Middle East

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on my visit to the Gulf, the evolving situation in the middle east and the implications for Britain’s security.

Before I do that, I want to put on the record in this House my total determination to make the changes across the entire state that are so clearly necessary to honour the victims, the injured and the families of Southport. Today’s report is harrowing. It is difficult to read and I cannot begin to imagine the pain upon pain that it will cause the families it affects. Our thoughts are with them today. The Home Secretary will respond to the report in full after this statement.

Last week I visited the Gulf and was able to thank in person some of the brave men and women who, from day one of the US-Iran conflict, have resolutely defended the interests of this country, its people and its partners. I thank them again, in this House, for their courage and their service. I am sure the whole House will join me in those thanks.

While in the Gulf, I met leaders and senior military representatives across the region, including the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, the President of the United Arab Emirates, the King and Crown Prince of Bahrain, and the Emir and Prime Minister of Qatar. In recent days, I have also spoken to the Sultan of Oman and the Emir of Kuwait. Across all those conversations, I agreed to deepen our engagement on both defence and economic resilience, because they all made it abundantly clear that the solidarity and strength of our partnership with them has been a comfort in these challenging times. We should not forget that the nature of Iran’s response—the indiscriminate attack upon countries that never sought this conflict and the huge damage done across the Gulf to civilian infrastructure, with civilian casualties—is abhorrent. It has clearly shocked the region and all of us.

We must bear that in mind now as we lift our sights to the future, because while the ceasefire between the US, Israel and Iran is undeniably welcome, it is also highly fragile. The region remains on edge and a lot of work is required to reopen the strait of Hormuz and de-escalate the situation, leading to a sustainable ceasefire. In pursuit of that goal, we call for Lebanon to be included, urgently, in the ceasefire. Diplomacy is the right path and I welcome the talks taking place this week. Hezbollah must disarm, but I am equally clear that Israel’s strikes are wrong. They are having devastating humanitarian consequences and pushing Lebanon into a crisis. The bombing should stop now.

We also put on record our thanks to Pakistan and other partners for playing such an important role in diplomatic efforts. We hope the process will continue without further escalation. That applies to the running sore that is the strait of Hormuz, shamefully exploited by Iran. All the leaders I met were crystal clear that freedom of navigation is vital and must be restored—no conditions, no tolls and no tolerance of Iran holding the world’s economy to ransom. The impact of Iran’s behaviour in the strait is causing untold economic damage that is visible on every petrol forecourt in this country.

My guide from the start of this conflict has always been our national interest. That is why we stayed out of the war and why we continue to stay out of the war. It is why we are working now to restore freedom of navigation in the middle east—because that is squarely in our national interest. Clearly, that is not a straightforward task, and it will take time. I have met UK businesses in energy, shipping, insurance and finance, and they are clear that vessels will not be put through the strait until they are confident that it is safe to do so. That is why we are working around the clock on a credible plan to reopen the strait.

I can confirm today that together with President Macron, I will convene a summit of leaders this week to drive forward the international effort we have built in recent weeks, bringing together dozens of countries to ensure freedom of navigation in the strait of Hormuz. The summit will be focused on two things: first, diplomatic efforts to bring pressure to bear for a negotiated end to the conflict and for the strait to be opened; secondly, military planning to provide assurance to shipping as soon as a stable environment can be established. Let me be very clear: this is about safeguarding shipping and supporting freedom of navigation once the conflict ends. Our shared aim is a co-ordinated, independent, multinational plan. This is the moment for clear and calm leadership and, notwithstanding the difficulties, Britain stands ready to play our part.

Let me return to the impact of the conflict on our economy. We all know that the consequences will be significant and that they will last longer than the conflict itself. We continue to monitor the effects. I remind the House that energy bills went down on 1 April and that whatever happens in the middle east, those bills will stay down until July. We are investing more than £50 million to support heating oil customers, and fuel duty is frozen until September—all because of the decisions this Government took at the Budget.

However, there is a wider point. We cannot stand here in this House and pretend that a global shock threatening to hit the living standards of British people is somehow a novel experience; Britain has been buffeted by crises for decades now. From the 2008 financial crash, through austerity, Brexit, covid, the war that still rages in Ukraine and the disastrous premiership of Liz Truss, the response each time has been to try to return to the status quo—a status quo that manifestly failed working people, who saw their living standards flatline and their public services decimated.

This time, Britain’s response must and will be different to reflect the changing world we live in. That starts with our economic security: during this conflict alone, we have capped energy bills, raised the living wage, strengthened workers’ rights and ended the two-child limit, which will lift nearly half a million children out of poverty. Looking forward, it also means a closer economic relationship with our European allies, because Brexit did deep damage to the economy, and the opportunities we now have to strengthen our security and cut the cost of living are simply too big to ignore.

It continues with our energy security. I say once again that oil and gas will be part of our energy mix for decades to come. However, we do not set the global price for oil and gas. Households across the country are fed up with international events beyond their control pushing up their energy bills. I stand with them on that. We will go further and faster on our mission to make Britain energy-independent, because that is the only way we will get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster and take control of our energy bills.

Finally, we must strengthen our defence security. That means boosting our armed forces, as we have, with the biggest sustained investment since the cold war. It means doubling down on the most successful military alliance the world has ever seen, of which this party in government was a founding member: the NATO alliance. It also means strengthening the European element of that alliance, taking control of our continent’s defence more robustly, and deepening our partnerships, as we have done with our deals to build Norwegian frigates on the Clyde and Turkish Typhoons in Lancashire. Not only is that creating thousands of secure jobs and opportunities for our defence industry right across the country, but it is enhancing the way that our armed forces can collaborate with our allies.

As the middle east conflict shows once more, the world in which we live has utterly changed. It is more volatile and insecure than at any period in my lifetime. We must rise to meet it calmly, but with strength. That is exactly what we are doing at home and abroad. We are strengthening our security, taking control of our future and building a Britain that is fair for all. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I would like to pay tribute to our brave servicemen and women serving in the middle east right now.

The Prime Minister is right that Britain did not start this war, but whether we like it or not, we are impacted by it, and this is likely to get worse. The cost of borrowing has jumped, and petrol prices are climbing. Inflation is rising, and living standards are falling. It is time to take decisive action in our national interest. Britain must focus on what is in our power to protect British citizens today. First, we must rapidly solve the energy crisis that this war has caused in our country. Secondly, we must make sure that Britain is ready to defend herself in this new age.

A nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat to the UK. We should be in no doubt whose side we are on in this war: our allies in the middle east and the United States. I welcome the Prime Minister meeting some of those allies, and I welcome his support for diplomatic efforts and military planning to restore freedom of navigation in the region, but we will need to go further than just talking. He says that Britain stands ready to play our part, but we can all see that we were not ready for this situation.

Here is what we need to do now. First, we must take rapid action to increase our energy security and keep bills down, not just until July but longer than that—permanently. Britain is particularly vulnerable to energy price shocks because we are killing domestic oil and gas production in the North sea. Labour’s policy of more expensive energy and de-industrialisation at this time of crisis is dangerous and irresponsible. It is also harming the defence industry. We must start drilling our own oil and gas in the North sea, grant licences for drilling in the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields, and restore British production before it is too late. The Prime Minister says that this will not impact international prices, but this is about more than international prices. This is about the domestic supply, especially of gas, all of which is used in this country. Supply matters.

Furthermore, the Government must cancel the proposed rise in fuel duty. Hiking taxes on motorists for the first time in 15 years, while prices are surging, is a disgraceful decision. If Britain is to be a stronger country, it needs a stronger economy—not one that is being hammered by the highest energy prices in the developed world. Will the Prime Minister grant those oil and gas licences and scrap the rise in fuel duty? I know that he will say that it is the Energy Secretary’s job to do that, but the Energy Secretary is not the Prime Minister. He is, so he can instruct the Energy Secretary to grant those licences.

Secondly, to be ready, Britain must be able to defend herself, and that means we must be ready for these situations before they happen. France and Greece—[Interruption.] I do not know why Labour Members are laughing. I am surprised, because last time I checked, France and Greece sent ships to protect our bases in Cyprus while our destroyer was stuck in Portsmouth. It was a national embarrassment—on Labour’s shoulders—and it should never happen again.

We need no further evidence that we are living in a more dangerous world than a decade ago. I am sure Labour MPs will try to think of a way to make this my fault. [Interruption.] Yes, I know, it is preposterous, the historical illiteracy on the Labour Benches, but let me remind them that Governments of all colours—including those guys on the Liberal Democrat Benches—spent the peace dividend from 1989, when the Berlin wall fell, until the Ukraine war. When that war came, the Conservative Government responded rapidly and unequivocally. We did not have anything stuck in Portsmouth when Ukraine was invaded. We trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and equipped them with our missiles.

We increased defence spending every year after the Ukraine war started, but the world has since become even more dangerous. Every serious person, especially in the military, agrees that Britain must now find a way to spend 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament. After the election, many of the plans for spending were paused for Labour’s strategic defence review. Nine months after its publication, there is still no defence investment plan that explains how we will fund this. The defence readiness Bill is also nowhere to be seen. The question is not whether we need to increase defence spending, but what tough choices we must make to do so. That is what is missing from the Government’s plan. They have a plan for welfare spending until 2031, but no plans for defence spending.

I say to the Prime Minister: let us put party interests aside—[Interruption.] I am glad that Labour MPs are laughing. I want the public to hear Labour MPs laughing when we say, “Let’s put party interests aside,” so please, keep laughing—go on. I say to the Prime Minister: let us find the money to rearm, let us identify the spending cuts, and if we reach agreement on a joint plan, we can all support those measures in Parliament. Conservatives have already found savings to fund more than £20 billion extra in defence spending. I am willing to work with him to go further.

I am sure the Prime Minister, in his response, will be tempted to misrepresent my position and pretend that I demanded he join in the initial strikes. [Interruption.] Yes—Labour MPs cannot resist the temptation, but he and I both know that is not true, so let us get serious. It is time for us to act decisively in our national interest. Let us show our allies what we bring to the table. Let us show our enemies that we are able and ready to defend ourselves. That requires a defence investment plan, so when exactly will that plan be published, and what action is the Prime Minister taking to find the money to pay for it?

[The Prime Minister]

I notice that the right hon. Lady’s opening sentence has changed. She used to say, “We didn’t start the war, but like it or not, we’re in it, and we should be in it.” That was her position. Now she says—well, they cannot make their mind up. They supported the war without thinking through the consequences, and now they are pretending they did not support the war and were against it all along. She challenged my position, and she did the mother of all U-turns on the most important decision the Leader of the Opposition ever has to take.

I thank the right hon. Lady for her support for the planning that we are doing with other countries. It is important. It has a number of components: the political and diplomatic component; the logistics of getting the vessels through, on which we are working with the sector; and, of course, the military component. We have been working on that for two or three weeks, and now, with President Macron, we are bringing together the summit later this week.

Yes, we all want to get energy bills down, and oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years, but it is because we are on the international market that our bills have gone up. That is the problem. The strait of Hormuz is a choke point for oil and gas getting to the international market. That has pushed the price up, and that is being reflected in every household. That is why the only way to take control of our energy bills is to go faster on energy independence.

The Leader of the Opposition used to make that argument. In 2022 she said that

“it’s investment in nuclear and renewables that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels”

and keep costs down. She changes her mind on everything. That was her argument; now, just like she pretends she was not in favour of getting involved in the war, she pretends she was not in favour of keeping costs down.

The Leader of the Opposition says that we must be ready. That is coming from a party that hollowed out our armed services. On the Conservatives’ watch, frigates and destroyers were reduced by 25%. Minehunting ships were reduced by 50% on their watch. Yet she lectures us about being ready, having hollowed out our armed forces and hollowed out our capabilities. We are investing £300 million more in shipbuilding, and we have 13 ships on order. That is the difference between the two parties. I hope that she, and they, will forgive me, but after 14 years of their breaking everything under their watch, I am going to resist the offer of joint planning from the party that crashed the economy, hollowed out our armed forces and trashed our public services. Thanks, but no thanks.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

The Foreign Affairs Committee has just come from a meeting with some of the Gulf ambassadors, who are genuinely grateful for the help that Britain has given in defending their countries, and want to say how grateful they are that the Prime Minister visited the Gulf, in an act of true solidarity. But when people heard the Israeli Defence Minister say that his war aims in Lebanon would follow “the model in Gaza”, our blood ran cold. Could the Prime Minister tell the House what role the United Kingdom can play to ensure a ceasefire in Lebanon, and that Israel is prevented from taking over Lebanon south of the Litani river?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising the important question of Lebanon; I want to be really clear in relation to that. Lebanon should be included in the ceasefire, and we are using every opportunity we can to make that argument. I am pleased that there is some diplomacy at the moment, but those attacks should stop and it is important that we are very clear about that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I join him in what he said about the horrific attack in Southport. Our thoughts are with the families of Bebe, Elsie and Alice and with all those affected.

“A whole civilisation will die tonight”—

words I never thought I would hear from an American President. Though Donald Trump thankfully did not follow through this time, those words are a stark reminder of how reckless, immoral and completely outside the bounds of international law this President is. Regrettably, he is no friend of the United Kingdom. He is no leader of the free world. He is a dangerous and corrupt gangster, and that is how we must treat him. Will the Prime Minister advise the King to call off his state visit to Washington before it is too late? I really fear for what Trump might say or do while our King is forced to stand by his side. We cannot put His Majesty in that position.

Trump’s latest cunning plan, to blockade the strait of Hormuz, will only escalate this crisis and jeopardise the precarious ceasefire. It is right that the UK is not joining him, and I welcome the Prime Minister convening a summit to offer an alternative to Trump’s. We must work with our reliable allies in Europe and the Commonwealth and our partners in the Gulf to bring this conflict to an end and keep open the strait of Hormuz. That is critical for tackling the cost of living crisis, which is getting worse and worse for people in the UK. Petrol prices are now up by more than 25p a litre and diesel up 49p since Trump started this war—cheered on, let us not forget, by the leader of the Conservative party and Reform.

Does the Prime Minister recognise that families and businesses cannot wait months for the Government to step in and help? Will he use the windfalls that the Treasury is getting from higher fuel prices to cut the cost of living and keep the economy moving, with action to slash bus and rail fares, and to cut fuel duty by 10p today, bringing down the price at the pumps by 12p a litre?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. In relation to the language about destroying a civilisation, can I really be clear with this House? That was wrong. A threat to Iranian civilians in that way is wrong. These are civilians, let us remember, who have suffered immeasurable harm by the regime in Iran for many, many long years. That is why they are words and phrases that I would never use on behalf of this Government, who are guided by our principles and our values throughout all this.

In relation to the King’s visit, the relationship between our two countries is important on a number of levels. The monarchy, through the bonds that it builds, is often able to reach through the decades on a situation like this; and the purpose of the visit is to mark the 250th anniversary of the relationship between our country and the United States, and that is why it is going ahead.

In relation to the blockade, let me be clear, as I have been already in the last day or so, that we are focusing our efforts on opening in full the strait of Hormuz because of the damage that the situation is doing to economies around the world, including our own. That is why we have been working with other countries at various levels and will bring them together in a summit later this week. We, the UK, will not be joining the blockade that the President announced.

In relation to the help that is needed for families and households, obviously we have already put in place help for energy bills and heating oil, but we are keeping this under constant review as the situation evolves. The single most important and effective thing we can do is to de-escalate the situation and work with others to get the strait of Hormuz open, and that is why we are focusing so much of our efforts in that regard.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for confirming that, despite the significant unwelcome trolling and pressure from President Trump and Israeli PM Netanyahu, the UK is not being dragged into this war and that it is not in our national interest. Given that the US has now initiated a blockade of Iranian ports, can the Prime Minister confirm what steps are being taken to help de-escalate the situation and reopen the strait of Hormuz so that goods can transit freely and we can ease the cost of living pressures for our constituents? Also, what is being done to help de-escalate the situation in Lebanon? Can he confirm that any future UK involvement in the region will be strictly limited to defensive purposes?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend and reiterate that we will not be dragged into the war. We are taking steps across a number of levels. What we can do together to de-escalate was central to the discussions I had in the Gulf states last week; they are shocked and angry, frankly, that they have been attacked in the way that they have been attacked. They were not involved in the conflict, and it is clear to them that they were targeted within hours of the beginning of the conflict starting, and that civilian infrastructure and civilians were targeted as well. They are absolutely clear that that targeting was put in place before the conflict started. We are working with them and across the coalition of dozens of countries to de-escalate and to get the strait of Hormuz open just as soon as it is viable and credible to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Prime Minister may recall that on day one of this war, I supported his defensive attitude to it and said that we could not change the regime from the air. We agreed and he has been proved right, but—with apologies to Leon Trotsky —we may not be interested in war, but war is interested in us. We all agree that we have to rapidly re-arm, but the trouble is that with an ever-increasing proportion of our economy being taken up by the state pension and benefits, perhaps we cannot afford to do so. Will the Prime Minister work with the Leader of the Opposition to take the necessary—perhaps unpopular—decisions to return defence spending to what we spent in 1989 at the end of the cold war?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Member is right to raise this, and we have already raised defence spending, as he knows, in the most significant way since the cold war. I was clear in the Munich security conference speech that I gave a few weeks ago that we need to go further and faster, and we will. In addition to the funding itself, it is really important that we take this opportunity to collaborate and co-operate with our partners, particularly in Europe, because if all European countries simply increase their spending without regard to the capability that they are using that spending on, we will not make the best of what we have got. Therefore, I am making a dual argument—first, in relation to the actual money we have spent, and secondly in relation to the way we need to collaborate on this with our allies, particularly in Europe, in a way that we have not done, frankly, in decades.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s call for Lebanon to be included in the ceasefire—1,700 people have already been killed by Israeli attacks and 1.1 million people have been displaced. At a time when aid budgets have been cut, including by our own Government, will the Prime Minister commit to playing that international leadership role, as he is doing, on getting a ceasefire, working with our European partners and others, and to supporting the humanitarian effort and increasing support to those being displaced in the region? Will he also think about how we support countries in the global south that will now be hit hard because of this crisis? The impact of that will affect us all if we do not take action at the international level.

[The Prime Minister]

Can I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, and be clear that Lebanon must be included in the ceasefire? It is very important that we are clear about the principle behind that. I also accept that there must be more support on the humanitarian front. We have just put more money into the humanitarian support, but it is clearly a cause of concern in Lebanon and in the wider area, as she rightly points out.

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

I think the Prime Minister should acknowledge—I am sure that he does—that over the past 30 years our armed forces have been hollowed out by Governments of all parties as they have sought to take a peace dividend, but I am afraid that the chickens have come home to roost on his watch. Will he therefore now commit to a huge and immediate uplift in defence spending—not just by vaporising British soft power expenditure; we are talking of moving towards a 5% increase—so that the Government can play a full part in European defence and deliver on their first duty to their own citizens?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree that our armed forces and our capabilities have been hollowed out over many years, in particular under the last Government, I am afraid to say—Ben Wallace, the then Defence Secretary, was very clear about that. The right hon. Member is right to say that now is the point at which there is probably more conflict going on in the world than most of us have seen in our lifetimes, and that is why we have to increase defence spending. That is why we took the decision to increase to 2.5% sooner than people thought we would, and that is already taking place. I made commitments at the NATO summit last year in relation to the further spending that we need to put in place. I stand by those commitments. We must go further and we must go faster.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

Let me thank the Prime Minister for his statesmanship. This weekend saw the Pakistani Government step up and take global leadership by expertly hosting and mediating negotiations between Iran and America. The whole world is indebted to the noble efforts of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and General Syed Asim Munir to achieve a ceasefire. Given that Pakistan is a long-term ally of Britain, will the Prime Minister outline what support he is giving the Pakistani Government to facilitate an agreement for long-lasting peace and stability in the middle east?

[The Prime Minister]

Can I reiterate my thanks to Pakistan for the role that it is playing? I can tell the House that I spoke to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on Friday, as we were going into the talks this weekend, about the talks and what support we could put in place, and the Foreign Secretary spoke to her counterpart this afternoon. It is very important that we support this process and try to move it forward, not to let it escalate.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister is absolutely right to condemn the abhorrent response of the terrorists in the IRGC, but I notice in his statement that there was no explicit condemnation of the illegality of Donald Trump’s actions, there was no explicit condemnation of the illegality of Netanyahu’s action, and—despite having the entire Easter break to think about it—there was explicitly no new financial support for households on these isles whatsoever, despite the fact that the Irish Government have put down €750 billion of support for motorists and farmers. The best he can muster is to “continue to monitor the effects.” Now, I appreciate that he might not be in office for very much longer, but while he is, the public expect him to provide support—why isn’t he?

[The Prime Minister]

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we put in support and protection for our citizens in the region by taking defensive action. He opposed that —protection for Scottish citizens in the Gulf. Scottish National party Members opposed taking any action whatsoever. It is only because we have stabilised the economy that we are able to reduce energy bills. What did they do? They voted against the Budget in which we put forward the money for that. We will carefully do the work that we need to do to reopen the strait of Hormuz, which is the single most effective thing we can do in relation to household costs, and to work for de-escalation. I would have thought that he would support that, but unfortunately he is again on the opportunistic road rather than on the road to supporting what we really need to do.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for all that he is doing towards de-escalating the conflict in the middle east. I agree with him that we should not get drawn into the conflict. May I ask him about Palestine, and the west bank in particular? More than 30 former UK ambassadors have said that any bidder for contracts to design, build or finance the E1 settlement expansions should see their business interests in and with the UK endangered. Does he agree?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. It is very important that we do not lose focus on what is happening in the west bank, which is deeply concerning and worrying. On the E1 settlements, I made our position clear—the week before last, I think—and that remains our position.

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

In a crisis, Governments have permission to do things that are not possible in normal times, but I am worried that what the Prime Minister is going to bring forward will not meet the measure of the moment. Will he commit to dramatically changing energy policy so that it focuses as much on cheap energy as on clean energy? When it comes to the desperate need to increase defence spending, will he consider serious welfare reform to stop someone who earns the national living wage while working full time sometimes getting only half as much support as someone on the three main benefits?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we have to focus on the cost of energy. There is simply no denying the fact that it is because we are on the international market that our energy prices are going up and down. Families across the country are really fed up with the fact that international events happen, which they cannot control, and their energy bills go up and down, causing a cost of living crisis. That is because we are on the international fossil fuel market—there is no denying that—and it will be the case as long as we are on that market, because it controls the price. Putin and Iran control the price of the international market, and the longer we are on it, the more that families here will be subjected to that.

We have to take control of energy bills. The only way to do that is through energy independence. That is why I think we need to double down, and go faster and further on that. Yes, of course, oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years to come—I have been clear about that—but it is equally clear that that will not have an effect on the price and cost of energy bills. The only thing that will is coming off the international market that we are stuck on. That is why the strait of Hormuz is so important; we do not get that much energy from oil and gas coming through the strait, but because we are on the international market, we are impacted by the fact that others do. That is the source of the problem, and that is why we are working so hard to resolve it.

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

I echo the comments about the President’s statement on Easter Sunday, when he said that he could destroy a 2,500-year-old civilisation in an evening. Is it not clear that the strait of Hormuz was open before the President foolishly launched his illegal war? Will the Prime Minister say clearly that no British military assets or brave personnel will be put at risk by the President’s foolish idea to blockade the strait even further?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is of course Iran that is putting the chokehold on the strait. That is wrong, and the strength of feeling across the Gulf last week was very, very clear to me. I can assure him that we are not getting involved in the proposal to blockade the strait. On the contrary, we are working with other countries to try and get the strait open, and fully open, for free navigation, something this country has championed for years and years and years.

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

Today, the US President impersonated Jesus Christ. Last week, he pledged to wipe out an entire civilisation. His warmongering in the middle east is piling on the pressure for my constituents in Esher and Walton, from prices at the pump to mortgage increases in the midst of a cost of living crisis. Given the disturbing utterances from the occupant of the White House and the squeeze on our living standards, surely the future is across the channel towards Europe, and I note that the Prime Minister gave a line, presumably for the local elections, about alignment with Europe, but can he give more detail on what this means for defence, for security and for prosperity?

[The Prime Minister]

A close relationship with the EU and Europe was in our manifesto in 2024, which was a very successful manifesto, and we have been working to that end ever since, which is why we had the first UK-EU summit last year, with 10 strands agreed. It is also why I have been clear that we want to go further this year, not just in seeing where we have got to on what we have already agreed, but going further than that because it is in our interests, whether in defence, security, energy or the economy, to be closer to Europe and that is what we are endeavouring to do.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and welcome his convening of a summit of leaders alongside President Macron. The situation in Lebanon is devastating. Israeli escalation has led to a grave humanitarian situation. The images of civilians being carpet-bombed are horrifying. I want to reiterate what the Foreign Affairs Committee heard today. We met with ambassadors from the Gulf. They expressed their genuine appreciation for the Prime Minister’s presence and Britain’s continuing support. May I ask the Prime Minister to continue to represent the voices of our constituents and to resist escalation, to include Lebanon in the ceasefire and to press for peace?

[The Prime Minister]

I assure my hon. Friend that we will make the case for Lebanon to be included in the ceasefire, and we will continue with our work to de-escalate and not get drawn into this war.

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

We all hear the Prime Minister’s words about Lebanon, but the lesson of the last two and a half years is that his words, and the words of anyone in this House, have no impact on an Israeli Government seemingly led by supremacist maniacs. Before Easter, I asked the Foreign Secretary how many Lebanese was an acceptable number to see killed over the coming weeks, and we have learned over the Easter break that there is seemingly no upper limit before we are willing to act. I want to ask the Prime Minister a simple question: given that he rightly proudly pointed to the part Britain is playing in defending other nations in the region, why have we not stepped forward to defend Lebanese civilians in the same way we have others? Secondly, I have an even simpler question if he cannot answer that one: does Lebanon have a right to exist?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this really serious issue. The immediate focus has to be on ensuring that Lebanon is included in the ceasefire and being absolutely clear in our condemnation of the action that Israel is taking. We are working on that on a number of levels, but I have always believed, and continue to believe, that we are stronger when we work with other countries, and that is what we are endeavouring to do.

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

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement and note the emphasis he has put on there being no return to the status quo, particularly in relation to the importance of energy independence. Will he acknowledge that we are now entering a new energy era, and perhaps he agrees with President von der Leyen, who today has said:

“There is one thing that all these events are making clear: we are paying a very high price for our overdependency on fossil fuels. And the grim reality for our continent is: fossil fuel energy will remain the most expensive option in the years to come”?

[The Prime Minister]

That is the argument that I have been making, and I believe it to be right. It is the argument the Leader of the Opposition used to make, but she has U-turned on that as well.

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

All our constituents are worried about the price of energy, including the price of gas. But is the Prime Minister aware that the price of gas in the US has fallen by 20% since the start of this war while the price of gas in the UK has increased by 50%, proving that if we produce and consume our gas domestically we can have much lower bills, and proving too why we must allow the consents for Jackdaw, Rosebank and all of the oil fields across the North sea and onshore as well?

[The Prime Minister]

I remind myself that the hon. Gentleman’s party’s position was to fully support the war—to go in with both feet, whatever the consequences. Now he says that there are these consequences; well, his party should have thought about that before it adopted the policy of going straight in. On the question of energy and gas, yes, the price is subject to the international market because we are on the international market, and that is why the sooner we have energy independence, the better.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Trump’s illegal war on Iran and his genocidal threats to kill a whole civilisation are part and parcel of a dangerous new US security plan. The Trump doctrine is based upon yet more war and tearing up international law, making the whole world less safe. Given that, I say to the Prime Minister, is it not time for Britain to stop being a junior partner to the US and to pursue a truly independent foreign policy? Should the very first step not be to end all US access to British military bases for Trump’s war on Iran?

[The Prime Minister]

We have about 300,000 British civilians in the Gulf region, and they are at risk because of Iran’s actions. It is my duty to ensure that we protect them. That is why we have taken action in our own right, particularly with our pilots. It is also why I have allowed the bases to be used for defensive purposes to prevent attacks on our civilians, as much as anything else, who are in the region. We are never going to abandon them to their fate when missiles and drones are incoming into the areas where they live and work. It is my duty to protect them, and I will continue to do so.

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

Will the Prime Minister remind some of his colleagues that the United States is a democracy and an ally, and Iran is an odious regime that could have ended the war this weekend had it agreed to give up its ambitions for nuclear weapons and to cease supporting its proxy terrorist organisations around the middle east? Would it not be helpful if the Prime Minister criticised the Iran regime a bit more, rather than supporting his colleagues in criticising the United States?

[The Prime Minister]

In fairness, I have been very clear about the Iranian regime—it is odious and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, it is really important that it does not have a nuclear capability and that we deal with its proxies. That has been the consistent position of this Government—and previous Governments, to be fair—and it has been the way that I have put it from the Dispatch Box on many, many occasions.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

I commend the Prime Minister on his efforts to keep the UK out of Donald Trump’s latest dangerous attempt to end a blockade by creating another. I also commend Pakistan’s attempt to broker peace and the UK Government’s work with over 30 countries to pursue a diplomatic solution. However, if the strait remains closed, what plans do the Government have to protect UK households and businesses from the impact on energy supplies, trade and rising costs?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

We are planning for all contingencies, but I emphasise once again that our absolute focus has to be on getting the strait open. Having spoken to those working in shipping, finance, insurance and so on, they are very clear with me that they are not going to be putting vessels through while there is a conflict, and therefore we must de-escalate and come up with that credible plan. We will do that in conjunction with other countries, and that is why President Macron and I are convening the summit later this week, building on the work that we have been doing over the past few weeks.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

In his statement, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to double down on NATO. President Trump has attempted to use the threat to withdraw from the NATO alliance to blackmail other NATO countries into joining his illegal endeavour in Iran, and he has threatened to annex the sovereign territory of another NATO member and has said that NATO members were not there for the US. It is clear that the US is an unreliable partner in NATO, so will the Prime Minister announce when he is going to release the defence investment plan? Will he explain how we can forge closer ties with our European allies, who are more reliable?

[The Prime Minister]

The first thing I would say is that it is very important that we defend NATO. It is the single most effective military alliance that the world has ever known, and we should do nothing to weaken it. I think there should be a stronger European element on defence and security—that is an argument I have been making for some time. It is particularly important now that Europe steps up with a stronger European element, and we are working with our allies to do that.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and his positive efforts on the issue of the strait of Hormuz. Last week, I met with farmers in Whitby who are deeply concerned about the skyrocketing price of red diesel. In January, the fuel cost 64p per litre, and it has since doubled. With the busiest period of the farming calendar approaching, will the Prime Minister outline what measures the Government are considering to support farmers impacted by these rising costs?

[The Prime Minister]

I assure my hon. Friend that we have been looking at that in the various meetings we have been having, particularly on the red diesel question, and we are looking at contingencies. In addition to planning for those contingencies, it is really important that we double down on our work to de-escalate and to open up the strait of Hormuz.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

May I quote the Prime Minister? He told us just a few moments ago that energy bills will “stay down until July”. He also correctly said that

“we do not set the global price for oil and gas”.

Is the Prime Minister making an enormous gamble on the energy price? How much money has he set aside in order to ensure that bills stay down even if prices rise? I am not sure if he is aware, but the last tanker to leave the strait of Hormuz and bring fuel to the UK docked only a few days ago. The last tanker to arrive in US waters will arrive in a day or two. After that, we are on our own. Is he taking that bet? Who is going to pay for it?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for reminding the House that we are reducing energy bills—we have done that already—by an average of £100 per household. That will remain the case until July this year. It is very important that people hear that message, because they are concerned. They are concerned to know that that will be the case whatever happens in the conflict, and it is. That decision was taken as a result of what we did at the Budget last year. We will be able to stabilise the economy and provide the money for it because we are bearing down on the cost of living.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for refusing to allow the UK to be dragged into America’s war in Iran, which is hitting my constituents directly in the pocket and at the petrol pump. He rightly mentioned the people of Palestine earlier. May I remind him that last week, the former heads of Shin Bet and Mossad security services, as well as former chiefs of staff of the Israel Defence Forces, described the ongoing settler violence against Palestinians in the west bank as “government sponsored Jewish terrorism”? That is not only a moral disgrace, but a fatal strategic blow to Israel’s own national security. I urge the PM to condemn the settler violence, Israel’s refusal to tackle it and Israel’s expansion of illegal settlements and to back the Pope, who said that peace should be the priority.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the question of settler violence, because it is disturbing and wrong, and it has escalated, as he knows better than most. Our clear position has been to call it out and to do everything we can in relation to settler violence, which is getting worse by the day.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

This crisis has laid bare the parlous state of the British military. The three main parties of government should put aside the blame game and accept that we have all played our part in getting the British military into the state that it is in now. For over a year, the Liberal Democrats have been asking for cross-party talks on how to get to the 3% spending target, and I am glad that the Conservatives have now joined us. We have spoken about defence bonds, and I am sure that the Conservatives and the Government have ideas. This could be the Prime Minister’s legacy. Can we get together in the national interest and talk about how to increase defence spending?

[The Prime Minister]

We do need to increase defence spending, and I have been clear about that. May I make the case that our military have been hard at work throughout this conflict from within about two hours of it starting? That means hours and hours of pilots taking on incoming missiles to safeguard our citizens, our interests and those in the Gulf. When I was there last week, all the leaders I met were at pains to thank us for what our military is doing. We are too quick sometimes to run them down; they have done a lot of brave work, particularly in the last six to seven weeks, and I thank them for that work.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for all his efforts, not least over the past few days. Although many of us have a difference of opinion with President Trump about the way he talks and the actions he is taking in terms of Iran—those are obviously things that we on the Labour Benches do not agree with—I am a little concerned that we should not get his views mixed up with what those in Congress and the Senate in the United States of America think, where there is significant and overwhelming support for NATO and Europe. It is important that we remember that, because our relationship with America is very important, not least in terms of NATO. I hope the Prime Minister will comment on that.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the broad support that there is, and always has been, for NATO in the United States. While it is true that we should do more for a stronger European element in NATO, we should never pull away from NATO, which—as I say—has been the single most effective military alliance that the world has ever known.

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

The war in the middle east is having a real effect on my constituents. From fuel to fertiliser, prices are increasing, and action needs to be taken to alleviate the consequences. Although there are immediate steps that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor should be taking, not least reversing the planned increase in fuel duty, the bigger picture involves reopening the strait of Hormuz. What thought has been given to the role that the UK can play in clearing the strait of mines? In particular, did the Prime Minister raise the potential deployment of our autonomous minesweeping capabilities, which are already in the region, during his discussions?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right about opening the strait and playing our part—there is the political and diplomatic element, but there is also the issue of military capability. What we are doing with the countries that we have brought together in a loose coalition, and will meet in person later this week, is to look across those capabilities and draw them together. We do have capabilities when it comes to minesweeping; I will not go into operational details, but the hon. Lady knows what they are. Obviously, as we look across the board with President Macron and others, part of that exercise—the military planners have been looking at this—will be how we can pull together the capabilities of all the countries that are prepared to work with us on this. We have been working with at least a couple of dozen for the past two weeks, and we will be doing that further this week.

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

I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership in supporting our regional partners and our national interests, particularly that of free navigation. However, that lies outwith our most immediate security problem, which is defending Europe from Russian attack in all its forms. Does the Prime Minister agree that we should recognise Russian-Iranian co-operation, and that we must not let that distract us from our urgent need to rearm collectively and defend our country and the continent of Europe?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the really important issue of the relationship between Russia and Iran, and the assistance that Russia has given to Iran in relation to the intelligence that is being used during the conflict. We must never lose sight of the fact that we are facing a war on two fronts, and Russia is a huge threat to our continent and our country.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Will the defence investment plan be signed before the local elections on 7 May?

[The Prime Minister]

We are working to finalise the defence investment plan. It is really important that we do not make the mistakes that the last Government made; we inherited plans that were unfunded and not deliverable, so it is really important that our plan is robust. We are finalising it, but it will be a robust plan that serves for the future defence and protection of this country.

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

We now know that an agreement was about to be reached on uranium enrichment by Iran. However, Israel decided to bomb Iran, as did the USA, engaging in an illegal, immoral and dangerous war of choice. Even during the ceasefire, which included Lebanon, Israel continues to bomb south Lebanon and Beirut, displacing millions of people. This is typical of Israel: just before an agreement is reached, it kills negotiators and bombs countries. This is not a faraway conflict; my constituents are paying the price for it through higher fuel costs and rising mortgages and household bills. [Interruption.] What additional steps is the Prime Minister taking to help my constituents, as well as people across the country and the world, by bringing peace—unlike Members on the Conservative Benches, who seem to be finding it very amusing?

[The Prime Minister]

That is precisely why we are working with other countries to de-escalate the situation and get the strait of Hormuz open. As I said in my statement, that will not be easy, but notwithstanding that challenge, we will continue to do that work.

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

In the Prime Minister’s 17-page statement, there was not one word of condemnation for the actions of the US, despite the fact that it started this illegal war. Last week, Trump threatened to wipe out an entire civilisation. The Prime Minister rightly condemned the horrific Israeli attacks on Lebanon, but we all know that the war criminal Netanyahu just ignores what we say, because there are no consequences. Will the Prime Minister take action, put sanctions on Netanyahu and withdraw all permission for the US to use UK bases and UK airspace, to make clear that we will not be an accomplice to the rogue actions of Donald Trump, which endanger us all?

[The Prime Minister]

The US is using the bases to attack the Iranian capability to fire missiles into the region, including at our citizens and our nationals. Members will have seen the images—going into hotels and the bases where our military are based. Is the hon. Lady seriously suggesting that we should reduce protection for our people in the region and expose them to attacks that they would not otherwise be exposed to? That, to me, would be a dereliction of duty, and I will never do that.

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

I think the House is at one with the Prime Minister on the inclusion of Lebanon in the ceasefire. The problem that we face is that today there have been more airstrikes against the Lebanese, and the Israeli artillery is now shelling Lebanese cities and towns. Many of us feel that it is because Netanyahu is out of control, and Donald Trump is not willing to exert that control or influence to bring him into line. In the Prime Minister’s next discussions with European leaders that he is successfully convening, will he place on the agenda a comprehensive European sanctions strategy, so that we can exert some influence to prevent Netanyahu running out of control and creating problems for the globe, and not just the middle east?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Clearly, Lebanon should be included in the ceasefire. These attacks must stop, and we need to be really clear about that. We will work with our allies on both those issues.

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

We know that the defence investment plan was originally due to be published last year. As it is a 10-year plan, will it be a 10-year plan from publication in this financial year, 2026-27? Does that change the cost envelope? Is it a 10-year plan or a nine-year plan in terms of how it is being financed?

[The Prime Minister]

It is a 10-year plan, and it mirrors our strategic review. It sits alongside the defence spending commitments that we have made and are implementing with the 2.5%, and the commitments that I made at the NATO summit last year.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

The House has repeatedly been told that the Government have permitted the US to use British military bases for defensive purposes only, but amid the widespread US targeting of civilian infrastructure in Iran, including schools, hospitals and bridges, we have not been told how those restrictions work in practice. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether US military aircraft have taken off from RAF Fairford or Lakenheath carrying heavy munition payloads? If they have, is there any US operational policy for action from our bases in place that has been approved by this Government? If not, is it the case that the working definition of defensive action is simply, “Don’t ask, don’t tell”?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me assure my hon. Friend and the House that that is not the position. The use is for defensive action only. I am particularly concerned to make sure that we take every measure available to protect our nationals in the region, of whom there are very many. The use is for defensive action, and that is monitored. It has been monitored since the bases began being used.

