Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

1. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on the potential for new nuclear power sites in Scotland.

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

14. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on the potential for new nuclear power sites in Scotland.

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

15. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on the potential for new nuclear power sites in Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

If you will allow me, Mr Speaker, it seems fitting to begin by congratulating the Scottish men’s football team on qualifying for the world cup next year. For the first time since 1998—when I watched them in France alongside the tartan army—we will be back on the world’s largest stage. Steve Clarke and the team truly are history makers, and we are very proud of them.

Alas, today Scotland is being held back by the Scottish Government’s dogmatic opposition to nuclear power. New nuclear projects can deliver millions of pounds of investment and thousands of high-quality jobs and apprenticeships. Scotland is well-placed to benefit from the jobs, investment and energy security that nuclear can provide, but frankly we need a change at Holyrood.

[Mr Bedford]

What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the SNP Government in Scotland, whose luddite approach and ideological blinkers prevent Torness, Dounreay and Hunterston from being considered for future nuclear projects—and all the jobs and investment that go with them?

[Mr Alexander]

This at least seems to be an occasion for which there is genuine cross-party consensus. Not only have we urged a different approach from the Scottish Government—and I do so again—but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has already asked Great British Energy Nuclear to begin assessing Scotland’s capability for new build nuclear sites.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Would the Secretary of State not agree that connecting renewables to the grid requires considerable expense, and would not the former nuclear sites of Hunterston, Torness and Dounreay make very suitable sites for new nuclear power stations, from which the Scottish people have benefited hugely in the past?

[Mr Alexander]

I should declare an interest in that Torness is in my Lothian East constituency. It provides about 750 highly paid, unionised jobs. Of course, we would welcome the opportunity for advanced modular reactors, small modular reactors or new build nuclear at the Torness site, but the EDF management there says that the opposition from the Scottish Government is preventing equivalent investment of the kind that was recently announced for Torness’s sister plant in Hartlepool.

[Alison Griffiths]

A key plank of the SNP’s dogmatic argument against new nuclear is cost. Will the right hon. Gentleman find a quiet moment—perhaps when the winds fall light and the turbines stop—to point out to them to reduced costs of small modular reactors?

[Mr Alexander]

Of course, new technologies are emerging, as the hon. Lady recognises. We are delighted that Rolls-Royce is one company leading that new wave of nuclear technology. We do not even need to look to the future; we can look to the most recent past for occasions when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine in Scotland. That is why Torness provides significant base load capability. We see new build nuclear as an essential part of that energy mix going forward. Alas, the Scottish Government do not understand that.

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that Scotland cannot meet its long-term energy security and net zero goals without new nuclear power, and that the University of Strathclyde’s internationally recognised power networks demonstration centre, whose expertise in grid integration and systems resilience is world leading, will be essential for the safe and effective deployment of next-gen nuclear technologies across Scotland?

[Mr Alexander]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend: the expertise of our research centres in the United Kingdom, including the University of Strathclyde’s PNDC, is absolutely critical. The crucial research that they undertake will help to further the safe and effective deployment of new nuclear technology. We are watching a wave of nuclear technological innovation around the world. We must ensure that, as well as universities, communities across Scotland can benefit from it.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

Last week, I spoke with trade unions in Scotland. They argue that the ideological ban on nuclear power is costing young people career opportunities for well-paid and long-term jobs. In my constituency, an SNP councillor is spreading misinformation and arguing against highly skilled nuclear jobs in the safe dismantlement of nuclear subs at Rosyth. Does the Secretary of State agree that that pervasive misinformed approach is holding our country back, and will he urge the First Minister to distance himself from the comments of that councillor and welcome those jobs in Rosyth?

[Mr Alexander]

Of course I condemn such misinformation. The reality is that the Government are investing £340 million in the Rosyth dockyard. I was in Fife on Monday and met with Fife College, Fife chamber of commerce, Babcock, and Navantia UK from down the coast. Huge investment is going in but, alas, the Scottish Government seem resistant to harnessing the potential of defence growth deals to secure new opportunities, not least for apprentices in Scotland.

[Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)]

Since my election I have met with many employers, both local and national, which have expressed—to put it in parliamentary terms—frustration at the SNP’s no-nuclear policy. This is stopping my constituents from getting access to high-quality jobs and it is preventing investment. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is a political choice that is actively stopping Scotland receiving good-quality jobs and investment?

[Mr Alexander]

I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend. This is not just an anti-jobs measure by the Scottish Government; I would argue that it is an anti-science measure. Let us remember that nuclear power is carbon free. Given the climate change challenge we face, why would we want to resist a technology that can provide reliable, safe and cheap carbon-free energy for decades to come?

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

I join the Secretary of State in congratulating Steve Clarke and Scotland football team for qualifying for their first world cup since I was 11 years old. I remember getting the afternoon off school, and when we have our first game next year I hope that Mr Speaker takes the same approach to the parliamentary day as my headteacher took to the school day.

