(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
Tackling child poverty is fundamental to the work of this Labour Government. In December, we published our ambitious and comprehensive UK-wide child poverty strategy. It sets out the steps we are taking to reduce child poverty in the short term, as well as putting in place the building blocks we need to create long-term change across the United Kingdom. On its own, our decision to lift the two-child cap, which came into effect just last week, will benefit 95,000 children in Scotland.
Pamela Nash
Does the Secretary of State agree that the Scottish National party has failed Scotland’s children over the past two decades, leaving thousands in poverty, including one in four in my constituency, and that it is only Labour that will prioritise our children, as we have shown by lifting the two-child cap, which is now benefiting over 13,000 children in Lanarkshire?
Mr Alexander
First, on the conduct of the Government: the Conservatives in government pushed kids into poverty; Labour in government lifts kids out of poverty. We would have hoped for a better approach from the Scottish Government, but the fact is that there are 10,000 kids in Scotland without a home to call their own. At the same time, the challenge that was set by the previous First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, was to close the educational attainment gap in Scotland—of course, education, along with employment, is the best route out of poverty—but that gap has got wider rather than narrower. What a damning indictment of the Scottish Government.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Obviously I do not agree with the Secretary of State’s analysis, but I think we can agree that child poverty and the other challenges that face real people in Scotland should be the focus of this Scottish Parliament election campaign, and not independence, for which, incredibly, the Reform UK candidate in Dumfriesshire voted. Does the Secretary of State agree that anybody in Scotland who does not want to see Scotland spend five more years in a constitutional cul-de-sac should use their vote wisely to stop an SNP majority?
Mr Alexander
It is always important for the electorate to use their votes wisely, but the fact is that there are two parties that are deeply threatened by Scottish Labour’s emergence as the credible alternative to the SNP. They are, on the one hand, the Scottish National party and, on the other hand, Reform. If we think about it, their interests are completely aligned, in talking Reform up and talking Scottish Labour down. I certainly hope that people act wisely and make sure that this Scottish election is about Scotland.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
Through our ambitious Pride in Place programme, we are empowering local people to shape the future of their neighbourhoods. The Pride in Place impact fund is investing £12 million across Scotland over two years, including £1.5 million in North Ayrshire. We will invest up to £480 million in 24 Scottish communities over the next decade, including £20 million each for the Irvine and Three Towns neighbourhoods in North Ayrshire, and for the Fauldhouse, Whitburn and Blackburn neighbourhood in West Lothian. This locally led funding can be used to directly support regeneration, high streets and heritage. Best of all, decisions will be made by local people—those who know and love the places the most.
Irene Campbell
I am pleased to say that after a huge amount of hard work was put into a Pride in Place application, investment has been successfully allocated to the three towns of Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that the £20 million of UK Government Pride in Place funding will provide great opportunities for community projects that can improve our town centres and regenerate our shorefront areas?
Kirsty McNeill
Huge congratulations to my hon. Friend and her constituents. These three towns have tremendous untapped potential that has been long neglected and underutilised. Our coastal towns are a huge part of our identity on these islands, and I look forward to working with her to champion the pride that people rightly feel about living in this beautiful part of Ayrshire.
Kirsteen Sullivan
Years of under-investment and the loss of major employers have left Whitburn and Blackburn facing deep economic and health inequalities, weakened high streets and people generally feeling left behind, yet the strength of local organisations and businesses shows great ambition for renewal. With £20 million of Pride in Place funding from this Labour Government, local people are finally at the heart of decisions on local regeneration. How does the Minister see this programme rebuilding community cohesion and inclusion so that people feel valued and that their contribution matters?
Kirsty McNeill
The communities of Fauldhouse, Blackburn and Whitburn all face long-standing economic challenges, but as my hon. Friend rightly says, there is also so much pride and passion locally, and she is a great champion of that. Our Pride in Place programme is there to ensure that all local people have a stake and a say, and that they can work together for a future that is truly worthy of their ambitions for the places they love.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Does the Minister share my disappointment that my constituency of Edinburgh West was the only one in Edinburgh that was not considered for a Pride in Place programme, including areas like Drylaw and Stenhouse which have particular problems that could have been helped by this programme?
Kirsty McNeill
The hon. Member and I have had a chance to discuss this matter previously and, as I have indicated, these are Labour priorities guided by Labour values. We have committed to targeting funding at the places that need it most, based on a double deprivation index, and I am afraid her constituency simply did not qualify.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Does the Minister accept that if Pride in Place in Scotland is to mean anything, as with elsewhere in the UK, it must include targeted funding for high streets and town centres to bring long-term vacant premises back into productive use?
Kirsty McNeill
That is precisely one of the focuses of the Pride in Place programme. Our high streets have been neglected for far too long and are at the real heart of community pride. I am delighted that so many of the Pride in Place bids are focused on exactly that.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The UK Government stand ready to provide the support needed by families in response to recent events in the middle east. The Prime Minister has set out our plan to deal with the immediate impact of the conflict on the cost of living, which includes cutting energy bills by an average of £117 per household, extending the fuel duty cut until September while closely monitoring prices at the pumps, providing £4.6 million for low-income families in Scotland who heat their homes with oil to tackle surging prices and, of course, continuing to push for de-escalation of the conflict itself.
Wendy Chamberlain
I welcome what the Minister has said, but the challenge is that the Government have yet to correct the challenges from the ECO4 scheme, which in North East Fife has blighted houses with not only a lack of insulation but poor installation of inappropriate heat pumps and so on. Can the Secretary of State advise me when the Government will start inspecting these properties and consider a compensation scheme for constituents such as mine?
