Machinery of Government

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

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

On 10 July the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities was renamed the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

I am today announcing the following further changes to the machinery of government.

First, responsibility for the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union, including co-chairing the ministerial structures under the UK’s treaties with the European Union, will move from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to the Cabinet Office. This change will allow the Paymaster General as Minister for the Constitution and European Union Relations to drive the Government’s European Union agenda, overseeing the existing relationship, and leading the cross-Government work to deepen this relationship in the future. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office remains responsible for bilateral relationships, Gibraltar negotiations and Europe strategy using the Department’s diplomatic expertise.

Secondly, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs will move from the Cabinet Office to the Ministry of Defence. This change will enable the Minister for Veterans and People to have complete oversight for the entirety of service life, from training to veteran, working with all Government Departments to deliver for our service personnel.

Thirdly, the Government Digital Service, the Central Digital and Data Office and the Incubator for Artificial Intelligence will move from the Cabinet Office to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. This change will embed the delivery of digital services and levers to drive public and private sector innovation within a single Department. Working closely with the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will be the digital centre of government.

Fourth, the Government car service will move from the Department for Transport to the Cabinet Office. This change will better align the Government car service with other centrally provided protective security services for Ministers and support end-to-end provision of executive protective security.

The four additional machinery of government changes outlined above will take effect immediately.

[HCWS19]

NATO and European Political Community Meetings

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Before I start my statement, I would like to pay a short tribute to President Biden, a man who, during five decades of service, never lost touch with the concerns of working people and always put his country first. A true friend of the Labour movement, his presidency will leave a legacy that extends far beyond America, to freedom and security on this continent—most of all, of course, in our steadfast resolve to stand by the people of Ukraine. He leaves the NATO alliance stronger than it has been for decades.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on my recent discussions with leaders around the world, including at the NATO summit and at the meeting of the European Political Community last week at Blenheim Palace, the biggest European summit in the UK since the war.

Mr Speaker, the House knows the significance of Blenheim Palace, the birthplace of Winston Churchill—the man who steered the march of European history towards democracy and the rule of law. It was a shared sacrifice for freedom—the blood bond of 1945. At both summits, we reaffirmed our commitment to that bond of security and freedom, as I am sure we do in this House today. NATO is the guarantor of those values, and that is more important than ever, because, today in Europe, innocent lives are once again being torn apart. Two weeks ago today there was an attack on a children’s hospital in Kyiv—children with cancer the target of Russian brutality.

Russia’s malign activity is not confined to Ukraine. In the Western Balkans, in Moldova and in Georgia, it is sowing instability. And let us not forget that it has targeted people on our streets and attempted to undermine our democracy. In the first days of this Government, I have taken a message to our friends and allies of enduring and unwavering commitment to the NATO alliance, to Ukraine and to the collective security of our country, our continent and our allies around the world. That message was just as relevant at the EPC last week. May I take this opportunity to thank the Leader of the Opposition, who brought that event to our shores in the first place?

At these meetings, I took a practical view of how the UK can meet this moment, driven not by ideology but by what is best for our country. That includes resetting our relationship with the European Union, because on these Benches we believe that the UK and the EU, working together as sovereign partners, are a powerful force for good across our continent. That has been my message throughout the many conversations that I have had with leaders in recent days, because countries want to work with Britain—of course they do. They welcome renewed British leadership on security, on illegal migration and on global challenges such as climate change. Our voice belongs in the room, centre stage, fighting for the national interest.

My conversations have focused on issues on which the British people want action, so I would like to update the House on my discussions in three specific areas. The first is European security. In Washington, I told NATO allies that the generational threat from Russia demands a generational response. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out a clear path to spending 2.5% of our GDP on defence. It is also why I launched a strategic defence review, led by the former NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson, to strengthen our armed forces and keep our nation safe.

I also took the opportunity at the NATO summit to confirm that we will deliver £3 billion-worth of military aid to Ukraine each year for as long as it takes. And together we confirmed Ukraine’s irreversible path to full NATO membership, because it is clear to me that NATO will be stronger with Ukraine as a member—something I reiterated to President Zelensky in person in Downing Street on Friday.

Secondly, I want to turn to the middle east, because that region is at a moment of grave danger and fragility. I have spoken to leaders in the region and allies around the world about our collective response. How can we deal with the malign influence of Iran, address its nuclear programme, manage the threat from the Houthis, ease tensions on Israel’s northern border, and work with all partners to uphold regional security?

Fundamental to that, of course, is the conflict in Gaza. I have spoken to the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. I have been clear that I fully support Israel’s right to security and the desperate need to see the hostages returned. I have also been clear that the situation in Gaza is intolerable, and that the world will not look away as innocent civilians, including women and children, continue to face death, disease and displacement. Mr Speaker, it cannot go on. We need an immediate ceasefire. Hostages out, aid in; a huge scale-up of humanitarian assistance. That is the policy of this Government, and an immediate ceasefire is the only way to achieve it, so we will do all we can in pursuit of these goals. That is why, as one of the first actions taken by this Government, we have restarted British funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency, to deliver that crucial humanitarian support.

We received the International Court of Justice opinion on Friday and will consider it carefully before responding, but let me say that we have always been opposed to the expansion of illegal settlements and we call on all sides to recommit to stability, peace, normalisation and the two-state solution: a recognised Palestinian state—the right of the Palestinian people—alongside a safe and secure Israel.

Thirdly, I want to turn to illegal migration. This issue has now become a crisis, and in order to tackle it we must reach out a hand to our European friends. We started that work at the EPC, agreeing new arrangements with Slovenia and Slovakia, deepening co-operation across Europe for our new border security command, and increasing the UK presence at Europol in The Hague, to play our full part in the European Migrant Smuggling Centre. The crisis we face is the fault of gangs—no question—but to stop illegal migration we must also recognise the root causes: conflict, climate change and extreme poverty. So I have announced £84 million of new funding for projects across Africa and the middle east, to provide humanitarian and health support, skills training, and access to education, because the decisions that people take to leave their homes cannot be separated from these wider issues.

We will work with our partners to stamp out this vile trade wherever it exists and focus on the hard yards of law enforcement with solutions that will actually deliver results. I have seen that in action, tackling counter-terrorism as Director of Public Prosecutions, and we can do the same on illegal migration. But let me be clear: there is no need to withdraw from the European convention on human rights. That is not consistent with the values of that blood bond, so we will not withdraw—not now, not ever.

The basic fact is that the priorities of the British people do require us to work across borders with our partners, and a Government of service at home requires a Government of strength abroad. That is our role. It has always been our role. Britain belongs on the world stage. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and join him in praising President Biden for his long career of public service both at home and abroad. Working together, we took our AUKUS partnership to the next level, supported Israel after the terrible events of 7 October, defended our countries from the Houthi threat and led global efforts to support Ukraine as it resisted Russia’s assault. On a personal level, it was a pleasure to work with him to strengthen the partnership between our two countries, and I wish him well.

As the Prime Minister indicated, the world is increasingly uncertain—the most dangerous it has been since the end of the cold war. Russia continues its illegal and brutal invasion of Ukraine. Iran continues with its regionally destabilising behaviour. Both Iran and North Korea are supplying Russian forces in Ukraine as we speak, and China is adopting a more aggressive stance in the South China sea and the Taiwan strait. Together, that axis of authoritarian states is increasingly working together to undermine democracies and reshape the world order.

In those circumstances, our alliances take on ever-greater importance. I commend the Prime Minister on his work with our closest allies at both the NATO summit in Washington and the European Political Community meeting at Blenheim. Across this House we built a strong consensus on foreign policy in the last Parliament, which has stood our country in good stead in this transition. Our allies, particularly Ukraine, know that although our Government have changed, Britain remains an active, involved and reliable partner.

I am glad that the Prime Minister also shares our view of the value of the EPC community as a forum. I am pleased by and welcome the fact that he used the summit to discuss illegal migration, because it is one of the most pressing problems facing our entire continent. When it comes to illegal migration, we all face the same fundamental question: how to deal with people who come to our countries illegally while respecting our international obligations.

Of course, it is not feasible or right to return Afghans to the Taliban, Syrians to Assad or Iranians to the ayatollahs, but nor can our country accommodate everyone who would like to leave Afghanistan, Syria or Iran and come here. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister say that he was a pragmatist and that he would look at what works when it comes to squaring that circle. I urge him, in his conversations with other European leaders, to keep the option of further third-country migration partnerships on the table, as other countries have been discussing.

I know the Prime Minister is also interested in pursuing a security and defence co-operation pact with the European Union, and here I just urge him to be alert to the trade- offs involved. I hope he can reassure the House that any closer co-operation with the EU will not adversely affect the technological and procurement aspects of our other alliances such as AUKUS. Of course we are a pillar of European security, as our leadership on Ukraine has shown, but we also have alliances and interests that extend beyond the European continent.

Turning to the NATO summit, it was good to see the alliance reaffirming its commitment to Ukraine, with the UK at the heart of that leadership. I hope the Prime Minister will keep the House updated on how the new unit to co-ordinate our collective support to Ukraine will indeed lead to an increase in vital support. I urge the Prime Minister to continue stressing to our allies that now is the moment to increase, not to pare down, our backing for Ukraine, as the UK has continued to lead in doing.

In the 75 years of its existence, NATO has established itself as the most successful defensive alliance in history. The best way to strengthen the alliance is for its non-American members to do more, to show that we do not expect the Americans to bear every burden, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s indication that the Chancellor will soon set out a clear path to investing 2.5% of GDP in our armed forces—I hope by 2030. That would both show the Americans that the other members of the alliance are serious about boosting our own capabilities, and show President Putin and our adversaries that we are serious about defending our borders and allies from Russian or any other aggression.

