PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
G7 and NATO Summits - 26 June 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

This Labour Government are focused on delivering security for the British people—national security, economic security, and social security. On social security, I recognise that there is a consensus across the House on the urgent need for reform of our welfare system, because the British people deserve protection and dignity when they are unable to work, and support into work when they can. At the moment they are failed every single day by the broken system created by the Conservatives, which achieves neither. I know that colleagues across the House are eager to start fixing that, and so am I; all colleagues want to get this right, and so do I. We want to see reform implemented with Labour values of fairness. That conversation will continue in the coming days, so that we can begin making change together on Tuesday.

Mr Speaker, with permission I will update the House on the G7 and NATO summits, where the middle east was at the forefront of our minds. For decades, it has been the stated policy of the UK and our allies that Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon. No one who cares about the security of our country, or the future of the middle east, could live with that eventuality. For decades we have worked to prevent it, and on Saturday night the US took a big step towards resolving that threat.

There is now a window for peace. We urge Iran and Israel to honour the ceasefire and seize this opportunity to stabilise the region. That is our priority—to get Iran back around the negotiating table with the US. Ultimately, that is how we will ensure a complete, verifiable, and irreversible end to Iran’s nuclear programme. We are using every diplomatic lever to support that effort, because further instability would pose grave risks to the region and beyond, taking us even further away from freeing the hostages and easing the intolerable suffering of the Palestinians. There is also an opportunity now to push for a ceasefire in Gaza, and we must seize it. I have been discussing this with other leaders, and we will keep pushing to put the region on a better path. I have also spoken to the Emir of Qatar to express our solidarity after Iran’s unacceptable attack on the Al Udeid airbase. We took the necessary action to protect British military personnel ahead of that attack, and we will continue to support all our citizens in the region.

Mr Speaker, this crisis has punctured once again the mistaken idea that domestic and foreign policy concerns are separate, and that action in one area is at the expense of the other. The truth, now more than ever, is that international problems rebound on us at home, impacting our security and our economy. Our national security strategy is clear. In this era of radical uncertainty, faced with growing conflict, state threats, illegal migration, organised crime and terrorism, the only way to respond to these issues is by being strong, both at home and on the world stage, by pursuing a foreign policy that answers directly to the concerns of working people. That is the approach I took to NATO and to the G7.

NATO is the most successful military alliance the world has ever known and the cornerstone of our defence for over 75 years. Our duty is not merely to reflect on that success; we must equip the alliance for the future. I have long argued that this is the moment for Europe to make a fundamental shift in posture. That is what the UK has done, delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war and setting out a landmark shift in our defence and deterrence in the strategic defence review.

Yesterday, NATO allies stepped up as well, to meet this moment and create an alliance that is stronger, fairer and more lethal than ever. Together, we signed a new defence investment pledge of 5% of GDP by 2035, including, for the first time, wider issues of homeland security and national resilience, like protecting our cyber-security and our energy networks. This is in lockstep with our national security strategy and we are already investing in these areas. Under NATO’s new definitions, we estimate that we will reach at least 4.1% of GDP in 2027, on the way to 5% by 2035. Allies also agreed to review both the balance and the trajectory of these requirements in 2029 to coincide with the scheduled review of NATO’s capability requirements, ensuring that we keep pace with threats and technologies as they evolve.

With this historic commitment, we are continuing our proud tradition of leading in NATO, picking up the torch from Attlee and Bevin. And now, following their lead, we will seize the opportunity created by this moment to align our national security objectives and plans for economic growth in a way not seen since the 1940s, renewing industrial communities the length and breadth of our country, boosting defence production and innovation. Our investment in Britain's nuclear deterrent alone will support 30,000 high-skilled jobs.

I want to speak directly about our deterrent capability. It has kept this country safe for decades, but we recognise the grim reality today that the nuclear threat is growing. So we are renewing our existing at-sea capability and we are going further still. I can tell the House today that we will procure at least 12 F-35A fast jets, and we will make them available to bear nuclear weapons, if necessary. That marks the return of the Royal Air Force to nuclear deterrence for the first time in three decades, the biggest strengthening of our deterrence posture in a generation, keeping our country safe while also supporting 20,000 jobs.

The NATO summit sent a message of intent that will be heard around the world, but this must be joined by renewed support for Ukraine, because if we let Putin succeed there, the deterrent effect of NATO’s new plans would be fatally compromised. So I told President Zelensky at Downing Street on Monday that we will harden our resolve. We struck an agreement together to share battlefield technology, accelerating our support for Ukraine’s defence, while boosting British security and British jobs. We committed to providing hundreds more air defence missiles, paid for not by the British taxpayer, but with money from Russia’s frozen assets.

And, together with Europe, Canada and our Indo-Pacific partners, we announced that we will deliver €40 billion of military aid to Ukraine this year, matching last year’s pledge in full. There is a path to a just and lasting peace, but it will only come through flipping the pressure on to Putin. His position is weaker than he claims, so I urged all our partners, including the US, to step up the pressure now, with more sanctions and more military support to bring Russia to the table, to agree an unconditional ceasefire, leading to serious negotiations.

Let me turn to the G7 summit, where, again, my priority was to deliver in the national interest. Again, I can report some significant progress. Leaders agreed to take decisive action on illegal migration, following the UK’s lead in using hard-headed measures such as sanctions. We marked an export contract with Canada worth over £500 million, creating jobs here at home. We secured Canada’s agreement to ratify Britain’s entry to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—a trading bloc worth $12 trillion.

We secured President Trump’s signature to fully implement our trade deal, which will slash tariffs on British goods. His executive order will remove aerospace tariffs completely and cut tariffs on cars from the 27.5% that British car makers face now to 10% in a matter of days, saving thousands of jobs in the west midlands and around the country. I have been to Jaguar Land Rover many times now; I have looked those workers in the eye, and I know what this means to them, their families and their whole communities. That is who I am representing at summits like this—the working people of Britain.

Navigating this world requires cool heads. It defies simplistic answers and knee-jerk judgments. We do not pretend that we can fix every global problem, but we can carve a unique path through these dangerous times to secure and renew Britain in an era of global instability. That is what our plan for change is all about: putting Britain’s national interest first.

After years of economic chaos, we have delivered economic stability for the British people. After years of our armed forces being hollowed out, we are building up our military, firing up our industries, leading in NATO, supporting Ukraine and keeping Britain safe. After years of fraying alliances, we are rebuilding and shaping them to serve the British people. We have focused every ounce of our global influence to deliver for working people and to deliver in the national interest, and I commend this statement to the House.

