PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Direction of Government - 1 September 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

We now come to the statement from the Prime Minister. There has been a lot of speculation over the recess, and I just say that this is in accordance with the rules of government. The ministerial code is clear. For those who have asked why I have not commented, it is because it is within the rules, which I do not make. It is this House that abides by them.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the direction in which I will lead our country.

I come before this House having visited each of the regions and nations of the UK over the past six weeks, and Ukraine on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of its independence. The UK’s steadfast support has helped sustain Ukraine’s resolve over the past four and a half years, and particularly so in the last two. That was the achievement of my predecessor, and as he stands down from this place, I want to pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). He has given this country a lifetime of public service, particularly for those fighting for justice. When he delivered in this House on his promise to the Hillsborough families and everyone involved in the Hillsborough law campaign, it was a moment that I will never forget. His leadership took our party from one of its worst defeats to its best victories, and created a platform to change this country for the better. We will use it well, and we wish his family the very best for the future.

The position that my right hon. and learned Friend took on Ukraine, building on the work of his predecessors as Prime Minister, is one that I will not change, whatever the threats that we face. We do not seek escalation, but instead will stand firm in providing what help we can to enable Ukraine to defend itself from this illegal invasion. Britain’s defence starts in Ukraine, and the defence of our nation will always be my first priority.

On public safety, I know that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing our deepest condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, who were killed in the line of duty on the A66. We will do our best to support the Middlesbrough community, which is hurting and grieving right now, and we hear the call from the Members of this House who represent it for a discussion about investment in policing and police numbers.

I know that I also speak for the whole House in expressing my profound shock and horror at the devastating scenes on the Nepal-China border. My sympathies are with all those affected, including the families and loved ones of those missing in this appalling tragedy. The Foreign Secretary is doing everything he can to support the Nepalese Government and British nationals in the region. This is what the climate crisis looks like. We have just ourselves experienced what is likely to have been the hottest summer on record. This Government will meet the climate challenge, and I can confirm to the House that I will attend COP31 in Turkey in November.

I will build on the work of my predecessor in other areas. When I visited Dover in early August, staff from Border Force and HM Coastguard told me that extra police numbers on French beaches were beginning to deliver real results. I can report to the House today that that has continued throughout the last month, with the numbers arriving over the summer halved on last year, making this year, to date, the lowest for crossings since 2021. Tomorrow, when I welcome President Macron to the UK on the occasion of the opening of the exhibition of the Bayeux tapestry, I will thank him for the co-operation that has enabled us to prevent more than 48,000 people from crossing.

Where it is right to do so, I will build on what has been achieved. However, where necessary, I will not hesitate to make changes. One of the first things that I did after taking office was to review the plans to relieve pressure on prison places with the Lord Chancellor, who will provide a full update to the House following my statement. We took an early decision to exempt rape, grooming and serious child sex offences, and to fast-track work to see whether we could go further, after hearing the calls from the family of PC Andrew Harper and many others. As a result, we are now confirming that anyone convicted of manslaughter, death by dangerous driving or indecent assault will not see any change in their prison term. We will find additional prison places by deporting more foreign national offenders and finally grasping the nettle on an issue that the House has ignored for too long: indefinite imprisonment for public protection sentences—a now abolished policy, but one which to this day keeps people behind bars despite having already served more than their sentences.

None of this is easy, but I did what I always do: apply my values to a challenging situation and a care for people, which I spoke about in Downing Street. I believe the public will support me in recognising the clear difference between those who have served their time and more, and those who have not. We will bring forward legislation soon, but we can find a solution to end this injustice that balances public safety and basic fairness, and I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to help us do that.

This is politics done differently: problem solving over point scoring. It is what the country needs, it is what the public want more of, and it will characterise my time in office. I was pleased to begin cross-party talks over social care in the summer, and I thank the leader of the Liberal Democrats and the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) for the spirit in which that endeavour began. I wish the latter well as he leaves the Opposition Front Bench.

When it comes to the biggest issues facing the country—the economy and the cost of living crisis—people are looking for much more substantial change, as promised in our manifesto, and that is what I will bring. Britain is not where any of us would wish it to be. Things are not working as they should. Life is too expensive and too hard for too many. That is why this Government’s first moves were to give businesses and people a little breathing space. On tax, in my first week in office we cut VAT on electricity bills and cut business rates for pubs, social clubs and live music venues. We reinstated the £2 cap on bus fares for the whole of 2027. These measures will provide some relief. They were funded by reprioritising within Government, as the bedrock of our approach will be grounded in fiscal responsibility. But in the long term, lifting growth and living standards will require much more.

Who wrote this?

What I bring back to the House after 10 years away is a clear diagnosis of what has gone wrong. Let me lay it out clearly, particularly for the right hon. Gentleman, since he asked.

From the 1980s, this country took a series of wrong turns. Political power was centralised, economic power privatised and the country deindustrialised. Austerity followed, hollowing out councils and depriving them of the agency to act to reverse any of it, and then Brexit compounded the damage, ushering in a decade of low growth and stalled regeneration. [Interruption.] Change begins with honesty, and I am not hearing much of it this afternoon. Unless we are blunt about what went wrong, we will not turn things around. Far from “taking back control”, the combination of those policies took control out of the hands of communities up and down Britain.

For 40 years, too many places have been drifting. Too many British high streets tell the story of this decline. People yearn to see them restored to what they once were, as the Communities Secretary and I heard on our visit to Ilkeston in the summer, but they see no hope if we continue on the same path with a failed economic model, which does not trickle down much to places like theirs and instead allows wealth to be extracted and siphoned out. Britain’s water industry stands as a leaking monument to that approach—a country run in the private rather than public interest. That is now abundantly clear to voters of all parties, including the Conservative party.

The Government I lead will be relentless in giving people and places what they were promised 10 years ago: ownership and control. From that control over their destiny comes change and growth. I say this with confidence. [Interruption.] I do, and let me explain why. It is backed by a decade of personal experience of turning around one of the UK’s former industrial heartlands and turning it into the fastest growing city region in the country, bucking the low-growth trend. It has given me a clear theory of growth and I will apply it to all parts of the UK, learning from what has been achieved in Greater Manchester. For a long time the country did not have ambitions for its regions outside of London. It even talked of the “managed decline” of Liverpool. It took the devolution of power out of this place to allow our big city regions the ability to set new ambitions for themselves. Now, I want every single place across our regions and nations to be able to do the same, creating the conditions for good growth in every postcode.

In that spirit, I was glad to meet the Liberal Democrat leader of Cornwall council, with my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), on my recent visit. I know, like many rural economies across the UK, that Cornwall lacks a basic level of infrastructure, which in turn harms growth and holds back living standards and life chances, and I heard the cross-party call for a devolution deal. I understand concerns in this House about the potential emergence of a two-tier England—those with devolved power and those without—and I will not ignore them. So, I have asked No. 10 North to begin work with Cornwall council and its six MPs on a devolution deal with or without an elected mayor.

I today extend the same offer to all parts of England without devolved power. The First Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) will today write to every Member of this House setting out how they can engage No. 10 North in the service of the places they represent. I extended the same offer to the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, and the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland when I met them over the summer. As they rightly pointed out, their situations are different, but there is interest in what a local model of devolution could look like in each of the home nations, and we will discuss that with them at a special meeting of the National Economic Council next month.

This Government will oversee the biggest redistribution of power this country has seen. In July, we published a statement on the next stage of English devolution. It will include powers long requested by mayors, such as: post-16 technical education; employment support; and fiscal devolution, starting with the ability to set an overnight visitor levy to commence towards the end of the financial year 2027-28. The driving force behind it all will be No. 10 North. It will oversee the rewiring of the British state, the rebuilding of resilience in our communities and the reindustrialisation of our regions. The creation of No. 10 North was one of the first acts of this Administration and I believe that in time it will be seen as one of its most significant. It is a clear answer to the question with which this country has long wrestled: who, in government, drives growth? My theory of growth requires it to be driven with the full authority of the very centre of Government, in close partnership with HM Treasury.

No. 10 North has been set up with that full focus; the single front door on which regions can knock to get quicker, joined-up decisions from Whitehall, and through which power and resources will be passed to them. Resources will include human resources. This is because a state that has grown too large at the national level now needs to redirect civil service capacity regionally and locally, repairing the damage of austerity and making the service of place the state’s first priority. We can already see what is possible. I am glad No. 10 North was able to stand behind Mayor Richard Parker when he took urgent action in August to prevent the collapse of bus services across the west midlands, and I congratulate Mayor Steve Rotheram who this weekend, after four decades of deregulation, will see the first buses return to public control in the Liverpool city region. Taking back control of essential services such as transport is an enabler of a more productive economy, because it allows local areas to grab hold of the levers of power for themselves.

But driving growth demands we go further. It is taking far too long for businesses to get grid connections and they are being quoted prohibitively expensive sums of money if they try to bring those dates forward, as I heard on my visit to a farm near Truro. Household energy bills are the highest in Europe, and the cost of energy is impacting business and inward investment. Too many areas have seen water supplies disrupted this summer due to a lack of reservoir capacity. Our tourism industry is damaged by too many sewage spills. [Interruption.] “Why?” the Opposition say. It is a question they should ask themselves. This summer has shown us very clearly that water companies are failing to rise to the climate challenge. It cannot go on. Later in the year, our 10-year plan for Britain will set out plans for stronger public control over these essentials, making them work for people and places again.

Alongside that, we will empower all areas to expand the public housing stock, building on the first allocations from the social and affordable homes programme announced by the Communities Secretary last week. Bringing forward the biggest council home building programme since the post-war period is the Labour way to get the welfare bill down, as is reforming our education system, so that it balances academic and technical, and offers a path in life for all young people. Michael Gove calls this “bringing back stupid”, when in fact, for too many young people written off by his reforms, it is bringing back hope. Allowing mayors to shape technical pathways and provide work placements for young people, building back into colleges and schools from the needs of the regional economy, is the way to support more young people into work. So is prioritising more accessible, community-based mental health services, as we announced in the summer.

That will be a major part of our response to the forthcoming Milburn report, which will follow its publication in the autumn. For it to work, a more intentional approach to the reindustrialisation of Britain is required. We will support all parts of the country to take more public control over investment strategy, learning from the Greater Manchester model of a consolidated good growth fund drawn from their own funds, prudent loan borrowing and fragmented budgets held by Government bodies. We will back local industrial strategies—a policy of the Theresa May Government I am happy to revive—by identifying priority sectors and developing the triple-helix approach to economic development by entwining business, academia and Government behind the plan. This is the way we will build a pro-business culture and an innovation-led economy in all parts of the UK, finally capturing the long-term benefits of the invention that is in the DNA of our nation, backing our start-ups and scale-ups to stay in the UK where they were founded.

When I stood outside Downing Street six weeks ago, I said that Britain needs a circuit breaker after a decade of turbulence, negativity, point scoring and divisive politics. This is what I have outlined today: a clear, coherent and credible approach to growth that can unlock a feeling of positivity and possibility in every postcode in Britain. Our job here is to make it real by taking a place-first rather than a party-first approach. It starts with reasserting basic standards for Britain—that this is a country where no one sleeps rough and no community is blighted by an illegal waste tip—and, from there, working together to build a new sense of optimism around the country. We can make this next decade better than the last. We can lift the prospects of all our people and places. We can put more power into every postcode. We can let Britain believe again. We can bring back hope. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Can I welcome the Prime Minister to his place at the Dispatch Box and take this, my first opportunity to congratulate him on becoming Prime Minister? He has been in office for 43 days, during which I have learned how he puts the milk in his tea and exactly what he thinks about pork scratchings, but I have not had the pleasure of asking him any questions. We are all grateful that he has finally found time to come to Parliament to answer some.

It is only fair to be gentle with someone on their first day at work, so I am only going to ask the Prime Minister a few very simple but very serious questions. I hope that he can provide me with some simple and serious answers. I genuinely wish him well as he seeks to live up to the dignity and importance of the role. I was pleased to see him in Ukraine over the summer, continuing the Conservatives’ world-leading support for Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression. That being said, I am also very relieved to see that he has not brought his guitar with him today. His predecessor stood at that Dispatch Box two years ago sounding very triumphant, having just won a landslide victory. What went wrong? Where is he now? Gone. That job is not as easy as it looks from the outside. Labour MPs have not explained why they got rid of him. [Interruption.] They are laughing, but they have not explained it.

We on this side of the House understand that the country’s problems will not be solved by lofty promises alone. In the end, the Prime Minister will be judged on what he actually delivers. This is a very different job from being Mayor of Greater Manchester—a job where he did not have to pick winners and losers, make difficult trade-offs, or have to worry about our national security. He does now.

A Government’s first and most important duty is keeping the country safe. The last Prime Minister and his Chancellor left an enormous hole in Britain’s defence budget. We know that because the current Chancellor quit as Defence Secretary over that black hole, saying that it could put British troops at risk. He said that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030, and that not funding the defence investment plan reduces the readiness of our forces. Let me ask the Prime Minister very clearly: will he provide the funding that his own Chancellor said was necessary to keep British troops safe? That means 3% by the end of this decade.

Keeping this country safe also means defending our borders. The Prime Minister mentioned boat crossings, but we must be honest: boat crossings have not gone down because of anything that Labour has done. [Interruption.] They have not. We have to be honest. Boat crossings are down across all of Europe, and have been down for much longer. Let us be honest: the problem is still not solved.

The Prime Minister will have seen the extraordinary scenes in Ceuta over the summer, in which more than 70,000 people tried to cross into Europe. Many of those people would like to end up in the UK. This is not just a British problem; it is a growing global problem. Even Denmark is starting to send illegal migrants to other countries as a deterrent. That is exactly like the Rwanda scheme that the Conservatives put in place and Labour scrapped. We now hear that the Home Secretary is thinking about reviving a Rwanda-style scheme, so can the Prime Minister tell me—yes or no—if that is the plan?

Next, the Prime Minister must keep British people safe from dangerous criminals. It was interesting to hear the comments in his statement about early release. Before the summer, I sat with women who had experienced some of the most horrific crimes imaginable, and the perpetrators of those crimes were about to be let out of prison early. The Prime Minister told those women that it was too difficult to keep their perpetrators in jail. Then he changed his mind. The family of PC Andrew Harper appealed to the Prime Minister not to release his killers early. Again, the Prime Minister told them that it was a non-starter. Then he changed his mind. The Conservatives told the Government to create new spaces in the existing prison estate, and to get foreign-born criminals out of our jails. The Government said that we were wrong, but now they are doing both. The Prime Minister has had five different positions on early release in six weeks, putting the victims through hell with his indecision. Will he now set out a timeline for his promise to get more foreign national prisoners out of British prisons?

As well as keeping the country safe, the Prime Minister’s next big challenge will be making people in this country feel richer. The biggest mistake that Labour has made in office so far, and there have been quite a few to choose from, is that it has crushed our economy under the weight of nearly £70 billion in new taxes. The Prime Minister was not here for that, so I will give him the list: the jobs tax, the family farm tax, the family business tax, taxes on pensioners, taxes on workers and taxes on businesses. That is £3,500 a year for every working family. He says that he cares about the cost of living; Labour’s taxes have made that worse. Those taxes have cost people their jobs—thousands of jobs in oil and gas, and thousands of jobs in industry across our country. The recruitment market for new graduates is the worst it has ever been. There are 50% fewer vacancies than last year, which was already the worst on record. If the Prime Minister does not change course, he too, like every other Labour Prime Minister, will leave office with unemployment higher than it was when he came in. Can he guarantee, here and now, on the Floor of the House, that there will be no more tax rises in the autumn Budget?

