Oral Answers to Questions
Keir Starmer Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
This week marked three years since Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine. The courage of the Ukrainians is inspiring, and across this House we stand with them for as long as it takes. That is why we are increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027, with an ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament, as economic and fiscal conditions allow. This afternoon, of course, I will travel to the US to have discussions with President Trump about the enduring security partnership between our two countries.
I am also delighted that we have announced the first 750 schools to start offering free breakfast clubs. This is our plan for change in action, ensuring every child has the chance to thrive.
I am sure the whole House will want to join me in thanking Amanda Pritchard for her service as chief executive of NHS England, and I wish her well for the future.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Dr Evans
Could the Prime Minister tell this House whether the outcome of his Budget was by design or by mistake? Did he mean to push 100,000 pensioners into poverty with his own analysis when he removed the winter fuel allowance, or was that a mistake? Did he mean to decimate family farming when he changed inheritance tax, or was that a mistake? Did he mean to tax GPs, care homes and hospices when he raised national insurance contributions, or was that a mistake? Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether they are acceptable collateral damage in his path for change, or simply mistakes that need rectifying?
The Prime Minister
I will tell the hon. Member what was a mistake: leaving a £22 billion black hole that we had to sort out. We took the difficult decisions, investing in our NHS, and I would have thought he would have welcomed the 2 million extra appointments that we have achieved in the first seven months of a Labour Government. That is the difference our Budget is making to people.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend. We are pleased that two of the early adopter schools will be in his constituency. We are ensuring that all children of primary school age can get access to free breakfasts and at least 30 minutes of free childcare. That means every child ready to learn, and parents of course supported with up to £450 a year back in their pockets. That is the change a Labour Government make.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I wish the Prime Minister every success on his trip to Washington. The visit to see President Trump must serve our national interest. The Prime Minister and I are completely united in our support for Ukraine as a proud and sovereign nation. What specific steps will he take to ensure Ukraine is at the negotiating table for any peace settlement?
The Prime Minister
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her words about the forthcoming trip. It is right, and I think the whole House will think it is right, that Ukraine must be at the table at negotiations. There can be no negotiations about Ukraine without Ukraine. That has been my consistent position in all of the discussions that I have had. That will continue to be my position, because this is about the sovereignty of Ukraine and the Ukrainians’ ability to decide for themselves the future of their country, so they must be at the table.
Mrs Badenoch
I thank the Prime Minister for that answer, and as I said, I wish him every success. We want to support him on this issue.
Turning to the details of the plan the Prime Minister set out yesterday, over the weekend I suggested to him that he cut the aid budget, and I am pleased that he accepted my advice—[Laughter.] It is the fastest response I have ever had from the Prime Minister. However, he announced £13.4 billion in additional defence spending yesterday. This morning, his Defence Secretary said the uplift is only £6 billion. Which is the correct figure?
The Prime Minister
I am going to have to let the Leader of the Opposition down gently: she did not feature in my thinking at all. I was so busy over the weekend that I did not even see her proposal. She has appointed herself the saviour of western civilisation; it is a desperate search for relevance.
If you take the numbers for this financial year and the numbers for the ’27-28 financial year, there is a £13.4 billion increase. That is the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, and will put us in a position to ensure the security and defence of our country and of Europe.
Mrs Badenoch
That was not very clear. How is it that the Defence Secretary says £6 billion, but the Prime Minister says £13.4 billion? The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said the Government are playing “silly games with numbers”. How has he found this difference in numbers?
The Prime Minister
We went through this two weeks ago, going over the same question again and again. Let me say it again: if you take the financial year this year, and then you take the financial year for ’27-28, the difference between the two is £13.4 billion. That is the same answer. If she asks again, I will give the same answer again.
Mrs Badenoch
Someone needs to tell the Prime Minister that being patronising is not a substitute for answering questions. He has not answered the question. What he has said is different from what he said yesterday. We are still not clear where the money is coming from. We want to support him. He has also said that we should put British troops on the ground in Ukraine, but we have not seen the detail of any proposals. Would his new spending plans allow him to fund that commitment effectively?
The Prime Minister
I think it is the same question again. It is £13.4 billion—that is the difference between this year and ’27-28.
The Leader of the Opposition asks a serious question about the security guarantees in Ukraine. That is extremely important, because the worst of all outcomes, if there is to be a cessation of hostilities, would be for it to be a short break, rather than a sustained and lasting peace. That means there have to be security guarantees, and I have indicated that we will play our full part. There has to be US backing; otherwise, I do not think it will deter Putin. We are working on that. I am having extensive discussions on it. I am not in a position to put details before the House today, as she well knows, but I will continue down that route. I want a lasting peace in Ukraine and Europe for the safety and security of Ukrainians, Europeans and, of course, everybody in this country.
Mrs Badenoch
This is an endeavour that we want to support the Prime Minister in, but we need to know exactly what we are supporting. We need clarity and transparency over the money, and we also need to know where the money is going. This morning, the Defence Secretary could not say whether the Chagos deal would come out of the defence budget. Can the Prime Minister confirm to the House that none of the defence uplift includes payments for his Chagos deal?
The Prime Minister
The additional spend I announced yesterday is for our capability on defence and security in Europe, as I made absolutely clear yesterday. The Chagos deal is extremely important for our security and for US security, and the US is rightly looking at it. When the deal is finalised, I will put it before the House with the costings. The figures being bandied around are absolutely wide of the mark. The deal is for well over a century. The funding I announced yesterday is for our capability, and will put us in a position to rise to a generational challenge. That is what that money is all about; I thought the right hon. Lady supported it.
Mrs Badenoch
We need to make sure we are supporting a plan that is clear and transparent. Yesterday, the Prime Minister set an ambition for defence spending to reach 3% in the next Parliament, and we agree with him on that. However, that could be 2034—almost a decade away. That is too slow. We do not know how he will pay for it. We cannot raise taxes further, and we already pay more on debt interest than defence.
Everyone in this House will have heard the Prime Minister not answer the previous question, so I will ask again: is he paying for the Chagos deal with this defence uplift or not?
The Prime Minister
I have just dealt with that question, Mr Speaker. The money announced yesterday is going to our capability in order to put ourselves in a position to defend the security of both our country and Europe. The Leader of the Opposition asked about defence spending. She gave what people have described as a rambling speech yesterday, where she could not say what defence spending should be. We have been absolutely clear. We have set out a full, credible, costed plan, and I thought she supported it.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. She is right that cancer patients are waiting too long for diagnosis and treatment. Addressing healthcare inequity is part of our 10-year health plan, which aims to halve the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and the poorest regions, and we are already making progress on that.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I start by wishing the Prime Minister well on his trip to the White House? It will not be an easy meeting, but we are all behind him for the sake of our national interest. It is already clear that, sadly, under President Trump, we will not be able to rely on the United States to help ensure our security against Russian aggression, which is why we strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to increase Britain’s defence spending. But Europe must do far more to rearm in the face of Putin’s threat and the UK must lead on that. That is why we back the idea of a new European rearmament bank, so that we can finance a big increase in manufacturing capacity without the need to cut Britain’s vital soft power. Will the Prime Minister look at this idea, work across this House and across Europe, so that we can make a European rearmament bank happen?
The Prime Minister
I shall resist the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that we somehow have to choose between the US and our European partners. I do not believe that to be the case. I want to strengthen our already strong relationship with the US, because it is vital that we do so. I of course want to work with our European allies on defence capability and on what more we need to do in relation to capability, co-ordination and funding. In the longer term, there is an ongoing discussion among allies as to future funding, and I am happy to share that with the House as it evolves.
Ed Davey
I hope the Prime Minister is successful in keeping the US on board with our European allies. I am glad that he is talking about finance and defence. If he were to push this European rearmament bank at the summit of European leaders on Sunday, I think that he would be pushing at an open door. Certainly, Prime Minister Tusk is supporting the idea from the Polish point of view.
Let me turn now to domestic matters, with the cost of living crisis hitting so many of our constituents. Families in my constituency are really angry that Thames Water is sending them bills this April that will cost them £150 a year more. Thames Water has already let down so many people, whether it is through leaking pipes or pumping its filthy sewage into our rivers. A third of customers’ bills are already used just to pay the interest on Thames Water’s debt, and now the company will borrow £3 billion more. Is it not time to stop making people pay for bailing out the vulture funds that are drowning Thames Water in debt? Will his Government just put this firm out of its misery and put it into special administration, so that we can sort out that mess and the mess left by that lot on the Conservative Benches?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is certainly right about the mess made by that lot. We obviously have our water Bill, which contains very strong measures, and I think that he supports them.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We certainly stand with Ukraine—I think I speak for the whole House when I say that. As I set out yesterday, NATO is the bedrock of our security. It has been our most important alliance for many, many years, and it is as important today as it has ever been. We build that alliance by working with the US. We have a special and deep relationship with the US—that is not just words, but to do with security, defence, and intelligence capability, which are vitally important for both sides—but we also work with our European allies. It is that ability to work with the US and our European partners that has held the peace for so many years, and needs to hold the peace for many years to come.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Prior to the election, the Labour party promised to reduce energy bills by £300, yet on its watch, energy bills are about to increase by almost £300. Is the failure to keep that promise a consequence of Government incompetence, or has the Labour party been caught lying to the public?
The Prime Minister
We are very proud of the fact that we are pushing forward for energy independence, which will keep our bills lower. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well what my position is; however, I note again that he is very quiet on the SNP record, and I will tell hon. Members why. Just this week, we have seen the attainment gap widen in Scotland. Numbers of pupils leaving schools with no qualifications rising; those from deprived areas going to work falling. Instead of playing the politics of grievance, SNP Members need to take responsibility for their own record.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that tragic case. My thoughts, and I am sure those of the House, are with the family, friends and teammates of Mike at Warrington Wolves. She is right that one death by suicide is one too many and reducing the number is a vital part of our health mission. We are recruiting an additional 8,500 mental health workers who are especially trained to support people at risk of suicide. We are committed to taking forward the suicide prevention strategy for England and I am sure the whole House supports that.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for his question, and may I pick up on both elements? First, President Zelensky is a democratically elected leader and suspending elections was precisely what we did in this country when we were fighting in the second world war. Secondly, yes, the UK has successfully been a bridge between the US and Europe for many years. It is vital that we continue in that role. That is why my message to President Trump is that the relationship between our two countries needs to go from strength to strength—it is already strong—while we work at the same time with our European allies.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that really important issue. Yesterday, we introduced our Crime and Policing Bill, which is central to our plan for change and to halving knife crime. It involves new powers to seize and destroy knives found on private property and a new criminal offence of possessing a bladed article with the intent to cause harm, plus tougher penalties for selling dangerous weapons to under-18s and stricter rules for online sales under Ronan’s law. We will continue that work.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member has raised this issue before, which obviously is important for his constituents. We inherited flood defences in their worst state on record, which is why we are investing £2.6 billion to protect over 50,000 properties. I understand that the options to reduce flood risk to these communities are being considered as part of the Datchet and Hythe End flood alleviation scheme. I will ensure that he has a meeting with the relevant Minister to take forward the work.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
Yes, I will. Doncaster has a proud industrial heritage of rail, steel and coal, and extraordinary potential for industries of the future, from hydrogen to artificial intelligence. We are focused on devolving more power and funding to metro Mayors to support regional industry. We will work with the Mayors of Doncaster and South Yorkshire to support efforts to reopen Doncaster Sheffield airport.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
We do support Scotch whisky. It is a really important part of our economy, and that is why we allocated £5 million in the Budget to it and why we are working with Brazil, which is worth £25 million for Scotch whisky. That is what we are doing to support that sector in Scotland. In another sector, at the weekend I was very pleased to announce the £200 million investment in Grangemouth and in future generations there.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do. I am proud of the way that the United Kingdom has risen to the challenge of the past three years in a united way, through the capability and funding that we have provided to Ukraine and also by throwing open homes here to those fleeing. I was privileged to welcome some of the families to Downing Street on Monday. It was a human reminder of the impact on them, their children and their families.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Prime Minister
As I have said, when the deal is complete, I will put it before the House with the costings. The money yesterday was allocated to aid our capability and is the single biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The whole country stands behind the people of Ukraine, but there is a view that taking money from aid and development to spend on armaments and tanks makes people less safe, not more safe, because the desperation and poverty that so often leads to warfare is what aid and development money is supposed to counter.
The Prime Minister
As I said yesterday, overseas development is important, and I am proud of what we have done. It was not a decision that I took lightly or wanted to take, but it is important at this moment that we put defence spending and the defence and security of our country and Europe uppermost. We will, of course, make sure that we are able to fulfil our humanitarian obligations in relation to Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan and other vital work. I want to be clear: we do of course want to go back and increase that funding as soon as we are able to do so.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue. The UK and Canada are close allies and have been for a long time, with a partnership based on a shared history and a shared set of values and a determination to be an active force for good in the world. We work closely with Canada on issues of the Commonwealth, on NATO and, of course, Five Eyes intelligence sharing. We will work to strengthen that relationship.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
Barrow and Furness has always been ahead of the times in high-skilled engineering. In the light of the Prime Minister’s historic commitment to raise defence spending—the biggest increase since the end of the cold war—I invite him to visit and see the many small and medium-sized enterprises who can support this vital supply chain. Does the Prime Minister agree that investing in those businesses will not only deliver our nuclear deterrent but improve security and the economy for us all?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that, and we will obviously consider her invitation. Defence spending already supports more than 430,000 jobs across the United Kingdom and I recognise the contribution made by the workers in Barrow and Furness.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am not across the details of the right hon. Member’s case, as she will understand, but I am in favour of making sure that we can have the infrastructure and the houses we need to grow our economy. One of the problems we had over the past 14 years was an assertion or rhetoric that we wanted homes and infrastructure, but when the decision for all that came up, the answer was always no. The answer cannot always be no.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I thank the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for their efforts to secure the release of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, the British human rights campaigner who has been imprisoned in Egypt for over 10 years. The Prime Minister will know—he has met the family—that his mother is on the 150th day of her hunger strike and her health is failing rapidly. May I ask the Prime Minister to pick up the phone to President Sisi and seek the release of Alaa to save his life and that of his mother?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this really important case. As he says, I met the mother and the family just a few days ago. It is an incredibly difficult situation for them. I can assure him that I will do everything I can to ensure the release in this case. That includes phone calls as necessary. I have raised it before and I will raise it again. We raise it and will continue to do so. I gave my word to the family that that is what I will do, and I will.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important and obviously sensitive issue. We are committed to making progress towards ending paramilitarism once and for all in Northern Ireland. That is why we have agreed to support a short independent exercise to look at a formal process. I will make sure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland keeps her updated.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
Prostate cancer is now our country’s most common cancer, yet there is no national screening programme. We made progress towards that in government, but there is more to do, which is why I am delighted to have joined the charity Prostate Cancer Research as an ambassador. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for his engagement thus far. Will the Prime Minister ensure that we have a targeted national screening programme for the groups most at risk of prostate cancer, so we can not only save the NHS money and make progress towards the Government’s early diagnosis targets, but, most crucially, save thousands of lives?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, and I thank him for using his authority and reputation to support this vital cause, which will make a material difference. I look forward to working with him on it. We share a commitment to detecting prostate cancer earlier and treating it faster. We must do that. Our national cancer plan will improve the way we treat cancer right across the country. I will make sure he is fully informed of the steps we are taking and will work with him.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister join me in wishing all Welsh citizens everywhere a very happy St David’s day on Saturday? Will he also join me in welcoming the latest news of the £600 million investment by Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners to ensure that Bute Energy and Green GEN Cymru can take forward the bold ambition to achieve 100% green electricity production by 2035 in Wales, thus providing much-needed sustainable green jobs for the people of Wales?
The Prime Minister
I wish my hon. Friend and her constituents a very happy St David’s day, and join her in welcoming the significant new investment in her constituency that will ensure good, well-paid skilled jobs and the transition to energy security and lower bills. I know her constituency will play a vital role in that.
Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that our biggest single foreign policy priority is the preservation of NATO with America at its heart? If so, following his welcome announcement yesterday, is the next step to talk to our European allies and for all of us to agree to spend 3% of GDP on defence within a specified timescale, so we can look the President in the eye and say that Europe is finally pulling its weight on defence?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman entirely on the priority in terms of NATO. Putin thought he could weaken NATO. He has only made it stronger and larger. NATO’s strength comes from the US, European partners and others working together, and that is absolutely the focus of my work at the moment. It is right, as he says, that European countries, including the United Kingdom, need to do more on capability, co-ordination and defence spend. That must be seen not as a project separate to NATO, but as part of an essential project that ensures NATO is there for decades and decades to come preserving the peace, just as it has been for 75 years.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Grangemouth refinery closure has loomed over central Scotland since Petroineos’s announcement in November 2023. Two weeks ago, Scottish Labour colleagues and I met the National Wealth Fund to make the case for investment in Grangemouth. I strongly welcome the exceptional commitment that this Labour Government have shown to Grangemouth by committing £200 million from the National Wealth Fund. Can I ask the Prime Minister what steps the Government will be taking to secure permanent good jobs at Grangemouth?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for being such a great champion for Scotland and his constituency. Grangemouth is really important to communities in Scotland and to the economy in Scotland. It is not a charity case; it has incredible potential and huge opportunity. That is why, at the weekend, I was pleased to announce £200 million from the National Wealth Fund to incentivise private investment. That follows the £100 million in the growth deal that we announced earlier. This is about securing jobs for decades to come in Grangemouth. It is a really exciting opportunity and we intend to seize it.
Mr Speaker
I hope that His Excellency Mr Afrim Gashi, the Speaker of the Assembly of North Macedonia, enjoyed questions.
Defence and Security
Keir Starmer Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Let me begin by giving my word to this House that the statement was not given to the media. I will absolutely have an inquiry into that. I spoke to you, Mr Speaker, this morning. I would not be discourteous to you, the Leader of the Opposition or the House in that way. I give you that assurance from this Dispatch Box. I apologise to the Leader of the Opposition, and I will have that inquiry.
