businesses that this deal will finally reduce and get rid of the bottleneck. Can the Prime Minister tell the businesses in my constituency and across the country when we can finally be relieved of the Tories’ red tape that is crushing our small businesses?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the red tape having such an impact on our small businesses. That is why I am pleased that we have made progress. We now need to make further progress as quickly as we can to ensure that businesses thrive in the markets in which they want to trade.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I note the careful wording of the Prime Minister’s statement—it talks about Britain being “back on the world stage”, and delivering for Britain. That is not the United Kingdom. I note that his SPS deal is for Great Britain. That, of course, is because Northern Ireland has already been captured by the EU and is subject to its laws and its customs code. That is why the Irish sea border remains. As for the SPS deal as it applies to Northern Ireland, is it correct that customs declarations and customs checks will still continue on goods from GB to Northern Ireland, even though they might be SPS goods? Those checks will still operate.

[The Prime Minister]

Yesterday was a step forward in that regard. The deal allows us to reduce frustrations and barriers, which nobody wants to see. I can assure the hon. and learned Member that I genuinely want us to get into the best position we can on Northern Ireland. It mattered to me in the negotiations, and it is one of the principles that we took into them. We will continue with that work, because I know how much it matters.

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

I suspect that even if there was a barrel of salt herring in it for every Opposition Member, this fishing deal would still not be salty enough for them. In fact, it is a sweet deal for prawn fishermen and shellfish fishermen in Na h-Eileanan an Iar, for salmon producers and for crofters, although not for their lambs. Is not the real betrayal of fishing communities the fact—this is the challenge for Reform—that 80% of England’s fishing quota is in the hands of foreign companies or the super-rich? The challenge for the SNP is that 45% of Scotland’s quota is in the hands of a few companies. The challenge for us is to unwind that privatisation of the ocean and make sure that fishing communities across the UK benefit.

[The Prime Minister]

That is why it is so important that we are putting the money—more than £300 million—into working with those communities to take advantage of the deal that we struck yesterday.

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

We heard from Ministers over the weekend that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. The Prime Minister said in his statement that the deal paves the way for access to the €150 billion defence industrial programme, SAFE—Security Action for Europe. If everything has been agreed, why does the security and defence partnership not include access to the SAFE industrial programme now?

[The Prime Minister]

That is because the programme itself is being developed at speed. It was only announced the other week. It was announced in response to, and as part of, the work we are doing with the coalition of the willing. Knocking out the first gateway was important. We will now work with the EU to ensure that we can access that fund as quickly as possible. It is not a long-existing fund that has been in place for years; it is developing at the moment in response to the situation in Ukraine. I think the hon. Member knows that.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

The response to today’s deal has been striking. We need to drive down the cost of food for our constituents, and retailers are lining up to say that the deal will have that impact, yet the Tories and Reform would like to put those costs back on to my constituents. At a time when we should support our farmers and food producers, we are removing barriers and red tape, yet Opposition parties would like to bring those barriers back. My constituents voted for change because they were fed up with narrow ideological interests holding our country back. Does this deal not show why my constituents were so right to do so?

[The Prime Minister]

The principles are: bills down and jobs up, and that is exactly what this deal delivers.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The Prime Minister has spent the past hour and a half indicating the benefits that he sees from the deal. Does he recognise that a potentially toxic side effect of the deal is that some on the left of UK politics will see this as the first step towards rowing back on what the people voted for nine years ago, while those on the right of UK politics will see a determination to stop them? Rather than the deal bringing people together, it could therefore cause toxic division.

[The Prime Minister]

We have taken a pragmatic, common-sense approach, with an absolute focus on reducing bills—that is hugely important to people, particularly in a cost of living crisis—and driving up jobs in our economy. Those are the principles that have driven this. I recognise that those at the extremes, on whichever side people want to say that they are on, will never be satisfied, but the country is fed up with nine years-worth of continued discussion, debate and toxic divide. It is time to move on from that and to look forward, not backward, and this deal will help us do that.

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

The truth is that this deal with the EU is good for my constituents in Fife, good for Scotland, and good for the UK. Does the Prime Minister agree that the SNP is tying itself up in knots over this deal? While the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) and the Scottish First Minister are desperate to talk it down, the Deputy First Minister was in Downing Street last night saying how wonderful it is, and she is right.

