Engagements

I wish all Members of this House a happy new year. Our thoughts are with those affected by the recent flooding. We thank the responders who are working hard to keep communities safe. This week, we published our elective reform plan to rebuild our NHS and end the Tory backlog. We will deliver where the previous Government failed, empowering patients, boosting productivity, more care in the community and incentivising reform. 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.

On behalf of everyone in Southwark and, I hope, the whole House, I offer the Prime Minister condolences on the loss of his brother over Christmas, and I wish everyone a happy new year. Last July, the public overwhelmingly backed Labour’s manifesto commitment to halving violence against women and girls. Can the Prime Minister set out how today’s vote on the children’s wellbeing Bill is a crucial step to delivering that promise and protecting children without the delay of an unnecessary further lengthy inquiry?

I thank my hon. Friend and other colleagues for their remarks about my brother. My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. Violence against women and girls, abuse and child sexual exploitation are sickening, and many victims have been let down for a very long time by warped ideas about community relations and the protection of institutions. He raises the question of inquiries. There have been a number of inquiries, both national and local, including one covering Oldham. Reasonable people can agree or disagree on whether a further inquiry is necessary. This morning, I met some of the victims and survivors of this scandal. They were clear with me that they want action now, not the delay of a further inquiry. The Jay inquiry, the last national inquiry, was seven years. A further inquiry would take us to 2031. Action is what is required. But whatever anyone’s view on whether a further inquiry is needed, what I find shocking is that anyone in this House would vote down the children’s wellbeing Bill this afternoon, with vital protections for the most vulnerable in our society. I urge the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw her wrecking amendment.

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

The whole House has heard that the Prime Minister lost his brother during the Christmas period, so can I offer him, on behalf of my party, our sincerest condolences? The new year has started with a focus on the decades-long rape gang scandal. Across the country, thousands of girls were tortured and sexually abused at the hands of men who treated them as things to be used and disposed of, destroying many lives forever. The Prime Minister mentioned previous inquiries. He is right: there has been an inquiry into child sexual abuse, but it was not about the rape gang scandal. In its 468 pages, it mentioned Rotherham just once. Is the Prime Minister confident that we know the full extent of rape gang activity?

First, I thank the right hon. Lady for her condolences, and I thank her for reaching out over the Christmas period when I lost my brother. I really did appreciate that, and I appreciate it today. On the question of a further inquiry, there have been a number of inquiries, some of them localised, including the Mayor of Manchester’s recent inquiry. The national inquiry Professor Jay carried out took seven years. It had 20 recommendations, none of which were actually implemented by the Conservative party when it was in government. This is a really serious issue and we must focus, obviously, on the victims and survivors. There is no fixed view on the victims and survivors about a further national inquiry. There are mixed views. But there is a view, and I share this view, that what is needed now is action on what we already know. We already know—myself from personal knowledge when I was chief prosecutor—that warped ideas, myths and stereotypes about victims are at the heart of this. We have known that for a decade. The Jay report called for mandatory reporting; I called for it 11 years ago. What we need now is action. What cannot be tolerated is the idea that this afternoon Opposition Members will vote down a Bill that protects children—[Interruption.] Let me just say this. One of the provisions in that Bill is to protect vulnerable children today, who are out of school, to prevent abusers from ever taking those children out of school. I implore Opposition Members to defy the misleading leadership of the Leader of the Opposition and vote for a really important Bill.

I am shocked that the Prime Minister would say that actions were not taken. He knows full well that we accepted 18 of the 20 recommendations from the Jay inquiry, and went further, launching a gangs taskforce which found 550 more perpetrators. That shows that there is still work to be done. In Rotherham alone, there have been more than 1,400 victims. Across Oldham, Bradford, Bristol, Rochdale and dozens more towns, there have been thousands more victims, but no one has joined the dots. No one has the total picture, and it is almost certainly still going on. One victim from Telford—I know the Prime Minister says that victims have different views; we have different views across this House—says that she wants a national inquiry because “it will hold people accountable in a way that previous inquiries haven’t” It is very possible to have actions, take on more, and still have a national inquiry. Why will the Prime Minister not listen to victims and launch a national inquiry which would have the power to summon witnesses and make them give evidence under oath?