Three years since Russia launched its vile assault on Ukraine, I would like to address the international situation and the implications for Britain’s national security. In my first week as Prime Minister, I travelled to the NATO summit in Washington with a simple message: NATO and our allies could trust that this Government would fulfil Britain’s and, indeed, the Labour party’s, historic role of putting our collective security first. I spoke of my great pride in leading the party that was a founding member of NATO, the inheritor of the legacy of Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin, who not only stood behind Winston Churchill in wartime, but won the peace by establishing the great post-war order here and abroad.
It is a proud legacy, but in a world like ours it is also a heavy one, because the historical load that we must carry to fulfil our duty is not as light as it once was. We must bend our backs across this House, because these times demand a united Britain and we must deploy all our resources to achieve security.
Mr Speaker, as a young man, I vividly remember the Berlin Wall coming down. It felt as if we were casting off the shackles of history; a continent united by freedom and democracy. If you had told me then that in my lifetime we would see Russian tanks rolling into European cities again, I would not have believed you. Yet here we are in a world where everything has changed, because three years ago that is exactly what happened.
Britain can be proud of our response. British families opened their doors to fleeing Ukrainians, with the yellow and light blue fluttering on town halls and churches the length and breadth of the country. The Conservatives in government were robust in our response. I supported that in opposition and I applaud them for it now. We have built on that, bringing our support for Ukraine to a record level this year.
We should not pretend that any of this has been easy. Working people have already felt the cost of Russian actions through rising prices and bills. None the less, one of the great lessons of our history is that instability in Europe will always wash up on our shores and that tyrants like Putin only respond to strength. Russia is a menace in our waters, in our airspace and on our streets. It has launched cyber-attacks on our NHS and—only seven years ago—a chemical weapons attack on the streets of Salisbury.
We must stand by Ukraine, because if we do not achieve a lasting peace the economic instability and the threats to our security will only grow. And so, as the nature of that conflict changes, as it has in recent weeks, it brings our response into sharper focus; a new era that we must meet—as we have so often in the past—together and with strength.
The fundamentals of British strategy are unchanged. I know that the current moment is volatile, but there is still no good reason why they cannot endure, so let me now spell out to the House exactly how we will renew them for these times. First, NATO is the bedrock of our security and will remain so. It has brought peace for 75 years. It is as important today as the day on which it was founded. Putin thought he would weaken NATO; he has achieved the exact opposite. It remains the organisation that receives the vast bulk of our defence effort in every domain, and that must continue.
Secondly, we must reject any false choice between our allies—between one side of the Atlantic and the other. That is against our history, country and party, because it is against our fundamental national interest. The US is our most important bilateral alliance. It straddles everything from nuclear technology to NATO, Five Eyes, AUKUS and beyond. It has survived countless external challenges in the past. We have fought wars together. We are the closest partners in trade, growth and security.
So this week, when I meet President Trump, I will be clear. I want this relationship to go from strength to strength. But strength in this world also depends on a new alliance with Europe. As I said in Paris last week, our commitment to European defence and security is unwavering, but now is the time to deepen it. We will find new ways to work together on our collective interests and threats, protecting our borders, bringing our companies together and seeking out new opportunities for growth.
Thirdly, we seek peace not conflict, and we believe in the power of diplomacy to deliver that end. That of course is most pressing in Ukraine. Nobody in this House or this country wants the bloodshed to continue—nobody. I have seen the devastation in Ukraine at first hand. What you see in places such as Bucha never leaves you. But for peace to endure in Ukraine and beyond, we need deterrence. I know that this House will endorse the principle of winning peace through strength, so we will continue to stand behind the people of Ukraine. We must ensure that they negotiate their future, and we will continue to put them in the strongest position for a lasting peace.
Fourthly, we must change our national security posture, because a generational challenge requires a generational response. That will demand some extremely difficult and painful choices, and through those choices, as hard as they are, we must also seek unity—a whole-society effort that will reach into the lives, the industries and the homes of the British people. I started this statement by recalling the era of Attlee and Bevin, and this year we will mark many anniversaries of that greatest generation. We must find courage in our history and courage in who we are as a nation, because courage is what our own era now demands of us. So, starting today, this Government will begin the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We will deliver our commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence, but we will bring it forward so that we reach that level in 2027 and we will maintain that for the rest of this Parliament. Let me spell that out. That means spending £13.4 billion more on defence every year from 2027.
However, we also face enemies that are sophisticated in cyber-attacks, sabotage and even assassination, so our intelligence and security services are an increasingly vital part of protecting both us and our allies. On top of the funding of 2.5% that I have just announced, we will recognise the incredible contribution of our intelligence and security services to the defence of our nation, which means that, taken together, we will be spending 2.6% on our defence from 2027.
We must go further still. I have long argued that in the face of ongoing and generational challenges, all European allies must step up and do more for our own defence. Subject to economic and fiscal conditions, and aligned with our strategic and operational needs, we will also set a clear ambition for defence spending to rise to 3% of GDP in the next Parliament.
I want to be very clear: the nature of warfare has changed significantly. That is clear from the battlefield in Ukraine, so we must modernise and reform our capabilities as we invest. I equally want to be very clear that, like any other investment we make, we must seek value for money. That is why we are putting in place a new defence reform and efficiency plan, jointly led by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary.
This investment means that the UK will strengthen its position as a leader in NATO and in the collective defence of our continent, and we should welcome that role. It is good for our national security. It is also good for this Government’s defining mission to restore growth to our economy, and we should be optimistic about what it can deliver in those terms. But, in the short term, it can only be funded through hard choices. In this case, that means we will cut our spending on development assistance, moving from 0.5% of GNI today to 0.3% in 2027, fully funding our increased investment in defence.
I want to be clear to the House that this is not an announcement that I am happy to make. I am proud of our pioneering record on overseas development, and we will continue to play a key humanitarian role in Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza, tackling climate change and supporting multinational efforts on global health and challenges like vaccination. In recent years, the development budget was redirected towards asylum backlogs, paying for hotels, so as we are clearing that backlog at a record pace, there are efficiencies that will reduce the need to cut spending on our overseas programmes. None the less, it remains a cut, and I will not pretend otherwise. We will do everything we can to return to a world where that is not the case and to rebuild a capability on development. But at times like this, the defence and security of the British people must always come first. That is the No. 1 priority of this Government.
But it is not just about spending; our whole approach to national security must now change. We will have to ask British industry, British universities, British businesses and the British people to play a bigger part, and to use this to renew the social contract of our nation—the rights and responsibilities that we owe one another. The first test of our defence policy is of course whether it keeps our country safe, but the second should be whether it improves the conditions of the British people. Does it help provide the economic security that working people need? Because, ultimately, as Attlee and Bevin knew, that is fundamental to national security as well. We will use this investment as an opportunity. We will translate defence spending into British growth, British jobs, British skills and British innovation. We will use the full powers of the Procurement Act 2023 to rebuild our industrial base.
As the strategic defence review is well under way, and across Government we are conducting a number of other reviews relevant to national security, it is obvious that those reviews must pull together. So before the NATO summit in June we will publish a single national security strategy and bring it to this House, because, as I said earlier, that is how we must meet the threats of our age: together and with strength—a new approach to defence, a revival of our industrial base, a deepening of our alliances; the instruments of our national power brought together; creating opportunity, assuring our allies and delivering security for our country.
Mr Speaker, at moments like these in our past, Britain has stood up to be counted. It has come together. And it has demonstrated strength. That is what the security of our country needs now, and it is what this Government will deliver. I commend this statement to the House.
The Prime Minister
May I first thank the Leader of the Opposition for her support in relation to today’s announcement and on Ukraine? That is important to the Government, to the House and, most of all, to the Ukrainians and President Zelensky. They want to see unity in our House—they value unity in our House—as they enter, after three years of conflict, a very difficult stage in the war with Russia and against Russian aggression. I hope and believe that we can maintain that unity in relation to Ukraine, as we have done for three years. I am very proud that this House has done that, notwithstanding a change of Government, for three long years—we will continue to do so.
The Leader of the Oppositions asks about the money for defence, security and intelligence. There was new money in the Budget in relation to that, but what I am doing here is in addition to the 2.5%, which is the increased defence spend as it has always been understood, to recognise that the nature of the threats to our county are different now, and that the security and intelligence services play a key part for us and our allies in our defence. That takes the total to 2.6%.
The Leader of the Opposition asks whether we will tax or borrow to pay for the 2.5%. The answer is no, which is why I have today set out precisely how we will pay for it, pound for pound. That has meant a difficult decision on overseas development—a very difficult decision, and not one that I wanted or am happy to take. But it is important that we explain where the money will come from in terms and today. I was only ever going to come to the House with a plan that had a timeline and a percentage in it, and an answer to the question, “How will you pay for it?” I would not have come to the House with a fanciful plan.
The Leader of the Opposition says that they had a plan—[Interruption.] She says, “Of course we did.” I have my views on that, but the Institute for Government said that the Conservatives’ pledge of 2.5% by 2030 did “not add up” and was “not a serious plan.” The Institute for Fiscal Studies called it “misleading and opaque”. I am not giving my view; I am giving the view of other bodies on the plan that the Conservatives put forward. They said that they would fund it by cutting the civil service, and then increased the civil service by 13,000. I am not prepared to operate in that way, which is why we have taken the difficult decision on overseas development today, to be absolutely clear on where the money is coming from.
In relation to the Leader of the Opposition’s final point on the approach that we take here and whether there is a difference between us, I hope not. What I have set out was NATO-first, as the bedrock of our security. I hope that is common ground, whatever we may call our respective positions. I also set out that we must not choose between the US and our European allies. That is what I fundamentally believe, and I will resist that choice. I hope that is common ground between us, notwithstanding the language that she uses, because it is important, not for exchanges over the Dispatch Boxes, but for the future defence and security of our country and of Europe.
Mr Speaker
Order. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I know he has a lot to say, but I have a lot of Members to get in, including other party leaders.
The Prime Minister
I do agree that our alliances are important, and that is why NATO is the bedrock of our approach. It has been for many, many years and will continue to be. I do accept that European allies and the UK have to step up and do more. In our heart of hearts, I think across this House we have known that this moment was coming for the last three years. We have put that plan before the House, and of course, I will do everything I can to strengthen the alliance and the relationship between the US and the UK. It is a special relationship. It is a strong relationship. I want it to go from strength to strength.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. Three years ago, Putin began his brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and as we watched Russian missiles rain down on Ukrainian cities, we feared he might have struck a decisive blow to Ukraine and its sovereignty, yet Putin underestimated the strength of the ideals we share with our Ukrainian friends of democracy, truth and liberty. He underestimated the courage and grit of Ukrainian soldiers, who have spent three years heroically resisting Putin’s war machine.
Britain stood together with our allies in support of Ukraine, and families up and down the country opened their doors wide for Ukrainian refugees, because we know that Ukraine’s fight for democracy and liberty is our fight, too. In this House, we stood strong together, and yet three years on, the future of Ukraine and security in Europe seems even more perilous. Then, Washington was clearly on our side, but now, the United States is voting with Russia, Belarus and North Korea in the United Nations. President Trump labels President Zelensky a “dictator”, but not Vladimir Putin.
After the second world war, Britain came together with allies around the world to establish NATO and, with America, agreed to underwrite security on this continent, recognising that a threat to the security of one nation was a threat to the security of all nations. The events of the past few days are clear: that era is over. We may be watching before our very eyes the betrayal of our Ukrainian allies by America, and with it, the potential betrayal of Europe and of Britain, too. We must respond. Now it is up to the United Kingdom to lead in Europe. As a nation, we must seize this moment.
It is for our national interest that Liberal Democrats have supported the Prime Minister’s proposals on Ukraine, including British troops joining a reassurance mission in Ukraine if a just settlement is reached. That is why we strongly support the Prime Minister raising defence spending to 2.5%, preferably using seized Russian assets to pay for extra defence support for Ukraine. We will scrutinise all aspects of the Government’s spending plans carefully, but I hope that moving at pace to 2.5% means that Ministers will shortly announce the reversal of the Conservatives’ short-sighted cut of 10,000 troops from our armed forces.
The Prime Minister is right: we must go further, so will he initiate talks between all parties in this House to establish the vital consensus needed to take us to spending 3% of GDP on defence as soon as possible? The Prime Minister will know that for months, we Liberal Democrats have urged the Government to seize frozen Russian assets, which amount to over £20 billion, and repurpose those funds for Ukraine’s defence. Will he take immediate steps to gather European leaders and begin the seizure of Russian assets, so that we can support Ukraine no matter what America does? Will he, on his trip to Washington, try to persuade President Trump to do the same—to make Russia pay?
The Prime Minister will know that the whole country will be willing him on, hoping that he might be able to persuade Donald Trump to change his mind on Ukraine. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches think he is right to try, but should that not work, will he be clear where the United Kingdom then stands? Will he make it clear that, if absolutely necessary, it will be with Ukraine and our European allies, not Putin and Trump?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support on Ukraine; it has been steadfast, and it has been across this House. For the same reasons that I gave to the Leader of the Opposition, that is important not just here but to those in Ukraine.
We do need to step up and lead in Europe—we have been saying that for a very long time. All European countries need to do more, and now is the moment to do so, but we need to do that together with the US, because what is needed more than anything is a lasting peace. A ceasefire that simply gives Putin the chance to regroup and to go again is in nobody’s interest. A lasting peace means that we must talk about issues such as security guarantees. We are prepared to play our part, as I have indicated, but I have also indicated that to be a security guarantee, it requires a US backstop—US support for that security guarantee. That is at the heart of the case I have been making for some time.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, of the assets that have been seized already, the interest on those of £3 billion has already been committed to Ukraine, and we are working with our European allies to see what more can be done in relation to the funding that will be necessary. Stepping up means stepping up on capability, on co-ordination and on funding, which is what we have done today with this statement.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and this strong commitment to defence spending. I welcome as well the work being done with the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary on ensuring that we get as much value as we can for each pound spent on delivering capability. Will the Prime Minister reaffirm his commitment to the parliamentary scrutiny of that spending, including on the most sensitive areas?
The Prime Minister
Yes, of course; it is extremely important, and my hon. Friend knows that well. She is absolutely right to say that we must get value for money. This is a huge increase in defence spending. It is very important that it is used on the right capabilities in the right way, and that is why we intend to get a much better grip on the money that will be put in.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement. I personally think it is a start, not a finish—I think we will find that we have to raise defence spending further—but I welcome it none the less, and on behalf of all of this House and my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), I will support it.
The Prime Minister is due to go to Washington. One problem we have there is that they seem to have reached the conclusion that peace is simply the absence of war. Can he remind the President that a peace without justice, the right to freedom and choice in democracy is not peace, but a partial ceasefire? He might also remind the President that the last great test we faced united the United Kingdom and America, with Lady Thatcher and Ronald Reagan taking decisions that moved Europe in the right direction. Can he appeal to the President that, instead of running around making adverse comments, he should link hands with the United Kingdom to persuade the rest of Europe to step up, as we are now stepping up?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. The point he makes about a lasting peace and what it must be is really important. This is not just about stopping the fighting; it is about an enduring and lasting peace for Europe and, of course, the sovereignty of Ukraine—the sovereign ability to choose the alliances that Ukrainian people want, to choose their own Government and to choose how they defend themselves in conjunction with others. It is about the sovereignty of Ukraine, but it is also about the values and freedoms across Europe, including our values and freedoms. That is why this is such an important moment to ensure that NATO is as strong as it has been in the last 75 years as we go forward, and that the bond between us and the US is as strong as it has ever been. That has to be part of the case—the argument—and the way in which we have stepped up today and will continue to do so.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, and particularly his commitment to accelerate the increase in defence spending, although I fear that we may have to visit the 3% target before the next Parliament. It is very important that we have a whole-society approach to defence. Will he be bringing forward a strategy to make that happen, particularly around the great need to improve our reservist forces?
The Prime Minister
It does have to be a whole-society response, which is why I set that out in my statement in the House, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it. Of course it has to be a driver of industrial growth and our industrial strategy.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Aside from a few of Putin’s poodles, who are not in their seats in the Chamber today, we are of course united in our support for the people of Ukraine, and in wishing the Prime Minister well in his discussions with the President of the United States later this week. But I am afraid that is where the unity ends, because while we support increasing defence spending, we cannot support the populist playbook of cutting foreign aid. Indeed, that position was shared and agreed with by the Foreign Secretary just a matter of days ago, when he said that it would be a “big strategic mistake” that would allow China to step in. Why was the Foreign Secretary wrong, and the Prime Minister right?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support on the question of Ukraine, which is important. I reassure him that the decision that I have taken today on development aid is not an ideological one. I absolutely understand its importance—it is a difficult and painful decision, but a necessary one. He talks about choice. SNP Members welcomed the biggest settlement since devolution in the Budget, but they voted against it because they could not take a choice. The right hon. Gentleman welcomes the increase in defence spending, but he does not want to say how he will fund it. Grown-up choices about the future of Europe require grown-up decisions and choices, and that is what we have done.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Instability in Europe washes up on our shores, and I accept the hard decision that the Prime Minister has made to invest in defence, which means difficult decisions on international development. Can we please invest more in cyber, given the disinformation and cyber-attacks that our country faces on a daily basis?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that because cyber is one of the tools for warfare these days. That is why we increased funding in the Budget, and why I have adjusted the 2.5% to 2.6% in the case presented to the House today.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I agree entirely with the strategic direction that the Prime Minister has set out. Defence and security must come first, but he does have choices about how he funds that important uplift. In the last Parliament, he and I voted together against balancing the books on the backs of the poorest people in the world. Does he still think that vote was right?
