Prime Minister

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Written Corrections

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

It has been over two decades since a Labour Government banned the cruel practice of fur farming, but the job is not done. Real fur and fur products are still being imported into the UK. This week, I delivered a petition to No. 10 with over 1 million signatures calling for a fur-free Britain. My private Member’s Bill would deliver exactly that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to close the loopholes, ban the import and sale of real fur, and finally put the fur trade out of fashion?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her campaign. I know that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will have heard her representations. We have commissioned the expert Animal Welfare Committee to produce a full report on the responsible sourcing of fur to inform the next steps that need to be taken, and we are committed to publishing an animal welfare strategy later this week.

[Official Report, 4 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 304.]

Written correction submitted by the Prime Minister:

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her campaign. I know that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will have heard her representations. We have commissioned the expert Animal Welfare Committee to produce a full report on the responsible sourcing of fur to inform the next steps that need to be taken, and we are committed to publishing an animal welfare strategy later this year.

Machinery of Government: Cyber-security and Defence Exports

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention the following machinery of Government changes.

I am today announcing that responsibility for Government and public sector cyber-security will move from the Cabinet Office to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. This change will strengthen technology resilience and policymaking across the public sector by better integrating cyber-security responsibilities and expertise into the Government Digital Service. This change is effective immediately.

I am also confirming that responsibility for defence exports promotion—comprising the majority of UK Defence & Security Exports—will move from the Department for Business and Trade to the Ministry of Defence. In line with the defence industrial strategy, this will enable the Government to develop a single defence exports offer, driving a significant and sustained improvement to performance while giving stronger backing to our world-class defence industry. It will directly connect exports with the MOD’s wider procurement and international activity. The creation of a single Departmental lead for defence exports will deliver on the Government’s first mission of delivering economic growth as well as their first duty of protecting the UK. Responsibility for security and cyber exports will remain in the Department for Business and Trade. This change will take effect on 31 July.

[HCWS679]

Investigatory Powers Commissioner

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

I have today laid before both Houses a copy of the annual report of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Brian Leveson. This report covers the activities of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, the former Office for Communications Data Authorisations, and the Technology Advisory Panel for 2023.

The Investigatory Powers Commissioner provides independent oversight of the use of investigatory powers, as outlined in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. This oversight includes the inspection and authorisation by judicial commissioners of the use of these powers by over 600 public authorities. This includes the intelligence and security services and law enforcement agencies.

Overall, Sir Brian’s report demonstrates the good level of operational compliance and respect for the law of our security and intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies and other relevant public authorities when using investigatory powers. Where the Investigatory Powers Commissioner has identified concerns, our agencies and Departments are working hard to address these. I thank them all for their hard work to protect the UK, at home and abroad.

Now in its seventh year, IPCO continues to provide independent oversight of the use of investigatory powers, providing assurance to both the public and Parliament that privacy safeguards are applied. In March 2024, IPCO merged with its sister organisation, OCDA, to become one organisation, while retaining the IPCO name. While the merger was outside of this reporting period, the work of both organisations is presented as one in this report. I wish to express my sincere thanks to Sir Brian, his team of judicial commissioners and all the staff at IPCO for their work.

Maintaining public trust and confidence in the exercise of investigatory powers is vital for national security and public safety, and a top priority for this Government. This report demonstrates the high quality of oversight over our intelligence and security agencies’ use of the most intrusive powers. I am satisfied that our oversight arrangements are amongst the strongest and most effective in the world.

In accordance with section 234(6)(b) of the IPA, I wish to notify both Houses that the report contains no material considered too sensitive to be published. Following consultation with relevant Government Departments and agencies, the contents of this open report are not prejudicial to national security or ongoing investigations.

I will be sending a copy of this report to Scottish Ministers, as required under section 234(8) of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, and I commend this report to the House.

[HCWS660]

UK-EU Summit

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

With permission, I will update the House on the three recent trade deals that we have struck in the national interest.

First, however, I would like to say something about the horrific situation in Gaza, where the level of suffering, with innocent children being bombed again, is utterly intolerable. Over the weekend we co-ordinated a response with our allies, as set out in my statement with President Macron and Prime Minister Carney last night. I want to put on record today that we are horrified by the escalation from Israel. We repeat our demand for a ceasefire, as the only way to free the hostages; we repeat our opposition to settlements in the west bank; and we repeat our demand to massively scale up humanitarian assistance to Gaza. The recent announcement that Israel will allow a “basic quantity of food” into Gaza is totally and utterly inadequate, so we must co-ordinate our response, because this war has gone on for far too long. We cannot allow the people of Gaza to starve, and the Foreign Secretary will come to the House shortly to set out our response in detail.

Let me turn now to the three deals that this Government have struck. The principles we took into the negotiations are clear and simple. Does it drive down bills? Does it drive up jobs? Does it strengthen our borders? In each case, the answer is a resoundingly yes. These deals release us from the tired arguments of the past and, as an independent sovereign nation, allow us to seize the opportunities of the future—a clear message, sent across the globe, that Britain is back on the world stage.

We have a trade deal with the world’s fastest growing economy, India, cutting tariffs for British industries, which is a huge boost for our whisky and gin distilleries—their only concern now is whether they can produce enough to sell—and for our car manufacturers, with tariffs slashed from over 100% to just 10%, and no concessions on visas. We have a trade deal with the world’s richest economy, the United States, slashing tariffs, saving thousands upon thousands of jobs in car manufacturing in places like Jaguar Land Rover, protecting our steel and aluminium exports, and safeguarding the interests of our hugely important pharmaceutical sector.

But I can already see that, when it comes to this hat-trick of deals, it is our new partnership with the EU that the Opposition most want to talk about—and given their abject failure to strike a deal with India or the US, I cannot say I blame them—so let me spell out the benefits of this deal, which gives our country an unprecedented level of access to the EU market: the best access of any nation outside the EU or European Free Trade Association.

I will start with our security. When Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine over three years ago, a gauntlet was thrown down, and it is our responsibility to step up. That is what this world demands, and it is what this partnership delivers, strengthening our national security through a new security and defence partnership that paves the way for British defence firms to access the EU’s €150 billion defence fund. That will support British jobs, British wages and British livelihoods.

The partnership also increases co-operation on emissions trading, saving UK businesses from having to pay up to £800 million in EU carbon taxes—once again, backing British businesses. The deal will drive down bills with increased co-operation on energy, because the agreement negotiated by the Conservative party left us with a more expensive way of working with our neighbours—a needless rupture, despite our grids being connected by undersea cables. This partnership brings those systems together again, benefiting British bill payers and boosting clean British power in the North sea.

This partnership also strengthens our borders, because again, the previous deal left a huge gap and weakened our ability to work together to tackle illegal migration—the ultimate cross-border challenge. It closes that gap, including joint work on returns, preventing channel crossings and working upstream in key source and transit countries, co-operating along the whole migration route to strengthen our hand in the fight against the vile smuggling gangs. It boosts our co-operation on law enforcement, combating terrorism and serious organised crime with closer operational work with agencies like Europol and better sharing of intelligence and data, including, for the first time, facial imaging.

This partnership helps British holidaymakers, who will be able to use e-gates when they travel to Europe, ending those huge queues at passport control. It delivers for our young people, because we are now on a path towards a controlled youth experience scheme, with firm caps on numbers and visa controls—a relationship we have with so many countries around the world, some of which were even set up by the Conservative party. We should be proud to give our young people that opportunity. And, not for the first time, this Government have delivered for Britain’s steel industry, protecting our steel exports from new EU tariffs and backing our steel sector to the hilt.

Last but certainly not least, we have a new sanitary and phytosanitary deal, as promised in our manifesto, which will cut the price of a weekly shop, meaning that there will be more money in the pockets of working people, less red tape for our exporters, no more lorry drivers sitting for 16 hours at the border with rotting food in the back, and no more needless checks—the inevitable consequence of the Conservatives’ policies, which made it so much harder to trade even within our own market, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The deal means that British goods that have long been off the menu in Europe can regain their true place, including shellfish, which are hugely important for Cornwall, Devon and Scotland. Not only does our deal on fish provide stability, with no increase in the amount that EU vessels can catch in British waters, but the new SPS agreement slashes costs and red tape for our exports to the European market. We sell 70% of our seafood to that market, so there is a huge opportunity that Britain’s fisheries, in which we have made a £360 million investment, will now look to exploit.

The reaction to this deal from business has been absolutely clear. Mr Speaker, I know you are a stickler for keeping to time, so I do not have time to run through the list of supportive quotes from businesses. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Prime Minister is correct.

[The Prime Minister]

This is not the full list, but the new partnership has been backed by the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI, the British Retail Consortium, Asda, Morrisons, Salmon Scotland, the Food & Drink Federation, the British Chamber of Commerce, Ryanair, Vodafone and producers of meat, milk and poultry—the list goes on and on. I wonder whether that long list of businesses coming out in support of the deal will temper the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition—but then again, for weeks now, she has been dismissive of the benefits of any trade deal, in defiance, frankly, of her party’s history. It is not just the Conservatives that I am talking about; the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is not here, and the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) have both shown, in their own way, that their parties simply do not get it; if your whole approach to our allies is about striking a pose, you do not get to strike a deal. What that means in a world like ours, where deals are ever more the currency of security and justice, is that you do not get to make a difference, and you do not get to deliver for Britain. That is what this partnership means.

For years, we were told that this could not be done. What the Conservatives meant was that they could not do it. We were told that a deal with the US or India was impossible; what they meant was that it was impossible for them. We were told that a choice must be made between the US and EU; what they meant was that they could not do a deal with both. This Government can and will, because we stay in the room, we fight for the national interest, and we put the British people first. These deals represent a signal that we are back on the world stage—a global champion of free trade, playing our historic role on European security—but above all, they are deals that put money in the pockets of working people, because that is what independent, sovereign nations do. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. The Prime Minister talks about a hat trick of deals—they are own goals. In 2020, the Conservatives concluded the trade and co-operation agreement, the largest and most comprehensive free trade agreement in the world. We agreed to come back in five years with improved terms. This renegotiation should have been an opportunity to improve terms for our country, but the terms are improved for the EU. The Prime Minister can dress it up as much as he wants, but he has failed. It is bad for bills; it is bad for jobs; and it is bad for borders.

This is not a deal made for Britain; this deal is made for Labour’s public relations, to show Labour on the world stage, but it is a stitch-up for our country in return for short-term headlines. Let us take the Prime Minister’s abject failures one by one. First, on fishing, he has given away the prize most desired by EU member states, and he has done so for almost nothing. It is very easy to sign deals if you are prepared to give everything away for pennies. This deal locks out our fishermen until 2038. We are now in a worse position than the Faroe Islands—a set of islands with the population of Scarborough, but which gets to have annual negotiations. The Prime Minister quoted some organisations that welcome his deal—he does not listen to them normally—but he left one out deliberately: the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has described the deal as a surrender and a giveaway. This is a Prime Minister who would pay to give away his family silver. Why is the Prime Minister selling our fishermen down the river? Is it because they do not vote Labour?

Secondly, on food and agriculture, the Prime Minister is going to pay the EU to abide by laws that we have no say on. While British farmers struggle with the family farms tax that his Chancellor has imposed on them, their regulations will now be made in Paris and enforced in Brussels. It is a total capitulation. We are not in the EU, and we are not at the table, so can the Prime Minister tell us how he will ensure accountability for the hundreds of regulations that he has signed this country up to?

Thirdly, on energy, the Prime Minister has shackled us to the EU’s emissions trading scheme. That means that the Government can no longer cut energy costs without the EU’s permission. It will also unravel parts of the India free trade agreement that he has just negotiated. This is not a technicality; it is a betrayal. The House should be in no doubt that this means higher bills, more pain and less flexibility.

Fourthly, on the Prime Minister’s manifesto promises, he said that we would not rejoin the single market. He promised no new payments, and that he would protect British interests. That promise has lasted about as long as his commitment to protect pensioners’ winter fuel allowance. He said whatever was needed to win power, and now he will say whatever is needed to keep it, even if it means selling out our sovereignty, our businesses and the public.

The truth is that most of what was announced yesterday was not a deal. There was no binding agreement on anything. Most of the items outlined are simply agreements to enter into further discussions, which we are already having. The Prime Minister is boasting that we will now avoid airport queues because we will get access to EU e-gates. It sounds great, except it is not true; some airports already allow that, and this deal does not guarantee it anywhere, as each country still has to agree. That sums up this deal perfectly: it is a lot of spin to disguise the terrible substance.

Having previously ruled out a youth mobility scheme, the Prime Minister is now desperately trying to hide his latest U-turn by rebranding the scheme as an experience. That is risible. We have no details on any cap or time limit, which begs the question: why are the Government talking about increasing migration before they have got a grip on the small boats or the legal migration system? I know that the Prime Minister does not like answering questions, but people out there want to know. Can we have some honesty about what has been discussed? How many young European workers does the Prime Minister think would be acceptable, and will they be able to bring dependants?

Even the defence commitments in this deal are hopelessly one-sided. We are making payments, but the EU is offering dialogue and consultation. This is a pitiful return for the country that leads NATO in Europe, and has troops on the ground in Estonia, defending our allies. Can the Prime Minister tell us why there was not a single word in his statement about the money that we will now be sending to Brussels? Can he set out how much those payments will cost taxpayers? In government, details matter, and so does honesty. [Laughter.] Labour Members are laughing, but this is a bad deal for the country. Look at them. This is how they laughed at the Budget. They have no idea what it is that they have signed up to. The Prime Minister said that he would stay out of the single market; he is going into the single market for agrifood, electricity and energy. He said that he would stay out of the customs union, but he is accepting EU tariff rules. How does he plan to stop the EU changing them to our disadvantage? He has no idea, and neither do any of them.

The British people know when they are being misled. They know that headlines fail. The Prime Minister did not listen to the CBI on the jobs tax, and he did not listen to the Federation of Small Businesses on the family farms tax. This deal has already unravelled. The damage is becoming clear, and the political consequences will be huge, and here he is, trumpeting his success. When he stands up in a moment, he will deflect, dismiss and distract, but we all know the truth. This is a fiction of a speech, a fraud of a deal, and a failure of a Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

Oh dear. That was just such an unserious response. The right hon. Lady says that details matter in government; they matter in opposition as well. The SPS agreement cuts red tape and bureaucracy for all food and agricultural products going to the EU. It is a massive boost for our supermarkets, our farmers and others. Why is it that all the supermarkets have come out behind this deal? Because they know how important the SPS agreement is. It is completely in our favour. There is a huge amount of detail there. It is the best agreement.

On defence and security, we have greater operational co-ordination, and the right hon. Lady is against it at a time like this. It opens the gate to the EU defence procurement fund of €150 billion; that was a condition of the deal. She complains about emissions. [Hon. Members: “How much?”] I will tell you how much. Businesses were going to pay £800 million a year in tariffs that they will not now pay. That is why they are coming out in support of the deal. That is how much. The detail matters.

On energy, we are already connected, but we are not using that energy connection. We have electrical access to the market. On steel, we are getting rid of the tariffs. That will support British steel, but the right hon. Lady is against that, yet again. She says that e-gates access is already in existence; this deal clears the way for e-gates access. That is the huge difference it makes. [Interruption.] If any Conservative Members doubt that, they should travel across a border today and see the long queues.

On law enforcement, we have better operational working with Europol, and the right hon. Lady is against it. We have information sharing on facial mapping and dealing with criminal records, and she is against it. She is absolutely unserious. She is also against the India deal, which of course does huge things for trade in sectors such as whisky, where their only concern is whether they can produce enough. They have been absolutely clear about supporting the India deal—a deal that the Conservatives tried to do—and she now says that she is against it.

We have the US deal, which saved thousands upon thousands of jobs in car manufacturing and at Jaguar Land Rover. I do not know whether the right hon. Lady had the chance to make that trip to JLR, but she really ought to before she responds like that again. The US deal reduces tariffs on steel, so that our steel can be sold to America, and supports our whisky and gin, and she is against it. She is against every single deal. She is the only ex-Trade Secretary who is against every single deal. These deals have been welcomed broadly because they are good deals. You do not get a great long list of endorsements from all the business associations and companies for no—[Interruption.] The Conservatives are so unserious; they are lost in a descent into the abyss. They used to be a proud party of trading agreements, and they have slid off into the abyss. That is where they are.

On fishing, none of the rights negotiated by the Conservatives have been removed. There is no change in access for coastal communities, which is the same as before. There is no reduction in the British quota or increase in the EU quota; they are the same as before. We have reciprocal arrangements, which are the same as before. What is new is having the SPS agreement for the first time, and it is permanent. They were unable to do that. It reopens the EU market for shellfish and makes it much easier to sell British fish to our largest trading partner. That is hugely significant, because 72% of British fish is traded into EU markets, and it is now easier to do that. We are backing that with £360 million through our fishing and coastal grants. The Leader of the Opposition talks about the youth experience scheme. That scheme is capped, it is time-limited, and it is balanced.

In relation to standards, the truth is this: we are currently aligned in our standards, but we do not get the benefit of that. We want to continue to have high standards; that is what the British public want, and it is what this deal delivers. We will have a role in shaping any future rules, and application of them is specifically subject to our constitutional arrangements. We will have a process in this Parliament to apply the rules, but to be clear, we are already applying those rules at the moment—we are just not getting the advantage. This deal strips that away. It is good for our country and good for our economy, and it is a shame that the Leader of the Opposition cannot stand up and support it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

This deal is good for business and good for Britain. I congratulate the Prime Minister on embracing a good half of the Select Committee’s recommendations, which—if I might say so—were agreed on a cross-party basis. While some in this House are proposing trade barriers, the Prime Minister is building trade bridges, and that is in the national interest.

We have a deal, but we do not have a date. The Office for Budget Responsibility cannot score the gains, businesses cannot plan for the benefits, and we cannot suspend customs checks in Northern Ireland until we know when the new SPS checks will come into force. What timetable has the Prime Minister given his negotiators for when that SPS deal will come into effect? Business needs certainty, and for that, we need clarity.

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me pick up on my right hon. Friend’s point about the cross-party support of the Select Committee. There are Conservative Members who I think are ashamed by the response of the Leader of the Opposition, and know very well that these are good deals that should be supported. A number of her Back-Bench MPs are already coming out and saying that these deals are good and in the national interest. [Hon. Members: “Who?”] You know who they are.