The right hon. Lady says that the last Government accepted the recommendations, but they did not act on them. One of the central recommendations was for mandatory reporting, and it still has not been enacted. I called for it 11 years ago. Opposition Members have been tweeting and talking; we have been acting. The Leader of the Opposition has been a Member of Parliament for, I think, eight years, and her party were in government for seven and a half of those eight years. She was the Children’s Minister. She was the Women and Equalities Minister. I cannot recall her once raising this issue in the House, or once calling for a national inquiry. It is only in recent days that she has jumped on the bandwagon. In fairness, if I am wrong about that and she has raised it, I invite her to say so now, and I will happily withdraw the remark that she has not raised it in the House in the eight years she has been here, until today.

The Prime Minister is being very specific. I have raised this issue: I have raised it in speeches, and I have raised it publicly. The Prime Minister knows that as a Minister I would not have been speaking on this specific issue, because I was not a Home Office Minister, but let me remind him about other victims who came to me whom I did help. The victims of the Tavistock scandal came to me, as a Minister, and I did not send them away, like his Safeguarding Minister. I made sure, as his Labour party was calling me transphobic, that we launched the Cass review, which even his Health Secretary has accepted. We do right by victims. The reason why a national inquiry is important is that this issue is systemic. It involves local and national officials, the police, prosecutors and politicians. The Prime Minister talks about some of the local inquiries, but these interlinked issues cannot be covered by local inquiries alone. In fact, the leaders of the Manchester inquiry resigned because they could not get evidence, they could not summon witnesses, and not a single person in a position of authority has been held to account. The Prime Minister called for nine inquiries during the last Parliament. Does he not see that resisting this one means that people will start to worry about a cover-up?

This is an important issue, and we have to focus on the victims and survivors. The lies, misinformation and slinging of mud do not help them one bit. The right hon. Lady raised a victim’s question, and quite rightly too. I accept that victims and survivors are in different places on this. Those I have spoken to are worried about the delay of a further inquiry. The last inquiry took seven years, which would take us to 2031. Among the issues that have been raised with me—the right hon. Lady has been speaking to victims, and they will have raised this with her—is that it is very hard for victims and survivors to come forward to explain what has happened to them. They do not want to be rushed through this process, which is why the last one took seven years. It is not sensible to suggest that it can be done in a hurry, on the cheap and comprehensively. That would take us to, let us say, 2030 or 2031. The victims I have spoken to want action today. I agree with them on that, but what I genuinely do not understand is why anybody would vote against the children’s wellbeing Bill, which will protect children who are vulnerable today. It will kill the Bill. It will stop the provisions for children at risk today. I implore the Opposition to vote for the Bill. Do not wreck it in this misguided way.

It is very possible to have shorter inquiries, especially if they cover areas that have not been looked at yet. We do not need to repeat the work that has already been done; let us look at new areas. Former Labour MP Ann Cryer said that there were councillors and MPs all over the country who knew what was going on but were terrified of being labelled racist. A national inquiry would ask if there was a racial or cultural motivation behind some of these crimes, where white girls were seen, as Jack Straw said, as “easy meat”. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) was sacked from Labour’s Front Bench for speaking out about rape gangs. Does the Prime Minister now recognise that sacking people for telling the truth creates a chilling effect that means victims are not listened to?

I am very happy to call out anybody who has not acted properly in these cases. I have done it many, many times before, and it does not matter to me which political party they are in. I will call them out, and I will condemn them. When I was chief prosecutor, I took measures to confront this issue head-on. The first of the mass prosecutions for an Asian gang was in Rochdale. My team came to see me, and they put a number of Asian men in the dock. They wanted the green light for the first of these cases to take place. I gave that green light, but on one condition, because it came to my attention that one of the men who was going into the dock had previously been arrested but not charged. I said, “You can bring the first of these mass prosecutions, but only if you look back at the file”—where we did not charge—“and tell me what went wrong in a report so that I can start to put it right.” That is what started the reforms I brought about. That is the approach I took in practice, while others were tweeting and talking. It is the approach I would take now in any case where there is wrongdoing here, but what we have got to do now—Professor Jay has said this. We have had a number of strong findings. There are 20 on the table from Professor Jay. We have got to get on with action; do not block it this afternoon.

