Northern Ireland Protocol

Rishi Sunak Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)]

Before I begin, I know the whole House will join me in paying tribute to Betty Boothroyd, who passed away yesterday. She was a remarkable woman who commanded huge admiration and respect as the first female Speaker of this House. She was as firm as she was fair and she presided over many historic moments in this House, among them the debates on the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Her passion, wit and immeasurable contribution to our democracy will never be forgotten.

Mr Speaker, let us also send our very best wishes to Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell and his family. He is a man of immense courage, who both on and off duty has devoted himself to the service of others. This House stands united with the people and leaders of all communities across Northern Ireland in condemning those who are trying to drag us back to the past. They will never succeed.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Northern Ireland protocol. After weeks of negotiations, today we have made a decisive breakthrough. The Windsor framework delivers free-flowing trade within the whole United Kingdom. It protects Northern Ireland’s place in our Union and it safeguards sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland. By achieving all this, it preserves the delicate balance inherent in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It does what many said could not be done: removing thousands of pages of EU laws and making permanent, legally binding changes to the protocol treaty itself. That is the breakthrough we have made. Those are the changes we will deliver. Now is the time to move forward as one United Kingdom.

Before I turn to the details, let us remind ourselves why this matters. It matters because at the heart of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the reason it has endured for a quarter of a century is equal respect for the aspirations and identities of all communities, and all its three strands. But the Northern Ireland protocol has undermined that balance. How can we say the protocol protects the Belfast/Good Friday agreement when it has caused the institutions of that agreement to collapse? So, in line with our legal responsibilities, we are acting today to preserve the balance of that agreement and chart a new way forward for Northern Ireland.

I pay tribute to: our European friends for recognising the need for change, particularly President Von der Leyen; my predecessors for laying the groundwork for today’s agreement; and my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary for their perseverance in finally persuading the EU to do what it spent years refusing to do: to rewrite the treaty and replace it with a radical, legally binding new framework.

Today’s agreement has three equally important objectives: first, allowing trade to flow freely within our UK internal market; secondly, protecting Northern Ireland’s place in our Union; and thirdly, safeguarding sovereignty and closing the democratic deficit. Let me take each, in turn.

Core to the problems with the protocol was that it treated goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland as if they were crossing an international customs border. This created extra costs and paperwork for businesses, who had to fill out complex customs declarations. It limited choice for the people of Northern Ireland and it undermined the UK internal market—a matter of identity, as well as economics. Today’s agreement removes any sense of a border in the Irish sea and ensures the free flow of trade within the UK.

We have secured a key negotiating objective: the introduction of a new green lane for goods destined for Northern Ireland, with a separate red lane for those going to the EU. Within the green lane, burdensome customs bureaucracy will be scrapped and replaced with data sharing of ordinary, existing commercial information. Routine checks and tests will also be scrapped. The only checks will be those required to stop smugglers and criminals. Our new green lane will be open to a broad, comprehensive range of businesses across the UK. I am pleased to say that we have also permanently protected tariff-free movement of all types of steel into Northern Ireland. For goods going the other way, from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, we have scrapped export declarations; delivering, finally, completely unfettered trade. The commitment to establish the green lane is achieved by a legally binding amendment to the text of the treaty itself. This is fundamental, far-reaching change and it permanently removes the border in the Irish sea.

Perhaps the single most important area of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is food. Three quarters of the food in Northern Ireland’s supermarkets comes from the rest of the UK, yet the protocol applied the same burdens on shipments from Cairnryan to Larne as between Holyhead and Dublin. If it was implemented in full we would see supermarket lorries needing hundreds of certificates for every individual item, every single document checked and supermarket staples like sausages banned altogether. More delays. More cost. Less choice. Today’s agreement fixes all this with a new, permanent, legally binding approach to food. We will expand the green lane to food retailers, and not just supermarkets but wholesalers and hospitality, too. Instead of hundreds of certificates, lorries will make one simple, digital declaration to confirm that goods will remain in Northern Ireland. Visual inspections will be cut from 100% now to just 5%. Physical checks and tests will be scrapped, unless we suspect fraud, smuggling or disease, so there will be no need for vets in warehouses.

Of course, to deliver this we need to reassure the EU that food imports will not be taken into Ireland, so we will ask retailers to mark a small number of particularly high risk food products as “not for EU”, with a phased roll-out of this requirement to give them time to adjust. More fundamentally, we have delivered a form of dual regulation for food, the single biggest sector by far for east-west trade and one of the most important in people’s lives. Under the protocol, retail food products made to UK standards could not be sold in Northern Ireland. Today’s agreement completely changes that. This means the ban on British products like sausages entering Northern Ireland has now been scrapped. If it is available on supermarket shelves in Great Britain, then it will be available on supermarket shelves in Northern Ireland. We still need to make sure that goods moved into Northern Ireland do not risk bringing in animal and plant diseases, but that is clearly a common sense measure, never opposed by anyone, to prevent diseases circulating within the long-standing single epidemiological zone on the island of Ireland.

That brings me to the treatment of parcels. If the protocol was fully implemented, every single parcel travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be subject to full international customs. You would have needed a long, complex form to send every single parcel, even a birthday present for a niece or nephew, and you could only have shopped online from retailers willing to deal with all that bureaucracy, with some already pulling out of Northern Ireland. Today’s agreement fixes all of this. It achieves something we have never achieved before: removing requirements of the EU customs code for people sending and receiving parcels. Families can, rightly, send packages to each other without filling in forms, online retailers can serve customers in Northern Ireland as they did before, and businesses can ship parcels through the green lane—all underpinned by data sharing by parcel operators, with a phased roll-out and time for them to adjust.

No burdensome customs bureaucracy. No routine checks. Bans on food products: scrapped. Steel tariff rate quotas: fixed. Tariff reimbursement scheme: approved. Vet inspections: gone. Export declarations: gone. Parcels paperwork: gone. We have delivered what the people of Northern Ireland asked for and the Command Paper promised—we have removed the border in the Irish sea.

To preserve the balance of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, we also need to protect Northern Ireland’s place in our Union. The Windsor framework is about making sure that Northern Ireland gets the full benefit of being part of the United Kingdom in every respect. Under the protocol, in too many ways that simply was not the case. Take tax. When I was Chancellor, it frustrated me that when I cut VAT on solar panels or beer duty in pubs, those tax cuts did not apply in Northern Ireland. We have amended the legal text of the treaty so that critical VAT and excise changes will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. That means zero rates of VAT on energy-saving materials will now apply in Northern Ireland. Reforms to alcohol duty to cut the cost of a pint in pubs will now apply in Northern Ireland. Because we now have control over VAT policy, we can make sure that the EU’s plan to reduce the VAT threshold by £10,000 will not apply in Northern Ireland, nor will the SME VAT directive that would have brought huge amounts of EU red tape for small businesses.

We are also making subsidy control provisions work as intended. Already, just 2% of subsidy measures in Northern Ireland fall within the scope of the EU approvals under the protocol. Nevertheless, today’s agreement goes further, addressing the so-called reach-back of EU state aid law by imposing stringent new tests. For the EU to argue that we are in breach of its rules, it would now have to demonstrate that there is a real, genuine and material impact on Northern Ireland’s trade with the EU. That is a much higher threshold than in the protocol, limiting disputes to what the 2021 Command Paper called

“subsidies on a significant scale relating directly to Northern Ireland”.

We have also protected the special status of agriculture and fisheries subsidies in Northern Ireland, which will be completely outside the EU’s common agricultural policy. All that means that the problem of reach-back is fixed.

As well as tax and spend, the UK Government have a responsibility to protect the supply of medicines to all its citizens, but our ability to do that was constrained by the protocol. The biggest problem is that drugs approved for use by the UK’s medicines regulator are not automatically available in Northern Ireland. Imagine someone suffering with cancer in Belfast seeing a potentially life-changing new drug available everywhere else in the UK, but unable to access it at home. When the current grace period ends in 2024, the situation will get worse still: expensive and burdensome checks on all medicines; companies having to manufacture drugs with two completely different labels and supply chains; and pharmacies needing to check every package with complex scanners.

When 80% of Northern Ireland’s medicines come from Great Britain, those frictions pose a serious risk to the supply of medicines to the people of Northern Ireland. To fix that, today’s agreement achieves something unprecedented: it provides dual regulation for medicines. The UK’s regulator will approve all drugs for the whole UK market, including Northern Ireland, with no role for the European Medicines Agency. That fully protects the supply of medicines from Great Britain into Northern Ireland, and once again asserts the primacy of UK regulation. The same medicines, in the same packs, with the same labels, will be available in every pharmacy and hospital in the United Kingdom. Crucially, dual regulation means that Northern Ireland’s world-leading healthcare industry, which brings much-needed jobs and investment, can still trade with both the EU and UK markets. This is a landmark deal for patients in Northern Ireland. It is a permanent solution that brings peace of mind.

The protocol banned quintessentially British products going to Northern Ireland. When people wanted to import oak trees to mark Her late Majesty’s platinum jubilee, the protocol stood in their way. It suspended the historic trade in seed potatoes between Scotland and Northern Ireland. If implemented, it would create massive costs and bureaucracy for people travelling around the UK with their pets, disrupting family life and our family of nations. That is why today’s agreement will lift the ban on shrubs, plants and trees going to Northern Ireland. It will lift the ban on the movement of seed potatoes—particularly important for Scottish businesses. We will deliver that by expanding the existing UK plant passport scheme.

When it comes to pets, we have made sure that people from Northern Ireland will have completely free access to travel to Great Britain. A pet owner travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland just needs to make sure that their pet is microchipped and then they will simply need to tick a box when booking their travel. Whether it is lower VAT rates, lower beer duty, jubilee oaks in garden centres, seamless travel with pets, seamless trade in seed potatoes or the seamless supply of cutting-edge medicines, all that is now available for everyone, everywhere in the United Kingdom.

The Windsor framework goes further still, by safeguarding sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland and eliminating the democratic deficit. Fundamentally, the protocol meant that the EU could impose new laws on the people of Northern Ireland without their having a say. Some Members of this House, whose voices I deeply respect, say that EU laws should have no role whatsoever in Northern Ireland. I understand that view and I am sympathetic to it, but for as long as the people of Northern Ireland continue to support their businesses having privileged access to the EU market, and if we want to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland—as we all do—there will be some role for EU law. The question is: what is the absolute minimum amount necessary to avoid a hard border?

Today’s agreement scraps 1,700 pages of EU law. The amount of EU law that applies in Northern Ireland is less than 3%, and the people of Northern Ireland retain the right to reject that 3% through next year’s consent vote. However, that consent vote is about the whole protocol so it cannot, by its nature, provide oversight of individual new laws. It does not address the No. 1 challenge to sovereignty made by the protocol: the EU’s ability to impose new or amended goods laws on Northern Ireland without its having a say. To address that, today’s agreement introduces a new Stormont brake.

The Stormont brake does more than just give Northern Ireland a say over new EU laws; it means that it can block them. How will that work? The democratically elected Assembly can oppose new EU goods rules that would have significant and lasting effects on their everyday lives. It will do so on the same basis as the petition of concern mechanism in the Good Friday agreement, needing the support of 30 Members from at least two parties. If that happens, the UK Government will have a veto. We will work with the Northern Ireland Assembly and all parties to codify how the UK Government will use that veto.

Let me tell the House the full significance of that breakthrough. The Stormont brake gives the institutions of the Good Friday agreement a powerful new safeguard. It means that the United Kingdom can veto new EU laws if they are not supported by both communities in Northern Ireland. Yes, it is true that until now the EU had refused to consider treaty change; we were told that it was impossible, and that EU negotiators would never consider it. The Stormont brake has been introduced by fundamentally rewriting the treaty—specifically, the provisions relating to dynamic alignment. That is a permanent change and it ends the automatic ratchet of EU law. If the veto is used, the European courts can never overturn our decision.

The EU has also explicitly accepted an important principle in the political declaration. It is there in black and white that the treaty is subject to the Vienna convention. This means that, unequivocally, the legal basis for the Windsor framework is in international law. I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for his support in negotiating this point. It puts it beyond all doubt that we have now taken back control.

From the very start, we have listened closely and carefully to views on all sides of this debate. I am grateful to many Members of this House, the communities of Northern Ireland and the voices of business and civil society for putting forward their suggestions. I want particularly to thank the Northern Ireland business groups that I have spoken to. I hope in today’s agreement they recognise that we have addressed their concerns. We are delivering stability, certainty, simplicity, affordability and clarity, as well as strengthened representation for the businesses of Northern Ireland.

I also want to speak directly to the Unionist community. I understand and have listened to your frustrations and concerns, and I would not be standing here today if I did not believe that today’s agreement marks a turning point for the people of Northern Ireland. It is clearly in the interests of the people, and those of us who are passionate about the cause of Unionism, for power sharing to return.

Of course, parties will want to consider the agreement in detail, a process that will need time and care. There are, of course, many voices and perspectives within Northern Ireland, and it is the job of Government to respect them all, but I have kept the concerns raised by the elected representatives of Unionism at the forefront of my mind, because it is their concerns with the protocol that have been so pronounced.

What I can say is this: our goal has been to ensure the economic rights of the people of Northern Ireland under the Act of Union and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, placing them on an equal footing with the rest of the UK with respect to tax, trade and the availability of goods. We have worked to end the prospect of trade diversion, removed any sense of a border for UK internal trade, removed routine customs or checks for goods destined for Northern Ireland, removed thousands of pages of existing EU law and introduced a UK veto on dynamic alignment, through the Stormont brake. We have created a form of dual regulation where it works and is needed the most, in sectors like medicines and food retail. We have delivered unfettered access to the whole UK market for Northern Ireland’s businesses, and we will take further steps to avoid regulatory divergence in future. We have secured a clear EU commitment and process to manage future changes with a special goods body.

All of this means that Northern Ireland’s businesses have continued access to the EU market, as they requested. It means that we have protected the letter and the spirit of Northern Ireland’s constitutional guarantee in the Belfast agreement, with the Stormont brake creating an effective cross-community safeguard. There are two distinct economies on the island of Ireland, and that will remain the case. Today’s agreement puts it beyond all doubt that Northern Ireland’s place in the internal market and the United Kingdom is fully restored.

I want to conclude by directly addressing the question of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. As I and my predecessors always said, the Bill was only ever meant to be a last resort, meant for a world where we could not get negotiations going. As the Government said at the time of its introduction, our

“clear preference remains a negotiated solution”.

Now that we have persuaded the EU to rewrite fundamentally the treaty text of the protocol, we have a new and better option. The Windsor framework delivers a decisively better outcome than the Bill, achieving what people said could not be done and what the Bill does not offer. It permanently removes any sense of a border in the Irish sea. It gives us control over dynamic alignment, through the Stormont brake, beyond what the Bill promised. The Bill did not change a thing in international law, keeping the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and leaving us open to months—maybe years—of uncertainty, disruption and legal challenge. Today’s agreement makes binding legal changes to the treaty itself and is explicitly based on international law. Unlike the Bill, it is an agreement that provides certainty and stability and, crucially, can start delivering benefits almost immediately for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland.

Of course, the House would expect to be informed of the Government’s updated legal position on whether there is a lawful basis to proceed with the Bill, so I am publishing it today. It says that because we have achieved a new negotiated agreement, which preserves the balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the original and sound legal justification for the Bill has now fallen away. In other words, neither do we need the Bill nor do we have a credible basis to pursue it. We will therefore no longer proceed with the Bill, and the EU will no longer proceed with its legal actions against the UK. Instead, we will pursue the certainty of a new way forward with the Windsor framework.

Let me just remind the House of the full breadth and significance of what we have achieved today. We have achieved free-flowing trade, with a green lane for goods, no burdensome customs bureaucracy, no routine checks on trade, no paperwork whatsoever for Northern Irish goods moving into Great Britain and no border in the Irish sea. We have protected Northern Ireland’s place in the Union, with state aid reach-back fixed, the same tax rules applying everywhere, vet certificates for food lorries gone, the ban on British sausages gone, parcel paperwork gone, pet paperwork gone, garden centres now selling the same trees, supermarkets selling the same food and pharmacies selling the same medicines. We have safeguarded sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland, with the democratic deficit closed, the Vienna convention confirmed and thousands of pages of EU law scrapped. With the Stormont brake, we have safeguarded democracy and sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland.

That is the choice before us, Mr Speaker. Let us seize the opportunity of this moment—the certainty of an agreement that fixes the problems we face, commands broad support and consensus and offers us, at last, the freedom to move forward together. That is what the people of Northern Ireland deserve; that is what the Windsor framework delivers. As a Conservative, a Brexiteer and a Unionist, I believe passionately, with my head and my heart, that this is the right way forward—right for Northern Ireland, right for our United Kingdom. I commend it to this House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the briefing that I was given earlier this afternoon.

I would like to start by joining the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Betty Boothroyd. As Speaker of this House, she was at the forefront of a generation who smashed the glass ceiling for female politicians. She was an inspirational woman and a dedicated and devoted public servant who will be missed by all who knew her. My thoughts and the thoughts of the whole House are with her very many friends and family.

The Good Friday agreement and the peace and prosperity that it brought to Northern Ireland are among the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government, but we in the Labour party have always recognised that this achievement does not belong principally to us. It belongs to the people of Northern Ireland, who, over a quarter of a century, have overcome differences that once seemed insurmountable and have shown that they can work together to build a better future for themselves and for the generations to come.

I had the privilege of working for a number of years with the Police Service of Northern Ireland so that it could serve and represent both communities, but it is the police officers themselves who carried out that change. They helped to make the peace of the Good Friday agreement stick. I was deeply saddened by the shooting of DCI John Caldwell. Our thoughts and the thoughts of the whole House are with him, his family and his colleagues. DCI Caldwell’s shooting is a reminder that we must continue to strive for peace, and that we in the House must take our obligations under the Good Friday agreement and to the people of Northern Ireland as seriously as they do. It is in that spirit that I have made it clear for some time that if the Prime Minister were to get an agreement with the EU, and if that agreement were in the interest of this country and Northern Ireland, Labour would support it, and we will stick to our word. We will not snipe, we will not seek to play political games, and when the Prime Minister puts this deal forward for a vote, Labour will support it and vote for it.

The protocol will never be perfect—it is a compromise—but I have always been clear about the fact that if implemented correctly, it is an agreement that can work in the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. Now that it has been agreed, we all have an obligation to make it work. The moral core of the Good Friday agreement is simple. All people of Northern Ireland have the right to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British or both, and freely participating in the economic life of the UK or the Republic of Ireland is an essential part of that. That is why it is good that the deal before us will see fewer unnecessary checks on goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The red and green lanes proposal is a good one. It will make life easier for business, and it will enable the people of Northern Ireland to participate more freely in the economic life of the UK. It has our full support. The protocol will continue to ensure that there is no physical border on the island of Ireland. That is essential because, as we all know, any physical border would be a source of tension—a physical manifestation of new barriers between communities in Northern Ireland and the economic life in the Republic.

This agreement will allow us to move forward as a country, rather than being locked in endless disputes with our allies. It will improve our diplomatic standing, which has been damaged by the Government’s previous threats to break international law. I am encouraged that the Democratic Unionist party has said it will look carefully at the measures it contains. However, we must be honest: this comes with trade-offs. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) told the people of Northern Ireland that his protocol meant no forms, no checks, no barriers of any kind on goods crossing the Irish sea after Brexit. That was absolute nonsense. It was a point-blank refusal to engage with Unionists in Northern Ireland in good faith, let alone take their concerns seriously, and it inevitably contributed to the collapse of power sharing in Northern Ireland. I have to say that as the Prime Minister listed all the problems with the protocol, I did rather wonder whether he had forgotten who had negotiated it.

I urge the Prime Minister, when presenting what this agreement will mean in practice—and it will take time for everyone to read it and carefully consider it—to be utterly unlike his predecessor. I say to him, “Do not pretend that the deal is something it is not. Where there are trade-offs to be made, argue the case for them. Treat Unionists with the respect of frank honesty, not the contempt of bluster.”

In this year of the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, we must once again embrace compromise and put division behind us. This deal is not perfect, but because we recognise that the UK agreed to the protocol and has an obligation to make it work, because we recognise that for the protocol to work there will inevitably be trade-offs, and because we always recognise that peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland are hard won, Labour will support the Windsor framework. I hope that in the coming days others will come to support the agreement in the same spirit, and will join Labour in voting to make the protocol work, in voting to face the future, and in voting for country before party.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his comments and his support. I agree with the substance of what he has said. I would just say to him that at this moment in time, the right thing for all of us to do is not to look back, but to look forward to the brighter future that we can see for Northern Ireland.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked of trade-offs, but I would talk of balance, and the delicate balance inherent in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is important that we respect the aspirations and identities of all communities. That is what the protocol had unbalanced, and that is what the Windsor framework restores. I do believe, hand on heart, that the changes we have achieved and the framework we now have in place will enable balance to be restored to the people of Northern Ireland. This framework puts them in control of their destiny, it secures their place in the Union and it safeguards their sovereignty, and on that basis I hope we can look forward to a brighter future for everyone in Northern Ireland.

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

Let me first associate myself with the remarks made by both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition about Baroness Boothroyd—an outstanding Speaker—and about DCI John Caldwell.

The Northern Ireland protocol, negotiated and signed by the Government in December 2019, adopted the European Union’s preferred proposal of a border down the Irish sea. I congratulate my right hon. Friend, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Foreign Secretary and all their teams, on all the work they have done to achieve this negotiated settlement, which will make a huge difference. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best move now is for everyone, across the House, to support the settlement, because that is in the best interests of all the people of Northern Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend, and join her in paying tribute to the Northern Ireland and Foreign Secretaries. They deserve enormous credit for the framework that we have achieved today. I also pay tribute to her for all her work on this topic over the years. She has kept safeguarding the Union at the top of her mind throughout, and I agree with her: what should be at the top of all our minds at this moment are the people of Northern Ireland and what is in their interests. I hope that when people have the time and space to consider the Windsor framework, they will see that this is the best way in which to move forward and build that better future in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson—sorry, leader.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I think I am the group leader, but I will take “spokesperson” as well.

Glass ceilings are there to be broken. Betty Boothroyd did not just break a glass ceiling; she shattered that glass ceiling. In that regard, she has my utmost respect, and my thoughts and condolences are with her family members. My thoughts are also with the police officer in Northern Ireland who was so tragically and appallingly shot in recent days, and I join Members on both sides of the House in saying that I sincerely hope he is able to make a recovery.

Let me turn to the agreement reached today. One would be forgiven for thinking, on the basis of what the Prime Minister has said—in the Chamber and, indeed, earlier today—that this had absolutely nothing to do with him: that all those problems were nothing to do with the Conservative party or with him as a Government Minister. So what happened a couple of years ago? Were they simply being opportunistic when they put this in place? Were they incompetent when they put this in place? Or were they simply duped into believing that something was oven-ready when it clearly was not? I have no doubt that the public will draw their own conclusions.

Broadly speaking, however, I am fully supportive of the agreement, for three simple reasons—three simple and interwoven reasons. It seeks to safeguard peace in Northern Ireland, something that we all know is incredibly important; it seeks to protect the Good Friday agreement, which I think everyone in the Chamber would agree is incredibly important; and, of course, it seeks to provide a pathway back to the ability of the democratic institutions in Northern Ireland to sit. It is not for me to pontificate about democracy in Northern Ireland, but I sincerely hope that those parties involved will be able to come to an agreeable conclusion, and I know that the Prime Minister shares my view in that regard.

But while all of that is good, we cannot and should not forget the damage that has been done by leaving the European Union. Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster —[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not have to believe me; what they should do is read the reports of the Office for Budget Responsibility, which outlined that there would be a 4% hit to GDP as a result of Brexit. Or perhaps they should reflect on the fact that the trade deficit between the UK and the EU is at its highest level on record. Perhaps they could listen to the private sector and to those businesses that are unable to trade, unable to get the workforce they require and unable to get the goods they need. Or perhaps they could listen to the public sector, which is facing severe problems as well, many of which are driven by workforce shortages. Indeed, many of problems that face all our NHSs across these isles come from the fact that we have significant staff shortages in social care. Each and every one of those points is a result of the disaster that has been leaving the European Union, and I find it astonishing that we have a situation where the leader of the Labour party and the leader of the Conservative party are hand in glove when it comes to their position on Brexit.

Finally, we have heard the Prime Minister speak at length about the integrity of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it was reflected upon by the Leader of the Opposition as well. There might be a scintilla of truth in that argument, but what this deal does not do is create parity for the nations of these isles. I see the Northern Ireland Minister sitting there; he was very positive about this in an interview earlier on. This deal means that businesses in Northern Ireland have access to the single market, whereas businesses in Scotland do not. I do not begrudge that to the people and businesses of Northern Ireland, but I regret that Scotland does not have those same opportunities. On that point, can the Prime Minister clarify why Scotland is at a significant disadvantage in that regard on his watch? Does he not agree that the only way for Scotland to have access to the single market and the customs union, and the only way for Scotland to rejoin the European Union, is to rid itself of Westminster?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the new agreement that we struck today, the Windsor framework, and in particular for his acknowledgement of the sovereignty that it provides for the people of Northern Ireland to have a say in their own destiny. That is something that was asked for and something that has been delivered. He is also right to say that it is not for any of us to opine, and we will give the parties and communities in Northern Ireland the space and time they need to consider the detail of the Windsor framework. More broadly, without engaging in the broader debate that he raises, I am a passionate Unionist. I will always believe that our Union is stronger when we are together, and that Scotland, alongside Northern Ireland and Wales, will always be part of what makes this country great. We will fight, day in and day out, to protect that Union.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the Father of the House for his support and his observations. He is right about the agreement that we have struck. It resolves the problems that we know about, but it also puts in place structures and mechanisms to resolve anything else that might come down the line, because it is important that there is close dialogue not just with the European Union but with communities and businesses in Northern Ireland. That is something that they have asked for, and as a result of this agreement, they will have new engagement and new ways to make their voices heard, so that we can continue to make sure that we do the best for them and their communities in Northern Ireland.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

On behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, I should like to add our voice in tribute to the late Betty Boothroyd, who was my first Speaker and a wonderful woman who brought so much to this House. I also want to add our sympathy to the family of DCI Caldwell. He continues to be in our prayers. I was pleased to stand with the other leaders and with the Chief Constable in Belfast on Friday and to be clear that the people who perpetrated this evil have no place in the future of Northern Ireland.

