Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(6 days, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Kendall
I would say that it is early days in Australia, and we also know the action that France and Spain will be taking. I do not know whether the hon. Lady was present during my statement last week, when I set out that we will consult on a range of different options, including a ban on social media for the under-16s, raising the digital age of consent, overnight curfews and stronger age verification measures. We want to get this right and to work with parents, teenagers, and industry, but we will take further action to give children the childhood that they deserve and prepare them for the future.
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for the work she is leading on this crucial issue, and I know how passionately she and the Committee, and many other Members of the House, feel about the role of algorithms, misinformation, disinformation and the impact on our democracy and the political process. We have launched a specific consultation on children’s online lives, and how to give them the best life online, just as we want for them in the real world. My hon. Friend will also know that I constantly keep these issues under review, because we want to ensure that AI and tech is used for good, and not to cause further problems in our society.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The public support a ban on social media for the under-16s, Conservative Members support a ban on social media for the under-16s, and Labour Members support a ban on social media for the under-16s. The Secretary of State has said many fine words about her concerns for children’s safety online, but what we now need is action. Will she take the opportunity to make clear her position: does she, or does she not, support a ban on social media for the under-16s?
Liz Kendall
I am very aware of the strong views on this issue. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that organisations such as the Molly Rose Foundation, the NSPCC, and others, think that there are problems with a social media ban for young people, and I want to listen closely to those views. I say to the hon. Gentleman that it was Labour Members who stood up to X and Grok, when the Conservative spokesperson said it was a “legal grey area”, when it was not, and accused us of being like the mullahs of Iran. I am proud of the action we have taken to keep kids safe online; let us see what the hon. Gentleman has done.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
We have already heard from thousands of stakeholders, including concerned parents, teachers and young people, who are all crying out for help against fast-evolving online harm. That is why the Liberal Democrats have proposed a world-leading approach to ban harmful social media, based on a future-proof, harms-based approach that is backed by 42 children’s charities and online experts. As the world wakes up to this seatbelt moment for online safety, now is the time for action. A consultation is not good enough, so will the Secretary of State please assure us that it will at least look at how we ban harmful social media for under-16s, rather than if we do it?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend has always been a powerful champion for the good people of Watford. This Government are determined to make sure that national and local public services are more easily accessible online, through things such as the NHS app, and that people can get driving licences and information about benefits online. However, we are really concerned about those without digital skills. That is why we launched the first digital inclusion plan in a decade, including free digital skills training, which my hon. Friend’s constituents can take advantage of.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Amid the utter muck-storm of this week, it is World Cancer Day, when we should be thanking our incredible scientists whose breakthroughs give hope to patients at their lowest ebb. Does the Secretary of State think that her Government should charge VAT on medicines being supplied to those patients for free?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a superb champion for Paisley. Her constituents deserve a Scottish Government who match her dedication. For our part, we have delivered a record funding settlement. We are investing £280 million in Pride in Place across 14 Scottish communities. We have secured shipbuilding on the Clyde for over a decade and have just announced an AI growth zone in Lanarkshire. The choice is clear: a third decade of failure under the SNP, or real change for Scotland under Anas Sarwar.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
The whole House will be disgusted by the latest revelations about Jeffrey Epstein. All of us want to see his victims get justice, but the political decision to appoint Epstein’s close associate, Peter Mandelson, as Britain’s ambassador to Washington goes to the very heart of this Prime Minister’s judgment. When he made that appointment, was he aware that Mandelson had continued his friendship even after Epstein’s conviction for child prostitution?
The Prime Minister
As the House would expect, we went through a process. There was a due diligence exercise, and then there was security vetting by the security services. What was not known was the sheer depth and the extent of the relationship. Mandelson lied about that to everyone for years. New information was published in September, showing that the relationship was materially different from what we had been led to believe. When the new information came to light, I sacked him, but we did go through a due diligence exercise. The points that are being put to me were dealt with within that exercise.
In response to the Humble Address this afternoon, I intend to make sure that all the material is published. The only exemptions are anything that would prejudice national security—my first duty is obviously to keep this country safe, and when we drafted Humble Addresses in opposition, we always included an exemption for national security—or that would prejudice international relations. You and the House will appreciate, Mr Speaker, that in the course of discussions country to country there are very sensitive issues of security, intelligence and trade that cannot be disclosed without compromising the relationship between the two countries, or a third country.
So that I can be totally open with the House, I should also disclose that the Metropolitan police have been in touch with my office this morning to raise issues about anything that would prejudice their investigations. We are in discussion with them about that, and I hope to be able to update the House, but I do think I should make that clear to the House at this point, because those discussions are ongoing.
Mrs Badenoch
I will come to the Humble Address in a moment, but the Prime Minister cannot blame the process. He did know. It was on Google. If the Conservative research department could find this information out, why couldn’t No. 10?
On 10 September, when we knew this, I asked the Prime Minister about it at the Dispatch Box, and he gave Mandelson his full confidence—not once but twice. He only sacked him after pressure from us. I am asking the Prime Minister something very specific, not about the generalities of the full extent. Can the Prime Minister tell us: did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?
The Prime Minister
May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend? She campaigns tirelessly to stop these antisocial, dangerous bikes terrorising communities. Our Crime and Policing Bill will mean that police can seize bikes without issuing a warning, and can destroy them. Product safety law means that authorities have the powers to intervene to stop the sale of unsafe e-bikes, but I share her determination to get these bikes off our streets.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister for your responses to my tribute to Jim Wallace on Monday, and may I urge the whole House to read the wonderful tributes paid to Jim in the other place yesterday?
I have been thinking about how victims of Jeffrey Epstein, and the victims’ families, must feel. We are hearing more and more stories of rich, powerful men currying favour with a paedophile sex trafficker; for example, we hear of Peter Mandelson sending Government secrets to help Epstein enrich himself further. Mandelson was made ambassador to the United States, even after his links to Epstein had been extensively reported by both the Financial Times and “Channel 4 News”. Given that the Prime Minister now admits that he knew about those links before he gave such an important job to one of Epstein’s closest friends, can he tell us whether he thought at all about Epstein’s victims?
Lord Mandelson
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(6 days, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making excellent points. It is a surprise not to see the Prime Minister answering these questions himself. At the end of the day, he made the decision to appoint Mandelson to the post of ambassador, so he must explain his decision-making process, and what he knew and when. Why is he not here?
Mr Speaker
Order. In fairness, that is not a problem for Mr Burghart to address. Who responds is a matter for the Government.
Alex Burghart
I am glad that it is not my problem, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend is right: the appointment of this man was absolutely the Prime Minister’s responsibility. Today we are trying to dig into exactly what the Prime Minister knew, whether any information was kept from him, and, if so, who kept it from him.
Alex Burghart
My right hon. and learned Friend speaks from a position of experience. He is entirely right; the House is fortunate to have the ISC and that is one of the functions that it can perform. The Government can have reassurance on national security and the House can have reassurance that no material is being kept from it that the Government might find embarrassing.
In his remarks, will the Paymaster General, who I know will have had nothing to do with this and who I know is a man of integrity, think seriously about the options of gisting and the role that the ISC can play in that and make sure that the Government are not marking their own homework? It is important that our constituents and this House have confidence in what the Government provide us with.
Before I hand over to other Members, let me move briefly on to the conduct of Lord Mandelson while he was our ambassador in Washington, which I think is relevant to our debate because it again exposes the Prime Minister’s lack of judgment in appointing him. There is obviously strong evidence to suggest that Mandelson behaved entirely inappropriately when he was Secretary of State under the last Labour Government, but equally big questions are now outstanding about what was happening in 2025 in Washington—as I said, this is relevant now. On 27 February 2025, the Prime Minister, while in Washington, visited the American data and AI company Palantir at its headquarters. The meeting did not appear in the Prime Minister’s register of visits; it only came to light later.
Palantir, we should remind ourselves, was a client of Global Counsel, the company in which Peter Mandelson had a commanding share. Later that year, Palantir received from this Government a £240 million deal. That deal was granted by direct award. Given the allegations now coming to light about Mandelson’s conduct, will the Minister assure the House that the Cabinet Secretary will review the circumstances around the award of that contract, and assure himself that there are no other such contracts, no other undisclosed meetings, and that the Government will go through all communications and messages that Mandelson sent out while he was ambassador, some of which we must assume, were sent to old business contacts, a potential few business contacts, and so on?
The Prime Minister knew that Peter Mandelson had maintained an unhealthy relationship with a man who was a convicted paedophile, and he appointed him to the role of ambassador anyway. Everybody in this House should be shocked by that. It must be concluded that had the Prime Minister been pressed on that point at the time, the appointment would not have been made, because the Prime Minister knew, his aides knew—but the appointment was made anyway. What else did he know? Only after this Humble Address, and only if the Government treat it in good faith, will we know that. I very much hope that we do not find that there are gaps in our security and vetting process. If there are, the Government will be able to fix them. I think it also likely that we will see reports that consistently raised concerns which were swept away. It will then be the duty of the Government to disclose who swept them away, and why. Ultimate responsibility must rest with the Prime Minister. It is time for him to take responsibility.
Mr Speaker
Order. We are getting very carried away with the way in which the work of the Metropolitan police is being thrown around. I am meant to have been contacted, but neither I nor the House has been contacted. The House will understand that I am not responsible for the ministerial answers—let me put that on the record and see if we can tidy this up a little.
For the avoidance of doubt, I understand that there is an ongoing police investigation into this case. However, no charges have been brought. The House sub judice resolution does not apply. In that context, it is up to the Ministers how they reply, but the House rules do not prevent them from answering fully. Please do not hide behind the possibility that something is not factual—let us get this on the record. I have still not had a phone call on this matter.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I hear precisely what you say, Mr Speaker, and I entirely accept that interpretation of the sub judice rule. I am certainly not hiding behind that; indeed, I will come on to some remarks about this issue in a moment.