I assure my right hon. Friend that we have moved at pace to get the deals, and our instruction to our teams now is to move at pace to implement them. That is what we will do. We negotiated these deals in a short number of months, and we will keep moving at the same pace.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the appalling situation in Gaza. When he is working with our French and Canadian colleagues to put pressure on Netanyahu, will he consider, with the French, formally recognising the state of Palestine?

Turning to the EU reset deal, the Prime Minister knows that we do not think this deal goes far enough to fix our broken relationship with Europe, but there are many parts of it that we welcome. We have long been arguing for an agrifood deal to help British farmers export to Europe; for a youth mobility scheme to give our young people incredible new opportunities and British businesses, especially in hospitality, a boost; and for closer alliances on defence in the face of Putin’s imperialism and Trump’s unpredictability. I welcome the progress on those issues, even if there is only very limited progress on things such as youth mobility.

We have all seen the terrible damage caused by the Conservatives’ Brexit deal, and hearing the Conservative leader complain today is like listening to a backseat driver who previously crashed the car. Our country has moved on from the divisive Brexit wars of a decade ago, and some Members of this House need to do the same. However, does the Prime Minister accept that this deal must be only the first step, and that we must be far more ambitious in strengthening our economic and security ties with our nearest neighbours? We believe that a bespoke customs union is a key part of that—not turning back to the past, but forming a new partnership that serves our national interest. I know that the Prime Minister once made that a red line, but he will accept that the world has changed since then, so will he open negotiations on a customs union to get a better deal for Britain—a trade deal to dwarf all other trade deals?

[The Prime Minister]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about this deal being a first step, it is intended that this is the beginning of a process to complete what we have already agreed. We also intend to have annual summits so that we can take our co-operation and co-ordination further, step by step, and we will do that while keeping to the red lines in our manifesto.

On the question of a customs union, the problem with the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal—as I know he knows—is that we have just struck deals with India and the US. If we now undo that good work, we undo all the benefits of those two deals. For JLR and other car manufacturers, this is the here and now of their jobs at the moment. That is why we had our red lines and kept to those red lines, and I am not prepared to rip up the benefits that we have negotiated in those deals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I begin by thanking the Prime Minister for what he has said about Gaza. The message he is sending to Netanyahu’s far-right Government could not be clearer, and it should have the unanimous support of this House. It is essentially, “This must stop.”

Turning to the grown-up EU deal, which comes hard on the heels of the two other recent trade agreements, the Government are rightly confident that those deals will be popular and will provide great benefits to our country. As such, I ask the Prime Minister this: why not take this opportunity to fix a glaring hole in our democracy and simply put those agreements to a vote, allowing them to be scrutinised by this place? I can assure him that they will be passed.

[The Prime Minister]

As my right hon. Friend knows, there is a process for implementing any agreement. All of these agreements will require legislation, and therefore they will go through the House on that basis.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Can I just point out to the Prime Minister that nothing can undo the fact that 17.5 million people voted leave? They voted to take back control of our laws and stop paying money to the EU. That was a considerably larger number than the 9.7 million people who voted Labour at the last election, but now the Prime Minister is submitting to EU regulations without any control and starting to pay money back to the European Union—he is giving up control over our laws and restoring payments to the European Union. He will pay a bitter political price for this betrayal.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that we had red lines about not rejoining the EU—no single market, no customs union and no freedom of movement. We were told that it was impossible to negotiate a better deal with the EU with those red lines, but we have just done it. We have also shown that we are outside the EU, because as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, having deals with India and the US is inconsistent with membership of the EU. There could be no better evidence that we are not going back into the EU; nor are these negotiations on that basis. I know that the hon. Gentleman understands that well, so I am surprised at the way in which he has put his question.

As for control of borders, net migration quadrupled after Brexit to nearly a million. That was not controlling our borders; it was a complete lack of control by the Conservative party. On the question of payments, it is important to appreciate that we have achieved unprecedented access to EU markets without the budgetary payments of member states. That is an incredible achievement. The only payment under the SPS agreement is administrative—to support the relevant costs of implementing and administering the scheme. For schemes and payments where it is in our national interest, we will negotiate proportionate contributions, as already happens under the deal negotiated by the Conservatives—for example, in relation to research and development and Horizon. The hon. Gentleman knows all that very well.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate the Prime Minister on this achievement, on top of two great trade deals. This is important if we are trying to deliver growth in the economy. Could the Prime Minister outline what he thinks the two or three main gains are to boost the economy in short order, so that we can build the public spending that we so badly need?

[The Prime Minister]

Our approach has been on the question of bringing our bills down, which is why the SPS agreement is so important, and of protecting and driving up jobs, which is why the EU, India and US agreements are all so important. That is particularly the case for car manufacturing, but equally so for pharmaceuticals, which are protected under our agreement. However, there is a bigger picture: these are three individual trade deals, but taken together they show that other countries want to do deals with the UK now in a way that they did not before.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

With youth unemployment higher in Europe—in countries such as France, Spain, Portugal and Sweden—I can see why the EU pushed for a youth mobility scheme: to help get its youth unemployment figures down. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what impact assessment he has done of his youth scheme? What effect will it have on youth unemployment among young Brits, particularly white working-class boys, who suffer the most? Can he also tell the House today what cap he has put on the number of people coming to the UK? If he cannot, this is a bitter betrayal of British youth.

[The Prime Minister]

The agreement gives young people in the United Kingdom the opportunity to work, to study and to travel in Europe. It will be a capped scheme of limited duration and with visas. This, again, is something that everyone said we could not negotiate, and we have negotiated it. As for the right hon. Lady’s question about what we are doing for young people in this country, she should look to the Trailblazer scheme that we set up to help young people back into work.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister join me in inviting Conservative Members to celebrate the restoration of access to our British shellfishers, and the reduction in frictions on the 70% of our British seafood that is exported to the EU? Will he encourage those Conservative Members to get out there and help us to deploy the £360 million of fishing and coastal community funding that we have unlocked?

[The Prime Minister]

Under the Conservatives’ deal, shellfish was locked out, but it can now be sold back into the market, which is hugely important to places such as Cornwall. That is why their response to this is so uncertain and, if I may say so, un-Tory.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

On six separate occasions since the beginning of the year I have asked the Paymaster General about plans for a youth mobility scheme, and every single time he has told me that Labour has no plans. I realise that I was in error and should have asked about a youth experience scheme, but let me ask the Prime Minister now whether he has a timescale for when such a scheme can be put into operation and we can start to see the benefits that Liberal Democrats know it can bring to young people here in the UK and across the EU.

[The Prime Minister]

We have moved apace to get this far, but we now need to move apace to implement what we agreed yesterday, so we will be doing that, and we will update the House as we do so.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister and his colleagues on their success at the summit. The Government’s hard work has paid off: this is a good deal and a good first step. Businesses will benefit from a reduction in red tape, and consumers will see lower bills in the long run. The announcement on youth experience and Erasmus+ will be welcomed by the many young people in my constituency. I also welcome the recognition of the value of touring artists in both the EU and the UK. I realise that the barriers to touring are complex, but will the PM commit himself to keeping up the hard work so we can begin to reduce and break down those barriers?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has raised an important point about touring artists. We are absolutely committed to securing a better deal for them, and that will be part of the ongoing work as we move forward from this summit to the next.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I think the Front Benches need to calm the jets a wee bit. This is obviously not a surrender, just as it is obviously no substitute for membership of the European Union; nor, indeed, is it, as the Prime Minister has said repeatedly today, providing “unprecedented access” to the EU market—that is simply absurd.

The deal does provide for co-operation on carbon storage, so will the Prime Minister build on that good work by committing his Government to providing the financial support that is necessary to take forward the Acorn project in the north-east of Scotland?

[The Prime Minister]

The deal does allow us to move forward on renewables and carbon capture as part of the package around renewables, which is why it is so important across the United Kingdom, but particularly in Scotland because of the potential for job opportunities there, so of course we will press on in that regard. I would gently ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider again why he should not support this deal for the benefit of the whisky sector in Scotland, and given that yesterday Salmon Scotland came out hugely in favour of it. He should stand up and support the work that we are doing.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

My constituency is home to the world’s oldest biscuit factory: Carr’s has been making Table Water crackers, ginger nuts and custard creams for many decades, and in about 15 years’ time it will celebrate 200 years in business. Can the Prime Minister say more about the importance of this deal to food and drink businesses such as pladis, which owns and operates the Carr’s biscuit factory?

[The Prime Minister]

For food, for biscuits and all the content covered by the SPS agreement, this deal is a massive step forward. It gets rid of the red tape and bureaucracy that cost each business thousands upon thousands of pounds. This is good for biscuits, good for business.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

May I have a serious answer to a very narrow and specific question? We know how many fishing rights the Prime Minister was prepared to give away for how many years in order to accede to the EU’s demands, but how much UK taxpayers’ money is he willing to hand over to the EU in order to sign up to its protectionist demands?

[The Prime Minister]

I remind the right hon. Lady that nothing that was negotiated on fishing by the previous Government has been given away; quite the contrary. On costs—I gave a full answer earlier—we are not paying into the EU budget in the way that EU members do, and that is why this unprecedented access is so important. In relation to schemes and programmes, yes, we will make a proportionate contribution, on the same basis, with the same principles, that the Conservative party—the then Government—negotiated the current arrangements on Horizon and research and development. It is hard to see why, having negotiated those arrangements, it is now suddenly against them.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The energy industry is central to our mission for growth, but it is also important to our tackling of the generational challenge that is climate change. This is a sentiment felt in my constituency, which is proud to be a regional hub of carbon capture and hydrogen storage. Will the Prime Minister explain how the deal supports the energy industry so that we can pursue the growth, bring down energy bills and tackle climate change?

[The Prime Minister]

It does so in two ways. It makes permanent the energy chapter in the current deal, and it goes beyond that to allow us to co-operate and co-ordinate more closely on energy; we have the ability for connection already, but we can now take better advantage of it.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Successive Governments and successive Parliaments have caused unnecessary and at times intolerable damage to our Union. We recognise the reductions in some checks on some issues, but can the Prime Minister explain why, if animals and animal products are now suitable to come to Northern Ireland free of checks, the European Union is still intent on banning the very veterinary medicines that are taken by those animals? If standards are the same in the United Kingdom and the European Union—and this Parliament has already decided that CE markings will be retained—why are products and manufactured goods not part of the arrangement? Will the Prime Minister confirm to this Parliament that it is his intention to rid Northern Ireland of the Windsor framework and to get rid of the barriers within our Union?

[The Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the SPS agreement that we have negotiated for the UK as a whole is good for Northern Ireland because it complements the current SPS agreement for Northern Ireland that it comes up against. That will be a huge step forward for Northern Ireland, which I know he cares about, and others care about, and I care about. It is among the advantages of the SPS deal that we have struck.

I do understand the issue of veterinary medicines, and we are working to resolve the problem that the right hon. Gentleman has rightly described. I think we are in a better position to resolve it by co-operating and co-ordinating with the EU, which is what we are doing. On the Windsor framework, it is important that we implement the agreements that we have in place, because the blunt truth is that no one will make further agreements with a country that walks away from agreements that it has already put in place.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

The last Tory Government left the British people at the back of the European queue. That was true for exporters, for farmers and for businesses, but most obviously it was true for my constituents who stood and watched other nations skip through the e-gates at airports while they waited for hours. Given that East Renfrewshire holidaymakers are eager to spend more time at the poolside and less time at passport control, can the Prime Minister tell me when he expects to see the benefits of the arrangements involving the use of e-gates?

[The Prime Minister]

The arrangement we got to yesterday with the EU has absolute clarity: there is no impediment to e-gates, which means that we can now work with member states to get them in place as quickly as possible. We have already started our work with them to get e-gates through. [Interruption.] We have now cleared the barrier and are getting on with it. For many years, we have had queues because of the Conservatives’ bad deal—so pipe down.

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

The most pernicious part of this deal is dynamic alignment, by which we become an automatic rule-taker from the European Union. Labour has been briefing journalists that we have an opt-out from that. I have read the document in detail, and we do not. Besides, the ECJ is the ultimate arbiter in a dispute, so the EU will always win. The British people voted peacefully and democratically to leave the European Union, so why has the Prime Minister surrendered that right and made us a rule-taker from the EU once again?

[The Prime Minister]

I had forgotten about some of the nonsense that is spouted. On the question of how the rules are made, they will go through a parliamentary process in this House.

[Mr Francois]

After they have been changed.

[The Prime Minister]

We are already aligned. We are in alignment; we are just not getting the benefit of it. This deal gives us the benefit, which will be counted in business, jobs and bills. In relation to an independent arbiter, under this agreement there is independent arbitration where there are disputes.

[Mr Francois]

Subject to the ECJ! [Interruption.]

[The Prime Minister]

They all know this. Every trade deal has an arbitration clause to deal with the settlement of disputes. All trade deals have that, including all the trade deals that the Conservatives negotiated.

On the question of the ECJ, if an issue of European law needs to be referred by the independent arbitrators to the court, it will give a ruling on the interpretation. It will then pass back to the arbitrators to make the final decision. That is how trade deals work, but I understand the Conservatives’ new policy. Their new policy is against any trade deals. That has never been the Conservative party’s policy before, but it is good that we have clarity now.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

This deal is very welcome, particularly for my farmers in Morecambe and Lunesdale. When I was a young person, I benefited from a year in New Zealand and a year in Spain. Can the Prime Minister assure me that he will do everything he can to ensure that other young Brits get the same opportunities that I did?

[The Prime Minister]

I want young people in this country to have the opportunity under the scheme to work, to travel, and to involve themselves in volunteering and other activities in Europe.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Thanks to the appalling deal that the Conservatives did with the EU in 2020, we saw farmers lose 34% of their export market into the European Union. That contributed to a 41% drop in incomes for livestock farmers in my constituency and across the country, so we are encouraged to hear about the access to the European market for our farmers. Can the Prime Minister say more about that and when farmers in Westmorland and beyond might avail themselves of those opportunities?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, which will be of huge interest to his constituents. If I have got his number right, he said there was a 41% drop in trade because of the deal that the previous Government did for farmers, who they claim to champion. As he will appreciate, this deal ensures that food and agriculture going into the EU will, under the SPS agreement, do so without any red tape or bureaucracy. That will make it much easier for his constituents, and for farmers generally, to trade in the EU market and will bring down their costs, which is hugely important for farmers and his constituents.

On the question of timing, we will do it as quickly as possible. We are moving at pace. I appreciate that for farmers in his constituency and across the country, it is hugely important to undo the damage that the previous Government did.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the Prime Minister on this deal. Manchester has a student population of over 100,000, many of whom I represent. They will be pleased to hear, as I am, that the UK and the EU will develop a scheme focused on student exchange, supporting young people to study, volunteer, work or travel across Europe. Does the Prime Minister agree that this deal will provide life-changing experiences for our young people and strengthen our broken relationship with the EU for generations to come?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I can confirm that I want those experiences and opportunities for our young people, and I think the country wants those experiences for young people. I am not even sure the Conservatives are genuinely against better opportunities for our young people to work and travel in Europe.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

In Boston and Skegness, my fishermen are furious that the Prime Minister has surrendered the fishing industry. My constituents are furious that he has surrendered on freedom of movement and on rule taking under the ECJ. But there is good news: does Prime Minister accept that he has also surrendered the jobs of many of his Back-Bench MPs to Reform at the next general election?

[The Prime Minister]

I will happily explain to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents the huge benefits of these deals, measured in jobs that will be saved, jobs that can now thrive, and bills that will come down. It is really important for our economy that we have these deals. That is in the interests of his constituents, and it is in the interests of the whole country.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

When it comes to evaluating the merits of the deal, who would the Prime Minister suggest my Livingston constituents listen to? Should it be the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, NFU Scotland or Salmon Scotland, all of which have welcomed the deal, or should they listen to John Swinney, who is lining up with the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) in a desperate, misguided attempt to create a constitutional grievance over a deal that the Deputy First Minister of Scotland has called “important progress”?

[The Prime Minister]

I was surprised to see the SNP First Minister line up with Reform and the Leader of the Opposition against a deal that has been welcomed by the likes of Salmon Scotland, a huge exporter from Scotland, because they know it is good for their business. That is a pretty small and miserable club for the SNP to be in.

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

If the Prime Minister is right that our food standards are already in alignment with those of the EU, why could we not have negotiated the deal on the basis of mutual recognition of those standards, as other countries have done, rather than open ourselves up to having to alter our standards in line with whatever the EU may decide to change in the future?

[The Prime Minister]

That is a very good question that the right hon. Gentleman should put to Boris Johnson.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I absolutely welcome this deal, which puts us on the map as an outward-looking nation again. Above all, the benefits that it brings young people in Edinburgh South West are absolutely worth noting. We know that the deal will bring lower bills for people shopping for food and buying energy across the UK. Based on that, can the Prime Minister understand why the SNP is uniting with Reform and the Conservatives to take an isolationist approach on international trade?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I do think it is really hard to fathom, and I hope that SNP Members reconsider their position, because lining up against better trade and better business opportunities for Scotland is not in Scotland’s interest. To be lining up with Reform is not a place that I would expect them to be, but that is where they are.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I admire the Prime Minister’s faith that this deal may well end the tired arguments of the past, but judging on today’s display, I think we need to end the Conservatives—the tired party of the past to my right—before that is the case. A generation of young people have missed out on the opportunities offered by the Erasmus scheme due to the disastrous Brexit deal negotiated by the Conservatives. We are encouraged by the words in the deal about the Erasmus scheme, but what is the timescale for offering that opportunity to our young people once again?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think the Conservatives need any help in retiring from the national stage—they are well on their way. It is obviously important that we take a balanced approach in negotiating access to Erasmus. As with other aspects, we want to move ahead on what we have negotiated as quickly as we can. We have moved at speed to get this far, and the instruction from both sides is to move at speed on the other elements.

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

I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when she says that what matters is whether the terms of the deal have improved for the country, and that detail matters. Some 16,000 firms in this country stopped exporting to Europe under the deal that her Government negotiated and exports dropped by a third, because the price of her Brexit was paperwork. Under this deal, the Government are getting rid of the much-hated export health certificate, which is worth an extra £200 on every single consignment. This Government’s deal will help business; her Government’s deal hurt business. Can the Prime Minister confirm that as part of reviewing the charges at the border, he will also look at that the Tories’ hated border operating model, so we can really get business moving?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend puts her finger on it. Under the Tories’ deal, there was huge bureaucracy, huge red tape, huge cost to businesses. The reason businesses have come out to support this deal in huge numbers is because they know it will make life better for them, improve their business opportunities, and drive our economy forward.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

I asked the Prime Minister on 7 May to reassure the House that he would not hand over hard-won controls over UK fishing waters in backroom deals with Brussels. In reply, he said:

“a better deal…can be had.”—[Official Report, 7 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 679.]

