PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Engagements - 7 January 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I begin by saying that I hope all colleagues had a happy Christmas. It probably feels quite a long time ago now, but not for Reform, of course, because today is the day that they celebrate Christmas in Russia.

On Monday, I visited Reading, where I met people who will benefit from the first freeze in rail fares for 30 years. That is on top of other measures we are taking to tackle the cost of living—£150 off energy bills, more free breakfast clubs, and raising the minimum wage—and there is much more to come this year, as we turn the corner.

Yesterday, I stood side by side with our European and American allies and President Zelensky at the coalition of the willing meeting in Paris. We made real progress on security guarantees, which are vital for securing a just and lasting peace. Along with President Macron and President Zelensky, we agreed a declaration of intent on the deployment of forces in the event of a peace deal. We will set out the details in a statement at the earliest opportunity. I will keep the House updated as the situation develops, and were troops to be deployed under the declaration signed, I would put that matter to the House for a vote.

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

Leaseholders in my constituency and across the country are being fleeced by freeholders and managing agents. They need relief from both, and we need to end the feudal leasehold system, so can the Prime Minister confirm when the leasehold and commonhold reform Bill will come to Parliament?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. We are taking serious action to deliver the homes that the country needs, and to provide homeowners with greater rights, powers and protections. We will publish the draft Bill as soon as possible, and I will update the House. More protections are already coming this year, of course, because we passed the Renters’ Rights Bill, which provides stronger protection for 9 million renters and abolishes no-fault evictions. That is the change we are delivering, and who voted against it? The Tories and Reform.

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

May I welcome the Prime Minister’s efforts to advance peace in Ukraine, and his joint statement on Greenland? The last few days have seen significant international events, with the US operation in Venezuela, threats towards Greenland, and an agreement to put British troops on the ground in Ukraine. It is therefore frankly astonishing that the Prime Minister is not making a full statement to Parliament today. No Prime Minister—Labour or Conservative—has failed to make a statement to the House in person after committing to the deployment of British troops. His comments about making a statement in due course are frankly not good enough. It shows a fundamental lack of respect for all of us here, and for the people we represent.

The United States is Britain’s closest military ally. However, we are clear that the sovereignty of Greenland is sacrosanct, so can the Prime Minister tell us what influence he is bringing to bear on the United States Administration to ensure that that is respected?

Let me be very clear about what was agreed yesterday. Military plans were drawn up some months ago, and I have updated the House in relation to that. Yesterday’s was a political declaration that sits under those military plans. If there were to be deployment, there would have to be a legal instrument. Deployment would only be after a ceasefire, to support Ukraine’s capabilities, to conduct deterrent operations, and to construct and protect military hubs. There will be a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity. [Hon. Members: “When?”] There could hardly be an opportunity—[Interruption.] Opposition Members claim that they want to know about this, and they are trying to shout me down.

If there were a decision to deploy under the agreement that was signed yesterday, I would put that matter to the House for a debate beforehand and for a vote on that deployment. That is consistent with recent practice, and I will adhere to that.

Why is today not the earliest opportunity? The truth is that the Prime Minister does not want everybody in this House to be able to ask him questions, so he leaves that just to Prime Minister’s questions, which last for half an hour. At least on Monday his Foreign Secretary stood up to speak for two hours and 15 minutes. It was a non-event, but at least she did that. The Prime Minister is scared of our being able to ask him questions—six questions. [Interruption.] Yes, he is here—

Order. I have also requested an early statement; the House should always be informed first. I do not like the chuntering; let the questions continue.

Someone said, “He is here.” The Prime Minister has no choice but to be here for Prime Minister’s questions. That is why he is here. We know that if he could skip this, he would.

Let us return to the matter in hand. All of us, or at least most of us, agree that NATO is the bedrock of our security. The future of Greenland is of fundamental importance to the future of the alliance, and I am sure that the Prime Minister agrees that it is essential for NATO leaders, including and especially the United States, to meet. Will he call for an urgent meeting of NATO leaders?

The Leader of the Opposition says that she wants to hear about Ukraine. She has six questions, and she is not even asking a second question about what we did yesterday. She has the opportunity.