I believe that our judgment and principled position in opposing the protocol in Parliament and at Stormont have been vindicated. Undoubtedly, it is now recognised that the protocol does not work. When others said that there could be no renegotiation and no change, it was our determination that proved what could be achieved. I would like to thank the Prime Minister and his predecessors for their work and engagement to date on this issue. In broad terms, it is clear that significant progress has been secured across a number of areas, but we also recognise that there remain key issues of concern. For example, there can be no disguising the fact that in some sectors of our economy in Northern Ireland, EU law remains applicable in our part of the United Kingdom.

My party will want to study the detail of what has been published today as well as examining the legal text, the political declaration and the Government’s Command Paper. Where necessary, we stand ready to engage with the Government in order to seek further clarification, reworking or change as required. My party will now assess all the proposed outcomes and arrangements against our seven tests, outlined in our 2022 Assembly election manifesto, to determine whether what has been published meets those tests and whether it respects and restores Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom.

In this regard, I agree with the Prime Minister that the issue of sovereignty is crucial. Article 6 of the Act of Union—the very basis of the Union itself, the economic union of the United Kingdom—was seriously undermined by the Northern Ireland protocol and its implementation, and that needs to be resolved. Some £65 billion of the £77 billion of goods manufactured in Northern Ireland are sold within the United Kingdom: we sell the overwhelming majority of what we produce within our own internal market. I want an assurance from the Prime Minister that not just now but in the future the Government of the United Kingdom will protect Northern Ireland’s place within that internal market and not allow the application of EU law to put barriers in the way of our ability to trade with the rest of our own country.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

First, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the constructive engagement that I have had with him and members of his team over recent time? As I said earlier, I have tried hard to listen, in particular to the concerns of the elected representatives of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland, because I know that it is they who have had the most concerns over the protocol. At the forefront of my mind throughout all the negotiations has been resolving the issues that those communities are grappling with, which they have raised with me and the Government. I believe very strongly that the Windsor framework does resolve those issues, but I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman and his party, and other Unionist communities, will want to take the time to consider the detail. I respect that, and we will give them the time and space to consider that and stand ready to answer any questions and provide any clarifications.

I also can tell the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to the objectives that he and others have set out, that I believe the Windsor framework will ensure the free flow of trade within our United Kingdom internal market, including unfettered access for Northern Ireland producers to the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe it secures Northern Ireland’s place in the Union and makes sure that citizens and businesses can benefit in the same way everywhere across the United Kingdom.

Lastly, as the right hon. Gentleman has rightly highlighted to me on previous occasions, it ensures and safeguards sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland so that they are in control of their destiny. I believe what we have achieved today provides a basis for the parties in Northern Ireland to consider the detail and hopefully move forward so that together we can build a better future for Northern Ireland. I look forward to doing that with him.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues have strained every sinew these last weeks and months to arrive at today’s position. They are to be congratulated. The agreement demonstrates that, when committed minds do politics seriously, serious and beneficial outcomes can be delivered for the benefit of all in our country.

While agreeing entirely with my right hon. Friend that the parties, particularly those in Northern Ireland, need the time and space to study the detail and to work out all the implications for those in Northern Ireland, Northern Irish business wants and the good people of Northern Ireland most certainly deserve quick certainty. If there are to be votes in this place on any element of the Windsor framework, as announced today, will he commit to ensuring they take place speedily in order to ensure certainty and peace of mind for all who either live in Northern Ireland or who wish Northern Ireland well?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend knows this subject well, and he is rightly passionate about it. I thank him for all the valuable work that he and his colleagues have done over the years as we considered and concluded these negotiations.

As I said earlier, Parliament will of course have its say and there will be a vote, but we need to do that at the appropriate time in order to give people the time and space to consider the detail. My hon. Friend makes an important point that the benefit of this framework and agreement is that it can start to provide that certainty and those benefits to the people and communities of Northern Ireland very soon. That is why we have concluded these negotiations and want to start delivering the benefits for people on the ground as quickly as we can.

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

I join others in paying tribute to our late, great Speaker, Betty Boothroyd. Like me, Mr Speaker, I am sure you remember with fondness when you caught Speaker Boothroyd’s eye and when she brought you to order.

I also send my party’s thoughts and prayers to DCI John Caldwell and his family and thank him for his courage and bravery.

Like others, the Liberal Democrats will now closely study this deal, but I welcome the spirit of partnership and compromise between the UK Government and the European Union in the formation of the Windsor agreement. What consultation will the Prime Minister now undertake with all of Northern Ireland’s political parties, including the Alliance party, on the Stormont brake? Can he reassure us that the operation of the Stormont brake will not undermine the economic stability and certainty or the political stability so desperately needed in Northern Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that we will continue to engage with all parties and communities in Northern Ireland—that is the right way to proceed—particularly with regard to the operation of the brake. That is set out in the Command Paper, and we look forward to discussing it, and how to codify it, with the Executive, the Assembly and the political parties as we move forward. That is something we are very happy to do.

Just so the right hon. Gentleman is clear, the Stormont brake is based on an existing Good Friday agreement mechanism. The petition of concern mechanism is well established in Northern Ireland as a cross-community safeguard, which is why we have chosen it as the appropriate mechanism for this particular purpose. As I say, we will continue to engage with all parties to make sure we get it absolutely right.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I join the tributes to John Caldwell, who was shot in front of his son while loading footballs into his car after training kids at a football match in Omagh last week.

I welcome the Windsor agreement and the Windsor framework, and I believe today marks a critical moment in ending three years of instability that has affected communities throughout this most fragile part of our country. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and his team for all they have done to secure this. Does he agree that we now need to give the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and all the other Northern Ireland parties the time, space and encouragement to restore power sharing and to ensure that political decision-making in Northern Ireland can start as soon as possible?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my constituency neighbour not just for the job he did as Northern Ireland Secretary but for his continued passion and devotion to the people of Northern Ireland. I also thank him personally for the support and advice he has given to me in helping us reach the framework today. I wholeheartedly agree with him, and I hope we can move forward with time and space to build a better future for the people of Northern Ireland. I know that is what he wants to see, and I join him in wanting to see it. We stand ready to work with everyone to bring about that outcome.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate the negotiators on this very significant achievement. I also congratulate the Prime Minister on his statement, in which he was so frank about the manifest failings of the original Northern Ireland protocol negotiated and signed by his predecessor, which made today’s deal so necessary. Does he agree that the European Union has moved a long way in these negotiations? And does he agree that everyone in this House looks forward, as soon as possible, to the restoration of power sharing in Northern Ireland, because that is in the best interests of the people of that part of our United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that we have had constructive and good negotiations with the European Union, and I pay tribute to President Ursula von der Leyen for the leadership and vision she has demonstrated in trying to find a way through to help us resolve these issues. She and her team deserve enormous credit for displaying that vision, leadership and creativity. I wholeheartedly agree that the people of Northern Ireland need and deserve their institutions to be up and running. I think that is something on which all of us in this House agree, and we all want to see it happen as soon as practically possible.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I start by unreservedly congratulating my right hon. Friend on what seems to be a spectacular negotiating success. With the Windsor framework, he has succeeded in delivering a deal that eliminates the issues of the Irish sea border and addresses the practical issues in Northern Ireland on food, pets, plants, parcels, medicine regulations and tax rules. Above all, it introduces the extraordinary mechanism of the Stormont brake. I am unaware of any such mechanism in any international agreement, and it seems to me to be a brilliant piece of negotiating insight and imagination. As we do not all know the detail, can he explain to the House exactly how this mechanism will work and what its limitations will be?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his warm words, which mean a lot coming from a Brexiteer with such long-standing credentials. As someone who has done the job, he knows how difficult these things are, so it means a lot to me and the Government to have his support, for which I thank him.

The brake will work on the basis of the petition of concern mechanism. That mechanism is part of the Good Friday agreement institutional framework, which is why we believe it is the right cross-community safeguard to use. It will be applied to the goods rules in annex 2 of the protocol that were the main cause of concern. It is there for those rules that cause significant and lasting damage and change to the everyday lives of ordinary people in Northern Ireland. Once the emergency brake is pulled, it will give the UK Government a veto. It is a very powerful cross-community safeguard that ensures sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland, and it is part of why this agreement is the right one for the people of Northern Ireland.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I associate myself with the remarks about Betty Boothroyd, and I join colleagues, particularly my colleagues from Northern Ireland, in sending our love and support to the Caldwell family and every single PSNI officer in uniform today standing up for our peace and democracy.

Although we have some concerns, particularly on the Stormont brake—we will study the detail of this as we go—we are happy that things seem to have moved today. There has been an awful lot of talk, particularly today and in recent months, about the concerns of the DUP and the Unionist community. It is important to remember that the majority of people in Northern Ireland opposed Brexit and want to see the benefits of dual market access properly utilised. Does the Prime Minister agree it is important that his Government now support that dual market access and promote it to international investors?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his engagement with the Secretary of State and myself in recent weeks. He is right: there is a balance to be struck, and the Good Friday agreement is about respecting that balance—it is about the aspirations and identities of all communities in Northern Ireland. That is what we have sought to achieve with the Windsor framework. As I outlined, something we have heard loud and clear from businesses in Northern Ireland is that they value their access to the single market and they value, as all of us do, not having a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. That is something we have had to bear in mind as we considered these negotiations, but I believe we have struck the right balance and the framework means that this agreement can command the support and consent of communities right across the spectrum in Northern Ireland. I look forward to working with him and his party to deliver it.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

May I, too, send my best wishes to, and align myself with the comments of others about, detective chief inspector John Caldwell? What happened is a stark reminder of the courageous and special work that all PSNI officers do every day that they are working, to keep all people in Northern Ireland safe. We owe them all a great debt for that work.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and my Front-Bench colleagues on the phenomenal focus they are putting on ensuring that we can secure a deal that, as I know we all hope, can restore power sharing in Stormont. Getting back to having good governance in Northern Ireland by elected representatives in Northern Ireland is key for people there.

Another key area for the citizens of Northern Ireland is access to goods, as my right hon. Friend has rightly outlined. Will he confirm for the House that in this deal we will be able to secure the free flow of trade not only for Northern Ireland businesses into Great Britain, but for Great British businesses into Northern Ireland? Regulations were preventing some goods from moving, and it is great to know that the Great Yarmouth banger will be able to get back on the supermarket shelves, where required, in Northern Ireland. However, for many businesses it was the administrative burden of moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, not just the regulatory one, that needed to be removed in order to allow them to see this as an economic benefit and therefore protect the structural integrity of the UK internal market.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend and pay tribute to him for the work he did on this topic in his role as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It was invaluable in paving the way for my colleagues and I to take forward that work and bring it to a successful conclusion today. He is right to highlight the administrative burden of moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. I am confident that with the new green lane, based on using existing ordinary commercial data and data sharing, in place of the bureaucratic customs arrangements that were there hitherto, we have taken an enormous step forward. It delivers what businesses have asked for. We have worked closely with the business community in Northern Ireland to deliver it, and I am confident that as they study the detail, they will see that it provides that smooth flow of their goods around the United Kingdom, as it should be, and ensures Northern Ireland’s place in our UK internal market.

[Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that the document contains a number of references to the need for “cross-community support”, and the Prime Minister has repeated that phrase a number of times in his statement and in responses. He will be aware that over the past 25 years one significant development has been the number of people who identify themselves as Northern Irish, as distinct from either British or Irish. Will he give the House some indication of how he is going to gauge the opinion of that 20% of the population who identify themselves in that way but might not necessarily be represented by a political party?

[The Prime Minister]

My approach, and indeed that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is to engage with all communities, all parties and all business groups in Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland is about balance. It is about respecting the delicate balance that exists in Northern Ireland—that was at the heart of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. As I think the right hon. Gentleman has seen, we have gone out of our way to talk to and listen to everybody, respecting, of course, the particular concerns of the Unionist community. But this framework, this agreement, I believe gets that balance right. It respects the aspirations and identities of all communities in Northern Ireland, which is why I believe it is the right way forward.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will know that, as ever, the devil lies in the detail of the papers that have been published this afternoon. May I seek his assurance that the Government will respond to the democratically correct questions that naturally arise on the substance and procedures involved? In particular, I am thinking about the making of EU laws and the European Court; the Joint Committee and its procedures; and the Stormont brake, not to mention the whole context of sovereignty in this entire process under section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020? Would he also be good enough to indicate how long a timeline he is proposing for the questions and answers that will be required, and how long that might take?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for the engagement he has had, with me in particular, and the advice he has provided. Section 38 of that Act was a testament to him, and it reasserts the sovereignty of this Parliament in matters of international law and he was right to do that. I hope we can strengthen that provision as we consider how best to make sure we protect the Act of Union and Northern Ireland’s place in it. As for questions, I am happy to move as quickly as he is able to provide the questions for me and I look forward to engaging in that dialogue with him.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

My party can give a broad welcome to this agreement. There are some positives in it that address a range of challenges that have been clear for some time. However, for us, the key test is the preservation of Northern Ireland’s dual market access. In that regard, my party has massive concerns about this potential Stormont brake. Does the Prime Minister understand that there are real dangers that this process could add more instability into the Assembly, and may I stress to him that the petition of concern is controversial, given its abuse in the past? This also creates uncertainty for businesses regarding ongoing single market rules, particularly with a view to investment into Northern Ireland. So will he meet our party to discuss this in more detail in order to clarify what is potentially being proposed?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the engagement that he and his colleagues have had with me and the Secretary of State in recent weeks, which has been helpful. Of course, I can assure him that I look forward to talking to him again very soon to explain the Windsor framework in detail. He makes a good point: many people, communities and business in Northern Ireland value their access to the European Union single market and rightly value not having a hard border on the island of Ireland. We have strived to protect that in this agreement while ensuring Northern Ireland’s place in our Union and protecting and safeguarding its sovereignty. I believe that the Windsor framework does get that balance right and I look forward to having that conversation with him.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

Let me say at the outset that our thoughts and prayers are with the police officer who was attacked by people calling themselves the “New IRA”. There is nothing new about people who are callous murderers or attempted murderers; these people are still the IRA and they always will be, as they were in the days when I served in the Province.

I congratulate the Prime Minister on negotiating this excellent agreement. Part of the reason why the EU has moved was perhaps the threat of the Bill coming through this House. Clearly, the EU has woken up and smelt the coffee, realising how bad this was going to be for it and for the Republic of Ireland. Does he think that was part of the reason why he got such an excellent deal with the EU?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that the Bill did create the conditions for us to have the negotiation that we did, but, as the Government were clear about and said at the time, our preference was always a negotiated outcome if one was available. Today, we have achieved a negotiated outcome that provides the certainty and stability that we need, and resolves the issues we set out to resolve. It safeguards Northern Ireland’s sovereignty, protects its place in the Union, and guarantees and provides for the free flow of trade around the UK internal market. It is because we now have the Windsor framework, this new agreement, that we no longer need the Bill and we will no longer proceed with it. This agreement can start bringing benefit to the people of Northern Ireland as quickly as possible.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

As chair of the all-party group on Ireland and the Irish in Britain, I believe that, over the past few years, the state of the relationship between London and Dublin has been of great concern to many of us and to the hundreds of workers in this place who are Irish or of Irish origin. We need to look to the future and to learn from what we see. The Prime Minister talks about the Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions. That includes strands 2 and 3, which, if fully implemented, offer us great potential to embed some of this agreement and to look to the future. Will he now commit his party—other Members here can join in—to making sure that the operations of strands 2 and 3 and our co-operation with the Irish Government go forward in a much better way?

[The Prime Minister]

The Government are committed to all strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I have talked a lot about balance and about making sure that we get that balance right. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), for the incredible job that they have done not just with the agreement, but, in particular, in addressing the issue that the hon. Lady has just raised. I also wish to put on record my thanks to the Irish Government for the role they have played and the support they have provided us throughout this process. We look forward to continued, positive and constructive dialogue with them. That is what my colleagues and I will do as we make sure that we capitalise on all strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Northern Ireland has a precious and integral place in the United Kingdom. It certainly seems to me, reflecting back over the past five years, that if this deal had been on the table at any point in that time, those of us who are Brexiteers, those of us who are remainers and those of us who are Unionists would have jumped on it. I heartily congratulate the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State on their excellent work and negotiation. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that, in his view, this Windsor agreement now fully restores the Act of Union and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend particularly for her support given her long-standing credentials in this area and the passion with which she believes in our Union. I am grateful to have her support. I can give her that assurance: this absolutely does meet the requirements and is consistent with the Act of Union and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We have worked very hard to get to an outcome that does, and I am really pleased that the Windsor framework delivers for her and for everyone else in Northern Ireland.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the 18-minute confession that the Prime Minister undertook about the damage that the protocol, which his Government signed, has done to Northern Ireland. May I remind him that, although he talks about 1,700 pages of EU law being removed from Northern Ireland, hundreds of thousands of pages will still remain? Border posts are still being planned, and the Prime Minister has admitted that future EU laws will apply to Northern Ireland unless, under paragraph 52, his Government decide not to proceed with law changes for the United Kingdom as a whole, or he vetoes EU proposals in a Joint Committee. Can he understand why we do not have confidence in that and why we still fear that our position within the United Kingdom will not be restored by this agreement?

[The Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows well, the border posts are there to deal with checks in the red lane. That was something that was always envisaged. It is something that we always said that we would do. It is right that people should not be able to try to smuggle goods into the Republic of Ireland via Northern Ireland. That is why those posts, those inspection facilities, are there. The investment in them is to make sure that we can do those checks properly, as we assured the European Union that we would do. Part of having a functioning green lane is having enforcement of the red lane.

To his broader point about EU law, less than 3% of EU law applies in Northern Ireland. It applies with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. As he knows, the consent vote next year allows them to remove all of those laws and to have a new approach, but it is there because, as we have heard, there is a balance to be struck, and Northern Ireland’s communities and businesses value not having a border on the island of Ireland. They value their access to the single market. We are in a position where we have the minimum amount of law required to fulfil that purpose. I believe sovereignty is important. I believe that those laws and the new ones that come through should come through only with the consent and oversight of the people of Northern Ireland. That is why the Stormont brake is so powerful: it puts power in the hands of the Assembly, of him and his colleagues, to decide what is best for Northern Ireland. That is what sovereignty means to me. It means giving Stormont the ability to say no, and I hope that he will give this framework the time and consideration that it deserves.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for publishing both the White Paper and the legal text on the same day, which will materially assist the whole House. As a former Chancellor, he knows well that, on Budget day, the Government put a good gloss on whatever they are putting to the public. We then have to read through the Red Book to check on the fine detail. He has worked very hard on this agreement, so can he assure me and the whole House that when we go through the Red Book—or, in this instance, the detailed legal text—we will not find any nasty surprises that will materially undermine the position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. I am pleased that we were able to publish all the documentation. I know that that was important not just to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), but to other colleagues as well. It is the right thing to do and, as I have said, I wish to give everybody the time and the space to consider the detail of the Windsor framework. I believe that it meets the objectives that we set out to achieve: it provides for the free flow of goods within the United Kingdom; it ensures Northern Ireland’s place in our Union; and it safeguards sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland. I look forward to engaging with him and his colleagues over the coming days to answer his questions and provide any clarifications. I am confident that, when he goes through the detail, he will see that this is a good agreement. It is the right agreement for Northern Ireland and for the people of Northern Ireland, and it is a way for our United Kingdom to move forward together.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I associate myself with the comments and sentiments that have been expressed to the families of Betty Boothroyd and DCI Caldwell?

The people of Northern Ireland have been through so much. This is a welcome opportunity to make progress, but, as the Prime Minister no doubt knows, clearing up the mess that other people make can be a never-ending job. The House of Lords is currently debating a Bill that will delete more than 60 areas of regulation that are not covered by the protocol. That is a process that the EU has already said will start a trade war if it goes through and that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission says undermines the Good Friday agreement. It covers issues such as electrical safety, food standards and farming standards. In order to support what he has presented to the House today, will the Prime Minister confirm that all remaining retained EU legislation will be retained in Northern Ireland itself, using the powers that he has and that Stormont currently cannot exercise? If he does not, how can anybody have confidence that we will avoid the regulatory divergence and that trade war which could undermine everything he has presented today?

[The Prime Minister]

The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill is passing separately to these arrangements, but these arrangements provide for the appropriate sovereignty in Northern Ireland for the Stormont Assembly to have that say. It is more than a say; it is an ability for the Assembly to block new EU goods laws as they come down the pipe if Assembly Members are not happy with them. As the hon. Lady will see in the Command Paper, we have also committed to a range of other things to ensure that we protect against trade and regulatory divergence, including dialogue with businesses in Northern Ireland and also with the European Union. As she studies the detail, hopefully she will be reassured that we have protected properly against that.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

May I associate myself with my right hon. Friend’s comments on Betty Boothroyd, who was my first Speaker when I arrived here—she will be greatly missed—and also his comments on the brutal attack on DCI Caldwell?

I commend my right hon. Friend and his team for their diligence and hard work in pursuing this matter regardless of the obstacles that lie in their way, including the reluctance of the EU to admit anything about the problems that have been taking place. For me, having served in Northern Ireland and lost friends who never came back from Northern Ireland, the restoration of the Good Friday agreement is, at the end of the day, the No.1 item. However, when I was looking through the details, I noticed that the Stormont brake is not quite as defined as it might be. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could clear this up. One phrase says that it can be used only if there is

“significant impact specific to everyday life”.

Who makes that decision as to what is significant? Secondly, can the EU demand countermeasures if the brake is deployed?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and pay tribute to his service. I know that this is a topic that he rightly cares about.

I am happy to clarify. It is for us to make the determination whether the threshold has been met. It is right that there is a threshold. The ability to block new law is a serious mechanism and it should not be used for trivial reasons. It should be used for those new laws that have a significant and lasting impact on the everyday lives of people in Northern Ireland. That is the right trigger, and it is one that we are in control of deciding. It is equally appropriate that if we do that, the EU will have the right to take appropriate countermeasures. That is there in black and white. Obviously, those have to be proportionate. I do not think that anyone could disagree with that. This is a very powerful mechanism, and I am pleased that we were able to reach resolution on it, because, as I have said, it ensures that we have restored sovereignty to the people of Northern Ireland.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

There is, of course, much to welcome in today’s statement, but I must press the Prime Minister on a specific point. In his statement, he casually mentioned the burdens on shipments between Holyhead and Dublin. He failed to mention that, pre-Brexit, about 30% of all trade through the port went on to Northern Ireland from Dublin. That trade is reorientating as we speak, in real time, aggravating the already devastating impact of Brexit on the port of Holyhead. Can the Prime Minister clarify whether this new agreement will guarantee seamless trade between Northern Ireland and Wales via Dublin? If not, will he recognise that green lanes will disadvantage Welsh ports?

[The Prime Minister]

This is about ensuring the free flow of goods within our United Kingdom; that is what the green lane is there to do. It was always going to be the case after we left the European Union that sending things to the European Union from the UK would be different. What this agreement is about is prioritising trade within the United Kingdom’s internal market, and the green lane that we have delivered through this framework does exactly that.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Who will decide which EU laws will apply in Northern Ireland, and on what basis will they make that decision?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Going forward, when the Executive are up and running, as I hope very much they will be, it will be for the Assembly in Northern Ireland to decide. For those goods rules in annex 2, which are the ones of most concern, the Stormont brake will apply. There will be a process of scrutiny and if 30 MLAs from two parties use the petition of concern mechanism to trigger the Stormont brake, that will allow the UK Government to veto the goods rules. That is why this is important: it will be the institutions of Northern Ireland that will get to make that decision.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

May I, too, add my sincere comments to those of others on the attempted murder of DCI Caldwell? He and his family are known personally to me. I thank the Prime Minister for his comments. I hope, in fact, that the Sovereign will make a statement about the attempted murder of a police officer in Northern Ireland. I think that would be appropriate and fitting.

The Prime Minister has quite rightly indicated that trade is important to all of our United Kingdom. Paragraph 47 of the framework focuses on veterinary medicine for all our animals. Our agrifood sector is huge. It feeds multiples of millions of people here in GB, but half of the product lines are at risk. Paragraph 47 states:

“As part of the agreement, we have put in place a grace period”,

but it will expire in less than a year and a half. Prime Minister, that is utterly useless for our agricultural sector. That will actually make it more difficult for our farm businesses. Also, if we move any livestock from County Antrim to Ayrshire and fail to sell them at the marts, we will have to leave them there for at least six months. That has not been addressed. If the Prime Minister were to move cattle from Yorkshire to Lancashire and was told that they would have to stay in Lancashire for six months, he would not be amused. Our farmers in Northern Ireland are not amused. It is our single largest trade. Will these issues be fixed, or is this a failed process already?

[The Prime Minister]

I join the hon. Gentleman in supporting our farmers, whether in Northern Ireland or, indeed, in Yorkshire. Actually, the agreement we have reached on veterinary medicines lasts three years, until the end of 2025, which provides us with the time and space to agree a more permanent solution with the European Union. As today’s framework demonstrates, we are more than capable of doing that, as we have resolved all the other issues that were in front of us.