The Prime Minister
I am proud of that vote at the time, and proud of the work that our country has done on development. This is not a decision that I want to make, and I absolutely want us to get back to more funding on overseas development and increasing those capabilities. Some of that will be helped if, as we are doing, we get the asylum backlog down and stop using that money to pay for hotels, which is not what it is intended for. This has been a difficult decision. The right hon. Gentleman knows how much I value overseas development and how important it is, but I thought, and think, that the most important thing today is to be clear about the commitment we are making on defence, to spell out the reasons that we are making those decisions, and to set out penny and pound exactly how it will be funded. I would not come to the House with a plan that was not credible and not costed, because that would be far worse for our country, but I accept the tenor of what he says about the importance of the issue.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for the leadership that he has shown in these uncertain times. As the Member of Parliament for the home of the British Army, I know that this is hugely welcome news for my constituency and that my community is ready to serve. What will the Prime Minister do to help to create jobs in the defence sector in my community?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Given the make-up of her constituency and constituents, they are hardwired for this. This is an important obligation that we must rise to, but it is also an opportunity to ensure that the jobs that will be generated are British jobs, with British skills, in all our constituencies. We will endeavour to ensure that that is the case.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
We are pleased to hear the announcement that the Government will increase defence spending to 2.5%, but we are still waiting for the strategic defence review to be completed, as without that we are in the dark. Will the SDR be announced soon, and if not, will the Prime Minister outline how the additional money will be spent?
The Prime Minister
The SDR is advanced and I will come to the House with it as soon as we can. I want to make sure that we have properly identified the challenges and capabilities. Obviously, we have put the funding forward today. We will do that as soon as we can, and when we do, it will be a credible plan for the House.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his tireless efforts to bring security to Ukraine, because its security is our security. Does he agree that that is possible only because we are one United Kingdom, and that that strength, that solidarity, is possible only because our four nations work together? Does he agree that those who attempt to fragment that Union in these perilous times do us great harm?
The Prime Minister
I do agree with that. As the United Kingdom we have always stood up in moments such as this, and we stand up again as the United Kingdom and are proud to do so. This is an important moment and a juncture after three years of a conflict, and the whole House will be aware of the potential consequences of decisions in coming weeks. It is a time for us to pull together.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
President Trump says that he wants his legacy to be that of a peacemaker. In his difficult conversations with the President in a few days’ time, will the Prime Minister remind him that the reason the enforced division of Czechoslovakia before the war was a step on the road to disaster, but the division of Germany at the end of the war did not lead to world war three, was that the western half of Europe at the end of world war two was not demilitarised? If there is to be a stable Ukraine after any such enforced division, there must be military protection for the unoccupied half of Ukraine.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about peace. It is what everybody wants, not least the Ukrainians, but it must be a lasting peace and not a temporary ceasefire. I agree that that means it needs security guarantees. The configuration of that needs to be agreed, but the security guarantees must be sufficient to deter any further aggression. Otherwise it will be a ceasefire, and that would be the worst of outcomes for the whole of Europe.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership and the announcement today, committing us to 2.6% of GDP on defence spending, and 3% beyond that. That is in stark contrast to the 14 years of erosion of defence spending, the hollowing out of our services, and the service life that resulted. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the reforms put forward by the Defence Secretary are essential to delivering deterrence and to preventing further acts of Russian brutal imperialist aggression in Europe?
The Prime Minister
The reforms are really important. The strategic review is very important, and the funding is very important. This is a moment when we must step up and play our full part in the defence of our country and the defence of Europe. I have already commented on the plan that the Conservative party put forward at the election. I have not quoted my words; I have quoted the words of the Institute for Government, which said—[Interruption.] Well, I would say what I think, but what the Institute for Government said was perfectly right. The plan was not properly funded and it was not a credible plan. We have put a credible plan before the House, and I am glad it has been welcomed.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Plaid Cymru stands firm with the need to safeguard Ukraine’s sovereignty, because international security is also national security. However, the UK will now cut the already diminished foreign aid budget to fund military spending. National security calls for building peace, as well as for armed forces. Given the importance that overseas aid plays in preventing conflict, building democracy and curbing warmongering tyrants, to paraphrase the Foreign Secretary, surely cutting foreign aid too is a massive strategic and moral mistake?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady is right to raise the importance of overseas development—I have said that from the Dispatch Box a number of times—but this is a moment when we have to step up and increase our defence spending. Of course, everybody in this House would wish that was not the situation. We have had a peace dividend for many years, but that has come to an end. We have to step up and our first duty is to keep the country safe, which requires a credible plan. I accept that it is a difficult plan—this is not a decision that I wanted to make—but it is a credible plan for the defence and security of our country and of Europe.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. I agree with him that it is the beginning, not the end, of the process, but does he agree that it is not just how much money we spend, but how well we spend it? Will he join me in thanking all our armed forces personnel for the commitment they show day in, day out to defending our nation?
The Prime Minister
I agree with both those propositions, and about what we spend and how we spend it. Speaking for myself, the Government and, I am sure, the whole House, we thank our armed services for what they do on our behalf, day in, day out.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
It is without doubt that enduring peace is achieved only if we have enduring security arrangements, so I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement on defence expenditure and the commitment to it. However, I reiterate my observation, and the observation of others, on the way that that money is spent. For a generation, we have been complacent. There is significant dysfunctionality in the way that industry works with Government on the procurement and delivery of defence capabilities in this country. I urge him to keep his Defence Secretary in place for the duration of this Parliament, so that we can find some common purpose, across this House, and deliver enduring reforms that stand the test of time. Treasury after Treasury has found it impossible to get to grips with defence expenditure—we must achieve that in this Parliament.
The Prime Minister
The Defence Secretary has just asked me whether he could reply to that question. The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Procurement and the grip on defence spend has not been in the right place, and we have not used our businesses in the way that we could have done in the past. I gently say that the past 14 years might have been a good period to have got to grips with that, but we need to get to grips with it now. I think that will be welcomed by the whole House, because we need to do that.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
I and many of my colleagues started our careers in the shadow of Putin’s first invasion of Ukraine, back in 2014. We knew then what Putin was capable of and what Putin intended to do. However, our service was marked by swingeing cuts from the Conservative Government that left our armed forces lacking key capabilities. There is an old saying that if you want peace, prepare for war, so will the Prime Minister assure me that the extra cash will be well spent to cover those capabilities and to take advantage of the new technologies we desperately need?
The Prime Minister
May I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her service? She is absolutely right that this money must be well spent on the capability that we need, and it will be.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and I wish him well as he goes to America to persuade the Americans to side with democracy, rather than vote with dictators. There will be a long lead-in time before we see the effects of today’s announcement. Given that and the overstretched commitments of our armed forces, how will he give assurances to the Ukrainians that Britain will be able to supply arms and personnel to defend any peace agreement that is reached?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. On the question of security guarantees, intense discussions are going on about how that would look and what that might involve. I am absolutely confident that we can play our full part. I will not disclose details to the House for reasons that he will understand, but I am confident that we can and will play our full part in whatever security guarantees may be needed. They will, of course, be with US backing, which is important if they are to be proper guarantees.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the uplift in defence spending but, as the Prime Minister has recognised, there has been a difficult decision about our aid budget. Like many hon. Members, I have seen at first hand the impact of the aid budget, not only on tackling poverty but on our own stability and prosperity. I welcome what the Prime Minister has said so far, but will he reassure us that our commitment remains to get back to 0.7% of GDP for overseas aid, as soon as fiscal circumstances allow?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I want to see that. Notwithstanding the difficult decision we have taken today, I reassure the House that it is important that vital issues, such as those in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine, are prioritised for reasons that are obvious to Members across the House.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Members across the House recognise the need to invest more and to invest differently in defence and security, but it is unbelievably counterproductive and short-sighted to fund that by slashing aid to the poorest and most fragile countries, or by squeezing already stretched departmental budgets. Why will the Prime Minister not fund this by increasing taxes on the most wealthy, rather than placing the burden on the poorest?
The Prime Minister
I do not think the plans put forward by the hon. Lady, as far as I have seen them, are realistic. To make a commitment such as the one we have made, we have to put forward a credible, costed plan in which we can say with certainty precisely where the money is coming from. That is why we have taken the difficult decision that we have taken today.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s statement hits the nail on the head, unlike the rantings of J. D. Vance on European freedom of speech at the Munich security conference. I know the statement will be particularly welcome at the Ealing ex-servicemen’s club, so will the Prime Minister recommit to our veterans, to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and to organisations like the Army cadet centre in Acton and the Territorial Army reservists in Wood Lane, either of which would welcome a visit, for those who have served our nation and those who will do so in the future?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I am happy to make that commitment. I ask my hon. Friend to carry that message to her constituents, along with my thanks and those of the Government and the House.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
When the Prime Minister flies off to Washington, he will go with the confidence that this House and the whole country are behind him and wish him well in that very difficult meeting. We know that this country and our continent face possibly the most dangerous moments that we have experienced since the height of the cold war. I welcome his statement on increasing defence spending, which some of us would say is a couple of decades overdue. Will he accept that the benchmark for the success of the defence review is not some arbitrary percentage of what we are spending, but whether we are spending whatever is necessary to give back to our armed forces the warfighting capability that is the only real deterrence that the Russians will respect? I very much doubt that 2.5% or 3% will be enough; I do not say that as a criticism, but because, as a nation, we must be prepared for that.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his sentiments. At a moment like this, it is important that I am able to carry the House with me as we undertake the next stage of these discussions about the security and defence of Europe. It is a very important generational moment, and this House and this country have always come together and stood up at moments like this. I know he has long been a supporter of increased defence spending and capability, and of the notion that there must be a warfighting capability. He is right about that, which is why we have made the decision we have today.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and his strong leadership. Does he agree that as we rightly reassert the concept of taking responsibility—of responsibility being taken by our own military, people and economy, and by our friends on the continent of Europe—we must also reassert the responsibility of all countries to defend the international rules-based system, which has at its core the concept that bullies must not get away with invading their neighbours? If they do, not only will we dishonour the bravery and sacrifice of our Ukrainian friends, but our collective security will be weakened.
The Prime Minister
Two of those rules-based systems are fundamental: the UN charter and the NATO framework and all the articles in it. Those are hugely important rules-based frameworks that we must absolutely adhere to. I wrote many times about the UN Security Council as a lawyer. In my first appearance at the Security Council, I was sitting at the table with a country that was in clear violation of the charter, and I did not feel at all comfortable.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I have distinct memories of, three years ago, helping my Ukrainian friends and colleagues flee the country as tanks came towards their homes. Since then, people across Harpenden, Berkhamsted and Tring have opened their doors to those from Ukraine, but the hope that they once had has turned to fear of what is happening globally. Can the Prime Minister assure the British people that when he speaks to President Trump, he will push for lasting peace, and highlight the importance of working with our European colleagues?
The Prime Minister
I thank, through the hon. Lady, everybody in this country who has opened their doors to Ukrainian refugees. I am very proud of the fact that we have done that, and that the Ukrainian flag flies in so many places across the country. I can reassure her constituents that this announcement today and the approach that we are taking are to ensure that peace continues, but for peace to continue, we have to put ourselves and Ukraine in the strongest possible position, and this is a step along that road.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
It is shameful that in such a volatile world, for far too long, conversations around defence spending have involved a lot of hot air and not much hard action. Colleagues from across the House will today have to recognise that the Prime Minister has changed that, with a clear, funded and needed plan for investing in our defence. Supply chains are so important to security, so he will recognise, as I do, that what matters is not just what we spend, but where we spend it. How will he make sure that our whole Government are united in the effort to build up our domestic supply chain capacity, when it comes to key defence assets?
The Prime Minister
This is where the industrial strategy and growth are so important, because as we move to greater defence spend, it is vital that we ensure that supply chains are in this country, as far as they can be, and that they lead to British, well-paid and secure jobs. We know that the defence sector already provides many well-paid jobs across the country. I want more.
Several hon. Members rose—
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Almost on that point, Mr Speaker, what an abdication of responsibility and duty it is that not a single member of the Reform party is able to ask a question of the Prime Minister this afternoon on these precious issues of defence and security. They are treated with a very different level of seriousness by Members on the Conservative and Government Benches.
Many have asked the Prime Minister about the use of Russian frozen assets. Anybody who has studied the issue with regard to Libya will know just how complicated international law and convention has made the defrosting of frozen assets so that they can be put to proper use. In his discussions in Washington and with the other European leaders, can the Prime Minister press for urgent, collaborative and international reform of those rules, so that those frozen assets can be used to help the Ukrainians and their military to defeat Russian aggression?
The Prime Minister
The point that the hon. Gentleman raises is important. The process is very complicated, for reasons that he will understand. Obviously we have been able to use some of the interest on those frozen assets, which has proved valuable to Ukraine, but we need to work with our European colleagues and to collaborate on other legitimate, proper ways to raise further funding, and we will continue to do that with our allies.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
I welcome the statement from the Prime Minister. This is a major commitment to our defence; I think it will be heard across the world and welcomed by our allies, particularly those facing Russian or Iranian aggression. How will the Prime Minister ensure that British businesses, which are so crucial to our defence, are supported in their important task?
The Prime Minister
That has to be done through the industrial strategy and the growth strategy that we will put in place, but it is vital that this is seen as not just a duty and responsibility, which it is, but as an opportunity for British businesses, and for well-paid, secure jobs, which are so vital to so many communities.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Prime Minister knows that he can rely on the support of the SNP when it comes to efforts to restore Ukrainian sovereignty in the face of Russian aggression, despite the baseless rhetoric from those on the Benches behind him. I would like him to acknowledge that.
I welcome the Prime Minister raising defence expenditure to 2.5%, albeit by 2027, which will be three years after the election, despite the pledge being in the Labour party’s manifesto. However, it cannot be right to balance the books at a cost to the poorest in global society, when there is a Government Budget of £1.1 trillion. When he goes to Washington on Thursday and gets his pat on the back from the President of the United States, will he spare a thought for those—predominantly women and children—who will suffer immeasurably, and some of whom will die, as a result of his decision today?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support on Ukraine. The First Minister has set out that support in clear terms in recent days; that is important, and I acknowledge it. We have had to make difficult decisions, but as he and the House know, wherever there is war and conflict, it is the poor and the poorest who are hit hardest. There is no easy way through this, but we have to ensure that we win peace through strength, because anything other than peace will hit the very people the hon. Gentleman has identified harder than anybody else on the planet. That is why it is so important that we have taken the decision we have today.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
National security is the first duty of any Government, so I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement, and his strong leadership today. This Government are rising to the challenge of investing in our defence, whereas the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has said that Vladimir Putin is the leader he admires the most, and that NATO provoked Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Does the Prime Minister share my concern that those comments play right into the hands of Britain’s enemies?
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
No decent Government cut international development budgets lightly. The Prime Minister’s discomfort is plain for all to see and will be shared across the House, but will he look at other things that perhaps present easier choices—in particular, his choice to spend billions of pounds on Mauritius? Will he repurpose that money in defence of our armed forces?
The Prime Minister
Obviously in the short term, we have to make decisions between the here and now and the commitment to 2.5% in 2027. Having looked at the available options, this was the choice that had to be made, and that I think would have been made by any serious Prime Minister making the commitment that I have made today. Of course, we need to look at other things as we go forward from here. Many people across the House have mentioned, and I have set out, the ambition of getting to 3%, but I will put forward only credible costed plans to this House, not fantasy figures. [Interruption.] The Opposition chunter away, but this is a moment for a serious, costed plan. It is not the time for ridiculous, uncosted plans.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I think the entire House agrees that our safety and that of our allies depends on showing Putin that we have the resolve and resources to defeat him. We are far more prosperous than he is: European NATO’s GDP is $24.5 trillion, and Russia’s is only $2 trillion. Clearly, the matter before us is converting those resources into fighting forces and matériel in the years ahead. Can the Prime Minister assure me that the strategic defence review and our defence industrial strategy will ensure that we have long-term orders that give us the capacity that we need, as well as secure supply chains, inputs such as steel and, of course, the ability to scale rapidly if we need to rearm?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising those points. They are all important, and of course, they have to be hardwired into the work we do as we go forward.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Prime Minister will have the support of both sides of this House when he goes to see President Trump on Thursday. If he fails to encourage the US to become the backstop for Ukraine, though, no matter how much he increases spending in the next couple of years, there will be difficulty. What conversations is the Prime Minister having about a backstop for Europe to make sure that Ukraine gets that support?
The Prime Minister
I am not going to pre-empt the discussions I will have, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I absolutely believe that we should play our full part in any security guarantees—if that is what happens; we do not even know whether we will get to that stage—but I also absolutely think there needs to be US backing for that, because I do not think a security guarantee will be operative without that backing.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, because although difficult decisions have had to be taken today, the alternative is inaction—which, of course, is also a decision. Does the Prime Minister agree that the lesson of history is that Ukraine’s survival and its defence are completely indivisible from our own?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do. That is why I say that this is not just about the sovereignty of Ukraine, but about European defence and security and our own defence and security. We have already paid a heavy price in this country—the contribution we have made has had an effect on our cost of living, our energy prices and so much else—but this is fundamental. It is about our values; it is about our freedom; and it is about understanding who Putin is, and what his ambitions are. We must never forget that.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
With some of our European allies likening our predicament in 2025 to that of 1938, the increase in defence spending announced today by the Prime Minister is welcome, but I am concerned that it will come too late. Will the Prime Minister look at Liberal Democrat proposals to increase the digital services tax, which would raise £3 billion this year?
The Prime Minister
I do not accept the argument that this has come too late. It has come at the point at which we are able to put a credible, costed plan before the House. We have known for three years that this moment was going to come, and the last few weeks have accelerated this and made it more urgent, which is why I have made the statement I have today.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership today. He is undertaking the first duty of any leader, which is the defence of the nation, and reiterating the fundamental British value that our country opposes fascists, and never appeases them. He rightly talked about renewing the social contract with the British people when it comes to jobs, skills and industry. Does he agree that if we are to do that, it must reach every part of our country, including areas that I represent that are far too often left behind?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do. We must rise to that challenge. Many of the well-paid, skilled jobs in the defence sector are found across the whole United Kingdom. We need to ensure that there are more of those well-paid, skilled jobs across the whole United Kingdom.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for acknowledging that although what has been said today is very important, he and the Government will need to come back to us on getting towards 3%. In response to an earlier question, the Prime Minister said that the peace dividend is gone. Does he agree that we also need to look at welfare spending, given that in the current circumstances, no serious country can spend more on welfare than on defence?