[The Prime Minister]

I learned this morning that the Deputy First Minister was in the garden at Downing Street last night. She was with businesses for a business reception. It was buzzing, because they were celebrating the deal. It was good to have her there. I would like to see other SNP Members joining her, because she has the right judgment on this one.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Fishermen in my constituency were let down by the Conservatives and their Brexit friends, and they now feel very disappointed by the news about EU vessel access within the six to 12-mile zone. Both before and since Brexit, we have retained regulatory autonomy in that zone. Will the Prime Minister ensure that we exercise our right to control the access of vessels in that area, and have control of grandfather rights, kilowatt effort and fishing methods, as well as other regulatory controls, to ensure that the area is properly regulated?

[The Prime Minister]

The arrangements are the same as those currently in place, and they are reciprocal, which is really important. What will be of huge benefit to the hon. Member’s constituents will be the reduction in red tape and bureaucracy for them when selling stock to the EU market, which is where a huge percentage—over 70%—of it goes to. That will come without the red tape, which drives up their costs.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Interventions such as those from the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) have really demonstrated that the Conservative party has parted company with those of us who have run small exporting businesses. Perhaps instead of collaborating with those on the Reform Benches, he could talk to small businesses in my constituency in the defence supply chain, or those who support Nissan by being in its automotive supply chain, and who stand to benefit from this trade deal. Does the Prime Minister agree that we are not carping on and talking down our country, as Reform and the Conservatives do? Instead, this Labour Government’s plan for change is delivering for British jobs and British businesses.

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. There is only one party of business now, and it is right here, in government.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I support the fishing sector in Portavogie in my constituency, and the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation there speaks on behalf of those in Ardglass and Kilkeel as well. As the Member for South Down (Chris Hazzard) does not bother attending the House, we have to speak for all those fishing villages. Too often in negotiations between the UK and the EU, our fishing industry has been the sacrificial lamb. Does the Prime Minister agree that just as the annexation of Northern Ireland should not have been the price that the previous Government paid for exiting the EU, the interests of both Northern Ireland and the wider UK fishing industry should not be expendable? Will he commit to bringing forward additional financial and practical support for our local fleets in those three ports, and for processors, as they grapple with reduced access in the years ahead?

[The Prime Minister]

I assure the hon. Member that the £360 million fund will be brought forward as quickly as possible. We can discuss with him in due course how that will affect his constituents and those he is representing effectively in the Chamber today.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on a realistic, sober, sensible deal that will deliver for businesses in my constituency, including, through the SPS deal, those like Northumberland Honey, which face real barriers to exporting. I particularly welcome the first step to a youth mobility experience. The economy of the north-east, with its world-class universities, has much to gain. Does he agree that it is through fostering co-operation, interdependence and trade that we defeat the radical right, not just in the Chamber but at the ballot box?

[The Prime Minister]

We need to take common-sense steps, in our national interest, on the economy, trade and business, and to give young people the opportunities that they deserve.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Our opponents talk of “surrender” and believe that they have a monopoly on concepts such as patriotism, but in order to trade we need to co-operate. Does the Prime Minister agree that co-operating with our nearest neighbours and with the United States and India is not weak and not surrender? It is strong; it is pro-business; it is pro-worker; it is in the national interest; and it is in the interests of my constituents in Rugby, businesses, farmers, holidaymakers and young people.

[The Prime Minister]

What is astonishing is that the Conservatives do not want to co-operate with the EU, India or the US. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition’s approach to diplomacy is to accuse the Indian Government of “fake news”. That is not a good basis for a relationship through which to negotiate a better outcome.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

We have learned a lot about trade policy in the House today. The Conservative party is still desperately defending its failed deal, and as for Reform, we had a no-show from the leader of the party of no deal. Labour is the only party that is serious about getting a good deal with the European Union. I congratulate the Prime Minister. Having campaigned for a youth mobility deal, I thank him for the agreement in principle, but ask him to go as fast as possible to ensure that our young people have the opportunity to travel and work in the European Union.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. We will move at pace on all fronts. It is important that young people have those opportunities.

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

I thank you for getting everybody in, Madam Deputy Speaker; it has been a mammoth session. I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I notice that many businesses are in support of the deal. My constituency is home to many great businesses, from manufacturing companies to pharmaceutical companies, and from defence manufacturers to food exporters. Will the Prime Minister outline how the deal will benefit my great businesses in Harlow?