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. He has evaded Prime Minister’s questions for two weeks, only to come back here to tell us what we already heard on the news. This is a weak statement from a weak Prime Minister, which can be characterised in two words: noises off.

In his statement, the Prime Minister said:

“We urge Iran and Israel to honour the ceasefire”.

He said:

“We are using every diplomatic lever to support this effort”.

What diplomatic levers? Are they the same levers he is using with his Back-Bench rebels? Is he just asking them to please play nice? Let us be honest: nobody cares what this Prime Minister thinks—why should they, when he does not even know what he thinks? Clearly no one cares what he thinks, because he was not involved. We used to be a strategic player on the global stage, advancing Britain’s interests with confidence—[Interruption.]

Order. You may not wish to hear the Leader of the Opposition, but I do. It does not do anybody good in this Chamber to try to shout down somebody who is speaking.

Labour Members can shout as much as they like, but we all know the truth. We used to be a strategic player on the global stage, advancing Britain’s interests with confidence, and now we are on the sidelines.

Over the last few weeks, historic events unfolded in the middle east, and at every stage Britain has been out of step with the US and out of the loop with Israel. Last week, the Prime Minister came back from the G7 insisting that there was nothing President Trump said that would indicate he was about to get involved in this conflict. Days later, the US launched its attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and the Prime Minister had no idea what was going on.

The week before, Israel launched an attack on Iran, and it became apparent that the UK was not even informed about the attack in advance, despite us having been involved in previous preventive action. How is that standing up on the world stage? On Tuesday, the Foreign Secretary—a lawyer—repeatedly could not say whether the US strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities were legal. This is a Government who do not know what they are doing. Let me make the Conservative position clear: Iran has been a direct threat to the UK for years, plotting terrorism on British soil. It must not get nuclear weapons. This is a time for Europe to step up, and the UK should be leading; instead, we have an Attorney General using international law to constrain and restrict the UK while the Prime Minister hovers indecisively on the sidelines. What we need is a leader—instead, we have three lawyers.

Last week, I wrote to the Prime Minister about how this conflict has underscored the folly of the Government’s £30 billion Chagos surrender deal. The Diego Garcia base is of obvious strategic importance for conflicts in the middle east. [Interruption.] Labour Members are shaking their heads—they do not understand. It is obvious; Diego Garcia was used extensively during the war in Afghanistan, including by the United States.

At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said that this Chagos surrender had been

“opposed by our adversaries, Russia, China and Iran”.—[Official Report, 4 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 302.]

Since then, it has been widely reported that China has offered massive congratulations on the deal and conveyed that it fully supports Mauritius. Will the Prime Minister now admit that he was incorrect to state on the Floor of this House that China opposes the Chagos deal, and can he confirm whether he still views China as an adversary? Under the terms of the Prime Minister’s deal, if the US were to launch an attack from the military base on Diego Garcia, we would have to inform the Chinese-allied Mauritius Government. Will he abandon the deeply flawed surrender deal? If not, when will he introduce the legislation setting out the details of the Chagos surrender, so that Parliament can consider and debate it?

We welcome the announcement that the UK will be buying F-35A fighter jets, and I am pleased that the Labour party has now moved on from its previous position of not supporting NATO and advocating against the nuclear deterrent. [Interruption.] Labour Members pretend that it never happened, but we have the receipts. Conservatives are proud of exceeding the NATO baseline of 2% of GDP spent on defence, and we led NATO in getting there. However, the Government’s aspiration to get spending on national security to 5% is just hope—the reality is that Labour does not have a plan to get to 3%. It is all smoke and mirrors, and we do not know what the Government will spend the extra 1.5% component on. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether this is money we are already spending, or whether there will be any new money? So long as this plan remains unfunded, these are just words.

Instead of using smoke and mirrors to inflate defence spending, Labour should heed our call to hit 3% by the end of this Parliament with a fully funded plan to get there. Look at the money the Government claim they are going to save through their welfare Bill—£5 billion is nowhere near the tens, if not hundreds, of billions we are going to need to find if we are to meet that defence spending target. This is the problem, Mr Speaker: it is one thing to talk about spending money on planes and infrastructure and to make announcements about reviews, but it is another to be clear about where the money will come from and how it will be spent efficiently to secure the defence of our nation. [Interruption.] Labour Members can mutter all they like; we all know that they are terrified of doing anything that is even remotely difficult.

It is crucial that there is a clear, united front in full support of Ukraine that secures peace on Ukraine’s terms. The stakes could not be higher. We need the Government to be leveraging British influence in every way they can for Ukraine, so can the Prime Minister tell us whether he pushed for clearer language in the NATO communiqué about Russia being the aggressor in this conflict? Can he update us on the UK’s current position on Ukraine’s accession to NATO, given the absence of detail in this year’s communiqué? We must ensure that our leading role continues, but that requires strong leadership and an ability to influence.

The Prime Minister may have finally returned to this House after a fortnight away, but in truth, he is all at sea—irrelevant on the world stage and impotent in the face of rising illegal immigration. Now, with 126 of his own MPs openly undermining his authority, his Government are incapable of making even the smallest changes to bring down the cost of our ever-expanding welfare bill; there is no way that they are going to be able to pay for our defence. This is a Government who are paralysed by their own legal advice, paralysed by their rebellious Back Benchers, and paralysed by the fear of being found out for having no real vision for this country.

Order. I say to those who were late into the Chamber, please do not stand. I call the Prime Minister.

We live in more volatile times than many of us can remember, with conflicts in many parts of the world that are evolving in a very fast and dangerous way. There has never been a more important time to work with our allies and to be absolutely serious in our response. That response was unserious.

To suggest at a time like this that the Prime Minister attending the G7 summit and the NATO summit is avoiding PMQs is unserious. What happened at NATO yesterday was historic. It was very important that, at a time like, NATO showed unity and strength, with a commitment to the future, not just to the past. That took a huge amount of work with our allies over the last few days and weeks. We were centrally involved in that, crafting the final outcome, and were recognised as having done so. I am proud that we helped put that summit into the right place yesterday, and the world emerged safer as a result. That was the unanimous view of 32 allies on leaving NATO yesterday. For the Leader of the Opposition to belittle it just shows how irrelevant she and her party are becoming. They used to once be serious about these issues, and they used to be capable of cross-party consensus, but all of that is slipping away. We have led on Ukraine and secured three trade deals.

