Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend raises an important subject, and as she knows, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has set up the valproate pregnancy prevention programme. I, or a Minister from DHSC, will be glad to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those points.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

We all know that life is more expensive for someone who is disabled, and that investing in mental health and social care would give disabled people the support that they deserve. Liberal Democrats believe that if the Government were serious about cutting welfare spending, they would get serious about fixing health and social care, and the broken Department for Work and Pensions. By fixing that, we would reduce the benefits bill in the long term, but yesterday’s changes, which slash the support offered to vulnerable people, will leave many people facing difficult choices. Can the Minister assure disabled people, including the 80,000 in Scotland who are still receiving PIP, that they will be listened to, their needs will be taken into account, and they will somehow continue to get the support that they need?

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. There are stark inequalities in maternal health, mental health and a range of other areas, including infant mortality. She is absolutely right that that must be tackled. We are working across Government and with the Department of Health and Social Care on those issues.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

Does the Minister think it is acceptable for anyone in this country to say that people should “pray for victory” for Hamas over Israel, or for anyone to celebrate the 7 October attacks as a David-over-Goliath situation? If not, why did the Prime Minister invite Adam Kelwick, who has said such despicable things, to No. 10 just last week? Will the Minister apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister to the Jewish community, who need to know that this Government will stand with them against violence, hatred and division—and, in fact, with communities of all races and religions? All communities need to be supported.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

The Minister and many colleagues in this place will be aware of the groundbreaking new Netflix programme “Adolescence”. It is chilling, but is rightfully forcing a national conversation about the dangerous content seen by young men and boys, with fatal consequences. Given the important role that schools play in preventing violence against women and girls, will the Minister provide an update on what is being done with the Department for Education to counter misogyny and extreme violence, in order to enable a safe future for young boys and girls?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I work hand in glove with my counterparts in the Ministry of Justice on the violence against women and girls strategy, and I have long-standing concerns—as the hon. Lady does—about the presumption of contact and family court issues. Those issues will form the subject of part of our reforms, and are being looked into. I will gladly meet the hon. Lady.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

In January, the Labour Government committed to assisting five local inquiries, including one in Oldham. into grooming gangs and rape gangs. Two months on, we have had no update from the Government about the other locations. In which towns can women and girls now sleep safely in their beds? When and where will the other four inquiries take place, and what do the Government plan to do about the other 45 towns and cities across the country in which those gangs have reportedly operated?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bridget Phillipson]

My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to the postcode lottery and the patchy access to IVF across our country. We want to make sure that everyone has fair access to high-quality care. The Department of Health and Social Care has started to make progress towards its ambition to improve access to IVF services, and we also await the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence concluding its review on clinical guidance for the provision of such services.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Parents up and down the country are anxious about the use of puberty blockers on under-18s, so I was disappointed to read that the Health Secretary has failed to intervene in an NHS puberty blocker trial, despite grave concerns about children’s safety. The landmark Cass review said that more evidence was needed, but will the Secretary of State show moral courage and common-sense leadership to ensure that these dangerous and irreversible drugs are never tested on our children?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am very sorry to hear of the case in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It brings into sharp focus the need to tackle violence against women and girls, and to ensure that our mission to halve its incidence is delivered. Our inheritance from the Conservatives was shocking, with far too many women denied justice, cases never getting to court, and victims being left to wait for years for justice. That is why the Lord Chancellor has made it a priority to take action to deliver justice for women.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I welcome to the Gallery the Chairman of the State Great Hural, the Parliament of Mongolia.

The Prime Minister was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend, who does a superb job for Peterborough. We are proud of the fact that our Employment Rights Bill is tackling the cost of insecure work, and that we are delivering that pay rise for 3 million of the lowest-paid. We know that the Leader of the Opposition opposes all that. She thinks that the minimum wage is a burden, and that maternity pay is excessive. It is the same old Tories. They opposed the minimum wage in the first place; they have learnt absolutely nothing.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

The Chancellor claimed that her Budget was “a once-in-a-Parliament reset”, so why are we having an emergency Budget next week?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I have lived with the impacts of disability in our family, through my mother and brother, all my life. I do understand the human impact, but the current system is morally and economically indefensible. We are right to reform it and nobody should be defending the broken status quo. We are proceeding on three principles: if you can work, you should work; if you need help into work, the state should help you, not hinder you; and if you can never work, you must be supported and protected. They are the right principles, and we cannot leave the current system as it is.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks on Ukraine and Gaza. I also pay tribute to Group Captain John “Paddy” Hemingway and all our heroes from the battle of Britain.

Members across the House will, like me, have heard from GPs, dentists, community pharmacists and care homes who are all deeply worried about the impact of the national insurance rise on the services they provide to patients. That is why the House of Lords passed a Liberal Democrat amendment to exempt NHS and care providers. That amendment comes before this House this afternoon, but we are hearing worrying reports that the Prime Minister will order Labour MPs to vote against it. Will the Prime Minister reassure the House and patients across the country that those reports are not true?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jo Stevens]

If the Conservative party cares so much about employment and business in Wales, perhaps the hon. Lady should explain why her colleagues in the Senedd voted last week to block thousands of new apprenticeships and more than £300 million of support for businesses in Wales. Her party voted against that.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us go to the shadow Front Bench. I call the shadow Secretary of State for Wales.

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

Who is the Secretary of State battling for, Kazakhstan or Wales? Labour’s political choices mean countless jobs in Wales are at risk due to the national insurance rise. The damaging impact that is having in the Minister’s back yard is clear, with more than 1,800 jobs reportedly at risk at Cardiff University—in one of the many sectors that are desperately trying to stay afloat due to the Welsh Government’s jobs tax and the Labour Government’s impact on the Welsh economy. With Cardiff University ploughing on with its Kazakhstan campus, can the right hon. Lady be happy with the offshoring of those roles in that sector and many others because of the continued fallout from the autumn Budget?

