Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am determined to expedite these new arrangements as quickly as possible. It is fantastic to see the Opposition take that position—I thought the right hon. Gentleman’s Front Benchers were against them.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
As the Minister will be aware, under the existing framework, the UK is entitled to take unilateral measures to protect the internal market where there is a diversion of trade. The Federation of Small Businesses Northern Ireland says that a third of businesses that previously traded between Great Britain and Northern Ireland have ceased to do so. We know from his interview yesterday that the Minister does not consider three quarters of deportations being voluntary to represent a majority, but does he consider a third of businesses to be a diversion of trade? If he does not, what would be a diversion of trade?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On 1 July, we introduced the phase 3 checks under the Windsor framework. The Windsor framework was negotiated by the previous Government, and we supported it from the Opposition Benches. I assume that the Conservatives continue to support those arrangements. Obviously, we monitor the issue of trade diversion very carefully, and we stand ready to help businesses adjust to the new arrangements.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
A few months ago, this Government reached a small but welcome trade agreement with the EU—our largest trading partner—and just this week, Members of this House heard from the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, about the closeness of the relationship between the UK and France. It was the first state visit by a French President since 2008 and the first by a European Union political leader since Brexit. Now that UK-EU relations are at a turning point, does the Minister agree that it is finally time to be more ambitious, drop the red lines, cut the red tape, and aim to negotiate a UK-EU customs union that would boost the public coffers by £25 billion a year?
Pat McFadden
We do not have a permanent secretary in Wolverhampton, but it is important that there is career progression and that there are senior roles outside London. That should include permanent secretaries, and that should all come within our target of half of UK-based senior civil servants being located outside London by 2030.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Heads of Departments have said that 60% attendance in the office is the best balance for civil servants working in Government Departments, but in an answer to a recent written parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), the Cabinet Office said that no data exists for attendance outside London HQs—it is certainly not collected centrally. However, the Office for National Statistics has produced data about its own workforce, which, via the UK Statistics Authority, comes under the Cabinet Office. That shows a daily attendance rate of as little as 3% in some of the ONS’s regional offices. Does the Minister think that an attendance rate of 3% will help career progression and thereby help relocate civil servants outside London? Does he think that 3% is acceptable? Is this not just part of a wider pattern of non-attendance in offices outside London, and is it not time his Department published the data on attendance levels?
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Yesterday, I met members of the Spanish Senate, with whom I discussed energy security and how to bring down energy bills for our residents on either side of the channel. It is clear that energy trading between the EU and the UK does not work properly. What can we do, and what progress has been made, to improve the interconnectors and make the investment that is so necessary?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not quite sure whether it is relevant, but please answer if you are happy to, Minister.
Ellie Reeves
It is in the common understanding, and we want a deeper relationship with our partners in the EU on this issue.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
In their plan for change, the Government pledged to get the country the highest sustained growth in the G7—or back to where the Conservative Government left it. However, it seems that this Government are on course to fail. All respected international analysis—by the OECD, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and so on—suggests that over the next four years, the UK economy will grow nothing like as fast as the United States or Canada. What analysis can the Minister point to that suggests otherwise?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is a brilliant champion for her community. It is precisely because this Government want to support growth in communities like hers that the Chancellor has set out that the new Green Book will support place-based business cases. Rapid work is happening to deliver that over the coming months.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirm that civil servants should not engage in public fundraising for political parties?
Government Resilience Action Plan
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
I am grateful to the Chair of the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy for his questions. The National Cyber Security Centre has been working closely with Marks & Spencer and the other victims of recent cyber-attacks. I look forward to appearing before his Committee in a few days and working closely with it in the future.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for advance sight of the statement. The world is now less stable and more insecure than at any time since the cold war. Consequently, the Government must ensure that the British people and the United Kingdom are prepared in the event that our country or an overseas territory is threatened. The Liberal Democrats therefore welcome any measures to strengthen our resilience, especially to the cyber-security threat—a new and evolving threat against which we must be armed.
While the Liberal Democrats welcome the alert test, we call for a wider public information campaign to support resilience building across the UK, and to ensure that the public are properly ready for any potential future conflict or disaster. Perhaps we could take lessons from our Scandinavian neighbours, who are always working to address future threats and providing information to their citizens. Information should be provided through a number of different means, including leaflets and traditional broadcast.
While we welcome the alert test, websites and text alerts will miss millions of British people—those without phones, or without signal or battery—so we need to be ready on all fronts, and not just rely on single text alerts. Will the Government accept the Liberal Democrats’ call to launch a national awareness campaign that draws on different modes of contact?
I welcome the talk about being more resilient to climate emergencies. We have all seen the horrifying pictures and upsetting stories from the floods in Texas in recent days, and in this country, we have had one of the hottest starts to a summer in UK history; it is vital that the Government are not caught unawares as the temperature rises. Last week, I had a meeting in my constituency with Thames Water, which told me that it is preparing drought mitigation measures. The regular supply of water to people’s properties, businesses and agricultural land is vital to livelihoods and everyday lives. What steps are the Government taking, and perhaps putting in their new action plan, to ensure that any drought mitigation measures will not significantly impact the country in the coming months?
G7 and NATO Summits
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
This Labour Government are focused on delivering security for the British people—national security, economic security, and social security. On social security, I recognise that there is a consensus across the House on the urgent need for reform of our welfare system, because the British people deserve protection and dignity when they are unable to work, and support into work when they can. At the moment they are failed every single day by the broken system created by the Conservatives, which achieves neither. I know that colleagues across the House are eager to start fixing that, and so am I; all colleagues want to get this right, and so do I. We want to see reform implemented with Labour values of fairness. That conversation will continue in the coming days, so that we can begin making change together on Tuesday.
Mr Speaker, with permission I will update the House on the G7 and NATO summits, where the middle east was at the forefront of our minds. For decades, it has been the stated policy of the UK and our allies that Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon. No one who cares about the security of our country, or the future of the middle east, could live with that eventuality. For decades we have worked to prevent it, and on Saturday night the US took a big step towards resolving that threat.
There is now a window for peace. We urge Iran and Israel to honour the ceasefire and seize this opportunity to stabilise the region. That is our priority—to get Iran back around the negotiating table with the US. Ultimately, that is how we will ensure a complete, verifiable, and irreversible end to Iran’s nuclear programme. We are using every diplomatic lever to support that effort, because further instability would pose grave risks to the region and beyond, taking us even further away from freeing the hostages and easing the intolerable suffering of the Palestinians. There is also an opportunity now to push for a ceasefire in Gaza, and we must seize it. I have been discussing this with other leaders, and we will keep pushing to put the region on a better path. I have also spoken to the Emir of Qatar to express our solidarity after Iran’s unacceptable attack on the Al Udeid airbase. We took the necessary action to protect British military personnel ahead of that attack, and we will continue to support all our citizens in the region.
Mr Speaker, this crisis has punctured once again the mistaken idea that domestic and foreign policy concerns are separate, and that action in one area is at the expense of the other. The truth, now more than ever, is that international problems rebound on us at home, impacting our security and our economy. Our national security strategy is clear. In this era of radical uncertainty, faced with growing conflict, state threats, illegal migration, organised crime and terrorism, the only way to respond to these issues is by being strong, both at home and on the world stage, by pursuing a foreign policy that answers directly to the concerns of working people. That is the approach I took to NATO and to the G7.
NATO is the most successful military alliance the world has ever known and the cornerstone of our defence for over 75 years. Our duty is not merely to reflect on that success; we must equip the alliance for the future. I have long argued that this is the moment for Europe to make a fundamental shift in posture. That is what the UK has done, delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war and setting out a landmark shift in our defence and deterrence in the strategic defence review.
Yesterday, NATO allies stepped up as well, to meet this moment and create an alliance that is stronger, fairer and more lethal than ever. Together, we signed a new defence investment pledge of 5% of GDP by 2035, including, for the first time, wider issues of homeland security and national resilience, like protecting our cyber-security and our energy networks. This is in lockstep with our national security strategy and we are already investing in these areas. Under NATO’s new definitions, we estimate that we will reach at least 4.1% of GDP in 2027, on the way to 5% by 2035. Allies also agreed to review both the balance and the trajectory of these requirements in 2029 to coincide with the scheduled review of NATO’s capability requirements, ensuring that we keep pace with threats and technologies as they evolve.
With this historic commitment, we are continuing our proud tradition of leading in NATO, picking up the torch from Attlee and Bevin. And now, following their lead, we will seize the opportunity created by this moment to align our national security objectives and plans for economic growth in a way not seen since the 1940s, renewing industrial communities the length and breadth of our country, boosting defence production and innovation. Our investment in Britain's nuclear deterrent alone will support 30,000 high-skilled jobs.
I want to speak directly about our deterrent capability. It has kept this country safe for decades, but we recognise the grim reality today that the nuclear threat is growing. So we are renewing our existing at-sea capability and we are going further still. I can tell the House today that we will procure at least 12 F-35A fast jets, and we will make them available to bear nuclear weapons, if necessary. That marks the return of the Royal Air Force to nuclear deterrence for the first time in three decades, the biggest strengthening of our deterrence posture in a generation, keeping our country safe while also supporting 20,000 jobs.