I also point the hon. Gentleman to the solution that we have reached on human medicines, which I think everyone will agree are vital, where we have achieved a form of dual regulation, which ensures the full availability of medicines across the entire United Kingdom, with the UK regulatory authorities being the ones in charge. I think that that is what he should look to, alongside all the other things we have solved today, to have confidence that between now and three years’ time, in 2025, we will put a permanent footing for vet medicines on the table.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and commend him and his entire team on what they have achieved. He seems to have won some jaw-dropping concessions from the EU without giving anything in return.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that alongside the benefits that this agreement will bring for the people of Northern Ireland, it can form the basis of further co-operation with our EU friends on issues that will matter to the entire United Kingdom, including trade and investment, science and illegal migration?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his support and also for his invaluable advice over the past few weeks. I agree with him. He is right to highlight illegal migration in particular, as well as economic co-operation. That is a priority for this Government, as we have demonstrated. The Home Secretary is working with the French and that co-operation is yielding benefits. We continue to want to do more of that, and I know that he will support those efforts.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

I echo the words of solidarity from many across the House for the Caldwell family and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and the rejection of extremist throwbacks; the people of our region are sick and tired of them.

We all want simpler post-Brexit trading arrangements, so we sincerely welcome this progress and commend the Prime Minister on taking a much more constructive approach than his predecessors. I reiterate that there are many political outlooks in Northern Ireland and it is a fact that most people, most parties and most business representatives value our single market access, our high food standards and our 1998 agreement. So that we can maintain the huge opportunity of the protocol, will the Prime Minister commit his Government to championing loudly our unique dual market access, working to prevent vexatious use of the Stormont brake, and keeping a focus on restoration of the Stormont Executive, to allow those who genuinely believe in democracy and consensus to get back to serving the people they were elected to serve?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for her support and for the way in which she and her colleague the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) have engaged with me and the Secretary of State over recent weeks. We appreciate it and will continue to do it. She makes a really important point. Northern Ireland is in the unique position, not just in the United Kingdom but in the entire continent of Europe, of having privileged access to two markets. As we look forward, we all want to see greater prosperity and opportunity and more growth in Northern Ireland. We can build on this framework to deliver more investment and jobs. That is the prize available to us. I know that my colleagues are determined to work with all businesses and parties in Northern Ireland to deliver that, but the hon. Lady is right that the precondition for that is a functioning Executive, and we continue to work very hard to see that come about.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his whole negotiating team, whose quiet confidence and competence have led us to an agreement that, frankly, many people would not have thought possible? Will he say something specific about the role of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on the Joint Committee, which will be key to boosting transparency and accountability? In general terms, I hope that this new tendency to under-promise and over-deliver becomes the hallmark of the whole Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his support, which means a lot to me because the topic of Brexit is something that he has thought and done a lot about over the years. He is absolutely right. There was a fair feeling among communities, parties and businesses in Northern Ireland that there simply was not enough engagement and representation on how arrangements were being implemented on the ground. We have fixed that with today’s framework. There are a range of new structures and mechanisms for that engagement to take place, including for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to attend sessions of the Joint Committee that concern the Windsor framework and anything else in Northern Ireland. That is a positive step forward and ensures that we will be able to make this work on the ground. He is absolutely right to highlight it.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Whatever disagreements we all have, it is good to hear the Prime Minister today paying respect to the principles and the detail of the Good Friday agreement. On our membership of the European convention on human rights, which plays such a central role in that agreement, can he confirm that under his Government, we will not leave the ECHR?

[The Prime Minister]

The UK is and will remain a member of the ECHR. Today’s agreement is about the Belfast/Good Friday agreement—the hon. Lady was right to highlight it—and restoring the balance in that agreement. I am pleased that the Windsor framework restores that balance, and I thank her for her support.

[Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I associate myself with my right hon. Friend’s comments concerning Betty Boothroyd and DCI Caldwell—we all wish him a speedy recovery.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend, along with his entire negotiating team, on the massive strides that he has been able to make on this complex and difficult issue. I, for one, wish him well with this agreement. The Stormont brake is critical to the agreement. I am particularly pleased that it represents cross-party consensus. Leaving aside the current reasons why Stormont is not sitting, the Prime Minister will be aware that in the past, Stormont has not sat for other reasons used by one or other party. If that were to be the case in the future, is there a default mechanism if the Stormont brake cannot be exercised?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his support and for the advice that he has provided to me and the team. This is obviously an area that he knows well from his own experience, and we very much valued his input. The Stormont brake is there to be exercised by the Stormont institution. A precondition for its use is that the institution is up and running, and that is what everyone in this House wants to see. That is another good reason to get the institutions up and running: so that sovereignty can be restored to Northern Ireland. I look forward to discussing with the parties how the brake should work, but it is important that we get the institution up and running so that people in Northern Ireland have the representation that they need. The Windsor framework delivers that ability, but it is ultimately for the people and parties in Northern Ireland to take it forward.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman is my Prime Minister, so I say this with great respect: this is about more than just solar panels and sausages. It is crucial that the Windsor framework that he has referred to does not become the Windsor knot for us Unionists in Northern Ireland. Does he understand that any deal must include the cessation of European Court of Justice interference in UK sovereignty—in other words, the real power must lie with Westminster, not Brussels—the cessation of the state aid prohibition, and the cessation of customs protocols within the UK that are determined by Europe, and must respect the seven tests set by the DUP and supported by the majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland? The Prime Minister can strike no deal, ever, without bringing the majority of Unionists on board. Pushing another deal through this House without Unionist buy-in will offer no result other than another failed deal.

[The Prime Minister]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman takes the time to study the deal in detail, and that he will see, after he has done that, that it delivers against the objectives that I set out, because it means that we can have smoothly flowing trade within our UK internal market; it means that we have protected Northern Ireland’s place in the Union; and it means that we have restored and safeguarded sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland. I know that he shares those objectives; this agreement delivers them. I look forward to engaging with him and his colleagues as they study the detail, so that we can hopefully move forward together. I am confident that this is a good basis and a good agreement for the people of Northern Ireland.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend and the Government are to be warmly commended for their statecraft in achieving a significant deal with significant movement from the EU, which I think now understands the primacy of strand 1 of the Good Friday agreement—north-south—as well as strand 3, east-west. Does he agree that this framework now gives a clear basis in international law for the Government to press ahead in bringing forward some of the measures in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 that were clearly in conflict with the international law obligations under the old protocol?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes an excellent point. He will remember that the Government had to drop from the UKIM Bill certain provisions guaranteeing unfettered access for Northern Ireland producers into GB because they were in conflict with our international obligations under the protocol. I am pleased that today we can announce, as it states in the Command Paper, that we will legislate to put in statute unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s producers into Great Britain. That is something that the Windsor framework makes possible, and he is absolutely right to highlight it.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister is to be commended for tackling one aspect of the mess left behind by his predecessor but one, but of course, we should not forget that the Prime Minister himself, and most of his colleagues, voted for that mess.

It is important to be clear about the role of the European Court of Justice in this framework. EU President Ursula von der Leyen said this afternoon that the European Court of Justice will still have the “final say” on EU law and single market issues. That is correct, isn’t it?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, as a simple matter of fact, the European Court of Justice is the final arbiter on matters of EU law. That is what the President said; she is right. That is simply the legal fact of the case.

[Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)]

May I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s personal achievement—ably supported by the Foreign Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary—in securing this deal?

It is wholly wrong that the European Commission damaged scientific research by blocking the UK’s association with the Horizon and Copernicus programmes, and nuclear co-operation through Euratom, which have nothing whatever to do with the Northern Ireland protocol. Mrs Von der Leyen indicated earlier today that the EU had changed its mind and its position on this. Is that my right hon. Friend’s understanding? If so, scientists and engineers will welcome that. Will he implement a viable UK alternative should delays persist?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his support. He is right to highlight the many areas of co-operation that we can and should have with the European Union. Science and research is one, but illegal migration, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) brought up, is another, and there is a whole range of possibilities around energy security, climate change and others.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) is also right that we should always reserve the ability to have a UK alternative to Horizon. That is something that the Government said we would do, and I know that he has fed in about how best to do that. I look forward to having that dialogue with him.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I associate myself with the remarks about the death of Baroness Boothroyd, as well as about DCI John Caldwell, and his young son, who witnessed that horrific attack. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with them.

Much has already been said in this House about the Stormont brake and the power that it has. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Stormont brake not only has the ability to end dynamic alignment with EU law, but gives Unionists or anyone else the opportunity to meaningfully impact whether the legislation applies in Northern Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

That is exactly the point of the Stormont brake. It is based on the petition of concern mechanism—a Good Friday agreement institution—and requires 30 MLAs from two parties. If it is triggered, that provides the UK Government with a veto over that particular law. Obviously, as I have committed to, we will consult with parties in Northern Ireland and with the Assembly about how best to codify how the UK Government use that veto, but the hon. Lady can absolutely have that assurance.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

May I join others in paying tribute to Betty Boothroyd, who was a wonderful Speaker and was very popular in my area, which she lived nearby?

Does the Prime Minister agree that the UK-EU Partnership Parliamentary Assembly has been supportive of the negotiations? I know that our membership in this place, in the other place and in the European Parliament will be delighted with this outcome. On the legal side, does he agree that to have put the underpinning for the protocol in international law rather than in EU law is a big step forward, as are the dispute resolution changes with arbitration and that Northern Ireland courts will decide cases rather than anyone else?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his chairmanship of the partnership from our side. He and they do valuable work, and I have been grateful—as have the Secretaries of States—for their support during this process. He makes an excellent point: it is a significant development that the Vienna convention on the law of treaties is in the political declaration. It reaffirms the international basis for the treaty. I thank him for his support of that. He is absolutely right about the importance that we should attach to it.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

At the risk of adding to the sense of repetition this evening, let me say that this is all really good news—hurrah! I congratulate not only the Prime Minister but the Foreign Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary. I particularly single out the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who has shown that compromise may be costly but it pays enormous dividends. I am grateful to him and the whole team.

May I urge the Prime Minister to take up a suggestion made a few years ago by one of his predecessors, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who is not in her seat? At the beginning of triggering article 50, she said she wanted to have an EU-UK security treaty. Given many of the issues facing the whole continent at the moment, is this not precisely the time when we should look forward to such a treaty?

[The Prime Minister]

I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. He is absolutely right to shower praise on him. Not only has my hon. Friend been instrumental in providing the intellectual underpinning for many of the arrangements that we have adopted in the green lane, but his diplomacy—particularly with the Irish, but also with the parties in Northern Ireland—has proved invaluable in getting us to the point that we are at today, and I thank him for it.

More broadly, as we have heard previously, there are many areas of co-operation that we can have with our European friends and partners. Particularly over the last year, the co-operation with regards to Ukraine in terms of our security—whether it is sanctions policy or providing support—has been positive and invaluable. Hopefully that is something that we can build on.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

As a Member of this House who was born and raised in Omagh, may I send my love and prayers to DCI John Caldwell?

In my hand I have my Omagh school notebook from when I was six. The entry for Thursday 13 December that year says:

“Last night a bomb went off in the police barracks. Gillian’s house has no glass in her windows.”

I thank my right hon. Friend for the words he said about not looking back. We must move forward and put those things behind us. May I congratulate him on an extraordinarily bespoke deal that sorts out the practicalities but also preserves the Belfast/Good Friday agreement?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for her work but also for her comments just now, which were powerful and moving. She is right that we must look forward, and we will not let those who want to take us back be successful. Stability in Northern Ireland is important, and it is about the balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, as she knows better than many. We have strived very hard to restore that balance with the Windsor framework. I believe that it does that, and I look forward to working with her and colleagues from across the House so that we can look forward to a brighter future for everyone in Northern Ireland.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I thank the Prime Minister and colleagues right across the House for their care and concern for DCI John Caldwell and his family.

The Prime Minister knows that it is good to talk. He will recall that when we met in November last year, I acknowledged that he had good ideas around the friction in trade, but that I highlighted my concern around the democratic deficit and constitutional harm. Anyone who reads tittle-tattle on a Sunday—yesterday—may recall that I had similar concerns just 10 days ago. However, I genuinely acknowledge that on both constitutional harm and the democratic deficit, progress has been made.

Over the coming weeks and months, as we look to engage with our community and with communities and businesses throughout Northern Ireland to test, probe and tease out the tense aspects of the implementation of this framework agreement, I hope the Prime Minister will recognise that, for us, ratification is important. Does he recognise that, having had so many false dawns and failed starts over the last four or five years of political commitments from the Government side of the House, ratification will need to occur before we can take any final decisions?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and also for the engagement that he has had with me and the Secretary of State. It is good to talk. There has been plenty of that, and it has been extremely valuable in reaching today’s framework and agreement. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will give him and his colleagues and community the time and space to consider the detail, and that I will work with him to answer any questions that they have and to provide any clarifications that I can, so that we can, hopefully, move forward together. I believe that that is what he and the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want to do, but he is right, and I acknowledge the frustrations that they feel about what has gone before. I hope that today means that we can start a new chapter as we look forward and build a brighter future for Northern Ireland together, and I welcome doing that with the hon. Gentleman.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on an exceptional achievement, because we have resolved something that was difficult and we have done it in accordance with law. I am glad to see the Attorney General here, because the fact that we have acted in accordance with international law is immensely important.

Will the Prime Minister turn his mind to one other, small matter—Gibraltar? I am glad to see the Foreign Secretary here. If we can resolve the issues over Northern Ireland, we can now swiftly move, with his support, to resolve the few remaining issues over Gibraltar. A few adjustments and good sense are required so that it can get itself into a better position in terms of our relationships going forward.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his warm words of support and assure him that the Foreign Secretary, in particular, is intensely engaged with his counterparts in Spain to try to find a resolution on the issues that are outstanding. I also join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Attorney General for the support and advice that she has provided to us throughout this process. It has been invaluable. She and the previous Attorney General have done exceptional work on this tricky issue, and I am glad that my hon. Friend is pleased with today’s outcome.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Although I welcome the progress that has been made today, the years wasted by recent Governments in arguing with the Unionist parties instead of negotiating with them to bring about a deal mean that many communities in Northern Ireland have been ravaged by poverty, debt and the rise of paramilitary gangs preying on ordinary people who just want to live their lives. Will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring that the new protocol will begin to repair the damage that has been done and restore peace and prosperity for all communities in Northern Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

I do believe that the new arrangement we have made—the Windsor framework—provides the basis for peace, prosperity and stability in Northern Ireland. That is why I have brought it forward and why we have worked so hard on it. As we have done so, we have strived very hard to respect the identity and aspirations of all communities in Northern Ireland. Balance is at the heart of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The Windsor framework restores that balance and ensures that we can move forward positively together.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

In difficult negotiations, the late, great Ronald Reagan used to say, “Trust but verify,” which I took to mean, “Be optimistic but have a reserve plan.” It sounds as if the reserve plan here is the Stormont brake, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara) said, that might not apply if, for any reason, Stormont was not sitting. Is the Prime Minister satisfied that there is a plan B that would work under all circumstances?

[The Prime Minister]

This is incredibly important. What we should be focused on is Stormont being up and running. The people of Northern Ireland need and deserve their institutions to be functioning for them. I think it is entirely right that we have vested this power—this sovereignty—in the institution that represents them and do not exercise it on their behalf. Instead our priorities should be getting the institutions back up and running so that sovereignty is restored and the people of Northern Ireland are in control of their destiny.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

We welcome this, and I commend the achievement that helping mitigate the disaster has represented, but can I dig into the Stormont backstop? I am concerned that in fixing one problem, there is a recipe for further instability going forward. If the petition of concern is the model for what the Stormont backstop is going to be and, as we all admit, there are concerns about the petition of concern, what scope is there going to be for the Secretary of State, going forward, to rule on the—let us be blunt—reasonableness of any such petition? Then, when it gets to the joint committee, in what scenario can that joint committee overrule the petition? If the petition is, at either stage, seen to be politically or legally automatic, surely that cements more problems into this than we are solving tonight.

[The Prime Minister]

I just assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a well-defined process for the exercise of the Stormont brake. He is right: there should be, because it is a very serious step. It is a serious and powerful mechanism; it should not be exercised for trivial reasons. It is there to deal with new or amended laws that provide significant and lasting change and impact on the people and communities of Northern Ireland. That is a test that rightly should be met, and there is a defined process for how that has to happen, with consultation that rightly should take place. But ultimately, if that petition of concern mechanism is used—and again, I believe that is the right mechanism to use; it is a Good Friday agreement framework that provides for cross-community safeguards —then the UK Government will have a veto. I believe that as the hon. Gentleman engages with the detail of how that mechanism works, he will see that we have struck the right balance between having something very powerful, but making sure that there is a well-defined and appropriate process leading up to that point.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am not sure that our opinion on mainland Britain is vital in all this. It is a pretty obvious point, but it all depends on our colleagues in the DUP, because unless this exercise gets Stormont up and running, it is pretty futile—indeed, it might be downright dangerous. When the Prime Minister provides space for the DUP in the next few weeks, will he undertake that he will not just listen to their concerns, but if there is something that can get this over the line—a further clarification or a change—he will take that back to the Commission? I can assure him that many of his colleagues on the Government Benches are watching the DUP very carefully, and we will go where they go.

[The Prime Minister]

With the greatest respect, I would say to my right hon. Friend that this is also about the people of Northern Ireland. It is about the communities in Northern Ireland and the businesses in Northern Ireland. Whatever happens with the politics, those people will benefit from this agreement, because they are being impacted by the implementation of the protocol, and this framework ensures that we have resolved their concerns and the challenges that they face. They must be uppermost in our mind, and I hope very much that this framework does provide the basis for parties in Northern Ireland to move forward together positively to consider power sharing, as I hope they will look forward to doing. But this agreement, first and foremost, is about the people in Northern Ireland and the benefits that it will bring to them, and I hope that it will have my right hon. Friend’s support.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

This agreement is clearly welcome, but the Prime Minister must recognise that the Government’s approach prior to this point caused damaging uncertainty, put Britain’s reputation at risk, and undermined business confidence. He must want to do everything possible to make amends for that. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill continues to generate massive uncertainty with its regulatory cliff edge, so in this new spirit of renegotiating decisions and taking a more mature approach, will the Prime Minister also commit to reconsidering the Government’s approach on that issue?

[The Prime Minister]

No. It is that approach—talking about it in the hon. Lady’s terms—that creates the uncertainty. It is a perfectly reasonable thing for the United Kingdom to re-examine all the retained EU law that we inherited and decide which bits are for us to keep, which bits are worth scrapping, and which bits are worth amending. That is entirely the appropriate course of action for a sovereign nation, and in doing that, we can provide benefits to families, businesses and communities across the United Kingdom. That is what this Government will deliver.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Having spent two years at the Home Office working on the plans to implement the Northern Ireland protocol in full if it had been needed, there are some welcome aspects to this agreement, although there are of course other areas that will need to be studied in further detail. The green and red lanes are welcome. One thought that comes to mind is that there is an EU team based at Belfast port—in fact, that team is hosted in a Home Office facility, because it did not have anywhere of its own. What role does he see that team playing, because, as we are aware, there will inevitably be some attempts to abuse the green lane? Who would take the lead on the law enforcement approach to that, and decide whether that sort of action is taken, to ensure that this is about responding to genuine concerns and that it does not become a way, as we have seen at other borders with the EU, to put checks in place that we would feel were an undue burden?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point from his experience as a Home Office Minister. He is absolutely right that we need to enforce these lanes; that is the assurance that we have rightly provided, and that is why we have those facilities there. What I can say to him is that there are not any routine checks as goods move from GB to NI. Any checks that there are will be because we have reason to suspect smuggling or other criminality, based on intelligence or other risk analysis. That is why we will be intervening, but those checks will not be routine: they will be risk and intelligence based, to deal with exactly the problem that my hon. Friend has highlighted. If we are going to have a functioning green lane, it is right that we enforce that properly.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I join the tributes to the late Betty Boothroyd, and also to the outstanding bravery of DCI John Caldwell in Omagh last week.

When the Prime Minister was at the press conference with Madame von der Leyen this afternoon, he indicated that

“We all collectively share an ambition to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and that’s why there’s a role for EU law in Northern Ireland”.

This is the umpteenth time that this mistake has been made by successive Prime Ministers. There will not be any possibility of a so-called hard border, not because of mark 1 of the protocol or mark 2 of the protocol, but because of the 300-mile land border that has over 280 crossing points, making a hard border an impossibility. Does the Prime Minister agree with what I told him last week: just as years ago, the representatives of nationalism in Northern Ireland needed to be content with governance arrangements in Northern Ireland, equally now, the representatives of Unionism have to be content with governance arrangements going forward?

[The Prime Minister]

I would say to the hon. Gentleman that I have spent a lot of time, care and attention listening to, and engaging with, the concerns of Unionism in Northern Ireland—their concerns with the protocol—and they have been uppermost in my mind as we have gone through these deliberations. I have strived and tried my utmost to deliver against those objectives, and I believe that this framework does that.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the role of EU law. I would say to him, his colleagues, and everyone else that that is the reason why it is there, but ultimately, it is for the people of Northern Ireland to decide. He knows, as I do, that a consent vote will happen next year that provides approval for that set of arrangements, but I recognise that that is a blunt mechanism, an all-or-nothing mechanism, and it is right that we have greater sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland. The Stormont brake delivers that. It allows the Assembly—it allows 30 colleagues from two parties—to decide on the new EU laws, annex 2, that were put in the tests of his party. If those are laws that the hon. Gentleman feels are unacceptable, there will be an ability to block them, working with the UK Government. I think that is a powerful safeguard for Northern Ireland sovereignty. It is something that I hope he gives time and consideration to, and I look forward to engaging with him and his colleagues on it over the coming days and weeks.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

First, I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister about Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell and his family.

I congratulate the Prime Minister on the personal commitment he has made to this process, and in particular on being the first British Prime Minister in over a decade to attend the British-Irish Council, unlocking precious good will through that process. The diplomatic efforts that he and his team have made have been phenomenal. Will the Prime Minister ensure that, as we hopefully reap the fruits of this process through the restoration of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, he maintains that personal engagement in Northern Ireland affairs that is so crucial and continues to listen to the concerns of Northern Irish Unionists, to no detriment to the nationalist community?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Can I thank my hon. Friend for his support? It is an area that I know he knows well, and I can give him that assurance. We will continue to engage, as we have done, with all communities and parties in Northern Ireland. I have paid particular attention to the concerns of the Unionist community and their elected representatives from all parties in this process, because I believe that is the right thing to do. Ultimately, I can give him the assurance that I will continue to be personally involved, committed and engaged with this topic because I am Prime Minister for Great Britain and Northern Ireland—I am Prime Minister for the United Kingdom—and it is a responsibility I take incredibly seriously.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

If I understand the so-called Stormont brake correctly, is it not the case that the Northern Ireland Assembly will have more power over how EU single market rules apply in its territory than the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments have over how UK internal market rules apply in Wales and Scotland?

[The Prime Minister]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has recognised how powerful the Stormont brake is. It is absolutely right given the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland that it does have that sovereignty. It was missing. There was a democratic deficit, given the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, and I am glad that the Windsor framework and the Stormont brake eliminate that democratic deficit and restore the appropriate and right sovereignty to the people of Northern Ireland.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on the progress he has made on what is a very difficult issue. For clarification, can I ask him this? If there is a manufacturer in Northern Ireland whose products have no intention of being exported—they will remain in the internal market—does it obey UK standards, or does it have to obey EU standards?

[The Prime Minister]

It will depend on what the manufacturer is producing. For a large chunk of manufacturing goods, there are no international or EU standards; they are all produced to UK standards, whether that is clothing, furniture, bicycles, homewares and the like. The other 3,500 manufacturing goods standards are all international standards. Even though the standards may be named as EU, they are all the same as the ones we have in the UK, because that is what the EU and the UK committed to in the trade and co-operation agreement. If my hon. Friend looks at those 3,500 manufacturing standards, I think he will find that there are only 11 that are different between the EU and the UK. That is 0.3%. In most of those cases, the UK standards are higher, as it turns out, than the EU ones. This is a good framework and a good deal for manufacturing in Northern Ireland. I have spent time engaging with those businesses. They value their dual market access and they value unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom. They want the free flow of goods within the UK internal market. This framework delivers for them and it delivers for the businesses of Northern Ireland.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister gave a devastating critique of the Northern Ireland protocol, negotiated by his predecessor but one, who is conspicuously absent today. Clearly the Prime Minister was right, so this agreement is good news, but can I press him a little further on an earlier answer that he gave? Specifically, will he confirm that the agreement opens up the door to association with Horizon Europe, and will he actively seek it, recognising its importance to our universities and our research ambition as a country?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, research co-operation is one of the many areas where we continue to co-operate with the EU. Our focus today is on the Windsor framework to ensure that we can resolve the issues of the protocol and move forward for Northern Ireland. That will be our continued focus in the coming days to make sure that we can talk, explain and clarify this particular agreement, but of course, over time, there will be a range of other areas on which we can work with the EU, including energy security and research, but also illegal migration, and I look forward to all those conversations.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

South Leicestershire is home to one of the largest logistics parks in the whole of Europe. Will the Prime Minister reassure those businesses in South Leicestershire that trade across the UK, and specifically Northern Ireland, that his Windsor framework will allow for smoother trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The smooth flow of trade around our UK internal market is central to what this framework delivers. It builds on the proposals that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) put forward some years ago. I am pleased that we have been able to put those into practice in the delivery of our green lane, and I know that the cause of the Union is one that my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) cares passionately and rightly about, and I am pleased that this framework strengthens our Union.

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Before I start, I would like to pass on my thoughts and prayers to DCI Caldwell’s family at this time, as well as to the wider PSNI family, who I know are fearful of what might happen. I do not put this as being any accident; I think the timing of such incidents is crucial to what we are discussing here today.

I just want to ask the Prime Minister about the green and red lanes. I enter a country and I always see a border. At a border, there are green and red lanes, and I still have the perception that I am at a border, because of what I can see, irrespective of being told that there are green and red lanes, and that does cause concern.

There is another aspect that I have real concern about. I am glad that this is called a framework and that it is not an agreement as such. A framework is something that has to be built and added to whereas an agreement is something that is written in stone and cannot be changed, which is what we were told about the so-called protocol deal—those who wanted to change it were told that they could not. I am also glad that several people have been converted to taking a slightly different stance about what we had to endure and what we voted against.

