Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I think that is the first and, sadly, probably the last time I will be compared to Jude Bellingham. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. On the question of red cards, I cannot tell him how much incoming I had a week ago Monday, after President Trump intervened on the USA red card, asking me to get the England red card adjusted. Just for the record, Mr Speaker, I did not attempt that.
For my successor, and for the England team, I will not give advice; I will simply give my wholehearted support. Just for the record, Mr Speaker, I do not care what the score is tonight, as long as we win.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister for his many years—
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his hard work. He reminds us that an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us. Antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred are a poison. We ripped antisemitism out of the Labour party, and I have worked as Prime Minister to root it out of our country. Just this week, we invested a record £250 million to protect our Jewish communities, and we are using the new powers we have introduced to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, going after those who incite violence on our streets. Everyone deserves to live with security, dignity and freedom. That is a fight that I and every Labour Government and those across this House will never give up on.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Can I start by thanking the Prime Minister for the way that he responded to the murder of Ann Widdecombe last week? This is the first opportunity I have had on the Floor of the House to commemorate her life. A lot has been said about how she died. I want to focus on celebrating the life she lived.
Ann was a woman of high principle and profound beliefs, with a wicked sense of humour—a wonderful combination of being a serious person who did not take herself too seriously. She changed her faith from Anglican to Catholic and from the Conservative party to the Brexit party, but she always remained part of the Conservative family. You might not always have agreed with her, but Ann Widdecombe was a woman who said what she meant and meant what she said. Hers was an honesty that made our politics better. Her wit and forthrightness sat alongside a deep humanity and decency.
Ann had wonderful turns of phrase. She said:
“We need less political correctness and more political courage.”
She said:
“If we deny our culture, become nothing and everything, that weakens us.”
She also said:
“It is a truth universally unacknowledged at Westminster that there is life after politics.”
With that in mind, I turn to this Prime Minister’s final questions. Mr Speaker, I wanted to make sure that I got the tone right today, so I looked back at the Prime Minister’s final questions to Boris Johnson. Luckily for the Prime Minister, I plan to be much gentler than he was that day.
Week after week, the Prime Minister and I have clashed at these Dispatch Boxes and rarely agreed on anything, but there is one thing that I admired. When President Zelensky was attacked in the White House, the Prime Minister showed leadership and invited him to Downing Street. That was the right thing to do. Ukraine is on the frontline in the battle for freedom, so does the Prime Minister agree that cross-party support for their cause must endure?
The Prime Minister
We did pull the levers. We pulled the levers to stabilise the economy, and we have done that. We pulled the levers to strengthen our public services and NHS waiting lists are coming down at the fastest rate for 17 years. We have pulled a big lever on child poverty, and this Government are doing more on child poverty than any Government ever, including previous Labour Governments. We have put the biggest investment into defence and security, and our international standing has been restored.
We also pulled the lever on the individual cases that matter, including those of individuals such as Carla—she is in the Gallery—who is one of the parents who came to see me about online harm and what that can do to our young children. That is why we banned social media for under-16s. Daniel, who is also here with his son, has spoken to me many times about the struggles that he has had with the cost of living and the need for a safe and secure home for every family and every child to grow up in. They are the people who matter more to me than anything else, because it is their lives that I think about when we make decisions in this Government.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister may not think so now, but it is a tribute to him that not a single sitting Labour MP could beat him. Not the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) who could not count her taxes, not the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) who could not count how many phones she had lost—“lost, lost, lost”—and definitely not the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) who could not count to 81.
This is my last exchange with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I know how much his wife and children mean to him, and that they are in the Gallery. As everyone here knows, our families make a huge sacrifice for our choice to enter public life. I hope that he will allow me to draw our time together to a close by thanking them for the love and support they have given him throughout his time in office.
The Prime Minister
Yes I do, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s campaigning on this issue. Yesterday I was with John and Penny Clough, who I first met nearly 16 years ago. They lost their daughter to domestic violence of the most extreme sort in appalling circumstances, and in many ways my journey campaigning on violence against women and girls started with them 16 years ago this year. I pay tribute to them and everybody else who campaigns on this. That is why we set the mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. Whatever role I do next, I will continue to campaign for that for as long as I have breath in my body.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I associate myself with so many of the Prime Minister’s comments today, but particularly with his remarks about Ann Widdecombe. She devoted her life to public service and her murder was truly horrifying. I support his campaign for a memorial to her in this Chamber. I also thank the Leader of the Opposition for her tribute to Ann, and for reminding the whole House and the whole country that we need to remember her for the way she lived her life. I have to make a confession: I have always been slightly jealous of Ann for appearing on “Strictly Come Dancing”. [Hon. Members: “There’s still time!”]
Can I join the whole nation, and hopefully every nation, in wishing England well against Argentina tonight after their superb win against Norway? It is the last job of the Prime Minister to make sure that we win the world cup.
Can I also pick up on a remark from the Leader of the Opposition about the by-election we are about to see in Clacton? I have to tell her that I cannot back joke figures with ridiculous policies, which is why I am supporting Count Binface. [Laughter.]
As the Prime Minister finds himself with more time on his hands, can I recommend the new “Toy Story” film? For those who do not know the films, the main character used to be in law enforcement, but was mainly known for being a little wooden, and was replaced by a shiny new action figure from far away who thinks he can fly—and the name Andy is on everyone’s lips. Maybe the Prime Minister should give that a miss, but does he share my fear that when it comes to Britain’s national debt, the plan of the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is “to infinity and beyond”?
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I know that the college in my hon. Friend’s constituency has made a bid to the post-16 and construction skills capacity fund to expand its provision. I have set a target of two thirds of young people either to go to university or to a gold standard apprenticeship, because I think that we need to rebalance. We rightly applaud and put on a pedestal those who go to university, but we need to do the same for those who are apprentices as well and have a bit of rebalancing.
Mr Speaker
Order. Please can we speed up questions? There are some people who I really want to get in and that will help everyone.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister will not need reminding about Arsenal’s success in the premier league last season and my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will not want reminding that Everton, unfortunately for him, came 13th, but what neither of them might know is that the UK finished 20th in the corruption perceptions index, well within the relegation zone. At the Prime Minister’s request, last week the Ethics and Integrity Commission produced a comprehensive set of recommendations to tighten up rules around lobbying. In light of recent stories around the leader of Reform UK, does the Prime Minister agree—
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to the commission and its work. The work of strengthening our democracy will, and must, continue.
The Prime Minister
It is very important that we have all the resources we need to provide the energy we need, and to bring the price of energy down, and that is what we are doing.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
I can do this. Can I thank my right hon. and learned, and very dear, Friend for everything he has given to our party and our country? There were few who believed we could make the changes needed to bring in a Labour Government after the general election of 2019, when he became leader. Today, though, because of his service and his leadership, children are growing up in a fairer Britain. We stand tall on the world stage, and every day, we have seen his decency and his courage shine through. My family and I thank him and his wonderful family for their cherished friendship, and I am certain that everyone will join me in wishing him and his family the very, very best for their next chapter.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, her support and her friendship for me, Vic and the kids. Whatever the challenge, she has always been there for us, particularly Vic and the kids, and I really thank her for that.
This will be my last answer from this Dispatch Box. Every Prime Minister knows when they take up the torch that the day will come when they have to pass it on. That day has come for me. This is the end of my political journey. In six years, we went from historic defeat in 2019 to historic victory in 2024, and after two years in government, I leave the country in better shape than I found it in. I am proud of everything that we have achieved.
Can I just take time to say to you, Mr Speaker, and to all those who work for the House and in our constituency offices, thank you for all your hard work? To our civil service, thank you, also, for all your hard work. To my political team—many of them here today—who came on this journey with me, thank you so much for everything you have done, and for being prepared to walk through fire for me. To my colleagues on the Labour Benches, I am proud of all we have achieved together, and proud of each and every one of you. To my successor and each of you, I will give my full support. To all colleagues across the House, I wish you good health and happiness. To all those in the Gallery whose lives have been changed or improved by this Labour Government, and all those across the country who struggle to be seen or heard, you are the reason I came into politics. To my wife and children, I love you. Goodbye. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say, as the curtain has fallen and this House quite rightly cheers out the Prime Minister—[Applause.] I am sorry that we are still clapping. We do not do clapping in the House; we cheer, or hold our Order Papers up. That is the farewell that we should always give to a Prime Minister.
Historical Forced Adoption
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
This morning in Downing Street, I met some of the mothers and adult adoptees harmed by historical adoption practices in England. They are here with us in the Gallery today, and I had the chance to talk with them privately. They are the most remarkable women, and I know the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to the extraordinary courage with which they have shared their harrowing testimonies and fought for the truth time and again. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
I have to confess that, as I said to those mothers this morning, I found it hard to read the testimonies and to hear their stories—I found it particularly hard as a dad—but how much harder it must have been for them to go through that, to set out their testimonies and to tell their stories over and over again. As they said to me this morning, this is something which is so intensely private having to be public. The courage and resilience they have shown, and others alongside them, is absolutely incredible, and I want to mark that.