Scotland has a long, proud history of nuclear power generation. We have the skills, the sites and the local support. But we also have, in the SNP Scottish Government, a luddite mentality, choking-off investment, preventing new jobs and going against the wishes of local communities, such as those in Dunbar, which the Secretary of State knows well, who want Torness secured for future generations. What does the Secretary of State think it will take for the SNP to join the growing list of countries around the world, and allow the global revolution in clean, safe nuclear power to reach Scotland?

[Mr Alexander]

I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman what I think it will take: it will take a change of Government next May. It is time for a new direction in Scotland.

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

2. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential impact of her policies on the cost of living in Scotland.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

10. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential impact of her policies on the cost of living in Scotland.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

12. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential impact of her policies on the cost of living in Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

Over the last year, we have increased the national living wage—a pay rise for 200,000 of the lowest-paid Scots—delivered a generational upgrade to workers’ rights, had five interest rate cuts, and expanded the warm home discount scheme, meaning one in five Scottish households are getting £150 off their bills. But we need to go further and faster, and the Chancellor has pledged targeted action to bring down inflation further.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The Government do indeed need to go further. This morning, the Scottish Government laid the regulations necessary to mitigate the two-child cap, brought in by Labour and carried on by Labour. Scotland is the only part of the UK where child poverty is falling, and it is the only part of Great Britain with a non-Labour Government. Does the Secretary of State recognise the huge role played by the Scottish child payment in tackling poverty head on? Does he agree that Labour in Cardiff Bay and in Westminster should follow the Scottish Government’s lead?

[Mr Alexander]

I was part of a Government that saw child poverty fall significantly. I believe that this Government will be true to that commitment. I hope there may be more for the Chancellor to say in the coming minutes, but be assured that we welcome all measures that reduce child poverty after many years in which, tragically, we have seen poverty rise.

[Kirsty Blackman]

In the 16 months since the King’s Speech, when Labour MPs were whipped to vote against scrapping the two-child cap, how many children have been pitched into poverty as a result of the Government’s refusal to scrap the cap?

[Mr Alexander]

We have always been clear that we wanted to take action on the basis of sound public finances. That is why it is a Labour Government that have been willing to take difficult and challenging steps. I am old enough to remember the criticism from those on the SNP Benches after 1997, and we went on to lift a record number of kids out of poverty. That is why I welcome our Chancellor’s approach.

[Seamus Logan]

It is just over 500 days since this Government came to power, and the policies of the Chancellor and the Government have been a disaster for the north-east of Scotland with cost of living problems, whether that is the impact of national insurance hikes on jobs and investment, the family farm tax on the agricultural sector, the energy profits levy, which is killing jobs in the offshore sector, or the raw deal offered to our fishing industry with the coastal growth fund. Can the Secretary of State tell me and the House whether we should expect the Chancellor to fix the mess that she has made, or will the Budget be another failure for the people of the north-east—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Too long.

[Mr Alexander]

It will not surprise the House that I am not going to prejudge announcements that the Chancellor will be making from this Dispatch Box in just a few minutes, but I certainly do not recognise the characterisation that the hon. Gentleman has offered of the first 15 or so months of this Labour Government. It was always going to take more than 18 months to undo the damage of the last 18 years. We have already seen 200,000 Scots lifted out of poverty and record rises in the national minimum wage, and that work will continue.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

This Government are embarking on delivering the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation, working to provide income security for many in my constituency. I am not surprised that Conservative peers are blocking that in the other place, but will my right hon. Friend share the shock of my constituents that the Liberal Democrats and now Green Members are also doing that?

[Mr Alexander]

I would like to say that I am shocked and surprised, but very little that the Liberal Democrats do can shock or surprise me. The truth is that the Employment Rights Bill is expected to benefit people in the most deprived areas of the country by up to £600 in lost income from the hidden costs of insecure work. That is exactly the work that we as a Labour Government are called to tackle.

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the impact on Scotland of the increase to the national living wage?

[Mr Alexander]

Only this morning there were discussions in the Cabinet involving me and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I pay tribute to the work that she and others in government have done to ensure both that upgrade to workers’ rights and that pay rise for the 200,000 poorest paid Scots.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State tell the House by how much household energy bills have risen since Labour came to power?

[Mr Alexander]

I hope we will be hearing more about energy bills later this afternoon.

[Stephen Gethins]

The Secretary of State clearly does not know, so I will help him: energy bills have risen by £187 for the average household, with more rises due on the way. He might also want to know that today is National Energy Action’s Fuel Poverty Awareness Day. Scotland is one of the most energy-rich parts of Europe, with our renewables and hydrocarbons that the Treasury has benefited from over the years. Does he get the frustration at this Government when it comes to the cost of living on fuel poverty, food prices and child poverty, due to Tory policies that they have maintained?