Does he agree that EU access to our waters until 2038 is only a better deal for Brussels and nothing short of a betrayal of British coastal communities?

[The Prime Minister]

The deal we have struck makes it easier for fishermen to sell into the EU market. Some 72% of their fish is sold into the EU market. Until we came along with the SPS agreement, which is permanent, they had to put up with the red tape, bureaucracy and added cost that the Tory party negotiated with disastrous consequences. This makes it easier for them to sell their fish into the market, which is hugely important to them. On shellfish exports, which were banned by the Tory party, the door is open again and they can sell into the market—hugely important.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I put on the record my thanks to the Prime Minister and the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office for this landmark first step in the Government’s reset with the European Union. As the Government remove barriers to trade, what further information can the Prime Minister share with the House about how the deal will bring down the cost of living, including for my Bolton West constituents?

[The Prime Minister]

I point my hon. Friend to the endorsements from the very many supermarkets yesterday who made precisely that point. It will allow them now to lower the price of goods and food on their shelves. That is good for them and their businesses, it is good for working people, and it massively helps with the cost of living.

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

These incremental improvements are welcome as we begin to move on from some of the illusions of Brexit, although we had all this and far, far more 10 years ago. The Prime Minister once argued that

“we should retain the benefits of the single market”.—[Official Report, 1 May 2017; Vol. 630, c. 879.]

Given his recent tendency to dismiss the views of others, what would he say to his younger self?

[The Prime Minister]

I think last week I was overly rude and I apologise. I do respect the right hon. Member, and she makes a serious point. We are now outside the EU. We had red lines in our manifesto on the single market. We have kept to those red lines and delivered a very good deal.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on securing this deal. Does he agree with me that the attitude displayed by the Conservatives betrays a fundamental dislike and mistrust of all things European, which makes them totally inadequate to accept any sort of deal whatever with the EU? Can he confirm that no matter where an international trade deal is done, whether through World Trade Organisation rules or with Europe, there is always an arbitration system?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I do not think the Conservatives are just against all things European, because they say they are against the India deal as well. That is a deal they tried for eight long years to negotiate. It is deeply embarrassing for them to say that that was what they were trying to negotiate and now they are against it. They are against the deal with the US, which they said they wanted to negotiate, which saves thousands upon thousands of jobs. Go to Jaguar Land Rover and tell those workers that you are going to reverse the deal, and look at the expressions on their faces. It is further evidence of the decline of the Tory party, away from free trade. I never thought I would see that, but we are seeing that now under this Leader of the Opposition. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about arbitration clauses: they are there in every trade deal that has ever been struck.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I do not want to be a dog in the manger, but the Prime Minister’s statement appears to be very strong on self-congratulation and very short on detail. I know he does not like answering detailed questions, but the response he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) was quite simply unacceptable. When will this deal be signed off in a form that this House will be able to debate properly and vote on?

[The Prime Minister]

The detail of the agreement we reached yesterday was set out in a document which we released during the course of yesterday. If the right hon. Gentleman has not had the chance to see that, I will make sure that he does. On the detailed text that follows, obviously that needs to be drafted in legal form so that everybody can see it, of course, and we can debate and scrutinise it. None of this can go through without legislation, so he will have that opportunity. It is quite right that he presses for it.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

The new UK-EU agreement is a welcome and pragmatic step towards rebuilding a strong trading relationship with our closest economic partner:

“this deal will help reduce costs, cut red tape, and make it easier for Scottish businesses to compete and grow across European markets.”

Those are not my words, but the words of the chief executive of the Scottish chambers of commerce. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that when Labour negotiates, businesses and customers in my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire South benefit?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are reasons why the Scottish chambers of commerce is coming out in support of the deal. It recognises the huge benefits. It is very important that we do everything we can for working people and businesses in Scotland. That is what we are delivering.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

On behalf of the Green party, I broadly welcome the progress made at the summit yesterday. It is not quite the step change we need, but it is a step forward towards the closest possible relationship with our closest neighbours that we continue to champion. I would gently point out that it is hardly unprecedented, because, of course, up until we left the EU we had a much better relationship. Given that free movement of people, in addition to goods, services and capital, is such an important component of growth and building good relationships, why is the Prime Minister being so timid on the youth mobility scheme, given the huge benefits it would offer to our young people and our country as a whole?

[The Prime Minister]

We had a clear red line in our manifesto on freedom of movement. We did that because we had a referendum, and at the heart of that referendum, or one of the key issues, was freedom of movement. Everybody made their case and the country voted to leave. We respect that and that is why we put the red line in. What we have now negotiated is a scheme that does not cross our red lines, but is good for young people both here and in Europe.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

I would like to turn to the co-operation aspect of the agreement, on which I congratulate the Prime Minister. When I was an international liaison prosecutor, my colleagues and I in the Crown Prosecution Service, Eurojust and Europol were relieved when the trade and co-operation agreement was finally agreed. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that this new deal enhances and improves our ability to tackle cross-border serious and organised crime, and to keep the people of the UK safe?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her previous work. One of the important things I was able to do when I was chief prosecutor was to play a part in Eurojust. Before we left the EU, we could play our full part in Eurojust. That meant we shared evidence, strategy, arrest arrangements and issues about where a case would be prosecuted. We want to ensure that we improve law enforcement by making sure that, wherever we can, we can co-operate better with Europe. That was not possible under the deal that the Conservative party negotiated. I want to make sure that we have better co-operation on criminal justice issues.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

The previous deal done by the Conservatives tied up many businesses in red tape, so I warmly welcome the progress on SPS. But advanced manufacturers in my constituency are part of integrated supply chains with the EU and they are still tied up in red tape. In light of the further summits that will be held, will the Prime Minister outline what the Government will do to reduce that red tape and allow them to grow jobs in my constituency?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. On SPS, we have taken that step—the red tape goes—but we do want to reduce trade barriers wherever we can, both with the EU and with anywhere else, frankly. At a time when we are moving into a new era on trade and the economy—we certainly are—we need to reduce trade barriers across the country for the reasons we set out.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his work on this deal, which takes important steps in resetting our relationship with the EU. Beyond the lowering of trade barriers, the prospect of a youth experience scheme will excite many of my younger constituents. Does the Prime Minister agree that far from being a concession, a youth experience scheme, mirroring agreements that we already have with countries like Australia and New Zealand, would create fulfilling cultural opportunities for young people across the country?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree. I would remind the House that we have agreements in place with a number of other countries, some of which were actually negotiated by the Conservatives. I find it hard to believe that anybody in this House genuinely wants to make it harder for our young people to work, study and travel in Europe.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

We need 15 billion barrels of oil and gas between now and 2050; we are currently expected to produce just 4 billion. New licences would support tens of thousands of jobs in this country and tens of billions in tax revenue. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the agreement on alignment on climate policies will not stand in the way of common-sense restoration of new licences in the North sea, so that we can produce the oil and gas we must consume in this country?

[The Prime Minister]

We have been clear about honouring new licences, and there is nothing in this deal that cuts across what we have said previously on that.

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

A trade deal with the world’s fastest-growing economy, which the Tories failed to achieve; a trade deal with the world’s richest economy, which they also failed to achieve; and a trade deal with the world’s biggest trading bloc, which the Tories and Reform would tear up, despite the enormous benefits for British businesses, consumers and tourists—does the Prime Minister agree that all that, plus financial stability, investment in key public services and our national security and infrastructure, makes the UK the best place to start and grow a business in the world? Would he further agree that given our fantastic quality of living, our great universities and our skilled and passionate people, the north-east should be the destination of choice for such investment?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that the three trade deals taken together do indicate that other countries want to negotiate and deal with the UK because they can see the path that we are on. That is good and it should be welcomed, because there are huge benefits. Of course, the north-east and my hon. Friend’s constituents should benefit under all three of those deals.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

The people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union in 2016, and overwhelmingly support rejoining it today—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members might want to listen. That fact has been continuously ignored by successive UK Governments. The limited measures this Government have announced do not come anywhere near to repairing the hammer blow that Brexit will continue to inflict on our public finances. Indeed, the UK Government’s own figures show that the cost of Brexit is 20 times greater, or 4% of GDP, compared with this deal. Does the Prime Minister recognise that by continuing to pursue this disastrous Brexit policy, he is demonstrating that Westminster Governments will never work in the interests of Scotland?

[The Prime Minister]

I find it impossible to follow the hon. Gentleman’s reasoning. He thinks we should be in the EU—that was voted on, but he is entitled to his position. However, he is also against a closer relationship. I do not understand why the SNP is against this deal. This is a closer relationship. There is a complete contradiction in the argument that he is making, which is completely out of kilter with Scottish businesses, which are welcoming what we achieved yesterday. On behalf of Scotland, the SNP should be welcoming it.

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on securing this sensible, pragmatic deal, which demonstrates that we can respect the result of the 2016 referendum without settling for a bodged Boris Brexit. Does the Prime Minister agree that if the Conservatives and Reform want to rip up this deal, they should have to explain to my constituents why they should pay higher prices for food and energy?

[The Prime Minister]

I completely agree—the Conservatives and Reform should go around the country and explain to our constituents why they should pay higher prices. I think they would get a pretty universal response.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Our fishermen had been promised, and the EU had agreed, that annual access agreements would be reverted to from 2026, but, seemingly at the 11th hour, the Prime Minister abandoned our fishing communities, our fishing fleets and control of our seas by handing not a three, four or even five-year access agreement, but a 12-year multi-annual agreement to the EU. He sold out our fishermen to meet his self-imposed deadline for announcing the agreement and has shown that he will not stand strong for UK fishermen. Can he confirm that Parliament will have the final say on the fisheries deal, and that it will not be ratified elsewhere by unelected officials in Whitehall or Brussels?

[The Prime Minister]

The simple fact of the matter is that, under the agreement the Conservatives struck, it was much more difficult for fishermen to sell into the European market. We are making it much easier—it is 72% of their stock. Shellfish can be sold back into that market again, and we have set up a fund for our fishing communities. The alternative, which was to come off the current agreement and then negotiate every year with no certainty at all, would not be good for anyone.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on this deal, which will benefit so many of my constituents; it is exactly what businesses in my constituency asked for when they sent me to Parliament. The youth mobility scheme will benefit local farmers, but I want to know how young people in my area will also benefit from it opening up experiences and opportunities that they would never have otherwise dreamed of. The scheme must not just benefit middle-class kids on their gap year.

[The Prime Minister]

I agree wholeheartedly. It has to benefit all our young people, whether through work, travel or study, and we will make sure that it does. We want to provide young people with this important opportunity and help them to take advantage of it.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

How will Britain’s head start in gene-editing technology be impacted by the rule-taking reversionary measures that the Prime Minister has announced?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

We are discussing and engaging on that issue, which, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, is important.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Morrisons has said that the deal will

“ease…pressure on food prices”,

Asda has said it

“has the potential to significantly reduce costs and bureaucracy”,

and the British Retail Consortium has said it will help to “keep costs down”. Does the Prime Minister agree with their assessment that this deal will help families in Bracknell Forest and across the country facing a high cost of living?

[The Prime Minister]

The deal will massively help my hon. Friend’s constituents because it will bring costs down. Morrisons is not the only supermarket that has come out in support of the agreement—pretty well all the supermarkets have come out openly supporting it. There is a reason for that: it will bring the prices on their shelves down, and that is good for working people across the country.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I welcome the SPS part of yesterday’s agreement, as I am sure will all the farmers of South Devon and those exporting fish and shellfish from Brixham. The Prime Minister may not know the answer to my question, but perhaps one of his Ministers will. Will bivalve molluscs that are fished in grade B waters, which are very important for one of my major exporters, be included in the SPS agreement?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. I am not going to pretend that I have the answer in my back pocket, but I will make sure that she gets a proper, detailed answer to her question, which she can then make use of with her constituents.

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

It is brilliant that the Brexit logjam that has cast a long shadow over this House for so many years has been smashed by this Prime Minister. Could he indicate when we might hear a bit more about the youth experience scheme that has been so yearned for and so welcomed by the universities and the English language teaching sector, and also by my staff, team and son, who were born too late to have a say in any of the mess that the Tories left behind?

[The Prime Minister]

We will develop the plan on the youth experience scheme with our partners. We have instructed our teams to move on all fronts as quickly as we can.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

The Prime Minister states that a new security and defence partnership will pave the way for British defence firms to access the new European defence fund, which I am sure we can collectively agree will allow our continent to defend ourselves against Putin’s autocratic regime. How long does the Prime Minister think access to this fund will take—weeks, months or years?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

It will certainly not take years. The whole point of the fund is to be part of the collective response to the challenge in Ukraine. The fund was one of the initiatives that came out of the work that we were doing with the coalition of the willing. Everybody involved wants to move at speed, and that is the basis on which we have approached this matter. What yesterday does is knock out one of the gateway issues that we were otherwise facing, so that we can work with others to access the fund, but we will work as quickly as we can, because the situation in Ukraine is extremely serious and will need to be addressed as soon as possible.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Prime Minister for negotiating this deal, which is good for the UK and, according to umpteen businesses, good for Scotland. As someone who benefited from a year in France many years ago, I welcome the work that is under way to give young people in my constituency access to a youth experience scheme, but will the Prime Minister work at pace to ensure that our sportspeople and musicians can showcase their talents and are no longer subjected to the Tories’ botched Brexit?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. We will work as quickly as we can on that issue, because, whichever way people voted, they did not vote to stop creatives and sportspeople crossing national boundaries to showcase their talent—in whatever way that may be—so we do need to resolve it.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

The impact of the Creative Europe programme between 2014 and 2019 on the UK arts, film, publishing and other creative sectors was hugely beneficial, and not just for practitioners and organisations but for the country as a whole. Will the Government look into the possibility of participating again in this creative programme to further boost the economic potential of our creative industries?

[The Prime Minister]

We set out yesterday the areas where we had reached agreement. We will now have annual summits, but we will approach that matter on a value-for-money basis.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Paymaster General on this deal, which makes the people of York Outer better off, and, in particular, on the agreement on e-gates, which the Conservative party could never achieve. Will the Government prioritise e-gates talks with member states in popular holiday destinations such as Spain, Portugal and France to ease summer travel chaos for sun-seeking Brits?

[The Prime Minister]

We already are doing so, because it is important that we now get on with this as quickly as we can.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Ursula von der Leyen yesterday said that a second step of further negotiations is required before British firms would be eligible to compete for joint procurements aligned to the Security Action for Europe fund. The Prime Minister spoke warmly about the positive industry response, but the chief executive officer of the ADS Group has said that it was “somewhat underwhelming” in its lack of detail. Therefore, what is the detail on which further negotiation is required before British firms even have the possibility of bidding for access to the SAFE fund, let alone creating thousands of jobs?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me answer the hon. Member directly. The first thing was to get through the first gateway. As this is a fund that is being set up at the moment, the second gateway is to negotiate our way into the scheme. That was always the two-stage process. The scheme itself has not been in existence for very long and is being developed, and so, along with our European partners, we will move that on at pace.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Although residents and businesses in York will welcome this deal, our university sector is our second largest export. Will the Prime Minister say more about how this deal will benefit higher education, not least in our research base but also in being able to attract the very best into our country?

[The Prime Minister]

We do want to attract the very best into our country and we will continue our efforts to do so. The measures that we set out yesterday will now help in that effort. They are not the total sum of our effort, but they will help in that effort.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

After every EU summit, the people of Northern Ireland have been subjected to spin, broken promises and, in some cases, downright lies. The Prime Minister today said that the new SPS agreement will mean no more lorry drivers queuing for 16 hours at the border with rotting food in the back and no more needless checks that made the borders trade so difficult, even within our own market between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If what he is saying is true, can he tell me today that the £140 million border post being built in my constituency, spread over 10 acres and designed to carry out the very checks that he says are now disappearing, is no longer necessary and that its construction can now stop?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Member raises an important point. What we want to do with this agreement is ensure that we do remove unnecessary checks wherever they are, but we particularly had in focus the situation between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I want to ensure that we have real improvement in the situation on the ground and do not go to unnecessary expense. I genuinely believe that, for Northern Ireland, this was a big step in the right direction yesterday. We will continue to ensure that we make progress.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Unlike the SNP’s singular failure wholeheartedly to support our defence sector, this deal is good for Scottish defence firms. Does the Prime Minister agree that Scottish firms gaining access to the €150 billion European defence fund is a huge opportunity for jobs and manufacturers in Scotland and in my constituency of Central Ayrshire?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, absolutely. Getting that gateway open is hugely important for Scottish defence and security businesses. Those businesses are world leading, and so it would be a welcome opportunity for them.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The Labour Government cannot answer how much the Chagos deal cost. The Labour Government cannot answer how much NHS England has cost. Can the Prime Minister tell us how much this reset deal will cost, and that there will be no further expenditure to the EU?

[The Prime Minister]

I have set out how the costs will be approached, but what we are not going to do is make those budgetary payments that other EU members make. We will look at proportionate payments into schemes, as is currently the case in relation to Horizon, which was negotiated by the previous Government. But the cost of the Tories to the country has been absolutely incalculable.

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

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on securing a landmark deal with our European neighbours? The Prime Minister will know that my constituency has been a leading light in the creative industries for a long time—and not just because my predecessor was a double Oscar-winning actress. Local actors have been coming to me expressing their frustration about securing work in Europe because of delays with work visas, and also because of the limit of 90 days for UK nationals. Can the Prime Minister reassure my local performers that they will not just be waiting in the wings while the rest of Europe takes centre stage?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter, as it is of great importance to her constituents and to many others. Our creative sector is incredible. Whether people voted leave or remain, I honestly do not think that anybody really wanted or intended that our creatives should have difficulties getting on with their trade, and we will work at pace to try to resolve that.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

British people having access to e-gates is welcome. As the Minister for EU Relations told the BBC, it should ensure more time for UK residents when abroad. But my constituents have a better suggestion for achieving that. Does the Prime Minister agree that we should be developing a reciprocal travel arrangement, so that Brits can return to six-month visits to the continent, as EU visitors can here, doing away with the confusing 90-day and 180-day rule.

[The Prime Minister]

The e-gates will make a huge difference and will probably be the first impact that many people see. Hopefully, we will get those in train just as quickly as we can. We are also looking at other measures.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and this deal. Perhaps most important to people in Gateshead will be the downward pressure on food prices, so I ask the Prime Minister, when it comes to food prices and to this deal, would he rather listen to Asda, Morrisons and M&S, or to the Leader of the Opposition, who does not think that sandwiches are food?

