Oral Answers to Questions

The Secretary of State was asked—

1. What discussions she has had with Ofcom on the potential merits of updating the crisis response protocol measures to include a uniform set of standards.

Keeping people safe online at moments of real danger is a top priority for this Government. That is why we have asked Ofcom to expedite its work on updates to its codes of practice under the Online Safety Act 2023. All services face strict duties to deal with illegal content. Of course, it is right that platforms with a greater risk of viral content spreading must do even more to prepare for and manage periods of heightened risk.

The limits in the Online Safety Act only cover misinformation that meets the threshold for illegal content. The riots in Epsom and Ewell highlighted a need for a clear crisis protocol, because false information was viewed over 2 million times and it was trending on X two days after that information had been clarified by the police. Will the Minister commit to directing Ofcom to establish a single set of mandatory crisis response standards for platforms so that we have clear accountability and rapid action following such incidents?

Do we want tougher accountability? Absolutely. That is why the codes published mean stronger review mechanisms, a direct line to law enforcement and a clear crisis playbook required of risky platforms. Do we want it to be faster? Absolutely. That is exactly why we have asked Ofcom to expedite those codes in particular. On whether we take a risk based or uniform approach, it is right that we focus our resources, in law enforcement and regulatory action, on those that are the greatest risk. We will continue to review that.

I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

It is almost exactly a year since my Select Committee published its report on “Social media, misinformation and harmful algorithms” in the wake of the Southport riots. It was truly distressing and disturbing to see misinformation playing such a role in the Belfast riots, and my thoughts are with all those affected. Will the Minister confirm what conversations he has had with Ofcom about misinformation being included in its crisis response protocol, as recommended by my Committee?

May I, as ever, thank the Chair of the Select Committee for such a depth of expertise and experience, and in particular for the report that she mentioned, which has formed the basis of a lot of our thinking? There are clear things that we have done in our engagement with Ofcom, such as ensuring we empower users, not least through the commitments made in the “Protecting What Matters” social cohesion strategy, which will follow up on a number of recommendations that the hon. Lady talked about, including empowering users of algorithms. Misinformation is very much under consideration, and I have spoken to Ofcom about categories of harm as part of the crisis playbooks. We will continue to review that.

2. What steps she is taking to keep children safe online.

3. What steps she is taking to keep children safe online.

Last month, I announced a defining moment for children and families, banning social media companies from providing their services to under-16s, banning livestreaming and stranger communication for under-16s on services, including gaming, and making Britain the first country in the world to ban sexualised chatbots for under-18s. This Government, and I personally, will continue to take all the measures necessary to keep children safe online.

During the Government’s consultation on online safety, I met students from Ysgol Maes Garmon in my constituency to hear about their lived experience online. They raised concerns about harmful online content, addictive algorithms and the impact of a lack of scrolling limits. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the voices of our young people are heard in any decisions about how to keep them safe online?

I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done on these issues. Young people’s voices have been, and will continue to be, heard. We had 14,000 children and young people respond to our consultation and they raised issues such as the ones mentioned by my hon. Friend. We want to give children the best possible start in life. There are further measures that I hope to announce, including on breaks in infinite scrolling, and I look forward to making a further statement to the House.

People across Glasgow East welcome the proposed ban on social media for under-16s. I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for AI and Online Safety for their excellent work, which means that young people across Glasgow and Scotland will be much safer. However, kids will get round the ban and young people aged 16 and over also need to be protected—in fact, we all do. May I encourage the Secretary of State to pursue with utter conviction further regulation to crack down on misinformation, secure the clear labelling of AI generated content and ensure transparency of algorithms?

I welcome my hon. Friend’s urging. We do indeed intend to look at further measures about this. As I have said, including to the Chair of the Select Committee, I will look once again at the challenges around misinformation and disinformation; this summer we will be consulting on the very issue of digital replicas and launching a taskforce on labelling AI content. That is part of the work we are doing around the creative sector, but it is also about tackling misinformation and disinformation and protecting our children and our democratic process.

Parents, teachers and young people across North Dorset welcomed the Secretary of State’s announcement last month, as do I. This is clearly a fast moving area of communication. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that this will be an iterative and evolutionary process, with Government deploying the resources so that we are well placed to meet new challenges and our young people are safe and protected?

As always, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is that this is not a “one and done”, as I said in my statement last week. It cannot be, because technology is changing so fast. I have looked seriously at the fact that the Online Safety Act 2023 took eight years from initial idea to implementation, and that is not good enough. We have taken powers in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 to address features and functions, which I think will help, but I am sure there is much more we can do. I have said that this is not a one and done, and I will always be willing to look at further measures.

The makers of the Louis Theroux documentary “Inside the Manosphere” showed the all party parliamentary group on fatherhood, which I chair, that within 15 minutes of looking at YouTube, young boys could be shown misogynistic content when they are simply trying to search for gym content. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the ban on social media will include platforms that do not require an account, so that children can be protected from that as well?

I saw the documentary and absolutely agree how concerning it is. I bet that many men, even some in this Chamber, will have been fed this vile stuff just because they are a man. We are looking at a whole range of measures. We are also looking at the issues of advertising and money, which are relevant to the hon. Gentleman’s question as they are driving a lot of this. The Minister for Digital Government and Data, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who is a joint Minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, is chairing a taskforce looking specifically at that matter, but I always like to see further recommendations, so the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) should send them in.

I call the shadow Minister.