[Mr Alexander]

This Government have taken action and will continue to take action. In his rather partial account, the hon. Member missed out around 530,000 households in Scotland that are already benefiting from £150 off their energy bills this winter, and I hope we will hear more today.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

3. What assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of recent trends in levels of economic growth in Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)]

Over the last year, this Government have taken action to fix the foundations of our economy, to put the public finances on a sustainable path and support growth. Despite the UK economy being forecast to be the second fastest growing G7 economy this year, and despite private companies such as Iberdrola investing £10 billion in Scotland’s energy sector alone, there is more to do. The recently published Muscatelli report shows that under the SNP, economic growth has been ignored, and the unique potential of communities across Scotland has been held back. That is why today the Chancellor will set out a Budget to boost economic growth in each and every part of the UK.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The latest growth figures in Scotland have been terrible—just 0.2%—and are even worse than Labour’s figures for England at 0.3%. What has been more damaging to the Scottish economy: SNP policies in Holyrood, or Labour policies here in Whitehall?

[Kirsty McNeill]

The SNP Government are clearly not doing what is required to drive growth in Scotland, but I say to the hon. Member that we are dealing with the legacy of 14 years of Conservative economic mismanagement, including their catastrophic policy of austerity, their mismanagement of the pandemic, and a failed Brexit deal. Members do not have to take my word for it: the current leader of the Conservative party has been clear that the Conservatives have no plan for growth.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my regret the Scottish Government have been content to keep £1 billion of underspend rather than building 39 new health centres or 30 new primary schools, employing 23,700 nurses in our NHS, or investing money in Scottish public services and having a consequential effect on Scotland’s economy?

[Kirsty McNeill]

I could not agree more. Since the election, this Government have delivered an extra £5.2 billion in funding for the Scottish Government, so they should be making life easier for Scots, but that money is being completely wasted by the SNP. What do we have to show for this record-breaking settlement? We simply cannot waste another decade with this failing SNP Government. It is long past time for a new direction.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

A key driver of growth in Scotland is the agricultural sector, but Scottish farmers feel utterly ignored and totally abandoned by this Labour Government. I have received a copy of a letter that was delivered to all Scottish Labour MPs urging them to call on their own Government to reconsider the family farm tax. One farmer who wrote to Labour Members said that these tax changes would destroy the family farms that feed Scotland and that he was delivering the letter as a plea for their future. Will the Minister tell the House if those pleas have fallen on deaf ears?

[Kirsty McNeill]

The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this issue many times, and he is aware that we are striking a fair balance between supporting farmers and fixing the public services on which all our rural communities rely. We have taken a fair and balanced approach that protects family farms, while also fixing the public services that we all rely on, including our own constituents.

[Andrew Bowie]

Pleas from farmers to the Minister and the Secretary of State are being ignored, just as other pleas from other sectors that are key to driving growth in Scotland have been ignored. Scotland has the worst of both worlds: two socialist and economically illiterate Governments, and a Scotland Office that turns a deaf ear to the pleas of the sectors that could drive growth in our country. It is no surprise that the Scottish people are about to reject Labour in May’s election yet again. After today’s Budget, who does the Secretary of State think will feel most abandoned—Scottish famers, Scottish distillers, Scottish family businesses, Scottish oil and gas workers, or poor Anas Sarwar and the Scottish Labour party?

[Kirsty McNeill]

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that the majority—three quarters—of those claiming agricultural property relief will be completely unaffected. However, what will affect every single person in Scotland is the Chancellor’s Budget that is set to help with living standards, to drive growth and to put the financial management at the heart of our public finances.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

4. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the potential impact of the UK’s asylum and returns policies on Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)]

Immigration is a reserved issue and the Home Secretary set out last week an asylum policy that will work for all parts of the United Kingdom. It contains the most sweeping asylum reforms in modern times, commensurate to the scale of the issues before us. These reforms will restore control, contribution and fairness to the system. I am proud that our country has always been fair, tolerant and compassionate, and this Government will always defend those values.

[Pete Wishart]

This Government’s new heinous asylum and immigration policy marks a dark moment for many who have chosen Scotland to be their home, even leaving children born in Scotland at risk of deportation. I do not know if the Minister has noticed that we are facing a population and demography crisis that the policy will only make 10 times worse, and if we do not address it, it will have a huge impact on our economy and social services. Why does Scottish Labour support an immigration policy that is contrary to the Scottish interest?

[Kirsty McNeill]

What Scottish Labour supports, like the rest of the Labour party, is a system that is both humane and restores control, and that is in the best interest of communities and those seeking asylum and to migrate. We are proud to support the policy, and we know that the rest of the country wants a system that has both control and fairness as its guiding principles.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

In Scotland, there are approximately four times as many people fleeing oppression from Ukraine and Hong Kong as there are asylum seekers. There has been no public outcry and they have been welcomed. That shows that Scotland is a generous country, willing to play our part if the system is fair and controlled. Moreover, 14 children this year have drowned in the channel coming here. Does the Minister agree with me that there is nothing progressive about not fixing a system where public support for refugees drains and children drown?

[Kirsty McNeill]

I am sure that the whole House will join me in remembering those children who have drowned in the channel, and I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. There is nothing progressive or humane about a system that incentivises people to take terrible risks. I commend my hon. Friend for all the work that he has done with those seeking asylum and refuge over very many years.