Mr Alexander
I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), is on the Front Bench with me. I will write to the hon. Lady on exactly that matter.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
My constituents welcomed the fall in energy prices at the beginning of this month. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to reduce energy prices in Scotland is not to pursue more constitutional divides but to secure our energy independence by progressing the Government’s clean power mission as quickly as possible?
Mr Alexander
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Global instability, including the recent events in Iran, has exposed the risks of relying on fossil fuel markets that the United Kingdom inevitably does not control. We are delivering on work to ensure our energy independence and thereby bring down bills for the British people for good. What we absolutely do not need right now is the added distraction of political point scoring at the expense of our national security in what is a dangerous and troubled world.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The Conservatives are clear that we need to get Britain drilling and unlock the potential of the North sea, cutting bills, saving Scottish jobs and making us more energy secure. Apparently, the Secretary of State for Scotland is running the election campaign for the leader of the Scottish Labour party, so he presumably agrees with the leader, who said,
“The balanced approach that we need to take is supporting our oil and gas sector.”
That also presumably means that the Secretary of State disagrees with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Prime Minister. Who is right: the Prime Minister or the leader of the Scottish Labour party? It cannot be both.
Mr Alexander
The difficulty with the point that the Scottish Conservatives are making is that they are in denial of their record. We lost 70,000 jobs in the North sea when the hon. Gentleman was in office. The fact is that the challenge for the North sea did not emerge in July 2024; in fact, it reflects the complete absence of a plan from the previous Government. The reality is that oil and gas will be central part of our energy mix for many years to come, and this Government recognise and understand that.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Secretary of State will be aware that Scotland is an energy-rich exporter of electricity, hydrocarbons and renewables, so why are so many Scots struggling to pay what are among the highest bills in Europe?
Mr Alexander
Economic illiteracy is not limited to the Benches of the House of Commons; it extends to the First Minister. Let us take the example of Berwick Bank, the largest offshore wind farm in Europe, which was paid for in no small measure thanks to the actions of a UK Government. The fact is that when the First Minister and the hon. Gentleman make their claim that the affordability of renewables is somehow determined by the Scottish taxpayer, they ignore the contribution paid by UK bill payers. The level of investment in renewables in Scotland is a direct consequence of its being part of the UK energy market.
Stephen Gethins
Right there, we see the alignment of Labour and Reform. Labour’s Brexit isolationism has taken us away from Europe and away from our key markets. Independent Ireland—European Ireland—has announced a €700 million support package, yet Scotland, which has given £350 billion to the Treasury, got £35 per household in heating oil support. As the fuel crisis spirals, we see little or no action from the Labour Government. Will they turn their back on that alignment and turn towards the taxpayer?
Mr Alexander
There goes the SNP talking up Reform again. When will SNP Members learn that it is possible to be anti-nationalist without being anti-Scottish? That party promised a publicly owned energy company almost a decade ago. Maybe when the hon. Gentleman next gets to his feet, he can tell us where that energy company went.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
Tragically, cancer remains one of the leading causes of death in Scotland. I want Scots to benefit from the very best research. The National Institute for Health and Care Research works in partnership with the Scottish Government to support and enhance health and social care research across the UK, even though healthcare is devolved. Researchers in Scotland can now apply for funding, which has, for example, allowed the outstanding researchers at the University of Dundee to identify a newer, simpler type of mammogram that can reliably show how breast cancer responds to chemotherapy before surgery.
Clive Jones
Cancer Research UK’s manifesto for cancer research and care in Scotland recommends that the Government should increase
“strategic institutional research and innovation funding…investing in and supporting the delivery of a new Scottish Health and Biomedicine Institute (SHBI) to deliver new innovations that will benefit people and the economy in Scotland.”
What is the Minister doing to support that manifesto?
Kirsty McNeill
I commend my hon. Friend for his ongoing and dogged advocacy for this cause. As he will know, the UK Government are committed to ensuring a partnership approach between the health services of Scotland and the rest of the UK, and we are focused on ensuring that higher education, and other forms of innovation, are part of our work on cancer.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The UK Government’s industrial strategy set out how we will grow our economy by doubling down on our national strengths, despite the global uncertainty we are living through. That includes investing in Scotland’s huge contribution to the UK economy. Our free trade agreements with India and the EU will have huge benefits for Scottish businesses, and of course Scotland will benefit hugely from the defence dividend created by our increased investment in our national security. This is a Government backing growth and jobs in Scotland.
Euan Stainbank
Given the state of our economy, taxpayer money must be used far more strategically. Phase 3 of the SNP’s Scottish zero emission bus challenge fund granted the majority of a taxpayer-funded subsidy to Chinese bus manufacturers, which directly contributed six days later to 115 jobs being put at risk in Falkirk. With demand for ZEBs rising but domestic market share reducing, Scottish manufacturing jobs are being lost with the assistance of taxpayer money, and something must change. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that future taxpayer-funded orders are met by manufacturers and workers in Scotland and across the UK?
Mr Alexander
This is an incredibly difficult time for the Alexander Dennis workers and their families, many of whom face an uncertain future through no fault of their own. It is, alas, yet another example of failure on the part of the Scottish Government, who sent the majority of a £45 million funding pot for zero emission buses to China, blocking comparative bids to build and invest in Falkirk. While Labour mayors have shown what is possible across the rest of the UK, stepping forward with bus orders and backing British manufacturing when it mattered, that is an example not so much of being “stronger for Scotland”, as of being stronger for China.