Mr Speaker
Order. Maybe I can help a little. I think the answer was, “We can’t do this, because there is a police investigation.” We have to recognise that that is not a reason, so do not let us play off each other. I have made my point from the Chair.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister has been giving way and will give way, but you cannot all stay on your feet shouting, “Will he give way?” Let us give the Minister some time; he will take your interventions when he feels he is in the mood to take them.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), then I will take another intervention.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
There is clearly concern about Government amendment (a)—that it does not go far enough to enable scrutiny of those documents that might be withheld. Across the House, there is a growing consensus that the Intelligence and Security Committee could provide a way forward for the independent scrutiny of those documents. Could a manuscript amendment be tabled to that effect—something we can all join together and vote for, so that we can take this serious matter forward?
Mr Speaker
A manuscript amendment would be a matter for the Chair. As the Chair, I would be sympathetic to what the House needs to ensure that we get the best.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Well, I hope that the House always takes me at my word when I say that I will take these matters away with me.
The Cabinet Secretary will be taking independent advice on the decisions he takes through this process, and he intends for that advice to take two forms. First, he will have the advice of an independent KC throughout the process, and secondly, there will be scrutiny of his approach by the ISC. I hope that gives the House the necessary reassurance.
I have some past experience of drafting Humble Addresses on different matters in this House myself. The Opposition motion is clearly extensive—I think the House recognises that—but it is imperative that the Government protect sensitive information that could damage national security or relations with our international partners.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister just said that the deadline has passed to table an amendment. Can you confirm, Mr Speaker, that you just told the House that you would be sympathetic to a manuscript amendment, which would not be subject to that deadline?
Mr Speaker
The Chair is able to select a manuscript amendment, for which there is a high bar. There is a lot to clear up and I am sure that things can move forward, but in a nutshell, the answer is yes.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I hope the House takes in good faith what I have sought to do in the course of my speech, let alone in the course of the debate. I think that scrutiny of the process is very important.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I hope the House has seen, even over the course of this debate, the constructive approach I have tried to take on the role of the ISC in this process. That is precisely what I have done.
I want to turn now to another aspect of this matter, which is the peerage. Another action the Government are determined to take is to strip Peter Mandelson of his title, as the Prime Minister has set out. Frankly, I think people watching this debate will be bemused, because there is no other walk of life in which a person is unsackable unless a law is passed. We will therefore introduce primary legislation. The Government have written to the Chair of the Lords Conduct Committee to ask the Lords to consider what changes are required to modernise the process of the House in order to remove Lords quickly when they have brought either House into disrepute. The Government stand ready to support the House in whatever way is necessary to put any changes into effect.
Being in office is a privilege—every day is a privilege. That is why there is anger across this House about Peter Mandelson and his actions. The test for the Government in these circumstances is the action we take to respond. As I think has also come through in this debate, our utmost thoughts are with the victims: the women and girls who suffered at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein. Behind the emails, the photographs and the documents are many victims who were exposed to this network of abuse. They should be our priority in this matter, and I am sure they will be for the rest of this debate.
Emily Thornberry
No, please, let me finish. [Interruption.] I want to finish what I am saying.
Emily Thornberry
So the decision to appoint was made. There was supposed to be some due diligence before that happens.
I can help the House by explaining what that “due diligence” meant. As I have said, that was looked at by civil servants on the fast stream. We asked, “When you did the due diligence, what detail of the results was given to the Prime Minister?” I said that it was very important that we were given information about what the Prime Minister had been told at that point, because the friendship with Epstein was generally known about, but the ongoing friendship and the specific point about him having stayed, while a member of Cabinet, in Epstein’s New York townhouse was, to me, a very different matter. I wanted to know whether the Prime Minister had been let down by not being told that particular point. In the end, we cannot expect the Prime Minister to do all the due diligence himself—he does have a country to run. He relies on those around him to give him proper advice, so that he can then work on that advice and make decisions on that basis.
Simon Hoare
I think, Mr Speaker, that we usually prefer for matters relating to those sorts of things not to be dealt with on the Floor of the House.
Mr Speaker
To help the House, let me say that because this now relates to a person who is not a member of the royal family, the situation is completely different.
Simon Hoare
Thank you, Mr Speaker. My hospital pass has just gone through the shredder. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, in all candour: yes. The likelihood of Mr Windsor ever putting a crown on his head is so remote as to be unimaginable, but for clarity and probity, I agree with him. I do, however, think we should deal with the matter in hand today.
The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has written to Sir Chris Wormald, the Cabinet Secretary, asking him to appear before us. This follows a letter we wrote last October, to which we received a reply on the 30th of that month. The way of vetting a political appointment to be an ambassador was woefully inadequate. I welcome the fact that No. 10 has put in place new procedures, but that is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. It is either naivety or, worse, some form of complicity that the legitimate and obvious questions that should have arisen for any political appointee, but particularly Peter Mandelson, were not asked. I think it is extraordinary that the views of the Foreign Secretary were not invited on this appointment. I also find it very strange that vetting is undertaken only after the announcement of an appointment—that is a most bizarre way of dealing with things. I am pleased that the Government have realised that things need to change.
Alicia Kearns
There does seem to be amnesia about this. When Mandelson was made ambassador, it was well known that he continued the relationship with the convicted paedophile post his conviction, and there were simpering emails already in the public domain saying things like, “Oh darling one, all should be forgiven.” The suggestion that it only recently became unacceptable for him to be ambassador is wrong. If Labour Members want to suggest that it was not well known, let me tell them that colleagues like me raised it in this Chamber on the day that he was appointed, and I was greeted with jeers and boos from the Labour Benches. No one said, “Absolutely, maybe there are concerns”. Should that amnesia perhaps be reconsidered?
Mr Speaker
Order. It is not me who will say when it is 4 o’clock, but I would gently say that this is Opposition day and the Opposition may want to extend the time available for this debate. I am very bothered that not many people will get in given the rate that we are going at. I leave it to Members to take care of time.
Simon Hoare
Conscious of that, Mr Speaker, let me say that I agree with my hon. Friend, and then conclude with two asks of the Government. First, will they confirm when a Bill will be introduced and that it will be passed speedily in both Houses before the Easter recess; and, secondly, although it is not my job to speak on behalf of those on the Labour Back Benches, I ask the Government to read the Chamber. Allowing the Government Chief Whip and others to press this amendment would, as the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) has said, send such a bad message to our constituents and to victims—not just of Epstein and Mandelson but to the wider victim community—that when push comes to shove, officialdom somehow or another circles the wagons and finds a vehicle to filter and to protect.
As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) said, the best thing that we can have is transparency. The best disinfectant is sunlight. We need as much sunlight on these papers as possible, and we can start to make some progress this afternoon. Do not press the amendment and publish the Bill.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
In this Chamber, just under three hours ago, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom made a long overdue and welcome admission. For months, he, various Labour Members, Ministers and members of the Cabinet have told us all to ignore our eyes and our ears. The Prime Minister has said that he was not aware of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, but today he admitted at that Dispatch Box that he did.
Mr Speaker
Order. I can inform Members that this debate will now run until 7 pm to allow more Members to speak. Sorry for the interruption, Stephen Flynn.
Stephen Flynn
Four hours is plenty for me, Mr Speaker.
This is a dark and disgusting day for this Chamber and for each and every person living on these isles, because their Prime Minister admitted that he knew about the relationship. Of course he knew; in The Guardian in 2023, Rowena Mason wrote about the court documents that had been released in the United States of America, which referenced the fact that Jeffrey Epstein had maintained a relationship with two individuals prominent in British public life. Members will know them. They were Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister knew, just as he knew when Jim Pickard of the Financial Times asked him in January 2024 about the relationship. He has seen the photos that each of us in this Chamber has seen of Peter Mandelson in luxury accommodation in New York alongside Jeffrey Epstein.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I must inform the House that a manuscript amendment to amendment (a) has been tabled by the Prime Minister, and I have selected it. For the convenience of the House, the manuscript amendment adds the following words to the end of the amendment:
“which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament”.
Copies of the manuscript amendment are now available in the Vote Office. I will call the Minister to move the amendment formally when winding up the debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. In fairness to the Minister, he has given way time and again to Conservative Members, and now, quite rightly, he is giving way to the hon. Lady. Don’t feel that you have been hard done by, please!
Natalie Fleet
Does the Minister agree that we are here today because of the brave women who have spoken out and led us here? Does he agree that we have a responsibility—a shared responsibility as a House—to make sure that no stone is unturned, and that as a Government we will make absolutely sure that the victims at the heart of the paedophile Epstein’s crimes get the justice that they deserve, we will continue to call out this behaviour wherever we see it, and we will do everything we can, now that we are in government, to halve violence against women and girls? It is too little too late, but it is needed now more than ever.
Simon Hoare
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This relates to the point the Minister made about the Metropolitan police asking that certain documents not be released, in case they prejudice a trial or investigation. You know as well as I do, Sir, the importance of privilege to this place. Will your office and counsel work with the Cabinet Office to ensure that the rights and privileges of Members of this House are protected?
Mr Speaker
Just to sum up, the Metropolitan police have no jurisdiction over what this House may wish to do. It will be a matter of whether or not the Government provide the information. I want to let Members know that the police cannot dictate to this House. I will leave it at that; I am not going to continue the debate, which has been a long and important one. Let us move on.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026. The Ayes were 392 and the Noes were 116, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
China and Japan
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
They went on their feet, not on their knees. [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker
Thank you. Can we calm it down? I am sure you will want to catch my eye and I would like to hear what you have to say, so let us not ruin the opportunity.
The Prime Minister
In this context, refusing to engage would be a dereliction of duty, leaving British interests on the sidelines. Incredibly, some in this House still advocate that approach. But leaders do not hide. Instead, we engage and we do so on our own terms, because, like our allies, we understand that engagement makes us stronger.