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

The Prime Minister is right to suggest that the tremors provoked by this conflict will reverberate long after the kinetic fighting has finished. There is perhaps no better example of that than Cyprus, where Government officials, all the way up to the level of the Prime Minister, have questioned Britain’s continuing sovereignty over our sovereign base areas there. May I ask the Prime Minister what he has done to reassure the Cypriots and the Cypriot Government that Britain is a trusted and reliable neighbour and partner, and that our continuing sovereignty is immutable?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I assure him that I have spoken to the President a number of times about the bases and about security in particular—which is, of course, a concern to him and to his public—and that those discussions are ongoing.

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

This war, in which we are rightly playing no part, has my constituents fearing for the future, not least in relation to rising energy and fuel costs. That underlines the crucial importance of bringing down the cost of energy and securing energy independence; but will the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that, while the Government are taking the necessary steps to provide us with long-term energy security through renewable energy and new nuclear, they will go further in the short term and tackle some of the profiteering that is happening, as well as directly supporting hard-pressed families and small businesses in my constituency in respect of the cost?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. We will bear down on any profiteering, at the same time as pushing forward at speed for energy independence.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

May I ask the Prime Minister about one particular consequence of this war in the middle east, namely the rising cost of heating oil, diesel and petrol? Everyone is struggling—I have spoken to many businesses and people who are really struggling to pay their bills—but the support from the UK and Scottish Governments is only for people claiming benefits. When will the UK Government reconsider that approach and ensure that everyone, including working people and businesses, is receiving enough support?

[The Prime Minister]

We will set out the plans as they develop. Some of the ways in which we protect and support have to be universal, and, in fact, the cut in energy bills until the end of June is universal, but we are looking at the most appropriate support on a wider basis.

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

Fresh from a weekend knocking on doors, I can confirm to the Prime Minister that on the streets of my constituency there is no appetite for further involvement in this war. There are some—including, apparently, the Leader of the Opposition—who say that while they might not have chosen to start the war, now that the bombs are flying we have no choice but to support our allies. Will the Prime Minister confirm that President Trump’s America is not a reliable ally, that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Israel is not a reliable ally, and that we must work with our reliable allies in Europe to end the conflict and ensure that working people in this country do not pick up the bill?

[The Prime Minister]

We work with the Americans on a daily basis on defence, security and intelligence—it is important that I reiterate that position to the House—and, of course, we are working with them in relation to the use of our bases to take the action that is necessary to protect our civilians and our nationals. At the same time, we need to work more closely with our European allies on defence security, on energy and on the economy.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

The Prime Minister was right to mention the untold economic damage that this crisis has already wrought on households and businesses across the country owing to increased fuel costs, but does he share my fear and that of the agricultural sector that the prolonged closure of the strait of Hormuz may also feed through to higher food inflation? May I ask him what measures the Government are considering to help mitigate the potential consequences of a prolonged closure of the strait?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that issue. There will be consequential impacts beyond the immediate impact on energy, which is why we are monitoring and keeping under review the steps that we can take. However, I return to my opening point: the absolute focus must be on getting the strait reopened as quickly as possible, because all the time it is closed to free navigation the damage being done is being compounded, which is why it is so important that we work with our allies to that end.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

Last week, President Trump was making the most outrageous and dire threats in order to try to reopen the strait of Hormuz; this week, he wants to keep it shut. Can the Prime Minister shed any light on the United States’s strategic objective behind this latest move, what can be done to reopen the strait of Hormuz, and what more this Government can do to protect our people from the economic consequences of this mess?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me be clear: I want the strait open, not shut. That is what we have been working on for the last few weeks, and we will continue to work on it. When I spoke to President Macron yesterday, we proposed pulling together a leaders-level summit later this year to continue the work that we are already doing. To be very clear with my hon. Friend and the House, that is to get the strait fully open, because that is the single most effective way to limit the damage that is being done to all our economies.

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

When the Prime Minister was in the middle east, did the subject of the UK’s dependence on helium come up? It is an element that we do not produce in the UK, and it is vital for things such as MRI scans in the NHS.

[The Prime Minister]

We discussed a range of issues. I will not go into all the details, but we did agree that where we are working together already, we should double down and do even more in relation to resilience—which goes to the hon. Lady’s question—both economically and defensively. We will take forward that work.

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

I welcome the Prime Minister’s continued clarity on the need for Lebanon to be included in the ceasefire, but Israel’s tactics in Lebanon—forced displacement, evacuation orders, 165 children killed and 87 medical workers killed—are straight out of its Gaza playbook. Does the Prime Minister agree that in Lebanon, as in Palestine, there must be proper accountability for these war crimes, because this age of impunity puts us all in greater danger?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. It absolutely shows why we must keep pushing for Lebanon to be included in the ceasefire. It is vital that we do so, and of course there must be accountability for all the actions that are taken, in any respect, in this conflict.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I have been overwhelmed by the number of constituents who have written to me over the past two weeks about the situation in the Gulf. They are of course concerned about their energy bills and the cost of living, but overwhelmingly they are outraged at the actions of all the actors in this conflict—Iran, Israel and the United States. What they want from their Government is more and stronger leadership on the international stage to open the strait of Hormuz. Will the Prime Minister consider going to the United Nations Security Council with an emergency motion to get that done and to condemn the actions in the middle east?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Lady probably knows, we have been supporting measures in the UN over the last two weeks, particularly some of those that were put forward by our Gulf allies, and I had the opportunity to discuss those last week in the Gulf. We will continue to work with them and others on building the necessary coalition to do all that we can to get the strait open.

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

I welcome the Prime Minister’s tough stance in response to President Trump’s demands to get involved in this conflict, and his commitment that Lebanon must be part of the ceasefire. Our constituents need us to give them hope that they will not have to continue to live in a world that is driven by the uncertainty of when the White House takes to Truth Social. We can do things to de-escalate conflict, and one of those things is to support the two-state solution in Israel and Palestine, which the Prime Minister knows is at the heart of much uncertainty in the middle east. Given that the conduct of settlers on the west bank directly undermines the possibility of peace and the possibility of a Palestinian state, will he commit to including their conduct in his conversations about the ceasefire and how we can give hope to people in the middle east and peace to people around the world?

[The Prime Minister]

I reiterate to my hon. Friend and the House our support for the two-state solution, which is the only way to achieve a viable long-term peace in the region. Of course, the settler violence is a threat to that. It is wrong in principle, and we will continue to bear down on it.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

For years, and well before this conflict took place, Members across the House have called on the Government of the day to proscribe the IRGC. Regardless of whether it has been the Prime Minister or other Ministers answering, there has always been a pivot to economic sanctions against the IRGC. We know that the Iranian regime has found ways, through cryptocurrency and fake corporate structures, to evade those sanctions. What assessment has the Prime Minister made of the effectiveness of UK sanctions against Tehran? On the presumption that those sanctions are failing, what precise action will he take to strengthen them?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The IRGC has been sanctioned in its entirety. In relation to what more we can do, obviously we have been looking at state-based threats, which will almost certainly require legislation—the hon. Member will be familiar with the review in that regard. There are further things that we can do, and hopefully we can work across the House on some of those issues.

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

It is clear now that there was no plan behind this reckless war, and that the resulting energy crisis will have huge impacts both here in the UK and around the world. Can I thank the Prime Minister for his cool-headed approach in the face of pressure from the leaders of Reform and the Conservatives to follow the US blindly into this war? Does he agree that this demonstrates how important it is that we finally get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster and continue our record investment in green energy?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend on both fronts. It was very important that we made it clear from the start that we would not be playing any part in this war, not least because of the consequences. What the war has flushed out is the need to get off the international market and have independence of energy bills in this country.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

British drones flew over Lebanon hours before and after the Israeli massacre that killed at least 18 people in a Bekaa valley city, among 300 people across the region that day. We know that UK drones and surveillance flights have been used to feed operational information to the IDF during the genocide in Gaza, and it is deeply concerning that this may now be the case in Lebanon. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether these flights were co-ordinated with the Lebanese army? Was intelligence shared with Israel or with the United States? What is our armed forces’ role in this land grab and ethnic cleansing? Have any weapons supplied by the UK to Israel been used in Lebanon?

[The Prime Minister]

I have been clear throughout, and I will be clear with the hon. Gentleman: this Government are guided by the principle that any action we take, anywhere in the world, must have a lawful basis. That is the principle that I have applied throughout this conflict and throughout the time this Government have been in power.

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

I commend the Prime Minister—and also the leadership from the Foreign Secretary and the National Security Adviser, I am sure—for the work that is being done. I welcome the news about trying to resolve the issues in the strait of Hormuz, but I share the concerns that have been voiced across the Chamber about the situation in Lebanon and the west bank. Closer to home, the Resolution Foundation has stated that median working-age households will be hit by a £480 additional cost this year, which in my constituency is being described as the cost of Trump. Will the Prime Minister explain more about what can be done to assist households here in the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

The single most important thing is to de-escalate and get the strait of Hormuz open. That is why we are working so hard with other countries to do so, because the impact that it is undoubtedly having on our economy is affected by how long the strait remains closed. That is why we have to focus on that.

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

The price of energy is obviously important, but as important is the security of supply. Whether the Government like it or not, over 70% of our energy comes from oil and gas. The events of the past month must be a wake-up call to them: we must secure our supply. Luckily, we have a secure supply under the North sea, but—although his Ministers might say otherwise—the policies of the Prime Minister’s Government mean that we cannot produce it. When will he get serious about our energy security, end the ban on new licences, end the energy profits levy, permit Rosebank and Jackdaw, and finally get the UK drilling again?

[The Prime Minister]

Oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years to come—I have been very clear about that. Oil and gas are being produced 24/7 in relation to our energy supply, and it is really important that that happens. That will be part of the mix, but equally, if we are to get to energy independence, which we need to do, we need to go further and faster on renewables.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and commend his leadership in steering the UK clear of the Iran conflict and blockade. During this war, healthcare centres, hospitals and ambulances have been attacked. The Iranians now face acute shortages of care and medicines. What action is the Prime Minister taking to press all parties to comply with international humanitarian law and end the attack on healthcare infrastructure?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me be really clear: any attack on healthcare infrastructure is completely unacceptable. That is why we have been very clear that, in relation to our own actions and the actions of anybody else, they must have a lawful basis. That is the starting point for all the work we are doing.

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

The Prime Minister rightly referred in his statement to defence security and energy security, but he made no reference to food security. That feels like a glaring omission, given the impact of the doubling of the price of red diesel for the farmers who produce our food. I wonder if he is even aware that, outrageously, England is now the only country in the UK and in the whole of Europe that does not use its farm payment scheme to actively support its farmers to produce food. In these troubled times, does he agree that that is a glaring omission, and will he turn around and change that?

[The Prime Minister]

Food security is really important. It actually comes under energy security in a sense, because it is the energy costs that are pushing, or could have the effect of pushing, in relation to food security. That is why it is very important that we are focusing on de-escalating the situation and reopening the strait of Hormuz.

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

Resorting to violence does not achieve anything, but it has left 2,000 Lebanese dead and 1.2 million displaced. As the Prime Minister is demonstrating, bilateral and multilateral dialogue is the way forward to get progressive change. Instead of just looking at increasing the defence budget, will he also look at increasing investment in diplomacy and development, which is crucial in this increasingly destabilised world?

[The Prime Minister]

The work that we are doing with other countries has to start with the political and the diplomatic. Of course we are looking at military planning, but you cannot have military planning without diplomacy. It is absolutely clear to me that the strait of Hormuz will not allow for safe passage until a ceasefire is in place. All the sectors involved in vessels going through the strait are clear that they will not be putting their vessels through until that is the situation, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right about diplomacy.

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

The Prime Minister is absolutely correct to praise the service of our armed forces personnel, and I join him in doing so, but they are being let down by the failure to deliver the defence investment plan. That failure can only be the result of either inertia or incompetence within the Government. Which one is it?

[The Prime Minister]

I remind the Conservatives that they hollowed out the armed forces and they did not increase defence spending. The last time we were at 2.5% was under the previous Labour Government. Now we are at that under this Labour Government. I appreciate all the advice, but after 14 years of failure I do not really need it.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

From Iran to Russia, the major security threats we face are pan-European challenges. The Prime Minister referenced the need, and our intention, to work more closely with our European allies within NATO. Will he set out what more we can do to be ambitious with those allies on the continent to strengthen our defence and security partnerships, especially in the run-up to the EU-UK summit in the summer?

[The Prime Minister]

There is more we can do on defence and security, such as collaborating and co-operating about the particular capability, in addition to the amount of money that we are spending. That is what we are focusing on with our allies in the EU.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Britain’s military co-operation with the USA and Israel has enabled Israel to commit acts of genocide against the people of Gaza, the Palestinian people, and has enabled the United States to undertake this massive illegal bombardment of Iran. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that from now on the military co-operation and supply of weapons and parts to both Israel and the United States will be suspended while this appalling war goes on in Iran, which is a danger not just to the peace of the whole region but, clearly, to the peace of the whole world?

[The Prime Minister]

I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the permission to use our bases is strictly for defensive purposes, and in particular to protect our nationals in the region. We have 200,000 or 300,000 of our nationals in the region. Iranian strikes were coming into their range and into the Gulf states that I visited last week, hitting infrastructure and being deliberately aimed at our service personnel. It is my duty to protect them and I will continue to do so.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in thanking our armed forces who are protecting British citizens in the middle east, and I thank him, on behalf of my constituents, for his cool-headed leadership and firm decision not to join Trump’s illegal war. Will he reassure my constituents, who are worried about the cost of energy, that he is doing everything in his power to secure peace, reopen the strait of Hormuz and ensure that consumers are protected against rocketing energy prices?

[The Prime Minister]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance—that is what we have been doing particularly intensively in the past two or three weeks. We will continue to do so later this week when President Macron and I host the summit together.

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

Going further and faster on renewables is entirely compatible with new licences in the North sea. My constituents can see that the Prime Minister has very little power to reopen the strait of Hormuz, but total power to order new licences for Jackdaw and Rosebank in the North sea. How can he stand there and say that energy independence is the goal while he tries desperately to get oil and gas from elsewhere, which he can do little about, and refuses to overrule his insane Secretary of State for Energy and ensure that we produce—[Interruption.] I withdraw that comment, Madam Deputy Speaker. How can the Prime Minister do so while refusing to overrule the crazy policies of the Secretary of State for Energy, who insists on not producing oil and gas here? It makes no sense. Prime Minister, get a learning, get a teaching—but make sure it is not with the Energy Secretary.

[The Prime Minister]

As I say, oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years to come. Decisions on Jackdaw and Rosebank will be taken according to the legislative procedure, which is the right way to do it. [Interruption.] We could legislate, but it would probably take longer. Oil and gas will be part of the mix, but in the long term, the only way to get energy independence is to go further and faster on renewables, which is what we are doing.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

Japan, Turkey, China and India have already been in negotiation with Iran to try to secure safe passage for their vessels through the strait of Hormuz. The Prime Minister was absolutely right to visit the Gulf states and their leaders. He knows the importance of the strait to those economies. Did he receive any assurance from them that they would not try to negotiate with Iran to salvage their own economies? Any tacit acceptance by those states of Iran’s right to control the strait would set a terrible precedent and empower Iran’s leverage in its nuclear ambitions.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

This matter came up in all the conversations that I had, and I assure my hon. Friend that there was absolute clarity among all the leaders with whom I spoke that there must not be any conditions or tolls, or anything that increases the chokehold over the strait of Hormuz in particular, which is very important to the Gulf. We have fought for the principle of freedom of navigation for many, many years, and for good reason.

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

At the beginning of Trump’s illegal war in Iran, we witnessed the bombing of a school that killed at least 168 people, including 110 children. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the UK Government have agreed a no-strike list of civilian infrastructure that must not be hit by US planes launching missions from UK military bases?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me be really clear about this: there must be a lawful basis for anything we do, and that includes what happens from our bases. That is why we have been very clear about the use of the bases and why we are monitoring the use of the bases on the terms that we set out.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

Since we last met in this place, the President of the United States has had at least three positions on the strait of Hormuz: first, he said that opening it was not in his interest because the US did not need it and did not use it; secondly, he speculated that it might be a good idea to have tolls on ships passing through the strait in a joint venture with Iran; today, he is overseeing a blockade. I commend the Prime Minister for his consistent and calm leadership, which stands in such clear contrast with those incredibly erratic comments. Does he agree that this conflict will ultimately be concluded not by posts on social media, but by patient and persistent diplomacy?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend. That is precisely why we are pursuing that patient diplomacy, which is an essential first step in getting the strait open, and we will continue to do so.

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

I would like to ask the Prime Minister about food security. In response to an earlier question, he suggested that the answer to food security was to go further and faster on renewable energy. Does he recognise that carpeting some of the country’s best farmland—indeed, some of the world’s best farmland—in Lincolnshire in solar panels is counterproductive to that aim?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think it is counterproductive. Just to be clear, however, I will say that the most important thing for food security is ensuring de-escalation and getting the strait of Hormuz open. That is why we have been convening a number of countries for the past two and a half weeks, and will do so again later this week, to operate at all levels to try to get that done as quickly as possible. I understand the impact on the farmers in the hon. Lady’s constituency and across the United Kingdom. That is why we have to have that absolute focus on the work that we are doing.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. He will know that Yom HaShoah, a Jewish commemoration of the 6 million Jews murdered during the Holocaust, begins tonight. We must never forget. But as this powerful memorial begins, Benjamin Netanyahu continues to flout international law by bombing innocent civilians in Lebanon and intimidating Palestinians in the west bank, under the cover of the US-Iran situation. What can the UK do to support the victims of Netanyahu and stop his ongoing destructive actions in all areas?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. That is why it is so important that we stay anchored in our principles and our values, foremost of which is that any action we take or support must have a lawful basis.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

Following his ill-conceived and illegal war in Iran, President Trump has now sent the US Navy to block the strait of Hormuz. Already this year, Trump has unlawfully invaded Venezuela and threatened to annex Greenland, invade Cuba and quit NATO. He even accused UK troops and those of our allies of cowardice, before launching an unprecedented attack on the integrity of Pope Leo. Clearly there is nothing sacred or off limits to this man, yet there was not a single mention of Donald Trump in the Prime Minister’s statement. Given the catalogue of illegality and bullying, does the Prime Minister still believe that President Trump is a stable, reliable and trustworthy ally?

[The Prime Minister]

Can I remind the hon. Member that every day we work with the US on defence, security and intelligence sharing—

[Brendan O’Hara]

I am asking about Trump.

[The Prime Minister]

When I say the US Administration, I mean President Trump. He is the President. We share intelligence on a daily basis. That intelligence safeguards people in all countries across the United Kingdom, and in my view it would be foolhardy to give up the co-work we do, which is vital and safeguards the lives and interests of so many people in this country on a daily basis.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

The disruption in the strait of Hormuz is having a real, growing impact on ordinary working people across the world and in my constituency, where many are already struggling to make ends meet—something the Prime Minister and I discussed when we met a few weeks ago. Will he update the House and my constituents on what steps he is taking to resolve this issue as quickly as possible?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, and I know that this will be of interest to my hon. Friend’s constituents, many of whom are worried by what they are seeing on their screens and the knowledge that it may impact on the cost of living. I can assure them that that is why we are working with allies to seek de-escalation and get the strait of Hormuz open. That is not a remote issue; it is an issue that affects them, their cost of living and their household bills. That is uppermost in my mind as I take these actions.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

The Lebanese Health Ministry confirmed earlier today that 2,055 civilians have been killed since the start of this latest crisis, including 167 since Friday alone, so I join the Prime Minister in calling for the urgent ceasefire to include Lebanon. Since this crisis started, the Treasury has received over £200 million in additional VAT from fuel. Will the Prime Minister commit to using those funds in the UK to mitigate the cost of living crisis that the middle east crisis is causing?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member’s question underlines why it is so important that Lebanon is included in the ceasefire. We are looking across the board at all contingencies in relation to the support that we can put in.

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

My constituents are horrified by the civilian toll of US-Israeli and Iranian military attacks, including the threats to basic civilian infrastructure. They are also very concerned about the long-term domestic impact of the closure of the strait of Hormuz, for example on food prices. First, can the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that UK bases will never be used to target civilians or civilian infrastructure? Secondly, can he reassure them that the Government are planning for all possible domestic impacts?

[The Prime Minister]

Those are both very important points, and I can give my hon. Friend’s constituents that assurance on both fronts.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Oxfam has warned that the Gaza playbook is being repeated. The Israeli military is demolishing villages in the south of Lebanon, displacing more than 1.3 million people, killing more than 2,000 and injuring more than 6,400. Journalists are being killed by the Israelis. NGO workers are being killed by the Israelis. United Nations peacekeepers are being targeted by the IDF. It is all well and good for the Prime Minister to say it is wrong, but what tangible action will he take to stop Israel’s war machine in its tracks this time, and when will he do what he failed to do during the genocide in Gaza and say no to Israel and no to Benjamin Netanyahu?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member is right: the attacks are wrong, and it is important that we are clear on that. Lebanon should be included in the ceasefire, and we are clear on that. We need to work with our allies to follow through on both those propositions.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I send my thanks and thoughts to our military personnel, particularly those on the Cornish Merlin that has been supporting our jets to defend British citizens since the Saturday after the conflict started. The strait of Hormuz issue has underlined the massive importance of energy independence in this country. Will the Prime Minister outline how we are seeking to solve that crisis in the short, medium and long term, particularly considering the wealth of natural resources we have in critical minerals and energy in Cornwall?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me underscore the point my hon. Friend makes about the wealth of that capability in Cornwall. We need to go further and faster on renewables, to make sure that we get energy independence. That is important for her constituents and for constituents across the country.

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

The manufacturing businesses that I have visited in my constituency recently are clear about the importance of both the availability and the affordability of energy. The longer business waits for a plan, the worse the damage will be, as investment plans are postponed and other costs are cut. When will the Government act to support businesses, particularly in energy-intensive sectors such as manufacturing, hospitality and farming?

[The Prime Minister]

We have taken action in relation to particularly energy-intensive businesses. I recognise that those that fall outside that protection are extremely concerned. The most important thing that we can do for them is to de-escalate the situation and get the strait of Hormuz open, because that is the cause of energy prices going up.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

The brutal Iranian regime is utterly appalling, but that statement is not necessarily true of Iran’s ordinary citizens, so I thank the Prime Minister for calling out President Trump’s words about obliterating a civilisation. The conflict has brought our energy security into sharp focus, which is why today’s announcement of a £600 million deal with Rolls-Royce for small modular reactors is so important. It is good for the country and good for jobs for my constituents in Derby. Will the Prime Minister go further to ensure that the small modular reactor programme is expanded and brought in at pace to support our grid?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The Rolls-Royce project is hugely important, and I am very glad that we were able to announce it today. That is the first of the SMR projects, and it is really important that we take full advantage of such projects.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Given the threat that the Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies in Lebanon present to world peace—in the middle east and beyond—does the Prime Minister not accept that action against the regime was inevitable, in order to cut back its military ability and its ability to blackmail the rest of the world by illegally stopping an important waterway? That has economic consequences for our country, but does he accept that, given the additional tax revenue for the Government from increased fuel prices, there is room to give extra support and that, in the longer run, we can extract our own oil and other resources, get the tax from that and have a secure supply that cannot be interrupted?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member. Iran’s nuclear capability and the development thereof, and its proxies, are of course a threat that has to be dealt with; the question is how. I have made my decisions based on the twin questions of whether any action that we take has a lawful basis and a viable, thought-through plan. Those are the principles that have guided me, but that does not take away from the fact that those threats are there, and we have to deal with them in the most effective way possible. Of course, we need to look at the support that we can put in for businesses and individuals who are impacted by this conflict.

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

I commend our ongoing refusal to be drawn into this conflict. May I ask the Prime Minister what steps we are taking to ensure that UK bases are not used for offensive operations, and furthermore that they will not be used for any ill-advised US blockade of the strait of Hormuz, which would be economically ruinous?

[The Prime Minister]

The bases are strictly for defensive purposes, and we monitor that in order to make sure that that is and remains the case.

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his comments on Lebanon. We are seeing an Israeli military playbook from Gaza—collective punishment, forced displacement and attacks on health—being used in Lebanon without meaningful action from the UK Government. Will the Prime Minister please outline the specific steps his Government will take to ensure an end to Israel’s chronic immunity and impunity?

[The Prime Minister]

The immediate focus must be on ensuring that the ceasefire extends to Lebanon. That is crucial. Obviously, there is some diplomacy going on at the moment, but we need to keep that firmly in mind. We must work with others, not only on the question of Lebanon, but on accountability, which goes with the principle that any action should have a lawful basis.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership on this issue. Unlike certain other world leaders, it is clear that he recognises the consequences that international crises have on the cost of living at home. My constituents feel that impact every time they go to fill up the car, which is made more galling by the fact that in Bracknell fuel is between 2p and 10p more expensive than in neighbouring towns. What conversations have the Government had with the Competition and Markets Authority and the sector at large to clamp down on that obvious unfairness?

[The Prime Minister]

I am conscious of the impact that this situation is having on fuel, and therefore on people in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country. We are working on a number of fronts, first to make sure that there is absolutely no profiteering from this, in relation to the price discrepancies, but also to ensure that we de-escalate the situation and get the strait of Hormuz open. That will be the most effective way to get those prices down again, which will impact on everybody filling up their cars.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The Prime Minister knows that his Government’s coffers have been swollen by hundreds of millions by the extra tax take, particularly VAT, on rising fuel prices. Would it therefore be unreasonable to expect a socialist Government to practise some redistribution of wealth from Government to hard-pressed vehicle users, farmers and businesses who are being crippled by the price hike in fuel? Today, surely, he can give some light to consumers by saying that, instead of anticipating an increase in fuel duty, he will announce a decrease in fuel duty.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

We are looking at all contingencies, and it is important that we do so. We will continue to do so, mindful of the impact that the hon. and learned Gentleman points out. However, there is no getting away from the fact that de-escalation and getting the strait of Hormuz open is the single most important thing we need to focus on at the moment.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for the positive steps that the UK is taking to promote a negotiated settlement to the war, and reassurance to shipping post-settlement through the straits of Hormuz, but it is clear that the war even thus far will have a significant impact on British consumers. He has talked about very welcome measures to support residents with energy bills, and those will be welcomed by my Dartford constituents, but would he consider additional measures to support those who are most vulnerable—those on the lowest incomes—with the cost of living as a result of the impact of this war?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. We are considering what further support we can put in place—bearing in mind that de-escalation is the single most effective thing we can do.

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

The impact of this conflict is horrific for those in the line of fire. It is also causing significant financial distress for residents and businesses right across these isles. The Prime Minister stated that energy bills had gone down from 1 April, but for the tens of thousands of my constituents who rely on kerosene and liquefied petroleum gas, that is not true, and for the tens of thousands of my constituents who use petrol and diesel to access essential services many miles from their homes, it is not true. Will he correct the record on that? Will he also tell us when he is actually going to do something to help those households that are in distress?

[The Prime Minister]

We are looking at this across the board, and the hon. Gentleman will know that, in addition to bringing household energy bills down by £100 from April until the end of June, we also announced support for those who use oil to heat their homes. We need to look more closely at this across the board.

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

President Trump told the world that this was about liberating the Iranian people, but you do not liberate people by murdering 165 Iranian children in an illegal attack. What we are witnessing now is absolute madness, with Donald Trump seeking to implement collective punishment not just on Iranians by closing the strait of Hormuz but on the wider global community, including British families, who are seeing a price rise in fuel, food and utilities. When will the Prime Minister build the courage and strength to state that the attack and the continued action are illegal under international law? If he seeks to prevaricate, will that not just show how weak and embarrassing this Government have become?

[The Prime Minister]

We are one of the countries that are pulling together a coalition to deal with the impact of this by de-escalating the situation and seeking to get the strait of Hormuz open. That is the most important thing for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, for my constituents and for people across the country.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

First, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) with regard to the Cornish Merlin helicopters from RNAS Culdrose in my constituency. The Prime Minister knows that he has the full support of the House when he says that he wants Lebanon included in the ceasefire, but surely he must accept that he could do a great deal more, first by ensuring that no UK arms components end up in the hands of the genocidal Netanyahu Government, and secondly by ensuring that there is absolutely no trade with the illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have taken measures on both of those fronts in relation to the framework of law that we have in place.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, it is important to recognise the Prime Minister’s efforts to try to find a way forward in the middle east. That is incredibly difficult and it should be recognised. There have been fuel protests in the Republic of Ireland just in the last week, and similar protests are planned for Northern Ireland this coming week. Last Friday, I spoke to the Ulster Farmers Union and some of the farmers expressing concern about the rise in the prices of red diesel and fertiliser. On Saturday, in Portavogie, members of the fishing sector told me they were concerned about the rising price of diesel for their boats, and HGV users spoke to me last Friday and Saturday to say the same thing. The Republic of Ireland is giving some €5 million—£4 million in sterling—every day for the next 13 weeks to help those sectors. If the Republic of Ireland can do it, Prime Minister, please do the same for us in Northern Ireland and across this whole United Kingdom.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking across the board at what support can be put in place and at all the contingencies, but there is no escaping the fact that if we do not do the international work to de-escalate and get the strait open, we will be fighting an uphill battle, which is why we have to convene those countries and try to resolve what is a very challenging situation.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

May I join the Prime Minister in recognising and commending Pakistan’s efforts to facilitate dialogue in the pursuit of peace? It is, however, regrettable that a resolution has not yet been secured. I therefore ask him what assessment he has made of the breakdown in the US-Iran talks, of Israel’s role in the collapse of those talks, and of the ongoing strikes in Lebanon? Will he condemn the continued hostility, which is creating a fresh humanitarian crisis in a region already torn apart by Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians? Finally, does he acknowledge that it is long overdue that Israel’s aggression in the region should be forced to stop through sanctions and cutting diplomatic ties?

[The Prime Minister]

As I mentioned earlier, I spoke to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on Friday ahead of the talks. We have been in touch again since the talks broke down about the very issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, which is the prospect of still trying to find a way forward. We will work with the Prime Minister of Pakistan and others to try to ensure that we get that diplomacy, as far as we can, and to de-escalate the situation in that way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 March.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

An attack on Britain’s Jewish community is an attack on all of us. I am pleased to say that London ambulances have now replaced the Hatzola ambulances and that the NHS will pay for the permanent replacements. We are accelerating our social cohesion plan to strengthen our British values of tolerance, decency and respect.

We are also strengthening our communities by extending Pride in Place, announcing the locations of seven new towns and delivering over 300 new school-based nurseries. This is investment in our high streets, more homes and action to support working people with the cost of living.

Today, we will celebrate the installation of the new Archbishop of Canterbury. It is a key role in our national life and I wish her every success. 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.

[Cat Smith]

I would like to thank the Prime Minister for the £47 million that this Government have given to Lancashire county council to repair potholes. However, my constituents still feel like they need a moon buggy to navigate the streets of Lancashire, so would he agree that the Reform councillors of Lancashire county council are clearly wired to the moon if they think they are making effective use of this £47 million?

[The Prime Minister]

Can I extend my sympathy to residents in Lancashire who are being utterly failed by their Reform county council? It is the same picture across the country. In Kent, Reform is cutting social care. In Worcestershire, it is hiking council tax by 9% despite promising lower taxes. In Staffordshire, the scandals and infighting have been so bad that Reform is on its fourth leader in 11 months. It is a warning to the whole country: Reform has nothing to offer but chaos, grievance and division.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I asked the Prime Minister six questions last week and he did not answer a single one. He has a duty to this House to answer the question. Let us see if he can do better this week. I will start with a simple one. Will the Prime Minister approve the licences for the Rosebank and Jackdaw gasfields in the North sea?

[The Prime Minister]

Under statute, that is a matter for the Secretary of State, as the right hon. Lady knows. The same arrangements were in place under the last Government. Licences were granted, and they were then struck down because of the defects in the process of the last Government. But oil and gas are coming out of the North sea 24/7. They will be part of the energy mix for many years to come. We fully support all existing oil and gas fields throughout their lifespans, and in November we made changes to extend that to allow neighbouring fields to be exploited.

However, we need to take control of our energy prices. The only way to do that is through renewables. The Conservatives used to make that argument. One of their senior figures in 2022 said that it is

“investment in nuclear and renewables that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and keep down consumer costs.”

Who was that senior figure? The Leader of the Opposition.

[Hon. Members]

More!

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister loves to hide behind legal process. I wonder what a Director of Public Prosecutions would make of the defence, “Sorry, I can’t produce my WhatsApps—my phone has been stolen.” The Jackdaw gasfield could be up and running before winter. All that gas would be used here in the UK to heat 1.6 million homes. That is enough to power Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex put together. Will the Prime Minister approve the licences, or is the Energy Secretary running the Government?

[The Prime Minister]

Legislation has been passed. It is absolutely clear that the quasi-judicial duty under the legislation rests with the Secretary of State. I really think that if she is going to put this challenge to me, she needs to read the legislation. It is the legislation that the Conservatives applied for 14 years. It is exactly the legislation that they used to put the licences in place which were then struck down because the process was defective.

Let us be clear: when Russia invaded Ukraine, energy prices doubled. During the 12-day war, oil prices hit £100 a barrel. In the last four weeks, because we are on the fossil fuel rollercoaster, everybody is being held to ransom. The only way forward is to go further and faster on renewables. The Leader of the Opposition’s approach is to outsource our foreign policy and let the US decide whether we go to war, and to outsource our energy policy to Russia and Iran and let them set the price of energy. I will never do that because it is not in the British national interest.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister is hiding behind so many people. He is the Prime Minister; he can make this decision today. He is so weak that he is the first person to be pushed around by the Energy Secretary.

Let me remind the Prime Minister who is on my side: the unions—yes, they are on my side—including GMB, Tony Blair, RenewableUK—the very people he talks about are saying to drill in the North sea—Centrica, Octopus Energy and even Labour MPs. Let me quote one Labour Member, the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell):

“Offshoring our carbon emissions might give some a sense of moral superiority”

but it is simply

“impoverishing our own communities”.

We agree, so why does the Prime Minister think that he knows better than everyone else?

[The Prime Minister]

I am going to have one more go. The legislation, the statute—[Interruption.] The law prescribes the decision maker. The Opposition know that; they should be embarrassed. The Leader of the Opposition is attacking me without having read the legislation. The legislation sets out who the decision maker is: it is the Secretary of State, not the Prime Minister. It has to be the Secretary of State, and it is a quasi-judicial process—exactly the process that they ran for many years.

Oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years to come, but we do need to get on to renewables. We are discussing this because of the war. We need to de-escalate—[Interruption.] Yes, we are. That is why I stuck to my principles not to join the war and to act in collective self-defence. I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition does not get that. She wanted to jump into the war without regard for the consequences, and now she has done the mother of all U-turns and is stranded without a thought-through position. When she was asked at the weekend whether she approved of the war, she said, “Oh, that’s a difficult one.” It certainly is if you have absolutely no judgment.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I am going to let the Prime Minister in on a secret: he is the Prime Minister, and he can change the legislation. Hiding behind the Energy Secretary is pathetic. Under the Prime Minister’s Labour Government, we buy half the gas that we use from Norway. Last year, Norway’s Labour Government drilled 49 wells in the North sea. How many did Britain drill? Zero. For the first time since 1964, under this Prime Minister’s Government, Britain drilled no wells. Why is energy security the right policy for Labour in Norway, but the wrong policy for Labour in Britain?

[The Prime Minister]

So now the right hon. Lady’s attack is, “If you pass a different law, you can take the decision”—the decision she is challenging me today for not taking. It is absolutely ridiculous. All that would do is to slow the process down. Oil and gas is coming out every day. There is a mix of that and renewables, but the most important thing to do to get energy security is to ensure that we de-escalate this war. I know where I stand on this: we are not joining the war. She wanted to join the war, but she did not think through the consequences, and now she does not know where she stands on the most important issue facing this country at this time.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Norwegian Prime Minister is doing what is right for his country—if only our Prime Minister would do the same. Stopping all new drilling in the North sea was a reckless promise when he made it before the election; in the middle of a global energy crisis, it is catastrophic. Experts are predicting a £300 rise in bills in July. Approving new licences would show that he is serious about cutting bills. Why will he not do it?

[The Prime Minister]

Because of the action that we have taken, household bills are coming down by around £100 next month, then they will be capped for three months. That is what we are doing to protect households across the country. Who voted against it? The Tories and Reform, because they just do not get the impact on working people, who we will protect.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister says that bills are coming down; they are higher than they were when he came into office. He talks about what the Government are doing to help with energy bills. Families and businesses will suffer from the spike in energy costs because of his decisions. He could abolish the green taxes on their bills. He could stop the fuel duty rise. We could drill our own gas in the North sea. What is he doing? He is planning another giveaway to people on welfare. Yet again, he is taking money from those who work to give it to those who do not. First, we had the Budget for “Benefits Street”; now, we have the bail-out for “Benefits Street”. Does that not just prove that they have given up on being the Labour party and are now just the welfare party?

[Hon. Members]

More!

[The Prime Minister]

The Conservatives are the ones who doubled the spend on welfare. They were the ones with a broken system. When we tried to mend it, what did they do? They voted against it. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Dewhirst, you are testing my patience.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady talks about the spike in energy prices. That is because of the war, which I say we should not join and she says we should join, without following through on the consequences. Time and time again, she gets the big calls absolutely wrong. She wanted to drag us into the war—she got that wrong. She opposed taking control of energy security—she got that wrong. She opposed our decision to cut energy bills—she got that wrong. She seriously thinks that that will make her relevant—she has got that wrong.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Q3.   I thank the Prime Minister for the funding for three new primary school nurseries in Oldham, but may I ask him specifically about Monday’s Liaison Committee meeting, at which he agreed that the Israeli settlements in the west bank are unlawful and that their expansion threatens the viability of a Palestinian state? Will he confirm, as he said he would, that any potential bidder for E1 contracts from the UK knows that this is unlawful, and will he set out exactly what will happen as a consequence?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me do that. The Israeli settlements, including the E1 settlement, are a flagrant breach of international law and threaten the viability of a two-state solution. That is why, alongside international partners, we have sanctioned those responsible and their supporters who incite violence. We have consistently urged the Israeli Government to act to stop these incidents. We also recommend that settlement products are labelled so that consumers are informed, and we will continue to take the necessary action to defend Palestinians and protect the two-state solution.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about Monday’s despicable attacks on the Jewish community? Antisemitism has no place in our society. Given the potential links with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, I hope that the Government will move faster to proscribe the group as terrorists.

As a former Secretary of State for Energy who granted licences for oil and gas exploration, may I make a judgment on this argument? The Prime Minister is actually right, and the Leader of the Opposition is wrong—[Interruption.] The law is clear, and I believe in the rule of law.