The right hon. Lady talks about the prospect of US attacks. She must have overlooked the fact that on Tuesday, when I returned from the G7, the first thing I did was go straight into a Cobra meeting to plan for all contingencies, including a possible US attack on Iran. I will tell her why I did that, although we did offer a Privy Council briefing, so she knows this. We have military personnel co-located in nearly all the bases across the middle east, and I was therefore extremely concerned immediately upon my return to take every step to ensure that I had the highest levels of assuredness that we had the preparations in place to keep our people and our assets safe, should the need arise. Far from being blindsided, we were planning through last week, we were talking to the Americans, and we were put on notice about everything they did. She simply does not understand the nature of the relationship at that level.

In relation to Diego Garcia, let me disabuse the right hon. Lady. We do not have to give Mauritius advance notice under the treaty. That is absolutely clear.

The right hon. Lady talks about defence spend. We are the party that has increased defence spend to the highest level since the cold war—2.5%. The Conservatives talked about it; we did it. She says we do not know where the money is coming from, but she was pressed on this in an interview not so long ago, and she said that

“we talked about getting to 3% by 2030 and we couldn’t make the numbers work.”

She went on:

“We need to find a way to make the numbers work”.

I was intrigued by this interview, and I thought she was about to lay it out. Then she said:

“This sort of thing requires real thinking.”

Then she said:

“Let’s start looking at what we can do…It’s about us setting up task forces”.

That is how unserious they are.

The right hon. Lady asked about the Ukraine communiqué. As she will know, had she actually studied it, the way that NATO works is an iterative process. Therefore the position on Ukraine has not changed for NATO, and it has not changed under this Government. On the contrary, we are recognised as leading on Ukraine and as the closest ally of Ukraine, working with them the whole time. That is something I am proud of. I think it is something the House is proud of, because we had been doing this on a cross-party basis, and the sooner we get back to that, rather than the unserious response of the Leader of the Opposition, the better.

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

In the year since the election of this Labour Government, Britain is back as a force for good on the world stage. Following the outbreak of conflict in the middle east last week, I was proud to see the Prime Minister lead calls for calm, cool heads and de-escalation. In its aftermath, we must take seriously the renewed defence commitments that the Prime Minister has made at NATO, but we must also proudly wield the soft convening and convincing power that the UK has in spades. That soft power has historically been the key to successful diplomatic efforts in Iran, securing the joint comprehensive plan of action, and in the wider middle east and around the world. Can the Prime Minister confirm what the Foreign Affairs Committee has learned from our conversations with our European allies, which is that Britain is quietly and effectively stepping up to lead the fight against Russian disinformation and cyber-warfare, and that the investment we will be putting in will be well spent?

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question, and she is absolutely right. The need to de-escalate was the central focus going into the weekend and coming out of it, and I am very pleased that we have reached a ceasefire in relation to the conflict in Iran. We absolutely need that to hold.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the soft convening power of the United Kingdom. It is an incredible asset and, yes, I can confirm that we are working with others in relation to Russian disinformation and cyber-attacks, which, as the House knows, are a regular occurrence.

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

I thank the Prime Minister for early sight of his statement. The Liberal Democrats agree that it would have been wrong to leave an empty chair in front of the Union Jack at the table for the G7 and NATO. It is astonishing, and I share his surprise, that it is now Conservative policy not to attend the G7 and NATO.

I am glad that the Prime Minister has signalled retreat on his welfare plans. I hope that he will now listen to everyone and not just his Back Benchers.

On the G7, despite the progress that he outlined, it remains extremely damaging to the world economy that the United States and Donald Trump continue their policy of protectionism. Can the Prime Minister update the House on whether he has had discussions with other G7 and, indeed, NATO colleagues about how we could persuade President Trump to resile from protectionism?

On NATO, the Prime Minister is right to say that Putin’s imperial ambitions present a once-in-a-generation threat to our security. Last week, I travelled to Estonia to meet British troops and Estonian leaders, including Prime Minister Michal. The Estonians have not forgotten the repression enforced by Russian tanks, nor the murder of four former Prime Ministers at the hands of the Kremlin. They are under no illusions about the threat posed by Putin, and we must not be either, so I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to NATO’s new spending target.

In the face of Russia’s war machine, the British Army remains an essential guarantor of our country’s security and that of our allies. When I met our incredible troops stationed in Estonia, I was inspired by their skill and professionalism. We need to get more brilliant people like them into the military, so will the Prime Minister consider the Liberal Democrats’ proposals to move more quickly to reverse the Conservatives’ cuts to the Army, and back our new £10,000 bonus for recruits? It is vital that we take such measures, as Putin continues his barbarism in Ukraine.

Our commitment to Ukraine’s defence must be increased, not reduced. In addition to the actions that the Prime Minister outlined, can he confirm whether he has held more discussions with partners on not just using the interest from frozen Russian assets, but seizing those assets, so that we can bolster our support for Ukraine and pay for a faster increase in defence spending? The Estonians believe they have a plan to deal with all the complications that he mentions when I ask him questions about this. Is he prepared to meet me to discuss the Estonians’ ideas about how to break the backlog so that we can seize those assets?

The Prime Minister also spoke about the conflicts and crises in the middle east. He is right to push even harder for a ceasefire in Gaza. People around the world will question whether military action, rather than diplomacy, will actually make us safer in the future. We must redouble our efforts for a just peace in the region, and that must include self-determination for the Palestinian people. Will the Government finally commit to recognising a state for the Palestinians?

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions? He started by asking whether I have discussed with other G7 partners the question of US tariffs. Yes, we frequently discuss trade, the economy and, frankly, the challenges that those tariffs put in place for all economies. That is the sort of co-ordination and discussion that goes on all the time, and it will continue.

On the troops in Estonia, I have visited them a number of times myself. They are incredibly brave, and they have a real sense of purpose. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, at NATO, the frontline states on the border with Russia were leading the charge in relation to the work that we had to do yesterday to renew and take forward the pledges that we make.

The right hon. Member asked about reversing the cuts to the Army. We will begin the work of reversing those cuts. When the Conservatives came into government, there were 100,000 in our Army; when they left, there were 70,000. I think that is what Ben Wallace meant when he said they had “hollowed out” our armed forces.