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

5. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on skills, development and training for the Forth valley area.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

The funding of Forth Valley college is a matter for the Scottish Government. Scottish colleges had their funding cut by 20% between 2021-22 and 2025-26. As the UK Government, we have delivered a record funding settlement to the Scottish Government. For as long as no final decision has been reached regarding the Alloa campus, I urge the Scottish Government, in the words of “Flower of Scotland”, to “think again”.

[Chris Kane]

Years of SNP underfunding have pushed Forth Valley college into financial crisis. Just when we needed to deliver skills for Stirling’s film studio, the Grangemouth transition, and shipbuilding and defence in the Forth and Clyde, the Alloa campus faces closure. Does the Secretary of State agree that the SNP is undermining Scotland’s future by neglecting the institutions that could drive growth? Does he also agree that Scotland needs a Labour Government, with Anas Sarwar, to rebuild our colleges and our skills base?

[Mr Alexander]

The facts are clear. The spending review was historic for Scotland and delivered the largest real-terms settlement for the Scottish Government in the 25 years of devolution, with an average of £50.9 billion per year between 2026-27 and 2028-29. It simply makes no sense to cut the further education college budget in Scotland by 20%, and it is definitely time for a new direction.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

After 18 years of an SNP Government in Scotland, the education system is failing and qualified Scottish pupils are being turned away from Scottish universities. Meanwhile, the private sector in the west of Scotland, such as at the energy technical academy in my constituency, is upskilling workers, who are paying so that they can install electric vehicle chargers and heat pumps. Will the Secretary of State explain to the Scottish Government that educating young people and further education training are good for Scotland?

[Mr Alexander]

I sincerely hope the Scottish Government are listening to the very powerful points made by the hon. Lady. Some 89,600 young people in Scotland are not in work, education or training. That is equivalent to about 16.1% or one in six of our young people in Scotland. Scotland deserves better than a Scottish Government who are failing one in six of their young people.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support skills and training in the defence sector in Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

The UK Government are transforming our defence sector into an even more powerful engine of growth, with skills and training being a central pillar of the strategy. If the SNP-led Scottish Government will not do the right thing, we will. That is why we stepped up with £2.5 million to fund a specialist welding centre in Glasgow, and we continue to work on exactly that agenda.

[Richard Baker]

The recruitment of 14 new apprentices at the Methil yard in my constituency, which was saved from bankruptcy by this Labour Government protecting 200 skilled apprenticeships, is in stark contrast to the failure of the SNP on apprenticeships in the defence sector. That means that many companies struggle to recruit skilled workers locally. Will my right hon. Friend work with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to promote Methil as a prime location for future defence contracts so that Navantia UK can create more new apprenticeships at the yard and work successfully with a Scottish Labour Government at Holyrood?

[Mr Alexander]

I met with Navantia management in Fife on Monday, and I met with the Minister responsible for defence procurement yesterday. There are huge opportunities thanks to my hon. Friend’s powerful advocacy of the workforce in Methil and the work that we can do together. The truth is that we have a Scottish Government who are dithering on defence, and we have a Labour Government determined to do right by the country on defence.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I was delighted when Eastriggs in my constituency was shortlisted for a new UK munitions factory. The Secretary of State will know about its long history in munitions and the fact that the Ministry of Defence already owns the site. Will the Scotland Office continue to promote the project and join me in facing down the Scottish Government’s anti-defence-industry stance?

[Mr Alexander]

I can offer the right hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks in relation to facing down a Scottish Government who are dithering on defence. I pay tribute to him for his passionate advocacy of the site he speaks of in Dumfriesshire, and I assure him that we in the Scotland Office will continue to work with our colleagues in the MOD as we ensure that we have the factories we need to keep our country safe.

[Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support regeneration in Scotland through the Pride in Place programme.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)]

Through the Pride in Place programme, we are investing almost £500 million to revitalise communities across Scotland. As part of that, the Scotland Office has recently completed the collection of evidence from MPs, MSPs, local authorities and community groups to inform the selection of 14 new neighbourhoods that will each benefit from £20 million over 10 years.

[Elaine Stewart]

Will the Minister give assurances on the timeline of the Pride in Place funding? It is crucial to get projects up and running as soon as possible. While it might be too early for her to wear a Santa hat, can she tell me whether successful local authorities can expect an early Christmas present?

[Kirsty McNeill]

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that she will not have long to wait. It is in all our interests to get things coming down the chimney as soon as possible.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Some 40% of children in Stenhouse in my constituency of Edinburgh West live in poverty. There are nine Pride in Place projects being considered across Edinburgh, but none include that area of deprivation. Are there plans to change the criteria so that such areas can be included, helping to attack problems such as child poverty?