[Jo Stevens]

I am not sure where the hon. Member has got the idea about outsourcing jobs. It was her party that told our universities across the country to go out and recruit international students, which they did. Now, because of that and because of what happened under her Government’s watch, those international students are not coming any more. She should, again, look to her colleagues in the Senedd. There is the education budget; her party voted against it. She needs to talk to her colleagues in the Senedd.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The national insurance increase is set to hit high streets in Wales hard, with many traders saying that they will lay off staff as a result. Last week, the Government announced £100 million of funding to be spent on reinvigorating Welsh high streets, but no towns in the Swansea, Neath or Amman valleys were on that list. Will the Secretary of State clarify the criteria used to select the successful towns and whether areas such as Ystalyfera can expect to benefit from future funding? That is one high street that is certainly worth investing in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Nia Griffith]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, my good friend the Deputy First Minister of Wales has spent a lot of time talking to farmers. We have absolutely protected the budget for farmers, as have the Welsh Government, so the full £337 million will go directly to farmers, despite his colleagues in the Senedd trying to block it last week.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Indeed, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is an utter disgrace that Opposition parties decided to vote against the budget last week. They were effectively trying to block money going to farmers—what a disgrace.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

The Government have said that they are concerned, as we all are, about our future security, so why is food security expendable in Wales and beyond? That is the message from farmer Stella Owen of the National Farmers Union Cymru, who has said that the Government’s actions are “destructive” and

“threaten the future of family farms”

across Wales. How many of those family farms is the Minister prepared to see go under before she and the Secretary of State step up and act in the interests of that key sector by helping the men and women who are livid, worried and fearing for their livelihoods?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Stevens]

My hon. Friend has one of the most beautiful constituencies in Wales, and I know that tourism is critical to his local economy. Indeed, tourism probably remains the only way to see a Conservative MP in Wales after the general election. The visitor levy is set to raise up to £33 million for the tourism sector across Wales. Last week, Conservatives in the Senedd voted to block £15.6 million of support for Welsh tourism.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State, Mims Davies.

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

Sadly, there will be no more Easter family fun at Oakwood, which has made it clear that its final demise, after covid, is due to Labour’s looming tourism tax, the job tax and sky-high business rates from the Senedd, meaning that it is all over. How many more tourist and hospitality businesses need to tell the UK Government that their “closed” signs will be going up and staying up due to decisions made by the Treasury? Will the Secretary of State stand up for the businesses and jobs in Wales who know that they are being taken for the worst ride possible—frankly, even more vomit-inducing than Megafobia—by this Government of broken promises?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is quite right. The Conservatives ran an open borders experiment that saw numbers go up to almost 1 million, and the Leader of the Opposition was the cheerleader, thanking herself for the lobbying that she did. The Rwanda scheme cost £700 million of taxpayers’ money to remove four volunteers. What a contrast: we have got the flights off and removed 19,000 people who should not be here. As with the NHS, prisons, the economy and everything else, we are clearing up the mess that they left.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Later today, the Prime Minister is meeting the family of Sir David Amess. Sir David gave this House and our country 40 years of service. I hope the Prime Minister will agree that getting the response to his murder right is vital not just to his family but to our democracy.

Every week, I speak to businesses that are letting go of staff or closing. Has the Prime Minister been given an estimate of how many people will lose their jobs because of his Budget?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I come from a family that dealt with disability through my mother and brother over many years, so I understand the concerns he has raised. We inherited a system that is broken. It is indefensible, economically and morally, and we must and will reform it. We will have clear principles: we will protect those who need protecting, and we will also support those who can work back to work. Labour is the party of work, and we are also the party of equality and fairness.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

I would like to begin by giving a shout-out for Young Carers Action Day, which is today, but I promise the House that I will not sing.

The Prime Minister has rightly spoken about the need to get more people into work—he has repeated that today—so that people have more dignity, we can get the economy going, and we can cut the benefits bill after the disgraceful legacy left by the Conservatives. Does the Prime Minister recognise that the best way to help many disabled people into work is to support them properly, through more special equipment, training, better healthcare and so on? Will he also today calm anxieties that he himself has raised for many of us by saying that disability benefits for people who simply cannot work will not be cut?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

May I acknowledge just how heartbroken they are? It is difficult to imagine what they have gone through and what they continue to go through. That is why it is very important that I meet them this afternoon, which I will, to discuss all the questions they want to raise with me. Sir David was a colleague respected and loved across the House. As I say, I absolutely understand how his family must feel about the tragic circumstances in which he died and everything that followed thereafter.

[Mr Speaker]

Final question.

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

Tomorrow marks 29 years since 16 children and their teacher were murdered at Dunblane primary school. In recent weeks, my constituents have raised with me the alarming fact that adverts offering handguns for sale are appearing on technology platforms such as Google and YouTube. Does the Prime Minister agree that technology companies have an obligation to all of us to do everything proactively possible to prevent such illegal advertising, and not to rely on a reactive, “We will remove it when it is reported,” approach, which is simply not good enough?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: not all the systems used across central or local government are as up to date as they should be. This is a constant battle and a constant challenge. It is really important that we put every effort into ensuring that we are as well protected as possible against hostile acts from both state and non-state actors.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

ByteDance, the company that owns TikTok, is required as a Chinese company to have an in-house Chinese Communist party committee. We all know that attacks from China on our national infrastructure as well as on our cyber-networks are becoming increasingly common, and it is clear that elements of the Chinese Government are behind them. Yet, astonishingly, the Government are still failing to fully declare ministerial meetings with TikTok representatives. Will the Minister ensure that meetings with TikTok executives are declared by Government Ministers alongside other senior media executive registrations, given TikTok�s huge presence in the media space, the massive public influence it has and the known cyber-risks posed by this Chinese platform?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I always thought the SNP�s policy was one of splendid isolation, but that is certainly not the UK Government�s policy. Indeed, we are working very closely with our European partners. That is precisely the leadership that the Prime Minister has been showing in the past week.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

We appear, regrettably, to be witnessing the start of a global trade war. Over the past week, the United States has placed tariffs on some of its major trading partners, and they have retaliated in kind. The President has said that he intends to place tariffs of 25% on EU goods soon. Should that happen, it is highly likely that the EU will respond.