The year is 2026, yet the Prime Minister said in his statement that everything has gone wrong since the 1980s. He is still complaining about Margaret Thatcher. I am 46 years old, Mr Speaker—I may not look it, but I am. He is talking about a woman who became Prime Minister before I was born. He is living in the past, and he wants to take us back to the 1970s. We Conservatives are for the future, not the past. That is the difference between them and us. His ideas are all about more Government control, more spending, more tax and more politicians. The Conservatives want people to keep more of their own money. We want businesses to grow, invest, expand and create more jobs. That is the difference between the Labour party and the Conservative party. His diagnosis is completely wrong. His theory of growth is completely wrong. He thinks that if the Government spend more money, we will all get richer, but that is not how this works. Companies are not leaving our shores because there is not enough government.

Another difference between us is in dealing with the ballooning welfare bill. Up and down this country, hard-working people are fed up of going to work and paying for their neighbours to sit at home with mild health conditions that do not stop them working. They are fed up of hearing, as we did this summer, that working in Boots is not good for your mental health—ridiculous. We are on the side of those hard-working, fed-up people. I ask the Prime Minister: will he stand up to his Back Benchers in a way that his predecessor never could and cut the benefits bill? It is a simple question.

The Prime Minister engineered it so that he could have as long a summer holiday as possible, so he should be ready with some answers. I am even hearing rumours that he does not want to do Prime Minister’s questions next week, but it is my job to ask him serious questions, and it is time for him to start answering. [Interruption.] I know Labour Members do not like hearing the questions, but they are going to hear them. It is my job to speak on behalf of all the people out there who want to know what he has planned, and it is time for him to start answering some serious questions. Governing is hard, but the country needs the Prime Minister to succeed. Where it is in the national interest, I will help him. He may find that Conservative votes come in handy when Labour MPs are too scared to do the right thing.

Britain faces many serious challenges to our national and economic security. There are difficult decisions to make, and they will show whether the Prime Minister is serious about governing. On defence, his own Chancellor said that 3% spending was needed to keep British troops safe; now, apparently, he does not believe that. On illegal migration, Labour scrapped the Rwanda scheme; now it appears to be considering a Rwanda-style scheme of its own. On prisons, the Prime Minister said that dangerous criminals could not be exempted from early release, and then he changed his mind. This country cannot afford a Government swerving all over the place. Labour has already tried government by U-turn, and it does not work. If he wants to be different from his predecessor, and wants to live up to the optimistic vision that he is painting, he is going to have to start taking this job seriously. That is not what we heard from the Prime Minister today, but that is what the Conservatives are offering.

I thank the right hon. Lady for the welcome that she gave me and her kind words; I appreciate the tone of some of what she had to say. I do want to try to work with her across the Floor of the House where we can. She mentions my summer. I notice that she spent hers travelling all the way to Rome to be told by the Italian Prime Minister not to do a deal with Reform. If she had called me, I would have told her that and saved her the trip.

The right hon. Lady was right to start with Ukraine, as I did. I mentioned the work of previous Prime Ministers in setting the right tone. Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak—everybody played a role in setting that tone, and it has been carried on by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). It is a very challenging situation, but I was there to send a very clear message that with a change of Prime Minister there does not come any change in Britain’s approach. I hope that I speak for the vast majority of Members of this House in making that completely plain.

The right hon. Lady said that the job of Prime Minister is different from the job of Mayor of Greater Manchester. I can vouch that I know that now, after six weeks in the role. She was wrong, though, to say that in that role I did not have to worry about national security. I did. Within two weeks of taking office, I had to deal with the appalling terrorist attack at the Manchester Arena.

I send all my best wishes to those who gathered last night at the Heaton Park synagogue to remember our friends who lost their lives and the incredible efforts of Rabbi Daniel Walker and others to hold the attackers at the door. We all send them our very best wishers and reaffirm again, hopefully from all sides of the House, that antisemitism is a scourge that we should work together to remove from our society.

The right hon. Lady mentions defence. She is right to, because it is a changing and challenging world in which we live, but I say to her directly: I appointed this Chancellor of the Exchequer precisely because of his commitment to the defence of our realm and the arguments that he has made. He will set out at the spending review the path to honouring our international commitments in full, as I said that we would when I was before the steps of Downing Street.

Those listening at home will find it hard to accept what the right hon. Lady said about the boat crossings, which are significantly down—halved on last year. She said that had nothing to do with anything that this Government have done. That is plainly not the case. I heard an Opposition spokesperson on the radio this morning trying to find any excuse to justify the numbers going down—the weather and all kinds of things. Can they not just accept that the action that we are taking is making progress? That includes the co-operation with the French that I mentioned. The Home Secretary and I will continue to look at all measures, and will be relentless in making sure that we continue to make progress, but the Conservatives would do well to recognise that significant progress has indeed been made.

On the early release of prisoners, I do not think there is any moral high ground for any party in this House. The Justice Secretary will shortly make a statement and lay out the timeline for the return of foreign national offenders. I hope that we can work together on the question of imprisonment for public protection sentences. Too often, issues in this House just get left. I left 10 years ago worried about this issue, and I come back to find that it is not resolved. Social care was something that I spoke about a lot when I left. I come back, and it is not resolved. We have to do better, don’t we? We have to find more ways of working across the House and not just leave issues unresolved with all the harm that that causes.

On growth, I cut tax twice in my first week. I say to the right hon. Lady that I am committed to bringing down the welfare bill not through crude cuts but in a way that provides the right support for people—particularly young people—whom, in my view, the education system has let down.

The right hon. Lady mentioned the 1980s, the legacy of which, I have to say to her, we are still struggling to reverse. It is the reason why—[Interruption.] Well, let us have the argument in this House. Why are people paying such high water bills, while the infrastructure is crumbling before our eyes? Why are energy bills in this country the highest in Europe? Why do Opposition Members represent constituencies where, year after year, bus services have been cut and the fares have gone up? They know the truth of what I am saying. Let us have some honesty so that we can deal with these issues properly.

The right hon Lady raised an ideological point. I noticed that yesterday she appointed a new shadow Cabinet, with a new shadow Chancellor—the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith); I welcome him to his position—who I believe was the author of the mini-Budget. [Interruption.] I think at least half the shadow Cabinet supported the Liz Truss Government. The right hon. Lady said that I have been in my position for 43 days. Well, may I turn that around? In six days, this Government will have outlived the Truss Government, and we will be here for a lot, lot longer.

I will work with the right hon. Lady where I can—we should make that commitment to each other today—but I will still point out where she is wrong. We will not take lectures when the country is moving in the right direction. You can see that on the economy, on small boat crossings and on the cost of living. We will continue to do that to turn this country around.

I welcome the Prime Minister to his office and to the Dispatch Box—[Interruption.]

Order. People should not leave when a Member is on their feet; it is discourteous.

I and my fellow Committee Chairs look forward to welcoming the Prime Minister to the Liaison Committee very soon so that we can drill into his agenda in more detail.

I was pleased by the announcements over the summer on housing, which in London is really holding people back. One of the many challenges is releasing public land that was previously used for education or health, for example, for building on. Will he undertake to put a rocket under the release of that land where appropriate to best deliver housing?

I thank my hon. Friend. I look forward to my first appearance before the Liaison Committee. On the question of public land, she raises a really important issue. We have got to look at how we build as many council and social homes as we can to bring down the housing benefit and temporary accommodation bill, which is ruinous in London for London councils. We must find ways of doing that within the public purse. Public land is one way in which we can achieve that. I will be looking at a programme for the release of public land to build council and social homes, and I look forward to working with her on that.

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and I welcome him to his place. I associate myself with the condolences that he has sent to the family and friends of the police officers killed on the A66 and with his comments on the disaster on the Nepal-China border.

I wished each of the Prime Minister’s predecessors well, but given how that went for them perhaps he would prefer that I did not bother this time. I sincerely hope that he can turn things around, and quickly, because we all know how fed up people are. We hear it all the time. Every year, it gets harder to make ends meet, waiting lists seem to go up, more and more things seem broken, and the populists and extremists are eager to keep things that way so they can profit from it.

Everything the Prime Minister has described in his statement would be possible only if we fundamentally change the way we do politics in our country. Growing the economy, cutting the cost of living, fixing our public services, restoring people’s trust: those are things that every new Prime Minister has talked about. Yet they failed because they stuck to a broken political system; a system that makes it impossible to really change things for the better. The reason so much is broken in our country and can never be fixed is partly that our political system concentrates too much power in the wrong hands —in Westminster, in Whitehall and in big multinational companies. I think the Prime Minister gets some of that, judging by what he has been saying.

There are so many more problems in our political system: too much power in the hands of social media barons who interfere in our politics and crypto billionaires who use donations to buy influence; and too little power in the hands of our people. Britain’s political system too often rewards corruption and leaves everyone else feeling powerless. Our great country is being held back, and it will only be free to thrive again if we put real power in people’s hands.

We have been campaigning on that for decades and the Prime Minister has written about it. His decision over the summer to finally start cross-party talks on social care—talks I have been desperate to start for years and which Conservative and Labour Prime Ministers promised but failed to deliver—is a welcome step in the right direction. There is, however, a lot more work to do, and more fundamental change is needed to make our politics work for the people we serve. Will the Prime Minister start that work today? Listening to the calls of over 170 Members on the Opposition Benches and on his own, will he launch a national commission to change politics so that we can fix our country?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. There is plenty there that I can agree with and work with him on. Too much power in the wrong hands—that is what I was saying to the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) a moment or so ago. Can anyone in this House say that the water industry is sufficiently accountable to their constituents?

Yes!

Okay, Northern Ireland—[Interruption.] Scotland. My apologies. There are models elsewhere that we can follow.

Can anyone say, with water in England, that the money that is siphoned out in salaries and dividends is justifiable when the system could not provide a basic service to people this summer? When sewage spills out on to our beaches and into our lakes, can anyone justify that? I am surprised that there is not more recognition of that from the Conservative party. Thirty years of privatisation has not left the system in a good state.

Changing some of those big things will require the different approach that the right hon. Gentleman calls for. I was pleased that he came, while on his holiday, to the cross-party talks on social care. I give him a commitment that I will keep them going until Louise Casey reports next year with her options. I hope, even then, that we might be able to find a consensus option that we take forward. I do not want to leave this position without having put all my political capital into solving this issue. As Health Secretary 16 years ago, I could not defend leaving people to lose everything they had worked for, but often only getting in return care that was sub-standard and not good enough. I know from my own family experience that that cannot carry on any longer. Nor can we defend the poverty pay for those people who care for other people’s parents and give everything of themselves to those roles. We owe it to millions out there to fix that. This is a test for this Parliament—what remains of it—to see if we can do that. I will work with the right hon. Gentleman to do that.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion of a national commission, there is a democracy taskforce working out of the Cabinet Office and I could certainly involve him in the work that that is doing. I am interested in political reform. I am interested in looking at how we restore trust in politics. I am prepared to look at all those issues—alongside the voting system, too—and I think he knows that. I believe that this Parliament needs to be a circuit breaker for the country. I do not believe we can carry on as we are. We are losing the trust and faith of the public. We need to act together to turn it around, and I look forward to working with him, precisely on that theme.

The Prime Minister is absolutely right: we must free our politics and bring back trust, and it seems to me that we could start doing it tomorrow. We could take foreign influence out of our politics by banning foreign money from our politics. I welcome the fact that the Government are going to amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 and cap such donations at £100,000, but given what has happened since the Rycroft review, I worry that the cap is not strong enough, and I think that the public agree with me. Given that this will probably be our last chance to protect our democracy before the next general election, will the Prime Minister give serious consideration to supporting my new clause 85, which would ban all foreign donations?

I thank my right hon. Friend and agree with her very strongly that we need to restore trust, particularly when it comes to foreign donations that seek to influence our politics. I am pleased she recognises the amendments that have been brought forward to the Representation of the People Act, which will be debated in this House later this week. I mentioned the defending democracy taskforce, which has been set up in the Cabinet Office. It needs to continue to look at these issues, and this will not be the last chance. We can come back to these issues in this Parliament, such is their importance.

I call the Father of the House.

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on what he said about Ukraine and on how he conducted himself there? Our enemies should know that this House is completely and utterly united in standing behind the Ukrainian people. That was the most powerful part of his statement, precisely because we are working together, so may I encourage him in that direction? We all know that we are under mortal threat, that we must increase the defence budget and that the decisions to pare back the bloated welfare bill are extremely difficult, so why does he not take up the offer of the Leader of the Opposition to deal with this, to meet our international commitments, to reduce dependency, to ensure that we are living within our means, to work together and to do this now? “Action this day.”

I thank the Father of the House for what he said about Ukraine. I saw the sincerity with which he said it, and I appreciate it. It was important for me to make the journey last week. I know it was appreciated by President Zelensky, and he asked me to relay to this House and beyond how much he and the Ukrainian people appreciate the support that we have provided. We will continue to do so for as long as it takes.

On meeting our defence commitments and bringing down the welfare bill, I cannot defend a position where too many people in their 20s are on benefits, but what I say is, “Why is that the case?” I do not believe we have an education system that is setting up all young people for success. There is more that we can do to give young people work-related opportunity at 16, and there is more support we can provide for their mental health. Those are the approaches that we can take, I hope with cross-party support, to set our young people up for life, invest in their success and bring down the welfare bill in a sustainable way.

The Prime Minister has spoken powerfully about the devolution of power and giving back control. Will he therefore ensure that the proposals for commonhold and leasehold reform, for which 5 million leaseholders in this country are waiting with bated breath, do give that power and control back to those people, through the right to enfranchise and the right to manage?

May I thank my good friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) and say to him that I am looking at every facet of the cost of living crisis and at where people face unfair charges that they cannot avoid? This area of leasehold is absolutely in that territory. I make a direct commitment to him today that it is my intention, and the intention of the Government, to bring forward the commonhold and leasehold Bill, so that we can finally reform this unfair system. We will do that in this Session.

May I welcome the Prime Minister to his place and sincerely wish him well for the future? He will know the vital importance of livestock farming to this country. It is pivotal to the North Dorset economy. He will also know that there have been 783 confirmed cases of bluetongue since just 1 July. The cost of vaccination is £3 per sheep and £6 for cattle. What support can the Government give to livestock farmers, who are already hard pressed as a result of a very dry summer and a very wet winter?

I say to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) that I am probably not renowned for spending much time on farms—I am more likely to be found in the northern quarter of Manchester— but I was on a farm in Cornwall in the summer, precisely to engage and understand the issues that they are facing. I heard very clearly the issues that have been presented by this very difficult summer for farmers up and down the country. I will focus on farming because, for me, farming and food production are part of this country’s sovereign production and manufacturing capacity, which we will need to strengthen in the years to come. We will need to depend upon it, and therefore we need to strengthen it more. That is a clear commitment.

To give the hon. Gentleman some sign that I mean what I say, I did not go empty handed to Colwyn farm. I took a commitment to allow more flexibility over Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs funding, so that areas that previously could not be used for grazing can be used for that, and to funding to build reservoir capacity on farms, so that summer ’27 will hopefully be less painful than summer ’26. That is my commitment. I look forward to working with him to improve measures for farming.

