PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Engagements - 9 September 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

On Friday, we will mark the 25th anniversary of 9/11—a moment to remember the nearly 3,000 people who died, including 67 British citizens. There will be a ceremonial changing of the guard, and events across the country. Our thoughts will remain, on Friday, with the loved ones of all those we lost.

I also want to send our sympathies to the hundreds of people who will gather today at the funeral of PC Matthew Blades, including many serving police officers. We send our thanks to them all for their service and their work to keep our communities safe.

As we can see from looking around the Chamber, today is Back British Farming Day, and I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to everyone working around the clock to feed our country. Food security is national security, and we will continue to back British farming as a Government.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments about 9/11, and about our brave police officer who lost his life?

My home town of Kilmarnock was once the industrial powerhouse of Ayrshire, but after decades of decline and deindustrialisation, it has never fully recovered. I welcome the Prime Minister’s determination to revive our high streets and his focus on doing so, and I extend a warm invitation to him to visit the town at any time.

Hope has been rekindled in Kilmarnock thanks to the Government’s £20 million Pride in Place investment. We are seeing the creation of the first Kilmarnock town centre masterplan for over 50 years, led by the community, setting an achievable vision for a successful future, and we want to build on that momentum. Will the Prime Minister champion a new partnership between Kilmarnock, my home town, Manchester and—

Order. I think the Prime Minister has a grip on the first three questions.

It does my heart good to hear my hon. Friend talk about rising hope in Kilmarnock and the masterplan for the town, backed by the Government with the Pride in Place funding—and yes, I can assure her that No. 10 North is as much at the service of her constituency as it is at the service of any constituency in the House. We will turn what is happening in Kilmarnock into real momentum for the town.

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

After last week’s session, the country was thrown into confusion over whether the Prime Minister was or was not going to fund 3% for defence by 2030. After today he will have another five weeks off PMQs, but there are some serious threats to national security that cannot wait. His Chancellor resigned as Defence Secretary because the Labour Government would not increase defence spending to 3% by 2030. Does the Prime Minister think that he was right to quit?

As I said last week, I appointed this Chancellor because of his strong commitment to the defence of this nation—that was the reason—and we will honour our NATO commitments: 3.5% by 2035, and a target date for 3%. That will all be set out in the spending review. I do not feel, though, that the right hon. Lady gets the right to come to this House and claim the moral high ground and point fingers wherever possible, when defence spending was 2.3% of GDP and fell during 14 years of a Conservative Government. On this issue, I think we should do more problem solving than point scoring, and I say to the right hon. Lady that we would do our armed forces well if we could agree more on this crucial issue across the House.

The Prime Minister wants to talk about the past on defence spending, so let me refresh his memory and that of the House. I remember when he was the shadow Home Secretary, when the then Labour leader wanted us to leave NATO, disarm our nuclear deterrent and defund the Army, so I will not be taking any lectures from him.

The Prime Minister says the target is 2035. That is a decade away. If he cannot get to 3% by 2030, why should we believe he will get to 3.5% by 2035? The spending review is next year. Last week, I set out how we would get to 3% by 2030. The threats are now. Argentina is threatening the Falklands—now. Russia is threatening us in the North sea—now.

The Prime Minister did not answer my question. I asked him if the Chancellor was right to quit. The Chancellor was right to quit, which is why it is so wrong that he is not sticking to his principles. The Chancellor used to say that not hitting 3% by 2030 would put our troops at risk. He also said that Keir Starmer was “unable”, and the Treasury “unwilling”, to provide that funding. So is the Prime Minister unable, or is he just unwilling, to get that money by 2030?

This Chancellor, of all Chancellors, will be willing to provide that funding to our armed forces and back our defence investment plan. This Government’s commitment to the defence of this country is absolute. We have taken the strongest possible stance in supporting President Zelensky and Ukraine. We are playing our role around the world, and we will continue to do so.