The Prime Minister also spoke about the situation in the middle east. We all want to see progress towards a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace, prosperity and security. However, as we make progress towards that goal, our friend and ally Israel must have the right to defend itself against the threat that it is facing—a threat demonstrated by the drone strike on Tel Aviv at the end of last week by the Iranian-aligned Houthi rebels.

In conclusion, I thank the Prime Minister for coming to update the House today. I can assure him that we on the Opposition Benches will work with him on these questions of foreign policy and national security. We will ask questions, probe and push for answers—that is our duty as the official Opposition—but we will always act in the national interest and work constructively with him to ensure the security of our country.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his welcome comments in relation to President Biden, which I am sure will be well received, and for what he said about the consensus on foreign policy in relation to NATO and the EPC. That is important, and I am glad that we have managed to get that consensus over recent years, because we are in a more volatile world, and the world is looking in to see unity in the United Kingdom, particularly in relation to Ukraine. I have commended the role of the previous Government in relation to Ukraine, and I do so again. I took the deliberate decision when I was Leader of the Opposition not to depart on Ukraine, because I took, and continue to take, the view that the only winner in that circumstance is Putin, who wants to see division. It is very important for Ukraine to see that continued unity across this House.

We will of course work with others. In relation to the point made by the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Old habits die hard. On the point made by the Leader of the Opposition about security and co-operation with our EU allies, I do believe that is to our mutual benefit, but I can assure him and the House that it does not cut across, or come at the cost of, other alliances. We are fully committed to AUKUS—as I made clear in opposition, and I take this early opportunity to affirm it in government—because it is an area on which there is an important consistency across the House.

In relation to the conflict in Gaza, the more that we in this House can be united, the better. It is an issue of great complexity, but the approach that has been shown is the right one, and we take it forward in that spirit.

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

I congratulate the Prime Minister on his flying start on the world stage, and on his determination to build not simply a rules-based order, but a rights-based order rooted in what Churchill called the great charter and we call the European convention on human rights. We want its freedoms and liberties to be enjoyed by the people of Ukraine, but that will take victory over Russia. It will need more than courage; it will need resources. Did he discuss with international colleagues the need not simply to freeze Russian assets, but to seize and put them to work in defeating once and for all the tyranny of President Putin?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that question on the centrality of the Ukraine issue. Yes, of course, that requires resource and more pressure in relation to sanctions, but it also requires resolve. A key issue coming out of the NATO council in Washington was the real sense, particularly in relation to Ukraine, of a bigger NATO—with more countries than ever at the council—a stronger NATO, and a unity of resolve in standing up to Russian aggression, particularly in Ukraine. Resources and sanctions were central to the agenda there.

[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 the statement. Closer co-operation with our European neighbours is absolutely essential, whether on Russia’s illegal war against Ukraine or on tackling the criminal gangs responsible for the small-boats crisis, and I welcome the new Government’s change in approach. I also welcome their support for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Clearly, we need to put an end to the humanitarian devastation there, get the hostages home, and open the door to a two-state solution. Upholding international law is also crucial. To that end, I hope the Government will respect last week’s ruling of the ICJ when they consider it.

On the NATO summit, 70 years on from the foundation of NATO, the alliance has never been more relevant. We support the NATO summit pledge of long-term security assistance for Ukraine, as well as increased support now to ensure she can resist Russia’s attacks and liberate her territory. I am pleased that, in this new Parliament, this House will continue to stand united behind the brave Ukrainians opposing Russia’s illegal war, just as we have done together in recent years.

However, I hope Members of this House will not be complacent about the impact that the upcoming US elections could have, not just on the security of the UK and our allies, but on the security of Ukraine. We must hope that the leadership of President Biden continues with his successor—I echo the Prime Minister’s tribute to President Biden—but whatever happens in the US, part of the answer is for the UK and Europe to increase defence spending. The previous Conservative Government have left a legacy of the smallest Army since the age of Napoleon and played fast and loose with public money, making our shared ambition to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence a much more complicated route. We look forward to the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s plan. I hope this Government will start by reversing the planned cuts to the Army of 10,000 troops. That is a vital first step, so will the Prime Minister reassure the House and the country that it will be a priority within the recently launched strategic defence review?

We also urge the Government to move further and faster in taking steps to seize frozen Russian assets, of which there are £20 billion-worth on our shores and the same amount on the continent. I hope the Prime Minister recognises that we have an opportunity to lead within Europe on this vital issue: if the US cannot, Europe must.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising those three issues. On the international courts, we respect the independence of the Court and international law—let me be very clear about that. I will not get tempted by questions about the US elections later this year, save to say that it will obviously be for the American people to decide who they want as their President, and as Members would expect, we will work with whoever is the President after they have made their choice. I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the low numbers of troops, which will be looked at in the strategic defence review that we are carrying out into threats, capability and resources.

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

It was incredibly pleasing to see the Prime Minister both at NATO and welcoming leaders from across our continent to Blenheim palace, at a historic moment for a reset with Europe after the disastrous legacy that the departing Government left behind. Did the subject of youth mobility for students and suchlike arise, and could his Government look into repairing it for its soft power, cultural exchange and growth-boosting properties that have been so valued, as we are now in a post-Erasmus era?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The reset with our European allies was well received, and there was clearly an appetite to work in a different and better way with the UK, which I think will stand us in good stead as we go forward. We did have discussions about a closer relationship with our EU allies, but I made it very clear from the outset—as I have done in opposition—that that does not mean rejoining the EU, it does not mean going back into the structures of the EU, and it does not mean freedom of movement. I took the early opportunity to make that clear to our European allies so that we can move forward progressively, but with the right framework in mind.

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

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his election victory, and particularly on the very strong commitment he gave at the beginning of his campaign to the maintenance of the strategic Trident nuclear deterrent in the future? Does he agree that, if there had existed in 1914 or in 1939 an organisation like NATO that committed America to the protection from day one of countries such as Belgium in the one case or Poland in the other, those two terrible conflicts might well never have broken out? Does he therefore share my concern that the virus of isolationism is again on the move in certain parts of the American political spectrum?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for that question. First, I was able to make clear our unshakeable commitment to the nuclear deterrent, something I did in opposition. I have been able to make that absolutely clear as Prime Minister, and it was very important that I did so from the outset. In relation to what may have happened in the past, I will not speculate, but I believe that NATO is the most successful alliance the world has ever known, and that it is as needed now as it was when it was founded. The then Labour Government were very proud to be a founder member of NATO, and it was very important for me to reaffirm our unshakeable support for NATO. The world is a more volatile place, the challenges are greater now than they have been for many years, and I think that NATO is as needed now and as relevant now as it has ever been in its history.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the leadership he showed not just at NATO, but at the European Political Community. Working together and collaborating are important, not least in the unstable world that we are in. Could he set out what discussions he had about the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement in the light of its renegotiation deadlines next year?

[The Prime Minister]

I was able to have early discussion about the EU-UK trade arrangements of a preliminary sort. There is an appetite for that discussion—no one pretends that it is an easy discussion—and I am pleased to have appointed a Minister, the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, who will take responsibility for that important work. It does not involve rejoining the EU; it does involve resetting and improving the relationship we have with our EU allies.

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

Can I, first, congratulate the Prime Minister on his election win, and wish him the very best in his new role? Building on the last question, the EPC summit seemed very positive. How does he see using this political locus to get the UK in the best possible position for the renegotiation of the TCA in 2026?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for his comments. There is an appetite now for a different discussion about our future relations with the EU—whether that is trade, education and research, or security co-operation. Particularly in the light of what has happened in Ukraine, there is a shared sense that there is room for closer work and closer ties there. They are the three main areas. It is at the very early stages, but the reset was well received by many European allies, and I was pleased to have that early opportunity to set out our case.

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

The Prime Minister’s statement will be warmly welcomed by the people of Rochdale, particularly the Ukrainian community, which has flourished in our town for nearly 80 years. So can I pass on to him a direct message from Olga Kurtianyk, who is the chair of the Rochdale branch of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain, who told me yesterday that she is very grateful for the Prime Minister’s continued support for President Zelensky in the fight against the illegal war that Putin has waged?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very pleased to hear that, and to be able to make that clear commitment. But I want to emphasise that this is the continuation of the work of the previous Government, which we fully supported before and fully support now. What is also important for our communities, and certainly important for the international community, is to see the unity that we have been able to maintain here in this Chamber. The world watches in relation to our unity and it is important therefore that we maintain it as we go forward.

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

May I also add my personal congratulations to the Prime Minister on his election win?

The international rules-based system is the cornerstone of peace and security. The Prime Minister talks of a ceasefire in Gaza and the application of the rule of law. What measures is he willing to take to make sure that is implemented? Furthermore, being outside the EU makes us less safe. The populists who want us to turn away from the EU and towards Trump-style isolationism are playing straight into Putin’s hands, so what are we doing to get closer to the EU?

[The Prime Minister]

In relation to a ceasefire, obviously talks are under way at quite an advanced stage and we have already urged all sides in the international discussions that I have had to move forward on a ceasefire, because without a ceasefire it is very difficult to envisage the circumstances in which further hostages can come out safely and aid can go in at the scale that is desperately needed. Also, a ceasefire can be a foot in the door for the beginning of a process, however remote it may seem at the moment, to a two-state solution. In relation to the EU, we have a shared interest in safety and security with our EU allies and that was very much the topic of discussion we had at the EPC summit last week.

[Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)]

For my constituents in Makerfield, restoring control over our borders is a key issue of concern. It has become a matter of public trust. Does the Prime Minister agree that the new border security command is an opportunity to show how the UK can play a leading role in tackling criminal smuggler gangs?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes I do, and the command is based on the work I did as Director of Public Prosecutions, working with law enforcement and security and intelligence sharing with our allies—in the cases I was working on to deal with counter-terrorism. I have never accepted the argument that the only gangs that apparently cannot be taken down using the same techniques are the gangs running this vile trade. There was real interest in what we were saying at the EPC summit last week and an understanding that, if we share intelligence, data, strategy and approach, we can all do more to bring down these vile gangs.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister's reiteration that the UK remains the strongest supporter of Ukraine against Russian aggression, but what support can we also give to another former Soviet state, Armenia, both in resolving its conflict with Azerbaijan, and in pursuing its ambition to move closer to NATO and the European Union in the face of Russian threats and intimidation?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for that question. This came up in the discussions last Thursday, as would have been expected, with a joint resolve to provide the support and framework needed for peace and security across the entire region. Again, there is a shared intent with our allies to work together on this because it is of such importance. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising it.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

I am one of 12 newly elected Members on this side of the House who have served in the armed forces, and in Plymouth so many of my friends and neighbours have served as well. All of us are deeply concerned by the ongoing illegal invasion and inhumane, increasingly barbaric, tactics Russia is using. Will the Prime Minister agree with me that in an uncertain world one thing we can be sure of is that Ukraine has no firmer friend than the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can confirm that and emphasise just how important it is. We had the honour of hosting President Zelensky at Downing Street on Friday, where I was able to make that clear, and again to take the opportunity to say that we are building on the work of the previous Government, not departing from that work. I think the support of the UK in particular to Ukraine has been leading, important and provided at difficult times, which has often led to others moving in accordance with the moves we have made as a country. President Zelensky is grateful for the role we have played in the past and that we continue to play now.

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

My constituents in Sleaford and North Hykeham are very concerned about levels of illegal migration, particularly people crossing the channel. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister say that he wants to tackle it. He mentioned two measures: £84 million to tackle root causes and the focus, which is arguably already present, from law enforcement. In the last seven days, 1,500 people crossed the channel. How many of them would he expect to have been deterred by the measures he describes?

[The Prime Minister]

This is a real problem that we have inherited because not enough attention has been paid to border control in my view. Record numbers have come this year. The measures taken by the last Government were patently not working, so we need to address that. That is why we have taken early steps to set up the border security command. It is also why we have already moved more staff into the returns unit, so it can get on with the job of actually returning those who have no right to be here. One hundred staff have moved already in the early days of this Government, but we have to recognise that we also need to address the reasons that people move in the first place, which are very much to do with conflict, poverty and climate change. If we ignore those upstream causes, we will never fully get to grips with the problem that is so obvious to so many people in this country.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I thank him particularly for his commitment to resetting our relationship with the European Union. It is regrettable that the deal signed by the Opposition when they were in government did real damage to our economy. It put up barriers to trade with the European Union and increased red tape. Does the Prime Minister agree that now is the time for a new relationship and to take practical measures, such as the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, to increase our alignment with the European Union, so we can help our services and get our economy moving again?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think the deal we have is good enough. If we talk to any business that deals with the EU, they complain it is not good enough for them and has made trade harder, not easier, and that is a real problem. We can do better than that. The EPC was an early opportunity for us to reset our relationship and begin progress towards that better relationship, whether that is in relation to trade or defence and security, which are both very important to us.

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

I welcome that the Prime Minister says that there is an appetite for a reset in our relationship with our European neighbours. A core element of collective European security is collective economic security. He knows that being outside the single market and the customs union has cost the UK economy almost £140 billion. How will he remedy this toxic Tory legacy by continuing to refuse even to consider rejoining those economic structures?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the relationship can improve. We can have a better relationship, but I do not think we can simply ignore the referendum and go back into the EU. In the discussions I had with our European allies, none of them was urging us to take that course. They were interested in the argument we were making about a better relationship and how that could work in relation to trade, education and security and defence. That is why I wanted to be clear from the outset about our approach.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

The Hexham constituency, as the Prime Minister will know, is home to the Otterburn ranges, which have played a key role in training our armed forces for decades. What steps will the Prime Minister take to improve the working relationship between our armed forces and those of our NATO allies?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Our armed forces provide huge resource to NATO, particularly in Europe, and across our armed forces we are fully committed in almost every respect to NATO. There is huge room for further such work, building on what is clearly working already.

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

The Prime Minister has given us fine words about the importance of our membership of international institutions, particularly international courts, and I agree with him—it is profoundly in our national interest that we are a member of these organisations—but he will know as well as I that those courts are only as good as the action and consequence that flow from their judgments. Without action and consequence, their judgments just become hot air. In relation to Israel-Gaza, and in particular the occupation of the west bank, can he please assure us that he is considering hard consequences for the very obvious flagrant breach of international law that is taking place daily in that part of the world?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for that question, because I believe in international law and I think it is very important that we keep to our commitments on international law. We are known for that as a nation, and it matters to the world. In relation to the courts, I respect their independence. Obviously, we will have robust discussion about particular actions, judgments that they might publish, and decisions that they come to, but for those who believe in international law, it is important to be equally clear that we support the independence of the courts. Without that anchor, we do not have the framework that is so important to us, in terms of enforcing international law.

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

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and very much echo his words about President Biden. Does the Prime Minister agree with me and the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme that the only way to stop illegal migration and the subsequent tragic loss of life is by our United Kingdom working more closely with our European neighbours to smash the gangs who run this vile trade?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I do. We have already been able to put further resource into Europol. Last Thursday, we had a very live discussion about sharing data and intelligence, and about an overarching strategy on prosecutions, with our European allies, who were keen to learn more about what we were proposing, and how they could play their part with us to smash the gangs; because the gangs operate across borders, that can be done only in conjunction and collaboration with our EU partners.

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

The last Government spent quite some time engaging with isolationists in Washington. They sought to influence conservative think-tanks in the US that are listened to by Republicans, such as the Heritage Foundation. I appreciate the Prime Minister’s point that it is for the American people to decide who governs them later this year, but what more can his Government do to stress to Republicans, and to candidate Trump, that European and American security are indivisible?

[The Prime Minister]

On the first part of the question, luckily I do not answer for the last Government; I answer for this Government. We will work with whoever the American people elect as President, but specifically on the question, the special relationship between the UK and the US was forged in the most difficult of circumstances and has endured for many years, and it is important both to the US and to the UK to maintain that special relationship. I have had an early opportunity to make my position clear on this. Again, it is a continuation of the position of the last Government: that special relationship matters to us, whoever ends up being the President of America.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that we need a “NATO first” defence policy in the face of growing Russian aggression, as seen in Ukraine? Will he join me in paying tribute to the Doncaster Ukrainian Centre in my constituency, which has worked tirelessly around the clock to support Ukrainian refugees, demonstrating the true community spirit of Doncaster?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me start by joining in that, and making it clear that this work, done in so many communities, is really important, in terms of the support given and the welcome shown to refugees.

The point about “NATO first” is important. As I say, we are proud to have been among the founding members of NATO, and the review that we have put in place has framework principles, one of which is “NATO first”. That will inform the way in which we conduct the strategic review.

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

Why do we continue to limit Ukraine’s ability to take the fight to Russia?

[The Prime Minister]

The approach to capability taken by the UK remains the same as it was three weeks ago— no different decisions have been taken—and is based on the principle of recognising Ukraine’s right to self-defence and the parameters of international law. I think that is right, and that is why no new decisions have been taken.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that the strength and unity of purpose expressed by our international alliances is mirrored and enhanced by the solidarity and friendship that the British people have shown by accommodating Ukrainians in this country? Would he join me in praising the work of the Rugby Ukrainian community, and assure me that his Government will continue to support such groups?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes on both points. A number of months ago, in Swindon, I was struck by the incredible contribution of Ukrainian women, who were leading workshops on businesses and success. On the main point about the attitude of British people, it was good to be able to say to President Zelensky that we have just had an election and we have been all over the United Kingdom, and pretty much wherever we went we saw the Ukrainian flag and people supporting Ukraine, irrespective of party political difference. There was a real sense that the whole country, as well as the Government and the Opposition, support Ukraine and are determined to do whatever they can to stand up to Russian aggression. We should be proud of the fact that we see that right across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that I have a lot more to get in today, and as important as his message is, I need to make others heard?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me deal with both points. First, conflict resolution did come up, because we had a full discussion about illegal migration—the law enforcement aspect of it, as I have explained, and the root causes of migration, conflict, poverty and climate change being key among them. The prospect of a ceasefire is there. I am urging all parties to take that opportunity; it is an important foot in the door for the political process, which I believe is the only process that will bring about lasting peace and resolution in the middle east.

[Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on a very successful set of meetings last week. Does he agree that the shifting relationship with the European Union led by the previous Government has made us economically poorer, and undermines small businesses such as the toy shop in Horsforth in my constituency, which closed? Will he ensure that small businesses and their needs and prosperity will be at the heart of any renegotiation deal in two years’ time?

[The Prime Minister]

Businesses across the country that deal with Europe feel that the deal that the last Government negotiated is not good enough for them and has made trading much harder. That is why they are encouraging us to reset that relationship and get a better deal—better for our country, our businesses and our economy. Our No. 1 mission in government is to grow our economy, so it is very important to see this in that context.

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

I too congratulate the Prime Minister on what was obviously a successful series of meetings last week. He has set out some of his new policies to deal with illegal migration across the channel, and to return illegal migrants from this country. In what sort of timescale could the British people reasonably expect his new policies to start having a real effect?

[The Prime Minister]

We have taken early measures, because the British people want to see an impact and a difference. They feel very much that in recent years there has been a loss of control of the borders. That is a matter of border security and, actually, national security. That is why we have acted quickly to begin the steps to set up the border security command. It is why we have already begun to put more staff in the returns unit, and taken a decision on the upstream work needed to reduce the likelihood of migration in the first place. They are early steps, and I am not going to put an arbitrary date on that, but I do understand the thrust of the question; this is an area of great importance, where British people want to see a material change in the situation.