Even if the United Kingdom were to avoid tariffs, the consequences for Northern Ireland could be particularly complex. What conversations has the Paymaster General had with his European counterparts to ensure that Northern Ireland is not caught in the crossfire of a trade war?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

To reassure the hon. Gentleman, the Windsor framework taskforce is based in the Cabinet Office and I regularly discuss issues on Northern Ireland with my European counterparts. I can assure him that I will speak to Maro� �ef?ovi? on a number of occasions prior to 19 May. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take that reassurance. He should also be reassured that we will, of course, always act in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Two weeks ago, I was glad to read reports in The Times that the Government intend to introduce a youth mobility scheme between the UK and the EU. That would be good for our economy, while providing young British people with the opportunity to work and study abroad. That is what the British public want, with new polling showing that more than two thirds of the UK population are in favour of such a scheme, but last week the Home Secretary ruled it out. Will the Minister do the right thing, remove the unnecessary barriers facing young people in the UK and commit to negotiations on an EU-UK youth mobility scheme?

--- Later in debate ---

[Georgia Gould]

We have strengthened the ministerial code, but we do not need to take any advice from the Conservatives. What we have seen from this Prime Minister is decisive action to uphold ministerial standards. Compare that with the record of the previous Government where the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), was found guilty of bullying but was allowed to keep her post; where the Government whipped their MPs to block the suspension of former Minister Owen Paterson, who broke lobbying rules; and where the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson lied about being told of allegations of sexual misconduct by his Deputy Chief Whip.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Despite the complacent response from the Minister, fewer than 250 days in, we have already had a Transport Secretary resign over her criminal record, an anti-corruption Minister resign over corruption, questions raised over the checks on the new Investment Minister, and at least three Cabinet Ministers accused of peddling dodgy CVs. The Prime Minister either cannot or will not say whether the necessary questions were not asked on appointment, whether relevant information was not disclosed on appointment, or whether he knew perfectly well about it but only took action when they were caught? Will the independent adviser conduct an urgent review of ministerial vetting?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Reeves]

I am delighted to hear about the falling waiting lists in my hon. Friend�s constituency. Waiting lists are indeed falling. Last month we announced that we had met our first step pledge to deliver 2 million additional NHS appointments seven months early. We are determined to keep up the pace of delivering our plan for change, for which the public voted.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Why are the Government scared of allowing the National Security Adviser to give evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat McFadden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reading my speeches so closely, but what he has misunderstood is that the teams are on the ground, and the process is to learn every week. I am glad to report that I have already visited a couple of those areas, and good work is under way. The whole point is that this will develop, it will adapt, and perhaps it will be different from the record of the Conservative party, which saw a growth of 131,000 public officials over the last�

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know we have mentioned Thursday and Friday, but I think we are on Sunday already.

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

The York Central development site is pivotal in driving forward York and North Yorkshire�s economy, and at the heart of that site will be a Government hub. Will the Minister meet me to ensure that that hub is not separate from the rest of the site, but integrated in the economic vision that we have for York?

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat McFadden]

I have both appetite and full faith in our excellent intelligence and security services, who protect us every day.

[Mr Speaker]

That completes questions�after Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The best is always last.

What assessment has the Minister made of the volume of apprenticeships offered within the cyber-security industry, specifically in relation to digital software and hacking prevention online?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

This Government back the oil and gas industry in Scotland. We have consistently said that oil and gas will be with us for decades to come, but that sits beside our national mission to get to clean power by 2030. It is a mission we should all be backing not just for the jobs of the future, but to bring down people’s bills.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

I add my congratulations to those of many others on the birth of the Secretary of State’s child recently.

I read with some interest that the leader of the Scottish Labour party is considering publishing a league table to rank the performance of his Scottish Labour MPs. I will not ask the Secretary of State to say where he thinks he may sit in that table, but I will ask about jobs and the economy, specifically in relation to the energy industry.

As a direct result of the eco-zealotry emanating from the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the increase in the energy profits levy, the ban on new licences and the refusal even to defend the issuing of licences to Rosebank and Jackdaw, there will be a reduction in the total economic value of the oil and gas sector of £13 billion over the next four years, with 35,000 direct jobs at risk. Can the Secretary of State tell the House, as Scotland’s man in the Cabinet—the man on whom we all rely to make Scotland’s case and to act in Scotland’s interests—whether he has made any overtures to his beleaguered colleague at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, or indeed to the Treasury, to stop this madness?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

This Government are fully committed to economic growth. As I have said, the Prime Minister has said and the Chancellor has consistently said, oil and gas will be with us for decades to come. We support the industry. We are working through the issues that have arisen from the legal cases the shadow Secretary of State references. Our clean power mission by 2030 will create jobs, create economic growth, lower bills, and give us energy security for the future.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

If economic growth in Scotland is to succeed, our world-class universities—the knowledge, the skills and the jobs they provide—will be absolutely vital. Last week, Edinburgh University announced that it faced a £140 million deficit, which is projected to be the largest in the UK. That is hugely concerning for my constituents and I am sure also for the Secretary of State. The principal cited several issues, including the national insurance changes. This morning, visiting universities told Scottish MPs that they also have funding concerns. They cited the immigration laws in this country as a disincentive. What are the Government going to do to stop further damage to this vital sector inhibiting economic growth?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty McNeill]