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to continuing Britain’s global leadership on climate action, including by going to COP31. I also welcome his focus on breathing space for people and businesses, but, as he said, it will take a lot more than that to deliver the growth and reindustrialisation that he is so committed to. I encourage him to read the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee’s report on the cost of energy, which includes our recommendations on how to bring down the disastrously high costs that are crippling the competitiveness of so much of British industry.

I thank my good friend the Chair of the Energy Committee for that contribution. In the words of the Chancellor, we need to focus on the cost of living but also on the cost of business. We need to address those two things together and bring down the cost of energy, which is ruinous for households but also for businesses. As I said in my statement, the cost of grid connections can be huge, and the long wait that businesses can face is damaging for inward investment. We need serious reform to deal with those issues, and I look forward to working with him on that.

I welcome what the Prime Minister just said about strengthening farming. If he is serious about this, one of the first things he can do is ensure that our farmers do not have to compete with imported food that is produced to lower standards than we expect. On Thursday, the European Union will ban the import of beef from Brazil, because it is not satisfied that it is produced safely, and the USA, China and Norway are likely to do the same thing. Will the Prime Minister offer to our consumers and farmers the same protections that those Governments offer theirs?

I am listening carefully to what the right hon. Member is saying. All these issues are on the table at this moment in time, but particularly public procurement. I have been working with the First Secretary of State and the Chancellor to consider how we change British public procurement to support our own production and manufacturing base. I believe that there is so much more we could do to make sure that food grown on British farms is served in our schools, hospitals, prisons and beyond. I do believe that we can do a lot more through public procurement before we reach to protectionist measures, but I hear what he has had to say today.

I congratulate the Prime Minister on taking office and thank him profoundly for his tribute to the Cleveland police officers, PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, who were so tragically killed on 22 August. My constituents, and indeed constituents across Teesside, welcomed his remarks in the past week on support for Cleveland police, and I look forward to the Home Secretary’s statement later today.

The Prime Minister’s remarks on greater public control of public service and public utility provision are most welcome, and I look forward to discussing the nature of that public control in more detail in the coming weeks and months. One core aspect of that is the continued waste of public funds through the continued use of outsourcing to provide core public services. I trust that he will engage with key stakeholders who have provided yet more evidence that it makes complete economic sense to insource provision of our services. Does he agree that we must ensure that the new public interest test does its job of economic transformation and delivers, as we promised, the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation?

I thank my hon. Friend. I was really distressed by what I saw in his community following the tragic death of our two police officers, and the seven lives lost in total. I know it has sent shockwaves through the community. I know from my previous role about the unfairness in police funding—or that is how it is felt in some parts of the country—and I know he and his colleagues feel that. We do need to look at that question as part of the Home Secretary’s wider police reform programme.

On the second part of my hon. Friend’s question, the manifesto commits us to the largest wave of insourcing in a generation, and my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State is overseeing that work. Taking one example that I mentioned in my statement, if we bring in employment support, often delivered through outsourced contracts, and put it under the control of mayors and combined authorities, who can spend that funding through the community, voluntary and social enterprise sector, I personally believe that money would achieve far greater results than it currently does.

Could the Prime Minister explain what was so particularly deserving about the Avanti train drivers that they warranted such a pay increase, or was it done just to avoid the embarrassment of the Cabinet not being able to get back and forth to his “No. 10 of the North” vanity project? Or do we take it that this Prime Minister will cave in to every trade union demand that comes across his desk?

The right hon. Lady knows as well as I do the misery that her constituents have suffered on the west coast main line, particularly since her Government handed it over to Avanti West Coast. They should not be expected to put up with that. Manchester lost its services under her Government. We have to have a functioning railway line, and the agreement reached with the drivers will give that security of a good service to people in her constituency and across the north-west.

The Prime Minister has hit the road running and is running into issues where action is long overdue. Following my six-year campaign to scrap “aim to permit”, I thank the Prime Minister for making that announcement over the summer. Local people will now have a say in what their high street looks like and the vibrancy of them, and local councils will now have a say too. Will the Prime Minister work with me to reinvigorate our high streets, and will he also implement a few more of my campaigns?

I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a doughty campaigner for improved services on our high streets, particularly pointing out the risks of the “aim to permit” regime, which has allowed the proliferation of adult gaming centres, for instance, in some of our more deprived communities. My whole approach will be to create an incentive regime that supports the businesses that are bringing good things to our high streets—hospitality businesses and others that give people a place to go and bring communities together—and to take action against those who do harm. In the summer we announced tougher action on vape shops, alongside adult gaming centres and other gambling venues. She deserves great credit for the campaign she has run, and I am pleased that she feels we can now begin to turn our high streets around.

I was encouraged to hear the Prime Minister talk about his support for political reform and, indeed, looking at the voting system, but can I push him to be a tiny bit more specific? He could bring in a change to the voting system ahead of the next general election if he wanted to—we would strongly back him—but if he does not want to do that, will he at least commit to kicking off a national commission on electoral reform?

I thank the hon. Lady, who I know well, for that question. She may have heard me speak before about leaving this place 10 years ago, standing for the first time under a proportional system and seeing how it changed the conversation on the doorstep, where all of a sudden there was an incentive to look for a point of agreement, rather than to score points, as I have been saying. That experience changed me. Where I disagree with her is in saying that we should do that ahead of any general election, because I believe there needs to be a mandate to make that change. There are different views in this House, but I believe that we will need to get a consensus at the next election, and if there is that consensus, a change can be made in the next Parliament.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the work he has done to date on tackling the scourge of rough sleeping, which is so prevalent in many of our cities and towns and outside them. What vision does he have to include the voluntary sector in the crucial task of tackling rough sleeping?

I thank my hon. Friend—I was going to say leadership rival, but I do not think she was ever fully in that category. She is absolutely right to point to the role of the voluntary sector in the mission that I have launched to end rough sleeping, if we can, by the end of this year. I do not think public funds alone will get us all the way; we will need to rely on voluntary contributions and the work of our charities. In the end, they are doing the work to tackle rough sleeping across the country. I believe it is incumbent on all Members of the House to put their shoulder behind this. I am looking at the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), because I remember the work he did and the private Member’s Bill that he brought forward. It should be a cross-party matter. In my view, nobody should sleep rough on our streets. We all have charities in our constituencies that are doing the most amazing work to support people. Any of us can find ourselves in that position, such is life these days. We should all get behind this drive. We should thank those organisations for their work, and let us see if we can give an offer to everyone in this country to come inside by Christmas.

In a volatile world, I think we can all agree that energy security is important, but so too is food security. I was interested in the answer the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) a moment ago, because in the eastern side of my constituency there is an application for a huge solar farm on prime agricultural land, when on the western side there are huge distribution warehouses with not a single solar panel on their roofs. Will he commit to review this situation, so that we can have a policy that safeguards both our food and our energy?

The right hon. Gentleman’s point is characteristically clear and he makes a good suggestion that I will take up. I meant what I said when I thanked him for coming to those cross-party talks in the summer. I have always enjoyed working with him and wish him well in whatever comes next.

I welcome what the Prime Minister has said, and I particularly welcome his commitment to go to COP31. What will be even more important than him going there is what he says when he gets there: we look forward to him showing that the UK will continue to remain committed to fighting climate change here in the UK and to doing our bit overseas. Will he say whether, when he goes to COP31, he will be able to commit to the tropical forests forever facility, which the Government have been looking at? Will his fight on the cost of living continue to encourage people to make choices that support the environment, such as by having an electric vehicle, and will he bring down the cost of electric to support heating choices?

I strongly support my hon. Friend’s last point. I know from my experience in my previous role that when we electrified bus depots and the bus fleet in Greater Manchester, the running costs of the system came right down, which helped us to sustain the £2 fare cap that had been removed elsewhere. That is proof that action on climate can reduce the cost of living. Those two things should not be pitched as opposites—they can be causal. We can act on climate and we can bring down the cost of living. I will be at COP31, as he said. I recognise the importance of the rain forest, and we continue to provide support in the form of loans to support work to conserve it. I look forward to working with him on these issues and I hope to see him in Turkey.

I welcome the Prime Minister to his place. In so doing, I extend my best wishes not only to him but to his family, as he takes up the manifold burdens of his new role. In his assent to high office, he was heard to report that the UK is not working and Westminster is not working —well, I am 100% in agreement with him on that, although my prognosis would be terminal rather than treatable. He understands that energy bills are now £600 higher than Labour promised they would be at the general election, and there is another large increase coming before Christmas. He touched on energy in his statement, so will he give us a date—between now and whenever the general election will be—by which energy bills will be £300 lower, just in the way that Labour promised?

I thank the leader of the SNP in Westminster for his very kind words, which my family will appreciate. When I left this place, I could relate more to what I used to hear from SNP Members than when I used to be here, particularly when I sometimes found frustrations, let’s say, with Westminster and the way it works, but that is precisely why we need to rewire the system and get power out of Westminster and into the country. In my view, we do that and we keep the United Kingdom together, because then all parts of it will feel that it is working for them in the way that perhaps they do not feel at this moment in time. When it comes to energy bills, I have acted already to bring in that VAT cut on electricity bills. I recognise that is just a start, but I hope the hon. Gentleman sees it as a sign of intent.

I congratulate the Prime Minister and welcome him to his place. I also welcome what he said about serving British food across the public estate in this country, but may I push him further to suggest that British food should be served on a British plate, made by British ceramics, and that the houses that he wishes to build should be made with British bricks? Could I encourage him to go as fast as he can on rewiring public procurement, so that British jobs in this country can be benefited by the British taxpayers’ pound?

I will be a staunch defender of the Potteries in this House, if not their football clubs. I do not know whether the Potteries are the north-west or the west midlands, but I am certainly very fond of them and I know the crucial importance of the ceramics industry to that part of the country. I do think that there is much more that we can do with public procurement in Britain to support crucial industries; I do not think that we have done enough in the past. Social value weighting can be applied to all public procurement, which makes it more likely that contracts will be awarded to British-based entities. I do not think that we should allow the culture of sending everything outside this country to continue—this will be a big change under this Government.

In welcoming the Prime Minister to his place, let me say that I noticed his criticism of the water companies—a justified criticism, in many cases. May I direct his attention to the predatory activities of another private company? National Grid is seeking to pre-empt the construction of a station on the Minster marshes, with no planning consent whatsoever and while the results of a Planning Inspectorate inquiry are still awaited. Would he be kind enough to intervene?

It is good to see the right hon. Gentleman again, and I appreciate what he said in endorsing my criticism of the water industry. We need to find significant reform; if that can be done cross party, so much the better. I am not familiar with the planning situation and the issue that he mentions, but I will look out for him, have a word with him and see if I can do something to look into it.

I thank the Prime Minister for visiting Port Talbot steelworks last week, and for highlighting the importance of securing and protecting our sovereign steel industry, which I know he will do in his role. Steel communities have long faced unfair global trading practices, but our new safeguards will still leave some steel manufacturing unprotected, including galvanised steel made by Llanwern steelworks in Newport. Will the Prime Minister work with business, trade, Tata and the trade unions to see what more can be done?

I was really pleased to visit Port Talbot last week. I know the importance of the steel industry in my hon. Friend’s part of the world—the history of it. I came away with a clear sense of what is possible: carrying through an industrial transition that will set up steelmaking for the rest of this century. Industrial transition is definitely another one of the things I have spoken about today that this country has not done well—in the past, we have allowed deindustrialisation before trying to help industry into a new era—and we need to make it work this time in south Wales. I said it to the trade unions last week, I said it to the leadership of Tata and I will say it to my hon. Friend in this House: we will make that happen, and we will guarantee steelmaking in south Wales for generations to come.

The Prime Minister has spoken a lot about the increase in the cost of living. Much of that is driven by the increase in energy prices, because of the rush towards net stupid zero and the multiple increase in renewables such as solar farms on our productive agricultural farmland. It is madness to import gas from overseas when we have our own gas in the North sea. When will the Prime Minister do the right thing: approve the licences at Rosebank, Jackdaw and elsewhere in the North sea?

I do not know if the hon. Gentleman was listening a moment ago when I was talking about how renewables can bring down the cost of living. I gave a very clear example in Greater Manchester: it costs £30 to charge a bus with electric charge, but it costs £200-plus to fill a tank of diesel. He really does need to look into the facts a little bit more before he makes statements like that in this House. Solar panels on people’s homes can bring down the cost of their energy. Yes, we need to be pragmatic—we will still need to rely on oil and gas for some years to come. The mistake he makes is saying that it has got to be one or the other, for political purposes; the truth is that it is going to have to be both.

I was proud to support the Feltham Convening Partnership’s young leaders summer programme last month. What struck me was their ambition for themselves and their community, as well as their call for more work experience opportunities. When the Tories and Lib Dems in coalition made work experience optional, placements fell by 60,000 in the first year—a drop from which we have never recovered. Does the Prime Minister agree that this Government’s work with employers like Sainsbury’s is now bringing hope, but that we must go further and faster, and we must not deny the next generation the promise of Britain?

I thank my hon. Friend for her work on this matter, and on apprenticeships in particular. What she has just said needs to be understood when we consider the Milburn report, because the decline in apprenticeships for young people lies behind some of the statistics that Alan Milburn has revealed. I give some credit to the Conservatives, because my experience in Greater Manchester was that the work placements that came with T-levels were a huge and positive innovation. Those 45-day work placements made a difference for young people. It was enough for them to feel that they could belong in the place where they were. I would like to work with Members across this House to see if we can turn a commitment of a 45-day work placement into a guarantee to all young people as part of our response to the Milburn report. The evidence I have is that those placements are hugely successful. Alongside that, we need more apprenticeships at 19 and more degree apprenticeships beyond that. That is how we give strong, structured pathways to our young people. The technical route is not bringing back stupid, but bringing back hope.

I share the Prime Minister’s vision of ending rough sleeping for good. He was very kind to refer to my private Member’s Bill, but there are two actions that he could take now that he is in office. First, the various different attempts at progress on Housing First could be brought together across the country, because ending rough sleeping is one thing, but building that network of support around people is vital. The second aspect relates to my second private Member’s Bill, which became law in 2023, but is still to be enacted. It would regulate the use of supported housing. Will he act now to make sure that it is enacted, so that vulnerable people are protected from rogue landlords?

I meant what I said earlier in praising the hon. Member. He has done a huge amount of work in this area, and I recognise it. He mentions Housing First. I think he was one of those who persuaded Sajid Javid, when he was in the Communities Secretary role, to pilot Housing First in three big city regions: the West Midlands, Greater Manchester and Liverpool. Exactly as the hon. Member said, it was hugely successful. It was about prevention, rather than paying for crisis. What I have experienced in my career is that it is more expensive to leave somebody sleeping rough than it is to give them simple accommodation every night, because of the cost of many visits to A&E, long stays in hospital or time in police custody, which add up to be more expensive than the simple provision of a room. I will look at the Bill that he mentions, and I will speak to the Communities Secretary about it, but this is something we can fix. When issues are fixable, we should work across the House to fix them. We can end rough sleeping—we did it in the pandemic, and I see no reason why we cannot do it again.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place and thank him for his statement. I particularly agree with what he was saying about social security and tackling the drivers of the high rates of young people not in education, employment or training. If I may, I direct him to a report by the Work and Pensions Committee that came out just before the recess specifically on that point.