[The Prime Minister]

I listen to businesses on this, and they are universal in what they say about food. That is why I am surprised that the Conservative party is against a deal that brings down the price of food.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Dynamic alignment undermines sovereignty, and to undermine sovereignty does not just undermine the central principle that 17.4 million people voted for; it also undermines everybody who respects the democratic outcome of that referendum. Therefore, if the Prime Minister will not think again about this Brexit betrayal, will he, at the very least, reinstate the European Scrutiny Committee of this House, so that this House can scrutinise every single rule that we now have to take rather than make?

[The Prime Minister]

I have set out the position in relation to how the rules will be applied. We are already aligned, but we do not get the benefit. This deal allows us to get the benefit, which is why businesses are so in favour of it. Every trade deal requires agreement on both sides as to the way forward, and this agreement is no different.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on this common-sense reset. Does he agree that the Conservatives slammed the door of opportunity in the faces of younger generations with their useless Brexit deal, and that this youth mobility scheme opens up life-changing experiences for young people from Southampton? Will he also say how schools and universities can have input into shaping the best scheme possible?

[The Prime Minister]

The scheme does provide great opportunity, and we will make sure that all those interested are able to help us in the design of it.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I want to re-emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). A constituent of mine runs an agricultural consultancy. This requires travel to the EU, which is especially frequent during seasonal peaks, and he has been hampered by the rolling 90-day rule. The issue is that EU citizens can come to the UK for 180 days in 365. We are asking for an equalisation of that scheme. Is the Prime Minister going to look at that?

[The Prime Minister]

We are looking at a range of issues. I completely understand the point the hon. Lady makes and the frustration that the situation causes for her constituents and for people across the country.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

I spent this morning with British metal manufacturing businesses, which are so important in my constituency and across the west midlands. Like so many other sectors, this industry welcomes the deal, particularly the emissions trading scheme linkage and the steel safeguarding that will boost jobs, boost trade and cut red tape. Does the Prime Minister agree that this deal firmly backs UK manufacturing and metal industries, and will he continue to bang the drum for them here and around the world?

[The Prime Minister]

I firmly agree with my hon. Friend, and what she says applies not just to this deal but to the India and US deals. We have made real progress when it comes to our exports.

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

Given that my constituents overwhelmingly voted to take back control of their borders in the 2016 referendum, what safeguards is the Prime Minister putting in place to ensure that his youth experience scheme is not open borders by the back door, which would be seen by my constituents as yet another Brexit betrayal?

[The Prime Minister]

The scheme will be time-limited, visa-led and capped. It is a good scheme for young people in this country to go to Europe, and it will have those features, which we negotiated because we had a red line about freedom of movement.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

Calder Valley is home to many of the small and medium-sized enterprises that simply stopped trading with Europe because of the disastrous deal agreed by the Conservatives. Can the Prime Minister assure me that he will not stop here with this deal, but will continue to work to open more of our borders to more of our businesses?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. The Federation of Small Businesses has come out strongly in favour of this deal because it knows the impact it will have on small and medium-sized businesses.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I thank the Prime Minister for the statement. The deal is certainly a step in the right direction, and having closer ties with Europe has got to be good for businesses and farming. Specifically on medicine supplies and shortages, I have heard from a worryingly large number of people in Winchester with chronic health conditions who require vital daily medication to manage their condition—anti-seizure medication or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medication, for example. Will the Prime Minister commit to removing medicine supply barriers with Europe and to delivering an agreement with the European Medicines Agency to ensure that we can free up such supplies?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member will have seen how far we got yesterday, but we obviously want to move forward from there. We will look at a range of other issues. I cannot make any promise or commitment here—it would be wrong to do so—but where there are frustrations, we want to unblock them. Common sense drives this.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

We have deals with India and with the United States, and now this Government are repairing our relationship with Europe—something that I and thousands of my constituents welcome. I congratulate the Prime Minister and ask him to go as fast as possible to secure the finalisation of the scheme that will allow our young people to live, work and study in Europe.

[The Prime Minister]

I endorse my hon. Friend’s comments, and we will go at pace to move on the commitments we made yesterday.

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

Some of the free trade deals we already have require us to have autonomy over our regulation. The Prime Minister has said today that we will not be a rule taker because we can discuss the rules in this place, but discussion is not the same as control. Can he confirm that he has not ceded control to disapply or diverge from regulations in Europe?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady will see from the agreement text that it is subject to our constitutional arrangements, and in the application of the rules, it is the application in this House that matters.

[Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)]

Can I put on record my thanks to everyone who has worked so hard to get this hat-trick of deals across the line? The EU is Wales’s biggest trading partner, with over 90% of Welsh lamb that is exported going to the EU. Does the Prime Minister agree that this landmark agreement is brilliant news for food and drink producers in Wales, not least mussel producers and farmers in my constituency?

[The Prime Minister]

This deal will make a huge difference to my hon. Friend’s constituents, and she is absolutely right to champion their interests. It will hugely help their businesses, trade and local economy.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

In an earlier answer, the Prime Minister said that he would continue with the implementation of the Windsor framework. That will see more bureaucracy and red tape introduced between Great Britain and Northern Ireland before an SPS deal can be delivered. If the Prime Minister’s partnership with the EU is so positive, does he not agree that it would be better to pause the implementation of any more bureaucracy and red tape that would add costs to Northern Ireland businesses before his deal can be achieved?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think we should pause the implementation of deals that we have already got, but I do agree with the underlying sentiment that we should be doing everything we can through this deal and in further steps to ensure that trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the same as across the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

As the proud owner of two English bulldogs, I welcome the reintroduction of pet passports. Not only will this make it easier for us to travel to Europe with Clive and Bertie, but it will bring down the cost massively. That is not the only part of the deal that will bring bills down for British consumers. Can the Prime Minister tell us how my constituents will benefit from this deal?

[The Prime Minister]

An hour and a half, and we have only just got to pet passports—but I am really glad my hon. Friend mentions it. The deal contains an advance for pet passports, along with the many other advances that will progress as soon as possible. I assume that the Conservatives are against pet passport progress as well.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

Will the Prime Minister admit to the British people that this deal takes the country back under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, which is now able once again to overrule our courts, meaning we are surrendering our judicial sovereignty?

[The Prime Minister]

No, that is just wrong under the agreement. There is an independent arbitration—

[Mr Francois]

Subject to the Court!

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

It is the same as the Windsor framework, which the right hon. Gentleman’s party negotiated. This is an important point: it is an independent arbitration process. There is the same process for pretty well every trade deal that is struck, not just by us and other countries but by most other countries. In this particular case, if the independent arbitration needs reference on a point of law, it is referred to the ECJ, which then refers it back to the independent arbitrator to make a decision. That is how it operates.

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I warmly welcome this landmark deal with the European Union. I welcome in particular the commitment to work towards a youth experience scheme to once again allow our young people to live, work and travel freely in Europe. Does the Prime Minister agree that although this Labour Government are taking important steps to open up opportunities that will shape our young people’s future, the Conservatives are dangerously stuck in the past?

[The Prime Minister]

I do agree. I think they are lost in the past—actually I think they are lost all together now, on a decline into oblivion. As I say, a once great party that used to support trade deals is now against every single trade deal. It is a pretty extraordinary turnaround.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Paragraph 27 of the common understanding published yesterday requires the “immediate application” of European Union rules relating to food, sanitary and phytosanitary safety. Can the Prime Minister set out what measures would be open to the EU should this Parliament choose not to adopt those new European Union laws?

[The Prime Minister]

We are not making an argument for lowering our standards, and we are proud to have high standards at the moment. We want to maintain those high standards, but there will of course be provision, should the occasion arise, for dealing with any conflicts that may emerge.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

The Business and Trade Committee visited Brussels earlier this year, where we saw at first hand how the previous Conservative Government damaged our relationships with our close trading partners—and British businesses paid the price. Can the Prime Minister confirm that this Labour Government are putting our national interest first in getting the deals, showing that Labour is the party of business?

[The Prime Minister]

I can. We have approached this on a serious, pragmatic basis. We have got a deal with 10 strands that massively takes our country forward. That is on top of the India deal and the US deal. The Conservatives spent many years failing to get these deals; that is the truth of it.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

In the UK-EU summit, co-operation on access to medicines was noticeably scarce. That is an area where we are falling massively behind compared with our European allies. Can the Prime Minister ask the Minister for Secondary Care to meet me, so that we can discuss why only 25% of new cancer medicines approved by the EU are fully available in the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member raises an important point, and we will continue our discussions with others to try to resolve some of the frustrations—to which, common sense would suggest, we can find a better solution, and we will.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Sunderland is proud to be a city of makers, from cars to music. Without reversing Brexit, those makers need access to Europe, whether that is exporters such as Nissan, which need the certainty to export, or musicians, who need the freedom to tour. Can the Prime Minister outline how this deal will support good jobs in Sunderland, whether they be in the motor or the music industry?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me rest on my hon. Friend’s first example, which was of cars. The India deal, which massively slashed the tariff on cars, is good for car manufacturing and good for car exports, and the deal with the US saves thousands upon thousands of jobs in the car industry, which is why it should be welcomed.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Many will be concerned that the Prime Minister’s EU deal does not cover the UK’s participation in future EU research programmes. How will the Prime Minister ensure that we can participate in future EU research programmes once Horizon finishes?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Member knows, we are committed to Horizon. We will retain that commitment to research, because it is so important for our national interest.

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

It never ceases to surprise me how little the Opposition understand about making trade deals. Perhaps that is why they never made a good one. We do not need to explain that to the 19,000 small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency; they have been choked by the red tape agreed by the Conservatives. Those businesses agree with the Federation of Small Businesses that this deal will finally reduce and get rid of the bottleneck. Can the Prime Minister tell the businesses in my constituency and across the country when we can finally be relieved of the Tories’ red tape that is crushing our small businesses?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the red tape having such an impact on our small businesses. That is why I am pleased that we have made progress. We now need to make further progress as quickly as we can to ensure that businesses thrive in the markets in which they want to trade.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I note the careful wording of the Prime Minister’s statement—it talks about Britain being “back on the world stage”, and delivering for Britain. That is not the United Kingdom. I note that his SPS deal is for Great Britain. That, of course, is because Northern Ireland has already been captured by the EU and is subject to its laws and its customs code. That is why the Irish sea border remains. As for the SPS deal as it applies to Northern Ireland, is it correct that customs declarations and customs checks will still continue on goods from GB to Northern Ireland, even though they might be SPS goods? Those checks will still operate.

[The Prime Minister]

Yesterday was a step forward in that regard. The deal allows us to reduce frustrations and barriers, which nobody wants to see. I can assure the hon. and learned Member that I genuinely want us to get into the best position we can on Northern Ireland. It mattered to me in the negotiations, and it is one of the principles that we took into them. We will continue with that work, because I know how much it matters.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

I suspect that even if there was a barrel of salt herring in it for every Opposition Member, this fishing deal would still not be salty enough for them. In fact, it is a sweet deal for prawn fishermen and shellfish fishermen in Na h-Eileanan an Iar, for salmon producers and for crofters, although not for their lambs. Is not the real betrayal of fishing communities the fact—this is the challenge for Reform—that 80% of England’s fishing quota is in the hands of foreign companies or the super-rich? The challenge for the SNP is that 45% of Scotland’s quota is in the hands of a few companies. The challenge for us is to unwind that privatisation of the ocean and make sure that fishing communities across the UK benefit.

[The Prime Minister]

That is why it is so important that we are putting the money—more than £300 million—into working with those communities to take advantage of the deal that we struck yesterday.

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

We heard from Ministers over the weekend that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. The Prime Minister said in his statement that the deal paves the way for access to the €150 billion defence industrial programme, SAFE—Security Action for Europe. If everything has been agreed, why does the security and defence partnership not include access to the SAFE industrial programme now?

[The Prime Minister]

That is because the programme itself is being developed at speed. It was only announced the other week. It was announced in response to, and as part of, the work we are doing with the coalition of the willing. Knocking out the first gateway was important. We will now work with the EU to ensure that we can access that fund as quickly as possible. It is not a long-existing fund that has been in place for years; it is developing at the moment in response to the situation in Ukraine. I think the hon. Member knows that.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

The response to today’s deal has been striking. We need to drive down the cost of food for our constituents, and retailers are lining up to say that the deal will have that impact, yet the Tories and Reform would like to put those costs back on to my constituents. At a time when we should support our farmers and food producers, we are removing barriers and red tape, yet Opposition parties would like to bring those barriers back. My constituents voted for change because they were fed up with narrow ideological interests holding our country back. Does this deal not show why my constituents were so right to do so?

[The Prime Minister]

The principles are: bills down and jobs up, and that is exactly what this deal delivers.

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

The Prime Minister has spent the past hour and a half indicating the benefits that he sees from the deal. Does he recognise that a potentially toxic side effect of the deal is that some on the left of UK politics will see this as the first step towards rowing back on what the people voted for nine years ago, while those on the right of UK politics will see a determination to stop them? Rather than the deal bringing people together, it could therefore cause toxic division.

[The Prime Minister]

We have taken a pragmatic, common-sense approach, with an absolute focus on reducing bills—that is hugely important to people, particularly in a cost of living crisis—and driving up jobs in our economy. Those are the principles that have driven this. I recognise that those at the extremes, on whichever side people want to say that they are on, will never be satisfied, but the country is fed up with nine years-worth of continued discussion, debate and toxic divide. It is time to move on from that and to look forward, not backward, and this deal will help us do that.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

The truth is that this deal with the EU is good for my constituents in Fife, good for Scotland, and good for the UK. Does the Prime Minister agree that the SNP is tying itself up in knots over this deal? While the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) and the Scottish First Minister are desperate to talk it down, the Deputy First Minister was in Downing Street last night saying how wonderful it is, and she is right.

[The Prime Minister]

I learned this morning that the Deputy First Minister was in the garden at Downing Street last night. She was with businesses for a business reception. It was buzzing, because they were celebrating the deal. It was good to have her there. I would like to see other SNP Members joining her, because she has the right judgment on this one.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Fishermen in my constituency were let down by the Conservatives and their Brexit friends, and they now feel very disappointed by the news about EU vessel access within the six to 12-mile zone. Both before and since Brexit, we have retained regulatory autonomy in that zone. Will the Prime Minister ensure that we exercise our right to control the access of vessels in that area, and have control of grandfather rights, kilowatt effort and fishing methods, as well as other regulatory controls, to ensure that the area is properly regulated?

[The Prime Minister]

The arrangements are the same as those currently in place, and they are reciprocal, which is really important. What will be of huge benefit to the hon. Member’s constituents will be the reduction in red tape and bureaucracy for them when selling stock to the EU market, which is where a huge percentage—over 70%—of it goes to. That will come without the red tape, which drives up their costs.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Interventions such as those from the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) have really demonstrated that the Conservative party has parted company with those of us who have run small exporting businesses. Perhaps instead of collaborating with those on the Reform Benches, he could talk to small businesses in my constituency in the defence supply chain, or those who support Nissan by being in its automotive supply chain, and who stand to benefit from this trade deal. Does the Prime Minister agree that we are not carping on and talking down our country, as Reform and the Conservatives do? Instead, this Labour Government’s plan for change is delivering for British jobs and British businesses.

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. There is only one party of business now, and it is right here, in government.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I support the fishing sector in Portavogie in my constituency, and the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation there speaks on behalf of those in Ardglass and Kilkeel as well. As the Member for South Down (Chris Hazzard) does not bother attending the House, we have to speak for all those fishing villages. Too often in negotiations between the UK and the EU, our fishing industry has been the sacrificial lamb. Does the Prime Minister agree that just as the annexation of Northern Ireland should not have been the price that the previous Government paid for exiting the EU, the interests of both Northern Ireland and the wider UK fishing industry should not be expendable? Will he commit to bringing forward additional financial and practical support for our local fleets in those three ports, and for processors, as they grapple with reduced access in the years ahead?

[The Prime Minister]

I assure the hon. Member that the £360 million fund will be brought forward as quickly as possible. We can discuss with him in due course how that will affect his constituents and those he is representing effectively in the Chamber today.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on a realistic, sober, sensible deal that will deliver for businesses in my constituency, including, through the SPS deal, those like Northumberland Honey, which face real barriers to exporting. I particularly welcome the first step to a youth mobility experience. The economy of the north-east, with its world-class universities, has much to gain. Does he agree that it is through fostering co-operation, interdependence and trade that we defeat the radical right, not just in the Chamber but at the ballot box?

[The Prime Minister]

We need to take common-sense steps, in our national interest, on the economy, trade and business, and to give young people the opportunities that they deserve.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Our opponents talk of “surrender” and believe that they have a monopoly on concepts such as patriotism, but in order to trade we need to co-operate. Does the Prime Minister agree that co-operating with our nearest neighbours and with the United States and India is not weak and not surrender? It is strong; it is pro-business; it is pro-worker; it is in the national interest; and it is in the interests of my constituents in Rugby, businesses, farmers, holidaymakers and young people.

[The Prime Minister]

What is astonishing is that the Conservatives do not want to co-operate with the EU, India or the US. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition’s approach to diplomacy is to accuse the Indian Government of “fake news”. That is not a good basis for a relationship through which to negotiate a better outcome.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

We have learned a lot about trade policy in the House today. The Conservative party is still desperately defending its failed deal, and as for Reform, we had a no-show from the leader of the party of no deal. Labour is the only party that is serious about getting a good deal with the European Union. I congratulate the Prime Minister. Having campaigned for a youth mobility deal, I thank him for the agreement in principle, but ask him to go as fast as possible to ensure that our young people have the opportunity to travel and work in the European Union.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. We will move at pace on all fronts. It is important that young people have those opportunities.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank you for getting everybody in, Madam Deputy Speaker; it has been a mammoth session. I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I notice that many businesses are in support of the deal. My constituency is home to many great businesses, from manufacturing companies to pharmaceutical companies, and from defence manufacturers to food exporters. Will the Prime Minister outline how the deal will benefit my great businesses in Harlow?

[The Prime Minister]

It will massively reduce bureaucracy and red tape, making it easier for businesses to do business. It will also open up opportunities on defence and security. That is why it has been so welcomed by the business community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. He will know that it was not a point of order, and not a matter for the Chair, but he has put it on the record.

[The Prime Minister]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not descend into silly language, like the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), but this is an important point. He and I get on, and I do not think—

[Sir Roger Gale]

Don’t be so patronising!