This might be the last time this Department for Science, Innovation and Technology ministerial team get the chance to face us at the Dispatch Box, so on behalf of our team I wish them well over the next few weeks as the Government go through their hard reset. Has the Secretary of State spoken to the virtual Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), and told him of the work under way to deliver the essential safeguards to restrict social media for under-16s following the successful campaign by parents, families and the Conservative Opposition, led by the Leader of the Opposition? Or is it that, as when we pull the plug on a computer, any unsaved progress will be lost?

Of course I have talked to my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield, because I am focusing on doing my job, which is to do the right thing for children and families in this country. I hope the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) gets a good rest over the summer holidays too, and maybe works up some slightly more challenging questions.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

This might be the last time we face this ministerial team, but I hope that they will stay, because I know they have done a lot of hard work on online safety. With that in mind, I have recently spoken to students in Harpenden and Berkhamsted, who passionately shared their fears and hopes around AI chatbots. With the Labour leadership transition putting any major announcements on hold, what guarantees can the Secretary of State give that, alongside the support of the right hon. Member for Makerfield—the Prime Minister in waiting—there will be an announcement in July about AI online safety, and vital protections will not be sidelined?

I share the concerns of the good people of the hon. Member’s constituency about AI chatbots. I will come back with a further statement to the House about the things I said in my last statement, not only looking at further steps on AI chatbots—we have banned sexualised companion chatbots and the features within general chatbots that allow that to happen—but on overnight curfews, brakes on infinite scrolling and various other things. I will make the fullest possible update to the House on those measures, as I said I would.

4. What steps she is taking to help remove dangerous content from social media platforms.

This Government have led the world in tackling dangerous content online, including in law with illegal content duties that platforms must comply with, with our full backing for Ofcom’s enforcement of them, and by strengthening the law, with cyber flashing, intimate image abuse and self harm content all deemed priority offences needing to be proactively tackled, as well as political conviction in the face of non compliance. When Grok nudified images, this Government stood up, called it out and won by being on the side of British families, not tech platforms.

I warmly welcome the Government’s plans to ban social media for under-16s. However, when it comes to content promoting eating disorders, the risks do not simply disappear at 16. The eating disorder charity, Beat, recently pushed ChatGPT to stop generating restrictive meal plans altogether, which it did, so it is possible. Other platforms, however, have failed to act, with X still allowing users to search for harmful hashtags, such as #proana and #bonespo—I apologise if that is triggering. Will the Minister work with me and the eating disorders all party parliamentary group to ensure that platforms such as X can no longer exploit mental ill health for engagement and profit?

I first thank my hon. Friend for championing an incredibly important cause. Content promoting eating disorders is horrific, and I have to be clear that not just at the age of 16, but under the Online Safety Act 2023, platforms must already prevent children under the age of 18 from accessing content about eating disorders or self harm. Indeed, it is now a primary priority content offence, requiring a higher bar still to be discharged by those platforms. I will of course, as ever, be delighted to work with him and the eating disorders APPG on his further proposals.

I thank the Secretary of State and the ministerial team for their positive engagement with me and colleagues across the House who have been working with bereaved families and the Molly Rose Foundation on the devastating impact of suicide forums. On the new crisis response protocol, my understanding is that it is primarily designed for large scale public safety events. Can the Secretary of State advise on whether Ofcom will consider rapid response arrangements being expanded to cover cases where compelling evidence shows that content presents a risk for suicide, so that platforms are expected to act with the same urgency to protect individual lives?

I first pay tribute to the families that I have met who have raised the issue of suicide forums, which the hon. Member rightly raises. I have committed to them in the past that we will continue to press for quicker remedies for them when they suffer the worst tragedies imaginable. The Secretary of State and I will, of course, be delighted to look at whether there are ways we can make that a more systematic, rapid response.

5. What steps her Department is taking to maintain levels of funding for astronomy and space science.

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am proud that this Labour Government have committed a record £86 billion towards R&D, including on astronomy, space science and others, to supercharge innovation. Within that, UK Research and Innovation’s Science and Technology Facilities Council—the main funder of particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics—has a stable budget with increasing investment in research areas that lead to and underpin discovery.

I thank the Minister for his answer. My Oxfordshire constituency is home to Harwell campus, the UK’s largest concentration of space and science organisations. Despite what the Minister said about the budget, the need for £162 million of savings by 2030 that was imposed on the Science and Technology Facilities Council risks jobs and critical research equipment, undermining our global science leadership. Does the Minister share those concerns, and what steps will he take to protect scientific jobs and facilities?

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and everyone at the Harwell campus, which hosts over £1 billion of world leading research infrastructure. A lot of concerns have been raised by the physics community about this issue. I can confirm that funding for STFC has not been cut. UKRI has decided that STFC’s core budget should be maintained over the spending review period. Of course, we understand the cost pressures through inflation, foreign exchange and the ambitious commitments that were made from the previous spending review. No final decisions are being made, but STFC is working through that with the community.

Particle physics and astronomy have had a rough deal since the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council—PPARC—was abolished about 19 years ago. I understand that the justification being put out by the Science Minister and other Ministers is that there has been a change to mission driven research as opposed to fundamental blue skies research. This is a mistake: most practical applications of science have come from scientists asking fundamental questions that had no relevance at the time. Does the Minister agree that the policy is a mistake?

I do not agree with my hon. Friend about the policy. We are putting £86 billion into research and development, including astronomy and space science, including a record £38 billion for UK Research and Innovation. Of that, £14.5 billion is for curiosity driven research because we know that there is no route to stronger growth in this country than through significant investment in science, innovation and tech.

6. What assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of the women in tech taskforce on levels of diversity in the technology sector.