My question relates to the middle east. I know he has made reference in the past to the importance of being able to hold Israel to account. What does he think is the appropriate action that we and our partners can take not only in ensuring humanitarian aid and access, but in relation to the unlawful settlements? On so many occasions, the law has been broken, and there is a real danger that the Palestine state will not be viable if we carry on in this way.

I thank my dear friend for her question, and I will certainly look up the Select Committee report. In answer to her point about the middle east, before I became Prime Minister, I issued a statement saying that I thought we needed to look again at the approach that we had taken, and to be clear about our values and what we believe is right. Obviously, matters are changing quickly. We have seen the worrying statement about the E1 settlements extension and the fast-track tender process. I think that that would lead to decisions being made before the Israeli election, which I understand could imperil, if not end, the two-state solution. These matters are urgent and need to be confronted, and I believe that we will be updating the House on them soon.

Just across from No. 10 North in Manchester, but also in many towns and cities throughout the country, women are being secretly filmed on a night out, and the videos are then posted online along with vile, degrading, misogynistic contents and comments. The women only find out once the videos have been shared 100,000 times and more, and they do not know what to do. We need to change something. Will the Prime Minister support the campaign to end this vile practice, and consider reform to make misogyny a hate crime?

These issues are very much at the forefront of my mind. As the father of two daughters, I think about them a lot, while remembering the change that we introduced in Greater Manchester following the appalling murder of Sarah Everard. It was a moment that created a powerful change in the conversation, challenging men, lads and boys for their behaviour and making it absolutely clear that violence against women and girls of any kind, including everyday harassment, is an issue with which they must be confronted and which they must address.

In recent days, I have met Georgia Harrison, who is doing amazing work in campaigning to protect women online and making the very reasonable request for any non-consensual explicit video to be taken down immediately rather than being removed after 48 hours, which is the current totally unsatisfactory approach. I can tell the hon. Lady that I will support her 100% in implementing that change, and also that we will think about the other points that she raised.

There are 4.5 million unpaid carers in England. I have first-hand knowledge of the impact of that on carers and their families, having been a carer for two members of my own family, but I also know that for millions of carers the emotional and financial toll is far greater than what I faced. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that when the Casey review has been completed, funding will not be the reason for its recommendations not to be implemented?

I know that this issue matters to my hon. Friend personally, as it does to me. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), pointed out during our cross-party talks—and, powerfully, in the media—that family carers are often simply not seen, and sink slowly as the situation becomes more and more unbearable and unsustainable for them. I know that from my own family experience.

I give my hon. Friend my word from the Dispatch Box that social care will be a huge priority for me. We do need to support family carers, as the right hon. Gentleman said, and we also need to give much more support to paid carers, who, as I have said, are working on poverty pay. I will not leave this role until we have introduced a social care system that we can be proud of.

My constituents will have been pleased to hear from Sir Jon Cunliffe, who produced 88 recommendations last July. However, his diagnosis is rather different from that of the Prime Minister. He believes that governance and regulation are the key to better performance, rather than some ill-defined version of “better public control”, which, according to the Government’s own assessment, would cost more than £100 billion. Will the Prime Minister promise to enact all 88 of those recommendations without delay?

I appreciate that the Cunliffe report takes us forward, but it was to some degree limited in what it was able to consider, and I believe we need to look at all possible solutions for the water industry. I do not think we are in a position to say that what is being proposed will solve everything. It is very regrettable that the privatisation of water has left us in a position that we will find it very difficult to reverse. What has happened is that funding has left through salaries and dividends. Bills were kept low for a period of time, but it is the infrastructure that is suffering. Now, when we need to put those infrastructure problems right, it is bill payers who are being asked to pay 20%-plus on their bills—not those who siphoned the money out in the first place. It is an unsatisfactory situation. It is an industry where the shareholders never lose and the bill payers never win, and I say to the hon. Lady that it is simply wrong and unsustainable.

The Prime Minister’s commitment to regulate the funeral industry was extremely welcome. It was especially welcomed by those families who have been victims of rogue funeral operators, and I commend him for it. They are now asking when regulation will be brought into effect. Is this still a priority for the Prime Minister, and if so, when will the funeral industry finally be regulated?

I say to my hon. Friend that I was truly appalled when I heard about what happened, and I feel for any family who was a victim of that despicable crime. Today I offer him a meeting, on behalf of those families, to listen and to see how we can build a programme of change that will meet what has been exposed by this terrible crime.

Within a few days of the Prime Minister taking office, he announced business rates relief for pubs, clubs and live music venues, but I have spent the summer talking to businesses like hair salons, post offices and booksellers, all of which are just as important in the high street as those that have already been given help. Will he now commit to give business rates relief to all high street businesses and to get rid of this cost, which is destroying jobs?

I thank the right hon. Member for making a point that I made myself in the Makerfield by-election. I do think that there is more we need to do to support our high streets. I have made a start with pubs and live music venues, but I do believe we need to go further, in exactly the way he describes. I think it is a case of rebalancing the system—some of the large entities and warehouses do not, in percentage terms, pay the same amount in business rates—so that we can support those businesses on the high street that are doing public good and they are able to get a reduction to enable them to survive. That is something that I am looking at. I think we need to get serious about our high streets. We need to take action on those that cause harm—I have mentioned vape shops and adult gaming centres—and we need to do more to support those that do good.

May I welcome the Prime Minister back to this place and to the Dispatch Box, and welcome the ambition that he has brought to this country? He will know that he will need time to achieve the things he has set out today, which is why I know that he will share my concerns about what is happening in British politics. Reform has accepted £9 million in donations this year alone, with £8 million of it coming from just three UK-based donors. That is more than has been received by the Labour party and the Conservative party combined. Chequebooks are already circling the next general election, and if we wish to defend our democracy and make sure that all voices can be heard equally, we need to make sure it is not money that talks.

I heard what the Prime Minister had to say to my colleagues about the defending democracy review. I welcome it and tomorrow’s legislation on UK donors, but he will know that there are people closer to home who wish to use their money to influence the process too. Can he confirm that his democracy review will look at caps on UK individual and company donors, and that we will legislate before the next general election so that we act?

I recognise the importance of the issues my hon. Friend is raising, for the reasons I gave earlier. The Bill we will debate later this week is a start, but I do not think that anyone on the Government Front Bench is saying that that is the end of the matter. We do need to go further. I encourage her to engage with the defending democracy taskforce and, certainly, I have an open mind about what those further measures might be.

We in northern Lincolnshire look forward to the Prime Minister’s first visit in his new position. He will find that if he travels by train from Manchester there is an hourly service, but that if he travels from London there is no direct service. The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and I have been campaigning for 15 years to restore the direct service. If the Prime Minister could give us an early win, it would be a victory for me in 15 years but he could deliver it in 15 weeks. Will he have a word with the Transport Secretary and ask her to have yet another look at providing this service, which I know will be supported by his Parliamentary Private Secretary—the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin)—sat behind him? [Laughter.]

Yes, I have only just got back to this House and already my PPS is lobbying me from behind, which is obviously helpful. My hon. Friend is right to do so and the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) is right to raise this issue. I remember, as chair of the Rail North Committee in my previous role, the concern of people in his part of the world. The rail connections to my part of the north are nowhere near what they should be. I heard scepticism on the Opposition Benches. If he is interested, I will fix a meeting for him with the team at No. 10 North so that he can put his case. This is why we took public control of the railways: so that we can start to put services back. There is no point in having public control if it does not deliver public benefit. In my view, every area needs a basic level of connectivity if we are to connect people to opportunity and get growth going in every postcode.

It is a lamentable tale, but when my father started driving buses in the west of Scotland in 1964, Glasgow was better connected and cheaper to get around than it is now in 2026. With the centralising forces of the SNP Government in Holyrood and a lack of attention by the SNP council in Glasgow, could I ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to lend his moral clarity and expertise on this matter and get Glasgow’s buses moving again?

I have had a number of approaches from colleagues in Glasgow on how we can support them to move the bus system forward. I was surprised to hear how expensive bus fares are in the city. I believe that there have been moves to put them back under public control, but I am not aware that they have been supported by the Scottish Government. I hope the Scottish Government will provide funding and support to enable the Greater Glasgow area to move in that direction. [Interruption.] If I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected, but I did have a lot of people coming to me saying, “We’re not getting any support; can you help us move things forward?” A great city such as Glasgow should have public transport under its own control. From what I see in Scotland, there is something of the same problem as in England, where the capital city has a public transport system that is way beyond what anywhere else has. It is not that we are anti-London or anti-Edinburgh—it is great that they have those transport systems—but all parts of the UK need to have a level of infrastructure that is seen to be fair and, as I said before, connects all people to jobs and opportunities. Glasgow deserves that, too.

I welcome the Prime Minister to his place and I welcome his commitment to put power back into the heart of communities through a devolution programme, but in places such as Shropshire, where there is no immediate plan for a combined authority or a mayoral authority to be put in place, people are really worried that we will be left behind. Will the Prime Minister elaborate on his earlier comments and explain when authorities such as Shropshire will get those devolved powers—and, crucially, the resources to go with them—so that they can start turning around the lives of people in places such as North Shropshire?

It was a serious offer that I made at the Dispatch Box earlier today, to say that there could be a devolution deal for every part of England with or without an elected mayor. I do believe that it will only work if it is based on unitary local government. I do not think it will work with a two-tier system, but that is why I said to colleagues in Cornwall that I am quite happy to see if a deal can be done for a single unitary authority. That is what I understand Members of Parliament for Cornwall to want, working with the leader of Cornwall council. If that is the settled view, I am not going to try to impose anything else—let us work with that. The same could be true in Shropshire, but it needs to be effective and functional, and to be able to stand on its own two feet.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his role.

Ten months ago, my constituents were promised a public inquiry into our mental health trust, after 10 years of campaigning for it. People have died in the interim, and it is simply unacceptable. In writing about unaccountable power over the summer, I have seen the weaknesses not only in the decision-making processes, but in the lines of scrutiny to ensure that we can deliver for our constituents. Will my right hon. Friend work with me and join me in the work I have been doing to ensure that we are talking about the devolution not just of power, but of scrutiny to hold such bodies to account?

That is entirely what the Hillsborough law is about. It builds on a duty of candour that was already there in the NHS, but will now go further to those running NHS organisations and all NHS bodies. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this in more detail, because I can see how much it matters to her. I hope that is a helpful commitment.

The Prime Minister has spoken about his desire for a written constitution, arguing that a formal legal framework is necessary for the devolution agenda, yet in his short time in office he has already attempted unilaterally to defy the legally binding Good Friday agreement by declaring that a border poll is “off the table”. Does the Prime Minister recognise that he has no mandate to defy the constitutional wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, the people of Scotland or the people of Wales, and that any written constitution or devolution agenda must include a pathway for each of those nations to choose their own future?

I think the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. I answered a media question on a visit to Northern Ireland before meeting the various parties. The question was whether a proposal was being put to the meeting about a border poll, and my answer was that the purpose of the visit was to get functional Government in Stormont, because in my view that would most serve the people of Northern Ireland right now, and that I was not there to distract from that to other issues. I am very aware of every word in the Good Friday agreement, and I will stick to it 100% as Prime Minister. I care about Northern Ireland, which I visit often, and—how do I put it?—that situation pre-empted the meeting we were about to have and I was not there to discuss that.

The Good Friday agreement—if the hon. Gentleman reads it, as I am sure he has—is quite clear on the circumstances in which that issue arises, and as I have said, I honour the words of the Good Friday agreement. However, our common challenge right now is achieving functional Government in Stormont, and I believe everybody should work together to achieve that. I have asked the Northern Ireland Secretary to support that process, and I recognise the concerns people have about the budget in Northern Ireland. Those are the issues to be dealt with first and foremost, and that was the answer I gave to the media.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place.

During the summer recess, I spent time engaging with organisations in my constituency that work with children and young people, and I was struck by their talking about young people being unable to interact with anything except their phones. Can I urge the Prime Minister to move forward at pace with the social media ban for under-16s?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that commitment.

The climate crisis is hitting hard already, and I was glad to hear the Prime Minister acknowledge that in his statement. We have just had the hottest summer since records began, farmers are facing the worst arable harvest since records began and the Met Office tells us today that extreme summers such as this year’s have been made 130 times more likely by burning fossil fuels. In that context, will the Prime Minister remember his words of last year, when he warned against the “siren voices” taking us down the path of “dependence on fossil fuels”? Will he stick to the manifesto promise not to drill any more oil and gas, and will he rule out Rosebank and Jackdaw, because the climate damage they would create hugely outweighs any possible benefit and will lead to more disasters such as we saw on the Nepal-Tibet border just last week?

I am ready to work with the leader of the Greens in this place, because I carry from my last role into this one a clear commitment to a carbon-neutral future. I do not resile from that in any way; I am proud of what I have done on that front. What the hon. Member has said is almost the opposite of what the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) said a few moments ago, but the wrong approach here is to be one or the other. We are going to have to find a way to make a transition from oil and gas to a renewable future, and that does not mean that it is all one or the other. There has to be a process where we can make a transition and do it as effectively and affordably as possible.

I welcome the Prime Minister back to this place and thank him for his statement.

We have rightly reset our relationship with the European Union, and now is the time to build on that progress and redouble our efforts to strengthen UK-EU co-operation. With the upcoming summit next month, can the Prime Minister reassure me and my constituents in Battersea that he will be bold and ambitious in seizing that opportunity, going further and faster to boost economic growth, remove unnecessary trade barriers and strengthen our economic relationship with Europe, as well as creating opportunities for young people in my constituency and across the country?

I recognise the work of the former Prime Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras, who changed the conversation with Europe when he came into office. I have had that played back to me from a number of European leaders. There is something to build on; good steps have been taken. The UK-EU summit is in front of us; it may be the month after next—we are still waiting to finalise. I hope we can make further progress there. There is no doubt that our growth has been hit in the last decade. There is no prospect of getting what we want for our farmers if we take an isolationist approach. We have to work more closely with Europe. That is the approach that I will take unapologetically. I hope my hon. Friend will have some success to celebrate soon.

I welcome the Prime Minister back to the House of Commons and genuinely wish him well in his endeavours. I gently point out, however, that No. 10 North is three hours south of my constituency; I hope his view of the north involves a whole-of-the-north approach. One measure that would not cost him anything and would be popular in the north, and across the whole of the UK, would be to rule out something that appeared in the previous Prime Minister’s Green Paper on the future of television: the suggestion that terrestrial free-to-view television could be switched off in 2034. That would mean that everyone would have to pay to watch television, which particularly affects the elderly, vulnerable and those who live in rural areas.

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that No. 10 North will be as much at the service of Scotland and his constituency as it will anywhere else. Members of this House will get used to seeing what an improvement it might be in getting answers out of Whitehall on many issues, including the one that he has just raised. I will give the right hon. Gentleman an honest answer: I am concerned about those plans too. I know that some of my constituents in Makerfield rely on Freeview. There is perhaps an opportunity to look at that as part of the BBC charter renewal process. I cannot give him a final answer today, but I recognise that he has raised a genuine issue that is of concern to his constituents. Let me have a proper look at it.

I heartily congratulate the Prime Minister on bringing back to the House a bit of optimism and hope, and on his summer tour. Had he made it round our way, he could have seen how, amid a hosepipe ban, Thames Water has been leaking 10,000 litres of water an hour in North Acton. He could also have seen how, at the same time, fat cat bosses are getting pay rises while they dump sewage into our beloved River Brent. I was pleased by the Prime Minister’s words on water today, so I ask him: when can we take this failing company back into public hands?