I have many agricultural businesses in my constituency that took cattle backwards and forwards to mainland GB for shows or for sale. I hear today that they might be better to call a cow one of their pets, so that they can bring it back. I want to ensure that that does not happen and that we are allowed to bring back our cattle and everything else. Any involvement in the ECJ is also a major concern for me, because it means that I am still operating under laws that I have had no control about bringing forward.

[The Prime Minister]

On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, the whole point of the Stormont brake is that he does have control over those laws. I hope that when he engages with the detail of it, he will see that we have fixed that problem and have put him and his colleagues in the Assembly in charge of their destiny and of ensuring that they are in control of their laws.

The hon. Gentleman talks about agriculture. In fact, from all the engagement and knowledge that I have of the agricultural sector, it is one where dual market access is incredibly important. He talked about cattle: he will know that the dairy industry on the island of Ireland is deeply integrated and the meat processing industry is deeply integrated. All those businesses said to me and to the Secretary of State that they wanted to ensure that there was no disruption to those supply chains back and forth between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and that anything that put them in jeopardy would be a mistake for them and their jobs.

That is what this framework delivers: it ensures that we have protected Northern Ireland’s place in the Union, ensured the free flow of goods around our UK internal market, safeguarded the sovereignty of the Northern Irish people and, crucially, protected exactly those agricultural businesses and the things that were important to them. I hope that, when he studies the detail—I look forward to discussing it with him and his colleagues—he will see that we have struck the right balance and that it is the right thing for Northern Ireland, its businesses and its agricultural industry. I hope that it is something on which he will engage with me.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

The Command Paper tells us that the framework,

“narrows the range of EU rules applicable in Northern Ireland—to less than 3% overall by the EU’s own calculations”,

which is, of course, highly welcome. Would my right hon. Friend agree to publish a definitive list of the EU rules that will remain, so that hon. Members may consider them when assessing the impact of the agreement?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to look at that—I think that list already exists—but the key thing is exactly that: it is less than 3%. It is there in black and white—I am not pretending it is not there—and it is there for the reasons that we discussed earlier today. It is about ensuring that there is no border between Northern Ireland and the Republic and that those Northern Ireland producers and businesses that value it have access to the EU single market. Crucially, even though it is less than 3%, it is there with the consent of the Northern Irish people. That is the most important thing—it is less about whether it is 3%, 5% or 2% than whatever is there being there with consent. It was there with the consent vote next year, but that vote was too blunt.

With the Stormont brake mechanism we have ensured that it is the institutions and people of Northern Ireland who decide the laws that they want to adopt, which is the right way to approach this problem. It respects the balance necessary in Northern Ireland and it respects the needs of all communities and what businesses want. I look forward to discussing it with my right hon. Friend in the coming days.

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

The issues with the Northern Ireland protocol have damaged our communities, our economy and our democracy, so of course I welcome the agreement and look forward to a better working relationship with the European Union, including on science. When the Northern Ireland protocol delays meant that we could not associate with the Horizon programme, the Government committed that every penny meant for science would be spent on science. Some £2.5 billion was set aside for association with Horizon and £900 million was spent on guarantees, but, last week, £1.5 billion was quietly taken out of the budget and back to the Treasury. Now that the Prime Minister has the deal, will he commit to deliver his promises on science?

[The Prime Minister]

Just diverting slightly from the Northern Ireland protocol and the new Windsor framework, the Government have committed to spend £20 billion on research and development. It is a record amount. This Government have created a brand new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology because we care about it so much. I know that that is something the hon. Member will support, and that is how we are going to drive growth and prosperity in every part of our United Kingdom in the coming years.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

May I also pay my tribute to DCI John Caldwell and to his family? I hope he makes a good recovery.

I congratulate the Prime Minister and his team on doing something that many people said was impossible, with a negotiation that contains the red and green lanes, which eases the flow of goods and is in a legal framework that is fundamentally different from the protocol. Does he agree with me that this negotiation—this Windsor agreement—provides the prospect of investors investing with confidence in Northern Ireland to create new jobs, and that it is the people of Northern Ireland who will benefit from this?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is something that I know the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe is specifically focused on. It is about using this framework—this agreement—as the basis to provide certainty and stability in Northern Ireland, and thereby attracting considerable private investment. That is what we are focused on delivering. That is the prize that is available for us if we can use the Windsor framework as a way to move forward and restore power sharing in Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland will have a very special place not just in the UK, but on the European continent. That is incredibly attractive to international investors and businesses. They are keen to see this resolved so that they can start investing, creating jobs and opportunities. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe is keen to deliver.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Can the Prime Minister be clear with the House that this agreement does not get us any closer to being readmitted to the Horizon Europe programme—to our universities or to Northern Irish universities being readmitted to the programme?

[The Prime Minister]

They are two completely separate things. The Windsor framework is about resolving the issues with the Northern Ireland protocol. It is about safeguarding Northern Ireland’s place in the Union, the free flow of goods around our internal market and sovereignty being restored for the Northern Irish people. The hon. Member will have heard the comments from President von der Leyen earlier today, and the Government’s position on that remains the same.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

As a Northern Ireland Unionist family member, I wholeheartedly congratulate the Prime Minister and all those involved with the Windsor framework on resolving issues that have been so damaging to the integrity of the UK and our own UK internal market, and on providing the best opportunity for Northern Ireland to thrive. So will my right hon. Friend and all the political parties in Northern Ireland now work to resume Government from Stormont as soon as possible, and before the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, so that the people of Northern Ireland get the quality and scrutiny of public services that they deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of restoring power sharing and the institutions there for the people of Northern Ireland—that is what they need and deserve—but I know he will agree with me that the right thing is to give all communities in Northern Ireland the time and the space to reflect on the detail of this substantive agreement and come to a considered judgment. I look forward to engaging with those communities and parties over the coming days to have that conversation, but I hope that this can provide a basis for us to move forward positively together.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

May I welcome the change in approach, the co-operative spirit with which we have got to this point, and the positive and, I hope, pragmatic relationship moving forward? However, there is one area that has not been mentioned as a potential area on which to work with the EU, and that is agrifoods. We just need to look at the furore this week over turnips versus tomatoes to see what a difference it would make to our constituents in this cost of living crisis. Will the Prime Minister commit to looking again at a UK-EU veterinary agreement that would ease some of the supply chain issues and build on the positive relationship that I note he wants to have with the European Union?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that the issues we have seen over recent times have little to do with our institutional and political frameworks, and everything to do with the weather, but we are committed to agrifood innovation. In particular, our gene editing Bill is something that farmers across the UK welcome and we will deliver. It will be good for our food security going forward, and we continue to support our farmers to do that.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

This agreement is a remarkable negotiating success, with the EU agreeing to hitherto unique terms in an international treaty. While all associated with this negotiation deserve congratulation, its tone, its courtesy, and its calm and conscientious command of detail were set by the Prime Minister, and he gave our negotiating partners every reason to agree. This deal is a huge tribute to the finest qualities of his leadership.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for those warm and, I fear, over-generous words. I thank him none the less. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to colleagues sitting behind me, who have worked in private, in confidence, behind the scenes for some months to bring us to this place, supported by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe. They deserve enormous credit. It is a collective achievement of minds; many Members of the House in their various ways have contributed to getting to this point. I hope that everyone around the House can now support the agreement as a basis for providing a better future for the people of Northern Ireland.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The scrapping of tariffs on steel will be welcomed by steelworkers in the Port Talbot steelworks in my constituency, but may I press the Prime Minister on non-tariff barriers? Will he confirm that quotas will also be scrapped? He will be aware that the European Union is introducing a carbon border adjustment mechanism. Will he confirm that the Windsor framework will eliminate the risk of a carbon border in the Irish sea?

[The Prime Minister]

The UK Government are also exploring mechanisms for a carbon border adjustment mechanism—it is something the Treasury started consulting on last year. That is one of the dialogues that we have with the European Union, and other countries are considering such mechanisms to ensure that they can work in a complementary fashion. The work for all these things is at a relatively early stage, so there is lots of development work to be done to make sure we implement them.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this historic deal, ensuring that our ongoing relationship with the EU works for all parts of our United Kingdom. Does he agree that Brexit is the beginning of our new relationship, not the end, and that with so many challenges facing us, we will continue to work with all our international partners so that all our agreements, current and yet to be finalised, work to benefit us all?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend and wholeheartedly agree with him. This framework provides a positive basis to move forward. It ensures that we respect the balance of all communities, and I look forward to working with him and other colleagues to ensure that we realise the full potential of what we have achieved today.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

This is certainly an entirely different definition of an “oven-ready” deal. Instead of being good to go, it has taken years, has to be eaten in instalments, and with an interim serving of, by the Prime Minister’s own admissions, a dog’s dinner. This deal is welcome, but Government actions have done serious damage to Britain’s reputation for upholding the rule of law. Looking forward, will the Prime Minister commit today to the Government never again asking Members of this House to vote on legislation that breaks international law?

[The Prime Minister]

The Windsor framework provides a legally sound sustainable basis on which to move forward. It brings enormous improvement to the situation in Northern Ireland. It safeguards Northern Ireland’s position in the Union, but it also ensures that it is in a framework of international law. The points made about the Vienna convention are important and are there in the political declaration. That allows businesses, families and communities in Northern Ireland to plan with certainty for the future, and for the brighter future that it can be.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment and hard work and for the constructive engagement with our European counterparts. As a former sanctions Minister, I know it is crucial to work with our European counterparts to achieve what we need to achieve regarding what happens in Russia. As someone who resigned from the Government in all aspects over Brexit and the delivery of the backstop, with real concerns over sovereignty, I ask the Prime Minister this. Of course what he has tried to do must be welcomed, and he has moved the dial in a constructive way, but on the Stormont brake, the previous emergency brake under David Cameron unfolded with concerns. When the Prime Minister says that time and space will be given to consider that, and that there are details to consider, how long does he think that will be? Will he consider bringing the issue back to Parliament so that we can consider it and look at it in detail?

[The Prime Minister]

It is important that people have the time and space to consider that, but I hope we can move through the process with speed, not least because what we all want is a restored Executive in Northern Ireland. That is what people in Northern Ireland need and deserve, and we would all like that to happen as quickly as possible, while respecting the need for communities to discuss the detail. I look forward to doing that, and I will make myself available as quickly as possible.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for spending more than two hours on this statement. I think we all know the importance of it. On page 26 of the Prime Minister’s statement—and on various occasions—he talks about:

“The Windsor framework goes further still, by safeguarding sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland”.

Of course, 56% of the people of Northern Ireland voted to remain within the single market and are getting a Norway-style deal, with Stormont getting a direct say on EU law. Does he therefore not think there is some irony for Scotland, where 62% voted to remain within the single market, but we get absolutely zero?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman recognises the unique and specific circumstances of Northern Ireland: the fact that it shares a land border with the EU; the fact that we want to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic; and the democratic deficit that existed with regard to the application of EU law. The Stormont brake eliminates that democratic deficit and restores sovereignty to Northern Ireland. No matter what other political differences he and I might have, I hope he can recognise that that is an enormous step forward.

[Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)]

I join colleagues in expressing my thoughts for DCI Caldwell and his family.

This is a complex deal, with a lot detail. I feel hopeful and confident that time is being given to review the deal and that it is not being rushed. May I therefore pay tribute to the Prime Minister and his colleagues for ensuring that there is space to do that for all in this House?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. He is right: there is a lot in the agreement. That is because it is a comprehensive agreement that addresses a wide range of issues that were raised with me and my colleagues on the implementation of the protocol. That is why we have something as substantive. It is because of the hard work of my colleagues and the engagement of the European Union. It is why I can say with conviction that it does address the issues that were raised, and that it does secure Northern Ireland’s place in the Union and safeguard sovereignty. As people engage with the detail, I hope they come to the same conclusion.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I very much welcome the statement, in particular the sentence:

“we will take further steps to avoid regulatory divergence in future.”

Can we take that to mean that in the EU law revocation Bill we will maximise the reassimilation of EU law and minimise divergence to take full advantage of the economic opportunities for growth in Northern Ireland and in the UK moving forward?

[The Prime Minister]

Actually, there are opportunities to do things differently across the UK to drive growth and prosperity, whether in life sciences, financial services, fintech or other areas. We will fully take advantage of those opportunities across the UK. What that refers to very specifically is the work of the Office for the Internal Market, which we have strengthened as a result of the agreement and provided some extra detail about what we do in the Command Paper. That is the right thing to do and I think it will be warmly welcomed in Northern Ireland, particularly in the business community.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)]

I commend the Prime Minister for what he has achieved today. In 2016, if someone had said while we were campaigning to leave the EU that this is what we would have, we would have jumped at it. Am I right in understanding that what makes this truly a landmark agreement is that it is based in international law, under the Vienna convention on the law of treaties—something that many would have said would not have been achievable?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is right to take us all back some years and to ask what would we have said if this agreement had been available at that moment in time. That is a sensible way to look at what we have achieved and puts it in context. He is also right about the Vienna convention. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who is no longer in his place. He advised and spoke to me about it. I am pleased that we could secure it and it does have significance of the like that he describes.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Windsor framework, and I congratulate the Prime Minister and his team on securing this historic agreement. Can he confirm that the very sensible and pragmatic veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary arrangements within the framework will protect both the UK’s and the island of Ireland’s biosecurity? Can he reaffirm that the long-term availability of medicines in Northern Ireland will very much ultimately include veterinary medicines?

[The Prime Minister]

There was a lot in there. My hon. Friend is right that long-standing arrangements have been in place to protect biosecurity on the island of Ireland, and indeed on the respect that the UK has had for the single epidemiological zone on that island. We will continue to respect all of those things. Nothing in the framework changes that. It is something that everyone has agreed with in the past. No one has objected to it and it is right that we continue to move forward with those procedures.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

The headlines of the Windsor framework make it clear that a great deal of progress has been made, and I commend my right hon. Friend for that. I look forward to getting stuck into scrutinising the detail. As I get on with the exercise of seeking to answer the question of whether this framework fully restores Northern Ireland as a full and equal part of the United Kingdom, can the Prime Minister help me to understand how it is that under the Stormont brake—unprecedented as that mechanism is—EU law is still presumed to take primacy with an option to opt out of it, as opposed to UK law being the primary law with an option to opt in to EU law, should that be right for Northern Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend should recognise that we are talking about less than 3% of EU law. That law applies with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, and it is there because it avoids a hard border on the island of Ireland—something that I think everyone agrees with. It also preserves access to the EU single market for Northern Ireland businesses—something that we have heard from colleagues and businesses that they also value. The important point is consent. That is why the Stormont brake is so important; it ensures that it is the institution and the people of Northern Ireland who get to decide whether they think that those laws are appropriate for them. It is a powerful safeguard that ensures that the UK has, if needed, a veto over laws that cause concern. That is why the Windsor framework represents such a decisive breakthrough.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

Last June I was pleased to speak in favour of and vote for the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, because I believed that it was a necessary piece of legislation that served as a fall-back to address the legitimate concerns of the Unionist community, and to strengthen our hand in negotiations. Given the result that the Prime Minister has achieved, on which I congratulate him heartily, we have things that we did not think were possible. Does he agree that the Bill is not only no longer necessary but has no basis in law?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he will have seen the note that we published from the Attorney General. While the Bill did have a sound legal basis when it was introduced—and he is right about the impact that it had and the necessity of having it—we have achieved what we needed with the Windsor framework. It is a legally sound, durable agreement that means everyone can plan with certainty, which brings benefits far quicker—indeed, almost immediately—and removes the EU legal cases against us. As he said, we have no legal basis for proceeding with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill now that we have this new agreement. That is why it is the right way forward.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the ever-patient Anthony Mangnall.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

After all that has been said, I am not sure what I can ask that will be new, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will start by congratulating the quartet of negotiators sitting on the Front Bench. In the past two and a bit hours, we have seen the Prime Minister’s detail and knowledge on this subject and the care that he has taken. I hope that this will be the opportunity to unlock the opportunities, through our specialised trade committees, to do better for fishing and aquaculture, and on Horizon and Euratom. Specifically on trade deals and free trade agreements, can he assure me and all members of the International Trade Committee that nothing will impact our ability to sign future free trade agreements, and that Northern Ireland will benefit to the same extent?

[The Prime Minister]

That is an excellent note to end on. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. An enormous part of the Windsor framework is ensuring that, in every aspect, Northern Ireland is part of our precious United Kingdom. That is what this framework achieves. It ensures free flow of goods across the United Kingdom internal market. It protects Northern Ireland’s place in our Union, ensuring that people and businesses can enjoy the same benefits in Northern Ireland as they do elsewhere, including in trade deals. Crucially and critically, it restores and safeguards sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland. It eliminates the democratic deficit. That is why I passionately believe that it is the right thing for the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that, as people engage with the detail, they will see that and that it provides a basis on which we can all collectively move forward and build a brighter future for Northern Ireland.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their presence for over two and a half hours of this statement. Whatever our views, I think we can probably feel that this has been an historic occasion.

Government Department Reorganisation

Rishi Sunak Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)]

To ensure the whole of Government are geared up to deliver for the British people, with the approval of His Majesty the King, I have today created four new Departments.

The changes will ensure the right skills and teams are focused on my five priorities: to halve inflation, grow the economy, reduce debt, cut waiting lists and stop the boats.

A new Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has been tasked with securing our long-term energy supply, bringing down bills and halving inflation. The move recognises the significant impact rising prices have had on households across the country as a result of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine, and the need to secure more energy from domestic nuclear and renewable sources as we seize the opportunities of net zero.

A dedicated Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will drive the innovation that will deliver improved public services, create new and better-paid jobs and grow the economy. Having a single Department focused on turning scientific and technical innovations into practical, appliable solutions to the challenges we face will help make sure the UK is the most innovative economy in the world.

A combined Department for Business and Trade will support growth by backing British businesses at home and abroad, promoting investment and championing free trade.

A re-focused Department for Culture, Media and Sport will recognise the importance of these industries to our economy and build on the UK’s position as a global leader in the creative arts.

Finally, and as part of these changes, responsibility for national security and investment policy, and the associated teams, will move from what was the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to sit under the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the Cabinet Office.

These machinery of Government changes will be included in main estimates 2023-24 in order to reallocate the relevant budgetary provision and other spending authority. The accounting officers in the transferring Departments will continue to have formal responsibility for the transferred functions up until the point at which the supply estimate and related legislation is approved. Ahead of this time responsibilities will be agreed in the usual way through the exchange of accounting officer letters.

An explanatory note providing detail on each of these changes has been placed in the Library of both Houses and published on gov.uk.

[HCWS547]

Union and Devolution Policy

Rishi Sunak Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)]

It was announced on 11 October 2022 that responsibility for Union and devolution policy would move from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to the Cabinet Office under the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

On 25 October, I appointed the Secretary of State for Levelling Up as Minister for intergovernmental relations. This means that day-to-day responsibility for the Union and devolution policy will remain in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The Union and constitution group will also have a presence in the Cabinet Office to support me in my role as Minister for the Union.

Strengthening the Union and delivering for all people and communities across the UK is a priority for all of UK Government. This change will allow the Levelling Up Secretary to lead the Government’s day-to-day engagement with the devolved Administrations and drive forward cross-Government efforts towards delivering tangible improvements for people across the UK, including through levelling up.

[HCWS522]

Oral Answers to Questions

Rishi Sunak Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 January.

[The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)]

Can I start by wishing everyone a happy Burns night, especially those celebrating in Scotland?

As we prepare to mark Holocaust Memorial Day, I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the extraordinary courage of Britain’s holocaust survivors, including 94-year-old Arek Hersh, who is here with us today. This Government will legislate to build a holocaust memorial and learning centre next to Parliament so that the testimonies of survivors such as Arek will be heard at the heart of our democracy by every generation to come.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Shockingly, one in six women in the UK has experienced economic abuse. This is not just about money, but about restricting access to other resources such as food, housing or work. It is a lesser known aspect of coercive control that affects my constituents, the Prime Minister’s constituents and those of every Member across the House. What plans does the Prime Minister have to review in detail the way that Government Departments and policies can be exploited by abusers, and to ensure that those loopholes can be closed?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. Let me assure her that the Government are committed to tackling violence against women and girls. That is why we passed the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021, introducing new offences such as coercion and coercive control, stalking and others. We will continue to do everything we can to ensure women and girls feel as safe as they deserve and rightly should be.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

Q2.   Although I was disappointed that Dudley did not make the final cut in the latest levelling-up funding round, I am of course pleased that we received the £25 million towns deal, the brand new Duncan Edwards leisure facility, and a transport interchange project that has been secured since my election in 2019. But our high street is on its knees, so will the Prime Minister meet me and Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council to discuss our levelling-up bid and how we can ensure success in the next round?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a great advocate for his constituents. I am delighted that, thanks to his efforts, Dudley has received £25 million from the towns fund. I know that there will be disappointment about the levelling-up fund, but all bids, including that made by Dudley Council, can receive feedback to be strengthened for future funding rounds. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss it further.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Leader of the Opposition.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

This week, we will remember the 6 million Jews murdered in the holocaust and all those scarred by genocide since as we mark Holocaust Memorial Day. We must all commit, across this House, to defeat prejudice and hatred wherever we may find it. To work for a better future, we must find light in the darkness.

May I also join the Prime Minister in wishing everyone a happy Burns night?

Zara Aleena was walking home from a night out with her friends when she was savagely attacked, assaulted and beaten to death. Zara was a brilliant young woman; a trainee lawyer with a bright future. Her killer is a violent, racist, woman-hating thug, not fit to walk the same streets. But that is precisely the problem: he was free to walk the same streets. The inspectorate report into her case says that opportunities were missed by the probation service that could have prevented this attack and saved her life. Does the Prime Minister accept those findings?

[The Prime Minister]

This was a truly terrible crime. As the chief inspector has found, the failings in this case and others were serious and unacceptable. In both of the cases that are in the public domain, these failures can be traced to failings in the initial risk assessment, and that is why immediate steps are being taken to address the serious issues raised.

[Keir Starmer]

I am glad the Prime Minister accepts those findings. The report also says that staffing vacancies and excessive workloads contributed to those fatal failures. It makes it absolutely clear this was not a one-off. As the report says, these are “systemic issues” in the probation service. They are clearly ministerial responsibilities. Does the Prime Minister accept those findings as well?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me outline for the right hon. and learned Gentleman exactly what steps we are taking, and that is to ensure that mandatory training to improve risk assessments is being put in place. We are mandating checks with the police and children’s services before a probation officer can recommend to the court that a convicted offender be given an electronically monitored sentence, and we are implementing new processes to guarantee the swift recall of offenders. The action we are taking is already making a difference, as we see, for example, in the reduction of the number of electronically monitored curfews being given by the courts.

[Keir Starmer]

It was Barking, Dagenham and Havering that tragically and fatally let Zara down, but across the country, probation services are failing after a botched then reversed privatisation and after a decade of under-investment. It is yet another vital public service on its knees after 13 years of Tory Government. I spoke to Zara’s family this morning. It is hard to convey to this House the agony that they have been through. They say that the Government have blood on their hands over these failings. The Prime Minister has accepted the findings of the report. Does he also accept what Zara’s family say?

[The Prime Minister]

My heart of course goes out to Zara’s family. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned accountability. The probation service has taken action where failings have been found and where that has been appropriate. With regard to the overall service, there is now £155 million a year of extra investment that we are putting in to the probation service so that we can deliver better supervision of offenders. There has also been an increase in the number of senior probation officers, but one of the other things we must remember, if we do want to increase the safety of women and girls on our streets, is that we need tough sentencing, and that is why this Government passed the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which he and his party opposed.

[Keir Starmer]

In the light of the case of Zara, I really do not think the Prime Minister should be boasting about the protection he is putting in place for women. I am not going to take lectures from him about that.

Does the Prime Minister agree that any politician who seeks to avoid the taxes they owe in this country is not fit to be in charge of taxpayer money?

[The Prime Minister]

I am pleased to make my position on this matter completely clear to the House. The issues in question occurred before I was Prime Minister. With regard to the appointment of the Minister without Portfolio, the usual appointments process was followed. No issues were raised with me when he was appointed to his current role. Since I commented on this matter last week, more information has come forward, which is why I have asked the independent adviser to look into the matter. I obviously cannot prejudge the outcome of that, but it is right that we fully investigate this matter and establish all the facts.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister avoided the question. Anybody watching would think it is fairly obvious that someone who seeks to avoid tax cannot also be in charge of tax, yet for some reason, the Prime Minister cannot bring himself to say that or even acknowledge the question. Last week, the Prime Minister told the House that the chair of the Tory party had addressed his tax affairs “in full” and there was “nothing” to add. This week, after days of public pressure, he now says there are serious questions to answer. What changed?

[The Prime Minister]

I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads from prepared sheets, but he should listen to what I actually say. Since I commented on this matter last week, more information, including a statement by the Minister without Portfolio, has entered the public domain, which is why it is right that we do establish the facts. Let me take a step back. Of course, the politically expedient thing to do would have been for me to say that this matter must be resolved by Wednesday at noon, but I believe in proper due process. That is why I appointed an independent adviser and that is why the independent adviser is doing his job. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. The Leader of the Opposition and his party chair, the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), both urged me and the Government to appoint an independent adviser, and now he objects to that independent adviser doing their job. It is simple political opportunism and everyone can see through it.

[Keir Starmer]

We all know why the Prime Minister was reluctant to ask his party chair questions about family finances and tax avoidance, but his failure to sack him, when the whole country can see what is going on, shows how hopelessly weak he is—a Prime Minister overseeing chaos, overwhelmed at every turn. He cannot say when ambulances will get to heart attack victims again. He cannot say when the prison system will keep streets safe again. He cannot even deal with tax avoiders in his own Cabinet. Is he starting to wonder if this job is just too big for him?

[The Prime Minister]

The difference between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and me is that I stand by my values and my principles, even when it is difficult. When I disagreed fundamentally with the previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), I resigned from the Government, but for four long years, he sat next to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) when antisemitism ran rife and his predecessor sided with our opponents. That is what is weak: he has no principles, just petty politics.

[Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)]

Q4. For our most vulnerable children, school is often their principal place of safety as well as education, but as reported in my review of school exclusions for the Government in 2019, the unacceptable and illegal use of off-rolling is still shutting a worrying number of children out of the classroom, out of learning and out of the protection they need from gangs, violence and domestic abuse. The Department for Education has done some impressive and excellent work to address this terrible practice, but what more can my right hon. Friend do to ensure that we permanently exclude off-rolling from our schools?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. and learned Friend raises an important issue. The Government are clear that off-rolling is unlawful and unacceptable in any form, and the Department for Education continues to work with Ofsted to tackle it. Where Ofsted finds it, it will always be addressed in the inspection report and it could also lead to a school’s leadership being judged inadequate.

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the SNP leader.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Let me start by echoing the sentiments of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in relation to Holocaust Memorial Day—truly horrific crimes that we must never forget and endeavour to ensure are never repeated.

May I send my heartfelt thoughts, and indeed I hope those of all across the Chamber, to the firefighter who is in a serious condition following the blaze in Edinburgh just a few days ago?

May I ask the Prime what advice he would have for individuals seeking to protect their personal finances? Should they seek out a future chair of the BBC to help secure an £800,000 loan, should they set up a trust in Gibraltar and hope that HMRC simply does not notice, or should they do as others have done and simply apply for non-dom status?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me share in the hon. Gentleman’s expressions of sympathy to the families concerned and to the firefighter who is currently in hospital. I am sorry to hear that, and I wish him a speedy recovery.

I am proud of this Government’s record of supporting the most vulnerable in our society: this winter, helping all families—£900—with their energy bills; raising the national living wage to record levels; and ensuring that our pensioners get the support they need. That is what this Government are doing to ensure financial security in this country.

[Stephen Flynn]

I am not sure what question the Prime Minister thought I asked, but that certainly was not it. Let us be clear about this: this is now a matter of the Prime Minister’s own integrity and accountability. After all, when there were questions about the Home Secretary and concerns about her role in relation to national security, he chose to back her. Now, he is choosing to back the chair of the Tory party, despite a £5 million penalty from HMRC, and of course he is seeking to protect the former Prime Minister despite his cosy financial relationship with the chair of the BBC. Is it little wonder that people in Scotland may well consider the Tory party to be a parcel of rogues?

[The Prime Minister]

What I am standing up for is proper due process. That is why we have an independent adviser. It is right that the independent adviser conducts his investigation. That is how we will ensure accountability, and that is what I will deliver.

[Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)]

Q9. Despite having less than 5% of England’s population, Wales has almost 40 times more people waiting more than two years for NHS treatment—a sad case of “devolve and forget”, unfortunately, which does a disservice to my constituents in Delyn. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the UK Government remain concerned about the healthcare of the people in Wales, and with north Wales health board having been in “special measures” for eight years, can he come up with a way of putting the Welsh Labour Government in it too?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman highlights, the NHS right across our Union is facing pressure because of some of the challenges of flu and covid in particular causing high bed occupancy this winter. We are focused on delivering on the people’s priorities and bringing down the backlog. We have currently already eliminated waits of over two years and, as the hon. Gentleman says, there is more to go. That is why our investment this week into mental health treatment will ensure that we can ease the pressure further in A&E, and I continue to deliver that across the country.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

I echo the comments of the Prime Minister in relation to Holocaust Memorial Day, and as we think of the situation in Ukraine, we also extend our best wishes to President Zelensky on his birthday.

Freedom of religion or belief is important in this country. Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was praying silently outside an abortion clinic in Birmingham when she was arrested and questioned by the police, not about her written or spoken words, but about her thoughts. We value freedom of religion or belief in this country. Will the Prime Minister commit himself to examining the laws of the United Kingdom to ensure that this country remains a beacon for freedom of religion or belief across the world?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we believe in freedom of religious expression and belief in this country, but we are also balancing that with the rights of women to seek legal and safe abortions. That is currently being discussed in this Parliament. These are always matters of a free vote, and I know that Members will treat them with the sensitivity they deserve.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

Q11.   Innocent civilians are being murdered in Ukraine on Putin’s orders as we speak, and as we sit in a warmed House of Commons, families are freezing because their electricity has been cut off by Russian forces. Putin believes that Ukraine is more important to him than to the free world, and is moving to a full war footing. Ukrainians must make gains on the battlefield, and the next six months are crucial. They need a full range of weapons—air defence, artillery, longer-range missiles, and tanks—and enough to make a real difference. The UK has shown great leadership on this issue, so may I ask my right hon. Friend to use every means at his disposal, domestic and international, to honour the courage of the people of Ukraine, and to defend the whole world order, because ultimately that is what we are talking about?

[The Prime Minister]

I have made it clear that the UK and our allies must accelerate our efforts to ensure that Ukraine wins this war and secures a lasting peace. Last year the United Kingdom provided £2.3 billion in military aid to Ukraine, the largest package of support of any European nation, and we will at least match that again this year. As my right hon. Friend knows, last week I announced that we would gift many battle tanks as part of the next major package of UK support to Ukraine, and I am pleased that our friends and allies are preparing to follow our lead.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Ind)]

Q3. Mr Speaker, London has it all: prime property, shopping, schools, and even the perfect time zone for money laundering. While there has been movement with Russian oligarchs, it is not just them, and we know that there are relatives of regimes that Members across the House condemn that are running bogus Islamic centres as fronts to stash their dirty cash, among other things. When will the National Crime Agency be adequately financed, so that we can be a world leader in anti-corruption, as we promised in 2016? Or is there a lack of political will to upset the apple cart?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady should know that we are currently in the process of legislating the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which puts in place many more measures to allow us to tackle some of the issues she raises. It also introduces the economic crime levy, which will provide considerably more funding to tackle economic crime in the UK.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Q12. The trans-Pennine rail upgrade is under way, which is good news, with stations in Slaithwaite and Marsden getting improvements. Not such good news are the dozens of daily rail service cancellations by TransPennine Express, which are causing absolute misery for my constituents who are trying to get to work, to college, or to visit family and friends. The franchise is up in May. Does the Prime Minister agree that enough is enough, and that if TransPennine Express does not get to grips with this we need to strip it of the franchise and get in somebody who will deliver reliable rail services for my constituents?

[The Prime Minister]

We have been clear that the current service is simply not acceptable. Rail North Partnership is working with the company on a service improvement plan, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport, (Huw Merriman) is having weekly meetings with them. As my hon. Friend points out, the TransPennine Express contract expires in May, and while there are currently discussions about that new contract, if Ministers conclude that the operator cannot be turned around, other decisions may be made.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

Q5. Refugees and campaigners are gathered today outside Parliament to highlight the impact of the hostile environment—from Rwanda, to deaths in the channel and the latest scandal of missing children—on people in the migration and asylum system. Rather than cruel gimmicks such as Rwanda, is not the best way of deterring child crossings, saving lives and breaking the business model of criminal gangs the introduction of safe and legal routes to claim asylum?

[The Prime Minister]

This is about fairness. It is about fairness for those who seek to come here legally, and it is about fairness for those who are here and our ability to integrate and support those we want to. What we will do is break the cycle of criminal gangs who are causing untold misery and leading to deaths in the channel. That is why we will introduce legislation that makes it clear that if you come here illegally, we will be able to detain you and swiftly remove you to a safe third country. That is a reasonable and common-sense approach that the vast majority of the British public support.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Q13. The Prime Minister will be aware of my concern that mental health patients should not be forced into accident and emergency departments when what they really need is specialist care. Will he say more about the extra money that is being made available for urgent mental health care facilities and what impact he thinks that will have on the treatment of mental health patients and the general situation in A&E departments?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. People in mental health crisis deserve compassionate care in a safe and appropriate setting. Too often, they end up in A&E when they should be receiving specialist treatment elsewhere. This week’s announcement on mental health ambulances, crisis cafés, crisis houses and mental health urgent treatment centres will ensure that patients get the vital help that they need while easing pressures on emergency departments and freeing up staff time. He is absolutely right to highlight the issue. Our announcement will make a major difference.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

Q6. This week, as a trustee of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, I was honoured to hear from Lia Lesser, a holocaust survivor who came to this country by herself at the age of eight because her parents believed tat the UK was a safe haven for vulnerable children. I also read the Government’s own statistics that say 200 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children were missing from hotels in the UK. Ministers have admitted that they have no idea about the whereabouts of those children. Does the Prime Minister think that the UK is still a safe haven for vulnerable children?

[The Prime Minister]

Over the last few years, the United Kingdom has opened up its hearts and homes to hundreds of thousands of people from Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong and provided refuge and sanctuary to many children in that process, but the reports that we have read about are concerning. Local authorities have a statutory duty to protect all children regardless of where they go missing from, and in that situation they work closely with local agencies, including the police, to establish their whereabouts. That is why it is so important that we end the use of hotels for unaccompanied asylum seekers and reduce pressure on the overall system. That is what our plans will do.

[Sir James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Constituents in Southend and Rochford very much welcome the energy bills support scheme, which has helped 99% of households around the United Kingdom with rising fuel prices despite Putin’s barbaric war in Ukraine. Will the Prime Minister assure my constituents and the House that he is committed to continuing to help with the cost of living not only this winter but next winter?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right about the Government’s commitment to support all families with the cost of living: this winter, about £900 of support. Next year, as the energy price guarantee evolves, it will still be there with about £500 of support for families. That comes on top of record increases in the national living wage, worth about £1,600, and supporting our pensioners and the most vulnerable by inflating their benefits and pensions with inflation.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Q7. In 2021, the Government enabled Yevgeny Prigozhin, the former chef to Putin and founder of the Wagner Group, to dodge UK sanctions to pursue a case in London against British journalist Eliot Higgins, who had exposed his link to the Wagner Group. Prigozhin believed that silencing Higgins would get his sanctions lifted. The overriding of UK sanctions was approved by the Treasury when the Prime Minister was Chancellor. Prigozhin’s English lawyers wrote that serving notice on Higgins “will require Treasury approval”. What values did the Prime Minister apply when he allowed a Putin warlord to use our courts to try to silence a British journalist and undermine UK sanctions?

[The Prime Minister]

I am proud of our record in leading when it comes to sanctioning those people connected with the Putin regime. I think, at last count, we have sanctioned over 1,000 people and frozen tens of billions of pounds of assets. I am aware of the case the hon. Gentleman has raised, and we are looking at it. There is, as he knows, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, which deals with the licensing situations in these matters, but I am happy to get back to him on the specific case that he raised.

[Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)]

May I echo my right hon. Friend’s comments on the importance of Holocaust Memorial Day and welcome his renewed commitment today regarding the holocaust memorial and learning centre? Will he join me in encouraging Members from across the House to sign the Holocaust Educational Trust’s book of commitment, which will be in Parliament today and tomorrow, and pledge to remember the holocaust, fight antisemitism and support the important work of the Holocaust Educational Trust?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. As I said earlier, we will legislate to help build the holocaust memorial and learning centre next to Parliament to serve as a powerful reminder of the holocaust, its victims and where prejudice can lead if unchallenged. I also join her in thanking the Holocaust Educational Trust for its fantastic work and in encouraging all Members to sign the book of commitment, as I will be doing later today.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Q8. A week ago my constituent Alireza Akbari was executed by order of the regime in Iran. In the three years preceding and the days following his murder, the UK Government made little effort to protect the life or protest the death of a British national. Tomorrow Mr Akbari’s family and I meet the Foreign Office Minister, Lord Ahmad. They want to hear what help the Government can offer them at the time of their greatest suffering. Today this House wants to hear from the Prime Minister what sanction he will impose on the regime beyond the trifling steps taken so far. First and foremost, will he show some courage, follow the lead of the United States and the European Parliament and proscribe the entire revolutionary guard corps as a terrorist organisation?

[The Prime Minister]

The regime is prolonging the suffering of the family, and it is sadly typical of its disregard for basic human dignity. I spoke about my views on Iran when I was before the Liaison Committee, and Iran must now provide answers about the circumstances of Alireza Akbari’s death and burial. We have actually pressed the Iranian regime formally through their chargé d’affaires in London and the Foreign Ministry in Tehran, and we will continue to do so until the family get the answers they deserve. We have also sanctioned several people connected with the case.

[Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister and the Chancellor for visiting Hyndburn and Haslingden last week to hear about the transformative difference that the levelling-up funding will make. This is a historic investment, with over £40 million secured. Does he agree that we are delivering on exactly what was promised in 2019 to the areas that were most forgotten, such as Hyndburn and Haslingden? Will he visit once works are completed to see the difference himself?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for her local community, and the results showed when the Chancellor and I were lucky enough to visit her last week. As she and many of the people we spoke to pointed out, this was an area that had been forgotten and neglected for decades, but it is this Government who are putting in the investment, spreading opportunity, making jobs and making sure that people can feel enormously proud of the place they call home.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q10. Does the Prime Minister realise that most people in my constituency think it is his role to keep our country safe? Is he aware that in all the years I have been in Parliament, I have never heard of a situation where our Army and armed forces are so run down that the Chairman of the Defence Committee and the Secretary of State for Defence both say that our armed forces have been hollowed out and are unfit to put a division into active service? What is he going to do about that?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman seems to forget the fact that we have invested an extra £24 billion in our armed services. That is a record uplift in defence spending and ensures that we are one of the leading spenders on defence in NATO. We will continue to ensure we have one of the best-equipped fighting forces anywhere in the world. As we can see from the recent announcement on tanks, we continue to lead the world when it comes to standing up for not just our safety, but the safety of our allies around the world.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

As a former firefighter, I am sure the whole House will pray for the firefighter in Scotland who is today fighting for his life. Our emergency services go one way, into the danger, while we go the other way. Our thoughts and prayers should be with them.

Dacorum Borough Council, the Conservative-led council in my constituency, has done a fantastic job of building new houses, including social housing and council houses. Can the Prime Minister assure me that we will not be pushed into the green belt any more than we already have been and that we can protect the Chilterns in my constituency?

[The Prime Minister]

I join my right hon. Friend in praising his local council for ensuring we build homes in the right places so that our young people can fulfil the dream of home ownership. He is also right to say that this Government will always protect our precious green spaces. The recent changes in our planning reforms will ensure that we can protect the green belt everywhere. His local community and others will benefit from those protections as we keep our local areas beautiful.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

Q14. UK in a Changing Europe reports that, at the end of 2022, 60% of voters said their cost of living had increased and 38% said that their personal finances had been negatively affected by our not being a member of the European Union. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts a 4% reduction in GDP, only two fifths of which has already happened, so surely the Prime Minister will agree with me, the electorate and the experts that Brexit has served only to exacerbate the cost of living and economic challenges facing these islands?

[The Prime Minister]

Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine and the impact it has had on energy supplies has nothing to do with Brexit. What we are doing is ensuring that we can support families with those cost of living pressures. That is why we provided £900 of support this winter for energy bills, and that is why we are increasing the national living wage to record levels. We will continue to stand behind Britain’s families until we can bring inflation back down to where it belongs.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

I know the Prime Minister will share my concern at the news this morning that 730 people may lose their jobs at the 2 Sisters chicken factory in Llangefni, one of the largest employers on Ynys Môn. What support can the Government offer both to my constituents who are affected by this devastating news and to the wider the community at this difficult time?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very sorry to hear about the job losses my hon. Friend raises. My thoughts are with those affected and their families. I know how distressing that will be for them. I am pleased to say that the Department for Work and Pensions has procedures in place to support communities when situations like this arise. We will work very closely with her to do what we are doing everywhere across the country, which is providing good well-paid jobs for everyone, because that is the best way to build a happy and secure life.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Q15. Exercise is essential for both physical and mental wellbeing, but with spiralling energy costs many venues, such as the Freedom Leisure centres in my constituency, are struggling to cope. While some sectors will receive extra support, the sport and leisure industry will not. If the Prime Minister agrees with me that the sector is vital to the long-term health of our communities, why are his Government not providing it with the financial support it needs to thrive?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course I agree with the hon. Lady that exercise and leisure centres are important. That is why we provided significant support to them during covid and beyond. With regard to energy prices now, the Chancellor set out the new relief scheme that will run after the current one expires. It provides considerable support to all sorts of organisations up and down the country. I am sure it will benefit many businesses and organisations in her constituency.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Rishi Sunak Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kate Kniveton (Burton) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 January.

[The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)]

I know Members across the House will be as shocked and appalled as I am about the case of David Carrick. The abuse of power is truly sickening, and our thoughts are with his victims. The police must address the failings in this case, restore public confidence and ensure the safety of women and girls. There will be no place to hide for those who use their position to intimidate women and girls, or for those who fail to act to reprimand and remove people who are unfit for office.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Kate Kniveton]

As the project champion for the north midlands manufacturing corridor, next week I am bringing together businesses, leaders and local councillors from across the region in Parliament to set out to Department for Transport officials the importance of the A50/A500 corridor. The Prime Minister understands the importance of investing in our infrastructure and unlocking the potential of our towns and cities, so will he urge Government colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to attend the meeting to hear more about the benefits this investment would bring to our region?

[The Prime Minister]

The Government recognise the strategic importance to the midlands of the A50/A500 corridor. Final decisions on the scheme will be made in the third road investment strategy, which will be fully published next year, but I know my hon. Friend will be contacting Ministers in the relevant Departments to invite them to hear her case.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Leader of the Opposition.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in his comments about the dreadful case of David Carrick.

It is three minutes past 12. If somebody phones 999 now because they have chest pains and fear it might be a heart attack, when would the Prime Minister expect an ambulance to arrive?

[The Prime Minister]

It is absolutely right that people can rely on the emergency services when they need them, and that is why we are rapidly implementing measures to improve the delivery of ambulance times and, indeed, urgent and emergency care. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cares about ensuring patients get access to life-saving emergency care when they need it, why will he not support our minimum safety legislation?

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister can deflect all he likes but, for a person suffering chest pains, the clock starts ticking straightaway—every minute counts. That is why the Government say an ambulance should be there in 18 minutes. In this case, that would be about 20 minutes past 12. I know he does not want to answer the question I asked him, so I will ask him again. When will that ambulance arrive?

[The Prime Minister]

Because of the extra funding we are putting in to relieve pressure in urgent and emergency care departments, and the investment we are putting into ambulance call handling, we will improve ambulance times as we are recovering from the pandemic and indeed the pressures of this winter. But I say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman again, because he makes my case for me: he describes the life-saving care that people desperately need, so why, when they have this in other countries—France, Spain, Italy and others—is he depriving people here of that care?

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister obviously does not know or does not care. I will tell him: if our heart attack victim had called for an ambulance in Peterborough at 12.03 pm, it would not arrive until 2.10 pm. These are our constituents waiting for ambulances I am talking about. If this had happened in Northampton, the ambulance would not arrive until—[Interruption.]

[Keir Starmer]

I am talking about our constituents. If they were in Northampton, the ambulance would not arrive until 2.20 pm. If they were in Plymouth, it would not arrive until 2.40 pm. That is why someone who fears a heart attack is waiting more than two and half hours for an ambulance. That is not the worst-case scenario; it is just the average wait. So for one week, will the Prime Minister stop blaming others, take some responsibility and just admit that under his watch the NHS is in crisis, isn’t it?

[The Prime Minister]

I notice that the one place the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention was Wales, where we know that ambulance times are even worse than they are in England. Let me set out the reason that is the case, because this is not about politics; this is about the fact that the NHS in Scotland, in Wales, in England is dealing with unprecedented challenges, recovering from covid and dealing with a very virulent and early flu season, and everyone is doing their best to bring those wait times down. But again, I ask him: if he believes so much in improving ambulance wait times, why will he not support our minimum safety legislation?

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister will not answer any questions and he will not take any responsibility. By 1 pm, our heart attack victim is in a bad way, sweaty, dizzy and with their chest tightening. [Interruption.] I am talking about a heart attack and Conservative Members are shouting—this is your constituent. By that time, they should be getting treatment. But an hour after they have called 999 they are still lying there, waiting, listening to the clock tick. How does he think they feel, knowing that an ambulance could be still hours away?

[The Prime Minister]

The specific and practical things we are doing to improve ambulance times are clear: we are investing more in urgent and emergency care to create more bed capacity; we are ensuring that the flow of patients through emergency care is faster than it ever has been; we are discharging people at a record rate out of hospitals, to ease the constraints that they are facing; and we are reducing the call-out rates by moving people out of ambulance stacks, with them being dealt with in the community. Those are all very practical steps that will make a difference in the short term. But I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman this again and again, although we know why; the reason he is not putting patients first when it comes to ambulance waiting times is because he is simply in the pockets of his union paymasters.

[Keir Starmer]

This is not hypothetical; this is real life. Stephanie from Plymouth was battling cancer when she collapsed at home. Her mum rang 999, desperate for help. Stephanie only lived a couple of miles from the hospital, but they could not prioritise her. She was 26 when she died, waiting for that ambulance—a young woman whose life was ended far too soon. As a dad, I cannot even fathom that pain. So on behalf of Stephanie and her family, will the Prime Minister stop the excuses, stop shifting the blame, stop the political games and simply tell us: when will he sort out these delays and get back to the 18-minute wait?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course Stephanie’s case is a tragedy. Of course, people are working as hard as they can to ensure that people get the care that they need. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about political games. He is a living example of someone playing political games when it comes to people’s healthcare. I have already mentioned what has been going on in Wales. Is he confident that, in the Labour-run Welsh NHS, nobody is suffering right now? Of course they are, because the NHS everywhere is under pressure. What we should be doing is supporting those doctors and nurses to make the changes that we are doing to bring care to those people. I will ask him this: if he is so concerned about making sure that the Stephanies of the future get the care that they need, why is he denying those families the guarantee of emergency life-saving care?

[Keir Starmer]

So, that is the Prime Minister’s answer to Stephanie’s family—deflect, blame others, never take responsibility. Just like last week, he will not say when he will deliver the basic minimum service levels that people need.

Over the 40 minutes or so that these sessions tend to last, 700 people will call an ambulance; two will be reporting a heart attack, four a stroke. Instead of the rapid help they need, many will wait and wait and wait. If the Prime Minister will not answer any questions, will he at least apologise for the lethal chaos under his watch?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks about the minimum safety levels. We will deliver them as soon as we can pass them. Why will he not vote for them? We are delivering on the people’s priorities. As we have seen this week, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will just say anything if the politics suits him; it is as simple as that. He will break promises left, right and centre. He promised to nationalise public services. He promised to have a second referendum. He promised to defend the mass migration of the EU, and now we are apparently led to believe—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I expect those on the Front Bench to keep a little quiet. If they do not, there is somewhere else where they can shout and make their noise.

[The Prime Minister]

If we are to deliver for the British people, people need to have strong convictions. When it comes to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he is not just for the free movement of people; he also has the free movement of principles.

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

Q3. On Monday, the independent net zero review was published by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore). Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in welcoming many of its recommendations, particularly to provide clarity and continuity to all those working to decarbonise our economy, especially those supporting the South Shropshire Climate Action group in my constituency?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for his review, and also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for his work in this area. I am pleased that the report recognised the UK’s leadership in tackling climate change and catalysing a global transformation in how other countries are dealing with it. We have, as the report acknowledged, exceeded expectations to decarbonise, and we will respond to the full range of the review’s requests and recommendations in the coming year.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Scottish National party.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

To promise is ae thing, to keep it is another. Well, the Scottish Government kept their manifesto promise to the people and, thanks to support from Members of all political parties in Holyrood, the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed. Surely in that context, the Prime Minister must recognise that it is a dangerous moment for devolution when both he and, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition seek to overturn a promise made between Scotland’s politicians and Scotland’s people.

[The Prime Minister]

Let me be crystal clear: the decision in this case is centred on the legislation’s consequences for reserved matters. This is laid out in the Scotland Act 1998, which established the Scottish Parliament—the hon. Gentleman talks about that and, at the time, it was supported by the SNP. This Bill would have a significant adverse effect on UK-wide equalities matters, so the Scottish Secretary, with regret, has rightly acted.

[Stephen Flynn]

Let me be crystal clear—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] This is the Conservative party seeking to stoke a culture war against some of the most marginalised people in society, and Scotland’s democracy is simply collateral damage. On that issue of democracy, let us reflect, because on Monday the UK Government introduced legislation to ban the right to strike, against the express wishes of the Scottish Government; on Tuesday, they introduced legislation to overturn the GRR Bill, against the express wishes of the Scottish Government; and this evening they will seek to put in place legislation that rips up thousands of EU protections, against the express wishes of the Scottish Government. Are we not now on a slippery slope from devolution to direct rule?

[The Prime Minister]

No, of course we are not. This is simply about protecting UK-wide legislation and ensuring the safety of women and children; it is not about the devolution settlement. I urge the hon. Gentleman and his party to consider engaging with the UK Government on the Bill, as we did before the legislation passed, so that we can find a constructive way forward in the interests of the people of Scotland and the United Kingdom.

[Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)]

Q10. The care, education and support that children receive in their earliest years has the biggest impact on their future life outcomes; that is why the affordability, accessibility and quality of childcare is so important for families in Eddisbury and right across the country. Yet, despite significant investment by the UK Government since 2010, for too many families the childcare system remains inflexible, complex and expensive. Will my right hon. Friend restate to this House his commitment to addressing this essential and pressing issue so that every child can have the best start in life?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that this is a topic my hon. Friend knows very well from his background. He is right that it is essential to access quality childcare, which is why we provide every eligible three and four-year-old with at least 15 hours a week of free childcare and are considering new plans to improve the cost, choice and affordability of childcare, whether through consulting on ratios or supporting more people to become childminders.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

A Transport Secretary implying NHS workers are deliberately putting people in danger, a Health Secretary pitting dedicated nurses against vulnerable patients—does the Prime Minister really expect the public to believe that the very people who have dedicated their lives to saving life and limb are so reckless? Is it not the case that this Government have pushed them to their absolute limit and they have no other option but to strike?