John Grady
Good transport is essential for economic growth, be it ferries to our wonderful islands, or their links from the west coast of Scotland to our airport, but after almost 20 years of the SNP, Glasgow is in gridlock. Workers worry about getting to work on time, which holds back business. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Glasgow needs change, and that only Anas Sarwar can get Glasgow moving?
Mr Alexander
Unsurprisingly, I find myself wholeheartedly in agreement with my hon. Friend. Glasgow is the city of my birth, and it has been badly neglected on any objective measure by the Scottish Government in recent years. Scottish local authorities have been starved of cash over decades by the SNP-led Scottish Government, who have hoarded powers and resources at the centre in Edinburgh, to the detriment of Scotland’s local authorities and cities. People make Glasgow, and Glasgow and its people deserve a whole lot better.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
A strong job and business market is key for economic growth, but Labour’s huge rise in national insurance is a direct jobs tax, and the SNP’s huge increase in business rates is a direct tax on our businesses. Scottish Conservatives have a plan to revitalise our high streets, support jobs and get businesses investing. Does the Secretary of State agree that his Government’s decisions since coming to power have cost jobs, businesses and investment in Scotland?
Mr Alexander
Before we get to the Conservatives’ plan, perhaps we could start with their apology. What about the £22 billion black hole that was left in the public finances by the Conservatives? We are still waiting for the apology.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
In a Westminster Hall debate on heating oil support this morning, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) suggested that the Scottish Government should be supporting businesses with energy costs. I agree that powers over energy should be totally devolved to the Scottish Government—does the Secretary of State agree with that?
Mr Alexander
If SNP Members want guidance on how to deal with energy costs, they could look at the £100 million emergency package that was announced by Scottish Labour only a few days ago. I must express concern, however, because if they are serious about energy, perhaps they could tell the House what happened to the publicly owned energy company that was promised so long ago by Nicola Sturgeon, because the Scottish public are still waiting.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
In a long litany of failures, surely the most egregious of all that the Scottish National party has inflicted on Scotland is the lack of any discernible growth whatsoever. Indeed, had Scotland’s economy grown at the same rate as the rest of the UK’s from 2010, Scotland could be up to £10 billion a year richer. At the same time, its benefits bill is set to soar to £9 billion by 2030. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that Scotland needs change?
Mr Alexander
I certainly agree that Scotland needs change. There has been an industrial level of waste by the Scottish Government in relation to money. Half a billion pounds has been spent on ferries; the First Minister went to Stornoway last week, but this week the boat that he travelled on broke down. A third of the CalMac fleet was out of commission over Easter. Whether it is the Scottish Government’s waste of resources, their failure on public services or their abject failure on economic growth, Scotland needs and deserves change.
Andrew Bowie
I could not agree more, but change will not come from a weak and feeble Labour party that over the last five years has nodded through and supported every single one of the SNP’s mad-cap schemes, including, though Labour Members will not admit it now, the dangerous gender recognition reforms stopped by us. The SNP has failed Scotland and Scotland now has the worst of both worlds: two economically illiterate socialist Governments engaged in a staggeringly depressing game of Top Trumps in a desperate race to the bottom. National insurance, the family farm tax, the North sea, business rates—Labour and the SNP are strangling economic growth in Scotland.
Mr Alexander
The last time I checked, it was actually Scottish Conservative votes in Holyrood that sustained Alex Salmond’s Government in power, so we are not going to take any lectures from the Conservatives about somehow being the SNP’s little helpers. The reality is that Reform is the SNP’s little helper in this election, and after the comments made last night, it is pretty clear that the SNP is Reform’s little helper too.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The SNP is willing to support the Chinese economy by buying buses from China that raise serious security concerns, but when it comes to supporting defence jobs at the British-owned Rolls-Royce site in Glasgow, it pulled the funding. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the SNP is failing Scotland both on jobs and on security?
Mr Alexander
The hon. Lady’s question tells us everything we need to know about the base politics of the SNP, which suggest that those who are pro national security are somehow anti-Scottish. That helps to explain why the SNP Government were not willing to fund the welding centre on the Clyde, which would have delivered hundreds of apprenticeships and secure jobs for decades to come. It explains why they were are weak on our own defence, supporting unilateral nuclear disarmament notwithstanding the arrival of Vladimir Putin’s ambitions on the international stage. If Scotland wants to benefit from being part of a strong and secure United Kingdom, I hope that we will decisively reject the SNP on 7 May.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
Last month, alongside the Chancellor, I met oil and gas industry leaders to discuss the impact of geopolitical volatility on energy prices. The Chancellor reaffirmed her commitment to backing Britain’s oil and gas industry, recognising its pivotal role in supporting growth and jobs, especially in Scotland. The Chancellor has been clear that she wants the energy profits levy to come to an end, but the crisis in the middle east has had real-time consequences on oil and gas prices, as we can all see, and it is right that we respond to that robustly.
Rebecca Paul
The oil and gas sector is a vital industry, not just in Scotland but for the whole UK. Does the Secretary of State share the disappointment of the Conservatives that the Chancellor deterred a reported £17.5 billion of private investment into the oil and gas sector by choosing to retain the energy profits levy last month? That money would have supported thousands of Scottish jobs, and delivered growth and energy security for the UK.
Mr Alexander
I respectfully point out that it was the Conservative Government who introduced the EPL. Why did they do so? They did it in order to deal with excess profits generated by a geopolitical crisis. The conflict in the middle east that we are living through at the moment makes the case for dealing with excess profits from some of the largest energy companies in the world.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The ExxonMobil plant at Mossmorran in my constituency has now ceased production, after the company said last year that it had not made a profit for five years. News that our UK Labour Government have made £9 million available to support the affected workforce and find a future for the site has been warmly welcomed by my constituents, especially in Cowdenbeath. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is in the interests of the people of Fife for the Scottish and UK Governments to work together to utilise all available funding and find a viable future that brings jobs back to the site?