Protecting our national security is non-negotiable. We are clear-eyed about the threats coming from China in that regard, and we will never waver in our efforts to keep the British people safe. That is why we have given our security services the updated powers and tools they need to tackle foreign espionage activity wherever they find it, and to tackle malicious cyber-activity as well. The fact is that we can do two things at once: we can protect ourselves, while also finding ways to co-operate. It was in that spirit that we made this visit.
I had extensive discussions, over many hours, with President Xi, Premier Li and other senior leaders. The discussions were positive and constructive. We covered the full range of issues, from strategic stability to trade and investment, opening a direct channel of communication to deliver in the national interest, enabling us to raise frank concerns about activities that impact our national security at the most senior levels of the Chinese system. We agreed to intensify dialogue on cyber issues and agreed a new partnership on climate and nature, providing much-needed global leadership on this vital issue.
I raised a number of areas of difference that matter deeply to this country. I raised the case of Jimmy Lai and called for his release, making clear the strength of feeling in this House. Those discussions will continue. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in touch with Mr Lai’s family to provide further briefing.
I raised our human rights concerns in Xinjiang and Tibet. We discussed Taiwan, wider regional stability, Iran and the middle east. I called on China to end economic support for Russia’s war effort, including the companies providing dual-use technologies, and urged it to use its influence on Putin to push for the much-needed ceasefire in Ukraine.
I also raised the fact that Members of this House have been sanctioned by the Chinese authorities. In response, the Chinese have now made it clear that all such restrictions on parliamentarians no longer apply. I want to be clear: this was not the result of a trade. Yes, Members will want to see more—I understand that—but that is precisely the point: ignoring China for eight years achieved nothing. This step is an early indication, not the sum total, of the kind of progress that this sort of engagement can achieve through leader-to-leader discussion of sensitive issues, in standing up for British interests.
My visit was also about creating new opportunities for British businesses to deliver jobs and growth for the British people. We took with us a brilliant delegation of nearly 60 businesses and cultural powerhouses—the very best of British—as an embodiment of what this country has to offer. If anyone is in doubt as to why this matters, I urge them to spend a few minutes with any one of those businesses; they will describe the incredible potential there and the importance of getting out there and accessing the market.
We made significant progress, paving the way to open the Chinese market for British exports, including in our world-leading services sector. We secured 30-day visa-free travel for all Brits, including business travellers. We secured China’s agreement to halve whisky tariffs from 10% to 5%, which is worth £250 million to the UK over the next five years—a significant win for our iconic whisky industry, particularly in Scotland. That lower tariff comes into force today. In total, we secured £2.3 billion in market access wins, including for financial services, £2.2 billion in export deals for British companies and hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of new investments.
In addition, we agreed to work together in some key areas of law enforcement. Last year, around 60% of all small boat engines used by smuggling gangs came from China, so we struck a border security pact to enable joint law enforcement action to disrupt that supply at source. We also agreed to scale up removals of those with no right to be in the UK and to work together to crack down on the supply of synthetic opioids.
We will continue to develop our work across all these areas, because this is the start of the process, not the end of it. My visit was not just about coming back with these agreements, but about the wider question of setting this relationship on a better path—one that allows us to deal with issues and seize opportunities in a way that the previous Government failed to do.
Finally, I will say a word about my meetings in Tokyo. Japan remains one of our closest allies; together, we are the leading economies in the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, and we are partners in the G7, the G20 and the coalition of the willing. Japan is the UK’s largest inward investor outside the United States and Europe.
I had an extremely productive meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan, where we set out our shared priorities to build an even deeper partnership in the years to come. Those include working together for peace and security, supporting Ukraine as we work for a just and lasting peace, and deepening our co-operation in cutting-edge defence production, including through the global combat air programme. We discussed how we can boost growth and economic resilience by developing our co-operation: first, in tech and innovation, where we are both leaders; secondly, in energy, where Japan is a major investor in the UK; and, thirdly, in trade, where we are working together to maintain the openness and stability that our businesses depend on. That includes expanding the CPTPP and deepening its co-operation with the EU. We will take all of that forward when I welcome the Prime Minister to Chequers later this year.
This is Britain back at the top table at last. We are facing outward, replacing incoherence and isolationism with pragmatic engagement, and naive posturing with the national interest. In dangerous times, we are using our full strength and reach on the world stage to deliver growth and security for the British people. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Kyle, you said to me when you were going to China how well you would behave and how you owe me a big thank you. You are not showing it today!
Mrs Badenoch
Mr Speaker, I am not worried about the Business Secretary; the entire business community thinks he is a joke and does not know what he is talking about.
As I was saying, of course we should engage with other countries, even hostile ones, but we need to do so with our eyes open and from a position of strength. That requires a Prime Minister and a Government who put our national interest first.
The Prime Minister
Let me see if I understand the right hon. Lady’s position. This is the Leader of the Opposition who said we should empty-chair the most important NATO summit for years, who would not turn up to the G7 and who would rip up our valuable trade deals with the US, India and the EU. This is the Leader of the Opposition who characterised Greenland as a “second-order issue”, and then undermined the Government’s position on sovereignty. When it comes to China, her policy is to stick her head in the sand, unable to influence anything. In a volatile world, that is not policy; that is an abdication of responsibility—no wonder members on her Front Bench are leaving in droves.
The Leader of the Opposition talks of the embassy. China has had an embassy in the UK since 1877. It is currently spread across seven sites. She is so busy trying to hold her party together that she has clearly not read the letter from the security and intelligence services. She claims great interest in the China embassy. She was offered an invite for a Privy Council briefing on the issue. What did she do? She chose not to attend. That is a dereliction of duty. Even worse, she sent in her place the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp)—that is a double dereliction of duty. Instead of taking up a Privy Council briefing, she took up a megaphone on the streets outside the embassy. I changed my party from a party of protest to a party of power. She is rapidly going in the opposite direction. Her reply this afternoon seems to be that we should engage with China, but not engage with China, and that, instead of leader-to-leader discussions where we raise all the opportunities and the difficult issues, each and every one of them, she would get a bag of sand and put her head in it and influence absolutely nothing. The Conservatives are so unserious about world affairs.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I am pleased to see that his trip went so well. This morning, I was in touch with the Scotch Whisky Association, which wants me to convey its congratulations to the Prime Minister on securing reduced tariffs on exports to China. There is, of course, more work needed, however—a Prime Minister’s job is never done. The biggest overseas market for whisky is, of course, the US, where the tariff is still too high. Will the Prime Minister confirm that this will not be the end of his support for the Scotch whisky industry and that he will continue to be an advocate for it?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can confirm that we are continuing to work with the US. Of course, the India deal we secured will also have an impact on whisky tariffs.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I start by paying tribute to my friend Jim Wallace, one of the great Scottish Liberals. I offer our thoughts and prayers to his family and many friends. Jim devoted his life to public service, his Christian faith and the cause of liberalism. But his judgment was not always impeccable, for it was Jim who gave me my first job in politics. We will miss him.
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of the statement. I listened to the Conservative leader, whose position now seems to be to oppose trade with the world’s biggest economies—so much for global Britain. With President Trump threatening tariffs again, just because of the Prime Minister’s trip, and with Vladimir Putin still murdering civilians in Ukraine, now more than ever the United Kingdom must forge much closer alliances with nations that share our values, our belief in free trade and our commitment to mutual defence. China shares none of those.
The Prime Minister’s main focus should be on the closest possible ties with our European neighbours, our Commonwealth allies and our friends such as Japan and Korea. Once again, he has made the wrong choice. However, unlike the Conservative party, we think he was right to go and engage. But just like with President Trump, he approached President Xi from a position of weakness instead of a position of strength, promising him a super-embassy here in London in return for relatively meagre offers from China.
The Prime Minister rightly raised the case of Jimmy Lai, whose children fear for his health after five years held in captivity, so will he tell us what Xi said to give him confidence that Mr Lai is now more likely to be released? Did he also challenge Xi on the bounties on the heads of innocent Hongkongers here in the United Kingdom, or the revelation that China hacked the phones of No. 10 officials for years? In other words, did he stand up for Britain this time?
Yet again, the Prime Minister had to spend time on a foreign trip responding to revelations about the vile paedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s relationship with Lord Mandelson. The Prime Minister has rightly said that Mandelson should resign from the other place, but since he has not, will he back a simple piece of legislation to strip him of his peerage? Surely this House could pass it tomorrow.
The Prime Minister
I start by offering my deep condolences on behalf of the Government in relation to Lord Wallace. He was a kind and decent man, and I know he will be sorely missed on the Liberal Democrat Benches. May he rest in peace.
Of course we need to build stronger alliances with our key partners, and that is what we have been doing, particularly with the EU. But the right hon. Gentleman is wrong: it is not a choice between doing that and engaging with China. One can do both, and that is what we are doing. Where there are opportunities, and where there are sensitive and really important disagreements, I think it is more important to have a meeting to discuss them.
The House is violently agreeing that there are issues that need to be discussed. The difference between us is that we think that having a leader-to-leader meeting to discuss those big issues is better than sticking our head in the sand, if we really want to influence them. So we can do both.