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

In Gateshead Central and Whickham, and across the north-east, those who have fled Putin’s war in Ukraine want to make the most of their time in our community, but above all they want to know that the British people stand with them, so I thank the Prime Minister for his ongoing support for the people of Ukraine, but can he expand further on Ukraine’s future entry into NATO, which is so critically important?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes I can, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. The North Atlantic Council committed itself to an irreversible path to membership of NATO. That is a material step forward from a year ago and is among the reasons President Zelensky said that the council was a success in relation to membership of NATO. That is why I said what I said in my statement. That path is now irreversible, and that is a good thing, welcomed across the NATO allies.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

The level of infiltration by Hamas of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency is well documented—from UNRWA staff taking part in the pure evil that was the 7 October attack, to UNRWA-funded schools being used to store weapons and harbour terrorists, and to terror infrastructure being found under UNRWA’s headquarters in Gaza City. Before the Prime Minister took the decision to re-commit UK taxpayers’ money to UNRWA, what advice did he receive on that infiltration, and what steps has he demanded be taken, so that UK taxpayers’ money can never be used to fund terror or preach hate?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Member would expect, we took the most careful advice and subjected it to the most careful consideration, because we were concerned, as anyone in this House would be, by the suggestions and allegations in relation to 7 October. We looked at that really carefully, took it very seriously, and gave it the utmost consideration. There has, of course, been an independent review and steps put in place, but there is a vital role for UNRWA. Many other countries have restored funding for UNRWA—it is the right thing to do—but I can give an assurance that the most careful consideration was given before that step was taken, as the hon. Member would expect.

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

I warmly welcome the announcement that the UK will lead an initiative to crack down on Russia’s shadow fleet of sanctions-evading ships, which is helping to generate dirty money to fund Russia’s war machine. Will the Prime Minister continue to make sanctions enforcement a priority, and update the House on the state of international negotiations on using frozen Russian assets, including those in Kensington and Bayswater, to support Ukraine now?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for that question. Important progress was made at NATO on sanctions, and it is important for the House to have regular updates, so we can commit to giving the next update as soon as it is appropriate to do so. I think across the House there is a resolve to use sanctions as effectively as they can be used, as one of the weapons in relation to Russian aggression.

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

I hope the Prime Minister enjoyed welcoming fellow European leaders to Blenheim Palace in my constituency. One of my constituents, Rose, is studying Spanish and French at Southampton University. She would like to spend her year abroad working in Spain to strengthen her language skills and improve her employment prospects, yet as it stands she has no right to work there. I hope the Prime Minister saw the benefit of working with his European counterparts and perhaps making a few new friends. I hear his response on not rejoining the political structures, but as a specific measure to improve opportunities for young people, will he open talks with the European Union on a youth mobility scheme?

[The Prime Minister]

It was very good to be in the hon. Member’s constituency, at Blenheim Palace. I cannot tell him how many European leaders said to me that they had previously visited, usually while they were studying in the UK, but had only paid the £5 to get into the grounds, because they had not had the money to get into the building that they were then entering. That was a common theme.

As for the substance of the hon. Gentleman’s question, we are not returning to freedom of movement. I understand the desire of people to work in other countries, but I need to make it clear that there is no rejoining the European Union, no rejoining the single market or the customs union, and no returning to freedom of movement. However, I do believe there is a better deal that we can work on, and I think that the more we can work across the House on that, the better, because then it will be the more enduring.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

As the proud home of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, my constituency knows the vital importance of our armed forces in keeping Britain safe, so I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to setting out a path towards spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. Can the Prime Minister update the House on conversations that he has had with our NATO friends and allies to encourage others to match that target?

[The Prime Minister]

I am proud of the commitment that we already make to NATO on 2%. As would be expected, we did have a discussion at the NATO council on the need for all NATO members to make that contribution and to increase their contribution, and there was a commitment to do so. Our commitment to 2.5% will be set out, and the path will be set out, by the Chancellor at a future fiscal event.

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

Can the Prime Minister confirm that in seeking to reset Britain’s relationship with the European Union, his Government will not accept the automatic application of EU rules in Britain unless they have been specifically agreed by this Parliament?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Yes.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for the leadership that he has shown in his discussions at Blenheim, especially those on NATO. I am proud to hear him recommit us to a two-state solution in the middle east, and to an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Does he agree that this conflict is dire, but urgently needs sober and considerate solutions rather than extreme rhetoric from those who might seek to sow further divisions?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I do, and I am grateful for that question, because there is the prospect of a ceasefire. It is desperately needed, for the reasons that we have already discussed, but it will only happen if there is international agreement and a sober assessment that provides the framework for the release of the remaining hostages—I shudder to think of the state of some of them—for the aid that is desperately needed to be allowed in at the scale that is needed, and for the beginning of the process, in my view the only process, that will lead to a lasting resolution of this awful conflict. It is not just in all our interests, but our duty, to do everything we can to ensure that that comes about.

UK Covid-19 Inquiry Module 1 Report

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2024 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

The Chair of the UK covid-19 inquiry, the right honourable Baroness Heather Hallett, has today published the inquiry’s module 1 report, which examines the resilience and preparedness of the United Kingdom between 2009 and early 2020. I have today laid before both Houses a copy of this report.

The report concludes that the UK was under-prepared for the covid-19 pandemic, and that process, planning and policy across all four nations failed UK citizens. Poorly performing public services, pre-existing general levels of ill-health, and health and social inequalities are cited as factors that made the UK more vulnerable.

The covid-19 pandemic impacted each and every person in the UK. However, it did not have an equal impact, with some affected more than others and with some people still living with the impact of the virus.

The Government’s first responsibility is to keep the public safe, and as Prime Minister I am personally committed to each and every family who lost loved ones, and whose lives were changed forever, that this Government will learn the lessons from the inquiry. This means ensuring that the UK is prepared for a future pandemic, as well as the broadest range of potential risks facing our country. That is a top priority for this Government and what everyone should rightly expect from a Government working in their service.

The Government are committed to working with our colleagues in the devolved Governments, mayors and local partners as we carefully consider the recommendations in the report, as their efforts are vital to ensuring the resilience of the whole of the United Kingdom.

I would like to thank Baroness Hallett and her team for their thorough work on this report. The Government will carefully consider all of the findings and recommendations of the report in the context of the Government’s overall approach to resilience.

[HCWS11]

NATO Summit 2024

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2024 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

I attended the NATO leaders summit in Washington DC on 9-11 July, with the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet.

The summit marked the 75th anniversary of the world’s most successful defensive alliance. Following Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, NATO stands bigger, stronger and more united than ever. Sweden attended for the first time as a full ally. Ukraine, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the EU also participated.

Allies welcomed Mark Rutte’s confirmation as NATO’s next Secretary-General, following on from Jens Stoltenberg’s outstanding decade of leadership.

The summit agreed an ambitious set of outcomes which will help to ensure the safety, security and prosperity of the one billion citizens of NATO allies. This included: further measures to boost our deterrence and defence, particularly against Russia, including ensuring that readier and more capable forces are available to deliver NATO’s new war-fighting plans; agreeing a NATO industrial capacity expansion pledge to accelerate defence industrial production; a new cyber-defence centre; and a refreshed artificial intelligence strategy. We welcomed the fact that 23 allies now invest at or above NATO’s target of 2% of GDP on defence.

I emphasised this Government’s steadfast commitment to the NATO alliance. Our strategic defence review will ensure that a NATO-first policy is at the heart of Britain’s defence plans. I confirmed that the UK will commit almost all of our armed forces to NATO, maintain our presence in Estonia and Poland, lead the land arm of the allied reaction force this year, and maintain and modernise our nuclear deterrent.

NATO allies met with President Zelensky in the NATO- Ukraine Council and agreed measures to enhance NATO’s support to Ukraine as it advances on its irreversible path to NATO membership. These included establishing the NATO security assistance and training for Ukraine (NSATU), which will coordinate the provision of military equipment and training for Ukraine by allies and partners. We made a pledge of long-term security assistance for Ukraine, with allies proportionately contributing a minimum baseline of funding of €40 billion over the next year. This pledge includes this Government’s commitment to providing £3 billion a year of military support for Ukraine until 2030-31 and for as long as needed. I joined 22 other countries in signing a Ukraine compact that draws together the bilateral security assurances that we have each signed with Ukraine.

Allies also met with leaders from New Zealand, Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the EU. We agreed with our Indo-Pacific partners that we should continue to work together on shared challenges of the future, as security developments in their region directly affect Euro-Atlantic security. I had bilateral discussions with Prime Minister Kishida of Japan, President Yoon of the Republic of Korea and Prime Minister Luxon of New Zealand to discuss a range of topics, including advancing a shared approach that protects our interests, security and values.

I met with President Biden at the summit and at the White House, where we reaffirmed our shared commitment to NATO and the special relationship as the bedrock of our collective security and prosperity. We will continue to work side by side across the breadth of the relationship including on shared geopolitical challenges and our aligned ambitions for greater economic growth.

I also held bilateral meetings with President Zelensky of Ukraine, Prime Minister Kristersson of Sweden, Prime Minister Støre of Norway, President Erdoğan of Türkiye, Chancellor Scholz of Germany, and Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada. I engaged with all other allied and visiting leaders at the Summit. I met with Congressman Mike Johnson, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives; Congressman Hakeem Jefferies, Democratic Leader of the United States House of Representatives; Senator Chuck Schumer, Majority Leader of the United States Senate, and Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican Leader of the United States Senate. Additionally, I met with Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi and had a discussion with other key Senators.

I look forward to continuing to strengthen relations with European counterparts at the European Political Community summit at Blenheim Palace today.