I thank my hon. Friend for what she said; it is my intention to bring back a bit more optimism around the country, to give people the feeling that things can be fixed. That is my style—to face things and fix things. It is the approach I will take to water, too. I do not know whether those on the Opposition Benches were supporting the status quo—it sounded like it, to a degree—but it is not defensible, in my view, for precisely the reasons my hon. Friend just gave. We are looking at options. I believe that we need a strengthened response, particularly when it comes to legislation. I am happy to work with my hon. Friend and plot out a path to repair our water infrastructure, bring down people’s bills and ensure that it is not always the public who are expected to pay for everything.

On behalf of the DUP, I wish the Prime Minister well in his job. I hope that he does deliver on his promises on energy, the economy and so on. I note, however, that it took him only about 30 seconds to break his promise on no point scoring when responding to the Leader of the Opposition, although a bit of point scoring is not a bad thing.

The Prime Minister has pointed out that confidence in Government is important. In Northern Ireland, it has recently been shown that the Parades Commission—a public body with a very significant role in curtailing people’s freedoms—acted illegally, showing bias and showing disdain for applications from the Unionist community. The commission failed abjectly in its duty, and yet its arrogant members have refused to resign, even though they know they do not enjoy any public confidence. Will the Prime Minister have discussions with the Secretary of State to ensure that there is an immediate dismissal of this discredited body?

It is good to see the right hon. Gentleman again. I thank him for his comments; I am bringing a problem-solving approach. There will still be the odd point scored here and there—it would be a bit dull if I did not do a little of that—but where we can find common ground, we should. The public expect it. I think they are fed up of watching the television when things are broken and seeing us playing politics with those things. Let us see where we can make progress, and score the points where we cannot.

The right hon. Gentleman raises a very serious issue. As I said a moment ago, I was in Northern Ireland last week, where I met his colleagues as well as colleagues from other parties. I know there has been a serious loss of trust in the commission, and I know it needs to be addressed. The Northern Ireland Secretary has taken some action, but I believe more is to come.

I warmly welcome the Prime Minister to his place and commend him for the direction and spirit of his statement.

Small and independent businesses are the lifeblood of my constituency. I hear regularly from owners such as Colin and Jack, who own two Feast coffee shops in Sheffield, that they are facing an onslaught of financial pressure. On my way here this morning, Jack told me how rising VAT and electricity prices have meant that there is very little left at the end of the month to pay himself. I know that this is the case for many other owners, and that it goes beyond the normal ups and downs of businesses. I welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to cut VAT on energy bills from October, but is he willing to explore how else we might be able to help small and independent businesses?

As I said to the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), I believe we need to do more to support the businesses that my hon. Friend talked about, and there will be more to come. The cost of doing business is too high. As I have said this afternoon, energy bills are too high for businesses and households, and we need the determination to bring those bills down and lower the cost of doing business. There will be more to come on that. This will be a pro-business and pro-small-business Government. Nobody should make any mistake about that. The approach that I led in Manchester was all about the public taking control of what they need to do in order to make a place functional for businesses and people. That is Manchesterism, and that is what we will bring nationally. It is all about setting businesses up to succeed. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to improve that business, and her high streets, too.

As someone who was politically active in the Thatcher decade, may I gently remind the Prime Minister that it was the period that she did so well in because the Labour party was in a terrible state? For example, it embraced unilateral nuclear disarmament at the height of the second cold war—mercifully, a position that it has long left behind.

I welcome what the Prime Minister said about wishing to work consensually and across party lines. In that spirit, will he look again at the shameless gerrymandering around the local government reorganisation? At the beginning of the process, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) promised us that there would be no unnecessary fragmentation or boundary changes without strong reason for them, yet my constituency is being torn apart, with the Waterside, which has looked towards the New Forest for centuries, being taken over by Southampton. The same is happening elsewhere. That was not in his party’s manifesto. It is a good opportunity for the Prime Minister to show that he means what he says about consensus.

I will take on that challenge and ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said this afternoon. These changes do benefit from having the maximum consensus. On the Thatcher Government, we will probably have to agree to disagree, but I make one observation: we have a public housing stock that has 1.5 million fewer homes than in the ’80s and ’90s, and we now have 1.5 million people on housing waiting lists up and down the country. I would put it to him that that is a cause of further public cost, in terms of the number of people who are in a crisis situation. I think we can do better. I have been prepared to criticise the Government that I was in; maybe one day he might criticise the one that he was in, and then we will be able to find some solutions.

I welcome the Prime Minister to his place and associate myself with all his comments about the two police officers sadly killed up in Cleveland. I speak with first-hand experience when I say that any police officer will start a shift not expecting to be able to go home at the end of it. It is really important that we recognise that. In that spirit, I ask the Prime Minister to give the commitment that the Government will always have our police officers’ backs, and to ensure that police forces are properly funded, so that my former colleagues can look after communities up and down this country.

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I point to my record as Mayor of Greater Manchester: I had the back of all the thousands of officers who were out serving, keeping Greater Manchester safe, day after day. I pay tribute to the families of those officers we lost in Middlesbrough in the line of duty, sacrificing themselves for their community.

I also want to assure my hon. Friend that I heard the voice of PC Andrew Harper’s family before making my decisions on early release. Before I was here, this House passed Harper’s law. The spirit of that legislation really should have been honoured in that early release scheme, and it now will be. It always should be that this House gives the maximum recognition to those who put themselves at risk for our safety and that of everyone else.

The Prime Minister says that he puts devolution at the heart of his agenda, and I believe him. We both know that decisions are best made closer to the people they affect, but Wales still lacks the powers already available to Scotland, and even to Greater Manchester. That cannot be right. When he meets the First Minister next month, will he work with Plaid Cymru to make good that devolution gap on policing, on the Crown Estate, on rail and on the fiscal powers that Wales needs to build and prosper?

I am ready to have a constructive conversation with the First Minister, as I did when I met him in July in my first week in office. I believe from my own experience that a form of local devolution in Wales and Scotland might further strengthen the economy and public services. That is the point that I am making in relation to buses in Glasgow and other services as well. Where power is too centralised and too remote, sometimes poor decisions are made. My agenda is all about putting power in the hands of people at the community level, so that they can drive changes that are right for them. There is a model of local devolution that could be made to work in Scotland, in Wales and possibly in Northern Ireland, and I am ready to support that, if that is what the right hon. Lady wishes.

Social media and the harm that it does to our young people is one of the biggest issues brought to my attention by my constituents in Putney, as well as by people across the country. I am really glad to hear the Prime Minister’s affirmation that he will carry on with raising the age of those covered by the social media ban from 13 to 16. Will he further say that the ban will not be watered down at all, but will remain a full ban for all of the day, to reduce the harm done to our young people?

I think I am right in saying that the Leader of the Opposition made strong statements early in the year—going back to January—on this very issue, and I indicated then that I supported the strongest action, recognising the damage to children’s mental health that social media has been doing. That is an example of how I work and how I will work in this role. Where something is obviously wrong and causing harm, particularly to children, it is incumbent on all of us to act. From my point of view, there is no watering down; we do need to take action. Those of us with children can sometimes see the damage being done, and we should not just accept it. I will lead from the front on this issue.

I welcome the new Prime Minister to the Dispatch Box. I note that in his statement he referred to the biggest issues facing the country as being “the economy and the cost of living crisis”. Will he accept that one of the things that has damaged our economy and caused prices to be higher is the tax-and-spend Budget in November 2024? He has cut taxes twice—two small tax cuts—since he became Prime Minister. Will he commit that in the Budget there will be no further searching for new things to tax? The biggest message of hope he could send to the country today would be to rule out further tax rises.

May I say clearly to the hon. Lady and to the country more broadly that I fully understand the pressure that businesses are under? The cost of doing business is higher it than it should be, owing to the pressures from energy costs and other things. I do not come into this position in any way in denial about that. We need to take further steps to reduce the cost of business, and I have indicated a direction of travel on that today.

These are matters that we need to give the utmost consideration to. We need to get growth up. The hon. Lady tried to give an analysis, but we have had a decade of low growth—these issues go back, and are much deeper—which is why, in my statement, I laid out the issues very clearly, and put forward a plan for growth. That plan requires us to be pro-business, and to provide what support we can.

Before I call for the next question, may I remind Members that I am trying to get in as many people as possible? If the questions could be shorter, that would be very helpful for everyone.

I will follow your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. Neighbourhood police numbers are down, and youth services have been cut to the bone. Is it any surprise that youth crime is rising? Does the Prime Minister agree, as do the constituents of Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley, that we need to commit to both, not as optional extras, but with long-term ringfenced funding, so that we do not lose another generation to the streets?

If we are closing down digital space for young people, it is incumbent on all of us to open up more physical space in communities, and to repair the damage to youth services that was done 15 or so years ago. We will not get crime down without that. That is the other side of the coin to increasing police officer numbers. My hon. Friend has my commitment on that.

The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) asked the Prime Minister about bluetongue. He gave an answer about farming, but he will recall that he did not address the issue directly. He was elected for the first time to this place in 2001—I welcome him back—in the election that was postponed because of the foot and mouth disease outbreak. There are 754 reported cases of bluetongue in Great Britain already. It takes three weeks after the first dose of vaccine for sheep to become immune, and six weeks for cattle. This is an animal welfare disaster, a human tragedy, and a farm business nightmare. Will the Prime Minister make the tackling of bluetongue and the immediate delivery of the vaccine an urgent priority for him and his Government?

On my visit in the summer, I heard concerns about the availability of vaccine, and the time it was taking for farms to access it, so I am aware of the issue. I will seek an update from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary and, if necessary, I am prepared to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s visit to a farm in Cornwall over the summer, where, I believe, the work of the Labour Rural Research Group was mentioned to him. One of the LRRG’s campaigns is to end the rural penalty, whereby the cost of living is higher in rural areas, and there is weaker access to transport, energy, food and digital services. Will the Prime Minister confirm that it is his intention to make rural areas a priority during his premiership?

As I said before, and I am pleased to give my hon. Friend this assurance, I want to ensure that we do not have a two-tier England in which rural and coastal areas feel in some way shut out or left behind. There is a devolution deal that can be done for everywhere; he has my commitment on that. I encourage him to look at the letter from the First Secretary of State about No. 10 North; it is about providing for practical areas. I also encourage Members on all sides to start being practical about agreeing a combined authority, where that can be brought through. That, in our experience, is the best way to secure a building block for economic growth and to sustain important services. I want rural areas to benefit from exactly the same.

Over the summer, the Prime Minister opposed development on green spaces in his constituency, saying:

“It offers no benefit to the local community and will place huge strain on local infrastructure.”

My constituents face the same pressures, so will he commit to new and meaningful green-belt protections, to protect those green spaces in both our constituencies; make sure that houses are built only when there has been meaningful consultation with communities, when communities are being listened to, and when infrastructure is in place; and please, scrap the ridiculous “grey belt” definition?

My new constituency—in fact, it includes a good chunk of my old Leigh constituency, so I know it well—has been hugely developed over the years, and we have brought through significant new housing. Anyone who visited during the by-election will know that the infrastructure is struggling to cope with the number of houses that have been built in the constituency. All I am saying to the right hon. Lady is that I support taking a balanced approach where there has been significant development, but I do not think that it is sustainable to turn our back on all development completely. It is about a balance, and I will work in this role to find that balance with the right hon. Lady.

I hugely welcome the Prime Minister’s £422 million investment to end rough sleeping, but in Ealing Southall many of those on the streets have no recourse to public funds, so it is illegal for the council to spend money helping them. Many would go home, but they face delays getting travel documents and from closed police cases being left open. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the relevant Home Office and Housing Ministers meet me to ensure that Ealing Southall is not left behind when it comes to his groundbreaking pledge to end street homelessness?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and we will absolutely work in the way that she has described. The commitment is real, and it is not a temporary commitment. The money that she mentions is, as far as I am concerned, ongoing. “Everyone in” should be and will be the permanent policy of the Government that I lead. I do not believe that we should accept that anybody sleeps rough on a British street at any time, but I also know that if we are to help people on a journey away from the streets, it requires a whole-person approach, with all Departments working together. It can be done and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on it.

Earlier today, Members from across this House and the other place, along with stakeholders from throughout the United Kingdom, met to discuss the scourge of microplastic pollution. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on microplastics, and today we launched our report, the second in 10 years. I have an easy ask for the Prime Minister: will he organise a meeting for me, the stakeholders and Members from across the House to meet the relevant Minister to discuss the report’s recommendations?

I have given quite a few commitments to meetings today, so I will say to the hon. Gentleman, recognising the seriousness of the issue, that I will ensure that the relevant Minister meets him at his or her earliest convenience, given the seriousness of the issue and the report that he has done.

Over the bank holiday weekend, a treasured green space in Sawbridgeworth was decimated by building work without planning permission. Thanks to our community’s exceptional response, East Herts council was able to move quickly and secure an injunction, but across the country that is sadly the exception and not the rule. While this kind of unpermitted development is not a specific offence, residents in my community certainly felt that what started on Saturday was criminal. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he wants to tackle the thorny issues that make a real impact on people’s lives in communities like mine, so will he agree to meet me to discuss why we need to change the law to ensure that the police and local authorities have the right powers to stop this kind of unpermitted development in its tracks?

It is a real commitment of mine to ensure that the right powers are held at local level to take action on issues that matter to communities. We have had similar issues with illegal waste tipping in constituencies that leave people feeling that there is no accountability—almost a sense of lawlessness—and we cannot allow that to continue. I absolutely will look out for my hon. Friend to discuss this further. We can do more to empower local authorities, and he will have heard something I said in my statement: it was a real commitment to taking resources from a national level and bringing them back down, particularly to support local councils, which have in recent times, I am afraid, seen themselves hollowed out and they do not have the enforcement capability that they once had. We need to find ways of putting it back so that the people who do these things in communities can be held accountable and councils can enforce their own laws.

Our schools and colleges cannot be fuelled by hope alone. At the start of the summer, the Prime Minister outlined an overhaul of 14-to-16 education. This comes on the back of far-reaching reforms to special educational needs provision and a new—and as yet un-resourced—requirement to expand enrichment activities in our schools. Could the Prime Minister tell schools, and indeed parents, across the country how he is going to find the people and the cash to deliver all this? Our schools are at breaking point and teachers are leaving in their droves already.

I do recognise the need to fund education in exactly the way the hon. Lady describes. This goes back to the point I made about investing in success rather than paying for failure. We need to be serious about giving all young people a path to success, and therefore reducing the number of young people dependent on benefits in their 20s. This is a shift that we need to make. The Milburn report will hopefully lay out a way to do that, and I look forward to working with the hon. Lady on this important issue.

I welcome the Prime Minister to his place. In this short time in government, we have done a fantastic job of changing the lives of young people—I always say that the next generation is our greatest legacy. The number of people not in education, employment or training is now below 1 million for the first time. Will the Prime Minister lay out what the strategy will be for people not in education, employment or training, and make it a national mission to give them the opportunity that they deserve?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this should be a national mission. I talked earlier about a guarantee of a quality work placement between 16 and 18. We could look at doing more to support young people with transport costs, as we did in Greater Manchester. We need more youth apprenticeships—those went into decline, and we need to turn that around—and we need to see many more degree apprenticeships.