The Prime Minister
I do agree with that. The last Government let welfare spending spiral by an additional £30 billion. Some 2.8 million people are out of work because they cannot go to work due to some health-related issue. That is a very high number. It is out of control, and we have to get it back under control.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, with which I agree. Does he agree that Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin showed that the defence of the United Kingdom and Europe against totalitarianism is at the core of this House’s values and those of our party? Does he also agree that what we can learn from their great political lives is that we will face very many difficult public spending decisions over the next decade, and that our moral duty as a Government is to take those decisions, however difficult or heartbreaking they may be?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend. These are difficult decisions with very real consequences, which I acknowledge. As an earlier contributor said, though, the alternative to action is inaction, and in the light of the last three years and particularly the last few weeks, inaction would be completely the wrong thing for our country and our continent.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I absolutely agree with the Prime Minister that this is an important moment for our nation, and I welcome the rebalancing of expenditure towards defence. However, does he agree that the success of our national security posture will be judged not by percentages but by the strength of the deterrent that we build, and is it his abiding commitment to be unwavering in building such a deterrent?
The Prime Minister
Yes, it is, because I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is the strength of our deterrent that counts in a moment like this. I am very proud of our armed forces—those who have provided so much for so long—but now is a time to ask more of them and to step up.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister spoke about the threat that Russia poses in our waters. Just a few weeks ago, I saw a piece of undersea cable that had been cut, almost certainly by a Russian vessel. What more can the Government do to protect Britain’s undersea infrastructure from foreign attack?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. It is a bit like cyber: the way in which conflict, war and aggression are demonstrated these days is changing, and we must protect our vital assets, including the cables under the sea. I have had extensive conversations with European allies and NATO about how we can better protect that infrastructure.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I have been to war three times, each time working for an American general—General Schwarzkopf in the first Gulf war, the outstanding David Petraeus in the second Gulf war, and General Richard Mills of the US Marine Corps in Afghanistan. One of the lessons that keeps coming up after those wars is that we have to prepare for the fight that we do not want to have. I absolutely welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today. As well as sending the Chancellor into the new defence reform and efficiency team, I encourage him to take a personal interest in the way that this money is spent, in order to prepare us for the fight that we do not want to have.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service to his country, and he is absolutely right that we have to prepare for the fight that we do not want to have. I can assure him that as Prime Minister, I have a very keen personal interest, duty and responsibility in all these matters.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
I welcome the statement from my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister. In places such as Telford—which has a proud defence sector—companies, communities and supply chains need certainty. British taxpayers will be demanding that their money is used to enable British-based companies to support our British troops around the world. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that each and every pound will be diverted to British industry or British-based industries, enabling them to support our interests around the world?
The Prime Minister
I certainly want that to be the case wherever we can. That is why we will have the plan for reform and efficiency, but that needs to be translated into British skills and secure British jobs in every constituency across the land.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
It is disappointing that the Prime Minister’s statement did not include any reference to the United Nations, or a pathway to end the dreadful conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan or the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Clearly, his statement will have a massive effect on the poorest people in the poorest countries in the world through a cut in overseas aid budgets, but what effect will it have on the poorest people in this country—for example, those disadvantaged by the two-child benefit cap or by the housing crisis that so many face? The Prime Minister says that tough decisions are coming up; what is going to be the effect of the increase in defence spending on the poorest people in this country?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman says I did not mention the UN. The UN charter is at the heart of this, because Russia is in breach of it. Russia is an aggressor that has invaded another country and is occupying part of that country, and it will go further if it is encouraged down that line. That is why we need to take these decisions. It is the first duty of Government to keep our country safe and secure. That is a duty I take extremely seriously. The poorest people in this country would be the first to suffer if the security and safety of our country was put in peril.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is absolutely right to say that NATO is the bedrock on which we found our alliance. He is absolutely right to say that we can only achieve peace through strength, and he is absolutely right to cut the foreign development budget to pay for a £13.4 billion increase in defence spending. It is a difficult decision, but there is nothing more important than the defence and security of the British people. What conversations has the Prime Minister had or does he hope to have with our European allies about their defence spending? Does he hope to see increases across the continent in the future?
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend may know, I have had extensive discussions with all our European allies. Those have been particularly intense over the past three or four weeks, and I will continue to have those discussions, because it is right to say that Europe and the United Kingdom need to step up. We need to do that alongside our allies. That means capability, co-ordination and spending. The best way, in my view, to do that is in a collegiate, collaborative way, working with our allies. That is what I have been doing.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
In a world where our adversaries are intent on blunting our national security and prosperity, I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and thank him for his commitment to increase defence spending. Can he update the House on what actions the Government are taking to discourage BRICS nations and other emergent high-growth economies from advertently or inadvertently doing anything that would assist Russia in its pursuit of its invasion in Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
This is a really important issue, and it is important that, as well as sanctions, we bear down on those providing assistance to Russia, whether that is countries or individual businesses. We shall continue to do so, working with allies.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
My right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister is absolutely right to say that this is a generational moment for this country’s security. I pay tribute to this generation’s armed forces and all those who work in the defence sector, including in Stevenage, where they are refitting the Storm Shadows for use by Ukraine for its security and our security. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the increase in defence spending he has announced today will, done properly, also help the wider economy?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend’s constituents working in Stevenage for their important work. It is important that we make sure that this spending is measured in jobs and secure jobs across the country.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Last night, I attended a concert in Bath abbey called “Together We Stand”. The Ukrainian deputy ambassador was there, and he particularly praised the direct link that my Bath council had formed with the city of Oleksandriya. It has formed such strong people-to-people contact, and it is enduring and provides direct support. What more can the Government do to encourage other councils to form these direct links to Ukrainian communities?
The Prime Minister
I am pleased to hear about that direct link. I think that people-to-people contact is important, both in relation to our appreciation and understanding of what is going on in Ukraine and in relation to the resilience of Ukrainians. I support any such initiatives.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. In particular, I know that the Ukrainian forces on the frontlines will be reassured today. Clearly, the aid spending decision will not have been taken lightly, but following reductions at the US Agency for International Development, it does mean tens of billions out of the global aid system, which could be exploited by Russia and China. Will the Prime Minister consider a deadline for ending the accounting of asylum costs to the aid budget, which is currently 28%, or £4.2 billion of money that should be used on aid spending overseas?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. It is a really difficult decision, and it is important that we make clear that we remain committed to the work we are doing in Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan. It is important, as he rightly says, that we get the asylum numbers down and the processing done so that we can end the ridiculous use of money—money that should be for overseas aid—on hotel bills in this country. That spiralled under the last Government.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
As a veteran, I welcome the move to 2.5%. It is a milestone on the right track to increasing defence spending to 3.0% and probably beyond, particularly given that defence chiefs are reported to have requested 2.65%.
With increasing defence spending and suggestions that British forces may be involved in a peacekeeping mission, along with ongoing support to Ukraine, it is reassuring to see that we are not prepared to acquiesce to Russian belligerence. With that in mind, as the Prime Minister prepares to meet President Trump, will he clarify with the President why the US sided with Russia and North Korea yesterday, voting against the European resolution that Russia should withdraw from Ukraine at the UN General Assembly?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service. Our position on the UN resolution was clear from the way we voted yesterday. I think that sends a very powerful signal of where we stand, and that is with Ukraine.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today, his commitment to 2.5% defence spending and his continued engagement with our international partners. As we are a proud maritime nation that is facing threats from Russian interference with undersea cables and from incursion into our waters by the shadow fleet, does he agree that now is the time to bolster our Royal Navy?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I think it is important that we bolster across our forces. There are threats on land, threats in the air, threats at sea and, indeed, threats under the sea. It is important that we can meet all those threats.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I welcome this important statement from the Prime Minister. The Liberal Democrats support an increase in defence budgets and the leadership in Europe that the Prime Minister has described. The Prime Minister spoke about the need for unity and a whole-society approach. He will have heard the concerns from across the House about the way he is proposing to fund this increase in the defence budget, and the deep concern that it will create opportunities for our adversaries, Russia and China, around the world. Will he undertake to meet other parties to build the consensus behind the funding of 2.5% and then 3%, so that we can maintain the unity and the national purpose that he has so eloquently described?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for his support and that of his party. That is important at a moment like this. So far as the funding of the 2.5% is concerned, that has been set out today. The commitment on the ambition to get to 3% is something that we need to talk about across this House. I will work with all parties on any issue of the security and defence of our country.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has delivered a powerful statement today, and I know that his unwavering commitment to the defence of the realm will be greatly appreciated by my constituents in Stockton North. He mentioned the industrial strategy. Does he agree that we need to start immediately to mobilise our steel, chemicals and shipbuilding industries, working with regional groups such as the Teesside defence and innovation cluster to ensure that we build the capability that we need for our defence supply chains at home?
The Prime Minister
The industrial strategy and steel within it are vitally important, as my hon. Friend and the House will know. Steel and our ability to manufacture it are vital to our security, and we must do everything to ensure that is preserved into the future.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Scotland wants to play its full part in this great national endeavour at this moment of peril, yet, almost incredibly, tomorrow the Scottish Parliament will discuss stripping defence companies of state funding. It is remarkable. The measure may not pass, of course, and I certainly hope it does not. Will the defence industrial strategy take into account what is happening in Scotland, where certain elements seem to be siding with other national interests, so that we can protect our defence industry and this great country?
The Prime Minister
Across the country, it is important that we stand by our defence sector and enhance our defence sector. We should thank those who work in it for what they are doing. Today’s announcement will mean that there is more yet to do.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, this Government’s unwavering support for Ukraine and this very necessary decision to increase defence spending. As someone whose close family has served in our armed forces, I know that over the years as a country, we have not always provided our servicemen and women with the equipment and support that they deserve. Can the Prime Minister reassure the House that this funding will be used to ensure that our servicemen and women are provided with that equipment and that support and with respect, given that they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for our country?
The Prime Minister
Yes, that is hugely important, and we will ensure that we do so. I had a family member who served and whose ship went down, and I will never forget the agony that my mother went through until she knew for sure that he was safe. That is what is on the line each and every day for our armed services.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his very strong statement. He has talked of a national security position, a whole-society response and a time for us all to pull together. May I ask him to ensure that Northern Ireland businesses are part of that national response? May I also ask the Government to recognise and support the strategic and long-term importance of the Aldergrove military base and RAF station in Northern Ireland, which is able to contribute to not only our national but our international defence? Will the Prime Minister ask the Secretary of State for Defence to meet me to discuss those two issues?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the question of Northern Ireland. It is important for this to be a whole-United Kingdom effort and contribution, and for us to ensure that those opportunities are there across the whole United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. I will of course ask the Defence Secretary for that meeting, and I am sure he will agree to it.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I spent all last week in Ukraine, and had the opportunity to meet a Defence Minister and a number of soldiers on the frontline. The Defence Minister painted a bleak picture of the situation there, including the fact that Russian production of arms continues to go up and up and up. Meanwhile, the soldiers I spoke to on the frontline are facing unimaginable challenges, and need much more resources to win this fight. I strongly welcome the announcement that defence spending will reach 2.5%, that support for Ukraine will be increased and that defence spending will reach 3% in the future, because I am convinced that we face an existential crisis in the world.
However, as one who founded the Labour Campaign for International Development, I am pained by today’s other news, and I hope we can get back on track for 0.7% as soon as possible. In that spirit, may I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the last Labour Government’s record of thinking of innovative and different ways of securing development finance, and may I ask him to meet me, and other Labour Members with development experience, to consider alternative ways of financing support for development, such as special drawing rights from the International Monetary Fund and more debt relief?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to international development. He is absolutely right about that, and we will of course work across the House on alternative and innovative ways in which to support development around the world.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcements wholeheartedly, and encourage him to get to 3% as soon as possible. However, we do not just need a monetary value; we need to know how and where the money will be spent, and that will be done through the strategic defence review, which gives assurance to our allies, deterrence to our enemies and, most important, confidence in our troops. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the SDR will be published in the spring—in a couple of weeks’ time—or will it be delayed until June, as the statement seemed to suggest?
The Prime Minister
I did not mean to imply that in the statement; I was referring to the security strategy. The SDR is well under way, and as soon it has been completed I will put it before the House, but what is most important is for us to get it right rather than meeting a timeline. I am not seeking to delay it, but I am absolutely clear in my own mind that we need to ensure that we understand the challenges we face, and the capability.
I am particularly struck by the developments that have taken place during the three years of the conflict in Ukraine. The way in which the fighting started three years ago is very different from the way in which it is happening now. I was there a few weeks ago, and among the things I took away was the need for us to learn the lessons of Ukraine and bind them into what we are doing, rather than thinking that we are dealing with the world of even two or three years ago. That is why I want to ensure that this is the right review and the right strategy to put before the House.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Let me start by drawing attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of the GMB defence manufacturing trade union. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to rebuilding the UK’s industrial capacity in defence.
All Governments face a balance between international collaboration and avoiding dependency on complex supply chains which can limit freedom of action, as some of our allies have found in their attempts to aid Ukraine. Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the objectives of the spending announced today must be to maintain and strengthen our sovereign freedom to aid our allies and defend our own shores?
The Prime Minister
I do agree with that, and I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments about the supply chains, which are vital to the security effort.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The former United States Defence Secretary Jim Mattis once said:
“If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.”
Can the Prime Minister not see that funding this uplift through official development assistance is short-sighted and a strategic and moral mistake, because prevention is cheaper than wars, because this gives more leverage to Russia and China, and because we do it on the backs of the world’s poorest? In fact, it is something that I never thought I would see a Labour Government do, and a pitiful inheritance from 1997. Given that it is a policy choice and not a retrospective fiscal one, and given that it is in direct contravention of the law passed here in 2015, which rules out the link between levels of defence and development funding, will this Labour Government be repealing that law?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is right to say that prevention is better than war—that is why it is important that we prepare our defence to be able to secure and maintain the peace, and that is precisely why I made my statement today—but she is wrong about the law, and we are not going to repeal it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a surprise not to be called last, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. It has encouraged everyone in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we thank him for that. As for an increase in defence spending from 2.5% to 3%, let me gently remind the House that during the cold war it was 7%—so we have a bit to go yet to catch up, but there we are.
The new defence and security agreement with Norway is to be welcomed, but I am a great believer in ensuring, while we build new rooms in a house for new family members, that existing family members are comfortable at home with us. What discussions has the Prime Minister had with our closest ally, the United States of America, about aligning our defence strategies and solidifying the network of information-sharing?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. We already work closely with Norway on defence and security, and we want to enhance and strengthen that, which the bilateral relationship will do. Of course we need to work with the United States, and I will be leaving for the US tomorrow. I have already had a number of conversations with President Trump, and our teams are speaking continually about these very important matters.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the ever-patient Charlotte Cane to ask the final question.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I welcome much of what was in the Prime Minister’s statement, particularly what he said about our continued support for the brave people of Ukraine, but I was shocked by what he has described as a difficult and painful decision to cut overseas aid. I suggest that it was nowhere near as difficult and painful as it will be for the very poorest families who find that our aid is no longer there for them. It is also hugely short-sighted, because helping communities to be stable and secure reduces the risk of war and unrest. Will the Prime Minister please assure us that he will look for less damaging ways of funding this much-needed increase in defence expenditure?
The Prime Minister
It is a difficult decision—there is no getting away from that—but we cannot have a situation in which Members of this House stand up and support 2.5%, heading to 3%, and then cannot agree, or will not take the difficult decisions that are necessary in order to get there. I am not pretending that this is an easy decision, and I am certainly not pretending that it is a decision I wanted to make as Prime Minister. It is a decision that I am driven to make for the security and safety of our country and our continent.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the Prime Minister. We got in all the Members who were bobbing throughout.
Machinery of Government
Keir Starmer Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention the following machinery of government change.
On 4 September 2024 I announced that the Government would respond in full to the Grenfell phase 2 inquiry report within six months. In response to one of the report’s recommendations, I am confirming today that responsibility for fire will move from the Home Office to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. This change will bring responsibility for building safety and fire under a single Secretary of State, providing for a more coherent approach to keeping people safe from fire in their homes. The Home Office will retain management of the airwave service contract on behalf of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and will remain responsible for the emergency services mobile communications programme and His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services.
This change will be effective from 1 April 2025. The Government will respond to the full report in due course.
[HCWS455]
Oral Answers to Questions
Keir Starmer Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
This week, we progressed our Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to deliver counter-terrorism style powers to bring vile criminal smuggling gangs to justice. We announced a further £350 million to get Britain building and deliver 1.5 million new homes that our country desperately needs, including more affordable homes. We have also slashed the red tape that holds businesses and working people back, creating 10,000 more apprentices.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Imran Hussain
I am proud to have played my part in helping to draft what has become the Employment Rights Bill. A new poll shows that three quarters of the British public back the stronger workers’ rights in the Bill, including better sick pay, yet that lot over there—the Tories and Reform—disgracefully voted against it. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition does not even believe in maternity pay or the living wage. Our statutory sick pay is ranked as one of the lowest in Europe; it needs to be brought in line with the living wage. Will the Prime Minister back my campaign to strengthen the Bill further so that sick pay is at a level that will finally stop punishing workers for being sick?
The Prime Minister
Our plan for change delivers the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation through our Employment Rights Bill, ending exploitative zero-hours contracts and the scandal of fire and rehire and expanding statutory sick pay to 1.3 million employees. Of course, that is on top of the pay rise for 3 million of the lowest paid. I would have thought the Leader of the Opposition might support the protection of day one employment rights, given where she is going, but she thinks maternity pay is excessive. Our plan is pro-worker and pro-growth.
The Prime Minister
Let me be clear: I do not agree with the decision. The Leader of the Opposition is right that it is the wrong decision. She has not quite done her homework, however, because the decision in question was taken under the last Government, according to their legal framework. However, let me be clear: it should be Parliament that makes the rules on immigration; it should be the Government who make the policy. That is the principle. The Home Secretary is already looking at the legal loophole that we need to close in this particular case.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister did not answer the question. If he plans to appeal, the appeal might be unsuccessful, and the law will need to be changed. If he does not appeal, the law will definitely need to be changed. He talks about a decision made under the previous Government, but it was not made by that Government; it was made by the courts. The issue we are discussing today is about judicial decisions. We cannot be in a situation where we allow enormous numbers of people to exploit our laws in this way. There are millions of people all around the world in terrible situations—we cannot help them all, and we certainly cannot bring them all here. Will the Prime Minister commit to bringing forward that new legislation or amending his borders Bill?