Yes, I raised the case of Jimmy Lai, and we have now spoken to his family about that discussion. Yes, I raised the case of Hong Kong. I raised a number of human rights issues, as I listed. The point is that, by being in the room and having the debate one to one, at leader-to-leader level, it was possible to raise those issues. There is frankly no point standing in this House shouting and screaming about issues if you are not prepared to get in the room to discuss them. It gets you absolutely nowhere.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I want to welcome the Prime Minister’s serious engagement with serious power: it is essential to safeguarding our national interest. The complexities of China require from Britain a whole-of-society approach, which is completely impossible until the Government publish a clear China strategy to explain what is off limits and how we are going to rebalance competition with Chinese industry that is six times over-subsidised compared with our firms. Last week in Europe, I heard very clearly from our partners that they are worried that the lackadaisical approach to policing Chinese competition risks deeper integration with Europe. The EU has 143 trade measures in place against China; we have none. So will the Prime Minister now follow up his meetings last week and publish a strategy, co-ordinated with our allies, so we can take out the guesswork and put in place the guardrails for this important relationship?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, the general approach was set out in the Lady Mayor’s banquet speech I gave just before Christmas. My right hon. Friend made a really important point about Europe. As I mentioned, President Macron went to China just a few weeks ago and Chancellor Merz is due to go very shortly, and my right hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that the three of us, as the E3, discussed in advance the approach we would take and agreed to discuss during our visits and afterwards the outcomes and how we go forward as a group of European nations.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
What absolutely unites everybody in this place is absolute outrage at the treatment of Jimmy Lai, a British citizen whose only crime is to campaign for democracy and to ask the Chinese to obey the spirit and letter of the solemn agreement that we made with them before the 1997 takeover. The Prime Minister said at the weekend that he had raised the case of Jimmy Lai “respectfully” with the latest Chinese emperor —“respectfully”? Does the Prime Minister not realise that the Chinese only accept strength—that everything is a deal—so why did he not say to them, “There will be no Chinese embassy until you stop spying on us in this House, you give an absolute assurance to us on Diego Garcia, and, above all, you free Jimmy Lai now”?
The Prime Minister
I raised the case of Jimmy Lai in terms with the President, as in fact I did, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, at the G20 when I met the President for the first time, and we have updated the family in relation to the progress we have made. But the position of the Conservative party seems to be that we should raise the case of Jimmy Lai by not going to China and raising the case of Jimmy Lai.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
We must engage pragmatically with our allies and with others around the world when it serves the national interest. That is why I welcome the Prime Minister’s engagement with our close ally, Japan, as well as with our major trading partner, China. I also welcome his commitment to the global combat air programme, which, as the Defence Committee illustrated, is of vital strategic importance as we develop the next generation of fighter jets. But our Japanese and Italian friends are understandably nervous, because we have as yet not put pen to paper on the full contract for Tempest, as was planned last year. Can the Prime Minister clarify when that fully formalised contract on GCAP will be penned, and can he also confirm that the timeline and programme will slide sideways?
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, when the Prime Minister was in China and Japan, he gave comment that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should testify before Congress in the United States. What the Prime Minister chose not to do was to offer an unreserved apology to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for appointing his other friend, Peter Mandelson, as the ambassador to the United States of America. Now that he is back from China and Japan, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to do just that, and does he agree with me that Peter Mandelson should be subject to a police investigation for potential criminality while in public office?
The Prime Minister
Only the SNP could go about this in this way—instead of welcoming the halving of tariffs on Scottish whisky, the right hon. Gentleman raises things that have absolutely nothing to do with China or Japan. Only the SNP has no interest at all in delivering for Scotland.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Ward
As I have just said, this is about apprenticeships as well as universities. The hon. Gentleman should write to me and the Minister for the Cabinet Office about how we can roll this out. It is a UK-wide programme that will benefit all parts of the United Kingdom. The Minister for the Cabinet Office met the devolved Governments yesterday to discuss that and other matters.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
In his statement last month, the Paymaster General promised us that he had secured a great deal for the first year of the Erasmus programme. It is a technique that will be familiar to mobile phone and satellite TV customers around the country. Can the Minister tell us what the Paymaster General could not tell us in that statement: what will it cost in the second and subsequent years?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I look forward to visiting Belfast later today. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the East-West Council is an important part of our “Safeguarding the Union” arrangements. I certainly take a pragmatic and proportionate approach to the Windsor framework, which is one of the reasons I am so keen to get the food and drink agreement with the EU implemented as soon as possible, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, will mean we can reduce the levels of checks in the Irish sea.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Since the Paymaster General was last in the Commons, the Health Secretary has said that Britain should rejoin the customs union, the Deputy Prime Minister has suggested rejoining the customs union, 13 Labour MPs have gone against the Whip and voted with the Liberal Democrats in favour of a customs union, 80% of Labour voters at the last election have said they want to rejoin the customs union, and the Business and Trade Secretary has said that it would be “crazy” not to join the customs union. It would seem that the only people in Labour opposed to the customs union are the Prime Minister and the Paymaster General. The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that in this one regard, I do not think he is crazy at all—I think he is doing the right thing. Will he tell the House why he thinks all the other members of the Labour party are so wrong?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
To clarify, there are no access fees in regard to either the emissions trading system linkage or the food and drink agreement that is being negotiated. That is absolutely clear. In terms of moving forward, we take pragmatic decisions in the national interest in various sectors, which is why we opened negotiations on electricity trading before Christmas. The hon. Gentleman has crystalised the choice at the next general election: this Government are negotiating a deal that will bear down on food and energy bills, give law enforcement more tools to keep our country safe and create jobs; the Conservatives, for ideological reasons, are setting their face against those things. I would welcome that debate with them.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
We expect an EU reset Bill in the coming months to update the arrangements around our relationship with our European neighbours. Following the terrible Brexit deal delivered by the Conservatives and cheered on by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), which trashed our economy and our international standing, a reset is essential, and we welcome it. Does the Minister agree that Parliament should have the ability to fully scrutinise the legislation to ensure that the Government deliver the change that we need and that we can hold Ministers’ feet to the fire as they set up new structures or committees as needed? To that end, will he assure the House that the Bill will contain enough detail to allow meaningful democratic accountability and that the specifics will not be kicked into secondary legislation?
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am here to earn my salary. I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The Government will be taking a “digital first” approach to modernising public services. On Tuesday, I highlighted that we are expanding the No. 10 innovation fellowship programme to bring more specialist digital skills into Government. On everything from justice to health, people with those skills will be working on building in-house digital solutions to create more efficient, value-for-money public services.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. That is a very important question, and I fully support it, but we have to shorten the questions to get others in. The Minister will give a good example in his reply.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue that affects her constituency. As I said earlier, we need to do more to support great British businesses like Alexander Dennis. In the consultation, we are looking at reforming social value. I think it needs to go further; there should be meaningful social value that really helps local communities.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
At the risk of overworking the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I would like to ask him a question. It is boring but important; my last boring question was to the Paymaster General. The Opposition have found that his Department often refuses to release information to Members in response to parliamentary questions, but then releases it in response to freedom of information requests. Does he agree that, in principle, that is wrong?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We are not returning to the common fisheries policy, and the hon. Lady is completely wrong in what she just said. The medium-term stability that we have delivered for our fishing industry will mean a £360 million investment in upgrading our fleet and in our coastal communities. If she opposes that money going into our fishing communities, she should say so. Secondly—[Interruption.]
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill is still under consideration in the Scottish Parliament and has not been passed, contrary to the views of a number of Members of this House. This week, a number of measures had to be removed from the Bill because they were not compliant with the powers of the Scottish Parliament, but Scottish Ministers suggested that they were in an ongoing discussion with the UK Government about a future section 104 order. Can Ministers update the House on the current discussions with the Scottish Government? And do they agree with me that ultimately—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government take a neutral position in relation to that Bill. It is also important, both recently and going forward, that we work sensitively with all the devolved Administrations.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo Stevens
I would be very happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman about that. We are investing in our green industries because that is how we will bring down bills for everybody, secure our energy supplies for everybody, and create jobs and improve living standards for everybody.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Mid-Wales is beautiful, but plans for 200 metre tall wind turbines in Radnor forest—turbines twice the height of Big Ben—will blight the landscape, impact local communities and harm the area’s vital tourism sector, and we are seeing similar proposals across Brecon and Radnorshire. The concerns of local communities, businesses and councils must be properly considered in planning decisions for energy infrastructure, not simply overridden by Government Ministers in Cardiff Bay to meet their own agenda. Does the Secretary of State agree?
Jo Stevens
The hon. Member obviously does not want energy bills to come down, does not want jobs in mid-Wales and does not want the investment to happen. Labour is the only party committed to our renewable energy revolution. Plaid, the Greens and the Lib Dems all try to block renewable infrastructure, while the SNP rejects the jobs, as we have just heard; and now the Tories and Reform do not want this revolution, but want to scrap net zero altogether.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The Secretary of State has been highly critical of the legitimate concerns that my constituents have raised about the numerous wind farm proposals across mid-Wales. Now the Ministry of Defence has raised its concerns that at least one of the proposed wind farms has the potential to form a physical obstruction to air traffic movements and military activities at the Sennybridge training area. If the Labour Government will not listen to the concerns raised by my residents, will they at least listen to their own military?
Jo Stevens
The introduction of the £1 bus fare cap for young people, and now a £2 cap on all fares from the Welsh Labour Government, has been great news; it will help everyone with the cost of living. The 100 new bus routes right across Wales, which will be introduced if Welsh Labour are re-elected in May, will further help people take advantage of the new opportunities and jobs that we are creating across Wales. All this has been made possible because there are two Labour Governments working together for Wales. Our record-breaking Budget settlement for the Welsh Government has delivered nearly £6 billion more in spending power, enabling them to invest more in transport and other public services.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Following a freedom of information request, several questions at the Dispatch Box and my pre-Christmas letter to the Secretary of State, a serious explanation of railway funding in Wales is still lacking. Previously, she said in the Chamber:
“We are investing…to right the years of underfunding”—[Official Report, 16 July 2025; Vol. 771, c. 282.]
She told the Welsh Affairs Committee that there was
“widespread agreement… and many others have expressed similar sentiments.”
That is not evidence of underfunding; it is an opinion. Will she finally tell the House what method she is using to form her opinion, and will she outline how much Network Rail intends to invest in Welsh railways?
Anna McMorrin
The hon. Member raises a very important point—one that I regularly discuss with S4C and my colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It is fantastic news that last week, the BBC and S4C announced plans for a major new streaming partnership, giving greater prominence to S4C on iPlayer, but I know that there is more to do on this issue, and I will continue to work with my colleagues and broadcasters on this matter.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
The Welsh Affairs Committee took evidence from the chief executive officer and chair of S4C last week, and it was good to hear their plans for the future. What discussions has the Minister had with S4C and other broadcasters to further the development of the Welsh language across Wales and beyond?