What happened to them, and to tens of thousands of mothers, children and families, should never have happened. It is a stain on our history. Mothers—many young, vulnerable and without support—were coerced, bullied or misled into feeling they had no choice but to have their children taken from them. What a thing to do.
These were not isolated or accidental acts. They were practices embedded within systems across local authorities, across voluntary and faith-based institutions, and in health and social care services, including parts of what is now the NHS. They were all institutions that operated with power over people’s lives, yet they did so without compassion, without consent and without dignity or proper safeguards.
These practices were particularly prevalent between 1949 and 1976, but also extended beyond those years. In some cases, women, including those placed in mother and baby homes and other institutional settings, were cut off from their families, relationships, education and employment, and subjected to harsh and isolating conditions. Some experienced treatment that amounted to exploitation and abuse.
Many were made to feel ashamed—that came through very, very powerfully in the discussions I had this morning —silenced, and unworthy of care or dignity. Children grew up believing that they were unwanted. Young mothers were told that they were immoral and that their babies were better off without them. As they told me this morning, that lasts a lifetime and has a huge impact.
Ann Lloyd Keen, who is in the Gallery and is of course formerly of this House, described to the Education Committee how she was stitched without anaesthetic, and was told:
“You will remember the pain, because you’ve been a bad girl.”
Many of those harmed in this way feel a gut-wrenching sense of shame. Ann and others have said that that has stayed with them. She says that she still feels it today. I know that this apology will not be able to lift it completely—it will help a little, I hope, but it will not lift it completely.
I say this to Ann, to everyone with us in the Gallery, and to all those impacted and affected, wherever they are in the country—there are many thousands of them, including some who still, to this day, have not been able to speak about what happened to them. I hope this statement and apology perhaps gives some of them the confidence to speak about what happened to them, because it will help in a small way. The shame is not yours. The shame was never yours. The shame is ours. I say that on behalf of the whole country and I say it to every single person impacted. We are deeply and profoundly sorry.
To the mothers who were told they were unfit, who were prevented from caring for the children they desperately wanted to help and to keep and who have carried this loss for decades. To those who were not given the information they needed to provide informed consent, who faced pressure or coercion and who experienced practices that were unethical.
To the sons and daughters, the children who are now adults, who through pressure and coercion within these systems were taken from their families and denied their identity, their history and sometimes their safety. To those who grew up believing they were unwanted, some of whom were even told directly that they were second class.
To those who have carried a burden of loss, confusion and stigma, or who experienced neglect and abuse without the protection or oversight that should have been their right. To those who have experienced lifelong uncertainty, loss or questions about identity and belonging, or whose mental and physical health, relationships and sense of self across their lives has been affected.
To the fathers who were denied a voice, excluded from decisions, or separated from their children. To the siblings, grandparents, partners, extended families, and future generations who have lived with the consequences of these practices. To those who experienced harm from these practices, even while being brought up in loving homes, by their adoptive parents.
To those who were adopted across borders or cultures, who lost connections to their heritage, and racial and personal identity. And to those from ethnic minority backgrounds who experienced racism or were treated differently within those systems, and who as a group were less likely to be adopted or to grow up in stable family homes.
I am struck by the words of Debbie Iromlou, who I met this morning. She says she was
“raised with racist views towards her own biological family.”
Mr Speaker, how do you even begin to comprehend that? To each and every one of those affected, we say a deep and heartfelt sorry.
Let me be clear and unequivocal: those harms were compounded by the actions and failures of the state. Governments funded, enabled and relied on systems that were not consistently or effectively overseen. The state did not prevent harm from continuing. The state bears responsibility for the systems it funded and legitimised, which enabled those practices to occur. The state did not do enough to protect mothers, children and families from harm. And for that systemic failing, I am truly sorry.
Many of those affected have suffered a further injustice. They have had to fight for the basic human right to know their own story. As Sally Ells puts it:
“We are treated as if the information about our own lives, does not belong to us”.
Debbie Iromlou was told her birth mother’s life would be in danger if she tried to search for her. Barriers were put in place at every twist and turn. Records have in some cases been lost, altered, or not made fully accessible to those seeking answers, and the whole process is painfully slow—traumatic and dehumanising all over again.
We say sorry and we mean it, but sorry is not enough. This must also be the start of real change: working with those affected and their families to improve access to records, and to provide the care and support that people need. So today I can tell the House that we will fund the development of a national online resource, creating a single access point to locate records wherever they might be held across the country. We will consult on requiring existing records to be retained for 100 years, so they remain available across the lifetime of those affected.
Today, the Education Secretary is writing to local authorities, regional adoption agencies and voluntary adoption agencies, setting out the expectation that requests for records should be responded to swiftly and with compassion and consistency. We will expand access to funded intermediary services, with a particular focus on pre-1976 cases, where access to support is currently most limited. We will establish national virtual peer-led support groups for mothers and adopted adults, to improve access to ongoing, trauma-informed support across the country.
We will work with NHS England to ensure those affected are taken seriously when they seek help. That includes new support for clinicians to better understand the impact of forced adoption and respond appropriately in their care. NHS England will also explore how those who wish to do so can have their experience of forced adoption appropriately recorded in their health record.
Finally, to further recognise those affected and ensure we learn the lessons of the past, we will commission a testimonials project to capture the stories of those with experience of historical forced adoption practices. Through all of this and more, we will continue to meet regularly with those with lived experience. We will be guided by them to get this support right and learn from our past to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again in this country.
Finally, this national apology reflects and builds on the approaches taken by Scotland and Wales, whose devolved Governments have also issued apologies for these practices, which we fully endorse. I welcome the process under way in Northern Ireland to establish a statutory public inquiry into mother and baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. I also thank the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Education Committee for all they have done to shine a light on this injustice.
Most of all, I want to thank those who have campaigned for so long to have the truth recognised, including those who are no longer with us to hear the apology they fought for. It should never have happened, and they should not have had to fight so hard for this day to come. Today, finally, I say on behalf of the state and the nation as a whole: we see you, we hear you, and we are truly sorry.
I commend this statement to the House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kanishka Narayan
Do we want tougher accountability? Absolutely. That is why the codes published mean stronger review mechanisms, a direct line to law enforcement and a clear crisis playbook required of risky platforms. Do we want it to be faster? Absolutely. That is exactly why we have asked Ofcom to expedite those codes in particular. On whether we take a risk-based or uniform approach, it is right that we focus our resources, in law enforcement and regulatory action, on those that are the greatest risk. We will continue to review that.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
It is almost exactly a year since my Select Committee published its report on “Social media, misinformation and harmful algorithms” in the wake of the Southport riots. It was truly distressing and disturbing to see misinformation playing such a role in the Belfast riots, and my thoughts are with all those affected. Will the Minister confirm what conversations he has had with Ofcom about misinformation being included in its crisis response protocol, as recommended by my Committee?
Liz Kendall
I saw the documentary and absolutely agree how concerning it is. I bet that many men, even some in this Chamber, will have been fed this vile stuff just because they are a man. We are looking at a whole range of measures. We are also looking at the issues of advertising and money, which are relevant to the hon. Gentleman’s question as they are driving a lot of this. The Minister for Digital Government and Data, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who is a joint Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, is chairing a taskforce looking specifically at that matter, but I always like to see further recommendations, so the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) should send them in.
Liz Kendall
Of course I have talked to my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield, because I am focusing on doing my job, which is to do the right thing for children and families in this country. I hope the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) gets a good rest over the summer holidays too, and maybe works up some slightly more challenging questions.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
This might be the last time we face this ministerial team, but I hope that they will stay, because I know they have done a lot of hard work on online safety. With that in mind, I have recently spoken to students in Harpenden and Berkhamsted, who passionately shared their fears and hopes around AI chatbots. With the Labour leadership transition putting any major announcements on hold, what guarantees can the Secretary of State give that, alongside the support of the right hon. Member for Makerfield—the Prime Minister in waiting—there will be an announcement in July about AI online safety, and vital protections will not be sidelined?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that critical question for Britain’s creative sector. Just yesterday, on British IP Day, I met with the Alliance for Intellectual Property, including artists, authors, publishers, journalists and media organisations, to talk about how our work on digital replicas and transparency will be critical to supporting the creative sector. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and the APPG.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Professor Brian Cox is among the eminent scientists warning about the impact of Government cuts to research on advanced physics and astronomy—a move that he calls “inexplicable”. Meanwhile, the Government are spending millions on projects examining climate coloniality, decolonising justice and transforming LGBTIQ+ asylum policies. Are those the Secretary of State’s research priorities too? If not, has she made that crystal clear to UK Research and Innovation?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point—we know children will try to get around the ban, and will succeed. Our measures are as much about resetting the cultural and social norms for future generations, but we will have more highly effective age verification measures to make this work. We are looking at the issue of VPNs in particular, and I will come back to the House with more on that issue very soon.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I extend a warm welcome to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Trinidad and Tobago and his delegation, who are in the Gallery today.