I certainly will. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all he does to promote apprentices and skills, and particularly apprentices in our defence industry, who are doing so much to keep Scotland, the UK and, indeed, the world safe.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

The Secretary of State said that the questions just asked were similar. Well, we did not get an answer on either of our two attempts, so I might try on farming. Scotland’s beef sector is at the heart of Scottish agriculture, with 80% of the country’s agricultural land grazing land, yet domestic beef production levels are set to reduce by 5%, with a 12% increase in imports expected to meet our forecasted demand. It is clear that this Government’s tax changes could not come at a worse time for Scotland’s farmers. Will the Minister please stand up for Scotland’s farmers and make the case to stop this madness?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is doing a fantastic job for her constituents. The Employment Rights Bill is the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation and will benefit more than 10 million workers in every corner of the country. It will tackle low pay, poor conditions and poor job security that hold our country back. It is pro-worker, pro-business and pro-growth.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Divisions between Ukraine and the US only serve Vladimir Putin. President Zelensky is right to try to rebuild his relationship with President Trump. He is keeping a cool head under very difficult circumstances, and I was glad to see President Trump receive his letter positively. What is the Prime Minister doing to help rebuild their relationship after a challenging week?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Our plan for change is built on national security and that has to go hand in hand with economic security. As we return to 2.5% for the first time since the last Labour Government, that investment must mean UK skills, UK jobs and UK apprenticeships. I was very pleased that on Monday we were able to announce a new hub and new spending targets to help 12,000 small and medium-sized enterprises access the supply chain, which will boost economic growth. That will be really important in so many constituencies—and of course I will consider my hon. Friend’s invitation.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

Yesterday I visited Kingston’s Army Reserve centre and met members of the Royal Army Medical Service who had served bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s initial remarks.

On Monday the Prime Minister rightly said that a minerals deal only was not a sufficient security guarantee for Ukraine. The Trump Administration has since said that a minerals deal is the only guarantee on the table, and President Trump has removed military aid from Ukraine and said that the British cannot share American intelligence with Kyiv. Both those decisions mean that more brave Ukrainians will die, while further emboldening Vladimir Putin. Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he still believes that President Trump is a reliable ally? If Ukraine does not get a sufficient security guarantee from the White House, what is the Prime Minister’s plan B?

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

That is a lie!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I presume something was said that should not have been said. I am sure the Member would like to withdraw what was said, if they have anything about them.

[Victoria Atkins]

Withdrawn.

Ukraine

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Less than a week since I called on this House to show the courage of our predecessors, we see clearly before us the test of our times, a crossroads in our history. With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on my efforts to secure a strong, just and lasting peace following Russia’s vile invasion of Ukraine.

It begins in this House, where on Tuesday I announced the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war—a recognition of the fact that, once again, we live in an era where peace in Europe depends upon strength and deterrence, but also a rediscovery of the old post-war argument, long held on these Benches, that economic security is national security. Because the demands we now have to make of Britain must come alongside a new foundation of security for working people.

The tough choices that we made last week are not done. We must use the process of getting to 3% of our national income spent on defence to fundamentally rebuild British industry, and use our investment in military spending to create new jobs and apprenticeships in every part of the country. That is why last night I announced a deal that perfectly symbolises the new era: a partnership with Ukraine that allows them to use £1.6 billion of UK Export Finance to buy 5,000 air defence missiles, manufactured in Belfast. That means UK jobs, UK skills and UK finance pulling together for our national interest, putting Ukraine in the strongest possible position for peace, and protecting innocent civilians from the terror of Russian drones.

My efforts continued on Thursday, when I met President Trump in the White House to strengthen our relationship with America. Now, what happened in his subsequent meeting with President Zelensky is something nobody in this House wants to see. But I do want to be crystal clear: we must strengthen our relationship with America. For our security, for our technology and for our trade and investment, they are and always will be indispensable. And we will never choose between either side of the Atlantic—in fact, if anything, the past week has shown that that idea is totally unserious. While some people may enjoy the simplicity of taking a side, this week has shown with total clarity that the US is vital in securing the peace we all want to see in Ukraine.

I welcome the opportunity for a new economic deal with the US, confirmed by the President last week, because it is an opportunity that I am determined to pursue. I welcome the positive discussions that we had on European security, including his clear support for article 5 of NATO. I welcome the understanding, from our dialogue, that our two nations will work together on security arrangements for a lasting peace in Ukraine. I also welcome the President’s continued commitment to that peace, which nobody in this House should doubt for a second is sincere.

I now turn to the events of this weekend and the moving scenes that greeted President Zelensky as he arrived in London on Saturday. I saw for myself that he was taken aback when the crowd in Whitehall cheered at the top of their voices. They were speaking for the whole of our country—a reminder that this Government, this House and this nation stand in unwavering support behind him and the people of Ukraine. We resolved together to move forward the strong cause of a just and lasting peace in Ukraine.

Then on Sunday I hosted European leaders from across our continent, equally committed to this cause, including President Macron, Prime Minister Meloni, the leaders of NATO, of the European Commission and of the European Council, and the Prime Minister of Canada—a vital ally of this country, the Commonwealth and Ukraine, responsible for training over 40,000 Ukrainian troops. I also had the privilege beforehand of speaking online to the leaders of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, each of whom, close as they are to the frontline with Russia, stressed the urgency of the moment.