Jo Stevens
Energy bills are a significant issue for people across the country. That is why, thanks to this Labour Government, from April this year all households will see an average £150 reduction in costs on their energy bills. Energy suppliers will pass on the savings automatically to households.
My hon. Friend will have seen today the launch of our warm homes plan, which is a £15 billion fund. In Wales, it will make grants available for households to replace gas boilers with heat pumps, and it will mean stronger standards for landlords who privately rent homes, so that they are safer, warmer and more affordable to run.
Anna McMorrin
I can certainly write to the hon. Member with the detail of what we are doing about the Powys health board. I can assure her that this Government are committed to working with the Welsh Government to ensure that cross-border arrangements are fair and transparent and focused on patient need. These are two Labour Governments working together in partnership and delivering together.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I extend a warm welcome to the President of the Storting, the Norwegian Parliament, and his delegation, who are with us in the Gallery today.
Dr Sandher
We face an affordability crisis in this country. In the short term, our dependence on fossil fuels has led to a rise in energy bills, and in the longer term, the aftershocks of Thatcher mean that there are not enough good, non-graduate jobs. That is why today’s warm homes plan is such good news: batteries, solar, home insulation; getting bills down and wages rising; making life affordable. But we must go further, so can I ask the Prime Minister to do even more to make sure that life is affordable for my constituents—
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. I know how much he cares about making life affordable. We are taking £150 off energy bills. That is £300 for the 6 million poorest families, including almost 3,700 households in his constituency. The warm homes plan we are announcing today is the biggest ever public investment in upgrading British homes. It will lift 1 million households out of fuel poverty, tackling the cost of living. That is the difference a Labour Government make.
The Prime Minister
I am proud that we are spending more on defence than at any time since the last Labour Government. [Interruption.] The strategic defence review has backed the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war. That is £270 billion this Parliament, making defence an engine of growth. That is a stark contrast. Ben Wallace, the longest-serving Conservative Defence Secretary, openly admitted that under the Conservatives’ watch our armed forces were “hollowed out”. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Bowie and Mr Cartlidge, it is continuous, week in and week out. There are a couple on the Government Benches who will also be going out for a cup of tea with you. Please, calm it down or you know the consequence.
The Prime Minister
They shout on a Wednesday and they defect on a Thursday. The loudest shouter used to be the former shadow Justice Secretary. We should take a note of who is shouting most loudly this week.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister wants to talk about defections. Let me tell him that when I had someone undermining my party, I sacked him. If he sacked—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We are going to get through this Prime Minister’s questions. I want to hear the Leader of the Opposition and I want to hear the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Those who do not may leave the Chamber.
Mrs Badenoch
We all know that if the Prime Minister sacked everyone undermining his party, his Front Bench would be empty. Jokes aside, these questions I am asking are about our national interest. We support our armed forces in every possible way. Later today, my party will vote to protect our veterans from unfair prosecution; he is ordering his MPs to vote against them. In our national interest, and for the sake of all the brave people in the armed forces, past, present and future, will the Prime Minister do the right thing and vote in support of our veterans, not against them?
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister wants to talk about leadership. Three of his own Cabinet Ministers told The Times on Saturday that he needed to learn from me—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am telling Members now, I am having no more. Do we understand each other? Thank you.
Mrs Badenoch
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Back to the national interest. Instead of acting in it, the Prime Minister just tries to get through the day. On the Chinese spy hub embassy, he is too weak. On Chagos, he is too weak. On funding for the armed forces, he is too weak. On protecting our veterans from prosecution, he is too weak. I will support the Prime Minister when he does the right thing, but time after time, this Prime Minister has done the wrong thing for our country. Is it not the truth that he is too weak to stand up for our national interests?
The Prime Minister
I am pleased to confirm that last week saw the second biggest fall in NHS waiting times for 15 years. Waiting lists are down by more than 300,000, an extra 2,900 GPs have been recruited, and ambulances are arriving nearly 15 minutes faster this winter than they were last year. There is much more to do, which is why we are delivering the biggest upgrade to our ambulance fleet for many years. That progress has been made possible by Labour’s decisions, which are opposed by the opposition parties.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
We remember how Tony Blair ignored warnings from these opposition Benches and tied himself to an unpopular American President and a disastrous foreign policy, while close allies such as Canada and France looked on in horror. With Donald Trump increasingly acting like a crime boss running a protection racket, threatening to smash up our economy unless he gets his hands on Greenland, will the Prime Minister avoid Blair’s historic mistake, take our advice this time and join Prime Minister Carney and President Macron in standing up far more strongly to President Trump?
The Prime Minister
We inherited a real mess on water, and we are taking the most effective and far-reaching measures to deal with it. I wonder what the hon. Lady, as someone who stood to lead her party, makes of how her leader is responding to this global uncertainty. He is saying that this is the time to withdraw from NATO; that this is the time to kick the US out of our military bases; that this is the time to negotiate—hear this—with Putin to give up our nuclear deterrent. I am sure that Putin would be very quick on the line for that one. It is as reckless and irresponsible as their plan to legalise heroin and crack cocaine. That is the Green party now—high on drugs, soft on Putin.
Mr Speaker
Order. We do not ask the Opposition questions. These are questions for the Prime Minister, not the other way around.
The Prime Minister
We are applying their formula—the one that you put in place in government—[Interruption.] We are changing it—[Interruption.] Special educational needs are probably raised with me more than any other issue that is raised in the House. We are proposing reforms. The problem that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to interrupt, Prime Minister, but Mr Holden, as shadow Secretary of State for Transport, you will be getting the express train out of here.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman may be making himself the next candidate for the Thursday defections—[Interruption.] Oh, maybe it is someone else. Those that shout loudest end up on the Reform UK Bench—[Interruption.] Reform is supporting our recycling moves, because soon it will be a party entirely made up of—
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Since day one, my hon. Friend has fought for her constituents on this issue, and I pay tribute to her for that. I agree that the University of East Anglia would be an excellent candidate for any future additional funded dentistry places available. We are also reforming contracts and making sure that dentists spend more time working in the NHS, delivering thousands of extra appointments to fix the failure we were left with.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Children with disabilities and special educational needs in Somerset will be severely hit if the Government go ahead with removing the remoteness uplift from authorities. Will the Government commit to ensuring that councils with the largest land areas—of which Somerset is one—are properly reimbursed for the costs of remoteness, so that children in my constituency do not suffer?
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not have responsibility for answers from the Prime Minister, and I certainly do not want that responsibility. How the Prime Minister answers questions is up to him, which is why I closed him down and said that he is not there to ask questions of your party. I think we will leave it at that; I am not continuing the debate at this stage.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alexander
I think 19th-century nationalism is a bad prescription for Scotland, and it is also a bad prescription for Wales. We are proud of the fact that we are increasing public investment not just in rail, as we have heard today from the Transport Secretary, but more broadly across public services in every part of these islands.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is aware that the Scottish Affairs Committee recently conducted an inquiry into the Thistle safer drug consumption room in Glasgow. I hope that this innovative facility will help to cut drug death numbers in Scotland, but does he agree that the Thistle on its own cannot end the drug crisis? Does he therefore agree that a real-terms cut of £1.3 million to alcohol and drug services was entirely the wrong move in yesterday’s Scottish budget?
Mr Alexander
What is the reality after yesterday’s budget from the Scottish Government? The reality after 19 SNP budgets is that hundreds of thousands of us are stuck on NHS waiting lists in Scotland; over 10,000 children are waking up in temporary accommodation, with no permanent home; and councils are unable to afford even the basics. Members should look at the comments yesterday about what the Scottish Government did to local government. They do not learn, they do not understand and they are out of time.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
One way to lessen the bite of the cost of living for hard-working Scots would be to cut their taxes, letting people keep more of their hard-earned money. Unfortunately, for the nationalists that appears to be anathema. Instead, they are increasing foreign aid spending, which is reserved, to £16 million. They are introducing yet more tax bands and more new taxes, but nothing to incentivise people to find good, well-paying jobs. Conservatives know that you cannot tax a nation into prosperity. Does the Secretary of State agree?
Mr Alexander
I understand that the SNP’s grievance machine does not run on facts, but let me introduce a few facts into the conversation. The highlands and islands are benefiting from more than £300 million in investment, including £80 million to support neighbourhoods through Pride in Place, and, of course, the £25 million for the Inverness and Cromarty Firth green freeport. I can attest to that, because I visited Inverness and announced it.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The Labour Government are doing absolutely nothing to grow the Scottish economy, given the national insurance increase, the family farm tax, the unemployment rights Bill and the gutting of the oil and gas industry. Growth has been halved, unemployment is up and inflation is up. It is total incompetence. However, the Government are not only incompetent but weak—so weak that Scottish Labour announced that it would not oppose the SNP’s budget before its members even knew what was in it. We know that they are not very good at government, but you would have thought that after all these years they might have worked out how to do opposition, wouldn’t you?
Mr Alexander
Unsurprisingly, no. I half agree with the shadow Secretary of State in that, frankly, Scotland deserves better than a Government who, after 19 years, are claiming to be the change that Scotland needs. The reality is that, when I am on the doorsteps in Lothian East, I ask people inclined to vote SNP a single question, “Can you name a single area of Scottish public life that has got better over the last 19 years?” We have had two decades of talking about independence, and what do we have to show for it? That Budget is not the change that Scotland needs; the change we need is Anas Sarwar and Scottish Labour.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I congratulate the Government on the successful seventh round of the allocation of green energy in contracts for difference, nearly 20% of which are going to Scotland. It is good to see that, even amid their U-turns, a Liberal Democrat system from over a decade ago is still delivering. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the benefits are passed on to the Scottish people through skilled jobs, working to upgrade the grid and, crucially, protecting and defending our offshore infrastructure?