[The Prime Minister]

It was his language, not mine, but this is an important point.

[Mr Francois]

We genuinely get on. Come on, what is the answer?

[The Prime Minister]

We do. There is independent arbitration here, as there is for all of this. That can settle most issues. Where an issue of European law arises, which will not always be the case—

[Mr Francois]

Of course it is European law—

Other Correction

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Written Corrections

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Maternity services in Yeovil are due to shut on Monday, after a deeply flawed Care Quality Commission inspection in January, and are to be moved to Musgrove Park hospital in Taunton, which does not have capacity for an extra 1,300 births a year. Although the closure is initially for six months, I have received no guarantee that the services will open again, which is creating huge fear. Will the Prime Minister or the relevant Minister agree to meet me and colleagues from the south-west to stop this decision?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this issue, which must be of concern. I am not across the details at this stage, but I will make sure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to get to the bottom of the issue.

[Official Report, 14 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 342.]

Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance):

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Maternity services in Yeovil are due to shut on Monday, after deep flaws were found by a Care Quality Commission inspection in January, and are to be moved to Musgrove Park hospital in Taunton, which does not have capacity for an extra 1,300 births a year. Although the closure is initially for six months, I have received no guarantee that the services will open again, which is creating huge fear. Will the Prime Minister or the relevant Minister agree to meet me and colleagues from the south-west to stop this decision?

Victory in Europe Day: Commemoration

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Mr Speaker, I ask that you now suspend the sitting so that we may attend at Westminster Abbey to give thanks and to commemorate the 80th anniversary of VE Day—the greatest victory in the history of our great nation.

[Mr Speaker]

We will now follow in the footsteps of our predecessors 80 years ago. On 8 May 1945, hon. Members formed a procession out of the House of Lords, where they had secretly relocated because the House of Commons Chamber had been destroyed during the blitz. Today, we shall again follow the Mace, but this time from our own Chamber, through the bomb-scarred Churchill Arch, which stands as a permanent reminder of the fortitude of those who stood firm through the war.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 May.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Rising tensions between India and Pakistan will be of serious concern for many across Britain. We are engaging urgently with both countries as well as other international partners, encouraging dialogue, de-escalation and the protection of civilians.

Britain will fall silent tomorrow to mark the anniversary of VE Day. It is a day to remember our greatest generation, whose courage and selflessness won a victory over tyranny and evil. Past and present, the service of our armed forces defends our freedom, protects the values that we stand for, and makes this country so proud.

The landmark deal we have secured with India is a huge win for working people in this country. After years of negotiation, this Government have delivered in months, slashing tariffs, boosting wages and unleashing opportunities for UK businesses. It is the biggest trade deal the UK has delivered since we left the EU.

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.

[Matt Bishop]

In 2018 my constituent, Richard Wellington, was diagnosed with a glioblastoma and given just 12 months to live. Against the odds, he is still with us today. He knows his time is limited, however, and is determined to leave a legacy by improving brain cancer treatment for others. His courage is inspiring and he shows extraordinary resilience, but patients with brain tumours fell through the cracks in our healthcare system under the Conservatives, and this must end. Will the Prime Minister set out how Labour will speed up cancer diagnosis and improve treatment times for brain tumour patients such as Richard as we go further with our plan for change?

[The Prime Minister]

I send my best wishes and, I am sure, those of the House to Richard and to every family living with cancer for their courage and fortitude. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for her work to raise awareness of the devastating impact of brain cancer. I am really proud that our plan for change has already delivered faster diagnosis for more than 80,000 cancer patients. We are rolling out Cancer 360, which has groundbreaking new technology that will slash treatment delays across the NHS, as well as investing in more scanners, surgical hubs and radiotherapy machines. It is important work that is only happening because of our decision to make a record investment in the NHS, opposed by every other party.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Can I echo the Prime Minister’s comments? It was an honour to meet veterans at the VE Day parade on Monday and to commemorate the sacrifice of that generation. I look forward to marking VE Day at Westminster Abbey tomorrow.

Does the Prime Minister now admit that he was wrong to remove the winter fuel payment from millions of pensioners?

[The Prime Minister]

The No. 1 job of this Government was to put our finances back in order after the last Government lost control and to deal with the £22 billion black hole that they left. Because of our action, we have stabilised the economy, invested record amounts in the NHS, made a payment out to the 3 million lowest paid, and of course we are committed to the triple lock, which improved pensions by £470 last year. Because of the work that we have done, we are a country that countries such as India want to do deals with, because of the messages and the work that we have done.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The only black hole is the one the Prime Minister is digging. This issue affects some of the poorest and most vulnerable pensioners. His Mayor in Doncaster says it is wrong; his First Minister in Wales says it is wrong; even his own MPs are saying it is wrong. He has refused to listen to me on this, so will he at least listen to his own party and change course?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me spell this out. All the opposition parties would take this country back to where it was a few years ago: broken public finances, interest rates through the roof, and NHS waiting lists at an all-time high. No other party in this House is prepared to say how they would put the finances straight; no other party is saying how they would invest in our NHS and public services; no other party is focused on the long-term prosperity of Britain. No one on the Labour Benches is denying how big are the challenges that we face, but no one on the opposition Benches is even prepared to take those challenges on.

[Mrs Badenoch]

We would not balance it on the backs of pensioners. Pensioners are poorer and colder because of his decisions. All the while, energy has got more expensive for everyone. Why has the Prime Minister broken his promise to cut energy bills by £300?

[The Prime Minister]

The way to bring energy bills down for good is to deliver cheap, clean, home-grown energy. In the meantime, we have extended the warm home discount to 6 million households—one in five families—and that is £150 off their bills next winter. What will not bring energy bills down is the Leader of the Opposition’s policy, leaving us hooked on fossil fuels and at the mercy of dictators like Putin. I will tell you what else will not bring bills down: the Conservatives blocking every piece of infrastructure that is needed in their own backyards. They balanced the books and crashed the economy on the backs of millions of working people in this country—that is why those people delivered the verdict that they did at the last general election.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister talks about clean energy. We have the second highest amount of renewables on the grid in Europe, and yet we still have the highest energy bills. This is not about clean energy. The Prime Minister has broken another promise. He will not admit it, but is the truth not that he cannot cut energy bills because of his net zero policy?

[The Prime Minister]

Energy bills based on fossil fuels have fluctuated massively in the last three years because we are exposed to the international markets. The only way to get bills down is to go to renewable energy, which is something that the Leader of the Opposition used to believe in. In the words of the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), the shift to net zero

“must now happen as a matter of urgency. It is no longer simply an environmental issue—energy independence should be viewed as part of our national security.”

He must have our lines, Mr Speaker.

What about the Leader of the Opposition herself? This is what she said:

“We believe that green trade and investment will be the future-proofing force that will help us create a better tomorrow”.

She went on to say

“it’s long-term investment in nuclear and renewables that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and keep down consumer costs.”

She has a reputation, apparently, for straight talking: she was right then, wasn’t she?

[Mrs Badenoch]

This approach to net zero is “irrational”; it is “doomed to fail”. Those aren’t my words; they are Tony Blair’s. If the Prime Minister wants to throw words about, he should speak to him. The truth is that the Prime Minister is on another planet. His net zero plans mean ever more expensive energy. Across this country, jobs are disappearing. Last week, a ceramics factory in Stoke closed because of energy costs. This morning, 250 more job losses have been announced in the North sea, and yet the amount of gas the UK is importing is doubling, so why is he shutting down the North sea rather than getting our oil and gas out of the ground and making energy cheaper?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said many times, oil and gas will be part of the mix for many decades to come, but net zero is an opportunity to be seized. We have had over £43 billion invested in clean energy since July of last year, which is good for the economy, for business, for jobs, for apprentices and for growth. The global race is on for the jobs of the future, and I believe Britain can win that race. I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition is yet a climate denier, but she is a climate defeatist: she does not believe in Britain’s ability to win the race for our economy, businesses and jobs. They have never backed Britain, and there is nothing patriotic about that.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister has got no answer. He could not even bring himself to say something to the 250 people who found out this morning that they have lost their job. The fact is that pensioners are poorer and people are being laid off. From winter fuel to net zero, his energy policy is a disaster, and everyone knows it. We know it, the public know it, the unions know it, his MPs know it, and even Tony Blair knows it. The Prime Minister’s only answer is to go further and faster in the wrong direction. Why should we all suffer because he will not admit he has got this wrong?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, nobody wants to see job losses, but the Leader of the Opposition should address her comments to the tens of thousands of men and women in this country who are working on renewables for the future of our country, and tell them that she does not want them. That is anti-growth, anti-jobs and anti-working people. Every week, she comes along to talk the country down and carp from the sidelines; she cannot even bring herself to celebrate the deal we have done with India. The Conservatives spent eight years fiddling around and got absolutely nothing. We have delivered the best deal since we left the EU—the most ambitious deal for India—which will be measured in billions of pounds into our economy and thousands of jobs in this country. The Leader of the Opposition should be welcoming that.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Q3. The UK automotive sector faces major challenges, and Trump’s tariffs are the latest crisis to hit the industry. Investment and jobs are now on the line, from Mini to McLaren, Aston Martin, Jaguar Land Rover and many others. Will the Prime Minister continue to make those companies’ case in his talks with the US regime and remain a champion for this vital sector, unlike the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who believes that Jaguar deserves to go bust?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We are backing British car companies such as JLR, and our India trade deal will see tariffs slashed for car sales, which is good for British jobs. The criticism of the double taxation is incoherent nonsense. It is a benefit to working people; it is in the agreements that we already have with 50 other countries. If the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) or the Leader of the Opposition are seriously suggesting that they are going to tear up agreements with 50 other countries, creating a massive hole in our economy, they should get up and say so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

As we celebrate 80 years since Britain led our allies to victory over fascism, I pay tribute on behalf of the Liberal Democrats to all those who struggled and sacrificed so much for our freedoms today. I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the conflict in Kashmir and, with him, urge restraint and de-escalation on both sides.

Among the messages that voters sent to Ministers last week, one stood out: bring back the winter fuel payment for millions of struggling pensioners. People will therefore be disappointed that the Prime Minister failed to do so today. He says that he wants to “go further and faster” to clean up the mess left by the Conservatives, but on social care, which is so crucial for our NHS, he is going slower and slower. Not only will the Casey commission take three years, we learned on Friday that the Government plan to take an extra seven years to implement it—it will not be implemented until 2036. Will the Prime Minister rip up that timetable, make sure that he does not repeat the mess made by the Conservatives, and get on with fixing social care this year?

[The Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are taking this in two stages. We are already taking measures to increase support for social care—quite right too—while doing the long work to reform it and make sure we put a system in place. However, I say to the right hon. Gentleman once again that he comes to the Chamber every week saying that we should spend more money, while at the same time saying that he does not want to pay for any of the measures to raise that money. That is nonsense.

[Ed Davey]

I am disappointed by that answer, and I will keep coming back to hold the Prime Minister to account.

People also want a Government who will stand up for our country against Donald Trump. First, he came for our steelworkers and our car makers with his outrageous tariffs. Now, Donald Trump is coming for our world-leading British film industry. Will the Prime Minister work with our allies in Europe and the Commonwealth and make it clear to President Trump that if he picks a fight with James Bond, Bridget Jones and Paddington Bear, he will lose?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman really should listen to the sectors that he thinks he is championing. They do not want us to abandon the work we are doing to try to get an agreement with America; they want that agreement to reduce tariffs. That is the sensible, pragmatic way to protect our national interest. It is not sensible or pragmatic to choose between the US and the EU, to abandon the work we are doing on trade with the US and to leave the tariffs exactly where they are. That is the most damaging thing that could possibly be done.

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q4. I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. For young people in Ipswich, there is no shortage of ambition, just a need for greater opportunities. That is why last autumn I was proud to sign an agreement with Sizewell C to guarantee 500 jobs for people in my town, alongside additional investment for Suffolk New college’s courses on welding, engineering and fabrication, so that kids in my town can access the well-paid, secure, skilled jobs on offer. May I therefore urge the Prime Minister to support a final investment decision for Sizewell C, not just for our country’s energy security, but for the once-in-a-generation opportunities for young people in Ipswich and Suffolk?

[The Prime Minister]

It is good to see a local Labour MP fighting for jobs in his constituency and achieving excellent results. We will make our final investment decision at the spending review. It is something that the Conservatives failed to deliver in 14 years. We are unashamedly pro-nuclear, pro-growth and pro-jobs. That is why we are making it easier to build small modular reactors and scrapping absurd rules that left vital projects tangled up in needless paperwork. We are doing the work that they failed to do in 14 years.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Prior to the election, the Prime Minister promised that energy bills would come down; they continue to rise. He promised that he would save the refinery at Grangemouth; it is shut. He promised that he would unleash a generation of secure energy jobs in my city of Aberdeen. Today, Harbour Energy—the largest independent player in the North sea—has announced that it is about to shed 25% of its workforce. That is 250 jobs in my constituency gone in the blink of his eye. Do you know who they blame, Mr Speaker? They blame the policies of theLabour party. May I ask the Prime Minister—in fact, may I invite him to come to Aberdeen and explain to my constituents why he is willing to move heaven and earth to save jobs in Scunthorpe, while destroying jobs in Scotland?

[The Prime Minister]

Nobody wants to see job losses, but I remind the right hon. Member that before we came into office 10 months ago, the Scottish National party Government in Holyrood, alongside the Conservative Government, did absolutely nothing for projects such as Grangemouth. We have committed £200 million to secure the future of the site; we have delivered a £100 million deal; and we are helping with the training guarantees that are needed. Like his First Minister, the right hon. Gentleman will raise anything to distract from the SNP’s disastrous record, with almost one in six Scots stuck on an NHS waiting list, poor standards and violence in Scottish schools, and more than £1 billion cut from local government. We gave the Scottish Government the biggest settlement since devolution. They have been in power for nearly two decades; they have absolutely nowhere to hide their appalling record.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

Q7. I thank the Prime Minister for recently visiting the now royal port of Barrow in my constituency to lay the keel for the new Dreadnought-class submarines. He will have seen how proud we are to build our nuclear deterrent, which keeps us safe. As we move forward with our plan for change, does he agree that Barrow and Furness could provide a blueprint for the whole country, with defence investment creating jobs, growth and prosperity in communities across the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The royal port of Barrow provides a model for how defence can be a catalyst for skilled, well-paid jobs throughout the United Kingdom. I was proud and humbled to be able to thank the crew of the Vanguard submarine that was returning home after months away, with four of those on board returning to their newborn children. That is the change that will come from our spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, for the first time since the last Labour Government. Extra investment in Barrow has been made possible by my hon. Friend and this Government; those in the Conservative party made promises, but, as usual, they never, ever set the money aside.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

Q2. Ahead of the 80th anniversary of VE Day, may I thank the Prime Minister for his Government’s recognition of the highly dangerous and clandestine work of the 1,746 pilots and navigators who formed the RAF’s photographic reconnaissance squadrons, and the 635 Buckinghamshire-based photographic interpreters—often forgotten—whose service will be marked with a national memorial near the Churchill war rooms? They had a death rate of nearly 50% and a life expectancy of only two and a half months, but they nevertheless captured 26 million images of enemy operations, providing daily, up-to-date intelligence, via the interpreters’ analysis, to the strategists in the Cabinet war rooms, for all our armed forces. May I ask the Prime Minister to join me when that national memorial is unveiled so that we can pay our respects to the likes of the late Captain Wilfred Bruce Tilley DFC, of Axbridge in my constituency, and the other amazing young men and women whose work was so critical to the safety of millions of people in this country and elsewhere?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that very important issue. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would support a memorial to the service and sacrifice of those veterans. The bravery and service of individuals such as Captain Tilley, and others in the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit and the photographic interpretation units, saved the lives of many servicemen and servicewomen and, of course, civilians, and—as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out—the cost was the many casualties in those units. As we mark the 80th anniversary of VE Day, we will remember those who helped to secure our greatest victory.

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

Q9.   The London borough of Hackney spends £54 million a year, and rising, on temporary accommodation. Not only is that costing the taxpayer dear, but it is wrenching families apart. Communities are being rent asunder, schools are closing, and families are living in hostels in overcrowded rooms or in far-flung areas outside London. I welcome our pledge to build 1.5 million new homes, but will the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that social housing is a priority for him?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right: families are desperate for the security of their own homes, and we are delivering the biggest boost to affordable and social housing in a generation, backed by £2 billion of additional investment. That, and our reforms, will fulfil our ambition to build 88,000 new homes in areas across London, including my hon. Friend’s constituency. At the same time, we are tackling the root causes of homelessness, and, of course, scrapping section 21 evictions.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

Q5.   Under the Conservatives, inequality has surged. More than 14 million people—including 2,000 children in my constituency—now live in poverty, while the richest 1% see their incomes soar. Of the developed countries, ours is now the ninth most unequal. Will the Prime Minister listen to the Liberal Democrats, the public and many of his own Back Benchers and commit himself to reversing changes involving, for instance, the personal independence payment, the winter fuel allowance and the two-child benefit cap, and will he introduce clear poverty reduction targets to ensure that any economic growth benefits those who need it most?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is right to mention the appalling record of the last Government, which saw 900,000 more children in poverty. We are already delivering 750 free breakfast clubs and boosting the minimum wage for more than 3 million people—the lowest-paid workers in our country—and the child poverty taskforce is looking at every lever that can be pulled. I am proud of the last Labour Government’s record on tackling poverty, and we will continue to do that in this Government.

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

Q11. Last month’s data showed that NHS waiting lists in Wales fell for three months in a row. In England, the waiting lists have fallen for six months in a row. In Scotland, after nearly 20 years in charge, the SNP Government have left our NHS on its knees. Instead, remarkable acts of charity from rock legend Rod Stewart are helping people to get the care they need. Does the Prime Minister agree that Scotland needs a new direction so that my constituents in Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock do not rely on charity for their healthcare?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. The contrast, as she points out, is stark. In England and Wales, waiting lists are falling, with over 3 million extra appointments already delivered. In Scotland, the SNP Government have just introduced their fifth NHS recovery plan in just four years. They have had the biggest Budget settlement since devolution and nearly two decades in power. They still have no idea how to fix the NHS, and they have run out of excuses.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

Q6.   VE Day marked the end of horror in Europe. Afterwards, our post-war expansion of welfare benefits was something truly principled from Labour. Given the real fear felt by disabled people in Brighton Pavilion and across the nation, does the Prime Minister agree that now is the time to be principled again and restore their support, not make his MPs vote to restrict it?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising the record of the post-war Labour Government—a great reforming Government. The principles remain the same: those who need support and protection should have that support and protection, those who can be supported and helped into work should be helped and supported into work—something that is not happening under the system as it is—and those who can work should work.