[Kirsty McNeill]

There are no plans to change the criteria against which local authority areas will be selected, but I can confirm that we do not have long to wait before the areas will be confirmed.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I welcome His Excellency the honourable Stephen Francis Smith to the Gallery. As Stephen’s term as the Australian high commissioner to the UK comes to an end, we wish him all the best in retirement. We thank him for what he has done in the UK.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 November.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

May I begin by echoing your remarks, Mr Speaker, about Stephen, who is in the Gallery? He has been an incredible servant and a good friend to the United Kingdom, and we wish him well in everything he does in the future.

Today’s Budget will be a Labour Budget with Labour values to deliver for the British people’s priorities. I know what it feels like to sit around the kitchen table worried about bills that cannot be paid. That is why this Budget is for families who I know are equally worried about the cost of living today. That is why we are rolling out free breakfast clubs, free childcare and free school meals. Today, we will be going further to deliver the change that we were elected to bring about, cutting NHS waiting lists, cutting the national debt and cutting the cost of living.

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

[Rachel Hopkins]

For years and years, rail fares have gone up and up, but that is set to change next year. Can the Prime Minister confirm that commuters in my constituency will see a saving of around £400 on their annual season ticket as a result of this Government freezing rail fares? Can he confirm that it is only possible because we have a Labour Government?

[The Prime Minister]

I can confirm that next year we are freezing rail fares for the first time in 30 years, saving millions of commuters hundreds of pounds. That is only possible because we have a Labour Government investing in Great British Railways and putting more money in the pockets of passengers. We can contrast our approach with that of the Leader of the Opposition, who says that the minimum wage is a burden and wants to means-test the state pension.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

May I first pay tribute to the many farmers who have come to Westminster today to protest about the shameful attack on them in last year’s Budget? I want them to know that the Conservatives stand with them. [Interruption.]

This has been the most chaotic lead-up to a Budget in living memory, with resignations, hostile briefings—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I just say to a couple of Members, if you do not want the Budget, make your minds up now.

[Mrs Badenoch]

Nobody wants this Budget, Mr Speaker! We have had resignations, hostile briefings and leaks galore. Even in the past 10 minutes, there has been an unprecedented leak of the OBR analysis. These leaks have been so serious that even the former chief economist of the Bank of England has said that Labour’s “fiscal fandango” is

“the single biggest reason growth has flatlined”.

Does the Prime Minister agree with Andy Haldane, and does he have an explanation for this complete shambles?

[The Prime Minister]

We all know that the biggest shambles in living history was the Liz Truss Budget, and what did the Leader of the Opposition say at the time? Did she say, “I do not agree—this must be wrong”? No; she said, “I think Liz Truss is 100% right.” Not much room for flexibility there! Not one thing was wrong with it, in her view, so we will not be taking lectures from her. Matters for the OBR are for the OBR, and the Chancellor will set out the Budget in just a few minutes’ time.

[Mrs Badenoch]

We are talking about the leaks. The Prime Minister does not seem to appreciate the impact of these Budget leaks on the UK economy. Even the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has said this morning that the leaks were unacceptable, so will the Prime Minister launch an investigation into the Budget leaks and punish those responsible?

[The Prime Minister]

It is about 25 minutes before the Budget will be set out in full. In it we will take further decisions, and the Chancellor will set them out, but thanks to the decisions that she has already taken, we have 5 million extra NHS appointments, waiting lists are coming down, mortgages are cheaper, and we have expanded free school meals. That is 100,000 children lifted out of poverty—a moral mission for this Government. Compare that to the record of the party opposite any day of the week.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister talks about the decisions that the Chancellor has already taken. If they were that great, we would not have all the farmers protesting outside.

The Prime Minister does not want to talk about leaks, but we can see that the chaos in No. 10 is having real-world consequences. Instead of focusing on the economy, they have been fighting like rats. Several journalists reported that No. 10 sources had briefed against the Health Secretary and other senior Cabinet Ministers; the Prime Minister then told us that these briefings did not come from No. 10. Will he repeat, on the Floor of the House, the claim that none of his advisers has briefed against members of the Cabinet?

[The Prime Minister]

I have been really clear about this. No one in No. 10 has briefed against Cabinet Ministers, and the Health Secretary is doing a fantastic job. At the last election he stood before the electorate and said that we would deliver 2 million extra NHS appointments in the first year of a Labour Government. There he is. What did he do? He delivered not 2 million, 3 million or 4 million but 5 million extra appointments. The Opposition do not understand this language because they left everything absolutely broken.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister expects us to believe him, but no one does. We all know that he did not have a serious leak inquiry. What he did was ask Morgan McSweeney to investigate Morgan McSweeney, and then Morgan McSweeney discovered that Morgan McSweeney was innocent. All this calls into question the Prime Minister’s judgment. We read this weekend that he wants the former Deputy Prime Minister back in his Cabinet; he must have forgotten that she had to resign only a few months ago for tax evasion. When did the Prime Minister decide that lawbreakers can be lawmakers?

[The Prime Minister]

While the right hon. Lady has been scrolling through Twitter, we have delivered rail fares—frozen; prescription charges—frozen; and the minimum wage—boosted. We are focusing on the cost of living, the single most important thing for this country, while she is focusing on tittle-tattle.