It was a productive summit. Together, we agreed a clear strategy: that the United Kingdom, France and our allies will work closely with Ukraine on a plan to stop the fighting, which we will then discuss directly with the United States. It is a plan with four clear principles, which I will now share in full with the House. First, we must keep the military aid to Ukraine flowing and keep increasing the economic pressure on Russia. To that end, alongside our partnership on air defence, we are doubling down on military aid. Already this year, we have taken our support to record levels. On Saturday, we also agreed a new £2.2 billion loan for Ukraine, backed not by the British taxpayer but by the profits from frozen Russian assets. Second, we agreed that any lasting peace must guarantee the sovereignty and security of Ukraine, and that Ukraine must be at the table when negotiating their future—that is absolutely vital. Third, we agreed that in the event of a peace deal we will continue to boost Ukraine’s defences and Ukraine’s deterrence. Finally, fourth: we agreed to develop a coalition of the willing, ready to defend a deal in Ukraine and guarantee the peace.

After all, the Ukrainian position is completely understandable. For them, the war did not begin three years ago; that was merely the latest and most brutal escalation. They have signed agreements with Putin before. They have experienced the nature of his diplomacy and the calibre of his word. We cannot accept a weak deal like Minsk again. No, we must proceed with strength, and that does now require urgently a coalition of the willing. We agreed on Sunday that those willing to play a role in this will intensify planning now, and, as this House would expect, Britain will play a leading role—with, if necessary, and together with others, boots on the ground and planes in the air. It is right that Europe does the heavy lifting to support peace on our continent, but to succeed this effort must also have strong US backing.

I want to assure the House that I take none of this lightly. I have visited British troops in Estonia, and no aspect of my role weighs more heavily than the deployment of British troops in the service of defence and security in Europe. Yet I do feel very strongly that the future of Ukraine is vital for our national security. Russia is a menace in our waters and skies. They have launched cyber-attacks on our NHS and made assassination attempts in our streets. In this House, we stand by Ukraine because it is the right thing to do, but we also stand by them because it is in our interests to do so. If we do not achieve a lasting peace, the instability and insecurity that has hit the living standards of working people in Britain will only get worse and Putin’s appetite for conflict and chaos will only grow.

A strong peace, a just peace and a lasting peace: that has now to be our goal. It is vital, it is in our interests and in its pursuit Britain will lead from the front. For the security of our continent, the security of our country and the security of the British people, we must now win the peace. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

We all watched with alarm and distress the scenes from the White House on Friday, but equally, across the country, we were extremely grateful that we had a Prime Minister who had such a pitch-perfect response at the weekend. As he works towards a just peace for Ukraine, he has the support of the whole country in doing so.

Here is the question. The Prime Minister said on “Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg” that following the cuts to the aid budget, he would go through line by line to ensure that the priorities of Ukraine, Sudan and Gaza were all prioritised in a lasting peace. The difficulty is that after refugee costs, admin costs and the Department’s commitments to things like the World Bank and the UN are taken into account, it is hard to believe that there will be enough left in the budget to provide meaningful humanitarian support in those priority areas. Does the Prime Minister understand the concern of so many that these cuts could in fact, in the long term, hobble the very leadership that he has shown this weekend, which has finally given the world some hope?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. It is a very important issue. What I did last week was to announce the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, and the circumstances and the context require it. That decision had to be made, and I was determined that it would be fully funded so the House could see where the money would come from.

On the question of overseas aid, I am committed to it. What we will now do is go through line by line the funding and look at our priorities. Of course, Ukraine, Sudan and Gaza are right up there in our priorities, but I also want to work with others, and across the House if we can, on other ways of raising money and finance for development and aid overseas. I saw the president of the World Bank on Friday to have that very discussion; I want to have it, and I mentioned it in my discussions with other countries this weekend, many of which want to join in attempts to find other ways to leverage money, particularly from the private sector, where states cannot do it in the way that they might want to just at the moment. That is the approach we will take.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. We were all horrified by Friday’s scenes in the Oval Office. President Trump’s attack on the brave and dignified President Zelensky left everyone shocked and appalled—except, it seems, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). Nobody else watching those scenes could fail to understand that we have entered a new era—one in which the United States prefers to align itself with tyrants like Putin, rather than its democratic partners.

On these Benches, we have supported the Prime Minister’s actions and leadership—Britain leading the world, as we have so many times in the past, bringing together Europe and Canada in London to work towards a just peace that guarantees Ukraine’s sovereignty and security—but we need to reduce our dependency on the United States. With deep regret, I fear that President Trump is not a reliable ally in respect of Russia. In that regard, did the Prime Minister discuss with our European allies our proposals for a new rearmament bank and for seizing the tens of billions of pounds-worth of Russian assets to support Ukraine? In his conversations with the Canadian Prime Minister, was he clear that we stand with our Commonwealth ally in the face of President Trump’s threats?

Many of us were confused by Lord Mandelson’s comments yesterday, so can the Prime Minister confirm that they do not represent Government policy? Does he agree that the British ambassador should not be freelancing on American TV?

The Prime Minister will have our support if the UK continues to lead with our European and Commonwealth allies for Ukraine’s defence and our collective security.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. He talked about the scene on Friday afternoon—nobody wants to see that. My response was to recognise the urgency of the need to repair the breach, which is why I spoke to President Trump and President Zelensky on Friday night, and again on Saturday night. I am continuing in that work, because for me, the single most important thing is lasting peace in Europe and Ukraine. Nothing is going to deter me from that or cause me to lose my focus on it.

On the dependency on the US, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The US and the UK have the closest of relationships; our defence, security and intelligence are completely intertwined. No two countries are as close as our two countries, and at a time like this, it would be a huge mistake to suggest that any weakening of that link is the way forward for security and defence in Europe.