Our economy loses around £3.5 billion a year because women leave the tech sector or change jobs due to barriers that should not exist. That is bad for women and for the tech sector because it loses out on their skills, talent and experience. It is why our women in tech taskforce is addressing the systematic barriers that prevent women from entering, progressing and leading this vital sector.

Evidence suggests that AI tools used in recruitment often favour male names almost five times more than female names, and AI models built to prevent liver disease are twice as likely to miss the disease in women. Does my right hon. Friend agree that unless we have women shaping this technology, it will continue not to deliver for women? Can she outline Government plans to address those biases while encouraging more women in Paisley and Renfrewshire South to join the sector?

My hon. Friend is right that the bias in technology highlights why we need more women building it. We want more women in tech and more tech that works for women. That is exactly why we launched the women in tech taskforce. We will publish the results of its call for evidence next week. We have had a fantastic response, but we are not waiting to take action: we are launching a new tech first girls programme for 12 and 13 year olds, to help advance women’s careers by giving them minimum six- month placements, and we are putting our own house in order by ensuring Government Departments, such as the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, help software developers return to work after 18 months.

I thank the Minister for her answer to the question put forward by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter). Some companies are already setting aside a number of places—a quota—for ladies for the jobs they hope to introduce women to. Does the Minister think that it is time to set a quota for companies? We recognise some of the good work that companies do, but a quota for places for ladies might persuade many companies to go the extra mile.

I think the most effective way to get change is to show the results that have been achieved by the women who produce the brilliant science and technology that helps to create innovations and bring in the cash. Women founders of tech companies get only 2p in every £1 in venture capital funding, yet on average they present 35% higher returns. If companies want better science and tech and a better economy, they had better get more women on board.

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

I am proud that today I am launching our charter for women in research, setting out minimum standards for maternity pay and leave for women doing PhDs in this country, alongside leave for their partners, adoption leave, leave for baby loss and pregnancy related sickness. More than 64 organisations have already signed up. This is crucial for women, for the quality of science and tech and for our country, because Britain succeeds only when we make the most of all our talents.

At the all party parliamentary group on digital communities, which I chair, we often hear from mobile network operators that one reason they do not serve rural areas properly is that they cannot get planning permission. In Shropshire, the council has given planning permission to a passive infrastructure provider for three specific sites but it still cannot get the mobile network operators to put their equipment on their masts. What can the Secretary of State do to ensure mobile network operators give my constituents the coverage that they are paying for?

I know that the hon. Lady is really concerned to ensure that her constituents have proper network coverage. We encourage mobile network operators to use existing infrastructure where they can, but I am more than happy to arrange a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Digital Government and Data to get the progress that the people of North Shropshire need and deserve.

T5. The broadcasting, entertainment and arts unions all party parliamentary group heard deeply concerning evidence from writers, journalists, musicians and performers that their work is being scraped, ripped off and stolen by sophisticated AI models for training purposes. When will the Secretary of State introduce laws to protect the creative industries? Will she meet with the APPG and unions to discuss this matter further?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that critical question for Britain’s creative sector. Just yesterday, on British IP Day, I met with the Alliance for Intellectual Property, including artists, authors, publishers, journalists and media organisations, to talk about how our work on digital replicas and transparency will be critical to supporting the creative sector. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and the APPG.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Professor Brian Cox is among the eminent scientists warning about the impact of Government cuts to research on advanced physics and astronomy—a move that he calls “inexplicable”. Meanwhile, the Government are spending millions on projects examining climate coloniality, decolonising justice and transforming LGBTIQ+ asylum policies. Are those the Secretary of State’s research priorities too? If not, has she made that crystal clear to UK Research and Innovation?

I am sorry to put the hon. Lady straight, but we are not cutting money for that. We are actually putting in the biggest funding for research and development ever in this country—something of which I am especially proud. We are protecting curiosity led research and ensuring that we focus on the key priorities of this country, because we know there is no route to stronger growth or better answers and innovations without science and technology at its core.

I think the Secretary of State just said that the eminent professors are wrong.

Aside from research spend, one of the core reasons for the budgetary pressures in physics is the ruinous cost of energy under Labour. It is ideology in research spend, and it is ideology in energy policy. In March, the Secretary of State said we need to sort out the problems facing physics funding as soon as possible; it is now July. Has she lobbied the Energy Secretary to stop him driving up the core costs of our critical scientific research institutions?

I say gently to the hon. Lady that we are dealing with the mess we inherited from Conservative Members by ensuring that this country can rely on clean, renewable, home grown energy right here in Britain. That is why we are driving the technological revolution in AI in our AI growth zones in Wales through three small modular nuclear reactors. It is also why this country has had more venture capital funding in our AI start ups just this year than the whole of the rest of Europe. We are driving forward change to ensure that this country can succeed.

T6.  I recently visited Northgate high school in Ipswich with the Children’s Commissioner. As ever, the pupils were thoughtful and articulate about what they needed for the future, but the subject of digital and AI came up a lot. They said that they need greater access to public services and skilling up for future employment. Will the Minister outline what the Government are doing to ensure that pupils can access those public services as well as the important digital and AI skills that they desperately need?

This Government are boosting digital and AI skills by embedding media literacy across all key stages, including by introducing an AI inclusive computing GCSE and a £20 million early careers jobs alliance. We will ensure that digital inclusion is fundamental as the Government work to develop digital access to public services through digital ID. These measures will support children and all people to access public services when they need them; they will be personalised, joined up and involve less faff.