[Mrs Badenoch]

It is not tittle-tattle. We all know that the Prime Minister is only talking about welcoming the Deputy Prime Minister back because he is desperate to shore up his crumbling leadership, but if he does welcome her back, will he set a condition that she must pay back the £40,000 of property taxes she avoided—the same property taxes that the Government are very happy to put on everyone else—and return her £17,000 of severance pay?

[The Prime Minister]

The former Deputy Prime Minister is the biggest social mobility story that this country has ever told. She started from humble beginnings, and fought her way to the very top. I am very proud of what she has achieved in politics, and very proud of everything that she has done for this Labour Government.

[Mrs Badenoch]

That sounds like a no. I have never heard the Prime Minister speak so highly of people avoiding their taxes.

In summary, this just looks like a Government who are a slow-motion car crash. The Prime Minister’s Cabinet Ministers are briefing against each other, his MPs are planning for life after him, and the most chaotic run-up to a Budget in recent memory is happening on his watch. Even the Chief Whip is telling MPs that he wants out. The truth is simple: his MPs do not trust him, the markets do not trust him, and the public certainly do not trust him. When will he finally accept that the chaos starts and ends with him?

[The Prime Minister]

The most chaotic Budget was the Liz Truss Budget. It did huge damage to our country, and we are still suffering from that damage. What did the right hon. Lady say about Liz Truss? She obviously does still think it. When asked, “Was Liz Truss right?”, she said, “100% right”. It was the most chaotic, damaging Budget there has ever been, and she sticks by it. I am very interested to see her response to this Budget, if she thinks Liz Truss got it right.

What we are doing is focusing on cutting waiting lists, cutting the national debt and cutting the cost of living. We are renewing our country—a Labour Budget with Labour values, delivering for the British people.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

Q5.    At the moment, everyone is being bombarded with adverts and emails for Black Friday encouraging them to spend money on so-called time-limited deals, leading to panic buying and increasing debt and buyer regret—not to mention the impact on the planet, with delivery and returns of goods responsible for millions of tonnes of CO₂ emissions. Does the Prime Minister agree that instead of rushing to buy online, people should look to their high streets to support local businesses and keep money in the local economy this Christmas?

[The Prime Minister]

I want to see our high streets thriving, and I encourage everyone to support local businesses this Christmas. Through our small business strategy, we have delivered a £3 billion boost to help small businesses expand, and we have introduced the most significant reforms in 25 years to tackle late payments. The Chancellor will have more to say about that in just a moment.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

We have just seen in the leaked OBR documents that taxes are going up to a historic record high. Will the Prime Minister explain why Labour is hiking people’s taxes, instead of fixing the £90 billion Brexit black hole in the public finances by growing our economy with a new, detailed, brilliant trade deal with our European partners?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman will only have to wait a few minutes for the full details of the Budget. Every week he comes here with the same problem: he always wants more spending, and he never wants to say how he is going to raise the money for it. The two things cannot go together.

[Ed Davey]

We want to grow the economy, not tax the economy.

Let me take the Prime Minister on to another issue. I hope everyone in the House shares my alarm that a former leader of a political party in Wales has been found guilty of betraying our country, and has now been sentenced to over 10 years in prison for his treachery. The Prime Minister said that Reform should hold an independent investigation and he is right, but we both know that that is not going to happen. Given that Reform will not do so, he must. Will he now launch a national investigation into Russian infiltration into our politics?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight this very serious case: a long sentence for pro-Russian bribery in the Reform party—at the highest level. You would think a leader of a political party would want to get to the bottom of that and ask the question, “How on earth did that happen in the Reform party, and what other links are there between Reform and Russia?” But no, the leader of Reform does not want to do it. We know he does not want to know the answer to the question, because Reform is riddled with pro-Putin propaganda.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

Q9. After eight years of traffic chaos and increasingly creative traffic diversions, residents of Parkside and Marston Grange in my constituency are beginning to wonder whether the A513 at Beaconside is a permanent monument to the traffic cone. In the time that Staffordshire county council and Taylor Wimpey have taken to complete one stretch of road, we have had six Prime Ministers—not to mention Notre Dame having burned down and been rebuilt using medieval building techniques. What can be done to hold developers and local authorities properly to account so that essential infrastructure is delivered on time, with minimum disruption?