[HCWS8]

Debate on the Address

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I join the Leader of the Opposition in his tribute to His Majesty the King. It is so heartening to see him in his rightful place, delivering the Gracious Speech. I am sure that the whole House will not mind once again wishing him a speedy recovery. I also join the right hon. Gentleman in wishing Her Majesty the Queen a happy birthday.

We also wish President Trump a speedy recovery from the appalling attempt on his life at the weekend. I spoke with President Trump on Sunday night, to pass on our best wishes and also to share our revulsion at the senseless violence which has no place in democracy. The last time that we debated the Loyal Address and I stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box, I could see for the first time the then new plaque, now behind me, commemorating the memory of Sir David Amess. I know how hard that loss was for Conservative Members. Now, standing on this side of the House, I can see for the first time, in front of me, the plaque to our dear friend Jo Cox, with her words that catch the air of this Chamber even more at a moment like this: “More in Common”. While our thoughts at this time are of course with President Trump and the American people, we cannot think that this is something that only happens elsewhere. We must heed the words of President Biden to lower the temperature of our democracy, work across our disagreements and find each other’s common decency.

I congratulate the England football team on their achievements in the Euros, which the Leader of the Opposition and I were talking about this morning. Yes, the trophy eluded us again, but the team can be proud of another exceptional performance—something I am sure the whole House would be only too pleased to recognise. We pay tribute to Gareth Southgate, who shouldered the burden of national leadership with such dignity.

This Government have been elected to deliver nothing less than national renewal, to stop the chaos of the past 14 years, turn the page on an era of politics as noisy performance, and return it to public service and start the work of rebuilding our country—a determined rebuilding, a patient rebuilding, a calm rebuilding. It is a rejection, in this complicated and volatile world, of those who can only offer the easy answer, the snake oil charm of populism. As the past 14 years have shown, that road is a dead end for this country. It does nothing to fix our foundations, and the British people have rejected it, as they have throughout our history.

What people really want is change, and change is what this Government of service will deliver: a King’s Speech that takes the brakes off our economy and shows to the British people that politics can be a force for good; the vehicle for improving the lives of millions, no matter who they voted for.

This is a day when we get on with the serious business of government, yet a House with no time for levity would go against the grain of our traditions, so it was fantastic to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) in such fine fettle today when he proposed the Humble Address. He spoke with great passion, as he always does, for his constituency, which is famous, as he mentioned, for the Antony Gormley sculptures on Crosby beach. That work of art is entitled “Another Place”: a collection of gently rusting figures for whom the tide is perpetually coming in—a solid grounding should my hon. Friend ever consider a career in the other place.

I am sure that the House will agree that my hon. Friend is also one of the warmest and most generous Members. That generosity extended, ahead of a previous election, to an offer to hand-deliver Conservative leaflets—a commitment to the democratic process that should be applauded, not least because it resulted in a stonking increase in his majority for Labour.

As anyone who knows my hon. Friend will confirm, although he does like to relax with a glass of wine and listen to Engelbert Humperdinck, for him family always comes first. The Leader of the Opposition referred to my hon. Friend’s daughter, and growing up he was cared for by his four sisters. Now, he is never happier than when he is with his grandchildren, who are convinced that he knows Mary Poppins personally—a belief that, I note, he has never discouraged. He has been a tremendous servant to our family—the Labour family—and we thank him for his outstanding speech today.

The address was seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). It was a fitting tribute for a royal occasion, as I am told that she is known as “Queen Flo” on Instagram. The House will know her as a tireless champion for her community, as well as a founding member of one of our most vital affiliates: the Labour friends of karaoke. In fact, I am reliably told that Queen Flo does a mean Queen Bee, which we look forward to hearing at Labour conference.

Truly, it was a fantastic speech—another demonstration that my hon. Friend is a shining example of our movement. She was a young carer when growing up, and is a fighter for their causes, on AIDS and HIV, on the health inequalities that still deliver poorer outcomes for black women, and on sickle cell, which her late mum suffered from. I know what it is like to watch your mum move in and out of hospital as a child, so I respect and admire the way my hon. Friend now champions young people from poorer households and fights for the opportunities that they deserve.

Perhaps most powerfully of all, my hon. Friend has spoken about her own experience of arriving at the scene of a stabbing, and has rightly demanded that we never allow ourselves to become desensitised to the tragedy of knife crime. As a fellow inner-London MP, I know how much this is hurting our city, as it is hurting towns and cities across the country. I know how much potential is lost, and how many families fear that their child could be next. So be under no doubt: turning the tide on this violence is absolutely central—a key mission that this Government of service will take on.

Both speeches were in the finest traditions of this House. Let me follow the Leader of the Opposition and mark the passing of our colleagues in the traditional way. Since the last Gracious Speech, the Labour party has lost a stalwart of our movement with the passing of Tony Lloyd, who served, in 36 years of distinction, the communities of Rochdale, Manchester Central and Stretford. I had the chance to speak to Tony just days before he left us, when he was leaving hospital to go home. He knew that it was for the last time and that he would not see a day like this. Without being partisan, I can tell you that he would have loved to have seen the House set up as it is today. He would have told us, using his experience, to use every precious moment that we have to serve those communities that he held so dear. That is what he stood for: the best of our movement. He was a champion of politics as a force for good.

That is the great test of our times. The fight for trust is the battle that defines our political era. It is a task not just for the Government but for the whole Parliament. We are all responsible for the tone and standards that we set. I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, because in every exchange that we have had since the election and in his words today, he has gone well beyond the usual standards of generosity. I thank him for that.

In that spirit, this King’s Speech picks up some of the important business not concluded in the last Session. On football governance and the reduction of smoking, we hope to proceed in a manner that recognises the previous consensus. We will also carry forward the Holocaust Memorial Bill so that we build that memorial next to this Parliament and ensure that every generation reaffirms our commitment to “never again”.

We will also honour the promises that I and the Leader of the Opposition made to the family of Martyn Hett and all the families affected by the horrific events in Manchester that day. Figen Murray, Martyn’s mum, walked 200 miles to tell us that Britain needs that law quickly. I told her then that she would get that from a Labour Government, and we honour that promise today. I am grateful for the indication of the cross-party support that we will have on that important provision, because the security of the British people is the most fundamental priority of any Government, and whether our fight is against terrorists, the vile criminal smuggling gangs that weaken our borders or foreign powers that threaten the security of this nation, we will leave no stone unturned when it comes to keeping the British people safe.

We will recognise the bravery of those on the frontline of keeping us safe with a new armed forces commissioner. That is not just a name or a role, but a strong and independent champion for those who have committed to the ultimate service as a way in which we can show our respect.

We will also move quickly on the lessons from the infected blood scandal that the House debated in almost the final act of the last Session: a day when we—all of us—undertook a solemn responsibility not just to deliver justice to those people, but to take on the work of prevention, to ensure that those lessons shape the future of public service in our country. Because scandals like infected blood, Windrush, Horizon and Hillsborough are united not just by the scale of the injustice, but by the indignity that the victims and their families have been put through merely for standing up for truth and justice. So it is high time to bring in a duty of candour—the Hillsborough law—because a Government of service must also be a Government of accountability and justice. That is what service means.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for giving way during his excellent speech, outlining the hope and renewal within the King’s Speech, which is much needed in constituencies such as mine, Luton North, where over 45% of children are growing up in relative poverty. What reassurances can he give me and my constituents that he personally takes this issue seriously and that his Government will address it?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me reassure my hon. Friend and the whole House that I take child poverty extremely seriously. I am proud of the last Labour Government’s record on reducing child poverty; they clearly had a strategy, and we will have a strategy. I am very pleased to have announced today the taskforce that will lead our strategy to reduce child poverty. No child should grow up in poverty. We will work across the House on that issue.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way on his newly announced taskforce, which Beth Rigby announced on Twitter as we were all in this Chamber. Can the Prime Minister outline how many children will remain in poverty while that taskforce undertakes its work, which ultimately will lead to the same conclusion that we are proposing—to scrap the two-child benefit cap?

[The Prime Minister]

I do welcome this, and I know that it is an issue across the whole House—I do not think there is a single Member who does not care about child poverty. The point of the taskforce is to devise a strategy, as we did when we were last in government, to drive those numbers down. It cannot be a single issue, but one that crosses a number of strands, and we will work with people across the House in order to tackle it. What matters is the commitment to drive those numbers down. That is what we did when last in government, and we will do it again.

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

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I will make some progress and then give way.

I respect the tone of the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution, but I cannot stop my mind from wandering back to nine months ago when he was at this Dispatch Box. His great political hero, Nigel Lawson, once said, “To govern is to choose.” Every day serving the people of this country is a chance to make a difference for them. The last King’s Speech was the day when the veil of his choices slipped, and we all saw his party content to let our country’s problems fester and to push aside the national interest as they focused almost entirely on trying to save their own skins.

We will have time over the weeks, months and years ahead to debate the measures in this King’s Speech and the choices of this Government, but I defy anyone on the Opposition Benches or elsewhere to look at the ambition and purpose of our intent and not to see a return to the serious business of government. No more wedges issues; no more gimmicks; no more party political strategy masquerading as policy. This is an agenda focused entirely on delivering for the people of this country—legislation for the national interest that seeks only to fix our foundations and make people better off, and to solve problems, not exploit them.

[Graham Stuart]

rose—

[The Prime Minister]

I will just make some progress.