T2. Good luck, England! May I welcome the Government’s commitment to introducing a social media ban for under-16s, following repeated calls from Conservative Members? Will the Secretary of State outline what steps the Government will take to ensure that the enforcement of such a ban is robust enough to prevent children from bypassing it through the use of mechanisms such as virtual private networks, which expose young people to additional risks?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point—we know children will try to get around the ban, and will succeed. Our measures are as much about resetting the cultural and social norms for future generations, but we will have more highly effective age verification measures to make this work. We are looking at the issue of VPNs in particular, and I will come back to the House with more on that issue very soon.

Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I extend a warm welcome to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Trinidad and Tobago and his delegation, who are in the Gallery today.

The Prime Minister was asked—

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 1 July.

Our thoughts, and I am sure the thoughts of the whole House, are with the people of Venezuela—the scenes of destruction are simply harrowing. We have committed humanitarian funding and deployed expert search and rescue teams, and I can announce today that we will match public donations up to £2 million on aid.

In an increasingly dangerous and volatile world, our defence investment plan commits more to investment in our armed forces. It delivers the modern kit and capabilities our personnel need to keep us safe, meaning we buy British to create jobs here at home and strengthen our international leadership.

Sunday marks the 78th birthday of the NHS, and I am pleased that under this Government, waiting lists are down, A&E waits are shorter, and we have the shortest cancer diagnosis times on record. I also welcome the agreement reached with the resident doctors to end the strikes, so that our full focus can be on delivering further improvements for patients.

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.

I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s condolences and his birthday good wishes to the NHS.

Everyone in my constituency of Surrey Heath wants a new Frimley Park hospital, but the chosen site—the last remaining fragment of the ancient Frimley common—is wholly inappropriate. It is inaccessible, behind multiple schools, and environmentally devastating. Worse, over recent weeks, I have received deeply troubling evidence that the preferred relocation site was known and being openly discussed by local political figures in 2023, before the official site selection process had even begun. The entirely reasonable conclusion is that this project has been compromised from the outset and the site predetermined. I think the Prime Minister would agree that this is no way to begin a multibillion pound public procurement process, so will he please step in, commission an urgent independent review—

Order. I think the Prime Minister has got the question.

The hon. Gentleman’s NHS trust has identified its preferred site for the new Frimley Park hospital, and detailed technical work can now start. Let us be frank about this hospital. The Tories promised 40 new hospitals with no funding and no delivery plan, and we have had to fix that. Thanks to Labour investment, the hon. Gentleman’s hospital is at the front of the queue. It will be one of the first in the country to be rebuilt, but his approach has been, on the one hand, to demand a new hospital, and then to oppose actually building it. He has urged his constituents to oppose it because, to quote him, “if this hospital goes ahead, there will be no golf course.”

Labour is building new hospitals, and the hon. Gentleman is standing up for golf courses. I cannot think of anything more Lib Dem.

Q2. A good, safe and secure home is the foundation of everything, and access to a council home at social rent continues to be the biggest issue that my constituents get in touch with me about. However, under this Labour Government in 2024-25, councils delivered the highest annual number of social and affordable homes since 1991-92. Does the Prime Minister agree that we must build on this achievement and accelerate progress on council house building to ensure we deliver the biggest council housing programme since the post war era?

I am proud that this Government are delivering the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation. That is backed by £39 billion, and it means we are unleashing the biggest surge in council house building in more than 30 years. That includes a thousand new social and affordable homes in Luton and Bedfordshire. Our Social Housing Bill will reform right to buy to deliver even more social houses. That is a Labour Government delivering the homes that we need.

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Can I associate myself and those on the Opposition Benches with the Prime Minister’s comments about Venezuela, and also about the Lib Dems? [Laughter.] But seriously, the Chief of the Defence Staff made it known that the armed forces needed a minimum of £28 billion more to defend the country. Can the Prime Minister tell us why he thinks half that amount is enough?

I am proud that this Labour Government have delivered two major funding increases in just two years in government. The first, which was funded by overseas aid, took us to £270 billion over the spending review period. That is a record. The defence investment plan gives us the capability we need for the future and sets a new record of £300 billion over the next four years. That will be invested in drones and autonomous weapons—the largest ever investment—strengthen the UK’s nuclear capability, upgrade our naval bases in the most significant way for 45 years, and confirm our commitment to the next generation of fighter jets. That is what is needed to keep our country safe.

The Prime Minister did not say that it was enough, and that was a very long list of things that he is not yet paying for. It is not right and it is not fair—certainly not to our troops, who put their lives on the line for all of us every single day. Three weeks ago, the Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), resigned saying, “I am being forced to make decisions that would…increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe.”

Since that letter, the Prime Minister has increased spending by only 0.01%. We can count, the generals can count, and the Kremlin can count, and his plan does not add up. How can he possibly stand there and say that this is enough?

This is the most significant upgrade in defence spending since the 1980s. The Chief of the Defence Staff has been clear that the plan accelerates the transformation we need for our armed forces. The First Sea Lord said that it funds the capability we need to fight and win, and the Chief of the Air Staff said that it strengthens our contribution to NATO. The Leader of the Opposition must have missed that yesterday, the Secretary General of NATO welcomed the plan. Those are all people who know what is in the plan and welcome it.

We can contrast that with the Conservatives’ record in government. They hollowed out the armed forces. Their record is cutting defence spending; my record is raising it to £300 billion and rising. Their record is cutting frigates by a quarter, cutting minehunters by a half and leaving 47 out of 49 defence programmes delayed or over budget; my record is the biggest boost to defence investment since the 1980s. Their record is missing Army recruitment targets every year for 14 years. We have given our armed forces the biggest pay rise for 20 years and increased defence funding by £15 billion a year. That is a record I am proud to stand on.