The Prime Minister
I have already said that the Home Secretary has already got her team working on closing this loophole. We do not need to wait for that; we are getting on with that, because we are taking control. The Conservatives lost control of immigration: we had nearly 1 million people come into this country; we had an open borders experiment. On Monday this week, they voted against increased powers to deal with those who are running the vile trade of people smuggling. Same old Tories: open borders, empty promises.
Mrs Badenoch
If the Prime Minister was on top of his brief, perhaps he would be able to answer some questions. Given this crazy decision and so many others, new legislation is needed to clarify the right to a family life in article 8. [Interruption.] I am not talking about what he just said; I know Labour MPs do not understand much of what they are saying. The Prime Minister literally wrote a book on the European convention on human rights. This is a situation where we need to put our national interests before the ECHR. Does he agree that we should legislate, even if lawyers warn that that might be incompatible with human rights law?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady complains about scripted answers; her script does not allow her to listen to the answer. [Hon. Members: “More!”] She asked me if we are going to change the law and close the loophole in question one—I said yes. She asked me again in question two—and I said yes. She asked me again in question three—it is still yes.
Mrs Badenoch
The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not listen to question one. I asked if he would appeal the decision. He did not answer that. He is not listening; he is too busy defending the international human rights law framework.
This case has arisen because a Palestinian came to the UK from Gaza in 2007. He is now a British citizen. This is precisely why we need to break the conveyor belt—from arriving in the UK to acquiring indefinite leave to remain and then a British passport, and now a right to bring six family members here as well. Just last week, the Prime Minister bizarrely claimed that a British passport was not a pull factor for those coming to the UK. Will he now support our plans to toughen the process on indefinite leave to remain and make getting a British passport a privilege, not a right?
The Prime Minister
The Conservatives presided over record high levels of immigration. It reached nearly 1 million. It was a one nation experiment in open borders. The right hon. Lady was the cheerleader; she was the one campaigning for more people to come and thanking her own side when they supported her campaign. So, before she lectures us, she needs to reflect on her own record.
Mrs Badenoch
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is the Prime Minister now. The people out there want to know what he is going to do about the situation. He needs to spend less time whining about the last Government and do his job.
I thought the Prime Minister and I agreed that Israel had a right to defend herself, yet the judge in this case noted that the family were facing a humanitarian crisis
“as a consequence of the Israeli Government’s indiscriminate attempts to eliminate Hamas”,
and Government lawyers accepted that. Is the Prime Minister allowing lawyers to change the position on Israel, and was that because of advice from the Attorney General? If not, why on earth did Government lawyers accept the argument that Israeli actions were “indiscriminate”?
The Prime Minister
Government lawyers put the complete opposite argument. The right hon. Lady talks about being on top of her brief; she has no idea what she is talking about. I will tell her again: we need to change the law. That is why the Home Secretary is already closing the gap. I know the script does not allow any adaptation, but this is getting tedious.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister has not read the judgment. I suggest that he does so. Very serious questions are now being asked about the Attorney General, the Prime Minister’s personal friend and donor. Even Labour Ministers are concerned. One Labour peer, Lord Glasman, has called him
“the absolute archetype of an arrogant, progressive fool”.
If we are serious about protecting our borders, we need to make sure that we appoint people who believe in our country and everything we stand for. It is not clear that the Attorney General does.
The Government are now recruiting a new chief inspector of borders, who lives in Finland and wants to work from home. This is not serious. Why should the British public put up with it?
The Prime Minister
The individual in question was appointed in 2019 by the last Government to a senior position. He then worked for five years from Finland. We have changed that, and he will now be working from the United Kingdom full time. It was Finland under them.
The Leader of the Opposition talks about the Attorney General; she sat round the Cabinet table with an Attorney General who was later sacked for breaching national security.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising an issue that is obviously of real concern to businesses in her constituency. We expect landlords to meet their obligations to make buildings safe, and we support robust enforcement action from the regulators if they fail to do so. I will ensure that my hon. Friend secures a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss what steps can be taken in this particular case to support the businesses on which her constituents rely.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Eighty years ago this week, the allies began a pincer movement against German forces between the Ruhr and the Rhine. British and Canadian troops attacked from the north, Americans from the south. British, Canadian and American soldiers were fighting shoulder to shoulder to defeat fascists. Eighty years on, President Trump seems to have forgotten all that. His tariffs against steel and aluminium will hit Canada the hardest, but they will also hit jobs and the cost of living in our country. In reminding President Trump who America’s true and long-standing friends and allies really are, will the Prime Minister also prepare a plan for tariffs in return, starting with tariffs on American electric cars?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is right to refer to our history and the 80-year anniversary. We were fighting alongside the Americans, and that is among the reasons why we have a special relationship.
British steel is an essential part of our heartlands and we will not abandon our skilled workforce, but a level-headed assessment of the implications is needed, and that is what we are going through at the moment. However, we will always put our national interests first, and steelworkers first.
Ed Davey
It seems to me that, given the way in which President Trump and his ally Musk are operating, they need to hear of strong measures and hear strong words even from their allies.
Let me move on to the subject of Ukraine. If it is forced to surrender its own sovereign territory to Russia, that will be the greatest betrayal of a European ally since Poland in 1945, but President Trump says Ukraine may end up Russian, and he wants American money back. I think we all fear where this could end, and the dangerous implications for our defence and our security. Can the Prime Minister reassure the House that he and other European leaders have given sufficient support to President Zelensky so that he cannot be bullied by Trump and Putin into accepting a deal that would effectively hand victory to Russia?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I met President Zelensky in Kyiv just a few weeks ago—it was my eighth meeting. The position since the outbreak of this conflict has been a united position across the House of supporting Ukraine, and I was able to reiterate my position, which is that we must put Ukraine in the strongest possible position. That matters now just as much as it mattered at the beginning of the conflict, and I did discuss with him what more we and our allies can do to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the important role that local communities play in supporting healthy lifestyles. I am delighted that we are providing almost £4 billion for the local health services that people rely on—things like health visitors, stop smoking services and drug abuse treatments. I will make sure that she meets the relevant Minister to discuss this issue.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
Prime Minister, I get it: nobody wants to get into a trade war. But, unlike Peter Mandelson, sometimes you have got to stand up for what you believe in. My friends in the DUP have learned nothing from their mistake of backing Brexit, and think that tariffs are a laughing matter. Does the Prime Minister agree that we need to stand up for ourselves, we need to back our workers and we need to back our businesses—not just in Lagan Valley but, indeed, across the UK?
The Prime Minister
Yes, of course. The US and the UK share a strong and balanced trading relationship. We invest hugely in each other’s economies, and we will continue to work closely with President Trump to boost growth and to create jobs. I reassure the hon. Lady that we will always act in the best interests of businesses and working people across the whole of the United Kingdom, including, of course, Northern Ireland.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
Yes, and let me remind Reform and the Tories what they voted against earlier this week in our borders Bill. They voted against making it an offence to organise the buying, selling and transport of small boats, against making it an offence to endanger lives at sea, and against powers to arrest suspected people smugglers before the smuggling takes place. They voted against. They voted for open borders—both of them.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I set out the position in relation to the Chagos islands last week. I also offered the Leader of the Opposition a high-level briefing on this matter. She still has not taken me up on the offer of that briefing. The Conservatives are asking questions without wanting to know the facts. It is extraordinary that someone who wants to be Prime Minister does not want to know the facts, even when she is offered a high-level briefing. The hon. Gentleman would be better informed if she took me up on the offer of a briefing.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am going to struggle to sound delighted with the result of that particular football match, but it will be a special day for Newcastle fans. The Tyne bridge is an iconic north-east landmark and I congratulate the apprentices who are helping to restore that vital piece of infrastructure. As usual, the Tories made empty promises that they had no intention of keeping, including £2.9 billion-worth of transport commitments that were never funded. We will look at the capital projects around the spending review and let my hon. Friend know as soon as we can.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue and the particular case of her constituents. I also know that this is deeply personal to her and, if I may, I extend my deepest sympathies to her and her family for their loss. We have taken immediate action on social care. We have already delivered £3.7 billion of additional investment. We are working on the first ever fair pay agreement for the sector and, of course, we are boosting carer’s allowance. I invite her and everybody to work with the House on the longer-term reform that we need.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this vital issue. It is not the first time it has come up. We are supporting mainstream schools to increase SEND expertise while also establishing dedicated SEN units, because we need to make sure that special schools can also cater for those with the most complex needs. We are working on this. It has come up time and again, but we are taking those vital initial steps.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The Prime Minister
Everyone deserves high-quality and compassionate end-of-life care. The hon. Member knows that we inherited a £22 billion black hole in our public finances, and that is why we took the difficult but right decisions to invest in our public services. I do recognise the pressures that hospices are facing, and that is why we are investing £100 million into hospices, with an additional £26 million to support children and young people’s hospices. I will make sure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Both my hon. Friend and the North East Mayor are dedicated campaigners on this issue. The Conservative party left us with a host of unfunded promises, and public transport is in dire condition. Expanding the Metro network has huge potential to drive growth and unlock new housing. I am pleased that progress is being made on the business case.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We have long had the principle in this country that everybody is entitled to legal representation, which means that lawyers do not necessarily agree with their clients. Conservative Members used to believe in that principle. If they now disagree, they should go to see the victims of very serious crime, including sexual crime, and tell them that, under their provisions, a lawyer who disagrees with a perpetrator would not be able to represent them, meaning that victims would be cross-examined by perpetrators. That has never been the Conservative party’s position. If it is now, it should say so.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
Allergy school, launched this week by the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, is a free programme to support children with food allergies. Allergic disease is a growing issue in this country, with more than 20 million people in the UK affected. For this reason, it has never been more important for us to have a national allergy strategy and an allergy tsar to drive and co-ordinate action. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming this programme, and will he meet me and the foundation to talk about how we can work together to drive this forward?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this really important issue. Hospital admissions for allergies have risen sharply in the last two decades. I welcome the work of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation. We will respond to the recommendations of the national allergy strategy group in due course, and I will make sure my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss it.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Prime Minister
We are, of course, delivering 1.5 million homes, but we are also creating communities for the future. The hon. Gentleman is right that that must include good schools, GPs and reliable transport links, which is what makes a good community. Just today we have announced an additional £350 million to deliver more affordable homes so that more people can realise the dream of home ownership.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
This week is National Apprenticeship Week. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for apprenticeships, I can tell the Prime Minister that employers are very pleased to see this week’s announcements, which will make a real difference both to completion rates and to the flexibility around apprenticeships. Does the Prime Minister agree that schools should be promoting apprenticeships alongside A-levels and other options? And can he tell us what more he will do to support more young people into apprenticeships?
The Prime Minister
I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has raised this issue, and that we will be able to give employers more flexibility on maths and English requirements. This is really important, as many young people did not get the maths qualification they wanted but are very well suited for the future and want to play their part. They can now get an apprenticeship under our changes. These 10,000 extra apprenticeships are delivering for them, giving them a chance to contribute to our economy.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Farming is top of the agenda, as far as I am concerned. That is why we put £5 billion to support farmers in the Budget—[Interruption.] The Conservatives failed to spend £300 million on farming on their watch. We have set out our road map, which has been welcomed by the National Farmers Union, as the hon. Lady very well knows. It was described as “long overdue”; I wonder who did not do it before?
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
As a graduate of the Croydon Youth Philharmonic Orchestra, the Prime Minister will know that youth services can broaden a young person’s horizons beyond what they could ever imagine. With national spending on youth services having declined 73% since 2010, will the Prime Minister outline how this Government will bring youth services back into our communities, will he look at giving them the statutory protections they deserve and will he visit Croydon East to see at first hand the vital role youth services play in my constituency?
The Prime Minister
My days with the Croydon Youth Philharmonic Orchestra were a long time ago now, but we fully recognise the importance of youth services. They save lives and help young people to live safe and healthy lives. We have been developing our plans for the new national youth strategy, to bring power back to young people and help every young person realise their potential.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for her ongoing work and campaign on that important issue. The cross-Government bereavement group continues to look at how we can improve access to the support that children and young people need at those difficult times. Of course I will ensure that she gets the meeting she wants with the Minister to discuss this further.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
Yesterday marks the 20th anniversary of the launch of the Make Poverty History campaign and of a fantastic speech, remembered by all of us who were there, delivered by the late, great Madiba. That campaign inspired a generation of campaigners and a great Labour Government to deliver unprecedented action to tackle global poverty, lifting millions out of poverty. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to some of those campaigners and commit to doing all he can to ensure that Britain plays its full part in helping to eradicate global poverty today?
The Prime Minister
It is a really important issue. We pay tribute and, of course, we continue to play our full part.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady’s constituents are right to be frustrated about the empty, unfunded promises that were left behind by the Conservatives—a point made by her and by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy). Under the previous Government’s plan, a new hospital in Basingstoke would simply not have been delivered because it was unfunded: it was a promise without anything behind it. We have put in place a funded, deliverable plan that will see the hospital built, and we will work closely with the trust to ensure that it is.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
The Government’s devolution plans are a welcome progressive development to shift power and resources from Whitehall to our communities. There are discussions now about the process and the realisation of benefits for our communities. Will the Prime Minister assure my residents in Worthing West, and those in all constituencies starting priority devolution programmes, that Sussex devolution will give us meaningful control of our local priorities, including housing, transport and social care?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising devolution, which will see her constituents in Sussex get meaningful control over local priorities. The devolution priority programme will see a wave of mayors elected next year, including in Sussex. I believe that those with skin in the game make the best decisions about their communities.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The Prime Minister will be well aware of the global vaccination fund, Gavi. One of the United Kingdom’s great success stories, it has vaccinated from deadly diseases more than a billion children under five, it presents real value for money to British taxpayers and more than 80% of our constituents support it. Will he give the House an undertaking that Britain will continue that leadership and make a decisive pledge at next month’s replenishment conference?
The Prime Minister
This is a really important issue, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly points out. I have long supported it and will continue to support it, and I will share details with him just as soon as I can.
Oral Answers to Questions
Keir Starmer Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I know the whole House will be appalled by the death of a young boy in Sheffield on Monday. Our hearts go out to his family and his loved ones. Knife crime blights our communities and we redouble every step to ensure that young people are kept safe.
On Monday, I met other European leaders in Brussels to discuss the vitally important focus on security and defence in a volatile world. I am determined to reduce barriers to trade, making it easier for businesses to do business and ensuring that a better relationship with our European partners delivers for the British people.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Dr Hudson
Sadly, suicide is the biggest killer of young people under 35. Andy Airey, Tim Owen and Mike Palmer are the 3 Dads Walking. They each tragically lost their precious daughters, Sophie, Emily and Beth, to suicide. They have campaigned tirelessly for suicide prevention to be included in the school curriculum in an age-appropriate way.
We met the previous Prime Minister in Downing Street and suicide prevention was added to the relationships, sex and health education curriculum guidance for consultation last year. I know that the Prime Minister has met the three dads and supports their campaign, but sadly progress has stalled. Will the Prime Minister please meet me and the three dads so that we can finally get this over the line and ultimately save young lives?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for steadfastly raising this really important issue, particularly during Children’s Mental Health Week. I have met the 3 Dads Walking. They are inspirational and their courage is extraordinary. As the father of young children, I do not know how they are able to campaign in the way that they do. I am not sure I would be able to do so. Of course, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will meet them again and push this really important agenda forward.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that the Conservative party left our railways in a terrible state. Two years of strikes cost our economy £850 million in lost revenue. You cannot grow the economy if you cannot run the railways. We will launch Great British Railways to focus relentlessly on passengers and to clamp down on delays and cancellations. I am pleased that Northern has announced the largest ever investment in its fleet to deliver 450 new trains, meaning more comfortable and reliable journeys for my hon. Friend’s constituents.
The Prime Minister
Let me deal with the serious issue that the Leader of the Opposition raises in relation to the Chagos case. This is a military base that is vital to our national security. A number of years ago, the legal certainty of that base was thrown into doubt. Let me be clear, Mr Speaker, and I shall pick my words carefully. Without legal certainty, the base cannot operate in practical terms as it should. That is bad for our national security and a gift to our adversaries. Some within the Conservative party know exactly what I am talking about. That is why the last Government started negotiations about sovereignty and about securing the long-term use of the base. They were right to do so. That is why the last Government conducted 11 of the 13 rounds of those negotiations, and they were right to do so. That is why this Government have completed that process, and we were right to do so.
Mr Speaker, I will set out the details when they are finalised and they will, of course, be presented to Parliament, but if the Leader of the Opposition is properly briefed on the national security implications when she is asking these questions, which she is perfectly entitled to do, then she knows exactly what I am talking about in terms of national security and legal certainty. If, on the other hand, she is not properly briefed on the national security implications, she is not doing her job, she is not concerned about national security and she is not fit to be Prime Minister.
Mrs Badenoch
How can anyone believe that this man is defending UK interests when he bends the knee to anyone who asks him? His answer was so weak and so waffly it is no wonder that he needs a voice coach. But he did not answer the question I asked him—why the Energy Secretary was not defending our country. The Secretaries of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs received nearly £400,000-worth of donations from Lisbet Rausing. It is her money that is behind the court case that will stop an £8 billion investment, threaten thousands of jobs and endanger energy security for all of us. Did the Energy Secretary refuse to defend UK interests because he is funded by billionaire eco-zealots?
The Prime Minister
I shall come to that very issue, but I notice that the Leader of the Opposition did not say that she was briefed about the Chagos issue. This is important. When she became Leader of the Opposition, I said to her that I would give her a briefing on any national security issue if she asked for it. That is very important to the way that we run our democracy. She has not asked for a briefing on the Chagos case. That is because she is more interested in chasing Reform than in national security.