[The Prime Minister]

We have enormous respect and gratitude for all our public sector workers, especially those in the NHS. That is why we have backed them with not just record funding, but record investment in more doctors and nurses, with 15,000 more doctors, 30,000 more nurses and more lifesaving equipment that will help them to do their jobs. We continue to want to engage constructively in dialogue with them.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Q11.   Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner has a great many car-dependent older and disabled constituents, many of whom are horrified to read that the Mayor of London may have manipulated the outcome of his own consultation in order to impose a unwanted £12.50 daily charge every time they go to a medical appointment or attend hospital. Does my right hon. Friend agree that any further roll-out of the ultra low emission zone should be paused until those matters have been fully investigated?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend rightly points out that transport in London is devolved to the Labour Mayor of London. It is disappointing that the Mayor, backed by the Leader of the Opposition, is choosing not to listen to the public and expanding the zone against the overwhelming views of residents and businesses. I urge the Mayor to reconsider properly and to respond to those serious concerns.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

Q2. The Prime Minister showed his cards this week by ramming through the sacking nurses Bill—he has literally gone from clapping nurses to sacking them. His Transport Secretary has said that the Bill is unworkable, and the Education Secretary has said that it is not needed. Why does the Prime Minister still want the Bill?

[The Prime Minister]

It was the Labour party that showed its cards this week when it came to backing working people. [Interruption.] What I would say—[Interruption.] What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that if he really cares about supporting patients, if he really cares about children getting the education they receive, if he really cares about working people being able to go about their lives free from disruption, he should join in supporting legislation which is prevalent in many other countries to ensure minimum safety levels in critical public services, and get off the picket lines himself.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

Q13. To continue a theme, evidence is now very clear that the London Mayor’s sham consultation has suppressed 5,000 negative responses from members and supporters of FairFuelUK, for which I chair the all-party parliamentary group. What angers me is that this proposal is a tax against my South Thanet residents, it is a tax against Kent residents and it is a tax against all of the home counties. It is true taxation without representation. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will do all he can to stop it? This tax is a fill-up for a failed Mayor’s budget and a failed Mayor.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent and powerful point, and he is right to highlight that the Labour Mayor is imposing that tax on a public who do not want it. Expanding that zone is not something that communities want. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to urge the Mayor to consider and respond properly to all views and stop that unfair tax.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Q4. During a period of 12 months, two of my constituents—a 10-year-old boy and a senior citizen—lost their lives after being attacked by dangerous dogs. Fatalities have also occurred in other parts of the country. It is clear that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is woefully inadequate. The Government have commissioned studies and debated the subject at length, but they have done nothing. My question is: when will the Government take action on the issue of dangerous dogs?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important case, and I am very sorry to hear about the specific families he mentions. We recognise that dog attacks can have horrific consequences, and I want to assure him that we take the issue incredibly seriously. That is why we have established a working group between police, local authorities and other key stakeholders to consider all aspects of tackling irresponsible dog ownership. That working group will make its recommendations later this year, and of course, the Government will respond promptly.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

Conservative-run Staffordshire Moorlands District Council has an excellent track record of delivering for my constituents while keeping council tax low. We have put in a bid to the levelling-up fund, and I know that that money would make such an incredible difference to my constituents. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to encourage the Department for Levelling Up to look on us favourably this week?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend has been a stalwart champion for her community and, in particular, for their levelling-up fund bid, which I know will make a massive difference to them. I wish her and her constituents every success when we announce the next round of successful bidders for that fund.

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

Q5.   Many of my constituents are struggling to keep up with their energy bills this winter. When families fall behind, they are too often punished by being switched over to prepayment meters, which are more expensive do nothing to help their financial situation. Will the Prime Minister back our call to ban energy companies from forcibly installing prepayment meters and stop them switching smart meters over to prepayment meters remotely?

[The Prime Minister]

I want to assure the hon. Lady that Ofgem has specific regulations in place regarding the use of prepayment meters and how energy companies should treat those who are struggling with their bills. I am pleased to say that her constituents will receive, at a minimum, around £900 of support with their energy bills this winter as a result of this Government’s actions.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute and giving thanks to the several thousand people at Ministry of Defence Equipment & Support at Abbey Wood in my constituency, who work tirelessly to ensure that the military equipment and supplies that we have pledged to the people of Ukraine are dispatched quickly and efficiently? Does he agree that events in Ukraine are a reminder, yet again, of the need to invest more in our own sovereign defence manufacturing capability?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I am happy to join him in paying tribute to his constituents at the MOD facility. The work they are doing is making a critical difference in the fight to combat Russian aggression in Ukraine. I know it is extremely appreciated, both by the President of Ukraine and his people. My hon. Friend is also right that it highlights the need for more investment, which is why we are putting £24 billion of investment into our armed forces and increasing the amount of kit that we manufacture here at home.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Q6. It is almost a year to the day since the then Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), in a visit to the Britishvolt site in my constituency, promised the company £100 million and proudly boasted to the national media that he could not think of a project that better demonstrated levelling up. Yesterday, the company entered administration having received not a penny in financial support from the Government. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that there is not a single project in the country that better demonstrates the Government’s lack of industrial strategy, failure with levelling up and abandonment of the north-east?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, let me say that my thoughts are with the company’s employees and families at this time, and we stand ready to support those impacted. Let me just outline to the hon. Gentleman what exactly has happened. We did offer significant support to Britishvolt through the automotive transformation fund—a considerable amount of funding—but entirely reasonably, and this is not something I expect the Labour party to understand, that support was conditional on the company receiving private investment as well, which is a sensible protection for taxpayers. Unfortunately, that did not materialise. It is completely wrong to take from that what else is happening in the north-east. Across the north-east, there is new investment in the new N-Vision and Nissan plant in electric vehicle manufacturing. That is a £1 billion investment in the north-east. Look at what is happening in Teesside on clean energy. This Government are committed to the north-east, and we will deliver more jobs and opportunity under this Conservative Administration.

[Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has long been a friend to business. As Chancellor, he listened to businesses in Stoke-on-Trent Central about their issues. Stoke-on-Trent has a wide range of manufacturing fabrication and engineering excellence. Does he agree with me that growing these activities is a vital strand of our levelling-up ambitions? May I invite him to re-visit my constituency to meet these businesses?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is an excellent champion for her constituents, particularly her advanced manufacturing businesses, which I have had the pleasure of visiting with her in the past. It is important that we support those businesses on energy prices, which we are doing through the announcement that the Chancellor recently made, particularly in regard to generous support for energy-intensive industries. Indeed, they can also apply for up to £315 million-worth of capital grant funding to help them make the transition to net zero.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

Q7. When I had breast cancer, I had phenomenal nurses. When I had to be rushed to A&E, the ambulance crew looked after me. Unison and GMB are on strike because nobody is negotiating with them. For the first time in the history of the Royal College of Nursing, its members are on strike today after being balloted. I have spoken to the general secretary of the RCN, and she is adamant that she wants to end the disputes; she just needs a meeting with the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister show leadership and meet the RCN? It is a simple yes or no.

[The Prime Minister]

At the turn of the year, the Government wrote to all unions, including the RCN, to invite them for frank, open, honest, two-way dialogue with the relevant Secretaries of State. I am pleased that those meetings are happening in a range of sectors, and I hope we can find a constructive way through this.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

As we approach Holocaust Memorial Day, colleagues can sign the early-day motion and the book of commitment, and they can attend the various commemorative services. I have to report some very sad news to the House. The well-known holocaust survivor Zigi Shipper died at the age of 93 in the early hours of this morning. [Interruption.] He was a survivor of Auschwitz-Birkenau and Stutthof concentration camps. He spent his life in this country spreading his message of hope to young people. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking Zigi for his life and for his message? It is vitally important as we sit here today: do not hate.

[The Prime Minister]

I am very sorry to learn that Zigi has passed away, and my thoughts are of course with his family. I know he was a man with wonderful energy and humanity. I pay tribute to him for his work, and indeed to all holocaust survivors who have so bravely shared their testimonies. We must never forget the holocaust. As my hon. Friend rightly said, I know the whole House will join us in echoing Zigi’s poignant and accurate message: do not hate.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Q8. Will the Prime Minister join his Conservative predecessors in guaranteeing that HS2 reaches Manchester, or does he still believe that investment should be taken from poorer areas in the north and given to the more affluent parts of Kent?

[The Prime Minister]

This Government are investing record sums in transport infrastructure across the country but especially in the north and midlands, with a £96 billion integrated rail plan that will improve journey times east-west across the north and connectivity across the east midlands. It is a record we are proud of, and now we will get on with delivering it.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

There has been a 40% increase in patients on roll with GPs in Biggleswade in the past 15 years, but last week, proposals for a Biggleswade health hub were not progressed, despite financial support from the Conservative-controlled Central Bedfordshire Council. Can my right hon. Friend advise me of the status of our manifesto commitment to “infrastructure first”, and will he and his Ministers work with me to bring together the various parts of the NHS to bring the Biggleswade health hub back on track?

[The Prime Minister]

I would be happy to organise a meeting for my hon. Friend to discuss how to progress his project. He is right about the importance of primary care. There is more investment going in, but we want to ensure it works for his constituency, so I look forward to arranging a meeting with him and the relevant Minister.

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

Q9. The Prime Minister is well aware of the injustice of prepayment meters, not least because he commented on it in response to an earlier question. It is long-standing, with higher tariffs and higher social charges. Why, then, has he allowed a situation where hundreds of thousands have been forced into that penury when winter is upon us, prices are rocketing and 8.4 million people are facing fuel poverty in April? All he requires to do is instruct Ofgem, himself or through a Minister, to ensure that there is an equalisation of tariffs between debit and credit, and ensure that his Government take steps to provide a fund for those who have seen debt arise because of his Government’s failures. Will the Prime Minister end the manifest injustice of the poor paying most?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the hon. Gentleman’s proposal would also increase Bills for many millions of families, so I am not sure it is the right approach. What we are doing is providing around £900 of specific support for all families’ energy bills this winter, and there is further targeted support for those who are most vulnerable, which is absolutely the right thing to do. As the Chancellor has already announced, we are also consulting on the best thing to do going forward, including options, as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, such as a social tariff, as part of our wider reforms of the retail energy market.

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

Every single country in the G7 requires some level of minimum service to be provided when strikes take place in essential public services, often with laws that go much further than that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British people should be entitled to the same basic level of protection when strikes take place in these services, and does he think the former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair had a point when he said last year that the “big defect” at the birth of the Labour party was its ties to organised labour?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend put that very well. She is right to make the point that what we are proposing is in line with the vast majority of other countries around the world. Indeed, many countries ban strikes in blue-light services altogether, which we are not doing. We are joining countries across continental Europe in having minimum safety laws, as I think the public would reasonably expect a level of emergency life-saving care in the event of strikes. That is a common-sense, reasonable position to take, and we all know why the party opposite cannot bring itself to support it.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q12. This month, the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) was forced to pay millions to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to settle a tax dispute. Was the Prime Minister aware of the investigation when he appointed the right hon. Gentleman to his Cabinet and as chairman of the Conservative party? Will the Prime Minister demand accountability from his Cabinet members over their tax affairs?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend has already addressed the matter in full and there is nothing more that I can add.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

I begin by putting on record the House’s heartbreak at the tragic death this morning of our friend Denys, the Interior Minister of Ukraine, and his deputy, and all those who were killed in that tragic accident. I am sure the House is united in its feeling on that.

On more local affairs, as many hon. Members have pointed out, I understand that the Government are in the final furlongs of giving out the levelling-up bids. I must ask the Prime Minister to look kindly on building the Borough Market of the midlands and a future meditech hub in Rutland. Can he assure me that not just urban, but rural areas will be levelled up?

[The Prime Minister]

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the family of the Interior Minister of Ukraine—our thoughts are with them at this difficult time. I confirm that the Government believe that levelling up should apply equally everywhere across our United Kingdom. Urban and rural communities up and down the country will get the benefit of the investment that they deserve. We will ensure that we spread opportunity and that everyone takes pride in the place that they call home.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Q14. David Cameron said that the Scottish Parliament was “one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world”,yet the Prime Minister continues to block the Scottish Parliament’s clear mandate to allow Scots to choose their own future. On Monday, he sent his MPs through the Lobby to deny Scottish workers the right to strike, despite overwhelming Scottish Parliament opposition. On Tuesday, he sent his Secretary of State for Scotland to block a Bill of the Scottish Parliament that was voted for by 70% of MSPs, including Tories. Does he still think that David Cameron’s ridiculous assertion holds any water?

[The Prime Minister]

Some 347 Acts have been passed by the Scottish Parliament, which is undeniably one of the most powerful devolved legislatures anywhere in the world. In this exceptional case, it is clear that the Bill has adverse consequences on UK-wide equalities legislation. In those exceptional circumstances, the Scottish Secretary has regretfully taken the decision to block passage of the legislation. As I said previously, however, we want to engage in a dialogue with the Scottish Government to ensure that we can find a constructive way through.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

The British people rightly expect us to control our borders, so I was pleased that the Prime Minister made the need to stop the boats in the channel one of his five priorities. Can he reassure me and my constituents that we will not only bolster the patrols on the French beaches, but ensure that people who make that dangerous journey and arrive are removed?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that that is a priority for all our constituents, and he is right to highlight our new deal with France, which increases funded patrols on French beaches by 40%. As he said, we must go further to solve the problem once and for all, which means introducing new legislation that makes it unequivocally clear that if someone enters the UK illegally, they should not be able to stay here, but will instead be swiftly detained and removed.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Last night, the BBC revealed that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office knew the extent of Narendra Modi’s involvement in the Gujarat massacre that paved the way for the persecution of Muslims and other minorities that we see in India today. Senior diplomats reported that the massacre could not have taken place without the “climate of impunity” created by Modi and that he was, in the FCDO’s words, “directly responsible” for the violence. Given that hundreds were brutally killed and that families across India and the world, including here in the UK, are still without justice, does the Prime Minister agree with his Foreign Office diplomats that Modi was directly responsible? What more does the Foreign Office know about Modi’s involvement in that grave act of ethnic cleansing?

[The Prime Minister]

The UK Government’s position on that is clear and long standing, and it has not changed. Of course, we do not tolerate persecution anywhere, but I am not sure that I agree at all with the characterisation that the hon. Gentleman has put forward.

[Mr Speaker]

That completes Prime Minister’s questions.

Appointment of the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests

Rishi Sunak Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)]

I would like to inform the House that, on 22 December 2022, I appointed Sir Laurie Magnus CBE to the role of independent adviser on Ministers’ interests. The office of independent adviser has existed since 2006 and performs a critically important role, rooted in the ministerial code, as a source of trusted, impartial advice to the Prime Minister on the proper management of Ministers’ private interests and on adherence to the code itself.

Sir Laurie has been appointed for a non-renewable five year term and will discharge the role under existing published terms of reference.

I am confident that Sir Laurie not only demonstrates the necessary qualities but will serve in the role with distinction, in the best traditions of public service.

A copy of my exchange of letters with Sir Laurie, together with the terms of reference, has been placed in the Library of the House.

I am also placing in the Library a copy of the ministerial code, which was re-issued on the same day. As before, the ministerial code sets out my expectations for the way in which Ministers should conduct themselves. As I set out in the foreword to that document, the Government will work day and night to deliver for the British people. And as we go about our tasks, we will uphold the principles of public life, ensuring integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level.

[HCWS480]

UK Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: Appointments

Rishi Sunak Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) has been appointed as a full member of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in place of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Gagan Mohindra).

My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) has been appointed as a full member in place of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who has been appointed as a substitute member in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti).

My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) has been appointed as a full member in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell).

My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) has been appointed as a full member in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew).

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Pauline Latham) has been appointed as a substitute member in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory).

My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Sheryll Murray) has been appointed as a substitute member in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher).

My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) has been appointed as a substitute member in place of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Richard Holden).

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) has been appointed as a substitute member in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey).

[HCWS470]

Illegal Immigration

Rishi Sunak Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)]

Before I start, I know that the whole House will want to join me in expressing our sympathies to the families of those who lost their children in Solihull.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on illegal migration. I hope that the whole House will agree that there is a complex moral dimension to illegal migration. The balancing of our duty to support people in dire need with the responsibility to have genuine control over our borders understandably provokes strong feelings. So it is my view that the basis for any solution should be not just what works but what is right.

The simplest moral framing for this issue, and one that I believe Members on both sides of the House believe in, is fairness. It is unfair that people come here illegally. It is unfair on those with a genuine case for asylum when our capacity to help is taken up by people coming through—and from—countries that are perfectly safe. It is unfair on those who migrate here legally when others come here by cheating the system. Above all, it is unfair on the British people who play by the rules when others come here illegally and benefit from breaking those rules. So people are right to be angry, because they see what I see, which is that this simply is not fair.

It is not cruel or unkind to want to break the stranglehold of criminal gangs who trade in human misery and who exploit our system and laws. Enough is enough. As currently constructed, the global asylum framework has become obsolete. Today, there are 100 million people displaced globally. Hostile states are using migration as a weapon on the very borders of Europe. As the world becomes more unstable, and the effects of climate change make more places uninhabitable, the numbers displaced will only grow.

We have a proud history of providing sanctuary to those most in need. Britain helped craft the 1951 refugee convention to protect those fleeing persecution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) passed the world’s first Modern Slavery Act in 2015. In the last year, we have opened our hearts and our homes to people from Hong Kong, Afghanistan and Ukraine. Thousands of families will be setting extra places around the Christmas table this year. No one—no one—can doubt our generosity of spirit.

But today, far too many of the beneficiaries of that generosity are not those directly fleeing war zones or at risk of persecution, but people crossing the channel in small boats. Many originate from fundamentally safe countries. All travel through safe countries. Their journeys are not ad hoc, but co-ordinated by ruthless, organised criminals. And every single journey risks the lives of women, children and—we should be honest—mostly men at sea.

This is not what previous generations intended when they drafted our humanitarian laws, nor is it the purpose of the numerous international treaties to which the UK is a signatory. Unless we act now and decisively, this will only get worse. Already in just seven weeks since I became Prime Minister, we have delivered the largest ever small boats deal with France, with significantly more boots on the ground patrolling their beaches. For the first time, UK and French officers are embedded in respective operations in Dover and northern France. We have re-established the Calais group of northern European nations to disrupt traffickers all along the migration route. Last week, the group set a long-term ambition for a UK-EU-wide agreement on migration. Of course, that is not a panacea and we need to go much further. Over the last month, the Home Secretary and I have studied every aspect of this issue in detail, and we can now set out five new steps today.

First, our policing of the channel has been too fragmented, with different people doing different things being pulled in different directions. So we will establish a new, permanent, unified small boats operational command. This will bring together our military, our civilian capabilities and the National Crime Agency. It will co-ordinate our intelligence, interception, processing and enforcement, and use all available technology, including drones for reconnaissance and surveillance, to pick people up and identify and then prosecute more gang-led boat pilots. We are adding more than 700 new staff and also doubling the funding given to the NCA for tackling organised immigration crime in Europe.

Secondly, those extra resources will free up immigration officers to go back to enforcement, which will, in turn, allow us to increase raids on illegal working by 50%. And it is frankly absurd that today illegal migrants can get bank accounts which help them live and work here. So we will re-start data sharing to stop that.

Thirdly, it is unfair and appalling that we are spending £5.5 million every day on using hotels to house asylum seekers. We must end this. We will shortly bring forward a range of alternative sites, such as disused holiday parks, former student halls and surplus military sites. We have already identified locations that could accommodate 10,000 people, and are in active discussions to secure these and more. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Someone has flashed a camera. It is quite serious to take photographs in the Chamber. If the Member knew they had taken a photograph, I would expect them to leave the Chamber. It is totally unacceptable to disrupt the Prime Minister when he is speaking.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope the photograph is deleted. Go out and have a chat with the Serjeant at Arms, because it did not look that way to me.

[The Prime Minister]

These sites will accommodate 10,000 people, and we are in active discussions to secure them and many more. Our aim is to add thousands of places through this type of accommodation in the coming months, at half the cost of hotels. At the same time, as we consulted on over the summer, the cheapest and fairest way to solve this problem is for all local authorities to take their fair share of asylum seekers in the private rental sector, and we will work to achieve this as quickly as possible.

Fourthly, we need to process claims in days or weeks, not months or years, so we will double the number of asylum caseworkers. We are radically re-engineering the end-to-end process, with shorter guidance, fewer interviews and less paperwork, and we are introducing specialist caseworkers by nationality. We will also remove the gold-plating in our modern slavery system, including by reducing the cooling-off period from 45 days to 30 days, the legal minimum set out in the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings. As a result of all these changes, we will triple the productivity of our caseworkers and we expect to abolish the backlog of initial asylum decisions by the end of next year.

Fifthly, and most significantly, a third of all those arriving in small boats this year, almost 13,000 people, are Albanian, yet Albania is a safe, prosperous European country. It is deemed safe for returns by Germany, France, Italy and Sweden. It is an EU accession country, a NATO ally and a member of the same convention against trafficking as the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister of Albania has himself said there is no reason why we cannot return Albanian asylum seekers immediately. Last year, Germany, France, Belgium and Sweden all rejected almost 100% of Albanian asylum claims, yet our rejection rate is just 45%. That must not continue, so today I can announce a new agreement with Albania and a new approach.

First, we will embed Border Force officers in Tirana airport for the first time ever, helping to disrupt organised crime and stop people coming here illegally. Secondly, we will issue new guidance for our caseworkers to make it crystal clear that Albania is a safe country. Thirdly, one of the reasons why we struggle to remove people is that they unfairly exploit our modern slavery system, so we will significantly raise the threshold someone must meet to be considered a modern slave. For the first time, we will require a caseworker to have objective evidence of modern slavery, rather than just a suspicion. Fourthly, we have sought and received formal assurances from Albania confirming that it will protect genuine victims and people at risk of re-trafficking, allowing us to detain and return people to Albania with confidence and in line with ECAT. As a result of these changes, the vast majority of claims from Albania can simply be declared clearly unfounded, and those individuals can be swiftly returned. Lastly, we will change how we process Albanian illegal migrants with a new dedicated unit, staffed by 400 new specialists, expediting cases within weeks. Over the coming months, thousands of Albanians will be returned home, and we will keep going with weekly flights until all the Albanians in our backlog have been removed.



In addition to all these new steps, let the House be in no doubt that, when legal proceedings conclude on our migration and economic development partnership, we will restart the first flights to Rwanda, so that those who are here illegally and cannot be returned to their home country can build a new life there.

However, even with the huge progress that we will make with the changes I have announced today, there remains a fundamental question: how do we solve this problem once and for all? It is not just our asylum system that needs fundamental reform; our laws need reform too. We must be able to control our borders to ensure that the only people who come here come through safe and legal routes. However well intended, our legal frameworks are being manipulated by people who exploit our courts to frustrate their removal for months or years on end.

I said, “Enough is enough”, and I meant it. That means that I am prepared to do what must be done, so early next year we will introduce new legislation to make it unambiguously clear that, if you enter the UK illegally, you should not be able to remain here. Instead, you will be detained and swiftly returned either to your home country or to a safe country where your asylum claim will be considered. You will no longer be able to frustrate removal attempts with late or spurious claims or appeals, and once removed, you should have no right to re-entry, settlement or citizenship.

Furthermore, if our reforms on Albania are challenged in the courts, we will also put them on a statutory footing to ensure that the UK’s treatment of Albanian arrivals is no different from that of Germany or France. The only way to come to the UK for asylum will be through safe and legal routes and, as we get a grip on illegal migration, we will create more of those routes. We will work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to identify those who are most in need so that the UK remains a safe haven for the most vulnerable. We will also introduce an annual quota on numbers, set by Parliament in consultation with local authorities to determine our capacity, and amendable in the face of humanitarian emergencies.

That is the fair way to address this global challenge. Tackling this problem will not be quick; it will not be easy; but it is the right thing to do. We cannot persist with a system that was designed for a different era. We have to stop the boats, and this Government will do what must be done. We will be tough but fair, and where we lead, others will follow. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. I also echo his comments about the tragic loss of life in Solihull, which is unimaginably unbearable for the families, the friends, and the whole community.

Channel crossings are a serious problem requiring serious solutions. We need leadership at home and abroad, we need a Home Office that functions effectively, and we need to defeat the criminal gangs operating on the coast. Time and again, however, this Government have not provided serious solutions. The Prime Minister sat around the Cabinet table the whole time. Where there should have been solutions, we have had unworkable gimmicks.

As I listened to the Prime Minister’s statement, I thought, “All of that has been said before, almost word for word.” It was said the last time we had measures—the last time we had legislation. There have been plenty of newspaper headlines about wave machines, prison ships and fantasy islands, but there has been no effective action. It is all designed to mask failure, to distract from a broken asylum system that cannot process claims, cannot return those with no right to be here, and cannot protect our borders.

Over 40,000 people have crossed the channel this year—that is a record—but only 2% have had their asylum claim processed. What happens to the other 98%? They are placed in hotels, costing around £7 million a day. That is bad for refugees who want to rebuild their lives and bad for taxpayers. And 2022 is not just a one-off bad year; it has been bad under the Tories for years. Last year, the percentage of channel crossing asylum claims processed was just 4%. Let those figures sink in, because that is the root of the problem. Something has to be done to clear the backlog.

I welcome the commitment to fast-track clearly unfounded claims. That is what we have been calling for, and Britain is two years behind so many of our neighbours and allies, who have been fast-tracking for years. Can the Prime Minister confirm—I want to have an answer on this—that he will clear the backlog by the end of next year? That is 150,000 cases in the backlog—[Interruption.] I know he has said it, but there are 150,000 cases, including the 100,000 that have been there for over six months. We need clarity about that.

I also welcome more staff for processing. It is appalling that the Government let the backlog get this big. Nearly 100,000 cases have been waiting more than six months for a decision. That is the root cause. But processing is only part of the answer. Criminal gangs are sending these people to risk their lives, and they thrive because of a total failure of any co-ordinated response or effective deterrent to their criminal activity. For months, we have been calling for action to tackle this root cause: a specialist cell in the National Crime Agency to catch, prosecute and disband criminal gangs. We need to be working internationally to end this cross-border crime. Again, new staff are welcome, but can the Prime Minister guarantee that that will result in prosecutions of those who put lives and national security at risk?

