Engagements

This week, we progressed our Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to deliver counter-terrorism style powers to bring vile criminal smuggling gangs to justice. We announced a further £350 million to get Britain building and deliver 1.5 million new homes that our country desperately needs, including more affordable homes. We have also slashed the red tape that holds businesses and working people back, creating 10,000 more apprentices. This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

I am proud to have played my part in helping to draft what has become the Employment Rights Bill. A new poll shows that three quarters of the British public back the stronger workers’ rights in the Bill, including better sick pay, yet that lot over there—the Tories and Reform—disgracefully voted against it. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition does not even believe in maternity pay or the living wage. Our statutory sick pay is ranked as one of the lowest in Europe; it needs to be brought in line with the living wage. Will the Prime Minister back my campaign to strengthen the Bill further so that sick pay is at a level that will finally stop punishing workers for being sick?

Our plan for change delivers the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation through our Employment Rights Bill, ending exploitative zero-hours contracts and the scandal of fire and rehire and expanding statutory sick pay to 1.3 million employees. Of course, that is on top of the pay rise for 3 million of the lowest paid. I would have thought the Leader of the Opposition might support the protection of day one employment rights, given where she is going, but she thinks maternity pay is excessive. Our plan is pro-worker and pro-growth.

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

The Conservative Government established the Ukraine family scheme. In total, more than 200,000 Ukrainians—mostly women, children and the elderly—have found sanctuary in the UK from Putin’s war. However, a family of six from Gaza have applied to live in Britain using this scheme, and a judge has now ruled in their favour. That is not what the scheme was designed to do. This decision is completely wrong, and cannot be allowed to stand. Are the Government planning to appeal on any points of law, and, if so, which ones?

Let me be clear: I do not agree with the decision. The Leader of the Opposition is right that it is the wrong decision. She has not quite done her homework, however, because the decision in question was taken under the last Government, according to their legal framework. However, let me be clear: it should be Parliament that makes the rules on immigration; it should be the Government who make the policy. That is the principle. The Home Secretary is already looking at the legal loophole that we need to close in this particular case.

The Prime Minister did not answer the question. If he plans to appeal, the appeal might be unsuccessful, and the law will need to be changed. If he does not appeal, the law will definitely need to be changed. He talks about a decision made under the previous Government, but it was not made by that Government; it was made by the courts. The issue we are discussing today is about judicial decisions. We cannot be in a situation where we allow enormous numbers of people to exploit our laws in this way. There are millions of people all around the world in terrible situations—we cannot help them all, and we certainly cannot bring them all here. Will the Prime Minister commit to bringing forward that new legislation or amending his borders Bill?

I have already said that the Home Secretary has already got her team working on closing this loophole. We do not need to wait for that; we are getting on with that, because we are taking control. The Conservatives lost control of immigration: we had nearly 1 million people come into this country; we had an open borders experiment. On Monday this week, they voted against increased powers to deal with those who are running the vile trade of people smuggling. Same old Tories: open borders, empty promises.

If the Prime Minister was on top of his brief, perhaps he would be able to answer some questions. Given this crazy decision and so many others, new legislation is needed to clarify the right to a family life in article 8. [Interruption.] I am not talking about what he just said; I know Labour MPs do not understand much of what they are saying. The Prime Minister literally wrote a book on the European convention on human rights. This is a situation where we need to put our national interests before the ECHR. Does he agree that we should legislate, even if lawyers warn that that might be incompatible with human rights law?

The right hon. Lady complains about scripted answers; her script does not allow her to listen to the answer. [Hon. Members: “More!”] She asked me if we are going to change the law and close the loophole in question one—I said yes. She asked me again in question two—and I said yes. She asked me again in question three—it is still yes.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not listen to question one. I asked if he would appeal the decision. He did not answer that. He is not listening; he is too busy defending the international human rights law framework. This case has arisen because a Palestinian came to the UK from Gaza in 2007. He is now a British citizen. This is precisely why we need to break the conveyor belt—from arriving in the UK to acquiring indefinite leave to remain and then a British passport, and now a right to bring six family members here as well. Just last week, the Prime Minister bizarrely claimed that a British passport was not a pull factor for those coming to the UK. Will he now support our plans to toughen the process on indefinite leave to remain and make getting a British passport a privilege, not a right?