Mr Alexander
I was last in touch with the Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary about an hour ago. I talked to him after the Cabinet, and I discussed these issues with him in the Cabinet. It is a very serious question, and it deserves a serious answer. The choice is not whether to build, but what to build, and our answer is clean home-grown power that the United Kingdom controls. Our answer is that we should build new renewables, because they are cheaper to build and to operate than gas.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I wish the Secretary of State the best for 2026. I am glad he caught “The Traitors”, because I am so sorry to have heard the language used about Scottish Labour MPs by Labour MPs in the press recently. If what he is saying is the best way to improve our lives and our economy, why is Scotland the only part of the UK where child poverty is going down?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. The Hillsborough law will right wrongs of the past, changing the balance of power to ensure the state can never hide from the people it should serve. I think some of the families are with us in the Gallery here today, and I will be meeting them later on this afternoon. I have always been clear that the duty of candour applies to the intelligence services. I made a commitment that we would not water down the Bill, and the amendments we have put forward strengthen it. It is right that there are essential safeguards in place to protect national security, and we have got that balance right. We will meet the families and outline the next steps on Monday in relation to that crucial balance.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I agree with the Prime Minister’s comments on Iran. Today, Erfan Soltani faces execution for protesting in Iran. I am sure the whole House will be united in condemning that; our thoughts are with him and his family and the brave protesters fighting for their freedom against an evil regime.
I know the Home Secretary will be making a statement today on the West Midlands police. The first thing she should be announcing is the sacking of the chief constable. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) for relentlessly pushing this issue.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s latest U-turn—I feel like I say that every week. Mandatory digital ID was a rubbish policy, and the Opposition are glad to see the back of it. Yesterday, the Health Secretary said that the Prime Minister’s new year’s resolution should be to try to get it right first—[Laughter.] It should be to
“try to get it right first time”.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend draws attention to the important work of the Mayor of London. Nobody should be talking our country down or talking London down. She is right to say that since we came into office the number of knife crime offences is down, but there is more to do. We are introducing new powers to seize knives and increasing the penalty for selling knives to under-18s. [Interruption.] What did the Conservatives—they are chuntering—do? They voted against those provisions. What is obvious about London and Reform is that it has got a candidate for mayor who does not like London, a new ex-Tory recruit who struggled to pay his taxes in this country and a leader who spends more time in France than in his constituency.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I associate myself and my party with the Prime Minister’s comments on Iran. I encourage him to go even further on sanctions and proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Sandra is 71. She has bladder cancer. Just after Christmas, she went into her local A&E. She had to wait 31 hours on a trolley or on a plastic chair to be admitted. Last year, more than half a million people waited for over 12 hours in A&E to be admitted—more than any year in the history of the NHS. This corridor care crisis was created by the Conservatives, but it has got worse under Labour. Will the Prime Minister end this scandal by taking up our plan to end all 12-hour A&E waits this year?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are only on Question 11. If we want to get MPs in, the House is going to have to work with me.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
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
Liz Kendall
I am very proud that my hon. Friend sits on the Government Benches, with all his experience in this critical area. As part of our backing for research and development, we are doubling R&D investment in critical technologies such as engineering biology, AI and quantum, with R&D investment in AI alone growing from £600 million to £1.6 billion. Today—in a mere 20 minutes, I believe—UKRI will publish the level of direct support to be given to each of the industrial strategy sectors, and that includes the support we are providing to our vital small businesses. Backing the UK’s leading strength in these areas and backing our world-leading scientists and researchers is the only route to better growth and more opportunities in Erewash and right across the country.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—what a lovely birthday present.
Last week I met my constituent Kevin, the programme lead for TESTBED Dorset. He told me that although life sciences is one of the key sectors in the modern industrial strategy, none of the seven projects is in the south-west, and there is not a single reference to Dorset. The living science park will create a vast area for academic research based in our landscapes, supported by landowners, universities from Bournemouth, Bristol and Southampton, the National Trust and Natural England, focused on a “one health” approach. Will the Secretary of State meet me and those lead organisations to hear more about the programme and consider it for the future?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for raising a very important point. The Online Safety Act 2023 already focuses on areas of illegal content, in particular to keep young people safe under the child safety duties. If there are particular instances that the hon. Member wishes to write to me about, I will be happy to raise them. Notwithstanding the fact that Ofcom continues to be the regulator, we are keeping the pressure on both Ofcom and platforms to act robustly.
Ian Murray
I think the hon. Gentleman acknowledges in his question the amount of funding that is going into the area that he represents and the wider Northern Ireland communities. UKRI plays a key role in strengthening supply chains, supporting regional innovation hubs and aligning research with local economic development goals. This Government’s funding rounds highlight partnership opportunities, including with the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Centre that he has mentioned, where projects can complement those facilities, boosting regional innovation and productivity. That builds on initiatives such as the local innovation partnership funding, which empowers local leaders to target research and development investment and unleash the full potential of innovation in his and the wider Northern Ireland region.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
This afternoon, UKRI will publish its detailed funding allocations for programmes such as ReImagining Supply Chains. Does the Minister agree with the Office for Budget Responsibility that the bursting of the AI bubble presents a significant downside risk to the UK economy? What steps are his Department and UKRI taking to protect their investment in innovative companies that would undoubtedly be affected by an AI market correction?
Ian Murray
It is up to the Petitions Committee to schedule those debates, and I am sure the Committee will schedule that debate in Westminster Hall in due course. I can only reiterate that the Government are proposing this national ID scheme to modernise public services, improve security, streamline right-to-work checks and give the public control over their data. I am not quite so sure why the hon. Lady objects to the government modernising. We have analogue government with a digital population, and we live in a new world where the economy is modernising and digitising all the time, and government has to catch up.
Mr Speaker
I didn’t realise you had changed your name to Gareth Snell, Mr Jopp. I know you are due to be called, but I have to take two questions from each side to get the political balance.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
When the Minister rolls out digital ID, will he give serious thought to engaging organisations like conformity assessment bodies and the public libraries network so that those who need the ID can get help at the point of application?
Ian Murray
The data will be safe. It will be a fragmented system, and it will have the highest possible data security standards attached.
Lincoln Jopp
Last night in the Strangers Bar, I bumped into a very influential Labour Back Bencher who told me with great authority that digital ID simply is not going to happen. That is good news, of course, because it is going to 1.8 billion quid we have not got, and it is deeply unpopular in the country. Why does the Secretary of State not give us all an early Christmas present and simply announce that she is ditching the policy today?
The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)
Space is fundamental to many civil and defence requirements. It is vital that we collaborate closely across Government and with our allies. Just last month, the European Space Agency Council of Ministers committed £1.7 billion of funding focused on just that: growth and national security.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Ministers are making very big claims about the pharmaceuticals deal with America, to make up for the billions lost in life sciences investment under Labour. Life sciences firms are telling me that unless the Government reveal what is actually in the deal, those claims are completely hollow. Can the Secretary of State reveal—she could not tell us this two weeks ago—how much the deal is costing the NHS and when she will publish the full legal text, so that we know the details of what the most favoured nation mitigations actually are?
The Prime Minister
I know that Gazan students face huge challenges in taking up their places, and we are considering solutions for those yet to arrive. Let me be clear: I want them to be able to take up their places and continue their education in the United Kingdom. I am proud that we have also created a medical evacuation scheme for children from Gaza, and last week I met some of those who have been brought to the United Kingdom for specialist treatment in the NHS. We continue to focus on aid into Gaza, and I will make sure that my hon. Friend is kept updated on the next steps for students.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his words on antisemitism. What happened at Bondi Beach was an atrocity, but words of solidarity are not enough. We know the evil we face. Islamic extremism is a threat to western civilisation. It abuses our democracies and subverts our institutions. It is incompatible with British values. It is not enough just to protect Jewish communities—we must drive Islamic extremism out of this country.
I would also like to send my best wishes to our armed forces, the emergency services and everyone who will be working over Christmas. I would like to take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, the House staff and all Members of this House, including the Prime Minister, a very merry Christmas.
It is the Prime Minister’s second Christmas in Downing Street, and by his own admission he is not in control. He says that nothing happens when he pulls the levers. Does he blame himself or the levers?
Mr Speaker
Order. Sorry, Prime Minister. Mr Obese-Jecty, I expect better from you, an ex-serving officer. We expect the standards of a good officer.
The Prime Minister
The next lever was 500 jobs protected at Grangemouth, partnering with Ineos to safeguard the plant’s future. The next lever was rejoining the Erasmus scheme from 2027, which will be announced later today. The next lever is the Employment Rights Bill becoming law, with the biggest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation. There is a whole lot more on the list; I could go on for a very long time.
The Prime Minister
I heartily agree with my hon. Friend—British families have shown incredible kindness and hospitality. To support Ukrainians in their hour of need, we have been working with our allies on the issue of frozen Russian assets. Today, I can announce that we are issuing a licence to transfer £2.5 billion—funds that have been frozen since 2022—from the sale of Chelsea football club. My message to Abramovich is this. The clock is ticking. Honour the commitment that you made and pay up now. If you do not, we are prepared to go to court so that every penny reaches those whose lives have been torn apart by Putin’s illegal war.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish you, everyone in the House and the whole country, a merry and peaceful Christmas.
I join the Prime Minister in expressing our horror at the appalling antisemitic terror attacks on Bondi Beach on the first day of Hanukkah. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of all those who have been killed and injured in this senseless act of violence, and our thoughts are with the whole Jewish community. I am sure we have all heard British Jews explain how they no longer feel safe in this country. Many of us have friends who volunteer to put on stab vests and stand guard outside their synagogue, and at Heaton Park in October, we saw why. Antisemitism is real, it is poisonous, and we must all work together to stamp it out. The Board of Deputies of British Jews has called for a comprehensive Government strategy to tackle antisemitism. Will the Prime Minister commit to that today and set out what concrete steps he is taking to make sure Jewish people are safe in Britain?