Dr Pinkerton
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s condolences and his birthday good wishes to the NHS.
Everyone in my constituency of Surrey Heath wants a new Frimley Park hospital, but the chosen site—the last remaining fragment of the ancient Frimley common—is wholly inappropriate. It is inaccessible, behind multiple schools, and environmentally devastating. Worse, over recent weeks, I have received deeply troubling evidence that the preferred relocation site was known and being openly discussed by local political figures in 2023, before the official site selection process had even begun. The entirely reasonable conclusion is that this project has been compromised from the outset and the site predetermined. I think the Prime Minister would agree that this is no way to begin a multibillion-pound public procurement process, so will he please step in, commission an urgent independent review—
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman’s NHS trust has identified its preferred site for the new Frimley Park hospital, and detailed technical work can now start. Let us be frank about this hospital. The Tories promised 40 new hospitals with no funding and no delivery plan, and we have had to fix that. Thanks to Labour investment, the hon. Gentleman’s hospital is at the front of the queue. It will be one of the first in the country to be rebuilt, but his approach has been, on the one hand, to demand a new hospital, and then to oppose actually building it. He has urged his constituents to oppose it because, to quote him,
“if this hospital goes ahead, there will be no golf course.”
Labour is building new hospitals, and the hon. Gentleman is standing up for golf courses. I cannot think of anything more Lib Dem.
The Prime Minister
I am proud that this Government are delivering the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation. That is backed by £39 billion, and it means we are unleashing the biggest surge in council house building in more than 30 years. That includes a thousand new social and affordable homes in Luton and Bedfordshire. Our Social Housing Bill will reform right to buy to deliver even more social houses. That is a Labour Government delivering the homes that we need.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Can I associate myself and those on the Opposition Benches with the Prime Minister’s comments about Venezuela, and also about the Lib Dems? [Laughter.] But seriously, the Chief of the Defence Staff made it known that the armed forces needed a minimum of £28 billion more to defend the country. Can the Prime Minister tell us why he thinks half that amount is enough?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this case; he has been a committed campaigner on this issue. I have seen the details of that particular case, and he is right not to repeat them in this Chamber—they are horrifying. The lack of dignity and compassion is unacceptable, and I simply cannot imagine the pain that Cody, Liam and Zoe experienced and are still experiencing. The status quo here is not working for families, and people deserve to know that their loved ones are treated with dignity and compassion. We are going to consider this issue closely, and I thank him for raising it. I do want stronger standards and oversight. I think that is absolutely needed, particularly in the light of appalling cases like this.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Can I not associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments about my party, but can I associate myself with all his remarks about the earthquake and humanitarian catastrophe in Venezuela? May I commend the Scottish team and the Scottish fans for the joy they brought to the world cup? They did the whole of Scotland proud. May I wish England well against DR Congo later today? But with Reece James and Jarell Quansah in doubt, I know the Prime Minister is not the only one struggling for a solid defence plan. [Laughter.]
The wars in Ukraine and Iran show us how seriously we must take the threat of missiles and drones hitting our country. Our national security requires the best possible missile defence system, including Royal Navy destroyers, but the funding in the Prime Minister’s plan for this falls dangerously short. Yet he has rejected our proposals for defence bonds, which were used in the past to rearm our country. So why has the Prime Minister chosen to leave our country so vulnerable to missile attack?
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thought the next few weeks were about to get quite interesting, Mr Speaker. We all wish England the best of luck this evening. Every time those players step on to the pitch, they represent the talent, ambition and diversity of this country. We are proud to be supporting the next generation, investing £400 million in grassroots facilities and over £1 billion in school sports. And if Thomas Tuchel needs any advice on penalties, he should ask David Seaman, who slotted one past him just a few weeks ago.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am very proud of the Government’s work over the past two years. I do not think there is any doubt at all that the UK-EU relationship is in a significantly better place today than when we came into office. I look forward to making the case for a deal that will be good for jobs and for securing our borders.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Minister has submitted in answers to written questions that there will be no substantive vote in this House on UK association to Erasmus+, even though the Government plan to tie us into a multi-year programme without saying what it will cost after the first year. The Defence Secretary resigned because the Chancellor will not provide the funding we need for our defence, but apparently money is no object when it comes to this programme. Will the Minister finally tell us the Government’s own central estimate for the programme, or must the public rely on press reports of an £8 billion bill?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Because it has a 10-month review clause to ensure that it is delivering value for money. Under Erasmus+, there are still opportunities to go around the world. I say quite candidly to the hon. Gentleman that he should look very carefully at all the different opportunities under Erasmus+. It is not just about traditional studies. People studying vocational qualifications go overseas as well, such as those studying sport coaching. There is a range of opportunities that are not available under Turing. If the Conservatives are seriously now setting their face against these opportunities for young people, best of luck to them.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
This week marked 10 years since the EU referendum vote, and the world has changed since then, with an unreliable Trump in the White House and Putin bombing schools in Ukraine. Labour’s red lines are holding Britain back. They are hurting the British people and playing into the hands of those who seek to divide us. It was made clear to me in Brussels last month that the ball is in the UK’s court and that there is real openness to Liberal Democrat plans for a sensible, pragmatic and deliverable plan for closer working. Will the Paymaster General commit to urging the new Prime Minister to drop Labour’s red lines and back Lib Dem plans for a new UK-EU growth and defence partnership to make the UK safer, stronger and richer?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
Space has a crucial role to play in our national resilience. Responsibility for it cuts across Government Departments. With that in mind, and given the Cabinet Office’s role in cross-Government co-ordination, can the Minister confirm when the National Space Council will next convene?
Dame Angela Eagle
I will get back to the hon. Gentleman. I have to confess that I have not had my briefing on space yet.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Darren Jones
With permission, Mr Speaker, may I refer to my 11 previous statements that answered that question?
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Mr Powell, have you informed the hon. Member that you intended to name him?
Darren Jones
I wonder where the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is? [Interruption.] Not in Clacton, I am told, Mr Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for his question, and his continued support for the Government’s efforts to improve ethics and integrity in public life. The House knows that trust in politics is important, and that we have more work to do. That is why we have important rules about conflicts of interest, and why we must declare those conflicts of interest on the record, and then not lobby on behalf of donors or others who have sought to put money into our campaigns or other personal interests. The leader of Reform UK has said,
“it’s literally none of your business”
in answer to questions about the £5 million crypto-donation. I am afraid that it is in the interests of the public, and he needs to answer questions about it. If he is acting on behalf of donors and asking questions in return for money, there should be consequences.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
This may be the last time I come up against the right hon. Gentleman during parliamentary questions. When we first faced each other nine months ago, I said that he was one of the most able performers in Government, and I still believe that to be the case. I think there will come a time when his party regrets the fact that he did not stand in this leadership contest. I think he would have lost—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are on topical questions! I cannot say that to one Member and not another. I love a love-in, but not now.
Alex Burghart
I was just trying to be nice, Mr Speaker. We will do it privately.
Given that we may have a new Prime Minister on 16 July, does the right hon. Gentleman think that that new Prime Minister should take questions in the House before he goes off for the summer break?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. He says that this might be our last time together at the Dispatch Box; I do not know where he is planning on going, but I hope to be back here in due course. He asks a very pertinent question. I know that any Prime Minister takes their responsibilities to the House seriously, and I am sure that the next Prime Minister will be at the Dispatch Box at the earliest opportunity.
Satvir Kaur
of course I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that matter. We will be launching the national school of government, which will ensure that we have a civil service fit for purpose, not only for the current challenges but for the challenges of the future.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
We will soon have our seventh Prime Minister in 10 years. My commiserations go to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, who I see has bowed out of the race gracefully—I am sure he has many irons in the fire.
The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is known to be committed to proportional representation. What plans does the Cabinet Office have to enable any new Prime Minister to move quickly on making our voting system fit for purpose—if he does not change his mind? Has that come up in access talks?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is right. The Barnett formula plays an important role in ensuring fairness in public spending across all the nations of the United Kingdom. She is right to point out that we have given a record-breaking level of money to the Scottish Government, but it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government to spend that money effectively. People in her constituency and across Scotland have seen that the SNP has failed to spend that money wisely, and we should continue to hold it to account.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I know from my experience setting up Bournemouth town centre citizens’ panel just how effective those forums are for deep dives into complex issues and for building consensus, so can the Minister tell me what recent progress has been made on the work of the people’s panel for digital ID?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr James Frith)
Thank you—a batsman needs runs, Mr Speaker.
