PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Engagements - 25 March 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

An attack on Britain’s Jewish community is an attack on all of us. I am pleased to say that London ambulances have now replaced the Hatzola ambulances and that the NHS will pay for the permanent replacements. We are accelerating our social cohesion plan to strengthen our British values of tolerance, decency and respect.

We are also strengthening our communities by extending Pride in Place, announcing the locations of seven new towns and delivering over 300 new school-based nurseries. This is investment in our high streets, more homes and action to support working people with the cost of living.

Today, we will celebrate the installation of the new Archbishop of Canterbury. It is a key role in our national life and I wish her every success. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

I would like to thank the Prime Minister for the £47 million that this Government have given to Lancashire county council to repair potholes. However, my constituents still feel like they need a moon buggy to navigate the streets of Lancashire, so would he agree that the Reform councillors of Lancashire county council are clearly wired to the moon if they think they are making effective use of this £47 million?

Can I extend my sympathy to residents in Lancashire who are being utterly failed by their Reform county council? It is the same picture across the country. In Kent, Reform is cutting social care. In Worcestershire, it is hiking council tax by 9% despite promising lower taxes. In Staffordshire, the scandals and infighting have been so bad that Reform is on its fourth leader in 11 months. It is a warning to the whole country: Reform has nothing to offer but chaos, grievance and division.

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

I asked the Prime Minister six questions last week and he did not answer a single one. He has a duty to this House to answer the question. Let us see if he can do better this week. I will start with a simple one. Will the Prime Minister approve the licences for the Rosebank and Jackdaw gasfields in the North sea?

Under statute, that is a matter for the Secretary of State, as the right hon. Lady knows. The same arrangements were in place under the last Government. Licences were granted, and they were then struck down because of the defects in the process of the last Government. But oil and gas are coming out of the North sea 24/7. They will be part of the energy mix for many years to come. We fully support all existing oil and gas fields throughout their lifespans, and in November we made changes to extend that to allow neighbouring fields to be exploited.

However, we need to take control of our energy prices. The only way to do that is through renewables. The Conservatives used to make that argument. One of their senior figures in 2022 said that it is

“investment in nuclear and renewables that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and keep down consumer costs.”

Who was that senior figure? The Leader of the Opposition.

Order. This is not the day to be thrown out, with a two-week break coming.

We can have renewables and oil and gas. The Prime Minister says it is a matter for the Secretary of State—I thought that he was the Prime Minister. He loves to hide behind legal process every single time. I wonder what a Director of Public—[Interruption.]

Order. Mr Yasin, you do not want to test my patience, I am sure.

The Prime Minister loves to hide behind legal process. I wonder what a Director of Public Prosecutions would make of the defence, “Sorry, I can’t produce my WhatsApps—my phone has been stolen.” The Jackdaw gasfield could be up and running before winter. All that gas would be used here in the UK to heat 1.6 million homes. That is enough to power Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex put together. Will the Prime Minister approve the licences, or is the Energy Secretary running the Government?

Legislation has been passed. It is absolutely clear that the quasi-judicial duty under the legislation rests with the Secretary of State. I really think that if she is going to put this challenge to me, she needs to read the legislation. It is the legislation that the Conservatives applied for 14 years. It is exactly the legislation that they used to put the licences in place which were then struck down because the process was defective.

Let us be clear: when Russia invaded Ukraine, energy prices doubled. During the 12-day war, oil prices hit £100 a barrel. In the last four weeks, because we are on the fossil fuel rollercoaster, everybody is being held to ransom. The only way forward is to go further and faster on renewables. The Leader of the Opposition’s approach is to outsource our foreign policy and let the US decide whether we go to war, and to outsource our energy policy to Russia and Iran and let them set the price of energy. I will never do that because it is not in the British national interest.

The Prime Minister is hiding behind so many people. He is the Prime Minister; he can make this decision today. He is so weak that he is the first person to be pushed around by the Energy Secretary.

Let me remind the Prime Minister who is on my side: the unions—yes, they are on my side—including GMB, Tony Blair, RenewableUK—the very people he talks about are saying to drill in the North sea—Centrica, Octopus Energy and even Labour MPs. Let me quote one Labour Member, the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell):

“Offshoring our carbon emissions might give some a sense of moral superiority”

but it is simply

“impoverishing our own communities”.