The point I am making is that we need to lay out a technical path from 14 for all our young people, so that we do not have a situation where it seems to them that the university route is the be-all and end-all—important as that is for those who want to go on it. Too many young people hit their middle teenage years, in year 10 and year 11, and cannot see where the path is going, and then they start to drop out. That is what I am determined to fix. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on that.

It is hard to disagree with a lot of what the Prime Minister has set out, but I am going to make sure my conscience is clear. I worry. I worry about our economy. Whenever I hear the Chancellor refer to a continuity Starmer Administration, that is a red flag for me. My Lagan Valley constituents cannot pay their bills. They are struggling with life in a way that they have not known before. I believe that this Prime Minister is serious about wanting to reach those people. Believe you me, when we met in Northern Ireland last week, rest assured that I can guarantee this House is not interested in hearing about the stuff from our past. My constituents want to get on with life in the here and now—right here, right now. The VAT cut for electricity is soon to be engulfed by rising prices. Did the Prime Minister not have it right the first time, when he said that our people need a new economic model?

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We had a good meeting last week. I do not disagree with what she says, and nor do I disagree with the power with which she says it, because many people watching this will be saying, “It’s too hard now; we need help.” The VAT cut on electricity did lead to a funding offer to the Northern Ireland Government, but I would be the first to say that that is only a start; it is a small step, for the reasons that she gives. We can do more to bring down the cost of transport, and we are going to set out more plans in the Budget to help with the cost of living. She should keep that level of determination to support her constituents. We will make this country feel better, more contented and more united if we are dealing with these issues in a meaningful way for them. I want that to be the hallmark of this Government.

I warmly welcome the Prime Minister to his place and thank him for his recent visit to the north-east, where he committed to trying to tackle the totemic infrastructure issue of the north-east, which is the dualling of the A1. I thank him for committing to find alternative ways to fund that. This afternoon, I and 12 other MPs, the mayor and—in the spirit of cross-party working—the local Conservative leader wrote to him to ask what more we can do to work with him and his Government to secure this generational change for infrastructure in the north-east.

I will ask the Transport Secretary to work with colleagues at No. 10 North to see what can be done to bring forward a new way of delivering this much-needed infrastructure. I know how critical it is. I do not think any region of the country—certainly not the south-west and the north-east—has a level of infrastructure that is acceptable. This is something that has been long promised and not delivered. Let us see whether No. 10 North can make the breakthrough.

I thank the Prime Minister for articulating a desire to reach across the political divide on issues that are common among all our constituents. across all our constituencies, more and more people are struggling to have a family—to have children. This is a greater and greater issue all across the country. In Staffordshire, for example, if a family need NHS IVF treatment, they are not even entitled to one round of treatment, despite the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence saying that they should be entitled to three.

The Prime Minister has a Health Bill coming to this House next week. I have tabled an amendment that would ensure that across England all our constituents can have the basic minimum recommended by NICE, so that they can have a family. Will the Prime Minister encourage his Health Secretary to look at the amendment and see whether there is a way to work across parties and have an impact on something that is so important to so many people?

The right hon. Gentleman will be speaking for many people in his area, and I can see the passion with which he does so. I am not aware of the detail of the amendment at this point in time, but I will certainly ask the Health Secretary to take a close look. I do not like the idea of a postcode lottery in the national health service. There should be an expectation that services available anywhere should be available everywhere, particularly when it comes to an issue as important as this. I give him a commitment to look at the issue, but I will have to come back to him to let him know what we are able to do.

I welcome the Prime Minister to his place. In July he pledged to end rough sleeping, and that is warmly welcomed by me and my constituents in Cities of London and Westminster, which faces the highest levels of rough sleeping in the country. We have already heard people raise this issue in the Chamber today. When I speak to people who have been sleeping rough, they talk to me about feeling passed from pillar to post; when they have been offered somewhere to stay in a hostel, they simply do not feel safe and secure in it. The Prime Minister has made important statements in the Chamber today. Will he work with me on the way in which local authorities are applying the issue of local connection and on the condition of hostels in this country, which is simply not good enough? We need a real focus on that if we are to meet this ambitious pledge.

I will certainly work with my hon. Friend on this issue. I credit The Passage—I believe it is in her constituency—which is a wonderful charity that supports homeless people, and which I was proud to support on the morning I went into Downing Street. It focused me on what I needed to be focused on before I did that.

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. If people are passed from pillar to post, they will not settle enough to be able to begin their journey of recovery —that was all my experience on this issue in Greater Manchester. We had it right in the pandemic, when people were given a settled place to stay. When people are in the same place every night, that is when they begin to recover. I do not believe that it is beyond us to provide now what we provided then. That is why my commitment to Everyone In is a permanent commitment. That should allow organisations such as The Passage, and others doing brilliant work in this area, to start planning for the long term, and to turn around what is, sadly, a tide of misery for so many people. We are wasting money on failure when we could be investing in recovery. That is what we should do.

I welcome the Prime Minister to his place and thank him for his show of cross-party support for my campaign to scrap the time restriction on disability bus passes. I genuinely and sincerely appreciated the fact that he came to the parliamentary event and drop-in that we held last year with Whizz Kidz, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Bus Users UK, Transport for All, and many other charitable organisations, as well as the likes of Jackie Snape from Disability Action Yorkshire. The Prime Minister showed what cross-party working can do when he delivered that change for Greater Manchester, and is now rolling it out across England. I am grateful to him that, come next year, disability bus passes will not start at 9.30 am, because disabilities do not either.

The Prime Minister mentioned in answer to another question that he does not like postcode lotteries. With that in mind, one issue that will still exist relates to companion bus passes, which are granted to disabled people who need someone to accompany them. This is an issue where we will still see a postcode lottery. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has been campaigning on this vigorously. Will the Prime Minister look at this issue, and deliver the same cross-party success to scrap those injustices too?

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman; he was kind enough to invite me to a meeting of the all-party group when he was campaigning on that issue, and we did work on it cross-party. I was pleased to be able to make that change as Prime Minister. It is something that will benefit a huge number of disabled people, but he is right that the job is not done because many disabled people will say that they cannot go out and live their life without a companion, and sometimes they cannot afford to pay for that. There is further work to be done, but let’s celebrate—I was going to say, “let’s celebrate the small wins,” but I do not think it is a small win because it means everything to somebody who now can, or will soon be able to, get out whenever they need with that change. I pay credit to the hon. Gentleman; he ran a great campaign. It was something I did in Greater Manchester—I was proud to support him. And that is the thing I am saying today: let’s do more of that.

I welcome the Prime Minister to his place. According to the Office for National Statistics, manufacturing directly contributes 15% to the economy of Staffordshire—double the national average—so I really welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to reindustrialisation, which is vital for towns like Stafford. Will he meet me and other interested MPs, particularly those who are members of the Reindustrialisation Research Group, so we can speak about this issue, specifically as it relates to towns? We know that towns have more manufacturing employment than cities, so to have growth in every postcode, with manufacturing booming again in towns, is going to make such a difference.

I could not agree more. The agenda of reindustrialisation goes hand in hand with lifting high streets, and I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned on both those things. I am serious in saying that we need quite a change in British public procurement to support our industries. As she will see as we go towards the Budget, we will talk more about what can be done to support high streets. Too many tell a story of decline. If we can turn them round, it could completely change the way people feel about the areas where they live. It could build that sense of optimism that can then make many more things possible. That is what I intend to do for her constituency and many others, working with her.

I congratulate the right hon. Member on becoming Prime Minister and on his stamina at taking questions for already even longer than the longest world cup match. He has said some helpful and useful things about housing, particularly on rough sleeping. Could I ask him to look seriously at the issue facing renters living in the private rented sector, where the local housing allowance, in most cases, comes nowhere near the level of rent being charged? In reality, less than 2% of private sector rents are within the local housing allowance. Raising the local housing allowance often means chasing the market all the time, and it therefore costs more and more. He must know the numbers of people living in the private rented sector. Surely the obvious answer is to bring in some kind of ceiling—a rent control of some sort—to the sector, and immediately look at not postponing the rise in the local housing allowance, but to bring real relief to people who are desperately up against it and subsidising their rent out of their benefits. The current situation is not fair, it is not right, and I am sure that he would agree with me.

While I may have already outlasted the longest world cup match, I am sure that my right hon. Friend and I did a longer Q&A at a hustings in 2015—so this is just a small one.

I agree with what my right hon. Friend says about the change we need to see to the housing market. He mentions local housing allowance. It has been repeatedly frozen in recent years, and that has meant that the gap between benefits and rents has grown bigger and bigger. It is the biggest reason that London councils have a huge temporary accommodation bill, which I think has gone over half a billions pounds now. The freeze does not save money, because it just creates an unfunded pressure in council budgets. He may have seen that in our first allocations from the social and affordable homes programme, which I mentioned in my statement, London is the biggest beneficiary by some distance, particularly through the building of council homes in London. We have made a significant down payment there. I hear what he says about local housing allowance. We need a package of measures to turn the housing market around. Hopefully, some of what I have said today answers his concerns.

I thank the Prime Minister for his words on cross-party working, which I know my constituents believe in very strongly. On that basis, I would like to endorse comments made by Opposition colleagues around farming, drought and bluetongue, all of which are very important to my constituents. To move on to the matter most immediately at hand for my constituents, Jodrell Bank in my constituency faces a significant problem in the medium term because of funding cuts. Would it be possible for the Prime Minister and No. 10 North to work with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) to address this issue?

Every one of my generation went on a school trip to Jodrell Bank, and there is no way that we can see its demise—it will not happen under my Government. I know that changes have been made in relation to research funding, but Jodrell Bank is a heritage asset for the country as well as a research asset. I will indeed set up the meeting that my hon. Friend requires. There must be a way to save Jodrell Bank, and I give her a commitment today at this Dispatch Box: we will find it.

We have had the hottest summer on record, and we have had an exceptionally high number of tragic deaths in the rivers and seas around the country. At the same time, so many children are no longer able to learn to swim; over 200 public and school swimming pools have closed since 2020. Will the Prime Minister look at how we can better fund leisure centres and swimming pools to make sure that every child knows how to save themselves and to float—with the advice from the Royal Life Saving Society? Will he ensure that we do not have such a terrible summer again?

There have been too many tragic deaths this summer, and the best way to prevent that is to do exactly what the hon. Member said. Swimming should be an entitlement for young people on the curriculum, and I look forward to seeing how we can deliver that, working with her.

My constituency includes the towns of Dumbarton and Clydebank, and both share proud histories as industrial powerhouses, not least in shipbuilding. If we are to reindustrialise every part of our UK—every postcode—that must include West Dunbartonshire. We have two sites on the Clyde ready for investment: Carless in Old Kilpatrick, and the former Exxon site in Bowling. Will the Prime Minister help me to restore industry to these sites, and will he visit my West Dunbartonshire constituency?

I will at some point—as soon as I can. In relation to shipbuilding, I worked with the Mayor of Liverpool, who was setting a contract for a new Mersey ferry and found that there was pressure to have it built overseas. Using social value commissioning, he and I worked together to ensure that the ferry was built at Cammell Laird in Birkenhead, and it will soon come into service in Liverpool. We need to see more of that. Too many buses are being bought from companies outside our shores, when we have Wrightbus in Northern Ireland and Alexander Dennis Ltd in Scotland and Scarborough. We should be doing more to back British business, and my hon. Friend can expect that fully from me, as well as commitments to the shipbuilding industry.

Can I say that I am flattered to be associated with the Prime Minister? It must be mistaken identity—I am not sure if he would be as flattered. I welcome him to the Dispatch Box and back to the House, and I welcome his commitment to Ukraine. I would like some clarity on the defence budget. It seems over the recess—of course, there has been no scrutiny of the Prime Minister and the Government over the recess—that there has been a talking up of the Government’s commitment to spending 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035. There has not been as much talk about meeting the 3% target by 2030. Would the Prime Minister like to inform the House and the country, given that his Chancellor, in his previous role as Defence Secretary, said that this country should prepare to be on a war footing?

The right hon. Gentleman raises a crucial issue that matters greatly to me and to the Chancellor. We will meet all our international commitments, and we will set out how at the spending review.

The Prime Minister is right to pursue further devolution within the United Kingdom, but in my work on the Public Accounts Committee, I am regularly struck by how little the different parts of the United Kingdom appear to learn from one another, even when tackling very similar challenges. Devolution allows different places to take different approaches, creating real opportunities to learn from what works and what does not. As we devolve more power within the United Kingdom, does the Prime Minister agree that we must also get much better at grasping these opportunities, so that every part of the UK can learn from and benefit from the experience of others? Is he thinking about how we could bake this into further devolution in a way that it is not currently?

That is an excellent suggestion. It is exactly the thing No. 10 North was set up to do, and I will pass my hon. Friend’s suggestion on to them.

I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister speak multiple times about his trip to Cornwall, and I hope he enjoyed Exeter services on his way through Devon. It is disappointing that he did not spend more time in rural Devon in particular, because the biggest issue I dealt with over the summer was the Government’s local government reorganisation announcement, which will see a huge rural Devon constituency of 2,200 square miles with just 103 councillors, compared with 220 councillors for three urban centres of about 600 square miles between them. I accept the Prime Minister’s ambition for growth in every postcode, but he mentioned earlier the lack of infrastructure in the south-west. How can that version of local government reorganisation produce growth in every postcode? I urge him to revisit that decision with the Minister responsible, because, quite frankly, constituents across rural Devon are devastated by what it might mean for them.

I did intend to visit Devon at the same time, but I was diverted to Stourbridge—I hope the hon. Lady will understand why—because of the devastating fire in people’s homes that we saw in the middle of the summer. As I said before, I am prepared to look at local government reorganisation or ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to do that. Where possible, we need as much consent as we can get. If the hon. Lady is telling me that we need to work harder to find that, I am always prepared to do what I can.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and welcome him to his place. The Prime Minister knows the Hoolickin family from Middleton, who tragically lost their beloved Michael as a result of the callous actions of a violent reoffender who should have been recalled to custody far sooner, if only the local probation service had been more rigorous in its monitoring. Will the Prime Minister commit to looking seriously at the Probation Service’s accountability and how it operates, so that serious further offenders are given no opportunity to cause further harm to constituents like mine?

I do know Garry and Lesley Hoolickin well; I have met them many, many times. The murder of their son was something that sadly could have been prevented. It was, in some ways, caused by chaos in the probation system, as my hon. Friend knows. When I was leaving this House in the middle part of the last decade, probation services were plummeting into chaos, and only in recent times have we started to lift them back up again. Personally, I think there does need to be accountability for what happened to probation services in that period. It was a disastrous reorganisation that had real human consequences, and I have always supported the call for work to give answers to the families who lost loved ones—truth and justice.

We know that Labour’s NHS policy on mandatory advice and guidance and single point of access has led to deaths. We on the Opposition Benches warned about it, doctors warned about it, and patients warned about it, and we were told repeatedly that it was total nonsense, misinformation, opportunism and even conspiracy theories. Now the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, the Government’s safety watchdog, has produced a report linking this system to deaths and asked for a rapid review. The right hon. Gentleman has been a Health Secretary before. Will he commit to that review, to ensure there are no further delays in diagnosis and no further deaths as a result of this policy?

I have not yet had a chance to read that review. I will, and I will then seek to speak to the hon. Gentleman, to see what we can do.