The Chief of the Defence Staff is an honourable man, and what he and the NATO Secretary General have done is welcome the fact that the plan has been published—just that it has been published. They have been waiting for more than a year. The strategic defence review was last year. The Chief of the Defence Staff is an honourable man who is having to make do with very little.

The threat level has dramatically changed in the two years that the Prime Minister has been in office. Since he took office, Poland has increased its funding to 4.8% and Germany has increased its funding to 3.7%. This year, Russia will spend 10% of GDP on defence. Meanwhile, Britain is spending it all on welfare. Even the limited plan that the Prime Minister has announced has completely unravelled, because he has not found the money to pay for it. It is £5 billion short. We all know that he is leaving this mess to his successor. Can he confirm that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has agreed to fund the shortfall?

What the Conservatives did was cut defence spending. When they came to power, defence spending was 2.5%. What did they do? They cut it to 2.3%—a cut! On welfare, what did they do? They put it up by £88 billion. So we will take no lectures from them about either welfare or defence.

This is £15 billion of new investment for defence, delivered outside a Budget and outside a spending review. That is about £1 billion a year over four years. Because of the decisions at the last Budget, we have had headroom of £22 billion. That is precisely so that we can take decisions like this. We delivered it outside a Budget and outside a spending review, just as we did with special educational needs, outside a Budget and outside a spending review, and just as the last Government did when they announced their five year NHS plan in 2018, outside a Budget and outside a spending review. And what did they say when they were challenged about it?

“We will be able to explain exactly where every penny is coming from but we will do that in the Budget.”

That was the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), then the Health Secretary and later the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

When the Conservatives published their integrated defence review in 2020, what did they do? They set out the funding at the next spending review. So let us drop the faux outrage and focus on what matters: the biggest sustained increase for 40 years and the biggest increase for 45 years, providing what is needed to keep the country safe.

The Prime Minister says that he is delivering this outside the Budget. That is right: it should have been in the last Budget. The strategic defence review was published last year. It should have been in the last Budget, not the next Budget. According to the intelligence assessment that the Prime Minister himself has said we have, there could be an attack on NATO by 2030, but this plan does not deliver until after that. Not only is £5 billion missing from his plan, but it relies on £11 billion of unidentified savings.

The plan has unravelled. It is a total dereliction of duty, and I am not the only one who thinks so. The Times said today that the Prime Minister’s “legacy”—[Interruption.] Well, why don’t we wait and see what The Times said? It said that the Prime Minister’s “legacy is betrayal, failure and vulnerability”

—and that is one of the nicer headlines.

I will ask again, because the Prime Minister did not answer the question. Did the right hon. Member for Makerfield know that he was going to have to find £5 billion for the Prime Minister’s plan?

When I became Prime Minister two years ago, this country spent £54 billion a year on defence. Because of the decisions we have taken, that will rise to £80 billion a year by 2029. That is a real terms increase of 27%, transforming our armed forces. We are not going to take any lectures from the Conservatives. They cut defence spending. They hollowed out the armed forces. That is what their Defence Secretary admitted they did. [Interruption.] They do not like it. They will not defend their record, because they cannot. They will not apologise for it, because that would be to admit what we all know: it is a total failure. They just try to pretend that the 14 years during which they were in power never really happened. We are in power. We have record investment in defence and security. I am proud of this Labour Government, and any Labour Prime Minister would stand behind this plan.

It does not sound as if the Prime Minister has told the right hon. Member for Makerfield to find £5 billion. He says that any Labour Prime Minister would stand behind this plan. Let me tell him what Lord Dannatt, the former head of the Army, said yesterday. He said that the Prime Minister had chosen the “cheap option”, and he called the plan “woefully inadequate”. Let me tell him what General Sir Richard Barrons, one of the authors of his own strategic defence review, said yesterday: “we are simply not going to be ready to defend this country properly.”

That is what they are saying.

The reason the Prime Minister is in this mess is that he was too weak to cut welfare when he had the chance. There are only three ways to find the missing £5 billion: increase borrowing, increase taxes, or cut welfare. Which one will the Prime Minister recommend to the right hon. Member for Makerfield?

We are talking about £1 billion a year over four years. The decisions at the last Budget gave us more than £22 billion in headroom, so we can take the decisions the country—[Interruption.] The Conservatives do not understand this, because they crashed the economy. We built a headroom of £22 billion. The very reason for the headroom is so that we have the credibility to take decisions outside the Budget and outside the spending review. The Conservatives do not understand it because they lost control of the public finances. In addition to doing more for defence and security, we have taken control of the public finances. That is why we have headroom to take credible decisions like this. We have £1 billion a year over four years and headroom of £22 billion because of the decisions that we took in the last Budget, which allow us to take these decisions.

We understand it perfectly, and that is why—[Interruption.] Yes, we do. That is why the Prime Minister is leaving and so is his Chancellor. Labour Members are laughing and pretending, but if he was doing such a fabulous job, why did he resign?

Defence of the realm is the first duty of Government. [Interruption.] Yes, it is the first duty of Government. I do not need to read again what General Sir Richard Barrons or Lord Richard Dannatt said. Maybe Labour Members did not hear it the first time—they can rewatch the clips—but defence of the realm is the first duty of Government. Britain is facing a moment of danger unlike anything in our lifetimes and unlike anything that we saw in government. We need a plan to fund our armed forces that meets this moment. They are the Government for now, not for 10 years ago, and the fact is that Labour’s plan is too weak, it is too little and it is too late. If the Prime Minister’s successor does not want to be complicit in this failure, he should come out and condemn this plan. The money must be found, and that money should come from cutting welfare—something that these Labour MPs will not do. If Labour cannot defend our country, what is the point of them?