We agree, so why does the Prime Minister think that he knows better than everyone else?

I am going to have one more go. The legislation, the statute—[Interruption.] The law prescribes the decision maker. The Opposition know that; they should be embarrassed. The Leader of the Opposition is attacking me without having read the legislation. The legislation sets out who the decision maker is: it is the Secretary of State, not the Prime Minister. It has to be the Secretary of State, and it is a quasi-judicial process—exactly the process that they ran for many years.

Oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years to come, but we do need to get on to renewables. We are discussing this because of the war. We need to de-escalate—[Interruption.] Yes, we are. That is why I stuck to my principles not to join the war and to act in collective self-defence. I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition does not get that. She wanted to jump into the war without regard for the consequences, and now she has done the mother of all U-turns and is stranded without a thought-through position. When she was asked at the weekend whether she approved of the war, she said, “Oh, that’s a difficult one.” It certainly is if you have absolutely no judgment.

I am going to let the Prime Minister in on a secret: he is the Prime Minister, and he can change the legislation. Hiding behind the Energy Secretary is pathetic. Under the Prime Minister’s Labour Government, we buy half the gas that we use from Norway. Last year, Norway’s Labour Government drilled 49 wells in the North sea. How many did Britain drill? Zero. For the first time since 1964, under this Prime Minister’s Government, Britain drilled no wells. Why is energy security the right policy for Labour in Norway, but the wrong policy for Labour in Britain?

So now the right hon. Lady’s attack is, “If you pass a different law, you can take the decision”—the decision she is challenging me today for not taking. It is absolutely ridiculous. All that would do is to slow the process down. Oil and gas is coming out every day. There is a mix of that and renewables, but the most important thing to do to get energy security is to ensure that we de-escalate this war. I know where I stand on this: we are not joining the war. She wanted to join the war, but she did not think through the consequences, and now she does not know where she stands on the most important issue facing this country at this time.

The Norwegian Prime Minister is doing what is right for his country—if only our Prime Minister would do the same. Stopping all new drilling in the North sea was a reckless promise when he made it before the election; in the middle of a global energy crisis, it is catastrophic. Experts are predicting a £300 rise in bills in July. Approving new licences would show that he is serious about cutting bills. Why will he not do it?

Because of the action that we have taken, household bills are coming down by around £100 next month, then they will be capped for three months. That is what we are doing to protect households across the country. Who voted against it? The Tories and Reform, because they just do not get the impact on working people, who we will protect.

The Prime Minister says that bills are coming down; they are higher than they were when he came into office. He talks about what the Government are doing to help with energy bills. Families and businesses will suffer from the spike in energy costs because of his decisions. He could abolish the green taxes on their bills. He could stop the fuel duty rise. We could drill our own gas in the North sea. What is he doing? He is planning another giveaway to people on welfare. Yet again, he is taking money from those who work to give it to those who do not. First, we had the Budget for “Benefits Street”; now, we have the bail-out for “Benefits Street”. Does that not just prove that they have given up on being the Labour party and are now just the welfare party?

The Conservatives are the ones who doubled the spend on welfare. They were the ones with a broken system. When we tried to mend it, what did they do? They voted against it. [Interruption.]

Order. Mr Dewhirst, you are testing my patience.

The right hon. Lady talks about the spike in energy prices. That is because of the war, which I say we should not join and she says we should join, without following through on the consequences. Time and time again, she gets the big calls absolutely wrong. She wanted to drag us into the war—she got that wrong. She opposed taking control of energy security—she got that wrong. She opposed our decision to cut energy bills—she got that wrong. She seriously thinks that that will make her relevant—she has got that wrong.

Let me do that. The Israeli settlements, including the E1 settlement, are a flagrant breach of international law and threaten the viability of a two-state solution. That is why, alongside international partners, we have sanctioned those responsible and their supporters who incite violence. We have consistently urged the Israeli Government to act to stop these incidents. We also recommend that settlement products are labelled so that consumers are informed, and we will continue to take the necessary action to defend Palestinians and protect the two-state solution.