On the question of a rearmament bank, yes, I do think we should continue discussions with others as to what the possibilities could be. That formed some of the discussion yesterday with our allies. On assets, again, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the situation is complicated, but there are ongoing discussions. I spoke at length with the Canadian Prime Minister yesterday, because we had a bilateral meeting as well as the meeting with other colleagues. In that meeting, I was able to assure him of our strong support for Canada, which is a close ally of ours and a strong supporter of Ukraine. Canada has led the way on the training that has been so vital to Ukraine, so it was very welcome at the table yesterday.

In relation to the ambassador’s comments, the plan is clear. We are working, particularly with the French— I had extensive conversations with President Macron over the past week and intensively over the weekend—and talking to Ukraine as well. Those conversations are going on at the moment, and the intention is to then have discussions with the United States in relation to that plan. As soon as the details are available, I will share them with the House, but they are still being worked on at the moment. There is no guarantee of success, but I am not going to let up until we have done everything we can to ensure peace in Europe and peace for Ukraine.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Power supply is hugely important in Ukraine. Let us face it: power and energy have been weaponised by Putin; that is why he is attacking the power supplies to communities across Ukraine. We will work with Ukraine to ensure that its people have the security and power supplies they need as we go forward.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Our enemies should know that our Prime Minister has 100% support from us. I noticed in Moscow that they are referring to the small size of the British Army. Perhaps the Prime Minister could remind them of what the Kaiser said in 1914 about “the contemptible little British Army”. Will the Prime Minister tell President Putin and other tyrants that our Army, the most professional in the world, is quite capable of giving as good as it gets? To continue the historical allusion, as in 1939, if we do stand up to the mark with the French, it is best to have a security guarantee from the Americans.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

As I indicated a moment ago, I look forward to the Executive adopting a programme for Government. I am aware of what happened earlier today; I am confident that another meeting will be arranged, and I look forward to seeing the programme adopted.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

The Government’s decision to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 will mean reopening many inquests and civil cases. Many of those cases will impact on the police. Does the Secretary of State accept that that will mean a significant cost to the Police Service of Northern Ireland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

The Government have provided additional funding to the PSNI in the autumn statement through the additional security fund. I have read the Policy Exchange report, and it contains a lot of speculation about numbers. The fact remains that the legislation supported by the Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was part, has not worked; it was flawed and found to be unlawful. I am afraid that the Opposition will have to recognise that at some point, and it needs to be fixed.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Pharmacies in Northern Ireland are in a declared state of crisis. Pharmacists are having to dip into their savings just to stay afloat, and they are cutting staff numbers and opening hours. The National Pharmacy Association, which represents 6,500 community pharmacies, has warned that its members may have to further cut opening hours, halt home deliveries and reduce local support services, and that warning is amplified in Northern Ireland. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with the Northern Ireland Executive to safeguard access to crucial pharmacy services across rural and urban regions? Does he agree that an urgent impact assessment on pharmacy underfunding is required to highlight the scale of the crisis for community pharmacies, which provide vital-to-life services?

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

Officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are following up specifically with the companies that are most affected, such as seed shipping companies. Shipping seeds is allowed, using phytosanitary certificates, but business-to-business posting is currently smoother than business-to-consumer posting. Solutions to this issue are being worked out within the requirements of the Windsor framework, and guidance should be updated shortly.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her answer, but we want to know more detail of the progress that the horticultural working group is making on resolving the issues to do with the movements of plants and cut flowers from GB to NI under the Windsor framework. Can she please update us on that as a matter of urgency?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

The whole House will have profound sympathy for all the victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism, and all the victims of the troubles. The Shawcross report was commissioned by the last Government as an internal report, and decisions on the report and its future are currently under review by the FCDO.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

People throughout the United Kingdom will be disgusted if former terrorists such as Gerry Adams receive compensation from the taxpayer because of Labour’s decision to repeal the legacy Act without putting something in its place. Will the Secretary of State finally commit himself to legislating immediately to prevent that from happening?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Leader of the Opposition.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hon. Members]

More!

[Mr Speaker]

I will decide when there is more.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the SNP.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before the Prime Minister’s statement, let me point out that the Government’s own ministerial code says that the text of statements should be provided in advance to the Opposition and the Speaker. It does not provide for the text to be redacted. I am particularly concerned by reports that some of the redacted information was provided to the media in advance. If correct, that is very discourteous to this House, and I take it very seriously. It could well have been leaked, in which case I hope that there will be an inquiry into what has happened. I ask the Prime Minister to look into what has happened and to report back to me and to the House as soon as possible.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

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

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement on defence and security, because times are a-changing and we must all recognise that these are pivotal moments not just for our nation’s security but for our Ukrainian friends, whom we must wholeheartedly support in their fight for survival.

In my various interactions with key stakeholders in my role as Chair of the Defence Committee, I have begun to realise that there is considerable consternation among our European allies about whether long-established and hard-earned alliances—rather than a short-term transactional approach—can still be relied on to secure lasting peace. Also, given the proposed reduction in the American presence on our continent, people are looking for leadership. I feel that this is our time to step forward as a nation and take the lead on defence and security matters on our continent.

Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister convey to President Trump and our American allies the anxieties of our European allies and the need to strengthen our transatlantic NATO alliance at this perilous time for Europe, and does he agree that he can be the person to take the lead on defence and security matters in Europe, coalescing with our NATO allies?

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. 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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Can I say to those who were late, please do not embarrass the Chair by standing?