With each day that passes, my Government are finding new and unexpected marks of their chaos: scars of the past 14 years, where politics was put above the national interest, and decline deep in the marrow of our institutions. We have seen that in our prisons, writ large. We have seen it in our rivers and seas, even worse than we thought. We have seen it in our councils, pushed to the brink by the previous Government and now unable to deliver even basic services to children with special educational needs. We have already taken the first steps on so many of the priorities we put before the British people. The work of change has begun, but we know—as they do—that national renewal is not a quick fix. The rot of 14 years will take time to repair.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. He talks about priorities. Of course, people in rural communities around the country see the vast majority that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has assembled, and they are afraid. They see a manifesto in which just 87 words are about farming. They see a King’s Speech with no mention of rural communities or priorities. Will the Prime Minister please take this opportunity to reassure people in rural and farming communities that his Labour Government will take notice of them?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Interventions are one thing, but this is not the best time to actually make a speech.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me take this opportunity to reassure those in rural communities. I grew up in a rural community myself. If we look at the places now represented on the Labour Benches, we can see the reassurance that has been given and will be given again.

The King’s Speech that we have brought to the House today is a marker of our intent: not only a certain destination for the future of this country, but a new way of governing; a Government of service guided by clear missions, with a long-term plan to fix the foundations; a plan that starts, as it must, with our economy. Under the watch of the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), the last Parliament was the first in modern history to leave living standards in a worse place than it found them—the consequence not just of Tory irresponsibility, but of a more pervasive inability to face the future; a ducking of the hard choices; eyes fixed always on the horse trading of Westminster politics, rather than the long-term national interest.

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

Will the Prime Minister give way?

[The Prime Minister]

I will in a moment.

We do not just turn the page on that today; we close the door on it forever. The Budget responsibility Bill will protect the living standards of working people from the chaos they endured under the last Government—a commitment, no matter how fierce the storms, to economic stability as the foundation we build on. That is a changed Labour party at work. And then, on that foundation, we take the brakes off Britain and go further and faster on measures to generate higher economic growth—workers and business united in the cause of wealth creation. We will reform the planning rules, a choice ignored for 14 years, to build the homes and infrastructure that Britain needs. We will level up rights at work, a choice ignored for 14 years, to deliver security and dignity at work. We will create a new industrial strategy; invest in cleaner, cheaper British energy; harness the power of artificial intelligence; improve our public transport; confront our historic challenges on technical education; transform our skills agenda in partnership with business; and push forward devolution to the cities, regions and councils of England. A plan for wealth creation that will finally lead us out of the pay more, get less doom loop that is the last Government’s legacy.

Let me be clear: we will work with anyone invested in the future of our country.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the Prime Minister give way on that point?

[The Prime Minister]

I will just complete this point.

I said that we would serve everyone, whether they voted for us or not, and I meant it. Let me say directly to those on the Opposition Benches that if you are invested in the success of your community, we will work with you. This is a new era. We are turning the page, returning politics to service, because that is what the people of this country want to see from their politicians. And service is a stronger bond than political self-interest. That is what “country first” means—the only way we can restore trust and the reason this Government of service were elected.

We were also elected to repair our public services with investment and reform to make them once again beacons of justice for the communities they serve—a signal to our country of the cause that fires national renewal. My determination is for everyone in our country—England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales; no matter where they started in life—to feel that success belongs to them. It is a cause that I believe unites this House and indeed the people of this great nation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Prime Minister give way?

[The Prime Minister]

I will. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Jim, you will definitely be at the bottom of the list now—don’t worry!

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for that intervention. It was very important to me, and to my Government, that within days of being elected I went to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales with that message about working together. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I worked in Northern Ireland for five years on reforms to the Police Service in Northern Ireland. It matters to me that we make progress on all matters across all our nations, and that is the way in which we will operate as a Government. It was a statement of intent that I made in those early days, and let me say, in direct answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, that I will continue in that vein.

As well as maintaining our plan to cut waiting times, we will modernise the Mental Health Act 1983 and finally drag it into the 21st century. We will raise standards in our schools and improve the confidence, the wellbeing and the happiness of our children, because that is so often the barrier that holds them back. We will also work on landmark legislation on race equality, and tackle the structural injustice of unfair, discriminatory pay. Britain has come a long way on such matters—one look at this Parliament shows that we are moving forward, and I recognise the efforts of so many in this House, on all sides, to tackle this injustice—but we can still do more, and therefore we must and we will. We will also begin work on banning conversion practices, and will bring forward tough new protections for renters. Those are promises that have lingered in the lobby of good intentions for far too long.

We will signal our intent to transform society with measures on crime and justice that will not only rid our streets of antisocial behaviour, but launch a new mission to reduce violence against women and girls by 50%. In this, we are inspired by the work of unbelievable campaigners: Mina Smallman, Claire Waxman, Melanie Brown, and my friends John and Penny Clough. I will never forget the day John and Penny came to my office and told me what they had been through just to get justice for their daughter Jane, murdered in the car park of the Blackpool hospital where she worked by the man awaiting trial on multiple charges of raping her. I gave them my word then that I would do what I could, not just for John and Penny and Jane but for all the Johns, Pennys and Janes in our country; but it is an enormous undertaking. I wish it were not, but it is. Just listen to the contribution made every year in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), a grim reminder of just how many women are killed every year by domestic violence. And yet, as everybody who works in public service knows, Government can make or break a life. I have seen it myself, as a public servant, and I also know from those campaigners what service can do when it listens and empowers people far beyond the walls of the state.

So this is how we will go about our business: mission-driven, focused on ambitious goals, bringing together the best of our country, committed to the practical difference—big and small—that we can make together. That is the reward and the hope of service, the business of change, and the work of this Government of service that we will take on. We will stop the chaos, fix our foundations, and take the brakes off Britain. This is a King’s Speech that returns politics to serious government, that returns government to public service, and that returns public service to the interests of working people. That is the path of national renewal, the rebuilding of our country, and we take another step today.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call the Leader of the—[Interruption.] Order. Please, let us show respect to each other. Let us not set off on the wrong foot; we want to be on the right foot. I call the leader of the Lib Dems.

Election of Speaker

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Mr Speaker-Elect, on behalf of the whole House, may I be the first to congratulate you on your re-election? Those of us who were here in the previous Parliament will always remember the wonderful support you provided to the former Conservative Member, Craig Mackinlay, and his inspiring battle to overcome his injuries from sepsis. All of those returning will remember, as I do, the speech he gave just a few weeks ago, which was inspiring and moving. We wish him well; I had the privilege on that occasion to meet his family and young daughter.

That support, Mr Speaker-Elect, was characteristic of your profound care for the interests and welfare of all Members, especially Back Benchers. I am grateful that new Members will be able to look to you as they begin the great privilege of serving their constituents in this House. May I, too, welcome each and every one of the new Members who is here for the first time, starting their great responsibility?

I also thank the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for presiding over this election, and congratulate him on becoming the new Father of the House. More than 40 years of continuous service is a stunning achievement. Back in the 1970s, Sir Edward wrote a book described as

“a personal collection of quotations dating from 3000 BC to the present day which might be said to cast some light on the workings of the Tory mind”.

After the last six weeks, it might be time for a new edition.

Mr Speaker-Elect, you preside over a new Parliament that is the most diverse by race and gender that this country has ever seen, and I am proud of the part that my party, and every party, has played in that; and this intake includes the largest cohort of LGBT+ MPs of any Parliament in the world. Given all that diversity, Mr Speaker-Elect, I hope that you will not begrudge me a slight departure from convention to pay tribute to the new Mother of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who has done so much in her career, over so many years, to fight for a Parliament that truly represents modern Britain. We welcome her back to her place.

As in any new Parliament, we now have the opportunity and responsibility to put an end to a politics that has too often seemed self-serving and self-obsessed, and to replace the politics of performance with the politics of service, because service is a precondition for hope and trust, and the need to restore trust should weigh heavily on every Member here, new and returning alike. We all have a duty to show that politics can be a force for good, so whatever our political differences, it is time to turn the page, unite in a common endeavour of national renewal, and make this new Parliament a Parliament of service.

[Mr Speaker-Elect]

I call the Leader of the Opposition, Rishi Sunak.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Leader of the Opposition.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I will begin by saying a few words to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay). First, thank you for meeting me privately this morning with your wife and daughter, so I could personally convey my best wishes to all of you. Secondly, on some occasions—there are not many—this House genuinely comes together as one, and we do so today to pay tribute to your courage and determination in not only coming through an awful ordeal, but being here with us today in this Chamber. Thirdly, I want to acknowledge your deep sense of service. I think politics is about service, and resuming your duties as an MP and being here today is an example to all of us of your deep sense of service, and we thank you for it.

I also welcome Figen Murray, who is up in the Gallery, who lost her son Martyn seven years ago today in the Manchester Arena attack. We remember everybody who was lost in that awful attack. She is campaigning for Martyn’s law, which we must make a reality as soon as possible.

The infected blood scandal reflects a profound failure across almost every part of the British state. In our apologies on Monday and on the question of compensation yesterday, this House was united; however, we have too many times heard similar sentiments from that Dispatch Box and this one. There are many hard yards to go. Does the Prime Minister agree that we will make real progress only if we finally tackle the lack of openness, transparency and candour that Sir Brian Langstaff identified as having prolonged the victims’ suffering for decades?

[The Prime Minister]

The inquiry was established to get to the truth and provide answers, and this week’s report represents a hugely significant moment for the community. This was an appalling scandal. I am sure the whole House is grateful for the diligent work of all those who have supported Sir Brian Langstaff and the work of the inquiry. I also pay tribute to the bravery of every individual who has come forward and told their story in their fight for justice; their voices have finally been heard. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman: we will listen to them and ensure that nothing like this can ever happen in our country again.

[Keir Starmer]

The infected blood scandal is truly shocking, but it is not unique. The story is familiar: concerns raised but ignored; reports written but not acted on; victims and their families campaigning for years just to be heard. If I may, I want to focus on the duty of candour—or lack of it—that has been a failing in scandal after scandal and injustice after injustice from Grenfell to Horizon, Hillsborough and now the infected blood scandal. I have read that the Government have called for evidence on the duty of candour in health, but I cannot think of a single example where that duty of candour should not apply to all public servants across the board. I do not think it is possible for any of us to stand at these Dispatch Boxes and honestly say “Never again” unless we address that. Does the Prime Minister agree that the time has now come for the duty of candour to be clearly enshrined in law across the board?