Mr Alexander
May I pay generous tribute to my hon. Friend for her tireless efforts on behalf of her constituents in relation to the challenge faced by the Mossmorran workforce? She has been a powerful and consistent advocate for the workforce and for the changes that we needed to see. That is why I am proud that the UK Government have been actively marketing the site to potential investors and stand ready, as she says, to invest up to £9 million to secure a successful future for the site and support the local economy.
Mr Speaker
I am sorry that we did not get to John Lamont’s question. He is 50 today, and I believe that his parents are watching him!
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
The Southport inquiry report is truly harrowing, and I cannot imagine the pain that it will cause the families of all those affected. We will make the changes needed to honour the victims, the injured and the families, and our thoughts remain with the loved ones of Elsie, Bebe and Alice, and with all those impacted.
Today marks 37 years since the Hillsborough disaster, when 97 men, women and children went to a football match and never returned. My promise remains that, working with families, we will deliver a Hillsborough law to end the injustice that they have suffered and ensure that the state will always act for the people it serves.
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.
Lauren Edwards
The Prime Minister was right to resist us being drawn into an ill-conceived war in the middle east with apparently no clear plan for how it may end. Despite the welcome cost of living support that he referenced in his statement on Monday, we are all rightly angry that our constituents will feel the impact of this war in their pockets and in their daily lives. Will he outline what steps he is taking both to support our armed forces and plan for all future contingencies? We all hope for a swift resolution and progress at the summit later this week, but we must be prepared for all potential scenarios.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, the Royal Engineers in her constituency, and all those serving our country at home and abroad. We are proud to be investing a record £9 billion to deliver the quality homes that they deserve. We are turning around Army recruitment after the Conservatives missed targets for 14 years, but the foremost responsibility to our armed forces is in the decisions we take on military actions. My principles are clear. That is a sharp contrast with the Leader of the Opposition, who wanted to jump into the war with both feet without thinking through the consequences.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
That was a very interesting answer from the Prime Minister. Lord Robertson, who authored the Government’s strategic defence review, has said that the Prime Minister has a “corrosive complacency” when it comes to defence. Why did he say that?
The Prime Minister
Let me start by saying that I respect Lord Robertson, and I thank him again for carrying out the strategic review. My responsibility is to keep the British people safe, and that is a duty I take seriously. That is why I do not agree with his comments.
Last February—seven months after taking office—I took the decision to increase defence spending from 2.3% to 2.6%, which was paid for by a difficult decision on overseas aid. Last June at the NATO summit, I committed to raising core defence spending to 3.5%. Last November, the Budget committed record funding to defence. I reaffirm those commitments now.
The strategic defence review is a 10-year blueprint for national security. The defence investment plan will put that into effect, and it will be published as soon as possible. We need to get it right. We inherited plans that were uncosted and undeliverable, and we are not going to repeat those mistakes.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister says that he does not agree with Lord Robertson. Lord Robertson is a former Labour Defence Secretary and a former NATO Secretary-General. He also said:
“We are underprepared. We are underinsured. We are under attack.”
He said—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not think it looks good to shout somebody down at the Dispatch Box.
Mrs Badenoch
Lord Robertson’s criticisms were of the Prime Minister, and he said that Britain’s national security is “in peril”. Our armed forces are at the end of their tether, waiting for this Government to fund the strategic defence review. There are still two weeks of the parliamentary Session left, so why will the Prime Minister not publish the defence investment plan before the Session ends?
The Prime Minister
I remind the House that we have put in place the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war. Let me spell that out: that means we are spending £270 billion over this Parliament. That is £5 billion more this year, with defence funding increasing every year. These are record amounts—decisions of a Labour Prime Minister, a Labour Chancellor and a Labour Government.
What a contrast: when the Conservatives came into office, defence spending was 2.5%; when they left, it was 2.3%. When they came into office, the Army numbered 100,000; when they left, it was 72,000. They cut frigates and destroyers by 25%. They cut minehunters by 50%. The Leader of the Opposition said at the weekend that our defence is the “weakest in 400 years.” That is what they left behind.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is talking about the biggest sustained increase. Talking about an increase is not the same as giving an increase. The military and the defence industry want to hear about what he is going to do, not hear him prosecuting past Governments. He promised that the defence investment plan would be published last autumn. I asked him at Prime Minister’s questions six weeks ago when it would be published—he had no idea. It is now the middle of April. What is the hold-up?
The Prime Minister
I have set out my position. The defence investment plan is the first line-by-line review of defence budgets for 18 years. The Leader of the Opposition talks about talking; if you are going to support your country and make it safe, you have to make the right calls on the big issues. She called for us to jump into the war. The Conservatives can pretend otherwise, but I remember walking into this Chamber, standing at the Dispatch Box for the first time on the matter and saying that we would not get drawn into the war and would not join the offensive, and they all shouted, “Shame!” They remember it. I remember it. They are just embarrassed by it now.