[The Prime Minister]

It will massively reduce bureaucracy and red tape, making it easier for businesses to do business. It will also open up opportunities on defence and security. That is why it has been so welcomed by the business community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. He will know that it was not a point of order, and not a matter for the Chair, but he has put it on the record.

[The Prime Minister]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not descend into silly language, like the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), but this is an important point. He and I get on, and I do not think—

[Sir Roger Gale]

Don’t be so patronising!

[The Prime Minister]

It was his language, not mine, but this is an important point.

[Mr Francois]

We genuinely get on. Come on, what is the answer?

[The Prime Minister]

We do. There is independent arbitration here, as there is for all of this. That can settle most issues. Where an issue of European law arises, which will not always be the case—

[Mr Francois]

Of course it is European law—

Other Correction

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Written Corrections

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Maternity services in Yeovil are due to shut on Monday, after a deeply flawed Care Quality Commission inspection in January, and are to be moved to Musgrove Park hospital in Taunton, which does not have capacity for an extra 1,300 births a year. Although the closure is initially for six months, I have received no guarantee that the services will open again, which is creating huge fear. Will the Prime Minister or the relevant Minister agree to meet me and colleagues from the south-west to stop this decision?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this issue, which must be of concern. I am not across the details at this stage, but I will make sure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to get to the bottom of the issue.

[Official Report, 14 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 342.]

Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance):

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Maternity services in Yeovil are due to shut on Monday, after deep flaws were found by a Care Quality Commission inspection in January, and are to be moved to Musgrove Park hospital in Taunton, which does not have capacity for an extra 1,300 births a year. Although the closure is initially for six months, I have received no guarantee that the services will open again, which is creating huge fear. Will the Prime Minister or the relevant Minister agree to meet me and colleagues from the south-west to stop this decision?

Victory in Europe Day: Commemoration

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Mr Speaker, I ask that you now suspend the sitting so that we may attend at Westminster Abbey to give thanks and to commemorate the 80th anniversary of VE Day—the greatest victory in the history of our great nation.

[Mr Speaker]

We will now follow in the footsteps of our predecessors 80 years ago. On 8 May 1945, hon. Members formed a procession out of the House of Lords, where they had secretly relocated because the House of Commons Chamber had been destroyed during the blitz. Today, we shall again follow the Mace, but this time from our own Chamber, through the bomb-scarred Churchill Arch, which stands as a permanent reminder of the fortitude of those who stood firm through the war.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 May.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Rising tensions between India and Pakistan will be of serious concern for many across Britain. We are engaging urgently with both countries as well as other international partners, encouraging dialogue, de-escalation and the protection of civilians.

Britain will fall silent tomorrow to mark the anniversary of VE Day. It is a day to remember our greatest generation, whose courage and selflessness won a victory over tyranny and evil. Past and present, the service of our armed forces defends our freedom, protects the values that we stand for, and makes this country so proud.

The landmark deal we have secured with India is a huge win for working people in this country. After years of negotiation, this Government have delivered in months, slashing tariffs, boosting wages and unleashing opportunities for UK businesses. It is the biggest trade deal the UK has delivered since we left the EU.

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.

[Matt Bishop]

In 2018 my constituent, Richard Wellington, was diagnosed with a glioblastoma and given just 12 months to live. Against the odds, he is still with us today. He knows his time is limited, however, and is determined to leave a legacy by improving brain cancer treatment for others. His courage is inspiring and he shows extraordinary resilience, but patients with brain tumours fell through the cracks in our healthcare system under the Conservatives, and this must end. Will the Prime Minister set out how Labour will speed up cancer diagnosis and improve treatment times for brain tumour patients such as Richard as we go further with our plan for change?

[The Prime Minister]

I send my best wishes and, I am sure, those of the House to Richard and to every family living with cancer for their courage and fortitude. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for her work to raise awareness of the devastating impact of brain cancer. I am really proud that our plan for change has already delivered faster diagnosis for more than 80,000 cancer patients. We are rolling out Cancer 360, which has groundbreaking new technology that will slash treatment delays across the NHS, as well as investing in more scanners, surgical hubs and radiotherapy machines. It is important work that is only happening because of our decision to make a record investment in the NHS, opposed by every other party.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Can I echo the Prime Minister’s comments? It was an honour to meet veterans at the VE Day parade on Monday and to commemorate the sacrifice of that generation. I look forward to marking VE Day at Westminster Abbey tomorrow.