The NATO summit sent a message of intent that will be heard around the world, but this must be joined by renewed support for Ukraine, because if we let Putin succeed there, the deterrent effect of NATO’s new plans would be fatally compromised. So I told President Zelensky at Downing Street on Monday that we will harden our resolve. We struck an agreement together to share battlefield technology, accelerating our support for Ukraine’s defence, while boosting British security and British jobs. We committed to providing hundreds more air defence missiles, paid for not by the British taxpayer, but with money from Russia’s frozen assets.
And, together with Europe, Canada and our Indo-Pacific partners, we announced that we will deliver €40 billion of military aid to Ukraine this year, matching last year’s pledge in full. There is a path to a just and lasting peace, but it will only come through flipping the pressure on to Putin. His position is weaker than he claims, so I urged all our partners, including the US, to step up the pressure now, with more sanctions and more military support to bring Russia to the table, to agree an unconditional ceasefire, leading to serious negotiations.
Let me turn to the G7 summit, where, again, my priority was to deliver in the national interest. Again, I can report some significant progress. Leaders agreed to take decisive action on illegal migration, following the UK’s lead in using hard-headed measures such as sanctions. We marked an export contract with Canada worth over £500 million, creating jobs here at home. We secured Canada’s agreement to ratify Britain’s entry to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—a trading bloc worth $12 trillion.
We secured President Trump’s signature to fully implement our trade deal, which will slash tariffs on British goods. His executive order will remove aerospace tariffs completely and cut tariffs on cars from the 27.5% that British car makers face now to 10% in a matter of days, saving thousands of jobs in the west midlands and around the country. I have been to Jaguar Land Rover many times now; I have looked those workers in the eye, and I know what this means to them, their families and their whole communities. That is who I am representing at summits like this—the working people of Britain.
Navigating this world requires cool heads. It defies simplistic answers and knee-jerk judgments. We do not pretend that we can fix every global problem, but we can carve a unique path through these dangerous times to secure and renew Britain in an era of global instability. That is what our plan for change is all about: putting Britain’s national interest first.
After years of economic chaos, we have delivered economic stability for the British people. After years of our armed forces being hollowed out, we are building up our military, firing up our industries, leading in NATO, supporting Ukraine and keeping Britain safe. After years of fraying alliances, we are rebuilding and shaping them to serve the British people. We have focused every ounce of our global influence to deliver for working people and to deliver in the national interest, and I commend this statement to the House.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. He has evaded Prime Minister’s questions for two weeks, only to come back here to tell us what we already heard on the news. This is a weak statement from a weak Prime Minister, which can be characterised in two words: noises off.
In his statement, the Prime Minister said:
“We urge Iran and Israel to honour the ceasefire”.
He said:
“We are using every diplomatic lever to support this effort”.
What diplomatic levers? Are they the same levers he is using with his Back-Bench rebels? Is he just asking them to please play nice? Let us be honest: nobody cares what this Prime Minister thinks—why should they, when he does not even know what he thinks? Clearly no one cares what he thinks, because he was not involved. We used to be a strategic player on the global stage, advancing Britain’s interests with confidence—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. You may not wish to hear the Leader of the Opposition, but I do. It does not do anybody good in this Chamber to try to shout down somebody who is speaking.
Mrs Badenoch
Labour Members can shout as much as they like, but we all know the truth. We used to be a strategic player on the global stage, advancing Britain’s interests with confidence, and now we are on the sidelines.
Over the last few weeks, historic events unfolded in the middle east, and at every stage Britain has been out of step with the US and out of the loop with Israel. Last week, the Prime Minister came back from the G7 insisting that there was nothing President Trump said that would indicate he was about to get involved in this conflict. Days later, the US launched its attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and the Prime Minister had no idea what was going on.
The week before, Israel launched an attack on Iran, and it became apparent that the UK was not even informed about the attack in advance, despite us having been involved in previous preventive action. How is that standing up on the world stage? On Tuesday, the Foreign Secretary—a lawyer—repeatedly could not say whether the US strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities were legal. This is a Government who do not know what they are doing. Let me make the Conservative position clear: Iran has been a direct threat to the UK for years, plotting terrorism on British soil. It must not get nuclear weapons. This is a time for Europe to step up, and the UK should be leading; instead, we have an Attorney General using international law to constrain and restrict the UK while the Prime Minister hovers indecisively on the sidelines. What we need is a leader—instead, we have three lawyers.
Last week, I wrote to the Prime Minister about how this conflict has underscored the folly of the Government’s £30 billion Chagos surrender deal. The Diego Garcia base is of obvious strategic importance for conflicts in the middle east. [Interruption.] Labour Members are shaking their heads—they do not understand. It is obvious; Diego Garcia was used extensively during the war in Afghanistan, including by the United States.
At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said that this Chagos surrender had been
“opposed by our adversaries, Russia, China and Iran”.—[Official Report, 4 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 302.]
Since then, it has been widely reported that China has offered massive congratulations on the deal and conveyed that it fully supports Mauritius. Will the Prime Minister now admit that he was incorrect to state on the Floor of this House that China opposes the Chagos deal, and can he confirm whether he still views China as an adversary? Under the terms of the Prime Minister’s deal, if the US were to launch an attack from the military base on Diego Garcia, we would have to inform the Chinese-allied Mauritius Government. Will he abandon the deeply flawed surrender deal? If not, when will he introduce the legislation setting out the details of the Chagos surrender, so that Parliament can consider and debate it?
We welcome the announcement that the UK will be buying F-35A fighter jets, and I am pleased that the Labour party has now moved on from its previous position of not supporting NATO and advocating against the nuclear deterrent. [Interruption.] Labour Members pretend that it never happened, but we have the receipts. Conservatives are proud of exceeding the NATO baseline of 2% of GDP spent on defence, and we led NATO in getting there. However, the Government’s aspiration to get spending on national security to 5% is just hope—the reality is that Labour does not have a plan to get to 3%. It is all smoke and mirrors, and we do not know what the Government will spend the extra 1.5% component on. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether this is money we are already spending, or whether there will be any new money? So long as this plan remains unfunded, these are just words.
Instead of using smoke and mirrors to inflate defence spending, Labour should heed our call to hit 3% by the end of this Parliament with a fully funded plan to get there. Look at the money the Government claim they are going to save through their welfare Bill—£5 billion is nowhere near the tens, if not hundreds, of billions we are going to need to find if we are to meet that defence spending target. This is the problem, Mr Speaker: it is one thing to talk about spending money on planes and infrastructure and to make announcements about reviews, but it is another to be clear about where the money will come from and how it will be spent efficiently to secure the defence of our nation. [Interruption.] Labour Members can mutter all they like; we all know that they are terrified of doing anything that is even remotely difficult.
It is crucial that there is a clear, united front in full support of Ukraine that secures peace on Ukraine’s terms. The stakes could not be higher. We need the Government to be leveraging British influence in every way they can for Ukraine, so can the Prime Minister tell us whether he pushed for clearer language in the NATO communiqué about Russia being the aggressor in this conflict? Can he update us on the UK’s current position on Ukraine’s accession to NATO, given the absence of detail in this year’s communiqué? We must ensure that our leading role continues, but that requires strong leadership and an ability to influence.
The Prime Minister may have finally returned to this House after a fortnight away, but in truth, he is all at sea—irrelevant on the world stage and impotent in the face of rising illegal immigration. Now, with 126 of his own MPs openly undermining his authority, his Government are incapable of making even the smallest changes to bring down the cost of our ever-expanding welfare bill; there is no way that they are going to be able to pay for our defence. This is a Government who are paralysed by their own legal advice, paralysed by their rebellious Back Benchers, and paralysed by the fear of being found out for having no real vision for this country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to those who were late into the Chamber, please do not stand. I call the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
We live in more volatile times than many of us can remember, with conflicts in many parts of the world that are evolving in a very fast and dangerous way. There has never been a more important time to work with our allies and to be absolutely serious in our response. That response was unserious.
To suggest at a time like this that the Prime Minister attending the G7 summit and the NATO summit is avoiding PMQs is unserious. What happened at NATO yesterday was historic. It was very important that, at a time like, NATO showed unity and strength, with a commitment to the future, not just to the past. That took a huge amount of work with our allies over the last few days and weeks. We were centrally involved in that, crafting the final outcome, and were recognised as having done so. I am proud that we helped put that summit into the right place yesterday, and the world emerged safer as a result. That was the unanimous view of 32 allies on leaving NATO yesterday. For the Leader of the Opposition to belittle it just shows how irrelevant she and her party are becoming. They used to once be serious about these issues, and they used to be capable of cross-party consensus, but all of that is slipping away. We have led on Ukraine and secured three trade deals.
The right hon. Lady talks about the prospect of US attacks. She must have overlooked the fact that on Tuesday, when I returned from the G7, the first thing I did was go straight into a Cobra meeting to plan for all contingencies, including a possible US attack on Iran. I will tell her why I did that, although we did offer a Privy Council briefing, so she knows this. We have military personnel co-located in nearly all the bases across the middle east, and I was therefore extremely concerned immediately upon my return to take every step to ensure that I had the highest levels of assuredness that we had the preparations in place to keep our people and our assets safe, should the need arise. Far from being blindsided, we were planning through last week, we were talking to the Americans, and we were put on notice about everything they did. She simply does not understand the nature of the relationship at that level.