Just before President Trump posted about his supposed negotiations with Iran on Monday, traders made hundreds of millions of dollars of extra bets on oil futures. This looks like Donald Trump giving his mates inside information so they can make themselves richer, while his illegal war in Iran makes everyone else poorer. It looks like corruption of the very worst kind. Does the Prime Minister share my fear that Trump is making his war decisions on the basis of what enriches him and his friends, rather than what makes peace in the middle east?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his verdict. At least he has read the law that the Leader of the Opposition obviously has not read. In relation to the traders, we have seen the activity there. What I can say is that all my decisions are based on the best interests of our country, and that is why I have decided that we will not get dragged into the war, unlike the Leader of the Opposition. I have decided that we will act in collective self-defence—in defence of ourselves and our allies. I comment on my actions, and those are the principles behind my actions.

[Ed Davey]

If Trump’s war pushes up energy bills by £500, the Chancellor’s very narrow plans simply will not cut it. While I do not fall for the crocodile tears of the leader of the Conservatives, who cheered on this illegal war without a thought for the impact on people’s energy bills, and while the Government are right to reject the idea of repeating Liz Truss’s blank cheque approach, the Government cannot ignore the millions of families who do not receive benefits and who already face a cost of living crisis. Can the Prime Minister at least guarantee to all those families and pensioners that he will not let their energy bills go up by £500 this year?

[The Prime Minister]

Well, let me now give my verdict. The right hon. Gentleman is right about the Leader of the Opposition wanting to join the war, and she is wrong about that. [Interruption.] At least the right hon. Gentleman has read the legislation on which I am being challenged; it does help. [Interruption.] At least the right hon. Gentleman is right that it was the leader of the Conservative party who said, “Let us all go to war,” without thinking through the consequences. We are now discussing the consequences.

In relation to the support, we have made clear the principles and the approach that we will take. We will keep this under careful review. Energy bills for households are capped until the end of June. It is really important that I make it clear that that will happen whatever happens in the conflict, because I know the public are concerned about that. We will then put in place appropriate support, and we will look at how we put the principles behind it.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

Q4. May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks on the terrible Golders Green attack? Rebuilding trust and integrity in our democracy matters deeply to my constituents in Southampton. Shamefully, it does not matter at all to some, particularly the senior Reform UK politician who has been convicted of taking bribes from Russia. Does the Prime Minister agree that there has never been a more urgent need to defend our country from hostile forces that would try to undermine our democracy, and will he set out what concrete steps he is taking to crack down on foreign interference in British politics?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The Communities Secretary will make a statement later on the Rycroft review, which sets out the stark threats posed by illicit finance. I can tell the House that we will act decisively to protect our democracy. That will include a moratorium on all political donations made through cryptocurrencies, and I hope that will be welcomed across the House. There is only one party leader who has shown that he will say anything, no matter how divisive, if he is paid to do so.

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

“Smash the gangs”—that is what the Prime Minister promised us. “Trust me, I will stop the boats from coming.” But 70,000 people later, with 1,000 in the last week and too many young men who pose a threat to national security, is it not time to admit that “smash the gangs” has been a total, abject failure—along with, frankly, most of his other policies? Is it not time he told us, as summer approaches, what is plan B?

[The Prime Minister]

That is from the man and the party who voted against giving law enforcement counter-terrorism-style powers to tackle this. The hon. Gentleman wants the grievance; he does not want it sorted. He has absolutely no judgment. Again, he said, “Let’s join the war. Let’s all go to war.” I want to make it perfectly clear that he wanted the war. A week later, he did a screeching U-turn: “We don’t want to go to war”—and he says we should trust his judgment. It is hard to take anything he says seriously. He promised lower tax, and now Reform councils are hiking council tax by 9%. This is what he said about Worcestershire:

“We took…control of a virtually bankrupt council. I wish we hadn’t bothered.”

He asks for people’s votes, and then he abandons them. Reform does not want to solve problems; it only wants to exploit them. I am thankful for the opportunity to change this country for the better; he says he wishes that he had not bothered winning councils. Reform is an absolute disgrace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Tidball]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I thank the Prime Minister for the £35 million of funding to transform the Crucible theatre and keep the world snooker championship at the heart of Sheffield? I want my constituents to be able to enjoy this fantastic tournament, day and night, and to travel in by tram-train from Stocksbridge to Sheffield via Oughtibridge, Wharncliffe Side and Deepcar. I am grateful to our South Yorkshire Mayor, Oliver Coppard, for kick-starting these plans. Will the Prime Minister work with me and the South Yorkshire Mayor to ensure that we get spades in the ground for a tram-train extension to Stocksbridge as soon as possible, so that my constituents can enjoy the snooker?

[The Prime Minister]

I see that Reform Members have walked out. They obviously realise that they are absolutely snookered. [Hon. Members: “More!”]

[Mr Speaker]

More? No, I don’t think so!

[The Prime Minister]

Sheffield and the Crucible theatre are the beating heart of snooker, and I am delighted that they will host the world snooker championship for many years to come. This is what Labour stands for: investing in things that make us proud of the places where we live. I reassure my hon. Friend that we are working closely with South Yorkshire combined authority on better transport links and providing over £1.4 billion to spend on its priorities, which could include a new tram fleet and more modern stops, or delivering extensions.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Q2.   Last week, I met my constituents Rob and Lizzie at the Kings Arms hotel in Melrose, which they run as part of a family business of 10 hotels across Scotland. They employ over 250 people, but their national insurance bill is going up by £280,000 because of Labour’s tax on jobs. We need to get Britain working again, but this Government’s policies are doing the opposite. Does the Prime Minister understand the damage that he is doing to our economy, and how does he expect businesses like this to survive?

[The Prime Minister]

The steps we have taken have been to repair the damage done by the previous Government. We took those steps, and the spring statement showed the results of those steps: inflation coming down; interest rates coming down; and the economy stabilised. I know the Conservatives do not understand that, because they blew up the economy in the first place.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

Q6.   My constituents Tony and Rebecca Wadley received insulation under the Tory Government’s ECO4 scheme, but the work left their home with black mould, leaks, damp and even a solar fire—damage now requiring £100,000-worth of repairs. Rebecca is suicidal, Tony has had pneumonia and their asthmatic son cannot live at home. Like many others, they are required under the rules to use the same contractor responsible for the faulty work, but only up to £20,000. Will the Prime Minister commit to overhauling this broken system, so that my constituents and many others can receive fully funded repairs carried out by a competent builder?

[The Prime Minister]

An independent audit of the previous Government’s failed insulation schemes shows unacceptable levels of failings. We have acted to make sure poor-quality installations are fixed. It is important that those responsible are held to account for the cost of remediating the issues. I do recognise that there are some complicated cases, and I will make sure a Minister looks at my hon. Friend’s constituents’ case and that urgent action is taken.

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

Q9. The Prime Minister says that he is concerned about the cost of living, so can he explain why he allowed his Local Government Minister to give permission to Reform-led Worcestershire county council to inflict that 9% council tax hike on my constituents?

[The Prime Minister]

Reform has to take responsibility for its decisions, but its Members have moved out.

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

Q7. Two members of the same family in my constituency recently suffered serious health problems. The NHS was there for them, as we would expect, and they are both hopefully on the road to recovery. The recently departed hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) had a different idea, which was that we should have an insurance-based health policy—an American-style policy—but that family, whose costs would have been $1.2 million, would have been crucified financially by what happened. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to say that our principles for the NHS are that it is universal for everybody, that wealth does not give privileged access and that this is a public service, not a private service?

[The Prime Minister]

I am deeply sorry to hear about the case that my hon. Friend raises. We are the party of the NHS, and we will always fight to ensure that it remains free at the point of use. We inherited an NHS on its knees, but we are seeing progress: waiting lists are down; patient satisfaction is improving; and we have the best ambulance response times for half a decade. There is much more to do, but we are delivering the investment that is needed—and it was opposed by who? The Tories and the now departed Reform Members.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Q11.  My constituent Susan suffered horrific, unimaginable, lifelong injury from a pelvic mesh implant. She lost her business, her marriage and her health, and lives in constant 24-hour pain. I would like to congratulate the new Minister for Public Health—the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson)—on her appointment, after her tireless campaigning on this issue, which has clearly been recognised. However, more than two years after the Hughes report set out clear recommendations for redress, thousands of women such as Susan are still waiting for a Government response. Can the Prime Minister tell Susan and the thousands of other women like her how much longer they will have to wait?

[The Prime Minister]

Can I thank the hon. Member for raising Susan’s case? It is really important that she does so, and I am deeply sorry for the enduring harm that patients have suffered. Ministers have met campaigners and the Patient Safety Commissioner to discuss their recommendations, and I can assure the hon. Lady we will provide a full response to the Hughes report recommendations at the earliest opportunity. I am happy for Ministers to update her on the actions we have taken and to discuss the particular case that she has raised with me.

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Q8. I recently met Graham and Malcolm, who bravely shared their lived experience of addiction to monkey dust, a synthetic cathinone causing significant problems in Stoke-on-Trent. They shared the challenges that they faced in recovery—challenges caused by a lack of joined-up working between local services, including mental health and housing services. I am now setting up a taskforce to address those gaps and to learn from excellent local projects, such as SPHERE. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss how, together as a country, we can tackle this pernicious drug?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work. She is right to highlight the growing threat posed by dangerous synthetic drugs. Alongside deploying new detection methods at the border to seize drugs, we are investing in better mental health support and drug addiction treatment, with almost £26 million for Stoke-on-Trent. I will ask a Health Minister to discuss her important work with her.

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

Q15. As we move towards the Easter recess, I am sure the Prime Minister’s thoughts are turning to the miracle of resurrection. My constituents have asked me to resurrect something: cash in shops. One in seven shops in the past year has moved to being cashless. That risks leaving behind those on low income or the elderly. Indeed, we heard today about the risk posed to our economic liberty by the move to digital devices, as mobile phones can be lost, stolen or other. What is the Prime Minister doing to ensure that nobody is left behind in a cashless society?

[The Prime Minister]

It is really important that nobody is left behind in a cashless society. The vast majority are moving online, but we need to remember that some do not want to, or cannot, and we must ensure that provision is in place for them as well. I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that issue.

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

Q10.   The Government have shown that they take seriously justice and violence against women and girls. In my constituency, I have been made aware of a case in which two children of a convicted paedophile have been trying to change their surname but cannot, because both parents have to agree. They are caught in a trap not of their making. Will my right hon. and learned Friend, and/or the relevant Minister, agree to meet me to hear how the legal system is denying justice to those children, and to discuss what we can do about it?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. It is shocking and horrifying to hear what those children have to go through. I am absolutely clear in my mind that this should not be happening. I can inform him that I have instructed Justice Ministers to look at what they can do. They will review the payments, and see what else they can do. I am really pleased that he has raised this issue, so that we can now act on it, and I will ensure that he gets the meeting he is asking for.

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

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is responsible for the rise of antisemitism worldwide and here in the United Kingdom; for inciting extreme Islamist attacks; for attacking dissident Iranians and British citizens; and for fomenting all sorts of hate marches. I have a very simple question. We are now at war with Iran, whether we like it or not, yet the reality is that we have never dealt with this organisation. This is not party political; will the Prime Minister make the decision now to proscribe this brutal bunch of thugs and send them packing, or arrest them and put them in jail right now? Get rid of this organisation.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that really important and serious point. He knows that we have sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety, and have imposed over 230 sanctions since coming into office. The existing proscription powers are not designed for a state organisation, but we keep this under review—as did the last Government.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

Q12. On 16 July 2005, Private Leon Spicer and Private Phillip Hewett, both from Tamworth, and Second Lieutenant Richard Shearer from Nuneaton, were tragically killed in Iraq. More than 20 years on, our communities continue to remember their service and reflect on the ultimate sacrifice they made. The Staffordshire 3 Group, chaired by Anthony Frith, has worked tirelessly to fundraise for a memorial, which is due to be unveiled next month—an event to which, of course, the Prime Minister is warmly invited. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to these three brave men, and in commending the Staffordshire 3 Group for its dedication to ensuring that their legacy is never forgotten?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for the invitation, and join her in paying tribute to Private Leon Spicer, Private Phillip Hewett and Second Lieutenant Richard Shearer. Their bravery and sacrifice in defence of our values will never be forgotten, and I am delighted to hear that a memorial will be unveiled. I also pay tribute to all those serving in the middle east today, shooting down threats to our allies and protecting our people.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the attack on the Jewish community in Golders Green; there is no place for hatred, antisemitism or violence of any kind against individuals.

An independent panel of senior judges found no basis for misconduct proceedings against the British chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, King’s counsel, yet reports suggest that elements within the Court’s governing body are seeking to disregard those findings, while ICC officials continue to face external pressure and sanctions. Given the UK’s commitment to the rule of law, and as a human rights lawyer himself, will the Prime Minister set out the steps that he will take to defend the independence of the ICC and support British nationals carrying out international judicial roles?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not going to comment on the internal proceedings of the Court. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we support the Court; we are party to the treaty, and there are legal obligations that flow from that.

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

In my constituency, we have a cohesive and diverse community, with a significant Jewish population, a thriving Muslim community and many others from various different backgrounds all living together and supporting each other. I was therefore appalled to learn of the arson attack against the Jewish community in Golders Green this week, and was deeply concerned by the outrageous comments of the shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), last week about the community iftar in Trafalgar Square, which were seemingly supported by the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Prime Minister assure me and my worried constituents that he and his Government will do all they can to stamp out hate and hate speech in our communities?

[The Prime Minister]

I want to say again what a shocking antisemitic attack this was in Golders Green, and to be absolutely clear that an attack on British Jews is an attack on all of us. On Monday morning, I met Jewish community leaders to talk through what we could do on ambulances, on security and on the social cohesion plan. I will also say that I was really struck by the fact that the Jewish community came out last week against the shadow Justice Secretary’s comments; they are standing in solidarity with Muslims who wanted to pray in Trafalgar Square. Equally, at the Eid events we had on Monday, Muslims stood in solidarity with our Jewish community. That is Britain, contrary to what the shadow Justice Secretary said last week, supported by the Leader of the Opposition. That is how far they have fallen.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

Thames Water is lurching from crisis to crisis. Last year, it was let off record fines for pumping sewage into rivers by Ofwat. Ofwat is allowed to do that, under rules laid out in the Water Industry Act 1991. Will the Prime Minister consider scrapping those rules, to stop Ofwat letting water companies off the hook?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this deeply concerning matter. We are looking at what more we can do, because this has been of too much concern for too long, and we need to act.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the covid inquiry graphically laid bare last week, the NHS was starved of the investment it needed under the Conservatives, and nowhere more so than at Northwick Park hospital; its brave and extraordinary staff worked around the clock during covid, looking after many of my constituents. Given the very welcome, substantial investment in improving the NHS that the Government have committed to, will my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister encourage the Health Secretary to support plans for a new intensive care unit at Northwick Park?

[The Prime Minister]

The covid report is a stark reminder of the extraordinary efforts of health workers to keep this country safe. We are delivering record investment and reform that our NHS needs, and while decisions about local infrastructure are made by integrated care boards, I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the Minister to discuss this particular case. Today, NHS satisfaction rates have risen for the first time since the pandemic; that is the difference a Labour Government are making.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On 21 November last year, Robert Clancy, a hugely valued and much loved member of my staff, took his own life. He was 29. While successive Governments have done a great deal to deal with the scourge of suicide in this country, there is much more that can be done. Will the Prime Minister personally commit to meeting me to discuss how we can prevent others from experiencing the unimaginable pain that Rob’s family and friends have endured?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the case of Robert Clancy. We are happy to work across the House on all that we can do in relation to suicide. I am pleased that we have been able to put in place a strategy; that is the action of this Government, but it needs to be the action of all of us, and I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets the meeting that he is asking for. I thank him again for raising this case; it was really important that he did.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I refer you to paragraph 22.9 of “Erskine May”, which stresses the primary importance of ministerial responsibility? We have to admit that Prime Ministers have always tried to dodge questions at Prime Minister’s Question Time, and you are not responsible for the answers that they give, but what we have seen in recent weeks is not just dodging questions; in reply to every question the Prime Minister is asked, he refers to the Leader of the Opposition’s policies. This is not Leader of the Opposition’s questions; it is Prime Minister’s questions.

Covid-19 Inquiry: Module 3 Report

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

The chair of the UK Covid-19 inquiry has today published the inquiry’s module 3 report, which examined the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on healthcare systems in the four nations of the UK.

The chair emphasises

“the unbearable stress and distress to patients, their loved ones and the healthcare workers looking after them.”

She pays tribute to the extraordinary efforts of all those working in the healthcare systems across the UK. I too recognise the loss and pain people experienced during the pandemic, and the extraordinary efforts of health workers across the four nations. The disruption and effects of covid-19 on our society were profound, and its effects were particularly felt through the health and social care system.

The chair has found that the UK entered the pandemic ill-prepared and with highly stretched healthcare systems, and that the impact of the pandemic on the healthcare systems of the UK was devastating. The chair concludes that the UK needs better pre-pandemic planning. She recommends measures to strengthen national preparedness for future pandemics, with clear accountability for the provision of guidance on infection prevention and control, an ethical framework for resource allocation, improved data systems for risk stratification, and tested plans to rapidly scale hospital and urgent and emergency care capacity. She also recommends measures to protect patients and health workers, including guidance on visiting restrictions, standardised advance care planning, transparent reporting of health worker deaths, better preparation for FFP3 mask fit-testing, and psychological and emotional support for healthcare staff.

This Government are committed to learning the lessons from the inquiry and ensuring the NHS and the social care sector are prepared for a future pandemic. We will work with our colleagues in the devolved Governments as we carefully consider the recommendations in the report. It is clear that the NHS and the social care sector remain under pressure across the UK, and in many cases healthcare services are still recovering from the pandemic. This Government are committed to investment and reform to build a health service in England that is fit for the future and there for people when they need it.

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

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

[HCWS1426]

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Our deepest condolences are with the families and friends of the two young people who have died following the outbreak of meningitis B in Kent. Others are seriously ill, and this will be a deeply difficult time for their loved ones. Health experts are working to identify close contacts and distribute antibiotics, and we will begin a targeted vaccination programme in the coming days. Can I take this opportunity to ask anyone who attended Club Chemistry on 5, 6 or 7 March to please come forward to receive antibiotics?

Yesterday President Zelensky addressed parliamentarians, including many Members. I had the opportunity to reaffirm to him that no matter what other international events, the UK’s support for Ukraine will not waver. I also welcomed Prime Minister Carney and NATO Secretary-General Rutte to Downing Street for further discussions on international security.

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.

[Wendy Morton]

May I associate myself with the comments and condolences of the Prime Minister in relation to those affected by the meningitis outbreak?

New data today shows that nearly 60% of hospices are considering cutting frontline services. In the west midlands, St Giles hospice has already reduced beds and staff due to financial pressures. With services being cut, can the Prime Minister explain why hospices are being told to wait until autumn for the new framework, and will he commit today to proper long-term, sustainable funding to secure this vital lifeline for the future?

[The Prime Minister]

It is important that the funding and framework are put in place. We support the work of hospices and are doing everything we can to support them.

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

Q3. My constituent Caroline from Grenoside told me that since December the cost of her heating oil has nearly tripled, from £257 to £700. Local farmers I met last week also raised their concerns that the oil industry has not been properly regulated, disadvantaging off-grid customers. While I welcome the Government’s £53 million support package for rural communities, will the Prime Minister confirm how disabled people, vulnerable people and low-income households can access this support, and how he will improve regulation of oil to bring down the cost of energy bills?

[The Prime Minister]

My first instinct is always to protect people from the cost of living. The immediate action we have taken in relation to those who heat their homes with oil is the £53 million that we announced this week. That is particularly important for rural communities and for Northern Ireland. De-escalation in the middle east is the quickest way to reduce the cost of living. Anyone who advocated for the UK to rush headlong into the offensive without a clear picture of what it would mean for our forces or without thinking through the economic impact for families should stand up and apologise.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

The Prime Minister tried to avoid scrutiny on the Mandelson files by releasing the documents immediately after Prime Minister’s questions last week, so let me ask him now: did he personally speak to Peter Mandelson about his relationship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein before appointing him as our ambassador to Washington?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me start where I must. It was my mistake in making the appointment. I have apologised to the victims of Epstein, and I do so again. The Government are complying with the Humble Address in full, and we are continuing to support the police in their investigation. The matter of process was looked at by the independent adviser on ministerial standards. It is clear that the appointment process was not strong enough, and that is why I have already strengthened it. It was my mistake, and I have apologised for it. The right hon. Lady should follow suit and apologise for her gross error of judgment in calling for the UK to join the war in Iran without thinking through the consequences.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I know the Prime Minister does not want to talk about the documents that he tried to bury last week. He is going to try to talk about anything else, but he is not going to get away with it. I asked him a question; he did not answer.

We know that the Prime Minister was warned about the risk of appointing Peter Mandelson. This is not about the process. He knew that Mandelson stayed in Epstein’s house after Epstein had been convicted for child prostitution—he knew that. So I will ask him again: did he speak to Peter Mandelson about that before the appointment? Yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

I have already made clear that Peter Mandelson was asked questions and gave untruthful replies. The Government are complying with the Humble Address. The process has been set out. The independent adviser looked at it, and he said,

“the relevant process for a political appointee was followed”.

Obviously, this is a question of my judgment, but what about the Leader of the Opposition’s judgment? She wanted to rush into a war with Iran without thinking it through. At the weekend—three weeks in—she said, “Oh, there isn’t a clear plan behind the US strikes in Iran.” That is the question she should have asked at the start. The decision to commit the UK to a war is the biggest decision a Prime Minister can take, and she was completely wrong.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I did not hear an answer, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is right: it is about his judgment. He has repeatedly told us that Peter Mandelson lied to him, but he will not tell us if he actually picked up the phone and spoke to Mandelson before appointing him. That does not make any sense. The Prime Minister told us on the record that he “believed the lies” that Mandelson told him, but if he did not speak to him, how can he say that?

[The Prime Minister]

The process is clear, and it has been looked at by the independent adviser. The Leader of the Opposition asked me about the process and judgment on appointments, but she appointed the shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), who said last night that Muslims praying in public—including the Mayor of London, practising his faith—are not welcome. He described it as an

“act of domination…straight from the Islamist playbook.”

It is utterly appalling. If he were in my team, he would be gone. The Leader of the Opposition should denounce his comments, and she should sack him.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister wants to talk about Justice Secretaries. His Justice Secretary is abolishing jury trials; my shadow Justice Secretary is defending British values. I know who I would rather have sitting on the Front Bench next to me, and it is not the Justice Secretary.

This is important: the Prime Minister wants to talk about anything except what I am asking him. Three times I have asked him whether he spoke to Peter Mandelson; three times, he has refused to answer. We can only assume that he did not speak to Peter Mandelson. From the documents published, we know that he left the questioning about Mandelson’s relationship with a convicted paedophile to two of Mandelson’s closest friends, one of whom was also friends with a convicted paedophile. Asking those questions should have been his job. Why did he fail to do his duty?

[The Prime Minister]

The Leader of the Opposition’s position is that the shadow Justice Secretary is defending British values when he says Muslims praying together in Trafalgar Square are not welcome. Even Tommy Robinson—I can hardly believe that I am saying this—has said today that if the shadow Justice Secretary had made those hateful comments two years ago, the Conservative party would have kicked him out. Tommy Robinson is not some sort of moral signpost; he was pointing out how much her party has changed—it is more inclined to his views—and he is right about that. The fact that the shadow Justice Secretary is sitting on her Front Bench shows that she is too weak and has absolutely no judgment.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister wants to talk about my leadership. I am shocked. His former deputy has just fired the starting gun on the race to replace him. I will tell him one thing: she and I both agree that this weak man should be replaced by a strong woman. [Interruption.] But I am not finished, Mr Speaker—I have too much to say to him.

There is still a lot to ask about the Mandelson files. The Prime Minister knew that Mandelson had kept up a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The documents released also show that he had been warned about appointing Mandelson. He claims he was lied to. Mandelson had twice been fired for dishonesty, so why did the Prime Minister believe Peter Mandelson over the vetting documents?

[The Prime Minister]

The Leader of the Opposition asked about leadership. When I see religious events in Trafalgar Square—when I see Hindus celebrating Diwali, when I see Jews celebrating ChanukahLive!, when I see Christians performing the passion of Christ, or Muslims praying—that shows the great strength of our diverse city and country. I have never heard her party call out anything other than the Muslim events; it is only when Muslims are praying. The only conclusion is that the Tory party has a problem with Muslims. [Interruption.]

[Mrs Badenoch]

It is a shame that the Prime Minister is not responsible for the answers either. He wants us to believe that he is a serious leader, but he does not do the work. He outsources the decisions and when things go wrong he blames the vetting, he blames the chief of staff, he blames the Cabinet Secretary—he blames anyone but himself. This Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson, but did not bother to ask the questions. If he cannot be straight with the House on something as simple as this, why should we believe a word he says about anything?

[The Prime Minister]

The Leader of the Opposition talks about doing the work. Three weeks ago she said we should rush into war. She did not do the work; she did not think through the consequences. Committing our military to a war without thinking through the consequences is the gravest mistake for a Leader of the Opposition. She comes back a week later and says, “Oops! I got that one wrong.” She is utterly irrelevant and she has no judgment. This is the Leader of the Opposition who said that I should have empty-chaired the most important NATO summit in years, this is the Leader of the Opposition who said that Greenland is a second-order issue, and this is the Leader of the Opposition who would have jumped into a war with Iran without stopping to think.

On top of that, this week, we have the failure to condemn and sack—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I repeat that I am not responsible for the answers, but this is certainly not Opposition questions.

[The Prime Minister]

Add to that the failure to condemn and sack the shadow Justice Secretary for the poison and division that he spreads. It is turning out to be quite a month for the Leader of the Opposition who claims that she never makes any mistakes.

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

We have seen this play out before: a US rush to military escalation with no plan for what comes next. We have seen schoolgirls bombed in Iran, whole families killed in Lebanon, chaos in a region already scarred by repression and genocide, and economic shocks that hurt the most vulnerable at home. In Irish, there is a phrase, “Ní mhealltar an sionnach faoi dhó”—have we learned no lessons? People are asking exactly that: how many times do these horrors play out before the lessons are learned? The Prime Minister has said that the UK

“will not be drawn into the wider war.”

Will he guarantee two things: that that position will hold in the face of mounting pressure from Trump and Netanyahu, and that this House will get a vote before the UK is involved in any further conflict?

[The Prime Minister]

Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, my principles have been clear and unwavering. We will protect our people in the region, we will take action to defend ourselves and our allies, and we will not be drawn into the wider war. I want to see this war end as quickly as possible. The longer it continues, the bigger the impact on the cost of living. That is where we have intervened to support households with the costs of heating oil. The best way forward is a negotiated settlement, with Iran giving up any aspirations to develop a nuclear weapon.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

I join the Prime Minister in offering my condolences to the family and friends of the two young people who have been killed by the meningitis bug in Kent and all those affected by this horrifying outbreak.

Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent is critical for the defence of our nation and the whole of Europe, but the current Trident missiles will reach the end of their lives in the 2040s. We have to make a choice now: lease new missiles from the United States, accepting whatever terms the President gives us, or build our own here in the United Kingdom. The Conservatives and Reform say that we have to rely on President Trump and the United States because we could not possibly do it ourselves. Does the Prime Minister agree with them?

[The Prime Minister]

Our independent nuclear deterrent protects us every day, and we should never forget how important it is. It is important that we renew it. We will do that in the best interests of Britain. The right hon. Member is openly advocating a plan without knowing how much it would cost and how it would work. That is not the way to deal with our independent nuclear deterrent.

[Ed Davey]

I am surprised by that response. The French can do it—does the Prime Minister really think Britain cannot?

Moving on, a New World investigation into GB News has found hundreds of shocking breaches of the rules of impartiality and accuracy, yet Ofcom has repeatedly refused to take action. Andrew Neil says:

“Just as Fox basically became the channel of Donald Trump, it’s clear they have turned GB News into the Reform channel”.

We cannot let GB News propaganda turn our great country into its version of Trump’s America. Either the Government rules are not fit for purpose or Ofcom is not properly enforcing them—which is it?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Member is right to raise an important question of free speech and our media. It is a matter for Ofcom, and it is important that we let it deal with it.

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

Q4. Violence against women and girls is a global emergency. It is a key concern that we discussed at last week’s United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. Social media platforms are promoting and profiting from vile online misogyny. It has made its way on to playgrounds, into workplaces and relationships, and even into our politics, harming women and girls and exploiting young men and boys. In the manosphere, everyone loses. What is this Government doing to tackle the harm being caused by hateful forces online?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend and the others who attended the UN Commission on the Status of Women event. We are committed to halving violence against women and girls wherever it takes place, whether that is online, offline or on our streets. That includes banning deepfakes and tackling non-consensual intimate images and abusive, vile content online.

Following up from last week, I was deeply concerned that Travelodge cancelled its meeting with MPs. I want it to put that right and put it right swiftly.

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

Q2. In January last year, I raised with the Prime Minister the issue of inadequate and inaccessible compensation for those injured by covid vaccinations. The Prime Minister undertook to look into it, along with the Health Secretary, but I am afraid that more than a year later no significant progress has been made. I know that the Prime Minister and the Government recognise the risk that this issue poses to public confidence in mass vaccination—all the more important given the Prime Minister’s opening remarks in this session—and, indeed, the pain it has caused to those who have been injured or lost loved ones for doing only what their Government asked them to do. Will the Prime Minister please re-engage with this issue and ensure that his Government make swift progress in resolving it?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. and learned Member for raising that, and I acknowledge the question he asked me last year. I pay tribute to him and to Kate for her campaign. It is vital that we look closely at the rare and tragic cases where things went wrong. We must not fail to do so, so that we maintain confidence in our health service—important in relation to covid, of course, but, as he rightly points out, important today as well. We are committed to looking at reforms to the vaccine damage payment scheme and engaging with those affected to ensure that it meets their needs. We expect the fourth module of the covid inquiry to report next month, which will look specifically at the issue he has raised. I can reassure him that we will look at other recommendations very closely.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

Q6.   At the international conference last week, it was clear that mobile phone theft is international organised crime. It drags in people as young as 14 years old. The Mayor of London and the Met commissioner have spent money on the latest tech to combat that crime, and it is working, but they need help. Manufacturers have the ability to deploy a kill switch to make stolen mobile phones worthless, but they do not do it—although Samsung takes it more seriously than Apple. If manufacturers do not do that, will the Government implement legislation to design out crime and keep our streets safe?

[The Prime Minister]

I welcome the Mayor of London’s crackdown. The Metropolitan police have made hundreds of arrests and recovered thousands of phones, and mobile phone theft has fallen. I agree with her that there is more to do, and we must work with the tech industry in order to do it. If we can reduce the value of stolen phones, it will help to break the business models that drive theft. We are committed to working with the industry, and are willing to consider any further necessary action to drive down that crime.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

Q5.  Yesterday, the Chancellor announced £2 billion of funding for UK sovereign artificial intelligence and quantum capabilities. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee was told that Government procurement will adapt to encourage UK companies to develop sovereign AI systems for Government use. In the light of those positive events, will the Prime Minister ensure that key digital systems in health, defence and policing are made sovereign and retendered to UK companies, not to politically motivated US companies such as Palantir?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman says, the Chancellor set out yesterday the huge economic opportunities of innovation and AI. We have put £5 billion behind British start-ups, and we will launch our sovereign AI unit with £500 million to help AI businesses start and grow. We are investing the £2 billion that he refers to in our quantum capabilities so that we can be the first country in the world to roll-out quantum computers at scale. Procurement must be the launchpad for start-ups, and we are determined to deliver that.

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

Q9.   NHS waiting list numbers are down by 374,000 thanks to this Government. Reform UK would take us back to the day when decent healthcare was only for people who could afford it. Innovation needs to be at the heart of our health service as we strive for better patient care. Does the Prime Minister agree that the partnership between Huddersfield Royal infirmary and the Huddersfield University health innovation centre is a great example of that? How do the Government intend to expand the brilliant health innovation centre model nationally?

[The Prime Minister]

That is a good example. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Thanks to our record investment in the NHS, we have the lowest waiting list numbers for three years, the shortest A&E waits for four years, and the fastest ambulance response times for five years. Stronger community health services, such as the local innovation centre that he mentions, are at the heart of our 10-year plan to go further. We would not have come this far already without the decisions made at the Budget, which were opposed by all Opposition parties.

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

Q7.   Last week, in the Government’s attack on jury trials, the Prime Minister’s own Back Benchers said that the plans were“unworkable, unjust, unpopular and unnecessary”,—[Official Report, 10 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 213.]“wrong in principle and wrong in practice”,—[Official Report, 10 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 265.]and“oppressive, authoritarian and, quite honestly…reactionary.”—[Official Report, 10 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 241.]Some 3,000 of the Prime Minister’s fellow lawyers say that juries have not caused this crisis. Earlier in his career, the Prime Minister himself said that scrapping juries “enables wrongful convictions”. The Institute for Government says that the Government are massively overestimating the savings that they will make from the plans. Let us be clear: the Prime Minister’s Back Benchers oppose it, his professional colleagues oppose it, and, in a previous life, he opposed it, so why is he forcing through a policy that is unjust in principle, unworkable in practice and opposed by everyone?

[The Prime Minister]

We are not abolishing jury trials, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I have worked with women and girls who have been victims of sexual violence and rape, and have waited a very, very long time for their cases to go to court. Many of them drop out because of the wait. They have described to me personally the mental anguish that they go through when their case cannot be heard for years, and when they are told of adjournments time and again. I am not prepared to look them in the eye any longer and not do something about it—we owe it to them.

This is about getting the balance right. We are not abolishing jury trials. About 3% of cases go to jury trial, as the right hon. Gentleman very well knows, while 97% do not. After these changes, it will be 2.25%. That is the difference between the policy that we are advancing and the policy as it now is. We are not abolishing jury trials, and I am not prepared to see victims of violence against women and girls repeatedly let down. That is what happened for 14 long years, and it is not good enough. I set my face against that and I am doing something about it.

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

Q10. I spent 20 years as a secondary school teacher in Wales. We worked hard. Labour has given them the biggest upgrade of rights in a generation—rights that millions of us fought hard to win—but the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) wants to chuck it all in the bin. Does the Prime Minister stand by these fundamental workers’ rights and agree that only a vote for Labour in May will enshrine them?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very proud of our Employment Rights Act 2025. It delivers strong rights and protections, including for all our brilliant school staff. My hon. Friend is right: Reform Members would rip up those protections. They have nothing to offer but grievance and division, and they have no judgment: just like the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has said that we should do “all we can” to support the US strikes. He said:

“I make that perfectly, perfectly clear.”

It was perfectly, perfectly clear that he got it completely wrong, and perfectly, perfectly clear that he is now desperately trying to U-turn. Absolutely no judgment: not fit to be Prime Minister.

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

Q8.   Over the course of the last year, our North sea neighbours, Norway, have opened 49 drill sites for gas and oil. On our side of the North sea, the number is zero. Given that our critical reserve of natural gas is down to two days and how vulnerable we are, and with talk of potential energy rationing coming later this year, is it not time that we changed course, got rid of excessive taxation on the exploration companies, opened up the licences and became self-sufficient in natural gas? With that would come thousands of jobs, increased tax revenues and cheaper gas prices. Is it not time we followed Norway?

[The Prime Minister]

Oil and gas will be part of the mix of our energy for many years to come, as I have set out many times. The hon. Member is now highlighting the consequences of the war that he said we should rush into. He wanted us to go to war. He said it was “perfectly, perfectly clear” that we should support the strikes. Then, just like the Leader of the Opposition, a week later he said, “Oh no, I got that one wrong.” You cannot make mistakes about decisions as serious as committing to war. It is a gross error.

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

Q13.   Some 95% of the food that we import from non-EU countries has lower welfare standards than that produced by British farmers, costing us millions and putting worse food on our plates. The Labour Rural Research Group will shortly launch our spring push on farming profitability to support British farmers by introducing honest labelling and levelling the playing field for trade and regulation. Will the Prime Minister commit to meeting me and the LRRG to discuss how we can work to back British farmers and improve their profitability?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend. We will always protect high welfare standards, and, through our food and drink deal, we are bringing down barriers for farmers selling to our largest market. Alongside our record £11.8 billion farming budget and investment in cutting-edge innovation, our farming profitability review is focused on boosting profitability. I have already acted and set up the farming and food partnership board, investing £30 million in our farmer collaboration fund.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Q11. Traffic chaos from a botched road realignment is affecting Calvert Green, Steeple Claydon and Twyford. Landowners are still awaiting payment for land taken. There is woeful underfunding of promised mitigation projects in Wendover after inadequate noise modelling. Many years ago, the Prime Minister and I used to be united in our opposition to High Speed 2. He changed. With the upcoming HS2 reset, will he make a personal intervention to ensure that my constituents and communities living with this hell on earth of a construction project are finally treated with the fairness and respect that they deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I know how much it impacts his constituents and how deeply they feel about it. It is important, as we reset and clear up the mess that was left, that we have in our mind’s eye those who are most affected, and make sure that it is fair and that their voices are heard, and we will do so.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q14. Burnley Manchester Road station is a key driver of growth. It is Burnley’s link to Manchester and Leeds and, more importantly for them, it is their link to Burnley. There were more than half a million journeys from the station last year, and yet it is inaccessible. Despite big, empty promises from the last Tory Government, we are no closer to fixing that. A promise of funding was made, but it never came. Will the Prime Minister help me to get this delivered and back my campaign to make Burnley Manchester Road an accessible, modern station, fit for Burnley’s ambitions?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a great champion on this issue and I will ensure that he gets a meeting with the Rail Minister to discuss the detail. The previous Government took the decision not to shortlist Burnley Manchester Road station for accessibility improvements. We are giving Lancashire combined county authority £641 million, with the freedom to invest in its priorities, including better accessibility. That is what a Labour Government represent: empowering local people to make the best decisions for their local area.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

Q12.  Every week, the Prime Minister comes to the Chamber and reads out this pre-scripted nonsense that bears no resemblance to the questions that he is actually asked. The Leader of the Opposition asked him about Peter Mandelson, and he answered about the war in Iran; the Leader of the Opposition asked him about Mandelson again, and he answered with an attack on the shadow Justice Secretary; he was asked about Mandelson again, and he talked about protests in London. What is he scared of? What is he hiding? For a man who has spent years presenting himself as a forensic investigator, he has certainly had a blind spot to the details for this convicted paedophile with a friend in high Labour places. So I ask him again: when he found out that Lord Mandelson had an ongoing relationship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, did he speak to Lord Mandelson personally before appointing him as ambassador to the United States?

[The Prime Minister]

We have set out the process and it has been put before the House—[Interruption.] I know why Opposition Members do not want to talk about the war: because they supported going into the war, without thinking through the consequences. That is a huge error of judgment. I realise that they do not want to talk about it ever again—I am not surprised. Nor do they want to talk about the shadow Justice Secretary saying that Muslims are not welcome to pray in Trafalgar Square. The Leader of the Opposition should remove him from the Front Bench, or I suspect he will be sitting up on the Reform Bench next.