A week later, when the Leader of the Opposition realised that she had made a massive error of judgment, she attempted the mother of all U-turns. That did not work, so this weekend, she said that when she said we should jump into the war, she was talking about “verbal support”—
Mr Speaker
Order. Prime Minister, it is Prime Minister’s questions. We have got to concentrate. I call Kemi Badenoch.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister loves to misrepresent my position on Iran. Let us stop talking about what I did not say. Let us start talking about what he is not doing. Mr Speaker, you will recall that on Monday, I offered to work with the Prime Minister to identify the welfare savings we need. What did he say? “No thanks.” Now that Lord Robertson has said,
“We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget”,
will the Prime Minister think again and work with us to find savings to fund defence?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition was clear in what she was saying. She said we should give “verbal support”; I suppose that is standing on the sidelines and saying, “Get in there. Good luck, mate. You’ve got this.” That is her approach. We are reforming welfare and spending more on defence; the Conservatives did neither. The welfare bill rose by £88 billion on their watch. It soared by £33 billion on the shadow Chancellor’s watch. We are fixing it—what did the Conservatives do? They voted against it. They voted to keep the broken system. Taking advice from the Conservative party on reforming welfare and defence spending is like asking Liz Truss how to keep your mortgage down.
Mrs Badenoch
This is so poor from the Prime Minister—[Laughter.] Labour MPs are laughing, but this is a moment of profound national seriousness. And what are they doing? They are promoting sex toys in Parliament. It gives a whole new meaning to fiddling while Rome burns. [Interruption.] That is what they are doing, Mr Speaker.
Let us get back to the issue of the defence investment plan and defence spending. It is being reported that the Treasury is asking the Ministry of Defence to make £3.5 billion of cuts this year. The Prime Minister will not fund our military, because he wants to fund more welfare. That is why he has a welfare plan to 2031, but no defence investment plan at all. Now that the Chagos surrender deal is dead, will the Prime Minister put the billions saved from ditching Chagos into defence, or is that going into welfare as well?
The Prime Minister
We are spending more on defence—record amounts—with £270 billion in this Parliament, and £5 billion extra. The Leader of the Opposition talks about the Chancellor. It is because of the decisions of this Chancellor that we have the biggest boost to defence spending since the cold war. We have also got the biggest pay rise for our armed forces for over 20 years. We have also got the biggest investment in military housing for more than half a century. What did the Conservatives do at the Budget? They voted against all of that.
Mrs Badenoch
It sounds like the Prime Minister does not want to spend the Chagos money on defence. Labour MPs will know Lord Robertson, a former Defence Secretary and a former NATO Secretary-General. He is Labour through and through. They all need to think about why he stuck his head above the parapet. I went through the strategic defence review with Lord Robertson last year. The Lib Dems and Reform refused to meet him. No other party is taking this seriously.
I want to ask the Prime Minister a very specific question. In January 2024, the Conservatives approved an upgrade of destroyers, like HMS Dragon, so that they can better intercept ballistic missiles. In July 2024, the Prime Minister paused that plan. Will he immediately approve and fund that critical upgrade now?
The Prime Minister
HMS Dragon was commissioned by a Labour Government, as it happens. The Leader of the Opposition stands there and says, “Please forget the fact that we hollowed out the armed forces. Please clear up our mess.” I went to the Gulf last week and thanked our armed forces for protecting British lives. She said that we should have jumped into the war, without thinking about the consequences, and then said the next week, “Oh no, we shouldn’t be in the war.” [Interruption.] Now she says, “What I meant was that we should give verbal support”—
Mr Speaker
Order. I expect those on the Front Bench to be quiet. It is the same people: if this carries on, I suspect that next week you will not be at Prime Minister’s questions.
The Prime Minister
In addition to the Leader of the Opposition saying that her position is that we should just say to the Americans, “Get in there”, she insulted our armed forces, saying that they were just “hanging around”. These are pilots who within two hours of this conflict starting were up, risking their lives, taking missiles out of the sky. She insulted them and she has never apologised for that. She said a few weeks ago:
“Serious times call for serious people.”
She is not one of them.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I know that—as my hon. Friend has just said—he himself was at Hillsborough, and I thank him for his decades of campaigning for justice. I am personally committed to working with the families to get this Bill right. It is integral that their views are heard. We are discussing this precise issue with them, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend is fully updated. I reaffirm my commitment to delivering the legislation, and to ensuring that the duty of candour applies to all public servants.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I echo the Prime Minister’s words about the Southport inquiry, and also about the 37th anniversary of the Hillsborough tragedy. Our thoughts are with all the families affected and with the survivors, and I hope that the Prime Minister will deliver on the Hillsborough law. Today also marks the third anniversary of the start of the devastating civil war in Sudan, and I hope that the Prime Minister will recommit himself to real action in the face of the world’s greatest humanitarian catastrophe.
In a phone call with Sky News last night, President Trump threatened to rip up his trade deal with the UK as a punishment for our not joining his idiotic war in Iran. This must be the last straw. Surely the Prime Minister cannot send our King to meet a man who treats our country like a Mafia boss running a protection racket.
The Prime Minister
I join the right hon. Gentleman in his comments about Sudan. We often overlook the fact that that is the greatest humanitarian crisis facing the world at the moment.
My position on the Iran war has been clear from the start. We are not going to get dragged into this war. It is not our war. A lot of pressure has been applied to me to take a different course, and that pressure includes what happened last night. I am not going to change my mind. I am not going to yield. It is not in our national interest to join this war, and we will not do so. I know where I stand.
The purpose of the King’s visit is to mark the 250th anniversary of relations with and the independence of the United States. The monarchy is an important reminder of the long-standing bonds and the enduring relationship between our two countries, which are far greater than anyone who occupies any particular office at any particular time.
Ed Davey
President Trump is one of the most unpredictable people we have seen on the world stage, and I hope that he does not embarrass our monarch.
Moving on, last year the Prime Minister claimed that he had done some special deal so that Brits would be able to “sail through” e-gates at EU airports, but that was not the experience of families returning from holiday this week. Long queues at borders and passport controls are the latest symbol of the Brexit disaster, but they are also a symbol of this Government’s failure to repair that damage. Will the Prime Minister apologise for misleading British travellers, and can he tell them when they will be able to “sail through” passport control?