In relation to Diego Garcia, let me disabuse the right hon. Lady. We do not have to give Mauritius advance notice under the treaty. That is absolutely clear.
The right hon. Lady talks about defence spend. We are the party that has increased defence spend to the highest level since the cold war—2.5%. The Conservatives talked about it; we did it. She says we do not know where the money is coming from, but she was pressed on this in an interview not so long ago, and she said that
“we talked about getting to 3% by 2030 and we couldn’t make the numbers work.”
She went on:
“We need to find a way to make the numbers work”.
I was intrigued by this interview, and I thought she was about to lay it out. Then she said:
“This sort of thing requires real thinking.”
Then she said:
“Let’s start looking at what we can do…It’s about us setting up task forces”.
That is how unserious they are.
The right hon. Lady asked about the Ukraine communiqué. As she will know, had she actually studied it, the way that NATO works is an iterative process. Therefore the position on Ukraine has not changed for NATO, and it has not changed under this Government. On the contrary, we are recognised as leading on Ukraine and as the closest ally of Ukraine, working with them the whole time. That is something I am proud of. I think it is something the House is proud of, because we had been doing this on a cross-party basis, and the sooner we get back to that, rather than the unserious response of the Leader of the Opposition, the better.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
In the year since the election of this Labour Government, Britain is back as a force for good on the world stage. Following the outbreak of conflict in the middle east last week, I was proud to see the Prime Minister lead calls for calm, cool heads and de-escalation. In its aftermath, we must take seriously the renewed defence commitments that the Prime Minister has made at NATO, but we must also proudly wield the soft convening and convincing power that the UK has in spades. That soft power has historically been the key to successful diplomatic efforts in Iran, securing the joint comprehensive plan of action, and in the wider middle east and around the world. Can the Prime Minister confirm what the Foreign Affairs Committee has learned from our conversations with our European allies, which is that Britain is quietly and effectively stepping up to lead the fight against Russian disinformation and cyber-warfare, and that the investment we will be putting in will be well spent?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question, and she is absolutely right. The need to de-escalate was the central focus going into the weekend and coming out of it, and I am very pleased that we have reached a ceasefire in relation to the conflict in Iran. We absolutely need that to hold.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the soft convening power of the United Kingdom. It is an incredible asset and, yes, I can confirm that we are working with others in relation to Russian disinformation and cyber-attacks, which, as the House knows, are a regular occurrence.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for early sight of his statement. The Liberal Democrats agree that it would have been wrong to leave an empty chair in front of the Union Jack at the table for the G7 and NATO. It is astonishing, and I share his surprise, that it is now Conservative policy not to attend the G7 and NATO.
I am glad that the Prime Minister has signalled retreat on his welfare plans. I hope that he will now listen to everyone and not just his Back Benchers.
On the G7, despite the progress that he outlined, it remains extremely damaging to the world economy that the United States and Donald Trump continue their policy of protectionism. Can the Prime Minister update the House on whether he has had discussions with other G7 and, indeed, NATO colleagues about how we could persuade President Trump to resile from protectionism?
On NATO, the Prime Minister is right to say that Putin’s imperial ambitions present a once-in-a-generation threat to our security. Last week, I travelled to Estonia to meet British troops and Estonian leaders, including Prime Minister Michal. The Estonians have not forgotten the repression enforced by Russian tanks, nor the murder of four former Prime Ministers at the hands of the Kremlin. They are under no illusions about the threat posed by Putin, and we must not be either, so I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to NATO’s new spending target.
In the face of Russia’s war machine, the British Army remains an essential guarantor of our country’s security and that of our allies. When I met our incredible troops stationed in Estonia, I was inspired by their skill and professionalism. We need to get more brilliant people like them into the military, so will the Prime Minister consider the Liberal Democrats’ proposals to move more quickly to reverse the Conservatives’ cuts to the Army, and back our new £10,000 bonus for recruits? It is vital that we take such measures, as Putin continues his barbarism in Ukraine.
Our commitment to Ukraine’s defence must be increased, not reduced. In addition to the actions that the Prime Minister outlined, can he confirm whether he has held more discussions with partners on not just using the interest from frozen Russian assets, but seizing those assets, so that we can bolster our support for Ukraine and pay for a faster increase in defence spending? The Estonians believe they have a plan to deal with all the complications that he mentions when I ask him questions about this. Is he prepared to meet me to discuss the Estonians’ ideas about how to break the backlog so that we can seize those assets?
The Prime Minister also spoke about the conflicts and crises in the middle east. He is right to push even harder for a ceasefire in Gaza. People around the world will question whether military action, rather than diplomacy, will actually make us safer in the future. We must redouble our efforts for a just peace in the region, and that must include self-determination for the Palestinian people. Will the Government finally commit to recognising a state for the Palestinians?
National Security Strategy
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
Today the Prime Minister attends the opening day of the NATO summit. That summit is expected to agree to a new commitment to grow spending on national security to 5% of GDP by 2035—to be made up by a projected split of 3.5% on core defence spending, and 1.5% on broader resilience and security spending. This will mark a new resolve among NATO members to make our countries stronger and, as we have always done, the United Kingdom will play our part.
NATO’s member countries meet at a time when the security situation is more in flux than at any time in a generation—a time when Ukraine is in its fourth year of resisting Russia’s invasion; a time when we in Europe are being asked to do more to secure our own defences; a time when security involves not just the traditional realms of air, sea and land, but technology, cyber and the strength of our democratic society; and, as we have seen in recent days, a time of renewed military action in the middle east, with Israel and the United States acting to try to stop Iran developing a nuclear bomb. News of a ceasefire is welcome, but as we have seen, even in recent hours, the situation remains fragile and the focus must now be on a credible plan to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons.
It is to the great pride of my party that NATO was founded in the aftermath of the second world war with the strong support of the post-war Labour Government. Ernest Bevin, the Foreign Secretary at the time, said that
“we must face the facts as they are.”—[Official Report, 22 January 1948; Vol. 446, c. 386.]
Today, in this very different age, we too must face the facts as they are.
The generation that founded NATO saw it as a powerful expression of collective security and solidarity: alliances abroad, matched by capacity at home. Our national security strategy, published today and made for these very different times, is inspired by those same values and aims. Every Member of this House understands that the first duty of any Government is to keep the country safe. That is and always will be our No. 1 priority, and our national security strategy sets out how we will do that.
The world has changed fundamentally and continues to change before our eyes. This is indeed an age of radical uncertainty, and the challenge to leadership in times of such change is to understand, to respond and to explain. The British people understand this. They recognise that we are living in a world that is more confrontational, more turbulent and more unpredictable than most of us have experienced in our lifetimes.
When the Prime Minister spoke to the House in February, he promised to produce a national security strategy that would match the scale of the task ahead. The strategy we have published today does that, with a plan that is both clear-eyed and hard-edged about the challenges that we face. It sets out a long-term vision for how we will do three crucial things. First, we will protect security at home by defending our territory, controlling our borders and making the UK a harder target for our enemies—one that is stronger and more resilient to future threats.
Secondly, we will promote strength abroad. That means bolstering our collective security, renewing and refreshing our key alliances, and developing new partnerships in strategic locations across the world. It also means taking a clear-eyed view of how we engage with major powers such as China in order to protect our national security and promote our economic interests, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a further statement on the China audit shortly.
Thirdly, we will increase our sovereign and asymmetric capabilities by rebuilding our defence industries, training our people, focusing investment on our competitive strengths, and using our exceptional research and innovation base to build up advantages in new frontier technologies.
All this will make us a stronger and more resilient country, but delivering on each commitment will be possible only if all parts of society are pulling in the same direction. Our manufacturing, science and technology industries have to be aligned with national security objectives. Our industrial strategy, published yesterday, will help play to the UK’s strengths and deepen our capabilities. The investments we announced in the spending review also deepen our resilience and strength as a country, with a health service strong enough to cope, safe and secure energy supplies, modern housing and transport for our people, all of which contribute to a strong United Kingdom.
That is why it is so important that all parts of Government and businesses big and small understand that cyber-security is national security, and that our core systems and the revenues of business are being targeted by our adversaries. It is why we as legislators have to ensure that our own laws—from borders to trade—fit with national security. This will take a whole-system approach that reflects today’s reality. National security means strong supply chains, controls on immigration, tackling online harm, energy security, economic security and border security. It transcends foreign and domestic policy, and it all plays a role in how we make Britain a safer, more secure and more sovereign nation.
This document provides the blueprint of how this fits together. The strategy brings together everything we are doing across the full spectrum of national security: the commitment to spend that 5% of our domestic economic output on national security by 2035, meeting our NATO commitments once again; the over £1 billion we are investing in a new network of national biosecurity centres; how we are stepping up in areas such as cyber capability; our anti-corruption strategy to counter illicit finance; the expansion of our legal and law enforcement toolkit; the largest sustained investment in our armed forces since the cold war; our plan for defence investment to unlock real benefits for working people; how we will prioritise NATO explicitly in our defence planning; a vision for not only deepening our alliances with the United States and the European Union, but growing our relationships with other emerging nations; the money we are investing in our brilliant research and development base over the coming years, such as the £750 million for the supercomputer at the University of Edinburgh; and our ambition to gain a competitive advantage in cutting-edge technologies and to embed national security in our artificial intelligence agenda.