[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?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I think the right hon. Gentleman has been asleep at the wheel since the election—not just when he was in government. Our Government have brought in the Regulatory Innovation Office, which is now up and running and piloting four areas to get innovation through the regulatory landscape without delay. Our Government have brought in the gov.uk app, which will be delivered in June, as well as the digital wallet and the digital driving licence, and a suite of productivity services are already being deployed in the public sector. His Government did none of those things. We are doing them now.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

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

The Government’s determination to embrace AI to transform public services and pull through procurement opportunities for British businesses is very welcome, but many public service users and others may have been concerned by the Government’s failure to sign the Paris AI summit declaration, which sought to ensure that AI is open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure and trustworthy. A Government spokesperson said that there were concerns about progress on global governance and national security. Will the Secretary of State elaborate on that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

As always, I am grateful for the exchanges that the hon. Gentleman and I have in this House, which are always constructive. That issue is part of the legacy that we have inherited from the failed Tory Government of over 14 years, but I assure him that the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which has its Second Reading today, will force different parts of the NHS to finally start communicating with themselves and using interoperable data in the interests of patients.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The Secretary of State’s plans to improve Government services depend on the cloud. In the light of the Competition and Markets Authority decision to assess whether Amazon Web Services and Microsoft should be designated as having strategic market status in cloud service provision, what decisions has he made regarding the approach to current and future Government procurement of cloud services?

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Sussex Bookshop is a new bookshop that opened in Chichester city centre in December; it is now February and it is unable to connect to any sort of internet provision, because Openreach is reporting that there are no extra connections for the whole city centre. Does the Minister agree that reliable internet access is essential, especially for small businesses that have to operate both on the high street and on an online platform? What steps is she taking to ensure that those businesses have access now, not in 2030?

[Mr Speaker]

I think that is linked to the north-east. That is the subject.

[Feryal Clark]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. Businesses across the country should be able to connect, especially in this day and age. If the business in her constituency continues to experience problems, my hon. Friend the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms will be happy to meet her to discuss this issue further.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

Digital services for small businesses are important across the country—north-east, south-east or wherever you are, Mr Speaker. The latest data shows, however, that only around 15% of UK small and medium-sized enterprises use AI, which is well behind other countries, such as Denmark and Finland. Will the Minister commit to publishing a detailed adoption road map that covers, for example, essential upskilling, data centre capacity and tech vouchers, so that small businesses can deploy AI without being locked out by cost and complexity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question and for the leadership that he has shown in his community in Southport during extremely difficult times. The Online Safety Act 2023 applies to all users and includes measures to tackle misinformation peddled by foreign states. He has a specific challenge in his community, and I am very willing to meet him and members of his community to hear directly of the impact that these issues have had.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

The Conservatives secured a £450 million investment from AstraZeneca to expand its Merseyside vaccine factory. When the Chancellor wrecked the deal, AstraZeneca tried to save it by increasing that investment to over £500 million. Why did Labour still walk away, handing jobs and investment to our competitors?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

The Conservative Government established the Ukraine family scheme. In total, more than 200,000 Ukrainians—mostly women, children and the elderly—have found sanctuary in the UK from Putin’s war. However, a family of six from Gaza have applied to live in Britain using this scheme, and a judge has now ruled in their favour. That is not what the scheme was designed to do. This decision is completely wrong, and cannot be allowed to stand. Are the Government planning to appeal on any points of law, and, if so, which ones?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Dewhirst, I am sure you do not want to be leaving today—it is not the best day for it.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Speaker]

For the final question, I call Andrew Mitchell.

[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?

US Steel Import Tariffs

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

Well, well—let me try to answer the various questions that the shadow Minister asks. First, on the big, beautiful deal that the Conservatives contemplated, I simply observe that that was one of a whole number of trade deals that they boast about but abjectly failed to deliver.

The hon. Lady described this as a moment of great peril for the UK steel industry. Frankly, we saw the UK steel industry suffer from a degree of neglect for many years under the previous Government. That is why we are the first Government in many years to set out a comprehensive steel strategy, including a commitment of £2.5 billion towards the future of the steel industry. We will take no lectures from Conservative Front Benchers on the UK steel industry.

On the hon. Lady’s substantive question about the degree of contact that we have had with the US trade representative, it may have eluded her attention that we do not yet have a confirmed US trade representative. We anticipate that Jamieson Greer will be confirmed by the US Senate in the next couple of weeks. Similarly, she might suggest that it is important for the Secretary of State to meet Howard Lutnick, the US Secretary of Commerce, but, alas, I must inform her that Howard Lutnick has not yet been confirmed. We stand ready to engage with the incoming Administration—be that with the USTR or the Secretary of Commerce—once we are in a position to do so.

In terms of the economic analysis, I hope the hon. Lady will understand, given how sensitive these issues are as we anticipate the further steps to be taken by the Trump Administration, that it would not be an altogether wise negotiating strategy to share the detail of the internal UK analysis of the potential effects of tariffs, which, I remind the House, are not due to be imposed until 12 March.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

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

What is essential now is that this does not escalate. Widespread duties on UK exports to the US would be devastating for economic growth, bad for inflation and bad for interest rates. The whole House ought to wish His Majesty’s new ambassador, Lord Mandelson, the very best of luck in the conduct of his new tasks in Washington. What flexibility will the Minister allow on increasing funding to UK steelmakers through the steel strategy if they confirm that that is essential to maintain a sovereign capability in this country?

[Mr Alexander]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his generous words about the incoming UK ambassador to Washington, who—notwithstanding his commitment at the weekend to fly under the radar—is already in post and is making necessary calls. He is but one of the key interlocutors we have established with the incoming Administration, and—reflecting the earlier questions that we were asked—we are already actively engaged with the US Administration.