Does the Prime Minister now admit that he was wrong to remove the winter fuel payment from millions of pensioners?

[The Prime Minister]

The No. 1 job of this Government was to put our finances back in order after the last Government lost control and to deal with the £22 billion black hole that they left. Because of our action, we have stabilised the economy, invested record amounts in the NHS, made a payment out to the 3 million lowest paid, and of course we are committed to the triple lock, which improved pensions by £470 last year. Because of the work that we have done, we are a country that countries such as India want to do deals with, because of the messages and the work that we have done.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The only black hole is the one the Prime Minister is digging. This issue affects some of the poorest and most vulnerable pensioners. His Mayor in Doncaster says it is wrong; his First Minister in Wales says it is wrong; even his own MPs are saying it is wrong. He has refused to listen to me on this, so will he at least listen to his own party and change course?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me spell this out. All the opposition parties would take this country back to where it was a few years ago: broken public finances, interest rates through the roof, and NHS waiting lists at an all-time high. No other party in this House is prepared to say how they would put the finances straight; no other party is saying how they would invest in our NHS and public services; no other party is focused on the long-term prosperity of Britain. No one on the Labour Benches is denying how big are the challenges that we face, but no one on the opposition Benches is even prepared to take those challenges on.

[Mrs Badenoch]

We would not balance it on the backs of pensioners. Pensioners are poorer and colder because of his decisions. All the while, energy has got more expensive for everyone. Why has the Prime Minister broken his promise to cut energy bills by £300?

[The Prime Minister]

The way to bring energy bills down for good is to deliver cheap, clean, home-grown energy. In the meantime, we have extended the warm home discount to 6 million households—one in five families—and that is £150 off their bills next winter. What will not bring energy bills down is the Leader of the Opposition’s policy, leaving us hooked on fossil fuels and at the mercy of dictators like Putin. I will tell you what else will not bring bills down: the Conservatives blocking every piece of infrastructure that is needed in their own backyards. They balanced the books and crashed the economy on the backs of millions of working people in this country—that is why those people delivered the verdict that they did at the last general election.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister talks about clean energy. We have the second highest amount of renewables on the grid in Europe, and yet we still have the highest energy bills. This is not about clean energy. The Prime Minister has broken another promise. He will not admit it, but is the truth not that he cannot cut energy bills because of his net zero policy?

[The Prime Minister]

Energy bills based on fossil fuels have fluctuated massively in the last three years because we are exposed to the international markets. The only way to get bills down is to go to renewable energy, which is something that the Leader of the Opposition used to believe in. In the words of the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), the shift to net zero

“must now happen as a matter of urgency. It is no longer simply an environmental issue—energy independence should be viewed as part of our national security.”

He must have our lines, Mr Speaker.

What about the Leader of the Opposition herself? This is what she said:

“We believe that green trade and investment will be the future-proofing force that will help us create a better tomorrow”.

She went on to say

“it’s long-term investment in nuclear and renewables that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and keep down consumer costs.”

She has a reputation, apparently, for straight talking: she was right then, wasn’t she?

[Mrs Badenoch]