The Prime Minister
I have made it very clear that I think our national interest lies in close relations with the EU on defence, security, energy and the economy. I was very pleased that at last year’s summit we did negotiate an agreement on e-gates, and we are pushing hard on that. We have another summit this year, where I intend not just to make good on what we have already agreed, but to go closer to the EU in the relations that we have.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her dedicated campaigning on this important issue. I have met Michael Thomas and heard his experiences, and I share her concern about young, predominantly working-class people being exploited. I do want to make progress as quickly as possible: I have asked the Chief Secretary to meet the V11 group to discuss what further steps the Government can take to support those affected, and I will ensure that that is reported back to my hon. Friend so that she is fully updated on what is going on.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
Two years ago, people voted for change, but what have they got? More of the same. But it is not they who have let down their end of the bargain. My constituents are working themselves to the bone, and let us be absolutely clear: they are working and still having to claim benefits. Whether it is farmers, care workers or students—you name it—there is not a single section of society that has not been let down, and I do not want that to be the case. We need to show that this House works for them, because actors will step into that space—people who would love nothing more than for our democracy to be toppled because we cannot show our people a better way of life. We used to say to people, “If you work hard, you’ll get on in life.” That has not been the case for years. Will this Government change economic and fiscal course and deliver for people in the worst cost of living crisis?
The Prime Minister
Wages have gone up more in the first year of this Labour Government than they did in 10 years of the Conservative party being in power. We took the decision at the Budget to cut energy bills across the country. As the hon. Lady knows, I was in Northern Ireland just a few weeks ago to make the announcement about heating oil, which is obviously of huge concern in Northern Ireland. I heard what people had to say, and we have put in place £53 million. The authorities in Northern Ireland will administer that, but we are looking more widely at what we can do.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Let me be clear: violence against our NHS staff is despicable, and we are introducing a new offence to protect emergency workers from harassment. I congratulate and thank all our NHS staff for their hard work. They have delivered 5 million extra appointments in our first year in government.
We are going further. This week, we have announced 36 new and expanded community diagnostic centres across the country, including expanded services in Nuneaton. That is the difference a Labour Government make.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Prime Minister
I know that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and all of those in Northern Ireland are concerned about the impact that the war in Iran is having on them. I was in Northern Ireland just a few weeks ago, where I spoke directly to party leaders and we announced what we are doing on heating oil. Obviously, fuel duty is frozen until September and energy bills have been reduced. We have also made it clear that we will not tolerate profiteering or unfair practices, which was a particular concern raised with me when I was over in Northern Ireland. The most important thing we can do is to de-escalate the conflict and get the strait of Hormuz open, and that is why I am co-hosting the summit on Friday in order to make progress on both those fronts.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Having sat with my hon. Friend and the families of those impacted in Southport in his constituency a number of times, I thank him for everything that he did and is continuing to do in response to that awful attack. I agree with him wholeheartedly that Southport cannot be defined by what happened in that awful, tragic incident; he is right to have pride in his community. I am delighted we are investing in reopening the iconic Southport pier. We are investing £5.8 billion through our Pride in Place fund to put power and resources into the hands of nearly 300 communities. Only a Labour Government will deliver that kind of change.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I tell them that they were let down very badly by the last Government for 14 years, and we are clearing up the mess.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a tenacious campaigner on this issue, and I thank her for that. We launched a major programme of reform of the UK’s product safety regulation. This will help tackle unsafe products being sold online, including non-compliant e-bikes and the batteries that power them. We are also giving the police new powers to take unsafe e-bikes off the roads and destroy them without issuing a warning beforehand.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member. We are providing the West of England combined authority with over £750 million to invest in its priorities. That could include improving services and station facilities at Yate, and I know she will make her voice heard in relation to that. I am pleased that construction is already under way at new stations at Charfield and North Filton, and we have upgraded the Filton bank line as well, enabling more frequent, reliable services in the region.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I wish my hon. Friend a speedy recovery. He obviously speaks with great authority and experience on our NHS, and he is right to point out that waiting lists are at their lowest for three years, A&E waiting times are the best for four years and ambulance response times are the fastest for five years. That is because of the investment that we put in and the Conservatives opposed. I wonder how much my hon. Friend would have been charged if he had arrived at a Reform hospital under an insurance-based scheme. That would turn the clock back. The NHS is on the road to recovery: do not risk it with Reform.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
It seems like every day a fresh revelation about the parlous state of our military spending comes to light. After yesterday’s intervention from Lord Robertson, there are reports today that the Chancellor is unwilling to put any more than an extra £10 billion into defence over the next four years, and that the Ministry of Defence is seeking £3.5 billion in cuts. Just this morning, I met a major defence prime that outlined again how the Government’s failure to publish the defence investment plan is undermining investment in security in this country.
Unpublished plans will not keep the country safe. As Trump tears up the global order and Putin continues to brutalise Ukraine, the Government can no longer delay. Will the Minister immediately take forward Liberal Democrat plans for a £20 billion defence bonds programme, enabling a rapid cash injection into capital-intensive projects outlined in the SDR? Even the Conservative leader is now belatedly backing our call for cross-party talks, so will the Government finally stop dragging their feet and convene them as a priority, so that we can create consensus on how to reach 3% of GDP being spent on defence?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for his questions. I was robust with the Conservatives about the record they left, but it is also worth noting that when the Liberal Democrats were last in power, they cut defence spending, despite the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2014. I understand his seriousness and where he is coming from, but I hope he has some humility about his record.