[The Prime Minister]

It is staggering that an important upgrade for drivers to improve their journeys has been delayed for eight long years, and I understand that the scheme is currently being held up by the Reform-led council—quelle surprise! Reform is proving as hopeless in local government as everybody anticipated. We have invested £24 billion in our roads, and I call on Staffordshire county council to end the delay, get on with the job and get this scheme started for my hon. Friend’s constituents.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Q2. University Hospitals Sussex currently has 350 people well enough to go home, but occupying beds. That is the same number of beds as in Princess Royal hospital in Haywards Heath in my constituency. The reason they cannot go home is that there is no social care package for them to go on to. This is terrible for them, puts strain on the trust and is ruinous to the taxpayer. Given that there is no urgent plan to reform social care, what is the Prime Minister’s plan to bring them home for Christmas?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Member knows, we are reforming social care. I have asked Baroness Casey to lead on that, and she has had the first of her cross-party meetings to build consensus, which is obviously what we need on this. As I have set out a number of times, the first phase will report in 2026; so that we can reform as we go on, there will obviously be a phase after that. I remind the House that we have already boosted social care funding by £3.7 billion, with record increases also to the carer’s allowance and £500 million for the first ever fair pay agreement to properly recognise and reward carers.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Q10. Is the Prime Minister aware that, because of the decision by Reform’s Durham county council to scrap support introduced by Labour in 2013, a typical working family in Stanley will be £170 worse off? How would the Prime Minister contrast the values of this Labour Government with a Reform party dividing our country and hitting working people in their pockets?

[The Prime Minister]

The more we see of Reform, the more we see their true colours—in this case, making people £170 worse off. We see their true colours also in relation to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). His explanation in recent days, in relation to the stories about what he may have said in the past, is unconvincing to say the least. He says he never engaged with racism “with intent”. What does that mean? I have no doubt that, if a young Jewish student was hissed at to mimic the sound of a gas chamber, they would find it upsetting. He may want to forget that; they will not. He clearly remembers some of what happened. He should seek those people out, and go and apologise to them.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Q3. Lewis—not his real name—is an Eastbourne boy with special educational needs who was left traumatised after his passenger assistant relentlessly and brutally restrained him on his home-to-school transport. What happened on that day only became clear to Lewis’s mum, who is in the Gallery today, when he returned home visibly distressed and bruised, and that is because, shockingly, there is no statutory requirement to report incidents of physical restraint on school transport, nor national training standards. Will the Prime Minister address this loophole in his upcoming special educational needs and disabilities reforms to ensure that SEND children in Eastbourne and beyond can travel to school with the safety and dignity that they deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

Can I say to the hon. Member and to Lewis’s mum, who is with us today, that incidents like that should not be happening? I think he has met an Education Minister to discuss this matter. Every child should have tailored support, including on transport to school, and I can reassure him and Lewis’s mum that that principle will be central to our reforms.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

Q11. Last week, Roman Osborne—a 10-year-old from my constituency—hand-delivered a letter to 10 Downing Street to tell the Prime Minister about an accident he had in February outside his primary school at Trimley St Martin, which left him spending three days in hospital and many more months recovering. Will the Prime Minister back my campaign #SaferAtTheGates, and will he call on Tory-led Suffolk county council to do the right thing by re-reviewing the road and putting the right safety measures in place outside Trimley St Martin and the other schools in my constituency?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank Roman for his letter, which I took time to read last night. I want to read a short sentence from it now:

“This accident wouldn’t have happened if there was a safe place to cross the road... I am concerned for other children’s safety and I don’t want another accident like mine to happen again to anyone else.”

What an incredible young boy, aged just 10. I totally agree with him, and I say this to him: Roman, this is what we’re going to do—I have asked Ministers to work with all the right people to look at your school and get a safe crossing in place. The Roads Minister will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the road safety strategy.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Q4. This morning, I met farmers on Whitehall and on Saturday I met farmers supplying milk to family-run Wyke Farms, which has been making traditional cheddar cheese near Bruton for 160 years. They all told me that the family farm tax, as it stands, will devastate their businesses. If the Prime Minister really wants growth, will he listen to farmers, industry, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and even his own MPs, and pause and rethink this damaging and regressive tax?

[The Prime Minister]

We have invested a record £11.8 billion in sustainable farming this Parliament, and we set out a 25-year farming road map focused on increasing year-on-year productivity and profitability in farms, and that is vitally important.

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

Q12. Last week, the covid inquiry reported that 23,000 deaths occurred in England in the first wave of the pandemic that could have been prevented due to the UK response being too little, too late. Those were not just 23,000 deaths; they were 23,000 people who had family and friends who loved them, and valuable lives that were cut short due to an abysmal failure of leadership by Boris Johnson and his Government. Those people were categorically failed by a Prime Minister who prevaricated, delayed and prioritised political expediency over making the tough decisions that could have averted tragedy. If the Prime Minister were to lead us through the next pandemic, would he value saving lives above all else?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right; the report is a sombre moment. It is important to remember the scale of suffering and the scale of the loss of life, which is made clear in the testimonies of the families in the report, and to remember the incredible contribution of frontline workers and everyone who focused on protecting others. We are committed to learning the lessons we need to learn from the covid inquiry to protect and prepare us for the future. The pandemic still weighs heavily on our public finances and our NHS. That is why we have already conducted a pandemic exercise to test preparedness, and agreed a historic global pandemic agreement to improve our ability to prevent global disease threats, alongside our partners.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Q6. I hope the Prime Minister will agree with me that the defence industry in Somerset is a key engine for growth, jobs and innovation. Leonardo in Yeovil is making fantastic progress with the Proteus uncrewed helicopter, but the future of that project, thousands of jobs at the site in Yeovil and the £320 million that Leonardo contributes to local GDP are dependent on the new medium helicopter contract. Will the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that he supports the industry in Yeovil, and will his Government finally get around to awarding this long overdue contract?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to those in Somerset and the hon. Gentleman’s constituency in the defence sector, which is hugely important to our country and our security. I can confirm that we are continuing with the established procurement process for the new medium helicopter programme to deliver modern equipment for our armed forces. That is part of the biggest sustained boost to our defence since the cold war. I am determined to see a defence dividend of investment in British jobs and apprentices, including in his constituency. That builds on the £8 billion Typhoon deal that we have secured, the £4 billion maritime deal with Indonesia, and the £10 billion frigate deal with Norway.