In my constituency, more than one in five people are employed in logistics and related industries, and they will welcome this Government’s focus on growth in every region. Given the impact that business costs have on consumer prices, what steps will my right hon. Friend take to improve the operating environment for logistics businesses and help ease the cost of living pressures for families? Will he commit to meeting with small family-owned logistics companies in my constituency?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Again, I cannot give a time commitment, but I will at some point do exactly as she asks and have that meeting. I recognise that the cost of doing business is too high. We need to show serious intent to bring it down, and that is what we will do.

Given that Chequers is in my constituency, may I welcome the so-called king of the north to his new Buckinghamshire residence? Next time he is at Chequers, before he heads off to enjoy the wonderful pubs in Wendover, as I know he has, could I persuade him to take a drive to the Buckinghamshire villages on the Oxfordshire border—villages like Ludgershall, Marsh Gibbon, Oakley, Long Crendon, Boarstall and Brill—and see for himself just how inappropriate it is to put an asylum centre just over that border at MOD Bicester? He can then make an intervention with the Home Secretary to ensure that a more suitable site is found for such a centre. While he is talking to the Home Secretary, could he ask her to respond to my letter containing a series of very detailed questions about this site that my constituents have been asking, which I sent to her over six weeks ago?

I will certainly look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman says. He will have heard me say in my statement that small boat crossings are down, and the number of people coming over is down, but we still have a challenge in relation to accommodation. I will look at the issue. I think Piddington is nearby, and I know there are concerns in that community as well. The only thing I would say is that it cannot be only the most deprived parts of this country that are asked to deal with the whole issue of asylum accommodation. A balance has to be struck, but it has to be fair for everybody. I of course recognise that large-scale institutions can put pressure on nearby villages. Let me look at the issues that he raises; I can see that they are genuine, but this is an issue that has to be dealt with as a whole country, and that is what I will do.

September is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. I raised with the last Prime Minister the case of Max Hall. During our summer recess, Max passed away. He will forever be 14. Will the Prime Minister commit in his direction of Government to prioritise brain cancer—the biggest cancer killer of those under 40—and get his Ministers to meet with Max’s family and the organisations that support families, such as Brain Tumour Research and Brain Cancer Justice?

I will absolutely give my hon. Friend the commitment that I will ask the relevant Minister to meet them, and would he do me the favour of passing on my sympathies to Max’s family? That is devastating news. There is so much more we need to do on brain cancer. You can be sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will always do that in the name of my good friend Tessa Jowell, whose family still work on these issues. There is so much more that we can do. I know that these issues have been in the media recently. There is encouraging research being done. We need to see a breakthrough. I will keep a close eye on that meeting, and I am happy to work with him further on this issue.

Today the Prime Minister has spoken with great passion about empowering local people and allowing them to make decisions that affect their own lives. On that theme, could I ask the Prime Minister what action he will take to restore the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and its people to Northern Ireland when it comes to making the laws? Currently, laws in 300 areas are made by a foreign Parliament, not by this United Kingdom. These are laws we do not make and cannot change. Indeed, the Prime Minister inadvertently put a focus on this issue when he referred to the cut in VAT on electricity bills—a cut that could not apply to Northern Ireland because we are subject to foreign EU law that no one has voted for. In his crusade to empower local people, will the Prime Minister set about the fundamental task of restoring UK sovereignty—people’s sovereignty—to my constituency? Speaking of my constituency, he mentioned Wrightbus. May I invite him to visit it at the earliest opportunity?

I always love visiting Northern Ireland, so who knows? On the hon. and learned Gentleman’s main point, I will probably disappoint him. Obviously, the arrangements put in place are about supporting the economy of Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland can get the benefits of access to both markets. It is important that he sees the benefits of the arrangement that the Windsor framework brought as well.

The Prime Minister has rightly described council tax as “highly regressive”, saying that it is unfair that people in Greater Manchester often pay far more than people living in London. Does he agree that that same injustice is even more stark in towns like Hartlepool, where a band D household pays £2,556 a year compared with £1,048 in Westminster? He has rightly attacked that unfairness, so will he now commit to attacking the problem and replacing the hated council tax system that hammers towns like mine?

I do not think I can go all that way from the Dispatch Box today, but I understand the point my hon. Friend makes. A council tax system based on 1991 valuations is not going to deliver fairness across the country. The first steps at reform were taken in last year’s Budget. We need to proceed with consensus on this issue, if we can. I understand what he is saying, but the more wholesale reform might have to wait for another day.

At the weekend, the Prime Minister stepped in to ensure that his No. 10 North railway service continued, so in that spirit of problem solving, will he use his office to ensure that rapid action is taken to restore a reliable service from King’s Lynn to King’s Cross for my North West Norfolk constituents, who had 380 trains cancelled in July and 280 in August?

I have said to the Transport Secretary, and she agrees, that the performance of the railways over the summer we have just had has been nowhere near good enough. On a very hot day, passengers on a train from Edinburgh to London had no working toilets on the entire train, and coming back from Cornwall and Devon, the train that I was on was abandoned at Taunton—I think we have all had those kinds of experiences. The railways need to improve and public ownership of them needs to drive that improvement. I will be convening a rail summit soon to discuss the summer just gone—I would be happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me with details of the service he mentioned—because we need to see significant improvement on our railways.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to grasp the nettle of social care reform. At Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS foundation trust, which is a well-performing trust, about 20% of beds are filled with people who should be getting better at home, but with a 10% vacancy rate in social care, we cannot fix the problem without having high-quality jobs and progression in social care. Will the Prime Minister direct Louise Casey to look at that area of social care so that we can build a national care service that people want to work in?

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The first stage of any social care reform should be workforce reform to create the foundation on which to build a new approach and a more preventive, higher quality service that actually keeps people out of hospital. I think it starts with people’s pay, terms and conditions, their prospects for progression and their ability to move towards the NHS. I have always favoured seeing this as a single approach across all care. I am happy to work with him on that, because from my point of view, he has articulated perfectly the first stage of social care reform.

There was nothing easy about reopening early release. I was listening to the British people when I made changes to exclude rapists, groomers and those guilty of the most serious sexual offences against children from the scheme, and then went even further to exclude manslaughter and other historic child sex offences. Regardless of what the hon. Gentleman might read on social media, I do take difficult decisions. I have done that for 25 years as an elected politician and it is what I will carry on doing. The proposals that the Justice Secretary will outline soon show that that is exactly the nettle that I have grasped.

I welcome the Prime Minister to his place. He is right to say that we need more power and more ownership back in the hands of our communities. My constituency of Aylesbury is in a relatively wealthy part of the country, but if he were to talk to people at the Vineyard food bank or the Youth Concern drop-in he would not know it, because that overall wealth masks significant inequalities within Buckinghamshire. In fact, people in parts of Aylesbury live on average 11 years less than people in the wealthier parts in the south of the county. What does more control and more ownership look like for my residents, particularly those at the sharp end of the inequalities that I have described?

It is so important that rural communities do not feel shut out from the drive towards devolution. That is why I have made that clear commitment today. I believe that rural communities can benefit from public control of bus services, possibly more than urban areas, because bus services in rural areas are so fragile, expensive and often intermittent. It is only moving to a regulated service that can put in place a decent, reliable bus service for people. That is something that we should support for rural areas, working through No. 10 North, and we should put it into effect for our rural communities as much as for our urban areas.

Gorthugher da ha meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. On behalf of my Cornish parliamentary colleagues, I welcome the Prime Minister’s recognition of Cornwall’s special case, his visit to Cornwall and his kindness in communicating with me in advance of that meeting. Notwithstanding his experience in his previous job, does he recognise that the metropolitan template is not appropriate in all circumstances when dealing with devolution? There are Celtic regions and nations, such as Cornwall, that require a bespoke settlement. I know that we will be discussing the matter at No. 10 North and I welcome that opportunity. I hope that the Prime Minister will engage in it with a very open mind.

It is a very real offer and I am glad that it finds favour with my hon. Friend—I call him that because we have worked together over a number of years. I heard some groans from the Opposition Benches when I mentioned the overnight visitor levy, but bear in mind that many of us will have been on summer holidays where we have spent a few extra euros to recognise the benefit we get from using services in a local area. If such a power was extended as part of a devolution deal, it could be quite transformational for Cornwall because it could open up a new revenue stream to address infrastructure. That would be a choice for Cornwall, but I want to consider a devolution deal that gives real levers that can help Cornwall and other rural areas to start to improve their services. It might provide the revenue to sustain bus services, for instance. It is about fairness. We heard about the unfairness of council tax. It cannot be right to make residents pay for all the services when visitors should make a fair contribution as well. As British tourists, we pay it elsewhere, so I do not see why visitors to Cornwall should not pay a little extra. That is the type of discussion we need to have—it is not a fluffy discussion but a real discussion—about what can be done to move Cornwall forward. I am ready to do that and maybe make it a template for other rural areas across England.

May I figuratively raise a glass to the Prime Minister’s much-needed 20% cut to business rates for pubs, clubs and live music venues? That really is a win for our high streets, but other hospitality businesses—the hundreds of hotels, cafés, restaurants, fish and chip shops and takeaways right across my constituency—need support with the cost of business rates. These are family-owned businesses, and they are the backbone of our high streets. Ahead of the Budget, will the Prime Minister look closely at widening the support so that other hospitality businesses can benefit?

I assure my hon. Friend that I am giving close consideration to that very suggestion.

I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, many happy returns.

I welcome the Prime Minister to his place, and I welcome his words. In an answer to someone else, he said that he will always demand the highest level of recognition for those who put themselves at risk to keep us safe. I am sure that after six weeks of being Prime Minister he includes in that our amazing armed forces, yet our Northern Ireland veterans face a never-ending process of prosecution, absent any new or compelling evidence. Does he think that our Northern Ireland veterans need more protection? If he does, what will he do about it?

Before the Prime Minister responds, let me say that questions need to be super short. Let us keep the responses tight as well, Prime Minister.

I mentioned the Good Friday agreement earlier. It is important to deal properly and fully with all the issues that are still there and need to be addressed. I do not think it is a case of leaving anything hanging over anybody. The commission proposed in the Bill allows answers to be given for those who are still seeking answers. This is about the right protections for veterans, too. Amendments will be brought forward soon, and we can discuss them as a House then.

I am extremely proud to have seen the huge expansion of clean energy over the last two years—a key way in which we are tackling the horrendous climate change that we have seen this summer. In fact, my constituency is the biggest clean energy generator in the whole country, with Heysham 1 and 2 nuclear power stations. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the clean energy revolution will continue under his Government and will continue to be a top priority?

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that commitment.

The Prime Minister has reeled off a list of policies since coming into office. Interestingly, he has failed to mention one major intervention: his Government have continued his predecessor’s policy of arming Israel—an apartheid state that has committed and continues to commit genocide in Gaza. Instead of deflection and the boring nice-guy act, will he finally admit to the House that he has chosen to continue arming Israel and is therefore complicit in the genocide of the Palestinian people?

I do not think the hon. Lady was in the House at the time, but I did signal a change on Israel and Palestine when I came into office as Prime Minister. A further statement will be made to the House very shortly.

Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Prime Minister will know that the commitment he has made on social and council housing will be very welcome in places such as Bracknell, where lots of families are waiting for a home. However, that is undermined when social housing providers sell off their social homes through the disposals process. I know that we are taking steps to address that issue through the Social Housing Bill, but I am concerned that we are not going far enough. It is good to see the Housing Minister in his place. Will the Prime Minister work with him to address this issue and ensure that we can stop disposals?

The Housing Minister has just assured me that we will look at the very issue my hon. Friend raises, so he may want to pursue that conversation with him.

The Prime Minister spoke earlier about deindustrialisation. That is exactly what is happening in my constituency, but that deindustrialisation is being caused directly by Labour’s energy policies. The energy profits levy, the ban on new licences and the delay in approving Jackdaw and Rosebank are all having a huge impact on thousands of jobs. Will the Prime Minister take a different approach from his predecessor and protect jobs in the oil and gas sector?

I have been very clear that I will take a pragmatic approach, and the hon. Gentleman will see that in action soon.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. He mentioned the triple-helix model, but what is missing from that model in Scotland is that local authorities are not empowered to play their part. On Friday, Liz McAreavey from the Edinburgh chamber of commerce and the chief executive of the Glasgow chamber of commerce wrote to the Prime Minister asking that he works with the First Minister in Scotland and city region leaders right across the Edinburgh-Glasgow region to forge a devolution deal that enables these cities to meet their full potential. Will he take that offer seriously?

It is certainly on offer from me to have a devolution deal that does precisely what my hon. Friend says and gets business, academia and local government all pulling together. Obviously it is a matter for the Scottish Government—I am not going to go round their back—but I hope that we can agree something at the National Economic Council next month.

As the Prime Minister looks ahead to what is predicted to be one of the wettest winters on record, my constituents are expecting more of the same: Southern Water pumping sewage into our precious chalk stream, the River Lavant, which feeds directly into Chichester harbour. What does he believe is an acceptable timescale to get to grips with the water industry and regulate it properly, rather than a review that has delayed everything and is limited in scope?

I understand the last point, and I have hinted at it today. The Cunliffe review was too limited and should have looked at all options for the water industry. I do not want this issue to drag on, but I do not believe we have a water industry that is fit for the climate challenges of the future, for the reasons that the hon. Lady has given. We will come forward with our proposals soon; it will not be too long.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s plans for the biggest redistribution of power that this country has ever seen. Does he agree that in addition to redistributing power via geography, we need to rebalance power between the generations? Will he have a look at my ideas of a youth triple lock and a dedicated Minister for younger and future generations?

I think this House will need to have a very profound debate when the Milburn report is published. We need to make a generational change in the way that we support our young people, and I will engage my hon. Friend fully in that discussion.

Towns and villages across my constituency are often besieged by utility and engineering works. Will the Prime Minister look at and personally respond to my campaign for a statutory duty to co-ordinate those works to keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving?

Yes—this issue used to drive me mad as Mayor of Greater Manchester. Only the capital has had some of those powers, but everywhere should have them. I am in full support of what the hon. Gentleman says.

It was a pleasure to welcome the Prime Minister to Portsmouth this summer when he visited His Majesty’s naval base. It was especially good to welcome a fellow north MP to Portsmouth North! He saw at first hand the dedication of our armed forces, so does he agree that supporting personnel and their families remains a priority? Like the police, they should offer proper paternity leave for every serving father and ensure that our self-employed fathers are no longer left behind.

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. We need to provide the very best support we can to those who serve in our armed forces. I know that the Chancellor, in his previous role, did a lot to improve forces accommodation. There is more that we can do, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on that. I enjoyed my visit.

My mum and I survived domestic abuse when I was a child, but today many victims are petrified about their own survival in the light of the early release scheme. I know the Prime Minister has already excluded perpetrators of some offences from that scheme and pulled out the stops there, but what stops will he pull out to further protect victims of domestic abuse?

I do not want to steal the thunder of the Justice Secretary, but he will soon announce a much-enhanced licensing and tagging regime in which victims will be able to be given a say in the setting of the restrictions. We are moving for the first time to a system of restriction zones, rather than exclusion zones. That means that the victim is much more in control and we are not allowing people just to have places that they cannot go into; we are instead giving them a zone that is the only area they can go into. That completely alters the balance in favour of victims.