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

As the Prime Minister mentioned earlier, the chief executive officer of Travelodge has today again refused to attend a meeting with Members of this House and the other place to answer serious concerns about guest safety and safeguarding. This refusal only deepens the lack of trust in the company’s commitment to protecting women and vulnerable guests. Will the Prime Minister meet me and invite the CEO of Travelodge to discuss the issue? Will he join me in urging the CEO to explain directly to all parliamentarians why she is unwilling to face scrutiny on such an important matter?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and he has raised it with me personally. Our thoughts are obviously with the victim. I was very concerned to hear that the CEO of Travelodge cancelled the meeting with MPs and I would urge them to reconsider. That meeting needs to go ahead with relevant MPs and with the relevant Minister, and the sooner it goes ahead the better. I hope that the CEO of Travelodge is listening to this exchange. I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue, not just on this occasion but on repeated occasions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Our armed forces are working day and night to protect British lives and British interests in the middle east. RAF pilots have flown over 230 hours of defensive operations over multiple countries, shooting down multiple drones and protecting British lives and our allies. We thank them for their courage and professionalism.

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.

[Sureena Brackenridge]

Strengthening Britain’s defence capability and rebuilding our industrial base have never been more important. Will the Government’s £1 billion helicopter investment with Leonardo UK support skilled jobs across the UK, including at Tata Steel in Wednesfield and throughout the supply chains in Wolverhampton North East, where we are immensely proud of our Black Country steel and manufacturing heritage? Will the Prime Minister ask relevant Ministers to meet me to discuss securing more of those good jobs in Wolverhampton and Willenhall?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to arrange the meeting that my hon. Friend asks for. Our £1 billion investment in new helicopters is good news for steelmakers in her constituency, and secures thousands of jobs across the United Kingdom. We are making defence an engine for growth and jobs. We are building helicopters, new Typhoons in the north-west and new frigates, and creating a decade of shipbuilding on the Clyde—a Labour Government investing in our armed forces.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Why does the Prime Minister think now is the right time to increase the cost of petrol?

[The Prime Minister]

We are not increasing the cost of petrol. We are absolutely clear in taking the measures that are necessary to deal with the impact of the conflict in Iran. We are dealing with that with other allies. We are taking the necessary action, but the best thing that we can do is to work with others to de-escalate the situation.

As I said to the House last week, I took the decision that we should not join the initial US-Israeli offensive against Iran. The Leader of the Opposition attacked me for that decision relentlessly. She said that the UK should have joined the US and Israel in the initial offensive strikes. Yesterday, in the wake of the economic consequences, the Leader of the Opposition totally abandoned her position. She told the BBC:

“I never said we should join”.

She told the BBC:

“I haven’t said we should have gone in with the US”.

That is the mother of all U-turns on the single most important decision that a Prime Minister ever has to take: whether to commit the United Kingdom to war or not.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The mother of all U-turns is the Prime Minister saying that the Government are not increasing fuel duty. That is news to us, because last week the Chancellor stood up and said that fuel duty was going to increase in September. The Prime Minister told us at the start of the year that the cost of living was his No. 1 priority. Can he explain how a rise in fuel duty helps with the cost of living?

[The Prime Minister]

Fuel duty is frozen. It is going to remain frozen until September, and we will keep the situation under review in the light of what is happening in Iran. But the most important issue is de-escalating the situation.

I come back to the Leader of the Opposition’s position, because this is one of the most important decisions that a Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition ever has to take: whether to commit your country to war. The day after the initial US-Israeli strikes started, her shadow Foreign Secretary said that the US-Israeli initial attacks were absolutely right and that

“it’s a position my party supports.”

She asked why I have “not actually worked with” America

“to be much more proactive”.

Last Wednesday, the Leader of the Opposition said:

“we are in this war whether they like it or not. What is the Prime Minister waiting for?”—[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 803.]

Then yesterday she says, “I never said”—[Interruption.] I know the Conservatives don’t want to hear it. [Interruption.] I wouldn’t want to hear it if I were them. After all that, she says—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Enough is enough. I cannot hear it. [Interruption.] Who wants to lead the first ones out? Right. We will have a little bit more silence.

[The Prime Minister]

After nine days of saying, “Join the war, join the war, join the war”, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition says:

“I never said we should join”,

and

“I haven’t said we should have gone in with the US”.

I will tell you what has happened, Mr Speaker: she and the Reform leader have been spooked, because they realise they have jumped into supporting a war without thinking through the consequences, and now she is furiously trying to back-pedal.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister seems to be answering last week’s questions. This week I am asking about fuel duty. He has said that he wants to help—[Interruption.] He has said that he wants to help with the cost of living. My constituents live in a rural area. They rely on their cars to get to the shops, take their kids to school or see their elderly parents, and they tell me that the rising cost of petrol is the single biggest cost affecting family finances. Does the Prime Minister not understand how important cars are to people in rural areas, or does he just not care?

[The Prime Minister]

We are working across all Departments and with allies to deal with the impact of the conflict in Iran, as the House would expect. If I had asked the Leader of the Opposition last week, her position would have been, “We support the initial strikes and we want to join the war.” This week, she says, “We don’t want to join the war.” I am sorry, but that is a screeching U-turn. Mr Speaker, in this job, you do not get a second shot at making the right call on taking your country to war. If she were Prime Minister, we would be in the war, and she would be coming back to Parliament a week later to say, “Oh, sorry. I got that one wrong.”

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Order! I am sorry I am interrupting you, but unfortunately we have to stick to Prime Minister’s questions, not Leader of the Opposition’s questions.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, “If she were Prime Minister”, but if I were Prime Minister, HMS Dragon would have left a week ago. The only time—[Hon. Members: “More!”] The only time, he has taken decisive action was stopping Andy Burnham standing in the by-election.

Let us talk about what the people out there are worried about. I heard from a builder who has 115 employees using 75 vans. With the jobs tax, sky-high energy bills and now a hike in petrol prices, that builder is having sleepless nights. How does the Prime Minister justify a rise in fuel duty to that small business owner and millions more like him up and down the country?

[The Prime Minister]

There has not been a rise. Fuel duty is frozen. It is frozen until September.

The Leader of the Opposition mentions HMS Dragon. First, can I start by thanking those in the Royal Navy who are serving on HMS Dragon? Secondly, what has been happening is that it has carefully been loaded with the anti-strike ammunition and capability that it needs, and the Navy and civilians have been working 22-hour shifts. But in relation to those who are taking the action to defend us, what does she say? They are just hanging about—just hanging about. That is how she described our pilots in the region. Let me tell her what they have been doing: flying sorties in seven of the 10 countries in the region day and night, taking out incoming strikes and protecting the lives of others, while risking their own. If she had any decency, she would get up and apologise.

[Mrs Badenoch]

Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] Hang on. I think they should wait for it. I have never criticised our armed forces. I have criticised the Prime Minister. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

No apology to our pilots who are risking their lives. And I am not going to take lectures from someone who says we should join the war and a week later says, “Can I change my mind? I got that wrong.” That is deeply embarrassing. But she is not the only one. Last week, the leader of Reform said we should be

“part of this with the US and the Israelis…We have to get rid of the regime.”

He said:

“We should do all we can to support the operation. I make that perfectly, perfectly clear.”

Until yesterday—screeching U-turn—when he said we should not

“get ourselves involved in another foreign war.”

Two parties packed with failed Tories, led by leaders who are not fit to be Prime Minister.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister does not want to talk about fuel duty, because he has absolutely no answers. The Conservatives are on the side of farmers. We are also on the side of drivers. We froze duel duty every year from 2011 and, in fact, we cut it in 2022, because we care about the cost of living. Labour thinks drivers are a cash cow and now it is hiking fuel duty for the first time in 15 years. Everyone in this House knows the pattern: first, he will march his Back Benchers up the hill, then they will be forced to defend fuel duty rises in the local elections, and then there will be another humiliating U-turn. Why does the Prime Minister not just stand up, admit he has got it wrong—again—and scrap the fuel duty hike now?

[The Prime Minister]

In the last two weeks, I have made two of the most important decisions a Prime Minister can make. The first is that we should not join the war in Iran. The second is that we should protect British lives and the British national interest. The Leader of the Opposition decided that we should join the war against Iran and a week later that we should not join the war against Iran, and to insult our armed forces. She has utterly disqualified herself from ever becoming Prime Minister. Thankfully, she never will.

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Q3. As the Prime Minister knows, my mum proudly worked in the pot banks of Burslem and Tunstall, and she is watching at home right now. Tomorrow is International Day of Ceramics and that matters deeply to Stoke-on-Trent, the historic heart of Britain’s ceramic industry. [Interruption.] Yes, and Newcastle-under-Lyme. With energy prices rising again due to global instability, will the Prime Minister please tell my mum and our fellow Stokies what additional support the Government will give to energy-intensive industries such as ceramics, so that the kilns of Stoke-on-Trent can fire for generations to come?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises a really important issue and I know that it is not only his mum who will be watching, but his constituents whom he serves very, very well. Our supercharger will significantly reduce costs for thousands of major industries. Eligibility for the scheme is being reviewed this year. I can tell my hon. Friend that we are working with the ceramics industry on whether the scheme can be extended to more firms. Under the previous Government, industrial energy prices doubled and over 1,000 jobs were lost in the sector. We will not tolerate that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for her powerful and courageous speech in the debate on jury trials yesterday—I really hope the Prime Minister was listening.

Thirty years ago this week, a man carried four handguns into Dunblane primary school and murdered a teacher and 16 children. I was deeply moved by the BBC documentary about it last night and by the courage of the parents who campaigned for a ban on handguns to keep other children safe, including Mick North, who lost his five-year-old daughter, Sophie, on that dark day. Mr North has rightly called on the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) to renounce his description of the handgun ban as “ludicrous”—something the hon. Member still refuses to do. Mr North has also called for a review of firearms legislation to close any loopholes. Does the Prime Minister agree?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly do. We must never forget the horror of Dunblane and we must never forget the young children and their teacher who did not come home from school. The campaign that families fought to make this country a safer place is a lasting legacy, and we should be enormously grateful for their courage.

[Ed Davey]

I thank the Prime Minister for his reply, and I hope the Government will close any loopholes.

This week, families across the country have seen petrol prices rise at the pump, mortgage rates go up and fixed energy deals get more expensive, all because of a war they did not start and do not support. The Leader of the Opposition has been competing with the hon. Member for Clacton to be Donald Trump’s biggest cheerleader, and the Prime Minister was right to reject their costly warmongering. Last week, I asked him to guarantee that energy bills will not rise by hundreds of pounds in July. He did not answer, so let me try again: will he give people that energy bill guarantee now?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, because people will be really worried about the impact on them. To reassure households, the cap is in place until the end of June—until July—so that deals with the situation for households. We are working with the sector and others, and with allies, to do everything we can to ensure that energy bills do not rise. We are working around the clock on that. The most important and most effective thing we can do is to work with our allies to find a way to de-escalate the situation.

The right hon. Gentleman is right about the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of Reform. Last week, they were urging us to join—[Interruption.] This is serious. [Interruption.] If they had been leading the country, we would be in a war. They have now come to Parliament to say—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Who said “lying” again? I want that withdrawn. Is that withdrawn? [Interruption.] I will deal with it, thank you. I do not want any more from those on the Front Bench. We take this very seriously; calling another Member a liar is not acceptable.

[The Prime Minister]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I said, that is our position.

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

Q5. Too often, I hear from families of children with special educational needs and disabilities in Hertford and Stortford whose children have been left out of education for months or even years because they cannot get a school place that meets their needs within a reasonable distance. I am campaigning for more investment in the bricks and mortar SEND provision that semi-rural communities like ours need, so that families can access support early and easily and their children can thrive in education. Will the Prime Minister back my campaign to expand SEND provision in Hertford and Stortford, and will he arrange a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss that in more detail?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right; families are crying out for change, which is why it is critical that we get this right. Our reforms will fix the broken SEND system, where parents have to fight for support, replacing it with tailored support that is personal to a child’s need. A Best Start family hub in every local authority with a dedicated SEND practitioner will also help families with the face-to-face support they need. My hon. Friend is a great advocate on this issue, and I am happy to ensure that he gets the meeting he is asking for.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Let us be clear on this. Donald Trump’s war in Iran is illegal and the situation that has unfolded since is verging on insane: oil is falling from the skies; sewers are exploding; and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is indiscriminately attacking both civilians across the region and cargo ships, as well as potentially even mining the strait of Hormuz, the economic consequences of which will be stark not just for the global economy, but for every single person living on these isles. Whether the Prime Minister accepts it or not, he did take us into that war when he allowed the Americans to use UK bases last week. [Interruption.] I have a specific question for him. He will have seen the same footage that I have of an American Tomahawk missile landing on a primary school, killing 110 children. Does he believe that to be a war crime?

[The Prime Minister]

We are all concerned by that footage, but let me absolutely clear with the right hon. Gentleman. We have 300,000 UK nationals, including Scottish citizens, in the region. Strikes, missiles and drones are being fired into the region, putting those people at great danger. We are taking action to protect them. I am astonished that the SNP is saying, “Don’t take action to support Scottish citizens in the region.” That is outrageous.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Q8. National Highways, a Government-owned company, has reneged on a promise to replace a demolished footbridge at Park Lane West in Netherton. The footbridge crossed one of the busiest roads and junctions in Merseyside, used by countless residents, particularly children and parents going to and from infant and primary schools. My constituents have requested that that bridge be replaced—no ifs or buts. Will the Prime Minister support my constituents’ very reasonable request to honour that promise made by National Highways?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning for his constituents who are obviously concerned about this matter. As I understand it, National Highways has concluded that the best option for all users—pedestrians and cyclists—is a new crossing. I thank him for raising the points, and I am happy for Ministers to continue discussing the options with him.

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

Q2. This afternoon, the Mandelson papers, or the first tranche of them, will be released, bringing to light for the first time UK institutional knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein and those associated with him. But here in the UK, we have our own Epstein in Mohamed al-Fayed and the institutions that supported his crimes. As co-chair of the all-party group for the survivors of al-Fayed and Harrods along with the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), we welcome the actions of the Metropolitan police in recent days, but we continue to call on them to describe those crimes as what they were, which was trafficking. Does the Prime Minister recognise that characterisation and will he meet the all-party group and survivors to hear their asks?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that really important issue. I discussed it with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) last night, particularly the approach of the all-party group. I thank her for her important work on this issue. I am very happy to meet the APPG and the victims; it is very important to do so. She will know that there is an ongoing police investigation, but that does not mean that we cannot have the meeting and listen to those who need to be listened to.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Q11. Team Derby is our partnership ensuring that the billions of pounds in investment that this Labour Government are bringing into Derby benefits the people of Derby in regeneration, skills and good jobs. The Government’s record investment in Rolls-Royce submarines means hundreds of new jobs and apprenticeships in Derby. Will the Prime Minister firmly reject the Green party’s defence policy that would decimate jobs in Derby and leave the United Kingdom unprotected?

[The Prime Minister]

Derby is part of our industrial heritage and has a bright future. Initiatives such as Team Derby are so important to strengthen key sectors like defence, creating jobs and growth. Our £9 billion deal with Rolls-Royce to boost our fleet of nuclear submarines is testament to that, creating more than 1,000 jobs and safeguarding 4,000 more. Those who oppose all that must answer to the working people whom they claim to represent.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Q4. The Prime Minister will be happy that I am not going to ask about fuel duty. Businesses across South West Hertfordshire are telling me that they are now reluctant to take on young workers due to this Government’s rise in employer national insurance contributions and the crippling Employment Rights Act 2025. With almost 1 million young people now not in employment, education or training, how exactly does the Prime Minister plan to get Great Britain working again?

[The Prime Minister]

We are putting in place the youth guarantee, which helps young people into work. It is a serious issue. I remind the hon. Member that on the Conservatives’ watch one in eight young people were not in education, training or work.

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

Q12. The National Audit Office report on Northern Powerhouse Rail, which came out on Monday, surprised none of us in its conclusion that the Department for Transport’s lack of engagement with mayoral authorities, local authorities and other involved parties in the north of England was leading to poor programming and a lack of investment in the rail system. We in the north of England deserve a rail system fit for the 21st century, not the 19th century. Investing in the rail system will enable growth in the north of England, which will benefit the whole country. Will the Prime Minister take a personal interest in the slowness of investment in the rail system so that we can get that growth?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. The Conservative party gave nothing but false promises for a decade. We will deliver the biggest transformation of transport in the north for a generation, providing up to £45 billion of funding. We are taking forward all the recommendations from the NAO report; that does not change the planning or trajectory of the project.

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

Q6. As a result of grant cuts and over-optimistic Treasury assumptions on council tax base growth, eight fire stations and 96 retained firefighters across Wiltshire and Dorset face the axe. Will the Prime Minister please facilitate an urgent ministerial meeting for Wiltshire and Dorset MPs to discuss extending the precept flexibility permitted elsewhere—at no cost to the Treasury—to our fire and rescue service so that its fire stations and dedicated firefighters can continue to serve our community?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for raising that case. I do not know the particular details, but I will ensure that the relevant meeting is set up so that they can be explored.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

Russia’s continued assault on Ukraine has devastated its healthcare system: hospitals are under extreme pressure and there is a critical shortage of specialist staff to treat the injured. That is why I, along with other British physiotherapists, travelled to Ukraine to train clinicians who are working under unimaginable strain. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking Tanisha Sandhu, Daniel Simm, Kay Joe and Anju Jaggi for their remarkable work? Will he commit to expanding UK-Ukraine clinical training partnerships?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I will. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the rest of the delegation for their commendable work in Kyiv. We recently announced a new package of support for Ukraine enabling highly skilled British surgeons, nurses and physiotherapists to mentor Ukrainian clinicians treating complex battlefield injuries. On one of my recent trips to Kyiv, I went to one of the hospitals where they were treating the burns of those returning from the frontline and it was humbling to see the work being done. I was extremely proud to know that the UK was helping in treating those who had such awful burns.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Q7. Westminster’s tax on Scotland’s energy is holding back investment, and it is costing thousands of families their livelihoods. After months of refusing to do so, the Chancellor has now finally said that she is committed to change. Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House today when the oil and gas price mechanism will be introduced to provide certainty for jobs, certainty for investment and, crucially, certainty for energy security?

[The Prime Minister]

We all want certainty for energy security, and oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years to come. I remind the hon. Member that 70,000 jobs were lost under the SNP and the Conservatives in the last decade. We want energy security, and we see new nuclear as part of that. What does the SNP do? It blocks that.

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

Silently and in semi-secrecy, London and the south-east of England are experiencing the largest mass eviction by a private landlord in decades. Criterion Capital has issued at least 130 no-fault eviction notices across its portfolio, including in Britannia Point in Collier’s Wood in my constituency. Those affected have done nothing wrong. They have paid their rent, looked after their homes and worked hard, and they are simply the victims of a voracious landlord that always wants more. Will the Prime Minister ensure that in the final weeks before the abolition of no-fault evictions his Government do all they can to hold Criterion Capital to account?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case. Renters should have security and I condemn any unfair evictions. I am proud to be abolishing section 21, a practice that has pushed thousands of renters into homelessness. I will make sure that the Housing Minister looks at the case that she has raised.

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

Q9. Rural residents in Beverley and Holderness are reeling from the impact of higher fuel prices, yet two days ago, the Chancellor said that in September fuel duty would go up. My constituents want to know, as the Leader of the Opposition repeatedly asked: will that fuel duty go up in September and add to the misery of my constituents—or not? Will the Prime Minister, for once in this place, give the House and the people of this country an answer? Yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

Fuel duty is frozen and it will be frozen until September. In the light of what is happening in Iran, of course we will look carefully at the situation. The right hon. Gentleman’s constituents need to know, and it is right that they know, that fuel duty is frozen until September—not fearmongering.

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

The devastating fire on Union Street in Glasgow has destroyed small businesses and an iconic part of the city’s heritage, but the exceptional skill and courage of our emergency services prevented an even greater tragedy. We need a rapid, thorough investigation, with urgent implementation of recommendations. Local businesses, commuters and residents are already feeling the impact, and recovery must be a shared priority. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking our emergency services and in supporting efforts to rebuild that vital part of Glasgow?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that devastating incident for Glasgow. My thoughts, and I am sure everybody’s thoughts, are with those who have seen their businesses and their livelihoods destroyed. I thank the emergency services, which responded so quickly to the situation. The people of Glasgow have seen far too many historic buildings suffer terrible fires over the last few years. We are investing to protect heritage buildings in England, but we will keep a careful eye on the situation that he raises.

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

Q10. Yesterday in the Welsh Senedd, its Members called out a secret Whitehall memo that showed this Government’s attitude to devolution: a muscular Unionism that Boris Johnson would have been proud of. When Scottish and Welsh voters go to the polls, will the Prime Minister respect their decision? What is it about those elections that so seems to terrify him at the moment?

[The Prime Minister]

I will not make any apologies for spending more money in Scotland or in Wales to improve people’s lives. There has been record investment under this Government into Scotland. The question is: where’s the money gone, John?

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

Last week, Members from across this House and the other place felt compelled to write to Jo Boydell, the chief executive of Travelodge, following reports that in 2022 staff in one of the company’s hotels gave a man a keycard and the room number of a woman staying alone. He then entered her room and sexually assaulted her. Most alarmingly, statements made by Travelodge implied that staff had acted fully in line with the company’s security and safety protocols and within industry standards. Will the Prime Minister join me in urging Ms Boydell to take us up on our invitation to meet all interested Members of this House and the other place to outline what action Travelodge is urgently taking to meet its duty to safeguard women staying in its hotels?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this absolutely shocking case and for talking to me last night about the details. My thoughts are with the victim, who had a right to be safe and who was failed in the most appalling way. Travelodge must take serious action to ensure such an appalling incident can never happen again. I am concerned at reports that the company has not met Members of Parliament; it should do so. I should add that the Safeguarding Minister wants to meet the company as well, and it should do that too.

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

Q13. Two weeks ago it was confirmed that no extra time would be provided in the other place to allow the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill to complete its course. If the will of this democratically elected House is blocked, it will be a travesty for democracy and, more importantly, a tragedy for all those who are relying on the legislation and have waited so long, not least my own dad. Will the Prime Minister act now to prevent the dismissal of the views of 76% of the public, especially as other parts of our country have approved legislation, and so secure a real legacy of social policy in this Parliament?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I know there are strong views, and I acknowledge her personal connection, which shows how serious the issues are. It is a matter of conscience. It is for Parliament to decide the passage of the legislation and any changes. Scrutiny is a matter for the other place. We have a responsibility to make sure any legislation is workable, effective and enforceable.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Intelligence and Security Committee: Cloud Technologies Report

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

On Monday 5 January, I received the Intelligence and Security Committee’s closed report on cloud technologies.

I thanked the Committee for their diligent work and for the independent and robust oversight they provide.

The Government shared a formal closed response to the report with the ISC on Friday 6 March.

[HCWS1385]

Middle East

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

With permission, I will update the House on the situation in Iran and the wider region, and our response. The United Kingdom was not involved in the initial strikes on Iran by the US and Israel. That decision was deliberate. We believe that the best way forward for the region and for the world is a negotiated settlement in which Iran agrees to give up any aspirations to develop a nuclear weapon and ceases its destabilising activity across the region. That has been the long-standing position of successive British Governments.

President Trump has expressed his disagreement with our decision not to get involved in the initial strikes, but it is my duty to judge what is in Britain’s national interest. That is what I have done, and I stand by it, but it is clear that Iran’s outrageous response has become a threat to our people, our interests and our allies, and it cannot be ignored. Iran has lashed out across the region. It has launched hundreds of missiles and thousands of drones at countries that did not attack it, including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain and Oman. Overnight, Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, launched attacks on Israel, seeking to escalate the war.

There are an estimated 300,000 British citizens in the region—residents, families on holiday, and those in transit. Iran has hit airports and hotels where British citizens are staying. It is deeply concerning for the whole House and the whole country. Our armed forces are also being put at risk by Iran’s actions. On Saturday, Iran hit a military base in Bahrain with missiles and drones. There were 300 British personnel on the base, some within a few hundred yards of the strike. Last night, a drone hit RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. There were no casualties in this strike. It is important for me to say that our bases in Cyprus are not being used by US bombers. The security of our friends and partners in Cyprus is of critical importance, and I want to be clear: the strike on RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus was not in response to any decision that we have taken. In our assessment, the drone was launched prior to our announcement. Iran’s aggression towards Britain and our interests is long-standing, and that is why we have always ensured that protections for British bases and personnel are at their highest level.

It is very clear that the death of the supreme leader will not stop Iran launching these strikes. In fact, its approach is becoming even more reckless, and more dangerous to civilians. It is working, ruthlessly and deliberately, through a plan to strike not only military targets, but economic targets in the region, with no regard for civilian casualties. That is the situation that we face today, and to which we must respond.

I have been speaking to our Gulf partners over the weekend. They are outraged by Iran’s acts, particularly as they played no part in any strikes, and they have asked us to do more to defend them. Moreover, it is my duty—the highest duty of my office—to protect British lives. That is why we put British jets in the air—Typhoons and F-35s—as part of co-ordinated defensive operations. They have already successfully intercepted Iranian strikes, including taking out one drone that was heading towards a coalition base in Iraq that is housing UK service personnel. I pay tribute to our brilliant servicemen and women for putting themselves in harm’s way to keep others safe, and I know the whole House will join me in expressing our gratitude and respect.

It is simply not possible to shoot down every Iranian missile and every drone after they have been launched. The only way to stop the threat is to destroy the missiles at source—in their storage depots, or at the launchers. The US requested permission to use British bases for that specific and limited defensive purpose, because it has the capabilities to do so. Yesterday evening, we took the decision to accept that new request in order to prevent Iran firing missiles across the region, killing innocent civilians, putting British lives at risk and hitting countries that have not been involved. To be clear, the use of British bases is limited to the agreed defensive purposes. We are not joining US and Israeli offensive strikes. The basis for our decision is the collective self-defence of long-standing friends and allies, and protecting British lives. It is in accordance with international law, and we have produced a summary of our legal advice, which clearly sets this out. We will keep the decision under review.

We are not joining the strikes, but we will continue our defensive actions in the region. France and Germany are also prepared to enable US action to destroy Iran’s capability to fire missiles and drones from source. I have been in close contact with President Macron and Chancellor Merz in recent days, as well as President Trump and leaders across the region, to that end.

Be in no doubt: the regime in Iran is utterly abhorrent. In January, it murdered thousands of its own people; the full horror of that is still hidden from the world. For decades, it has sought to destabilise the region and export terror around the world. Its proxies in Yemen have targeted British ships in the Red sea; it has facilitated Russia’s attacks in Ukraine; and the regime’s tentacles have even reached these shores, posing a direct threat to Iranian dissidents and to the Jewish community. Over the last year alone, Iran has backed more than 20 potentially lethal attacks on UK soil, each of which we have foiled. So it is clear that the Iranian regime must never be allowed to get its hands on nuclear weapons. That remains the primary aim of the United Kingdom and our allies, including the US, and ultimately, this will have to be achieved at the negotiating table.

In this dangerous moment, our first thoughts are with our citizens in the region—friends, family members and constituents. I recognise the deep concern that the situation is causing for those involved, and for communities across the country. We are asking all British citizens in the region to register their presence, so that we can provide the best possible support, and to monitor the Home Office travel advice, which is being regularly updated. Across much of the region, airspace remains closed, and local authorities are advising individuals to shelter in place.

The situation on the ground may remain challenging for some time, so we are sending rapid deployment teams to the region to support our British nationals on the ground. We are in close contact with the travel industry and Governments in the region, including with our friends in the UAE, given the concentration of British nationals in that country. We are looking at all options to support our people. We want to ensure that they can return home as swiftly and safely as possible. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office phone lines are open to provide consular support, and Ministers are available to meet MPs to discuss any individual cases. We are also reaching out to communities across the United Kingdom, including Muslim and Jewish community organisations, and we are making sure that sites across the country, including places of worship, have appropriate protective security in place.

The situation in the region is developing rapidly, so we will continue to update the House in the coming days. I have spoken recently about the toll that global events are taking here at home. They come crashing into our lives with ever greater frequency, hitting our economy, driving up prices on the supermarket shelves or at the pump, dividing communities, and bringing anxiety and fear. That is why how we operate on the world stage matters so much.

We all remember the mistakes of Iraq, and we have learned those lessons. Any UK actions must always have a lawful basis and a viable, thought-through plan. I say again: we were not involved in the initial strikes on Iran, and we will not join offensive action now, but in the face of Iran’s barrage of missiles and drones, we will protect our people in the region and support the collective self-defence of our allies, because that is our duty to the British people. It is the best way to eliminate the urgent threat, prevent the situation spiralling further, and support a return to diplomacy. It is the best way to protect British interests and British lives. That is what this Government are doing. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the security briefing I received earlier.

This is a defining moment for the people of Iran, the wider middle east and the world order. I know that hundreds of thousands of British people still in the region, many sheltering from drone attacks, are fearful about making it home. I agree with the Prime Minister that everyone in the region should follow FCDO advice and register their presence with a British embassy. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether he is making contingency plans for a potential evacuation of UK citizens and what stage the operational planning is at?

Let me also pay tribute to our brave service personnel stationed in British bases in the region. I know that this will be an anxious time for them and their families. They all have our support.

We stand in solidarity with our allies, including Bahrain, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, who, along with others, have been on the receiving end of unprovoked aggression. On Saturday, our allies the United States and Israel took targeted action against the Iranian regime, a regime which for decades has been brutally repressing its own citizens, whose leader had the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iranians on his hands and of countless others around the world killed by Iranian proxies. This regime is the world’s foremost sponsor of international terrorism. It seeks to annihilate the world’s only Jewish state. It has said so repeatedly, and we should take despots at their word. It is a regime whose apparatchiks chant, “Death to Britain”. It has attacked British nationals and conducted multiple plots on British soil, as the head of MI5 has warned. It is manufacturing drones en masse for Russia—drones which are raining down on innocent Ukrainians. And it continues to try to develop nuclear weapons in flagrant violation of international agreement—nuclear weapons which, if obtained, would be an existential threat for this country.

The outcome of Ayatollah Khamenei’s death will, we hope, be a safer middle east and a safer world, with the future of Iran back in the hands of the Iranian people, but that outcome is not yet guaranteed. On Saturday, our allies in Canada and Australia immediately backed the action taken by America against this despotic regime in Tehran. I have made it very clear that the Conservative party also stands behind America taking this necessary action against state-sponsored terror. But over the weekend, statements from the Government and the Prime Minister provided no such clarity. It was only last night that the Prime Minister finally told us that the Government would allow our allies the use of our own air bases. Despite it being obvious that UK interests were under imminent threat, it took Iranian missiles hitting allies in the Gulf before he finally made a decision. And even after that, the Foreign Secretary said this morning that the Government have put limits on the actions of our allies operating from our bases. Unbelievably, in his statement today, the Prime Minister still cannot say whether he backs the strikes or not.

Today, the President of the United States has taken the extraordinary step of rebuking the Prime Minister publicly, saying that he “took far too long” to grant access. We are told that this dither and delay is because of concerns over international law, but I am afraid that that explanation simply does not hold. International law did not prevent our allies from clearly and unequivocally stating whose side they were on—you do not need international law to say whose side you are on. It has not prevented British Governments in the past from supporting strikes that we knew to be right. The shadow Attorney General said:

“If the doctrines of international law prove unable to restrain Iranian terrorism and mass murder, and tie the hands of democracies”

while forcing us

“to stand and watch Iranian atrocities, international law will have failed. It will have become a fundamentally immoral system of law”.

Why is it that under this Prime Minister, international law always seems to be at odds with our national interest? Why is it that we are giving away the Chagos islands and paying £35 billion for the privilege, rather than standing up for our national interest and protecting a crucial military base that, even now, our allies are using? We in this House are elected to stand up for Britain’s national interest. Where the Government do the right thing, the Opposition will always back them. Let me therefore reiterate our offer: if the Government bring forward legislation to fast-track banning the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, we will support them.

What national interest was served by refusing to help our allies for so long, particularly when we so need American support to protect the security of Ukraine and Europe? Are we going to see new UK military capabilities deployed to protect our security partners and our bases, including in Cyprus, as well as British nationals in the region? Will the Prime Minister also ensure that the Chancellor uses the spring statement tomorrow to set Britain on a clear path to spending 3% of GDP on defence? There is no point wanting action to make the world a safer place while being too scared to do anything except stand by and watch others. Our national interest and national security must be front and centre. The Conservative party will always work with our allies to make the world a safer place.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady asks about contingency plans for UK nationals. I can assure her and the House that we are working at speed with our partners in the region to take whatever measures we can to ensure that our people can return as safely and as swiftly as possible, and we will continue to do so. I am happy to update her and the House as we roll out those plans.

Let me be very clear: there were two distinct and separate decisions over the weekend. The first decision was whether the United Kingdom should join the US-Israel offensive against Iran. We took the decision that we should not. The second decision—a separate decision and, actually, a separate request from the US—was whether we should permit the use of bases for the distinct, specific defensive purpose of collective self-defence of our allies and to protect British lives that were put at risk by the actions of Iran on Saturday and Sunday. We took the decision that we should do so.

I am clear in my mind that any UK action must always have a lawful basis. It must also always have a viable and thought-through plan, and it must be in our national interests. The Leader of the Opposition is, I think, saying that she would have joined the initial strikes whether they were lawful or not. I notice that she did not say that the shadow Attorney General said that they would have been lawful, just that the law should be changed. I think she said that the Opposition would have joined the initial strikes without regard to whether they had a plan. She was very critical of us not joining sooner—it is impossible to have that position without arguing that we could and should have joined.

I fundamentally disagree, and I will tell the House why. Where our military personnel take action, putting their lives at risk, it is our duty—my duty—to ensure that the actions have a lawful basis. On Saturday, we deployed UK pilots into the sky in the region, and they have been working there ever since. They deserve to know that their actions are lawful and that there is a viable, thought-through plan. I will not countenance committing our military personnel to action that does not have a lawful basis. That is not a fair thing to do to our serving personnel. No UK Prime Minister has ever committed our personnel to action unless it has a proper, lawful basis.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

Although the attack on Iran by the US and Israel was ill-advised, ill-judged and illegal, it is absolutely no excuse for the Iranians to recklessly bombard its Gulf neighbours. Is the Prime Minister in a position to give us more details on what we are doing with our Ukrainian friends to support the collective self-defence of Arab nations against the Iranian Shahed drones that are causing so much damage in Ukraine and now in the Gulf?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that important question. Ukraine, sadly, has more expertise than anyone in dealing with drones. That is why we are putting Ukraine’s expertise and our expertise together and using it to help our allies in the region as they struggle with drones as we speak.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for my security briefing.

Once again, President Trump has launched a unilateral and unlawful act. Ayatollah Khamenei was a brutal dictator and a monstrous war criminal. He supported Hamas and the 7 October atrocities, and he massacred thousands of his own people for daring to protest against decades of repression. I shed no tears for him. Instead, I think of all the innocent Iranian civilians who have lost their lives. I think of the US service personnel killed in action, our allies and partners in the region who are being outrageously targeted by Iran, and our British bases which have already faced attack. They did not choose this war; Donald Trump did, and he will bear responsibility for it.

We have seen before what happens when an American President launches an illegal war with no idea how or when it is going to end, and we fear for what comes next. In discussions with the White House, has the Prime Minister demanded to find out Trump’s plan for what comes next? Does the Prime Minister understand that when he fails to stand up to Trump, especially when he breaks international law, it makes our country less safe? How will the Prime Minister be sure that defensive operations from UK bases will not become offensive? In rightly protecting our allies in the region, can we be assured by the Prime Minister that he will not follow Trump’s lead down a slippery slope into a protracted conflict?

Finally, we rightly expect our brave armed forces to protect British citizens around the world in crises like this, but that includes tax exiles like Isabel Oakeshott and washed-up old footballers who mock ordinary people who stay in the UK and pay our taxes here. As we protect them, does the Prime Minister agree that it is only right for tax exiles to start paying taxes to fund our armed forces, just like the rest of us do?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. I agree that the response of Iran has been outrageous, particularly the hitting of countries that played no part in the strikes.

We have had extensive discussions with the United States at all levels, including the military-to-military level, continually over the course of the weekend. We deliberately took the decision not to join the offensive strikes that were carried out by the US and Israel. We did take the decision to take defensive action—first, by ourselves on Saturday with putting pilots in the sky, and, secondly, by allowing the bases to be used for purely defensive reasons. We clearly set out the legal basis upon which we took the second of those decisions. On the question about limits, it is limited to defence, and that is the basis upon which we have agreed the basing.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, I want to be clear that it is my duty—our duty—to protect all UK nationals in the region. We will endeavour to do everything we can in order to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

The Iranian regime, including its late leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are of course no friends of our country, but I thank the Prime Minister for clarifying that the UK had no involvement in the Israeli and US strikes on Iran. Indeed, I send my heartfelt condolences to all those who have sadly lost loved ones in the region. I am extremely concerned about the safety of the millions of people in the region, including the thousands of Brits who live there or are currently stranded there. Will the Prime Minister please confirm what steps are being taken to ensure their safety, especially from the one-way attack drones; what steps are being taken to evacuate Brits who are stranded and want to come back to the UK; and what steps are being taken with our allies to de-escalate the situation?

[The Prime Minister]

In relation to the protection of our citizens, we will obviously continue operating defensively in the air in the region, taking out the missiles, drones and strikes. We have permitted the US basing specifically for the purpose of taking out Iran’s ability to launch the strikes in the first place. The US has the capability to do that, in particular.

On the question of citizens and their understandable desire to return home as swiftly and safely as possible, we are doing all that we can. We are working very closely with our partners in the region. I ask all UK citizens in the region to register their presence so that we can give them the best advice, keep them safe and bring them home as soon as possible.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Although many of us believe that we should be guided by the law of national self-interest, rather than so-called international law, does the Prime Minister agree that we are right to be cautious in this matter? The British public will warmly support him in defending British people and bases, but they are very sceptical about being dragged into the cesspit of middle east politics. They remember Iraq, which some of us voted against, and all the arguments about weapons of mass destruction. What evidence is there that Iran was on the cusp of acquiring nuclear weapons? Since when has regime change from the skies ever changed a regime?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. This Government do not believe in regime change from the skies. The lessons of history have taught us that when we make decisions such as this, it is important that we establish that there is a lawful basis for what the United Kingdom is doing—that is one of the lessons from Iraq—and that there is a viable, thought-through plan with an objective that has a viable prospect of being achieved. Those are the principles that I applied to the decisions that I made over the weekend. They are the principles that I applied to the decision not to get involved in the offensive strikes by the US and Israel. They are the principles that I applied separately to the separate decision on a separate request from the US to be able to take defensive action to hit the launchers for the missiles that are currently going into allies’ countries in the region and threatening our citizens and service personnel. I stand by both decisions.

I repeat: I am not prepared to commit our military servicepeople to action unless I am sure that what they are doing is lawful and has a viable basis. We can discuss what the law is on another occasion, but the law is what it is, and they deserve to know that their Prime Minister cares and pays attention to whether what I am asking them to do is lawful. I will always do that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Mother of the House.