Several hon. Members rose—
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
On Sunday at Arlington cemetery, I will have the honour of joining the families and friends of many of the victims of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988—the worst terrorist atrocity in the United Kingdom. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that, especially after all these years, those families and friends deserve both truth and justice, and will the United Kingdom Government continue to do all they can to bring about that outcome?
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
You did not ask a question, so I do not know how you can have a point of order.
Mr Speaker
No, you did not ask a question. Maybe if it came from somebody who had asked a question, that would be better.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olivia Bailey
Young people with gender incongruence need access to high-quality, safe and effective care. We are following the Cass review, which was clear that the evidence on the care for these children is lacking and proposed this research to help provide it. We are now setting up clinical trials, as recommended by Baroness Cass, to build the evidence base that we need to support vulnerable young people.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
LGBT+ communities, and particularly trans people, have many reasons to be fearful at the moment. Even though the Government have committed to delivering a conversion therapy Bill, trust is at an all-time low. Is the Bill on target to come before the House in this Session? If so, will the Minister outline the details of pre-legislative scrutiny and what involvement there will be from the LGBT+ community?
Bridget Phillipson
The hon. Lady raises an important issue, and we are doing lots of work across Government to make sure we have better outcomes for care-experienced young people, who are sadly more likely than other young people to experience mental health difficulties or even end up in prison. I lead that work together with the Deputy Prime Minister to make sure that the voices of care leavers are heard. It is why, for example, with the introduction of new targeted maintenance grants and the wider reforms that we are bringing to the higher education system, we are working right across Government to make sure that all Departments are pulling together.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
The founders of the Cambridge University Society of Women—Maeve, Serena and Thea—are in the Gallery today. They are backing free speech in safe women-only spaces and discussing women’s concerns such as pornography, female genital mutilation and misogyny. Would the Minister agree that, if the Labour Government are to achieve their said mission of breaking down barriers to opportunity, it should never be controversial for a university society to champion women’s rights?
Alex Davies-Jones
The grooming gangs scandal was one of the darkest moments in this country’s history, with vulnerable young people being failed time and time again. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and I are determined to finally get victims and survivors the answers they need. It was this Prime Minister who brought the first ever major prosecution on the Asian grooming gangs, it was this Government who implemented the statutory inquiry recommendations, and it is this Government who have issued a national inquiry. We will get on with supporting victims and girls.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I am sure the whole House agrees that women’s safety is of paramount importance. In my constituency, the city council has helped to develop a women’s safety charter, with local premises pledging their commitment to a range of training for staff to consider and prioritise women’s safety as standard. The evidence shows that, overwhelmingly, perpetrators of violence against women and girls are not strangers, as some may have us believe, but men already known to their victims. Does the Minister agree with me that women’s safety will be addressed best not through stoking division and fear, but instead supporting and funding initiatives such as Chelmsford city council’s, where the real work to protect women and girls is done?
Bridget Phillipson
I do agree. It takes enormous courage to come forward, as women in rural communities often experience additional barriers. I commend my hon. Friend for his fundraising efforts. We are investing more in support services for victims, and my hon. Friend will see when we publish our violence against women and girls strategy that we have heard directly from those living in rural communities to understand what more is needed to put in place the support that they require.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Jennifer Melle, a black nurse with a faultless record, was racially abused by a convicted paedophile for correctly referring to his biological sex in a medical context. She was called the N-word multiple times in her workplace, yet she was the one who was punished by her NHS trust and the Nursing and Midwifery Council. She is still suspended from the job she loves, 18 months later. Does the Secretary of State agree that the dedicated nurses who are being punished for asserting that biological sex is real are facing a gross injustice, and will she meet Jennifer to hear her story?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. I am proud that babies born today will have a better start in life thanks to our decisions. I am particularly concerned by maternity services. That is why we have commissioned a review so every mother is heard and gets proper care at what should be a special time. Currently, too many are failed. We are funding healthy babies services in 75 of the most deprived areas and we have taken action to save parents up to £500 a year on infant formula. It is a moral mission of this Government to lift children out of poverty and we intend to do so. The Leader of the Opposition thinks that maternity pay is “excessive” and would go back to the payment that put hundreds of thousands of children into poverty.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I echo the sentiments of the Prime Minister: the thoughts of the whole House will rightly be with the family of Lance Corporal Hooley, who tragically died supporting Ukraine in its fight for freedom. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why his own MPs are describing him as a “caretaker Prime Minister”?
Mrs Badenoch
Let me answer the question for the Prime Minister. He is being called a caretaker because everyone can see that he has lost control of his party, and this lot on the Government Front Bench are all so busy trying to replace him—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The same people are making the same noises they made last week. I said last week that it was not the right time for that, so if I were them I would not do the same this week. Please, let’s not carry on in the way we did last week.
Mrs Badenoch
Labour Members can make as much noise as they like. We all know that this lot are so busy trying to replace the Prime Minister that they have taken their eyes off the ball. Let us start—[Interruption.] Wait for it, wait for it! Let us start with the Energy Secretary, who wants to recycle himself as leader. He said he would cut families’ energy bills by £300. Can the Prime Minister tell the House: how much have energy bills fallen by since the election?
The Prime Minister
I am very pleased to say that we are taking £150 off energy bills. I can also tell the right hon. Lady that that is on top of the £150 we took off last year for the 3 million poorest families and have now taken off for the 6 million poorest families. She talks about leaving, but the problem is that last week, three ex——[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Mayhew! I have told Labour Members, and I will now tell Conservative Members. We do not need the pantomime auditions any more, please.
The Prime Minister
Last week I pointed out that three of the right hon. Lady’s ex-MPs had gone to Reform. That included the former deputy chairman, Jonathan Gullis. He liked to think of himself as a straight talker. He said that the Conservative party was finished and that it had
“lost the trust of the British people.”
In total, 21 ex-Tory MPs have now left for Reform. The real question is: who is next? We can all see the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), twitching after his “come and get me” plea from the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). We need no lessons from them.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this serious issue for his constituents and for over 1.7 million homeowners across the country who are left at the mercy of unfair costs and poor management. I can confirm that we are consulting on reforming the system to reduce private management of these estates and to protect more homeowners from unfair charges. That is a vital part of our leasehold reforms to protect homeowners from high costs and ensure that everyone has the amenities they need.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I join the Prime Minister in offering our condolences to the family and friends of Lance Corporal George Hooley, who died on duty in Ukraine. Our thoughts and prayers are with them.
I congratulate Glastonbury’s Lando Norris on becoming the 11th British driver to win the Formula 1 world championship, and everyone at McLaren in Woking who powered him to the title.
President Trump’s new national security strategy is a deeply alarming document. Quite apart from the irony of President Trump accusing others of trampling on basic principles of democracy, it repeats far-right tropes of “civilizational erasure” and threatens that the US Government will cultivate resistance in Europe. No wonder Vladimir Putin has welcomed the strategy. Will the Prime Minister pick up the phone and make it clear to President Trump that any attempts to interfere with our democracy are totally unacceptable?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the crisis in our courts—[Hon. Members: “Yes.”] I hear “yes” from the Opposition Benches. Sir Brian Leveson is one of our most respected senior judges. He did an independent report and made it clear that we risk “total collapse” of the criminal justice system without change—[Interruption.] The Conservatives are chuntering along, but they left a system near total collapse, where victims of sexual violence and rape wait years to get justice. That is not justice—that is victims failed. I know that my hon. Friend feels very strongly about this matter, and I can reassure him that juries will remain a cornerstone of our justice system for the most serious cases. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Robertson, I do not want shouting like that again. Do we understand each other?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Josh Simons
Around the world and across Europe, countries use digital checks to evaluate whether someone has a legal right to work, but we do not. While we have brilliant digital verification tools, millions of checks use unreliable paper-based systems based on passports, birth certificates and other forms of evidence. This leaves too much room for fraud and, crucially, creates the perception that our country has weaker regimes for combating illegal working. Digitising checks will enable digital auditing of employers and more enforcement, bringing our illegal working regime in line with international peers and helping to deliver on one of our top priorities: reducing illegal migration.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
In October, the Prime Minister called a Downing Street press conference rather than come to this House so that he could tell the nation that digital ID will not be mandatory; it is just that people will not be able to get a job without one. What else will they not be able to do without this apparently voluntary digital ID? If people will not be allowed to get a job without digital ID, can the Minister confirm that they will also be unable to receive any benefits without it?
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
My constituents are concerned about the broader domestic security risk that China is currently posing, beyond the potential implications of its embassy planning application. Considering that Chinese state-subsidised bus manufacturers have gained a rising market share in the UK over the past few years, the Department for Transport and National Cyber Security Centre—
Mr Speaker
Order. As important as that is, I think the hon. Member’s point is way off the question, which is just about the Chinese embassy. I am sure he might catch my eye during topicals.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister is a gentleman—that is never in question. What steps will be taken to respect the principle of devolution and avoid legislating on behalf of the Northern Ireland Assembly without genuine necessity? I ask everyone to cast their minds back to 2019, when the Conservative Government brought in abortion legislation in Northern Ireland against the will of the Northern Ireland Assembly and against the will of the people of Northern Ireland. This House endorsed it. Mr Speaker, what can be done to ensure that that never, ever happens again?
Darren Jones
I think it comes from mutual respect and dialogue, which this Government have exhibited since we have come into office. That is in stark contrast to the relationship over the previous 14 years. The Northern Ireland Secretary and I, alongside the Prime Minister, engage with the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister on these issues routinely, and we will continue to try to provide the best answers for the people of Northern Ireland.
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As he will understand, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is in discussions with counterparts in the European Union about the changing global landscape for steel. This Government are very clear that we should protect British steel and our capabilities to produce steel in the UK, while supporting exports and making sure that British steel is not undercut by cheap global imports from around the world.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I am sure people will be pleased to hear that the Labour party is going to honour some of its manifesto commitments.