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

Q13. Crewe in my constituency has a proud rail heritage, with Crewe station boasting unrivalled 360° connectivity to all four corners of our country. When the Conservative Government took the decision to cancel the second leg of HS2, it was a great betrayal of my constituents, taking a sledgehammer to our town’s prospects for regeneration and prosperity. Will the Prime Minister look kindly upon proposals to extend High Speed rail north of Birmingham, which would utilise Crewe’s unique strategic value to the rail network and bring opportunity and prosperity to the north of England?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of stronger and more reliable rail connections in improving journeys and driving economic growth. The Conservative party utterly failed to grip delivery on HS2. Costs went through the roof, and timelines were shredded. There were false promises and a total failure. We are reviewing the position that we inherited, and we are committed to improving rail connectivity across the north. We have already announced £450 million extra for the key trans-Pennine route upgrade, which will slash journey times and deliver growth and more reliable modern services for passengers.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Q8.   This week, the Israeli Government approved a plan to officially conquer Gaza. Just yesterday, Minister Smotrich vowed that Gaza will be “entirely destroyed” and that the Palestinians will have to “leave in great numbers to third countries.” This follows the extermination of over 50,000 Palestinian men, women and children, and the simultaneous expansion of illegal settlements in the west bank—something I witnessed with my own eyes last week. Will the Prime Minister now finally acknowledge that ethnic cleansing is under way and end all UK military co-operation with Israel, especially the illegal provision of F-35 fighter jet parts, or will he risk making Britain complicit in war crimes and be the Prime Minister to see Britain answer at The Hague for its role in this atrocity?

[The Prime Minister]

Most of what the hon. Gentleman says is simply not right, but I want to address the position in Gaza and the west bank, because it is increasingly intolerable. I am deeply concerned, particularly with the lack of aid getting in and the impact that that is having on hundreds of thousands of individuals. That concern is something I recently reaffirmed to the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, where I asserted again that a two-state solution is the only viable approach for peace. Our focus is on delivering peace for Palestinians and Israelis, returning to the ceasefire, getting the hostages out, and getting in the humanitarian aid that is desperately needed in greater number and more quickly.

[Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

Q14.   As a result of a relationship breakdown, my constituent Martin and his three children ended up homeless. They have gone from living in a hotel to temporary accommodation. Martin feels abandoned because Glasgow city council has not been in contact for months. The months of uncertainty have disrupted all their lives, but Martin is especially worried about the impact on his children’s education. Like any father, he wants stability for his family, but the lack of social housing means they are stuck in complete limbo. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that every child, no matter where they live, deserves a safe home and access to a good education, and that in every part of the UK we need to build more social housing in order to end homelessness?

[The Prime Minister]

I am deeply sorry to hear about Martin’s case, and I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s comments about every family deserving a safe and a secure home. In England, that is why we are investing an additional £2 billion to help deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation. But in Scotland it is, frankly, disgraceful that over 10,000 children have no fixed home to call their own after nearly 20 years of an SNP Government. That is the highest level ever and shows why Scotland desperately needs a new direction.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Q10.   Last week I was talking to Jason, a pub landlord, and he told me that he has heard a rumour about the Prime Minister. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] Not that one, not that one. He has heard that there is a reason why the Prime Minister hates Britain’s pubs. Landlords such as Jason are being battered by Labour’s jobs tax and the slashing of small business rate relief, meaning that as many as half of Britain’s pubs could be closed by 2030. Why does he hate Britain’s pubs, and if he does not, why is he taxing them into extinction?

[The Prime Minister]

Nobody likes pubs better than me, and we support them. This is the same old nonsense: the Opposition say they do not want the rise in national insurance contributions, but they do not have the courage to say they would reverse it, because they know that if they did say that, they would be unable to say where the money is coming from. That is how we got into the problem in the first place.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q15. Few things are more harrowing than a parent’s desperate and repeated attempts to access the mental health support their child needs. Organisations such as Smile, a counselling service supporting young people in my constituency, are stepping into the breach while young people languish on waiting lists without the help they need. Over the past decade, Smile has been a lifeline for thousands. Will the Prime Minister join me in wishing Declan and the team at Smile a very happy 10th birthday, and thank them for their invaluable work in supporting our young people and families?

[The Prime Minister]

I join my hon. Friend and commend all the staff at Smile for their vital work. Far too many young people are left without the support they need, and that is why we are recruiting an additional 8,500 mental health workers, providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school and funding talking therapies across the country to bring down waiting times and get people the care they need.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

Q12.   With the so-called EU-UK reset summit less than two weeks away, will the Prime Minister reassure the House that he will not hand over any British sovereign powers, particularly the hard-won controls over our UK fishing waters, in backroom deals with Brussels?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Member knows, we have committed to resetting the relationship with the EU. We think there is a better deal that can be had. I am not going to provide a running commentary. What I can say is this: we will act only, as we always do, in the national interest. We have secured a very good deal with India, we are talking to the US and we are going for a reset with the EU to boost our economy.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

As you know, Mr Speaker, I am alarmed by news that the Press Association, which assiduously covers our exchanges here, may cut back its dawn-to-dusk coverage through redundancies. Hansard faithfully records our words, but it is reporters in the Press Gallery who bear witness to the human drama here, and no amount of AI will replace the human eyes in the Press Gallery. Will the Prime Minister join me and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) in calling on the newspapers and media outlets that fund the Press Association to hold the front page and reconsider these rash moves?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. We enjoy a free press and independent journalism in this country. Across the world, journalists risk their lives, and lose their lives, doing what they do best: independently pursuing the truth. On many occasions I have been at award ceremonies, usually on a yearly basis, where the names of those journalists who have lost either their lives or their freedom is read out, and it is always a humbling reminder of the really important work that they do.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

As you know, Mr Speaker, Parliament has banned the charging of electric vehicles in its underground car park because of safety concerns. Yet local authorities around the country often feel powerless to stop the construction of battery energy storage systems near people’s homes and near our rivers and canals, despite three fires already this year. Will the Prime Minister look again at his Planning and Infrastructure Bill to make it easier, rather than harder, for local communities to have a meaningful say?

[The Prime Minister]

I am really proud that on planning and infrastructure we are taking the action that has not been taken for years to drive our economy, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that that was signalled by the Office for Budget Responsibility as the single biggest driver of growth over the coming years.

Prime Minister

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Written Corrections

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

Rents in my constituency are becoming exceedingly unaffordable. The most recent Office for National Statistics data estimates that the average rent has risen by 10% in the past year, while the average wage has not risen at the same rate. Several metro mayors are calling for the power to control rents in their region in order to tackle the issue. The steps taken in the Renters’ Rights Bill to cap rents at the market rate are positive, but as it is landlords who set the market rate, renters in my constituency fear that those steps will not be enough to protect them from rising rents. What steps are the Government taking to bring down rental prices?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this important issue. Communities across the country face the consequences of the Conservatives’ utter failure to build enough homes. Our Renters’ Rights Bill improves the system for 11 million private renters, blocking demands for multiple months of rent in advance, and finally abolishing no-fault evictions—something that the Conservatives said over and over again they would do, but, as usual, never got around to doing. That work is backed up by major planning reforms, our new homes accelerator and £600 million to deliver 300,000 homes in London, as part of the 1.5 million homes that we will build across the country, which are desperately needed.

[Official Report, 30 April 2025; Vol. 766, c. 325.]

Written correction submitted by the Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer):

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this important issue. Communities across the country face the consequences of the Conservatives’ utter failure to build enough homes. Our Renters’ Rights Bill improves the system for 11 million private renters, blocking demands for multiple months of rent in advance, and finally abolishing no-fault evictions—something that the Conservatives said over and over again they would do, but, as usual, never got around to doing. That work is backed up by major planning reforms, our new homes accelerator and £600 million to deliver 30,000 homes in London, as part of the 1.5 million homes that we will build across the country, which are desperately needed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 30 April.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Yesterday evening, Royal Air Force Typhoons successfully conducted strikes against Houthi military targets in Yemen in a joint operation with our US allies. This action was in line with the long-standing policy of the UK Government to defend freedom of navigation in the Red sea, after Houthi attacks fuelled regional instability and risked economic security for families in the UK. I am pleased to say that all UK aircraft and personnel returned safely, and I pay tribute to the professionalism and bravery of all our servicemen and servicewomen. The Defence Secretary will make a statement about this immediately after Prime Minister’s questions.

I congratulate Prime Minister Mark Carney on his election in Canada. Our two countries are the closest of Commonwealth allies, partners and friends. We will work together to deepen our economic relationship to benefit working people here in the UK. May I also congratulate everyone across the House, including Members and those in the Press Gallery, who ran marathons in London and Manchester? In particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on running the fastest time of any female MP. Of course, I also congratulate the shadow Justice Secretary, who I am reliably informed is still running.

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.

[Clive Jones]

I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister about the professionalism of our armed forces, and I too congratulate Mark Carney on being elected Prime Minister of Canada. I also congratulate everybody who took part in the London marathon. Both my daughters have done it, but it is sadly something I cannot do any more. Later today, I will introduce a Bill to guarantee that Parliament has the final say on any trade deal, including any agreement with President Trump. This idea is not new; it is exactly what Labour promised to do in an official policy paper put forward in 2001, so I am asking this Government to keep their promise. Currently, Members of Parliament have no vote or voice on trade deals. Will the Prime Minister—

[The Prime Minister]

I extend my congratulations to the hon. Member’s daughters for running the marathon. The Government retain the right to strike trade deals to deliver growth, jobs and opportunities for working people. We clearly set that out in our manifesto, and that is exactly what we are doing. As he knows, Parliament has a well-established role in scrutinising and ratifying trade deals, and as he references, that was strengthened under the last Labour Government.

[Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)]

Q2. Mr Speaker,“there is going to have to be a coming together of Reform and the Conservative party in some way”—a deal, a pact or a merger. Those are not my words, but the words of the most senior Tory in elected public office in the country, the Mayor of the Tees Valley. If senior Tories are plotting it, and the Leader of the Opposition will not deny it, is not the only way to stop the plot to vote Labour tomorrow?

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

On Monday, the Prime Minister’s safeguarding Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips)—admitted on the Floor of the House that there was a cover-up of the child rape gang scandal. Does the Prime Minister think we should expose this cover-up?

[The Prime Minister]

This is obviously a serious issue. I oversaw the first grooming gang prosecution, which was in Rochdale, more than a decade ago. There is a contrast here, because when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister for children and Minister for Women and Equalities, she never raised this issue in the House in three years. The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), held 352 external meetings during 20 months. How many were on this issue? Not one. Of course, the Conservatives failed to implement a single recommendation from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse.

My position is absolutely clear: where there is evidence, the police should investigate and there should be appropriate prosecutions. That is route No. 1. Route No. 2 is that we should implement existing recommendations, which did expose what went wrong. Those recommendations were not implemented by the last Government; they are being implemented by this Government. We are providing for local inquiries. We are investing more in delivering truth and justice for victims than the Conservative party did in 14 long years.

[Mrs Badenoch]

In the last year of the Conservative Government, we had a gangs taskforce that found 500 perpetrators, protecting thousands of victims. We launched the inquiry that the Prime Minister is talking about, but more still needs to be done. It is now four months since I asked him for a full national inquiry. Instead, he promised five local inquiries. There will be one in Oldham. Will he now name where the other four will be?

[The Prime Minister]

We are providing for local inquiries—[Interruption.] Conservative Members have got so much to say now; why did they not implement a single recommendation in the 14 years they had in office? There are recommendations already in place about the change that needs to be made. They sat on a shelf under the last Government; we are acting on them. We are providing for local inquiries, and we are investing more in delivering truth than the last Government ever did.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister cannot name a single place because nothing is happening. He stood at the Dispatch Box and promised five local inquiries. On the last day of term, he had his Minister come out to water down the promise that they would provide funding. That is not good enough. At least 50 towns are affected by rape gangs—places like Peterborough, Derby, Birmingham, Nottingham, Leicester, Rotherham, Rochdale and Preston. Is he dragging his heels on this because he does not want Labour cover-ups exposed?

[The Prime Minister]

I spent five years prosecuting these cases. I was the prosecutor who brought the first case, and when that file was brought to my attention, I noticed that one of the defendants had not been prosecuted previously. Far from covering up, I asked for that file so I could have a look at it. On the back of that, I changed the entire approach to prosecutions, which was lauded by the then Government—we were doing the right thing—and brought those prosecutions. My record, where I thought something had gone wrong, is of going after it and putting it right. The Leader of the Opposition stayed silent throughout the Conservatives’ years in government, and so did their entire Front Bench.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not the Director of Public Prosecutions any more—he is the Prime Minister. People want to know what he is going to do now, not have him talk about what he did years ago. We are asking for a full national inquiry. Andy Burnham wants a national inquiry, and he is not Conservative; he is Labour. Harriet Harman wants one. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) wants one. All the victims I have met want a full national inquiry. The Prime Minister keeps talking about local inquiries, yet they have not got going, and they have not got going because local authorities do not want to investigate themselves. Local inquiries cannot force witnesses to appear. Local inquiries cannot force people to give evidence under oath. Why will he not have a national inquiry?

[The Prime Minister]

We have had a national inquiry, and we have had recommendations. [Interruption.] Look, hundreds of recommendations have been made in relation to this issue. It is a serious issue. I strongly believe that we should implement the recommendations that have already been made, and that is what we are doing. I strongly believe that we should listen to victims. Labour Members have been listening to victims for decades and working with them in relation to what they want, which is local inquiries, and we have set those local inquiries up.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister says we should listen to victims. The victims want a national inquiry. We have not had a national inquiry. We had the child sex abuse inquiry, which the Conservatives launched. There is still more to be done; it did not cover the scandal in detail. In Manchester, just last year, authorities were still covering up abuse, and the local inquiry chair there has quit. Bradford council, which covers an area with some of the worst abuses, refuses any inquiry, local or national. Whether we are talking about the streets of Birmingham or the town hall of Bradford, it is chaos and cover ups with Labour councils. When will he show leadership and do the right thing?

[The Prime Minister]

The right thing is to implement the recommendations that we have, which is what the Conservatives palpably failed to do in government. The right thing to do is to have the national inquiries that we need, which is what the victims want. The right thing to do is to invest in our criminal justice system, so we can bring people to justice. The Conservatives have absolutely collapsed the criminal justice system. Prosecutions for rape under their watch: did they go up or down? They went down to record lows. Investment in prosecuting these cases went down. Their record was abysmal; they should hang their heads in shame.

[Mrs Badenoch]

These are just distraction tactics. The Prime Minister has not read the recommendations, because if he had, he would know that none of them would tackle this issue. The fact is, if I were standing where he is, we would have had a national inquiry months ago.

This issue is personal for me. I have met many of the victims. This is about the protection of children; nothing else is more important. In the last few days, I have been to Wiltshire, Lincolnshire, Northumberland and Kent. All of them have outstanding children’s social care. Do you know why, Mr Speaker? Because they are all run by Conservatives. That is the difference that Conservative councillors make. Is the choice tomorrow not between chaos and cover ups under Labour councils, and better services under the Conservatives?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady says that the Conservatives would have a national inquiry; in 14 years, they did not do it. It is so hollow.

Yes, tomorrow is the country’s first opportunity to pass its verdict on the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative party after the general election. Have they changed? Have they learned? We will see her next week.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

I wish that the Leader of the Opposition would stop weaponising victims of child sexual abuse to score political points. It is damaging victims, and if she cared about child protection she would not do that. It is a disgrace; you are a disgrace.

New data shows that in March last year, in the Hyson Green and Arboretum ward in my constituency, 64% of children were in poverty, which is the highest proportion in the whole of the east midlands and a damning indictment of the previous Conservative Government. One of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government was the action they took on child poverty. Will the Prime Minister confirm that this Labour Government will do everything in their power to eliminate child poverty, and that their taskforce has not ruled out abolishing the two-child benefit limit, which is the single most cost-effective way to pull children out of poverty?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the disgraceful record of the previous Government, who saw an extra 900,000 children in poverty. I am proud of Labour’s record in reducing child poverty, which is what we do in government, and the taskforce is exploring every lever to reduce child poverty.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

On behalf of my party, may I send our congratulations to Mark Carney and the Liberal party of Canada on their historic victory? We wish them well, as Canada continues to stand up strongly to President Trump’s tariffs and threats. Canada has learned what happens when a trade deal is done with President Trump; he cannot be trusted to stick with it. The Prime Minister did not answer my question last week, nor he did answer my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) just now. Let me ask again. Will the Government give Members a vote on the Floor of the House on any deal he agrees with President Trump—yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

We are in negotiations on a deal with the US. We will obviously act in the national interest to make sure that if there is a deal, it is the right deal for our country. If it is secured, it will go through the known procedures for this House.

[Ed Davey]

I am very disappointed by that reply, and the lack of a yes or no response. We want a vote, and we will keep pressing the Prime Minister and his Government on that.

Turning to a domestic issue, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) has taken up the cause of Fiona Laskaris, whose autistic adult son Christopher was horrifically exploited and then murdered by a convicted criminal. As “ITV News” has reported, when Fiona tried to get a mental capacity assessment for her son, she was dismissed, so Christopher never got the support that might have saved his life. We are going to try to change the law so that families’ concerns over a loved one’s mental capacity have to be considered. Will the Prime Minister give his personal backing to that change, to prevent another tragedy like Christopher’s?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that terrible case, and I think the thoughts of the whole House will be with Christopher’s family and friends affected by this. We will certainly look into what else we can do, and if there are further details that could be given to me of that particular case, I will make sure that we follow it up.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q4.   I start by congratulating Truro City football club, who have gone from homelessness to league champions in one season. In Cornwall, clean energy is a huge opportunity. We are fortunate to have vast natural resources, with onshore and offshore wind, geothermal and tidal. We have a strategically vital port and a workforce ready to step up. I welcome that Falmouth community hospital will be getting new solar panels and benefiting from those first investments made by GB Energy. As we pursue our clean power plan, will the Prime Minister confirm that this is just the beginning of that investment in renewables in Cornwall?