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

The Prime Minister will be aware that very many of our constituents remember the Iraq war, and they will have noted the similarities with this war: both in the middle east and both illegal. Of course, the current Iranian regime is horrible, violent, murderous and a threat to international order, but does he accept that our constituents are not prepared to see this country dragged into another war of the nature of the Iraq war?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member and assure her that we have learned the lessons of Iraq. That is why I have been so clear that there must be a lawful basis and a viable, thought-through plan. In relation to our nationals, I think all our constituents would expect our Government to take action to protect British nationals. We have 300,000 British nationals in the region, and they are at risk. We have already seen strikes on hotels where our nationals have been staying, and on airports. We have seen strikes near military bases, within hundreds of yards of our personnel. It is our duty to take the action we can take, and will take, to protect them.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Given that the Prime Minister has outlined that the Iranians attacked a United Kingdom sovereign base at Akrotiri, why does that not form the basis not just for hosting US forces on our bases, but for legal military action, taken directly at source against the Iranians for the launch of such missiles, as we did in relation to the Iranian proxies, the Houthis, in previous conflicts that he supported? Moreover, given the Iranians’ ability to exercise malign influence on the streets of this country, what reassurance can he give the House and the public at large about co-ordination across our intelligence and security capabilities to address the heightened threat on our streets?

[The Prime Minister]

In relation to the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, there is co-ordination going on for that very reason. As I set out in my statement, there have been 20 Iranian-backed plots to take action on our streets, all of which have been thwarted—I pay my respects to our security and intelligence services and the work that they do. In relation to his first point, two separate decisions were made over the weekend. We are in the sky taking action defensively with our allies. Among the reasons we agreed to the request from the US yesterday was that it has the capability to take out the missile launchers in Iran. That is why we gave permission for the US to use our bases: in order to reduce the threat to our citizens.

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

The Prime Minister has spoken about repatriating British citizens in the region. Will that be through the Ministry of Defence? If so, who will foot the bill: the MOD, the Treasury or those being repatriated?

[The Prime Minister]

We are working across all Departments on repatriation. At the moment, we are simply focused on working with our allies to get a plan together to get people out in the first place, and to do it as quickly and safely as possible. There is no intention to charge people for that.

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

The Prime Minister’s reaction at the end of last week appeared to many to be both anaemic and disappointing, and at variance with the other Five Eyes nations. Will he read the analysis of the shadow Attorney General, my noble and learned Friend Lord Wolfson KC, which shows not only that British active engagement and support is within international law, but that those who seek to use international law to constrain us in these circumstances have the effect of leaving tyrants and murderers in place to continue perpetrating their vile deeds with impunity?

[The Prime Minister]

We obviously co-ordinate with our Five Eyes partners. We were dealing with a specific request to take action, and it was important that we applied the principle, which actually has been applied by successive Governments, to ask and get legal advice on the question: is there a lawful basis for what is proposed, and does it have a viable, thought-through plan? [Interruption.] It is not a legal question; it is about making sure, before we ask our military personnel to engage in action that risks their lives, that that would be lawful. That is the duty of the Prime Minister. Previous Prime Ministers have taken exactly the same approach. I will, of course, read the shadow Attorney General’s advice, but I am very clear in the advice that I received. I will not commit our military personnel to unlaw action. That is not what they deserve or would expect; they are entitled to better than that.

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

Others have mentioned Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and I think many of us know the way this goes. There are responsibilities on all of our shoulders. The Prime Minister is right that there needs to be a plan. Has the US President shared with him what the plan is, or consulted him on it? We know from experience that it is easy for politicians to fire weapons and start a war, but it is when the shooting ends that the nightmare begins. That is why we need clarity on our role as an independent country that is not swayed even by Donald Trump.

When my right hon. Friend stood for the leadership of the Labour party, he clearly set out that there would be a vote in this House on any decision about military action. Can I therefore ask him to assure us that there will be such a vote in this House, so that we do not drift into this war as we have done in the past?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is right to urge caution—history teaches us that. This is why it is important that there is not only a lawful basis but a viable and thought-through plan. Obviously, we have had discussions at all levels with the US in relation to that. In relation to the decision I took yesterday, I am very clear what the lawful basis is and what the plan in relation to protection of our nationals is. On the question he raises about a vote, that is of course a vote on offensive action, deploying our troops or military, and that is not this situation.

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

Mr Speaker, you will recall that in 2003 this House voted to support George Bush’s war in Iraq, and that 10 years later we voted not to support Barack Obama’s intervention in Syria. I believed, and still believe, that on both occasions we made the wrong decision, but it was of critical importance for the political and even the social cohesion of this country that those decisions should be made in this Chamber. The people of the United Kingdom will not support an intervention that does not have a clear objective and a clear plan for the post-conflict period. Will the Prime Minister be guided by these principles, and will he ensure that this House is given its place in whatever is handed to us in the weeks and months to come?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course this House must hold accountability and debate this issue. In relation to the vote, there is no convention for a vote in relation to defensive action; only offensive action. And nor could there be: realistically, defensive action has to be taken at very swift notice. On Saturday morning, I had to take the decision to deploy our pilots to the sky in order to defend our UK nationals. There is no way we could have waited for a debate or vote in the House. Equally, last night I had to take a decision about the use of bases, and it was important that I did so as a matter of some urgency. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there must be a full debate in the House, but the vote in the House is in relation to deployment of military personnel for offensive action, and that is something I have advocated.

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I have constituents and family in the region who are all terrified about what may come next. The world is an infinitely more dangerous place today than it was last week. Trump and Netanyahu chose to throw away diplomacy and launch a direct attack on Iran—an attack that, as the Prime Minister has said, can never be justified under international law. Equally, Iran’s indiscriminate attacks on airports and hotels across the Gulf are flagrant violations of sovereignty and clear breaches of international law. Does the Prime Minister recognise that this attempt at regime change, like so many others before it, will only result in years of instability and conflict in the region? What assurances can he give that the UK’s involvement will remain defensive and not turn into full-scale military involvement, as we saw in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya?

[The Prime Minister]

Can I be absolutely clear about the basis upon which the request was acceded to yesterday? It was the collective self-defence of our allies and the protection of British nationals. That remains the case. If it changes, I will of course make a different decision and inform the House. My hon. Friend can therefore rest assured that that is, and will remain, the basis of the action we have taken.

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

British influence in the middle east is directly linked to the strength of our military and our willingness to use it. When he took office, the Prime Minister rightly increased defence spending, but that sum is now widely thought to be too little and taking too long. Will he unblock the argument between the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence, so that this House can always have confidence that we will maintain a military formidable enough to defend our borders, interests and values?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, we are working at speed on that. It is an important point, and it is important that we do so. I remind the Conservatives that they hollowed out our armed forces. It was this Government that increased defence spending over the course of this Parliament.

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

Over the weekend, I passed through Dubai airport, along with thousands of other people and many of my own constituents, as it turns out, and boarded a flight home. Shortly after leaving, we heard the news that this attack had happened, and my immediate thoughts went to the people who were still in the airport, who were then grounded and stuck there, not knowing where to turn or what was going to happen. Rather than the blatant aggression and angry sneers that we see from some of the Opposition, does the Prime Minister agree that what we need in this situation is calmness and a clear and strategic plan? That is what our constituents want.

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that is what our constituents do want. Can I also say how concerned I think we all are across the House at the attacks on hotels and airports in particular? These are hotels that British nationals and others are using and airports, of course, that civilians are using. This is the extent of the strikes by Iran and the reckless disregard for civilian life that come with the targets it is working through.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The people of Iran have suffered decades of atrocities under the rule of an oppressive regime. However, as we have seen from Iraq and Libya, the removal of an evil head of state without a future plan for governance can lead to countries becoming failed states. While I welcome the Prime Minister’s reluctance to involve the UK in another protracted war in the middle east, I remain unclear on the Government’s vision for the region. Does the Prime Minister want regime change? Have his officials contacted the leading opposition figures, such as Reza Pahlavi, to arrange such contingency plans, or does he wish to negotiate a diplomatic solution with the current regime?

[The Prime Minister]

The immediate plan is obviously to take the necessary measures to protect our nationals. Look, I do not think anybody mourns the death of the supreme leader. I firmly believe that, ultimately, the only way forward is a negotiated outcome. Whatever the conflict going on, in the end it will have to end in a negotiated outcome, and that has been the consistent position of both parties for a considerable period of time.

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

So far we have rightly focused on defending and protecting British citizens in the region. Can the Prime Minister confirm, though, that he believes that the future of the Iranian Government is a matter for the Iranian people and no one else? Can we focus our diplomatic efforts as soon as possible on de-escalation and peace, including identifying allies in a coalition of the willing to bring this to an end?

[The Prime Minister]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that the future of Iran is for the Iranian people, and we must absolutely establish that as a founding principle, and that it is our duty to de-escalate in the region and globally. Of course, it is important that we are acting with our allies, and that is why I talked to both the Germans and the French over the course of the weekend on a number of occasions.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

For those of us who were ready to go into Iraq just over 20 years ago, the comparisons between this situation and that vote are absolutely zero. The reality is that nobody is talking about ground troops or a land invasion; we are talking about striking those that are targeting our friends and allies. In the past few hours, over 500 rockets have struck the United Arab Emirates, and no doubt many have struck bases around the area. Will the Prime Minister deploy HMS Dauntless and HMS Duncan in the Gulf right now? Both are in a state of readiness, and I am sure that the Defence Secretary could give that order this afternoon.

Perhaps most importantly, what conversations has the Foreign Secretary had with colleagues in the region? We talk about finding solutions in conversation with others, but frankly, at the moment it looks as if there will be conversation with nobody, because these events will be happening without our having any part in them.

[The Prime Minister]

Nobody is making the comparison with Iraq; there is a question of drawing lessons from Iraq. The lesson I draw is that there must be a lawful basis for the action we take, and there must be a viable plan. On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about operational matters, I will not go into that from the Dispatch Box.

As for the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the Foreign Secretary, we have at all levels—including the Foreign Secretary—been talking intensively to our allies over the past few days. They have been extremely grateful for what we have done and the way in which we have engaged. I have spoken personally to all the leaders in the region, so I am not sure what point the right hon. Gentleman is making about our not being involved—they are very grateful for the way we have been involved. The Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary have worked around the clock over the past few days to ensure that all the necessary conversations are had, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect and as he probably knows has been happening.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for setting out clearly the reasons Britain did not join the US and Israeli attacks on Iran. I also thank him for ensuring the defence of Britain’s Gulf partners and for protecting the 300,000 Britons in the region. I agree with him that diplomacy and a negotiated settlement are the best path to peace. Will he outline the role that Britain is playing to ensure that the Iranian people are listened to and have peace and security ahead, not more war and chaos, not another murderous Iranian regime, and not another US-imposed regime change?

[The Prime Minister]

We have been very clear: the future of Iran must be for the Iranian people, and in the end the question of nuclear weapons will have to be negotiated. We will always ultimately have to get to that point.

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

The Prime Minister will understand why the ghosts of Iraq hang heavy over the Chamber at times like this. On that basis, does he agree that the best rebuke to the murderers in Tehran and the Iranian regime is the maintenance of the international rules-based system? More than that, we owe it to the people across the region to learn from the instability in the aftermath of Iraq, so what is the long-term viable plan?

[The Prime Minister]

We do need to learn the lessons of history. That is why the rules-based system is important. It is also what allows us to make arrangements to get our citizens home and to deal with other matters in conjunction with other countries. On the basis of the decision that I took last night, the plan is to take the necessary measures to protect British nationals. We are clear that, in the end, there has to be de-escalation and a return to negotiation.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his restraint so far in this operation, and for not heeding the calls of the Leader of the Opposition to get us embroiled in the reckless US and Israeli strikes on Iran. I still remember interventions in the region: colleagues not returning from Afghanistan, friends who were shot down over Iraq and tortured, and the massive destruction to civilians. Will the Prime Minister commit to limiting UK personnel to defensive operations to protect our citizens and allies, and not get us further embroiled in this unwise and dangerous war?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I will. I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend and the House that there will always be a lawful basis for any action that we take, and there must be a viable plan for it.

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

Over the weekend, I heard from families in my constituency whose loved ones—also constituents of mine—are among the 300 service personnel in Bahrain who were within metres of the Iranian missile strike. Given that we have known for some time about the build-up of US forces in the region, why did the activity to decommission HMS Lancaster in Bahrain continue, and—I trust that this is not an operational question—will those works be paused and service personnel withdrawn until the treat status has been downgraded?

[The Prime Minister]

In relation to the hon. Lady’s constituents, may I ask her to urge them, if they have not already done so, to register their presence as quickly as possible so that we can give them the necessary advice, because this is about how we get people out in the coming days? There are obviously wider questions in the region, but it is very important that we take the necessary measures in the coming days.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and now this illegal war on Iran—the reality is that time and again we are dragged into conflicts that are illegal, make the region less stable and result in devastation and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children. Have we not learned the lessons of the past? Will the Prime Minister make it clear from the Dispatch Box that Britain is not Trump’s poodle and never again will we be a launch pad for illegal and endless wars that have no plan and no end, and will he make it clear that any final decision will be made by this House?

[The Prime Minister]

I give my hon. Friend and the House my assurance that I will always act in the British national interest. That is the basis of the two decisions I took this weekend.

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

Will the Prime Minister confirm the exact limits of defensive operations and guarantee that those limits will not change, and will the UK withdraw consent to use our bases if there is proof that they are being used by the US to carry out offensive missions?

[The Prime Minister]

The basis is collective lawful defence in relation to our allies. The purpose is to take out the ability of Iran to carry out the strikes that are currently being carried out across the region and threatening British nationals, and the actions from our bases will of course be monitored, as the hon. Lady would expect.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

First, may I associate myself with the comments of the Prime Minister in giving thanks to our brave armed forces who are serving right now? I have constituents in South Derbyshire, as I am sure we all do across the country, who look at their TV screens and their social media and see some world leaders who appear reckless, both internationally and domestically, overseeing what looks like state-sponsored murder of people in their own country. So may I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his cool head in this engagement, and may I implore him to continue exactly as he is: taking all the evidence into account, making decisions that are within the law, and putting the interests of British citizens, both in the countries that are under attack and in the region and at home, first and foremost?

[The Prime Minister]

I have set out the principles on which I have taken the decisions that I have taken this weekend. We keep uppermost in our minds the protection of our citizens and nationals who are in the region. There are 300,000 of them; they are at risk, and it is very important that we do everything we can to keep them safe and secure.

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

The truth is that this dreadful Iranian regime has been a permanent threat to British interests and British citizens both domestically and abroad, attacking us and spreading its extremist ideology. Surely the Prime Minister understands that actually the United States and Israel have done the west a huge, huge favour in degrading the military capability of this terrible regime. Does he not understand that, after 10 years of negotiations that have failed, the west was left with no alternative? Does he understand also that in refusing to support the US, he has humiliated us on the international stage?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the regime is abhorrent, for all the reasons that I have already set out, but I think he is saying that because of that, it is perfectly right for a British Prime Minister to deploy and take action that would not be lawful. I simply and fundamentally disagree: I think it is a very important principle, when talking about our personnel, that we ensure that what we are asking them to do—and they are being asked to put their lives at risk—is lawful. I believe in that fundamentally; I am surprised if he does not.

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

In his statement, the Prime Minister mentioned the drone attack on RAF Akrotiri and the UK’s support for the security of friends and partners in Cyprus. How is the UK co-ordinating efforts with the Cyprus Government to ensure the safety of the whole island, including the bases?

[The Prime Minister]

I assure my hon. Friend that I spoke to the President of Cyprus yesterday, and I am hoping to speak to him again later today. I repeat what I said earlier, because it is important for reasons that he and the House will understand. The bases in Cyprus are not being used and are not going to be used by the US. [Interruption.] I hear the question, “Why not?” The answer is that they are not suitable. It is very important that that is made clear, because the President and I have been discussing that, as my hon. Friend will understand.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

On Saturday, Prime Minister Carney said:

“Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.”

Why was our Prime Minister not able to make the same statement? Was Prime Minister Carney wrong?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not trying to pick divisions between our allies on this. I was presented with a different scenario: whether we should accede to two requests in relation to action to be taken. That is different and it requires careful consideration of both the lawful basis and the viable plan. That is the basis on which I took the two decisions that fell to me. Different decisions fall to other Prime Ministers.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his careful response to this issue and his ongoing commitment to the international rule of law. My constituent’s parents, Lindsay and Craig Foreman, are currently serving an appalling and unjustified 10-year sentence in Evin prison in Tehran. Other Governments have given detailed instructions to their nationals as to what to do if Evin’s prison gates were to open and order break down. Will the Prime Minister confirm that a plan covering that situation will be communicated to them to ensure their safety? Have the Government impressed upon the US and Israel the importance of not targeting Evin prison, as Israel did last year, given that the lives of two British citizens are at stake?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this case. I assure him that we have been and will continue to take all necessary action to safeguard those interests in relation to this case.

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

RAF Fairford is in my constituency. The Government have now authorised the US air force to use RAF Fairford for defensive operations. Residents have been contacting me today, understandably concerned for their safety, especially given the recent events at RAF Akrotiri. Given that the Prime Minister has pledged to prioritise the safety of UK citizens, what assurance can he offer specifically to the people of Fairford that their safety and security will be fully protected now that UK airbases may be used in operations targeting Iran?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. I assure her and her constituents that all necessary measures are being taken to keep her constituents safe in relation to the use of the base in her constituency; that is a first-order priority for us, and that is what we are doing.

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

The Prime Minister is right to be clear that UK military action has to be in line with international law, and that we were not involved in the offensive action of Israel and the US. He is also right to act to protect British lives and British interests in the face of Iranian attacks. In rightly drawing lessons from Iraq, does the Prime Minister agree that a failed state in Iran is not in the interests of the UK, nor in the interests of the wider middle east?

[The Prime Minister]

We have to learn the lessons. Collapsing and failed states have historically proved to be worse, so we do have to be careful.

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

If a missile battery in Iran was continuing to target British bases, would an airstrike against it be offensive or defensive?

[The Prime Minister]

I think I have made clear the basis for the second decision: we have authorised the US to use our bases in order to take out the ability of Iran to make those strikes. That is legal because it is collective self-defence.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

Iran’s reckless attacks have fuelled further regional instability, putting British people at risk along with our allies across the region. The attacks have naturally caused concern about what they mean for our own national security due to rising oil prices and the cost of living. Does the Prime Minister agree that the UK needs to act decisively in our own national interest, including on how this conflict could impact every household in our country?

[The Prime Minister]

We are very concerned about the wider impact. That is why it is important that we continue to argue for de-escalation and a return ultimately to negotiation.

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

My party and I stand with all the brave Iranians who condemn the vile regime in Iran. We also condemn the deeply irresponsible and illegal attack by the US and Israel on Iran, which was launched in the middle of nuclear negotiations and led by Trump—a clearly unstable loose cannon—and Netanyahu, a war criminal. The UK must stand unequivocally against this reckless action. Will the Prime Minister publish the legal advice that he received on the initial American and Israeli strikes, not just the more recent advice on the defensive posture? Will he also commit to a vote in this House on any UK involvement in this war?

[The Prime Minister]

We are not at war, and we are not getting involved in offensive action that the US and Israel are taking. We have published a summary of the legal advice in relation to the decision that we took last night. That is in accordance with practice. It is not practice to publish legal advice or summaries in relation to defensive action.

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

I think the diffidence that we have heard towards international law this afternoon is as unwise as, perhaps, it is unsurprising. For the sake of clarity, can the Prime Minister confirm what would have needed to have been true for it to be legal for him to have joined the offensive strikes last week? Surely that would have required an imminent threat to our national security, which was simply not present when the decision to strike was taken.

[The Prime Minister]

I will resist setting out the full international law test, but it is clear what the test is—I think that is not disputed. As far as I know, nobody is challenging the Attorney General’s advice, the summary of which has been published for all to see; I do not think anybody is saying that that is the wrong advice. [Interruption.] I will look at the shadow Attorney General’s advice. I would be surprised if he advises that it would have been unequivocally lawful to have joined the initial action, but if the Leader of the Opposition will give me that advice, I will carefully consider it.

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

May I take the Prime Minister back to his earlier position? I do not think his own MPs quite realise what he has said. He said that his reason originally for not allowing RAF Fairford, for example—or even Diego Garcia—to be used was that it would constitute, for him, a breach of international law, because it would mean that we were condoning an offensive operation. However, he has changed his position because of attacks on allies and on a UK base. That means that he is authorising the Americans to act in defence by taking out those kinds of missiles that would attack us. Surely that means that the UK armed forces—in this case, the Royal Air Force—could now be used by the Government in no breach of international law in a defensive action to take out those missiles as well.

[The Prime Minister]

There are two separate considerations, obviously; the first was the decision on whether to join the US and Israel in the first place, and the second was the decision that we took last night. We started taking defensive action on Saturday by deploying our pilots to the skies in the region, so we had already taken that action. We added to that defensive action last night by permitting the US to use our bases to strike at the capability of Iran to issue the strikes in the first place.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

It has been heartening to see the scenes of jubilation from Iranians, from Syrians and from British Iranians in this country at the death of the evil ayatollah. They hope that it will enable them ultimately to finally gain their freedom from this horrific regime. As the situation evolves, may I ask the Prime Minister to keep them in his mind’s eye? Will he engage and meet with some of the Iranian activists who reside in the UK? In addition, if it does look as if the regime is going to fall, can officials think about the ways in which we can support the Iranian people to rebuild their institutions and infrastructure, and to provide aid, just as we are currently doing in Syria?

[The Prime Minister]

We must be absolutely clear that the future of Iran is for the Iranian people, who have been brutally repressed for a very long time, including through the terrible actions that were taken in January this year.

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

In his statement, the Prime Minister explained his disagreement with the US President about UK participation in the initial strikes, and I commend that decision. When the UK refused to participate in US interventions in Vietnam and Grenada, Harold Wilson and Margaret Thatcher kept their disagreements private, but that is difficult to do with Trump. Crucially, though, in the cases of Vietnam and Grenada, the UK stayed out. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that in the case of Iran, the UK is not going to get dragged into this war on the basis of collective self-defence in support of allies in the Gulf?

[The Prime Minister]

I hope I have set out my position clearly, and the reasons behind my decision. That is the basis upon which we made the decision last night; we will keep it under review, and if it changes, I will come back to the House.

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

We have heard this language before, with military intervention dressed up as necessity or as being done out of humanitarian concern: Libya, Iraq—the list goes on. All those interventions led to devastating consequences for the people who lived there: hundreds of thousands dead, infrastructure destroyed, countries and regions destabilised, and the creation of a refugee crisis. I hope all those who are chomping at the bit for this war will welcome the extra refugees who will be coming on to our shores as a consequence. Article 51 of the UN charter does not allow for regime change, and I am so grateful to our Prime Minister for not joining in this illegal war by the US and Israel. I ask him, please, to continue with this direction, so that we do not get involved in another illegal war in the middle east.

[The Prime Minister]

I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that I will apply the same principles of whether there is a lawful basis and a viable case to the decisions that we take.

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

I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments about working with religious communities and trying to ensure their safety, but I was appalled—not shocked, I am afraid to say—as I am sure the Prime Minister was, to see at the weekend the deputy leader of the Green party once again protesting in support of the ayatollah. I am afraid that the Green party has become a magnet for all the people who the Prime Minister quite rightly kicked out of the Labour party. The hatred and fear that runs through Leeds now, which has been whipped up at times by Councillor Mothin, is a disgrace.

West Yorkshire police have begged Leeds city council to put in place a named person for hiring spaces run by the council, so that they can hold somebody responsible. The city council would not do so. My Jewish community are terrified about going into Leeds at the weekend. Will the Prime Minister work closely with all policing authorities to ensure that my Jewish community and other communities can be safe?

[The Prime Minister]

I think we were all shocked by the actions of the deputy leader of the Green party—although perhaps not surprised, given that party’s recent turn of direction. It is important that we all set our face against antisemitism. I have to say that the Green party’s argument that now is the time to get out of NATO and negotiate with Putin over our nuclear weapons is also contrary to the British national interest.

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

There are direct flights from Newcastle to Dubai, and many Geordies in the region, including in the armed forces, so I thank the Prime Minister for the steps he is taking to support and protect them, and particularly for acting within international law. Iran is a murderous, despotic state that has frequently threatened, and does threaten, UK security, but the sight of bombs raining down across the Gulf will not make my constituents feel more secure, especially when the impact on democracy and human rights in the region—and, indeed, on the Iranian regime itself—is unclear, to put it mildly. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to help bring this conflict to an end and restore some semblance of security in the region?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the concerns of her constituents, and I understand just how worried they will be, as will all our constituents who are in the area. That is why it is important that we take measures in the region, as we are doing, to try to take the missiles out of the air. That is the reason we have given permission to the US to use the bases for the limited and specific purposes I have set out.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Last Friday, the talks in Geneva were apparently making good progress and there was hope that there would be some kind of agreement between the United States and Iran. Some 12 hours later, President Trump ordered attacks on Iran, the first victims of which were a group of schoolchildren attending school in the morning. They in no way can be held responsible for anything in Iran, whether human rights abuses or anything else.

In the Prime Minister’s statement, it is unclear to me under which circumstances US forces will be allowed to use RAF bases. Can they use bases in this country to attack Iran? Can they use RAF Akrotiri for that? Are we—this country—sharing information with the US to further its war aims against Iran? Could we not instead adopt a stance of trying to bring about an immediate ceasefire to prevent further dreadful loss of life across every country in the whole region and the danger of this escalating into a semi-global conflict?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The uses of the bases are for the collective self-defence of our allies and to protect British nationals—something I am sure the right hon. Member would agree with—and specifically to take out the ability of Iran to launch the strikes that are currently going into allied countries and putting our nationals at risk. Let me be clear that we are not using Cyprus for this purpose.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for his leadership. My thoughts are with serving personnel in the region. May I also mention our armed forces families in Cyprus, some of whom are my constituents? Clear communications from the Ministry of Defence will be crucial in reassuring these families, who are feeling worried and uncertain at this time. In light of the growing threat, may I ask the Prime Minister about the UK’s preparedness commitment under NATO article 3? Does he agree that we need a total Government approach to preparedness, with every Minister in every Department clear on their role in meeting our obligations to ensure that the UK can face the pressures of this increasingly unstable world?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for all that she does. I know she has a lot of military families in her constituency, and she is right to be concerned for them. I am sure that they will be feeling concerned. We will ensure that we liaise closely with them, wherever they are in the region, and do all that we can to protect them. We of course thank them for what they are doing. On the wider point she makes, it is important that the whole of Government is committed to the defence and security of the United Kingdom.

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

The Prime Minister happily says that he has learned the lessons of Iraq, a misadventure that his party is responsible for. Does he agree that the lesson of Iraq is not to use lethal force unless there is good evidence to do so and, in particular, unless there is a threat to the interests of this country, which there was not? Will he compare and contrast that with the situation that applies to what has happened over the weekend, when our friends and allies took pre-emptive action against a feral state that had enriched uranium to 60% and that posed a clear and present danger to ourselves, our interests and our allies?

[The Prime Minister]

It is important that we all learn the lessons of Iraq, and they are that there needs to be a lawful basis for action if it is taken and that there needs to be a viable case.

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the fact that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Qatar. I thank the Prime Minister for his emphasis on compliance with the law. What discussions have the Government held with the Government of Qatar and other regional allies about co-operation to ensure the safety, security and support of British nationals? What joint measures have been agreed to assist British nationals in the region?

[The Prime Minister]

I assure my hon. Friend that I have spoken to all the leaders across the region in person, on the telephone, over the weekend, and that the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and others have been liaising very closely to ensure that we can take the best, swiftest and most effective action to protect our nationals.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

The Iranian regime is clearly abhorrent and no one would mourn its passing, but, as someone who fought in Afghanistan, I am grateful to the Prime Minister for saying that we need a viable, thought-through plan. Plainly the United States does not have that plan. President Trump said over the weekend that the US was planning to hand Iran over to some people, but then killed them by mistake.

One of my concerns is the 440 kg of 60% enriched uranium in Iran. If the regime is wiped out, the country will fall into chaos. What is the plan for that uranium?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman points to the reasons why I have proceeded on the basis that there must be a lawful case for what is done and a viable plan. For us, the immediate vision that is important is ensuring that we do what we can to protect our citizens and de-escalate the situation so that we can get to a negotiated outcome.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for his reassurance about the principles for involving the United Kingdom in any military action. For those on this side of the House, it is important that, as well as having a viable plan, we stand by the rule of law. Has my right hon. Friend been able to have any discussions with the Arab states, and with Turkey, about how we might build that plan for de-escalation as quickly as possible?

[The Prime Minister]

I assure my hon. Friend that we have been having discussions throughout the weekend with counterparts in the region to that end, about how we rise to the challenge that is currently before us, what action we can take to protect our nationals and our allies across the region, and how we can de-escalate.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I agreed with parts of it. I agreed with him when he said that the regime was an abhorrent one, that British civilians, British service personnel and British sovereign bases had been attacked, and that, “You cannot shoot all the drones out of the air; you have to attack them at source.” However, his statement then implied, very cleverly, two things: that we did not have, in international law, every justification for offensive action against Iran; and that only the Americans had the capability to carry out these offensive operations. Bearing in mind that the world is listening, would the Prime Minister like to state very clearly that he understands that he would be justified, on the basis that we had been attacked, in launching offensive operations against our attackers, and that we have the capability to do so?

[The Prime Minister]

I clearly set out the two decisions that I made over the weekend, including the decision on Saturday to start taking defensive action with our pilots in the region, and the decision last night to permit the US to use our bases for collective self-defence in order to take out the ability of Iran to launch the strikes in the first place.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

May I put on record my admiration for the skill and the bravery of our armed forces? We owe them a debt of gratitude now more than ever as they see action.

The Prime Minister was right to say that we must learn the lessons from Iraq, and all the other conflicts in which there has not been a viable end plan. Given that, can he reassure me that the decision to allow the United States to launch operations from our bases will be kept under constant review, so that the UK’s presence in this conflict remains a defensive one?

[The Prime Minister]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The decision will be kept under review, and I will update the House accordingly.

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

It is no surprise that drones have become a central element of Iran’s response. The Shahed drones that it deploys are relatively inexpensive, easy to mass-produce, and capable of causing significant damage. However, the interceptors that we use to bring them down are substantially more expensive. Given the rate at which Iran is deploying these drones against UK assets and our partners, and the scale at which they can be manufactured, that cost imbalance is a growing concern. What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to develop effective but more cost-efficient countermeasures to address these challenges, and will the Prime Minister now look again at bringing forward the timescale for increasing our defence spending?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. We are working at pace to deal with the drones and are working with our Ukrainian colleagues, who have been facing this for four years. We have been working with them on that, and we are working with them to help to protect allies who are under attack in the region.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Overnight, my constituents have lost the benefit—promised to them only last week—of savings on energy prices through the attacks on refineries across Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Oil prices have soared, and gas prices in Europe have surged by upwards of 52% in the last few hours. The longer this carries on, it risks escalation across the middle east. Closer to home, it impacts on the day-to-day lives of the British people through increased energy costs. What assessment have the Government made of the risk of energy prices to British households, and what efforts is the Prime Minister making to ensure that we can de-escalate sooner rather than later?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the impact on the day-to-day lives of our constituents. We are carefully monitoring that, as she would expect, and we are doing all that we can with our allies to de-escalate the situation.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

As a veteran, I agree with the Prime Minister that the safety of our armed forces and of British citizens should come first in any decision made in the future. Given the rapidly evolving situation, will the Ministry of Defence now expedite the promised defence investment plan, so that our industry can get on and make the capabilities that this country needs?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, we are getting on with that as quickly as we can.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

We should all welcome the end of the Iranian regime—if it is the end of the regime. Those of us who were in this House for the decision on Iraq needed no convincing that Saddam’s was an evil regime. What we needed convincing on was that the attack was permissible in international law and that there was clarity about the exit strategy; it had neither of those, and nor does the US attack on Iran. The Prime Minister’s broadcast justification of the use of our bases spoke of enabling a defensive strike. Words have meaning: a “defensive strike” is a contradiction in terms. The usual phrase is “pre-emptive strike”, and in any language, a pre-emptive strike is an attack.

[The Prime Minister]

The use of the bases is to allow the US to use its ability to take out Iran’s ability to launch the attacks in the first place. I think that is relatively clear.

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

The Houthis in Yemen have declared their support for Iran but have so far taken no pre-emptive action. Given that the UK has previously been willing to take action against the Houthis, would we be willing to do so again if they become involved?

[The Prime Minister]

I will not get into hypotheticals, but I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that when the last Government were in office and we were in opposition, we supported that action, as was the case when we were in government and the Conservatives were in opposition. He can see what the consistent practice is there.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

The brutality of the Iranian regime is unquestionable, but does the Prime Minister agree with many of our constituents still in the region, who will be deeply concerned at the indication from the United States today that it will increase its airstrikes on Iran? Can he assure us that he will redouble his efforts to take forward the strategy, which he has rightly set out today, of de-escalation and action that is in accordance with international law?

[The Prime Minister]

I acknowledge the concern of my hon. Friend’s constituents, as many of our constituents will be concerned. That is why it is our duty to take measures to protect them first and foremost, and to de-escalate the situation.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

I hope the Prime Minister agrees that current events show how vital military infrastructure is in the middle eastern region of the world. However, at the very moment when Diego Garcia is relied on as a critical asset, the Prime Minister proposes to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius and to lease back the airbase for our use. Does he not realise what a catastrophic policy this is? Will he abandon this misguided plan and ensure that the Chagos islands remain under British sovereignty?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The deal secures the islands so that they can be used for the important purposes that they are used for. It was vital that we got the deal; otherwise, we would not be able to carry out the operations in the same way.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)]

This conflict has already cost lives. Civilians are caught in the crossfire, and hundreds of thousands of UK nationals are stranded in the region. If it continues for weeks, that will only make it more difficult to evacuate our nationals, and it will cause a humanitarian catastrophe and damage to the world economy. Can the Prime Minister say more about what he will do in the coming days to work with our allies in the EU and the middle east to try to bring an end to this conflict, and to return to diplomatic negotiations, so that we can secure peace and security and protect civilian lives?

[The Prime Minister]

I reassure my hon. Friend that we are talking to our allies in the region and to allies in Europe—we talked to France and Germany, in particular, over the weekend—to be clear about the principles we are applying, and to ensure that we are doing everything we can to de-escalate the situation.

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

I seek clarity from the Prime Minister: given his initial refusal of permission for the use of bases by the US, is it the view of His Majesty’s Government that the initial strikes by Israel and the United States were illegal?

[The Prime Minister]

The question I was asked and I was answering was: what would be the lawful basis for anything the United Kingdom would do? That is the question that I considered over the weekend, and that is what guided me in the two decisions that I had to make about the United Kingdom.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I had 40 constituents with me this morning, and they were very concerned about the creation of a regional vacuum, specifically in places like Lebanon and Yemen. What steps is the UK taking to prepare for targeted stabilisation and humanitarian efforts in the countries that will be most exposed if the Iranian regime changes?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is very important that we take those measures in the countries that are most exposed, and we are talking to our allies about how we can do that.

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

A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit the west bank and Israel, where these actions were being anticipated, largely with some dread. The great sense I got from talking to both groups of people was of deep national trauma, caused in no small part by the actions of Iranian-backed terrorists. What does the Prime Minister know about the ultimate intentions of either the Israeli or the American Government? What is their exit strategy? What are their objectives? There can be no probability of regime change coming from all this, so how does it make the lives of the Iranian people any better, and the lives of those in the wider middle east any more secure?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising the matter of the west bank; it is a cause of great concern, which is only intensified by actions in recent days, and I am not surprised that they have caused deep concern in the west bank. As far as the UK is concerned, I have clearly set out what our strategy is, and the basis for the actions that we are taking.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee has heard multiple sets of evidence about the risk in our dependence on fossil fuels, given the volatility of prices. The way that oil and gas prices have gone up has been a salutary reminder of that evidence. Remember that gas sets the price for our electricity most of the time. Is not the energy transition not a matter of ideology, but a matter of national security importance, and economic importance?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Among the reasons for pushing ahead with renewables is that they give us energy security and independence, which is hugely important at a time like this.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

When British children are being bombed in Dubai, and the British military are being attacked in Cyprus, Qatar and Bahrain, why does it seem like the Prime Minister—I hope he will forgive me—is frozen with indecision, entangled in his own legalise, and fretting about his Back Benchers? He is looking to the left in his party as much as to the middle east. He will know that I have supported him time and again on what he has said about foreign policy decisions at the Dispatch Box, but I have to say to him that this is not his finest hour. He is looking very weak, and that is not in our national interest.

[The Prime Minister]

I have been absolutely focused only on British nationals this weekend. That has been the total focus of my attention, and the right hon. Gentleman does himself a disservice by suggesting otherwise.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

A constituent who fled Iran fought back tears as she told me that she wanted an end to the regime in Iran that had targeted her and her loved ones. She also said that she wanted absolutely no illegal military intervention from external forces. Does the Prime Minister understand that enabling the use of military bases by the Government’s allies—in this case, the US—and Israel’s illegal actions are dragging our country into a wider conflict, but that the Government have no power to determine the conflict’s outcome, and that that risks making us all more, not less, safe?

[The Prime Minister]

No. Our decisions were made to protect British citizens and British nationals, and I stand by those decisions.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The Iranian regime is a murderous regime. It is an exporter of terrorism, and a threat to regional and national security, and its removal is good for British security and good for the Iranian people. However, what comes next is even more important than what has happened. The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that he wants a “viable, thought-through plan”. Does he think that President Trump has a viable, thought-through plan for what comes next?

[The Prime Minister]

We are obviously discussing all matters with the US, all the time. I am absolutely clear what our plan is, and what the basis for our decisions is, and I have set them out to the House.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Our primary duty at this time must be to ensure the safety of British nationals in the region—people like my constituents the Foreman family, who are trapped abroad and do not know when they will be able to come home. Their father’s medication runs out today, and they have no idea whether they will be able to obtain more drugs. What assurance will the Prime Minister provide that consular support will be there for families like my constituents, so that they get the medication they need and, ideally, come home as soon as possible?

[The Prime Minister]

I assure my hon. Friend that we are taking every step we can to ensure that these people have the support they need. That includes the steps taken over the course of this weekend.

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

I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments about our service personnel in Bahrain and Akrotiri, which I had the pleasure of visiting in the summer. It is difficult to know where to start with the confusion and cognitive dissonance shown in the Prime Minister’s statement. He is against attacking Iran because it has nuclear weapons, but he is willing to attack it because it has conventional weapons. On those conventional weapons, British sovereign territory in Akrotiri has been attacked, yet the Prime Minister is unwilling to use British RAF personnel to strike Iran. What would Iran, or any other state actor, have to do to this country for him to act?

[The Prime Minister]

We are using British personnel to defend Cyprus at this very moment.

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

No one should shed a tear for the Iranian leadership; this was a brutal and oppressive regime. However, there are other brutal and repressive regimes in the world. A brutal and oppressive regime is never, in and of itself, a reason to attack a country. Can the Prime Minister please assure me that any involvement of British troops or assets in this conflict will be purely defensive?

[The Prime Minister]

I have set out the principles on which I will act. I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Any action will have to have a lawful basis, and a viable case for it.

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

As long as the Iranian regime exists, it will continue to pose a direct threat to our security, and to stability across the region, yet Cabinet Office figures show that non-official development assistance integrated security fund spending for the middle east is set to fall by a third in the coming years. Will the Prime Minister explain why funding to counter Iranian threats is being reduced, when those threats remain so acute?