[The Prime Minister]

I am, of course, aware of the recommendation made by Sir Brian Langstaff in the final report of the inquiry on the duties of candour and accountability. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care previously introduced the duty of candour to the health service. It is important that the Government take the time to fully digest the gravity of the report’s findings. The wrongs that have been committed are devastating and life-altering for so many, and ensuring that nothing like this ever happens again is a priority. We are sympathetic to that, and are going through the recommendations in detail at the moment before providing a comprehensive response. Of course, given the situation and the gravity of the findings, it is a recommendation for which there is an enormous amount of sympathy.

[Keir Starmer]

I understand that the Prime Minister wants to look at the recommendations in detail and to come back to them in due course, but we cannot look away on this duty of candour. Can I ask the Prime Minister at least to expand the call for evidence on the duty of candour beyond health? We owe it to the victims of Hillsborough and Horizon to work across the House to establish a far-reaching and binding duty of candour as quickly as possible.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that on Monday I said very specifically that the patterns of behaviour we have seen in this appalling tragedy have been replicated in others, and I mentioned Hillsborough specifically, so I am very aware that there are structural and behavioural cultural problems that we need to fix. There is an enormous amount of support and sympathy for the principle of the duty of candour. He will understand that we are digesting the full contents of the report, but of course we want to right the wrongs of the past and, crucially, ensure that nothing like this happens ever again.

[Keir Starmer]

In his report, Sir Brian identified a number of individual failures, even cover-ups, but alongside that he also found equally important and harder to reach institutional and cultural failings, including in the NHS: a defensive attitude that refused to acknowledge problems, the silencing of those who raised concerns and a total failure of leadership when faced with the truth. The NHS does a remarkable job every day, but those failings are indefensible. Does the Prime Minister agree that the very culture of the NHS needs to change?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, Mr Speaker. I discussed this issue on Monday in my response to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid). The NHS provides lifesaving care to so many people every single day, for which we are enormously grateful, but the report makes it crystal clear that there were significant failings. The NHS failed: it failed people and it let them down. It is right that the NHS is held accountable for that and learns the lessons. There clearly have been improvements and changes in medical practice since that time, but going forward we need to go through the full recommendations of Sir Brian Langstaff’s report and hold the NHS to account for bringing through the changes that are necessary.

[Keir Starmer]

We need reform. We need change. I saw at first hand how important reform is during my time running the Crown Prosecution Service, but I also saw how hard it is, particularly on cultural issues. It requires brave and difficult decisions. Eleven years ago, as Health Secretary, the now Chancellor said:

“The era of gagging NHS staff from raising their real worries about patient care must come to an end.”

Eleven years on from that and 10 months on from the Lucy Letby case, there are still clear examples of NHS managers still gagging staff and then being moved on, instead of being moved out. Will the Prime Minister now commit to ensuring that those who gag and silence whistleblowers will no longer be able to work in the NHS?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course the behaviour that the right hon. and learned Gentleman describes is wrong and, I believe, already illegal under our laws, but we will ensure people have the ability to raise concerns. One thing that I know has given many of those who have been impacted by the scandal some reassurance is the appointment of Sir Robert Francis to be chair of the inquiry. Obviously he is someone who does not just have a wealth of experience dealing with this particular set of issues, but has a long track record of working with the NHS on the issues that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raises.

[Keir Starmer]

Sir Brian’s report is a victory for all those campaigners and victims who fought so hard for this moment, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), but it is also one of profound pain, anger and sadness for so many. There is a chance for us to make real progress on this issue and we must do that with victims in mind. Given the degree of cross-party consensus that we have already seen on apologies and compensation, and given the Government’s promise to ensure compensation by the end of the year, will the Prime Minister also now promise to deliver on all the recommendations in the same timeframe, by the end of the year?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we want to deliver on the recommendations as quickly as practically possible. Indeed, our expectation is that we can do that before the end of the year. As I said, Sir Robert’s appointment will bring a wealth of experience; it is crucial that the chair has the knowledge, expertise and familiarity with the issues. His support for delivering the scheme and ensuring that compensation can be paid by the end of the year will be invaluable.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the community. Over the next few weeks, Sir Robert will seek views from the infected blood community specifically on the proposed scheme, to ensure the scheme will best serve those it is intended for. Our shared priority is delivering compensation to all those infected and affected with absolutely minimum delay, and begin bringing justice to all of those impacted.

Infected Blood Inquiry Report

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

This response can begin in only one place, because this is an injustice that has spanned across Governments on an unprecedented scale, and collectively we failed to protect some of the most vulnerable in our country. So as well as paying tribute to the courage and determination of the victims—the infected and the affected—some of whom are in the Gallery today, I want to acknowledge to every single person who has suffered that, in addition to all the other failings, politics itself failed you. That failure applies to all parties, including my own. There is only one word: sorry.

By that apology, I acknowledge that that suffering was caused by wrongdoing, delay and systemic failure across the board, compounded by institutional defensiveness. As Sir Brian Langstaff makes clear in his report, any apology today must be accompanied by action, so I welcome the Prime Minister’s confirmation that compensation will now be paid. He should be under do doubt whatsoever that we will work with him to get that done swiftly, because—make no mistake—the victims in this scandal have suffered unspeakably. Thousands of people have died; they continue to die every week. Lives completely shattered; evidence wilfully destroyed; victims marginalised; people watching their loved ones die; children used as objects of research—on and on it goes. The pain is barely conceivable. As well as an apology, I want to make clear that we commit to shine a harsh light upon the lessons that must be learned to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again.

Passing through the doors of a hospital is a moment of profound vulnerability; you entrust your life into the hands of perfect strangers. We go to hospital for care. That is what many of the people affected find so hard to accept—the betrayal of that trust by people and institutions that were meant to protect them. People like my constituent Mark Stewart, who was given factor VIII in the 1980s as part of a clinical trial, as were his father and his brother. All three subsequently contracted hepatitis C, but only Mark remains with us today.

Over the decades as Mark and so many like him searched for truth and justice, the British state ignored them. The truth, as Sir Brian says today, was hidden from them for decades. That is why this is one of the gravest injustices this country has seen. Yet, we have to be honest: this scandal is not unique. The institutional defensiveness identified by Sir Brian is a pattern of behaviour that we must address. Mark may never get his brother, his father or his health back, but for all the families affected we must restore the sense that this is a country that can rectify injustice, particularly when carried out by institutes of the state. That is our job today, this week and beyond. Frankly, it is the very least that we owe.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the collegiate tone in which he has responded to today’s report, and for his sincerity. He is right that it is irrefutably clear that an unconscionable injustice has been done—the result of a consistent and systemic failure by the state time and again, decade after decade. That is why I apologise wholeheartedly and unequivocally to every single person impacted by the scandal. The anger and sorrow felt across this House is the right response. It is right that we now act on behalf of the victims, their loved ones and the whole community, who expect us to put right this historic wrong.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Leader of the Opposition.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

On Monday, the Prime Minister treated us to his seventh relaunch in 18 months. He vowed to take on the dangers that threaten the country, so it was good to see the Minister for common sense immediately take up that mantle by announcing a vital crackdown on the gravest of threats—colourful lanyards. Meanwhile, in the real world, after 14 years of Tory Government, the prison system is in chaos. Does the Prime Minister think that his decision to let prisoners out 70 days early makes our country more secure?

[The Prime Minister]

Civil service impartiality is an important principle that we are right to support—perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman could ask his chief of staff about that. What I did on Monday was outline the serious security threats that our country faces from an axis of authoritarian states: Russia poisoning people on our streets; China targeting our democracy; and Iranian proxies firing on British ships. Yet he will not back our plan to increase defence spending and we all know why—especially since the deputy leader and the shadow Foreign Secretary voted to scrap our nuclear deterrent. It is clear that you simply cannot trust Labour with our country’s security.

[Keir Starmer]

I appreciate that the Prime Minister has been busy on the frontline of the war against lanyards. He must have missed that I was the first to call for 2.5% on defence spending. The last time that happened was under the last Labour Government. It needs a credible plan, not his fantasy economics.

I am disappointed to see that version 7.0 of the Prime Minister’s time in office does not extend as far as answering questions or giving any information on those prisoners he is releasing early—basic details such as how many, where are they and what crimes have they committed. Will he at least guarantee that none of the criminals who he is instructing prisons to release early is considered high-risk?

[The Prime Minister]

There are strict eligibility criteria in place, with exclusions based on public safety. No one would be put on the scheme if they were deemed a threat to public safety. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about 2.5%, but if he thinks that is important—I think he just stood up and acknowledged that it was the right thing to do—we have a fully funded plan to deliver an increase in defence spending. He and his party have refused to match that commitment.

[Keir Starmer]

Just like his £46 billion—fully funded! If anyone was looking for the perfect metaphor for this shambolic Government, we saw it on Monday. The Prime Minister woke up deciding his latest rebrand was “Mr Security”, but within hours the Tory party was being investigated for accidentally publishing the personal details of hundreds of people. He must be the only tech bro—brother—in the country who cannot work a debit card or send an email. [Interruption.] But he has not answered my question, so I will try again. Are any of the prisoners he is currently letting out early considered to be high-risk?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman just showed spectacularly why he is just not fit to lead this country into the future. This country has a proud tradition of leading the world. We led the world when it came to the industrial revolution, but if he was around he would have probably called James Watt the steam bro. What we are doing is preparing the country for the future. He talks about the prison scheme. Let me be crystal clear: no one would be put on the scheme if they were deemed a threat to the public. Offenders are subject to the toughest of licensing conditions and, if those conditions are broken, they are back in prison for considerably longer. But what is his record on this? He voted against tougher sentences for violent criminals. He actually opposed new powers for the police to tackle violent crime and voted against new laws that have arrested 1,000 criminal people smugglers. The message is crystal clear: he cannot be trusted to keep this country safe.