On the question of the assets, and whether they themselves can be seized rather than just using the interest, I have been discussing that with colleagues, as the right hon. Member would expect. It is complicated, as he knows. There is not one view, frankly, on this issue among colleagues and allies. I am very happy to see the proposals that he has received from Estonia, I believe, or any others, but it remains complicated. I have to say that allies are in different places on this, but we will continue to discuss it.

On a ceasefire in Gaza and recognition, I think it is very important that we have been pressing the case, particularly, in recent days, quite urgently and in close collaboration with our colleagues—the E3 of Germany, France and the UK are working very closely together at the moment—to say that this is the moment to press on from Iran to a ceasefire in Gaza, and I mean that that should happen in days, not weeks or months. I do think there is a window of opportunity here. I hope that it happens but I cannot predict that it will. I do think that all of us should do all we can to ensure that, along with a ceasefire in Iran, we push to that ceasefire in Gaza.

On the question of recognition, it has long been our party’s policy—this Government’s policy—to recognise Palestine at the right time in the process to bring about the peace, because I think that without a two-state solution there is little prospect of lasting peace in the region, and that remains our policy.

Last week, as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I visited NATO headquarters in the UK, where I met fantastic young men and women who are learning great skills as they prepare to defend Britain abroad. However, my constituents, when they see cuts of such great amounts—for example, as proposed in the welfare Bill—may well ask why defence spending is rising. For the benefit of my constituents, could the Prime Minister simply and briefly set that out?

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on her elevation—I have not seen her personally since then—which is very well deserved.

My hon. Friend raised a really important point. It is right that we recognise that the first duty of the Prime Minister is to keep the country safe and secure in a volatile world, and that is a duty that I take extremely seriously. We do live in a volatile world, and it is not just something that happens overseas and has no impact on us. What has happened in the Ukraine conflict has already had an impact on her constituents in relation to their energy bills, the cost of living and so much else. We can see, from the last week or two, the impact that the conflict in Iran was having on oil prices, which again has a direct impact on her constituents. So it is absolutely right and in our own interests that we take the necessary measures in relation to defence spend. I should also say that we are determined to ensure that, as we spend more on defence, that is reflected in good, well-paid jobs in the United Kingdom, including in her constituency. On all three fronts, that is the answer I give to her constituents.

The Iranian regime has long presented a threat to the United Kingdom. As the Prime Minister and I have both experienced, our security services have foiled almost 20 Iranian-backed plots here at home. The prospect of such a regime having nuclear weapons is unacceptable, so I welcome the US and Israeli action. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that we and our European allies should now trigger snapback sanctions unless Tehran admits the International Atomic Energy Agency and allows it to fully verify that all efforts to enrich enhanced uranium have ceased?

I thank the right hon. Member for his question and endorse what he says about our security services, which, as he knows very well, do an incredible job in the most difficult of circumstances and at great speed, and they have foiled a number of plots that would have caused widespread panic, violence and destruction.

On snapback—I thank the right hon. Member for raising this—that is a consideration that we are discussing with our allies. I do think that it has to be part of the pressure that we apply. Exactly when and how snapback is applied will obviously be a question for discussion, but he is absolutely right to say that that is the very discussion we should be having at the moment, and I thank him.

I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s statement and his commitment to increase defence expenditure, but given that we are looking to improve public services—the health service, social care, education and the police—is it realistic to do that within the current tax envelope? Has the time not come for us to review how we tax wealth, as opposed to work, to ensure that those who can bear the heaviest load do so?

On defence spend, when we set out the commitment to 2.5% by 2027-28, I set out at the same time how we would fund it. We will continue to take that approach to any spending commitment we make. My hon. Friend will know that we made a commitment in our manifesto to not raise taxes on working people. We will keep to that commitment.

I welcome the element of the Prime Minister’s statement where he explicitly links defence, diplomacy and domestic security. He is absolutely right to highlight that interconnection. Therefore, will he revisit the spending review, which sees 4.5% and 5% real-terms reductions in Home Office and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office budgets, to make sure that they can actually do their jobs within that interconnected system? To pay for that, will he ensure that his Chancellor removes the job-destroying taxes on employment and reduces the tax burden, which is seeing entrepreneurs and wealth creators leave the country in their droves? Will he show real leadership and ensure that his Back Benchers do not prevent his Front Benchers reducing the cost of our welfare bill so we can pay for these incredibly important governmental functions?

On Home Office responsibility for domestic security, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why it is important that, under the new definition of NATO, resilience at home is now included, because cyber-attacks are commonplace, energy has been weaponised, and many counter-terrorism operations have to be carried out in relation to state threats. We were very careful in the spending review to ensure that there was adequate money on all those threats. I went through that myself, so I can give him that assurance. On money coming in and out of the country, he will no doubt want to celebrate that we have had record investment under this Labour Government in the past 12 months: £120 billion, including the single biggest investment of £40 billion two days ago from Amazon, which is a sign of confidence in this Government that will be measured in many jobs across the country.

Rochdale has been a proud home for Ukrainians ever since they were forced to flee Soviet starvation, murder and oppression in the 1930s and 1940s, so many in my constituency will warmly welcome the decision to send 350 advanced air missiles to Ukraine, built in Britain and paid for by the interest on seized Russian assets. Does the Prime Minister agree that Russia, not Ukraine, should pay the price for Putin’s barbaric war?

Yes, I do. It is very important that when we send those missiles to Ukraine, we emphasise: first, that we are supporting Ukraine, as we have done throughout; and secondly, that that is paid for not by the British taxpayer, but with the interest on Russian assets that have been frozen.

Does the Prime Minister agree that, in the context of the threat posed by Putin, we must provide more guidance and support to Britons to prepare them for the possibility of a future conflict, and that that should involve a national resilience campaign?

I do think we need to focus on resilience. In a sense, the shift to 5% is a reflection that national resilience is becoming ever more central in our own national defence, in particular on: cyber, where there are frequent attacks from other states; energy, where we have seen from the Ukraine conflict that energy has been weaponised; and counter-terrorism, with state-backed actions in this country, many of which have been thwarted. But the hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to do more on resilience.

While the Prime Minister was in his rightful place at the NATO summit this week, I was in my constituency for the opening of the Janet Harvey hall, a £250 million installation that will turbocharge shipbuilding in this country and put it in the service of our defence sector. The Prime Minister knows Govan shipbuilding very well. Labour recognises that the defence of our country is now inextricably linked with the growth of our economy and investment in our public services, but that view is not universally shared. I therefore ask the Prime Minister to urge the SNP Government to back our defence sector as we do, for the sake of jobs and prosperity in Glasgow South West and beyond.