Oil and gas will be part of our energy supply for many years to come. We have been absolutely clear about that, but we are going through a transition. It is important because that transition to renewable energy will give us lower bills and energy security, it will take Putin’s foot off our throat and it will be good for the national interest.
Mrs Badenoch
That is a weak answer, because the Prime Minister does not know what is going on. Last week, I asked about the employment Bill; he did not know what was going on. We asked about the education Bill; he did not know what was going on. Let me tell him what is going on. Perhaps he can answer some questions. Shell has said that a one-year delay to Rosebank will cost £350 million and the loss of 1,000 jobs. Equinor has said that a two-year delay to Jackdaw will cost £800 million. The only benefit that I can see is the £400,000 to Labour Ministers. At a time of war in Europe, threatened energy security and increased competition from the US and elsewhere, we should be getting British oil and gas out of the ground. Does the Prime Minister have the guts to take on Labour donors and his Energy Secretary and approve the licence applications when they are resubmitted?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition does not even want to know what is going on; otherwise she would have asked for the relevant briefings. She knows the position on Rosebank. She knows that the court case has meant that the licence has to be reviewed. There is a process that has to be gone through in the proper way. She understands that, but yet again she is proving that all she can do is student politics, and playing party politics.
Mrs Badenoch
I am speaking on behalf of the people of this country. When Labour negotiates, our country loses. The Prime Minister talks about bringing growth and investment. Last week, he lost a £450 million investment from AstraZeneca that we negotiated, which would have delivered growth immediately. That same day, he also lost the £8 billion oilfield investment that would have delivered next year. Business is abandoning the North sea because of his decisions. What signal does he think he is sending to investors?
The Prime Minister
As the Leader of the Opposition knows, AstraZeneca’s was a commercial decision. She must understand that. All she does is come here every week carping from the sidelines, talking our country down. We have the highest investment for 19 years. PwC says that we are the second best place to invest in the world. The International Monetary Fund has upgraded growth. Wages are up. Inflation is down. There is more to do: reforming planning and regulation, building new homes, and supporting a third runway at Heathrow. What unites those? Championed by Labour, opposed by the Tories.
Mrs Badenoch
It is so hard to believe anything the Prime Minister says. This is a man who needed “emergency” voice coaching on Christmas eve. This Government are so clueless they are borrowing £8 billion for GB Energy—a vanity project that is not great, not British, and does not produce any energy. Its own chairman admitted that it will take 20 years to create just 1,000 jobs. Meanwhile, 200,000 jobs are at stake in our oil and gas sector right now. Does the Prime Minister think that 1,000 jobs in 20 years’ time are worth more than the 200,000 jobs that we have now?
The Prime Minister
Again, the Leader of the Opposition clearly has not been briefed, or does not want to be briefed. GB Energy will be a publicly owned energy company that will drive the move to renewables. It is not about the number of jobs in HQ; it is about the thousands upon thousands of jobs that it will generate to give us energy security, which is something we did not have under the last Government, and take Putin’s boot off our throat—something that did not happen under the last Government. They lost control of the economy. We are getting it back.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister can waffle for as long as he likes, but we know that Labour promised to bring energy bills down by £300. Instead, bills are going up. He is freezing pensioners while shovelling money to Mauritius. The Prime Minister is not just managing decline; he is creating decline. He has the power to grant these licences, open these oil and gas fields, save British jobs and bring down bills. Why does he find it so hard to do the right thing?
The Prime Minister
She really needs to look into how these licences are granted. I appreciate that the Conservatives’ reset seems to be having no policies apart from cutting pensions, and having no briefings on relevant issues. Let us just remind ourselves that they presided over the biggest drop in living standards on record. Mortgages went through the roof, and they left a £22 billion black hole. We learned last weekend that, under the last Government, £35 billion was lost on benefit fraud and error. Who was in the Treasury at the time? The shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), and the Leader of the Opposition. They want to give lectures. No thanks!
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The NHS is the lifeblood of our country, and that is why we invested £25 billion at the Budget—a record amount—and are making it fit for the future through our plan for change. What a contrast with Reform, whose leader has said that those who can afford to pay should pay for healthcare. Under Labour, the NHS will always be free at the point at use for anyone who needs it.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Can I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the terrible murder of the 15-year-old in Sheffield and say that we support any effective action against knife crime that the Government propose?
At his first Prime Minister’s questions, I told the Prime Minister about my constituent Andrea. A full-time carer for her mother, Andrea is one of thousands of carers caught up in the carer’s allowance scandal, hounded by the Department for Work and Pensions for repayments. The Prime Minister accepted that there was a problem and set up an independent review, and we welcome that. But two months after the announcement of the review, Andrea received a letter summoning her to a tribunal next week. Her mother’s health has been deteriorating—she has had to go into a care home—and this is the last thing Andrea needs. Will the Prime Minister step in and do the right thing and cancel Andrea’s tribunal and all proceedings against carers like Andrea, at least until the review is concluded?
The Prime Minister
We set up the independent review, and I know the right hon. Gentleman welcomes that, and it was the right thing to do. I do not know the details of Andrea’s case, but if he provides them to me, I will certainly make sure that we have the details and look into what has happened in her particular case.
Ed Davey
I am grateful for that reply. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions wrote to me and was not interested in engaging, so I hope the Prime Minister will be.
Turning to foreign policy, last night many of us were alarmed to hear President Trump speak about forcibly displacing 1.8 million people from Gaza. The Prime Minister has spoken to the President on several occasions now. Does he personally believe that Trump recognises the dangers of statements like this to the fragile ceasefire in Gaza and, indeed, to the security of both Palestinians and Israelis? I am glad that the Foreign Secretary has confirmed that the Government’s position is still a two-state solution—I think that has support on all sides of the House—but will he reassure the House that this position and our concerns on these dangerous statements from the President will be communicated to the White House directly and firmly?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue. The most important issue on the ceasefire is obviously that it is sustained and that we see it through the phases, and that means that the remaining hostages come out and the aid that is desperately needed gets into Gaza at speed and at the volumes that are needed.
I have, from the last few weeks, two images fixed in my mind. The first is the image of Emily Damari reunited with her mother, which I found extremely moving. The second is the image of thousands of Palestinians literally walking through the rubble to try to find their homes and their communities in Gaza. They must be allowed home. They must be allowed to rebuild, and we should be with them in that rebuild on the way to a two-state solution.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that the new runway at Heathrow can boost economic growth across the whole country. It would boost the economy by billions and create over 100,000 jobs across the UK, with 60% of the economic benefits outside London and the south-east. It is good for Scottish passengers and Scottish businesses—and particularly for Scottish salmon, which is the No. 1 export passing through Heathrow and has been worth £970 million over the past five years. I will happily ensure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
I can assure the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) that Reform wants healthcare to be free at the point of delivery—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but there appears to be some panic on the Labour Benches—I am not surprised. I would like to ask the Prime Minister for some advice—[Interruption.] They really are panicking, aren’t they?
Nigel Farage
What do I say to the 25,000 constituents in Clacton—including 99-year-old Jim O’Dwyer, who flew a full set of missions on Lancaster bombers as tail-end Charlie—who are losing their winter fuel allowance and feeling the pinch, while at the same time we are prepared to give away a military base and pay £18 billion for the privilege of doing so?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member talks about panic. The only panic is for people who know that his policy would be to charge them for using the NHS. What he should say to the people of Clacton—when he finally finds Clacton—is that they should vote Labour because we are stabilising the economy and boosting their jobs.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for raising that point. We know that the Leader of the Opposition lobbied personally to remove annual limits on student and work visas. The shadow Foreign Secretary still thinks that the Conservatives have a great record on immigration, forgetting that they quadrupled it and that it reached almost 1 million a year. Our Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will give stronger powers than ever to tackle people smugglers. We have already removed 16,000 people who have no right to be here. The question for the Opposition is this: will they walk into the Lobby with us next week to secure our borders?
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Prime Minister
On Emily Damari, I have spoken with Mandy on many occasions, including when she did not know whether or not her daughter was alive. Just listening to her was to really understand the torture that she went through. I spoke just the other day to Emily herself about the conditions in which she was held, and I will of course continue to do so. To be absolutely clear—and the hon. Gentleman knows this—we are not funding Hamas and never will. We condemn Hamas, and everybody in this House should condemn Hamas.
Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises a very important issue in relation to maternity pay and maternity leave. The Leader of the Opposition thinks that maternity pay is excessive. That is the difference—we know that workers’ rights are pro-growth, and I am proud that our Employment Rights Bill will introduce parental leave from day one, which means that 1.5 million more employees will be entitled to unpaid parental leave and 30,000 more fathers will be entitled to paternity leave. I am happy to ensure that my hon. Friend gets the meeting with the relevant Minister.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
In December 2020, I was in my office, working on the expected Brexit deal with my team. We had to analyse the deal as it came in at speed and prepare and deliver a live statement at speed on one of the most important issues for our country in recent years. That was what I was doing. What were the Conservatives doing? Bringing suitcases of booze into Downing Street, partying and fighting, vomiting up the walls, leaving the cleaners to remove red wine stains. That is the difference. I was working—they were partying.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)
I know that the whole House will support the Prime Minister’s comments and send our thoughts to the family of Harvey Willgoose and all those who loved him after his tragic and senseless death on Monday. I support the Government’s actions to tackle the sale of certain knives online, but before the national media attention moves on from yet another tragic death of a young person, I know that the Prime Minister will agree that in order to tackle the scale of the crisis engulfing too many of our communities, we need a whole-system, cross-Government approach to address the root causes of violence. Will he commit his Government to such a national strategy?
The Prime Minister
This incident was horrific and senseless, and I thank my right hon. Friend for raising it. I think the thoughts of the whole House are with the victim’s family and friends, and the school community and wider community who have been impacted by this. We are all grateful to the first responders—the police officers and the medical staff who attended the scene—and it is right that South Yorkshire police are given the time and space to carry out their investigation.
We need to do everything we can to bear down on knife crime. It is too easy to get knives online, and it is too easy to carry knives without proper consequences. That is why we have made it an absolute priority in government to absolutely bear down on knife crime, and I hope that it is a cross-party issue.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising what is a really important issue for his constituents and for so many constituents. I am pleased to confirm that we have put down £69 billion for councils—that is a 6.8% cash-terms increase—including up to £3.7 billion in vital additional funding for social care. We have doubled the funding for the disabled facilities grant, with an additional £86 million to allow 7,800 more disabled and elderly people to make improvements that enable more independent lives, and we will continue to do so, working across the House.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Eighty-three proud pottery workers woke up on Monday morning with no job, following the collapse of the 200-year-old Royal Stafford pottery firm. It is a crisis in our ceramics industry, with escalating prices for energy, and fake and foreign imports causing a real problem. Will the Prime Minister, through his offices, arrange for the energy companies to meet Ceramics UK and the GMB, as the voice of the workforce, so that we can hammer out a new deal? Will he promote, through public procurement, buying British so that proud manufacturing jobs in Stoke can be protected?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this really important issue. It is obviously a question of jobs, but it is also a question of identity and a sense of place. Of course we will work with the energy companies and have the relevant meetings, as he suggests.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue in that way, and I pass on to Agnes and Jim how impactful what he has said is, and how important it is that he continues to raise this issue. Far too many children and young people are waiting far too long to receive the mental health support that they need, and we are determined to ensure that more children and young people can access high-quality mental health support in a timely manner.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
Llandudno is a beautiful seaside town and a wonderful place to visit, but businesses are struggling with a rise in shoplifting. In many cases, thieves are stealing in full view of staff because they just do not fear the consequences. The recent funding boost for neighbourhood policing is very welcome, but will the Prime Minister please tell my constituents what more the Government are doing to tackle retail crime and deter repeat offenders?
The Prime Minister
For far too long, crimes such as shoplifting have been written off as “low level.” That is wrong; such crimes are devastating. The Conservative party left us with rising crime and effectively told the police to ignore shoplifting of under £200-worth of goods. We have got rid of that shoplifters’ charter, and we are working hard to ensure that we take a grip where they lost control.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The Prime Minister
Again, we have obviously set up the independent review into exactly what happened in those cases, which was the right thing to do. We will look at individual circumstances, so if the hon. Member is willing to pass the details to me, we will look at them.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Audit Scotland recently exposed the incredible funding crisis facing our councils in Scotland, with a £759 million funding gap. It also reported that the 12 councils that make up the Strathclyde pension fund are reducing their employer contributions from 19.3% to 6.5%. Does the Prime Minister agree that instead of taking money out of workers’ pensions, the Scottish Government should appropriately fund our councils?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the failure of the Government in Scotland. They do not want to talk about that failure. They have got the powers, and they have got the resources; they just have not got any excuses left.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member asks about visiting Scotland. As he knows, my first visit, within days of becoming Prime Minister, was to Scotland, where I met the First Minister. I have also visited Scotland for the meeting of the Councils of the Nations and Regions in October, for the Interpol General Assembly in November and for the British Irish Council in Edinburgh in December. I look forward to going again very soon.
Dave Doogan
Interestingly, the Prime Minister could not tell me when he will next be visiting Scotland, but does he agree with the withering assessment of the eminent politics professor Sir John Curtice, who says that the current UK Prime Minister is
“the worst thing that ever happened to Anas Sarwar”?
If he does not—and he should—does he think that it is stripping Scottish pensioners of their winter fuel payment, abandoning workers in Grangemouth or attacking the national insurance payments of farmers that has catastrophically torpedoed Labour in the polls in Scotland? When he does get a date, he can even bring his Chancellor with him to back him up on the numbers—assuming that she is still Chancellor by then.
The Prime Minister
I remember when that rhetoric used to come from SNP Members sitting down there—
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member has to shout because the SNP Members are so far away at the back and there are so few of them that otherwise they would not be heard.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
My constituent Matthew and his mum Catherine, alongside Emma Murphy and Janet Williams, have campaigned for many years to get compensation for families affected by the epilepsy drug sodium valproate. Twelve months on from the Patient Safety Commissioner’s report on this matter, those harmed are still waiting for the recommendations to be implemented. How much longer will the individuals and families impacted by valproate need to wait for the clarity they seek? Will the Prime Minister arrange for a Health Minister to meet valproate campaigners to discuss this important matter?
The Prime Minister
This is obviously a really important matter. I understand that the Minister for patient safety met patient groups before Christmas to hear their stories, their accounts and their experiences at first hand. We will provide an update on the Patient Safety Commissioner’s report at the earliest opportunity to the House.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
The Prime Minister
Since 1998, the Good Friday agreement has delivered a far more peaceful society in Northern Ireland, and that is really important. Restoration of power sharing was a significant milestone, and it allows the institutions to make progress on the most important issues to the people of Northern Ireland. We will continue to work with all parties to that end.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I was delighted recently to visit Chaucer school, a great school in my constituency with fantastic young people and innovative and motivated teaching staff, but 14 years of Tory government did not do enough for more than 300,000 children across the country attending schools that are stuck and kept receiving poor Ofsted judgments. Will the Prime Minister set out how this Government will tackle inequality and tear down barriers to opportunity through our plan for change?
The Prime Minister
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will ensure that all schools can innovate, that new teachers are qualified and that every child receives a consistent core education to set them up for success in life.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising this important issue. Women and babies deserve the highest standards of care through pregnancy, birth and the months that follow. We are committed to recruiting thousands of new midwives for the NHS while providing support to trusts that are failing on maternity care. We are working with the NHS as it delivers a three-year maternity plan, which is making good progress in improving services, including for his constituents.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
Last week I had the opportunity to visit two of the local jobcentres that serve my constituency. The dedication of the staff I met to helping our local community, supporting people into work and adapting to the area’s needs was inspiring. Does the Prime Minister agree that we must listen to their frontline experience as we look to remove the barriers to work that keep people locked out of jobs? Will he visit those teams with me to see the work that they do?
The Prime Minister
Our “Get Britain Working” White Paper sets out the biggest reforms to employment support in a generation, backed by £240 million of investment. Through our plan for change, we will boost living standards and have more secure, rewarding jobs to make work pay.
Prime Minister
Keir Starmer Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister thinks that he can distract people from what is wrong with the Bill. This is not about breakfast clubs and school uniforms. Teachers and parents will be horrified at just how bad this Bill is. Even his own MPs may not realise it, but the Bill will cut teachers’ pay—it cuts pay for 20,000 teachers. His Education Secretary says that there is “not a ceiling” for pay—[Interruption.] Labour Members are all shaking their heads; they clearly have not read the Bill. The Education Secretary hasn’t read the Bill either, because clause 45 means that teachers’ pay will be capped. Did the Prime Minister know that the Bill as it stands will cut teachers’ pay?
The Prime Minister
We do need flexibility in our schools. If the Leader of the Opposition had hopped off social media for a while, she would have seen the amendment put down this morning to achieve that end.
[Official Report, 22 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 999.]
Written correction submitted by the Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer):
The Prime Minister
We do need flexibility in our schools. If the Leader of the Opposition had hopped off social media for a while, she would have seen the amendment announced yesterday to achieve that end.
Oral Answers to Questions
Keir Starmer Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
The senseless, barbaric murder of three young girls in Southport was devastating. A measure of justice has been done, but for the victims, the injured and the affected, we must see a fundamental change in how Britain protects its citizens and its children. As part of the public inquiry, we will not let any institution deflect from its failures.
Next Monday marks Holocaust Memorial Day. Visiting Auschwitz last week only strengthened my resolve to build a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre beside this Parliament.
The whole House will welcome the release of Emily Damari and other hostages from Gaza. We must now see the ceasefire deal implemented in full, the release of the remaining hostages and a surge in aid into Gaza for citizens.