[The Prime Minister]

We are taking a number of measures to deal with Iranian threats, as the hon. Gentleman would expect.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister claims that lessons have been learned from Iraq, and I really hope that is true. Netanyahu and Trump instigated an illegal act of aggression, putting at risk the lives of thousands of people, including UK nationals and our military. Does the Prime Minister agree that diplomacy and de-escalation are needed if we are not to bring Britain into a reckless and catastrophic war, and can he provide details about this “viable, thought-through plan” to repatriate our nationals?

[The Prime Minister]

I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to apply the principles that I have set out, and will work to de-escalate across the region.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

The Iranian regime ignored the joint comprehensive plan of action, which completely failed. The Iranian regime’s terror activities have reached these shores, and while we meet here this afternoon, the Iranian regime’s rockets rain down on our allies across the middle east. That includes Hezbollah’s rockets into Israel. Will the Prime Minister clearly set out the evidence underpinning his view that the Iranian regime is in any way, shape or form interested in coming to the negotiating table?

[The Prime Minister]

My point is simply that in the end, there will ultimately have to be a negotiated outcome when it comes to nuclear weapons. At what point that happens is obviously unclear, particularly after the past few days. That is why it has for years been the consistent policy of both our parties that this should be a negotiated outcome. It was the hon. Gentleman’s party’s policy until Friday of last week.

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

Door-knocking in Ealing yesterday, I met a student whose parents fled Iran in 1979, and who told me how overjoyed they are to get rid of this despotic, tyrannical regime. Yet the methods used surely risk undermining the rules-based order. A girls’ school was hit, with 150 kids killed; we appear to have normalised the bombing of schools, hospitals, refugee camps and universities in Gaza by one of the two instigators of this action. What does the PM see as the end game of this war, and how will he stop Operation Fury turning into Operation Futility?

[The Prime Minister]

I have clearly set out the basis for the decisions I have taken, and my view that we should all do all we can to de-escalate the situation.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his measured statement and restraint. The illegal action by Israel and the USA over the weekend, taking out admittedly a very repressive and brutal regime leader, has left the region and the world in turmoil, which is creating real fear, especially for our children. In fact, my 14-year-old asked me over the weekend, “Dad, are we all going to be okay?” I ask the Prime Minister this, as a father: what assurance he can give my son, and all the children in this country and the middle east, that he will do everything in his power to prevent the outbreak of world war three, which Donald Trump and Netanyahu are driving us towards?

[The Prime Minister]

The protection and security of British nationals is my foremost duty. I take it very seriously—that is why I took the decisions that I did over the weekend—and will continue to do so.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)]

Like many people in my constituency, I said prayers over the weekend while watching the events unfold. It is clear that the region is in a perilous state, and we need to de-escalate, follow the rule of law and get peace back on the table.

I have a related question on the region for the Prime Minister. As he will know, many in the House were passionate about ensuring a ceasefire in Gaza and ensuring that aid and humanity got in. We know that there have been closures of ways into the west bank and Gaza over the weekend. What reassurance can the Prime Minister give us that while we look towards Iran, we will not lose sight of the humanitarian need in Gaza and on the west bank?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. The ceasefire in Gaza is welcome but fragile, and not enough aid was getting in even under the circumstances before this weekend. We are working with others to ensure that we can alleviate the situation as quickly as possible.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Even if our military personnel are not deployed in offensive strikes, the additional air policing that the RAF is being committed to across the middle east means that it now has to do double the work, with no extra resources. What additional resources is the RAF being given to protect our service personnel in undertaking this activity?

[The Prime Minister]

This is the Government who have increased defence spending. I can assure the hon. Lady that our service personnel are working very hard as we speak to keep us safe and to protect the region, and we thank them for doing that.

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

May I commend my right and learned hon. Friend for his resolute stand? It cannot have been easy to stand up to the President and not get dragged into this war, which has no apparent plan for its end. We made that mistake in 2003, and the result was disastrous. The President of the United States has made it clear that he wants to see regime change. Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether he has seen evidence of any plan to achieve that in our negotiations with the United States?

[The Prime Minister]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are talking to the US at all levels, and there is real clarity about the action that we have taken and the basis and reason for that action.

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

No one here is an apologist for the cruel Iranian regime, but the escalation initiated by the US Administration and the Israeli Government is illegal, and I am certain that the Prime Minister knows this. Hundreds of thousands of UK citizens are directly affected and at risk, and they include people from Dwyfor Meirionnydd. While there must be questions anon about a vote in this House as we fear that these defensive actions will slide into offensive ones, but we do not know how we will track that process. None the less, the question for today that people want us to ask is this: when will people be coming home, especially from Doha and Dubai?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that the right hon. Lady’s constituents, and all our constituents, will be very concerned, particularly since there are 300,000 British nationals in the region. We want to make sure that the answer to her question is that we will get them home as quickly and as safely as we can, and we are working with our regional allies on this as we speak.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his measured response so far. I have spoken to former constituents and friends who are British expats in the UAE. While they feel confident that the local Government there are doing all that they can to protect them, for clarity, will they too be considered for evacuation by the FCDO should it become necessary?

[The Prime Minister]

We are working with all our allies to ensure that all those who need our help get our help and are safely and swiftly removed from a region that is dangerous for them.

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

I think we can all agree that international law has an important role to play, but the world is changing and we must adapt to protect our national security. Given that international law is broad in nature and open to interpretation—we have seen that in the differing views of the Attorney General and the shadow Attorney General—for public accountability, and given the seriousness of this situation, can the Prime Minister tell us how many and which international lawyers he consulted before he made his decisions over recent days?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not going to disclose the full advice. International law does not just have an important role to play; it is vital if we are taking action that involves our personnel. That is why I took advice, and I have published the summary of that advice. I said that I will look at the shadow Attorney General’s advice. if he is setting out a lawful basis, I would be very interested to read it.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and his clarity on our adherence to international law. From Somalia to Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, history shows us that military interventions do not always lead to peaceful political transitions and often have wider regional and global repercussions. Can the Prime Minister reassure me that his focus will be on encouraging a peaceful transition for the people of Iran and de-escalating the situation regionally and globally?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. I also underscore her point that the future of Iran must be for the people of Iran, who have been brutally repressed for a very long time.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

We must not conflate the appalling actions of Iran with those of the Iranian people, who have spent years fighting at great risk for change—and intensively over the last couple of months. The severe repression under the ayatollah has led many of them to actually welcome the actions of Trump and Netanyahu, but how are this Government going to ensure that Iranian voices are heard when decisions are being made about their future once military action finally subsides?

[The Prime Minister]

It is very important that we are clear on the principle that the future of Iran must be for the Iranian people, who have been brutally repressed, particularly but not only in recent months. We must consistently make that case, and we are doing so.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

This is an extremely dangerous moment, and Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya show where it can end up: with death, destruction, terror and chaos impacting tens of millions of people. Given that, should the Government’s focus not be on pushing Trump, Israel and Iran towards diplomacy, de-escalation and a ceasefire? Instead, by siding with Trump, has the Prime Minister not risked dragging us into a wider conflict, which leaves us all less safe? Mission creep would erode the distinction that he is attempting to make between offensive and defensive actions and would lead us to become fully embroiled in an illegal US war in the middle east.

[The Prime Minister]

My focus has been on the protection of the 300,000 British nationals in the region, who are at risk. It is our duty to take steps to reduce that risk and bring them to safety and security.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

A militarily degraded Iran would be welcomed by both the region and the world, but an Iran that still possesses enriched uranium and has the potential to become a failed state is something to be avoided at all costs—the Prime Minister recognises that. While it is uncertain what President Trump’s plan is, at some point there will clearly be negotiations, talks towards peace, and the cessation of action. Will the Prime Minister impress upon the American Administration that we now have an opportunity to link progress for ordinary Iranians—their democratic rights, freedoms and civil liberties—to that process, and not just view it as a military degradation exercise?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I agree with the way that he puts it. It is important that we acknowledge that the Iranian people have been brutally repressed for so many years.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

May I express my support for the Government’s handling of the events this weekend? I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s clarity today that international law is paramount and that priority is being given to the safety of UK citizens. Does he agree with me, however, that this will end only when Iran, the US and allies get around the table and talk about nuclear de-escalation, and when Iran abandons its nuclear ambitions? Will the Prime Minister tell us what conversations he has had with allies to ensure that happens?

[The Prime Minister]

We are having conversations with allies about de-escalating the situation and about how we get back to negotiation. In the end, at whatever stage it is, that will have to be part of the process.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

We should welcome the actions of America and Israel in trying to destroy a regime that, as the Prime Minister described, has exported terror all over the world, but why the weak-kneed response from the Government that we are limiting our bases to defensive actions. Will the Prime Minister clarify what he means by “defensive actions”? For example, are attacks on factories making drones that are used to deliver bombs defensive? Are attacks on the leaders planning the war against our allies in the middle east defensive? Would attacks on nuclear facilities be regarded as defensive? Would attacks on the infrastructure that is used to mobilise these weapons be defensive? What are the limits of this defensive action?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me be absolutely clear that the action that we have authorised from our bases is to take out Iran’s capability to launch these attacks, which of course means taking out the launchers and the infrastructure that sits behind them.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his calm and measured approach and for his reassurance today. As the Member of Parliament for Portsmouth North and the mum of a serving personnel member currently deployed overseas, my first thought is always for the men and women we ask to stand in harm’s way. The Iranian regime’s reckless attacks are not abstract; they are direct threats to British service personnel and British citizens in the region. Will the Prime Minister, first, confirm that every measure is being taken to protect constituents on the ground? Secondly, will he assure the House that when we pursue de-escalation and democracy, operational decisions will be grounded firmly in one overriding principle: the safety of our British servicemen and women?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that a number of my hon. Friend’s constituents are deployed abroad. We are doing everything we can to protect them, and we thank them for the work that they are doing in the region.

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

I have heard a lot of legal analysis from the Prime Minister but nothing on what he thinks is morally right. Is not the biggest risk to international law when leaders hide behind legal advice to avoid taking responsibility for their decisions?

[The Prime Minister]

To ask our servicepeople to act when we do not have a lawful basis would be a dereliction of moral purpose.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

There is no doubt that the Iranian regime is abominable, but it is clear that the initial joint strikes on Iran were neither defensive nor lawful. As the situation dangerously escalates, hundreds of innocent civilians are now dead across the middle east and UK personnel and citizens are at risk. The Prime Minister has outlined that his aim is a negotiated settlement. Will he outline the tangible action that he and his international counterparts are taking now to secure a ceasefire so that negotiations can resume?

[The Prime Minister]

I reassure my hon. Friend that the actions we are taking are to protect British nationals, and we are working with others to de-escalate the situation.

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

Since we came to the Chamber, a senior Iranian commander has said that they would seek to bomb Cyprus to force out US aircraft from our sovereign bases. As a guarantor of Cyprus’s security and as a sovereign presence on the island of Cyprus, what concrete military devices and measures do we have in place in Cyprus to ensure that no further successful drone attacks can happen on the airfield? What assurances can the Prime Minister offer to Cyprus that no attacks will take place in Cyprus as a whole as a result of our presence there?

[The Prime Minister]

I will be absolutely clear again, because it really matters, that the US is not using Cyprus; it is our base. I will not go into operational details, but as the hon. Member would expect we are taking all necessary measures to ensure that Cyprus and the base are safe. I spoke to the President yesterday, and I hope to speak to him again later this afternoon.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Given the comments yesterday from the Iranian Foreign Minister that the IRGC is adopting a decentralised mosaic defence to fragment command and control structures and create even more unpredictable flashpoints, will my right hon. and learned Friend update the House on what steps he is taking with allies, including partners in the region, to mitigate such developments that threaten to escalate and prolong the conflict?

[The Prime Minister]

We have already put extensive sanctions in place, and we keep the situation under constant review.

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

I would like to come back to the drone attack on RAF Akrotiri and the alarming ease with which the Iranian regime was able to penetrate our defences and strike the airfield. That very much suggests that it has little by way of counter-uncrewed aerial systems capability and nothing by way of No. 2 Counter UAS Wing squadrons to deter such attacks.

Will the Prime Minister confirm what type of drone struck the airfield? Will he also confirm the origin of that drone? Did it fly from Iran all the way across Israeli airspace to strike Cyprus, or did it come from Hezbollah in Lebanon? Given that we have been attacking Daesh targets this year via Operation Shader, will he strike back at Hezbollah if it proves that the drone came from Lebanon?

[The Prime Minister]

I reassure the hon. Member, and through him everybody in Cyprus, that protective measures are in place. His description was not right, and it is not helpful to those living in Cyprus to cast it in those terms. [Interruption.] It really is not. As he would expect, extensive measures are in place—both US measures and UK measures—for the defence of Cyprus and the airbase there. It is very important that I make that absolutely clear.

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

I welcome the Foreign Office’s preparation for a potential evacuation of Britons currently in the middle east and the Prime Minister’s commitment to their safety. However, among them will be a number of British residents who may have gone there for work or leisure—I have not heard them mentioned specifically today—who live their whole lives here and have their families here, like many of the 12,000 non-UK Commonwealth citizens who currently serve in our armed forces. People are concerned given the negative rhetoric surrounding those with indefinite leave to remain at the moment. Will the Prime Minister therefore confirm that all UK residents, and not just citizens, will be included in any evacuation? They are our people, too.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for that reminder. I did mention it in my opening statement, but she is quite right that we must be clear that we will protect all those who need our protection. Obviously, where people need to get out, we are working with all of them to get them out as quickly and as safely as possible.

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

After the fall of the regime in Iraq, there was no long-term plan and civil society collapsed. In 2004, I was in Op Telic 4 in Iraq, retraining the Iraqi police service. One day I asked my lance corporal, “How do we know if the recruits are former Ba’athist regime supporters or not?” He said, “We don’t. We’ve no idea who we’re training.” The US has attacked Iran with no clear strategy, and now this Government have agreed that UK bases can be used for defensive attacks. I am seriously concerned about the potential for mission creep when there is no clear understanding of Trump’s military objectives. In deciding to allow the US to use UK bases for defensive actions, UK military and civilian lives have been put at risk. Military operations with no clear objectives tend to fail, so can the Prime Minister explain how such a decision—which could lead to mission creep—was made when we have no understanding of Trump’s long-term military aim or post-conflict plan?

[The Prime Minister]

The decision was taken to allow the bases to be used to protect our nationals. It is worth considering the alternative, which is to recognise the risk to our nationals, have the opportunity to do something about it and take the decision not to. That would be a dereliction of duty, in my view.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Can I respectfully suggest to colleagues that by the time they get on to page 2 of their question, that question is too long?

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

The Iranian regime kills its own people, funds terrorist proxies in Hamas and Hezbollah, backs Putin’s aggressive war in Ukraine, and now puts British civilians and our armed forces in the firing line. By some accounts, it is already a failed state. I absolutely back the Prime Minister’s decision to allow UK military bases to be used by the US for defensive strikes, given the attacks on our bases in the Gulf and Cyprus, but does he agree, given the threat that Iran poses on our streets here, that the absolute minimum we should do is proscribe the IRGC, along with any other organisations that threaten British civilians?

[The Prime Minister]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we keep that under review, and we have already put in place a considerable number of sanctions.

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

The Prime Minister has set out the threats posed by Iran with some clarity. Taking that into account, does he not recognise that treating international law as a rigid instrument as opposed to a flexible one, as he appears to do, risks binding our hands when it comes to national security?

[The Prime Minister]

I have made the point a number of times that it is important that there is a clear legal basis. I am not actually sure what the Conservative party’s position is. Are they saying that they would have joined the original strikes, irrespective of whether that was lawful or not? I have not heard a clear answer to that question. It would be very helpful to have one.

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

Iranian action in the strait of Hormuz and the attacks on energy infrastructure risk driving up energy prices here in the UK. Will the Prime Minister, in the coming days and weeks, make it clear that the blame for any rising energy prices lies with Iran? Will he also hold all possible discussions to support people in this country, including in my constituency, with any ensuing rising bills?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. This will be a concern for his constituents, and for so many of our constituents, and we will take every measure to protect them.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

People in Northern Ireland are entitled to be British, Irish or both. As such, many have travelled to the middle east on an Irish passport. We know that the FCDO has asked people to register. However, those Northern Irish citizens who have an Irish passport and are also UK nationals cannot register. Will the Prime Minister assure me that he will work to make sure that my constituents in Lagan Valley and across Northern Ireland will not be left behind?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. I will get to the bottom of it and make sure that the concern she has raised is properly, fully and swiftly addressed.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for raising the spectre of Iraq. We on the Labour Benches remember how a bloody invasion can lead to a brutal civil war. We know that the aftershocks of now will last years, not days. We are also seeing energy prices spiking, with oil up by 10% and gas up by 50%. Can the Prime Minister assure me that he will act to restore peace in the region and to keep life affordable for our citizens?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is important that he has raised that point and I thank him for doing so.

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

The Prime Minister has been explicit on two decisions: one was that no bases would be used; now, some bases can be used. Could he set out specifically how this interacts with the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill and the exchange of notes from 1966 between the UK and the US?

[The Prime Minister]

It doesn’t. It is the simple use of bases operationally that has been agreed, as of last night.

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

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to our brave service personnel, who every day work incredibly hard to keep us safe. I also pay tribute to him for his leadership on this matter. A number of people from my constituency of Harlow are trapped in Bahrain and Dubai, including one who is pregnant. What advice can the Prime Minister give to my constituents who are worried about their safety?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the case of his constituents; I am sure they are very anxious about the situation. I assure them and him that we are working at pace with our allies to get a safe and swift route for them to come out of the region, which is what they all want.

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

I want to go back to the original attacks. Last year, Trump told us that he was attacking Iran to destroy any possibility of it getting a nuclear weapon, and told us afterwards that he had “obliterated” the threat for years to come. Given that was the justification for the attacks last week, and now that Israel has said that they had been planned for months, their urgency seems questionable. What can the Prime Minister tell us about determining the facts around the justification and around the presence of nuclear materials, so that the basis of any future action is clear?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said, I took two decisions over the weekend. The second was to allow the bases to be used because of the actions of Iran and the need to protect our citizens, our nationals.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), is no longer in his place, but can I put on the record my support for the words of caution that he expressed earlier? Can I turn the Prime Minister’s attention to oil supplies? It is not just about the risks to shipping; I understand from contacts in the industry that some refineries in the region are shutting down. Clearly, that could have a serious impact on business in this country. Could the Prime Minister assure us that contingency arrangements are in hand to maximise oil supplies?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I assure the hon. Member that we are taking measures with our allies to safeguard the supply and to do all we can to ensure that we have the energy we need where we need it.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

While the ayatollah has been toppled, the IRGC remains intact, and it is indeed the head of the snake as the sponsor of global terrorism. Despite many urgings, the previous Conservative Government failed to proscribe the IRGC. The Prime Minister’s Government have made the promise to do so. Nothing has happened yet—if not now, when?

[The Prime Minister]

As the right hon. and learned Member will know from her time in office that this is kept under review, but we have put extensive sanctions in place, as the previous Government did.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Putting aside for a moment the rights and wrongs of the Prime Minister’s decision on Saturday morning, the BBC is in a unique position: running BBC Persian language broadcasting into Iran. Given that and given President Trump’s wishes for the Iranian people themselves to take control, will the Prime Minister put on the record whether he will work with the BBC over the coming days to ensure that there is more Government funding, wherever necessary, to broadcast what is required to the Iranian people?

[The Prime Minister]

It is very important that the BBC reports and broadcasts in the way that it does, and we support it in doing so.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

A 23-year-old Eastbourne lad, Cameron, is currently lying stranded in a Dubai hospital bed after falling very ill during a minutes-long stopover in Dubai over the weekend. During this window, the airspace closed. Cameron’s hospital bills are £1,000 a day, which he is being forced to pay up front despite having insurance. Cameron, who is watching, urgently needs to know the following. First, when will the Prime Minister outline his repatriation plan, if there will be one? Secondly, will he prioritise British nationals who are clinically vulnerable for repatriation, if it is medically safe? Thirdly, will the appropriate Minister meet me and Cameron’s family to ensure that he gets the treatment he needs before money runs out and to make sure that we get Cameron back to Eastbourne safe?

[The Prime Minister]

Cameron and his family and loved ones must be extremely worried. If the hon. Member would pass me the full details of that particular case, I will make sure that we do whatever we can to assist Cameron and his family.

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

The Prime Minister has made it clear that he thinks there was insufficient imminent threat to justify our going with our allies in the initial strike. But this is now after the act of war—after the attack on UK citizens across the middle east, many countries of which were not participating, and on British sovereign territory. That means we can join in and we could be involved in offensive actions if the Prime Minister so chose. Why is he choosing not to, and why is he pretending it is for a legal reason when that legal reason has disappeared?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

We started taking action on Saturday morning, with our pilots in the sky across the region, and they have been working ever since. We added to that yesterday afternoon by acceding to the request of the Americans to use our bases for the attacks on Iran’s capability to launch strikes in the first place.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for accepting that the reason the British Army is not involved is that it would be unlawful and illegal. Thereby, what America has done is illegal—an illegal attack that has led to the death of 167 girls aged between seven and 11. There are people sitting in this Chamber who oppose refugees coming to this country; they are the very same people who are asking for war. Would he be surprised if we had a sudden influx of refugees as a result of what has happened?

[The Prime Minister]

The actions I have taken have focused on our need to protect British nationals. It is in all our interests, including British nationals, that we do all we can to de-escalate the situation as quickly as possible.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I welcome the removal of the abhorrent Iranian regime, having seen its beginnings 47 years ago, when my father was a serving officer in the British embassy. We knew the Americans who were taken hostage. I add my thanks to our serving personnel, who are putting their lives at risk. Since the pre-emptive strike, there has been a sad but inevitable escalation in hostilities, so what can the Prime Minister do to persuade Donald Trump to go to negotiations—that is where we have to be—given that he believes only in win-or-lose situations?

[The Prime Minister]

We are working with all our allies, and having discussions at every level with the US and others about how to resolve and de-escalate the situation. Ultimately, it will have to be a question of negotiation.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I do not underestimate for a moment the gravity of any Government deciding to place their brave servicemen and women in harm’s way, but in circumstances in which our bases and citizens are being targeted by the terror machine that is Iran, why are the UK Government still equivocating over whether we are actively on the side of those who are determined to liquidate the threat? Why the equivocation?

[The Prime Minister]

We are not equivocating. Pilots have been in the sky since Saturday morning, hours after the attack, risking their lives. I am grateful to them for doing so. They went straight up there, and they have been up there ever since. There was no equivocation; they went up straightaway, and it was the right thing to do.

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

This conflict has grounded travellers at Doha, including a constituent who has three young children waiting at home. Following the Prime Minister’s conversation with Qatari leaders, can he explain how evacuations will be prioritised, and what support is being provided on the ground to those who were expecting simply to pass through?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

May I reassure the hon. Lady that we are working with the Qataris and others to ensure that we are able to get everybody to safety and security as quickly as possible? They are evolving plans, as she will appreciate. It is a difficult situation, but I can assure her that we are doing everything we can to get people out safely—they are our first priority.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

As the Prime Minister admits, following the illegal pre-emptive strikes and the killing of Iran’s leader, Iran has become more aggressive and more unpredictable in the region. How can we possibly be assured that further strikes, further attacks and further aggression will somehow calm the situation? Britain must not contribute to another conflict whose legality is in serious doubt. Will the Prime Minister now commit unequivocally to upholding international law, to publishing the Government’s legal advice, and to pressing for an immediate ceasefire and a return to diplomacy rather than allowing the United Kingdom to be drawn into another unlawful war?

[The Prime Minister]

It is my duty to protect British nationals—300,000 of them are in the region. The hon. Member will have heard the anxiety from various Members about their constituents being trapped in that situation, only too aware of the danger that they are facing. It is my duty to ensure that the risk to them is reduced. That is why we took the action that we did over the weekend.

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

British Lance Corporal Brodie Gillon was killed by an Iranian ballistic missile in Iraq in 2020. When I arrived as a soldier three months later, our base came under attack from Iranian proxy militias eight times. The Iranian regime has gunned down tens of thousands of protesters in recent weeks. Morality is complex. I entirely support the Prime Minister’s view on the need for a negotiated settlement, given, sadly, the risks of regime change, but does he agree that any negotiated settlement needs to include protections against reprisals for protesters?

[The Prime Minister]

I very much agree, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service. It is really important that we approach this with clear principles about what we are trying to achieve and having learnt the lessons of history in terms of what happens after such conflicts.

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

Although I might not agree with all the conclusions that the Prime Minister has drawn, I am very grateful for the reverence and caution that he shows, and for the respect for human life that he has been trying to demonstrate. The limited time he had over the weekend to make decisions on how best to act reveals that he was not involved in all of the pre-planning, so may I ask why the UK is no longer at the decision-making table?

[The Prime Minister]

We talk to our allies all the time, as the hon. Gentleman knows and would expect, and we talked to them extensively over the weekend in response to the situation as it developed.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I applaud the Prime Minister’s judgment in this matter. I am in contact with British nationals trapped in a hotel in Qatar who are seeing missiles passing overhead, with more than 30 explosions just today. They texted me a few minutes ago to say there has been a lack of messaging from their Government. They are desperate for news on evacuation plans, but the consulate auto-reply is currently advising them on how best to enjoy Ramadan. Can the Prime Minister please ensure that our consulates redouble their efforts to give information and reassurance to our nationals across the region?

[The Prime Minister]

We are doing everything we can as quickly as we can. I will pick up the issue the hon. Gentleman has raised specifically, and will he please reassure his constituents that, he having raised it with me, I will do whatever I can to respond very quickly?

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)]

US congressional staff were told on Sunday that Iran was not planning to strike American forces or bases unless Israel attacked Iran first. In other words, there was no intelligence indicating an imminent threat. Yet we have already seen pre-emptive strikes attacking a girls’ school, killing over 100 children. This has been condemned by UNESCO as a grave violation of humanitarian law, yet the Prime Minister did not bother to mention it. Continuing such actions is unlawful, and allowing them to take place from UK bases is unlawful, so I ask the Prime Minister: is the genocide of the Palestinian people not enough for this Labour Government? Is he proud to be another Labour Prime Minister obediently following Washington into yet another illegal war in the middle east, making us all less safe? Finally, how much does he enjoy being Donald Trump’s poodle?

[The Prime Minister]

I have set out the decisions I made over the weekend and the reasons for them. My first duty is to protect British nationals; it is the most important duty that I have, and I will continue to discharge it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Ayatollah Khamenei and his regime have denied religious minorities their freedom of religious belief for years—Christians, Sunnis, Shia’s and Baha’is. They killed 30,000 protesters in January 2026. Girls are abused and victimised regularly. Today the ayatollah is deservedly dead and burns in hell, and I for one put a shovel of coals on his head and hope his damnation will be a long one. The IRGC and the Basij paramilitary groups have the guns while the protesters have none, so what discussions has the Prime Minister had with the USA and Israel to destroy the murderous IRGC? And what discussions has he had with Madam Rajavi and the national Iranian Government in exile on their 10-point plan for a solution and a transparent way forward?

[The Prime Minister]

There are many discussions going on, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, and I understand his level of concern, particularly in relation to religious freedom. We are working with colleagues on those issues and I will update the House accordingly.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

I do not know what is more humiliating for the United Kingdom: the moral weakness of a Government who cannot distinguish between right and wrong, and who cannot even take a sovereign decision without consulting international lawyers; or the material weakness of a country that has just decommissioned its last frigate in the Gulf and, as the Prime Minister has said in his statement, does not have the capability to defend our own citizens in the region. Given this position of neutrality and impotence, will the Prime Minister clarify what exactly he means by defensive versus offensive action? The whole operation is offensive according to the terms that the Prime Minister has set out. Or does he expect that the British will have some sort of operational veto on individual American flights that take off from our bases?

[The Prime Minister]

We are taking action in the sky through our pilots and we have authorised the US to use our bases in order to attack the Iranians’ ability to strike, but I will take no lectures on morality from a member of a party that stood a candidate who said that you cannot be English unless you are white.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 February.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Four years into Putin’s barbaric assault, the courage of Ukrainians burns bright. We are extending sanctuary to Ukrainians in their time of need and providing the weapons and aid to support them in their fight for a just peace. We are degrading Russia’s economy and planning for a ceasefire that protects Ukraine’s sovereignty. That support will never falter. Yesterday I recommitted to President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people that we stand with them in the fight for freedom, democracy and the values that we all hold dear.

Let me also congratulate Team GB for their superb performance in the winter Olympics. They are brilliant ambassadors for our country, and I know that ParalympicsGB will also do us proud. 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.

[Edward Argar]

May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister in respect of Team GB and Ukraine?

A great former Prime Minister once said,

“You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning.”

Like the leader of my party today, she was a leader of principle and backbone, but we know this current Government are no stranger to the U-turn. Given that, can I gently tempt the Prime Minister to add one more to the current tally and help get Britain working again by backing the fantastic shops and businesses in Melton Mowbray town centre and in high streets across my constituency and beyond to succeed and grow by scrapping the Government’s business rate changes, which will hit so many of them hard in April?

[The Prime Minister]

It is good to see the right hon. Member in good form, particularly—if I may say so—after his health scare, which he and I have discussed a number of times.

The right hon. Gentleman discusses a former leader of his party. He was the former Health Minister who presided over record waiting lists; he was the former Prisons Minister who left the prisons overcrowded; and he was the former economy Minister under Liz Truss. We are picking up the mess and turning it around.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

Q2. I very much welcome the fact that our Labour Government have recognised the state of Palestine. I also welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week as chair of the UN Security Council, setting out the UK’s commitment to increasing humanitarian access to Gaza and advancing a two-state solution. Does the Prime Minister agree that protecting civilians, upholding international law and supporting Palestinian-led governance are essential for a lasting peace?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, because the ceasefire in Gaza remains fragile, and protecting Israeli and Palestinian civilians is critical to the next phase of the peace plan. I am proud of our commitment to a two-state solution, and we will be hosting the peacebuilding conference in March to build lasting peace and security for both Palestine and Israel. Hamas must decommission their weapons and destroy their terrorist infrastructure and can have no future role in running Gaza. While aid flows have increased, the level of need is still dire. The Israeli Government must stop blocking supplies and preventing the work of international non-governmental organisations. That is unconscionable, and it is costing Palestinian lives.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

May I associate the Conservative party with the Prime Minister’s comments about Ukraine and Team GB?

Before the Prime Minister and I became MPs, parties of every colour increased the cost of going to university. The system is now at breaking point for graduates. I believe that student loans have become a debt trap. It is time for all of us to do something about it. Will he cut interest rates on student loans?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say I was glad to learn that the Leader of the Opposition has finally admitted that the Conservatives scammed the country on this— and that applies to everything that they did in government. We inherited their broken student loans system. We have already introduced maintenance grants, which they scrapped, to improve the situation and we will look at ways to make it fairer. We will do other things within the economy to help students. [Interruption.] What other things, Conservative Members ask? There was some news this morning, at 7 am, that energy bills are coming down by £117 for millions of families and young people struggling. That is guaranteed money off bills in April, driven by the action that this Labour Government have taken. We have promised to cut the cost of living—we are cutting the cost of living.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I asked the Prime Minister if he would cut interest rates on student loans—no answer. For the record, energy bills are still higher than when he came into office. He keeps talking about the last Government. In case he has not noticed, my party is under new leadership—a lot of people wish his was too, including his own Back Benchers.

Let us talk again about student loans and student fees, even, because to win the Labour leadership, with Labour Together, the Prime Minister promised to abolish tuition fees. In opposition, the Education Secretary said:

“Graduates, you will pay less under a Labour government.”

I wonder what happened to those people? Will the Prime Minister tell us whether graduates are paying more or less under Labour?

[The Prime Minister]

Many in her party are under new leadership, Mr Speaker—they are sitting on the Reform Bench. The only change the Leader of the Opposition has brought to her party is to make it smaller. She talks about interest rates on loans. Not only have energy prices come down this morning, but since we were last debating across the Dispatch Box, inflation has fallen as well, which has a huge impact on interest rates. It has fallen to 3% and the Bank of England says that it will keep on falling. That is only happening because of the decisions that we made at the Budget, opposed by the Conservatives. They talk about the cost of living: this Government are taking action. Under the Conservatives’ watch, inflation was 11%, which crippled students’ finances as their low rates went up.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I am amazed that while we are trying to talk about student loans, the Prime Minister has the cheek to talk about my party being smaller. His party is smaller too, including one MP who was arrested for child sex offences. Perhaps before he gets on his high horse, he should ask why his Back Benchers are saying that they are being called “the paedo defenders party”. [Interruption.] I did not say it—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Badenoch]

I know that Labour Members do not like it, but I have not said anything that is not true, have I? Perhaps they should get off their high horse and stop making stupid jokes.

Why don’t we talk about student loans? Policies that may have been fine for 2012, with low interest rates, are not fine for 2026. The fact is that graduates are paying more, not less. On Monday, the Schools Minister was asked on the BBC why Labour froze the repayment thresholds. She said that the Government have “huge pressures”. Those pressures have been created by the Prime Minister’s taxes and borrowing to pay for more welfare. Why is the Prime Minister taking from students to give to “Benefits Street”?

[The Prime Minister]

What a nerve! Under the Conservative Government, student loan thresholds were frozen for 10 years. They broke the system—they did it with the bloke over there, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), when they were in coalition together—and we are fixing it.

The right hon. Lady used to say, just a few weeks ago, that she was going to focus on the economy to the exclusion of everything else, so I am doing her a favour by bringing us back to the economy. [Interruption.] Yes, desperate to talk about the economy. We have taken £117 off energy bills, and inflation is going down. The other thing that was confirmed on Friday was that borrowing is coming down, and we have the biggest surplus on record. That means that we have got the economy back under control, and we are fixing the public finances. I know that the party of Liz Truss does not understand any of this, but the Leader of the Opposition should welcome those changes when she next stands up.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister says that the Government are fixing the student loans system. How? He was not even talking about this until I raised it. The fact is that those policies—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister is only talking about student loans now because I raised them. He says that the Government are fixing the problem, but the fact is that he is not. Why is it that I am willing to ditch old Conservative policies that do not work, but he wants to keep them? He is not going to do anything about it at all. On Monday, the Government voted to increase benefits yet again. The fact is that the Prime Minister is taking money out of the pockets of graduates and giving it to people who are not working. It is not fair.

It is not just that the Prime Minister is saddling graduates with debt. Yesterday, the Bank of England, where the Chancellor used to work—in customer services—said that the Prime Minister’s policies are fuelling youth unemployment. That is not coming from us; that is from the Bank of England. For the first time ever, youth unemployment is now higher here than it is in the EU. While he blames everyone else, our young people cannot get jobs; they are losing hope and even leaving the country. Will the Prime Minister tell us how he plans to deal with that?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady says that she is ditching failed Tory policies. That is a very long list—14 years of it—and it starts with the word, “Sorry”. When she says that word, we will take her seriously.

The right hon. Lady talks about the Bank of England. The Bank of England has reduced interest rates six times. We have seen a fall in energy bills. Inflation is coming down. Borrowing is coming down. She has not welcomed any of that. I know that she wanted to talk about the economy—she did not want to talk about anything other than the economy—so perhaps she will welcome the surge in retail sales as well. People are spending more on our high streets because of the action that we took. Wages were boosted for millions of workers—opposed by the Conservatives. Free breakfast clubs—opposed by the Conservatives. Free childcare—opposed by the Conservatives. On every measure that we are taking to improve the economy, what do they do? They oppose it.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister is desperate to talk about the last Government so that he can distract from the mess that he is making now. The fact is that he is the Prime Minister today. This is a man who got legislation in to fix his own pension—just his, no one else’s. He will not sort out student loans for other people. He has no plan to get young people into work. He has no plan to help graduates to get out of the debt trap. [Interruption.] Labour Members can complain as much as they like, but these are facts. There are 411 Labour MPs, and not a single one of them has any imagination. We are the ones doing all the thinking.

The Prime Minister has already made 15 U-turns. Will he make another one next week at the spring statement to fix the student loans system?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Member wants me to talk about this Government. Bills are down £117 under this Government. Inflation is down under this Government. Surplus is up, at a record. Resales—[Interruption.] She will not welcome the economic news, but the business community is welcoming the plan. Business confidence is up. The FTSE is at a record high. The president of the British Chamber of Commerce has said that this is the year our economy could turn around. The right hon. Member’s miserable strategy of talking down the economy is not working because Labour has a plan for Britain.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The economy will only turn around this year if the Prime Minister stops being the leader. Perhaps his party can do something about that. He wants us to welcome the economic news; I am sorry, but I am not going to welcome the fact that youth unemployment is at its highest ever. I am not going to welcome the fact that unemployment has increased every single month under this Labour Government. He is not doing anything about student loans because he is not governing, and he is not governing because he cannot govern. He is distracted by Labour scandal after Labour scandal. Even today, there is an inquiry into the inquiries Minister! That is all his party has offered since it came in.

The defining moment of this man’s premiership will not be breakfast clubs; it will be the sight of the man he appointed ambassador to Washington just last year getting arrested. No wonder Labour Members are calling themselves all sorts of things. He needs to stop moaning about us, and start fixing his useless Government. Why should the country have to put up with three more years of this?

[The Prime Minister]

Yet again, the right hon. Member has shown why she is so utterly irrelevant—carping from the sidelines and trying to talk down the economy. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Hello? Please, I want to hear the questions, and so do your constituents.

[The Prime Minister]

All the right hon. Member does is carp from the sidelines, talk the economy down and talk the country down. In the meantime, because of our work, what is happening? Energy bills are down, as announced this morning. Inflation—down. Borrowing—down. What is up? Retail spending is up. Investment is up. Business confidence is up. That is the difference a Labour Government make.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Q3. Residents in Stanley in my constituency are very excited about having their say on how to spend the £20 million of Pride in Place funding that Stanley South has received as one of the 250 most deprived neighbourhoods in the country. There are other villages and areas in North Durham that are too small to qualify for Pride in Place at the moment, but that are also urgently in need of investment—for instance, Grange Villa, New Kyo and the Avenues area of Chester-le-Street. Will the Prime Minister consider an additional wave of Pride in Place funding to target smaller, more concentrated areas of deprivation?

[The Prime Minister]

I know how meaningful Pride in Place investment is to my hon. Friend’s constituents. We are backing communities with the funding and powers they need to invest in their priorities: unleashing jobs, growth and opportunity. In answer to his question, I can confirm that the next wave of Pride in Place will invest in an additional 169 neighbourhoods, focusing on smaller areas and looking closely at deprivation. We are reversing the austerity that ripped the heart out of our high streets and our communities, and giving local people a real say over how money is spent.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

I join the Prime Minister in congratulating Team GB on our most successful winter Olympics ever. I also join him in solidarity with our Ukrainian allies and friends after four years of them resisting Vladimir Putin’s war machine.

The former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has raised deeply shocking concerns that Jeffrey Epstein may have used British airports, and even RAF bases, to traffic young women and girls in and out of our country. This is appalling. The Prime Minister knows that I agree with Gordon Brown that there needs to be a full public inquiry into all this. If he does not agree with Gordon Brown, will he at the very least commit to releasing the flight logs and related documents—or will he wait for the House to force the Government to do that?

[The Prime Minister]

I think it is important to appreciate that there is obviously a police investigation going on, and I think it is right—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees with this—that that has to go wherever the evidence takes it. We have to let that investigation run its course before deciding what next action needs to be taken.