I urge the SNP to back our defence spend and the jobs that brings with it, but also our defence stance. As I understand its position, the SNP is against the single most effective capability we have, which is our nuclear deterrent, at a time of the greatest volatility we have seen for decades. That is simply wrong in principle, and I urge the SNP to change it.

At the NATO summit, was the Prime Minister able to add his voice to the congratulations and thanks that the NATO Secretary-General paid to President Trump for the successful military strike on Iran’s nuclear programme?

We have long argued that Iran should not be capable of having a nuclear weapon, and what happened on Saturday night was a big step to alleviating that threat. That was the subject of many comments at the NATO summit, along with the congratulations for the ceasefire that has now been brokered and the emphasis we now need on getting Iran around the negotiating table, because if it is to be irreversible and verifiable, it is important that it is done through negotiation. That is what we are focused on.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, especially on defence. Politics is about priorities and, as I know he knows, the most important responsibility of Government is the defence of the country and its people. I echo the sensible points made by the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak)—sadly, they were not made by those on the Opposition Front Bench—and in particular his point about our intelligence services, who are the finest in the world. There are those whom we will never know and never see, but who have kept this place, our democracy and our communities safe. Will the Prime Minister assure me that, as we seek to invest more in defence, there is a particular focus on supporting our intelligence services?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Our intelligence services do an incredible job, and I pay tribute to them. As he will know, from now on, where the intelligence services are contributing to our national defence, that will be included in our defence spend. It will not be included in the 2.5%—that is core defence, as always understood—but will be added to it, taking it to 2.6% in 2027-28.

It will not have escaped anyone’s notice that while the Prime Minister was rightly away at the G7 and NATO summits, he made tens of billions of pounds of unfunded spending commitments, yet next week he expects Members of Parliament to vote with him to remove money from disabled people who need help to go to the toilet. How can he justify making a moral argument for security abroad while removing security from disabled people at home?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, when we announced the 2.5% increase in defence spending, we made it very clear where that money was coming from, and it was not coming from welfare spend, as he very well knows. I do believe in the moral duty—and it is a moral duty—to defend our country, which means working with our NATO allies to ensure that we have the most effective deterrent. He cannot give lectures on the moral duty to protect our country while maintaining a position of casting aside the single most effective deterrent we have. That is unserious.

I recently visited a NATO air force base in Poland as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme I am taking part in with the RAF. There, I saw at first hand the importance of working closely with our NATO allies to defend our nation and keep us secure, as we witnessed the scramble to the skies to ward off Russian fighter jets. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he is prioritising the wellbeing of our armed forces personnel, both at home and abroad, so that they can continue to keep us and our allies safe?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It is, of course, Armed Forces Week. Among other things, we have given the armed forces their single biggest pay increase in many years, and made a strong commitment to other aspects, including their accommodation. It is important that we recognise and reflect what they do for our country, and that we ensure we are able to retain the brilliance of our armed forces.

I very much welcome NATO’s commitment to 3.5% core defence spending, and 5% on a broader definition by 2035, for all NATO member states. However, the Prime Minister and the Government have published spending figures only up until 2030. When will they publish public spending plans for 2030 to 2035? Is it not incumbent on them to show how the target of 3.5% for core defence spending will be met by the Government? Otherwise, it is just an unfunded promise.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, when we presented the strategic defence review, we had already set out the path to 2.5% and the ambition for 3%. I think it is right that all NATO allies have now agreed the 5% by 2035, subject, of course, to review in 2029 of both the trajectory and balance. The reason for that, as he will understand, is that NATO itself is reviewing its capabilities in 2029, and the reviews will therefore coincide.

Diplomacy is the best way to prevent and de-escalate risk and ensure long-term security. What discussions took place on how to escalate the focus on diplomacy in the middle east in order to resolve the situation in Gaza—clearly, the architecture is not delivering at pace—as well as on the forgotten war in Sudan?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I reassure her that we are having discussions with other leaders not just at NATO and the G7, but on a daily basis about the architecture and the path, and how we can use diplomacy to get to a ceasefire in Gaza, and to a much better place in Sudan; I thank her for raising Sudan, which is not raised often enough. We are doing that at speed, and are trying to bring as many allies with us as possible. If the Iran ceasefire holds— I hope that it will—that will create the space to say that now is the time for that ceasefire in Gaza. That is only the first step, of course, in the route first to recovery, and then to a two-state solution.

After a worrying start, President Trump has now strengthened NATO, both by extracting promises of more money and with the positive comments he made at the end of the summit. Has the Prime Minister had a chance to assess whether that means that President Trump’s love affair with Vladimir Putin is beginning to cool?

First, I think it was really important that NATO was united in the way that it was last night, and I do not just mean the comments of President Trump—I mean having the whole 32 countries on the same page at a really important moment for NATO. The right hon. Gentleman will understand how much hard work, guile and diplomacy went into ensuring that was the outcome. I think there was a real sigh of relief around the world that this was the position. On Putin, we are urging that this is the moment to push further to get Putin to the table for an unconditional ceasefire; President Zelensky has said for many weeks that he is prepared for those talks. We discussed that as allies, and I have discussed it many times with President Trump, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect.

Would the Prime Minister care to comment on what our adversaries will think when they hear the Leader of the Opposition mistakenly say that we cannot afford our defence commitments? Does such a fatuous response keep our country safe?

No, it does not. It was frankly embarrassing to suggest that I should not have been at NATO or the G7, and I think the Leader of the Opposition’s Back Benchers recognise that. That is not the traditional position of the Conservative party, and the sooner the Conservatives get back to their former position, the better.

Was there any discussion about the killing zones that currently constitute the provision of humanitarian aid in Gaza?

Yes, there was. There is real concern about the intolerable position in Gaza and what we can do to alleviate it. We have repeatedly said that it is intolerable, and that the current arrangements for aid are never going to work and cannot be maintained. Urgent diplomacy is under way to alleviate that situation, and we will continue with those efforts.

I agree with my hon. Friend: the commitment is landmark. It is very important, it shows the resolve of NATO, and it reflects the resolve of this Labour Government. I am pleased that we were closely involved in crafting and bringing together the agreement that was reached yesterday.