Digital ID will ensure digital access to our public services. In recent weeks, citizens have been debating evidence from independent technical experts, privacy advocates and civil society groups. They have been discussing how we can join up our public services, saving time and money and reducing faff and friction. It will be a free-to-use and a freedom-to-choose proposition from this Government, and the Government are now considering the recommendations I received in person on Sunday in Birmingham from the 120 citizens involved. By taking this independent, people-led approach, we will ensure that digital ID has genuine public consent.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
As we approach the upcoming EU-UK summit, can I urge the Minister to make sure that restoring international trains at Ashford International is firmly on the agenda for discussions with our European neighbours? It would bring over half a million extra visitors to Sussex and Kent every year and £2.5 billion of economic growth. Everything we need is sitting there in pristine condition, ready to go—it is a no-brainer. Will the Minister support it?
Dame Angela Eagle
We always assess security risks on a case-by-case basis, and we do not discuss what they are in public.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
As a previous chair of a local government pension scheme, I was really pleased to hear that the Government are going to bring catering, security, cleaning staff, porters and repair people back into Government Departments. Does the Minister agree that that is the right thing to do and is beneficial for those workers, particularly given the situation with their pensions and the other things that they should have had access to in the first place?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine Atkinson
Our police receive calls relating to domestic violence every 30 seconds. Victims of domestic violence need to be treated well, and to see much more action taken, whether we are talking about our police, our courts, or the services that victims need. This Government are taking that action, not only by putting domestic abuse specialists in 999 call centres, but through domestic abuse protection orders, but we know that there is so much more that is needed by victims of domestic abuse.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
As a 16-year-old, Kate worked a summer at Harrods. In 2024, she told her story of being raped at work. Intimate medical examinations were carried out on women by senior Harrods staff and security. Hundreds of women’s attacks were silenced. How will the Justice for Fayed and Harrods Survivors be heard? I met some of those brave women this week. How will they get the whole truth, justice, and systemic change, if the Met police inquiry remains stalled, and if enablers—some of them women—are left at large? Incredibly, over 500 victims still need answers.
Catherine Atkinson
I have met victims and campaigners from the al-Fayed campaign, as has the Prime Minister. We must ensure that no matter who you are or where you are, there is always justice. I look forward to continuing to work with campaigners to ensure that they get justice.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
The Government’s recently announced social media ban for under-16s will play an important role in tackling violence against women and girls and the online spread of misogyny, but social media bans by themselves are not enough. While we welcome steps to address online harm, the Government’s proscriptive approach simply will not be enough. New platforms and apps will continue to spring up, and the Government are in danger of being a dangerously outpaced competitor in an online game of whack-a-mole.
Alongside legislation, we urgently need to give our parents, teachers and schools the tools that they need to ensure that when children come across harmful or inappropriate content, they are equipped to recognise and challenge it, and are ultimately kept safe from it. Will the Minister work with her colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that teachers have the resources and support in the curriculum to cover that?
The Minister for Equalities (Olivia Bailey)
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. The code is clear that nobody should be left without the services they need. The EHRC is clear that it will monitor the impact of the code.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
The Government’s Islamophobia definition is already being weaponised to shut down free speech, just as I warned it would. South Wales police tried to use it to effectively criminalise people for criticising Islam, which Ministers promised us time and again would not happen. Does the Minister understand how divisive that is? If so, will she finally withdraw that dangerous definition?
The Prime Minister
My thoughts—and, I am sure, the thoughts of the whole House—are with Max and his family in what must be the most awful of circumstances. Through our cancer trials accelerator programme, we will make it easier to launch innovative new clinical trials and find new treatment. For people like Max, that will make young people’s cancer a research priority, make clinical trials more accessible and pay for his travel costs for care. I hope that comes as some comfort, but as a parent, I cannot imagine what his family are going through, given the circumstances that he faces. I know that a Minister would be happy to meet Max and his family.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I associate the Opposition with the Prime Minister’s remarks on the horrific train crash, the attacks in Edinburgh and, of course, Armed Forces Week.
I want to start by congratulating the Prime Minister: he is the other party leader who won a by-election last week, although I think I am much happier with my new MP than he is with his. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister told the House that the Government were funding defence and that everything was under control. The very next day, the Defence Secretary resigned, saying the Prime Minister was “unable” and the Treasury “unwilling” to fund the defence of our country. What changed?
Mrs Badenoch
The fact is that if the Education Secretary knew so much about poor children, she would not have given them fewer teachers. Teacher numbers have gone down—[Interruption.] It is amazing; I have never seen this much excitement on the Labour Benches. They are cheering so loudly, while there are 400 knives stuck in the Prime Minister’s back. Shame on them. They don’t like it up them, but they know that what I am saying is true.
There were times when the Prime Minister tried to do the right thing. He tried—he did try to cut welfare, and who stopped him? Those MPs behind him. In the words of the Welfare Secretary, his MPs only want to know who they can tax to fund more benefits. They are not Labour MPs, they are welfare MPs. Does the Prime Minister feel betrayed by the people he got into Parliament?
Mr Speaker
Order. We should think about the language we are using. When we leave this Chamber, do not be surprised if constituents feel that they can use the same language against each other. Let us show a little bit more decorum and respect to each other.
The Prime Minister
Thank you Mr Speaker. I was trying to do all this with as much good grace as I could, but I shall certainly miss these exchanges. I am very proud of every one of our MPs who, with a landslide Labour victory, come from all different backgrounds and different places across the country. We inflicted the biggest loss on the Tories in the history of their party. We have picked up our party and we turned it around. We had to address what went wrong, we turned it around, and we won a landslide victory. The right hon. Lady will not address or even talk about their failure after 14 long years.
The Prime Minister
Antisemitism is a poison and that is why I drove it out of the Labour party. In government, we are acting to drive it out of society: new powers to ban repeated protests, new plans to root antisemitism out of our schools, universities and the health service, and new proscription-like powers to clamp down on malign state activity that incites hatred and violence, and we will take further steps. I am proud to lead this tolerant, decent country, and I will always fight for the security, safety and freedom of British Jews.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I associate myself and my party with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the horrifying train crash in Bedford and the appalling attacks near a mosque in Edinburgh. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.
May I mention today’s review of Nottingham’s maternity services, which is truly shocking? I hope that the Government will rise to the moment and implement Donna Ockenden’s recommendations in full, without delay.
I recognise how difficult it was for the Prime Minister to make the statement that he made on Monday. As we debate issues robustly in this House, it is an important reminder that we are all human—that is something that everyone should remember. [Interruption.]
We all know how hard it is when relationships break down with close friends and allies, and when even our next door neighbour barely speaks to us some of the time, so have the Prime Minister’s experiences opened his eyes to the need to rebuild Britain’s relationship with our European friends and allies? Will he advise the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) to put his EU red lines in the past and to adopt our plan for a new growth and defence partnership?
Belfast: Violent Disorder
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Lady describes with great clarity the impact of the scenes that we have seen in Northern Ireland over the past number of hours. Let me be absolutely clear: the scenes of disorder that we witnessed in parts of Northern Ireland last night are not only damaging communities, but literally putting lives at risk. Like her, I utterly condemn the attacks on property and vehicles, and the other related violence that we have seen. There is no justification at all for that type of thuggery, and no place for it in Northern Ireland or anywhere else.
The hon. Lady will agree that it is now vital that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is given the time, space and full support that it needs to continue with its investigation. The rule of law must, and will, prevail; justice must, and will, be served.
Violence is never a justified response, and this disorder only causes pain and suffering for those living in the area, as the hon. Lady eloquently described. Those involved need to take a step back and consider the consequences of their actions. I strongly urge anyone who has information, no matter how small it might seem, to come forward and contact the PSNI urgently in order to assist it with its inquiries.
The hon. Lady specifically asked what support is being offered. She will understand that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is in Belfast today, and I know that he will be working with colleagues there to ensure that they have the support and resources they need to deal with this very troubling situation.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Monday night’s attack was disgusting and barbaric. The victim suffered serious injuries to his neck and lost an eye. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with him. I thank the police and emergency services for responding and pay tribute to the members of the public who so bravely intervened. I commend the police for confirming the suspect’s identity swiftly, because full transparency is vital in these cases. Will the Minister confirm that the PSNI will have all the resources needed to deal with these issues?
We have all seen the footage of the appalling attack, featuring a Sudanese illegal immigrant, but let me be clear: violence of any kind in protest is never justified. Innocent people should never be targeted and nobody should ever set fire to houses or cars. Speaking as a father, no one should ever feel unsafe in their homes. I hope that the police will bring the perpetrators swiftly to justice.
I do understand, though, why people are angry. The suspect came into the UK illegally—he should never have been here in the first place. Mainstream politicians must now understand how angry the public are about mass illegal immigration. If mainstream politics does not stop this, the public will turn elsewhere.