[Ed Davey]

I think we all agree that police investigations should take priority, but that does not rule out a public inquiry, and it certainly does not rule out releasing the flight logs, which I think really should be released.

On a different note, it has been revealed that a trustee of William Blake House, a care home for adults with profound disabilities, embezzled £1 million. There are very few homes in the country that offer this sort of care, and now it faces closure. As a father of a disabled son, I can tell the Prime Minister that this situation is one of my worst nightmares, and it is one of the worst nightmares of many parents with disabled adult children. The families of the residents have put forward a rescue plan to take over William Blake House and run it themselves. It will require His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to resolve the debt issue and the Charity Commission to appoint an independent board, so will the Prime Minister meet the families and back their plan?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this case, which is obviously a cause of considerable concern. Of course, I will make sure that the relevant meeting is put in place for all the individuals who need it.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Q4. Given the recent challenges to the Equality Act 2010, will the Prime Minister commit to protecting laws that prevent discrimination at work and in society, make sure that women are not fired for being pregnant, and ensure that everyone is treated fairly, regardless of their sex, race or disability?

[The Prime Minister]

I am proud of the Equality Act, which was passed by the last Labour Government; we will always fight for working people. Compare that to Reform, who want to go back to the dark days, when people could be discriminated against because of who they are—ripping up protections for workers and renters, and ending the right of grieving parents to take a few days off work if the worst should ever happen to their child.

I also have to raise this: a death threat against my hon. Friend, the brilliant Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), was shared by Reform’s deputy council leader in Lancashire. It said that she “should be shot”. When death threats were made against the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), I stood at this Dispatch Box and condemned them outright. If he has any decency or backbone, he will stand up, apologise, condemn the comments, and sack the individual in his party. Will he do so?

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

At the age of 14, Michel Mandarin was forcibly removed from his home, the coral atoll of Île du Coin, dumped on the quayside in Mauritius, and forced to live on food scraps out of bins. He has resettled on those islands, yet he now faces a removal order from yet another Labour Government. Maybe twice in one lifetime, he is going to be asked to leave his homeland. Can I ask the Prime Minister this? This Government are full of human rights lawyers, within and without; why do the opinions and human rights of indigenous Chagossians not matter to him at all?

[The Prime Minister]

So the hon. Gentleman has neither the decency nor the backbone to condemn a death threat against a Member of this House, whichever party they are in. He does not have the decency or the backbone to condemn it and sack the individual. That just shows that his party has nothing to offer the country but grievance and division. Look at its candidate in Gorton and Denton—a man who says that anyone who is not white cannot be English. No wonder he has been endorsed by Tommy Robinson. That does not represent our country, and anybody who wants to stand against that hatred and division should vote Labour on Thursday—tomorrow—in Gorton and Denton.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Q5. Can the Prime Minister update the House on how the Government are tackling the misuse of illegal drugs, and will he reassure parents in my constituency of Rugby and throughout the country that Labour will continue to disagree with the views and the voices of those who think that it is a good idea to legalise class A drugs like heroin and crack cocaine?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. We are working relentlessly to tackle the supply of illegal drugs, and expanding police powers to test more suspects on arrest. The Green party’s policy is not just irresponsible but reprehensible— a policy of legalising cocaine, heroin, ketamine and the date-rape drug GHB, a drug that we know is used to spike the drinks of women. While we are making that an offence, the Green party’s proposals would shatter lives, increase antisocial behaviour, and see drug use running rife. I have to say, as the father of a 17-and-a-half-year-old son, that the idea that the argument is being made by the Greens that when he turns 18, in just a few months, it would be lawful to provide him with heroin and crack cocaine is absolutely disgusting.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Q6. The Prime Minister recently stated:“we will not allow the powerful to treat justice as optional.” He was talking about Epstein’s enablers, but one of my constituents, who uses the pseudonym “Isabella”, has asked me to ask the Prime Minister whether his words also apply to those who assisted Britain’s Epstein, Mohammed al-Fayed, a monster who, with others, abused her and hundreds of other women and girls in a human trafficking scandal that the Met, unlike the French authorities, is still refusing to treat as such. Will the Prime Minister ensure that sufficient resources are committed to fully investigating this multi-perpetrator, multi-jurisdictional, multi-decade trafficking outrage, and will he meet Isabella and her fellow victims, in order to understand the terrible scale of this shocking crime?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that really important case on behalf of really important victims, and I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with those victims. Every report of a sexual offence should be treated seriously, every victim should be treated with dignity, and every investigation should be conducted professionally. The safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), is meeting the victims, and if the hon. Gentleman gives me the full details, I will make sure that his constituent is part of and included in those meetings.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Q9. We have all heard the horrific news that a man entered Manchester Central mosque last night in this, the holy month of Ramadan, carrying weapons including a hammer, a knife and an axe. Violent and Islamophobic attacks against the Muslim community are becoming far too frequent in our country. Prime Minister, is it not the case that every single politician in this place, and I mean every politician, especially that lot over there—[Interruption.] They may nod their heads, but this morning we could have woken up to news of a horrific terrorist attack, in which innocent Muslim worshippers were killed only for being Muslim. Prime Minister, is it not the case that every single politician in this place, and every single journalist, has a responsibility to stop fanning the flames of hatred against the Muslim community?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that really important case. Let me tell him that I share his deep concern, and the deep concern of the community, over the incident at Manchester Central mosque—particularly as it took place during the holy month of Ramadan—and that we will not, and must not, relent in the fight against anti-Muslim hatred. We must not.

I remember visiting Peacehaven mosque in the wake of the awful attack there, and when I did, I committed £40 million to protecting mosques and community centres. It is a shame that we have to do that, but we do have to do it, and we are establishing a new fund to monitor anti-Muslim hatred and to support victims. I want to reassure my hon. Friend and the House that we will fight hatred and protect freedom of worship in this country.

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

Q7. Bicester is one of the fastest-growing towns in the country, but the town will be cut in two when rail services start between Oxford and Cambridge and the London Road level crossing closes. Campaigners were ignored by the Conservative Administration for over a decade, but today we are in touching distance of a solution. East West Rail has a detailed plan for an underpass, the Rail Minister is fully engaged, we have financial support from the county council, and thousands of local residents have pledged a pound to go underground. Can the Prime Minister now confirm that the Government will back the plan and keep London Road open?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that the hon. Gentleman shares our support for East West Rail, which is a vital project that will deliver better journeys and tens of thousands of jobs, and unlock up to 100,000 new homes. I agree that access to Bicester Village must be maintained—my children say that as well—and I think the company has put forward two options for replacing the crossing. I reassure him and his constituents that they will have the opportunity to express their views on what would work for them during the upcoming consultation.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Q10. The regeneration of Belper mills—a large site with buildings, including grade I listed ones dating from the start of the industrial revolution, at the heart of the east midlands’ only UNESCO world heritage site—took a significant step forward last week, when planning permission for its redevelopment and conservation was finally granted. The Government want to provide more housing—rightly so—and sites like this, though very challenging, provide a very important opportunity to support that aspiration and share our national story. Can the Prime Minister tell me what support the Government are giving to regenerate at-risk listed buildings, and whether we are delivering support to train construction workers in heritage building techniques? May I ask him to take a personal interest in Belper mills, because it is an internationally significant site?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, because restoring Belper mills is not just about delivering the housing that his constituents want, but about restoring an iconic world heritage site in the east midlands. We are investing over £1.2 billion in skills, supporting apprenticeships—including courses focused on heritage construction—recruiting 60,000 more construction workers, and backing new technical excellence colleges, so that we have the workforce to build the homes the country needs.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Q8. In January last year, Somerset received around 2,000 pothole reports. This January, there were nearly 7,000—a 250% increase. I recently stood on the Fosse Way in my constituency, where one resident had blown a tyre and another was checking the damage under his car. Families and small businesses are paying the price. Rural counties like Somerset have some of the largest rural networks in the country, yet the funding does not reflect that reality. Will the Prime Minister commit to fairer funding for rural areas so that we can properly maintain and resurface our roads, rather than constantly patching them up?

[The Prime Minister]

I know how important it is that we fix the crumbling roads that we inherited from the Conservative party. The hon. Gentleman’s county council will receive over £225 million as part of our £7.3 billion investment to tackle potholes. We are also implementing tough new standards so that councils have to prove that they are fixing the roads properly, and delivering £78 billion for councils to ensure that they can deliver excellent local services.

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

Q11. In 2024, 2.64 million animals were used in medical experiments in the UK. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on phasing out animal experiments in medical research, I think it is important to note that an estimated 92% of drugs fail in human clinical trials, even though they have passed pre-clinical tests, including animal tests. Innovative non-animal research methods are increasingly available and provide viable alternatives. I very much welcome our “Replacing animals in science” strategy, but for this to be meaningful, a robust implementation timeline must be set. I ask the Prime Minister to consider leading the way by introducing an immediate ban on the use of dogs in these often-horrific experiments.

[The Prime Minister]

May I thank my hon. Friend for her dedicated work on this issue? We are committed to phasing out animal testing wherever possible. Last year’s strategy, backed by £75 million, will accelerate new alternative testing methods. Alongside banning puppy farming and introducing stronger standards for zoos, we are ensuring that the UK is a world leader in animal welfare.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

In 2014, a man in my constituency was ambushed, violently beaten with a pickaxe handle and left lying in the street with serious injuries. At the time of the conviction, the judge called it a “brutal attack”. Many constituents have contacted me to express their concern that the perpetrator of this attack is still a sitting Labour councillor in Keighley and was recently pictured celebrating an election with convicted crack cocaine and heroin dealers. Prime Minister, on behalf of all victims of serious crime, will you, as the leader of the Labour party, ensure that Councillor Mohsin Hussain is not permitted to stand in the local elections this May?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this matter. I will look into it straightaway and give him a full answer. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Fenton-Glynn, you are getting carried away with some other colleagues behind you—Mr Davies and others—but please!

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

Q13. Prime Minister, I need your help. Today, alongside leading trade bodies, including UKHospitality, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Startup Coalition, I am launching the TNT charter—trust and transparency in business energy—to blow up the status quo and support SME access to fair contracts, clearer pricing and stronger accountability. I know that the Prime Minister recognises this as an issue, so can I ask him to deploy powers to bring greater transparency, fairness and competition to the wild west that is commercial energy?

[The Prime Minister]

We inherited the highest industrial energy costs in Europe because of the failed policy of the Conservative party. Our British industry supercharger is cutting bills for major industries, but my hon. Friend is right to champion SMEs as well. I can confirm that we will appoint Ofgem to regulate and stamp out exploitation by third-party intermediaries, helping to reduce bills, and I will make sure that she gets a meeting with Ministers to discuss the issues that she has raised with me.

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

Even the embarrassingly loyal Scottish Labour party seems to have lost confidence in the Prime Minister. I say to the Prime Minister, “Please don’t let that put you off coming and campaigning in Scotland on your Government’s record,” but can he tell us why it is that those who were so close to him have abandoned him, given the Government’s record?

[The Prime Minister]

I remember when SNP Members used to sit down here on the Front Bench, did they not, before the election, and now they sit up there, because we won the general election in 2024 with a landslide majority.

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

Q14. From this April, Springside special school in Rochdale will open its first ever free breakfast club. That is a big change enabled by this Labour Government, and one that the headteacher, Mrs Fierro, said will make a big change to all the parents and children at her school. However, Rochdale’s growing popularity and growing population mean it desperately needs a new secondary school. Will the Prime Minister arrange for me to have a meeting with the Department for Education to get our secondary school over the line to help all children in mainstream and in SEND get more provision?

[The Prime Minister]

We are determined to halve the disadvantage gap and give all children the best start in life. I am delighted to see that a free breakfast club is opening in his constituency of Rochdale. Our actions will lift over half a million children out of poverty, and the Conservatives’ policy is to say they would plunge them straight back into poverty, which is disgraceful. Through our actions to reform the SEND system, we will create an inclusive system so that every child can go as far as their ability and talents will take them.

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

Mr Speaker, you will recall that, some months ago, I asked the Prime Minister why, as the Director of Public Prosecutions, he did not bring charges against Mohammed Fayed for rape and assault, and the Prime Minister replied that this did not cross his desk. I understand that the Met police delivered two dossiers to the Crown Prosecution Service, so if the Prime Minister did not see them, who did, and could he tell the House when he expects the Metropolitan police to bring charges against those who aided and abetted Fayed?

[The Prime Minister]

I stand by my answer. Hundreds of thousands of files are submitted to the prosecution service every year. It is important that the investigation is going on. I cannot tell the right hon. Member when the decision will be made or what the decision will be, as he well knows, but it is important that every allegation is properly investigated and properly dealt with according to the law.

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

Q15. Four years after Russia’s illegal invasion, Britain backs Ukraine’s fight for freedom—the same freedoms that Labour forged NATO to defend. But while Ukraine fights to join NATO, the Green party wants to break it up, so does the Prime Minister agree that, as war continues and as Russia broadens its attacks across Europe, those who attack NATO are betraying our security and, to coin a phrase, are becoming Putin’s useful idiots?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. and gallant Friend is absolutely right. Our support for Ukraine is unwavering, and yesterday I chaired the call of the coalition of the willing and announced new sanctions to weaken Putin’s war machine. The Greens, by contrast, want to pull out of NATO and negotiate with Putin on our nuclear deterrent, and Reform is still parroting Kremlin talking points after its leader in Wales was jailed for taking Russian bribes. Both of them are weak on NATO and soft on Putin.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 February.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

On World Cancer Day, we are publishing our national cancer plan to transform care for patients. It means investment in cutting-edge technology, so that our exceptional frontline staff can give world-class care. It funds more tests and scans, meaning faster diagnosis and treatment, and tailored treatment in specialist centres. We will cover the costs of every family whose child needs to travel for cancer care, because their focus should only be on recovery, not worrying about money.

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.

[Johanna Baxter]

Up and down the country, this Government are restoring pride in place by investing in our high streets—the beating heart of our communities—yet in Paisley and Renfrewshire South, the SNP-led Renfrewshire council has done the opposite. It has sat on its hands while the owners of the Paisley Centre, who received planning permission to develop the centre some years ago, have sought support to transform our town centre. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is only the SNP’s lack of ambition and failure of leadership that is letting Paisley down, and will he work with me to restore pride in Paisley town centre?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a superb champion for Paisley. Her constituents deserve a Scottish Government who match her dedication. For our part, we have delivered a record funding settlement. We are investing £280 million in Pride in Place across 14 Scottish communities. We have secured shipbuilding on the Clyde for over a decade and have just announced an AI growth zone in Lanarkshire. The choice is clear: a third decade of failure under the SNP, or real change for Scotland under Anas Sarwar.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

The whole House will be disgusted by the latest revelations about Jeffrey Epstein. All of us want to see his victims get justice, but the political decision to appoint Epstein’s close associate, Peter Mandelson, as Britain’s ambassador to Washington goes to the very heart of this Prime Minister’s judgment. When he made that appointment, was he aware that Mandelson had continued his friendship even after Epstein’s conviction for child prostitution?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me start where I must: with the victims of Epstein. All our thoughts are with them. Our thoughts are also with all those who lost jobs, savings and livelihoods in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash. To learn that there was a Cabinet Minister leaking sensitive information at the height of the response to the 2008 crash is beyond infuriating, and I am as angry as the public and any Member of this House.

Mandelson betrayed our country, our Parliament and my party. He lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein, before and during his tenure as ambassador. I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near Government. That is why yesterday the Cabinet Secretary, with my support, took the decision to refer material to the police, and there is now a criminal investigation. I have instructed my team to draft legislation to strip Mandelson of his title, and wider legislation to remove disgraced peers. This morning I have agreed with His Majesty the King that Mandelson should be removed from the list of Privy Counsellors on the grounds that he has brought the reputation of the Privy Council into disrepute.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I asked the Prime Minister a very specific question. Did he know that Mandelson had continued his friendship with Epstein after the conviction? He says, “If I knew then what I know now”—but he did know. In January 2024, a journalist from the Financial Times informed the Prime Minister that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s house even after that conviction for child prostitution. Did the Prime Minister conveniently forget this fact, or did he decide that it was a risk worth taking?

[The Prime Minister]

As the House would expect, we went through a process. There was a due diligence exercise, and then there was security vetting by the security services. What was not known was the sheer depth and the extent of the relationship. Mandelson lied about that to everyone for years. New information was published in September, showing that the relationship was materially different from what we had been led to believe. When the new information came to light, I sacked him, but we did go through a due diligence exercise. The points that are being put to me were dealt with within that exercise.

In response to the Humble Address this afternoon, I intend to make sure that all the material is published. The only exemptions are anything that would prejudice national security—my first duty is obviously to keep this country safe, and when we drafted Humble Addresses in opposition, we always included an exemption for national security—or that would prejudice international relations. You and the House will appreciate, Mr Speaker, that in the course of discussions country to country there are very sensitive issues of security, intelligence and trade that cannot be disclosed without compromising the relationship between the two countries, or a third country.

So that I can be totally open with the House, I should also disclose that the Metropolitan police have been in touch with my office this morning to raise issues about anything that would prejudice their investigations. We are in discussion with them about that, and I hope to be able to update the House, but I do think I should make that clear to the House at this point, because those discussions are ongoing.

[Mr Speaker]

Does that clear it up?

[Mrs Badenoch]

I will come to the Humble Address in a moment, but the Prime Minister cannot blame the process. He did know. It was on Google. If the Conservative research department could find this information out, why couldn’t No. 10?

On 10 September, when we knew this, I asked the Prime Minister about it at the Dispatch Box, and he gave Mandelson his full confidence—not once but twice. He only sacked him after pressure from us. I am asking the Prime Minister something very specific, not about the generalities of the full extent. Can the Prime Minister tell us: did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, it did. As a result, various questions were put to him. I intend to disclose to the House—the national security and prejudice to international relations on one side; I want to make sure that the House sees the full documentation so it will see for itself the extent to which, time and time again, Mandelson completely misrepresented the extent of his relationship with Epstein and lied throughout the process, including in response to the due diligence.

[Mrs Badenoch]

What the Prime Minister has just said is shocking. How can he stand up there saying that he knew, but that he just asked Peter Mandelson if the security vetting was true or false? This was a man who had been sacked from Cabinet twice already for unethical behaviour. That is absolutely shocking.

That is why, later today, my party will call on the Government to release all documents relating to Mandelson’s appointment, not just the ones the Prime Minister wants us to see; this Government are trying to sabotage that release with an amendment to let him choose what we see—the man who appointed Mandelson in the first place. Labour MPs now have to decide if they want to be accessories to his cover-up. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that he will not remove the Whip if they refuse to vote for his whitewash amendment?

[The Prime Minister]

The first exemption is in relation to anything that could compromise national security. That is not a small matter, and many Members on the Opposition Benches will know precisely why that needs to be an exemption. When we were drafting Humble Addresses in opposition, we always made sure that that exemption was included because we knew how important it was to the then Government. I do not think I have seen a Humble Address without that exemption. Just to be clear, to vote to release something that would prejudice national security is wrong in principle.

The second exemption is in relation to things that would prejudice international relations. There will be discussions about security, intelligence and trade that are highly sensitive to the two countries involved, and to third countries. [Interruption.] Well, the Opposition have to ask themselves whether they want to vote to prejudice our national security. In fairness, I do not think that they do.

Let me reassure the House that the process for deciding what falls into those categories will not be a political process; it will be led by the Cabinet Secretary, supported by Government legal teams. They will be looking at the question of prejudice and they will be making that decision.

The only additional thing I want to put before the House, because there was a discussion this morning with the Metropolitan police, is that we are in discussions with them about any material that they are concerned will prejudice their investigation. We are at an early stage of that discussion, but I did not want the House not to know that that discussion is going on.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister is talking about national security. The national security issue was appointing Mandelson in the first place. What he has said about the Humble Address is a red herring. Let me tell those Labour MPs who were not here in the last Parliament: Humble Addresses already exempt genuine national security issues. This is not about national security; this is about the Prime Minister’s job security. His amendment lets him withhold anything to do with international relations, but this whole appointment is to do with international relations, so if Government Members are voting for it, they are voting for the cover-up. If the Prime Minister is serious about national security concerns, he should ask the Intelligence and Security Committee to decide which documents should be released. Will he commit to doing so here and now?

[The Prime Minister]

I have set out the process. It will not be a political process. It will be led by the Cabinet Secretary, supported by the Government legal teams. I am pleased that the right hon. Lady, I think, now accepts that at least the first exemption that we have written into the amendment—in relation to prejudicing national security—is the right one.

Given the breadth of what has been asked for, we are doing everything we can to make sure that this information is fully transparent and disclosed, but the right hon. Lady and Opposition Members behind her will understand from their own experience in government the sensitivity of information about security, intelligence and trade relations that is inevitably caught in exchanges of this nature, and it is right that anything that prejudices—not touches on, but prejudices—international relations is protected within the disclosure.

[Mrs Badenoch]

If that was really the case, the Prime Minister would not mind if the ISC had a look. Let us be clear: he says the involvement of the Cabinet Secretary makes the process non-political, but that does not make it independent. What we want is an independent look. The ISC is independent, whereas the Cabinet Secretary works for him. We know that there will be a cover-up, because this matter implicates the Prime Minister and his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, a protégé of Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister chose to inject Mandelson’s poison into the heart of his Government on the advice of Morgan McSweeney. His catastrophic lack of judgment—he is telling us now that he did know—has harmed the special relationship. It has endangered national security—it is not the Humble Address; it is him—compromised our diplomacy, and embarrassed our nation. After all this, does he have the same full confidence in Morgan McSweeney that he had in Peter Mandelson?

[The Prime Minister]

Morgan McSweeney is an essential part of my team. He helped me change the Labour party and win an election. Of course I have confidence in him.

Whatever is slung across this Dispatch Box, I do not think it is right for the Cabinet Secretary to be denigrated in that way, or to suggest that he would be involved in a cover-up. There is the politics that comes over the Dispatch Boxes, but I honestly do not think it is right to impugn the Cabinet Secretary in that way. I suspect that, in their heart of hearts, many on the Conservative Benches would agree.

I am as angry as anyone about what Mandelson has been up to. The disclosures that have been made this week of him passing on sensitive information at the height of the response to the 2008 financial crash are utterly shocking and appalling. He has betrayed our country. He has lied repeatedly; he is responsible for a litany of deceit, but this moment demands not just anger but action, and that is why we have moved quickly by referring material to the police, publishing legislation so that we can remove titles from disgraced politicians, and stripping Mandelson of his Privy Counsellorship. That is what the public expect, and that is what we will do.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

Q2.   Every month, people across our constituencies are injured by illegal e-bikes being ridden at 30, 40 and 50 mph through our town centres and parks, but for every illegal e-bike that the police seize and crush, another 10 hit our streets, because they are too freely available to buy. That is why Cumbria’s police, fire and crime commissioner and 28 other police commissioners across the UK are now backing my Bill, which would ban the sale of illegal e-bikes. Will the Prime Minister set out what action the Government will take to protect the public and ban the sale of these monster bikes?

[The Prime Minister]

May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend? She campaigns tirelessly to stop these antisocial, dangerous bikes terrorising communities. Our Crime and Policing Bill will mean that police can seize bikes without issuing a warning, and can destroy them. Product safety law means that authorities have the powers to intervene to stop the sale of unsafe e-bikes, but I share her determination to get these bikes off our streets.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

May I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister for your responses to my tribute to Jim Wallace on Monday, and may I urge the whole House to read the wonderful tributes paid to Jim in the other place yesterday?

I have been thinking about how victims of Jeffrey Epstein, and the victims’ families, must feel. We are hearing more and more stories of rich, powerful men currying favour with a paedophile sex trafficker; for example, we hear of Peter Mandelson sending Government secrets to help Epstein enrich himself further. Mandelson was made ambassador to the United States, even after his links to Epstein had been extensively reported by both the Financial Times and “Channel 4 News”. Given that the Prime Minister now admits that he knew about those links before he gave such an important job to one of Epstein’s closest friends, can he tell us whether he thought at all about Epstein’s victims?

[The Prime Minister]

We looked at the material. There was a process, and the right hon. Gentleman will understand that there was then a security vetting exercise as well. That is why I started by saying that all our thoughts are with the victims of Epstein. The right hon. Gentleman is right to express anger at the material that has recently come out in relation to sensitive information in the aftermath of the ’08 crash. Yesterday, working with the Cabinet Secretary, we referred the material to the police, which has led to the criminal investigation that will follow.

[Ed Davey]

I think the victims of Jeffrey Epstein deserve far better than that; they deserve Peter Mandelson not being appointed in the first place. We do not even know the full extent of the British establishment’s involvement in Epstein’s appalling crimes, or how many British girls and young women were trafficked by him, so we need a full public inquiry, both to get justice for the victims and to protect our national security. The Polish Government think Epstein may have been spying for Vladimir Putin. Is the Prime Minister concerned that Peter Mandelson may have been leaking state secrets not just to a paedophile American financier, but also a Russian agent?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman talks of a public inquiry. Obviously, the focus now has to be on the criminal investigation, which has started. As he knows, that investigation will go wherever the evidence leads it. I have made it absolutely clear that the Government will co-operate, as he would expect, with that criminal investigation, wherever it goes.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Q3.  I welcome the news that Bristol East will be getting another three breakfast clubs. As I have seen, these clubs are not just about making sure that no child starts the school day hungry, but about giving staff extra time with children to spot whether there might be trouble at home. On that note, may I urge the Prime Minister to work with schools on our manifesto commitment to identify children with parents in prison, to make sure that those children get all the support that they need?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, and confirm that we are looking at how we can strengthen the support in place for these children, so that no child falls between the cracks. Free breakfast clubs mean that every child is fed and ready to learn. I am delighted to see that there are three more in her constituency, as she says. I also want to mention Rushbrook primary academy, Oasis Academy Aspinal, Longsight community primary and St Bernard’s Roman Catholic primary school, Manchester. All will soon be operating free breakfast clubs in Gorton and Denton.

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

The victims and survivors of Epstein and his circle of the over-privileged elite are at the forefront of my mind here and now. Mandelson, we now know, described Epstein’s release from prison after he was sentenced for child sex offences as “Liberation day”. This man’s association with Epstein was known when the Prime Minister personally appointed him as the UK’s ambassador to the USA. How can we trust the Prime Minister’s judgment, and if we question that, how can we trust him enough for him to remain Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

Can I join in the right hon. Lady’s disgust at the comments she just read out? To be absolutely clear, the scale and the extent of the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein was not disclosed—on the contrary. It was not just not disclosed; Mandelson lied throughout the process and beyond the process. He lied, he lied, and he lied again to my team.

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

Q5. An EU agrifood deal would boost exports and cut supermarket prices. The CBI backs it, and according to Best for Britain’s polling, 62% of the public do, but—surprise, surprise!—Reform opposes it. I thought the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) wanted 30p food. Does the Prime Minister agree that while some on the Opposition Benches prefer to have temper tantrums at Brussels, this Labour Government must build closer ties with Europe to cut the price of the weekly shop?

[The Prime Minister]

The deal we have struck with the EU means lower prices at the check-out, more choice on the shelf, and more money in people’s pockets. It is good for British fishers and farmers, who face less red tape selling our world-class produce into a crucial market. It comes alongside the opportunity for young people to work and travel across Europe, the work that we are doing to cut energy bills, and closer work on defence. All of that is opposed by Reform and the Tories, who sold the myth, botched Brexit, and left families and businesses paying the price.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Q4.   I will give the Prime Minister some brief respite from Peter Mandelson. However, he will also be familiar with the name Phil Shiner, the disgraced lawyer who was struck off and convicted for repeatedly inventing vexatious cases against British troops in Iraq. It is something of a surprise that the Prime Minister authored a chapter in Mr Shiner’s book about pursuing our veterans via the European Court of Human Rights. Can I ask him specifically: was he ever instructed by Mr Shiner’s law firm, Public Interest Lawyers, to act in any legal case?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me be absolutely clear about this: as soon as there were any allegations of wrongdoing by Phil Shiner, I had absolutely nothing to do with him.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

Q6. This year in Aldershot and Farnborough, we are looking forward to hosting the national celebrations for Armed Forces Day in the home of the British Army. Businesses in my community welcome this Government’s record investment in defence in the years ahead, but our banks still struggle to lend to defence companies because of international regulations. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the UK works with Canada and our other allies to found the multilateral defence security and resilience bank, so that we can get money moving to our defence industries, get our armed forces what they need, and stand firm against our adversaries?

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted that Aldershot will be hosting Armed Forces Day; it has a hard-working Labour MP and Labour council. Our historic defence spending uplift must be an engine for growth and jobs in the United Kingdom, which is why we have committed to spending an extra £2.5 billion with small and medium-sized enterprises. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital that we work in lockstep with our allies, particularly in Europe, to enhance and align our defence capabilities, and we are therefore working at pace to identify the most effective mechanisms for greater multilateral co-operation.

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

Q8. For months, our communities in Epping have been deeply distressed by the Bell hotel reopening as an asylum hotel. My thoughts remain with the victims of the sexual assaults, including the 14-year-old Epping schoolgirl whose trauma was compounded by the mistaken release of the offender from prison. Weekly protests continue, some of which have become violent, with injuries to 10 brave police officers. I am grateful to the Minister for Border Security and Asylum for meeting me recently about this untenable situation, but will the Prime Minister listen and act now, close the Bell hotel once and for all, and help restore our town of Epping?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are committed to ending the use of all asylum hotels; there are now just under 200, compared with the 400 under the previous Government. Where military sites are used, the safety and security of local communities is our priority.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Q7. Hartlepool now has the third highest number of children in care in England—a number fuelled by southern councils shipping families to my town. This is blowing a £6 million hole in our budget, a deficit that my brilliant Labour council has halved, but there is now nothing left to cut. Percentage increases in funding mean less in Hartlepool than almost anywhere else in the country, but a child in care costs exactly the same in Hartlepool as elsewhere. The fair funding settlement announced in December does not go far enough. I am fighting non-stop for a better deal for my town, because I will not accept one of the poorest communities in the country being condemned to higher taxes or devastating austerity. We need support. Will the PM commit his Ministers to working across Government to fix this for Hartlepool?

[The Prime Minister]

It is because of strong local Labour MPs like my hon. Friend that towns like Hartlepool, treated as an afterthought by the Conservatives, are having their future restored. We are making billions more available so that councils can properly fund social care, and we are driving down the cost of living for parents and their children, including with three free breakfast clubs in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and more than 3,000 children there no longer incapacitated by the two-child limit. That is the difference a Labour Government make.

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

Q11. My residents are sick of being let down by Thames Water. Robert and Patricia were sent a £39,000 bill that they did not actually owe; Len and Jenny were forced to use a Portaloo for months as sewage filled their home; and parents still think twice about sending their children to swim in the river. We understand that a £16 billion rescue deal is soon to cross the Prime Minister’s desk. Will he admit today what everyone already knows: that Thames Water is dead in the water; that any delay is pointless; and that it should be put out of its misery and rebuilt as a company for public benefit?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that matter; I know how important it is for her constituents. We have taken measures in relation to strengthening oversight and the control we have, and we will not hesitate to go further. I will make sure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.

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

Q9.   It was a privilege to join fellow north-east MPs at the weekend on the destroyer HMS Duncan, to meet the crew and to be briefed on the exciting plans for the innovative future of the Royal Navy—a future that should be bright, given the £10 billion frigate deal with Norway, and a future that we absolutely want our region to be part of. Does the Prime Minister agree that, given the north-east’s strengths in AI, satellite technology and advanced manufacturing, north-east workers and businesses should be at the heart of the future hybrid Navy? Will Ministers meet us and industry leaders to put the north-east at the heart of our future defence?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the commanding officer and crew of HMS Duncan for their service, and I also thank my hon. Friend. I remember meeting the brilliant workforce in his region, and I know that the Defence Ministers will be delighted to do the same. Our record defence spending is supporting jobs and growth across the north-east. We invested £200 million in Octric Semiconductors in his constituency last year. As we increase defence spending, the north-east will play a major role, securing good, skilled jobs for generations to come.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Q13. I associate myself with the comments of my party leader about Lord Wallace, a man whom I was privileged to know. Conversations are taking place in the Chamber today and up and down the country about Peter Mandelson and his involvement with the paedophile who trafficked women. Given that millions of women, particularly in this country, will be triggered by that and given the establishment’s proximity to what happened, will the Prime Minister assure us that helplines will be set up and that we will support the direct victims as well as those women who indirectly will be triggered?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member is right to raise that. Obviously, we will support the police with their investigation, but we will also press on with our work to halve violence against women and girls, which is very much about putting in place the support that is needed for all victims of violence. That is a crucial part of our work and I hope that we can work across the House in support of that.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

Q10. I am proud that Labour MPs voted yesterday to remove the two-child limit and lift 400,000 children out of poverty, but child poverty cannot be eradicated while children are living in overcrowded temporary accommodation without their own bed or anywhere to do their homework. Will the Prime Minister commit to urgent and persistent action to drive down the use of temporary accommodation, ensuring that our councils, including my councils of Lambeth and Southwark, have the funding they need in the final local government finance settlement next week?

[The Prime Minister]

I join my hon. Friend in her pride in the vote to lift half a million children out of poverty, after hundreds of thousands were plunged into poverty by the Conservative party when they were in government. On her point about temporary accommodation, she is right that every child deserves a safe, warm and secure home. We are investing a record £3.5 billion in homelessness services and £950 million in local authority housing funds to deliver better quality temporary accommodation.

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

Q14.   How we answer the call for justice of SEND families will be a measure of who we are. Christopher Laskaris, who was autistic, was murdered aged 24. His mother, Fiona, who is in Public Gallery, spent eight years begging authorities to protect him, but they refused because they presumed that he had mental capacity. Will the Prime Minister support Christopher’s law, which creates a duty to assess mental capacity where it is in doubt, to save the lives of others?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for his question and for his tireless campaigning on behalf of Christopher and also Fiona, who, as he points out, is with us today. Christopher’s death was a tragedy, and I agree that we owe it to Fiona—I am glad that she is here to hear this—and to other families to get this right. I can reassure him that work is under way to examine what action is necessary to prevent further such tragedies. That comes alongside our intention to consult on the liberty protection safeguards this year. I will make sure that the hon. Member is fully updated on the work as it progresses across government. I will ask that he makes sure that Fiona and others are updated as well.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

Q12. From heat-tolerant rice trials to world-leading science at the Earlham Institute and the John Innes Centre at Norwich Research Park, South Norwich is helping to feed the world. Will the Prime Minister secure a clear carve-out for precision breeding in any future sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU so that Britain can continue to lead in this field?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. As negotiations are ongoing, we remain committed to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 and supporting new innovative technologies, as he will be pleased to know. The EU accepts that there will need to be areas where we retain our own rules, and we will always prioritise British interests as we negotiate our SPS agreement.

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

I have been campaigning for a Lincoln dental school for some years. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, thanks to the hard work of, among others, Professor Juster, Professor Read and Susie MacPherson, Lincoln medical school is now in a position to take on its first cohort from 2027. Will the Prime Minister provide the necessary funding for this cohort of students to start to help improve the oral health of people right across Lincolnshire?

[The Prime Minister]

I am pleased to hear the news about the dental school in the hon. Member’s constituency. We have put in further funding for dentistry. We were left with dental deserts across many parts of the country, but we are fixing that problem.

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

As the Prime Minister has pointed out, today is World Cancer Day. As outlined in our cancer plan, early detection and diagnosis is vital. Will the Prime Minister agree to consider the campaign by my constituent Gemma Reeves, who is a nurse at the Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother hospital, to ensure that breast cancer screening is available for all women over the age of 40, and will he meet her to discuss how such a change would save lives?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely support that, and I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss it. Early diagnosis is so important for all cancers, and we must do everything we can to ensure that early diagnosis is the norm by default.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

I recently met one of the bravest women I know. Elizabeth was 14 when she was raped in Rotherham. She is one of the survivors of the rape gangs—one of the biggest national scandals in our history. While her first rapist, Asghar Bostan, was convicted and sentenced, she was, shockingly, subsequently allegedly abused by police officers serving in South Yorkshire police. One of those officers remains on active service today. Elizabeth made complaints through Operation Linden, but none of them was followed up. She rightly feels betrayed and failed by the very institution designed to protect her. Will the Prime Minister meet Elizabeth, rape gang survivors and me to commit that those who committed and covered up these abhorrent offences are put behind bars, where they belong?

[The Prime Minister]

I am deeply concerned about the facts that the right hon. Lady has outlined. If she could give us all the details, I will make sure that there is a follow-up meeting in relation to her concerns.

China and Japan

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

With permission, I will update the House on my visit last week to China and Japan, where we delivered for the British people.

With events overseas directly impacting on our security and the cost of living, I made it a founding principle of this Government that, after years of isolationism, Britain would face outwards once again. This was an 18-month strategy to rebuild our standing and we have delivered: strengthening our US relationship with our world-first trade deal; resetting our relationship with the EU; striking a groundbreaking free trade agreement with India; and now, thawing our ties with China to put this relationship on a more stable footing for the long term.

China is the second biggest economy in the world. Including Hong Kong, it is our third biggest trading partner, supporting 370,000 British jobs. It is also an undeniable presence in global affairs. It would be impossible to safeguard our national interests without engaging with this geopolitical reality. Yet we inherited a policy from the previous Government not of engagement with China, but of hiding away and sticking their heads in the sand. While our allies developed a more sophisticated approach, they let the UK fall behind. We became an outlier. Of my three predecessors, none held a single meeting with President Xi. For eight years, no British Prime Minister visited China—eight years of missed opportunities. Meanwhile over that period, President Macron visited China three times, German leaders four times, the Canadian Prime Minister was there a few weeks ago, and Chancellor Merz and President Trump are both due to visit shortly.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

They went on their feet, not on their knees. [Laughter.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you. Can we calm it down? I am sure you will want to catch my eye and I would like to hear what you have to say, so let us not ruin the opportunity.

[The Prime Minister]

In this context, refusing to engage would be a dereliction of duty, leaving British interests on the sidelines. Incredibly, some in this House still advocate that approach. But leaders do not hide. Instead, we engage and we do so on our own terms, because, like our allies, we understand that engagement makes us stronger.

Protecting our national security is non-negotiable. We are clear-eyed about the threats coming from China in that regard, and we will never waver in our efforts to keep the British people safe. That is why we have given our security services the updated powers and tools they need to tackle foreign espionage activity wherever they find it, and to tackle malicious cyber-activity as well. The fact is that we can do two things at once: we can protect ourselves, while also finding ways to co-operate. It was in that spirit that we made this visit.

I had extensive discussions, over many hours, with President Xi, Premier Li and other senior leaders. The discussions were positive and constructive. We covered the full range of issues, from strategic stability to trade and investment, opening a direct channel of communication to deliver in the national interest, enabling us to raise frank concerns about activities that impact our national security at the most senior levels of the Chinese system. We agreed to intensify dialogue on cyber issues and agreed a new partnership on climate and nature, providing much-needed global leadership on this vital issue.

I raised a number of areas of difference that matter deeply to this country. I raised the case of Jimmy Lai and called for his release, making clear the strength of feeling in this House. Those discussions will continue. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in touch with Mr Lai’s family to provide further briefing.

I raised our human rights concerns in Xinjiang and Tibet. We discussed Taiwan, wider regional stability, Iran and the middle east. I called on China to end economic support for Russia’s war effort, including the companies providing dual-use technologies, and urged it to use its influence on Putin to push for the much-needed ceasefire in Ukraine.