The Democratic primary in the most cosmopolitan city in the world has demonstrated that people will no longer support hypocritical and disingenuous politicians. I am sure that the whole House agrees that Iran must not have nuclear weapons, but as a lawyer, the Prime Minister will understand that the attack on Iran by Israel and the US did not engage the Caroline principle, which allows for a pre-emptive strike. Does the Prime Minister agree with that analysis? If he does not, can he say from the Dispatch Box that he supported those attacks?

If we all agree that Iran should not have nuclear weapons, it is about time that we did something about it. What happened on Saturday night was a big step towards alleviating that threat, which is important. We now need to complete on that. The way to do that is through the talks that are now needed to get Iran back to the table, in order to make sure that the position is irreversible and can be verified, and that is what we are focused on.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership in recognising the need for a strategic response. It has been 35 years since the Options for Change defence review began bringing down defence spending from 4.1% of GDP. We have spent that dividend, gambling that we would not need to defend our values, and a generation has benefited from that bet, but now we must take our chips off the table and reinvest in our security. Does the Prime Minister agree that we must level with the public about the threats that we face and the cost of under-investment in our armed forces?

Yes, I do agree. That is why we have begun the hard work of reversing the damage done under the previous Government. My hon. Friend is right about the dividend that has been enjoyed, but we must now make sure that there is a defence dividend—that higher spending in that area is reflected in good, well-paid jobs in the United Kingdom that boost our economy across all parts of our communities.

The former Prime Minister has just welcomed the US military action against Iran at the weekend. Why cannot the Prime Minister bring himself to welcome it, too?

I have said that we need to alleviate the threat, and that we have taken a huge step towards alleviating the threat. I have discussed that with G7 and NATO colleagues, and with President Trump. Everybody was very pleased that there was such unity on it.

The forced deportation of children is illegal under international law, yet Russia continues to steal Ukraine’s future, one child at a time. Was the issue of Ukraine’s stolen children discussed with our allies? What more is being done to return those children to their homes and families?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter. She has campaigned hard on this. It is central that if there is to be a ceasefire and a lasting peace in Ukraine—and I hope that there is—it must involve the return of the children. We have discussed that many times, and will continue to do so.

Since the second world war, our national security has been based broadly on three pillars: our physical defences, which the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement; the alliances that we have built, which he also mentioned; and the international rules-based order, which he did not mention. What discussion did he have at either summit about the importance of international law, and the undermining of its credibility through the inconsistent way that it has been applied in the conflicts in Ukraine and in Gaza? In particular, did he try to persuade President Trump to lift the United States sanctions on the International Criminal Court?

I have long been an advocate of the international rules-based order, and I discuss that regularly with allies. NATO itself is a rules-based framework, and an important one at that. We need to maintain these rules-based systems to make sure that they are fit for purpose. I would add that the same is true for trade and the economy.

As a member of the cross-party UK delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I have had the opportunity to meet Ukrainian Members of Parliament, who make the powerful case for continuing support from NATO allies. It has become clear in recent months that other countries in the region—Poland and the Baltic states of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia —are growing ever more nervous about their vulnerability to invasion by Russia. Can the Prime Minister comment on the UK’s efforts and dialogue with those countries at this unsettling time? Does he agree that the security of the Baltic states is important for our national security?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Baltic states are incredibly nervous at the moment. That has been the case for the past three years or so. We engage with them regularly, and I engage with their leaders regularly. They have been brought into the coalition of the willing, and on the occasions when they cannot attend, I have a special session with them, because their concerns are of such importance to us.

I welcome the increase to defence spending and the revised targets. Earlier this year, at the spring statement, we saw cuts to official development assistance—the overseas aid budget—to fund defence increases. The ODA budget is integral to our international security abroad, so will the Prime Minister rule out any further cuts to this budget for defence spending increases?

The hon. Member is right to emphasise the importance of overseas aid, and that was a difficult decision. I want to put it back up to 0.7%, rather than taking it down. In the meantime, I am exploring other ways that we can find funding for overseas aid, and working with other countries to that end, because I do not think that we can just wait until we are in a position to increase the funding again.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today, and the leadership that he is showing on the world stage in really uncertain times, which, beyond the confines of this place, I know are genuinely welcome in my community in Hertford and Stortford. As we mark Armed Forces Week, veterans and servicemen in my constituency will welcome the Government’s commitment to strengthening our national security, so for the benefit of my constituents, can the Prime Minister set out a little more how we are supporting our armed forces to keep us safe and honouring the service of veterans across the country?

Let me first pay tribute to the veterans in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country. We have already put in place a number of initiatives, particularly in relation to homelessness and veterans, and more broadly in relation to accommodation and the support for not just veterans, but our armed service personnel. That is vital not only as a reflection of their contribution, but to ensure that we deal with the retention crisis among those serving, which was caused by the Conservative party.

Although we may disagree on the detail, I agree with the Prime Minister that, as far as possible in this place, it would be better to keep partisan politics out of national security issues. Who knows, I may get the Whip withdrawn for saying that, but so be it. There are things that go beyond party politics. I thank the Prime Minister for all his hard work in the national security interests of this country.

On the G7, the Prime Minister mentioned sanctions. In his statement, he said that he urged the United States to do more on sanctions. Is he aware that the United States is actually urging the United Kingdom to do more on sanctions when it comes to Russia? Can the Magnitsky legislation be widened and deepened, so that it captures more Russian assets, and possibly other countries that may have sanctions imposed on them soon—for example, Georgia?

The joint expeditionary force was mentioned at the NATO summit. The Prime Minister will know, having attended the Norway meeting some weeks ago, that Ukraine is a JEF partnership nation. Does the UK support Ukraine becoming a full member of the joint expeditionary force? If so, when might that happen?

I thank the right hon. Member for his questions; they are all good ones, so I will endeavour to answer each part of them. Sanctions are being discussed intensely, as he will understand, and there are two elements. The first is the immediate application of sanctions in relation to Russia. We are attempting to ensure that we all act together—the US, the UK and the EU. That is the focus of our discussions and what we are urging on the US. The right hon. Member will know that there is a piece of legislation in the US that is ready to go; that needs to be co-ordinated with what we are doing. In the longer term, we need to look always at whether there is more we can do within the framework on sanctions, and we can discuss that in this House.