Since the election, 73,000 people have entered the country illegally via small boat, mostly young men, and many have committed serious crimes. I recently met the mother of Rhiannon Whyte, a young woman brutally murdered by a Sudanese small-boat migrant. There have been multiple rapes and sexual assaults, with victims as young as just 13. Over time, I have come to realise that there is ultimately only one way to end illegal immigration: by leaving the European convention on human rights so that we can deport all illegal migrants upon arrival. Illegal migration will then stop, and these appalling crimes with it.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for the points that he has raised and, in particular, for the clarity with which he made the point about violence never being justified. He is absolutely right, and I hope that we can speak with a strong sense of unity about that. He specifically asked about ensuring that the PSNI has the resources it needs to do the difficult work being asked of it at this moment. I know that he understands that policing is devolved, but as I have said, the Secretary of State is in Northern Ireland this morning to work out what more we can do to provide support and to ensure that the PSNI has the resources it needs.
The shadow Home Secretary spoke about the anger that people feel, and that is absolutely understood. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will have seen the footage that is circulating online. While clearly I have to be incredibly careful not to get in the way of a live investigation, it is understandable why people will feel extremely angry at what they have seen, but it is important that that anger does not tip over into criminality and the kind of thuggish behaviour that we have seen.
The shadow Home Secretary rightly raised concerns about the importance of making sure that this Government, as with any Government, have the right framework in place to deport those foreign national offenders who come here and engage in criminality. I think he is aware of the figures: there have been 67,000 deportations and removals under this Government, which marks a significant increase. I hope that he and the House recognise the seriousness and the urgency with which we take these matters. They need to be dealt with calmly and effectively, but this Government will do everything in our power—and if further powers are required, we will ensure that we have them—to deport and remove those people who present a threat to the public.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) on securing the urgent question. I pay tribute to the Chief Constable, the PSNI and the emergency services for their work and their bravery, which continues to be unstinted. Does the Minister agree that the events we witnessed last night demonstrate the importance of political leaders speaking with one voice in condemning violence, rejecting extremism and supporting those working to build a shared and prosperous future for all communities and the people in Northern Ireland?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend, who has a long-standing interest in Northern Ireland, is absolutely right to highlight the bravery of the police. I have spent a lot of time in Northern Ireland over the years and have something of a sense of the importance of the work that they do and the risk that they carry. Looking at the scenes that unfolded last night, it is impossible not to conclude that the police did an incredibly good job under very difficult circumstances. I pay tribute to them, their service and their families, who would have been at home, sick to death with worry at the kind of risk and threat that their loved ones were having to deal with.
My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of responsibility. As political leaders, and as Members of this House and further afield, we should all understand that words have consequences. While I understand the temptation for some to score cheap political points, at moments like this the public expect all of us to rise above that and think about how we can stand together to address the problems that we undoubtedly face.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
My thoughts and those of the whole House are with Stephen Ogilvie, who suffered truly horrific injuries on Monday night, and with the residents of Belfast who were forced to flee by rioters who do not speak for any legitimate community grievance. The knife attack was repugnant, but so too were the scenes that followed. This is the second consecutive summer of racially motivated disorder in Northern Ireland that the PSNI has faced while understaffed and underfunded. The Minister rightly says that the PSNI should be given time and space, but will he confirm what additional financial support the Government will provide for the PSNI, because it needs it?
Although the alleged attacker had leave to remain, concerns about irregular migration across the Northern Ireland border are being exploited by right-wing extremists to foment hatred and division. Given the importance of accurate information, will the Minister confirm whether the Government will begin collecting data on such crossings, as officials were unable to provide it when I recently raised the issue as a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes an important wider point. Many hon. Members who do not represent constituencies in Northern Ireland will have a long-standing affection for and knowledge of the place. I first went there in 1998 and have been a regular visitor ever since. It is an extraordinary part of the United Kingdom. It is a place that has been on something of a journey over the years. When I was in Northern Ireland recently, I was incredibly impressed with that journey and the progress that has been made in recent times. We have a shared endeavour across Government and across this House to ensure that that journey continues in a positive direction. Key to that is the point that he made about young people in Northern Ireland. We have a shared responsibility to them to ensure that they can enjoy the brightest possible future, and that will a priority for the Secretary of State and colleagues across Government.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. Settlements are a flagrant breach of international law, and no UK charity should be supporting them. The Middle East Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), met the Charity Commission today to discuss those concerns. We announced yesterday further sanctions against those who support settler violence, and we will continue to look at strengthening those sanctions. British businesses should have no economic involvement in illegal settlements. Let me just say that the situation across Palestine remains desperate, and the UK will continue to lead efforts to prevent human suffering and get aid in, and to preserve the viability of a two-state solution.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I, too, wish England and Scotland the very best in the world cup. I wish you a very happy birthday, Mr Speaker—many happy returns. May I take the opportunity to associate myself with the remarks that the Prime Minister made about the helicopter crash? Our condolences go to their families, and to the family of Michael Storey.
I thank the Prime Minister for his short statement on Belfast. The scenes in Belfast are deeply, deeply disturbing. A man is in hospital after a brutal attack and now families are frightened after a night of violence. There is a live criminal case, so we must be careful about what we say, but we can be clear about this: people have a right to be angry—I am angry—and people have the right to expect their politicians to secure our borders, but no one has a right to burn families out of their homes or to burn public property and attack the police. We all have a duty to stand up for public safety in every way.
Last night, America carried out strikes on Iran in response to the downing of a US helicopter. This comes just days after renewed attacks on Ukraine. The world is getting more dangerous and the British public want to know that this Government are doing everything they can to protect our national security. Can the Prime Minister tell the House, will the full defence investment plan finally be published this week?
The Prime Minister
When the Conservatives were in office, they did not reform welfare spending or invest in our armed services. The right hon. Lady sets out that choice, but, on their watch, defence spending went down and welfare spending went up—£88 billion overall, with £33 billion alone under the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride). The Conservatives neither reformed welfare nor spent on our armed forces.
Every week, the right hon. Lady reminds us why the British public sent them packing. She ignores the fact that we are turning the country around: growth is up, but she does not want to talk about that; interest rates are down, but she does not want to talk about that either; immigration is down, after she cheerleaded for it to go up, and NHS waiting lists have come down at the fastest rate in 17 years. I am going to keep fighting for the people who elected a Labour Government and sent us here two years ago—people who want to live in a safer world, parents who want a better future for their children and young people growing up in poverty who deserve a better future. [Interruption.] We are investing in this great nation and standing up against those who divide us for a stronger, fairer Britain.
Mr Speaker
Order. There will be a taxi, and it might be for somebody who did not request it.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
As the Health Secretary has said, the existing contract will be reviewed as it always is ahead of the break clause. Data security is always a priority; there will be strong cyber-security protections for the single patient record and we will protect that data, as we do with all health data. We are focused on modernising the NHS so that patients do not have to repeat themselves and can get the care they need more quickly. Our investment has cut NHS waiting lists, delivered millions of extra appointments and improved A&E and ambulance response times, and I am proud of what we are doing.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I join the Prime Minister in sending our condolences to the families of those killed in last week’s helicopter crash. I associate myself with his remarks about the horrific knife attack in Belfast; our thoughts are with the victim and his family. I join the Prime Minister in condemning the disorder last night.
In Carer’s Week, I celebrate the millions of family carers who make huge sacrifices to look after their loved ones. I also look forward to an England versus Scotland world cup final, and wish you, Mr Speaker, a happy birthday.
As the chaos over the defence investment plan goes on, I am sure that Members across the House were shocked to read yesterday’s reports that the Government are considering slashing the hospital programme to fund the shortfall. Surely in 21st-century Britain people can expect both a decent local hospital and armed forces that keep them safe, so will the Prime Minister rule out any cuts to the NHS budget to fund defence?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise the concerns that we have. We have increased defence spending, and the defence investment plan is going to be set out very soon and before the NATO summit, which is in just a few weeks’ time.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Lindsay Foreman and her husband Craig have not eaten in 32 and 23 days respectively. They are being held hostage by the terrorist Government of Iran, but this Government’s weak words have abandoned them, so will the Prime Minister stop raising their case and start fighting for them? He can do that by declaring today in this House that they are being arbitrarily detained—something he has refused to do—and by referring their case to the International Court of Justice, so we get them home.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I commend my hon. Friend’s campaign to address the Croydon bottleneck. The last Government cancelled work to address this; we will carefully consider the case for upgrades, including step-free access at Norwood. I am proud that her constituents are travelling on rail services that are now back in public ownership, and benefiting from the first freeze in rail fares for 30 years—a Labour Government transforming our railways and building a fairer Britain.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I echo the Prime Minister’s words on Lance Corporal James Freeman and about the Royal Navy helicopter crash in Devon. I also send my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Henry Nowak. The circumstances around Henry’s wrongful arrest and tragic murder must be a wake-up call to the entire country and our institutions that every life matters, and it is the responsibility of everyone in this House to bring people together, not divide them.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sir Alan Haselhurst—Lord Haselhurst—who died on Monday. Sir Alan served Parliament for over 50 years, eight of them in the Lords and 40 years as my predecessor as MP for Saffron Walden, while from 1970 to 1974 he was the Member of Parliament for Middleton and Prestwich. He was respected on all sides of this House, and was elected multiple times as your predecessor as Deputy Speaker, before he concluded in the other place.