Last week, it was announced that the Government’s attempt to join the new EU defence fund had failed. This is a major setback for our relationship with the EU, and it is a major embarrassment for the Government. Since that time, no Minister has come to the House to explain what on earth has gone so horribly wrong, so perhaps the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster can tell us: what has gone so horribly wrong?
Darren Jones
The hon. Member will know that the agreement with the European Union was not just on one particular issue; it was a package of improvements in the relationship between the UK and the EU. He might want to welcome the agreement on food and drink regulation reforms, so we can get prices down on the shelves in British supermarkets, after they went through the roof under the last Conservative Administration.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Following threats from Donald Trump, earlier this week the Government announced that between £3 billion and £6 billion each year will be diverted from our NHS services into the pockets of pharmaceutical giants. The American Health Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., said the agreement shows Trump’s
“courage and leadership in demanding these reforms”
and that he puts Americans first. That will give no comfort to my Hazel Grove constituents, who rightly value our NHS and want to see it thrive. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster agree that we are more isolated from our European allies following Brexit, making us far too vulnerable to the threat of American tariffs? What will it take for the Government to rethink their red lines and protect the British people from further bullying from the White House, by agreeing a bespoke UK-EU customs union with our European neighbours?
Lisa Smart
I note the right hon. Gentleman’s response. It may well be good for the pharma industry; my question was whether it is good for the NHS. Just four days ago, the Prime Minister said that the Brexit deal “significantly hurt our economy” and that we have to keep moving towards a closer relationship with the EU. I agree with the Prime Minister. A clear and welcome step for jobs and growth would be to create a bespoke customs union with the EU. The Liberal Democrats want to cut unnecessary red tape, support British businesses and deliver sustainable long-term economic growth. I am sure the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster does, too. I agree with his earlier comment that what happens in this House matters, so will he at least agree not to block his colleagues on the Government Benches from backing the ten-minute rule Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) will move next Wednesday, which sets a path towards a bespoke EU-UK customs union—
Mr Speaker
Order. Honestly, you cannot go on and on. In fairness, we have to limit the amount of time. I am sure the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has got at least three of the questions.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
A few weeks ago I wrote to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about Chinese ownership of critical national infrastructure, including the possible acquisition of Thames Water. I have not had a reply, but since then The Telegraph has been briefed by the Government that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would block such an acquisition. Can he confirm to the House that he will use his powers under the National Security and Investment Act 2021 to launch an investigation before any Chinese acquisition of Thames Water is allowed to proceed?
Darren Jones
I welcome the introduction of the plan for change to the debate today, and the hon. Gentleman will be as excited as I am about the promise of change being delivered: five interest rate cuts; mortgage rates coming down; wages growing faster than the cost of living; NHS waiting lists down not by 2 million, 3 million or 4 million, but by 5 million appointments; a better start in life for young people across the country—
Darren Jones
I know that through the finance interministerial and the interministerial standing committee, leaders and relevant Ministers discuss a whole range of issues relevant to Northern Ireland, including this, with colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and others. I am always happy to have those conversations with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, if that is of help.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo Stevens
The UK Government are providing the Welsh Government with nearly £6 billion in additional spending power over the spending review period as a result of changes to the fiscal framework, additional funding through the Barnett formula and the largest settlement in devolution history. We are righting the injustice of how Wales has been funded, and delivering on our manifesto commitment to update the fiscal framework. Crucially, these changes mean that the Welsh Government will be able to invest more funding in our hospitals, schools and other public services.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
The Welsh compound semiconductor cluster in my constituency is a real Welsh success story in terms of this year’s Budget. It has attracted more than £1 billion-worth of investment over the last decade and has supported almost 3,000 jobs, and plans to create 1,000 more jobs are well on the way. What conversations is the Secretary of State having with UK and Welsh Government colleagues to ensure that the Welsh compound semiconductor cluster continues to grow, and to create more well-paid jobs across south Wales?
Jo Stevens
The hon. Gentleman eloquently sets out the case for the Union. The nationalists sat in front of him would break this country apart, ruining economic growth in this country. We are definitely all better together.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
On Monday, it was delightful to observe the Chancellor and First Minister enjoying themselves in one of Wales’s premier hospitality venues, but we had an invisible Secretary of State for Wales once again. That venue is the type of business that must thrive if this Government are to have any chance of achieving anything other than anaemic growth and growing unemployment lines. If she had been there, what would people in the hospitality sector have told her about the minimum wage rise pressures, huge business rates and energy costs, the tourism tax, national insurance hikes and how those are strangling the economy in Wales, along with the bloated red tape and wanton spending from the Labour-run Senedd?
Jo Stevens
There was a smörgåsbord of questions there. I just say to the shadow Secretary of State that her party wrecked the economy, starved our public services and exacerbated the cost of living crisis. Our Labour Budget is reducing the cost of living, investing in public services and shrinking the national debt—the Conservatives increased it—while at the same time lifting thousands of children out of the poverty that the Tories created.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I start by raising a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State said that the Liberal Democrats were responsible for imposing the two-child benefit cap. That is simply not true. It was imposed by the Conservatives, and we have campaigned tirelessly against it ever since. Will she correct the record?
David Chadwick
This Government keep claiming that offshore wind will bring down bills for people in Wales and drive economic growth, but research from Greenpeace shows that the opposite is happening. The Crown Estate is pushing up bills by running uncapped auctions that force energy companies to pay huge fees just to use the seabed. Those extra costs are added straight on to the energy bills of families and businesses across Wales, meaning that Welsh households pay more. The profits are taken out of Wales, while the Crown Estate’s chief executive officer pockets £1.9 million a year. Why are the Government allowing the Crown Estate to drive up energy bills, and why will not they force the Crown Estate to manage Welsh natural resources in the public interest, rather than its own?
Jo Stevens
I absolutely do not understand why the SNP Government are not willing to see the creation of jobs and opportunities for people in Scotland because of their ideology around new nuclear.
Anna McMorrin
Quite the contrary: the visitor levy would boost the economy by up to £33 million if all councils were to accept it across Wales. I do not think that will—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) should wait for two questions after his own before leaving the Chamber.
Anna McMorrin
Wales is leading the way on the visitor levy and I am proud to be from Cardiff—a city that is introducing the levy. People come in droves to Cardiff and I know that they will continue to do so. Perhaps the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) should look to his own ranks first, because the Conservative-run Great Yarmouth borough council has supported this form of tourist levy for years.
Anna McMorrin
I would also like to wish Cardiff Rugby penblwydd hapus on their 149th birthday. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that the Welsh Government are leading the way, and it is fantastic to see that a similar overnight levy will be introduced in England. This is the power of partnership: two Labour Governments working together.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, may I extend a warm welcome to the President of the Parliament of Montenegro and his delegation, who are in the Gallery today?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend talks about poverty in his constituency, and the Opposition heckle him. They should be ashamed. It is our moral mission to tackle poverty. We have abolished the two-child cap. That will be over 3,000 children, I think, in his constituency lifted out of poverty. I am very proud to be able to do that. We have boosted the national minimum wage by £1,500, and we are adding the £150 that we are taking off everyone’s energy bills. We are driving economic growth right across the country, devolving power and investing across all of the country.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Let me first pay tribute to Sir John Stanley, who passed away yesterday. Sir John was a dedicated MP for 41 years, and we send our deepest condolences to his family.
Does the Prime Minister believe that when an organisation descends into total shambles, the person at the top should resign?
The Prime Minister
Last year, the Conservatives left us with a £22 billion black hole. This year, at the beginning of the process, the OBR did a productivity review on their record in office, and that cost an additional £16 billion that we had to find in the Budget. But notwithstanding that, we have protected the NHS—waiting times are coming down; notwithstanding that, we have cuts in borrowing at the fastest rate in the G7; notwithstanding that, we have got £150 off energy bills, in addition to rail fare and prescriptions freezes. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Holden, your voice carries more than mine. The difference is that yours will be carrying outside, not in the Chamber.
The Prime Minister
What the right hon. Lady does not understand is that picking up a £16 billion tab for the Conservatives’ failure is not a good starting point for any Budget. The OBR said yesterday that the Chancellor’s speech was not misleading, so if the Leader of the Opposition had any decency, she would get up now and apologise. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Other Members might be enjoying a cup of tea with Mr Holden if they carry on.
Mrs Badenoch
No one believes a word the Prime Minister says. We now know the black hole was fake, the Chancellor’s book was fake, her CV was fake—even her chess claims are made up. She does not belong in the Treasury; she belongs in la-la land.
The Government raised taxes on working people—that is £16 billion—to increase benefits to protect them from their Back Benchers. The Prime Minister now boasts about removing the two-child benefit cap, but he used to say that it was unaffordable. He even removed the Whip from seven Labour Members for wanting the same thing. He is very happy to throw them under a bus when it pleases him. I ask the Prime Minister, how did it suddenly become affordable at the very time he needed to save his own skin?
The Prime Minister
One of the greatest achievements of the last Labour Government was the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We fully support that agreement, which brought peace and stability for Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member well knows, it sets out a process for future decisions, which under the agreement I support. We are focused on working constructively with the Executive and others on all issues, including the record settlement for Northern Ireland under the Budget.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I join the Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to Sir John Stanley, and send our condolences to his family. I had the huge pleasure of working with him over a number of years on developing the relationship between our country and Korea, and he was always a true gentleman.
Yesterday, I was in Royal Tunbridge Wells, where tens of thousands of people have had no water for five days. This is now a public health emergency and, shockingly, it is the second time in just three years that South East Water has badly let down the people of Tunbridge Wells. Parents are queuing up for bottled water for their kids; pensioners are relying on neighbours to fetch water for them; businesses have closed down; and schools and GPs have been forced to shut. South East Water said that it would be sorted on Monday, and then again yesterday, but today it has still not been sorted. Will the Prime Minister convene Cobra? Does he agree that it is time for him to get a grip of this crisis so that it is sorted?