[Keir Starmer]

I appreciate that all this rebranding has taken all the Prime Minister’s time, but he may want to read the recent inspection report into Lewes prison on this topic, which I have asked him twice about. It documents, on page 5:

“high-risk prisoners…being released at short notice without sufficient…planning”.

Page 46 states:

“a high-risk prisoner had his release date brought forward…despite having a history of stalking, domestic abuse and…a restraining order.”

In the report’s words,

“He was a risk to children”.

Does the early release of stalkers, domestic abusers and those considered a risk to children sound like the work of someone who is making the country more secure?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said, no one should be put on the scheme if they are a threat to the public. Let me be crystal clear: it does not apply to anyone serving a life sentence, anyone convicted of a serious violent offence, anyone convicted of terrorism, or anyone convicted of a sex offence. Crucially, in contrast to the system Labour put in place, governors in the prison service have an absolute lock so that no one is put on the scheme who should not be. Labour’s scheme let out thousands upon thousands of violent offenders on to our streets and even two terrorists. Thankfully, we have toughened up sentencing against those criminals with new legislation, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman voted against it.

[Keir Starmer]

Well, I am glad to hear that those on life sentences are not being released early. The Prime Minister may not think that releasing domestic abusers is a problem, but Labour has repeatedly called for domestic abusers to be exempt from the scheme to release prisoners early. His Government have shamefully ignored those calls. Now that we have the evidence that domestic abusers are being released early—the Lewes report—will he finally change course and back Labour’s calls?

[The Prime Minister]

I have been crystal clear. There is an absolute governor lock on people who are put on the scheme, in contrast to the last Labour scheme. Prisoners were let out with no supervision, no electronic tags. In fact, 80,000 offenders were let out—16,000 were violent, leading to multiple murders committed. We fixed that system. When it comes to this question, not only are we building the biggest prison programme in history, but we are deploying rapid deployment cells. On the Conservative Benches, we understand the importance of prison, unlike one of his Front Benchers, who said, “Prison doesn’t prevent crime”. It is always the same with the Labour party: soft on crime and soft on criminals.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister is literally letting criminals out early. The only answer to the question that I have asked—whether domestic abusers should be exempt from his early release scheme—from anyone who is serious about security is yes.

Perhaps the most ludicrous part of the Prime Minister’s speech on Monday was when he said that he would not accept the idea that any of the problems people were facing had been caused by 14 years of Conservative Government. He will not say how many prisoners the Government have released early; he will not say whether they are burglars, abusers or stalkers; he will not say where they are or what support their victims are getting. Yet he thinks he has the right to tell people that they cannot blame his Government for any of it. Does he not think that, rather than confiscating lanyards like some jumped-up milk monitor, he should stop issuing “Get out of jail free” cards to prisoners who are considered to be a risk to children?

[The Prime Minister]

Another week with no ideas and absolutely no plans for the country! The Opposition have had 14 years to think about nothing but the future, but all they can do is talk about the past.

I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition did not bring up what has happened in the week since we last met. Statistics have confirmed that we have had the joint fastest growth rate in the G7 this year. The Bank of England has said that the economy has “turned a corner”, EY has said that our growth is “impressive”, and the chief economist at the independent Office for National Statistics has said that

“the economy is going gangbusters.”

The shadow Chancellor may want to copy and paste their comments into her next speech—or does she think that they are all “gaslighting” the British public too?

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Leader of the Opposition.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the postmasters in the Gallery, in their quest for justice.

This week we marked 35 years since the disaster at Hillsborough, and the enduring courage and determination of the families must be marked by the passing of a Hillsborough law.

We also lost Lord Richard Rosser, a lifelong member of the Labour party. He will be greatly missed, and our thoughts are with his wife Sheena and his family and friends.

I am privileged to be the proud owner of a copy of the former Prime Minister’s new book. It is a rare unsigned copy; it is the only unsigned copy. It is quite the read. She claims that the Tory party’s disastrous kamikaze Budget, which triggered chaos for millions, was the “happiest moment” of her premiership. Has the Prime Minister met anyone with a mortgage who agrees?

[The Prime Minister]

All I would say is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to spend a bit less time reading that book, and a bit more time reading the Deputy Leader’s tax advice. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to get through Prime Minister’s questions.

[Keir Starmer]

We have a billionaire Prime Minister, and a billionaire—[Interruption.] Both of whose families have used schemes to avoid millions of pounds of tax, smearing a working-class woman. [Interruption.] The former Prime Minister has a long list of people to blame for the economic misery. Conservative Members do not want to hear it, but they made her Prime Minister, and millions of people are paying the price. She blames the Governor of the Bank of England, the Treasury, the Office for Budget Responsibility. The American President is blamed at one point. We even learn that the poor old lettuce was part of the “deep state”. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is actually much simpler than that? It was the Tories’ unfunded tax cuts—tens of billions of pounds of unfunded tax cuts—that crashed the economy and left millions paying more for their mortgages, wasn’t it?

[The Prime Minister]

Everyone knows that two years ago I was not afraid to repeatedly warn about what my predecessor’s economic policies would lead to, even if it was not what people wanted to hear at the time. I was right then, but I am also right now when I say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s economic policies would be a disaster for Britain. He would send inflation up, mortgages up and taxes up, and working people would pay the price.

[Keir Starmer]

I appreciate the Prime Minister having the stomach to say that out loud, but everyone knows that it is the Tory party’s obsession with wild, unfunded tax cuts that crashed the economy. We know it, he knows it and his party knows it, and the whole country is living it. When is he finally going to learn the lesson from his predecessor’s mistakes and explain where the money is coming from for his own completely unfunded £46 billion promise to scrap national insurance?

[The Prime Minister]

When my predecessor was running for leader, I did have—to use the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s words—the stomach to argue out loud about her economic policies. I had the conviction to say that they were wrong—not once, but twice. He tried to make his predecessor Prime Minister, despite him opposing NATO and Trident, ignoring antisemitism and siding with our enemies. It is clear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman did: he put his own interests ahead of Britain’s.

[Keir Starmer]

Actually, when the Prime Minister was running for leader, he explained how he was funnelling money from poor areas to pay it into richer areas. We know what his record is.

I notice the Prime Minister is not denying the £46 billion promise to scrap national insurance, but he is refusing to say where the money will come from. We have been trying for months to get to the bottom of this, so now is his chance. No more spin, no more waffle, no more diversion—I know that will be difficult. This is the choice: either he can cut the state pension or the NHS, which national insurance funds—that is route one—or he can put up income tax. Which one is it?

[The Prime Minister]

We have just cut taxes by £900 for a typical worker. We have delivered the biggest tax cut for businesses since the 1980s. But while we are cutting taxes, Labour is already putting them up. In Wales, it is putting up taxes right now for small businesses. In Birmingham, it is putting up council tax by 21%. In London, the Labour Mayor has put up taxes by 70%. This is just a glimpse of what they would do if they got into power. A few weeks ago, the right hon. and learned Gentleman finally admitted it to The Sun. What did he say he would do? He said, “We would put up taxes.” It is always the same: higher taxes, and working people paying the price.

[Keir Starmer]

No single politician has ever put tax up more times than the Prime Minister has. But hang on, he was just given the chance to rule out cutting the NHS or state pensions to pay for scrapping national insurance. I was a lawyer long enough to know when someone is avoiding the question, so I am going to give him another chance. Will he now rule out cuts to the NHS, cuts to the state pension or putting up taxes to pay for his unfunded £46 billion promise to scrap national insurance? Which is it?

[The Prime Minister]

I make absolutely no apology about wanting to end the unfairness of the double taxation on work. The NHS is receiving record funding under this Conservative Government. Pensioners have just received a £900 increase under this Government. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to talk about tax, let us have a look at what Labour’s brand newly appointed tax adviser has to say. This adviser thinks that supporting pensioners is “a complete disgrace”. He believes their free TV licences are “ridiculous”. If it was not bad enough, this adviser has called for increases in income tax, national insurance and VAT. It all makes sense now—that is who the shadow Chancellor has been copying and pasting from.

[Keir Starmer]

This is genuinely extraordinary: two chances to rule out cuts to state pensions, cuts to the NHS, or income tax rises to fund his promise to abolish national insurance—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Holden, I want you to set a good example, not a bad one.

[Keir Starmer]

This really matters. The Prime Minister has had two chances to rule out cuts to the NHS, cuts to pensions or tax rises. This matters to millions of people watching who will want to know what is going to happen to their NHS and pensions—[Interruption.] It really does matter to millions of people who are watching, so I will be really generous now and give him one last chance. It is very simple and very clear. Is his £46 billion promise to abolish national insurance being paid for by cuts to the NHS, cuts to the state pension or yet another Tory tax rise?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has really got to keep up. It is this Government who have just delivered a £900 increase to the state pension. It is this Government who have already committed to the triple lock for the next Parliament. He has had six opportunities, but I do not think I heard him say that. When it comes to the NHS, you would much rather be treated in the Conservative-run NHS in England than in the Labour-run NHS in Wales. It is another week where all we have heard is political sniping. Not a word about their plans for the country. He has failed to acknowledge that since we last met, taxes have been cut by £900, the state pension has gone up, free childcare has been expanded, wages have risen for nine months in a row and just today, inflation is down again, to 3.2%. Our plan is working and the Conservatives are delivering a brighter future for Britain.