Apart from serving his constituents, Sir Alan’s greatest passion in Parliament and perhaps in life was cricket, as you said, Mr Speaker. He was chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on cricket, a role which he encouraged me to take up and which I graciously declined, telling him I knew absolutely nothing about cricket. However, I think colleagues should know that Sir Alan’s intense lobbying is the reason that Sky Sports can be found on the parliamentary TV network. There is so much to say, but just to let everyone know, he was a good and kind man and he will be very much missed. My thoughts are with his wife Angela, his children Mark, David and Emma, and his grandchildren.
May I ask the Prime Minister by how much the welfare bill has risen since he came to office?
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I associate myself with your remarks about Lord Alan Haselhurst, Mr Speaker, and can confirm to the Leader of the Opposition that he will be missed across the House. I also associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about Lance Corporal James Freeman, who was killed in Iraq. Our thoughts are with his family and unit. I also offer our thoughts and prayers to the family and friends of the 17 people who tragically drowned during the recent heatwave, many of whom were children.
The murder of Henry Nowak was an evil crime made much worse by the lies of the killer and the police response. The investigation must uncover everything that went wrong, and all police forces must act on its conclusions. Outside court, Henry’s father made a powerful plea that his son’s murder should not be used to create further division, but should instead be used to treat knife crime as a national emergency. Does the Prime Minister agree that the victims of knife crime and their families deserve a politics where we come together to solve these problems, instead of using them as a political football?
The Prime Minister
I do not believe that there is two-tier policing in this country. I am really shocked that the hon. Gentleman pretends to have respect for Henry’s family and then acts in this way. [Interruption.] They are a grieving family—
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Brash, this is a very important question, and I want to hear the Prime Minister’s answer. If you want to carry on, go outside please.
The Prime Minister
The grieving family have asked us not to respond in the way that the leader of Reform has responded. They have lost their son in the most appalling circumstances, and they make a simple plea of us as human beings to please not exploit that. We all need to reflect on the words of Henry’s father.
My response—and the response of others, to be fair—has been focused on the lessons to be learned so that we can deliver justice. The hon. Gentleman’s response has been to appeal for rage. That is his response to a father who has lost his son and asked for that not to happen. Exploiting this tragedy to create grievance and division would be wrong in any circumstances, but to do it when the family are expressly saying, “Please don’t,” is unforgivable. It shows exactly who he is.
Mr Speaker
Points of order come after statements and urgent questions—[Interruption.] You did not ask a question, though—so the point of order can come after the urgent questions.
Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
With permission, I would like to update the House on the Government’s response to the Humble Address of 4 February. Before I do, I think it is important for all of us to reflect again on the impact that this debate will have on the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Members across the House will be aware of the truly horrific crimes that he committed against countless women and girls; we hold them in our thoughts when discussing these issues again today.
The Government have today laid the second tranche of documents. These were laid before the House in advance of this statement and are now on gov.uk for the public to see. The documents we are publishing today comprise one of the largest Government publications ever laid before the House. This disclosure process has been wide-ranging, costing the Cabinet Office alone over £1 million. As the House knows, this was an official-led process, with judgments made by senior officials, and I am grateful for the careful work that they have undertaken right up until today’s publication.
While the first tranche dealt with Peter Mandelson’s appointment, withdrawal and severance, this second tranche responds to the parts of the motion that requested communications and documents concerning his appointment and vetting, as well as messages between Peter Mandelson and Ministers, special advisers and civil servants in the months prior to, and throughout the duration of, his appointment.
I recognise that the House will need sufficient time to review today’s tranche in full, given the size of the publication. As we have just heard from the Leader of the House, that is why I have secured Government time on Wednesday for a subsequent general debate: so that there is an opportunity for Members to ask further questions after today’s statement. To inform that debate and for clarity and accountability, I draw the House’s attention to the methodology set out in the publication today, which explains in detail how the Government undertook the disclosure process. I will not repeat that in full here today, but I will make reference to a number of areas that I know the House has expressed an interest in previously.
First, on redactions, in line with the motion, over 300 individual documents were referred under a process agreed between the Government and the Intelligence and Security Committee. I confirm that no material has been redacted on the grounds of prejudice to national security or international relations without the Committee’s approval. For clarity, all redacted material agreed with the ISC is labelled in the bundles today with three asterisks. Outside this arrangement, this process does not change the important and well-established constitutional principle that national security and international relations judgments are ultimately for the Government. I once again express my thanks to the Intelligence and Security Committee for its engagement in this process. Further limited redactions have been made outside the ISC process in respect of information that relates to junior officials’ names; contact details, like telephone numbers and email addresses; the personal or commercially sensitive data of third parties not relevant to the motion; and, where relevant, legal professional privilege.
I would also like to confirm that no redactions have been made to references to Global Counsel, other than to protect the identity of individuals who worked there and are not public figures. Officials have sought to be transparent in the material where the individual is a Global Counsel employee. Also, no redactions have been made to references to Palantir and Anduril outside the scope of the existing ISC redactions process, and no clear references to current or former UK politicians have been redacted on the basis of their being third parties.
I can also confirm to the House that no Government Minister or special adviser has determined any of the redactions themselves. The redaction process has been overseen by Cabinet Office officials and, where relevant, in agreement with the ISC. In addition, the Cabinet Office Humble Address team have taken advice from an independent King’s Counsel—this has included review of the methodological approach followed by officials—and acted on that advice to inform their work. This has helped to ensure that the Government are confident that their approach is compliant with the Humble Address and the Government’s legal obligations.
These additional targeted redactions, made outside the agreed ISC process, have been made in line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the ministerial code, and the resolutions on ministerial accountability passed by both Houses in 1997. This is important because it goes to the question of whether the Government have complied fully with the Humble Address. That question should be answered in the context of the established rules and precedents that relate to Humble Addresses. If these rules were not relevant, the Humble Address would have required extensive additional detail on the face of the motion dealing with these procedural issues. However, I recognise the level of interest in the House in respect of these redactions not related to national security and international relations, so, on the recommendation of the ISC, I can confirm that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, has reviewed our approach to third-party redactions this morning. He has confirmed that we have applied the methodology set out in the document and that, in his view, the redactions are sensible, reasonable and proportionate. I thank the ISC for this recommendation and the hon. Member for the additional reassurance he has provided on this point.
As the House is aware, the Metropolitan police has also asked the Government to withhold some material in scope of the motion that it considered could be prejudicial to its ongoing criminal investigation or any subsequent prosecution. This request remains in place and I am very grateful, again, to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, with whom we have also shared this information in order to provide additional accountability for the Government’s actions. I hope that Members will appreciate the need not to prejudice the investigation and understand that I will not be able to answer questions about certain documents that have been withheld. No responsible Government would wish to undermine a criminal investigation and put at risk the justice that it seeks, and I am sure that the House will share this position. I can, however, confirm that this material does include questions put to Peter Mandelson by the Prime Minister’s then chief of staff, and Peter Mandelson’s responses.
In addition, a small number of documents have been withheld at the request of the police, which fall broadly into the following categories: national security vetting material; conflict of interest process material; and relevant internal correspondence with Peter Mandelson. Such information will, of course, be published at the conclusion of the investigation or at the point at which it would no longer be prejudicial to the police investigation to do so.
The documents published in the first and second tranches contain the entirety of the documents the Government have available for disclosure, except those few documents I have just referred to in relation to the Metropolitan police. Members will no doubt have questions about what might be perceived to be “missing” messages and meeting notes, which I would like to address in turn. On messages that some might expect to be included, I can confirm that we have conducted multiple rounds of discovery from relevant Ministers, special advisers and officials, in line with the motion passed by the House. This has involved requesting searches of email, messaging platforms such as WhatsApp, and other related communications services on both work and personal devices.
However, the House should note that some messages may not have been backed up where devices may have been changed or disappearing messages turned on, for reasonable and permitted reasons, including before the dismissal of Peter Mandelson or the passing of the Humble Address—my messages included. I do recall having some limited exchanges with Peter Mandelson over WhatsApp, including those I have already discussed in the media, but these conversations did not involve transacting Government business and were in line with official guidance on the use of non-corporate communications channels at the time.