We need to focus on what this is really about. This is not about the Prime Minister’s work in the CPS, and I would say very respectfully to the Prime Minister that it is not about you; it is about the victims. Be a leader, not a lawyer. We know that people were scared to tell the truth because they thought they would be called racist. If we want to stop this from ever happening again, we cannot be afraid. The Labour party has adopted the APPG definition of “Islamophobia”. The same APPG report said that talking about sex groomers was an example of Islamophobia. This is exactly why people are scared to tell the truth, and the lack of clarity means that innocent British Muslims are smeared by association. That is not fair, and only a national inquiry can solve this. Will the Prime Minister look again at the Labour party’s adoption of the definition of “Islamophobia” and its chilling effect, and rule out introducing it in government?

I will call out any aspect that has prevented anybody from coming forward, or any case from going forward, when it comes to violence against women and girls, child abuse or child sexual exploitation, as I have been doing for the best part of 15 years. Yes, some people will say there should be a further inquiry—I accept that—but that means all the victims and survivors who give evidence need to be in a position to do so, and not all of them are. I have been speaking to them. Some think they are, but it will take time. All of the institutions will have to give evidence; that will take time. This will delay things until 2031. We already know what the major flaws are. My argument is that we should get on with that action. That is why we are bringing forward the Bill this afternoon.

The Prime Minister has effectively told us that he is not able to do two things at the same time—[Interruption.] This issue of a delay is a weak excuse. I would say to him that, by refusing this inquiry, he is enabling those people who wish to smear all British Muslims based on the actions of a small minority. He is talking about distraction tactics. Let us have the truth. The Prime Minister cannot tell the House the full scale of the scandal. He does not want questions asked of Labour politicians who may be complicit. He will not listen—[Interruption.] He will not listen to the victims who are calling for a national inquiry. He is making this all about this afternoon’s Bill. Later today, he will tell Labour MPs, including those representing Telford, Rochdale, Bristol, Derby, Aylesbury, Oldham, Bradford, Peterborough, Coventry, Middlesbrough, Newcastle and Ramsgate, to vote against a national inquiry into the gangs that have systematically gang-raped children in their constituencies. This is one of the worst scandals in British history—[Interruption.]

Order. This is a very, very important issue that matters to the country. It matters to all of our constituents, and I want to make sure they can hear what is being said by the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister.

This is one of the worst scandals in recent British history. How will Labour Members explain to their constituents that obeying the Prime Minister’s Whip is more important than doing the right thing?

The right hon. Lady is right to say it is one of the worst scandals; it is terrible. That is why I acted on it. Her recently acquired view is that it is a scandal, having spent a lot of time on social media over Christmas. Not once in eight years did she stand here and say what she has just said—not once in eight years. The previous Government did not act on the recommendations. They want a national inquiry. We had a national inquiry: the Jay inquiry. The report made 20 recommendations—not a single one implemented. She talked about doing two things at once. The Conservatives cannot kill the Bill this afternoon—wreck the Bill—and protect children. Everyone will remember the dreadful case of Sara Sharif. This is the girl who was taken out of school and abused by an abuser. This afternoon’s Bill fixes that gap. I am looking across the House, and I know there are hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who know very well that what is in this Bill is necessary, that it is the right thing to do, and would want to vote for the Bill. I urge them to think twice about following the short-sighted, misguided, bandwagon-jumping, non-leadership approach of the Leader of the Opposition.

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We all owe an extraordinary debt of thanks to those who serve. By reacquiring over 36,000 service family homes, including 1,700 in her constituency, we can rapidly transform substandard accommodation. The deal we have done also saves the taxpayer around £230 million per year in rent and follows the largest pay rise for the armed forces in over 20 years. There is, of course, still work to do, but this is a major step forward.