The Conservatives presided over record high levels of immigration. It reached nearly 1 million. It was a one nation experiment in open borders. The right hon. Lady was the cheerleader; she was the one campaigning for more people to come and thanking her own side when they supported her campaign. So, before she lectures us, she needs to reflect on her own record.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is the Prime Minister now. The people out there want to know what he is going to do about the situation. He needs to spend less time whining about the last Government and do his job. I thought the Prime Minister and I agreed that Israel had a right to defend herself, yet the judge in this case noted that the family were facing a humanitarian crisis “as a consequence of the Israeli Government’s indiscriminate attempts to eliminate Hamas”, and Government lawyers accepted that. Is the Prime Minister allowing lawyers to change the position on Israel, and was that because of advice from the Attorney General? If not, why on earth did Government lawyers accept the argument that Israeli actions were “indiscriminate”?

Government lawyers put the complete opposite argument. The right hon. Lady talks about being on top of her brief; she has no idea what she is talking about. I will tell her again: we need to change the law. That is why the Home Secretary is already closing the gap. I know the script does not allow any adaptation, but this is getting tedious.

The Prime Minister has not read the judgment. I suggest that he does so. Very serious questions are now being asked about the Attorney General, the Prime Minister’s personal friend and donor. Even Labour Ministers are concerned. One Labour peer, Lord Glasman, has called him “the absolute archetype of an arrogant, progressive fool”. If we are serious about protecting our borders, we need to make sure that we appoint people who believe in our country and everything we stand for. It is not clear that the Attorney General does. The Government are now recruiting a new chief inspector of borders, who lives in Finland and wants to work from home. This is not serious. Why should the British public put up with it?

The individual in question was appointed in 2019 by the last Government to a senior position. He then worked for five years from Finland. We have changed that, and he will now be working from the United Kingdom full time. It was Finland under them. The Leader of the Opposition talks about the Attorney General; she sat round the Cabinet table with an Attorney General who was later sacked for breaching national security.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising an issue that is obviously of real concern to businesses in her constituency. We expect landlords to meet their obligations to make buildings safe, and we support robust enforcement action from the regulators if they fail to do so. I will ensure that my hon. Friend secures a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss what steps can be taken in this particular case to support the businesses on which her constituents rely.

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Eighty years ago this week, the allies began a pincer movement against German forces between the Ruhr and the Rhine. British and Canadian troops attacked from the north, Americans from the south. British, Canadian and American soldiers were fighting shoulder to shoulder to defeat fascists. Eighty years on, President Trump seems to have forgotten all that. His tariffs against steel and aluminium will hit Canada the hardest, but they will also hit jobs and the cost of living in our country. In reminding President Trump who America’s true and long-standing friends and allies really are, will the Prime Minister also prepare a plan for tariffs in return, starting with tariffs on American electric cars?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to refer to our history and the 80-year anniversary. We were fighting alongside the Americans, and that is among the reasons why we have a special relationship. British steel is an essential part of our heartlands and we will not abandon our skilled workforce, but a level-headed assessment of the implications is needed, and that is what we are going through at the moment. However, we will always put our national interests first, and steelworkers first.

It seems to me that, given the way in which President Trump and his ally Musk are operating, they need to hear of strong measures and hear strong words even from their allies. Let me move on to the subject of Ukraine. If it is forced to surrender its own sovereign territory to Russia, that will be the greatest betrayal of a European ally since Poland in 1945, but President Trump says Ukraine may end up Russian, and he wants American money back. I think we all fear where this could end, and the dangerous implications for our defence and our security. Can the Prime Minister reassure the House that he and other European leaders have given sufficient support to President Zelensky so that he cannot be bullied by Trump and Putin into accepting a deal that would effectively hand victory to Russia?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I met President Zelensky in Kyiv just a few weeks ago—it was my eighth meeting. The position since the outbreak of this conflict has been a united position across the House of supporting Ukraine, and I was able to reiterate my position, which is that we must put Ukraine in the strongest possible position. That matters now just as much as it mattered at the beginning of the conflict, and I did discuss with him what more we and our allies can do to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position.