Money is being wasted on the unworkable, unethical plan to deport people to Rwanda: £140 million has been wasted already, with not a single deportation. The most senior civil servant in the Home Office is the only one in Government to tell the truth: it does not even work as a deterrent. The Prime Minister has promised more legislation, but the last time the Government legislated to tackle the broken asylum system, they made it worse. Since the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 came into force, crossings and delays have increased, and 18,000 cases have been put through the new process, adding a further six months, with only 21 returns. That is slow track, not fast track. How can the Prime Minister have any credibility to say that new legislation is going to be the answer? The unworkable gimmicks go on, and so do the crossings. We need to bring this to an end, and that means a proper plan to crack down on the gangs, quick processing, return agreements: serious solutions to a serious problem. That is what Labour will offer.

[The Prime Minister]

That speaks for itself, quite frankly. We are not going to take any lectures from the Labour party on tackling immigration. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has consistently tried to block steps to strengthen Britain’s approach to illegal migration throughout his career. Since he was elected, he has failed on 36 occasions to vote for stronger laws and we heard that again today. He talks about processing and about the hotels, but the only way to stop that problem is to stop the boats. We are the only party that has a plan to tackle these issues, with a new small boats operational command in the channel, deals with Albania and France, cheaper accommodation, tougher immigration enforcement, and new legislation making it clear in law for the first time that, if you come here illegally, you cannot stay. Labour now has a choice: will it show that it is on the side of the British people and back our plans to stop illegal migration? The right hon. Gentleman may want to stand in our way. He may want to block laws. We are going to block the boats.

[Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reference to my passing of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Does he agree that, in dealing with asylum claims, the onus must be on the Home Office to improve its processing; that, contrary to what is said by some commentators and, sadly, some Members of this House, people smuggling and human trafficking are distinct and separate crimes and should not be treated or spoken of as one; that modern slavery is a real and current threat, with too many people brought to this country into slavery; and that we must do nothing to diminish our world-leading protections for the victims of this terrible, horrific crime?

[The Prime Minister]

I know the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend for her global leadership on that issue. She is absolutely right that it is incumbent on us to ensure our processing is swift and effective. I know she will want to join me in ensuring that our world-leading modern slavery regime actually helps the people who are most in need and most vulnerable. They are the people who need our support and that is what our reforms today will deliver.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the SNP.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I wish to begin by passing on my thoughts and those of my colleagues to the families and friends of those impacted by the terrible tragedy in Solihull.

I am going to start by saying something that I think many on the Benches behind the Prime Minister wish they could say. Nobody is illegal. Indeed, there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker. But what we all agree on is that the UK’s system is broken and we cannot escape from the fact of who has broken it. To address some of the problems that are faced, I welcome some of what the Prime Minister said. I have personally visited hotel accommodation and seen the damaging impact that those long stays have had on people within it, so I hope we can all agree on the positive words about speeding up the process.

However, I have grave concerns about the proposed legislation, about the proposals on accommodation and about the one-size-fits-all approach to asylum seekers emanating from Albania. In that regard, I ask the Prime Minister a simple question: has he consulted with the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees in respect of these proposals? If not, why not?

Ultimately, the solutions lie not in any of the above proposals but in ensuring that safe and legal routes exist. The Prime Minister made extensive reference to safe and legal routes, so let him rise to his feet and outline one single safe and legal route—perhaps for a family member of an asylum seeker in Afghanistan. The Home Secretary of course could not do so last week.

It would be remiss of all of us in the Chamber not to reflect on the independent Migration Advisory Committee’s report from this morning, which detailed how important migration is to our public sector, our private sector and indeed our economy. How on earth does the Government’s hostile approach to migration assist with that proposal?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Development Secretary met the UN High Commissioner for Refugees last weekend. A point of difference between us and the Opposition parties is that we believe that we should not need the permission of someone outside to control our own borders.



The hon. Gentleman also asked about Albania and our approach. I gently point out to him that what we are doing is in line with what almost every other European country already does with regard to Albanian migrants.

Lastly, the hon. Gentleman made the frankly absurd claim that we do not have safe and legal routes into the UK. In the last few years, we have made offers of over 450,000 places to welcome people from Afghanistan, Syria, Hong Kong and, most recently, Ukraine. That is because this is a compassionate, tolerant country, and it always will be.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The parliamentary leader of the SNP, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), can put down a debate on legal migration for next week; the subject today is illegal immigration.

The questions in front of the House and the country are: how can people be safe, how can their status be determined, will the action work, is it necessary, and is it right? I think most people listening, whether they normally support the SNP, Labour or the Conservatives, will say, “Yes, it is necessary, it will work, and it should go ahead.”

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support. As he knows, this problem is complicated—it is not easy, and it will not be solved overnight—but I believe the plan that we have outlined today represents the most serious step forward in getting a grip of it. The task for us now is to deliver on it. With his support and everyone else’s, I am confident that we can.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

In our report on small boat crossings published in July, the Home Affairs Committee made it clear that the No. 1 priority for Government should be to clear the asylum backlog, so we are pleased that that is now starting to be addressed. However, the backlog of 150,000 has been building since 2013, so the more recent small boat crossings have not broken the asylum system.

We noted how important it was to have sufficiently well trained, motivated and supported decision makers to make good-quality first decisions, but despite promises to increase decision-making numbers, targets have been missed, and the staff attrition rate in 2021 was a staggering 46%. In addition, the technology that staff use is creakingly antiquated and was reported by the chief inspector of borders and immigration as hampering productivity.

Will the Prime Minister ensure that he has sufficient staff to carry out what he is seeking to do? With productivity currently at 1.3 decisions per decision maker per week, with a Home Office pilot to increase that figure to 2.7, can he explain exactly how he is going to triple productivity?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her excellent questions; they are the right questions to focus on. We have redesigned the entire process for caseworking on an end-to-end basis, which will take productivity from 1.2, as she says it is today, up to 4. We will do that in a relatively short period; that is how we will cut the initial asylum backlog by the end of the next year. That process is being rolled out as we speak.

The right hon. Lady talked about the reason for the backlog. It is worth bearing in mind that the number of small boat crossings has quadrupled in just the last two years. That is the scale of the challenge that we are facing, and that is leading to significant strain on the system. She also asked about numbers. We have already, in the last year, doubled the number of caseworkers to 1,200, and it will be doubling again in the next nine to 12 months.

Lastly, I will just say that a big part of the reason why our processing is slower than we would like is that, time and again, people exploit our system to make late or spurious claims. That is why our new legislation will tackle that problem, and I hope it has the support of the Labour party.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the initiatives that he has taken with Monsieur Macron and the Prime Minister of Albania. Those are two small but significant steps forward. I also appreciate the fact that he is clearly going to take personal charge of the backlog and ensure that the lamentable performance of the Home Office to date is rectified. However, does he agree that the only way that this problem will be solved is on a pan-European basis and not domestically, and that if we are going to deal with it, we have to deal with Schengen and with countries beyond Schengen, and reach agreements? Will he use all his efforts to seek to secure that?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent question and for his very constructive engagement with me and Ministers on resolving this issue. I know he speaks up very well for his local area on these matters. He is absolutely right, which why it is so crucial that, in the last few weeks, not only have we restarted meetings of the Calais group of European nations, which the Home Secretary deserves enormous credit for, but she has put that group on a permanent basis. We are making sure that we now go further, working with Frontex, the European border agency, towards a European returns agreement for the first time ever. That is the path forward. The best way to solve this problem is upstream, working with our allies in northern Europe, and the plans and progress that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made are going to deliver exactly that.

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

Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and community in Solihull who have lost their young sons.

Some 97,000 people have been waiting for a decision on their asylum claim for six months or more. That is 97,000 people trapped for months in Home Office limbo, banned from working, while the NHS, social care, agriculture and hospitality are all desperately short of staff. Last month it was revealed that even the Home Office’s own analysis shows that the right to work does not act as a pull factor for asylum seekers, so will the Prime Minister end this absurd ban on work, to save taxpayers money and help to grow our economy?

[The Prime Minister]

The simple answer is no. We will not do that, nor will we grant blanket amnesties, as happened in the past, to get the backlog down. We will go through it methodically and properly. The best way to reduce the pressure on the backlog is to stop people coming here in the first place, and if the right hon. Gentleman is interested in doing that, he should support our new legislation.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

I warmly welcome today’s announcements. They are exactly what is needed—I cannot think of anything more articulate to say than that—but will my right hon. Friend reiterate the importance of the Rwanda flights as part of the measures to address illegal immigration? That is such an important measure.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the Rwanda policy is an important part of our approach to tackling this problem, because it must be the case that if someone comes here illegally we can return them either to their own safe country or to an alternative such as Rwanda where their claim can be processed. That is the system we want to move to and that is what we will deliver.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Some 83% of small boat asylum claims made in the past four years are still awaiting a decision. We have an attrition rate of 46% among caseworkers. How is the Prime Minister going to achieve his goals?

[The Prime Minister]

As I set out to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, we have redesigned the end-to-end process for asylum processing, which will triple the productivity of our caseworkers and cut through the backlog. I say the same thing to the hon. Gentleman that I have said to others: the best way to solve this problem is to stop people coming here illegally, and the best way to do that is to back our new legislation.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I strongly support these measures from the Prime Minister, particularly on the disproportionate numbers of Albanian economic migrants who are queue-jumping those genuinely fleeing danger. I heard not a single practical solution from those on the Opposition Benches—just collective amnesia about what they voted against.

The Prime Minister knows that I favour safe and legal routes as a counterbalance to tougher and swifter measures. Will he therefore, in those safe and legal routes that we need to develop, have a Dubs 2 scheme specifically aimed at unaccompanied children in peril and a proper family reunion scheme for those with close links to people legally here in the United Kingdom, so that we can control and welcome those genuinely in need of safety here?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As our actions over the past couple of years have shown, this is an incredibly compassionate and generous country, which has offered and always will offer sanctuary and refuge to those who really need it. We need to do that through safe and legal routes, and we want to have that conversation with him and with others such as the Red Cross and UNHCR about how to design those routes, but we can only have that conversation and implement those routes once we have proper control of our borders. That is what we must deliver first.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister said in his statement that we will remove, “the gold-plating in our modern slavery system.” That modern slavery system is something of which we, across the Labour Benches, can be incredibly proud. It protected victims of modern slavery and also, crucially, allowed us to secure prosecutions against the abusers.

It is currently taking the Home Office 531 days on average to arrive at a conclusive grounds decision for victims. Around 90% of those decisions are positive, confirming that people were indeed victims of modern slavery. This will affect British and foreign children as well as adults, and some of those locked in county lines gangs as well as in sexual exploitation. Why is the Prime Minister tearing up the modern slavery system in this way?

[The Prime Minister]

That is simply not right. We are very proud of our modern slavery system and we want to make sure that it protects those genuine victims of modern slavery. It is absolutely right that they get their cases considered properly. The reason why that is not happening at the moment is that the system is being deluged with far more claims than it was ever designed to cope with. When the impact assessment on the Modern Slavery Bill was done, it anticipated 3,500 claims a year. What we are now facing is 12,500 in just the first three quarters of this year. It is right that we focus our attention on those who most need our help, and, in doing so, we can get those people the help they need as quickly as possible.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

I live in a place called the real world. In the real world, people know that the vast majority of those travelling here on small boats are not genuine refugees. Even last week, at the Home Affairs Committee, the Albanian ambassador admitted that everybody coming from Albania is economic migrants. They are coming here on small boats because they cannot come through a legal route by getting visas. The public get it. Even the Albanian ambassador gets it. We all get it. I ask the Prime Minister: when will the Opposition get it and realise that the vast majority coming over are not genuine asylum seekers?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion on this issue. He is right: we on the Conservative Benches are on the side of the British people. It is as simple as that. The Opposition today have put forward no plans, no action. We will soon see, Mr Speaker. When we bring forward legislation to stop the boats, they have a choice: do they want to back our legislation and be on the side of the British people?

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for the important suite of proposals that he has outlined this afternoon and say that we will constructively engage with his Ministers on any legislation that is introduced. He has rightfully highlighted Syria, Afghanistan, Hong Kong, Ukraine, and the pressures that there have been in the Home Office over the past number of years, with staff moved continually from one place to another, and to passports and back again. That is in large part responsible for the backlog, so he is right to double the number of caseworkers. Will the new Albanian team of 400 form part of that doubling—is that additional staff, or staff moved from elsewhere?

[The Prime Minister]

That is part of the doubling, and that unit will be specifically trained to process the Albanian migrants in line with our new system and our new policy guidance, which will shortly be issued by the Home Office. In doing that, we are confident that we can start processing Albanian claims in a matter of weeks rather than months, and, with our new agreement, we can swiftly send them back to Albania. That is what the Albanian Prime Minister thinks should happen. That is what European countries do, and that is what we will do in our country, too.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I strongly welcome the seriousness with which the Prime Minister addresses this issue, particularly his focus on stopping the Albanian gangs.

With respect to the dispersal centres, when the Home Office attempted to introduce a dispersal centre in my constituency, it ignored the local authority’s concerns about healthcare, public services and children’s services. It then also ignored the existing level of Albanian organised crime in Hull and did not even consult the local police chief before it moved on the matter. Needless to say, it did not consult any of the local MPs either. If we continue in this mode, the Home Office will face judicial review after judicial review and the policy will not work. Can we please see a radical improvement in decision making in the Home Office in this process?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I thank my right hon. Friend for his engagement with us and his specific suggestions on tackling the issue of Albanian migrants—I hope he is pleased by what he has heard today, which reflected much of what he suggested. On the issue of accommodation, I agree with him. As all Members know, this is a tricky issue for us to manage, but we will manage it with sensitivity and care, and with strong engagement with colleagues and local authorities. I make that commitment to him, and I will make sure that that is followed up.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister mentioned that he wanted to work with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and that the Foreign Minister had already met the high commissioner. Did the high commissioner support these measures and their efficacy?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said earlier, on the Conservative Benches we believe in sovereignty. When it comes to controlling our borders, we will of course act in line with our legal obligations, but we will do what must be done to fix the unfairness and make sure we stop illegal migration.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for his practical approach to a problem that needs practical solutions. In urging him to press on with the work to improve the efficiency of the system, including the tribunal appellate system, I urge the Government to work with the tribunal procedure committee to reactivate the detained fast-track procedure, which has been suspended for seven years now. I think it could be a reasonable part of the solution to this problem.

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend obviously has expertise on this issue. He is absolutely right about that process and the help that it can provide. He will be pleased to know that the Immigration Minister and the Attorney General met the authorities recently. We will look forward to taking forward his suggestions.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

In 17 years as a Member of this House, I have never known backlogs, in every avenue of Home Office processing, to be so great and so slow. The Prime Minister asked for suggestions. If he really wants to reprocess the Home Office’s procedures, he could take out the ridiculous rule that people have to renew their indefinite leave to remain every 30 months, putting the same people back through the system to come out with the same outcome. He could, in one fell swoop, reduce the backlog. Will he do it?

[The Prime Minister]

I just gently point out to the hon. Lady that the backlog now, difficult though it is, is half as big as it was under the last Labour Government. Unlike then, we will not resort to giving people blanket amnesties, because that is not the right approach.

[Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)]

I warmly welcome this statement. Tackling the backlog is absolutely key to getting the heat out of the issue and dealing with it fairly and firmly. The same approach on Albania is welcome, too. Does my right hon. Friend agree that although Albania is the issue of the moment, this issue will move around the globe, and going upstream to tackle the criminal gangs, who have imported their dangerous business model from the Aegean to the channel, is absolutely crucial? Will he share his thoughts on that?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we are doubling the funding for Operation Invigor at the National Crime Agency, which will mean that it can disrupt twice as many organised crime gangs upstream—that is a European effort, and it has proven to be very successful in the past. It will get double the amount of resources to help to disrupt the gangs upstream in the first place.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I have a very, very simple question for the Prime Minister: does he agree that any proposed Bill or policy that breaches the UN refugee convention or the European convention on human rights should be rejected out of hand?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Our legislation will ensure that if someone comes to this country illegally, they will not have the right to stay here. It is a simple proposition; it is a fair proposition; and it is one that is supported by the vast majority of people across our country.

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. This is a huge step in the right direction. I am particularly encouraged by what he says about Albania and tighter guidance for those processing decisions. Will he extend that process of tightening guidance to other countries from which people arrive and too often simply get through the system? I am thinking particularly of countries such as Vietnam, which is a fast-growing, prosperous country, making the case for claiming asylum considerably weaker than in the past. Will he also strengthen guidance for such countries?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes is the simple answer. Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 already gives the Home Secretary the ability to designate safe countries. Many are already there, and we will continue to add to them as appropriate.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister talks about the views of the British public. I am pretty sure that the British public also think that children should not be punished for the decisions of their parents. It may be an inconvenient truth on this planet, but one in five of those coming in small boats are under 18, as verified by the Home Office, not people on Twitter.

For six weeks, I have been asking the Government for the details of the safeguarding provision. During that time we have had multiple reports of children—who are with their families in those hotels for months on end—being sexually assaulted and abused. Nothing that the Prime Minister announced today will change that situation and how we treat those children, or apply the same rules to those children as we do to other children in temporary accommodation with their families. Will he now at least do the decent thing and make the safeguarding contract public so that we can see what provision the Government have made to look after those children, and will he make a commitment that families will be housed separately from single people?

[The Prime Minister]

The Government take their obligations towards children extremely seriously. Of course it is right that they are treated differently, and that is why the Immigration Minister has met the hon. Lady and we continue to make sure that safeguarding is followed throughout our processing system.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is right to identify that illegal immigration and the associated people smuggling are global problems that need global solutions. May I press him to use his good offices to urge the United Nations to make this a topic for the next General Assembly and to introduce an annual Heads of Government conference that focuses on the issue?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the work she did in bringing about the Modern Slavery Act: she deserves praise and credit for that. She is right: as I mentioned, the global picture on migration has completely changed since most of these treaties were signed. It is right that countries such as ours update their approach to the modern problem that we face, and her idea is a terrific one.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister agree with Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, who said in The Times yesterday:

“Instead of seeking to restrict the right to asylum the government should ensure timely and fair decisions, with access to legal advice, so that those who need protection are allowed to stay and those with unfounded claims are returned with dignity. At the same time there must be more safe routes such as family reunion visas”?

That is an issue that many hon. Members across the House have raised for several years.

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with all of that, and that is what the reforms I have announced today will deliver. The best way to do that is to ensure that the pressure on our system is not unsustainably high, and that is why we need to stop the flow of new illegal migrants coming here, which is why legislation is important, as well as our Albania deal. I want to see the same thing as the hon. Lady—swift and effective processing of those who come here through safe and legal routes and the return of those who should not do so.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

First, does my right hon. Friend accept that the legislation that he has announced is overdue? Secondly, it needs expressly to differentiate economic and illegal migrants from genuine refugees. The only way that can be done in law is through bypassing the notwithstanding formula in the European convention on human rights to ensure that we can achieve the objectives that he has set out. That needs to be done as soon as possible.

[The Prime Minister]

I am confident that our legislation will deliver the asylum system that we want to see, and I can tell my hon. Friend that it will come very early in the new year. We want to crack on and solve the problem, and I look forward to having his support.

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

When my mother fled war and famine in Biafra in the 1960s with her three small children, the cargo plane on which we travelled—the only form of transport available—landed first in Lisbon, as Portugal was the only country that recognised Biafra at the time. Does the Prime Minister think that we should have been obliged to remain in that relatively safe country, or does he agree with my mother that it was better to travel on to Newcastle, where my grandmother lived?

[The Prime Minister]

This country has and always will have a proud tradition of welcoming people here. We need to ensure that we can do that, but we cannot do that if our system is under unsustainable pressure from people who should not be here. By having proper control of our borders and ensuring we create a deterrent effect for those coming here illegally, we will be in a position where people do not have to travel through other countries to get here. We can work with the UN, the Red Cross and others to provide sanctuary for them wherever they are. In the long run, that is the fairest and most sustainable solution to this problem.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on targeted and practical measures. Does he agree that what he proposes is entirely consistent with our international obligations and, in particular, entirely consistent with our obligations under the European convention on human rights and the European Human Rights Act? Is it not better to concentrate on practical measures, rather than upending our domestic human rights legislation, which frankly would be a wasteful red herring?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support. He makes a good point. As I said earlier, the vast majority of European countries already reject almost 100% of claims from asylum seekers from Albania, for example. They are all signatories to the same conventions and treaties as us, so there is no reason why we should not be able to move to exactly the same rejection rate.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I express my heartfelt sympathies to the people of Solihull following this week’s terrible disaster.

We all know what today’s announcement is: a sop to the right-wing press. It continues the Prime Minister’s obsession with scapegoating asylum seekers. Fast-tracking applications and weakening modern slavery protections directly undermine Wales’s nation of sanctuary policy, which includes an explicit commitment to prevent people seeking sanctuary from becoming victims of modern slavery. What discussions has he had with the Welsh Government to guarantee that fast-tracking will not frustrate our ambition to be a proper nation of sanctuary?

[The Prime Minister]

We were the first country in the world, thanks to the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), to pass the Modern Slavery Act 2015, with a dedicated regime that does not exist in that form in basically any other European country. We require our businesses to enforce their supply chains and we have life sentences for people who traffic modern slaves. I am very proud of our record. That record will continue, but we need to ensure our system is not abused and exploited. That is what we will fix with our reforms.

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the package of measures announced today, because this is the key issue on the doorstep in my constituency. It is something voters care about very deeply. The package being put together is very strong and, as my right hon. Friend says, it complements the Rwanda agreement. Can he just confirm, however, that if it is, like the Rwanda agreement, ultimately frustrated by the European convention on human rights, we will rule nothing out, including derogation, to ensure we can deliver this vital package?

[The Prime Minister]

Having been on those doorsteps in Middlesbrough South with my right hon. Friend, I know he speaks the truth and he is right to highlight this issue for his constituents. We will legislate to put our Albania proposals on a statutory footing. I am highly confident that those should be delivered. As I said, they are already in practice in all other European countries, so there is no reason why they should not happen here, too.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister said we will restart data sharing to stop migrants getting bank accounts. Who are we going to be restarting data sharing with and why did we stop?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member will remember, I am sure, that after the Windrush situation data sharing was stopped in a range of different places and has not restarted. We will be restarting data sharing with the banks, so that when someone tries to open a new bank account, and on a quarterly basis for existing bank accounts, the banks will have to check against the database of illegal migrants that we hold to ensure people cannot disappear into the black economy having arrived here illegally and then participate in a normal way. That is not right and not fair, and I am glad he will be supporting the proposals.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I am very pleased to hear about the new approach to Albanians, which is both obvious and very sensible. My question to the Prime Minister is on how we bridge the gap. We approve 76% of all asylum applications, but the EU average is just 14%. We are all ECHR signatories. They are not held out as international pariahs or as breaking any abstract of international law. The Prime Minister may be surprised to hear that I have no issue with the ambit of the ECHR as long as we have an outcome of about 14%, too. What has been going wrong with our approvals and refusals process?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. A big part of that difference is how we are treating Albania. That will be changed as a result of our new guidance and deal. More broadly, one of the changes that we have made today is to increase the threshold that someone has to meet to be considered a modern slave. It was based on simply a suspicion that someone may be; we are changing that to make sure that there is objective evidence that they are. That change will help us to close down some of those grant rates, but there is more work to do and that is what our legislation will deliver.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

The white list of countries designated safe is not new, and Albania has been on that list since 2014, so there is nothing new about this announcement. I welcome the clearing of the backlog. The Prime Minister just said that he knew that workers would be employed within the next nine to 12 months, and the whole backlog would be cleared from the current 100,000—it was 3,000 when Labour was in power—in the same 12 months. So without the immigration workers there, how will this circle be squared and how will be the backlog be cleared?

[The Prime Minister]

I urge the hon. Lady to go and check her figures. It was certainly a lot higher than that under the last Labour Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) said, we are currently rejecting only 45% of Albanian asylum seekers, compared to all European countries, which reject more like 98% to 100%. The changes we have made today will ensure that our rate increases up to the levels that we see elsewhere. That is as a result of the new deal that we have negotiated with Albania, which will give more comfort to our caseworkers. Combined with the new guidance that will be issued, that will mean that we should, as we want to, return the vast majority of Albanian migrants when they come here. They should not be here; Albania is a safe and prosperous country and they should go back there.

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the new approach on Albania. As much as I welcome the jobs, will my right hon. Friend confirm that this will be a temporary, not permanent, new small boats operational command centre in Dover and east Kent? In relation to safe countries and immediate returns, will my right hon. Friend update the House on whether a date has been set for the summit with President Macron next year?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work that she does on this issue in her constituency. She is right. We want to get through the challenges that we face to have a system in which people do not come here illegally. Once we have that, of course we should be able to draw down people after we have got the backlog cleared. She is also right to highlight the importance of working with the French. That is why our new deal is so important, but there is work to build on. We are keen to have that summit as early as practically possible, but it is important that it delivers tangible outcomes, and that is what the Home Secretary and I are set about doing.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Yesterday I led a delegation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. One of the issues we discussed was the importance of all Council of Europe states addressing migration issues in accordance with human rights and international law. International refugee law does not require asylum seekers to make their claim in the first safe country and it protects asylum seekers arriving via irregular or unofficial routes, provided they make their presence known to the authorities. Can the Prime Minister give me an undertaking that his new laws will comply with the United Kingdom’s international law and human rights obligations, and if not, can he tell us from which treaties he intends to derogate? Or is it simply his intention to flout international law and, if that is the case, what kind of example does he think that sets to other countries, particularly on Europe’s eastern border?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. and learned Lady will know that the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the Dublin agreement all consider the proposition that it is possible to return people who have come here who should not be here. It allows the possibility of designating safe countries, and of removals, so that principle is well established in international law. We want a system whereby, if people come here illegally, they will not be able to stay. That is a simple, common-sense, fair principle that the vast majority of the country is right behind.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

It is rare in this House, Mr Speaker, to agree with every single sentiment, impulse and word—unless it is a speech of my own, of course—but I did today, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. His set of measures is apposite and appropriate, and it will be appreciated across the country. Will he, as most of my constituents would, when people travel across safe countries, as they frequently do before they claim asylum, automatically assume that their claim is spurious or at least doubtful?