We do not underestimate the size of this task. The world is a more dangerous place than at any time since the end of the cold war, yet it is also a place where Britain’s values, capabilities and alliances can make a positive difference. Since we came to power, we have taken step after step to prepare Britain for what lies ahead: record investment in defence, backing our allies, and resisting the false choices put before us that would only have weakened our country. Today’s strategy represents an important contribution to all that work. It recognises that our long-term growth, prosperity and living standards all depend on national security becoming a way of life for people and businesses in the UK. This is a plan for how we protect the British people. It is a plan for today’s times, but rooted in long-held values. It is a plan to defend our national interests, deepen our international alliances and increase our sovereign capabilities, and I commend it to the House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member is absolutely right. The National Cyber Security Centre offers advice, guidance and tools such as Cyber Essentials to businesses to help them prepare as best they can for attacks. Unfortunately, organised crime carries out some of these attacks, and the extortion of money is often at their root. It is really important that Government, business and individuals prepare as best we can to act against the bad actors who are trying to explore cyber-vulnerabilities and often, as I said, extort money.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The Government’s own cyber experts Innovate UK have warned the Government that the proposed Chinese embassy at the Royal Mint threatens to compromise the telephone and internet exchange that serves the financial City of London. The experts are now telling the Government what everyone else has known all along: the super-embassy poses a super-risk. Yet the Deputy Prime Minister’s office has said that any representations on the planning application have to be made available to the applicants. Perhaps the real Deputy Prime Minister can clear this up: are the Government seriously saying that if MI5 or GCHQ have concerns about security on this site, those concerns will have to be passed to the Chinese Communist party, or has the Deputy Prime Minister got it wrong?
Mr Speaker
Hopefully Lancashire will help with that with the new centre at Samlesbury.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend’s local businesses are in agreement with many others that welcomed the package with the EU. It cuts red tape and opens up access to the EU market.
On Operation Brock, the deployment is a decision for the Kent and Medway resilience forum, but the Department for Transport and Kent partners are working to keep it and other traffic management measures under review to ensure that they are designed and implemented in the most effective way, through actions such as traffic forecasting, using better data and exploring the use of AI for that purpose.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I do not know how much longer the love-in will last. [Hon. Members: “Aw.”] I will start off nicely.
The Minister has been commendably clear that the youth mobility scheme must be capped, and has made comparisons with agreements reached by the previous Government with countries such as Australia, Canada and Uruguay. He will know that last year 9,750 youth mobility visas were issued to Australian nationals, 3,060 to Canadians and just 140 to Uruguayans. Will he be equally clear in setting out what he thinks would be a reasonable level for that cap, or is it just a matter of whatever Brussels tells him he has to accept?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It certainly will not be; it will be subject to negotiation. I genuinely welcome the Opposition’s support for a youth mobility scheme. I think it came as a bit of a surprise to some of their Back Benchers in that debate, but none the less I welcome it. What I have said—and this is what the wording of the common understanding sets out—is that it has to be balanced, capped and time-limited. That is the negotiation we will take forward.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I am going to resist all attempts to involve me in a love-in. However, the Liberal Democrats very much welcome the progress that has been made in the UK-EU reset. We are particularly pleased to see the Prime Minister listen to our long-standing calls on a defence fund, on a veterinary scheme and on youth mobility, or youth experience—whatever we are calling it now. The Minister knows that I am going to continue to press him on the matter. We welcome the announcement, but we need more certainty of the scheme’s scope and timescales. I am thinking particularly of those young people who want to start making plans for their future, perhaps not for this summer but maybe for next. Will the youth experience scheme be open to them? Can they start to plan for experiences in the EU? May I press the Minister for more detail on the timeline for introducing the scheme?
Pat McFadden
I am not quite sure that was the previous Government’s plan—maybe the right hon. Gentleman wishes it was. This is a hugely important issue for us. It is a security issue as well as an immigration issue. Of course, international policing and security operations to stop these gangs and this trade is a vital part of trying to combat it.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament is unique, made up of Privy Counsellors from both Houses. However, last month the Committee took the highly unusual step of publicly criticising the Government for their failure to allow the Committee the staff and independence to fulfil its role overseeing the circa £3 billion annual spend, for which
“there is no oversight capability.”
The Committee is led by an experienced Labour peer, and it just wants the basics: to have staff who are not totally beholden to the Cabinet Office, so that they can do their job on behalf of Parliament and the country, and to meet the Prime Minister. The work of our intelligence services has never been more important, given the grey zone that states are acting within at the moment, which must be properly overseen.
I asked a written question about when the Prime Minister would deign to meet the Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), said that one was being arranged. Has that now happened? I also asked written questions about the independence and resources of the Committee and was told that discussions were ongoing. On a matter of this seriousness, does Parliament not deserve more than fob-off half-answers, and will the Minister provide further details now?
Ms Oppong-Asare
I know that the hon. Member is frustrated and has worked really hard on this. I express my deepest sympathies to the families of DS Hunt and PC Taylor. I am sure she will agree that it is good that their families were awarded the Elizabeth Emblem by His Majesty in December, in recognition of the sacrifice they made. Honours policy is not in the gift of Ministers; as I mentioned, it is set out by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals. I recognise that she has written to the chair of the committee on this issue, and I am sure he will reply.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I thank my hon. Friend for his innovative suggestion. He rightly points out that following the passage of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, the Opposition will remain the largest party in the other place. That Bill, which we are keen to see on the statute book as soon as possible, is the first step in Lords reform. The Government set out in our manifesto a number of proposals to bring about a smaller, more active second Chamber that better reflects the country it serves.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has already told the House about plans for a reduction in civil service numbers. Since he came into office, how many civil service roles in the Cabinet Office and its agencies have been eliminated?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The package will cut red tape and reduce barriers to trade for businesses; make it easier for businesses to export iconic products such as Melton Mowbray pork pies, Red Leicester cheese and Stilton cheese; and open up wider access to the UK market. That is why it has been backed right across the business sector.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Fellow right hon. and hon. Members will have noticed that some political parties have begun accepting cryptocurrency donations—far be it from me to suggest that this might be an attempt to dodge the transparency requirements for donations. Does the Minister join me in welcoming the Electoral Commission’s clear guidance that donations that do not come from a permissible or identifiable source must be returned, and will he be speaking with ministerial colleagues in other Departments about making sure that the forthcoming elections Bill ensures that any political donation involving crypto is fully transparent and in line with our laws?
UK-EU Summit
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
With permission, I will update the House on the three recent trade deals that we have struck in the national interest.
First, however, I would like to say something about the horrific situation in Gaza, where the level of suffering, with innocent children being bombed again, is utterly intolerable. Over the weekend we co-ordinated a response with our allies, as set out in my statement with President Macron and Prime Minister Carney last night. I want to put on record today that we are horrified by the escalation from Israel. We repeat our demand for a ceasefire, as the only way to free the hostages; we repeat our opposition to settlements in the west bank; and we repeat our demand to massively scale up humanitarian assistance to Gaza. The recent announcement that Israel will allow a “basic quantity of food” into Gaza is totally and utterly inadequate, so we must co-ordinate our response, because this war has gone on for far too long. We cannot allow the people of Gaza to starve, and the Foreign Secretary will come to the House shortly to set out our response in detail.
Let me turn now to the three deals that this Government have struck. The principles we took into the negotiations are clear and simple. Does it drive down bills? Does it drive up jobs? Does it strengthen our borders? In each case, the answer is a resoundingly yes. These deals release us from the tired arguments of the past and, as an independent sovereign nation, allow us to seize the opportunities of the future—a clear message, sent across the globe, that Britain is back on the world stage.
We have a trade deal with the world’s fastest growing economy, India, cutting tariffs for British industries, which is a huge boost for our whisky and gin distilleries—their only concern now is whether they can produce enough to sell—and for our car manufacturers, with tariffs slashed from over 100% to just 10%, and no concessions on visas. We have a trade deal with the world’s richest economy, the United States, slashing tariffs, saving thousands upon thousands of jobs in car manufacturing in places like Jaguar Land Rover, protecting our steel and aluminium exports, and safeguarding the interests of our hugely important pharmaceutical sector.
But I can already see that, when it comes to this hat-trick of deals, it is our new partnership with the EU that the Opposition most want to talk about—and given their abject failure to strike a deal with India or the US, I cannot say I blame them—so let me spell out the benefits of this deal, which gives our country an unprecedented level of access to the EU market: the best access of any nation outside the EU or European Free Trade Association.
I will start with our security. When Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine over three years ago, a gauntlet was thrown down, and it is our responsibility to step up. That is what this world demands, and it is what this partnership delivers, strengthening our national security through a new security and defence partnership that paves the way for British defence firms to access the EU’s €150 billion defence fund. That will support British jobs, British wages and British livelihoods.