It is just all talk. What did the Conservatives actually do? They cut defence, from 2.5% to 2.3%, in their 14 long years. And what did they do on welfare? They put the bill up by £88 billion, so we will take no lectures from them. They failed in the first duty of Government, and they will not defend their record, will they? Never do they stand here and defend their record, because they cannot—14 years of failure. They do not get up and apologise, which is what they should do, because they would have to admit what we all know—how much they failed—so they just sit there pretending it did not happen. Well, it did happen. You hollowed out the armed forces; we are correcting that now.

I will tell you what else. When we came into power, public services were on their knees. Today we have seen the fastest fall in NHS waiting lists for 17 years. When I became Prime Minister, we inherited a broken economy. Today we are outperforming the other G7 economies. When I became Prime Minister, our international alliances had been shredded. Now other countries are looking to us to lead on defence and security—foundations of a stronger and fairer country. Britain is in a better state than we found it. That is the difference a Labour Government make.

Q3.   Two of my constituents, Cody and Liam Townend, and another mum from Leeds, Zoe Ward, all lost babies in different tragic circumstances, but they all went to the same funeral director, who did not treat their babies’ bodies with the dignity, care or respect that they deserved. I will not repeat the shocking details here—the BBC, for its part, published what it could last year—but more shocking still is the fact that the police found nothing actionable in either case, because there is no regulation of the funeral industry. The individual in question is still operating in Leeds today. Given that the Department of Health and Social Care is due to make a decision about changing the law in this area, possibly before the Prime Minister leaves office, will he speak to Ministers and officials in that Department to ensure that when they consider the question of whether to regulate the funeral industry, their answer is yes?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this case; he has been a committed campaigner on this issue. I have seen the details of that particular case, and he is right not to repeat them in this Chamber—they are horrifying. The lack of dignity and compassion is unacceptable, and I simply cannot imagine the pain that Cody, Liam and Zoe experienced and are still experiencing. The status quo here is not working for families, and people deserve to know that their loved ones are treated with dignity and compassion. We are going to consider this issue closely, and I thank him for raising it. I do want stronger standards and oversight. I think that is absolutely needed, particularly in the light of appalling cases like this.

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Can I not associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments about my party, but can I associate myself with all his remarks about the earthquake and humanitarian catastrophe in Venezuela? May I commend the Scottish team and the Scottish fans for the joy they brought to the world cup? They did the whole of Scotland proud. May I wish England well against DR Congo later today? But with Reece James and Jarell Quansah in doubt, I know the Prime Minister is not the only one struggling for a solid defence plan. [Laughter.] The wars in Ukraine and Iran show us how seriously we must take the threat of missiles and drones hitting our country. Our national security requires the best possible missile defence system, including Royal Navy destroyers, but the funding in the Prime Minister’s plan for this falls dangerously short. Yet he has rejected our proposals for defence bonds, which were used in the past to rearm our country. So why has the Prime Minister chosen to leave our country so vulnerable to missile attack?

First, I join the right hon. Member in his comments about the Scotland team and the Scotland fans, and in wishing England well. I am not sure about his gag. He was getting a bit better the other week, but he has gone back down—I am afraid that one is a red card.

Our defence investment plan gives our country what we need to fight now and into the future, with the capability that has been assessed through the strategic review. Bonds, which we looked at very closely, are simply borrowing by another name, and we are already borrowing in a way that requires us to spend £1 in every £10 on servicing the interest. I would gently point out, before the right hon. Member carries on with any criticism of our plan, that he sat in a Cabinet that cut defence spending by 22%.

The Prime Minister knows that our defence bonds are within his own fiscal rules and that he has had advice from his own team that he should adopt them, and I hope the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will listen.

I have another concern that I think the Prime Minister will share: the rising tide of racist violence and hate that we are seeing in our country, and the way it is being incited and normalised, including, I am afraid, by some Members of this House. I was talking to a British friend of Indian ancestry who told me how Reform activists came to her door and said that, if they get into power, she and her family will have their passports seized and their citizenship revoked. Does the Prime Minister agree that racism has no place in our country, and will he join me in condemning anyone who is stoking it?

I thank the right hon. Member for raising this. It is really important, because our politics is becoming more divisive, and racism and intolerance are permeating everywhere. We have to deal with it, because it is tearing our societies apart, it is keeping good people away from politics because they do not want to be involved in it and it should be called out by every single person who is a politician at any level in this country.

Mr Speaker, I say this looking at the plaque to Jo Cox, and of course we have David Amess’s plaque behind me too. We had a Jo Cox 10-year reminder—it was 10 years ago, just a week or so ago, that we lost Jo—when I held a reception in Downing Street with her parents, close friends and relatives. We read out Jo’s words again, but the very sad thing is that I was not able to say that, in the 10 years since Jo’s death, things have got better, because sadly they have got worse. That is on all of us to fix—every single Member of this House, whatever their party—and anybody who flames it should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

Q4.   I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments on the legacy of Jo Cox.I know that all of us in this place have been following the contest for No. 10 quite closely in recent weeks, but amid the north versus south debate, I think it is about time we had someone from the midlands who was ready to step into this important position for our country. [Laughter.] So I am delighted to say we have two fantastic Black Country lads—Jude Bellingham from Stourbridge and Morgan Rogers from Halesowen, who have both been doing us proud in the contested England No. 10 role—for our game against Congo this evening. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that we should congratulate England on their progress out of the group stage so far, and does he also agree with me that we need to do more to support—

Order. I call the Prime Minister.