I share the view put by the Intelligence and Security Committee to the House that there are lessons for the civil service to learn in respect of better note-keeping, archiving and the use of appropriate levels of secure IT systems in the future. The Government have already committed to a review of the use of non-corporate communications channels, the terms of reference for which we will shortly publish, taking into account the concerns that have been raised in this House and the two tranches of documents that we have published in response to the Humble Address. I will of course keep the House updated as we progress that work.
I now turn to the material relating to Peter Mandelson’s national security vetting process. I can confirm that the vetting process summary and recommendation that was put by UK Security Vetting officials to the Foreign Office has been shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee. It was shared for the purpose of agreeing redactions, as part of the agreed process, so that it can be published when we are in a position to do so. What have not been shared are the highly sensitive personal data inputs collected during the interview process. These could, for example, relate to how much money an individual might have in a particular account or who a person may have had a personal relationship with in the past. If those participating in the vetting process cannot trust that the information they feed into that process is confidential, that will harm the integrity of the whole system. Anything less than full candour would be hugely damaging and profoundly negative for our national security; this would be felt by this and future Governments and, ultimately, by the British people. Sharing this data for any person undergoing developed vetting would therefore undermine the very basis of our national security vetting system.
This is the 10th update to the House on this matter that I have provided. With the exception of the small number of documents that are withheld at the request of the police, which we intend to publish when the police are content for us to do so, the Government now consider that they have duly discharged the duties set out in the Humble Address. I will, however, return to the House for the general debate on Wednesday to provide a further opportunity for colleagues to ask questions. On that basis, I commend this statement to the House.
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. There were three broad questions: first, on access to the documents; secondly, on what documents are available or not; and thirdly, on the redactions process.
On access to the documents, as I said in my response to the urgent question before the recess, I have been mindful of the fact that given the significant number of documents published today, we wanted to create as much time as possible for the House to scrutinise them and to be able to ask the Government questions. I agree that had I published these documents 45 minutes before standing up to give a statement for 45 minutes, that would have been insufficient in the circumstances. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the lengths that I and the Government have gone to, not only to provide the documents in advance to him, the Leader of the Opposition, the Chairs of the relevant Select Committees and other stakeholders, but to publish them much earlier than is normal, and to secure a general debate on Wednesday.
In respect of the documents that are available, as I said in my statement, this tranche plus the first tranche of documents represent the entirety of the documents that the Government have available for disclosure, except for those that have been made available to the Metropolitan police. The hon. Gentleman invited me to list the documents that have been given to the Metropolitan police. As I have said from the Dispatch Box before, I am acting on the advice of the Metropolitan police in not being able to do that, but I am pleased that he welcomes the commitment that we have secured from them to give a little more shape by setting out the categories of the documents that are being held. I remind him and the House that we have also shared the documents directly with the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, so that there is an additional check and balance within Parliament, without being able to share the documents more widely until the Met police tell us that we can do so.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about notification of the Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador. I refer him to the first tranche and the document from the Prime Minister’s principal private secretary in No. 10 communicating that decision to both the Foreign Office and the palace.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about the redactions process. As I set out in detail in my statement, that process was predominately with the Intelligence and Security Committee, where the information relates to national security or international relations. Secondly, non-national security redactions were undertaken in line with established process and precedent, with the additional check provided this morning, again by the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, in relation to third parties. I understand that the Chair has confirmed that he is happy with the process that the Government have followed.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving me access to the papers at 9.30 this morning. However, is it right that among the 1,500 pages of documents released, there is no written evidence of any mitigations being put in place either to minimise Peter Mandelson’s conflicts of interest or, more importantly, to reduce the risk to our national security that vetting had flagged, due to Peter Mandelson’s close connections with Russian oligarchs, senior Chinese officials, retired Israeli spymasters and a debt of £1 million to buy shares in a secretive Israeli start-up? Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister please tell us whether we will see such documents later because the police have got them, or whether they just do not exist?
Darren Jones
Without being able inadvertently to name specific documents, the best I can say to my right hon. Friend on the potential conflicts of interest, as I made clear in my statement, is that that nature of document has been made relevant from the perspective of the Metropolitan police criminal investigation.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I thank members of the ISC and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for their work on this matter. I acknowledge again the women and girls who found the courage to come forward about the abuse that they endured at the hands of rich and powerful men. As we continue to discuss this matter, we must remember that those women are owed justice.
When Peter Mandelson was appointed, UK Security Vetting advice was overridden. The then permanent secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office suggested that he was subject to constant pressure, and there is a line in today’s files suggesting that senior people expressed interest that the vetting process go smoothly. Given the Minister’s repeated assurances that there was no pressure from Government relating to vetting, what does he think that line refers to?
We now know that Cabinet Ministers were privately praising and flattering Mandelson from before his appointment all the way until after his dismissal. Senior Ministers showed a staggering lack of judgment. Will the Chief Secretary explain why so much business relating to one of the most controversial public appointments in recent years appears to have been conducted over WhatsApp? It was private, informal and outside the official record. Government by WhatsApp, which the Lib Dems have continually called for an end to, must end, because informal messaging outside official channels creates accountability gaps that should trouble us all. Does the Chief Secretary agree that Government by WhatsApp must come to an end?
Documents released today display concerning evidence that Peter Mandelson lobbied Ministers on behalf of his clients. That would appear to be a serious breach of the code of conduct for the other place, yet an initial reading of the files seems to suggest that many Ministers were pliant and responded warmly to him. Will the Minister confirm whether any Ministers reported their concerns about this seemingly egregious lobbying?
The Government have outlined their plans for the removal of peerages Bill. At first glance, it is a narrow and woefully unambitious Bill that completely fails to rise to the moment. Will the Minister outline what it will take for the Government to make meaningful reforms to the second Chamber?
Senior Cabinet Ministers asked Mandelson for advice on a range of issues, despite many of those issues falling outside the scope of his role. Issues of how we run this country stretch far beyond this scandal. The ministerial code, which should strongly inform the conduct of those who hold the highest offices in the land, continues to exist as guidance rather than the law. Ministers who breach it face no legal consequences. The Prime Minister can choose whether to act on the findings of independent advisers, which means that accountability is optional, and it is far from clear what consequences follow when rules are broken. Will the Government use this moment to bring forward legislation to enshrine the ministerial code in law?
Darren Jones
The hon. Lady invites me in her first question to comment on the intent of conversations between people other than myself. I am sure the House will understand that all I can do at the Dispatch Box is refer to the documents disclosed in the bundle, given that I was not privy to those conversations.
The hon. Lady asks me a number of questions about the use of non-corporate communication channels. The guidance is very clear that non-corporate communication channels can be used, but, where government is being transacted, the decision needs to be recorded on official Government channels. None the less, WhatsApp has been used extensively, which has raised a number of questions for the Government to consider. We will do that as part of our review of the use of non-corporate communication channels, the terms of reference for which I will announce very shortly.
The hon. Lady asks me about the peerages Bill, which was confirmed in the King’s Speech recently and which we will bring forward in due course. We share the ambition to use it as a piece of legislation to modernise the House of Lords in respect of peers who have brought the House into disrepute.
The hon. Lady asks me again about putting the ministerial code on a statutory footing. We have had exchanges a number of times across the Dispatch Box, and I point to the fact that the changes this Government have already made have proven to be effective, given a number of Ministers who have had to resign.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Any cases that are clearly a real risk to national security should alarm everyone around this House. I think back to some of the questions that I put to then Prime Minister Johnson, as you will recall, Mr Speaker, about his relationship with Alexander Lebedev, for example. We have heard about the case of Oleg Deripaska with George Osborne and Peter Mandelson, as well as other characters, which is deeply concerning.
Let me land on a point about the non-corporate communication channels and IT systems. I am delighted to hear that the Government are reviewing those, but this is a matter of urgency, because it has become the norm for civil servants and those in Government, including in previous Governments, to use the likes of WhatsApp as the normal operating system. When will that review be published?
Darren Jones
The first part of my hon. Friend’s question goes to the point I made in my statement about the importance of allowing the developed vetting interviews to be fully confidential. We need to ensure that when people join the Government and undertake a DV interview, they are fully transparent with the Government about any relationships they have with individuals. Turning to the review of non-corporate communications channels, I hope to be able to announce its terms of reference very shortly.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
As far as the House of Commons generally is concerned, this statement is fairly meaningless, because it is impossible to ask questions about hundreds of pages, having had a few minutes to read them. So many general debates are damp squibs, so will the Minister undertake to answer every single question that has been put to him by the time he opens the debate on Wednesday?
Darren Jones
I am afraid that I am not at the Dispatch Box to speak on behalf of Mr Mandelson, and I was not in the developed vetting interview process; nor have I seen that information, so I cannot answer the specific questions that my hon. Friend has asked me. What I can do, though, is point her to the relevant comments in my statement: the Government have gone to lengths to ensure that references to Palantir have not been redacted in the documents, other than in line with normal commercial processes, given the level of interest in that company in the House.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
First, through the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, may I thank all of the officials at the Cabinet Office who have dealt with this matter in a very thorough, professional and—as far as I am concerned—courteous way? For that, I am grateful.