The right hon. Lady mentions the plan that she has set out, and this is why I say that we should have an honest conversation across the Dispatch Box; I looked at it, and I do not think that taking £4 billion out of housing benefit is going to get the right consensus around this issue. That would create levels of homelessness in this country that we would not have seen before, with hundreds of thousands of children in temporary accommodation.

I say to the right hon. Lady that, yes, we do everything to support our national security, but it cannot come at the expense of social security. Having strong national security also depends on resilience in our communities. We on the Labour Benches will not be forced to choose between the two, and we will set out a plan to get to 3.5% by 2035 at the spending review.

It is unbelievable that the Prime Minister would say that. He is clearly unwilling. We need to fund our defence, not spend all our money on welfare. I cannot believe that he would actually say that. He is clearly unwilling, but there are ways to do this—he is not unable.

On Monday, Chris Rokos, Britain’s third biggest taxpayer, announced that he was leaving the country. That is £330 million of taxes walking out the door because of this Labour Government—every year, £330 million. His taxes could be going on defence. The Prime Minister is talking about spending more on welfare. The benefits bill is set to rise by £32 billion under him—that is not all of it; that is the rise. That money could be going on defence. The Prime Minister will not approve the Rosebank oilfield—£1.4 billion of tax revenue that could be going on defence. So, will the Prime Minister tell the country: where is he going to find the money to fund our defence?

I cannot comment today on quasi-judicial decisions, but we will take a pragmatic approach to oil and gas, as I have said before at the Dispatch Box.

Let us get to the heart of this question, as the right hon. Lady invites me to do. What is the right way to fund defence and, yes, bring the welfare budget down? She would make crude cuts to housing benefit. As I have said, if £4 billion is taken out in the next few years, families will be made homeless and rough sleeping on our streets will increase. So here is the Labour way—the way that we do it on this side of the House. We have set out plans for the biggest council house building programme this country has seen in a generation. If the right hon. Lady looks at research from the National Housing Federation, she will see that that is the route to save billions from housing benefit.

We will shortly respond to the final report of Alan Milburn, who is looking at the issue of young people not in education, employment or training—again, something left behind by the last Government. We will take the Labour way: change education, support our young people, and provide more mental health support. That is the Labour way to get the welfare bill down, and I say to the right hon. Lady that that is the right way to fund defence.

No, it is not. The truth is the Prime Minister does not know where he is going to find the money. He is talking about anything except defence, including council housing. He will not fund the military. I will tell you what he is funding though, Mr Speaker—Keir Starmer’s £35 billion surrender of the Chagos islands and its crucial military base. That is British sovereign territory. That is a weak decision, and it is no wonder that Argentina is now threatening the Falklands. We need to project strength. We need to show that British sovereign territory is non-negotiable. So why, just like Keir Starmer, is he planning to surrender the Chagos islands?

The right hon. Lady has to do better than that. They are the worst kind of points to be scoring when the country is watching. We will not surrender our base at Diego Garcia—we are in discussions with the United States about that—and we will always respect the rights of the Falkland Islanders to choose to be British. That will never change under this Government, and we will be relentless in defending that.

We are talking about paying £35 billion to give away British territory, and all of that is happening while the Prime Minister’s Government are cancelling £30 million of vital training for British soldiers. He may be new to the job, so let me tell him what may not be in his briefing paper. Last year, defence funding fell in real terms—that is on this Government. To govern is to choose, so why is he choosing to send £35 billion to Mauritius when they cut the money to train our troops?

I do not think the right hon. Lady is on strong ground when it comes to defence spending. It was 2.5% of GDP when the last Labour Government left office. It was 2.3% of GDP when the Government she was in left office. It is now set to be 2.7% in the next year. That is the reality of the situation—a Government who are strong on the defence of this country. That is what we are doing. It is why we have set out a defence investment plan that will be fully funded. I say to her again: it would be better to work across the House to get a fully and securely funded path to 3.5% of GDP by 2035 that will not change under any Government. That would send the strongest possible message to our armed forces. This is an area for problem solving rather than point scoring. I invite her to work with us on that, so that we can set out that clear path.