Order. May I help the Prime Minister? He does not need to worry about responsibility for the questions from the Opposition. That is their job.

NATO is the single most important and effective military alliance that the world has ever seen. In the 18 months for which we have been in power, I have done everything in my ability to strengthen NATO. We had one of the strongest NATO meetings last year at the summit, when we had more members of NATO and more unity. When I arrived back at the House to make a statement, which of course the Leader of the Opposition had asked for, her position was that I should not have missed Prime Minister’s questions; I should have empty-chaired the NATO summit. That is how serious she is about NATO.

The Prime Minister did not answer the question. I asked him whether he would call for an urgent meeting of NATO leaders. We can all see that the situation is moving rapidly. I also note that the Prime Minister has still not had a call with President Trump. That is concerning, four days after the events in Venezuela.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that Britain and France had signed a political agreement to put troops on the ground in the event of a peace deal in Ukraine. Given that he is not making a statement about that deployment of British troops abroad—one of the most serious decisions that a Government and a Parliament can take, irrespective of what he says—can he at least tell the House how many troops would be sent to Ukraine, and whether they would be in a combat role?

I was with NATO allies yesterday all day, and we were discussing security in Europe, and particularly security guarantees for Ukraine. We made significant progress, and I am glad that the right hon. Lady has welcomed that. Of course I will speak to President Trump. I spoke to his senior advisers yesterday—we were with them all day.

She asks me about the deployment. We released the statement yesterday. It is clear from that, but I will be clear with the House that there would only be deployment after a ceasefire. It would be to support Ukraine’s capabilities, to conduct deterrence operations, and to construct and protect military hubs. The number will be determined in accordance with our military plans, which we are drawing up and looking to other members to support. I would put the number before the House before we were to deploy, but I would do more than that: if we got as far as the legal instrument to deploy, which would be necessary, I would have a debate in this House, so that all Members could know exactly what we were doing, and could give their points of view, and then we would have a vote in this House on the issue, which, to my mind, is the proper procedure in a situation such as this.

It is clear that the Prime Minister either does not have the detail or does not want to give us the detail, but this is important. He should be calling an urgent meeting of NATO leaders. He should have spoken to President Trump by now. This is important, because if any such peace deal is breached, we would be in direct conflict with Russia. If the Prime Minister is committing troops, he must give more detail on how he intends to ensure that our armed forces are fully resourced. Before the Budget, the Prime Minister said it was his “ambition” to spend 3% of GDP on defence in the next Parliament. That could be as late as 2034. It is time to move from ambition to commitment. We have had the Budget, so can the Prime Minister now tell us in what year the UK will spend 3% of GDP on defence?

On the serious issue that the right hon. Lady puts to me in relation to security guarantees, the American role and our dialogue with the Americans, I can assure the House that I spoke to President Trump twice over the Christmas period in relation to this specific issue, along with members of the E3 and European allies. That has been a constant in the course of our discussions. There is no question of acting on this without full discussion with the Americans. Their senior negotiators were there yesterday at President Trump’s request and on his instructions, and they were talking to him during the course of yesterday as we negotiated. To assure the House—because it is a serious position that she puts to me—on the question of security guarantees, there is nothing between the UK and the US, and we have been constantly discussing this over many, many weeks and months. We have made huge progress, and I have personally spoken to President Trump about this on two occasions since we were last in this House. I want to reassure her and the House in relation to that really important issue.

On defence spend, I am proud that we are investing to keep our country safe. We have increased the defence spend; that is provided for in the Budget. It is the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, and that means better kit and better housing for our forces, and better defence as an engine for growth. Compare that with the Conservatives’ record. Ben Wallace, who was on the radio this morning—the longest-serving Conservative Defence Secretary—admitted that on their watch, the armed services had been, in his words, “hollowed out”. Our defence—[Interruption.]

Mr Cartlidge, you expect a lot. I expect something back, and that is silence.

Hon. Members shout “shame!”; I will pass that on to Ben Wallace. The defence spending that we have put in place comes in three years earlier than the unfunded plan that the Conservatives left behind at the last election would have done.