As the MP for Aldershot, I was really pleased to hear that the Prime Minister has held bilateral talks with Prime Ministers Carney and Frieden, who are leading the founding of the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank. For the past 18 months, I have pushed for the UK to join this multilateral bank, because I believe that we must work internationally to fund defence. Will the Prime Minister commit the UK to standing with our allies and joining this world bank for defence? It could unlock millions in investment for our British defence industry.

We will certainly look at that scheme, and indeed we are doing so. I have been in touch with the Canadian Prime Minister. There are other schemes in Europe. We need to be pragmatic about our defence commitments and look at all ways of collaborating so that we can save money, as my hon. Friend suggests.

Scotland is not a region, and nor should it be treated as one. Those in Scotland are hurt and frustrated at the way the Prime Minister has conducted the conversation around devolution and so arrogantly dismissed the pro-independence mandate that the Scottish people gave. Why does the Prime Minister think he can dismiss the democratically elected mandate of the Scottish people?

I certainly have not in any way disrespected Scotland. I came to Scotland to support the opening of the Commonwealth games in my first week in office. I met the First Minister. He shared some of his concerns about the Council of the Nations and Regions. He felt it did not give due consideration to the nations, and I listened to that, as well as putting the proposals on the table about more local devolution. I have not done anything of the kind the hon. Lady describes. Similar to Northern Ireland, it is about when public support changes and the position changes. I do not follow all the polls in Scotland, but I am not aware that they are consistently showing a change and a need for another referendum.

Across the east midlands, persistently low apprenticeship start rates mean that loads of our young children do not get the opportunities they deserve. As the Prime Minister witnessed in Derby, there are some excellent examples of young people with good apprenticeships. Will he work across industry to make sure that we increase the rate of apprenticeship starts, so that more young people can get a start in life?

It was brilliant to be at Alstom with my hon. Friend and to see all the apprentices that it employs, as well as those employed in its supply chain. It is a model for what we want to see elsewhere. We need to make a massive change in this area. It should be a big part of our response to the Milburn report, and I can give my hon. Friend a commitment that that is exactly what I will be seeking to do.

The Prime Minister’s warm words about rural and coastal communities will be seen, I am afraid, like the chocolate Freddo bar that he said he could not affect the price of: sweet, but ultimately insubstantial. Similarly, his triple-helix theory of growth is like the purple sweet in Quality Street: largely nuts. We need much more detail, Prime Minister. Rural communities are crying out for help. We need action. We cannot have the Stone Roses’ “Fool’s Gold”.

The hon. Member has worked hard at that question. Full marks for creativity. It must have looked great in front of the mirror, and it was still pretty good in the House. On the triple-helix model, perhaps he needs to speak to Baroness May down the corridor, because that was her theory in the local industrial strategies that I mentioned, and it has worked pretty well in Greater Manchester. I would not dismiss it quite so quickly. Greater Manchester had average growth for a decade of more than 3%; maybe there is something worth looking at there.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and also for the fact that his first visit after being elected as leader of the Labour party back in July was to the north—north Kent, in this instance. Does he agree that his visit showed him that we need to continue to invest in our infrastructure? In our case, that is the lower Thames crossing, but we also must fix our crumbling roads, such as Galley Hill Road in my constituency. We need to double down on infrastructure to have growth in every postcode, do we not?

I completely agree. It was striking that people were pointing out the loss of the ferry service between his constituency and Tilbury. [Interruption.] Sorry, between Gravesend and Tilbury—have I got that right? That type of connectivity is crucial to local communities, and I completely agree with my hon. Friend. No. 10 North is there to get that infrastructure back in, and I hope he will work with it.

I welcome the Prime Minister to his place with his message of optimism, hope and change for water, climate change and procurement. On procurement, may I be presumptuous and give him a quick win? We can remove Palantir from the federated data platform in the NHS and replace it with a Greater Manchester model that works today and supplies more than Palantir does or ever can. That is an easy win.

I have already got Members on the other side of the House championing my achievements as Mayor of Greater Manchester. The hon. Member makes a good point.

I welcome the Prime Minister to his post. My constituency of Amber Valley is made up of three small manufacturing towns with surrounding villages, but it has been overlooked for far too long, so I am pleased to hear the Prime Minister speak of growth in every postcode. My constituents will be particularly pleased to hear about reindustrialisation after our largest employer, Denby Pottery, recently closed its doors for the last time after 217 years. Can the Prime Minister advise how we can prioritise constituencies like mine, which are still experiencing the effects of deindustrialisation?

I was sad to hear about Denby Pottery, and I know my hon. Friend’s part of the world fairly well. We are serious about making sure that where there are world-class sectors in our communities, we back them properly and help them transition to future technologies. We have not done that well as a country in the past; we will do it much better in the future.

I am glad that the Prime Minister had a nice tour of the UK over the summer. Had he come to the Isle of Wight, he would have heard about our No. 1 cost of living issue, which is the price of travelling to and from the Isle of Wight. It is astronomical, and it is harming our tourism economy and restricting access to health and education. If he stands by his comments about people power and putting power back into communities, will he at least be open to creating regulatory powers so that we can control the prices levied by private equity companies, put passengers first, and ensure that the Isle of Wight is treated fairly, just like every other community in the UK?

The hon. Member sounds like he could be speaking from the Government Benches. I got a lot of jeers from the Opposition when I talked about public control earlier this afternoon, but that is precisely what he is calling for, and he is right to do so. It enabled me to reduce bus fares in Greater Manchester, and I do not see why it would not enable him to reduce ferry fares. Bring me a proposal—that is what I say to him. I will look seriously at it, because I understand completely how critical those transport links are to opportunity and growth, both on the island and on the mainland.

I welcome the Prime Minister to his place, and I thank him for the positive actions he is taking, particularly to end rough sleeping by Christmas. Will he join me in thanking the amazing charities and organisations in Southend that do so much good work in this area, including the Homeless Action Resource Project—HARP—St Vincent de Paul, the One Love Project, the YMCA and Off the Streets? Can he give me an assurance that this policy is only the start of solving a problem that can often involve a complex set of individual circumstances?

When we think of rough sleeping and homelessness, bricks and mortar is only part of it. In effect, what we are talking about is a journey of recovery. That was the Housing First philosophy that was discussed earlier. It is about giving people a firm base, and then giving them the support to move forward. Every person in my view is capable of recovery. We just need to give them the circumstances in which it can happen.

The extremes of this summer cannot simply be wished away with emollient phrases like it not being all “one or the other” when it comes to new fossil fuel drilling. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he meant that all our climate commitments are at risk from his Government, or just this one?

The climate commitments in our manifesto are not at risk. I have made clear today that we need to plan for a carbon-neutral future. I am not one of those who will pander to those going in a different direction. I was convinced as Mayor of Greater Manchester that our future lay in adopting renewables, and I am of the same view as Prime Minister. Where I differ from the Green party is on its ideological, rather than pragmatic, approach to getting there. That, I am afraid, might delay the transition that the hon. Member seeks.

I call Chris Vince—and how I have missed him!

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I wish you a very happy birthday?

I thank the Prime Minister for making one of his first visits as Prime Minister to Harlow. It was almost as if he knew that I was going to mention Harlow quite regularly. Very seriously, I want to refer to an announcement made recently by the German Government about an incident at Leipzig airport. Does he agree that we should condemn this outrageous act of Russian aggression, and send our support to our German allies?

This is a very serious matter indeed, and I believe that news has broken about it as we have been gathering a statement from the German Government about the incident at Leipzig. I want to leave the House in no doubt that the UK stands in full solidarity with Germany in the face of these egregious and unacceptable attacks. Russia’s attempts to undermine our united resolve and our willingness to support Ukraine are futile and doomed to fail, and we will be steadfast in the face of them. I am in touch with Chancellor Merz, and we are working closely with our allies to defend any threats to NATO and our allies, and to NATO territory. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this matter; it is a very serious development, and it requires the most intense European co-operation in response.

I wish the new Prime Minister the very best, and welcome his commitment to a better kind of politics.

Nationally, 4.4 million people are now in council tax debt, 1.2 million more than in the previous year, and last year 1.7 million instructions were made for bailiffs. Bailiff use comes at a significant human and economic cost, so will the Prime Minister look at this issue? Will he, for instance, consider revoking regulation 45 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, which allows councils to call in bailiffs, and introducing a new duty of care that puts harm reduction at the heart of council tax collection and helps to write off unfair debt?

I happen to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know that there have been moves to improve the regulation of bailiffs, but I would encourage the 10 councils in Greater Manchester to take a different approach to debt, because many people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine fear the sound of the letterbox opening or a knock at the door. Personal debt can be completely destructive of people’s mental health, and I think that there is a different and better way, which the hon. Gentleman has described.

When the Prime Minister travels up the west coast main line through Milton Keynes and Bedfordshire, he will be travelling through a bit of the country where there is a lot going on. We are building many new homes, we are building a new hospital, a new railway line and a new theme park, and we are expanding Luton airport. Without a devolution deal, however, we cannot make those projects a success for the area, and there is a fear that we will be left behind. Will the Prime Minister work with local councils and Members of Parliament to deliver a devolution deal as quickly as possible? Unlike many of the local MPs, including me, some local councillors are still not convinced of the benefits of devolution. What would the Prime Minister say to them about the benefits that it would bring to Milton Keynes and Bedfordshire?

I think that the evidence is undeniable when it comes to growth. I have mentioned Greater Manchester, and the Liverpool city region is now growing at a faster rate than the UK average, which, for most of our lives, was simply was not the case. It is not in managed decline; it is actually flourishing, and my hon. Friend’s area is, as well. However, it can go even further. The model of devolution in England is working, and I want it to be available to all areas. If my hon. Friend wishes to lead a delegation to No. 10 North, I will ensure that he receives the warmest possible welcome.

I know that the Prime Minister is a huge advocate for the combined authority system of devolution. I have good news for him: all of London’s 32 boroughs called for exactly that in London, in a rare cross-party call last year. In the spirit of cross-party working, and to apply his experience from Manchester to the rest of the UK—as he has said that he wishes to do—will he reshape London’s devolution settlement by at last giving London boroughs a seat at the table when making decisions with the mayor?

I am aware of that change. Obviously, the Greater London Authority was created by statute, and there are other voices in the mix, including those of London Members of Parliament. I will always respond to a change when it is brought to me with a clear consensus and cross-party support. I am not aware that that exists fully across London, but if such a proposal were brought to me, I would always look at it carefully.

The previous Prime Minister announced a £200 million fund to create a green industrial revolution in Grangemouth. My constituency needs to be reindustrialised, and my communities need to be re-energised. I know that the Prime Minister is as passionate as I am about both those things. Will he make it a top priority to reindustrialise Grangemouth, get good, secure jobs into the town, and build the industrial future that Grangemouth and all of Scotland need?

I understand that there is a possibility of sustainable aviation fuel production at Grangemouth. I find that very interesting, and I keep coming back to it. Perhaps my hon. Friend wishes me to persuade No. 10 North to support him in the development of that proposal; I know that there is a financial commitment, but if we do reindustrialise, the money that we put forward to support that process can pay us back over many years to come, through a bigger and flourishing economy in all parts of the UK.

Last week, the High Court delivered a killer blow to the Parades Commission in Northern Ireland, uncovering unlawful decision making. For 28 years, the commission has denied Portadown District the right to return home from its annual church parade. All Unionists and grassroots loyalists have said that they have no confidence in the Parades Commission, but today, staggeringly, the Prime Minister’s Government have said that it has their full backing. The belligerence and arrogance of these commissioners is staggering. May I ask the Prime Minister to intervene and give them their P45s?

I do not know whether the hon. Lady is right about the full backing. I believe that an independent review of the Parades Commission and the process that it undertook has been announced. The Northern Ireland Secretary has already taken some steps, and the review of the process will go further. We will work hard to ensure that the trust of all communities—but particularly the communities that the hon. Lady represents—in the commission is restored.

I commend the Prime Minister for his commitment to building good growth in every postcode. Throughout Lichfield, Burntwood and the Villages, my constituents will say that there is a real opportunity to look at High Speed 2. There have been almost endless delays and disruption from roadworks and road closures on the stretch that would have linked Birmingham to Crewe and Manchester. There has been nothing but pain, and nothing but an anchor on our growth—and for all that pain we will see no gain. No station is planned anywhere in Staffordshire, and no new services are planned anywhere in the county. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss how we can make this project work for every postcode along the line?

I think there is a need for a resolution on what will happen from Handsacre to Manchester via Crewe, and a solution for the communities in between. This cannot be left where it is indefinitely. I understand the points that my hon. Friend has made, but given my past role, I hope he will be assured that this is something that I know a lot about.

Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker.

There are teachers in West Sussex who are giving up running after-school clubs so that they can take on a second job, because the cost of living, and particularly the cost of housing, is so high in the area. One of the issues is that West Sussex has the fifth-lowest secondary unit of funding in schools. Will the Prime Minister review minimum per-student funding levels, so that they truly reflect the cost of living in West Sussex?

I will ask the Education Secretary to look at precisely the issue that the hon. Lady has raised.

On the subject of social care, does the Prime Minister agree that there is a fundamental unfairness in dementia care being means-tested, while cancer care is funded by us all through general taxation? Is not that unfairness the issue that we need to address?

I have always said that we will not have a health and care system that is fit for the 21st century until it supports people with dementia as well as it treats people with cancer. We are some way from that, but it is the goal we should be working towards.

I welcome the Prime Minister to his role, and I also welcome his commitment to restoring local ownership and control. Sadly, that has not been the experience of my residents in Bicester, Piddington, Blackthorn, Ambrosden and Arncott, who face a proposal for the building of a huge asylum centre, costing millions of taxpayer pounds. Fifty-five days ago, the Government said that this was an urgent application, yet it remains veiled in secrecy and has not been published. Will the Prime Minister honour that commitment to restoring local agency, withdraw the urgent application, and publish the details, so that they can be scrutinised by the people who should be scrutinising them—local people and local representatives?

I am aware of the concern, and it is similar to the issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). All I can say is that I give the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) a commitment that I will familiarise myself with all the details of the planning application. I will happily report back from this Dispatch Box when I have done that.

May I welcome the Prime Minister to his place and invite him to my place? There are good flight connections from Manchester to the Western Isles, where he will see that we have the highest concentration of community-owned wind farms in the country. If he really wants to fulfil the potential of the energy transition, these communities should be given priority access to grid connections, and he should use the muscle of GB Energy to give communities and local councils the ability to buy shares in renewable schemes anywhere in their area. It is devolutionary, it is revolutionary, and the template for how to do it is in Na h-Eileanan an Iar.

That was put very well, and this is exactly the agenda that I have been talking about from the Dispatch Box today. All parts of the UK need to have control over basic services, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to support what he is saying.

For the final and 125th question, I call Gideon Amos.

Over the summer, the national maternity review confirmed what we all feared in Taunton: Musgrove Park hospital’s maternity unit is the most challenging estate in the country. It cannot be right that mums are giving birth in 30° heat, and that staff are fainting when they are looking after them. If that is the most challenging estate in the country, they cannot wait until 2033. Will the Prime Minister please look at moving forward the new maternity unit at Musgrove Park as an urgent priority?

I remember well visiting Musgrove Park in my days as a Health Minister. I did some work shadowing at the hospital, so I know how much it is in need of renovation. I will look into the issue. Across the NHS this summer, staff have been working in unbearable conditions, and it is the same for patients. I know that this is high on the Health Secretary’s agenda, and I will come back to the hon. Gentleman when I have had a chance to look at the latest status of that issue.