[The Prime Minister]

That is what our new legislation will deliver. It will make it unambiguously clear: if you come here illegally, you will have no right to stay and will be removed either back to your own safe country or to a safe alternative. That is the right system to have. It is the fair system to have. It means that we can concentrate our generosity and compassion on those around the world who most need it, which I know is the type of system that my right hon. Friend wants to see.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

We should not forget why we are here with the statement: it is because the Government have lost control of the asylum and immigration system and shown a degree of incompetence that takes some beating. Three years on, they have also failed to meet their manifesto commitment to take back control of the border with a new system that would give real control. Will the Prime Minister firm up his statement and confirm that he is confident that the whole backlog of initial asylum decisions will be removed by the end of next year? Will he tell us why he did not say anything about how long he expects it will take to remove from the country those asylum seekers who have failed in their applications?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, our plan is to clear the initial asylum backlog by the end of next year. It is about 117,000 on currently published statistics. The hon. Member talked about the Government and where we are, but he forgets to mention that if we look at what is currently happening across Europe, we see that the number of asylum claims in France and Germany is up by 50%, and that is because the global migratory patterns have completely and utterly changed. That is why the current system is obsolete and why we need to take steps to adapt to the new regime and ensure that we have proper control of our borders. That is what our reforms will deliver.

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

I strongly support the measures announced by the Prime Minister and, in particular, his framing of the issue as a matter of fairness, because tough but fair border controls and asylum policy is exactly where the British people are. Does he agree that in communities across the country, including my constituency, the visible measure of success will be when some of the hotels currently housing asylum seekers can be returned to their normal use? Will he make that a priority?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend both for absolutely championing the issue for his constituents and for the advice that he has provided to the Home Secretary and me, given his experience, on how best to tackle the problems that we face. I very much value and appreciate that support. He is absolutely right: what people want to see is our hotels going back to their normal use in their communities and flights departing that remove people who should not be here. The Home Secretary, the Immigration Minister and I will work tirelessly to deliver that for him and for the country.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Prime Minister talks about fairness, yet what he set out is the very opposite of a fair and efficient system. The best way to stop desperate people from dying in small boats and to stop the criminal gangs is for the Government to promote more safe and legal routes. Why are they so incapable of doing that effectively? Why can he find 500 new staff for his Albanian scheme but only eight people to process the 11,000 asylum applications from Afghanistan? That means that, contrary to what the Foreign Secretary suggested in the Chamber barely an hour ago, there have been zero Afghans resettled from Afghanistan under the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme pathway 3 since January.

[The Prime Minister]

We have in fact safely settled more than 23,000 people from Afghanistan in this country. The hon. Member talks about safe and legal routes and actually, in the last year, we issued more humanitarian visas than in any other year since the second world war. That is the strength and depth of our compassion, and that is what we will always do, but we cannot have that compassion and generosity exploited by people who break the rules. There is nothing fair about that, and it does nothing to help the people we really need to target. That is what we will do.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I commend the Prime Minister on the approach that he has outlined today. Are there plans to examine the processes used by other states who are signatories to the European convention on human rights that enable them to be so much more robust in dealing with these issues within the law? Will he commit to working with those countries to develop safe and legal routes so that together we can ensure that that robust approach applies in the United Kingdom just as it does in those other countries?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend asks an excellent question and the answer is yes: that is what we have done over the past few weeks and what we will continue to do, and our Albania deal builds on exactly that learning. But where we can learn from other countries about how to do this faster and better, with a higher rejection rate, that is exactly what we want to achieve. With his support, I know we can do it.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I am a bit worried: while the Prime Minister might be okay with his cheerleaders in here, I think he is out of touch, because the British public—[Interruption.] The public do know who has been in charge for the past 12 years. So as a matter of accountability, which of the decisions made while the Prime Minister was sat around the Cabinet table would he point as the reason why the backlog is now 14 times bigger than when Labour left office?

[The Prime Minister]

Difficult though the backlog is, it is half the size that it was when Labour was in office; the hon. Lady needs to get her numbers right. She talks about the British people: what the British people want is an asylum system that says, “When you come here illegally, you cannot stay here, because that is not right and it is not fair.” If she wants to be on the side of the British people, she should back our new legislation.

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the measures he has outlined today, and I particularly thank him for his personal determination to find practical solutions to a very real problem. In my constituency the Home Office has, with Clearsprings, its contractor, identified a disused building for dispersal accommodation. While I greatly welcome the move from hotels to more permanent accommodation, will my right hon. Friend make sure the Home Office listens to the concerns and worries of the local authority, police and public health, and make sure we are deciding on locations that are appropriate and suitable?

[The Prime Minister]

I am really happy to hear from my hon. Friend, who has rightly long championed this issue. I know she has spoken to the Minister for Immigration about her concerns in her local area. I thank her for her constructive attitude in working with us, but she is absolutely right, and we will sit down and listen to her and her local authority about what is appropriate and deliver sensible solutions.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

Because the existing system has failed so miserably, we have asylum seekers in hotels throughout the United Kingdom. I shall once again be meeting with asylum seekers in my constituency prior to Christmas. Decanting them to disused holiday parks, former student halls and surplus military sites does not solve the problem. When can I tell them that they will be allowed to sit down with an official from the Home Office so that they can start their legal process of immigration?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right: what will solve the problem is stopping people coming here illegally in the first place. That is how we will solve the hotel problem. That is what our new legislation will deliver, and I hope he will support it.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s action plan to tackle the problem of small boat crossings and thank him for being true to his word in prioritising this issue. The big issue in Kettering is that the Royal Hotel, which is slap bang in the middle of town, has been designated as an asylum hotel; it is one of the most inappropriate settings imaginable. Will the Prime Minister reassure my constituents in Kettering that the plan he has announced today will be the quickest way to end the use of such hotel accommodation?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right to stand up for his constituents, but he is also absolutely right to highlight that our approach is the best way to relieve the pressure on local services, including the use of hotels, so that we can return them back to their everyday use. We will do that fastest by providing alternative sites, which we are working on, and also by stopping the flow of small boats, and that is what our plan will deliver.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

We have many thousands of asylum seekers across Teesside, and I am personally very proud of how welcoming our communities can be. However, my team in Stockton is working with many asylum seekers who have been waiting for years and years for their asylum applications to be processed, and they have waited in despair and fear. All they want is a decision. How many of them can expect one in the next few months?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The Home Secretary and I want to see exactly the same thing. That is why with our new plan we will cut the initial asylum backlog by the end of next year. People should get swift processing, but in order to deliver that sustainably we need to reduce the pressure on the system, and that means stopping the flow of new illegal migrants coming here.

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

It is absolutely right that there is alignment with our main European counterparts in how we deal with asylum claims from safe countries, so I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the agreement with Albania. Given the automatic return principle that will apply to arrivals from Albania, there will be an incentive to try to conceal their true country of origin on arrival. We already know that that is a problem with the channel crossings, with people disposing of their ID documents mid-crossing, often at the direction of people smugglers. In anticipation of this issue, can he reassure the House that there will be a sufficiently robust evidential threshold that will prevent people from falsifying their claim?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent suggestion. I also give her the reassurance that for the first time we will have British officials stationed in Albania, particularly at Tirana airport, and Albanian officials here in the UK to deal with the problem that she identifies. I am confident that that joint working will help us deliver the solution we want.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister’s statement today could not be more out of touch with the people who come to my surgeries week in, week out—and I have the highest immigration case load in Scotland. Can he tell me why Mr H has been waiting a year past August for his family reunion? He is from Afghanistan. Mr A has been waiting to see his family as well. These men come to my surgeries in tears because they cannot get reunited with their families. The truth is that the Prime Minister’s safe and legal routes just are not working. For those who do not even have the misfortune to be from Afghanistan—if they are from other countries—there is no legal route, and that is why so many people are coming here in boats. That is the truth of the situation. Will he accept it is unreasonable to make people wait for as long as he is in absolute misery, for a decision that just is not coming?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not want people to wait, and that is why we need to stop the flow of illegal migrants coming here, because they put unsustainable pressure on the system. That means we cannot process for her constituents and others as quickly as we would like. However, with the new plan we have put in place, we will be able to, and once we pass new legislation to stop the flow of small boats, we will have far less pressure on the system and be able to get people the decisions they need.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, which will answer many of the concerns expressed to me by constituents in Barry and across the Vale of Glamorgan. My right hon. Friend is taking a comprehensive, detailed approach with practical steps to resolve this problem. In spite of the calls from Opposition Members, does my right hon. Friend recognise that this is a dynamic environment that will constantly evolve and change? Will he remain open-minded to extending the regulations, and tightening the regulations where necessary, to respond to the ingenuity and innovation shown by some of these people traffickers?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We need to remain dynamic and nimble with the new challenges we face. I have said this will not be an easy problem to fix or one we can do overnight, but I am confident that if we apply ourselves in the way I have set out, we will be able to stop the flow of illegal migrants over time, and I welcome his support in doing that.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)]

How much of what the Prime Minister is announcing today will be paid for out of the aid budget?

[The Prime Minister]

Under the Development Assistance Committee OECD rules, the first year of resettlement costs for asylum seekers is actually covered by international agreements on aid. The Chancellor has provided extra funding to deal with some of the pressures we are seeing as a result of the 150,000 Ukrainians who are here, and we remain one of the largest spenders on international development anywhere in the world, and that is something of which we can all be proud.

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

I very much welcome what the Prime Minister has announced today. As he knows, Stoke-on-Trent has taken more than our fair share of asylum seekers and refugees. That has put significant pressure on services, council services, schools, hospitals and the police. Will my right hon. Friend look at what more can be done to put in place the money and the financial support to support those services?

[The Prime Minister]

May I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to his local community and the local council in Stoke for what they do? They go above and beyond to provide support. He is right that they deserve our support, too, and I know that the Minister for Immigration has recently met the council, where engagement will continue.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

Back in the summer, checks on the land border between Albania and Kosovo were relaxed, so there was no need for citizens of either state to register at the border when crossing. According to INSTAT, the Albanian Institute of Statistics, more than 2.5 million people entered Kosovo from Albania in 2021. When I was travelling between London and Pristina about 20 years ago, I was stopped and questioned by British border staff. Will the Government be embedding UK Border Force staff at Pristina airport, given that the national and cultural border between Albania and Kosovo is porous?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion; I am sure that is something the Home Secretary will discuss with her counterparts. As for his broader point, he is right. For the first time, we have UK officials in Albania working closely with the Albanian authorities to disrupt the flow of illegal migrants at source, and I will take his suggestion on board.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his work on this issue. Let me also take this opportunity to thank the Pickwell Foundation, the volunteers and the GPs who are currently looking after people seeking asylum who have been badly placed in a hotel in Ilfracombe. On Monday, a single mum and her eight-month-old daughter will make a 10-hour round trip to Cardiff for a biometrics and interview appointment. Given his plans to streamline the asylum system, can my right hon. Friend confirm that, as matters improve, that will no longer take place?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s local community in Ilfracombe for the support they are providing; they deserve credit and praise for that. As for her question, we want a processing system that is humane but also swift and effective for people, and that is what our reforms will deliver.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. This is clearly a complex and difficult issue, and he is trying to find a way forward. He has outlined the further steps that can be taken to halt the illegal crossings that are causing people to lose their lives in dreadful winter weather, which include working alongside the French Government and port authorities to prevent the trips from happening, but will he also use private companies with expertise, skills and high ethical standards? I furnished the Home Secretary with the contact details of one such company that is keen and able to assist.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right that this is a complex issue. We are happy to look at all the different ways in which we can make a difference. I look forward to taking his suggestion on board, and the Home Secretary will have heard what he has said.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I was present at the meeting of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Council of Europe, which was alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). The legal point that she made is entirely right, and the Government must address it because it is very serious. It is possible, under current legislation, to arrest someone who lands on our shores and to detain them, but very few have been arrested under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 because there are not legal routes that these people can take.

I am not in favour of the Opposition’s argument in favour of more open legal routes because, with 100 million displaced people in the world, it is a policy that leads nowhere, but we have to address this point. The problem is that every time we pass new legislation, it is trumped by human rights lawyers who, correctly under the law, appeal to the Refugee convention, the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that if this new legislation does not work, we will consider a derogation from the Refugee convention?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent question. What our legislation will deliver is a system whereby someone who comes here illegally will not have the right to stay, and we will be able to remove them to their own country or a safe third country. That is the system of migration that I think he and his constituents want to see, and it the system that this Government will deliver.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the senior Home Office officials who have followed up my references to the unacceptable process of allocating a hotel in Earl Shilton. I am grateful for the changes that we have seen. In his statement, the Prime Minister said it was unfair and appalling that we were spending £5.5 million a day on this system. It is unfair to those who are housed there, it is unfair to the communities who see people spending this money, and it is unfair to the taxpayer. The Prime Minister said that he had identified 10,000 spaces. Can he say when those will become available and when people will be moved out of the hotels?

[The Prime Minister]

This is something that my right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister is working on at pace. We are keen to move as quickly as we can and to secure value for taxpayers’ money through these commercial negotiations. We think most of these sites can be brought on at around half the cost of hotels, which represents a significant saving. We are keen to deliver it as quickly as possible.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Living in limbo in a hotel with an uncertain future is extremely stressful, so I welcome the Prime Minister’s plans to process claims as quickly as possible, but processing is only the first step. He talks about 117,000 claims. Does the system have the capacity to ensure that people who make a successful claim are moved into permanent accommodation, and that those who make unsuccessful claims are removed quickly?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want not only to process people swiftly, but to have the ability either to integrate them in the community, where required—we have done that brilliantly through other schemes—or to remove them if they should no longer be here. That is why one strand of this work is about strengthening and tightening our returns agreements with other countries, which should be a key part of our diplomacy. We must have the ability to return people to safe countries, which is something we will work on next year.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s comprehensive statement, including his willingness to reform assessment processes, but may I ask him about accountability? We see many Government processes to improve and achieve a policy outcome, but the public do not see those outcomes achieved. They are worried that officials and agencies are not held properly to account for achieving those objectives. What are his thoughts on achieving the policy outcomes he has outlined today?

[The Prime Minister]

I am confident because, in the Home Secretary and the Immigration Minister, we have a crack team. I know they will work tirelessly with their team to drive through the reforms announced today. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) is right to hold us to account for that. Transparent metrics on processing, for example, are already published quarterly. People want to see flights returning people to Albania and elsewhere, and people coming out of hotels. That is what we want to deliver next year.

[Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)]

The independent chief inspector of the UK Border Agency found in July 2006 that there was a backlog of between 400,000 and 450,000 cases. On that basis, this announcement is very welcome. I thank the Prime Minister for taking hold of this issue. When will we see an actual reduction in the number of people in hotels across the country? What capacity will we have to maintain those who claim asylum, and who have a valid claim, in facilities other than hotels across the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

The Immigration Minister, the Home Secretary and I are keen to deliver alternative sites as quickly as we can commercially negotiate and get them up and running. I want to see what my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) wants to see, which is people moving out of hotels and less pressure on local communities. That is the type of accommodation we want to deliver.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister and the Government for their great progress on this immigration action plan, particularly their progress with both the UNHCR and Albania. He will know that delivery is key. In Gloucester, we do not want the situation to be as it was in May 2010, when not only did my Labour predecessor refuse to hand over any casework files, but we subsequently found more than 4,000 asylum cases, some of which had been waiting for resolution for more than 10 years.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a powerful point. I agree that we need to deliver now, and we have a plan in place. That is what we will focus on next year for his constituents and for the country. I am confident that we can do it.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

I refer my right hon. Friend to the point made by our right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). Can he specifically confirm that the legislation to be introduced next year will deal with the impediment set up by the European convention on human rights?

[The Prime Minister]

Our legislation will deliver a system whereby a person who comes here illegally will have no right to stay and will be removed to their own country or a safe third-country alternative. I think that is a system the British people want to see, and it is the system our legislation will deliver.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

A person who enters this country illegally should have no right to stay here and should be swiftly deported—it really is as simple as that. I commend the Prime Minister for his bold statement in looking to legislate to that end. Does he agree that starting flights to Rwanda as soon as possible is absolutely integral to delivering this plan?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend put it clearly, succinctly and very well, and I completely agree with him. We are keen to restart those flights as soon as we can—we await the next stage of our legal proceedings—but he should be in no doubt but that we remain determined to make that policy work.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary for their renewed focus on this really key point, which matters a lot not just to my constituents in Dudley North, but across the country. I will again address the point my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made and perhaps be a bit more specific with the question. If the Prime Minister’s future legislation is indeed scuppered by an intervention by the judiciary or human rights activists’ lawyers, will he have the political will to still force it through and implement what he intends to do?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I thank my hon. Friend for all his engagement with me and the Home Secretary on this issue. I know how important it is to his constituents, and I hope he is pleased by the steps we are taking today, but he is right that we need to go further. That is why our legislation will make it unequivocally clear that those who come here illegally have no right to stay, and his communities should be confident that that is what this Government will deliver.

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his personal attention to this matter. I welcome his ambition for a fair and effective system rooted in an understanding that the world has changed since the 1950s, but the devil is in the detail. On a practical point, dozens of hotels have short-term—three-month—contracts with the Home Office to deliver emergency accommodation for asylum seekers right across the UK. My concern and my residents’ concern is: will he reassure us, please, that these contracts will not simply be renewed quietly and simply rolled over, but will be subject to the same level of scrutiny that is promised on new contracts, including consultation with the MP, the council and local public services?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will make sure that the Home Office looks at these things not with the automaticity that he suggested might happen, but reviews them afresh and makes sure that they are still fit for purpose.

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his significant engagement in recent weeks on this and other issues. For the benefit of my constituents across Workington, can he set out his expected timescales for, first, removal of the threat of unsuitable accommodation in Workington being used, and, secondly, flights leaving the ground to Rwanda?

[The Prime Minister]

What I can tell my hon. Friend’s constituents and community is that we want to deliver on this as soon as practically possible. Our new deal with Albania will take effect in a matter of weeks, so we will be able to swiftly return people—those who are already here and any new arrivals—back to Albania. He knows that we are keen to press on with finding new sites as soon as we can commercially negotiate them to take people out of hotels. Of course, with regard to Rwanda, we are waiting for the latest court judgment, but he should be in no doubt but that we want to deliver on that policy.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for making this a top priority, and I look forward to backing the legislation in the new year. Turning to the legislation we already have, there are significant powers of detention in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. Will he look again at how we can implement those, at the very least for those who are accused of committing heinous crimes, particularly against children?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. We do have new powers, particularly on the enforcement side. We are very keen to use them to strengthen the deterrent impact, but as he knows, we need to go further, and that is what our new legislation will do.

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

I very warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement today, and he is absolutely right. People living in Runnymede and Weybridge want to see fairness in the system, which this announcement will deliver. I particularly welcome the new returns agreement with Albania. Does he agree that what will cut the Gordian knot is having multiple returns agreements with multiple countries, so that when people’s applications are processed and found wanting, they can be returned swiftly?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As a matter of priority, we are looking at those countries with which we already have returns agreements, but where we are not sufficiently able to send people back. We will renew our diplomatic efforts to make that a priority, but also use visa penalties, where appropriate, to get the outcomes that we need.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement and the personal attention he has devoted to this issue. My constituents continue to be concerned about the use of the Novotel in Ipswich, which is on a 12-month contract; I thought it was six, the Home Office told me it was six, but it turned out to be 12—but that is by the bye. I welcome the move towards cheaper and more basic accommodation, but can the Prime Minister indicate when my constituents will get a timescale for when the Novotel can be back in proper use?

[The Prime Minister]

I share the frustration of my hon. Friend and his constituents that their local hotel, like so many others, is currently being used to house illegal migrants. That is wrong and we want to stop it as quickly as we can. The Immigration Minister is working on finding alternative sites as fast as possible, but we also want to stop the flow of new illegal migrants so that there is not unsustainable pressure on our local services. That is what my hon. Friend and his community want, and that is what we will deliver.

[James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)]

Earlier this year my local paper, the Leigh Journal, wrote about the human misery inflicted on the constituency of Leigh by a Balkan organised crime group that was engaging in people trafficking, but we have heard from some in the Opposition today that there is “no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker”. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is sadly not the case and that we have to face reality if we are to deal with this issue?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent and very clear point. At issue today is illegal migration, which has significantly increased in the past couple of years and is putting unsustainable pressure on our local communities and public services. It must end, and our reforms are a significant step forward in delivering that outcome.

[Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)]

Having been briefly the Minister for tackling illegal migration this summer, I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Can he provide more details on how the new small boats operational command will help to ensure that no small boat can arrive undetected on our shores?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support of our approach. The new small boat operational command will bring together our civilian capabilities, our military and the NCA in a more unified way than before and supplement that with new technology—aerial or land-based surveillance, drones and radar—and in doing all that will be able to maintain an exceptionally high interception rate and increase the level of prosecutions we currently see. I know that is something he will want to see happen.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

The people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke will warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, albeit cautiously because they want to see delivery on the ground, but the mask has slipped on the Labour party. Labour Members have been absent throughout the majority of this statement in their north Islington coffee bars, drinking chai lattes and scoffing down quinoa. Over 19,000 people have now signed a petition titled “End Serco’s Abuse of Stoke-on-Trent” because Serco is too busy taking up our hotels. In fact, the Prime Minister’s own constituents have signed the petition in this cause. Will he agree with my constituents and his, and end Serco’s use of hotels in Stoke-on-Trent?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend and his local community for the way they have approached this problem and the support they give to people who need refuge. He is right that we cannot exploit that generosity and compassion, so we must relieve the pressure on hotels, and that is what our plan will deliver. Ultimately what we all want to see and what the people of Stoke-on-Trent want to see is an end to the boats coming, and that is what this Government will deliver.

Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report 2021-22

Rishi Sunak Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2022 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)]

The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament has today laid before Parliament a report covering the work of the Committee between August 2021 and March 2022. The 2021-22 annual report demonstrates the wide-ranging work of the Committee across a number of important issues. While there have been changes in Government between the final drafting and publication of this report, I reiterate the Government’s gratitude to the Committee for its continued independent oversight and scrutiny of the UK Intelligence Community, and I look forward to working together.



The membership of the Committee has changed during the period covered by the report, and I would like to thank the right hon. Dame Diana Johnson MP and the right hon. Mark Pritchard MP for their work on the Committee, and welcome the new Members, Maria Eagle MP and the right hon. Sir Jeremy Wright MP into the role.



The Government continue to support the Committee on its ongoing inquiries on international partnerships, China, cloud technologies, and Iran, and look forward to seeing the conclusions of the Committee’s subsequent reports. The Government reiterate their thanks to the Committee for its thorough inquiry and detailed report, “Extreme Right-Wing Terrorism”, published on 13 July 2022, and will respond formally in due course.



The Government value the scrutiny the Committee provides through its inquiries, and this oversight is vital in ensuring the public can have confidence that our agencies are operating in full accordance with the law. Protecting the operational capabilities of the agencies and wider intelligence community to ensure the safety and security of our nation remains a critical priority for the Government. We will continue to engage constructively with the Committee to ensure its effective public oversight, in line with its powers as set out in statute, while balancing scrutiny and accountability with the need to protect our operating capabilities.



The Government consider the current memorandum of understanding with the Committee to be sufficient to enable the Committee to conduct its statutory oversight duties to provide effective scrutiny and robust oversight of the agencies and wider intelligence community. The Government note the Committee’s comments regarding the provision of sensitive information to parliamentary Select Committees. There is existing guidance establishing that classification is not a reason for Government to withhold information from parliamentary Committees and there is an agreed process in place to provide sensitive information to any Committee as required.



I would like to again thank the Committee for its work, and I look forward to working with it as it continues its vital oversight duties.

[HCWS440]

Prime Minister

Rishi Sunak Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2022 Ministerial Corrections

[Ed Davey]

My constituent Vanessa has contacted me in floods of tears. Her mortgage payments have risen by £500 a month. She and her husband were already struggling with high energy bills and high food bills; now, like one in four mortgage holders across the country, they fear losing their home. “We are out of options and heartbroken,” says Vanessa. Will the Prime Minister introduce a new mortgage protection fund, paid for by reversing his tax cuts for the banks? Will he help Vanessa to keep her home?

[The Prime Minister]

I am deeply sorry to hear about Vanessa’s circumstances. I want her to know that the plan that the Chancellor announced last week will help families like hers up and down the country, because it is the right plan to tackle inflation, limit the increase in mortgage rates and ensure confidence in our economy. There is specific help that the Chancellor announced, offering low-interest loans to homeowners on benefits to cover interest on mortgages of up to £250,000. The Chancellor is also meeting mortgage lenders in the coming weeks. We will continue to do all we can to support those homeowners who are struggling with their payments.

[Official Report, 23 November 2022, Vol. 723, c. 285.]

Letter of correction from the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak):

An error has been identified in my response to the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) during Prime Minister’s Question Time.

The correct response should have been:

[The Prime Minister]

I am deeply sorry to hear about Vanessa’s circumstances. I want her to know that the plan that the Chancellor announced last week will help families like hers up and down the country, because it is the right plan to tackle inflation, limit the increase in mortgage rates and ensure confidence in our economy. There is specific help that the Chancellor announced, offering low-interest loans to homeowners on benefits to cover interest on mortgages of up to £200,000. The Chancellor is also meeting mortgage lenders in the coming weeks. We will continue to do all we can to support those homeowners who are struggling with their payments.