The partnership also increases co-operation on emissions trading, saving UK businesses from having to pay up to £800 million in EU carbon taxes—once again, backing British businesses. The deal will drive down bills with increased co-operation on energy, because the agreement negotiated by the Conservative party left us with a more expensive way of working with our neighbours—a needless rupture, despite our grids being connected by undersea cables. This partnership brings those systems together again, benefiting British bill payers and boosting clean British power in the North sea.
This partnership also strengthens our borders, because again, the previous deal left a huge gap and weakened our ability to work together to tackle illegal migration—the ultimate cross-border challenge. It closes that gap, including joint work on returns, preventing channel crossings and working upstream in key source and transit countries, co-operating along the whole migration route to strengthen our hand in the fight against the vile smuggling gangs. It boosts our co-operation on law enforcement, combating terrorism and serious organised crime with closer operational work with agencies like Europol and better sharing of intelligence and data, including, for the first time, facial imaging.
This partnership helps British holidaymakers, who will be able to use e-gates when they travel to Europe, ending those huge queues at passport control. It delivers for our young people, because we are now on a path towards a controlled youth experience scheme, with firm caps on numbers and visa controls—a relationship we have with so many countries around the world, some of which were even set up by the Conservative party. We should be proud to give our young people that opportunity. And, not for the first time, this Government have delivered for Britain’s steel industry, protecting our steel exports from new EU tariffs and backing our steel sector to the hilt.
Last but certainly not least, we have a new sanitary and phytosanitary deal, as promised in our manifesto, which will cut the price of a weekly shop, meaning that there will be more money in the pockets of working people, less red tape for our exporters, no more lorry drivers sitting for 16 hours at the border with rotting food in the back, and no more needless checks—the inevitable consequence of the Conservatives’ policies, which made it so much harder to trade even within our own market, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The deal means that British goods that have long been off the menu in Europe can regain their true place, including shellfish, which are hugely important for Cornwall, Devon and Scotland. Not only does our deal on fish provide stability, with no increase in the amount that EU vessels can catch in British waters, but the new SPS agreement slashes costs and red tape for our exports to the European market. We sell 70% of our seafood to that market, so there is a huge opportunity that Britain’s fisheries, in which we have made a £360 million investment, will now look to exploit.
The reaction to this deal from business has been absolutely clear. Mr Speaker, I know you are a stickler for keeping to time, so I do not have time to run through the list of supportive quotes from businesses. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”]
The Prime Minister
This is not the full list, but the new partnership has been backed by the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI, the British Retail Consortium, Asda, Morrisons, Salmon Scotland, the Food & Drink Federation, the British Chamber of Commerce, Ryanair, Vodafone and producers of meat, milk and poultry—the list goes on and on. I wonder whether that long list of businesses coming out in support of the deal will temper the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition—but then again, for weeks now, she has been dismissive of the benefits of any trade deal, in defiance, frankly, of her party’s history. It is not just the Conservatives that I am talking about; the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is not here, and the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) have both shown, in their own way, that their parties simply do not get it; if your whole approach to our allies is about striking a pose, you do not get to strike a deal. What that means in a world like ours, where deals are ever more the currency of security and justice, is that you do not get to make a difference, and you do not get to deliver for Britain. That is what this partnership means.
For years, we were told that this could not be done. What the Conservatives meant was that they could not do it. We were told that a deal with the US or India was impossible; what they meant was that it was impossible for them. We were told that a choice must be made between the US and EU; what they meant was that they could not do a deal with both. This Government can and will, because we stay in the room, we fight for the national interest, and we put the British people first. These deals represent a signal that we are back on the world stage—a global champion of free trade, playing our historic role on European security—but above all, they are deals that put money in the pockets of working people, because that is what independent, sovereign nations do. I commend this statement to the House.
The Prime Minister
Oh dear. That was just such an unserious response. The right hon. Lady says that details matter in government; they matter in opposition as well. The SPS agreement cuts red tape and bureaucracy for all food and agricultural products going to the EU. It is a massive boost for our supermarkets, our farmers and others. Why is it that all the supermarkets have come out behind this deal? Because they know how important the SPS agreement is. It is completely in our favour. There is a huge amount of detail there. It is the best agreement.
On defence and security, we have greater operational co-ordination, and the right hon. Lady is against it at a time like this. It opens the gate to the EU defence procurement fund of €150 billion; that was a condition of the deal. She complains about emissions. [Hon. Members: “How much?”] I will tell you how much. Businesses were going to pay £800 million a year in tariffs that they will not now pay. That is why they are coming out in support of the deal. That is how much. The detail matters.
On energy, we are already connected, but we are not using that energy connection. We have electrical access to the market. On steel, we are getting rid of the tariffs. That will support British steel, but the right hon. Lady is against that, yet again. She says that e-gates access is already in existence; this deal clears the way for e-gates access. That is the huge difference it makes. [Interruption.] If any Conservative Members doubt that, they should travel across a border today and see the long queues.
On law enforcement, we have better operational working with Europol, and the right hon. Lady is against it. We have information sharing on facial mapping and dealing with criminal records, and she is against it. She is absolutely unserious. She is also against the India deal, which of course does huge things for trade in sectors such as whisky, where their only concern is whether they can produce enough. They have been absolutely clear about supporting the India deal—a deal that the Conservatives tried to do—and she now says that she is against it.
We have the US deal, which saved thousands upon thousands of jobs in car manufacturing and at Jaguar Land Rover. I do not know whether the right hon. Lady had the chance to make that trip to JLR, but she really ought to before she responds like that again. The US deal reduces tariffs on steel, so that our steel can be sold to America, and supports our whisky and gin, and she is against it. She is against every single deal. She is the only ex-Trade Secretary who is against every single deal. These deals have been welcomed broadly because they are good deals. You do not get a great long list of endorsements from all the business associations and companies for no—[Interruption.] The Conservatives are so unserious; they are lost in a descent into the abyss. They used to be a proud party of trading agreements, and they have slid off into the abyss. That is where they are.
On fishing, none of the rights negotiated by the Conservatives have been removed. There is no change in access for coastal communities, which is the same as before. There is no reduction in the British quota or increase in the EU quota; they are the same as before. We have reciprocal arrangements, which are the same as before. What is new is having the SPS agreement for the first time, and it is permanent. They were unable to do that. It reopens the EU market for shellfish and makes it much easier to sell British fish to our largest trading partner. That is hugely significant, because 72% of British fish is traded into EU markets, and it is now easier to do that. We are backing that with £360 million through our fishing and coastal grants. The Leader of the Opposition talks about the youth experience scheme. That scheme is capped, it is time-limited, and it is balanced.
In relation to standards, the truth is this: we are currently aligned in our standards, but we do not get the benefit of that. We want to continue to have high standards; that is what the British public want, and it is what this deal delivers. We will have a role in shaping any future rules, and application of them is specifically subject to our constitutional arrangements. We will have a process in this Parliament to apply the rules, but to be clear, we are already applying those rules at the moment—we are just not getting the advantage. This deal strips that away. It is good for our country and good for our economy, and it is a shame that the Leader of the Opposition cannot stand up and support it.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
This deal is good for business and good for Britain. I congratulate the Prime Minister on embracing a good half of the Select Committee’s recommendations, which—if I might say so—were agreed on a cross-party basis. While some in this House are proposing trade barriers, the Prime Minister is building trade bridges, and that is in the national interest.
We have a deal, but we do not have a date. The Office for Budget Responsibility cannot score the gains, businesses cannot plan for the benefits, and we cannot suspend customs checks in Northern Ireland until we know when the new SPS checks will come into force. What timetable has the Prime Minister given his negotiators for when that SPS deal will come into effect? Business needs certainty, and for that, we need clarity.
The Prime Minister
First, let me pick up on my right hon. Friend’s point about the cross-party support of the Select Committee. There are Conservative Members who I think are ashamed by the response of the Leader of the Opposition, and know very well that these are good deals that should be supported. A number of her Back-Bench MPs are already coming out and saying that these deals are good and in the national interest. [Hon. Members: “Who?”] You know who they are.
I assure my right hon. Friend that we have moved at pace to get the deals, and our instruction to our teams now is to move at pace to implement them. That is what we will do. We negotiated these deals in a short number of months, and we will keep moving at the same pace.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the appalling situation in Gaza. When he is working with our French and Canadian colleagues to put pressure on Netanyahu, will he consider, with the French, formally recognising the state of Palestine?
Turning to the EU reset deal, the Prime Minister knows that we do not think this deal goes far enough to fix our broken relationship with Europe, but there are many parts of it that we welcome. We have long been arguing for an agrifood deal to help British farmers export to Europe; for a youth mobility scheme to give our young people incredible new opportunities and British businesses, especially in hospitality, a boost; and for closer alliances on defence in the face of Putin’s imperialism and Trump’s unpredictability. I welcome the progress on those issues, even if there is only very limited progress on things such as youth mobility.