I heard what—[Interruption.] Wait for it—wait for it! What Ben Wallace said was that spending had fallen under all Governments. The last time spending was at 3% was under a Conservative Government. Yes, while we welcome the increase—something that we supported—can I remind the House that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a man who sat in the shadow Cabinet and tried to make Prime Minister a man who said we should not even be in NATO at all? I do not need to take any lectures from him. The world is changing. We need to spend more on defence. He did not answer the question about when we will get to 3%, yet he knows up until 2031 how much he is going to be spending on welfare. He does not know. That is in the Red Book; the Red Book has no money allocated for defence. We need to move from ambition to commitment.

This is important because it is not just about money. If the Prime Minister is deploying troops to Ukraine, those troops need to know that we have their backs. Last week, seven former SAS commanders warned that Labour’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will “wreck” our special forces. It was not me who said that; it was the SAS. In November, nine retired four-star generals warned that his Bill was

“a direct threat to national security”.

Even his own Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner has said our veterans are being treated “worse than terrorists”. Is it not madness to be putting veterans in the dock for serving their country at the same time that he is deploying today’s soldiers into Ukraine?

That was embarrassing. The Leader of the Opposition said that Ben Wallace was talking about all Governments. The Conservatives were in power for 14 years, and they “hollowed out” our armed forces—copyright Ben Wallace.

The Leader of the Opposition talks about the shadow Cabinet. She has in her shadow Cabinet a shadow Attorney General who is advising Abramovich at the same time as we are imposing sanctions on Russia and trying to use that money to support Ukraine. How can someone sit in her shadow Cabinet advising someone trying to escape sanctions, and pretend that their policy is to support us on sanctions?

When it comes to Northern Ireland, the Conservatives are the party that gave immunity to IRA terrorists—terrorists who killed British soldiers. Their flawed Act was struck down by the courts, which left our veterans with no legal protection whatsoever. We are introducing a fair and transparent process, with a package of rights and protections for our veterans. There is no equivalence between our armed forces, who fought bravely in Northern Ireland, and terrorist groups. If the Leader of the Opposition wants—if her position is—to go back to their old, flawed legislation and give immunity to the IRA, she should stand up now and say so.

Let me start by talking about the shadow Attorney General. [Interruption.] Yes! Do Labour Members know what the shadow Attorney General is doing? He is defending veterans pro bono against the actions of this Government. We on this side of the House will defend those who defended us. But why do we not talk about the actual Attorney General, who is sitting in Cabinet: the man who defended Gerry Adams; the man who is trying to bring Shamima Begum back into the country; the man who is helping to surrender the Chagos islands? I will take our shadow Attorney General every day of the week against the Prime Minister’s Attorney General.

We protect our veterans. I want the Prime Minister to know that we protect our veterans. What he is doing to veterans is disgraceful. But this is serious, and I do not want the House to be under any illusions. The Prime Minister should know that we will absolutely support any efforts to help bring peace to Ukraine and we will work with him to ensure NATO remains the bedrock of our security, but we cannot write a blank cheque when he is also surrendering the Chagos islands, surrendering our veterans to lawfare and surrendering to his Back Benchers by prioritising welfare handouts over defence spending, as if the world has not become more dangerous. Is it not time that the Prime Minister changed course, and for once put the British national interest first?

The Leader of the Opposition talks about the shadow Attorney General. Of course, I accept that lawyers have to represent all sorts of crime. Of course, I accept that principle. The question is whether the shadow Attorney General can sit in the shadow Cabinet when the Conservative party says it supports us on sanctions. We want the money from Chelsea football club to go to Ukraine. I am not sure whether that is the Leader of the Opposition’s position. If it is her position, presumably it is something they discuss in the shadow Cabinet, advised by a shadow Attorney General who is representing the very man whose money we want to send to Ukraine. If she cannot see the conflict of interest in that, then she shows no judgment and no leadership at all—the same old. It is a new year, but the Leader of the Opposition has absolutely nothing to offer the country. She is totally irrelevant. Nobody is listening to her. This is the year when, on this side of the House, we turn a corner and people benefit from the decisions we made: £150 off energy bills, freezing rail fares and lifting half a million children out of poverty. We are turning the corner and there is much more to come.