The right hon. Member raises an important point about Ukraine and the JEF. We have been a leading advocate of Ukraine having a role in the JEF. Ukraine already has an enhanced partnership with the JEF—the first of its kind. That was done the last JEF meeting that we had in Norway a few months ago, where we were one of the leading nations pushing for that greater involvement. We will see over time whether that partnership can be taken further, either with the JEF or NATO, but it was an important first step—not only a reflection for Ukraine but also a message to Russia.

I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership in representing us around the world in the last two weeks—exactly where he should be. Does the Prime Minister want to remind the Conservatives that it was a Labour Government who last spent 2.5% of GDP on defence, and can he set out how increasing our defence spending will keep our country safe and support high-quality manufacturing jobs in West Bromwich and the whole nation?

I am happy to remind the House that we had 2.5% of GDP on defence spending under the last Labour Government, and we will have it under this Labour Government. In 14 long years, the Conservatives did not do that.

I welcome the increase in defence spending. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to explain where the money is coming from, particularly as his Government continue to weaken our economy and when another expensive benefit U-turn—on top of the winter fuel U-turn—is on its way?

The right hon. Lady must have missed the record investment in our country in the last 12 months of £120 billion, the four interest rate cuts, and the fastest growth in the G7 in the first quarter of this year. Every time we have increased defence spending, as we did with the 2.5%, we have at the same time set out where the money is coming from.

I found the Leader of the Opposition incredibly disappointing, so goodness knows what those on her own Benches think. While she is talking Britain down, may I commend the Prime Minister for the leadership he has shown this week? Could he say a little more about how businesses in the defence supply chain, particularly in the Teesside defence and innovation cluster, can contribute to the national mission for defence and security?

There are two or three principles here. First, we need to see the increase to our defence spend reflected in good, well-paid jobs in constituencies across the country. Secondly, the big sectors in defence will obviously benefit, but we have also put together a hub for smaller supply chain businesses—which, whether defence-specific or not, are in pretty well every constituency —to ensure that they take advantage of the contracts and extra spending on defence. In that way, we can ensure that there is a dividend back in the United Kingdom from the extra spend we are putting in place.

There has been some recent confusion from Defence Ministers surrounding the purchase of 12 F-35A nuclear-capable fast jets. Can the Prime Minister please inform the House of the proposed in-service date for this important capability?

We made the commitment to that capability, and we are now talking to allies about precisely what the timetable will be; I will update the House. The important thing is that the commitment is there. It is a commitment to the NATO initiative, and it brings us within that initiative. Therefore, there are a lot of moving parts, but we have made a very firm commitment, and I will set out the timeline and progress on that in due course.

F-35As—hard power; BBC World Service—soft power. Does the Prime Minister agree that the World Service is a crucial element of our soft convening power?

Yes. I have long been a supporter of the BBC World Service. My hon. Friend’s question chimes with other questions about the soft power of this country. We have incredible soft power and incredible strength in our diplomacy, and that very often achieves results in a way that then makes it less necessary to use the hard power.

There is scepticism in my constituency that the increase in defence spending might create good local jobs there. As I have already pitched to the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary, and earlier this month to the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, alongside my local authority CEOs, I know that Huntingdon is recognised as the home of UK defence intelligence capability and of US operations in Europe as well as NATO’s. Given that 10% of the equipment budget is now pledged for developing new technology, along with the £400 million defence innovation fund, will the Prime Minister back my commitment to leveraging the designation of RAF Wyton as a Ministry of Defence trailblazer site to build a defence technology cluster that will create highly technical local jobs and build new defence capability from Huntingdon?

I think the hon. Member is in discussion with Ministers about this, and we look forward to taking that forward. In relation to the scepticism of his Huntingdon constituents, I reassure them that this increased defence spend will bring yield to Huntingdon in the defence-specific sectors and in the supply chains.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and his leadership. The International Development Committee recently published a report showing that international humanitarian law is under threat like never before and that attacks on aid workers are rising. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the UK will be a champion for IHL, and could he elaborate on conversations about upholding it in relation to Gaza as well as Sudan and the many other countries around the world ravaged by conflict?

We have an absolute commitment to international humanitarian law, and it is extremely important that we keep to that, whether in Gaza or Sudan. It is the framework through which we make our decisions.

When it comes to the evils of terrorism and aggression across the middle east, all paths lead back to the Iranian regime—be that the sponsorship of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis or, indeed, at the heart of the regime, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Although I fully appreciate that the Prime Minister will not speculate on proscription from the Dispatch Box, will he at least reflect on how it can be that, despite calls from both sides of the House over many years to proscribe the IRGC, it still has not happened, not least given that he took the right and proper action to proscribe Palestine Action after the attack on Brize Norton last week? How is it that the IRGC still sits un-proscribed?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we keep proscription under constant review and will not hesitate to take the most effective measures against the Iranian regime. He will know that we have already sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety, including individual commanders, but we do keep the matter under constant review.

I praise the Prime Minister for his work on the new 5% target and on ensuring that we reach it for our national security and core defence. Does he agree that just as the Labour Government in the 1940s helped to found NATO, this Labour Government could help found a multilateral defence development bank that would ensure that we reach 5% by the mid-2030s?

There is a debate going on across allies as to how we can work together on the increased spending: on the spend itself; on the financial arrangements, be that development banks or others arrangements; and on ensuring that we co-ordinate our capability, because the last thing we want is everybody spending more money in an unco-ordinated way. There has been intense discussion about that.

The situation in Scotland is very difficult. I welcome the news that we are to go further with our at-sea deterrents, and of course the nuclear missile Trident boats are based at Faslane. But as we have heard, First Minister John Swinney and his SNP Administration do not back nuclear weapons. Further, they have created a hostile environment for defence firms in Scotland because they will not back any firms that make ordnance. This week we have also heard former First Minister Humza Yousaf claim—wrongly—that allowing our American allies to use the Prestwick air base to refuel is some kind of war crime. What can we do to nullify the threat to British security from these fifth columnists?

Beat them. This is not just the usual politics; it is a serious question of national security. The at-sea nuclear deterrent is housed in Scotland, and just a few months ago I went and saw one of the subs coming back in. It was a very humbling experience, quite frankly, and I got an even deeper sense of what they do for our country. It should be supported in its own right and as an essential deterrent. That matter is among the reasons that we need a change of Government in Scotland.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, which shows that international co-operation and the ability to forge relationships of trust and human empathy are signs of strength, not weakness. Our country is stronger for his leadership and pursuit of peace globally through diplomatic means.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we can deter war and defend our allies such as Ukraine only if outward-looking diplomacy is backed up by ever stronger armed forces and an ever stronger economy; that those matters ought to unify all in the House; and that it is very unfortunate that we have seen petty, party political games from the Leader of the Opposition?