I thought the next few weeks were about to get quite interesting, Mr Speaker. We all wish England the best of luck this evening. Every time those players step on to the pitch, they represent the talent, ambition and diversity of this country. We are proud to be supporting the next generation, investing £400 million in grassroots facilities and over £1 billion in school sports. And if Thomas Tuchel needs any advice on penalties, he should ask David Seaman, who slotted one past him just a few weeks ago.

I am gravely concerned that time after time this Prime Minister, in response to the abject and honest criticism of his defence investment plan, cites recent trends in defence spending, when he should be calibrating it against the chronic and very real threat the people on these islands face. In his limited time left in No. 10, will he get a grip of his paper thin plan?

That is from the party that thinks we should give up the nuclear deterrent, and the hon. Gentleman stands there to talk about defence. We need no more advice and sanctimonious nonsense from the SNP. Before he or any of them give any more advice to me or this House, let us have some home truths. Their chief executive has just been jailed for five years for embezzlement. They are all pretending they did not know anything about it. They could not even see the motorhome parked in the driveway, apparently. And now they are blocking an inquiry in the Scottish Parliament. Before they offer any more advice, they should look in the mirror.

Q5. In this increasingly dangerous world the space domain is critical, so I welcome the £3.2 billion set out for space in the defence investment plan. The plan refers to Skynet 6A, the first military satellite to be designed, manufactured and tested completely in the UK, beginning at Airbus in my constituency of Stevenage and supporting 3,000 jobs across the country. Does the Prime Minister agree that we must develop both UK sovereign capability in space and the British jobs that already power it?

Our commitment to space in the defence investment plan reflects how we are preparing our armed forces for the conflicts of the future. When I see apprentices working in our defence industries, I see this investment creating more opportunities in many constituencies, including in my hon. Friend’s. It underlines exactly what our investment delivers: 60,000 new jobs, investing in British skills, promoting our brilliant industries abroad and driving growth in the UK.

Q10. On Monday, with colleagues, I wrote to the Health Minister following the news that women’s health and maternity services may be relocated away from St Helier hospital due to building safety concerns. Yesterday we heard Baroness Amos’s review state: “Poorly maintained buildings…affect how safe people feel, how effectively staff can work, and whether care can be delivered in a way that is private, respectful and reliable.”It has been reported today that the Department of Health and Social Care’s capital budget will be cut by more than half a billion pounds over this Parliament to fund the DIP, which puts the new hospital programme timeline in doubt. Will the Prime Minister arrange for the Health Secretary to visit St Helier hospital with me to see its condition and hopefully agree to bring forward the build of the new Sutton specialist emergency care hospital—build it today, not in 2034—to ensure safe and modern healthcare and maternity facilities for my constituents?

In relation to the hon. Gentleman’s hospital, he knows that those decisions are taken at a local level, based on expert advice. We are committed to prioritising women’s health as we reform the NHS, including through our women’s health strategy. In his area alone we are investing £57 million to transform care. That is money we provided at the Budget. He actually voted against it, along with the rest of the Lib Dems. They cannot complain about the lack of investment and then, when we put the money forward, vote against it. That, again, is very Lib Dem.

Q6. The Donna Ockenden and Baroness Amos reviews have exposed some uncomfortable truths: that justice is not brought about by a system, a law, a protocol, a regulatory authority or NHS England, but by bereaved and harmed families having to speak up, over and over again, about the most horrific and traumatic experience of their lives just to be heard. Does the Prime Minister agree that the system is not only failing but cruel, and if we are to restore public trust then we must finally introduce the Hillsborough law in full, so that families can get the justice and accountability they need and deserve?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this subject. Baroness Amos’s findings show a deeply disturbing picture of deep fragmentation and an overly complex system, with women and families not being listened to, no proper accountability, and discrimination driving inequalities in treatment and outcomes. We will deliver the change that is needed. We will look at the urgent recommendations of Baroness Amos and Donna Ockenden and deliver them. I thank my hon. Friend for leading from the front as the first maternity adviser, working with families and the NHS to deliver safer and better care for every mother and baby. I know that her son Billy will be very proud of her.

Q11. Through omission or insufficient advice, injured veterans may fail to place their compensation in a trust within the one year allowed by universal credit. Can discretion be had in compassionate cases?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this important point—I am enjoying our weekly exchanges! Every veteran who served our country should be looked after and better able to access any compensation that they are entitled to. We have dedicated pathways for veterans in every jobcentre to provide support with benefit claims and complex cases. I can assure and reassure him that anyone coming forward will get tailored support, and we will seek to resolve any issues swiftly and fairly to see where we can improve. If the right hon. Gentleman or other Members have any specific cases, they can pass the details to us, and we will look at them. I noticed that the BBC reported on the right hon. Gentleman’s question last week as being almost certainly his last to me as Prime Minister—a reminder that you shouldn’t always believe everything you read in the news! I look forward to seeing him—same time, same place—next week.

Q7. I thank the Prime Minister for his calm and authoritative leadership in international affairs. I also thank the UK missions abroad, who have enormous respect for the Prime Minister. May I ask him to put on record his thanks to the security, diplomatic and international aid workforce, who work day and night on behalf of the UK abroad? Closer to home and despite the heatwaves, as a fellow north Londoner let me also say: north London forever, regardless of the weather.

My hon. Friend always speaks her mind! [Laughter.] I join her in thanking our people. I am proud that during my tenure, we have delivered five major trade deals, led the coalition of the willing to support Ukraine, strengthened the NATO alliance, built stronger partnerships with the EU and kept us out of the war in Iran. I thank my hon. Friend for the contribution that she made as a Minister in the Foreign Office.