I thank my hon. Friend for that question; I know that he is working on this scheme. As he knows, land investigation works are currently taking place to help establish the final costs. The Roads Minister is looking closely at the scheme, alongside about 40 others. We will prioritise schemes that deliver faster journeys, and allow new homes and jobs.

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Mr Speaker, may I wish you and everyone in this House a happy new year? I welcome the progress made on security guarantees for Ukraine yesterday. Geoffrey Robertson KC is a respected authority on international law. He is also the head of the Prime Minister’s barrister chambers and he could not be clearer: President Trump’s actions in Venezuela are illegal. He says the United States:

“is in breach of the United Nations charter”

and

“has committed the crime of aggression, which the court at Nuremberg described as the supreme crime”.

Does the Prime Minister agree with his old mentor, or has he got it wrong?

There are plenty of things that Geoffrey and I have agreed on and disagreed on over the years, but let me set out our position. It is our long-standing position that Maduro was not a legitimate president in Venezuela, so nobody, I think, sheds any tears at his removal. What we were saying before the weekend, and we say again, is that there needs to be a peaceful transition to democracy in Venezuela. The benchmark of all actions of all countries is, of course, international law, and it is for the US to justify its actions accordingly. My focus is on the defence and security of the United Kingdom. Yesterday we were working with NATO allies, including the US, on security guarantees for Ukraine. It is only with security guarantees that we will have a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, which is vitally important for Ukraine, for Europe and for the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister just looks ridiculous when he will not tell the truth: that Trump has broken international law. Turning to Donald Trump’s next target, the Prime Minister was right to give the Danish Prime Minister his backing over Trump’s threats to annex Greenland and I welcome his joint statement with other European leaders, but does he also agree that if Trump does attack Greenland, it will be the end of NATO? Given that frightening possibility, does he accept that the UK needs to increase defence spending more quickly than currently planned and build new alliances with reliable nations?

The Greenland issue is obviously very important and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising it. The future of Greenland is for Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark, and for Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark alone. Yesterday, he will have seen that I put out a statement to that effect, along with fellow allies in Europe. Of course, NATO is hugely important—the single-most effective and important military alliance the world has ever known. He keeps encouraging me to sort of tug away at parts of NATO, and to choose between Europe and the US. That would be a strategic mistake for our country.

Yesterday we were working with our NATO allies, including the US—our NATO ally—on a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, which will not happen without security guarantees from the coalition of the willing backed by the United States. That is a vitally important issue, and we made progress on it, but there will not be a just and lasting peace in Ukraine without those security guarantees, and not achieving a just and lasting peace in Ukraine is not in our national interest. That is why I am applying so much time and energy seeking to get that outcome.

The Belfast/Good Friday agreement is one of the greatest achievements of the last Labour Government. As the hon. Lady well knows, it enshrined Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom and set out clear principles and processes under that framework. I am aware of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee’s inquiry into institutional reform, and I can indicate that we are always happy to discuss any proposals for reform that would lead to a consensus.

The Prime Minister will be aware of the grave concerns that abound around the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, particularly among veterans and those who stand up and speak out for the interests of those who defend our nation. They have read the six protections in the Bill and they do not see them as such: they offer no protection, they are procedural, and they apply to terrorists, too. Will the Prime Minister confirm that what we have heard is true—that the Ministry of Defence and the Northern Ireland Office intend to bring forward Government amendments that will specifically and particularly protect veterans, and that they will offer protection?

I know how deeply the right hon. Gentleman feels about these issues. As he knows, the Bill will put in place new measures designed specifically to protect veterans. Those safeguards have been developed with veterans in mind after carefully listening to their concerns. [Interruption.] The Conservatives have no respect at all for this issue, have they? We have been meeting veterans’ organisations and listening to their views, and, as the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear, the House will see the result of those considerations when the Bill reaches Committee. We are determined to ensure that protections are as fair and effective as possible, recognising the role that service personnel played in keeping people across the UK safe during the troubles.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. As she knows, the rates went down during covid, and that is now coming to an end. We have therefore put in interim relief as we move to the new rates. We are continuing to work with and talk to the sector about that support and about what further support and action we can take.