The hon. Member is absolutely right, though, that we need to increase defence spending, and that is exactly what we are doing. We will hit 2.5% of GDP on core defence spending in April 2027; 3% in the next Parliament; and 3.5%—the NATO standard—in 2035, but we are not waiting for the DIP to get contracts announced. Only a month ago, I announced a £1 billion helicopter deal with Leonardo in Yeovil, which will support jobs there—I recognise that sitting behind the hon. Member is the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance)—and across the supply chain. We are improving on a deal that we inherited from the Conservatives. Under that deal, there was insufficient UK content in helicopter exports, there was no security guarantee that autonomy would be based in Yeovil, and Yeovil was not a centre for helicopter exports. This is Labour delivering—and making the Lib Dem hon. Member for Yeovil quite happy in the process.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
I genuinely respect my friend the shadow Minister, but seriously, defence was hollowed out in his party’s time in government. Our safety is the primary responsibility of any Government, and more must be spent on our defence. However, that should not come at the expense of pensioners and people with disabilities receiving welfare. There are always other ways, such as scrapping digital identification, looking at some of our net zero policies, and rethinking some of the fiscal rules. Will the Minister confirm that all future funding options are being seriously considered?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is right that we need to increase defence spending, and that is exactly what the Government are doing. We have £5 billion extra in our budget this year, which we are using to address the hollowing out and underfunding of our armed forces that we inherited. We have used part of that to give our armed forces the biggest pay rise in 20 years. That is helping to address the below-inflation “pay rises”, if we can call them that, introduced by the Conservatives when they were in government.
I recognise the case that my hon. Friend makes about the importance of defence spending. I encourage colleagues to still make that case, because we need to increase defence spending—we are increasing it. I would welcome a national conversation about the threats we face, and how we match those threats with increased capability. Indeed, it was a recommendation of the SDR that we have that debate.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
On 6 March, the Minister kindly allowed the Defence Committee into the Ministry of Defence for a secret briefing. I would obviously never refer to the information that we received in that briefing, but it is telling that later that day, the Labour-dominated Defence Committee insisted on issuing a statement saying that we should go to 3% of GDP in this Parliament. That is the Conservative party’s policy, the Liberal Democrat party’s policy, and the Defence Committee’s recommendation. Will he tell us clearly why he is resisting it?
Luke Pollard
There is a marked change in the approach that this Government are taking to the Ministry of Defence: we want to do more with the Defence Committee, bring it into decision making even more, and give it an understanding of situations, including by providing more secret briefings; they previously might not have been available in the number that we are now providing. I want to continue doing that, so I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I recognise the case for increased defence spending; I am glad he said what he did about it, especially as the Conservatives hollowed out and underfunded our forces for 14 years. I entirely understand that he is having a change of heart about his party’s record in government, and wants to increase that spending. We will continue to increase defence spending, as we have set out.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend assure me that this Government’s increased investment in our armed forces and the defence investment plan will offer huge opportunities for the defence sector in Scotland, not least at the Methil yard in my constituency, which was saved from closure by Labour Ministers? That will build on the huge successes of the sector in Scotland, including the £10 billion deal with Norway, which secures 2,000 jobs on the Clyde for the long term.
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for the Methil yard. He and I meet often to discuss that, and it is good to see the investment that Navantia is putting into it. In Scotland, we are building the Type 26 frigates in Glasgow and the Type 31 frigates in Rosyth, where I was pleased to be only a few weeks ago for the steel cut on HMS Bulldog and the roll-out of HMS Active. As a result of work that we have commissioned—the first fleet solid support ship is being built by Navantia, and I was present to see the steel cut in Appledore in North Devon at the end of last year—there is a bright future ahead for shipbuilding in Scotland. I am happy to continue my conversations with my hon. Friend about Methil.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I have every sympathy with patriotic Defence Ministers who are being sent out to try to put a brave face on the fact that they are being undermined by their own Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is it not a fact that someone as collegiate, experienced and patriotic as Lord Robertson would never have spoken out as he did if he did not recognise that his party’s Defence team was being undermined in this way? If the threat from Russia is so great that NATO has moved to 3.5% of GDP as its target, why do the Government think that waiting another nine years to achieve it is an appropriate way to deal with the killer in the Kremlin?
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman is right; we have agreed the NATO target of 3.5% on core defence and 1.5% on national security by 2035. We have agreed that—an important part of it. He will also know what the Defence Secretary revealed last week about covert Russian activities. It is precisely because we can see more threats from Russia and other adversaries, and not just against our undersea cables, that we are increasing defence spending and trying to renew our armed forces. We are dealing with the hollowing out. As a patriotic Back Bencher, he shares many of my views about the last Government’s effect on our armed forces, and their hollowing out under the Conservatives. I am very happy to continue my conversation with him about how we can make the case for further defence investment.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that we must understand that we inherited an MOD procurement system in disarray, unfunded defence programmes, an Air Force without enough aircraft or helicopters, a Navy without enough ships, and an Army with a low—Napoleonic—number of troops? We face wars in the middle east and Ukraine. We are working with an exceptionally challenging situation, and we must get this right. Please do not allow the Opposition to rewrite history.
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his service to the country. The fact that he has served gives renewed credibility to what he has said. I certainly find it curious that many of the people who delighted in cutting our armed forces over the last 14 years now say, without a hint of humility, that they want to increase defence spending. I would have much more respect for the Conservatives’ argument if they apologised—first, for their cuts to our armed forces, and secondly, for their leader, who described our brave pilots in the middle east as “just hanging around”. I think our forces deserve better than the Conservatives, and they have it with this Labour Government.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
In the words of Lord Robertson, we are underprepared, underinsured and under attack. We are not safe. Britain’s national security and safety is in peril. I have asked over six times when the defence investment plan will be published. I now know the answer: “We are working flat out”. Will the Minister give me a timeframe? What is “working flat out”, and how long does it take?