[The Prime Minister]

Can I add my congratulations to Truro? Clean energy investments are powering our plan for change, and that is just the beginning. We will go further: 200 schools and hundreds of NHS sites across the country will benefit from GB Energy’s first solar projects, including Falmouth community hospital in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Hospitals will save £45,000 a year off their energy bills, with that money going back to the frontline services. That is the better future we are building: good for patients and good for jobs, growth and our energy security.

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

To date so far this year, 10,000 young undocumented males have illegally crossed the English channel into our country—a 40% increase on this time last year—many coming from cultures that are somewhat alien to ours. They are being housed at a cost of many billions of pounds a year in hotels and, increasingly, in private rented homes. The effect on communities is one of a sense of deep unfairness, bordering on resentment. In Runcorn alone, there are 750 of these young men just in one community. Is it not time to admit that “smash the gangs” was nothing more than an election slogan, not a policy, and is it not time to declare a national emergency and to act accordingly?

[The Prime Minister]

We are passing a borders Bill with extensive powers to smash the gangs. These are anti-terrorist-like powers that give powers to the police to intercept where they think the suspects are committing people smuggling, which is a vile trade, and we must take back control of our borders after the last Government lost control. But what did the hon. Gentleman and his party do? Did they support those extra measures to actually smash the gangs? No. They went into the Lobby to vote against them with the Conservatives in their new coalition. And let us be clear what a vote for his party means. It means a vote to charge for the NHS, a pro-Putin foreign policy and a vote against workers’ rights. And now we hear that he has recruited Liz Truss as his new top adviser, just as he was cheering on the mini-Budget.

[Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Q5.   For years, my constituents in Orrell have suffered from a lack of local health provision, but next month that will begin to change, thanks to a new partnership that I have built with our local NHS, Wigan Athletic and Wigan Warriors at a centre for excellence in women’s sport. This will be a shining example of shifting healthcare from hospitals into communities. Can I urge the Prime Minister to continue with our plan for change and to ignore the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who for decades has pushed to dismantle our NHS so that my constituents would have to pay to see their doctor?

[The Prime Minister]

I see the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) complaining, but what did he say? His words were,

“we’re going to have to move to an insurance-based system of healthcare”

and:

“If you can afford it, you pay”

—not under our watch. While he is busy taking Liz Truss’s advice and fawning over Putin, we are driving down waiting lists, with 3 million extra appointments delivered and waiting lists slashed in the most deprived areas. That is six times that the waiting lists have come down, including during the winter period. We are rebuilding our NHS, rebuilding our country’s future and delivering for working people.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

Just before Christmas, thousands of my constituents were left without water after yet another incident involving Southern Water—the latest in a long series of issues, including outages and sewage dumping in our precious chalk stream, the River Itchen. Yet this month, my constituents face water bill hikes of 47%. Does the Prime Minister understand why my constituents are so angry about that, and what reassurances can he give them that Southern Water and Ofwat will be held to account?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this, and the Conservatives should apologise to her constituents for allowing record sewage into our waterways. Our water Act will clean up our rivers, lakes and seas. Under new powers that came into effect last week, in fact, water bosses can now face years in jail for concealing sewage spills. We have banned the payment of bonuses and introduced new powers, and of course we are delivering a major review through our water commission. I reassure the hon. Member that we will not hesitate to take further steps.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

Listening to residents in North West Cambridgeshire on the doorstep and at local coffee mornings, there is a clear message: people want local police to have the time and resources to get to know crime in their areas and to tackle it at the root. I know our Labour mayoral candidate is committed to that if she is elected tomorrow. Could the Prime Minister update residents across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough on how our plan for change is tackling crime and antisocial behaviour and boosting police ranks by 13,000 officers, who will be visible in all local communities?

[The Prime Minister]

The Conservatives decimated neighbourhood policing, and crimes like shoplifting and antisocial behaviour ran rife. I can tell my hon. Friend what we are doing through the plan for change: extra police officers, extra police community support officers, more special constables, and—on top of that—a named officer for every community, and more teams out in our town centres on Friday and Saturday nights. That is what you get with a Labour mayor working with a Labour Government to deliver change for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Eastbourne war veteran Staff Sergeant Pauline Cole sustained injuries while serving our country. She was awarded military compensation, but because military compensation is currently considered income by this Government, her pension credit has been cut from £77 a week to just £11 a week. We have met the relevant Minister to try to address this to no avail. With the 80th anniversary of VE Day just next week, will the Prime Minister meet Pauline, who is in the Gallery, and I to address this injustice and ensure that no veteran is penalised for serving our country?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this important issue with us. We will always stand up for those who served our country, and I pay tribute to Pauline for her service. I will ensure that she gets the appropriate meeting that she wants and needs to discuss her specific case.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

This week, thanks to this Labour Government, hundreds of free breakfast clubs have opened across our country. Will the Prime Minister join me in sending good wishes to the staff and pupils at Castle Carrock, Yewdale, Longtown, Inglewood, Brook Street, Blackford, Hallbankgate and Bishop Harvey Goodwin schools in my constituency, which are among the first to benefit from this important scheme? Will he confirm that this is just the start of Labour’s plan for change to deliver for working parents?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me pay tribute to all the staff in her constituency working in the breakfast clubs, which of course deliver free breakfasts and 30 minutes of free childcare, saving working parents £450 a year. We have opened the first 750 across the country, and there will be many more to come. We of course also are saving parents £50 a year by making school uniforms cheaper—something the Leader of the Opposition ordered all her troops to vote against.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Q12. The playing of music and loud videos without headphones on public transport is becoming increasingly common. The various byelaws outlawing such antisocial behaviour are clearly not working, and the planned cuts to the British Transport Police are bound to make matters worse. Will the Prime Minister back the Lib Dem plan to introduce effective enforcement and a publicity campaign to persuade people to plug in their headphones? You never know, Mr Speaker; after that, we could perhaps encourage the uncivil minority to take their feet off the seats.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important question about antisocial behaviour. [Interruption.] The Conservatives are laughing about it; that really sums up what they did in the past 14 years. He knows that there are already strict rules in place to prevent antisocial behaviour, including fines of up to £1,000. We are focused on tackling antisocial behaviour. It is not low-level; it affects people, their communities, their sense of safety and what they can do with their own lives. That is why an additional £1.2 billion has been set aside for policing—13,000 new neighbourhood police officers, new respect orders and a named officer in every community. We take this seriously; the Conservatives laugh about it.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

Q10. Rents in my constituency are becoming exceedingly unaffordable. The most recent Office for National Statistics data estimates that the average rent has risen by 10% in the past year, while the average wage has not risen at the same rate. Several metro mayors are calling for the power to control rents in their region in order to tackle the issue. The steps taken in the Renters’ Rights Bill to cap rents at the market rate are positive, but as it is landlords who set the market rate, renters in my constituency fear that those steps will not be enough to protect them from rising rents. What steps are the Government taking to bring down rental prices?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this important issue. Communities across the country face the consequences of the Conservatives’ utter failure of to build enough homes. Our Renters’ Rights Bill improves the system for 11 million private renters, blocking demands for multiple months of rent in advance, and finally abolishing no-fault evictions—something that the Conservatives said over and over again they would do, but, as usual, never got around to doing. That work is backed up by major planning reforms, our new homes accelerator and £600 million to deliver 300,000 homes in London, as part of the 1.5 million homes that we will build across the country, which are desperately needed.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister recall from our history that, even during the blitz, concert pianist Dame Myra Hess continued performing her piano recitals at the National Gallery, including the performance of German music such as JS Bach’s “Jesu, Joy Of Man’s Desiring”? As a trustee of the Parliament choir and a singer, may I ask him to lend his support to Parliament’s own VE Day celebration, which will take place next Wednesday evening in Westminster Hall? We will perform, in the presence of His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent and the Speakers of both Houses, not only that Bach chorale, but the music of our allies and some British music, too. Tickets are still available.

[The Prime Minister]

I wish the hon. Gentleman the very best of luck. It will be a fantastic event—just one of the many important celebrations taking place to commemorate VE Day. I encourage the whole House to buy those remaining tickets and go along to the concert in Westminster Hall, as well as to the many street parties and other events across the country. I look forward to paying my own tributes on VE Day, but I wish him luck.

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q11. I welcome the Government’s action to fix our NHS and deliver 2 million more appointments, which my constituents are already benefiting from. Together with Warrington and Halton NHS trust, I recently submitted a ready-to-go proposal for a new urgent treatment centre and out-patients facility in Warrington, which has over 200,000 residents but no urgent treatment centre. The proposal would reduce A&E waiting times and deliver 100,000 appointments every year. Will the Prime Minister or the Health Secretary agree to meet me and local health partners to discuss that transformational project?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to ensure that my hon. Friend meets the Health Secretary. We have got waiting lists down for six months in a row now, delivering 3 million extra appointments. The Further Faster 20 programme is doubling the rate at which waiting lists are falling, including in her trust. Of course, earlier this week we froze prescription charges at under £10. A lot has been done and there is a lot more to do, but our plan for change is working to get the NHS back on its feet.

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

These are the words of a victim who suffered intolerable sexual misconduct in her workplace:

“The non-disclosure agreement was entirely one-sided—gagging me, but not the men or the execs involved. It covered not just business matters but everything painful I endured. I ended up in hospital.”

Does the Prime Minister agree with me and Members across the House that the misuse of NDAs in cases like this are totally unacceptable? If so, will he help us to amend the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through the Lords, to stop this pervasive practice once and for all?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight this issue. I do not think anybody would countenance the misuse of NDAs, particularly in a case as serious as the one she cited, which is why we are looking at whatever we can do to ensure that they are not misused.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Q13. After 14 years of a Conservative Government who let fly-tipping increase to record levels across the country, my constituents in Ealing Southall will welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement today that fly-tippers will now face tough action, new technology for enforcement and up to five years in prison. Will the Prime Minister set out what other steps he is taking to help councils to tackle fly-tipping and the difference that will make to communities like Ealing Southall?

[The Prime Minister]

Under the last Government, we saw 1 million incidents of fly-tipping. Under Conservative councils, we see enforcement down and fly-tipping up: look at Tory-led Northumberland, where instances of fly-tipping are up 76%. We are introducing tough powers to seize and crush the vehicles of commercial fly-tippers, who now face up to five years in prison for operating illegally. That is a Labour Government clearing up the mess left by the Conservatives.

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

A week tomorrow, the whole nation will come together to commemorate VE Day. Those who fought in world war two, including my own father, would often attest that no one did more to maintain their morale in adversity than Dame Vera Lynn, the forces’ sweetheart. For several years, a doughty band of campaigners has been trying to create a national memorial in her honour. I am pleased to tell the House that they now have a stunning design, that they have a site—appropriately, at Dover—and that they have already raised over three quarters of the funding that they would need. At this very special time, will the Prime Minister lend his support in principle to this noble endeavour, and will he accept a personal briefing on the campaign—in which case I suspect that he and I will meet again?

[The Prime Minister]

It is always a pleasure. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the campaign; it is really important and many people will be delighted to join it. Dame Vera is sewn into our nation’s soul as providing the soundtrack for our greatest generation. It is particularly timely, so I will support the campaign that he has done so much to promote.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

Q14.  Whether it is crevasse on the island outside Asda in Long Eaton or the array of tyre poppers on Quarry Hill Road in Ilkeston, every day my inbox is filled with complaints about potholes that Conservative-led Derbyshire county council has failed to fix. Given that the Government have poured £1.6 billion of extra funding into road repairs and that the Derbyshire county council elections are tomorrow, does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is high time that Erewash and wider Derbyshire got themselves a Labour council that will actually repair the roads?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Conservative Derbyshire county council is home to more potholes than anywhere else in the country and drivers are paying the price. Our plan for change has committed enough funding to fix 7 million extra potholes this year. For the first time, councils like Derbyshire must publish how many potholes they have actually repaired in order to get the cash. The Conservative party left Britain’s roads crumbling—we are fixing them.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The blackouts in Spain have caused chaos. There is a realisation among many Back Benchers in the Prime Minister’s own party that thousands of jobs are being lost in Scotland in the oil industry. Businesses face energy costs that are making them uncompetitive, and consumers are being plunged into fuel poverty. Does the Prime Minister not recognise that his net-zero policy is not only bad, but mad? Indeed, a former leader of his party now accepts this. Will the Prime Minister accept advice from someone in his own party, if he will not accept advice from those on the Opposition Benches?

[The Prime Minister]

In many years on the Opposition Benches, I learned when asking questions at PMQs not just to read the headline on a Wednesday morning, but to look at some of the detail. What Tony Blair said is that we should have more carbon capture. We have invested in carbon capture—that is many jobs across different parts of the country. He said that AI should be used, and we agree with that: we have invested huge amounts in AI and the jobs of the future. He also said that we need domestic targets so that businesses have certainty. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the detail of what Tony Blair said, he will see that Tony Blair is absolutely aligned with what we are doing here. These are the jobs and the security of the future. I will also say that we should not weaponise the difficult position that people in Spain and other countries find themselves in at a very difficult time.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Q15. I welcome the Government’s decision this month to secure British Steel. At a time when European security is critical, defence manufacturers in the Black Country, like Somers Forge in Halesowen and B.B. Price in Cradley Heath, will be using that steel to make the military equipment that our defence needs. Will the Prime Minister commit to make manufacturing investment in the Black Country a national priority so that we can live up to our industrial heritage and create the high-quality defence jobs that our region so desperately needs?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend for his service to his country. He understands that our national security and economic security go hand in hand. It is vital that defence investment creates more jobs, apprenticeships and opportunities in the Black Country and across the United Kingdom. That is why we have launched a new hub to give up to 12,000 small firms better access to defence contracts. We are raising defence spending, with the highest sustained increase since the cold war—something that the Conservatives failed to do in 14 years in office.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 2 April.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

To pick up on your comments, Mr Speaker, on Monday night I spoke to President Zelensky. He wanted me to pass on his thanks to you for attending in Ukraine, particularly on the third anniversary of the massacre at Bucha. I have been to Bucha, and this is a terrible, terrible third anniversary.

We have been preparing for all eventualities ahead of the confirmation of US tariffs later today. Let me be clear with the House: a trade war is in nobody’s interests. The country deserves, and we will take, a calm and pragmatic approach. That is why constructive talks are progressing to agree a wider economic prosperity deal with the US. It is why we are working with all industries and sectors likely to be impacted. Our decisions will always be guided by our national interest. That is why we have prepared for all eventualities and will rule nothing out.

Our deepest sympathies are with the people of Myanmar and Thailand. We are sending immediate lifesaving support to assist their efforts.

May I also extend my personal condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Christina McKelvie? She was much loved and will be sorely missed, especially by our Scottish National party colleagues here and in Scotland.

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.

[John Grady]

This week, the full state pension will rise by £472 a year, putting money in the pockets of pensioners in Glasgow and across the United Kingdom. Does the Prime Minister agree that this rise is possible only because of Labour’s plan for change and our commitment to the triple lock?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We can commit to the triple lock because we have restored stability after the Conservatives crashed the economy. That means that, next week, 12 million pensioners will receive up to £470 more—that is an extra £1,900 over this Parliament—including 1 million pensioners in Scotland. The contrast could not be clearer. The shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), called the triple lock “unsustainable”, and the Leader of the Opposition wants to means-test the state pension so that she can cut it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Badenoch]

Rather than the Prime Minister congratulating himself on what we did, why don’t we talk about what he is doing? From Sunday, Labour’s job tax will mean that many British businesses face a terrible choice: cut wages, put up prices or sack their staff. What is his advice to those businesses?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady says that the triple lock “was” a Conservative policy. The Conservatives were once thought to be the party of sound finances, but they blew all of that. She asked what we are doing. We are clearing up the mess that they left, we are dealing with global instability, and we recognise the pressures that are bearing down on businesses, individuals, and working people. That is why we are rolling up our sleeves. Yesterday, I was pleased to announce the national living wage increasing by £1,400. That is a pay rise for millions of workers. We have announced £150 for the warm home discount, now extended to 6 million households, which is one in five families. Wages are going up faster than prices. Never forget: under the Conservative party there were the worst living standards on record, inflation up to 11%, and public services left on their knees.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The only mess is the one that the Prime Minister made with his Budget. They had an emergency Budget last week that fixed nothing. He says that he is bringing stability, but all we see is fragility. During the election, the Prime Minister also promised that he would not increase taxes on working people, but even the Office for Budget Responsibility says that the jobs tax will be passed on to workers. On average, families will be £3,500 poorer. Why should anyone trust him again?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady’s fantasy figure is about as much use as Liz Truss’s economic planning. She turns up every week to carp from the sidelines about decisions that we made in the Budget. Yesterday, she held a press conference and could not say whether she would reverse the decisions that we made at the Budget. I understand, because she cannot bring herself to say that she does not want the investment of an extra £26 billion in our NHS. I am not surprised at that, as that is 2 million extra appointments, 1,000 more GPs, a pay rise for nurses, and so on. Let me get her position right, if I can follow it: she wants the extra £26 billion in the NHS, which was paid for by the national insurance rise—she wants that—but she does not want to reverse the national insurance rises. She is now reduced to this absurd position of voting against a Budget—carping against a Budget—that she actually agrees with.

[Mrs Badenoch]

I do not agree with making people poorer. I do not agree with pensioner poverty. I do not agree—[Interruption.] Out there they are calling it “Awful April”, and that is because of decisions the Prime Minister has made, because he made promises, and broke them. His promises are worthless. People are getting poorer. Before the election he pledged to freeze council tax. Instead, it is going up everywhere, even in Birmingham, where 17,000 tonnes of rubbish goes uncollected on the streets. Does the Prime Minister regret promising the British people that he would freeze their council tax, when he has so obviously failed?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to ask the right hon. Lady this: if she does not want people to be poorer, why did she not resign when she was in government? The last Government put up council tax for 12 years in a row. She, I think, was actually the Minister responsible for council tax and, in that year, what did she do? She put it up. Even now the Local Government Association Conservative Group manifesto states, on page 9, its current position:

“We ask that that the Government removes the caps on Council Tax”.