The Prime Minister seems to think that the last Government were a Conservative Government. The last Government were a Labour Government and they failed, which is why Keir Starmer resigned. He keeps talking about their record as if it was fantastic. If it was, then why is Keir Starmer not sitting there? Where Britain needs leadership, what we have at the moment is just vibes. He said he appointed the Chancellor because he cares about defence, but he will not fund it. Other countries are making claims over our sovereign territory. They smell weakness. He is pretending that he is the change candidate, but the fact is he is still failing to cut welfare, he is still paying to hand over a sovereign territory, and he is still not funding defence. On the issues that really matter, is he not just continuity Keir?

The right hon. Lady mentions leadership. Let me tell her and the whole House where Britain is showing leadership. There have been Conservative politicians at this Dispatch Box—Labour politicians, too—for decades who have talked about the importance of the two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. Words from any politician about a two-state solution will be only words if they are not backed with action. Leadership is about taking action where there is injustice, where we need to correct unfairness: people being driven out of their homes, losing their homes, being intimidated in their daily lives. I credit the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who yesterday applauded the action that this Government are taking.

In this difficult and dangerous world, Britain has to stand for something. Britain has to show leadership. Britain has to stand for fairness against injustice. [Interruption.] Where people are being bullied out of their homes and intimidated, we will always stand with the underdog and take what action we can to support them. That is leadership on the world stage; Britain being true to what it has always been about. That is what the British people expect of us and that is what this Government will do.

Mr Bacon, I do not need advice from you. I am not responsible for the answers. The Prime Minister answers the questions. Do not look to me, please.

I am a more regular visitor to my hon. Friend’s constituency than she might realise, constantly nipping in and out for various reasons, so I know Warrington well. I believe it is a success story, actually; something of a jewel in the north-west crown. It is a growing town—almost a city, given how successful it has been in recent times—but it does need new infrastructure. I would like to see a remodelled Warrington Bank Quay, with high-quality east-west, north-south connectivity running through it. When it comes to leisure—Mr Speaker, you know this as much as anyone in the House and perhaps more than anyone—this is a Prime Minister who will back grassroots sport to the hilt. I assure my hon. Friend that I am happy to talk to her about the leisure centre she mentioned.

And watching Warrington Wolves, I hope. I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s opening remarks, not least about the 25th anniversary of the horrific terror attacks of 9/11. I welcome the Government finally banning imports from illegal Israeli settlements, something Keir Starmer should have done a long time ago. On Back British Farming Day, can I also celebrate British farmers? I hope the Prime Minister will do more than that and end the family farm tax.

Last week I asked about North Devon’s maternity unit, which is still closed. This week I have to raise Musgrove Park hospital, where the Prime Minister’s Labour colleague Baroness Amos found the “most challenging” maternity estate in the whole country. She described “leaking roofs”, a ceiling propped up by poles and room temperatures that put newborn babies at risk. No mother should have to give birth in such circumstances. Does the Prime Minister agree that Musgrove Park cannot wait until 2033 for work to start on a new maternity unit? Will he offer a meeting to local MPs, so we can move it forward? And will he make fixing the maternity scandal across our country a top priority of his Government?

That is a fair question. Let me first thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the statement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs. It is important that there is support across the House for what was announced. We have all stood together for the two-state solution. The reason my right hon. Friend decided to announce what he did when he did is obviously that the E1 settlement tender concludes before the Israeli general election. It was important to make a clear statement on where Britain stands, for Britain to show leadership. That is what we have done, but we appreciate the cross-party support.

On British farming, I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says and I will set out more measures later.

I looked into the issues with North Devon’s maternity unit, and the right hon. Gentleman will soon receive an update from me. He mentions Musgrove Park hospital in Taunton—a hospital I know. It points to a systemic challenge facing maternity services across the country, as various reviews have said. That is why my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will next week chair a meeting of the maternity taskforce in the Department of Health and Social Care. We will ensure that all the issues raised, including at the hospitals mentioned, are looked at in detail.

I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. Britain should be the safest country in the world to have a baby. We will keep raising this issue until it is the safest.