Casting forward, it is probably perfectly correct that a Prime Minister should be able to make a political appointment to an ambassadorial position, but there seem to be two key lessons that need to be learned here, and I wonder whether the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister could say a word or two on both. The first is that as a matter of course, vetting should be conducted prior to making public an announcement of appointment. The second is that there seems to be confusion—the earlier pages of part I, published today, indicate this—about what being a member of the Privy Council, a Member of the House of Lords, or a former member of the Cabinet means for what type of vetting is required. Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister assure the House that those key lessons have been learned, and that very clear direction has been given to those who are charged with this important and sensitive job, so that they know precisely how and when to do it, and so that there is a level playing field for applicants?
Darren Jones
Let me gently remind members of the Scottish National party that Nicola Sturgeon was very effective at deleting messages during the covid inquiry. It is important that Ministers do not do that, and I am sure that the SNP has learned those lessons as much as everyone else. I made it very clear in my statement that the documents that we have available in front of us—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say that I am not responsible for the answer? It is no use appealing to me. The Minister can answer by means of his own ability; he does not need my help.
Darren Jones
Thank you, Mr Speaker, but any encouragement is welcome. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, the documents relating to his questions are clearly set out in the bundle, and they speak for themselves.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Kendall
I remind the hon. Lady that I have already made it a requirement in law that chatbots must protect users from illegal content. I banned nudification apps, through a new criminal offence. We are requiring platforms to take down non-consensual intimate images within 48 hours, and we are requiring platforms to act faster on all those things. It is not true to say that we have not legislated to go further to protect children online. Is she right that there is more to do? Absolutely, and we will act.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The original sin underpinning many of today’s digital harms is engagement-driven digital advertising. That is what incentivised the platforms to hook young people on infinite scrolling, as members of FlippGen explained to me when I met them on Monday. It is also what drives the “London is broken” misinformation that Sadiq Khan highlighted, and what rewards the fabricated clickbait AI Auschwitz images called out by the Auschwitz Museum. Will the Secretary of State take steps to regulate digital advertising, as the Committee called for in its report published almost a year ago?
Liz Kendall
I or one of my Ministers will meet the hon. Member. She is right to say that once you have seen something, you cannot unsee it. That is especially true for young minds. We all know that young children will wake up in the night and talk to us about things that they remember seeing, but do not understand because they are too young. Either one of my Ministers or I will be more than happy to meet her, see those images for ourselves, and speak to Ofcom and others about what we can do to try to stop that.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State regret having been forced into a ban on social media for under-16s during proceedings on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, rather than having committed to a ban the first place, or introducing a Bill in the King’s Speech?
Kanishka Narayan
My hon. Friend has been a remarkable champion for the BSI, on this and on wider issues as well. I will not sing “Happy Birthday”, but I will certainly wish it a very happy birthday, and I look forward to continuing my conversations with it.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Having worked across Departments and with my technology counterpart in the Lords, we have published a comprehensive paper on how Britain can thrive in the age of AI. It calls for a digital sovereign strategy and an integrated approach to AI that is bold, responsible, pro-innovation, pro-trust and built alongside industry and civic expertise. I would be happy to discuss this. We see Britain having a leading place in AI services, but we have squandered leads before, and the Government have not offered a coherent, joined-up strategy on how to do this differently, in a way that is centred on trust and standards. Where is the Government’s AI Bill? Can we have guarantees that Labour’s latest internal drama will not cost Britain its most important economic opportunity in a generation?
Liz Kendall
We want to ensure that people from all walks of life and in every part of the country can seize the opportunities that tech and AI bring. That is why we are upskilling 10 million workers—a third of the workforce—in AI skills, why we are investing £170 million in the TechFirst programme to help young people get skills and training, and why we have launched the first ever level 4 apprenticeship in AI, so that young people in Harlow can fulfil their ambitions and we build a better country for all.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
I was born in Harlow, would you believe it, Mr Speaker?
Can the Secretary of State guarantee that under Labour’s EU reset, Britain will not align with any EU tech rules, including the AI Act?
The Prime Minister
Families across the United Kingdom are facing the impacts of a war that we did not choose, so it is welcome news today that inflation is falling. There is more that we can do, and I can announce today that we are giving our hauliers a 12-month road tax holiday, helping to keep prices down, and we are backing drivers by extending the freeze in fuel duty for the rest of the year. This is possible because of the decisions taken by the Chancellor, making us the fastest growing economy in the G7, and she will set out further action tomorrow. This is not our war, and although Opposition parties wanted to jump into it, Labour will always protect working people.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I would like to associate myself with the words of the Prime Minister regarding the tragic death of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan. We send our condolences to her family on this terrible loss.
I welcome some of what the Prime Minister has said about fuel duty. Yes, there is still a freeze, but we asked him about this on 11 March and 25 March and he said he was not going to do it, so I thank him for the U-turn—[Interruption.] Labour Members are shaking their heads—it would make more sense if they just did what we are doing, because they get there in the end anyway.
Yesterday, Labour MPs voted to ban new British oil and gas licences. Why?
Mrs Badenoch
It gets worse and worse—the Prime Minister does not understand the policy. I am asking him about new oil and gas licences, which Labour Members voted against yesterday. If they had approved those licences for Jackdaw and Rosebank like we did, we would have that oil in this country now.
Just listening to the Prime Minister, I wonder if he is okay. He is so deep in the bunker. He is importing sanctioned Russian oil, nationalising steel and imposing price controls in the supermarket—it is like the Soviets won. This country needs a Government who have got their act together. Instead, what we have is a Prime Minister hanging by a thread with fake support from his Back Benchers, too scared to take difficult decisions, and losing his moral compass by backsliding on Ukraine. [Interruption.] Yes, he is. The shaking of Labour Members’ heads is so feeble—it is absolutely laughable. Yesterday, we saw them huddled in the corridors, talking about Andy Burnham and Wes Streeting. The fact is that the Prime Minister has a Cabinet fighting to replace him, and the worst part is that they are not getting rid of him over his terrible agenda—no, they actually like it. They just want a better salesman. Is it not the case that it does not matter who replaces him; the real problem is the Labour party? [Hon. Members: “More!”]
The Prime Minister
A lot has been happening in recent days, so the Leader of the Opposition may have overlooked the fact that last week, the Office for National Statistics announced that we have the fastest growing economy in the G7. Last week, we had the biggest fall in NHS waiting lists for 17 years. Today, inflation has come down more than expected. Mr Speaker, if you had offered me that and Arsenal becoming premier league champions, I would take it every day of the week.
The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the bravery and sacrifice of the Royal Regiment of Scotland. I have had the privilege of meeting Scots serving in our armed forces across the world. They deserve our deepest gratitude. I cannot understand how the SNP and Greens have arrived at this decision, particularly when Glaswegians have contributed so much to the Royal Regiment. It is not too late to do the right thing, and I urge them to reconsider.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I join the Prime Minister in sending our condolences to the family of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan, who died in a tragic accident, and to all her colleagues. I hope the Prime Minister will also join me in sending condolences to the family of Scott Hastings, the former Scottish and Lions rugby player who sadly passed away at the weekend.
In 2025, Donald Trump and Elon Musk abolished America’s international aid programme. At the same time, the Government made huge cuts to the UK’s aid programme. We now see a dangerous outbreak of Ebola in central Africa, which many people fear is going to spread and get much worse, yet there are rumours across Whitehall that the Prime Minister is planning further cuts to Britain’s international aid programme this year. Will he rule that out entirely today?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. We have already committed to a moratorium on crypto donations to political parties, and the King’s Speech introduces tougher rules to protect our democracy. However, the £5 million question is: why did the Reform leader keep this donation secret? I see that he is not here to answer. What did the billionaire lining his pockets ask for in return? Those questions need to be answered—and that is why he is not here.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me for my first Prime Minister’s question since becoming SNP Westminster leader, following the SNP’s stunning victory in Scotland. I am enjoying the sense of challenge and opportunity a new job can provide—a sense of renewal I am certain the Prime Minister will be enjoying in the weeks ahead.
This week, we saw the latest chapter of Labour infighting, in which Andy “Brexit” Burnham wants the UK to stay out of the EU, but Peter Mandelson’s pal, the former Health Secretary, wants us to go back in. Can the Prime Minister advise us which of his potential successors he agrees with?
The Prime Minister
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new post and thank him for the calm, reasonable approach I have come to expect. My position is very clear: we have already negotiated a closer relationship with the EU, which we did last year. We will have another negotiation and agreement this year at a summit, where we will get even closer and take a big step forward in our relationship with the EU, which is in our national interest.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)