May I also welcome Cheryl Korbel, whose young daughter Olivia was murdered in awful circumstances, and her sister Antonia to the Chamber? I have met them twice, and we will change the law so that the most serious offenders attend their sentencing hearings.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
David Reed
Before Christmas, I received nearly 1,000 handwritten letters from pupils at St Peter’s secondary school in Exeter. Each letter strongly advocated for greater support to tackle the mental health challenges faced by young people, with many sharing deeply unsettling personal stories. I am committed to improving local mental health services to help young people build the resilience they need to live happy and healthy lives. However, I know these challenges are not unique to my constituency and are being faced by children across our country. So can the Prime Minister please outline what steps his Government are taking to enhance mental health support for our children nationwide?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising an issue of huge concern in his constituency and in all constituencies. Far too many young people are not receiving the care that they need, so we will provide access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, recruit an additional 8,500 staff to deal with children’s and adult mental health services, and roll out our Young Futures hubs in every community.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We will do whatever it takes to protect farmers from the risk posed by foot and mouth. That is why we acted swiftly to ban imports of cattle, pigs and sheep and their products from Germany, to protect farmers. We will not hesitate to restrict imports from additional countries if the disease spreads, and we will keep the situation under close and careful review.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
May I take this opportunity to welcome the release of hostages, including Emily Damari, from barbaric captivity? I also know that the thoughts of many will be with the victims of the Southport killings. There are important questions to answer, and I will return to those after the case is concluded.
Between 2009 and 2022 the OECD found that children in England rose up global league tables in maths, reading and science. Conservative Government action means that English schools now top the western world at maths and reading, but the Prime Minister’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will be voted on in Committee this week, reverses the improvements that made that happen. The Bill is an act of vandalism. It is wrecking a cross-party consensus that lasted for decades. Why does the Prime Minister think that so many school leaders are criticising the Bill?
The Prime Minister
It was Labour that introduced academies in the first place to drive up standards. Academies are here to stay, and will continue to drive up standards. That is what the Bill is about. Also in that Bill are important provisions for protecting children, including a provision to stop abusers taking children out of school, and a unique identifier to ensure that the whereabouts of all children are known. What did the Leader of the Opposition do? She instructed Conservative Members to vote against those measures.
Mrs Badenoch
The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not even bother voting on that Bill. He talks about safeguarding measures, but that is not what the issue is—this is about the reforms that he is changing. We have an example of where those reforms were not introduced—Wales, which has been under Labour control for two decades. Welsh educational outcomes have tumbled down international league tables, and poor children in England now do better than wealthier children in Wales. The Bill denies children the guarantee that their failing schools will be turned into a better academy. It is an attack on excellence, it is an attack on higher standards, and it is an attack on aspiration. The Bill is the worst of socialism. Is it not deprived children in England who will pay the price?
The Prime Minister
As I said, we introduced academies, we are committed to them, and we are driving standards up. The Bill is important because it also sets up breakfast clubs for the very children that the right hon. Lady claims to champion. It limits the expense of school uniform, and puts in place vital protections for children. She has to answer the question: why did she instruct all of them to vote against child protection measures?
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister thinks that he can distract people from what is wrong with the Bill. This is not about breakfast clubs and school uniforms. Teachers and parents will be horrified at just how bad this Bill is. Even his own MPs may not realise it, but the Bill will cut teachers’ pay—it cuts pay for 20,000 teachers. His Education Secretary says that there is “not a ceiling” for pay—[Interruption.] Labour Members are all shaking their heads; they clearly have not read the Bill. The Education Secretary hasn’t read the Bill either, because clause 45 means that teachers’ pay will be capped. Did the Prime Minister know that the Bill as it stands will cut teachers’ pay?
The Prime Minister
We do need flexibility in our schools. If the Leader of the Opposition had hopped off social media for a while, she would have seen the amendment put down this morning to achieve that end. She says that the Bill is not about child protection; we had a young child killed who was taken out of school by an abuser. The Bill closes that gap—that is urgently needed. We have children who have not gone back to school since covid. The Bill closes that gap. She can make her points on academies and we can debate academies, but to vote against the Bill is a disgrace on all Conservative Members.
Mrs Badenoch
That is nonsense. The amendment that the Prime Minister is talking about does not address the issue. He raises academies, and that is exactly what I am talking about. Like every parent, I believe that all our children should have the best teachers. Apart from the issue of cutting teachers’ pay, the head of year 11 at Michaela—the most successful school in the country—came from the armed forces. The headmistress of that school has said that with Labour’s new rules, she would
“never have been able to hire him.”
Those are the academy freedoms that I am talking about. The Bill would have blocked that veteran from teaching. The Bill implies that doctors are not sufficiently qualified to teach biology and that an Olympic medallist cannot teach PE. Why is the Prime Minister closing down routes into teaching when we should be opening up more of them?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition knows that that is not right. [Interruption.] No, it is not. Look at the provisions in the Bill. To say that teachers in our schools ought to be qualified should not be extraordinary or opposed. Under the Conservatives’ watch, we had far too many examples of secondary schools missing teachers. When we needed maths teachers—they championed maths—we did not have enough maths teachers in our secondary schools. I want every single child to have the best possible education.
Mrs Badenoch
The facts speak for themselves: standards went up under Conservative Governments. What we need to know is who is benefiting. Everyone is asking: who is benefiting from these changes? It is not teachers—their pay is being capped. It is not parents—their choices are being restricted. It is definitely not children—their outcomes will get worse. So who is benefiting? It is the trade unions. The National Education Union sent out a tick list proving that after a decade and a half, it is finally getting its way. Why is the Education Secretary allowing trade unions to run her Department and ruin children’s education?
The Prime Minister
The Bill benefits the children who need the nourishment of a breakfast club. The Bill benefits the families who cannot afford uniforms. The Bill benefits the children who are currently out of school and nobody knows where they are. The Bill will benefit the children who could be taken out of school by abusers were it not to go through. The Leader of the Opposition should change her mind and support these vital provisions.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister needs to get out more and speak to schools. I was at the Harris academy just this month, and what is it saying? The Bill reverses two decades of progress. It is imposing Labour’s new curriculum on every school, taxing the education of children with special needs and excluding talented outsiders—the closed shop is back. This is pure educational vandalism. Alongside those attacks, Labour is removing single-word Ofsted judgments so that parents cannot see standards slipping. It is the same old Labour: bad outcomes for all children; excellence for none.
I know what it is like to go to a school that did not care about standards—this is a tragedy in the making. The key changes in the Bill were not in Labour’s election manifesto. Is that not because the Prime Minister knew that parents and teachers would reject them?
The Prime Minister
Parents and teachers know that we introduced academies. Parents and teachers know that we are driven by standards. We are committed to standards—they are part of the future—and we will continue to focus on them.
The Leader of the Opposition talks about special needs. She has got a nerve; I don’t know. Conservative Members know it: they have asked me at Prime Minister’s questions about the appalling situation of special needs under their watch. We are going to fix that mess like we are fixing every other mess.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, which I know he has campaigned on for a very long time. We are investing a record £25 billion in the NHS as part of our plan for change. Building an NHS fit for the future means that places like Redditch will see lower waiting lists and services that reflect needs. While responsibility over service rests with the appropriate NHS commissioner, I will ensure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I echo the Prime Minister’s opening remarks about the Southport killings and Holocaust Memorial Day, and I particularly join him in expressing our immense relief at the release of Emily Damari and in celebrating that she is back with her mum Mandy and the rest of her family. Let us hope that all the hostages are released as soon as possible, and that the ceasefire turns into a lasting peace.
Last week, I urged the Prime Minister to speed up the social care commission, to implement the changes that people need this year. The very next day, it was announced that the chair of the social care commission was also going to chair another important inquiry, into grooming gangs. The Prime Minister said that the job of chairing the commission is so enormous that it cannot be completed within three years, yet he also said the chair of that commission, Baroness Casey, has enough free time over the next few months to chair another inquiry. How can both those things be true?
The Prime Minister
Baroness Casey is well placed to conduct the audit into grooming gangs, given her hard-hitting report on exploitation in Rotherham. That does not affect her work on the independent commission on adult social care, which begins in April. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the first part of that commission will report next year, so that we can deliver recommendations as we receive them. Already we are introducing fair pay agreements, providing more money for social care funding and putting up the allowance. We are already taking steps. There will be a two-part report and we will act on the recommendations as they arrive, but this needs to be done properly.
Ed Davey
I still do not think the Prime Minister is giving social care reform the priority that it needs. It is urgent, so I will keep coming back to that to hold him to account.
Turning to the United States, can the Prime Minister guarantee that he will not sell out Britain’s fantastic farmers to Donald Trump in a trade deal that undermines our high food and animal welfare standards, in the way that the Conservatives sold them out in the Australia and New Zealand deals?
The Prime Minister
We will work with the US and with other countries, but we will never lower our standards.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. Too many buildings are still unsafe, and the speed of delivery has been far too slow. Our action plan sets out measures to identify buildings at risk and fix them faster. My message is clear: the funding is there to fix this, and there is no excuse not to deliver for residents.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
Expanding London’s airports and building a third runway at Heathrow would be incredibly irresponsible in the midst of a climate emergency, flying in the face of the Climate Change Committee’s advice. The Prime Minister clearly knows that, because he and seven Cabinet colleagues voted against a third runway at Heathrow in 2018. Will he confirm his position?
The Prime Minister
I am not going to comment on speculation. The hon. Gentleman knows that this Government are committed to growth, to the aviation sector and to our climate obligations. I am not going to take lectures from those who talk about climate change, but oppose vital renewable infrastructure in their own constituencies.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Growth is at the heart of our plan for change, which will fund our public services, create good jobs and raise living standards across the country. My hon. Friend is right to champion one of the largest brownfield sites in the UK, which could create more than 11,000 jobs on site and add £1.2 billion to the economy. It underlines the importance of this Government bringing economic stability, creating the national wealth fund and driving up growth.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the concerns of his constituents; I am not surprised they are frustrated and even angry at the lack of delivery under the previous Government. There was no credible plan—[Interruption.] Let me read the Infrastructure and Projects Authority’s verdict on what we inherited—
Mr Speaker
Order. I expect better from those on the Front Bench, Mr Philp, and I am sure you are going to show better.
The Prime Minister
He was Liz Truss’s right-hand man, so we wouldn’t expect anything else.
The IPA’s verdict on the previous Government’s plan was that there were “major issues”—[Interruption.] This is the Conservatives’ record; they should not be chuckling. The verdict was that there were “major issues” with the definition, schedule, budget, quality and delivery. It was a fiction—always was.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this awful case—the stories and accounts are heartbreaking and deeply concerning. I will make sure that she and the group receive a meeting with the relevant Health Minister at the earliest opportunity.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The Prime Minister’s Budget raised taxes, borrowing and public spending as a strategy for economic growth. When will he accept the words of one Labour Prime Minister in the 1970s, who explained to a Labour conference that
“in all candour…that option no longer exists”,
and that the only way to obtain sustained economic growth is by cutting taxes and regulation?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman must have missed recent reports. The Office for National Statistics has just said that we have the highest investment in 19 years; PwC has just said that this is the second-best place to invest in the world; and the International Monetary Fund has just upgraded growth, now saying we are predicted to be the fastest growing major European economy. Wages are up and inflation is down—that is after just six months.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has been a determined champion of Kettering general hospital, and rightly so. There is deep anger about the delay to the work because of the Conservative’s failure to have a plan, but while we implement our affordable and deliverable plan to build a new hospital, I can reassure her that the RAAC identified at Kettering general is being mitigated and replaced through the national RAAC programme.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Before Christmas, Lord Robertson, who is leading the strategic defence review, came before the Defence Committee and told us that he could not guarantee that the strategic outcomes from the review would be fully funded. Recently, we have also heard in media reports that the review might be delayed until the autumn—a delay of six months. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to state categorically to the House that the strategic defence review, with its important requirements for the defence of our nation, will be fully funded and delivered on time?
The Prime Minister
We are committed to that because this is a serious review into our defence. The review needs to ensure we understand the challenges we face and have the capability to deal with those challenges in the modern era, so that is the exercise that is going through. We have committed to the path to 2.5%. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the last time 2.5% of GDP was spent on defence was under the last Labour Government, and that is the difference between the approach on this side of the House and the approach on that side of the House.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, because the achievements of hard-working staff at Huddersfield royal infirmary prove that we can bring down waiting times through our plans for change. It is important that we are applying that best practice and innovation across the NHS. We must do more. We inherited record waiting lists and we are now bringing them down.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
In what is supposed to be a honeymoon period for a new Government, the Prime Minister has sacked his chief of staff, forced his City Minister and his Transport Secretary to resign, while No. 10 has been briefing against the Pensions Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary. Is it not time that the Prime Minister accepts that the root causes at the heart of his Government are with him, not them?
The Prime Minister
We have just won a landslide victory and we have massive majority. We are getting on with the job—[Interruption.] Look at the sheer number of Ministers that the Conservatives got through on a yearly basis, causing instability in every conceivable Department.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I wish my hon. Friend a speedy recovery from his recent treatment, and I thank the doctors and nurses who treated him. Under the previous Government, there was no progress made in diagnosing cancer at stage 1 and 2 between 2013 and 2021. That is an appalling inheritance. We are spending £1.5 billion on new surgical hubs and diagnostic scanners to ensure cancer patients get the care they need.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Eating disorders are the mental health disorder with the highest mortality rate, and we have at least 1.2 million sufferers. Some are being told that they are now too ill to be treated, yet eating disorders are entirely treatable. Today the all-party parliamentary group on eating disorders is publishing its report on how to make eating disorder services fit for purpose. May I ask the Prime Minister to pay very close attention to that report?
The Prime Minister
Let me start by recognising the hon. Lady’s dedicated work and campaigning on this issue for many years. NHS England is expanding eating disorder treatment services, including crisis care and intensive home treatment, and, as she knows, the Online Safety Act 2023 will prevent children from encountering harmful content that promotes eating disorders to services. Obviously, we will look very carefully at the report and consider its recommendations.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this case. She and I have met far too many families who have been devastated by this senseless violence. We are taking urgent action to ban zombie-style knives, and we are regulating the online sale of knives. It is unacceptable that these murder weapons can be bought with two clicks. Technology is there to stop it and we are going to take action. As for resources, we are putting an additional 13,000 police into neighbourhood roles and allocating £85 million to Bedfordshire Police to keep my hon. Friend’s constituents safe.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the ceasefire and the release of hostages? Let us all pray that the remaining hostages on both sides are released as soon as possible. Since the ceasefire in Gaza came into effect, Israeli forces have placed the whole of the west bank under strict military inspection as part of the Iron Wall operation. The Israel Defence Forces have launched a large-scale offensive operation in the city of Jenin, with numerous drone strikes on the infrastructure and a military raid by IDF troops and special forces in the occupied west bank. At least nine people have been killed by Israeli forces and 40 have been injured, including several healthcare workers. What urgent steps are the Government taking to protect Palestinians—including healthcare workers—and to prevent atrocities in the west bank, and will the Prime Minister outline the UK’s response to the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on Israel’s unlawful occupation?
The Prime Minister
I am deeply concerned by what is happening in the west bank. We have raised it a number of times in the various exchanges that we have had, but I am deeply concerned about it, and we are doing everything we can to alleviate the situation.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her kind invitation. I particularly enjoyed Tamworth’s recent FA Cup heroics against Tottenham, although they did not quite win. We are committed to protecting our most vulnerable heritage, and I know that Historic England is working closely with Tamworth borough council to preserve this local treasure for future generations. It is particularly important to continue school visit programmes, supporting our mission to give every child the best opportunities in life.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Across England, 95,000 students attend non-academised sixth-form colleges. Of those colleges, 32 are currently on strike because the Government did not settle the funding for them last summer. Can the Prime Minister tell me whether he intended to create a two-tier education system for sixth-form students who are victims of the covid crisis?
The Prime Minister
We have put more money into colleges and, as the hon. Lady knows, it is for them to deal with these disputes.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My sympathies go to my hon. Friend’s constituents; far too many are experiencing terrible flooding. I visited Stafford last year, and they talked me through the misery of their experience. We inherited flood defences in their worst condition on record. We are now investing £2.4 million in flood defences to better protect communities, and we have committed £60 million to support farmers impacted by extreme weather.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Two-year mortgages have hit 5%, borrowing is billions of pounds above forecast and retail sales have slumped. Does the Prime Minister still believe that the Chancellor is doing a good job?
The Prime Minister
I thought the hon. Lady was just reading out the last Government’s record.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am not surprised that my hon. Friend’s constituents are frustrated. There was never a plan; the funding only ever existed in Boris Johnson’s imagination. It was pure fiction and the Conservatives know it. We have an affordable delivery plan to build these new hospitals, including Watford general, and we will be getting on with it.
National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority
Keir Starmer Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention the following machinery of government change.
On 10 October 2024, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced the creation of the national infrastructure and service transformation authority. I am today announcing that NISTA will be a joint unit of HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office. This change will bring infrastructure strategy and delivery together to address systemic challenges to growth, and combine the expertise and functions of the Infrastructure and Projects Authority and the National Infrastructure Commission.
To support this, responsibility for all of the Infrastructure and Project Authority’s functions and responsibilities, including the Government’s project delivery expertise and functions, and assurance reviews for the Government’s largest projects, will move from the Cabinet Office to HM Treasury.
The principal accounting officer for NISTA will be the Treasury permanent secretary. The lead Minister will be the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
This change will be effective from 1 April 2025.
[HCWS368]
Oral Answers to Questions
Keir Starmer Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Yesterday I met the brave men and women serving on HMS Iron Duke and the troops serving in Operation Cabrit in Estonia. This Christmas, as every Christmas, members of our armed forces will be serving overseas, working day and night to protect Britain’s national security. I know that the whole House will join me in sending our deepest thanks to them, to our emergency services and to everyone working to keep the country safe over the festive period.
Mr Speaker, may I also take this opportunity, at the end of the year, to thank you and the House staff for all your hard work this year, and can I wish everyone across the House a merry Christmas and a happy new year?
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Chris Hinchliff
May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks?
In 2021, Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis, who live in my constituency of North East Hertfordshire and are in the Gallery today, tragically lost their son, Hugh, at the age of just six to a rare form of cancer. Now they are courageously campaigning to ensure that every parent who must leave work to look after a sick child in hospital gets the financial support they need from day one. Will the Prime Minister meet them and me to discuss implementing Hugh’s law, and giving their son a legacy that improves the lives of families at the most difficult time imaginable?