This approach to net zero is “irrational”; it is “doomed to fail”. Those aren’t my words; they are Tony Blair’s. If the Prime Minister wants to throw words about, he should speak to him. The truth is that the Prime Minister is on another planet. His net zero plans mean ever more expensive energy. Across this country, jobs are disappearing. Last week, a ceramics factory in Stoke closed because of energy costs. This morning, 250 more job losses have been announced in the North sea, and yet the amount of gas the UK is importing is doubling, so why is he shutting down the North sea rather than getting our oil and gas out of the ground and making energy cheaper?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said many times, oil and gas will be part of the mix for many decades to come, but net zero is an opportunity to be seized. We have had over £43 billion invested in clean energy since July of last year, which is good for the economy, for business, for jobs, for apprentices and for growth. The global race is on for the jobs of the future, and I believe Britain can win that race. I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition is yet a climate denier, but she is a climate defeatist: she does not believe in Britain’s ability to win the race for our economy, businesses and jobs. They have never backed Britain, and there is nothing patriotic about that.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister has got no answer. He could not even bring himself to say something to the 250 people who found out this morning that they have lost their job. The fact is that pensioners are poorer and people are being laid off. From winter fuel to net zero, his energy policy is a disaster, and everyone knows it. We know it, the public know it, the unions know it, his MPs know it, and even Tony Blair knows it. The Prime Minister’s only answer is to go further and faster in the wrong direction. Why should we all suffer because he will not admit he has got this wrong?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, nobody wants to see job losses, but the Leader of the Opposition should address her comments to the tens of thousands of men and women in this country who are working on renewables for the future of our country, and tell them that she does not want them. That is anti-growth, anti-jobs and anti-working people. Every week, she comes along to talk the country down and carp from the sidelines; she cannot even bring herself to celebrate the deal we have done with India. The Conservatives spent eight years fiddling around and got absolutely nothing. We have delivered the best deal since we left the EU—the most ambitious deal for India—which will be measured in billions of pounds into our economy and thousands of jobs in this country. The Leader of the Opposition should be welcoming that.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Q3. The UK automotive sector faces major challenges, and Trump’s tariffs are the latest crisis to hit the industry. Investment and jobs are now on the line, from Mini to McLaren, Aston Martin, Jaguar Land Rover and many others. Will the Prime Minister continue to make those companies’ case in his talks with the US regime and remain a champion for this vital sector, unlike the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who believes that Jaguar deserves to go bust?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We are backing British car companies such as JLR, and our India trade deal will see tariffs slashed for car sales, which is good for British jobs. The criticism of the double taxation is incoherent nonsense. It is a benefit to working people; it is in the agreements that we already have with 50 other countries. If the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) or the Leader of the Opposition are seriously suggesting that they are going to tear up agreements with 50 other countries, creating a massive hole in our economy, they should get up and say so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

As we celebrate 80 years since Britain led our allies to victory over fascism, I pay tribute on behalf of the Liberal Democrats to all those who struggled and sacrificed so much for our freedoms today. I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the conflict in Kashmir and, with him, urge restraint and de-escalation on both sides.

Among the messages that voters sent to Ministers last week, one stood out: bring back the winter fuel payment for millions of struggling pensioners. People will therefore be disappointed that the Prime Minister failed to do so today. He says that he wants to “go further and faster” to clean up the mess left by the Conservatives, but on social care, which is so crucial for our NHS, he is going slower and slower. Not only will the Casey commission take three years, we learned on Friday that the Government plan to take an extra seven years to implement it—it will not be implemented until 2036. Will the Prime Minister rip up that timetable, make sure that he does not repeat the mess made by the Conservatives, and get on with fixing social care this year?

[The Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are taking this in two stages. We are already taking measures to increase support for social care—quite right too—while doing the long work to reform it and make sure we put a system in place. However, I say to the right hon. Gentleman once again that he comes to the Chamber every week saying that we should spend more money, while at the same time saying that he does not want to pay for any of the measures to raise that money. That is nonsense.

[Ed Davey]

I am disappointed by that answer, and I will keep coming back to hold the Prime Minister to account.

People also want a Government who will stand up for our country against Donald Trump. First, he came for our steelworkers and our car makers with his outrageous tariffs. Now, Donald Trump is coming for our world-leading British film industry. Will the Prime Minister work with our allies in Europe and the Commonwealth and make it clear to President Trump that if he picks a fight with James Bond, Bridget Jones and Paddington Bear, he will lose?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman really should listen to the sectors that he thinks he is championing. They do not want us to abandon the work we are doing to try to get an agreement with America; they want that agreement to reduce tariffs. That is the sensible, pragmatic way to protect our national interest. It is not sensible or pragmatic to choose between the US and the EU, to abandon the work we are doing on trade with the US and to leave the tariffs exactly where they are. That is the most damaging thing that could possibly be done.

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

Q4. I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. For young people in Ipswich, there is no shortage of ambition, just a need for greater opportunities. That is why last autumn I was proud to sign an agreement with Sizewell C to guarantee 500 jobs for people in my town, alongside additional investment for Suffolk New college’s courses on welding, engineering and fabrication, so that kids in my town can access the well-paid, secure, skilled jobs on offer. May I therefore urge the Prime Minister to support a final investment decision for Sizewell C, not just for our country’s energy security, but for the once-in-a-generation opportunities for young people in Ipswich and Suffolk?