Luke Pollard
As a Devon neighbour, I know the hon. Gentleman’s passion for our armed forces, and it is good to see him wearing his Royal College of Defence Studies tie—an institution of which I am also proud to be a graduate. He knows that we are working flat out to deliver the defence investment plan, and we will publish it when it is ready. I would much prefer to get it right than to publish a document that is not right, and that is what we will do.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I remember defence “investment” under the last Government; I was serving when our pay was cut, our defence housing was ruined, and equipment projects were cancelled and underfunded. In fact, it was under the Conservative Government that our Navy warships were cut by 25%, our amphibious ships were mothballed and our Army fell to its smallest size for 200 years. Will the Minister tell us about the projects that we are undertaking to increase pay and improve housing, and the effect that they are having on recruitment and retention of our armed forces, so that we can rebuild their numbers, after they were hollowed out under the last Government?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his service to our country. It is interesting that he mentioned recruitment, because the shadow Minister, who sat on the Government Benches during the last Parliament, was scathing about his own Government’s record on recruitment, scathing about their performance, and scathing about their lack of action against the contractor they brought in. I am pleased to report that under a Labour Government, inflow is up and outflow is down. We have replaced the contractor, and not only are we delivering the biggest pay rise for our armed forces in 20 years—a second above-inflation pay rise—but we have ended the privatisation of military homes, and the military homes scandal that we inherited. Nine in 10 military homes are being refitted in the next decade. We are also putting effort into valuing our people by legislating for a new armed forces commissioner, so our forces and their families can raise concerns outside the chain of command with someone independent. This is a Government who are delivering for those who serve in uniform.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
It is deeply unedifying to hear the Minister and others playing political games on a matter of national security. We can all look at the past; I can tell the Minister about the body armour that I had to give to somebody else for the invasion of Iraq because we did not have enough in 2003. I can point to the underfunding of helicopters; friends of mine were killed on operations in Afghanistan because of that underfunding. That was under Governments before his, but yes, they wore the same colour tie as this Government do. The question for him is not what happened in the past, but what he will do about these things in the future. The defence investment plan, the Minister says, is not urgently needed because he is spending anyway. Well, why is he wasting his time producing the damn thing? He could spare those civil servants to actually get contracts delivered, instead of messing around with games, or put his heart into the fight with the Treasury that needs to be had right now, as his friend Lord Robertson has made clear.
Luke Pollard
I really like the right hon. Gentleman—he is a very jovial chap—and he raises some good points. The defence investment plan is needed. It is being worked on by our Department. We will deliver it when it is ready, but we are not waiting for the defence investment plan to make announcements. I have spoken about the £879 million contract I announced this morning in Andover for our Apache and Chinook fleets. I also point to the announcement we made on Friday about a multimillion-pound deal with the veteran-led start-up Cambridge Aerospace to provide new missiles to intercept drones, not just for our forces but for our allies in the middle east. The right hon. Gentleman says that we should look to the future; we are doing exactly that. The defence investment plan will set out the kit and capabilities that we need and will buy for the next 10 years, but also the upgrades that we are making to the kit that we have, to give our fighting forces the edge. Importantly, it also talks about how we value our people; for far too long, that has not been spoken about enough in defence. That is something else that we are addressing.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am on the Armed Forces Bill Committee. We have heard terrible testimony about the state of military housing, but we have also heard that it is already improving. Does the Minister agree that the £9 billion investment that we are making in military housing to deal with the botched privatisation can only be a good thing, and will raise the morale of our troops?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for her work, and not just on the armed forces housing issues that she raises; she is also a thorough champion for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Many of its ships are in her Truro and Falmouth constituency. She is right to talk about the £9 billion commitment that we have made to deliver an improvement in armed forces housing. I see that Opposition Front Benchers are chattering. They had an option to deal with that when in power. They could have dealt with the black mould—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Please! I am trying to hear, and the noise is not helpful.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Prime Minister
Relevant Ministers are happy to discuss with the hon. Member the specific site she mentions in greater depth, and I can reassure her that we are committed to protecting our countryside. Our land use framework balances restoring nature with meeting the demands of homes and energy. We have just announced £60 million—a record amount—to support nature and threatened species.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
May I start by congratulating Luton Town on winning at Wembley—having been coached, of course, by Jack Wilshere, a great ex-Arsenal star? I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s constituency is benefiting from a new youth hub, one of the 80 additional hubs that we are launching across the country. That is in stark contrast to what we inherited: over 1,000 youth centres were closed under the Tories and spending on youth services was slashed by 73%. Labour is bringing youth clubs back, and we are proud to do so, building a better future for our young people.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am concerned to hear about those examples. We have put in place support for small businesses and I will ensure that it is available to the hon. Gentleman to pass on to his constituents.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituents, and it is shocking that they have been waiting for over a decade for that practice. I agree with him, but sadly Reform’s leadership in Staffordshire is an absolute mess. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) says “Rubbish.” Reform has had three leaders in three months, one of whom was forced to step down for appalling racist comments, and they are simply not getting on with the job. He is obviously proud of that. All that we can count on from Reform is chaos and division.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I do not know the particular details of the hon. Gentleman’s hospital, but I will ensure that they are looked into. We have put record investment into the NHS, but now that he has raised it, I will ensure we look into the specific case he has raised here in this House.