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Happy new year, Mr Speaker. I join others in offering my personal condolences to the Prime Minister on the loss of his brother. May I take this opportunity to express my sadness at the passing of a much-loved member of the Liberal Democrat family, Baroness Jenny Randerson? Fixing the care crisis is urgent for the millions of elderly and disabled people who are not getting the care they need, for the millions of family carers who are making huge sacrifices to fill the gap, and for the NHS, when over 12,000 people are stuck in hospital beds and cannot get out of hospital because the care is not there for them. The Prime Minister is right to say that we need a cross-party approach, but as Sir Andrew Dilnot has said today, that need not take three years. Will the Prime Minister please speed up that work so that 2025 is the year we finally rise to the challenge of fixing care?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue and thank him for his condolences. Yes, we do need to get this right. I want a cross-party consensus on the issue and I invite him to work with us, as I know he will. It is important and he is right to say that we need some action now. We have taken immediate action by providing £3.7 billion of additional funding in the Budget for social care and another £86 million to allow 7,800 more disabled and elderly people to live more independent lives, and we have increased the carer’s allowance. We have set this up in stages, so we can act and improve as we go along, while making sure we have consensus for the bigger changes that may be proposed in the review. I invite him and Members from across the House to work with us, so we can get this right and ensure what we put in place endures beyond just a few years.

If the Government do not bring in long-term social care reforms this year, their NHS reforms in this Parliament will fail, so I hope the Prime Minister will revisit the timetable. Moving on, while the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) may miss out on his big allowance from Elon Musk, the spectre of the richest man in the world trying to buy a British political party should give us all pause for thought. After years of the Conservatives taking millions of pounds of Russian money, will the Prime Minister now work with us to bring in long overdue reforms to party funding, so that power in this country lies with the voters, not wealthy overseas oligarchs?

I think we all had a smile on Sunday when the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) said how cool it was to have the support of Musk, only for Musk to say he should be removed just a few hours later—that is the rough and tough of politics. Of course, we are looking at the question of funding more generally.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this question. Businesses in his constituency have been badly let down by the deal made by the last Government. We are resetting and strengthening that relationship, on the economy, energy and security, to deliver the growth we need. I know this is an issue of considerable frustration to his constituents. The decision in question is ultimately for Eurostar, but we are keen to see international services reinstated to Ashford as soon as possible and I will be happy for the Rail Minister to update him on the latest discussions.

I call the leader of the Scottish National party.

I will begin by doing something unusual, which is to commend the Prime Minister on his earlier answers to the Leader of the Opposition. I also pass on my party’s condolences to him on the loss of his brother. Outside this place, temperatures continue to plummet, energy bills continue to rise and the winter fuel allowance has been unacceptably taken away from so many vulnerable pensioners. The Prime Minister intimated prior to Christmas that he had no regrets about any of the decisions that he has taken in office. Does he understand that the public do?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his condolences. We took some tough decisions. They led to a Budget that delivered the largest settlement to Scotland since devolution began. If he thinks we should now reverse that, he should say so. The money has been given, so now the SNP has the money, the power and no more excuses for the non-delivery that we see in Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman wants me to reverse that, he should say so.

My hon. Friend is right to raise that important issue. I have to say, when he said that there were cuts to police and somebody opposite said “Boring!”, that tells us everything we need to know about the last 14 years. My hon. Friend is right: we need to crack down on those committing vile acts in our communities. That is why our plan for change puts 13,000 extra police and police community support officers into neighbourhood policing, and includes a 3.5% real-terms increase and tough new respect orders. Where they lost control, we will take back control and deliver safe and secure communities.

My constituent Dipak first opened the doors to his pharmacy in 1991 and he has been serving the Chelmsford community ever since, greeting many of his patients by name. However, Dipak’s business is struggling. His NHS contract no longer covers the cost of the drugs he has to dispense. For example, he has sometimes been forced to pay over 100 times more than his contract provides for a particular mental health drug. Dipak is dipping into his life savings to keep his pharmacy afloat and I am sure that many other pharmacists across the country are doing the same. Does the Prime Minister agree that no pharmacist should be forced to use their own money to keep their pharmacy viable?

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important and challenging case. Community pharmacists like Dipak play a vital role in our health service. As she knows, the Department of Health and Social Care sets drug tariff prices and regularly assesses what pharmacies are reimbursed to ensure that overall they are paid fairly. If the hon. Lady is prepared to share the details further with me, I will have a review carried out by the team of the case she has raised.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. Antisemitism is completely abhorrent and has no place whatsoever in our society. I recently met Jewish community leaders in Downing Street to discuss what further we can do to combat antisemitism, and that includes allocating £54 million for the Community Security Trust to continue its vital work, committing to building a new Holocaust memorial and learning centre and providing at least £2.2 million to continue the funding for Lessons from Auschwitz. I look forward to working with others on those important proposals.