[The Prime Minister]

It is good to see a local Labour MP fighting for jobs in his constituency and achieving excellent results. We will make our final investment decision at the spending review. It is something that the Conservatives failed to deliver in 14 years. We are unashamedly pro-nuclear, pro-growth and pro-jobs. That is why we are making it easier to build small modular reactors and scrapping absurd rules that left vital projects tangled up in needless paperwork. We are doing the work that they failed to do in 14 years.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Prior to the election, the Prime Minister promised that energy bills would come down; they continue to rise. He promised that he would save the refinery at Grangemouth; it is shut. He promised that he would unleash a generation of secure energy jobs in my city of Aberdeen. Today, Harbour Energy—the largest independent player in the North sea—has announced that it is about to shed 25% of its workforce. That is 250 jobs in my constituency gone in the blink of his eye. Do you know who they blame, Mr Speaker? They blame the policies of theLabour party. May I ask the Prime Minister—in fact, may I invite him to come to Aberdeen and explain to my constituents why he is willing to move heaven and earth to save jobs in Scunthorpe, while destroying jobs in Scotland?

[The Prime Minister]

Nobody wants to see job losses, but I remind the right hon. Member that before we came into office 10 months ago, the Scottish National party Government in Holyrood, alongside the Conservative Government, did absolutely nothing for projects such as Grangemouth. We have committed £200 million to secure the future of the site; we have delivered a £100 million deal; and we are helping with the training guarantees that are needed. Like his First Minister, the right hon. Gentleman will raise anything to distract from the SNP’s disastrous record, with almost one in six Scots stuck on an NHS waiting list, poor standards and violence in Scottish schools, and more than £1 billion cut from local government. We gave the Scottish Government the biggest settlement since devolution. They have been in power for nearly two decades; they have absolutely nowhere to hide their appalling record.

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

Q7. I thank the Prime Minister for recently visiting the now royal port of Barrow in my constituency to lay the keel for the new Dreadnought-class submarines. He will have seen how proud we are to build our nuclear deterrent, which keeps us safe. As we move forward with our plan for change, does he agree that Barrow and Furness could provide a blueprint for the whole country, with defence investment creating jobs, growth and prosperity in communities across the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The royal port of Barrow provides a model for how defence can be a catalyst for skilled, well-paid jobs throughout the United Kingdom. I was proud and humbled to be able to thank the crew of the Vanguard submarine that was returning home after months away, with four of those on board returning to their newborn children. That is the change that will come from our spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, for the first time since the last Labour Government. Extra investment in Barrow has been made possible by my hon. Friend and this Government; those in the Conservative party made promises, but, as usual, they never, ever set the money aside.

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

Q2. Ahead of the 80th anniversary of VE Day, may I thank the Prime Minister for his Government’s recognition of the highly dangerous and clandestine work of the 1,746 pilots and navigators who formed the RAF’s photographic reconnaissance squadrons, and the 635 Buckinghamshire-based photographic interpreters—often forgotten—whose service will be marked with a national memorial near the Churchill war rooms? They had a death rate of nearly 50% and a life expectancy of only two and a half months, but they nevertheless captured 26 million images of enemy operations, providing daily, up-to-date intelligence, via the interpreters’ analysis, to the strategists in the Cabinet war rooms, for all our armed forces. May I ask the Prime Minister to join me when that national memorial is unveiled so that we can pay our respects to the likes of the late Captain Wilfred Bruce Tilley DFC, of Axbridge in my constituency, and the other amazing young men and women whose work was so critical to the safety of millions of people in this country and elsewhere?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that very important issue. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would support a memorial to the service and sacrifice of those veterans. The bravery and service of individuals such as Captain Tilley, and others in the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit and the photographic interpretation units, saved the lives of many servicemen and servicewomen and, of course, civilians, and—as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out—the cost was the many casualties in those units. As we mark the 80th anniversary of VE Day, we will remember those who helped to secure our greatest victory.