The Prime Minister
Can I pay tribute to Ceri and Frances—it is a heartbreaking case—and commend them for their campaign on behalf of other families? I know that the Minister for Social Security and Disability met the family yesterday, but no parent should endure losing their child to cancer, particularly at such a young age. We are investing £1.5 billion for new surgical hubs and scanners, and £70 million for new radiotherapy machines, and we will set out our next steps on the children and young people cancer taskforce shortly.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Can I send my warmest wishes to our armed forces at home and overseas, to the emergency services, and to everyone who will be working over Christmas? Can I wish you, Mr Speaker, the House staff and all Members of this House a very merry Christmas?
For years, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet played politics with the WASPI women—the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. The Deputy Prime Minister said the Conservatives were stealing their pensions. She promised to compensate them in full—another broken promise. Now, they admit that we were right all along. But let us ask about another group of pensioners whose trust was broken. Since the Chancellor cut winter fuel payments, how many extra people have applied for pension credit?
The Prime Minister
The No. 1 job of this Government was to put the finances back in order after the last Government lost control. They left a £22 billion black hole and we had to take tough choices. We made sure that the most vulnerable pensioners do get the winter fuel payment, and we have been encouraging them, driving up eligibility for pension credit and people signing up to their entitlement. The Leader of the Opposition should join that campaign. Here is the difference: because we have stabilised the economy, we can commit to the triple lock. That means that next April pensioners will get another £470. Here is the difference: two weeks ago, the shadow Chancellor said that the triple lock is “unsustainable”. Their position is that pensioners would lose out under the Tories yet again.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister did not answer the question because he does not know the answer. There are 850,000 eligible pensioners not claiming pension credit. If they sign up, that will cost the Treasury £2.3 billion, wiping out the savings that the Chancellor claimed she would make. Before the election, the Prime Minister’s Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the public that Labour had no plans to cut winter fuel payments, but they did have plans, didn’t they? Age UK says:
“Cutting the Winter Fuel Payment, with very little notice…will potentially jeopardise the health, as well as the finances, of millions of older people”.
Does the Prime Minister agree with Age UK that this is the last thing that pensioners and the NHS need?
The Prime Minister
We have been driving take-up with the campaign for pension credit. It is important that everyone who is entitled to it claims that pension credit. The Leader of the Opposition should not claim as some great victory that the record of her Government was that people had not signed up. We are the ones with the campaign, and the Tories should be supporting it. Because of the triple lock, pensions will be going up by £470 next April. She has not answered the question. Her shadow Chancellor says that the triple lock is “unsustainable”, so she needs to explain how pensioners would be worse off under a Tory Government.
Mrs Badenoch
We protected the triple lock during all our time in government. Meanwhile, energy bills are increasing, despite the Prime Minister’s promise to cut them by £300. In Scotland, his party leader wants to restore the winter fuel payment. Across England, councils are scrabbling together funds for struggling pensioners. The tragic reality this Christmas is that pensioners will suffer and may even die as a result of this cruel policy. Did the Chancellor consider the impact on councils and on the NHS, or does she just not know what she is doing?
The Prime Minister
The household support fund was set out in the Budget, as the Leader of the Opposition knows. We are pushing up pension credit. She now says that the Conservatives are committed to the triple lock. Her shadow Chancellor says that they are not and that it is “unsustainable”. Perhaps over a sandwich or a steak they could sort it out and come back and tell us what their policy actually is.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister needs to misrepresent me in order to make his point; I do not need to misrepresent him in order to make mine. The truth is that he did not think this through. Cutting winter fuel payments is not just callous; it may not make savings and it could actually cost us all more. It is not the only policy that is making things worse. The Chancellor’s Budget is a body blow to family businesses and charities. Marie Curie has warned that Labour’s Budget will cost it nearly £3 million a year. That is a cancer charity saying that it has no option but to reduce services. Did the Chancellor tell the Prime Minister that her jobs tax was going to hit charities?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition has asked three questions about winter fuel—[Interruption.] I will come to that. She has changed her mind. She used to say that the payments were a “dead weight”. She said that she had constituents who did not need them. They all stood in 2017 on a Tory manifesto that committed to getting rid of the universal winter fuel payment for pensioners. We can see what their real commitment is—[Interruption.] As for the Budget, we are driving up productivity across—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not want to have to ring the hon. Gentleman’s mother.
The Prime Minister
We are driving up productivity, prosperity and living standards. That is a pay rise for the 3 million lowest-paid—the Tories should welcome that—a pay rise for those working in the NHS, and better than expected wage growth just before Christmas. What unites all three is that they are delivered by Labour but opposed by the Tories.
Mrs Badenoch
I do not know what world the Prime Minister is living in. The economy is shrinking, and the Government did not think this jobs tax through or who it would impact.
Another area affected is the hospice sector. Hospices believe that the Budget will cost them an extra £30 million. Yesterday, Conservatives voted to exempt social care, nurseries, charities and hospices from Labour’s jobs tax. Labour voted that down. Can the Prime Minister at least agree to fund hospices so that they can continue their invaluable work helping people at the end of their lives?
The Prime Minister
We have put a record amount into the NHS in the Budget to deal with the problem that the Conservatives left. We will set out the funding arrangements for hospices in the new year. But it is the same old, same old: they want all the benefits from the Budget, as she has said herself, but she does not want to pay for any of them. That is what got us into the problem in the first place.
Mrs Badenoch
I did not hear a commitment to help hospices, which is a shame. The truth is that this winter people will be suffering because of the Prime Minister’s choices. The economy is shrinking, inflation is going up and jobs are being lost because of his Budget. Pensioners will be unable to heat their homes because of his Government’s decisions. They raised people’s hopes but then smashed them with broken promises. And now we learn that he is about to give away our hard-won Brexit freedoms—[Interruption.] Yes—the truth is that Labour is punching the British people in the face—literally, in the case of one of his MPs. He will pretend this is about the past, but we all know that these are his choices—bad choices. If he is looking for a new year’s resolution, why does he not start with telling the truth?
The Prime Minister
I will do it now. A £22 billion black hole left by the Conservatives, record numbers on the waiting lists—[Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
A £22 billion black hole, record waiting lists in our NHS—Conservative Members should hang their heads in shame—and immigration completely out of control, with nearly a million net migration. The Leader of the Opposition was the cheerleader for all of that. She wants the truth—that is the truth. That is why the Conservatives are sitting on the Opposition Benches.
While Conservative Members carp from the sidelines, talking the country down, this Government are getting on with the job: record funding for the NHS; money for our trains, buses and, yes, potholes; pay rises for 3 million of the lowest-paid; wages growing faster than inflation; planning laws reform; and Great British Energy set up. We are only getting started. Next year we will continue to rebuild, no matter what the blockers opposite say.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Jim Callaghan was a giant of the Labour movement and a great public servant. He left school at 17 and served in our Royal Navy before becoming Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Chancellor and, of course, finally Prime Minister. I am sure that he, as a proud son of Portsmouth, would be honoured to be remembered in such a way. [Interruption.] Happy Christmas.
Mr Speaker
Order. Let me just say to Mr Mayhew that I keep hearing you. I heard you the other week when you were sat to my side, and I am hearing you again over there. It not a good time to push your luck. I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I join the Prime Minister in his praise and best wishes for our armed forces and emergency services, and I join others in wishing you, Mr Speaker, a happy Christmas, along with all the staff of the Commons and everyone across the House [Hon. Members: “Sing it!”] I will sing in a minute.
I have had the great joy of spending time recently with some amazing young people from the Bath Philharmonia young carers choir. They are a brilliant example of the power of music to make a difference in young people’s lives. One member, Caitlyn, has even developed a special new project to spread the joy of music to young people in our schools and communities. Will the Prime Minister meet Caitlyn to hear more about her exciting project, and will he work with us and others to support music in our schools and communities?
The Prime Minister
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. As he will know, today we are introducing the landmark Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to enable all children to succeed, including young carers. We increased pupil premium funding to over £2.9 billion, which can be used to support pupils, including carers, with identified needs. As he knows, now that young carers are on the school census—and have been since 2023—they have greater visibility, and schools will be better able to identify and support them.
The right hon. Gentleman talked of singing; there were carols outside our front door on Monday, and my family were surprised to see him shamelessly plugging his song. We have strict rules about antisocial behaviour, but in the spirit of the season, I simply say, “Happy Christmas”.
Ed Davey
I wish the Prime Minister a happy Christmas. I thank him for allowing the young carers choir to sing outside No. 10, and I hope that he and the staff enjoyed it. Our song is called “Love is Enough”, but the hard truth is that for many young carers and young adult carers, love is not enough. These amazing young people need real action to help them with the challenges that they face. In addition to the measures that the Prime Minister just talked about, will he support the Carers Trust’s young carers covenant, to ensure that, across local authorities, we give these young people all the support that they deserve?
The Prime Minister
We should support these young people, and we continue to work across the sector to ensure that all schools identify, support and record data on young carers. We boosted the carer’s allowance in the Budget. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on those young carers.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right about the appalling inheritance, which included record numbers sleeping rough and almost 160,000 children living in temporary accommodation. We are delivering nearly £1 billion to councils to tackle homelessness, including increasing funding in Bolton over the next year. That includes dedicated support with housing, mental health and employment. We are also committed to tackling the root causes, which is why we are building 1.5 million new homes and abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions—something the Conservatives said they would do and repeatedly failed to.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
In 2022, the Prime Minister supported calls for fair and fast compensation for 1950s women impacted by the changes to the state pension. Yet, just yesterday, his Government rejected those same calls out of hand. Is that what the Prime Minister meant when he promised to lead a Government of change?
The Prime Minister
This is a serious issue. Between 2005 and 2007, there was a 28-month delay in letters to women born in 1950s about changes to pension age—that was unacceptable, and it was right that the Government apologised. In 2011, the former Chancellor George Osborne then accelerated those changes with very little notice. That, equally, was unacceptable, and Labour opposed it at the time. [Interruption.] It is a serious issue, and a complex one. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the research shows that 90% of those impacted knew about the changes that were taking place. I am afraid to say that the taxpayer simply cannot afford the tens of billions of pounds in compensation when the evidence shows that 90% of those impacted knew about the changes. That is because of the state of our economy.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that the SNP is letting down patients in Scotland. As the Scottish Auditor General says, “greater leadership” is needed in the Scottish NHS. Waiting list targets are being missed, spending on agency staff is skyrocketing, and delays to patient discharge are hitting record levels. [Interruption.] SNP Members seem to be proud of that appalling record. We have provided the money, and they have the powers—they have run out of excuses.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The trains and all travel were in an appalling state under the previous Government, and we are clearing that up. We are fixing it, and the hon. Gentleman should welcome that.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Ind)
The Prime Minister
I have just set out the factual background and the percentage who knew about the change. The simple fact of the matter is that in the current economic circumstances, the taxpayer cannot bear the burden of tens of billions of pounds in compensation. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are chuntering away, but, in 14 years, they accelerated the changes and never once spoke about compensation.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important issue on behalf of her constituents. It underlines the critical nature of the NHS workforce plan that we will deliver next summer to ensure that the expert workforce is in place and get the NHS back on its feet. I am proud that we are investing an additional £22.6 billion to fix our NHS. I will of course ensure she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to deal with the issues of concern to her constituents.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, because every single child deserves the best start in life and there are far too many shocking cases of children being let down. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is being introduced today. That puts children’s interests at the heart of Government policy and I hope it will be supported across the House.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Labour promised not to raise taxes on working people, but farmers are some of the hardest-working people I know. Peter Douglas from Jedburgh has looked at the details of this policy and he says that Labour’s inheritance tax increase will prevent him passing on his family farm to his son and daughter. They say Labour has betrayed them and cannot trust the Prime Minister to keep his word. They’ve got a point, haven’t they?
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Gentleman would kindly pass the details of the individual case he has raised to my team, we will look into it. As he knows, we put a record £5 billion into farming over the next two years in the Budget. Just two weeks ago, £350 million was put in to support farmers. That contrasts with the £300 million underspend of the last Government on farming. In a typical case, the threshold is £3 million, which means that the vast majority of farmers will be unaffected, but I will look into the individual case he has raised with me.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am glad my hon. Friend has raised that, because off-road bikes were a complete nuisance under the last Government and got completely out of control. We are introducing new respect orders to crack down on off-road bikes, strengthening police powers in relation to dealing with this big problem that got out of control under the last Government. We will also deliver 13,000 more neighbourhood police to ensure that we keep control of our streets—something that was lost under the last Government.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue on behalf of his constituents. We are, as he knows, committed to fixing the foundations of local government and keeping taxes as low as possible for working people. The Budget announced a real-terms increase for local government, with over £4 billion of added funding. We will put that support in place, and he is right to raise that issue.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the people of Syria and to the health workers of all backgrounds who do vital work in our NHS. The fall of Assad’s brutal regime is to be welcomed and should be welcomed, but we must be cautious about what comes next. We have provided £50 million of extra support to vulnerable Syrians and I have spoken to G7 leaders to work towards a Syrian Government that respects international law, universal human rights and protects all citizens across all sectors.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
Scottish National party Members used to ask those questions from an area that contained a great many MPs not so long ago, but all that changed in July. Now the hon. Gentleman is carping right up there at the back, and we can hardly hear him.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am sure that colleagues on both sides of the House support the values of the International Association of Parliamentarians for Peace—with which I know my hon. Friend is involved—and its work to support human rights across the globe. That, I think, is the sentiment that we take into this festive period.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Intelligence and Security Committee, and thank him for raising the question of our troops in Estonia, who, as he says, will be there over Christmas without their families. They are right on the frontline, with a very clear sense of purpose, as part of our NATO contingent, and we thank them. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must continue to support Ukraine—that was the subject of our discussions in Estonia yesterday—and ensure that it is put in the strongest possible position, whether in negotiations or not. We must also make it absolutely clear that this conflict could be ended straight away if the aggressors, Russia, backed off.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The WASPI women fought one of the most sustained and passionate campaigns for justice that I can remember, year in year out, and we did promise them that we would give them justice. I understand the issue of the cost, but does the Prime Minister really understand how let down they feel today?
The Prime Minister
I do understand the concern; of course I do. I have set out the history, but the research findings make it clear that 90% of those impacted did know about the change. In those circumstances the taxpayer simply cannot afford the burden of tens of billions of pounds of compensation, but, as I have said, I do understand the concern.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I know that the Prime Minister is aware of the case of my constituent Sara Sharif, who was brutally tortured and appallingly murdered by her father and stepmother. I want Sara’s legacy to be one in which she is the last vulnerable child to be killed by people who should have looked after her. Will the Prime Minister ensure that an independent inquest and review of Sara’s death is held at the start of the new year, so that we can learn why public authorities failed and ensure that it never happens again?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that absolutely harrowing case. It is important that all the lessons are learnt. An independent process is taking place, but we must be clear about the need to overhaul children’s social care to keep young people safe, and to look again at the framework for home schooling, among other things. We do need to learn those lessons, and we are taking steps. There is a process going on at the moment, and I will update the House in due course.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
May I thank the Prime Minister for the leadership that he has shown in securing the half-a-billion-pound deal to secure the future of the Hitachi rail factory in my constituency—a factory left in the lurch by the Conservative party for years? Does he agree that what we also need is a long-term plan for our proud high-tech rail manufacturing to drag it out of the mire that it was left in by the Tories?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Conservatives really should not groan. I went up to the Hitachi factory earlier this year, before the election. The workforce were extremely anxious about the situation, because they feared that there would be a gap between contracts—[Interruption.] That gap would have meant that people were going to get laid off, and the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) is chuntering from a sitting position, unable to understand the impact on working people.
The workforce were extremely anxious about the situation when I saw them, because they knew that if their colleagues were laid off, it would be bad for their colleagues and their community, and it would mean that they might go and get other jobs and not be able to come back if there was a new contract. I said then that I would do everything I could to ensure that we filled that gap, and I am very pleased that just the other week we were able to say that we have and that there is a contract. I went back up there to speak to the same workforce, and they were very pleased that they now do not have those anxieties. The Conservatives should be ashamed of their chuntering.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
As it is Christmas, will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Chris Middleton, who wrote a charity song to support Age UK that has already raised £10,000? What is even better is that it is likely to beat the leader of the Lib Dems’ single to No. 1 this year, proving yet again that the Lib Dems cannot win—something that I hope we can both agree on.
The Prime Minister
I am not going to adjudicate between the contending singles for the top of the charts, but I end this Question Time by wishing a happy Christmas and a peaceful new year to everyone across the House.
UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly: UK Delegation
Keir Starmer Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
The United Kingdom delegation to the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly is as follows:
Full representatives
Marsha de Cordova MP (Leader and Co-Chair)
Catherine Atkinson MP
The Lord Bach
Alex Ballinger MP
Matt Bishop MP
Sarah Bool MP (Vice Chair)
The Baroness Bull
The Baroness Crawley
Stella Creasy MP
The Baroness Donaghy
Catherine Fookes MP
Sir Ashley Fox MP
The right hon. the Lord Frost
The Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Sir Mark Hendrick MP
Uma Kumaran MP
Katie Lam MP
The right hon. the Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Noah Law MP
The Lord Liddle
The Baroness Ludford
James MacCleary MP
Frank McNally MP
The Baroness Mobarik
Abtisam Mohamed MP
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
Steve Race MP
Shivani Raja MP
Connor Rand MP
The Lord Ricketts (Vice Chair)
The Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
Peter Swallow MP
Robin Swann MP
The Lord Teverson
Caroline Voaden MP
Substitute Members
Lee Barron MP
The right hon. the Lord Bruce of Bennachie
Ben Coleman MP
Jacob Collier MP
Wera Hobhouse MP
The Lord Kempsell
The Lord Krebs
Laura Kyrke-Smith MP
Alice Macdonald MP
Jack Rankin MP
Laurence Turner MP
The right hon. the Lord Whitty.
[HCWS303]