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the important role that local communities play in supporting healthy lifestyles. I am delighted that we are providing almost £4 billion for the local health services that people rely on—things like health visitors, stop smoking services and drug abuse treatments. I will make sure that she meets the relevant Minister to discuss this issue.

Prime Minister, I get it: nobody wants to get into a trade war. But, unlike Peter Mandelson, sometimes you have got to stand up for what you believe in. My friends in the DUP have learned nothing from their mistake of backing Brexit, and think that tariffs are a laughing matter. Does the Prime Minister agree that we need to stand up for ourselves, we need to back our workers and we need to back our businesses—not just in Lagan Valley but, indeed, across the UK?

Yes, of course. The US and the UK share a strong and balanced trading relationship. We invest hugely in each other’s economies, and we will continue to work closely with President Trump to boost growth and to create jobs. I reassure the hon. Lady that we will always act in the best interests of businesses and working people across the whole of the United Kingdom, including, of course, Northern Ireland.

Yes, and let me remind Reform and the Tories what they voted against earlier this week in our borders Bill. They voted against making it an offence to organise the buying, selling and transport of small boats, against making it an offence to endanger lives at sea, and against powers to arrest suspected people smugglers before the smuggling takes place. They voted against. They voted for open borders—both of them.

I set out the position in relation to the Chagos islands last week. I also offered the Leader of the Opposition a high-level briefing on this matter. She still has not taken me up on the offer of that briefing. The Conservatives are asking questions without wanting to know the facts. It is extraordinary that someone who wants to be Prime Minister does not want to know the facts, even when she is offered a high-level briefing. The hon. Gentleman would be better informed if she took me up on the offer of a briefing.

I am going to struggle to sound delighted with the result of that particular football match, but it will be a special day for Newcastle fans. The Tyne bridge is an iconic north-east landmark and I congratulate the apprentices who are helping to restore that vital piece of infrastructure. As usual, the Tories made empty promises that they had no intention of keeping, including £2.9 billion-worth of transport commitments that were never funded. We will look at the capital projects around the spending review and let my hon. Friend know as soon as we can.

I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue and the particular case of her constituents. I also know that this is deeply personal to her and, if I may, I extend my deepest sympathies to her and her family for their loss. We have taken immediate action on social care. We have already delivered £3.7 billion of additional investment. We are working on the first ever fair pay agreement for the sector and, of course, we are boosting carer’s allowance. I invite her and everybody to work with the House on the longer-term reform that we need.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this vital issue. It is not the first time it has come up. We are supporting mainstream schools to increase SEND expertise while also establishing dedicated SEN units, because we need to make sure that special schools can also cater for those with the most complex needs. We are working on this. It has come up time and again, but we are taking those vital initial steps.

Everyone deserves high-quality and compassionate end-of-life care. The hon. Member knows that we inherited a £22 billion black hole in our public finances, and that is why we took the difficult but right decisions to invest in our public services. I do recognise the pressures that hospices are facing, and that is why we are investing £100 million into hospices, with an additional £26 million to support children and young people’s hospices. I will make sure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.

Both my hon. Friend and the North East Mayor are dedicated campaigners on this issue. The Conservative party left us with a host of unfunded promises, and public transport is in dire condition. Expanding the Metro network has huge potential to drive growth and unlock new housing. I am pleased that progress is being made on the business case.

We have long had the principle in this country that everybody is entitled to legal representation, which means that lawyers do not necessarily agree with their clients. Conservative Members used to believe in that principle. If they now disagree, they should go to see the victims of very serious crime, including sexual crime, and tell them that, under their provisions, a lawyer who disagrees with a perpetrator would not be able to represent them, meaning that victims would be cross-examined by perpetrators. That has never been the Conservative party’s position. If it is now, it should say so.

Allergy school, launched this week by the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, is a free programme to support children with food allergies. Allergic disease is a growing issue in this country, with more than 20 million people in the UK affected. For this reason, it has never been more important for us to have a national allergy strategy and an allergy tsar to drive and co-ordinate action. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming this programme, and will he meet me and the foundation to talk about how we can work together to drive this forward?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this really important issue. Hospital admissions for allergies have risen sharply in the last two decades. I welcome the work of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation. We will respond to the recommendations of the national allergy strategy group in due course, and I will make sure my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss it.