I also raised the fact that Members of this House have been sanctioned by the Chinese authorities. In response, the Chinese have now made it clear that all such restrictions on parliamentarians no longer apply. I want to be clear: this was not the result of a trade. Yes, Members will want to see more—I understand that—but that is precisely the point: ignoring China for eight years achieved nothing. This step is an early indication, not the sum total, of the kind of progress that this sort of engagement can achieve through leader-to-leader discussion of sensitive issues, in standing up for British interests.

My visit was also about creating new opportunities for British businesses to deliver jobs and growth for the British people. We took with us a brilliant delegation of nearly 60 businesses and cultural powerhouses—the very best of British—as an embodiment of what this country has to offer. If anyone is in doubt as to why this matters, I urge them to spend a few minutes with any one of those businesses; they will describe the incredible potential there and the importance of getting out there and accessing the market.

We made significant progress, paving the way to open the Chinese market for British exports, including in our world-leading services sector. We secured 30-day visa-free travel for all Brits, including business travellers. We secured China’s agreement to halve whisky tariffs from 10% to 5%, which is worth £250 million to the UK over the next five years—a significant win for our iconic whisky industry, particularly in Scotland. That lower tariff comes into force today. In total, we secured £2.3 billion in market access wins, including for financial services, £2.2 billion in export deals for British companies and hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of new investments.

In addition, we agreed to work together in some key areas of law enforcement. Last year, around 60% of all small boat engines used by smuggling gangs came from China, so we struck a border security pact to enable joint law enforcement action to disrupt that supply at source. We also agreed to scale up removals of those with no right to be in the UK and to work together to crack down on the supply of synthetic opioids.

We will continue to develop our work across all these areas, because this is the start of the process, not the end of it. My visit was not just about coming back with these agreements, but about the wider question of setting this relationship on a better path—one that allows us to deal with issues and seize opportunities in a way that the previous Government failed to do.

Finally, I will say a word about my meetings in Tokyo. Japan remains one of our closest allies; together, we are the leading economies in the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, and we are partners in the G7, the G20 and the coalition of the willing. Japan is the UK’s largest inward investor outside the United States and Europe.

I had an extremely productive meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan, where we set out our shared priorities to build an even deeper partnership in the years to come. Those include working together for peace and security, supporting Ukraine as we work for a just and lasting peace, and deepening our co-operation in cutting-edge defence production, including through the global combat air programme. We discussed how we can boost growth and economic resilience by developing our co-operation: first, in tech and innovation, where we are both leaders; secondly, in energy, where Japan is a major investor in the UK; and, thirdly, in trade, where we are working together to maintain the openness and stability that our businesses depend on. That includes expanding the CPTPP and deepening its co-operation with the EU. We will take all of that forward when I welcome the Prime Minister to Chequers later this year.

This is Britain back at the top table at last. We are facing outward, replacing incoherence and isolationism with pragmatic engagement, and naive posturing with the national interest. In dangerous times, we are using our full strength and reach on the world stage to deliver growth and security for the British people. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Badenoch]

Mr Speaker, I am not worried about the Business Secretary; the entire business community thinks he is a joke and does not know what he is talking about.

As I was saying, of course we should engage with other countries, even hostile ones, but we need to do so with our eyes open and from a position of strength. That requires a Prime Minister and a Government who put our national interest first.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me see if I understand the right hon. Lady’s position. This is the Leader of the Opposition who said we should empty-chair the most important NATO summit for years, who would not turn up to the G7 and who would rip up our valuable trade deals with the US, India and the EU. This is the Leader of the Opposition who characterised Greenland as a “second-order issue”, and then undermined the Government’s position on sovereignty. When it comes to China, her policy is to stick her head in the sand, unable to influence anything. In a volatile world, that is not policy; that is an abdication of responsibility—no wonder members on her Front Bench are leaving in droves.

The Leader of the Opposition talks of the embassy. China has had an embassy in the UK since 1877. It is currently spread across seven sites. She is so busy trying to hold her party together that she has clearly not read the letter from the security and intelligence services. She claims great interest in the China embassy. She was offered an invite for a Privy Council briefing on the issue. What did she do? She chose not to attend. That is a dereliction of duty. Even worse, she sent in her place the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp)—that is a double dereliction of duty. Instead of taking up a Privy Council briefing, she took up a megaphone on the streets outside the embassy. I changed my party from a party of protest to a party of power. She is rapidly going in the opposite direction. Her reply this afternoon seems to be that we should engage with China, but not engage with China, and that, instead of leader-to-leader discussions where we raise all the opportunities and the difficult issues, each and every one of them, she would get a bag of sand and put her head in it and influence absolutely nothing. The Conservatives are so unserious about world affairs.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I am pleased to see that his trip went so well. This morning, I was in touch with the Scotch Whisky Association, which wants me to convey its congratulations to the Prime Minister on securing reduced tariffs on exports to China. There is, of course, more work needed, however—a Prime Minister’s job is never done. The biggest overseas market for whisky is, of course, the US, where the tariff is still too high. Will the Prime Minister confirm that this will not be the end of his support for the Scotch whisky industry and that he will continue to be an advocate for it?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can confirm that we are continuing to work with the US. Of course, the India deal we secured will also have an impact on whisky tariffs.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I start by paying tribute to my friend Jim Wallace, one of the great Scottish Liberals. I offer our thoughts and prayers to his family and many friends. Jim devoted his life to public service, his Christian faith and the cause of liberalism. But his judgment was not always impeccable, for it was Jim who gave me my first job in politics. We will miss him.

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of the statement. I listened to the Conservative leader, whose position now seems to be to oppose trade with the world’s biggest economies—so much for global Britain. With President Trump threatening tariffs again, just because of the Prime Minister’s trip, and with Vladimir Putin still murdering civilians in Ukraine, now more than ever the United Kingdom must forge much closer alliances with nations that share our values, our belief in free trade and our commitment to mutual defence. China shares none of those.

The Prime Minister’s main focus should be on the closest possible ties with our European neighbours, our Commonwealth allies and our friends such as Japan and Korea. Once again, he has made the wrong choice. However, unlike the Conservative party, we think he was right to go and engage. But just like with President Trump, he approached President Xi from a position of weakness instead of a position of strength, promising him a super-embassy here in London in return for relatively meagre offers from China.

The Prime Minister rightly raised the case of Jimmy Lai, whose children fear for his health after five years held in captivity, so will he tell us what Xi said to give him confidence that Mr Lai is now more likely to be released? Did he also challenge Xi on the bounties on the heads of innocent Hongkongers here in the United Kingdom, or the revelation that China hacked the phones of No. 10 officials for years? In other words, did he stand up for Britain this time?

Yet again, the Prime Minister had to spend time on a foreign trip responding to revelations about the vile paedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s relationship with Lord Mandelson. The Prime Minister has rightly said that Mandelson should resign from the other place, but since he has not, will he back a simple piece of legislation to strip him of his peerage? Surely this House could pass it tomorrow.

[The Prime Minister]

I start by offering my deep condolences on behalf of the Government in relation to Lord Wallace. He was a kind and decent man, and I know he will be sorely missed on the Liberal Democrat Benches. May he rest in peace.

Of course we need to build stronger alliances with our key partners, and that is what we have been doing, particularly with the EU. But the right hon. Gentleman is wrong: it is not a choice between doing that and engaging with China. One can do both, and that is what we are doing. Where there are opportunities, and where there are sensitive and really important disagreements, I think it is more important to have a meeting to discuss them.

The House is violently agreeing that there are issues that need to be discussed. The difference between us is that we think that having a leader-to-leader meeting to discuss those big issues is better than sticking our head in the sand, if we really want to influence them. So we can do both.

Yes, I raised the case of Jimmy Lai, and we have now spoken to his family about that discussion. Yes, I raised the case of Hong Kong. I raised a number of human rights issues, as I listed. The point is that, by being in the room and having the debate one to one, at leader-to-leader level, it was possible to raise those issues. There is frankly no point standing in this House shouting and screaming about issues if you are not prepared to get in the room to discuss them. It gets you absolutely nowhere.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

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

I want to welcome the Prime Minister’s serious engagement with serious power: it is essential to safeguarding our national interest. The complexities of China require from Britain a whole-of-society approach, which is completely impossible until the Government publish a clear China strategy to explain what is off limits and how we are going to rebalance competition with Chinese industry that is six times over-subsidised compared with our firms. Last week in Europe, I heard very clearly from our partners that they are worried that the lackadaisical approach to policing Chinese competition risks deeper integration with Europe. The EU has 143 trade measures in place against China; we have none. So will the Prime Minister now follow up his meetings last week and publish a strategy, co-ordinated with our allies, so we can take out the guesswork and put in place the guardrails for this important relationship?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, the general approach was set out in the Lady Mayor’s banquet speech I gave just before Christmas. My right hon. Friend made a really important point about Europe. As I mentioned, President Macron went to China just a few weeks ago and Chancellor Merz is due to go very shortly, and my right hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that the three of us, as the E3, discussed in advance the approach we would take and agreed to discuss during our visits and afterwards the outcomes and how we go forward as a group of European nations.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

What absolutely unites everybody in this place is absolute outrage at the treatment of Jimmy Lai, a British citizen whose only crime is to campaign for democracy and to ask the Chinese to obey the spirit and letter of the solemn agreement that we made with them before the 1997 takeover. The Prime Minister said at the weekend that he had raised the case of Jimmy Lai “respectfully” with the latest Chinese emperor —“respectfully”? Does the Prime Minister not realise that the Chinese only accept strength—that everything is a deal—so why did he not say to them, “There will be no Chinese embassy until you stop spying on us in this House, you give an absolute assurance to us on Diego Garcia, and, above all, you free Jimmy Lai now”?

[The Prime Minister]

I raised the case of Jimmy Lai in terms with the President, as in fact I did, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, at the G20 when I met the President for the first time, and we have updated the family in relation to the progress we have made. But the position of the Conservative party seems to be that we should raise the case of Jimmy Lai by not going to China and raising the case of Jimmy Lai.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

We must engage pragmatically with our allies and with others around the world when it serves the national interest. That is why I welcome the Prime Minister’s engagement with our close ally, Japan, as well as with our major trading partner, China. I also welcome his commitment to the global combat air programme, which, as the Defence Committee illustrated, is of vital strategic importance as we develop the next generation of fighter jets. But our Japanese and Italian friends are understandably nervous, because we have as yet not put pen to paper on the full contract for Tempest, as was planned last year. Can the Prime Minister clarify when that fully formalised contract on GCAP will be penned, and can he also confirm that the timeline and programme will slide sideways?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important programme. He will be pleased to know I did discuss it with the Prime Minister in Japan, and we will be publishing our defence investment plan shortly.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, you have been stalwart in standing with those of us who were sanctioned by the People’s Republic of China all those years ago, and you have been very clear that we stand as one in this House. Do you not find it as surprising as I do that the Prime Minister has come back with a deal that lifts the sanctions on those six of us who are still in this House, but not the one who is not, nor the lawyers, advisers and academics who support the work of this House? Is this not a direct affront to the democracy of this place, and an attempt to divide and conquer that we have seen China play against the European Parliament and that, sadly, has tricked our Government too?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for raising this point—I know how much it matters personally to him and to the others that he referenced. I raised this point directly, and the response was that restrictions do not apply to parliamentarians. I accept the challenge and the point that we need to go further, but that does not mean that what we have achieved should be put to one side. I accept that we must go further, and I will work with colleagues across the House to do so. In order to go further, we have to engage, and we have to engage at the leader level.

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

Can I thank the Prime Minister on his grown-up approach to the UK’s engagement with China? Can I also congratulate him on the agreement for a crackdown on manufacturers of small boat engines and parts, which directly impacts my constituency? Given that the Conservative party would not have even gone to China, does the Prime Minister agree that the choice is between a Labour Government doing the hard yards to shut down the smuggler supply chains, and a Tory party that prefers posturing and permanent failure in the channel?

[The Prime Minister]

Sixty per cent of motors used to cross the channel are coming from China, so of course it is right to engage appropriately in China on this issue, and to get this agreement on information sharing and working to ensure that those engines cannot make their way from China to the north coast of France.

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

I will have another try at the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) in his original statement. Can the Prime Minister tell us what President Xi said about the case of Jimmy Lai, and what gave him confidence that we might see movement in the case soon? Can he also let us know what response he received on challenging the bounties put on the heads of dissidents here in the United Kingdom? Did he challenge the transnational repression that Hongkongers across the country fear? Is there any prospect of them being able to walk our streets without worrying about interference from the Chinese state?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have told the House, I raised the case of Jimmy Lai in terms. I will not go into the details of the discussions, save to say that we have subsequently spoken to Jimmy Lai’s family about that. In relation to the wider issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, including Hong Kong: yes, all those issues were raised.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I want to thank the Prime Minister for his incredible leadership on an international scale, which has a direct benefit to us domestically, not least through the disruption of the supply chain for small boat engines. I just wonder, because it is not a silver bullet to solve the challenge with immigration through illegal routes, whether the conversation came up about TikTok being used as a platform to share disinformation and misinformation to encourage people to make dangerous journeys.

[The Prime Minister]

We raised a number of issues in relation to smuggling. The focus was very much on the engines for small boats because of the fact that 60% of them are coming from China, and we need to stop that supply chain if we are going to deal with the crossings.

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

In spite of the somewhat thin economic gruel with which the Prime Minister has returned, he was absolutely right to visit China. If I may return to the issue of human rights, particularly Jimmy Lai, did the Prime Minister say, as the whole House would have wished, that this British citizen—nearly 80 years old, held in solitary confinement and denied the chance to practice his religion—should surely receive clemency and be returned to the United Kingdom? Or did the Prime Minister merely deliver a written note?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

No, I did not deliver a written note. I engaged seriously on the issue, as the right hon. Member would have expected me to, and I went into the details of the case that I was making in the way that he would have expected me to.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

My constituent, the journalist and democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai, was convicted under Hong Kong’s draconian national security law. I have listened carefully to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister has said, and we have heard that he raised the issue on his visit. Jimmy Lai is now desperately unwell—his health is failing. I have heard what the Prime Minister has to say, and I am grateful that the Foreign Secretary will be speaking to Jimmy’s family. Can the Prime Minister share with us his assessment of whether we will see Jimmy Lai free in 2026?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she does on behalf of her constituents. Yes, I raised this issue in detail and made it clear that we were calling for Jimmy Lai’s release, plus other details of his health and the situation he is being held in. I believe it is the right thing to engage at the highest level on issues of such concern and to have that conversation—I believe that is a far better strategy than putting your head in the sand, which is apparently the policy of the Conservative party.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, when the Prime Minister was in China and Japan, he gave comment that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should testify before Congress in the United States. What the Prime Minister chose not to do was to offer an unreserved apology to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for appointing his other friend, Peter Mandelson, as the ambassador to the United States of America. Now that he is back from China and Japan, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to do just that, and does he agree with me that Peter Mandelson should be subject to a police investigation for potential criminality while in public office?

[Mr Speaker]

There is a statement to come.

[The Prime Minister]

Only the SNP could go about this in this way—instead of welcoming the halving of tariffs on Scottish whisky, the right hon. Gentleman raises things that have absolutely nothing to do with China or Japan. Only the SNP has no interest at all in delivering for Scotland.

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

Does the Prime Minister recall that during the time of Brexit negotiations, the Tories told us that we had more to gain outside of the EU than inside it and that, within days of Brexit, we would be signing trade deals with the US and China that would be bigger than the trade deals that existed with the EU? What we got was a botched Brexit that isolated us from our European neighbours, and now the Tories want to extend that isolation to a global scale. Does the Prime Minister agree that Britain would not be treated decently or with any confidence by our global neighbours and friends if we had adopted such an approach?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that period in our history, because of course, this was 2015 and 2016. The Conservative party had a manifesto in 2015 that dealt with the question of a referendum in relation to Brexit and also set out its position on China. I had a look at that very manifesto this morning; the Conservatives’ position was to

“strengthen our economic links with China”,

including seeking a free trade agreement. That used to be their position, then they veered to the other side of the road, and now they stick their head in the sand and pretend that they can influence events.

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

The Prime Minister’s position seems to be that if a bully is big enough, rich enough and powerful enough, the pragmatic thing to do is to pay into his protection racket. Can he at least show some sign of moral compass by accepting the fact that China is a repressive, brutal, communist, totalitarian state that dishonoured all the provisions of the Hong Kong agreement?

[The Prime Minister]

The Conservatives’ position seems to be that if one has concerns in relation to China, the pragmatic thing to do is to buy a bag of sand and put your head in it. I do not think that is going to influence anything—nothing said here has any influence if you do not have a meeting.

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

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on last week’s handsome wins, including on visas in China—I just wondered whether the same issue arose in Japan. I did a brilliant visit to the Japan London school in my seat the other day, but that school is finding the dogmatic visa changes made by the Conservative Government burdensome. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look into that, and also praise the contribution of the Japanese in Acton, from sushi to bilingual education?

[The Prime Minister]

We had very productive meetings in Japan. Among the discussions was how we open up to more trade between our two economies.

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

The Prime Minister has said that this visit to China was good for British jobs. Having wrongly granted consent to the Chinese super-embassy, can he confirm that it will be built with brilliant British steel from Lincolnshire, as opposed to Chinese steel?

[The Prime Minister]

It was this Government who took the action on Scunthorpe to ensure we had British Steel at Scunthorpe—it is one of the proudest things I have done.

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, which faces into the world as it is. Des Browne, Baron Browne of Ladyton, is retiring from the other place after decades of distinguished public service as the Labour MP for Kilmarnock and the Defence Secretary and in his work on the prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons. China is a significant and growing nuclear power, with more than 600 warheads, and this week the US-Russia new START treaty comes to an end. Can the Prime Minister tell me if the UK is engaging with China at the highest levels to prevent the risk of nuclear weapons and combat nuclear proliferation?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to the contribution that Lord Browne has made. I assure my hon. Friend that our discussions with China did include how we derisk the risk in relation to nuclear weapons.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

When John Major went to Beijing, he spoke clearly and said, “We will not forget Tiananmen Square.” In contrast, the Prime Minister refused to say Jimmy Lai’s name until he was wheels up. I have never said that we should not engage with Beijing; I have said that we should not give it a propaganda visit. It is extraordinary to abrogate the responsibility of the Chinese Communist party, whose actions we had to respond to, therefore pausing trade talks, as if it has done nothing wrong. Finally, the Prime Minister met with Cai Qi, the man responsible for running two spies who were undermining this Parliament, but he excluded that from his statement. Why doesn’t he tell us why he thought it was acceptable to meet this man and what he got out of it in the British interest?

[The Prime Minister]

This is so pathetic. At the highest level and one to one, I raised each of the issues of difference between our two countries—each and every one of them—in the way that the House would expect, and that is what the Opposition are criticising. They seem genuinely to believe that these issues can be progressed or influenced by doing nothing about them. You have to be in the room to have a discussion, and that is what we did.

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

It is right that the Prime Minister goes to China if he is acting in the best interests of all those living here. Last year, the Joint Committee on Human Rights undertook an inquiry into transnational repression. In front of us, we had Chloe Cheung, a young Hongkonger from Leeds who had a $HK1 million bounty put on her head. She told us about how she had been intimidated and harassed. Did the Prime Minister speak up for all the Hongkongers in the UK who have had bounties on their heads and who have been intimidated and harassed? Will he ensure that people living in the United Kingdom are safe from the Chinese regime?

[The Prime Minister]

That is exactly why we raised the issues of human rights at numerous levels on the visit.

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

I noticed that the mention of Japan took the Prime Minister one minute—the last minute—of a 10-minute speech on China and Japan. Japan is not only the largest inward investor into the UK, apart from the EU and US, but a vital liberal democracy in the Indo-Pacific and a key security partner in maintaining regional stability in the face of growing Chinese assertiveness. Given the growing security risks and strategic instability across the region, can the Prime Minister assure the House that engagement with Beijing will not weaken the UK’s alignment with Japan, which is one of our most important democratic partners?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can assure the hon. Lady of that.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

With respect to the statement following the Prime Minister’s visit to China and Japan, I thank him for being in the room and challenging China on its appalling human rights record and for fighting for British jobs. With respect to his visit to Japan, did the issue of Toyota come up? Toyota is a significant employer in Derbyshire and worth more than £5.5 billion to the local economy. Can we do more with Toyota, because it is really good for jobs here?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, we did discuss the car manufacturing going on at the moment and the potential for further work in that regard, along with other issues of trade broadening between our two countries.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The Prime Minister will be aware that some 80% of the sanctioned dual-use items that Russia needs for the drones and missiles it is firing at civilians and children on a daily basis come from China. He says that he raised that matter. Did he get any assurance that China will stop supplying Russia?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to this issue. That is precisely why I raised it again in terms. I will not go into the details of the discussion, but I did raise it, for the very reasons that he sets out. Across this House, we are committed to a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. This has been an issue of concern for a considerable period, which is why I raised it.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent engagement in Tokyo and the strengthening of our relations with Japan as a key economic and strategic partner. Will he explain how small and medium-sized enterprises in Portsmouth, particularly those in maritime and defence such as Griffon Marine, alongside the creative industries, will benefit from deeper UK-Japan co-operation? My 18-year-old son Archie Cole is a professional wrestler, currently competing on Tokyo TV in “Magic Monday”, so I know at first hand how international engagement can open doors for individuals and Portsmouth’s local businesses alike.

[The Prime Minister]

I congratulate my hon. Friend’s son on his achievements. On SMEs and businesses, yes, we discussed how we can enhance our engagement and enhance growth and jobs right across all our constituencies, including my hon. Friend’s.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister accept that in his rush to hoover up economic crumbs from President Xi because of his appalling handling of our economy, he is having to increase strategic dependence on Beijing? The public see the risks the Prime Minister is taking with UK security; does he?

[The Prime Minister]

The Conservatives crashed the economy, so lectures from them on the economy are not welcome. As I said in my statement, national security is at the heart of our approach to China, as it is to every issue that we take up. It is quite possible to have a discussion about the opportunities available to our country while also safeguarding our national security. That is what we are doing in a grown-up, mature way.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), the anti-dumping measures that we impose on Chinese goods coming into this country protect hundreds of jobs in Stoke-on-Trent, whether in the ceramic tableware manufacturing sector or in the retreading of tyres at the Michelin factory. Can the Prime Minister give a guarantee that as the economic work with China continues, those measures will not be junked? The anti-dumping measures are not abstract: they protect hundreds of jobs in the part of the country that most needs them.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue and I can give him that assurance. I know how much it matters, and that is the approach we have taken.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Over the past weeks, thousands of Chinese fishing boats have been trapped, creating a blockage up to 300 miles long in the east China sea off Japan. This is seen by many as a strategy for a future blockade. Given the huge reliance on that route for trade, such action would cause a global economic shock, threaten thousands of jobs in Scotland and dramatically increase the cost of living. What explanation did the Prime Minister’s Chinese counterpart give for this behaviour? What subsequent discussions did he have with the Japanese Prime Minister about maintaining maritime security in the region?

[The Prime Minister]

That issue was raised in both China and Japan, because it is obviously a cause of concern. Regional instability matters not just in the region but globally, so I discussed it in both China and Japan.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, but will he tell the House what steps the Government are taking to protect parliamentarians and others in public life against foreign influence?

[The Prime Minister]

We have taken a number of measures, including the further powers and tools we have given to our security and intelligence services.

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

I echo the tributes to Jim Wallace. He was one of the most significant Scottish politicians of his generation and it was a privilege both to know him and to work with him.

We have established that the Prime Minister was in the room, but what difference will it make for people who were not in the room in Ukraine?

[The Prime Minister]

It will make a huge difference, which is why I discussed it with Volodymyr Zelensky before I went, in terms, and why I will discuss it with him again in the coming days, in terms.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership on his trip, including his words in Japan about the value of the global combat air programme, which is not only strategically important for global security and autonomy, but important for businesses that have grown out of my constituency, including BAE Systems and QinetiQ. Will the Prime Minister highlight the work he is doing to ensure that this critical endeavour makes progress?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because Japan is a key colleague and partner when it comes to defence and security, which is why, across a range of issues, we discussed what more we can do, including on GCAP.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

In an earlier answer, the Prime Minister mentioned Scunthorpe steelworks, where hundreds of my constituents are employed. We welcome the Government’s support to date. Was he able to discuss Jingye’s ownership with his Chinese opposite number, and can he give any positive assurances to my constituents about their long-term future?

[The Prime Minister]

May I give this assurance to the hon. Member’s constituents? We absolutely believe in the importance of steel being made in this country, and that is why we took the necessary measures, on a Saturday, as he knows, in relation to steel production in his constituency.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister will know that many excellent west midlands businesses export to China, including great car makers such as Jaguar Land Rover, the Morgan Motor Company and Aston Martin. Collectively, those car exports are worth more than those from any other region in the UK, I would say. Can the Prime Minister outline how the results of his trip to China, including the agreement on 30-day visa-free travel, will benefit those businesses and drive jobs and exports in our region?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that JLR was there with us on the delegation in China, and it is acutely aware of the difference that better trade and economic measures with China will make to its business, and to jobs in his constituency.

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

In 2023, the Intelligence and Security Committee reported:

“The UK’s academic institutions provide a rich feeding ground for China to achieve both political influence and economic advantage”.

Was interference in UK universities raised with President Xi?

[The Prime Minister]

I raised a wide range of issues of concern to this House with President Xi, as the hon. Member would expect.

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

Growing our relationship with China could boost our motor manufacturing industry. The Prime Minister will know only too well that small businesses in this sector are the engine of economic growth in my constituency and right across the west midlands. Can he set out how his visit will help small businesses in North Warwickshire and Bedworth?

[The Prime Minister]

This issue is so important, in terms of the opportunities that we have. That is why we had representatives from motor manufacturing with us. They are only too well aware of the great benefits that taking full advantage of the opportunities will have for her constituents and others.

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

The Prime Minister’s friend, Baroness Helena Kennedy, a sanctioned person, clearly believes that the juice was not worth the squeeze or, indeed, the price of the plane tickets, because she has described the returns the Prime Minister has secured as “meagre”. She is right, is she not?

[The Prime Minister]

I have known Helena for many years. We shared a room when we worked together in chambers. We agree on many things, but not everything.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for what he said about calling on China to end support for Russia’s illegal war effort. We cannot ignore the threat to our shores from Russia, as we know very well in Wales. Nathan Gill, the former Reform UK leader in Wales, is serving 10 and a half years in prison for taking bribes from Russia. Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning that treacherous activity, and reassure me that he will continue to push China on that important point?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I will, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the shocking case of Nathan Gill. As my hon. Friend rightly says, Nathan Gill got 10 and a half years for taking bribes in relation to Russia. The leader of Reform is not even interested enough to start an investigation to see whether that is the extent—which it will not be—of Russian influence in his party.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I just want clarification on the Members of this House who were formally sanctioned. The Prime Minister said:

“President Xi said to me that means all parliamentarians are free to travel to China”.

Does that mean that they are no longer legally sanctioned, and did he get that in writing?

[The Prime Minister]

That is my understanding in relation to all parliamentarians. I accept that in relation to others, we need to see how much further we can go.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Does he agree that the security of this country is the Government’s first and foremost priority at all times?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I do. It is front and centre of everything we do, whenever we are acting on the world stage.

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

I want to follow up on the questions from the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), and from the hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), on the global combat air programme. The funding for the next round of GCAP is going to run out in a matter of months. That will affect Edgewing and the British phase of the programme. It has been reported that contract for the next phase of GCAP has been delayed, due to the delay to the defence investment plan. Will the contract be signed before the defence investment plan is published?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member will be pleased to know that this was a matter of discussion in Japan, and the defence investment plan will be published very soon.

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

Mark Carney rightly challenged fellow middle powers to stop “living within a lie”, and to recognise the changes in the geopolitical landscape, because comfortable assumptions about the international order are no longer true, and the system that we once benefited from cannot become the source of our subordination. It was therefore important to hear the Prime Minister’s firm commitment to GCAP in Japan. Does he agree that investment in programmes such as GCAP is essential if we are to address this geopolitical challenge?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I do, and my hon. Friend is right to emphasise the changes in the geopolitical landscape; we have approached our relationship to the US, Europe, India and China accordingly.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

In the Prime Minister’s discussions on what he somewhat mildly describes as “areas of difference”, did he raise the discovery of kill switches and hidden comms devices in Chinese-manufactured solar panels? If he did, can he assure us that, rather than politely asking for this practice to stop, he demanded that it stop?

[The Prime Minister]

We raised all the sensitive issues, and we did it in direct terms, and in the room. That, to my mind, is the right way to try to make progress on these very important issues.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

It was a privilege to serve with Jim Wallace in Holyrood, and I associate myself with the tributes to him.

We have had trade deals with Europe, China and India worth hundreds of millions of pounds to Scottish businesses, and defence contracts that secure thousands of jobs. Can the Prime Minister tell us how he will build on this success for Scotland? Does he agree that it is about time the Scottish Government showed the same ambition for Scottish businesses?

[The Prime Minister]

It is astonishing that the Scottish National party is simply not interested in the progress that we have made on the India trade deal, which is hugely beneficial to Scottish businesses, or in the halving of tariffs that comes into effect today in relation to China. Businesses in Scotland know exactly what that means to them, which is why they are celebrating. SNP Members cannot bring themselves to even welcome it.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I certainly acknowledge the tariff easement for Scottish whisky, and for the apparently superior Bushmills whiskey from my constituency, but will the Prime Minister’s visit do anything to address the proliferation of heavily subsidised Chinese vehicles, which are flooding our nation, particularly in the bus sector? We have 500 subsidised Chinese vehicles on the streets of our capital city, courtesy of Transport for London, whereas in Scotland and in my constituency, we build the highest-quality buses. Will there be any action to support British buses as a result of what the Prime Minister is seeking to do?

[The Prime Minister]

I see that we have opened a whisky competition, but the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right: it is really important that we champion the building of buses and so much else in the United Kingdom. We have great examples of that, and we will always put the national interest first.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s report back from his visit to China and Japan. Previous Tory Governments refused to make such reports for many years. He says that the issues discussed included human rights, trade and security. I am particularly interested in what he had to say about the border security pact, because my constituents in Stevenage are very concerned about the small boats crisis. We already have international agreements with France and Germany, and this is a new one with China. How can I learn more about how this will work?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to put this as one package, because what we are doing on small boats with China is looking at the source of the engines; what we are doing with Germany involves the transport of those parts through Europe; and what we are doing in France is working with the French to tackle the crossings.

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

The whole House can see with its own eyes what is happening here. The Prime Minister, on paper, has the support of more than 400 MPs. If they want to show their support, they can fill every single seat on the Government Benches, as far as the double doors, but they are all drifting away as these exchanges proceed. Even at the start of his statement, the Prime Minister did not have the authority to command that they fill two or three Benches behind him. He is clearly on his way out. The problem is that in his desperation to shore up his position, he is trading away our national interests. Can he name a single tangible benefit that he has secured in respect of the rights of Hongkongers?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, we raised the issues of Hongkongers. [Interruption.] We raised the issues. I find the Conservatives’ position astonishing. They say that they take these issues seriously. They say that these issues are “of great concern”. They stay here and raise these issues, notwithstanding the fact that no one else is listening, and then they say, “This is so important to me, but the one thing I do not want you to do is go to China and have a discussion about it at the highest level.” It is a pathetic, unserious approach to foreign policy.

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

The Prime Minister may have noticed that the Japanese ambassador to the United Kingdom, Hiroshi Suzuki, was in Manchester recently, trying Boddingtons bitter. The Prime Minister will be aware of the importance of brewing to my constituency, and perhaps, in celebration of these trade deals, he would like to encourage the ambassador to come and sample some of the best beer in the brewing capital of Burton-on-Trent.

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I certainly encourage that, and I will take the first opportunity to do so.

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

I am glad that the Prime Minister enjoys a dram as much as I do. For the record, I did welcome the Indian trade deal very publicly, so he may wish to correct the record on that. However, I want to focus on an issue that is important to employment in my constituency: the Ardersier site, part of the Cromarty Green freeport, in which Mingyang has expressed a significant investment interest. I fully understand the national security concerns that need to be addressed, but a decision is long overdue. The issue has been with the Government for a long time, and there is investor jitteriness. The supply chain is vexed about this, and the issue is certainly not helping with the just transition. It is putting important job opportunities at risk. When will the decision be made either to let Mingyang get on with it or to move on to another opportunity?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, which is of concern to his constituents across Scotland, and indeed the United Kingdom. No decision has yet been made, and I will update the House as soon as I can.

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

Last Thursday, I held a public meeting with the Hong Kong community in Bishop’s Stortford. We met to discuss the proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain, but there was real strength of feeling about the case of Jimmy Lai and democratic freedoms in Hong Kong, so I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister raise the issue. Will he take this opportunity, for the benefit of my constituents, to set out the details of those discussions again? Will he also assure my constituents of this country’s commitment to those from Hong Kong who have made their home here, and reassure them that this Government will listen carefully to their views in the Home Office’s consultation on earned settlement?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me give my hon. Friend that reassurance for those from Hong Kong, in his constituency and throughout the country, on the support that we will put in for them.

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

The SNP Scottish Government undertook a secretive trip to Beijing last year, and caught a case of renminbi fever while they were there. They are now blundering around on the world stage, desperate for Mingyang to put money into Ardersier. Notwithstanding the jobs issue, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will take cognisance of national security issues? We do not want jobs at any cost, and we cannot allow wind farms to have Chinese kill switches fitted.

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say a moment ago, no decision has been made yet, but as I explained in my report back to the House, the overarching approach that we take to all matters involving China is that national security always comes first.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

On behalf of the all-party parliamentary group on Japan, may I say arigato gozaimasu to the Prime Minister for his visit? I hope that he had a sugoi time.

I think that all of us in the House are proud of the global combat air programme, which holds great opportunities not only for global, regional and UK security but for British jobs. The Prime Minister mentioned that Japan is already one of the main investors in the UK; does he share my hope that this programme, just like the Concorde programme with France all those years ago, will have knock-on benefits for British jobs and innovations in our economy?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and for his message over the weekend. Japan is a key NATO ally, is a member of the G7 and, of course, the coalition of the willing, and, as he rightly points out, has key investments in the United Kingdom. That is why we discussed all those matters, and the GCAP, when we were there.

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

The Prime Minister mentioned his previous meeting with the Chinese President at the G20 in Brazil. One day later, 45 pro-democracy Hongkongers were sentenced. Uyghurs, Falun Gong, Tibetans, unregistered religious groups, human rights lawyers, pro-democracy campaigners, Hongkongers in this country and Jimmy Lai—what single, tangible difference has the Prime Minister made for their safety and security?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course there are concerns; they are aired in this House. The difference between our parties is that our position is that the mature and serious thing to do is to have leader-to-leader discussions about them, engaging with the issues. The Conservatives’ approach is to shout about the issues, get a bag of sand and put their head in it, and influence absolutely no one. It is so unserious. They will not be fit for government for many, many years to come.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

As the Prime Minister will know, many Japanese companies have their British home in my constituency of Bracknell, so I welcome his visit to Japan. Could he set out a little more about how we can further strengthen our relationship with our Japanese friends and allies, and what that will mean for my constituents?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to all those businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency, of which there are very many, as he rightly says. Enhancing our trade and economic ties with Japan is in the interests of both countries, and that is precisely what we are focused on.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has failed to stand up for Britain’s interests. From what we have seen, he could not even make it across Beijing’s red carpet without being guided along the way. What did the Prime Minister expect to receive in return for approving the Chinese super-embassy, and did the Chinese give it to him?

[The Prime Minister]

We have had a Chinese embassy in this country since 1877. It is currently over seven sites; it is now going to be on one. The security and intelligence services published a letter the day after the decision was made to say that it was better for security in this country, and I think that is the right approach.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for his continued international leadership. I know, however, that wherever he goes in the world, he is always thinking about Harlow, so what difference will a productive relationship with the second-largest economy and our third-biggest trading partner make to businesses in my constituency?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a champion for Harlow, and it has been so good to visit it so many times. We had 60 businesses in the delegation with us. They were enthusiastic about the opportunities that this visit would open up for them and for all the associated businesses—including in his constituency—that will be able to work with them on projects in the future.

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

It is widely reported in the media that the Prime Minister and his entourage had burner phones when they went to China. Could he confirm that? If so, was the reason that he was worried he was being spied upon?

[The Prime Minister]

We took appropriate precautions, as we do whichever country we visit.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Like the Prime Minister, I am a musician and a strong advocate for the creative arts sector. Could he set out to the House a little more about why he took so many creative arts and cultural organisations with him to China? Does he agree that Britain is the best in the world at the creative arts, that they are good for trade, good for jobs and good for our young people in particular, and that the kind of visit he has been on will help with that, as will investment at home and abroad?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend; we are the best in the world. The people from the creative sector and the cultural institutions were with us on the visit because they could see the great advantage in better relations and better engagement, and not only in relation to the cultural aspects but because, of course, they are themselves really important businesses.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

The Prime Minister is very full of the abstract virtue of engaging with China and getting in the room with them. He used to say that Britain should not even sign a trade deal with China because of the persecution of the Uyghur people. Having now got into the room with the Chinese leader, can he tell the House a single thing that he achieved on behalf of the Uyghurs, or indeed on behalf of the security of this country?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. Engaging is really important for the security of this country. Just for clarity, we did not sign a trade deal on the visit; we simply looked at the ways in which we can open the opportunities for businesses. There were 60 big businesses with us on the visit, and they are absolutely clear about the advantages to them. I would much rather take their view on the advantages than the nonsense that is being spouted on the other side of this House.

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

China is helping to fund Russia’s war on Ukraine via the shadow fleet and Russian oil. First, can the Prime Minister unambiguously confirm that he brought up Russian oil and the shadow fleet, because they are not mentioned specifically in the statement? Secondly, what steps will China now take to end its importation of Russian oil, which is funding death and destruction across Ukraine?

[The Prime Minister]

This is a really important issue, which that is why I had a phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky the day before I left, and I will have a further discussion with him now that I am back. I raised the issue in terms during the course of the visit.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Further to that point, Russia has been able to triple its ballistic missile production because it has access to Chinese rocket fuel, Chinese machine tools and Chinese microprocessors. In return, China is receiving vast quantities of discounted oil, gas, aluminium and other natural resources. China is quite literally fuelling the war in Ukraine, so I ask the Prime Minister once again: what specific guarantees did he receive from the Chinese Government that they will work to de-escalate the conflict in Ukraine?

[The Prime Minister]

The reason I spoke to Volodymyr Zelensky was to have a discussion in advance on the precise terms in which we would approach this issue. I then followed through on that, and I will talk to President Zelensky about this again in the coming days. We are working hand in glove with the Ukrainians for the outcome that we all want: a just and lasting peace.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I welcome his successful trade missions to China and Japan. In particular, I am heartened by the strides made in Japanese co-operation. However, what steps forward remain in terms of the Chinese treatment of Christians, Uyghur Muslims, Falun Gong and other religious minorities? Was the Prime Minister able to use diplomatic soft power to bring about the changes required to provide human rights protection, to stop religious persecution and to enable successful trade between the two nations?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise these really important issues. I raised them myself during the course of the visit, and I thank him.