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about Monday’s despicable attacks on the Jewish community? Antisemitism has no place in our society. Given the potential links with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, I hope that the Government will move faster to proscribe the group as terrorists.

As a former Secretary of State for Energy who granted licences for oil and gas exploration, may I make a judgment on this argument? The Prime Minister is actually right, and the Leader of the Opposition is wrong—[Interruption.] The law is clear, and I believe in the rule of law.

Just before President Trump posted about his supposed negotiations with Iran on Monday, traders made hundreds of millions of dollars of extra bets on oil futures. This looks like Donald Trump giving his mates inside information so they can make themselves richer, while his illegal war in Iran makes everyone else poorer. It looks like corruption of the very worst kind. Does the Prime Minister share my fear that Trump is making his war decisions on the basis of what enriches him and his friends, rather than what makes peace in the middle east?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his verdict. At least he has read the law that the Leader of the Opposition obviously has not read. In relation to the traders, we have seen the activity there. What I can say is that all my decisions are based on the best interests of our country, and that is why I have decided that we will not get dragged into the war, unlike the Leader of the Opposition. I have decided that we will act in collective self-defence—in defence of ourselves and our allies. I comment on my actions, and those are the principles behind my actions.

If Trump’s war pushes up energy bills by £500, the Chancellor’s very narrow plans simply will not cut it. While I do not fall for the crocodile tears of the leader of the Conservatives, who cheered on this illegal war without a thought for the impact on people’s energy bills, and while the Government are right to reject the idea of repeating Liz Truss’s blank cheque approach, the Government cannot ignore the millions of families who do not receive benefits and who already face a cost of living crisis. Can the Prime Minister at least guarantee to all those families and pensioners that he will not let their energy bills go up by £500 this year?

Well, let me now give my verdict. The right hon. Gentleman is right about the Leader of the Opposition wanting to join the war, and she is wrong about that. [Interruption.] At least the right hon. Gentleman has read the legislation on which I am being challenged; it does help. [Interruption.] At least the right hon. Gentleman is right that it was the leader of the Conservative party who said, “Let us all go to war,” without thinking through the consequences. We are now discussing the consequences.

In relation to the support, we have made clear the principles and the approach that we will take. We will keep this under careful review. Energy bills for households are capped until the end of June. It is really important that I make it clear that that will happen whatever happens in the conflict, because I know the public are concerned about that. We will then put in place appropriate support, and we will look at how we put the principles behind it.

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The Communities Secretary will make a statement later on the Rycroft review, which sets out the stark threats posed by illicit finance. I can tell the House that we will act decisively to protect our democracy. That will include a moratorium on all political donations made through cryptocurrencies, and I hope that will be welcomed across the House. There is only one party leader who has shown that he will say anything, no matter how divisive, if he is paid to do so.

“Smash the gangs”—that is what the Prime Minister promised us. “Trust me, I will stop the boats from coming.” But 70,000 people later, with 1,000 in the last week and too many young men who pose a threat to national security, is it not time to admit that “smash the gangs” has been a total, abject failure—along with, frankly, most of his other policies? Is it not time he told us, as summer approaches, what is plan B?

That is from the man and the party who voted against giving law enforcement counter-terrorism-style powers to tackle this. The hon. Gentleman wants the grievance; he does not want it sorted. He has absolutely no judgment. Again, he said, “Let’s join the war. Let’s all go to war.” I want to make it perfectly clear that he wanted the war. A week later, he did a screeching U-turn: “We don’t want to go to war”—and he says we should trust his judgment. It is hard to take anything he says seriously. He promised lower tax, and now Reform councils are hiking council tax by 9%. This is what he said about Worcestershire:

“We took…control of a virtually bankrupt council. I wish we hadn’t bothered.”

He asks for people’s votes, and then he abandons them. Reform does not want to solve problems; it only wants to exploit them. I am thankful for the opportunity to change this country for the better; he says he wishes that he had not bothered winning councils. Reform is an absolute disgrace.