The best legacy of the previous Conservative Prime Minister is our world-leading AI Security Institute, which is now essential to our national security, and to global security, in the age of artificial intelligence. But today, the Financial Times reports that Anthropic did not submit its latest model to the institute for testing, apparently due to pressure from the Trump Administration. Does the Prime Minister think it is acceptable for President Trump to undermine Britain’s efforts to keep the world safe from dangerous AI?

On the specific issue, the institute that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned is indeed a world leader, and is in daily conversation with industry partners, including Anthropic. Those conversations will continue. On the broader issue, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that AI poses risks to our national security, but it could also be the source of solutions for keeping us safer, and that was a discussion that we had yesterday. That is why I appointed a Minister for Artificial Intelligence to the Cabinet. We have lifted the level of conversation about artificial intelligence within Government, and the offer is open to colleagues on all sides of the House who want to be a part of that crucial discussion.

It is good for me to be able to credit the Communication Workers Union, because I know it has done a huge amount of work over the years to raise some of the issues within Royal Mail. It is because of that work that there has now been a commitment from the business to invest £500 million in frontline resourcing. Everyone in this House will know that standards have not been good enough, and people have been facing an unreliable service. We are committed, as a Government, to a comprehensive universal service obligation. That is what will safeguard Royal Mail’s future, but the company now needs to listen to what my hon. Friend is saying and get on and deliver it.

In the coming weeks, energy bills will rise again for households across the United Kingdom; within the last few days, five major mortgage lenders have pushed up mortgage prices for households across the United Kingdom; and within the last few hours, the cost of a barrel of oil has gone to over $100, pushing up prices at the pumps for motorists across the United Kingdom. Despite that, the Prime Minister still seems fairly well liked. I will let you into a wee secret, Mr Speaker: I quite like the new Prime Minister. But popularity will not pay the bills during this winter’s looming cost of living emergency, so will the Prime Minister stand up now and tell people what he is going to do to help?

I will, Mr Speaker. I will remove VAT from electricity bills next month. It is not going to solve everything for people, but it will take a little bit of pressure off, and the hon. Gentleman should look out for further measures as we go through the year. I appreciate that it does not apply in Scotland, but we will impose a £2 cap on bus fares across England for the whole of 2027. We are doing this because this is a cost of living Government, and we want to give people hope that some help is coming. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his faint praise—it will get him everywhere.

We recently consulted on the conversion kits that my hon. Friend mentions and will set out a response shortly. As somebody who formerly had responsibility for the Greater Manchester fire and rescue service, I fully understand the issue that she is raising, and she can expect a robust response on all the issues raised. I am not sure that I will be able to attend her roundtable, but I will ensure that a Minister does so.

We can absolutely give the hon. Lady that assurance. Our local power plan, backed by £1 billion from Great British Energy, is ensuring that every community in the country, including her constituents in Bath, can benefit from clean, affordable and locally generated energy. If she wishes to have a meeting with Great British Energy, I will facilitate that so that she can see how the plan can benefit her constituency more.

I am glad to correct at the Dispatch Box something of a myth, Mr Speaker. Like you, I do love the south of England, so I thank my hon. Friend for giving me that opportunity—[Laughter.] Okay, I love the south of England; on this issue, I will not speak for you, Mr Speaker.

On the day that I became Labour leader, I visited my hon. Friend’s constituency and saw where the ferry link used to go across the head of the river, providing critical connectivity for her constituents. I do not think it is acceptable that a link once there can just be abandoned and go. I will work with my hon. Friend to find ways of bringing that service back, supported by No. 10 North. She has my word on that.

On this issue, I will agree to the hon. Gentleman’s request for a meeting. As announcements this week have shown, I believe that political reform always benefits from the highest degree of consensus, so I give him that assurance here and now.

Kim Johnson.

I think there are many people watching Prime Minister’s questions across the south of England who would now like Mr Speaker to be demoted in the way that my hon. Friend suggests. [Interruption.] This is very thin ice for a Leigh Leopards supporter to be on.