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

Q9.   The London borough of Hackney spends £54 million a year, and rising, on temporary accommodation. Not only is that costing the taxpayer dear, but it is wrenching families apart. Communities are being rent asunder, schools are closing, and families are living in hostels in overcrowded rooms or in far-flung areas outside London. I welcome our pledge to build 1.5 million new homes, but will the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that social housing is a priority for him?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right: families are desperate for the security of their own homes, and we are delivering the biggest boost to affordable and social housing in a generation, backed by £2 billion of additional investment. That, and our reforms, will fulfil our ambition to build 88,000 new homes in areas across London, including my hon. Friend’s constituency. At the same time, we are tackling the root causes of homelessness, and, of course, scrapping section 21 evictions.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

Q5.   Under the Conservatives, inequality has surged. More than 14 million people—including 2,000 children in my constituency—now live in poverty, while the richest 1% see their incomes soar. Of the developed countries, ours is now the ninth most unequal. Will the Prime Minister listen to the Liberal Democrats, the public and many of his own Back Benchers and commit himself to reversing changes involving, for instance, the personal independence payment, the winter fuel allowance and the two-child benefit cap, and will he introduce clear poverty reduction targets to ensure that any economic growth benefits those who need it most?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is right to mention the appalling record of the last Government, which saw 900,000 more children in poverty. We are already delivering 750 free breakfast clubs and boosting the minimum wage for more than 3 million people—the lowest-paid workers in our country—and the child poverty taskforce is looking at every lever that can be pulled. I am proud of the last Labour Government’s record on tackling poverty, and we will continue to do that in this Government.

[Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

Q11. Last month’s data showed that NHS waiting lists in Wales fell for three months in a row. In England, the waiting lists have fallen for six months in a row. In Scotland, after nearly 20 years in charge, the SNP Government have left our NHS on its knees. Instead, remarkable acts of charity from rock legend Rod Stewart are helping people to get the care they need. Does the Prime Minister agree that Scotland needs a new direction so that my constituents in Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock do not rely on charity for their healthcare?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. The contrast, as she points out, is stark. In England and Wales, waiting lists are falling, with over 3 million extra appointments already delivered. In Scotland, the SNP Government have just introduced their fifth NHS recovery plan in just four years. They have had the biggest Budget settlement since devolution and nearly two decades in power. They still have no idea how to fix the NHS, and they have run out of excuses.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

Q6.   VE Day marked the end of horror in Europe. Afterwards, our post-war expansion of welfare benefits was something truly principled from Labour. Given the real fear felt by disabled people in Brighton Pavilion and across the nation, does the Prime Minister agree that now is the time to be principled again and restore their support, not make his MPs vote to restrict it?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising the record of the post-war Labour Government—a great reforming Government. The principles remain the same: those who need support and protection should have that support and protection, those who can be supported and helped into work should be helped and supported into work—something that is not happening under the system as it is—and those who can work should work.

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

Q13. Crewe in my constituency has a proud rail heritage, with Crewe station boasting unrivalled 360° connectivity to all four corners of our country. When the Conservative Government took the decision to cancel the second leg of HS2, it was a great betrayal of my constituents, taking a sledgehammer to our town’s prospects for regeneration and prosperity. Will the Prime Minister look kindly upon proposals to extend High Speed rail north of Birmingham, which would utilise Crewe’s unique strategic value to the rail network and bring opportunity and prosperity to the north of England?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of stronger and more reliable rail connections in improving journeys and driving economic growth. The Conservative party utterly failed to grip delivery on HS2. Costs went through the roof, and timelines were shredded. There were false promises and a total failure. We are reviewing the position that we inherited, and we are committed to improving rail connectivity across the north. We have already announced £450 million extra for the key trans-Pennine route upgrade, which will slash journey times and deliver growth and more reliable modern services for passengers.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Q8.   This week, the Israeli Government approved a plan to officially conquer Gaza. Just yesterday, Minister Smotrich vowed that Gaza will be “entirely destroyed” and that the Palestinians will have to “leave in great numbers to third countries.” This follows the extermination of over 50,000 Palestinian men, women and children, and the simultaneous expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank—something I witnessed with my own eyes last week. Will the Prime Minister now finally acknowledge that ethnic cleansing is under way and end all UK military co-operation with Israel, especially the illegal provision of F-35 fighter jet parts, or will he risk making Britain complicit in war crimes and be the Prime Minister to see Britain answer at The Hague for its role in this atrocity?

[The Prime Minister]

Most of what the hon. Gentleman says is simply not right, but I want to address the position in Gaza and the west bank, because it is increasingly intolerable. I am deeply concerned, particularly with the lack of aid getting in and the impact that that is having on hundreds of thousands of individuals. That concern is something I recently reaffirmed to the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, where I asserted again that a two-state solution is the only viable approach for peace. Our focus is on delivering peace for Palestinians and Israelis, returning to the ceasefire, getting the hostages out, and getting in the humanitarian aid that is desperately needed in greater number and more quickly.