Order. I want to hear the hon. Member’s question, as do those who are interested in snooker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I thank the Prime Minister for the £35 million of funding to transform the Crucible theatre and keep the world snooker championship at the heart of Sheffield? I want my constituents to be able to enjoy this fantastic tournament, day and night, and to travel in by tram-train from Stocksbridge to Sheffield via Oughtibridge, Wharncliffe Side and Deepcar. I am grateful to our South Yorkshire Mayor, Oliver Coppard, for kick-starting these plans. Will the Prime Minister work with me and the South Yorkshire Mayor to ensure that we get spades in the ground for a tram-train extension to Stocksbridge as soon as possible, so that my constituents can enjoy the snooker?

I see that Reform Members have walked out. They obviously realise that they are absolutely snookered. [Hon. Members: “More!”]

More? No, I don’t think so!

Sheffield and the Crucible theatre are the beating heart of snooker, and I am delighted that they will host the world snooker championship for many years to come. This is what Labour stands for: investing in things that make us proud of the places where we live. I reassure my hon. Friend that we are working closely with South Yorkshire combined authority on better transport links and providing over £1.4 billion to spend on its priorities, which could include a new tram fleet and more modern stops, or delivering extensions.

The steps we have taken have been to repair the damage done by the previous Government. We took those steps, and the spring statement showed the results of those steps: inflation coming down; interest rates coming down; and the economy stabilised. I know the Conservatives do not understand that, because they blew up the economy in the first place.

An independent audit of the previous Government’s failed insulation schemes shows unacceptable levels of failings. We have acted to make sure poor-quality installations are fixed. It is important that those responsible are held to account for the cost of remediating the issues. I do recognise that there are some complicated cases, and I will make sure a Minister looks at my hon. Friend’s constituents’ case and that urgent action is taken.

Reform has to take responsibility for its decisions, but its Members have moved out.

I am deeply sorry to hear about the case that my hon. Friend raises. We are the party of the NHS, and we will always fight to ensure that it remains free at the point of use. We inherited an NHS on its knees, but we are seeing progress: waiting lists are down; patient satisfaction is improving; and we have the best ambulance response times for half a decade. There is much more to do, but we are delivering the investment that is needed—and it was opposed by who? The Tories and the now departed Reform Members.

Can I thank the hon. Member for raising Susan’s case? It is really important that she does so, and I am deeply sorry for the enduring harm that patients have suffered. Ministers have met campaigners and the Patient Safety Commissioner to discuss their recommendations, and I can assure the hon. Lady we will provide a full response to the Hughes report recommendations at the earliest opportunity. I am happy for Ministers to update her on the actions we have taken and to discuss the particular case that she has raised with me.

I thank my hon. Friend for her work. She is right to highlight the growing threat posed by dangerous synthetic drugs. Alongside deploying new detection methods at the border to seize drugs, we are investing in better mental health support and drug addiction treatment, with almost £26 million for Stoke-on-Trent. I will ask a Health Minister to discuss her important work with her.

It is really important that nobody is left behind in a cashless society. The vast majority are moving online, but we need to remember that some do not want to, or cannot, and we must ensure that provision is in place for them as well. I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that issue.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. It is shocking and horrifying to hear what those children have to go through. I am absolutely clear in my mind that this should not be happening. I can inform him that I have instructed Justice Ministers to look at what they can do. They will review the payments, and see what else they can do. I am really pleased that he has raised this issue, so that we can now act on it, and I will ensure that he gets the meeting he is asking for.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that really important and serious point. He knows that we have sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety, and have imposed over 230 sanctions since coming into office. The existing proscription powers are not designed for a state organisation, but we keep this under review—as did the last Government.

I thank my hon. Friend for the invitation, and join her in paying tribute to Private Leon Spicer, Private Phillip Hewett and Second Lieutenant Richard Shearer. Their bravery and sacrifice in defence of our values will never be forgotten, and I am delighted to hear that a memorial will be unveiled. I also pay tribute to all those serving in the middle east today, shooting down threats to our allies and protecting our people.

I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the attack on the Jewish community in Golders Green; there is no place for hatred, antisemitism or violence of any kind against individuals.

An independent panel of senior judges found no basis for misconduct proceedings against the British chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, King’s counsel, yet reports suggest that elements within the Court’s governing body are seeking to disregard those findings, while ICC officials continue to face external pressure and sanctions. Given the UK’s commitment to the rule of law, and as a human rights lawyer himself, will the Prime Minister set out the steps that he will take to defend the independence of the ICC and support British nationals carrying out international judicial roles?