We had to deliver a Budget to wipe the slate clean, to deliver a stable basis for our economy and, at the same time, to repair our public services. That is why we invested £25.6 billion over two years in the NHS, including additional funding for GPs and hospices. We are taking measures to ensure that funding is there to support our vital services.

My hon. Friend describes an appalling housing situation, and one that will be familiar to a number of MPs on both sides of the House. That is why we will deliver the 1.5 million homes that we desperately need across the country. The Budget announced £500 million for the affordable homes programme—that is hugely important—£100 million of which will go the Greater London Authority. We will also reform the right to buy, to deliver a fairer, better value and more sustainable scheme where long-standing tenants can buy their own home.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. We are committed to building those 1.5 million homes, which includes 4,500 new homes every year in Cornwall. I do recognise the point that the hon. Member makes, which is that excessive concentrations of short-term lets and second homes in places such as Cornwall can impact the availability and affordability of homes. That is why we will enable councils to charge a premium on the council tax bills of second homes, abolish the furnished home lettings regime and introduce a registration scheme for short-term lets. I am happy to make sure that he and his Cornish colleagues get the meeting that they want with the Housing Minister to discuss that further.

Yes, absolutely. My hon. Friend is right; family courts must never be a tool that domestic abusers can use to continue their appalling abuse. That is why we are expanding the number of new pathfinder courts to provide dedicated support to survivors and protect the welfare of children. We are reviewing the presumption of parental involvement and will set out our position in due course. I will make sure that he meets the relevant Minister to discuss this further.

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. May I express to her something that I should have expressed to the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, which is our condolences about Jenny Randerson? I apologise; I overlooked that earlier. The hon. Lady raises the failure of the SNP and the legacy of the Tories. I am proud that this Labour Government delivered the largest budget settlement for Scotland since devolution. That means, in answer to her question, that 100,000 workers in Scotland benefit from the increases to the national minimum and living wages each year. An estimated 3.2 million people in Scotland will benefit from the extension of the 5p cut in fuel duty, which of course comes on top of the £125 million to set up Great British Energy in Aberdeen. It reinforces the point that the SNP has the powers but has a terrible record, and the Tories left a terrible legacy. We are getting on with delivering for Scotland.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I was pleased that the first increased payments to mineworkers’ pension scheme members were made at the end of November. I understand the strong feelings on the British coal staff superannuation scheme, which is why the Minister for industry met the trustees last year. We will work with the coal staff trustees to consider their proposals once the new mineworkers’ pension scheme arrangements have been agreed.

The City Minister has acted appropriately by referring herself to the independent adviser. We brought in our new ministerial code to allow Ministers to ask to establish the facts, and I am not going to give a running commentary on that important exercise.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the help that you have given me over the last couple of days. I wrote to the England and Wales Cricket Board regarding the upcoming game against Afghanistan on 26 February, and the championship trophy. I have met with the ECB, and we are calling for the game to be boycotted. I thank everybody for the support that I have had across this House and in the other place. I also thank the Prime Minister very much for his intervention with the International Cricket Council yesterday, but will he please agree to meet his counterparts in South Africa and Australia, and ask them to boycott the games as well?

There has been an appalling erosion of the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan. We should all condemn that suppression of freedoms in the strongest terms. That is why we have provided additional aid, at least 50% of which will go to women and girls. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is in touch with our international counterparts on this issue. I welcome the England and Wales Cricket Board making strong representations to the International Cricket Council on Afghanistan’s women’s cricket team.

Setting aside the matter of grooming gangs, the Opposition amendment on today’s Order Paper sets out very clearly why the Bill that we will be debating is so deeply flawed. If it is to become an Act of Parliament, it will have to be completely rewritten in Committee. The Prime Minister has made much from the Dispatch Box of his service as the public prosecutor, so could he tell the House why, during his time in that capacity, he declined to instigate a prosecution, for rape and sexual abuse, against Mohamed Fayed?

That case never crossed my desk.

That completes Prime Minister’s questions.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During an answer about police numbers, the Prime Minister said that someone on the Conservative Benches shouted “Boring!” May I correct the record following a request from Hansard? I actually said “Bingo!”, because of the repetitive and overused clichés that the Prime Minister was using.

You have corrected the record. I would not have owned up in the way you did, but there we are.