I agree. All I can say is that, in fairness, I see on the faces of some Conservative Members disquiet at the approach that the Leader of the Opposition took. That is not surprising.

Under the 5% defence investment pledge, resilience spending appears to include energy infrastructure. Given the evidence about Chinese-made cellular internet modules and kill switches, will he say categorically that China must be kept out of all critical infrastructure, including wind turbines and solar panels?

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue. Obviously, we carefully review and monitor any Chinese involvement in any elements of security. But it is right that we now include resilience in our overall definition of national spend, and act accordingly.

I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment to keeping our country safe and for his effective diplomacy to that end. While our international aid budget is now diminished, it remains my belief that the work we do to prevent and respond to humanitarian crises around the world plays a crucial role in global stability and security and, in turn, in our own. Can the Prime Minister reaffirm his commitment to that vital role for the UK in the world?

Yes, I can. My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue and describe it as she did. We are a leader on this and continue to be. We want to get our aid budget back up, but in the meantime I want to work with other countries to find other ways of financing that support as a matter of some urgency.

I welcome the increase in defence spending, but how on earth is the Prime Minister going to pay for it when his party cannot agree on a small reduction in the welfare bill?

When we went to 2.5%, we set out in clear terms both the date and the way we would pay for it. That is the way we do business on the Government side of the House. For 14 years, the Conservative party lost control of the economy, left our armed forces hollowed out and left a £22 billion black hole. Frankly, they are in no position to lecture anyone about these issues—still less after the response of the Leader of the Opposition, which shows exactly why the party is sliding into irrelevance.

It is clear today that the Leader of the Opposition should never represent the United Kingdom on the world stage —it was absolutely outrageous.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement. Following the comments of other hon. Members, may I ask him what assessment he has made of the potential opportunities for Scotland-based defence and aerospace industries, which already support hundreds of jobs in Coatbridge and Bellshill, arising from the expectation that spending will reach 4.1% of GDP by 2027? Does he share my concern that the SNP’s disjointed defence policy risks jobs and investment in Scotland? We need to fight that at all costs.

My hon. Friend should not worry too much about the Leader of the Opposition representing our country—she never will. If she did, presumably the chair at the NATO summit would have a little sticky note on it saying, “Busy at PMQs”. That is how unserious her point is.

On the substantive question of jobs in Scotland, there is now the real potential to build on what Scotland does. It has a proud history in relation to our defence and security. This provides an opportunity to build on that platform.

I thank the Prime Minister very much for his statement. Nobody in the House can doubt the sincerity of his careful words and commitment to what is best for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the G7 and NATO summit. The Prime Minister will be aware of my support for Israel and that of so many in this great nation. The situation was, I believe, one of the major issues of the summit. Can the Prime Minister please outline whether time was taken, with our closest ally, the United States of America, to discuss steps that can be taken to cut the head off the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, ensure that the USA bombing of the Iranian nuclear programme was a success and thereby secure a truce and lasting peace in the middle east?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have that discussion with our US allies, both at leader level and between our teams, on an ongoing and constant basis. Israel has the right to be safe and secure, and it is neither safe nor secure at the moment. We have to be absolutely clear about that and about the right of Israel to defend itself. That means discussions about the IRGC and Iran, which has been a constant source of threat, terror and conflict in the region. Yes, we discussed not just the attack on Saturday, but the further measures that can be taken to ensure that Iran never has the capability to develop nuclear weapons.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and his leadership—something that I am sure is welcomed by our allies around the world, if not by the Opposition.

My right hon. and learned Friend mentions that there is now a window of opportunity for peace in the middle east. I am sure that we would all want that to come to fruition. However, given the continuation of deadly attacks on Palestinian people seeking food, can the Prime Minister advise, following his discussions, whether there is any prospect of Israel allowing the United Nations and other humanitarian organisations to resume food distribution in an ordered and fair way?

They should do that, and we are urging that they do. The current arrangements are intolerable and are never going to work; we need to be really clear about that. We will continue to urge that, with our allies and talking to leaders across the region, as my hon. Friend would expect. But now is also the time to push on for the broader ceasefire, to alleviate the situation more generally and allow a path to open for the long-term conflict resolution that is needed.

It is the first duty of any Government and Prime Minister to keep this country safe. The Prime Minister takes that role incredibly seriously, in stark contrast to what we have seen today from the Leader of the Opposition.

The Prime Minister has visited Blackpool many times since becoming leader of our party. At Blackpool sixth-form college, young people told him that they were crying out for local jobs in the Blackpool area, to keep them there. Will he ensure that the defence increase to 5%, which is welcome, creates the decent, well paid jobs on the Fylde coast so that young people in Blackpool can get those jobs where they live?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. I have visited Blackpool many times, as he knows. I know first hand just how important it is for those young people to see money going into their economy, with jobs in Blackpool for them. I profoundly remember asking a group of 17-year-olds, I think, at a sixth-form college in Blackpool how many were proud to be from Blackpool. They all put their hands up. When I asked them how many thought that their future jobs would be in Blackpool, only one put their hand up; the rest all thought they would have to leave Blackpool to get the jobs they wanted. We need to turn that around. This gives us an opportunity to start doing that.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today. From a personal point of view, I thank him for his recent visit to Harlow and Downs primary school, which recently received an excellent Ofsted report.

Does the Prime Minister agree that to achieve the sustainable and long-term peace that we all so desperately want—in the middle east, in Gaza, in Ukraine and in Sudan—we must work together with one voice and with all our NATO allies? That is why his leadership on a global level is so important and why it is so important that he attends all these events to represent our proud nation.

My most recent visit to the primary school was to roll out our free school meals policy. I was happy to do that by serving school meals myself—if all else fails, I’ve got a back-up.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At a time like this, the House usually comes together and speaks with one voice, and we are the more powerful for it. President Zelensky has told me on a number of occasions how much that means for his people. In fairness to the Conservative party, it has always been resolute on Ukraine. The Leader of the Opposition needs to look again at her approach. At a time like this, the sooner we get back to the kind of cross-party unity that we had, the better. Our adversaries know that when they see unity here, that is much more of a problem for them than when they see unserious division.

Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) (No. 2) Bill

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.