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I can assure her that we want to work with all colleagues across the House on that crucial issue, and it is in our interest to do so. As she said, we have launched the first ever men’s health strategy, announcing over £3.5 million for suicide prevention and support programmes. We are recruiting more than 7,000 mental health workers, which includes access to talking therapies, and we are also rolling out mental health support teams in schools. It is vital that we raise awareness and increase the support available. I can assure the hon. Lady that Ministers will be happy to discuss her proposals with her, because I genuinely want to work across the House on this serious and tragic issue.

I am very pleased about the measures we were able to announce this week. They come on top of the 5 million extra appointments we have delivered in the first year of this Labour Government and the 300,000 who have been taken off waiting lists, and more is to come as we turn into 2026. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. [Interruption.] Reform MPs laugh at the denial of the importance of vaccines. Imagine where this country would be if Reform ever saw power. If anyone wants an example of what it would be like, they should look at the local councils where Reform won power—they are absolutely chaotic, in a mess and putting taxes up.

I will reflect on the fact that inflation is falling and the Bank of England says that it is going to be down to its target. I will reflect on the fact that we have had six interest rate cuts in a row, and for those with mortgages that will be hugely effective. I will reflect on the fact that the International Monetary Fund says that we will have the second highest growth in 2025, defying the forecast. I remind the hon. Member that under the Conservatives we had inflation at 11% and the worst Parliament for living standards on record, and the Leader of the Opposition thinks that Liz Truss was 100% right to crash the economy. They are literally the only people who think that anybody should be listening to them. Nobody is!

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I think I speak for the whole House in saying that I am deeply sorry to hear about that tragic case, and all our thoughts are with the family. There is a live legal case that I cannot comment on, but I can reassure my hon. Friend that we will look closely at its final outcome. There are strong rules in place, but we will look at the outcome to see whether there is more that can be done.

Let me join the hon. Member in paying tribute to the agencies and local volunteers who supported the clean-up efforts; they are the very best. Liability sits with the polluter, and agencies and her local authority should work with the responsible party to recover the costs. I will ensure that she gets the meeting she asked for with the appropriate Minister.

Every mother and baby deserve safe, high-quality, compassionate care. I want to see the inquiry at Leeds start as soon as possible. We are working with bereaved families to shape our approach and to appoint a chair whom they can trust, as my hon. Friend knows. I have a huge amount of respect for Donna Ockenden, who is an outstanding advocate for families. We will ensure that we select a chair of the highest standard who has the independence and expertise needed to deliver the real change that is needed.

I thank the hon. Member. Alongside the record settlement that we have put in place for the Scottish Government, we are delivering huge investment in apprenticeships and offering a paid placement for every young person, which is vital. The SNP, on the other hand, blocked a welding facility in the Clyde, because apparently it was related to defence. The SNP does not back Scottish industry, young people or national security—we do.

The Government are tackling patient waiting lists through NHS modernisation and reform. Does the Prime Minister agree that we need to tackle victim waiting lists by reforming our courts and criminal justice system?

Yes, I do. I have been working with victims of violence against women and girls for the best part of 20 years, and I have assured them time and again that if we got the opportunity, we would make the system work better for them. They have to wait far too long for justice, and in many cases they do not see justice at all. I am absolutely determined that we are going to turn that around.

We will not plough through farmland; we will make sensible proposals to build houses. The Conservatives failed to do that in 14 long years, so now, because of the inheritance we got from them, young people do not have the dream of home ownership. We will turn that around.

BILL PRESENTED

Deprivation of Citizenship (Promotion of Terrorism or Violence) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sarah Pochin, supported by Nigel Farage, Richard Tice, Lee Anderson and Danny Kruger, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to deprive a person of citizenship if they have been convicted of an offence relating to national security in the United Kingdom or abroad and have subsequently promoted terrorism or violence in public; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January, and to be printed (Bill 358).