We have all seen the terrible damage caused by the Conservatives’ Brexit deal, and hearing the Conservative leader complain today is like listening to a backseat driver who previously crashed the car. Our country has moved on from the divisive Brexit wars of a decade ago, and some Members of this House need to do the same. However, does the Prime Minister accept that this deal must be only the first step, and that we must be far more ambitious in strengthening our economic and security ties with our nearest neighbours? We believe that a bespoke customs union is a key part of that—not turning back to the past, but forming a new partnership that serves our national interest. I know that the Prime Minister once made that a red line, but he will accept that the world has changed since then, so will he open negotiations on a customs union to get a better deal for Britain—a trade deal to dwarf all other trade deals?
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I begin by thanking the Prime Minister for what he has said about Gaza. The message he is sending to Netanyahu’s far-right Government could not be clearer, and it should have the unanimous support of this House. It is essentially, “This must stop.”
Turning to the grown-up EU deal, which comes hard on the heels of the two other recent trade agreements, the Government are rightly confident that those deals will be popular and will provide great benefits to our country. As such, I ask the Prime Minister this: why not take this opportunity to fix a glaring hole in our democracy and simply put those agreements to a vote, allowing them to be scrutinised by this place? I can assure him that they will be passed.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman knows full well that we had red lines about not rejoining the EU—no single market, no customs union and no freedom of movement. We were told that it was impossible to negotiate a better deal with the EU with those red lines, but we have just done it. We have also shown that we are outside the EU, because as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, having deals with India and the US is inconsistent with membership of the EU. There could be no better evidence that we are not going back into the EU; nor are these negotiations on that basis. I know that the hon. Gentleman understands that well, so I am surprised at the way in which he has put his question.
As for control of borders, net migration quadrupled after Brexit to nearly a million. That was not controlling our borders; it was a complete lack of control by the Conservative party. On the question of payments, it is important to appreciate that we have achieved unprecedented access to EU markets without the budgetary payments of member states. That is an incredible achievement. The only payment under the SPS agreement is administrative—to support the relevant costs of implementing and administering the scheme. For schemes and payments where it is in our national interest, we will negotiate proportionate contributions, as already happens under the deal negotiated by the Conservatives—for example, in relation to research and development and Horizon. The hon. Gentleman knows all that very well.
Victory in Europe Day: Commemoration
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Mr Speaker, I ask that you now suspend the sitting so that we may attend at Westminster Abbey to give thanks and to commemorate the 80th anniversary of VE Day—the greatest victory in the history of our great nation.
Mr Speaker
We will now follow in the footsteps of our predecessors 80 years ago. On 8 May 1945, hon. Members formed a procession out of the House of Lords, where they had secretly relocated because the House of Commons Chamber had been destroyed during the blitz. Today, we shall again follow the Mace, but this time from our own Chamber, through the bomb-scarred Churchill Arch, which stands as a permanent reminder of the fortitude of those who stood firm through the war.
Trade Negotiations
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me make the statement, as requested.
Within the last couple of hours, a deal has been announced by the Prime Minister and President Trump respectively. I therefore welcome the opportunity to update the House on the terms of the agreement that has just been reached. Back in February, I stood before the House and said:
“What British industry needs and deserves is not a knee-jerk reaction but a cool and clear-headed sense of the UK’s national interest, based on a full assessment of all the implications of US actions.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 182.]
It is this approach, which the Government have taken, that has brought us to the front of the queue today. Indeed, no other country has been able to secure an exemption from the tariffs imposed by the United States until today.
In March, the United States Government announced tariffs on steel, aluminium and autos. This was followed by an announcement of a global tariff, with the UK on the lowest rate of 10%. Throughout this period, the UK Government have been engaged in an intensive and continued dialogue with the Government of the United States to advance the UK’s national interest in this challenging and changing global trading environment. The deal we have agreed is the first step in delivering on the commitment made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister and President Trump in February to reach an economic deal in our respective national interests.
First and foremost, the deal will protect UK jobs, while laying the groundwork for increased transatlantic trade and investment. As the Prime Minister has commented within the last hour,
“This is jobs saved…not job done.”
To that end, I can inform the House that the deal we have secured secures reductions to the 25% tariffs imposed by the United States on the UK car industry. UK exports to the US will face a lower tariff of 10% for a quota of 100,000 vehicles. That is positive news for iconic British luxury brands such as Aston Martin, Bentley and McLaren, but it is also good news for our country’s largest vehicle manufacturer, Jaguar Land Rover, which employs 34,000 employees directly in the UK, with 135,000 further jobs in its wider supply chain. As the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders pointed out, the US is Britain’s second largest car export market. A deal like this was desperately needed to support jobs and economic growth on both sides of the Atlantic.
Furthermore, the deal secures the removal of the new tariffs the US imposed on steel and aluminium in March, through duty-free quotas. It reinforces our commitment to the steel industry, following our swift action last month to protect British Steel and its 2,500 employees.
Turning next to agriculture, for the first time ever, the deal will open up exclusive access for UK beef farmers to the US market. Currently only a few other countries, such as Australia, enjoy such access. This is a major opportunity for British farmers to increase their exports to the world’s largest consumer market, helping them to grow their businesses. Let me be clear that the import of hormone-treated beef or chlorinated chicken will remain illegal. The deal we have signed today will protect British farmers and uphold our high animal welfare and environmental standards. Any agricultural imports coming into the United Kingdom will have to meet our high SPS—sanitary and phytosanitary—standards.
On economic security, the deal will ensure co-operation on non-market policies from third countries, investment security and export controls. With the United States Government, we will continue to advance the UK’s national interest in key sectors where discussions continue, such as pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, critical minerals, copper, lumber and film production. We will seek the best possible deal and outcome for these vital parts of our economy, and those working on our critical infrastructure. We have also committed to further negotiations on tariff reductions to enhance the UK-US trading relationship. Without this Government’s swift action, the economic impact of US tariffs would, candidly, have been extremely severe.
Following agreement on the outline of the deal today, there will now be a process of formal negotiations with the US on a binding legal framework. The negotiations aim to deliver an ambitious set of outcomes in areas such as digital trade, tackling non-tariff barriers, agreeing mutual recognition agreements for industrial goods and an agreement on domestic services regulation, collaborating on economic security, and upholding standards in areas such as intellectual property and labour practices.
I can, of course, confirm to the House that hon. Members will have the chance to scrutinise the deal we agree with the United States Government, as well as legislation implementing the deal. To reiterate what the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade have told the House, we are not seeking to change existing statutory scrutiny processes. It is vital that Parliament has the opportunity to make its voice heard on this important set of issues.
I am pleased to confirm that the Secretary of State yesterday briefed the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on progress in the negotiations. We will continue to work closely with the devolved Governments throughout the negotiations that will follow today’s announcement.
As a Government, we are grateful to businesses across the United Kingdom for their extensive and continued engagement in recent weeks, and look forward to continuing that engagement through the remaining negotiations.
I would also like to place on record the Government’s gratitude for the work of officials here in London and in Washington for their efforts in securing the first stage of this agreement today.
It will have escaped nobody’s attention in this House that this agreement with the United States has been reached on the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day. That victory was secured not simply by the heroism and courage of the British armed forces, but by strong transatlantic alliances that have served us well over the eight subsequent decades. In the coming years, the Government of the United Kingdom will continue to work to secure international agreements that uphold our national interests.
For all those reasons, I commend the statement to the House.
Mr Alexander
Where to begin, Mr Speaker? As I sought to reflect in my statement, and as the Prime Minister remarked only a few minutes ago,
“This is jobs saved…not job done.”
It is significant that two former Conservative Prime Ministers —the former Members for Henley and for Maidenhead, as I recollect—sought and failed to deliver a US trade deal, in the same way that the former Government failed to deliver a deal with India. Important though it is to hear the views of the Opposition about trade deals that were not done, I think it is also important to hear from the Government about trade deals that have actually been done.
I am grateful, none the less, that the shadow Secretary of State found it in himself to welcome the tariff reductions that have been achieved. I think there will be relief at JLR in particular this evening that the calm, cool-headed approach taken by the Prime Minister and the negotiators has yielded a significant reduction of tariffs to a critical supply chain and a critical set of British exporters.
On Brexit, I respectfully say that this House has debated Brexit innumerable times over the years since 2016. I simply observe that we as a Government are more interested in new markets than in old arguments, and that there have been plenty of opportunities to rehearse those old arguments. I can also assure the House that, as we look ahead to the first EU-UK summit on 19 May, having delivered deals with India and the United States, we are now looking to reset that relationship with our friends, neighbours and partners in the EU, not least because three of our five largest trading partners are actually members of the European Union.
On the specific points about the film industry, we continue to negotiate on the UK’s behalf—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State, who is chuntering from a sedentary position, seems to suggest that we can unilaterally declare the policy of the United States. Negotiations involve two parties. That is a lesson that the Conservatives could have learned when they failed to secure a US trade deal in the past. It is by listening and working together with our partners in the United States that we have been able to make progress today. As the Prime Minister said:
“This is jobs saved…not job done.”
There is further work to be done, and we fully intend to take that work forward.
On agriculture, I think it is important to say that the red line that we maintain consistently in relation to SPS measures has been protected. I am grateful to have the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs on the Front Bench with me. We have maintained those critical animal welfare standards. All of the speculation in relation to chlorinated chicken or hormone-injected beef has turned out to be unfounded.