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

Q14.   As a result of a relationship breakdown, my constituent Martin and his three children ended up homeless. They have gone from living in a hotel to temporary accommodation. Martin feels abandoned because Glasgow city council has not been in contact for months. The months of uncertainty have disrupted all their lives, but Martin is especially worried about the impact on his children’s education. Like any father, he wants stability for his family, but the lack of social housing means they are stuck in complete limbo. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that every child, no matter where they live, deserves a safe home and access to a good education, and that in every part of the UK we need to build more social housing in order to end homelessness?

[The Prime Minister]

I am deeply sorry to hear about Martin’s case, and I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s comments about every family deserving a safe and a secure home. In England, that is why we are investing an additional £2 billion to help deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation. But in Scotland it is, frankly, disgraceful that over 10,000 children have no fixed home to call their own after nearly 20 years of an SNP Government. That is the highest level ever and shows why Scotland desperately needs a new direction.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Q10.   Last week I was talking to Jason, a pub landlord, and he told me that he has heard a rumour about the Prime Minister. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] Not that one, not that one. He has heard that there is a reason why the Prime Minister hates Britain’s pubs. Landlords such as Jason are being battered by Labour’s jobs tax and the slashing of small business rate relief, meaning that as many as half of Britain’s pubs could be closed by 2030. Why does he hate Britain’s pubs, and if he does not, why is he taxing them into extinction?

[The Prime Minister]

Nobody likes pubs better than me, and we support them. This is the same old nonsense: the Opposition say they do not want the rise in national insurance contributions, but they do not have the courage to say they would reverse it, because they know that if they did say that, they would be unable to say where the money is coming from. That is how we got into the problem in the first place.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q15. Few things are more harrowing than a parent’s desperate and repeated attempts to access the mental health support their child needs. Organisations such as Smile, a counselling service supporting young people in my constituency, are stepping into the breach while young people languish on waiting lists without the help they need. Over the past decade, Smile has been a lifeline for thousands. Will the Prime Minister join me in wishing Declan and the team at Smile a very happy 10th birthday, and thank them for their invaluable work in supporting our young people and families?

[The Prime Minister]

I join my hon. Friend and commend all the staff at Smile for their vital work. Far too many young people are left without the support they need, and that is why we are recruiting an additional 8,500 mental health workers, providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school and funding talking therapies across the country to bring down waiting times and get people the care they need.

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

Q12.   With the so-called EU-UK reset summit less than two weeks away, will the Prime Minister reassure the House that he will not hand over any British sovereign powers, particularly the hard-won controls over our UK fishing waters, in backroom deals with Brussels?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Member knows, we have committed to resetting the relationship with the EU. We think there is a better deal that can be had. I am not going to provide a running commentary. What I can say is this: we will act only, as we always do, in the national interest. We have secured a very good deal with India, we are talking to the US and we are going for a reset with the EU to boost our economy.

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

As you know, Mr Speaker, I am alarmed by news that the Press Association, which assiduously covers our exchanges here, may cut back its dawn-to-dusk coverage through redundancies. Hansard faithfully records our words, but it is reporters in the Press Gallery who bear witness to the human drama here, and no amount of AI will replace the human eyes in the Press Gallery. Will the Prime Minister join me and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) in calling on the newspapers and media outlets that fund the Press Association to hold the front page and reconsider these rash moves?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. We enjoy a free press and independent journalism in this country. Across the world, journalists risk their lives, and lose their lives, doing what they do best: independently pursuing the truth. On many occasions I have been at award ceremonies, usually on a yearly basis, where the names of those journalists who have lost either their lives or their freedom is read out, and it is always a humbling reminder of the really important work that they do.

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

As you know, Mr Speaker, Parliament has banned the charging of electric vehicles in its underground car park because of safety concerns. Yet local authorities around the country often feel powerless to stop the construction of battery energy storage systems near people’s homes and near our rivers and canals, despite three fires already this year. Will the Prime Minister look again at his Planning and Infrastructure Bill to make it easier, rather than harder, for local communities to have a meaningful say?

[The Prime Minister]

I am really proud that on planning and infrastructure we are taking the action that has not been taken for years to drive our economy, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that that was signalled by the Office for Budget Responsibility as the single biggest driver of growth over the coming years.