Who is leading the charge? Hampshire county council wanted a 15% hike; we said no. Slough council wanted a hike; we said no. Windsor and Maidenhead council—was Tory, now Lib Dem—wanted a hike, and we said no. It is no surprise that council tax is £300 cheaper under Labour councils than under Tory councils.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister does not want to talk about Birmingham, and that is because he knows the situation. I will say it again: 17,000 tonnes of rubbish on Birmingham’s streets. Normally, a state of emergency is called for natural disasters, not Labour ones. His policies have left our economy dangerously fragile. The Chancellor, once again, left herself no room for manoeuvre. Economic experts, real economists, say that she will either have to break her fiscal rules or put up taxes—which will it be?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the right hon. Lady must have picked up the script she was using a few weeks ago, because only then she was saying that we were going to put up taxes in the spring statement. The situation in Birmingham is completely unacceptable, and I fully support the council in declaring it a major incident to resolve the situation. We will put in whatever additional support is needed. When the Conservatives were in government, we lost more days to strike action than in any year since the 1980s. NHS workers were on the picket line, not on the frontline, and that sent waiting lists through the roof, so we will take no lectures on industrial harmony from the Conservatives.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The whole House would have heard that the Prime Minister did not say whether he could keep to his fiscal rules. That means it is either change that or put up taxes. Nine months ago, we left Labour the fastest-growing economy in the G7. [Interruption.] We did. I remember watching his MPs laughing at their first destructive Budget. They have had another one that has made our economy dangerously vulnerable. The Bank of England says that his policies have pushed up the cost of living for families. Does he disagree with the Bank, or does he accept his policies mean higher bills?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady must be the only person left in the country who actually thinks the Tories did well on the economy when they were in power. That was what was tested at the last election. Living standards were the worst on record, and inflation soared up to 11%. The NHS was on its knees. She is so obsessed with talking down the country that she has not read the OBR forecast properly. Growth is up in 2026, in 2027, in 2028 and in 2029. That is thanks to our planning reforms, the largest growth measure the OBR has ever costed. What did the Tories do when that Bill came before Parliament? They abstained. We do not grow the economy or build houses by abstaining. They are the same old party. They have not changed. Nothing’s new.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister talks about inflation. We left it at 2%. It is now twice what the OBR forecast when we were in government. The fact is that his decisions have made our economy fragile, just as we face global trade wars. In November, I urged him to seize the draft US trade deal that the Conservatives negotiated. Instead, he lost our most experienced trade negotiator. It is no wonder he cannot get a tariff deal for British cars. The Conservatives secured investments for that industry, with £600 million from BMW, £2 billion from Nissan and £4 billion from Jaguar Land Rover. Labour’s record is a car industry in crisis, even before tariffs, with 25,000 more jobs now at risk. He says he is preparing for all eventualities. Can the Prime Minister tell us exactly what he is doing to protect the British car industry from his failure to negotiate?

[The Prime Minister]

We are taking a calm, pragmatic approach and keeping our feet on the ground. Constructive talks are ongoing on a wider economic prosperity deal with the US. That is really important at this moment. We are working with all sectors that are likely to be impacted, and we are guided by our national interest at all times, and that is why we have said we will not rule anything out, but it is important at a moment like this that we do not have knee-jerk reactions and that we are cool-headed about this. That is why we will not rule anything out. The right hon. Lady was the Trade Secretary who failed to get a trade deal with the US.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)]

Q2.   Today, the Trump Administration will announce new tariffs that will hurt working people in the US and around the world. Does the Prime Minister agree that, at a time when big tech has grown fat by corrupting our politics and preying on young people, the wrong approach would be to pander to his bullying tactics and the tech billionaires in his imperial court by cutting the digital services tax? Can he assure the public that the poorest will not get cuts, while the richest get a free ride?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this important issue. There are issues in relation to Northern Ireland in particular that we have to deal with very carefully. We will always put the national interest first, and that is why I am pleased that talks are ongoing, and they are constructive talks. I believe that a trade war is in nobody’s interest, and all of the sectors and industries impacted are of the same view, so we will continue to make that progress in the national interest.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

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

I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s earlier remarks, particularly about Myanmar and Thailand. I support the aid; despite the budget cuts, I hope we can be as generous as possible because of the humanitarian crisis there.

The Prime Minister has shown commendable leadership over Ukraine, with his plan for a military coalition of the willing against Putin. Will he now provide similar leadership with an economic coalition of the willing against Trump’s tariffs and for free trade, so we can avoid a global trade war and a global recession?

[The Prime Minister]

Every week the right hon. Gentleman tries to tempt me to make what I think is a false choice between our relationship with the US and our relationships with other countries, particularly in Europe. I think that is the wrong choice on defence, on security and on intelligence, for reasons that we have rehearsed across this Chamber. I also think it is wrong on trade and on the economy. We have a good deal of trade—a balanced trade relationship—with the US, and I believe that our interests are best served by calmly trying to secure a deal that is in our national interest, while at the same time preparing and leaving all options on the table.

[Ed Davey]

I hope the Prime Minister is able to cut a deal, but I increasingly fear that the deal will not be good enough to avoid a global trade war. That is why one of the options must be to work with our European allies, our Commonwealth allies and others, because if we do not tackle Trump’s tariffs we could be saying goodbye to free trade for a generation.

Turning to a domestic matter, three years ago the American private equity firm KKR bought a 25% stake in Northumbrian Water. Since then, people across the north-east have seen their water bills soar, while in the last year alone Northumbrian Water has dumped nearly 1 million tonnes of raw sewage into Durham’s Whitburn coast conservation area. KKR is now poised to buy into Thames Water, because Ministers have ruled out a special administration regime. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that Thames Water will not be allowed to repeat the same trick of putting up bills and dumping raw sewage at the same time? The Conservatives allowed it; he should not.

[The Prime Minister]

In relation to the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, I really do not think it is sensible to say that the first response should be to jump into a trade war with the US. That cannot be the first response of the United Kingdom, and I will resist his urgings to do that.

In relation to water, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out the Conservative party’s appalling record on water, just like its record on everything. That is why I am pleased that we have already passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to take the necessary measures, but we will go further.

[Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)]

Q4. Yesterday, the Work and Pensions Committee visited Manchester, where we saw the power of devolution in action, in this case helping people to find work. With just 5 percentage points separating Labour and Conservative candidates at the last mayoral election, does the Prime Minister agree that to get the maximum advantage from Labour’s devolution offer, the west of England needs an ambitious Labour mayor in Helen Godwin, for more jobs, to fix our buses and to get the homes we need built?

[The Prime Minister]

I believe it is best for communities when their leaders have skin in the game. Helen Godwin grew up in Stapleton, went to college in Filton and has a great record fighting for the community where she is raising her family. Our plan for change has delivered record funding for the west of England: more money for better buses, potholes and getting young people into work. That is the difference a Labour mayor working with a Labour Government delivers for the west of England.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Prime Minister will know that many in the House will be assuaged by his suggestion that he will act in the national interest in relation to tariffs, but most will not have considered that, in acting in the national interest, what occurs in Northern Ireland is no longer solely in his control. He knows that exports from Northern Ireland are UK exports, and rightly so, yet imports to Northern Ireland could be affected as a consequence of EU retaliatory action. In keeping all his options open, now we have to live in a world of the consequences of the last Government with his support. Will he indicate whether he is prepared to take steps either to exempt Northern Ireland from EU action or to take retaliatory action if the EU does not do so?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, which is of real importance to his constituents and to everybody in Northern Ireland. It is a very serious issue. That is why we need to be calm and pragmatic, and that is what workers and businesses in Northern Ireland would want to see from this Government at a time like this. We are, as he would expect, looking carefully at the details of any retaliatory tariffs announced by the EU, if they are announced, and what impact they might have on businesses. As he knows, where goods do not enter the EU, businesses can claim a full reimbursement of any EU duties paid, but I reassure him that the interests of Northern Ireland are at the forefront of our decisions. He may want to know that this morning the Business Secretary spoke to the Northern Ireland Executive, because this is a serious issue and we need to work together to resolve it in the interests of everybody in Northern Ireland.

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

Q5. While the last Government resorted to damaging keyboard diplomacy, this Government are leading, bringing 14 nations together this week to tackle illegal immigration. Like the Prime Minister, I have seen at first hand how counter-terror powers can disrupt threats before lives are lost. That same approach is essential in dismantling the smuggling networks. Does he agree that it is time that the Conservatives and Reform dropped the posturing, put national security first and backed our borders Bill?

[The Prime Minister]

The Conservatives tried an open borders experiment; we are now tackling illegal migration. They talked about flights; we have already removed 24,000 people with no right to be here. Under their Rwanda scheme, which was only ever supposed to return, I think, 300 people a year, what we have achieved in nine months would have taken them 80 years. We have replaced a gimmick with a real deterrent.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Q3. The Prime Minister has spoken very movingly, and with genuine sincerity and affection, about his time as a young man in the Langdale valley in the Lake district in my constituency and how that helped to shape him. I wonder whether he is aware that the hill farmers who maintain those stunning landscapes in the lakes and elsewhere will be earning on average significantly less than or barely half of the national minimum wage due to cuts in their income, despite the fact that they provide the backdrop to the remarkably important tourism economy. Will he agree to meet me and upland farmers in the lakes and the dales so that we can design a scheme together to end this poverty and equip our hill farmers to produce food and protect our epic landscapes for generations to come?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman and I share a love of the Lake district. We still go back there with our children. This is obviously a serious issue, which is why we put a record amount into farming at the Budget and also set out our road map. I will happily make sure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to go through that and to take on board any points he has to make in relation to it.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

Q6. Hundreds of residents in my constituency at Union Park are facing massive £1 million charges to repair their heating system and for fire safety works that have not been put right by the developer, which has now declared bankruptcy and walked away. Their new freeholder has washed its hands of responsibility and is instead leveraging huge ground rent bills and fines against those residents. Does the Prime Minister agree that that is exactly why we have to move forward with our plan, much delayed by the Conservatives, to abolish the outdated leasehold system once and for all as part of our plan for change?

[The Prime Minister]

The Deputy Prime Minister is saying, “Absolutely”, in my ear. We will end the feudal leasehold system which has left millions of homeowners subject to unfair costs and unreasonable practices. Our reforms include clear standards for repairs and maintenance, and that will give homeowners a greater say in how their homes are managed. I know the Housing Minister will have heard what my hon. Friend said.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

Q7.   This Labour Government have failed the British public at every turn: they have abandoned the WASPI women, leaving them without the compensation they deserve; they have turned their backs on pensioners by failing to support the winter fuel allowance; they have let down children by keeping the two-child benefit cap in place; and they will inflict further hardship on the most vulnerable by slashing £5 billion from benefits. Perhaps the most immediate and visible failure, which poses an immediate and direct health risk to the people of Birmingham, is the appalling financial mismanagement of Labour-run Birmingham city council. After more than a decade of Labour control, that council’s incompetence has led to mountains of uncollected rubbish piling up on every street, so large that they can be seen by satellites orbiting in space. It is nothing short of a disgrace and a damning indictment of Labour’s inability to govern. Will the Prime Minister take urgent action to protect public health and the people of Birmingham by immediately deploying the—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are meant to ask quick questions, otherwise nobody is going to get in.

[The Prime Minister]

I have said that the situation in Birmingham council is completely unacceptable, but the hon. Gentleman might want to tell his constituents that we have delivered 2 million extra appointments for the NHS, so waiting lists are coming down for them. We have delivered a £1,400 increase in the national living wage, including for his constituents, and we have got record investment into this country, growing the economy, including for his constituents.

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

Q9. My constituents are grafters—they want to work, and they want to see opportunities created and the skills and investment in infrastructure that we need for the future. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to fix the transport system in the north of England, which has been holding us back, and I invite him to the Atom Valley development zone in my constituency to discuss how we can create skilled jobs in north Greater Manchester.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for my hon Friend’s question. We will unlock growth across the country in partnership with local leaders, giving power to those with skin in the game, and we will fix the north’s broken transport system—another thing that the Conservatives left in a complete mess—through nearly £1.7 billion for local buses, roads and trams, an additional £415 million to upgrade the trans-Pennine route, and fixing millions of potholes. Obviously, I will consider my hon. Friend’s kind invitation.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

Q8. Since the Prime Minister and I last spoke, more than 6,000 people have signed an open letter to the Health Secretary in support of North Devon district hospital, which faces a 10-year wait for urgent repairs. Why is that hospital still being denied a ministerial visit, and will the Government consider the trust’s emergency plans and meet me and the trust, so that we can discuss keeping the operating theatres open beyond 2027 to meet capacity?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said in our previous exchange, obviously the unfunded promises—the fantasy promises —of the Conservative party meant that the hon. Gentleman’s hospital would never have been delivered. [Interruption.] Conservative Members should not moan; they should apologise to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. We had to take tough decisions to make the programme deliverable, which is what we have done. We will continue to support the trust to maintain facilities in advance of the new hospital investment, and the Minister for Secondary Care will be visiting that hospital, which I hope will be an opportunity to have the necessary discussions.

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q10. Stone Lodge academy, a special school in Ipswich, will be one of the first schools in the country to benefit from a new breakfast club this month. That is an important step in tackling Suffolk’s decades-long special educational needs and disabilities crisis, as is the multimillion-pound funding settlement given to opening new specialist places across the county. Will the Prime Minister outline what steps he will be taking to break down the barriers to opportunity further for all children as part of our plan for change?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very pleased to say that the first 750 breakfast clubs will open this month. I am pleased that there is an early adopter in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as well as in the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition—I am sure she will welcome that one of these weeks. That will put £450 a year back in the pockets of working people. Today, we have awarded £37 million to 300 primary schools to create up to 4,000 nursery places from September, making it easier for working families to access Government-funded childcare.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Some 2,700 workers at Scunthorpe steelworks are facing redundancy, plus many more in the supply chain, and many of those people are my constituents. It is welcome that negotiations are continuing, but whatever the outcome, the local economy is going to need significant support. All those affected would appreciate it and be reassured if the Prime Minister could give an indication that he was personally taking an interest in this matter, and if at some point in the not too distant future, he would meet me, neighbouring MPs and the council leader to discuss the way forward.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. I do take a personal interest. A short while ago, I went to Scunthorpe to talk to the management and workers to understand the challenges at first hand and how deeply worrying this will be for those working there, their families and the community as a whole, which is why negotiations are taking place. I call on the company to accept the offer of financial support that has been advanced, so that we can achieve a sustainable future for the workforce, the industry and the local community, because I believe that there is, and needs to be, a bright future for steel. As I have said, I do take a personal interest in this.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

Q11. Too many of my constituents are struggling to obtain an appointment with a GP. The GPs are trying their best, but they too are struggling, with capacity issues, outdated buildings and outdated technology, all because the Conservative party broke the front door to the national health service. Can the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that our plan for investment and reform will ensure that they can see a GP when they need one?

[The Prime Minister]

We are focused on delivering real results for patients by scrapping unnecessary targets, bringing back the family doctor, and requiring online bookings, which will help deal with the 8 am scramble. We are investing an additional £889 million to reinforce the front door of the NHS. That is the biggest increase for more than a decade, and it means that there will be hundreds more GPs since we came to power. This week, we have announced record investment to enable community pharmacies to deliver more services for patients, and to free up GP time.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

A recent NHS England report laid bare the catalogue of failures that left a patient with a history of violent aggression unconfined, untreated and completely unmedicated for nine months, until he killed Ian Coates and the young friends Grace O’Malley-Kumar and Barnaby Webber, from Taunton in my constituency. Will the Prime Minister join me and the people of Taunton in paying tribute to the families who have campaigned on this matter? Will he confirm that a public inquiry is to begin? Given the 50% cut to the cost of integrated care boards, will he also confirm that mental health services, both in the community and secure, will not suffer as a result of those cuts?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that tragic case, and I pay tribute to the families. When it comes to cases such as this, I often find it hard to think how I would respond if I were a family member in such circumstances. I am not sure that I would have the courage that those families have to campaign in the way that they have done, and I pay tribute to them for it. We need to get to the bottom of all these issues, wherever they may lie, and that is what we will do.

[Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)]

Q12. My constituents are struggling to gain access to the healthcare that they desperately need, and one in six Scots is on a waiting list. Meanwhile, in England, the waiting lists have been coming down for the last five months, and more than 2 million appointments have been made available. Does the Prime Minister agree that the SNP-led Government should stop blaming everyone else for their failures, when Scotland’s broken public services are their responsibility?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. More than 60,000 Scots have been stuck waiting for tests or treatment for over a year. That is a 46% rise in one year. I had to check that figure because it is so staggering. Despite the backlog, nearly 50,000 fewer operations are being performed than were performed before the pandemic. Let us compare that with the situation in England, where we have driven down waiting lists with more than 2 million extra appointments, and have scrapped NHS England to cut bureaucracy. Scotland’s NHS is in desperate need of reform, but the Scottish National party has no strategy, no plans and no ideas.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Earlier, the Prime Minister seemed reluctant to answer a direct question about his jobs tax. Next time he visits my constituency to enjoy the beautiful Buckinghamshire surroundings of Chequers, will he go five minutes up the road to Wendover, and explain to Kate Rumsey of Rumsey’s Handmade Chocolates why his choices and those of his Chancellor have led to a 15% increase in costs for that business? As a result, it has already had to lay people off, and has had to reduce the hours of those whom it still employs. Is that what he meant by growth?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to tell anyone why: the Conservatives left a £22 billion black hole. They crashed the economy, they ruined our public services and, as we mend and rebuild the country, they carp from the sidelines. Even now, they cannot bring themselves to say that they do not want the investment, or that they will reverse the decisions we have made. They actually agree with the decisions we have made, because we are clearing up the mess that they left.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

One year ago yesterday, my constituent James Henderson was killed with other aid workers from World Central Kitchen when taking humanitarian aid into Gaza. Jim’s family have told me that he would want confirmation from our Government that we are taking all conceivable steps to make sure that aid, power and supplies are safely returned to Gaza. Could the PM confirm that he is doing all he can to ensure this? Could he also confirm that he will continue to push for a full investigation into the death of Jim and the other British WCK workers to be completed, and for appropriate action to be taken?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this appalling incident, and our thoughts remain with the families of Jim, John Chapman and James Kirby. Attacks on aid workers are never justified. The families deserve justice, and we are pressing the Israeli Government to accelerate their investigation, including into whether criminal proceedings should be initiated. Israel must stop blocking aid to Gaza, the hostages must be released, and we must have an urgent resumption of the ceasefire.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

Double child rapist and murderer Colin Pitchfork is up for parole for the fifth time. I know the Prime Minister does not have direct control—nor should he—over the Parole Board, but he does have a view. I have asked this of all his predecessors, and I will now put the question to him: does he agree that men who brutally rape and strangle to death young women should, as a matter of a principle, spend most of their natural life in prison?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this appalling case, and I absolutely agree with him that there must be maximum penalties for anyone falling into that category. I saw many of these cases for myself, at first hand, when I was a prosecutor for five years, and worked with the police on really terrible cases, and I know the impact that such crime has on victims. I thank him for raising this.