More broadly on the approach to the UK steel industry, my friend and colleague the Minister of State for Industry is this afternoon meeting representatives of the steelmaking trade unions and representatives of the principal steel companies in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State will further that dialogue in the next 24 hours. There has already been outreach to the UK Steel trade body. In relation to the commitment for the steel strategy that we are due to unveil in the spring, I can assure my right hon. Friend that there is already a very active dialogue that will incorporate issues related not just to potential tariffs but to the risks of trade diversion, and to the substantive issues that he raises.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

Donald Trump’s tariffs will cause much uncertainty across the world, not least for those working in our great British steel industry. Tariffs are not just bad news for UK steel producers; they would have a tangible effect on people’s lives, from lower economic growth to higher inflation. It is not likely to end with steel, so we may well be caught up in America’s economic vandalism. Will the Minister set out how US tariffs may affect the UK economy and what preparations are being made as a result, and does he agree that British jobs are on the line and that businesses and workers want to see the Government stand up for them?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning the excellent organisations in her constituency and the work that they do to support survivors. We are investing more in provision, but I understand her point about the need for security of long-term funding, and we will consider that as part of our VAWG strategy.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

We welcome the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls, but a recent report from the National Audit Office makes grim reading, stating that one in 12 women are victims of violence every year and that there were more than 2 million victims in the year up to June 2024. It also suggests while there is a welcome focus on victims, we are not doing enough in terms of prevention. How will the Minister ensure that this mission will focus on education and prevention in schools as well as seeking to support every survivor, and is she speaking to the Scottish Government about co-ordination?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and for his passion about apprenticeships, which we on this side of the House absolutely share. I am delighted that next week is National Apprenticeship Week. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that more girls see a future for themselves in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Again, that will be great for them and great for our economy.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

On Monday, a judge in an employment tribunal brought by the GMB union ruled that predominantly female Asda employees on the shop floor and predominantly male employees working in Asda’s warehouses—completely different roles with different conditions—were carrying out work of equal value. The ruling, which is similar to that which bankrupted Birmingham city council, could cost Asda £1.2 billion in back pay and an annual wage bill increase of £400 million—an even bigger blow than the additional £100 million increase in the company’s wage bill as a result of the Chancellor’s Budget. Does the Minister agree that private companies should be free to set different wages for completely different jobs, irrespective of the gender balance in those roles, without being overruled by the courts? [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I join my hon. Friend in saying what amazing and vital work is being done by people like the Tamworth street angels. It is unacceptable that women feel unsafe when they are out and about, and this Government seek not only to change legislation—on spiking, for example—to make sure our laws are right, but to make sure that, on the ground, we are training people in pubs, clubs, bars and across our night-time economy. We can write words on goatskin, but when the rubber hits the road in places like Tamworth, we need people like the street angels to make sure it actually means something.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Three weeks ago, the Government announced five local inquiries into rape gangs, which crucially cannot compel witnesses to give evidence. We still do not know where all the inquiries will be, and we do not know how the towns will be chosen.

As Charlie Peters from GB News originally reported, grooming gangs are suspected to have operated in 50 towns. Does the Minister recognise that the failure to announce a meaningful national statutory inquiry means that women and girls from across the country, who are not from the five selected towns, will be denied justice and a fair hearing? If the victims want a national statutory inquiry, why doesn’t the Minister?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bridget Phillipson]

I join my hon. Friend in commending that work. I know the Tyne Valley line very well; it is in a beautiful part of the country. It is important that the rail network is accessible for all passengers, and that is at the heart of our approach. I will ensure Ministers at the Department for Transport look into the case that he raises and provide more information about the actions that are being taken for his constituents.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

The call for evidence started last year by the Leader of the Opposition, when she was Minister for Women and Equalities, asked the public to share examples of bad guidance on single-sex spaces and services. This Labour Government initially shared just 42 responses—just 1% of the responses—with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is the body that gives advice to institutions on equality in the law. Why did the Government rule out 99% of the public responses? That is a massive betrayal of Labour’s manifesto commitment to protect single-sex spaces. The public rightly deserve to have every single one of over 3,000 submissions considered properly by the EHRC.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These are topical questions—they need to be short and punchy, which this answer will be. Come on.

[Bridget Phillipson]

The previous Government’s scope was narrow. We are taking action to give all providers the assurances that they need that single-sex spaces can be provided. I have met representatives from the EHRC to discuss that point and I have written to the EHRC about it. I will take no lectures from the Conservatives on single-sex spaces, when the use of mixed-sex hospital wards increased on their watch.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

The Government’s position on relations with the MCB has not changed.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is the beginning of LGBT History Month. Trans people across the UK are struggling to access healthcare and finding it difficult to go about their lives with dignity. As their identity comes under constant attack from powerful people across the world, progress cannot be taken for granted. Will the Minister reconfirm the Government’s commitment to the entire LGBTQ+ community and outline what steps are being taken to engage with LGBT people in the UK? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please do not do that, because I have to get—[Interruption.] No, it is no use shrugging your shoulders at me. I have to get all the Members in. If you do not want other colleagues to get in, please tell them. I do.

[Bridget Phillipson]

We remain steadfast in our support for all LGBT people. It is essential that they are safe, included and protected from discrimination.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

When Labour negotiates, our country loses. Yesterday, we heard that the Government offered £18 billion for Mauritius to take our territory in the Chagos islands. This is money that belongs to our children and their children. This is an immoral surrender, so that north London lawyers can boast at their dinner parties.

When Labour negotiates, we all lose. Sometimes, it does not even bother to negotiate. Why did the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero withdraw Government lawyers from defending the case against the eco-nutters who want to obstruct the Rosebank oil and gas field?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hon. Members]

Get on with it!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to get to get this question over with, don’t you? All you are doing is ensuring that it goes on for ever. Quick question, please.

[Nigel Farage]

I would like to ask the Prime Minister for some advice. What do I say to the 25,000 constituents in Clacton—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Either get on with it—[Interruption.] Order. We cannot both be standing, Mr Farage. I need a quick question and then I can get you the answer. Come on.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan]

That’s the same answer you gave the last time.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Doogan, I want no more.

[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.