We are, of course, delivering 1.5 million homes, but we are also creating communities for the future. The hon. Gentleman is right that that must include good schools, GPs and reliable transport links, which is what makes a good community. Just today we have announced an additional £350 million to deliver more affordable homes so that more people can realise the dream of home ownership.

This week is National Apprenticeship Week. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for apprenticeships, I can tell the Prime Minister that employers are very pleased to see this week’s announcements, which will make a real difference both to completion rates and to the flexibility around apprenticeships. Does the Prime Minister agree that schools should be promoting apprenticeships alongside A-levels and other options? And can he tell us what more he will do to support more young people into apprenticeships?

I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has raised this issue, and that we will be able to give employers more flexibility on maths and English requirements. This is really important, as many young people did not get the maths qualification they wanted but are very well suited for the future and want to play their part. They can now get an apprenticeship under our changes. These 10,000 extra apprenticeships are delivering for them, giving them a chance to contribute to our economy.

Farming is top of the agenda, as far as I am concerned. That is why we put £5 billion to support farmers in the Budget—[Interruption.] The Conservatives failed to spend £300 million on farming on their watch. We have set out our road map, which has been welcomed by the National Farmers Union, as the hon. Lady very well knows. It was described as “long overdue”; I wonder who did not do it before?

Order. Mr Dewhirst, I am sure you do not want to be leaving today—it is not the best day for it.

As a graduate of the Croydon Youth Philharmonic Orchestra, the Prime Minister will know that youth services can broaden a young person’s horizons beyond what they could ever imagine. With national spending on youth services having declined 73% since 2010, will the Prime Minister outline how this Government will bring youth services back into our communities, will he look at giving them the statutory protections they deserve and will he visit Croydon East to see at first hand the vital role youth services play in my constituency?

My days with the Croydon Youth Philharmonic Orchestra were a long time ago now, but we fully recognise the importance of youth services. They save lives and help young people to live safe and healthy lives. We have been developing our plans for the new national youth strategy, to bring power back to young people and help every young person realise their potential.

I thank the hon. Lady for her ongoing work and campaign on that important issue. The cross-Government bereavement group continues to look at how we can improve access to the support that children and young people need at those difficult times. Of course I will ensure that she gets the meeting she wants with the Minister to discuss this further.

Yesterday marks the 20th anniversary of the launch of the Make Poverty History campaign and of a fantastic speech, remembered by all of us who were there, delivered by the late, great Madiba. That campaign inspired a generation of campaigners and a great Labour Government to deliver unprecedented action to tackle global poverty, lifting millions out of poverty. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to some of those campaigners and commit to doing all he can to ensure that Britain plays its full part in helping to eradicate global poverty today?

It is a really important issue. We pay tribute and, of course, we continue to play our full part.

The hon. Lady’s constituents are right to be frustrated about the empty, unfunded promises that were left behind by the Conservatives—a point made by her and by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy). Under the previous Government’s plan, a new hospital in Basingstoke would simply not have been delivered because it was unfunded: it was a promise without anything behind it. We have put in place a funded, deliverable plan that will see the hospital built, and we will work closely with the trust to ensure that it is.

The Government’s devolution plans are a welcome progressive development to shift power and resources from Whitehall to our communities. There are discussions now about the process and the realisation of benefits for our communities. Will the Prime Minister assure my residents in Worthing West, and those in all constituencies starting priority devolution programmes, that Sussex devolution will give us meaningful control of our local priorities, including housing, transport and social care?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising devolution, which will see her constituents in Sussex get meaningful control over local priorities. The devolution priority programme will see a wave of mayors elected next year, including in Sussex. I believe that those with skin in the game make the best decisions about their communities.

For the final question, I call Andrew Mitchell.

The Prime Minister will be well aware of the global vaccination fund, Gavi. One of the United Kingdom’s great success stories, it has vaccinated from deadly diseases more than a billion children under five, it presents real value for money to British taxpayers and more than 80% of our constituents support it. Will he give the House an undertaking that Britain will continue that leadership and make a decisive pledge at next month’s replenishment conference?

This is a really important issue, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly points out. I have long supported it and will continue to support it, and I will share details with him just as soon as I can.