It is important to recognise what was agreed today. Let me be clear to the House: this agreement will provide the United States with an initial tariff rate quota on beef of 10,000 tonnes, increasing by 1,000 tonnes per year to a cap of 13,000 tonnes. Let me put that in context for the House and for those on the Conservative Front Bench. The previous Government agreed under the UK-Australia FTA to a beef tariff rate quota of 35,000 tonnes per year, which incrementally increases to—wait for it—110,000 tonnes per year, and ultimately becomes unlimited, subject to the safeguard regime. A sense of balance, proportion and understanding is required when discussing not only the safeguards that have been maintained and protected by the British Government, but the deal that has been struck in relation to beef. We need to keep the market access granted to the United States in the context of the wider economic benefits that this deal has secured for the United Kingdom.
On the rather diminishing political points that the shadow Secretary of State sought to make in relation to domestic legislation, I can assure him that the domestic legislation and the programme of the British Government remain unchanged as a consequence of today’s landmark deal. As far as I am aware, that is also the case in relation to the membership of the Cabinet. I am very relieved to say that it is the Prime Minister who is in charge of choosing members of the Cabinet, not the Conservative party, although the shadow Secretary of State does have a distinguished record of service alongside Liz Truss in a previous Government.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for helping to ensure that this moment was possible. Let me add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend and to His Majesty’s ambassador in Washington, Lord Mandelson, for getting this deal done. It would appear tonight that a small, common-sense retreat on duties and agriculture have unlocked a major reprieve for tens of thousands of jobs in our car and steel industry.
Will the Minister clarify for us tonight when those tariff reductions will kick in? Will he confirm that there is nothing in this bargain that compromises our ability to strike the boldest of resets with the European Union? It would be a mistake to strengthen transatlantic relationships and then short-change cross-channel possibilities. Can the Minister confirm that he will facilitate a debate in this House, if not a vote on the treaty?
On Tuesday, I will recommend to the Select Committee that we commence a full inquiry into this treaty, so that we can report back to the House, but a vote would help us understand who stands where in standing up and protecting British jobs.
Mr Alexander
Let me begin by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend’s long-standing interest in Jaguar Land Rover and the wider west midlands economy and to the diligent and demanding work he does on the Business and Trade Committee, which makes a major contribution to not only trade policy but business policy here in the United Kingdom.
To clarify the point my right hon. Friend made on the auto industry, the UK exports around 100,000 cars a year to the United States, and this quota will ensure that most manufacturers now pay the preferential rate. The agreement has removed the 25% tariff that the US applied to UK cars on 2 April. The agreement has been welcomed by the UK auto industry in the last couple of hours, including by Jaguar Land Rover, which is the largest exporter to the US. We are committed to continuing to support the automotive industry, which is a point my right hon. Friend has made powerfully in recent days.
On his second point, I can assure my right hon. Friend that notwithstanding the significant progress we have made in relation to the United States—as I said, jobs saved but job not yet done—a great deal of work is continuing on the UK-EU summit that is due to take place on 19 May. He is right to recognise the importance of twin-tracking our approach, as it were, by recognising the salience and significance of the United States as the country that is comfortably our largest single trading partner while recognising the European Union as our largest trading bloc, which covers about 46% of our trade.
Turning to the economic security aspects of the deal, I pay particular tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend, as I know this issue has been of great interest to the Business and Trade Committee. I think he will take a lot of encouragement from what emerges in the agreement, specifically in relation to export controls and investment security. One might almost think that the negotiators had been reading his Substack.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Sadly, the world has changed dramatically in the few months since Donald Trump took office in the White House. We need to reflect on the shared values we have with key countries across the world. We need to look to Canada and stand up to Trump as it has done, and we need to make sure that we build economic relationships with countries such as Canada, Australia and the countries in the European Union—all countries that share our values.
I am pleased that the Minister spoke of scrutiny, because we must ensure that there is scrutiny. We need a vote in this House on these proposals. We need to protect the NHS and ensure that we are not selling our farmers down the river. We must also ensure that there are no cuts to taxes on high-tech industries, which the US may be pushing for. Will the Minister address the matter of a vote in this House? That would be extremely helpful. Donald Trump tends to be a weathervane, and he could come back for more. I also feel for our pharmaceutical industry, so what assurances can the Minister give them?
Mr Alexander
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. On the case he makes for seeing trade as not simply a bilateral issue but a multilateral issue, I think there is a broad consensus across the House. As well as the work we have taken forward in relation to the United States today, we continue to work with friends and partners in a range of different fora, including the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership and the European Union.
On his specific question about scrutiny of trade within this House, I echo the confirmation that the Prime Minister gave in the Commons only a few days ago that we are not anticipating any change to the process of scrutiny for trade matters in the House.
On the two substantive political points, first, it is worth the House recognising that there is no change to the United Kingdom’s digital services tax as a consequence of the agreement reached today. Secondly, I know that there has been widespread concern not only on the Liberal Democrat Benches but right across the House about measures to tackle the evil of online harm, but I can confirm again there has been no change as a consequence of the agreement reached with the United States.
Mr Speaker
Order. I thank the Minister for coming forward with his statement, but the Table Office has not received a copy of it. I am wondering where it is and when we will see copies of it. Can it be handed in so we can get it printed for Members?
Let us move on to Dame Meg Hillier.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State and the team at the Department as well as our team of officials under Lord Mandelson in Washington. This is a major step forward in a short time. Given how long trade agreements normally take, this is an impressive step.
However, as has been mentioned, we know that President Trump has made rattling sounds about tariffs on the film industry. The creatives and technical businesses in my constituency who contribute to our film industry are obviously nervous about that. Will the Minister reassure us that he is putting his shoulder to the wheel on this issue and not resting on his laurels on the triumphs achieved so far?
Mr Alexander
Mr Speaker, on your point, I apologise again for the statement not being available. As was clear from my initial remarks, there was some confusion within Government as to the best way to proceed, but I hope that through my officials we will provide it to you as a matter of immediacy.
Mr Speaker
Order. Just so that we completely understand, the Government decided they were making a statement, so there was no possibility of anything else. The House was suspended and had to resume; we could not leave it in limbo forever. The point was that there was a statement coming. Thankfully, the Minister made a statement. Hopefully, we can get copies of the statement to everyone. I was bothered about us being in danger of sending people home, saying that there was to be no statement. That was never, ever the case. I am disappointed that Members were advised to leave the building 30 minutes ago on the claim that there was to be no statement.
Mr Alexander
Mr Speaker, the responsibility was ours, and for that I apologise. I hope that through my officials we will be able to furnish the House with the statement that is requested.
In relation to my hon. Friend’s question, I assure her that it is not my personal style or the departmental habit to rest on laurels. It will not have passed her notice that it has been a somewhat busy few months in relation to trade policy, not least given the historic changes in the global trading environment we are experiencing on a daily basis. Notwithstanding that turbulence and the challenges in relation to trade policy, it is a matter of quiet satisfaction that we were able to get the India deal over the line earlier this week. Through that process of quiet, engaged, diligent diplomacy and a great deal of hard work by officials, negotiators and others, we have been able to secure this agreement today. But I assure her that the work goes on.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
In the Trumpian philosophy that is “The Art of the Deal”, you bully your opponents and then, two months later, withdraw some of the threats, and they kneel down in adoration while they are reduced to where they were before. That is where we are.
We are celebrating the end of the second world war. Before the second world war, people could walk from Lincoln to Grimsby across derelict farms. I want a real assurance from the Minister that he will protect our beef farmers, because this is the start of an attack by America on our beef farmers.
Mr Alexander
On today of all days, I will not suggest that there should be any fetters or constraints whatsoever on this House when it comes to introducing legislation on online harm, or any other issue.
Mr Speaker
Can I just say that I never want to be put in this position again? I remind people that before we send Members home, we ought to think to tell them that there will not be a statement. I think that was bad. The Chair of the Select Committee complained to me, because he was told to go away. We should not be doing this. In this House, we need to work together. This House should be respected. I will stand up for the Back Benchers. Please never put me in this position again.
On behalf of this House and all the Roman Catholics across the United Kingdom, particularly in Chorley and Lancashire, I wish the new pope well.
Adjournment
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—(Keir Mather.)
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Lady, and absolutely pay tribute to her work on this issue, which I have seen directly in Northern Ireland. What I would say, as I am sure anyone would at this Dispatch Box, is that I would always encourage everybody to follow the laws in our country in step.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Three years after Baroness Kennedy’s groundbreaking review on tackling misogyny in law, late on Friday, the SNP said that it would scrap its planned Bill to tackle widespread misogyny and hatred against women. Plans to tackle misogynistic harassment, the stirring up of hatred, and sending threatening or abusive communications to women, and an aggravated offence of misogyny—all scrapped in favour of a watered-down amendment to the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. Women across the United Kingdom need action, and reassurance that politicians will root out the attitudes that lead to hatred against women in public life. If the SNP will not do it, will this Government act to give women the support that they need?