Q12. Yesterday the Prime Minister visited Maidenhead to announce his new defence investment plan. However, we now know that he is leaving it to his successor to decide how to fund the majority of it. We cannot fund our armed forces without growth, and we cannot get growth in Britain without dismantling the red tape that businesses face and trading closer with our closest neighbours. Does the Prime Minister agree we can properly fund our forces with a new growth and defence partnership with Europe, and will he urge his successor to drop Labour’s red lines to get it done?

The hon. Member obviously did not pay as much attention as he should have to what I said yesterday on the plan, the capability, the record investment that we are putting in and how we are funding it. I do agree that we need to work more closely with the EU on defence and security, as well as on trade and the economy. That is precisely what we agreed at the EU UK summit last year, and we have been building on that. I am proud to say that in the last two years, the relationship between the UK and the EU has been transformed into a much better, trusted relationship. It is very important that, as Prime Minister, I leave the country in a better state than I found it, and I do.

Q8. Dr Carly Mellor, an NHS dentist in my constituency, recently said the following to me:“Ministers had pledged to fix the failed contract we work to within this Parliament. The Government has begun discussions on a new contract, and promised a public consultation on it this summer. With a typical dentist now delivering NHS care at a loss, with every passing month more practices are reconsidering their futures in the NHS, while millions of patients continue to struggle to access care.”Reforming the contract is the route to better treatment for my constituents. Can we please start the consultation without delay?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I am pleased that we have delivered over 1.8 million additional courses of NHS treatment, because no one needing urgent care should be left in pain and waiting for help. We have already made early reforms, including embedding urgent care into the contract so that people get fast access to NHS care, and delivering the first sustained expansion of dental school places in nearly 20 years to get extra dentists trained. We will consult on a reformed dental contract soon, and I will make sure that Ministers update my hon. Friend on that.

Q13.   In Ashfield, four workers, including two nurses, were kicked out of their HMO, only for Serco to put four illegal migrants in their place. One of those illegal migrants was a Pakistani national who went on to rape a vulnerable young girl in a park in Ashfield. He is now doing 14 years in prison. That monster was allowed into this country by this awful Government. If the Prime Minister is really serious about protecting young women and girls, does he agree with me and Reform UK that every single illegal migrant coming to this country should be detained, not allowed to claim asylum and then deported?

I am very proud of the fact that after net migration reached almost 1 million under the Conservatives, we have brought it down by 82%. The hon. Gentleman references the asylum system; asylum decisions are being made at record levels, the backlog is down, removals are up 41% and we are closing asylum hotels. The Conservatives lost control of our borders, but small boat crossings are now coming down, and we have deported 70,000 people with no right to be here.

The hon. Gentleman likes to ask questions. He should be asking some questions of the leader of his party, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is sitting next to him—he received £5 million from a crypto billionaire and then privately lobbied the Bank of England on digital currencies. Did the Reform leader carry out paid lobbying? Why did he keep his £5 million gift secret? Are Reform Members happy with their leader earning £20,000 an hour flogging gold bullion? They need to ask questions across the Reform Bench, but they never do.

Q9. Too many people are waiting too long for NHS mental health care, with over 6,000 adults waiting up to two years. In Sunderland, grassroots organisations like the wonderful Betsy Jenny café are providing support to our community, but they cannot substitute for timely, NHS funded care. As the Government consult on their new mental health strategy, will the Prime Minister agree that it must include clear waiting time standards?

We are determined to transform mental health services so that everyone gets the support they need. I am pleased to say that we have recruited 8,700 extra mental health workers. We have opened the first of six 24/7 neighbourhood mental health centres and ensured that nearly 800,000 more children and young people have access to a mental health support team at their school or college. There is more to be done, but this is a real step forward.

Q14. Last week in Northern Ireland, a former Member of this House was convicted of the most horrific child sexual abuse against two girls. I commend the victims for their extraordinary bravery in coming forward; it was their courage that secured a conviction, and I have no doubt that their resolve will help others to find their voice. No matter an abuser’s power or status, there can be no hiding place for someone who would steal the innocence of young children.Thousands of vulnerable young women in Rotherham, Oldham and across the UK were subjected to organised child sexual abuse and exploitation. In many cases, Pakistani heritage grooming gangs were responsible, while institutions looked the other way. Before leaving office, the Prime Minister has the ability and opportunity to leave a legacy. Will he ensure that the promised statutory rape gang inquiry is delivered so that the truth can finally be told, those responsible are held to account and no child’s safety is sacrificed ever again for racial sensitivities?

I thank the hon. Lady for raising the case in Belfast that concluded last week and, like her, salute the courage of the victims to come forward. It must have taken extraordinary courage; it does in every single one of these cases, but particularly when they involve powerful people and institutions, it takes even more courage to do so. We salute them for their own acts, but also because that will, I hope, have helped others to see that if they do come forward, they will be believed and justice can be done, notwithstanding the difficulties.

On grooming, we have set up the inquiry and it is very important it goes wherever the evidence should take it. That is an absolute guiding principle of the inquiry.

This afternoon we are joined in the Gallery by Lisa Phillips, a British survivor of Jeffrey Epstein’s horrific and despicable trafficking and abuse. Lisa’s bravery is to be commended, and her determination for justice and accountability on behalf of all UK survivors should be put on record. I want to place on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for meeting Lisa this week; your solidarity means more than you will ever know. In that vein, will the Prime Minister please commit to meet Lisa and the other British survivors, and commit to what is needed: a full public inquiry, so that we can have truth, justice and accountability?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this really important issue and drawing it to the attention of the House, and I am glad that we are joined in the Gallery today. It is really important that we keep our focus on violence against women and girls, and I will make sure the meeting she requested is set up.