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Q13. On International Men’s Day, I joined Wednesfield Men Walking and Talking—a fantastic group who are strengthening our community through good company and what Stephen calls a growing band of brothers. In an age of pressure, polarisation and endless phone scrolling, they bring men together to support one another. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating all involved and explain how the first ever men’s health strategy will back similar grassroots initiatives?

[The Prime Minister]

It is so important that men have the space and support from their peers to discuss their mental health. I thank Men Walking and Talking for the work they do, which makes such a difference. We were proud to launch our men’s health strategy last week to get more men the support they need.

Mr Speaker, I want to take a moment to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for his honesty and bravery on International Men’s Day. I say it again: men speaking so truthfully about their experiences is so powerful and inspires more to do the same. He is a credit to this House.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Q7.  Consequential to President Trump’s misunderstanding of Putin’s assessment going forward into—[Interruption.] Apologies, I have completely lost the thread of my question. What a day to do it! I am going to carry on—I am afraid the Prime Minister is not going to get away that easily.Consequential to President Trump’s misunderstanding of Putin’s strategic intent for both Ukraine and Europe is the Prime Minister’s solemn responsibility to keep this country safe. Given the known hypersonic and ballistic missile threat from Russia, and the fact that the United Kingdom has no current counter to that, what is the Prime Minister going to do to keep this country safe from those that have already threatened us?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contributions to this important debate, including the contribution he made yesterday. It is the first duty of the Prime Minister to keep this country safe; that duty is paramount and above all else, and I take it extremely seriously and treat it as my No. 1 priority. We review our security and defence arrangements all the time, and we are, particularly, a leading member of NATO, which is the single most effective military alliance the world has ever seen.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

Q14.   My constituents tell me that our top national priority must remain as it is: economic growth. Does the Prime Minister agree that the swiftest way to achieve growth is for the Government to be even more ambitious in negotiating with the European Union to remove the new red tape and trade barriers that have been holding back UK businesses, especially small and medium-sized ones, since the Conservatives’ poorly managed exit from the European Union?

[The Prime Minister]

The deal we struck with the EU will deliver on what the British public voted for last year, which is, as my hon. Friend says, boosting economic growth and restoring positive relations. The deal we have struck, which is worth £9 billion to our economy by 2040, includes a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement to cut supermarket prices and boost export opportunities. The Tories and Reform would rip up that deal and leave us all paying more at the checkout.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Q8. When it comes to economic growth, this Labour Government are all talk and no action—so maybe I can help the Prime Minister. Roadworks and traffic jams cost the UK economy £8 billion last year. This affects my constituents every single day. They want to know what the Government are doing about it, and when the Government are going to back working people and get Britain moving.

[The Prime Minister]

Under this Government, growth was the highest in the G7 for the first half of this year. The last Government crashed the economy.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

Yesterday was the UN International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, known as White Ribbon Day in Milton Keynes and many other places. I wonder whether the Prime Minister will join me in congratulating you, Mr Speaker, on your commitment to make this House the first national White Ribbon Parliament in the world. Will he join you, me and many Members across this House in making the White Ribbon promise to never use, excuse or remain silent about men’s violence against women?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this really important issue. Mr Speaker, I am really proud of what you have done with this Parliament on the White Ribbon campaign. We must turn that from a ribbon into action. I am really proud that this Government are fully committed to tackling violence against women and girls; it is a political commitment, and a personal commitment from me. We will do everything we can to reduce violence against women and girls, which is pernicious and far more widespread than people appreciate. We absolutely have to stop talking and start doing on this.

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

Q15. From a previous answer the Prime Minister gave, we can conclude only that he has faith in the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) to police his own party on Russian interference, but the leader of Reform has already said that that is beyond his capabilities. Why, then, is the Prime Minister so unwilling to take responsibility and launch a full investigation into foreign interference in our democracies?

[The Prime Minister]

We do need to bear down on foreign interference in our democracy, but the responsibility for investigating what happened within Reform lies with the leader of the Reform party. The hon. Member for Clacton usually has plenty to say, but now he is totally silent on one of the most important issues. He needs to speak up and answer those questions.