Bridget Phillipson
The hon. Lady will recognise that this Government have expanded workers’ rights, and are making sure that new mums and dads can spend more precious time with their young family. As she says, it is important that high-quality early years education and childcare is available for parents, so that they have good work choices. That is why we have expanded childcare provision and more than doubled the early years pupil premium. We are also rolling out new primary-based nurseries in schools across the country.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
We all want to break down barriers to opportunity. However, it seems that one sizable part of our workforce is being ignored, and that is women. Women missing work due to endometriosis, ovarian cysts and other complications cost the economy £11 billion a year. Fixing this would save more than double the amount that is to be spent on the unpalatable proposed welfare cuts for disabled people. Does the Minister agree that improving women’s health will break down a huge barrier to work, and if so, how is she working with other Departments to fix this?
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Despite what the Prime Minister said, speaking out for rape victims is not jumping on a far-right bandwagon. Yesterday, it was reported that No. 10’s interim spokesperson said it was “obviously disappointing” to see people “weaponising” rape gangs for “political point scoring”. How does that square with the harrowing personal testimony from Jade, Chantelle, Scarlett, Erin and Steph in Anna Hall’s Channel 4 documentary aired last week, where concerning questions continued to arise about councils, police, schools, social workers and children’s homes? It was reported that in up to 50 communities, vulnerable girls who were under age—exploited children—were unbelievably labelled as promiscuous or child prostitutes.
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend raises a concern shared by many across the House, and it is crucial that we root out misogyny, whether it is online or offline. I am working with colleagues across Government to tackle those dangerous attitudes. For example, through the Department for Education, we are looking at bringing forward updated relationships, health and sex education guidance to ensure that it prevents and tackles misogyny. Alongside that, I know the Science, Innovation and Technology Secretary is determined to go further and faster to ensure that children are protected online.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I am a great believer in Britain being one of the greatest meritocracies in the world, where—at least in our party—people can rise to the very top, irrespective of race, religion or gender. The Government’s consultation on reforming equality law is a litany of activist demands and bureaucratic burdens, with no proof that any of the measures would reduce inequality. Why are the Government so determined to put people into boxes on the basis of race, instead of promoting equality of opportunity for all?
The Prime Minister
I send my best wishes and, I am sure, those of the House to Richard and to every family living with cancer for their courage and fortitude. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for her work to raise awareness of the devastating impact of brain cancer. I am really proud that our plan for change has already delivered faster diagnosis for more than 80,000 cancer patients. We are rolling out Cancer 360, which has groundbreaking new technology that will slash treatment delays across the NHS, as well as investing in more scanners, surgical hubs and radiotherapy machines. It is important work that is only happening because of our decision to make a record investment in the NHS, opposed by every other party.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Can I echo the Prime Minister’s comments? It was an honour to meet veterans at the VE Day parade on Monday and to commemorate the sacrifice of that generation. I look forward to marking VE Day at Westminster Abbey tomorrow.
Does the Prime Minister now admit that he was wrong to remove the winter fuel payment from millions of pensioners?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We are backing British car companies such as JLR, and our India trade deal will see tariffs slashed for car sales, which is good for British jobs. The criticism of the double taxation is incoherent nonsense. It is a benefit to working people; it is in the agreements that we already have with 50 other countries. If the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) or the Leader of the Opposition are seriously suggesting that they are going to tear up agreements with 50 other countries, creating a massive hole in our economy, they should get up and say so.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
As we celebrate 80 years since Britain led our allies to victory over fascism, I pay tribute on behalf of the Liberal Democrats to all those who struggled and sacrificed so much for our freedoms today. I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the conflict in Kashmir and, with him, urge restraint and de-escalation on both sides.
Among the messages that voters sent to Ministers last week, one stood out: bring back the winter fuel payment for millions of struggling pensioners. People will therefore be disappointed that the Prime Minister failed to do so today. He says that he wants to “go further and faster” to clean up the mess left by the Conservatives, but on social care, which is so crucial for our NHS, he is going slower and slower. Not only will the Casey commission take three years, we learned on Friday that the Government plan to take an extra seven years to implement it—it will not be implemented until 2036. Will the Prime Minister rip up that timetable, make sure that he does not repeat the mess made by the Conservatives, and get on with fixing social care this year?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo Stevens
Wales is the second-best recycling nation in the whole world.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Attacking the Welsh hospitality sector with the Welsh Government’s disastrous tourism tax is supposedly a good plan, yet their impact assessment warns of a potential loss of over a quarter of a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money. Meanwhile, last week Labour pulled the plug on funding for the western gateway, a vital scheme focused on boosting the Welsh economy. Can the Secretary of State now explain to taxpayers what the £205 million will actually do for Cardiff airport, and does she regret both Governments’ decisions? Today, the chief executive officer of Bristol airport has openly voiced huge concerns about the Welsh Labour Government’s decision to spend the money on Cardiff airport, with no obvious benefit or transparency—a move costing each Welsh household an additional £300.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
Yesterday, Wales lost a musical icon with the passing of Mike Peters from The Alarm. Mike had an extraordinary relationship with his fans, and he brought thousands of visitors from across the world into the area for his annual event, the Gathering. Mike Peters, his warmth and his music put north Wales on the map for visitors from far and wide. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Mike and to the power of music to bring people together like nothing else?
Jo Stevens
Music tourism is a huge part of the Welsh visitor economy, and I was very sad to hear about Mike Peters’ death. Mike and The Alarm were the sounds of my teenage years when I was growing up in north Wales. He was a proud Welshman, a hugely talented musician and a man of incredible resilience. As well as bringing music tourism to north Wales, he dedicated much of his life to charitable work to support blood cancer patients, and I know he will be missed.
Dame Nia Griffith
I understand that the hon. Member is bringing forward a private Member’s Bill on domestic abuse. We recognise that being able to identify domestic abuse offenders is critical, but the Government are not convinced that the Bill provides a solution to that challenge. However, the Ministry of Justice will continue to consider how it can make improvements to how we identify offenders.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
Tomorrow I will be visiting the new sexual violence support centre in Rothbury House in my constituency, along with Jane Hutt, the Welsh Government Minister for Social Justice. This great new facility will support many people in my constituency and the surrounding areas for years to come. Will the Minister join me in applauding the vital work of the staff—many of them volunteers—who provide lifesaving support to women in need?
Dame Nia Griffith
I pay tribute to that support centre, and indeed to the many organisations the length and breadth of Wales that help women fleeing domestic violence. As my hon. Friend knows, we work very closely with the Welsh Government. Indeed, I spoke to Cabinet Secretary Jane Hutt only yesterday. As my hon. Friend will also know, the Welsh Government launched their own strategy for combating violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence back in 2022, and they are carefully monitoring progress on it.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
The House will be as horrified as I was to learn from a shocking report in The Times that a Labour-led local authority apparently showed teenagers a PowerPoint in which they were urged to seek consent from their partner before choking them during sex. It is abhorrent to even attempt to normalise strangling in a loving relationship—indeed, in any relationship. It is important to note that the council in question did not categorically deny this at first, but did so after there was, rightly, a backlash. Does the Minister agree that even considering showing such appalling content to pupils in Welsh schools is totally unacceptable, and will she undertake to hold her colleagues to account on this part of the so-called Welsh curriculum?
Jo Stevens
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I definitely believe that the UK is stronger with the four nations working together.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
There is no greater threat to our Union than the feeling that workers in one nation matter less than those in another. People in and around Port Talbot feel that they have had a rotten deal. Can the Minister explain why, under the deal that her Government did with Tata, workers who had been at the company for longer than 25 years did not have that service reflected in their redundancy payments, and why workers wishing to access the retraining elements had to forgo their rights to the enhanced redundancy payment? Is it true that, as has been reported, as of February, only three people had applied for that scheme?
Clive Jones
I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister about the professionalism of our armed forces, and I too congratulate Mark Carney on being elected Prime Minister of Canada. I also congratulate everybody who took part in the London marathon. Both my daughters have done it, but it is sadly something I cannot do any more. Later today, I will introduce a Bill to guarantee that Parliament has the final say on any trade deal, including any agreement with President Trump. This idea is not new; it is exactly what Labour promised to do in an official policy paper put forward in 2001, so I am asking this Government to keep their promise. Currently, Members of Parliament have no vote or voice on trade deals. Will the Prime Minister—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is on a marathon himself. I call the Prime Minister.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. There is no need to answer that, Prime Minister; you have no responsibility for any of that.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
On Monday, the Prime Minister’s safeguarding Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips)—admitted on the Floor of the House that there was a cover-up of the child rape gang scandal. Does the Prime Minister think we should expose this cover-up?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the disgraceful record of the previous Government, who saw an extra 900,000 children in poverty. I am proud of Labour’s record in reducing child poverty, which is what we do in government, and the taskforce is exploring every lever to reduce child poverty.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
On behalf of my party, may I send our congratulations to Mark Carney and the Liberal party of Canada on their historic victory? We wish them well, as Canada continues to stand up strongly to President Trump’s tariffs and threats. Canada has learned what happens when a trade deal is done with President Trump; he cannot be trusted to stick with it. The Prime Minister did not answer my question last week, nor he did answer my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) just now. Let me ask again. Will the Government give Members a vote on the Floor of the House on any deal he agrees with President Trump—yes or no?