I am not going to comment on the internal proceedings of the Court. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we support the Court; we are party to the treaty, and there are legal obligations that flow from that.

In my constituency, we have a cohesive and diverse community, with a significant Jewish population, a thriving Muslim community and many others from various different backgrounds all living together and supporting each other. I was therefore appalled to learn of the arson attack against the Jewish community in Golders Green this week, and was deeply concerned by the outrageous comments of the shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), last week about the community iftar in Trafalgar Square, which were seemingly supported by the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Prime Minister assure me and my worried constituents that he and his Government will do all they can to stamp out hate and hate speech in our communities?

I want to say again what a shocking antisemitic attack this was in Golders Green, and to be absolutely clear that an attack on British Jews is an attack on all of us. On Monday morning, I met Jewish community leaders to talk through what we could do on ambulances, on security and on the social cohesion plan. I will also say that I was really struck by the fact that the Jewish community came out last week against the shadow Justice Secretary’s comments; they are standing in solidarity with Muslims who wanted to pray in Trafalgar Square. Equally, at the Eid events we had on Monday, Muslims stood in solidarity with our Jewish community. That is Britain, contrary to what the shadow Justice Secretary said last week, supported by the Leader of the Opposition. That is how far they have fallen.

Thames Water is lurching from crisis to crisis. Last year, it was let off record fines for pumping sewage into rivers by Ofwat. Ofwat is allowed to do that, under rules laid out in the Water Industry Act 1991. Will the Prime Minister consider scrapping those rules, to stop Ofwat letting water companies off the hook?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this deeply concerning matter. We are looking at what more we can do, because this has been of too much concern for too long, and we need to act.

As the covid inquiry graphically laid bare last week, the NHS was starved of the investment it needed under the Conservatives, and nowhere more so than at Northwick Park hospital; its brave and extraordinary staff worked around the clock during covid, looking after many of my constituents. Given the very welcome, substantial investment in improving the NHS that the Government have committed to, will my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister encourage the Health Secretary to support plans for a new intensive care unit at Northwick Park?

The covid report is a stark reminder of the extraordinary efforts of health workers to keep this country safe. We are delivering record investment and reform that our NHS needs, and while decisions about local infrastructure are made by integrated care boards, I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the Minister to discuss this particular case. Today, NHS satisfaction rates have risen for the first time since the pandemic; that is the difference a Labour Government are making.

I call Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst for the final question.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On 21 November last year, Robert Clancy, a hugely valued and much loved member of my staff, took his own life. He was 29. While successive Governments have done a great deal to deal with the scourge of suicide in this country, there is much more that can be done. Will the Prime Minister personally commit to meeting me to discuss how we can prevent others from experiencing the unimaginable pain that Rob’s family and friends have endured?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the case of Robert Clancy. We are happy to work across the House on all that we can do in relation to suicide. I am pleased that we have been able to put in place a strategy; that is the action of this Government, but it needs to be the action of all of us, and I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets the meeting that he is asking for. I thank him again for raising this case; it was really important that he did.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I refer you to paragraph 22.9 of “Erskine May”, which stresses the primary importance of ministerial responsibility? We have to admit that Prime Ministers have always tried to dodge questions at Prime Minister’s Question Time, and you are not responsible for the answers that they give, but what we have seen in recent weeks is not just dodging questions; in reply to every question the Prime Minister is asked, he refers to the Leader of the Opposition’s policies. This is not Leader of the Opposition’s questions; it is Prime Minister’s questions.

Once again, as I said last week, I do not have responsibility for, or authority over, answers. It is incumbent on Ministers to try to ensure that there is an answer, but it is not for me to judge whether the answer is correct. That would be politicising the Chair. If that is what the House wishes to do, it can by all means do that, but I have not got that power.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the rules about how many questions a Member needs to stay in the Chamber for after speaking?

None whatsoever, because we are in Prime Minister’s Question Time.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have given advance notice to you and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). There is an important tradition and custom in this House that Members remain in the Chamber for at least—

Order. That is absolutely not a point of order, and is not relevant, and I have certainly not had any indication of what you are asking me.