I am aware of the potential office closure in Liverpool by BT, and the number of job losses—up to 600, I believe. Steve Rotheram, the Mayor of the Liverpool City Region, and MPs have been in meetings, including with No. 10 North yesterday, discussing this and other issues. We will continue to work to support those jobs. Can I also congratulate the Mayor of the Liverpool City Region on bringing buses across the city region back under public control at the weekend, after 40 years of deregulation? That is change in action, protecting services for local communities.

As the right hon. Lady might know, I am something of a pub person myself. In my first week in office, I made the decision to cut business rates for pubs. We need to go further to support hospitality. I cannot commit, from this Dispatch Box today, to what she is asking, but she should wait for the Budget. We are keen to support high streets and hospitality up and down the country—in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and, indeed, Wales.

I understand the concern that my hon. Friend is raising about data centres. I have to say to him that at this point, I will not go as far as a moratorium, but I agree that it is important that communities see the benefits of AI and data centre investment. I can say from experience that the data centre can be the magnet that clusters in other investment over time; that needs to be remembered. This Government have a policy that AI growth zones will allow local authorities to retain 100% of business rate growth, so that they can benefit communities.

The hon. Member mentions the Good Friday agreement, and I will stick to it 100%. I remind him, on the question of a border poll, that that is to be considered by the Northern Ireland Secretary when there is clear consensus in the country—when public opinion has changed to the point at which the call has to be considered. I would say that it is exactly the same situation in Scotland. I am not aware that there is majority public support for another referendum, and until that changes, there will not be one.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the incredible work she is doing in memory of her friend; I know that her dad Nigel has also campaigned so strongly on this. I have always believed in whole-person care—in physical, mental and social care being delivered together. We are investing more in perinatal mental health and parent-infant relationships—more funding is going in—but I accept, as she is saying, that more needs to be done. I will look at her Bill. I understand the call for Sophie’s law and will make sure that a Health Minister meets her to discuss it.

I thank the hon. Lady for that very direct and good question. She is right to point to wasted spending in the mental health system when people are sent hundreds of miles in search of a bed; those placements can be very costly indeed. We need to move to a more preventive mental health service, and I will look at the specifics in her constituency. This will all be considered as part of a mental health strategy that will come before this House before Christmas.

I remember well my visit to Stourbridge; it will not leave me, actually, because of the devastation, and the loss of everything in a moment for so many families. My hon. Friend’s support for them was really visible on the day, and the community is clearly very strong; that was evident. I am going to be chairing a wildfire summit, and she is welcome to be part of that, if she wishes. Our fire services are not set up for the future. I mentioned community resilience before; we need a fire service that has a statutory responsibility to deal with flooding, that is equipped to deal with wildfires, and with back-up national aerial support, so that there is better support next time we see these issues. I give my hon. Friend my word that we will learn every possible lesson from what she and her community went through.

The final question is from Sir Bernard Jenkin.

Despite long and historic disagreements between successive UK Governments and Israel, it has remained a steadfast ally in counter-terrorist efforts to keep our people safe in this country. We are now embarked, it seems, on a full diplomatic dispute with Israel and tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats. What advice was the Foreign Office giving Ministers on this matter, and what advice were the security services giving about our national security interest before this decision was taken?

We gave the most careful consideration to all of the issues involved, and indeed all of the risks. The Foreign Secretary and I took close advice from the security services and, of course, officials in the Foreign Office and in our embassies. The risk of the collapse of the two-state solution and the effect that would have on the middle east should concern us all. The risk is that it is dying before our eyes, and that requires us to have the courage to act. In the world that we are in, if Britain loses the confidence to lead on the world stage, where will we be? Where will this country be? It is right that we have taken this action. The Father of the House said yesterday that he “absolutely and fully” supports what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is doing,

“standing up for freedom, for morality and for justice for all people in this world.” —[Official Report, 8 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 891.]

Those were his words, and we take great heart from them.

I hope that when we return after the conference recess, we will be able to speed up questions and answers, in order to get more Members in.